There is REASONABLE doubt about Zimmerman's guilt....According to "Stand Your Ground"

[da_decider]

I think something stinks deep in Sanford police department and Zimmerman should have been arrested and charged with "something", very long time ago. Having said that, before the shooting, Zimmerman tells the dispatcher that Trayvon was approaching him. And I think I believe Zimmerman; I don't think he had the presence of mind to lie before the shooting; even if he did, claiming that he lied is the same as saying Zimmerman is a psychopath and this was a premeditated murder which is hardly believable. Psychopaths kill and hide and kill again.
I think Trayvon neared Zimmerman an asked him why he was following him; Zimmerman asked him to show him what was inside his bag and wait for cops to arrive; Trayvon told him to Eff off; there was an altercation and Zimmerman got his ass kicked by the kid. He got angry and shot the kid.
But these are all speculations; the fast is: according to "Stand your Ground" there is sufficient doubt about Zimmerman's guilt. Zimmerman did not kill Trayvon, "stand your ground" did. NRA and ALEC crooked lobbyists killed Trayvon.

[Iggo]

1. And there's REASONABLE suspicion...

...of his guilt, too.

[Solomon]

5. Lol. this just kills me. if you stalk and get in somebody's

way, they have to be coming toward you.

[da_decider]

6. For him to found guilty, there should be "NO REASONABLE DOUBT".

Reasonable suspicion means nothing.
He said he was being approached by Trayvon, at that point, and according to barbaric law of "Stand Your Ground", Zimmerman "might" have had a right to shoot. Who knows what exactly happened? Who threw the first punch?
I like for Zimmerman to rot in jail, but we should focus on getting rid of "Stand Your Ground"; because as long as this barbaric law exists innocent people keep getting killed.

[Iggo]

18. For him to be found guilty or not guilty...

...he has to be arrested and then put on trial.

If you don't like the words reasonable suspicion, try the words probable cause on for size. Do you think there wasn't or isn't enough probable cause to believe poor Mr Zimmerman committed a crime?

[DCBob]

26. +1

some people just dont get it.. or refuse to get it.

[CreekDog]

43. to conclude that without knowing all the evidence and without a trial is ridiculous

[sendero]

48. Zimmerman initiated the entire fiasco.

... so by definition, only Martin could be standing his ground.

[csziggy]

52. According to the recording of Zimmerman's call, Trayvon approached, then RAN AWAY

If Zimmerman was in fear, why didn't he tell the dispatcher that? Why did he leave his vehicle and follow Trayvon?

Zimmerman's own words and own actions do NOT show that he was in fear of his safety. Zimmerman left his vehicle and went a significant distance off the roadway to follow Trayvon. His actions seem to show that he was hunting Trayvon, seeking out a confrontation. "Stand Your Ground" was never intended to allow predator behavior by self appointed neighborhood vigilantes.

The police are using the "Stand Your Ground" law to avoid investigating homicides and that law needs to go. But Zimmerman's OWN ACTIONS invalidate his use of that law for his defense.

[NutmegYankee]

2. No, he was running away after that comment

Zimmerman: "A dark hoodie, grey hoodie, jeans or sweatpants or white shoes. He's walking around staring at the houses. Now he's just staring at me."

Dispatcher: "Location?"

Zimmerman: "He's near the clubhouse right now. Now he's coming towards me. He has his hands in his waistband. He is a black male. Something's wrong with him. Yep. He's coming to check me out. He's got something in his hands. I don't know what his deal is. Send officers over here."

Dispatcher: "Let me know if he does anything else."

Zimmerman: "These a**holes, they always get away. When you come in go straight to the left ... when you pass the clubhouse ..."

Dispatcher: "Clubhouse?"

Zimmerman: "Go straight in. Oh, s***. He's running ... down towards the other entrance of neighborhood."

Dispatcher: "He's running? Which way is he running?"

Zimmerman: "Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood."

Dispatcher: "Which entrance is that, that he is running towards?

Zimmerman: "The back entrance."

[Solomon]

10. If you imagine you are Martin as you read that transcript

its chilling. Up to now I had been reading it from Zimmerman's head. But get inside Trayvon's head, you can see what happened. And it just chills you to the bone.

[Incitatus]

14. Zimmerman: "Go straight in. Oh, s***. He's running ... down towards the other entrance of neighborho

That doesn't sound like he was running toward Zimmerman.

[SidDithers]

24. I wonder if he started running away...

when he saw Zimmerman had a gun pointed at him.

Sid

[Lint Head]

3. Correct. You are speculating. On the other hand other people are mad because of what is on the

9-11 call and the fact that Trayvon was unarmed. Even a police officer is instructed not to shoot someone who cannot used deadly force against them. The lawyer press conference will be interesting. If Zimmerman had been arrested as he should have a lot of things would have been cleared up long ago. Considering the Sandford Police department has a history of covering up for their own and Zimmerman's father is a Judge I smell a rat. And that is my speculation.

[PotatoChip]

30. Zimmerman's father is a judge?

I was previously unaware of that. Makes this whole horrid incident all that more uhm, interesting.

And I'll just leave it at that for now.

[X_Digger]

41. Reports say that he is a retired Virginia Magistrate, yes.

It may not mean that he's in a position to pull any strings, but I bet Zimmerman has been coached with exactly what to say.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

4. "And I think I believe Zimmerman"

Great. Against all logic and rationality, you've chosen to believe the guy in hiding. Thank you for coming out and saying it.

[da_decider]

11. Was he lying before shooting?

Think about it; if he was lying to dispatcher even before this "incident", you are implying that he was planning to kill way ahead, that he was a psychopath. Psychopaths kill and hide and kill again and hide again...
Zimmerman was just an old fashioned racist who was trying to teach the black kid a lesson, but got his ass kicked and retaliated by shooting.
All I am saying is, according to "Stand Your Ground", I doubt Zimmerman will be found guilty. We need to go after "Stand Your Ground".

[abelenkpe]

15. Yeah

I think your a gun nutty troll and out of your mind to be here making justifications for an insane racist murderer.

[da_decider]

16. Justification?

You are either a liar or unable to read. Where did I justify what Zimmerman did?

[Iggo]

19. At the old DU I used to post things like that.

I'd say "You're either an idiot or an asshole". Those posts were invariably deleted by the mods.

Welcome to the new DU.

[obamanut2012]

22. lol

I would vote to let it stand, Iggo!

[Iggo]

27. ty

[CatWoman]

37. lol

as would I

[Iggo]

33. u mad bro?

[Iggo]

35. Cat got your tongue?

Suicide-By-MIRT not going according to plan? I mean Jeez! What's a guy gotta do to get banned up in this pad, am I right?

[Iggo]

46. Okay then. Have a nice day.

[L0oniX]

38. Indeed ...the SYG law is the real problem and that's where the focus should be now.

Since the sheriff "temporarily" stepped down I could assume that he thinks that he is better off letting someone take over and others with more authority "possibly" come to the same conclusion as he did in not arresting Zim. There's no way IMO that any case could proceed now since there is no blood or other crime scene evidence to gather. If there were a case it IMO could only be won against Zim over the issue of who started the confrontation. If it weren't for the SYG law Zim would have been arrested and IMO convicted of at least manslaughter.

[X_Digger]

42. I doubt it..

Had there been no SYG, Zimmerman (or his cop buddies) would have claimed that he tried to retreat and couldn't safely do so.

[da_decider]

44. agreed

Agreed, "Stand Your Ground" must be our focus.

And your signature is awesome by the way!

[Sancho]

7. The reason for all these shootings is easy access to guns!!

No one should have a gun without lots of training and background checks. A permit should only allow guns to be carried in specific circumstances. There are way too many guns in the hands of immature, mentally ill, emotional, and criminal hands.

If you can be arrested and charged with manslaughter for drinking a beer and getting in a car wreck, it makes no sense you can legally carry guns to school, while stalking people in a gated community, or any number of seriously stupid situations.

Don't bother guns nuts - I grew up hunting and decades ago I was a member of the NRA. I have learned the hard way and I've seen the light. Your right to have a gun requires serious permits and restrictions in my view.

Zimmerman's father was a judge. Chances are the cops knew him. At any rate, he should be charged for simply creating the situation. It was reckless. If it wasn't murder, it should be manslaughter.

[Johnny Rico]

25. You can certainly argue for much tighter restrictions on gun ownership.

And on this forum, you'll have a friendly audience for such views (unless you go to the Gungeon... ). But the fact remains that gun control hasn't been less popular in living memory.

Record-Low 26% in U.S. Favor Handgun Ban



No serious effort to curb gun ownership will made for the foreseeable future.

[CTyankee]

45. dear me, this poll doesn't really ask about reasonable regulations of guns, does it?

"ban possession" is all it is asking.

Or did you leave "that part" out?

[apocalypsehow]

49. It's the same old tired poll posted time and time again, and it proves nothing. The fact of the

matter, of course, is that as the demographics of the United States continues to change, the Bluer the country is becoming. Within half a generation, perhaps more, perhaps less, the Democratic party will be ascendant, the GOP will become a permanent minority party, or perhaps even go the way of the Whigs.

When that happens, meaningful regulation of guns, particularly handguns, will start getting a fair hearing. The people who are "pro gun rights" - odd how they ascribe an inherently human notion to an inanimate object - are simply on the wrong side of history. They are already an minority when it comes to the actual viewpoints most people hold; within twenty, twenty five years their notions about "gun rights" will be properly assigned to the dustbin of history.

Meaningful regulation of firearms is coming, and our "pro gun rights" friends had better brace themselves for it.


Edit: typo.

[CTyankee]

50. It's interesting. The poster hasn't even bothered to respond. Kinda crazy if you want to win a

debate, isn't it?

I hope you are right. I am in despair that you are not.

If I could I would live in Western Europe, with that european style socialism and heavy gun control. When I travel in Europe I feel very safe and happy that no shooter is going to blast me out of the Tuileries Garden or the Piazza Navone, or the Prado...

[Johnny Rico]

53. Y'know, some of us do have lives outside of DU...

I was busy for a day.

dear me, this poll doesn't really ask about reasonable regulations of guns, does it?

No it doesn't, since that's not the point of the poll. In any case, you'd have to define "reasonable" in this context. I suspect you and I would disagree on that...

Let's speculate: given that support for banning handguns has dropped by more than half in the last 53 years (as per the poll), do you think support for gun control in general has also dropped over that period of time?

Hey...here's something informative on that subject! You probably think (I just guessing mind you) that "assault weapons" should be banned as part of "reasonable" gun control. Here's the data on support for that position:



Hm...looks like support for banning "assault weapons" has dropped substantially. It was 57% to 42% for in 1996, but is now 53% to 43% against. How about that!

I hope you are right. I am in despair that you are not.

They almost certainly are not right. I don't recommend despair, though...overall gun violence in the Unites States has been going nowhere but down for the last 20 years, just as firearm sales are skyrocketing. Go figure...

[CTyankee]

55. I guess anyone can cherry pick any poll they want. I've seen support for regulation going up

in some polls. I will agree that our tolerance for gun violence in this country has probably gone up since the gun lobby has had the money and the power to overcome what I believe are reasonable controls and regulations on guns. If your perspective is just limited to your own "backyard" so to speak, if you don't see the world thru a larger lens, then I can see (altho I don't agree with) your perspective. Lest you suspect I am ignorant about the gun culture of this country, I hasten to assure you that I am a 3rd generation Texan, born and raised (until I mercifully escaped to the Northeast for college) in Dallas. Hell, we even had a neighbor who shot and killed her philandering husband in their driveway and my mother was interviewed by police about the incident. A culture of having/owning guns was not alien to my personal history...

I have a different perspective. I prefer to live differently. If I could, I would probably live six months of the year in Europe and the other six months in New York City (flying directly to L.A. to visit grandson a couple of times a year). My ideal living in Europe would have me not owning a car, moving about on bus and train, spending my days in art museums, small markets to pick up fresh food for the evening meal, stopping in coffee shops to schmooze with friends. I would prefer to experience other cultures, other histories, and their present realities. As you might guess, I am retired, after a full life of work and raising a family.

I went into NYClast Friday and was shocked at the old and shabby condition of the train I was riding. While passing thru lower Fairfield County (one of the richest counties...Greenwich is there...in the country) I saw a lean-to encampment by the tracks, with an American flag put up to shield the view of train passengers for whoever was living there. I wish I could have taken a picture of it with my cell phone. That spoke volumes to me about what is happening here in the U.S.A.

[Johnny Rico]

57. You asked for documentation. I provided it. Where's *your* documentation?

I've seen support for regulation going up in some polls.

Ok...let's see them!

I will agree that our tolerance for gun violence in this country has probably gone up since the gun lobby has had the money and the power to overcome

Ah, so you characterize disagreeing with gun control as "tolerance for gun violence". Convenient labeling, that.

what I believe are reasonable controls and regulations on guns.

Details, please. What "reasonable" controls and regulations are you advocating?

If your perspective is just limited to your own "backyard" so to speak, if you don't see the world thru a larger lens, then I can see (altho I don't agree with) your perspective.

I've been to over a dozen countries. I'm quite aware of the world at large, I assure you.

Lest you suspect I am ignorant about the gun culture of this country, I hasten to assure you that I am a 3rd generation Texan, born and raised (until I mercifully escaped to the Northeast for college) in Dallas. Hell, we even had a neighbor who shot and killed her philandering husband in their driveway and my mother was interviewed by police about the incident. A culture of having/owning guns was not alien to my personal history...

The term "gun culture" as used in the United States doesn't refer to having neighbors who shoot each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_culture#Present-day_gun_culture_in_the_United_States

Erik Luna, Associate Professor at the University of Utah College of Law, describes the differences between a "pro-gun culture" and an "anti-gun culture" in the United States[3] and describes some traits of a "pro-gun culture" as follows:

They share a belief that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution enumerates an individual right, (as further elaborated by Justice Antonin Scalia of the SCOTUS). Generally they see people as trustworthy and believe that citizens should not be prevented from having guns unless they have done something to show that they are not to be trusted with them.
They share a belief that guns provide some level of protection against criminality and tyranny. This ranges from a feeling that it is good to have a gun around the house for self-protection, to an active distrust of government and a belief that widespread gun ownership is protection against tyranny.
They are generally responsible with respect to firearms handling. They have an awareness (or internalization) of either Jeff Cooper's Four Rules or the NRA's Three Rules, providing for safe handling of guns and try to abide by them when handling firearms.
They support, widely and in principle, the gun rights associated with hunting and other outdoor sports activities, although these activities are not always practiced by all within the gun culture. Some members of the gun culture remain avid collectors and shooters but this is not universal.

I have a different perspective. I prefer to live differently.

Who's stopping you?

[CTyankee]

60. we are not going to agree no matter how many polls we put up.

There was one put up just a couple of days ago where there were more people who believed in an individual's right to own a gun, rather than a militia right. However, when I went to the link I found the rest of the poll. It showed a different outcome when the question was more regulation of guns. Since SCOTUS has ruled on the gun ownership issue (wrongly, I believe) I can see how the public would respond in the way it did to that poll. And the lobbying and the power of the NRA and the right wing in this country has vast, deep pockets and people who carry the message with messianic fervor. Just because the bullhorn is loud, it doesn't make it right in my perspective.

I do live differently where I can. I support progressive candidates for office. I think the proliferation of guns in our society is a bad thing. So we disagree. I have no doubt that you believe all the attributes that prof. luna describes. I think it's a crock.

You can have guns for sports and hunting AND regulations. I have mentioned Switzerland and Norway as examples. Of course, there are aberrant incidences but they are very few, whereas in the U.S. we see gun incidents, large and small, taking place every day.

[Johnny Rico]

61. Polls that "we" put up? As far as I can tell, I'm the only one who's provided documentation.

Since SCOTUS has ruled on the gun ownership issue (wrongly, I believe) I can see how the public would respond in the way it did to that poll.

The trend of the public being increasingly against gun control goes back for decades.

You can have guns for sports and hunting AND regulations.

We have plenty of regulations already. Trust me when I say that when I recently purchased a silencer I had to go through a lot of paperwork.

You can also have guns for self defense and concealed carry...yes?

[CTyankee]

62. And I referenced another Gallup poll that said something different in terms of public support of

regulations. It was put up just a few days ago here on DU. If I spend time finding polls or research that agrees with me, you will say it is biased or that you don't believe it is true. We could keep doing this forever, but I am not as invested in this as you may be.

As I have said, your side has a vast, powerful lobby of extremely RW forces. They have a bigger bullhorn to sway people and surprise, surprise they were successful.

Your idea of sensible regulation and mine are just going to be very different. If you want a kind of law that says you can have guns but must keep them locked up and you can't carry them around, concealed or not, and provides for strict enforcement of those laws. AND an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that is very different from the one we have now by decree of SCOTUS (with its
RW coterie in the majority thanks to Republican presidents) we might have some areas of agreement. But until then, forget it.

[Johnny Rico]

63. Saying that it exists isn't documentation. Link, please.

If you want a kind of law that says you can have guns but must keep them locked up and you can't carry them around, concealed or not,

So much for self-defense.

But until then, forget it.

We'll just have to agree to disagree; neither of us is going to persuade the other at this point, in spite of the provided (or, in your case, unprovided) documentation.

[CTyankee]

65. I've been down this road before with other gun supporters and it always ends up

with a lot of research only to have the other side say they don't trust your sources. And that is why "provided documentation" will end up useless. I just provided documentation with my own reply to your documentation that I think it is a crock. But you'd say the same about what I'd dig up so what is the point?

Believe it or not, other countries that allow citizens the right to have guns for sports and hunting aren't very concerned about your idea of self defense. If they do carry their guns, they must prove that there is an allowable reason, such as taking them to be repaired. Dunno why they seem unconcerned about your concern...maybe because it works for them.

[Johnny Rico]

68. Good heavens, that's lame.

The only evidence you can provide to support your assertions is that you dismiss my evidence out of hand because you think it's "a crock". That may well be the weakest counter-argument I've ever seen!

But you'd say the same about what I'd dig up so what is the point?

And you know this, not having provided said evidence...how, exactly?

Believe it or not, other countries that allow citizens the right to have guns for sports and hunting aren't very concerned about your idea of self defense.

Other countries can have whatever policies they like.

[CTyankee]

71. You are boring me. Just as I thought.

[Johnny Rico]

72. And yet you took the time to post that for all to see...

[CTyankee]

73. I was so hoping...hoping...that this would go differently than the arguments from your side

that I usually encounter, with dreary repetition. But, alas, it was not to be. Perhaps you do not even realize this. I don't know. But I am just bored to tears by you and your confreres, with the mind numbing cant about guns and the photos of the hardware.....all, all seen so many times before and nothing new or interesting.

I can only put up with you for so long and then...then, adieu!

[Johnny Rico]

74. What exactly were you hoping would be different?

I provided citations, links, polls, data...and you didn't.

Are you going to provide some actual data supporting your assertions, or simply write another few sentences expressing how bored you are?

[CTyankee]

75. You provided me with the same old, same old. Been there. Seen that.

Please don't waste your time being tiresome.

I'm not really sorry that you don't like my fondness for european style gun control. It's so predictable. In fact, everything you say is predictable. I feel like I am watching paint dry with you.

[Johnny Rico]

76. If this is so tiresome and boring...why do you keep responding?

I'm not really sorry that you don't like my fondness for european style gun control.

Yes, someone who is in favor of American-style gun rights isn't fond of European-style gun control.

Stop the presses! Who could have seen that coming....?!

It's so predictable. In fact, everything you say is predictable. I feel like I am watching paint dry with you.

You must find at least a bit interesting...you're still here!

Your turn! C'mon, tell me how boring you find me....again! Maybe you could elaborate on how one can refute someone else's evidence by simply describing it as "a crock".

[CTyankee]

78. oh my goodness, and here I've been so NICE to you...

Why, I am just flustered at the very THOUGHT of it...I will just faint on my couch if you say anything more!

Your prof 's idea is still a crock. sorry.

you have become a caricature...

[X_Digger]

58. Here's one general poll on gun regulation..

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/Record-Low-Favor-Handgun-Ban.aspx





Generally, folks are happy with the laws we have, and would prefer to see them enforced better rather than having new ones.

[CTyankee]

66. I dissent. I want laws enforced and stronger laws.

[Johnny Rico]

69. Dissent away! The chance of significant gun control being passed at the national level is somewhere

between zip and squat...

[CTyankee]

70. what have i been trying to tell you, buddy?

[coalition_unwilling]

51. I would say that mandatory adminsitration of the MMPI should happen

before anyone is licensed to carry, so that you get a fix on potential socio- and psychopaths out there, as well as pathological narcissists like Zimmerman.

Ah well, one can dream, can't one?

[earthside]

9. There is probable cause for Zimmerman to be charged.

Of course, even Zimmerman is accorded the presumption of innocence in our 'legal' system.

And ... he must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to be convicted.

That being said, from what we know now there looks to be plenty of anecdotal 'evidence' to believe that Zimmerman murdered this poor kid.

[L0oniX]

39. "Zimmerman is accorded the presumption of innocence in our 'legal' system" ...the mob disagrees...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002458337

[uponit7771]

67. +1

[Incitatus]

12. If Trayvon's body was right next to Zimmermans truck, that might be an argument he could make.

But from what I understand and you can correct me if I'm wrong, the body was found a ways away from where he parked.

[X_Digger]

13. Self-defense claims have always hinged on 'reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm'

(Or some variation thereof, depending on state.)

And it's always been difficult to get probable cause when only one person is around to tell their side of the story. That's where the evidence at the scene, 911 tapes, witness reports, etc come into play.

But 'Stand you Ground' is no more implicated in this case than is the fifth amendment which says that the police have to be able to produce probable cause in order to arrest.

Absent SYG, Zimmerman would have simply claimed that he tried to retreat and was unable to do so. (Or that's what the police would have said that Zimmerman claimed.)

[DefenseLawyer]

17. That should be determined by a jury not a cop.

Period.

[obamanut2012]

20. No, Zimmerman approached him

Trayvon was walking home, and Zimmerman, with no legal standing, pursued the young man and, it appears, brandished, which is a felony.

[jwirr]

21. Z was in a car - Trayvon was possibly walking his way on his way home.

[MNBrewer]

23. The law may prevent justice, in this case

[eShirl]

28. good, then he should be eager to stand trial

[gkhouston]

29. Zimmerman clearly wanted interaction with and the approval of the police.

You're assuming that he would conceal the shooting so he could do the same thing again, as some sociopaths would. The problem is that he wants his actions to be seen and approved of. I'd say he killed both for the thrill of putting a "bad guy" in his place and also because he expects it will gain him entrance into the cop club. IMO, he is/will/would be outraged to have his actions questioned. To him, he's clearly done his community a favor and will have difficulty understanding what all the fuss is about.

[Hugabear]

34. So you're going to side with the RACIST LYING MURDERER

The man is a gun-toting racist vigilante. You really want to side with him?

[da_decider]

36. No

I want him to rot in jail but unfortunately, "Stand Your Ground" law is behind him. The fact is that no one actually knows what happened after Zimmerman hanged up. All Zimmerman needs are a couple of gun freak jurors who may believe his side of the story.
"Stand Your Ground" law needs to be repealed.

[Rex]

40. Impossible, someone had to pull the trigger

and it was the murderer Zimmerman that did so. He might not ever get arrested, but WE all know he is a murderer!

[da_decider]

47. Zimmerman is a murderer...

... but he'll probably walk or just do a couple of years, thanks to "Stand Your Ground" law.

[libertypirate]

54. I guess you don't see why his lawyers are already trying to throw

shit all over this to confuse the story.

It's "Stand your ground" not chase a stranger down and confront him.

[Ganja Ninja]

56. George Zimmerman made wrong decision after wrong decision after wrong decision that night.

First he assumes he has some kind of authority - He had none.

He assumes he should be carrying a loaded weapon on "neighborhood watch" - He should not have according to the handbook.

He assumes Trayvon is not where he should be - Trayvon had every right to be there.

He assumes Trayvon is on drugs - No drugs were found and police tests were negative.

He follows/stalks Trayvon even when the police tell him not to - He is armed and menacing Trayvon and everyone who lives in that complex.

He chases Trayvon, again the police told him not to do that - Trayvon at this point has good reason to fear for his safety.

He confronts Trayvon - Again he has no authority and is ignoring the neighborhood watch manual and the police request to not mess with Trayvon.

When Trayvon senses he is menaced by Zimmerman he turns, stands his ground, unarmed, and defends himself. - At this point Zimmerman is getting his ass kicked by an unarmed Trayvon.

He then makes the decision to pull out his handgun and kill an unarmed 17 year old that weighs 100 lbs less than him. - He uses deadly force against someone that is unarmed and merely defending himself without deadly force.

George Zimmerman is a coward and a dangerous idiot. He should have never been allowed to carry a gun. He killed an unarmed 17 year old boy who was just minding his own business. Zimmerman was not "standing his ground". Zimmerman was an armed menace to Trayvon Martin and everyone within range of his firearm. He is a perfect example of why concealed carry permits should not be passed out to just anyone.

[Life Long Dem]

59. I'm interested in location

Where was the location Zimmerman received his bloody nose? And what location was the body found? Was Trayvon retreating after the fight? Was Zimmerman upset about getting the bloody nose? Was this why he shot him? I'm interested in the time immediately after the scuffle. Did the body lay where the scuffle took place? Or was Trayvon walking away?

[Oilwellian]

64. The stupid

It hurts.

[DCBob]

77. Shouldnt a court of law decide that?

An unarmed teenager is shot dead. They have the killer and the weapon and there is conflicting information about the circumstances. I cannot imagine how a case like this does not go to court.