Florida's Stand your Ground law

There WAS a witness, a young black, walking his dog at the time,
who said that he saw the guy in the red shirt ( Z ) on the ground yelling.

That disputes decedent 's parents' allegations
that thay heard him yelling on the tape.

david says:

There WAS a witness, a young black, walking his dog at the time,
who said that he saw the guy in the red shirt ( Z ) on the ground yelling.

That disputes decedent 's parents' allegations
that thay heard him yelling on the tape.

If that's the best you can do,, David, you've got NO case.

the kid has repeatedly denied that he said that and maintained it was too dark to see who was on the bottom, that his dog ran away from him, and when he got back there was a body on the ground. His mother says the police tried to get him to say the person on the ground was wearing red, but he wouldn't say it because he couldn't tell. Kinda like the early "anonymous source in the police department" who said Trayvon's dad says it was not Trayvon's voice calling for help, which was also not true. His father, and his mother both say it was, and forensic analysts say it was not Zimmerman. The police have a lot of bogus crap to answer for in this case. So do you, for trying to cite it as evidence.

Trayvon was the victim of predatory violence.

It's pretty easy to find reports of the kid walking his dog denying he could tell who was who. It's not easy finding anything else. Back up your claim, David.

There are other witnesses of Zimmerman straddling Trayvon, an ear witness who says two shots.

There's very little witness agreement on who was doing what.

How nice. NYTimes editorial today notes that half a dozen major businesses have now withdrawn their financial support for ALEC, the far-right group that has been pushing Kill At Will laws like Florida's in state legislatures around the country.

Some of us think that its better to be tried by 12 men
than carried by 6.

Some of us think that its better to be tried by 12 men
than carried by 6.

Most of us think it's better to do neither.

The NRA is not entirely certain what to do with its partial success. Partly it keeps pushing for laws that would expand the places where guns might be carried, including churches, bars and college campuses (it supports a group called Students for Concealed Carry). Partly, it opposes even the most basic controls, such as legislation to ban gun sales to people on the government's terrorist watchlist, meaning a suspected terrorist can be denied the right to board a plane but not to buy a gun.

This has left the NRA with a problem. Now the Democrats have caved and the supreme court has a pro-gun majority, it simply has no worthy enemy. No one at the convention can point to a single concrete piece of legislation from the White House that they didn't like. Instead, they simply raise the spectre of an Obama second term. Unfettered by the need to stand again, he will come for your guns. There is absolutely nothing, beyond his right to appoint people to the Supreme Court and beyond, to suggest this is true. But there is nothing to prove it couldn't be either.

In Missouri, says Oxford, one representative attempted to add gun ownership to the list of protected categories alongside race, gender and disability so that no gun owner could be discriminated against in employment. "We asked her if she knew anyone that had ever happened to," says Oxford. "She didn't."

It is this fear, of the unknown and the known, both manufactured, exploited and real, that hangs over the convention. Time and again people paint scenarios in which I or my family might be attacked, threatened or in some way violated as a rationale for arming myself. In this atmosphere, Richardson's evocation of Rwanda, while extreme, is not entirely ludicrous.

Avoiding a conflict is much better than avoiding the consequences of a conflict.

It's much better to be eating dinner with your family than it is to be locked up in the county jail.

This didn't start out as a case of kill or be killed.
Zimmerman had minutes, at least, in which to make a series of bad decisions.

Now he's in the slammer, because he had more balls than brains.

Poor Trayvon, to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and get stalked

by a well-armed moron.

He 'd have been safer, if he had not attacked Zimmy.


The rest of us r safer now.

He 'd have been safer, if he had not attacked Zimmy.


The rest of us r safer now.

There is currently no evidence for either of those statements.

Always interesting to watch a lawyer make things up out of whole cloth.

Maybe sanity still has a chance in this country.

ehBeth wrote:

Always interesting to watch a lawyer make things up out of whole cloth.

What does "whole cloth" mean
in the sense that u employ it here ???

the meaning is clear -- ''a story invented with no basis in fact; a complete fiction''

Did he have a criminal record ?

While Trayvon Martin had no criminal record, Zimmerman had a previous charge in 2005 of "resisting arrest with violence and battery on an officer" -- while interfering with the arrest of a friend. He subsequently entered a pre-trial diversion program, which is not considered a conviction on his criminal record. Zimmerman had previously been accused of domestic violence by an ex-fiancé (Veronica Zuazo), who had filed for a restraining order against him.

Quite the fella you appear to be championing.