Santa Maria man accidentally shoots 2 teens

April 9, 2012

Mansa Evans

A Santa Maria man showing two teens a handgun was arrested after the weapon accidentally discharged, seriously wounding two teenage boys on Sunday. [SantaMariaTimes]

Mansa Evans, 35, was at his home on the 600 block of East Central showing the two boys the handgun, but failed to clear the chamber of the weapon.

Police said the bullet struck one teenager in the face before exiting. The bullet then struck the second teen in the neck and lodged in his spinal cord area. Both boys are hospitalized in serious condition.

Police arrested Mansa and booked him into Santa Barbara County Jail on charges of felony child endangerment.



  1. Jack L says:

    You who own a handgun and have bought one in the last few years had to pass a test and obtain a CA Handgun Safety Cert. Over and over the test information states treat all firearms as if they are loaded. Also, never point a firearm anywhere except your intended target. And, make sure your target is 100% identifiable and if missed, the round will travel in a safe direction.

    Pistols (semi-automatic) can still be loaded even with the magazine out. That is why one needs to take even greater precaution when handling them.

    The adult in this case failed miserably on all these very basic no brainer rules and should get the maximum sentence allowable. The children were victims of a senseless and preventable act and will no doubt carry the mental and physical scars for the rest of their lives.

    (10) 10 Total Votes - 10 up - 0 down
    • Ted Slanders says:


      Correct, but I think it was prior to 1994 that you didn’t need this Basic Firearms Safety Certificate. Therefore, anyone purchasing a gun prior to this date, and is without common sense and rational thinking, is subject to “possibly” making deadly mistakes.

      Hopefully this is not the position that Mansa can take, nor be it his defense.

      (2) 8 Total Votes - 5 up - 3 down
      • azuresees says:

        Uh.. That would have made him 17…. Doubt if he could have pulled that off.

        (3) 3 Total Votes - 3 up - 0 down
        • Ted Slanders says:


          Actually 18 years old if hypothetically his birthday was in the first four months of this year. Nonetheless, he could have only purchased a rifle or shotgun at 18, and you’re correct, not a handgun.

          (3) 5 Total Votes - 4 up - 1 down
  2. NorCoMod says:

    Mansa Evans? I guess his mother couldn’t spell Mensa.

    (3) 7 Total Votes - 5 up - 2 down
    • Ted Slanders says:


      By his current actions that have been displayed, obviously he wasn’t smart enough to have joined this group.

      (6) 14 Total Votes - 10 up - 4 down
  3. godislanguage says:

    a sad preventable accident.

    …all I care about now is that a felony collar stick with time served (even it was a 100% accidental discharge) and the boys have a full recovery. He’ll have to live with this for the rest of his life. Take a picture at him at trial and let his likeness be the sign post of what irresponsible, no training can cause.

    when handling guns, boats, motorcycle, autos…etc, especially when new people are in your company, the excitement will impair your judgement. And accidents will happen in a split second. That’s where you’re muscle memory prevents these kinds of outcomes.

    PLEASE get yourself trained, practice and do more training to prevent these kinds of accidents.

    (6) 6 Total Votes - 6 up - 0 down
  4. Citizen says:

    Usually it’s the wife who is killed in these accidental gun discharge cases.

    (2) 4 Total Votes - 3 up - 1 down
  5. BeenThereDoneThat says:

    My dad taught me growing up to handle EVERY gun, even if you know it’s unloaded, like it is loaded. I.e. either pointing down or away from people, that way you don’t have accidents.

    I’ve past this else learning on to my son with guns and his airsoft guns. A gun is a gun.

    (22) 22 Total Votes - 22 up - 0 down
    • MaryMalone says:

      ITA. I enjoy all of the rights we have via Bill of Rights/Constitution, including our 2nd Amendment rights, and I don’t want to lose ANY of those rights because some people are just plain clueless and irresponsible.

      (6) 6 Total Votes - 6 up - 0 down
      • Ted Slanders says:


        Correcto! We should not lose our 2nd Ammendment rights just because of possibly being held hostage to the ignorance and stupidity of a Mansa Evans!

        (13) 17 Total Votes - 15 up - 2 down
  6. Typoqueen says:

    A perfect example of why we need gun control. Obviously this guy should not have had a firearm.

    (-34) 44 Total Votes - 5 up - 39 down
    • SpeakTruth says:

      Gun control won’t solve this. What we need is stupid control.

      (36) 38 Total Votes - 37 up - 1 down
      • Typoqueen says:

        Stupid control is one of the main points of gun control. Gun control is supposed to weed out the stupid people.

        (-21) 31 Total Votes - 5 up - 26 down
        • Ted Slanders says:


          What we really need is “pencil control” that obvioulsy caused a student a low grade on their test! Are you willing to head this movement?

          (16) 22 Total Votes - 19 up - 3 down
          • Typoqueen says:

            As far as I can see there are no required tests. Any moron (Mansa case in point) can get a firearm.

            (-15) 17 Total Votes - 1 up - 16 down
            • Ted Slanders says:


              You’re missing the point. A pencil no more causes a student to fail a test, than a handgun by itself kills people. Get it? The old adage is “guns don’t kill people, people do.”

              No, any moron can not get a handgun legally in California, unless it is in a friends house, family, or obtained illegally. To wit;

              1. You have to be 21 to get a handgun.

              2. You cannot get a handgun if you’re a felon.

              3. You cannot be a prior patient of a mental institution, or mentally unstable, suicidal, or are taking drugs for any mental illness. This will be checked!

              4. You may need a Personal Firearms Eligibility Check.

              5. One has to take a handgun safety test.

              6. You will be required to sign some papers (ATF Form 4473, DROS), which will need to be filled out with place of residency and other information. It will also require your right thumb print.

              7. Wait 10 days. During this time your DROS information is being sent to the CA DMV, CA DOJ, and then on to the FBI NICS. At any time through the 10 days you can be denied. After the 10 day wait you’ll come in to pick up your firearm and sign a 4473 form again.

              8. As required by law in California you must either own a California-approved gun safe or purchase a new gun lock for each firearm purchased. Proof is required for each.

              9. You will need your handgun safety certificate and proof of residency (this can be a recent water or electric bill or even valid vehicle registration) before picking up your handgun.

              10. Before getting your handgun, you have to show the store owner you can operate it SAFELY with either an empty chamber, or a loaded dummy round.

              If one gets their handgun illegally on the street, then this is criminal and no law abiding citizen is to be held hostage by this faction because of the 2nd Amendment. Fight crime by legally shooting back at the illegal criminal in this case, praise Jesus for revenge!

              (9) 11 Total Votes - 10 up - 1 down
              • Typoqueen says:

                Perhaps you are right but when I did the Google I didn’t find anything about having to show that you can operate the firearm safely or pass a handgun safety test. Yes the age is 21 for a handgun but only 18 for a riffle/shotgun. I also didn’t see anything about proving that you have a gun lock or safe. But I’m on major cold meds and I am a lightweight when it comes to cold meds so I’ll re-Google this issue. I did post one source that supposedly has all of our gun laws but maybe it’s out dated, so I’ll re-check.

                (-12) 12 Total Votes - 0 up - 12 down
                • Ted Slanders says:


                  “Perhaps you are right…” Huh? Haven’t you learned by now that when Brother Ted speaks, it’s like the Christian God speaking the truth within the bible! In this context, we’re synonymous in what we bring forth, praise!

                  (5) 9 Total Votes - 7 up - 2 down
                • Typoqueen says:

                  Oops, I stand corrected.

                  (4) 6 Total Votes - 5 up - 1 down
        • SpeakTruth says:

          Queen… With California being arguably the 3rd-strictest state in the nation against gun rights, what other “gun control” law would you recommend to prevent things like this from happening again short of banning firearms altogether? Unless you have something specific to add, all you’re doing is flag-waving.

          (4) 4 Total Votes - 4 up - 0 down
          • Typoqueen says:

            You’d be wrong ‘SpeakTruth’ (oh the irony). It goes like this, the strictest gun laws are: 3) Washington DC 2) New York and the number state which holds the title of strictest gun laws goes to 1) Massachusetts.

            If you think that Ca’s gun laws are strict then we have a different idea of what strict is:

            A few people have went on about gun safety courses, Ca. does not require gun safety courses. We only have a 10 day waiting period,,should be 30 and there should be a required gun safety course. IMO all firearms should be permitted. I am not for banning firearms, not at all but I do believe that other than the felony check that our laws are pretty much wimpy. Is that specific enough for you?

            {marching off waving my flag}

            (-9) 9 Total Votes - 0 up - 9 down
            • FineWine says:

              You do have to prove competencey by passing a 30 question test with exeptions to that being that you have taken a course, or been in the military, or taken a hunter safety test, etc.
     Remember a criminal or someone that wants to kill you can just go buy one of the street with right now if they want to.

              (4) 4 Total Votes - 4 up - 0 down
              • Typoqueen says:

                It’s not so much the criminal that I’m afraid of, there will always be bad guys that want to take what doesn’t belong to them or hurt other people. What scares me more is the people like this guy in the article that shot his son and his nephew. I’m afraid of the seemingly normal guy that is hot headed and gets mad because his neighbor runs over his rose bushes so runs down the the gun store and comes back and kills someone (yes I know that there is a 10 waiting period) or the guy that gets cut off on the fwy so he pulls out his gun and starts shooting or the kids like those that shot up Columbine HS.

                I’ve never found out if the man that shot his mother (the teacher) awhile back had legally attained his weapon, I’m still curious about that,,does anyone know where or how he got his weapon? We know that people are more likely to accidentally shoot someone with their gun then they are to use their firearm as self protection as evidenced in this artical. The chances of using your gun to actually protect you or something like that is extremely low.

                If it were up to me, which of course it isn’t, firearms would be sold only for sport, not for self defense.

                (-5) 5 Total Votes - 0 up - 5 down
                • FineWine says:

                  Firearms are used for self defense about every 13 seconds. Those do not make the news. The fact is you don’t need a gun to kill someone if you get angry and want to kill them . As far as accidents how do you feel about Cars. We even go so far as to license people and ticket people and prohibit people from driving if they have bad records and people still die everyday in car accidents do you want to get rid of cars. You can’t take the risk out of life.

                  (6) 6 Total Votes - 6 up - 0 down
                • trebor86 says:

                  Even if correct, that ‘statistic’ includes a large number of irresponsible people, many who neither practice safety, are legally allowed to possess, who consume alcohol and other judgement impairing substances, and who habitually use their firearms for crime.

                  just think how Much those statistics change for yourself if you exclude such people and their accidents because you are not one of them. If you are instead a responsible, safety conscious person, whose life work has been to protect your family instead of putting them at risk with criminal and/or other foolish behavior, you are obviously less likely to harm someone by accident than whatever ‘statistic’ you are referring to.

                  (0) 0 Total Votes - 0 up - 0 down
  7. Cindy says:

    I thought that CA required hand gun owners to take a class on gun safety? When I purchased my hand gun, I took a class in gun safety but it was quite a few years ago and I don’t recall if it was an option or a requirement. Its beyond me that anyone could be so careless. Even without a class though, somethings just go to common sense. How often have we heard about always treating a gun like its loaded and even if we think it isn’t that it needs to be checked and double checked to be certain if we are going to clean it or display it, etc.

    (6) 14 Total Votes - 10 up - 4 down
    • Ted Slanders says:


      That is, unless the handgun was purchased before said gun classes were in effect. I know your to young dear to realize this. *cough*

      Mansa Evans was an ignorant fool, and stupidity should not be rewarded. Throw the book at him!

      (1) 15 Total Votes - 8 up - 7 down
      • Cindy says:

        “That is, unless the handgun was purchased before said gun classes were in effect. I know your to young dear to realize this. *cough* ”

        Ted, take your Aricept, Mr Mansa is 35 years old or is that a real cough that you felt a need to share with us?

        (-1) 11 Total Votes - 5 up - 6 down
        • Ted Slanders says:


          Me taking Aricept? How demeaning, and coming from a biblical mandated second class woman as well! Blaspheme! It’s obvious that you will NEVER follow our Christian Bible when it comes to how women are to act towards men in the godly scheme of things!

          Once again, you’re not getting it. If the handgun was purchased BEFORE gun classes were mandated, whether it is Mansa’s gun or not, then he, or the person that actually owns the gun, didn’t have to attend said classes. He misused it in either case and should be held culpable, period!

          On a biblical note, start reading your bible, dear! “Let the women learn is silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, not to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.“ (Timothy 2:11-12) Thanking you in advance.

          (3) 17 Total Votes - 10 up - 7 down
          • Cindy says:

            Just be glad I didn’t correct your spelling and grammar.
            ie: “your to young”?

            (-7) 13 Total Votes - 3 up - 10 down
            • Ted Slanders says:


              I used an improper word because I hadn’t gotten my second cup of coffee yet? Uh, that’s all you have to stand upon regarding my retort to your ever so wanting post to me? Really?

              Here is a novel concept. How about actually addressing the post that was in your behalf, instead of being the forum’s “grammar nazi”, which was obviously done to hide from said post to try in vain to save face in it’s truth?

              Wait, better yet, just follow the biblical passage of Timothy 2-11-12 instead. It will save us both some valuable time.

              (4) 12 Total Votes - 8 up - 4 down
              • Cindy says:

                It wasn’t just one word, it was two words. I guess you need a third cup of coffee.

                (-8) 12 Total Votes - 2 up - 10 down
                • Ted Slanders says:


                  How dare you question my authority as a man, and that is head over any woman!

                  “ But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ and the head of the woman is man. For the man is not of the women; but the woman of the man.” (1 Corinthians 11: 3,8)

                  Parce your words very carefully next time, or I’ll have to give you another “Jesus Slap Down!”

                  Such insolence from the second class woman. :(

                  (6) 12 Total Votes - 9 up - 3 down
              • MaryMalone says:

                The old first-cup-of-coffee defense, eh?

                (8) 10 Total Votes - 9 up - 1 down
                • Ted Slanders says:


                  Yeah, it’s because I didn’t have any “kicker” in it this morning!

                  Oh, I gave Cindy a bone, let’s see if she can find it to justify her existance within this forum. Shhhhh.

                  (6) 12 Total Votes - 9 up - 3 down
          • Stunned says:

            What you’re quoting from Timothy has nothing to do with a woman having an opinion on the internet news site. Take a moment and educate yourself sir, you make a mockery of the Word when so oft misquoted contextually.

            (-6) 12 Total Votes - 3 up - 9 down
            • Typoqueen says:

              Who cares? I always thought that Ted just made up all those verses anyway. Life is too short, he’s educated enough on Bible verses. The Bible needs no help from anyone to make a mockery of it’s self.

              (4) 14 Total Votes - 9 up - 5 down
            • Ted Slanders says:

              I am stunned!

              Where do YOU get the authority to know more than the Apostle Timothy where he stated with specificity in the same chapter the following? To wit: “Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.” (1 Timothy 2:7)

              If Timothy “lies not”, and subsequently states in a generalization in verse 11 and 12, that the women is NOT to usurp the authority over man and to remain in silence, then please explain why women today shouldn’t follow the same generalized edict?! Are you alluding to the fact that you know more than God’s inspired word? Surely you jest?

              No, you are the one lacking any education relative to the scriptures and it is embarrassing to watch you spew forth your Devil Speak in this manner!

              Therefore, if you call our Christian God’s literal, and within context word, a mockery like you’ve done, then I can only pray for you tonight for the Christian God’s forgiveness upon your Satanic soul!

              I suggest that you READ the entire chapter of 1 Timothy 2 for your future enlightenment, therefore, the next time, you won’t make a mockery out of your perceived knowledge of same!

              You can thank me later.

              (6) 10 Total Votes - 8 up - 2 down
              • Stunned says:

                This is where you get off track in most of your rants: “states in a generalization”. States in a generalization my friend? The Word clearly states a woman should not usurp mans authority in teaching the Word, yes?

                You have no authority blathering about on Cal-Coast (as we all do). There is no authority given, granted nor implied by the owner (a woman I believe?) to you so therefore YOU are submitting to a womans rules by posting here.

                (-5) 9 Total Votes - 2 up - 7 down
                • Ted Slanders says:

                  Now I am overly STUNNED!,

                  Huh? It seems as though your insidious writings look as though you’re hitting the “sauce” a little early, aren’t you?

                  No where in the true King James Bible, THAT PREDATES ALL OF THE OTHER CONVENIENTLY REVISED AND SATANIC BIBLES, does it state that women are not to teach the word of our God over man in 1 Timothy 2:11-12! It is blatantly a “generalization” for women not to usurp the authority over the man, but to remain silent as well!

                  Do you want to dig your hole deeper by postulating that the following passage is also within the same vein as the one you described above? “ But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ and the head of the woman is man. For the man is not of the women; but the woman of the man.” (1 Corinthians 11: 3,8)

                  The irony is that even if you were correct, of which you’re not, you proffered that women are not to usurp authority over the man in teaching the word! Are you going to be the first in telling these famous women preachers, Melissa Scott, Beth Moore, Joyce Meyer’s, et al, that they’re not to teach the word of our God over the man?

                  Your second ungodly paragraph was ambiguous as hell. It reads like from a book explaining Quantum Physics. Your mumbo jumbo needs refining before a godly man of my stature can explain it away in a godly and factual way.

                  (5) 11 Total Votes - 8 up - 3 down
  8. JonnyB says:

    Wow a black man gets arrested in Cali for a gun accident but the white guy in Florida that chases and KILLS the black KID after 911 operator said not too, gets to go home. Hmm

    (-27) 49 Total Votes - 11 up - 38 down
    • Typoqueen says:

      I wonder why you received so many thumbs down? You raise a valid point. But statics say it all don’t they. If you are black then you are more likely to get pulled over by the cops, you are more likely to get falsely accused of a crime then a white guy and you’re more likely to get ‘Rodney Kinged’ or ‘Trevoned’. I guess the thumbs down should be expected, this is the mentality that we still live with. Sad.

      (-13) 27 Total Votes - 7 up - 20 down
      • JonnyB says:

        Funny isn’t it? I thought all those thumbs down voters would be busy listening to Druggie Limpballs lies :)

        (3) 11 Total Votes - 7 up - 4 down
    • Ted Slanders says:


      Because in Florida’s case, we don’t have a he said, she said outcome. Trevon is dead and dead men don’t speak no lies. In this case with Mansa, we have the two kids, and Mansa obviously reporting the accident, therefore, an equal outcome of witnesses.

      The Trevon scenario makes me sick, and it’s obvious the Police Department covered up some stuff. The least of which, Zimmeran should have been arrested on the spot until all witnesses were heard from. Look what happened subsequently in the way of facts coming out concerning this case! The Police Chief should be fired and brought up on charges!

      Stand your ground law my @ss when the other person that is now dead cannot speak!

      (6) 18 Total Votes - 12 up - 6 down
      • trebor86 says:

        My understanding is the witness testimony of Martin’s GF, that he claimed to be afraid and being followed, the basis for his arrest (and Martin’s mother’s claim that it was him screaming for help, not Zimmerman)

        What’s disturbing is that the various “evidence” against Zimmermen the news has published before has repeatedly collapsed under scrutiny. Then new stuff pops up supporting Zimmerman’s claims.

        I Look forward to this being clarified. I actually hope it doesn’t turn out like the Duke Lacrosse case, where the prosecutor was found guilty, the victim is now found to be a psyco murderer.

        (0) 0 Total Votes - 0 up - 0 down
    • MaryMalone says:

      The strength of your analogy (comparing the current CA case with the FL case) is only as strong as the comparison on which it rests.

      There are far more things different about the two cases than there are similar. Indeed, the only thing that is similar is that at least one person in each case is reported to be a “black man,” in each case at least one person was shot, the victims were teenagers and the shooter was an adult.

      The circumstances, outcomes and intent of the shooter are completely different.

      That makes your analogy very, very weak.

      (4) 8 Total Votes - 6 up - 2 down
      • JonnyB says:

        Right the analogy on the Zimmerman case is MUCH stronger he should’ve been arrested:

        1. Zimmerman called the police to report Martin’s “suspicious” behavior, which he described as “just walking around looking about.”

        2. Zimmerman pursued Martin against the explicit instructions of the police dispatcher:

        4. Zimmerman was carrying a 9 millimeter handgun. Martin was carrying a bag of Skittles and a can of iced tea.

        7. Martin had no criminal record.

        8. Zimmerman “was charged in July 2005 with resisting arrest with violence and battery on an officer.

        9. Zimmerman called the police 46 times since 2004.

        10. According to neighbors, Zimmerman was “fixated on crime and focused on young, black males.”

        11. Zimmerman “had been the subject of complaints by neighbors in his gated community for aggressive tactics”

        22. Police ignored witness whose account was different from Zimmerman’s

        27. The lead investigator in Trayvon Martin shooting wanted manslaughter charge against Zimmerman


        (5) 11 Total Votes - 8 up - 3 down
        • Typoqueen says:

          You are spot on. Even with the stupid Fl. law there would have been an investigation and for the safety of the public Zim would have been locked up pending investigation. If this had been a white guy killed then Zimm would have been arrested or held right away during the pending investigation.

          Remember when they immediately arrested the white guy for shooting the black guy,,,me neither.

          (-2) 10 Total Votes - 4 up - 6 down
          • JonnyB says:

            Remember the driver passing the bus in Cambria that was arrested for causing the accidental death? Arrest has such a low threshold.

            And I’m SICK of the CONservatives equating the number of blacks killing whites, (on hate talk radio/online), THOSE BLACKS ARE ARRESTED!

            (2) 8 Total Votes - 5 up - 3 down
            • FineWine says:

              It figures that many posters on this board believe anything they read or hear on the news without listening to the actual facts.. I guess you didn’t hear the rest of the story:

              NBC news modified the 911 call making Zimmerman sound racist.

              Zimmerman did stop following him and was going back to his car when he was jumped by the 17 year old not a 12 year old that the media showed the picture of.

              Miller had been suspended 3 times in the last year, once for having burglary equipment and womens jewelry.

              Zimmerman was part of the watch program and had every right to do what he did.

              All the witnesses and evidence at the scene corroberated what happened, including paramedics that treated Zimmerman for his injuries and Dr.s the nexk day. The DA did not charge despite the police wanting to because the evidence wasn’t there. ( the cops were not racist and if anything would have skewed in order to make the arrest, but the evidence was not there)

              The media released the video from the department and said he didn’t have any injuries but when you take a closer look and Zoom in, there it is.


              (1) 1 Total Votes - 1 up - 0 down
              • Typoqueen says:

                I read that Zimm was half white and half Hispanic but that’s here nor there, even if he’s Hispanic he can still be racist. I heard the tape where everyone was trying to accuse Zim of calling Trevon a ‘coon’. I didn’t hear that and felt that they were just fishing for racism so I do agree with you on that.

                You don’t know if what you posted is factual just as we don’t that Zim is or is not a racist. You said that Trevon was suspended but even if he had previously been arrested it really doesn’t matter. But going by what you say why didn’t they arrest him as opposed to just ‘suspending’ him? Mary and Cindy hate when I do this but there is a lot about this that you and I don’t know yet, they hate it when I want facts, your post is all speculation. My point with the Trevon case is that until the facts come out that Zim should have been arrested or held until more is known. The cops had no way of knowing what really happened that fast. They simply took Zims word about the whole the story but they shouldn’t have. For all they know he might be a dangerous man.

                I have to disagree with your opinion regarding your belief that Zim had a right to what he did because he is a member of the neighborhood watch program. We pay cops a lot of money for them to get the training needed to go after bad guys, we can’t have vigilantes going after people like this. People in the NW program are supposed to call the cops and or the neighbors that might have someone breaking into their home and get all the details that they can while staying in a safe environment. You don’t know for a fact that Zim stopped following Trevon.

                One time a kid almost got away from Jeffery Dahmer but Dahmer told the cops that the kid was his gay lover, not to worry. So the cops simply left. In this case Zim told the cops his side of the story and they believed him prior to investigating the whole story…that’s wrong.

                (0) 2 Total Votes - 1 up - 1 down
                • FineWine says:

                  First of all we are innocent until proven guilty. You don’t arrest people in this country without charging them and if you do not have enough evidence to charge you can’t hold him. The evidence at the scene did not support the theory derived by the news media or he would have been charged. NBC news even fired the person that doctored the 911 tape. . The one you mention was yet a different instance than I had mentioned. To know he wasn’t following him anymore you just have to see where the confrontation was (right next to Zimm’s car. It is a tradgedy on all sides no matter what happened, but the media spin that is causing this racial uproar is indefensible.

                  (0) 2 Total Votes - 1 up - 1 down
                • Typoqueen says:

                  FineWine, have you heard the latest,,wonder why Zimm has gone against what his attorney’s have told him to do and why Zimm has lost contact with his attorneys? Must be from the head injury…

                  (-1) 1 Total Votes - 0 up - 1 down
          • Paperboys says:

            Zimmerman should have been locked up pending investigation? That is ludicrous. When a person gets arrested, the police have a time limit (48 hours) on how long they can hold a person without charges being brought in a court of law (unless you are an “enemy combatant” at Gitmo). The right to bail and a speedy trial are in the U.S. Constitution.
            I’m not saying that Zimmerman is innocent, because I feel he is guilty of something — perhaps negligent homicide or manslaughter. But police can’t just lock someone in jail and throw away the key until they come up with enough evidence to charge them.
            Zimmerman, had he been arrested right away as you suggest, would still have the right to a bail hearing, where formal charges would be required to be read to him. Clearly, with this ridiculous Florida self-defense law, there is some question as to whether he broke Florida state law, otherwise I’m fairly sure that the DA would have charged him by now.
            That also doesn’t mean that charges won’t ever be filed. It appears the DA is moving cautiously in bringing charges and even in bringing it to a grand jury. I believe that Zimmerman will eventually be charged with something, the DA just hasn’t figured out exactly what yet.
            And with double jeopardy, the DA only gets one bite at the apple.
            But there’s also the feds to consider, as they can also charge him and try him in federal court for violating the kid’s rights.
            Another thing to consider, is that if the DA charges Zimmerman with a crime and he’s found Not Guilty or gets a slap on the wrist, it could lead to an explosion of anger in that community, state or even across our nation.
            That’s how Rodney King played out and look what happened after that trial.

            (-2) 4 Total Votes - 1 up - 3 down
            • JonnyB says:

              WHAT are you responding too? He killed a 17 y/o kid. You can arrest and THEN release with or without bail, but just like this case, someone was taken into custody and BOOKED!

              His dad was a retired judge. ANY influence there?

              It’s not in the DA’s hands anymore. Special prosecutors.

              (2) 4 Total Votes - 3 up - 1 down
        • MaryMalone says:

          I agree that Zimmerman should have been arrested.

          However, to use the COMPARISON of Martin and Zimmerman to JUSTIFY the post, “Wow a black man gets arrested in Cali for a gun accident but the white guy in Florida that chases and KILLS the black KID after 911 operator said not too, gets to go home. Hmm,” is incorrect.

          What the poster was trying to prove by the comparison of those two shooting cases appears to be that there was some ulterior motive for Zimmerman not being arrested. I happen to believe this to be true; however, it isn’t the analogy (or comparison) of the two situations that proves it.

          The problem with that is that the two things the poster is comparing to provide the proof are too dissimilar to draw any conclusion about how the outcome (in this case, whether the shooter was arrested or not) turned out.

          If, for instance, in both the Zimmerman and Martin case, the shooters BOTH did it by accident, that would be a strong similarity and would support the poster’s analogy…or if BOTH shooters had followed the victim(s) and both shot their victims who were unarmed.

          (-2) 2 Total Votes - 0 up - 2 down
    • azuresees says:

      And they share the same circumstances HOWWWWWWWW?

      (0) 0 Total Votes - 0 up - 0 down

Comments are closed.