Protesters rally over Florida teen's death, demand arrest

[Gravis Marketing]

It's probably really tough to see me post about Allen West and think it's anything but an attack.

[Communists For McCain]

It's probably really tough to see me post about Allen West and think it's anything but an attack.

Actually, on second look it makes a lot more sense now.

What I got from it (second time around) was "Republicans you don't have to defend that guy.  Look at Allen West for crying out loud."

[Gravis Marketing]

It was Sam's comment about how their must be money at stake for Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to get involved. Sometimes, like when Jackson was crying at Obama's inauguration, the simplest explanation for someone's behavior is the best one. The Trayvon Martin case is horrifying, but for many African Americans it's just a particularly media-friendly incident of a reality that rarely gets attention.

[Sam Spade]

It was Sam's comment about how their must be money at stake for Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to get involved. Sometimes, like when Jackson was crying at Obama's inauguration, the simplest explanation for someone's behavior is the best one. The Trayvon Martin case is horrifying, but for many African Americans it's just a particularly media-friendly incident of a reality that rarely gets attention.

I happen to know Al Sharpton, and I wouldn't be saying that if it weren't true.  Perhaps it was not fair to put Jesse Jackson in the same sentence, as I don't know him personally. 

As for me, I will defend 'innocent until proven guilty' in all cases.  Those who are convicting him right now without knowledge of all facts are completely wrong, regardless of whether they are black, white, Republican, Democratic, race-hustlers, baiters, master debaters or otherwise.

[Gravis Marketing]

As for me, I will defend 'innocent until proven guilty' in all cases.

...unless there's a cover story in the National Enquirer, which constitutes proof of guilt. :p

Anyway, none of our judgment has the force of law - only the courts can convict him of being guilty. We can only make our own judgments from the evidence we have before us and provide our opinions, which carry no weight at all in the real world.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

I was under the impression the cops had questioned Zimmerman more, and then decided they didn't have enough to make an arrest.  But I guess I was wrong in that, so with that being said, I do think the police chief should be removed.

[Ogre Mage]

How could Zimmerman be "standing his ground" in "self-defense" when he went off in pursuit of an unarmed teenager -- a decision which went against both what the 911 dispatcher told him and general neighborhood watch protocol?  In fact, neighborhood watch is not supposed to carry firearms.  This isn't even a case where Zimmerman saw Martin on his property.  He just decided he looked "suspicious" and now the result is a dead unarmed teenager.

The local police failed to perform a real investigation in this case.  They did a drug and alcohol test on the victim but not the shooter.  They let Zimmerman go home with the gun used in the shooting.  This is beyond pathetic.

[jimrtex]

I was under the impression the cops had questioned Zimmerman more, and then decided they didn't have enough to make an arrest.  But I guess I was wrong in that, so with that being said, I do think the police chief should be removed.

He told the police that he had shot Martin, and while they were cuffing him, they noticed his back was wet, and his head was bleeding.  After Sanford fire department attended to his injuries, he was taken to the police station, and questioned.  The police investigation determined that there was not probable cause, and released him.

[jimrtex]

How could Zimmerman be "standing his ground" in "self-defense" when he went off in pursuit of an unarmed teenager -- a decision which went against both what the 911 dispatcher told him and general neighborhood watch protocol?  In fact, neighborhood watch is not supposed to carry firearms.  This isn't even a case where Zimmerman saw Martin on his property.  He just decided he looked "suspicious" and now the result is a dead unarmed teenager.

He was not on a neighborhood watch, he was in his car when he saw Martin and called the police.  He had a CHL, and if you are going to carry, it makes sense to always carry.

He did not pursue Martin.  After Martin started running, he apparently was driving along a street, and the dispatcher asked if he were following Martin.  He said yes, the dispatcher said that "we don't need you to do that", to which Zimmerman responded "OK".

The phone call lasted another 1-1/2 minutes.  So either Zimmerman had stopped; the dispatcher thought he had stopped; or the dispatcher thought it wasn't that important.

He later got out of his car.

The local police failed to perform a real investigation in this case.  They did a drug and alcohol test on the victim but not the shooter.  They let Zimmerman go home with the gun used in the shooting.  This is beyond pathetic.

They did an autopsy on the victim, as they do in all cases.   After they took Zimmerman to the police station for questioning, he was released (one of the complaints was that a narcotics and alcohol investigator questioned Zimmerman, but the major crimes investigator was at the location of the shooting.

The police kept the gun as evidence.

[So the Heroes Fall]

I just looked up where Sanford is and I'm quite surprised. Why does an outer exurb of Orlando have such a high black population?

[BigSkyBob]

Considering that Zimmerman was the one who engaged him it doesn't matter, if the kid fought back it was self-defense on HIS part.

It matters who touched whom first, not who "engaged" whom first.  The Stand your ground law might have allowed Martin a defense for beating Zimmerman, but, that is a moot point now.

[Gravis Marketing]

I just looked up where Sanford is and I'm quite surprised. Why does an outer exurb of Orlando have such a high black population?

It was a city of regional importance before the Mouse arrived and Orlando boomed. It incorporates several historic Black settlements.

[BigSkyBob]

Of course Zimmerman is going to say he was attacked, it serves his defense. I find it difficult to believe that someone with a gun is going to be screaming for help from someone who is smaller than they are. And he did get out of his car when emergency advised him not to. At any rate, the FBI and DOJ are said to be looking into this, so thank god that Zimmerman isn't just being given a free pass.

Is this any more reasonable than assuming that a physically larger man initiated a beatdown in which he prevailed, but, somehow had a broken nose, then, while sucessfully beating him down decided to shoot him for the Hell of it. Then, after shooting him, he calls out to witnesses to call the police.

[BigSkyBob]

Once again, Zimmerman, by every account, came up, unprovoked in any way, to Martin and initiated the altercation.

No, by all accounts Zimmerman left his car and approached Martin. Zimmerman may very well have initiated a conversation. Whom initiated the "altercation" is a key fact in dispute in this case.

[BigSkyBob]

He doesn't clearly say "f**king coons".  He is clearly a douche and like I said before, he probably murdered this kid for no good reason.  But we need proof of guilt for a conviction in this country, not just a dead kid and an asshat holding a smoking a gun.

even  the guy who wrote the "stand your ground" law says that the 911 call provides probable cause for an arrest. He said the law does not give you the right to pursue someone and then find yourself in a situation where you can then claim self-defense.

The scandal here is the local PD. They didn't even bother to check the kid's cellphone to notify his family logging him as a John Doe. And amazingly the kid's body was tested for drugs and alchohol but the shooter wasn't. They even let him keep his loaded gun. If this didn't become a news item, this whole thing would have just gone away and this guy would have got away with murder.

That may have been the intent of the law when he wrote it, but it's not written in the law.  The law says:

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

The law never says that if you pursue a suspicious person and then have to defend yourself that the justification doesn't apply.

It SHOULD say that, but it doesn't.  If the law isn't rewritten as a result of this, I'd be surprised.

I'm not saying the guy won't be found guilty - I'm just saying that there's a decent chance that he won't be found guilty.

After reviewing the Florida law I really doubt it applies here.

The section of 776.012 that you quoted doesn't apply because, with the victim being quite obviously unarmed, any belief Zimmerman might have had that the use of deadly force was required to defend himself was utterly unreasonable.

His broken nose suggests otherwise.

[asexual trans victimologist]

any belief Zimmerman might have had that the use of deadly force was required to defend himself was utterly unreasonable.

His broken nose suggests otherwise.
[/quote]

Shooting someone fatally in the chest is a reasonable response to a broken nose? What the Hell planet are these people living on?

[Sibboleth]

Shooting someone fatally in the chest is a reasonable response to a broken nose? What the Hell planet are these people living on?

Florida.

[BigSkyBob]

any belief Zimmerman might have had that the use of deadly force was required to defend himself was utterly unreasonable.

His broken nose suggests otherwise.

Shooting someone fatally in the chest is a reasonable response to a broken nose? What the Hell planet are these people living on?
[/quote]

Are you suggesting someone shoot in the chest broke his nose?

[asexual trans victimologist]

Parse error, the question you are asking makes no sense.

[jimrtex]

Shooting someone fatally in the chest is a reasonable response to a broken nose?

What if he is pounding your head into the cement?

If you are going to shoot someone in self defense, better the chest at close range, rather than the back at 50 feet, don't you think.

[Gravis Marketing]

Shooting someone fatally in the chest is a reasonable response to a broken nose?

What if he is pounding your head into the cement?

If you are going to shoot someone in self defense, better the chest at close range, rather than the back at 50 feet, don't you think.

I love how everyone is treating this as an abstract case.

[BigSkyBob]

any belief Zimmerman might have had that the use of deadly force was required to defend himself was utterly unreasonable.

His broken nose suggests otherwise.

Shooting someone fatally in the chest is a reasonable response to a broken nose? What the Hell planet are these people living on?
[/quote]

If someone is beating you sufficiently hard to break your nose, that would constitute a basis for a reasonable fear of great bodily harm, which is a criteria for self-defense.

[Paul Kemp]

I really have no idea how any one can make a strong case for either side. Who knows? We weren't there. It's pretty much all one word v. another.

That being said, shooting someone is completely overboard for this situation.

[asexual trans victimologist]

If someone is beating you sufficiently hard to break your nose, that would constitute a basis for a reasonable fear of great bodily harm, which is a criteria for self-defense.

Have you ever had your nose broken? It doesn't take a whole hell of a lot of force unless you have ridiculously tough cartilage.

Or are you saying I would have been justified in shooting dead (as opposed to shooting to incapacitate) that one bully who threw me a haymaker in the seventh grade?

[BigSkyBob]

If someone is beating you sufficiently hard to break your nose, that would constitute a basis for a reasonable fear of great bodily harm, which is a criteria for self-defense.

Have you ever had your nose broken? It doesn't take a whole hell of a lot of force unless you have ridiculously tough cartilage.

Or are you saying I would have been justified in shooting dead (as opposed to shooting to incapacitate) that one bully who threw me a haymaker in the seventh grade?

Generally, we don't issue concealed carry permits to seventh graders, or, allow them to carry weapons, so your question makes no sense.