If the gun shots are shown to be fired upward then the trial will be over.

[Snake Alchemist]

I was on vacation this weekend and the Zimmerman-Martin case was on my mind. I had a thought that if it is shown that Zimmerman fired the shots at an upward angle then the case is over and he'll walk free.

Coversely, if the shots are shown to be fired at a downward angle then a conviction will be virtually sealed.

[madokie]

1. Would you kindly explain your reasoning

At the moment I don't get it.
Sometimes I'm like that though

[Snake Alchemist]

3. If Zimmerman is shown to have been on the ground at the time the shots were fired. nt

[madokie]

16. If the guy who was shown to be him was actually him in the police station video

then he was not on the ground neither did he have an injury to the back of his head nor a broken nose. All lies. You want to believe somehow that a murderer that lies is not lying about who was on top then thats your right but to me it makes you someone who I'll take anything you say in the future with a grain of salt.

[Snake Alchemist]

21. I doubt the video of the video will be presented as evidence.

I will trust the witness accounts and forensics and whatever they may say/show.

[madokie]

26. "I doubt the video of the video"

Never mind

[Snake Alchemist]

28. They would never present that as evidence.

Now the original video will likely be in there as well as about a million other pieces of forensic evidence from both sides.

[Life Long Dem]

74. Ahh come on

The police station video is great evidence against Zimmerman.

The photo at the scene with blood dripping on the back of his head is not.

Got it.

[goclark]

135. What I don't get about that video

at the station is the calm, cool and collected way Zim was walking around without even a touch of pain.

Calmly checking everything out ~ seems like he would have been sitting down at least.

[dkf]

129. You call it lies but what if you are wrong?

It's easy enough to find evidence of a broken nose. Why insist your version of facts are true before you have conclusive evidence?

So many are guilty of prejudging...same as Zimmerman.

[noiretextatique]

169. did he get treatment for that "broken nose?"

no...he did not. it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that he's lying.

[dkf]

184. Supposedly he did.

But I have no evidence to support or contradict that yet.

[noiretextatique]

188. um, that means no. if there is no evidence to support his claim

8 minutes of treatment at the scene.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/02/1080134/-8-Minutes-To-Treat-Zimmerman-He-wasn-t-injured-that-bad-
Manning says this timeline reveals to her that there was "little, if any, medical attention given to George Zimmerman. If the paramedics were with Trayvon Martin until 7:30 when they pronounced him dead," then the paramedics had around 8 minutes to do an assessment and give any medical treatment to Zimmerman between 7:30-7:38. She concluded: "He wasn't injured that bad."

police video show no injuries to his face, and certainly not a broken nose.

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/police-security-video-appears-that-zimmerman-does-not-have-injuries-to-his-face-and-head-in-the-vide/question-2548599/

he lied under oath on the stand when he claimed he didn't know how old Trayvon was (he told the dispatcher he is in his late teens.
this guy's ever-changing story is not remotely plausible. i hope he is convicted, and given the maximum sentence.

[dkf]

190. Talk left had a pic of a before and after profile.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/4/17/17410/1544

I still won't call that evidence. I'll wait for the release of the records.

Just food for thought if you are willing to be open to it.

[noiretextatique]

192. the official police tapes

will likely be presented as evidence in the trial. i am not sure these pictures will make the cut.

[dkf]

193. Why would you prefer police tapes to x-rays? That makes no sense at all.

I'm sure the medical records are part of the evidence. Isn't that a no-brainer?

[noiretextatique]

194. because the tapes, taken right after the incident

prove that this lying pos murderer did have the injuries he later claimed he did. that's why.

[markpkessinger]

159. Doesn't prove anything one way or the other...

Zimmerman is half a foot shorter than Martin. The upward direction really wouldn't prove much of anything.

[AmazingSchnitzel]

2. Close...

I think you are correct on the upward angle, implying that Zimmerman was on bottom.

A good defense attorney can still take a solid shot at the downward angle as well.

[rfranklin]

4. Yep, Trayvon was standing over Zimmerman...

screaming "Help me!" Sounds like a very believable scenario!

[Snake Alchemist]

5. That will be a point of contention.

Witnesses seem to indicate that it was Zimmerman screaming. That will be one of the more fascinating parts of the trial.

[pinboy3niner]

6. Not this eyewitness:

Here's the story and video of one eyewitness who was interviewed twice by CNN. This eyewitness was one of the 911 callers that evening and she gave a statement to the police; this is the story and video on her second, more detailed interview with CNN.

Witness, Zimmerman attorneys address key questions in Trayvon shooting

By the CNN Wire Staff
updated 1:07 AM EDT, Sat April 7, 2012

...


Who yelled for help?

...


"From the very beginning and I still do feel that it was the young boy," the witness, who wants to remain anonymous, told CNN Friday.

The witness lives in the apartment complex where the shooting occurred and saw the incident through her window.

...


When pressed if she could determine who was yelling, the witness said "it was the younger, youthful voice (rather) than it was the deep voice I heard when they were arguing."
...


http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/07/us/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

The video of the second CNN interview is here:
http://cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2012/04/07/ac-trayvon-martin-eyewitness.cnn

[Snake Alchemist]

7. Yes, but other eyewitnesses disagree with her. That's what will be fascinating. nt

[MintyFresh]

8. That's something that confuses

me. Why are some witnesses saying one thing & others saying something else ? Could it be that a couple of them are friends with Zimmerman ?
And on another note in the police report it says that Trayvon was found lying face down with his hands under him.
http://cnninsession.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/martinpolicreport.pdf
Doesn't this show that Trayvon was not on top of Zimmerman? Because when you think about Trayvon being shot in the chest if he was sitting on Zimmerman wouldn't his body have fallen backwards? Is there any people that can be asked that work law enforcement ?

[Snake Alchemist]

9. A lot of time eyewitness testimony differs. Adrenaline and all that.

Could be so many reasons why he was in that position that it's impossible to speculate. Could have fallen forward after being shot. Could have been rolling around after as well or none of the above. You can bet that both sides will have forensic experts testifying. nt

[MintyFresh]

13. Do you think he will go to trial or

he will get off from the stand your ground hearing ? I'm hoping to see a trial to see what other evidence there is.

[Snake Alchemist]

22. I hope there will be a trial.

I have no idea if there will be though.

[Recursion]

10. Ever seen "Rashomon"?

What's really suspicious is when eyewitnesses all agree on what they saw.

[Daalalou]

49. I have wondered the same thing

Zimmerman was fairly well known in that complex. If I were investigating this, I'd want to know how many witnesses knew Zimmerman personally, and whether that knowledge colored their testimony in any way.

[ZombieHorde]

161. This is an extremely common phenomenon.

Our senses and memories are not as reliable as we like to think they are.

[zbdent]

34. which cracks me up ...

if all these witnesses saw George Z, their "friend", being assaulted by this "overpowering" kid ...

why didn't they come to his aid and pull the kid off him? Thus, they could have averted Z shooting the kid ...

[exboyfil]

11. Watch the Trevor Dooley case

it could be a good indication as to what will happen with Trayvon Martin. Dooley was on his back when he fired, and he was still charged with manslaughter. I honestly think the two scenarios played out nearly the same. The proof that it is Martin's screams is weak. Upward trajectory then it is Dooley. Downward trajectory then it is a toss up. Martin's screams then it is murder (whether up or downward trajectory in my mind - you could make the case that Martin was struggling to defend himself and his screaming is an obvious desire to retreat).

By the way most NRA types are with Dooley as well so it is not entirely a racial issue. I think the Zimmerman case gave Dooley a get of jail free card.

I think they both should go to jail for manslaughter (with the possible exception of proving it is Martin on the tape).

[MintyFresh]

12. Yes your're right

because each individual sees things differently. I can't wait until the trial and I'm hoping the judge doesn't let him go during his stand your ground hearing.

Sorry that was in reply to Recursion

[Little Star]

15. Is there actually going to be a SYG hearing? I hadn't heard about that.

[MintyFresh]

17. After reading alot on the web

and hearing it touched on in the news I heard there will be a hearing to see if Zimmerman can use the stand your ground defense and that if the judge thinks he can the judge can just let him go.

[Little Star]

31. If you see anything else about it please..

let me know. I would be very interested. Feel free to pm me. Thanks.

[MintyFresh]

204. I will keep my

eyes & ears opened. My latest updates I have so far are : I heard last night on CNN wolf blitzer his arraignment has been moved up to May 8th.
Not clear why & it's been said on various internet sites the reason why is unknown. Keeping secrets I suppose.
His court records have been unsealed due to requests from the media.
But I'm specifically keeping an eye out for any news about a stand your ground trial because this will make or break the whole case.

[Little Star]

205. Thanks. I'm just too busy right now &...

can't watch tv much.

[MintyFresh]

212. np :)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

149. Part of the FL process

If he wins it, he is free

[josephslaton]

14. The medical examiner

Said there was no signs of fight on Trayvons hands.
I think it was the ME on this case anyway

[pinboy3niner]

18. That was the funeral home director

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/30/trayvon-martin-funeral-director-no-signs-of-fight_n_1393073.html

[ZombieHorde]

162. That is a very interesting witness. nt

[Solomon]

19. Keep hope alive. LOL. Your theories change as much

as Zimmerman's stories. It's pathetic that anyone would believe it was Zimmerman screaming. If it were you screaming and you were firing the gun, why would the screams immediately stop, especially if you didn't know he was hurt and so "lunged" to get on top of him? (latest Zimmerman lie.)

[Snake Alchemist]

24. Trajectory of gunshots is a theory? nt

[CatWoman]

39. Jesse Jackson ain't got shit on this guy

[MintyFresh]

20. If the gun shots are shown to be fired

downward that would mean Zimmerman was standing over or sitting on top of Trayvon right ? or am I ?
I don't like the message this will send to the country if Zimmerman gets off. To some the message will be it's acceptable to kill others. And to others the message will be No one cares if people just randomly go around shooting us.

[countingbluecars]

23. It really shouldn't matter

as I see it. An innocent kid was walking home from the store. He is dead because Zimmerman went after him. Martin had a right to try to protect himself from some stranger accosting him.

[Snake Alchemist]

25. Not really.

It depends on what that defense is. Now if Zimmerman touched him in any way first then you may have a good point.

[The Magistrate]

29. You Do Not Have To Be Touched, Sir, To Have A Reasonable Fear Of Harm

[Snake Alchemist]

32. You do to get physical.

Now if it can be shown that he had a gun pointed at him then that is a much different story.

[The Magistrate]

37. No, Sir, You Do Not

Belligerent, menacing behavior, including verbal expression, certainly can suffice to give reason to fear serious harm is imminent, and give grounds for physical action in self-defense.

[Snake Alchemist]

38. Please link to a law or previous case demonstrating this. nt

[The Magistrate]

41. Never Dealt Much With Police On the Street, Sir, Have You?

"They don't take chocolate money out in the real world, Percy...."

[Snake Alchemist]

42. That link is broken. nt

[The Magistrate]

44. You Will Ask For Links To Back Saying The Sun Rises In The East, Sir, Next

You know nothing about the matters you are rambling on here; you are simply saying whatever you think will suffice to defend and even justify the murder of a Black youth, and your hopes the murderer will walk free. No one here fails to understand this, not even you.

[obamanut2012]

53. +1

[Snake Alchemist]

54. That link doesn't work either. nt

[Joe the Revelator]

196. Awesome

Very well said

[JonLP24]

48. See SYG law

You need a "reasonable fear". You don't have to be touched to apply SYG.

[Snake Alchemist]

55. Please post a case where that has been applied. nt

[JonLP24]

76. I thought Zimmerman defenders knew this

2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[21]

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.

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

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(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
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle 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 entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(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, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section, the term:

(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

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).

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_your_ground#Florida

Imminent means 1. likely to occur at any moment (IOW, hasn't happened yet so you don't need to wait for it to happen)

Besides, I'm not sure where the video (that was discussing possible injuries that Zimmerman may or may have) where the news team legal expert pointed out you don't need to be attacked for SYG to apply, just the reasonable fear.

[Snake Alchemist]

77. Maybe you missed this part

"A person is justified in using force, except deadly force,"

[JonLP24]

79. And you missed this part

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

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

The Magistrate was right about the Sun rising in the East kind of thing.

[Snake Alchemist]

81. Please read your full post.

if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

[JonLP24]

84. What is your contention?

It was this -- "Martin had a right to try to protect himself from some stranger accosting him."

YOu said "not really"

I pointed out how it is in fact, yes, really. You point out it said, "except deadly force". Did Trayvon Martin use deadly force?

(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

[Snake Alchemist]

87. And that will be the crux of the trial.

Did Martin believe that his death was imminent? Was Zimmerman brandishing a gun? The case will pivot on these answers.

I have yet to see any self-defense argued successfully in cases where a person just yelled at or looked at a person wrong though. (not saying that is this case at all, but some seem to be arguing that)

[JonLP24]

99. I actually quoted the incorrect part

Full version

se 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

So Martin had the right to use force if he reasonably believed was in danger of unlawful force.

(The bold after the first bold/italic word is the section I quoted incorrectly as it applies to Martin because it doesn't.

[The Magistrate]

102. There Is No Doubt About This, Sir, Only a Deliberate Refusal To Accede To Established Facts

For if these were acknowledged and accepted, the entire facade comes down, and those defending Zimmerman would be left having to abandon their cherished fantasies of daring-do with their sidearms in defense of whatever against the menace of colored thugs....

[MattBaggins]

216. Martin had every right to defend himself

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony;

Zimmerman in confronting him was engaging in the act of "felonious restraint".

[The Magistrate]

83. Which Zimmerman Used, But Mr. Martin Certainly Did Not, Sir

Even if Mr. Martin struck first, he is covered under the law's initial sentence, since use of fists is not deadly force.

Zimmerman comes under the more restrictive provisions of the law which, for reasons which surpass sensible understanding, allow the aggressor to claim self-defense if the fight he provoked goes sour on him badly. Zimmerman's tales of having left Mr. Martin and heading back to his car, and of Mr. Martin stating explicitly he was going to kill him, are crafted to try and take advantage of these provisions of the law, and therefore highly suspect, as they are self-serving in the extreme.

The fact is, fella, you really are not very good at this....

[Snake Alchemist]

85. Still having trouble coming up with a link to a case that supports your assertions?

Let me know when you have that ready.

[The Magistrate]

86. You Just Keep Wiggling Those Puffy Clown Shoes In the Air, Fella

It is not nearly so amusing as you seem to think, but does provide a certain low humor that will do till the Stooges come on the tube....

[Snake Alchemist]

88. Try www.google.com. nt

[The Magistrate]

91. Giggling At You Requires No Effort, Sweet-Heart: Comes Natural To Anyone Reading Your Nonesense

[Snake Alchemist]

93. There is also Bing. nt

[The Magistrate]

95. You Will Get No Bling For This, Fella: You Grossly Over-Rate Your Value....

"A nickle's a nickle, a dime's a dime, gotta show me yours if you wanna see mine."

[Snake Alchemist]

96. Is that .com or .net? nt

[The Magistrate]

97. You Will Net Yourself Nothing By This Low Grade Con, Fella

Only drive home to people that you are person without knowledge, discernment, skill, or seriousness of character.

[Snake Alchemist]

98. These links must be through a proxy. nt

[The Magistrate]

100. Getting The Sense You Cannot Keep It Up Much Longer, Sweetie....

"Stupid doesn't hurt nearly as much as it ought to.

[Snake Alchemist]

101. Yahoo.com? Let me know when those links are ready.

I'm ready to read them.

[The Magistrate]

103. Funny, Fella, How Mr. Swift Gave Us That Word To Describe Beings Willfully Ignorant And Aggressive

He was a prescient fellow....

[Snake Alchemist]

104. Alright. I can see that you can provide zero evidence supporting your claim.

We're just wasting times on this thread at this point. I hold no grudges though, and hopefully we can both look forward to a complete and thorough trial.

[The Magistrate]

105. Since You Provide Zero Argument Or Knowledge, Fella, As The Kids Would Say, You Are 'Full Of Fail'

And it was pleasant to watch you turn your own thread into a circus displaying the astonishing degree to which you lack any grasp of even the most basic elements of the matter you feel such urgency to comment on.

[Snake Alchemist]

106. If you say so. nt

[The Magistrate]

108. By Now, Sweetie, Your Posts Are the Dictionary Definition Of 'Lame'

It is only the laughter you bring that can justify your continuance....

[Snake Alchemist]

109. If you say so. nt

[The Magistrate]

110. Keep These Pathetic Posts Coming, Sweetie

We all can use a good laugh, as well as the reminder never to take you seriously.

[Snake Alchemist]

111. You seem to take this all very personally.

I hold no ill-will. I hope you can just let that anger go.

[The Magistrate]

112. Not In The Least, Sweetie: You Present An Amusing Spectacle, You Provide Me Entertainment

And not just me, you are making a good many people laugh at you. Why you wish to spend your day provoking others to mock and jeer at you is a question best left to yourself, late at night, but everyone is free to enjoy the fruits of whatever it is that impels you to this, that you provide so lavishly.

[Snake Alchemist]

113. I understand. Take care. nt

[The Magistrate]

120. You Saying You Understand, Fella, Is Like A Fish Saying It Is Going On A Bicycle Ride Round The Park

[HangOnKids]

142. Snake is too busy putting on his verboten list sir

In another post Lauren told him he was on peoples radar and Snake replied "So I've been putting on a verboten list?" I laughed my ass off, he was putting on his verboten list. I asked him if that was like putting on a pair of shoes or hat. He claimed his was typing too fast. I guess posting 27+ posts a day EVERY day full of fail does that to ones fingers.

[Union Scribe]

214. Just more condescension and insults.

You've done nothing in this subthread but call another poster "sweetheart" and "sweetie" and say how dumb they are. Maybe you should come up with a counter argument or stop flinging poo.

[The Magistrate]

215. Of the Highest Quality, Sir, And Richly Deserved

The fellow's problem is that he does not like what the facts are, does not know what the facts are, and thinks 'the linky-link game' constitutes a high expression of the forensic arts. It is not; it is an occasion for laughter, and not to be taken seriously.

[Ghost in the Machine]

186. And maybe you missed this part?

"However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:"

[obamanut2012]

52. The Magistrate is 100% right

[Snake Alchemist]

56. And yet none of his links work.

[The Magistrate]

58. As The Man Said, Sir

"I should like to take you seriously, but doing so would affront your intelligence."

[Snake Alchemist]

60. That link is also broken. nt

[The Magistrate]

65. Always Nice To See My Opponents Confess Absolute Intellectual Bankruptcy, Sir

By all means, continue to demonstrate your ignorance before the audience here.

Your co-operation in discrediting yourself is much appreciated.

[Snake Alchemist]

66. That link gives a 404. nt

[obamanut2012]

63. Why should anyone link to something that is basic law???

It's like saying, give me a link to how breaking into someone's house is burgling. You are being ridiculous.

Go educate yourself on assault.

[Snake Alchemist]

64. If it's basic law than it should be incredibly easy to provide evidence of it.

Yet it seems to be impossible to prove.

[obamanut2012]

67. It is criminal and tort law 101

Go educate yourself, son, and quit asking people to do your work for you.

[Snake Alchemist]

68. Please provide a link then so I may educate myself. nt

[CatWoman]

117. I'd like to throw out here

that none of your links work either.

Ever try "Ask Jeeves"?

[Snake Alchemist]

119. I do not have to provide a think for assertions that I did not make. nt

[The Magistrate]

121. When You Can Provide A 'Think' To Back Up Anything You Say, Sweetie

They will be renting ice-skates in Hell....

And if you edit out "I do not have to provide a think for assertions that I did not make" you will only look the worse for it....

[Snake Alchemist]

122. That is still not evidence. Take care and be well. nt

[The Magistrate]

125. Your Posts, Fella, Are Conclusive Evidence You Contribute Only Occasions For Laughter To This Forum

[LanternWaste]

126. You made an emphatic and absolutist assertion in the OP...

You made an emphatic and absolutist either/or assertion without qualifier or condition in the OP...

[Snake Alchemist]

127. I readily admit that it was just a thought I had while fishing and is unprovable.

Just what I think may happen.

[The Magistrate]

131. And It Is Bogus As The Subsequent Verbiage He Provides, Sir

The angle of entry demonstrates nothing, without knowledge of the relative positions of the persons. A man shooting at a person on top of him in a struggle could easily have the gun pointed 'down' towards the other's feet at the moment of discharge; a person on top of another he shot could easily have the gun pointed 'up' towards the person's head at the moment of discharge. A person on his back shooting at a person seated on his mid-section would likely produce an 'upward' angle; a person who was seated on the ground, and shooting at a person who was standing, and backing away, certainly would. So, for that matter, would a person who was sitting on the mid-section of a person on his back on the ground, and firing into the supine person's chest, likely produce an 'upwards' angle of entry..

[LanternWaste]

136. To be honest, I think that the OP is merely playing a game he believes is both clever and subtle.

To be honest, I think that the OP is merely playing a game he believes is both clever and subtle, and plays variations on the same theme concurrent with each new bullet point released by GZ Armchair Defense Squad. It's quite the coincidence.

[The Magistrate]

137. I Agree, Sir: Merely A Provocateur, and Sort Of A Clouseau At It To Boot

[likesmountains 52]

138. and is neither clever nor subtle.

[noiretextatique]

178. amen...the poster pulled this same shit in another thread

and i have yet to see this poster provide any links to support his/her assertions.

[krispos42]

166. The issue is who initiated the conflict

Per Florida law, if Zimmerman initiated, as I am strongly inclined to believe, then Zimmerman can only use lethal force in self-defense if Martin's reaction is both wildly disproportionate and imminently likely to cause death or great bodily harm. Since Martin was unarmed, not a martial artist, 100 pounds lighter, and 10 years younger, I don't see how Martin could reply in such a grossly disproportionate manner and with lethal or near-lethal force.

[The Magistrate]

167. Exactly, Sir: That Has Been Explained At Length To Various People Who Refuse SteadfastlyTo Accept It

And Zimmerman's obvious shadowing of Mr. Martin created a situation where the youth had reason to believe he faced an imminent threat of harm when Zimmerman's actions brought the two into proximity.

It will be interesting, of course, to see what the judge rules on the S.Y.G. hearing, but it seems pretty cut and dried to me, on the facts available publicly: Zimmerman stands trial, and ought to be convicted.

[krispos42]

168. We are in harmony

Martin was standing his ground against Zimmerman the aggressor, not the other way around.

[The Magistrate]

171. I Expected We Were, Sir

I know we do not see eye to eye on all matters relating to fire-arms and their circulation and such, but this is clearly a mis-use, and aggressive mis-use, of a hand-gun.

[obamanut2012]

50. No, you don't

If someone is assaulting you, you have a right to defend yourself. Assaulting is not touching someone, it's what The Magistrate says it is. In some states, assault is any motion towards you that you consider menacing or dangerous.

Why is the SYG Law okay for Zimmy but not Trayvon???

[Snake Alchemist]

57. Please post a link to a case or ruling based on "any motion towards you". nt

[obamanut2012]

61. Please post a link to laws showing I'm wrong

I'm not. That is what assault is. Call your local PD, Google, educate yourself. Your posts in this subthread really show you need to educate yourself about what is and what isn't assault.

[Snake Alchemist]

62. That's not how it works.

If you state something as fact than YOU have to provide the evidence that it is factual. You seem to have difficulty doing that for some reason.

[The Magistrate]

69. Actually, Sir, It Is

Your lame little 'linky-linky' game is one of the tiredest wheezes on the internet. It impresses no one; it simply demonstrates that you have been cornered, having yourself made a statement which anyone with basic knowledge on the subject knows to be false to fact.

But again, by all means, continue to display your absolute lack of knowledge as you attempt to defend a racist murderer, and give expression to your hope a CCW holder gets away with living out the favorite fantasy of such types....

[Snake Alchemist]

71. Web address is no longer active. nt

[obamanut2012]

70. Well, yes, it is when someone is just being obtuse

And stating something that is 100% wrong. Something even a cop fresh out of the academy knows, something a legal secretary knows, something a freshman getting a Criminal Law degree knows. Hell, something even regular "Law and Order" viewers know.

Please show ME a legal definition that says assault is only someone touching you? You can't, which is why you haven't gleefully posted links-o-rama about it.

Your house of cards has no foundation.

[Snake Alchemist]

72. You apparently can't even provide one shred of evidence as to your assertation.

I'll ask you one more time. Please provide a link.

[Fumesucker]

73. Assault appears to be defined thusly:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault

At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal or civil liability. Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and Tort Law. There is, however, an additional Criminal Law category of assault consisting of an attempted but unsuccessful Battery.

So if SYG is applicable if an individual is assaulted then Martin could conceivably be covered under it if Zimmerman was acting in a threatening manner.

[Snake Alchemist]

75. I believe this will be a point of contention.

"harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm". If the prosecution can prove that Zimmerman was brandishing a gun, then he'll likely be convicted. I have never heard of a case going well for someone who killed another person without their being physical contact first or some sort of weapon in the dead person's hand.

[Fumesucker]

80. That seems pretty obvious about it being a contentious issue..

You obviously don't consider police shootings as being worthy of notice, they shoot unarmed civilians on a fairly regular basis and only seldom get more than some time off with pay, aka a vacation.

[Snake Alchemist]

82. The police have way more power than we ordinary citizens have.

That is an entirely different issue and a frustrating one.

[AtheistCrusader]

128. They are actually held to a higher standard, by statute, in Washington State, than joe citizen.

Officer:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.040

Joe Citizen:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.050

That first statute also covers joe citizen aiding an officer.
I am curious if that is the case in Florida.

[ctaylors6]

144. the force used to defend has to be reasonable in the face of

what you're defending against.

If a person X says to person Y "what are you doing here?" in menacing way, maybe even blocking his path, Y would not be deemed to use reasonable force if he pulls out M-16 and blows X away. If Y were to push him out of the way, that would probably be deemed reasonable.

Self-defense justification is usually based on what's reasonable in the circumstances, as decided (generally) by jury of peers.

[obamanut2012]

152. Yes and no

If Person X is a small female, and Person X is a man who blocks her way and refuses to get her flee, or who menaces her with or without a weapon, then she would have a right to defend herself in anyway, at least in every jurisdiction I have lived in. The test for able-bodied men is a bit different, with someone unarmed, but assault happens before someone ever lays a finger on you.

[MattBaggins]

217. If you block someones path you may be engaging in felonious restraint

[dkf]

133. I can see where Trayvon's actions were in perceived self defense.

That doesn't mean that Zimmerman doesn't have the right to feel threatened by Martin's self defense and then use deadly force. Martin doesn't have to be wrong for Zimmerman to use SYG.

[The Magistrate]

139. Actually, Ma'am, Under The Law It Does

If Mr. Martin were defending himself against Zimmerman's threat of harm, Zimmerman has to meet a much higher standard in justifying his use of deadly force:


&quot 2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

&quot 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
&quot 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."

To meet this standard, he pretty much has to establish Mr. Martin was employing deadly force, and there is a duty to retreat if he can imposed on Zimmerman by the statute.

It should be obvious even to you that Zimmerman's various tales of the incident are crafted to try and match the requirements of law applying to the aggressor in a fight he provoked: they are self-serving to a degree that renders them incredible.

[dkf]

165. Well then that could be the standard he has to meet..

If the jury believes the prosecution has proved provocation.

How does that contradict what I said?

And I have mentioned that I wonder at the wonderful coincidence of the account matching all the aspects needed to establish SYG. But it's the prosecutions burden to rebut that.

[The Magistrate]

170. He Cannot Meet It, Ma'am: Not Without Lies

Really, it is best to give the thing up. The man determined this one wasn't going to get away, set out after him with this fixed resolve, and killed him when detaining the youth proved more difficult than his fantasy life had suggest it was going to be. He committed murder, and ought to live out his life in jail for it.

[dkf]

189. I'm perfectly willing to accept that he is guilty.

I just want to see all the facts and learn how the law is applied and I haven't gotten a hold on the situation yet.

Much of DU is one sided. I just want to add to a fuller picture and I'm willing to take the heat to do so though some don't appreciate it.

[The Magistrate]

195. How Selfless Of You, Ma'am: Brings Tears To My Eyes, Truly Does....

[dkf]

199. Oh it's not for your benefit. I know where you stand.

You've staked your ground regardless. I do realize you are immovable.

[The Magistrate]

202. You Have Yet, Ma'am, To Provide A Fact Or View Not Already Familiar To Me, On Any Current Question

[Solomon]

141. LOL. The absurdity continues. Its so obvious that

Zimmerman had all the rights because Trayvon is black.

[HangOnKids]

145. SShhhhh. Hush now don't bother her beautiful mind.

She is too busy defending Wall Street.

[obamanut2012]

154. You aren;t allowed to kill someone defending themselves from your actions

WTF. Even the craziest SYG law in the US doesn't allow that.

How can you even allow yourself to type that? That if a person you are hurting defends themselves, you are allowed to kill them for defending themselves, because their self defense hurts you.

[JonLP24]

155. I don't think I've read

as much unintentionally and intentionally hilarious stuff in one day but that one line takes the cake, "That doesn't mean that Zimmerman doesn't have the right to feel threatened by Martin's self defense" I've been laughing all day since that was posted.

[obamanut2012]

175. I know!

[dkf]

197. Why wouldn't this apply?

"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, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

[MintyFresh]

27. From what I can gather so far

and I may be mistaken, he may not pass the stand your ground test, thus not be able to use that defense. If that happens then he will go to trial, but say if his father has friends in high places he may get a pass.

[CatWoman]

30. and if I was in the missionary position

I might not have gotten pregnant.

[Snake Alchemist]

33. You would be unlikely to get "pregnact" in any position. nt

[CatWoman]

35. yet I still didn't try to blame the sperm donor

funny how that works

[Snake Alchemist]

36. Okay? nt

[CatWoman]

116. wow!! you haven't "rec'd" your thread yet

what's taking so long?

busy recovering from that ass bruising The Magistrate gave you?

[Snake Alchemist]

118. Why would I rec my own thread? nt

[HangOnKids]

146. Because you Love yourself So much

Where is your link?

[Capt. Obvious]

40. LOL!

Really now?

[CatWoman]

43. well, it's good to know that I can go out and blow someone's head off and be found "not guilty"

just as long as I make sure to fire upward.

what a relief.

[The Magistrate]

45. And Of Course, Ma'am, If Seated Astride Someone's Mid-Section

A shot you fired into their chest would likely have an upward angle....

[Capt. Obvious]

46. I wonder why he didn't point out that his head went back, and to the left

proving that there was a second shooter.

Therefore Zimmerman = innocent

[CatWoman]

47. ROFL!!!

You are so fucking wrong for that!!

[shimonitanegi]

174. Don't forget punch your own face and scratch your head to bleed.

Then the police will let go ASAP and apologize for bothering you.

[MoonRiver]

51. You have a problem with people here stating that IF such and such happens Zimm will be found guilty.

But it seems to be ok for you to do the same, proclaiming he gets off IF the shots were fired upward. The double standard is obvious, and I can't help but view you as favoring the later scenario over the former.

[Snake Alchemist]

59. Please point to where I have a problem with that.

In fact I believe I said that in my OP.

[MoonRiver]

78. Here's an example.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002598751#post10

You are quite sarcastic about even "needing a trial" because people are posting their opinions that Zimm is guilty.

[Snake Alchemist]

90. There are no "ifs" in that OP.

He is just guilty.

[ieoeja]

89. Clearly, the shooter in this picture is defending himself.

[obamanut2012]

92. It's too bad the shootee wasn't legally allowed to defend himself

Since it's apparent he isn't being touched. Oh well! Those are the breaks!

[Capt. Obvious]

94. Hey, that guy was in the wrong neighborhood

My guess is that he wasn't polite enough to the shooter.

[magical thyme]

107. nope. he's already changed his story. at the bond hearing he said he "scooted away"

and shot from a short distance. He prefaced it by saying that Trayvon had him pinned to the ground by his shoulders and tried to smother him, or something to that effect. Not sure how Trayvon managed that feat, nor how he managed to go from being pinned on his back to scooting away.

I'm guessing forensics already showed that he didn't shoot upward from the ground, which is why he changed his story. Again.

[LanternWaste]

114. I imagine the absolutism we use to declaim our prognostications of a verdict

I imagine the absolutism we use to declaim our prognostications of a verdict are based on a rather complete knowledge of forensics and ballistic evidence in this case, the relevant laws in this case, the witness statements in this case, and a relatively good knowledge of the precise and relevant timeline... again, in this case.

However, reading through the thread, it appears to be but one more guess among many other thousands of guesses.

[Snake Alchemist]

115. Can't disagree with that. Guesses in a sea of of guesses. nt

[Yo_Mama]

123. I don't think forensics can reliably tell that. n/t

[KurtNYC]

124. and what if GZ shot him in the back?

Martin was face down when the cops got there and they rolled him over and did CPR.

Pretty tough to CPR with a front of chest gunshot wound eh?

[MintyFresh]

206. That's an interesting point

and question. It opens up a whole new line of thinking for me. Now I'm thinking out loud, and while I do please try to understand I realize I don't have enough answers thus my reason for asking questions. I'm not stating anything as factual, I'm just trying to figure it out. And I'm just trying to picture how that could happen in my mind.
How do two people go from a standing confrontation to one on his stomach ? And yet the person who was shot has no other markings or bruises on him? The only way that could happen is if he was pushed or tripped & he ended up on the ground.
Maybe that's when he started crying help if he saw the gun at that time, but then he would still be facing the shooter & if shot at that time he would have been shot in the front. (Not eliminating he could be shot in the head also but going by reports I've seen that said he was shot in the chest, and I'm aware that not everything I read is factual.)

[savalez]

134. The lesson from your post appears to be:

If somebody with a gun stalks you for a few blocks to the point where you feel your life is in danger. And then they jump out of their car and confront you and a fight ensues.

Make sure you only defend yourself from the bottom!

[ctaylors6]

140. Not if Zimmerman is found to be initial aggressor under FL law

What otherwise might be deemed self-defense justification is not available to someone if he was the "initial aggressor" under Florida law.

Statute in relevant part:
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter [self-defense] is not available to a person who:
(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.


Under this statute, the judge/jury will have to decide (1) whether Zimmerman initially provoked whatever force Martin used against him, and (2) whether either of the exceptions listed in 2(a) and 2(b) apply.

It's interesting to note that while so many people have faulted the Florida self-defense law because it's a "SYG" law, the SYG part (no duty to retreat) isn't relevant in this case at all because of SYG. Instead, the initial aggressor rule, which IS extremely relevant, brings back the concept of Zimmerman withdrawing or escaping if he is deemed to have initially provoked the incident.

[jeff47]

143. Boy, you reaaaaaaaaly want Zimmerman to get off, don't you?

Here's a thought....how exactly would you show that an "upward angle" required Zimmerman to be on the ground and Martin standing over him?

If we operate on the assumption that there was a physical struggle, an upward angle wouldn't mean anything. Martin could have been pushing Zimmerman's arm down when Zimmerman shot.

Your argument only makes sense if there was not a physical struggle and the two were not standing near each other. Which would mean Zimmerman had no reason to shoot.

[LynneSin]

147. So Trayvon Martin has no right to defend himself?

The fact that 911 told Zimmerman to walk away should speak volumes in this case. Zimmerman had a car - he could have just gotten in it and drove away. His choice - to confront Martin.

I don't care if the bullet went into the body, did a jig and then came out. Zimmerman had no right to shoot Martin.

[The Magistrate]

148. Of Course Not, Ma'am: He was Black

All persons who are not black have an absolute right to detain black people and require them to account for themselves and their business in any public place they are seen, and to use deadly force against them in case of non-compliance: after all, this is America, damnit, did you think we lived in Soviet Roosia?

[noiretextatique]

150. +1000

and there you have that. well said.

[The Magistrate]

151. I Am Indebted, Ma'am, To A Worthy Forum Member For The Basic Insight Here

I simply summarized and ornamented it a little.

Here is the thread and member who deserves the credit:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002591699

[Cali_Democrat]

153. Snake Alchemist: Forensic Pathologist

[pinboy3niner]

156. Snake Alchemist, M.E.

Sorry, Quincy. There's a new scalpel in town.

[Snake Alchemist]

157. You have the ologist part right. I admitted freely that it was merely a musing I had while

on vacation fishing.

[LAGC]

163. Don't quit your day job!

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

158. Upwards relative to what.. the ground? Trayvon's body?

I don't think it will have too much bearing. Fights are chaotic.

[Rex]

160. Flaw in that kind of reasoning.

Just because Martin was on top of Zimmerman (if that is the case), does not equal an automatic dismissal. Zimmerman could have started the fight and rolled over with Martin on top. So, imo the case is all hinging on did he get shot in the back or not?

[BanTheGOP]

164. A gun was used. Trial over. Zimmerman guilty. Period. End of story. N/T

[spin]

172. It is legal to use a firearm for self defense in Florida ...

if you have a reasonable fear that you are under attack or just about to be attacked by a person who intends to put you in the hospital for an extended stay or six feet under. That would mean that you had good reason to believe that your attacker was armed or had such a physical advantage in size or condition that you could not reasonably expect to stop his attack without serious injury. It might also apply if the attacker managed to take you to the ground and was continuing his attack and hitting or kicking you repeatedly or was choking you.

If you start the fight and refuse to break off than you can't claim self defense. If you start the fight and then back off and indicate that you are but you are still attacked in a lethal manner, then you can claim self defense.

Of course, a problem with any self defense case before or after "Stand Your Ground" passed is when one person is dead and there are no witnesses or very little evidence. Under the older law, a person could claim that he did try to retreat but was still attacked. Under the "Stand Your Ground" law, a person can claim that he didn't start the encounter or if he admits that he did, he can say that he attempted to leave before the fight turned violent.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV or DU. The above is merely my opinion.

A good web page to gain a better understanding of self defense laws in Florida is Florida Law on Self-Defense : Use of Force at http://www.husseinandwebber.com/florida-law-self-defense-use-of-force.html

I may be wrong, but from your post I get the view that you feel that anyone who uses a firearm for self defense should be considered guilty of a crime.

[got root]

177. stalking, then confronting someone, does not give you the cover of 'self defense'

FYI

[noiretextatique]

180. once the wannabee cop got out of his car and engaged Martin

he lost all claims to "self-defense."

[spin]

181. I totally agree with that statement ...

From the beginning when I heard that Zimmerman continued following Martin after the dispatcher told him that it wasn't necessary, I felt that Zimmerman lost the right to claim self defense.

But I am not a attorney and it might be possible that Zimmerman may be able to walk away as a free man by claiming that he didn't start the fight and tried to retreat but was attacked. Much depends on the evidence and the witnesses (if any).

Another factor is that the investigation by the Sanford PD appears to have been very poorly conducted.

I would like to see justice in this situation. Based on the information that I currently have gleaned from news reports, it is my opinion that Zimmerman is guilty.

[MintyFresh]

207. True But

Zimmerman admitted during his bond hearing apology (hate to use that word to describe what he was allowed to do) that he didn't know if Trayvon was armed or not. I said that to say this, if they were fighting with their fists, GZ was using force with force & he was by that defending himself. He escalated it to deadly force on what grounds since he admitted that he didn't know if the boy was armed or not?

[spin]

210. That statement should come back to haunt him in his trial ...

unless a witness or the evidence can prove that he tried to break off the confrontation and then was attacked, taken to the ground and was actually having his head repeatedly slammed into concrete or the ground.

Zimmerman was not the much small or weaker person in the fight so a reasonable man standing in his shoes would have had no reason to believe that his health or life was threatened. I understand that Zimmerman weighed over 200 lbs and Martin only 140.

If Zimmerman confronted Martin and refused to back down, he should not be able to claim self defense as (in my opinion) Martin would have the right to stand his ground.

In my personal opinion Zimmerman lost any right to claim self defense when he left his truck and pursued Martin despite being told not to by the dispatcher.

This may well be the "trail of the century."

[MintyFresh]

211. Yes I can see how it would &

I'm hoping there really will be a trial. Aside from this being about what happened to Trayvon I like to watch trials but only those where the stakes are high. what does that make me? lol

[morningfog]

173. Not that easy. He can still be found guilty, regardless of shot angle.

[got root]

176. thats another reason why the SYG law needs to go - ASAP

so you can stalk and cause a confrontation with anyone, and then shoot and kill them when they fight back?

[BanTheGOP]

182. NOt only that, that's why the 2nd Amendment needs to be severely amended itself.

We must eliminate ALL gun ownership by citizens. Pure and simple.

[The Magistrate]

183. This Is Performance Art, Sir, Is It Not?

It's all right, you can tell me....

[BanTheGOP]

185. ???

Seriously... I have no idea what you are pontificating...

[The Magistrate]

187. The Safe Answer, Sir, But Hardly The Bold, Slashing Answer That Would Live Up To Your Billing....

[BanTheGOP]

200. Then change your signature

I come out and boldly demand the end of the republican party, so we can have a TRUE democracy that embraces several political parties and diversity of different, healthy progressive values. Your own signature illustrates the absurdity of NOT simplifying problems down to their basic tenets, which is this: The republican party is the basis for ALL that is evil in this country; therefore, it is the basis for ALL that is evil on the planet. EVERY problem can be traced directly and completely to its genesis because of the oppressive, gregarious involvement and sponsorship by the 1%'ers residing solely within the GOP, and it must be banned posthaste. THEN your signature will have lived to its reputation.

[The Magistrate]

201. And That, Sir, Strikes Me As A Piece Of Performance Art

Crafted to create a niche from which deliciously absurd things can be said, that would strike any politically aware person, or any person of moderate or middling tendencies, as ridiculous or even repellent, and so with a tendency to, if noticed, reduce support for left and progressive positions and persons. An excess of creative energy and an impish sense of humor is one possible explanation,; there are others....

"Don't try and teach your grandmother to suck eggs."

[BanTheGOP]

208. Brilliant. Just Brilliant.

I don't understand a word you wrote, but it bespeaks to your true analytical wit and utter intellectual magnificence. A prose worthy of your name.

That, Sire, is my last encroachment upon your royal self. As the most bodacious image from my youth states...

[The Magistrate]

209. You Understand What Was Said, Sir, Hence The Squid's Ink Borrowed From Mr. Crumb

And indeed, it probably is best for you to be moving on.....

"Your attitude has been noticed. Oh yes, it has been noticed."

[flvegan]

179. (facepalm)

Idiocy. Let's speculate that Martin WAS on top of Zimmerman just pounding the crap out of him. Surely a person drawing his sidearm would ONLY shoot in an upwards angle. I know this because I've watched a lot of NCIS. Or CSI. Or Law & Order. Or something.

[noiretextatique]

191. zimmerman targeted Martin via racial profiling

he stalked, confronted, and killed him. it was his plan, and he executed it. he has a history of violence, and a history of harassing people in the neighborhood. he was a ticking timebomb. if the prosecutor truly prosecutes him, i doubt the trajectory of the bullet will be an issue. simply put: which story is more plausible? did the person who got of his car and approach Martin shoot and kill Martin, in self-defense? or did the wannabee cop with a history of violence, a paranoid fear of crime, and a propensity to target black men, stalk, confront, and kill an unarmed teenager? i vote for the latter.

[lonestarnot]

198. Ignore totality of circumstance at your peril.

[Quixote1818]

203. You are probably right but here is some food for thought

Should the kid on the bottom in this fight have fired and killed the other kid?

[LaydeeBug]

213. If they can't prove that Zimmerman, and not Trayvon, was calling for help, he's going to prison. nt