TexasCHLforum.com

bzo311 wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:If you folks want to be law enforcement officers, getting a CHL was not the first step. Good luck with that. Don't ever forget, you don't have law enforcement authority. There is a HUGE difference in self defense and running around looking for trouble...which is what Zimmerman did. ZIMMERMAN WITNESSED NO CRIME TAKING PLACE!

I don't think anyone is arguing or disagreeing with the point you're trying to make. All I am trying to say here is that while Zimmerman's actions were not the brightest, they were not illegal. Meaning, sure Zimmerman didn't have to get out of his car, but Treyvon didn't have to attack him either.

And Zimmerman getting out his car doesn't justify Treyvon attacking him.

Beiruty wrote:Mr. Zimmerman can move to Canada or Europe or Australia and starts a new life as an immigrant. Problem solved.

Ditto for Treyvon's family, Al Sharpton, the New Black Panther Party, and any other race baiters, hucksters, and snake-oil salesmen. In fact, that solves an even bigger problem.

lbuehler325 wrote:Maybe I missed this in the past 17 pages of comments, but I think Stand Your Ground is not a valid issue in this case. What Zimmerman did was or wasn't justifiable homicide. To be justifiable, three main qualifiers must be met. 1. Zimmerman must have legally been allowed to be at the location of the incident, 2. Zimmerman must have reasonably been in imminent fear for for his life (or at least severe injury), and 3. Zimmerman must not have caused or instigated the situation. If any of these three are not satisfied beyond a reasonable level, most folks in his position should expect themselves to have the facts go to a grand jury at the minimum. If #3 is not satisfied (which seems to be the case from what is publicly known), then it is fair to expect his actions to come under scrutiny. This doesn't mean he was not justified. It simply means, he would have to defend his actions. With that said, "Stand Your Ground" wouldn't make an unjustified use of deadly force legal. If that were the case, any and every bully could start fights, and then shoot their victims once the victim starts fighting back. This is absurd, but that is essentially what the prohibitionists are implying. They do not understand the law. Whether Zimmerman was justified or not would not be influenced by a SYG statute.

Character assessments of either party are also not very helpful in this situation. Was Martin a "thug"? It shouldn't matter! Question is, was his shooting justified, and that has nothing to do with weather he was using/distributing drugs. Since when does a minor's drug use warrant death? Was Zimmerman a "wannabe cop" with a history of assault overstepping his bounds? History speaks to character, but not to the facts of that night. The proper question is who acted illegally that night? If Zimmerman acted improperly (lets not forget that a 911 dispatcher saying "don't follow" is hardly a lawful order), I would be just as concerned about the local PD for not doing a proper investigation and potentially letting a killer, or at least a demonstrated recklessly irresponsible CHL holder, walk away scott free.

THIS.....

versus this:

matriculated wrote:About Zimmerman: unfortunately for him, I think any semblance of a normal life going forward is probably impossible. Probably the best thing that could happen to him right now is to get indicted and convicted, spend a few years in the big house, get out early for good behavior, and hope that by then nobody will remember this incident. That way he might have a chance at a normal life. He's still young, only 28. If, however, he gets acquitted, adios normal life forever. People will know who he is, he will get recognized, and there are always people out there willing to do violence if they feel the justice system didn't do its job. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying that's reality. He'll always have to look over his shoulder for as long as he's alive. He would become the OJ of central FL (and I'm not talking about the delicious FL orange juice).

THANKYOU lbuehler325 for a most well-reasoned statement of the case before us! You may well have saved this thread. Your analysis has succinctly stated what others including myself have failed to articulate, but wholeheartedly meant. Matriculated, on the other hand, under the guise of "fairness," seems to be arguing—before all the facts are in—that A) any discussion of possibly exculpatory evidence harms our gun rights; and B) that the best thing here is for Zimmerman to plead guilty (even though he may actually be innocent, and because his mind is already made up as to guilt), take a prison term for manslaughter so that he can try to get his life back into a semblance of normalcy......as if, thanks to race baiters, his life will ever be normal again no matter the outcome.

Zimmerman's chances of survival in prison, where a revenge killing would surely happen swiftly, are even slimmer than if he remains free. At least if he remains free he retains the ability to defend himself (and his wife and kids who have also been threatened). This case is definitely going to go before a grand jury, and a recommendation to trial will be made or not made; and if tried, innocence will be presumed until guilt is proven. THAT is the justice system at work.

If he is found guilty, those in this thread who presumed innocence until guilt is proven will be able to stand tall and say that their opinions were consistent with how our justice system is supposed to work. Those who did not, will not.

Matriculated, one thing you have failed to do here is to clearly articulate why discussing Zimmerman's possible innocence is detrimental to our gun rights. I would like to know how you rationalize that. I think I know why you're saying it, but I would like to give you the chance to state it for the rest of us in your own words. Mine might not be so charitable.

matriculated wrote:About Zimmerman: unfortunately for him, I think any semblance of a normal life going forward is probably impossible. Probably the best thing that could happen to him right now is to get indicted and convicted, spend a few years in the big house, get out early for good behavior, and hope that by then nobody will remember this incident. That way he might have a chance at a normal life. He's still young, only 28. If, however, he gets acquitted, adios normal life forever. People will know who he is, he will get recognized, and there are always people out there willing to do violence if they feel the justice system didn't do its job. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying that's reality. He'll always have to look over his shoulder for as long as he's alive. He would become the OJ of central FL (and I'm not talking about the delicious FL orange juice).

ARE YOU SERIOUS???!!!????

Are you even interested in justice? Please....whatever you do, don't you ever speak in my defense about anything, even if you agree with me. I don't need that kind of friends

What do you suppose THIS is doing for gun rights and race relations? http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/tra ... irt-759832 warning: profanity on this t-shirt

Do you think THIS is just as dangerous in terms of fallout? http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/26/forme ... on-martin/

Who exactly are the exploiters here? http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/ ... rks-769123

I'm not defending anybody.....I'm just sayin'....... http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/201 ... k-teenager AND http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin ... 3FMyWJSR8E (Zimmerman says Martin went for his gun and tried to take it away from him while he had him down on the ground on his back and was beating the snot out of him)

More and more of this stuff is coming out. I found the above 5 links within 5 minutes of my previous post, and it wasn't that hard to find them. If you think that posts on a Texas CHL forum are getting more page views than news stories on TheSmokingGun.com, DailyCaller.com, OrlandoSentinel.com, and ABCNews.com, all of which are saying the same things being said here, then I think you might have an inflated opinion of this board's influence on the overall gun debate nationwide. When major news outlets are saying it too, well, a discussion thread on this forum is just small potatoes, no disrespect meant to any of the members here.

matriculated wrote:There is a fundamental thing that many posters in this forum seem to misunderstand: The more you defend Zimmerman and his actions, the more you endanger your own 2nd Amendment rights and self defense rights. It may feel right to defend Zimmerman, after all he's a CHL, making him "one of us." By defending Zimmerman, it may feel as if you're defending 2nd Amd. and self-defense rights. But back to reality, when it comes to practical matters, Zimmerman getting off without penalties will put the Stand Your Ground law in danger in various states, including FL if and when the legislature turns Democratic. Somebody has already posted something about Georgia looking at their laws. This is the type of ammo that the anti-self-defense people can only dream of. There is clearly now a push to reconsider, meaning repeal or weaken, the Stand Your Ground law, and all those coming to the aid of Zimmerman are aiding that push. Congratulations. Your over-zealousness may cost you your own rights.

Just wow. First of all, I haven't defended Zimmerman. I have consistently said—and so have others—that we should refrain from condemning him until we know exactly what happened. That is a darn sight different than defending him. And, as more and more evidence comes to light, the more it looks like it might have been a legitimate use of force. Now, maybe he's guilty as heck, maybe not. It is arguable that he made a poor exercise of judgement by tailing Martin after the police dispatcher told him they would prefer he didn't.....but that's not actually an arrest-able offense. We DO know that the initial story as reported by the lamestream media is being spun in a way having nothing to do with truth.

Is it overzealous to seek after truth? I don't think so. As was once said, extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Do you really think that accepting a lie, and agreeing to the imprisonment of an innocent man is OK if it will pacify gun grabbers, all in the name of keeping/losing a right? What is that right actually worth to you if you're willing to put an innocent man behind bars just to preserve that right for yourself? Do you really think that gun grabbers will ever abandon their goals regardless of the outcome of this case? That is not a moral position with which I am comfortable.

Please note: I am NOT saying that Zimmerman is innocent. I'm saying we DON'T KNOW if he's innocent or guilty. I'm saying that, until we know, we shouldn't pile on to the leftist media's attempt to frame a man. The path you are advocating is to surrender the narrative to a media and political left which is hostile to our gun rights. We have had our gun rights under constant assault for the past 50+ years exactly because we always surrender the narrative to the left. One way to preserve our rights to to prevent their further erosion is the sieze back control of the narrative. Here is what that means:

When a commie pinko gun grabber says this is about the eeeeevil Stand Your Ground laws, say, "no, it isn't. Eyewitnesses have Zimmerman retreating back to his vehicle when he was assaulted from behind by Martin. That is most certainly NOT a stand your ground action. He was retreating." Then, go on to explain the actual meaning of "Stand Your Ground," that it means that you have the right to defend yourself in any place where you have a right to be. Stand your ground may not apply for you inside my home because you don't have a right to be in my home, but it most certainly applies for you on the sidewalk in front of my home...where you most certainly have the right to be. In any case, Zimmerman was not standing his ground when he was assaulted. He was retreating according to at least one eyewitness, so this is not about "stand your ground;" it's about something else.

When a commie pinko gun grabber says that Zimmerman is a racist, ask him how that can be for a man whose best friend is black, and who along with his wife mentors black children.....one of whose mothers has stated that she trusted Zimmerman implicitly.

When a commie pinko gun grabber says that Zimmerman was just looking for a chance to shoot a black kid, ask him why it is then that Zimmerman has been devastated and in tears for weeks after the shooting because he feels so bad about it.

When a commie pinko gun grabber says that it is immoral to stand your ground when attacked, ask him if he thinks it is immoral for an organization of black racists to distribute fliers offering a $10,000 reward for the apprehension of Zimmerman....DEAD or alive. Ask him if it is morally superior for Zimmerman and his family to live in hiding because of the lynch mob being stoked by the media. Ask him if it was moral for someone to post Zimmerman's address on his facebook page to make it easier for people to track him down. Ask him if he will condemn Zimmerman's killer(s) when someone decides to collect that $10K reward.

I mean, I could go on and on. And again........this is not about Zimmerman. This is about seizing control of the narrative—partly to defend our rights, and partly to ensure that a possibly innocent man gets a fair trial. But we sure as heck should not be silent and let a possibly innocent man hang just because you don't want to get the commie pinko gun grabbers all worked up. They're already worked up, and they been worked up for years, and they'll continue to be worked up long after all of this blows over. They are worked up every single day because they are certain that somewhere, some conservative gun owners is enjoying a guilt free life instead of wringing his hands over whether or not he has offended some repressive gun-grabbing fascist.

So I reject your assertion. I don't really care if Martin was a model student or not, or a football player or not, or a sweet kid or a thug. What I care about is that Zimmerman had a bloody nose, a cut eye, a laceration on the back of his head, and grass stains and moisture from the grass on the back of his clothes. I care that an eyewitness says that he saw Zimmerman on the ground, on his back, screaming for help, while Martin beat him up. Which that Martin had not been shot, but I also know that in the exact same circumstances, I might well have shot him too. If I am on my back, after having been attacked from behind, and my attacker is on top of me and beating the snot out of me, this is no longer about standing my ground; it is about surviving a brutal attack.

Furthermore, there is one issue of Martin's character that will come out at trial and it will be admissible; and that is that he was known according to some witnesses to have a quick and unstable temper. IF that is true.....IF.....then it may be that he is the guilty party and Zimmerman is the victim here.

AGAIN. WE. DON'T. KNOW. FOR. CERTAIN. Here's what we DO know. Any one of us could conceivably find ourselves in a similar situation. The outcome may be similar. The bottom line is that if we have a right to be somewhere, we have a right to defend ourselves in that place if necessary. That's all it means. People who argue against that are the same people who think that a woman found raped and dead in an alley somewhere, strangled with her own pantyhose is somehow more noble than that woman's would-be rapist being found dead in the same alley with two in the chest and one in the head. Any argument which starts with the premise that the prospective victim must first flee, and then consent to be physically harmed before they can defend themselves is an immoral argument because it also starts with the premise that the criminal has more rights than the victim.

matriculated wrote:Well, #1 what is my premise, in your opinion? I can't respond if I don't know exactly what you're rejecting. And if you're Zimmerman's defender, like it or not, whatever it may feel like to you, you ARE hurting 2A and self defense rights. Because Zimmerman getting off will be ammo that anti-self-defense people will be able to use for a very long time, and persuade many people on the fence that SYG laws are excessive in their permissiveness.

So it would be better that Zimmerman go to prison even if he is innocent rather than to risk providing ammo to gun-grabbers......who are going to come after your guns regardless of what happens with Zimmerman? Please. I am seriously beginning to question your own commitment to gun rights, and your commitment to justice if it turns out that Zimmerman is innocent. If you would rather that an innocent man go to prison rather than risk the ire of gun grabbers, then you are holding an immoral position.

gdanaher wrote:But in some industries, a higher level of training implies a higher responsibility. Example: if someone untrained in CPR cracks a few ribs, well they were doing all they could to help a guy live. If the same person has had the Red Cross training class, then there could be a problem with those broken ribs.

It's the exact opposite. Certification protects you under the Good Samaritan laws, including if you crack/break a patient's rib (see my post above this one). NOT being certified is what opens you up to liabilities.

Keith B wrote:

WildBill wrote:

bizarrenormality wrote:

gdanaher wrote:Example: if someone untrained in CPR cracks a few ribs, well they were doing all they could to help a guy live. If the same person has had the Red Cross training class, then there could be a problem with those broken ribs.

Really? Please tell me more about Good Samaritan laws not applying if you took a Red Cross class.

I am not a doctor, but from what I have read, cracked ribs are common when CPR is performed correctly by an MD, RN or EMT. If I am wrong I am sure I will be corrected by a forum member with firsthand experience.

http://depts.washington.edu/learncpr/as ... .html#What" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; if I crack

I used to be a Red Cross CPR and Advanced First Aid Instructor. And yes, cracked ribs and punctured lungs are not uncommon.

As for the Good Samaritan Law, it will protect you if you are doing what you have been trained to do. It also protects those who may just be trying to help even if they have no formal training as long as they were not negligent in what they tried to do, like put a tourniquet around someone's neck for a nosebleed.

I've done CPR for real probably a hundreds of times, and on any number of times the patient's ribs eventually broke if CPR lasted long enough. The best technique in the world isn't going to prevent it if the patient is an elderly woman with brittle bones. The first time it happened when I was doing the compressions, it was really disconcerting. You never want it to happen, but after a while you get used to it when it does. It's a matter of priorities. The primary protections of the Good Samaritan law in the context of CPR back then—at least in California—were from lawsuit by the patient and/or his family for initiating resuscitation on someone who had a living will with a "do not resuscitate" clause in it. That protection extended to any incidental injury such as a broken rib that you might unintentionally inflict upon the patient while trying to save their life. This protection was not limited to medical professionals, but applied to anyone who was actually CPR certified—either as a first responder, BCLS provider, or ACLS provider. That was back in the mid 1980s.

Things may be different here in Texas, and at this time in history.

sjfcontrol wrote:Link to the NBP "Wanted" poster -- Dead or Alive...

http://www.black-and-right.com/wp-conte ... d-dead.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That is a felony. Who will be going to prison for it? Nobody.

More information: http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerm ... 2_4m2JSR8E

"George Zimmerman suffered a broken nose, and had an injury to the back of his head, he was attacked by Trayvon Martin on that evening," Sonner said. "This was a case of self defense."

When asked why Zimmerman went after Martin, even though a 911 dispatcher told him not to, Sonner said: "Those are questions that will be answered."

{snip}

Sonner insisted that Zimmerman is not a racist, pointing out that he and his wife mentored for two black children for free.

"When I asked this mother [of the mentees], who trusted [Zimmerman and his wife], and she's an African-American, if she trusted George Zimmerman, she said she did, and I asked her if there was anything that caused her to believe that she was a racist, and she said, 'Absolutely not.' And I said, went further, 'Did you ever hear him use racial slurs in any time that you'd been around him?' And she said, 'no' as well," Sonner said.

{snip}

"There are people who have accused George of profiling, well, I would think as a watch commander you are keeping an eye out for people you don't recognize in your neighborhood," Oliver said.

"The reason why he was following this suspicious person that he saw was because the neighborhood had a rash of break-ins," he said. "George had no intention of taking anyone's life. He cried for days after."

Oliver said the headlines have taken a toll on Zimmerman, his wife, and his family.

"He's moved, they've disconnected their phone numbers, they're in hiding, they're fearful," Oliver said.

Meanwhile, the racist group New Black Panthers has put a $10,000 reward on Zimmerman's head. That is tantamount to solicitation of murder. If anyone harms a hair on Zimmerman's head before this dustup is resolved, the NBP leaders should be tried and imprisoned. If he is killed, they should get the death penalty for cold bloodedly conspiring to have him murdered.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.1050370

The new Black Panther Party offered a bounty of $10,000 Saturday for the “capture” of a Florida neighborhood watch captain who killed unarmed teen Trayvon Martin.

“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” leader Mikhail Muhammad said after announcing the reward for George Zimmerman at a protest in Sanford, Fla.

Muhammad called on 5,000 black men to mobilize and capture the neighborhood watch volunteer.

“If the government won’t do the job, we’ll do it,” Muhammad said, leading chants that included “freedom or death” and “justice for Trayvon.”

Muhammad said New Black Panther’s chairman, Malik Zulu Shabaz of Washington, was taking donations from black entertainers and athletes.

RIGHT BLASTS OBAMA FOR HIS COMMENTS ON SLAIN TEEN

The group hopes to collect $1 million off the outrage by next week.

New Black Panthers members pointed to what they called the inaction of government officials — from Sanford city officials up to the governor — and accused them of lying and delaying justice.

They also said Angela Corley, the newly appointed special prosecutor, was an enemy of the black community.

“She has a track record of sending innocent young black men and women to prison,” Muhammad said.

The Southern Poverty Law Center calls the New Black Panther Party, a black-separatist group created in 1989, “virulently racist and anti-Semitic.”

For the record, the Southern Poverty Law Center is ultra, ULTRA liberal.....so when even they call the NBP party virulently racist, you know it has to be true. These would be the same jack wagons who stood outside of polling places with billy clubs to intimidate white voters......and the Holder "Justice" department refused to investigate it. I predict that if they hurt Zimmerman, they'll walk with no punishment, as long as Holder is in office............yes, the same Holder who authorized the sale of weapons to narco traffickers, and who obstructed the investigation into it. That Holder. He's a racist SOB too.

A-R wrote:Wondering if Zimmerman will again have to "stand his ground" if these thugs attempt their "citizens arrest". Sounds like a modern day lynch mob in the making.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/mili ... r-15931351" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Are they going to go there armed? If not, they're going to have an awfully hard time actually arresting him without getting shot. And if they DO go there armed, then they are going to themselves be guilty of some very serious felonies. What a bunch of morons. It would be reassuring to know that the Sanford PD is going to intercede to stop such an attempt before things get out of control.

Plus, they plan to turn him over to federal authorities..........on exactly what federal charges?

Kythas wrote:Some new info has come out which corroborates Zimmerman's claim of self defense. Apparently, there's a witness who saw Trayvon Martin on top of Zimmerman, beating him. That account is consistent with the evidence police on the scene reported, which was that Zimmerman was bloody and bruised on his face and head and the back of his shirt was wet and had grass stains on it, consistent with a struggle on the ground. This is why he wasn't arrested at the scene.

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/s ... n-03232012

I beat you to it three posts above.

Hoosier Daddy wrote:"When the true details of the event became public, and I hope that will be soon, everyone should be outraged by the treatment of George Zimmerman in the media."

I hope the truth does come out and it bites certain politicians squarely on their fourth point of contact in November.

And with Al Sharpton down there stirring the pot, it is Tawana Brawley all over again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawana_Bra ... llegations

Tawana Brawley (born 1972) is an African-American woman from Wappingers Falls, New York. In 1987, at the age of 15, she received national media attention in the United States for accusing six white men, some of whom were police officers, of having raped her. The accusations soon earned her notoriety, which was inflamed by Brawley's advisers (including the Reverend Al Sharpton and attorneys Alton H. Maddox and C. Vernon Mason), the statements of various public officials, and intense media attention. After hearing evidence, a grand jury concluded in October 1988 that Brawley had not been the victim of a forcible sexual assault and that she herself may have created the appearance of an attack. The New York prosecutor whom Brawley had accused as one of her alleged assailants successfully sued Brawley and her three advisers for defamation.

{snip}

The case exposed deep mistrust in the black community about winning justice from legal institutions. It also showed how some participants attempted to manipulate the justice system before a full investigation could take place.

{snip}

On May 21, 1990, Alton H. Maddox, Jr. was indefinitely suspended by the Appellate Division of the State Supreme Court in Brooklyn after failing to appear before a disciplinary hearing to answer allegations regarding his conduct in the Brawley case.[26]

In 1998, Pagones was awarded $345,000 (he sought $395 million) through a lawsuit for defamation of character that he had brought against Sharpton, Maddox and Mason. The jury found Sharpton liable for making seven defamatory statements about Pagones, Maddox for two and Mason for one. The jury deadlocked on four of the 22 statements over which Pagones had sued, and it found eight statements to be non-defamatory.[27] In a later interview, Pagones said the turmoil by the accusations of Brawley and her advisers had cost him his first marriage and much personal grief.[28]

Pagones had also sued Brawley. She defaulted by not appearing at the trial, and the judge ordered her to pay him damages of $185,000. As of 2003, none of the award had been paid.[29] The $65,000 judgment levied against Al Sharpton was paid for him in 2001 by supporters, including renowned attorney Johnnie Cochran plus former businessman Earl G. Graves, Jr.

Al Sharpton is a race-baiter, muckraker, and shyster. There is a strong possibility (based on Sharpton's involvement in the Tawana Brawley story and others) that Zimmerman is getting railroaded by Sharpton in one of his classic "no justice, no peace" actions for which he is notorious. It may well be that Zimmerman is not only innocent, but that some of you have assisted Al Sharpton in trashing Zimmerman's name and reputation on the Internet. May I suggest that, until he goes before a grand jury and/or judge and jury and we learn the final outcome, those of you have been doing this might want to reserve your judgements in the interest of preserving your own reputations.

Alternatively, you can jump on and ride the Sharpton train now, whatever fresh Hades it leads us all through, and deal with your shame later. It's up to you.

I don't know if this changes anything, but I just saw this on drudgereport:

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/s ... n-03232012
Witness: Martin attacked Zimmerman

ORLANDO - A witness we haven't heard from before paints a much different picture than we've seen so far of what happened the night 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was shot and killed.

The night of that shooting, police say there was a witness who saw it all.

Our sister station, FOX 35 in Orlando, has spoken to that witness.

What Sanford Police investigators have in the folder, they put together on the killing of Trayvon Martin few know about.

The file now sits in the hands of the state attorney. Now that file is just weeks away from being opened to a grand jury.

It shows more now about why police believed that night that George Zimmerman shouldn't have gone to jail.

Zimmerman called 911 and told dispatchers he was following a teen. The dispatcher told Zimmerman not to.

And from that moment to the shooting, details are few.

But one man's testimony could be key for the police.

"The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: 'help, help…and I told him to stop and I was calling 911," he said.

Trayvon Martin was in a hoodie; Zimmerman was in red.

The witness only wanted to be identified as "John," and didn't not want to be shown on camera.

His statements to police were instrumental, because police backed up Zimmerman's claims, saying those screams on the 911 call are those of Zimmerman.

"When I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point," John said.

Zimmerman says the shooting was self defense. According to information released on the Sanford city website, Zimmerman said he was going back to his SUV when he was attacked by the teen.

Sanford police say Zimmerman was bloody in his face and head, and the back of his shirt was wet and had grass stains, indicating a struggle took place before the shooting.

Zimmerman probably still shouldn't have pursued and harassed Martin, but according to at least one eye witness, Zimmerman was getting his butt handed to him just before he shot Martin. I might have likely fired in that situation too. If this witness is reliable—and apparently it is his testimony which kept the police from arresting Zimmerman—then Zimmerman's main mistake was in being overly aggressive in his neighborhood watch. But I have so far resisted accusing Zimmerman of murder......and I am cynically tired of seeing teenaged thugs lamented as sweet little angels what never did nuttin' wrong......so I'm going to refrain from further commenting about Zimmerman's murderous lust or Martin's sterling character. The fact is, none of us really knows what happened there.

I'm with the others........."Stand your ground" is not at issue in this case. What is at issue is a "Gecko 45" type who was known to be a PIA to local 911 operators for always making these kinds of calls, and inserting himself into situations where he had no business. Furthermore, even if this guy was a PIA Gecko 45, it is possible (although it seems unlikely) that the accused was actually assaulted. As I recall from the news reports on TV, the "eyewitness" were after the fact. I don't believe that anybody actually saw Zimmerman draw and shoot. They only heard the gunshot. Either way, we don't really know what happened. We only know what the media, reporting from the fever-swamp of anti-gun hysteria, tell us happened. We already know that they are unreliable when it comes to details about caliber, type of weapon, etc., etc.; why should we assume that they are reliable when it comes to details of the law? They just like the soundbite of "Stand Your Ground," and they are going to use that soundbite to bludgeon us with it............




.........because that is what they do.