[John_A]

Right, Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and initiated the confrontation.

And when someone gets out of their vehicle and is attacked, has their nose broken and gets their head bashed on the sidewalk, they are permitted to defend themselves.

Thoroughly.

[Lore]

Right, Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and initiated the confrontation.

And when someone gets out of their vehicle and is attacked, has their nose broken and gets their head bashed on the sidewalk, they are permitted to defend themselves.

Thoroughly.

You sure? You mean Zimmerman was attacked just because he got out of his vehicle? Where was that in the testimony? Couldn't the opposite defence be said for Trayvon, except he got the gun and really can't testify? I'm sure he was just aching for a Skitttles fight that day with someone.

[John_A]

Right, Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and initiated the confrontation.

And when someone gets out of their vehicle and is attacked, has their nose broken and gets their head bashed on the sidewalk, they are permitted to defend themselves.

Thoroughly.

You sure? You mean Zimmerman was attacked just because he got out of his vehicle?

I kept my comment abbreviated just like you did. It is not illegal to walk on a public sidewalk, or ask someone questions. And it isn't legal to break someone's nose for daring to do that either.

Where was that in the testimony? Couldn't the opposite defence be said for Trayvon, except he got the gun and really can't testify?

Of COURSE Trayvon could use the same defense..except it probably doesn't work so well. "Yes, there I was walking down the public sidewalk when this guy asked me some questions. I answered them, then hide in the bushes, waited around until he wasn't looking, and then broke his nose for daring to be so impetuous! Your honor, it was self defense!

Yeah, doesn't play so well.

I'm sure he was just aching for a Skitttles fight that day with someone.

Could be. Or he was pissed off his mommy took away his weed, or maybe the problems with school bus driver were about to get him kicked off the bus, or his mom wasn't going to buy him that new toy for Christmas because he had been suspended from school for only those choir boy things they boot you from school for doing. Certainly we can't ask him because he broke the nose of the wrong guy, and that particular choirboy behavior didn't work so well against a citizen prepared to defend himself from said choirboy behavior.

Choirboys aren't what they used to be I guess.

[Lore]

Right, Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and initiated the confrontation.

And when someone gets out of their vehicle and is attacked, has their nose broken and gets their head bashed on the sidewalk, they are permitted to defend themselves.

Thoroughly.

You sure? You mean Zimmerman was attacked just because he got out of his vehicle?

I kept my comment abbreviated just like you did. It is not illegal to walk on a public sidewalk, or ask someone questions. And it isn't legal to break someone's nose for daring to do that either.

Where was that in the testimony? Couldn't the opposite defence be said for Trayvon, except he got the gun and really can't testify?

Of COURSE Trayvon could use the same defense..except it probably doesn't work so well. "Yes, there I was walking down the public sidewalk when this guy asked me some questions. I answered them, then hide in the bushes, waited around until he wasn't looking, and then broke his nose for daring to be so impetuous! Your honor, it was self defense!

Yeah, doesn't play so well.

I'm sure he was just aching for a Skitttles fight that day with someone.

Could be. Or he was pissed off his mommy took away his weed, or maybe the problems with school bus driver were about to get him kicked off the bus, or his mom wasn't going to buy him that new toy for Christmas because he had been suspended from school for only those choir boy things they boot you from school for doing. Certainly we can't ask him because he broke the nose of the wrong guy, and that particular choirboy behavior didn't work so well against a citizen prepared to defend himself from said choirboy behavior.

Choirboys aren't what they used to be I guess.

Yeah, there are a lot of Zimmerman clones out there with the "small man complex". The real issue is the slippery slope in where this leads to.

[John_A]

Choirboys aren't what they used to be I guess.

Yeah, there are a lot of Zimmerman clones out there with the "small man complex". The real issue is the slippery slope in where this leads to.

I assume you are referring to the same slippery slope that the original carry laws were supposed to have caused? Wild West everywhere they came into existence? That didn't come about, which is a good thing, but I don't think the average person can take what happened to george and convert any of it into an event that we would like to go through. The expense, the guilt, the attention, the potential for being judged from here to the day you die for being "that guy who killed the kid".

[AgentR11]

by a high school student.

post adolescent, high school aged males are some of the most dangerous humans there are... period.

Do you not remember being in high school?
Even I as a geek, was more than hazardous to the health of everyone around me, and did stupid things that I feel lucky to have survived and not killed anyone.

I know the media narrative is to paint one of the men in question as a helpless child. Simple reality is that TM was much stronger than GZ, beat the snot out of him, and could have killed or permanently maimed him on the ground. Being a "high school student" is not something that stands in favor of the innocence of TM.

[Lore]

Choirboys aren't what they used to be I guess.

Yeah, there are a lot of Zimmerman clones out there with the "small man complex". The real issue is the slippery slope in where this leads to.

I assume you are referring to the same slippery slope that the original carry laws were supposed to have caused? Wild West everywhere they came into existence? That didn't come about, which is a good thing, but I don't think the average person can take what happened to george and convert any of it into an event that we would like to go through. The expense, the guilt, the attention, the potential for being judged from here to the day you die for being "that guy who killed the kid".

This is the slope I'm referring to. Unintended consequences of a gun toting nation.

In the most comprehensive effort of its kind, the Tampa Bay Times has identified nearly 200 "stand your ground'' cases and their outcomes. The Times identified cases through media reports, court records and dozens of interviews with prosecutors and defense attorneys across the state.

Among the findings:

• Those who invoke "stand your ground" to avoid prosecution have been extremely successful. Nearly 70 percent have gone free.

• Defendants claiming "stand your ground" are more likely to prevail if the victim is black. Seventy-three percent of those who killed a black person faced no penalty compared to 59 percent of those who killed a white.

• The number of cases is increasing, largely because defense attorneys are using "stand your ground" in ways state legislators never envisioned. The defense has been invoked in dozens of cases with minor or no injuries. It has also been used by a self-described "vampire" in Pinellas County, a Miami man arrested with a single marijuana cigarette, a Fort Myers homeowner who shot a bear and a West Palm Beach jogger who beat a Jack Russell terrier.

• People often go free under "stand your ground" in cases that seem to make a mockery of what lawmakers intended. One man killed two unarmed people and walked out of jail. Another shot a man as he lay on the ground. Others went free after shooting their victims in the back. In nearly a third of the cases the Times analyzed, defendants initiated the fight, shot an unarmed person or pursued their victim — and still went free.

• Similar cases can have opposite outcomes. Depending on who decided their cases, some drug dealers claiming self-defense have gone to prison while others have been set free. The same holds true for killers who left a fight, only to arm themselves and return. Shoot someone from your doorway? Fire on a fleeing burglar? Your case can swing on different interpretations of the law by prosecutors, judge or jury.

• A comprehensive analysis of "stand your ground" decisions is all but impossible. When police and prosecutors decide not to press charges, they don't always keep records showing how they reached their decisions. And no one keeps track of how many "stand your ground" motions have been filed or their outcomes.

Claiming "stand your ground,'' people have used force to meet force outside an ice cream parlor, on a racquetball court and at a school bus stop. Two-thirds of the defendants used guns, though weapons have included an ice pick, shovel and chair leg.

People have had the right to defend themselves from a threat as far back as English common law. The key in Florida and many other states was that they could not use deadly force if it was reasonably possible to retreat.

That changed in 2005 when Gov. Jeb Bush signed into law Florida Statute 776.013. It says a person "has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground'' if he or she thinks deadly force is necessary to prevent death, great bodily harm or commission of a forcible felony like robbery.

"Now it's lawful to stand there like Matt Dillon at high noon, pull the gun and shoot back,'' said Bob Dekle, a University of Florida law professor and former prosecutor in North Florida.

Durell Peaden, the former Republican senator from Crestview who sponsored the bill, said the law was never intended for people who put themselves in harm's way before they started firing. But the criminal justice system has been blind to that intent.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafe ... on/1233133

[John_A]

Interesting references. You do realize however that Zimmerman did NOT use the "stand your ground" defense. He just went with straight self defense. Turned down "stand your ground" early on, even before the trial started.

[Lore]

Interesting references. You do realize however that Zimmerman did NOT use the "stand your ground" defense. He just went with straight self defense. Turned down "stand your ground" early on, even before the trial started.

Correct, however, while Zimmerman did not ultimately use the "stand your ground" defense in his case, Sanford police did not arrest him until almost two months after the shooting because of the Florida stand your ground rules that require police to have specific evidence to refute a self defense claim in order to arrest someone claiming self defense.

[John_A]

Interesting references. You do realize however that Zimmerman did NOT use the "stand your ground" defense. He just went with straight self defense. Turned down "stand your ground" early on, even before the trial started.

Correct, however, while Zimmerman did not ultimately use the "stand your ground" defense in his case, Sanford police did not arrest him until almost two months after the shooting because of the Florida stand your ground rules that require police to have specific evidence to refute a self defense claim in order to arrest someone claiming self defense.

Turns out they didn't have that either. So the cops need to get themselves better rules. That isn't George's problem. I commend the cops for not randomly arresting people nowadays just because they shoot someone and it looks like self defense right out of the box. Once upon a time the cops response was to arrest the shooter and throw him in jail on a murder charge and let the legal process decide it was self defense, after the poor bugger had already been rotting in prison when he shouldn't have been there.

The more I think of those bad of days, the new system seems to be quite an improvement. And as we now know, the cops really never should have arrested Zimmerman in the first place, that was all political theater to appease the masses. So sayeth 6 jury women, and 5 mothers.

Hats off to Florida jury women!!

[Lore]

Interesting references. You do realize however that Zimmerman did NOT use the "stand your ground" defense. He just went with straight self defense. Turned down "stand your ground" early on, even before the trial started.

Correct, however, while Zimmerman did not ultimately use the "stand your ground" defense in his case, Sanford police did not arrest him until almost two months after the shooting because of the Florida stand your ground rules that require police to have specific evidence to refute a self defense claim in order to arrest someone claiming self defense.

Turns out they didn't have that either. So the cops need to get themselves better rules. That isn't George's problem. I commend the cops for not randomly arresting people nowadays just because they shoot someone and it looks like self defense right out of the box. Once upon a time the cops response was to arrest the shooter and throw him in jail on a murder charge and let the legal process decide it was self defense, after the poor bugger had already been rotting in prison when he shouldn't have been there.

The more I think of those bad of days, the new system seems to be quite an improvement. And as we now know, the cops really never should have arrested Zimmerman in the first place, that was all political theater to appease the masses. So sayeth 6 jury women, and 5 mothers.

Hats off to Florida jury women!!

It's the police's job to base an arrest on the law and the evidence. The rule and delay isn't of their making. It wasn't until the case drew national attention and a Department of Justice investigation that prosecutors found evidence to charge Zimmerman with second-degree murder.

The jury had to base their verdict on reasonable doubt. Zimmerman was acquitted of the charges, not found innocent of the murder. Which is why he is in for a long haul with the Justice Dept. and civil suits.

[John_A]

It's the police's job to base an arrest on the law and the evidence.

We all know what their job is. The problem is the frequency with which they do it correctly, and without bias. In some places, they arrest first and ask questions later. I am glad this is not the case in Florida nowadays.

It wasn't until the case drew national attention and a Department of Justice investigation that prosecutors found evidence to charge Zimmerman with second-degree murder.

Obviously they didn't find the evidence. Hats off to Florida women jurors!

The jury had to base their verdict on reasonable doubt. Zimmerman was acquitted of the charges, not found innocent of the murder. Which is why he is in for a long haul with the Justice Dept. and civil suits.

That is because acquitted doesn't distinguish between "can't be proven" and "didn't do it, wasn't thinking it, and the prosecution was a political hit job".

OF COURSE if it didn't happen there is reasonable doubt...you can't prove a negative. Hats off to Florida women jurors for doing their job!

[PrestonSturges]

A man sees another man walking through peoples yards on a rainy night in a neighborhood where there have been several recent burglary's.

Martin was on the sidewalk, not walkin the wet grass, the condos don't have "yards."

You can play out a thousand scenarios, but only one of them actually took place.

Zimmerman spewed numerous contradictory scenarios, the defense relied on reasonable doubt rather telling which "one of them actually took place."

The fact that the media chose to interpret events in a racially biased manner and repeatedly used photographs of Man #2 when he was a pre-teen and young teen instead of as he appeared at the time of the confrontation can be seen as an attempt to mislead the public as to the nature of the confrontation.

The Travon Martin "Truthers," like the "Sandy Hook Truthers" immediately started circulating pictures of entirely different people to "prove" that there was a "conspiracy."

Here's Martin a couple weeks before he dies - look at the fearsome hulking menace that terrifies an entire nation of wingnuts. 160 lbs of brute strength! What I see is someone that fits comfortably in men's "medium" t-shirt and about a 13" neck that I could easily get one hand more than half way around.
http://globalgrind.com/news/Trayvon-Mar ... age=1#gtop

This is why I tend to think the Sanford prosecutor wanted to fail - he should have brought in a Travon body double and stood him next to Zimmerman.

Simple reality is that TM was much stronger than GZ, beat the snot out of him, and could have killed or permanently maimed him on the ground. Being a "high school student" is not something that stands in favor of the innocence of TM.

Seriously, this kid was "much stronger" than GZ, who used to work as a bouncer at house parties before losing that gig for being a belligerent asshole?

[John_A]

This is why these laws are so screwed up. Old western gunslingers would escape prosecution the same way by instigating and provoking a fight. You then can essentially contrive any excuse to commit mayhem by forcing the other persons hand.

Fortunately, that doesn't appear to be an increasing trend in states allowing citizens to carry. You can always find crazy examples of everything, but the country has generally been getting safer, murder wise, right in sync with states recognizing that responsible citizens carrying is a good thing, and should be allowed.

And then there are those who refuse to allow responsible citizens to carry, and become the poster boy for what happens when those same citizens are expected to depend on their government for things so basic as personal safety.

http://guardianlv.com/2013/07/chicago-m ... ce-friday/

[Lore]

The reason we don't have frontier justice anymore, at least not yet again, is because the local, state and federal governments are allowed to enforce the rule of common laws and not just some manufactured civil law. Start stripping that protection away and you open yourself up for endless cases like all those who walked from murder since 2005 in FL which in turn sets president for more just like them.

[AgentR11]

Seriously, this kid was "much stronger" than GZ, who used to work as a bouncer at house parties before losing that gig for being a belligerent asshole?

I didn't know negative adjectives helped discern the comparative strength of the two men.

Explain GZ's injuries if TM was not stronger. I can't make it work no matter how I try to play with the mechanics of the scene in my head. I wouldn't be surprised if this issue played a big role in deliberations. TM has reach on GZ, was able to pin him, was able to smash his head against the ground....

I wouldn't describe either as a "hulking menace" though. I don't know why its necessary in your mind to characterize or believe others should so characterize one of the actors when it is neither necessary nor supported by evidence. A pair of witless wonders in the wet, without appropriate rational supervision might be about right, if you need to make a derogatory characterization.

nb.. posting a photo of someone in loose clothing tells you pretty much nothing, at 6ft, he could be anywhere from 140 - 220 and look about the same in those clothes. Guessing necksize from a snapshot like that is a pretty big reach too.

[AgentR11]

And it works even better when the local power broker can hire a private security force, like in the western movie "Shane." Except today they would be more like Blackwater mercenaries.

Black jacket and turtleneck is much more comfy than those cowboy boots and western wear. Anyone ever try to run in cowboy boots?
Besides all those infantry and special forces vets coming back to the states need good jobs.

lol

[Lore]

The bottom line was maximum force was on the side of Zimmerman not Trayvon.

[PrestonSturges]

a photo of someone in loose clothing tells you pretty much nothing, at 6ft, he could be anywhere from 140 - 220 and look about the same in those clothes. Guessing necksize from a snapshot like that is a pretty big reach too.

Plenty more photos at the link. I don't think TM could have even found tight clothing for that skinny frame unless he was wearing spandex.

[AgentR11]

Again, how did GZ receive the injuries he had, if TM is weaker.
That's what I just can't make work, even if I were inclined to discount a jury's finding.