Rockin' in the free world since 2005.

[Total: 9    Average: 2.8/5]
42 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 2616
Rating: 2.8
Category:
Date: 02/20/14 05:12 AM

42 Responses to Florida

  1. Profile photo of normalfreak2
    normalfreak2 Male 18-29
    3367 posts
    February 19, 2014 at 4:44 pm
    Link: Florida - Florida`s ``Self Defense Laws`` Strikes Again! Story in credits link below.
  2. Profile photo of CaptKangaroo
    CaptKangaroo Male 50-59
    2313 posts
    February 20, 2014 at 6:46 am
    Saw a vid of some moron from some Dr. tv show, who babbled on about "Criminalizing what the black body does". Made me laugh. The tagline for the vid was, "Would he have fired if they were blasting Bon Jovi".
    Hell, I`d have reloaded and emptied a second mag.
    In all seriousness though,this guy, like his predecessor, was spoiling for a fight, when he found one, he used his gun.
    Just stupid.
  3. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36184 posts
    February 20, 2014 at 7:28 am

    Parents are still hanging on until there is "justice for their son". Our society is sick and cannot deal with adversity or pain any longer. While I sympathize with their pain, no verdict will ever make them feel better and they should stop holding out for it. The killer of their son will not live long enough to serve his sentence.

    My neighbor does this. She had 2 thuggy sons who both died and she clings to that pain rather than seeking therapy to deal with and move beyond it. 5 years later and every other day she still wears t-shirts with their faces "in memory of" printed on them. Everyone who knows her avoids her now because somehow the conversation always steers around to her sons etc.

  4. Profile photo of LordJim
    LordJim Male 60-69
    6650 posts
    February 20, 2014 at 7:44 am
    As far as I can see he claimed plain old self-defence, nothing peculiar to Florida.
  5. Profile photo of normalfreak2
    normalfreak2 Male 18-29
    3367 posts
    February 20, 2014 at 8:17 am
    @LordJim. Florida has a different interpretation of Self-defense. You are allowed to respond with deadly force as long as you feel "threatened".

    I think the point I get from this is IF he would have killed all 4 of them. They wouldn`t be able to convict him of anything. He only received punishment because he shot at 3 other people and didn`t kill them.
  6. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    February 20, 2014 at 8:42 am
    @normalfreak

    Actually, you don`t know what you`re talking about, yet still seem inclined to preach about it.

    The Florida Statute

    Your quoting of "threatened" is complete bullsh*t as it only appears in the clause regarding police officers.

    Justifiable use of deadly force:

    "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"

    It`s essentially the same in every state.
  7. Profile photo of LordJim
    LordJim Male 60-69
    6650 posts
    February 20, 2014 at 8:44 am
    normalfreak2

    I can`t agree. This wasn`t a `stand your ground` situation. He claimed he was threatened with a shotgun which means immediate danger of death and no realisic means of retreat. Anywhere in the world you can respond with whatever force is available to you in that situation. It may well be that Florida as different laws, but they wren`t in play in this case.

    The manslaughter verdict suggests that the majority of the jury did not believe his claim about the shotgun but one or two may have done. So it was a compromise verdict. The attempted murder charges were for firing repeatedly at a retreating vehicle - no possible argument for self defence. If he had killed them it would have been murder.

    `IF he would have killed all 4 of them. They wouldn`t be able to convict him of anything.`

    I really don`t see how you reached that conclusion.
  8. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    February 20, 2014 at 8:51 am
    1. George Zimmerman did not invoke Stand Your Ground. Why do people keep saying he did? So they`re not striking again, in any way.

    2. Michael Dunn is a completely different case. Kids were being a-holes, most likely. That doesn`t mean you can shoot them. That`s all.

    As a side note, Michael Dunn was probably drunk. I believe he came from a wedding, and this would put all the pieces together. It`s why he didn`t call the cops, it`s why he was so quick to shoot people, etc.
  9. Profile photo of icdumbpeople
    icdumbpeople Male 30-39
    177 posts
    February 20, 2014 at 8:57 am
    Ten shots in self-defense? Was it a small infantry coming at him?
  10. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36184 posts
    February 20, 2014 at 8:57 am

    "Self Defense" is not peculiar to Florida. Most states allow you to defend yourself. But it is the current Media Fashion to point out any Florida Self Defense cases.

    Also in Media Fashion - Cruise Ships, ObomaCare, Shoe bombs, and anything Chris Christie.
  11. Profile photo of normalfreak2
    normalfreak2 Male 18-29
    3367 posts
    February 20, 2014 at 9:41 am
    i realize "Stand your ground" wasn`t at play here. That`s why I titled the submission as such.

    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.
    History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.

    What did I miss
  12. Profile photo of normalfreak2
    normalfreak2 Male 18-29
    3367 posts
    February 20, 2014 at 9:47 am
    LordJim "The manslaughter verdict suggests that the majority of the jury did not believe his claim about the shotgun but one or two may have done. So it was a compromise verdict. The attempted murder charges were for firing repeatedly at a retreating vehicle - no possible argument for self defence. If he had killed them it would have been murder. "

    How do you come to that conclusion?

    I came to that conclusion the same way you do.

    If he kills 4 (instead of 1) people after saying he thought "he saw a shotgun being pulled"?

    This was ONE person he killed and 2 people believed that he may have had an obligation to NOT retreat. There`s a very plausible case that if he in fact killed all 4 of them you could see that situation happening again.
  13. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36184 posts
    February 20, 2014 at 10:15 am

    Some thuggy teens threaten a guy. He fires and kills one. The friends of dead guy say it was not self defense and the shooter has no witness on his side to prove it.

    Justice? I doubt there was any. I wasn`t there I don`t know, but can we really believe the friends of the deceased as unbiased, credible witnesses?

    Or maybe he did suddenly turn into a mad dog killer for no reason at all. It happens.
  14. Profile photo of LordJim
    LordJim Male 60-69
    6650 posts
    February 20, 2014 at 10:53 am
    normalfreak2,

    I`m afraid I don`t follow your argument that killing all four would have meant that he could not have been convicted. My point was that this wasn`t a `Florida thing` but that under pretty much any jurisdiction the laws would be the same. If you believe you are in immediate danger from an assailant and have no safe way to retreat then using lethal force is legal. If the alleged assailant is running away then shooting them in the back is not legal - either murder or attempted murder depending on your aim. There may be exceptions but I`m not aware of any. Texas, maybe.

    Gerry, It all inges on whether or not the deceased pulled a shotgun. Of course the kid`s friends are not unbiased but the only person saying there was a gun is the shooter, who is equally not unbiased.

    It was the firing of numerous shots at a retreating vehicle that got him the sixty years. `Mad dog killer`? I dunno but he certainly tried to kill three teens who were running away.
  15. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    February 20, 2014 at 10:54 am
    What did you miss? OK.

    Florida has a different interpretation of Self-defense.
    No, they don`t; it`s nearly identical to every other states` statute.

    For example, New York Penal Code 35.15 says the following about legal use of deadly force:

    "The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force."

    The DIFFERENCE is that you must retreat in New York if able, whereas in Florida you have no such responsibility. However, that wasn`t even applied to this case.

    You are allowed to respond with deadly force as long as you feel "threatened".
    No, you`re not. If you claim self-defense in any state, you must demonstrate that, by reasonable-man standards, you were in imminent danger. Feeling "threatened" is not sufficient for the use of deadly force in any state.

    Please stop disseminating misinformation.
  16. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    February 20, 2014 at 11:13 am
    Exactly, Human Action. I`m tired of these Florida self defense cases being in the news. It`s just sensational crap.
  17. Profile photo of LordJim
    LordJim Male 60-69
    6650 posts
    February 20, 2014 at 11:47 am
    `Some thuggy teens threaten a guy.`

    There is evidence that they were `thuggy`? Other than that hey were black and playing loud music in a car. That`s setting the bar pretty low.

    They threatened him? Any evidence other than the shooter`s claim? The jury concluded that he was not under threat.

    Even if, for whatever reason, you choose to accept the shooter`s version despite the lack of evidence or witnesses the attempted murder verdicts are pretty cut and dried. Was justice done? The verdict, yes. The sentence of sixty years minimum? That`s pretty damn heavy.

    Here in the UK we have been having a bit of a run in with the ECHR over whole life sentences which they regard as unjust as it offers no hope of eventual release. The argument from the UK (with which I agree) is that it is only used for the most deranged and horrible offences. This wouldn`t qualify, IMO.
  18. Profile photo of normalfreak2
    normalfreak2 Male 18-29
    3367 posts
    February 20, 2014 at 12:18 pm
    LordJim "The manslaughter verdict suggests that the majority of the jury did not believe his claim about the shotgun but one or two may have done. So it was a compromise verdict. The attempted murder charges were for firing repeatedly at a retreating vehicle - no possible argument for self defence. If he had killed them it would have been murder. "

    How do you come to that conclusion?

    I came to that conclusion the same way you do.

    If he kills 4 (instead of 1) people after saying he thought "he saw a shotgun being pulled"?

    This was ONE person he killed and 2 people believed that he may have had an obligation to NOT retreat. There`s a very plausible case that if he in fact killed all 4 of them you could see that situation happening again.
  19. Profile photo of LordJim
    LordJim Male 60-69
    6650 posts
    February 20, 2014 at 1:13 pm
    normalfreak2

    Did you just re-post an earlier incoherent comment? Maybe it`s a glitch on the site.
  20. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    February 20, 2014 at 1:55 pm
    Here`s the way I see it, and this applies to Zimmerman, too. We all have a right to defend ourselves from a threat. We have a right to defend ourselves from a *perceived* threat. However, if turns out that we`re wrong, that the threat wasn`t what we thought, and we`ve overreacted and, you know, killed someone because of that overreaction, then we have to pay the price.

    Zimmerman found himself in a fight of his own causing. He shot and killed an unarmed minor. To me, that`s manslaughter. He killed an unarmed minor who he goaded into a fight and shot when he found himself losing.

    Dunn, regardless of what he feared, regardless of any verbal threats and things he claims he saw was found to have been mistaken. There was no gun. No one was getting out of the SUV (that was corroborated by others) and he shot and killed an unarmed minor. Again, that`s at the very least manslaughter.
  21. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14273 posts
    February 20, 2014 at 2:00 pm
    Zimmerman found himself in a fight of his own causing.

    Not according to witnesses and a jury... but keep right on hanging on to that pathetic lie it`s what the media wants you to do.
  22. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    February 20, 2014 at 2:15 pm
    McGovern, who confronted whom? Who got out of their drating truck and confronted whom??!?! WTF, man? An unarmed drating kid, walking home, UNARMED (Do you drating understand that?!), was not messing with anyone and some punk ass wannabe cop engaged him in confrontation. I don`t give a drat what people say happened after that: an UNARMED MINOR WAS KILLED by an armed man who engaged the minor. Those are the facts. Period.
  23. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    February 20, 2014 at 2:42 pm
    @SmagBoy

    by an armed man who engaged the minor
    Absolutely every, single shred of evidence suggests that this is not true. Every single piece of evidence that was presented suggests that Martin initiated the physical confrontation.

    Which evidence are you referencing when you suggest that Zimmerman initiated physical contact?
  24. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4710 posts
    February 20, 2014 at 3:46 pm

    What an absolutely STUPID description on this post. The dude is going to die in prison! Sounds like the laws worked just fine.
  25. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    February 20, 2014 at 4:05 pm
    HumanAction, there is NO evidence save for Zimmerman`s word that Martin initiated the physical confrontation. Did Martin double back? It looks that way. But did he initiation physical contact? NO EVIDENCE. What *I`m* talking about is a man (Zimmerman) who initiated a confrontation between the two to start with. Had Zimmerman not engaged an innocent, unarmed, not-doing-anything-wrong minor who was, did I mention, unarmed, no confrontation would have ever happened. And, even considering that it DID happen, when does a fight with an UNARMED minor justify killing said minor? That is in no way justifiable. Just like this dumb ass jury in Dunn`s case. Killing a minor for what? The *fear* of a *potential*? Bullpoo. The fact that anyone thinks that`s okay, in either case, is just devastatingly heartbreaking. I`m not saying either man is guilty of 1st degree murder, but come on, not even manslaughter? For killing unarmed minors?! Really?!
  26. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    February 20, 2014 at 6:56 pm
    @SmagBoy

    Did Martin double back? It looks that way.
    Yes, it does look that way - which is a least slightly implicative of him wanting to initiate a confrontation.

    "a man (Zimmerman) who initiated a confrontation"
    "Had Zimmerman not engaged"

    These are the statements of yours that are nonsense. There is simply no evidence that he initiated anything other than a very brief following. Briefly following someone, who then loses you (as shown in the dispatcher recordings), is not a confrontation.

    There is some scant evidence that Martin initiated the confrontation shown above. Meanwhile, there is zero evidence that Zimmerman did. How have you come to the conclusion that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation?

    Is briefly following someone a confrontation to you? That`s an odd standard.
  27. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    February 20, 2014 at 7:01 pm
    @SmagBoy

    innocent, unarmed, not-doing-anything-wrong minor
    Everything there except "minor" is speculation. We don`t know - you are asserting that we do - which is nonsense.

    UNARMED minor justify killing said minor
    When they try to kill you of course. Again, you are implying that absolutely, positively, 100% confidence, Martin was not trying to kill Zimmerman. We do not know this. You`re just making sh*t up again.

    I`m not saying either man is guilty of 1st degree murder, but come on, not even manslaughter?
    If reasonable doubt exists, then they must find the defendant not guilty. Personally, from my limited exposure to the case, I think Dunn is absolutely guilty of murder. If there is reasonable doubt though, he must be found not guilty.

    It is better to let 100 guilty men free than to convict one innocent man.
  28. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    February 20, 2014 at 7:06 pm
    @SmagBoy

    Your entire emotionally-charged and heavily-biased tirade is predicated on your assumption of Zimmerman`s guilt.

    To you, it is unquestionable. He followed Martin. He started the fight. He shot Martin out of malice, not defense. He`s guilty, guilty, guilty.

    The problem is, there`s no evidence. Your assumptions are baseless.

    Ask yourself, do you think there is even a possibility that Martin initiated the fight? Is there a possibility that Martin was slamming Zimmerman`s head into the sidewalk? Is there a possibility that Martin was acting maliciously?

    It is evident that, in your heart, you refuse to even consider the possibility. You would hang the man before even hearing him. You`d be perfect for an Inquisition.
  29. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    February 21, 2014 at 1:26 am
    HumanAction, I think you misunderstand me. Sure, ALL of this things are possible. Martin may even have initiated the physical confrontation. That does NOT mitigate the fact that Zimmerman instigated it. He did not just FOLLOW Martin, he engaged him. That is NOT in question. He then FOLLOWED him. That`s not in question, either. In the eyes of the law, that`s called "assault". No, assault doesn`t require physical contact, it requires the fear of physical contact. Martin (purportedly) said on the phone he thought this "cracker" was out to do him harm. And Zimmerman was following him, engaging him, and, by his own admission, accusing him of casing the place. Then they got into a scuffle, not a DEATH BATTLE. Zimm got his head a little bloody. And that deserves KILLING someone? Bullpoo.
  30. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    February 21, 2014 at 6:51 am
    @SmagBoy

    He did not just FOLLOW Martin, he engaged him. That is NOT in question. He then FOLLOWED him.
    Specifically which action of Zimmerman`s do you qualify as engaging?

    Apparently we have different definitions of instigating and engaging.
  31. Profile photo of piratefish
    piratefish Male 40-49
    675 posts
    February 21, 2014 at 11:51 am
    I, for one, wholeheartedly back these sorts of laws. In fact, I would love to see a return to old west justice. Our current system is corrupt and could care less about right and wrong. It also protects douche bags and @ssholes from the natural consequences of their actions.

    People would suddenly start becoming a whole lot more considerate and respectful if the law quit protecting them from the ass beatings they so desperately deserve.
  32. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    February 21, 2014 at 2:19 pm
    HumanAction, by his own admission, he directly asked asked Martin what he was doing there and then, unsatisfied, he followed him. Down a dark, unlit sidewalk area. Now, if your 17 year old daughter was walking home, on the phone with you, and an adult male rolled up in a truck, asked her what she was doing there, then got out of his truck and began following her down a dark sidewalk, are you saying you`d be fine with that?! You`d advise her, "Hey, no worries. He`s within his rights."?! drat no you wouldn`t. You`d likely tell her to run and to call the police because that`s some scary poo! Martin, perhaps because he didn`t feel like being assaulted any further, apparently turned back and confronted Zimmerman. And Zimmerman shot and killed him. None of that is in dispute.
  33. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    February 21, 2014 at 4:00 pm
    @SmagBoy

    he directly asked asked Martin what he was doing there and then, unsatisfied, he followed him.
    Can you point me to a source that shows this? I don`t seem to be able to find one. I see that Zimmerman asked Martin what he was doing when he claims Martin confronted him, which was well after the "following" of Martin.

    As for this "following", it was about 20 seconds; that`s clear on the dispatcher`s recording. Stop making it sound like he pursued Martin for minutes and minutes; it was 20 seconds and he stopped as soon as the dispatcher informed him that "we don`t need you to do that."

    your 17 year old daughter
    Martin was male. Suggesting a daughter is an attempt to evoke an emotional response via the implication of potential rape.

    I would tell HIM to come home. I would then go address the man who followed HIM for 20 seconds.
  34. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    February 21, 2014 at 4:04 pm
    @SmagBoy

    perhaps because he didn`t feel like being assaulted any further
    Being "followed" for 20 seconds is not assault. If you follow me for 20 seconds, I do not have any right to turn around and beat you. I have no idea how you think that 20 seconds of "following" is equivalent to assault. That`s not in Florida`s assault statute.

    And Zimmerman shot and killed him
    There was a fight in there you forgot to mention.

    None of that is in dispute.
    Yes it is. Quite a bit of it is. I would like you to show me where Zimmerman "confronted" Martin prior to the 20 seconds of "following" that you somehow justify as assault.

    Additionally, please indicate in the Florida assault statute where 20 seconds of following is classified as assault.
  35. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    February 22, 2014 at 4:48 am
    HumanAction, you refuse, at all, to get into Martin`s head. That`s why I said "daughter". My point is that you refuse to see it from his perspective, from the perspective of a black minor in Sanford, FL. Again, as I say, I`m not trying to get Zimmerman for 1st degree murder. But he created the situation in which he found himself on his back, getting a couple of love taps. If you`re going to claim 20 bullpoo seconds, which you know full well is bullpoo (the call and later 911 calls spanned nearly five), then I`m going classify his wounds which didn`t even require medical attention (and they didn`t) as love taps. And love taps don`t deserve being murdered in cold blood by a scared little poobag who got in over his head by making a series of woefully bad decisions that, to me, add up to manslaughter.
  36. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    February 22, 2014 at 4:51 am
    Here`s the thing. In the end, an armed man shot and killed an unarmed teen. An unarmed teen who, by Zimmerman`s own admission he followed. So, 20 seconds or 20 minutes, those are facts that can`t be disputed. The fact that you think, given those circumstances, it`s okay for Zimmerman to walk, unpunished *at all* for epically bad decisions (if for nothing else, carrying a gun out of his truck when he had NO BUSINESS doing so), is disgusting. I understand it`s a sign of the times, but, anyone who doesn`t find those circumstances horrifying, IMHO, has lost perspective on how important human life is.
  37. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    February 22, 2014 at 8:36 am
    @SmagBoy

    The 20 seconds I am referencing are the 20 seconds during the dispatchers call between when you hear the door of the truck close, and you hear Zimmerman say that he lost sight of Martin.

    He followed for 20 seconds.

    The fact that you refuse to consider Martin an adult, capable of killing another adult, is pitiful. You`re truly lost sight of justice, and that is disgusting.
  38. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    February 22, 2014 at 8:48 am
    @SmagBoy

    It`s really sad that you refuse to look at the evidence in lieu of your emotional connection.

    Lets look at the dispatcher tape a little further to disprove your distorted beliefs some more:

    Tape

    @1:30 - "Please just get an officer over here!"

    OMG. Absolutely vicious. Clearly Zimmerman was pursuing Martin with intent to kill him. I mean, that Mr. Roger`s voice, that frightened "he`s coming to check me out" moment - just vicious.

    2:12 - "He`s running." Truck door slams. "Following" begins.
    2:28 - "OK." Breathing begins to slow.
    2:39 - "He ran." Past tense clearly indicates that Martin is gone and the pursuit is over.

    2:39 - 2:12 is 27 seconds at most. You won`t believe that though becaus
  39. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    February 23, 2014 at 3:37 am
    No, I get it, HumanAction. It was all Martin`s fault. He was the agressor. He stalked and hunted Zimmerman. He beat Zimmerman to within an inch of his life, and he deserved to die. I got it. Brilliant.
  40. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    February 23, 2014 at 9:05 am
    @SmagBoy

    No, I get it, HumanAction. It was all Martin`s fault. He was the agressor. He stalked and hunted Zimmerman. He beat Zimmerman to within an inch of his life, and he deserved to die. I got it. Brilliant.
    I`ll take that as a tacit admission that you don`t really have any evidence to stand your argument upon. After all, several bits of your "evidence" have been disproven already, and you`ve presented none that has been shown to be truthful.

    Yet, somehow, I`m the non-nice individual. Strange world we live in.
  41. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    February 23, 2014 at 12:18 pm
    To the contrary, I`ve asserted nothing that`s been *proven* untrue. At all. I`ve stated only obvious truths. Further, unlike you, I`ve acknowledged that there`s gray area and lots of possibilities here. The only thing that I find super important that is that Zimmerman be held accountable for *something*. You don`t even want that? And an unarmed teenager is dead? So, yeah, you *are* the meanie pants here. I`m not trying for 1st degree murder. I`m only trying to acknowledge that a human life was senselessly lost.
  42. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    February 23, 2014 at 12:37 pm
    I`ve asserted nothing that`s been *proven* untrue
    On the contrary. You claimed that a brief following from Zimmerman was legally assault. That is not true.

    Additionally, you`ve claimed that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation by "following" Martin. By all common definitions of "confrontation" I`ve this to be untrue.

    I`ve acknowledged that there`s gray area and lots of possibilities here
    I`ve consistently asserted that the evidence suggests that Zimmerman did not pursue Martin nor did he initiate the confrontation. Obviously many possibilities exist in any situation; however, we tend to use evidence to find the most probably scenario.

    Zimmerman be held accountable for *something*
    Do you realize how absurd that is? You want to punish someone despite not really knowing what to punish them for. He was found not guilty, remember?

Leave a Reply