Grand Jury in Florida Will Examine Death of Teenager

[JohannBessler]

Not quite: the person shot has to have been a credible threat to the shooter. On that alone, this is murder.

But the victim is usually dead and can't testify.

Kulindahr, I'm speaking of a bigger picture, not just this case alone.

[Kulindahr]

But the victim is usually dead and can't testify.

Kulindahr, I'm speaking of a bigger picture, not just this case alone.

As Sherlock Holmes would say, even if he's dead, he can testify -- we just have to listen, or rather look, harder.

[T-Rexx]

Zimmerman is required to reasonably believe that a 17 year old kid, some 100 lbs.less than him, who he was chasing poses an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm.

According to the Sanford police, this is exactly what Zimmerman is claiming. Apparently, the police believe this claim, since they have yet to arrest Zimmerman.

Now, the Senator who wrote the law is on record on this matter. He says, Zimmerman is, as I contended, not entitled to the protections of the law as he was the aggressor in this instance.

It is the fact that Zimmerman ignored the 911 operator's advice not to follow Martin that former Sen. Peaden says disqualifies him from claiming self-defense under the law.

"The guy lost his defense right then," Peaden told the Miami Herald. "When he said 'I'm following him,' he lost his defense."

If that's what Peadon intended, he should have written it into his law. He didn't.

The legal precedent which has developed in Florida concerning this law is that it protects the shooter even in cases where the shooter is pursuing the victim. The law states only that the shooter must have felt threatened by the victim. In the seven years since Peadon's "Stand Your Ground" law was passed, it has been invoked to protect the shooter in 93 cases involving 65 deaths in Florida. In almost every case, the shooter was exonerated.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stor...l-go-free.html

It would seem that only guilty people in Florida die when they get shot.

The Stand Your Ground doctrine is not at issue. I know the left wants it be to be the case, but it's just garden variety murder based on what we currently know.

If this is so cut and dry, and it is so clear that his is "just garden variety murder based on what we currently know," why is the murderer still free?

And if "The Stand Your Ground doctrine is not an issue" here, why do Florida authorities keep insisting that they cannot arrest Zimmerman because it is?

Do we JUBbers understand Florida law better than the Florida authorities?

[T-Rexx]

No, just time to make neighborhood watch people certified and trained.

Except, as you, yourself have pointed out, George Zimmerman may not have been a "real" neighborhood watch captain.

In America, the way we protect ourselves from crazy people with guns is by handing out ever more guns to ever more crazy people.

[jackoroe]

According to the Sanford police, this is exactly what Zimmerman is claiming. Apparently, the police believe this claim, since they have yet to arrest Zimmerman.

Now think about that logically, for a moment. Anybody who would claim protection under the Stand Your Ground law is exempt from even arrest and subsequent charging? Yet the Uniform Crime Report consistently reports approximately 650 people being charged with murder since the law taking effect. Some of them claimed protection under Stand Your Ground. They were still charged.

Here's the 2010 numbers.
http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/..._annual10.aspx

If this is so cut and dry, and it is so clear that his is "just garden variety murder based on what we currently know," why is the murderer still free?

Because the issue is being under investigation by a grand jury. They are a deliberative body by their very nature. Since murder has no statute of limitations there are no time constraints on their investigation.

And if "The Stand Your Ground doctrine is not an issue" here, why do Florida authorities keep insisting that they cannot arrest Zimmerman because it is?

People are arrested all the time even though they claim immunity under Stand Your Ground in Florida.

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/na...osition=recent

Do we JUBbers understand Florida law better than the Florida authorities?

I'd have to say we do. The alternative is they are right and therefore murder is legal. It isn't legal as evidenced by the fact that people get charged with murder in fairly consistent numbers, despite the existence of this law.

Sanford PD is horribly incompetent. They failed to even so much as notify Martin's family of his death for three days. That is inexcusable. If you can get it together sufficiently to make appropriate victim notifications, your ability to conduct investigations is certainly at issue.

[Kulindahr]

According to the Sanford police, this is exactly what Zimmerman is claiming. Apparently, the police believe this claim, since they have yet to arrest Zimmerman.




And if "The Stand Your Ground doctrine is not an issue" here, why do Florida authorities keep insisting that they cannot arrest Zimmerman because it is?

Do we JUBbers understand Florida law better than the Florida authorities?

The local authorities at least are racist bigots. Higher up, I don't know.

[Kulindahr]

Sanford PD is horribly incompetent. They failed to even so much as notify Martin's family of his death for three days. That is inexcusable. If you can get it together sufficiently to make appropriate victim notifications, your ability to conduct investigations is certainly at issue.

They were working out the story with the shooter.

[chrisrobin]

As Sherlock Holmes would say, even if he's dead, he can testify -- we just have to listen, or rather look, harder.

There were no gunpowder tests. There were no trajectory tests. Acts of commission or omission? I don't think the local P.D. had any intention of investigating the "event".

[Kulindahr]

There were no gunpowder tests. There were no trajectory tests. Acts of commission or omission? I don't think the local P.D. had any intention of investigating the "event".

I don't either.

The police chief should resign permanently, and the DoJ should give him a new home with nice steel bar decor.

[EastMed]

I presume Mr Zimmerman will soon be charged with an offence which he could not have committed under Florida law.

[Kulindahr]

There were no gunpowder tests. There were no trajectory tests. Acts of commission or omission? I don't think the local P.D. had any intention of investigating the "event".

In Oregon cops are required by law to examine all such things. The only leeway they have is whether or not to take the shooter into custody. If, God forbid, I ever have to fire in self-defense, a can expect to be interrogated and have my firearm kept as evidence, even if it's obvious the guy was after me with a lethal weapon.

This negligence screams "corruption!" to me.

[mitchymo]

Huh? You don't think a bullet does violence to a body? ? ?

Did i mention anything about the effect of a bullet on a body? I'm talking about the crime itself.
Which would you say is more violent? Being shot at point blank range in the back of the head, or being beaten over the course of several minutes, having your eye sockets smashed in, several ribs broken, teeth broken, nose broken, fractured collar bones and broken fingers etc etc, then drowning to death in your own blood from punctured lungs?

Fact is, the number of guns in the U.S. has been climbing, and violent crime has been deceasing.

I would argue that this is negligible evidence. How many households with guns have now got more than 1? If one household already had 1, and has since bought several more, it would give the appearance that there is more persons with guns than the reality may be. Secondly, i would argue that the violent crime that is falling the most, is that of agravated assault, where people are using their guns to protect themself from a smack in the mouth, which they may or may not have provoked.

The overall trend in crime is falling, it was soaring steadily upwards from 1960 until the mid 90's when it began to turn around. Being that you are american and i'm not, you may have a better understanding of why that may be, although i could assume that better policing and technology advancements have helped, since the UK crime figures also show a similiar trend, only peaking in the late 90's.

Since crime is falling in both nations, one having handguns, and one, not having them, its a little bit of a stretch to argue that its the prevailance of guns that has led to this drop in crime.

[JohannBessler]

The overall trend in crime is falling, it was soaring steadily upwards from 1960 until the mid 90's when it began to turn around. Being that you are american and i'm not, you may have a better understanding of why that may be, although i could assume that better policing and technology advancements have helped, since the UK crime figures also show a similiar trend, only peaking in the late 90's.

.

Oh, may I?

I read a very detailed report that looked at all the factors, upside and down, and inside and out. Allow me to elaborate.

It's hard for you young ones to remember what a scourge crime was in the 70s and 80s, at least in the cities. During the 80s, especially, changes in the national political scene dislocated many people economically, which exacerbated an already serious problem. Inner cities were publicly called "war zones".

But inexplicably, around 1994 or so, crime rates began to fall. Everybody in the nation who looked at the problem scratched their collective heads.

A couple of years ago, a prominent micro-economist and another scholar decided to look at the problem. What they found was two-fold:

1. An end to 60s/70s-style leniency in the courts brought about dramatically higher incarcerations. Put another way, we "put away" the bad guys.

2. Roe vs. Wade. Surprised? So were they; so was I.

But the simple fact remained that the would-be criminals were aborted by the millions. The evidence seems clear.

So that's one nod for the lefties (pro-choice) and one nod for the righties (get tough on crime).

[JohannBessler]

^You'll notice that gun ownership or gun control had absolutely nothing to do with it.

This is a factor that was looked at in depth, when the conclusions were reached.

[T-Rexx]

I presume Mr Zimmerman will soon be charged with an offence which he could not have committed under Florida law.

I've been expecting this, also.

Public outrage has a way of making the impossible possible.

[CowboyBob]

Have those pundits over at Fox News gone completely insane?

Geraldo Rivera said on Fox and Friends that wearing a hooded sweatshirt was responsible for his killing. He said:

“I think the hoodie is as much responsible for Trayvon Martin’s death as George Zimmerman was.”

Good grief. The shit that comes out of that network is just unreal.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...m-to-zip-it-up

[GiancarloC]

Rivera is a mindless putz. I have nothing to say about the stupidity of that comment. A hoodie was responsible for that? What about the skittles he was carrying? Absolutely no f-king respect for the victim.

A psycho with a gun was solely responsible for his murder.

I would hope Murdoch continues to crumble so he takes Faux News with him.

[White Eagle]

Chris Mathews on Hardball had a statement on this.
It was the police explaining what Zimmerman told them or what they found out.
The cop who found Trayvon, said Zimmerman was bloody and was beat up by Trayvon. He had other cites but I cannot remember them and I haven't found them on the web. But I did come across these.

http://www.thegrio.com/specials/tray...rd-florida.php
Trayvon Martin: 15 facts you need to know about case of teen shot in Sanford, Florida



Martin weighed 140 pounds.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,3161920.story
Zimmerman weighs 250 pounds.
http://www.wdbo.com/news/news/sanfor...s-shoot/nLRC3/

This is precious. Here is Trayvon weighing in at 140 and Zimmerman 250. So this kid was beating up this asshole so asshole decided to kill him.
Did y'all read my signature" Deja Moo.

[Jack Springer]

I found this today that y;all may be interested in. There are links from several newspapers about what they quote in this article.
There has been another thread opened in the forum.

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews...ee/#paragraph5

The Zimmerman dude is hispanic ... not white.

Let justice take it's course ... people like the crazy man, Rev. Al, need to stay away. He should be at home mourning his mother's death like any other person would do ... but Al can'd resist more money, more fame.

[jackoroe]

Chris Mathews on Hardball had a statement on this.
It was the police explaining what Zimmerman told them or what they found out.
The cop who found Trayvon, said Zimmerman was bloody and was beat up by Trayvon. He had other cites but I cannot remember them and I haven't found them on the web. But I did come across these.


This is precious. Here is Trayvon weighing in at 140 and Zimmerman 250. So this kid was beating up this asshole so asshole decided to kill him.
Did y'all read my signature" Deja Moo.

You'd better hope this isn't the case. That would give Zimmerman legal justification.

[archive]

You'd better hope this isn't the case. That would give Zimmerman legal justification.

Are you serious right now. The replies in this thread are killing me. Have you ever hit someone with your fists or fought someone almost twice your size. It's like your just saying whatever pops in your head first. Where are Zimmerman's defensive wounds? I'm sorry this thread has just angered me

I had a feeling this was going to turn into a mini gun rights debate.

Everyone in this thread knows (as when any other time a minority gets shot and it makes national news) a big stink will be made, the lead up to the trial will take a few years, and the perpetrator gets a slap on the wrist. Please, stop the faux outrage. It's sickening.

[Lostlover]

I love how CNN went on to describe him as "average," only to follow up with this description by saying he had a domestic violence charge and assaulting an officer on his record. There's nothing 'average" about plea bargains and community service to avoid jail time.

I wonder where "Zimmerman" is hiding? I hope it is in Florida since he will have that "Stand Your Ground" statue to protect himself from one of "these guys."

[jackoroe]

Are you serious right now. The replies in this thread are killing me. Have you ever hit someone with your fists or fought someone almost twice your size. It's like your just saying whatever pops in your head first. Where are Zimmerman's defensive wounds? I'm sorry this thread has just angered me

I had a feeling this was going to turn into a mini gun rights debate.

Everyone in this thread knows (as when any other time a minority gets shot and it makes national news) a big stink will be made, the lead up to the trial will take a few years, and the perpetrator gets a slap on the wrist. Please, stop the faux outrage. It's sickening.

Twice my size, no. A Lot bigger, yes. The law in Florida doesn't make a distinction as it relates to size, nor should it. Here's the standard for use of deadly force from the Florida law.  He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. So, I hope that Zimmerman is without a scratch. Otherwise he may be able to demonstrate a reasonable belief. That's a problem.

[archive]

Twice my size, no. A Lot bigger, yes. The law in Florida doesn't make a distinction as it relates to size, nor should it. Here's the standard for use of deadly force from the Florida law.  He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. So, I hope that Zimmerman is without a scratch. Otherwise he may be able to demonstrate a reasonable belief. That's a problem.

What I'm mostly worried about is that silly assertions such as this one get into peoples minds. (I know you're just pointing it now, but still.) Who in their right mind I honestly believe that a boy was terrifying a man. And as I said earlier , the shit show begins . Blame everything besides the perpetrator.

[Kulindahr]

^You'll notice that gun ownership or gun control had absolutely nothing to do with it.

This is a factor that was looked at in depth, when the conclusions were reached.

Gun carrying has a nearly-negligible impact on crime -- it's positive, but within the range of statistical error. What it does is reduce crime against persons -- which tells us criminals aren't entirely stupid, or at least not all of them: they switch to a line of work where they're not likely to run into anyone, and thus into anyone with a gun.

Of course the truly smart ones avoided people in the first place.

[Kulindahr]

Have those pundits over at Fox News gone completely insane?

Geraldo Rivera said on Fox and Friends that wearing a hooded sweatshirt was responsible for his killing. He said:

“I think the hoodie is as much responsible for Trayvon Martin’s death as George Zimmerman was.”

Good grief. The shit that comes out of that network is just unreal.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...m-to-zip-it-up

I understand what Rivera was getting at, but his statement is insane. A hoody can make others suspicious, because they can't see your face, but here's the thing: there had to be someone there to get suspicious because of the hoody.

Another factor is that if a kid is adult height, the hood makes it hard to tell it's a kid. A mind inclined to be suspicious will assume adult.

But that's hardly equal to some vigilante-minded thug hoping to find someone to shoot.

[Kulindahr]

Gotta love this one:

12. A police officer "corrected" a key witness. "The officer told the witness, a long-time teacher, it was Zimmerman who cried for help, said the witness. ABC News has spoken to the teacher and she confirmed that the officer corrected her when she said she heard the teenager shout for help."

That's astounding. Here that would be grounds for an immediate investigation of the police department to determine if it should be taken over by the state.

This stinks.

[T-Rexx]

So, I hope that Zimmerman is without a scratch. Otherwise he may be able to demonstrate a reasonable belief. That's a problem.

Why is it "a problem" if Zimmerman is without a scratch?

Does getting scratched as you shoot someone exonerate you from murder in Florida?

Do you not think that even the ability of perpetrators to make such absurd arguments indicates a problem with Florida law?

Do you think it a good thing that Florida law sometimes allows people to get away with murder if they happen to have been injured in the act of killing?

The law in Florida doesn't make a distinction as it relates to size, nor should it. Here's the standard for use of deadly force from the Florida law.  He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

All that is necessary "to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm" is for the participants in a conflict to withdraw.

That's it.

The law used to require that. Now, under "Stand Your Ground," Florida law not only encourages Floridians to carry guns, but it reassures them that there is no need to withdraw from conflict when dangerous situations arise. In addition, SYG makes it more difficult to prosecute murder through the criminal justice system.

If someone were to ask me if I thought it was a good idea to pass a law that encourages people to get themselves into life-threatening situations and also makes it difficult to prosecute murders which result from such situations, I would think that person crazy.

But then, I'm not a Republican.

[JB3]

Why is it "a problem" if Zimmerman is without a scratch?

Does getting scratched as you shoot someone exonerate you from murder in Florida?

Do you not think that even the ability of perpetrators to make such absurd arguments indicates a problem with Florida law?

Do you think it a good thing that Florida law sometimes allows people to get away with murder if they happen to have been injured in the act of killing?

Come on now, you're not as dense as you're pretending to be. If he has any defensive wounds at all, his lawyers are going to make the case that he was defending himself. I bet he's as clean as a whistle, however.

All that is necessary "to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm" is for the participants in a conflict to withdraw.

That's it.

The law used to require that. Now, under "Stand Your Ground," Florida law not only encourages Floridians to carry guns, but it reassures them that there is no need to withdraw from conflict when dangerous situations arise. In addition, SYG makes it more difficult to prosecute murder through the criminal justice system.

If someone were to ask me if I thought it was a good idea to pass a law that encourages people to get themselves into life-threatening situations and also makes it difficult to prosecute murders which result from such situations, I would think that person crazy.

But then, I'm not a Republican.

It doesn't encourage conflict or people to get in life-threatening situations. All the law says is that if your life is threatened in a confrontation, you can respond with deadly force. That's it. The purpose of the law was to prevent people that WERE retreating from being killed or seriously injured by an aggressor that doesn't walk away.

[T-Rexx]

Come on now, you're not as dense as you're pretending to be. If he has any defensive wounds at all, his lawyers are going to make the case that he was defending himself. I bet he's as clean as a whistle, however.

Yes, of course the lawyers will argue that any wounds on Zimmerman exonerate him of guilt under "Stand Your Ground."

The point is that that is a stupid reason to acquit someone of murder. Perpetrators should not be allowed to attack people, then prove innocence on the grounds that their victims tried to defend themselves. So, why does Florida sanction such stupidity?

It doesn't encourage conflict or people to get in life-threatening situations. All the law says is that if your life is threatened in a confrontation, you can respond with deadly force. That's it.

Of course it encourages people to get into life-threatening confrontations.

The law used to require people to avoid conflict. Now, it exonerates them from legal responsibility for the outcome of conflict.

The purpose of the law was to prevent people that WERE retreating from being killed or seriously injured by an aggressor that doesn't walk away.

No. The purpose of the law was to encourage people to carry firearms by reducing the liability for any bad consequences which might arise from doing so. The bill was sponsored by the NRA. People who were retreating from conflict were already permitted to defend themselves. Under SYG, gun owners are also permitted to attack.

That's why SYG is often called the "Shoot first, ask questions later" statute.

[T-Rexx]

Lest anyone think that the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case in Florida is some kind of fluke, it's not. It has drawn international attention because of its racist overtones and the fact that the victim was a child. But there have been other, similar cases as well.

The case of Trevor Dooley/David James is before the Florida court even now.

In September 2010, David James was playing basketball with his 8 y.o. daughter on a court in Valrico, FL. A kid began using the court to skateboard. A bystander, Trevor Dooley, told the kid he was not allowed to skateboard there. David James stood up for the skateboarder. James and Dooley got into an argument over this, which ended with Dooley shooting James dead. James was armed only with a basketball.

In the past, Dooley would clearly have been guilty of murder. In the past, Florida law required beligerents to withdraw from a situation of conflict. Under "Stand Your Ground," however, Dooley may legitimately claim he felt threatened by James and was merely "standing his ground." Under "Stand Your Ground," the prosecutors must prove that Dooley could not have felt threatened by James, an almost impossible requirement.

A decision has yet to be made in the Dooley case. He may yet be found guilty - if prosecutors can "prove" that he could not have felt threatened by the unarmed man with whom he was arguing. But, what was once a straightforward prosecution of murder now becomes a probable acquittal of murderer. Florida prosecutors report that they are today more reluctant to pursue charges of murder (even when murder is obvious), because "Stand Your Ground" sometimes turns what we once called "murder" into "standing your ground."

Stand Your Ground has been a disaster.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/20/opinio...tin/index.html

[Kulindahr]

All that is necessary "to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm" is for the participants in a conflict to withdraw.
. . . .

The law used to require that. Now, under "Stand Your Ground," Florida law not only encourages Floridians to carry guns, but it reassures them that there is no need to withdraw from conflict when dangerous situations arise. In addition, SYG makes it more difficult to prosecute murder through the criminal justice system.

It doesn't encourage conflict or people to get in life-threatening situations. All the law says is that if your life is threatened in a confrontation, you can respond with deadly force. That's it. The purpose of the law was to prevent people that WERE retreating from being killed or seriously injured by an aggressor that doesn't walk away.

But it's not a wide-open authorization -- deadly force has to be necessary "to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm". If fleeing will end the possibility of that, then flight is to be used -- deadly force is authorized ONLY if that's the only way to end the threat.

And it doesn't cover you if you initiated a confrontation.

[Kulindahr]

Lest anyone think that the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case in Florida is some kind of fluke, it's not. It has drawn international attention because of its racist overtones and the fact that the victim was a child. But there have been other, similar cases as well.

The case of Trevor Dooley/David James is before the Florida court even now.

In September 2010, David James was playing basketball with his 8 y.o. daughter on a court in Valrico, FL. A kid began using the court to skateboard. A bystander, Trevor Dooley, told the kid he was not allowed to skateboard there. David James stood up for the skateboarder. James and Dooley got into an argument over this, which ended with Dooley shooting James dead. James was armed only with a basketball.

In the past, Dooley would clearly have been guilty of murder. In the past, Florida law required beligerents to withdraw from a situation of conflict. Under "Stand Your Ground," however, Dooley may legitimately claim he felt threatened by James and was merely "standing his ground." Under "Stand Your Ground," the prosecutors must prove that Dooley could not have felt threatened by James, an almost impossible requirement.

A decision has yet to be made in the Dooley case. He may yet be found guilty - if prosecutors can "prove" that he could not have felt threatened by the unarmed man with whom he was arguing. But, what was once a straightforward prosecution of murder now becomes a probable acquittal of murderer. Florida prosecutors report that they are today more reluctant to pursue charges of murder (even when murder is obvious), because "Stand Your Ground" sometimes turns what we once called "murder" into "standing your ground."

Stand Your Ground has been a disaster.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/20/opinio...tin/index.html

They've got to get the "reasonable" requirement slotted where it is with all other laws: that "reasonable" means that any reasonable person would think so in that situation. No reasonable person would find someone "armed" with a basketball to be a mortal threat. No reasonable person would find someone "armed" with Skittles to be a mortal threat.

[T-Rexx]

But it's not a wide-open authorization -- deadly force has to be necessary "to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm". If fleeing will end the possibility of that, then flight is to be used -- deadly force is authorized ONLY if that's the only way to end the threat.

ANY argument with almost any other party can be considered a reasonable threat of "imminent death or great bodily harm." "He was bigger than me." "He tried to punch me." "I thought he might have a weapon." Under "Stand Your Ground," there is almost no situation in which you cannot somehow justify the use of deadly force.

And it doesn't cover you if you initiated a confrontation.

As far as "initiating a confrontation," has there ever been a conflict in the history of civilization in which it was not "the other guy" who started it? Even Zimmerman, who clearly pursued and initiated a confrontation with Martin, will claim he was "just defending himself" when Martin went crazy and tried to kill him.

They've got to get the "reasonable" requirement slotted where it is with all other laws: that "reasonable" means that any reasonable person would think so in that situation. No reasonable person would find someone "armed" with a basketball to be a mortal threat. No reasonable person would find someone "armed" with Skittles to be a mortal threat.

There is almost always some "reasonable" suspicion in any conflict that you might be somehow significantly harmed. "I thought that bag of skittles in his hand was a rock." "He looked like he was going to take a swing at me." "I thought he had a gun." "He threatened to kill me." "I thought that tea was a bottle of acid he was going to throw on me." Etc., etc., etc.

It's a confrontation. Confrontation means, almost by definition, that you feel threatened. Therefore, every confrontation is a reason for deadly force, under this ridiculous law.

"Stand Your Ground" laws are stupid beyond belief. But what's even stupider is that people continue to insist that such laws - for all the harm they have done - make for good public policy. Only someone who believes that Obama is a Muslim, or that he was born in Kenya, or that global climate change is a conspiracy of climatologists, or that "intelligent design" is science, or that gay marriage will harm families, could believe in something that stupid.

[EastMed]

The reaction from some black parents is illuminating:

My daughter is only six years old, yet I find myself teaching her "the rules" without even knowing it. "The rules" are do's and don'ts for African Americans living in a racist society. My parents taught me "the rules" because they knew what the world was like for African Americans. "The rules" include:

• Don't touch anything when you go into stores.

• Always ask for a bag for the items you purchased.

• Go where you say you are going and come straight home.

• Know who you are. You can't do everything they do.

• Recognize that if you choose a boyfriend of another ethnic group, you might face criticism and even violence from others.

The whole episode is really ghastly. Just another statistic to add to the 8,000+ Americans who die each year by the gun.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...rents-reaction

[White Eagle]

The Zimmerman dude is hispanic ... not white.

Let justice take it's course ... people like the crazy man, Rev. Al, need to stay away. He should be at home mourning his mother's death like any other person would do ... but Al can'd resist more money, more fame.

This only shows you didn't read the thread. We all talked about him being white-latino. I can't see where I said he was white.
Al is doing what needs to be done. Bring to the front that this racist pig killed Trayvon.

[Jack Springer]

This only shows you didn't read the thread. We all talked about him being white-latino. I can't see where I said he was white.
Al is doing what needs to be done. Bring to the front that this racist pig killed Trayvon.

The man is hispanic not white. Most people call Obama black -- he's even said the kid killed could have been his son.

Yet you'd call Obama a white-black person?

Get real man. This sad killing is being used to start a race war between whites and blacks by people like Rev. Al, Jesse Jackson .. and to some extent President Obama. Very sad.

President Obama, Rev. Al, Jesse, and especially you should feel the pain and suffering of all the black people killed in cities around the US by fellow blacks. Stop that killing and you've accomplished something.

Let the justice system work.

[T-Rexx]

This sad killing is being used to start a race war between whites and blacks by people like Rev. Al, Jesse Jackson .. and to some extent President Obama. Very sad.

Indeed. The president is trying to start a race war.

Sometimes, there are no words to describe what I read in this forum.

I think I have figured out Jack's secret identity. He is Kim Jong-un's press secretary.

[mitchymo]

But it's not a wide-open authorization -- deadly force has to be necessary "to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm". If fleeing will end the possibility of that, then flight is to be used -- deadly force is authorized ONLY if that's the only way to end the threat.

And it doesn't cover you if you initiated a confrontation.

How can there be any guarantee, that 'what went down', actually did, unless there is critical evidence. If that evidence doesn't exist to disprove a law abuser's explanation, they'll get away with murder.

[Kulindahr]

How can there be any guarantee, that 'what went down', actually did, unless there is critical evidence. If that evidence doesn't exist to disprove a law abuser's explanation, they'll get away with murder.

Except it's on record that he initiated a confrontation.

[White Eagle]

Today Zimmermans lawyer said Zimm has a broken nose and injuries to the back of his head,. I wonder which officer did the damage.
With all the past crimes he has committed I believe he has something on the police dept. They are protecting him too much. Keep him out of jail and he won't talk.
And Jack, you keep saying I said he was white. Show me where I said that. I don't know what you are drinking or smoking but please quit all your assumptions.

[JohannBessler]

Indeed. The president is trying to start a race war.

Sometimes, there are no words to describe what I read in this forum.

:

It takes a special kind of person to be a gay Republican, TRex.

They have to compartmentalize their personalities. Oftentimes, their mental health cannot stand the strain of this, so the ego begins to fracture.

[Jack Springer]

Today Zimmermans lawyer said Zimm has a broken nose and injuries to the back of his head,. I wonder which officer did the damage.
With all the past crimes he has committed I believe he has something on the police dept. They are protecting him too much. Keep him out of jail and he won't talk.
And Jack, you keep saying I said he was white. Show me where I said that. I don't know what you are drinking or smoking but please quit all your assumptions.

Read the links in your own posts man.

[Lostlover]

Today Zimmermans lawyer said Zimm has a broken nose and injuries to the back of his head,. I wonder which officer did the damage.
With all the past crimes he has committed I believe he has something on the police dept. They are protecting him too much. Keep him out of jail and he won't talk.
And Jack, you keep saying I said he was white. Show me where I said that. I don't know what you are drinking or smoking but please quit all your assumptions.

It doesn't really matter is "Zimmerman" has broken bones, bruises or a concussion; he picked a fight with someone half his size, and half his age and brought out a gun to settle it. I understand that this is his lawyer's spin but people will leap on it to justify the shooting of an unarmed teenager minding his business.

[CowboyBob]

Indeed. The president is trying to start a race war.

Sometimes, there are no words to describe what I read in this forum.

I think I have figured out Jack's secret identity. He is Kim Jong-un's press secretary.

Oh c'mon now. Kim Jong-un is much more intelligent than him.

[JohannBessler]

If they don't change this law—which is too broadly written—sooner or later Joe Walsh will get shot in self-defense. He gets right in your face:

[jackoroe]

It doesn't really matter is "Zimmerman" has broken bones, bruises or a concussion; he picked a fight with someone half his size, and half his age and brought out a gun to settle it. I understand that this is his lawyer's spin but people will leap on it to justify the shooting of an unarmed teenager minding his business.

The plot seems to be thickening. There's a witness to the whole episode who claims Martin attacked Zimmerman. There is also physical evidence to support the witnesses account.

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/new...erman-03232012

[mitchymo]

Except it's on record that he initiated a confrontation.

I'm not being case specific here.

The plot seems to be thickening. There's a witness to the whole episode who claims Martin attacked Zimmerman. There is also physical evidence to support the witnesses account.

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/new...erman-03232012

This is absolutely ridiculous. Do you not see how moronic this law is. It is going to reach a point, where the rightful defender, cannot defend themselves if they want justice to be done.

If this kid did fight back, what is the liklihood that it was self defence? He was unarmed and REALLY having to defend himself.

If Zimmerman walks free, i't will be a disgrace, and Trayvon's blood will be on the hands of those who constructed this god awful law sin.

[jackoroe]

I'm not being case specific here.


This is absolutely ridiculous. Do you not see how moronic this law is. It is going to reach a point, where the rightful defender, cannot defend themselves if they want justice to be done.

If this kid did fight back, what is the liklihood that it was self defence? He was unarmed and REALLY having to defend himself.

If Zimmerman walks free, i't will be a disgrace, and Trayvon's blood will be on the hands of those who constructed this god awful law sin.

If, as the article suggests, Martin attacked Zimmerman, then Zimmerman had a right under the law to use force. It makes sense as to why he wasn't charged if that's the case.

This isn't about the relative merits of the law, but the application of the elements of the statute as it exists now. There's a difference.

[mitchymo]

If, as the article suggests, Martin attacked Zimmerman, then Zimmerman had a right under the law to use force. It makes sense as to why he wasn't charged if that's the case.

This isn't about the relative merits of the law, but the application of the elements of the statute as it exists now. There's a difference.

I hear ya. But as i see it. Trayvon had the reason to be threatened, he had the need to defend himself. The whole incident would NEVER have happened, if Zimmerman had backed the hell off, the kid was on his way home. Now he is dead. Zimmerman instigated the incident from the outset, and legal protection or not, this was murder. Call it justifiable by your laws, but its murder.