Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's still his fault. He shouldn't have put himself in that situation to begin with. 911 said don't act, he should have followed their command. If he stalked Trayvon and threatened him, Trayvon had the right to fight back. Trayvon didn't stalk him and it wouldn't have happened if this over-zealous vigilante had just waited for the police!

See but I disagree with this point. The minute that Trayvon posed a threat to Zimmerman (beating or aggression), in FL the law was on Zimmerman's side.

Also WTF is with the news using a photo of 13-year-old Trayvon?! Have you seen the recent photo of him - he is a BIG guy.

Do you have a link to a recent picture of him? I haven't seen many. Many fake pics of other black teens but no recent ones of the actual Trayvon in question. Not sure how recent this one is?

Here are some:

Anonymous wrote:

do you want to listen to the music i listened to when i was 17-18? hell i still listen to it on my ipod and not out loud since i have kids.

some of you are acting as if you grew up as priests and nuns.

walk around a mall or walk a high school and stop acting like normal average teenagers walk around in button up shirts and khakis and listen to elevator music.

I totally rocked out to elevator music at that age.

Why would that person turn and start attacking you? He was unarmed! Why would a "reasonable person" do this? The law uses a reasonable man standard, you know. It does not take into account wild irrational reactions that a crazy person might have. It is possible that Z taunted TM--said things like: what are doing here nagger! I've called the police n-gger, you better not run, etc. That could have incited TM to confront Z. Z was looking for a fight! Perhaps he got one! But he is not entitled to use deadly force in that fight unless he reasonably believed TM had a gun. There's the rub, though--in the armpit state of Florida, his belief might just have been reasonable.

Perhaps you should look at the statute before you start proclaiming things that simply aren't true.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's still his fault. He shouldn't have put himself in that situation to begin with. 911 said don't act, he should have followed their command. If he stalked Trayvon and threatened him, Trayvon had the right to fight back. Trayvon didn't stalk him and it wouldn't have happened if this over-zealous vigilante had just waited for the police!

See but I disagree with this point. The minute that Trayvon posed a threat to Zimmerman (beating or aggression), in FL the law was on Zimmerman's side.

Also WTF is with the news using a photo of 13-year-old Trayvon?! Have you seen the recent photo of him - he is a BIG guy.

No the minute thus guy with a gun posed a threat to Trayvon he had the right to defend himself. Who was chasing whom? And who had a gun?

Anonymous wrote:Since we don't know all the facts, it's of course possible it was in self-defense. I can't figure out why Zimmerman wasn't brought in for an official statement, at the very least?

Has anyone seen Trayvon's tweets? Nasty.

do you want to listen to the music i listened to when i was 17-18? hell i still listen to it on my ipod and not out loud since i have kids.

some of you are acting as if you grew up as priests and nuns.

walk around a mall or walk a high school and stop acting like normal average teenagers walk around in button up shirts and khakis and listen to elevator music.

It really doesn't matter what the public or media thinks of this, the point is that IT NEEDS TO GO TO TRIAL!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We know the media has jumped on this story and instead of being impartial have become opinionated and throw in the race aspect and boom we have a powder keg. But what if it is true that Trayvon slammed George's head to the ground and started beating him mercilessly didn't George have the right to respond with deadly force and self defense as per the law? Is this just a race based crime? I just hope this isn't another Duke situation.

I'm a lawyer with 20 years of court experience. There is NO SET OF REASONABLE FACTS to support why an unauthorized citizen, without color of law, who had a clear intent to APPREHEND an unarmed individual would then be attacked by that person. Logic dictates that the person (TM in our fact pattern) would likely flee from some raging, so-called "neighborhood watch person" and assume that they were in danger. Z set upon TM, got more than he was bargaining for in a fist fight and retaliated by shooting the boy. THAT is a reasonable interpretation of the facts. However, agree that all of this may be sadly unprovable in a court of law, especially with the incompetency level of local Florida prosecutors. Hand it over to FEDERAL PROSECUTORS and you might get a conviction here.

In your 20 years of courtroom experience, have you had a lot of success using "logic dictates" in place of - what's that word again - evidence?

Also, you're just assuming Zimmerman "set upon TM" - which of course makes the entire fact pattern very easy. But that's the crux of the question, isn't it? Because if that didn't happen, self-defense is very much in play.

As for "NO SET OF REASONABLE FACTS" - gimme a break. Z follows TM, yells at him to stop, TM stops, an argument ensues, Z says something to TM (likely an ugly racial epither, that we’ll never know, because Z will never admit to it), TM hits him and starts pummeling him to the ground, Z draws his weapon and shoots him. Isn’t that just as likely as the scenario you posited? At a minimum, it’s certainly a “set of reasonable facts.” Just because you don’t think that’s what happened, or don’t like the outcome it leads to, doesn’t make it “unreasonable.” Enough with the histrionics.

Anonymous wrote:We know the media has jumped on this story and instead of being impartial have become opinionated and throw in the race aspect and boom we have a powder keg. But what if it is true that Trayvon slammed George's head to the ground and started beating him mercilessly didn't George have the right to respond with deadly force and self defense as per the law? Is this just a race based crime? I just hope this isn't another Duke situation.

But why would a teen who was talking to his girlfriend on the phone while carrying an iced tea and some candy home from the store and who was unarmed, turn and violently attack another man (who was armed and not a small man) for no reason. That scenario doesn't make any sense. If George was just so innocently keeping an eye on the teen or asked him what he was up to, unless Trayvon had a psychotic break or had some unknown explosive rage disorder he wouldn't turn and beat the man's head into a sidewalk.

Anonymous wrote:We know the media has jumped on this story and instead of being impartial have become opinionated and throw in the race aspect and boom we have a powder keg. But what if it is true that Trayvon slammed George's head to the ground and started beating him mercilessly didn't George have the right to respond with deadly force and self defense as per the law? Is this just a race based crime? I just hope this isn't another Duke situation.

if that is proven to be the case in a courtroom, i guess i would have no choice but to accept that outcome.

i would still believe that there was a bit of profiling involved that lead to everything getting started but we would have to move on i guess.

and dont think for a second that this means that racial profiling of black men is not a problem or doesnt exist if this happened by the way. thats not the way this works.

Anonymous wrote:We know the media has jumped on this story and instead of being impartial have become opinionated and throw in the race aspect and boom we have a powder keg. But what if it is true that Trayvon slammed George's head to the ground and started beating him mercilessly didn't George have the right to respond with deadly force and self defense as per the law? Is this just a race based crime? I just hope this isn't another Duke situation.

if that is proven to be the case in a courtroom, i guess i would have no choice but to accept that outcome.

i would still believe that there was a bit of profiling involved that lead to everything getting started but we would have to move on i guess.

and dont think for a second that this means that racial profiling of black men is not a problem or doesnt exist if this happened by the way. thats not the way this works.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's still his fault. He shouldn't have put himself in that situation to begin with. 911 said don't act, he should have followed their command. If he stalked Trayvon and threatened him, Trayvon had the right to fight back. Trayvon didn't stalk him and it wouldn't have happened if this over-zealous vigilante had just waited for the police!

The police did not "command" him not to do it, nor did they tell him not to do it.
I am unaware of any jurisdiction in which following a man in a neighborhood one time would qualify as stalking.

Honestly, I just hate the amped-up rhetoric that both sides have used regarding this issue. It is the same post over and over again. One person says "stick to the facts" and then recites a version of the events that is shot through with assumptions and hyperbole. The other side then does the exact same thing with the opposite spin.

In the same way that walking through a neighborhood wearing a hoodie does not mean that it is OK to kill that person, following someone in a neighborhood does not mean that the self-defense doctrine should not be available to you if that person does indeed turn and start attacking you.

Why would that person turn and start attacking you? He was unarmed! Why would a "reasonable person" do this? The law uses a reasonable man standard, you know. It does not take into account wild irrational reactions that a crazy person might have. It is possible that Z taunted TM--said things like: what are doing here nagger! I've called the police n-gger, you better not run, etc. That could have incited TM to confront Z. Z was looking for a fight! Perhaps he got one! But he is not entitled to use deadly force in that fight unless he reasonably believed TM had a gun. There's the rub, though--in the armpit state of Florida, his belief might just have been reasonable.

Doesn't matter if one man is taunting another. Assaulting someone = jail. Calling someone names = no jail. And the law in FL means that assaulting someone or even being threatening you are allowed to use deadly force. The attacker doesn't have to be armed to justify the shooting.

I'm a lawyer with 20 years of court experience. There is NO SET OF REASONABLE FACTS to support why an unauthorized citizen, without color of law, who had a clear intent to APPREHEND an unarmed individual would then be attacked by that person. Logic dictates that the person (TM in our fact pattern) would likely flee from some raging, so-called "neighborhood watch person" and assume that they were in danger. Z set upon TM, got more than he was bargaining for in a fist fight and retaliated by shooting the boy. THAT is a reasonable interpretation of the facts. However, agree that all of this may be sadly unprovable in a court of law, especially with the incompetency level of local Florida prosecutors. Hand it over to FEDERAL PROSECUTORS and you might get a conviction here.

Am I missing a fact that shows a "clear intent" to apprehend? He clearly intended to follow, but I'm not sure that he originally intended to apprehend? And what makes you conclude that Z was "raging"? And what makes you conclude that the gunshot was retaliatory? Even if the facts are as you describe them, retaliation as a motive should not necessarily be inferred.

I do NOT support Zimmerman and I believe he should be arrested and I believe that the SYG law is fundamentally flawed and that the police have committed a travesty. That being said, I do remember the Duke lacrosse situation and I do think it is important to jump to conclusions. Moreso, I think it is important not to cast anyone who acknowledges gaping holes in the known facts as some sort of racist supporter of a murderer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's still his fault. He shouldn't have put himself in that situation to begin with. 911 said don't act, he should have followed their command. If he stalked Trayvon and threatened him, Trayvon had the right to fight back. Trayvon didn't stalk him and it wouldn't have happened if this over-zealous vigilante had just waited for the police!

See but I disagree with this point. The minute that Trayvon posed a threat to Zimmerman (beating or aggression), in FL the law was on Zimmerman's side.

Also WTF is with the news using a photo of 13-year-old Trayvon?! Have you seen the recent photo of him - he is a BIG guy.

Do you have a link to a recent picture of him? I haven't seen many. Many fake pics of other black teens but no recent ones of the actual Trayvon in question. Not sure how recent this one is?

Since we don't know all the facts, it's of course possible it was in self-defense. I can't figure out why Zimmerman wasn't brought in for an official statement, at the very least?

Has anyone seen Trayvon's tweets? Nasty.

Anonymous wrote:The whole thing could have been avoided. If your kid gets suspended, why let them travel to Orlando? If you are on a neighborhood watch, why not call the police?

race does not need to be brougth into this case based on common sense thinking of parents and a over zealous wanna be cop

even more upsetting is kids are shot every single day, no outrage until race is involved. Let's try to end the deaths of the kids black, green, purple or white

Maybe to spend time with his dad? More supervision during the day? Maybe to detour him from hanging out around the same old crowd while he's home on suspension? C'mon, PP, your post makes no sense.

Also, have you ever been to Sanford, FL? It's not exactly a vacation hotspot.