Trayvon Martin discussion

[Jaylan]

Originally Posted by d!ckmojo

He doesn't have to. Innocent until proven guilty. If Zimmerman claims self-defence, then the only way he's getting sent to prison is if there's ROCK SOLID PROOF that he's lying.

What you are forgetting is that when it comes to criminal cases, the defense does have to prove something to the jury. The jurors are the ones who decide what happens to a defendant...and if they dont by his claims, hes toast. The jury is human after all.

Theres plenty of proof to bring a solid case against him, and youre kidding yourself if you dont think a jury could convict him of manslaughter in this case.

Youre simply parroting a line that would make it ok for people to kill others without penalty. This case is exactly why the stand your ground law will be modified or repealed.

[Deep Dish]

ElChoclo:
Florida is a place where, in gated communities, even white people are told that they should stay in their cars when they visit to have a look around. There is a siege mentality in Florida, and it isn't helped by poverty, ethnic division and a prison system which seems to mainly teach black people to be violent. If anyone disputes that you can watch the Louis Theroux documentary where he visits the main jail in Miami. In that jail they fight the way normal people would shake hands and introduce themselves. They will fight you to steal your shoes if they like them. So, after their release, good things are supposed to happen?

Blacks in Florida should stick to wearing Hawaian shirts, not hoodies, and then they would be less provocative to white men without felony convictions, who might have concealed carry permits.

Pardon me, but I reside in the county where Trayvon Martin was shot. Sanford, the city where he was shot, is only about a 20 minute drive on the interstate for me. I’m white, too, and live in a gated community, and it’s ridiculous to hear “white people are told that they should stay in their cars when they visit to have a look around.” I have traveled all across Florida, having lived here for 20 years, and nowhere is really violent or dangerous except for Miami. Miami is like a nation upon itself, and it’s important to note Trayvon was shot nowhere near Miami. That’s not to say Florida doesn’t have its share of problems, of course, but you’re painting Florida as some ultra violent state, where in fact, by and large, more or less, it’s tranquil.

Espi:
The "stand your ground" law, in my opinion, is a stupid back-azzed piece of legislation. This law was enacted just a few years ago yet reminds me of what the wild west must have been like. the law needs to be repealed. A nation this out of control with fear doesn't need the law justifying folks. Killing each other. You murder somebody? You go to jail and await a trial by jury. Fvucking crazy to me that people seem to think it's OK to kill somebody and then claim delf defense yet never be arrested for it. LOL.

The “stand your ground” law was enacted to protect women from domestic violence. I’m not justifying it but that was the intent, if I’m not mistaken. For all the discussions on gender relations, the law is another example of the intersection between law and sex.

[Quiksilver]

Originally Posted by Jaylan

What you are forgetting is that when it comes to criminal cases, the defense does have to prove something to the jury. The jurors are the ones who decide what happens to a defendant...and if they dont by his claims, hes toast. The jury is human after all.

Theres plenty of proof to bring a solid case against him, and youre kidding yourself if you dont think a jury could convict him of manslaughter in this case.

Youre simply parroting a line that would make it ok for people to kill others without penalty. This case is exactly why the stand your ground law will be modified or repealed.

Nice understanding of legal procedure.

The defense doesn't have to prove their innocence.

The defense only has to demonstrate flaws in the prosecutors case.

The prosecutor has to make a case to reasonably prove the guilt of the defense, and the defense has to point out why the prosecutors case is faulty/flawed/false.

A jury can convict anyone of anything. A jury can convict a ham sandwich of perjury, contempt of court and felony embezzelment.

The question is whether the prosecutor can make a case which proves the guilt of Zimmerman beyond reasonable doubt.

Why is the "Stand Your Ground" clause even being challenged?

If those supporting Martin are challenging the Stand Your Ground law, that is admitting defeat before trial.

"A stand-your-ground law states that a person may use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first."

Are those of you who support Martin and object the Stand Your Ground clause, saying that Zimmerman had a valid reason to use self-defense when he felt threatened?

If it was repealed, the only difference is that he would first have a duty to retreat if he felt threatened.

By repealing the Stand Your Ground clause, that does not mean Zimmerman was illegally following/keeping an eye on Martin.

Stalking is impermissable as AFAIK Zimmerman and Martin had no prior interaction. Criminal Stalking in case law requires the victim and suspect to have interacted with eachother more than once.

I agree that Zimmerman used poor judgement to follow the kid (in hindsight), and I'm sure he himself would agree.

Poor judgement =/= illegal

A 120lb 10/10 babe could walk through a bad neighborhood by herself one night, maybe even following the path of a group of shady-looking thugs.

That is an exercise in poor judgement.

When she gets attacked though, and she pulls a Kahr PM9 from her purse and kills three of her attackers... That is not illegal.

Poor judgement put her in that position, but nothing she did was illegal.

Zimmerman (in hindsight) could have behaved differently and nothing would have occurred probably. But in hindsight, he exercised poor judgement regardless of what actually transpired.

Again, poor judgement =/= illegal.

Originally Posted by Jaylan

Im saying that he stalked and caused an unnecessary confrontation that led to an innocent boys death.

That is a politically motivated statement if I've ever seen one.

So many dynamics:

1. Stalking: Was it following or criminal stalking?

Answer: Case law will tell you that unless this becomes precedent, that it was not criminal stalking.

2. Unnecessary confrontation: We are trying to determine the potential illegality of certain actions. Where the hell does "unnecessary confrontation" ever appear in criminal law???

Did Zimmerman attack Martin or did Zimmerman put himself in a position which caused Martin to attack him?

That is all that matters.

3. Innocent boys death.

You have jumped to conclusion and pre-convicted Zimmerman in the little fantasy-trial that is occuring in your mind.

Refer to #2.

A. If Zimmerman attacked Martin, then yes the death of an innocent boy victim occured.

B. If Martin attacked Zimmerman (regardless of Zs poor judgement), then the death of a guilty boy victim occured.

If you are still arguing the Stand your Ground clause, then you have actually selected B because Stand Your Ground clause is only active in self-defense.

If A, then Stand Your Ground does not apply. If B, it does.

If you are saying it does apply to the case but should be repealed, then you are indirectly saying that Martin attacked Zimmerman and that Zimmerman should have had the duty to retreat.

Are you mad that A occurred, or are you mad that when B occured, Zimmerman did not run away?

Can you prove that A occurred?

Are you angry that in Florida someone doesn't have to run away when they fear for their life in public?

Running away = turning your back to danger. Turning your back to a threat can be very dangerous in and of itself.

I'd be very interested to hear this "rock solid case" that proves Zimmerman attacked Martin, which is the only thing that a prosecutor will be trying to determine.

Everything else is circumstantial and relevance to the case will be dismantled by the defense.

[Machina29]

This is for the people who are making this a racial issue.

http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news...eapon-4-4-2012

Black guy shoots unarmed white guy, claims self defense, and is not arrested. You aren't going to see white people protesting because an idiot shot a white person. Not everything is about race.

[Quiksilver]

Originally Posted by Bible_Belt

The little old lady starts with nothing in regard to self-defense potential. If her gun got taken away from her, she wouldn't be much worse off than if no one had a gun in the first place. She has zero chance either way.

Most people think of training with a gun as going to the range and learning to be a good shot. That's great, and it's time well spent. But in everything, there is defense, too. You need to know what to do to give yourself the best chance when it's the other guy who has the gun.



Sure. But that's the best case scenario. The point of training in anything is always to prepare for the worst case scenario, not the best.

I'm not exactly sure at all how to defend myself from a firearm. I dont wear ballistic vest around town.

I suppose the only tactic I really have it just to close the distance and tie up the gun hand, and at some point in the scuffle draw my knife and target the throat/eyes. Grisly work for sure, not something I really want to think about.

What sort of training would be effective to learn counter-firearm techniques?

(short of becoming a little old man sensai)

[Danger]

Originally Posted by Jaylan

Apparently you arent using critical thinking at all. But lets break down your misguided post.


I never said Zimmerman had an intent to kill the kid. Im saying that he used poor judgement and racially profiled an innocent kid walking home from the store. Im saying that he stalked and caused an unnecessary confrontation that led to an innocent boys death.

Poor decisions are not against the law. Physical assault IS against the law, and is the prerequisite for the self-defense use of a gun.

PLUS, where is the proof of racial profiling?

Originally Posted by Jaylan

Im saying that he didnt intend to use his gun that night, but tends to have it with him just in case he gets into a pickle. The dude screwed up royally that night. Lets be serious here.

Again, mistakes are not against the law. Physically assaulting a man IS against the law.

Originally Posted by Jaylan

What makes little sense is how youre ignoring all the missteps Zimmerman took in this entire situation yet are so ready to believe what hes saying to stay out of prison. Never mind that fact that the only other eyewitness to the initial contact is dead. The only other witness to the initial contact is Martins girlfriend, but she isnt an eyewitness.

From what I have read, there is another un-named eyewitness who desires anonymity. We will see how true that is as events unfold.

Originally Posted by Jaylan

Again, you arent using critical thinking. Height isnt a big advantage in a fight. WEIGHT is....why do you think boxing, kickboxing, and MMA are split by weight classes? I could destroy a 6'2 guy whos only 130 pounds, even though I myself am 5'9. Why is that? Because I weigh 185 lbs. Zimmerman was NOT out of shape like his initial media mug shot led us to believe. Look at the police surveillance tape. The dude is in fine shape and easily outweighs the 17 year old boy. Hell I have 45 pounds on Martin myself.

Having wrestled with friends who weighed as little as Martin did, I can tell you 140 lbs is easy to deal with if one has 45 lbs on someone.

I used to wrestle and I used to box. Height is absolutely an advantage, as is weight. But weight loses usefulness if it is dead/fat weight. It is only advantageous to a point, and then it becomes a huge disadvantage.

Originally Posted by Jaylan

Where is your critical thinking?

Actually there are updated photos of both individuals. The media simply were showing us the first few images they had of both people. Now we have updated ones. Theres been a recent photo of Martin with his father floating around online. The kid isnt the damn hulk. Hes tall, but lanky and Id body him easily in a fight.

Still all I see are photos of him at 13 years old with a red t-shirt. Where are photos of the gold grill? Where is the redacted information from the media that he was suspended for ten days for being late when it was actually for graffiti?

Originally Posted by Jaylan

Plus, you really wanna tell me that was a grown mans howls for help on the 911 tape? Sounded like a teenage boy to me. And why would the howls stop right at the gun shot if it was in fact Zimmerman? An eyewitness said they saw him on top and that there wasnt much scuffle. Another witness said he barely said anything afterwords and didnt look shook up. And another witness said they saw him on top of the boy with his hand in his back after shooting him.

A 17 year old like Trayvon has already gone through puberty......so it is just as likely to be Zimmerman as Trayvon.

And wtf, earlier above you said there were no eye-witnesses and yet NOW you are saying there were two? You can't even get the story straight and you are talking to me about critical thinking?XZi

Originally Posted by Jaylan

If its all self defense...why does he need to hold down a defenseless and dying person, basically ensuring their death?
Where is the arrest for the KKK when they make publicly racist and idiotic statements? Please dont sway the issue. This is about Martin and Zimmerman. Not some misguided and racist black nationalist group.

I didn't see anything about him holding Trayvon down, must be another one of those witnesses that wasn't a witness.

And wait a minute, everyone says this is about Zimmerman not even being arrested (which he was and then released). So I can make a similar point about the Black Panthers not being arrested for putting out a murder contract on someone. Same concept and it applies equally to everyone, not just for the benefit of blacks.

Originally Posted by Jaylan

My point with citing other cases was to show people they shouldnt drink the koolaid the system tries to feed us. Just because some racism claims are unfounded does NOT mean there arent plenty of well founded and credible claims. Racism, Sexism, Homophobia, Religious intolerance, etc...all still exist in our country. Hell, a Muslim woman was killed in what appears to be a hate crime in California. So people need to see reality and not dismiss the Martin case as a possible profiling bias crime. Many people are trying to do just that.

I agree on the kool-aid. My links were for the same point, especially the NBC doctored audio where Zimmerman suggested Trayvon was suspicious because he looked black. Now that we know it is false and NBC is doing an internal investigation, do you feel manipulated?

Of course there are plenty of well founded and credible claims. But when you get things like the Duke Rape case, or Tawana Bradley, and the likes of Sharpton and Jackson come out of the woodwork for such things, only to disappear when the truth comes out.....it doesn't help the cause. Neither do things like this.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...73884520120406

Remember, false claims of racism are as bad as false claims of rape. The trouble is, these situations abound in our country today.

Again, where is the evidence of profiling by Zimmerman?

Originally Posted by Jaylan

What critical thinking? The only one who can back up Zimmermans self defense claim is Zimmerman. Plenty of other things point against him and you seem to just ignore those things. If anything Martin had a right to stand his ground...then where does Zimmermans self defense claim go when the DA brings that up? What about when audio engineers study whos actually crying for help, and what about when they finally put to rest what Zimmerman said on the 911 tapes? Because many of us heard him use a racial slur.

Everything I have read that points against him seems to have been debunked as far as I can tell. Including the alleged racial slur with a link here.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/cnn-...ial-slur-used/

And of course Martin has a right to stand his ground, but not to assault. Standing your ground does not mean physically attacking. It means defense.

Originally Posted by Jaylan

Seems you are ignoring many important parts of this case. And thats a shame.

Zimmerman cannot prove Trayvon assaulted him first, and none of the available evidence suggest Martin did. And a first strike defense is a poor defense. If that was a good defense, then anyone could go into a bar with a loaded gun, bait someone into an altercation, kill someone, and then try to get off scott free with a self defense claim. Responsiblity has to be taken here, so if anything theres a clear manslaughter charge. The lead detective thought there was one, but someone from higher up told him not to arrest Zimmerman. Im not surprised that this would happen in the state that let a small child get murdered without justice and let her mother off scott free when she had something to do with it (Casey Anthony)

Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty. First strike is a poor defense, but lying on your back getting pummeled is not a poor defense.

I agree completely on the Casey Anthony point, and it may be that Zimmerman is guilty. But he doesn't deserve a witch-hunt and it's a mistake to assume he is guilty until the system gathers all of the facts and decides what to do about it.

Originally Posted by Jaylan

I doubt he gets life. Theyd need a murder 2 charge, and given the evidence, its certainly possible they charge him for that, but thats a tougher conviction to make.

Id say he can more easily be convicted with a manslaughter 1 charge. He wouldnt be in jail for life, but I doubt he makes it out alive because he will be eaten alive in prison by people who dont take too kindly to being profiled. And a good amount of people in prison have been profiled before.

Again, you assume profiling, listen to the enhanced audio by CNN and it sounds a lot more like "fvcking cold".w

[Jaylan]

Originally Posted by Danger

Poor decisions are not against the law. Physical assault IS against the law, and is the prerequisite for the self-defense use of a gun.

PLUS, where is the proof of racial profiling?

Tell me, what was so suspicious about a kid in a hoodie and shorts when its raining out? Why couldnt Zimmerman have simply asked the kid if he lived in the area. Its not like he was visiting his dad for the first time there.

Again, Trayvon had the right to defend himself from Zimmerman...and Zimmerman has no proof that he was physically assaulted first, nor that he was physically assaulted at all. Where are the hospital records? Broken nose right?

Again, mistakes are not against the law. Physically assaulting a man IS against the law.

Which is what Zimmerman did to Martin...that and manslaughter.

From what I have read, there is another un-named eyewitness who desires anonymity. We will see how true that is as events unfold.

Theres much conflicting eyewitness reports, so I doubt they will be helpful in court. Itll come down to forensic audio experts and the medical examiner.

I used to wrestle and I used to box. Height is absolutely an advantage, as is weight. But weight loses usefulness if it is dead/fat weight. It is only advantageous to a point, and then it becomes a huge disadvantage.

Again, Zimmerman is not fat. Hes in much better shape int he surveillance video than the mug shots of him floating around. Weight is definitely an advantage in a scuffle. Height isnt close to the advantage weight gives you in an all out ground and pound.

Still all I see are photos of him at 13 years old with a red t-shirt. Where are photos of the gold grill? Where is the redacted information from the media that he was suspended for ten days for being late when it was actually for graffiti?

What does that have to do with this case? The kid was on his way home, not breaking the law at all. Stick to the facts of the case.

A 17 year old like Trayvon has already gone through puberty......so it is just as likely to be Zimmerman as Trayvon.

Um 17 is not finished puberty. Plus if you knew anything about the body, youd know that the voice ages just like everything else. A males voice is not fully matured until he is mid 20s, and as we go through each decade, our voice deepens even more. Thats why old people sound the way they do...aging vocal chords.

A teenager will not sound the same as someone in their late 20s. Hell I wasnt growing a legit beard until I was 21. And I didnt settle into my adult voice until I was 20.

And wtf, earlier above you said there were no eye-witnesses and yet NOW you are saying there were two? You can't even get the story straight and you are talking to me about critical thinking?XZi

Learn to read, I said there was one eyewitness (Zimmerman) to the INITIAL CONTACT. Theres only one person who can tell us how the fight STARTED.

I didn't see anything about him holding Trayvon down, must be another one of those witnesses that wasn't a witness.

Apparently you arent following the case enough. http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...trayvon-martin

And wait a minute, everyone says this is about Zimmerman not even being arrested (which he was and then released). So I can make a similar point about the Black Panthers not being arrested for putting out a murder contract on someone. Same concept and it applies equally to everyone, not just for the benefit of blacks.

This case is not about the black panthers. You people really need to stop trying to deflect attention elsewhere. The FBI has decided not to bother with the KKK or the Black Panthers...so stick to the facts of this case. This isnt about what benefits blacks or not, this is about someone being killed and justice not being served. Dont compare this tragedy to the misguided racists that are the New Black Panthers. Dont compare this story to that of some stupid bounty.

I agree on the kool-aid. My links were for the same point, especially the NBC doctored audio where Zimmerman suggested Trayvon was suspicious because he looked black. Now that we know it is false and NBC is doing an internal investigation, do you feel manipulated?

NBC are douche bags for that, but its not like Ive never seen Fox News pull the same crap. The media tries to sway people all the time. Its an expected reality.

Of course there are plenty of well founded and credible claims. But when you get things like the Duke Rape case, or Tawana Bradley, and the likes of Sharpton and Jackson come out of the woodwork for such things, only to disappear when the truth comes out.....it doesn't help the cause. Neither do things like this.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...73884520120406

Remember, false claims of racism are as bad as false claims of rape. The trouble is, these situations abound in our country today.

Again, just because non credible claims exist, does not mean there arent many credible claims. Sean Bell, Amadou Diallo, DJ Henry, Johnny Gammage etc. And no one ever served time in those cases. All dead black men who were profiled and killed. When that stops happening, than Al and Jesse will shut up.

Again, where is the evidence of profiling by Zimmerman?

The racial slur, his 911 reporting records, and his blatant disregard for the boys life seems like enough.

Everything I have read that points against him seems to have been debunked as far as I can tell. Including the alleged racial slur with a link here.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/cnn-...ial-slur-used/

Debunked? Really? Because plenty of people seem to still feel they heard him use a racial slur. Just because a few folks dont agree with some of the evidence against Zimmerman, does not mean it doesnt exist. Hell, the lead investigator didnt buy his story and wanted to press charges originally, so what does that tell you. Hes not stupid...its his job to do these things.

And of course Martin has a right to stand his ground, but not to assault. Standing your ground does not mean physically attacking. It means defense.

Again, Zimmerman, the man whos looking at jail time, is the only one who can vouch for his claims. If he gets off scott free, it makes it possible for anyone to just carry a gun, incite a confrontation, kill a person, and then claim self defense due to a lack of credible witness. I dont think law makers are trying to set that precedent.

Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty. First strike is a poor defense, but lying on your back getting pummeled is not a poor defense.

But there is a witness who claims they saw him on top of Martin....so we shall see what happens when this goes to trial. Indictment hearing is in a few days though. Cant wait.

I agree completely on the Casey Anthony point, and it may be that Zimmerman is guilty. But he doesn't deserve a witch-hunt and it's a mistake to assume he is guilty until the system gathers all of the facts and decides what to do about it.

He chose his actions. He made his bed. Sucks for him. I dont have sympathy for someone who recklessly takes a life when he could have avoided all this by listening to the 911 dispatcher and simply leaving an innocent kid alone.

No, he had to be Quick Draw Mcgraw and do things his own way instead of waiting for police to arrive.

Again, you assume profiling, listen to the enhanced audio by CNN and it sounds a lot more like "fvcking cold".w

Thats the first time I heard anyone say "cold". Again, many, if not most people, feel he used a racial slur. But hear what youd like.

[Jaylan]

Originally Posted by Quiksilver

Nice understanding of legal procedure.

The defense doesn't have to prove their innocence.

The defense only has to demonstrate flaws in the prosecutors case.

The prosecutor has to make a case to reasonably prove the guilt of the defense, and the defense has to point out why the prosecutors case is faulty/flawed/false.

A jury can convict anyone of anything. A jury can convict a ham sandwich of perjury, contempt of court and felony embezzelment.

The question is whether the prosecutor can make a case which proves the guilt of Zimmerman beyond reasonable doubt.

Actually I have a great understanding of the legal system. My father is a defense attorney and has talked to me about his work ever since I was a young buck. I also minored in Political Science, and took various law classes for fun in undergrad. I may even possible go to law school one day, but Im not sure yet.

One thing my dad knows, is that the human element is a huge deal in a court case. Jurors are not completely by the book when it comes to deciding a case. Emotions and doubts come into all this. If it were a judge deciding the guilt of a defendant, then obviously the judge would decide the case based on the prosecutions case.

Jurors on the other hand, especially in a case like this, and with all the stupid decisions Zimmerman made, some of these jurors will want him to prove his innocence. You may not like this, but you have to accept thats how people work, even if the law says the defense has nothing to prove.

I lol'd at ham sandwich though.

Why is the "Stand Your Ground" clause even being challenged?

If those supporting Martin are challenging the Stand Your Ground law, that is admitting defeat before trial.

"A stand-your-ground law states that a person may use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first."

Are those of you who support Martin and object the Stand Your Ground clause, saying that Zimmerman had a valid reason to use self-defense when he felt threatened?

If it was repealed, the only difference is that he would first have a duty to retreat if he felt threatened.

By repealing the Stand Your Ground clause, that does not mean Zimmerman was illegally following/keeping an eye on Martin.

Have you been following this case at all? How can you even ask this question? Pundits, politicians, lawmakers, and everyday citizens are discussing the SYG law because many feel this law has set a stage for cases such as the Martin one. Its created a slippery slope with people who carry weapons and dont make the best decisions. Im sure you can find many discussions about it.

Stalking is impermissable as AFAIK Zimmerman and Martin had no prior interaction. Criminal Stalking in case law requires the victim and suspect to have interacted with eachother more than once.

Please read the definition of stalking.

"Stalking is a term commonly used to refer to unwanted and obsessive attention by an individual or group to another person."

Prior contact is not needed. Its like when a lion stalks a gazelle. Its never seen that particular gazelle before, but its creeps silently at a distance and waits to pounce on its prey.

No ones talking about criminal stalking. We are talking about general usage of the term in the English language. The word applies in this case.

I agree that Zimmerman used poor judgement to follow the kid (in hindsight), and I'm sure he himself would agree.

Poor judgement =/= illegal

He used a lot of poor judgment that night. And manslaughter is illegal.

A 120lb 10/10 babe could walk through a bad neighborhood by herself one night, maybe even following the path of a group of shady-looking thugs.

That is an exercise in poor judgement.

When she gets attacked though, and she pulls a Kahr PM9 from her purse and kills three of her attackers... That is not illegal.

Poor judgement put her in that position, but nothing she did was illegal.

This example isnt even similar to our case. Zimmerman followed Martin. Martin did not seek to engage Zimmerman. He was on his way home minding his own business. If anything Martin is the "babe" who should of had the gun.

Zimmerman (in hindsight) could have behaved differently and nothing would have occurred probably. But in hindsight, he exercised poor judgement regardless of what actually transpired.

Again, poor judgement =/= illega

Again, manslaughter is illegal. And I believe the DA has a great case for it. The lead detective sure thought so from night one and even filed an affidavit saying so.

He felt it was Negligent Manslaughter. I believe thats Man 2...Doesnt carry a stiff (super long) sentence, but its still jail time.

That is a politically motivated statement if I've ever seen one.

So many dynamics:

1. Stalking: Was it following or criminal stalking?

Answer: Case law will tell you that unless this becomes precedent, that it was not criminal stalking.

Whats political about it? Its true. Zimmerman stalked...as in he followed and crept behind a stranger...and then caused an unnecessary confrontation by chasing the kid, and confronting the kid when he was told not to do so and to wait for the police....these actions led to the kids death...and the boy committed no crimes...thus he was an innocent minor for christ sake.

Again, Im NOT talking about criminal stalking. Im using the word "stalk" according to its English dictionary definition. The world is accurately applied to Zimmermans actions.

2. Unnecessary confrontation: We are trying to determine the potential illegality of certain actions. Where the hell does "unnecessary confrontation" ever appear in criminal law???

Did Zimmerman attack Martin or did Zimmerman put himself in a position which caused Martin to attack him?

That is all that matters.

You act as if the phrase "unnecessary confrontation" would not be used in court. The DA would most certainly use this phrase when presenting the People's case.

Anyone whos followed this case knows Zimmermans actions directly lead to the scuffle with Martin and the boys death. The DA will defnitely state that had Zimmerman used better judgement, Trayvon Martin would be alive.

3. Innocent boys death.

You have jumped to conclusion and pre-convicted Zimmerman in the little fantasy-trial that is occuring in your mind.

Refer to #2.

A. If Zimmerman attacked Martin, then yes the death of an innocent boy victim occured.

B. If Martin attacked Zimmerman (regardless of Zs poor judgement), then the death of a guilty boy victim occured.

If you are still arguing the Stand your Ground clause, then you have actually selected B because Stand Your Ground clause is only active in self-defense.

If A, then Stand Your Ground does not apply. If B, it does.

If you are saying it does apply to the case but should be repealed, then you are indirectly saying that Martin attacked Zimmerman and that Zimmerman should have had the duty to retreat.

Are you mad that A occurred, or are you mad that when B occured, Zimmerman did not run away?

Can you prove that A occurred?

Are you angry that in Florida someone doesn't have to run away when they fear for their life in public?

Running away = turning your back to danger. Turning your back to a threat can be very dangerous in and of itself.

I'd be very interested to hear this "rock solid case" that proves Zimmerman attacked Martin, which is the only thing that a prosecutor will be trying to determine.

Everything else is circumstantial and relevance to the case will be dismantled by the defense.

As far as Im concerned, the boy was an innocent person walking down the damn block, going home and minding his own business. Given this FACT, theres no reason for me not to call him innocent. Especially since Zimmerman was the one who set this whole chain of events into motion.

And let me state yet again, Martin had a right to stand his ground when being followed by a strange creepy man. I imagine a 17 year old would be pretty freaked out if some car was following him in the dark and then someone got out of the car and being chasing after him. Im 25 and that would freak me the hell out and have me ready to brawl with someone.

[Danger]

Originally Posted by Jaylan

Tell me, what was so suspicious about a kid in a hoodie and shorts when its raining out? Why couldnt Zimmerman have simply asked the kid if he lived in the area. Its not like he was visiting his dad for the first time there.

The area had a large number of break-ins recently and he was an unknown in the neighborhood. Is that so hard for you to grasp?

Originally Posted by Jaylan

Again, Trayvon had the right to defend himself from Zimmerman...and Zimmerman has no proof that he was physically assaulted first, nor that he was physically assaulted at all. Where are the hospital records? Broken nose right?
Which is what Zimmerman did to Martin...that and manslaughter.

If Zimmerman was the assaulter then yes Trayvon has the right to defend himself. But you seem to have already decided it was all Zimmerman on the assault, and what evidence do you have for this?

If Zimmerman intended to shoot Trayvon, why would he call the police before hand?

If Zimmerman could manhandle Trayvon, why would he need to shoot him?

Again, use that brain of yours and ask some tough questions on the logistics of how things went down.

Originally Posted by Jaylan

Theres much conflicting eyewitness reports, so I doubt they will be helpful in court. Itll come down to forensic audio experts and the medical examiner.

I agree, and I'm smart enough to know it could go either way, but I have some questions regarding the lynch mob's perspective on things, it simply doesn't make sense to say that Zimmerman assaulted and killed Trayvon.

Originally Posted by Jaylan

Again, Zimmerman is not fat. Hes in much better shape int he surveillance video than the mug shots of him floating around. Weight is definitely an advantage in a scuffle. Height isnt close to the advantage weight gives you in an all out ground and pound.

Zimmerman appears to be fat in the photo's I have seen, but if you have other evidence, feel free to link it.

I would bet money though that a 17 year old football player is in much better shape than Zimmerman.

In boxing, height is an advantage, in wrestling, weight is, assuming all things equal. I highly doubt all things were equal between a 17 year old football player and a 28 year old fat guy.

Originally Posted by Jaylan

What does that have to do with this case? The kid was on his way home, not breaking the law at all. Stick to the facts of the case.

It has everything to do with the case. Perception creates reality and the media gives the perception of a 28 year old man gunning down a 12 year old child in cold blood. Someone on this forum should know enough about perception and it's effects on women to also project that same perception knowledge upon public opinion.

Again, you need critical thinking skills.

Originally Posted by Jaylan

Um 17 is not finished puberty. Plus if you knew anything about the body, youd know that the voice ages just like everything else. A males voice is not fully matured until he is mid 20s, and as we go through each decade, our voice deepens even more. Thats why old people sound the way they do...aging vocal chords.

Plenty of 17 year olds have deep voices, and plenty of older men do not. we will have to wait for sound analysis on the shouts for help.

Originally Posted by Jaylan

A teenager will not sound the same as someone in their late 20s. Hell I wasnt growing a legit beard until I was 21. And I didnt settle into my adult voice until I was 20.
Learn to read, I said there was one eyewitness (Zimmerman) to the INITIAL CONTACT. Theres only one person who can tell us how the fight STARTED.

Learn to write, it was written poorly enough that it is easy to surmise you are giving conflicting stories.

Originally Posted by Jaylan

Apparently you arent following the case enough. http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...trayvon-martin

Not trying to help Trayvon does not mean he is guilty of racial profiling, or that he was not defending himself. Have you ever even been in a fight? For you life even?

Originally Posted by Jaylan

This case is not about the black panthers. You people really need to stop trying to deflect attention elsewhere. The FBI has decided not to bother with the KKK or the Black Panthers...so stick to the facts of this case. This isnt about what benefits blacks or not, this is about someone being killed and justice not being served. Dont compare this tragedy to the misguided racists that are the New Black Panthers. Dont come this story to that of some stupid bounty.

This case is about someone not even being arrested. That is one of the Public rallying points. Arrest the man! Well, where's the outrage on a murder contract? Where's the arrest for such a thing?

You cannot have it both ways where we arrrest someone because of a public outcry based on a media circus of lies, yet we turn our heads when a racist Panther Party puts out a murder contract.

We don't know if a crime was committed in the first case, but we sure as hell know that murder contracts are illegal. Where's the outrage? Where's the arrests for that?

Originally Posted by Jaylan

NBC are douche bags for that, but its not like Ive never seen Fox News pull the same crap. The media tries to sway people all the time. Its an expected reality.

Yes but Fox news is not editing audio footage related to this case. Aren't we supposed to stay on this case like you suggested above? Who the fvk cares what fox news does that is not related to this?

Bottom line is the media is creating, fueling and perpetuating the drama by making it appear racist. And too many people are too stupid to use critical thinking skills and buying into it. Yet I am the one who isn't reading between the lines???? Horse-$hit.

Originally Posted by Jaylan

Again, just because non credible claims exist, does not mean there arent many credible claims. Sean Bell, Amadou Diallo, DJ Henry, Johnny Gammage etc. And no one ever served time in those cases. All dead black men who were profiled and killed. When that stops happening, than Al and Jesse will shut up.

They will never shut up, their money is made from the victimization of blacks. Their lack of apologies regarding Duke speaks volumes of their true agenda.

And I agree that there are plenty of credible claims, but as long as you have the Sharptons and Jackson's of the world inciting hatred and racism, proper attention will not be given to those who have truly been denied justice. Those two men are destroying your credibility.

Originally Posted by Jaylan

The racial slur, his 911 reporting records, and his blatant disregard for the boys life seems like enough.
Debunked? Really? Because plenty of people seem to still feel they heard him use a racial slur. Just because a few folks dont agree with some of the evidence against Zimmerman, does not mean it doesnt exist. Hell, the lead investigator didnt buy his story and wanted to press charges originally, so what does that tell you. Hes not stupid...its his job to do these things.

Again, listen to the link on the racial slur, he said "COLD". I don't deny evidence. Not sure where you are getting that. And he did arrest him until the prosecutor said he couldn't make the case. Now that could be corruption, but it also might not be. Investigators are not lawyers. But neither of that proves Zimmerman innocent or guilty.

Originally Posted by Jaylan

Again, Zimmerman, the man whos looking at jail time, is the only one who can vouch for his claims. If he gets off scott free, it makes it possible for anyone to just carry a gun, incite a confrontation, kill a person, and then claim self defense due to a lack of credible witness. I dont think law makers are trying to set that precedent.
But there is a witness who claims they saw him on top of Martin....so we shall see what happens when this goes to trial. Indictment hearing is in a few days though. Cant wait.

And if it's found that Zimmerman's story is accurate? Will you buy that? Or will you claim corruption or some other foul?

Originally Posted by Jaylan

He chose his actions. He made his bed. Sucks for him. I dont have sympathy for someone who recklessly takes a life when he could have avoided all this by listening to the 911 dispatcher and simply leaving an innocent kid alone.

Again, how do you know he is innocent? How do you know he didn't assault Zimmerman?

Originally Posted by Jaylan

No, he had to be Quick Draw Mcgraw and do things his own way instead of waiting for police to arrive.

Thats the first time I heard anyone say "cold". Again, many, if not most people, feel he used a racial slur. But hear what youd like.

Many people, in fact most people, haven't heard the audio provided by CNN, they only heard things like what NBC put up (the fake edit they did).

Are you saying that you listened to the CNN video tape and you still think it was a slur?

According to his statement, he did head back to his car only to be attacke by Trayvon during his walk back. But I suppose you don't believe that either?

[Who Dares Win]

And people get surprised when an uninformed mob of people side with a particular part during a fist fight for no apparent reason than sterotypes.

The same things is happening in this forum that should teach first of all,to think and doubt of what dogmatic said even before than getting girls.
Seriously it seems someone already decided what to vote even before the trial and the show of the evidence.

[Jaylan]

Originally Posted by Danger

The area had a large number of break-ins recently and he was an unknown in the neighborhood. Is that so hard for you to grasp?

How is he an unknown? His dad lives there and it wasnt his first time visiting. Why did the guy have to bother someone who was simply walking home minded his own business? Since when is walking suspicious. People have freaking visitors all the time.

I dont notice every single person that visits my community, but I know people have visitors come see them...whats the problem with that.

If Zimmerman was the assaulter then yes Trayvon has the right to defend himself. But you seem to have already decided it was all Zimmerman on the assault, and what evidence do you have for this?

If Zimmerman intended to shoot Trayvon, why would he call the police before hand?

If Zimmerman could manhandle Trayvon, why would he need to shoot him?

Again, use that brain of yours and ask some tough questions on the logistics of how things went down.

You are not understanding what I have been saying. Lets disregard who threw the first punch. The DA can build a case that says Martin was in fear for his safety and lashed out due to Zimmermans behavior. Fight or flight right? A lot of people would be ready to brawl if someone talked them from a car and then began to chase them on foot. I know for me, Id be on edge if a car followed me and then someone got out of the car and chased me...Id be ready for a fight because Id assume the person was looking for trouble.

Next, I never said Zimmerman intended to shoot the kid. If I felt that way, then Id be arguing first degree murder, since that requires premeditated intent. I simply think he profiled the kid, and then things went awry. And we dont know the facts of the fight, so we have no idea as of yet the truth behind why Martin was shot. Theres several possibilities.

I agree, and I'm smart enough to know it could go either way, but I have some questions regarding the lynch mob's perspective on things, it simply doesn't make sense to say that Zimmerman assaulted and killed Trayvon.

We dont know that he didnt assault Martin. I remember arguing with people about the Danziger Bridge case from a few years ago. Some folks were so sure that the cops were telling the truth when they said the people they shot had guns and were firing upon them. Well the verdict came down this month and it was found out they lied, and planned a cover up, and they all got jail time.

So a lot of things could have happened in this case, and we cannot simply go by Zimmermans account of things. We will find out what happened in more time though. The guy has a history of getting off scott free due to his fathers connections. Thats the only way one could explain him not getting in trouble for assaulting an officer. Cops and the DA dont let just anyone get away with that.

Zimmerman appears to be fat in the photo's I have seen, but if you have other evidence, feel free to link it.

Omg...dude...simply google the surveillance footage of his at the police house. Hes not fat. Dont be lazy.

I would bet money though that a 17 year old football player is in much better shape than Zimmerman.

In boxing, height is an advantage, in wrestling, weight is, assuming all things equal. I highly doubt all things were equal between a 17 year old football player and a 28 year old fat guy.

Hes a skinny high school athlete. Hes not an elite. At 6'3, 140 to 150 pounds is not great shape. Hes very underweight for his size and Id throw a block on Martin like nobodys business if I met him on the football field.

Again, Zimmerman is not fat. Those photos of him that first went around are from like 5 years ago. And they werent boxing, so height didnt play a roll in their scuffle.

It has everything to do with the case. Perception creates reality and the media gives the perception of a 28 year old man gunning down a 12 year old child in cold blood. Someone on this forum should know enough about perception and it's effects on women to also project that same perception knowledge upon public opinion.

I dont care if the kid was a drug addict lead singer of a rock band and beat women...I dont care if he was in a silly teenage street crew and gambled dice and smoked weeed all day....On the night of his death he was an innocent boy walking home from the store looking forward to watching the end of the NBA all star game. What matters is what he was doing that night...and it was nothing criminal.

Again, you need critical thinking skills.

Take your own advice buddy.

Plenty of 17 year olds have deep voices, and plenty of older men do not. we will have to wait for sound analysis on the shouts for help.

And we have heard Zimmerman speak. His voice does not sound like a boys, and many, many people hear a boy screaming on the 911 tapes. 2 audio experts have already ruled him out as being the screaming voice...look up those stories.

Though Id love to see who they bring in to test the voice at the trial. Hopefully someone tied to the FBI to give more credibility to the process so people cant deny what they are told.

Learn to write, it was written poorly enough that it is easy to surmise you are giving conflicting stories.

Actually, you really need to learn to read with comprehension. I used the phrase "initial contact" in my previous post. Its not my fault you skipped over it, or simply did not acknowledge its meaning.

Not trying to help Trayvon does not mean he is guilty of racial profiling, or that he was not defending himself. Have you ever even been in a fight? For you life even?

Actually it helps builds a manslaughter case. After shooting the boy who laid there defenseless on the ground, theres no reason to hold him down while applying pressure onto his injured body. Showing "depraved indifference" definitely could add to the DAs potential Negligent Homicide charge.

This case is about someone not even being arrested. That is one of the Public rallying points. Arrest the man! Well, where's the outrage on a murder contract? Where's the arrest for such a thing?

You cannot have it both ways where we arrrest someone because of a public outcry based on a media circus of lies, yet we turn our heads when a racist Panther Party puts out a murder contract.

Again, the Panthers have nothing to do with this case. People arent arrested for things all the time. We arent going to sit here and complain about all the people not being arrested for certain things...we are going to focus on this case, because THIS CASE is the topic.

No ones focused on the Panthers because no one cares about them. They dont deserve attention. Racists dont deserve attention. The Klan still had rallies and crap, and they still recruit people and say dumb crap...but no one cares about idiots and dont give them the time of day. I could easily drum up all the new White nationalist bullcrap thats sprung up since the Martin case got big...but its a waste of time and has nothing directly to do with this case. So lets move on shall we.

We don't know if a crime was committed in the first case, but we sure as hell know that murder contracts are illegal. Where's the outrage? Where's the arrests for that?

Im sure the FBI is on that just like they were following the original panthers back in the day. The thing here is that grown ups arent going to give immature racist children, like the KKK or the Panthers, any sort of reaction so they can feel good about themselves. Several people in the media have acknowledge how dumb they are. And thats that....no reason to keep them in the news.

[Jaylan]

Yes but Fox news is not editing audio footage related to this case. Aren't we supposed to stay on this case like you suggested above? Who the fvk cares what fox news does that is not related to this?

I really dont care what fox news does with this case. I am merely acknowledging that all media outlets do this all the damn time...and its a fact of life.

Bottom line is the media is creating, fueling and perpetuating the drama by making it appear racist. And too many people are too stupid to use critical thinking skills and buying into it. Yet I am the one who isn't reading between the lines???? Horse-$hit.

They do it all the time. Wait until the November elections. More media sh*t stirring to come. You dont know for sure that race didnt play a role in this case. But Id say its silly to not even think theres a possibility of a racial component in this case. It could be, it might not be, but its dumb to think there no possibility of it.

They will never shut up, their money is made from the victimization of blacks. Their lack of apologies regarding Duke speaks volumes of their true agenda.

And I agree that there are plenty of credible claims, but as long as you have the Sharptons and Jackson's of the world inciting hatred and racism, proper attention will not be given to those who have truly been denied justice. Those two men are destroying your credibility.

Since you are not someone of the black community, you couldnt understand some of the good Al and Jesse do for our community. With the good does come the bad. But I acknowledge both parts. I also understand that without Al, this case would have never got the much needed attention it deserved. Because it seemed like the Sanford PD were intent on sweeping this under the rug.

Again, listen to the link on the racial slur, he said "COLD". I don't deny evidence. Not sure where you are getting that. And he did arrest him until the prosecutor said he couldn't make the case. Now that could be corruption, but it also might not be. Investigators are not lawyers. But neither of that proves Zimmerman innocent or guilty.

Zimmerman was never arrested. Theres a difference between being placed under arrest and being detained.

And I still dont hear cold in that link.

And if it's found that Zimmerman's story is accurate? Will you buy that? Or will you claim corruption or some other foul?

I will eat crow and eat my hat all in one sitting. Not because I agree with the verdict, but because Id be that surprised that he actually got off lol

Again, how do you know he is innocent? How do you know he didn't assault Zimmerman?

Read my post above. The boy was bothering nobody and was on his way home to watch a basketball game. He broke no laws. Zimmerman instigated this whole mess...so based on all of that, I feel an innocent citizen was harassed, provoked, and killed that night.

Many people, in fact most people, haven't heard the audio provided by CNN, they only heard things like what NBC put up (the fake edit they did).

Are you saying that you listened to the CNN video tape and you still think it was a slur?

Actually plenty of people have heard the CNN version. And still many people feel they hear a slur. CNNs staff doesnt all agree themselves.

According to his statement, he did head back to his car only to be attacke by Trayvon during his walk back. But I suppose you don't believe that either?

Again, in any case where someone kills a person, the killers story has to be taken with a grain of salt if they are trying to avoid jailtime.

[Danger]

Jaylan,

You cannot disregard who threw the first punch, because that is when assault begins, that is when the law is broken.

It is clear to me at this point that you have too much "skin in the game" to make an objective judgement. I have read everythign I can on the subject.

Personally, I don't care which side "wins out" AS LONG AS JUSTICE IS SERVED. I have too many questions regarding the "victim" card played by Trayvon. But I absolutely concede that there is conflicting testimony regarding what was seen after the incident.

At this point,

1. I am tired of being lied to and manipulated by the media.
2. I am tired of the racism evident by the likes of jackson, sharpton, obama.
3. I am tired of being told that I am somehow privileged because I am white.
4. I am tired of being told that minorities (including women) have it hard and that it's somehow my fault.
5. I am tired of the hypocrisy delivered to me at the hands of the above mentioned perpetrators.
6. I will continue to call out the media on their lying manipulative tactics.
7. I will continue to question events as more evidence comes out.

Whoever was the assaulter, in my mind, is the one who should pay the price. Race does not matter.

If Zimmerman assaulted Trayvon, then yes he deserves prison, and the electric chair.

If Trayvon was the assaulter, then he deserved what he got.

If people are going to b1tch about it, then don't fvking assault people and for god's sake, don't support the assault of people. Self defense and stand your ground only exist when you are already under assault.

I'm sure in your mind Zimmerman stalked, tackled, beat and shot the kid. It certainly seems that from your posts. To me, the most likely unfolding of events is the following...

1. Zimmerman follows a suspect.
2. Trayvon flees, but then confronts Zimmerman.
3. Trayvon assaults Zimmerman.
4. Zimmerman shoots Trayvon.

It seems the highest probability scenario based on everything I have read and from critical thinking on the encounter, but it could have been different. Time will tell.

[Bible_Belt]

The difference with the stand your ground law is that it authorizes deadly force. It does so if you feel that you are going to be somewhat harmed. A belief that you are going to die is not required. It even lets you kill somebody for committing a property crime, which is another first in the half-millenia history of the law. (unless Texas beat Florida to it)

Prior to stand your ground, you could not commit violence to stop a property crime. You were also held to the old self-defense standard of only being able to retaliate with the same level of force used against you. You couldn't shoot a guy yelling or even swinging at you. Under that old standard, Zimmerman would have needed to have had his head being pounded against pavement severely in order to justify the killing.

Originally Posted by Quiksilver

I'm not exactly sure at all how to defend myself from a firearm. I dont wear ballistic vest around town.

I suppose the only tactic I really have it just to close the distance and tie up the gun hand, and at some point in the scuffle draw my knife and target the throat/eyes. Grisly work for sure, not something I really want to think about.

What sort of training would be effective to learn counter-firearm techniques?

Close the distance, yes, which is the hardest part, but criminals typically haven't been trained to handle a firearm, so it's not impossible. An mma fighter in Chicago last month took away a mugger's gun and beat him with it. Once you get tied up, it is a specialized sort of grappling in that the other guy wins as soon as he can get the gun pointed at you. It's common in training to do things like practice grappling without using one arm. It makes you better if you can force yourself to work with less, and in the case of a gun, you have to use one hand just to keep the gun pointed away from you.

People think weapons change fighting a lot more than they really do. We have a tendency to obsess over the weapon and fixate on it, both offensively and defensively. Holding a knife in your hand is the easiest way to kick someone in the nuts, because all they can see is the knife. Offensively, people tend to think that as long as they're holding a gun, they're invincible. So they have a loose grip on the weapon, a poor stance, cross their feet when moving, turn away from their target instead of directly facing, and do basically everything wrong, thinking it doesn't matter because anyone with a gun is invincible.

My girlfriend's ex is a Federal Marshall. He does swat raids and tactical stuff all the time. If he tried to mug me on the street with a gun, I know that I wouldn't have a chance. That's due to his extensive training in how to use that gun on people. But I suspect the next mugger I meet will not be a Fed cop, but instead more like a strung-out, jonesing junkie. Even if he has the same gun, and in my mind at least, he's the one with no chance in that encounter. The difference is the bearer of the weapon. That's why a gun with no training is false security.

[SoldMySoul]

Interesting debate going on. What some fail to see it is how you articuale what happened. I have roughly 10 years experience law enforcement. If you can articulate why you did it, you may be able to beat it. Beat the rap, not the ride. 17 year old 6 foot 3 is grown enough most states to hurt u badly, kill you and go to jail. The damn media keeps showing a pic of a kid. This is not a kid anymore...while his body may almost grown, mind not quite there. Fbi terms the phrase exigent circumstance. If zimmerman story is true, he was legally justified. Did travoyn have a weapon? Did he? If you answered no, you are wrong. If zim was beaten any further...travoyn had his, zim's weapon. As danger eluded toto height is advantage, in open area. If in small space, no. I have wrestled with plenty of smaller and attitude and will makes up for size. Btw, intetesting to note...news media totally hacked and edited 911 call. Original call was dispatch asking what color travoyn was....not at all zim saying a black from go. Just mt opinion, travoyn is 6 foot under because he beat a guy down. I bet facts will show travoyn was aggressor. Damn media should be ashamed of race baiting. Tragic yes, common place with young thug. Yes! My take may not be worth a dime, but my two cents.

[Jaylan]

^Thats if Zimmermans story about getting beat up is true. I and many others dont buy it since the screams on the 911 tapes sound like a boy to us.

But time will tell in court.

[Bible_Belt]

Using "shaken baby syndrome" as a defense is indeed some creative lawyering. I never would have thought of that one.

"Shaken Baby Syndrome" used in defense of Trayvon Martin's killer

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sns-rt...,7043281.story

[d!ckmojo]

In that article, his lawyer says:

"He didn't commit any crime," Unrig said on CBS. "He was
attacked, broke his nose, hit his head into the ground and he
defended himself. That's not against the law."

Well, that's the crux of the issue. Even you Jaylan have to admit that if what Zimmerman claims is true, then he has no case to answer for under the law.

Whether or not you or I agree with the law is another matter. I tend to think that common law is usually fine adequate in most cases, and this 'Stand Your Ground' Law might be taking things a bit too far if you ask me.

But that's not the issue right now, the issue is, should Zimmerman go to jail. And the answer is, no; not unless there is solid evidence that he was not acting in self defense. Circumstantial or speculative evidence will not do, only solid proof can successfully prosecute Zimmerman now.

[Jaylan]

Beyond a *reasonable* doubt is different from proving something beyond all possible doubt.

People get convicted by juries based on circumstantial evidence all the time. Where have you been?

[TyTe`EyEz]

Originally Posted by Bible_Belt

The difference with the stand your ground law is that it authorizes deadly force. It does so if you feel that you are going to be somewhat harmed.

From the Florida statute:

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;

Again, I think you are exaggerating a bit.

Originally Posted by Bible_Belt

A belief that you are going to die is not required. It even lets you kill somebody for committing a property crime, which is another first in the half-millenia history of the law. (unless Texas beat Florida to it)

Not sure where you found that, but it wasn't in a Florida law book. The Florida statute says nothing about killing a person for property crimes; it mentions "forcible felonies." Florida defines a forcible felony as a "felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual." LINK

Originally Posted by Bible_Belt

Prior to stand your ground, you could not commit violence to stop a property crime. You were also held to the old self-defense standard of only being able to retaliate with the same level of force used against you. You couldn't shoot a guy yelling or even swinging at you. Under that old standard, Zimmerman would have needed to have had his head being pounded against pavement severely in order to justify the killing.

In order to use deadly force in the state of Florida, you have to be able to prove that you were in fear for your life or great bodily harm. The meaning of "great bodily harm" varies from court to court, but I'm positive that yelling and being "somewhat harmed" would not qualify. Again, I'm speaking of Florida here; Texas may be different.