Only those with no vested interest in the outcome Only those totally unaffected by it . . . Rocket River
makes sense, since the special prosecutor had their statements. I'm glad she didn't need to speak to them again.
Perhaps, but if she re-interviewed other persons while ignoring these folks, that would show that she was not interested in finding out what actually happened.
Or it could depend on what questions they were asked in the initial interviews. Maybe the people re-interviewed weren't questioned as extensively in their initial interviews or they were the only ones that answered in ways deemed incomplete enough to require more questions in follow up interviews.
Let's just see how stand your ground works out for him cause it didnt for this lady.//http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/local/article/253185/3/Stand-Your-Ground-Back-In-The-Spotlight
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/local/article/253185/3/Stand-Your-Ground-Back-In-The-Spotlight Yea . . . . I've seen several stories on this Rocket River
I have been avoiding addressing race in this thread but I am seeing what might be a disturbing trend regarding convictions even where the Stand Your Ground law has been cited. In the Dooley James case Dooley cited Stand Your Ground but was still convicted, in the case above Marissa Alexander also cited Stand Your Ground, and in a case mentioned in the "Stand Your Ground" John McNeil was convicted in Georgia even though he was on his property shooting a man charging him. In all three cases the shooters were black and in two of those cases the victim was white. I know that three cases don't necessarily make a trend but I would be curious to see how often the Stand Your Ground defense succeeded and failed and what was the race of the defendant.
I do not know, but it is a good question. I would not draw a conclusion based on such a small sample size though... There has been discussion or concern expressed by some people that stand your ground type legislation in purpose or effect allows for people to shoot minorities. There may be truth to it, would have to see a larger sample size. I will say that personally I believe that if someone threatens one of my family members with emminent physical harm they should be able to do what they need to defend themselves, but the legislature, court system, police system and juries are written and enforced by humans... maybe there is a bias.
**** that judge. Who is he to tell a woman with a history of being beaten what right she has in her own home with her own gun under distress.
Is Zimmerman not under the domestic violence restraining order that his ex-wife was granted? Or has it expired? Because if it hasn't, he can't legally have a firearm, and if it isn't a legal firearm, Stand Your Ground doesn't apply.
