CQB Elite

I never said it was "okay" and I doubt the Feds get anywhere either. Also, the Black Panther Party is a non-issue ever since Forrest Gump infiltrated them.

Wow.... "dirtbag"???.... Trayvon walking along, minding his own business???..... I'm pretty sure those are assumptions on your behalf and NOT even close to facts.... You are right about one thing- you shouldn't be concerned with a trial because you've already convicted Zimmerman and sentenced him to the death penalty ("He'll live in fear the rest of his life").

My wife said I was hoarding ammo. I asked her if she would rather me hoard old pizza delivery boxes and Hungry Man frozen dinner trays instead....

+1

Lester, great questionnaire! I'd like to answer two of the questions by offering this- first, I don't think M would have stuck around and waited for the police to show up. Second, if he did and he attacked the officer then they couldn't just shoot him. They have to follow the Use of Force Matrix. The Matrix goes from "officer presence" (which is considered a use of force) to verbal commands to open/empty hand techniques to impact weapon and then on to deadly force. You meet force (resistance) with the appropriate response. LEO are trained to and held to that standard. Private citizens are not.

You might not have said Zimmerman was guilty but in an earlier post you did refer to Martin as "innocent"...

Problem is trying to find a heavyweight champ these days. Ain't been a good one in years....

Yes Master Yoda....

I agree with you 100% that you don't pull a gun after starting a fist fight. Guess Zimmerman's Jiu-Jitsu is weak. Zimmerman is probably just like the people I see here in TN that get their HCP and then go out and buy the badge to go with it. I still don't believe the state will have a successful prosecution. That's why the kid's mom retained Crump, so she could sue everyone involved.

Amen to that! IMHO Maher is irrelevant to just about any discussion.

Dave, I'm not going to get in a pi**ing contest with you over this. But I am going to offer this in rebuttal: 1) There is no such crime as "involuntary manslaughter" in Florida. It's just called manslaughter. FSS 787.07. 2) Law enforcement routinely asks the SAO to file charges, especially those of a high profile nature. That puts the ball in their court. 3) I am an expert in Fl law and the court system there because that's where I worked. I had to make decisions everyday whether to arrest someone or not and had to have a pretty darned good working knowledge of the statutes to be able to do so. I have also attended tons of depositions and court trials so this gives me a good understanding of how the court system there works. Like I said before, these have been all across the state and not limited to just one judicial circuit. I also have the pleasure of having several former Asst State's Attornies as friends.

Read back thru my posts. I have been consistent throughout in my position that you cannot simply arrest someone and put them on trial without having something to charge them with. I even asked you specifically what YOU would charge Zimmerman with if you were the arresting officer. I even went to far as to post the FSS chapter numbers that address crimes. I still have not had anyone, including you, respond with a specific charge. All we keep getting is posts asking for grand juries and that Zimmerman will be charged, etc, etc, etc. As far as the Federal investigation into the case. The Feds didn't do much for Martin Lee Anderson and the events that led to his death were on video. By the way, for those interested in trivia- the attorney for Trayvon's family also represented Martin Lee Anderson's family. There is an article in the Kansas City news from a few days ago where he talked about them not getting the media involved soon enough in the Anderson case so thats why they did in this case. Get people worked up and emotional and it will help your civil case...... You can Google Martin Lee Anderson if your not familiar with the case......

We can't put everyone on trial. Prosecutors have limited time and budget so they must weed thru the tons of cases they receive and decide which ones to pursue. I'm certainly not asking for a jury to hear testimony and decide on Zimmerman's fate. The evidence is just not strong enough. Let's don't let emotion take over common sense.

Freedom.....

It would be very hard to prove assault in this case because one of the parties is deceased. In Florida there are 3 elements to assault and all three MUST be present: 1. Intentional, unlawful threat, by word or act, to do violence to another 2. Coupled with an apparent ability to do so 3. Must create a well founded fear in the person that violence is imminent Trayvon cannot testify that he saw the gun and was scared. The defense CAN show (thru the responding officer's report) that Zimmerman showed evidence that he had been attacked. Now I ask you- would a scared person attack someone that had a gun or would they run away?

You can't compare the two because the circumstances are very different. Road Rage is an unlawful act, following a suspicious person in your neighborhood is not.

There is nothing in FSS 775 thru 896 (FL criminal statutes) that make pursue/intervene unlawful. There is also nothing that says anything about "starting a situation" that leads to anything. These issues are best addressed in civil court not criminal. What EXACTLY would you charge Zimmerman with?

Here is the Florida State Statute that contains "stand your ground". Pay particular attention to section 3. 776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.— (1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if: (a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and ( The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. (2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if: (a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or ( The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or ©â€ƒThe person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or (d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer. (3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. (4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence. (5) As used in this section, the term: (a) “Dwelling†means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night. ( “Residence†means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest. ©â€ƒâ€œVehicle†means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property. History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27.

Even after 14 pages we are still no closer to a consensus. I will tell you this: one person was wrong, one was right and we will never know because none of us are either of the two.

The jury will never consider it because in Florida a dispatcher cannot give a lawful command so he didn't disobey one. No self respecting State's Attorney will bring it up because they know it raises far more questions (doubt) than it answers. I would like to say this- I bet I'm one of the few, if not only, poster here that is is/was a certified LEO in Florida. I have testified in depos and court from Pensacola to Miami. I have worked with countless State's Attorneys on a wide variety of cases. There are good ones and bad ones. The juries in Florida are far different than those here in TN. Having said that, not even the bad ones will hang their hat on something as fragile as Zimmerman continuing to follow even after a dispatcher suggested he not.

No, it doesn't give the jury insight into anything.

Exactly! I never heard the dispatcher tell him not to follow. I only heard him suggest it. It's the same as, "I don't need this double Whopper with cheese..." But that doesn't stop me from eating one.

Winner Winner Chicken Dinner! That post pretty much sums up this whole conversation. As one old time deputy told me when I first put on a gun & star, "There are 3 sides to every story- his side, her side and the truth".....

We have one and love it. I've found several "litters" of Chocolate Labs that match the real one we have. It has several filters that the air passes thru before going back in the room so it does keep the dust level down. The only thing I would change is to get rid of the baffles that are on the inside of the can. The dust & carpet fresh build up behind behind them and it takes a dremel tool or act of Congress to get them out.

Welcome to the forum! Glad to have you here