Did Zimmerman put hands on Martin first?

[Lee-Lee]

207. Wow- lots to reply to

I wasn't "the" County Sheriff, as in the one that is elected, but I was a deputy.

As for Blacks, or any minority, buying guns, I don't see it any different than white folk buying guns- to assume that it takes a more special reason because of the color of your skin is to fell into the trap they set for you long ago. It is a personal question only you can ask, and only you can answer.

I will say this- for as long as there have been guns in this country, the racists have done their best to keep them only in the hands of whites. Before the Civil War my ancestors lived free in NC, but the laws prevented "non-whites" from being armed, and that left them open to abuse by the whites- look up what a "tied mule" incident was and how they used that against the Lumbee people. After the war a whole host of gun control laws were passed in the south, with the intent being to only apply them to blacks.

Heck, NC still has one on on the books- the pistol purchase permit law. It says that to buy any pistol you need a permit from the sheriff. But is gives very wide latitude on what criteria that a sheriff can use, so they worked them so that blacks couldn't get them easily. I grew up in Gaston County, and at that time there sheriff required a letter of reference from a "person of upstanding moral character" in the county with your application- and if that letter was good enough was entirely arbitrary, with the understanding that "upstanding moral character" meant white without a criminal record. I can still remember my dad having to get one of the white guys down at the VFW or AMVETS write him a letter so he could buy a .22 pistol. Essentially to buy a handgun you had to go get permission slip from a white guy, then have other white guys judge if you really needed it.

There are many more examples. But what I am saying is that the remains of this oppression are still there in the culture. Many minorities act like they are not worthy or deserving of the ability to defend themselves, because we have been conditioned by all those years of the white man saying "you don't need that". But ask yourself- if they went to all that effort to keep you and your ancestors from doing it, why? Because you can't oppress of victimize those with the means to fight back, especially when you are a bunch of KKK type cowards. They depended on the law to keep the black man defenseless.

On Mixon Vs State, that case has some of the rare circumstance where the pursuer can be considered the aggressor- but that case is very different from this one. The fight started earlier, then both parties parted ways, one went to his home, obtained a gun, got in his car, raced to catch up, and continued the confrontation. That is a world of difference apart for this case, where the prosecution couldn't even offer proof Zimmerman wasn't walking back to his car as he claimed. The most important distinction is that in this case there was a prior fight (or "difficulty" as they called it then) before the later conflict. Had Zimmerman and Trayvon traded blows, then parted, then Zimmerman caught up with him again than Mixon would apply. But key to Mixon is that the following was coming after a fight between the parties had already occurred- so in essence the pursuer was aggressively continuing the fight in his pursuit. That case does not allow for only following to be considered provocation.