Exactly. Who started the physical confrontation is something we may never know. It doesn't matter though because Zimmerman isn't obligated to show who started it. Just that his life was in danger. Blows my mind some people don't see that

 

The special prosecutor doesn't see it like that, I sure she is more versed in the law than you. She called for an arrest. Whatever, because of the type of arrest, Zimmerman won't be able to have this expunged/sealed from his record, even in a hung jury or acquital. It's a dead body involved, FBI kinda keeps track of that sort of thing.

If the ltter of the law isn't clearly written, then you go by your interpretation or spirit of the law. Apparently, the special prosecutor feels totally different than you. and whomever gave that mularkey about election year, the Revs, etc. is why she arrested him, since you are attacking this prosecutor, don't be mad when blacks call cops racist with an agenda. WE ALL HAVE DOUBLE STANDARDS.

Zimmerman isn't white, look at him, he is Hispanic, so is Obama a white man with African descent?

 

I never heard of many black kids growing up in Hawaii with their white grandparents and going to Harvad Law School. But hey, the first balck president had to be a little different than most people, especially black.

Why would age factor in? I don't know the exact wording of the "Stand Your Ground" law but my guess is that if the witness says he saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman and punching him (which physical evidence would have to support) then the SYG law comes into play.

 

Age is irrelevant.

 

Clyde,

 

I hear you are somewhat a little older, so with all due respect to my elders, you are wrong again. Zimmerman has admitted to thinking Trayvon was older than 17. Much older like mid-20s.

 

Age has a lot to do with it. Zimmerman said this in open court and this is now a part of the testimony. That is going to hurt Zimmerman, like Trayvon's brutal left hand did. Hurt his pride. Had to shoot an unarmed man so he could go home feeling like "Daddy" to Mrs. Zimmerman.

Clyde,

 

I hear you are somewhat a little older, so with all due respect to my elders, you are wrong again. Zimmerman has admitted to thinking Trayvon was older than 17. Much older like mid-20s.

 

Age has a lot to do with it. Zimmerman said this in open court and this is now a part of the testimony. That is going to hurt Zimmerman, like Trayvon's brutal left hand did. Hurt his pride. Had to shoot an unarmed man so he could go home feeling like "Daddy" to Mrs. Zimmerman.

 

I guess technically I'm an "elder" and I appreciate the due respect but your argument simply doesn't hold water.

 

Let's say Zimmerman thought he was 21. Does that show that Zimmerman attacked him?

 

If we convicted people based on what we all "know" happened OJ wouldn't still be looking for his wife's murderer.

 

Unless there is more evidence that comes out that you nor I have seen the prosecutor has a battle on her hands.

Not enough. You have to prove that Zimmerman "rushed him."

 

Asking a question does not constitute a threat to Trayvon. Has to be more than that.

 

Your smoking gun is shooting blanks.

 

You cannot convict a man - even if he is a weirdo/whack job/loser - just because he walked upto a kid. You have to have more than that. Remember, this is a murder charge. It's not manslaughter. Much higher burden of proof.

 

Trayvon is the decedant. He is represented by the people. So the prosecutor will ask pro-Trayvon questions. One thing Zimmerman won't get around is that his friends have been on national TV saying, all Trayvon had to do is say I am visiting my stepmom down at the epend of the complex. They have both said this numerous times on Piers Morgan, Jane Mitchell Velez, Nancy Grace, Piers Morgan and others. This clearly shows a question by a stranger was asked to this boy. At this point, Trayvon is allowe dot stand his ground as well. Since dead man tell no tales, the prosecutor will for him. She arrested Zimmerman because she felt the Trayvon held the right to Stand His Ground first. SHe felt the right was in hands, not Zimmerman. She knows how to interpret a law.

I guess technically I'm an "elder" and I appreciate the due respect but your argument simply doesn't hold water.

 

Let's say Zimmerman thought he was 21. Does that show that Zimmerman attacked him?

 

If we convicted people based on what we all "know" happened OJ wouldn't still be looking for his wife's murderer.

 

Unless there is more evidence that comes out that you nor I have seen the prosecutor has a battle on her hands.

 

Ask Zimmerman what if he thought the boy was 21. He said it. Not me.

Every prosecution is a struggle, just some more than others. The OJ case was the prosecution's fault. They allowed a predominately minority jury, being very arrogant and trying to point OJ as a mopdern day, love-sick deranged man for a white woman in fornt of a predominately black jury. Their arrogance did them in.

Trayvon is the decedant. He is represented by the people. So the prosecutor will ask pro-Trayvon questions. One thing Zimmerman won't get around is that his friends have been on national TV saying, all Trayvon had to do is say I am visiting my stepmom down at the epend of the complex. They have both said this numerous times on Piers Morgan, Jane Mitchell Velez, Nancy Grace, Piers Morgan and others. This clearly shows a question by a stranger was asked to this boy. At this point, Trayvon is allowe dot stand his ground as well. Since dead man tell no tales, the prosecutor will for him. She arrested Zimmerman because she felt the Trayvon held the right to Stand His Ground first. SHe felt the right was in hands, not Zimmerman. She knows how to interpret a law.

 

So now we've lowered the bar to say that asking a question constitutes a threat?

 

What tale does she have to tell that are supported by facts?

 

1. Trayvon was 17.

2. Trayvon was black.

3. Trayvon was walking through a neighborhood.

4. Zimmerman called the police.

5. Police told him not to follow him.

6. Zimmerman did.

7. Lets assume the facts show there was an actual conversation between the two.

8. Witness says he saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman and was punching him.

9. Shot fired by Zimmerman from 1 to 18 inches.

10. Trayvon died.

 

 

Since there is no dispute as to whom the shooter was the fact there was a shooting is inconsequential. Already proven.

 

How do you get from the facts listed to showing that Trayvon was accosted or threatened? Is there audio? Are there witnesses coming forward that heard the conversation? Are there witnesses coming forward that will say Zimmerman grabbed Trayvon first?

 

If you don't have those you don't have a case.

 

Again, we all talk about facts yet we really do not know the facts. We're starting to hear some but the rest is pure conjecture. However, if we do not hear more than we think we know I would be dumbfounded to see a murder conviction.

I never heard of many black kids growing up in Hawaii with their white grandparents and going to Harvad Law School. But hey, the first balck president had to be a little different than most people, especially black.

 

Obama isn't black, he is white with African desent.

Obama isn't black, he is white with African desent.

 

Your continued fixation with race is nothing short of disturbing and sad.

So now we've lowered the bar to say that asking a question constitutes a threat?

 

What tale does she have to tell that are supported by facts?

 

1. Trayvon was 17.

2. Trayvon was black.

3. Trayvon was walking through a neighborhood.

4. Zimmerman called the police.

5. Police told him not to follow him.

6. Zimmerman did.

7. Lets assume the facts show there was an actual conversation between the two.

8. Witness says he saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman and was punching him.

9. Shot fired by Zimmerman from 1 to 18 inches.

10. Trayvon died.

 

 

Since there is no dispute as to whom the shooter was the fact there was a shooting is inconsequential. Already proven.

 

How do you get from the facts listed to showing that Trayvon was accosted or threatened? Is there audio? Are there witnesses coming forward that heard the conversation? Are there witnesses coming forward that will say Zimmerman grabbed Trayvon first?

 

If you don't have those you don't have a case.

 

Again, we all talk about facts yet we really do not know the facts. We're starting to hear some but the rest is pure conjecture. However, if we do not hear more than we think we know I would be dumbfounded to see a murder conviction.

 

Once again elder, you are wise but wrong. Zimmerman is not on trial for murder, but manslaughter. He is on charge for mansalughter probably because he was on legal drugs. Had done testsed his urine and or blood, who knows what they find. Saying I bet they find Zimmerman was drunk is assumption.

 

Go look up Frank Taafe interviews on youtube. He is Zimmeman's friend. These were interviews on national television. They did their own homie in. It's called dry snitching. Telling on someone when they didn't mean to. So we have a legal child being questioned by an adult that doesn't have such an authoirty. How do we know Trayvon didn't feel threatened? We don't but the confrontation was avoidable. So therefore this shooting cannot be considered incosnequestial. Crime on crime is inconsequential. A high school aged, unarmed minor is not. Think Clyde: an unarmed minor walking home is murdered. Why, because he came into contact with a guy whom accosted him. Regardless of whom attacked who first and who said or did what. The fact remains cops say the confrontation was avoidable on Zimmerman's part. The fact remains Trayvon had darn good reason for being in the area of the complex; Trayvon can throw hands and Zimmerman cannot. Zimmerman shot was a far as 5 feet away from what I understand.

We can go tit for tat all day, the main fact that remains is that 3 people had immediate access to the information in this case. The lead detective, the original prosecutor and the special prosecutor. 2 out 3 felt Zimmerman should be arrested. One before the media storm, like the night of the shooting and one after the media storm. The third person didn't. He quit his job.

Once again elder, you are wise but wrong. Zimmerman is not on trial for murder, but manslaughter. He is on charge for mansalughter probably because he was on legal drugs. Had done testsed his urine and or blood, who knows what they find. Saying I bet they find Zimmerman was drunk is assumption.

 

Go look up Frank Taafe interviews on youtube. He is Zimmeman's friend. These were interviews on national television. They did their own homie in. It's called dry snitching. Telling on someone when they didn't mean to. So we have a legal child being questioned by an adult that doesn't have such an authoirty. How do we know Trayvon didn't feel threatened? We don't but the confrontation was avoidable. So therefore this shooting cannot be considered incosnequestial. Crime on crime is inconsequential. A high school aged, unarmed minor is not. Think Clyde: an unarmed minor walking home is murdered. Why, because he came into contact with a guy whom accosted him. Regardless of whom attacked who first and who said or did what. The fact remains cops say the confrontation was avoidable on Zimmerman's part. The fact remains Trayvon had darn good reason for being in the area of the complex; Trayvon can throw hands and Zimmerman cannot. Zimmerman shot was a far as 5 feet away from what I understand.

We can go tit for tat all day, the main fact that remains is that 3 people had immediate access to the information in this case. The lead detective, the original prosecutor and the special prosecutor. 2 out 3 felt Zimmerman should be arrested. One before the media storm, liek the night of the shootingl and one after the media storm. The third person didn't. He quit his job.

 

I love when people tell me I'm wrong.

 

Zimmerman is charged with 2nd degree murder.

Zimmerman Charged With 2nd Degree Murder « CBS Miami

 

Autopsy says shot was from 1 to 18 inches.

 

You keep hanging your legal hat on the fact that Zimmerman said something. That's not enough.

 

The police officer thought he should be charged with manslaughter.

 

Prosecutor went big and went 2nd degree murder. Manslaughter would have been much easier.

For the record, I believe the prosecutor will come with more evidence that we haven't discussed. Has to. She said it didn't take long to come up with the 2nd degree murder charge. That should tell us there is more coming.

If a cop gets assaulted by a civilian can the cop shoot and kill the civilian or can a cop only shoot if a weapon is drawn?

 

Every situation is different, but no someone does not have to have a weapon in every case for a police officer to shoot them.

Every situation is different, but no someone does not have to have a weapon in every case for a police officer to shoot them.

 

I would assume that if a person was on top of an officer beating that officer in the face that a weapon would not be required before the officer can shoot. Seems logical to me.

 

I would assume that if a person was on top of an officer beating that officer in the face that a weapon would not be required before the officer can shoot. Seems logical to me.

 

I would probably agree. Mainly because at that point that person is not attempting to flee. They are there to hurt or kill the police officer.