That Gun Totting Evil White Man that shot that poor black teen.

[Inthemiddle]

Yeah, apparently. This is a really bad law, IMO.

I doubt the legislators envisioned this, but dammit, they should have. That's their job.

Author of FL "stand your ground" law says Zimmerman "not covered" under the law.

As the prime sponsor of this legislation in the Florida House, I'd like to clarify that this law does not seem to be applicable to the tragedy that happened in Sanford. There is nothing in the castle doctrine as found in Florida statutes that authenticates or provides for the opportunity to pursue and confront individuals.

However, the castle doctrine does not provide protection to individuals who seek to pursue and confront others, as is allegedly the case in the Trayvon Martin tragedy in Sanford.

The information that has been publicly reported concerning Trayvon Martin's death indicates that the castle doctrine may not be applicable to justify the actions of the attacker, Mr. Zimmerman.

 

[Si modo]

Yeah, apparently. This is a really bad law, IMO.

I doubt the legislators envisioned this, but dammit, they should have. That's their job.

Author of FL "stand your ground" law says Zimmerman "not covered" under the law.

As the prime sponsor of this legislation in the Florida House, I'd like to clarify that this law does not seem to be applicable to the tragedy that happened in Sanford. There is nothing in the castle doctrine as found in Florida statutes that authenticates or provides for the opportunity to pursue and confront individuals.

However, the castle doctrine does not provide protection to individuals who seek to pursue and confront others, as is allegedly the case in the Trayvon Martin tragedy in Sanford.

The information that has been publicly reported concerning Trayvon Martin's death indicates that the castle doctrine may not be applicable to justify the actions of the attacker, Mr. Zimmerman.

I understand that the politician would say that, now. This law is shit and it's getting a lot of attention. His motivation is to attempt to cover his political ass for championing a shit law.

What he now says about it has zero probative value, though. He is not the law, the court now is.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yeah, apparently. This is a really bad law, IMO.

I doubt the legislators envisioned this, but dammit, they should have. That's their job.

Author of FL "stand your ground" law says Zimmerman "not covered" under the law.

As the prime sponsor of this legislation in the Florida House, I'd like to clarify that this law does not seem to be applicable to the tragedy that happened in Sanford. There is nothing in the castle doctrine as found in Florida statutes that authenticates or provides for the opportunity to pursue and confront individuals.

However, the castle doctrine does not provide protection to individuals who seek to pursue and confront others, as is allegedly the case in the Trayvon Martin tragedy in Sanford.

The information that has been publicly reported concerning Trayvon Martin's death indicates that the castle doctrine may not be applicable to justify the actions of the attacker, Mr. Zimmerman.

What is it about MarcATL and Inthemiddle that they want a lynch mob before all evidence is in? Are their minds affected by some kind of mental illness? This is a serious question. MarcATL and a few other people have become completely unhinged over a tragedy that is not theirs.

What is it about lonely shut-ins with internet service that makes them so angry and irrational?

 

[Inthemiddle]

Murder pure and simple.

Zimmerman should go to prison for life.

In order to convict a man for murder you need E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E, IDIOT.

There's a dead person. Zimmerman admits to shooting him. Zimmerman admits to pursuing him. Zimmerman was recorded on the phone by police saying he was pursuing him. The victim's phone conversation recorded him reporting that he was being followed and was trying to get away. Witnesses said that they heard the victim screaming for help. Another witness's call to 911 recorded the victim's screaming in the background which was suddenly silenced by the gun shot.

Hmmm, sounds like there's lots of evidence. You need more? Well, maybe we should have the police actually investigate for evidence, as opposed to simply blowing off their duties.

 

[Si modo]

Murder pure and simple.

Zimmerman should go to prison for life.

In order to convict a man for murder you need E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E, IDIOT.

There's a dead person. Zimmerman admits to shooting him. Zimmerman admits to pursuing him. Zimmerman was recorded on the phone by police saying he was pursuing him. The victim's phone conversation recorded him reporting that he was being followed and was trying to get away. Witnesses said that they heard the victim screaming for help. Another witness's call to 911 recorded the victim's screaming in the background which was suddenly silenced by the gun shot.

Hmmm, sounds like there's lots of evidence. You need more? Well, maybe we should have the police actually investigate for evidence, as opposed to simply blowing off their duties.

The reports of cops first to the scene indicate they didn't blow much off:

It indicates that Zimmerman was handcuffed, taken to the cop station in a cruiser, told cops that he had yelled for help and no one came, that he had a gun in his waist band, that he followed the cops' verbal demands, that he had grass stains on his back, that he had wounds on his face, that they questioned him in an interview room, .....

The report says the cops tried to resuscitate the kid, that the paramedics came and tried the same, that the kid was pronounced on the scene at 7:30 PM, that they cordoned off the area, that they collected the gun from Zimmerman and put it into evidence, that they did a crime scene contamination log, that they turned the case over to CSI, ....

That looks pretty SOP

http://cnninsession.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/martinpolicreport.pdf

 

[Inthemiddle]

Yeah, apparently. This is a really bad law, IMO.

I doubt the legislators envisioned this, but dammit, they should have. That's their job.

Author of FL "stand your ground" law says Zimmerman "not covered" under the law.

However, the castle doctrine does not provide protection to individuals who seek to pursue and confront others, as is allegedly the case in the Trayvon Martin tragedy in Sanford.

The information that has been publicly reported concerning Trayvon Martin's death indicates that the castle doctrine may not be applicable to justify the actions of the attacker, Mr. Zimmerman.

I understand that the politician would say that, now. This law is shit and it's getting a lot of attention. His motivation is to attempt to cover his political ass for championing a shit law.

What he now says about it has zero probative value, though. He is not the law, the court now is.

The court isn't the law. The court will have to interpret the law, if the case ever goes to trial. In that process, the court will have to try to infer the legislative intent, and the author's own words are going to certainly go a long way toward that end.

I do agree that the law is worded poorly. But can anyone really believe that the intent of the legislature was to create a carte blanche in the form of any old claim to "self defense" that would completely preempt any further investigation or prosecution? And can we really believe that the intention of the legislature was to offer so broad protection for a person to "stand their ground" that that would include a right to "stand" ground you've gained in the process of chasing after someone and provoking a conflict?

As is often said on this board, your own rights end where they infringe upon another person's rights. Martin had an equal right to self defense and to stand his ground. He was trying to get away from Zimmerman, and Zimmerman was chasing after Martin. Martin had just as much of a right to stand his ground as anyone. Which means that Zimmerman's right to "stand his ground" ended where it required Martin to either continue to retreat or be met with hostility.

 

[Peach]

In order to convict a man for murder you need E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E, IDIOT.

There's a dead person. Zimmerman admits to shooting him. Zimmerman admits to pursuing him. Zimmerman was recorded on the phone by police saying he was pursuing him. The victim's phone conversation recorded him reporting that he was being followed and was trying to get away. Witnesses said that they heard the victim screaming for help. Another witness's call to 911 recorded the victim's screaming in the background which was suddenly silenced by the gun shot.

Hmmm, sounds like there's lots of evidence. You need more? Well, maybe we should have the police actually investigate for evidence, as opposed to simply blowing off their duties.

The reports of cops first to the scene indicate they didn't blow much off:

It indicates that Zimmerman was handcuffed, taken to the cop station in a cruiser, told cops that he had yelled for help and no one came, that he had a gun in his waist band, that he followed the cops' verbal demands, that he had grass stains on his back, that he had wounds on his face, that they questioned him in an interview room, .....

The report says the cops tried to resuscitate the kid, that the paramedics came and tried the same, that the kid was pronounced on the scene at 7:30 PM, that they cordoned off the area, that they collected the gun from Zimmerman and put it into evidence, that they did a crime scene contamination log, that they turned the case over to CSI, ....

That looks pretty SOP

http://cnninsession.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/martinpolicreport.pdf

Not turned over to the SA; no grand Jury. I have no conclusions other than an unarmed Floridian was killed without a thorough investigation. Any forensics on the weapon, any blood alcohol testing? I do not see any.

 

[Si modo]

Author of FL "stand your ground" law says Zimmerman "not covered" under the law.

I understand that the politician would say that, now. This law is shit and it's getting a lot of attention. His motivation is to attempt to cover his political ass for championing a shit law.

What he now says about it has zero probative value, though. He is not the law, the court now is.

The court isn't the law. The court will have to interpret the law, if the case ever goes to trial. In that process, the court will have to try to infer the legislative intent, and the author's own words are going to certainly go a long way toward that end.

I do agree that the law is worded poorly. But can anyone really believe that the intent of the legislature was to create a carte blanche in the form of any old claim to "self defense" that would completely preempt any further investigation or prosecution? And can we really believe that the intention of the legislature was to offer so broad protection for a person to "stand their ground" that that would include a right to "stand" ground you've gained in the process of chasing after someone and provoking a conflict?

As is often said on this board, your own rights end where they infringe upon another person's rights. Martin had an equal right to self defense and to stand his ground. He was trying to get away from Zimmerman, and Zimmerman was chasing after Martin. Martin had just as much of a right to stand his ground as anyone. Which means that Zimmerman's right to "stand his ground" ended where it required Martin to either continue to retreat or be met with hostility.

Actually, the court is absolutely the law. *chuckle* And, when considering legislative intent, the only probative value about what legislators say about it is that said up to the passage of the statute.

Not after.

*chuckle*

 

[Ariux]

There's a dead person. Zimmerman admits to shooting him. Zimmerman admits to pursuing him. Zimmerman was recorded on the phone by police saying he was pursuing him. The victim's phone conversation recorded him reporting that he was being followed and was trying to get away. Witnesses said that they heard the victim screaming for help. Another witness's call to 911 recorded the victim's screaming in the background which was suddenly silenced by the gun shot.

There is not one witness who can testify that the black was the one screaming for help (no, there's not). Nothing that Zimmerman has admitted to suggests any intent to assault or shoot the black.

Fact: There was a fight.

The preponderance of the evidence is that the black assaulted Zimmerman. Zimmerman had no motive for an assault, the black did, to punish his "stalker". Zimmerman had a gun, people with guns don't start fights. Zimmerman knew the police were on the way. The black didn't call the police, didn't know the police were on the way, and may not have known Zimmerman had a gun.

That assault gave Zimmerman the legal right to shoot the black. The screaming stopped because Zimmerman was no longer in danger after he pulled the trigger.

Why do you think this black is innocent? Because he's not white? Because he doesn't look like a gangster? Reason isn't on your side, so some form of prejudice must be.

 

[Si modo]

There's a dead person. Zimmerman admits to shooting him. Zimmerman admits to pursuing him. Zimmerman was recorded on the phone by police saying he was pursuing him. The victim's phone conversation recorded him reporting that he was being followed and was trying to get away. Witnesses said that they heard the victim screaming for help. Another witness's call to 911 recorded the victim's screaming in the background which was suddenly silenced by the gun shot.

Hmmm, sounds like there's lots of evidence. You need more? Well, maybe we should have the police actually investigate for evidence, as opposed to simply blowing off their duties.

The reports of cops first to the scene indicate they didn't blow much off:

It indicates that Zimmerman was handcuffed, taken to the cop station in a cruiser, told cops that he had yelled for help and no one came, that he had a gun in his waist band, that he followed the cops' verbal demands, that he had grass stains on his back, that he had wounds on his face, that they questioned him in an interview room, .....

The report says the cops tried to resuscitate the kid, that the paramedics came and tried the same, that the kid was pronounced on the scene at 7:30 PM, that they cordoned off the area, that they collected the gun from Zimmerman and put it into evidence, that they did a crime scene contamination log, that they turned the case over to CSI, ....

That looks pretty SOP

http://cnninsession.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/martinpolicreport.pdf

Not turned over to the SA; no grand Jury. I have no conclusions other than an unarmed Floridian was killed without a thorough investigation. Any forensics on the weapon, any blood alcohol testing? I do not see any.

The COPS do not have the authority to turn anything over to a grand jury. Basic 8th grade civics.

And, just because you don't see any forensics reports does not mean they don't exist.

 

[Ariux]

I do agree that the law is worded poorly. But can anyone really believe that the intent of the legislature was to create a carte blanche in the form of any old claim to "self defense" that would completely preempt any further investigation or prosecution?

Yes, the intent of the law is to legally protect people who are defending themselves. Self-defense has always been legal in all 50 states, but proof of self-defense often comes with a heavy burden. This law was created to remove that burden.

The Jewish Mr. Zimmerman wasn't defending ground he gained, he was defending his body against a physical assault by the black.

Martin had an equal right to self defense and to stand his ground.

If the black had killed Hispanic Zimmerman, then we could talk about whether that was protected by the law. But, this isn't the case. Further, Zimmerman was assaulted, the black was not.

He was trying to get away from Zimmerman, and Zimmerman was chasing after Martin.

Don't be stupid. Zimmerman was a fat slob. The young black was a buck bred for running, and was in prime physical condition. There's no way that Zimmerman could have kept up with the black.

 

[High_Gravity]

I do agree that the law is worded poorly. But can anyone really believe that the intent of the legislature was to create a carte blanche in the form of any old claim to "self defense" that would completely preempt any further investigation or prosecution?

Yes, the intent of the law is to legally protect people who are defending themselves. Self-defense has always been legal in all 50 states, but proof of self-defense often comes with a heavy burden. This law was created to remove that burden.

The Jewish Mr. Zimmerman wasn't defending ground he gained, he was defending his body against a physical assault by the black.

Martin had an equal right to self defense and to stand his ground.

If the black had killed Hispanic Zimmerman, then we could talk about whether that was protected by the law. But, this isn't the case. Further, Zimmerman was assaulted, the black was not.

He was trying to get away from Zimmerman, and Zimmerman was chasing after Martin.

Don't be stupid. Zimmerman was a fat slob. The young black was a buck bred for running, and was in prime physical condition. There's no way that Zimmerman could have kept up with the black.

You might as well just delete that bullshit you posted and make another post which says "I am a racist piece of shit who hates Black people and I side with the shooter Zimmerman no matter what", at least than you would be honest.

 

[High_Gravity]

There's a dead person. Zimmerman admits to shooting him. Zimmerman admits to pursuing him. Zimmerman was recorded on the phone by police saying he was pursuing him. The victim's phone conversation recorded him reporting that he was being followed and was trying to get away. Witnesses said that they heard the victim screaming for help. Another witness's call to 911 recorded the victim's screaming in the background which was suddenly silenced by the gun shot.

There is not one witness who can testify that the black was the one screaming for help (no, there's not). Nothing that Zimmerman has admitted to suggests any intent to assault or shoot the black.

Fact: There was a fight.

The preponderance of the evidence is that the black assaulted Zimmerman. Zimmerman had no motive for an assault, the black did, to punish his "stalker". Zimmerman had a gun, people with guns don't start fights. Zimmerman knew the police were on the way. The black didn't call the police, didn't know the police were on the way, and may not have known Zimmerman had a gun.

That assault gave Zimmerman the legal right to shoot the black. The screaming stopped because Zimmerman was no longer in danger after he pulled the trigger.

Why do you think this black is innocent? Because he's not white? Because he doesn't look like a gangster? Reason isn't on your side, so some form of prejudice must be.

My god you are even stupider than I imagined.

 

[Si modo]

I do agree that the law is worded poorly. But can anyone really believe that the intent of the legislature was to create a carte blanche in the form of any old claim to "self defense" that would completely preempt any further investigation or prosecution?

Yes, the intent of the law is to legally protect people who are defending themselves. Self-defense has always been legal in all 50 states, but proof of self-defense often comes with a heavy burden. This law was created to remove that burden.

The Jewish Mr. Zimmerman wasn't defending ground he gained, he was defending his body against a physical assault by the black.



If the black had killed Hispanic Zimmerman, then we could talk about whether that was protected by the law. But, this isn't the case. Further, Zimmerman was assaulted, the black was not.

He was trying to get away from Zimmerman, and Zimmerman was chasing after Martin.

Don't be stupid. Zimmerman was a fat slob. The young black was a buck bred for running, and was in prime physical condition. There's no way that Zimmerman could have kept up with the black.

You might as well just delete that bullshit you posted and make another post which says "I am a racist piece of shit who hates Black people and I side with the shooter Zimmerman no matter what", at least than you would be honest.

Exactly. He has established himself as completely scrollable, so he is a waste of time.

Some like wasting their time, though. Go figure.

 

[Peach]

There's a dead person. Zimmerman admits to shooting him. Zimmerman admits to pursuing him. Zimmerman was recorded on the phone by police saying he was pursuing him. The victim's phone conversation recorded him reporting that he was being followed and was trying to get away. Witnesses said that they heard the victim screaming for help. Another witness's call to 911 recorded the victim's screaming in the background which was suddenly silenced by the gun shot.

There is not one witness who can testify that the black was the one screaming for help (no, there's not). Nothing that Zimmerman has admitted to suggests any intent to assault or shoot the black.

Fact: There was a fight.

The preponderance of the evidence is that the black assaulted Zimmerman. Zimmerman had no motive for an assault, the black did, to punish his "stalker". Zimmerman had a gun, people with guns don't start fights. Zimmerman knew the police were on the way. The black didn't call the police, didn't know the police were on the way, and may not have known Zimmerman had a gun.

That assault gave Zimmerman the legal right to shoot the black. The screaming stopped because Zimmerman was no longer in danger after he pulled the trigger.

Why do you think this black is innocent? Because he's not white? Because he doesn't look like a gangster? Reason isn't on your side, so some form of prejudice must be.

My god you are even stupider than I imagined.

Any thoughts on why the city asked for the Feds to come in?

 

[Si modo]

There is not one witness who can testify that the black was the one screaming for help (no, there's not). Nothing that Zimmerman has admitted to suggests any intent to assault or shoot the black.

Fact: There was a fight.

The preponderance of the evidence is that the black assaulted Zimmerman. Zimmerman had no motive for an assault, the black did, to punish his "stalker". Zimmerman had a gun, people with guns don't start fights. Zimmerman knew the police were on the way. The black didn't call the police, didn't know the police were on the way, and may not have known Zimmerman had a gun.

That assault gave Zimmerman the legal right to shoot the black. The screaming stopped because Zimmerman was no longer in danger after he pulled the trigger.

Why do you think this black is innocent? Because he's not white? Because he doesn't look like a gangster? Reason isn't on your side, so some form of prejudice must be.

My god you are even stupider than I imagined.

Any thoughts on why the city asked for the Feds to come in?

Ummmm, the city didn't. The family contacted Sharpton and then some in the US Congress asked the feds to get involved.

 

[Conservative]

Sanford Police Chief Temporarily Steps Down Amid Outrage Over Shooting Death Of Teen | Fox News

The embattled police chief at the center of a fatal neighborhood watch shooting temporarily stepped down Thursday, saying he had become a distraction to the investigation.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Any thoughts on why the city asked for the Feds to come in?

City is wrapped up tight on their investigation, witness tesitmony and evidence.

So is the state.

Thus the clever statement "the police investigation needs to be greatly supplemented".

Investigational supplementations:

- Forensics on Arizona Iced Tea Can.
- Gunshot residue on deceased.
- Audio analysis on tape for possible voice determination

April 10th

 

[OODA_Loop]

Sanford Police Chief Temporarily Steps Down Amid Outrage Over Shooting Death Of Teen | Fox News

The embattled police chief at the center of a fatal neighborhood watch shooting temporarily stepped down Thursday, saying he had become a distraction to the investigation.

Great move. Not the move of race motivated police cover up.

Let Fed dig deep and State even more.

I am certain the State is squaring(ed) their investigation against Justice Department fast and furiousness.

 

[Peach]

My god you are even stupider than I imagined.

Any thoughts on why the city asked for the Feds to come in?

Ummmm, the city didn't. The family contacted Sharpton and then some in the US Congress asked the feds to get involved.

Thank you Si, the more facts that come out in front of the SEMINOLE COUNTY Grand Jury, the better.