Rangerland Forum Information

[Kusand]

Oh I see he was never charged...but he was arrested back in 2005.

I guess that is not enough to allow someone to not have a gun.

Given that an arrest isn't proof of anything, no, it isn't.

[Rhino]

Oh I see he was never charged...but he was arrested back in 2005.

I guess that is not enough to allow someone to not have a gun.

Given that an arrest isn't proof of anything, no, it isn't.

I agree with that. If you are arrested and cleared of wrongdoing, I don't think it should be held against you. If you fit a pattern of behavior that raises flags however (and I suppose it would be up to lawmakers to determine that criteria) I think your license should be subject to a review.

[jkman61494]

Besides it's not that hard to get a gun with a record. Just go to any gun show and you can probably get one from a guy that doesn't do any checks. A few greens can go a long way

[Alitaki]

Besides it's not that hard to get a gun with a record. Just go to any gun show and you can probably get one from a guy that doesn't do any checks. A few greens can go a long way

Illegally in other words.

[Greatone]

[Ebase]

Guns aren't awful things. People are awful things. You know who will always have guns if they are completely banned to civilians? Only the worst people and criminals. Criminals/gangs don't go to the gun shop and buy their guns and get background checks. If you want to say that home invasions are a rare occurrence, well so are cases like the trayvon murder. So is columbine. I've heard about more home invasions in Nassau county in the last 6 months than I've heard of any cases like the trayvon thing. A close childhood friend of mines cousin, who I also knew growing up was a victim of a home invasion in Suffolk county roughly 10 years ago. He's dead.

And I totally understand people's desires to protect themselves and their families. But I don't think handguns are the way to do it. Burglar alarms, better locks, more vigilance, etc. There are so many things wrong with the guns as defense idea. Most home invaders do not want conflict and shooting them is not actually just in the courts eyes unless you are threatened with a similar force. Them just breaking in is not a license to kill, you'll probably go to jail. Most average people can not shoot guns well and just make the situation more hazardous. Then if you have children, you run into the huge catch-22 of how do you keep a handgun in a state where it can be easily accessible and usable without also seriously jeopardizing your kids' safety to begin with. Many gun deaths in this country are due to accident. Many of those deaths are from owners who's kids have gotten into the gun cabinet, or found it on the top shelf of the closet, or whatever. Kids snoop. You either have to put your gun in such a place where the kid can't find it, and thus, it's not quickly available to you in case of an invasion, or you made it easier to get to and more easy for them to find.

See I don't agree here.

Alarms? Locks? Pfft... This is my house and this is the people i would readily and gladly die to keep safe. And I am no NRA nut job. I do have weapons in my house and I am not going to depend on law enforcement when it comes to the safety of my family. In short, you break in my house, I will fucking drop you where you stand. And I think everyone should have the right to own A gun. Not a fucking arsenal. A gun. And it should be licensed, and there should be mandatory training for it. I have spent time in the shooting range, I am proficient with it, I have a license for it.

And so while I used to have a trigger lock that required a key and then I had to load it, I now have a gun locker underneath my bed on a combo lock. It is a combo that only my wife and I know and my children would NEVER figure it out. In it I have a fully loaded and ready weapon. It gives me satisfaction and security that I have the ability to keep my family safe. I do have an alarm system (although since I am cutting back it isn't monitored by a service so shhhhh...,) I have a camera at my front door (something that someone put into the home before I bought it.) I have a few floods on sensors in the back and side of the house. So I consider my house pretty secure. Probably more then most. But, I am fiercely protective of my family. Probably a little overreaching.

But here is the thing. I don't have a Rambo sized arsenal in my house. I am not standing on my porch as some self appointed neighborhood watch ass hole. I don't care about stand your ground rules. I think they are stupid. I will gladly go to jail if it meant that I shot someone inside my house in order to protect my family. Not on my lawn, or street. In my living room. Inside my house.

The rest of these crazy laws that are passed is insanity. I don't walk around strapping. I don't sit on my porch waiting for someone to walk by in a hoodie. I do live in a gated community.

This debate is going to turn into a ludicrous NRA thing where they will talk about us needing more guns and how guns don't kill people, people do. And the idea no matter how insane the kid may look, you go back in your house and you call the police if you suspect something. You go inside, you lock your door. If he breaks in, you shoot his ass. And that is where it should stop. Not even my property. It's when you are forcing entry into my home. Inside my house? Go fuck yourself. I make 0 bones about it. I will drop you with no warning.

I think the whole gun argument gets completely blown out of proportion eveytime one of these things happen. My opinion is, that if you shoot someone on the street, regardless of anything else he may be doing is murder. End of subject. There is nothing justifiable about it. If that person is in your home, fuck'em.

There are plenty of people in the US that want to see guns abolished. I would be perfectly happy getting rid of my gun when I know that guns aren't going to be around any more. I realize that this is a circular argument but... And then, I'll still be cautious enough to have some other forms of weaponry in my house. I have children. I don't have the luxury of trusting that our law enforcement can be on the scene in time for me to properly protect my family.

Just my .02

This. An alarm system is a great deterrent, and most times someone snooping around for a house to break in will avoid a house with a "Protect by XYZ alarm service" sign in the yard. But if someone does break in, by the time police get there the intruder will have already done their business and gone.

Do not underestimate the power of "I was afraid for my life and my family's lives" in court-- as long as you don't shoot the person and then walk up to them while they're on the ground and put the rest of your magazine/chamber into them to make sure they're good and dead, the court will likely side with you and dismiss any potential charges. The line gets drawn, as I said, when it is shown that you went above-and-beyond the force necessary to neutralize the threat. Other than that, nobody can say what happened inside your house and you, being the victims of the robbery, would get the benefit of the doubt if you had a solid story and stuck to it.

And just to clarify, Pete, I hope to God I am never put in a position where I have to defend my home from an intruder. I am not a rabid gun-enthusiast, but I will do whatever is necessary to protect loved ones. That's all I was saying. But as far as carrying around guns? No, I don't do that and do not agree with anyone who does. It's asking for trouble. Carrying a gun in your car is a great way to end up shooting someone in a fit of road rage. Why put yourself in a position where that can happen?

Don't overestimate that power, either. Many, if not most, states do not have a home-is-a-castle law. If you shoot someone in your house and the jury decides you had no reason to fear mortal danger then you're in jail and everything you own is melted down and going to his family.

Like what happens when the person breaking in is an unarmed junkie looking to grab a stereo and run. Or when it's the drunk neighbor breaking a window and coming in, thinking it's his house and his wife locked him out. Or when it's your son returning at 3am from sneaking out to meet his girlfriend under the bleachers.

And, remember, if he does have a gun and you shoot him, unless it's a head or a heart shot he's probably still on his feet, very angry, and entirely armed.

My personal opinion on this is literally fuck'em. I would gladly to jail over this. Why? I don't take chances with my family.

If they wanted to put me away for killing someone who broke into my home I would have zero buyers remorse. I don't want to go to jail by any stretch but if that is what the jury felt and that was the law, I'd accept judgement and grieve for my own losses knowing my family was safe.

Again, I am no gun nut. I am just a family nut. And they are the most important things in my life. And that means a break-in at my house results in your death.

[LisaLisa]

Lawrence O'Donnell has gone all 'Nancy Grace' on this case. As much as this case upsets me, I can't stand what he's doing. I tried to watch tonight as his guest was Zimmerman's associate but I had to turn away. It was shameful, embarrassing and served no purpose. I want to see justice done, but I can't abide the way he's handling himself or covering this case.

[jkman61494]

Lawrence O'Donnell has gone all 'Nancy Grace' on this case. As much as this case upsets me, I can't stand what he's doing. I tried to watch tonight as his guest was Zimmerman's associate but I had to turn away. It was shameful, embarrassing and served no purpose. I want to see justice done, but I can't abide the way he's handling himself or covering this case.

Forget Nancy Grace, he's going Bill O'Reily. I don't know if he thinks this case is his opportunity to turn into Keith Olbermann 2.0, but the guy is unwatchable right now. I saw that interview for about 5 minutes and Lawrence I think literally had arranged refutes he was going to say no matter what Zimmerman's friend said.

The guy could have said "wow, it's starting to rain here" and O'Donnell would have gone off on him about his reasoning being incoherent, dangerous, pathetic etc etc etc.

I'd expect this kind of stuff from Fox News, Keith, or Al Sharpton. Even Ed Shultz. Very disappointed to see Lawrence stoop this low.

[leedsy99]

Lawrence O'Donnell has gone all 'Nancy Grace' on this case. As much as this case upsets me, I can't stand what he's doing. I tried to watch tonight as his guest was Zimmerman's associate but I had to turn away. It was shameful, embarrassing and served no purpose. I want to see justice done, but I can't abide the way he's handling himself or covering this case.

I don't watch his show and just stumbled on it a few days ago, because I occasionally watch Rachel Maddow. He was disgusting. His guest was supposed to be Zimmerman's sttorney, who walked out pre-interview. After blasting the guy for five minutes, using words like cowardly and making conclusions like "Well, if his attorney is too scared to face me, I wonder what that says about his client," he then proceeded to list what kind of questions he was going to ask. The questions were direct factual questions, which would not only compromise a current investigation but forces an innocent man -- innocent until proven guilty -- to defend himself in advance of even being formally charged. This interview would go against nearly every single constitutional right in the criminal arena, and the failure to submit to it resulted in O'Donnell asking his viewers to draw every negative inference they could about the case.

I've never seen anything so awful in my life and, not saying this lightly, he should be taken off the air. How dare you blast an attorney for refusing to participate in something that would violate his constitutional rights. I know that participation was voluntary, but his client is receiving death threats and having bounties put on his head -- he has to do something to at least remind the rabid public that there is an alternative set of facts here than the one being offered by the victim's family.

[Greatone]

http://news.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin-video...topstories.html

[leetchie69]

http://news.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin-video...topstories.html

You mean he made up a story to try to make it seem like self defense!?

[Kusand]

http://news.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin-video...topstories.html

You mean he made up a story to try to make it seem like self defense!?

In some ways it would be much easier if this was that open and shut, but it does mention in the article that this was after medical attention at the scene. More interesting is that he didn't visit the emergency room after, despite his broken nose.

Edit: This is to say, I think this video doesn't prove anything to us. But I don't know what someone post-medical-attention being brought in should look like. Some suggest he should at least have a bloody shirt even though his face shouldn't be bloody. I just wouldn't assume it means anything off the bat without hearing from someone smarter than, say, you or I.

This post has been edited by Kusand: Mar 28 2012, 09:32 PM

[leetchie69]

Zimmerman said he was heading back to his car when Martin attacked him. His lawyer, Craig Sonner, said his client felt "one of them was going to die that night," when he pulled the trigger.

Interesting that he felt like this considering he had a gun in his possession.

[Knight of Dight]

So the police video of Zimmerman's booking has been released, and you can see in it that he has no wounds or bruising on his head. Pretty damning.

[Greatone]

http://news.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin-video...topstories.html

So the police video of Zimmerman's booking has been released, and you can see in it that he has no wounds or bruising on his head. Pretty damning.

[jkman61494]

I really wish Sharpton and Jackson would just go away. At this point, it'd lead credence to the case if they'd disappear so you can remove some of the controversy. So many people here in PA side with Zimmerman because they think this is the "liberal media" and blacks turning a non-issue into a circus.

Also, I heard a far right radio show here saying the Black Panther Party just put out a $1 million reward for capturing Zimmerman. If that's the case, that's just baaaad.

[Charlie]

I really wish Sharpton and Jackson would just go away. At this point, it'd lead credence to the case if they'd disappear so you can remove some of the controversy. So many people here in PA side with Zimmerman because they think this is the "liberal media" and blacks turning a non-issue into a circus.

Also, I heard a far right radio show here saying the Black Panther Party just put out a $1 million reward for capturing Zimmerman. If that's the case, that's just baaaad.

I have no idea about the dollar amount (that seems very rich) but they did put out a bounty.

[HDH]

So the police video of Zimmerman's booking has been released, and you can see in it that he has no wounds or bruising on his head. Pretty damning.

You know, I hate saying things that even give the pretense of me defending him because I blame him for instigating the entire incident whether or not it was even race related, but I think a wound is clearly visible on the back of his head.

Not only that, but at one point after he emerges from the police car handcuffed, the fat officer on the left side of the screen is CLEARLY seen examining the back of Zimmerman's head to see the extend or existence of a wound.

This is in NO WAY such clear proof that he is without injuries. And it is also possible to break one's nose without bleeding.

I don't think anyone ever claimed that Martin had attacked and beaten him to a bloody pulp, nor is that required in ANY state as a prerequisite to self-defense. He said he was hit, and that the back of his head was being slammed into the ground. Based on the video I watched, that is certainly (at least) a possibility.


EDIT: Just read the article above. Disagree that there is not a mark on the back of his head.

This post has been edited by HDH: Mar 29 2012, 06:12 AM

[jkman61494]

HDH. Much of what you say is true. The only thing I will say though is I have heard defenders of Zimmerman saying he WAS being beaten into a bloody pulp, mess, etc.

I think that's why this video may get the attention you disagree with. One of the only things the Zimmerman defenders were using about how he was being beaten to the point he was bleeding.

Again, you're right. You can't make 100% judgement on this. It's not like you win a court trial with this vid. However, people who used this "bloody" defense now should probably keep mum.

[leedsy99]

This is in NO WAY such clear proof that he is without injuries. And it is also possible to break one's nose without bleeding.

I second the comment that this is not meant to defend him. As stated, justificiation (self-defense) does not required an actual injury. The fact that he doesn't have a substantial physical injury, which is not conclusive in any way from the video but would be pretty apparent by the lack of continuing medical treatment, is good proof to refute his account of what Martin did to him. I also haven't seen this mentioned yet -- you do not need a physical injury to be substantially hurt. We prosecuted a murder case several years ago where the girl did not have a single physical mark on her body. The defendant bashed her head against the wall and caused internal trauma. If Martin was bashing his head against the sidewalk, significant enough to open up a cut, that might be enough to qualify for self-defense. A jury would have to decide.

By the way, unrelated as proof but warrants mentioning, I've talked about it before here but the second-most graphic injury I ever received was when I accidently stepped into a ceiling fan. The pain was incredible, and the amount of blood that poured out was amazing. I received no medical treatment for it, ever. With pressure on my head, I stopped the bleeding within ten minutes. I felt no dizzyness or fatigue or anything weird for the next few hours, just some steady soreness. Getting medical treatment alone is not a perfect indicator of anything during the moment.

This post has been edited by leedsy99: Mar 29 2012, 09:24 AM

[Sed]

Finally saw a clip of the O'Donnell program discussed earlier. What a monumental toolbag.

[Knight of Dight]

One thing that really bothers me about this case is why so little has been said and done about the Black Panthers putting a "hit" on Zimmerman. I guaran-fucking-tee you that if the roles were reversed and a group like the KKK publicly put a bounty on a black guy, there would be a shitstorm of epic proportions. It's amazing how people turn a blind eye to reverse racism.

[jkman61494]

One thing that really bothers me about this case is why so little has been said and done about the Black Panthers putting a "hit" on Zimmerman. I guaran-fucking-tee you that if the roles were reversed and a group like the KKK publicly put a bounty on a black guy, there would be a shitstorm of epic proportions. It's amazing how people turn a blind eye to reverse racism.

Complete agreement here. It was one of the only times I listened to the local Tea Party radio station here in Harrisburg and actually agreed with them. Despite some moron of an attorney calling in and somehow trying to say what the Panthers were doing was legal, it still doesn't take away from what you're saying.

It's like when I hear people of a minority talk about why they want to live in a neighborhood of their race, religion etc. I understand that the predominant race in America and also in Europe were the ones responsible for slavery, but I still think we're at a time we ought to start calling B.S. on ALL sides.

[Nilan 666]

Not a defense but this is all about publicity. How many Americans even know there is a new Black Panther Party? That said this is beyond stupid to condemn Zimmerman by offering to go vigilante on him. Point, missed.

[the old mole]

If I were going to take up that bounty, I'd follow Zimmerman around until he started worrying that I was out to harm him. Fearing for his safety, he'd "defend himself" by confronting me, and then I'd double defend myself by shooting him during the ensuing fight.

[jkman61494]

Not a defense but this is all about publicity. How many Americans even know there is a new Black Panther Party? That said this is beyond stupid to condemn Zimmerman by offering to go vigilante on him. Point, missed.

Well, the Tea Party people were/are trying to say that the Black Panthers were trying to intimidate voters and take part in voter fraud. But you're pretty accurate in what you're saying.

All in all it's just lunacy. Instead of trying to rise above hate, their best solution is to kidnap or kill the man who killed Zimmerman. This is why we'll always struggle to solve these types of race issues. The black panther solution to what they believe is a hate crime is to put out a $1 million ransom out.

This post has been edited by jkman61494: Mar 29 2012, 09:45 PM

[Knight of Dight]

Quick, fix your typo before anyone notices.

[Sed]

Instead of trying to rise above hate, the best solution is to kidnap or kill the man who killed Zimmerman.

So... Pre-cog, or do you have a time machine?

[jkman61494]

[Greatone]

Instead of trying to rise above hate

[Charlie]

One thing that really bothers me about this case is why so little has been said and done about the Black Panthers putting a "hit" on Zimmerman. I guaran-fucking-tee you that if the roles were reversed and a group like the KKK publicly put a bounty on a black guy, there would be a shitstorm of epic proportions. It's amazing how people turn a blind eye to reverse racism.

I don't think there would be a big deal if the KKK did this. Everyone knows the KKK are cooks the same way people just ignore the Black Panthers. The radical fringe exists, and the less we pay attention to it the better.

[Kusand]

One thing that really bothers me about this case is why so little has been said and done about the Black Panthers putting a "hit" on Zimmerman. I guaran-fucking-tee you that if the roles were reversed and a group like the KKK publicly put a bounty on a black guy, there would be a shitstorm of epic proportions. It's amazing how people turn a blind eye to reverse racism.

Ah yes, the plight of the white man and reverse racism. Will no one do something to help the downtrodden Caucasian in America?

Perhaps, as others have said, no one takes the "New Black Panther Party" very seriously. There's essentially zero popular support for this "bounty", as well as zero popular support for the party. Most of us were able to say "well that's stupid" and move on. I'm wondering what do you expect to be "said and done." You know, beyond the universal condemnation that they've received for the few minutes the news cycle could spare for a splinter group doing something dumb. Do you think this should be bigger news than the Trayvon Martin story now?

[Kusand]

One thing that really bothers me about this case is why so little has been said and done about the Black Panthers putting a "hit" on Zimmerman. I guaran-fucking-tee you that if the roles were reversed and a group like the KKK publicly put a bounty on a black guy, there would be a shitstorm of epic proportions. It's amazing how people turn a blind eye to reverse racism.

I don't think there would be a big deal if the KKK did this. Everyone knows the KKK are cooks the same way people just ignore the Black Panthers. The radical fringe exists, and the less we pay attention to it the better.

I think it would be a slightly bigger deal, but only because the KKK is a historically significant group (or group name, more accurately), whose brutal history goes back to the end of the Civil War. The New Black Panther Party is a splinter group from 1989 that isn't even acknowledged by the original Black Panthers, and a group whose main history according to Wikipedia is dumb protests and one incident of voter intimidation.

[Sed]

Everyone knows the KKK are cooks

Especially that racist Boyardee.

[Tex]

If I were going to take up that bounty, I'd follow Zimmerman around until he started worrying that I was out to harm him. Fearing for his safety, he'd "defend himself" by confronting me, and then I'd double defend myself by shooting him during the ensuing fight.

my wife talked about this concept last night. So, Zimmerman hides behind "Stand Your Ground", but why couldn't Trayvon do it, too? Don't they each have the same right to protection under that law concept? Just as with traffic laws, they can't BOTH be right and "occupy the same space at the same time", so the fault must lie with the instigator. As my defense would be for taking out any fucktard in my home stealing from or threatening me: "If you don't come into my home to do me wrong, you don't end up dead. End of fucking story, douchebag."

[leedsy99]

my wife talked about this concept last night. So, Zimmerman hides behind "Stand Your Ground", but why couldn't Trayvon do it, too?

Except Trayvon is dead. I would have a real problem with the Sanford police if they arrested him at this point.

"Stand Your Ground" is an exception from arrest/prosecution, as near as I can understand it. It's a criminal defense, and I don't know enough about Florida law to explain how it would work in criminal context. In New York, we have no similar law. If you shoot someone like Zimmerman did, regardless of your side, you're getting arrested. However, at your criminal trial, if you present evidence that you acted out of a reasonable fear of serious physical injury, your action could be considered justified and you would have to be found innocent. The prosecution then has the burden to disprove your theory.

For example*, George Zimmerman is charged with depraved indifference murder, and the prosecution shows that he shot an unarmed teenage kid in an act that law enforcement told him to avoid. He then presents evidence that he followed Trayvon to get his current location for law enforcement, Trayvon attacked him, struck him repeatedly and was bashing his head against concrete. In the struggle, Zimmerman pulls out his gun and shoots him. The prosecution would then have to disprove this theory, using (for example) his lack of any substantial injury or other eyewitness accounts that minimize the extent of Trayvon "attacking" him.



*Hypothetical. I have no idea what happened and please don't challenge my version as such.

[Tex]

I'm right with you, Leeds (and I have very much enjoyed your perspective and experience-based depth of detail through all of this). My wife was visualizing the implied moments just before Trayvon's fatal injury, when he, too, is feeling threatened and trying to stand his own ground. To her, in those moments, both men are looking to Stand Your Ground for protection under law, yet they both can't be right. Her question is: Does somebody draw two minutes for instigating on this?

[jkman61494]

As it pertains to this Black Panther thing, I don't think it should be merely ignored and judged as unimportant. When you have a situation as emotionally fueled as this, you don't want something like that hanging around for some person to think they're Robert De Niro from Midnight Run, or worse, a person who may think that $1 million is to kill him.

There are a lot of crazy and dangerous people in this world. While it's nowhere near as important in context to the Martin case, I do think it's something other African American groups should have condemned.

[rightbug]

In New York, we have no similar law. If you shoot someone like Zimmerman did, regardless of your side, you're getting arrested. However, at your criminal trial, if you present evidence that you acted out of a reasonable fear of serious physical injury, your action could be considered justified and you would have to be found innocent.

Oh my.

[Charlie]

Everyone knows the KKK are cooks

Especially that racist Boyardee.

Haha whoops. I mean kooks.

[rightbug]

One thing that really bothers me about this case is why so little has been said and done about the Black Panthers putting a "hit" on Zimmerman. I guaran-fucking-tee you that if the roles were reversed and a group like the KKK publicly put a bounty on a black guy, there would be a shitstorm of epic proportions. It's amazing how people turn a blind eye to reverse racism.

[Beamer]

[Rhino]

One thing that really bothers me about this case is why so little has been said and done about the Black Panthers putting a "hit" on Zimmerman. I guaran-fucking-tee you that if the roles were reversed and a group like the KKK publicly put a bounty on a black guy, there would be a shitstorm of epic proportions. It's amazing how people turn a blind eye to reverse racism.

What is reverse racism, exactly? Is that when the black panthers drive around giving honkeys free candy and ice cream and telling them how awesome they all are?

[Rhino]

This is not correct.

[HDH]

In New York, we have no similar law. If you shoot someone like Zimmerman did, regardless of your side, you're getting arrested. However, at your criminal trial, if you present evidence that you acted out of a reasonable fear of serious physical injury, your action could be considered justified and you would have to be found innocent.

Oh my.

Momentary bafflement?

[Kusand]

In New York, we have no similar law. If you shoot someone like Zimmerman did, regardless of your side, you're getting arrested. However, at your criminal trial, if you present evidence that you acted out of a reasonable fear of serious physical injury, your action could be considered justified and you would have to be found innocent.

Oh my.

Momentary bafflement?

He was standing his linguistic ground. Back off. You can't call him on that.

[LisaLisa]

As it pertains to this Black Panther thing, I don't think it should be merely ignored and judged as unimportant. When you have a situation as emotionally fueled as this, you don't want something like that hanging around for some person to think they're Robert De Niro from Midnight Run, or worse, a person who may think that $1 million is to kill him.

There are a lot of crazy and dangerous people in this world. While it's nowhere near as important in context to the Martin case, I do think it's something other African American groups should have condemned.

I never heard of the "new" Black Panther party until now. Nobody I know has ever heard of the "new" Black Panther party until right now. And nobody takes it seriously. I would leave it up to the proper authorities to keep an eye on this situation just in case some fool decides to take them up on it. Also, can't you get the details right before you post this stuff? It's a $10,000 bounty! Not one million. If you had gotten that part right, then maybe you'd understand why nobody is taking them seriously.

And just to be crystal clear (in case anyone thinks otherwise and tries to "call me out"), this bounty business is just plain wrong, no matter who or what group were to do it.

[Sed]

As it pertains to this Black Panther thing, I don't think it should be merely ignored and judged as unimportant. When you have a situation as emotionally fueled as this, you don't want something like that hanging around for some person to think they're Robert De Niro from Midnight Run, or worse, a person who may think that $1 million is to kill him.

There are a lot of crazy and dangerous people in this world. While it's nowhere near as important in context to the Martin case, I do think it's something other African American groups should have condemned.

I never heard of the "new" Black Panther party until now. Nobody I know has ever heard of the "new" Black Panther party until right now. And nobody takes it seriously. I would leave it up to the proper authorities to keep an eye on this situation just in case some fool decides to take them up on it. Also, can't you get the details right before you post this stuff? It's a $10,000 bounty! Not one million. If you had gotten that part right, then maybe you'd understand why nobody is taking them seriously.

You're both wrong - the press release stated that the person who brought in Zimmerman would get $10,000 worth of Bounty. Them's a lot of paper towels. A man could retire with that kind of supply...

[Mike B.]

You're both wrong - the press release stated that the person who brought in Zimmerman would get $10,000 worth of Bounty. Them's a lot of paper towels. A man could retire with that kind of supply...

The Zimmer picker-upper?

[jkman61494]

Well, either the radio station here is stupid, or they're intentionally trying to misguide people. For 3 days now, every time I've heard them talk about this issue with the Black Panthers, they have said it was a $1 million bounty. So I apologize if I was wrong, but I was going off what they've been spouting.