White man shoots innocent black teen....

[Peach]

No - - I'm saying that there will be no bruising on Trayvon Martin's body because his heart stopped to suddenly after hitting & being hit.

Awful quick fight. Perhaps that is why Zimmerman required so little medical attention.

The average length of street fights is 90 seconds, so my Krav instructor tells me.

The "beating" of Zimmerman seems protracted from those who see this as self defense. I am thinking of Florida and the requirement for fear of deadly force however.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Awful quick fight. Perhaps that is why Zimmerman required so little medical attention.

The average length of street fights is 90 seconds, so my Krav instructor tells me.

The "beating" of Zimmerman seems protracted from those who see this as self defense. I am thinking of Florida and the requirement for fear of deadly force however.

The fear part would have been when Trayvon went for Zimmerman's firearm, a person try's for your gun they are not going to stop if they aren't stopped the first time they will keep trying until they are dead.

 

[Si modo]

Awful quick fight. Perhaps that is why Zimmerman required so little medical attention.

The average length of street fights is 90 seconds, so my Krav instructor tells me.

The "beating" of Zimmerman seems protracted from those who see this as self defense. I am thinking of Florida and the requirement for fear of deadly force however.

I doubt it's just me, but anyone who would get physical with me would cause me to fear for my life or great bodily harm. Per section (3) of the statute, that is what Zimmerman needs.

 

[KissMy]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CObnRp5xVtM"]George Zimmerman Father Speaks Aabout Shooting[/ame]

 

[uptownlivin90]

I love the stupidity in liberal identity politics

If a white guy had killed George Zimmerman, you KNOW the libs would be going full tilt on it being a "hate crime" of a white man killing an "hispanic" man.

Zimmerman is white according to the people on this board.

So you're point is moot...

As for the rest of your post I read up to the word "Obama" and just stopped reading. Unless Obama moved to Sanford the day before the shooting and is being called in as a witness because he saw something, he's totally and completely irrelevant to the case at hand I thought that's what we were talking about. Ya know... the dead kid? Remember that?

For the record I don't believe in special "Hate crimes" legislation. All crimes are hate crimes...

... judges generally sentence based on how heinous the crime is. If the crime is a random act on an innocent victim because they are black, jewish, gay, a woman, etc judges usually can be expected to take that into consideration in sentencing anyway. I don't see a point in that foolishness besides a stepping stone to establishing restrictions on "hate speech", and I'm 100% first amendment... so I think that sucks.

Demonstration: if the Zimmster killed Martin because he was black, that makes Trayvon a totally innocent random party, which in itself makes the crime more heinous. So the judge doesn't need special legislation to throw the book at Zimmy. Zimmy has a right to not like black folks (I'm not saying he does or doesn't) he doesn't have a right to kill innocent people black, white, hispanic, green, orange, or purple.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I love the stupidity in liberal identity politics

If a white guy had killed George Zimmerman, you KNOW the libs would be going full tilt on it being a "hate crime" of a white man killing an "hispanic" man.

Zimmerman is white according to the people on this board.

So you're point is moot...

As for the rest of your post I read up to the word "Obama" and just stopped reading. Unless Obama moved to Sanford the day before the shooting and is being called in as a witness because he saw something, he's totally and completely irrelevant to the case at hand I thought that's what we were talking about. Ya know... the dead kid? Remember that?

For the record I don't believe in special "Hate crimes" legislation. All crimes are hate crimes...

... judges generally sentence based on how heinous the crime is. If the crime is a random act on an innocent victim because they are black, jewish, gay, a woman, etc judges usually can be expected to take that into consideration in sentencing anyway. I don't see a point in that foolishness besides a stepping stone to establishing restrictions on "hate speech", and I'm 100% first amendment... so I think that sucks.

Demonstration: if the Zimmster killed Martin because he was black, that makes Trayvon a totally innocent random party, which in itself makes the crime more heinous. So the judge doesn't need special legislation to throw the book at Zimmy. Zimmy has a right to not like black folks (I'm not saying he does or doesn't) he doesn't have a right to kill innocent people black, white, hispanic, green, orange, or purple.

There you go the people of this board has to make him white to make their outrage more viable

 

[uptownlivin90]

George Zimmerman Father Speaks Aabout Shooting

This was hearsay so it shouldn't have been posted!!!

No seriously.

His father's account seems pretty strange to me. He says Zimmerman's head was being bashed up against the sidewalk for upwards of 60 secs.

60 secs is a LONG time to be getting your head bashed into the sidewalk. I've seen it happen for less then 15 seconds and it scared the living crap out of me to watch. I'd imagine Zimmerman would be hospitalized.

From in this video did he say Trayvon saw the gun and then say "you're going to die tonight" (paraphrased)? That's interesting.

If Trayvon WAS NOT bashing Zimmerman's head into the cement or "beating" him prior to seeing Zimmerman's gun and he began to bash Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk because he saw that Zimmerman had a gun and it looked as if Zimmerman was going to shoot him, would that have been considered self-defense in Trayvon's case?

I'd imagine if that was the case there'd be no way of knowing, but what if a witness stepped forward and claimed that that's exactly what happened? What would happen to Zimmerman? I'd imagine if you're in a one on one fight with someone and they pull out a gun, you'd do anything to save your life... correct? Thoughts?

 

[uptownlivin90]

I love the stupidity in liberal identity politics

If a white guy had killed George Zimmerman, you KNOW the libs would be going full tilt on it being a "hate crime" of a white man killing an "hispanic" man.

Zimmerman is white according to the people on this board.

So you're point is moot...

As for the rest of your post I read up to the word "Obama" and just stopped reading. Unless Obama moved to Sanford the day before the shooting and is being called in as a witness because he saw something, he's totally and completely irrelevant to the case at hand I thought that's what we were talking about. Ya know... the dead kid? Remember that?

For the record I don't believe in special "Hate crimes" legislation. All crimes are hate crimes...

... judges generally sentence based on how heinous the crime is. If the crime is a random act on an innocent victim because they are black, jewish, gay, a woman, etc judges usually can be expected to take that into consideration in sentencing anyway. I don't see a point in that foolishness besides a stepping stone to establishing restrictions on "hate speech", and I'm 100% first amendment... so I think that sucks.

Demonstration: if the Zimmster killed Martin because he was black, that makes Trayvon a totally innocent random party, which in itself makes the crime more heinous. So the judge doesn't need special legislation to throw the book at Zimmy. Zimmy has a right to not like black folks (I'm not saying he does or doesn't) he doesn't have a right to kill innocent people black, white, hispanic, green, orange, or purple.

There you go the people of this board has to make him white to make their outrage more viable

Look man, I don't know. I've been calling Zimmerman Hispanic since the beginning. Then some Trayvon supporters started yelling about how he was white in the police report, then some Zimmerman supporters started saying it was a trick of the liberal media. Then later on in another thread some random Zimmerman supporters started claiming Hispanic isn't a race and it's the liberal media twisting the story again somehow. I haven't a clue.

Maybe you should go find them and argue with them... because I don't particularly care either way.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Thanks Libilty for sharing this
http://www.usmessageboard.com/5040907-post340.html

 

[KissMy]

George Zimmerman Father Speaks Aabout Shooting

This was hearsay so it shouldn't have been posted!!!

No seriously.

His father's account seems pretty strange to me. He says Zimmerman's head was being bashed up against the sidewalk for upwards of 60 secs.

60 secs is a LONG time to be getting your head bashed into the sidewalk. I've seen it happen for less then 15 seconds and it scared the living crap out of me to watch. I'd imagine Zimmerman would be hospitalized.

From in this video did he say Trayvon saw the gun and then say "you're going to die tonight" (paraphrased)? That's interesting.

If Trayvon WAS NOT bashing Zimmerman's head into the cement or "beating" him prior to seeing Zimmerman's gun and he began to bash Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk because he saw that Zimmerman had a gun and it looked as if Zimmerman was going to shoot him, would that have been considered self-defense in Trayvon's case?

I'd imagine if that was the case there'd be no way of knowing, but what if a witness stepped forward and claimed that that's exactly what happened? What would happen to Zimmerman? I'd imagine if you're in a one on one fight with someone and they pull out a gun, you'd do anything to save your life... correct? Thoughts?

I am with you there. If Martin saw the gun it would explain the sudden violent attack. I think it would be more no fault. If Zimmerman flashed or pulled the gun, then it is more on him.

 

[The Gadfly]

The law did set up problems for a situation like this. To me, the burden of proof should be on the shooter and not the dead person. A hold your ground law invites aggressive action.

The burden is NEVER on anyone to prove they did NOT do something wrong. We always presume innocence.

This is the USA, and frankly, it's basic logic.

In self-defense cases after a charge is brought up the burden of proof IS actually on the accused to prove self-defense.

Self-defense is an affirmative defense. Zimmerman would affirm he actually shot Trayvon Martin and that shot led to Martin's death. However his defense would be self-defense, thus if he's charged he has to prove that he was acting in self-defense. At least... this is how I understand it.

Uptown, with many self-defense statutes, that's how it works. This particular Florida law looks different, in that all Zimmerman has to show is that he acted lawfully, up until the moment he drew the gun and fired. That's a CRUCIAL distinction. With most old-style (common law) self defense statutes, Zimmerman would have to show that he (1) did not initiate the confrontation unreasonably, (2) that he did not further aggravate the situation unreasonably, (3) that his fear of death or serious bodily injury was reasonable, and (4) that he was unable to flee without unreasonably exposing himself to threat of death or serious bodily injury. The standard for "reasonable" is normally ordinary common sense. That's how the law we have here in SC works. Now it appears, that under the applicable Florida law, Zimmerman only has to show one of those things (number 3, above) and that he was where he was lawfully, and was not in violation of another criminal statute. Not only is that a lower burden of proof; on top of it, the "lawfully present" and not acting "unlawfully" language seems to put the burden of proving that part back on the state, as a person is normally PRESUMED to be acting lawfully, absent a showing of a violation of (another) statute. By that standard , an act may be stupid, or even reckless, without being "unlawful". That part of it may well be why the State Attorney who initially reviewed the case refused to charge it, and if I understand correctly that this is a fairly new statute, may also account for some confusion on the part of the Sanford police as to whether they thought Zimmerman's actions appeared to be self-defense. To put it another way, under the law in SC, he likely would NOT be able to make an affirmative showing of self defense; where under the Florida law, as written, the prosecution has a FAR more difficult case. I really think, from a lot of comments I've seen here, that not quite fully appreciating the difference has created considerable misunderstanding of why the case wasn't charged in the beginning, and why it's not a given that it will (or even should be) charged now, unless new evidence comes to light. To further complicate matters, the more recent the statute, the less guidance there is, in the way of established judicial precedent in interpreting it. This whole thing may be less about race, or recklessness, than about confusion over a law that looks extremely loose in its wording. Ever heard of making something so simple it becomes confusing and complicated? That may be the case here; not so much what the law says, as what it DOESN'T say.

 

[uptownlivin90]

No signs of fighting on the victim's body:

CBS News) SANFORD, Florida - The defense of George Zimmerman rests on a violent fight that he said occurred before he fired the shot that killed Trayvon Martin.

Zimmerman is neighborhood watch volunteer at the center of the case. It was almost five weeks that Martin, the unarmed 17-year-old, was killed after Zimmerman found him suspicious. We don't know what happened immediately immediately before the shot was fired. CBS News correspondent Mark Strassman has new evidence in the case.

Trayvon Martin was buried in Miami with a gunshot wound to his chest. But otherwise, according to Richard Kurtz, the funeral director who prepared Martin for burial, his body showed no injuries.

"We could see no physical signs like there had been a scuffle [or] there had been a fight," he said. "The hands -- I didn't see any knuckles, bruises or what have you. And that is something we would have covered up if it would have been there."

Dead people don't bruise. Traumas won't bruise if the heart is not pumping. If he died within minutes of the trauma there would be no bruising.

Not to be combative, but since we're all CSI experts here D) isn't there something called "post-mortem bruising"? I'm not sure how it works but if I understand correctly depending on the person bruising can continue directly after the death for a couple of hours or so. The bruise wouldn't develop the same way and wouldn't look the same (I remember reading about the difference between post-mortem and ante-mortem bruises, I wouldn't be able to tell you a thing about it now).

 

[uptownlivin90]

George Zimmerman Father Speaks Aabout Shooting

This was hearsay so it shouldn't have been posted!!!

No seriously.

His father's account seems pretty strange to me. He says Zimmerman's head was being bashed up against the sidewalk for upwards of 60 secs.

60 secs is a LONG time to be getting your head bashed into the sidewalk. I've seen it happen for less then 15 seconds and it scared the living crap out of me to watch. I'd imagine Zimmerman would be hospitalized.

From in this video did he say Trayvon saw the gun and then say "you're going to die tonight" (paraphrased)? That's interesting.

If Trayvon WAS NOT bashing Zimmerman's head into the cement or "beating" him prior to seeing Zimmerman's gun and he began to bash Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk because he saw that Zimmerman had a gun and it looked as if Zimmerman was going to shoot him, would that have been considered self-defense in Trayvon's case?

I'd imagine if that was the case there'd be no way of knowing, but what if a witness stepped forward and claimed that that's exactly what happened? What would happen to Zimmerman? I'd imagine if you're in a one on one fight with someone and they pull out a gun, you'd do anything to save your life... correct? Thoughts?

I am with you there. If Martin saw the gun it would explain the sudden violent attack. I think it would be more no fault. If Zimmerman flashed or pulled the gun, then it is more on him.

Yeah... that's a real sucky turn of events if that's the case.

 

[KissMy]

The burden is NEVER on anyone to prove they did NOT do something wrong. We always presume innocence.

This is the USA, and frankly, it's basic logic.

In self-defense cases after a charge is brought up the burden of proof IS actually on the accused to prove self-defense.

Self-defense is an affirmative defense. Zimmerman would affirm he actually shot Trayvon Martin and that shot led to Martin's death. However his defense would be self-defense, thus if he's charged he has to prove that he was acting in self-defense. At least... this is how I understand it.

Uptown, with many self-defense statutes, that's how it works. This particular Florida law looks different, in that all Zimmerman has to show is that he acted lawfully, up until the moment he drew the gun and fired. That's a CRUCIAL distinction. With most old-style (common law) self defense statutes, Zimmerman would have to show that he (1) did not initiate the confrontation unreasonably, (2) that he did not further aggravate the situation unreasonably, (3) that his fear of death or serious bodily injury was reasonable, and (4) that he was unable to flee without unreasonably exposing himself to threat of death or serious bodily injury. The standard for "reasonable" is normally ordinary common sense. That's how the law we have here in SC works. Now it appears, that under the applicable Florida law, Zimmerman only has to show one of those things (number 3, above) and that he was where he was lawfully, and was not in violation of another criminal statute. Not only is that a lower burden of proof; on top of it, the "lawfully present" and not acting "unlawfully" language seems to put the burden of proving that part back on the state, as a person is normally PRESUMED to be acting lawfully, absent a showing of a violation of (another) statute. By that standard , an act may be stupid, or even reckless, without being "unlawful". That part of it may well be why the State Attorney who initially reviewed the case refused to charge it, and if I understand correctly that this is a fairly new statute, may also account for some confusion on the part of the Sanford police as to whether they thought Zimmerman's actions appeared to be self-defense. To put it another way, under the law in SC, he likely would NOT be able to make an affirmative showing of self defense; where under the Florida law, as written, the prosecution has a FAR more difficult case. I really think, from a lot of comments I've seen here, that not quite fully appreciating the difference has created considerable misunderstanding of why the case wasn't charged in the beginning, and why it's not a given that it will (or even should be) charged now, unless new evidence comes to light. To further complicate matters, the more recent the statute, the less guidance there is, in the way of established judicial precedent in interpreting it. This whole thing may be less about race, or recklessness, than about confusion over a law that looks extremely loose in its wording. Ever heard of making something so simple it becomes confusing and complicated? That may be the case here; not so much what the law says, as what it DOESN'T say.

I have been thinking this same exact thing over the last few days. The blacks in DC, Chicago & other places with restrictive gun laws are so use to being jailed for the slightest gun infraction. Then they see this on TV & cry fowl, racist & start marching in the streets.

You are right about the cops getting confused also. A friend of mine was arrested for having a gun in the back floorboard of the car he was driving after the officer pulled him over for a burned out license plate bulb. The law had changed a few months prior, but I guess this department did not get the memo. They strung the case out for several months & finally dropped it for no reason.

 

[uptownlivin90]

The burden is NEVER on anyone to prove they did NOT do something wrong. We always presume innocence.

This is the USA, and frankly, it's basic logic.

In self-defense cases after a charge is brought up the burden of proof IS actually on the accused to prove self-defense.

Self-defense is an affirmative defense. Zimmerman would affirm he actually shot Trayvon Martin and that shot led to Martin's death. However his defense would be self-defense, thus if he's charged he has to prove that he was acting in self-defense. At least... this is how I understand it.

Uptown, with many self-defense statutes, that's how it works. This particular Florida law looks different, in that all Zimmerman has to show is that he acted lawfully, up until the moment he drew the gun and fired. That's a CRUCIAL distinction. With most old-style (common law) self defense statutes, Zimmerman would have to show that he (1) did not initiate the confrontation unreasonably, (2) that he did not further aggravate the situation unreasonably, (3) that his fear of death or serious bodily injury was reasonable, and (4) that he was unable to flee without unreasonably exposing himself to threat of death or serious bodily injury. The standard for "reasonable" is normally ordinary common sense. That's how the law we have here in SC works. Now it appears, that under the applicable Florida law, Zimmerman only has to show one of those things (number 3, above) and that he was where he was lawfully, and was not in violation of another criminal statute. Not only is that a lower burden of proof; on top of it, the "lawfully present" and not acting "unlawfully" language seems to put the burden of proving that part back on the state, as a person is normally PRESUMED to be acting lawfully, absent a showing of a violation of (another) statute. By that standard , an act may be stupid, or even reckless, without being "unlawful". That part of it may well be why the State Attorney who initially reviewed the case refused to charge it, and if I understand correctly that this is a fairly new statute, may also account for some confusion on the part of the Sanford police as to whether they thought Zimmerman's actions appeared to be self-defense. To put it another way, under the law in SC, he likely would NOT be able to make an affirmative showing of self defense; where under the Florida law, as written, the prosecution has a FAR more difficult case. I really think, from a lot of comments I've seen here, that not quite fully appreciating the difference has created considerable misunderstanding of why the case wasn't charged in the beginning, and why it's not a given that it will (or even should be) charged now, unless new evidence comes to light. To further complicate matters, the more recent the statute, the less guidance there is, in the way of established judicial precedent in interpreting it. This whole thing may be less about race, or recklessness, than about confusion over a law that looks extremely loose in its wording. Ever heard of making something so simple it becomes confusing and complicated? That may be the case here; not so much what the law says, as what it DOESN'T say.

Okay, thank you.

That's really interesting, and extremely strange. I was under the impression that only number 4 of the listed criteria is no longer necessary under Florida Law. I had assumed 1-3 were still in order, that he would have to prove that:

(1) did not initiate the confrontation unreasonably, (2) that he did not further aggravate the situation unreasonably, (3) that his fear of death or serious bodily injury was reasonable,

If Zimmerman started the confrontation unreasonably that would fall under #1. If he did pull out his gun and Trayvon began beating on him because of that that's #2. But then Trayvon would be able to claim self-defense too because #3 is all that applies, either party could have started the fight, aggravated it, and then killed the other and claimed self-defense... if what you're saying is correct. *ouch my brain hurts*

In that case, I don't see what on Earth Zimmerman or Trayvon could have done that was illegal in the state of Florida. If your characterization of the law is correct... that law is absolutely insane, and I'm JUST NOW realizing how insane it actually is.

 

[koshergrl]

George Zimmerman Father Speaks Aabout Shooting

This was hearsay so it shouldn't have been posted!!!

No seriously.

His father's account seems pretty strange to me. He says Zimmerman's head was being bashed up against the sidewalk for upwards of 60 secs.

60 secs is a LONG time to be getting your head bashed into the sidewalk. I've seen it happen for less then 15 seconds and it scared the living crap out of me to watch. I'd imagine Zimmerman would be hospitalized.

From in this video did he say Trayvon saw the gun and then say "you're going to die tonight" (paraphrased)? That's interesting.

If Trayvon WAS NOT bashing Zimmerman's head into the cement or "beating" him prior to seeing Zimmerman's gun and he began to bash Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk because he saw that Zimmerman had a gun and it looked as if Zimmerman was going to shoot him, would that have been considered self-defense in Trayvon's case?

I'd imagine if that was the case there'd be no way of knowing, but what if a witness stepped forward and claimed that that's exactly what happened? What would happen to Zimmerman? I'd imagine if you're in a one on one fight with someone and they pull out a gun, you'd do anything to save your life... correct? Thoughts?

I am with you there. If Martin saw the gun it would explain the sudden violent attack. I think it would be more no fault. If Zimmerman flashed or pulled the gun, then it is more on him.

Yeah. I know the first thing I do when I see someone with a gun is ATTACK him.

 

[The Gadfly]

Dead people don't bruise. Traumas won't bruise if the heart is not pumping. If he died within minutes of the trauma there would be no bruising.

Not to be combative, but since we're all CSI experts here D) isn't there something called "post-mortem bruising"? I'm not sure how it works but if I understand correctly depending on the person bruising can continue directly after the death for a couple of hours or so. The bruise wouldn't develop the same way and wouldn't look the same (I remember reading about the difference between post-mortem and ante-mortem bruises, I wouldn't be able to tell you a thing about it now).

I thought post-mortem bruising was the pooling of blood in the lowest areas. Like if you were laying on your back dead your back would be bruised.

That's called lividity; useful along with other factors in determining how long someone has been dead.

 

[uptownlivin90]

Dead people don't bruise. Traumas won't bruise if the heart is not pumping. If he died within minutes of the trauma there would be no bruising.

Not to be combative, but since we're all CSI experts here D) isn't there something called "post-mortem bruising"? I'm not sure how it works but if I understand correctly depending on the person bruising can continue directly after the death for a couple of hours or so. The bruise wouldn't develop the same way and wouldn't look the same (I remember reading about the difference between post-mortem and ante-mortem bruises, I wouldn't be able to tell you a thing about it now).

I thought post-mortem bruising was the pooling of blood in the lowest areas. Like if you were laying on your back dead your back would be bruised.

Yes. From what I understand though there's a certain way you can make a body bruise if you handle it improperly (after it's dead).

I started snooping around google a few minutes ago and as of right now this is the only site that references bruising RIGHT after death:

"Bruising is not an accurate way of deciding how the victim met their fate, as interpreting bruising is different in every person, due to the fact that people bruise at different rates and bruising continues for a short while after death."
Forensic Science | Marks Of Violence

Not sure how accurate that is. I understand why bruising generally doesn't continue after death but I've always been under the impression that it can still continue in weird circumstances or while the body is actually in the process of dying and right after they die.

 

[KissMy]

This was hearsay so it shouldn't have been posted!!!

No seriously.

His father's account seems pretty strange to me. He says Zimmerman's head was being bashed up against the sidewalk for upwards of 60 secs.

60 secs is a LONG time to be getting your head bashed into the sidewalk. I've seen it happen for less then 15 seconds and it scared the living crap out of me to watch. I'd imagine Zimmerman would be hospitalized.

From in this video did he say Trayvon saw the gun and then say "you're going to die tonight" (paraphrased)? That's interesting.

If Trayvon WAS NOT bashing Zimmerman's head into the cement or "beating" him prior to seeing Zimmerman's gun and he began to bash Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk because he saw that Zimmerman had a gun and it looked as if Zimmerman was going to shoot him, would that have been considered self-defense in Trayvon's case?

I'd imagine if that was the case there'd be no way of knowing, but what if a witness stepped forward and claimed that that's exactly what happened? What would happen to Zimmerman? I'd imagine if you're in a one on one fight with someone and they pull out a gun, you'd do anything to save your life... correct? Thoughts?

I am with you there. If Martin saw the gun it would explain the sudden violent attack. I think it would be more no fault. If Zimmerman flashed or pulled the gun, then it is more on him.

Yeah. I know the first thing I do when I see someone with a gun is ATTACK him.

Well that depends on how many times you have been in a conflict involving a gun. That is why I believe Martin was no angle. The first couple of times I had a gun pulled on me I froze out of fear. The 3 times after that I instantly attacked the fuckers hard & fast. They never knew what hit them. Aikido is great for disarming people with guns in close combat.

 

[uptownlivin90]

In self-defense cases after a charge is brought up the burden of proof IS actually on the accused to prove self-defense.

Self-defense is an affirmative defense. Zimmerman would affirm he actually shot Trayvon Martin and that shot led to Martin's death. However his defense would be self-defense, thus if he's charged he has to prove that he was acting in self-defense. At least... this is how I understand it.

Uptown, with many self-defense statutes, that's how it works. This particular Florida law looks different, in that all Zimmerman has to show is that he acted lawfully, up until the moment he drew the gun and fired. That's a CRUCIAL distinction. With most old-style (common law) self defense statutes, Zimmerman would have to show that he (1) did not initiate the confrontation unreasonably, (2) that he did not further aggravate the situation unreasonably, (3) that his fear of death or serious bodily injury was reasonable, and (4) that he was unable to flee without unreasonably exposing himself to threat of death or serious bodily injury. The standard for "reasonable" is normally ordinary common sense. That's how the law we have here in SC works. Now it appears, that under the applicable Florida law, Zimmerman only has to show one of those things (number 3, above) and that he was where he was lawfully, and was not in violation of another criminal statute. Not only is that a lower burden of proof; on top of it, the "lawfully present" and not acting "unlawfully" language seems to put the burden of proving that part back on the state, as a person is normally PRESUMED to be acting lawfully, absent a showing of a violation of (another) statute. By that standard , an act may be stupid, or even reckless, without being "unlawful". That part of it may well be why the State Attorney who initially reviewed the case refused to charge it, and if I understand correctly that this is a fairly new statute, may also account for some confusion on the part of the Sanford police as to whether they thought Zimmerman's actions appeared to be self-defense. To put it another way, under the law in SC, he likely would NOT be able to make an affirmative showing of self defense; where under the Florida law, as written, the prosecution has a FAR more difficult case. I really think, from a lot of comments I've seen here, that not quite fully appreciating the difference has created considerable misunderstanding of why the case wasn't charged in the beginning, and why it's not a given that it will (or even should be) charged now, unless new evidence comes to light. To further complicate matters, the more recent the statute, the less guidance there is, in the way of established judicial precedent in interpreting it. This whole thing may be less about race, or recklessness, than about confusion over a law that looks extremely loose in its wording. Ever heard of making something so simple it becomes confusing and complicated? That may be the case here; not so much what the law says, as what it DOESN'T say.

I have been thinking this same exact thing over the last few days. The blacks in DC, Chicago & other places with restrictive gun laws are so use to being jailed for the slightest gun infraction. Then they see this on TV & cry fowl, racist & start marching in the streets.

You are right about the cops getting confused also. A friend of mine was arrested for having a gun in the back floorboard of the car he was driving after the officer pulled him over for a burned out license plate bulb. The law had changed a few months prior, but I guess this department did not get the memo. They strung the case out for several months & finally dropped it for no reason.

IDK about "the blacks" but I certainly do sometimes confuse myself because I apply the laws I grew up with in Mississippi and Maryland and understanding of THOSE laws to this situation. Now I actually see how this law applies to Trayvon and Zimmerman's altercation (because I was under the impression that it doesn't apply at all to the situation). I'm still kind of shocked.