It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Racial Profiling and A Heartbreaking Tragedy.

page: 19
34
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by popsmayhem
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


This is just huge, fox 13 tampa has spoke to
the witness, the witness saw treyvon jump out
from behind a bush and attack zimmerman.
ZIMMERMAN WAS THE ONE SCREAMING
ON THE TAPES..

ZIMMERMAN was acting in self defense IT IS ALL
COMING OUT NOW FOLKS~~


Right, which is why Trayvons mother identified her son, TRAYVON, as the one screaming in the 9-11 tapes.
2nd.




posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Believer101
 

ITS all coming out zimmerman
is the one screaming on the tape
there is a witness WHO WAS SAW IT!!
THEY WATCHED IT..

All the bs the MSM is spewing
is insane people buy right on into
the whole damn race war the
msm is selling you..

THE TRUTH WILL COME OUT!!
PEOPL WILL EAT THEIR WORDS!

JUSTICE FOR ZIMMERMAN
A FREE MAN!!



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by popsmayhem
reply to post by Believer101
 

ITS all coming out zimmerman
is the one screaming on the tape
there is a witness WHO WAS SAW IT!!
THEY WATCHED IT..

All the bs the MSM is spewing
is insane people buy right on into
the whole damn race war the
msm is selling you..

THE TRUTH WILL COME OUT!!
PEOPL WILL EAT THEIR WORDS!

JUSTICE FOR ZIMMERMAN
A FREE MAN!!


Some "wannabe" vigilante with a history - - - stalks a 17 year old kid walking down the street - - - and YOU go all WAHOO! - - because one person claims they personally witnessed (unconfirmed) the kid attack the vigilante.

Pretty damn twisted.

Really? I mean Seriously. Is this how you get your kicks?


edit on 23-3-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by popsmayhem
 


Again IF he did attack Zimmerman he was well within his legal rights. He could have legally killed Zimmerman being scared for his life and no one could have touched him. How does anyone assume Zimmerman is within his rights provoking anyone by himself acting EXTREMELY suspicious.

Zimmerman stalked a 17 year old kid, scaring the hell out of him. All because he looked "suspicious", I don't care who it is, what color they are, or how old they are walking down the street talking on a cell phone is not suspicious. We know he was talking on his cell phonen when Zimmerman was stalking him from phone records and his girlfriends testimony.

There is absolutely no defense for Zimmerman, you cannot provoke an incident then pul a gun and kill someone and try to claim self defense. That is absolutely ignorant.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Thank you Xcathdra, you posteds the EXACT reason this use of force was not justifiable.

"776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant;"

Notice it says the justification does NOT apply if the person initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself. It provides the caveot that if they feel that force is so great that they are in imminent danger of death AND they exhausted every means of escape. You cannot tell me that a man about 10n years older and 100 pounds heavier couldn't just push this 17 year old kid off of him.

There was NOTHING justifiable here, he provoked action and went straight to shooting. It is reasonable to say if he wanted to get away it would have been easy.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by seeker1977
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant;"


Actually thats not quite what it says. Zimmerman can be the aggressor and could use deadly force if Mr. Martin performed an action that leads Zimmerman to believe is life was in imminent danger.

We still do not have all the facts for this. There are reports that has Martin coming at Zimmerman. There are reports Zimmerman had facial injuries from the altercation. There are reports Martin noticed he was being followed / watched and confronted Zimmerman over it.

As I said lets see what other information comes out of this.
edit on 23-3-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
Really? I mean Seriously. Is this how you get your kicks?


edit on 23-3-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)

EXCLUSIVE! First hand Witness: TRAYVON Martin attacked Zimmerman ZIMMERMAN INNOCENT SMOKING GUN

Zimmerman is innocent
your being lied to..

zimmerman is the one screaming
on the 9-11 tapes

the smoking gun
www.abovetopsecret.com...

TRAYVON was the agresssor do not believe the lies..

ZIMMERMAN IS INNOCENT
Witness: Martin attacked Zimmerman
TREYVON ATTACKED ZIMMERMAN ZIMMERMAN INNOCENT
edit on 23-3-2012 by popsmayhem because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-3-2012 by popsmayhem because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


You can interpret it as you see fit. I still say the MSM is pouring fuel on the fire, and making an already bad situation worse. Lets face it people are quite divided at the moment over a wide range of issues. The divide continues to expand, and this is another catalyst.

People are frothing at the mouths over it, and the facts are still coming in. I find it hard to make an opinion without seeing the whole picture. Therefore, I will remain on the sideline and view this incident as either a murder or self defense case. To be throwing around race like they have is downright irresponsible, because we don't know if the incident was entirely racially motivated. At least I don't?

I just don't want others to be hurt over this. This thing could spiral out of control, and once the toothpaste is out of the tube it can't be put back in. This incident should be played by the numbers, and it has not been by my interpretation. Perhaps down the road we might see some retaliation and riots if the public does not get a decision they are pleased with? We saw it in 1992 with the LA Riots.

I respect your opinion, but I think the media and others are poking a stick at the hornet's nest with this one. If this spirals out of control? I will hold them responsible, and anyone else who turns out to be perpetuating myths and falsehoods about this case. We have to have the facts first and foremost to make any kind of judgement. The facts continue to come in, but people are already mobilized and protesting. Where it goes from there? Your guess is as good as mine. Thanks for the comment.
edit on 24-3-2012 by Jakes51 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


There is ABSOLUTELY no way his life was in immediate danger from a kid 100 pounds less weight than him.Bottom line he caused the problem with total ignorance.

It does say the aggresor had to try to escape. Either way even if Trayvon attacked HE was well within his rights having identified a strange man larger and older than him stalking him. Fight or flight mode is powerfull. There is absolutely no excuse for Zimmerman and he needs to be behind bars.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


By the way, you reposted your own quote. Did you not see the word AND in there very clear. You cannot just start something and provoke an attack and then be justified in killing anyone..

That is only possible if the provoker tried every possible means to escape and still felt their life in direct danger or other than that a danger of serious bodily harm.

Zimmerman's life was never in dange from a kid that much smaller than him, he could have easily gotten away IF he wanted too. Instead he let his anger show through which is clear with the actual comments he ,mad on the phone about these assholes always getting away and he chose to kill someone. He is at fault period, no excuse and him not being behind bars is inexcusable as well.
edit on 24-3-2012 by seeker1977 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-3-2012 by seeker1977 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-3-2012 by seeker1977 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by seeker1977
 


I didnt realize you were present when this incident went down. We still do not have all the facts, specifically the encounter prior to shots fired.

As far as the and comment which post are you talking about? If its in reference to the statute for home defense Ive already corrected my mistake.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by popsmayhem
 


Nope. It's Trayvon Martin. His mother recognised his voice. And what's this rubbish about him 'ambushing' the armed paranoid who was following him?



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


All of the facts present make this extremely clear, anyone trying to say this was in any way Trayvon's fault is completely ignorant bottom line

IF Trayvon would have killed Zimmerman THAT would have been perfectly legal with him being stalked by an older larger man. Fear was definitely in his mind and apparently rightly so.

Walking down any street regardless of where you are talking on a phone is not suspicious. That is exactly what Trayvon was doing which is shown with the phone records. We have his girlfriends testimony that he told her he was being followed and didn't know why. See if you can walk down a street with a man 100 pounds larger than you clearly stalking you and tell m if fear does not come into play at all.

Good for Trayvon if he attacked, if he had killed Zimmerman hopefully no one would have heard about this because it would have been aclear case of the stand your ground law. If that would have happend my guess is Trayvon would have been arrested though.

Zimmerman stalked a kid with absolutely no reason whatsoever. He kept following him making the kid nervous and I garrauntee scared. If he was attacked he deserved it and that attack would have been perfectly legal under the stand your ground law. He instigated everything, just like a previous poster's story here this has to do with common sense.

With what people are saying technically someone could rape or rob someone and if they dared fight back they would actually be justified in killing the person they attacked, raped or robbed. You cannot get anymore ignorant than that, if somehow this law is interpreted this way in any court than the judge should be thrown behind bars.
edit on 25-3-2012 by seeker1977 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 





That action coming back at Zimmerman could allow justification for Zimmerman to shoot the person.


That is where it all got lost on me. In NC if you pursue the person you lose the right to self defense via lethal force. From the original 911 Trayvon Martin was headed away from where Zimmerman was. Under our law if Zimmerman pursued Martin and Martin felt threatened enough to fight Zimmerman had no right to lethal force. Martin was not initiating a crime against Zimmerman or another person.

In other words the action coming back wouldn't give Zimmerman any right to lethal force.

I skipped over that in my last reply. Now I will adress your adress to my second reply.




If no charges are filed then there is no appearence in front of a judge.


Here in NC the DA(PA) has the right to drop the charges or investigate on his own. However, if the magistrate says there is enough evidence to press charges, the DA usually doesn't drop charges before the first hearing. If a lawyer doesn't speak to the DA before hand you will be in court at least once.




The last part concerns me. Can you give me an example where length is neccissary and prudent?


It concerns me as well. That was the reason we were given by a California DA when asked why he couldn't ship a guy back here. He said in Cali he could hold the guy under investigative detention as long as was neccesary and prudent. We could have him if no charges were pressed there.




The initial detention is the PC hold here in the states.


While he was held for questioning the 911 tapes would have been reviewed. They are a matter of public record and can verify or contradict his version of events. Also any witness testimony up to that time can be used to determine whether the PO will present to the magistrate. It may be disallowed later but it may influence whether charges are pressed initially.

Different jurisdictions and states do things very differently. Thanks for your input. It really clears it up for me.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   
this whole thing is getting out of hand, it plays on our emotions and the MSM get more rating off stuff like this! i understand all that. zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty, i'll give you that much. i just hope that all the facts and evidence will be taken into account and zimmerman will have his day in court. the problem is he hasnt even been charged yet! the law better get moving and handle this in a professional manner, no wonder the posse is getting riled up. this is the exact kind of situation where the people decide to take the law into their own hands and things get ugly!

but we need to remember that we are all innocent until proven guilty and we need to let the courts take care of it. lets just hope its a fair trial and not biased by the MSM and not biased by the good ol boy network.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeNice81
That is where it all got lost on me. In NC if you pursue the person you lose the right to self defense via lethal force. From the original 911 Trayvon Martin was headed away from where Zimmerman was. Under our law if Zimmerman pursued Martin and Martin felt threatened enough to fight Zimmerman had no right to lethal force. Martin was not initiating a crime against Zimmerman or another person.

In other words the action coming back wouldn't give Zimmerman any right to lethal force.

I skipped over that in my last reply. Now I will adress your adress to my second reply.

It is like that in my state as well. However in Florida they make an exception where an agressor can defend himself if the agression from the opposite party crosses the threshold into the realm of placing the aggressor in imminent fear for his safety.

You and I are in agreement on this one, and I poitned it out in my previous posts. A person who escalates a situation on their own actions (non domestic) should not be proteced by the law when those actions force a person to defend themselves. This is a reason Florida law is cited as being problematic. A lot of states have adopted the florida style when it comes stand your ground, and out of all of those states Florida is, to my knowledge, the only state that makes an exception for the aggressor to be able to use deadly force to defend himself.



Originally posted by MikeNice81
Here in NC the DA(PA) has the right to drop the charges or investigate on his own. However, if the magistrate says there is enough evidence to press charges, the DA usually doesn't drop charges before the first hearing. If a lawyer doesn't speak to the DA before hand you will be in court at least once.

Im referring to the immediate arrest. The PA has 24-72 hours (depending on state, im not sure what florida is) to either file charges against the individual, or he is released from jail. A person cannot be held longer than that without charges. The first appearence in front of a judge is to determine if the evidence supports the charges laid, and allos the person charged to enter a plea.

To my knowledge this is standard from state to state so im not really sure what you are trying to explain on this one. Either we are saying the same thing using different terminology, or we are missing what each other is stating.



Originally posted by MikeNice81
It concerns me as well. That was the reason we were given by a California DA when asked why he couldn't ship a guy back here. He said in Cali he could hold the guy under investigative detention as long as was neccesary and prudent. We could have him if no charges were pressed there.

In that instance California would need a legal justification for detaining an individual wanted in a different state. In other words a valid arrest warrant with extradition justifications, or a govenors extradition warrant which can no longer be challenged / refused by the state being served with it.

Absent that there is no legal justification for California to hold a person who has not violated their state laws or absent a valid arrest / extradition warrant / request.

Even then the person would be allowed to challenge his extradition, which really does nothing more than delay the inevitable. Its one thing to hold an individual when a valid arrest warrant is being processed and issued. Its something else entirely when there is no valid paperwork / in process paperwork.



Originally posted by MikeNice81
While he was held for questioning the 911 tapes would have been reviewed. They are a matter of public record and can verify or contradict his version of events. Also any witness testimony up to that time can be used to determine whether the PO will present to the magistrate. It may be disallowed later but it may influence whether charges are pressed initially.

Different jurisdictions and states do things very differently. Thanks for your input. It really clears it up for me.


True but again there is no requirement for an individual to be arrested at all. That is all left to the discretion of the officer / investigating agency. I have worked felony cases where I made no arrest and submitted my paperwork fotr the PA to review. In all of those cases the PA applied for and was approved for an arrest warrant.

The issue on this is the lack of information from the point of initial contact up to when police arrived.
Mr. Martin did not live in the neighborhood. He was in fact visiting his father, so Zimmerman would have no idea who the kid is.

Secondly Martin was suspended from his school for - wait for it - drug residue that was found in his backpack.

Mr. Zimmerman suffer a broken nose and other injuries when Martin attacked him. Mr. Zimmermans freinds who is black, stated the racism charge is not valid.

As far as the cowardly civil rights morons using this incident to further reduce race relations in this country, they certainly had no issues going after Zimmerman, who is described by them as a white hispanic. They want blood because by God the "Blacks are under attack".

Interestingly enough yet not surprising they are quiet when the Black Panthers place a $10,000 dollar bounty on Zimmermans head.

While this incident is tragic, for some reason the media is stirring the pot and the cowards who are the civil rights leaders are again using this incident to further a divide that exists solely because of the civil rights leaders. Maybe if they spent more time working on the equality argument and less time stoking rcial divides, they might get somewhere.

As far as different legalities from different jurisdictions - Im with ya on that one as well. I think we are pretty much making the same arguments and are just using different terminology.

Thanks for your response and persepctive. I appreciate it as well.
edit on 26-3-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-3-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-3-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-3-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-3-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Xcathdra,

Its getting to the point where I am certain you are purposelly misquoting and categorizing the law to serve your agenda.

IN 776.012 it states "Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, EXCEPT deadly force,"

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) DOES NOT APPLY IF:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

(3) A person who IS NOT engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force



For any interested you may read the law here:
en.wikipedia.org...

Xcathdra, please discontinue knowingly spreading disinformation.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by femalepharoe
 


Actually you should be taking your own advice because you are spreading inccorect info. Let me help you out.
776.012

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or


(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.


Its amazing how the part I highlighted was left out of your post. Any reason why you did not include it? No part of 776.013 applies in this case since it specifically deals with home invasions. I already stated I screwed that up and corrected myself with the proper statute.

776.032

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27.


Law enforcement on scene made no arrest because the sequence of events and actions taken as well as evidence collected, according to the Police, were found consistent with state law. For some reason the media is leaving out Mr. Zimmermans broken nose and injuries sustained. They are leaving out the statements made by Zimmermans best friend, who is black, who questions the accusation he is racist. There are reports the 911 calls actually contain Zimmerman and not Martin screaming in the background. To date the evidence present suggest Zimmerman's actions were valid and lawful under Florida law.

A conclusion the FBI will be coming to as well when they wrap up their civil rights violations investigation. The evidence present clears Zimmerman in my opinion.

776.085 allows for a defense to civil actions even when a criminal charge is sustained (civil and lower standard of proof).

776.041


776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.


History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.


As far as the wikipedia link goes I would suggest people click the links I submitted as it will take them to the Florida State Government website, specifically the Statutes of the state of Florida. They are up to date and contain all statutes under section 776.

edit on 26-3-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-3-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 08:27 PM
link   
New info:
Trayvon Martin Shooter Told Cops Teenager Went For His Gun


George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch crime captain who shot dead 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, originally told police in a written statement that Martin knocked him down with a punch to the nose, repeatedly slammed his head on the ground and tried to take his gun, a police source told ABC News.
Zimmerman had claimed he had called police about Martin, whom he found suspicious, then went back to his car when Martin attacked him, punching him.

The new information is the most complete version yet of what Zimmerman claims happened on the night of Feb. 26 when he shot and killed the teenager.


There are 911 calls that have not been released that apparently supports Zimmermans version of events.

Also -

In addition, an eyewitness, 13-year-old Austin Brown, told police he saw a man fitting Zimmerman's description lying on the grass moaning and crying for help just seconds before he heard the gunshot that killed Martin.

The initial police report noted that Zimmerman was bleeding from the back of the head and nose, and after medical attention it was decided that he was in good enough condition to travel in a police cruiser to the Sanford, Fla., police station for questioning. He was not arrested.


As I stated before - the potential for prosecutorial misconduct is high -

ABC News has learned there is tremendous pressure from local and state authorities for an arrest.

edit on 26-3-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   
There you go again ignorantly posting the below to justify Zimmerman when it negates any possible defense he might have.

"Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force. "

That AND in there is clear for anyone who understands the english language. Not to mention they must have imminent fear of death or extreme bodily harm. The facts are that Zimmerman decided to stalk a kid for no other reason than walking down the street talking on the phone, somehow that was 'suspicious'.

Trayvon had a man 100 pounds larger than him stalking him without knowing his intent. You can gaurrantee he was scared probably for his life, at the very least he would have been afraid of possible extreme bodily harm. That law was put in place for HIM specifically for this type of situation. he was perfectly legal attacking Zimmerman and could have legally killed Zimmerman.

Zimmerman being the aggresor/instigator has no protection because he clearly did not exhaust all means of escape. Someone that much bigger than a 17 year old kid could easily get away if he wanted. The law cannot apply to both people and shouldn;t be used as a convenient defense for the person left standing when nothing points in that direction.

Do our children mean so little nowadays that no one cares when they get shot because they looked like they might possibly be a thug? I am a father and this disgusts me as it should any father regardless of race, my boy is only 5 and we are not going to dictate how he decides to dress. I used to dress in what used to be considerred cool so I won't hypocritically hold my kid to a different standard. He will know how to act though and how to defend himself if need be. If someone dared stalk him and scare the hell out of him so much to provoke him into attacking and THEN use that same provokation as justification to kill him. Well i'm guessing at that point the law might be the least of my worries.

By the way, just how old do our kids have to be to make it acceptable to kill them out of fear. Would this be a discussion if he was 13 or 14 or younger. Regardless, their size difference makes any possible defense of Zimmerman being afraid for his life and exhausting all means of escape unbelievable.

One more thing, I am a white father and my kid happens to be half Mexican.

Ok I just needed to add this final comment, how can he possibly consider uising this since he was clearly the instigator and by the police's own reports he suffered minor injuries ans didn't even decide to get checked out the following day. How is receiving minor injuries from a KID ever justification to kill that kid.


edit on 26-3-2012 by seeker1977 because: addition



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join