Sen. Oscar Braynon Blasted for 'Politicizing' Trayvon Martin's Death


In the aftermath of the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, state Sen. Oscar Braynon's call for hearings into the "Stand Your Ground" law drew sharp return fire on Tuesday.

The Miami Democrat raised questions about the legal circumstances surrounding the shooting of Martin, 17, by an Orlando neighborhood watch volunteer last month.

But gun-rights groups and libertarians rejected Braynon's suggestion that the Stand Your Ground law, also known as the Castle Doctrine, should be implicated in the actions of alleged gunman George Zimmerman.

"Regardless of the outcome of this case, it does not justify infringing upon all Floridians' inherent right to self-defense. Stand Your Ground is a good law, and is wholly consistent with the Second Amendment," said Florida Libertarian Party Chairman Adrian Wyllie.

"This case is not about gun rights. It is about the actions of one man, and whether or not they were justified. To make this tragic event about Stand Your Ground is politicizing the death of a young man."

Sean Caranna, executive of Florida Carry, called Braynon "another anti-self-defense politician using a tragic event to further his own longstanding agenda."  

Caranna said, "The best investigators from our state and national law enforcement agencies are working this case. It's disgusting that some would try to politicize a young man's death even before the facts are in. Let our law-enforcement professionals do their jobs, and hold them accountable if they don't."

In defense of state law, Caranna added:

"The Castle doctrine ended the extremely dangerous requirement that you 'turn your back on an attacker' and try to run away. It did not create a 007 license to kill. You can't attack someone without proper cause and call it self-defense."

John Lindsey, a Republican candidate for Florida House District 41, said, "It is not the law at fault here, but the actions of two individuals, the apparent victim and the shooter.

"There is no need for federal involvement at this time," said Lindsey, of Winter Haven. "Let the state of Florida and its law enforcement officials do their job unobstructed by outside influences."




Add a Comment

Comments (48)

Ron Proffitt
8:22PM MAR 21ST 2012
I've conceal carried for over 10 yrs. in the state of Florida and I firmly believe in the "Castle Doctrine"and the Right to Carry Conceal, and Open Carry of a weapon.
The shooting of Trayvon Martin; there's a lot of question to be answered know one id guilty until proven so.
It look's to me like it's becoming a "Race" thing since we have "Al Sharpton" here now, and the Justice Dept. "Holder" and the FBI. "I ASK WHY????
Don't they think that the Florida State Atty's Office, FDLE, and the Sandford Police Dept. can't do the job or just swept it under the rug because the boy was "BLACK".
This should be investgated by local depts. leave the Feds and Al Sarpton out, and any other "RACIEST GROUPS" out.
Gather the evidence if the shooter is guilty arrest him, leave the "RACE CARD" out and this is what is happening if you look at the ational Scene everthing is around "RACE".
It's not about gun rights or Florida's Gun Laws which everyone is pointing fingers at. It's about the actions of one man and weather or not they were justified to make this tragic event about "STAND YOUR GROUND" is politicizing the death of a young man.
Willie
10:16AM MAR 22ND 2012
It is about the individual that went after a young man, killed him and claimed self defense using the "Stand your Ground" law as a shield. Also an inept police department incapable or unwilling to conduct an investigation. It reminds me of Mississippi in the sixties when you could kill a black person, and if you were charged a jury of his or her peers or maybe even you would find that person not guilty. That's why people inside and outside of Florida requested intervention.
Willie
10:21AM MAR 22ND 2012
This Willie agrees.
Gun Guy
7:32PM MAR 21ST 2012
Sean: You are once again the voice of calm, reason, and actual common sense.

Branyon and his ilk are nothing but opportunists.
posterchild
4:54PM MAR 20TH 2012
One more light goes out in America and all that matters is the rights of gun owners. Speaking of politics, you know, The NRA is going to use this to raise money and spread more fear and lies. Relax gun owners, no one is out to take your precious guns away from you. Not the Dems, not the media, not the POTUS. You have guns confused with safe and legal abortion.
Rich7553
6:52PM MAR 22ND 2012
@posterchild - When the rights of gun owners are threatened once again by politicians using a tragedy to advance an anti-gun agenda, you're damned right it matters.
Renegade
6:14PM MAR 21ST 2012
posterchild....You do not see now, nor will you, see the NRA trying to use a childs death to raise money. But you do see the Anti-Gun Politician trying to use it to his advantage! The Castle Doctrine is a Good Law and it will not apply in this case. It only gives you the right to defend yourself or use deadly force if in danger of immediate danger from a Thug. Zimmerman does not appear to qualify due to his actions. So quit CRYING your NRA BS and realize the tragedy is the young man losing his life!
Hettie
2:35PM MAR 20TH 2012
I would love to hear John Lindsey explain how this incident was in any way the "fault ... of the apparent victim." George Zimmerman committed premeditated murder and should be executed. The law that gave him the right to stalk black men should be trashed. The law is as racist as Zimmerman.
Rich7553
6:55PM MAR 22ND 2012
There is no law that gives anyone the right to follow (not stalk) anyone, nor is there a law against it.
Not a big deal
11:33AM MAR 20TH 2012
It is a little premature to demonize him over this because it is very possible he just wants to prevent this type of thing happening again. The whole point of requiring retreat in certain situations was just to ensure that people use deadly force as a last resort. This shoot, ask questions later now gives people a license to kill if they think they are in danger. This essentially encourages an itchy trigger finger.

No one was prevented from defending themselves before, they were merely required to retreat (if reasonably possible) before killing someone. Reasonably possible is not a stringent requirement. If retreat had been a requirement here, there would be no question about whether Zimmerman would have been arrested (although I don't think there is now). There has also never been a duty to retreat while on your property (aka castle doctrine).
what?
11:15AM MAR 20TH 2012
the castle doctrine only refers to a mans right to defend his castle, as in you can use deadly force to protect your home. The current law is obviously a huge expansion on that idea. There was never a requirement that you had to turn your back on a defender. The rule was you had to retreat, if reasonably possible, before using deadly force. If someone was coming at you with a knife or gun you could always shoot them. Retreat is not a reasonable option in that circumstance. I think this law is dangerous, but the police still should have arrested him under the current law b/c i don't know how you say deadly force was reasonable here. that is ignoring the fact that zimmerman was almost certainly the aggressor and cannot claim self defense. This also ignores the fact that self defense is an AFFIRMATIVE defense that Zimmerman has the burden of proving (unlike most things b/c burden is almost always on Gov).
BM
10:16AM MAR 20TH 2012
The Democrats will stop at nothing to advance their political mantra. For Oscar Braynon to politicize this death while the body is still warm should be an outrage for every Floridian, no American and he should be held accountable for his shameless actions.
Tri Star
3:01PM MAR 20TH 2012
BM, the police committed gross error when they refused to arrest the shooter in this case and let his "self-defense" claim go to a trial and jury. This isn't about politics, it about JUSTICE and they scum bags are doing their best to cover up the homicide of an unarmed kid. You should be outraged at the ignorance of the police in this coverup. And you should be ashamed for thinking this is about politics and Democrats. It's all about JUSTICE FOR ALL.
BM
3:46PM MAR 20TH 2012
Then address the issue with the police. Nope we are going after the law and not what appears to be the real problem Zimmerman.
Hettie
2:50PM MAR 20TH 2012
Yeah, you want to make sure that body is good and cold before you think about justice.
BM
3:51PM MAR 20TH 2012
Hettie, I want to make sure there is a trial and that the man responsible is given his day in court. In my opinion, there is no excuse for his actions, nor for his chasing the young man when he was told not too. However, given your and the other's position here you are ready to hang the convience store owner, the clerk who sold the ice tea, the company that manufactured the ice tea and the cell phone provider.

Me, I want the guy who pulled the trigger. I do find it interesting that someone can feel threatened while chasing the person who is threatening him.
Hettie
2:57PM MAR 21ST 2012
No, BM, I am with you. I want the shooter. But I also want that law put down. Obviously, there is something about that law that makes some people feel that it is open season on anyone they can isolate and shoot.
Retro
7:58PM MAR 21ST 2012
Hettie - we all want that shooter. He is the problem. He and those like him who think that carrying a firearm gives them any rights. The 'Stand Your Ground' law - an extension of castle doctrine - brought by Rep Baxley does not apply here. That man was told to not pursue that Trayvon. He did anyway. We carry firearms for self-defense but they do not give us the right to use them. Our right to defend our lives comes from Chapter 7 of the Florida Statutes and I can assure you that there is nothing therein contained which would justify shooting Trayvon.
I'm just a bill
9:11AM MAR 22ND 2012
I agree it should not apply here, but obviously the police thought it did because they didn't even bother to arrest Zimmerman. the law, as currently written, has gaping holes in it that allow this type of situation to occur. It appears that it permits an unequal matching of force-such as shooting a completely unarmed attacker- which means that you can pretty much shoot anyone you want as long as their are no witnesses around because you can just say you felt threatened. This is ridiculous and is extremely unsafe.
Rich7553
7:26PM MAR 22ND 2012
I'm sure it would amaze you how ignorant law enforcement is when it comes to laws to which they are rarely exposed. Additionally, this law has been in force for seven years, and has functioned well both protecting citizens who lawfully employed deadly force to save their own lives and not protecting those who falsely claimed self-defense. In addition to the statute, there is also case law, developed during those seven years which further refine the parameters of the law and of which the police would have no knowledge. This is the first case in those seven years that has drawn such intense media scrutiny.

Finally, with regards to unequal matching of force, this is for the court to decide whether excessive force was employed under the circumstances. Consider a 5-foot, 98-pound woman with a gun facing off a 6-foot, 250-lb, athletically-built but unarmed male with intent of rape. Is the sole fact that she is armed and he is not render legally liable should she shoot and kill him in self-defense? I think not.

This is precisely why the law renders these considerations to the court to decide. A law cannot predict every circumstance and cast them in stone as this is what leads to inflexible and intolerable law.
I'm just a bill
9:42AM MAR 23RD 2012
you really are misguided about the success about this law and the precedent that has clarified it. the Florida Supreme court has never addressed the law so there is no clear and binding precedent on its interpretation. They do have one such case right now, but it only tangentially relates to the law.

As to the success of this law, you could not be further from the truth. the amount of justifiable homicides tripled after this law and it has been used successfully in a gang shootout in the street. It also has a high chance of getting trevor dooley off for shooting a man in front of his 8 year old daughter over a silly argument. It has also gotten a man off for a shooting another over a drunken arguments over cigarettes. There are at least 10 other examples of tragedies that would not have occurred with no one being held liable in the 5 years it has been in effect

Your example is silly b/c it is the extremem and obviously no one would consider that unreasonable. you also threw in the element of rape which completely changes the situation. Two men in an unarmed fight should have no reason to fear death until someone uses a weapon. Throwing rape in there is obviously a whole different scenario. It is also a felony by itself.

A law can be written so that it minimizes the loopholes and this law is not written in such a manner.
Rich7553
6:15PM MAR 23RD 2012
In Florida, District Courts of Appeal are given state precedent unless there is a split. The Florida Supreme Court does not need to hear a case in order for there to be precedent.

Peterson v. State, 983 So.2d 27 (2008), DCA FL 1st District
Velasquez v. State, 9 So.3d 22 (2009), DCA FL 4th District
Dennis v. State, 51 So.3d 456 (2010), FL Supreme Court
Horn v. State, 17 So.3d 836 (2009), DCA FL 2nd District
Govoni v. State, 17 So.3d 809 (2009), DCA FL 4th District
Hair v. State, 17 So.3d 804 (2009), DCA FL 1st District
McDaniel v. State, 24 So.3d 654 (2009), DCA FL 2nd District
State v. Heckman, 993 So.2d 1004 (2007), DCA FL 2nd District
State v. Yaqubie, 51 So.3d 474 (2010), DCA FL 3rd District
Montanez v. State, 24 So.3d 799 (2010), DCA FL 2nd District

All of these cases either clarify or reference the SYG statute for decisions rendered.

Indeed the amount of justifiable homicides has tripled. The key is "justifiable". Would you have preferred that these individuals, instead of lawfully and successfully defending their own lives, ended up as murder victims? And do you know the details of the Dooley shooting? The 8-year old daughter you mention testified her father attacked Dooley as he was retreating back across the street. Since Dooley was elderly, do you think he should have simply accepted the beating without resistance? And with regards to the "10 other examples", how can you be sure that they would not have occurred? Surely, they may have occurred differently, but who are you to imply they are "tragedies" when the authorities have deemed them justifiable?

My example is valid. Any time there is a disparity of force, a court is obliged to weigh the relative factors involved. For example, I am a disabled veteran, with arthritis in my knees, two discs removed from my neck, and chronic lower back issues. I am unable to quickly retreat from a confrontation, nor am I likely to prevail in an attack from even a moderately fit male. I can assure you that if I ever am attacked and I am unable to retreat, I will draw my firearm. I will not shoot until it becomes absolutely necessary, but if so, I will not hesitate.
I'm just a bill
9:46AM MAR 26TH 2012
you think it is ok to shoot someone because they are going to punch you? seriously? The man had already flashed his gun twice in a verbal argument. do you think this is also reasonable? The fact that a killing was justifable under this law does not mean that the killing was in fact justifiable to a reasonable person. The father only grabbed the man after he pulled his piece out a second time. He did not run up and attack him, he caught up to him and said don't flash a gun in public like that around kids. That is not being an aggressor.

Your list is impressive, but many of them are from the same district and several districts have no precedent. The courts have interpreted the law differently too so don't act like all of those decisions were uniform.

There was NOTHING under the previous law that would require someone to become a murder victim. This shows a profound misunderstanding of the law. you could always protect yourself if you were in danger. You just had to avoid using deadly force if reasonably possible. Now you don't even have to think about it and can shoot first and ask questions later. It is obvious how such a law can be and has been abused
Rich7553
3:15AM MAR 27TH 2012
"you think it is ok to shoot someone because they are going to punch you? seriously?"

Not at all. I never said that. The fact that Trevor Dooley was arrested and the decision on self-defense has not yet been rendered by the court is indicative that this case is not open and shut.

"Your list is impressive, but many of them are from the same district and several districts have no precedent. The courts have interpreted the law differently too so don't act like all of those decisions were uniform."

Again, you are putting words in my mouth. I never said the decisions were uniform. I said that there was case law regarding Stand Your Ground, and that the courts refine the statute in case law. If there are significant disagreement in at the DCA, the Florida Supreme Court will resolve the circuit split on those specific cases.

"There was NOTHING under the previous law that would require someone to become a murder victim. This shows a profound misunderstanding of the law. you could always protect yourself if you were in danger. You just had to avoid using deadly force if reasonably possible. Now you don't even have to think about it and can shoot first and ask questions later. It is obvious how such a law can be and has been abused."

To require a person to attempt to flee invites them to become victims by either continued attack if their attempt fails. The law in no way permits one to "shoot first and ask questions later" as you assert. The same scrutiny as to reasonableness applies, with the exception that there is no requirement for one to flee. It's all contained in s. 776 of the Florida Statutes. I suggest you read them. All of them, since statutes must be read in harmony, and often interrelate to one another.
I'm just a bill
9:47AM MAR 26TH 2012
your last example is perfectly reasonable, you would have been completely justified in shooting someone under the old law in that situation. Your first example simply does not fit.
William Foote
12:54PM MAR 20TH 2012
To BM (and how appropriate)...the Repugnaticans in the Florida legislature politicalized (and legalized) the wanton and irresponsible use of firearms in this state.

Don't blame Braynon for trying to correct what is wrong with the Repugnatican Party of Florida (RPOF) and the National Rifle Association (NRA) !
Renegade
6:24PM MAR 21ST 2012
So Foote-N-Mouth...since the Repubs and NRA cause so many problems, why is it that since Concealed Carry was passed, crime has actually gone DOWN in Florida? OK...here is comes...some Demodummy SPIN on Gun Control....

Why is it that almost NO issues have come up with the Castle Doctrine since it was passed? NO turning into the Wild West like the Brady Bunch said would happen. NObody being shot down daily on the streets and etc...

This is ONE out of control man that went far and beyond what he should have as a neighborhood watch person. Castle Doctrine or not, it seems this man was a racist, if you listen to the 911 calls, and was intent on following this young black man. I see nothing in his actions that will qualify him for a case protected by the Castle Doctrine.

You just seem to be someone after Gun Control, and like the politicians, would rather make this a political matter than what it is...A SHAME that a Young Man had to lose his life because an idiot wanted tooooo much power!
I'm just a bill
9:19AM MAR 22ND 2012
First you spout completely undocumented facts about the link between these laws and crime rates, then you claim to know that there have been no issues regarding the castle doctrine, then you completely fail to see what all of this has to do with politics.

First, even if there was a conncection (which is very questionable), concealed carrying could only prevent a few particular crimes. this could have no effect on the VAST majority of crimes that are included in those statistics.

Second, you really should look up the effect of the Stand Your Ground (this is NOT the Castle Doctrine) law before claiming it has had no problems. there have been several instances of people getting away with murder such as the drunken argument over ciggarettes that left one man dead and the other a free man.

Third, this law really has little to do with gun control. The law would apply to using knives or any other deadly weapon. This stand your ground law is very poorly written and equates to a license to kill. there was NEVER a requirement to retreat when your life is in any danger. You could ALWAYS shoot someone who was using anything like deadly force
Rich7553
11:10PM MAR 23RD 2012
"First, even if there was a conncection (which is very questionable), concealed carrying could only prevent a few particular crimes. this could have no effect on the VAST majority of crimes that are included in those statistics."

Speculation on your part. It is irrelevant anyway since licensees are not law enforcement officers and generally have no interest in reducing violent crime. Their motivation is the defense of their own life and those of their family.

"Second, you really should look up the effect of the Stand Your Ground (this is NOT the Castle Doctrine) law before claiming it has had no problems. there have been several instances of people getting away with murder such as the drunken argument over ciggarettes that left one man dead and the other a free man."

Bogus statement. If a court ruled the homicide justifiable, then it is not murder by definition. Had SYG not existed, it would have not changed the circumstances of the incident.

"Third, this law really has little to do with gun control. The law would apply to using knives or any other deadly weapon. This stand your ground law is very poorly written and equates to a license to kill. there was NEVER a requirement to retreat when your life is in any danger. You could ALWAYS shoot someone who was using anything like deadly force."

And end up being held in a jail until trial, and even if you won your case, you would likely be bankrupt because of the legal fees. All because you were forced to take a life to save your own. Yeah, terrible law.
I'm just a bill
9:55AM MAR 26TH 2012
"Speculation on your part. It is irrelevant anyway since licensees are not law enforcement officers and generally have no interest in reducing violent crime. Their motivation is the defense of their own life and those of their family."--so you agree with me then? I agree that the drop in crime rate has nothing to do with this law.

"Bogus statement. If a court ruled the homicide justifiable, then it is not murder by definition. Had SYG not existed, it would have not changed the circumstances of the incident." This is completely circular logic. I never said it would have changed the facts. I was obviously using the definition of murder used in most states with sensible laws or in the general common sense usage. You are saying this law meant it was legally not murder so it could not have been murder. That ignores the obvious intent of what I was saying. If a law said you could shoot a complete stranger in the face for no reason, does that mean it is a good law and that doing so would not be murder?

"And end up being held in a jail until trial, and even if you won your case, you would likely be bankrupt because of the legal fees. All because you were forced to take a life to save your own. Yeah, terrible law." You completely ignore prosecutorial discretion as well as the discretion of police officers. They are not going to bring charges against someone who was truly acting in self-defense. There is also a little thing called bail. All this law does is tie there hands in cases like this
Rich7553
2:56AM MAR 27TH 2012
1. I never claimed the drop in violent crime was due to SYG.

2. It is not circular logic. It is legal terminology as it applies to both general law and Florida Statutes. There is no murder until a court rules that there was a murder. Until that time, it is a homicide, which can be either justifiable or not justifiable. A justifiable homicide is not a crime. A non-justifiable homicide becomes murder or manslaughter, depending on the circumstances of the particular case.

3. How does this tie anyone's hands? If police develop probable cause that self-defense was not warranted, they can immediately effect an arrest. Even if they don't, as in this case, a decision is made by the court either validating or invalidating the claim. If the claim is validated, then there is no prosecution. If the claim is invalidated, the person is arrested, charged, and prosecuted.
BM
4:11PM MAR 20TH 2012
William you have once again put your Foote in your mouth with your liberal bias statements. Unless I am mistaken not a single legislature pulled the trigger. The owner of the firearm pulled that trigger. It is he and he alone who is to blame.

So now I am going to ask this simple question. Where was all of this outrage when the police officers of this state were shot in cold blood? Stop being so obvious. The liberals ALWAYS attempt to turn a murder into their political advantage. Not going to work this time.
Tri Star
5:53PM MAR 20TH 2012
Wrong BM, dead wrong. Once the police department refused to file charge against Zimmerman...they helped him pull the trigger. As a result, every Federal law enforcement is going to come in and pull that department to shreds...as they should. We are outraged when ANYONE is shot in cold blood, especially when the shooter was not charged. Stop with the "liberal" BS-BM, because once again, THIS IS ABOUT JUSTICE FOR ALL, not your republican political agenda. Think about the young man killed for a change. It seems all YOU think about it politics. You should know shame for your comments and you have sure as heck backtracked on your original statement...so obviously, the raw truth of this shooting is even going to get to you. When was the last time they didn't charge someone who shot a police officer because they yelled "castle doctrine"? This issue is for a judge and jury and the police have made a criminal decision in not filing charges.
Rich7553
7:38PM MAR 22ND 2012
I hate to put a pin in your balloon, but police do not file charges. Police investigate and arrest. It is up to the city, county, or state attorney's office to file charges.
I'm just a bill
9:58AM MAR 23RD 2012
were any arrests made here?
Rich7553
6:17PM MAR 23RD 2012
No, because the investigating officers did not have probable cause to refute the claim of self-defense.
I'm just a bill
9:57AM MAR 26TH 2012
self defense is an affirmative defense man, they don't have to refute it. They should have made an arrest here. They didn't even do a competent investigation. They didn't breathalyze or drug test Zimmerman even though it is their policy in shootings. They did however drug test Trayvon. They even gave Zimmerman his gun back and let him go home.
Rich7553
2:43AM MAR 27TH 2012
You should really read more than just the tabloids...like the statutes themselves. FSS 776.032 specifically forbids arrest in which a claim of self-defense is made, and no probable cause to refute the claim is developed. Trayvon was tested because it is standard procedure during an autopsy. Zimmerman was not because there was no reasonable suspicion that he was intoxicated. He exhibited no symptoms such as dilation of the pupils, profuse sweating, stammering, slurred speech, etc. . To do so would be a violation of his Fourth Amendment search and seizure rights. Where did you get that it is a policy in shootings? Finally, they did not give him his gun back and let him go home. His gun and his clothing are, and have been in police custody since the shooting. He also was not just allowed to go home. After being treated for his head wounds and broken nose by paramedics on scene, he was taken to police headquarters and was interrogated for five hours, in which he not only gave police consistent testimony, but reenacted the events more than once. As far as a competent investigation, the police report says they interviewed more than six witnesses, including the eyewitness I previously mentioned. The police didn't leave the scene until six hours after the shooting.
BM
9:34PM MAR 20TH 2012
I have not backtracked. I stand by my original statement. Rather than letting the law and the courts settle this. The liberals automatically want to politicize this issue.

I have faith in FDLE and national law enforcement to get to the bottom of this. I also trust that if Sanford Police failed in their duties they shall be held responsible for the failures.

No Flipflop libratard.
Not a big deal
9:37AM MAR 21ST 2012
"rather than letting the law and the courts settle this" you realize that the politicians created this law and the courts are bound to uphold it. If this law gets Zimmerman off, which it very well may, then it is pretty obvious the law needs to be changed. Who can do this? Oh yeah, politicians.
Tri Star
9:39PM MAR 20TH 2012
Backtracking is the least of your issues. Isn't name calling a little juvenile at your age...or is it just the dementia settling in?
Robert Lloyd
4:47PM MAR 20TH 2012
>>The liberals ALWAYS attempt to turn a murder into their political advantage.<<

And what 'murder' was that? Just joking as I know you didn't mean to suggest this was murder. And after I read the fuller accounts of what happened I too believe the shooter appears to have been justified.

Why would a black kid walk around a gated community in a hooded sweatshirt and gazing at homes as though he was sizing up the places. Why did the kid attack the citizen watch? Why didn't he stop when he was called upon to stop?

Just more black crap once again.
Renegade
6:33PM MAR 21ST 2012
Lloyd...why don't you just use RACIST as your name? Maybe if you researched the article a small bit...I do believe it said it was raining and that he was there with his family. Is it Illegal for Blacks to live in a gated community where you live? It's MURDER and should be charged that way! The Castle Doctrine does not allow you to follow/chase someone as you are not defending yourself in doing so. Zimmerman pushed the situation and caused it. He should spend LIFE in Prison!
Hettie
3:08PM MAR 21ST 2012
Let's see. You said, "Why would a black kid walk around a gated community in a hooded sweatshirt and gazing at homes as though he was sizing up the places. Why did the kid attack the citizen watch? Why didn't he stop when he was called upon to stop?"

I have read every account available and either you get your news from Rush Limbaugh, or you are just out and out lying.

The kid BELONGED in this community. His father's fiance lives there. How can you judge HOW he was looking around at things. WHEN did he attack ANYONE? WHEN was he told to stop?

Your account is fictionalized and your bias is hanging down to your toes. You spell pretty well for a racist ignoramus.
Hettie
3:02PM MAR 21ST 2012
Whew! YOU have judged that it was justified. BASED ON WHAT? Your bigotry? What did you uncover? That the victim was black? Keep saying that and some other jackasses will start braying along.
Tri Star
6:02PM MAR 20TH 2012
Mr. Lloyd, your comments are racist and pathetic. You are beyond redemption. Hopefully no kids in your family are ever shot and killed by a neighborhood nut.
BM
5:53PM MAR 20TH 2012
I never said it was or was not murder. I said let the courts and the law decide. Regardless the only one who pulled the trigger is Mr. Zimmerman and he alone is the issue. Not a law, not a gun, he is the issue.
I'm just a bill
9:38AM MAR 21ST 2012
you appear to have a profound misunderstanding of how laws are created if you think politicians are not involved

Leave a Comment on This Story

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.