Slow down. Aren't we getting a little jumpy having only heard one side of the story? Innocent until proven guilty, right? I havent heard all of the facts, but what i have read leads me to my previous statement. That said, the DA likely hasn't charged Z for a reason and an arrest hasn't been made for a reason I'd say as well. I really don't know what those reasons could be though - unless there's more going on than we currently know, like deeper issues with the police force or other potentially illegal conditions.

It may likely be that Z is as guilty as I am sexy (thats a fvcking ton by the way), but we haven't heard ANY of his words post incident yet, which we need to hear before we can accurately determine his guilt or innocence as he is the only living witness.

They need to say the reason.

I am entitled to MY opinion. I am not the DA. I said he should get creamed in his ass and I stand by that. MY opinion. Not the DA's or anyone else.

But like I said, if there is a reason, they need to say. But, I really doubt there is a reason based on the 911 tapes. If there is they have done the worst PR job for their police department/county, ever.

I am not saying he shouldn't get a fair trial by any means. Like I said I feel that he is a ragging piece of dog **** and should have to watch his mom get bukkaked by 12 elephants. But I still want him to have a fair trial.

I don't think we disagree in principle, but the devils in the details. Stating a reason now could compromise their case or be misconstrued. It's in the states best interest to not give details of their evidence as of yet, just like it is in the best interest of the victim to talk up a storm. That gets the public involved (with only 1/2 the story in this particular case) to predetermine guilt or innocence, and soils the jury pool.

Just think of how many in this thread have determined whether or not he's guilty. No offense to anyone, but we've only heard the victims side of the story and some (albeit incriminating) 911 tapes. We've yet to hear Zs commentary.

What other side of the story could there be? Unarmed kid packing a king size bag of skittles gets chased ,confronted,beat up,shot and killed ...all the while his attacker is muttering racial slurs while on the phone with officials who are telling him not to pursue and the police will handle it. Look at the photos of these two do you think that 28 year old armed man was afraid of this 17 year old kid ? He didn't sound fearful in the phone conversations, he didn't flee,seek cover,help or any sort of assistance other then simply notifying police of his plans.

This guy saw too many YouTube vids of gas station attendants taking out robbers and thought he could do this as well. What he doesn't understand is these people on YouTube were unsuspecting and confronted with conflict unaware, big difference then guessing someone might be a robber following them around for a bit , come up with a plan , confront the suspected robber, beat him up and shoot him ........its a fubar situation, and regardless of what he says muttering racial slurs to an official during all of this makes you a total bigot no way round that , you think that alone would cause the da to scrutinize the case a bit more closely and if i was a cop i would lock him up for the 48,72 or how ever long you can without charging him just to teach him a lesson for being an bigot.


Either way the way i read that law it said nothing about pursuing said threat for a number of minutes and then confronting said threat was ok.

I think you just want to argue about everything. I don't.

You can't deny the man his opportunity to defend himself, especially without giving him the luxury of voicing his side of the story. All facts and discussion suggests he's guilty. He most likely is, but let's give him his right to defend himself in court before we lynch him and send him to prison, allowing his a55to be creamed by "bubba."

We are stating our opinions. We are NOT denying him his right to defend himself. Right now he doesn't have anything to defend himself from. None of us are on his jury. None of us are the DA.

The only person that is defenseless at this point in time is Travyon.

We are on the same side, I for one prefer to allow the man his right for defense, or to at least tell his side of the events before we send him to the Pen. You know, that whole due process theory introduced by the Magna Carta and subsequently used in constitutions and legislation of many countries since its introduction?

And I think you missed this part. No need to argue at all, nor was that my intent when voicing my opinion. You did ask for that in your posts, yes?

I am curious to know who voted No in the poll however. tbst, can you see who voted how since you authored the thread? Not sure it is appropriate to call them out without permission though. Part of me wonders if it wasn't someone trolling.

You rage so much, but you proposed taking away people on welfares right to vote. Don't get it.

Who's raging? You may be reading in a rage, but I assure you I'm calm as a cucumber and high as a giraffes a55. The Internet is 2D, you can't see emotion unfortunately.

I can see your hypocrisy though.

Against DUI checkpoints. For people on welfare NOT having the right to vote.

I though it was you to be honest.

But unfortunately, no I can't see. I sure as hell hope there is more to this story, if not and what is out is what happened, he should be charged with murder.

So it had to be someone trolling...

Nope, wasn't me. Thought you could also see in my posts where I'm stating that I agree with you. Have a good night tbst. Never intended to work you up.

I don't know if this was mentioned already but it has since come out that the 28 yr old killer was not actually a neighborhood watch member, he was a self-appointed neighborhood watch commander, not part of an actual watch.

I am totally against the stand your ground concept. While I believe it should apply to law enforcement and possibly those on their own property, it definitely should not apply outside of that as was the case in this tragedy.

When I was in the Navy I stood many pier gun watches. I had a 9mm and a shotgun, sometimes just a 9mm. We were authorized lethal force under a strict set of rules and ceding territory to the enemy would have qualified for lethal force. The idea that a civilian, not on his own property could use lethal force to stand his ground is crazy to me.

FL is a pretty F'd up state when it comes to laws and the legal system. In FL there are several people serving life in prison for murder because they were accomplices. In one such story, a young man (~20) gave his friend the keys to his car at a party. The guy stayed at the party and never left. The friend took the car and committed a robbery where someone died. The kid was convicted of "murder in the 1st degree" not manslaughter or accomplice to a homicide. FL is one of the only states in the nation that allows this. The prosecutor said FL law allows him to use the logic "no keys, no murder" => the defendant committed murder.