The Murder of Trayvon Martin

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by SOM

"If you have been issued an injunction that is currently in force that restrains you from committing acts of
domestic violence or acts of repeat violence, you will be disqualified from eligibility until that injunction is
no longer in force."....."
and his ex-fiancé took out a restraining order against him."
Let the legal eagles figure it all out ;>)

There isn't anything to "figure out" ...

Was the injunction currently in force? It seems like this would be plastered all over everywhere, if this were the case. Since it likely wasn't, he's allowed by law to carry his gun (as allowed by the permit).

He may have had a temporary restraining order against him as part of the original charge, but it's VERY unlikely he had anything stay attached after charges were dropped.

You keep cutting/pasting, but ignoring the key: currently in force.

[SOM]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

There isn't anything to "figure out" ...

Was the injunction currently in force? It seems like this would be plastered all over everywhere, if this were the case. Since it likely wasn't, he's allowed by law to carry his gun (as allowed by the permit).

He may have had a temporary restraining order against him as part of the original charge, but it's VERY unlikely he had anything stay attached after charges were dropped.

You keep cutting/pasting, but ignoring the key: currently in force.

As far as I know and understand it, it is still in force. But as I said, as well, let those who truly know and understand the law sort it all out. I originally posted it as something of interest, not a pure matter of law.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by SOM

As far as I know and understand it, it is still in force. But as I said, as well, let those who truly know and understand the law sort it all out.

As others have said, if the charges were dropped, it is very unlikely that any restraining order was still in force.

I originally posted it as something of interest, not a pure matter of law.

And this is how misinformation and confusion get spread in cases like this.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

And this is how misinformation and confusion get spread in cases like this.

That is how I feel about the "he was warning others about Black people in the area" being touted in news reports, websites, and public discourse.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by SOM

As far as I know and understand it, it is still in force.

As far as I know, you're the only one who understands it that way - citation please? Show your work!

I originally posted it as something of interest, not a pure matter of law.

Why don't we stick to things like "facts" and "pure law" (if such a thing exists)? Wouldn't that be better than smashing our collective heads against the wall, and/or making ludicrous scenarios real via conjecture or misinformation?

[SOM]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

As far as I know, you're the only one who understands it that way - citation please? Show your work!



Why don't we stick to things like "facts" and "pure law" (if such a thing exists)? Wouldn't that be better than smashing our collective heads against the wall, and/or making ludicrous scenarios real via conjecture or misinformation?

Well, I would have to go back to all the material that I have been reading for past few weeks. Do you have any links handy to show why you believe other wise?

And I agree with your second part-Why are we even having this conversation? All I did was post an article, as others have here, that seemed to have some interesting information on it about this case. If one really wanted to track down the evidence behind the story, one should contact the writer of the story directly.