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
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Texas jury convicts man in stand your ground case [View all]pacalo
(24,721 posts)104. Who committed the "first illegal act"?
If Trayvon fought off Zimmerman, he had a right to do so. Zimmerman's motivation was paranoia & he went out of his way to confront Trayon. Trayvon's motivation was to protect himself from Zimmerman's aggressive approach toward him.
The "first illegal act" was committed by Zimmerman when he shot Trayvon. The first point of discussion in the jury deliberations will surely be, why didn't Zimmerman listen to the dispatcher & wait for the police to handle his complaint? It's common sense.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
111 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The facts of the case are these: PersonA was having a party and making noise. PersonB did not
Vincardog
Jun 2012
#92
Rodriquez left his home and went outside so the castle law does not apply
Thinkingabout
Jun 2012
#74
I'm not. From the link, the guilty verdict was likely; it matched my years there:
freshwest
Jun 2012
#20
Then go there and bring an analysis back. Just cut out the usual vulgar hate speech.
freshwest
Jun 2012
#27
Hope you are right, but I kind of think Post #29 makes a good point. SYG can happen anywhere.
Hoyt
Jun 2012
#30
As a Republican who lives in Texas and believes we have a right to self defense .....
marble falls
Jun 2012
#58
Clearly he was convicted based on his race and not his obvious guilt
4th law of robotics
Jun 2012
#76
This was about someone trying to claim self-defense while standing someone ELSE'S ground
slackmaster
Jun 2012
#66
So glad to see this. Never expected it. Gives human beings reason to hope. Thanks. n/t
Judi Lynn
Jun 2012
#38
It's pretty clear to me that Zimmerman didn't stand back & allow the police to handle his complaint
pacalo
Jun 2012
#102
Just as in the Texas case, it will be clear that there would not have been a need for
pacalo
Jun 2012
#109
Obviously. Just because the shooter SAID it was a stand your ground scenario did not make it so
dmallind
Jun 2012
#72
There is a false equivalency if there ever was one. Illegal parking doesn't result in the death of
upaloopa
Jun 2012
#79
And since when did analogies have to be identical? Neither did SYG laws result in this death btw
dmallind
Jun 2012
#83
Much too late, Rodriquez will find there is such a thing as living in real fear for your life.
freshwest
Jun 2012
#73
This has gone too far. Society has been bullied by the gun lobby to let gun nuts shoot first and
upaloopa
Jun 2012
#78
Our entire criminal justice system is based on a presumption that the defendant is innocent
slackmaster
Jun 2012
#80
Two things happened reasently that resulted in an innocent person losing his life.
upaloopa
Jun 2012
#81
No, an innocent person is dead because an idiot broke multiple laws and committed murder
slackmaster
Jun 2012
#82
You know what would be nice to hear? A gun person saying "Gee! what a tragedy that an
upaloopa
Jun 2012
#84
A neighborhood bully who had a CHL, an arsenal of weapons and a knowledge of the law
Gothmog
Jun 2012
#86