Fox News Readers: Trayvon Martin A ‘Little Thug Ghetto Monkey.’

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

The 2nd Amendment does protect the right of gun ownership, but the legal question for SCOTUS is whether that right is absolute. Looking at the 1st Amendment, it is obvious that our right to free speech is NOT absolute. You can't yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theater and be immune to legal consequences on the defense that you were expressing your right to free speech. The 2nd Amendment is no different. That is why each state gun laws vary greatly. NRA knows this and that is why they have never legally challenged state gun laws other than outright ban, because it is far more effective for them to argue their case against any and all gun laws in the court of public opinion than have SCOTUS b!tch slap them should the NRA challenge a law, like California requiring that you must keep a gun locked up and unloaded when having it in your vehicle. I personally think that law is over-reaching, but it is probably constitutional, because if the NRA thought they'd have a good chance at SCOTUS striking it down or any other state laws similar, they would do so in a heart beat.

These fairly new laws in certain states that give citizens more precedent to take lethal action will eventually be challenged. Either that, or wrongful death lawsuits will become the main counter to protect ordinary citizens from the danger of vigilantism.

I think a time will come soon when SCOTUS rules that a state must allow people to carry their firearms with them under reasonable conditions. I expect there will be a requirement that states have a "shall issue" law OR allow open carry.

[slim 1,514]

Slim, is there anything wrong with me 'patrolling the hood'....Confronting/questioning/harassing a lone teenager.....When lone teenager gets upset and is willing to fight me...I put a bullet in his head and kill him because I feel threatened.

There's nothing wrong with that.

This has to at least be disorderly conduct. Maybe 30 days in jail and a $50 fine?

Nope. Nothing at all. The citizen on neighborhood watch acted in accordance with the law. He felt threatened and he defended himself. The law is very clear on those points and he acted accordingly.

Is your problem with the law? Or are you actually implying that 6'+ teenagers from urban areas should be allowed to attack 5'2" citizens in gated communities and when they defend themselves THEY get prosecuted? I doubt that's what you're saying, is it?

[Leatherneck 693]

The dispatcher didn't tell him not to follow the kid, he said, "We don't need you to do that."

I listened to the tape again, you quote the dispatcher exactly. Zimmerman was within his rights to follow -- but getting out of his vehicle to confront that kid was bad judgement, considering the cops were on the way. I stipulate for the record -- Zimmerman had a legal right to defend himself. My entire point is and what I question about Zimmerman -- how his actions contributed to the shooting.

The police conducted an investigation. There were no questions.

Why is this questionable? Oh, that's right. It's because Americans are racist. *But only in certain circumstances.

It's questionable because the public did not have the same facts early on as law enforcement knew them to be. Now the facts according to the police report are coming out, revealing a witness who's statements match the physical evidence and the physical condition of Zimmerman.

I don't question Zimmerman's legal right to self-defense -- however, I question his bad judgement that contributed to shooting.

Not one of my comments inferred or mentioned race as an issue in this case -- I personally believe the race card is a card best left at the bottom of the deck, unless race/racism is explicit, supported by evidence and not mere speculation.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Leatherneck

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Jeb Bush: Self-defense doesn't cover teen's death

(AP) -- ARLINGTON, Texas (AP) -- Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush says the "Stand Your Ground" law he signed shouldn't protect a neighborhood watch captain who hasn't been arrested in the shooting death of an unarmed teen.

He told reporters..that the Florida law doesn't apply in the incident that left 17-year-old Trayvon Martin dead.

The Dallas Morning News reports that Bush, who signed the law in 2005, calls Martin's death a tragedy.

http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=734177#.T25pqjFumt8

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

So you have stopped posting about Solar energy since the site you posted described burning trees as "solar energey", Ok I understand why you would not post that stuff anymore.

But this? I mean you are posting comments from readers on a blog site? Seriously? You really DO have a problem with free speech.

The shooting in Florida will be investigated under the laws of the State of Florida and if that does not satisfy the politically correct crowd, the man will be investigated under the Federal laws for Civil Rights violations.

I trust our court system and will stand with their decision. You?

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Racism doesn't appear to be a major factor in this incident, however the comments in the OP certainly are, and some VJ defenders of the shooter appear the be skirting racism as well.

I agree with Leatherneck, the shooter used piss poor judgment and caused the deadly altercation with his actions. The kid probably helped the escalation but it would not have happened had Zimmerman used a bit better judgment. That abrogates self defense in my book. You can't start a fight, start to lose badly, then pull your gun and claim self defense.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think a time will come soon when SCOTUS rules that a state must allow people to carry their firearms with them under reasonable conditions. I expect there will be a requirement that states have a "shall issue" law OR allow open carry.

I think you're right. I've noticed a lot of "No Guns Allowed" signs outside of establishments here in Arizona since they passed the concealed weapon carry law allowing anyone to carry a concealed gun without needing a permit. I would imagine most places will not want their patrons carrying a gun just as they have never wanted weapons of any sort in their places of establishment.

[MyLittlePony 340]

I hate guns and guns are a WMD to everyone.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I hate guns and guns are a WMD to everyone.

I love weapons. However, they are not toys, and not for everyday wear.

[luckytxn 2,264]

I hate guns and guns are a WMD to everyone.

Really? Please cite links and facts or this is a BS statement.

[natty bumppo 289]

I think you're right. I've noticed a lot of "No Guns Allowed" signs outside of establishments here in Arizona since they passed the concealed weapon carry law allowing anyone to carry a concealed gun without needing a permit. I would imagine most places will not want their patrons carrying a gun just as they have never wanted weapons of any sort in their places of establishment.

Stores are actually posting signs saying ...

"We are unarmed. Please do what ever you want to us and our customers"

There is an interesting twist to these postings. The establishment is declaring they are responsible for the customers safety. Any bad stuff goes down and they don't protect people ... well the lawyers will be visiting ...

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Stores are actually posting signs saying ...

"We are unarmed. Please do what ever you want to us and our customers"

There is an interesting twist to these postings. The establishment is declaring they are responsible for the customers safety. Any bad stuff goes down and they don't protect people ... well the lawyers will be visiting ...

Edited March 26, 2012 by ☼

[natty bumppo 289]

sorry ... appears my comment was a little over your head ....

[luckytxn 2,264]

Whoa.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Stores are actually posting signs saying ...

"We are unarmed. Please do what ever you want to us and our customers"

There is an interesting twist to these postings. The establishment is declaring they are responsible for the customers safety. Any bad stuff goes down and they don't protect people ... well the lawyers will be visiting ...

It's similar to those signs that say, "Use at your own risk," because the legal culpability of the establishment can't easily be set aside should a patron get hurt.

I'd like to see gun owners be required to carry liability insurance if we're going to grant them legal immunity from using lethal force. Anyone want to guess the lifetime cost of caring for a quadriplegic?