On Zimmy's statement to the court

[spin]

59. There is a legal review in the Zimmerman case ...

He has been arrested and will face proceedings. Admittedly this is the result of the media attention. In this case the media did a valuable service. While I maybe somewhat critical of the media's attempt to play both judge and jury in this case, their efforts might result in true justice.

I have often said that I feel that the wording of the law should be reconsidered and revised in order to eliminate ambiguity and confusion. I have also posted that any questionable case should be reviewed at a higher level than the local authorities in order to eliminate any questions such as racial bias.

You assert:

When you only have ONE side of the story every shooting can be justifiable and impossible, or next impossible to prosecute... why castle doctrine has it's place... so does legal review.

I actually agree. However there will be cases in which it is impossible to prove that as individual used legitimate self defense because of the lack of witnesses and evidence that would prove otherwise. In such incidents should the judge instruct the jury that since there are no witnesses and no evidence that the defendant is guilty? Under our system of justice that wouldn't fly because it is the prosecutor's job to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. What would you suggest? Perhaps you have a realistic solution to this conundrum. Admittedly some people may be able to get away with murder but is it far better to assume guilt and send an innocent person who used legitimate self defense to prison for a lengthy sentence because there merely were no witnesses or incriminating evidence? With evidence or witnesses the same shooting could have been determined to be legitimate self defense.

Yes, it is true that if a person breaks into your home while you are present, you have good reason to assume that he intends to far more than steal your valuables. Hence castle doctrine is fair and reasonable although some here will disagree. The fact remains that breaking into an unoccupied home is far different than invading a home when people are present. It is not all that difficult to find out if a home is occupied. (That doesn't mean that I would blow some teenager or even an older individual away because he broke into my home. If he followed my instructions, I would hold him for the police and if he ran out a door I would not shoot him.) I notice that you do support castle doctrine, however many question this law.

It is conceivable that a person might be on a street with a concealed carry permit and find himself under attack from an individual who intends to inflict serious injury or to kill. Requiring him to retreat before using his legally concealed weapon might well offer his attacker a significant advantage. While retreating or running away may be a viable tactic in many situations it might be a very poor choice in others. None of the techniques that I learned in the martial arts involved retreating. I have also found that my ability to accurately shoot diminishes significantly if I am backing up as opposed to standing still or advancing.

As far as Zimmerman losing his carry permit, I can offer no explanation. My daughter filed a restraining order against an individual who was stalking her. Because of a clerical error at the courthouse she received a notice from the state of Florida that required her to turn in her concealed weapons permit. She contacted the judge on the case and he rectified the error. Based on her experience, I suspect that Zimmerman might have received some unusual courtesy from the state.