Stand Your Ground only applies when there is a chance of retreat. Once Martin threw that fist and applied it to Zimmerman's nose, Stand Your Ground no longer applied, and self-defense became the relevant concept.

I'm not ruling one way or another; just stating what I know based on research.

Freedomain Radio philosopher Stefan Molyneux published an excellent video a couple of days ago, for those who can spare 30 minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bF-Ax5E8EJc&feature=youtube_gdata_player

I just watched This Week with George Stephanopoulos -- almost everyone was talking that Zimmerman should have been found guilty just because he was armed and Martin wasn't.

The problem that is ignored, strenuously, was that Trayvon Martin was 5’11" and 158 lbs. at the time, while George Zimmerman clocked in at a clinically obese 5’7” and 204 lbs.

I'm 5'11" too. If I see a 5'11" person in the dark or dim lighting, I'm going to assume they are somewhere near to being an adult as well.

The media has done it's best to obscure facts with emotion and disregard the inconvenient truths.

Wish this case was getting more attention...

http://mobile.theroot.com/articles/politics/2012/05/nra_marissa_alexander_shooting.html

Once the cops told Zimmerman to get back in his car, following him was no longer his right. He was not authorized to get close enough to see if he was an adult or child.

But I agree, the prosecutor should be embarrassed not only for the dishonesty in the affidavit, but the way trial unfolded.

Once the cops told Zimmerman to get back in his car, following him was no longer his right.

Again, no. It was not a command, it was a suggestion. That was covered fairly early on in the testimony, and the 911 operator stressed that they do not give commands over the phone.

Not to mention such commands would be...unenforcable. And GZ was headed back to his vehicle when Martin confronted him.

I think the whole thing is messed up. Zimmerman had no business having a gun or being on patrol. Martin should have hung up the phone, told Zimmerman that his father lived there and dropped his attitude. It's all a mess, and while I don't like Zimmerman, I think these were testosterone-poisoned actions.

Why would Zimmerman have no business having a gun or patrolling his neighborhood, KateC? Is it just because you don't like the idea of people having guns? You'd prefer homeowners to cower in fear behind their locked doors rather than take responsibility for their own environment? Is there a law I'm unaware of against either? Zimmerman broke no laws. Martin, at the point he attacked, DID break laws. He was the only one in this scenario to do so.

"Zimmerman had no business having a gun"

KateC - care to explain?

NikkiG: Once the cops told Zimmerman to get back in his car, following him was no longer his right. He was not authorized to get close enough to see if he was an adult or child.

The dispatcher did not "order" him. In fact, the dispatcher has no right to order him to do anything.

And Zimmerman had as much right, if not more, to be on the sidewalk in his own neighborhood.

Once the cops told Zimmerman to get back in his car, following him was no longer his right.

Outside of being under arrest and very narrowly defined emergency situations the cops cant tell you what to do, and even within those few situation they can most of what they can tell you to do is leave an area

Feebie, regarding the Marissa Alexander shooting, as I understand that case she left the home, while in the garage she found the gun loaded it went back in thereby invaldating stand your ground and the warning shot she fired, from the doorway of the garage, went thru the kids room and missed one of them by a foot.

Now its been almost three years since the story came out so I could be misremebering some of the details

There has been such a predictable and ridiculous number of black people expressing outrage over the lack of justice for poor trayvon on twitter today. Odd, since the best odds of themselves or their kids being a victim of a violent crime is by another black male. You'd think they'd identify more with the theat to their kids than with him being a kid. Of course, since the media decided to only show a pic of him at 12, I guess they DO see him as a kid. If he WAS 12 when this happened, of course it would be a very different situation.

I'm a youngish white mom-I did NOT identify with Casey Anthony. Why do they feel the need to do so? I really don't get it.

M4, the easy answer would be because white people are not an oppressed minority.

However, you could counter that, as women, you and Casey Anthony are oppressed minorities, too. Demonstrably moreso than black males.

So, I don't really have an answer for you. I'll let someone else give it a try.

So the NAACP intends to "continue to fight for the removal of Stand Your Ground laws in every state."

Perhaps they should start some place like California. There, it is not exactly a law - it is part of the California State Constitution.

And the "stand your ground" law was indeed not applicable, which is why the defense never raised it - only the prosecution, the press, and those like the President of the NAACP who seem never to have read a summary of the law[s] or why they were passed.

I have some (now ex-)friends on Facebook who absolutely lost their shit over this. They were bombarding all of their friends with wild-assed accounts which had almost no relationship to the actual case and ignored everything that didn't support their preconceived notion. We really do live in a nation where being a member in good standing of a tribe is far, far more important to most people than actual knowledge. If race relations in this country are being poisoned (and I think they are), it isn't the George Zimmermans of the world that are doing it.

I grew up with an NRA champ for a father ( USMC WWII sniper in South Pacific.) Guns don't scare me, but untrained idiots like Zimmerman do. He's not a cop. He's some guy who could not handle the situation, escalated what was clearly a teenage boy being tough into a fight, and his only recourse was to kill the kid? Martin wasn't breaking into a house.
And Momof4-- knock off the personal remarks--not needed if you have an actual point.

Cousin Dave, so do I. I've got friends that are "absolutely positive" of all kinds of wild theories, including one that insisted "we all know" that Zimmerman deliberately murdered Trayvon because he hates blacks, and called the police beforehand, so that he could have a way to get away with it.

In other words, George Zimmerman called the police to report Trayvon, murdered him ten minutes later, then injured himself to claim self-defense. The phone call was merely part of an elaborate ruse, because he just wanted to blow Trayvon away so badly.

I tried to be conciliatory. I pointed out that their theories might be 100% accurate (ha-ha), but then asked, can they prove them? Lacking proof beyond all reasonable doubt, then the defendant must get the benefit of the doubt.

This whole shit-storm could have been avoided if GZ had just stayed in his car. But, once again, done is done, there's no going back, and the jury found him not guilty. Cased closed.

This whole shit-storm could have been avoided if TM had just kept walking. But, once again, done is done, there's no going back, and the jury found him not guilty. Cased closed.

KateC:
Please answer Dave B, since you don't like mo4's questions.
There is ample evidence that a badge does not convey magical firearm handling skills.

Touche', loojy.

There is ample evidence that a badge does not convey magical firearm handling skills.

No foolin', Raddy? That's gonna come as a BIG surprise to some folks....

Flynne, George Zimmerman has the right to walk on the sidewalk of his own neighborhood without being jumped by a juvenile hoodlum with something to prove.

The fact that he got out of his truck, merely to keep the police apprised of Trayvon's whereabouts, does not give Trayvon the right to punch him in the face, knock him down, straddle him and start beating his head into the sidewalk.

I see a huge problem with someone who thinks that the solution to the problem is Zimmerman remaining a prisoner in his own truck. Zimmerman's decisions did not cause Trayvon's death. Trayvon's did.

Patrick of course he does. But so too, he has a personal responsibility to himself to keep himself out of harm's way, does he not? As did the "juvenile hoodlum". They both assumed things, whether they were wrong or right, and they BOTH let the situation escalate. Both are to blame. There were no winners in this scenario.

Cased closed
I'm afraid that this may not be true in today's DOJ/WH.

George Zimmerman is not to blame. He reported someone he saw casing houses in his neighborhood which had received a number of break-ins lately. He left the truck to keep the police to apprised of Trayvon's location. Yes, he was told that the dispatcher didn't need Zimmerman to do that, but he did not have any reasonable fear for his safety. If I'm going to report someone I see skulking around my neighborhood, in broad daylight, I'd probably want to keep track of this person to let the police know where he is, too.

He did not confront Trayvon. He lost track of him and started to return to his truck and Trayvon confronted him.

Zimmerman is no vigilante, and I wouldn't call him a hero. However, he is the victim of an assault who fought back and won.

Yet the woman in Florida who fired a couple of warning shots (no one hurt) at an estranged husband just got 20 years. There was a restraining order against the husband. I think she retreated to a garage to get the weapon and then came back in, thus invalidating her right to stand her ground. She refused a deal for 3 years as she feels she did nothing wrong. Now she is doing 20, despite being a first offender. And her kid gets to go into foster care or live with the abuser Dad...

"but untrained idiots like Zimmerman do. He's not a cop. He's some guy who could not handle the situation, escalated what was clearly a teenage boy being tough into a fight"

KateC - Please explain how Zimmerman is an untrained idiot. With facts. Please explain how he could not handle the situation. Do you realize he did handle it. Please explain how he escalated the situation into a fight.

I am also waiting on your explanation of why "Zimmerman had no business having a gun"

Oh, and why is the fact that he is not a cop meaningful to you?

The one that gets me is the "protesters" carrying signs saying "No justice for Martin!", etc.

Well Martin got justice on the street, which is survival of the fittest, when he brought his fists to a gunfight that he provoked.

Then Martin got it again when a jury found that Zimmerman was not guilty of murder by defending himself.

If someone believes the only justice for Martin is a Zimmerman conviction -- that isn't justice, that is vigilantism -- the same thing they are accusing Zimmerman of doing.

He's some guy who could not handle the situation, escalated what was clearly a teenage boy being tough into a fight, and his only recourse was to kill the kid?

How did Zimmerman escalate the situation?

He was walking away, back toward his truck, when Martin attacked him. Not confronted him. Attacked him.

By attacking him, Martin escalated the situation.

Zimmerman bears some responsibility for introducing a gun into the situation.

And there is the probability that, had Zimmerman not been armed with a gun, he might not have had the confidence to follow Martin as closely.

However, the escalation in this situation belongs entirely to Martin.

He chose to respond with violence. He did not choose to call the police and report Zimmerman for following him (at which point the dispatcher could have easily defused the situation). He did not choose to walk home. He did not chose to walk to a well-lighted public place. He did not choose to ask Zimmerman why he was following him (face-to-face or by shouting to him). He chose to attack without warning.

Neither of these young men had a father in his life. Zimmerman tried to fill the void with dreams of being a hero. Martin tried to fill the void with violence and drugs.

Sadly, Martin, with his infatuation with fighting and making the other guy bleed, escalated a bad situation, making it worse, and it resulted in his death.

Ask yourself what your position would be had Martin gotten to Zimmerman's gun and shot him instead. Or if Zimmerman had not been armed and Martin had beaten him to death.

'By announcing that "we will continue to fight for the removal of Stand Your Ground laws in every state."'

Oh the irony - trying to remove those same laws that allow innocent African Americans to defend themselves when attacked. Don't they see the stupidity in this?

"He's not a cop. He's some guy who could not handle the situation"

This describes the average woman too when in a situation of having their head bashed in, and yet somehow, I still think women have a right to self-defense. So because Zimmerman's a man, he doesn't have the self-defense rights a woman should have?

"... almost everyone was talking that Zimmerman should have been found guilty just because he was armed and Martin wasn't"

If we were to follow this logic, then we'd have to prosecute rape victims every time a woman with a gun in her handbag has it used against her by her rapist.

Thank god and President Obama that, since Martin was killed by a non-black, the persecution will continue.

Per AG Holder.

Would that they took an interest in the black-on-black Chicago murders, but, eh. Move along. Nothing to see there.

What personal remark did I make? Other than pointing out Zimmerman broke no laws and Martin did. Or is just asking you to clarify a confusing and unsupported position now a personal remark?

I am not a cop. I had dreams of being in law enforcement when I was younger. If I'm jumped by someone who starts punching me, can I shoot them? Or would I have no business having a gun either? I'm 5'11"-does my height mean I shouldn't need to defend myself? Do I get the pussy-pass of being able to get away with things men can't? Is it just Hispanic men? I'm still confused.

This is enough for me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01nSGb6waE8

Conan: Zimmerman bears some responsibility for introducing a gun into the situation.

Wrong. He didn't introduce it. He had it. It became visible when Martin was beating on him and according to his testimony, Martin reached for it. s

And he bears no responsibility for using it. If someone were bouncing my head on a concrete sidewalk, I'd shoot them to. Martin's attack was arguably deadly. If you don't believe, bash your head on a sidewalk a few times. Get back to me...oh, you won't be able to.

Zimmerman had the right to respond to deadly force with deadly force.

Patrick, situations like this are rarely black and white (pun intended).

Zimmerman had no choice in using the gun. Martin gave him none. He attacked Zimmerman and, when Martin saw the gun, he reached for it while verbally threatening to end Zimmerman's life. The entire onus for the escalation and outcome of this encounter lies with Trayvon Martin.

Martin should have considered that Zimmerman may be armed before he jumped him. Zimmerman was not a uniformed patrol officer and did not look like a police officer, but the possibility that he might be armed was not something the young and inexperienced Trayvon Marin considered, unfortunately for him.

All that aside, why did Zimmerman brought a gun along on a routine neighborhood watch patrol? It was a peaceful neighborhood. Even the reported burglaries were not accompanied by acts of violence.

Introducing a gun into a situation, even if it's never pulled out, changes the dynamics. Would Zimmerman have been as bold in following Martin without the gun in his pants? Would he have stayed in the truck?

By all accounts (by default, Martin's account is absent from the record), Zimmerman was responsible in carrying his gun, leaving it holstered and hidden as he trailed Martin.

While Zimmerman did nothing legally or morally wrong and Martin bears the responsibility for the night's outcome, Zimmerman's choices that night contributed to that outcome.

-------------------------

"A six-gun will get you into more trouble than it will get you out of." ~ John Simpson Chisum (1824-1884)

"But so too, he has a personal responsibility to himself to keep himself out of harm's way, does he not? "

Not necessarily. I've placed myself in harm's way several times in my life. I don't feel like getting into all of the details here, but I felt there were good reasons then, and with one exception, I still feel that way. You do have to stop and consider whether you are getting into a situation that's over your head. George Zimmerman got into a situation that was over his head. But it's not always easy to tell at the time.

Conan: While Zimmerman did nothing legally or morally wrong and Martin bears the responsibility for the night's outcome, Zimmerman's choices that night contributed to that outcome.

Bollocks, Conan.

Zimmerman did what a conscientious neighborhood watch program participant would do. If I were participating in a neighborhood watch program, I'd call the police and want to keep them apprised of an intruder's whereabouts as well. His conduct was completely reasonable. I fail to see what "choices" he made that contributed to the outcome.

Martin, by contrast made the unreasonable choices. If someone's following me, I don't have the right to punch them in the face and start bouncing their head on the sidewalk.

Zimmerman's choices were reasonable or at least understandable. Martin's choices were neither.

I fail to see what "choices" he made that contributed to the outcome. ~ Patrick

He chose to carry a gun. He then chose,perhaps because he had that gun, to attempt to closely follow a suspected burglar; a burglar who might also have been armed with a gun. Gunfights in residential neighborhoods often have collateral damage in the form of residents getting shot through walls and windows.

The decision to carry a gun while patrolling a residential neighborhood should not be made lightly. I've yet to read where Zimmerman made a reasoned choice to go about armed. Or where he spent copious amounts of time at the range learning to handle his weapon.

Zimmerman did nothing wrong. But I'd like to think that the next time he goes about armed, he'll have given it some real thought.

I suspect that our issue is semantics. I simply don't agree that Zimmerman should be viewed as in any responsible for the outcome.

It is true, that neighborhood watch programs encourage participants to work in pairs and not carry weapons. However, Florida is concealed carry only. There is no open carry in Florida unless it's a hunting rifle and you're traveling to or from a hunting site.

It's his right to carry, if he chooses to.

I reject the suggestion that his decisions contributed to the outcome when he did nothing illegal. The illegal actions were entirely Trayvon Martin's.

As for your concerns that he might not have spent an appropriate amount of time learning to handle his concealed weapon, allow me to alleviate your concerns by pointing that a concealed carry permit in Florida has prerequisites, including this:

3. Get verification of training that satisfies the training requirement. NRA, DD-14, state training course, etc. . Persons serving in the United States Armed Forces may submit a copy of their Military ID Card to satisfy the training requirement.

I suspect that our issue is semantics.

Yes. You're conflating responsibility with blame. I've already stated Zimmerman did nothing wrong and bears no moral or legal culpability for the outcome.

Martin's choice to attack what he thought was an unarmed man was the catalyst for the tragic outcome.

I'm merely pointing out that sometimes our choices can be moral and legal and still have tragic consequences ... as Zimmerman's did on that day.

While we can't foresee every consequence of what we decide to do, we still have to face up to the role our choices played in the outcome and adjust our future choices by what we learn from our past choices.

I'm sure George Zimmerman will be reliving that day for years to come and asking himself how it could have ended differently. I hope he gets some professional assistance to help get him through that.

And I hope he ignores those who say he's to blame (especially the Florida State Attorney who called him a murderer on television). And here I thought Janet Reno was the vilest prosecutor Florida could produce. I guess the well was deeper.

Or maybe I'm trying to separate things that aren't separate.

I suspect you're trying to separate things that aren't separate.

You said, "I'm merely pointing out that sometimes our choices can be moral and legal and still have tragic consequences ... as Zimmerman's did on that day."

Zimmerman's decisions did not have tragic consequences. Trayvon's did.

It's not that simple, Patrick. Zimmerman's choices played a role in this, though he did nothing wrong.

Conan - you are better than this: "Zimmerman's choices played a role in this, though he did nothing wrong."

Zimmerman was doing his job - a volunteer helping his community. Are you aware not many volunteer to help their communities? And, you want to imply that doing so gives you the ability to claim that their choices to help somehow make them responsible for the death of someone while doing nothing wrong. More than a bit of a stretch.

Goes to show how weird this all is - I would have thought you and Patrick would hold the opposite position. Also shows how I need to quit assuming Patrick is always wrong (meaning doesn't agree with me).