Author Topic: Trayvon Martin 2.0  (Read 25662 times)

Kwon

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 52113
  • PRONOUNS: Ze/Zir
Re: Trayvon Martin 2.0
« Reply #200 on: August 02, 2018, 06:44:17 AM »
Q

Vince G, CSN MFT

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 25844
  • GETBIG3.COM!
Re: Trayvon Martin 2.0
« Reply #201 on: August 13, 2018, 12:10:58 PM »
 I dont agree with this out of principle.  Public outcry led to this but no way on a conviction


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/08/13/shooter-in-fatal-florida-stand-your-ground-case-arrested-for-manslaughter.html
A

Agnostic007

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15439
Re: Trayvon Martin 2.0
« Reply #202 on: August 13, 2018, 09:42:48 PM »
I dont agree with this out of principle.  Public outcry led to this but no way on a conviction


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/08/13/shooter-in-fatal-florida-stand-your-ground-case-arrested-for-manslaughter.html

So if you push me to the ground  because I am accosting your significant other in a parking lot over a parking violation, I would have the right to shoot you?

I'm really hoping you just don't understand the circumstances and aren't that stupid

Kwon3

  • Guest
Re: Trayvon Martin 2.0
« Reply #203 on: August 13, 2018, 09:49:56 PM »
So if you push me to the ground  because I am accosting your significant other in a parking lot over a parking violation, I would have the right to shoot you?

I'm really hoping you just don't understand the circumstances and aren't that stupid
Who's fit to decide when deadly force is necessary? Do you need to be female or elderly or a minority to feel threatened at a specific point? Or can everyone feel the same way? In other, that law is deliberately vague for the reasons the castle laws in other states aren't: those laws tie your hands to either the intruder being inside your house or threatening you with deadly force themselves. Chasing after they with a gun, for instance, is prosecutable. With Stand your Ground, they left it up to technology (like cameras, which were used in that article against the shooter), eyewitnesses, and old-fashioned detective work to decide whether it was justified or not, rather that a law that straitjackets them into arresting everyone who might be just below the threshold for using deadly life (as with the house-related SYG laws).

The article gives it away: The dindu who got blasted parked in a handicap spot he had no right to park it in, was asked to move, and got an attitude (and a bullet).

“He told deputies that he had to shoot to defend himself. Those are the facts and that’s the law,” he said. “No matter how you slice it or dice it that was a violent push to the ground.”

The dispute began when Drejka began arguing with McGlockton’s girlfriend, Britany Jacobs, 25, because she was parked in a handicapped parking space without a permit. With her were two of their children, a 3-year-old and a 4-month old.

McGlockton got involved when he came out of the store with his 5-year-old son.

The complaint stated that detectives recorded the crime scene with a 3D scanner showing that the distance between Drejka and McGlockton at the time of the shooting was about 12 feet.

It also stated that the findings of the autopsy were consistent with the video footage of the shooting in which McGlockton appeared to be turning away from Drejka when he was shot.

Agnostic007

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15439
Re: Trayvon Martin 2.0
« Reply #204 on: August 13, 2018, 09:52:34 PM »
Who's fit to decide when deadly force is necessary? Do you need to be female or elderly or a minority to feel threatened at a specific point? Or can everyone feel the same way? In other, that law is deliberately vague for the reasons the castle laws in other states aren't: those laws tie your hands to either the intruder being inside your house or threatening you with deadly force themselves. Chasing after they with a gun, for instance, is prosecutable. With Stand your Ground, they left it up to technology (like cameras, which were used in that article against the shooter), eyewitnesses, and old-fashioned detective work to decide whether it was justified or not, rather that a law that straitjackets them into arresting everyone who might be just below the threshold for using deadly life (as with the house-related SYG laws).

The article gives it away: The dindu who got blasted parked in a handicap spot he had no right to park it in, was asked to move, and got an attitude (and a bullet).

“He told deputies that he had to shoot to defend himself. Those are the facts and that’s the law,” he said. “No matter how you slice it or dice it that was a violent push to the ground.”

The dispute began when Drejka began arguing with McGlockton’s girlfriend, Britany Jacobs, 25, because she was parked in a handicapped parking space without a permit. With her were two of their children, a 3-year-old and a 4-month old.

McGlockton got involved when he came out of the store with his 5-year-old son.

The complaint stated that detectives recorded the crime scene with a 3D scanner showing that the distance between Drejka and McGlockton at the time of the shooting was about 12 feet.

It also stated that the findings of the autopsy were consistent with the video footage of the shooting in which McGlockton appeared to be turning away from Drejka when he was shot.

But the video shows clearly he didn't have to shoot to defend himself. The Gun itself was apparently enough to stop the threat. I'm glad it will go to court to be heard by a jury and decided in a court of law

Kwon3

  • Guest
Re: Trayvon Martin 2.0
« Reply #205 on: August 13, 2018, 09:55:56 PM »
But the video shows clearly he didn't have to shoot to defend himself. The Gun itself was apparently enough to stop the threat. I'm glad it will go to court to be heard by a jury and decided in a court of law
Like I said, the footage and some 3D re-enactments by the cops (i.e. detective work) determined it wasn't justified in this case. It is NOT like the Trayvon Martin incident, where the victim's nose was broken and his head caved in partially by repeated violent blows to the head by a lanky and angry black teenager who was straddling him and had no intention of stopping.

Agnostic007

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15439
Re: Trayvon Martin 2.0
« Reply #206 on: August 13, 2018, 09:58:45 PM »
Like I said, the footage and some 3D re-enactments by the cops (i.e. detective work) determined it wasn't justified in this case. It is NOT like the Trayvon Martin incident, where the victim's nose was broken and his head caved in partially by repeated violent blows to the head by a lanky and angry black teenager who was straddling him and had no intention of stopping.

Just not used to agreeing with you. my bad

Vince G, CSN MFT

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 25844
  • GETBIG3.COM!
Re: Trayvon Martin 2.0
« Reply #207 on: August 13, 2018, 10:10:11 PM »
So if you push me to the ground  because I am accosting your significant other in a parking lot over a parking violation, I would have the right to shoot you?

I'm really hoping you just don't understand the circumstances and aren't that stupid


Try reading what I type....you even quoted it ::)
A

Agnostic007

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15439
Re: Trayvon Martin 2.0
« Reply #208 on: August 13, 2018, 10:19:46 PM »

Try reading what I type....you even quoted it ::)

Try answering the question

Powerlift66

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11452
Re: Trayvon Martin 2.0
« Reply #209 on: August 13, 2018, 11:00:30 PM »
Like I said, the footage and some 3D re-enactments by the cops (i.e. detective work) determined it wasn't justified in this case. It is NOT like the Trayvon Martin incident, where the victim's nose was broken and his head caved in partially by repeated violent blows to the head by a lanky and angry black teenager who was straddling him and had no intention of stopping.

Im glad someone knows what happened and just didnt take the media's word for it.
I read the trial notes (part of Massad Ayoob's great book "Stand Your Ground") which covers many trials he is asked to testify in for his expertise).
Martin WAS indeed on top of fat George bashing his head into the pavement. Not an innocent Skittle consumer. Both are retards,one ended up dead.

This new case here was excessive, (quick on the draw) but yes, they are bending to public outcry Im sure. SJW pussies seem to get their way.
Curious to see what comes out of it. If innocent,more violent riot's and reasons to loot and shoot Im sure...

Powerlift66

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11452
Re: Trayvon Martin 2.0
« Reply #210 on: August 13, 2018, 11:29:19 PM »
This white guy it seems, makes a habit of pulling his gun out its being reported. Like 4 other road rage incidents.
A bit of a water-head I'd imagine...

Jeffro

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3614
Re: Trayvon Martin 2.0
« Reply #211 on: August 13, 2018, 11:37:10 PM »
If the black dude would have just kept his cool and just walked up and asked what was going on, instead of trucking his ass, he'd still be alive.  Dude on the grounds sounds like he's a bit nutty but still, the black dude escalated the situation and lost his life for it.  Good shoot, nah probably not, but you're on the ground with someone standing over you, who knows if he's going to keep coming at you.  Shit happened quick.

pellius

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22827
  • RIP Keith Jones aka OnlyMe/NoWorries. 1/10/2011
Re: Trayvon Martin 2.0
« Reply #212 on: August 14, 2018, 12:28:35 AM »
Over 95% of the times that a gun is used in self-defense it is only brandished. The assaulter clearly stepped back when he saw that the gun pulled. The threat to life
was over at that particular moment. The victim's life was no longer in danger. He didn't have to shoot him to save his own life. Whether he had the right is up for debate. People should think twice before they start assaulting people. The victim's past history should be a factor.

Some years back a gang of hoodlums walked into a man's property, going through a gate, and started destroying his property. Tore up his garden, smashed in his car windows and slashed his tires -- just destroying everything and anything in sight. Apparently, it was out of revenge or a warning or whatever. The man was an elderly man and walked out there with a shotgun and told them to get off his property or he will shoot them. They just laughed and ignored him. He didn't do anything. He just let them destroy his property. He would say later that because he wasn't physically threatened and they showed no indication of harming him he didn't think he had the legal right to shoot them.

So does one have the legal right to use lethal force even though your physical life is not in danger? I remember the debate going back and forth. When responding to a person who felt that the man had a right to kill the thugs, one asked should it is now a capital offense for destroying flowers and a car?

Pray_4_War

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15801
  • Thot Expert
Re: Trayvon Martin 2.0
« Reply #213 on: August 14, 2018, 04:18:25 AM »
If the black dude would have just kept his cool and just walked up and asked what was going on, instead of trucking his ass, he'd still be alive.

Haven't you heard?  Blacks aren't responsible for their actions because they are helpless victims.  They have no agency.  They are the relentless victims of relentless white racism all the time, everywhere, that explains everything.  If a white person upsets a black person they should just stand there and take the beating that is sure to ensue.  After all, white people are privileged and they have been handed everything in life.  Whites should feel bad about themselves and just let these oppressed minorities steal their property, rape their wives, and beat the ever-living fuck out of them whenever they please.

Twaddle

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7312

Tennisballz

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3205
  • You CANNOT be serious!
Re: Trayvon Martin 2.0
« Reply #215 on: August 25, 2019, 07:51:24 PM »
The publicity this case received never had anything to do with the "stand your ground" law.  It was high profile because a white man killed a black man.  The rage, anger and hatred going on on either side of this case is just further proof that diversity is a weakness not a strength.

Irongrip400

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22423
  • Pan Germanism, Pax Britannica
Re: Trayvon Martin 2.0
« Reply #216 on: August 26, 2019, 04:14:20 AM »
The dude deserved to be in jail, he was a threat to decent society. I’m glad the jury made th right decision.

Pray_4_War

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15801
  • Thot Expert
Re: Trayvon Martin 2.0
« Reply #217 on: August 26, 2019, 10:02:44 AM »

Twaddle

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7312
Re: Trayvon Martin 2.0
« Reply #218 on: August 26, 2019, 11:14:38 AM »
Was there ever any question?

Yes, I think there was.  Originally, he was not charged, and the Sheriff admitted that the shooting was within the bounds of "stand your ground".  It wasn't until almost a month after the shooting, that he was arrested and charged. 

I still think he's not guilty of any crime.  If somebody attacks you, you ought to have the right to defend yourself.  Hebrews can't go around attacking people and expect there won't be consequences.  Just my 2 cents.

hardgainerj

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6701
Re: Trayvon Martin 2.0
« Reply #219 on: August 26, 2019, 02:45:30 PM »

Irongrip400

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22423
  • Pan Germanism, Pax Britannica
Re: Trayvon Martin 2.0
« Reply #220 on: August 26, 2019, 05:33:31 PM »

Pray_4_War

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15801
  • Thot Expert
Re: Trayvon Martin 2.0
« Reply #221 on: August 26, 2019, 08:10:38 PM »
Yes, I think there was.  Originally, he was not charged, and the Sheriff admitted that the shooting was within the bounds of "stand your ground".  It wasn't until almost a month after the shooting, that he was arrested and charged. 

I still think he's not guilty of any crime.  If somebody attacks you, you ought to have the right to defend yourself.  Hebrews can't go around attacking people and expect there won't be consequences.  Just my 2 cents.

I agree 100% but unfortunately that isn't the world we live in anymore.  States pass stand your ground laws precisely for situations like this and yet he still gets convicted.  The fact that the guy is an asshole and the guy he shot were black shouldn't have anything to do with it............but yet it does.  the guy had every reason to believe that he could have been seriously hurt or killed.  It was clear that the attacker was hiking up his pants and posturing up as though he was ready to finish him off.  We see it every day.   Here's a recent example that we talked about where a  white dude was beaten to death after a minor car accident.  A very similar situation with a very different result.

https://www.breitbart.com/crime/2019/07/24/man-beaten-death-detroit-after-car-accident/

hardgainerj

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6701
Re: Trayvon Martin 2.0
« Reply #222 on: August 27, 2019, 09:59:05 AM »
Do we know? He was driving an Escalade so...
mexican name, probably was a mexican

robcguns

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20124
  • Founder of the proud straight white male movement
Re: Trayvon Martin 2.0
« Reply #223 on: August 27, 2019, 10:45:14 AM »
I don’t care what color anyone is in this altercation.Guy who parked illegally and tosses guy to the ground gets what he gets.Should have kept his hands off the guy.Pretty Simple.You want to assault someone and they are afraid and have a gun then you might get shot.

lightweight83

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1203
Re: Trayvon Martin 2.0
« Reply #224 on: August 27, 2019, 10:58:26 AM »
About 10 years ago, a kid I went to school with got shit faced drunk and was staying at a buddies place, but he accidentally went to the house NEXT  to his buddies at like 3a.m.  Rang the door bell and banged on the door a couple times.  The home owner was a 70 year old man, who grabbed a shotgun, opened the door and shot him in the chest from point blank range, killing him.  Guess what.... the old fucker not only didn't do a single second of jail time, but he didn't even get arrested! Guess why..... BECAUSE THEY WERE BOTH WHITE!
The town was in outrage, mostly because the kid never gained entry to his house and the old man pretty much went out of his way to shoot him.  Didn't call the cops until AFTER he shot him dead!