In the Trayvon Martin case the law worked exactly as it's supposed to work: It allowed a non-black person to get away with murder for the killing of a black person.

In order of racial preference a white person can kill either a hispanic or black person and get away with it under the SYG law, while a hispanic can only kill a black under that law. Blacks can't get away with killing anyone for any reason.

That's exactly what the NRA and the Florida lawmakers intended with the SYG law, and it has worked like a charm.

No, will, not true. In any KKK lead place like Florida, only minority groups are at risk. Rosenbloom's case was obvious anti-semitism. In Sanford, it's obviously a sun-down town.

"Stand Your Ground" means I am no longer required to put my Hover-Round into reverse before drawing my CCW permitted weapon to defend myself from an attacker....

( Remember George Castanza being chased in his motorized wheelchair by the mob in PowerScooters @ 5 miles an hour ???)

It does not apply to this Zimmerman Cop-Wanna-Be. He will be charged and Justice will be served. You can't take away my rights because someone else doesn't understand the law. You're NOT standing your ground if you are moving forward.

I will say that more emphasis must be made in the required class for getting a CCW Permit in Florida. My Instructor spent most of the time going over this exact thing....What the Law allows and what puts you outside the Law and subject to Prosecution. He called it " Muddy Waters" and to make absolutely sure you won't end up in them.

So Florida is now a war zone as I perceive it. I will never spend one nickel in FL or step foot in that state. At the rate that nutjobs are taking over the southern states (Arizona and Texas - now Florida) - you wont ever catch me below the mason dixon line.

I think the best way those of us who don't live in Florida can impact this law is to boycott Disney. Disney is the state's largest employer and if all of us who spend money vacationing at Disney were to write to Disney and let them know that this law is unacceptable and because of it we feel unsafe traveling to Disney World, you can bet they would get the law changed in a heartbeat.

Today, I am formally calling for a Disney Boycott to hit the state where it hurts. In its pocketbook. End Disney trips, and all Florida tourism and we'll see the state legislature disarm their citizens.

This law needs to go.

Defending Stand Your Ground, Baxley said that while errors may occur, such as the death of Martin, it was important that the law err on the side of those who fear they are facing "a perceived" threat.

A percieved threat? So if I threaten to yell at someone they can shoot me?

What about the other 23 states?

I have a better idea boycott the beaches, restaurants, bars, stores and highways - especially November through April. This will teach them a less and also give us a break from the snowbirds. Good luck with you campaign.

Really great. Nobody has any desire to come to your benighted state and encounter the raging and ranting likes of you, pistol at the ready, just itching for an excuse to use it. Sounds like you and Zimmerman may be cousins.

Where are you getting your "facts" from, Mike???

"It's quite remarkable how consistently awful Florida's record has been," Henigan said. "It takes some work to finish in the top five in violent crime among all the states every single year for the last 30 years."

Florida does not keep comprehensive records to gauge the impact of Stand Your Ground. But the St. Petersburg Times found that in the first five years after the law was enacted, "justifiable homicides" in Florida more than tripled, to more than 100 in 2010 from just over 30. The Stand Your Ground law was invoked in at least 93 cases over that time period, involving 65 deaths.

Despite assertions from supporters of the law that it has worked as a deterrent of violent crime, Dennis Henigan, a lawyer and veteran vice president of the Brady Campaign, said the state was still saddled with a "tragic record" on violent crime.

"It's quite remarkable how consistently awful Florida's record has been," Henigan said. "It takes some work to finish in the top five in violent crime among all the states every single year for the last 30 years."

This ridiculous law and it's other "007" siblings is a blatant attempt to extend our legitimate rights to hunting and self defense into a Wild West mentality where the first one to draw wins. Who would have predicted that outcome? Anyone with half a brain.

Mike you are either a lying ass or extremely misinformed possibly a paid NRA brainwashing employee ! Florioda is among the very top crime ridden state that gun law and that law is protecting killers. I remember back about the 1990's the Florida stores in our area had signs on the doors NO GUNS ALLOWED INSIDE THE STORE.. Go back and watch the non partisan Fox network of Beck and associates and listen to the wonderful druggie Rush Beck's boozing had damaged his brain.

"We don't want your stupid, ignorant liberal ass here, anyway"

With that kind of language, no wonder the rest of the country thinks Floridans are stupid.

"IF you understood the FACTS, or bothered to research them before believing everything you read on this LIBERAL, editorializing "NEWS" outlet"

If it's a liberal news outlet, when why did YOU bother to read it and comment? It must not be that bad.

Zimmerman sounds like an unpleasant guy who I wouldn't want to be friends with, but I've found it rather disturbing at the facts that the national news sites have neglected to publish. Yesterday, someone pointed out this article

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/022712-man-shot-and-killed-in-neighborhood-altercation#ixzz1pYX3NLMq

which is a local news article that happened immediately after the incident. In it, they interview a witness:

A man who witnessed part of the altercation contacted authorities.

"The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911," said the witness, who asked to be identified only by his first name, John.

John said he locked his patio door, ran upstairs and heard at least one gun shot.

"And then, when I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point."

Other articles have shown Zimmerman had bleeding head injuries, both in the front, and in the back of his head. How did Martin take down a guy 70 pounds heavier than himself, to the point where a concussed Zimmerman is screaming for help directly to an eyewitness? Perhaps by striking Zimmerman in the back on the head while Zimmerman was walking back to his car, JUST AS ZIMMERMAN ALWAYS CLAIMED? This seems to prove the his claim that it was himself, and not Martin, who was screaming on the phone call. Why has this eyewitness been completely ignored, and the msnbc only bothers talking to the witnesses who HEARD things outside, and GUESSED that it was Martin screaming? Bonus, later in the article, Martin's mother claims Martin was just sitting on a porch... uh, what? Is she just making up whatever details she thinks she can get away with?

Zimmerman sounds like an unpleasant guy who I wouldn't want to be friends with, but I've found it rather disturbing at the facts that the national news sites have neglected to publish. Yesterday, someone pointed out this article

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/022712-man-shot-and-killed-in-neighborhood-altercation#ixzz1pYX3NLMq

which is a local news article that happened immediately after the incident. In it, they interview a witness:

A man who witnessed part of the altercation contacted authorities.

"The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911," said the witness, who asked to be identified only by his first name, John.

John said he locked his patio door, ran upstairs and heard at least one gun shot.

"And then, when I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point."

Other articles have shown Zimmerman had bleeding head injuries, both in the front, and in the back of his head. How did Martin take down a guy 70 pounds heavier than himself, to the point where a concussed Zimmerman is screaming for help directly to an eyewitness? Perhaps by striking Zimmerman in the back on the head while Zimmerman was walking back to his car, JUST AS ZIMMERMAN ALWAYS CLAIMED? This seems to prove the his claim that it was himself, and not Martin, who was screaming on the phone call. Why has this eyewitness been completely ignored, and the msnbc only bothers talking to the witnesses who HEARD things outside, and GUESSED that it was Martin screaming? Bonus, later in the article, Martin's mother claims Martin was just sitting on a porch... uh, what? Is she just making up whatever details she thinks she can get away with?

There are 800,000 (Federal,state, county, and city) licensed peace officers in America and approximately 3 million military personnel (1,477,896 active duty military personnel and 1,458,500 reserve military personnel). And there are approximately 235 million privately owned firearms held by approximately 55 million households with over 7 million CCW permits.

7,225,800 adults were under correctional supervision (probation, parole,
jail, or prison) in 2009.^[3][4]

^{who would you rather have the guns?}

Florida is unsafe to visit.

Mike-306915

GREAT.

We don't want your stupid, ignorant liberal ass here, anyway.

IF you understood the FACTS, or bothered to research them before believing everything you read on this LIBERAL, editorializing "NEWS" outlet, you would

KNOW THAT VIOLENT CRIME HAS DECREASED OVER 50% IN FLORIDA SINCE 1990.

BUT, DON'T LET THE FACTS INTERERFEREWITH YOUR LEFTIST ANIT-GUN AGENDA!

Of course crime will decrease - your state is no longer prosecuting crazy people who shoot each other and claiming self defense.

Also - I fail to see the relevance of the stated decrease in crime anyways. Its not the criminals I am afraid of now in FL - it people like you.

I hope Michigan has a STAND YOUR GROUND law.

im going to get permitted to have a gun and the first time a homophobe threatens me, im just gonna pull my gun and shoot.

and when the police ask what I was scared of, i'll tell them they threatened me and I was scared they might attack or rape me to "show me how a real man does it"...

im sure that'll be just as accepted as the Martin and Zimmerman case.

snarkqueen

Coming to Disney World and visiting Florida are two very different things. You get off the plane, get on the Disney bus, get dropped off at your Disney hotel. When you leave it's the same thing in reverse. bus, airport, plane.

If you are visiting Florida it's just a little less dangerous than Arizona, Texas, Utah, DC, etc.

Bobb - none of them.

but I realize thats not an option.

so i'd rather throw anyone in jail who uses one and kills another human, for ANY reason...including self defense. if you are willing to kill another human being to save yourself, or your possessions or respond to a POSSIBLE threat...then you should be willing to sit in prison knowing you saved your wifes life, or you childs...or your own.

especially if you believe in GOD and cant stomach the possibility of meeting him sooner than you hoped.

Jessica, that is the most retarded comment I have ever read on these pages.

Moderate Matthew, isn't it funny how this "witness" has never been reported by the police? Since it could strengthen their claim of self defense you would think they would parade him in front of the cameras or maybe it's because the witness got confused and has since changed his story and FOX never reported that. Then again maybe it's because Martin was trying to get away from Zimmerman, was "tackled" by him, and what this man saw was Martin trying to defend himself while screaming for help. In other words if two men are rolling on the ground in a struggle it's hard to tell which one is screaming for help.

Now you say Martin may have hit Zimmerman in the head while walking back to the car. With what? A box of skittles or maybe it was the ice tea? That doesn't pass the smell test. It's more likely that he hit his head on the walkway when to tackled Martin as Martin was he was walking away.

In either case it does not justify Zimmerman ignoring the request to not pursue Martin after indicating he wouldn't. Martin was not breaking any law and had a right to be in the gated community. Zimmerman did not have authority to confront anyone "suspicious" since he was a watch and not a security guard. And any attempt to defend Zimmerman in this case is fruitless since even if what this witness said was true, Martin had a right to protect himself from an aggressor.

That's what happens when you have an open "immigration" policy. I always new Florida should have done something to end the flood of "outlanders" who now outnumber natives 3 to 1. That is the only way Florida would ever have become a Republican state. It was always firmly Blue-Dog Democrat until those "foreigners" took over--and I am not referring to the Cubans and other islanders, it's those d-m-d yankees. Northerners have ruined my home state. This is one of their laws, along with so many other bad ones.

Now to the people attacking the "no retreat law", the law is not a bad idea but I agree that it certainly needs modified. If someone breaks into my house I certainly should have a right to defend my home and property without having to run out the back door and if I do, I certainly don't need the police to charge me with unjustifiable homicide.

But I don't need to shoot a man in my front yard in the heat of an argument either. This Allen that shot the man was a retired police officer so nothing more has to be said about that case since the police protect their own. Anyone that says otherwise is a member of enforcement. Anyone that would argue over the number of trash bags a neighbor sets out for trash pickup is a loose cannon anyway.

Eyewitness testimony is very shaky at best and downright wrong at worse. Too much reliance on witness testimony is what gets innocent people jailed. Eyewitness accounts are more of a starting point in an investigation because it is not necessarily factual. Even if the witness is being honest they often just don't remember things correctly. Studies have proven this time and again. Plus witnesses can lie. Fingerprints and DNA do not.

Look, Zimmerman is a big guy, but he also is overweight and flabby. Martin was a fit young man, an athlete. I have no doubt that he could temporarily get the best of Zimmerman in a fight if Zimmerman had pulled the gun and threatened him with it, land a few punches, and perhaps hit Zimmerman with the bottle of iced tea he was holding or even just hit his head against a patio. The point is that the weight would rather quickly turn to Zimmerman's favor, or the fact that he had a gun would have turned it back in Zimmerman's favor, and he could have either thrown Martin off or just shot him.

I do not doubt that there was a fight--but the point is that Zimmerman pursued Martin, and if Martin was fighting, he was (as far as he knew--and ultimately, correctly) fighting for his life (once the adrenaline kicked in, I'm sure Martin was fairly dangerous). He had no way of knowing that Zimmerman just wanted to play cop, and that if he (Martin) had just given up and whined and fed Zimmerman's sick need to be in power, that he might be alive today.

One does not have to prostrate oneself at the feet of a neighborhood watch volunteer or be murdered--and Martin didn't even have a way of knowing the guy was a neighborhood watch volunteer. For all he knew, this was one of those "illegals" who is a "druggie" coming to rob him.

The point is that Martin had just as much right to defend himself with potentially deadly force--more right--than Zimmerman. Martin was minding his own business, and Zimmerman was the one who pursued. As long as they were far enough away from the vehicle to disprove Zimmerman's claim that he was attacked the minute he got out of the vehicle--and it sounds like they were, as they were within 50 feet of the home where Martin was staying, then Zimmerman is in a heap of hurt.

All they have to prove is that Zimmerman pursued Martin and made Martin feel threatened--that Martin fought back doesn't excuse Zimmerman's use of a weapon. The law is only for those who "stand," not those who "pursue" and "provoke" (though it is a stupid law that needs to be done away with--there are already self-defense laws on the books to cover any issues that arise otherwise).

One damaging thing against Zimmerman is the report of what he said on an enhancement of the audio of the 911 call from a neighbor. It was about as racist as it could possibly be and I believe it's going to get Zimmerman some serious jail time either by a state or federal trial.

http://fcir.org/2012/03/23/on-zimmermans-911-call-what-sounds-like-a-racial-slur/

Moderate Matthew, even if this "witness" is telling the truth, it means very little in light of the undisputed facts. He saw an altercation in progress - and altercation that even Zimmerman's own statements clearly indicate he initiated. Was that boy not protected by the "stand your ground" law? Or even the more reasonable laws of self defense still held by the other half of the states? Zimmerman followed him, terrorized him and confronted him with a gun. The boy must have been terrified (and was, according to the phone conversation he was having at the time). Why would it be surprising if he fought back? Why shouldn't he have had the right to defend himself and fight for his life? You know what, I almost hope this witness is telling the truth about what he saw (an altercation only, not the start of it -- which helps not at all to prove Zimmerman is telling the truth now) because it means at least that poor kid got a few licks in before he was gunned down.

And if Zimmerman had not done what he had done, had he not pursued this kid with a loaded weapon in hand, none of this would have ever happened. That's the bottom line. That's why an unarmed kid is dead. You cannot rationalize that away, no matter how hard you try. Zimmerman created this situation. A human being is dead as a result. It cannot, in decent society, be permitted for someone to create a situation in which they kill another person and not face some kind of consequences. What's to stop people from starting fights, killing their opponent and then claiming it was self defense? Oh... right... nothing.

But the truth will never be known without a trial and a trial cannot occur unless they arrest this guy. Arrest is not conviction or proof of guilt, but it is a vital step in the process to either conviction or exoneration. But they need to arrest him.

@Moderate Matthew who posted the link to the news article interviewing the eyewitness who saw Zimmerman on the ground with Martin on top of him.

I too do not understand why this witnesses statement has been downplayed and ignored. However, even if Martin did end up on top of Zimmerman and was punching him, it still does not justify shooting Martin in the BACK. Obviously Martin was leaving when he was shot in the back.

We know that Zimmerman is the one who was following Martin around. We know Zimmerman is the one who left his vehicle after he had been following Martin around. We know Martin was concerned that there was an unknown man following him around. We all know those things to be facts proven by the 911 calls and the phone call Martin had with his girlfriend.

I would expect that if someone was following my son in the dark, in a place that is unfamiliar to him and then that person got out of their car and approached him demanding answers and acting in a hostile manner, my son might be forced to protect himself from what he perceived to be a person who was trying to harm him.

It makes perfect sense why Martin was on top of Zimmerman and punching him. That still does not justify Zimmerman to shoot Martin in the back and kill him.

It seems to me that Zimmerman was perplexed that this 17 yr old black teen was DEFENDING himself against Zimmerman who was playing "cop" in his own mind (which of course Martin did not know). So Zimmerman is feeling very angry that he is being beat up by this guy and then shoots him in the back and kills him as soon as Martin stops punching him and tries to leave.

Its still MURDER. Its still wrong and Zimmerman should be arrested and prosecuted for murder.

The mother of the 13 year old witness believes her sons testimony has been twisted to suit the Sanford cops version...

Austin's mother, Sheryl Brown, said that the trauma from the night has not been limited to what her son witnessed. It also includes the way she says that the police and some media have twisted his account of the night to fit a self-defense theory, to say that a 13-year-old witness has claimed Zimmerman, and not Martin, was screaming for help. Both Austin and his mother are adamant that the teen could not see who was screaming, but they believe now that it was Martin.

Brown said in hindsight she feels the police investigator on the case attempted to lead her son to provide information that he didn't have. The investigator, she said, would nod yes when asking if it was the man in the T-shirt, who turned out to be Zimmerman, and not the one in the hooded sweatshirt, Martin, who was screaming out for help. And while the police have said that they don't have any evidence to refute Zimmerman's claims of self-defense, the investigators had a different story when they visited her family about a week after the shooting, Brown said.

"Stand your ground" should only apply to your house and 5 feet around your car. Your yard is not a good place to shoot somebody because unless you are out there, you can still retreat into the relative safety of your house. If you shoot anybody outside of those areas, it should not be in effect. (Unless of course YOU are being shot at.) Claiming self defense in any other case is stupid.

This is exactly why if I ever buy a house in a neighborhood (that's a BIG if), I'll put cameras up so this type of thing never happens. And if it does, I'll have proof I did what I said I did.

I think in the end, this zimmerman person did the wrong thing. He followed the other kid. It's perfectly plausable that the other kid got the upper hand in the fight (however the fight started) and that zimmerman was screaming for help, but if that is the case, it's his own fault for following the kid in the first place. However, reading other comments saying zimmerman was 70 lbs heavier than the other kid puts a few holes in that theory.

While the law may be stretched in some cases doesn't mean the law is bad. The pressure should be put on the district attorney's to prosecute the cases that don't apply to the law. If some one is going to breaking into your house with you there then you should have the right to defend yourself without the law saying you should have tried to lock yourself in a room and hope you will be ok. There are more cases that this law could apply but that is just an example. Before the laws like this if you did defend yourself and didn't see a way you could escape and shot someone you could be tried and convicted.

I think it's all going to come down to who escalated the confrontation from words to violence. In other words, who threw the first punch. If Zimmerman made a grab for Martin, then Martin was justified in defending himself. If Zimmerman yelled "hey stop, what are you doing here" and Martin responded by jumping the guy, hitting him in the head with a brick or something, etc. Then Zimmerman was responding in self defense. All I know is that you don't get bleeding head wounds from a bag of skittles so it's quite possible that Martin wasn't the innocent little angel that his parents and the media have made him out to be.

@XINATHEAWESOME....here you are speaking ill of the dead. He was simply walking home. He was being followed. He was being confronted by a strange Hispanic man with an attitude who was carrying a loaded gun. Martin was acting in self defense. He was not doing something wrong. He was scared and trying to get home without getting killed.

Jessica,

We do have one here in MI, but I'd be careful, you only get to "Stand Your Ground" if you're straight and white.

Everyone Else...

I can only speak for myself, but it isn't really the guns I have the issue with, it's the false arguments and fear mongering. If you wanna own a gun, own a gun, but please don't spout off about self defense, crime prevention, or ensuring our freedom. Those arguments don't hold water.

Crime prevention needs to be looked at through the lens of a hybrid social science that includes criminology, victimology, sociology, and psychology. You can't simply say, "Guns make criminals think twice." No, they don't. Crime is motivated by all sorts of different social and cultural factors, by all sorts of different individuals, and each crime comitted by each criminal is different. Guns would only make them think twice if each criminal and each crime was rational.

Self defense also needs to be taken a case at a time. There are only a few instances, under an alignment of a perfect set of circumstances where a gun would work. Think about it... Timing, location,the circumstances of the crime, the mental capacity of the victim, the lifestyle of the victim, the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator... I could go on and on. An example, drive by shootings, a completely innocent person caught in one, is dead, long before they could pull a gun. Rape? Most rape is acquaintance rape, where victims tend to freeze or not even realize what's happening until it's too late.

And the government, really? First, who are these people, that we voted into office I might add, that want to usurp our liberty? Why would they want to destroy the very system that gives them their power? Why wouldn't checks and balances stop them? How would they go about doing this? Would they get our military to join them? If so, why would our military WANT to? If not, why wouldn't we use our military to stop them? Think about it. The 2nd Amendment was written when a red coat or "injun" could literally show up at your door, with zero notice, and kill you, while help was days, if not weeks, away. Now we have radar, cell phones, police, national guards, and we're all pretty much crammed into cities or suburbs.

If we want to cure childhood obesity, no one proposes that we build a MacDonald's on every corner to teach kids self restraint? So why do people assume that if we want to fix gun violence, we need to add more guns? And no one ever brings up the people killed with LEGAL firearms.

I hate to break it to some of you, but we no longer live in the 1700's. Tri-Corn hats are no longer the "hip" thing. "Injuns" aren't coming to scalp you. And if the "Redcoats" try to invade again, I'm fairly sure we'd win without you and your handguns. No one is coming for your guns, but we need to slow down on the fear mongering and drama. Please. For Trayvon's sake.

My mamma didn't raise a fool_— you think wrong.

Your response was completely off base, irrelevant to my post and mostly from your imagination not facts or even an argument from me. I never mentioned support for Zimmer or guns or the FL statute of self defense. Yet somehow you manage to through in these unrelated items.

You must be for sure the one that post "Obama did it" when you read about the red tide on the Gulf beaches.

A really sad thing to me about this whole affair is the willingness of so many people to convict someone before the police have even done their investigation. The fact is, we don't know what happened yet - and it doesn't sound like the police do either. I think guilty until proven innocent is a great code to stick with in these situations.

Hence South Park, season #1:

"They're coming right at us!"

For internet meme jokes, this could easily be a "Florida or Germany?" if you let people guess where the location was, you'd probably get a lot of uncertainty.

Once upon a time there was the Wild West. Then people developed brains. And then some people found that thinking was too hard for them and wished the Wild West was back. Those people enacted the stand your ground laws.

This isn't about gun rights. This is about not being stupid and dangerous.

Ron,

Really, that's what you find the saddest and not the death of an innocent 17 year old boy?

Wait for the investigation??? What investigation, they weren't doing one and had no intention of EVER doing one. Regardless of the evidence that was contradicting Zimmerman's story. It took the national media and a public outcry for them to even aknowledge what had happened.

No one is advocating for lynching Zimmerman, though had he been black in the not too distant past that's exactly what we would have done, people are utilizing their 1st Amendment rights.

When you're adding and you get 2 + 2 = 10, it's only logical to go back and check your math. What the public is doing here, is forcing them to recheck how they came up with the answer 10, when it should quite clearly be 4.

The supporter of this law was clear; fear is the only factor required to kill ... a real threat is not needed. So if you feel fear related to anyone you encounter, regardless of who started what, you are allowed to kill them. We are back to the wild west, where we all carry guns, and shoot first and not bother with questions later. Great law for the NRA and gun manufacturers.

Can't wait for the next town hall meeting, we won't need term limits anymore.

As for the "shoot first" law, we might be better off if the people so anxious to shoot someone would "think first"

This might be asking too much of country folk who cling to their bibles, guns, ignorance and hatred of anything they don't understand.

Sally (MSNBC "Moderator), you should ban yourself for one day! If you're going to start banning people for violating the "code of honor" then apply it equally. You have the gall to ban Mike (post 1.12) but you turn a blind eye to these post:

Post 1.13, Clayton says "Mike you are either a lying ass"

Post 1.24, WillBKFD says "Jessica, that is the most retarded comment I have ever read on these pages."

Funny how the MSNBC Moderators are selective in their enforcement of the "Code of Honor" much like MSNBC is selective in reporting the FACTS of this case:

1. Reported - George Zimmerman was white. FACT: Zimmerman is Hispanic

2. Reported - Zimmerman made hundreds of calls to 9-11 as a Watch Commander reporting suspicious people. FACT: Zimmerman made 46 calls to 9-11 in the past eleven years. Not surprising since he was a NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH participant.

3. Reported - Martin was shot while walking home. FACT: While it's true Martin was waking home, some type of altercation took place, so to imply he was simply walking home is probably an effort to intentionally mislead the casual reader. Zimmerman claims the boy assaulted him, something apparently indicated by wounds on Zimmerman's face and head and signs of a struggle, such as grass stains on the ground, depressions in the grass, and perhaps bruised knuckles on the boy.

4. Reported - This very article is titled "Survivor of 'shoot first' incident tells his tale". FACT: This article's title implies that Zimmerman shot first and asked questions later. Nowhere in the story is there any discussion of the allegation, substantiated by police, of Martin's assault on Zimmerman. Instead, MSNBC and their willing lackeys in the main stream media engage in selective reporting to hype this story to try to justify their liberal utopia of a Gun Free Society.

To all you folks spewing such ignorant and misinformed statements, you would be better served if you didn't simply rely on "sound bite" journalism practiced by MSNBC.

Sally, you can return to work on Tuesday, after serving your one day suspension for acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner and for selective enforcement of the Code of Honor!

.

John,

First, you kind of need to get over it and yourself. Leave Sally alone or send her a message in private.

"The greatest trick the devil ever played on the world, was convincing it he didn't exist"

I hate to be the bearer of bad news to you, but racism DOES still exist. I know this blows holes in your "poor white men" mentalities, but alas, it is true. We've moved from being a society that openly embraces racism, to one that secretly does. And how best to keep that secret under the radar??? By demonizing the act of telling the truth. To claim "racism" these days is a bigger faux pas than being a racist.

Well, I'll say it. Zimmerman is a racist, and those defending him are doing so because their secret biases are coming back into the light and they are threatened by that. There is more than enough evidence that has come out to provide probable cause for an arrest and a thorough investigation. As Americans, it's our job to publically express outrage over this. That's why we have a 1st Amendment. As I said above,no one is convicting him without a trial, but when 2 + 2 = 10, you need to go back and check your math. The Sanford Police had no intention of rechecking anything, and that is why this has exploded.

We can not compare this incident to "crime in general". Crime in general is mostly based on socio-economic conditions, this crime in particular is based in bigotry, hate, and racism. Break it all the way down to the instigating factor...

Zimmerman would have had no suspisions about Trayvon, had he been white.

A person who is truly, only concerned with self defense, when given the choice between flight and fight, will opt for flight.

Those who would choose fight, to the death no less, when another option is viable, are vigilantes.

John:

"This very article is titled "Survivor of 'shoot first' incident tells his tale". FACT: This article's title implies that Zimmerman shot first and asked questions later"

FACT: The title of the article and the main subject of the article is not about the zimmerman case. It's about ANOTHER shooting. Read before you speak.

1. Reported - George Zimmerman was white. FACT: Zimmerman is Hispanic

As a white Hispanic, I would like to point out that John is not alone in failing to understand one of these things is a color of skin and the other represents being descendent of a nationality. You, therefore, can be both.

Derek:

As a white Hispanic, I would like to point out that John is not alone in failing to understand one of these things is a color of skin and the other represents being descendent of a nationality

My point wasn't MY confusion of the race of the shooter, but rather the Media's failure to accurately depict most of the facts of this story.

The media's first reports were that a white man shot an unarmed black teenager. That fact, coupled with Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, were the two issues that galvanized the media's rush to judgement and desire to promote this article to national headlines. Quite frankly, the name George Zimmerman sounds like a white male, however, don't we expect the media to report facts and not just make up information?

Zimmerman is the son of a Peruvian immigrant. I would call him Hispanic, not White. The media has incorrectly or intentionally misrepresented many facts in this case. Most news stories lack any mention of Martin's assault on Zimmerman, portraying Martin as someone just walking around, minding his own business, wearing a hoodie and was "chased" and shot by Zimmerman. None us were there to witness what happened, but the police on the scene who WERE THERE, observing the evidence that the media choose not to report, decided not to arrest Zimmerman, due to the evidence they observed that media is choosing not to report. Are you getting the point? The Media is CHOOSING which information to report and which information to spike or dismiss. Why is that?

Sarah

First, you kind of need to get over it and yourself. Leave Sally alone or send her a message in private

How myopic of you to dismiss the messenger instead of reacting to the message. Instead of acknowledging that Sally clearly has some type of bias in who she bans, something I've decided to highlight, you simply say "get over it". Really, get over clear and demonstrable bias by the MSNBC staff? REALLY??!?? Sending the staff a message in private is a good idea, which I'll look into.

.

John ... Post 1.24, WillBKFD says "Jessica, that is the most retarded comment I have ever read on these pages."

The difference with the thing you quoted is it's directed at the COMMENT and not the PERSON. It therefore is not a personal attack but an attack on what was said. There's a difference. For example, I may call someone's observations or comments simplistic or idiotic but I can not call that person a simpleton or an idiot. I may make generalizations about a group of people (5 year olds have no attention span) but I can not make it specific to one person (my son has the attention span of a gnat).

Great law for the NRA and gun manufacturers.

Congratulations Steve, you've really hit the nail on the head with that one. This law isn't about safety and it isn't about rights. It's about gun manufacturers dramatically increasing their market by selling fear, and about the Conservative machine piling on in order to exploit a wedge issue.

Notice how this law is not being applied to Martin. Apparently black people aren't protected under this law in Florida, Zimmerman was trying to kill the kid (cause he did) why wasn't the kid able to protect himself under this law???

Martin wasn't protected by the law because he was not armed.

The solution is not more guns -- pouring gasoline on a fire makes the fire worse. The solution is to arrest and prosecute Zimmerman. And repeal this foolish, racist, dangerous law.

Ban handguns.

Ban handguns? Ridiculous. Just prosecute racist murdering vigilantes like Zimmerman who try to hide behind a law that should offer him no protection. I have a permit to carry and the classroom instruction I received was that you can't claim self defense if you pursue the perceived threat.

Responsible gun owners, like my wife and I, would never chase anybody. That's the job of LEOs.

How Zimmerman hasn't taken his own life yet is puzzling to me. Well, perhaps not too puzzling. He is blatantly racist, referenced by his 911 call, and I've seen no remorse. Perhaps he actually believes he should be able to chase down and shoot people for being black in HIS neighborhood.

Ron B , I agree 100%.What I would like to know is why after multiple previous calls to 911 did the authorities in Sanford Fla. not check into this nut Zimmerman and revoke his ccp.It is obvious that he had no business owning or carrying a handgun.

Ban handguns? Ridiculous.

Ban hand guns?!?! How absurd. Instead, the National Firearm Act of 1968 should be amended to classify hand guns as a class 3 weapon.

Just prosecute racist murdering vigilantes like Zimmerman

Implication: First, let racists sociopaths have hand guns, wait until they kill someone, upsetting the nation and destroying a familty, and THEN prosecute them.

This is the NRA way, pass out the pistols, let's see who the idiots are. There just need to be fewer hand guns, and way fewer people who are able to get them.

Wrong, davey. Guns won't go away. If a ban is enacted then only law abiding people like myself will be unarmed and unable to protect themselves from armed and dangerous criminals. It is a fundamental right for people to be able to defend themselves.

You can't take away the rights of law abiding citizens because some act outside the law. That's a fascist way of thinking.

Also, in case you think the U.K should be a model, firearm deaths there had continued to rise and doubled 5 years after their handgun ban was enacted.

Here are two axioms I live by:

I would rather have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it.

I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

davey 526272, the reason why this law was enacted is because the LAW enforcement doesnt work. The same criminals get away with all that trhey can then go to the BIG HOUSE where they are pampered with everything the Law Abiding gets taxed for. Here is the answer, there is no victims bill of rights, where ARE the rights of the victim. The ENTIRE judicial system is designed and carters to the criminal. The judge works for the Board of Supervisors they dictate to him what they want the laws to uphold. The lawyers are fledgling judges and with that the judge will "allow" many things not to be heard. The cops are the schmuck on the street who have to abide by the changing climate. Remember the LA riots, cops just stood there and allowed the looters to burn and steal everything they could. Or New Orleans where social chaos hit 15 minutes after the huricane. Murders, rapes, killing was unstoppable. Thats why the governor got on TV and threatened everyone, called out the FBI who terrorised anybody they saw. One was a 78 years old lady who was in her house and they kicked the door in because she wouldnt come out. She knew what was going on out there. She had her husbands gun. He had passed on many years before. But they slammed her up on the car anyway.

So you think we should just stand there and take the beating or raping or be put to death because we would be considered racist if we defended ourselves. Dont do that with me, I dont have an itsy bitsy 9 M/M. You people dont want to defend yourself no problem. Ill get a shovel and bury your dumb ass. Ive learned alot since being here, now I dont need a firearm.

By the way, you know why they are demonstrating instead of rioting, because of the Stand your Ground law. Not the judges, lawyers, police, the consequences none of that. Its because of the guy at the other end of the barrel.

Mike in Afghanistan

I feel threatened by anyone carrying a gun, including Police and nutcases that think they are macho, so that means I should be able to kill them. The Law is absurd and needs to be retracted.

Wow guy, just wow. "The ENTIRE judicial system is designed and carters to the criminal." Here's the thing big shot, the punishment for grand theft, burglary, robbery isn't death. Mike "in Afghanistan" you've got issues. Makes me wonder if you're over in Afghanistan simply because the venue allows you more chances to shoot at those that don't look like you.

Let's play pretend. So if I'm on the street and I cut you off in my car causing a fender bender. We pull over and get into a heated discussion. You question my driving ability while I make insinuations over the lineage of your mother. Gestures are made. You feel threatened over my movements and pull your gun. I feel threatened and (hypothetically) I draw my gun faster. As you're bleeding out will your final thoughts be "oh well, I guess he perceived the threat faster than me." Or would it perhaps be something like "what a stupid way to die, how did we let it get this far?"

Implication: First, let racists sociopaths have hand guns, wait until they kill someone, upsetting the nation and destroying a familty, and THEN prosecute them.

Kind of hard to prosecute a murdering sociopath BEFORE they kill someone. He obviously had no incidents in his history to preclude him from having a gun. Deny people the right to carry a gun because someone who legally carries might wrongly take the life of an innocent person? Let's also suspend everyone's drivers licenses because of the 45,000 - 50,000 drunk driving related deaths each year.

lets just arm everyone and go back to the wild west days...

10 paces and draw your weapon.

heck, screw the paces...just draw and shoot.

seriously though, dont sneeze around me...i might get spooked and shoot first, and bless you later.

"Pursuing someone in order to start an altercation is not self-defense?" Really? What does the one prove about the other? A police officer who has "pursued" someone - traffic stop, for instance - may not defend himself against attack by the "pursu-ee?"

Perhaps a litte thought - or knowledge - might come in handy here....?"

How often do you chase after someone you're afraid of? I think I'd get as far away as possible from someone that I'm afraid of.

Also, since we're not talking about law enforcement pursuing someone, perhaps a little thought might come in handy here?

Hal,

Zimmerman is not an LEO. He does not have the right to chase down someone he thinks is "suspicious" (being black is suspicious to him, just listen to his 911 call), instigate an altercation and then claim self defense.

It is an LEOs job to pursue.

Fellas,

A hand gun is more likely to be used to commit a crime than to prevent one.

The only hope for us to have a civil society is to trust the people around you. If you can get yourself into a situation where you can do that, not sure why you need a hand gun. If you are in a situation where you cannot trust the people around you, then dig this...the same laws that make it easy for you to get a hand gun also make it easy for the baddies to get a hand gun. And, the armed attacker has the advantage. Why play the losing game?

First, the constitution imples that you can have hand guns, for the militias. But now, we need hand guns because we don't trust our fellow citizens. Something has gone wrong here fellas, and I don't think hand guns are the answer.

@Moderate Matthew who posted the link to the news article interviewing the eyewitness who saw Zimmerman on the ground with Martin on top of him.

I too do not understand why this witnesses statement has been downplayed and ignored. However, even if Martin did end up on top of Zimmerman and was punching him, it still does not justify shooting Martin in the BACK. Obviously Martin was leaving when he was shot in the back.

We know that Zimmerman is the one who was following Martin around. We know Zimmerman is the one who left his vehicle after he had been following Martin around. We know Martin was concerned that there was an unknown man following him around. We all know those things to be facts proven by the 911 calls and the phone call Martin had with his girlfriend.

I would expect that if someone was following my son in the dark, in a place that is unfamiliar to him and then that person got out of their car and approached him demanding answers and acting in a hostile manner, my son might be forced to protect himself from what he perceived to be a person who was trying to harm him.

It makes perfect sense why Martin was on top of Zimmerman and punching him. That still does not justify Zimmerman to shoot Martin in the back and kill him.

It seems to me that Zimmerman was perplexed that this 17 yr old black teen was DEFENDING himself against Zimmerman who was playing "cop" in his own mind (which of course Martin did not know). So Zimmerman is feeling very angry that he is being beat up by this guy and then shoots him in the back and kills him as soon as Martin stop punching him and tries to leave.

Its still MURDER. Its still wrong and Zimmerman should be arrested and prosecuted for murder.

Negative, davey. The laws that allow me to get a handgun require that a background check be completed. Criminals get their handguns outside of the law and will continue to do so if a ban were to ever be in place.

The only hope for us to have a civil society is to trust the people around you. If you can get yourself into a situation where you can do that, not sure why you need a hand gun.

Hmm, do I really need to post the long list of people who were shot and killed in places (college campuses, schools, restaurants, their homes, church, grocery store, etc...) where they felt safe and secure? There will always be criminals and crazies intent on doing harm and those criminals will always find a way to get a handgun if they want one. You can't stop the black market. If you could then this country would have no drug problem.

But now, we need hand guns because we don't trust our fellow citizens.

"Now"? Do you not know much about our history? Citizens have been carrying handguns in America for protection for 150 years because the criminal element uses them to murder, rob, rape, etc...

More than 150 years, actually. I was using the 150 to reference the prevalence of revolvers at about that time.

Negative, Ron B. At least to an extent. Where, exactly, do you think those illegal guns come from?? Do you think the gun manufacturers set up a covert hand-over out their back doors? Do you think bad guys have their own manufacturing facilities? Guns are extremely prevelant and easy to come by because gun advocates want it that way. Guns flood the streets because gun advocates encourage gun makers to churn them out in vast quanitites so that they will have easy access to them. The lax laws governing gun shows allow people to skirt the background check laws. Legal gun owners don't secure their weapoms properly and they get stolen. Legal gun owners trade and hawk guns like any other comodity. These are only a few of the paths that can lead guns into bad guy's hands, and they all start with the legal manufacture and sale of a gun. I'm not saying it is your fault or any other gun advocate's fault, per se. But it is all part of a truly dysfunctional system and legal gun owners DO play a role in that system. Until that role is recognized, there is no improving this situation. But this role will never be recognized, so we're pretty much doomed to continue down this path.

You do realize that if fascists and far left liberals had their way, and handguns were illegal to manufacture and sell here, gun manufacturers would still manufacture outside the country and people would smuggle them in. The same way drugs are smuggled and the same way alcohol was smuggled in during prohibition.

You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Guns will always be here. Laws restricting people from having them will just mean that criminals are armed. Can't be stopped.

I realize that you and many others would like to see a peaceful society where everybody loves and respects their neighbor and all live in peace but it just won't happen. Eliminating handguns won't accomplish that. There are and always will be bad people. We need to have the means to protect ourselves from that element.

Yes, by all means, protect yourself. I, too, am heavily in to survival. I want to live a long time and I want to be safe. I want to live in an orderly and prosperous society.

I protect myself and I don't have a hand gun. The problem with hand guns as a form of protection is that a hand gun works equally well as a form of intimadation and a tool of crime. That makes hand guns less than ideal as a form of protection.

Your very own hand gun can be stolen or taken away from you and used against you. Some protection.

Don't knock prohibition. There would be much more drug use today if drugs were not illegal.

The goal is to reduce.

If it were not so easy to get a hand gun, Trayvon Martin would be alive today.

We are and will always be at opposite ends of the spectrum. You believe guns are the problem and I believe criminals are the problem.

Prohibition was one of the most violent and deadly periods of American history. Prohibition of any commodity (liquor, guns, drugs) creates a void that the criminal element will fill.

Were you aware that President Coolidge was directly responsible for killing as many as 10,000 Americans during prohibition by ordering that additional poisons be added to industrial ethanol because it was being stolen and distilled for consumption? An example of why we also need guns to protect ourselves from a government that turns on it's own citizens.

You believe that criminals are the problem? Trayvon is dead because of a killer with a hand gun. Where is this criminal that you speak of?

WTH is Jessica talking about?

this stand your ground law is a recipe for vigilante justice. If it MUJST be kept on the books it should be limited to inside your own home or inside your own vehicle, NOT out on the damn public streets. In my own neighborhood there are at least four hothead idiots living withiin a two block distancve of me. They shout insults t people walking their dogs on "their" street (even if they have never pooped in their sacred space), and frankly if North Carolina had one of these stupid, outrageous laws I'd be afraid to ever go near these people's homes even though it is perfectly legal for me and my dog to walk on a public street...even stayiing off their lousy "property" this law would make anyone in danger of being killed by a nutjob shooting out of his own window, claiminbg a "dangerous" dog was in his yard (I've known people to stretch the true boundaries of their private yards to include the public right-of-way that extends a certain number of feet from the center of the public street in front of their homes. These ignorant nutjobs (two cases) claim, no, this is their property because they "mow" it. Not so. Wait till the city or state that maintains the paved highway decids to widen it, idiots. Then you'll know just how much private property rights you have over a pub lic strete. Despicable.

Do those same folks think this Florida incident"

Is young, black and wearing a hoodie a recipe for disaster? Damn YES DISASTER on National Level IF the IDIOTS are allowed to be infested reflects justify the founding fathers' view of the second amendment?

Lets compare this another Florida's incident.

,18-year-old David Alyn Penney, wearing camouflage clothing and armed with two AK-47 assault rifles fired multiple rounds at their patrol car.

The two officers then got out of their car and returned fire. Both officers were injured: Shot in the foot, taken to Orlando Regional Medical Center Hit with shattered glass in the eyes, face and arm, taken to St. Cloud Hospital.

After shooting at the officers, Penney then shot himself in the head. He was taken to Orlando Regional Medical Center's intensive care unit, expects him to survive.

"Another crazy day in St. Cloud man,This town is turning corrupt man. Everyone is losing their marbles man cause of the economy. I don't know. Everyone is just turning against each other about racism is pathetic. That's just how it goes around here specially with the Law stand your ground unfortunately being abused as flaws law in place as self -defense the tr

uth is that the guys with the guns make the rules." And that's the world of the gun rights extremists believes".

davey, if you've read my comments then you either know or choose to ignore that I believe Zimmerman acted outside the law when he shot Trayvon and should go to prison. Zimmerman is the criminal I speak of. If Trayvon had been legally allowed to carry and had a gun then maybe he would still be alive.

davey, if you believe handguns should be banned because some people will wrongfully take the life of another then you must also be for banning personal vehicles since 45,000 to 50,000 peoples lives are wrongfully taken by drunk drivers every year.

I am for prosecuting those who wrongfully take the lives of others. I am for legally obtained an lawfully carried weapons. I am not for taking away the rights of all in response to the actions of a few.

But Zimmerman has not even been arrested. How can you call him a criminal?

Yes, if Trayvon was carrying a hand gun, too, they could have had a shoot out on the street. That would have been swell.

But you know, the position of the American people is clear on this point. Few Americans own hand guns. Even fewer carry hand guns around in public. The American people do not want to carry hand guns in public. Do you see that now? No delusional thinking of gun lovers is going to change that. Speaking for the American people, Ron, we don't want to carry hand guns.

Ron, you don't want to get into a conversation comparing guns and cars. First of all, where did you get your stat on drunk driver deaths? The number is closer to 10,000 per year. Your thinking about banning cars because of drunk drivers is whacky. If you want to prevent drunk driving, ban alcohol, not cars. DUH!

And, cars are much safer than hand guns. People use cars a lot. People do not use hand guns that much, and the number of deaths from cars is not that much more than the number of deaths from hand guns. Cars are much safer than hand guns, and cars serve a much more useful function in our society.

Second of all, if hand guns, which are just as lethal as cars, were regulated like cars, then that would be a step in the right direction. Training and education, and then licensing. Registering and insuring the gun. Yes, if you want to equate guns and cars, I am with you.

I am not for taking away the rights of all in response to the actions of a few.

You have no explicit right to a hand gun. The words "hand gun" do not appear in the US constitution. But if hand guns are classified as class 3 weapons under the 1968 NFA, just like machine guns, it will result in fewer people having hand guns, and that will be a good thing. Hand guns, as I am sure you know, are the #1 murder weapon used in the US, year after year, far ahead of the weapon second most frequently used.

"Arms" covers all manner of personal weapons.

Fewer hand guns in the hands of law abiding citizens is a bad thing. If you had your way and guns were taken away and then China invaded this country, you would be praying to God that you could take it back. If you were staring down the barrel of a robbers gun you would be praying to God that someone would save you. But guess what? You didn't want law abiding citizens to have guns. You got your way and now you die because the guy standing next to you, who used to have a permit to carry, can't save your crying butt. Pleading, "Please don't kill me, I have a family!" as the robber puts a round through your left eye.

The American people are not clear on your point. YOU and your left leaning "I prefer to be a victim" crowd are clear on your point. The rest of Americans, who know they have a right to have the means to defend themselves from harm are clear on my point.

Guess what? Even IF a larger percentage of Americans wanted to ban guns, which they don't, it would not matter. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. The founders of America were clear on my point. Barring a repeal of the second amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America, the right to keep and bear arms will not be infringed.

There is a town in Georgia that passed an ordinance requiring all homeowners to keep a gun and ammunition in their home. Guess what? Crime was cut in half that very next year.

Oh, it's only 10,000 deaths but 45k - 50k alcohol related accidents. That make s me feel much better. That's only twice as many people dead each year as Americans have died in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last 10 years.

I tell you what. I will switch over to your point of view as soon as you can guaratee that criminals will not have handguns. Deal? Get the handguns out of the hands of criminals and I will surrender mine and then you win. But, as I stated before, criminals will always get handguns. You can't stop smuggling or the black market.

Fewer hand guns in the hands of law abiding citizens is a bad thing.

george zimmerman is a law abiding citizen

george zimmerman has a hand gun

george zimmerman killed an unarmed man, who was committing no crime

your statement that "fewer hand guns in the hands of law abiding citizens is a bad thing" is illogical

It does not compute.

you been sniffing too much gun powder man

If you had your way and guns were taken away and then China invaded this country, you would be praying to God that you could take it back

Ron, I love you. You are like an open book that I can read. I completely understand you. Unfortunately, I cannot reason with you. I want fewer Americans to have hand guns. You can repel the Chinese invaders with your rifles and shotguns. Besides, if the Chinese ever did invade, and the US army, air force, and navy could not stop it, I really don't see how hillbillies or urban gorillas are gonna defeat an occupying army of millions. Your best chance for survival will be to cooperate. But hey, if you want to go out in a blaze of glory, good luck!

So, while you prepare for highly unlikely scenarios, like fighting invaders or thwarting criminals (have you noticed that you pro gun people do the vast majority of your preaching in discussions about news articles where some innocent victim was killed by a hand gun murderer and not in a news articles about a heroic law abiding, hand gun carrying citizen who thwarted a crime? And you know why that is? Is it because of the Lame Stream Media only reports when hand gun are used by bad guys? NO. It's because hand guns are used to commit crime more than they are used by law abiding citizens to thwart crime!!), 100s of people die or are wounded every day. I question your priorities.

There is a town in Georgia that passed an ordinance requiring all homeowners to keep a gun and ammunition in their home. Guess what? Crime was cut in half that very next year.

Ron, I love you. You even tell me about Kennesaw Ga. So, Kennesaw Ga ends the gun debate? Look man, Kennesaw had a low crime rate to begin with. Anytown that passes a 'you must have guns' law is already a town where just about everyone has a gun!!! It was just a point they were trying to make. Don't take it seriously. You want data? Look at the FBI crime stats. Year after year, in general, the states that have the least restrictive guns laws are the ones with the higher violent crime. Check out crime in the south, where everyone has a gun. Check out crime in Hawaii, where fewer have guns.

the right to keep and bear arms will not be infringed.

Hey man, I don't want to infringe on your rights, I just want it to be as difficult to get a hand gun as it is to get a machine gun. That's all!

your statement that "fewer hand guns in the hands of law abiding citizens is a bad thing" is illogical

More crime is stopped by persons who legally have handguns than is committed by persons who legally have handguns. That is a fact. If teachers (or students at universities) who are licensed to carry were allowed to carry on school grounds then some of these school shootings could have been stopped short.

Your best chance for survival will be to cooperate.

Written like a true victim. This mantra has been drilled into Americans for decades. In school you are taught there is NEVER a good reason to fight. You DO NOT fight back if someone attacks you or you will be suspended. This mantra worked out well for the passengers on the 2 planes that hit the WTC and for the victims in the WTC. Same goes for the plane which hit the Pentagon. The fewest deaths occurred and more deaths were avoided by the 1 plane where the passengers did NOT cooperate and be good little victims. This mantra also worked out well for the thousands of people who have complied with robbers and burglars and were executed anyway.

Besides, if the Chinese ever did invade, and the US army, air force, and navy could not stop it, I really don't see how hillbillies or urban gorillas are gonna defeat an occupying army of millions.

You don't know military history. The most difficult enemy to defeat are guerrillas. (Look at Afghanistan.) The reason we haven't been invaded since the British and Spanish failed is because we have so many guns in private hands. That's why the Germans never invaded in WWII.

It's because hand guns are used to commit crime more than they are used by law abiding citizens to thwart crime

If you had your way then there would be no way law abiding citizens could stop ANY crime committed by those with guns. I have applauded many people who were legally carrying and stopped criminals. Joe Horn in Pasadena, Texas got my applause and praise for killing 2 burglars fleeing with goods from his neighbors home. The jewelry vendor who shot 2 of 4 robbers in Memphis got my applause. The many videos I've seen of clerks who shoot robbers get my applause. Mainstream liberal media rarely highlights these actions if they tend to show exactly why law abiding citizens should be able to arm themselves.

Look at the FBI crime stats. Year after year, in general, the states that have the least restrictive guns laws are the ones with the higher violent crime.

Look at Texas. In 1986 the population was 16,682,000 and there were 1,235,822 crimes (109,925 violent). In 2010 the population was 25,145,561 and there were 1,064,477 crimes (113,231 violent). Less restrictive guns laws, higher popluation, lower overall crime and violent crime barely rose when compared to the population.

Hey man, I don't want to infringe on your rights, I just want it to be as difficult to get a hand gun as it is to get a machine gun. That's all!

Correct yourself. You just want it to be as difficult for law abiding citizens to get a hand gun as it is to get a machine gun. You can't stop criminals from getting handguns. You still havent addressed that by the way. How do you plan to keep handguns from criminals? What is your plan to stop smuggling and black market arms trading? If you can do that then you can stop the drug trade and human trafficking too. Good luck with that.

You compare Texas to Texas? Why not compare Texas to New York? New York has more restrictive gun laws.

You can't stop criminals from getting handguns.

This is a fundamental difference in the way we see things. You focus on criminals. You focus on drunk driving. I focus on hand gun violence. I want there to be less hand gun violence. To have less hand gun violence, you need to reduce the number of hand guns. If you reduce the number of hand guns, there will be less hand gun violence. That is why I would like to see hand guns classified as a class 3 weapon under the 1968 National Firearms Act.

If it were more difficult to get hand guns, George Zimmerman might not have been able to get one. And Trayvon Martin would be alive. Less hand gun violence. Phil Hartman would alive today, also. So would John Lennon.

More crime is stopped by persons who legally have handguns than is committed by persons who legally have handguns. That is a fact.

Prove your fact.

Compare Texas to Texas. I am demonstrating what happened in Texas when Gun laws were made less restrictive. CRIME DROPPED while the population increased 50%!

Yes, I focus on criminals. People like you would ask, "Do you think it's worth taking someone's life just to protect some stuff"? I would ask the criminal, "Do you think it's worth dying just to steal someone else's stuff"?

And you focus on the extremely rare incidents of someone who seems to have taken a life wrongfully while having a carry permit. If it were more difficult to get a handgun legally it would not impede criminals at all, since almost all of them get their guns outside legal channels. Obviously, you can't stop them from getting handguns regardless of the laws you would pass.

Prove my fact? I can post 100's of stories where potential victims have killed their assailants with handguns. Show me even 10 incidents like Zimmerman's.

Davey,

Ron doesn't have to "prove anything" he is your typical troll, just tying to get YOU to do research,then laughing, cause he has no intention of proving anything....lies, lies, lies..

Prove my fact? I can post 100's of stories where potential victims have killed their assailants with handguns.

It just won't happen....

Aw, Ron is doing the best he can. He's no worse that any of the other pro gun folk that I've chatted with on Newsvine. Besides, I like doing research on gun issues. It's fun!

Ron, can you tell me more about the less restrictive gun laws in Texas?

As this table shows, violent crime in the US has been on a downward trend in the time frame that you mentioned for Texas:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls

So, I don't know what basis you have to attribute this to less restrictive gun laws.

If it were more difficult to get a handgun legally it would not impede criminals at all, since almost all of them get their guns outside legal channels. Obviously, you can't stop them from getting handguns regardless of the laws you would pass.

Ahem, please allow me to prove my point ... Q: How many crimes are committed with machine guns? A: very few. Why is that? Is it because Machines Guns have been classified as a class 3 weapon since 1934? Once we classify hand guns as a class 3 weapon, we will begin to see a reduction in hand gun violence. There won't be as many hand guns around, and that means that everyone, criminals, potential criminals, and good guys will have fewer hand guns.

More crime is stopped by persons who legally have handguns than is committed by persons who legally have handguns. That is a fact.

You said that there are justifiable homicides. I know that. There are 100s of them each year (not all of them with hand guns). There are 1000s of murders committed with a hand gun each year.

Ahem, please allow me to prove my point. Automatic weapons have been used by gangs and drug cartels in the U.S. frequently since the 30's and heavily in the 80's and 90's., even though they have been classified as a class 3 weapon since 1934. Once you classify handguns as a class 3 weapon, just about the only people who will be carrying them are criminals.

You keep saying there wouldn't be as many handguns, which is true to a point because law abiding citizens would not be carrying them, but you still won't stop criminals from getting them. Again, if you can't stop smuggling and black market then you can't stop criminals from getting guns and drugs. Banning handguns just makes the average citizen an easy target. Funny how you never see a police station get robbed, even though there may be hundreds of thousands in cash and drugs sitting in the evidence lockup. You never see a robbery at a gun swap meet. Wherever there is a lot of firepower there is fewer crime. Criminals look for soft targets to rob not people they know or suspect are armed.

There are 1000s of murders committed with a hand gun each year.

And almost all of them are committed by people who do not have a permit to carry.

When the U.K. instituted the handgun ban there was a steady increase in gun crime over the next 5 years by which time it had doubled. The following 5 years saw a steady decline until it was once again at the pre-ban level. The first 10 years saw no reduction but it had a huge spike in increased gun crime. By the way, there is still gun crime in the U.K. today because, as I said, you can't stop criminals from getting handguns by passing laws. If a criminal is willing to rob, rape and murder then breaking a law by having a handgun is not a big deal to a criminal.

To back up my 100's of incidents of justifiable homicide: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/justifyreason.png

You can also have fun looking through youtube and laugh at all of the dumb robbers who catch a bullet for trying to rob a store.

OK, I get it, the gangs that have a lot of money will still be able to get machine guns. That makes sense. So what? My question to you was, how many times do you read about killings with machine guns? It rarely happens.

Are you saying that you need a machine gun?

If you are not saying that you need a machine gun, then you will not need a hand gun, once those are restricted.

Right?

Wherever there is a lot of firepower there is fewer crime.

What do you think of this:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/standard-links/region

And almost all of them are committed by people who do not have a permit to carry.

Many of those murders are committed with a legally purchased hand gun. Just like Zimmerman. Although in the bizzaro world of Florida law, Zimmerman did not murder Trayvon.

Remember, most hand gun owners do not have carry permits.

If you are not saying that you need a machine gun, then you will not need a hand gun, once those are restricted

That made no sense at all. Besides the fact that handguns won't be restricted. I'm not even saying I need a handgun, I need to be able to carry a firearm as the Constitution states. The right to bear arms. If I were allowed to walk around with a shotgun on my shoulder when I go to the store then I would do that.

Many of those murders are committed with a legally purchased hand gun.

Lie. Committed with a handgun that was stolen or purchased from a gang member. Zimmerman is the exception when it comes to those with permits to carry. VERY little gun crime occurs by those with carry permits. To say "many" is just a plain fabrication.

Do you have any data to show that a significant number of murders are committed with a hand gun that was stolen or purchased from a gang member? Do gang members purchase them legally, or is a hand gun sold by a gang member also stolen? (If yes, why make the distinction between stolen OR purchased from a gang member?)

Extra Credit: Is there any data that shows how many hand guns are stolen from someone with a carry permit?

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11
state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

• 34% had been "scared
off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

• 40% had decided not to
commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a
gun"

• 69% personally knew
other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an
armed victim

A 1997 U.S. Justice Department survey of 14,285 state prison inmates found that
among those inmates who carried a firearm during the offense for which they were
sent to jail, 0.7% obtained the firearm at a gun show, 1% at a flea market, 3.8%
from a pawn shop, 8.3% from a retail store, 39.2% through an illegal/street
source, and 39.6% through family or friends.[94]

Last September a gunman used an automatic rifle killing 4 and injuring 7 in an IHOP in Carson City, NV before turning the gun on himself.

Hmm, is a street source always illegal? Or, can there be a legal street source?

Also, I'm interested to know why you think the source of a hand gun is important. Don't all hand guns start legal? Isn't the fact that hand guns easily fall into the wrong hands a strike against them?

I'm still interested to know, do you have any data to show that a significant number of murders are committed with a hand gun that was stolen or purchased from a gang member?

I'm also interested in your reaction to 3.44, where I pointed out that in the areas of the country associated with gun ownership (i.e. the south), there is the most crime. Because you said, "Wherever there is a lot of firepower there is fewer crime.". There are a lot of guns in the southern US. Does it look to you that both crime and gun ownership is high in the south?

Maybe Ron is so adamant that we "compare Texas to Texas" for a reason. In 1991 the violent crime rate per 100,000 nationwide was 758.2. By 2010 it had dropped to 403.6, a reduction of 53%. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls

In Texas the 1991 violent crime rate per 100,000 was 840.1. By 2010 it had dropped to 450.3, a reduction of 53%.

The numbers tell you that Texas had more violent crimes than the national average in 1991, continues to have more violent crime than the national average in 2010, and loose gun laws had no effect on that.

Meanwhile, Trayvon Martin is still dead...a death that won't even be counted as a violent crime thanks to Florida's license to kill statute.

You are just going to ignore the inmate surveys, am I right? Only .1% from the gun shows you seemed to believe were the source of guns for many criminals. 39.2% through an illegal/street
source, and 39.6% through family or friends. Those family or "friends" are likely gang members or other known criminals, if they are in an urban area.

I work the night shift. Too tired to keep this up right now.

Who cares about a survey of prison inmates? The only thing that matters is how this impacts on citizens in the real world. The violent crime rate in Texas didn't decline by a greater proportion than it did in the United States as a whole. Texas remains a state with an above average crime rate.

Trayvon Martin is still dead...a death that won't even be counted as a violent crime thanks to Florida's license to kill statute.

I wanted to know if you have any data to show that a significant number of murders are committed with a hand gun that was stolen or purchased from a gang member. You pointed me to a prisoner survey.

39.2% through an illegal/street source, and 39.6% through family or friends

Here's what I don't know, what percent of the 39.2 is from illegal and what percent is from street. Does street imply illegal? How can you be sure?

You seem to think that family or friends are gang members. But that does not seem like a solid conclusion.

Even giving you a generous amount of the benefit of the doubt, I have to say that you have not made your case. Here's a big thing that I think you overlooked: In a certain number of cases, a murderer will die as part of the crime and not be sent to prison, and therefore unavailable for your little survey.

The stand your ground law goes along with the drug laws. Drug laws are designed to arrest black people. Stand your ground is designed to create and promote black people's deaths.

I know, after 350 years of slavery and jim crow, some people sang we shall overcome and the problem magically ended that day for some. But back in the real world, the south and most of rural America along with much of suburbia behaves in 1880.

Lame conspiracy theories, JohnSixty. That's as racist a view as anything a KKK member would spew.

Most of the drug arrests I see in my area are white meth heads. The 13 high schoolers arrested for dealing narcotics in their Exeter, California school were all white and hispanic. Or are all of those stories I read about white people arrested on drug charges just made up stories planted by the man?

Ron B - no, they arent made up...but I guarantee those white people are getting slaps on the wrist compared to the black people wasting space in prison on drug offenses.

google the stats...reality doesnt lie

They should look at people like me to be their role model, as I have never been arrested, never collected welfare and have always found work (even if it's crap minimum wage fast food or factory work). But if they tried to be like me they wouldn't have any street cred.

If people weren't committing crimes then they would not be in prison. End of story. bu-buh-bye

Guns have only one function: to kill.

The world would be a much better place without them.

Avarage Guy

First of all, we do have guns and they can be built out of pipes and hinges. We will never be without them but people with a bit of common sense know how to use them or better yet not to use them! By the way avarage is spelled average.

Mr Baxley said it did not apply to a person who pursued his victim.

@timlmillinois notice he didn't site a specific line from the law that says those that pursue aren't covered. The very problem with the law is that in fact you are allowed to use it as long as you have a right to be where you are and Zimmerman did in fact have a right to be in that neighborhood. He even had a right to follow Martin around. That's entire issue. And once Zimmerman felt he perceived a threat from the 17 year old boy who himself was probably responding to this 26 year old creeper following him through the neighborhood, then Zimmerman under this law can claim that he was in immediate danger and has the right to apply deadly force instead of removing himself from the situation. The fact that he wasn't arrested on scene IS because of this law.

Hopefully all of this evidence surrounding Zimmerman's mindset, his previous 911 calls, his ignoring of the police request that he not follow the victim, the testimony of the victims girlfriend who was on the phone with him as the incident began--those may in the end overturn his use of this law as a defense, but only because there's been a public outcry.

You're right 1 Opinion. The law is flawed because of the way it's written. Even if they didn't intend to give someone like Zimmerman a free "get out of jail" pass, it's what the written law may actually do. In other articles they said it's been used by gang members to justify their shooting of members of a rival gang.

It might decrease the number of NRA members :)

You can have auto weapons with a proper ATF license

For $375 and about 15 minutes with some simple tools, you can convert an AR-15 so it can be fired at the same rate as an M-16. The kit is legal in most states too.

@timlmillinois so the training your son went through to carry his sidearm and be allowed his other weapons for his job in law enforcement have nothing to do with why he has those weapons? My cousin flies large transport planes for the Air Force, so why can't I?

Actually Dredd, the kit is illegal under BATF rules and being in possession of one without the proper permit, whether installed or not, is a violation of federal laws. Nice try though.

The founding fathers argued some of these points for sure. But if we are to believe in this view of the world, we would just let people do whatever they please with few or no restrictions and let things take care of themselves. No proof necessary. You shouldn't have to prove that you are or are not a felon, a domestic abuser, adjudicated mentally ill, drug abuser or a minor when buying a gun. So we let the felon decide for himself when and if he needs a gun? Let's take that idea further.

I think anyone should be able to practice medicine, license or not. Just as anyone should be able to walk into a classroom and teach our kids. No training required. And as to driving a car, why not let just let 13 year old daugher drive, no permit, no license? She can decide for herself if she's ready to drive. That should work out pretty well. Drunk drivers? Who cares? Sight problems- hey, why not? Certainly anyone could come in and wire your house and if it burns down as a result-who needs a fire fighter? Just call your neighbor and tell them to bring over the garden hose. I think everyone should be able to drive as fast or as slowly as they want.

Surely we don't need to have seat belts or air bags. So what if a few thousand people die from car accident injuries. Just let people decide for themselves what they need or don't need. Immunizations? Eh! So what if a few kids die or lose their hearing from measles or get polio and suffer from the disease for the rest of their lives. You can take care of all of the needs of your child yourself.

Accountants to do your taxes or audit businesses- anyone could do that job. You can represent yourself in court just fine without a lawyer. Some people hate lawyers anyway so who needs them? Want someone to build your house? Just hire your friends. They could design it and then order all the materials and rent the trucks and other equipment. Whatever. I think this is the way to go, for sure.

We were founded as a Republic and central to that idea was that people have inherent rights that pre-date all government, all laws and that those rights cannot be given away, nor taken away by anyone. For that reason, the founders spent a lot of time detailing not what a person MAY do, liberal freedom was assumed, but what the government may NOT do. Since your side doesn't believe that everyone "needs" a gun" you feel justified in having the government pass laws based on "need", the laws you support tend to codify that into restrictions that require the proof of some sort of need, to allow ownership, sell, transfer, carry concealed or whatever.

If the anti-gun side had been able to pass ALL of the laws they have ever advocated. MY life and the life of millions of citizens would be one of great restrictions, denials and I would have to jump through all sorts of legal hoops to own a hand gun, if it was allowed at all.

The argument for restrictive law is the argument that people cannot be trusted to make the "correct" choice so the legal behavior must be limited to the range of "correct" choices. The permissive argument is that "the people" are fully capable of deciding for THEMSELVES what they need or don't need and acting on that knowledge freely. (and paying the price for being wrong,evil or stupid)

I can't remember who said. "It is the job of the citizen to keep the government in check, not the job of the government to keep the citizen in check." That is actually what my side believes for almost all aspects of government so supporting permissive gun laws is just being consistent with that philosophy and not likely to change."

First, my comments on this @!$%#s' story. He was on his neighbors property -trespassing- criminal activity, then he is told to leave and continues to argue and threaten the homeowner-assault- another criminal activity. The homeowner was RIGHT to shoot him. You have no right to come on my property and verbally assault and threaten me. Thank God the State of Florida has gotten their @!$%# together and passed this law. I shouldn't have to hide behind barred windows while criminals wander the streets.

Now, the Trayvon matter. The law in question says if you shoot someone and claim "self defense" and there is no witness testimony to the contrary, they CANNOT, say again CANNOT arrest the shooter. If the State determines there is justification to bring the case before a grand jury for an arrest warrant, the State Attorney CAN do that. The truth is there isn't enough contradictory information to get "true bill" from a grand jury. This kid's family is simply looking for a PAY DAY. The father was supposed to being having "VISITATION" time with this when this happened, but Daddy had taken his shackup out to dinner. Maybe if Daddy-dearest had kept his ass at home - or his shack-up's home- his son would still be alive. Did this kid deserve being shot? Possibly not. That's what an investigation is for. Shut up and wait for the truth. Stop making this about RACE. The truth is if he had shot a white kid, this would be NON-news story and none of you would give a @!$%#.

So Mom, would you be as dismissive if it were YOUR child?

"The evidence is out there..." So why not wait and see what it is? Or will we be required to accept what the "Media Matters" media tell us it is?

And, by the way, I'd like to hear your definition of "racist." Is or is not, for instance, Al Sharpton a "racist?"

And what is your term for one trying to set one group of nitwits against another?

The police accepted a 1-sided view since the other side was lying dead on the ground. But, you're right, we should be better than law enforcement.

Do those same folks think this Florida incident"

Is young, black and wearing a hoodie a recipe for disaster? Damn YES DISASTER on National Level IF the IDIOTS are allowed to be infested reflects justify the founding fathers' view of the second amendment?

Lets compare this another Florida's incident.

Gauntlett said when officers arrived, 18-year-old David Alyn Penney, wearing camouflage clothing and armed with two AK-47 assault rifles fired multiple rounds at their patrol car.

The two officers then got out of their car and returned fire. Both officers were injured: Officer Clinton Wise: Shot in the foot, taken to Orlando Regional Medical Center. Officer Spencer Endsley: Hit with shattered glass in the eyes, face and arm, taken to St. Cloud Hospital.

After shooting at the officers, Penney then shot himself in the head. He was taken to Orlando Regional Medical Center's intensive care unit, expects him to survive.

"Another crazy day in St. Cloud man,This town is turning corrupt man. Everyone is losing their marbles man cause of the economy. I don't know. Everyone is just turning against each other about racism is pathetic. That's just how it goes around here specially with the Law stand your ground unfortunately abusing the flaws law in place as BS self -defense " that the guys with the guns make the rules." And that's the world of the gun rights extremists believes.

You have the first figure backwards and the only time the second one applies is if you are a criminal. Don't use MSNBC as an information source.

Whether or not Rosenbloom entered Allen's house, the fact is that Rosenbloom was shot in the ex-cops yard, not in the house. It would appear that, even if Rosenbloom did enter the house, he had left before he was shot. Therefore Allen wasn't "defending" anyone or anything, the "threat" was gone. So much for the "castle" defense arguement. Allen should be in prison for attempted murder.

The retired police officer made a direct claim that Rosenburg entered his home, yet the article states that Rosenbloom was found 10 feet from the door.

This presents several posibilities:

1) Rosenbloom entered the home and then left, meaning the retired police officer pursued him outside the home and shot him.

2) Rosenbloom never entered the home, and was shot outside the home.

3) Rosenburg was shot inside the home and somehow managed to crawl 10 feet outside the home. Note, he was shot in the hip so it is unlikely that he walked.

In the first two possiblitites the retired cop should have been arrested and charged with a crime. Of course, being a retired cop, that would have meant that one of his own would have to enforce the law against him.

In the third instance there would have been a trail of blood from inside the house to where Rosenbloom was found. There is no mention of that in the article.

@Chris the reasonableness of the threat doesn't necessarily involve having physical weapons. If the roundish-faced Zimmerman felt the varsity sport playing Martin was a physical threat then the law still applies. The crux is the fact that once Zimmerman found himself in the situation the "Stand Your Ground" law allowed him to react with deadly force when the standard self defense claim would require that he try to remove himself from the situation. In this case I think we can safely assume had Zimmerman backed out of the area--flashing his gun if necessary--Martin would not have pursued him. This law provided Zimmerman with the justification to resolve the incident as he did, and it is the reason (the legal reason anyway) that the Sanford police did not arrest him on scene.

You'd shoot someone running away with your stuff Joebob?

That's prescisely why you should be allowed anywhere near a firearm.

I mean't shouldn't be.

Your stuff isn't worth someone's life. You can buy new stuff. Someone threatens you or a loved one sure, clean their clock. I wouldn't fault you.... But your iPad and stereo can be replaced.

A 17 year old kid in a hoodie running away with your stuff constitutes an imminent threat to your life.......thats your interpretation of the application of the "Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground" laws?

Wow, just Wow.......

JoeBob, AZ

Would I shoot someone if it came down to my safety or my families? Oh YES I would.. Would I follow a kid in a hoodie and shoot him at night? Only if he was running away with my stuff!

Can someone please call Arizona and have this nutjob's license revoked and his firearm removed for mental instability?

Ooops! I meant "In the Trayvon Martin case" and not "this case". Sorry.

I like how it is always a black thing. Are all of the recent shootings of blacks in Chicago being commited by whites? No, it is by fellow blacks just as it is in most cases in the inner cities. However, I do agree that Zimmerman is not entitled to use the SYGL as a defense.

Jak, actually, most of the recent shootings have been blamed on Latinos. But when you already have your mind made up, facts don't matter. Why is it a Black thing, regarding the Florida case? Did you just get tothis country or have you not studied recent American history? Blacks were routinely killed by mobs, sheriffs, police and others in the south for decades, the killers were rarely charged with a crime. In the rare instances when someone was actually arrested, they would be quickly found not guilty. Given that background and the known facts in the Martin killing, can you now understand why Black (and many White) people are bothered by this case? The failure to test Zimmerman for drugs and alcohol, testing the dead teen for drugs, Zimmermans recorded bigoted comments, his failure to simply watch and report, his confrontation of his victim all resulting in NO CHARGES. Still wondering???

And some of us are wondering what Zimmerman was doing there.

Perhaps you should read more Jo Bob. His father lived in the gated community. I know that for some of you rednecks its hard to believe that people of color have made it to a level of living in gated communities... But, obviously from your comment you ASSUMED like the racist that shot and killed him that he (those people) as the murdered called him, doesn't belong there. Educate yourself prior to sharing your stupidity.

sarahnwrap - perhaps you should read more before ripping on others. His father didn't live there, his fathers GIRLFRIEND lived there. They were there for a visit.

You ASSUMED things that weren't true, and make them as facts. Similar to every other post you have done.

Educate yourself prior to sharing YOUR stupidity.

Why don't you get your facts right joe bob!

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that people who live in that community are allowed to have guests? So he did have every right to be there.

Who was 15 years old? Trayvon Martin was 17, and visiting his father in the "gated community". Why are any of you concerned wit hwhat he was doing? Even people who do not live in the area can get lost. Walking through your sacred "just us" territory is not a crime punishable by EXECUTION...

Ya' think? Zimmerman was told not to pursue by the Police Department.

lol, some employers allow you to work out of your home.

Just ask your boss to stop by your house and drop off that special project that he needs done by tomorrow, open the front door for him, and gun him down in the entryway.

As long as you kill him in Florida, your testimony alone will allow police to close the case.

The law is designed to prevent the winner from being charged with the murder of the loser.

Gotta love Florida......

It wasn't being investigated until the FBI got involved, thus all the protest. This isn't about liberal or consevative, black or white, it's about justice. Perhaps I should go to Florida and you should meet me there. Then we could see if when I were afraid because you are obviously lack any rational and blew your brains out, if your family still agreed with the law.

Jerry-2533656

The Stand Your Ground law is a good one. Up to the prosecution to determine if the shooting evidence is sufficient and not public demonstrations and alleged black leaders. FBI should butt out.

Ever hear of a grand jury? You are clueless.

I Guess that is why justifiable homicides in the "Gunshine" State have gone up by 300%. Very bad law for Floridians. In Trayvon's case, the shooter was following the victim to confront him after being told not to. He will be charged.

screw you. we need guns to keep the peace. when australia and britain banned guns crime went up 40%.

tylor-1251220

screw you. we need guns to keep the peace. when australia and britain banned guns crime went up 40%.

Given that you cited a very precise increment for the increase in crime - I know you have a source for that info right?

Shall we also ban all cutting objects - knives, box cutters, razor blades, glass containers that can be broken into a cutting object, hell toothbrushes, any metal that *could* be formed into a cutting object, better ban plastic too ---- after all, people are killed every day with cutting objects. But wait, we're still not safe - people are BEATEN to death every day too so we'd better go ahead and ban all objects that can be used to beat someone - no more pipes, bats, boards, sticks, candlesticks, lamps, trophies, rocks. Oh, what's that, we STILL aren't safe? Well, sh*t........ Banning firearms will not make everyone safe.

if someone really wants to kill someone, they don't need the guns, and therefore banning them wouldn't make a difference... Ever heard of a knife? Or a car? What about "accidental" housefires? Banning guns is NOT the answer.

His dad didn't live there - his dad's girlfriend lived there. They were visiting. Do you get it?

Learn the facts.

I dont think anyone with a brain wonders that.

You backwood country redneck idiot??? Nice, your rhetoric is as bad as any other that spews hate. You too are part of the problem.

Zimmerman sounds like an unpleasant guy who I wouldn't want to be friends with, but I've found it rather disturbing at the facts that the national news sites have neglected to publish. Yesterday, someone pointed out this article

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/022712-man-shot-and-killed-in-neighborhood-altercation#ixzz1pYX3NLMq

which is a local news article that happened immediately after the incident. In it, they interview a witness:

A man who witnessed part of the altercation contacted authorities.

"The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911," said the witness, who asked to be identified only by his first name, John.

John said he locked his patio door, ran upstairs and heard at least one gun shot.

"And then, when I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point."

Other articles have shown Zimmerman had bleeding head injuries, both in the front, and in the back of his head. How did Martin take down a guy 70 pounds heavier than himself, to the point where a concussed Zimmerman is screaming for help directly to an eyewitness? Perhaps by striking Zimmerman in the back on the head while Zimmerman was walking back to his car, JUST AS ZIMMERMAN ALWAYS CLAIMED? This seems to prove the his claim that it was himself, and not Martin, who was screaming on the phone call. Why has this eyewitness been completely ignored, and the msnbc only bothers talking to the witnesses who HEARD things outside, and GUESSED that it was Martin screaming? Bonus, later in the article, Martin's mother claims Martin was just sitting on a porch... uh, what? Is she just making up whatever details she thinks she can get away with?

Other witnesses have come forward that Zimmerman was on top of Martin and Martin was dead at that point from a gunshot wound! So it depends on which media you are listening to...

Yes, those witnesses came on the scene immediately afterward and saw him place the gun on the ground, crouched over and started checking Martin's vitals. This was after the fight and the shooting. How is that contradicory in any way to what the other witness saw?

Edit: for some reason it's doubleposting all my replies. And there's no way to delete the duplicate.

Moderate Matthew, how many times are you going to post the same comment? Repeating the same things over and over does not help your case.

I was a cop for seven years, and a private detective (who worked for several state police agencies as an investigator) for seventeen years. Nothing is so fearsome to me as witness testimony, and I'm sure anyone who has attended college classroom experiments concerning the accuracy of witness testimony will agree. I have not only seen knives and guns change hands from those of "victim" to "aggressor," but motor vehicles and other instruments do utterly impossible things.

Neither does it make (much) difference whether the witness is expert. I once heard an FBI agent testify in a murder trial that a bullet fired at an angle against concrete doesn't ricochet, and that the hypotenuse of a triangle is parallel to the base. I'm often heard to critcize the lynch-mob mentality of the media: well, often times - too often, anyway - our police investigations and courtrooms are little better.

All of them now start with human beings so biased by inundation in politically and ideologically-inspired propaganda that witnesses are powerless to use their brains. No matter how simple the process, it is now a circus being run from the monkey cage.

Hal,

Good comments and observations.

Moderate Matthew:

Here is some other witness reports:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/17/trayvon-martin-killing-yo_n_1355795.html

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/20/neighbor-trayvon-martin-shooting-wasnt-self-defense/

Hal, the alternative to the "circus" around this case was silence. Absolute silence from the Sanford PD, no investigation by the DA, not even confiscation of the shooter's weapon. A teenager shot dead, unarmed and committing no crime is ruled justifiable with a bare bones investigation (conducted by a narcotics officer, instead of a homicide detective). After three weeks, I am glad the family turned to the press and social media. I'll take extreme exposure of this incident to the nothing Sanford tried to get away with any day.