"Notice that conservatives aren't arguing that Trayvon should've been packing? I wonder why..."

[phantom power]

Now here's a good question:



Think about it. Every other situation in which an innocent person gets gunned down there is a cacophony of gun nuts screeching that if only this person had been armed he could have defended himself. It's been the basis of every concealed and open carry argument for the last couple of decades.

And yet, in this case, nothing. No impassioned appeals for loosening the gun laws so that ordinary Americans could go to the store in the evening to buy some candy and an iced tea without getting stalked and shot by some unhinged vigilante. No solemn op-eds about the dangers for average Americans when venturing unarmed into the streets of their own neighborhoods. No fiery speeches from Wayne LaPierre insisting that if only everyone in the neighborhood had been armed with submachine guns they could have run outside and started firing immediately upon hearing the screams for help. Nada. Why do you suppose that is?

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2012/03/whats-missing-from-trayvon-martin.html

[CanonRay]

1. + 1000 Resident DU gun fans...where are you?

[ellisonz]

61. *crickets*

[GodlessBiker]

2. Very good point.

[Lucky Luciano]

3. Excellent point. nt

[Lizzie Poppet]

4. Actually, I've had several say precisely that to me.

One direct quote (as best I remember it, anyway): "It's too bad that kid wasn't carrying. That cop wannabe was way out of line."

I mentioned that Martin was too young to be doing that legally anyway, and my friend acknowledged that, opining that bigots would have latched onto the illegal carry and made an issue of it.

Are my conservative friends atypical? Could be (I doubt I'd choose to hang out with someone I know to be a bigot, conservative, liberal, or otherwise). But every single one of them wants the case thoroughly investigated...

[JDPriestly]

24. Those who advocate for open-carry never think about what people should do who are under-age,

blind, very elderly, too disabled to shoot, etc.

What about some of the frail elderly women you see -- no longer driving because they are close to blind but who must walk?

[quakerboy]

55. Obviously assisted devices are the answer

I am sure that someone could rig up a quick aim system that attaches directly to a rascal. And there's absolutely no good reason you cant build a dealie to attach a gun to one of those 4 point stability canes.

[JDPriestly]

56. Thanks, as a near-sighted senior, I feel truly reassured.

[yardwork]

33. If you post on DU, you probably don't have racist friends. That's the difference.

[CTyankee]

5. I'm waiting to hear you speak up...hello? Is this mike on? Let me try again...hello?

Can you hear us?

I'm getting nothing...that's funny, I could swear this microphone was on...hello?

[DetlefK]

6. The silence is telling...

[krispos42]

7. Because he was a minor, aged 17.

The answer is pretty obvious, and Markos doesn't do any good by being either ignorant (deliberately; finding the minimum age for concealed-carry in Florida is child's play) or inflammatory.

And Digby, as good as she is on Sam Seder's show, isn't helping either. She's basically upset that the neighbors that witnessed the event didn't do what anti-gun people expect gun-owners to do... grab their shiny metal penises and start blasting away.

Assuming a neighbor with a gun heard the commotion and stepped outside, he or she did exactly what was suppose to be done: don't get involved because you don't know who is right and who is wrong. Call the cops and be a good witness an defend your family in your home.

[yardwork]

35. I think there is a good point being made here.

Reasonable people recognize that Trayvon was under age. But there is a group of people - think of the people who showed up at Sarah Palin's rallies - who would normally be running around screeching about how this case "proves" that everybody should carry a firearm, and those people don't usually check facts like the age of the victim or minimum age laws. Those people don't post on DU either.

Those people are racists. They're being very very quiet right now because the last thing on earth they want to suggest is that black teenagers should be allowed to carry firearms. I think that's the point of this article.

[JDPriestly]

58. But, if 19-year-olds could carry guns, but 17-year-olds couldn't,

how would the 17-year-olds defend themselves in a world in which many people carried guns?

And what about your 84-year-old grandmother with cataracts? Would you want her carrying a gun? Do you think it would help her protect herself if she were mistaken for a criminal?

Remember, in this case, the guy carrying the gun was excitedly waiting to find a criminal.

[yardwork]

59. Were you responding to my post? I am not in favor of carrying firearms.

I understand that it's legal and everything, and I'm not interested in trying to deny people their rights, plus it is a losing issue for Democrats so I just stay out of all that. Personally, I don't own any weapons and am not interested in doing so. Nor do I believe that everybody should be armed - far from it. I'm not sure where you got that in my post.

I was talking about how racists wouldn't want black men to be armed.

[JDPriestly]

60. I agree.

[Skinner]

36. Just for the sake of argument, let's pretend he was 18.

Or whatever age is old enough to carry a gun.

Would it have done Trayvon any good to be carrying a gun? I suspect he would not be any better off.

If Trayvon shot Zimmerman, then Trayvon -- black kid in the wrong neigborhood -- would likely be seen as the aggressor who gunned down a innocent neighborhood-watch volunteer.

If Zimmerman shot Trayvon, then Zimmerman could easily claim self-defense: After all, Trayvon had a gun.

The only reason we are talking about this AT ALL, is because Trayvon was carrying Skittles rather than a gun.

[TheMadMonk]

46. How dare you get logical boss man? You take all the fun out of it.

My thinking is the silence from the gun toting right is very, very telling. Also telling is the near silence of the professional shit stirrers like Rush and his odious ilk.

There is no painting this one pretty or palatable. NO ONE seriously entertains a scenario that puts Trayvon in the wrong and Zimmerman the right. Pretty much EVERYONE knows what happened, even if they refuse to acknowledge it.

[krispos42]

47. Well, he certainly wouldn't be any worse off.

And with the 911 calls of both men... Martin complaining of being followed and stalked, with Zimmerman simultaneously announcing he was going to confront an interloper in "his" housing complex instead of waiting for the cops, it's pretty clear who was initiating what.

Zimmerman almost certainly would be to blame for any death. Under the Florida stand-you-ground law, you can't claim self-defense if you are the instigator of conflict. The only exception is if Zimmerman started a conflict with Martin, they separated and Zimmerman clearly stated and showed he was done fighting but Martin decided to get a few more licks in.

[div class=excerpt style=background:#AFEEEE]776.012?Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1)?He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2)?Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

776.032?Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1)?A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2)?A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3)?The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

776.041?Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1)?Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2)?Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a)?Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b)?In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

boldface is mine


Since Martin didn't have any weapons, the exception outlined is a) is very unlikely. It is virtually impossible for Martin to have responded to Zimmerman's provocation with such disproportional force that Zimmerman feared for his life.

I'll also note that section a) seems to have placed a burden to retreat on Zimmerman.



The problem seems to be with the police and governmental selective enforcement of these laws. In other words, institutional racism.

[ellisonz]

62. +1,000,000

[slackmaster]

8. "Packing" would have made Trayvon a criminal

He was perfectly innocent. Let's not piss on his memory with asinine ideas.

[rhett o rick]

14. Seems somehow ironic. Martin wasnt legally able to defend himself with a weapon

while Zimmerman was. Is the NRA backing Zimmerman?

[Bladian]

25. Of course he wasn't, he was UNDERAGED.

There's plenty of reasons to think the NRA might be backing Zimmerman, but this is not one. Zimmerman was of a legal age to carry a gun, Martin wasn't. Whether Zimmerman should've been allowed to is a different matter, as far as age is concerned, he was perfectly fine.

[rhett o rick]

38. Of course, you are arguing against noone. Do you support Zimmerman's actions or not?

I just said it was ironic that the kook was allowed by law to carry a gun and the victim wasnt.

[slackmaster]

30. The 26th Amendment gave 18-year-olds the right to vote, but nothing else.

If you feel that 18-year-olds (or 17-year-olds) should be allowed to buy handguns, take it up with Congress.

[rhett o rick]

37. Wow, all I said was that it is ironic that the kook got to carry a gun to defend himself

and the victim didnt. I know the law. What has the NRA said about this case?

[Skinner]

39. "Piss on his memory"?

Wondering if he might have been able to defend himself if he had a firearm = "Piss on his memory"?

That is an odd point of view for a supporter of gun rights.

Methinks that Markos might have struck a nerve.

[slackmaster]

40. I consider the possibility of Trayvon carrying a firearm to be a moot question.

Yes, Markos struck a nerve and I believe that was his intent.

I don't believe anyone here seriously doubts that Trayvon Martin did nothing wrong, that he was completely innocent, and above all that he did not deserve to be shot. Introducing a hypothetical in which he is breaking the law IMO doesn't add anything of value to the discussion.

ETA it's very common in firearm-related discussions for someone to bring up the "if only so-and-so had been armed" meme. Almost invariably it's done sarcastically by someone who opposes the right to keep and bear arms. I'll admit to being sensitive to it, because very few if any people on the pro-RKBA side believe that everyone should carry a weapon.

[Skinner]

41. Doesn't add anything of value...

...for you.

[Paladin]

9. Nice Catch, Markos. Kicked. (n/t)

[X_Digger]

10. Umm, because he was 17 years old?!? (ie, not eligible for an FL CWP)

I so wish folks would understand the subjects they're pontificating on *before* they open their mouths.

[Paladin]

16. So All Of A Sudden, You Gun Enthusiasts Are Backing Firearms Laws. Imagine That.

There's a first time for everything, I suppose.

[X_Digger]

18. There are plenty of laws, I back. Have any proof otherwise?

Or are you going to hide behind 'you gun enthusiasts' as not meaning *me* personally?

Typical.

[Kalidurga]

11. The NRA position is not logical then if age is a factor...

I really don't know how young too young is, but I seriously doubt there is a huge gap in responsibility between 17 and 18. So, if it is good for an 18 year old to carry a 17 year old should be as well. They really should be exploring getting children to carry. Not, that I agree with that, but they should find out the lowest age of responsibility and push for that if they really believe guns are good.

[slackmaster]

13. Minimum age to qualify for a concealed firearm permit in Florida is 21

There is a big difference between 17 and 21. By my calculations it's 4.

[daligirl519]

12. You are dead on. . .

Thank you!

[Zax2me]

15. Actually, I've heard that twice.

It was not comforting in any way, though.

[TeamsterDem]

17. Because Trayvon was 17 and thus ineligible to own a gun

Before you argue that his age didn't prevent him from being killed by one, that's an appeal to emotion as opposed to a logical argument. We have laws in this country regarding who can and can't possess firearms, and through his age Trayvon was too young to carry one. Much in the same way that sometimes children who are too young to drink alcohol themselves are killed by drunken drivers, this case involves a man - Zimmerman - who needs to be prosecuted for his crimes. But outlawing all forms of guns simply won't get all guns off the street, and arguably it won't even reduce the murder rates since murder rates in other countries with stricter gun laws don't necessarily seem to bear that out.

The straw man presented by this blog post is incredibly disingenuous and hardly rational. No responsible individual would ever advocate for a 17 year old to carry a gun, and that we aren't calling for that doesn't show our insensitivity to Trayvon Martin, but instead to the generally-accepted societal rule that 17 year olds aren't yet eligible to do certain things, such as vote or drink alcohol. Anyone of any age who murders another individual using whatever means needs to stand trial and, if convicted, serve time in prison. But just as we don't outlaw alcohol because on it some people do horrific things such as driving drunk, we don't then ban guns simply because a distinct statistical minority commits a crime using one.

[Major Hogwash]

19. Excellent observation, Markos.

If only LaPierre had been there to gun down someone that day!!!

[lonestarnot]

20. Here's why.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002465333

[Mariana]

21. They do that when an INNOCENT person gets gunned down.

They've convinced themselves that Trayvon wasn't innocent. They think Zimmerman was the victim in this, that Trayvon jumped him from behind and tried to kill him and got what he deserved.

Makes me want to puke.

[Iliyah]

22. The NRA position actual

purpose is making a profit. Inorder to do that, they must instill fear alongwith instilling that having gun(s) secures your protection against anything or anyone trying to take your "freedom" away, including, but not limited to, the government. The Democratic party wants to take your "freedoms" away, plus they are socialists to boot.

The NRA don't care about Americans, they could care less about shot outs, riots, wars, revolutions (as long as they are winning), as long as they can sell guns, bullets, guns, bullets and whatever else they can make a profit off of.

[fascisthunter]

23. Because they are Sick Racist Fuckheads

[TheKentuckian]

26. Ohh...I notice and I wish the kid was in a position to defend himself.

He was taken down because he was defenseless and a coward thought he was in a position of strength.

We and each other are the personal security we have, that is not the mission of the police.

[tularetom]

27. Sadly, if he shot the asshole he would have been in a world of hurt

Since he was only 17 years old, too young to be carrying a firearm under FL law.

Of course he'd still be alive so there is that.

[proud2BlibKansan]

28. The day conservatives want to arm young black men . . . .

Sorry - that's a huge universe shifter.

[-..__...]

29. You realize of course...

that despite all the finger pointing, accusations and shrieking ...the NRA is in no way accountable, culpable, responsible or to be blamed for the events that unfolded in Sanford... zero... zip... nada.

The "lets blame the NRA" game is just a load of hot air from a slew of drama queens and empty headed "know-it-alls".

[marshall gaines]

31. ???

no brainer. typical america

[ScottLand]

32. Omygod is that a great point! Thanks!

[LisaL]

34. Because he is a minor and I guess they aren't prepared yet to argue that minors should

be able to get concealed weapon licenses.

[Cali_Democrat]

43. If a white minor was stalked, hunted and killed by a black guy twice his size...

you can bet conservatives would be arguing for the person killed to be allowed to carry a gun.

[Pachamama]

44. Yes, that is absolutely what would have happened....

...and its why the NRA and GOP talking heads arent saying anything encouraging for young black males to be packing....

But guaranteed, like you said, if the race had been reversed and a large black man twice the size of a white teen boy had shot and killed an unarmed white teenage boy, I will bet my lily-white ass that is exactly what would happen.

Its so shameful what kind of racism exists in this country....I'm embaressed by it and disgusted by it.

[arthritisR_US]

49. +1

[klook]

50. THANK YOU.

That is the point that's eluding many contributing to this thread.

[McCamy Taylor]

42. Hell, they probably advocate Zimmerman carrying a "throw down" weapon

to justify his use of deadly force.

[Number23]

45. The uncomfortable squirming in this thread that this question invoked is delicious to see.

I bet there is even more squirming amongst conservatives when presented with this same question.

[sarisataka]

48. I would say...

The NRA is silent for the same reason the Brady group, VPC... do not comment when a person successfully defends themselves with a gun.

Did any Pro-'Sane' Gun Law groups comment when Sarah McKinley defended herself and child?

http://gma.yahoo.com/okla-woman-shoots-kills-intruder-911-operators-okay-091106413.html

They could not have missed it; was quite the story for three days.

If I missed any support given please do tell

[Odin2005]

51. The PTB don't like armed black men, see what they did to the Black Panthers.

"Gun Control" was originally a RW attempt to keep guns from African-Americans.

[hack89]

52. Because it against the law for a minor to carry a gun in public? nt

[graham4anything]

53. remember the million man march?

Since that happened, I always wondered,
what if every single person who marched, had their 2nd amendment legal gun with them,
and acted like the republicantealibertarians did two years ago at their events, stroking their
guns.

The NRA never seems to open their ugly big mouths when a black is involved.

The deafening is silence.

The NRA needs to be audited (like that Ron Paul yaps about the fed), see who is really funding the group, and what their money is actually used for. (They use alot more money
as a tax free entity, than the miniscule membership yearly fee).

Audit and exam.

[Kablooie]

54. Because he was black. They want guns to protect white people only.

African Americans are what they think they are defending themselves from.

[JDPriestly]

57. And we aren't hearing much about "victim's rights" these days either. HMMMMM

Wonder why?