Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Trayvon Martin II

And if you personally choose to make a habit out of harassing innocent people in public places in the manner you describe, you better be prepared for a few black eyes, bloody noses, and perhaps even the need to use that CCW you carry.

And again, since you would be the aggressor, invading peoples' personal space, asking demanding questions, not complying when said person told you to Fug Off and leave them alone, you would be the instigator. The one guilty of a criminal act.

That edited videos shows:

1.) A consensual encounter between subject and primary officer
2.) Subject compliant
3.) Subject detained
4.) Subject becoming belligerent while still adhering to voice commands given by the officer
5.) Subject continuing to adhere to voice commands given by an officer
6.) Officer advising subject he has no wants or warrants
7.) Second officer's (failed) attempt to escalate the level of force
8.) Primary officer advising secondary that the subject is unarmed
9.) Arrival of supervisor on scene
10.) No arrest made

Wrong. Besides I have seen film of his walking prior to being scared away by the man across the street. And he sure wasn't running inside the house. I'm not taking up for the white boys but just saying it is a good idea to watch out for what a walking or jogging stranger may be up to. You know, neighborhood watch. You reckon I might get some hostile attention if I were go on a pedestrian tour of the burned out sections of Detroit or public housing in Chicago or New Orleans?

why do you all keep bringing this crap up?

It is not to chase him through the streets with a motor vehicle and shoot him dead.

That's your leftist inspired characterization of what happened.

Clearly, IS, we disagree on a host of interpretations of what went on here.

Actually. It's just a fact

That's all your creation. I suggested nothing of the sort.

I would have felt physically in jeopardy had I asked this guy what he was doing there (which I am allowed to do), and he reacted to me the way he did to the officer. You are not permitted to place others in reasonable fear of imminent physical harm for merely asking a question.

Like the 14th Amendment extending Constitutional rights to blacks?

You explicitly stated your right to question private citizens in public places.

And leaves out all sorts of relevant facts, such as a known burglary suspect attempting to snatch a loaded shotgun from him immediately prior to the shooting.

I certainly did. That's quite distinct from what you imputed to me, however. Are you suggesting that it would be a crime for me to ask someone a question? Are you suggesting that violence, or the non-verbal imminent threat thereof, would be a lawful response to my asking a question? It isn't.

I am suggesting that most reasonable people would tell you to "FUGG OFF. What I do is none of your business. Get out of my face!"

And that if you do anything other than turn and move along, the most reasonable of persons will become irritated with you and will commence to move you along.

Still not enough evidence to decide anything other than the guy is dead.

What we have here is a split along the lines of fundamental world view. It reminds me of the public reaction to the OJ verdict. Each side saw it from completely conflicting perspectives. There was no point in debating it. Thomas Sowell wrote about this in his book A Conflict of Visions.

Nope. Not lawful to "move someone along" in a public space for asking a question. You can ignore that person, or tell them to buzz off, but if it's a public space, both people have a right to be there. If you're annoyed by my question, you have a lawful right to leave, stay and ignore me, or converse with me, but you have no right to respond with violence or threat's if imminent violence, either verbally or non-verbally.