Well, it's obvious racism is alive and well in TOTV. :mad:

Evidently the special prosecutor and her team don't believe Zimmerman is innocent, since they charged him with second degree murder. I'm just guessing they have more information about this case than we do. Zimmerman will get his day in court which is more than Trayvon Martin ever did.

All Lost
 

We have all lost today. We have become "cowards" to the hanging crowd
and unfortunately they are building the gallows for Zimmerman even though the Police did not arrest him. They had to bring in a "Special Procsecutor" and do away with a Grand Jury in case it found no cause for prosecution and
then have the "Special Procsecutor" violate Zimmerman's rights to satisfy the hanging crowd. I lived and worked about 3-4 miles from where Tawana Brawley falsely accused the assistant DA (Pagoness) of assulting her and in came the same bunch of rable rousers who scared the state and they have now have done the same thing against this person and scared Florida to act as a coward. For those who don't know. After they ruined Pagoness's reputatioin he sued them and won against both Brawley and Sharpton and the last I heard they have not paid the judgements. It is a day of shame for all who value the legal process and fairness. :mad:

It seems you are convicting someone without a trial. Like it or not, Zimmerman is not guilty until he has has his day in court. The press has taken this to a new level and made this a race thing because they seem to think it makes a better news story. The job of the press is to report not convict. Thanks to the press, it will be impossible to get a jury that is not biased in more ways than one. I wonder if the Anthony trial wouldn't have had a different outcome if the press reported it in an unbiased manner. Just my humble opinion.

Zimmerman should have thought about consequences BEFORE following Martin with a pistol.

Yes, it does suck to be Zimmerman right now. Even if found not guilty, he will probably have to move and change his name to begin over somewhere else.

However, it is his own stupid fault for following Martin with a pistol.

I suppose by your logic Martin was a dumbass for picking a fight with a man with a pistol.

Time will tell.

Community Watch / GUNS
 

Through this whole mess, I don't believe that I have read any articles regarding the taking away of guns from a Community Watch person. Why not?

Do our C. W. people in The Villages carry them? Someone please respond ASAP!

Look It Up
 

Look up "Tawana Brawley"..This is Brawley all over again. Ruining reputations and persons lives by the Press and the rable rousers. It is amazing that history repeats itself so easily. :mad:

Check out these statements from Martin's parents . Trayvon Martin mom Sybrina Fulton on Zimmerman shooting:

It seems the mainstream media is still using the years old photo of an apparently prepubescent Trayvon Martin although they have replaced the old police mugshot of George Zimmerman.

I get a kick out of the photos that are shown on the news. One report will have angelic Trayvon and evil looking George. Then another report has menacing Trayvon with clean cut George. The circus continues.

Brawley
 

At the time of Brawley they published pictures of her with her head on her mothers lap,etc and the rable rousers using that to show the terrible effect on the parents. In the end it was all just an attempt to lead the public into some form of sympathy and away from the real facts. Sound familiar?:mornincoffee:

...and there should not be sympathy for Trayvon Martin's family? Their son was killed! Whether or not it was justified legally, their 17 year old son is dead.

And "away from the real facts". We do not know the real facts yet in this terrible incident. We only have Zimmerman's account. Is there more? Wait and see without jumping to conclusions on either side.

Let's just hope that the trial isn't televised.

Let's give the prosecutors in this case the benefit of the doubt. They have a duty to actually present the case to the best of their ability based upon the facts they have. They took their time arresting Zimmerman so they must think they have a pretty good case against Zimmerman. http://sa18.state.fl.us/general/duties.htm

A jury could still find him innocent or a judge could dismiss the case.

Let's just wait and see if the system works.

Prosecutor's ethics (3.8)-- http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/fl/narr/ http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/fl..._3.HTM#3.8:300

Another whole issue relating to this complicated and tragic case.
 

Trayvon Martin shooting spurs protests against companies with ties to legislative group - The Washington Post


I said something along these lines a while back. The only facts are that Zimmerman had a gun and Martin is dead. Everything else is more than just "opinions, fabrications and conjectures." It's also politics and racism, as can clearly be seen in some of the comments made earlier. We are not obliged to accept a self-serving media focusing on its own bottom line, and at the same time we do need to accept and respect the justice system (whether in the end we agree with it or not) because it's what we have in this great country of ours.

Very glad George Zimmerman is in jail.

He is probably a lot safer there because of all the hatred directed at him due to the strained race relations coming out of this murder. It was a murder. We will just have to wait and see and get all the facts before determining if the murder was a justified one.

Really do not like that Stand Your Ground law though. Belongs more in 1812 than 2012.

Tal, there are pluses and minuses to the stand your ground law. Sadly, it is one of the main reasons I moved to Florida. Some will use it as an excuse to be a "man", to not have to back down, to claim self-defense regardless of the actual fear or danger. Some will use it to protect themselves in the true sense that the law was created.

I think Zimmerman's defense will hinge largely on the autopsy and the trajectory of the bullet. I would guess that the path of the bullet will tell us a lot, at least I hope so.

I was and am firmly behind the idea that Zimmerman should have been arrested and charged with something. I have yet to see anything that changes my mind that the Sanford Police Department did their job. At most, there was a cursory and perfunctory examination of the event. Witnesses were barely, if at all, interviewed. To me, that has always been the biggest issue. Not a race issue, not even the fact that a young man died. The simple fact that a police department did not do its job and justice was not being served. Hopefully, now all facts will come out and a reasoned verdict can be determined. I think that's what the Martins were asking for.

I had heard that too from some lawyers discussing this on some channels. Think it was Alan Dershowitz and Patricia Cornwell who were discussing what the forensics might show. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-d...b_1418441.html http://piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com/201...n-martin-case/

That police department does have some history with shoddy investigations.

I understand why you would defend the Stand Your Ground Law. It does make sense in various situations. Wish they could have written it a little better though. http://articles.businessinsider.com/...ent-commission

Great article on this case and the charges brought against Mr. Zimmerman in this article by Andrew McCarthy, if you haven't seen the link in the other thread devoted to this incident.

Martin Case Affidavit - By Andrew C. McCarthy - The Corner - National Review Online

Stand your ground has nothing to do with it. Seld-defense or not self-defense, that is the question.

Seems way too cynical to me.

Here's the article Andrew McCarthy is criticizing. It is by David French.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...t-david-french

Other Considerations
 

As I understand the law: If it is self defense then the person is responsible to rurn and try to get away before using any force. If "Stand your Ground" all the person has to prove is they were being threatened and they have a right to stand where they are and defend themselves (e.g. they do not have to run away).
The other considerations are the attempts by some, (we know who they are) to try to make this a "racial" issue. Under the circumstances that is dispictable.:read:

It appears that the State is making it's case against Zimmerman by the police operator advising him not to follow Martin. Zimmerman ignored it and went to confront Martin. If he was not following Martin, this tragic incident would not have happened.

your entire post is total supposition.

The 911 operators words were "we don't need you to do that." You do see the difference, don't you?

Stand your ground
 

Let me try to explain this as best I can. Let me compare state of Florida and my home state.

If someone breaks into your house while you're home and you are in fear you might shoot him and claim self-defense. Where I come from the first thing that would be examined is were you able to run away, run out the back door? If the coroner's inquest or anybody else thinks that you should have run out the back door then you're going to be arrested and charged.

If you are walking down the street and an assailant approaches you with the obvious intent to do great bodily harm and you shoot him, the first thing they will ask this could you have run away. If the coroner's inquest or anybody else thinks that you should have run away you will be arrested and prosecuted.

Now let's look at Florida. Look at the stand your ground law. It does not come into effect until after the shooting. In Florida you are not required to leave your home or castle a.k.a. Castle law in order to defend yourself.

In Florida you are under no obligation to leave any place that you are legally in order to defend yourself.

The merits of self-defense will be determined at some time in Florida. And the state where I came from you are already in trouble even if it was self-defense.

That is my best practical understanding of the Florida Castle law and stand your ground law. I think it's pretty accurate if not oversimplified.

Just my opinion.

PS my home state does not recognize your inherent right to protect yourself. There are several who do not. Washington DC comes to mind. There are others.

Maybe not complying with the 911 dispatcher's advisory was a stupid decision, but Mr. Zimmerman was under no legal requirement to do so. I don't see how that can be used as a charge against him.

We will have to wait until the court starts their process.Glad he is in jail,only thing he should have been there from the night of the shooting. Still think Sanford Police did poor job without charging him.

Richie, I was a legal secretary for over 30 years. I, too, have read the prosecutor's complaint in this case. Yes, it is vague -- complaints usually are. You state enough to get your case into court, not enough to lay everything on the table, especially since investigation and time can change things -- this is true whether it is civil or criminal. So, I take Mr. McCarthy's opinions as just that -- opinions. Nothing more, nothing less. He's entitled to his, I'm entitled to mine, you're entitled to yours.

It seems to me that self-defense laws are more "pro life," if you will. In a self-defense case, taking another's life is acceptable as a last resort. In a "stand your ground" defense, taking another's life is acceptable as a first resort.

If Martin was talking to his girlfriend on the cellphone, as she claims, and he expressed fear of a man following him, it is plausible that "an altercation ensued" because Martin was trying to stand his ground. Perhaps they were both scared of each other and tried to stand their ground.

If Martin was just an unarmed kid making his way home from the store and not out looking for trouble, it's sad he had to die, regardless of whether a crime was committed when he was shot.

Without any "hard evident" that might become available as the case makes its way through the justice system, (such as forensics, voice analysis of the screams, any physical clues, etc.) I don't have a position on what happened.

Some links about self-defense and related matters.
 

Right of self-defense - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stand your ground law (NY Times 2006) http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/07/us...pagewanted=all

"Many prosecutors oppose the laws, saying they are unnecessary at best and pernicious at worst. 'They’re basically giving citizens more rights to use deadly force than we give police officers, and with less review,' said Paul A. Logli, president of the National District Attorneys Association." from above NYT article.

This is a timely article from Detroit-- http://www.freep.com/article/2012041...f-self-defense

If I understand you correctly, you are against people defending themselves. You want the killer punished even if it was self-defense. What is not to like about the law. It is good for the good guy and bad for thebad guy. What if it were you?


All the SYG law does is to prevent prosecution if it is believed to be self-defense and to protect the defender from civil suit if it was a lawful killing.

What is being missed here is that a person is not allowed to be the persuer and turn around and say they were standing their ground, otherwise every drive-by shooter in the country could say they were standing their ground. Hopefully, with George Zimmerman in jail facing life in prison, this will give other potential shooter's pause when they think they can get away with it under the stand your ground law. We should know a lot more in this case after the judge's decision next Friday and Zimmerman's testimony.

Persuit:
act of chasing after something: the act of chasing after somebody or something in order to catch, attack, or overtake that person or thing

Persuit hasn't been proven. To follow is not to chase.

Would you have a person pause and end up dead? You have a very low opinion of law abiding citizens. It is not the law abiding citizen who wantenly rape, pillage and murder it is the criminal. They don't care about the law.

What will you say if the court finds that it was a case of self-defense? I'd love to know.

Imho
 

:agree: :BigApplause:

Do you agree that Zimmerman would have been a lot better off if he had obeyed the police operator telling him not to follow Martin? He would still be in his Sanford condo instead of the Sanford slammer - and facing a second degree murder charge.

You're right, following is not chasing. It is often referred to as stalking. Why would you assume that Martin was not or at the very least attempting to be a law abiding citizen tha night?

Zimmerman's claim was that Martin was someone he didn't know and was acting "suspicious" (didn't exactly define suspicious, tho) and he thought he was on drugs or something. Where or what is his basis for determining and/or assuming someone is on drugs? Much has been said of both their pasts, but that night Zimmerman didn't know anything about Martin and Martin didn't know anything about Zimmerman, so both their previous transgressions are moot.

Put yourself in Trayvon's shoes for a minute. He was being followed by someone HE didn't know. From all indications thus far he was simply on his way home on foot doing nothing wrong. This person that he did not know, did not identify himself in any way, was not even in a marked vehicle, begins following him. Suppose he might have been afraid? He started running toward the back door presumedly of the home where he was staying with Zimmerman in hot pursuit (Zimmerman could be heard on one of the 911 tapes saying, "He ran".

Clearly stated on the neighborhood watch sign is that "suspicious behavior would result in the summoning of the authorities" (paraphrased) which Zimmerman had done. No where did it state that someone from the neighborhood would follow on foot. To me, this is where Zimmerman made his mistake....not following protocol. Had he done so, there would be no discussion, no charges, no one dead. Because of his actions after his initial call, many lives have been ruined.

It just does not sound like self defense in the Martin murder.
 

Bill Cosby: Trayvon Martin Case About Guns, Not Race

We will have to wait and see if the authorities find that the stand your ground law applies in the Zimmerman case. I doubt though that a good argument can be made that this was self-defense. Without that law, Zimmerman's goose looks like it is cooked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...rayvon-martin/

I posted some links but stated no opinion about defending oneself. Look at the Florida SYG law. It is so poorly written that it could be used to justify murder. If a neighbor had a heated argument with another neighbor and a gun was handy just such an incident could occur. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

Neighbor shoots neighbor over number of trash bags on curb and argument about this issue--http://caribbeancricket.com/topic/1016897

Rep Dennis Baxley, the prime sponsor of the "stand your ground" law in 2005, has stated that the law does not apply in the Trayvon Martin case, as did Jeb Bush, the governor who signed the law. Special Prosecutor, Angela Corey, is the only person that has seen all the evidence in this case, and based on that evidence, she charged George Zimmerman with second degree murder the highest charge she could file without a grand jury.

Ms Corey has the evidence collected by Sanford Police, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, her own investigators and the FBI. The key evidence will probably be the autopsy report, which will show if Martin was in a fight and the trajectory of the bullet; and Zimmerman's hospital report, which will show what injuries he sustained.


Trayvon Martin's alleged attacker not covered under law I wrote | Fox News