Showing posts with label trayvon martin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label trayvon martin. Show all posts

Thursday, August 22, 2013

Stunning New Ad Against Stand Your Ground Laws

 photo coalitiontostopgunviolence.gif

Previous Posts:
Marching for Trayvon to Change Stand Your Ground Laws
Snark in Pictures - George Zimmerman Found Not Guilty
Florida Gun Owners are NOT Freelance Cops

This is a shocking new public service announcement from the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence based on the shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman in Florida. One reason it is so chilling is that it accurately recreates the night of the shooting through the use of witness testimony and actual 911 recordings.

My heart nearly stopped when the gun went off.


Sunday, July 21, 2013

Marching for Trayvon Martin ~ Change the Stand Your Ground Laws

 photo b2656986-ba88-462d-8887-e22856dab529.jpg

source: @urbansoldier33 in Savannah, GA

This weekend, thousands of people in 100 cities are marching or rallying in memory of Trayvon Martin. And on Friday, President Obama made an impromptu, historic and heartfelt speech about race relations in America.












































And the Children Shall Lead Them

 photo 4671ed1c-c847-4e96-9eed-406489e62485.jpg

After the sad week we've had - with the unjust verdict of the Zimmerman Trial and grief for Trayvon Martin - this video of innocent kids without prejudice is a breath of fresh air. And it should give everyone hope for the future because the kids raised today understand the global community differently than any generation. And they are nearly colorblind and vastly more open-minded.

Forward.


Friday, July 20, 2012

Zimmerman Sees God's Plan in Murder of Trayvon Martin



Photobucket


George Zimmerman told Sean Hannity that he thinks the shooting of Trayvon Martin is part of God's Plan, so he wouldn't go back and do anything differently. Zimmerman was was released on $1 million bond earlier in July.

Via Transcript from Fox News
HANNITY: Is there anything you regret? Do you regret getting out of the car to follow Trayvon that night?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.


HANNITY: Do you regret that you had a gun that night?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

HANNITY: Do you feel you wouldn't be here for this interview if you didn't have that gun?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

HANNITY: You feel you would not be here?

ZIMMERMAN: I feel it was all God's plan and for me to second guess it or judge it --

Barabara Walters was offered the interview, and even flew to Florida to speak to Zimmerman, but at the last minute he changed the terms:
Via Huffington Post
When Walters and her team arrived in Florida, she said that Zimmerman came in dressed in a t-shirt, rather than a suit. "That should have been my first clue," she said.
According to Walters, Zimmerman said that the plans had changed, and he was refusing to do the interview unless ABC granted him one request. Walters refused to confirm that he had requested a month-long stay in a hotel. "It was a condition that, being a member of ABC News, I was unable to grant," she said.
. . . The drama took a bizarre twist when Walters announced that Zimmerman wanted to call into the show to speak to Walters. "He wouldn't do the interview, but now he has something to say," she said, later adding, "This has been an interesting day, to say the least."
She then pointedly refused to put him on air. "Mr. Zimmerman, if you could not do the interview yesterday, I don’t think we should do a quick one today," she said. "In the future if you feel differently, we will consider it.”





Several attorneys told the Orlando Sentinal that the interview was probably a mistake:
WOFL-Channel 35 legal analyst Diana Tennis. “Mark O’Mara looked unhappy through most of that interview, and how he did not leap out of his chair and throw himself on his client at that moment, I don’t know,” Tennis said. “Just terrible, terrible, unfortunate judgment in the moment,” she added.

WOFL legal analyst Aramis Ayala saw the interview as a gift to the prosecution. “They do have a gift with a red bow on top of it to address his credibility,” she said.

WFTV-Channel 9’s Bill Sheaffer predicted that prosecutors will be prepared to cross examine Zimmerman about statements in the interview. Sheaffer added that Zimmerman’s lack of regret may hurt the shooter the most. “One may conclude from those statements that there is no remorse on the part of Mr. Zimmerman,” Sheaffer said.

On CNN, Sunny Hostin said the interview was very unusual for someone facing second-degree murder. “There’s a lot of objective evidence that, quite frankly, contradicts a lot of the things he said to the police,” she said. ‘I never think it’s a good idea for a defendant to use a strategy giving media interviews. It’s always a bad idea.”

“In Session” correspondent Jean Casarez, also talking to CNN, said it was “amazing” that Zimmerman did the interview. “The credibility of George Zimmerman is truly the entire case,” she said.

Casarez said that Zimmerman’s version of being injured by Martin might help the defense case. She added, however, that Zimmerman’s inconsistencies will determine whether he’s believed or not.

Friday, June 22, 2012

Zimmerman Reenactment of Trayvon Martin's Killing

Photobucket


You can judge the videos below for yourselves, but in my opinion George freely admits that he continued to follow Trayvon Martin after he was told to stop by the dispatcher, even though he says it was to get the "address for the police." Okay, so he was, indeed, following Trayvon to see where he lived, else how would he get the address? It's all semantic and rationalized in George's mind because he is lying about his real intent, which was to "shoot a goon" or whatever. He had a gun in his pocket and was itching to use it on someone he saw as a threat.

There wouldn't have been any physical fight or tussle in the grass if Zimmerman hadn't pursued this boy, who was minding his own business. Aren't all children in this country taught by their parents and schools to fight back if someone attacks them? Come on . . .

New York Times Story:

A collection of audiotapes, a videotape and a signed statement by Mr. Zimmerman were released on Thursday by his legal team, allowing the public to hear for the first time Mr. Zimmerman’s words to the police over the course of several days of official interviews.

. . . the extended conversations between Mr. Zimmerman and the Sanford police also show that detectives, particularly the lead investigator, Chris Serino, raised questions about parts of Mr. Zimmerman’s version of events. The police expressed puzzlement over inconsistencies or hard-to-explain moments in his statements.

Why wasn’t Mr. Zimmerman’s head more profoundly injured from repeated slams to the pavement, Mr. Serino asked. Why did Mr. Martin have only one wound to his hand, he asked. Why did Mr. Zimmerman, who said he was too afraid to roll down his car window when Mr. Martin approached, then get out of the car to follow him, he asked.

And what provoked Mr. Martin’s anger?

“What if, in his mind’s eye, which I can’t get into because he has passed, he perceives you as a threat,” Mr. Serino said, drawing no answer from Mr. Zimmerman. “He perceived you as a threat; he has every right to defend himself, especially if you reach into your pocket to grab your cellphone.”



Thursday, June 14, 2012

Trayvon Martin UpDate: Perjury, Evidence, and Gun Law Activism


Photobucket


Lots of news in the Trayvon Martin case recently.
George Zimmerman is back in jail because lied about how much money he had in the bank and received an unfairly low bond. Now his wife has been charged with perjury in the case, and Judge Lester is showing no sympathy. Story from The Washington Post
Records show that in the days before the bond hearing, Shellie Zimmerman transferred $74,000 in eight smaller amounts ranging from $7,500 to $9,990, from her husband’s credit union account to hers, according to an arrest affidavit. It also shows that $47,000 was transferred from George Zimmerman’s account to his sister’s in the days before the bond hearing. . . . The affidavit also said jail call records show that George Zimmerman instructed her to “pay off all the bills,” including an American Express and Sam’s Club card.
. . . In bringing a motion to have Zimmerman’s bond revoked lead prosecutor Bernie De la Rionda complained “This court was led to believe they didn’t have a single penny. It was misleading and I don’t know what words to use other than it was a blatant lie.”
The judge agreed and ordered Zimmerman returned to jail where he has been since turning himself in on June 3. He didn’t perjure himself, but Lester said he knew his wife was lying.
“Does your client get to sit there like a potted plant and lead the court down the primrose path? That’s the issue,” Lester said in revoking Zimmerman’s bond. “He can’t sit back and obtain the benefit of a lower bond based upon those material falsehoods.”

This week, Judge Lester also ruled to release evidence including Trayvon's autopsy results. The only thing he is holding back are the names and addresses of witnesses.
Via The Grio
In his order, Judge Kenneth Lester ordered a significant amount of information released to the public, including:
- Zimmerman’s statements to police in the aftermath of the shooting.
- The results of a voice “stress test” conducted on Zimmerman.
- The full statement by “witness 9,” a woman who called police after the shooting and alluded to Zimmerman and his family “hating black people” and to issues of character that she said included something Zimmerman “did to her.” The woman, who sounded shaken and did not want the officer who took her statement to use her name, will not be named in the release.
- The crime scene photos from the night of February 26th when Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin to death, except for those photos showing Martin’s body.
- All emails to Sanford police related to the case, which are deemed to be public record under Florida’s liberal “sunshine laws.”

And Trayvon's father, Tracy Martin, has filmed a Father's Day Message about getting "Stand Your Ground" laws repealed in other states:

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Zimmerman Makes Bail and Gets the Hell out of Florida (because there are scary people with guns who might decide to shoot him - how ironic is that?)




George Zimmerman, accused killer of Trayvon Martin, made bail and now he's probably fled the state of Florida. That's okay - stay alive, George. We want you to stand trial and let the truth of that night come out.
From the AP
Even though authorities can pinpoint Zimmerman's location with a GPS ankle bracelet, that he must wear round the clock, the public may not see him again for some time. Zimmerman has waived his appearance at his upcoming arraignment next month, so he can stay underground if he wants.
"He's doing well, he's very glad to be out, trying to get settled in, still worried about his safety, but, you know, talking to his family and feeling much better than being in" jail, Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O'Mara, said Monday night on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360.
O'Mara declined to say if Zimmerman was in Florida, only saying his client will travel to several locations for his safety.
Other News related to Trayvon Martin:
Florida Case File of George Zimmerman 

Chief Bill Lee Resigns from Sanford Police Dept
But . . .  
Sanford Commission Denies Police Chief's Resignation
Because he has two friends on the Commission who think he is a "hero." 
State Attorney Norm Wolfinger Not Seeking Re-Election He wants to "spend more time with the family" ~ which is public figure code for "I ruined my career by not charging a vigilante in the obvious and stupid murder of a teenage boy armed with iced tea and skittles."

Monday, April 23, 2012

Insidious ALEC Draws More Fire



Photobucket 
Source: Common Cause


From Bloomberg
Common Cause, a Washington-based political ethics watchdog group, today filed a complaint accusing the American Legislative Exchange Council of violating its tax-exempt status by lobbying state legislators.The filing asks the Internal Revenue Service to force ALEC to pay back taxes and penalties.

“ALEC is a corporate lobby front group masquerading as a public charity,” Common Cause President Bob Edgar, a former Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania, said in a statement announcing the complaint. “It tells the IRS in its tax returns that it does no lobbying, yet it exists to pass profit-driven legislation in state houses all over the country that benefits its corporate members.”
By definiton, the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, which was founded in 1973, is supposed to be a registered Non-Profit Group that idealistically brings together business and politics in a productive way. In reality, ALEC has literally written much of the Republican legislation passed in this country, such as the NRA-backed Stand Your Ground laws, as well as new strict rules passed in Florida, Tennessee, Arizona and elsewhere that require even long-time voters to produce a picture ID. At least 2000 members of ALEC are elected politicians in State Legislatures so obviously Corporations are paying for access to those members when they join. When a group "sells" access to a bunch of politicians, we have what is known as "lobbying." That's not illegal, but it also doesn't deserve tax-exempt status from the IRS.

You can read the complete IRS complaint filed by Common Cause Here.
ALEC's primary, if not sole objective is to "influence legislation." Its bylaws state that its purpose is to "formulate legislative action programs," "disseminate model legislation and promote the introduction of companion bills in Congress and state legislatures," and "[e]establish a clearinghouse for bills at the state level, and provide for a bill exchange program." [1] As recently as April 11, 2012, ALEC boasted that "for years, ALEC has partnered with legislators to research and develop better, more effective ... legislation. [2] Notwithstanding these claims, however, ALEC has reported "for years" to the IRS that it has not spent a single penny on lobbying or attempting to influence legislation. These tax returns are patently false.
ALEC is a de facto organization of corporations, which have veto power over any ALEC legislation, and which pay enormous sums of money for the privilege of lobbying ALEC's legislator-members (who pay nominal dues of $50 per year). ALEC spends its resources enabling its corporate members to communicate their desired legislative outcomes to state lawmakers, publicly brags that it "partner]s]" with legislators to pass the so-called "free enterprise" corporate-drafted bills into law, but disclaims in its IRS 501(c)(3) filings that it spends resources on attempting to influence legislation. ALEC is a corporate lobbying group masquerading as a public charity.

The ALEC website also includes this brag about Legislative influence that seems to be admittance of guilt:
To date, ALEC’s Task Forces have considered, written and approved hundreds of model bills on a wide range of issues, model legislation that will frame the debate today and far into the future. Each year, close to 1,000 bills, based at least in part on ALEC Model Legislation, are introduced in the states. Of these, an average of 20 percent become law.

 Time Magazine's Swampland Blog has a great description of how ALEC works with State Legislatures:
For a modest membership fee, conservative legislators gain access to the group’s resources. Think of ALEC’s prepackaged and prelawyered legislation as Swanson TV dinners: all you need is a majority vote to reheat it, and it’s ready to serve. The result: similarly flavored bills in statehouses across the country.

Since the Trayvon Martin shooting highlighted the sketchy nature of "Stand Your Ground" laws as well as the possible racist connotations for the Voting restrictions and the strange legislative attacks on women, many large corporate sponsors such as Wendy's, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Mars Candy, Intuit, McDonald's, and The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have severed ties with ALEC. Update: And just today, giant Proctor and Gamble pulled out. See the List of Remaining Corporate ALEC Sponsors on Sourcewatch. To send a message to remaining sponsors that they should break their connections with ALEC Click Here.

The pressure is working because last week ALEC disbanded its social-issues wing to concentrate on economic issues. But many groups say that is not enough. From CBS News
"ALEC's latest statement is nothing more than a PR stunt aimed at diverting attention from its agenda, which has done serious damage to our communities," ColorOfChange Executive Director Rashad Robinson said in a statement.
. . . "This year, because of ALEC, millions of voters who had been eligible to vote in 2008 will be denied access to the ballot box," NAACP President Benjamin Jealous said in a statement. "We may never know how many families will be denied justice because of the 'stand your ground' laws that continue to put communities in danger, or how many families will be torn apart under repressive anti-immigrant laws."

The only possible way that ALEC might keep it's non-profit status is because it defines itself as a "bipartisan" organization, yet the vast majority of bills it helps to pass favor the conservative agenda.Therefore, organizations such as Bold Progressives are calling for Democrats to "Dump ALEC" - story from Alternet:
"It's a sham to project that [ALEC] is bipartisan in nature. And no Democrat should give aid and comfort to this organization by participating in it, to promote its alleged 'bipartisanship,'" said New York State Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries. "It is very important that members of the Democratic Party, who traditionally have stood for enfranchising voters and have stood for promoting the rights to organize and for sensible gun laws, should withdraw from an organization that pushes an agenda that is exactly the opposite."
South Dakota State Sen. Angie Buhl added, "At the end of the day, the Democratic Party is big and diverse, but we've always been about standing up for middle- and working-class families, not for corporations. ALEC is the antithesis of what we stand for as Democrats. Dozens of companies like Kraft and Coca-Cola have already dumped ALEC, and it's time for Democrats to do the same."

Thursday, April 12, 2012

Prosecutor Angela Corey Stands Her Ground for Victim Trayvon Martin



Photobucket

State Prosecutor Angela Corey announced yesterday that George Zimmerman will be charged in the death of Florida teenager, Trayvon Martin. It's been a very long 45 days, and I'm glad the waiting is over for the sake of the entire country. In choosing a charge of Second Degree Murder, Corey is taking a strong stance against Florida's sketchy "Stand Your Ground" Law, which enables nearly anyone to claim self-defense when a shooting occurs.

 Zimmerman's original attorneys quit on Tuesday in a bizarre public press conference. His new counsel, Mark O'Mara says that his client will plead Not Guilty to the charges, (Source: WFTV News)

Orlando Sentinal: Key Quotes, Questions and Answers 
CNN: What Happens Now that Zimmerman has been Charged?

"This case is like many of the shooting deaths we've had in our circuit. If Stand Your Ground becomes an issue, we fight it, if we believe it is the right thing to do."
 Transcript of Corey's Speech on Scribd
 


Saturday, March 31, 2012

Florida Gun Owners Are Not Free-Lance Cops

Photobucket
There are still many unanswered questions about the Trayvon Martin killing in Florida, but one fact is clear: George Zimmerman had a concealed weapon as he went about his so-called "duties" as a "neighborhood watchman." While the 911 tapes seem to prove that Zimmerman was in effect stalking Trayvon while the teenager was merely walking home from the store, many gun-rights advocates are saying loudly and proudly that Zimmerman was well within his rights to feel threatened and to use the gun any way he sought fit to defend himself. That's because of the rather vague "Stand Your Ground Law" in Florida that allows just about anyone to claim self-defense in almost any situation.

Gun Advocates also like to throw around the term "castle doctrine" as justification because Zimmerman felt he was protecting his neighbor's homes because there had been a spate of burglaries. The irony is that Trayvon was living there in that neighborhood with his father and had just as much right to be there as Zimmerman, who may not have lived in that particular development anyway. There is absolutely no evidence that Trayvon was involved in any robberies or that he had the intention of doing anything illegal. Also, there was no "castle" to protect because that would only apply if Zimmerman was in his own home or was protecting someone else from bodily harm. If he had stayed in his car as the 911 dispatcher suggested, and Trayvon had somehow gotten into his car with him, then the castle doctrine would have applied. But guess what? Zimmerman got out of the car! He told the dispatcher that Trayvon was "getting away." But the rules of handguns in Florida prohibit chasing someone with a handgun - that is not part of the castle doctrine.

From The Florida Division of Licensing:

 Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?
A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:
* Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm; 
* Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.

Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, manslaughter, or worse.
Example of the kind of attack that will not justify defending yourself with deadly force: Two neighbors got into a fight, and one of them tried to hit the other by swinging a garden hose. The neighbor who was being attacked with the hose shot the other in the chest. The court upheld his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm, because an attack with a garden hose is not the kind of violent assault that justifies responding with deadly force.

Q. What if someone uses threatening language to me so that I am afraid for my life or safety? 
A. Verbal threats are not enough to justify the use of deadly force. There must be an overt act by the person which indicates that he immediately intends to carry out the threat. The person threatened must reasonably believe that he will be killed or suffer serious bodily harm if he does not immediately take the life of his adversary.

Q. What if someone is attacking me in my own home?
A. The courts have created an exception to the duty to retreat called the “castle doctrine.” Under the castle doctrine, you need not retreat from your own home to avoid using deadly force against an assailant. The castle doctrine applies if you are attacked in your own home by an intruder.

Q. What if I am in my place of business and someone comes in to rob me? Do I have to retreat before using deadly force?
A. The castle doctrine also applies when you are in your place of business. If you are in danger of death or great bodily harm or you are trying to prevent a forcible felony, you do not have to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense.

Q. What if I point my handgun at someone but don't use it?
A. Never display a handgun to gain "leverage" in an argument. Threatening someone verbally while possessing a handgun, even licensed, will land you in jail for three years. Even if the gun is broken or you don't have bullets, you will receive the mandatory three-year sentence if convicted. The law does not allow any possibility of getting out of jail early.

Example: In a 1987 case, a woman refused to pay an automobile mechanic who she thought did a poor job repairing her car. They argued about it, and the mechanic removed the radiator hose from the car so she couldn't drive it away. She reached into her purse, pulled out an unloaded gun, and threatened to kill the mechanic if he touched her car again. The mechanic grabbed the gun and called the police.
The woman was convicted of aggravated assault with a firearm and sentenced to serve a mandatory three-year prison term. The fact that the gun was not loaded was irrelevant. Even though she was the mother of three dependent children and had no prior criminal record, the statute does not allow for parole. Her only recourse was to seek clemency from the Governor.

Q. When can I use deadly force in the defense of another person?
A. If you see someone who is being attacked, you can use deadly force to defend him/her if the circumstances would justify that person's use of deadly force in his/her own defense. In other words, you "stand in the shoes" of the person being attacked.

Q. What if I see a crime being committed?
A. A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman. But, as stated earlier, deadly force is justified if you are trying to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. The use of deadly force must be absolutely necessary to prevent the crime. Also, if the criminal runs away, you cannot use deadly force to stop him, because you would no longer be "preventing" a crime. If use of deadly force is not necessary, or you use deadly force after the crime has stopped, you could be convicted of manslaughter.

Q. If I get a license to carry a concealed weapon, can I carry it anywhere?
A. No. To get a license you must sign an oath that you have read and understand the Jack Hagler Self-defense Act (Section 790.06, Florida Statutes). That statute lists several places where you may not carry a concealed weapon. You should read subsection 12 for a complete list, but some examples are football, baseball, and basketball games (college or professional) and bars.


A cool head and even temper can keep handgun carriers out of trouble. You should never carry a gun into a situation where you might get angry.

And there you have it ~ from the people in Florida who license handguns.