Replies

And the author of that "stand your ground" law says? It doesn't apply. The authors of Florida's controversial "stand your ground" self-defense law say George Zimmerman should probably be arrested for shooting Trayvon Martin, reports the Miami Herald. "He has no protection under my law," former Sen. Durell Peaden told the newspaper. "The guy lost his defense right then," Peaden told the Miami Herald. "When he said 'I'm following him,' he lost his defense." Rep. Dennis Baxley, Peaden's co-sponsor in the Florida House, agrees with his former colleague, telling the newspaper that the law does not license neighborhood watch or others who feel "like they have the authority to pursue and confront people. That is aggravating an incident right there." Both co-sponsors told the newspaper, however, that they did not think the law needed to be re-examined.

"If you want to pass something, pass something that limits their ability to pursue and confront people," Baxley said. "It's about crime watch," he said. "What are the limitations of crime watch? Are you allowed to jump out and follow people and confront them? What do you think is going to happen? That's where it starts."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57401619-504083/author-of-stand-your-ground-law-george-zimmerman-should-probably-be-arrested-for-killing-trayvon-martin/

Being on the ground, having the crap beaten out of you, doesn't count as "self-defense"?

O.K. You're entitled to your opinion.

But has it occurred to you to ask "Why is this suddenly news, when it happened a month ago (Feb 26)?" The story was fully-reported locally, yet there were no protests at the time, nor any political issues raised.

So, why did it go national four weeks later? And why was the eyewitness testimony -- which led the local story -- left out of the initial accounts?

Who decided that the media should re-circulate the story four weeks after the fact? And why? In other words, "Who sought to...and is using...you?"

Being on the ground, having the crap beaten out of you, doesn't count as "self-defense"?

O.K. You're entitled to your opinion.

So, why did it go national four weeks later? And why was the eyewitness testimony -- which led the local story -- left out of the initial accounts?

Who decided that the media should re-circulate the story four weeks after the fact? And why? In other words, "Who sought to...and is using...you?"