Weighing in on the Trayvon Case

ouch........

 

Okay, someone define "innocent child" for me.

I take the "innocent" part to mean he wasn't guilty of anything at the time, which I fully agree with.

But "child"? Again, 17 years old, 6'3". *NOT* the picture that the media and everyone threw around of when he was 12.

 

Yes, but I'd also like to note that I live in Florida...we get the Orlando Fox news station so I've been hearing this and more for months now.

George Zimmerman FOLLOWED Trayvon. He was wrong. Even after the 911 operator told him to stop he got OUT of his car and FOLLOWED him. That boy did not go up to his car, open the door, drag him out, and ...what was it...oh yes, "beat his head into the sidewalk." George Zimmerman came after him with a drawn gun. I might have beat his head into the sidewalk also, thinking this guy is going to shoot me.

 

Please...if he didn't pursue him then why was he OUT OF HIS CAR with a DRAWN GUN?????

 

Ummmm you're right, there'd have been two dead bodies. This is Florida where the police shoot first and ask questions later. Here when the police pull up and come at you with guns drawn it's best to stand still, raise your hands slowly and say nothing...you might live through the night.

 

3-page warning: This thread will be closed no sooner than midnight ET by one of the moderators. Thanks.

Lady Eagle
Moderator

 

Nope.:laugh:

 

Precisely. That's why I believe he's going to be found guilty, not to mention all the inconsistencies that are popping up in his story with every new interview.

This is probably why the initial investigator wanted to charge him.

 

Part of the Florida Law says

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—

The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Section 2a might get him off. But his problem again is he pursued the child. It's kinda hard to claim imminent danger or anything else when you still followed the child after being instructed to not do that.