Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Page 32

On April 04 2012 12:26 red_b wrote:

And I swear if this guy keeps his carry license through this I will be incredibly raged.

On April 04 2012 12:26 red_b wrote:
...

And I swear if this guy keeps his carry license through this I will be incredibly raged.

On April 04 2012 12:49 red_b wrote:
Because as a concealed weapons carrier you are held to a higher standard.

On April 04 2012 12:49 red_b wrote:
Because as a concealed weapons carrier you are held to a higher standard.

Starting an altercation when armed with a deadly weapon is significantly more serious than doing so without. In fact, it should be grounds to take away your license as you have demonstrated that you are a threat to society.

Zimmerman admitted to following and approaching Martin. Ergo, because the nature of the first act was with the intent to treat Martin as a hostile entity, he began the altercation.

On April 04 2012 10:13 Zorkmid wrote:


From their twitter.

NeighborhoodWatch ‏ @USAonWatch
Neighborhood Watch is based on the premise that the role of watch groups is only to serve as the eyes and ears of law enforcement

NeighborhoodWatch ‏ @USAonWatch
At no time, do we advocate any intervention actions by any watch group or individual #neighborhoodwatch

I haven't heard any version of the story where George doesn't intervene.

Because as a concealed weapons carrier you are held to a higher standard.

Starting an altercation when armed with a deadly weapon is significantly more serious than doing so without. In fact, it should be grounds to take away your license as you have demonstrated that you are a threat to society.

Zimmerman admitted to following and approaching Martin. Ergo, because the nature of the first act was with the intent to treat Martin as a hostile entity, he began the altercation.

On April 04 2012 13:47 Kaitlin wrote:
To add to DeepElem's post, it's important to keep in mind that all these "do not pursue" issues are about liability. The police were merely protecting themselves from a lawsuit in case something happened and someone argued that Zimmerman was pursuing on behalf of the police department. It's the same thing with those neighborhood watch groups. They make it clear that their position does not call for any pursuit because otherwise lawyers could argue that the neighborhood is liable for anything that an individual watchman does wrong. It's all about deep pockets and legal liability and covering your ass from lawsuits. The fact is, Zimmerman, and all others have a right to stand outside and observe, and approach people and talk to them. I can assure you, if that dispatch hadn't said "We don't need you to do that", there would be lawyers lining up to sue the Sanford Police Department for "authorizing" Zimmerman's actions. The city would have to pay and pay dearly. As it is now, attorneys are not able to attribute Zimmerman's actions to the City.

The family of a 17-year-old fatally shot at an Atlanta apartment complex -- trying to draw parallels to the Trayvon Martin case in Florida -- called Tuesday for the arrest of a security guard who killed their son. The guard and authorities say the shooting was justified.

Canard Arnold was shot in the back on Dec. 31. Christopher Chestnut, an attorney for Arnold's parents, said the case is similar to the Feb. 26 shooting of the 17-year-old Martin in a town house community in Sanford, Fla., by George Zimmerman, the complex's neighborhood watch volunteer. Zimmerman has not been arrested. The Martin shooting has been labeled as "vigilante justice" and has ignited a national firestorm fueled by accusations of racism.

"This is very Trayvon Martin-like," Chestnut said. He referred to Arnold's shooter, Christopher Hambrick, as "a rogue, vigilante security guard."

"He sees Mr. Arnold running down the street and, like a predator, tracks him down," Chestnut said.

In a telephone interview with The Associated Press, Hambrick emphatically dismissed any attempt to draw parallels between the two shootings.

"With the Trayvon Martin thing, I know they think their son was in the same predicament," Hambrick said. "Canard Arnold was not Trayvon Martin ... I'm not like Zimmerman. I know when to use my gun."

Authorities said Arnold, who was black, was engaged in a gunfight with another man, 22-year-old, Anthony Hines, on the night of Dec. 30. Hambrick, who is white, was working as a security guard in a nearby apartment complex when he drove up and encountered the two men.

Hambrick confirmed authorities' version of events, adding that he had been working at a nearby complex for five months and was en route to a nearby convenience store when he observed the confrontation between Arnold and Hines.

"Believing that gunfire was aimed in his direction, the security guard fired shots, shooting and killing the victim who died on the scene with a weapon just inches away from his hand," Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard said in a statement issued Tuesday. "At this time, it appears to us the actions of the security guard were justified. If subsequent evidence reveals intentions to the contrary, as in every case, the District Attorney's Office will be led by the facts."

Atlanta Police Department Spokesman Carlos Campos issued a similar statement, saying that "a weapon was found near Arnold and four rounds were discovered to have been discharged."

Hines was arrested and charged with felony murder "for his role as an active shooter in the gunfight leading to Arnold's shooting," according to Campos' statement. Howard said Hines was indicted Friday by a Fulton County grand jury.

Chestnut offers a different version of events. While he said a gun was found near Arnold, he did not confirm whether the gun belonged to the teen.

Chestnut also said Arnold was running away after an altercation with another man at the time he was shot, and that the teen did not confront or threaten the security guard. He added that Hambrick was not employed by the apartment complex where the shooting occurred.

Hambrick maintained that he did not ask to be put in a situation to shoot Arnold. He said he initially thought of trying to help Arnold when he saw Hines open fire.

"I didn't know he had a firearm," Hambrick said, referring to Arnold. "When he pulled it out, there was nothing I could do but warn him. He didn't heed the warning."

Hambrick said he was not disciplined by Shepperson, but left the company in February and is now employed with another private security company.

On April 04 2012 15:46 gtrsrs wrote:
am i reading this atlanta story right?

two guys were involved in a gunfight, a security guard walks by and shoots one of them, the family wants... the security guard arrested? when their son was literally shooting at another man and was found dead with a gun in his hands? what in the blue fuck...

On April 04 2012 17:24 Gorguts wrote:
how can you defend this murderer there is NO EVIDENCE at all in his favor, his story has so many holes, this is absolute bullshit. i can't believe people type out 5 paragraph essay's defending this guy. the mental disease of conservativism is tooo strong it's got a stranglehold on you people....

On April 04 2012 17:24 Gorguts wrote:
how can you defend this murderer there is NO EVIDENCE at all in his favor, his story has so many holes, this is absolute bullshit. i can't believe people type out 5 paragraph essay's defending this guy. the mental disease of conservativism is tooo strong it's got a stranglehold on you people....



User was warned for this post

On April 05 2012 01:56 Felnarion wrote:
No one is disputing that some people have grooves on their head in various configurations.

We're disputing why you're so sure that's what is pictured. Because some guy in House had them then Zimmerman must also? Could it not be his injury? Could he not have a groove AND a gash on another spot in his head.

On March 30 2012 10:27 BlackJack wrote:
Some people have a very pronounced occipital bone that can make all kinds of groove or dent looks under the right lightning conditions.

At 1:25 the officer in the video is looking very intently at the back of Zimmeran's head. Is he looking at something or a lack of something? I think the former is more often to be the case. I'm confident that better photos or video will eventually come to light. I wouldn't rush to judgement one way or the other for fear of looking like an idiot if I am proven wrong.

It does look a lot like some kind of wound in the pic Romantic made, though.

On April 04 2012 12:53 woody60707 wrote:


Why should he. You generally don't lose your rights in this nation unless you are found guilty of a crime. And the right to bear arms is a constitutional right. You might as while say you think this guy should lose his right to free speech or his right to vote.