• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Hey Martin Supporters... It's time you were educated and enlightened

No, but that is the whole point. People see this boy (Martin) and when they see the results of the toxicology reports that show he had drugs in his system they immediately have this opinion that he is a "thug." I've read countless online comments referring to his character. It is hard to not see a racial component in these comments because when we see the reports about Miley Cyrus or Justin Beiber people looking at these individuals do not refer to them as a "thug" or "misfit" most people look these individuals as mentally unstable. So yes there are racial components in how society has viewed this boy. For example looking at black on black shooting crimes, most people attribute that to drug/gang violence, yet when the Batman theater movie shooter killed a large group of people he is "crazy." His behavior wasn't thuggish it was merely mentally unstable.

Can't say boy........................Its a racial slur.

He is a thug because he acted like a thug.
Thugs get suspended 3 times in one school year, are caught with unexplained mysterious women's jewelry and a screwdriver (commonly used to break into stuff and recognized in the criminal justice community as a burglary tool), caught at school with a baggie with marijuana "shake" in it. Talk in ebonics (see Martin's facebook captures), take photos of them flashing cash, gold teeth. Thugs seek out guns to purchase (as evidenced by Martin's text messages pulled from his phone), have conversations about fighting other people, take photographs flipping off the camera.

There is alot more here than a kid who took lean and smoked marijuana.
 
Um, Martin was visiting his dad he had a right to be where he was.

I live in California, and if a guy is following me I'd confront the person myself. Of course with caution since people carry guns.

Hopefully you'd be smarter than to confront said person with a ****ty attitude and a fist to the face.
 
I live in California, and if a guy is following me I'd confront the person myself. Of course with caution since people carry guns.

What if you were a new-comer to a neighborhood, 7pm, roadside, a minute from the house you're visiting... Is that commando time?
 
Can't say boy........................Its a racial slur.

He is a thug because he acted like a thug.
Thugs get suspended 3 times in one school year, are caught with unexplained mysterious women's jewelry and a screwdriver (commonly used to break into stuff and recognized in the criminal justice community as a burglary tool), caught at school with a baggie with marijuana "shake" in it. Talk in ebonics (see Martin's facebook captures), take photos of them flashing cash, gold teeth. Thugs seek out guns to purchase (as evidenced by Martin's text messages pulled from his phone), have conversations about fighting other people, take photographs flipping off the camera.

There is alot more here than a kid who took lean and smoked marijuana.

Like I said good day to you sir.

Edit: You're a prime example why we cannot have an honest discussion about race
 
Last edited:
What if you were a new-comer to a neighborhood, 7pm, roadside, a minute from the house you're visiting... Is that commando time?

Um, the point is someone following me and not identifying who they are can be perceived as threatening. People react differently in different situations. I'm older so my approach to someone following maybe different. But if Zimmerman got in my face and violated my personal space then yeah, I'd probably do the same thing Trayvon did especially if the person following me becomes confrontational. This case pretty much boiled down to an overzealous wannabe cop who had the law on his side. If Zimmerman did what he did here in California he would go down for at least manslaughter. People say what Zimmerman did was right only do so because of the law in Florida, now if this was in another state that wasn't a "stand-your-ground" law carrying state opinions would surely differ.
 
Um, the point is someone following me and not identifying who they are can be perceived as threatening.

Let's not drop context. I'll quote myself below to ask the question again:

What if you were a new-comer to a neighborhood, 7pm, roadside, a minute from the house you're visiting... Is that commando time?



If Zimmerman did what he did here in California he would go down for at least manslaughter. People say what Zimmerman did was right only do so because of the law in Florida, now if this was in another state that wasn't a "stand-your-ground" law carrying state opinions would surely differ.

False. Z's defense was standard self defense, without any SYG-specific stipulations or clauses. Just ~"fear of great bodily harm or death". The same law exists in California.
 
Hey polgara.

I'm not angry at the jury. I'm not even mad at the prosecution, who might have won had they gone for manslaughter from the get go. The penalty would have been too high, imo.

I never felt Z deserved a long prison sentence.

In my opinion it was mostly an accident, precipitated by Zs actions and the presence of the gun.

M2 was ridiculous from the gate. No malice evident at all.

But M has been SERIOUSLY slandered. Reporting on his text messages is so incorrect as to potentially actionable. If you haven't read them you should. They don't paint the picture the media has portrayed.

He wasn't a twelve year old angel.

There's no evidence he was savagely, murderously violent either. The only fight we have good evidence for was an organized, multi-round event, even though it was over being "snitched on". Which would imply a concern for safety and fair play, don't you think?

I'm good with the verdict.

I'm just not cool with those inaccurately dancing on Ms grave.

I understand that his parents have received money in sympathy for his death, which I agree with. It's a difficult time for them. I would hope that they can establish a scholarship or something in his name, to benefit other young men. A family in my town lost their son in Iraq, and they hold a yearly benefit in his name. They have given thousands of dollars to various charities that benefit veterans, and it's a nice thing to do. Just a thought. :peace:
 
Let's not drop context. I'll quote myself below to ask the question again:







False. Z's defense was standard self defense, without any SYG-specific stipulations or clauses. Just ~"fear of great bodily harm or death". The same law exists in California.

No, false. For one, In the State of California you cannot carry a loaded firearm. You cannot have a bullet in the chamber, your gun must be exposed and you clip of bullets must be in your trunk (or glove compartment). It doesn't matter if you are a licensed gun owner. CWP (Concealed Weapons Permit) are only available to law enforcement personnel so that argument is out of the case. I live in California bud, I know. I cannot walk down the street with my sidearm loaded. It must be exposed in a holster with a Sam Brown belt around my waist. I must not have no bullets in the clip or in the chamber

as per California Penal Code S. 12031

a)(1)A person is guilty of carrying a loaded firearm when he or she carries a loaded firearm on his or her person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or in any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory.

(2)Carrying a loaded firearm in violation of this section is punishable, as follows:

(A)Where the person previously has been convicted of any felony, or of any crime made punishable by this chapter, as a felony.

(B)Where the firearm is stolen and the person knew or had reasonable cause to believe that it was stolen, as a felony.

(C)Where the person is an active participant in a criminal street gang, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 186.22, under the Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act (Chapter 11 (commencing with Section 186.20) of Title 7 of Part 1), as a felony.

(D)Where the person is not in lawful possession of the firearm, as defined in this section, or is within a class of persons prohibited from possessing or acquiring a firearm pursuant to Section 12021 or 12021.1 of this code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, as a felony.

If Zimmerman tried that here he would be in prison because regardless whether he was trying to defend himself you cannot discharge a personal firearm in a public area.

Nice try bud...
 
Last edited:
Oh in case you try to counter-argue here is the law regarding the discharging of a gun in public

California's "10-20-Life 'Use a Gun and You're Done'" Law

Penal Code 12022.53 PC

California's "10-20-life" law -- 25-years-to-life for causing great bodily injury or death
Penal Code 12022.53(d) PC imposes an additional and consecutive 25-years-to-life sentencing enhancement on anyone who "personally and intentionally discharges a firearm and proximately causes great bodily injury or death to any person other than an accomplice".14


In other words if Zimmerman was confronted by Martin and pummeled here in California and he uses his weapon he would still be liable for misuse of a firearm in public regardless if it's registered, and he used it in his defense.

In other words r
 
Last edited:
CWP (Concealed Weapons Permit) are only available to law enforcement personnel so that argument is out of the case.

You obviously do not know what you're talking about.

California[11][12] is a "may issue" state for concealed carry. A license to carry a concealed firearm may be issued or denied to qualified applicants at the discretion of the County Counsels or City Attorneys in their place of residence.[13][14] In practice, the attitudes of different sheriffs and police chiefs toward the issuance of permits vary widely and, consequentially, different jurisdictions in California can vary anywhere from de facto shall-issue to de facto no-issue.[15] A permit may be issued, by a county Sheriff or city Chief or head of municipal police, in one of two formats:[16]

A license to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.

Gun laws in California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is true that California juries are instructed that a person under attack has no obligation to retreat and can try to repel their assailant with force if need be. In other words, they can stand their ground and fight...

"You do a self-defense case in California, there's nothing that's called 'stand your ground,' " Plesser said. "But there's a jury instruction the judge reads to the jury every time that says you have no need to retreat from the attacker."

Capitol Alert: Does California, like Florida, have 'stand your ground' law?

While CA does not have some aspects of SYG and is not considered an SYG state, there is no duty to retreat.


“It is lawful for a person who is being assaulted to defend himself from attack if, as a reasonable person, he has grounds to believe that bodily injury is about to be inflicted upon him. In doing so, that person may use all force and means which he believes to be reasonably necessary and which would appear to a reasonable person, in the same or similar circumstances, to be necessary to prevent the injury which appears to be imminent.” (California Jury Instructions–Criminal (CALJIC) 5.30.)

“An assault with the fists does not justify the person being assaulted in using a deadly weapon in self-defense unless that person believes and a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would believe that the assault is likely to inflict great bodily injury upon him.” (CALJIC 5.31.)

We might also note that CA allows an aggressor or mutual combatant to claim self defense if they attempted to withdraw:

Other instructions specify that the assaulted person need not retreat and the appearance of danger is sufficient. Also, self-defense is not available after the danger ceases or the adversary is disabled. It is also not considered self-defense when an aggressor or participant in mutual combat has not tried to stop fighting.

http://www.elliottnkanter.com/2012/04/12/what-constitutes-self-defense-in-california/
 
Last edited:
You obviously do not know what you're talking about.



Gun laws in California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Capitol Alert: Does California, like Florida, have 'stand your ground' law?

While CA does not have some aspects of SYG and is not considered an SYG state, there is no duty to retreat.

What are you not understanding? If Zimmerman is not POST certified, or is military personnel, or police he is not allowed to carry a loaded firearm in a public area or discharge it in public in the state of California. He is not allowed to discharge it in a public area regardless whether he is defending himself. I'm sure the law exempts you if you use the attackers weapon against the attacker but there is nothing in the law that states that a neighborhood watchmen is allowed to ride around with a loaded weapon in California.

For one, as I told you and quoted the law you cannot have a loaded weapon in your vehicle or on your person. It is a misdemeanor so obviously your wikipedia knowledge is faulty.

Wait, so tell me this since I don't know what I'm talking about.

Since Zimmerman is not a cop nor a security officer or military personnel but a civilian does California law state that he has a right to have a loaded weapon in his vehicle or on his person? I'll wait for you to hang yourself with your response.
 
Last edited:
What are you not understanding? If Zimmerman is not POST certified, or is military personnel, or police he is not allowed to carry a loaded firearm in the state of California. He is not allowed to discharge it in a public area regardless whether he is defending himself.

Nonsense. My citations are clear: While it is more difficult in some jurisdictions, conceal carry permits are issued in CA and are good for the entire state.

Self defense law in CA clearly allows firearm use, though lethal force must be justified by reason and not just "forcible felony" as in Florida.

There are two major differences between the Florida and California law. First, in California, a person claiming self-defense must use “reasonable force,” while Florida law says a person can “meet force with force, including lethal force.”

In Florida, that means if someone first punches you with their fist, you could respond by shooting them with deadly force.

The second major difference is that in Florida, when self-defense is invoked, there is a presumption the killing is reasonable. The burden is put on prosecutors to show that it is not.

In California the burden is on the attorneys representing the person claiming self-defense to show the killing was reasonable.

If you have any questions or concerns about what constitutes self-defense in California, please call our office at 619-330-5881. Mr. Elliott N. Kanter is a Criminal Defense Attorney with over 30 years’ experience in Southern California. He is here to help you. You may also fill out the secure on-line form for a confidential and free case review.

What Constitutes Self-Defense in California? | Elliott N. Kanter


Perhaps you should call that guy before embarrassing yourself further.


10.32.010 Shooting of firearms prohibited - Exceptions.

A. No person shall fire or discharge, or cause to be fired or discharged within the limits of the city any cannon, anvil, gun, pistol or other firearm, except as hereinafter provided.

B. The foregoing provisions as to the use of firearms shall not apply to peace officers or soldiers in the discharge of their official duties and while in the exercise of reasonable care; nor to a person using firearms in necessary self-defense; nor to persons conducting a shooting gallery who have first procured a license therefor in accordance with the license ordinance of the city; nor to shooting clubs where such shooting clubs are conducted within a fixed place within the city and in such manner that there is no danger to any person whatsoever, provided such shooting club first secured permission from the city manager to conduct the same.

(Prior code § 4258a.)

There's the statute. Gonna argue with that?

That you carry and know virtually NOTHING about CA firearm and self defense law (in fact, you invent your own) is pretty frightening.

I think you know what you can do with your claim to esoteric knowledge.
 
Last edited:
Nonsense. My citations are clear: While it is more difficult in some jurisdictions, conceal carry permits are issued in CA and are good for the entire state.

Self defense law in CA clearly allows firearm use, though lethal force must be justified by reason and not just "forcible felony" as in Florida.



What Constitutes Self-Defense in California? | Elliott N. Kanter


Perhaps you should call that guy before embarrassing yourself further.




There's the statute. Gonna argue with that?

That you carry and know virtually NOTHING about CA firearm and self defense law (in fact, you invent your own) is pretty frightening.

I think you know what you can do with your claim to esoteric knowledge.

You apparently are interpreting the law like the stand your ground....Let me break it down for you in number form

1) Non-police personnel are prohibited from carrying a loaded weapon in vehicle or in a public area.

I asked you to cite a law which counters that point. Registered gun owners are not allowed to ride around in their truck on a public street or in a public area with a loaded weapon, why are you not getting this.

2) A prosecutor based on this prohibition can argue on the reasons why a person (even as a registered gun owner) is driving around with a loaded weapon. In Zimmerman's case the laws are clear that he is not allowed to ride around with a loaded weapon prosecutors can argue motive.

You can use lethal force in an attack, but that is not the issue I'm arguing. I'm saying that persons cannot walk around or drive with a loaded weapon unless they are POST certified, security, military or police do you not understand this? You cannot ride around with a loaded weapon that is a misdemeanor violation. What are you not getting? You are arguing about the incident I am arguing about prior to incident per California law you cannot ride around with a loaded firearm.
 
Last edited:
You apparently are interpreting the law like the stand your ground....Let me break it down for you in number form

1) Non-police personnel are prohibited from carrying a loaded weapon in vehicle or in a public area.

I asked you to cite a law which counters that point. Registered gun owners are not allowed to ride around in their truck on a public street or in a public area with a loaded weapon, why are you not getting this.

2) A prosecutor based on this prohibition can argue on the reasons why a person (even as a registered gun owner) is driving around with a loaded weapon. In Zimmerman's case the laws are clear that he is not allowed to ride around with a loaded weapon prosecutors can argue motive.

Seriously, dude...


California Penal Code 12031(b) PC states that the crime of carrying a loaded firearm in a public place doesn't apply to:

peace officers, whether active or honorably retired, including those who are carrying out official duties in California and to persons acting as agents of the police,

members of the U.S. military who are engaged in the performance of their duties,

people who are using target ranges for practice shooting,

people who have permits to carry a concealed weapon,

armored vehicle guards, or

retired federal officers or agents who carried firearms when they were on active duty.17

Carrying a Loaded Firearm in Public or a Vehicle | CA Penal Code 12031


This is really getting pathetic.
 
Last edited:


No what's pathetic is you're not reading. I used the same reference and all your doing is cherrypicking. Read the bold as Zimmerman does not qualify and thus is liable for prosecution

LOOK

3) People and Places Exempt from Prosecution
In addition to the legal defenses we just described, there are a number of defenses that are built into the language of Penal Code 12031 PC itself. If


you are one of the people described below, or


your conduct falls into one of the categories listed below,

then you have not unlawfully carried a loaded firearm in public in violation of this California gun law.

Penal Code 12031(b) PC -- Peace officers, military members, target ranges
California Penal Code 12031(b) PC states that the crime of carrying a loaded firearm in a public place doesn't apply to:


peace officers, whether active or honorably retired, including those who are carrying out official duties in California and to persons acting as agents of the police,


members of the U.S. military who are engaged in the performance of their duties,


people who are using target ranges for practice shooting,


people who have permits to carry a concealed weapon,


armored vehicle guards, or


retired federal officers or agents who carried firearms when they were on active duty.17



Look at the bold...None of that applies to Zimmerman if he were in California. He has no right to ride around with a weapon in the first place. I'm pretty much done because I'm sure you're going to argue that Zimmerman was qualified to carry a firearm
 
Last edited:
No what's pathetic is you're not reading. I used the same reference and all your doing is cherrypicking. Read the bold as Zimmerman does not qualify and thus is liable for prosecution

LOOK

3) People and Places Exempt from Prosecution
In addition to the legal defenses we just described, there are a number of defenses that are built into the language of Penal Code 12031 PC itself. If


you are one of the people described below, or


your conduct falls into one of the categories listed below,

then you have not unlawfully carried a loaded firearm in public in violation of this California gun law.

Penal Code 12031(b) PC -- Peace officers, military members, target ranges
California Penal Code 12031(b) PC states that the crime of carrying a loaded firearm in a public place doesn't apply to:


peace officers, whether active or honorably retired, including those who are carrying out official duties in California and to persons acting as agents of the police,


members of the U.S. military who are engaged in the performance of their duties,


people who are using target ranges for practice shooting,


people who have permits to carry a concealed weapon,


armored vehicle guards, or


retired federal officers or agents who carried firearms when they were on active duty.17



Look at the bold...None of that applies to Zimmerman if he were in California. He has no right to ride around with a weapon in the first place

I've already provided citation that concealed carry permits ARE issued in CA.
 
and him losing his life over a controversial law.

He lost his life because he decided rather than go into his house, to double back and confront Z, then attack him. It had nothing to do with any law. You jump someone and beat them and pound their head into the ground, well, if they have a gun, you might die, no matter what age or color you are.
 
Because there is exactly zero evidence that he ever did.

You need to decide if you believe rachel or you don't.

If you do, Z is a liar and probably guilty of manslaughter.

If you don't, your point is meaningless.

You don't get to cherry pick.

Sure I get to cherry pick just like everybopdy else does, and like you are doing.
 
This entire discussion was about the difference between what a court can prove and actual reality.

My starting position was and remains that they are two different things.

You created the strawman, by returning to the incorrect assumption that a not guilty verdict confers innocence, actual, factual innocence on the defendant, or peoves same.

And Z really doesn't want a civil trial.

Much of that speculation you condemn is admissable, as well as the fact that only 15% of those questioned about drug use who claimed they didn't ACTUALLY didn't using the technology used here.

Go back. Look.

Z has been found not guilty. He was not found to be innocent. There is a clear, legal distinction.

Innocent means completely without fault.

Z was NOT walking along minding his own business. "Innocent" is not even semantically correct.

Why do you think there is evidence out there that was not presented at court?

Considering the witch hunt the prosecution was on I am sure they brought in everything they could find, and they had the time and resources to look for it all.

Why do you think there is more to the story?
 
Um, the point is someone following me and not identifying who they are can be perceived as threatening. People react differently in different situations. I'm older so my approach to someone following maybe different. But if Zimmerman got in my face and violated my personal space then yeah, I'd probably do the same thing Trayvon did especially if the person following me becomes confrontational. This case pretty much boiled down to an overzealous wannabe cop who had the law on his side. If Zimmerman did what he did here in California he would go down for at least manslaughter. People say what Zimmerman did was right only do so because of the law in Florida, now if this was in another state that wasn't a "stand-your-ground" law carrying state opinions would surely differ.

How did Zimmerman get in Martins personal space? I missed that part of the evidence from the trial.
 
He lost his life because he decided rather than go into his house, to double back and confront Z, then attack him. It had nothing to do with any law. You jump someone and beat them and pound their head into the ground, well, if they have a gun, you might die, no matter what age or color you are.


I have a theory that Zimmerman may have started to reach for his gun before Trayvon punched him. If that was the case, then who was defending himself from who?
 
Like I said good day to you sir.

Edit: You're a prime example why we cannot have an honest discussion about race

Actually, you are showing a good example of why white folks can't be involved in a discussion about race.

I was talking about cultural attributes that THUGS display. THUGS are NOT only black people. There are WHITE thugs who act in this manner.

Basically, anything derived from "Hip-Hop Culture" is considered "Thug" to me. Not because mostly black people listen to and are involved in Hip Hop Culture, but because the culture itself is PROUD of its "THUGGERY" if you will.

And, coincidentally enough, people who follow this culture are the ones who make up the majority of violent crime in America. So........... Its only a natural instinct for common folks to distrust anyone involved in it.
 
I have a theory that Zimmerman may have started to reach for his gun before Trayvon punched him. If that was the case, then who was defending himself from who?

You can have a theory, you could have a wart, you could have a seizure, none of which makes a bit of difference.
 
I have a theory that Zimmerman may have started to reach for his gun before Trayvon punched him. If that was the case, then who was defending himself from who?

Problem being, Moot, that theories don't hold water in a court of law. We can theorize all day, every day. What stands in the court, are facts.
 
Actually, you are showing a good example of why white folks can't be involved in a discussion about race.

I was talking about cultural attributes that THUGS display. THUGS are NOT only black people. There are WHITE thugs who act in this manner.

Basically, anything derived from "Hip-Hop Culture" is considered "Thug" to me. Not because mostly black people listen to and are involved in Hip Hop Culture, but because the culture itself is PROUD of its "THUGGERY" if you will.

And, coincidentally enough, people who follow this culture are the ones who make up the majority of violent crime in America. So........... Its only a natural instinct for common folks to distrust anyone involved in it.

Well I listen to Hip-Hop, yet I am not in jail, I have a job, my own place and I'm not in jail. Looks like your assumption is flawed.
 
Back
Top Bottom