Trayvon Martin case to go to grand jury, Fla. state attorney announces

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by flounder

...even if Martin attacked first, Zimmerman would still have a duty to retreat, meaning that "Stand Your Ground" wouldn't apply...

...which is why I said that if Martin was on top, then it sure does appear to apply.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

F.S. 776.013

I've been told that this is likely the key part"

That's why I am saying that it looks like that if Martin threw the first punch and Martin really was winning the fight, none of the other exclusions seem to apply here since the dispatcher can't give a lawful order not to follow. I don't *like* it, but I can't seem to get past it. If I were on a jury and believed that Martin was on top when he got shot, I'd have to acquit since there's probably no way to disprove Zimmerman's claim that Martin hit him first. (reasonable doubt and all that...)

I could see that as a possibility of happening. It doesn't 'seem' right, but, they don't often write laws that most lay persons can read and interpret without specialized schooling. I think it will also depend on what other evidence comes to light.

After I read that section, I think it applies to Martin more than it does to Zimmerman. Assuming that Martin did only have some Skittles and some tea and that Zimmerman came at him with his gun. Martin is visiting with his dad, so he has the right to be there. To me, this looks worse for Zimmerman and if Zimmerman didn't know Martin had the right to be there, as a responsible Neighborhood Watch person, he should have confirmed this instead of assuming that Martin was up to no good. Regardless if Martin was a jerk about it and refused to tell him. If that is what happened.

If Zimmerman could not confirm why Martin was there, again, a responsible Neighborhood Watch person would have kept an eye on Martin and waited for the cops to get there. Also, as a wannabe cop and has a judge for a father, Zimmerman should KNOW that you could possibly get your butt kicked by just about anyone and never assume that you can 'take him down' because you're bigger than him or carrying a gun. You have an advantage, but, as others have said, if that smaller guy is quicker or well trained, things can go south for you real quick.

I'm making a lot of assumptions here, but, I think they are pretty reasonable.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

I could see that as a possibility of happening. It doesn't 'seem' right, but, they don't often write laws that most lay persons can read and interpret without specialized schooling. I think it will also depend on what other evidence comes to light.

After I read that section, I think it applies to Martin more than it does to Zimmerman. Assuming that Martin did only have some Skittles and some tea and that Zimmerman came at him with his gun. Martin is visiting with his dad, so he has the right to be there. To me, this looks worse for Zimmerman and if Zimmerman didn't know Martin had the right to be there, as a responsible Neighborhood Watch person, he should have confirmed this instead of assuming that Martin was up to no good. Regardless if Martin was a jerk about it and refused to tell him. If that is what happened.

If Zimmerman could not confirm why Martin was there, again, a responsible Neighborhood Watch person would have kept an eye on Martin and waited for the cops to get there. Also, as a wannabe cop and has a judge for a father, Zimmerman should KNOW that you could possibly get your butt kicked by just about anyone and never assume that you can 'take him down' because you're bigger than him or carrying a gun. You have an advantage, but, as others have said, if that smaller guy is quicker or well trained, things can go south for you real quick.

I'm making a lot of assumptions here, but, I think they are pretty reasonable.

That brings up an interesting question: is it legally possible that both of them were acting in self defense within a few moments of one another?

Track with me...

Martin notices the dude following him. He has no way of knowing it's a neighborhood watch guy. He's rightfully afraid. When the confrontation ensues, Martin notices something even worse: the dude following him has a gun. He's afraid to turn his back and run and get shot in the back, so he punches Zimmerman...in self defense. His only hope is to incapacitate the guy with the gun, or get the gun away from him. He tries to incapacitate the guy with the gun by slamming Zimmerman's head against the ground, maybe even reaches for the gun. Some accounts say that Zimmerman claimed that Martin tried to get the gun away. Putting myself in Martin's shoes, I can sure buy that. Anyone in their right mind is going to try that--all in self defense.

But at that point, if Martin was slamming Zimmerman's head against the ground and was reaching for the gun, Zimmerman feels his life is in danger, so in self defense, he shoots and kills Martin.

Is that legally possible? Better yet, if Martin doesn't die from the gunshot, is there a scenario here where neither gets charged with anything?

[flounder]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I've been told that this is likely the key part"

That's why I am saying that it looks like that if Martin threw the first punch and Martin really was winning the fight, none of the other exclusions seem to apply here since the dispatcher can't give a lawful order not to follow. I don't *like* it, but I can't seem to get past it. If I were on a jury and believed that Martin was on top when he got shot, I'd have to acquit since there's probably no way to disprove Zimmerman's claim that Martin hit him first. (reasonable doubt and all that...)

I guess it hinges on whether or not Zimmerman is considered to have provoked the attack. I don't know what the legal definition of that is. I would think that Zimmerman confronting Martin would be a provocation meaning that even if Martin attacked first, Zimmerman would still have a duty to retreat and "Stand Your Ground" would not apply. I'm not a lawyer though.

Regardless of all this, there are some issues of fact that need to be settled, and the local sheriff's department obviously closed their investigation way too early. The shooting was a tragedy, but the most disconcerting thing about this is the appearance of a cover-up.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

That brings up an interesting question: is it legally possible that both of them were acting in self defense within a few moments of one another?

Track with me...

Martin notices the dude following him. He has no way of knowing it's a neighborhood watch guy. He's rightfully afraid. When the confrontation ensues, Martin notices something even worse: the dude following him has a gun. He's afraid to turn his back and run and get shot in the back, so he punches Zimmerman...in self defense. His only hope is to incapacitate the guy with the gun, or get the gun away from him. He tries to incapacitate the guy with the gun by slamming Zimmerman's head against the ground, maybe even reaches for the gun. Some accounts say that Zimmerman claimed that Martin tried to get the gun away. Putting myself in Martin's shoes, I can sure buy that. Anyone in their right mind is going to try that--all in self defense.

But at that point, if Martin was slamming Zimmerman's head against the ground and was reaching for the gun, Zimmerman feels his life is in danger, so in self defense, he shoots and kills Martin.

Is that legally possible? Better yet, if Martin doesn't die from the gunshot, is there a scenario here where neither gets charged with anything?

I thought the exact same thing and can totally see that. I think that is another perfectly plausible scenario.

One of the biggest problems I'm wrangling with is: Was it legal for Zimmerman to have that gun? It may be no problem if he was in his house or on his property, but, to go back and get it and then persue Martin, sounds very sketchy to me. If the answer is No, then Stand Your Ground should be moot at that point. I'm not sure if that's how it works legally though.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

If I were on a jury and believed ...

I'm gonna cut off your quote right there intentionally, because it's really all I need to ask my question: What do you figure the odds of finding 12 people who would agree on a verdict are going to be?

(No matter what hypothetical verdict we're talking about, which is why I truncated your question)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

That brings up an interesting question: is it legally possible that both of them were acting in self defense within a few moments of one another?

I don't think so, at least not under the SYG statute cited earlier. What jumps out at me is from section 3 that you highlighted, the part about "... and who is attacked..."

If Zimmerman didn't attack then does SYG even kick in?

Now that may not mean that some other self-defense provision doesn't exist in FL law that would cover it, but seems to me that SYG probably wouldn't.

Better yet, if Martin doesn't die from the gunshot, is there a scenario here where neither gets charged with anything?

Eh, seems more likely that dual assault charges, or disorderly conduct, or something, are filed & then the courts eventually sort it out (most likely with some half-assed plea deal that settles nothing about guilt/innocence)

[flounder]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

If Zimmerman didn't attack then does SYG even kick in?

Now that may not mean that some other self-defense provision doesn't exist in FL law that would cover it, but seems to me that SYG probably wouldn't.

This is my understanding of SYG. In most jurisdictions, people who claim self defense must show that they acted reasonably and that means they attempted to retreat from the fight and only used deadly force when that retreat was impossible. This is the Duty to Retreat.

SYG removes the Duty to Retreat. This is how Florida law is written.

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
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

By my reading, this means that SYG would only apply if A) Martin attacked first without provocation and B) Zimmerman had an opportunity to retreat and did not. We don't know all the facts of what happened (and probably never will know due to the actions of the local PD), but neither of those seem to fit any of the scenarios presented.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm gonna cut off your quote right there intentionally, because it's really all I need to ask my question: What do you figure the odds of finding 12 people who would agree on a verdict are going to be?

(No matter what hypothetical verdict we're talking about, which is why I truncated your question)

Heh. Good question. Based on the national polls I've seen, I'm guessing that if a jury were given the option of murder or a lesser charge, they could get a conviction of Zimmerman on the lesser as a compromise within the jury room.

But if there's only one charge, being debated, I'd say it's doubtful.

[cartman]

Video has been released of Zimmerman being brought in for questioning on the night of the shooting. There doesn't seem to be any evidence of a broken nose or anything on the back of his head to indicate it was repeatedly slammed into the ground.

George Zimmerman on Police Surveillance | Video - ABC News

[TroyF]

Look, I would love for the true evidence to come out and justice to be served. If it means Zimmerman serves life in jail, that's ok by me.

Two things in this thread just kill me:

1) Witnesses. . . blah, blah, blah. Most of them assume Martin was whining because the whining stopped when the shot rang out. If you were Zimmerman and getting your ass handed to you, you would be whining. When you pulled out the gun and fired, you would likely be in pure shock. This is supported by the same witnesses who assumed it was Martin whining.

Zimmerman has a broken nose and the back of his head is cut open. If Martin only has a gunshot injury, I'd bet a lot of money the whining was coming from Zimmerman and he shot because he thought he was going to get killed.

I'm NOT saying what Zimmerman did was right/wrong (I don't have all of the facts of the case, no matter how much the media wants to act as though I do) I'm just saying I find it highly unlikely Martin was whining while he was beating the tar out of Zimmerman. If the facts come out that Martin had other bodily injuries, I'll revise that opinion.

2) Others have hammered the point home before, but I'll add to it. The 100 pound weight difference means garbage. Yes, there are weight classes in boxing and MMA. That's where two people who have immense training get into a ring and fight.

Zimmerman vs. Martin was not in a ring. We have no idea who the better fighter was. Martin was a young, athletic 17 year old kid. Zimmerman may have been in terrific shape despite being overweight or he could have just been an out of shape guy who was a sitting duck for Martin.

If simply having a weight advantage meant everything, Butterball would be a heavyweight champion. The problem is it is not simply about weight. It's about natural strength, how well you take a punch, athleticism, how good of shape you are in, how many fights you've been in. (the biggest sissies in any sport are basketball players. They slap like junior high girls most of the time. They are so big, they rarely had to fight and it shows when they try to throw punches. That's why a Kermit Washington thing is so shocking)

This entire thing is sickening to me. We have a 17 year old dead kid and instead of taking the time to figure out how it happened, most people want to be the judge, jury and executioner because they KNOW what happened and what both parties were thinking.

As it stands, the physical evidence is going to have to add up showing Zimmerman was clearly in the wrong for a criminal conviction. If he says I was walking back to my truck and Martin approached me (then attacked me), there must be evidence to show that wasn't the case. They physical evidence is huge here. If Martin doesn't have bruises or facial injuries, getting through Zimmerman's defense is going to be brutal.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by cartman

Video has been released of Zimmerman being brought in for questioning on the night of the shooting. There doesn't seem to be any evidence of a broken nose or anything on the back of his head to indicate it was repeatedly slammed into the ground.

George Zimmerman on Police Surveillance | Video - ABC News

All of those claims are easily verifiable. The medical crews who arrived would have seen the injuries and logged them. In a self defense case the police would have photographed them as well. We'll know soon enough if those photos exist.

[stevew]

What's like the best case conviction scenario if he's even charged? Some sort of manslaughter variant and he gets 10 years before time served/good behavior?

I have a feeling that isn't going to appease people. Might as well riot now and get it over with.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by stevew

What's like the best case conviction scenario if he's even charged? Some sort of manslaughter variant and he gets 10 years before time served/good behavior?

I have a feeling that isn't going to appease people. Might as well riot now and get it over with.

As I posted a page back, the lead homicide investigator didn't buy Zimmerman's story and wanted him charged with manslaughter. If that would have happened, I don't think anyone outside of the immediate area would have heard anything about this. Now, no matter what the outcome is, there are going to be huge groups pissed off.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by TroyF

All of those claims are easily verifiable. The medical crews who arrived would have seen the injuries and logged them. In a self defense case the police would have photographed them as well. We'll know soon enough if those photos exist.

He didn't go to the hospital that night. Not sure what medical report you'd want. Also, the "bloody nose" and wet t-shirt wasn't in the initial police report.

Sanford police chief under fire amid Trayvon Martin case - Trayvon Martin - MiamiHerald.com

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by stevew

What's like the best case conviction scenario if he's even charged? Some sort of manslaughter variant and he gets 10 years before time served/good behavior?

I have a feeling that isn't going to appease people. Might as well riot now and get it over with.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think for first degree they would have to prove Zimmerman intended to kill Martin and that's why he was stalking him OR prove that Zimmerman killed Martin while he committed a felony.

2nd degree would be "in the heat of passion" type of stuff. Not planned, but a reckless disregard for human life. In Florida that means a minimum 25 years if a firearm was used in the killing.

3rd degree is usually DUI or parent/child negligence. In Florida, that's 15 years.

Manslaughter would be the next one down. In Florida a minimum of 9 1/4 years up to 15. My guess is with good behavior, that would drop down to 6 or 7? Just a guess.

I think they'd have to hope for 2nd degree, but that would involve a lot of physical evidence.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

He didn't go to the hospital that night. Not sure what medical report you'd want. Also, the "bloody nose" and wet t-shirt wasn't in the initial police report.

Sanford police chief under fire amid Trayvon Martin case - Trayvon Martin - MiamiHerald.com

rainmaker,

I think I clearly stated what I'd want. Are there pictures or not? It's not a complicated thing. Either he was treated at the scene that it's documented, he was photographed by police showcasing his injuries or he wasn't.

If he wasn't, his claims won't hold up. If they don't hold up and that's how he tries to make his case, it crumbles and he goes to jail for a long time.

I'm not on Zimmerman's side. . . I'm just not going to convict him before he has his trial. Sorry if that offends you.

[cartman]

That video from the PD sure doesn't seem to support the injury claims. He has a shaved head, and there isn't even evidence of a razor nick, much less anything that could be described as cut open.

[RainMaker]

I'm not arguing with you or offended. You had mentioned the medical crew and I was just pointing out that the reports say he didn't seek medical attention that night and nothing was in the initial report about injuries. Just saying that I don't think the things you are looking for exist.

If there were pictures that showed these damages, I'd imagine they would have been released to quell the outrage.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by cartman

That video from the PD sure doesn't seem to support the injury claims. He has a shaved head, and there isn't even evidence of a razor nick, much less anything that could be described as cut open.

Just watched the video. Not only can I not see a single mark on his head or face, he doesn't look all that out of shape either.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm not arguing with you or offended. You had mentioned the medical crew and I was just pointing out that the reports say he didn't seek medical attention that night and nothing was in the initial report about injuries. Just saying that I don't think the things you are looking for exist.

If there were pictures that showed these damages, I'd imagine they would have been released to quell the outrage.

I've read multiple reports that said he was treated on site for injuries to the head and face.

If he was treated, it's not difficult to find out. Simply ask the police who arrived on scene, the EMP's on site and the rest of it. I've read in one or two articles he went to get medical help the next day for injuries. Again, this is either documented or it isn't.

The police footage looks bad for him though, that's for sure.

[larrymcg421]

If he had these injuries and they weren't in the initial police report, then whoever logged that report or had anything to do with it should be fired immediately. That is incompetence of the highest order.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

...which is why I said that if Martin was on top, then it sure does appear to apply.

Tell that to Zimmerman's lawyer.

Zimmerman’s lawyer: ‘Stand your ground’ doesn’t apply in Trayvon Martin case | WTVR.com – Richmond News & Weather from WTVR Television CBS 6

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Tell that to Zimmerman's lawyer.

Zimmerman’s lawyer: ‘Stand your ground’ doesn’t apply in Trayvon Martin case | WTVR.com – Richmond News & Weather from WTVR Television CBS 6

I already did.

BEFORE TALKING WITH OL' SKYDOG (3/24, your link): Zimmerman’s lawyer: ‘Stand your ground’ doesn’t apply in Trayvon Martin case | WTVR.com – Richmond News & Weather from WTVR Television CBS 6

AFTER TALKING WITH OL' SKYDOG (3/26): Attorney Says Zimmerman Will Use 'Stand Your Ground'*Defense - National News - ABC News Radio




But seriously, this is the bottom line, and why I've used a lot of "appear" and "likely" and "may" type words to qualify my statements here.

http://staugustine.com/news/local-ne...r#.T3QhZNXd1ik

Read that article, and it's more what I've been saying: the sponsors of the bill saying "NO NO NO NO NO IT DOES NOT APPLY"...but others--both supporters and detractors--acknowledging that the law isn't clear. IIRC, there's a case in Florida under consideration right now where two guys were in a fistfight, only one had a gun, and the dude with the gun shot and killed. The judge is hearing a petition to drop all charges under Stand Your Ground.

"Justifiable homicide" situations have increased threefold since the law went into effect. A few more tidbits from this article...

...the law has also been used to excuse killings in bar brawls, gang shootouts and road-rage incidents. ...

The problem that often hamstrings police and prosecutors is that there are often no witnesses. Two people meet in the dark, one of them kills the other, and the narrative of what happened solely belongs to the person interested in staying out of jail, the analysis shows.



When Arthur Hayhoe, executive director of the Florida Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, heard about the Martin case, "I went to my files and yanked out all the ones like it," he said. "I found 15."



Among them was a 2010 incident in Town 'N Country in which a man on a jog about 1 a.m. was punched in the face by a teenager. The man thought he was being robbed so he pulled a gun, and the teen started to run. The man fired eight shots. Four hit the teen. The man was not charged with a crime. His court file says "justifiable homicide."

The Times analysis shows that more than 70 percent of the 130 cases involved a fatality.



In the majority of the cases, the person who plunged the knife or swung the bat or pulled the trigger did not face a trial.



In 50 of the cases, the person who used force was never charged with a crime. Another nine defendants were granted immunity by a judge, and nine cases were dismissed.



In 10 cases, the defendant pleaded guilty to lesser crimes.
Of the 28 cases that made it to trial, 19 people were found guilty of a crime.



Twenty-two cases are still pending. (The outcomes of two could not be learned by press time.)

Sounds to me that based on the history of this law, it's absolute folly to try to say definitively that it can't/won't apply here.

[CrimsonFox]

Wow great finds Ben. Very good analysis. I'm speechless over the whole Stand YOur Ground thing. Why in the world was that put into effect. Oh yeah...Florida...

I myself think ZImmerman was lying about everything. I think he's gotten off before because of mummy and dadsy and think he has legal right to do whatever he wants. I think he's a wannabe vigilante. I think he was the aggressor in this case and the kid was just a stupid kid and when Zimmerman went aggressive, stupid kid gets riled up back. I think there was running and chasing involved. I think the injuries were more then likely given to him by himself either 1) falling, 2) giving them to himself to make it appear like a scuffle happened 3) if there was a scuffle of any kind there is no doubt in my mind that Zimmerman started it and IF the boy did anything it was to defend himself after seeing a gun. But really with all the cross reports I think there is a lot of makebelieve going on in the press on purpose and some more of it that is playing telephone.

Regarding the "defending yourself", An unarmed person does not pose a threat if you are armed. That is common sense.
But it has seemed that FLorida hasn't contained any for some time.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

Wow great finds Ben. Very good analysis. I'm speechless over the whole Stand YOur Ground thing. Why in the world was that put into effect. Oh yeah...Florida...

As of 28 May 2010, 31 states had some form of Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground law.^[6] Alabama,^[7] Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,^[8] South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,^[9] West Virginia and Wyoming have adopted Castle Doctrine statutes, and other states (Montana,^[10] Nebraska,^[11] New Hampshire, Virginia,^[12] and Washington) are currently considering "Stand Your Ground" laws of their own.^[13][14][15]
Some of the states that have passed or are considering "stand your ground" laws already implement "stand your ground" principles in their case law. Indiana and Georgia, among other states, already had "stand your ground" case law and passed "stand your ground" statutes due to possible concerns of the case law being replaced by "duty to retreat" in later court rulings. Other states, including Washington, have "stand your ground" in their case law but have not adopted statutes; West Virginia had a long tradition of "stand your ground" in its case law^[16] before codifying it as a statute in 2008. These states did not have civil immunity for self defense in their previous self defense statutes.

[Ben E Lou]

Isn't the problem not so much "stand your ground" as a principle, but how it's actually codified in Florida? I mean, no reasonable person would say that if someone breaks into my home I should have to run away and let him take my stuff instead of just shooting him, or that if I get attacked by some dude who runs a 5.5 and I run a 4.9 that I have to run away and not punch back. My take is that it's a situation where the law--as written in Florida--allows too much room. (That said, I'd rather all laws allow too much room than not enough...)

[bronconick]

Seems like the biggest difference is instead of a "Castle Doctrine" it's a "As long as you're somewhere you're legally entitled to be" doctrine. That brings in muggings (good) but also the bar fights, road rage, etc. (bad)

You can't follow someone and then claim Castle Doctrine, and it's pretty cut and dried like that. What Florida has is incredibly fuzzy.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Sounds to me that based on the history of this law, it's absolute folly to try to say definitively that it can't/won't apply here.

But isn't "Stand Your Ground" in regards to whether a person can retreat or not. According to the Zimmerman story, he was on his back getting the shit kicked out of him. Not someone in a position to retreat so wouldn't your standard self-defense laws apply?

Stand Your Law seems to read as if you have a right to stand your ground when there is a chance to retreat. Zimmerman is claiming he had no chance to retreat because he was being beaten badly. You've always been able to defend yourself, but this law only means you don't have to try and run away if that opportunity is there. There was no opportunity according to Zimmerman's story.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

But isn't "Stand Your Ground" in regards to whether a person can retreat or not. According to the Zimmerman story, he was on his back getting the shit kicked out of him. Not someone in a position to retreat so wouldn't your standard self-defense laws apply?

Stand Your Law seems to read as if you have a right to stand your ground when there is a chance to retreat. Zimmerman is claiming he had no chance to retreat because he was being beaten badly. You've always been able to defend yourself, but this law only means you don't have to try and run away if that opportunity is there. There was no opportunity according to Zimmerman's story.

My understanding is that SYG is basically a subset of self-defense law. Of course, we're also talking about a supposedly-leaked version of Zimmerman's story, one that the police said is "basically what he said," or some such qualified statement like that. There are very likely nuances here that we don't know about.

[JonInMiddleGA]

NBC fires producer over edited Trayvon Martin call - chicagotribune.com

The clip where it sounded like Zimmerman volunteered the race of the suspect was edited, to remove the part where the dispatcher asked Zimmerman "Black, White, or Hispanic?"

[M GO BLUE!!!]

So fire the producer for editing the call. That's the right thing to do.

Still doesn't change that a clearly frustrated wanna-be-cop went after an unarmed kid he determined on sight to be guilty. He then ended up getting his ass kicked and killing the kid, who just went to the store.

I hope your kids never run into someone like him. I'd hate to see you forced to defend him & call him a "hero" after burying your own.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

But isn't "Stand Your Ground" in regards to whether a person can retreat or not. According to the Zimmerman story, he was on his back getting the shit kicked out of him. Not someone in a position to retreat so wouldn't your standard self-defense laws apply?

Stand Your Law seems to read as if you have a right to stand your ground when there is a chance to retreat. Zimmerman is claiming he had no chance to retreat because he was being beaten badly. You've always been able to defend yourself, but this law only means you don't have to try and run away if that opportunity is there. There was no opportunity according to Zimmerman's story.

So that should apply to Trayven then. If Zimmerman started the fight, and charging after someone on the basis of "hey you get out of my neighborhood and off this public sidewalk" counts in my book as starting a fight, if Zimmerman was suddenly losing the fight he started, then that should both nullify his grounds for SYG and really gives the SYG points to Trayven instead.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

So fire the producer for editing the call. That's the right thing to do.

They did.

I don't make the news, I just shared the link.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Motorists in Dearborn (MI) report seeing a racial slur on a construction sign along I-94 overnight. The sign made reference to Trayvon Martin, the Florida teen who police say was gunned down by a neighborhood watch volunteer in February.



It was multiple signs. I have seen two pics & the "exits" sign in the background is different.

I hate people.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Originally Posted by George Zimmerman

"I was involved in a life-altering event which led me to become the subject of intense media coverage.

As a result of the incident and subsequent media coverage, I have been forced to leave my home, my school, my employer, my family and ultimately, my entire life."

Boo-fucking-hoo. Zimmerman brought this on himself.

To him it was an "incident."

Let's ask Trayvon Martin his opinion on it, and how his life has been effected.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

Boo-fucking-hoo. Zimmerman brought this on himself.

To him it was an "incident."

Let's ask Trayvon Martin his opinion on it, and how his life has been effected.

Even better is that it's on a website to solicit funds.

[JediKooter]

Poor Zimmerman. All he had to do was listen to what the 911 dispatcher had asked him to do.

[miami_fan]

It might be a good idea for him to convince the vast majority of his friends and relatives not to speak to the press unless they have been coached by his lawyers. I don't think I have heard one that has done his side any good.

[Ben E Lou]

Zimmerman attorneys withdrawing as they have not been able to get in contact with him.

[JediKooter]

Maybe if they had donated some money on his website...

[Ben E Lou]

Per attorneys, Zimmerman has contacted Special Prosecutor's office and Hannity on his own and set up web site on his own.

[Ben E Lou]

This press conference is bizarre.

[JediKooter]

Not having access to this press conference, does it sound like rats leaving a sinking ship or just frustration on the part of his attorneys?

[Ben E Lou]

Whoa. Lawyer basically just said Zimmerman may have lost it.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Not having access to this press conference, does it sound like rats leaving a sinking ship or just frustration on the part of his attorneys?

Frustration. They're still saying adamantly that he's innocent and that if he contacts them again they'll work for him.

I'm watching it at CNN.

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Frustration. They're still saying adamantly that he's innocent and that if he contacts them again they'll work for him.

I'm watching it at CNN.

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com

Ahhh ok. Thought maybe the discovered something and wanted to get out while they still could.

Cool! Thank you sir!

[Ben E Lou]

Heh. Special Prosecutor's office told Zimmerman they won't talk to him directly without legal representation.

[Ben E Lou]

Reverend Al Sharpton ‏ @TheRevAl

• Close

Zimmerman's lawyers quit. They have lost contact w/ him but say he is not in Florida. He should be arrested NOW and brought back.

[Rizon]

I think this whole thing is about to go to the next level of Crazy.