Thoughts on Trayvon and Zimmerman...

[Moonlight J]

I'm pretty sure assault is against the law. I may be wrong though, so you might want to check your local jurisdiction.

He was defending himself against someone that was stalking him

Please disprove

Based on the law, had TM just shot GZ rather than gotten into a physical altercation with him, he'd be innocent, no? He had every right to be in that neighborhood at the time since he was staying there with family.

[TopChuckie]

Just wondering on this statement, who broke what law? Unless your assuming TM would have been convicted of something?

If Zimmerman's account is true, and all the evidence is consistent with his account, including being the only one with injuries other than TM's gun shot wound and hand injuries consistent with punching someone, then I do believe the evidence supports TM struck first and only and that would have constituted battery or assault. I'm not sure the legal definition of each, but I know you can't simply approach someone and start hitting them, even if they might be following and watching you. If Zimmerman's account is true, and I have seen no evidence leading me to believe it's not, then TM did commit a crime. Would he have been convicted? Who knows?

[TopChuckie]

He was defending himself against someone that was stalking him

Please disprove

Based on the law, had TM just shot GZ rather than gotten into a physical altercation with him, he'd be innocent, no? He had every right to be in that neighborhood at the time since he was staying there with family.

You don't know what you are talking about. A single incident of following and watching someone in a public place is not stalking. In fact, Zimmerman could have confronted Martin, questioned him about his identity or purpose, and even told him he didn't like the way he looked or didn't like him in his neighborhood, and none of that would have been a crime.

[Moonlight J]

You don't know what you are talking about. A single incident of following and watching someone in a public place is not stalking. In fact, Zimmerman could have confronted Martin, questioned him about his identity or purpose, and even told him he didn't like the way he looked or didn't like him in his neighborhood, and none of that would have been a crime.

Following a complete stranger in a car, getting out of said car to see where said stranger went.....if I see someone doing that to one of my kids, they're getting confronted.

I didn't say he committed a crime doing that; what I said is in that same scenario, had Martin just turned around and shot Zimmerman, he too would have been innocent as he had every right to be where he was at that moment and clearly felt threatened because he ran.

[TopChuckie]

Following a complete stranger in a car, getting out of said car to see where said stranger went.....if I see someone doing that to one of my kids, they're getting confronted.

I didn't say he committed a crime doing that; what I said is in that same scenario, had Martin just turned around and shot Zimmerman, he too would have been innocent as he had every right to be where he was at that moment and clearly felt threatened because he ran.

I'm not going to hijack or help you misdirect this thread, suffice it to say, you are wrong. You are part of the problem, not the solution.

[Moonlight J]

You back down from an argument? I must be right

How am I wrong when people have not been charged in this state for arguing over trash bags at a curb or killing a ranting Jehovah's Witness. How would Stand Your Ground not apply for Martin if he said he felt threatened 70 yards from his back door by a man who came out of his vehicle yelling at me asking me what I'm doing in the area?

The problem is the moronic laws of this state, not me. It's a piece of shit law in a shithole of a state that I cannot wait to vacate once my family commitments in the area are over.

[Roto Rooter]

You back down from an argument? I must be right

No he just had to go slam his head into a wall a few times because that's easier than trying to reason with you.

STAND YOUR GROUND was not used in this case yet you seem to have a hard on for it.

[Moonlight J]

No he just had to go slam his head into a wall a few times because that's easier than trying to reason with you.

STAND YOUR GROUND was not used in this case yet you seem to have a hard on for it.

When did I say it was used in this case?

http://news.yahoo.com/jury-instructions-center-zimmerman-verdict-210738525.html

I've said that had Martin used a gun rather than his fists, he would have had a very good chance of being helped by that law and thus have committed no crime as you said he did.

[Roto Rooter]

[Roto Rooter]

[Roto Rooter]

[Roto Rooter]

You guys probably won't watch any of those, but you should.

[Fresno Bob]

You guys probably won't watch any of those, but you should.

It's kind of tough when only one of the two parties gets to make videos, I bet OJ has some videos that show him in a Chicago hotel room too...

[Roto Rooter]

It's kind of tough when only one of the two parties gets to make videos, I bet OJ has some videos that show him in a Chicago hotel room too...

You see the difference is the OJ trial had a little thing called evidence that made it a totally different situation. Plus apparently the right side won that case because of all the cheers and enjoyment people got out of that verdict. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, NAACP etc never cried about justice in that case.

[Judge Jude]

dailyhowler.com is agitated because it seems to be a generally left-wing site that, like many of the factcheck sites, has found most of the nutty reaction over the last several years to have been from the right wing (like Tea Partiers seeking less government but don't touch my benefits; other points may be valid, but that pairing is... odd).

but the reaction to this verdict and the facts at hand, they have found, has given the left a rare advantage in nonsensical and uninformed ramblings.

what I still find most odd is that the real results do NOT eliminate questions about why Zimmerman felt he needed a gun, why he acted exactly the way he did, why anyone could be less than sorrowful that a teenager died, etc.

I see very fair points there. yet the "too bad the guy out of his car against the advive of police to confront a kid who just bought Skittles and shot him dead for no reason and Zimmerman made up this assault claim anyway" myth that isn't even disputed by knowledgeable Martin supporters rules the day.

It scares me a bit when either constituency swallows whole a myth, when the real facts at hand can still legitimize their overall philosophy.

Not many Americans see Zimmerman as a hero, or don't find it a tragedy that Martin is dead. It's awful.

And trying to gain political or other points from the tragedy is awful, too.