Because he is allowed to have a gun. It was properly permitted .

But irresponsibly used!!

Unclear. The local DA wouldn't prosecute even though the cops recommended it . Let the investigation continue.

With him in custody, or out on bail/bond, like everyone else who kills somebody for whatever the reason.

Charges ? The DA told them no .

Lets charge the DA too!

Maybe the state prosecutor will find something... or if not I'm sure Holder's Justice Dept will find some 'hate crime' to charge Zimmerman with . Zimmerman is the victim of his own last name . This case would not have made a spash on the national scene if his last name was Gonzalez.

So Tom are you saying a Hispanic can kill a Nergo and it doesn't rate a mention, strange I thought Hispanics were white men, but then maybe not, depends on which side of the atlantic you come from. I just can't understand your racist society where you have such distinctions between people over here we have citizens and non citizens and indigenous who are only identified for the purposes of dealing with disadvantage

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

maybe the state prosecutor will find something ...or if not I'm sure Holder's Justice Dept will find some 'hate crime' to charge Zimmerman with . Zimmerman is the victim of his own last name . This case would not have made a spash on the national scene if his last name was Gonzalez.

---

You mean the judges son gets a free pass because he killed a black guy? Either you are being rudely sarcastic, or blatantly racist. This became a story, and went national when the parents reached out to others for support to get the facts of why their son is dead!

Yeah I can see where some would sweep this under the rug, and have it happen again. Only a racist would see a kid coming from the candy store as up to NO GOOD!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

so Tom are you saying a Hispanic can kill a Nergo and it doesn't rate a mention, strange I thought Hispanics were white men, but then maybe not, depends on which side of the atlantic you come from. I just can't understand your racist society where you have such distinctions between people over here we have citizens and non citizens and indigenous who are only identified for the purposes of dealing with disadvantage

---

Clete, only RACISTS make that distinction, and deny equal protection under the law for those that don't look like them!

You like tossing that smear around .

No smear intended, just an opinionated observation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, WG:

You bring up a key issue that I'd like to expand on... Pursuant to the law, one may "stand ones ground" and use deadly force if one feels threatened. Can the provision switch sides during an altercation?

Let's say I provoke a fight with you. I get off the first punch and I'm standing over you. The law says you can shoot me. But, you don't. Instead you get up and start WINNING the fight. Now, I'm afraid that you're gonna hurt me. Can I shoot you?

Let's say Trayvon was running away, as we know he was. It's ON the tape. Why wasn't HE allowed to "stand his ground", and break Zimmermans nose?

I wonder just who can stand who's ground???? I ask these questions to show how stupid and utterly useless the law is.

excon

---

Hello tom:

Would you answer this for me?

excon

Not familiar enough with the details of the law to make comment on the nuances. The DA didn't think he could make a case ,and now there is a State attorney investigating the case .

From my reading of the law there is a clear distinction between the aggressor and the one who is defending oneself ,and I do not believe those roles can be reversed . But I could not state that definitlvely .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello tom:

Would you answer this for me?

excon

---

I will try to answer it. The stand your ground is for law abiding citizens. In a case like this where at this time both sides haven't done anything illegal and an altercation ensues then both sides have the right to stand their ground. Now if one was in the middle of the commission of an illegal act they may forfeit that right.

Like if someone was entering your home for burglary and you caught them and it goes sour.

If 2 parties are fighting and it escalates with threats or otherwise then the law may take effect. Circumstance will prevail as to how the law applies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by califdadof3

I will try to answer it.

---

Hello dad:

Well, that was as clear as mud.

excon

New rule, folks, or an old one, perhaps, thou shalt not kill, is anyone confused?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

New rule, folks, or an old one, perhaps, thou shalt not kill, is anyone confused?

---

Me ?

Does that mean not kill like anything or just humans?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by califdadof3

Me ?

Does that mean not kill like anything or just humans?

---

Yes I expect it was all inclusive however it was very specific advice given to humans, so read it either way but specifically that human should not kill human.

In this case one man apparently provoked another by his actions and then killed him when attacked. Both were wrong as the outcome resulted in death. They cannot be considered as equals as one man was armed and the other not. Now we know the law is an a$$ since it allows one to kill with impunity

The origninal text said do not murder . I think that was an important distinction.