On 3/25/2012 9:46 PM, Jim Yanik wrote:
gonjahgonjah.net wrote in
net:

On 3/25/2012 8:47 PM, wrote:
On Mar 25, 9:37 pm, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:
On 3/25/2012 8:10 PM, wrote:





On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:05:45 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:
On 3/25/2012 7:51 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:47:42 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:
On 3/25/2012 7:13 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:40:43 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net
wrote:
Zimmerman is 28 and looks from the photo to be a full grown
armed man. Martin was 16 and 140lbs.
How tall are these people. If Zimmerman is a 28 year old couch
potato at 5'6 and 240 pounds, my money is in the 17 year old
football player winning the fight.
True enough but I have even more trouble with the fact that
Zimmerman is the adult here. Another thing is he followed
Martin. Why?
He was on the neighborhood watch. As a resident, he has every
right to know what's going on in his neighborhood. Martin did
*not* have the right to attack him, however. Why can't you get
these simple facts through your thick head?
He was told by the dispatcher "he didn't need to do that." You
know what? He didn't need to do that.
You do know that the dispatcher was no ordering him to do anything.
She couldn't. Good grief, you're stupid!
It was the dispatchers way of tell Z police policy.

We had some shootings near by and I happened to hear the shots. When
I called 911 they didn't tell me: "Can you go over there and get a
better look." - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Whether he "needed" to do that or not isn't the issue. The only
issue is who started the actual assault and if Zimmerman had a
legitmate fear for his life when he fired.

You have heard that there is only one eye witness who actually
SAW at least part of what happened? That witness says that
he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, Zimmerman was on his
back and it was Zimmeman whowas yelling for help. Police
say Zimmerman had grass stains on his back, his face was
bloodied, he needed stitches to the back of his head. Yet
the media are trying to turn this into something revolving
around "stand your ground"? Even without any such law,
by Zimmerman's and the eye witness accounts, he had
no place to retreat to.

Having heard the above, I can see why the police didn't charge
Zimmermansnip
I actually do too. The SYG issue muddied the fact and got a lot of
people up-in-arms. It's unfortunate the way this thing unfolded.

The only thing I can say for certain is Z exercised extremely poor
judgement by not following the directive of the dispatch.

HOW did the SYG law "muddy" the facts?
All that law did is prevent the charging of Zimmerman with a crime he did
not commit,that there was no evidence for,and then have to prove himself
innocent.


http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/n...,3805848.story

"And theformer Florida governor, Jeb Bush
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/arlington/headlines/20120323-in-arlington-jeb-bush-says-stand-your-ground-invalid-in-trayvon-martin-case.ece,
who signed the bill into law in 2005 and supported its passage, said
Saturday he did not think it should protect Zimmerman, who shot the
unarmed teen after trailing him as Trayvon walked to the home of a
family friend living in the same gated community as Zimmerman.

“Stand your ground means stand your ground. It doesn’t mean chase after
somebody who’s turned their back,” Bush said while speaking at the
University of Texas in Arlington."


From the guy who signed it into law.