Shared publicly  - 
The defense in the George Zimmerman murder trial was winding down its case Wednesday, after the judge ruled against two pieces of evidence it sought to introduce and the chances dimmed that #Zimmerman himself would take the stand.
Juan Calo's profile photoAdam Bigge's profile photoWilliam A. Ferguson's profile photoDavid Walsh's profile photo
Anyone in a fist fight uses a gun to defend himself is not acting in self defense. No other weapon was produced by the kid he killed,I f they allow him to walk he will do this again and the results wont be the same, reap what you sew.
If you think your life is in jeopardy, you do what you have to.
J. Elmore
+Michael Adams Sr So you're saying no one is capable of killing another human being with their bare hands? Ever heard of martial arts? It is very possible, especially when bashing that person's head into concrete. If GZ was legitimately in fear of his life, and the evidence clearly corroborates that he was, then he was completely justified in using lethal force to respond. 
As long as everyone stays in there neighborhood, they can riot. They visit mine, there will trouble.
J Richard
+Michael Adams Sr That's the dumbest thing I've read today. (And I just finished today's edition of the New York Times.)
J. Elmore
Let them riot. What will that prove? That some people throw a fit when they don't get their way? The evidence is overwhelmingly in GZ's favor in this case. So let's stop pretending this is about fact and start admitting that it's more about race than anything else.

And on that note, who cares what race either of these men are? Would we be talking about this if it was a black on black killing? Or Mexican on Mexican? Or even white on white? Not at all.
What I have seen in this trial is an extremely weak case put on by the prosecution because all of their big witnesses help Zimmerman's case. Additionally, the prosecution's star witness has major league Giglio and Brady issues so her credibility is nil. 

Have we not learned the hard lessons from the Duke University rape hoax case?
+Bradley Rotterman  Yeah, not fun for those of us that live in Sanford. I've been avoiding the court house area for the last 2 weeks - will until all this dies down too.
Why would a person on NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH be carrying a weapon? This is a direct quote from the Neighborhood Watch booklet:

Patrol members should be trained bylaw enforcement.
It should be emphasized to members that they do not possess
police powers and they shall not carry weapons or pursue
vehicles. They should also be cautioned to alert police or
deputies when encountering strange activity. Members
should never confront suspicious persons who could be
armed and dangerous. Patrol members can be equipped
for their duties. For example, flashlights or searchlights are
necessary for night patrols. Many mobile patrols use cell
phones or two-wayradios to contact a citizen-manned base
station, which in turn contacts law enforcement officials
when necessary. 

Zimmerman had a different agenda.
I'm pretty sure a single gun shot, which wasn't an aimed shot, wasn't meant to kill Trayvon Martin. Also, having your head bashed in by concrete or any other blunt or hard object can kill. Mr Zimmerman acted in self defense and shot 1 round to get control of the situation and protect himself. If it was ill-will and murder, there would be several rounds fired.
Actually, Zimmerman was licensed to possess a firearm under FL law. There is no proof whatsoever that racial animus was a part of the equation. As a matter of fact, just after the shooting, the FBI conducted a criminal civil rights investigation and they could not find probable cause to believe that Zimmerman violated Trayvon Martin's civil rights. 

You might want to read 18 USC § 242, which is the Federal criminal civil rights statute in question. It requires willful intent to deprive someone of their civil rights, which is the highest possible burden of proof for a criminal charge. In layman's terms, the prosecution would have to prove that the person essentially said, "I'm going to get that X (insert legally protected class here)."
+Dave Wykoff GZ was not armed under the neighborhood watch program, nor does that document carry any legal weight in FL. GZ was licensed by the state to carry a concealed firearm for the purposes of self defense, which he did (and was smart for doing so). I carry with me every waking moment. If I am dressed, I am armed.

It also says they will be trained by police - you mean by guys who also carry guns to protect themselves?? Ironic, isn't it.
+Dave Wykoff Your statement fails to prove George Zimmerman "had an agenda". Also fails to prove his actions were conducted with malice.
First, I don't understand what the purpose of rioting would do? As I said before on this forum. GZ life is ruin anyway rather he is found guilty or not.

Secondly all this bravo of this " don't bring too my community or they will be sorry" What are you going to do? Bring out your guns? We live in a 3rd world African country when it comes too guns, they are laying around everywhere.

To sum it up,  Again I don't see the purpose of rioting, it would not change the verdict. Also, when will the question of why GZ actually approached that boy will be answered?
+Jason Elmore
That's the "one" thing about this case:

Mr. Zimmerman never identified himself as part of the Neighborhood Watch to Trayvon.

He followed Trayvon for more than 1,000 ft that night, but never considered what Trayvon's feelings were towards that action. Couple to that fact the whole, "These guys always get away" and "Fucking punk" comments to the police.
When Zimmerman went back to his car, Trayvon lost any and all right to claim self-defense under the law.

Everything Professor Dershowitz said about the case has been right on the money so far. This is especially true when he talked about the deficiencies in the Statement of Probable Cause that was presented by the Special Prosecutor, which omitted any and all exculpatory information. Mind you, this interview was on MSNBC where Mike Smerconish was serving as a fill-in host. 
+Jeffrey Podell
Is there any evidence, other than Zimmerman's own testimony, that he was returning to his car when he encountered Trayvon? There is evidence that he was pursuing Trayvon on foot from the 911 call.
Prosecutors dropped ball when asked for murder and not man 1.
Why do people act as if the trial were over months ago?
Funny thing - one does not have to identify one's self as neighborhood watch...or a concerned resident.

And TMs "feelings" have nothing to do with it.  He could not hear GZs comments to police - so those should be just as relevant to TM's feelings/state of mind as TM's photos of him with a gun/weed.

If there is a riot - fine.  I will continue to legally CC and protect myself and my family in case the rioters want to tumble with me for some reason - just as I do most of the time anyway.
Does a person who's being followed by a store security person have the right to ambush and try and beat the security person to death? All you liberals are hypocites if GZ was gay or a woman being assaulted instead of an assumed white man you would be defending them.
Is it just me, or did someone accidentally arrest Chaz Bono instead of George Zimmerman... I don't remember him looking so much like a transgendered woman.
+Jason Kilpatrick
So...I'm a 17-year-old black male being followed by a man with a shaved head in a pick-up truck, it's dark, I'm alone....and I live in the south!

You're right. Zimmerman had no obligation to identify himself to Trayvon because this kind of activity could NEVER be misinterpreted.
+Douglas Smith we have no evidence. However, we do have evidence from this country's top forensic pathologist that the trajectory of the gunshot and the other forensic evidence point to Trayvon Martin being on top of Zimmerman. Furthermore, as I said before, once a person retreats, you lose the right to claim self-defense and then it becomes criminal assault and battery.

When a police officer uses force on a now compliant suspect, it is considered excessive force and places the individual officer as well as their employer into an actionable position in civil court. Additionally, the individual officer can be charged under state assault and battery, and official misconduct charges in addition to the possibility of Federal civil rights charges under 18 USC § 242.
No evidence Martin ever saw the pickup truck. No evidence Zimmerman was following Martin when he was attacked. 
+David Courage The lynch mob convinced Martin could do no wrong acted like the trial was over the minute they heard of the case.
When it was determined trayon was on top, any chance of murder conviction gone. 
Guys, everyone failed this kid. It's his parents fault as much as the guy who pulled the trigger. Kid had problems in school, the school should have done more. Instead of sending the kid away, Mom should have gotten him help. This is a systematic problem that plagues us in society, we don't want to deal with our problems and nobody screams injustice until there's a tragedy. 
+Margaret Leber  Evidence:

Yeah, now he's coming towards me.
He's got his hand in his waistband. And he's a black male.
How old would you say he looks?
He's got button on his shirt, late teens.
Late teens. Ok.
Somethings wrong with him. Yup, he's coming to check me out, he's got something in his hands, I don't know what his deal is.
+Michael Adams Sr Self defense  is self defense whether you use a gun, bat, or any other weapon. Do we really think he decided to go out and shoot someone when he left his house. The guy has a permit to carry a weapon and if I was in his place, I would not go out with out being armed with something.
Travon had plenty of time to return to his fathers but decided to ambush Zimmerman instead. showing me he was not afraid but wanted to beat down the cracker especially when he saw that he was larger than zimmerman. He made a bad  choice and paid for it. 
+Dave Wykoff besides you are blinding yourself from the overwhelming evidence, lying "witnesses", and overall joke of the judicial system by the prosecution please explain how you know for a fact Zimmerman had a different agenda. 
+Margaret Leber
 Thanks for the link , Marg.

Question: Do you know where the Skittles, flashlight, cell phone, and Arizona juice can were found in relation to Trayvon's body?

Zimmerman claims he was at the "top of the 'T'" when he encountered Trayvon, but a lot of the evidence seems to indicate they were VERY south of that location.
+Ronell John if one of my sons had attacked a person who was simply following him instead of, oh say CALLED THE POLICE, I would realize that I failed as a parent.

If my son was referring to strangers as a "creepy ass cracker" I would say that I failed as a parent.

If my son died because he decided to throw someone a beating rather than keep a cool head and continue home I would know that I failed as a parent.

He was a kid who made a bad decision that got him killed. I wouldn't expect ANYONE to let one of my kids beat them unconscious simply because I raised them poorly.
What ever Zimmerman are just lies. This is a racially motivated crime. 
+Adam Bigge
That's an interesting point. Did Zimmerman chase down Trayvon and grab him (holding him until police arrived) or did Trayvon ambush Zimmerman?

The location of the Skittles/Flashlight/Cell Phone/Juice Can are critical in determining what could have likely happened that night, imho.
Unfortunately, +Douglas Smith , there is no concrete evidence that supports that theory in any way. No eyewitness testimony either. Just supposition and assumption. And, the last time I checked, the burden of proof was upon the state to PROVE GUILT. Not for the defendant to PROVE INNOCENCE. Innocent until proven guilty. Remember? And the only proof we have is that Martin was on top of Zimmerman. Beating on him. Those are facts.

And unless you have evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did as you say, then he must, by law, be found innocent. Because you can only rely on evidence that exists, not on feelings and prejudice.
+Ashley Barnett Smith where is your proof? If you have that overwhelming evidence you should be on the stand. So far the only ones who have lied were the prosecution witnesses. But if you have other information. Solid proof, please testify.
But if Obama had a son, he would look like Martin so he must be guilty of something.
+Ronell John .... I find it interesting that you equate my taking responsibility for my child as being silly. Parents failed to raise child properly, child gets shot when assaulting someone who legally carried a gun. Parents and teenagers fault. I would still be devastated. But I would put blame where it belongs.

I know very well how much damage an "unarmed teen" can do. I have seen the results of assault up close on a number of occasions.

If any person is put at a disadvantage and fears serious bodily injury or possible death then they are fully justified in using whatever force required to end the threat. Period. That is the law. Just because a bunch of tough guy wannabees are out there saying "I could have handled him. I wouldn't have to use a gun" that doesn't make them smart or correct. It makes them arrogant. And ignorant. I am not physically weak or inferior. I save lives for a living. I carry a gun for protection because dirtbags don't fight fair. So why should I?

Initiating violence is always wrong -If Martin made a fist and threatened a cop the cop would have emptied his pistol into him and nobody would think ill of it. Why can't a citizen have the same rights of self-defense?

How many parents, at finding out their little angel had committed a crime wallow in disbelief when finding out their child has been taking drugs, stealing or robbing people for years? The Martins are those kind of clueless parents who didn't know they raised a thug.

Martin attacked Zimmerman because he sized up the small man and believed he could get away with it -That's how most crimes are committed. A black thug beating a smaller, White man would not even be noticed and if Zimmerman died, the media would have ignored the story as just another statistic...and Martin would be walking around armed with a stolen pistol...
The prosecution failing to disclose the exculpatory evidence to the defense was a major no-no in this case. It is automatic grounds for reversal of any conviction as per the US Supreme Court's ruling in Brady v. Maryland and it is a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys in the prosecutorial role. 
+Asiah MrsMaMeforLife stallworth you are correct. His parents were fantastic. Their son was on drugs. He had been in trouble for being in possession of stolen goods and burglary tools. Had gotten suspended from school for disciplinary problems. And this minor was out roaming the neighborhood at night without their knowledge.

Yup. Nominate them for mother and father of the year.
+Adam Bigge
I have to agree with your opinions, that Zimmerman is innocent by law; however, did Zimmerman create this situation by his irresponsible conduct? Personally, I believe so. In his own way, Zimmerman got the result he was looking for, even if he convinced himself that he was victimized by Trayvon, that "f*cking punk."
Actually, a police officer and/or regular citizen would be justified in using their sidearm in self-defense against someone of the athletic prowess of a Mike Tyson even if that other person does not have an artificial weapon due to the fact that said person could inflict deadly force with a strike using their hands. 
+Ronell John So I guess if your a woman who carries a weapon it's unacceptable to use it in self defence because of your own self preceived weakness. Thats weak.
+Asiah MrsMaMeforLife stallworth
That's the thing, Asiah. How does a 17-year-old boy, walking home from a 7-11 with an Arizona Fruit Juice and one bag of Skittles, get shot in the heart by the Neighborhood Watch volunteer?

It's very sad; the whole tragedy could've been avoided.
+Asiah MrsMaMeforLife stallworth I have four children and I take responsibility for their actions until adulthood. I set a good example and teach them right from wrong. When they stray, I jerk a knot in their tail until they come back to the straight and narrow. I spend every day that I am off duty with them and tell them how much I love them.That is what GOOD parents do. At 17, he was not "raised" yet. Not by law. And not by any measure of maturity.

And I am sorry my statements seem unintelligent to you. I feel I am reasonably intelligent. But opinions vary. Feel free to name call and toss insults. It says more about you than me. Thankfully I don't have to read your prejudiced statements. Blocked.

+Ronell John In regards to your comment, I did no such thing. I assume that anyone who attacks me without me attacking them is a dirt bag. Not any judgment based on appearance. You inferred I am prejudiced. I did not imply. And who on earth would say that the lunatics that slaughtered school children in Connecticut looked wholesome? Not I. And what does that have to do with this subject?

+Douglas Smith (thank you for being civil) whether he created the situation by aggravating Martin is immaterial to the case. This case isn't about whether Martin was antagonized by Zimmerman. It is about whether Zimmerman was firing the gun from a position of self defense while he was getting beat on. Period. The reason he was getting beat on (following someone) is irrelevant because, last time I checked, you can't attack people for following you or watching you on a public street. So regardless of how they got there, the issue of "was Zimmerman on the defensive (on his back, assailant on top of him, punched in the face) or was he attacking" is the only issue that the jury is tasked with evaluating.
+Ronell John it's not an assumption there are plenty of article in regard to TM's record. He was no goody two shoes as he is portrayed by his family and people who restrict themselves to certain opinions and remain ignorant. Blissfully ignorant to all the testimony and investigation are  +Douglas Smith +Asiah MrsMaMeforLife stallworth +Ashley Barnett Smith and a few more of you. 

So i wait for you guys to yell your un -researched unfounded "facts" about this trial. Maybe your true colors of stupidity will show through with a few curse words laced in there and pull the racist card. 

But this is your chance be prove me wrong actually do some research on the investigation, the trial. Actually be aware of what is going on.
+Dave Wykoff His agenda was to go to the store while being protected from thugs.
+Douglas Smith to this case yes. please go google more articles and read them. i think you'll learn somethings about this case that'll surprise you.
Sorry +Ronell John . you are inferring prejudice because you want to believe it of me rather than admitting your own bias. I treat everyone equally until they give me reason to do otherwise. I wouldn't be able to effectively do my job if I were as prejudiced as you seem to think I am.

If you think me prejudiced for referring to individuals who would assault me as "dirt bags" then that is your problem. What would you call a person that assaults you for no legal reason?

And your "point" has no basis in any of the evidence or eyewitness testimony. None. You try to relate it to one of my own children because your only refuge is an emotional, illogical argument. Rather than one based on hard facts and documented evidence.

If you can show one documented piece of evidence that proves beyond any reasonable doubt (the requirement of our justice system) then please present it to the prosecutors so that a guilty man doesn't go free. I beg you. But if you do not have any such evidence then you have no basis for your statements other than bias and prejudice.
Are we in agreement that the parents of TM shouldn't be getting paid? Since some of their decisions brought on this event.
So many ignorant DUMB people on here talking out their ass bc nobody knows what really happened. ..trayvon shouldn't havr never died bc GZ fat ass can't fight. ...braise yourself AMERICA bc there will be riots if he walks...#JUSTICE 4ZIMMERMAN 
How can so many people ignore the FACTS? Trayvon Martin was walking home from the corner store minding his own business, with a bag of chips and some pop. George Zimmerman was cruising around in his car looking for......whatever. He was armed with a loaded gun. He pulls up beside Trayvon Martin and gets out of his car intending to confront him about.......whatever. Trayvon Martin gets shot and dies. He was on his way home and he had no gun. If this is what 'Stand your ground!' means and it justifies killing an unarmed person who was on his way home (and minding his own business, unlike George Zimmerman), who can feel safe in Florida?
+Michael Adams Sr
 You say:Anyone in a fist fight uses a gun to defend himself is not acting in self defense. BS If you chose sucker punch me I don't owe you a fair fight.
Why did GZ, armed, need to get so close to TM, that TM would be able to put his hands on GZ? With a gun, GZ could have remained several feet away, and if approached, fire from a distance.
I haven't heard any trial answer to that question, or heard that the question was even raised in court. Or did I miss that?
I watched all of the trial to date and it was a fair trial trayvon got what he deserved want to riot come to my hood i got somthing for ya.
A riot
take a non-racial issue
than after things don't go your way
you want to destroy your own city,
Cost your hard working neighbors thousands of dollars
And for what?
answer violence with violence
so pointless

GZ will most likely walk but he should have stayed in his car that night and waited for police to show and not chase after the poor boy trying to get home! GZ was neighbor watch not a damn GOD he should be found guilty but it's never the truth in court just what you can prove...he is guilty in my eyes self defence my ass he should have never brought his gun that was stupid on his part
how long was GZ supposed to let his attacker beat his head  on the ground .
If he survived the attack with out brain damage what would  everybody say about TM now ?
Zimmerman shot and killed Martin...pointBlankPeriod! No One should walk free for killing anyone!
Yea.. this woman should be in jail>Woman hiding with kids shoots intruder  LOL
+Rob Tanner
But you know what... You are correct because I have a 380smythandwesson and I'm Not afraid to use it by any means necessary. But Don't forget what case we are actually discussing right Now.
+bob McClanahan Guilty of aggravated assault. A felony. Possibly a hate crime if Fla. has those considering the racial epithet he used against his victim. During the fight he was armed-that makes it aggravated assault. Legally the concrete amounts to a weapon. 
+Tracy Wade Are you serious? You would shoot someone? What if they were just banging your head against concrete? You wouldn't shoot them for that right? 
too bad, was so looking forward to the numerous contradictions, exaggerations and outright lies from Zimmerman be addressed, darn!
I think that he shot Travon in self defence. He did not know this boy. The media is stairing this crap up. Zimmerman had a clean background and was not a racist.

Whether or not he was licensed to carry the gun was NOT the issue of my post. THE ISSUE is he was NOT supposed to BE carrying while working Neighborhood Watch. It is a violation of the rules. He had no business even confronting Trayvon. He was told by the 911 operator and the (Neighborhood Watch) rules state he was not to engage the suspect. He was to observe only and stay in his car. He was obviously made a decision to stop and engage this boy as he had his own reasons about those punks. If Trayvon was being aggressive then it is likely it was a ruse to be able to get away from this stranger with a gun. GZ HAD NO POLICE POWERS OF ANY KIND.
Thank you for your response. What we think doesn't matter, only the facts.
And Zimmerman exceeded his authority and ignored warnings and specific Home
Owners Association rules against pursuit, confrontation, and carrying a
gun. As a neighborhood watchman, he was to call the police and wait for
them to take over. Zimmerman probably did have to defend himself as Martin
did also, We can never know who threw the first punch, but Zimmerman broke
the rules and because of that was the aggressor here and an unarmed
teenager who had every right to be where he was, was shot and killed.
I hope they tear Florida up.
+James Loughran +Dave Wykoff  You guys make a fairly compelling case for Zimmerman being removed from the neighborhood watch committee, but that's not why he's in court. Any neighborhood watch rules he did or didn't break are utterly irrelevant and won't be considered by the jury.

BTW, I don't think GZ ever told anyone he was "on duty," my understanding is that he was on his way to the grocery store when he spotted suspicious activity and immediately called the police.

You say Martin had to defend himself? Defend himself from what? What evidence is there of that? What do you base that assertion on? What evidence of injuries on Martin's body are you aware of? 

You said Martin had a right to be where he was. You and I agree on that. So far as walking through that neighborhood, he was within his rights.

Did GZ have a right to walk in his neighborhood? Why didn't Zimmerman have a right to be where he was?

+Dave Wykoff can you tell me the name of the dispatcher who ordered Zimmerman to do anything? Or ordered him not to do something? What day did he give testimony to this in court?

The reason I ask is because they only dispatcher I know of that testified about talking with Zimmerman was the dispatcher who took the non-emergency 911 call. His name is Sean Noffke. He was on the stand the first day of testimony. His words, during the call, were to say "are you following him?" GZ: Yes. "We don't need you to do that." On the stand the dispatcher testified that they are trained not to give orders, that he did not give Zimmerman any orders, and that when he told GZ "you don't need to do that" it was for liability purposes only. 

Please, do tell, where did you get the idea that an "operator" told GZ to stay in his car?
If he was NOT "on duty' as you guess then he had NO legal standing to even confront Trayvon. The young man was only walking through the property doing nothing suspicious like trying to enter anyone's home or threatening anyone. In that case Deadly Force was not necessary as no one was under threat from harm. The only person under threat WAS Trayvon once GZ decided to pull a gun to stop him from walking. I often have confronted someone on my property illegally from a safe distance and informed them I had called the Police(usually I had not). Once they knew that they left the property very quickly. When I have had someone threatening me with a weapon I have usually shoved them down on the ground try and get their weapon away from them and stand up and run like hell. Of course I do not try to get in those situations. GZ obviously did not have any training and was depending on his gun being all he needed to stop someone. It does not, it takes tactical thinking and an understanding of human psychology. As far as what I believed to be accurate information from the news articles and I could be wrong on that. Since Zimmerman's story has changed so many times Human Psychology tells me that he is not telling the truth. Chronic liars change the story because they think of details one moment and then since it is inaccurate they don't remember what they said in their previous story. I have known quite a few people like that and I can tell you each and every time they were lying to save themselves from punishment. They think I'm psychic it is just observation. He had every right to be concerned about who was on the complex's property ha was not a law enforcement officer and had no business to pull his gun to stop Trayvon. And since he was on the Neighborhood Watch program he KNEW he wasn't to carry a gun. Once he decided to confront and stop Trayvon he was "on duty." And the rules also state you are never to stop or confront anyone. So ignoring what Law enforcement tells you before you start Neighborhood Watch put him solely responsible for what transpired that night.
+Dave Wykoff There is no proof whatsoever of the events transpiring the way you said. Quite the contrary, evidence points to GZ being on the way back to his vehicle when he was confronted by TM.

Do you have evidence to prove your statements? Have you read, watched, or listened to the testimony of the trial? GZ's story has actually been very consistent throughout the ordeal. At least according to the investigators in charge of the case.

Maybe you should look at something other than news rags and social media to get your information. Watch some footage of the actual trial.
Peace be still and know that God will .work it out Justice will be served Amen
+Adam Bigge  I have read the testimony. He was told he didn't need to follow TM. The rules of Neighborhood Watch do not allow the volunteers to carry a gun OR follow, they are to report to the Police and wait for the officers to arrive. GZ's own words impeach him when he cursed that the F^&King punks always get away. GZ's state of mind is very important. He was told not to follow yet he told himself he wasn't following, He justified as he was only walking the same direction. Yet he was close enough for TM to notice him walking behind him. So he was already planning out a way to justify his following TM. Neighborhood watch is not supposed to be following anyone, he has NO police powers. I've read the entire pamphlet put out by the Government for Neighborhood WATCH. He violated the rules he claimed he was following he is a watchman not a police officer. As to the cuts and bruises on GM's head ANY first year ER intern will tell you that wounds to the scalp bleed profusely as the scalp is highly vascular so as the Medical Examiner stated ONE blow could cause all the damage to Zimmerman in the photos. Numerous people have said it is allowed for him to carry a weapon. The ONLY thing they are REQUIRED to carry is a flashlight. NOT A GUN. When he is "off duty" he may carry the permitted weapon. But as soon as he chose to follow the "suspect" he was ON DUTY and he should have left the gun in his car. AND He should have stayed in his car and watched. As I see the person with the gun has a higher responsibility as they can deal deadly force with the pull of a trigger. You see we only get one side of the story GM's, he killed the teenager who could have told his side of the story. Now he will never grow up to be anything because of GM's premeditation.
I wasn't aware that Neigborhood Watch guidelines carry the weight of law. Can you show me that particular statute? Which laws did he break by getting out of the car? In his own neighborhood. What law was he breaking by carrying a firearm?

Are you also saying that it is permissible for a person to punch another person for being a "creepy ass cracker" (state of mind, indeed)? Or maybe to assault a person for following you around the neighborhood? Is that legal?

The only thing that matters was whether GZ was firing his gun from a position of self defense. Not whether he antagonized a 17 year old. Not whether he made someone mad enough to attack him.

Got it?

There is no proof that he attacked TM. None. But there is eyewitness testimony that TM was beating on him. There are no wounds on GZ's hands to indicate he assaulted TM. TM had no wounds to suggest this happened either. TM had no DNA under his fingernails which would be consistent with grappling or scratching an attacker in self defense. Likewise, GZ had no defensive scratches on him. Only injuries consistent with being punched and battered.

So, in the absence of ANY evidence to support your story, how do you explain your fictional account of GZ getting out in order to shoot TM, then walking up to him with a drawn weapon, and allowing this poor weak child to beat the crap out of him. (After he called the police, BTW. How's that for premeditation)

Then, once he realized his master plan of murdering this poor baby went south, he decided that he would finally pull the trigger when he was on his back, screaming for the eyewitness to help him.....

How does that make sense?

The only people that have any grounds to discipline him is the neighborhood watch. Because he didn't follow their guidelines. But that isn't against the law. The NW may not forbid someone from carrying a gun. They can only kick him off the roster for noncompliance with their guidelines.
Unfortunately, Adam, there is an "absence of [concrete] evidence" to support your explanation of the events. There is the following information,
which can be proven by audiotapes of conversations from the incident. GZ was carrying a gun which, though not illegal for him to do, is expressly forbidden for members of NW. When he contacted the police, who are the official and legal law enforcement agency in our society, he was told explicitly not to take any action, not to engage with the person he was following. There is audio proof that he disregarded this direction from the police. It is conceivable that, when he followed Trayvon Martin, this teenager became scared [he did not have a armed weapon to defend himself] and he may have decided to confront his 'pursuer'. There may have been a scuffle and it may be that George Zimmerman found himself 'threatened' and decided to fire his gun. By the way, the 'bruise' on GZ's head might just as easily have been self-inflicted. There is no way that it can proven that this occurred as a result of the altercation with Trayvon Martin. There are no verifiable eyewitnesses, as you suggest, otherwise this case would be an open and shut deal!

In short, there is so much we simply don't know. Except for the fact that an unarmed boy was walking home minding his own business,
GZ followed him and, in contravention of the rules of his own NW organisation, was carrying an armed weapon while on NW 'duty'. Against police orders he left his vehicle and minutes later the unarmed teenager was dead. That's what we know. Anything else is supposition and the verdict will be determined by what the jury think may have happened. Let us hope that justice will be served.
You're not only white (Francisco) but you also think like a racist.
+Jeffrey Podell It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
+David Walsh please tell me the exact words where a sworn law official ordered him to remain in his vehicle. (Not the dispatcher uttering the words "we don't need you to do that" because that was not an order to do anything and was not from a sworn LEO) Also please tell me where the audio evidence can be heard of this order. If you can provide proof of your fantasy, then I will concede.
Adam - you are rıght, there was no legal requırement for GZ to stay ın hıs vehıcle. However, GZ had reported what he regarded as a 'suspıcıous person' - he had called the polıce about thıs - so why dıd he not stay ın hıs vehıcle as 'requested' by the polıce dıspatcher? Why dıd he not allow the polıce to do ıts job? That ıs why we have polıce!!!
He ıs a member of 'Neıghbourhood Watch' ın hıs communıty - not 'Neıghbourhood Prıvate Polıce'! It ıs not the job of GZ to pursue people and take actıon hımself when we have polıce to do that.

As far as the audıo evıdence of what the polıce dıspatcher saıd to GZ ıs concerned, thıs could be heard many tımes ın dıfferent places on ther ınternet just after GZ was arrested. I heard ıt very clearly at that tıme. It was also played for the court durıng hıs trıal. You can probably stıll fınd ıt ın the ınternet.

My poınt has nothıng to do wıth whether GZ was 'legally requıred' to remaın ın hıs vehıcle. My poınt ıs that George Zımmerman chose to ıgnore what the polıce dıspatcher requested and took the law ınto hıs own hands. The result ıs that an unarmed person dıed! If everyone ın Florıda decıdes to take the law ınto theır own hands, then we are back ın the 1880s and NO ONE can feel safe! You know the sayıng: 'Shoot fırst, ask questıons later'!
You don't get it. You obviously haven't listened to the recording. You are probably just making your statements based on the sound bytes released in the media. Either that or you are ignoring the timeline established by the recording. GZ was already out of his vehicle when the dispatcher asked "are you following him". Already out. You can even hear the car door as well as GZ breathing harder due to him setting out on foot.

So, GZ gets out of the car. Then the dispatcher asked "are you following him? " followed up by "we don't need you to do that" to which GZ says "ok". After that, GZ lost sight of TM and then, when suggested by the dispatcher, said he would meet up with the police officer that was en route. Here, I'll help you out.

So he was neither disregarding a request OR breaking the law. Why don't YOU go listen to the recording again? I did while writing this reply.

And don't say GZ was taking the law into his own hands. I hold no illusions that there was any law being broken initially. TM was simply walking. But once he decided to attack GZ for the offense of following him, GZ had the right to defend himself. As has been determined by a court of law. Defending yourself is not "taking the law into your own hands". It is survival. And unless you have ever been in a life or death situation, I seriously doubt you will ever understand.

Have a good day! 
Adam - you don't 'get ıt' eıther - ıf GZ had stayed ın hıs vehıcle, no one would have dıed!
The polıce would have determıned whether Trayvon Martın was engaged ın crımınal actıvıty! If TM had been doıng somethıng ıllegal, he would have been arrested and then gıven a trıal. Instead, George Zımmerman decıded he would follow Martın and confront hım! He decıded that he dıd not want to waıt for the polıce to do theır job. George Zımmerman had a loaded gun. Trayvon Martın had a bag of chıps. Can't you see the bıg pıcture! If we all choose to do what George Zımmerman dıd, no one can feel safe!
You assume that GZ confronted him. No evidence though. Sorry. You can say it all you want but unless you post proof (physical evidence or eyewitness testimony of GZ accosting TM) you are just fabricating things. You also make stuff up. No chips in TM's pockets. It was actually an Arizona ice tea and a bag of skittles. But that is immaterial to this conversation except to show your ignorance.

He should have just stayed in his car? Why? Because someone else might not like him walking around? Snooping? I wasn't aware we are required to live our lives according to what others want.

You might get in a car accident with a drunk driver that kills your passenger tomorrow. Does that mean it is solely your fault because if you had stayed home it never would have happened? No. Because people are responsible for their individual actions.

Don't like it that GZ walked down his street? To Damn bad. We all have the right to walk down the street. TM did. GZ did. We don't have to hide in our cars and houses because someone else may take offense at our interest in them. But we also don't have to allow them to beat on us for the perceived insult of watching them. And that is what this case is about. Someone picked a fight without thinking. I think you want to excuse Martins actions because GZ was a snoop and you don't like guns. But I know GZ was justified because he took a solid beating before finally, as a last resort, shooting that poor stupid kid in self defense. That's what the evidence says. Whether you like it or not.

Done with you Mr. Walsh. You keep moving the goal post every time your arguments are defeated. Bye bye. Blocked.
"You assume that GZ confronted him. No evidence though"

Yes, there is evidence that GZ confronted him. Martin is heard asking him why he (GZ) is following him.
That means that TM asked the question, yes?
Is that what you are saying? Therefore TM initiated the conversation?

So if I am walking behind you on the street, then you round on me and say "you got a problem? " who is being confrontational? Or maybe you get scared and hide from me. Then you get brave and come out of hiding, walk up to me and ask the same question. Tell me who initiates the confrontation.

Tell you what, link the recording here and let's all listen to it. I'm sure you have hard verifiable evidence and not the incoherent ramblings of a compromised witness with credibility issues. 
If I don't know who the hell you are and you're following me I have every right to ask you why you're following me.
Um. .... show me that statute please. Exact Florida criminal code page number please. Or federal case number if applicable.

Actually I apologize. That isn't fair because laws don't enumerate our rights. They describe crimes. So I withdraw the statement. You do have the right to ask. However, you have no right to an answer. Nor do you have the right to exact punishment for failure to answer.
But I will even give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's say you turn around and ask "why are you following me?" You confront the follower.

You would still be initiating contact. That would be "confronting" the person following. So your assertion that GZ "confronted" TM is in error. It's the other way around. Logic, my friend. 
Sure, Adam. Let me follow you around on a public street sometime with a gun in my pocket and we'll see how you feel about it.

Logic, my friend.
So, now that you're argument is defeated, you try to insert me into a hypothetical situation in order to elicit an emotional response. I'll bite.

I probably wouldn't like it (being followed). But I wouldn't attack you for following me. Because. ......... It isn't illegal. However, attacking someone for following you IS ILLEGAL. At most, I would ask you to stop. If you got violent I would then defend myself. But if you had a gun and I did not, I would run and call the police. (Note, I would not call my ignorant, racist girlfriend.)

And carryng a gun in your pocket is rather unwise. You run the risk of snagging it on clothing in the event you need it to defend yourself. Not to mention shooting yourself. An IWB holster is the way to go. Or maybe a shoulder rig for larger frame handguns.

(Oh, and creating imaginary situations where you assume I would do something illegal in order to justify your erronious reasoning isn't logic. It's desperate.)
"(Oh, and creating imaginary situations where you assume I would do something illegal in order to justify your erronious reasoning isn't logic. It's desperate.)"

Oh, kinda like GZ. Thanks for making my point.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't it illegal to assault people for following you? Oh, that's right. You disregard inconvenient facts. Like the ones backed up by evidence and a jury.

Oh well. Thought you were a borderline intelligent human. Looks like you are a race baiting apologist.

Two things are apparent to me at this moment:

1. The only person who stood their ground was Trayvon Martin.

2. Only two people know what really happened that night and one of them is (conveniently) dead.
Adam - you dont seem to be ınterested ın standıng up for the prıncıple of justıce (ınnocent untıl proven guılty) only ın arguıng about GZ's rıght to defend hımself.

It's true that there are no wıtnesses who clearly saw what happened so we wıll never know the absolute truth. Only GZ knows that and he saıd that he was actıng ın self defense. However - cell phone conversatıons gıve us some more ınformatıon. The conversatıonsbetween GZ and the polıce dıspatcher tell us that GZ was suspıcıous of TM even though TM was sımply walkıng along the sıdewalk doıng nothıng ıllegal (even GZ confırms that TM was just walkıng along). The phone conversatıon also tells us that GZ was antagonıstıc towards TM just because he was a black teenager wearıng a hoodıe ('f....kıng punks') and also that he was concerned that the polıce would not arrıve ın tıme to apprehend TM ('these guys always get away wıth ıt'). The conversatıon also confırms that GZ got out of hıs vehıcle and began to follow TM on foot. He dıd thıs despıte the fact that he was expressly requested not to do so by the polıce dıspatcher. Also - ıf he was on offıcıal Neıghbourhhod Watch duty, then he should not have been carryıng a loaded gun (although, legally speakıng, he had a rıght to do so) and he should not have been pursuıng TM. He should just have reported (what he regarded as) suspıcıous actıvıty and then allowed the polıce to do ıts job. From TM's cell phone conversatıon wıth hıs frıend we know that he was aware that he was beıng followed and that ıt was makıng hım nervous. What happened next ıs what we cannot exactly know. All we do know ıs that a physıcal confrontatıon occured between GZ and TM and that GZ shot thıs unarmed  teenager.

George Zımmerman was fortunate that the 'rule of law' stıll exısts ın Amerıca - at least for some people. Under thıs prıncıple of justıce he was arrested, trıed and acquıtted because our country belıeves that a person ıs 'presumed ınnocent untıl proven guılty'. There was ınsuffıcıent evıdence to convıct GZ so the (all whıte) jury found hım ınnocent of the charges of murder - whıch was the (legally) correct decısıon. Unfortunately for Trayvon Martın, there was no opportunıty for hım to benefıt from thıs 'prıncıple of justıce' because GZ took the law ınto hıs own hands and became judge, jury and executıoner of TM before the polıce and the courts could determıne whether he was guılty of any crıme (nothıng ıllegal was found on hıs body BTW). Adam - I wonder whether you would have argued so strongly for TM's 'rıght to defend hımself' ıf the sıtuatıon had been exactly reversed and GZ had dıed.

There wıll be no happıness ın Amerıca untıl the 'prıncıple of justıce' applıes equally and faırly to every person regardless of hıs or her colour.
In the meantıme, George Zımmerman wıll know what ıt feels lıke to be black because he wıll spend the rest of hıs lıfe lookıng over hıs shoulder
to see who ıs followıng hım.
You are rıght, Wıllıam - but ıt ıs tıme for the cırcumstances whıch made the death of TM possıble,
ın fact, lıkely, need to change!! I hope hıs death wıll not be wıthout some posıtıve result!
Add a comment...