Although I agree with those who say we don't need "Stand Your Ground"
statutes outside of your home, I don't understand the media attention
and activist groups (led by people like Al Sharpton) who are using
the Zimmerman trial to promote the elimination of SYG.

Zimmerman's defense was *not* based on SYG grounds. It was based on
self-defense. This was a purposeful and strategic decision by his
defense attorneys.

The reason he was acquitted by the jury was due to the stupidity of
the state's prosecution team of attorneys. *They* are the ones that
put into evidence all of Zimmerman's accounts of the events, thereby
allowing de facto testimony by Zimmerman without the ability to cross
examine him. The defense attorneys made good use of this blunder by
calling other witnesses to testify that gave credence to Zimmerman's
account of the events, raising sufficient reasonable doubt to generate
a "not guilty" verdict.

Typical of any unpopular decision or circumstance (to them) , the
liberal media and activist groups are totally misinforming the public
on the facts.

On 7/21/13 1:40 PM, Eisboch wrote:
Although I agree with those who say we don't need "Stand Your Ground"
statutes outside of your home, I don't understand the media attention
and activist groups (led by people like Al Sharpton) who are using the
Zimmerman trial to promote the elimination of SYG.

Zimmerman's defense was *not* based on SYG grounds. It was based on
self-defense. This was a purposeful and strategic decision by his
defense attorneys.

The reason he was acquitted by the jury was due to the stupidity of the
state's prosecution team of attorneys. *They* are the ones that put
into evidence all of Zimmerman's accounts of the events, thereby
allowing de facto testimony by Zimmerman without the ability to cross
examine him. The defense attorneys made good use of this blunder by
calling other witnesses to testify that gave credence to Zimmerman's
account of the events, raising sufficient reasonable doubt to generate a
"not guilty" verdict.

Typical of any unpopular decision or circumstance (to them) , the
liberal media and activist groups are totally misinforming the public on
the facts.






The undercurrent of Stand Your Ground permeated everything related to
the case and the trial and its outcome.

On 7/21/2013 1:50 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 7/21/13 1:40 PM, Eisboch wrote:
Although I agree with those who say we don't need "Stand Your Ground"
statutes outside of your home, I don't understand the media attention
and activist groups (led by people like Al Sharpton) who are using the
Zimmerman trial to promote the elimination of SYG.

Zimmerman's defense was *not* based on SYG grounds. It was based on
self-defense. This was a purposeful and strategic decision by his
defense attorneys.

The reason he was acquitted by the jury was due to the stupidity of the
state's prosecution team of attorneys. *They* are the ones that put
into evidence all of Zimmerman's accounts of the events, thereby
allowing de facto testimony by Zimmerman without the ability to cross
examine him. The defense attorneys made good use of this blunder by
calling other witnesses to testify that gave credence to Zimmerman's
account of the events, raising sufficient reasonable doubt to generate a
"not guilty" verdict.

Typical of any unpopular decision or circumstance (to them) , the
liberal media and activist groups are totally misinforming the public on
the facts.






The undercurrent of Stand Your Ground permeated everything related to
the case and the trial and its outcome.

That's just plain ignorant.

"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
news
On 7/21/13 1:40 PM, Eisboch wrote:
Although I agree with those who say we don't need "Stand Your
Ground"
statutes outside of your home, I don't understand the media
attention
and activist groups (led by people like Al Sharpton) who are using
the
Zimmerman trial to promote the elimination of SYG.

Zimmerman's defense was *not* based on SYG grounds. It was based
on
self-defense. This was a purposeful and strategic decision by his
defense attorneys.

The reason he was acquitted by the jury was due to the stupidity of
the
state's prosecution team of attorneys. *They* are the ones that put
into evidence all of Zimmerman's accounts of the events, thereby
allowing de facto testimony by Zimmerman without the ability to
cross
examine him. The defense attorneys made good use of this blunder by
calling other witnesses to testify that gave credence to Zimmerman's
account of the events, raising sufficient reasonable doubt to
generate a
"not guilty" verdict.

Typical of any unpopular decision or circumstance (to them) , the
liberal media and activist groups are totally misinforming the
public on
the facts.






The undercurrent of Stand Your Ground permeated everything related to
the case and the trial and its outcome.

------------------------------------------

Everyone except the jury who found appropriately and according to the
court instructions.

On 7/21/13 2:03 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
news
On 7/21/13 1:40 PM, Eisboch wrote:
Although I agree with those who say we don't need "Stand Your Ground"
statutes outside of your home, I don't understand the media attention
and activist groups (led by people like Al Sharpton) who are using the
Zimmerman trial to promote the elimination of SYG.

Zimmerman's defense was *not* based on SYG grounds. It was based on
self-defense. This was a purposeful and strategic decision by his
defense attorneys.

The reason he was acquitted by the jury was due to the stupidity of the
state's prosecution team of attorneys. *They* are the ones that put
into evidence all of Zimmerman's accounts of the events, thereby
allowing de facto testimony by Zimmerman without the ability to cross
examine him. The defense attorneys made good use of this blunder by
calling other witnesses to testify that gave credence to Zimmerman's
account of the events, raising sufficient reasonable doubt to generate a
"not guilty" verdict.

Typical of any unpopular decision or circumstance (to them) , the
liberal media and activist groups are totally misinforming the public on
the facts.






The undercurrent of Stand Your Ground permeated everything related to
the case and the trial and its outcome.

------------------------------------------

Everyone except the jury who found appropriately and according to the
court instructions.



Had the five white women on the jury been black, the outcome probably
would have been different. Sanford has long been a racist town, and
sooner or later the names of the jurors will come out.

On 7/21/2013 2:20 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 7/21/13 2:03 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
news
On 7/21/13 1:40 PM, Eisboch wrote:
Although I agree with those who say we don't need "Stand Your Ground"
statutes outside of your home, I don't understand the media attention
and activist groups (led by people like Al Sharpton) who are using the
Zimmerman trial to promote the elimination of SYG.

Zimmerman's defense was *not* based on SYG grounds. It was based on
self-defense. This was a purposeful and strategic decision by his
defense attorneys.

The reason he was acquitted by the jury was due to the stupidity of the
state's prosecution team of attorneys. *They* are the ones that put
into evidence all of Zimmerman's accounts of the events, thereby
allowing de facto testimony by Zimmerman without the ability to cross
examine him. The defense attorneys made good use of this blunder by
calling other witnesses to testify that gave credence to Zimmerman's
account of the events, raising sufficient reasonable doubt to generate a
"not guilty" verdict.

Typical of any unpopular decision or circumstance (to them) , the
liberal media and activist groups are totally misinforming the public on
the facts.






The undercurrent of Stand Your Ground permeated everything related to
the case and the trial and its outcome.

------------------------------------------

Everyone except the jury who found appropriately and according to the
court instructions.



Had the five white women on the jury been black, the outcome probably
would have been different. Sanford has long been a racist town, and
sooner or later the names of the jurors will come out.

"Why are you so racist and bigoted", I say, while never expecting a
truthful answer.

On 7/22/13 1:12 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 13:40:45 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

Although I agree with those who say we don't need "Stand Your Ground"
statutes outside of your home, I don't understand the media attention
and activist groups (led by people like Al Sharpton) who are using
the Zimmerman trial to promote the elimination of SYG.

Zimmerman's defense was *not* based on SYG grounds. It was based on
self-defense. This was a purposeful and strategic decision by his
defense attorneys.

The reason he was acquitted by the jury was due to the stupidity of
the state's prosecution team of attorneys. *They* are the ones that
put into evidence all of Zimmerman's accounts of the events, thereby
allowing de facto testimony by Zimmerman without the ability to cross
examine him. The defense attorneys made good use of this blunder by
calling other witnesses to testify that gave credence to Zimmerman's
account of the events, raising sufficient reasonable doubt to generate
a "not guilty" verdict.

Typical of any unpopular decision or circumstance (to them) , the
liberal media and activist groups are totally misinforming the public
on the facts.

The strange thing is black defendants have availed themselves of SYG
defenses at a higher rate than white people.

Holder, Sharpton and the rest seem to be ignorant of or simply ignore
that fact.



My guess is that "Holder, Sharpton and the rest" believe the Stand Your
Ground laws suck, no matter who is availing themselves of them. They
seem to be little more than laws that allow you to settle disputes on
the street with a gun.

"He slapped me, I was scared, so I shot him."

The SYG laws encourage bad behavior on the part of gunslingers.

On 7/22/2013 6:28 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 7/22/13 1:12 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 13:40:45 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

Although I agree with those who say we don't need "Stand Your Ground"
statutes outside of your home, I don't understand the media attention
and activist groups (led by people like Al Sharpton) who are using
the Zimmerman trial to promote the elimination of SYG.

Zimmerman's defense was *not* based on SYG grounds. It was based on
self-defense. This was a purposeful and strategic decision by his
defense attorneys.

The reason he was acquitted by the jury was due to the stupidity of
the state's prosecution team of attorneys. *They* are the ones that
put into evidence all of Zimmerman's accounts of the events, thereby
allowing de facto testimony by Zimmerman without the ability to cross
examine him. The defense attorneys made good use of this blunder by
calling other witnesses to testify that gave credence to Zimmerman's
account of the events, raising sufficient reasonable doubt to generate
a "not guilty" verdict.

Typical of any unpopular decision or circumstance (to them) , the
liberal media and activist groups are totally misinforming the public
on the facts.

The strange thing is black defendants have availed themselves of SYG
defenses at a higher rate than white people.

Holder, Sharpton and the rest seem to be ignorant of or simply ignore
that fact.



My guess is that "Holder, Sharpton and the rest" believe the Stand Your
Ground laws suck, no matter who is availing themselves of them. They
seem to be little more than laws that allow you to settle disputes on
the street with a gun.

"He slapped me, I was scared, so I shot him."

The SYG laws encourage bad behavior on the part of gunslingers.

Well Hopalong, what discourages bad behavior on the part of gunslingers?
And more importantly, what are YOU doing about it, besides running your
mouth?
You might pass along to your pals in washingtoon, that gun control will
do diddley squat to take guns out of the hands of your fellow gunslingers.

On 7/22/13 11:00 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 06:28:31 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 7/22/13 1:12 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 13:40:45 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

Although I agree with those who say we don't need "Stand Your Ground"
statutes outside of your home, I don't understand the media attention
and activist groups (led by people like Al Sharpton) who are using
the Zimmerman trial to promote the elimination of SYG.

Zimmerman's defense was *not* based on SYG grounds. It was based on
self-defense. This was a purposeful and strategic decision by his
defense attorneys.

The reason he was acquitted by the jury was due to the stupidity of
the state's prosecution team of attorneys. *They* are the ones that
put into evidence all of Zimmerman's accounts of the events, thereby
allowing de facto testimony by Zimmerman without the ability to cross
examine him. The defense attorneys made good use of this blunder by
calling other witnesses to testify that gave credence to Zimmerman's
account of the events, raising sufficient reasonable doubt to generate
a "not guilty" verdict.

Typical of any unpopular decision or circumstance (to them) , the
liberal media and activist groups are totally misinforming the public
on the facts.

The strange thing is black defendants have availed themselves of SYG
defenses at a higher rate than white people.

Holder, Sharpton and the rest seem to be ignorant of or simply ignore
that fact.



My guess is that "Holder, Sharpton and the rest" believe the Stand Your
Ground laws suck, no matter who is availing themselves of them. They
seem to be little more than laws that allow you to settle disputes on
the street with a gun.

"He slapped me, I was scared, so I shot him."

The SYG laws encourage bad behavior on the part of gunslingers.

How many times would your head have to be pounded into the concrete
before you thought you were in fear of your life?
You armed yourself and were prepared to shoot someone over an
ambiguous internet post.



I'm in my late 60's. I've been in some really ****ty places, here and
abroad, and sometimes among people that would make most posters here
crap in their pants. What I don't do is follow people around, force
confrontations with them, and then shoot them if they smack me. So, I've
managed to avoid fistfights since I was about 14 years old.

I'm not scared when I walk down the streets in, say, Anacostia, and
see black teen-agers coming my way. I say "hello," they say "hello."
I got lost in DC a few months ago at night and pulled into a convenience
store parking lot to ask for directions. There was a really tough crowd
in the parking lot, and most of the guys were drinking. Inside the
store, the clerks were ensconced behind thick plexiglass. I asked for
directions and got help from one of the clerks and one of the customers.
We smiled at each other and went on our merry way. I didn't behave like
George Zimmerman and I didn't get into a fight.

I've been shot at three times, twice while in the United States, and
once while in El Salvador, but it was never personal. Two of the guys
I was working with in El Salvador were shot and killed.

I am certainly prepared to shoot and kill a home invader down here. I
don't walk the streets of my little neighborhood armed and looking for a
fight.

On 7/22/2013 11:12 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:


I've been shot at three times, twice while in the United States, and
once while in El Salvador, but it was never personal. Two of the guys
I was working with in El Salvador were shot and killed.

I am certainly prepared to shoot and kill a home invader down here. I
don't walk the streets of my little neighborhood armed and looking for a
fight.





I believe every word of this. Doesn't surprise me a bit. Too bad you
were dealing with amateurs.