Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Hassin Bin Sober

(27,473 posts)
16. We know a confrontation happened.
Wed Jul 17, 2013, 09:52 AM
Jul 2013

There is no evidence TM was doing anything wrong.

TM was minding his own business.

TM was legally justified to be where he was.

There is evidence TM was apprehensive, fearful or whatever you want to call it, of being followed.

So you have two people legally within their rights to be in the same place at the same time. You have evidence one caused the other apprehensiveness. You know a confrontation happened.

You know who actively initiated the confrontation by their own actions by exiting their vehicle.

You know one was armed and the other wasn't. The unarmed one, a minor BTW, is dead.

Pro gun people talk all the time about the extra responsibilities a CCW brings. I submit actively avoiding getting in to fist fights with 17 year old boys should be one of those responsibilities. In other words, jumping out of your car in the dark when it's raining to follow a 17 year old boy is a bad idea when you are armed. Especially since you are in cell phone contact with the police and no one's life or limb is in clear and present danger.

I'm off to work.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Much as I love Jimmy Carter . . . markpkessinger Jul 2013 #1
Well, to be fair... pipi_k Jul 2013 #11
You're missing his point. Avalux Jul 2013 #13
That's right, and flawed laws will undermine our justice system. Eddie Haskell Jul 2013 #18
My view is that after hearing the words of B37, how she characterized them Ninga Jul 2013 #22
Exactly. Jawja Jul 2013 #27
They could not "invalidate" a law. former9thward Jul 2013 #31
I did not mean literally. Jawja Jul 2013 #32
I understand. former9thward Jul 2013 #34
There is no such thing pipi_k Jul 2013 #33
Good point. Jawja Jul 2013 #36
At the time I was surprised at the murder charge panzerfaust Jul 2013 #2
Good points. Hassin Bin Sober Jul 2013 #6
I'm not sure YarnAddict Jul 2013 #9
That seems to sum up the misconception that COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #12
We know a confrontation happened. Hassin Bin Sober Jul 2013 #16
Well said. This is ridiculous. Zimmerman should have been held criminally liable. nt stevenleser Jul 2013 #17
And none of which was referenced in Jury Instructions One_Life_To_Give Jul 2013 #26
My 2 cts exlrrp Jul 2013 #10
What else *would* he say?? Blue_Tires Jul 2013 #3
Yep. (nt) Nye Bevan Jul 2013 #4
Come on Carter knows the PA usually goes high and includes the lesser chargers. SYG play a HUGE part uponit7771 Jul 2013 #5
President Carter Crepuscular Jul 2013 #7
program note: 'The topic of today's Two Minutes Hate, will be Jimmy Carter' markiv Jul 2013 #8
You're trying to argue that it was somehow COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #14
Prefferable to an aquittal One_Life_To_Give Jul 2013 #30
Carter isn't infallible. I like him, but he is wrong here. nt stevenleser Jul 2013 #15
Oh dear, poor Jimmy ... under the DU bus he goes ... Myrina Jul 2013 #19
Peanut shells and tire tracks ksoze Jul 2013 #20
Ermm.. ananda Jul 2013 #24
I think it ws a refernce to the zero based policy here ksoze Jul 2013 #28
Right on schedule... Safetykitten Jul 2013 #29
They were mislead, confused and lazy. DCBob Jul 2013 #21
Agree. lumberjack_jeff Jul 2013 #23
He is right. Are_grits_groceries Jul 2013 #25
Sorry, Mr. Carter, but I would have hung that jury. Brigid Jul 2013 #35
Me too coeur_de_lion Jul 2013 #37
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Jimmy Carter: Zimmerman ...»Reply #16