Harvard Law Prof Alan Dershowitz, on Zimmerman's arrest

Is it against the law to follow someone? No
Is it ok to try and beat someone to death if they are following you? No
Is it ok to kill someone who is trying to beat you to death? Yes
What if they're carrying a bag of Skittles? It doesn't matter.
How about a teddy bear? Still doesn't matter.
What if they're wearing a hello kitty t-shirt, carrying a teddy bear and actually eating Skittles? Nope doesn't matter.
What if they're black? It doesn't matter.
What if the Black Panthers will be upset. It doesn't matter.

So you're saying that if you are abiding by the law and someone trys to beat you to death you can kill them? Yes, it's called self defence.

I don't have time to deal with all of the stupidity in your post. So I'll address the stupidist statement. "He was doing nothing illegal from what little I know". I have to commend you for admitting that you know little.

Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman. Assault is illegal. Trayvon broke Zimmerman's nose and had him down the ground pounding his head into a sidewalk. We know this because of eye witness accounts. Zimmerman should not have been charged and should not go to trial. If the circumstances of this case were the same, except that Trayvon was white and Zimmerman was black, the case would have been presented to a grand jury and they would have no billed. Zimmerman is being used as a scapegoat to appease an angry mob and to advance the political career of the special prosecutor.

PS
It's not relevant that Trayvon was carrying a bag of Skittles. Originally Posted by joe bloe

I agree Zimmerman's life has been seriously inconvenienced without any trial. That is very unfortunate and shouldn't have happened. But last I noticed Martin's life has been seriously inconvenienced a whole lot more, hasn't it? And also without a trial unless I missed something.

Killing someone is illegal, isn't it? But not if in self-defense.

Assault is illegal, isn't it? But not if in self-defense.

Why to so many on here give Zimmerman a pass, ASSUMING he was attacked, and in fear of his life he shot....

BUT

The same people discount any possibility that Martin fought Zimmerman only after Zimmerman approached him in a threatening manner, possibly pulled a gun and challenged Martin. Or will you argue a man should passively allow another to draw a gun and not fear for his life? That is BS. Somehow I think a gun is a little more threatening than a fist, but the real key is who was the aggressor first.

But EACH side is convinced "the other guy started it", just like a grade school playground argument, only this time with far more serious consequences.
You--and most the folks here--have already decided any argument that favors your preconceived answer is good, sound evidence. And argument that favor "your" guy as the aggressor is the politico wackos of the other side.

I've lived in that part of the south and saw with my own eyes a lot more aggression started by whites than by blacks. I don't know if that was the case here or not but folks like IB and a lot of others here who put together a biased version of "truth" that poor old George was minding his own business and was attacked for no reason (and at a minimum it seems he was going past where a community watch person should have gone).

I respect a lot of CW people--but none of those who I respect would have continued to approach a questionable person, certainly not on foot. In the past couple weeks I've talked to CW folks and the associated LE folks I know--and not a single one thinks Zimmerman acted correctly from what they know. Please note before some of the less stable folks respond: THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS SAYING ZIMMERMAN IS GUILTY OF MANSLAUGHTER (they think the murder 2 charge is ludicrous). Most of them--with no proding from me--expressed they would "fire" and member of their CW teams who took a gun out of the car they were in. To them it is too often the sign of a vigilante mentality, a sign of someone looking to pick a fight and express his machismo behind a pseudo shield. That is very consistent with the training I received from Watches.

Folks on here can regurgitate all they want, I still think many (not all) of them are giving Zimmerman a pass because he was the less black of the two

So you're saying that if you are abiding by the law and someone trys to beat you to death you can kill them? Yes, it's called self defence. Originally Posted by joe bloe

Well it is called Self Defense.

Look, I have already said I did not know you were an eyewitness to the event. If you saw with your own eyes, than what you say must be true.

Look, I was a Benard Gotze fan , this Zimmerman dude, not so much.

I have faith that a Flordia jury will do their best to get it right. You can bet you ass that just like in politics , whatever they do will piss off half the population!

Somehow I think a gun is a little more threatening than a fist, Originally Posted by Old-T

Paper covers rock but gun always trumps Skittles!

Do not try this at home. Skittles could kill if in the wrong hands.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oK5qZb-LdCc

In the hands of someone who knows what they are doing, almost anything can kill.

Do not try this at home. Skittles could kill if in the wrong hands.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oK5qZb-LdCc Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

When I grew up in west Texas long ago, everyone called sling shots nigger shooters. We didn't think anything about it; it's just what they were called. Those were Halcyon Days

I just keep thinking that Zimmerman's getting shafted. Assuming that he acted completely in self defence and had no choice but to kill Trayvon, his life is being made a living Hell for no legitimate reason. The fact that the special prosecutor left out exculpatory information from the affidavit is not part of "our system of justice"; according to Dershowitz it's unethical and possibly criminal (perjury). Originally Posted by joe bloe

Iam a little uncertain about something. It's always been my understanding that in order to use deadly force one has to fear for their life or anothers. At what point can Zimmerman account for fear of his life and can justify the use of deadly force to someone who was supposedly unarmed. Although I haven't followed every aspect of this case. I haven't heard of any confirmed information to where Trayvon was in the commission of any crime but only had appeared suspicious to Zimmerman. I understand that Zimmerman was working in the capacity as a volunteer in a Neighborhood Watch Program, but I've always have been under the immpression that a neighborhood watch volunteers are only instructed to observe and report any criminal or suspicious activity, not to confront or attempt to detain a subject. Well in my opinion in order for Zimmerman to fair well in this case some very promising evidence and or testimony need to be presented in his favor in the comming days.

Folks on here can regurgitate all they want, Originally Posted by Old-T

<mock>Folks can look at the facts all they want</mock>

Really Old-Timer? Really?

I still think many (not all) of them are giving Zimmerman a pass because he was the less black of the two Originally Posted by Old-T

I think some are giving Zimmerman a pass for the same reason the police released Z...the overwhelming evidence and credible witness statements indicate he acted in self defense.

Iam a little uncertain about something. It's always been my understanding that in order to use deadly force one has to fear for their life or anothers. At what point can Zimmerman account for fear of his life and can justify the use of deadly force to someone who was supposedly unarmed. Although I haven't followed every aspect of this case. I haven't heard of any confirmed information to where Trayvon was in the commission of any crime but only had appeared suspicious to Zimmerman. I understand that Zimmerman was working in the capacity as a volunteer in a Neighborhood Watch Program, but I've always have been under the immpression that a neighborhood watch volunteers are only instructed to observe and report any criminal or suspicious activity, not to confront or attempt to detain a subject. Well in my opinion in order for Zimmerman to fair well in this case some very promising evidence and or testimony need to be presented in his favor in the comming days. Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

My guess is that when Trayvon had Zimmerman down on the ground, after he had broken his nose, and was pounding his head against a concrete sidewalk, Zimmerman probably thought, hey this guy's trying to kill me. At that point killing Trayvon was a perfectly sensible and legal thing to do. If Zimmerman had not killed Trayvon, it's reasonable to believe that Trayvon would have killed him; that's self defence. Zimmerman had good reason to fear for his life.

I agree Zimmerman's life has been seriously inconvenienced without any trial. That is very unfortunate and shouldn't have happened. But last I noticed Martin's life has been seriously inconvenienced a whole lot more, hasn't it? And also without a trial unless I missed something.

Killing someone is illegal, isn't it? But not if in self-defense.

Assault is illegal, isn't it? But not if in self-defense.

Why to so many on here give Zimmerman a pass, ASSUMING he was attacked, and in fear of his life he shot....

BUT

The same people discount any possibility that Martin fought Zimmerman only after Zimmerman approached him in a threatening manner, possibly pulled a gun and challenged Martin. Or will you argue a man should passively allow another to draw a gun and not fear for his life? That is BS. Somehow I think a gun is a little more threatening than a fist, but the real key is who was the aggressor first.

But EACH side is convinced "the other guy started it", just like a grade school playground argument, only this time with far more serious consequences.
You--and most the folks here--have already decided any argument that favors your preconceived answer is good, sound evidence. And argument that favor "your" guy as the aggressor is the politico wackos of the other side.

I've lived in that part of the south and saw with my own eyes a lot more aggression started by whites than by blacks. I don't know if that was the case here or not but folks like IB (untrue)and a lot of others here who put together a biased version of "truth" that poor old George was minding his own business and was attacked for no reason (and at a minimum it seems he was going past where a community watch person should have gone).

I respect a lot of CW people--but none of those who I respect would have continued to approach a questionable person, certainly not on foot. In the past couple weeks I've talked to CW folks and the associated LE folks I know--and not a single one thinks Zimmerman acted correctly from what they know. Please note before some of the less stable folks respond: THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS SAYING ZIMMERMAN IS GUILTY OF MANSLAUGHTER (they think the murder 2 charge is ludicrous). Most of them--with no proding from me--expressed they would "fire" and member of their CW teams who took a gun out of the car they were in. To them it is too often the sign of a vigilante mentality, a sign of someone looking to pick a fight and express his machismo behind a pseudo shield. That is very consistent with the training I received from Watches.

Folks on here can regurgitate all they want, I still think many (not all) of them are giving Zimmerman a pass because he was the less black of the two Originally Posted by Old-T

Old-goaT, your argument here, with obvious exceptions, is a much better argument than you were making several days ago.

If you would actually take the time (which you won't because you are so cock-sure you were right the first time) and return to those old threads you will find YOU were the one that was mimicking every false report and innuendo that the MSM was putting out: essentially, convicting Zimmerman in the press without a trial. Their -- and your -- every allegation against Zimmerman was undermined by known facts and known witness statements to the contrary -- or was unknowable (then and now) to anyone other than Zimmerman and Martin.

Not too long ago, Old-goaT, you claimed Zimmerman was a vigilante who purposefully stalked Martin because he was black even after the dispatcher told him not to do so. When you had your ass handed to you at every point, you started claiming everybody who set you straight on the facts was a racist, and that makes you a pissant liar. You were too chicken-shit to face up to the fact you were ignorantly regurgitating and spewing forth the MSM swill, so you petulantly resorted to calling everyone who differed with you a racist.

Iam a little uncertain about something. It's always been my understanding that in order to use deadly force one has to fear for their life or anothers. At what point can Zimmerman account for fear of his life and can justify the use of deadly force to someone who was supposedly unarmed... Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Behold:

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/new...erman-03232012

Well it is called Self Defense.

Look, I have already said I did not know you were an eyewitness to the event. If you saw with your own eyes, than what you say must be true.

Look, I was a Benard Gotze fan , this Zimmerman dude, not so much.

I have faith that a Flordia jury will do their best to get it right. You can bet you ass that just like in politics , whatever they do will piss off half the population! Originally Posted by WTF

No I wasn't an eye witness to Trayvon beating Zimmerman and pounding his head against a concrete sidewalk. However, an eye witness has come forward that has corroborated Zimmerman's version of the events.

As far as having faith in a jury, there's always a chance the jury will get it wrong, like the OJ jury. Zimmerman should not have to risk a bad verdict by a jury if there's insufficient evidence to take the case to trial. A grand jury should have reviewed the evidence instead of a corrupt special prosecutor being allowed to file charges for political reasons.

So far two crimes have been commited in the Trayvon case. Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman and the special prosecutor perjured herself by a filing a false affidavit.

My guess is that when Trayvon had Zimmerman down on the ground, after he had broken his nose, and was pounding his head against a concrete sidewalk, Zimmerman probably thought, hey this guy's trying to kill me. At that point killing Trayvon was a perfectly sensible and legal thing to do. If Zimmerman had not killed Trayvon, it's reasonable to believe that Trayvon would have killed him; that's self defence. Zimmerman had good reason to fear for his life. Originally Posted by joe bloe

Well I won't dispute that reasoning Zimmerman may have had. I did see Police videos of Zimmerman as he was in Police custody, although they were not of the greatest clarity, I didn't notice any gross injury to zimmerman or any signs that he had been bleeding profusely.

Well I won't dispute that reasoning Zimmerman may have had. I did see Police videos of Zimmerman as he was in Police custody, although they were not of the greatest clarity, I didn't notice any gross injury to zimmerman or any signs that he had been bleeding profusely. Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

How much blood is necessary to be consistant with Zimmerman's account of events? Hitting someone's head against a sidewalk might not cause any bleeding at all and still kill them. I'm pretty sure it's possible to kill with blunt force trauma without causing any bleeding. You die from the concussion not the bleeding.