17y/o Killed By Neighborhood Watch/CHL

[mamabearCali]

I have stated nothing but fact and supported my arguments with the law and countered your arguments with your own words. Your inability to debate intelligently does not make me a bully.
Good evening

You have misinterpreted and over interpreted me and put words in my mouth that I did not say. You have said I am making blanket statements when I have said repeatedly that I am talking about TM. Just because I am talking about a case does not mean I want to debate a person on the particulars of a law. Saying I am unintelligent for not wanting to do so is not polite. Good night.

[mamabearCali]

This may all be true, but a 17 year old who has a bad temper (swinging on a bus driver) a drug problem (pot and drank), and a tendency towards crime (burglary tools found and jewlery on him in school) has no business being near a pellet gun. A rubber band gun or water pistols was all he was mature enough for.

JMRA
This is the quote that started all this nonsense. Notice I said nothing about the law. Notice I am talking common sense stuff. You brought up the law. Not me. I would not give a teen like this a pellet gun much less give him permission (consent) to be anywhere near a real firearm. Perhaps you see thing different.

If I do not know the precise particulars of TX law that can be forgiven as this is not the T.X. specific forum and this incident was in FL not TX. I live in VA not TX. If the TX law is consent not supervision that is a really fine line and I see them as quite interrelated. Consent in my non-lawyer opinion implies supervision. You say otherwise...ok...but I would not want my son to fall on the wrong side of that one.

[G26ster]

You are arguing the case and I am not. But you and others have been going round and round about his legal ability to possess a gun based on the photo. I am simply looking for proof that the hand holding the gun is Trayvon's, and so far I have seen none.

As I said before Mr. Martin said it was his hand.....could he have been lying? Sure. Mr. Martin is not on trial for possession of a firearm. But if he was, a written confession is often admissible in court. If you say you did something online, even if it is a lie, you can still be bagged for it.

Now as our other friend here has pointed out if he had his parents permission to have the gun he would get a pass on possesion, but somehow I doubt they had any idea of their sons actions.

However, Just for you I will try to search out the link that showed the gun and trayvons post about it.


Edited to add....here is the link about TM and the gun. It is NBC so they are not exactly pro-Zimmerman. Draw from it what you want. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05 ... phone?lite

Thanks for the link, but the article says nothing about Martin saying it was his hand. In fact it says,

"Martin's texts also indicate he may have been curious about guns.

"U gotta gun?" reads a text from Martin's phone, sent on Feb. 18, 2012, to a friend of his who was on the phone with him on the night of the shooting.

"You want a 22 revolver" asks someone in a text he receives that day.

Three days later, Martin mentioned a caliber of gun while asking a friend in another text, "U wanna share a .380 w.[redacted]?""

It also says,

"...and a close-up picture of a gun that the defense says was taken from Martin's camera, although it's not evident from the photo who is holding the gun."

[mamabearCali]

Perhaps the defense has more....I don't know. Really the gun is the least of Mr. martins troubles...the drugs, fights, and burglary look much worse on him. I does appear that he was looking for a gun though from the way those texts read.

[G26ster]

Perhaps the defense has more....I don't know. Really the gun is the least of Mr. martins troubles...the drugs, fights, and burglary look much worse on him. I does appear that he was looking for a gun though from the way those texts read.

I agree, and as I said before, I am not arguing the case, only that there is no evidence that shows it is TM that is holding the gun, therefore, at least to me, the discussion as to whether he legally "possessed" a gun is moot. Also, I hope that my "interest" in guns is never used against me in a court.

[jmra]

This may all be true, but a 17 year old who has a bad temper (swinging on a bus driver) a drug problem (pot and drank), and a tendency towards crime (burglary tools found and jewlery on him in school) has no business being near a pellet gun. A rubber band gun or water pistols was all he was mature enough for.

JMRA
This is the quote that started all this nonsense. Notice I said nothing about the law. Notice I am talking common sense stuff. You brought up the law. Not me. I would not give a teen like this a pellet gun much less give him permission (consent) to be anywhere near a real firearm. Perhaps you see thing different.

If I do not know the precise particulars of TX law that can be forgiven as this is not the T.X. specific forum and this incident was in FL not TX. I live in VA not TX. If the TX law is consent not supervision that is a really fine line and I see them as quite interrelated. Consent in my non-lawyer opinion implies supervision. You say otherwise...ok...but I would not want my son to fall on the wrong side of that one.

And I simply stated that we would not want someone else determining whether or not we should have the right to possess a firearm.
At this point I was done until you responded that a 17 year old can not possess a gun without parental supervision period. This can not possibly be viewed as a statement solely about TM. It was made as a statement of fact which I refuted.
If this was not your intent then my apologies. But it was what you stated.
Finally, good evening.

[jmra]

Perhaps the defense has more....I don't know. Really the gun is the least of Mr. martins troubles...the drugs, fights, and burglary look much worse on him. I does appear that he was looking for a gun though from the way those texts read.

I agree, and as I said before, I am not arguing the case, only that there is no evidence that shows it is TM that is holding the gun, therefore, at least to me, the discussion as to whether he legally "possessed" a gun is moot. Also, I hope that my "interest" in guns is never used against me in a court.

[mamabearCali]

Perhaps the defense has more....I don't know. Really the gun is the least of Mr. martins troubles...the drugs, fights, and burglary look much worse on him. I does appear that he was looking for a gun though from the way those texts read.

I agree, and as I said before, I am not arguing the case, only that there is no evidence that shows it is TM that is holding the gun, therefore, at least to me, the discussion as to whether he legally "possessed" a gun is moot. Also, I hope that my "interest" in guns is never used against me in a court.

He is dead , we don't put dead people on trial. So it does not really matter. You are (likely) not as troubled as Mr. Martin was. So you are probably safe.

If it was just his interest in guns that was being used to smear him, I would say it is inappropriate to say anything about it. However it is part of a picture that is emerging of Mr. Martin and who he was at the time of his death. Leave out the guns and you have the same picture as before. So they could scrap the gun tweets and have the same picture of a deeply troubled young man. They guns part simple fills out the picture a little more.

[G26ster]

Perhaps the defense has more....I don't know. Really the gun is the least of Mr. martins troubles...the drugs, fights, and burglary look much worse on him. I does appear that he was looking for a gun though from the way those texts read.

I agree, and as I said before, I am not arguing the case, only that there is no evidence that shows it is TM that is holding the gun, therefore, at least to me, the discussion as to whether he legally "possessed" a gun is moot. Also, I hope that my "interest" in guns is never used against me in a court.

He is dead , we don't put dead people on trial. So it does not really matter. You are (likely) not as troubled as Mr. Martin was. So you are probably safe.

If it was just his interest in guns that was being used to smear him, I would say it is inappropriate to say anything about it. However it is part of a picture that is emerging of Mr. Martin and who he was at the time of his death. Leave out the guns and you have the same picture as before. So they could scrap the gun tweets and have the same picture of a deeply troubled young man. They guns part simple fills out the picture a little more.

Of course TM is not on trial, but his character will become an issue at trial, and certainly impact the jury, if the prosecution is allowed to introduce negative character evidence about Mr. Zimmerman. If so, Zimmerman's attorney will attempt to do the same with TM's "character." So yes, I think it "does matter" whether character evidence, on either side, is accurate and not just speculation.

[mamabearCali]

And I simply stated that we would not want someone else determining whether or not we should have the right to possess a firearm.
At this point I was done until you responded that a 17 year old can not possess a gun without parental supervision period. This can not possibly be viewed as a statement solely about TM. It was made as a statement of fact which I refuted.
If this was not your intent then my apologies. But it was what you stated.
Finally, good evening.

Well if you are under 18 your parents determine it, so the teens will just have to deal with it.

Look this did not even happen in TX this happened in Florida. Do you know the Florida law off the top of your head....I don't.

I know VA law generalities and I know if you want to avoid arrest in VA and you are under 21 you had better be with your mom and dad if you have a handgun on you. Legally you can open carry at 18, but the cops will harass you if you look less than 21. Even if the code says consent......wisdom here says not all cops know the code so you had better have your mom dad or another responsible adult handy. You are speaking TX law specifics (consent vs supervison) and I am speaking VA law generalities...avoid the rap and the ride.

[mamabearCali]

Of course TM is not on trial, but his character will become an issue at trial, and certainly impact the jury, if the prosecution is allowed to introduce negative character evidence about Mr. Zimmerman. If so, Zimmerman's attorney will attempt to do the same with TM's "character."

I think at minimum the toxicology report needs to be admitted that had a direct impact on what happened that night. If he was high as a kite that is a biggie. Tangentially as he was said to have mounted Zimmerman MMA style, his you tube videos of him participating in such fights would be relevant (as in he had trained in this before). Zimmerman said it looked like he was casing houses...so the burglary tools becomes relevant (was Trayvon casing houses?). I think those things need to be considered. The schools absenteeism and the guns fill in blanks in his character, but they may not be directly relevant.

[G26ster]

Of course TM is not on trial, but his character will become an issue at trial, and certainly impact the jury, if the prosecution is allowed to introduce negative character evidence about Mr. Zimmerman. If so, Zimmerman's attorney will attempt to do the same with TM's "character."

I think at minimum the toxicology report needs to be admitted that had a direct impact on what happened that night. If he was high as a kite that is a biggie. Tangentially as he was said to have mounted Zimmerman MMA style, his you tube videos of him participating in such fights would be relevant (as in he had trained in this before). Zimmerman said it looked like he was casing houses...so the burglary tools becomes relevant (was Trayvon casing houses?). I think those things need to be considered. The schools absenteeism and the guns fill in blanks in his character, but they may not be directly relevant.

Guess I added the following too late:

"So yes, I think it "does matter" whether character evidence, on either side, is accurate and not just speculation."

[jmra]

And I simply stated that we would not want someone else determining whether or not we should have the right to possess a firearm.
At this point I was done until you responded that a 17 year old can not possess a gun without parental supervision period. This can not possibly be viewed as a statement solely about TM. It was made as a statement of fact which I refuted.
If this was not your intent then my apologies. But it was what you stated.
Finally, good evening.

Well if you are under 18 your parents determine it, so the teens will just have to deal with it.

Look this did not even happen in TX this happened in Florida. Do you know the Florida law off the top of your head....I don't.

I know VA law generalities and I know if you want to avoid arrest in VA and you are under 21 you had better be with your mom and dad if you have a handgun on you. Legally you can open carry at 18, but the cops will harass you if you look less than 21. Even if the code says consent......wisdom here says not all cops know the code so you had better have your mom dad or another responsible adult handy. You are speaking TX law specifics (consent vs supervison) and I am speaking VA law generalities...avoid the rap and the ride.

Florida law:
It is unlawful to sell, give, barter, lend or transfer a firearm or other weapon other than an ordinary pocketknife to a minor less than the age of 18 without his parent’s permission, or to any person of unsound mind.
So, if it was a pic of his hand and when the firearm was obtained he had the permission of his parent and he was not convicted of a crime barring him from possession of a firearm then he was within his rights to have it.
Note: given what I have seen of his parents to date, it would not surprise me one bit to learn that they had given him a gun.

ETA
VA law:
A person under 18 shall not possess or transport a handgun or assault firearm.1
This prohibition does not apply to a minor in his own home or on his property or on the property of another with prior permission.
So even in VA if he had his parents consent and was on private property he still would have been within his rights to possess the firearm.
ETA
Consent vs. Supervision
I sign a consent for my child to go on a field trip. If I do not go with my child on the trip then he is not under my supervision.
Consent and supervision are distinctly different in definition.

[mamabearCali]

Sure....it matters. We want to be accurate and tell the truth. There is no need to lie. One does not even have to posture here. Mr. Martin was who he was. Truth and fact will out, hopefully in time for justice for Zimmerman.

[mamabearCali]

Florida law:
It is unlawful to sell, give, barter, lend or transfer a firearm or other weapon other than an ordinary pocketknife to a minor less than the age of 18 without his parent’s permission, or to any person of unsound mind.
So, if it was a pic of his hand and when the firearm was obtained he had the permission of his parent and he was not convicted of a crime barring him from possession of a firearm then he was within his rights to have it.
Note: given what I have seen of his parents to date, it would not surprise me one bit to learn that they had given him a gun.

ETA
VA law:
A person under 18 shall not possess or transport a handgun or assault firearm.1
This prohibition does not apply to a minor in his own home or on his property or on the property of another with prior permission.
So even in VA if he had his parents consent and was on private property he still would have been within his rights to possess the firearm.[/quote]

I see this a bit different than you. His parents did not give a darn about him. They did not tend to his needs or even keep his whereabouts in the front of their minds. I don't think they would give him permission simple because I don't think it would occur to them to care about him enough to teach him about gun and keep him safe. I don't think it would occur to him to ask them for permission. Giving a person a gun generally means you care about them enough to see to their safety. So if he had the gun, I don't think he had permission simply because I think there was a total breakdown in parenting at all levels. I don't think he asked and I don't think they cared enough about him for it to occur to them to give him permission.

Could I be wrong.....sure.

Now the VA code is what it is......but if you are in a non country county in VA and you are popping off rounds in target practice (and you are under 18) your parents had better be around or you will go for a ride if the blue lights show up. Now off in the mountains no one is going to notice your shots anyway so go ahead. The VA code will come in at trial.....but in the heat of the moment the cops intuition will determine whether you get a ride downtown or not. It is common wisdom here to (in the suburbs) keep guns with underage people in use only under supervision or parents not too far off.

ETA Sadly I think had Mr. Martin gone home that night and lived to see the next day I think within a short period of time (months perhaps) he would have soon lost his firearm rights as he seemed to be into drugs and that will get you DQed in a New York minute. He was a very troubled young man.