PDA

View Full Version : ‘Trayvon' shouted as group attacks Good Samaritan



Dolphins9954
04-18-2012, 05:35 PM
The name of Trayvon Martin was invoked again Wednesday night in Gainesville during an attack by a group that police say stomped on a white man who was scuffling with a black robbery suspect on the Bo Diddley Community Plaza.
The robbery suspect, Carl Milton Babb, 50, had been released from prison earlier in the day after serving more than two years in prison for the same crime he is accused of committing Wednesday — snatching a purse from a woman near the downtown plaza.

According to a Gainesville Police Department arrest report, Babb approached a woman eating dinner at the Lunchbox on the plaza at about 8:50 p.m. and asked her for a light.
When she said she didn't have one, Babb took off with her purse, which contained her $500 cellphone, according to the report.

The woman's dinner companion and another person took off after Babb.

When her friend caught up with Babb, according to the police report, Babb punched him in the face and grabbed his hair, but he was able to keep Babb pinned down, according to the report.

The scene attracted a crowd, and a number of people on the plaza approached Babb and the Good Samaritan, who tried to explain that Babb had just stolen his friend's purse.

GPD spokeswoman Cpl. Angelina Valuri said some members of the crowd shouted "Trayvon!" and that at least three of members of the crowd began stomping on the hands of the woman's friend to force him to let go of Babb.

Babb, who was listed as homeless, was arrested by police a few blocks away.

Valuri said some witnesses to the robbery tried to calm down the crowd, affirming the victim's story that he was trying to stop a man accused of a crime and retrieve his friend's purse.


"The crowd was acting off of emotion without knowing all of the facts of this case," Valuri said, adding that investigators didn't immediately know the names or races of the men or women who stomped on the victim.

It was the second attack in the past week in Gainesville in which assailants yelled the first name of Trayvon Martin, the unarmed black 17-year-old who was shot and killed by crime-watch volunteer George Zimmerman as the teen walked back to his father's girlfriend's apartment in Sanford on Feb. 26.

http://www.gainesville.com/article/20120412/ARTICLES/120419865/1002/news?p=1&tc=pg


http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/04/riots-1.jpg

Locke
04-18-2012, 06:29 PM
That picture you posted, are you implying that the President pushed the media to make this a racial thing...?

MarshallFin1
04-18-2012, 06:56 PM
Are you just sitting on your computer all day looking for dirt on trayvon? thats pretty sad dude.... Stop making this a race issue, its a right and wrong issue, evidense supports this was a wrong, time to face reality.

baddsnapp4
04-18-2012, 07:05 PM
im sick of the whole thing now, lets just imagine that a video surfaces tomorrow showing that the kid did have a weapon of some kind OR that the man was not the one who shot him, then what?why cant they wait for justice like everyone else? YES IT HAS TAKEN TOO LONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! but what if the man they were kicking died, then they are no better, why not wait until the court finds him not guilty so we can all protest together?

Dolphins9954
04-18-2012, 07:29 PM
Are you just sitting on your computer all day looking for dirt on trayvon? thats pretty sad dude.... Stop making this a race issue, its a right and wrong issue, evidense supports this was a wrong, time to face reality.

I'm not the one making this a race issue.

Dolphins9954
04-18-2012, 07:34 PM
That picture you posted, are you implying that the President pushed the media to make this a racial thing...?

Come on Locke don't you know by now that I'm a sarcastic prick? The media made it a racial thing and totally manipulated the story to fit the BS racism narrative. Where I fault Obama is not doing the presidential thing and calming down the misled masses. Instead he only added to it.

LANGER72
04-18-2012, 08:26 PM
I am not surprised at all the way the onlookers reacted and also the way the president injected himself into what should have been a local issue.

The "stompers" should have been charged with assault.

I actually found the picture quite funny...with a ring of truth behind it...

Locke
04-18-2012, 09:52 PM
Come on Locke don't you know by now that I'm a sarcastic prick? The media made it a racial thing and totally manipulated the story to fit the BS racism narrative. Where I fault Obama is not doing the presidential thing and calming down the misled masses. Instead he only added to it.

There wasn't much he could do, except say nothing. Obviously, as POTUS, that's impossible considering how big of a thing this turned out to be. Personally, I think he handled it the best way he could. He made an innocuous comment about Trayvon looking like his son if he had one, and left it at that. It shows he is sympathetic, but he isn't entrenching himself one way or another. If he said anything more, I'm not aware of it, so correct me if I'm wrong.

You have to look at this politically, he is eliminating votes if he takes a hard stance one way or another. I know what you're going to say, but every politician would have to do the same thing. You simply can't fault the man for not wanting to alienate anyone. It's not worth losing potential votes by taking a side. I would have preferred if he came out and condemned the media for their behavior, but I can understand why he chose to stay on the sidelines. Honestly, if he did this with our foreign policy, we'd be in pretty good shape...

phinfan3411
04-18-2012, 10:03 PM
I believe 9954 is on the right track.

I'm not going to even discuss the case anymore, too tiring, but i do believe the push by media and the usual subjects to make this a racial issue is as plain as the nose on any of our faces.

The President did not help one bit, he could have, but did not.

Meanwhile, a polar opposite of this case happened at almost the same time in Arizona, with a black pistol carrier shooting a mentally disabled hispanic at a taco bell drive through, and i am pretty sure i am the only one on this forum that knows about it.

The concealed carry guy has not been arrested, the mentally disabled guy he shot while he was in the safety of his car, claimed he had a pipe, but all that could be found was a leash as he was walking his dog.

Am i supposed to assume this was a racial issue?

Am i supposed to fly to Arizona to "rally" to get the police to make a arrest?

Honestly, would not cross my mind, and unless something BIG pops up with this shooter, i certainly would not think it was racially motivated, you see i feel all those people that just throw around the race card completely unsubstantiated are no better than those they seem to loathe.

Dogbone34
04-18-2012, 10:33 PM
i would have said no comment, i'm too busy downsizing the federal government

you may not like it but your grandkids will

Next...

WSE
04-18-2012, 10:45 PM
the bystander had no right to chase and hold down a robbery suspect...... idiots, dont take police matters into your hands.

WSE
04-18-2012, 10:56 PM
as for the "stompers", what they saw is a non-uniformed civilian take down and restrain another non-uniformed civilian. Are they not supposed to try to get the aggressor off.

The bystander may of been right morally to do what he did (I know the robber's past actions are driving that argument), but he was a macho type idiot who created a more dangerous situation by trying to take police action into his own hands, with no authority or distinguishing features of a cop.

phinfan3411
04-18-2012, 10:56 PM
the bystander had no right to chase and hold down a robbery suspect...... idiots, dont take police matters into your hands.

You read that story, and that's your take?

Clipse
04-18-2012, 10:59 PM
the bystander had no right to chase and hold down a robbery suspect...... idiots, dont take police matters into your hands.

Not sure if serious?

phinfan3411
04-18-2012, 10:59 PM
as for the "stompers", what they saw is a non-uniformed civilian take down and restrain another non-uniformed civilian. Are they not supposed to try to get the aggressor off.

The bystander may of been right morally to do what he did (I know the robber's past actions are driving that argument), but he was a macho type idiot who created a more dangerous situation by trying to take police action into his own hands, with no authority or distinguishing features of a cop.

That's more like it.

WSE
04-18-2012, 10:59 PM
You read that story, and that's your take?

in addition to the second comment, yes

the bystander, no matter how morally correct he was or may have been, made the wrong move. To the others, it was a scuffle between two non uniformed civilians and created a more dangerous situation that there was before.

Clipse
04-18-2012, 11:02 PM
in addition to the second comment, yes

the bystander, no matter how morally correct he was or may have been, made the wrong move. To the others, it was a scuffle between two non uniformed civilians and created a more dangerous situation that there was before.

Only that everyone was telling these idiots that the man is a thief, and then stomped on the man anyways, while saying "Trayvon". A bunch of thugs.

WSE
04-18-2012, 11:06 PM
Only that everyone was telling these idiots that the man is a thief, and then stomped on the man anyways, while saying "Trayvon". A bunch of thugs.

why believe people who are not authority figures instead of trying to get the one person off another person? They also stomped on his hands (presumably to get him off the robber), and did not lay down blows on the head or anything would would of been totally inappropriate with the amount of force the bystander was using to restrain the robber.

The guy was an idiot. He created a scuffle which could of easily turned into something really bad. Him having the right reasons to be an idiot does not excuse him for creating a dangerous situation.

Gonzo
04-18-2012, 11:08 PM
as for the "stompers", what they saw is a non-uniformed civilian take down and restrain another non-uniformed civilian. Are they not supposed to try to get the aggressor off.

The bystander may of been right morally to do what he did (I know the robber's past actions are driving that argument), but he was a macho type idiot who created a more dangerous situation by trying to take police action into his own hands, with no authority or distinguishing features of a cop.Wait, so it's okay that they take "police matters" into their own hands? Contradicting your previous post.

And what's driving the argument that he did the right thing is that he actually witnessed the robbery given that it was his friend that was robbed, not the fact that the robber had a criminal history.

It's pretty clear cut. What the guy did was legal and correct. The robber and the "stompers" are in the wrong and all should be in jail. Of course, I doubt anybody will be shouting for justice for the "stomped."

Dolphins9954
04-18-2012, 11:10 PM
in addition to the second comment, yes

the bystander, no matter how morally correct he was or may have been, made the wrong move. To the others, it was a scuffle between two non uniformed civilians and created a more dangerous situation that there was before.

The douchebags here are the purse snatcher and the mob that was defending him by ganging up on a good samaritan. How anyone can miss that is beyond me.

WSE
04-18-2012, 11:12 PM
Wait, so it's okay that they take "police matters" into their own hands? Contradicting your previous post.

And what's driving the argument that he did the right thing is that he actually witnessed the robbery given that it was his friend that was robbed, not the fact that the robber had a criminal history.

It's pretty clear cut. What the guy did was legal and correct. The robber and the "stompers" are in the wrong and all should be in jail. Of course, I doubt anybody will be shouting for justice for the "stomped."

witnessing a crime as a civilian gives you no right to tackle a guy down.

Also, breaking up a fight is not police matters. Its common behavior when a fight is in front of you. Subduing a guy is not.

"Stomping" on hands to break up a fight to me does not equal thug and jail. There is no inappropriate force there.

WSE
04-18-2012, 11:15 PM
The douchebags here are the purse snatcher and the mob that was defending him by ganging up on a good samaritan. How anyone can miss that is beyond me.

you say good Samaritan, I say unmarked civilian. Having a moral right to tackle does not equal the legal right to tackle.

If the stompers saw the robbery I would say otherwise, but if they only saw one guy tackle and hold down another (no matter what the first was claiming), I see no problem in them trying to break up the scuffle.

Taking matters into your own hands, even with the moral authority to do so, is not always the right thing to do. I am not calling the Samaritan a terrible person, Im calling him an idiot for creating a scuffle and potential for violence when there was no need to.

Clipse
04-18-2012, 11:21 PM
why believe people who are not authority figures instead of trying to get the one person off another person? They also stomped on his hands (presumably to get him off the robber), and did not lay down blows on the head or anything would would of been totally inappropriate with the amount of force the bystander was using to restrain the robber.

The guy was an idiot. He created a scuffle which could of easily turned into something really bad. Him having the right reasons to be an idiot does not excuse him for creating a dangerous situation.

You're right. I forgot that common sense is a lost art in today's society. These thugs knew what they were doing.

---------- Post added at 11:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:19 PM ----------


witnessing a crime as a civilian gives you no right to tackle a guy down.

Also, breaking up a fight is not police matters. Its common behavior when a fight is in front of you. Subduing a guy is not.

"Stomping" on hands to break up a fight to me does not equal thug and jail. There is no inappropriate force there.

lolwut? Restraining a person that just commited a crime isn't common behavior but breaking up a fight that doesn't concern you is? This guy must be trolling.

WSE
04-18-2012, 11:23 PM
You're right. I forgot that common sense is a lost art in today's society. These thugs knew what they were doing.

why is in common sense?

so if im on top of somebody, all I have to say is "he stole my wallet" and everybody should be fine with what I am doing?

But this was a homeless guy being tackled....so he must of been guilty of something!

Gonzo
04-18-2012, 11:23 PM
witnessing a crime as a civilian gives you no right to tackle a guy down.

Also, breaking up a fight is not police matters. Its common behavior when a fight is in front of you. Subduing a guy is not.

"Stomping" on hands to break up a fight to me does not equal thug and jail. There is no inappropriate force there.:lol: Contradictions continue. Let me try it. Witnessing a "crime" (which a "fight" is, since that's what you are falsely considering it) as a civilian gives you no right to start stomping on one of the "fighters." It's a "police matter." Your words, not mine.

Subduing a guy that just robbed you is absolutely common behavior for somebody that's capable of doing it, just as much as breaking up a "fight." (and shouting "Trayvon" as some sort of battle cry). You are WELL within your rights to defend yourself and well within your rights to subdue a criminal if you are capable while waiting for police. That's the law. You may not agree with it, you may be willing to stand aside as others rob you, but that doesn't mean others legally have to do the same.

Think what you want about the Trayvon case, you don't have a leg to stand on here. Notice the police themselves are saying the guy did nothing wrong in subduing the CRIMINAL.

phinfan3411
04-18-2012, 11:24 PM
Wait, so it's okay that they take "police matters" into their own hands? Contradicting your previous post.

And what's driving the argument that he did the right thing is that he actually witnessed the robbery given that it was his friend that was robbed, not the fact that the robber had a criminal history.

It's pretty clear cut. What the guy did was legal and correct. The robber and the "stompers" are in the wrong and all should be in jail. Of course, I doubt anybody will be shouting for justice for the "stomped."

I have to agree 100%, the good Samaritan was wrong for not leaving this situation for the police, but the crowd is alright taking matters into their own hands?

Dolphins9954
04-18-2012, 11:25 PM
you say good Samaritan, I say unarmed civilian. Having a moral right to tackle does not equal the legal right to tackle.

If the stompers saw the robbery I would say otherwise, but if they only saw one guy tackle and hold down another (no matter what the first was claiming), I see no problem in them trying to break up the scuffle.

Taking matters into your own hands, even with the moral authority to do so, is not always the right thing to do. I am not calling the Samaritan a terrible person, Im calling him an idiot for creating a scuffle and potential for violence when there was no need to.


Are you purposely deleting the part where they were screaming "Trayvon" as they ganged up on one guy? (Which by the way is a coward thing to do) You're totally contradicting yourself. On one hand you say it was wrong for this guy to chase a criminal. But then on the other hand defend a mob from beating up on one guy. Which one is it?? The man did the right thing and chased down a freaking douchebag criminal that stole his friends purse. The mob was wrong to beat him up while screaming "Trayvon". Even if they were trying to "break up a fight" yelling Trayvon's name while gangbanging a person defeats your whole arguement.

Gonzo
04-18-2012, 11:26 PM
why is in common sense?

so if im on top of somebody, all I have to say is "he stole my wallet" and everybody should be fine with what I am doing?

But this was a homeless guy being tackled....so he must of been guilty of something!Following the logic you posted only a few posts above, they should call the police and let them sort it out. Right? Not to mention MULTIPLE people there witnessed the robbery and tried to stop the idiots stomping the guy, shouting "Trayvon" in an attempt to justify their thuggery, and conveniently skipping out of there before police arrived.

And he was guilty of something, robbery. Again. Poor guy.

WSE
04-18-2012, 11:28 PM
lolwut? Restraining a person that just commited a crime isn't common behavior but breaking up a fight that doesn't concern you is? This guy must be trolling.

Tacking a guy and then restraining him is police action

breaking up a fight is not putting anybody in restraint, just taking guys off one another. Happens in all sports, all school playgrounds, etc. When you see a scuffle, you separate the people, get between them. You are not holding anybody. Not putting anybody under citizen arrest, etc.

Sorry my opinion is unpopular here. A kid died because of somebody thinking they were a cop when they were unmarked.... I am not going to take kindly for civilians taking things into their own hands. What if the robber here was armed? What if an actual fight broke out and harmed the people around the fight since this was a busy area? Let the cops do their jobs, who have uniforms and a badge to show third parties they have authority. Dont take matters into your own hands no matter what moral authority you do have.

Clipse
04-18-2012, 11:28 PM
you say good Samaritan, I say unmarked civilian. Having a moral right to tackle does not equal the legal right to tackle.

If the stompers saw the robbery I would say otherwise, but if they only saw one guy tackle and hold down another (no matter what the first was claiming), I see no problem in them trying to break up the scuffle.

Taking matters into your own hands, even with the moral authority to do so, is not always the right thing to do. I am not calling the Samaritan a terrible person, Im calling him an idiot for creating a scuffle and potential for violence when there was no need to.

I don't know about Florida laws, but there is this thing called Citizen's Arrest. You know, where citizens restrain criminals until the proper authorities arrive. So yes, he probably does have the legal right to tackle.

Clipse
04-18-2012, 11:32 PM
why is in common sense?

so if im on top of somebody, all I have to say is "he stole my wallet" and everybody should be fine with what I am doing?

But this was a homeless guy being tackled....so he must of been guilty of something!

You forgot the part about several other witnesses trying to calm everyone down. You also keep conveniently leaving out the part where they were saying "Trayvon".

Dolphins9954
04-18-2012, 11:32 PM
Tacking a guy and then restraining him is police action

breaking up a fight is not putting anybody in restraint, just taking guys off one another. Happens in all sports, all school playgrounds, etc. When you see a scuffle, you separate the people, get between them. You are not holding anybody. Not putting anybody under citizen arrest, etc.

Sorry my opinion is unpopular here. A kid died because of somebody thinking they were a cop when they were unmarked.... I am not going to take kindly for civilians taking things into their own hands. What if the robber here was armed? What if an actual fight broke out and harmed the people around the fight since this was a busy area? Let the cops do their jobs, who have uniforms and a badge to show third parties they have authority. Dont take matters into your own hands no matter what moral authority you do have.

Ganging up on one person and stomping him while yelling Trayvon = Breaking up a fight. I get it.

WSE
04-18-2012, 11:32 PM
Are you purposely deleting the part where they were screaming "Trayvon" as they ganged up on one guy? (Which by the way is a coward thing to do) You're totally contradicting yourself. On one hand you say it was wrong for this guy to chase a criminal. But then on the other hand defend a mob from beating up on one guy. Which one is it?? The man did the right thing and chased down a freaking douchebag criminal that stole his friends purse. The mob was wrong to beat him up while screaming "Trayvon". Even if they were trying to "break up a fight" yelling Trayvon's name while gangbanging a person defeats your whole arguement.

the mob did not beat up on anyone according to what I read....they stomped on hands to break up a scuffle. Whether the scuffle was warranted or not is irrelevant.

As far as yelling Trayvon, I don't know or care about their intentions, which is why I have not mentioned it (and probably is the only reason it is posted here....so conservatives could get their shots in). Its a popular case and maybe they saw a citizen going beyond their duties and reacted poorly to it. Maybe they did not take kindly to a quasi "citizens arrest".

WSE
04-18-2012, 11:38 PM
I don't know about Florida laws, but there is this thing called Citizen's Arrest. You know, where citizens restrain criminals until the proper authorities arrive. So yes, he probably does have the legal right to tackle.

only under reasonable suspicion of a felony. Purse snatching is usually petty theft, though the contents inside could equal over the amount to make it a felony. Either way, bystander probably did not know this unless he had knowledge of what was inside of the purse, and the other bystanders if they did not see the crime did not know this.

I have no moral problem with what this guy did. He was right. He still was an idiot to create a dangerous situation.

Clipse
04-18-2012, 11:49 PM
only under reasonable suspicion of a felony. Purse snatching is usually petty theft, though the contents inside could equal over the amount to make it a felony. Either way, bystander probably did not know this unless he had knowledge of what was inside of the purse, and the other bystanders if they did not see the crime did not know this.

I have no moral problem with what this guy did. He was right. He still was an idiot to create a dangerous situation.

The bystander who made the restraint was a friend of the victim. I'd say it's pretty reasonable to think he knew she had an expensive phone in there, worth $500, which does indeed make this a case of felony theft, which did give him the legal right to restrain the thief until police could arrive. I'd also say snatching a purse in such a public place is a breach of peace, which gives him even more right to make a citizen's arrest. And after doing a little research it seems chasing down a purse snatcher is perfectly legal regardless if it's a felony or not.

And the thief was charged with felony theft, as well as misdemeanor battery.

ohall
04-18-2012, 11:50 PM
There wasn't much he could do, except say nothing. Obviously, as POTUS, that's impossible considering how big of a thing this turned out to be. Personally, I think he handled it the best way he could. He made an innocuous comment about Trayvon looking like his son if he had one, and left it at that. It shows he is sympathetic, but he isn't entrenching himself one way or another. If he said anything more, I'm not aware of it, so correct me if I'm wrong.

You have to look at this politically, he is eliminating votes if he takes a hard stance one way or another. I know what you're going to say, but every politician would have to do the same thing. You simply can't fault the man for not wanting to alienate anyone. It's not worth losing potential votes by taking a side. I would have preferred if he came out and condemned the media for their behavior, but I can understand why he chose to stay on the sidelines. Honestly, if he did this with our foreign policy, we'd be in pretty good shape...

Sorry he made it bigger, even though it was big when he made his comments. But he could have chose to not say anyhing other than the entire thing is a tragedy. He said what he said, because he is a politician and stirring up his base is good for him.

He either knew it would cause controversy or he is an idiot. Your choice. Personally, I don't think he's an idiot, he knows exactly what he's doing when he stirs crap up.

WSE
04-18-2012, 11:55 PM
The bystander who made the restraint was a friend of the victim. I'd say it's pretty reasonable to think he knew she had an expensive phone in there, worth $500, which does indeed make this a case of felony theft, which did give him the legal right to restrain the thief until police could arrive. I'd also say snatching a purse is a breach of peace, which gives him even more right to make a citizen's arrest.

I just looked up the law actually to make sure I was right on this. There is no section specifically for citizens arrest, but it is included under the section for police arresting out of district. It needs to be on suspicion of a felony, and the citizen needs to act with the same restraints and laws under which a cop would. Breach of peace means nothing here really. I dont know where you got that language

I could see the companion having knowledge of what is in the purse (he probably did not know the law though), but how could the other bystanders if they did not see the robbery? The guy was telling them what the guy did, but is that enough for them to beleive it when they see a fight?

Also, I take exception to this mob "attacking" the guy from what is in the article. Attack sounds bad, when the article really says this


GPD spokeswoman Cpl. Angelina Valuri said some members of the crowd shouted "Trayvon!" and that at least three of members of the crowd began stomping on the hands of the woman's friend to force him to let go of Babb.

to me, that sounds like trying to break up what was going on rather than trying to hurt somebody as the word attack would indicate.

Dolphins9954
04-18-2012, 11:58 PM
Pretty sad day when doing the right thing is considered wrong. Like the saying goes "No good deed goes unpunished".

Clipse
04-19-2012, 12:06 AM
I just looked up the law actually to make sure I was right on this. There is no section specifically for citizens arrest, but it is included under the section for police arresting out of district. It needs to be on suspicion of a felony, and the citizen needs to act with the same restraints and laws under which a cop would. Breach of peace means nothing here really. I dont know where you got that language

I could see the companion having knowledge of what is in the purse (he probably did not know the law though), but how could the other bystanders if they did not see the robbery? The guy was telling them what the guy did, but is that enough for them to beleive it when they see a fight?

Also, I take exception to this mob "attacking" the guy from what is in the article. Attack sounds bad, when the article really says this


to me, that sounds like trying to break up what was going on rather than trying to hurt somebody as the word attack would indicate.

The man commited a felony. The guy witnessed the crime. He had every right to restrain him. That's all there is to it.

As for the other bystanders, they could of, and should of used common sense. Why would a bunch of people with no affiliation to the victim claim the man stole a purse. And then I would assume this man still had the purse in his possession when he was tackled. No common sense. They seen a white man restraining a black man, and instantly started chanting Trayvon and allowed their bigotry to consume them.

WSE
04-19-2012, 12:08 AM
Pretty sad day when doing the right thing is considered wrong. Like the saying goes "No good deed goes unpunished".

I may be in the minority here, but I have a problem with all forms of "citizens arrest"

These are unmarked people going after other citizens. Who no training, no identification. How does it look to people who did not see the crime? How dangerous is it to the person making the citizens arrest, with no training and who knows what the criminal is thinking? How is it for the robber... the citizen has no training, and therefore may or may not use excessive force? Is stealing something worth your life being in danger from a person applying force with no training?

Its a legal mess imo, and more dangerous that what it is worth. Its gets people arrested who may or may not of been caught later, but is that worth these previous problems?

Dolphins9954
04-19-2012, 12:09 AM
Also, I take exception to this mob "attacking" the guy from what is in the article. Attack sounds bad, when the article really says this


to me, that sounds like trying to break up what was going on rather than trying to hurt somebody as the word attack would indicate.


No.

Ya57adZR-Cc

Not only was the crowd chanting Trayvon before 3 people started stomping one guy. But they also took off afterwards to avoid the police. Sorry if I'm not buying the "breaking up a fight" theory. The police don't seem to be buying it either. I'm not getting the good samaritan vibes from this crowd at all. That honor goes to the guy that chased down the criminal.

Spesh
04-19-2012, 12:13 AM
I don't know about Florida laws, but there is this thing called Citizen's Arrest. You know, where citizens restrain criminals until the proper authorities arrive. So yes, he probably does have the legal right to tackle.

Living in Tallahassee i'll try and handle this question.

In Florida, you do NOT have the right to hold down a criminal. What you are suppose to do is pull out your gun and begin firing into the general direction of whatever situation is occuring. After which you then have to immediately begin demanding the political affilation of any witnesses. If they answer "Democrat" or refuse to answer, you are required by law to shoot them without hesitation. If you only wound them you receive a fine.
After police have calmed down the scene you are immediately taken to the highest power in the state to go over the charges: Jeb Bush. So long as you followed the directives listed above, all the while screaming "THESE COLORS DONT RUN!", you are usually let off with a mild rebuke for less than ideal accuracy with your weapon of choice at the scene of the crime and allowed to leave the premises. If you do not leave quick enough it has been rumored Bush will consider you a hostile and invoke his own second ammendment rights. Of course, there has been no official statement on that one way or another. It is also considered common courtsey to give Allen West a treat on the way out.

All of this assumes that you are using something more powerful than a 9mm. If you arent, Bush will demand you stand trial. During which you have the option to plead guilty, not guilty, or can start a firefight. If you can get a mile from the courthouse without shedding a drop of blood you are considered innocent.

WSE
04-19-2012, 12:18 AM
No.

Ya57adZR-Cc

Not only was the crowd chanting Trayvon before 3 people started stomping one guy. But they also took off afterwards to avoid the police. Sorry if I'm not buying the "breaking up a fight" theory. The police don't seem to be buying it either. I'm not getting the good samaritan vibes from this crowd at all. That honor goes to the guy that chased down the criminal.

I quoted the article you posted

also, there is no evidence of attack by going after the hands of the person holding another down. You dont buy breaking up a fight even though that's what the article you posted says. I do. Difference of opinion I guess.

Dolphins9954
04-19-2012, 12:20 AM
Babb was released Wednesday from Holmes Correctional Institution in Bonifay after serving two years and two months after he was convicted of felony battery and petit theft for a purse snatching.

See that. Dude just got out of jail for felony battery on probaby a woman because it was also for purse snatching. I for one would like to thank this guy for helping get this douchebag off the streets.

Dolphins9954
04-19-2012, 12:28 AM
I quoted the article you posted

also, there is no evidence of attack by going after the hands of the person holding another down. You dont buy breaking up a fight even though that's what the article you posted says. I do. Difference of opinion I guess.

If the crowd wasn't chanting Trayvon while trying to break up a fight without violence. And oh yeah NOT FLEE THE SCENE!!!! Then the good samaritans "breaking up the fight" theory would hold a lot of water. Right now it's a desert.

Gonzo
04-19-2012, 12:40 AM
No.

Ya57adZR-Cc

Not only was the crowd chanting Trayvon before 3 people started stomping one guy. But they also took off afterwards to avoid the police. Sorry if I'm not buying the "breaking up a fight" theory. The police don't seem to be buying it either. I'm not getting the good samaritan vibes from this crowd at all. That honor goes to the guy that chased down the criminal.
Love that they're facing charges too. :lol: Morons.

MadDog 88
04-19-2012, 12:45 AM
Living in Tallahassee i'll try and handle this question.

In Florida, you do NOT have the right to hold down a criminal. What you are suppose to do is pull out your gun and begin firing into the general direction of whatever situation is occuring. After which you then have to immediately begin demanding the political affilation of any witnesses. If they answer "Democrat" or refuse to answer, you are required by law to shoot them without hesitation. If you only wound them you receive a fine.
After police have calmed down the scene you are immediately taken to the highest power in the state to go over the charges: Jeb Bush. So long as you followed the directives listed above, all the while screaming "THESE COLORS DONT RUN!", you are usually let off with a mild rebuke for less than ideal accuracy with your weapon of choice at the scene of the crime and allowed to leave the premises. If you do not leave quick enough it has been rumored Bush will consider you a hostile and invoke his own second ammendment rights. Of course, there has been no official statement on that one way or another. It is also considered common courtsey to give Allen West a treat on the way out.

All of this assumes that you are using something more powerful than a 9mm. If you arent, Bush will demand you stand trial. During which you have the option to plead guilty, not guilty, or can start a firefight. If you can get a mile from the courthouse without shedding a drop of blood you are considered innocent.
:lol:

MadDog 88
04-19-2012, 03:05 AM
When this occurs, no one knows the criminal history of the suspect so that is moot as to the actions taken. I have no problem with the Samaritan chasing him; however, depending on the situation that's not always a good idea. Once he catches him and knocks him down it is completely understandable for some bystanders to think this may be a fight and try and break it up. Some obviously seized the moment to blindly chant Trayvon to express their feelings about a situation they see unjust. Some step or stomp on the Samaritans hands to free what they perceive is an old man getting beaten up. What isn't known is the race and age of the bystanders and the timing of the chanting in correlation with the bystanders breaking up the suspect and Samaritan or if any of the bystanders were aware of what was actually going on. That is the big picture.

Just my opinion but the criminal acts committed are the robbery and stomping on the Samaritans hands The Samaritan's judgement could be questioned but he hasn't acted illegally. Some bystanders did the right thing by breaking up what they perceive as a fight but stomping or stepping on hands is over the line doing this and the morons that are chanting are the type to throw race into any situation they can.

Filthy Fin
04-19-2012, 08:19 AM
It's all part of a plan to keep the white man down!

Dolphins9954
04-19-2012, 10:07 AM
Kill the white people!!!!!


http://www.guavaleaf.com/video/1102/Eddie-Murphy--SNL-Kill-the-White-People

ohall
04-19-2012, 12:55 PM
Are some of you saying what took place with this incidence wasn't seriously influenced by certain prominent black leaders? Please remember certain black leaders in congress and so called spiritual leaders were proclaiming Zimmerman's guilt before any of the evidence was collected/in.

IMO Sharpton and Jackson have had blood on their hands for decades when it comes to the racial bating they do.

PhinzN703
04-19-2012, 01:10 PM
im sick of the whole thing now, lets just imagine that a video surfaces tomorrow showing that the kid did have a weapon of some kind OR that the man was not the one who shot him, then what?why cant they wait for justice like everyone else? YES IT HAS TAKEN TOO LONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! but what if the man they were kicking died, then they are no better, why not wait until the court finds him not guilty so we can all protest together?

You actually think this would happen? The people who take cases like this to the extreme aren't right in the head to begin with. There's no way they'd wait for the facts to come out before making an educated decision. In fact, I'd imagine most people wouldn't have the patience for that and have already made judgement.

Gonzo
04-19-2012, 01:11 PM
Are some of you saying what took place with this incidence wasn't seriously influenced by certain prominent black leaders? Please remember certain black leaders in congress and so called spiritual leaders were proclaiming Zimmerman's guilt before any of the evidence was collected/in.

IMO Sharpton and Jackson have had blood on their hands for decades when it comes to the racial bating they do.
Actually, I haven't seen anybody here except you bringing it up. We get it, Sharpton and Jackson are idiots. This is nothing new. Unfortunately, they and their extremist counterparts (Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.) aren't going anywhere. That's no excuse for dumbass thugs to do what they did (and who likely have no idea who any of these people are).

PhinzN703
04-19-2012, 01:12 PM
the bystander had no right to chase and hold down a robbery suspect...... idiots, dont take police matters into your hands.

:chuckle:

It's better to watch a crime happen and not do anything to stop it?

PhinzN703
04-19-2012, 01:18 PM
Tacking a guy and then restraining him is police action

breaking up a fight is not putting anybody in restraint, just taking guys off one another. Happens in all sports, all school playgrounds, etc. When you see a scuffle, you separate the people, get between them. You are not holding anybody. Not putting anybody under citizen arrest, etc.

Sorry my opinion is unpopular here. A kid died because of somebody thinking they were a cop when they were unmarked.... I am not going to take kindly for civilians taking things into their own hands. What if the robber here was armed? What if an actual fight broke out and harmed the people around the fight since this was a busy area? Let the cops do their jobs, who have uniforms and a badge to show third parties they have authority. Dont take matters into your own hands no matter what moral authority you do have.

That's right. If you see a crime being committed, do nothing. The cops will somehow know where to go and who they're looking for without your help.

Gonzo
04-19-2012, 01:23 PM
That's right. If you see a crime being committed, do nothing. The cops will somehow know where to go and who they're looking for without your help.
Unless you think that crime helps with your argument, in which case you are more than welcome to interfere (i.e. "breaking up a fight"). The "stompers" were the real heroes here.

WSE
04-19-2012, 01:24 PM
That's right. If you see a crime being committed, do nothing. The cops will somehow know where to go and who they're looking for without your help.

yea, because stopping a petty theft assailant from potentially getting away is so worth all the violent outcomes that could reasonably occur from such an action.

ohall
04-19-2012, 03:09 PM
Actually, I haven't seen anybody here except you bringing it up. We get it, Sharpton and Jackson are idiots. This is nothing new. Unfortunately, they and their extremist counterparts (Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.) aren't going anywhere. That's no excuse for dumbass thugs to do what they did (and who likely have no idea who any of these people are).

Sorry comparing Limbaugh and Hannity to the crap that Jackson and Sharpton have done, is a joke. Sharpton and Jackson have basically made a living off of instigating young blacks to their deaths. It's one of the most disgusting things that ppl seem to tolerate. Why they do, is beyond me.

And that's the point, no one was bring it up. It's obvious to me, Sharpton's and Jackson's actions after Treyvon's death obviously HELP lead to this incident.

Gonzo
04-19-2012, 04:17 PM
Sorry comparing Limbaugh and Hannity to the crap that Jackson and Sharpton have done, is a joke. Sharpton and Jackson have basically made a living off of instigating young blacks to their deaths. It's one of the most disgusting things that ppl seem to tolerate. Why they do, is beyond me.

And that's the point, no one was bring it up. It's obvious to me, Sharpton's and Jackson's actions after Treyvon's death obviously HELP lead to this incident.I'm sure there's no bias at all in that statement.

WSE
04-19-2012, 04:23 PM
Are some of you saying what took place with this incidence wasn't seriously influenced by certain prominent black leaders? Please remember certain black leaders in congress and so called spiritual leaders were proclaiming Zimmerman's guilt before any of the evidence was collected/in.

IMO Sharpton and Jackson have had blood on their hands for decades when it comes to the racial bating they do.

well for one the article posted states that the people who did this their races are unknown.

and two, since I seem to be the only one arguing that the good Samaritan should not of done what he did (not for moral reasons, but other reasons such as safety), and have not mentioned race once, I dont know what you are getting it. Its you making the race arguments here.

NY8123
04-19-2012, 04:49 PM
Somebody snatches my girls purse and if I catch them I am beating the piss out of them and if I get shot in the process don't feel sorry for me OK. It's my life and it is the way I choose to live. I don't need you to take up my cause and oh by the way if I catch the dumb-ass low life thief who did take the purse and end up getting stomped by some other random dudes, well I am going to collect myself, heal if necessary and then track them down and bust some knee caps at a later date.

Maybe I wait a week, maybe I wait a year, maybe I wait until you think I forgot but didn't and make you remember.

ohall
04-20-2012, 12:35 AM
I'm sure there's no bias at all in that statement.

Nor in yours comparing Hannity/Limbaugh to Jackson/Sharpton. TWO are radio personalities, the other TWO are supposed to be leaders of their community. But keep thinking I'm the ONE being biased.

ohall
04-20-2012, 12:38 AM
well for one the article posted states that the people who did this their races are unknown.

and two, since I seem to be the only one arguing that the good Samaritan should not of done what he did (not for moral reasons, but other reasons such as safety), and have not mentioned race once, I dont know what you are getting it. Its you making the race arguments here.

I'm supposed to trust every detail in a news story? You mean like when NBC edited a police audio tape to make it look like Zimmerman was a obvious racist?

You'd have to be one heck of a genius to think a group of Hasidic Jews did this and were yelling Trayvon.

WSE
04-20-2012, 01:59 AM
I'm supposed to trust every detail in a news story? You mean like when NBC edited a police audio tape to make it look like Zimmerman was a obvious racist?

You'd have to be one heck of a genius to think a group of Hasidic Jews did this and were yelling Trayvon.

you are the one making this about race. I don't have any information on the story other than what the article says, so that is what I go on. You want to assume things not in the article and make generalized points about race, go right ahead. But dont do that and claim others are race baiting because it is laughable.

ohall
04-20-2012, 02:07 AM
you are the one making this about race. I don't have any information on the story other than what the article says, so that is what I go on. You want to assume things not in the article and make generalized points about race, go right ahead. But dont do that and claim others are race baiting because it is laughable.

It's reported they were yelling Trayvon, and I'm the one making it about race? Is there some kind of Asian, Hispanic hero or victim named Trayvon we don't know about? There's no way you actually believe that this is not about race.

I already told you how I feel about the so called press. They report what they want, when they want. A half truth, is not the truth.

WSE
04-20-2012, 02:17 AM
It's reported they were yelling Trayvon, and I'm the one making it about race? Is there some kind of Asian, Hispanic hero or victim named Trayvon we don't know about? There's no way you actually believe that this is not about race.

I already told you how I feel about the so called press. They report what they want, when they want. A half truth, is not the truth.

im sure a quote from the police cheif stating the races are unknown is a half truth. Damn reporter getting a quote from the police chief.

also, yelling trayvon could be about race, it could be about civilians going beyond their duties and taking police action. It could be many other things since it is a widely reported news story and means different things to different people.

Gonzo
04-20-2012, 08:09 AM
Nor in yours comparing Hannity/Limbaugh to Jackson/Sharpton. TWO are radio personalities, the other TWO are supposed to be leaders of their community. But keep thinking I'm the ONE being biased.
You make your bias probably more evident than anybody on here. Rhetoric and more rhetoric. Jackson and Sharpton today are nothing more than media mouthpieces for extremists, just like Hannity/Limbaugh/etc.

The ones responsible for this incident are the idiot thugs that stomped on a Good Samaritan while shouting about Trayvon, likely because they thought it was funny. Jackson/Sharpton didn't make them do it any more than Hannity/Limbaugh forced Andrew Stack to fly his plane into an IRS building.

Dolphins9954
04-20-2012, 09:27 AM
If we put Rush/Hannity/Jackson/Sharpton on a rocket to the sun. Our planet would be a better place.

ohall
04-20-2012, 03:06 PM
You make your bias probably more evident than anybody on here. Rhetoric and more rhetoric. Jackson and Sharpton today are nothing more than media mouthpieces for extremists, just like Hannity/Limbaugh/etc.

The ones responsible for this incident are the idiot thugs that stomped on a Good Samaritan while shouting about Trayvon, likely because they thought it was funny. Jackson/Sharpton didn't make them do it any more than Hannity/Limbaugh forced Andrew Stack to fly his plane into an IRS building.

Honestly your POV on Sharpton/Jackson scare me. Those two men carry a lot of weight in the black community. So much so it looks like Zimmerman was over charged and will get off like Casey Anthony did. It's pretty obvious the evidence supports a manslaughter charge but because of Sharpton/Jackson and the political pressure they applied forced them to over charge.

But keep thinking I'm being biased because I'm not willing to compare Hannity/Limbaugh to Sharpton/Jackson.

LANGER72
04-20-2012, 03:27 PM
Jackson and Sharpton are race baiting racists that stoke the anger of the black community in the name of perceived injustices all in the name of the all mighty dollar. They thrive on regurgitating the inequalities of the past.

Hannity and Limbaugh are political commentators and media personalities who point out the hypocrisy of the liberal mindset and democratic party leaders.

I can clearly see the difference.

LANGER72
04-20-2012, 03:38 PM
Somebody snatches my girls purse and if I catch them I am beating the piss out of them and if I get shot in the process don't feel sorry for me OK. It's my life and it is the way I choose to live. I don't need you to take up my cause and oh by the way if I catch the dumb-ass low life thief who did take the purse and end up getting stomped by some other random dudes, well I am going to collect myself, heal if necessary and then track them down and bust some knee caps at a later date.

Maybe I wait a week, maybe I wait a year, maybe I wait until you think I forgot but didn't and make you remember.

I agree with you. :chuckle: I am going to spare the details.

phinfan3411
04-20-2012, 04:51 PM
You make your bias probably more evident than anybody on here. Rhetoric and more rhetoric. Jackson and Sharpton today are nothing more than media mouthpieces for extremists, just like Hannity/Limbaugh/etc.

The ones responsible for this incident are the idiot thugs that stomped on a Good Samaritan while shouting about Trayvon, likely because they thought it was funny. Jackson/Sharpton didn't make them do it any more than Hannity/Limbaugh forced Andrew Stack to fly his plane into an IRS building.

I am going to disagree with you here, i feel Sharpton/Jackson speak for more than just the "extremists", or just how large of a percentage of the black population are you prepared to call extreme?

Wasn't Sharpton just recognized for some of his accomplishments by our Attorney General??

In my opinion, and i have nothing scientific to back this up, when Sharpton/Jackson do their best to wake up the troops (like in this instance) i feel he has at least 60% (maybe more) of the black population behind him.

LANGER72
04-23-2012, 05:19 PM
I am going to disagree with you here, i feel Sharpton/Jackson speak for more than just the "extremists", or just how large of a percentage of the black population are you prepared to call extreme?

Wasn't Sharpton just recognized for some of his accomplishments by our Attorney General??

In my opinion, and i have nothing scientific to back this up, when Sharpton/Jackson do their best to wake up the troops (like in this instance) i feel he has at least 60% (maybe more) of the black population behind him.


It would be difficult to place a percentage, but the numbers are definitely in the millions.
The USA would be a better place if Sharpton and Jackson retired and stopped their brand of activism.

ohall
04-23-2012, 05:54 PM
I am going to disagree with you here, i feel Sharpton/Jackson speak for more than just the "extremists", or just how large of a percentage of the black population are you prepared to call extreme?

Wasn't Sharpton just recognized for some of his accomplishments by our Attorney General??

In my opinion, and i have nothing scientific to back this up, when Sharpton/Jackson do their best to wake up the troops (like in this instance) i feel he has at least 60% (maybe more) of the black population behind him.

Our current AG is in the bag for far left race baiting. In his opinion there is only one kind of racism in the world, white on black. And if blacks act in racist way, whitey deserves it. This is the same AG that didn't prosecute the Black Panthers after they spent the entire day intimidating a voting station on election day 2008.

I wonder if he would have acted the same way if instead of Black Panther members it was a couple of KKK ppl keeping blacks away from their vote?