Shot for getting skittles

A person watching them.

It sounds a lot more plausible than your hypotheticals.

The incoherent ramblings of a three year old on Nyquil make more sense than half of what you manage to conjure up.

Standing your ground does not include possibly assaulting someone who was watching you then from what is known so far stopped, and went in the opposite direction.

After he was cleaned up by Fire Rescue. And the video is no where near the quality for you to make the determination that he showed no signs of a fight.

Such a video would never see the inside of a court room. The State Attorney would look like a fool to accuse the officers on the scene who reported the signs of a fight, the Fire Rescue personnel who treated Zimmerman, and the Doctors who treated him for a broken nose of lying.

In addition to that we've got one story saying Zimmerman turned down going to the hospital and another story saying the police wouldn't let him go to the hospital.

False. He was taken to the station as a suspect in a possible crime, interviewed for several hours, and then released because the State Attorney said there was not enough evidence to support a conviction at that point in the investigation.

An arrest by itself doesn't mean you're going to get booked although it often does.

If after the interview it was decided to charge him then they would have booked him at the county jail.

False.

You don't need to be booked for the State Attorney to decide on whether to prosecute or drop charges.

So what? He wasn't one and he knew it. It might be said that Martin was a wannabe Gangsta.

And he did. He was returning to his SUV when Martin attacked him.

Fact: if Martin hadn't attacked him, he would still be alive.

Fact: if I see someone dressed and acting in certain ways, I expect certain behaviors, black or white. That's not racial profiling; that's behavioral profiling. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck...

Fact: Zimmerman was treated at the scene by paramedics. If there were no injuries, then why was he treated? And the resolution of the video is too poor to make the call that you're making.

Only if a reasonable suspicion exists that a crime was committed. In this case, it did not.

And this case will go to a grand jury who will see more evidence than we've been privy to. It there are grounds to indict, they'll indict.

And this is what I don't get. Isn't this what the Martin protesters want?

No. They want him dead.

98

99!

No, turning and attacking someone who is no longer following you is not standing your ground by any reasonable definition of the term.

Twenty five hundred! !

:

edit: FUCK! waited all fucking night too.

No, they want a kangaroo court and vigilante justice.

Exactly. They have been whipped into such a frenzy that there is very little chance of this not esculating into another riot situation.

There is no evidence Martin turned around and attacked Zimmerman. But, Zimmerman's own actions and words are evidence that he was convinced Martin was doing wrong and needed to be stopped.

That was purely an accident. I wasn't even paying attention to the post count. I just happened to post that reply and hit it.

Ahhh, that's alright, I'll shoot for 3000!

Congrats btw!

Today's contribution: http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...eams-were-not-george-zimmermans-2-experts-say

I'm sure these guys are in on the conspiracy to damn Zimmerman, too.

You mean this.

After initially running after Martin and losing him, Zimmerman is on the phone with 911 for a period of almost two minutes. During which time it is obvious that Zimmerman is not running. And during that time Martin is supposedly "walking fast" towards home. Under those circumstances. How do Martin and Zimmerman meet where the initial pursuit ended?

Does anyone in the lynch mob want to try and answer that?

That is interesting.

But the first guy admits he didn't apply the test to a sample of Martin's voice, and the second guy sounds like he's stating an opinion.

Certainly not conclusive, but interesting.

I'd like to see what, say, the FBI makes of it.

Let's bear in mind that this coming from the "news" organization that was caught selectively editing Zimmerman's 911 call.

And lets not forget that we've got a witness who says directly that he saw George Zimmerman screaming.

A jury is going to take the word of a witness over "voice analysts" especially when the defense shows up with their experts saying it is Zimmerman screaming.

George Zimmerman's neighbor describes his injuries

A man who lives in the Retreat at Twin Lakes Sanford Community where George Zimmerman lives and where 17-year old Trayvon Martin was killed, talked exclusively to FOX35 Friday about what he saw on Zimmerman's face less than 24-hours after the shooting.

"I saw George, he was banged up," he said.

The man, who didn't want his identity revealed, said he saw bandages on Zimmerman's nose and on the back of his head and well as lumps on his face.

He told FOX35 he hasn't been able to sleep knowing that people in America are portraying Zimmerman as a racist and a murderer who suffered no injuries.

"I believe you have the right to pull the trigger if you feel like your life is on the line and after seeing George's face the next day, I believe his life was on the line," he said.

He said while the surveillance video of Zimmerman at the Sanford police department being brought in for questioning after the shooting doesn't clearly show his injuries, it clearly shows an officer looking at his head.

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/local/033112-George-Zimmerman's-neighbor-describes-his-injuries

Another witness:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/30/trayvon-martin-witness-zimmerman-uninjured

This person claims to be one of the guys that the police took a statement from at the scene. Sounds like it might be the same guy interviewed on Anderson Cooper that was discussed previously.

Current thoughts - the blood would be important, if Zimmerman had been arrested. As he hasn't been, it's quite possibly a vital clue that will be missed because once again this is a shitty law.

No one saw how the fight started, though we have the girl on the phone which if introduced into evidence in a trial would be pretty damning to Zimmerman.

No one saw the shot.

We have a witness saying Zimmerman was on top, we have a witness that says Martin was on top. Could be both are true at different times.

The question is whether Zimmerman was on top when the shot was fired. The law does state a requirement to retreat if possible in a location outside your home. If Zimmerman was on the bottom, getting pummeled at the time, then clearly he couldn't retreat.

You could probably convince a jury if Zimmerman didn't have any of Martin's blood on his clothes, than he couldn't have been directly underneath him when the shot was fired.

The video seems to indicate a lack of blood, but it's a bad video and the clothes are red, so that's a far cry from conclusive.

This is one of those perfect storm cases.

Another problem with that scenario is that not all wounds leak blood like a sieve, and you're more likely to get those types of things from the exit wound angle.

No, the law is fine. If attacked, you should be able to stand your ground and defend yourself.

That it is. The Rodney King riots will be a picnic compared to the way this one's going.

Stock up on Ammo Now, good citizens!

If that's the way the law was being interpreted, I'd agree.

That is NOT the way the law is consistently being applied. Read the one about the drug deal gone bad which lead to a shoot out down the highway, or the one where the marine got killed for trying to stop guys from harassing his mother - on her property.

The law is fucked. Putting your head in the sand doesn't change that, no matter how many dues you pay to the NRA.

It needs to be clarified.

Yep, complete agreement there.