On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 05:25:14 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Mar 22, 10:19*pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 18:18:18 -0700 (PDT), "





wrote:
On Mar 22, 9:04*pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:37:33 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
On Mar 22, 8:03*pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:01:17 -0700, "Bob F" wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Yes. Twenty nine of our 50 states (plus DC) have "Stand Your Ground"
laws. These laws say you do not have to retreat before using lethal
force - assuming further that you have the right to use lethal force.
*The problem with Fl appears to be that it allows you roam around and
go actively looking for ground to stand on. Be interesting to see if
the DA or AG takes this dude to court to see if you can go looking for
trouble and pull a gun when you feel threatened because you found it
(or it found you.)

Especially when you created the trouble you found.

I haven't been following this story but according to the 911 stuff tonight,
this guy is going down.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have been following it. *The evidence will be presented to a grand
jury to determine if charges will be brought. *Based on what I've
heard
so far, I agree the guy is likely to be charged.

Yes, apparently the police didn't have "enough evidence" to charge him so the
DA brought the case before the grand jury. *There is new evidence, apparently.

Some folks just
can't
wait to jump on the system before letting it play out. *And the media
can't wait to try to link this somehow to the FL "stand your ground"
law. * I don't see that as really having any direct bearing on the
case.

Not if it went down as they're now saying. *The poor schlub is recorded
pleading for help before he's shot. *There aren't many ways that turns the
shooting into justifiable homicide.

The guy in question singled the victim out for acting suspicously
apparently without any real basis other than he was walking down
the street with his hand in his waistband.

..and being black, wearing a hoodie.

He called it in to 911
and the 911 operator told him he didn't need to follow the guy.

In fact, told him not to.

He
chose to leave his car and engage him. *What followed next is
what needs to be determined. *But since the kid was 17, didn't look
to be very big, and was unarmed, I think the guy is in a heap of
trouble and should be. *Where in the stand your ground law does
it OK that?

When they guy is crying for help? *That's not self defense.

Good point, but it depends on who was calling for help.
I heard a bit of those tapes and you'd have to determine
which of the two was calling for help.

Witnesses say it was the dead kid.

From what I can gather, no one actually SAW what
happened. The most they have are witnesses statements
about what they heard. Also, I've seen some of those
witnesses talking to the press and instead of the press
focusing on just the specifics of what the witness saw
or heard, they are focusing on what the witnesses
OPINIONS are. In one bad example, a witness
is bitching about how the police refuse to
talk to her despite her trying several times. But if you
listen carefully, she actually says
the police did interview her and take her statement.
What she wants is for them to take her OPINION that
what she heard means it was not self defense.

There are now more witnesses than there were a month ago, which is probably
not a good thing. Who knows, now, what they actually witnessed. But... they
were saying that one of the women did witness him yelling for help. The
yelling that is on the 911 tape, just before the shooting.

The police have not only her testimony, but others
including possibly ones that aren't running around
talking to the press and their version could be
different. They also have physical evidence
and I heard one report that Zimmerman's face had
evidence of injuries that night.

I agree from what we do know it sounds like Zimmerman
is likely guilty of something. He was significantly larger
than the 17 year old and it's very hard to justify using
a gun to end a street fight with an unarmed opponent.

You don't think a wiry kid can't whip the snot out of an overweight old man?
;-) If threatened I'd certainly use whatever weapon I had available (I do
have a carry permit but rarely carry).

But it's only if you have all the available facts that you
can make a determination of what charges could apply.
That process hasn't even started yet with the grand
jury.

"Guilty of something" is not a crime. ;-) I'm reasonably convinced he's
guilty of murder but there may not be enough evidence to prosecute, except
that it's now a political case. They'll hang him anyway. In fact, since it
became a political football, the DA has taken over the investigation from the
police. Note that the DA had already said they didn't have enough evidence to
go to trial. That's why the police didn't charge him.


Probably the most remarkable thing in all this is if the
kid had his hand in his waistband and was acting suspicously,
"like he was on drugs or something", why would anyone
get out of their car, go over and confront
them instead of waiting for police? *Meaning I'm not buying
that he really thought the kid could have a gun, etc.
Almost certainly he thought the kid was no real danger to
him, at least when he first confronted him.

He wanted to be have the big score of the day. *I'm not so big on civilian
volunteer police, for this reason. *Giving them weapons is stupid. *It's bad
enough when you have volunteer firemen setting fires.


I've seen nothing that says Zimmerman got his weapon
throught the police. AFAIK, there is no indication that
he didn't just get it and the carry permit like any other
citizen can in FL, without being part of any civilian police
force.

Not through the police. Some reports here have said that he was a member of
the "auxiliary police" (the term I was searching for last night), which is
more than a "neighborhood watch". The auxiliary police *are* sanctioned by
the police but, as you point out, are usually not issued weapons (often a
nightstick and patrol car, though). There's nothing preventing them from
having their own weapons/permit, though. Other reports have said he was a
"captain" in the "neighborhood watch". So, it's hard to tell what the truth is
with the quality of journalism we have today.


Also disturbing is that the guy had called 911 47 times in the last
year with similar calls, almost all of which were for bogus nonsense.
You have to wonder if the calls were mostly BS, why the police
didn't have a talk with him to disuade him from false reporting
and to tell him to stop playing cop.

He was part of a civilian police force. *HE should have been thrown off,
though.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not sure what you mean by civilian police force. *The most
I've heard is he was part of a "neighborhood watch". *Not
sure exactly what that means, could be it was just him.
Also kind of odd we haven't heard from others that new
him as to what kind of guy he was, etc.

No, it was an organized civilian police force, under the auspices of the
uniformed police.

I'd like to see your source for that. In all the coverage
that I've heard Zimmerman is referred to as the head of a
"neighborhood watch", whatever that means. I've also
seen the term "self-appointed head" used. And I have
never seen that it had any affiliation at all with the police.

The news here was saying that he was a member of the "auxiliary police", which
is sanctioned by the police. IIRC, the 911 dispatcher instructs him not to
follow the kid.

Now you would think in all the heat that has been brought
on the police, if that neighborhood watch was in any way
affiliated with the police it would have been widely reported
by now. And it should be, because it would be a possibly
conflict of interest for them to be investigating.

Even neighborhood watches are affiliated, loosely, with the police. The
police do come to association meetings to organize them. They're not out of
this one and I think the chief may well start looking for a Wallmart greeting
position.