If "Stand your ground" is found to exonerate the shooter, you can look for "stand your ground" to go away. Since I am a Florida gunowner, and I carry concealed, I would hate to see this protection from prosecution for legitimate self defense go away;.

I do not think stand your ground was intended to allow pursuit of unarmed folks you suspect might be up to no good, then claim self defense if he fights back. If Zimmerman got his nose busted, and his scalp lacerated by the victim, it still does not give him the moral or legal authority to shoot the man for fighting back.

Reverse the situation:

You are walking home from wherever at night and are followed by a large black man. You haven't done a damn thing to make this man angry, except for maybe being white. You try to get away from him. He leaves his vehicle and follows you on foot. You turn to fight for your life and he shoots you.

Do you think in this circumstance the shooter should be able to claim "self defence" in killing you?

If I slap you in the face, you respond with a punch in the nose; can I then shoot you in self defense? I don't think so.

There have been just as many people defending Zimmerman's actions as condemning them, before the trial, so don't go getting all holy about people who think he should be held guilty of manslaughter.

It will be an interesting trial.

__________________
"It is better to be too skeptical then too credulous"

If "Stand your ground" is found to exonerate the shooter, you can look for "stand your ground" to go away. Since I am a Florida gunowner, and I carry concealed, I would hate to see this protection from prosecution for legitimate self defense go away;.

I do not think stand your ground was intended to allow pursuit of unarmed folks you suspect might be up to no good, then claim self defense if he fights back. If Zimmerman got his nose busted, and his scalp lacerated by the victim, it still does not give him the moral or legal authority to shoot the man for fighting back.

Reverse the situation:

You are walking home from wherever at night and are followed by a large black man. You haven't done a damn thing to make this man angry, except for maybe being white. You try to get away from him. He leaves his vehicle and follows you on foot. You turn to fight for your life and he shoots you.

Do you think in this circumstance the shooter should be able to claim "self defence" in killing you?

If I slap you in the face, you respond with a punch in the nose; can I then shoot you in self defense? I don't think so.

There have been just as many people defending Zimmerman's actions as condemning them, before the trial, so don't go getting all holy about people who think he should be held guilty of manslaughter.

It will be an interesting trial.

Zimmerman didn't attack him, in fact if you read the witness statements Zimmerman was on his way back to his vehicle just like the 911 operator suggested. He was then attacked by the thug. Zimmerman didn't attack anyone according to witnesses. Your whole scenario is not how it went down again according to witnesses. I guess we wouldn't want the facts to get in the way of your liberal thinking. These witness statements were the reason he wasn't arrested in the first place. The only reason he is on trial now is to appease blacks and liberals.

Stop twisting the facts just to make yourself believe you're ok with being a liberal.

If "Stand your ground" is found to exonerate the shooter, you can look for "stand your ground" to go away. Since I am a Florida gunowner, and I carry concealed, I would hate to see this protection from prosecution for legitimate self defense go away;.

I do not think stand your ground was intended to allow pursuit of unarmed folks you suspect might be up to no good, then claim self defense if he fights back. If Zimmerman got his nose busted, and his scalp lacerated by the victim, it still does not give him the moral or legal authority to shoot the man for fighting back.

Fighting back? So now if someone follows you, it's the same as someone striking you? Remind me not to walk the same way down the sidewalk as you, just to be sure you dont turn around and pop me.

Oh, and the bit about reversing the situation? Zimmerman is not a "big white guy", and just because someone followed you and asked you to stop and talk to them you are turning around to "fight for your life"? You can't just beat the **** out of someone, unprovoked. Period. If Zimmerman would have lost consciousness, Martin could have kicked him in the head and turned him in to a vegetable for the rest of his life.... And of its true that Martin already lashed out and attacked unprovoked, I don't think that's something that I would put past him.

If I slap you in the face, you respond with a punch in the nose; can I then shoot you in self defense? I don't think so.

Yea, still bugs me. No, in that scenario, the shooter can't claim self defense UNLESS he was knocked on the ground by the punch and the person who was originally the defender is still coming after him after the threat has been removed, turning him in to an aggressor. Then, fearing for his life, the original attacker can now defend himself.

That aside, in this case, it was more like this:

I follow you and talk to you, you punch me, I shoot you. Zimmerman was NOT the aggressor! There was no proverbial slap!

It looks to me that Zimmerman will be prosecuted to appease the Revs. Al & Jesse. That of course will leave it possible for there to be an innocent verdict for Zimmerman, but leave him open to cival suit by Martin's parents.

Our special prosecuter went around the grand jury, which makes you wonder if she had enough to get an indictment out of the grand jury. Again, this way, the local DA does not have to call it a justifiable shooting.

Ladies and gentlemen- this thread has been moving further over into the political side of things, and has been discussed to death. However, it is not IN politics.

As a Mod, I DO get to have the last words- they are:
1. None of us were there. Information WE have is the very definition of hearsay.
2. The conduct of authorities and the news media stinks.
3. The very MENTION of "Stand your ground" laws by varied persons is an effort to create a smoke screen.