<p>^^^
I’m all for it being allowed. But only in argument. Is that where they want to introduce it?</p>
<h1>390 We discussed this at length before. For you to claim racist attitude requires certain assumptions on your part on the intent of what the phrase meant. The girlfriend already testified that the intent and the meaning of the phrase was not a racist one based on what she said in court. And there is no evidence that TM initiated anything except by GZ statement which I think cannot be presumed to be accurate based on all the inconsistencies and the possible motive for presenting such information. Yes, it seems everyone refuses to acknowledge certain aspect of things.</h1>
<p>“If the riots turned to violence against citizens, isn’t that proof positive that there is a reason for citizens to lawfully arm themselves and for self-defense and SYG laws?”</p>
<p>And if a couple of those lawfully armed citizens shoot dead a couple of completely innocent 8-year olds? Where does this “justice from the barrel of a gun” end?</p>
<p>^Ask Paula Deen how understanding people are when you utter a racial slur, yet claim you didn’t mean it that way.</p>
<p>I get it, there’s a double standard here. I will be quiet on the subject.</p>
<p>
Nobody has to accept Rachel’s interpretation. They know what she said he said and they can make their own conclusions. Although I think calling someone a creepy cracker is pretty innocuous, it is open to debate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not a lawyer, just married to one. </p>
<p>An acquittal may paradoxically enhance the chance of him losing a wrongful death suit. If there are no criminal charges pending, he can be compelled to testify and be subject to cross-examination. This can’t happen if he is found guilty and there are appeal issues, which could go on indefinitely. </p>
<p>There is also a lower standard of proof for civil cases–a preponderance of the evidence versus beyond a reasonable doubt. </p>
<p>Think OJ. He was acquitted criminally, but had to testify, face cross examination, and lost the wrongful death lawsuit. </p>
<p>Martin’s family will get nothing from a likely destitute GZ–unless he has some kind of homeowners insurance, which might have coverage. A win though would affect the rest of GZ’s life. Any future earnings would be subject to a lien from the Martins. GZ might not be the only defendant. Other potential, bigger-pocket defendants include the apartment complex, the neighborhood watch group, the town of Sanford, and the Sanford PD.</p>
<p>Long, long ago, in a thread far, far away…</p>
<p>I posed an alternate way Martin’s shirt could have been pulled away from his body when he was shot.</p>
<p>The two could have been upright, kneeling or standing, and Zimmerman could have grabbed The bottom part of Martin’s shirt to hold him when he shot him. Nobody was a witness to that last moment.</p>
<p>In my opinion, I believe both witnesses who saw both of the men on top. I think at the place where the shooting took place, there was a wrestling match between the two. In the final moments, when several neighbors had come out and gone back inside, it was probably clear to both men that the “fight” was about to end one way or the other. Martin could very well have been on top at that moment, and could have begun to stand up, at which time Zimmerman would have been able to reach his gun in his waistband and then shoot Martin. I believe that Martin was screaming because he was backing off the “fight”, saw Zimmerman pull the gun, and realized what was about to happen. I think Zimmerman panicked. Maybe he thought Martin was getting up to gain an advantage. </p>
<p>I don’t believe that panic qualifies as self defense in this particular case, because Zimmerman initiated the confrontation. </p>
<p>I vote manslaughter, compounded by stupidity.</p>
<p>I do not think it is a safe assumption that none of the rioters will be armed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In court probably and on the Internet and Court TV. </p>
<p>What if, in the riots, a couple of completely innocent 8 year olds are killed when the car they are riding in is set on fire? That should end up in court too.</p>
<p>Aarrrgghh!! The prosecution JUST brought up the possibility that both men could have been upright… And CNN cut to a commercial!</p>
<p>I agree the hose nozzle looked like a gun, when viewed from the side in a photograph. Of course, with his hands wrapped around it they could hardly see it at all. Even a regular hose nozzle would look gunlike in that circumstance. (One thing which is not clear to me is whether it was actually attached to a hose at the time.) But the police should identify themselves and tell him to put it down, not blaze away at a citizen doing nothing wrong and kill him without ever uttering so much as a single word of warning.</p>
<p>They are trained, That is why they are allowed to roam the streets heavily armed. If they are incapable of using their firearms and their power in a responsible manner, they should be deprived of them. The officers who killed that man should be fired.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It seems to me that there is more evidence that citizens need to arm themselves to protect themselves against being murdered by law-and-order wannabees and incompetent cops.</p>
<p>Seems to me when you are talking about something that “could” have happened that means reasonable doubt (at least on the issue) unless there is firm reason to believe one version over the other. Curious to hear about all this.</p>
<p>eastcoascrazy: Try FoxNews. </p>
<p>And no, I can’t believe I am saying that.</p>
<p>CuriousJane–I completely concur and have stated a similar sequence of events</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh yeah, those wild and crazy pot smokers. Known for their homicidal rages. /sarcasm</p>
<p>Now I can see pot making one want Skittles and iced tea. :)</p>
<p>And by the way, the idea that you can spot a person from some distance and say that he “looks like he is on drugs” because they smoked a joint a while ago is absolutely ludicrous. We all know what GZ could see: WWB. Let’s not pretend otherwise.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When was the last time you went shopping without a wallet or money? It is not like a woman going out with her purse, forgetting that she took her wallet out.</p>
<p>“It seems to me that there is more evidence that citizens need to arm themselves to protect themselves against being murdered by law-and-order wannabees and incompetent cops.”</p>
<p>This could be VERY good for the economy. “Yeah, give me two Cinnamon Scones, a Venti Dark Roast leave room for cream … oh, and a box of those 44 Mag Hollow Points.”</p>
<p>Or you could try the network that doctored transcripts to suit their preferred narrative.</p>
<p>“It is not like a woman going out with her purse, forgetting that she took her wallet out.”</p>
<p>Whoa, Consolation … them’s fight’n words in my household.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem with your scenario is the beginning. GZ and TM do not just “happen” to meet. GZ goes out hunting, and he follows TM in his car and on foot, and he deliberately get out of the car after the dispatcher discourages him from doing so.</p>
<p>By the time they meet, TM is aware that this guy has been stalking him and is scared. He has already tried to run away. GZ created the situation, and he created it IMHO <em>because</em> he was carrying a gun. Without that gun, I very much doubt that he would have gotten out of the car to look for TM.</p>
<p>The levels of THC detected don’t reflect Martin’s character or even his state of mind the night he was shot. For one, they are so low as to almost certainly not be connected to recent intoxication: 1.5 nanograms of THC were found as well as 7.3 nanograms of THC-COOH, a metabolite of THC that can stay in the system for weeks after cannabis has been smoked. Immediately after inhaling, THC levels typically rise to 100 to 200 nanograms per milliter of blood, although there can be a great deal of variation.</p>
<p>Read more: [Traces</a> of Marijuana Found in Trayvon Martin?s Body: Does It Matter? | TIME.com](<a href=“Traces of Marijuana Found in Trayvon Martin’s Body: Does It Matter? | TIME.com”>Traces of Marijuana Found in Trayvon Martin’s Body: Does It Matter? | TIME.com)</p>
<p>“Without that gun, I very much doubt that he would have gotten out of the car to look for TM.”</p>
<p>And without the gun I doubt very much that GZ would have said whatever he did in response to TM’s “why are you following me?” Whatever GZ said/did, it had to be enough to provoke a physical response.</p>