Trayvon Martin

[SR540Beaver]

Trayvon Martin is dead because he chose to confront a neighborhood watch captain who was keeping an eye on him until police arrived to question his suspicious behavior.

Martin had 4 minutes to walk 80 yards to get to his father's girlfriend's home.

 

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CDk6SYyZum8/T3JNkQ84MeI/AAAAAAAAAxg/Hg9HwbXJ4Mo/s1600/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-path.jpg

 

He chose to use those 4 minutes (the time between his phone being dropped, connection lost, and the time the shot was recorded on the 911 tape) to ambush the person following him.

A timid child in an unfamiliar neighborhood in the dark would choose to go home.

If confronted, a normal teenager would politely explain who he was and where he was going.

A belligerent teenager seeking to boost his 'street cred' (who had bragged about winning a fight the week before) would instigate a fight against a 4 inch shorter unsuspecting victim.

 

George Zimmerman didn't get away with anything.

His life is ruined. He will always be hunted by Black activists.

The two years it's taken to get to a just verdict have been hell on Zimmerman.

All because Zimmerman didn't want to die.

 

Anybody else on the board ever stitch up a scalp would? The scalp is tough. It's hard to push a needle through the human scalp. Trayvon was pounding George's head on the concrete to produce those wounds. When the police that George had called didn't arrive in time, and the neighbors who heard him yelling chose not to help, George chose to use his gun to keep himself alive.

 

Under the same circumstances, every one of us would have acted the same.

 

Trayvon chose to take an action too and it cost him his life. Just like Zimmerman should have stayed in the car, Trayvon should have walked into the house. Neither person's life would have changed.

[packsaddle]

Trayvon Martin is dead because he chose to confront a neighborhood watch captain who was keeping an eye on him until police arrived to question his suspicious behavior.

Martin had 4 minutes to walk 80 yards to get to his father's girlfriend's home.

 

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CDk6SYyZum8/T3JNkQ84MeI/AAAAAAAAAxg/Hg9HwbXJ4Mo/s1600/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-path.jpg

 

He chose to use those 4 minutes (the time between his phone being dropped, connection lost, and the time the shot was recorded on the 911 tape) to ambush the person following him.

A timid child in an unfamiliar neighborhood in the dark would choose to go home.

If confronted, a normal teenager would politely explain who he was and where he was going.

A belligerent teenager seeking to boost his 'street cred' (who had bragged about winning a fight the week before) would instigate a fight against a 4 inch shorter unsuspecting victim.

 

George Zimmerman didn't get away with anything.

His life is ruined. He will always be hunted by Black activists.

The two years it's taken to get to a just verdict have been hell on Zimmerman.

All because Zimmerman didn't want to die.

 

Anybody else on the board ever stitch up a scalp would? The scalp is tough. It's hard to push a needle through the human scalp. Trayvon was pounding George's head on the concrete to produce those wounds. When the police that George had called didn't arrive in time, and the neighbors who heard him yelling chose not to help, George chose to use his gun to keep himself alive.

 

Under the same circumstances, every one of us would have acted the same.

 

OK, I get that you think Trayvon rightly paid for his mistake with his life. So why is it again, that you think Zimmerman should get off scot free for his mistake?

[perdidochas]

Zimmerman decided to follow and confront Martin - in his own words, "This guy looks like he's up to no good". This was based on observing what Martin looked like. Martin had not been involved in any criminal activity. He was walking along, minding his own business. Zimmerman decided that Martin looked suspicious.

How are black teenage men supposed to walk so that they won't get shot?

 

Martin didn't get shot from walking around. He got shot from trying to beat somebody. If Martin had done what we tell every kindergarden kid to do--keep your hands to yourself, he would be alive, and Zimmerman would have a normal life.

 

The evidence points towards my view of the story, or more on a legal standpoint, there is no evidence that Zimmerman started the physical confrontation. WIth our legal system, we have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone did something. Defendants are not required to prove that they didn't do something.

 

Martin got shot from beating on Zimmerman. Yes, ZImmerman asked him what he was doing. That's his right. Martin should have said, I'm going back to my Dad's house, and walked off. I do agree that Zimmerman probably did the wrong thing by following Martin, but the other side is that his neighborhood had been burglarized several times by young black men. I understand his view. I feel that way every time I see somebody I don't know walking through my neighborhood. I do carefully look at them, in case something does happen. It's part of being prepared.

[moosetracker]

perdidochas - "The evidence points towards my view of the story, or more on a legal standpoint, there is no evidence that Zimmerman started the physical confrontation. WIth our legal system, we have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone did something. Defendants are not required to prove that they didn't do something. "

 

Perhaps in the media you watch it may seem to you there was more evidence for Zimmermon.. The media took sides and favored only showing what pointed out their theory.. But, no you side held no better evidence.. All you had was Zimmermans word, which he did not want to get on the stand and restate under oath, so he just let videos play out, and those videos held a lot of lies that were proved false.. So it left questions as to if anything was the truth.. You couldn't get the other side of the story as Martin lay dead.. All other accounts were guesswork, or seeing a part of the fight from a distance in the dark, or listening in on the fight.. No one SAW who started it..

 

Yes there is reasonable doubt as to who started it first.. But, evidence does not point towards your view, no more then to the other view.. It is just that with reasonable doubt as to who is telling the truth, the outcome by rules of the court favored the side you were rooting for. Having reasonable doubt does not mean he had more or better evidence to convince anyone of anything that he said.

 

Why is it Zimmermans right to stop a total stranger and ask them what they are doing?.. He wasn't the police, he didn't even identify himself as neighborhood watch. He just stalked someone for a while make him feel nervous, then without giving any reason demanded Martin to explain himself.. And his neighborhood may have been burglarized, but there is no proof it was by young black men except for in Zimmermans mind, as evidenced by the fact that he only called the police if it was a black man (or men) walking in his neighborhood..

[acco40]

An all white jury found Zimmerman not guilty after he killed a kid for being black.

I highly doubt that Zimmerman shot the Trayvon Martin because he was black.

 

 

 

I think folks are forgetting a few things and not thinking analytically. One, as jblake47 and others have tried to point out - jury trials such as these do not have an objective to prove someone innocent. The judges direction to the jury was to determine if George Zimmerman acted in self-defense or in legalese - if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force and that a person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. The jury was also instructed to judge Zimmerman by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used, that the danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force.

 

 

 

There was conflicting testimony - there was very different testimony by several witnesses stating who was the aggressor. So, for me - concluding that there was reasonable doubt was the correct verdict. That doesn't mean that Zimmerman acted properly. Also, I believe the jury was 100% female, as was the Circuit judge and no one is claiming gender issues? (It was not 100% white as some have claimed. Five where white and one Hispanic.) The fact that Trayvon Martin did not simply go home or that Zimmerman should have stayed in his car or not followed Martin are irrelevant to the case at hand. It did not matter how the confrontation came to be - if Zimmerman was profiling, if Martin was looking for a fight - it only mattered that when Zimmerman fired a bullet through Trayvon's heart, was the appearance of danger so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person believe that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force?

[Twocubdad]

Trayvon Martin is dead because he chose to confront a neighborhood watch captain who was keeping an eye on him until police arrived to question his suspicious behavior.

Martin had 4 minutes to walk 80 yards to get to his father's girlfriend's home.

 

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CDk6SYyZum8/T3JNkQ84MeI/AAAAAAAAAxg/Hg9HwbXJ4Mo/s1600/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-path.jpg

 

He chose to use those 4 minutes (the time between his phone being dropped, connection lost, and the time the shot was recorded on the 911 tape) to ambush the person following him.

A timid child in an unfamiliar neighborhood in the dark would choose to go home.

If confronted, a normal teenager would politely explain who he was and where he was going.

A belligerent teenager seeking to boost his 'street cred' (who had bragged about winning a fight the week before) would instigate a fight against a 4 inch shorter unsuspecting victim.

 

George Zimmerman didn't get away with anything.

His life is ruined. He will always be hunted by Black activists.

The two years it's taken to get to a just verdict have been hell on Zimmerman.

All because Zimmerman didn't want to die.

 

Anybody else on the board ever stitch up a scalp would? The scalp is tough. It's hard to push a needle through the human scalp. Trayvon was pounding George's head on the concrete to produce those wounds. When the police that George had called didn't arrive in time, and the neighbors who heard him yelling chose not to help, George chose to use his gun to keep himself alive.

 

Under the same circumstances, every one of us would have acted the same.

 

Because a jury of his peers found that the case against him did not prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

 

Both made mistakes and had opportunities to avoid confrontation. The results were tragic. People make tragic mistakes all the time. Sometimes the mistakes and the outcomes are grossly disproportionate. It doesn't necessarily mean criminal convictions follow.

[SR540Beaver]

perdidochas - "The evidence points towards my view of the story, or more on a legal standpoint, there is no evidence that Zimmerman started the physical confrontation. WIth our legal system, we have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone did something. Defendants are not required to prove that they didn't do something. "

 

Perhaps in the media you watch it may seem to you there was more evidence for Zimmermon.. The media took sides and favored only showing what pointed out their theory.. But, no you side held no better evidence.. All you had was Zimmermans word, which he did not want to get on the stand and restate under oath, so he just let videos play out, and those videos held a lot of lies that were proved false.. So it left questions as to if anything was the truth.. You couldn't get the other side of the story as Martin lay dead.. All other accounts were guesswork, or seeing a part of the fight from a distance in the dark, or listening in on the fight.. No one SAW who started it..

 

Yes there is reasonable doubt as to who started it first.. But, evidence does not point towards your view, no more then to the other view.. It is just that with reasonable doubt as to who is telling the truth, the outcome by rules of the court favored the side you were rooting for. Having reasonable doubt does not mean he had more or better evidence to convince anyone of anything that he said.

 

Why is it Zimmermans right to stop a total stranger and ask them what they are doing?.. He wasn't the police, he didn't even identify himself as neighborhood watch. He just stalked someone for a while make him feel nervous, then without giving any reason demanded Martin to explain himself.. And his neighborhood may have been burglarized, but there is no proof it was by young black men except for in Zimmermans mind, as evidenced by the fact that he only called the police if it was a black man (or men) walking in his neighborhood..

A jury selected and approved by both the defense and the prosecution who heard and saw all the evidence disagree with your opinion on the case. Trayvon started the physical altercation and Zimmerman ended it in self defense.

[perdidochas]

perdidochas - "The evidence points towards my view of the story, or more on a legal standpoint, there is no evidence that Zimmerman started the physical confrontation. WIth our legal system, we have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone did something. Defendants are not required to prove that they didn't do something. "

 

Perhaps in the media you watch it may seem to you there was more evidence for Zimmermon.. The media took sides and favored only showing what pointed out their theory.. But, no you side held no better evidence.. All you had was Zimmermans word, which he did not want to get on the stand and restate under oath, so he just let videos play out, and those videos held a lot of lies that were proved false.. So it left questions as to if anything was the truth.. You couldn't get the other side of the story as Martin lay dead.. All other accounts were guesswork, or seeing a part of the fight from a distance in the dark, or listening in on the fight.. No one SAW who started it..

 

Yes there is reasonable doubt as to who started it first.. But, evidence does not point towards your view, no more then to the other view.. It is just that with reasonable doubt as to who is telling the truth, the outcome by rules of the court favored the side you were rooting for. Having reasonable doubt does not mean he had more or better evidence to convince anyone of anything that he said.

 

Why is it Zimmermans right to stop a total stranger and ask them what they are doing?.. He wasn't the police, he didn't even identify himself as neighborhood watch. He just stalked someone for a while make him feel nervous, then without giving any reason demanded Martin to explain himself.. And his neighborhood may have been burglarized, but there is no proof it was by young black men except for in Zimmermans mind, as evidenced by the fact that he only called the police if it was a black man (or men) walking in his neighborhood..

I watch ABC and listen to NPR for my media. I read a bit of everything online.

 

It's his neighborhood. If someone suspicious is walking my neighborhood, I have the right to ask him what he's up to. Now, they have a right to tell me it's none of my business or to buzz off.

 

 

Yes, there was a witness who saw a young black man in her house burglarizing it while she and her kid were present. The name was Olivia Bertalan, and she testified for the defense.

 

"In August of 2011, a neighbor of the Zimmermans, Olivia Bertalan, was home during the day when two young black men entered her house. She hid in a room upstairs and called the police. When the police arrived, the two men, who had been trying to take a TV, fled. One of them ran through the Zimmermans' yard.

After the break-in, George Zimmerman stopped by the Bertalans and gave Olivia a card with his name and number on it. He told her to visit his wife Shellie if she felt unsafe."

 

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/george-zimmerman-before-the-trayvon-martin-shooting-2012-4#ixzz2ZDkFY4zM'>http://www.businessinsider.com/george-zimmerman-before-the-trayvon-martin-shooting-2012-4#ixzz2ZDkFY4zM

 

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/george-zimmerman-before-the-trayvon-martin-shooting-2012-4

[perdidochas]

An all white jury found Zimmerman not guilty after he killed a kid for being black.

I highly doubt that Zimmerman shot the Trayvon Martin because he was black.

 

 

 

I think folks are forgetting a few things and not thinking analytically. One, as jblake47 and others have tried to point out - jury trials such as these do not have an objective to prove someone innocent. The judges direction to the jury was to determine if George Zimmerman acted in self-defense or in legalese - if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force and that a person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. The jury was also instructed to judge Zimmerman by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used, that the danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force.

 

 

 

There was conflicting testimony - there was very different testimony by several witnesses stating who was the aggressor. So, for me - concluding that there was reasonable doubt was the correct verdict. That doesn't mean that Zimmerman acted properly. Also, I believe the jury was 100% female, as was the Circuit judge and no one is claiming gender issues? (It was not 100% white as some have claimed. Five where white and one Hispanic.) The fact that Trayvon Martin did not simply go home or that Zimmerman should have stayed in his car or not followed Martin are irrelevant to the case at hand. It did not matter how the confrontation came to be - if Zimmerman was profiling, if Martin was looking for a fight - it only mattered that when Zimmerman fired a bullet through Trayvon's heart, was the appearance of danger so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person believe that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force?

 

 

I do pretty much agree that Zimmerman acted improperly, but not illegally. It would have been better for all concerned, if he had stayed in his vehicle. That said, it's easy to say that in hindsight, and not living in a neighborhood that has been burglarized several times.

[packsaddle]

perdidochas - "The evidence points towards my view of the story, or more on a legal standpoint, there is no evidence that Zimmerman started the physical confrontation. WIth our legal system, we have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone did something. Defendants are not required to prove that they didn't do something. "

 

Perhaps in the media you watch it may seem to you there was more evidence for Zimmermon.. The media took sides and favored only showing what pointed out their theory.. But, no you side held no better evidence.. All you had was Zimmermans word, which he did not want to get on the stand and restate under oath, so he just let videos play out, and those videos held a lot of lies that were proved false.. So it left questions as to if anything was the truth.. You couldn't get the other side of the story as Martin lay dead.. All other accounts were guesswork, or seeing a part of the fight from a distance in the dark, or listening in on the fight.. No one SAW who started it..

 

Yes there is reasonable doubt as to who started it first.. But, evidence does not point towards your view, no more then to the other view.. It is just that with reasonable doubt as to who is telling the truth, the outcome by rules of the court favored the side you were rooting for. Having reasonable doubt does not mean he had more or better evidence to convince anyone of anything that he said.

 

Why is it Zimmermans right to stop a total stranger and ask them what they are doing?.. He wasn't the police, he didn't even identify himself as neighborhood watch. He just stalked someone for a while make him feel nervous, then without giving any reason demanded Martin to explain himself.. And his neighborhood may have been burglarized, but there is no proof it was by young black men except for in Zimmermans mind, as evidenced by the fact that he only called the police if it was a black man (or men) walking in his neighborhood..

"Trayvon started the physical altercation...." says Zimmerman. You know, I wonder how it might have played if Trayvon had his own concealed weapon and drew down on the creep following him in the rain that night. By the reasoning I see here, if Zimmerman had pulled his weapon and Trayvon had killed him, Trayvon would have been completely blameless. Am I wrong?

[Twocubdad]

I agree with Basementdweller, I don't think only white people were for one side and black people for another.. Nor was it totally a black/white issue.. SOME of it was a black/white issue.. SOME of it though breaks on people who support stricter gun controls and those who do not, and SOME broke on other issues such as if you could see your son in similar danger based on his age, your neighborhood, your neighbors.. Anyway there were different reasons that people took different sides and it was not a straight black/white split. So yes Joe Bob your seeing only black & white was very narrow minded and racist..

 

I also agree that listening to the trial, I sort of guessed this outcome.. There was enough reasonable doubt.. I knew murder was out the door, they did not have enough proof for that and a lot of doubt was introduced.. Manslaughter was better, but still a little weak.. That the jury asked for some clarification on manslaughter it showed that is what they debated also.. I also agree with Basement that like OJ Simpson, Zimmermon will loose a civil trial.. But, I don't know about his life being over.. He has a lot of people against him, but he also has a lot of people supporting him.. He can forget a career in law enforcement, that's for sure.. But, someone will offer him a job and in certain circles he will be treated as a hero.. Will someone shoot him?? Perhaps, that could be how his life might be over.. Still, I would say if he can survive 5 to 10 years, his survival rate will go up as emotion runs hot for a while, then just dies to a simmering stew.

No, RD, there is no evidence he "chose to exit his vehicle and confront Martin." Read the transcripts. http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html (I believe this is from Mother Jones, so assume what you will). Zimmerman followed Martin as part of an ongoing conversation in which the dispatcher kept asking for Martin's location. In hindsight, getting out of the car and following a Martin to see was a bad idea, but in the moment, with the dispatcher asking "which way is he running?" it isn't a totally unreasonable to try and see which way he's running.

 

And contrary to the media spin, "the police" didn't tell Zimmerman not to follow or to stop following Martin. All the dispatcher said was "Okay, we don't need you to do that." Hardly a command. And he never followed up. Never asked, are you still following the guy? Never said, sir you really should go back to your car and wait for officers.

[perdidochas]

perdidochas - "The evidence points towards my view of the story, or more on a legal standpoint, there is no evidence that Zimmerman started the physical confrontation. WIth our legal system, we have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone did something. Defendants are not required to prove that they didn't do something. "

 

Perhaps in the media you watch it may seem to you there was more evidence for Zimmermon.. The media took sides and favored only showing what pointed out their theory.. But, no you side held no better evidence.. All you had was Zimmermans word, which he did not want to get on the stand and restate under oath, so he just let videos play out, and those videos held a lot of lies that were proved false.. So it left questions as to if anything was the truth.. You couldn't get the other side of the story as Martin lay dead.. All other accounts were guesswork, or seeing a part of the fight from a distance in the dark, or listening in on the fight.. No one SAW who started it..

 

Yes there is reasonable doubt as to who started it first.. But, evidence does not point towards your view, no more then to the other view.. It is just that with reasonable doubt as to who is telling the truth, the outcome by rules of the court favored the side you were rooting for. Having reasonable doubt does not mean he had more or better evidence to convince anyone of anything that he said.

 

Why is it Zimmermans right to stop a total stranger and ask them what they are doing?.. He wasn't the police, he didn't even identify himself as neighborhood watch. He just stalked someone for a while make him feel nervous, then without giving any reason demanded Martin to explain himself.. And his neighborhood may have been burglarized, but there is no proof it was by young black men except for in Zimmermans mind, as evidenced by the fact that he only called the police if it was a black man (or men) walking in his neighborhood..

Pack,

 

Trayvon was not allowed to carry a concealed weapon. In FL, you have to be 21 to get a CCW permit.

[packsaddle]

perdidochas - "The evidence points towards my view of the story, or more on a legal standpoint, there is no evidence that Zimmerman started the physical confrontation. WIth our legal system, we have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone did something. Defendants are not required to prove that they didn't do something. "

 

Perhaps in the media you watch it may seem to you there was more evidence for Zimmermon.. The media took sides and favored only showing what pointed out their theory.. But, no you side held no better evidence.. All you had was Zimmermans word, which he did not want to get on the stand and restate under oath, so he just let videos play out, and those videos held a lot of lies that were proved false.. So it left questions as to if anything was the truth.. You couldn't get the other side of the story as Martin lay dead.. All other accounts were guesswork, or seeing a part of the fight from a distance in the dark, or listening in on the fight.. No one SAW who started it..

 

Yes there is reasonable doubt as to who started it first.. But, evidence does not point towards your view, no more then to the other view.. It is just that with reasonable doubt as to who is telling the truth, the outcome by rules of the court favored the side you were rooting for. Having reasonable doubt does not mean he had more or better evidence to convince anyone of anything that he said.

 

Why is it Zimmermans right to stop a total stranger and ask them what they are doing?.. He wasn't the police, he didn't even identify himself as neighborhood watch. He just stalked someone for a while make him feel nervous, then without giving any reason demanded Martin to explain himself.. And his neighborhood may have been burglarized, but there is no proof it was by young black men except for in Zimmermans mind, as evidenced by the fact that he only called the police if it was a black man (or men) walking in his neighborhood..

Fine, make him 21. Same question. Too bad, though, that young persons aren't allowed to defend themselves.

[moosetracker]

perdidochas - "The evidence points towards my view of the story, or more on a legal standpoint, there is no evidence that Zimmerman started the physical confrontation. WIth our legal system, we have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone did something. Defendants are not required to prove that they didn't do something. "

 

Perhaps in the media you watch it may seem to you there was more evidence for Zimmermon.. The media took sides and favored only showing what pointed out their theory.. But, no you side held no better evidence.. All you had was Zimmermans word, which he did not want to get on the stand and restate under oath, so he just let videos play out, and those videos held a lot of lies that were proved false.. So it left questions as to if anything was the truth.. You couldn't get the other side of the story as Martin lay dead.. All other accounts were guesswork, or seeing a part of the fight from a distance in the dark, or listening in on the fight.. No one SAW who started it..

 

Yes there is reasonable doubt as to who started it first.. But, evidence does not point towards your view, no more then to the other view.. It is just that with reasonable doubt as to who is telling the truth, the outcome by rules of the court favored the side you were rooting for. Having reasonable doubt does not mean he had more or better evidence to convince anyone of anything that he said.

 

Why is it Zimmermans right to stop a total stranger and ask them what they are doing?.. He wasn't the police, he didn't even identify himself as neighborhood watch. He just stalked someone for a while make him feel nervous, then without giving any reason demanded Martin to explain himself.. And his neighborhood may have been burglarized, but there is no proof it was by young black men except for in Zimmermans mind, as evidenced by the fact that he only called the police if it was a black man (or men) walking in his neighborhood..

If Travon is still allowed to be black, then he would chances are he would have gone to jail for at least manslaughter. Even if Zimmermon had his gun out and drawn. In Flordia just recently a black woman was sentenced to (I think they said 20 years) for firing a gun into a wall even though no one was hurt. She did it to scare off her ex, who was threatening her.. I think I heard some static that for cases involving whites they get off by reasonable doubt 23% of the time, for blacks only 3% of the time. (Correction I just heard it again.. If White and kill a black 35% justifiable Homicide. If Black and shoot someone 3% justifiable homicide.)

 

 

 

Now put Travon with the gun and Zimmermon with the skittles and ice tea.. Ask if Trayvon would have gotten off with reasonable doubt.

 

I don't know if this is the system being too light on whites or too hard on blacks.. Or a little of both.. But the defense yesterday stating that if Zimmermon was black he would have never gone to trial would have been laughable if it wasn't such a slap in the face, unless it was total stupidity (which I doubt). I think if that lawyer doesn't want to be hiding out with Zimmermon in what ever hole he has now crawled into in order not to be gunned down. He should learn not to make anymore public statements, but just slink off into the sunset.

[Stosh]

It is always interesting to note that any situation one finds oneself in is rather "fluid". Things change and they change quickly. A police officer responding to a dispute will testify this. A man and woman are arguing and the police are called. Surely the officer does not approach the scene with a gun drawn. However, if things turn bad, there might be the need for the officer to not only defend one or the other parties, but also himself/herself and they need to draw their weapon.

 

It is irrelevant how the situation started, it is only relevant how the situation unfolded and eventually ended. I don't think there is any evidence that Zimmerman pulled out his gun until after he was being actively attacked. Could things have been different so as to not have the situation escalate to self defense? Maybe, no one but Zimmerman knows for sure. Did Zimmerman draw his gun before he accosted Martin? No evidence of that, and that would be appropriate for any law officer not walking into a situation drawing his gun prematurely and escalating the situation. It would seem that the situation deteriorated and unfortunate circumstances went from confrontation to self defense. Did Martin confront Zimmerman or was it the other way around? We don't know. Zimmerman was judged only on the end results of the situation, and it was deemed to be self-defense.

 

I would be concerned if Zimmerman did not have evidence of being attacked. However, he did. The evidence seems to indicate that he would have suffered severe injury or even death if he didn't react the way he did. There is no evidence that indicates Zimmerman tried to restrain Martin at gunpoint or do anything that would have kept Martin from simply walking away.