Shot for getting skittles

Know your place, stay there, and you won't get shot.

That would certainly seem to be Zimmerman's underlying philosophy. Non-whites have no business living in "his" gated community. I'm sure you can get behind that.

I think Zimmerman ought to do time, but... ummmm YOU posted his picture! He himself doesn't look "white" to me.

And it is precisely this blind devotion to the possession of a thing, which in the minds of some owners of these things, precludes any ability to look at a situation involving these things (in the hands of the "right" people, of course) that drives gun control, and will continue to do so, because the devotees of these things value them more than human life (a "certain kind" of human life, you understand) and refuse to police their own.

More:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/08/family-of-trayvon-martin-_n_1332756.html

But what would the police chief know?

Per ABC News, the tapes will be released next week.

Oh, you're going to argue from the "Jews are 'mud people'" POV now?

Where the fuck did THAT come from?

You take that bullshit back.

EDIT: You know what? No. Fuck you. That was over the line.

Or you just can't explain what you meant by "He doesn't look white."

What is there to explain? Isn't the picture self explanatory?

He has dark hair, dark eyes, and DARK SKIN. He's not a "white dude", just going by the picture.

He looks Hispanic. Which while often being classified as white on census forms, is generally someone who is not welcome in a 'all-white gentleman's club' that G was referring to, the nice lads that enjoy the Indian swastika while talking about an Aryan race that appears not to have existed.

Which makes the accusation that he's against minorities, when he himself appears to be one, a bit odd.

Capiche?

He could be white. I've seen lots of caucasian guys who look like that guy.

Either way, sounds like he's a piece of shit no matter what his ethnicity is.

He's a killer.

He did an awful thing.

And he's dumb, because he did it while ignoring what the authorities told him to do.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. This guy probably had good intentions, just faulty as hell reasoning, and because of it some poor kid is dead.

The kid fucked up too. He should have run. But I fault the adult armed with a hand gun who got out of his car when the police told him not to to follow someone who belonged in the neighborhood very likely because he was using racial profiling a HELL of a lot more than I do the kid who wanted to know why some idiot/possible thief/possible rapist was following him.

Exactly. In Arizona, he'd probably be stopped three times a day and asked for his green card. In New York, with its 140+ ethnic groups, he could be taken for anything from Italian to "black German" to Latino (Ah, and then which "flavor"? Mexican, Puerto Rican, Salvadoran, Colombian, Dominican, Spanish-from-Spain?) to [former Soviet] Georgian or a dozen other things.

That's the real issue.

He was an unknown person in a secure environment. A few visits now and then does not change the fact that he was not a regular resident.

No it's not.

And the 911 tapes will no doubt confirm that.

We don't know that. We do know that he kept the kid under observation.

He was in a position to do so and did when Zimmerman exited his vehicle and followed him up the footpath.

The confrontation occurred on a footpath that runs between buildings and is inaccessible to vehicles.

CBS news says 70 yards.

Quite.

No. We know that Zimmerman didn't recognize him.

Who started it?

And was never tried for it.

Industrial plant and its surrounding properties.

And no doubt the 911 tapes will confirm that. Until then we don't know what was actually said.

Again that remains to be seen. If things are as you say and he was in direct violation of a lawful order why was he not arrested on the spot?

I'll do as I please.

So why get upset?

What he was told remains to be seen. His being in a vehicle irrelevant. He was following young Trayvon on foot when the confrontation occurred.

Quite possibly.[/quote]

Without doubt.

We don't know that.

He's dead apparently because he initiated a confrontation with an armed man.

Well your sitting here taking away one's right to trial by jury. You've been condemning without all the facts from the start.

And that's not a kneejerk reaction at all.

Sorry dude...

[action=Caboose]saws the dead limb sandbagger has crawled out onto the very tip of.[/action]

What?

Why?

There's nothing in the article that dispels the idea that Zimmerman fired in self-defense. Zimmerman may have been ill-advised to follow Martin, but he wasn't breaking any law in doing so; to the contrary, it seems he believed he was helping the police. And Zimmerman's decision to follow was no less unwise than Martin's decision to confront.

And all the report states is that "a physical confrontation ensued." You can't make the passive voice any more passive than that. It says nothing about who initiated violence.

Even if the whole thing was just one big misunderstanding and Martin was doing nothing wrong or suspicious, Zimmerman would still be justified if it was Martin who started the physical conflict. In any event, it seems the police believe that Zimmerman was acting in self-defense.

The only thing we can infer is that they didn't have any evidence that he wasn't acting in self-defense.

The whole thing smells too fishy to me.

Alas, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. No evidence of crime = no reason to prosecute.

Fine. But you can't charge someone for fishiness. If there's no evidence to dispute the claim of self-defense, then the claim of self-defense stands.

Which you will no doubt illustrate for the people playing along at home.

Florida use of force statute:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102.


17 year old, 140 pound unarmed kid, which you are stalking despite being told by the police not to ends up dead. Might not get that one by a jury, Paladin.

17-year-old boys have never assaulted people before?

In any event, it isn't necessary to prove Zimmerman's innocence; it's enough to say that there isn't any evidence to show his guilt.

What are the facts? There aren't any witnesses. Zimmerman was in communication with the police. One 17-year-old is dead, shot by someone who claims self-defense.

How are you going to prosecute? For what crime are you going to prosecute? Murder? On what basis? If you're going to dismiss Zimmerman's claim (without evidence), there are plenty of other alternate scenarios. Maybe Zimmerman accidentally shot Martin? But, again, no evidence to support that theory...

There won't be any jury because there won't be a trial. Unless Zimmerman has said something incriminating to the police, there's nothing here to go on. Any jury would have buckets of reasonable doubt.

For all any of us knows, Zimmerman may have gunned the Martin kid down in cold blood. But unless the evidence shows that, Zimmerman is not even going to be charged, let alone prosecuted.

You are a pathetic little wussie, aren't you?

Note the standard there tinkerbell. This statute is basically the same as the one in Louisiana where this happened.

Yoshihiro Hattori

You'd be surprised.

The State Attorney will send it to a Grand Jury, if for no other reason than CYA. But, that may be months from now. I'd be interested in what they have to say. The rest is speculation on our part.

It's 'capisce', you halfwit. If you're going to use Italian, at least know how to spell the one word you're using.

In cases of homicide, there is often a lack of eye-witness testimony.
The best witness is dead.

In this case, the police have the shooter and they have the gun.

Clues to the shooter's state of mind are available in the original 911 call.

The relative positions of the shooter and the victim can be determined
by the path of the bullet.

A jury can decide if claims of self defense are valid,
and if the use of lethal force was justified.

True, but for the charge of, say, murder to stick, there would have to be evidence that the shooting did not happen as the shooter has stated it has.

True. But--throwing away anything the shooter has claimed and judging solely on the evidence that's available--is the shooting justifiable, an accident, or a murder? If the evidence cannot foreclose two of those three possibilities (and there may be more), then that's reasonable doubt right there.

That he was a bloodthirsty animal or that he was concerned about a suspicious person? I think the phone call to the police works in his favor. It shows he had some genuine concern and wanted the authorities involved.

But not what was said or (necessarily) what was happening at the instant the shot was fired. What do you conclude if the coroner's report says that both the shooter and victim were standing, facing one another, the entry wound was one foot from the muzzle of the gun, and the bullet's path was consistent with the shooter firing as he stated?

Is that an execution? Or is that a man shooting justifiably at a threat?

As Elwood said, if the state's attorney thinks there's anything there, he'll send it to a grand jury. If there's enough for a grand jury to indict, then there will be a trial. But since the police seem pretty satisfied, it's unlikely there's anything there.

Look, if Martin had two bullet holes in the back of his head, delivered from point blank range while he was laying on the ground, you could get a murder charge to stick. Or if a witness saw Zimmerman shoot Martin when Martin wasn't doing anything provocative. Or if you found that some part of Zimmerman's story was a lie. But those things would mean more evidence than we've seen. If the police have that evidence, why are they saying it was justifiable?

Unless there's more here than is being said, there isn't going to be any trial because the evidence is consistent with the shooter's story.

Let me ask you this: based on what we know, would you send Martin away for murder? If so, why? What--other than a vague sense that something doesn't smell quite right--would justify locking the man up, when the physical evidence supports (or, at least, doesn't undermine) his claim of self-defense?

If my choice is between the things that I have worked to pay for and have and some shitbag that wants to steal or vandalize them, I'm voting for my things.

Isn't that pretty much SOP for 911 operators? I can't see them advising you to do something that could potentially put you in harm's way.

From a practical point of view: when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

When correcting someone, it helps to be right:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capiche

Oh look, right there in the dictionary.

Shut up, halfwit. The smart people are talking.