Anonymous wrote:

There is NO way in hell Zimmerman can claim self defense. He is a classic trouble making neighbor that did not know when to back off and will absolutely get his due. Their department is going to be sued for EVERYTHING.

It could be a series of documented true (not fabricated - that would be lying to a government official, which has its own extremely serious repercussions) events that would bring Zimmerman and that police department down. There must be lawyers clamoring for this case, and they will throw the book at Zimmerman, the county, and the police department.

Although it won't bring back their son, this family will probably get millions, as they should. Zimmerman will lose everything, as he should.

Anonymous wrote:This also might apply with the castle doctrine because the the hooddd intruder was in a private area in a gated community and not a resident

Anonymous wrote:This also might apply with the castle doctrine because the the hooddd intruder was in a private area in a gated community and not a resident

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has it occurred to anyone that most teen boys being followed by or stared at by a man would run? I hope that my kids would. The mistake that TM did was he should have used that phone to call is father or 911, not continue to speak with GF. The minute you feel that you are being watched, it is time for a call.

Well according to the last ~20 seconds of this ABC call, Trayvon did place a call to 911.

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/video?id=8593399&syndicate=syndicate§ion

I haven't heard about it from any other source, though.

Anonymous wrote:Has it occurred to anyone that most teen boys being followed by or stared at by a man would run? I hope that my kids would. The mistake that TM did was he should have used that phone to call is father or 911, not continue to speak with GF. The minute you feel that you are being watched, it is time for a call.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all are completely misinterpreting the Stand Your Ground law. You cannot instigate a confrontation with someone and then claim self-defense when you start losing the fight. The idea that Trayvon attacked him is ludicrous. There is NO evidence to support that other than Zimmerman's statement.

FACT: Zimmerman told the 911 dispatcher that he was following Trayvon. The dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman said that Trayvon was RUNNING AWAY. He followed him. Had he followed the instructions of the dispatcher, he would not have followed Trayvon. If the person is RUNNING AWAY, how can you be threatened by him?

FACT: There are phone records that prove that Trayvon was on the phone with his girlfriend moments before the police arrived on the scene.

Does it makes sense that a person who was talking on the phone would try to attack another person for no particular reason? Would it make sense that a person who had been running away (i.e., scared) would suddenly become and unprovoked aggressor? Does it make sense that a kid would try to take down a guy who has a hundred pounds on him?

Think, people. I'm not saying the law is a good one, because it's not. But it in no way gives people carte blanche to go around shooting people whenever you feel uncomfortable. The police in Sanford are saying that because they are trying to cover their own asses. Every person who has actually WRITTEN the law is coming out against their so-called "interpretation."

No one is saying its a carte blanche. thank you for your concern though.

Anonymous wrote:You all are completely misinterpreting the Stand Your Ground law. You cannot instigate a confrontation with someone and then claim self-defense when you start losing the fight. The idea that Trayvon attacked him is ludicrous. There is NO evidence to support that other than Zimmerman's statement.

FACT: Zimmerman told the 911 dispatcher that he was following Trayvon. The dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman said that Trayvon was RUNNING AWAY. He followed him. Had he followed the instructions of the dispatcher, he would not have followed Trayvon. If the person is RUNNING AWAY, how can you be threatened by him?

FACT: There are phone records that prove that Trayvon was on the phone with his girlfriend moments before the police arrived on the scene.

Does it makes sense that a person who was talking on the phone would try to attack another person for no particular reason? Would it make sense that a person who had been running away (i.e., scared) would suddenly become and unprovoked aggressor? Does it make sense that a kid would try to take down a guy who has a hundred pounds on him?

Think, people. I'm not saying the law is a good one, because it's not. But it in no way gives people carte blanche to go around shooting people whenever you feel uncomfortable. The police in Sanford are saying that because they are trying to cover their own asses. Every person who has actually WRITTEN the law is coming out against their so-called "interpretation."

Anonymous wrote:

Actually, under the scenario presented, it would likely come out as self defense. If Z chased T and then T attacted, such that Z thought he was in danger, the self defense doctrine would apply. This is exactly why I think that a lot of the outrage is missplaced. The travesty is that the issue was not INVESTIGATED and that Z was not ARRESTED. It could theoretically turn out that he is not convicted. And if so, I would be fine with that. But he should still be put through the process.

This is exactly right. The lack of an investigation, combined with the (absurd, in my opinion) Stand Your Ground law could very well lead to an aquittal (or even no charged being filed).

Anonymous wrote:

Actually, under the scenario presented, it would likely come out as self defense. If Z chased T and then T attacted, such that Z thought he was in danger, the self defense doctrine would apply. This is exactly why I think that a lot of the outrage is missplaced. The travesty is that the issue was not INVESTIGATED and that Z was not ARRESTED. It could theoretically turn out that he is not convicted. And if so, I would be fine with that. But he should still be put through the process.

This is exactly right. The lack of an investigation, combined with the (absurd, in my opinion) Stand Your Ground law could very well lead to an aquittal (or even no charged being filed).

Actually, under the scenario presented, it would likely come out as self defense. If Z chased T and then T attacted, such that Z thought he was in danger, the self defense doctrine would apply. This is exactly why I think that a lot of the outrage is missplaced. The travesty is that the issue was not INVESTIGATED and that Z was not ARRESTED. It could theoretically turn out that he is not convicted. And if so, I would be fine with that. But he should still be put through the process.