Its now safe to say...there was never a case against Zimmerman.

[BigD_95]

This is a perfect sample of public out cry of not knowing the facts and sample of your innocent until found guilty and thank God that we have a legal system. Because Zimmerman was guilty in the public and media and here at the DU.

But now with the witnesses coming out in court there in no way this man will be guilty. Its sad & tragic story but Zimmerman is not guilty.

Even if you want to believe that Zimmerman was the aggressor in Fl law if you are the aggressor you then cant then say self defense, unless you are no longer have the upper hand and once you lose the upper hand and cry for help or give up and the person doesnt not stop you then have a right to defend yourself.

So even if he was the aggressor once he was getting beat senseless and crying for help ( which two reliable witnesses have said was Zimmerman was on the bottom crying for help) he had the right to defend himself. That alone the guy has reasonable doubt.

But there is no proof he started the fight. Two police officers on the stand said everything the defense could have wanted. Zimmerman's story had little changes. Nothing major. They even said as much that he work with black youths in a program. So much for this racist person the media wanted us to believe.

There is not one person here on the DU that following the law could convict this man. Shame on you if you say you would. You do not know what all happen. You were not there. 100 guilty people should go free before a innocent man goes to prison.

There is so many ways in this trial for reasonable doubt.

I know this has been a hard story on so many people but the half truths got people worked up and forced a trial that was a up hill battle.

But in the end Zimmerman should be happy there was a trial. Because the public needed to hear his story and the overwhelming evidence thats says he is Not Guilty .

[still_one]

1. Hmmm, so a citizen decides, by racial profiling he can act like a cop, that makes it ok. Thanks

[KittyWampus]

13. IMO, the bereaved family will only find justice in a civil court. Here are those who should pay:

Zimmerman
Home Owners Assocation who allowed an over-zealous person carry a gun
Police Dispatcher who said "we don't need for you to do that" rather than "NO> STAY IN YOUR CAR".

[virgogal]

58. The police dispatcher? A poor working stiff who used different phrasing than

you would have used?

Sorry but I can't agree with you there.

[KittyWampus]

193. I had no idea the dispatcher was a civilian. Unlike most DU'ers I'm not glued to this case.

I have a life.

[naaman fletcher]

78. FWIW

The HOA has already paid.

Do you have some reason that the Police Dispatcher somehow behaved outside of protocol?

[Adsos Letter]

110. He didn't.

My understanding is that the dispatcher was a civilian volunteer, and thus prohibited from issuing a legally binding order.

This is what I have been led to believe over the last few days, anyway.

[KittyWampus]

121. thanks, I have not been following closely. However, protocol should be "stay put, stay safe".

With emphasis on imperative.

Legally a civilian may not be able to compel… but the advice should have been more direct and clear.

[Adsos Letter]

126. I think the transcript of Serino's interrogation makes it clear

that both Z and Serino understood that the dispatcher intended for Z to stop following TM, even if it wasn't given as a command. This is a portion of the transcript of an interview with Sanford PD:

Serino: OK, at the point where he said, are you following him, and he said, we don’t need you to do that, what went through your mind?

Zimmerman: He’s right.

Serino: So you shoulda stopped and went back to your vehicle.

https://www.txantimedia.com/?p=1079

[backwoodsbob]

139. you cant sue the dispatcher

for not being as *precise and clear* as you think was right.

This place is really jumping the shark over this case

[AnotherMcIntosh]

198. "civilian volunteer"? Maybe he was. Maybe he wasn't. Where did you get your information?

[handmade34]

178. already...

the family has settled for 1mil+ with the Homeowner's Association

[KittyWampus]

191. Thank You.

[SlipperySlope]

187. About the police dispatcher...

The dispatcher testified that they are forbidden to instruct anyone to do anything. Everything they say has to be phrased as a suggestion or advice, or as giving information.

If the dispatcher has said "stay in your car" he would have been disobeying policy.

[KittyWampus]

192. Thank You.

[naaman fletcher]

219. The HOA already settled. Nt

[Honeycombe8]

25. Example of forming an opinion not based on facts. Please state the evidence showing he

was (1) racial profiling; and (2) knew TM's race ... when he started following TM and called 911 to check him out.

I'm seeing a lot of posts where posters are making up facts or twisting them to fit a theory that they just won't give up, despite evidence to the contrary.

GZ never used a racial derogatory term. But TM did, more than once. GZ never even told the cops TM's race, until a cop specifically asked what race he was. The worst comment that GZ made when he thought he wasn't being heard was "those punks always get away," which is not a racial term. "Punks" has been used in this country for a century and refers to young males (who are usu. the ones who commit neighborhood crimes, historically), or are "wild." An old man in the Marlon Brando movie, "The Wild Ones," shouts at Brando and his other biker gang members, "Hey, you punks! Get outta my yard!" The bikers were all white.

[still_one]

82. Calling him a f**king punk. Do you believe he would have referred to a white guy as that?

[backwoodsbob]

140. when I lived in Detroit

I thought of...and called...LOTS of white teens *fucking punks*

[backwoodsbob]

141. calling someone a punk is now a racial slur?

this is getting comical

[Nay]

175. Of course! "Punk" is a totally non-racial term for young men (and sometimes women) who

hang around on the street corners, causing trouble. It has never been a racial term.

[lumpy]

95. On one of the tapes of Zimmermans dispacher phone call it can be heard

Zimmerman in a low whispery voice mutter "f##king coon. Would be surprising if the prosecuter didn't entered in evidence.

[lumpy]

109. Where is the evidence that Martin used racial derogatory terms ? Zimmermans

testimony? While Zimmerman was on the phone with the dispatcher, Zimmermans voice was heard in a low mutter say what appears to be the words
'f##king coon'. Movies don't present all the answers.

[drhobo]

167. punk, not coon

At least from the words of the prosecutor.

On the otherhand, if Rachel's testimony is accurate, Martin was quite the racist himself.

People keep focusing on zimmerman getting out of the truck, following or not following, and other actions by both sides that are not illegal. What really matters is who escalated it to physical violence, and there does not seem to be much in the way of verifiable evidence either way.

[HiPointDem]

151. he called him a c**n. i don't know why there is a concerted effort to pretend he only said

punk. he said c**n.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

55. It depends. If his father is a retired judge and his g-father worked for the CIA, the answer is yes.

First, the police will avoid making an arrest.

Then, when there is overwhelming evidence that he stalked an unarmed young man who was lawfully walking in the neighborhood without his permission, and then shot him, he will be arrested and the prosecution will put on a case. But the prosecutor will not object to defense attorney questions that call for speculation as a way to cause confusion.

Of course, then you will have posters claim that he did nothing wrong and was merely defending himself. In their world, Zimmerman should not be charged with even disturbing the peace.

[HiPointDem]

153. where did you hear a claim that his g-father was cia?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

169. "Zimmerman's grandfather connected to the CIA - this explains why the murderer is not in jail"

"R.W. Zimmermann was working for the Central Intelligence Agency in Langley Virginia after his retirement from foreign service diplomacy. George Zimmermann's grandfather diplomatic career allotted travel to many international locations, ending his service as Consulate General in Barcelona."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002506346

There's also a number of sites found with Google with similiar information.

[HiPointDem]

194. as i recall there was some discussion of this when the case initially hit the media & it was

debunked. no evidence could be found that rw zimmermann was related to george zimmerman and none provided in such links.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

196. Are you saying that another good story has been ruined by the facts?

[HiPointDem]

199. nyt reported zimmerman's grandpa was in army intelligence -- just that, without further

info.

a bunch of websites tried to link that to a specific person but the details didn't seem to match.

i think the family has some kind of connections to military/law enforcement (dad was a judge magistrate so that's a connection) but how deep is unclear. i think 'cia' is overreaching for the evidence available.

[Jenoch]

68. I have read a lot of posts that

claim racial profiling on DU. So far, I have not read any posts with proof of racial profiling. By the way, I have pisted several times that Zimmerman was wrong in his actions and should be found guilty of manslaughter.

[still_one]

85. Just curious, do you think he would have assumed Martin was a "punk" if he was white? Just like cab

drivers seem to have a habit of not picking up a black man. Naw, it isn't racial profiling, and I have some swamp land in Arizona I would like to sell you

[Jenoch]

100. I don't think the word 'punk'

has racial conotations. If Zimmerman was profiling, I think it was about the hoodie. I don't know if Zimmerman new Martin's race until they were engaged in the tercation. If you have some information to the contrary, I'd like to see it. I'm interested in facts, not assumptions and suppositions. This is a court case, not a debate (at least for me.)

[marshall]

101. Punk actually has a sexual connotation

It was used during Shakespeare's time to refer to a prostitute. More recently it came to be a pejorative meaning homosexual.

[Jenoch]

107. I always thought it meant a kid up to

no good, or it is a slender stick with dried horseshit on it that is lit on fire and used to light the fuses on fireworks.

I was unware of the Shakespeare reference and would like to see a link confirming the homosexual reference.

[marshall]

119. Here are some references

"She may be a punk: for many of them are neither maid, widow, nor wife."
William Shakespeare, "Measure for Measure."

"The beaus at night made a punk of him that's first drunk."
"Womens Complaint to Venus," 1698.

"This was the tomb of Alexander, who went to plundering, burning, stabbing, carousing, atamiting, drabbing, kept a castrato for his punk."
W. Crowe, "Lewesdon Hill," 1827.

"A punk's a boy that'll give himself to a man."
A. Berman. "Prison Memoirs of an Anarchist," 1912.

"The involuntary homosexuals tend to be good-looking men, forced into becoming jailhouse 'punks' by older men sarving long sentences."
New Yorker, 1977.

[Jenoch]

133. Do you think Zimmerman

read Shakespeare?

[marshall]

162. Unfortunately people don't read much anymore

But language continues to be a web of influences, and Shakespeare is one of those.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

172. I don't think that feckless and pusillanimous clown got past Dr Seuss...

[Tien1985]

123. I'm curious about the regional aspect of

This--I'm gay and from the northeast. "Punk" is not used as a derogatory word for "gay" here, im pretty confident in saying "ever". Actually, punk is used both as derogatory from some people's usage, and something for all the "tough" guys to aspire to here. That's why it's funny to me, if they only knew what it meant elsewhere!

[marshall]

125. I've seen a reference of Jack Kerouac using it as a synonym for gay

Also Jack London and Aldous Huxley.

More recently it is used in reference to prisoners.

[Pelican]

147. What are you basing that off of?

Since when does punk mean gay?

In its modern usage, it refers to a young jerk (usually male.)

No race... No sexual preference indicated...

[marshall]

163. I agree

I was responding to the assertion that punk had a racial connotation, and pointing out that if anything it is more likely to have a sexual connotation. Outside of prisons it is currently used as a reference to a young male.

[Pelican]

166. Point taken...

Had not thought about the prison angle...

[HiPointDem]

157. 'more recently' = circa 1920. it's not used that way currently.

[still_one]

104. it was the "hoodie", but regardless that could be argued either way also. In addition, Zimmerman

was told not to pursue, and he did, why?

Except for a minority, most cops do not look for trouble, Zimmerman was

[Jenoch]

117. Zimmerman was not told not to pursue.

The dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that".

I don't know what you mean with your cop statement. I have two brothers who are cops and a big part of their job is to be on the alert for 'trouble'.

Many years ago I once walked from my home to a convenience store in the rain. It was a 24 hour store and it was after midnight. There was a patch of woods between my home and the backside of the strip mall with the store. I took a trail through the woods to get to the store. It was raining and I was wearing a long, oiled duster coat and a cowboy hat to keep the rain off me. As I was returning home a squad car came upon mexas I was walking behind the strip mall. Of course the cops asked what was up. I told them my name, showed them the smokes I bought, told them where I lived, and I went on my way. (I quit smoking for the last time 7-1/2 years ago.)

[still_one]

120. Alert for trouble is different than looking for trouble, that is what I meant

and gee, I would bet if a cop asked Martin what he was doing, there would not have been an issue

This is stupid vigilante bullshit

[Adsos Letter]

127. "Zimmerman was not told not to pursue."

I agree with you, and that's a point lots of people seem to be getting wrong.

Interesting to note, however, that it appears that both Z and Serino understood that the dispatcher intended for Z to stop following TM, even if it wasn't given as a command. This is a portion of the transcript of an interview with Sanford PD:

Serino: OK, at the point where he said, are you following him, and he said, we don’t need you to do that, what went through your mind?

Zimmerman: He’s right.

Serino: So you shoulda stopped and went back to your vehicle.

https://www.txantimedia.com/?p=1079

Z explains his failure to stop by saying he wanted to get the address.

[Jenoch]

134. I have read where Zimmerman agreed

with the assessment that he should not pursue and that he was returning to his vehicle. I don't know if that has been presented in court or not. It might not be part of the court case if Zimmerman does not testify.

[Adsos Letter]

137. I believe they played that portion of the Serino interrogation today

but I don't think the prosecution made a point of it.

I could well be wrong.

[Adsos Letter]

114. "If you have some information to the contrary..."

When Z was on the phone, the dispatcher asked him if the guy was "white, black, or Hispanic," and Z replied "I think he's a black guy." So, he knew that TM was black prior to the altercation.

I'll look for a link to the appropriate transcript, if you like.

FWIW: I agree with you in thinking that Z based his profiling primarily on the hoodie rather than TM's race, although I think TM's race was certainly a contributing factor, given the previous incidents he reported (the break-in where the cops caught the guy, and the incident where he saw a black guy engaged in what Z considered casing one of the condos). We both could be wrong about that, but I don't think evidence has been produced to directly support the claim.

[FrodosPet]

135. Now THIS guy is a Punk

(Sorry all...but sometimes we need to lighten up before the gravitas crushes us)

[backwoodsbob]

142. this thread is the first time in my 48 years

that the word punk was claimed to have racial connotations

[Hoyt]

189. It is when said by a bigot with gun about to shoot an unarmed black kid.

[BigD_95]

161. Even thepolice oficer on the stand felt it wasnt racial profiling

thats something the media & people here made up

[Logical]

202. LOL, yes, I always trust the police. Gullible much? n-t

[Tx4obama]

2. Wow. You are totally WRONG.

Even one of the witnesses said that the 'person on top' had the person on the bottom in a MMA hold. It was ZIMMERMAN that was going to MMA training three times a week.

And Zimmerman could not have been the one yelling for help because he said that Trayvon had covered his nose and mouth and he was being smothered - you can't yell with your nose and mouth cover.

And there are many other things that poke huge holes in the things that Zimmerman claims happened that evening.

Wait until your hear the prosecution's closing argument and then you will understand what the facts are better

[Dawson Leery]

3. Correct.

[malaise]

10. +1,000 n/t

[Honeycombe8]

27. I'm afraid you've not been listening to the witnesses. A witness testified it was TM on top

who had GZ on the ground, in a martial arts stance, pummeling him with both arms.

TM was apparently athletic & in shape, and/or lucked out in getting GZ on teh ground. GZ is older and overweight.

[Tx4obama]

45. It was Zimmerman that attended mixed martial arts (MMA) three times a week, not TM

That fact is written in Zimmerman's medical records.

[Lex]

66. and the police knew that Zimmerman was pursuing Martin not the other way around. nt

[Honeycombe8]

76. Yeah, that would've been irritating to TM, as he said to his friend on the phone.

But what GZ did is not against the law, apparently. He wasn't hunting TM or stalking him...he called in to the cops for them to come check out TM. He was doing something that we all think was wrong...following TM...and it was what caused TM to get ticked off and call GZ a racial derogatory term. Had GZ stayed in his car and kept his distance, this wouldn't have happened. What an overzealous goofball.

But notwithstanding that, nothing he did warranted an assault. It's against the law to jump or hit someone, if they don't hit you first.

I don't think there's specific corroborating evidence, tho, that TM hit GZ first. But it does seem that TM approached GZ angrily, according to his gf on the phone.

The jury may find that GZ hit TM first, after TM approached him to find out why he was following him. Who knows.

[Lex]

80. You are allowed to defend yourself if someone else is an imminent threat. If you are in fear

for your life you can hit first. You don't have to wait until you are attacked. You are supposed to try to flee first, but evidently Martin was trying to get away but Zimmerman was following him.

[Honeycombe8]

200. I'm pretty sure the other person has to directly threaten you, like point a gun or something.

Which is, in effect, a virtual hit/strike.

But if you hit first, that's not defense. That's assault. That's my understanding.

[Lex]

207. If Trayvon saw Zimmerman's gun, he damn sure had a right to hit

FIRST. He had already tried to get away from the guy and Zimmerman kept following him.

[Honeycombe8]

218. That, I don't know. I don't know what the law is on that, in FL. But first...

you have to have evidence that GZ had his gun pulled and pointing at TM.

When you're talking about putting someone away for years, or life, the jury is going to look for proof on everything needed to convict him. Or at least they should. I would. Even if I thought GZ were guilty, I'd want proof for each and every element that is needed to convict him. That's the only way to be sure.

[Tx4obama]

105. That is not true. Rachel, the girl on the phone, did NOT say that.

She said that Zimmerman was coming up behind Trayvon 'close by'.

She NEVER said that Trayvon approached Zimmerman angrily - or even that Trayvon approached him at all.

Why are you making things up?

[HiPointDem]

154. not the first time either

[drhobo]

168. because Rachel said Trayvon was at the house

If he was at the house, how did the altercation occur several hundred feet away? Either Rachel was wrong about his location (which throws doubt on the rest of her testimony), or Martin walked back to confront Zimmerman.

Again, this might not matter because it's not illegal. What matters is who escalated it to physical violence as this was the first actual crime committed. We keep focusing on right and wrong, and since this is a trial we should look at legal and illegal.

[Honeycombe8]

203. Yes...who hit who first is very important. A guy following another guy, and the 2nd guy getting

angry about it...all that is not illegal, and no one is getting hurt. But how did it escalate to physical violence?

We may never know the answer to that. GZ says it was TM, but TM isn't there to give his side. And I haven't heard of a witness who saw the beginning of the fight.

I wish GZ had stayed in his car, and TM had hightailed it back home. How different things would be.

[Honeycombe8]

201. The account I read said that TM told her, angrily, that a cracker was following him.

That he was gonna find out what was going on, or something. She said don't. Then she heard ... something ...yelling or an altercation or something.

That's the account I read. He called GZ a ____ cracker or some derogatory term twice, to his gf.

[Honeycombe8]

70. That may be. But the FACT is that there is an eyewitness who has testified it was TM on top.

Don't ignore the evidence in the case, when they don't support your theory. It is what it is.

The evidence isn't all in. There may be contradictory evidence on that point. We don't know. But I think he's the only eyewitness to the fight.

[truebluegreen]

91. Principle should be (hope it is)"clean hands".

GZ followed TM. GZ had a gun. Violence ensued, GZ got the better of it and TM died.

But GZ does not have "clean hands". GZ started it (Walking-While-Black-With-Skittles-and-Tea isn't probable cause for anyone, even law enforcement). If he hadn't followed, if he hadn't had a gun, NO ONE would have died.

If GZ had been killed instead, TM could have claimed self-defense but that is not what happened, is it?

Somebody starts something and then claims it was Not My Fault? I don't think so.


P.S. Doesn't anybody watch Judge Judy anymore? On second thought

[HiPointDem]

155. you make stuff up, so please don't lecture people about evidence.

[Lex]

65. And there is a witness who says the opposite. nt

[Honeycombe8]

72. No, there is not. There is only one eyewitness to the fight. The neighbor who opened his door...

when he heard the fight. He saw a guy (he described TM and his clothing) with another guy on the ground (he described his clothing), and that the guy on top was straddling the guy on the ground pummeling him, like a martial arts thing. Then the guy on the ground yells to the eyewitness to help him.

There is another neighbor, or maybe two, who heard the cries for help. But they didn't SEE the fight.

[Lex]

74. Have all the witnesses testified?

[drhobo]

170. all that saw anything significant

I think there are a few additional neighbors who came outside after the shot, but all of those who claimed to have seen anything of the struggle have testified.

[dpibel]

97. Not the testimony

If you're going to be a stickler for accuracy, I'm sure you'll want to correct your untrue assertion that "A witness testified" that Martin was "pummeling him with both arms."

That's not the testimony at trial.

[Adsos Letter]

118. I don't think Z was overweight at the time of the shooting

at least, not anywhere near the degree he is now. Dude looks like he has put on about 75 pounds since the fight, just judging from photos.

[drhobo]

171. He was technically obese at the time of the shooting

The records put him at 5'8" and 204 pounds right after the shooting. This is a BMI of 31 which is considered obese.

He definitely packed in on since then, but he was not at all thin to start.

[Auntie Bush]

243. He didn't look overweight the night of the crime. He's gained over 100 #'s since then.

[rufus dog]

130. Oh FFS

This is bullshit, Zimmy now is fat and out of shape, plus 120 pounds if you believe FAUX news. Martin was a skinny assed little kid with very little muscle tone.

Ask yourself this, if Keyshawn Johnson had followed Justin Bieber home, after making a 911 call that the friggen punk Bieber was driving recklessly, and the cops told him not to follow him, them Johnson got a gun, went to Bieber's house, they fought, then Johnson shot him,.... would Johnson be innocent?

I will be consistent, Johnson would be guilty, even though Bieber was wrong for driving recklessly up the street.

[HiPointDem]

152. he's overweight now, he wasn't then. and other witnesses said different.

[eridani]

180. It is flat out not possible to pummel someone and not get their DNA all over you

No Zimmerman DNA on Martin. QED

[cherokeeprogressive]

64. It doesn't fucking matter who was in "MMA TRAINING". It matters who has seen an MMA fight.

Think the witness who described the "MMA hold", which isn't a "hold" by the way, had ever seen an MMA fight? Where, otherwise, would the WITNESS have learned such a term?

So your point is that a WITNESS used a term that ONLY George Zimmerman would know because HE was the ONLY person who was attending MMA training? Are you fucking serious?

Yes, you are. Worrisome.

[Jenoch]

73. I'm no Zimmerman defender

but you are being unrealistic. Even if Martin had covered Zimmerman's mouth, that does not mean he did so during the entire struggle.

[Tx4obama]

113. There were two moderately significant inconsistencies

There were two moderately significant inconsistencies revealed between Zimmerman’s statements and the various 911 and emergency calls.

Zimmerman claims Martin was attempting to smother him by covering his nose and mouth with his hands, but there apparently wasn’t any of Zimmerman’s blood on Trayvon’s hands noted in the Medical Examiner’s report.

911 call with Zimmerman’s voice repeatedly screaming for help in the background directly before the shot is inconsistent with Zimmerman’s claim of being smothered.

http://www.bob-owens.com/2012/06/zimmerman-police-interviews-released-contain-no-justification-for-murder-2-charge/

[Tx4obama]

116. Also

-snip-

Zimmerman has maintained from the start that he repeatedly screamed for help during the confrontation. But during a final meeting with detectives Christopher Serino and Doris Singleton on Feb. 29, Zimmerman made a startling comment: “It doesn’t even sound like me.”

That Feb. 29 meeting was the one in which Serino and Singleton probed inconsistencies in what Zimmerman said in the unredacted version of his non-emergency call and what he told Singleton hours after the shooting. The detectives then played one of the 911 calls (scroll to 16:42) placed during the confrontation between Zimmerman and Martin.

“You hear that voice in the background? That’s you,” Serino said. “Are you hearing yourself?”

“It doesn’t even sound like me,” Zimmerman said.

“That’s you,” Serino repeated.

They then listen to the call until the fatal gunshot. Serino asked Zimmerman about his assertion that Martin put his hands over his nose and mouth. “He smothered you, correct?” Serino asked. “At what point did he smother you? Was it right before you shot him?” Zimmerman can be heard saying faintly that he doesn’t remember. Serino played the call again.

-snip-

http://www.dcjunkies.com/showthread.php?34144-ZIMMERMAN-Lied-About-Screams-amp-Smothering

And there was NO blood on Trayvon's hands.

And there was NO bush - Zimmerman lied about Trayvon hiding behind a bush.

Conclusion: Zimmerman is LYING.

[dkf]

106. And the person who had the other in an MMA hold and such skills is the one with the busted nose

And blood dripping down his head? That makes no sense.

[HiPointDem]

156. his nose wasn't busted. it's obvious that it wasn't from the pictures days after the incident.

no swelling, no bruising, just a couple of scabs on the bridge and tip.

[uppityperson]

108. Interesting list of who is telling you you are wrong. Only missing a couple.

[immoderate]

4. He is a stalker and a murderer, but he probably will go free...

Not enough evidence.

--imm

[Honeycombe8]

28. Actually, GZ wasn't breaking the law in following TM. It's yet to be decided if he's a murderer. nt

[CatWoman]

30. ok we get it

have you sent out the wedding announcements yet?

[LeftyMom]

136. She needs time to get her robes back from the cleaners.

[immoderate]

41. Right. Antagonizing is legal. And when attacked, you can freely shoot the n*****!

In ground-standing rectitude!

--imm

[CatWoman]

42. and what about those magic bushes Trayvon leapt out of

oh, my bad -- another "minor" inconsistency......

[Azathoth]

158. The irony is strong with this one

Don't you just hate it when you know something is true but the evidence is too stubborn to agree with you?

[immoderate]

190. I do. But I think the system works as well as we'll get.

--imm

[tularetom]

5. Well, this one should be fun to watch

[justiceischeap]

6. Have you read the transcripts or listened to the audio recordings?

I'm listening now and I've read the transcripts. His story isn't consistent, he changes it whenever Serino suggests that his actions don't match up to self-defense. Throughout all three transcripts Serino is feeding him info and he takes the bait most of the time. I don't think you can decide without having heard all the Prosecution witnesses the innocence of this guy. No more than anyone can rightfully claim his guilt.

[Honeycombe8]

34. Sorry, but his story has been consistent, with only minor inconsistencies. Everything points

to his innocence, insofar as his behavior & statements, in that he willingly talked to the cops more than once, without a lawyer. Not only that, he let them videotape him at the scene, while he explains what happened. Again, without a lawyer. That lends credence to the fact that he had nothing to hide.

Cop testified that GZ's story didn't change in any significant way. Minor inconsistencies always exist, she said. He said "walk" in one story, and "ran" in a later one, but she didn't regard that as significant. It wasn't important to what happened, and didn't change the fact that he left and "went" that way.

[pnwmom]

43. Using a lawyer or not using a lawyer does NOT go to credibility or guilt/innocence.

Plenty of guilty sociopaths don't ask for lawyers because they are confident they can talk their way out of their situation.

The Paul Ramseys, on the other hand, immediately went to a lawyer, and it's good they did. It took years, but eventually -- after Patty Ramsey's death -- they were proven innocent when an unrelated male's DNA turned out to be on their daughter's body. And in the meantime, thanks to their lawyers, they didn't have to spend any time in prison.

[Honeycombe8]

215. That's not true, really. He didn't just give one statement. He gave two, and then allowed videotapin

of him at the scene, going through the incident again. Then when a cop told him the incident was captured on security cameras (that was a lie, actually), GZ was excitedly happy about that, that there would be video to prove his version.

The jury may find that all those things are what an innocent person would do.

The cops are experienced in these things. They get a sense of whether what they're hearing is bull, if someone is suspicious or has something to hide.

Still, GZ did things he shouldn't have done (altho not illegal), so....I wonder if the jury will be given a lesser charge to consider. I think 2nd degree murder requires "intent" to kill.

[pnwmom]

221. I think the police bungled the case right from the beginning,

so I think a manslaughter conviction is more likely than 2nd degree murder. If they give the choice to the jury, that is.

[WinkyDink]

210. So what? I can tell the same lie to save my skin, too.

[Honeycombe8]

216. Not really. Cops will tell you...someone telling the truth will have minor inconsistencies

in his statements. That's normal. But people who lie invariably trip up. It's much harder to lie. The devil's in the details. It's hard to anticipate every little question that will be asked, and have a lie ready for that. Then you pause while you think about how important that question is, and what you should answer, and if that would be inconsistent with the other parts of your fake story.

It's impossible to lie in detail .... twice.

[WinkyDink]

222. Well, okay, then. But Z has claimed both that TM said, "You got me!" AND that he, Z, was unaware if

he had hit TM.

[Honeycombe8]

223. The jury can find that GZ is lying and uncredible. Or that he is telling the truth.

There's no evidence to contradict him.

I personally think it's hokey and movie-like to expect that TM said "You got me." But he might've said something similar, like "You shot me" in disbelief. And GZ heard "you got me." That seems plausible. I don't know if that point is even important, though.

What a said incident, though. IF GZ had acted differently, or if TM had acted differently, it wouldn't have happened. TM, being so young, had no idea that the guy following him was armed. So sad.

[Th1onein]

230. He IDENTIFIES with the cops.....of course, he's going to willingly talk to them.

He's "one of them," now, after having shot his first perp, you know?

[Honeycombe8]

233. That is irrelevant to the fact that he willingly put his version of events on tape & video....

a liar doesn't usually do that, at least more than once. He would've been well within his rights after giving his story one time, to then ask for a lawyer. Also, when told the incident was captured on security video, cop testified that GZ was happy about that, that there would be a video account of what happened.

It sure would seem, at the beginning, that GZ was the aggressor in the interaction with TM, but so far, the evidence isn't showing that.

If only TM had just gone on to his Dad's house and avoided confronting GZ. If only GZ had stayed in his car. Men. All full of machismo that they just don't avoid a situation that is so easily avoided.

[Th1onein]

236. It's very relevant, on the contrary.

And I think TM DID try to go to his Dad's house. But he was confronted by a bully, cop wannabe, who was armed, and looking for someone to shoot.

[Honeycombe8]

244. No, I'm afraid you're not listening to the evidence. TM was angry that he was being followed....

he told his gf that he was being following by an asshole cracker, and she heard air like he was walking. Then she hears TM say, "What's your problem?" or something like that.

He wasn't hurrying on his way home at that point, altho it seems that earlier he tried to hide & go on his way.

Now, TM had every right to confront someone who is following him. Nothing illegal about that. Nothing illegal about GZ following someone he thought was acting suspiciously.

I'm just sayin'.....if those had been two women...there would probably not have been a shooting or anyone hurt or killed. Women have more sense than these two guys. (Ask any woman who has ever been followed at night if she ever turned around and went up to the follower to ask him what his problem is.)

But it's not relevant whether GZ liked cops or not. Totally irrelevant. He knew he was in trouble, and cops don't decide who's innocent or guilty. It would be totally irrelevant if an accused hates cops, too. The accused tells what happened, that's all.

[notadmblnd]

7. SMH

sorry, there's not a smily of that

[RedSpartan]

8. Mmm...

[Starry Messenger]

9. Whut.

[NightWatcher]

11. Such a huge bucket of FAIL.

Every thing you say is like bizarro world.

[bravenak]

12. You are so wrong.

I've told you this before. It's safe to say he killed an unarmed kid. Why if that was your kid, would you still say that?

[Honeycombe8]

40. If TM assaulted him, he was justified in defending himself. There's no evid. he intended to kill him

GZ didn't even know, at the police station, that TM was dead. Also, he didn't know TM wasn't armed or unarmed.

The evidence shows that GZ didn't pull out his gun & shoot right away, either. He first tried to get away from TM, then when a witness opened his door, GZ called out to him to help him. When the witness didn't help, it was then that GZ shot TM. He says that TM went for his gun and said he was going to kill him...but there's no corroborating evidence of that. (He said his gun was visible at that time because his jacket has been pulled up during the fight.)

If someone assaults you, there's not time to think through everything. You get the person off you as best you can. In hindsight, things may look different. But we don't have that luxury when something is happening to us.

[pnwmom]

47. The evidence he intended to kill him is that he shot him through the heart.

You can't shoot someone in the middle of the chest and not be intending to kill someone.

[Abq_Sarah]

138. Not to nitpick...

But you shoot "center mass" because that's the largest area that presents itself. Self Defense 101.

[pnwmom]

144. That's at a distance. He shot Trayvon at point blank range. n/t

[Just Saying]

49. Wow.

Seriously? He put a gun to Trayvon's chest and pulled the trigger but didn't know if he'd killed him?

How do you know TM assaulted him?

How do you know when Z pulled out his gun?

How do you know Z "tried to get away"?

Perhaps it was Trayvon being assaulted. After all, he was just walking home and it was Z who was on a mission to stop this fucking punk from getting away.

At any rate, if your going to take a life you'd better damn well stop and think.


Why are you defending this guy? (Poorly)

[CatWoman]

51. you're very generous in your description of "poorly"

that poster is all over this thread posting bullshit after bullshit

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

54. And every other Trayvon thread.

I think someone got lost on their way to stormfront.

[CatWoman]

57. perhaps he wants to see his donations to Zimmerman's defense fund

not go to waste?

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

62. Perhaps,

I just don't know what compels so many people to defend this guy.

Well, I do, it's race. It has to be. If GZ shot a white 17 year old most* people contributing to his defense fund, and defending him on the internet would be calling for his execution.

*Except for the extreme gun nuts who would defend any moron with a gun and a cee-cee-dubya.

[Just Saying]

56. Just trying to stay within the rules.

[krispos42]

71. If Martin was defending himself from a stranger pursing him...

...Zimmerman was not innocent.


When they were on the ground, one or both of them were yelling for help. Contrary to the OP, yelling for help does not indicate a person has lost a fight, so the mere fact that Zimmerman was yelling for help did not indicate that he was free to use lethal force in self-defense.

Assuming that Martin became aware of the presence of Zimmerman's gun, what choice did he have but to try to grab it before his stalker could? He couldn't let his attacker have it, now could he?

[Jenoch]

94. "...what choice did he have but to try to grab it before his stalker could?"

If this part of your post is taken at face value by the jury, then Zimmerman goes free. If someone is afraid for their life then the self-defense law kicks in. That is Florida law.

[bravenak]

77. It's still murder.

Had he stayed in his car the kid would be alive he was not behaving reasonably and responsably. We train our children to do what Trayvon did. We agree that he ran from zimmerman, he tried to hide, and when the strange gun carrying man caught up to him he fought. That is what he and all children are trained to do to avoid a kidnapping. Here's a link below. We also know that Zimmerman did not follow requests not to follow Trayvon, legal or not he was advised not to follow. He also did not tell Trayvon the truth. Yes he did have a problem, he Should have stated he was neighborhood watch and there had been some break ins. That way the kid would have know that he wasn't being confronted by a serial killer.
http://www.kidpower.org/library/article/safety-tips-kidnapping/
http://childparenting.about.com/od/healthsafety/a/Protecting-Against-Child-Predators-Beyond-Stranger-Danger_2.htm

[jazzimov]

14. 2 syllables, the first is BULL

I think you can figure out the second - sorry, after re-reading your post I'm not so sure you can.

[Zoeisright]

15. What a bunch of bullshit.

Go crawl back under your rock. He stalked that kid and then lied about it. Anyone who thinks he's innocent is dumber than a box of rocks.

[handmade34]

183. +1

[quinnox]

16. Zimmerman should be found guilty

and then go to prison, where some black folk probably won't be giving him much of a welcome.

[RZM]

132. As opposed to what?

The champaign and balloon welcome he'd get if he went in for a different crime?

[Ilsa]

17. Excuse me, what trial are you watching?

In the one I saw today, the prosecution cleaned up.

And something's wrong with that dude. He fucking killed someone, but he acted like it was a fender-bender. "I need to go to class tomorrow." Flat affect. Either traumatized or a sociopath. Neither is workable in society without help.

Take your blinders off.

[Honeycombe8]

44. He was watching the same one I was watching. I don't think you're watching it.

I think you're watching other people with a position explain things differently.

The fact that he killed someone who was assaulting him (which is what the evidence shows so far...but the evidence is not over) does not mean he committed a crime.

I'm not ready to say he's not guilty. All the evidence isn't in. But from what I've seen (and I've been objective from the start, I think, so I haven't had a need to force the evidence to fit my position), it's shaping up that GZ didn't commit 2nd degree murder, which is what he is charged with.

But there's more evidence to come. That's what trials are about. Thank goodness there are trials, or he would've been murdered by now by people who have decided on their own, and not based on evidence, that he's guilty.

There were many posts from the start proclaiming him a racist murderer, before the facts of the case were even out. In fact, we're just now finding out some of the evidence. People who hold those extreme views from the start, despite the fact that they know they don't know the evidence, will maintain those extreme views, even if the evidence shows otherwise. They just love to hate some people.

[Ilsa]

81. I didn't say he committed second degree murder, but

I'm not saying he gets off with nothing, either. He bears some responsibility for this kid's death, too. And I'm not convinced that he had to shoot him in self defense.

[Honeycombe8]

89. I'm not convinced, either. I'm thinking maybe criminal negligence? Or something like that.

But there could be a smoking gun that shows GZ had his gun pulled out, or hit TM first, which would change things.

[Ilsa]

92. Loaded, safety off, was my understanding. nt

[Llewlladdwr]

149. The weapon is designed to be carried that way safely.

The pistol Z was carrying was of a type that has an internal safety. Basically, there is a barring mechanism that prevents the firing pin from coming into contact with the cartridge's primer unless the trigger is being pulled. This prevents the weapon from firing if dropped and renders it safe to carry with a round in the chamber. Your post made it sound as though Z was being negligent when in fact he was not, at least on this issue.

[Ilsa]

177. Is there corroborating evidence that

Martin attacked Zimmerman first? Or just Z's word against a dead man's?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

182. No. There is contradicting testimony.....

...from Rachel Jenteal that Zimmerman confronted Trayvon first.

The ultimate decision to consider the truthfulness or accuracy of Rachel's testimony (or any other witness for that matter) rests in the jury and jury alone.

[Honeycombe8]

204. Just GZ's account of that, as far as I know. TM's not here to give his version.

That leaves the jury free to believe GZ's version, or not. If there's no corroborating evidence.

[GeorgeGist]

159. Thank goodness there are trials.

Like the one GZ gave Trayvon!

[Honeycombe8]

205. Whatever happened, he didn't intend to kill TM. Thank goodness there are trials, for sure.

Or GZ would've been strung up by now by zealots and bigots, who seem to "know what they know," regardless of the evidence. Evidence? We don't need no stinkin' evidence! He's guilty! I just KNOW it.

Thank goodness we live in a society that requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It could be you on the stand one day, and I, for one, would demand to see proof beyond a reasonable doubt before I'd vote to throw you in a cell for the rest of your life.

[Gemini Cat]

18. Yeah, right.

[Blue_In_AK]

19. So, were YOU there?

[CatWoman]

20. AND

just who the fuck are you???

[pintobean]

21. All of the evidence hasn't been presented yet.

The judge said she expected the trial to last 2-4 weeks. We're a week and a day in. That said, so far, it doesn't look good for the prosecution.

[Honeycombe8]

46. I agree. I'm not prepared to declare him not guilty. But we're finding out things that are new.

And from what I've seen, they help the defense.

[pintobean]

53. Damn near everything so far

seems to help the defense. It seems that the prosecution keeps setting the table and is feeding the defense their own lunch.

[killbotfactory]

22. Apparently Zimmerman's legal defense fund went to hiring sockpuppets on message boards. nt

[gollygee]

38. LOL

[HangOnKids]

96. Poor Use Of Funds If You Ask Me

But I agree with your assessment.

[Th1onein]

231. DUzy!

[billh58]

23. Yet another

NRA apologist and SYG supporter. Zimmerman may indeed get away with murder, but then again so have many other guilty people mainly because our legal system is a crap shoot. Carrying a lethal weapon in public, stalking a victim, provoking a confrontation, acting like a vigilante, and then claiming self-defense is a right-wing coward's view of "justice."

Only right-wing Libertarian Gungeoneers on DU have any "reasonable doubt" about Zimmerman's culpability in the death of Trayvon Martin.

[gollygee]

36. +1

[Honeycombe8]

50. GZ wasn't breaking the law when he was carrying a weapon and calling someone in to the cops

and following him.

People "provoke" us all the time in life. They can be very irritating (esp if you've ever gone through a divorce). That doesn't give us the right to assault them, if TM did assault GZ. But the evidence is finished coming in.

Calling people names when they don't agree with you is not cool. Did the OP call you a name for pre-judging the case from the start, even before you knew the evidence?

[billh58]

59. Yeah, we get it

that you're an NRA-apologist, an ardent supporter of SYG, and rooting for your vigilante hero Zimmerman to be exonerated for murdering an innocent victim.

Calling people names that they deserve is very cool, but I honestly can't think of one vile enough to call you for your support of a scumbag such as Zimmerman.

Now go stroke a gun for luck...

[CatWoman]

61. +1000

[bravenak]

86. + a billion.

This is bizarre.

[Dawgs]

184. ^^ THIS ^^

"Carrying a lethal weapon in public, stalking a victim, provoking a confrontation, acting like a vigilante, and then claiming self-defense is a right-wing coward's view of "justice.""

Thank you!

[DeschutesRiver]

24. Prepare to be shocked when the verdict comes in, is all I can say. nt

[Arugula Latte]

26. FAIL.

Zimmerman should be thrown in prison for the rest of his life.

[opiate69]

29. Well... I suppose...

I suppose in some circles it's safe to say..


Around here, though, not so much.

[Anansi1171]

31. As a ranter this is a sad Freeper Fail! Begone troll!-NT

[yardwork]

32. Pathetic.

[Renew Deal]

33. From watching CNN it seems so

I have only followed the case on the internets, but I watched 10 minutes on CNN. Mark Geragos and some other lawyers are there making the case that Zimmerman cannot be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Toobin was there too saying it was unlikely.

[Jamastiene]

186. They also called it that Casey Anthony would be found 100% unanimously guilty.

We see how right they were about that outcome.

[GoneFishin]

35. Baloney.

[elehhhhna]

37. hunt kid down, shoot him

yeah. open and shut. not guilty. you've convinced me.





























jerk

[pnwmom]

39. I think he was guilty but the police made deliberate choices to shelter him.

They let Zimmerman wander around the police station, not in handcuffs. They let him go home after a few hours, still wearing the clothes he was wearing while he killed Martin. They failed to secure the crime scene. They waited for weeks before interviewing witnesses.

The only reason the "evidence" might not prove his guilt is because the police didn't bother to collect it till it was too late.

I wish they'd charged him with manslaughter, or even criminal negligence, instead of murder; I think they would have had a better chance of winning that case.

But no way in hell do I believe that dying young black man said, "Oh gosh, you me, you got me" and sat up after he'd taken a bullet through the heart. That was just one more part of Zimmerman's made up story.

[Lex]

48. Thanks for the laugh. nt

[Demo_Chris]

52. WTF? I think you forgot the sarcasm tag. nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

60. THE CASE BECAME A CONCRETE ONE THE MOMENT HE PULLED THE TRIGGER.

It just wasn't a Second Degree Murder case.

[HipChick]

63. What a bunch of Bollocks..he's a child killer..

[Apophis]

67. Oh FFS.

[CatWoman]

69. Ollie, Ollie Oxen Free

come out Big D, wherever you are.


You posted this filth.

Have the good "manners" to discuss it.

[treestar]

75. It is highly controversial and silly to pretend it's safe to conclude anything

The first thing that happened was that Zimmerman got out of his car. Without his having done that, nothing would have happened, other than the police possibly confronting Trayvon Martin, but as professionals, they would have been more likely to let him go about his business.

We heard Zimmerman's words regarding "fuckin' punks." We know what his attitude was going into the confrontation.

It's not unbelievable to think Zimmerman's attitude continued in the same vein and that he didn't approach Trayvon Martin in a friendly manner.

[99Forever]

79. Horseshit.

He is a murdering scumbag and anyone who supports the murdering scumbag is just as bad as he is. Period.

[stevenleser]

83. Nice hit and run OP... not. nt

[Lex]

84. it's cowardly

like Zimmerman

[Skittles]

90. like all gun humpers

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

87. Trashing this very racist thread. Welcome to IGNORE. Enjoy replying to yourself.

[Skittles]

88. UTTER BULLSHIT

[bravenak]

93. Yoo Hoo! Where are u?

I really want to know if you'd say the same thing to your wife if it were your child. I'm serious.
Would you tell your wife, " sorry our kid's dead honey, but he was asking for it"? I see you start a thread and then leave. I glad no ones rec'd this crap.

[BainsBane]

98. Hey, I recognize you

[RetroLounge]

99. Another gun humper fail

RL

[WilliamPitt]

102. Dafuq?

[lumpy]

103. Another reliable witness claims she witnessed the person on top, during

the struggle on the ground, and that same person get off the victim after the shooting, walk away hand on head. I hardly believe Martin was in any condition to do so. I believe one of the male witnesses has recanted one of his claims.
One is assuming that you don't know what all happened either. No matter, there is no reason in hell that there should not have been a trial; no one should go free on a killer's testimony alone. It was unbelievable that Zimmerman was going to be let go without a thorough examining of the facts.

[arely staircase]

111. didn't look to good for him today nt

[Rex]

112. Kewl story bro!

[Marrah_G]

115. Off to ignore you go

disgusting

[spanone]

122. it's not safe to say it's now safe to say.

[Calista241]

124. Zimmerman may be guilty....

But the prosecution doesn't seem to be able to prove it.

[HangOnKids]

143. The Results Are In? If Not

Then this is just your opinion. Thanks for chiming in.

[Enrique]

128. hey Big D

[HolyMoley]

129. Bullshit talks, Zimmerman walks.

Barring some shocking revelation by the prosecution (and they've already blown their load on that), or a serious fumble by the defense, Zimerman should be acquitted of 2nd degree murder charges, and rightfully so.

Being found guilty on the lesser charge of manslaughter, is still very much in the cards.

If the defense plays that card right, they could beat that also.
But, I'm skeptical if that will happen.

[BellaKos]

131. No *reasonable* defense

The Physician's Assistant testified that she was aware that Zimmerman was taking MMA classes three times a week at the time of the incident.
Soooooo ....
If we should believe Z's rendition, when is it reasonable to defend yourself from attack by lying on the ground screaming for help and not fighting back in any way short of using a gun?
And if we should attribute the most sinister of motives to Zimmerman, isn't it quite reasonable to believe that Z was quite aware of the legal reasons for self-defense and, therefore, had his "defense" in mind if he were attacked while on Neighborhood Watch? In other words, he would have known beforehand that if he should lay passively on the ground while screaming for help, he could plead self-defense under the law if attacked and then kill the "f%#kin' punks" with impunity.
Bottom line: Shooting an unarmed teenager in response to any perceived threat is unreasonable. And especially, if you're in your twenties and weigh over 200 pounds and have been taking MMA classes three times a week at the time.

[LittleBlue]

145. The videos today didn't help either

No significant contradictions.

I'll be honest and say that if I were on that jury, I'd be having some pretty big reasonable doubts right now. And I already thought he was guilty as hell before the trial started.

The prosecution's case is bordering on farcical. If they hadn't shown the prosecutor, I'd assume these were witnesses for the defense trying to prove his story is consistent. The female officer saying God wouldn't blame him for killing Trayvon took the cake.

[marshall]

165. They were forced to take a case they couldn't win

In effect their hands are tied. Police initially weren't even going to press charges, and now we know why. The rumor mill created evidence that made it seem like he was guilty, and the public bought it.

[Azathoth]

146. Uh-oh

[AgingAmerican]

148. Zimmerman is in front of a jury of his peers

not a jury of cops.

[HiPointDem]

150. it's not a bit clear.

[Rosco T.]

160. He STALKED and SHOT and KILLED an UNARMED MAN.

yeah, no case at all.

Bullshit.

[Sancho]

164. I would convict him of manslaughter, even with the evidence presented (maybe murder too)...

I've been watching the trial, and it's clear that GZ was following or chasing TM. He had a gun with the safety off.

Even though it's likely that GZ confronted TM who was fighting for his life, that may never be proven. With tapes of cars driving past the clubhouse, phone call time lines, etc..it might be proven that GZ was in fact following TM. If so, that's enough for me.

If GZ was committing any other crime (stalking?) and a death results, that could rise to a murder charge in some circumstances.

In Sanford, I suspect a jury would let GZ go even if the case were solid. Getting a conviction with a white, rural jury in those small towns would be almost impossible.

[naaman fletcher]

220. He had a gun with the safety off.

That's not true. The gun did not have a safety.

[NCTraveler]

173. What is lost on many...

Is that this is not a trial of right or wrong. This is not a trial of how things should be. This is a trial with respect to Florida law. The debate is about those things, the trial is not. Our stand your ground law is fucked up. Many fought against its implementation, even here on du. It was fought against because of just this situation. This is the hypothetical that was given over and over again by those fighting against the law. During that fight, people trying to stop this law would give just this circumstance, saying it would make this horrible situation legal. Their concerns have come to fruition.

Florida is a wonderful place. With that, we have a lot of work to do. Many of our politicians make our system as a whole uncivilized.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

174. Let's start with the ultimate fact and then move backwards: Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon.

That ultimate fact is initial prima facia proof that Zimmerman is guilty of an illegal homicide.

Now, with that prima facia proof put forward, the defense must provide some proof that Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force in the context of self-defense. Mind you, it doesn't have to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but it still has to be some evidentiary proof.

If sufficient evidence of self-defense is put forward, the state can still come back and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense of self-defense does not actually apply in the situation. For example, adequate provocation.

Now let's go back to the evening at question.

George Zimmerman, from the comfort of his car, sees Trayvon Martin, assumes from the way he's walking that he's "up to no good" and that "he's on drugs or something." He calls police, knows that police will likely come in response to his call, and says, "These assholes always get away." He claims Trayvon starts running, and then gets out of the car, knowing police are coming and knowing that he has gun on his waist.

Notably, both Zimmerman and Rachel Jeantel agrees on one thing and one thing only: Zimmerman followed and then lost Trayvon.

Zimmerman's story was that he was "ambushed"--that Trayvon came out of nowhere when Zimmerman was supposedly returning to his car, asks if had a problem and then immediately punches him, knocks him to the ground, smothers his face, bashes his head into concrete repeatedly, to the point where Zimmerman thought he might black out and thus has no choice but to shoot Trayvon.

While it's not clear as to Trayvon's exact path after he lost him--if he slowed down, if he hid out--it would make no logical sense that someone who is being followed by a stranger for reasons unknown (and if Rachel Jeantel's testimony is taken as true, Trayvon could have thought he was a sexual predator) to lose that person, escape the zone of danger, and then decide to go back and ambush the strange person who had been chasing him for unknown reasons, thus placing himself back in the danger that he just sought to escape.

It doesn't make any logical sense. It contradicts basic, innate human behavior.

Then you have Zimmerman saying he was only looking for a street address, in his community of 3 streets that he's lived for 3 years.

Then you have Zimmerman claiming his mouth was being smothered by Trayvon yet he was supposedly also the person very clearly crying for help up until the gunshot was heard on the 911 tape.

Then you have Zimmerman claiming his head was bashed into concrete repeatedly, yet the only injuries he had to show was a bloody nose and two small abrasions to the head. And he refused to go to a hospital for these injuries.

The bottom line is that Zimmerman's story of self-defense and ambush has some serious, serious, serious logical flaws and inconsistencies in in. The proof is already there and undisputed that Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon. If Zimmerman can put forth a colorable and believable self-defense claim, he's going to jail for quite a while, whether it be for 2nd Degree Murder or the lesser included charge, manslaughter.

[JustAnotherGen]

181. I think

There are just a handful of people here that are saying things don't make sense.

I have a list of now 8 things that don't make sense. That make me think Zimmerman is really painting himself into a corner. It was 7 before I read your post.


Number 8 is -

If someone is 'smothering' you -then how precisely does one let out a bloody scream?

That does NOT make sense.

[Deep13]

176. Was he aquitted? nt

[loyalsister]

179. Only if you're on the jury

I think most of our verdicts are our pretty much old news. I know I was pretty quick to decide and I think my initial are perception has been confirmed.

[OwnedByCats]

185. What the hell??

Has everybody lost their fucking minds?? Who was present for this incidence? NONE of you. Who here knew Trayvon and knows George? NONE of you. All we really know is what has come out in court, but we have people assuming shit all over the place and have done from the very beginning! But those of us who refuse to assume shit to fit a certain narrative are racist?? Really?? Give me a break!

I'm sick to death of people who most likely have no racist bone in their body being accused of being racist because they haven't seen the prosecution deliver YET. Why are some of you so hell bent to prove you're not racist by presuming shit about this case and accusing others of being racist just because they don't agree with your presumptions??

It's just like every time a black person gets the short end of the stick it HAS to be racist? No, it doesn't always mean that. White people get the short end of the stick too sometimes, is that racist?

We had come a long way in this country since the sixties - we have a black President for goodness sake! Why is everyone so hell bent to cause racial tensions even amongst people who aren't racist to begin with? Some of you seem to have forgotten what message board you're on. Go to freeperville and talk that shit, why do it here just because you can't agree on every little thing?!

Maybe my anger at this stems from my teenage years. My cousin who is several years younger than me is half black. When I babysat her in my teens she was a brat. Not because she was black, but because she was a KID. So I would scold her and you know what she said to me one time? "You don't like me because I'm black". I have no idea where she would get this notion but I told her to NEVER say that to me again and I would have her know that all of my white cousins misbehaved too (sometimes even worse!) and I scolded them also - so does that mean I don't like them because they're white? I don't care if you're purple, if you have a tantrum with me because I won't allow you to do what you shouldn't do, I'm not going to be happy about it. It's the behavior, not the skin color.

Racism is wrong, but so is pegging people as racist just because you don't agree. Unless people on this site say the N word or admit they have racial issues (which I'm sure they'd be banned in short order anyway) don't presume someone is racist because you don't agree about this case. You don't know these people and it's hurtful to be accused of such a horrible thing when it's not true.

[CatWoman]

197. feel better?

[OwnedByCats]

228. I'm fine, but if you're someone who

thinks it's ok to accuse people of being racist just because they refuse to assume things about an event they weren't even present for, then you're the one with a huge problem.

[billh58]

208. Kind of like you

are assuming that Zimmerman did NOT profile Trayvon because of his race, in a state well known for widespread and overt racism?

[OwnedByCats]

225. I haven't ASSUMED anything

Since I don't know the man (and not being telepathic) and I wasn't a witness to the incident, I assume nothing.

Nice try though.

[WinkyDink]

213. What I find interesting are the posters who think like you. Same old, same old.

[OwnedByCats]

226. Who think like me?

You don't even know me sunshine, but I can't expect anything else from posters like you who see nothing wrong with thinking you know the story when all you know is what you've "heard" in the corrupt MSM. You weren't there so you don't have a clue.

Yeah, Zimmerman could be a dirtbag racist, but he also may not be. You or I do not know that for a FACT.

Assuming is dangerous in all aspects of life.

[LanternWaste]

240. Much as when Zimmerman assumed he could get away with financial fraud.

"Assuming is dangerous in all aspects of life..."

Much as when Zimmerman assumed he could get away with financial fraud...

[apples and oranges]

235. I've noticed a lot of Z defenders are doing so due to personal experiences

that have nothing to do with the case. I'm sorry your cousin accused you of racism, although it appears that you have a chip on your shoulder that could be interpreted as such. Either way, your past has nothing to do with what happened with Z and TM.

[jpak]

188. Zimmerman hunted down an unarmed law-abiding kid and shot him - dead

Douchebaggery fail.

yup

[allin99]

195. It's a sad day when you can't walk to a friend's house...

without being stalked and killed by a wanna be cop with a gun and it be totally legal on top of that.

[roamer65]

206. Even if he is found innocent of criminal charges...

he more than likely will have to go through a civil case. He'll probably be found criminally innocent, but civilly liable...much like OJ Simpson.

[WinkyDink]

209. "You were not there." Neither were the jurors. Duh. And we are watching the same trial they are.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

211. huh? that is the stupidest thing I ever heard

the guy stalked and killed a young, unarmed black man simply for being black. He deserves jail or worse.

[shawn703]

212. There was testimony devastating to GZ's case today

If you were paying attention. Has to do with his credibility, saying he had no knowledge of SYG laws in an interview when it was proven that he did in fact have that knowledge

[AverageJoe90]

214. I'm sorry to say that you have been completely fooled by all the bullshit out there.

Whether you like it or not, pretty much all of the legitimate evidence points to Zimmerman's guilt.....and there is an overwhelming amount of it, too. If this man goes free, then justice will have failed the American people just like what happened with Rodney King back in '92.

[ChiciB1]

217. BigD... I Give You A BigF...

I'm not even going to try to argue with you. I was just SHOCKED when I saw this thread!

[CTyankee]

224. sad to say, I am no longer shocked. There are people here on DU who desperately want to

dismiss the existence of vigilantism. It seems to be part of their ideology. I happen to believe that vigilantism is far more likely to happen when a country is awash in guns and the fear that the gummint is coming to take away their freedom. To me, that fear flies in the face of reason and experience in other advanced nations who are free and have constitutional democracies but which also restrict guns.

[Th1onein]

227. You are wrong. Dead ass wrong, in fact.

First of all, you need to stop spouting "reasonable doubt." It does NOT apply in this case, in terms of the prosecution. Zimmerman has asserted an affirmative defense--self defense. This means that he is admitting that he killed Trayvon Martin but asserting that he had good reason (self defense) to do so. It also means that he now has the burden of proof to show by clear and convincing evidence, or a preponderance of the evidence (don't remember which) that he was acting in self defense when he killed Trayvon Martin.

And by the way, the adage is that ten guilty men should go free before one innocent man is convicted. Not 100.

[Shrek]

237. With an affirmative defense, reasonable doubt DOES apply to the prosecution

http://www.ohio.com/blogs/akron-law-cafe/akron-law-caf%C3%A9-1.295890/zimmerman-s-low-burden-of-proof-on-the-issue-of-self-defense-1.297239

On April 1, 2012, the Florida Bar News published proposed amendments to the Standard Jury Instructions. The proposed amendment to Instruction 3.6(f) would strengthen this language to clarify that the jury may convict the defendant only if it finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense. The proposed amendment adds the underlined phrase to the charge to the jury:

If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty. However, if from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

The bottom line is that Zimmerman cannot be convicted of murder or manslaughter unless the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense.

[Th1onein]

238. This is a PROPOSED amendment. You are aware of that?

[Shrek]

241. According to the article, the proposal is just a clarification of existing language

It isn't substantively different:

If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.

[BlueStreak]

229. There was never a case for MURDER II, but my understnading of FL law

is that prosecutors don't have to enumerate the lesser charges. The judge can give instructions to the jury about an aggravated manslaughter charge, which is what Zimmerman should be convicted of.

We should all just chill until we see how the system works. I expect he will be convicted of aggravated manslaughter.

[B Calm]

232. Armed man shoots unarmed man = MURDER

CASE CLOSED!

[apples and oranges]

234. Whether he is a racist or not is irrelevant. He still stalked and killed an unarmed teen

It's not likely that he would have called the police, followed, or killed a white teen.

Furthermore, for every witness that said TM was on top, 2 more said it was Z on top.

I can tell from your post that you think Z should have never been detained or asked any questions, much less tried in court. You are probably the most vile Z defender I've seen here.

[LanternWaste]

239. Were that the case, it does seem to beg the question

"there was never a case against Zimmerman..."

Were that the case, it does seem to beg the question: why then did Zimmerman in fact, commit perjury during a court hearing regarding his financial transactions?

[NaturalHigh]

242. I don't think there is any doubt that charge were filed...

only because of public and political pressure. However, I don't know if I would say that there was never a case against Zimmerman. Yes, I think he should and will be acquitted (based on what I've seen to this point), but this was never going to be resolved without a trial.

The sad part of all this is the mob mentality that insisted that Zimmerman was guilty from the very beginning without waiting for (or caring about) the facts.