>> ^Darkhand:


Pork that's the problem though even your own article says "I have my doubts, I don't see how" but we don't know all the facts.
This law should not be under scrutiny until it's actually used and if it actually gets zimmerman off.
And the problem with your Theory about Martin being able to continuously pummel Zimmerman while he is on the ground is not true. Once Zimmerman is on his back the "Perceived Threat" is neutralized. It works the same way here in jersey with self defense but I can't use a gun. I answer force with equal force. Once my opponent is disabled I can't keep wailing on them.
Being stalked, in my opinion, does not allow you to feel like your life is in danger. Martin used his cellphone to text his girlfriend, why didn't he call the cops and try to get help?
But then again I'm not a lawyer OR a judge and nobody else is. So everything I say here could be wrong. We don't have all the facts so anyone claiming to know EXACTLY what happened is wrong.
It's just funny because it seems to me that liberals are siding with Martin and Conservatives and siding with Zimmerman. Everyone seems to have their own set of "Facts" and nobody is willing to believe that their own side (Liberal Media or Conservative Media) is injecting facts that may or may not be 100% credible into the case.
Everyone seems to be using this case as a means to push their own policy whether it's gun control reform, minority rights, or personal security. Everyone seems to just be ignoring the tragedy that some kid has had the rest of his life taken from him. Because really that's all we do know!


If you don't have any doubts given that the police didn't tox screen Zimmerman, Zimmerman was told not to follow, they had the wrong detective doing the investigation, and witnesses were coming forward weeks AFTER the incident to try to tell their side of it and saying police never investigated. Then I don't think you can call yourself objective.

I personally try to put myself in either person's shoes and decide if I think I would have acted the same way. I can see Trayvon's point of view more easily than I can Zimmerman. If I were a teenager visiting my father and someone in his neighborhood was following me, I would definitely try to run. And if they kept pursuing and had me trapped, you have the choice of letting them do whatever or fighting back. That part is going to vary on what is being said, but I think Zimmerman acted as aggressor there.

Now in Zimmerman's shoes, I don't own a gun, in fact I've never even held one or fired one. However, if I did have a gun, I certainly would not get so close to someone as for them to take my gun from me or prevent me from using my gun if I felt they were "suspicious". I also would not have gotten out of my vehicle to make that even more likely to occur. As for following a teenager, if they looked like a teen in physical appearance I wouldn't push the issue. If it were an adult acting like that, I might be concerned enough to try to keep them in view from a block away or something. I certainly would never have gotten out of my vehicle in either case of a non-injured teen or adult...they obviously don't want you to be near them if they RUN.

The SYG law, which I have quoted the relevant portions in a previous quote does not say that someone is neutralized when they are on their back. Reposting a portion of it:

2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[14]

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

If Trayvon could reasonably believe he was in imminent threat of death or great bodily harm the law clearly says he could use lethal force against Zimmerman. Given that Zimmerman was awake throughout and had the ability to draw a gun and shoot, he was not neutralized. Trayvon was within his rights to defend himself by beating Zimmerman to death if he reasonably felt his life was in danger. If Zimmerman said he had a gun, or the gun was detectable through clothing, or brandishing it, that's a clear indicator that Zimmerman had the ability to use lethal force against him.

Martin wasn't texting his girlfriend, he was speaking to her according to her testimony. She says the line went dead after she HEARD them ask questions and then shoving began.

As for stalking, people get restraining orders against stalkers all the time. If it wasn't a presentation of danger, the courts would not hand out these restraining orders against people who do such things.

I don't like labeling myself as liberal or conservative. Perhaps my life experience makes me favor Martin, but I think the presentation of information thus far indicates that in the moment Zimmerman was beyond the "norm" for behavior for an adult non-LEO against another civilian who was young if not underage. That's not even counting the confrontation, he went beyond the scope a normal citizen would prior to it. Whether that was because he "on something", "pissed", "racist", or had some other agenda.....we can't know. I think it's clear evidence of him not thinking acting reasonably or thinking clearly.

And I don't feel that I'm pushing an agenda. I'm applying the language of the law to the scenario, and I feel that Zimmerman violated Martin's rights and was let go because of the law that should have applied first and foremost to Martin who was actively trying to escape Zimmerman by Zimmerman's own admissions on the 911 tapes. The rest of the police screw ups is just fuel to the fire. It doesn't even matter if Zimmerman hated blacks at this point, although it will be important once they finally apply the law in some kind of rational way. To determine if this was a hate crime on his part, which will be left up to a jury.

Again, I can absolutely see why people would be upset on this case for a lot of reasons. But by far the most troubling is that it seems like you can put someone on the defensive, and straight up murder them as soon as they have lost all other options of flight and turn to fight. Not seeing that aspect of it, is by far the most troubling "blindness"/willful ignorance of the people coming out on the side of Zimmerman. Without evidence to show that Trayvon had a chance for escape, Zimmerman is 100% wrong in the wording of the law under 776.041 as the aggressor. If we can't apply the law by it's language, it's a useless law.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by ZappaDanMan.

reading comments on this incident, I learned about the technical term for a concept of escalating use of force, and while those in the military or LEO may know, this was interesting to read for me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuum

http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/officer-safety/use-of-force/continuum.htm



Great video editing... shouldnt there be an app for this kind of simultaneous stitching based on audio?

I believe one of the claims for the use of force here was the inability of officers to leave the situation, and feeling threatened... yet he manages to easily walk over the line and among all non-violent observers.

"We are actors Leo, we get more and more famous until our egos grow to diabolical proportions."

I hear people sometimes say things like "J. Edgar Hoover ran America for a long time"

I've never believed it because there's simply no way the owners of the society would've allowed one man to hold the keys. However he's no doubt interesting and Clint and Leo should do a great job as usual.

>> ^Trancecoach:

Must be part of The Flat Earth Society.



You hit closer to home than you think:
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/flaterth.vid.ws2.tch.pdf

"Google Dr. Leo Ferrari. They will find that he is, indeed, a university professor... of philosophy (he is NOT a scientist of any kind). He was also one of the founders (and past president) of the Flat Earth Society!"

(Said Leo Ferrari is best described here.)

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Boise_Lib.

>> ^Trancecoach:

No, that's Michael Cera.

>> ^shuac:
On Fox? Bullshit. News this good has got to be bullshit.
And is that Leo Sayer sitting between David Cross and Jason Bateman?



Classic. Saving for posterity.

No, that's Michael Cera.


>> ^shuac:

On Fox? Bullshit. News this good has got to be bullshit.
And is that Leo Sayer sitting between David Cross and Jason Bateman?

On Fox? Bullshit. News this good has got to be bullshit.

And is that Leo Sayer sitting between David Cross and Jason Bateman?

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by AdrianBlack.

General Leo, FF3, was my saddest. 7 is close though.

Thanks a lot for your comment. Your perspective as a former officer really brings something worthwhile to the discussion, and you stating your position as such really changed how I considered your comments. I'm a bit of an admittedly gullible person, so your assessment of the guy's story changed my perspective of the situation significantly. Your assessment of the officer's actions really shed a lot of light on the subject as well.

I feel that most of the people who try to leave 'cop-hate' comments on the sift try to boast more than they actually understand about proper law enforcement practices. Some of these people are merely 'anti-establishment,' and the mature ones recognize that law enforcement will inevitably exist the way that it does. But others just go nuts about getting upset about these videos, to the point of righteously emotionally masturbating.

Please continue lending your assessment on these kinds of videos, as I think they expand my world a bit. I'm sure there are others on here who feel similarly =).

>> ^RittWitt:

Speaking as a former LEO, not only does the primary officer grossly overreact to the situation (though I would tell you that unless you've been in his shoes, it's not fair to pass judgement), there is a serious officer safety here. Consent issues aside, there is absolutely no reason the secondary officer should have searched that vehicle with the driver still inside.
I don't believe the driver's story for a second. It seems pretty clear that he's in a high-crime area, and is involving himself with a known pimp and prostitute. However, that situation has little to do with the arresting officer's actions. My primary outrage here is that this pair of officers put themselves in a position, either through poor training or complacency, to provoke a potentially lethal situation had the suspect intended it. Then, instead of recognizing that the failure to identify the firearm was on their hands, the officer reacted out of rage (and probably a bit of justified fear at how close he and his partner could have been to a lethal force situation) by lashing out at a largely cooperative suspect.

Granted, the moron driver should have "fought" to inform the officer that he was carrying, but that guy (the main officer) must have a 2 inch dick to be shouting like that the entire time. LEOs should always be courteous and professional unless they need a commanding voice to issue lawful orders. This guy needs some SERIOUS training, or a simple removal from duty. No one with this much unwarranted aggression should be a cop. Also, (illegally) searching a vehicle with people still in it? Is he fucking retarded?

Speaking as a former LEO, not only does the primary officer grossly overreact to the situation (though I would tell you that unless you've been in his shoes, it's not fair to pass judgement), there is a serious officer safety here. Consent issues aside, there is absolutely *no* reason the secondary officer should have searched that vehicle with the driver still inside.

I don't believe the driver's story for a second. It seems pretty clear that he's in a high-crime area, and is involving himself with a known pimp and prostitute. However, that situation has little to do with the arresting officer's actions. My primary outrage here is that this pair of officers put themselves in a position, either through poor training or complacency, to provoke a potentially lethal situation had the suspect intended it. Then, instead of recognizing that the failure to identify the firearm was on their hands, the officer reacted out of rage (and probably a bit of justified fear at how close he and his partner could have been to a lethal force situation) by lashing out at a largely cooperative suspect.