Yeah, GUNS were the bad guy...

[Rich Z]

And self defense was to blame as well....

Well, we all knew this slant was eventually going to be taken concerning the Zimmerman case....

http://blogs.tallahassee.com/its-flo...rayvon-martin/



Of course, I had to make a reply to that bit of nonsense....

Seriously? Mr. Gabordi, how many instances of complete ignorance can one person make in a single editorial?

First off, what does the "Stand Your Ground" law even have to do with that case? Are you saying that Mr. Zimmerman needed to retreat before using his gun in self defense? How, pray tell? Borrow a shovel from someone and start digging a hole in the ground underneath him to try to escape the pummeling from Mr. Martin? Mr. Zimmerman wasn't "standing his ground" at all. He was LAYING on it. And had he NOT had the means for his self defense at hand, quite likely he would now be buried in it.

There is no evidence to dispute Mr. Zimmerman's claim that he acted in self defense. None. Zip. Nada. The jury very plainly saw that, which is why they reached the verdict they did. Matter of fact, the evidence presented clearly shows that he absolutely NEEDED to act in order to save his life, or at least stop a very severe beating. Are you SERIOUSLY claiming that he did not have a RIGHT to self defense under the TRUE circumstances of that incident? That Mr. Zimmerman was completely in the wrong, regardless of the fact that he was a member of a community watch program, and was fully engaged in what that volunteer position entails? To WATCH for potential troublemakers afoot in his neighborhood?

The timeline of what is believed to have transpired via supporting phone records is now public record. Simply Google the keywords and you will find several instances. This timeline is also clearly discussed in the defense's closing statements during the trial. Those FACTS point to Mr. Zimmerman having lost sight of Mr. Martin for at least three minutes during which time he was NOT pursuing him. One minute prior to those three minutes where Mr. Martin has been lost sight of, Mr. Zimmerman is responding to the 911 operator's suggestion to not follow Mr. Martin, and evidence points to him being in the process of returning to his vehicle. In the span of about four minutes where there is NO contact between Mr. Zimmerman and Mr. Martin, Mr. Martin, who clearly had the opportunity to avoid any conflict by going to ANY place he felt safe that Mr. Zimmerman was not located within, instead chose to engage Mr. Zimmerman in a physical confrontation. Evidence points to Mr. Martin delivering a "sucker punch" blow to the face of Mr. Zimmerman, knocking him to the ground. Then Mr. Martin continues the assault by straddling him and engaging in a continued physical attack by pounding Mr. Zimmerman's head against a concrete sidewalk. It is Mr. Martin who chose to escalate that incident with a physical confrontation. Mr. Martin could have even run away immediately after delivering that "sucker punch". But did he choose to do that? Apparently not. At any point, Mr. Martin could have broken off the attack, but did not and for approximately 40 seconds of continued attack by Mr. Martin, Mr. Zimmerman rightly became convinced that he was fighting for his life. He THEN pulled out his legally carried concealed weapon and shot his assailant. Mr. Zimmerman had no reason to believe that Mr. Martin was EVER going to stop while he was still living. So he did what he had to do to save his own life.

The evidence was PLAINLY displayed during the court case. ALL of the video of the entire court case is on YouTube. Did you not avail yourself, Mr. Gabordi, of the opportunity to view those FACTS before making your apparently ignorant claims in your editorial? Or is the Tallahassee Democrat only truly interested in following up this travesty they helped initiate by the obviously inflammatory photos of a Mr. Martin when he was only 12 years old as an outright lie obscuring PHYSICALLY what Mr. Zimmerman had actually been up against, by further trying to obfuscate the truth with comments designed to rile people up into a furor?

Please cease with the emotional rhetoric unsupported by factual evidence. And your obvious anti-gun bias, Mr. Gabordi, is plainly visible in your editorial. Please READ the actual text of the Stand Your Ground/Castle Doctrine law. It is excellently written and goes a very long way to turning the tables in favor of the victims rather than coddling the predators who make such laws absolutely necessary in real life.