[Cog]

Typical that pstarr prefers vigilante action by the Black Panthers and other assorted race-baiters. No respect for the rule of law. But understandable given his progressive leanings.

[AgentR11]

The kid was out walking in the rain minding his own business. He was a invited guest to this community, no reason to be followed, chased and then killed.

Something keeps bothering me about this line of thought...

Zimmerman is a civilian resident of the region.
Martin is a civilian resident of the region.

How can it be OK for Martin to be somewhere, and it not OK for Zimmerman to also be there? We're talking public spaces here, not Martin's own private property or lease. Martin has no right to exclude Zimmerman from the location in question. If Martin attacks Zimmerman because he doesn't want him around for whatever reason, then Zimmerman has the right to shoot in self defense at that point. Thus, follow, or not follow, is irrelevant. Public space, Zimmerman has a right to be there every bit as much as the deceased did.

[Oneaboveall]

A photo from ABC News showing the back of Zimmerman's head right after the shooting:

http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/ht_geor ... _wmain.jpg

[Livewire713]

The kid was out walking in the rain minding his own business. He was a invited guest to this community, no reason to be followed, chased and then killed.

Something keeps bothering me about this line of thought...

Zimmerman is a civilian resident of the region.
Martin is a civilian resident of the region.

How can it be OK for Martin to be somewhere, and it not OK for Zimmerman to also be there? We're talking public spaces here, not Martin's own private property or lease. Martin has no right to exclude Zimmerman from the location in question. If Martin attacks Zimmerman because he doesn't want him around for whatever reason, then Zimmerman has the right to shoot in self defense at that point. Thus, follow, or not follow, is irrelevant. Public space, Zimmerman has a right to be there every bit as much as the deceased did.

So you're saying that people walking down the street should be followed, chased and then killed?

[Livewire713]

A photo from ABC News showing the back of Zimmerman's head right after the shooting:

http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/ht_geor ... _wmain.jpg

Looks like he slipped, fell and hit his head. Probably because it was dark and wet out. Besides, the guy has hardly any hair. What would someone grab onto to bash his head into the ground? His ears? They would be all red and bruised. Same thing if he just grabbed him by the face with both his hands. Mr. Zimmerman would have bruises or scratches on his face. When someone gets their head bashed into the ground they usually look pretty beat up and most the time missing some hair. Hair is what people grab onto to bash someones head into the ground. Its a BS story.

[wisconsin_cur]

No. He is saying being followed does not give you the right to jump someone.and procede to attack them. And if you do they might then fear for their life and.then shoot you.

[Livewire713]

I am saying that there is no right for Martin to exclude Zimmerman from his presence in the public space they were in.

You choose to believe Mr. Zimmermans story. Unfortunately we will never hear Mr Martins version of the story because he is now dead. Dead from walking to the store to buy candy and tea. If Mr. Martin was such a violent person that you couldn't even get close to without him attacking you, how did he happen to buy candy and tea just moments before? Shouldnt he have beaten up the cashier and taken the candy and tea because they had to have had some kind of contact with him. After all you make it sound like you couldnt even get near this young man, he was ready to attack anyone that wasn't black. Or maybe for some reason he just had it out for Mr. Zimmerman. Nothing to do with the fact that Mr. Zimmerman is following him, has a gun and has already profiled him as being on drugs and up to no good.

[AgentR11]

Honestly, I don't believe either story, because its been filtered through the press. I do know the following.

Martin and Zimmerman had the same degree of right to be where they were, and neither had the right to exclude the other from the location.

Zimmerman has a head injury of unknown severity. (scalp wounds bleed like crazy, it could be big or small).

Martin is dead of a gun shot wound from Zimmerman's weapon.

From those three facts, I'd have a heck of a hard time getting past "reasonable doubt" concerning Zimmerman's guilt in a self defense situation. Now, maybe Martin was covered in fist bruises to the face and abdomen after having been pulverized by the wandering civilian, then Zimmerman tripped and skinned his scalp, then got bored and shot Martin, I dunno. That's why we have Juries. They will hear the case UNFILTERED by the media; and they will judge the facts presented in a far more reliable way than I or you could.

[wisconsin_cur]

So that great right-wing reactionary Alan Dershowitz /sarcasm seems to think the case is nothing.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/20/Dershowitz-prosecution-immoral

With ABC News’ release of the George Zimmerman photo showing blood flowing freely from his head, the question becomes whether Angela Corey, the prosecutor in the case, had access to the photo before charging Zimmerman with second-degree murder.

The arrest affidavit did not mention the photograph, or the bleeding, gashes, and bruises on Zimmermans’ head. Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School stated upon release of the arrest affidavit that it was “so thin that it won’t make it past a judge on a second degree murder charge … everything in the affidavit is completely consistent with a defense of self-defense.”

[Cog]

Yes

Both men had the perfect right to be where they were at. They even had the right to exchange words, even heated ones. But when Martin jumped Zimmerman and proceeded to bash his skull in, he lost whatever rights he had and became the aggressor in a self-defense matter.It makes absolutely no difference that Zimmerman followed the kid around or even had heated words with him. None of that is against the law. The moment Martin jumped him, the dynamic and also the rights of the two men changed. Martin lost the right to any self-defense claim and Zimmerman obtained the right to use lethal force to protect himself.

That is simply the law gentlemen and all of this drama being played out by the NAACP and media is meaningless in a court of law.

[Ferretlover]

Talk about slow news days... The US media not only does all that it can to avoid reporting real news, it blows up the tiniest incidents all out of proportion. This story would rate such coverage ONLY if the same amount of coverage was given to each and every one of the murders in the US.
IOW, what a waste of valuable news time and energy...

[Sixstrings]

How can it be OK for Martin to be somewhere, and it not OK for Zimmerman to also be there? We're talking public spaces here, not Martin's own private property or lease. Martin has no right to exclude Zimmerman from the location in question. If Martin attacks Zimmerman because he doesn't want him around for whatever reason, then Zimmerman has the right to shoot in self defense at that point.

Yes, streets in Florida gated communities are actually county roads and they're PUBLIC. That way the county has to keep the roads up rather than the homeowners. Being public streets, everyone has a right to walk them.

However..

Walking on a public street isn't inherently suspicious, while being FOLLOWED or pursued by a vehicle is. Agent, if you're out walking and someone is clearly following you is that not suspicious and threatening? Of course it is.

The girlfriend says she heard over the phone Trayvon ask Zimmerman why he was following him, and Zimmerman responded with something like "what are you doing around here." Right there Zimmerman should have identified himself as neighborhood watch and there never would have been a fight (by the rules of neighborhood watch Zimmerman should never have been armed or pursuing in the first place).

I'm not sure what the letter of the law is, but following / stalking somebody while giving no reason, just common sense here yes that can lead to a fight. It's very scary to be followed like that, it's dangerous, you don't know if it's a mugging and if you're black having some white guy pursuing you it's just scary Agent. You don't see that? Tell you what, go out in public and follow people -- I bet you it creeps folks out, and there's odds you may get in a fight.

(and another thing.. battery does not justify lethal force.. think about all the fights that go on every day, in bars, in families, between neighbors, road rage, jesus christ Agent we can't have people pulling guns out -- I've seen plenty of fights in my life, it was never necessary for it to become a shootout though and that's EXACTLY what stand your ground has done -- it's justifying shootouts in bar fights and oddly enough GANG MEMBERS who are armed and "felt threatened" then they get off for shooting someone because of stand your ground)

[SeaGypsy]

Zimmerman would have had no kind of gun permit in most countries, with a record like his. Most modern countries any form of conviction for violent crime precludes owning a weapon. If the weapon were illegal, there would be no gray area, self defense with grossly disproportionate force resulting in death is category 2 murder or manslaughter. The introduction of doubt to proportionality of guilt primarily rests with whatever statute had such a person self righteously sitting armed in a vehicle then stalking people vigilante style, supposedly all legally. The right to bear arms is one thing, the responsibility for proper handling of such arms is another. The state can't dish out gun licenses to known felons with behavior issues then expect them to act in a responsible manner.

[Cog]

What felony did Zimmerman commit? He was arrested previously but the charges were dropped. He has no felony record and was not on probation. Do you understand the difference between an arrest and a conviction? I can explain it to you if you need some help.

I wish you guys would get your story straight before you start telling out-right lies about this case. We've already had enough of that in the press.

[Cog]

Zimmerman would have had no kind of gun permit in most countries, with a record like his. Most modern countries any form of conviction for violent crime precludes owning a weapon. If the weapon were illegal, there would be no gray area, self defense with grossly disproportionate force resulting in death is category 2 murder or manslaughter. The introduction of doubt to proportionality of guilt primarily rests with whatever statute had such a person self righteously sitting armed in a vehicle then stalking people vigilante style, supposedly all legally. The right to bear arms is one thing, the responsibility for proper handling of such arms is another. The state can't dish out gun licenses to known felons with behavior issues then expect them to act in a responsible manner.

Took me all of two minutes using Google to completely destroy your post about
Zimmerman being a convicted felon. So either you just made it up or you don't know how to do research. Which is it?

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/ ... ce-officer

In 2005, Zimmerman, then 20, was arrested and charged with “resisting officer with violence” and “battery of law enforcement officer,” both which are third-degree felonies. The charge was reduced to “resisting officer without violence” and then waived when he entered an alcohol education program. Contemporaneous accounts indicate he shoved an officer who was questioning a friend for alleged underage drinking at an Orange County bar.

In August 2005, Zimmerman’s ex-fiancee, Veronica Zuazo, filed a civil motion for a restraining order alleging domestic violence. Zimmerman counterfiled for a restraining order against Zuazo. The competing claims were resolved with both restraining orders being granted.

[AgentR11]

Walking on a public street isn't inherently suspicious, while being FOLLOWED or pursued by a vehicle is. Agent, if you're out walking and someone is clearly following you is that not suspicious and threatening? Of course it is.

If I hit everyone that followed me or thought I was suspicious and said something nasty, I would spend my entire life in jail, not to mention my knuckles would always be bloody and cut up; which is actually quite unpleasant.

(and another thing.. battery does not justify lethal force.. think about all the fights that go on every day, in bars,

Check FBI crime stats. Fist&Feet is a pretty lethal category, and Zimmerman suffered exactly the same kind of attack that often leads to death or permanent brain injury. You can not hit people in the head and not risk killing them. I don't care what they do in cartoons.

As to whether its justification, that's why we have juries. THEY will decide whether Zimmerman was in fear of his life. I know the first time I bled like that I was terrified.

[Cog]

Sixstrings is being obtuse about something the law makes clear distinctions about. In a mutual fight where both parties beat on each other as in a bar fight, the officers are going to arrest both parties for disturbing the peace/assualt or both. If someone dies as the result of this mutual combat, the other party is going to get charged with manslaughter

When someone jumps on you and starts beating on you, there is no mutual combat and the aggressor is the one charged with a crime. Martin, by all available evidence attacked Zimmerman and proceeded to beat him and slam his head against the sidewalk. At that point, Martin can not claim self-defense and Zimmerman's right to self-defense is enhanced to include lethal force to stop such an attack. That is black letter law. The race-baiters can't seem to get their head around the fact that self-defense laws are written specifically to terminate the right of an aggressor to an affirmative defense of self-defense.

[Cloud9]

I know that the misanthropes, racists and hoplophobes desperately want Zimmerman to have murdered Martin. The misanthropes just want to ruin another life. The racist want Zimmerman to be a white who murdered a black so they can further their own agendas. The hoplophobes in their irrational fear of guns and gun owners hope this death will further their efforts to shred the second amendment and disarm Americans.

None of these agendas have anything to do with the trial of Zimmerman. Zimmerman is to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The indictment does not provide any evidence that destroys reasonable doubt. The wounds on the back of his head are sufficient to support his narrative of the events on that tragic night. The state will spend a million dollars conducting a show trial to appease the above mentioned factions and then will release Zimmerman. The defense attorney will have a rain maker case and be able to charge higher fees. The prosecutor having done the Governor a favor will be appointed to the district court of appeals.

Meanwhile the citizens will foot the bill. Misanthropes are never going to love mankind. Black racists are always going to believe the white man did it. Hoplophobes are never going to get the state of Florida to disarm the million concealed permit carriers. So, this amounts to very expensive theatre distracting the body politic from the exploding deficit and declining natural resources.