Stand Your Ground Laws

I’ve been reluctant to write the following piece. I mean, what about the white guy’s experience isn’t the most useful frame for the Trayvon Martin case. And unlike the founder of this blog, I try to keep my personal life personal; the most I usually write about myself is I took my bike somewhere. Still, the discussion of the stand your ground laws make me think of the time my housemate was killed, and I wonder what might have happened if we’d had stand your ground laws here in Washington like those in Florida.

Basically, the story is this: After college, I was underemployed and bumming around suburbia. Eventually, I moved into a house with several other people. The house was advertised in the local paper and I didn’t know any of the people before I moved in. It was cheap while I got myself onto a better situation.

It was a large house and people moved in and out all the time. One couple moved in and was constantly late on payments and was constantly getting into arguments with the landlord.

One weekend the landlord shot him and then claimed self defense. The forensic evidence didn’t back up his claims, and eventually he plead down and will be in prison for a long time, but I wonder if it would have been easier for him to concoct a story if we had those sorts of laws, and if it would have been a tougher case for prosecutors.

Comments

  1. 1

    Michael spews:

    Stand your ground laws seem a bit redundant to me. You already had the right to use an appropriate amount of force in your own defense and had the the right to “stand your ground” in your own home.

    I know two people who were murdered, having a stand your ground law wouldn’t have saved either of their lives.

  2. 2

    proud leftist spews:

    Not enough detail, Carl, from a legal perspective. On what basis did the landlord claim self-defense?

  3. 3

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    At least the “castle doctrine” is objective — you’re either inside your home, or you’re not. The trouble with “stand your ground” is the shooter can make up any damn story he wants, and there’s no witness to tell the victim’s side. Case in point … George Zimmerman’s father is now telling this tale (on Fox TV of course):

    “The elder Zimmerman said that as his son started to reach for his cell phone, Martin, 17, punched him in the nose, knocking the larger man to the pavement. ‘Trayvon Martin got on top of him and just started beating him, in the face, in his nose, hitting his head on the concrete,’ Robert Zimmerman said. That’s when Martin spotted George Zimmerman’s gun, Robert Zimmerman said. ‘Trayvon Martin said something to the effect of, “You’re gonna die now,” or “You’re gonna die tonight,” something to that effect.”‘

    “When the interviewer asked about Martin’s girlfriend, who said that he told her that he was being followed, Robert Zimmerman … replied: ‘I don’t believe she was on the phone with him, and I find it very strange with the publicity involved with this that all of the sudden, after three weeks, someone would remember that they were on the phone. I believe the FBI and others investigating this will find that that did not happen.'”

    http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_n.....na-die-now

    Roger Rabbit Commentary: Yeah, well, I find it very strange that all of a sudden, after three weeks, George Zimmerman would remember that Trayvon Martin told him that he was going to kill him.

    Let’s think about this for a minute. Martin is unarmed, but Zimmerman is packing heat, so the only way Martin is gonna kill Zimmerman is if he takes the gun away from Zimmerman and shoots him with it.

    Of course, this isn’t a threat to Zimmerman if he isn’t carrying a gun in the first place, or if he stays in his vehicle.

    But Martin obviously didn’t take the gun away from Zimmerman, because it was Zimmerman, not Martin, who did the shooting; and it was Martin, not Zimmerman, who got shot. Let’s examine the implications of this.

    Let’s say Zimmerman and Martin are on the ground tussling when Martin spots Zimmerman’s gun, makes a grab for it, but Zimmerman comes up with it. There’s a couple possibilities here. One is Martin is still fighting for the gun, maybe has a hand on it, or is on top of Zimmerman. In this scenario, Martin gets shot at point-blank range, and the autopsy will reveal whether he was or not. The other is that Zimmerman breaks loose, rolls away, comes up with the gun and points it at Martin. At that point there is no need to shoot him, because Zimmerman has the gun and is in control of the situation. Only if Martin rushed him in another attempt to wrest the gun away from him would Zimmerman need to shoot Martin. And here again, Martin will get shot at very close range and the autopsy will show that.

    So what happens if the autopsy shows Zimmerman shot Martin from 10 feet away? That’s murder, folks.

    But I don’t believe Robert Zimmerman’s story. It’s bullshit on its face. If Martin had told Zimmerman, “you’re gonna die,” that would have been the first thing Zimmerman told the cops, and it would have been in the police report. If, as daddy says, George told daddy that Martin told him, “you’re gonna die,” then why didn’t George tell that to the cops, and to his lawyer, and to the news media, and to the whole world — half of which thinks he’s a murderer? This just isn’t plausible. And why did it take Robert Zimmerman, who allegedly is smart enough to be a judge, three weeks to dream up this cock-and-bull story? Seems kinda slow to me.

    Well, the girlfriend’s story can be proved or disproved — if she was on her cellphone with Martin when he was shot, the cellphone company records will show that.

  4. 5

    Politically Incorrect spews:

    @3,

    “…on Fox TV of course…”

    When did you get a TV? I thought you didn’t own one.

  5. 6

    Politically Incorrect spews:

    What’s probably going to happen to this Zimmeraman guy is that he’s gonna “eat a bullet” from somebody in the local area. I believe somebody is going to “off” the guy once he or she can find the Z-man.

  6. 7

    Richard Pope spews:

    @ 3 Roger Rabbit spews:

    “The elder Zimmerman said that as his son started to reach for his cell phone, Martin, 17, punched him in the nose, knocking the larger man to the pavement. ‘Trayvon Martin got on top of him and just started beating him, in the face, in his nose, hitting his head on the concrete,’ Robert Zimmerman said. That’s when Martin spotted George Zimmerman’s gun, Robert Zimmerman said. ‘Trayvon Martin said something to the effect of, “You’re gonna die now,” or “You’re gonna die tonight,” something to that effect.”

    I don’t think the Florida case really has anything to do with “stand your ground” laws. And I don’t know whether Florida common law imposed a “duty to retreat” or not, prior to the so-called “stand your ground” statute being enacted.

    Even under a “duty to retreat” doctrine, someone is only obligated to retreat — instead of using force (including deadly force) against the attacker — IF retreat is POSSIBLE and only IF retreat can be done without jeopardizing the safety of the person using force in self-defense (or the safety of any other person who that person has the right to defend).

    So IF Zimmerman’s story is correct, and Martin was on top of him, after punching him to the ground, pinning him to the ground, and pounding his head into the concrete repeatedly — then it doesn’t look like Zimmerman had the ability to retreat from that situation, much less do so safely. So even if Florida had a “duty to retreat” doctrine, it would not apply to Zimmerman, and he would be justified in using whatever force that might have appeared to him to be subjectively reasonable to put an end to Martin’s assault.

    A person can easily die from having their head repeatedly pounded into the concrete, or suffer serious permanent brain injury. So IF Martin was really doing this to Zimmerman, then it was 100% reasonable for Zimmerman to use deadly force to terminate Martin’s life and end this potentially deadly assault.

    Moreover, in most states (perhaps all states, and certainly in Washington), the prosecution has the burden of proving the absence of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant does not have the burden of proof on the self-defense issue.

    So in all likelihood, this is also the case in Florida, and the prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman’s self-defense story was false. This is not an easy burden to meet, to say the least.

    I THINK Zimmerman pretty much told this same story to the police on the night of the shooting. And apparently there is forensic evidence — injuries to the back of Zimmerman’s head, maybe an injury to his face, and wet grass stains on his back — that are consistent with Zimmerman’s story. And apparently numerous witnesses, with conflicting stories, no doubt unable to see things that clearly given the darkness of the night and their distance from the shooting.

    The cell phone evidence would certainly be interesting. If Martin was still on the phone at the time of the shooting, then how could be have effectively punched and jumped on Zimmerman? On the other hand, if Martin was not on the cell phone, then it punches a MAJOR MAJOR hole in the position held by Martin’s supporters. Either way, cell phone records are highly objective data, and should be easily obtainable.

    And it is unfortunate that the autopsy hasn’t been released to the public yet. I think it would be a public record in Washington already, but apparently Florida’s public record laws allow them to keep the autopsy under seal for a while.

  7. 8

    FricknFrack spews:

    I’ve been following this case a LOT. What one commentator said was that the Castle Laws create much of a self defense when you are around your own home.

    HOWEVER, by the Stand Your Grounds law it creates a “Bubble” effect. Meaning that you can go anywhere, ANYWHERE and you have a bubble to protect you from prosecution.

    Such as into a bar, and ‘feel’ threatened by a bar fight. I have no doubt that gang wars feel “threatened” on both sides when they’re popping their guns also.

    The more that comes out on this case, like the lead homicide detective filed an afidavit saying he did NOT believe Zimmerman’s account and wanted to charge him, but overruled by the high level guys who were later required to step out of the way. ?? I think that homicide guy filed the affidavit because he saw this going down as some political BS!

    I think Zimmerman’s Dad (retired judge & living in the weathly community nearby) pulled some strings here.

  8. 9

    FricknFrack spews:

    I’m uncomfortable about saying this BUT…

    We teach our kids to stay safe. But if a young, obviously good looking kid, is being stalked by some guy with a gun (or even some Jeffrey Dahlmer creep). Not knowing what the creepy guy’s intention and no way to run fast enough.

    What’s the kid supposed to do? Even if it turns out that Trayvon did punch Zimmerman in self defense, doesn’t Trayvon have a right to Stand His OWN Ground to defend himself?

  9. 11

    Richard Pope spews:

    FricknFrack @ 11

    But how do you know for sure? Martin certainly isn’t around to tell his side of the story.

    And I will assume Martin should get the benefit of the doubt for punching Zimmerman to the ground. And that Martin would likely get the benefit of the doubt if he climbed on top of Zimmerman and banged his head into the sidewalk as well.

    But the issue in a criminal court isn’t Martin vs. Zimmerman (or in reality, Estate of Martin vs. Zimmerman). If it were a civil lawsuit, then a jury would have to decide by a preponderance of the evidence whether Martin was right, or whether Zimmerman was right.

    Criminal cases have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. So if the gun hadn’t been fired, and there had only been a physical fight, I seriously doubt that either Martin or Zimmerman could have been convicted of anything. Or that anyone would have cared very much, frankly.

    Just like your example in @10 of a bar fight — if two fellows are both assholes, get mad at each other, and mutually escalate into a fight, it is very uncommon for either one of them to get charged with assault — unless of course the contest turns out to be unequal, and you have a clear winner and a clear loser. In which case the clear winner gets charged with assault …

  10. 13

    Deathfrogg spews:

    @ 14

    No. Not at all. No blood on his shirt. No wounds on his head. The Police officers are not wearing latex gloves, something which they have been required for years to do whenever there is open wounds or visible blood on the individual being dealt with.

    A: If he had been on his back when he fired the shot, that is point blank range, and would have made a nasty splash of blood all over his face and chest.

    B: If he had his nose broken, or any sort of scalp wound, that would have made a huge mess on his shirt. I have broken someones nose, and it makes a serious mess within a minute or so.
    Scalp wounds bleed like hell. There isn’t so much as a scratch on the back of Zimmerman’s head.

    It is now coming out that there are no wounds or anything on the kids hands to indicate he was in any sort of fight at all.

  11. 14

    spews:

    Some of the details were left intentionally vague. Any attempt to fill them in will be considered off topic and deleted.

  12. 15

    spews:

    Carl, if most your post is referencing a landlord who killed a tenant, and then a commenter talks about that topic, you cannot call it off-topic.

  13. 16

    Richard Pope spews:

    Let’s go back to Carl’s landlord shooting incident.

    First of all, I think Washington pretty much has the “stand your ground” doctrine, as opposed to the “duty to retreat”. But “stand your ground” here is basically a development of case law, as opposed to having a statute which very emphatically sets forth self-defense rights (as is the case with Florida’s statute).

    Second, even with the most extreme “stand your ground” laws, people aren’t allowed to simply blow people away for the hell of it. You have to reasonably use deadly force, and it is basically limited to protecting against death or serious bodily injury (with parameters that can be highly subjective, and also vary quite a bit from state to state).

    Carl hasn’t given us any useful details, but I would assume the landlord situation would look like murder to anyone with common sense.

  14. 17

    Michael spews:

    if two fellows are both assholes, get mad at each other, and mutually escalate into a fight, it is very uncommon for either one of them to get charged with assault

    In Washington State that’s mutual combat. I don’t know how often people get charged with that. I only know about it because back in the day two college (EWU) frat president challenged each other to a fight in the middle of a street near where I was living to uphold the honor of their frats or some such rot and got charged with mutual combat for their efforts.

  15. 18

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @5 The article I read on my computer said so, dummy. Maybe you wouldn’t post such stupid comments if you opened and read a link once in a while.

  16. 20

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @7 “I don’t think the Florida case really has anything to do with “stand your ground” laws.”

    Well it does, Richard, because that was the excuse the police used to not arrest him. But I understand where you’re coming from. You’re a lawyer, and so am I, and we think alike. You’re reacting from a legal perspective, and to the extent you’re arguing “stand your ground” doesn’t apply to the facts of this case, I agree with you. But that law is very much the issue. It’s really the “stand your ground” law that should be on trial in the court of public opinion.

  17. 21

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @7 “So even if Florida had a “duty to retreat” doctrine, it would not apply to Zimmerman, and he would be justified in using whatever force that might have appeared to him to be subjectively reasonable to put an end to Martin’s assault.”

    Oh c’mon, Richard, as a lawyer — and you’re a smart one — you should know that’s not the legal test.

    The legal test is whether the degree of force used by Zimmerman was reasonable in light of whether Zimmerman had an objectively reasonable apprehension that he was in imminent danger of death or grievous bodily harm. But that test doesn’t even apply if Zimmerman initiated the altercation, because the self-defense defense isn’t available to an aggressor.

  18. 22

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @7 Furthermore, if Zimmerman was injured, why wasn’t he taken to a hospital instead of to the police station in handcuffs? Have you seen the police station video? Were are the injuries? Zimmerman doesn’t have a bruise or scuff mark on him. He most definitely does not look like someone who has just been in a fight.

  19. 23

    Politically Incorrect spews:

    @18,

    OK, so you don’t own a TV. So, you rely on second-hand info as to Fox News.

  20. 25

    Steve spews:

    @24 You apparently don’t realize that, while you reveal much about yourself with such a comment, you reveal nothing about the fate of Zimmerman.

  21. 26

    FricknFrack spews:

    @ 13 “The Police officers are not wearing latex gloves, something which they have been required for years to do whenever there is open wounds or visible blood on the individual being dealt with.”

    Excellent point! With the AIDS crisis, everyone was given Blood Pathogens training and I was surprised that the officer wasn’t wearing latex.

    One retired police officer commentator was HORRIFIED that he wasn’t wearing gloves yet was touching/patting Zimmerman’s clothing. Because it contaminates with the officer’s DNA.

  22. 27

    HUNTER spews:

    I like to start with a quote (when seconds count the police are only minutes away). If there was an investagation in what the landlord did and he was found guilty then that is the law working for someone. On the other hand if the landlord didn’t care about the laws he would have shot the guy regaurdless of what the laws were, criminals will always have weapons no matter what the laws are. There is nothing wrong with law abiding citizens careing conceled weapons,but I feel that they traine with there weapons. Most law enforcement don’t train with there weapons,(they qualify every quarter or year with there weapons and that is far from being trained.I know because I am a lawenforcement officer. The right to carry is your right to life its your choice not forced on you.police are not body gaurds the responde to crime ,they do not prevent crime they investigate crime not prevent it,they deter crime not prevent it. If you cary a weapone weather its a knife,pepper spray,batton,or a firearm, you must train with it as often as posible and train on the law. I will be forever armed and so should you.

  23. 28

    HUNTER spews:

    Now that I got the right to carry off my chest now I’ll move on zimmern. Zimmern is an idiot,he should have never been in contact with travon martin, zimmern was carrying a gun and he got into contact range with it on him that’s stupid. Plus he followed him and he knowingly put himself in a confliced situation there is no self defence in that. Stand your ground law is just that stand your ground not gaine your ground he’s guilty to me. Its that simple. Like it or not stupid people will alway be amongst us.

  24. 29

    HUNTER spews:

    Now onto the NAACP. I said there are stupid people amongst us and the NAACP is in the top five big ones. They claim racail profiling and that it is racist that there are more black people in prison and getting arrested and that’s why travon martin ended up dead. Well the truth hurts and it is the truth. More crimes are commited by african americans than any other race they are not the minority anymore they are the majority. Crimes are commited every day by every race but the fact is african american hold the highest number in comitting crimes and in populice. Gee if I were looking for crime I wonder wich group I would watch? Travon already started on a bad road with criminal behavier at school so is far fetched that he was up to criminal mischife that night. I know this is a touchy topic and if you don’t like what I wrote I understand. The truth hurts like it or not.

  25. 30

    Liberal Scientist is a slut who occasionally wears a hoodie spews:

    Hunter – I can’t tell – do you have trouble typing, or are you illiterate?

  26. 31

    Liberal Scientist is a slut who occasionally wears a hoodie spews:

    Because if you are illiterate, and therefore cut off from much rational discourse, that would go a long way toward explaining how it is you got your head up your ass so far.

  27. 32

    Liberal Scientist is a slut who occasionally wears a hoodie spews:

    However, since you are responding to posts written above, and assuming that you don’t have someone reading them to you, I have to conclude that you are not illiterate.

    Therefore, I have to conclude that you are an idiot.

  28. 33

    Zotz sez: Some inflammatory thing or other. spews:

    @30-32: This is why idiots hate scientists. Keep up the good work.

  29. 35

    HUNTER spews:

    I’ll agree my spelling sucks. But as for the rest of your comment, like your name states I do beleave you are a liberal so no matter what anyone says you will still be living in your own imaginary world. And like I said zimmerman is an idiot and now he’s in jail. And as for me I am a Hunter and its better to be a hunter rather than the hunted. So please keep infecting more people with your beliefs it just makes surviving so much easyer for people like me. Thank you

  30. 36

    spews:

    OMG!!!… We’ve actually found ONE objective person on this HA site!!! Call the press (the legitimate ones)!

    Richard Pope is 100% correct and actually DOES sound like a lawyer familiar with criminal law (as opposed to crackerjack Rabbit). Even “crazy” boyscout isn’t challenging him as he says exactly what I’ve been saying irt this case. Here’s a summary post (I.e. not long paragraph format) that hits on many of the topics Robert brought up: http://theindependentmoderate......facts.html

    Btw, Hunter (@27-29, 35): You have some great points as well. that’s why some of the other NOT objective people in here attacked you. Take it as a compliment from those irrational slutty people.

  31. 37

    No Time for Fascists spews:

    Travon already started on a bad road with criminal behavier at school so is far fetched that he was up to criminal mischife that night.
    Really? Where are your facts?

  32. 38

    Michael spews:

    @37

    Travon already started on a bad road with criminal behavier at school

    So it’s justified to shoot him as he walked home from the store!

  33. 39

    Michael spews:

    @37
    Funny, he should bring that up when it’s George Martin that had been arrested previously for violent offenses.

  34. 40

    spews:

    @96- Instead of “Robert” it should say:

    “that hits on many of the topics Richard brought up:”

    Btw, it’s really funny that when one of the “tribe’s own” brings up these points it’s met with MUCH LESS criticism. Even though the EXACT same points were brought up by me 2 weeks ago (here, here, and here) and met with mass vitriol.

    It’s definitely the “middle-school girls” clique syndrome I’ve previously described… No slut, that’s not “ineffective and sexist”, it’s just the plain truth. The truth isn’t always pretty is it liberal slut? Or should I say liberal “DIPSHIT” (to use your vernacular)?

  35. 41

    spews:

    It’s definitely the “middle-school girls” clique syndrome I’ve previously described… No slut, that’s not “ineffective and sexist”, it’s just the plain truth.

    LOL! Fail.. As Pudge at (un)sp would say, “you’re a liar”…

    What’s closer to the truth is that this is a middle-aged men’s group and it’s far from a clique.

    Assigning female characteristics in a desparaging way to this group is downright mean-spirited and all too obnoxiously sexist.

    Keep it up Dave. You do trolling proud.

  36. 42

    spews:

    My god your dense… Mean spirited? No kidding? It’s called an insults for a reason (you people should really understand that) and it’s purpose is to be just that. Btw, it’s exactly like a clique. 85 may be too high an estimate for me to give you…

    I see you continue to prove my point that people with no valid contribution to make (as to an actual topic) prefer to deflect and engage in meaningless drivel. Perhaps your more along the lines of 83-84?…

    Keep digging, you’re doing a great job of confirming your court jester position as the worst thinker on the whole site (at least that I’ve seen so far). Richard Pope is at the top because he’s demonstrated an open minded, rational thinking process. Not just because he agrees with me either. I’m sure we’d disagree on plenty of things but at least he demonstrates the ability to use critical thinking in developing his opinions…

    Wait for it…someone here is going to attempt the argument: “you just say that because Robert agrees with you” ( Even though I already addressed that VERY point). How’d I know that? It must be “Cause he’s so freaking brilliant that he knows what people are going to think and write.” At least that’s what Michael thinks (that I’m brilliant).

    Btw YLB, boy/cubscout is just above you so there’s a target for you to work towrds… LOL!!!…

  37. 43

    rhp6033 spews:

    My prediction: regardless of whether or not the Grand Jury issues an indictment, Zimmerman will either not be prosecuted or, more likely, will plead guilty to smallest misdemeaner charge the prosecutor can devise (discharging a firearm within city limits?).

    The reason is that the prosecutor – any prosecutor – will decide that he can’t obtain a conviction given the evidence. The problem is that the police didn’t keep a secure crime sceene or take reasonable steps to preserve evidence, both of Zimmerman’s guilt and/or of evidence which could be potentially exonerating of Zimmerman. Zimmerman is entilted to the presumption that under such circumstances, the potential evidence would exonerate him.

    As long as Zimmerman keeps his mouth shut and doesn’t testify, he’s got a good chance of acquital of manslaughter charges.

  38. 44

    spews:

    Heh. Is Dave about? Looks like a couple minutes since he last refreshed his page. Don’t run up the phone bill too high there Dave.

    We all know you’re chomping at the bit to release the next salvo of “calm”, “reasoned” debate for which the consensus here remains strangely unimpressed.

    And I find it pretty funny this fearless “debater” does not want to engage with (un)sp. The fuselage is apparently terrified of the right wing. Heh.

  39. 45

    spews:

    1) Oh I forgot to mention before. I’ve noticed (by watching posts for a few weeks now) that rhp6033 is more like Richard Pope in his critical thinking skills. I’d place both above Rabbit, Slut, Fascist, etc. (at the very least irt the Zimmerman case but potentially more broad sweeping).

    2) I’d guess rhp doesn’t particularly care for me but accepts that I’m also a critical thinker who occasionally gets condescending (even though my tone is dictated by the people here). He chooses to avoid the back and forth arguments that have formed as I’ve tried to simply have a civil conversation. Who knows though, I could be wrong about his perception.

    3) Oh yea, his assessment (@43) is correct. At least I agree with it.

  40. 46

    spews:

    Mean spirited? No kidding? It’s called an insults for a reason

    Heh. Why bring sexism into it? Says a lot more about you than it can ever say about any of us who find you so… sigh.. boring…

  41. 47

    spews:

    @44We all know you’re chomping at the bit to release the next salvo of “calm”, “reasoned” debate for which the consensus here remains strangely unimpressed.

    Since 80% (estimate +/- 8% accuracy) are most certainly anything “BUT” critical thinkers, that’s a resounding complement. Thanks!!! I’d be worried if more of the HA irrational, non-thinkers actually agreed with me because that would put me in the incredibly bad company of the likes of you. That’s really ugly to think about… Ugg…

  42. 48

    spews:

    Heh. Demurs on ugly use of sexism and his all too obvious fear of “debating” right wingers.. Yaaaawwwn..

  43. 49

    Steve spews:

    “any of us who find you so… sigh.. boring…”

    Very boring. That can happen when shallow thought is delivered with a condescending attitude.

  44. 50

    spews:

    @49
    ROFLOL. In other words: “you’re correct Dave. I have nothing to say about the actual Zimmerman topic because you’ve already covered it perfectly.”

    You, YLB, and others have nothing of substance to contribute irt the Zimmerman issue (unless you learned something here that you can bring into the conversation). ;-)

    Lacking something meaningful to contribute, you spew random clique thoughts.

    The fact that you’re actually chumming up with YLB puts you at the lower end of intellectual though ton this site (with boyscout as well). You really should strive to achieve the critical thought level where I, Pope, and rhp currently reside. Right now you’re quite a distance away but keep working at it (20yrs might do it)…

  45. 51

    spews:

    This story is the best summary of events I’ve seen so far..

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....=head_main

    Zimmerman is in jail? Hmmm. I don’t see any confirmation of this.

    In any case, there are two witnesses and their stories contradict. According to the cited story there is a critical missing minute in the narrative that is assembled from the cell phone calls.

    One enhanced video I’ve seen shows very sketchy evidence of gashes to the back of Zimmerman’s head. Detailed photos would be better. So far I see evidence of very sloppy police work.

    A boy is dead and his killer will likely go free. Like Hunter said, this guy Zimmerman was an idiotic zealot and went looking for trouble. An armed person SHOULD NOT DO THIS (stand your ground, not gain your ground). IMO Zimmerman should be brought up on manslaughter charges but right wing prosecutors in the NRA’s pocket will never do this.

  46. 52

    spews:

    51. YLB spews:
    This story is the best summary of events I’ve seen so far..

    1) That should mean it’s worthless…

    One enhanced video I’ve seen shows very sketchy evidence of gashes to the back of Zimmerman’s head. Detailed photos would be better. So far I see evidence of very sloppy police work.

    2) No kidding, you didn’t see that the first time?…

    You’d already have know those things if you had read this. The head injuries were addressed in #11

  47. 53

    spews:

    52 – A McClatchy story is worthless?? Hmmm. Dave must have dismissed their reporting of Iraqi WMD I bet.

    you didn’t see that the first time?…

    Evidence of sloppy police work? It’s been a freaking month. That’s evident on its face.

    To anything thinking person save you that is.

    Still haven’t clicked on anything of yours Dave and I don’t intend to. You know what to do.

  48. 54

    Michael spews:

    @51

    That Zimmerman was up and walking around and at the jail a half an hour after the shooting makes it seem like his wounds weren’t too life threatening. We don’t know for sure, but if I were on a jury I’d want to see more wounds on someone claiming self defense against an unarmed attacker.

  49. 55

    spews:

    54 – I recall a shooting incident in downtown Seattle actually, a few years back. A mentally challenged person went off and attacked a guy who was carrying. The attack I recall threw the armed guy to the ground. He shot the attacker dead.

    Found it:

    http://www.kirotv.com/news/new.....ing/nKRYr/

    2006? Was WA’s Stand Your Ground law on the books? Plenty of witnesses it seems so the shooter walked.

    Not so in the Martin case. I predict Zimmerman will walk.

  50. 56

    Steve spews:

    “you’re correct Dave. I have nothing to say about the actual Zimmerman topic because you’ve already covered it perfectly.”

    Narcissism unbound. We’ve seen it all before. Boring.