On Mar 24, 5:24*pm, "
wrote:
On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 07:59:54 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 04:24:30 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

It doesn't look like a very clean case for "stand your ground" but there's a
long way to go in the investigation, I'd bet. *You wouldn't want to base
your reading of the case on the facts presented by reporters interviewing
people on the street . . . (-:

The problem that most often manifests itself in lethal force cases is the
level of force applied. *At least some judges have ruled that shooting a man
coming at you with only his bare fists isn't appropriate. *I don't like that
theory because it totally disregards another well-known phenomenom, the "one
punch homicide."

Plenty of people have died from taking a single punch. *I would probably try
to shoot to maim such an attacker. *Probably. *(-: *Just today I bought a
cane that's got a stun gun and LED built in. *I'd probably use that before I
shot someone. *Probably.

If you had a Taser, it would be much more appropriate in a situation
like Sanford. *If the guy coming at you was into body building or
boxing, yes, he could take you out with one punch. *But . . .

If you are the local vigilante, you should have had at least some
basic training on what to do. You should also carry some pepper spray
and perhaps a Taser.

It will be interesting to see what the final investigation reveals. At
17, the kid may have been mouthy as many would be, but he does not
look like he could be much of a physical threat.

Things are not always what they seem to be...http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/new...attacked-z...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Good find.

That's the best news report I've seen supporting the Zimmerman
version. Two interesting things. One is that AFAIK, the coverage
of what this witness has to say has been minimal. Second, one
would think given all the turmoil surrounding the incident, the
police would have said more about exactly what this witness had
told them. Maybe they did and that wasn't covered either. The
most I had heard before was that they had witness testimony
that backed up Zimmerman, but no specifics.

One thing for sure, I would not want to be this witness. He's
in a losing position because there are a lot of people with their
shorts in a knot that aren't going to want to hear it. Another
critical
piece of evidence will be the autopsy. If it shows the shooting
was at point blank range and trajectory consistent with
Zimmerman's account, and the witness is consistent and
credible, then I think you have plenty of reasonable doubt.