BK, have posted a few things on Facebook. If I get unfriended, that's fine.
I appreciated your comments on the Zimmerman case last night, DR cillaliz. Whether he was acquitted or found guilty, I had no expectations, but I do believe that if he had followed the orders he was given and not have followed Martin, nothing would have happened.
Larry I respect your opinion. I was going to reply, but thought better of it. Although it was an objective response, this probably isn't the place to have the discussion.
Well, you know me. I never keep my mouth shut! Your comments last night gave me a new perspective on the case, and I appreciated it.
Now, on another outraged tangent, I gather Liz Callaway, or someone on her behalf, has purchased her recordings from the jerks at the Label that shall not be named and they are now available for download. She and Alex are certainly getting pattedon their backs for their great work on them, but I'm very riled that neither BK nor I haven't been mentioned for whatever we brought to the table.
Thanks. I try to be objective and explain as a lawyer, but I don't want to start a big to do here like I see going on over at FB. I guess what I will say is that Zimmerman probably shouldn't have followed him, but that isn't relevant to the self defense claim. What is relevant is whether George was reasonably in fear of serious bodily damage or death at the time he shot. So even if it wouldn't have happened if Zimmerman had stayed in his truck, that isn't the question. The eye witness saw Trevon on top of George and George yelling for help shortly before the shot. That's the relevant time frame. That may not seen fair, but it's what matters for criminal court.
Thank you for the explanation- Cilla, at least the verdict makes some kind of sense to me now that you explained the limited scope that the jurors had to use to make the decision ,
I still feel that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation by following the teen, and Tryvon was defending himself from the stalker and in fact he was using the "stand your ground" rule but that's neither here nor there
My confusion with this ruling is that I feel it sets a precedent so that if I am being mugged and I fight back against my attacker and I am "winning" the fight , the mugger is then justified in killing me in self defense --- or am I completely misreading the situation?
And this was never about race to me - this was about having my kid or any kid being able to safely walk the streets without being attackhed by a vigilante
