Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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:

Hmmm weird the images didn't work. Here are them again:

http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1440&bih=649&tbm=isch&tbnid=OmgbOvl36YwwqM:&imgrefurl=http://sadhillnews.com/2012/03/25/the-trayvon-martin-our-government-subsidized-media-wont-let-you-see&docid=q1zXbPQ2H5KWlM&imgurl=http://sadhillnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/trayvon-martin.jpg&w=600&h=350&ei=GjtzT5mmNNSctwe1r_WNBg&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=345&sig=115288184928450309454&page=2&tbnh=144&tbnw=199&start=21&ndsp=25&ved=1t:429,r:11,s:21&tx=97&ty=89

https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSZKI4NB4BAWXLpI0sOUpnxn3m16qe2QGhq-yGrFCA3p9SZ4U7vaQ

http://sadhillnews.com/2012/03/25/the-trayvon-martin-our-government-subsidized-media-wont-let-you-see/trayvon-martin-photo-media-george-zimmerman-photo-bias-sad-hill-news-3

The first and third pictures are not of the Trayvon Martin that was killed - they are of the Trayvon Martin that lives in Georgia - people pulled those pictures off a Facebook site assuming because the kid was black and had the same name that it was the same kid.

Let's take age and race out of this. Too late for that!

It was noted by an earlier pp but I'll mention it again. I read that the lead detective wanted to arrest Zimmerman for manslaughter but it was the prosecuting attorney that decided to hold off on that.

Anonymous wrote:This case will never go forward because it was prosecutorial misconduct PER SE not to have arrested Z at the scene. There are no post incident photos of Z to examine. This SOB got to go home and have a xanax and go to bed. The DA made that decision. There can be no examination of his "wounds" now to determine the extent of them to see if they rose to level that would cause a person to fear for his life. Why would the DA now go back on this decision not to arrest and prosecute Z and allow a case to go forward that would expose her bad judgement? No prosecutor's office goes six weeks without arresting a key suspect and then reverses that and goes to trial, barring the revelation of some new piece of evidence. THIS CASE WILL NOT GO TO TRIAL:

#1 Because the facts are in such dispute--DA's office doesn't take high profile cases they are likely to lose--it's a political decision.
#2 Critical evidence was not collected because Z was never arrested--DA's office can't make their case.

Any amount of beating would prove that Zimmerman had just cause to use force. Again the FL statue is special. In fact, no beating has to occur to justify shooting someone else. If Trayvon posed a threat in any way (advancing toward Zimmerman) then Zimmerman could legally shoot him.

This law was passed to help women that are victims of domestic violence or rape. If a man threatens a woman she can use deadly force. He doesn't have to actually rape or assault her. Think of it that way and it makes sense.

This case will never go forward because it was prosecutorial misconduct PER SE not to have arrested Z at the scene. There are no post incident photos of Z to examine. This SOB got to go home and have a xanax and go to bed. The DA made that decision. There can be no examination of his "wounds" now to determine the extent of them to see if they rose to level that would cause a person to fear for his life. Why would the DA now go back on this decision not to arrest and prosecute Z and allow a case to go forward that would expose her bad judgement? No prosecutor's office goes six weeks without arresting a key suspect and then reverses that and goes to trial, barring the revelation of some new piece of evidence. THIS CASE WILL NOT GO TO TRIAL:

#1 Because the facts are in such dispute--DA's office doesn't take high profile cases they are likely to lose--it's a political decision.
#2 Critical evidence was not collected because Z was never arrested--DA's office can't make their case.

Z was chasing TM through the neighborhood! Since when do you chase a person with no intent to apprehend them, especially when you are armed? That is illogical. If TM threw the first punch after being chased then, if anything TM was responding in self -defense. If you are chasing me, with a gun, and I turn around and punch you, how is that anything but self-defense? When the fight continues and you are getting a beat down, you do not have the right to retaliate with a gun.

Since when do you chase a person with no intent to apprehend them, especially when you are armed?

When you want to find out what they're doing in the neighborhood?

If TM threw the first punch after being chased then, if anything TM was responding in self -defense. If you are chasing me, with a gun, and I turn around and punch you, how is that anything but self-defense?

I have no idea if this is true, but I'm not prepared to take your word for it without some authority, especially given that your previous postings (if you're the same pp) have been rife with unsupported assumptions. If anything, it likely would depend in the specifics of the "chase" which, again, we don't know. Also, we we now assuming that GZ had the gun out when chasing Trayvon? How do we know that?

When the fight continues and you are getting a beat down, you do not have the right to retaliate with a gun.

Again, read the ststute. In certain cases, a person absolutely has that right.

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.

So true. There is too much unknown yet for this to have been blown up as much as it has.

WTF....I thought the kid was 13. The only pictures I've seen of him (up until now) had been the ones that make him look like he's barely over the age of 12. Still Zimmerman should have at least been arrested. Despite the hype over this case, I dont think there will be an arrest.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

He was a 17 yr old boy...a teenager...that in and of itself precludes him from being a "reasonable person." Teens are not reasonable. They are impulsive, irrational and completely lacking in common sense. I'm not saying what happened to him was right or that Z was right...just that we've all been teens, we all know teens and we all know they do stuff someone with more life experience wouldn't do. Maybe he did attack Z. I don't know. You don't know. We weren't there. In any case I hope justice is done...whatever that is in this case.

The question is not whether teens are reasonable. It is whether what he did is reasonable.

Let's take age and race out of this. You are walking back from home and a guy with a gun follows you. You try to walk away from him but you can't. Finally you are alone together and you feel you have no way our so you kick him in the nuts.

Does he then have the right to shoot you?

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.

So true. There is too much unknown yet for this to have been blown up as much as it has.

this case is the reason why there are people who do NOT agree with regular citizens carrying weapons. A fist fight should never end with a gun shot.

The mob mentality around this is frightening. I listened to Zimmerman's 911 call last evening and the first thing he said was there've been a lot of break-ins lately.

Who was screaming Help, Help in the 911 call from a woman in the neighborhood? I think voice authentification would clarify circumstances.

Is Zimmerman's father a retired judge?

I do believe Zimmerman should be questioned again and if there is probable cause arrested.

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.

He was a 17 yr old boy...a teenager...that in and of itself precludes him from being a "reasonable person." Teens are not reasonable. They are impulsive, irrational and completely lacking in common sense. I'm not saying what happened to him was right or that Z was right...just that we've all been teens, we all know teens and we all know they do stuff someone with more life experience wouldn't do. Maybe he did attack Z. I don't know. You don't know. We weren't there. In any case I hope justice is done...whatever that is in this case.

Anonymous wrote:

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:

Hmmm weird the images didn't work. Here are them again:

http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1440&bih=649&tbm=isch&tbnid=OmgbOvl36YwwqM:&imgrefurl=http://sadhillnews.com/2012/03/25/the-trayvon-martin-our-government-subsidized-media-wont-let-you-see&docid=q1zXbPQ2H5KWlM&imgurl=http://sadhillnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/trayvon-martin.jpg&w=600&h=350&ei=GjtzT5mmNNSctwe1r_WNBg&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=345&sig=115288184928450309454&page=2&tbnh=144&tbnw=199&start=21&ndsp=25&ved=1t:429,r:11,s:21&tx=97&ty=89

https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSZKI4NB4BAWXLpI0sOUpnxn3m16qe2QGhq-yGrFCA3p9SZ4U7vaQ

http://sadhillnews.com/2012/03/25/the-trayvon-martin-our-government-subsidized-media-wont-let-you-see/trayvon-martin-photo-media-george-zimmerman-photo-bias-sad-hill-news-3

Did you read that Zimmerman's father is a RETIRED JUDGE! Hmmmm. And he has been arrested...apparently for assault on a cop and the charges miraculously disappeared in his past.

This stinks more and more each day!

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Z was chasing TM through the neighborhood! Since when do you chase a person with no intent to apprehend them, especially when you are armed? That is illogical. If TM threw the first punch after being chased then, if anything TM was responding in self -defense. If you are chasing me, with a gun, and I turn around and punch you, how is that anything but self-defense? When the fight continues and you are getting a beat down, you do not have the right to retaliate with a gun.