jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (156 posts)

Zimmerman Conclusion

  1. 0
    Sooner28posted 3 years ago

    http://www.kpho.com/story/22831147/zimm … ack-intern

    This is the last discussion I will start on this trial.  I am just throwing this out there for those who insist that Zimmerman was a racist who profiled Martin. 

    Zimmerman can be accused of paranoia, and jumping to conclusions about someone he didn't recognize, but that doesn't make him a racist; it just makes him stupid.

    Imagine if you lived in a neighborhood that had been burglarized recently, and you knew who a lot of your neighbors were, or at least what they looked like, and there was a person fitting the description of the suspected burglar, who you also didn't recognize. Is it that insane to think the person would at least raise a little bit of suspicion in the minds of most people?  Let's say the burglary suspect was a white male who was around 6'0 tall, average weight, and there was a 6'0 tall male of average weight walking down the neighborhood. 

    Zimmerman should not have followed Martin, he should've just called the police and let it go.  But his stupidity does not make him a murderer, or a racist.

    1. ChristinS profile image92
      ChristinSposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I see your points, but I disagree.  According to reports from others in the neighborhood watch, he was always profiling black people for looking "suspicious" and "up to no good". Racial profiling with no just cause is racism. Trayvon was walking - not looking in windows, not jiggling door handles, looking in cars etc. He was walking down the street.  The boy was wearing khaki pants and a sweatshirt and walking - that does not make him "suspicious" unless you have a racial bias in place.

      Is he stupid - absolutely and he is a perfect example of why we need extensive training for conceal carry permits but I will leave that for another forum thread!

      I can agree to the not guilty of "murder 2" - but I cannot for the life of me see how manslaughter was not applicable.  He got out of his car, armed, pursuing someone when it was against the rules of the neighborhood watch and when dispatch told him he didn't need to follow.

      He wanted to be a renegade cop and put himself in that position. Everyone says he had the right to defend himself - ok, perhaps - but Trayvon didn't have a right to defend himself? Both were hotheads and had either one of them not lost their cool this wouldn't have happened - BUT it was zimmerman who initiated the whole thing, based on his racial bias and ultimately he took a gun to a fist fight and he should be held responsible for those actions. 

      I personally hope he gets the stuffings sued out of him in civil court for wrongful death. 

      I also think this sets a very VERY dangerous precedent for renegade types with a chip on their shoulder to act violently, provoke an altercation and then scream self-defense when they shoot.  NOT GOOD.

      1. 0
        Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        My intuition says he is guilty, but I can't convince my mind of it.  I am also against liberal concealed carry laws, so if I had my way Zimmerman wouldn't have been legally carrying a gun at all that night.

    2. fpherj48 profile image80
      fpherj48posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Sooner....If only it was as simple as this.  However, when a life is gone, we must not settle for simple reasons or explanations.   While the Jury announced their verdict and the trial is over, two families face an overwhelming mountain of struggles.
      George and his family....I have thought about them and what they may need to do next.  I imagined these questions: 1. Will their lives simply pick up where they had been before?  2. Can they even choose to remain where they are?  Can George feel truly safe from any number of possible back lashes and after shocks?  Could there be a concern of harassment and ridicule, against his family, for some time to come?  These are realistic possibilities, they have to consider and somehow prepare to handle.
      I'm sure I have only mentioned a few.
      Trayvon's family have lost their son, brother & nephew.  There can be no greater pain nor more complete devastation, than the loss of one's child.....at any age.  His siblings will carry this void for all time.  Each day, for rest of their lives, Trayvon's family is missing an enormous and vital part of their family unit, that cannot ever be replaced.  It was difficult for me, a total stranger, to look at his mother and father, without tears welling up in my eyes.  Such heart-wrenching pain, they must endure.
      An egregious tragedy, turned media circus.....with anger, hatred and blame being thrown back and forth, as people spoke their mind and imposed their beliefs.  Yet, through it all, no one human being could turn back the clock nor bring back a life.  Repeated screams for answers to, "Why?" and more than this, "Who will pay?" have not been answered, for those who matter.  I doubt they ever will be.
      You see, Sooner, it simply does not matter, in the sad,sad ending.  Whether some see Zimmerman as a racist, a wanna-be cop, a stupid man, a murderer or a good neighbor.....is no longer important.  Trayvon is dead and that is final.   It surely does not matter now, that some called Trayvon a thug or a child, a suspicious stranger or a possible burglar.  Trayvon is dead...and gone forever.
      Profiler, racist, stupid or smart....G.Z. shot a young man dead.   All due respect, Sooner....nothing at all, that anyone can say.....or try to explain and rationalize...will dissuade human beings from hanging on to THEIR truths........whatever their truths may be.

      1. 0
        Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I do think it's a tragedy, and one that could easily have been avoided had Zimmerman simply remained in his vehicle.  it seems like there should be something he could be charged with, though I don't know enough about the law to say exactly what.

        I've imagined myself in the Martin's situation, and how I would feel if someone were to kill my unarmed brother, and then claim self-defense.  My intuition is that I would be extremely angry and think the person was a murderer.

        However, I also think this illustrates the bias that I would be colored with.  I couldn't look at the situation objectively because it was my own brother who would have been killed! 

        I know there's nothing that can change the fact that Martin's life ended prematurely, and the man responsible for that is walking free.  On the surface, it appears so unjust and so unfair.  How could a justice system that gives such a result be said to in any sense be working correctly? 

        Once the emotions are reduced, and the actual evidence and scenarios are considered, the truth of what happened that night becomes terribly murky, and there is no irrefutable evidence of who actually confronted who first, only differing reconstructions based on plausibility and the known facts of the case.  Since that is reasonable doubt about what happened, the justice system, at least in this instance, did it's job.

        I do hope no one attempts to assassinate Zimmerman after this verdict.   Our nation should be better than that.  I also hope the Martin family is given plenty of freedom and privacy to grieve how they see fit.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          A physical assassination of Zimmerman probably won't happen.  A character assassination is, and has been, going on since the night of the killing.  A great many people are and will continue to do their best to "punish" Zimmerman using public opinion to ruin what life he has left regardless of any verdict.  Thankfully it will die out in a few months.

          After all, they know far better than any stupid juror, listening to stupid testimony and a stupid and incompetent prosecutor, what happened that night.

          1. ChristinS profile image92
            ChristinSposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I don't hear you saying anything about how they slandered Trayvon's character? Nothing so glorious as dehumanizing a victim who can't defend themselves.  People who make zimmerman into some kind of vigilante hero paint Trayvon as some thug and he wasn't. He was a young man walking home who was unarmed.

            Zimmerman made a series of wrong choices - that is a fact. His choices led to the wrongful death of an unarmed teenager.  I don't want him to face physical harm, but if he spends his days uncomfortable I call that karma. He brought it on himself. If he would have done what he was trained to do (not pursue someone with a gun on a neighborhood watch, but to WATCH only and report) These two would both be alive and living normal lives today.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I have not heard anything Conclusively slanderous about Martin.  Stories of his past school incidents, yes, but not lies, and that's what slander is.

              On the other many people are saying very plainly that Zimmerman is a murderer in spite of the court trial that resulted in an innocent verdict.  It is a lie and slanderous.

              Zimmerman made wrong choices, just like we all do.  So did Martin, and Martin's stupid choices are as much to blame for what happened as Zimmerman's.  Somehow, though, we forget that.

              You do make my point for me though - you want Zimmerman, innocent of any intentional wrong doing to live his life out "uncomfortable" (which he already will, having killed a man).  You are more than happy to see him punished the rest of his life because of a poor choice - a choice he believed at the time was the right thing to do.  Pray that you have never made a bad choice in your own life - that all your own decisions will always be the right ones.

              1. ChristinS profile image92
                ChristinSposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I accept the fact that as human beings we all have to live with the natural consequences of our actions.  If he feels guilt for killing that boy that shows a conscience.  I have made mistakes in my life - I paid for them and guess what - they were my choices and I own it.

                "Not guilty" does NOT mean innocent.  Casey Anthony was found "not guilty" also and so was OJ - just saying. 

                I saw the crime scene photos that were leaked of Trayvon and the lack of marks on his lightly colored clothing (khaki pants and he was allegedly on the ground pounding zimmerman on a rainy night) there was not a speck of dirt on his clothing... This tells me that jury saw what it wanted to see and didn't objectively look at the physical evidence presented to them. 

                I wish no harm on anyone - but to suggest that Zimmerman is a victim is ludicrous to me - he put himself in that position. As for Trayvon - he was PUT in that position by someone stalking him.  Zimmerman made the choices that set this into action no matter how you try to justify his behavior.

                1. PrettyPanther profile image86
                  PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  +11111

                2. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  So you made poor choices and paid for them.  So did I, and just like you I accepted the results as my own.  But Martin did nothing (like breaking a man's nose) that contributed to his demise.  I very strongly disagree - from evidence presented he very much did so.

                  Just like OJ, not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  Now if you want only money from that man all you need is a preponderance of the evidence - exactly how it should be.  But that isn't good enough, is it?  You don't WANT Zimmerman found innocent, you WANT a guilty verdict and will assist in providing negative public opinion to produce the "punishment" you think is required without ever sitting on the jury and actually examining evidence.  I simply cannot go with that attitude; the mob mentality of "hang 'em high" is not something I can endorse.

                  So you saw leaked (and photoshopped?) pics of Trayvon with a closeup of the knees of his pants - a closeup good enough you could determine there was not a speck of dirt on them nor a small grass stain from a photo.  Baloney.  If you actually believe that it's solely because it's what you WANT to believe, not from any objective thought.  But that's OK as it helps produce that "guilty" verdict in the mob's mind.

                  You can believe such nonsense as you wish, and believe the jury was all composed of liars that went into the trial with a predetermined innocent verdict as well. 

                  I don't justify Zimmermans behavior at all - it was stupid in the extreme.  Question is why you justify Martin's behavior?  Because he's dead?  Because he's black?  Because he's was even more stupid than Zimmerman and showed it by attacking first?  Martin had lots of available choices rather than intentionally confronting and striking his "stalker" - why is that one choice justified any more than Zimmerman's poor choices were?

                  1. ChristinS profile image92
                    ChristinSposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    BECAUSE Martin did not put himself in the position - what part of that don't you grasp and the photos appeared on the news outlet and were not Photoshopped.  I don't believe in mob rule either and you'll notice I never said I want anything bad to happen to Zimmerman, but the people who are hero worshiping this man are truly mind boggling. 

                    You weren't on the jury either - why should your opinion be more valid than mine? give me a break.  You act as though I am personally going out there to take down George Zimmerman when all I said was if he feels bad - I don't care - karma for his stupid choices.

                  2. Credence2 profile image84
                    Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Don't know Wilderness seems like there are many that have problem with Zimmerman and his role in this affair.

    3. PattyJane profile image81
      PattyJaneposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The biggest thing that I see is that Zimmerman isn't racist, first he mentored young black men and 2 he isn't white, he is just as white as Barack Obama!
      This isn't about race on zimmermans part, the only race issue were those looking for a reason to bring up race.

    4. LauraGT profile image85
      LauraGTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Racism can be subtle and complex, and I think that it would be difficult to determine concretely how much of a factor race played in this case. Racism is not binary - that is, we can't necessarily say someone is or is not racist. So, I think trying to determine whether or not Zimmerman "is a racist" is futile.  Race plays a factor in many interactions, whether someone is overtly racist or not.  Did race play a factor here?  Did Martin's race make him more suspicious to Zimmerman?  Did Zimmerman's own race make him feel more empowered to act?  Did the racial dynamics impact the police response? the jury decision?  I don't know that we'll ever know the answers, but I think it's worth asking the questions.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, it's worth asking the questions, but you stop far too soon.

        Did being followed by a "cracker" affect Martin's judgement?  Did the outcries from racists, that Zimmerman went out to kill a black kid, affect Zimmerman's life?  Did doctoring the 911 tapes by the media to indicate a racist attitude have any affect?  Will the demands for "justice" (read "punishment", not justice) from racists result in additional trials and trouble for a man declared not guilty?

        For we need to ask the questions from all points of view.  A few will learn about both themselves and our society from those questions, and every handful that DOES learn helps.

    5. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Poor decisions usually have consequences for the person who makes them. In this case it resulted in the death of another. Your statement, "Zimmerman should not have followed Martin, he should've just called the police and let it go.  But his stupidity does not make him a murderer, or a racist.", is true only that he conceivably was not a racist. Did he profile? Probably, but based on former crimes in the neighborhood he was making a guess. He guessed wrong and had he the training of a police officer he would have had more to go on other than his gut. He caused and implemented the death of another human being. Plain and simple that he should be held accountable.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Without stopping Martin and talking to him, what more information would a trained policeman have had to go on?

        That Zimmerman "profiled" is undeniable, but then "profiling" is nothing more than making a educated guess based on past experience (when done correctly, anyway).  In that regard, Zimmerman's "suspicion" (or "profile") was quite reasonable from the information he had.

        1. rhamson profile image77
          rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          By stopping him did he know the safe procedure for both of them? Was he watching Martins hands? Did he have a reasonable distance between them for him to react? Did he let Martin know who he was and by what authority he was stopping him? Was he trained to take down Martin in the event he resisted? Did he have a stun gun alternative? Could have waited for back up before confronting Martin? Did he even have handcuffs in case he subdued Martin?

          I am sorry to say that Zimmerman was in too deep the moment he stepped out of the car against the directive/advise of the police dispatcher. Maybe Zimmerman was not guilty of murder as he did not seem to want kill Martin from any standpoint but shoot him he did by mistake or in self defense Zimmerman took the initiative. At the very least he should have been convicted of manslaughter do the time and never own a gun again.

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image68
        Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        "He caused and implemented the death of another human being. Plain and simple that he should be held accountable."

        Father Guido Sarducci explains being held accountable in the after life:

        http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q … _VhGd2wY2A

      3. Superkev profile image88
        Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        95% of police work is based gut feelings and reactions to someone or something. As an LEO I would have had no more or less info than GZ had.

        There is NOTHING in GZ's past that would indicate even an ounce of racism, in fact, just the opposite.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
          Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Perhaps nothing in Zimmerman's past indicating he was a racist however, it has been reported that he was on strong psychoactive prescription drugs at the time of the incident:

          "While the mainstream media made sure to report with exclamations and gasps that marijuana was found in Trayvon Martin‘s system on the night that he was killed, many outlets failed to also report that the level was well below what medical studies show cause “performance impairment.” The same can not be said for George Zimmerman. According to the paramedic report, the vigilante neighborhood watch captain was on the prescription drug Temazepam, reports MSNBC.com."

          http://newsone.com/2016433/george-zimmerman-drugs/

          I don't recall that this was brought out in the trial. Wonder why?

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Maybe because it isn't true - you really, really need better sources of information, Ralph.  Even the rabid posts on these forums are no worse than that link - it has absolutely no interest in balanced report, just in hanging Zimmerman.

            By the way, paramedics on the scene do not do drug tests.  They don't have the time, they are not qualified to do so and they do not have the right to even take a blood sample, let alone conduct the test and give the results to the media.  Zimmerman may have told the paramedic that he had a prescription for that or any other drug; that in no way means that it was taken in the time frame necessary to impair his judgement as your link would have us believe.

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
              Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              "Maybe because it isn't true - you really, really need better sources of information, Ralph. "

              You probably would say the same thing about the NY Times. Here's a link to an ABC report which mentions Zimmerman's prescriptions:

              http://www.taylormarsh.com/blog/2012/05 … -shooting/


              ABC Report: George Zimmerman Injuries Described, Prescription Drugs Also Cited in Weeks Prior to Shooting
              By Taylor Marsh on May 16, 2012 in culture, General Discussion, Politics

                  According to the report, prior to the shooting Zimmerman had been prescribed Adderall and Temazepam, medications that can cause side effects such as agitation and mood swings, but in fewer than 10 percent of patients. – ABC News Exclusive

              If the report is accurate I would think the prosecution would have mentioned it. Zimmerman apparently wasn't tested for drugs the night of the shooting.

              1. Superkev profile image88
                Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                And yet the prosecution never brought that up. Funny that.

                Keep throwing Sh!t against the wall Ralph, somethings bound to stick sometime.

                Isn't ABC one of the networks GZ is going to sue for all their false reporting on him roll

                1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
                  Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Beat's me. Why are you so quick to defend this moron?

                  1. Superkev profile image88
                    Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Because he has had is life ruined for defending himself from a potentially life threatening attack all because he was of the wrong race to be allowed to do so.

                    Why are you so quick to defend TM and act as if he was an innocent child when it can be proven, in his own words no less, that he certainly was not.

                    What about his use of "lean", which is known to cause both aggression and paranoia in it's abusers? Think THAT might have contributed to this outcome or are you still of the mind that he was a little choir boy simply getting some candy at the store that night?

                    Want proof of what I say? Sourced and documented to boot?

                    Here you go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebu6Yvzs4Ls

                    Disprove ANYTHING put forward in this video, I double dog dare you.

              2. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                From your earlier post: "it has been reported that he was on strong psychoactive prescription drugs at the time of the incident:"

                Odd that now you say he wasn't tested and thus no one knows if he was on a drug at the time of the incident.

                Just possibly the prosecution didn't bring it up (unlike you) because the possibility that he was on a drug (that has negative reactions in a small percentage of people) does not mean that he was.  Courts look for evidence, not possibilities, after all - there was a possibility that he was on a concoction of cocaine, LSD and meth as well.  Just no evidence that he was.

                And, just as you say, the prosecution may have had no evidence that he had a prescription for it, either.  The news, ABC or any other, is not particularly noted for honesty and truth; look what NBC did to the 911 tape.

          2. Superkev profile image88
            Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Psychoreactive?? It's a sleep aid and mild anti-depressant LOL.

            Keep grasping at straws.

        2. rhamson profile image77
          rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          My point is exactly in line with your reply. Was he a racist? Probably not and profiling a suspect is not necessarily based on the obvious. A speeding car could result in a stop and the drivers actions might deem them as suspicious. Is this profiling? It is claimed to be if the driver is of another color. In Zimmerman's case the hour of day and movement of Martin may have sparked a response of suspicion in Zimmerman's eye. Is that racism? Martin was black so it could be taken either way.

          My contention is that Zimmerman acted on his own against directives/advise from the dispatcher and Zimmerman's actions in not being a trained police officer resulted in the death of Martin. I see nothing racist in that. I do see willful neglect on Zimmerman's part and at the very least an involuntary manslaughter charge should have been put on him.

          Where any racism may be applied is on the police for so readily dismissing any charges on Zimmerman.

  2. PrettyPanther profile image86
    PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago

    Do we hold minors to the same standard as adults when it comes to "poor choices"?  No, that is why minors are tried in legal court differently from adults.

    Also, we only have George Z.'s word that Trayvon made the "poor choice" of attacking him first and I don't believe his word is reliable.  We do know for a fact that he intentionally followed Trayvon, contrary to the scope of his neighborhood watch duties and contrary to the advice of the 911 operator, chose not to identify himself, carried a gun with the bullet in the chamber, and shot an unarmed boy.

    1. ChristinS profile image92
      ChristinSposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Exactly - what else do we need to know? and how on earth can people treat this man like he's some kind of victim? I don't get it.

      1. PrettyPanther profile image86
        PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I don't get it, either.

        When I was in high school, we had long hall where the guys, mostly athletes, stood and "evaluated" the girls as we walked by.  Sometimes they would hold up signs rating us from 1 to 10; other times they would should out their opinions about our looks.  I'm pretty sure this would not be tolerated in this day and age.  Some of us girls complained but were told it wasn't a big deal and we should just ignore it.

        Anyway, one day it went from shout outs and holding up signs to physically touching and accosting girls.  It was mostly butt-patting, but one guy would hold out his PeeChee just as girls walked by so it would brush their breasts  This new behavior happened to first occur when a new girl arrived at school.  This girl happened to be the daughter of an 8th degree black belt and was already a 3rd degree black belt herself.  The first time it happened she went to the school principal; she was told the same thing we had been told before:  ignore it.  She told her father who also spoke to the principal and warned him that he had told his daughter to take whatever action would be required to protect herself from harassment since the administration was doing nothing.

        Long story short, the next time she walked by "Stud Wall" as we called it, she loudly stated that if anyone touched her she would hurt them.  Of course, the boys didn't believe her and the first one who reached for her ended up on the floor with a broken wrist.  Guess who got suspended?  Guess whose suspension was revoked after public outcry?  Guess who was not originally punished by the administration but eventually was punished after public outcry?

        I don't know if I made my point, but public condemnation and outcry often has a legitimate foundation.  The defenders of cowardly George Z. ought to remember that.

        1. ChristinS profile image92
          ChristinSposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Point made. I agree sometimes it does take a mass outcry to get people to pay attention to injustices and to do what is necessary to fix what is broken.

        2. fpherj48 profile image80
          fpherj48posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Pretty Panther......Rest assured, you made your point with me.  Loudly & clearly.  Excellent experience shared, in order to make this point, by the way. 
          What I am also seeing CLEARLY, is that close to 95% of public comment, accepts and admits that BOTH individuals made poor choices/major mistakes that evening.  Each and every human being is responsible for their own choices & actions, and thus, must expect, as well as, accept repercussions, whatever they be.  Trayvon paid for his poor choices, with his life......the highest of all prices.
          We cannot know for certain, what price Zimmerman has paid....or will continue to pay.  The Justice system has found him, "NOT GUILTY".....(being found "not guilty", by no means declares someone 'INNOCENT.")  If we have not seen this most blatantly, time & time again, we are BLIND, by choice.
          The simple reality is, George Zimmerman faces an unknown future, in terms of public penance.  Short of paying with his life....which would be as unforgivable as Trayvon's death......He needs to be MAN enough to accept his penance.
          I cannot imagine any person with a brain, thinking of George as a hero?!  Ludicrous.  He did not thwart a crime, nor capture a dangerous criminal or sneaky stalker....need we be painfully reminded, he did not SAVE A LIFE......but quite the contrary. 
          What George must do now, is be hugely relieved  & most grateful to his 6-woman Jury for their verdict.....Relinquish his quest to be the New Lone Ranger.....and live out his life, low profile with enormous humility.

    2. 0
      Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Martin was very aware that Zimmerman was following him, so, if he was so worried, why didn't he run home?  He was more in shape than Zimmerman; he could've easily outrun him, since Zimmerman wasn't really running at all.

      Because Martin could have easily fled and did not, that lends strong support to Zimmerman's story that he was attacked first.   Add on the fact that Martin's ONLY injuries were bruised knuckles (from punching), and the shot to the heart.

      1. PrettyPanther profile image86
        PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I have never said that I know one way or the other exactly what Trayvon did.  That is my point.  We DO know, however, that Georgie followed Trayvon first by car, then on foot, that he carried a gun with a bullet in the chamber, that he ignored the recommendations of the 911 operator, that he acted contrary to the specific instructions of his neighborhood watch program, that he shot Trayvon through the heart.  We KNOW all of that to be TRUE.

        For the third time, Trayvon's knuckles were not bruised, they had an abrasion so minor that the medical examiner testified it could have occurred when he was falling to the ground. The skin on his knuckles was not broken. Trayvon had no blood or DNA on his hands and his clothes were clean.  George claimed Trayvon did all of the following:

        covered his nose and mouth so he couldn't breathe
        pounded his head into the pavement repeatedly
        straddled him with his knees up near George's elbows
        reached for the gun

        Now, you tell me how, if all that happened, Trayvon's hands and clothes were clean and contained none of George's DNA or blood.  Also, tell me how George managed to get his gun out of the holster and shoot Trayvon right through the heart while all that was happening.

        I have a hard time swallowing all of that.  A very hard time.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          But apparently the jury did not.  Perhaps they had additional information that you do not?  Maybe the actual testimony during the trial (that you did not hear) made it clearer?

          1. PrettyPanther profile image86
            PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Actually, I'm a trial junkie.  I probably saw 90% of it.  My husband recorded it for me.

            As I have stated before, the prosecution did not prove manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt to that jury.  That does not mean George is innocent any more than it meant OJ was innocent when he was found not guilty.

            1. 0
              Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I agree with this too!  Reasonable doubt does not mean innocence, but as a larger society, we should treat it roughly as such, to avoid mob rule and such.

              1. PrettyPanther profile image86
                PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I do not advocate harming George Z. or encouraging mob rule.  I am merely stating my case on an internet forum.  I don't understand why certain people want to elevate my statements to be something beyond that.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  If "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" does not mean that the person is innocent of wrongdoing from the practical side of what we do about it, what DOES it mean?  That we should always point out that they aren't innocent?  That we should all continue the barrage of negative comments, affecting the defendant as much as possible in order to punish them anyway? 

                  You are "merely stating your case" but for what reason?  Do you wish the verdict overturned?  Do you want to try him again?  Do you want to punish him even though not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?  After all, the "case" has been tried already - you have nothing more to add but opinion based on imagination - what possible reason is there to give that opinion and possible scenarios except to harm GZ after the court refused to do so?

                  It was pretty predictable after the media onslaught that there would be lots of people declaring the verdict to be wrong, continuing the attack on Zimmerman as long as anyone will listen.  Doing so, however, does your credibility no good - we do the best we know how with our broken justice system.  Your feeble opinion, suggestions and suppositions do more harm than good.

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image86
                    PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    You're so dramatic.  If I state my opinion on an internet forum I am not harming George Z.  What is my motivation?  I don't know, what is yours for insisting that George is innocent?  Who cares?

                  2. ChristinS profile image92
                    ChristinSposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    People are not allowed opinions that disagree with yours? wow I'm sorry I thought this was a free country for everyone.  We are all able to look at evidence and watch the trial and come to our own conclusions - it's called critical thinking skills and just because someone does not agree with you does not mean you need to insult them about their "feeble" opinions.  People who have to hurl insults instead of having a discussion are the ones who are "feeble" minded.

        2. ChristinS profile image92
          ChristinSposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I have a hard time swallowing all of that too and you are absolutely right - a crap case doesn't mean that Zimmerman was innocent not in the least.

        3. 0
          Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I agree with Zimmerman's stupidity.

          I was a little off about the knuckles and I apologize.  The skin was broken.  http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/aut … s-h/nN6gs/ 

          http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa … -1.1079190

          That's still consistent with a punch to the nose. 

          Zimmerman's story itself was inconsistent, but when your adrenaline is rushing, and your not sure what is happening, your testimony is going to be compromised.  Just try recalling a traumatic event that happened to you, and it's likely you will get key details wrong.

          As for DNA, it's not quite as reliable as we would like:

          http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/accurac … questioned

          http://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/ … th-penalty
          - "Although invaluable, DNA testing cannot always be put to use. In many cases, because of the nature of the crime, a DNA test cannot identify the murderer. In other cases DNA samples were not collected at the crime scene and preserved in a state suitable for testing today, or DNA testing of sufficient sophistication either was not available or not performed. And most significant, in some cases relevant samples may no longer be at hand because the evidence was destroyed."

          I don't believe Zimmerman's exact story of what happened.  He's likely misremembering or lying about something.  About that, I have no doubt. 

          But the fact remains that Zimmerman's story is plausible, and we don't actually know what happened that night.  It's all reconstructive guesswork.

          I stand by my claim of Martin's refusal to run home in the face of alleged "fear" lends strong support to Zimmerman's self-defense claims.  If Martin didn't attack Zimmerman first, what was he doing?  Standing around waiting?  Hiding?  It just doesn't make any sense, unless he was planning on attacking the man that was following him.

          But again, even if you stay completely agnostic about who was the aggressor, agnosticism is uncertainty, and uncertainty is reasonable doubt.

          1. PrettyPanther profile image86
            PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Those reports about the knuckles are wrong.  They are dated back in May.  The medical examiner testified the skin was not broken.  He specifically said there were two small abrasions on the outside knuckles.  He specifically stated there were no contusions (bruises) or lacerations (cuts).

            Your statement about the DNA is why it's so hard to prove murder, as it should be.  I've repeatedly stated that the state might not have proven guilt, but that doesn't mean he isn't guilty.

          2. PrettyPanther profile image86
            PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Here's the thing.  You say it's all reconstructive guess work, yet you're willing to believe that gap on the tape means Trayvon jumped George without cause because that is what George says.  I can imagine another scenario that makes way more sense with the evidence.  I think George's gun was already out.  I think he approached Trayvon, did not identify himself, and pulled the gun on Trayvon so he wouldn't run.  Trayvon, having been taught to fight kicking and screaming rather than go with a stranger because you are more likely to be killed (this IS what they teach women and kids by the way, scream bloody murder and fight like crazy because if the kidnapper takes you, you're statistically dead), surprises George by fighting back and screaming.  George's nose gets bloodied, possibly by a punch from Trayvon.  Trayvon does go for the gun because he's fighting for his life.  Trayvon is screaming for help, and the second that shot rings out, the screaming stops.

            That is a scenario that is much more plausible, based on the evidence, than George's story.  It still has holes, but it better explains how George was able to shoot Trayvon through the heart.  The gun was already out.  This is what George is lying about.

            Just another scenario, of course.  We have no way of knowing for sure, but I don't understand why so many people are willing to accept George's version and the other guy has no version because he is dead.

            1. 0
              Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              When did Zimmerman pull the gun on Martin?  At what point could that happen, when Martin was far enough away from Zimmerman to run way unscathed?

              1. PrettyPanther profile image86
                PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                We will never know, will we?  It is all just speculation.  However, George already having the gun pulled makes more sense with the actual evidence.

                1. 0
                  Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I do agree with you there.  It seems implausible he could've pulled out the gun if it was behind his back, like he claimed.

                  But he probably believed the person was up to no good, like he said on the police recording, and had the gun ready in case he had to defend himself.

                  Again, acting like an idiot, but does not make him a murderer.

                2. Superkev profile image88
                  Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  How so? Please explain what piece of evidence would indicate that GZ drew his weapon prior to his being on the ground with TM on top of him and smashing his head in to the sidewalk.

                  The world wants to know.

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image86
                    PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    George claimed Trayvon did all of the following:

                    covered his nose and mouth so he couldn't breathe
                    pounded his head into the pavement repeatedly
                    straddled him with his knees up near George's elbows
                    reached for the gun

                    The gun was behind George's back, so how did Trayvon even know it was there?  Second, even if Trayvon did know it was there, how would George be able to get it and aim so precisely at Trayvon's heart with all that other stuff going on?

                    Trayvon's clothes and hands were clean.  How did they remain so if his knees were on the ground and he was covering George's bloody nose with his hands?   

                    George's injuries were minor for someone whose head was repeatedly pounded into the pavement.

    3. PattyJane profile image81
      PattyJaneposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      In most states 17 year olds are not held accountable as minors they are held accountable as adults. 17 year olds when committing a crime are always tried as ADULTS.

  3. Superkev profile image88
    Superkevposted 3 years ago

    The coroner testified that the shot came from a down to up angle that there were powder burns on TM's sweatshirt but no stippling on his skin which indicated that TM was leaning over GZ when the shot was fired and the shirt was hanging 2-4 inches from his body.

    So no, your scenario is not plausible based on the evidence. Or you could point to what evidence would show he drew his weapon prior to the assault, I mean other than it's just what you THINK happened.

    1. PrettyPanther profile image86
      PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Just because Trayvon was leaning over George when he was shot does not mean George didn't already have his weapon pulled.

      Point me to the evidence that Trayvon attacked first?  There is none, other than George's say-so.

      1. Superkev profile image88
        Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Nice straw man. You're the one who made the claim, now point all of us to the evidence that would underpin your contention.

        That GZ was attacked is not in dispute, the evidence shows he was. What evidence do YOU have to back up your claims???

        1. PrettyPanther profile image86
          PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          That is not what I said.  I said I can think of a version of the events that "makes more sense with the evidence."  That is all I said.  I said I don't understand why so many people are so ready to believe George Z.

          The evidence shows George Z. was in a fight; it does NOT show he was attacked.

          1. Superkev profile image88
            Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            No, you based it on the evidence, I asked what piece of evidence would indicate such.

            Apparently you don't know of any but make the assertion anyhow.

            " I can imagine another scenario that makes way more sense with the evidence.  I think George's gun was already out."

            Emphasis mine. So what piece of evidence makes your scenario make better sense? Please, we all want to know.

            1. PrettyPanther profile image86
              PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I already laid it out for you.  Read.  There is no single piece of evidence but a bunch of things that don't make sense with George's version and make more sense if the gun was already out before the fight started.

              1. Superkev profile image88
                Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Ahhh, I see. A bunch of things "don't make sense" huh? No facts or evidence, they just "don't make sense".

                1. PrettyPanther profile image86
                  PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Are you reading impaired?  I laid out the evidence and explained how, in my opinion, it is more consistent with the gun being out of the holster.  It's been a long night and I used the word "things" instead of evidence.  Get it now?

                  1. Superkev profile image88
                    Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    So again I ask, which evidence? Are you reading impaired?

                    You can't cite even ONE specific piece of evidence that would prop up your theory?? Really? Just one??

                    I_THINK_ this_MIGHT_ have happened this way is not evidence my dear, it's called conjecture and speculation.

  4. Alphadogg16 profile image89
    Alphadogg16posted 3 years ago

    I agree with this post, Zimmerman's stupidity doesn't make him a racist or murderer, but it does make him responsible for the kids death. Regardless if the kid was the aggressor and he had to defend himself, he chose to follow the kid, got out of his car with a loaded weapon and confronted the kid. At the very least he should have been charged with manslaughter. Kind of like drunk driving, if you chose to drink and drive and run someone over...your not responsible for that persons life??

    1. 60
      Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Did he ever deny being responsible for the kids death? You may not know but manslaughter was one of the offenses he was found innocent of.

      1. ChristinS profile image92
        ChristinSposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Innocent doesn't mean not guilty.  I'm sure Casey Anthony and OJ were acquitted also and no one was defending their innocence so vigilantly as people are defending Zimmerman.  Some people defended OJ, but everyone said their motivation for defending him was racism. I guess defending zimmerman isn't veiled racism though.   What does this whole tendency demonstrate about society.  I believe racism, classism, sexism all the ism's are alive and well and so deeply engrained we tend to forget we all have biases, we deny them instead of working to overcome them.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
          Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          True. Not guilty certainly doesn't mean that what Zimmerman did was okay. Florida should take this incident as indicating a need to repeal it's stand your ground law, tighten it's concealed carry procedures and pass some rules for neighborhood watch organizations, such as prohibiting any "watchers" from carrying firearms. "Watching" should mean what it says, watching only and reporting to the police. It might also make sense to require "watchers" to wear clearly identifiable insignia or clothing when making their rounds so that citizens may know what they are about. It appears that Trayvon believed he was being stalked by Zimmerman.

          Stand your ground laws are not good public policy. They extend the common law castle doctrine, which has served England and the U.S. well for hundreds of years, to conflicts on the streets, sidewalks and parking lots outside bars. In my opinion, this is a big mistake.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            What does this case have to do with "stand your ground"?  Neither side brought it up...

            I'd like to see a law on watchers carrying, though.  I just expect that it would be challenged and am not positive it would be considered constitutional.  I think it is, but often disagree with judges.  I also very much agree with the watchers clothing, although a watcher should ideally be inside a car where the clothing is not visible.  I suppose you could put a magnetic sign on the car, but that would decrease any conviction rates as suspects simply won't commit a crime in view of that car.  Better deterrent for that neighborhood, worse crime rate for the next neighborhood.

            As I understand the castle doctrine, it does not include the property surrounding the home.  Only the inside of the "castle".  Is that correct?

            1. ChristinS profile image92
              ChristinSposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              The reason Zimmerman was not arrested immediately or charged right away was due to stand your ground, although they used simple "self defense" in trial, the "stand your ground" did set a precedent, albeit rather indirectly.  I certainly agree that there needs to be some regulation over "watchers" and what they can and cannot do.  The law as it is now is lending itself to tragedies like this.

              1. Superkev profile image88
                Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                GZ wasn't charged or arrested because the physical evidence collected at the time proved his version of events. His injuries were consistent with exactly how he told the police the incident occurred.

                In fact the Sanford Police Chief resigned rather than make what he felt was a bogus arrest of GZ due only to pressure from the race baiters.

                1. ChristinS profile image92
                  ChristinSposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, but that is because of the stand your ground law. In my state if I shot someone on the street, even if I claimed "self defense" I would be arrested and charged. It WAS the stand your ground laws that allowed him to not be arrested at the time it occurred.  It was not "race baiting" to push for the arrest of someone who gunned down an unarmed person in the street - it isn't race baiting just because you don't like it.  Plenty of people not concerned about race were outraged that someone could just gun down an unarmed person and not have to answer for it.

                  1. Superkev profile image88
                    Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Don't kid yourself, it was ALL about race.

                    White-Hispanic?

                    Please!

            2. Ralph Deeds profile image68
              Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              "As I understand the castle doctrine, it does not include the property surrounding the home.  Only the inside of the "castle".  Is that correct?"

              I think so, but I'm not sure.

              "The legal concept of the inviolability of the home has been known in Western Civilization since the age of the Roman Republic.[2] The term derives from the historic English common law dictum that "an Englishman's home is his castle." This concept was established as English law by 17th century jurist Sir Edward Coke, in his The Institutes of the Laws of England, 1628.[3] The dictum was carried by colonists to the New World, who later removed "English" from the phrase, making it "a man's home is his castle", which thereby became simply the Castle Doctrine.[3] The term has been used in England to imply a person's absolute right to exclude anyone from his home, although this has always had restrictions, and since the late twentieth century bailiffs have also had increasing powers of entry.[4]"

              "The term "Make My Day Law" arose at the time of the 1985 Colorado statute that shielded people from any criminal/civil suits for using force – including deadly force – against an invader of the home.[5] The law's nickname is a reference to the line "Go ahead, make my day" uttered by actor Clint Eastwood's character "Dirty Harry" Callahan (in the 1983 vigilante-policeman film Sudden Impact)."

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

  5. 0
    Sooner28posted 3 years ago

    I want to add this, and I just learned this report was done.  I think this adds to the evidence that Zimmerman wasn't motivated by racism.

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/l … t=National

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/12/justice/f … n-shooting

    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/20 … -is-racist

  6. 60
    Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago

    776.012 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.  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
       
    "reasonably believes"

    Not

    "because they feel scared".

    1. Superkev profile image88
      Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Exactly right.

      But don't expect the bleeding hearts to get that. They only work on emotion, feelings and think the rest of the world should too.

      1. LauraGT profile image85
        LauraGTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        At least I *have* a heart...

        1. 60
          Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          And I'm sure you're just as sweet as you can be. But you should really quit making stuff up or at least post on sites where someone might believe what you say.

          1. LauraGT profile image85
            LauraGTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I did no such thing.  "Reasonably believes" is completely subjective.  I doubt that someone in the middle of a fist fight  has the best judgement about what is "reasonable."   

            You can have the last word.  I won't respond again.

            1. 60
              Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I wouldn't either if I were you.

              And yes, you made it up.

              Try craigslist, there is all kind of bogus stuff on there passing for truth!

            2. 0
              Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              That's one of the biggest problems with talking about "reasonable doubt."  Not everyone is equally reasonable, and there is a subjective component to it all.

              I think it's just one of those situations where it's going to have to be a little messy.

            3. PrettyPanther profile image86
              PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              776.012 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. 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

              Laura, the phrase above that I bolded is not in 776.012 or 776.013.  Lie Detector accuses you of making stuff up, yet that is exactly what he does, trying to pass off that phrase as part of Florida law.  I no longer directly engage with LD on this subject, as he has shown himself to be impervious to facts that challenge his beliefs and shallow in his responses.

  7. Ralph Deeds profile image68
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    Zimmerman  proved he is mentally defective in his interview on Fox. He should not have been allowed to carry a gun.

    1. Superkev profile image88
      Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Is that your expert medical opinion doctor?

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
        Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Yes. When asked whether he had any regrets or would have done anything different, he replied "No."
        He didn't have brains enough to say he was sorry it turned out the way it did.

        1. Superkev profile image88
          Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          So, based on your years of medical training and your Ph.D in psychology after viewing a TV interview with a person who expressed no regret at having saved his own life your expert medical diagnosis is that he is "mentally defective"?

          On what page is that in the DSM IV???

          Liberals, ya gotta love 'em.

          PS- I saw that interview and he did indeed say he was sorry for what happened.

          1. PrettyPanther profile image86
            PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Maybe he could have, I don't know, expressed regret about following Trayvon against the specific rules of his neighborhood watch group and also against the request (yes, I know it wasn't an order, you don't have to repeat that for the umpteenth time) of the police dispatcher.  Maybe he could have, I don't know, expressed regret about stupidly putting his own life in danger.

            Just a few ideas for you, since you can't seem to come up with any regrets poor little Georgie (who is still alive and a free man) might have about killing a boy.

            1. Superkev profile image88
              Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Still alive, free and rightfully so.

          2. Ralph Deeds profile image68
            Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            "It was all God's plan." He didn't regret getting out of the car, etc. "I'm sorry that they are burying their child. I pray for them daily."

            No wonder they didn't put him on the stand.

            Here's a link to the YouTube video of the interview:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjhxXwbt8E8

          3. Mighty Mom profile image89
            Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            As of 2013 it's actually DSM-V  or as they prefer it be called now, DSM-5 .
            I mean, since we are referencing psychology sources.
            smile

            1. Superkev profile image88
              Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Really, and I'm sure the term "mentally defective" is a recognized clinical diagnosis.

              roll

    2. PrettyPanther profile image86
      PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I wonder why he never became a cop?  Hmmmmm, those darned psych evals....

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Guessing, of course, but I would suspect that was the stumbling block.  School scores were apparently fine, but never accepted to become a cop.

        Disdain for authority, maybe.

        1. Superkev profile image88
          Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Did he ever apply or is that just speculation on your parts? I've never heard that he applied with any agency.

          1. PrettyPanther profile image86
            PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            He applied in 2009 and was rejected.  I think it was in Virginia.

            1. Superkev profile image88
              Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Source,link?

  8. Superkev profile image88
    Superkevposted 3 years ago

    If you download the pics and look at them in your picture viewer the grass stains and dirt are even more clear to see.

    1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
      Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You do know about photoshop don't you?

  9. Ralph Deeds profile image68
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    Here's the best column I've seen on the Zimmerman-Martin incident and trial. "A Sub Rosa Acquittal" by Curt Guyette, Metro Detroit's foremost independent reporter.

    "So, now we know how to kill someone in cold blood and get away with it.

    "First, live in a state that has a “Stand Your Ground” law. Then, find a victim who is black, preferably a young male.

    'That’s essentially the lesson learned from the Florida trial of George Zimmerman, who was acquitted on first- and second-degree murder charges last week in the death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.

    “What the verdict says, to the astonishment of tens of millions of us, is that you can go looking for trouble in Florida, with a gun and a great deal of racial bias, and you can find that trouble, and you can act upon that trouble in a way that leaves a young man dead, and none of it guarantees that you will be convicted of a crime,” writes Andrew Cohen in The Atlantic...."
    More here: http://metrotimes.com/news/news-hits/on … -1.1521799

    "But it could just as easily happen in Michigan. Thanks to the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and compliant Democrats — including former Gov. Jennifer Granholm — a similar law has been on the books here since 2006.

    "The spread of “Stand Your Ground” laws is chronicled in an article posted on the Web by Brendan Fischer, who works for the left-leaning nonprofit group Center for Media and Democracy.

    "Writes Fischer:

    “As the Center for Media and Democracy (publishers of ALECexposed.org) uncovered, ALEC adopted Stand Your Ground as a ‘model’ for other states in early 2005, just months after the NRA pushed it through Florida’s legislature (with then-state legislator Marco Rubio voting in favor).

    “The NRA boasted that its lobbyist’s presentation at a 2005 ALEC meeting ‘was well-received,’ and the corporations and state legislators on the Criminal Justice Task Force voted unanimously to approve the bill as an ALEC model, under the name the ‘Castle Doctrine Act.’ At the time, Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest seller of rifles, was the corporate co-chair of the task force. Since becoming an ALEC model, twenty-six states have passed laws that contain provisions identical or similar to the ALEC legislation. ALEC called the legislation one of its ‘successes.’ With this revelation, the spotlight turned on ALEC as never before, with the public soon becoming aware of ALEC’s role in advancing an array of reactionary bills, including legislation that makes it harder to vote, criminalizes immigrants, destroys unions, protects corporations from civil liability, thwarts environmental regulations, and cuts holes in the social safety net — all while the organization enjoys tax-exempt ‘charitable’ status.”


    http://metrotimes.com/news/news-hits/on … -1.1521799

    Is anybody surprised that WalMart, the country's biggest seller of rifles, was the corporate co-chair of the ALEC stand your ground task force?

    1. Superkev profile image88
      Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Stand your ground was not an issue at trial, self defense was, when are you bleeding hearts going to get that through your narrow, biased and irrational minds???????

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
        Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Stand your ground was very much involved in the incident, and to an extent in the trial. The prosecution attempted to discredit Zimmerman, who had told the police or in his TV interview that he wasn't familiar with stand your ground, by presenting testimony from a witness who had taught a law enforcement class attended by Zimmerman. He testified that Zimmerman was one of the top students in the class and that he had covered stand your ground in detail. You are correct that Zimmerman did not invoke stand your ground in his defense by asking for a stand your ground hearing.

 
working