I hope this has not already been posted. I find it very disturbing

[Bigerik]

Originally Posted by barbara

Chas.... I hear what you are saying and have given it a lot if consideration, trying to be open minded, looking at all points of view, at all possibilities.....

I agree that none of us knows what happened and lack enough solid facts to come to any sort of reasonable conclusions....

But, in all honesty, the bottom line for me in this tragic situation is the gun. If there were no gun in the equation, no one would have been shot dead. No matter who the aggressor was.

You nailed it.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by bobabode

I agree.It's going to be a long hot summer if this keeps up. The duty to retreat from a hostile situation has been a long held doctrine in common law. What is the reasoning behind this SYG law? Anybody got a rational answer?

SYG laws were designed to prevent someone who had been victimized by a criminal from also being victimized by the courts, both legal and civil.

The laws also allow someone to defend himself without retreating if he feels that he would be placing himself in further danger by attempting to retreat.

The laws also require that a person must show that he had a reasonable belief that he was in danger of bodily harm or death before he is afforded these protections.

At least that's the way I understand the Missouri Statutes. And they are vague, and quite possibly different for other states, although I understand they were modeled after the Florida Statutes.

While the laws are vague, it would probably be impossible to make them more specific as every altercation is different. Besides, the courts still have the final say as to whether your claims of self defense are reasonable or not.

By referring to them as "Stand Your Ground" laws is probably the wrong terminology to use, as it invokes a negative perception of what they actually say.

And what they don't say is that you can shoot people just because you want to. Not to say that it hasn't been happening for years, depending on who you are and where you're at, but that's still not what the laws say.

Chas

[Charles]

Originally Posted by barbara

Chas.... I hear what you are saying and have given it a lot if consideration, trying to be open minded, looking at all points of view, at all possibilities.....

I agree that none of us knows what happened and lack enough solid facts to come to any sort of reasonable conclusions....

But, in all honesty, the bottom line for me in this tragic situation is the gun. If there were no gun in the equation, no one would have been shot dead. No matter who the aggressor was.

I understand what you're saying, but if not for the gun, Zimmerman may be dead or suffering from brain damage.

You don't need a gun to kill someone, and not every gunshot wound is fatal.

Chas

[merrylander]

From conflicting reports I have read that Z was a "Neighborhood Watch Capitain" and others that state "no authorization by Neighborhood Watch". This tends to lead me to think he was jsu a Charles Bronson wannabee. Looking at his mug shot there does not appear to be an overabundance of "Zose leetle grey cells".

It all comes down to the simple fact that if he had done what the 911 operator told him to do tje lad would be alive and he would not be in hiding. I understand he said he had gone thrugh a "Life changing experience", I guess the lad could say the same if he could talk.

Sorry, but if you are armed and pursuing someone and they turn on you IMHO they are the one "standing their ground".

I do hope the woman from the NRA and ALEC are delighted that over 260 people have died due to their stupid law. No, the law does not cover you being the agressor but when the only other witness is dead I could tell the police any damn story I wanted - and walk.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Charles

Isn't that what's happening?

If it's determined that Zimmerman broke no laws, then it will be a rigged system, or the laws themselves, or the people who put the laws in place in the first place. Or the damned gun.

The one person who will NEVER be blamed, at least in some circles, it Trayvon. Of course, in some circles, there is no consideration given to the possibility that Trayvon initiated the confrontation and was in the process of beating Zimmerman to death whenever he was shot.

And to those who I refer to as "in some circles", have you never considered that in this instance you may be wrong?

I'm not trying to pick a fight, but in my estimation you have rushed to judgment without knowing all of the facts.

And I don't either, but I'm doing my level best to let due process take it's course and not advance an agenda at the same time.

If anyone still thinks that I'm pissing gasoline on their campfire, I guess there is nothing else that I can say to convince them differently.

Chas

Chas with all respect (and I honestly mean it) we already know Treyvon did not start the confrontation.


The insistence of overlooking the facts to vindicate the almighty gun is extremely frustrating.

If you think for a minute that you have not done what you accuse others of doing you are way wrong.

Even if Trevor was beating Zimmerman to death it was Zimmerman who caused Trevor to use force to stand his own ground.

Trevor did not violate Zimmerman, it was Zimmerman who stalked Trevor.

There is so much wrong with this that it just amazes me when people post as you just did.

If I start carrying a gun it is then OK for me to pick a fight and when you fight back kill you?

This is an insane opinion.

Sorry I do respect you and your opinions but you defending the gun and Zimmerman by extension over the life of a young kid with candy. This si just as wrong as wrong can be.


Tell you what, can you make a case for me to understand your position? I am walking home from the candy store, you start following me and chasing me until I feel uncomfortable and decide to confront you (which I likely would) You have a gun and I don't.

What is it I can possibly do to make it OK for you to now shoot me?????????



Let me put it another way. Had Trevor beaten Zimmerman to death (and he was not a black kid) he would have told the police that he was stalked by a man with a gun and was able to save himself and he would have been a cult hero.


In fact if he were a white man and Zimmerman black kid you would be thrilled that he had beaten the aggressor to death.



I just can't believe good regular folk can make a case that even if Trevor was able to turn the tide temporarily on Zimmerman and was beating him that it was OK for Zimmerman to kill him.

Had he shot Trevor in the arm and Trevor lived (and he was a fat white guy) Zimmerman would be in jail. But because he murdered him he is free?????????

That is what happened here.



Footnote
I find this another amazing study on human psychology.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Charles

I understand what you're saying, but if not for the gun, Zimmerman may be dead or suffering from brain damage.



Chas

and it would have been his own fault would it not?

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Oerets

The problem as I see it is there are those who will not be satisfied with anything less then a murder charge and then others who want no charges filed at all. I think a manslaughter or accidental will only upset both camps.


So now with reports of Zimmerman gone MIA and his lawyers walking away it just keeps getting more and more convoluted.



Barney

Personally I don't think it was murder.

Zimmerman is an ass hole who killed an innocent kid because he has emotional needs. This seems to me to be manslaughter.

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by Charles

I'm with Pete.

Chas

Did you bring beer?

I'm getting tired of being called a racist. By white people no less. I'm starting to form stereotypes and prejudices against them.

Pete

[Oerets]

Originally Posted by barbara

I can't say I blame zimmerman for disappearing.....he might run into someone who feels threatened by him and happens to be carrying a gun....

Touché

Originally Posted by noonereal

Personally I don't think it was murder.

Zimmerman is an ass hole who killed an innocent kid because he has emotional needs. This seems to me to be manslaughter.

I agree, but no matter what is going to be the next move by the prosecutor there will be a very vocal opposition to that decision. This will be in the news for awhile longer. Then add the civil lawsuits to come!



Barney

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Did you bring beer?

I'm getting tired of being called a racist. By white people no less. I'm starting to form stereotypes and prejudices against them.

Pete

So if Treyvon were white man and Zimmerman were a black youth with a hoodie and the exact same set of circumstances unfolded you would feel the same?

There is a school of though that might think
that maybe some folks who did not realize that prejudice entered into how they view a situation are now expanding their prejudice to include some white people because they are being challenged to confront it.

Just sayin'.