Why hasn't the Neighborhood Watch shooter been arrested?

[OnePercent]

Originally Posted by you with the face

Other than Zimmerman himself, who has done this? He's still alive and non-executed the last time I checked. He also hasn't been arrested or imprisoned.

He has injuries consistent with having been assaulted. His defense has nothing to do with delivering justice and everything to do with self-defense.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

But Martin didn't know that. Zimmerman was sure acting like a plainclothes cop or private security.

Yowza, what an obedient soul you are!

Free citizens on public ways owe no duty to follow the orders of random strangers on the outside chance that those commanding them are plainsclothes police or "private security" (i.e., just some guy who's getting paid). Even the duly consistuted police couldn't stop Martin without reasonable, articulable suspicion (a Terry stop), and then only briefly and for the limited purpose of either confirming or dispelling the suspicion.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

Originally Posted by OnePercent

So you admit outright that you don't know what happened, you are basing all of your assumptions on the information that is available to you through the media, much of which has never been officially confirmed. For all you know the police have an eyewitness that has completely verified Zimmerman's version of events. They have no obligation to release that information and they may be deliberately withholding it strategically as not to taint the investigation. In other words, you should refrain from making rash judgements when you do not have the totality of the evidence in front of you.

So you admit outright that your argument amounts to: "Who knows? Maybe there's something out there that shows I'm right!"

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by Lady of the Lake

Ignore this post. Argh, I really shouldn't post when hungry. It's mostly gibberish.

What I meant to say:
1) But a ski mask at 40 is only applicable to a hoodie in this situation if it is something many normal teens are doing. It isn't. Many normal teens, as others have said, wear hoodies in warm weather.

It wasn't that he was wearing a hoodie, but that Martin put the hoodie up when he saw that Zimmerman was looking at him. Are you claiming that if you were looking at someone and they noticed it and put their hoodie up when they noticed that you were looking at them, that you wouldn't find it suspicious?

2) The police story is only applicable if Zimmerman was in any way in his right to follow and accost this boy. He's not a cop. As I said in my first post, if I were a teen and some adult started staring at me/following me/harassing me: I would be afraid. I can put myself in his shoes and think about hiding behind a hoodie and walking faster to try to get away from the creep.
*shrug*[/quote]

You are assuming things that Martin didn't know at that point. If he actually thought Zimmerman was a bad guy, he should have called 911 or his father and not his girlfriend.

I want to see more forensic evidence myself. If there isn't any gunpowder residue on Martin's shirt, then Zimmerman is probably in trouble. Also I'd like to see if Zimmerman's wounds are consistent with Martin assaulting him. If they aren't, then I would downgrade Zimmerman to toast.

[runner pat]

Originally Posted by OnePercent

He has injuries consistent with having been assaulted. His defense has nothing to do with delivering justice and everything to do with self-defense.

Unless it was due to the kid fighting back because a gun was shoved in his face.

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by OnePercent

He has injuries consistent with having been assaulted. His defense has nothing to do with delivering justice and everything to do with self-defense.

He played judge and jury when concluded the kid was up to no good, just because of the way he looked, and initiated a foot-chase just to keep him from getting away.

[OnePercent]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

It sure sounds like it made it easy for Zimmerman to murder with impunity.

Based on your obviously biased and unsubstantiated assumptions about what actually took place.

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

And the young woman in Oklahoma didn't need a SYG law- no jury would have convicted her.

But she still would have been charged, as you seem to be admitting here, and she could have accepted a plea deal in such a hypothetical scenario and been imprisoned for defending herself and her child. More importantly, without the legal protections that are guaranteed in the self-defense laws she may have never bought a gun in the first place out of fear that she would be in violation of the law, in which case she would have been unable to defend herself when the situation arose.

[Arnold Winkelried]

Originally Posted by OnePercent

Secondly, "Stand Your Ground" laws do not make it easier to kill people with impunity, they make it easier for people to defend themselves from those who would do them harm. If it weren't for "Stand Your Ground" laws this young mother and her child in Oklahoma would probably be dead right now:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-woman-...5#.TwTjLtRrNM8

It is my understanding that your statement is inaccurate. In the case you cite, the woman was in her home and someone kicked down the door, holding a weapon. You already had the right (Castle doctrine, IIRC) to defned yourself in your own home.

The "Stand Your Ground" expression is usually used for laws that cover a different situation. A SYG law adds the fact that you do not have a "duty to retreat" when out in public (i.e. not in your home): you can shoot to kill when in the street without having to try to avoid the confrontation.

[Blank Slate]

Trayvon Martin wasn't a nobody to his friends and family. Furthermore, he was an American citizen with the presumed right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That life was taken without a satisfactory explanation to his family by the police. "Gee, it was self-defense, nothing we can do, y'all have a nice day" wouldn't satisfy me if I was in their shoes.

As more details emerge, more questions are raised about Zimmerman's actions and the police investigation. Legitimate questions. With the new revelation of the girlfriend on the phone, there is now another witness. The police seemingly accepted Zimmerman's version of events without question, despite the inconsistencies and falsehoods.

So what if "a bunch of blacks" are protesting? Sometimes a light needs to be shone on the police and the justice system. Nor is it only black people who are disturbed by what happened in Florida. It certainly wouldn't be unprecedented for a black victim to be denied justice, especially in the south. Personally, I would find this case just as disturbing if the teen was white. The heart of the matter is that a young life was taken for reasons that don't add up to anything I call justice. If all that happens next is the repeal of this misguided statute, then millions protesting in the streets would be a good thing if it prompts action.

[Arnold Winkelried]

Originally Posted by Hakuna Matata

I don't get them saying that though. In fact I can only think of one of the posters (OnePercent) who offered another scenario (and that scenario seemed unlikely given what we happen to know about the case through the media). But I could be wrong on that,and those posters made had claimed some scenario that I missed as I have read the thread over several days.

Many people in this thread have said that the shooter had a bloody nose, so the young man could have hit him first and that would justify a self-defense claim.

I think again you are arguing a personal viewpoint and they are arguing a semantic legal viewpoint. Arguing with someone who is espousing the legal definition of something from an emotional viewpoint seems to me to be a waste of time. Bricker (and company) isn't making the law, they are just stating that is how the law will be interpreted, etc. Wishing it wasn't isn't going to change it.

And I can argue that IMHO their semantic legal viewpoint is wrong. This is what happens in a court of law, right, two opposing parties taking different opinions of the same events? Sometimes people (even professionals like Supreme court justices) will disagree with other experts (other Supreme court justices) on how the law will or should be interpreted? OK then.

In addition, I am arguing that is this is how the law is correctly interpreted, then it is a bad law.

[OnePercent]

Originally Posted by Kimmy_Gibbler

Having a jogger behind you isn't really the same thing as being chased. If you had reason to believe (even erroneously) that the jogger was chasing you (say by taking an unusual, zig-zagging path that the jogger then also took) and you struck the jogger with non-deadly force, you'd be able to use self-defense. Moreover, the belief need only be reasonable, not necessarily correct.

Likewise with the wallet return scenario. If someone chased after you to return your mislaid wallet, without letting you know that what they were up to, and you used non-deadly force to repel them, you would again be able to avail yourself of self-defense.

And I suppose you have some proof that such an outlandish defense has ever been successfully employed? I can picture it now:

Officer: "Why did you strike the jogger sir?"
Suspect: "Because he was chasing me."
Officer: "How did you know he was chasing you?"
Suspect: "Because he was running at me"
Officer: "Did he say anything to you, did he threaten you in any way?"
Suspect: "No"
Officer: "You have the right to remain silent..."

Moreover, you are proving my point when your say that there is a difference between someone running at you (i.e. a jogger) and being chased. You are right, being chased implies some compounding information that adds to the simple act of running at someone that may constitute an assault, thought it would have to be pretty specific.

[Arnold Winkelried]

Originally Posted by OnePercent

So you admit outright that you don't know what happened, you are basing all of your assumptions on the information that is available to you through the media, much of which has never been officially confirmed. For all you know the police have an eyewitness that has completely verified Zimmerman's version of events. They have no obligation to release that information and they may be deliberately withholding it strategically as not to taint the investigation. In other words, you should refrain from making rash judgements when you do not have the totality of the evidence in front of you.

And if they release additional information, I might have to change my opinion. I won't feel bad about having formed an opinion based on incomplete evidence.

[OnePercent]

Originally Posted by Kimmy_Gibbler

So you admit outright that your argument amounts to: "Who knows? Maybe there's something out there that shows I'm right!"

Are you claiming to have full knowledge of the information police have about this case? Obviously, since they have declined to arrest him on this incident so far they must have some kind of corroborating evidence that supports Zimmerman's side of the story.

[Normal Phase]

Listen to this video at 2:20. I won't bias you as to what's there if you don't already know, but you might want to turn your sound up.

http://video.search.yahoo.com/search...artin+911+call

[Hakuna Matata]

Originally Posted by Arnold Winkelried

In addition, I am arguing that is this is how the law is correctly interpreted, then it is a bad law.

Oh we are in agreement there--I think it is a terrible law. I can't imagine if I was walking down the street and someone was chasing me that isn't considered assault. And I turn and defend myself now I am the aggessor! But it does sound like that is the law there in Florida, and this case if nothing else will help focus and change that law is my hope.

Frankly I hope that (and I trust eventually this will happen) that Zimmerman gets his due. I think it will happen either legally or via the street but I think the case has incited too many emotions for him to get away free.

And with that, I think I will bow out of this thread. Interesting discussion though.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Kimmy_Gibbler

So you admit outright that your argument amounts to: "Who knows? Maybe there's something out there that shows I'm right!"

Of course, the difference is that that's how criminal burden of proof works, inconveniently enough for the prosecution. The defense can say, in effect, maybe something else happened. The prosecution has to say, "My evidence shows that the only conceivable, reasonable scenario is guilt."

So if you and he are both making possible scenarios up, he carries the day and you don't.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

Originally Posted by OnePercent

And I suppose you have some proof that such an outlandish defense has ever been successfully employed? I can picture it now:

Officer: "Why did you strike the jogger sir?"
Suspect: "Because he was chasing me."
Officer: "How did you know he was chasing you?"
Suspect: "Because he was running at me"
Officer: "Did he say anything to you, did he threaten you in any way?"
Suspect: "No"
Officer: "You have the right to remain silent..."

Moreover, you are proving my point when your say that there is a difference between someone running at you (i.e. a jogger) and being chased. You are right, being chased implies some compounding information that adds to the simple act of running at someone that may constitute an assault, thought it would have to be pretty specific.

Yeah, I can invent dialogue too. Since you and Bricker are so convinced that as a matter of law being chased without more necessarily fails to authorize self-defense, I'd be gratified if you could direct me to a court that agrees with the two of you.

[OnePercent]

Originally Posted by Arnold Winkelried

It is my understanding that your statement is inaccurate. In the case you cite, the woman was in her home and someone kicked down the door, holding a weapon. You already had the right (Castle doctrine, IIRC) to defned yourself in your own home.

The "Stand Your Ground" expression is usually used for laws that cover a different situation. A SYG law adds the fact that you do not have a "duty to retreat" when out in public (i.e. not in your home): you can shoot to kill when in the street without having to try to avoid the confrontation.

"Castle Doctrine" and "Stand Your Ground" are basically the same law and they are both concerned with the aforementioned "Duty-To-Retreat":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_...uty-to-retreat

Some states make a differentiation between being inside the home and some do not. Florida does not, neither does Oklahoma. The logic being that it is difficult to always define what constitutes a protected domicile and it is also problematic to say that people can defend themselves at home but not in their car or in the parking lot on their way to the gym for example.

[OnePercent]

Originally Posted by Arnold Winkelried

I won't feel bad about having formed an opinion based on incomplete evidence.

Would you feel bad if someone was lynched based on incomplete evidence? I am not saying that you don't have a right to an opinion. I am just saying that is dangerous to assume that a person is guilty of a crime until you have all the evidence. I mean, didn't some militia group announce they were going to hunt Zimmerman down and attempt a "citzen's arrest" on him? You don't have a problem with that I suppose?

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Of course, the difference is that that's how criminal burden of proof works, inconveniently enough for the prosecution. The defense can say, in effect, maybe something else happened. The prosecution has to say, "My evidence shows that the only conceivable, reasonable scenario is guilt."

So if you and he are both making possible scenarios up, he carries the day and you don't.

Yes, the defense need only show that the credited evidence is not inconsistent with with innocence or justification. However, the defense cannot create reasonable doubt by saying "Maybe there's some evidence we don't have would show something different" (which is what OnePercent is saying when he told ArnoldWinklereid, "Well, maybe the police have secret evidence that shows that I am right").

[Gangster Octopus]

Wait are you guys arguing that Zimmerman is potentially protected by SYG or Martin, because it seems to me that Martin is the one who has the SYG standing.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

Originally Posted by OnePercent

Are you claiming to have full knowledge of the information police have about this case?

Sure, bro, and maybe the Queen has balls and she's actually the King! I mean, anything's possible, right?!?

[Rhythmdvl]

Originally Posted by Kimmy_Gibbler

Sure, bro, and maybe the Queen has balls and she's actually the King! I mean, anything's possible, right?!?

Anybody else getting a hankering for ham and eggs?

[Jack Batty]

Originally Posted by OnePercent

Officer: "Why did you strike the jogger sir?"
Suspect: "Because he was chasing me."
Officer: "How did you know he was chasing you?"
Suspect: "Because he was running at me"
Officer: "Did he say anything to you, did he threaten you in any way?"
Suspect: "No"
Officer: "You have the right to remain silent..."

A lesson learned. The suspect should have just shot the jogger and the officer would have sent him on his way.


Oh wait ... was the jogger white?

[Blank Slate]

Originally Posted by Gangster Octopus

Wait are you guys arguing that Zimmerman is potentially protected by SYG or Martin, because it seems to me that Martin is the one who has the SYG standing.

I brought that up earlier, but he didn't have any rights. He was wearing a hoodie.

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by Normal Phase

Listen to this video at 2:20. I won't bias you as to what's there if you don't already know, but you might want to turn your sound up.

http://video.search.yahoo.com/search...artin+911+call

Which video are you talking about?

[Lady of the Lake]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

Pulling up a hoodie, when somebody looks at you. What do you thinking that is going to accomplish? Do you think it makes you invisible? Also keep in mind that Martin didn't know that Zimmerman wasn't a plainclothes cop or private security. If Martin thought Zimmerman was a mugger or something, then he should have been calling 911 or at least his father. What good does calling his girlfriend do?

BTW, you really should re-think your behavior. Acting like that is just sending out fear signals to potential predators. Actually that may be consistent. From a criminal's point of view, police officers are their predators.

I can only conjecture, and I’m only trying to look at this from Martin's point of view. However, a teen might think something along the lines of: ‘There is this weird guy following me, I’ll just pull up my hoodie, there, now I’m not looking at him so I can’t be pissing him off, I’m not drawing attention to myself and I’ll just get out of here.’

I don’t know why you are trying to push all this blame on Martin (the victim) this way. You seem to be pushing that he pulled up his hoodie/that he didn’t call the cops or his father as proof of…what exactly? Is this akin to: 'she wouldn't have gotten raped if she hadn't gotten drunk/worn that short skirt', because your argument sounds really similar...

Also…really? I said I used to hide like that when I was a teenage. I also said I can ‘put myself in his shoes’ i.e. try to understand his motivation. I didn’t say I acted like that now, as an adult…

[Invisible Chimp]

Even the guys behind Florida's SYG law think Zimmerman's self-defense claim is suspect.

[OnePercent]

Originally Posted by Hakuna Matata

Frankly I hope that (and I trust eventually this will happen) that Zimmerman gets his due. I think it will happen either legally or via the street but I think the case has incited too many emotions for him to get away free.

Yikes! So you hope that he gets murdered? I guess you are not a big believer in the whole "innocent until proven guilty" standard we have in this country. This kind of mentality exhibits exactly what is wrong with making assumptions of guilt based on incomplete and potentially inaccurate information.

[Kolga]

Originally Posted by Lady of the Lake

I don’t know why you are trying to push all this blame on Martin (the victim) this way.

You don't? Because it's pretty damn clear to me.

[crowmanyclouds]

Originally Posted by OnePercent

So basically you are saying that if someone was running after you to return the wallet that you dropped unknowingly in the parking lot you have the legal right to punch them in the face or have the police charge them with "assault"? Absurd. ...

Yeah, there's never been a case where simply brandishing a wallet was enough to get anyone acquitted on charges of second-degree murder and reckless endangerment.

<cough> Amadou Diallo <cough>
Absurd indeed!

&
CMC fnord!

[OnePercent]

Originally Posted by Kimmy_Gibbler

Yes, the defense need only show that the credited evidence is not inconsistent with with innocence or justification. However, the defense cannot create reasonable doubt by saying "Maybe there's some evidence we don't have would show something different" (which is what OnePercent is saying when he told ArnoldWinklereid, "Well, maybe the police have secret evidence that shows that I am right").

I am sorry, at what point did I say that I was arguing for the defense? I am simply saying that we in the general public do not have all of the information the police have, therefore we should refrain from making assumptions about what may or may not have occurred until we do have all of those facts. Obviously the police felt that Zimmerman's account of events held water, they must have their reasons. What you are saying, in effect, is that every unsubstantiated rumor you have heard in the media is the inarguable truth about what happened that night, which is not a good way to arrive at the truth.

[OnePercent]

Originally Posted by crowmanyclouds

Yeah, there's never been a case where simply brandishing a wallet was enough to get anyone acquitted on charges of second-degree murder and reckless endangerment.

<cough> Amadou Diallo <cough>
Absurd indeed!

&
CMC fnord!

And how is this even vaguely relevant to Kimmy_Gibbler's statement that the average citizen has the right to punch someone in the face if they are simply running in his or her direction? The story you quoted involves 4 police officers who were attempting to arrest a serial rapist. Not really the same thing now is it?

[Terraplane]

Originally Posted by Invisible Chimp

Even the guys behind Florida's SYG law think Zimmerman's self-defense claim is suspect.

Not too surprising, they don't want to take the blame for the bullshit that you can apparently get away with due to their terrible law.

[Lamar Mundane]

Originally Posted by you with the face

Which video are you talking about?

Try this one.

Yeah, I heard it.

[RickJay]

You guys need to keep up on current events, as this case is getting more interesting by the hour.

Now we have a phone call from Trayvon Martin shortly before he was shot.

Oh, and the cops seem to have somehow misplaced the phone. Or they don't seem to want anyone to see it, or something.

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

Because he's a human being with a family that misses him? Now if he was a glob of cells the size of a booger, you'd probably be outraged if his mother had an abortion. Since he was all of 17, apparently his failing to make the Olympics or cure cancer means that we can just shrug our shoulders and say "sucks to be him, but at least he wasn't worth a shit, having black skin and all"

This forum is so desperate to fight the great racist menace that you'll desperately seek to find it anywhere you can. That I've seen no one is being racist in this thread.

[OnePercent]

Originally Posted by Jack Batty

A lesson learned. The suspect should have just shot the jogger and the officer would have sent him on his way.

hahaha, nothing like black humor to lighten the mood :sarcasm:

But really now, if Zimmerman didn't have injuries consistent with an assault he would have a hard time claiming self defense. There is a huge legal difference between defending yourself from a person that has already attacked you and defending yourself from someone who you think might attack you but who hasn't already. If you can't prove that the person you shot had committed a felony against you beforehand than you will have a hard time convincing anyone of your innocence.

[you with the face]

I feel like we're living in a John Grisham novel all of a sudden.

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by Arnold Winkelried

But if I think a story shows some injustice in the legal system, why shouldn't I make my voice heard and complain about it?

Because the injustice you are complaining about is that law enforcement and the State's Attorney are being deliberative in making a decision. The "injustice" you are complaining about is that you think justice must be swift, that is essentially you seeking to deny Zimmerman his constitutional rights.

Trayvon Martin is irrelevant, the most important thing he did or will ever do is get shot by some loud mouth idiot. Our constitutional system is more important than one man, be it Martin or Zimmerman, and after hundreds of posts explaining the actual legal principles, and a very reasonable response from the State's Attorney you guys are still insisting there is some foul play from the government here, it's embarrassing. You're acting like demanding law enforcement move at your pace, regardless of the consequences, is civic responsibility. It's not, it's an act of civic oppression.

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by you with the face

SYG was passed because of a vocal segment of the population that is pro-gun, pro-vigilante behavior.

"Mob rule" is in the eye of the beholder. Its a pejorative that people use when democracy goes against this wishes. On one hand, you have people pushing for laws that make it easier to kill people with impunity. And on the other hand, you have other people pushing for more investigation of a potential murder incident. They are really no different from one another; it all boils down to influencing elected officials to do what you want.

The only problem is when this pressure causes flawed decisions to be made. A strong case can be made that SYG fits the bill. I mean, who knew that if OJ had killed Nicole and Ron in FL in the year 2012, he could have fucked up the prosecution's case simply by asserting self-defense? I didn't know this. Did you?

Elections are supposed to be democratic, prosecutions are not. To be honest, and while it's a total aside, prosecutors shouldn't be elected at all. Neither should sheriffs.

[madmonk28]

I didn't see this mentioned, but there is allegations that police tried to influence the account of one witness http://motherjones.com/politics/2012...rtin-explained

The witness says she stated that Martin had been screaming for help before he was shot, but that the officer "corrected" her and insisted it was Zimmerman who'd called for help, according to ABC News.

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by Lamar Mundane

Try this one.

Yeah, I heard it.

I heard it too, but you know people are just going to say we imagined it. Or that it's just the sound of his thighs rubbing together. Or something.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

Originally Posted by OnePercent

And how is this even vaguely relevant to Kimmy_Gibbler's statement that the average citizen has the right to punch someone in the face if they are simply running in his or her direction?

At no time has that been my claim, which is that a person being chased by a stranger may, without more,* repel the chase with non-deadly force.

Being chased is not the same thing as have someone run in your direction.

Nor do you need to be correct that the chaser meant you harm, you need only show that a reasonable person would similarly apprehend an imminent danger of a harmful or offensive bodily contact.

It is telling that you can only argue against the contentions you wish had been made, rather than any actual ones.

* I'd observe that a wallet-returner would ordinarily be expected to say something like "Hey, you dropped your wallet." Perhaps we can make him mute in our hypothetical. No matter: so long as the fear was reasonable, our poor mute Boy Scout runs the risk of a knuckle sandwich.

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

Elections are supposed to be democratic, prosecutions are not.

It's gone to a grand jury. That's it. If the case as is weak as the cops pre-judged it to be from the start, then you have nothing to worry your pretty little head off about.

By your reaction, you'd think the state had started warming up the electric chair for this man. Get some perspective.

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by Arnold Winkelried

I'm becoming curious about this. What level of contributions to society make a person a "somebody", meaning that we are allowed to care about an injustice committed against that person?

I'm checking my copy of the constitution but I'm pretty sure you can care about whatever you want, just as I can call you guys reactionary offenderati for it.

Trayvon Martin isn't at danger of having an injustice committed against his person, being as his person is a rotting hunk of meat and bones lacking sentience or cognition.

Like I said, I can at least understand some level of outrage if someone meaningful had been shot and killed. But just a regular joe? How about people settle down and let the government actually do its job. I don't know why people think it is appropriate to try and affect the process of criminal justice through mob intimidation tactics.

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by you with the face

He played judge and jury when concluded the kid was up to no good, just because of the way he looked, and initiated a foot-chase just to keep him from getting away.

You have no evidence it was a foot chase. The cell phone call the girl reported even states Martin wasn't running. Doesn't sound like a foot chase to me.

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by Kimmy_Gibbler

Yes, the defense need only show that the credited evidence is not inconsistent with with innocence or justification. However, the defense cannot create reasonable doubt by saying "Maybe there's some evidence we don't have would show something different" (which is what OnePercent is saying when he told ArnoldWinklereid, "Well, maybe the police have secret evidence that shows that I am right").

OnePercent isn't talking about evidence at trial, he's saying that since the full investigation by the State is ongoing, with evidence still not available to the public we the public do not have any grounds to be jumping to any conclusions.

Yeah, if we watch this with rapt attention on CourtTV if it goes to trial and see every piece of evidence the jury sees and there is nothing at all to disprove the prosecution's claim then OnePercent would be off base to say "maybe there is some evidence out there that would exonerate Zimmerman."

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by Blank Slate

I brought that up earlier, but he didn't have any rights. He was wearing a hoodie.

Martin is a corpse, he has no rights as he is no longer a living human being. Martin can't claim self defense under SYG because he's not alive to press that claim. We will never know Martin's side of the story, the only role of the State is to vet Zimmerman's side of the story and decide if he has a valid self-defense claim under SYG or any other self-defense law be it general common law or otherwise. If so they would be derelict in their duties to prosecute him.

[Arnold Winkelried]

Originally Posted by OnePercent

"Castle Doctrine" and "Stand Your Ground" are basically the same law and they are both concerned with the aforementioned "Duty-To-Retreat":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_...uty-to-retreat

The first line of the Wikipedia article says that the Castle Doctrine applies to someone in their house.
A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal doctrine that designates a person's abode (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as a car or place of work) as a place in which the person has certain protections and immunities and may in certain circumstances attack an intruder without becoming liable to prosecution.

I've been using the "Stand Your Ground" expression to apply to laws that say you can use deadly force against someone, without needing to retreat, outside your house. The Wikipedia page makes the same distinction, look at section 3:
3 State-by-state positions
3.1 States with a Stand-your-ground Law
3.2 States with a Castle Law
...
States with a Stand-your-ground Law
No duty to retreat, regardless of where attack takes place.
...
States with a Castle Law
No duty to retreat if in the home.

If you want to use different terms to differentiate them, fine by me, as long as we both understand what each other is trying to say.