GoldenIsThyFame
Well-known member
- Messages
- 10,899
- Reaction score
- 789
George Zimmerman Trial
- Thread starter A Pac
- Start date
- Status
IrishJayhawk
Rock Chalk
- Messages
- 7,181
- Reaction score
- 464
The Florida bill explicitly states that there isn't a duty to retreat. Illinois doesn't mention it at all. I guess it would be up to courts to decide the difference. One site says courts have interpreted it as "a right to expansive self-defense."
The 24 States That Have Sweeping Self-Defense Laws Just Like Florida’s - ProPublica
Not sure what that means, exactly. Also not a lawyer. But both Weigel and the Daily Herald interpret the IL law as pretty much a Castle law.
phgreek
New member
- Messages
- 6,956
- Reaction score
- 433
I'm sold on evaluation...
I'm not sold on the functional differences and the intent of the IL legislation when it was enacted...the more I read the less likely I am to come to the conclusion the president saw these as separate. I still believe, at this point, he is riding a political wave, and may or may not have had a change of heart...but sees these things as enough alike they'd merit mention should he see fit to evaluate SYG....if he cared or thought hypocrisy mattered.
IrishJayhawk
Rock Chalk
- Messages
- 7,181
- Reaction score
- 464
Illinois legislators have continued to try to pass laws like Florida's. Would certainly imply that there are functional differences.
Illinois Lawmaker Pushes For ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law « CBS Chicago
Another source:
Are you living in a 'Stand Your Ground' state? | HLNtv.com
From an "Illinois Lawyer Finder" web page:
Self-Defense | Illinois Stand-Your-Ground Law | Illinois Legal FAQs
Illinois Lawmaker Pushes For ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law « CBS Chicago
Another source:
Are you living in a 'Stand Your Ground' state? | HLNtv.com
From an "Illinois Lawyer Finder" web page:
Self-Defense | Illinois Stand-Your-Ground Law | Illinois Legal FAQs
Last edited:
IrishJayhawk
Rock Chalk
- Messages
- 7,181
- Reaction score
- 464
LoveThee
New member
- Messages
- 527
- Reaction score
- 52
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Police say George Zimmerman emerged from hiding and helped rescue someone trapped in overturned truck - <a href="https://twitter.com/ABC">@ABC</a> <a href="http://t.co/FoeZlsOXsg">http://t.co/FoeZlsOXsg</a></p>— Breaking News (@BreakingNews) <a href="https://twitter.com/BreakingNews/statuses/359352751643303936">July 22, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Ndaccountant
Old Hoss
- Messages
- 8,370
- Reaction score
- 5,771
I think it is likely that Obama simply forgot about what he did in Illinois. This occurred many years ago and he has kind of had a lot on his mind since passing that. So, I will give him a pass if he could not recall that off hand.
What I would have a problem with is if he cannot rationalize in a coherent fashion, why the laws should be repealed in Florida and not Illinois. I assume that to be his view since I doubt he has the appetite to repeal a law he put into place (I am sure there is a health care punch line here).
I am skeptic that we will hear a peep about it directly from Obama, so this is probably all for not anyway.
IrishJayhawk
Rock Chalk
- Messages
- 7,181
- Reaction score
- 464
He also hasn't actually called for a repeal. He said:
"If Trayvon Martin was of age and was armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? If the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, then it seems to me that we should examine those laws."
I think you're probably right that he's going to be pretty silent on the issue moving forward.
Do you know what the Glass-Steagall Act was and which president repealed it?
Ndaccountant
Old Hoss
- Messages
- 8,370
- Reaction score
- 5,771
Ok, repeal or not, I would still expect him to discuss about why the law he created in Illinois is different or if that needs to be reassessed. Either way, like you, I am confident he is done talking about it.
notredomer23
Staph Member
- Messages
- 17,636
- Reaction score
- 17,563
Ndaccountant
Old Hoss
- Messages
- 8,370
- Reaction score
- 5,771
My bet is that he called 911, didn't like the response time and decided to act on his own.
adsnorri
New member
- Messages
- 337
- Reaction score
- 33
Thanks Irish Jayhawk for doing the leg work on the differences in the state laws.
It's a sad story that we are worried about all this and that people's graces and perceptions are not more positive and assumptive of goodwill. We are a very paranoid and sensitive society and are willing to jump all over someone for a simple mistake of their own or someone that looks like them in the past. It really is time to move forward as humans and try to do good and understand each other. More listening and less talking. If George would have assumed TM was simply lost and offered to help him or give him directions...this story is nothing. Maybe in our own daily lives, we can assume positive a little more and that will be what we receive. Of course there are some bad people, but we need to kill them off with good deeds and teach their children how to do the same. Just my two cents.
It's a sad story that we are worried about all this and that people's graces and perceptions are not more positive and assumptive of goodwill. We are a very paranoid and sensitive society and are willing to jump all over someone for a simple mistake of their own or someone that looks like them in the past. It really is time to move forward as humans and try to do good and understand each other. More listening and less talking. If George would have assumed TM was simply lost and offered to help him or give him directions...this story is nothing. Maybe in our own daily lives, we can assume positive a little more and that will be what we receive. Of course there are some bad people, but we need to kill them off with good deeds and teach their children how to do the same. Just my two cents.
phgreek
New member
- Messages
- 6,956
- Reaction score
- 433
This article would imply that...for sure. In some ways...It seems like it is from a time before the changes were put in place and contemporaneous to Mr. Obama's time in IL.
“If we say it is legal to use a weapon and it’s legal to carry a weapon, and if it’s legal to use force with that weapon, we should protect that, and that they should know that they will be OK in doing that if they do it properly,” Morthland said."
This makes my head hurt...when protecting your person...the Illinois law already reads no civil or criminal issues:
720 ILCS 5/7-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-1)
7 Sec. 7-1. Use of force in defense of person.
8 (a) A person is justified in the use of force against
9 another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that
10 such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against
11 such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is
12 justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to
13 cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes
14 that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great
15 bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a
16 forcible felony.
17 (b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force
18 justified under this Section give rise to any claim or
19 liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within
20 the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7-4 of this
21 Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such
22 a person, against the person or estate of the person using such
23 justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or
24 wanton misconduct. 25 (Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)
This is where it gets super nuts for me....
"Illinois has “Castle doctrine” laws, in which the use of deadly force in self-defense is restricted to one’s home."
"Dwelling" is covered under Ch. 38, par. 7-2...different paragraph with the prohibitions he alludes to...WTF is patagraph 1 for then???
This article says changes are afoot that look to me like they exist in the law today...again clearly I'm missing something...
but the words I see seem to allow for you to protect yourself. They were expanded to be more like SYG when Mr. Obama was present, even if the words SYG are not used. The intent here was protection of person, and it appears to not dictate retreat by the inclusion of reference to "felony" acts. The jury is still out for me as I find clarification...which I did not find in this article....
...I loved this part of the article...
"The author of the Florida “Stand Your Ground Law,” former Rep. Durell Peaden (R-Crestview), told CBS News that the gunman in the Trayvon Martin case, neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman, would not be protected under his law."
...which is why it was never asserted as a defense...and had nothing to do with Zimmerman/Martin...yet Zimmerman/Martin fueled the discourse on SYG...mmhmm....its really whatever inflames the masses...we'll use that.
But now that we've used a tragedy (school of Rahm) to escalate this, lets look at it...I get how that happens to a president, and not because of his actions...although he indeed contributed. At this point it doesn't matter how the horse got out...you gotta deal with it. Again its how.
...I think Mr. Obama needs to be the President of the United States. He needs to keep his rhetoric out of state level cases. In points in time where he changes his mind on policies, he needs to articulate the basis. When a false issue is raised like SYG as related to Zimmerman/Martin...If he wants to, or is forced to look at it, he needs to acknowledge the pretenses as false but the issue serious enough to require thought and inspection (EDIT: I need to give him some credit..he kinda did that). THATS what I expect. ...just looking for basic, inclusive, responsible leadership here, and his words and actions as of late seem not to be providing it...IMHO.
Last edited:
irishpat183
Banned
- Messages
- 5,625
- Reaction score
- 504
The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : How a Miami School Crime Cover-Up Policy Led to Trayvon Martin's Death
GREAT piece...Again, I think the biggest failures in this case are Trayvon's parents or the school systems.
GREAT piece...Again, I think the biggest failures in this case are Trayvon's parents or the school systems.
B
Bogtrotter07
Guest
Golden_Domer
Member
- Messages
- 200
- Reaction score
- 24
A must watch video. "Rachel Profiling":
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/BhgLtjjvHtQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
tl;dw: Rachel Jeantel agrees that Trayvon attacked first, doesn't think Zimmerman approached TM w/ his gun out, and thinks GZ should have just taken his "whoop a$$." Oh, and apparently "cracka" doesn't mean white person, it means someone acting like a police/security guard.
/thread
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/BhgLtjjvHtQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
tl;dw: Rachel Jeantel agrees that Trayvon attacked first, doesn't think Zimmerman approached TM w/ his gun out, and thinks GZ should have just taken his "whoop a$$." Oh, and apparently "cracka" doesn't mean white person, it means someone acting like a police/security guard.
/thread
Last edited:
B
Bogtrotter07
Guest
Parents are always the ones that have to be on the line. That is it. They, need to stand their ground, and do the right thing is far as their kids are concerned. Expecting anyone else to do so is nonsensical. The criminal justice system gets paid to manufacture criminals; they do not get paid to divert children from becoming children. The real money is in adjudicating and storing criminals. It is a bigger industry than automobiles or computers.
Schools. You may get a few dedicated teachers that go out of their way, or set a life changing example, but it is unfair to expect our schools to be able to make a difference in the behavior of our children. If we can't. Hell, the schools cannot even keep up with the increasing standards of the requirements legislators are already passing to keep teachers from teaching anything meaningful. (These standards do however currently make the legislators look good.)
Saying that Trayvon would have been steered clear of that night if he had been arrested earlier is in my opinion racist and it is conflation. What Trayvon did or didn't do before that nigh has nothing to do with him being shot to death. Period.
For all you know, the parents were working magic and they were separating him from his environment or his friends, who may have been the problem. You don't know what the status was. He was seventeen years old.
And finally, if you think the criminal justice system works for young kids, let alone young kids of color, go back to that part about manufacturing inmates. The reason the criminal justice system has any effectiveness with white kids is that it has to scare them, then kick them out. If the criminal justice system worked the same way with whites as blacks, it would be voted out of existence. Simply.
connor_in
Oh Yeeaah!!!
- Messages
- 11,433
- Reaction score
- 1,006
irishpat183
Banned
- Messages
- 5,625
- Reaction score
- 504
What? How is it racist if he actually committed the crime? They author is simply pointin out that TM didn't belong in that situation in the first place.
And while yes, the parents are the ones responsible...if a teenager breaks the law, he should be charged. Not just brushed under the rug to make a poltical statement
NDFan4Life
Forum Regular
- Messages
- 1,967
- Reaction score
- 254
Rhetoric, race and reality in America
By David A. Lehrer and Joe R. Hicks
July 21, 2013, 4:00 p.m.
During the week since the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the death of Trayvon Martin, the responses to the tragic event, the trial and the verdict have been predictable.
That an unarmed youth lost his life and the perpetrator of the act walked free catalyzed angry and sometimes violent street protests. However unfortunate, that is hardly surprising. The legal nuances of second-degree murder, manslaughter, evidentiary rules and jurors' decisions don't often penetrate through the fog of the 24/7 news cycle. Many people inevitably respond to headlines and passion. There also have been some reasonable discussions of the propriety and impact of "stand your ground" laws and whether Florida's played a role in the verdict.
What isn't reasonable or appropriate is the hysterical response of some civil rights leaders and advocates who have peddled a dishonest and hyperbolic analysis of the tragedy. Unfortunately, their message has been repeated ad nauseam and has become the settled wisdom for some: Young black males are at physical risk in this country, and it is the bigotry of whites that has put a target on their backs.
Jesse Jackson said last year that blacks were "under attack.… Targeting, arresting, convicting blacks and ultimately killing us is big business." Last week he said, "A wave of nameless fear is gripping our country." The musings of Martin Luther King III and the Rev. Al Sharpton echoing the same theme — America is a dangerous place for young black males — have been widely reported. Benjamin Jealous of the NAACP warned that black youth be advised on how to dress and talk, and talked of how hard it is to tell them to be "timid about asserting" their freedom. Tavis Smiley opined that the verdict was "just another piece of evidence of the incontrovertible contempt that this nation often shows and displays for black men."
We received a newsletter from an African American civil rights lawyer who wrote about walking into a convenience store last Saturday night: "Wow. All these people have heard the verdict. Do they now think that I am fair game? Will someone hurt me now that they know that Zimmerman walked?"
What is so insidious about this message of victimhood and division is its dishonesty. Despite the tragic death of Martin under circumstances that no one will ever know the true nature of, there is no "big business" of killing blacks in America. There is no wave of bigotry directed at blacks. All this talk is demagogic posturing, and it's dangerous. Young people will absorb this message and view the "other" with suspicion and fear.
These leaders know, even if many of their adherents might not, that the biggest threat to the lives of young blacks is other young blacks, not white bigots. Between 2000 and 2010, 4,607 black murder victims 17 or younger were killed by other blacks (4,441 of the killers were 17 or younger), according to the Wall Street Journal. There were 340 black victims 17 or younger killed by (non-Latino) whites. That means black youths were 13 times more likely to be killed by a black person than by a white one.
The more recent data haven't changed much. In 2011, according to the FBI, 2,695 blacks (of all ages) were killed, and the killers were nearly 13 times more likely to be black as white (2,447 to 193).
These data are no revelation (they have been constant for more than a decade), yet "leaders" and the far-too-complicit media purvey a notion that inter-group relations have plummeted and it's open season on blacks and other minorities.
What is the reality? In January, Pew Research released a poll on group conflicts. It found that 58% of respondents see more disputes between rich and poor, and 55% see more between immigrants and native-born than see disputes between blacks and whites (39%). And in 2008, a Pew poll concluded that "whites, blacks and Hispanics all have generally favorable opinions of one another and all tend to see inter-group relations in a more positive than negative light…. The overall portrait of race relations is one of moderation, stability and modest progress." That says nothing about the 95 million millennials whose attitudes are far more tolerant than their elders on a whole range of issues relating to race.
It is clear that the Sharptons and Jacksons have a vested interest in keeping tension alive. Their relevance, audiences and fundraising are contingent on there being a perception that racial barriers remain, that fears persist and that their role as firemen is needed. The biggest threats to their continued viability is tolerance and an acknowledgment that inter-group relations are improving, that there is no war on black youth and that the country that elected Barack Obama to the presidency twice isn't demonizing kids who look like the first family.
We would all do well to spend our energies on issues that are real and the implications of the tragic Trayvon Martin death that make sense.
Rhetoric, race and reality in America - latimes.com
By David A. Lehrer and Joe R. Hicks
July 21, 2013, 4:00 p.m.
During the week since the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the death of Trayvon Martin, the responses to the tragic event, the trial and the verdict have been predictable.
That an unarmed youth lost his life and the perpetrator of the act walked free catalyzed angry and sometimes violent street protests. However unfortunate, that is hardly surprising. The legal nuances of second-degree murder, manslaughter, evidentiary rules and jurors' decisions don't often penetrate through the fog of the 24/7 news cycle. Many people inevitably respond to headlines and passion. There also have been some reasonable discussions of the propriety and impact of "stand your ground" laws and whether Florida's played a role in the verdict.
What isn't reasonable or appropriate is the hysterical response of some civil rights leaders and advocates who have peddled a dishonest and hyperbolic analysis of the tragedy. Unfortunately, their message has been repeated ad nauseam and has become the settled wisdom for some: Young black males are at physical risk in this country, and it is the bigotry of whites that has put a target on their backs.
Jesse Jackson said last year that blacks were "under attack.… Targeting, arresting, convicting blacks and ultimately killing us is big business." Last week he said, "A wave of nameless fear is gripping our country." The musings of Martin Luther King III and the Rev. Al Sharpton echoing the same theme — America is a dangerous place for young black males — have been widely reported. Benjamin Jealous of the NAACP warned that black youth be advised on how to dress and talk, and talked of how hard it is to tell them to be "timid about asserting" their freedom. Tavis Smiley opined that the verdict was "just another piece of evidence of the incontrovertible contempt that this nation often shows and displays for black men."
We received a newsletter from an African American civil rights lawyer who wrote about walking into a convenience store last Saturday night: "Wow. All these people have heard the verdict. Do they now think that I am fair game? Will someone hurt me now that they know that Zimmerman walked?"
What is so insidious about this message of victimhood and division is its dishonesty. Despite the tragic death of Martin under circumstances that no one will ever know the true nature of, there is no "big business" of killing blacks in America. There is no wave of bigotry directed at blacks. All this talk is demagogic posturing, and it's dangerous. Young people will absorb this message and view the "other" with suspicion and fear.
These leaders know, even if many of their adherents might not, that the biggest threat to the lives of young blacks is other young blacks, not white bigots. Between 2000 and 2010, 4,607 black murder victims 17 or younger were killed by other blacks (4,441 of the killers were 17 or younger), according to the Wall Street Journal. There were 340 black victims 17 or younger killed by (non-Latino) whites. That means black youths were 13 times more likely to be killed by a black person than by a white one.
The more recent data haven't changed much. In 2011, according to the FBI, 2,695 blacks (of all ages) were killed, and the killers were nearly 13 times more likely to be black as white (2,447 to 193).
These data are no revelation (they have been constant for more than a decade), yet "leaders" and the far-too-complicit media purvey a notion that inter-group relations have plummeted and it's open season on blacks and other minorities.
What is the reality? In January, Pew Research released a poll on group conflicts. It found that 58% of respondents see more disputes between rich and poor, and 55% see more between immigrants and native-born than see disputes between blacks and whites (39%). And in 2008, a Pew poll concluded that "whites, blacks and Hispanics all have generally favorable opinions of one another and all tend to see inter-group relations in a more positive than negative light…. The overall portrait of race relations is one of moderation, stability and modest progress." That says nothing about the 95 million millennials whose attitudes are far more tolerant than their elders on a whole range of issues relating to race.
It is clear that the Sharptons and Jacksons have a vested interest in keeping tension alive. Their relevance, audiences and fundraising are contingent on there being a perception that racial barriers remain, that fears persist and that their role as firemen is needed. The biggest threats to their continued viability is tolerance and an acknowledgment that inter-group relations are improving, that there is no war on black youth and that the country that elected Barack Obama to the presidency twice isn't demonizing kids who look like the first family.
We would all do well to spend our energies on issues that are real and the implications of the tragic Trayvon Martin death that make sense.
Rhetoric, race and reality in America - latimes.com
Irish Houstonian
New member
- Messages
- 2,722
- Reaction score
- 301
Now that everything's been beaten to death I don't think it really matters, but this was a line of thinking that could have used more analysis.
The party line of the pro-TM camp has always been that TM was justified in attacking Zimmerman -- that maybe TM thought he was a predator, or a robber, or a "rapist" as Jeantel called him. Being so threatened, TM had the right to defend himself.
But Jeantel said that TM thought GZ was a a "security guard". Not a robber or a rapist. If so, he probably didn't have a reason to attack GZ.
connor_in
Oh Yeeaah!!!
- Messages
- 11,433
- Reaction score
- 1,006
jmurphy75
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,036
- Reaction score
- 63
Good read.
Irish Insanity
Well-known member
- Messages
- 9,885
- Reaction score
- 584
He brought change. He changed his mind on several issues and changed his stance from his prior votes.
Rack Em
Community Bod
- Messages
- 7,089
- Reaction score
- 2,727
I'm a fan of anything with the word "poppycock" in it.
H
HereComeTheIrish
Guest
B
Bogtrotter07
Guest
Emmett Till was a fourteen year old with a pronounced lisp. One of the preeminent authors of his story, known to me, who worked on the authorized version of Emmett's story with Emmett's mother, uncovered a lot of evidence that his lisp caused a pronounced whistle, which was interpreted as a sign of flirtation by those whites. Pray we all find out the facts from now on . . .
adsnorri
New member
- Messages
- 337
- Reaction score
- 33
A slammed head into the ground looks much worse than the pics I have seen. Those are scratches...Most likely from tm being on the bottom of the fight and grabbing GZ's head to bring him down and not allow him to punch him. Logically speaking, in the recordings where you can hear the help cry our numerous times...that wouldn't sound like that if someone was getting their head beat into the ground. Those sound like someone held at gunpoint. They are in a pattern not parallel to an erratic fight. Regardless of whether GZ was a security guard, civilian or cop... TM should definatley go to see who is following him! I would, in fact I did when I was younger. If it's a cop or a security guard, get the situation handled and clear the air. If it is a civilian, even though he may say he is a security guard...you better be dressed like one or you wont be treated like one. Figure out why he is following you and act based upon your perceived threat level. Maybe GZ was trying to hold TM there until cops came and TM didn't want to see the cops, I wouldn't for no reason either. lol Too many maybes in this case but enough info for me to believe GZ should be locked up...maybe im in the minority though. Fact- TM has every right to walk to his parents home without disruption. Fact-GZ called cops on a person walking to their parents home. Fact-GZ approached a kid without probable cause and ultimately killed the kid.
On a lighter note, I had a great conversation with my step son last night about the topic of racism. He will not be afraid to stand up for what is right when the time comes.
On a lighter note, I had a great conversation with my step son last night about the topic of racism. He will not be afraid to stand up for what is right when the time comes.
- Status