Zimmerman - what will happen next?

homeagain wrote:

homeagain wrote: According to Juror B37, in part the STAND YOUR GROUND LAW was the reason (self-defense)
it was a 3/2/1 split thru the deliberation process.....per Jury B37, in the end they could ONLY
acquit because of difficulty with interpreting the law (jury instructions) and the prosecutions
NOT being able to present their case ADEQUATELY.....SO, it was a combination of several
different factors,but race, according to Juror B37 was NOT one of them...

The STAND YOUR GROUND law was cited by the investigating police personnel,at the INITIAL
event......and Z. was released.....THEREIN is the problem....NO tox report,ect. he was
released after 4 hours of questioning...JMO......slam dunk case closed.......JMO.....I would
have liked to have seen a tox report, to TRULY understand if ADERALL was in HIS system,and
how THAT would have impacted his decisions/actions.....(the side effects of the rx he was
taking WOULD have been a factor in his decision making process.)

ANXIETY, restlessness,UNusual behavior,heart palpitations, mood issues.....SOME of the
side effects.

We all know you don't like "Stand Your Ground" type laws home. But you have never explained why you think a person who has a right to be where they are should have an obligation to try and retreat when threatened by a thug before defending themselves from the thug. Doesn't that law protect the thug more than the civil member of the society? Is that what you think our laws should do? Do you actually believe our laws should empower thugs to a greater degree than they empower the civil members of the society? That seems bassackwards to me. To me and my way of thinking, the laws should make thuggery a very dangerous way to try and make a living. To me it seems reasonable to tell the thugs that their well being is in jeopardy each and every time they seek to harm the rights of anyone else. I want the thugs wondering if demanding that wallet is going to cost them their life, I want them asking if their unlawful behavior is worth risking their life for each and every time they even contemplate violating the rights of someone else. I believe our laws should protect the civil members of the society over the thugs in the society.

PS....I do NOT have a problem with the law in it's concept.....I have a SPECIFIC problem with
Florida's law.....it is poorly written,leaves room for far TOO much interpretation and is NOT in
alignment with other states STAND YOUR GROUND.....from the on set I have stated that FLORIDA'S Stand Your Ground needed to be re-tooled and revised. THAT has been the impetus
for ALL of my posts.

This tragedy has brought that forward and the juror has stated that she felt those in positions
of power SHOULD amend that law so that a BETTER verdict could have been rendered.....the
law in FLORIDA is poorly written......JMO

PS....as to "the talk".......I would imagine that YOUR father's conversation with you was FAR
different than a black father's conversation with his son......

TRULY re-read my post about Jena Six.....the stage filled with black/white participants could
NOT communicate their experiences to each other......the white sector was UNable to understand
what the black sector was relating......because the white sector was viewing THRU THEIR OWN
EXPERIENCE, not thru the eye's of a black person.....

In Florida black people have actually as a percent of population used Stand Your Ground to protect themselves in court more than whites. Over one million Floridians have concealed carry permits and amazing to see so few instances of abuse.

The trial is over and most if not all of us were not involved.

So...what is next....the same thing we should have been doing during the whole trial....going on with OUR lives.

This was a media cycle, not something that has anything really to do with anyone that was not in that courtroom or paying for ads on the "news" stations.

I was likely forced down your throat so you would not pay attention to the privacy debate...or rather to end it like it did. So in 20 months or 20 years when you are looking back saying we should have done something...just remember you did...you payed attention to a random court case in Florida.

on that note wrote: The trial is over and most if not all of us were not involved.

So...what is next....the same thing we should have been doing during the whole trial....going on with OUR lives.

This was a media cycle, not something that has anything really to do with anyone that was not in that courtroom or paying for ads on the "news" stations.

I was likely forced down your throat so you would not pay attention to the privacy debate...or rather to end it like it did. So in 20 months or 20 years when you are looking back saying we should have done something...just remember you did...you payed attention to a random court case in Florida.

What you FAIL to take into account is this.....the incident happened WELL before the most
recent privacy debate.....the PRESENT rendered verdict is the culmination of actions that
were put into play a year ago (or so)......the parents were NOT given adequate legal recourse
and THIS finished case has brought, at least, some comfort in knowing it WASN'T swept under
neath the table and forgot. JMO

I was just now reading this article and this really jumped out at me...

Martin's parents said they still believe Zimmerman, who identifies himself as Hispanic, racially profiled their son.

http://mycenturylink.com/news/read/category/Top%20News/article/ap-trayvon_martins_parents_shocked_by_verdi-ap

Who other than Zimmerman has the press calling him a "white Hispanic" or says he "identifies himself as Hispanic". Talk about bias and profiling.

So far as stand your ground laws go, that's a tough question. Any self-defense law is very difficult to define clearly because the circumstances vary so widely.

If you have a chance to flee a dangerous situation, I think it's best for all involved to do so. And if you have a gun and the bad guy doesn't, I think there is even more need for you to be responsible and do all you can to avoid using the gun. However I also have no problem if you want to stand your ground and respond to force with like force. Who would expect Chuck Norris to flee from a fist fight? It's the use of a gun that makes things different to me. You don't use a gun in a fist fight if you can avoid the fist fight in the first place. Not that Zimmerman could per the evidence presented, IMO.

I also don't understand why stand your ground lets you have a "special" hearing with a judge and no jury (if I have it correctly) which can let you avoid a trial and any civil liability. Why not treat it like other legal issues?

There is one other thing I disagree on, though I don't think it has to do with stand your ground. If you initiate a fight by assulting someone first (not just yelling, calling names, or following), I don't get how you can turn it around and claim self-defense if you find you are getting your ass whooped. Again, this didn't seem to happen per the evidence in the Zimmerman case, but I keep hearing that's how the law would work.

As I understand.....Martin's family has settled a suit with the homeowners for about $$$1M.....this may be why they want to keep this going if the award is not yet in their grubby little hands...follow the $$$$ ....uhhhhh...lawyer fees....uhhhhhhh

HERE'S what I think happened.....music....the UNIVERSAL language..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9TvxSSShBY....here's the video with choreography that is CLASSIC....updated
West Side Story...... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsUXAEzaC3Q

homeagain wrote: HERE'S what I think happened.....music....the UNIVERSAL language..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9TvxSSShBY....here's the video with choreography that is CLASSIC....updated
West Side Story...... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsUXAEzaC3Q

Not even close. Apples and oranges.