Justice and Security: Neighborhood Watch Captain Attacks, Kills Unarmed Teenager

[adoucette]

Nothing will happen.

Since Tiassa's a mod, so he can call my posts "ludicrous effort at trolling" and nobody cares.

I ask for a little civility from him and sure enough, up you pop to distract from even that simple request and you do it as if I've done something wrong.

Classic.

Well, classic for the 3rd grade.

[Gustav]

Is this guy serious?

When is something going to be done about him?

Nothing will happen.

Since Tiassa's a mod, so he can call my posts "ludicrous effort at trolling" and nobody cares.

gee
that is a wacky disconnect

[adoucette]

I figured someone would appreciate the humor.

[Balerion]

Nothing will happen.

Since Tiassa's a mod, so he can call my posts "ludicrous effort at trolling" and nobody cares.

I ask for a little civility from him and sure enough, up you pop to distract from even that simple request and you do it as if I've done something wrong.

Classic.

Well, classic for the 3rd grade.

You can't be serious. How many times must your own offenses be shown to you before you understand that you are the one offending with ad hom attacks and snide comments in all of these situations?

You come off as a disingenuous troll. If that isn't your intent, I suggest you take a step back and reconsider how you approach these arguments.

[quadraphonics]

Check out the total absence of racism visible in this earlier post from adoucette:

As to Martin being "a kid", I'm not so sure that's an accurate description of 6'3" Martin either as he tweeted as NO_LIMIT_NIGGA, was suspended 3 times from HS until he was finally kicked out of school in October for graffiti after he was allegedly caught with a 'burglary tool' and a bag full of women's jewelry.

Which, of course, bears absolutely no resemblance to the racist smear campaign being waged against Martin.

BTW, the "burglary tool" in question was... a screwdriver. By which standard, shouldn't we be assassinating Zimmerman's character for the crimes of possessing a murder tool (his gun), a fleeing-arrest tool (his car), a criminal-conspiracy tool (his phone), etc.?

Oh, wait, that logic only applies to black people. Natch.

[quadraphonics]

Since Tiassa's a mod, so he can call my posts "ludicrous effort at trolling" and nobody cares.

Well, that and the little fact that you've spent much time and bandwidth cultivating a reputation as nothing more or less than an insufferable troll.

If you don't like the upshot of having squandered your credibility, well, consider putting a stop to said squandering.

I ask for a little civility from him

Give a little, get a little, perhaps? Why would anybody endorse your self-serving, selective demands for civility to be paid to you?

and sure enough, up you pop to distract from even that simple request and you do it as if I've done something wrong.

You have done something wrong - lots of things, actually - and lashing out at JDawg for "distracting" from the settled issue of the mods not being impressed by your tactics doesn't help that. Nobody will be joining your little pity party, so I suggest you just can it.

[adoucette]

You can't be serious. How many times must your own offenses be shown to you before you understand that you are the one offending with ad hom attacks and snide comments in all of these situations?

You come off as a disingenuous troll. If that isn't your intent, I suggest you take a step back and reconsider how you approach these arguments.

Then simply point out my snide comment and ad hom attack in this thread and I'll apologise.

[adoucette]

Check out the total absence of racism visible in this earlier post from adoucette:



Which, of course, bears absolutely no resemblance to the racist smear campaign being waged against Martin.

BTW, the "burglary tool" in question was... a screwdriver. By which standard, shouldn't we be assassinating Zimmerman's character for the crimes of possessing a murder tool (his gun), a fleeing-arrest tool (his car), a criminal-conspiracy tool (his phone), etc.?

Oh, wait, that logic only applies to black people. Natch.

There is nothing racist about that post, nothing to imply that Treyvon was in anyway inferior or a lesser human because he was black.

It all came from the UK newspaper I linked to:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1qLUDlyyK

And they were specific details about this person and his recent past to show he doesn't come across as a KID as you were claiming and as those 5 year old pictures of him, when he was a kid, that were being posted.

His race was not the issue.

It would be racist if we were only looking into Treyvon's history, but clearly that is NOT the case, we've looked at Zimmermans past in great detail as well.

[Balerion]

Then simply point out my snide comment and ad hom attack in this thread and I'll apologise.

I already have. You called Tiassa dishonest. And there was another instance in which you said "What about [so-and-so] don't you understand?" And quad just gave an example of your racism.

This is why nobody took you seriously in the Billy T thread. Yeah, he's a jerk, but you're way worse.

[adoucette]

I already have. You called Tiassa dishonest. And there was another instance in which you said "What about [so-and-so] don't you understand?" And quad just gave an example of your racism.

This is why nobody took you seriously in the Billy T thread. Yeah, he's a jerk, but you're way worse.

LOL

Let's look at those:

It's enough, in general, to let him keep digging his own hole; his agenda is clear and the scope of his argument reminds that there is only one acceptable outcome for him; he's trying to tailor reality to fit the foregone conclusion.

There comes a point where one decides to no longer take another seriously, since that other has so blatant an appearance of trying to pull an argumentative con job. It's true that his attempts to spin aren't working; I mean, sure, we can believe that if I'm trying to return your wallet to you, I'm going to cruise along slowly, stalking you, in my car, and then get out and follow you on foot without ever once attempting to hail you and say, "Excuse me, sir, you dropped your wallet."

But those folks dwelling within a more reasonable semblance of reality are well advised to simply leave him to spin and spin and spin until he falls over and pukes. ”

Could you be any more dishonest Tiassa?

The "Returning the Wallet" example was NOT offered as an example of what happened with Zimmerman.

It's clear that Tiassa started the name calling and public bashing, and was being dishonest in his post.

Yeah, but you find my complaint that he was being dishonest objectionable after his claims about me?

As to your other example:

Even though he followed Martin when the police told him they "didn't need him to do that" it would appear that unless someone saw Zimmerman pointing the gun at Martin BEFORE the fight started, that with the injuries he sustained that the existing FL law will come down on Zimmerman's side.

The law needs to be reworked.

I post a summary of the event and conclude that the law needs to be reworked.

Asguard posts back:

If the law gives "self defence" to someone ON A PUBLIC STREET, who stalked and confronted a CHILD with a gun then the law is fucked up. The person who had the right to defend himself should have been with the child who wasn't the aggressor. You know reading your post I thought back to the school bully, when the child finally fights back all of a sudden the bully shoots him and claims self defence. That's what your arguing

So he claims that he read my post and gives an example of a school yard bully shooting a kid as what I'm arguing FOR.

So yeah, it sorta pissed me off since that is NOT what I was arguing, so I responded:

What part of "The law needs to be reworked" did you not understand?

I didn't write the law and I'm not arguing that the law was well written either.

Ok, that was a bit snide, sorry Asguard, but it wasn't THAT bad either.

Finally we get to Quad's supposed example of Racism.

Exploring Martin's past is not being racist.

It would be if we were only exploring his past and not Zimmerman's but we are looking at both.

[Balerion]

For one, Tiassa's assessment of your actions was accurate. You were, in Tiassa's words, pulling an argumentative con job. That is not ad hominem. Meanwhile, calling someone dishonest is. Certainly you can see the difference.

And that's just this thread. Refer to the Billy T thread for numerous examples of you calling other people liars, and then bitching when someone does the same to you--or, in the case of Tiassa, calls you on your BS.

Your intellectual dishonesty (such as the straw man argument that it is "exploring Martin's past" that we called racist) and ad hom attacks are bad enough, but I would argue that your constant bellyaching at imagined slights is what makes you impossible to deal with. Whenever someone raises a point against you, you complain that you're being insulted.

[adoucette]

Bull

Parmalee and I were having a theoretical discussion about the Florida Self Defense Law.

We were not specifically discussing any details of the Zimmerman case.

Started out like this:

i agree BUT its a known fact zimmer was following martin in this case alone how can there defence be selft defence.. if your activly persuing someone there is no self defence.. and because of this even IF martin threw the first punch it would be in self defence. this person WAS following him
so he used floridas stand your ground law stood his ground and hit zimmerman once zimmerman was on the ground he decided to leave at which point zimmer pulled out his gun and shot him that is murder..

that is 100% specualtion.. but if your following someone you throw self defence out the window

So sifreak21 says that following someone does away with self defense and I point out an example of why just being followed isn't a crime and I used someone following you to return your wallet as an example of why someone could be following you for totally innocent reasons.

You mean if I'm following you to return your wallet you can shoot me?

No you can't.

Which Parmalee questioned:

Why not?

Can't he simply claim that he "feared bodily harm"?

To which I explained the reasonable clause of the Florida Law in the situation of someone returning your wallet. Note, in this extended discussion about my original example, it's clear that we are not discussing anything about the actual Zimmerman case.

Well you could, but since there's a "reasonable" clause, the State wouldn't have much problem showing that shooting someone who is following you to return your wallet is not reasonable, nor is there a reasonable fear of great bodily harm just because someone is following you.

To which Parmalee asks about "what is reasonable" and gives a twist to why someone could be afraid even if the person wasn't even following her.
Again, we are simply discussing the ramifications of the Florida Self Defense Law and not the specifics of the Zimmerman case.

Sure, but what is "reasonable"? How can anyone judge whether another person's claim to having been afraid is reasonable?

Suppose a woman is walking down a street alone, at night, in the dark, etc., and she spies a man following (or appearing to) her. Even if the guy is not following her, is her fear not reasonable?

So I add in the other part of the law, the need for an "imminent fear of great bodily harm"

It's not just fear, it's imminent fear of great bodily harm.

You can't project that far forward to say that just because someone you think someone is following you that you are in imminent fear of great bodily harm.

However if someone is in fact pounding on you, the imminent part is taken care of as is the fear issue.

The law in Florida is VERY lenient toward anyone claiming self defense, but not quite that lenient.

Still, even in the situation you outlined, if the State charged her, it would be the State who has the burden of proof that that fear wasn't reasonable.

So the fact is, even in pretty questionable cases, the self defense claim in Florida isn't easy for the state to overcome.

Give the accused one good corroborating witness that they were being pounded and its almost impossible.

So an impartial reading of this clearly shows that the "Wallet example" was never used as any kind of SPIN on the Zimmerman story as Tiassa dishonestly suggested or a "arguementative con job" as you are suggesting.

Everything I said explaining the Florida Self Defense law was a true statement.

The Florida Self Defense law IS VERY lenient toward anyone claiming self defense.

And unlike your previous claim, in Florida you don't have to be in fear of your life, only in fear of "great bodily harm", which is a much lower bar.

And it is the State who has the burden of proof, beyond a resonable doubt, that that fear wasn't reasonable.

And so even in pretty questionable cases, the self defense claim in Florida isn't easy for the state to overcome.

(see my Don't Call 911. Use .357 link posted earlier for other mind boggling cases.

It is true that he has not explicitly declared that George Zimmerman is innocent. However, he's putting on a hell of a show trying to make the point. "Cones"? Returning your wallet? Ignoring Trayvon Martin's right to stand his ground against someone stalking him?

It's enough, in general, to let him keep digging his own hole; his agenda is clear and the scope of his argument reminds that there is only one acceptable outcome for him; he's trying to tailor reality to fit the foregone conclusion.

There comes a point where one decides to no longer take another seriously, since that other has so blatant an appearance of trying to pull an argumentative con job. It's true that his attempts to spin aren't working; I mean, sure, we can believe that if I'm trying to return your wallet to you, I'm going to cruise along slowly, stalking you, in my car, and then get out and follow you on foot without ever once attempting to hail you and say, "Excuse me, sir, you dropped your wallet."

But those folks dwelling within a more reasonable semblance of reality are well advised to simply leave him to spin and spin and spin until he falls over and pukes.

As to the claim that just posting a link from a reputable newspaper that explored Martin's past means I'm a Racist, that's patently absurd.

We are discussing the case, in great detail, and their respective pasts are part of that discussion.

If we only looked into Martin's past, because he was black, that would probably be racist, but that's clearly not the case as we've been also discussing Zimmerman's police record and issues as a Watch man etc.

[Balerion]

You're arguing this as if you don't already have a reputation as a troll and a liar. If you don't start showing some self-awareness, I don't see things going well for you.

[adoucette]

You're arguing this as if you don't already have a reputation as a troll and a liar. If you don't start showing some self-awareness, I don't see things going well for you.

Hardly.

If I told lies I'd be out of here in a heartbeat.

But that exact issue was covered in detail in a recent thread, where I asked everyone to post any lie I had ever made and with over 7,000 posts only one deliberate lie was shown, and it was clear I only did that to make a point, as the poster had lied about what I posted, I told him not to, then he did it again, and so I claimed the other poster said something he obviously didn't, and when he complained that he hadn't said that, I told him in the very next post to him, that if he would quit lying about what I posted, then I'd quit lying about what he posted.

And he did.

And that's it.

7,000+ posts and one obvious lie clearly told to make a point, does not a liar make. (one goat rule)

All that is REALLY going on here is just petty politics.

And no, I'm not worried at all.

[adoucette]

In the first place, as has been pointed out, the audio analysis you provided is a bit simplistic. "Punks"? I still wonder who the "punks" people think they're fooling. In that context, it is significant that Zimmerman's surrogates in the media are going with "goons", and not "cones" or "punks".

But in addition to the "coons" bit,

So much for the "coons" bit.

Wolf Blitzer, Gary Tuchman and a different audio expert are shown agreeing that he said "f***ing cold" and not "f***ing coon".

Tuchman says: "It doesn't sound like that slur anymore. It sounds like, and we wanted to leave it up to the viewer, but it sounds like we're hearing the swear word at first and the word 'cold.' "

Which I find really funny because all along I've been saying I hear the long O sound, which is in both COLD and CONES.

And to tell the truth, I still hear CONES, and not COLD, but whatever he's muttering, it seem pretty clear now that it isn't COONS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=YOt1wEDy0SI

On another note, ABC releases an enhanced video of Zimmerman arriving at the police station with clearly visible damage to the back of his head.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/3247...911-racial.htm

[quadraphonics]

There is nothing racist about that post,

Is that what you think?

nothing to imply that Treyvon was in anyway inferior or a lesser human because he was black.

Right. Just that he was a threatening, potentially-dangerous individual, and so that Zimmerman was justified in regarding him with pre-emptive suspicion and probably justified in accosting and then killing him. No racist implications there.

It all came from the UK newspaper I linked to:

The fact that you choose to regurgitate racist smears from shitrag publications hardly lessens the charge of racism.

And they were specific details about this person and his recent past to show he doesn't come across as a KID as you were claiming and as those 5 year old pictures of him, when he was a kid, that were being posted.

Nothing in your shitrag smear-job struck me as out of character for a kid. That's exactly what high school kids act like. It's difficult to see why you think this stuff qualifies him as some kind of (dangerous) "adult" other than, well... racism.

His race was not the issue.

The fact that racists have had to find ways to encode their messages with various dog-whistle tactics that avoid coming out and making an explicit issue of race is just that.

The fact that you think you can explicitly absolve yourself for your participation in that by invoking just this tactic is pathetic. This shit stopped fooling anyone over the age of 12 back in the 1990's. So you're going to have to suffer having your racism noted, or just cut it out. You aren't going to slide by on some cheap tactic to push racist ideas and then throw a hissy fit when called on it.

It would be racist if we were only looking into Treyvon's history, but clearly that is NOT the case, we've looked at Zimmermans past in great detail as well.

And, again, we note your prejudicial reading of facts regarding Martin, as well as your pre-emptive credulity regarding facts about Zimmerman. You continue to play defense attorney for the dude who killed an unarmed black kid. Which imbalanced scrutiny is, by your own admission right there, racist.

[adoucette]

Is that what you think?

Not what I think, it's demonstrably not racist.

Right. Just that he was a threatening, potentially-dangerous individual, and so that Zimmerman was justified in regarding him with pre-emptive suspicion and probably justified in accosting and then killing him. No racist implications there.

I never said what Zimmerman did was JUSTIFIED.

Indeed from my first post:

I think he really pissed the 17 year old kid off when he confronted/stopped/questioned him when the kid was doing nothing more than returning home after a run to the store for a snack and something to drink (walking while Black).

The fact that you choose to regurgitate racist smears from shitrag publications hardly lessens the charge of racism.

Well apparently you have some secret list of "Shit-Rag" publications we shouldn't use. Sorry, that doesn't wash. Not unless you can provide proof that that paper is a well known Racist Outlet.

The details reported were just that, details.
Again, if we were just looking into Martin's past that would be one thing, but we aren't

And, again, we note your prejudicial reading of facts regarding Martin, as well as your pre-emptive credulity regarding facts about Zimmerman. You continue to play defense attorney for the dude who killed an unarmed black kid. Which imbalanced scrutiny is, by your own admission right there, racist.

Except I'm not playing defense attny for Zimmerman, but even if I was, that wouldn't make me a Racist.

[quadraphonics]

Not what I think, it's demonstrably not racist.

You think anyone buys that assertion?

I never said what Zimmerman did was JUSTIFIED.

You've gone to great lengths to trumpet the narrative wherein he was assaulted with lethal force and so justified in killing Martin. You've attacked or denied every piece of contradictory evidence, and trumpetted every piece of evidence that bolsters that narrative. Go ahead and deny that, if you want to add another bald-faced lie to your stack.

You say lots of things, and have a clear, noted tactic of trying to build escape hatches into your rhetoric, so that you can advance some kind of "credible deniability" when confronted. It isn't impressing anyone. The fact that you dashed off a few convenient caveats before going full-swing into page after page after page of advocacy, pulled directly from the racist backlash, says it all. This isn't something that you can weasel out of by cherry-picking a few sentences from a handful of your posts.

Indeed from my first post:

Probably if you'd have left it at that you wouldn't have run into the problems you did. But there are many pages of intervening statements by yourself to consider. Which is why I quoted one particularly problematic one just a few posts ago.

Well apparently you have some secret list of "Shit-Rag" publications we shouldn't use.

There's exactly one shitrag in question. Quit your whining. If you don't want to bother checking the credibility and reputation of your sources, don't be surprised when they backfire on you.

FYI, the Daily Mail is the British newspaper equivalent of FOX News. Now you know.

Not unless you can provide proof that that paper is a well known Racist Outlet.

Again, this matter is not subject to questions of "claims" and "proof" to be scrutinized by the likes of you. Any more than the fact that FOX News is exactly a shitrag outlet. Maybe next time you stumble across a piece of foreign journalism that just-so-happens to align with exactly your prejudices, and work in sensational terms, you'll consider doing your homework before trumpetting it here. Again, a few minutes of due diligence on Wikipedia will save you much headache down the line. Which is why such is the expected norm in online discourse these days.

The details reported were just that, details.

Congratulations on your mastery of point-missing. At this rate, you should be in the running to serve as a talking head on FOX News or somesuch. If you're going to sell out your intellectual honor, you should at least get paid to do so, don't you think?

Is there a word for a prostitute that doesn't charge for his services?

Again, if we were just looking into Martin's past that would be one thing, but we aren't

Gee, if only I'd already responded to exactly this weak evasion in the exact post that you quoted and responded to here...

Except I'm not playing defense attny for Zimmerman,

You think anyone is going to buy that assertion? After so many pages of you doing exactly that, even after being called on such?

but even if I was, that wouldn't make me a Racist.

It is true that it is possible for someone to serve as his defense without being a racist. As, we would hope, will occur in the trial that he so richly deserves.

But that doesn't mean that you aren't taking pages directly out of the racist backlash here as the foundation of the defense of Zimmerman that you're mounting.

The only real question is why you are so desperate to implicate the rest of us in your despicable little program. Why do you want our approval so much? Or rather, what makes you think we'd ever play along, after all your experiences? You really think that if you just state your self-serving premises forcefully enough, we'll all be somehow forced to endorse them? Why can't you just say your piece and accept that others are going to call it as they see it?

You think we hadn't already gone through umpteen previous would-be right-wing crusaders before you ever showed up here? We can - and will - burn you out like the rest of them. We've been doing it for years and years and know all of the signs. You're already into the later stages, in fact. It won't be long before you're forgotten and we are ripping into fresh meat (or fighting bitter internecine battles while awaiting the arrival of such, as also happens).

[Repo Man]

Art, have you ever considered that you might have some sort of undiagnosed personality disorder? Your persona on this message board has been unpleasant from almost the very first moment. As every parent has told every teenager that has ever lived "It's not so much what you say, but how you say it". Ok, sometimes it is what you have to say, but not always. You're an undeniably intelligent and educated person, and you could offer a positive contribution to this site - if you would just pull that two by four out of your ass, calm down a bit, and admit that, just like everyone else who has ever lived, you are wrong on occasion.

When you catch someone in error, your cackle of glee that you now have license to deliver an internet curb stomp comes through quite clearly. You could, you know, maybe lighten up a little, and actually make a positive contribution? MadAnthonyWayne is quite conservative, but he is (or at least was, I haven't checked in a while) a moderator on this site. I disagree with just about everything he says, but he is far less unpleasant than you are.

Or continue as you are. I think you'll find if you do, fewer and fewer members will rise to your bait, until you get bored and leave.

[adoucette]

You think anyone buys that assertion?

Well I know you don't, but here's the problem Quad, just your assertion that the post is Racist doesn't make it so.

You can't point to a single racist statement I've made, because I've never made one.

You've gone to great lengths to trumpet the narrative wherein he was assaulted with lethal force and so justified in killing Martin. You've attacked or denied every piece of contradictory evidence, and trumpetted every piece of evidence that bolsters that narrative. Go ahead and deny that, if you want to add another bald-faced lie to your stack.

Nope.
And now it's apparent that you are grasping for straws.

I've never contended that he was JUSTIFIED in killing Martin.

Zimmerman was hurt (not that bad but a broken nose really hurts) and was crying and it was hard to breathe and he panicked

Killing someone because you would panic doesn't make it justified. Indeed later on in the thread I pointed out that it would get you at least Manslaughter in most jurisdictions besides Florida.

if this morning's report is correct, that he had a gash on the back of his head, his clothes were grass stained and he had a broken nose, then use of the gun will likely fall within the lenient requirements of Florida's laws allowing use to prevent serious personal injury.

So saying that "IF this morning's report is correct", THEN Florida's lenient Self Defense law allows this is clearly not justifying it, since I've already said the law is bad and needs to be reworked.

If he had tased the kid for walking down the sidewalk, would that have been more appropriate? ”

Well yeah, in that the kid would still be alive and could tell his side of the story.
In this case we won't ever get Martin's version of what happened that night.

So here I'm saying that there is likely another side to the story, Martin's, which we will never get to hear.

I'm not making this shit up. It's not only the Florida law, but the case law in Florida behind this law that leads me to my conclusion. In researching this I've read some pretty unbelievable Florida cases where the person was charged with killing someone and yet fully acquitted based on this law.

I discuss the flawed law and how it has led to other bizarre outcomes.

No one has claimed to have seen how the fight started.
No one has claimed to have seen the shot fired.

But ONE witness has said he saw Zimmerman crying for help while Martin was on top of him pounding him.

That's the State's hurdle.

That's the key testimony that I think has been keeping Zimmerman out of jail and that I've not seen anyone contradict.

Again, nothing at all justifing the shooting but pointing out why the state can't charge him.

The police report says he was bleeding from his face, back of his head and had a fat lip. The video doesn't refute that, but it does indicate that he wasn't severely beaten either.

But, that's not actually a requirement in Florida anyway.

Then the video is released and in the first version I point out that you can see that Zimmerman is not badly hurt, but again I point out that the Florida law doesn't require that to be the case. Clearly, in the context of my other posts on the law, I'm not supporting the Fl law here, just showing HOW lenient it is.

But as I noted, there is a difference between not guilty and innocent.

”

I agree, and I've never claimed that he was innocent, only that if that witness statement holds up the Florida Self Defense law will be on his side, and I've said from the very first post, that law needs rework.

Tiassa has said he couldn't convict based on the evidence, but that he doesn't believe Zimmerman in innocent and I agree with that.

State's first problem, no one else claims to have seen the fight start, so they have nothing to show this is not true, beyond a Reasonable Doubt.

Then there IS a witness who saw much of the actual fight, and his version essentially corroborates what Zimmerman has claimed, that after Martin's punch to the face knocked him to the ground, that Martin was on top of him hitting his head into the ground, and that Zimmerman was calling for help.

One witness, who has since talked to local television news reporters, told police he saw Zimmerman on the ground with Trayvon on top, pounding him — and was unequivocal that it was Zimmerman who was crying for help.

Which is the State's Second problem: This one and only eyewitness to the fight makes it very hard for the State to claim, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman wasn't in fear of great bodily harm.

Third problem for the State: No one saw the actual shooting and Zimmerman is saying that Martin was going for his gun.

And I can certainly see Martin wanting to disarm him before letting him up, but this goes right back to the low bar of just "Fear of Great Bodily Harm" and so regardless of the motive (or even if it isn't true but no witnesses can dispute Zimmerman's claim) it still helps make Zimmerman's case, since the "fear of" clause means it wouldn't matter why Martin is going for his gun.

Which is why I've said from my first post on this subject, the law needs to be reworked.

So after quite a few posts I lay out the problems for the state. In no way does my description of the events attempt to justify the killing. Indeed, I point out that even if Martin was going for the gun, to disarm Zimmerman, under Fl law that still helps his case, and I conclude these are all reasons why the LAW is bad, not that Zimmerman was right.

I follow that up with a link to a report that disects the Florida Law.

As I mentioned earlier, I've seen a number of Florida cases that boggle the mind, most of them I tracked down via this informative paper on the issue of Florida's quite lenient laws.

It's called:

Making Murder Legal: How Laws Expanding Self-Defense Allow Criminals to "Get Away with Murder" by Elizabeth B. Megale

It's shorter title is:

Don’t Dial 911 – Use .357

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcon...der%20legal%22

Clearly when I say "a number of cases that boggle the mind", I'm not excluding the present case.

that under existing Florida Self Defense Law, if no one sees how a fight starts, and if you are the aggressor, it only helps your case if you kill the only other witness to the fight, particularly if you have been injured in the process. I urge you to read the report I linked to. Florida has many such cases that show that the bar to a claim of justified lethal force in Self Defense in Florida is not so much as a high bar one must jump over, but rather a small bump in the road, generally easily stepped over.

Once again I expand on the law and how this case fits within it.
Clearly NOT defending Zimmerman, but pointing out how the law works in his favor since the only other witness to the whole fight is dead.

The very weird part of the Florida Law, is BOTH men had the right to be there and BOTH men had the right to stand their ground and both could claim self defense.

Even if Zimmerman was not intending to imminently inflict great bodily harm on Martin, since he had a gun, he clearly had the means to do so, and thus had Martin prevailed (say he got Zimmerman's gun from him and shot him dead) the State would have to prove that Martin's fear was not unreasonable and do it beyond a reasonable doubt.

But that didn't happen, and Florida's law sides with the person left alive in a conflict if there are no witnesses or physical evidence to dispute their claim.

If you can come up with just one impartial witness that corroborates your Self Defense narrative, you appear to be almost untouchable under existing Florida Law.

One more time, commenting on the LAW that is in Zimmerman's favor.

There's exactly one shitrag in question. Quit your whining. If you don't want to bother checking the credibility and reputation of your sources, don't be surprised when they backfire on you.

FYI, the Daily Mail is the British newspaper equivalent of FOX News. Now you know.

Too bad you don't like it, but so what?
Using it as a source isn't an offense nor make one a racist.