Why is George Zimmerman allowed to roam free tonight?

And contrast this: "He's no Rambo", with this:

"I think he had 'fed up' issues. He was mad as hell, and he wasn't going to take it anymore".

Uhh, you just described Rambo.

Jeff-66 wrote:

Neighbor defends Zimmerman "he's no Rambo"

This (white) guy said some interesting things ... like how the neighborhood is 50% white, 25% black, 25% Hispanic, but that "it used to be all white".

He says "Trayvon should have just explained who he was"

and that Zimmerman shouldn't have had a gun, and said that "anytime you're carrying around a gun, you've got anger issues", to which the reporter asks "Do you think George had anger issues?" ... neighbor: "I think he had 'fed up' issues. He was mad as hell, and he wasn't going to take it anymore". Um, ok, I don't think that's going to help Zimmerman.

There were apparently 8 burglaries in the last few months in the neighborhood, and "most were committed by young black males" says the neighbor.

There you go, Trayvon, you shouldn't have been black!

Reminds me of the guy I ran into in KC who told me that "If you're black in Johnson County, you better be pushing a lawn mower".

OG_slinger wrote:

In other news, people have been listening to Zimmerman's 911 call and in addition to his "those assholes always get away" comment he also might have called Martin a "f*cking coon."

I was wondering what he said there. Still am.

Funkenpants wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

I saw an interesting comment on one of the CNN articles. The person said that under the "Stand your ground" doctrine, if they were walking down the street and saw George Zimmerman, they would feel threatened and could shoot him. I'm not sure I can really refute their argument.

Because the statute in question has nothing to do with feeling threatened.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/...

You need to look at the entire set of statutes. 776.012 would apply to someone walking down the street, but you read all statutes together to see if anything else applies or creates exceptions to the basic provision.

Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using 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 the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) 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; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

I linked 776.013 to note #3, which is basically the same as the text of 776.012, except 3 includes the word "attacked". It's 776.013.3 which specifically speaks to being outside the home and the duty to retreat. And 776.041 is the part that spells out that the person who started the fight cannot claim the right to no-retreat self-defense.

And since the only other person who could say for certain what happened is dead, all Zimmerman has to do is concoct some kind of ridiculous story about how Trayvon "came right at him".

Hopefully the DA will let the evidence speak for the victim.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Hopefully the DA will let the evidence speak for the victim.

I'm going to make a bold prediction and say that after 6 months, the DA will make an announcement that he doesn't have enough evidence to try the case and Zimmerman will walk.

Paleocon wrote:

I'm going to make a bold prediction...

Even money says that at some point during the proceedings Zimmerman has a nervous breakdown and delivers a paraphrasing of this speech:
Son, we live in a world that has streets, and those streets have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Florida Police Department? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Trayvon, and you curse the volunteer Neighborhood Watch. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that Trayvon's death, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.
You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that street -- you need me on that street. We use words like "honor," "code," "loyalty." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand the post.

Paleocon wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

Hopefully the DA will let the evidence speak for the victim.

I'm going to make a bold prediction and say that after 6 months, the DA will make an announcement that he doesn't have enough evidence to try the case and Zimmerman will walk.

At this point it may even be true seeing as how badly the local police f*cked this up.

Rezzy wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I'm going to make a bold prediction...

Even money says that at some point during the proceedings Zimmerman has a nervous breakdown and delivers a paraphrasing of this speech:
Son, we live in a world that has streets, and those streets have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Florida Police Department? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Trayvon, and you curse the volunteer Neighborhood Watch. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that Trayvon's death, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.
You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that street -- you need me on that street. We use words like "honor," "code," "loyalty." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand the post.

Awesome.

Rezzy wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I'm going to make a bold prediction...

Even money says that at some point during the proceedings Zimmerman has a nervous breakdown and delivers a paraphrasing of this speech:
Son, we live in a world that has streets, and those streets have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Florida Police Department? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Trayvon, and you curse the volunteer Neighborhood Watch. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that Trayvon's death, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.
You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that street -- you need me on that street. We use words like "honor," "code," "loyalty." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand the post.

The sad part is that it is probably the case that the local PD gave him all kinds of slack because they were too understaffed, underfunded, lazy, or disinclined to do what they could just get him to do for free: patrol a troubled neighborhood. And when things went horribly wrong, it was too late to unring the bell.

If I recall correctly, duty to retreat has the caveat that you have to be able to retreat safely, right? I guess I don't see what makes it different, since Zimmerman could just append, "...and I couldn't safely get away, he was too fast." to his statement.

NathanialG wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

Hopefully the DA will let the evidence speak for the victim.

I'm going to make a bold prediction and say that after 6 months, the DA will make an announcement that he doesn't have enough evidence to try the case and Zimmerman will walk.

At this point it may even be true seeing as how badly the local police f*cked this up.

I think the 911 call and the victim's phone call are enough, at least in my opinion.

Kraint wrote:

If I recall correctly, duty to retreat has the caveat that you have to be able to retreat safely, right? I guess I don't see what makes it different, since Zimmerman could just append, "...and I couldn't safely get away, he was too fast." to his statement.

That is a much more difficult case to make when they have you on a 911 tape telling a dispatcher that you're going to follow a "sketchy looking guy" and are told not to do so.

SixteenBlue wrote:
NathanialG wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

Hopefully the DA will let the evidence speak for the victim.

I'm going to make a bold prediction and say that after 6 months, the DA will make an announcement that he doesn't have enough evidence to try the case and Zimmerman will walk.

At this point it may even be true seeing as how badly the local police f*cked this up.

I think the 911 call and the victim's phone call are enough, at least in my opinion.

Is there an actual recording of the victims call or is it just what the girlfriend is saying? I would think a competent defense attorney could get past that if they just have to take her word.

I hope no one thinks I am in any way supporting Zimmerman or that I feel this should not be investigated! I do. But this is getting closer and closer to OJ territory the longer they wait to even start investigating.

Also, Florida is just about the worst state in the nation to become a victim of this sort of gross police incompetence. The laws as written regarding things like sovereign immunity and tort limitations pretty much mean that you can sue all you like, but will get absolutely nothing. It is for that reason that I'll make a further bold prediction that the local PD might get tarred a little bit, but everyone will still keep their jobs.

Rezzy wrote:

Even money says that at some point during the proceedings Zimmerman has a nervous breakdown and delivers a paraphrasing of this speech:

I'll take that bet, because I believe he'll believe that's what he sounds like, when in truth he sounds closer to this:

I was thinking more along these lines:

Paleocon wrote:

The sad part is that it is probably the case that the local PD gave him all kinds of slack because they were too understaffed, underfunded, lazy, or disinclined to do what they could just get him to do for free: patrol a troubled neighborhood.

Wha? It was a gated community, Paleo, not the mean streets.

Paleocon wrote:

I was thinking more along these lines:

Holy crap, I've never seen that ... or even heard of it. How did I miss this? Was it really that bad?

OG_slinger wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

The sad part is that it is probably the case that the local PD gave him all kinds of slack because they were too understaffed, underfunded, lazy, or disinclined to do what they could just get him to do for free: patrol a troubled neighborhood.

Wha? It was a gated community, Paleo, not the mean streets.

averaging a burglary once every two months. That's sort of a lot.

@garion: It was painful to watch, but incredibly accurate.

garion333 wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I was thinking more along these lines:

Holy crap, I've never seen that ... or even heard of it. How did I miss this? Was it really that bad?

It is actually pretty good. But really dark. It was not what people expected from Seth Rogen.
http://www.avclub.com/articles/obser...

Paleocon wrote:

averaging a burglary once every two months. That's sort of a lot.

Source? The only person I've seen claiming lots of crime in the gated community was Zimmerman himself.

Kraint wrote:

If I recall correctly, duty to retreat has the caveat that you have to be able to retreat safely, right? I guess I don't see what makes it different, since Zimmerman could just append, "...and I couldn't safely get away, he was too fast." to his statement.

He can make up any story he wants, but it better be a good one because all the relevant statutes specify that any belief in imminent death or great bodily harm must be "reasonable". To me, it's not reasonable that an angry guy with a gun is in fear from his life from a kid half his size armed only with a bag of skittles.

When there's a question of whether or not it's reasonable, that's when it's supposed to left up to a judge/jury.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Kraint wrote:

If I recall correctly, duty to retreat has the caveat that you have to be able to retreat safely, right? I guess I don't see what makes it different, since Zimmerman could just append, "...and I couldn't safely get away, he was too fast." to his statement.

He can make up any story he wants, but it better be a good one because all the relevant statutes specify that any belief in imminent death or great bodily harm must be "reasonable". To me, it's not reasonable that an angry guy with a gun is in fear from his life from a kid half his size armed only with a bag of skittles.

But what if he's black and is wearing a hoodie?

Paleocon wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:
Kraint wrote:

If I recall correctly, duty to retreat has the caveat that you have to be able to retreat safely, right? I guess I don't see what makes it different, since Zimmerman could just append, "...and I couldn't safely get away, he was too fast." to his statement.

He can make up any story he wants, but it better be a good one because all the relevant statutes specify that any belief in imminent death or great bodily harm must be "reasonable". To me, it's not reasonable that an angry guy with a gun is in fear from his life from a kid half his size armed only with a bag of skittles.

But what if he's black and is wearing a hoodie?

And is a master of skittle-fu?

In all seriousness, this is exactly why I think all these arguments that universal concealed carry laws making society a safer place are complete and utter bullfeces. "Democratizing" police powers to folks who are neither trained nor temperamentally selected for this sort of work inevitably results in this kind of tragedy. This is what happens when you arm tacticool mall ninjas and tell them to "protect their neighborhoods".

Worse yet, I suspect it will come out that the local PD tolerated his methods despite knowledge of the danger because it was convenient to do so.

Stand your Ground timeline infographic: http://awesome.good.is/transparency/...

NathanialG wrote:
Holy crap, I've never seen that ... or even heard of it. How did I miss this? Was it really that bad?

It is actually pretty good. But really dark. It was not what people expected from Seth Rogen.
http://www.avclub.com/articles/obser...

Correct. I really liked it.

I KNEW I should haven't have clicked on this damn thread. Yet another signpost on the way to my closing argument that people are f*cking tools and should be despised until proven a Goodjer.

God I HATE people.