Hello:

It USED to be, that self defense meant that you could use deadly force only IF you had NO means of escape. It was simple. It made sense. And, it was universally accepted. Then, at the urging of the NRA, SOME states passed laws that said you can kill somebody if he's attacking you by "standing your ground". Being able to AVOID a confrontation is NO longer the issue. The issue is, you can now kill somebody if you have a chip on your shoulder.

Of course, by trying to change a basic law that everybody understood, they muddled it up. The obvious question pops up, as to exactly WHO has the right to "stand your ground". If you're being pursued, don't YOU have a right to "stand your ground" at some point? What if BOTH people are "standing their ground", and one shoots the other??

Trayvon Martin (http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/19/2703029/us-department-of-justice-fbi-and.html) didn't have that right, apparently. Do we need to go back to a saner period?

excon

PS> I misspelled Trayvons name in my title. My apologies to his parents, but I can't edit it.
Pps> No worries I did, CB..

Ex, my heart goes out to Trayvon's family and friends. This was a senseless tragedy and if the investigation reveals what is being said about it I hope that obviously paranoid piece of human waste that shot him gets his due.

On the other hand, I'm not going to let one idiot's senseless stupidity turn this into a new race war as Leonard Pitts would like. And standing your ground is one thing, stalking the kid instead of letting the cops do their job is another.

On the other hand, I'm not going to let one idiot's senseless stupidity turn this into a new race warHello Steve:

You'll note that I didn't mention race. I don't know whether race had anything to do with the killing or not.. But, in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary, when the cops say the shooter IS the victim, their racism is obvious. Now, they're INVESTED in that theory, so we'll NEVER get the truth from them. That's why the feds need to take over the investigation..

But, the particulars of that case, as tragic as they are, aren't really the basis for my question.. I'm going straight for the idiotic LAW that allows murderer's to go free.

You DO understand that I'm COOL will killing somebody if you CAN'T escape. But, I'm NOT cool with killing somebody because you decided to "stand your ground"... It just looks like MURDER to me, like abortion looks like MURDER to you.

excon

I mentioned race because that's how I first heard of it, Pitts made it about race."He existed while black (http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/17/2698133/tragic-teen-shooting-raises-old.html)," was his crime according to the race baiters such as him so I launched a preemptive strike. One idiot's actions don't speak for the rest of us.

Now, I know you don't like this "stand your ground" stuff but the fact is many of us are going to do just that if attacked regardless of the law. If I'm attacked and believe I am in danger and I'm carrying you shouldn't have attacked me because given the chance, I will shoot you in self defense. Period.

You'll also notice I distinguished between standing your ground which I believe is justified, and stalking a kid then attacking him which is not justified. If that's what the guy did and it appears to be so, then throw the book at him.

I'm opposed to neighborhood watch groups being armed . The Guardian Angels aren't and they are arguably the most effective group in the country .

"Watch" being the operative word here.

I for one don't believe Zimmerman . Even if he got in the scuffle with the kid... Think about it... someone who isn't a cop confronts you with a gun in his hand . It's likely the kid was acting in self defense by attacking .

I don't know about the Florida law... but a similar law in Nevada makes it clear that you can't manufacture the circumstances to use deadly force as a self defense.

They can try to make it a racial case. The fact that Zimmerman is a mixed race Hispanic should not deter them. I think this is more like a Paul Kersey (Charles Bronson character ) wannabee.

It's likely the kid was acting in self defense by attacking .Hello again, tom:

After a close examination of the law, he's going to get away with it.. Absent evidence that the shooter was NOT acting in self defense, and there's NONE, HIS word is all they've got. According to the Florida "stand your ground and murder who you please as long as you don't shoot him in the back", law, he'll get away with it.

excon

I don't know that and that is only a presumption . Doubt if a jury will agree.

They have the 9-1-1 call . There was no need for him to get out of the truck after that . He provoked the confrontation .

I think Zimmerman is in a whole lot of trouble . The big problem I see is foot dragging on the investigation. If the Feds need to come in ,then so be it.

They have the 9-1-1 call . There was no need for him to get out of the truck after that . He provoked the confrontation .Hello again, tom:

I HATE defending this guy. But it's absolutely true, he pursued him and provoked him, and he GOT attacked as a result. At the most, he'll be convicted of reckless endangerment.

Because of the Florida "stand your ground and make sure you KILL the guy, so you're the only one left to say what happened", law, he WON'T be convicted of murder OR manslaughter.

He'll do 6 months.

excon

Well I'm not so willing to assume a sentence . Let's see what the Grand Jury comes up with 1st . Or let's put it this way. Without witnesses ;he could plea a self defense with or without the Fla law. Zimmerman had a legit concealed carry permit . So without a witness ,all that is known is that he called in a 9-1-1 ;got out of his truck ;scuffled with the kid ,and shot him. We are only guessing who initiated the violence that preceded the killing.

Interesting laws you have there, but then with gun culture you have too

I hate the idea of getting involved in political discussions because frankly, I don't have the brain power for it. Too often, I know what I want to say but wind up saying something that later gets twisted around as me meaning something else.

With that said...

I live in a state with the "stand your ground" law. Nowhere in this law does it say that you can cause a problem and kill someone simply because you "have a chip on your shoulder". The actual intention of the law was to allow you to use deadly force within reason... it is not a license to kill.

The way the law was (here anyway), if you were sitting in your home and someone broke in, you were required to get to another room or out of the house if possible. You could only defend yourself if you had nowhere else to get to. Really? Whether I would have done that or not doesn't matter. By law, I was required to. Never mind that the guy kicking in my door obviously didn't have good intentions. Never mind I have a wife and child to protect. I was required to first attempt to retreat to somewhere else. The law now says that if this happens, I am allowed to "stand my ground" and defend myself right there. It also allows me to defend myself on my property or in my car if I am in fear of my life or someone else's.

The law still maintains that I have to do whatever I can to avoid confrontation. I can't incite someone to kick my door in, you know? I am not allowed to simply shoot an unarmed person because I fear him. I still am required to have a reason for it... and I need a good reason or I can, and probably will be prosecuted.

Now... after all that... what happened in this case is terrible. I could be wrong but from the sounds of it, I think the kid was murdered. Just my opinion. On the other hand, I can't blame the "stand your ground" law for this. I blame the police that are handling it. This situation would have most likely happened anyway with or without the law. Before the law, you were still allowed to defend yourself with deadly force... if you were in danger. The police blew it. Plain and simple. They would have blown it before the law. Zimmerman said he was attacked, giving them reason to believe he was in fear for his life. They didn't bother to actually consider, or maybe they didn't care, that he may have caused this whole situation to escalate to the point that it did. That is where the blame lies... with the cops... with Zimmerman... not with the specific law that allows law abiding citizens to defend themselves in the face of danger.

I do hope that somehow this investigation gets turned in the right direction and Zimmerman pays for doing this. He could have avoided all of it by simply not getting out of the truck.


Let me also add that I have never had to shoot anyone. I am a responsible gun owner with a license to carry concealed. I have had 2 instances where it was possible the situation could have escalated. The one time, I simply took a different route and got away from the situation. The other time, I was surrounded (2 in front and 1 in back) so I had nowhere to go. I lifted my shirt, put my hand on the grip of my gun and undid the thumb snap. They quickly left. I mention this only to point out that not all of us that own and carry guns are maniacal killers just looking to pop someone. Most of us would rather not have to ever pull the gun from the holster.

I just know that if this happened where I live there would be riots in the streets

They use to riot here too, but getting action by peaceful means is a better way of bringing it to national attention, and get the proper results, JUSTICE!

So how does a nut case get a gun permit, and allowed to be in the neighborhood watch? Seems like the cops should know him well after 46 calls to 911. And why was he not detained and questioned to verify his story? That's what's more disturbing to me, the way the cops handled it from the time they arrived on the scene.

I think after proper questioning it would have given them probable cause for an arrest, given he was the aggressor, and instigated the encounter. Law or no law, the cops dropped the ball!

Two factors Tal who you know and who you are

Bottom line is that Zimmerman cannot use the law as a defense, because he was not standing his ground... he was pursuing .So the law does not apply.

Good answer odinn7. By the way, like baseball?

Bottom line is that Zimmerman cannot use the law as a defense, because he was not standing his ground...he was pursuing .So the law does not apply.Hello again, tom:

I WISH that were true, but it ain't. Oh, if you take THAT moment of time, you're correct... But, in the NEXT moment of time, he could be afraid for his life and shoot in "self defense".. With NOBODY to say otherwise, the cops hands are tied.

The law is faulty. Previously, being cornered meant there were PHYSICAL barriers that could be MEASURED. With NO barriers, there is ONLY the word of the shooter, IF the victim is dead..

I say again, the law is faulty. VERY VERY RIGHT WING FAULTY. It gives a murderer the RIGHT to kill IF he has a chip on his shoulder, even IF my friend Odinn says otherwise.

excon

Today's news is that there was a phone call between Trayvon and his girl friend while this was going down. Hard to believe that he was attacking Zimmerman while he was giving an up to date account about how he was being pursued for no reason.

Now if you are saying the law needs some tweeking ;that's possible and I know the State legislature is already reviewing the law. The wording of the law has to match the intent . The intent is not to have some vigilante provoking a confrontation. The law is meant for real self defense.

The law is meant for real self defense.Hello again, tom:

Oh, I understand WHY right wingers passed the law.. It's that when they pass laws based on POLITICAL considerations, instead of real life issues, bad stuff happens... And BAD stuff IS happening...

The old law on self defense worked PERFECTLY. You COULD not claim you shot somebody in self defense IF you had a means of escape. It's TRUE. It's SIMPLE. It's PROVABLE. It's UNDERSTOOD. It DIDN'T need strengthening... The ONLY reason a person WOULDN'T run away, IF he could, would be to CONFRONT his pursuer. You cannot tell me that a confrontation such as that would be based on FEAR..

excon

Since you say it's "VERY VERY RIGHT WING FAULTY" I'm guessing you believe liberals don't carry. Dude, leftists can be very, very mean. They are in fact responsible for most domestic terrorism in spite of what the SPLC says. I need my gun to protect myself from libs who wish me harm you know.

Since you say it's "VERY VERY RIGHT WING FAULTY" I'm guessing you believe liberals don't carry.Hello Steve:

Couple things.

We carry - and we KNOW what self defense IS. Apparently, right wingers don't, so they pass laws that let people get away with murder. We don't do that. That's a VERY VERY RIGHT WING thing to do.

excon

This guy wasn't in fear of his life when he made the call to the cops, followed his victim, or got out of his car to confront him. I doubt he was in fear of his life when he got into a scuffle with a younger smaller guy either. He was looking for trouble, and caused it.

As to the law itself, backed by the NRA, this new law has caused confusion among law enforcement, and opens the door to all kinds of abuse, and misuse. This case is but one of many. The number of justifiable homicides have tripled since Florida enacted this law, and that alone has to cause a closer look at the law, or the way law enforcement goes about enforcing it.

I mean if this guy or any other for that matter, gets away with murder, then SOMETHING is terribly wrong with the law. Its just not FAIR to my way of thinking. I fully recognize the intent of the law, but the practical application of it provides NO justice, or protection for the citizens as a whole.

Hello Steve:

Couple things.

We carry - and we KNOW what self defense IS. Apparently, right wingers don't, so they pass laws that let people get away with murder. We don't do that. That's a VERY VERY RIGHT WING thing to do.

excon

Dude, I have never shot anyone. I'm guessing most right-wingers with the exception of Cheney have never shot anyone either. But you know the law is not a license to murder and that was never its intent. And we all seem to agree that Zimmerman was in the wrong and if the law needs to be tweaked then so be it. So what exactly do you have left to whine about?

This guy wasn't in fear of his life when he made the call to the cops, followed his victim, or got out of his car to confront him. I doubt he was in fear of his life when he got into a scuffle with a younger smaller guy either. He was looking for trouble, and caused it.
Hard to believe that he was attacking Zimmerman while he was giving an up to date account about how he was being persued for no reason. Hello guys:

Nobody disagrees with the above assessments.. After reviewing the law, I'm even sure the COPS agree with the above assessments... AND, I'm even sure that the FEDS and the GRAND JURY will come to those conclusions, too.

The problem is the LAW. In the final analysis, when Zimmerman takes the stand and says that he feared for his life, in THAT moment of time, there's NOBODY to say he didn't. The law allows him to DO that very thing. Prosecutors won't even bring charges...

Now, maybe the feds can charge Zimmerman with a violation of Trayvons civil rights. THAT would be a great legal approach.. But, the law ties the hands of EVERYBODY in Florida.

excon

PS> (edited) There is some talk of racial epithets on the tape, and I heard him say "they always get away with it".. Maybe THAT'LL be enough to show intent and charges brought.

Nah you shoot someone you have to be accountable. But we already agree that if the wording of the law needs to be revised ,then the legislature should do so.

I predict that NO BODY ;including a jury ,will buy the line that he was not the aggressor.

And I want to know why NK can post the word sh*t without the asterisk and you deleted Cheney's first name? Are you kidding me?

I predict that NO BODY ;including a jury ,will buy the line that he was not the aggressor.Hello again, tom:

At THAT MOMENT in time, you don't know what happened.. Even after being followed, you don't know whether Trayvon turned on Zimmerman and attacked him. THAT moment in time is what the law addresses...

I UNDERSTAND you want to take the TOTALITY of events to make your case... I WANT to, too. It would make SENSE. But, the law is clear. I think you want to believe it because it'll vindicate the law, or the NRA, or the Republicans who wrote it. I don't know.

excon

If indeed Zimmerman's story is true ,then he had a right to use the gun under the old self defense laws.

If indeed Zimmerman's story is true ,then he had a right to use the gun under the old self defense laws.Hello again, tom:

Nope..

As I said earlier, being cornered can be MEASURED and PROVEN.. There would be PHYSICAL objects preventing escape... Out in the open there's NOTHING preventing a person from RUNNING AWAY, and you couldn't claim there was. Under the old law, he'd be convicted in a heartbeat.

excon

See you don't know that as a fact. Not that I want to defend Zimmerman ;but he has the facial wounds to prove he was in a physical struggle .

Now I think the evidence is the only thing that matters here . The evidence points to the fact that he initiated the confrontation.

Without that ;and if the story is that he was overpowered by the kid and thought his life was threatened... then even under the old laws he would've been permitted to use his gun in his self defense.

Without that ;and if the the story is that he was overpowered by the kid and thought his life was threatened ....then even under the old laws he would've been permitted to use his gun in his self defense.Hello again, tom:

NO, he couldn't. I don't know WHY you argue with me. The old law was SIMPLE. If there IS a means of escape, it MUST be taken. That's IT. It's no more difficult than that.

IF you're OUT in the open, and you're being attacked, you MUST RUN. If you're on the ground, and he's standing over you, and you have NO MEANS OF ESCAPE, you can shoot.. Other than that, you MUST RUN.

But, I'm sure you're going to tell me otherwise.

excon

But, I'm sure you're going to tell me otherwise.
yes I am . Zimmerman had a bloody nose ;was bleeding from the back of his head ,and had grass stains on the back of his shirt. That is evidence that could possibly lead to the fact that he had been over powered and had no means of escape.

That's all I know of the physical evidence . The other evidence leads one to believe that he was the aggressor . That is what the grand jury will weigh. Whatever political perceptions you have about the law will probably not be the determining factor in the end.

Deleted

I have to add more. I read up on the laws and it turns out that Stand Your Ground and the Castle Doctrine are 2 slightly different laws. Here, in my state, we have the Castle Doctrine law which states what I had said earlier. The Stand Your Ground law takes that one step further by allowing you the same defense outside of your home, vehicle, and property. No need to retreat at all really. That does seem somewhat extreme to me... at least on the surface.

I have to say, if someone violently confronted me and I felt I had no choice, I would do what I had to... law or no law. Protect myself first, worry about the law second. Looking at it a different way though, I would not be looking for a confrontation just to test that out. This idiot made a 911 call and was told to stop following the kid and to stay in his truck. The police were on their way. He got out anyway and caused the confrontation. The law does not allow this. Yes, he is allowed to defend himself, but he caused this. There is the 911 call as evidence that it all could have been avoided. That is the key and anyone responsible that does carry a gun, would have avoided the confrontation. I am thinking that because of that 911 call, he will be prosecuted because it shows he went looking for trouble. The law is Stand Your Ground... to defend yourself. It's not Confront And Kill... the law does need a little tweaking but I do think that because he made that call, it shows he could have avoided all of this... and for that, I think he is going to face charges.

I think the lack of proper police action is at the heart of this dreadful incident, as who takes the word of the guy who does the shooting without a thorough investigation? Nothing in the law says they have to take some ones word for anything when investigating and no way is this the proper handling of the case.

That is patently ridicules, no matter who did what. Bloody nose or not, how do you end up in a scuffle if you had kept you arse in your vehicle? Sorry, at the least he should have been taken in for clarity of the facts before given his gun, and a pat on the back.

I think the lack of proper police action is at the heart of this dreadful incident, as who takes the word of the guy who does the shooting without a thorough investigation? Nothing in the law says they have to take some ones word for anything when investigating and no way is this the proper handling of the case.

That is patently ridicules, no matter who did what. Bloody nose or not, how do you end up in a scuffle if you had kept you arse in your vehicle? Sorry, at the least he should have been taken in for clarity of the facts before given his gun, and a pat on the back.

Agree... although besides an arrest ,which we know didn't happen ; and a statement from Zimmerman ,which we know happened... we really don't know what else the police have done in this case .

Hello again,

So, I'm watching Sean Hannity.. He's talking about the tragedy, and he's got two guys he's interviewing. ONE guy, like me, keeps on saying the problem is the LAW - NOT the cops...

Hannity wasn't having ANY of it... He said quite clearly, "I don't want this discussion to be about guns". But, when you're talking about LARGE animals with LONG noses and BIG ears, you'd HAVE to mention the word elephant.

So, I'm thinking that the right wing wants to preserve the, "I'm gonna STAND MY GROUND, because I wanna shoot you", law.

excon

So, I'm thinking that the right wing wants to preserve the, "I'm gonna STAND MY GROUND, because I wanna shoot you", law.

I don't know anyone who wants an "I'm gonna STAND MY GROUND, because I wanna shoot you" law, except maybe gang-bangers. Most of those aren't right-wingers.

I don't know anyone who wants an "I'm gonna STAND MY GROUND, because I wanna shoot you" lawHello again, Steve:

I don't know, Steve. If you HAVE a means of escape, but CHOOSE not to take it, as this law allows you to do, why else WOULD you "stand your ground"?

excon

The problem IS the law AND the cops. They both need tweaking to eliminate abuse. But that's what happens when you get a special interest group to write the laws. They have to protect their gun owners whether they are irresponsible idiots or not. The NRA wants all the nuts to have the right to a gun, and shoot whomever they please.

And ex, its illegal in America for reasonable people to even look at Hannity. At least Rush is a clown, and makes no bones about it. And he is the leader of the right wing with Grover Norquist. Hannity thinks he is a journalist, and can't understand why we think he is a clown.

You need to change the batteries in your remote.

Let me know when this discussion gets serious again. I'm not sitting here writing that the left wants people unarmed and vulnerable to predators if they don't like the law .

ZZZZzzzz...

ZZZZzzzz...Hello again, Steve:

Wake up and answer MY question.. I see that you've ignored it. I KNOW why.

Let me ask again, so you don't have to go look... If you HAVE a means of escape, and CHOOSE not to use it, as this law allows you to do, what reason could you possibly have, OTHER than you WANTED to shoot him, by "standing your ground"??

I'll be happy to hear what tom thinks too.. You DO know this is the CRUX of the law. I understand WHY you wouldn't want to engage me on it...

But, let me speculate a bit... Did you hear when Zimmerman said, "they always get away with it"?? With that simple statement, I believe HE personified the motive behind the law. It's to PUNISH. It's to PAY BACK. It's to get JUSTICE.

On the other site, I'm involved in a discussion about the Castle doctrine. I used the example of finding a kid in your living room with your TV in his arms. I asked whether he deserved to be SHOT. WITHOUT exception, and WITHOUT pause, and WITHOUT one iota of guilt, they ALL said YES. And, they BLAMED him for it. He was ASKING for it, they said... I've heard similar arguments made on THESE pages, no?

The "stand your ground" law, is nothing more than the Castle doctrine, in public.

excon

Ex, we've pretty much already agreed on everything. You're just fishing, and I'm not biting.

"He has no protection under my law," (former Sen. Durell Peaden)
The law allows for residents to use deadly force if they
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;
- Chapter 776 - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate (http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/Chapter776/All)

Based on the clear language of the law ,Zimmerman doesn't have a case.

ex, we've pretty much already agreed on everything. You're just fishing, and I'm not biting.Hello again, Steve:

I've rebaited my hook..

Another phenomenon arising out of this case is the UPWELLING of anger and support for change on a NATIONAL basis. To WHAT do you attribute this to? Is it a referendum on the law? On blacks? On whites? On the south? On the cops? Anything??

Wake up!

excon

Here is the law as it applies to Zimmerman :
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

So even if Martin did jump him ,Since Zimmerman was the stalker, he was not right under the law to use force .

What UPWELLING is that besides the race baiters like Pitts? You'll have to be more specific.

What UPWELLING is that besides the race baiters like Pitts? You'll have to be more specific.Hello again, Steve:

If you SEE no upwelling, my directing you to it won't help.

excon

On the other site, I'm involved in a discussion about the Castle doctrine. I used the example of finding a kid in your living room with your TV in his arms. I asked whether he deserved to be SHOT. WITHOUT exception, and WITHOUT pause, and WITHOUT one iota of guilt, they ALL said YES. And, they BLAMED him for it. He was ASKING for it, they said... I've heard similar arguments made on THESE pages, no?

The "stand your ground" law, is nothing more than the Castle doctrine, in public.

excon

Not sure what site this is that you speak of but I'll take a shot (pun intended) at answering this. Is the kid armed? Do I fear for my life simply because he is holding my TV? If he's not armed, I'm not shooting. Castle Doctrine or not, I'm not in danger simply because he's holding my TV. Not only is it morally wrong to shoot in this case but, believe it or not, it's against the law. I can't shoot the guy only because he's in my house... I still need to be in danger.

I don't see where anyone on these pages is saying it would be OK to shoot someone just to do it.

You can expect Zimmerman got a thrill, knocking off that kid, he can speak of it with pride after all he got to use his gun

Looks like this is going to go in another direction: the sheriff stepped down, the Feds moved in, and somebody "cleaned" the recording so you can hear racist epithets. So is this going to turn into another Tawana Brawley or another James Byrd?

... or another Duke Lacross or Richard Jewell with a rush to judgement ? I gave my opinion about this case .I think I'm right. But we don't know the whole story .

Hello again,

I have a new found respect for Al Sharpton. His mother died yesterday, and he went to Florida anyway to lead a rally. He said his mother would have been ashamed of him if he didn't go.

There was some movement in the case. That would NOT have happened if heat wasn't brought, and Al Sharpton is bringing the heat..

Does that make it racial issue? Was it a racial issue from the git? I STILL say, that Zimmerman will get OFF, and it's the wording of the LAW that'll do it.

excon

Listening to Geraldo Rivera the last 2 days on radio. He's calling it the Hoodi murders and is saying that Martin was partly responsible for the murder by the way he was dressed. He's also condemning the 'million hoodi march' .
Wow .

Listening to Geraldo RiveraHello again, tom:

Well, it IS Geraldo.

But, I want to ask you this. Given the major, major pressure being brought on this case, why hasn't there been an arrest? I say, it's because everybody who examines the law, believes the law allows Zimmerman to do what he did.

Look. You DO understand that I hope I'm wrong. I'm not into murderer's.

excon

You think there should be an arrest because of external pressure ? Is that the way the law works ?

You think there should be an arrest because of external pressure ? Is that the way the law works ?Hello again, tom:

I think external pressure would have the cops going over EVERY move they've made, every report they've written, and every witness they've interviewed. Having MADE that review, there's STILL no arrest.

The feds and the new prosecutor are DOING the same thing, and no charges have been filed.. What other conclusion can I come up with? What's YOUR conclusion?

excon

It's not up to me to decide if arrests and prosecution is warranted even though it is my opinion. Public pressure is doing it's role ,making sure there is a proper investigation into the incident . If you ask me that it should be handed over to an independent prosecutor ,I'd say yes . But I can't say based on what I know if he should be arrested... or if he is the only one who should be (evidence tampering ? Possibly)

Hello again, Steve:

If you SEE no upwelling, my directing you to it won't help.

excon

I see Sharpton and Pitts, that's automatic outrage.

They have been outraged a long time Speech, and rightfully so!

Hello again,

There is a BIGGER story going on here... Some of you aren't aware of it... I don't know why.

These laws are on the books in 25 states. There have been unjustified killings based on them before. I can't find it, but the one in Texas where a neighbor shot and killed two black illegal aliens breaking into a neighbors house... There wasn't a backlash about that. Maybe being illegal AND black was the double whammy. But, I digress...

There IS a backlash about Trayvon. To those of you who see this backlash, why is it happening NOW? To those of you who DON'T, I invite you to open your eyes... If you're about to say with Pitts and Sharpton involved, it's a manufactured RACIAL issue by the left wing, I'm ready for you.

excon

The knee jerkers should go to Chi town and express their outrage there .Why Chi town ? Because in the last week scores ;maybe as many as 50 ,were shot and at least 10 killed in a place where there is no stand your ground laws.
Just for some perspective .

The outraged have accomplished what is reasonable .The investigations are ongoing. Let the investigators do their work .

If the investigation is not complete ,and there are no charges that will stick until the investigation is complete ,then what is the purpose of an arrest ,except to appease the mob ?

Edit... in the Chi town violence ;the youngest victim was a 6 year old girl
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=8589015

Think about it ...someone who isn't a cop confronts you with a gun in his hand . It's likely the kid was acting in self defense by attacking .

The knee jerkers should go to Chi town and express their outrage there Hello again, tom:

So, they should just go away? There's nothing going on here, folks. Just move along.

You appeared to be outraged once. What happened?

excon

So, they should just go away? There's nothing going on here, folks. Just move along.

Putting words in my mouth again.
Look ,State Attorney Angela B. Corey has been appointed by Rick Scott to take over the case. She's a tough prosecutor who has successfully prosecuted many homicides . Zimmerman's story is unbelievable and transparent. He'll go down ,and the law he will use in his self defense does not apply to his case.

He'd do better to plead insanity because he's a nut job. He assaulted a cop ;he's clearly a paranoid ,having called 9-1-1 multiple times . His lawyer talks of significant injuries to his nose and head which should've required stitches .Yet he did not go the ER or have his injuries documented .
Again ,the big story here is the apparent shoddy police work immediately after the incident . Perhaps the "Reverend " did some good in highlighting that fact . But now there is a State prosecutor on the case ,and most likely a Federal investigation. Mission accomplished .
As far as the law ; it's not intended to protect people like Zimmerman to justify killing a child ;and it's not likely that it will .

Hello again, tom:

So, RACE has nothing to do with it, huh?

Why does Florida have a statewide ban on saggy pants (http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/charleston/florida-passes-baggy-pants-ban/Content?oid=3327349)? Didn't you say somewhere above that if Zimmerman had been black, and Trayvon white, there would have been a different outcome??

If you didn't, and I'm not going to look, do you BELIEVE that sentiment?? Unless, your head is in the sand, you'd HAVE to believe it. Come on. Tell me with a straight face, that a ban on saggy pants ISN'T racist to its core.

Don't you think we need an AIRING of those issues?

I don't think you you do. I believe you feel that we already DEALT with civil rights, so what's the problem...

Over to you.

excon

Didn't you say somewhere above that if Zimmerman had been black, and Trayvon white, there would have been a different outcome??

I don't believe I did .
Do I think race was a factor ? Yes ,that is clear from his 9-1-1 call. All the more reason why he won't get away with hiding behind the Fla law .

I did not realize baggy pants were the issue. I thought it was hoodies . Being a long time wearer of hoodies myself ,I was not aware until Geraldo started yapping about it that hoodies id'd me as a back . Should I discard mine ? I get mine from Modells . They are convenient apparel to wear in the spring and fall before the real cold weather begins . Clearly I don' t think someone who wears them should be shot.

HA! You righties are good with long investigations, but a black guy who hollers self defense, after shooting a white guy, hell, any guy, would be in jail while the investigation dragged on, and on..!

Equal protection under the law my a$$!

Do you have an example ,or are you just flapping your gums . This incident is a month old . I was not looking for a prolonged investigation. I'm not looking for a lynching either.

BTW... about those baggy pants ? The law passed was for public schools and not a general ban on baggy pants. I'd go further . Students in public schools should wear uniforms .

do you have an example ,or are you just flapping your gums . This incident is a month old . I was not looking for a prolonged investigation. I'm not looking for a lynching either.

You made my point, so I don't have to give an example, this case is a perfect example of prolonged investigations and leaving a killer free while everyone in authority wrings their hands in the face of overwhelming, and growing evidence. After a month, we are still no closer to justice, or fairness. Just growing OUTRAGE, and finger pointing.

This was not the first incidence of the cops mishandling their investigations into a crime. That's what got the previous chief replaced by the new one. That was a year ago, and here we are again with the same old shuffle and cover ups.

You are NOT looking for a lynching?? I bet the youth at the center of this outrage wasn't looking to be murdered. Whats wrong with him being in custody while the investigation goes on?

Oh that's right, we can't violate his rights now can we. He is the right color, to be presumed innocent. You righties sound so reasonable when it comes to your own. No wonder you can temper your outrage with due process. A month later!

As tom said, the baggy pants ban is for public schools, not a ban statewide for the general public. Peaden and Baxley both have said that the law was not followed, and should not be used as a defense, when Zimmerman followed Martin.

As tom said, the baggy pants ban is for public schools, not a ban statewide for the general public.Hello Doula:

My point wasn't WHO, but WHAT. Banning saggy pants for ANYBODY is racist. That's just so...

excon

What's wrong with him being in custody while the investigation goes on?


What charge ? Believe it or not ,you have to charge someone to put him under arrest .

I don't know that and that is only a presumption . Doubt if a jury will agree.

They have the 9-1-1 call . There was no need for him to get out of the truck after that . He provoked the confrontation .

I think Zimmerman is in a whole lot of trouble .
What charge ? Believe it or not ,you have to charge someone to put him under arrest .Hello again, tom:

In the beginning of this thread, it was ME who was saying the law PROTECTS this guy. It was YOU who was saying there was probable cause for an arrest...

Now, that race has reared its ugly head, your sympathy's appear to have shifted. No?

excon

Oh that's right, we can't violate his rights now can we. He is the right color, to be presumed innocent. You righties sound so reasonable when it comes to your own. No wonder you can temper your outrage with due process. A month later!

You are aware that Zimmerman is Hispanic.. don't you ? I'm on record as saying that I believe he is guilty of murder. I also don't want the case botched more than it has been by incompetence or a rush to judgement .

Ex you can stop trying to paint me as a racist. Meanwhile you can find the posting where I claimed there was enough evidence or probable cause to arrest. To make it clear again . I think he is guilty of murder ;that the law doesn't protect him... but unless you are willing to make that charge and back it up in court then you'd best not make that arrest . Already I think the case is in jeopardy due to mishandling by the locals .

Hello Doula:

My point wasn't WHO, but WHAT. Banning saggy pants for ANYBODY is racist. That's just so...

excon

Schools have dress codes for both the guys and girls... one being that undergarments are not seen. The girls' jeans are not to be too low as well. Bra straps are not to be seen. Vulgar or profane language or images are not to be worn, etc. Baggy pants had been worn by kids from all backgrounds and by both sexes.

Ex you can stop trying to paint me as a racist. Meanwhile you can find the posting where I claimed there was enough evidence or probable cause to arrest. To make it clear again . I think he is guilty of murder ;that the law doesn't protect him ...but unless you are willing to make that charge and back it up in court then you'd best not make that arrest . Already I think the case is in jeopardy due to mishandling by the locals .

If I was a cop he would be detained, and his gun confiscated, until we checked and verified his story. And quit being so defensive, my outrage is not directed personally at you! Just at having this issue buried for so long! Like they always are.

Most of you righties are not bad guys, just a tad insensitive.

I recognize the racial component about this . Gerlado made if very clear. These million hoodie marches are the same nature as the slut walks to protest the flippant catagorization that women's apparel is a cause in rape. And I actually do get the outrage.
http://www.tallahassee.com/article/20120324/OPINION05/203240301/Eugene-Robinson-Martin-case-is-a-reminder-to-every-black-man?odyssey=tab%7Cmostpopular%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE
That doesn't justify an arrest to appease an angry mob. I look forward to the day that he is arrested with an iron clad case that he can't wiggle out of on a technicality .

The very fact he is free without bail, charges, and with his gun is a double standard that's not extended to anybody else. If that's the way this law is enforced, well sorry, that's not the same due process, or equal protection that is fair and unbiased, or equally applied.

The police should never take the word of a suspect, and then let him go, and would never do it for any other citizen, especially a minority, in the same situation. YOU know it, I know it, everyone knows it, whether he gets convicted by a court or not!

That's the part of the outrage you don't seem to understand or acknowledge, this is but the latest example of many where fair treatment is only for a select few. And the MOB, as YOU call it, have had enough. This isn't a lynching, it's a call for fairness. Its not about him facing charges or a lawful conviction, he will eventually. Its about him going through the same process as anyone else.

Even you have to acknowledge he has not, nor has the public been served and protected. That's why the outrage grows. Why is he presumed innocent, when others have never been?

Ummm he is a minority . And I have acknowleged that the law enforcement in this case needs to be held accountable.

ummm he is a minority . and I have acknowleged that the law enforcement in this case needs to be held accountable.

Tom reading up on Zimmerman indicates he is a d**khead of the first order,a police wannabee and all round seriel nuiance who's acting out of his fantasy cost a life. This guy is a suitable case for treatment and local law enforcement would know this, they probably know there is little hope of gaining a conviction as the plea will be insanity

That may well be ,but my point is that he can only be arrested if he broke the law. He can be brought in and questioned ;but unless the police are ready to book ,he can't be arrested unless charges are ready to be filed . He can't have his personal property confiscated unless there are charges. The case has been handed to a prosecutor and a Grand Jury .
I expect they will have charges that will stick .Then he will be arrested .

In the meantime I ask again... last weekend 50 people were shot in Chicago resulting in 10 deaths including a 6 year old black girl named Aliyah Shell .
http://cbschicago.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/aliyah-shell-0318.jpg

This weekend in Chicago there were demonstrations... about the Trayvon Martin case.

So what's happening over there Tom civil war?

Here is a good one. Im not sure what all the fighting is about when it comes to gun rights. If that man did something illegal then he goes to jail if he didn't then he doesn't go to jail. There is nothing magical about it. Maybe this guy should have tried to run away like they taught him to in the service??

92-year-old veteran sticks to his guns; DA, HPD chief promise help | khou.com Houston (http://www.khou.com/news/local/92-year-old-veteran-sticks-to-his-guns-DA-HPD-chief-promise-help-143891796.html)

Did I say something about the "upwelling" was by the race baiters, in spite of the fact that we all agree Zimmerman was a paranoid wannabe that murdered an innocent kid? Yeah, I think I did. Meanwhile (http://www.examiner.com/crime-in-national/new-black-panthers-hopes-to-collect-1-million-to-up-bounty-on-zimmerman), "the New Black Panther Party offered a reward of $10,000 for the capture" of Zimmerman. Dead or alive (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/report-new-black-panther-party-issues-wanted-dead-or-alive-poster-for-george-zimmerman/).

Yeah, that's helpful... at a rally saying "stop the killing" no less.

P.S. I wonder if anyone will be holding a "stop the killing" sign at Aliyah Shell's funeral.

They joined to late as the upwelling started when the reporting spread to the national stage. Or else it would be swept under the rug. I am not backing the new Black Panthers mind you, but they have as much right to express themselves, right or wrong, as birthers, Tea party, or any other who use extreme language, and rhetoric.

I don't think that just because this one case has been made a focal point for many, that you can lose site of the fact there are many such cases, and incidents through out the country that have not gotten the publicity they deserve. That doesn't make them invalid, just less known.

Indeed Speech, we are getting more evidence that the Trayvon Martin case is NOT that unique, and more widespread than just one case, in one town. But just as your baiters do exist, you have many more who are race deniers.

I don't know Tal, I think there are more race baiters than deniers. Most of us really don't give a crap what color your skin is and we're fed up with the left's attempts to keep racism alive. I don't care if the New Black Panthers exercise their free speech rights, but calling for a "dead or alive" bounty they hope will be up to $1 million dollars soon is advocating murder.

Institutional racism is alive and well in this age, as is the perverse hidden kind, wrapped in code words and actions and the legislative kind where the hoods come off (NOT hoodies, LOL) and they run for local elections to make laws to keep divisions alive.

I believe as you do that its character and not skin color, but it doesn't take a bunch of people to screw that up. It only takes one. Don't be distracted, or misdirected by those who would use situations, and circumstances to promote their own agenda.

There are loonies, and goonies on both sides. Not everyone is a good guy like YOU,. OR ME!

Most of us really don't give a crap what color your skin is and we're fed up with the left's attempts to keep racism alive. Hello again, Steve:

What you've been GOOD at, is accusing US of racism because we RECOGNIZE racism, and speak about it.. It's good tactic, but it ain't going to work.

I know you guys think racism was handled with the Civil Rights Law. What BLOWS me away, is that you believe if Zimmerman had been black, and Trayvon had been white, the same thing would have happened... But, you guys DO believe that... I have NO idea why.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Let's review:

(1) You don't think Zimmerman is a racist. (2) You don't think the cops are racist. (3) You think the only reason we say they ARE is to perpetuate a racism that just isn't there, and (4) we DO this in order to PREVENT real progress..

Really? Dude!

excon

PS> (edited) There WAS a post above mine that I quoted. Why did you take it down?

As the text was borderline and the pictures where both disrespectful and racist the post was removed.
Let the media play the whole race "issue" but keep it partisan here please.

Deleted by user.

I meant on the side of balance, as well you know.

Where exactly in the rules does it specify this balance I must maintain on a current events "member discussions" forum that was designed for us to have more latitude in our discussions? That is why you created it, I remember it quite vividly.

I think one of the main reasons it was created was to prevent the ratings misuse that was going on in the old board, where likeminded people would continuously rate their friends comments positively and rate the opposing viewpoint negatively.

Also I don't think anyone else posts the types of images that you seem to dig up.

Where exactly in the rules does it specify this balance I must maintain on a current events "member discussions" forum that was designed for us to have more latitude in our discussions? That is why you created it, I remember it quite vividly.
Latitude is one thing, but, to be perfectly honest with you, I found the posted images offensive and if that is how you feel that political comments should be conducted then there really is no hope for civilised discourse.
Also FYI the post was reported elsewhere, before you start shouting about mod bias.

You know as well as anyone how much we allow in the member areas, but there is still a line and you not only crossed it, you burnt it and danced all over it's glowing embers.

Hello again,

By the power vested in me for whatever reason, I hereby close this thread...

We shall continue elsewhere..

excon
Mod

Sounds good to be excon ;)