From the Miami Herald:

[John2]

210. Are you a lawyer?

Why do you think your interpretation of the law is correct and everybodyelse is wrong? In everyone of your rebuttals, you have jump to conclusions trying to support George Zimmerman. I don't see where you followed the law at all?

Number one: George Zimmerman does not have a right to just follow a teenager not breaking any laws at night. I don't know what country, that you think you live in?

Number two; everything depends on the intent of a person. The law is much more complex than just saying everyone has the right to be in a certain place. It depends on the intent. If George Zimmerman intended to be at a certain place because of Trayvon Martin, then it is stalking or harrassment. If he intended to be at a certain place to apprehend Trayvon Martin, that would make all the difference than just being at a certain place because you have a legal right to be there. I hope you understood that logic?

Trayvon Martin had the right to go to a 711 and buy a drink or skittles and return home without being stalked or harrassed by George Zimmerman. Are you following that logic, so far?

It becomes a provocation when George Zimmeran inteferes with that right because he is not a police officer. You still following the logic? He can be eyes and ears, but he does not have the right to pursue or hinder Trayvon Martin's right to go to the store and safely return home.

Trayvon Martin being a 17 year old kid had every right to become apprehensive of George Zimmerman when he stalked or even observed Martin from his vehicle, without identifying himself. Even if Martin tried to find out why Zimmerman was following, would make Martin even more apprehensive if Zimmerman still refused to identify himself.

That apprehension from a teenager can reasonably turn to fear of imminent danger from that person. The evidence shows exactly that. Trayvon Martin ran at first from Zimmerman. That is the part you conveniently leave out of your defense for Zimmerman in justfication of Martin's action. You conveniently jump to a conclusion Martin circled back and slugged Zimmerman. You have no such evidence of that except the word of George Zimmerman. Now who is inventing evidence?

The only thing that Jenteal stated was Martin saw Zimmerman again after losing him. Everything Jenteal says, supports Zimmerman caught up with Martin and attacked him by surprise. Including his cell phone abruptly falling to the wet grass and apparently losing connection. Why are you following me and get off me, supports it. The sounds of rolling in wet grass supports it. You still following me?

If Zimmerman is the aggressor, he never had a right to self defense, even if Martin was beating the crap out of him. The reason why is because Zimmerman followed Martin with a loaded gun, with the safety off. That puts you in imminent danger of your life. You can use whatever force you want, including breaking his nose or cracking his skull to fight him off. You still following me?

The bottomline is Zimmerman's life was never in danger despite his claims because it is unreasonable to believe so. He is full of shit and so are his supporters. Trayvon Martin's life was in imminent danger and the results proved it. Zimmerman resorted to no means of defending himself except with the gun he had already loaded and released the safety on it. He is guilty of cold blooded murder of a 17 year old boy period. A 17 year old boy, 42 pounds lighter, he claims was beating him to death. None of his injuries indicated that was the case or were they life threatening, but that one gun shot sure was.