[Shahada]

Great news: The federal government is now investigating this case. Hopefully this can lead to Zimmerman being brought to justice. The feds don't have a great record when it comes to protecting the civil rights of minorities but they have a much better one than a state like Florida.

in florida is it legal to shoot someone that comes onto your property?

Yes, and they also have a particularly severe version of a Stand Your Ground law that some people are citing as part of the reason that Zimmerman wasn't arrested. What a "Stand Your Ground" law is one that removes the obligation to flee or attempt to flee in a dangerous situation. Basically if someone breaks into your home, you're not legally obligated to make an attempt to escape danger before you shoot the intruder: If you shoot an intruder in your home, it is automatically assumed to be self-defense and you are protected from being charged. This is different from a state without a Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground law, where you could be arrested and charged if the police have probable cause that the murder was not committed in self-defense: You would have to prove that it was self-defense later in court. The rationale behind such laws is that they protect the homeowner from being prosecuted just for trying to protect his or her family. However, critics say the laws give the individual way too much leeway and in many states where they've been adopted have created a "Wild West" sort of atmosphere. See the Joe Horn case for an example.

Florida has a very extreme version of this law that extends the law to public spaces: If someone steps to you on the sidewalk, you are legally entitled to defend yourself, and if there is no evidence to the contrary it is assumed to be self-defense. The local police have at times (important to note they've given multiple stories and multiple justifications for not arresting and charging Zimmerman) said that their hands are tied in this case due to the Stand Your Ground law: Since there were no direct witnesses to the shooting, it is assumed that Zimmerman is acting in self-defense automatically, and the police have their hands tied on arresting and charging Zimmerman due to the law.

I think the law definitely helps to protect Zimmerman, but it is not completely protecting him from prosecution in this case for a few reasons:

1) Zimmerman followed the victim and then left the vehicle and provoked a confrontation, instigating the situation. If anything Trayvon would have been within his legal rights to kill Zimmerman in self-defense, but not the other way around. Additionally, Zimmerman disobeyed an explicit order from the 911 dispatcher to let the police handle the situation.

2) There are numerous witness accounts that dispute Zimmerman's version of events enough that an arrest and charge would be warranted under the law: Numerous people heard Trayvon screaming for help, and his screams can even be heard on 911 calls.

So while there's some talk about the laws here protecting Zimmerman I think it is a very serious misreading of the laws on the books. The laws are quite extreme and probably dangerous but in this particular case it looks like a corrupt and racist police department probably has more to do with the man not even being charged than the law does. There's more than enough shadiness to this case to make the self-defense argument tenuous enough that the man should be arrested and charged and be forced to argue his case in court - again, hopefully now that the feds are involved this will happen.

[Staffan]

@ Staffan Change.org is a non profit i believe. Its just a site for petitions... the petition is for prosecution of Zimmerman. That specific petition was created by his mother and other family members. What are you questioning? The commentary before the link was my own summary from several news sources. Ive been following the story. This is information that has came to light within the past week or so. I did not post any commentary from change.org. I did not want to post all of the developments from news articles because there are tons and then no one would read! It wouldn't be hard to find.

Well, usually when someone makes a summary like that and puts a link a the bottom it is meant as a source. And if you don't want to mention all your sources then maybe some of them?

[Shahada]

Well, usually when someone makes a summary like that and puts a link a the bottom it is meant as a source. And if you don't want to mention all your sources then maybe some of them?

What parts of what she said do you take issue with, so we can source those claims for you? That'd probably be easier than just asking her to list every single source she's read on the subject considering it's literally all over the news.

[Staffan]

What parts of what she said do you take issue with, so we can source those claims for you? That'd probably be easier than just asking her to list every single source she's read on the subject considering it's literally all over the news.

Well, I was wondering about his record. Not that I know if he had one or not, but if he did have one it would be interesting to see if it is relevant in this case. Are we talking murder, assault or shoplifting?

[Shahada]

Well, I was wondering about his record. Not that I know if he had one or not, but if he did have one it would be interesting to see if it is relevant in this case. Are we talking murder, assault or shoplifting?

Well the main relevance to bringing up the record isn't to say "he had a record, he definitely did it." Rather, the police originally said they did not arrest or charge Zimmerman partially on account of him having a "squeaky clean" record. It turns out that Zimmerman in fact does not have a "squeaky clean" record: He was arrested in 2005 on charges of resisting arrest with violence and battery on a police officer, charges that were later dropped. So when the police said that they were either lying about checking his record, lying about his record being clean, and/or lying about the clean record being a factor in not arresting or charging Zimmerman.

source

[Staffan]

Well the main relevance to bringing up the record isn't to say "he had a record, he definitely did it." Rather, the police originally said they did not arrest or charge Zimmerman partially on account of him having a "squeaky clean" record. It turns out that Zimmerman in fact does not have a "squeaky clean" record: He was arrested in 2005 on charges of resisting arrest with violence and battery on a police officer, charges that were later dropped. So when the police said that they were either lying about checking his record, lying about his record being clean, and/or lying about the clean record being a factor in not arresting or charging Zimmerman.

source

Maybe a matter of definition of "squeaky clean". The guy wasn't even charged with anything. When you say someone has a record it usually means he has been convicted. And the police said his record was clean - not that he didn't have one. Which is consistent with having dropped the charges.

[Shahada]

Maybe a matter of definition of "squeaky clean". The guy wasn't even charged with anything. When you say someone has a record it usually means he has been convicted. And the police said his record was clean - not that he didn't have one. Which is consistent with having dropped the charges.

"Squeaky clean" would imply not arrested or charged to anyone with a basic familiarity with colloquial English. Charges still show up on your record even if they are dropped, unless they are expunged, so no, the record would not be "squeaky clean." The police either did not check his record or lied about his record. Unless you want to say the definition of "squeaky clean" is actually "has a record but no convictions" which doesn't make any sense.

[Staffan]

"Squeaky clean" would imply not arrested or charged to anyone with a basic familiarity with colloquial English. Charges still show up on your record even if they are dropped, unless they are expunged, so no, the record would not be "squeaky clean." The police either did not check his record or lied about his record. Unless you want to say the definition of "squeaky clean" is actually "has a record but no convictions" which doesn't make any sense.

You interpret a clean record as a non-existent record. But they may just have said it was clean because nothing in it suggested that he had done anything wrong, given that the charges were dropped.

[Shahada]

You interpret a clean record as a non-existent record. But they may just have said it was clean because nothing in it suggested that he had done anything wrong, given that the charges were dropped.

What reason do I have to give the police the benefit of the doubt considering all the other misconduct that's occurred in this case, such as ignoring or leading witness testimony as described in the article I linked?

[Staffan]

What reason do I have to give the police the benefit of the doubt considering all the other misconduct that's occurred in this case, such as ignoring or leading witness testimony as described in the article I linked?

That it is consistent with the facts?