If Trayvon's mother would have used pictures of the real Trayvon instead of the pictures from the last decade that have more of an impact because he looked so young and innocent, this wouldn't even be an issue.
I wonder how many T-shirts and posters would be boasting THIS picture or THIS picture
I'm leaning towards self defense in this case but dont fault the mom for posting positive pics of her son,,,I would hope your or my mom would do the same.....a mothers love is unconditional
If Trayvon's mother would have used pictures of the real Trayvon instead of the pictures from the last decade that have more of an impact because he looked so young and innocent, this wouldn't even be an issue.
I wonder how many T-shirts and posters would be boasting THIS picture or THIS picture
I'm leaning towards self defense in this case but dont fault the mom for posting positive pics of her son,,,I would hope your or my mom would do the same.....a mothers love is unconditional
A guy with a hard on who thinks hes a cop even though hes fucking neighborhood watch shoots an unarmed teen and hes a hero. Since when has being attacked by one person with their fists indicated the need for deadly force. It is not like he was jumped by 6 guys.
You're all a bunch of idiots pushing your agenda because the story made national news.
Heres what has happened
Trayvon was shot by a man claiming self defense in a fist fight.
Heres what will happen.
Zimmerman will go to jail and everyone will STFU.
Heres what should have never happened - the attempt to corrupt an investigation with bullshit racial and prejudice agendas.
This has nothing to do with black/white/ whatever color. This has nothing to do with tattoos and whether trayvon was good or bad. Fact is whether a man is good or bad it does not give another man/woman the right to end their life in a non-life threatening confrontation.
It sucks that is happened but shit happens, and people need to just move on with their lives.
A guy with a hard on who thinks hes a cop even though hes fucking neighborhood watch shoots an unarmed teen and hes a hero. Since when has being attacked by one person with their fists indicated the need for deadly force. It is not like he was jumped by 6 guys.
You're all a bunch of idiots pushing your agenda because the story made national news.
Heres what has happened
Trayvon was shot by a man claiming self defense in a fist fight.
Heres what will happen.
Zimmerman will go to jail and everyone will STFU.
Heres what should have never happened - the attempt to corrupt an investigation with bullshit racial and prejudice agendas.
This has nothing to do with black/white/ whatever color. This has nothing to do with tattoos and whether trayvon was good or bad. Fact is whether a man is good or bad it does not give another man/woman the right to end their life in a non-life threatening confrontation.
It sucks that is happened but shit happens, and people need to just move on with their lives.
Also for all you people indicating he had a right to defend himself with the use of deadly force he did not. The stand your ground laws and castle doctrine laws are pretty clear across all states, and no sane judge is going to indicate that an alleged attack where only firsts were used required the use of deadly force to stop the attack.
Especially given the disparity in size between the shooter and the victim.
The Florida law is a self-defense, self-protection law. It has four key components:
It establishes that law-abiding residents and visitors may legally
presume the threat of bodily harm or death from anyone who breaks into a
residence or occupied vehicle and may use defensive force, including
deadly force, against the intruder.
In any other place where a person “has a right to be,” that person
has “no duty to retreat” if attacked and may “meet force with force,
including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary
to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or
another to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”
In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is
immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested
unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that
the force used was unlawful.
If a civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be
immune based on the parameters of the law, the defendant will be
awarded all costs of defense.
Pretty clear, no felony was in progress, zimmermans life was never threatened. He shot an unarmed man in self defense, however is self defense was too an extreme and unwarranted for the situation and he should be charged with manslaughter. Whether they want to call it involuntary or not makes no difference to me as I doubt mr. zimmerman had intentions of killing the kid from the start. However i'm sure some bleeding hearts would contend that he killed him and knew what he was doing and it should not be considered involuntary or manslaughter and it should be murder.
Also for all you people indicating he had a right to defend himself with the use of deadly force he did not. The stand your ground laws and castle doctrine laws are pretty clear across all states, and no sane judge is going to indicate that an alleged attack where only firsts were used required the use of deadly force to stop the attack.
Especially given the disparity in size between the shooter and the victim.
The Florida law is a self-defense, self-protection law. It has four key components:
It establishes that law-abiding residents and visitors may legally
presume the threat of bodily harm or death from anyone who breaks into a
residence or occupied vehicle and may use defensive force, including
deadly force, against the intruder.
In any other place where a person “has a right to be,” that person
has “no duty to retreat” if attacked and may “meet force with force,
including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary
to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or
another to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”
In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is
immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested
unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that
the force used was unlawful.
If a civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be
immune based on the parameters of the law, the defendant will be
awarded all costs of defense.
Pretty clear, no felony was in progress, zimmermans life was never threatened. He shot an unarmed man in self defense, however is self defense was too an extreme and unwarranted for the situation and he should be charged with manslaughter. Whether they want to call it involuntary or not makes no difference to me as I doubt mr. zimmerman had intentions of killing the kid from the start. However i'm sure some bleeding hearts would contend that he killed him and knew what he was doing and it should not be considered involuntary or manslaughter and it should be murder.
I don't know all the details...but shooting to kill someone that is weaponless is a cowardly act. Shoot the kid in the leg, he would go down...ridiculous.
I don't know all the details...but shooting to kill someone that is weaponless is a cowardly act. Shoot the kid in the leg, he would go down...ridiculous.
I now have the right to carry a weapon and kill anyone I want because I gave myself the title of King of America.
Sounds dumb doesn't it? Thats how dumb you sound for trying to justify a felon murdering someone because he was 'neighborhood watchman.'
maybe i am wrong, because I am not one hundred percent certain how he obtained his title of " head of neighborhood security" I am only guessing that it was given to him by homeowners inside that community.... much different than just crowning yourself " King of America" ... but regardless, I would also assume that the head of neighborhood security would have the right, to confront someone they thought was acting in a suspicious manner. For instance, a church across the street from where I live had been broken into twice within a one month span, so automaticly whenever I noticed a car pulled around back, late at night, I would watch and try to see if I could see them doing anything wrong, and once even cranked up, and drove over to ask them why they were there, and explained that there had been alot of vandalsim and that nobody should be back there... I have that right, the right to protect and watch over myself, my neighbors and my community...and in no way does that give them a right to jump me, or beat me... but if they had, i would have had every right to shoot them.
I now have the right to carry a weapon and kill anyone I want because I gave myself the title of King of America.
Sounds dumb doesn't it? Thats how dumb you sound for trying to justify a felon murdering someone because he was 'neighborhood watchman.'
maybe i am wrong, because I am not one hundred percent certain how he obtained his title of " head of neighborhood security" I am only guessing that it was given to him by homeowners inside that community.... much different than just crowning yourself " King of America" ... but regardless, I would also assume that the head of neighborhood security would have the right, to confront someone they thought was acting in a suspicious manner. For instance, a church across the street from where I live had been broken into twice within a one month span, so automaticly whenever I noticed a car pulled around back, late at night, I would watch and try to see if I could see them doing anything wrong, and once even cranked up, and drove over to ask them why they were there, and explained that there had been alot of vandalsim and that nobody should be back there... I have that right, the right to protect and watch over myself, my neighbors and my community...and in no way does that give them a right to jump me, or beat me... but if they had, i would have had every right to shoot them.
Also for all you people indicating he had a right to defend himself with the use of deadly force he did not. The stand your ground laws and castle doctrine laws are pretty clear across all states, and no sane judge is going to indicate that an alleged attack where only firsts were used required the use of deadly force to stop the attack.
Especially given the disparity in size between the shooter and the victim.
__________________________
You absolutely can use deadly force in some cases if the person does not have a weapon. I'm not saying this is what happened, but what if the guy did bang his head on the concrete....you don't think a person could kill another person slamming his head on the concrete? Now maybe Martin was only intending to defend himself and wasn't planning on killing him. We will never know. But if Zimmerman had legitimate reason to think his life is in jeopardy (and you tell me how the state is going to prove he did NOT considering the only witnesses heard, but did not see anything?).
I will be curious to see how this plays out, but I don't know how the state proves "beyond a reasonable doubt," that Zimmerman knew his life was NOT in danger. Regardless of what happened, Zimmerman can make up a story if he needs to that will fit evidence and still allow him to walk.
Also for all you people indicating he had a right to defend himself with the use of deadly force he did not. The stand your ground laws and castle doctrine laws are pretty clear across all states, and no sane judge is going to indicate that an alleged attack where only firsts were used required the use of deadly force to stop the attack.
Especially given the disparity in size between the shooter and the victim.
__________________________
You absolutely can use deadly force in some cases if the person does not have a weapon. I'm not saying this is what happened, but what if the guy did bang his head on the concrete....you don't think a person could kill another person slamming his head on the concrete? Now maybe Martin was only intending to defend himself and wasn't planning on killing him. We will never know. But if Zimmerman had legitimate reason to think his life is in jeopardy (and you tell me how the state is going to prove he did NOT considering the only witnesses heard, but did not see anything?).
I will be curious to see how this plays out, but I don't know how the state proves "beyond a reasonable doubt," that Zimmerman knew his life was NOT in danger. Regardless of what happened, Zimmerman can make up a story if he needs to that will fit evidence and still allow him to walk.
Notice how there were no witnesses....there is only one side of the story.....but no one else to dispute it. I realize the guy did have a gun, but there is nothing to say the dude ambushed the robber and just shot him dead.
MINNEAPOLIS - Minneapolis police say a man who shot and killed an armed robber who was attacking a woman has been released.
Officers detained the man for questioning following the fatal shooting of the 23-year-old robber Thursday night. Authorities say the armed robber confronted the woman in the parking lot of a Cubs Food store, took her purse and hit her in the head with his gun. A man who witnessed the robbery chased the suspect and shot him behind a nearby restaurant during a confrontation. When police arrived, the witness told officers he had a permit to carry a gun, shot the armed robbery suspect and told officers where they could find his handgun. He was detained for questioning.
Investigators say they found the robber's gun near where the shooting took place.
Notice how there were no witnesses....there is only one side of the story.....but no one else to dispute it. I realize the guy did have a gun, but there is nothing to say the dude ambushed the robber and just shot him dead.
MINNEAPOLIS - Minneapolis police say a man who shot and killed an armed robber who was attacking a woman has been released.
Officers detained the man for questioning following the fatal shooting of the 23-year-old robber Thursday night. Authorities say the armed robber confronted the woman in the parking lot of a Cubs Food store, took her purse and hit her in the head with his gun. A man who witnessed the robbery chased the suspect and shot him behind a nearby restaurant during a confrontation. When police arrived, the witness told officers he had a permit to carry a gun, shot the armed robbery suspect and told officers where they could find his handgun. He was detained for questioning.
Investigators say they found the robber's gun near where the shooting took place.
Also for all you people indicating he had a right to defend himself with the use of deadly force he did not. The stand your ground laws and castle doctrine laws are pretty clear across all states, and no sane judge is going to indicate that an alleged attack where only firsts were used required the use of deadly force to stop the attack.
Especially given the disparity in size between the shooter and the victim.
__________________________
You absolutely can use deadly force in some cases if the person does not have a weapon. I'm not saying this is what happened, but what if the guy did bang his head on the concrete....you don't think a person could kill another person slamming his head on the concrete? Now maybe Martin was only intending to defend himself and wasn't planning on killing him. We will never know. But if Zimmerman had legitimate reason to think his life is in jeopardy (and you tell me how the state is going to prove he did NOT considering the only witnesses heard, but did not see anything?).
I will be curious to see how this plays out, but I don't know how the state proves "beyond a reasonable doubt," that Zimmerman knew his life was NOT in danger. Regardless of what happened, Zimmerman can make up a story if he needs to that will fit evidence and still allow him to walk.
Exactly how are you unable to defend yourself with your fists or other methods when your head is attempted to be bashed into the ground. Also this was on a public street or sidewalk in a gated community which is still public property so the kid walking down the street had every right to be there just as zimmerman did, had he caught him on someones property or in their backyard its a different story. Walking down the street as he indicated means he is on public property and he has the right to stand his ground when he is approached in a confrontational way. According to reports both people used their right to defend themselves on public property, one took it to an unnecessary extreme.
Also great post what is similar to that situation to this one, that a person was shot. Oh wait hes an armed mugger therefor you as a citizen witnessed a felony taking place, therefor by the law i posted you have the right to use deadly force.
Did trayvon rob an old lady before he was shot, was he trespassing on private property, did he do anything to indicate a felony was taking place? NO! the only thing that can be pointed to is that trayvon an unarmed teenager may or may not have attacked zimmerman with his fists and may or may not have tried to bash his head into the ground. Which is not a felony, it is simply an assault misdemeanor which does not indicate the right to use deadly force.
Therefor zimmerman should go to jail and its stupid people who think he was justified to shoot the kid that are going to make it where I or others like me are no longer allowed to carry firearms regardless of permit or not. We already get enough shit when he encounter the police and we have the right to carry and are, this just adds fuel to their fire that those who do not know the law and do not practice the law properly outweigh the number of people who are responsible and on one should be allowed to have guns.
Send the guy to prison he has a CPL or whatever license they give in Florida, he passed the requirements to gain one, he agreed that if he uses the gun unlawfully that he will no longer be allowed to carry and penalties could include fines and up to time in jail. Well he used his gun unlawfully time to do what you are mandated to do.
Also for all you people indicating he had a right to defend himself with the use of deadly force he did not. The stand your ground laws and castle doctrine laws are pretty clear across all states, and no sane judge is going to indicate that an alleged attack where only firsts were used required the use of deadly force to stop the attack.
Especially given the disparity in size between the shooter and the victim.
__________________________
You absolutely can use deadly force in some cases if the person does not have a weapon. I'm not saying this is what happened, but what if the guy did bang his head on the concrete....you don't think a person could kill another person slamming his head on the concrete? Now maybe Martin was only intending to defend himself and wasn't planning on killing him. We will never know. But if Zimmerman had legitimate reason to think his life is in jeopardy (and you tell me how the state is going to prove he did NOT considering the only witnesses heard, but did not see anything?).
I will be curious to see how this plays out, but I don't know how the state proves "beyond a reasonable doubt," that Zimmerman knew his life was NOT in danger. Regardless of what happened, Zimmerman can make up a story if he needs to that will fit evidence and still allow him to walk.
Exactly how are you unable to defend yourself with your fists or other methods when your head is attempted to be bashed into the ground. Also this was on a public street or sidewalk in a gated community which is still public property so the kid walking down the street had every right to be there just as zimmerman did, had he caught him on someones property or in their backyard its a different story. Walking down the street as he indicated means he is on public property and he has the right to stand his ground when he is approached in a confrontational way. According to reports both people used their right to defend themselves on public property, one took it to an unnecessary extreme.
Also great post what is similar to that situation to this one, that a person was shot. Oh wait hes an armed mugger therefor you as a citizen witnessed a felony taking place, therefor by the law i posted you have the right to use deadly force.
Did trayvon rob an old lady before he was shot, was he trespassing on private property, did he do anything to indicate a felony was taking place? NO! the only thing that can be pointed to is that trayvon an unarmed teenager may or may not have attacked zimmerman with his fists and may or may not have tried to bash his head into the ground. Which is not a felony, it is simply an assault misdemeanor which does not indicate the right to use deadly force.
Therefor zimmerman should go to jail and its stupid people who think he was justified to shoot the kid that are going to make it where I or others like me are no longer allowed to carry firearms regardless of permit or not. We already get enough shit when he encounter the police and we have the right to carry and are, this just adds fuel to their fire that those who do not know the law and do not practice the law properly outweigh the number of people who are responsible and on one should be allowed to have guns.
Send the guy to prison he has a CPL or whatever license they give in Florida, he passed the requirements to gain one, he agreed that if he uses the gun unlawfully that he will no longer be allowed to carry and penalties could include fines and up to time in jail. Well he used his gun unlawfully time to do what you are mandated to do.
maybe i am wrong, because I am not one hundred percent certain how he obtained his title of " head of neighborhood security" I am only guessing that it was given to him by homeowners inside that community.... much different than just crowning yourself " King of America" ... but regardless, I would also assume that the head of neighborhood security would have the right, to confront someone they thought was acting in a suspicious manner. For instance, a church across the street from where I live had been broken into twice within a one month span, so automaticly whenever I noticed a car pulled around back, late at night, I would watch and try to see if I could see them doing anything wrong, and once even cranked up, and drove over to ask them why they were there, and explained that there had been alot of vandalsim and that nobody should be back there... I have that right, the right to protect and watch over myself, my neighbors and my community...and in no way does that give them a right to jump me, or beat me... but if they had, i would have had every right to shoot them.
Yes you do..Just like Tryvon has the right to walk down the street and not be questioned, threatened or SHOT
maybe i am wrong, because I am not one hundred percent certain how he obtained his title of " head of neighborhood security" I am only guessing that it was given to him by homeowners inside that community.... much different than just crowning yourself " King of America" ... but regardless, I would also assume that the head of neighborhood security would have the right, to confront someone they thought was acting in a suspicious manner. For instance, a church across the street from where I live had been broken into twice within a one month span, so automaticly whenever I noticed a car pulled around back, late at night, I would watch and try to see if I could see them doing anything wrong, and once even cranked up, and drove over to ask them why they were there, and explained that there had been alot of vandalsim and that nobody should be back there... I have that right, the right to protect and watch over myself, my neighbors and my community...and in no way does that give them a right to jump me, or beat me... but if they had, i would have had every right to shoot them.
Yes you do..Just like Tryvon has the right to walk down the street and not be questioned, threatened or SHOT
Not to mention my "white friend" which has no bearing what so ever brandished his firearm he had the right to carry because he thought his life was in danger, he did everything right when he brandished the firearm and he did not have to shoot anyone after he pulled out the gun. The police came by took him into custody and questioned people to find out what happened. In the end it was determined he had the right to brandish his weapon and he was set free. This did not take long, but he was detained until facts were gathered.
However in this case their is no mention of mr. zimmerman being detained after he shot someone in self defense. When this happens you still have to be taken into custody and evidence has to be gathered to determine whether your shooting was justified.
Was that done here??? Someone dropped the ball big fucking time on this BS.
Not to mention my "white friend" which has no bearing what so ever brandished his firearm he had the right to carry because he thought his life was in danger, he did everything right when he brandished the firearm and he did not have to shoot anyone after he pulled out the gun. The police came by took him into custody and questioned people to find out what happened. In the end it was determined he had the right to brandish his weapon and he was set free. This did not take long, but he was detained until facts were gathered.
However in this case their is no mention of mr. zimmerman being detained after he shot someone in self defense. When this happens you still have to be taken into custody and evidence has to be gathered to determine whether your shooting was justified.
Was that done here??? Someone dropped the ball big fucking time on this BS.
Notice how officers detained the minneapolis guy for shooting someone.
Mr. zimmerman being detained has not come up in any news story i've seen.
NO DETAINMENT whatsoever. that is fucking BS. A guy half way up the country shoots an armed robber and he is detained and facts are gathered and then he is let go. What is the special case here, because he is neighborhood watch? Is neighborhood watch now considered law enforcement?
Does 3. In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is
immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested
unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that
the force used was unlawful.
Apply to neighborhood watch members.
If the answer is no, this case should happen just live every other case where this happens. The shooter should be detained, they should determine if the use of force was necessary based on testimony and witness reports, also based on facts found at the crime scene. If they did all this they would easily be able to draw the line that shooting someone dead for punching you is not lawful, and that deadly force was not applicable in this situation. Yet none of this happened. I don't know how they do police work down in Miami but someone is in BIG F*KIN TROUBLE down there.
Someone has already stepped down from their job knowing the shit storm internal affairs is gonna have with this.
Notice how officers detained the minneapolis guy for shooting someone.
Mr. zimmerman being detained has not come up in any news story i've seen.
NO DETAINMENT whatsoever. that is fucking BS. A guy half way up the country shoots an armed robber and he is detained and facts are gathered and then he is let go. What is the special case here, because he is neighborhood watch? Is neighborhood watch now considered law enforcement?
Does 3. In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is
immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested
unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that
the force used was unlawful.
Apply to neighborhood watch members.
If the answer is no, this case should happen just live every other case where this happens. The shooter should be detained, they should determine if the use of force was necessary based on testimony and witness reports, also based on facts found at the crime scene. If they did all this they would easily be able to draw the line that shooting someone dead for punching you is not lawful, and that deadly force was not applicable in this situation. Yet none of this happened. I don't know how they do police work down in Miami but someone is in BIG F*KIN TROUBLE down there.
Someone has already stepped down from their job knowing the shit storm internal affairs is gonna have with this.
Now that the facts are starting to be leaked and more readily available, hopefully our fucked up society will forget this kid's color and realize Zimmerman should get the TIME Man of the Year award!
Boo hoo. Let's wear hooded sweatshirts to support some kid who probably thinks it's okay to disobey the law and hit people in the face.
I'm not happy this happened; but this shit happens EVER DAY!!!
Now that the facts are starting to be leaked and more readily available, hopefully our fucked up society will forget this kid's color and realize Zimmerman should get the TIME Man of the Year award!
Boo hoo. Let's wear hooded sweatshirts to support some kid who probably thinks it's okay to disobey the law and hit people in the face.
I'm not happy this happened; but this shit happens EVER DAY!!!
I don't know all the details...but shooting to kill someone that is weaponless is a cowardly act. Shoot the kid in the leg, he would go down...ridiculous.
I don't know all the details...but shooting to kill someone that is weaponless is a cowardly act. Shoot the kid in the leg, he would go down...ridiculous.
He should be charged with manslaughter. He was not defending himself at all. He caused the incident.
A teen with a hoodie was walking in a gated community after stopping at hte store. Zimmerman called the police and the police informed him to not approach the teen and leave him alone.
Zimmerman then started stalking the teen and following him. At some point Zimmerman got out of hte vehicle. Why? For what reason did he get out? He was carrying a gun and stalking his prey if you ask me.
For all you guys know the Martin felt like he was in danger after a car had been stalking and following him and then a large male gets out. He probably felt he was about to get abducted or something and a fight ensued. Next hting you know Zimmerman shoots the teen in the chest.
Fact is if Zimmerman doesnt stalk Martin and listens to police then this incident never occurs. And please tell me why a grown man with 100+ lbs on an unarmed teen sees it necessary to use a gun and shoot this teen.
Also add that the first police on scene who started questioning witnesses was a narcotics officer and not a homicide officer. They are 2 differently trained police. The head homicide investigator wanted to go ahead and charge Zimmerman with manslaughter but hte states office said there was not enough evidence. The states attorney office is only concerned with winning their cases.
Zimmerman in no way was using self defense as he was the aggressor. Anyone blaming the teen is unable to come to a valid conclusion. For all you guys know Martin was using self defense against a stalker trying to abduct and murder him. No one knows what happened and until all the facts come out no one will know.
But based on what has come out Zimmerman is the one at fault and responsible for the incident getting to the point it got to.
He should be charged with manslaughter. He was not defending himself at all. He caused the incident.
A teen with a hoodie was walking in a gated community after stopping at hte store. Zimmerman called the police and the police informed him to not approach the teen and leave him alone.
Zimmerman then started stalking the teen and following him. At some point Zimmerman got out of hte vehicle. Why? For what reason did he get out? He was carrying a gun and stalking his prey if you ask me.
For all you guys know the Martin felt like he was in danger after a car had been stalking and following him and then a large male gets out. He probably felt he was about to get abducted or something and a fight ensued. Next hting you know Zimmerman shoots the teen in the chest.
Fact is if Zimmerman doesnt stalk Martin and listens to police then this incident never occurs. And please tell me why a grown man with 100+ lbs on an unarmed teen sees it necessary to use a gun and shoot this teen.
Also add that the first police on scene who started questioning witnesses was a narcotics officer and not a homicide officer. They are 2 differently trained police. The head homicide investigator wanted to go ahead and charge Zimmerman with manslaughter but hte states office said there was not enough evidence. The states attorney office is only concerned with winning their cases.
Zimmerman in no way was using self defense as he was the aggressor. Anyone blaming the teen is unable to come to a valid conclusion. For all you guys know Martin was using self defense against a stalker trying to abduct and murder him. No one knows what happened and until all the facts come out no one will know.
But based on what has come out Zimmerman is the one at fault and responsible for the incident getting to the point it got to.
His dad must have had a hella of a lot of pull to get him off of a felony assault on a police officer.You made sure to mention it was against a BLACK police officer so maybe the judge that closed the case is just as racist as you're portraying George to be? Or maybe he didn't do it? You wish to paint Trevyon as an innocent little child ignoring his past, but condemn a man trying to protect his neighborhood as a felon with an itchy trigger finger? It seams like Trevyon just picked the wrong time to be an aggressor. He could have just kept walking and gone home, but he chose to be a bad-ass and unfortunately paid his life for it.
I'm surprised the anti-gun activists hasn't showed up in this case yet.
His dad must have had a hella of a lot of pull to get him off of a felony assault on a police officer.You made sure to mention it was against a BLACK police officer so maybe the judge that closed the case is just as racist as you're portraying George to be? Or maybe he didn't do it? You wish to paint Trevyon as an innocent little child ignoring his past, but condemn a man trying to protect his neighborhood as a felon with an itchy trigger finger? It seams like Trevyon just picked the wrong time to be an aggressor. He could have just kept walking and gone home, but he chose to be a bad-ass and unfortunately paid his life for it.
I'm surprised the anti-gun activists hasn't showed up in this case yet.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.