i doubt obama is going to have zimmerman or the police over for a beer.

3/26/2012 7:52:14 PM

It was premeditated murder when Zimmerman jumped out his car and chased after that kid. Gun ownership is a responsibility, not something to be taken lightly.

3/26/2012 8:03:10 PM

^haha, hardly.

3/26/2012 8:13:06 PM

Why don't we have a trial to sort out all this shit?

Oh, and btw:

Quote :

"Over the last 48 hours, there has been a sustained effort to smear Trayvon Martin, the 17-year old African-American who was shot dead by George Zimmerman a month ago. Martin’s mother, Sybrina Fulton, said, “They killed my son, now they’re trying to kill his reputation.” Thus far these attacks have fallen into two categories: false and irrelevant. Much of this leaked information seems intended to play into stereotypes about young African-American males. Here’s what everyone should know: 1. Prominent conservative websites published fake photos of Martin. Twitchy, a new website run by prominent conservative blogger Michelle Malkin, promoted a photo — purportedly from Martin’s Facebook page — that shows Martin in saggy pants and flipping the bird. The photo, which spread quickly on conservative websites and Twitter, is intended to paint Martin as a thug. As Twitchy later acknowledged, it is not a photo of Trayvon Martin. [Examiner] 2. The Sanford Police selectively leaked irrelevant, negative information about Martin. The authorities told the Orlando Sentinel this morning that Trayvon was suspended from school for ten days “after being found with an empty marijuana baggie.” There is no evidence that Martin was under the influence of drugs at the time of his death, nor would prior possession of marijuana be a reason for killing him. It’s unclear what the relevance of the leak was, other than to smear Martin. [Orlando Sentinel] 3. On Fox News, Geraldo said that Martin was dressed “like a wannabe gangster.” Bill O’Reilly agreed with him. The sole evidence is that Martin was wearing a hoodie. Geraldo added that “everyone that ever stuck up a convenience store” was wearing a hoodie. [ThinkProgress; The Blaze] 4. Without any evidence, prominent right-wing bloggers suggested that Martin was a drug dealer. Right-wing blogger Dan Riehl advances the theory, also advanced in a widely linked peice on a site called Wagist. There does not appear to be any evidence to support this claim whatsoever. [Riehl World View] 5. Without any evidence, a right-wing columnist alleged that Martin assaulted a bus driver. Unlike Zimmerman, Trayvon has no documented history of violence. This allegation continues to be advanced by a blogger on the Examiner even after the real reason was leaked to the police and confirmed by the family. [Miami Herald; Examiner] 6. Zimmerman’s friend says Martin was to blame because he was disrespectful to Zimmerman. Zimmerman’s friend Joe Oliver said that Martin would not have been shot to death if Trayvon had just said “I’m staying with my parents.” Of course, Zimmerman was not a police officer, and Trayvon had no duty to tell him who he was or where he was going. [NBC News] The final part of the effort to smear Trayvon Martin is to link him and his supporters to irresponsible fringe groups like the New Black Panthers and marignal provocateurs like Louis Farrakhan. Threats by these groups are serious and should be investigated, but they have nothing to do with Martin or his supporters. The leader of the effort to associate Martin with these groups is Matt Drudge. You can see how he is framing the story today here. Ultimately, whether Martin was a perfect person is irrelevant to whether Zimmerman’s conduct that night was justified. Clearly, there are two different versions of the events that transpired on February 26, the night Trayvon was killed. There are conflicting statements by witnesses and conflicting evidence as to who was the aggressor. Zimmerman has the right to tell his side of the story. But his opportunity to do this will come in a court of law after he is charged and arrested. In the meantime, Zimmerman’s supporters should stop trying to smear the reputation of a dead, 17-year-old boy. "

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/26/452310/what-everyone-needs-to-know-about-the-smear-campaign-against-trayvon-martin-1995-2012/

3/26/2012 8:15:13 PM

There are no credible witnesses, just a bunch of racists...so a trial aint gonna work especially when the facts have been so murky.

These so called witnesses didn't even come outside to stop the fight. Racist cowards watching from the comfort of their homes.

3/26/2012 8:23:41 PM

Quote :

"literally it means you are in the minority and it used to be universally applicable because there are less blacks or hispanics than whites in this country. simple enough right? until recently whites were eligible for minority scholarships at historically black colleges in NC due to the literal use of this term. but i believe that was rescinded in 2009 because whites can *never* be classified as minority (and therefore dont need a handout), so really you cant take it to mean "less than" in this nation anymore. so yeah, it basically means non-white and will continue to mean so even when there are less whites."

Thats pretty crazy... I wonder if this is just an American thing, or if minority=non-white in all countries?

3/26/2012 8:33:22 PM

Quote :

"“This law does not apply to this particular circumstance,” Bush said after an education panel discussion at the University of Texas at Arlington. “Stand your ground means stand your ground. It doesn’t mean chase after somebody who’s turned their back.”"

http://nation.foxnews.com/jeb-bush/2012/03/24/jeb-bush-says-stand-your-ground-invalid-trayvon-martin-case

[Edited on March 26, 2012 at 8:42 PM. Reason : Already posted earlier part]

3/26/2012 8:35:28 PM

^the quote is correct; however, there is no evidence that this was premeditated.

3/26/2012 8:36:38 PM

^^youve already said that once-

and besides most of the thread will just be jackasses repeating themselves until a trial takes place.

then we will know who was standing their ground... its gonna get murky if it turns out trayvon was stomping his ass. it wont matter if zimmerman was pursuing him at that point unless he had his weapon out.

just because zimmerman bit off more than he could chew doesnt mean he was supposed to lie there and accept his beating.

[Edited on March 26, 2012 at 8:38 PM. Reason : -]

3/26/2012 8:38:42 PM

Here's what I think happened.

THIS IS SIMPLY MY OPINION, BASED PURELY ON MY AWESOMENESS

THAT WAS JUST MY OPINION

3/26/2012 8:39:52 PM

OH YEA?

Well, that's just your opinion.

3/26/2012 8:43:55 PM

^^I agree with most of that post. I am not trying to defend the guy just to defend him or gun rights. I was trying to convey gun laws in general and how I think things went during the scuffle and what the police will do.

I, too, think Zimmerman thought he was doing the right thing by calling in a suspicious person; even if his reason for someone being suspicious is wrong (that's a separate issue). Getting out of his vehicle to follow was a mistake, but up to this point, I don't think he's committed a crime or negated his right to defense. HOWEVER, if Zimmerman was chasing Trayvon (as opposed to following), then he likely lost his right to defense. UNLESS Zimmerman ceased his chase and returned to his vehicle, at which point, I think it counts as retreating.

If Zimmerman did chase the kid and got into a verbal argument or tried to detain him, then yes, Zimmerman committed a crime and should be punished.

If Zimmerman did return to his vehicle and the kid approached him, I think there's a different conclusion.

It's a sad story that ended up in a tragedy. This wasn't a hate or racial crime (the shooting). Zimmerman thought he was doing the right thing and ended up getting into a situation where he couldn't maintain self control. And when he started getting his ass kicked (allegedly), he truly thought he had the right to defend himself with lethal means.

[Edited on March 26, 2012 at 8:51 PM. Reason : .]

3/26/2012 8:45:03 PM

Yeah? Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man

3/26/2012 8:45:25 PM

so what the fuck is wrong with central florida? why is there an unusual concentration of racists and shit cops there of all places?

3/26/2012 8:50:41 PM

The blame on the stand your ground law is unwarranted and unneeded. If you think the law is to blame, then you don't know the law. Regardless of the duty to retreat, if Zimmerman had been attacked without provocation, he would have had the right to defend himself, if he indeed was unable to retreat. The duty to retreat was never an absolute.

The skittles and tea compared to a firearm argument is childish and completely wrong. Carrying a firearm doesn't mean your life can't be threatened. Someone carrying skittles and tea still possesses the ability to threaten someone's life. The fact that someone is unarmed doesn't mean lethal force can't be used against them.

[Edited on March 26, 2012 at 8:54 PM. Reason : .]

3/26/2012 8:53:08 PM

^^ I think it's just part of the southern culture there would be my guess

He's an article that popped up recently outlining some of the shit that's gone down there.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/26/opinion/wilkerson-trayvon/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

^ Eh, I think we debating that before, and you know my position on it. Regarding the law itself, I personally believe if a law is written in such a way where it's interpretation can lead to a situation like this... the law could probably stand to be scrubbed. Again, I realize the law's intent... but it's intent ≠ practice. I'll leave it at that, because I'm too lazy to get into that debate again.


I will also say...depending on exactly what went down that night, it very well could have been Trayvon that felt he needed to defend his life.



[Edited on March 26, 2012 at 9:00 PM. Reason : a]

3/26/2012 8:54:48 PM

Quote :

"The blame on the stand your ground law is unwarranted and unneeded. If you think the law is to blame, then you don't know the law. Regardless of the duty to retreat, if Zimmerman had been attacked without provocation, he would have had the right to defend himself, if he indeed was unable to retreat. The duty to retreat was never an absolute."

Absolutely agree. Gun laws are not to blame in this situation, regardless of what side of the "self defense" argument you fall on.

3/26/2012 9:02:18 PM

^^He very well could have. If Zimmerman was running him down, yelling, and tried to detain him/made contact then Trayvon would have had the right to defend himself when contact was made. That's why the facts about how things got started are so important.

And any law is open to misinterpretation. You can't "law" yourself out of that. The stand your ground law is pretty clear. The law was fairly clear before that, but the duty to retreat was problematic.

As I said previously, even if Zimmerman had the duty to retreat, he could still use lethal force without retreat, provided retreat wasn't possible or effective (assuming he was attacked and didn't start the threat). The law was changed because the ability to retreat couldn't be defined. It was open to too many interpretations. The law now essentially states, if you didn't start shit and you're life is in danger, than you can use lethal force, when necessary. Yes that's still open to interpretation. But it is much clearer than the duty to retreat law.

I guess part of the debate is when the escalation started. The call to 911 and following weren't escalation, IMO. Chasing/detaining would be escalating, IMO, thus it depends on what Zimmerman did.

It gets muddier if Zimmerman ceased the chase and started to/did return to his vehicle, and then was approached by Trayvon (not saying this happened, but I've seen reports/post alluding to this). In one sense this would indicate that Zimmerman had "de-escalated" or retreated and any attack afterwards may allow him to use lethal force. However, this is where the law is muddy... the point at which the situation was de-escalated is not clearly defined; does Zimmerman ceasing the chase and returning to his vehicle effectively end the previous escalation, or is it continued? I would think it counts has ending the previous escalation; however, it's difficult to really know how this part of the law is applied..

[Edited on March 26, 2012 at 9:12 PM. Reason : /]

3/26/2012 9:04:02 PM

Stand your ground is such a bullshit law, there were already self defense laws which required more restraint before killing someone.

I guess everyone should get a gun...



[Edited on March 26, 2012 at 9:12 PM. Reason : .]

3/26/2012 9:11:02 PM

^exactly what I'm talking about. Do you know any gun laws, or do you just repeat the rhetoric?



[Edited on March 26, 2012 at 9:14 PM. Reason : .]

3/26/2012 9:13:21 PM

I don't own a gun. I Think people have the right to own a gun and use it when they are truly threatened. Can't shoot a kid because he punched you, how many dead people would there be.

3/26/2012 9:16:00 PM

Stand Your Ground laws are great, and in my opinion, should be lauded, not denigrated.

[Edited on March 26, 2012 at 9:16 PM. Reason : Stand your ground doesn't say that^.]

3/26/2012 9:16:08 PM

^^which is correct, but SYG laws don't say you can use lethal force in any physical altercation. However, in this case, it has been reported that more than just a punch was thrown. Hopefully we'll get an accurate account of what happened. I doubt Zimmerman shot Trayvon because of a punch. I believe it was reported that there were injuries to the back of his head and that his head was being pounded into the ground. This can cause serious injury or death and very likely warrants the use of deadly force. Ignoring everything before this altercation, Zimmerman would have likely had every right to defend himself. If it was just a punch or two, then no, Zimmerman would not have had the right.

[Edited on March 26, 2012 at 9:20 PM. Reason : .]

3/26/2012 9:19:04 PM

I can't help but think the 'Duty to Retreat' clause's intent was to show one did in fact make an attempt not to use lethal force first; and wasn't escalating the situation.

As related to this case, if Zimmerman had the law in mind (as responsible gun owners should), he might not have been so eager to pursue Trayvon if he knew in order to claim self defense (should shit hit the fan), he would have to show he tried to avoid/not escalate the situation in the first place.

That's all I meant.

3/26/2012 9:20:47 PM

I'm sure that was part of the intent; however, it was a nightmare to determine if retreat was possible and effective. And HE may have thought the law was on his side to chase Trayvon. In which case he would be wrong. However, this isn't the opinion of any gun owner I know. I don't know of anyone who would give chase to a suspicious person and then start a confrontation. Follow them? Possibly.

But I truly think if the law were to retreat, Zimmerman would still have done the same thing.

As far as NC's new laws:

Quote :

"Legal presumption of “reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm” if the perpetrator makes a “forcible and unlawful” entry into a home, vehicle or workplace. While a few other states cover vehicles, few if any cover workplaces. Note: This presumption is “rebuttable” in court. While that might seem like a weakening amendment, it is likely to help us by ensuring the law isn’t used with criminal intent. Among cases in which the presumption does not apply are against lawful resident of the dwelling, guardians of minors removing them from the premises, and intruders who are attempting to flee. Immunity from civil or criminal liability in cases of a justifiable use of deadly force. No duty to retreat in any place you have a lawful right to be. It should be noted that Castle Doctrine does not apply if the “defender” provokes the use of force (with some exceptions) or if the person against whom force is used is a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman in the performance of his or her duties."

With this said, I guess you could argue that Trayvon was fleeing (though he wasn't intruder so I'm not sure how/if that applies, but let's assume it does). If Zimmerman chase Trayvon, then Zimmerman has no right to lethal force. However, if Zimmerman did attempt to/did return to his vehicle and Trayvon approached/attacked Zimmerman (as a few reports suggested; not saying it happened this way, but I'm just using it for an example), then Zimmerman would likely have the right to use lethal force (keeping in mind my discussion above about when escalation is considered over).

[Edited on March 26, 2012 at 9:30 PM. Reason : .]

3/26/2012 9:25:33 PM

I still think that your breath stinks.

Right, I guess in this case it would depend on what a jury would see as escalation. The first punch? Zimmerman getting out of his car?

[Edited on March 26, 2012 at 9:34 PM. Reason : d]

3/26/2012 9:26:52 PM

Would a reasonable person continue pursuing if the 911 dispatcher told them to stop? The problem really is that trayvon wasn't performing any criminal activity and was probably thinking of defending himself, unfortunately all he had was his fists.

3/26/2012 9:29:25 PM

^Maybe, maybe not. Dispatchers can't/don't give legally binding instructions. Often they are taught to tell callers to be passive, which is often not the best course of action. Should Zimmerman have followed the dispatcher's advice? Obviously so. However, I'm guessing Zimmerman truly thought Trayvon was one of the local criminals and thought he could reasonably follow him.

If it were me and I saw a suspicious person, if I could safely do so, I'd try to keep an eye on them. I wouldn't exit my vehicle and I wouldn't chase the person.

The downfall is that if you see someone commit a serious crime and you follow them (e.g. they are fleeing) then you can't use lethal force if an altercation occurs (is how I read the law).

Any reasonable person doesn't want someone to get away with a crime. But you don't want to commit one either. It's a tough choice to chase a criminal, since you'd likely lose your right to lethal force, should it be necessary. Note, I'm not applying this to Trayvon's case; it's just a general discussion. But if your girl got attacked/raped, many people would give chase, and I don't think that's always a bad choice. You're trying to get the attacker arrested and prevent future crimes. That's reasonable and honorable, but possibly endangering your life, especially when you can't defend yourself.

Quote :

"No duty to retreat in any place you have a lawful right to be."

Oh yeh, this is the SYG law, summarized. Note that it doesn't negate the requirements for (in general) the threat of death or serious injury. So no, you can't shoot someone for punching you.

[Edited on March 26, 2012 at 9:41 PM. Reason : .]

3/26/2012 9:32:44 PM

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-account-20120326_1_miami-schools-punch-unarmed-black-teenager

The Orlando Sentinel has some leaked info more on what Zimmerman claims happened.

He supposedly told police he did have words with Trayvon, with Trayvon sneaking up to him from the back-left when he was walking away. He also says Martin was wrestling him for the gun when he shot him, while punching him, while ZImmerman was yelling for help.

it still doesn't fit with the girlfriend's story though, or the lawyer's claim initially of how things went down, and I can't really picture how this fight went down considering the 911 recording.

3/26/2012 9:41:38 PM

If I were in Trayvon's shoes, and there was a stranger following me, I most likely would not want to lead them all the way back to my house.

And assuming Trayvon was a rational actor (and there's no reason to assume he wasn't):

I can't imagine a situation where he would approach someone that has a gun visible.
I can't imagine a situation where he would throw the first unprovoked punch without Zimmerman's first physical contact, if he was originally trying to get away.
I wonder if he put the ice tea in his pockets? I guess he would have to, because I can't imagine him fighting with tea in his hand.
I think Zimmerman is going to have a REALLY hard time proving self defense if he DID NOT shoot Trayvon at point blank range.




I'm having a hard time thinking how this fight went down, ending with Trayvon laying face down with a bullet hole in his front....if he was on top beating Zimmermamn

[Edited on March 26, 2012 at 9:45 PM. Reason : v]

3/26/2012 9:41:56 PM

Quote :

"ABC News has learned there is tremendous pressure from local and state authorities for an arrest. "

This part is amusing to me.

3/26/2012 9:43:18 PM

^^true, but where do you get that the firearm was visible? Was he OC'ing? If it was visible, then maybe he didn't notice it? I don't see why Trayvon would have attacked the guy, but it's not an impossible action (it's surely happened before, as stupid as it may be), so in all fairness I don't think you can rule it out. Other testimony does contradict Zimmerman's story, so it's really difficult to tell.

I've OC'ed several times and people hardly notice


[Edited on March 26, 2012 at 9:47 PM. Reason : .]

3/26/2012 9:44:28 PM

oh, I'm not saying that it WAS visible. That was just a statement saying no rational person would attack someone with a gun like that

3/26/2012 9:46:55 PM

^oh ok. Yeh, if it was visible, you'd have to mighty stupid or brave to attack. However, assuming Trayvon did come back and start the altercation, then I doubt he knew Zimmerman was armed. Why would Trayvon do this? I don't know; but it's still a possibility. Not saying this happened, but it's been reported, so I'm discussing it. I mean, we can all come up with reasons why Trayvon might do it. None of us know him, his personality, how his day was going, etc. Maybe he was angry? Maybe he wanted to make a point? Maybe Zimmerman is full of shit.

To me, the most plausible scenario is that Zimmerman was following Trayvon. Then Trayvon started running away and Zimmerman at that point, thought he confirmed his suspicions thinking "why would an innocent person run away?". Thus, Zimmerman gave chase. The two met up, shared heated words, and Trayvon threw the first punch, either out of anger from the confrontation, or Zimmerman had tried to grab/detain him. The fight continued to where Trayvon had the upper hand and Zimmerman truly feared for his life and shot Trayvon.

Why do I say this? Well, I admit that I'm giving Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt in his thought that his life was truly in danger. Which leads be to believe the first physically violent action was from Trayvon. I'm assuming Zimmerman was at least somewhat aware of firearm laws and thus didn't start the actual fight. He mistakenly believed that even after chasing trayvon and possibly attempting to detain him that he still had the right to use lethal force. I don't think Zimmerman, at any point before the fight, was planning on using his firearm. The end result? Because Zimmerman gave chase and may have tried to detain trayvon, he lost his right to use lethal force and should be charged. As the questions about why would trayvon turn around and chase Zimmerman and attack were asked; I think it's fair to ask why would Zimmerman shoot Trayvon if he didn't reasonably fear for his life? Why would he shoot if he started the fight? Even a semi-educated and reasonable firearm owner would know you can't start a fight and use lethal force. So assuming Zimmerman was at least somewhat reasonable, I think it's fair to ask these questions. Now, with all the 911 calls from Zimmerman, maybe he's overzealous/over the top; but that doesn't mean he can't apply some amount of reasoning to using lethal force.

This is just one possibility I think is very probable. It's just as likely that Zimmerman started the violence; however, I'm just saying if you at least allow the thought that Zimmerman was somewhat reasonable, that it's a possibility he didn't start the fight. We all know that many teens think they can do things without serious consequences; have short fuses; too willingly turn to violence; etc. I'm not saying Trayvon has any of these traits, but in all fairness, you can't rule out any teenage male from being somewhat hot headed, especially if chased/confronted/etc.

[Edited on March 26, 2012 at 10:12 PM. Reason : .]

3/26/2012 9:48:31 PM

Who knows if Zimmerman used racial slurs when he spoke to Martin to provoke Martin, or how serious ZImmerman's injuries were since there hasn't been a medical report released or whether he even went to the hospital. he has to prove his life was in danger, not that he got a broken nose and got mad

Too bad there is only one side of the story, I don't consider the witnesses to be credible or reliable due to the poor police investigation and their support of Zimmerman.

3/26/2012 9:53:25 PM

^ he didn't go to the hospital, until the next day (probably on the advice of a lawyer?).

I remember earlier on the Zimmer's lawyer was saying he "might" have a broken nose, now they're saying he does have a broken nose.

I have a feeling when the full report is released, there will be even more questions, leading people to ask further why the cops didn't take this more seriously.

3/26/2012 9:57:49 PM

http://www.scribd.com/doc/86368480/Trayvon-Martin-Shooting-Initial-Report


Police report describes this as a negligent homocide, manslaughter, unnecessary killing to prevent an unlawful act


Interesting.




also, 6'0, 160lbs

[Edited on March 26, 2012 at 10:17 PM. Reason : beanpole]

3/26/2012 10:14:38 PM

Quote :

"negligent homocide, manslaughter"

These I can see/understand...

Quote :

"unnecessary killing to prevent an unlawful act"

but this is strange... Maybe this relates to the fact that because (if) Zimmerman gave chase/confronted/attempted to detain Trayvon and then was attacked, that Zimmerman killed Trayvon to prevent an unlawful act (the physical beating), but because of the chase, etc. it was unnecessary, thus illegal?

^small frame, but still capable of inflicting serious injury or death.

[Edited on March 26, 2012 at 10:18 PM. Reason : .]

3/26/2012 10:17:40 PM

Yeah, that's the same police report we've known about, but I guess no one's pointed that out yet?

3/26/2012 10:19:00 PM

I haven't seen it. At this point, I've only had time to look at this thread occasionally and not had time to go through all the media reports, nor read each page of this thread.

3/26/2012 10:20:04 PM

The great thing about my neighborhood watch guy is that he is a cop. I've seen him deal with people who talk trash and scream, but he calmly deals with them. he doesn't even carry a gun and doesn't follow people around...

It's time for neighborhood watch laws, police them now!

3/26/2012 10:26:19 PM

Apparently, neighborhood watches discourage watchers carrying firearms.

Interestingly enough, Trayvon's family might sue the neighborhood watch because apparently they told residents "If you can't get in contact with the police, call Zimmerman". I can't imagine that won't come up in court, as a way to say "Zimmerman thought he was a cop".

[Edited on March 26, 2012 at 10:29 PM. Reason : s]

3/26/2012 10:28:52 PM

we recently installed automated remote sentry motion-sensing turrets in my neighborhood. all movement is eliminated

3/26/2012 10:31:35 PM

Quote :

"Police report describes this as a negligent homocide, manslaughter, unnecessary killing to prevent an unlawful act"

Exactly right. There was NO eminent threat of serious bodily harm or death to Mr. Zimmerman or anyone else, NOR were there a felonius crime in progress to stop. This is criteria to used validate self-defense.

3/26/2012 10:45:06 PM

^^^ zimmerman wasn't part of an "officially registered" neighborhood watch. He probably never got the speeches about how they should do things.

When my neighborhood officially registered back in the day, the number one thing they (they being the cops who came to do a info session) hammered home more than anything was not to pursue a suspect, just call the cops.

[Edited on March 26, 2012 at 10:45 PM. Reason : ]

3/26/2012 10:45:37 PM

Duke case all over again...truth coming out...kid is not an angel everyone is making him out to be...the kid was bashing the dudes head against the pavement...I think if I had a gun I would of done the same thing. Even if he followed him, once the fight started and he felt threatened you have the right to defend yourself...poor kid didnt realize the guy had a gun (I think it is against the rules for the organization anyhow).

[Edited on March 26, 2012 at 10:48 PM. Reason : w]

3/26/2012 10:46:51 PM

^^ Correct.

roddy is the worst

[Edited on March 26, 2012 at 10:48 PM. Reason : d]

3/26/2012 10:47:47 PM

Quote :

"Florida Statute 776.013 (3) "A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." "

Just to make sure we can see the exact wording of the law.

3/26/2012 10:50:22 PM

I swear in the original orlando sentinel link, they had zimmerman claiming martin was trying to wrestle the gun from him, but this seems to have disappeared from the article (or i imagined it).

If that's the case, Zimmerman could argue that Martin was going to take his gun from him, and shoot him so he was trying to save his own life. But it could also be argued Martin saw the gun, and thought Zimmerman was going to shoot him, and was trying to defend himself with deadly fists of fury.

3/26/2012 10:55:56 PM

Would that have happened if Mr. Zimmerman had not pursued Trayvon?

There is no reasonable answer to this that could help Mr. Zimmerman.

3/26/2012 11:00:12 PM