200 :1orglaugh

They would have to use race as a motive when they probably dont need to. We already know that he did follow, for whatever his reasons were. This case can be totally color blind and be won on the pursuit and apparent attempt to unlawfully detain, or whatever direction the evidence goes.

A neighbor and friend of George Zimmerman's said Tuesday on CNN that their neighborhood had suffered eight burglaries, all committed by young black men, in the 15 months prior to Trayvon Martin's shooting.

Frank Taaffe's account paints a picture of a neighborhood watch volunteer making rounds in a community suffering a spate of burglaries when he ran across what he thought was a suspicious figure walking the streets. Police records appear to only partially substantiate Taaffe's claims about the burglaries, citing three of eight cases in which suspects were identified as black males.

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-04-03/j...?_s=PM:JUSTICE

i bet he left a trail of 911 calls we'll see :) the recordings will be his down fall not just the current one. id like to go over all of his calls that he made when he was the head of block watch.

ok i need to work be back after lunch time

I do NOT think he shot him because he was black. If I did think that, then I would say mention race every 5 seconds in or out of context. He MAY have followed him because he was black.. THAT is not illegal, so should not be a big part of anything but kitchen table talk. A smart jury might think poorly of a prosecution who focusses time on something they already know and accept.

I agree with this.

Actually, it is not illegal, but it will be used to establish a chain of relevance that will lead to proof of dangerous conduct by Zimmerman. The prosecutor ultimately will have to establish that Zimmerman did follow Martin because he was black. It is a key part of establishing Zimmerman's refusal to acknowledge the inherent risk of being armed and following a citizen he incorrectly perceived as a potential burglar.

The prosecutor will use Zimmermans's statements regarding:

- The burglaries
- The knowledge that the burglaries were committed by blacks
- The fact that Zimmerman typecast Martin as suspicious to the dispatcher
- The fact that Martin was black, hence the connection made by Zimmerman that he was a potential burglar
- The fact that Zimmerman said that "these assholes, they always get away". (This was a very damning statement for an armed man to say and the prosecutor will jump all over that)
-The fact that Zimmerman said some other insult (whatever it was) under his breath
-the fact that Zimmerman was advised not to pursue

All of that and a few more details will be used to nullify Zimmerman's claim that he was attacked. As an armed man who was not in any immediate danger, he should have waited for the police.

The prosecutor will assert that the minute he left his vehicle, Zimmerman set into motion the chain of events that resulted in Martin's death and will further assert that his conduct was dangerous in nature as the risk of a potential conflict did not exist until he left his vehicle.

The burden of responsibility for the events that occurred lie squarely in Zimmerman's hands and the prosecutor will have a relatively easy time proving this, even if Zimmerman tres to claim self-defense.

All of that shit is irrelevant under this "stand your ground" law. All Zimmerman's lawyers have to prove is that the kid attacked Zimmerman. And since no third parties witnessed the event, and the kid is dead, that right there will provide more than enough reasonable doubt. I think, I don't know, I'm not a fucking lawyer. He'll probably walk. Look at Bernie Goetz, he shot four unarmed kids and walked away with only a charge for criminal possesion of a weapon, and that was in New York, which doesn't even have this law.

Your claim that what I am stating is irrelevant is grossly incorrect. I'll get to that in a second. As for Bernie Goetz, he was justified in shooting those men who attempted to mug him. As they were in the process of an unprovoked crime against his person, he had every right to shoot to kill.

Back to Zimmerman though. The defense under the "stand your ground" law loses its relevance the minute that the facts that I stated are stacked up from a prosecution standpoint. Zimmerman was the person who initiated the entire scenario by pursuing Martin. That fact has been established and will ring true throughout this case.

Remember that the law follows a timeline in its entirety, not select pieces of said timeline.

If the actions of a person initiate a conflict and the situation was clearly avoidable, one cannot then use the law to defend themselves if they end up using deadly force to end the conflict. (Provocation comes into play here.) As an armed person, Zimmerman's act of leaving his vehicle at night to pursue a potential burglar when he didn't have the legal authority to do so was reckless and symptomatic of dangerous conduct. It's just that simple.

He made a serious error in judgement, set the wheels of a deadly situation in motion and now wants to lean on the "stand your ground" law to avoid jail.

That is NOT what that law is meant to protect against. Anyone who supports that law, including myself, knows full well that to even use that law in such a fashion waters down its true use.

bump for answers