Unnarmed 17 year old shot dead "in self defence"

[CaptainMattJ.]

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/03/19/trayvon-martins-murder-was-the-motive-self-defense-or-racism/

Absolutely despicable. :nope:

[Dowly]

Yeah, just read about this yesterday. The 911 tapes are chilling to listen. :nope:

EDIT: Think the link in the article for the tapes is missing the 2nd call?

Anywho, you can listen to it here:
http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/031612-911-calls-released-in-Sanford-shooting

[Platapus]

This sounds like an example of a person getting two separate roles mixed up.

First, this man was a member of a neighbourhood watch. As such his responsibility is to report stuff to the police. That is the limit of his responsibilty. His "tools" are a cell phone, flashlight, and perhaps a digital camera.

Separate from this, the guy also was authorized to carry a concealed weapon for self defense. Self defense, not law enforcement.

I think he got the roles confused. Even though Florida has a version of "castle doctrine (which I feel is poorly worded), castle doctrine does not apply to neighbourhood watches.


Florida Statute Title 56, section 776.012 states

Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:(1)***8195;He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2)***8195;Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

section 776.013 refers to when you are in your house or vehicle.


It would be up to this guy to prove that he had reasonable belief that he was in danger of "imminent death" or "great bodily harm" or that there was an "imminent commission of a forcible Felony underway.

Florida Statute Title 56, section 776.031 states

Use of force in defense of others.—A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

I don't think a member of a neighbourhood watch has a "legal duty to protect". Additionally this guy would have to prove that deadly force was necessary to prevent "imminent commission" of a forcible felony. Section 776.08 defines a forcible Felony.

If his neighbourhood watch is like others I have been associated with (Nebraska), members were not allowed to carry weapons. Probably for this very reason. If his neighbourhood watch has a similar rule, he will lose the protection of being an agent of the neighbourhood watch.

As a responsible gun owner, I don't think this guy acted responsibly. His responsibility was to call the police and then be ready to assist the police with a full and accurate report. While all the facts are still not in, I am afraid this might be a case of a John Wayne wannabe making a tragic mistake.

I heard on the news (so it MUST be true) that this individual has a history of making false police reports. We may have a buckaroo here. :nope:

[gimpy117]

and this is why im for gun control, because of stupid people. normal people are okay, but wanna be trigger happy cops are a good reason why we need to keep guns out of morons hands

[Buddahaid]

That is an example of gun control as he had a permit to carry. Stupid people become doctors and presidents too.

[Stealhead]

Sounds to me like this Zimmerman was a bit an overzealous fellow and the Sanford Police kind of let him play his pretend to be a cop game.You can not say for sure but the 17 year old has no record of trouble at all why would he suddenly act violently something seems off.It sounds like this Zimmerman was convinced the boy was doing wrong and chased after him this man is not a Law Enforcement Officer and he was advised to stay in his vehicle "The police will handle it".

I think he approached the kid and somehow it got violent and the boy gets shot.From what I understand there where several witnesses that seemed to conflict with Zimmerman's claims I heard one of the 911 tapes on the radio on it you can very clearly hear a young man screaming for help no way that voice is coming from Zimmerman very disturbing.

Why did Zimmerman pursue this kid? It is clear that he was not armed in any manner Zimmerman could easily have just followed the kid in his car and wait for the police to show up problem if any solved.He also has been arrested for battery on a police officer and the Sanford Police trust this guys word?

Why do the police say he Zimmerman has a clean record even though he had been arrested before that is not a clean record.I think the Police tolerated Zimmerman because he had reported actual robberies before and though perhaps over overzealous (41 calls to the police in 3 months really?) they likely did not think that he would get involved in a highly questionable incident.

According to CNN I saw while flipping though the channels that the watch program Zimmerman is/was a member is not a part of the national system.I am pretty sure that they are not supposed to carry weapons.I think this is a case of an overzealous person with an itchy trigger finger and misunderstanding of laws.The no retreat applies only your home/residence or in or immediately around your vehicle not in a public location.

I understand that Florida Department of Law Enforcement is now investigating which implies that they feel that the Sanford Police are not doing a very good job.

[BossMark]

and this is why im for gun control, because of stupid people. normal people are okay, but wanna be trigger happy cops are a good reason why we need to keep guns out of morons hands

That is an example of gun control as he had a permit to carry. Stupid people become doctors and presidents too.
I agree with both of you.

[Osmium Steele]

I am a fan of Florida's Stand Your Ground law, but this yahoo deliberately inserted himself in what he believed was a potentially dangerous situation after being told by a PD representative to stay in his car.

As such, I believe Stand Your Ground will not apply to this guy in court. I also agree with the article where it states that the police have no say in whether the guy gets arrested or not. Stand Your Ground is a courtroom defense, not a police procedure.

[Stealhead]

I am a fan of Florida's Stand Your Ground law, but this yahoo deliberately inserted himself in what he believed was a potentially dangerous situation after being told by a PD representative to stay in his car.

As such, I believe Stand Your Ground will not apply to this guy in court. I also agree with the article where it states that the police have no say in whether the guy gets arrested or not. Stand Your Ground is a courtroom defense, not a police procedure.


Regardless what regulations that law enforcement must follow they never applied to Zimmerman because he is not a LE officer in the first place.It sounds to me like an overzealous and perhaps overly paranoid man decided to take the law into his own hands on what he believed to be a suspicious person seeing as he did not see the boy commit any crime he as a civilian had no right to chase the kid when he ran away(more than likely because some strange man was following him) Zimmerman is was not a LE officer and not in a LE vehicle any normal 17 old kid would feel threatened by a person in a private vehicle following them.More than likely there was some form of confrontation that ended poorly for the 17 year boy.

[AVGWarhawk]

Regardless what regulations that law enforcement must follow they never applied to Zimmerman because he is not a LE officer in the first place.It sounds to me like an overzealous and perhaps overly paranoid man decided to take the law into his own hands on what he believed to be a suspicious person seeing as he did not see the boy commit any crime he as a civilian had no right to chase the kid when he ran away(more than likely because some strange man was following him) Zimmerman is was not a LE officer and not in a LE vehicle any normal 17 old kid would feel threatened by a person in a private vehicle following them.More than likely there was some form of confrontation that ended poorly for the 17 year boy.

This is it in a nut shell. Zimmerman should be escorted to the local PD and booked.

[mookiemookie]

Justice Dept and FBI are getting involved now. Hopefully this piece of excrement gets his.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/19/10766858-justice-department-fbi-to-probe-shooting-death-of-florida-teen-trayvon-martin

[Osmium Steele]

It sounds to me like an overzealous and perhaps overly paranoid man decided to take the law into his own hands


Which was my, probably poorly worded, point. The PD didn't arrest him stating that what he had done was protected under Stand Your Ground.

I vehemently disagree. If anything, he was the aggressor. It will not stand up in court as a defense, and it is not the PDs call anyway.

He should have been in a cell within 24 hours, once the fog had cleared surrounding the incident.

[BossMark]

Does Florida use the death penalty :hmmm:

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Does Florida use the death penalty :hmmm:Yes, they do. :yep:

[gimpy117]

Which was my, probably poorly worded, point. The PD didn't arrest him stating that what he had done was protected under Stand Your Ground.

I vehemently disagree. If anything, he was the aggressor. It will not stand up in court as a defense, and it is not the PDs call anyway.

He should have been in a cell within 24 hours, once the fog had cleared surrounding the incident.

well by the phone call he made it sounds like he was not under duress when he shot the poor kid so i cant see how this applies. "stand your ground" does not have a provision for chasing down a kid with skittles and shooting him

[BossMark]

Yes, they do. :yep:
Lets hope they use it on the piece crap that killed that poor lad then :yep:

[Osmium Steele]

so i cant see how this applies. "stand your ground" does not have a provision for chasing down a kid with skittles and shooting him

And again, I agree completely. Stand Your Ground does not apply, but the cops used it as an excuse to let the killer walk free.

[Stealhead]

The other thing that I find disturbing is the fact that Zimmerman says "these *******s always get away" get away with what? Zimmerman saw this kid do nothing but walk down the street in what he claimed was a suspicious manner appearing suspicious is not illegal and by Zimmerman's definition it seems that if you walk down the street and look around at houses that makes makes you suspect. Who the hell does not walk down the street and look at what surrounds them is a black male supposed to walk down the street with his hands on display looking straight ahead the entire time and not look over his shoulder at the person following him in a vehicle if I where to have seen the described situation and was not aware that one person was a watch captain (not driving a marked vehicle) I would think "why is that car following the kid walking down the street that looks suspect to me".




A suspicious person walks up to parked cars and looks inside or walks up to house windows and peers inside.One has to wonder if this Zimmerman sought the power to kill and found a way to do it and he spent all this time a Neighborhood watch man because he felt that this would give the best chance to shot someone perhaps he is racist and specifically wanted to kill a black male and he finally got his chance after all the *******s always get away they must have done something wrong even if I did not see it got to take him out.

[Platapus]

One would also think that as a member of a neighbourhood watch, one would be familiar with the people living on their "beat". How can you determine someone does not belong when you don't know who belongs?

[Bubblehead1980]

Justice Dept and FBI are getting involved now. Hopefully this piece of excrement gets his.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/19/10766858-justice-department-fbi-to-probe-shooting-death-of-florida-teen-trayvon-martin

Feds have NO right to get involved in this but yet again the feds decide to go too far.This guy is an idiot but does not deserve being charged with a hate crime.Feds have ZERO business here, move along.

[Stealhead]

@Platapus Right this boy was staying with family at the same complex surely Zimmerman who it seems was very active shall we say must have seen the boy prior to the incident.The more you think about it the more it sounds like this boy was targeted by Zimmerman.

@Bubblehead1980 you must be kidding oh no wait you are Bubblehead I forgot.

The Feds have every right to get involved purely on the fact that it is plainly clear that the Sanford Police a have little desire to properly investigate the case they are treating a civilian who used deadly force in a situation where he pursued an unknown person that is placing your self in danger self defense is minding your own business and someone else approaching you and displaying intent to cause bodily harm where you have no recourse but force in return.

[Bubblehead1980]

Right this boy was staying with family at the same complex surely Zimmerman who it seems was very active shall we say must have seen the boy prior to the incident.The more you think about it the more it sounds like this boy was targeted by Zimmerman.

No, just an idiot who was overzealous and should be arrested and tried by the STATE courts but not labeled as a racist just because it was a black kid unless REAL evidence surfaces to show he is a racist etc

[Stealhead]

You have no way to to prove or disprove at this time that Zimmerman had racial motive though it interesting that many residents said that he had a fixation on young black men to be aware of them that seems a little racist to me I see young men of various creeds up to no good not just blacks.

It is very obvious that Zimmerman was overzealous and it is plausible that he could also have been racially motivated and it needs to be investigated.

[Madox58]

Feds have NO right to get involved in this but yet again the feds decide to go too far.This guy is an idiot but does not deserve being charged with a hate crime.Feds have ZERO business here, move along.

Surely you jest???
A whole freaking Nation is crying out about this!!
Who do you want to look into things?
Castle?

[Tribesman]

Feds have NO right to get involved in this
Ah the legal expert shows himself up again:know:

So young man, simple questions. The right is clear enough, its pretty basic, only a fool would claim there is no right so we can pretty much skip that, but for more fun can you understand why the feds are actually obliged to get involved in this?
Its also clear enough and very basic but can you possibly grasp such a simple process bubbles?:hmmm:

[jumpy]

http://youtu.be/zMEiNZ2ZWSs

http://youtu.be/01oZP4gCtog

Both of these seems to be fairly spot on from some of what I've seen already about this. First guy is pretty emotional about it, so are the young turks for that matter.

Hope something is done about this for you guys over there, be it in respect of any racial elements to this case, or police procedural in this instance.

[Madox58]

Manson is probably rolling in laughter right now!
:nope:

I can see riots not far behind if this is not taken care of soon.
And I must say I can't blame those that will be involved!!

That whole PD should be looked at with a fine toothed comb!
And the DA's also!

[Rockstar]

Ah the legal expert shows himself up again:know:

So young man, simple questions. The right is clear enough, its pretty basic, only a fool would claim there is no right so we can pretty much skip that, but for more fun can you understand why the feds are actually obliged to get involved in this?
Its also clear enough and very basic but can you possibly grasp such a simple process bubbles?:hmmm:



I tend to somewhat agree with bubbles here. Now I wouldn't go so far as to say the fed doesn't have a right. But I would very much like to know what exactley is the federal governments 'interest' in this case. Especially since the states case hasn't really even gotten off the ground yet.





.

[Tribesman]

I tend to somewhat agree with bubbles here.
well that wouldn't be very clever.

But I would very much like to know what exactley is the federal governments 'interest' in this case.
Simple question Rockstar.
Run through the parties which requested the involvement at federal level and see how many you can get before you see why exactly the feds are obliged to be involved in this.

[Ducimus]

"Stand your ground" does not mean chase the dude and gun him down because he's black and carrying something.

[Madox58]

Skittles and an Iced Tea.
:nope:

And one wonders why the FBI is involved since the local "Hero's" decided the Gun Man was such a nice Guy?

Cops all over the U.S. should be throwing up right now worried about thier behinds because of this situation.

[Rockstar]

well that wouldn't be very clever. well I never said I was a rocket scientist. :)

Simple question Rockstar.
Run through the parties which requested the involvement at federal level and see how many you can get before you see why exactly the feds are obliged to be involved in this.

I know many just as I am are angry and clamoring to see justice served here. However I can't agree with a knee jerk reaction to get the fed involved when there is as far as i can see no true interest served. Especially as I mentioned earlier the state prosecution case has barely take off yet. If FDLE and the state of Florida cannot or refuses to do there job according to the law. Then yes the fed should get involved but until that time let the State do its job.

This idea the FBI needs to get involved immediately is for the birds especially from political pressure. May as well just abolish state borders and rights and form one big Amerika with FBI offices everywhere and a president for life.

And people wonder and complain why the federal government is so big, they ask for it every time. :roll: oh well

[Stealhead]

Of the friends and family members that I know who are cops they do not put any person with a record involving violence towards cops very high on their trust worthy list Zimmerman has a record of battery on a police officer yet some Sanford cops trust him strange.

Of course I have not heard many very good things about certain local law enforcement agencies in my part of FL.This information comes from former and some active officers.One county which I will not name but a rather famous beach is located there as well as a race track famous has a really bad reputation .

[Madox58]

I don't think it was a knee jerk reaction.

Tapes to 911, calling the Guy clean when he had a record, letting him walk away from a killing?
Do you smell what's cooking?
:hmmm:

It SCREAMS cover up or mis-conduct!!

Yes the FBI should jump all over that area with hard soled boots!!
It's so bad that even the News people look good in this case!!
And THAT'S BAD!!!

It's so bad even I won't try to find a joke in it!!!
The "Hero's" done that for me sadly!!

[Rockstar]

Of the friends and family members that I know who are cops they do not put any person with a record involving violence towards cops very high on their trust worthy list Zimmerman has a record of battery on a police officer yet some Sanford cops trust him strange.

Of course I have not heard many very good things about certain local law enforcement agencies in my part of FL.This information comes from former and some active officers.One county which I will not name but a rather famous beach is located there as well as a race track famous has a really bad reputation .

Privateer, Sanford PD is not the only state law enforcement agency down there. The state has other means to investigate them and the crime.

I know I said I'm not for the immediate involvement of the FBI. But I worked in Florida a long time. It's probably only a matter of time before you see them down there on official business investigating.

[Madox58]

Yep, there are others down there.
But like many places? Good Ole boys run the roost.
They have failed to do something which is going National in scope.
That's not a valid way to handle things.
Should a riot break out in say L.A. is it OK that they dragged thier feet?
:hmmm:

And what about ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT?
Whoever, knowing that an offense has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact; one who knowing a felony to have been committed by another, receives, relieves, comforts, or assists the felon in order to hinder the felon's apprehension, trial, or punishment.

What Local Agency would actually follow up on that?
Nope.
The Feds need to go in stomping Boots on this one.
If they don't? All Hell will break loose because of some 'Good Ole Boys' network.

[August]

It is kind of curious that the Feds have opened their own investigation so quickly. My guess is that this is a fishing expedition to make the state republican administration look bad during an election year and won't amount to much in seeing actual justice done for the victim.

On the other hand I think the state has a special obligation to ensure that criminals don't hide behind the law, especially a law written to protect the peoples liberty. If they're not about done with their investigation into the killing or the coverup and ready to hand down indictments then they need to have the feds light a fire under their butts.

[AngusJS]

I'm so glad we live in an armed society. I feel so safe, knowing that nuts like Zimmerman are running around with guns.

[yubba]

I live on the coast of florida, and there isn't a day that goes by, I see on the morning news that, are one or two shootings, at least one leading too death, due to robberys, home invasions, drug deals gone wrong, arguements and a host of other crap in central florida, we just buried a female deputy sherriff last week here in Bervard County, some young black kid stealing furniture from a hotel shot her in the face, like I said before more americans die here in central florida than any war zone. If the Fed does come down here they need to take a good look at their welfare state that they have created.

[August]

I'm so glad we live in an armed society. I feel so safe, knowing that nuts like Zimmerman are running around with guns.

You could always move to a more civilized country like France and get mowed down by a masked scooter rider. :yeah:

[Stealhead]

Funny you should say that because there have been numerous shooting sprees in the US of equally bad or worse proportions and it seems that the fact in the US in many states that someone else might have a concealed carry weapon seems to have little bearing on the attackers thought process.

The super hard core everyone should carry a gun types try to say "oh if only more people could carry guns this kind of thing would not happen". More like it would have no effect if some nut is gong to run around shooting people as in France or in Arizona they are going to run around shooting people.

It is really disappointing when we are talking about a case that is clearly very questionable where someone went past the law regarding self defense and yet you still see people wanting to argue why people need more guns and less regulation and you have an example in your face of someone that should at least not have had a conceal carry permit in my opinion anything on your record involving trouble with law enforcement should keep you at least from gaining a carry permit.

I am a gun owner myself and this incident disgusts me.Too bad this Zimmerman did not try this on me because he'd have been facing a gun.

[August]

Funny you should say that because there have been numerous shooting sprees in the US of equally bad or worse proportions and it seems that the fact in the US in many states that someone else might have a concealed carry weapon seems to have little bearing on the attackers thought process.

Really? How do you calculate those who are dissuaded from committing a crime because their potential victim may be armed?

The super hard core everyone should carry a gun types try to say "oh if only more people could carry guns this kind of thing would not happen". More like it would have no effect if some nut is gong to run around shooting people as in France or in Arizona they are going to run around shooting people.

I'd say its really more like if victims are armed they're not as easily killed by some nut who is going to be able to get a gun regardless of whatever law you enact.

It is really disappointing when we are talking about a case that is clearly very questionable where someone went past the law regarding self defense and yet you still see people wanting to argue why people need more guns and less regulation and you have an example in your face of someone that should at least not have had a conceal carry permit in my opinion anything on your record involving trouble with law enforcement should keep you at least from gaining a carry permit.

I haven't seen anyone argue for more guns and less regulation here in this thread so I have to wonder who you are talking about.

[Aramike]

The topic slightly aside, I've never completely understood why gun crime has always inevitably led to a gun control discussion. If someone owns a gun legally or not, USING it illegally is still ILLEGAL. Ergo, what makes anyone think that those who would break laws regarding gun usage would simply follow laws regarding gun possession?

People should have the right to choose to be able to defend themselves with a firearm. I believe that 100%. However, they should also be held accountable when they engage in violence against others that is not in defense. Whether or not they are allowed to LEGALLY possess the capability shouldn't be the issue, because hey - if they are willing to commit murder, why wouldn't they be willing to illegally own a gun?

It's an age-old argument, but it's completely true - banning firearms only disarms law-abiding citizens. The individual in question may turn out to not be such a citizen.

[Sailor Steve]

I'm so glad we live in an armed society. I feel so safe, knowing that nuts like Zimmerman are running around with guns.
How magnanimous of you to turn a tragedy into yet another gun control argument. In some cases a gun really is an answer, deterrent, solution. In others, not so much.

Oh, is this just a drive-by troll, or do you have something useful to add?

The super hard core everyone should carry a gun types try to say "oh if only more people could carry guns this kind of thing would not happen". More like it would have no effect if some nut is gong to run around shooting people as in France or in Arizona they are going to run around shooting people.

I am a gun owner myself and this incident disgusts me.Too bad this Zimmerman did not try this on me because he'd have been facing a gun.
Interesting dance. On one hand you take people to task for insisting that more guns are the answer (when, as August pointed out, no one in this thread has done that), but on the other hand you say that you wish he had tried it on you because you have a gun. So, more gun ownership is not the answer but you having one is?

[Stealhead]

I though my point was more clear Steve.I am saying the requirements to be allowed to obtain a concealed carry permit should be much stricter.A person should no criminal record and they really should be evaluated for any possible physiological issues and there should be a much more extensive course training a person what they can and can not do legally as is most states it takes an afternoon.

I am saying that this Zimmerman seems to be so aggressive in his actions that he could easily have gotten into a gun vs. gun situation with a person that was following the self defense laws to the T unlike Zimmerman.And for the record i do have a conceal carry and I do carry when I am working in certain areas of the state I work in refrigeration as well so it not outside the realm of possibility that someone could attempt to rob me to gain the several thousand dollars in tools,refrigeration tanks and large amounts of copper that my truck contains(I do not have the gun on me while on private property I lock it away in the truck inside a case.) nor is it impossible that some overzealous nut see me doing my job and think that I am about to commit a crime seeing as people in my industry work in places where most people ought not be.Of course I am half white and half Iranian Lor and thank god I appear white and not like a "rag head" becuase there are some nut jobs that probably would shoot me under certain circumstances if I did look more stereo typically "rag headish".

[Sailor Steve]

I though my point was more clear Steve.I am saying the requirements to be allowed to obtain a concealed carry permit should be much stricter.A person should no criminal record and they really should be evaluated for any possible physiological issues and there should be a much more extensive course training a person what they can and can not do legally as is most states it takes an afternoon.
But you didn't say that. You went on a diatribe against the people who say this proves we need more guns, when no one here tried to say that.

As for making it harder to get a permit, would that affect this case? Did this guy have a criminal record? Would a psychological evaluation have turned up anything? I don't know. Maybe he went through all that, and managed to fool the system. It's obvious now that he has serious problems, but was it obvious the day he got the permit?

[Stealhead]

Well it is obvious at least that he had been arrested for obstruction of justice and for battery on a police officer and that did not stop him from losing or not gaining the permit(you have to be 21 in FL to own a handgun and also to obtain a permit to carry)Not clear if he was even fully charged or only arrested and later dropped of course Le can see your entire record of dealings with the police including every time you where arrested and for what reason and if you got convicted or not they like to know who they are dealing and their history.

I was never targeting anyone on this site for claiming that more guns would and less restrictions make things safer I have heard thus numerous times in public form co-workers and friends in various settings and places.It seems to be one of the gun opinions floating out there I am rather surprised no one else has heard it before.Or perhaps some people are little quick to assume something is targeted at them.I am a man that likes to be specific therefore if I post something that does not mention a subsim member by name or quote something they said making a counterpoint then you can safely assume that is in reference to an opinion heard by myself that it did not come directly from a subsim member but from another source.

I have to drop out of this topic for now it is late and I have a long day tomorrow so at least for me it have to continue later.

[gimpy117]

Really? How do you calculate those who are dissuaded from committing a crime because their potential victim may be armed?

I'd say its really more like if victims are armed they're not as easily killed by some nut who is going to be able to get a gun regardless of whatever law you enact.

I haven't seen anyone argue for more guns and less regulation here in this thread so I have to wonder who you are talking about.

I just don't agree with the idea, it's a nice thought but, people who go on shooting sprees pretty much don't care and it's a moot point...you can't walk into a shopping mall and have made sure EVERYONE is unarmed. Premeditated murder as well is mostly the same idea, If someone wanted to kill me, they would do it when im not awake or otherwise armed...so either you have to post watch 24/7 or have a loaded gun under your pillow, or this whole self defense idea is pretty wishy washy. I remember a cop who was killed in my home town by his wife in his sleep. he's armed almost 24/7 and his wife still offed him...with his own gun. (actually my mom was on that jury for his trial)

and I keep waiting for that magical Mythical news story where the one superman packing heat saves the day. But I haven't seen one, not to say it's never happened, but as much as it touted that having a gun with you at all times will save you from everything up to and maybe including a nuclear apocalypse just seems not to be all that true or even common.

but i really think though this whole "stand your ground law" is complete folly it's pointless. it's like that old episode of south park where i think it was Stan's uncle are taking the boys hunting and they shoot all these endangered animals legally simply by yelling "oh my god it's coming right at us" before hand. It's just like that in Florida it seems, only with people.

[Aramike]

Here's a great, fairly recent, local story of a man who may have saved the lives of others put at risk by criminals who wouldn't give a damn if guns were illegal:

http://www.wisn.com/news/30374159/detail.html

[gimpy117]

well thats good.

but that's still

armed civilians: 1 Crazed gunmen: A bunch


oh by the way, happy birthday man or yesterday that is

[Aramike]

well thats good.

but that's still

armed civilians: 1 Crazed gunmen: A bunch


oh by the way, happy birthday man or yesterday that isActually, a quick Google search will reveal many, many stories of armed civilians defending themselves and others.

But you're right, the crazed gunman is the most likely to win. That being said, if I'm ever in a situation where there's a crazed gunman after me, I'd rather be armed and have a chance than merely surrender my life to such a maniac.

Thanks for the birthday wishes nonetheless!

[Osmium Steele]

but i really think though this whole "stand your ground law" is complete folly it's pointless. it's like that old episode of south park...

It is nothing like that at all.

In Fla law, previous to SYG if you were accosted, threatened, etc. and you "could" run away you were obliged to do so. You did not have the right to stand your ground.

Heaven help you if you actually struck first and disarmed, or otherwise incapacitated your assailant, because Florida law did not have your back. You just committed a felony and could be sued by your attacker for costs and damages. It happened numerous times.

Stand Your Ground changed that.

[yubba]

I was listening to the Bill Mic live radio show here on the coast of florida it sounds like there is wittnesses seeing Zimmerman being beaten by the kid or fighting with, before the shot was fired. So I think we all better get our facts straight before we hang someone, so I guess the media will fan the flames of racism, some other media outlets will have the story about the witnesses seeing the fight. I haven't the time too look for this right now just reporting what I heard

[mookiemookie]

I was listening to the Bill Mic live radio show here on the coast of florida it sounds like there is wittnesses seeing Zimmerman being beaten by the kid or fighting with, before the shot was fired. So I think we all better get our facts straight before we hang someone, so I guess the media will fan the flames of racism, some other media outlets will have the story about the witnesses seeing the fight. I haven't the time too look for this right now just reporting what I heard

And here it comes. Latch on to any story, however implausible, that makes the good ol' God fearin' 'Merican out to be the hero for holding the savage hordes of 17 year olds armed with Skittles and Iced Tea at bay by shooting them dead for walking down the street.

Sometimes people make me sick.

The topic slightly aside, I've never completely understood why gun crime has always inevitably led to a gun control discussion. If someone owns a gun legally or not, USING it illegally is still ILLEGAL. Ergo, what makes anyone think that those who would break laws regarding gun usage would simply follow laws regarding gun possession?

People should have the right to choose to be able to defend themselves with a firearm. I believe that 100%. However, they should also be held accountable when they engage in violence against others that is not in defense. Whether or not they are allowed to LEGALLY possess the capability shouldn't be the issue, because hey - if they are willing to commit murder, why wouldn't they be willing to illegally own a gun?

It's an age-old argument, but it's completely true - banning firearms only disarms law-abiding citizens. The individual in question may turn out to not be such a citizen.

Good point. This idiot should never have been armed with a firearm if this is how he's going to use it. But I can't make that logical leap to banning all guns or enacting stricter gun control standards because one idiot used one wrong.

[andritsos]

did that zimmermann identify himself? or it isnt known?

[August]

And here it comes. Latch on to any story, however implausible, that makes the good ol' God fearin' 'Merican out to be the hero for holding the savage hordes of 17 year olds armed with Skittles and Iced Tea at bay by shooting them dead for walking down the street.

Sometimes people make me sick.

But aren't you latching onto a story yourself?

I mean I share your doubts that it went down like this but what's so implausible about it? A 17 year old athlete is perfectly capable of beating up an out of shape 28 year old and it certainly wouldn't be the first time a teenager got confrontational with his elders.

I'd think it'd be wise not prejudge this incident either way until we get all the facts.

[Ducimus]

I don't think Gun control is the problem. No i think the problem is shady people manipulating Flordia's "stand your ground" laws. Frankly i didn't even know such a law was passed or even existed, and upon reading about it, it became immediatly obvious to me how some people will try to manipulate it. This "stand your ground" law, is completely different from the Castle Doctrine.

[mookiemookie]

But aren't you latching onto a story yourself? The most plausible one backed by the most evidence, yes.

I mean I share your doubts that it went down like this but what's so implausible about it? A 17 year old athlete is perfectly capable of beating up an out of shape 28 year old and it certainly wouldn't be the first time a teenager got confrontational with his elders. Well, the most recent thing is that his phone call to his girlfriend came out and he was saying the guy was following him. If that were the case, I'd probably get confrontational with the guy too.

I'd think it'd be wise not prejudge this incident either way until we get all the facts. You're right, but I honestly can't see any way that any new fact would make this guy justified in shooting the kid given what we know.

[August]

You're right, but I honestly can't see any way that any new fact would make this guy justified in shooting the kid given what we know.

I sort of agree but where I see the need for caution is that kind of reasoning has put more than one innocent man into the electric chair. He hasn't even been arrested yet and there are folks here who have him already convicted and are using him as an example of the need to further restrict peoples constitutional freedoms.

[yubba]

why isn't this picture in the newspaper much ?????? it has been way in the 80's here who needs to be wearing a hooded sweat shirt, all our little gansters here wears this, I rememeber being in the gunshop when some kid came in wearing a hoody like that, the owner came unglued. pic was taken march 14 2012.http://media.trb.com/media/photo/2012-03/68907321.jpg

[mookiemookie]

I own a hooded sweatshirt. Should I be shot because of it?

[Ducimus]

Teens like to think their tough. Some dress to look tough, doesn't mean they are. Where i grew up in california, you had two types of "gangsta's". The real ones that id call "gangbangers", and the "posers". The poser's you laughed at for trying to be all bad, the gangbangers (aka cholo's,) you didn't screw with. This kid was probably worth laughing at, not shooting at.

[gimpy117]

I own a hooded sweatshirt. Should I be shot because of it?

I do too, but i doubt it will happen because I assume we are both white

and why does that picture of the sweatshirt make him "gangster?" I have plenty of hoodies, and when it's chilly I also put the hood up

[vienna]

Going back to why the Feds have moved into this case, I don't think it is a racial issue. Like so many actions, the main reason the local and state agencies are dragging their feet may have nothing to do with race but more with money. The issue of liability spreads farther than Zimmerman and his activities. The local and state agencies are in a bit of a no win situation: (1) if they move swiftly and do a thorough investigation, they may uncover facts and situations potentially self-incriminating; (2) if they don't do a thorough investigation, they may be open to liability for not doing their duty. In the first case, they may uncover lapse or flaws in the firearms permit process and/or the granting of the permit, they may uncover indicators of behavioral problems regarding Zimmerman that should have prompted action by the authorities not undertaken (sort of like when police answer multiple domestic abuse calls at a location, do nothing, and a death results). In the second case, by trying to aviod complicity in actions that may have resulted in the incident by stalling or ignoring the crime, they leave themselves open to civil, if not criminal, liability. No matter what happens now, the local and state governments are in for one hell of a large lawsuit. Race is not the more likely issue in the actions of the authorities; not having to make a huge payout is the probable underlying cause...

...

[Sailor Steve]

I was never targeting anyone on this site for claiming that more guns would and less restrictions make things safer I have heard thus numerous times in public form co-workers and friends in various settings and places.It seems to be one of the gun opinions floating out there I am rather surprised no one else has heard it before.Or perhaps some people are little quick to assume something is targeted at them.
Just the opposite, actually. It has been brought up here, and more than once, which is why I was the second one to point out that it wasn't brought up here this time. There are many who jump to that position automatically, just as there are many who instantly say that more gun control is the only answer.

The opinions are out there, and they are both equally ludicrous. I just didn't want a thread this important going from what it was to something else.

[Stealhead]

I can certainly agree with you on this.

I love yubbas excuse that only gangsters wear hooded sweat shirts when you can buy hoodies from nearly every clothing company there is I own several hooded sweat shirts and I am no gangster either.

Yubbas check list for a person up to no good:
If person passes two or more he is dangerous and can be shot.becuase he scares yubba and Florida law says; "reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other problem is the laws wording against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other***8217;s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if1)8195;He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony"


1.Non white male
2. Male wearing hoodie(double points for a non white)
3. Male walking down any street wearing hoodie or other wise looking like a gangster.(double points for a non white)
4.Any person that fits yubbas overly paranoid fear of living in crime ridden Florida that has a murder rate higher than any war zone.

To me the whole problem with self defense laws that are worded like Florida's is that they give overly paranoid persons more or less a legal right to shot a person that falls into there definition of a dangerous person and shot them even if the person does not make a clearly threatening act or does something.

The whole problem with Florida law is the wording it allows an overly fearful overly paranoid or overly aggressive to use deadly force when it may not have been needed and an aggressive person if in a situation with few direct witnesses can easily have been the provoker but when the other person is dead there is no one left to ask.

Even before this indecent some Florida legislators have been concerned about the self defense laws wording and wanted to have the law revised.Now even the very Conservative state
Governor Rick Scott says that the law needs to looked over and revised.As is right now DAs have been unwilling to touch any self defense case because the wording makes ti a hard case to prove was the person defending them selves really in immanent danger or not. From what I understand the NRA lobbed hard to have alot added to laws wording.

I am not saying that every or even most gun owners in Florida are paranoid or aggressive the problem is that the wording of the law to the mindset of an overly paranoid and fearful person the wording allows them to create the immanence of danger even if none truly exists.

[breadcatcher101]

Was it racial?

Oh yeah.

If it had been a black guy shooting a white guy it would not have even made the news at the state level.

The DOJ, FBI, and everyone but the UN would not be involved.

And if he goes to court and a all black jury doesn't convict him there will still be those who would scream at the top of their lungs for his head.

None of us were there and IMO if the police thought he was in the wrong they would have acted on it at that time. This is not a "closed case". Charges are still pending possibly as the investigation goes on but the masses are already storming the castle with torches and pitchforks based on media speculations and such.

What a shame.

[Stealhead]

I am bit confused by your post you seem to contradict yourself somewhat.

Surely you must jest if you think that this would have not gotten alot of attention if the races where reversed and Zimmerman was black
and Martin white that the Zimmerman would have been treated the same or that it would not have made news.I bet that it would have gotten
alot of attention and much faster if the roles where reversed.

[breadcatcher101]

I don't really.

I am saying it is racial on the part of those who act just because the boy was black. Who cares what his race was? Yet because he was black and not white so many levels of goverment get involved.

[August]

I am bit confused by your post you seem to contradict yourself somewhat.

Surely you must jest if you think that this would have not gotten alot of attention if the races where reversed and Zimmerman was black
and Martin white that the Zimmerman would have been treated the same or that it would not have made news.I bet that it would have gotten
alot of attention and much faster if the roles where reversed.

I believe that Zimmerman, in spite of the last name, does not identify as white but rather as a Latino.

[Stealhead]

I think that if the boy had been white and Zimmerman black the local PD would have treated him very differently in particular considering the fact he has a record.There would have been no need for others to get involved because the PD would have look into much closer and assumed that Zimmerman was not fully truthful.

I agree that some people desire to be overly politically correct in the US but anyone that denies that race is still an issue for many is blind.

The government got involved because it is very clear that the Sanford PD did not even seem to take into question anything that happened even if you look it form a colorblind standpoint the incident sounds very questionable.

@ august My understanding is that Zimmerman is half white half Latino.And even if he considers himself Latino that does not exclude the chance that he might have had a racial motive.I feel that no matter the race in nay crime or possible crime if those involved are of separate race or ethnicity and there is any sign of a racial motive it needs to be looked into.

I don't care if it is a Chinese guy and black woman or a latino and a white if there is any evidence to suggest a racial motive it should be looked at.Many of the residents in this community have said that Zimmerman had a fixation on young black males and he clearly states on his 911 call "these *******s always get away" the Sanford Police now even admit that they "found" another tape where Zimmerman appears to be saying "****ing coons" under his breath during the call.:hmmm:

[breadcatcher101]

No. I stand by my statement.

Case in point: The flash mobs recently where blacks would storm whites and inflict harm--not a peep out of the DOJ.

If the roles were reversed they would have been all over it.

[August]

I think that if the boy had been white and Zimmerman black the local PD would have treated him very differently in particular considering the fact he has a record.There would have been no need for others to get involved because the PD would have look into much closer and assumed that Zimmerman was not fully truthful.

I agree that some people desire to be overly politically correct in the US but anyone that denies that race is still an issue for many is blind.

The government got involved because it is very clear that the Sanford PD did not even seem to take into question anything that happened even if you look it form a colorblind standpoint the incident sounds very questionable.

There is at least one level of government between the Sanford PD and what you are calling "the government". The Feds jumped the gun and I believe they did so purely for political reasons. Would they still have stepped in so quickly if Zimmerman were black and the victim white? I seriously doubt it.

[August]

@ august My understanding is that Zimmerman is half white half Latino.

His lawyer is the one who made the distinction, perhaps to deflect charges of racism.

[Stealhead]

That makes no sense does his lawyer think that only white are seen as racist?

I have encountered plenty of people of various races that are clearly racist to some race other than themselves.

For example the term "spic" was a racial slur created by blacks.

Some latinos use the term monos which means monkeys as a racial slur towards blacks.

[Stealhead]

You ignore the fact that the Florida FDLE is also involved it is highly likely that they are the ones that asked the Feds to get involved.

[August]

You ignore the fact that the Florida FDLE is also involved it is highly likely that they are the ones that asked the Feds to get involved.

I suppose that is possible but I have to wonder why the Feds didn't say that when they announced their investigation.

[Tribesman]

The Feds jumped the gun and I believe they did so purely for political reasons.
So the purely political reasons wouldn't by any chance be the commisioner and the local mayor both asking them directly ?:hmmm:
Whoda thunk Fox news would carry such nuggets of information eh

[Platapus]

I don't understand why Zimmerman is not arrested and given a chance to plead his case at a trial?

I have not heard of a case where it was closed just because someone said it was self defense. Let's collect the evidence and take it to trial. That's what trials are for.

[mookiemookie]

I don't understand why Zimmerman is not arrested and given a chance to plead his case at a trial?

I have not heard of a case where it was closed just because someone said it was self defense. Let's collect the evidence and take it to trial. That's what trials are for.

That's the real question. Who are the police to determine that there's a case or not against this guy? That's the DA's job.

[Stealhead]

Here in is the problem in FL DAs have taken on virtually no "stand your ground" cases they seem to avoid it like the plague.I suspect this is because of the wording of the law they feel that all but the most strong case is going to be a losing proposition so why take this kind of case when you can take ones that are easier to win like a drug case?DAs have an interest to appear to up hold the law so they want to take cases that they know that they are more likely to get a conviction on.The stand your ground law makes that very unlikely for obvious reasons.

Any case of self defense no matter the circumstances should be very thoroughly investigated by the DA.

[Bubblehead1980]

Surely you jest???
A whole freaking Nation is crying out about this!!
Who do you want to look into things?
Castle?


No, it does not matter that the nation is crying out about this, we do not operate on a system of mob rule.This is a local Law Enforcement matter and they made a decision not to charge him(Law Enforcement Officer's have discretion) based on Florida STATE Law, if they arrest someone when they are legally protected, they open up their department to lawsuits, bad publicity etc.The State Attorney's Office surely looked into this and felt that regardless of his actions, an altercation ensued and he used the force he deemed necessary to protect himself.There is no evidence to show this was racially motivated, every negative interaction between two people of different racial backrounds is NOT always a racial matter, in fact I will argue that it is rarely a racial thing now days. The way many people try to stretch hate crime laws is that if you get into an altercation with a minority or a homoesexual, you committed a hate crime, even if the crime was not motivated by prejudice.Bottom line, the guy is protected under Florida Law so those who have business in the matter, the Sanford Police and State Attorneys Office(they are sending it to a grand jury now) have the call here and the Feds have no reason to step in yet.Evidence surfaces to show that it was a racially motivated crime, Feds should then investigate.I think hate crime laws are silly, no one group should be protected more than others but that is a different discussion.

I am not defending Zimmerman, he is an idiot.Overzealous wannabe cop(must be a real f*ck up to not be able to be an actual cop, it's not that difficult, look at the people who become cops) who went looking for trouble and found it.Some type of altercation occurred and perhaps the kid was kicking his ass , he felt in danger and shot him.Legally, he is covered, it sucks but he is.The stand your ground law was put in place because people who defended themselves were prosecuted when they never should have been.

Governor Scott is calling for a review of the law and that is fine but Zimmerman has the law on his side in this one, like it or not.

[Bubblehead1980]

Here in is the problem in FL DAs have taken on virtually no "stand your ground" cases they seem to avoid it like the plague.I suspect this is because of the wording of the law they feel that all but the most strong case is going to be a losing proposition so why take this kind of case when you can take ones that are easier to win like a drug case?DAs have an interest to appear to up hold the law so they want to take cases that they know that they are more likely to get a conviction on.The stand your ground law makes that very unlikely for obvious reasons.

Any case of self defense no matter the circumstances should be very thoroughly investigated by the DA.

Florida has State Attorney's, not District Attorneys, just FYI. They don't take them because it is a waste of resources, the law allows people to protect themselves and was put in place to avoid overzealous police/prosecutors from going after people who defended themselves.

[Stealhead]

No, it does not matter that the nation is crying out about this, we do not operate on a system of mob rule.This is a local Law Enforcement matter and they made a decision not to charge him(Law Enforcement Officer's have discretion) based on Florida STATE Law, if they arrest someone when they are legally protected, they open up their department to lawsuits, bad publicity etc.The State Attorney's Office surely looked into this and felt that regardless of his actions, an altercation ensued and he used the force he deemed necessary to protect himself.There is no evidence to show this was racially motivated, every negative interaction between two people of different racial backrounds is NOT always a racial matter, in fact I will argue that it is rarely a racial thing now days. The way many people try to stretch hate crime laws is that if you get into an altercation with a minority or a homoesexual, you committed a hate crime, even if the crime was not motivated by prejudice.Bottom line, the guy is protected under Florida Law so those who have business in the matter, the Sanford Police and State Attorneys Office(they are sending it to a grand jury now) have the call here and the Feds have no reason to step in yet.Evidence surfaces to show that it was a racially motivated crime, Feds should then investigate.I think hate crime laws are silly, no one group should be protected more than others but that is a different discussion.

I am not defending Zimmerman, he is an idiot.Overzealous wannabe cop(must be a real f*ck up to not be able to be an actual cop, it's not that difficult, look at the people who become cops) who went looking for trouble and found it.Some type of altercation occurred and perhaps the kid was kicking his ass , he felt in danger and shot him.Legally, he is covered, it sucks but he is.The stand your ground law was put in place because people who defended themselves were prosecuted when they never should have been.

Governor Scott is calling for a review of the law and that is fine but Zimmerman has the law on his side in this one, like it or not.

You are clearly assuming that the boy was assaulting him when we have no evidence short of what Zimmerman claims and people always tell the truth after all what really happened did Zimmerman ID himself as a watch man? We do not know.Did Zimmerman do something to make the boy feel threatened? I would say yes because It seems very clear that Zimmeramn was following him in an regular vehicle I think any teenager would be a slight bit concerned about someone clearly following them.

You cant say that the law is on someones side simply because they claim so to have been following the law unless you can prove it to be so in this case that seems to be questionable.

[Bubblehead1980]

That's the real question. Who are the police to determine that there's a case or not against this guy? That's the DA's job.


Actually, the police have discretion is making arrests at the scene.They investigated and felt(rightfully so, like it or not) under FL Law that Zimmerman is protected.The State Attorney(no District Attorneys in Florida) no doubt reviewed it and felt it was justified, the end.Now, due to undue pressure, they are sending it to a grand jury, I don't really have a problem with because unless they bow to mob rule and don't follow the law, they will most likely see it the same way as the police and SAO.

Reminds of the Casey Anthony case, everyone was up in arms about the verdict but there just was not enough there to convict her of first degree murder.Like it or not, Zimmerman is protected.

[Bubblehead1980]

You are clearly assuming that the boy was assaulting him when we have no evidence short of what Zimmerman claims and people always tell the truth after all what really happened did Zimmerman ID himself as a watch man? We do not know.Did Zimmerman do something to make the boy feel threatened? I would say yes because It seems very clear that Zimmeramn was following him in an regular vehicle I think any teenager would be a slight bit concerned about someone clearly following them.

You cant say that the law is on someones side simply because they claim so to have been following the law unless you can prove it to be so in this case that seems to be questionable.


Sounded like an altercation in the tapes, the police investigated and determined he was protected, the SAO reviewed it and determined the same.Grand Jury will probably do the same.

[Bubblehead1980]

It is nothing like that at all.

In Fla law, previous to SYG if you were accosted, threatened, etc. and you "could" run away you were obliged to do so. You did not have the right to stand your ground.

Heaven help you if you actually struck first and disarmed, or otherwise incapacitated your assailant, because Florida law did not have your back. You just committed a felony and could be sued by your attacker for costs and damages. It happened numerous times.

Stand Your Ground changed that.


Exactly what I have said in several posts, there were people prosecuted for just defending themselves! I grew up in Florida, I remember a few such cases in my hometown.

[Stealhead]

So you think that an overzealous gun toting man should walk free because there was an altercation (started by whom?) and that is that.What if Zimmerman started the altercation in that case the boy was within his right to fight back but oh he did not have a gun only his fists at most I would love to see a shot of Zimmermans face and body after they spoke with him does he have any sings of violent physical contact on him what about the boys body.How can you say for sure that Zimmerman did start the altercation and then pull a gun and shoot the boy when the boy was attempting to defend him self from Zimmerman?
It seems assumed that perhaps the boy started the altercation and got shot by Zimmerman what if Zimmerman started the altercation and the boy fought back and then got a gun pulled o him I think that might well explain why you can clearly hear a boy yelling out for help perhaps he stopped what ever action he was doing (regardless if he started the altercation) once Zimmerman drew his gun that really well explains why he is begging for someone to PLEASE HELP ME! anyone with half a brain can tell that is the voice of a young black male.If he stopped his actions yet Zimmerman still shot him that is 100% MURDER.

If Martin stopped what he was doing upon appearance of Zimmermans firearm then he was no longer an threat and then the law is not on the side of Zimmerman.If someone has time to say please help me then they are obviously not an imminent threat well then again they might be if someone does not what anyone else to witness clearly what is actually occurring.

[vienna]

Stealhead said:


Here in is the problem in FL DAs have taken on virtually no "stand your ground" cases they seem to avoid it like the plague.I suspect this is because of the wording of the law they feel that all but the most strong case is going to be a losing proposition so why take this kind of case when you can take ones that are easier to win like a drug case?DAs have an interest to appear to up hold the law so they want to take cases that they know that they are more likely to get a conviction on.The stand your ground law makes that very unlikely for obvious reasons.



It's not just because the cases can't be won, it's also the implications of a loss. If this "Stand Your Ground" case is pusued and lost the victim (if this case ever goes to trial, it is Martins not Zimmerman), the culpablilty will not only be Zimmerman's, the police and the local government, the SA's office and the state goverment will all be called to account for their actions prior to, during and following the crime. As I pointed out before, financial responsibily has the potential of costing the governments big time. Also, anyone who may have claimed "Stand Your Ground" as a defense of their actions could conceivably face legal action if the police, as in this case, merely wrote it off and there was no formal ajudication. The possibility is also strong of a court overturning the law completely as part of a decision regarding this case. So, basically, it not just not wanting to take a "gounder" and being the "Bill Buckner" of the Florida legal system, it's the whole can of political and financial worms that accompany a trial on this case. I think Florida state and local government would jump at a chance to dump the whole matter in the Fed's lap...

[Stealhead]

Stealhead said:




It's not just because the cases can't be won, it's also the implications of a loss. If this "Stand Your Ground" case is pusued and lost the victim (if this case ever goes to trial, it is Martins not Zimmerman), the culpablilty will not only be Zimmerman's, the police and the local government, the SA's office and the state goverment will all be called to account for their actions prior to, during and following the crime. As I pointed out before, financial responsibily has the potential of costing the governments big time. Also, anyone who may have claimed "Stand Your Ground" as a defense of their actions could conceivably face legal action if the police, as in this case, merely wrote it off and there was no formal ajudication. The possibility is also strong of a court overturning the law completely as part of a decision regarding this case. So, basically, it not just not wanting to take a "gounder" and being the "Bill Buckner" of the Florida legal system, it's the whole can of political and financial worms that accompany a trial on this case. I think Florida state and local government would jump at a chance to dump the whole matter in the Fed's lap...

Very true hopefully at least this incident will result in the state changing the wording of the law.

[August]

The possibility is also strong of a court overturning the law completely as part of a decision regarding this case.

Not going to happen. No law that I ever heard of was overturned by the courts because it was incorrectly applied.

[CaptainMattJ.]

I wouldve expected someone by now to point out to the media that he isnt white, hes hispanic. Even his father said so.

But, you know how hispanic on black and vice versa is not newsworthy enough right :shifty:

They have to claim hes "white" so they can cry bloody murder. I think its despicable in every single way. The murder of a clean, respected young man by the hands of a worthless scumbag.

And then the miconception of race. The only reason this made headlines is because they lied and said he was a white male. Had this been reported correctly as a hispanic, it wouldve just been glanced over like every other racist crimes between hispanics and blacks that happen every day. Here in california, we always have a mass school fight where a couple dozen get brutally beat up, even killed in a RACIAL brawl. And never once have i seen it be white kids against black kids.

Whites, blacks, hispanics, it doesnt matter. Racism goes all around, against everybody. Whites arent the only people who can be accused of distinct racism, and its infuriating to sit here and watch the racism play out on the media, who cry about the race crime here while deliberately changing the story to get headlines and cause an uproar. Its a FACT that such a crime would not nearly have been so extensively publicized had the media told the truth about this man being a hispanic, not white.

The ENTIRE case, the way its been handled, and the the way its been publicized, all just disgusts me. Racism runs deep hidden in every race against every other race. And its despicable. :nope:

[Platapus]

Who has claimed that Zimmerman is white?

[CaptainMattJ.]

Who has claimed that Zimmerman is white?
its been said, in this thread, and by the media. Watch some TV, they said it multiple, multiple times on MSNBC and other stations.

"If it was a black guy shooting a WHITE guy..." has been said (with some variation) multiple times in this thread.

[Stealhead]

This was posted by myself and August Zimmerman; is half latino half white.

The media infers that his is white the reasoning is not clear as to why although Zimmerman may claim to be white himself on DL and ID in theory he could claim more than one thing on a racial survey.

It is said that he is the Captain of the Neighborhood Watch when in fact he is a self appointed "captain" of his own self created Neighborhood Watch separate from what ever one actually operates in the same area.I wonder why his was not allowed to be a member of the official one in the area.

[August]

Edit: Stealhead says it better.

BTW I suspect the confusion is at least partly due to his European sounding surname.

[Stealhead]

http://www.dominionofnewyork.com/2012/03/16/george-zimmermans-father-my-son-is-hispanic-not-racist/

According to Zimmermans father his son is Hispanic.And he certainly appears to be Hispanic in the mug shot photo from 2005.

The media always picks one view or another fair or not. Regardless those involved in this investigation have information we are not aware of if Zimmerman did
act questionably he will see his day in court if they find that the Sanford PD did not do the best job I suppose that is another matter.

[Tribesman]

I wouldve expected someone by now to point out that he isnt white, hes hispanic. Even his father said so.

Can you remember what your last census asked you?
What covered "white"?
Do you recall something simple like White followed later by not hispanic or latino ?
Perhaps you also recall White followed by hispanic or latino?
Hey even the arabs and greeks are white and some of them definately look sorta not really that pink:doh:

BTW I suspect the confusion is at least partly due to his European sounding surname.
European origins count as white in America so his german name would probably lead that way, hispanic sorta comes back to Iberian origins which is european so that means white in America too.

"If it was a black guy shooting a WHITE guy..." has been said (with some variation) multiple times in this thread.
Hey if you don't like the way your government categorises people then write to the White House.

[Rockstar]

Has anyone heard from Al Sharpton? If there is a case against Zimmerman he would be the first to fire a broadside. On the other hand he may have realized Zimmerman isn't white and went back home.

[yubba]

Al not so Sharpton was suppose to be in Sanford at the end of this week, maybe he could address the issues that plagues the black communitty that causes unfortunite things, like this to happen, then he could come over here to Brevard County, and apologize to the family of the slain female officer we buried last week, that he hadn't done enough to help the black community, to help keep things like this from happen-ing, instead of fanning the flames of hate. http://www.wtsp.com/news/article/242885/19/Brevard-Deputy-Barbara-Pill-shot-killed-in-Melbourne

[Stealhead]

Seems that the same thing has happened to a white man yubba here for you is a white military vet shot by a black man in Florida under questionable circumstances the shooter claiming self defense.Again the black shooter may not have been racily motivated.

http://www.truecrimereport.com/2010/09/david_james_air_force_veteran.php

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/talk/content/when-doing-right-thing-turns-fatal

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/talk/content/when-doing-right-thing-turns-fatal

Why must Al Sharpton apologize to the family of the slain officer exactly?
Must a person of the white race apologize when ever a white person commits a crime and kills someone of another race?
Must white people apologize for poor behavior of other whites in the white community?Even though I myself consider an entire city or county as
a community not separate what races it is composed of even in the rural area in which I live there people of various races and ethnicity.One house white people live the next one might be Asian people so i take in yubba land that is two separate communities.

The white race has never apologized officially for what we did to the Native Americans.Well really I should say Federal Government but lets be honest at that time it was all white men making the decisions.

[yubba]

it happens way too much here, black on black, white on white, and on an on an on, crap is going to happen, and guess what it's going to keep on happenning and then it's going to get worse, if we keep on the path we are on. I'm a little put off that some black kid had killed a white female officer here 2 weeks ago and then I see this, we didn't go pile into the street, people are scared to death with all this crime and guess what people are going to die. We all need to pull together and fix our country for the better, when I say all that means, brown, yellow, black, white, red, blue, green, we all are americans don't let the s@#% heads in D.C. devide us.

[Stealhead]

OK you are heading into yubba land again and are losing me.

Are you saying that you tire of all violence and wish that all races and creeds just got along because if you are I agree with you...I think.

[CaptainMattJ.]

Can you remember what your last census asked you?
What covered "white"?
Do you recall something simple like White followed later by not hispanic or latino ?
Perhaps you also recall White followed by hispanic or latino?
Hey even the arabs and greeks are white and some of them definately look sorta not really that pink:doh:


European origins count as white in America so his german name would probably lead that way, hispanic sorta comes back to Iberian origins which is european so that means white in America too.


Hey if you don't like the way your government categorises people then write to the White House.
i capitalized white to emphasize that people have mistaken him for a caucasian (if you must be politically correct)

whites, caucasians, meaning originating from european cultures and branching out.

[Stealhead]

I think Tribesman is referring to the ethnicity questions in the US and how they are worded and classified.

Americans 308,745,538 100.0 %
White 223,553,265 72.4 %
Black or African American 38,929,319 12.6 %
American Indian or Alaska Native 2,932,248 0.9 %
Non-Hispanic Asian 14,674,252 4.8 %
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 540,013 0.2 %
Some Other Race 19,107,368 6.2 %
Two or more races 9,009,073 2.9 %
Not Hispanic or Latino 258,267,944 83.7 %
Non-Hispanic White 196,817,552 63.7 %
Non-Hispanic Black or African American 37,685,848 12.2 %
Non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native 2,247,098 0.7 %
Non-Hispanic Asian 14,465,124 4.7 %
Non-Hispanic Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 481,576 0.2 %
Non-Hispanic Some Other Race 604,265 0.2 %
Non-Hispanic Two or more races 5,966,481 1.9 %
Hispanic or Latino 50,477,594 16.3 %
White Hispanic 26,735,713 8.7 %
Black or African American Hispanic 1,243,471 0.4 %
American Indian or Alaska Native Hispanic 685,150 0.2 %
Asian Hispanic 209,128 0.1 %
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander Hispanic 58,437 0.0 %
Some Other Race Hispanic 18,503,103 6.0 %
Two or more races Hispanic 3,042,592 1.0 %
Total 308,745,538 100.0%

[gimpy117]

Was it racial?

Oh yeah.

If it had been a black guy shooting a white guy it would not have even made the news at the state level.

The DOJ, FBI, and everyone but the UN would not be involved.



no, but the KKK would beat and hang people like no tomorrow.

But don't think the cops are protecting Zimmerman due to racial reasons, they are doing it because of Florida's Bat S--t insane voters and laws. If they start cracking down on stand your ground the backlash will be huge but all the crazy paranoid people who love that law.

[August]

no, but the KKK would beat and hang people like no tomorrow.

Yeah maybe if this were the 1960's but everyone knows that such things would not stand today. One only has to look at the controversy that this one single murder has generated to see that. Why can't you?

[breadcatcher101]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCebsToOKcE&feature=related

Not the KKK of the '60's, just a black wanting to kill all the whites so that they can take over.

Nothing to see here, move along.

[Stealhead]

What was the point of that video looks someone losing control of themselves.

I have seen it happen before once during a roll call in the military this dude just flipped out after the top first shirt asked him a question he was not any form of trouble or anything he simply went Mau Mau much like this chick in this video did.They sent him out of the military after that.

I fail to see how the reaction of an irrationality behaving person has any relevance she most likely has a mental issue and most anything might set her off.You are showing a mentally unstable person displaying her reaction to something her irrational thinking mind rationalizes.You can see that every person in that room is more than likely thinking "Somebody needs some Valium."

Unless your point is that KKK members are nuts as well some surely are but most are more than likely not they just enjoy hating people.

[breadcatcher101]

Yeah, I'm sure she was just having a bad day. We all do.

She did mention to the policeman she was a member of this group:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/well-find-him-black-militia-organization-vows-vengeance-on-trayvon-martin-shooter/

I suppose everyone needs a hobby.

[Stealhead]

Well if this woman has serious mental issues which it seems clear that she does and she of course thinks in an irrational manner and feels that white people are a threat to her even though most are obviously not.She most likely has felt more paranoid after all this discussion about the Sanford shooting which would obviously put her on edge even more (in her perception of the world) and the topic of conversation in the class obviously pushed her over the edge and she cracked perhaps because none of the other black students in the room agreed with what ever she said that was not shown on the film that the professor reacted to so when her "people" did not agree she lost all control.This is obviously a mental ill person in need of help.

More than likely she read about the New Black Milita on the internet.

Thier website by the looks of it seems really poorly made up and they are stupid enough to list their chain of command on one page.The site is also edited very poorly and
they have an HQ called The National Institute Center:hmmm :Oh by they way they also list their contact id anyone wants to have a little fun.

I am thinking this is a handful of idiots and the photo of the black women with the AK-47s you can see some women that are North African Arabs so it must have come from Libya I(the photo) bet because the now deceased Muammar Gaddafi had a brigade of black African male and female mercenaries to protect him.It is some small time bunch of idiots and is not even listed on the Southern Poverty Law centers site which lists most every hate group there is even very obscure ones.

Obviously they must be real if they made a statement but I suspect it is a handful of morons and well one mentally ill black college student.

[Aramike]

Good point. This idiot should never have been armed with a firearm if this is how he's going to use it. But I can't make that logical leap to banning all guns or enacting stricter gun control standards because one idiot used one wrong.I hope that I didn't seem to be making that leap, either.

My whole perspective on gun control is simple: we should take reasonable steps to make it difficult for a known criminal to legally acquire firearms, but it needs to be EASIER for a known law-abiding citizen to own them.

[Aramike]

My opinion? The media is the most racist of them all, period. This would not be a national story if it was an example of white-on-white violence. But the fact is that the media just happened to notice the disparity between the skin color of the victim and the accused, and it became a major headline.

Honestly, one of the things about our nation that's made me feel the sickest is that, in our attempt to blur the differences of our ethnicities, we've done nothing more than amplify them.

[Tribesman]

i capitalized white to emphasize that people have mistaken him for a caucasian (if you must be politically correct)

whites, caucasians, meaning originating from european cultures and branching out.
One huge mistake after another:doh:
Did you understand what was written at all?
white means white which means white, just because you don't like the way it was used doesn't mean it was used the wrong way.
If some people make a mistake on both what white means and what caucasian means and how it forms their views then that can say something about them and it isn't a very nice thing.

Many people are saying that if it wasn't a white man and a black man or if the roles were reversed it wouldn't be a story.
That has some validity but the validity comes with the sad truth that the events are a big story because of the history of the nation and its everyday legacy.
Some people are very eager to claim the validity but completely reject the truth behind it.

Not the KKK of the '60's, just a black wanting to kill all the whites so that they can take over.

So for balance are you going top post a video of a crazy white supramacist or a crazy chicano with aztlan ambitions ?
Or do you actually have no point ?

[yubba]

Was watching ABC's good morning America, as they talking about this story, there was one interesting point, Trayvon laid in the morque for 2 days as a unclaimed John Doe, So that meant he was walking around at night in a hoody with no identification in a gated community, which is almost a crime in it's self and for the ones that don't get it, I meant not having Identification, most of the time I'm being sarcastic and write-ing in a 6th grade level so, I don't know what too tell you, and If You love what Obama is doing then I can't help you. All the gated communities I know of, don't have a 7 11 in the middle of them. Maybe Hispanics are the other white meat. Al not so Sharpton in Sanford to fan the flames of Hate.

[mookiemookie]

My opinion? The media is the most racist of them all, period. This would not be a national story if it was an example of white-on-white violence. But the fact is that the media just happened to notice the disparity between the skin color of the victim and the accused, and it became a major headline.


But it has to be emphasized because it's the whole point of the story. The kid was shot for being black in the wrong part of town, period. He wasn't shot for trying to burglarize something, he wasn't shot because he was holding a gun. He was shot because, in the words of the shooter, "these *****'s always get away" and he was a "*******g coon."

[Stealhead]

Was watching ABC's good morning America, as they talking about this story, there was one interesting point, Trayvon laid in the morque for 2 days as a unclaimed John Doe, So that meant he was walking around at night in a hoody with no identification in a gated community, which is almost a crime in it's self and for the ones that don't get it, I meant not having Identification, most of the time I'm being sarcastic and write-ing in a 6th grade level so, I don't know what too tell you, and If You love what Obama is doing then I can't help you. All the gated communities I know of, don't have a 7 11 in the middle of them. Maybe Hispanics are the other white meat. Al not so Sharpton in Sanford to fan the flames of Hate.


So wearing a hoodie(when it is raining) and walking back home(he was visiting and staying at the home of someone living in the gated community) and not having ID(something one has no way of determining unless they lawfully ask a person for ID) gives someone the right to shoot you.No where has it ever been stated that the 7/11 was inside the gated community.I also live in Florida and my job has me driving all over the state and I have seen plenty of gated communities that have 7/11 store or other type establishments with in walking distance.You put Identification in caps yet you still tie in that he had a hoodie hood on his head no law is in place making wearing a hood illegal.I saw a woman jogging the other day with her hoodie hood on I should have called the police she must have been up to something wearing that hood the devil makes bad people wear hoods.

I am not 100% sure but I do not think that a minor is required by law in the state of Florida to have carry Id on them at all times either they of course would have to have a Drivers license while operating a motor vehicle but on foot as a pedestrian I am pretty sure minors are not obliged by law to have ID on them.It is the law for any person to properly ID themselves if asked by a LE officer that means that if you have no Id you can not give a false name or other wise attempt to hide your true identity.The only law he could have violated is the curfew law(if one is in place in Sanford) and those are set at latter times than 7pm.And 7pm is night the pitch black of night in Florida this time of year.But the devil makes people do bad things in hoodie hoods at night right?

[mookiemookie]

Without going into the gun law portion of it, maybe this implementation of the "stand your ground" law needs to be looked at. There's something really broken if you can be walking down the street, feel threatened at someone else just minding their business and then be perfectly justified in blowing them away for no other reason than your stupid "Spidey sense" was tingling.

[August]

Without going into the gun law portion of it, maybe this implementation of the "stand your ground" law needs to be looked at. There's something really broken if you can be walking down the street, feel threatened at someone else just minding their business and then be perfectly justified in blowing them away for no other reason than your stupid "Spidey sense" was tingling.

From everything I've read about the incident so far says the guy has no case for being in reasonable fear for his life so a self defense law should not apply to this guy.

After all you don't look at the right to free speech because someone claims it after yelling fire in a crowded theater.

[Sailor Steve]

IMy whole perspective on gun control is simple: we should take reasonable steps to make it difficult for a known criminal to legally acquire firearms, but it needs to be EASIER for a known law-abiding citizen to own them.
And excellent point, and one I share. The problem in this case is the seemingly law-abiding citizen who really shouldn't have a gun. How do we weed them out?

[joegrundman]

american prospect magazine has this article on the history of the "stand your ground" law and the results of it. it's pretty alarming reading!

http://prospect.org/article/history-floridas-stand-your-ground-law

[mookiemookie]

From everything I've read about the incident so far says the guy has no case for being in reasonable fear for his life so a self defense law should not apply to this guy.

After all you don't look at the right to free speech because someone claims it after yelling fire in a crowded theater.

That's a good point, but I don't think it's really and apples to apples comparison. The law was the basis for why the guy was not charged. It's the defense he's standing by, whether or not the real and true facts of the matter bear that out. If the law was changed, then this whole thing would have been much less of an issue as he'd be in jail while evidence was collected against him. As it stands now, he's off scot free and there's not much anyone can do about it.

And regardless of if it's a true case of "stand your ground" or not, the law's in the spotlight. I think it's a bad law.

american prospect magazine has this article on the history of the "stand your ground" law and the results of it. it's pretty alarming reading!

http://prospect.org/article/history-floridas-stand-your-ground-law

That's a very interesting article, and you're right, it's alarming to see how the original intent in English common law has been twisted and perverted.

[Sailor Steve]

I think it's a bad law.
I disagree. We have a similar law here in Utah, which allows a citizen to come to the aid of another or to defend himself where life is threatened. We also are careful to make sure the person who uses such force has to justify his actions or suffer the consequences. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

That's a very interesting article, and you're right, it's alarming to see how the original intent in English common law has been twisted and perverted.
I found it a rather biased article, especially when the author quotes the Florida law and then ignores the fact that the law specifically uses the word "attacked".
"person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
In the next phrase he quotes a part of a statute for his own agenda.
"A person who uses deadly force" is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force.
The Florida laws are much stricter than that, and very carefully defined.
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/776.032

Finally, his "alarming" statement about the situation
"Stand your ground laws" have spread across states in the West and South.
is more alarmist than alarming. We've had these sorts of laws in Utah since, well, since Utah existed, and it has never escalated into anything worth panicking over, or even mentioning.

The last post on that site so far, from C Vekert, is the best part of the page. The Florida law in not unreasonable, as the unreasonable article is, and the only question here is whether it will be abused, as all laws may be.

[Bubblehead1980]

So you think that an overzealous gun toting man should walk free because there was an altercation (started by whom?) and that is that.What if Zimmerman started the altercation in that case the boy was within his right to fight back but oh he did not have a gun only his fists at most I would love to see a shot of Zimmermans face and body after they spoke with him does he have any sings of violent physical contact on him what about the boys body.How can you say for sure that Zimmerman did start the altercation and then pull a gun and shoot the boy when the boy was attempting to defend him self from Zimmerman?
It seems assumed that perhaps the boy started the altercation and got shot by Zimmerman what if Zimmerman started the altercation and the boy fought back and then got a gun pulled o him I think that might well explain why you can clearly hear a boy yelling out for help perhaps he stopped what ever action he was doing (regardless if he started the altercation) once Zimmerman drew his gun that really well explains why he is begging for someone to PLEASE HELP ME! anyone with half a brain can tell that is the voice of a young black male.If he stopped his actions yet Zimmerman still shot him that is 100% MURDER.

If Martin stopped what he was doing upon appearance of Zimmermans firearm then he was no longer an threat and then the law is not on the side of Zimmerman.If someone has time to say please help me then they are obviously not an imminent threat well then again they might be if someone does not what anyone else to witness clearly what is actually occurring.

I am just telling you that regardless of who started the trouble, the law protects Zimmerman from prosecution because he felt in danger since he was in an altercation.I am speaking from a purely legal standpoint, not allowing emotion etc to creep in.This is why the police and SAO did not file charges as they were going from the legal point of view, which is what they are supposed to do.Now, with all the mob anger out there, they are sending it to a grand jury and grand jury will most likely go with the law but if not, well then a trial will occur and a good lawyer could probably get him off.Again, speaking on the legal veracity of the case, not my opinion.

No law is perfect and will be circumvented or abused at times but stand your ground is a great law overall as it prevents the government from Monday morning quarterbacking people who are in dangerous situations and defend themselves without fear of being arrested and prosecuted.This law was enacted because dumb ass prosecutors were trying to send(and succeeding at times) people to prison for simply protecting themselves.

[Bubblehead1980]

But it has to be emphasized because it's the whole point of the story. The kid was shot for being black in the wrong part of town, period. He wasn't shot for trying to burglarize something, he wasn't shot because he was holding a gun. He was shot because, in the words of the shooter, "these *****'s always get away" and he was a "*******g coon."


Mookie, the "because he was black" is such a crap argument.I am so sick of the victim mentality people have when it comes to things like this.Until there is evidence to show this was racial, stop with that garbage because it is WRONG and does nothing but cause discontent.

Zimmerman is an overzealous, wannabe cop who screwed up big time but not fair to claim racism until there is REAL evidence to show this.The coon comment? Come on! I heard that, it was so garbled could not make out what he said, sounded more like static breathing to me.Sure, the Al Sharptons of the world will try to make a big deal out of that.Now, if some evidence surfaces and shows he says that often or is known for racial views, okay. Also, "they always get away" is not a racial comment.Fact is, a lot of criminals get away.Zimmerman was wrong to think Martin was a criminal, but he felt he possibly was and would get away before the police arrived.

Again, I am not a fan of Zimmerman but also not going to stand by while the ignorant masses try to form a type of lynch mob.Drop the victim mentality, it will help you get ahead.Listen to Clarence Thomas types of the world, not the Jesse Jacksons.

[mookiemookie]

blahblah

You've made such a consistent fool of yourself on these boards that it's not worth the wear on my keyboard to respond.

I disagree. We have a similar law here in Utah, which allows a citizen to come to the aid of another or to defend himself where life is threatened. We also are careful to make sure the person who uses such force has to justify his actions or suffer the consequences. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Well, before I get into anything, I'll start by saying I think Castle Doctrine is great. It's a wonderful thing. Someone breaking into my home is no doubt a threat to me and my property. I'm not looking for trouble, I'm just living in my house. You're damn right I'm gonna blow someone away that's in my house.

Buuuuuut....I think it's a real stretch to extend that to the street. How do you determine that the other guy is a threat to you. Is it a look? A word? What kind of verbal threat would need to be said in order to be justified in killing someone? "I'm gonna kill you."? "I'm gonna kick your tail?" "I hate you?" "I think you're a jerk"? It gets way too murkey. Plus, the other guy has just as much right to be out and about as you do. What gives you the right to initiate a confrontation and then kill the other guy because you felt your life was in danger after you were the one who initiated the whole thing and put your own life in danger in the first place? That doesn't seem right to me. It basically gives free reign for anyone to pick a fight and kill the other guy and get away with it. I think there's a real problem with that.

[Tribesman]

From everything I've read about the incident so far says the guy has no case for being in reasonable fear for his life so a self defense law should not apply to this guy.

August actually makes sense on occasion:up:
Funnily enough the politician who dreamt up the law also says he doesn't see how it applies in this case.


Mookie, the "because he was black" is such a crap argument.I am so sick of the victim mentality people have when it comes to things like this.
The coon comment? Come on! I heard that, it was so garbled could not make out what he said, sounded more like static breathing to me.
Bubbles you are going out of your way to make a fool of yourself again:rotfl2:
Just out of interest how many of zimmermans calls have you listened to?
do you notice any pattern?

[Stealhead]

I am just telling you that regardless of who started the trouble, the law protects Zimmerman from prosecution because he felt in danger since he was in an altercation.I am speaking from a purely legal standpoint, not allowing emotion etc to creep in.This is why the police and SAO did not file charges as they were going from the legal point of view, which is what they are supposed to do.Now, with all the mob anger out there, they are sending it to a grand jury and grand jury will most likely go with the law but if not, well then a trial will occur and a good lawyer could probably get him off.Again, speaking on the legal veracity of the case, not my opinion.

No law is perfect and will be circumvented or abused at times but stand your ground is a great law overall as it prevents the government from Monday morning quarterbacking people who are in dangerous situations and defend themselves without fear of being arrested and prosecuted.This law was enacted because dumb ass prosecutors were trying to send(and succeeding at times) people to prison for simply protecting themselves.


Zimmerman claims to have been in an altercation how can we know for sure who started this altercation? Did Zimmerman did Martin start it? Assuming that Martin did Zimmerman must prove it how do when know for sure that Martin stopped his actions upon sight of Zimmermans firearm therefore if he ceased his actions he was no longer an immanent threat to Zimmerman.
How do we know for sure that Zimmerman himself did not start intently or not the altercation he might have appeared to Martin to be a threat or Zimmerman may have assaulted him allowing Martin the right to defend himself from harm which Zimmerman can lie and simply not say that he started the altercation and give himself justification to defend himself from harm even though he in fact was the aggressor.That seems possible seeing as a young males voice can be heard begging for help on 911 calls and then suddenly stops as soon as the gunshot is heard if that was Zimmerman he has a very strange vocal range as it is clear that he has a much deeper voice than the one heard on that 911 tape based on what you hear of Zimmermans voice on his own 911 call.If Zimmerman was such an outstanding watch man how could he not have seen Martin prior to the incident?He stopped stopped all these robberies (according to himself and those that believe him) and was always out and about according to most every resident of this gated community yet Zimmerman never noticed this kid staying and clearly then having a right to be on the property Zimmerman the neighborhood watch captain extraordinaire was so good at protecting his neighbors yet he finds one of them to be suspect and winds up shooting him crowning achievement indeed.

[Bilge_Rat]

This case is, of course, a tragedy, but before condemning the police, you have to take a good look at the florida act. The way it is drafted, it is very difficult to arrest and prosecute anyone who uses deadly force and then claims self-defence.

If you look at 776.012(1) and 776.013(3), Zimmerman only has to have a "reasonable belief" that he could suffer " great bodily harm" to justify the use of deadly force.


776.012 Use of force in defense of person.

A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.



776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.


(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section, the term:

(a) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or
permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

(b) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.


776.032 goes further and states that where the above facts exist, Zimmerman is immune from prosecution and cannot even be detained.



776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.


(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).



Just playing Devil's advocate here, but considering Zimmerman's belief, however misguided, that Martin was about to commit a crime, it will be difficult for any prosecutor to show beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman did not have a "reasonable belief" that his life was in danger.

This law is really a defence attorney's dream come true.

[vienna]

Bubblehead Said:


Listen to Clarence Thomas types of the world, not the Jesse Jacksons.


Extremely difficult, if not impossible to do: Clarence Thomas has not asked a single question or posed a single issue during Supreme Court sessions in his last 6 years as an 'active' Justice. It appears his Supreme Court memoir will be a single page, double spaced paragraph, if not just a blank page...

Perhaps he adhere to the old admonition "It is better to be silent and thought a fool than to speak and erase all doubt"... :DL

[August]

He didn't stand his ground. He pursued the victim, against the express orders of the police I might add. Then once he cornered the kid he got out of his vehicle and advanced into the altercation. As far as I can tell at no time during the entire incident was Zimmerman in a defensive situation. He had the initiative throughout.

[vienna]

He didn't stand his ground. He pursued the victim, against the express orders of the police I might add. Then once he cornered the kid he got out of his vehicle and advanced into the altercation. As far as I can tell at no time during the entire incident was Zimmerman in a defensive situation. He had the initiative throughout.
The whole situation and argument in a nutshell, and, may I add, you don't usually, if ever, hear the aggressor calling 911 and begging for help...

[Ducimus]

He didn't stand his ground. He pursued the victim, against the express orders of the police I might add. Then once he cornered the kid he got out of his vehicle and advanced into the altercation. As far as I can tell at no time during the entire incident was Zimmerman in a defensive situation. He had the initiative throughout.

This. It's not often ill agree with August, but this is certainly one of those times where his thoughts mirror my own.

[August]

The whole situation and argument in a nutshell, and, may I add, you don't usually, if ever, hear the aggressor calling 911 and begging for help...

Another angle that could be considered is maybe he's really a wolf in sheeps clothing so to speak. Maybe he actually planned to kill the kid and just called 911 to establish a self defense argument. Sort of like how a parent who murders their kid, ditches the body, will then call 911 to report the mysterious disappearance of their child out of her crib by persons unknown.

After all he did ignore police instructions. Maybe a case can be made for premeditation?

[mookiemookie]

This. It's not often ill agree with August, but this is certainly one of those times where his thoughts mirror my own.

Agreed! August and I are often at loggerheads, but here we're in perfect agreement. When someone pursues the altercation, what gives them the right to shoot someone?

[Stealhead]

Willingly placing oneself in danger by pursuing a perceived and most certainly an immanent threat contradicts the entire notion of self defense.

here is an interesting article:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/03/florida_s_stand_your_ground_law_doesn_t_prohibit_t hat_they_arrest_george_zimmerman_for_killing_trayv on_martin_.html

[Sailor Steve]

And once again Bubblehead sounds like the Party parrot. It's okay to disagree. It's okay to have a differing viewpoint. The problem is your language is a word-for-word copy of what is said by every hardcore right-wing radio guy and blogger. You sound exactly the same. No consideration, no discussion, just a cursory "I'm not like that" and then say the correct lines.

He didn't stand his ground. He pursued the victim, against the express orders of the police I might add. Then once he cornered the kid he got out of his vehicle and advanced into the altercation. As far as I can tell at no time during the entire incident was Zimmerman in a defensive situation. He had the initiative throughout.
I also agree. On top of that we're leaving out the part where the dispatcher told him to let the police handle it, and he ignored the "suggestion". I'm thinking there might be more here than meets the eye.

[Stealhead]

On that 911 call Zimmerman made he sounds so calm and and just checks all the boxes He looks real suspicious,he is up to something he is on drugs or something he is staring at me he has something in his waste band(I think Zimmerman is lying here no raise of pitch in his voice or anything),these *******s always get away,he is running away.It is like he is creating his defense before anything ever happened.

[August]

On that 911 call Zimmerman made he sounds so calm and and just checks all the boxes He looks real suspicious,he is up to something he is on drugs or something he is staring at me he has something in his waste band and you pursed him(I think Zimmerman is lying here),these *******s always get away,he is running away.


Like I said I'll bet he made that call to cover up the murder he was about to commit.

[Stealhead]

Like I said I'll bet he made that call to cover up the murder he was about to commit.


I agree.I hate to prejudge a person as guilty of a crime but it just seems so clear in this case.The tone of Zimmermans call and then the other 911 call where you can here the boy begging for help.I was driving down the road in my work truck with a co-worker when we heard that call being playing on the radio station any person can tell that is a teenagers voice not an adult mans for Zimmerman to sound that high pitched his family jewels would have to have been in a vice.My co-worker cold not even finish his lunch after hearing that and he fairly regularly spews out prejudice jokes about blacks and says prejudice things about blacks I was a bit surprised to see his reaction.

[Bubblehead1980]

Bubblehead Said:



Extremely difficult, if not impossible to do: Clarence Thomas has not asked a single question or posed a single issue during Supreme Court sessions in his last 6 years as an 'active' Justice. It appears his Supreme Court memoir will be a single page, double spaced paragraph, if not just a blank page...

Perhaps he adhere to the old admonition "It is better to be silent and thought a fool than to speak and erase all doubt"... :DL

Okay true and it has been more like five but will most likely change this monday when obamacare arguments begin.Perhaps I should have said "Follow the example of people like Clarence Thomas" Do not adopt the victim mentality, it is ignorant, wrong, and does nothing to help or contribute.

[Bubblehead1980]

Agreed! August and I are often at loggerheads, but here we're in perfect agreement. When someone pursues the altercation, what gives them the right to shoot someone?


Florida State Statute is what gave him the right.The law does not say "oh well you started it", Zimmerman felt he was in danger and defended himself, perfectly legal.Stupid for him to try and play cop? yes total douche? yes, but he stayed within the law, like it or not.No amount of outrage etc changes that.The law is there to protect people and it does, but sometimes it works the other way, just the way it happens.

[Bubblehead1980]

Like I said I'll bet he made that call to cover up the murder he was about to commit.


Absolutely no evidence to suggest that is what he did.

[Bubblehead1980]

And once again Bubblehead sounds like the Party parrot. It's okay to disagree. It's okay to have a differing viewpoint. The problem is your language is a word-for-word copy of what is said by every hardcore right-wing radio guy and blogger. You sound exactly the same. No consideration, no discussion, just a cursory "I'm not like that" and then say the correct lines.


I also agree. On top of that we're leaving out the part where the dispatcher told him to let the police handle it, and he ignored the "suggestion". I'm thinking there might be more here than meets the eye.

IOnce again, you are wrong.I agree that zimmerman was wrong but have been explaining that his is legally protected.Considering I am from Florida, a gun owner, I am aware of my rights in this regard.I read the statute to see how it applies and can absolutely see why the police did not charge him, why the SAO declined to pursue but can also see how someone without legal training and who allows their emotion to cloud their judgement, would not understand it and just revert to the racism argument.

Yes, I scolded mookie a bit about the "because he was black" remark because it is the biggest bunch of bs ever.The victim mentality and race card are both out dated, ignorant trains of thought that does nothing to help society.Is there racism? yes, there always will be, it is human nature BUT in today's society it is not what it once was, this is 2012 not 1955. Off subject somewhat, but can't wait for the supreme court to hear the affirmative action case in 2013, they will most likely rule it unconstitutional(as it is) , which will be a great thing for our country.I suppose over time people will lose the chip on their shoulder and cast aside the victim mentality, we shall see.

[August]

Absolutely no evidence to suggest that is what he did.

I believe I made it clear I was just speculating here but you have to admit it's certainly a lot more plausible than his version of events.

[Tribesman]

IOnce again, you are wrong.I agree that zimmerman was wrong but have been explaining that his is legally protected.
Wrong wrong wrong.
To see how wrong you are......
Take the other case this week where the murder charge was brought but finally rejected due to stand your ground....big difference between stabbing a burglar caught in the act with a bag full of stolen goods and the "murderer" having a very credible story to give to the courts than what exists in Zimmermans where his defense that the police somehow accepted was that he had stopped chasing the kid.

Nice to see the local politicians have taken a stand and passed a vote of no confidence in their police.

they will most likely rule it unconstitutional(as it is)
:har::har::har::har::har:
Bubbles, your last bit of constitutional "expertise" showed that you havn't got a clue.

Yes, I scolded mookie a bit about the "because he was black" remark because it is the biggest bunch of bs ever.The victim mentality and race card are both out dated, ignorant trains of thought that does nothing to help society.Is there racism? yes, it is human nature BUT in today's society it is not what it once was
wow is that the contender for braindead post of the week?

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

@Tribesman... could you remind me where that "do not show x person's post" button was? I think I need a bit of holiday from this "law expert". If he really is law student (emphasis on "if") then I'm really sorry behalf of those poor souls who someday will get him as defence attorney.

[Tribesman]

Kraznyi, enjoy his posts for their comedy value.
After all a local law "expert" would have no problem matching his seemingly rather ridiculous claims against reality to show they were not ridiculous.
Poor young Bubbles should easily be able to explain the cases where charges have been brought and prosecuted despite the claim of self defence under this FL legislation, he should also have no problem explaining the convictions which have come despite this legislation which he says mean they are somehow legally protected and cannot even be prosecuted let alone convicted
....after all there is no shortage of examples since 2005, though with his wonderful legal expert ability to predict judgements by courts before they are heard maybe he can give the verdict on the 22 current cases before the courts in Florida which involve a defence based on this law:03:

[Bilge_Rat]

He didn't stand his ground. He pursued the victim, against the express orders of the police I might add. Then once he cornered the kid he got out of his vehicle and advanced into the altercation. As far as I can tell at no time during the entire incident was Zimmerman in a defensive situation. He had the initiative throughout.

We all agree that Z. should not be able to claim self defense here, but under FLA's SYG law, the fact that he was the pursuer is irrelevant.

All he has to do to claim self defense is to show that:

A) he had a legal right to be where he was when the altercation started; and

B) that once the altercation started, he had a "reasonable belief" that he could suffer bodily harm.

His defense attorney only has to bring up the 911 tapes where Z. claimed that he thought M. might be about to commit a crime and the alleged grass stains to meet that test. Don't forget also that if Z. is charged with manslaughter, he can only be convicted by a unanimous vote of all 12 jury members. If even 1 out of the 12 believes that Z. had a "reasonable belief", he walks. Any reasonably competent defense attorney could get Z. acquitted without breaking a sweat, based on the facts we have now.

The problem here is the law. The definition of "self defense" under FLA's SYG law is much too broad. As I said before, this law is a defense attorney's dream come true.

Everyone was quick to raise the race card and claim that Z. was not arrested because he was "white", but the simplest explanation appears to be that the police department's hands are tied by SYG.

[Onkel Neal]

@Tribesman... could you remind me where that "do not show x person's post" button was? I think I need a bit of holiday from this "law expert". If he really is law student (emphasis on "if") then I'm really sorry behalf of those poor souls who someday will get him as defence attorney.


Look for that in your CP, under Edit Ignore List (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/profile.php?do=ignorelist)

Re; topic, correct me if I am wrong. The kid had no criminal record, right? And he weighed 100 pounds less than Zimmerman?

[Osmium Steele]

, but the simplest explanation appears to be that the police department's hands are tied by SYG.

SYG has no effect on local police at all, unless the DA's officed tells them not to bother with an arrest, which is what I think occurred here. It is a legal procedure to be used in a court of law. Zimmerman initiated the confrontation, not Martin. Of course he stopped pursuing the victim. The victim decided to Stand HIS ground when he was being pursued. You are no longer pursuing something when you've caught it.

The confrontation began when Zimmerman began following Martin in his car, not when Martin turned around gave back a little of what he had been getting.

If something doesn't happen to defuse this situation, and soon, it'll be the Rodney King riots all over again, only better organized. An arrest at an early stage would have done just that.

[Stealhead]

What I find interesting is the fact that one of the Florida legislators that wrote the "Stand your ground" law himself says Zimmerman has no grounds for self defense.For me the number one issue is that Zimmerman placed himself willingly into a possibly dangerous situation and on no solid evidence what so ever to justify why he is not a law enforcement officer.Zimmerman would have reason if he had seen Martin about to commit a violent crime against another person other than himself but that was not occurring Martin merely appeared suspicious according to Zimmerman and then Zimmerman claims that Martin attacked him while walking back to his vehicle and of course people never lie certainly not when they might spend a considerable amount of time behind bars.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57401955/stand-your-ground-author-may-seek-changes/

[Bilge_Rat]

unfortunately, it is more than a claim that he was attacked. This is from the police arrest report made that night:


Officers arrived on the scene at 7:17 p.m. ET, according to a police report.

Officers Timothy Smith and Ricardo Alayo said they noted a black male in a gray hooded sweatshirt lying face-down in the grass, as well as a white male in the area.

"Zimmerman stated that he had shot the subject and was still armed," Smith wrote in a police report.

Smith said he asked Zimmerman to hand over the weapon, a Kel Tec 9 mm, and handcuffed him.

"While I was in such close contact with Zimmerman, I could observe that his back appeared to be wet and he was covered in grass, as if he was laying on his back on the ground," Smith wrote in the police report. "Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and the back of the head."

The officers also made several attempts to revive Martin.

When police put Zimmerman in the back of the cruiser, he said, "I was yelling for someone to help me, but no one would help me," according to the police report



Right now the facts, including the eyewitness testimony of the first officers on the scene, support Z's story.

Unless the investigation uncovers new facts, this will be a tough case to prosecute.

[mookiemookie]

unfortunately, it is more than a claim that he was attacked. This is from the police arrest report made that night:



Right now the facts, including the eyewitness testimony of the first officers on the scene, support Z's story.

Unless the investigation uncovers new facts, this will be a tough case to prosecute.

If someone jumped me for walking down the street, I'd absolutely fight back.

[CCIP]

Exactly, this is what I'm wondering here as well. Why isn't this same doctrine being applied to the victim here? He was very clearly in a place he was lawfully allowed to be, with a clearly provable lack of criminal intent, unarmed, and was chased by a much larger and older (this by the way has been made a case of repeatedly) armed man, cornered in somebody else's backyard. He had a right to stand his ground (which he did not, and tried to escape) or fight back, and honestly in his situation I would've tried to do exactly that - punch the bastard in the nose and try to run away. Unfortunately the pursuer was armed.

Honestly, if some huge guy who's not wearing uniform steps out of a car and starts coming at you, then runs when you get scared and start running away, it's not a very irrational response to think that your life is threatened. I think the suggestion that he "attacked" is pretty ludicrous - someone with a very clear reason for being where he was and carrying nothing but snacks bought from a store would have had no business attacking a much larger armed man. What's more, the victim's lack of violent history and the shooter's having such should only further help establish a case for aggression or lack thereof here.

[joegrundman]

this seems to be the situation

if you are armed, you may absolutely attack someone else without provocation, and if they try to defend themselves, you may then shoot them dead and claim self defense.

[mookiemookie]

this seems to be the situation

if you are armed, you may absolutely attack someone else without provocation, and if they try to defend themselves, you may then shoot them dead and claim self defense.

That's how I read it as well. It seems to be the fatal flaw in this law.

[Bilge_Rat]

If someone jumped me for walking down the street, I'd absolutely fight back.

Agreed, and the irony of the situation is that if M. had killed Z., HE is the one that would be protected by the SYG law.

Incidentally, the situation would be entirely different up here in Canada. We have an expanded common law definition of self-defence. In Canada, Z. could not claim self-defence since he provoked the assault.

However, in Canada, we have too many cases where citizens in "self-defence" situations are prosecuted:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/08/03/man-charged-after-alleged-thief-stabbed-inside-home/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/david-chen-hero-grocer-was-left-on-his-own/article1778679/

So it really comes out to what type of law you want: blanket immunity for all self-defence cases or leave it up to prosecutors to decide if you were justified?

[joegrundman]

i think blanket immunity to anyone who claims self-defense regardless of circumstances (especially when the other guy is too dead to argue his side of things) cannot be the right way

[August]

There is no blanket immunity here. Only a lack of competence by the police and an incorrect application of the law.

The sad thing is the anti-gunners will (try to) use this incident to get this law, and those like it around the country repealed and we'll go back to the old system of blanket arrests of people who were indeed just defending themselves.

[joegrundman]

There is no blanket immunity here. Only a lack of competence by the police and an incorrect application of the law.

The sad thing is the anti-gunners will (try to) use this incident to get this law, and those like it around the country repealed and we'll go back to the old system of blanket arrests of people who were indeed just defending themselves.

well i don't think that sounds like the right way either. perhaps blanket anything is the wrong approach.

unless the facts of this case turn out to be substantially different from how it seems, then florida is going to have to either get the police to do their job properly or else make it clear where the line is drawn for what makes SYG a valid defense. for as presented, common sense says this is not one of those situations.

[August]

well i don't think that sounds like the right way either. perhaps blanket anything is the wrong approach.

I would agree although blanket immunity was not what the authors of the law intended nor is that what the laws history shows:

The Times analysis shows that more than 70 percent of the 130 cases involved a fatality. In the majority of the cases, the person who plunged the knife or swung the bat or pulled the trigger did not face a trial.In 50 of the cases, the person who used force was never charged with a crime. Another nine defendants were granted immunity by a judge and nine cases were dismissed.
In 10 cases, the defendant pleaded guilty to lesser crimes.
Of the 28 cases that made it to trial, 19 people were found guilty of a crime.
Twenty-two cases are still pending. (The outcomes of two could not be learned by press time.)
The Times analysis also shows that "stand your ground" is being invoked with greater frequency.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/22/2708767/number-of-stand-your-ground-cases.html
unless the facts of this case turn out to be substantially different from how it seems, then florida is going to have to either get the police to do their job properly or else make it clear where the line is drawn for what makes SYG a valid defense. for as presented, common sense says this is not one of those situations.Agree.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

unless the facts of this case turn out to be substantially different from how it seems, then florida is going to have to either get the police to do their job properly or else make it clear where the line is drawn for what makes SYG a valid defense. for as presented, common sense says this is not one of those situations.Agreed. It would be nice if they do both. In principle Stand Your Ground is good idea but rules must be very clearly defined (although the judge should still have right to use common sense).

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Kraznyi, enjoy his posts for their comedy value.
After all a local law "expert" would have no problem matching his seemingly rather ridiculous claims against reality to show they were not ridiculous.I agree. I just need short break. :DL

Look for that in your CP, under Edit Ignore List (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/profile.php?do=ignorelist)Thank you Neal! :salute:
Re; topic, correct me if I am wrong. The kid had no criminal record, right? And he weighed 100 pounds less than Zimmerman?I think you are correct.

[Stealhead]

unfortunately, it is more than a claim that he was attacked. This is from the police arrest report made that night:



Right now the facts, including the eyewitness testimony of the first officers on the scene, support Z's story.

Unless the investigation uncovers new facts, this will be a tough case to prosecute.


It has been stated many places that Zimmerman was carrying a Kel Tec 9mm you are either misreading a report or reading a re-worded report(not sure hwy you mention Zimmerman's handing over of the gun obviously he did).Zimmerman obviously handed over his weapon the Kel Tec 9mm.Zimmerman can not prove how he got the grass stains and bloody nose this obviously could be caused by a fight(either party being the aggressor) an unarmed person also has the right to defend themselves from harm as well we have no way of knowing if Martins inflicted those wounds on Zimmerman in self defense apart from Zimmerman's word.

How does the rule apply then let us say if one person fears threat of bodily harm and reacts (one can be killed with bare hands alone) in self defense and the attacker has a weapon and now according to Florida law (if it fails to take into account) the person that placed the other into a self defensive reaction has the right to defend himself with deadly even though he had put the other person in danger.What about an unarmed person having a gun pulled on them this puts their life in danger and they the right to use deadly force to protect their life from great harm this law in wording or misunderstanding seems to greatly increase the chance of a very violent confrontation occurring between two persons.If that is the case something needs to be done about its wording to avoid misunderstanding or taking advantage.

As I mentioned in an earlier post there is another case from 2010 in Florida of a man shooting another man in self defense in the case it was in the middle of the day with several witnesses all of whom counter the shooters claim of self defense.The problem here it is very clear in the Sanford PD simply taking the one and only eye witnesses word even through there is plenty of audible evidence(someone seeming not be Zimmermans voice a child's voice yelling for help,the fact that Zimmerman pursued into a possible situation out side the lines of self defense the boy had done nothing to give him a reason to pursue according to the SYG) to counter his claims.When the police have several people telling them they heard a boy yell for help they accept Zimmerman claims I find it hard to believe that they did this or perhaps even ignored this all together

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

This law is really a defence attorney's dream come true.

What happened to:
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.***8212;The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who

1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:.
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.I read this to say that Zimmerman, having undeniably pursued his victim rather than the inverse, will have qualified for 776.041. Even if the altercation goes badly for him, the duty to retreat is restored and he no longer has the right to stand his ground.

[Stealhead]

I think it is very likely that Zimmerman is/was an overly zealous and possibly overly aggressive person it seems rather clear that in failing to become a police officer himself he placed himself into a role that gave him (falsely) the same powers.I think he is probably a rather dim witted individual who completely misunderstood aspects of the SYG law and failed to consider that even a suspicious person is not a threat and he did not consider the possibility that his actions could also have been seen as suspicious(following someone) and place that person in fear of possible ill intent.

So you have a perfect storm of two persons seeing what that felt was an immanent danger and reacting one person tried there hardest to avoid the danger one tried there hardest to pursue it.The problem is that Zimmerman by having called the police of a suspicious person "that something was not right with" yet had done nothing to warrant Zimmerman's pursuit of under SYG(which could only be a person in the act of committing a forcible felony to cause death or great harm to another person Zimmermans claim comes after having pursued a person SYG gave him no right to).

I think that Zimmerman (obviously he had already scared Martin by following him in a vehicle) more than likely grabbed or attempted to restrain Martin and Martin seeing that this man was not a LE officer rightly reacted in self defense the manner in which he did could vary depending on his situation be it grabbed by the arm or clothing or pinned to the ground by Zimmerman.The fact that Zimmerman had a bloody noise implies that Martin struck him in the face.The Sanford Police seem to feel that because Zimmerman had injuries and grass stains that backs his claim and that is a pile of horse crap if tow people get into a scuffle they are both gong to get hurt and dirty so you can not use that alone to say that the one that got dirtier or more banged up was the one who was right.

I think Zimmerman is to blame for Martins death no question that he caused the entire incident had he stayed in his truck Martin would have walked home and drank that Arizona Iced Tea no question in my mind.

[yubba]

So how did Zimmerman get a broken nose and head laceraition,.????????? be back with link http://www.theblaze.com/stories/report-witness-claims-trayvon-martin-attacked-george-zimmerman/ and there is a witness to back Zimmermans claim. So if you see someone in your yard and you step out and ask them what they are doing, and they attack you, what are you going too do, when they got the best of you.???????? Guess what we don't know what happened, you can make all the claims you want, all these therioes don't stand up in a court of law, and I'm not a fan of mob rule, and I'm also not a fan of ganster whanna be's.

[Sailor Steve]

Yubba, obviously you're biased. So are some on the other side of this discussion. What needs to be done is to charge Zimmerman, put it to the Grand Jury and let the proper authorities ask these questions. If he's innocent then it should come out. If he's guilty then it should come out. The simple fact is that you and they are already convinced of the truth, and the truth is that you don't know any more than I do.

It's all idle speculation, nothing more.

[Stealhead]

So how did Zimmerman get a broken nose and head laceraition,.????????? be back with link http://www.theblaze.com/stories/report-witness-claims-trayvon-martin-attacked-george-zimmerman/ and there is a witness to back Zimmermans claim. So if you see someone in your yard and you step out and ask them what they are doing, and they attack you, what are you going too do, when they got the best of you.???????? Guess what we don't know what happened, you can make all the claims you want, all these therioes don't stand up in a court of law, and I'm not a fan of mob rule, and I'm also not a fan of ganster whanna be's.



Because it is not outside the realm of possibility for someone fighting for their life to inflict serious injury (which a broken nose and laceration are not).If someone puts my life or my families life in danger and all I have is is my bare hands I am taking the threat on even they have a gun.

The story you post comes from a source that has an obvious leaning it would be just as foolish to trust a story coming from source that has an agenda to make blacks appear to be always the victims of racism.

I made no claim in my previous post I merely suggested that two persons may have encounter each other and both parties might have seen the other as a possible threat.Therefore when one made took an action the other might have reacted to what they felt was a threat.If you can not read my last post and understand that was the meaning then I am going to have to buy Rosetta Stone Yubba edition.

The simple fact is that this incident should have been investigated from the start not because Martin was black or Zimmerman another race.

[mookiemookie]

I'm also not a fan of ganster whanna be's.

Yeah because wearing a hoodie makes him a "ganster whanna be". And let me guess, the girl who's raped is asking for it because she was wearing a short skirt, right? Same thing.

Go crawl back up into the butt of whatever Glenn Beck type radio personality you worship.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

So how did Zimmerman get a broken nose and head laceraition,.????????? be back with link http://www.theblaze.com/stories/report-witness-claims-trayvon-martin-attacked-george-zimmerman/ and there is a witness to back Zimmermans claim. So if you see someone in your yard and you step out and ask them what they are doing, and they attack you, what are you going too do, when they got the best of you.???????? Guess what we don't know what happened, you can make all the claims you want, all these therioes don't stand up in a court of law, and I'm not a fan of mob rule, and I'm also not a fan of ganster whanna be's.

Read the testimony. Doesn't contradict the part where Zimmerman was following this Trevor first. It is possible Trevors threw the first punch and Zimmerman sucked so much he was getting the crap beaten out of him. Nevertheless, 776.041 Use of force by aggressor, Condition 2 applies and there is no sign Zimmerman even tried to retreat.

[breadcatcher101]

This would be a more fitting headline from what I hear:

"Black Teenager Shot and Killed While Attacking Hispanic Neighborhood Watch Member"

[Stealhead]

Read the testimony. Doesn't contradict the part where Zimmerman was following this Trevor first. It is possible Trevors threw the first punch and Zimmerman sucked so much he was getting the crap beaten out of him. Nevertheless, 776.041 Use of force by aggressor, Condition 2 applies and there is no sign Zimmerman even tried to retreat.




Here is the whole issue for me at least.First off we only know what Zimmerman claimed there are no other eye witnesses.How do we know that Zimmerman did not draw the weapon(not necessarily with intent to use it but to make it been seen) and that is what caused Martin to attack him(in defense of what is obviously a threat to his life) or how do we not know that Zimmerman tackled or other wise restrained Martin when he had no clear right and in no way identified himself of course still if Martin was dong nothing illegal Zimmerman would have no right to restrain him in a physical manner (he would have no right to touch Martin unless Martin was in act of committing some crime like breaking into a car or home for example).Zimmerman never says that he was in the act of committing a crime until he came after him to attack him near his vehicle.

And the SYG law cant apply as some are trying to claim with no question because it would then allow an aggressor in a violent hand vs. gun having been pulled the person who unarmed has the only resource to use violent hand to hand combat to attempt try and keep the person from shooting them in other words if the one pulling the gun on a person having the right to SYG as well (SYG is self defense not just firearm self defense) and if the person keeps trying to use the gun then they have the right to beat that person to death if that is what it takes to stop them.

[Stealhead]

This would be a more fitting headline from what I hear:

"Black Teenager Shot and Killed While Attacking Hispanic Neighborhood Watch Member"

That has yet to be proven to be true nor has it been proven that Zimmerman has the right or what exactly happened.That is why the case got taken over because local boys could not do the job very well.

Any person on this forum if it had been their relative that had been shot (regardless of race) they'd want the case looked over with a very fine toothed comb indeed which is obviously not what Sanford PD did.People fail to take into consideration that this kid had no record no troubles why would he suddenly act violently and to a person larger than himself for no reason?Forget his race and think about that for a minute.This kid was from the Miami area trust me if you want to be a gangster or a tough guy trouble maker there it is very easy to find down that way in some areas it is very hard to walk on the straight and narrow.

By the way Zimmerman is White Hispanic in other words he is half white half hispanic.

[Tribesman]

By the way Zimmerman is White Hispanic in other words he is half white half hispanic.
No it means he is white hispanic which means he is white.

[Stealhead]

No it means that his parents are of two separate races.
By your statement any person who is half white and half any other race then they automatically are white.
So a person who is half white and and half black is white right? So that makes Barack Obama also a white.

I think that the way the US breaks down different races is flawed to be honest.For example white is considered those having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.So according to that Osama Bin Laden was white because it considers Arabs to be whites.Anyway this whole issue is another can of worms.I think the focus on race in the US and many other countries more than likely causes tensions why cant you state that you are a member of the human race as a race?They do not give you that option.

[Blood_splat]

http://i.imgur.com/0ShZ0.jpg?1

[Dowly]

:rotfl2:

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

:har:

[u crank]

Yes. The perfect alibi. :haha:

[mookiemookie]

This would be a more fitting headline from what I hear:

"Black Teenager Shot and Killed While Attacking Hispanic Neighborhood Watch Member"

You must have poor hearing.

[breadcatcher101]

You must have poor hearing.

No, my hearing is fine. Just from what I have heard from the police report and people who actually saw what happened.

Nothing you would be interested in.

[Tribesman]

By your statement any person who is half white and half any other race then they automatically are white.

No, not at all, go back to my earlier post of people in the minds of some somehow not being pink enough to be "WHITE"
For a simple example of a flaw in your statement, if someone had a father who was half ryukyuan, half konkani and a mother who is full maori which would be the "white" half and how?(BTW that comes back to the Caucasian definition someone unsuccesfully tried earlier which your courts had ruled on)

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

No, my hearing is fine. Just from what I have heard from the police report and people who actually saw what happened.

Nothing you would be interested in.

Considering that the reason the FBI is getting involved is that the local cops aren't doing a great job, I won't take their report as gospel, but tell the board what the people thought happened.

[Sailor Steve]

I keep coming back to the fact that the dispatcher told Zimmerman not to go after him, and he did anyway. No matter who hit whom, Zimmerman initiated this. It is not the neighborhood watch's job to apprehend anyone. Their job is to watch and report.

[mookiemookie]

We don't need to go bringing into this facts that would ruin their fantasy of the heroic gun-toting neighborhood watch member who singlehandedly took a stand against the rampaging hordes of hoodie wearing blacks.

[HunterICX]

I keep coming back to the fact that the dispatcher told Zimmerman not to go after him, and he did anyway. No matter who hit whom, Zimmerman initiated this. It is not the neighborhood watch's job to apprehend anyone. Their job is to watch and report.

^This.

HunterICX

[AVGWarhawk]

There is more to the story......

[Stealhead]

A lot more and if it keeps getting out of control like it is it is going to be bad news indeed.You already have the "New Black Panther Party" putting a price on Zimmerman's head they say for him alive but I am sure that is with a wink, wink.
This is becoming the type of racily charged incident(to some extent the fault of media) that many hate groups(of varying races) have been waiting for.Even though it has yet to be prove that Zimmerman was in fact a racist or that any of his actions where fueled by a racist motive.It is assumed that Zimmerman targeted and murdered the kid because he was black.Funny that people are saying he went vigilante yet they support people doing the same to Zimmerman.

I fear that if the the case is looked over and the Feds and State Attorney agree that Zimmerman did act within the bounds of SYG some are going to really lose it .Look at the LA riots over Rodney King that guy was not the most likable person by any means and when the cops where let go all hell broke loose.This whole thing could cause national incidents even if it goes either way.

[vienna]

Among all the news reports and postings I have seen there is none or only a few that even hint at the idea that Martins may have been standing his gorund. Given what is known, that Zimmerman initiated a pursuit of Martins (even against the direction of a police dispatcher), was not a uniformed or properly credentialed officer of any sort, and there is a case to be made for Martins to have been in fear of his life and, in his way, apply the very intent of SYG as written into law. This is a 17 year old guy who probably has lived ion an enviorment that makes one rather cautious of other's implied intents. Consider if you were being followed down the street by someone you didn't know and whose intent you could not determine, and think of what you might do if that person got in your face...

When I first moved to Los Angeles at age 19 in 1970, I was walking down the street late at night (I worked swing shift at a bank data center), and my path on the sidewalk was suddenly blocked by a rather well-worn pickup truck with 2 men inside. One of the shouted at me to come over to the truck. I looked at them, didn't know who they were and had no intention of wanting to find out. I walked quickly past the truck, keeping my distance and decided to try to make it to an open gas station down at the end of the block. The driver of the truck pulled back out into the street, and drove down the block. pulling his truck up to again block my path. When the driver started to get out of the truck, I pulled out a knife I used to carry with me as protection. I was suddenly blinded by the glare of a pair of flashlights and saw on the edges of the light on hand holding a badge and another holding a gun, pointing right at me. I also heard a shout, "Don't move!!". Looking at the gun, I replied. "Don't worry." The passenger who had been in the truck came up to me displaying his LAPD badge and removed the knife from my hand, placing it on the hood of the truck...

After the usual pat down and check for wants and warrants (I had none; I do live arather boring lawful life), the officer who took my knife, folded ti up and handed it back to me. As he gave it to me he asked' "What are you carring this around?" I replied "In case I get approached by unknown SOBs who don't identify themselves and try to approach me." Both cops just gave me a glare, got back in their truck, and sped away...

Maybe Martins was just trying to deal, in his own self defense with an unidentified SOB...

[Rockstar]

...

Maybe Martins was just trying to deal, in his own self defense with an unidentified SOB...



Could very well have been the case. However there is as August said more to the story. Unfortunetly the media and public have early on made their judgments now coupled with the race baiters Jackson and Sharpton stirring up more crap. It will probably get very ugly soon.

[Krauter]

Disgusting..

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-account-20120326_1_miami-schools-punch-unarmed-black-teenager

With a single punch, Trayvon Martin decked the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who eventually shot and killed the unarmed 17-year-old, then Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk, leaving him bloody and battered, law-enforcement authorities told the Orlando Sentinel.

[Stealhead]

Among all the news reports and postings I have seen there is none or only a few that even hint at the idea that Martins may have been standing his gorund. Given what is known, that Zimmerman initiated a pursuit of Martins (even against the direction of a police dispatcher), was not a uniformed or properly credentialed officer of any sort, and there is a case to be made for Martins to have been in fear of his life and, in his way, apply the very intent of SYG as written into law. This is a 17 year old guy who probably has lived ion an enviorment that makes one rather cautious of other's implied intents. Consider if you were being followed down the street by someone you didn't know and whose intent you could not determine, and think of what you might do if that person got in your face...

When I first moved to Los Angeles at age 19 in 1970, I was walking down the street late at night (I worked swing shift at a bank data center), and my path on the sidewalk was suddenly blocked by a rather well-worn pickup truck with 2 men inside. One of the shouted at me to come over to the truck. I looked at them, didn't know who they were and had no intention of wanting to find out. I walked quickly past the truck, keeping my distance and decided to try to make it to an open gas station down at the end of the block. The driver of the truck pulled back out into the street, and drove down the block. pulling his truck up to again block my path. When the driver started to get out of the truck, I pulled out a knife I used to carry with me as protection. I was suddenly blinded by the glare of a pair of flashlights and saw on the edges of the light on hand holding a badge and another holding a gun, pointing right at me. I also heard a shout, "Don't move!!". Looking at the gun, I replied. "Don't worry." The passenger who had been in the truck came up to me displaying his LAPD badge and removed the knife from my hand, placing it on the hood of the truck...

After the usual pat down and check for wants and warrants (I had none; I do live arather boring lawful life), the officer who took my knife, folded ti up and handed it back to me. As he gave it to me he asked' "What are you carring this around?" I replied "In case I get approached by unknown SOBs who don't identify themselves and try to approach me." Both cops just gave me a glare, got back in their truck, and sped away...

Maybe Martins was just trying to deal, in his own self defense with an unidentified SOB...

Maybe Martin was defending himself maybe he was not we do not know we can only speculate at best.The real issue for me is that Sanford PD take the word Zimmerman and supposedly one eye witness who can not confirm who started the confrontation.The problem in this case is that the local authority did a poor investigation.

In your story the cops where pretty nice to you they easily could have taken the knife away or shot you so they actually did display good control seeing you are still here to post your story.You also got lucky because certain cops will make you have a very bad day if you show them any attitude(not saying that such a thing should allow them to) I think the kid comes from a fairly good part of Dade County and he is seen wearing Holister clothing in some photos which pegs him in my mind as a bit of a preppy kid.

I am sure what they are doing at this time is looking at all the information in this case and checking and re-checking Zimmerman's claims looking to see if he tells the same story or not.The eye witness account does not prove or disprove who actually started the confrontation or who was having the self defense right.Just because you are on top of your attacker does not mean that they are the victim.They are also I am sure analyzing the voice heard crying for help to confirm if it is Zimmerman's.Just because someone has injuries and one does not does not mean that one or the other was attacked(also note that nothing has been said what injures might have been on Martins body short of the obvious did have have other injures from a hand to hand fight on his body).

There is so much unknown in the case and so much that is known being put into the line that each given media outlet wishes to portray none of use can say who was right and who was wrong maybe they both where wrong.

[MothBalls]

Thread is full of "maybe" and "should have" or "might have" but there are only 2 people who know for sure and one of them is dead. Loss of life is tragic under any circumstance and my condolences to his family.

The case has now garnered so much attention that the only conclusion to be drawn is that the facts will be discovered in time. There was a witness, there is evidence to be reviewed, it will take some time.

I just hope the chitstorms over this don't turn violent, or into riots. The people that are demanding justice sound like they want it at the end of a rope. Mob mentality is not going to be the answer here, patience is.

[RickC Sniper]

I would think they could study those 911 calls that recorded the cries for help and once and for all verify just who was calling for help. If it was the teen, Zimmerman is lying. If it was Zimmerman, then he acted in self defense. Case closed.

[Stealhead]

I would think they could study those 911 calls that recorded the cries for help and once and for all verify just who was calling for help. If it was the teen, Zimmerman is lying. If it was Zimmerman, then he acted in self defense. Case closed.

That alone still would prove nothing beyond who was yelling for help various other factors fall in that could be used to determine what was really going on.Just because someone is calling for help does not mean that they are in the right or wrong.In a situation with few witnesses present either party could call for help the one in the wrong cloud do so in the hopes that someone comes and aids them thinking that anyone calling for help must surely be in need and not be actually the one committing a crime.I do not fully trust anyone.

One can not say that if it was Zimmerman yelling that that fact alone proves his claim of self defense someone could be beating the life out of someone else or pulling a weapon on someone else and be yelling for help because this gives credence to claiming self defense.

[Bubblehead1980]

The truth is emerging and it is wonderful.....

A wittness says Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman beating him and he called 911,seconds later Zimmerman shot Martin.Zimmerman's injuries were consistent with being punched(broken nose) and an injury to his head from Trayvon Martin slamming it into the pavement.Apparently, Martin was shot while on top of Zimmerman.Rock solid case for self defense corroaborated by a witness, case closed.The Justice Department has no evidence to call this a "hate crime" as it was self defense.They could stretch the alleged racial slur and try and charged him but it was nothing but a garbled transmission.Stand your ground clearly applies which explains(as I said several posts ago) why he was not charged by the Police of the SAO after they reviewed the FACTS of the case and Stand Your Ground applies.This is why Florida has Stand Your Ground, so you may defend yourself without fear of being persecuted(yes persecuted) for doing so.

Details have emerged showing Martin was not the saintly child he was made out to be by the media.Martin was recently suspended from school for drug possession, recent photos of him(not all the photos from when he was 10-12 years of age) show him dressed more like a gangster or hood rat type than the "good kid" he was made out to be.Zimmerman on the other hand, has many people(even a friend of his who is black) who have came out in support of him and saying he is in no way a racist, just a good guy who defended himself.

Zimmerman was a bit overzealous but physical evidence backed up by a witness testimony shows he was attacked, case closed.Oh yes, I am waiting for the Martin's lawsuit against Sanford PD etc, sure it is coming but it won't be about the money...:har:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

The truth is emerging and it is wonderful.....

A wittness says Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman beating him and he called 911,seconds later Zimmerman shot Martin.Zimmerman's injuries were consistent with being punched(broken nose) and an injury to his head from Trayvon Martin slamming it into the pavement.Apparently, Martin was shot while on top of Zimmerman.Rock solid case for self defense corroaborated by a witness, case closed.The Justice Department has no evidence to call this a "hate crime" as it was self defense.They could stretch the alleged racial slur and try and charged him but it was nothing but a garbled transmission.Stand your ground clearly applies which explains(as I said several posts ago) why he was not charged by the Police of the SAO after they reviewed the FACTS of the case and Stand Your Ground applies.This is why Florida has Stand Your Ground, so you may defend yourself without fear of being persecuted(yes persecuted) for doing so.

Details have emerged showing Martin was not the saintly child he was made out to be by the media.Martin was recently suspended from school for drug possession, recent photos of him(not all the photos from when he was 10-12 years of age) show him dressed more like a gangster or hood rat type than the "good kid" he was made out to be.Zimmerman on the other hand, has many people(even a friend of his who is black) who have came out in support of him and saying he is in no way a racist, just a good guy who defended himself.

Zimmerman was a bit overzealous but physical evidence backed up by a witness testimony shows he was attacked, case closed.Oh yes, I am waiting for the Martin's lawsuit against Sanford PD etc, sure it is coming but it won't be about the money...

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-account-20120326_1_miami-schools-punch-unarmed-black-teenager

I understand he had supposedly had marijuana. In America, that's nothing, especially compared to Zimmerman's record of violent tendencies. And since it wasn't on him that night...

As for how much it changes things, not a lot unless the witness manages to say that Zimmerman WASN'T following Trevors from the start. At that point, it counts as a provocation and under 776.041, his Stand his Ground rights are revoked. Now he has effectively a Duty to Retreat.

The witness can't even say he's sure Trevors threw the first punch. All he's supposedly sure of is Trevors winning the fistfight. But if Z was following T, even if T fully intends to beat Z to death it is perfect Stand your Ground. Even if T threw the first punch AND fully intended to beat Z to death, he can still say he felt a reasonable belief he was in danger when Z started stalking him and claim Stand your Ground.

Thus, no dice.

[Bubblehead1980]

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-account-20120326_1_miami-schools-punch-unarmed-black-teenager

I understand he had supposedly had marijuana. In America, that's nothing, especially compared to Zimmerman's record of violent tendencies. And since it wasn't on him that night...

As for how much it changes things, not a lot unless the witness manages to say that Zimmerman WASN'T following Trevors from the start. At that point, it counts as a provocation and under 776.041, his Stand his Ground rights are revoked. Now he has effectively a Duty to Retreat.

The witness can't even say he's sure Trevors threw the first punch. All he's supposedly sure of is Trevors winning the fistfight. But if Z was following T, even if T fully intends to beat Z to death it is perfect Stand your Ground. Even if T threw the first punch AND fully intended to beat Z to death, he can still say he felt a reasonable belief he was in danger when Z started stalking him and claim Stand your Ground.

Thus, no dice.

Incorrect, following a suspicious person while talking to the police is not provocation, provocation would be Zimmerman tackling or attempting to detain Martin on his own.Under your logic I could witness what I think to be a crime ,follow the suspect while calling the police and if the person shot me or assaulted me, they could say I provoked them and had no right to defend myself, come on, that is pure garbage. Zimmerman's account states he turned around and was walking back to his car, after the dispatcher told him he did not need him to follow the suspect, Zimmerman said "ok" on the tape.Around this time is when Zimmerman says Martin approached him from behind, Zimmerman turned and the two exchanged words and Trayvon Martin decked him, breaking his nose.Then Martin was on top of Zimmerman assaulting him when Zimmerman was able to pull his weapon and fire.

Martin was no doubt a cocky, 17 year old who, judging by some recent photos and behavior, wanted to be a "thug" and was immersed in the urban culture so he decided to assault this man, he got a lot more than he bargained for.Really is a sad situation all around but appears Zimmerman acted in self defense when he was attacked, unprovoked.The physical evidence and eye witness testimony corroborates his story.Like I said, sad situation but even more sad would be to arrest and put a man on trial for exercising a basic right, to defend oneself from harm.

[Stealhead]

Bubbleheads story sounds to me like that spin that a certain side is putting on the whole story just like the spin that is being put on the end the Zimmerman was truly guilty.In fact I know it is because I have heard Bubblesheads propaganda view(no better than the propaganda coming form the other end) on the radio as well as on the web.

The kid got suspended from school for having a baggy that had contained weed.That happens to kids all the time maybe he smoked a jont with some friend oh my god maybe some other kid who Martin thought of as a friend had him hold the baggy for him(kids do stupid things like this all the time) and he got caught with it.Anyone that thinks weed alone make a person violent is the hugest idiot on the planet.Weed makes you dangerous only to the creators of mildly hilarious TV shows and movies giving the writer false confidence that he is funny.

The photos of Martin wearing a hoodie have been shown for some time anyway who thinks that is news is very clearly getting it from a very very biased source and has not seen the photos already commonly seen.There is one photo of him in a hoodie which I bet is made by Holister of American Eagle or A&E as this seems based on most of the photos to be the kids taste.

Many people (who enjoy prejudging others) confuse a clothing style known as
"Urban" with a some what similar but much more uniform like type of clothing that actual gang members wear.Though as I said it appears to me as though Martin kind of preferred the more preppy kid style not the Urban style.And you can find hoodies made by most every clothing maker such a thing has nothing to do with signifying being a gangster.

Bubblehead has been called on this many times before by various members(not counting Tribesman) that though he claims other wise he constantly spouts the Neo Con line like a parrot.Everything you have stated in your last posts is exactly the line of spin they have chosen to put on this incident just as much as the spin put out there by the side that does its best to say that there is no doubt that Zimmerman was guilty of murder.

Also I would like to say to you Bubblehead the fact that you put a :har: at the idea that Martin must have been guilty of assaulting Zimmerman (which has not been proven or dis proven) lowers the already dismal level of respect I have for anything you have to say in general topics to zero.That you find it fitting to laugh at any of this is beyond me well not really you do ave a patter of this kind of thinking it should seem.(do not bother explain why you think it is funny either see above for the reason why)

[Krauter]

The truth is emerging and it is wonderful.....

A wittness says Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman beating him and he called 911,seconds later Zimmerman shot Martin.Zimmerman's injuries were consistent with being punched(broken nose) and an injury to his head from Trayvon Martin slamming it into the pavement.Apparently, Martin was shot while on top of Zimmerman.Rock solid case for self defense corroaborated by a witness, case closed.The Justice Department has no evidence to call this a "hate crime" as it was self defense.They could stretch the alleged racial slur and try and charged him but it was nothing but a garbled transmission.Stand your ground clearly applies which explains(as I said several posts ago) why he was not charged by the Police of the SAO after they reviewed the FACTS of the case and Stand Your Ground applies.This is why Florida has Stand Your Ground, so you may defend yourself without fear of being persecuted(yes persecuted) for doing so.

Details have emerged showing Martin was not the saintly child he was made out to be by the media.Martin was recently suspended from school for drug possession, recent photos of him(not all the photos from when he was 10-12 years of age) show him dressed more like a gangster or hood rat type than the "good kid" he was made out to be.Zimmerman on the other hand, has many people(even a friend of his who is black) who have came out in support of him and saying he is in no way a racist, just a good guy who defended himself.

Zimmerman was a bit overzealous but physical evidence backed up by a witness testimony shows he was attacked, case closed.Oh yes, I am waiting for the Martin's lawsuit against Sanford PD etc, sure it is coming but it won't be about the money...:har:

:shifty:.....

Disgusting..

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-account-20120326_1_miami-schools-punch-unarmed-black-teenager

Just a question, how does on get tackled to the ground whilst getting punched and simultaneously call 911 and shoot the offender?

Also, I have seen pictures of the man involved as well as that of Trayvon, my question to the general gun wielding public is, where does appropriate force come into play? Yes I understand he was punching him etc, but a man of Zimmermans size *should* be able to defend himself without the use of a gun yes?

[Tribesman]

Just a question, how does on get tackled to the ground whilst getting punched and simultaneously call 911 and shoot the offender?

God did it?

Zimmerman was a bit overzealous but physical evidence backed up by a witness testimony shows he was attacked, case closed.
Errrr.... lawyer you claim to want to be wasn't it?
go back to lesson one and start again or change your career plans.:doh:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

The physical evidence and eye witness testimony corroborates his story.

They only corroborate to the extent he was indeed being beaten up. Nothing about who started it.

Like I said, sad situation but even more sad would be to arrest and put a man on trial for exercising a basic right, to defend oneself from harm.

I'm more on the side that any "self-defense" that winds up being death deserves something a little more than a lazy police investigation.

Leaving the intricacies of Floridan law for a minute, exercising your right is very well, but in this case, Zimmerman wound up terminating ALL of Trevor's rights. I think a trial is very much in order.

[Krauter]

Leaving the intricacies of Floridan law for a minute, exercising your right is very well, but in this case, Zimmerman wound up terminating ALL of Trevor's rights. I think a trial is very much in order.

Well said.

[mookiemookie]

You know, I really hope Bubs doesn't go into any sort of criminal defense law. All of his clients are going to get sent to the chair.

But I still think the whole "lawyer" thing is a hyperactive kid with access to the internet playing at being a big shot and blowing smoke up everyone's butt. It's kind of sad to see how warped someone's mind can be, though. It's like being in one of those museums of oddities.


I'm more on the side that any "self-defense" that winds up being death deserves something a little more than a lazy police investigation.

Leaving the intricacies of Floridan law for a minute, exercising your right is very well, but in this case, Zimmerman wound up terminating ALL of Trevor's rights. I think a trial is very much in order.
Yes. People are getting lost in the stuff that doesn't matter (they're bringing Trayvon's school life into this? It wasn't enough to assassinate the kid for real, but now you have to assassinate his character too?) No matter what happened afterward, or who hit who next, it still goes back to the fact that Zimmerman still created the situation in the first place. Even in Zimmerman's best version of the story he's still responsible for the death of someone, and no matter how that happens, it deserves more than a cursory investigation at the scene and then letting someone go scot free.

Anyways, no matter what the outcome is here, the best thing that happens is that there's now a spotlight on this bad law. I'm sure there will be some changes.

[Tribesman]

But I still think the whole "lawyer" thing is a hyperactive kid with access to the internet playing at being a big shot and blowing smoke up everyone's butt.
Aw come on, he is in law skool now so he runs his theories past his know nothing do nothing teachers of law, which is a change from ...what was it previously...working in law and running his theories past his work buddies in the legal eagle business.
How dare you bring his credibility into question, its off for a lesson from Glenns chalkboard of truthyness for you :O:

[Bubblehead1980]

You know, I really hope Bubs doesn't go into any sort of criminal defense law. All of his clients are going to get sent to the chair.

But I still think the whole "lawyer" thing is a hyperactive kid with access to the internet playing at being a big shot and blowing smoke up everyone's butt. It's kind of sad to see how warped someone's mind can be, though. It's like being in one of those museums of oddities.



Yes. People are getting lost in the stuff that doesn't matter (they're bringing Trayvon's school life into this? It wasn't enough to assassinate the kid for real, but now you have to assassinate his character too?) No matter what happened afterward, or who hit who next, it still goes back to the fact that Zimmerman still created the situation in the first place. Even in Zimmerman's best version of the story he's still responsible for the death of someone, and no matter how that happens, it deserves more than a cursory investigation at the scene and then letting someone go scot free.

Anyways, no matter what the outcome is here, the best thing that happens is that there's now a spotlight on this bad law. I'm sure there will be some changes.


Wow, getting a bit personal there mookie. You have joined the troll club with tribes, can't debate so just insult and make things up, makes you feel better about yourself.

Trayvon's "school life" does matter because they have tried to portray him as some innocent, outstanding young kid who was the victim of an overzealous, racist, half white neighborhood watch guy. They did this but touting his academic record " A+ Student" I have heard several supporters of his say, along with the usual media hacks.Well, they introduced it into the court of public opinion, it is fair game.Turns out, Trayvon was suspended from school for marijuana and yes he had an empty sack but hey he was dumb enough to have it at school so that is what happens.Then the pictures they released were all of him when he was 12-14, which are different from his recent pictures.They show a clean cut, smiling, "preppy" younger kid not the wannabe thug.Trayvon's facebook was magically deleted but some of the photos made it onto the internet.The news even showed the cliche football photos and one of him(where he was obviously younger) on a skiing trip, just a bit ridiculous.

I did initially think Zimmerman was responsible but still protected by Florida Law, but i some things that came to light such as Trayvon's behavior and lifestyle in addition to the physical evidence and witness statements corroborating most of Zimmerman's story which is why stand your ground applies,the Police found this, the SAO did and the Grand Jury most likely will.Great thing about America, we have the rule of law, not mob rule.

Zimmerman had the right to defend himself and while it is a sad thing he had to take a life to do it, that is his right.The stand your ground law was created to prevent people from being the monday morning quarterback and punishing someone who was just defending themselves.Too many prosecutors in FL got overzealous, were wasting time and resources going after people like Zimmerman instead of prosecuting the thugs.The law is a great one and can not believe you think someone should be punished if they take a human life and were justified in doing so aka self defense.

[Bubblehead1980]

They only corroborate to the extent he was indeed being beaten up. Nothing about who started it.



I'm more on the side that any "self-defense" that winds up being death deserves something a little more than a lazy police investigation.

Leaving the intricacies of Floridan law for a minute, exercising your right is very well, but in this case, Zimmerman wound up terminating ALL of Trevor's rights. I think a trial is very much in order.


Trayvon chose to assault him, he gave up his rights in a sense.I could see him being a young wannabe gangster, getting mad some neighborhood watch guy was following him.I could see this guy picking a fight with him, 17 year olds are not known for their impulse control.Really is sad, but he messed with the wrong guy.

[Bubblehead1980]

God did it?


Errrr.... lawyer you claim to want to be wasn't it?
go back to lesson one and start again or change your career plans.:doh:


Tribes, Zimmerman was not on the phone during the altercation, the call had ended.The 911 call that recorded the screams(which I think was most likely Zimmerman) and shots were not from Zimmerman but from others who were reporting what was going on.Get your facts straight there chief especially before you insult someone.I am used to it but am waiting for the day you can actually debate something and not insult me or shift the subject but that would require to actually be able to handle a debate.

Transcription of Zimmerman's 911 call:




Zimmerman:
We’ve had some break-ins in my neighborhood and there’s a real suspicious guy. It’s Retreat View Circle. The best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle.
This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around looking about. [00:25]

911 dispatcher:
OK, is he White, Black, or Hispanic?
Zimmerman:
He looks black.
911 dispatcher:
Did you see what he was wearing?
Zimmerman:
Yeah, a dark hoodie like a gray hoodie. He wore jeans or sweat pants and white tennis shoes. He’s here now … he’s just staring. [00:42]
911 dispatcher:
He’s just walking around the area, the houses? OK.
Zimmerman:
Now he’s staring at me. [00:48]
911 dispatcher:
OK, you said that’s 1111 Retreat View or 111?
Zimmerman:
That’s the clubhouse.
911 dispatcher:
He’s near the clubhouse now?
Zimmerman:
Yeah, now he’s coming toward me. He’s got his hands in his waist band.
And he’s a black male.[1:03]
911 dispatcher:
How old would you say he is?
Zimmerman:
He’s got something on his shirt. About like his late teens.
911 dispatcher:
Late teens?
Zimmerman:
Uh, huh.
Something’s wrong with him. Yep, he’s coming to check me out.
He’s got something in his hands. I don’t know what his deal is. [01:20]
911 dispatcher:
Let me know if he does anything, OK?
Zimmerman:
OK.
911 dispatcher:
We’ve got him on the wire. Just let me know if this guy does anything else.
Zimmerman:
OK.
These *******s. They always get away.
When you come to the clubhouse, you come straight in and you go left. Actually, you would go past the clubhouse. [1:39]
911 dispatcher:
OK, so it’s on the left hand side of the clubhouse?
Zimmerman:
Yeah. You go in straight through the entrance and then you would go left. You go straight in, don’t turn and make a left.
He’s running. [2:08]
911 dispatcher:
He’s running? Which way is he running?
Zimmerman:
Down toward the other entrance of the neighborhood. [2:14]
911 dispatcher:
OK, which entrance is that he’s headed towards?
Zimmerman:
The back entrance.
[alleged remark of ‘F-ing coons’ at 2:22]




911 dispatcher:
Are you following him? [2:24]
Zimmerman:
Yeah. [2:25]
911 dispatcher:
OK.
We don’t need you to do that. [2:26]
Zimmerman:
OK. [2:28]
911 dispatcher:
Alright, sir, what is your name? [2:34]
Zimmerman:
George. He ran.
911 dispatcher:
Alright, George, what’s your last name?
Zimmerman:
Zimmerman.
911 dispatcher:
What’s the phone number you’re calling from?
Zimmerman:
407-435-2400
911 dispatcher:
Alright, George, we do have them on the way. Do you want to meet with the officer when they get out there?
Zimmerman:
Yeah.
911 dispatcher:
Alright, where are you going to meet with them at?
Zimmerman:
Um, if they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the clubhouse and, uh, straight past the clubhouse and make a left and then go past the mailboxes you’ll see my truck. [3:10]
911 dispatcher:
Alright, what address are you parked in front of? [3:21]
Zimmerman:
Um, I don’t know. It’s a cut-through so I don’t know the address. [3:25]
911 dispatcher:
OK, do you live in the area?
Zimmerman:
Yeah, yeah, I live here.
911 dispatcher:
OK, what’s your apartment number?
Zimmerman:
It’s a home. It’s 1950 – oh, crap, I don’t want to give it out – I don’t know where this kid is [inaudible] [3:40]
911 dispatcher:
OK, do you just want to meet with them at the mailboxes then? [3:42]
Zimmerman:
Yeah, that’s fine. [3:43]
911 dispatcher:
Alright, George, I’ll let them know you’ll meet them at …
Zimmerman:
Could you have them call me and I’ll tell them where I’m at? [3:49]
911 dispatcher:
OK, that’s no problem.
Zimmerman:
My number … you’ve got it?
911 dispatcher:
Yeah, I’ve got it. 435-2400?
Zimmerman:
Yeah, you got it.
911 dispatcher:
OK, no problem. I’ll let them know to call you when they’re in the area. [4:02]
Zimmerman:
Thanks.
911 dispatcher:
You’re welcome.
Call ends 4:07


ALTERCATION HAPPENED AFTER THIS.

[breadcatcher101]

You're wasting your time here presenting facts, dude.

Most of the posts I have read are from those who only want to promote an agenda of some type such as anti-gun or race.

Zimmerman did a great job. Martin could have left the area but didn't, chose to attack and was killed as a result.

[mookiemookie]

Funny how anything, no matter how flimsy, supporting the wet dream fantasy of a heroic gun owner blowing away an invading black thug is a "fact" and anything that doesn't is all part of "agenda"

[Stealhead]

Really? I see no posts that are overtly anti gun in this thread I have seen a few that mentioned better gun control but not total ban or even removal of carry rights.

Bubblehead is not posting facts he is posting someone else facts.I say that because everything that he posted has been published in media outlets that wish to portray the idea that Zimmerman was correct and these things have been out there for well over a week all of a sudden Bubblehead posts them as if it is some new form of information rather than the swayed spin that they truly are.

The headline should read;
Florida teenager shot and killed by neighborhood watch captain shooters claims self defense investigation by local law enforcement under review by states attorney and Justice Department.

Not;
Black Florida teen shot and killed by white hispanic neighborhood watch captain shooter claims self defense.

I have seen very few media outlets not put some form of spin or another on this story.The only outlet I can think of that has an objective view and gives out all the information (and not just the bits that they want to in order to spin their tops) Is the Christian Science Monitor.

You can read their article about recent developments here I do warn it is spin free so many might not like that fact because it means that you have to think for yourself and not have Joseph Goebbels wiper into your ear he would be very impressed with the majority of American media outlets today and there propaganda spreading to open ears.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0327/Did-Trayvon-Martin-attack-George-Zimmerman-first Also note that this article was written by two AP writers yet few outlets publish all that they said.

[breadcatcher101]

You are right, Stealhead. I said "most" when I should have said "some".

[Stealhead]

In the end when all is said and done we will see what the truth is.It is a good thing if you ask me that the state and fed got involved here that way if it does turn out that Zimmerman was justified then the people that are convinced Martin is the victim here will have nothing more to say.

I think Sanford really dropped the ball here they should have thought about the anger that would occur if given any doubt they should have arrested Zimmerman
this is what gives fuel to the fire.Tons of people get arrested for much less minor things than this and the charges get dropped later down side of the law you might spend a few days hours in jail and be an innocent person.

Did you notice in that CSM article I posted on the second page it reports that they(Martins parents) copyrighted slogans that seems very money grabby to me.Of course the thing is no matter what happens some people on both ends are convinced 100% and they will angry either way.

Also another media spin a roo the picture of Zimmerman(may be the only one they have available) is an old one from a mug shot and the Martin photo is not recent either(they have other photos of him).Not to say that ones appearance alone makes them right or wrong but to many it does guess they never heard of Ted Bundy.

By the way one of the eye witnesses is a black teenager around the same age as Martin so that somewhat nullifies the notion that Zimmerman might target any black person simply because they are black this kid was walking his dog at the time very good chance Zimmerman might have seen him as well on regular basis and while he was walking the dog prior to the indecent.

[Krauter]

Trayvon chose to assault him, he gave up his rights in a sense.I could see him being a young wannabe gangster, getting mad some neighborhood watch guy was following him.I could see this guy picking a fight with him, 17 year olds are not known for their impulse control.Really is sad, but he messed with the wrong guy.

So just like that he gives up his rights and is fair game to be shot and killed?

:nope:....:damn:

[August]

So just like that he gives up his rights and is fair game to be shot and killed?

:nope:....:damn:

I'm not saying I buy the theory of Martin being the aggressor but if it's true and he did initiate the fight then yes he did deserve to be shot and killed. Do you think a person should have the right to attack another person and not suffer the potential consequences of his victim defending himself?

[mookiemookie]

I'm not saying I buy the theory of Martin being the aggressor but if it's true and he did initiate the fight then yes he did deserve to be shot and killed. Do you think a person should have the right to attack another person and not suffer the potential consequences of his victim defending himself?

But in the same sense, and where I think this law goes into pure malarkey, is that I can be in a bar, follow someone around all night calling them names, harassing them in general, and then when they finally take a swing at me I'm perfectly justified in "standing my ground" and shooting them dead. And then the Glenn Becks and ragsheets of the world like "The Blaze" say that I was attacked, and I was the good guy. That makes absolutely no sense. The kid wouldn't have been aggressive (if he was) unless Zimmerman did something to provoke it. That provocation is all that matters in my mind.

[Stealhead]

mookiemookie you are some what doing the same thing Bubblehead is doing you just have the notion that surely Zimmerman provoked Martin you have no way to prove this is the case and even if he did and he did throw the first punch then he did assault Zimmerman and if he was winning the fight and Zimmerman felt in fear of great harm or death then he has the right to use the weapon in self defense.

Even if a person provoked a fight as you say if the person attacked them and they where seriously beating the person self defense is legit you do not get a pass because the guy ticked you off and you hit him ignore the jerk simple as that or at least do not use violence because if you get out of control and start beating someone down expect to possibly get shot by them or someone else or for someone else to set in and beat your rear to aid the person you are beating.If in fact Martin was angry for being questioned he should have just walked away once he was done asking him.

I think many bad situations would never have happened if one party had simply just pulled a Ghandi and walked away sometimes it is better just to do nothing and say nothing if the person offends you.

What they are doing in this case is verifying or disproving Zimmerman's claim and seeing if race had a motive if at all(and that would only apply if his intent was to kill in the first place which will nearly impossible to prove)

[August]

But in the same sense, and where I think this law goes into pure malarkey, is that I can be in a bar, follow someone around all night calling them names, harassing them in general, and then when they finally take a swing at me I'm perfectly justified in "standing my ground" and shooting them dead. And then the Glenn Becks and ragsheets of the world like "The Blaze" say that I was attacked, and I was the good guy. That makes absolutely no sense. The kid wouldn't have been aggressive (if he was) unless Zimmerman did something to provoke it. That provocation is all that matters in my mind.

But you don't know what the kid would or wouldn't have done. Kids his age have been known to walk up and beat the bejesus out of total strangers just for the fun of it.

For Example
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45783310/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/knockout-king-new-brand-street-violence-targets-random-victims/#.T3HvoNnjGMg)
If Beck and the blaze are twisting the truth to serve their own agenda then so are Al Sharpton and the New Black Panthers. It doesn't make either sides argument more or less valid.

At this point Zimmerman has both witnesses and physical evidence to back up his version of events. It might be somewhat slim but what do his detractors have? Apparently only some kid pictures and their word that Martin was a nice boy. They're going to need more than that before i'd be willing to convict Zimmerman of murder.

[mookiemookie]

mookiemookie you are some what doing the same thing Bubblehead is doing you just have the notion that surely Zimmerman provoked Martin you have no way to prove this is the case and even if he did and he did throw the first punch then he did assault Zimmerman and if he was winning the fight and Zimmerman felt in fear of great harm or death then he has the right to use the weapon in self defense. He did initiate the situation. We have the 911 tapes as proof of that. You need to apply the "but for" test. But for Zimmerman following the kid, none of this would have happened. And again, no matter what happened or who hit who, there's someone dead. In my mind that deserves more of an investigation that it got. And if the law says it doesn't? Bad law.

And the second part of what you said, I've already addressed. If you provoke or otherwise start a fight, it doesn't give you the right to kill someone.

[Sailor Steve]

can't debate so just insult and make things up, makes you feel better about yourself.
:rotfl2:

Can you show a single GT thread in which you have ever "debated" anything?

I did initially think Zimmerman was responsible but still protected by Florida Law,
This is the sort of thing you always say, yet we never actually see the part where that happened. We only see you claiming it after the fact. It seems to be an attempt to make yourself look centrist and fair, when you're actual posts are anything but.

It may come to light that your interpretation of events is true. From your previous comments I have no doubt that if and when that happens you will make sure to crow about how right you were. And if it turns out you're wrong?

Mookie is right, in that you get your information from right-wing radio and newsprint, and still, after all the admonitions you've recieved, still spout the party line while claiming to be in the middle.

As for the rest, we'll see. Any good lawyer would wait to pass judgement until all the evidence was in.

[Stealhead]

He did initiate the situation. We have the 911 tapes as proof of that. You need to apply the "but for" test. But for Zimmerman following the kid, none of this would have happened. And again, no matter what happened or who hit who, there's someone dead. In my mind that deserves more of an investigation that it got. And if the law says it doesn't? Bad law.

And the second part of what you said, I've already addressed. If you provoke or otherwise start a fight, it doesn't give you the right to kill someone.


You are assuming that Zimmerman started the situation how do we not know that Martin was in fact behaving in a suspicious manner he may very well have been in this area we have nothing but Zimmermans word.Also 911 dispatchers are not law enforcement they can suggest something to you but you are in no way obliged by law to what they say.

If you provoke a fight you are wrong to have done so however if the person attacking you that you provoked is beating you to death you still have the right to defend yourself form a person out of control just as you have the right to sue the person for assaulting you.A person asking you who you are what are you doing here should not provoke violence out of a normal person it may annoy them.

Everything is speculation at this point nothing and now I see a battle brewing between you on your side of the spin and Bubblehead on his end of the spin.

Makes you sit and think how easy one can convince a nation to go to war using spin to fuel preconceived notions.:hmmm:

We shall see but one group is gong to be eating their words soon enough.

[Tribesman]

You're wasting your time here presenting facts, dude.

Forgive me for a moment, you are talking about Bubbles post there are you?
If so then:har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har:: har::har:


Most of the posts I have read are from those who only want to promote an agenda of some type such as anti-gun or race.

You mean like those who crow on some nonsense like "he ain't WHITE"? yes you might have a point there, but I don't think it was the point you intended.

Martin could have left the area but didn't
Why did he have to leave the area breadcatcher?
He was walking in a neighbourhood to get to a house in the neighbourhood and somone was following him while he was going about his lawful business in the neighbourhood.

[Krauter]

I'm not saying I buy the theory of Martin being the aggressor but if it's true and he did initiate the fight then yes he did deserve to be shot and killed. Do you think a person should have the right to attack another person and not suffer the potential consequences of his victim defending himself?

Oh I agree that if someone initiates a fight then you should defend yourself, but with appropriate force. Pulling a gun on a kid because he punched you, in my opinion at least, is not appropriate force. Maybe it's just the Canadian in me, hell if it was me I'd probably just stand there and say "eh quit hitting me" and maybe spray him with maple syrup.

[u crank]

Maybe it's just the Canadian in me, hell if it was me I'd probably just stand there and say "eh quit hitting me" and maybe spray him with maple syrup.

You got a problem man. Seek professional help before you hurt someone. :D

[vienna]

Maybe it's just the Canadian in me, hell if it was me I'd probably just stand there and say "eh quit hitting me" and maybe spray him with maple syrup.


Oh great, now we're going to hear about "maple syrup control" laws... :DL

[August]

Oh I agree that if someone initiates a fight then you should defend yourself, but with appropriate force. Pulling a gun on a kid because he punched you, in my opinion at least, is not appropriate force. Maybe it's just the Canadian in me, hell if it was me I'd probably just stand there and say "eh quit hitting me" and maybe spray him with maple syrup.

If the attack was so weak that you could remain standing throughout i'd certainly agree, but according to the Zimmerman and the evidence so far presented this kid quickly had him down on his fat butt and was beating his head on the ground. Strong words, scuffle, punches, grappling, head smashing, what's next? A handy rock to the brain pan? At what point in a clearly escalating situation like that does the use of deadly force to defend ones self become appropriate?

I'm just playing devils advocate here. As far as I know Zimmerman is a an anti-black racist who planned to execute the kid and engineered the physical evidence to back up his cover story. Or maybe the truth lies somewhere in between those two opposing scenarios.

Until we hear more evidence one way or the other though it remains all just idle speculation. Unfortunately there are radicals pushing both sides so hard that whatever the legal outcome there is likely to be some fallout from it come summertime, especially if it's a hot one like they're forecasting.

[Platapus]

I just don't see the justification of allowing citizens to walk around carrying Maple Syrup. I mean, that's why society has chefs.

Bunch of chef wanna bees I bet.

If you want to carry around Maple Syrup you better be prepared to under go chef training.

[CaptainHaplo]

He did initiate the situation. We have the 911 tapes as proof of that.

And eyewitness testimony indicates that Martin initiated the physical assault.

You need to apply the "but for" test. But for Zimmerman following the kid, none of this would have happened.

Apply your own standard then. "But for" Martin starting a physical altercation, no weapon would have been used and no one would be dead.

And again, no matter what happened or who hit who, there's someone dead. In my mind that deserves more of an investigation that it got. And if the law says it doesn't? Bad law.

The state attorney general assigning a special prosecutor to investigate this is, along with DOJ participation - is not enough? What more do you want then? If your talking about the initial investigation - then I agree.

And the second part of what you said, I've already addressed. If you provoke or otherwise start a fight, it doesn't give you the right to kill someone.

Being in a fight, regardless of who "starts" it doesn't give anyone the right to kill another person. However, anytime you are in fear of your life, then you have the right to defend yourself up to and including lethal force.

Zimmerman should NOT be on trial for murder. However - he should be arrested and charged with involuntary manslaughter - as his actions (before the physical altercation) specifically contributed to the death of another human being. If it can be proven that there is a racial component to his actions (and I think there was) then he can face a hate crime charge as well.

[August]

I just don't see the justification of allowing citizens to walk around carrying Maple Syrup. I mean, that's why society has chefs.

Bunch of chef wanna bees I bet.

If you want to carry around Maple Syrup you better be prepared to under go chef training.

I like your thinking Senator. Yeah and to get the National Maple Association on board we'll require that all chef training be taught by a NMA certified instructor.

Now if we only do the same with the other sugar rights. Y'know there's a couple of lobbyists from the American Busybodies Consortium who think that sweet talk should also be regulated.

[soopaman2]

Zimmerman should face charges of involuntary manslaughter. I see no basis for the "stand your ground law" considering he followed, and initiated contact.

The family should be called out for pulling the race card, and using a dated photo of him as a young teen, rather than the 6 foot 2 football player he was.

Trayvon was doing nothing wrong, I believe he felt threatened himself when accosted by Mr. Zimmerman, no one thinks of Trayvons rights as a human being do they? He was in his own neighborhood. He should want to be safe too. Not be threatened by some pistol wielding freak with no lawful authority and a power complex.

I saw a comment on a news site, and it made me smile to myself...

"Kim Kardashian gets sprayed with flour, and they arrest her in minutes, but this guy kills an unarmed kid, and walks free."

Yeah, pretty much...

I would like to see jailtime for him, and a lifetime ban on gun ownership, he has truly proven he does not deserve the privelige.

[Platapus]

I don't know whether Zimmerman is guilty or not guilty or what he may be guilty of.

All I want is a formal investigation and a trial where all the evidence can be examined and evaluated according to our judicial rules.

If he is not guilty, then the matter is dropped. If guilty he is subject to appropriate punishment.

[Krauter]

You got a problem man. Seek professional help before you hurt someone. :D

I just can't help it man.. everytime I walk into a mall I just get this overwhelming urge to cover everyone in maple syrup :rock: I can't control it!

I just don't see the justification of allowing citizens to walk around carrying Maple Syrup. I mean, that's why society has chefs.

Bunch of chef wanna bees I bet.

If you want to carry around Maple Syrup you better be prepared to under go chef training.

Balls to that, I'll show those chefs how it's done!

[soopaman2]

I don't understand why we don't fight over maple syrup more than oil. Maple syrup rocks!

Back on topic, I only ask for justice. And this to not be politicized by the antigun clan, or the race card pullers looking for an easy buck from "da man who be owing us."

There is alot of fishy things about this Zimmerman, and just like the Strauss Kahn case, alot of "blame the victim is coming out" ...

Kahn also got in trouble messing around with hookers back home, after he bought his way out of America... I wonder if our boy Zim will shoot another colored person....Er miscreant. Uhh he hit me first!

Seriously, this stinks of "friends on the force".

Black perp and white victim the lynch mobs would be out. But in this case it is a thug, and a responsible gun owner.:har:

At the least, he should lose his guns. (harsher than death to a power hungry redneck)

[MothBalls]

This whole situation has become nothing more than a supply of soap boxes delivered on bandwagons. I'll wait for the facts.

[CaptainHaplo]

Zimmerman should face charges of involuntary manslaughter.

Wow - we agree....

I would like to see jailtime for him, and a lifetime ban on gun ownership, he has truly proven he does not deserve the privelige.

In most states, if he is convicted of ANY type of "violent" felony, he will lose his rights to own a firearm. There is no question that the "stand your ground" law does not shield him - as he did not stand his ground, but pursued Martin.

I will say it again - any person in true fear of their life has the right to defense - up to and including lethal force. However, if you create the situation that results in you fearing for your life, and you are forced to use such force, you bear an indefensible, criminal portion of the responsibility for the death that occured. That is the case with Zimmerman - and is why I expect he will be charged with involuntary manslaughter / negligent homicide. He likely will be charged with more - but will be convicted on one of the "lesser counts".

The more I consider it - negligent homicide probably fits a little better.

[Bubblehead1980]

So just like that he gives up his rights and is fair game to be shot and killed?

:nope:....:damn:


when you attack someone in the manner Zimmerman claimed Martin did(and eveidence shows he did), yes you are fair game.

[Bubblehead1980]

You're wasting your time here presenting facts, dude.

Most of the posts I have read are from those who only want to promote an agenda of some type such as anti-gun or race.

Zimmerman did a great job. Martin could have left the area but didn't, chose to attack and was killed as a result.


Most of the posts I have read are from those who only want to promote an agenda of some type such as anti-gun or race.

Zimmerman did a great job. Martin could have left the area but didn't, chose to attack and was killed as a result.[/QUOTE]


I know but I have never been one to back down from a debate and can't let them keep perpetuating the ignorance, even if it is on an online forum.The reason we are where we are in society as far as racial issues is concerned is we have allowed the race card and victim argument to be acceptable for too long.Men such as Jesse Jackson and AL Sharpton have made money off of it for years. Barack Obama managed to slither into office based in large part on a sense of racial entitlement that we must have a black President at some point, even if he has a pretty shady backround, we just could not wait for a solid black candidate, we had to have one now because it would be "healing" lol, I do wish people on that side of things could see how damaging Obama is as the first black President, it is sad that what could have been a great moment in history was wasted on someone such as him, but that is another story.Enough is enough, to have a society that is really fair, people are going to have to see themselves as equals first and not expect special treatment based on their race or think anytime something negative happens, it is racism. Fortunately, I think most people have had enough and things are slowly turning, Supreme Court will hear an affirmative action case next year and high likelihood that they will rule it unconstitutional(as it is) finally, this will be a big help.

Ah, I got off on a rant.Anyways, I showed Tribes in my last post he was incorrect and not a peep from him other than a jab at me via his response to you.Typical of his behavior? Yes. I am not shocked but perhaps one day my usual opponents on this forum will be able to actually put an argument together, we shall see.

[Bubblehead1980]

Really? I see no posts that are overtly anti gun in this thread I have seen a few that mentioned better gun control but not total ban or even removal of carry rights.

Bubblehead is not posting facts he is posting someone else facts.I say that because everything that he posted has been published in media outlets that wish to portray the idea that Zimmerman was correct and these things have been out there for well over a week all of a sudden Bubblehead posts them as if it is some new form of information rather than the swayed spin that they truly are.

The headline should read;
Florida teenager shot and killed by neighborhood watch captain shooters claims self defense investigation by local law enforcement under review by states attorney and Justice Department.

Not;
Black Florida teen shot and killed by white hispanic neighborhood watch captain shooter claims self defense.

I have seen very few media outlets not put some form of spin or another on this story.The only outlet I can think of that has an objective view and gives out all the information (and not just the bits that they want to in order to spin their tops) Is the Christian Science Monitor.

You can read their article about recent developments here I do warn it is spin free so many might not like that fact because it means that you have to think for yourself and not have Joseph Goebbels wiper into your ear he would be very impressed with the majority of American media outlets today and there propaganda spreading to open ears.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0327/Did-Trayvon-Martin-attack-George-Zimmerman-first Also note that this article was written by two AP writers yet few outlets publish all that they said.


I was not presenting it was "brand new info" but it is info that has emerged and his version of events are mostly corroborated by eye witness testimony and a plausible explanation. I will concede that Zimmerman should have never got out of his car to begin with or made it obvious has was following Trayvon, but does not justify Trayvon Martin's behavior. I have called suspicious people in my neighborhood into the police before(not neighborhood watch but cars near campus had been burglarized often in recent weeks and some some "thugs" walking up and down the street late at night) but I used discretion, they prob were not even aware I was watching.Cops made contact and told them to move along.This is a common call for police, sometimes it's innocent people, sometimes it's people casing the area. Zimmerman said he quit following him as the dispatcher suggested and that is when Trayvon Martin, instead of running away came back and initiated contact, which lead to words which were no doubt heated and then began to assault Zimmerman.There was no provocation for attacking Zimmerman.Zimmerman suffered a broken nose and head injury consistent with his story.Trayvon was shot at close range in the chest while he was on top of Zimmerman.Zimmerman's story makes sense and if mostly backed up by a witness or witnesses.

Another disturbing thing is people thing Zimmerman should be arrested and tried, to hell with probable cause.I get that most of the public does not really understand how the law and our system works but you don't just arrest someone to arrest them so they can plead their case in court.Probable cause is required and the police along with the SAO found no probable cause for arrest based on eye witness testimony, physical evidence supporting Zimmerman's claim and the stand your ground law.Arresting someone without probable cause opens up a big can of worms legally and costs city/county/state governments millions in legal fees and settlements.

[Bubblehead1980]

Zimmerman should face charges of involuntary manslaughter. I see no basis for the "stand your ground law" considering he followed, and initiated contact.

The family should be called out for pulling the race card, and using a dated photo of him as a young teen, rather than the 6 foot 2 football player he was.

Trayvon was doing nothing wrong, I believe he felt threatened himself when accosted by Mr. Zimmerman, no one thinks of Trayvons rights as a human being do they? He was in his own neighborhood. He should want to be safe too. Not be threatened by some pistol wielding freak with no lawful authority and a power complex.

I saw a comment on a news site, and it made me smile to myself...

"Kim Kardashian gets sprayed with flour, and they arrest her in minutes, but this guy kills an unarmed kid, and walks free."

Yeah, pretty much...

I would like to see jailtime for him, and a lifetime ban on gun ownership, he has truly proven he does not deserve the privelige.


There is absolutely no probable cause to arrest him for involuntary manslaughter, to put him in jail or take away his constitutional right to have a firearm.Without that firearm, Zimmerman could be dead or permanently injured from having his head slammed into the pavement again and again by this thug.How has he proven he does not deserve the privilege ? he used the gun to defend himself from a beat down and only fired once, he did not unload the clip.

[antikristuseke]

Magazine not clip FFS.:stare:

Other than that I doubt it is as clear cut as you make it out to be Bubbles, but then again you rant at the extreme edge of most things you put your two cents to.

As to the case at hand, I don't have enough information to make any kind of judgement nor do I really care that much.

[mookiemookie]

nevermind

[vienna]

I just can't help it man.. everytime I walk into a mall I just get this overwhelming urge to cover everyone in maple syrup :rock: I can't control it!

Proof positive: When maple syrup is outlawed, only Canadians will have maple syrup... :DL

...

[Hottentot]

"Debating" dear Bubbles is like playing chess with a pigeon. He knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and then struts around as if he's the victor.

Mookie, you're better than that.

[mookiemookie]

Mookie, you're better than that.

Yep.

[Stealhead]

I was not presenting it was "brand new info" but it is info that has emerged and his version of events are mostly corroborated by eye witness testimony and a plausible explanation. I will concede that Zimmerman should have never got out of his car to begin with or made it obvious has was following Trayvon, but does not justify Trayvon Martin's behavior. I have called suspicious people in my neighborhood into the police before(not neighborhood watch but cars near campus had been burglarized often in recent weeks and some some "thugs" walking up and down the street late at night) but I used discretion, they prob were not even aware I was watching.Cops made contact and told them to move along.This is a common call for police, sometimes it's innocent people, sometimes it's people casing the area. Zimmerman said he quit following him as the dispatcher suggested and that is when Trayvon Martin, instead of running away came back and initiated contact, which lead to words which were no doubt heated and then began to assault Zimmerman.There was no provocation for attacking Zimmerman.Zimmerman suffered a broken nose and head injury consistent with his story.Trayvon was shot at close range in the chest while he was on top of Zimmerman.Zimmerman's story makes sense and if mostly backed up by a witness or witnesses.

Another disturbing thing is people thing Zimmerman should be arrested and tried, to hell with probable cause.I get that most of the public does not really understand how the law and our system works but you don't just arrest someone to arrest them so they can plead their case in court.Probable cause is required and the police along with the SAO found no probable cause for arrest based on eye witness testimony, physical evidence supporting Zimmerman's claim and the stand your ground law.Arresting someone without probable cause opens up a big can of worms legally and costs city/county/state governments millions in legal fees and settlements.

All we have to go on is what Zimmerman claims to have occurred and one eye witness another black kid that was walking his dog said that he did see Zimmerman and Martin in a scuffle and he saw Martin hit Zimmerman but he said that the scuffle had already started before he saw it and thus his statement only verifies that indeed they where in a scuffle not who started it for sure or why.The kid wisely went inside his home and seems to have only seen a very brief portion that only confirms that a scuffle was occurring.

You also only mentioned the new information that came out that weakens Martins side not Zimmermans and you ignored that it was also reviled that some of the officers on scene did not agree on Zimmerman one felt that he should have been charged because some of his story did not fully verify that Zimmerman had a SYG reason.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0328/Trayvon-Martin-case-Why-hasn-t-George-Zimmerman-been-arrested

Obviously higher ups did feel that there was enough evidence to make a charge against Zimmerman but it does show that the investigating officer had doubts about Zimmerman's claim.

To really prove that Zimmerman was a racist is going to be very difficult because even CNN had several employees analyze the supposed "fnnning coons" line and they agreed that they where unable to conclude that he says this.These *******s always get away but that does not verify that he racily profiled either.

Unless they can find physical evidence is found to disprove Zimmerman's claims there is not really much else they can do to him.Another thing that really annoys me is how the media never showed the full truth of what the tow looked like currently.The original pictures of Martin are obviously from his early teens or pre-teens which I do find interesting because that plants into your mind "a young kid a higher pitched voice" when you see a photo of the full size Martin I do not think of such a timid voice.Also any persons voice raises in pitch when they have adrenaline rushing which both persons likely did in this incident.So to me the most supposedly damning thing some use against Zimmerman is the cries for help which many claim to be Martin.Even if they can confirm the voice is one or the others it does not mean very much because anyone can yell for help and not really need help but want someone coming to their aid to take their side.This why I feel that some folks that do have conceal carry and feel that they need to help others be wary because people can lie and yell for help when they might be the attacker.

[AVGWarhawk]

At this point the real story will never be told. The media portrayed a young kid with a bag of skittles killed by a gun toting racist. The frenzy was bolster by POTUS followed up today by a Senator wearing a hoodie on the floor. The entire episode is nothing but a muddled mess. The media should be proud of what has been accomplished. There will be NO justice for both involved.

[Tribesman]

I know but I have never been one to back down from a debate
As has been pointed out, you have never been in a debate which means you have always backed away from any debate.

Anyways, I showed Tribes in my last post he was incorrect and not a peep from him other than a jab at me via his response to you.Typical of his behavior? Yes. I am not shocked but perhaps one day my usual opponents on this forum will be able to actually put an argument together, we shall see.
:har::har::har::har::har::har::har:
Bubbles you poor deluded young man, your attempt at a response didn't even address it, so how you can think you showed anything of value(beyond comedy value) is almost beyond belief.:doh:
But hey as you are trying to play silly buggers mr. "lawyer" how about you enter a debate for a change.
Lets start with one of a few of the completely silly "legal" claims you have made and refused to respond to when they are shot to pieces.:know:

Can you start with the succesful and unsuccesful prosecutions in Florida which you claimed as a local and a local legal expert can never have taken place at all?:woot:

[jumpy]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/17542979

I guess they didn't like him wearing a hoodie and shades either....:D