Florida jury acquits Zimmerman in shooting of unarmed black teenager

Score another for one of the dumb states. You see there are blue states and then there are dumb states. Let's see a guy in a truck, who could drive away, leaves the truck, hunts the kid down, gets his ass beat, can't stand the humiliation so he murders the boy; it doesn't get much simpler than than. Don't want to get your ass beat – THEN STAY IN THE TRUCK. Oh yeah, I for got he was a hero, he was protecting the neighborhood. Except Trayvon committed NO CRIME. Murderer. So all the ig'nant hero want-a-be's win. Score one for idiot America. Greenday - ''I'm not a part of a redneck agenda.''

Oh boy....

He also gets back the gun he used in the killing. Zimmerman- armed and back on the streets.

So he got out of his car which he didn't need to do, stalked the boy which he didn't need to do, shot him which he didn't need to do since the boy was unarmed - and he's guilty of nothing??

Crazy.

An impartial jury heard all the State of Florida's (lack 0f) evidence against Zimmerman, and returned the proper verdict based solely on the evidence. The state failed to prove its case to a jury of his peers and the state should have never brought this politically motivated prosecution in the first place. This was all a political trial from the start and thank goodness the jury stayed above that and stayed with the actual evidence presented and then rendered their judgement of NOT GUILTY on all counts.

zichi

If juries are suppose to be about peers then this one was the most unbalanced one

The composition of the jury, at least racially, represented the demographic (percentage-wise) of the area in which the trial was conducted. Not unbalanced at all.

There's a good reason that juries must find an accused guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT in order to convict him/her.

Only in The States are you allowed to murder someone for going out for a soft drink and minding his or her own business.

The truth is always somewhere in between. Neither seems innocent to me.

You could even say that Trayvon's racist comments over the phone (quoted above) were overheard by Zimmerman and whether deliberate or not, served to rack up the tension, setting the inevitable ugly thing in motion...

Only in The States are you allowed to murder someone for going out for a soft drink and minding his or her own business.

Nobody including Trayvon Martin was just minding their own business in this whole tragic set of events smith,

The whole nation still divided on the verdict, but I still respect the court of law.

I watched the whole trial from the beginning to the end. I played a role of juror as if I was in court . Interesting finding is that I started out with a view of Prosecution side (guilty) and came up with the same verdict as jurors.

The problem of this case is that the State did not have enough evidence (witness) to prove that he is guilty BEYOND RESONABLE DOUBT.

No matter how you look at this case, Zimmerman's life would never be the same when he pulled the trigger at Trayvon, he would continue living in fear for the rest of his life.

Sail,

"Nobody including Trayvon Martin was just minding their own business in this whole tragic set of events smith"

Whilst he should have been found guilty for manslaughter in my opinion,for being the loser cop-wanabee there is no doubt he is, I have to agree suggesting in "The States are you allowed to murder someone for going out for a soft drink" is a boneheaded comment.

I submit to you all that justice is not at all in the OUTCOME, but in the PROCESS. The prosecution knew they had blown it with their original charge of second degree murder, thus their last minute attempt to add the lesser included charge of manslaughter. The jury did the right thing and came out with a verdict that prevents this tragedy from becoming a travesty. And to those who are crying about the make-up of the jury, that panel was agreed to by both the defense and the prosecution. They both got what they wanted on that jury, just not the result they wanted.

Tｈｅ　ｒｅｍａｉｎｉｎｇ　ｑｕｅｓｔｉｏｎ　ｉｓ　ｈｏｗ　ｈｅ　ｗｉｌｌ　ｃａｓｈ　ｏｕｔ　ｏｎ　ｈｉｓ　ａｂｉｌｉｔｙ　ｔｏ　ｋｉｌｌ　ａ　ｙｏｕｎｇ　ｂｌａｃｋ　ｍａｎ　ａｎｄ　ｇｅｔ　ａｗａｙ　ｗｉｔｈ　ｉｔ．　Ｉ　ｓｅｅ　ａ　ｐｏｌｉｔｉｃａｌ　ｒｕｎ　ｏｎ　ａ　Ｔｅａ　Ｐａｒｔｙ　ｔｉｃｋｅｔ．

Good.

This should never have gone to trial anyway. Looking at all the evidence, he was obviously innocent. Anyone who thinks otherwise, either has only read the biased media reports on the case, or is a raving idiot.

During this whole case from start to finish, I wonder how many young black men have killed other young black men and their stories have gone unheard of?

Did you hear about the young black guys who shot a white baby in the face a couple of months ago? A BABY. No? You would have if it had been a white man shooting a black baby.

The media has been appalling right from the start of this. The bias has been sickening.

Glad to see the judicial system wasn't thrown by their bias and character assassination.

Second Degree Murder: a non-premeditated killing, resulting from an assault in which death of the victim was a distinct possibility

The charge should never have been second degree murder. Involuntary Manslaughter would have been the smarter choice. But DA's are elected, so this was political as well.

Involuntary Manslaughter: Involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought, either express or implied.

There's no doubt he's guilty of causing the death of this boy, but the jury had to decide on SDM only.

Madverts: ""The States are you allowed to murder someone for going out for a soft drink" is a boneheaded comment."

Why is it boneheaded? The verdict proves it is absolutely correct. Despite sailwind saying Trayvon "wasn't doing nothing", he was minding his own business when literally attacked by Zimmerman for absolutely no reason beyond Zimmerman seeing a black kid in a hoodie and deciding for whatever reason that it was suspicious. Zimmerman then put himself in a position, through being the attacker, where he was attacked back in SELF-DEFENSE, and shot an innocent kid.

Now here's the thing: Zimmerman has murdered another human being, proving he is a danger to others. So if someone sees him walking down the street in Florida, by law they are allowed to murder him and claim self-defense, as he has proven dangerous in the past and may have been after him/her.

There's no doubt he's guilty of causing the death of this boy, but the jury had to decide on SDM only.

What is SDM? Thanks.

Is there any physical evidence showing he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt? I must have missed that. Please let me know. Thanks.

I am glad to see a due process in criminal justice as we, all, MIGHT be wrongly accused someday. Hope we never forget what it means to be American.

"Why is it boneheaded?"

Because you are suggesting this teenager was shot because in "The States are you allowed to murder someone for going out for a soft drink". Many of your posts are rants about the US, I'm not sorry for pointing this out and there is no need to fuel this particular fire there is enough emotion.

"Despite sailwind saying Trayvon "wasn't doing nothing", he was minding his own business when literally attacked by Zimmerman for absolutely no reason beyond Zimmerman seeing a black kid in a hoodie and deciding for whatever reason that it was suspicious. Zimmerman then put himself in a position, through being the attacker, where he was attacked back in SELF-DEFENSE, and shot an innocent kid."

This is all pure fantasy and conjecture on your part. There is no wonder you fail to grasp the jury's decision.

I may believe that Zimmerman was a cowardly, wanabee cop patrolling the streets with a full clip plus one in the hole and that intently looked for a confrontation with a young black man that instead got soundly thrashed for his efforts. But I can't prove any of this let alone make a case for "beyond reasonable doubt".

Sailwind posted back at the time of the incident that the second degree murder charge was a mistake and it was. It should have been the lesser charge manslaughter, and the outcome might have just been different.

Zichi

I didn't know there were no males in that part of Florida?

Hey, that's what the Prosecution chose/agreed to in jury selection. Besides, a female juror, especially who is a mother herself, would normally work in favor of the prosecution in this case. Think about it. Your complaints about the make up of the jury are unfounded.

What a strange country the USA is. You can deliberately provoke someone who is minding their own business, shoot them to death and get off scot free.

As Andrew Cohen writes in The Atlantic:

"To me, on its most basic level, the startling Zimmerman verdict -- and the case and trial that preceded it -- is above all a blunt reminder of the limitations of our justice system. Criminal trials are not searches for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. They never have been. Our rules of evidence and the Bill of Rights preclude it. Our trials are instead tests of only that limited evidence a judge declares fit to be shared with jurors, who in turn are then admonished daily, hourly even, not to look beyond the corners of what they've seen or heard in court.

"Trials like the one we've all just witnessed in Florida can therefore never fully answer the larger societal questions they pose. They can never act as moral surrogates to resolve the national debates they trigger. In the end, they teach only what each of us as students are predisposed to learn. They provide no closure, not to the families or anyone else, even as they represent the close of one phase of the rest of the lives of the people involved. They are tiny slivers of the truth of the matter, the perspective as narrow as if you were staring at the horizon with blinders on, capable only of seeing what was not intentionally blocked from view.

"Of course the deadly meeting last year between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman had at its core a racial element. Of course its tragic result reminds us that the nation, in ways too many of our leaders refuse to acknowledge, is still riven by race. The story of Martin and Zimmerman is the story of crime and punishment in America, and of racial disparities in capital sentencing, and in marijuana prosecutions, and in countless other things. But it wasn't Judge Debra Nelson's job to conduct a seminar on race relations in 2013. It wasn't her job to help America bridge its racial divide. It was her job to give Zimmerman a fair trial. And she did....

"What the verdict says, to the astonishment of tens of millions of us, is that you can go looking for trouble in Florida, with a gun and a great deal of racial bias, and you can find that trouble, and you can act upon that trouble in a way that leaves a young man dead, and none of it guarantees that you will be convicted of a crime. But this curious result says as much about Florida's judicial and legislative sensibilities as it does about Zimmerman's conduct that night. This verdict would not have occurred in every state. It might not even have occurred in any other state. But it occurred here, a tragic confluence that leaves a young man's untimely death unrequited under state law. Don't like it? Lobby to change Florida's laws....

"Technically speaking, the fact that Zimmerman now has been found not guilty under Florida law of the crimes of second-degree murder and manslaughter does not necessarily exonerate him in the world beyond the court. It does not mean that he is not culpable. This is and can never be a case where the defendant can proudly proclaim his innocence at some later date. But today's verdict, the unanimous result of six women who worked through their longest day to deliver the word, does mean that after 18 tortuous months, this tragic story now can move on to whatever comes next.

"And what comes next, surely, is a wrongful death civil action for money damages brought against Zimmerman by the Martin family. That means another case, and perhaps another trial, with evidentiary rules that are more relaxed than the ones we've just seen. And that means that a few years from now, after Martin v. Zimmerman is concluded, we'll likely know more about what happened that night than we do today. That's the good news. The bad news is that no matter how many times Zimmerman is hauled into court, we will never know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about what happened that terrible night."

We could not hear Trayvon Martin's version of what happened that night. George Zimmerman made sure of that with a single gunshot to the heart at close range. Zimmerman would never allow his version of events to be cross-examined. Frankly, I found his claim -- the story he told police -- of Martin "seeing" the gun that Zimmerman had strapped to his back (above his right rear pants pocket), while he was wearing a jacket that covered it, in the darkness that Zimmerman and others had claimed made things very hard to see, to be anything but plausible.

I'm surprised at how many legal experts here have personally examined the evidence and heard the testimonies from both the defense and prosecution, and have taken the time out of their certainly busy schedules to reveal their revelations to us.

The media has been appalling right from the start of this. The bias has been sickening.

God, I remember the nauseatingly-poor reporting towards the beginning of the case. The doctored 911 calls, the 8-year-old pictures of Trayvon... After that I decided to believe next to nothing about the case that I heard on the news for a long time.

So he got out of his car which he didn't need to do, stalked the boy which he didn't need to do, shot him which he didn't need to do since the boy was unarmed - and he's guilty of nothing??

It is strange, I really expected a manslaughter charge. I think the prosecution just blew it, honestly.

However, lethal self-defense is based on who initiated the lethal force. Apparently, the jury lacked sufficient evidence to declare Zimmerman to be the one who initiated it.

What a strange country the USA is. You can deliberately provoke someone who is minding their own business, shoot them to death and get off scot free.

Your vain presumptions and axe to grind against the U.S. aside, have you not heard the doctrine that it is better for 100 guilty men to go free than one innocent man to be punished?

Scrote, Florida just amplifies the strange. This is the same state where a woman shooting a gun into the wall to warn off an abusive husband got a twenty year prison term. Incredible that she could have gotten a more lenient sentence by shooting her husband and removing the witness needed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as appears to have happened in the Zimmerman case.

globalwatcher

SDM=second degree murder

The pic of him when he was 12 yrs old or so is stillllll on this page? Why is this the only picture the media ever shows? He looked and acted nothing like the innocent looking kid in that picture. His facebook had numerous drug selling references and identified drug usage. Why do we never get to see the drug use pics, violent texts or the pics with him holding large sums of money like a drug dealer?

Just an innocent kid coming back from the store with an iced tea and skittles. right? Do a google search on what skittles and "watermelon fruit juice drink" (which he really bought not "iced tea") mixed with cough syrup makes.

All that said, he didnt deserve to die just for being a less than upstanding citizen. I am sure everyone wishes Zimmerman had just called the cops and left. But he didnt, an altercation happened and someone is dead too young. That is tragic but there was not enough evidence to make Zimmerman responsible for it all.

Not guilty does not mean innocent, it means the state did not prove its case. As for not leaving the truck, he had every right to walk around his own community. Again people say Martin would still be alive if Zimmerman had stayed in the truck. He would also still be alive if he would not have attacked him. Zimmerman did not get off as think of all of the time he spent in jail and then the terms of his bond. Now there is a very good chance he will be killed.

A good reason to buy a gun if you live in the USA and out of the Lib crime centers that don't allow gun ownership. At least Chicago and the State of Illinois allows concealed carry now --> will be implemented in 2014 so the criminals have a little more time to shoot the unarmed.

Score another for one of the dumb states.

Yes, the dumb states got the racially charged show trial that they and their allies in the media and the Obama Administration wanted. The media first claims that a Hispanic man is "white" and used it as a tool to gin up racial antagonism (cue President Obama, Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson). When this was disproved, the media coins a new race/ethnicity term and calls him a "white-Hispanic" (has anyone ever heard the media call the President a white-black man? The Obama Justice Department unbelievably sends Federal employees to Florida to organize anti-Zimmerman protests.

Following the Federal political pressure, local politicians then go after the Sheriff for correctly refraining from pressing charges. When he doesn't bend to political pressure, he has the case taken away from him and then fired. When the State AG's IT Director blows the whistle on the culling of exculpatory information from state reports he get's fired from his job in retaliation.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/13/justice/zimmerman-it-firing/index.html

The bottom line in this case is that Zimmerman was doing his job for his community. Crimes were occurring on a regular basis in his community and Zimmerman did what a community watch person should do - he was watching out for his community. He immediately called the police when he saw a stranger in the community (Martin was not a resident there). He kept an eye on him while the police were responding. When he was told not to follow him he claims that he was going back to his car and was jumped. Martin racially profiled Zimmerman when he called him a "creepy-ass cracker". Being a neighborhood watchmen is not a crime and Zimmerman doesn't deserve to have his head bashed in for being concerned for his community.

Martin seems to have been conditioned by modern American culture to believe that he should be aggressive towards whom he assumed to be a threat to him. Following someone can be annoying and even threatening but it isn't a crime and the evidence shows that Martin started the fight when he could have just asked why he was being followed. Martin was a young man and he made a serious mistake. He made the fatal mistake of attacking a man he assumed he could handle but who turned out to be armed.

Floida is different than other 49 states in USA. Many criminals live happily after they move to Florida to escape their criminal sentencing in other states for instance..

he had every right to walk around his own community

He wasn't "walking around", he was stalking the teenager. Get it right!

The mass media has and still does an injustice to Zimmerman and the sheep follow. While I don't support all of Zimmerman's actions, his intent was not to kill. He will live with that death. Trayvon should not have died but....

As for the media portraying Treyvon as a child, in the legal definition he was a minor. If you met him on the street no doubt he pass as an adult. What do you think Zimmerman thought? After all he was getting his a$$ beat by a child.

Florida is different than other 49 states (+ Puerto Rico) in USA. Many criminals live happily after they move to Florida to escape their criminal sentencing in other states for instance..

Criminals (usually rich) like to move to Florida because they cannot take your house/property and everything else in it. +Florida no state income tax.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_exemption_in_Florida

https://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/04/business/enron-s-many-strands-the-executives-home-as-shield-from-creditors-is-under-fire.html

American justice prevails, the media and weirdos' with spin this but the truth is he is not guilty. GBA

"Of course the deadly meeting last year between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman had at its core a racial element. Of course its tragic result reminds us that the nation, in ways too many of our leaders refuse to acknowledge, is still riven by race."

I think the trial shows us how much the media will play up the race angle. Zimmerman took a black girl to prom which wasn't mentioned much. And obviously they chose a particular photo of Martin's to put on the air. They were massaging this case to bait people into the race debate since it's cheap and easy. Racism exists, but I don't think we have to launch it to the top of the list every single time something happens between a white man and a black man.

Wolfpack: Being a neighborhood watchmen is not a crime and Zimmerman doesn't deserve to have his head bashed in for being concerned for his community.

He went driving in his car, followed people he had no knowledge of, got out of his car, then approached a stranger with a loaded weapon. Give it a try yourself sometime and see how that works out for you. You can be concerned about your community without creating unpredictable situations with lethal weapons.

Sailwind: This was all a political trial from the start

I'm not a law expert but it's hard to believe that the police will just release you after doing what Zimmerman did.

Thanks. I didn't know there were no males in that part of Florida?

@zichi - you may want to do some reading on what a jury of your peers means legally in the US.

It does not mean the seated jury has to be an exact match for the localities demographic make-up. Also it is a right of the defendant and the defendant can decided to accept an atypical representation if so desired. And lastly, barring a showing of bias, it applies mostly to the people in the jury pool not the actual members of the pool selected to be seated on the final jury.

Tora,

"This is the same state where a woman shooting a gun into the wall to warn off an abusive husband got a twenty year prison term. "

The media is guilty for portraying this case as you say it, but if you dig a bit you'll see she had a row, and then left to return waving a gun around.....hardly standing your ground by any definition.

His facebook had numerous drug selling references and identified drug usage. Why do we never get to see the drug use pics, violent texts or the pics with him holding large sums of money like a drug dealer?

Did Zimmerman have access to Martin's Facebook page and evidence of drug usage before he decided to get out of his car with is gun and stalk the boy?

if you dig a bit you'll see she had a row, and then left to return waving a gun around.....hardly standing your ground by any definition.

Getting out of your car after being specifically instructed by the 911 dispatcher not to do so, following a person around and creating a situation where he feels threatened, is also hardly 'standing your ground'.

Getting out of your car after being specifically instructed by the 911 dispatcher not to do so

If you listen to Zimmerman's undoctored 911 call, he is already out of the car, and you can distinctly hear noises of footsteps and heavier breathing when the 911 operator asks him "Are you following him?" To which Zimmerman responded "Yes," the 911 operator said "Ok, we don't need you to do that." Soon after, his breathing subsides and the footsteps stop.

following a person around and creating a situation where he feels threatened

Approaching a person at night who is NOT a resident of your neighborhood when you are a member of the neighborhood is not illegal. Perhaps ill-advised, but not illegal.

is also hardly 'standing your ground'.

As I mentioned before, the legal question, "is lethal self-defense ok here?" is answered based on who first brought the confrontation to lethal terms. Again, apparently, the jury lacked sufficient evidence to declare beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman first escalated the confrontation to lethal force.

If you listen to Zimmerman's undoctored 911 call, he is already out of the car..

The blatant fact of Zimmerman's call is that he refers to Trayvon Martin as being among those "effing punks" and "a-holes" who "always get away."

What was Trayvon Martin doing that he would have "gotten away" with, had not Zimmerman decided to tail him with a loaded weapon? What did Martin do that was illegal, or worthy of being called a "suspect" -- as Zimmerman referred to him several times later?

In the years that Zimmerman lived in the complex, how many times did he call the police about a white person walking through the neighborhood that he did not know? Were whites not among those "suspects" who "always get away?" Or were African-Americans just far more likely to draw Zimmerman's suspicions?

The blatant fact of Zimmerman's call is that he refers to Trayvon Martin as being among those "effing punks" and "a-holes" who "always get away."

Let us assume, for the moment, that Zimmerman is a racist. That he hates all black people, living or dead, with a passion. My question: So what?

If he based his suspicion of Martin purely on the color of his skin: So what?

If he approached him based purely on race: So what?

The answer is nothing. That has no bearing on this case. For the third time: Apparently, the jury of peers which was agreed upon by BOTH the defense AND prosecution decided that there was not enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was guilty of the crime of murder.

You seem unable to separate being a terrible person and being guilty of the crime of murder. Perhaps Zimmerman is a terrible person; I can't say, I've never met the guy. That doesn't make him any less deserving of the full protection of the law.

@badsay3: Not just rich criminals only. Often we read cases in which criminals were baited out for illegal business deals (by agents) and go to other state and arrested.

Let us assume, for the moment, that Zimmerman is a racist. That he hates all black people, living or dead, with a passion. My question: So what?

You have raised very important points and questions. I am grateful for, and applaud, your being so up-front.

For the third time: Apparently, the jury of peers which was agreed upon by BOTH the defense AND prosecution decided that there was not enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was guilty of the crime of murder.

To which I say, so what? There is a higher law than what just transpired in Florida. And your own words have just provided a better testimonial than one I could have claimed. The misfortune that befell Trayvon Martin's parents and loved ones is that this incident took place in Florida. In the vast majority of states without "stand-your-ground" laws, Zimmerman would not have gotten off so easily, and would almost certainly have been convicted of manslaughter. This is a simple fact. (Keep in mind that Trayvon Martin was an American citizen, and also deserving of his life and liberty. The fact he was living in Florida should not change those basic protections.)

Let's use your concession. that Zimmerman hated black people with a passion. Florida law has, by this decision, given a green light to any virulent racist -- conceding your claim -- to profile and take out someone who they hate, as long as they have a plausible claim for self-defense. Remember, it is the job of the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the claim is not plausible. And you are here claiming that a person's racism should be completely irrelevant. I believe most Americans would have a different opinion.

So, in addition to the question -- What was Martin doing that was illegal and could characterize him as a suspect? --it must be asked: "On what authority did Zimmerman get out of his vehicle with a loaded weapon to begin a pursuit of someone he considered a suspect?" It could not be as a Neighborhood Watch, because the rules were explicit and clear regarding pursuits and carrying weapons. It is evident that Zimmerman does not have a lot of regard for basic rules and human decency.

I understand that some Americans have no problems whatsoever with a complete racist -- someone who hates all those of a certain race "living or dead -- carrying lethal firepower and acting as judge, jury and executioner as Zimmerman did when he profiled a completely innocent person not engaged in any crime, and took a loaded weapon to pursue the person. (Again I ask: under what authority?) I understand how some Americans want to completely excuse these actions in saying "so what?"

But Florida is not the final word. Trayvon Martin, as much as many may hate this fact, was still an American. He deserved to get home safely without fearing for his safety from the creepy, wannabe cop who was in pursuit of him.

In the vast majority of states without "stand-your-ground" laws, Zimmerman would not have gotten off so easily, and would almost certainly have been convicted of manslaughter.

Well, duh. That's like saying "If you commit a crime in a state where it's not illegal, you won't get arrested."

In all honesty, though, I thought he should have been convicted on manslaughter. I was nearly 100% sure it WAS going to happen. I was quite shocked when he was charged with nothing at all. If you want to be mad at someone, be mad at the prosecution.

"On what authority did Zimmerman get out of his vehicle with a loaded weapon

Florida's concealed carry laws.

I understand that some Americans have no problems whatsoever with a complete racist -- someone who hates all those of a certain race "living or dead -- carrying lethal firepower and acting as judge, jury and executioner as Zimmerman did when he profiled a completely innocent person not engaged in any crime, and took a loaded weapon to pursue the person.

You watch (and believe) the television news media too much.

He should have gotten charged with manslaughter. I already said that. It was the prosecution's fault for going straight after murder that he didn't.

bfg4987: Approaching a person at night who is NOT a resident of your neighborhood when you are a member of the neighborhood is not illegal

Where are the resident's lists kept?

It's not illegal but it may have allowed Zimmerman to get into a situation where he killed a man and got away with it. The only thing that saved his ass was that it's impossible to know with 100% certainty what happened. So he went from rushing in like a bull to getting away behind a cloud of smoke, and the only thing we have to go on is his word.

@bfg4987

that Zimmerman was guilty of the crime of murder.

You're dumbing us all down with your simple conclusions. Ya'll hafta remember, that a Second Degree Murder charge is very hard to prove. A Manslaughter charge would have put this guy in jail. The jury are bound to strict rules for each different charge. IMO. It was setup to fail.

Well, duh. That's like saying "If you commit a crime in a state where it's not illegal, you won't get arrested."

When the crime involves the loss of a human life, it deserves to be treated seriously in a country which supposedly honors life.

Florida's concealed carry laws.

Readers will note that you had to edit the question to supply that "answer." Did Florida's concealed carry laws grant George Zimmerman the authority to pursue someone he profiled as a suspect? Most people who are honest know the answer.

He should have gotten charged with manslaughter. I already said that.

So what? You think your opinion decides anything? The jury had the chance to levy the lesser charge and chose not to do it. Why? Because of the laws of the state of Florida, and not the prosecution's case. In any state without "stand-your-ground," manslaughter would have stuck. In this case, with no video or iron-clad witnesses, and no Zimmerman subjecting himself to testimony, the State of Florida had to make the best of what evidence it had. The standards in a civil trial, as OJ found out, are not quite as exacting.

Conceding your earlier point, Zimmerman could have been a complete racist (as well as a liar), and all he would have needed is reasonable doubt to take the life of someone he profiled and stalked as being a member of a group he hated, or at least he didn't want to see "getting away" with anything again. Fate worked in his favor that night.

YuriOtaniJul. 14, 2013 - 10:34PM JST

Not guilty does not mean innocent

You do not want to hear this, but he is INNOCENT under eyes of THIS court. I would like to repeat what Judge D. Nelson declared to him last night, "Mr. Zimmerman, you may go ahead to unleash the ankle GPS device from your feet, and you will have no association with this court any more again, you are free to go." There is no if, but, however in this verdict. NOT GUILTY.

So what? You think your opinion decides anything?

HA! That comes from you?

Consider your last post before this one. The entire thing is one giant ignoratio at elenchi. You can dress up your words as much as you like (which you are very good at, you'd make an excellent politician), but you can't hide that your conclusion concludes only that "IF Zimmerman did this, IF this was the case, IF etc. etc. etc., then this is horrible and he deserves to be punished."

There's a reason they pick jurors who know nothing about the case: There are many, such as yourself, who, knowing nothing but hearsay from the news, are so willing to deliver a guilty verdict.

Only in The States are you allowed to murder someone for going out for a soft drink and minding his or her own business.

Not exactly what happened... You start a fight with someone who is armed, be prepared for them to defend themselves.

You start a fight with someone who is armed, be prepared for them to defend themselves.

I would like to keep my mouth shut after the verdict, but I cannot let this absurd comment like this to go unnoticed that was already tested in the trial.

Your comment proved to me that you were not watching the most critical defense argument here. The victim could not see THAT gun because it was too SMALL in hand of Zimmerman in the DARK.

but you can't hide that your conclusion concludes only that "IF Zimmerman did this, IF this was the case, IF etc. etc. etc., then this is horrible and he deserves to be punished."

There is no "IF" regarding Zimmerman packing a loaded weapon and pursuing someone he profiled as a "suspect." Someone who had not done anything illegal. To Zimmerman, being a young black male walking back to the place he was staying in the same housing community was enough to be considered a suspect.

There is no "IF" regarding manslaughter laws in states that do not have Florida's "stand-your-ground" laws on their books. A young American citizen was deprived of his life by someone who had no authority whatsoever to pursue him with a loaded weapon. As you put it, Zimmerman could have been the worst type of hater -- someone leading a hate-group who burned crosses weekly -- and it would not have mattered in this case to the people who believed justice was done. It would not have mattered if Trayvon was 16, or 15, or 14, or perhaps a 12-year-old who was big for his age.

In walking directly back to his father's residence, Martin had every right to be where he was. Zimmerman did not. He disregarded the Watch rules about pursuing suspects and carrying weapons -- so he could not claim to be acting in that capacity. He simply had no right to go out of his way to pursue a guy who was doing nothing more wrong than trying to get home to watch a basketball game.

Zimmerman knew he carried a weapon -- and he even tried to convince the police that Trayvon somehow found out about it and was trying to get his hands on it. (Based upon where the weapon was, and how dark it was, and Zimmerman's wearing a jacket, how could Martin have known?) Any person who is in the midst of an intense scuffle who thinks he can reason to the extent Zimmerman did about the motivations of his opponent in the heat of the moment is, quite simply, a liar who is simply trying to save his own skin.

Remember, the Zimmerman who claims Trayvon Martin trying to get his weapon from him is the same Zimmerman who judged Martin as someone who was "up to no good."

You start a fight with someone who is armed, be prepared for them to defend themselves.

It is not known who started the altercation. All we know is who left his vehicle in pursuit of the other person. At some point, the principles regarding standing one's ground could have applied to Martin, who was in the process of heading to his father's residence -- an act that struck Zimmerman as being "up to no good." Do we really have to take his word and trust his judgment on this? When he left his vehicle with a loaded weapon to pursue Martin, acts in clear violation of the rules for Watches, it was Zimmerman who was up to no good.

Still the news media says he killed a boy, or child. He was 17! Put yourself in Zimmermans shoes at the time. As far as he knew he was a young adult. 17 year old can pass for a man.

I would like to keep my mouth shut after the verdict, but I cannot let this absurd comment like this to go unnoticed that was already tested in the trial.

It was not proven how the altercation started. With Florida's stand-your-ground laws, the burden of proof was on the State to show that Zimmerman started the altercation. What we know is that Zimmerman incorrectly judged Martin -- a young man who had done nothing wrong -- as a "suspect" and set out to pursue him with a loaded weapon. That is the clearest evidence that exists someone disregarding rules in order to seek a confrontation.

Put yourself in Zimmermans shoes at the time.

When I try that, I find myself becoming dead wrong for leaving my vehicle with a loaded weapon to pursue the person I have told others was "up to no good" -- a statement that is not justified by any of the evidence. It was the dead wrong Zimmerman -- the supposed adult who should have known better -- who deprived an innocent young man of his life.

@zichi

Thank you for that clip and link. I would like to quote from it and comment:

"if circumstances require you to do so, you should know that the law will protect you only if your actions in using deadly force have been consistent with the law."

What makes the Zimmerman case so interesting and important is that it reveals the practical reality of the above statement -- which is nothing more than a theoretical, mealy-mouthed ideal.

Here is what that reality is: "If your actions in using deadly force do not appear to be consistent with the law in any way, the law will not protect you from being charged and having to face trial. However, you should know, and take comfort in, the fact that the burden of proof for the alleged use of force inconsistent with the law will be upon the State, and not upon the accused. In practical reality, it can be extremely difficult for the State to conclusively prove that deadly force has been applied inconsistent with the law, especially if there are no credible secondary eyewitnesses and/or a primary witness is somehow unable to testify."

Many peaceful demo in many cities. (except Oakland, CA). Some kind of Federal is investigating all court procedure right now.

At some point, the principles regarding standing one's ground could have applied to Martin, who was in the process of heading to his father's residence -- an act that struck Zimmerman as being "up to no good." Do we really have to take his word and trust his judgment on this?

No, that's why we have impartial trials instead, and this impartial jury didn't buy a single word of any of your theories and your past and now continuing conjectures to this case, as evident by the not guilty verdicts to both 2nd degree murder and the not guilty lesser charge of manslaughter. Due process was done as you demanded on your yabits Mar. 28, 2012 - 11:23PM JST thread regarding this incident when it first became national news and he was charged with exactly what you had wished for.........as you stated:

"There is no way to decide Zimmerman is guilty except by due process, which should not have been left up to the police at the scene. I decided early on that no way should Zimmerman have been set free without facing manslaughter charges at the least".

http://www.japantoday.com/category/world/view/mass-florida-rally-after-black-teen-shot-dead/comments/popular/id/2196270

It is unfortunate that you do now do not wish or cannot accept the result of the not guilty verdict after due process has now been completed by a jury of his peers.

President Obama spoke now. The verdict means all jurors agreed. Otherwise, mistrial. It had Florida's due process.

sailwind JUL. 15, 2013 - 06:26AM JST

So many deep and profound flaws in the thinking [such as it is] behind this post. Rather than try to attempt the impossible in hoping to correct the source of the flaws, I will highlight some of the problem statements and appeal to the "Impartial" reader:

No, that's why we have impartial trials instead...

I agree that the ideal is an impartial trial and, usually, every effort is made to insure impartiality. I confess to feeling doubt when a panel of men (and not a single woman) renders a decision on an issue affecting women. In this case, in which so many of the critical details relate to the tussle between a lad of 17 and an adult male, I am doubtful how much the average woman understands from experience about physical tussles -- which are a part of the growing up of the vast majority of American males. That is just one area where some practical doubt is cast.

and this impartial jury didn't buy a single word of any of your theories

The jurors took a lot of time to reach their decision. We have not heard anything directly from the jurors, so I can't claim the level of clairvoyance claimed by the writer of the above. I believe there is a reason why justice is presented as a set of scales. A juror may attach some degree of weight to a given theory or piece of evidence. Another factor may counter-balance or outweigh that. But that outcome is vastly different from the outright rejection asserted above.

Due process was done as you demanded on your yabits Mar. 28, 2012 - 11:23PM JST thread regarding this incident when

I don't know how many posters have their writings so carefully scrutinized. Frankly, I welcome it, feeling flattered. But the honest truth is that, while every trial is an attempt to apply justice through due process, trials themselves can be subject to scrutiny. I believe it would be a serious mistake to believe that every trial is somehow a perfect, or perfectly impartial thing. For example, the serious flaws that I believe caused the serious miscarriage of justice in the criminal case against OJ Simpson were resolved somewhat in the successful civil case against him -- the civil case being just another part of "due process."

It is unfortunate that you do now do not wish or cannot accept the result of the not guilty verdict after due process has now been completed by a jury of his peers.

Again, I have a hard time accepting that Zimmerman's "peers" are exclusively women. However, in truth, I am quite happy with this verdict. I think it will go a very long way in dissuading other states from adopting stand-your-ground laws. I was happy to read the view (above) of how it would not matter if Zimmerman could be shown to be the very worst kind of racist. I agree: That's how the Florida law is set up. A person could taunt, goad or threaten another person into a fight, and then later claim self-defense. If there are no witnesses, it's simply the State's burden to prove against the one who used deadly force to end the fight he provoked. The man who provoked the fight doesn't even have to testify. The trial was beautiful in that it displayed this farce for all to see.

In the (OT) biblical sense of justice -- an eye for an eye -- Trayvon Martin should have been able to walk away that night without much more than the insignificant scratches and bumps that Zimmerman received. We had to wait for the trial for the medical evidence to be fully presented. The defense attorneys did a good job, the way OJ's defense team did, at making it seem plausible that abrasions that didn't require a single stitch could be caused by a vicious head pounding -- complete with bringing a piece of pavement into the courtroom, as though Trayvon came after Zimmerman with it.

(As one of the police officers testified, he thought Zimmerman was exaggerating the extent of his injuries -- something that seemed apparent in the days after the incident, and is now documented in the trial.) Frankly, I still can't understand how Martin could have been pounding Zimmerman's head into the ground, or pummeling him, while at the same time trying to reach for a gun that Zimmerman was essentially lying on. Of course, that's if we believe Zimmerman's version of the events of that night.

Again, I have a hard time accepting that Zimmerman's "peers" are exclusively women.

Woman aren't equal to men and cannot be their peers.... I got it.

I am doubtful how much the average woman understands from experience about physical tussles

So women are too stupid to understand young males? Please....

As for Martins age, my old university regularly offers athletic scholarships to 17 year old males that are much bigger and stronger than any average adult male. By all accounts Martin was the bigger person at the time of the attack. Zimmerman was considered a light-weight. Which is probably why it was a good idea for him to carry a concealed weapon.

I just don't think it makes sense for a guy with a weapon to start a fist fight - it isn't necessary and is probably stupid. If he intended to kill Martin that night, he could have just pulled out his gun and shot him. Why risk having your weapon taken away from you by getting in a fight? It seems pretty obvious that Martin threw the first - if not all - of the punches. Other than the gunshot, Martin's only wounds were on his knuckles. I haven't heard of any evidence that Zimmerman had any abrasions or bruises on his knuckles (if I'm wrong, please correct me).

However, in truth, I am quite happy with this verdict. I think it will go a very long way in dissuading other states from adopting stand-your-ground laws.

Not likely. Zimmerman did not use the so called "stand your ground" law as the basis for his defense. He used the regular old right of self-defense. I see that "stand your ground" is frequently mentioned on this thread but it doesn't have anything to do with how this case played out. Just repeatedly saying that he did doesn't make it so.

That's how the Florida law is set up. A person could taunt, goad or threaten another person into a fight, and then later claim self-defense. If there are no witnesses, it's simply the State's burden to prove against the one who used deadly force to end the fight he provoked. The man who provoked the fight doesn't even have to testify. The trial was beautiful in that it displayed this farce for all to see.

This statement is misguided. First of all, taunting is not an excuse for violence on the part of Martin. That said, there is no evidence that Zimmerman was taunting him. He just asked him what he was doing. If there was any racial animus involved the evidence points to Martin and his "creepy ass cracker" remark. Zimmerman made no similar racial statements about Martin. The only time he mentioned race was when the 911 dispatcher asked him to. You can't just assume things and base a conviction on the assumption - that would be a farce.

Frankly, I still can't understand how Martin could have been pounding Zimmerman's head into the ground, or pummeling him, while at the same time trying to reach for a gun that Zimmerman was essentially lying on.

Does it have to be simultaneous? More assumptions. Couldn't Martin have been going all MMA on Zimmerman for a minute or so and then as a result of their close contact become aware of the weapon and then gone for it? Seems plausable to me. If I were fighting with someone and noticed the other person had a gun I wouldn't just wait around pounding on him until he decided to pull the gun out. If Martin became aware of the weapon he would have been out of his mind not to go for it.

Too many people are going only on their emotions about this case and not about the facts available. I can understand the family and friends being emotional and unable to be objective. However the rest of us do not have that excuse. You can't base a justice system on emotionalism.

It is terribly sad what happened that night but the young man made a fatal mistake. He sized up Zimmerman and thought he could take him. I doubt he would have initiated a fight with a bigger guy - say Aaron Hernandez (another "white" Hispanic). This case says more about American street / gang culture than anything else. It's sad that a 17 year old feels the need to man up to an adult.

Woman aren't equal to men and cannot be their peers.... I got it.

Of course, you get it -- twisted, as is your own perverse way. Once again, with emphasis: I have a hard time accepting that Zimmerman's "peers" are exclusively women.

Equality before law a given, I have a hard time accepting that a group of women selected at random would possess the intimate knowledge of a male-on-male tussle in their past experience, any more than a group of men selected at random would have personal experience with a botched hysterectomy.

Getting out of your car after being specifically instructed by the 911 dispatcher not to do so, following a person around and creating a situation where he feels threatened, is also hardly 'standing your ground'.

Actually, that's where the whole problem started. Zimmerman took it upon himself after he was told NOT to go and get himself involved in persuing him. Zimmerman had a choice, bottom line! People want t make it as if Zimmerman was justified in doing what he did and wanted to make Treyvon look like the one that was the actual criminal. In my opinion, the whole trail debacle was abut what Treyvon did and not about Zimmerman.

I have a hard time accepting that a group of women selected at random would possess the intimate knowledge of a male-on-male tussle in their past experience,

Yup, I guess raising boys wouldn't count here if any of these woman had children who happened to be males as 'experience'.

''Nobody including Trayvon Martin was just minding their own business in this whole tragic set of events smith,''

Who's business was he minding? Some people are willing to make up facts. Trayvon was out of Zimmerman's sight. He had gone between houses when Zimmerman followed him. Trayvon was in nobody's business. We must evaluate those who make up facts through innuendo.

"Woman aren't equal to men and cannot be their peers.... I got it."

Typical trickery. When a person presents an argumentative statement as the other party's it is called a Straw Man fallacy. This is EXACTLY what this is. Show the kind readers where "Woman [women] aren't equal to men..." is. It doesn't exist. Forthrightness would exclude a person from falsely attributing a statement to another if they did not make it.

So women are too stupid to understand young males? Please....

That is nowhere anything close to what I said. It is not about "understanding young males." It is having personal experience with the kind of physical scraps and tussles that nearly every young man goes through as a rite of passage. Some women experience them, but a majority do not.

By all accounts Martin was the bigger person at the time of the attack.

Irrelevant. I've known plenty of "smaller" men who loved to scrap with bigger ones. Size is not the determining factor but tendency towards violence. Where does it show that Martin was frequently involved in fights, or had an anger management problem? Oh, that would be Zimmerman.

First of all, taunting is not an excuse for violence on the part of Martin. That said, there is no evidence that Zimmerman was taunting him. He just asked him what he was doing.

That's what Zimmerman says, uncorroborated by any witness. Provoking and taunting would include physically grabbing or pushing the person.

If I were fighting with someone and noticed the other person had a gun

If you were on top of the person and the gun was holstered behind them, AND it was very dark, it is not likely you or anyone would notice it. Not unless your style and strategy of fighting men includes grabbing and feeling up their behinds.

He sized up Zimmerman and thought he could take him.

Pure conjecture. He wouldn't have been talking on the phone with his girlfriend -- the only way we know about the "cracker" remark (as Zimmerman was never confronted by it) -- and "sizing up" Zimmerman and getting ready to fight him at the same time. Fighting, assault, anger management, restraint orders -- those are part of Zimmerman's character, not Martin's. The act of falsely judging someone as a "suspect" and taking after them with a loaded weapon is an aggressive act.

Wolfpack, do you carry on the street? Just curious as to what you would do if you saw a black guy following you at night and talking on the phone, then he gets out, then he approaches you. What would you do?

And would you stop yourself from doing anything because you might give this guy a claim of self defense with the right to shoot you?

Yup, I guess raising boys wouldn't count here if any of these woman had children who happened to be males as 'experience'.

The "experience" is not child-raising but direct, personal knowledge of a physical fight with someone of roughly equal size and build. My claim, of which "child-raising" is a rather ignorant rebuttal, is that men are far more likely to have that experience than women.

Just as more men are likely to know what it is like to put on gloves and step into the boxing ring than, say, Sugar Ray Leonard's mother. LOL!!

Clarifying some misinformation here.

1) Stand Your Ground was not part of the defense's argument. It was a classic self-defense argument, stating that once Martin turned and attacked, Zimmerman was free to defend himself with commiserate force.

2) The jury had the option to convict on the lesser charge of manslaughter. They declined to do so.

Just as more men are likely to know what it is like to put on gloves and step into the boxing ring than, say, Sugar Ray Leonard's mother. LOL!!

Making sexist statements is not something to laugh at yabits, Ms Leonard would be more of an expert as to what injuries were caused by blows to the head and what they look like and the after effects then you and I would ever be in one million years and would have been one hell of a juror asset if she was seated on this trial..

Ms Leonard would be more of an expert as to what injuries were caused by blows to the head and what they look like and the after effects then you and I would ever be in one million years

And how could such grandiose hyperbole possibly fail to persuade?

Sadly, you've barked up the wrong tree again. It's not the academic identification of injuries, it's the understanding and experience of actually being in a fight.

Here's another tack, readers: Given superficial injuries -- that is, no stitches, concussion, or broken bones -- a sissy-boy (gutless coward) might more easily con a woman into believing he was in a fight where he was in fear for his life, than it would be to con a man who has seen a few scrapes himself.

Of course, it might take some people a million years to accept the reality that Zimmerman's injuries were superficial, and very much in keeping with a typical scuffle.

Given superficial injuries -- that is, no stitches, concussion, or broken bones -- a sissy-boy (gutless coward) might more easily con a woman into believing he was in a fight where he was in fear for his life,

So Trayvon Martin beat up on a non threatening "sissy-boy".....I got it.

Madverts: "Because you are suggesting this teenager was shot because in "The States are you allowed to murder someone for going out for a soft drink"."

Okay, so why was he shot? Was he not simply walking down the street after buying a soft drink and... skittles, wasn't it? That's all it took for him to get killed. And if I 'often rant about the US' it's because the topic is rant-worthy, as is the decision to let Zimmerman off the hook for murdering an innocent teen.

Yabits, you are completely correct that there is no evidence of who physically attacked who first. Those saying otherwise are simply taking Zimmerman's word for it, which is preposterous.

But about Martin seeing a gun; while he probably didn't until it was actually out, at some point he may have seen Zimmerman going for it. If Zimmerman fumbled for that gun, at that point anyone would assume he was going for one, see it or not. It could explain how the physical aspect got started. It could also explain why Zimmerman put up such a poor fight. He was so preoccupied trying to get that gun out. And who could blame Martin for jumping on someone who stalked him in the dark and in the rain, around corners, getting in and out of his vehicle to stalk him, particularly if he started reaching under his jacket?

I think it is a very plausible scenario that Martin hid around a corner, not so much to lay a trap for Zimmerman, but to 1) not lead this person to his house and 2) see if he was still following. Then he asks why he is being followed, surprises Zimmerman who then starts going for his gun. Martin sees the motion and jumps Zimmerman believing he is about to get gunned down.

Not that I personally care about the physical confrontation. I think it should all rest on the psychological confrontation. Zimmerman waged on heck of psychological confrontation on the unsuspecting Martin. What I see is stalking and harassment that led Martin to fear for his life first. And thus I see Martin as the one defending himself. Zimmerman, the self-appointed Watchman with no regard for Watchman protocol, should have stayed in his car, or better yet, stayed at home. He should be doing time for manslaughter.

http://legallyarmed.com/ccw_statistics.htm

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/Number_of_Licensees_By_Type.pdf

Florida has over a million concealed carry licenses = the most of any state by far. Statistically Trayvon was at a huge disadvantage here. Criminals need to look at other states outside of Florida for these types of crimes if they wish to be successful.

I just remembered a vital detail. Zimmerman said he went for his cell phone the moment Martin confronted him, he says, to call 911 again. Strangely, he said he reached for the wrong pocket, as he says that in the "excitement" he earlier put his cell phone where he does not usually put it. So did Martin figure Zimmerman was going for a weapon? Or is Zimmerman trying to cover the fact that he was actually going for his gun? Either way, after all this stalking, Martin's reaction to Zimmerman going for anything, with no explanation from Zimmerman about his intentions or identity, is extremely understandable. What is not understandable is Zimmerman's dogged stalking, especially after the 911 dispatcher says he does not need to follow Martin, and he responds "okay", but does not relay that he is still on Martin's trail.

bass4funk: "Zimmerman had a choice, bottom line! People want t make it as if Zimmerman was justified in doing what he did and wanted to make Treyvon look like the one that was the actual criminal."

It is rare that we agree, but I agree with you here. What's most baffling are comments by his defense and family and friends, saying even that Zimmerman "deserves a medal for what he did", etc. Now word has it Zimmerman wants to go to law school to "help those wrongly accused, like I was", as though the guy didn't actually kill Treyvon. The only rational comments to come out of this have been from Treyvon's parents, who said they are sure the jury did what they felt they should, according to the law, and don't blame them, but that perhaps the laws need to be changed.

So Trayvon Martin beat up on a non threatening "sissy-boy".....I got it.

Another poster astutely pointed out your lack of being forthright. Only you know why you added "non-threatening" in the dishonest attempt to misconstrue what I actually wrote. Most bullies are, in fact, sissies, even though they can appear threatening.

Georgie Porgie's mama said that was him screaming like a stuck pig on the 911 recording. A 200-lb adult (?) getting all he could handle from an unarmed 17-year-old kid who didn't even weigh 160. (5'11" and 158 pounds? -- the kid's close to being a beanpole.) Oh, the humiliation.

You've obviously got a thing for cowards, as well as the inability to be forthright.... we got it.

The jury acquitted him. Nuff said.

Now word has it Zimmerman wants to go to law school to "help those wrongly accused, like I was"

Yeah? Maybe OJ can become his first client.

There's a strong possibility that George will get some great on-the-job training when the civil rights charges are filed.

The jury's verdict was "not guilty", but I won't go so far as one person I know did and call him "innocent". We'll probably never know what really happened that night.

Based solely on the newspaper accounts at the time, I could not see how Zimmerman could be convicted. They would have needed some sort of evidence proving Zimmerman continued to pursue Trayvon after the 911 operator told him they didn't need him to continue following. Nothing in the paper reports suggested they had any sort of evidence like that. Therefore it became Zimmerman's word against... nobody's. The prosecution went to trial with a case built from a house of cards. When your job is to prove murder "beyond all reasonable doubt", a house of cards makes your case impossible.

Georgie Porgie's mama said that was him screaming like a stuck pig on the 911 recording

The last time I heard a person by the name of George called "Georgie Porgie" was in the third grade,

Zimmerman was told by a police dispatcher not to follow Martin and to allow police officers to intervene if necessary. Apparently, the jury missed that part. And Zimmerman acted outside of the intent of the "stand your ground " law. I wonder if Zimmerman would have been so aggressive in his pursuit of Martin had he not been armed. Power trip?

The system works, without a doubt our Justice system is the best in the world. There was a trial, evidence was presented by both sides and a verdict was rendered. You may not agree with the decision (wahhh!) but the system works.

Georgie Porgie Zimmerman -- the little man who ran away when those of his (supposed) gender came out to play. Little Georgie -- a little man who took martial arts training and outweighed his unarmed, 17-year-old opponent by over 40 pounds and squealed like a stuck pig, if we are to believe his mama, when the force of Trayvon's fists delivered their superficial marks. (Yes, to a coward, those fists would have appeared as jackhammers.)

In America, cowards like Georgie are given access to an equalizer. And what better way to meet a 158-lb, 17-year-old man -child, armed only with his fists, than with a handgun? Somewhat amazing is how so many Americans cheer on and revel in Zimmerman's blatant and obvious cowardice. How they are so willing to overlook the one clear thing that proves someone was up to "no good" that night -- the moment he left his vehicle with a loaded weapon to pursue a young man who had done absolutely nothing wrong -- outside of wearing a hoodie and noting Zimmerman's creepy presence.

It's also somewhat amazing how few people really, genuinely, try to put themselves in Trayvon Martin's position. They seem to assume that Trayvon had to know that Zimmerman was some kind of law enforcement. worthy of respect -- and not the sick coward that he was on that night, and still is today. If we believe the coward's story -- which we know is a lie -- Martin was "up to no good." It all goes downhill for there for Georgie, as well as for the justice system which sanctioned his cowardice. (It couldn't happen to a better state.)

I am all for protection of the weak. But doesn't a society cross a dangerous line when it regards cowardice as just another form of weakness? That's why the coward Georgie is considered the victim and underdog that night, and the unarmed, 158-lb., 17-year-old -- just as entitled to defend himself too -- is represented as an existential threat, whose black fists required deadly force. (Martin knew full well he was entering a potential confrontation without anything more potent than his fists; and Georgie knew full well what he was bringing to it.)

Camman80Jul. 16, 2013 - 04:08AM JST The system works, without a doubt our Justice system is the best in the world. here was a trial, evidence was presented by both sides and a verdict was rendered. You may not agree with the decision (wahhh!) but the system works.

U.S. system works for people that has money and influence. What happened to O.J. Simpson's case in L.A.? Was justice done? U.S. judical system is based on how much money you have. If you are poor, do you think you can get a fair trial with the public defender working on your side? Chance of winning the verdict is much less if you have no money.

Georgie Porgie Zimmerman -- the little man who ran away when those of his (supposed) gender came out to play. Little Georgie -- a little man who took martial arts training and outweighed his unarmed, 17-year-old opponent by over 40 pounds and squealed like a stuck pig, if we are to believe his mama,

If we are to believe Trayvon Martin's mother's testimony, it was Trayvon Martin screaming and not George Zimmerman. I'm not going to embellish that with childish name calling, snide inferences as to his sexuality and adjectives toward Trayvon Martin or call his mother "mama". I'll leave that to you.

An American criminal defendant is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and that's the standard to keep in mind when considering the jury's not guilty verdict for George Zimmerman in the murder of Trayvon Martin.

The system works, without a doubt our Justice system is the best in the world. There was a trial, evidence was presented by both sides and a verdict was rendered. You may not agree with the decision (wahhh!) but the system works.

Well, if that is true, then America clearly has some terrible laws. Or maybe its just Florida?

But, one poster elsewhere asked, "Is there a prosecution in this case, or just two defense teams?" I think there is something wrong in Sanford. First they just let Zimmerman go without arrest or time do to a real investigation. Then they reach way, way too far and charge him with murder 2. Then they try to shove in manslaughter sideways at the last minute. I thought for sure there would be a mistrial. In fact, I thought they were aiming for it!

@SuperLib

Wolfpack, do you carry on the street? Just curious as to what you would do if you saw a black guy following you at night and talking on the phone, then he gets out, then he approaches you. What would you do?

Honestly, I do not own a weapon but have given it more and more thought due to the radical changes that America has gone through in recent years. America is becoming unrecognizable. As for racial problems, they have only gotten worse since Obama and his toady Eric Holder have been in office. They spend an overly large amount of time focusing on dividing people by race and sex.

So let's go with your scenario.... If I were out walking at night and noticed I was being followed by what appears to be a young black man. I would more than likely just go about my business while keeping in mind someone is apparently tailing me. He could be following me but he could also just be going in the same direction I am - how could I know for sure? Well, you can't. Just because a person is seemingly following you doesn't necessarily imply a direct threat.

So let's say the guy comes right up to me and asks me what am I doing? Well, I could tell you for sure that I would not respond by throwing punches. Since I am not a violent person and haven't been in a fight since the 7th grade I know for sure that I wouldn't be looking for a fight - I'd likely get my butt kicked. So as you can see, how I would act in Martin's situation would likely turn out much differently unless the person following me attacked me first. Well, in this scenario the person following me has the gun. Therefore I would essentially be left completely defenseless unless I could someone how wrestle the gun away from him. As we know, this scenario didn't happen in Sanford last year.

Whenever I put myself in Martin's place, I cannot see getting shot unless Zimmerman just decided to kill him for no reason. But in that case why would bother to start a fist fight? It just doesn't make sense because you then risk having your gun taken from you. By all accounts Zimmerman wasn't a muscle bound giant so it seems very unlikely that he would put himself in such a precarious position just so he could kill a guy he doesn't know and claim self defense.

So the only thing left is to make a case that Zimmerman is a closet skin-head that hates black people. No one has been able to gather any evidence what-so-ever to make Zimmerman out to be a racist. In fact, the reverse is true. He dated a black woman - not something guys in the Klan are known to do. The only issue of race in this case cuts against Martin. He assumed that Zimmerman (a Hispanic) was white and used a racial slur about him on his cell phone as testified by his girlfriend.

Let's imagine another scenario, let's say I'm walking in my own neighborhood and I notice what appears to be a black guy following me. That would get my attention for sure. Why? Because there is a very good chance that the guy following me is my next door neighbor. We've known each other for many years and we and our families have had dinner at each others homes on many occasions. He is a busy guy so I enjoy catching up on things with him.

And would you stop yourself from doing anything because you might give this guy a claim of self defense with the right to shoot you?

As I said I do not own a gun. Yes, I would stop myself my doing anything to get into a physical altercation. A man needs to know his limits, and getting into a fist fight with a 17 year old young man would fall into that category.

The only issue of race in this case cuts against Martin. He assumed that Zimmerman (a Hispanic) was white and used a racial slur about him on his cell phone as testified by his girlfriend.

You are once again failing to portray things as they were. First, according to the girl Martin was talking to on the phone, Martin also used the "N-word" to describe Zimmerman -- as well as the word that you claim is a racial slur. When the girl was asked on the stand if she thought "cracker" was a racial slur, she said "No." I think she was sincere in her belief, as wrong as we might consider her.

As a white guy, I have to be honest: the word "cracker" doesn't offend me in the slightest. But if I have enough smarts to know the word is considered a slur by some, I would never use it. But her world did not include enough people who might have expressed offense at it, and could set her straight. And since the word was heard only between her and Trayvon that night, there is no reason it would have come to light had she felt something truly offensive about it.

All-women jury chosen for George Zimmerman's trial

globalwatcherJun. 21, 2013 - 10:19AM JST

Speechless!! Outcome will be easy verdict not guilty.

This trial WAS OVER when all women (5 white, 1 black) were chosen as I predicted. I am now listening a special interview with one of jurors on CNN. I have no doubt they were trying to do the best for this trial, however It is very troubling to learn that they were all VERY confused to reach the verdict. It is too late now. There is no chance for rework. Done deal.

Let us assume, for the moment, that Zimmerman is a racist. That he hates all black people, living or dead, with a passion. My question: So what? If he based his suspicion of Martin purely on the color of his skin: So what? If he approached him based purely on race: So what?

I think this says it all for the people defending the decision to find him not guilty.

Clarifying some misinformation here. 1) Stand Your Ground was not part of the defense's argument. It was a classic self-defense argument, stating that once Martin turned and attacked, Zimmerman was free to defend himself with commiserate force

Clarifying some serious misinformation up there:

While it is absolutely correct taht "stand-your-ground" was not part of the defense's argument, Juror B27 has revealed in an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper that "Stand-Your-Ground" was brought up by the jurors themselves, and weighed in the jury's decision.

Since stand-your-ground was not part of the trial, nor in the points of law brought up in the trial, how is that a jury would decide to introduce it in their deliberations and use it to help them form their decision? Doesn't this cast serious questions on their impartiality?

Since stand-your-ground was not part of the trial, nor in the points of law brought up in the trial, how is that a jury would decide to introduce it in their deliberations and use it to help them form their decision? Doesn't this cast serious questions on their impartiality?

Judge Nelson's instructions to the jury excerpt prior to deliberations:

"If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony"

http://guardianlv.com/2013/07/zimmerman-jury-instructions-as-read-by-judge-nelson/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=zimmerman-jury-instructions-as-read-by-judge-nelson

He violated Trayvon's civil rights.

Justice has run its course and the jury has done a very difficult and important job. But Zimmerman is not free in society. Can he function after this? Get a regular job? Simply go to the shopping mall without people staring at him? It seems he is out to win American turd of the year award even with his acquittal. Got to admit the guy is a screw up -- even before this -- and even if you support him. He violated the rules of being on community patrol. It was legal but you are not supposed to approach people who seems suspicious because this is what happened (police advise this as well). And what would any adolescent think of some strange looking person stalking them (from their perspective) in their vehicle? If you have any memory of someone following you in their car when you were a teenager you will know it is scary. TM could have thought he was a rapist. We can never know now but maybe he was the one thinking he had to fight to stay alive. If TM hadn't existed then Zimmerman would have done something else to get himself in trouble (he had been in trouble before anyway). Probably not the same caliber at the TM incident. But rest assured even without TM this outcast would have done something else to another person and create another incident.

Thai is America at it's best, BIASED! Once this guy has killed someone, he will kill again. Then they will say,"I told you so!" Unfortunately this young innocent black man is dead. Let's hope he returns to haunt his murderer, like in Asian movies.

PRT:

Score another for one of the dumb states. You see there are blue states and then there are dumb states.

Florida is a "flip" state. The irony of your post...

Trayvon was in nobody's business.

But he was on private property. Not his own, it should be noted.

But he was on private property. Not his own, it should be noted.

@oldhawk - it was a gated estate, not "private property". There are no entrance restrictions or proof of identity/purpose required to get in.

it was a gated estate, not "private property". There are no entrance restrictions or proof of identity/purpose required to get in.

All of the property is adjacent to other property. In other words, the lots the houses sit on are all different pieces of private property. When you're walking between the houses, as Trade mark was, you're always walking on someone else's private property.

What yabits refuses to see is that Trade Mark already had a history of burglary (possession of burglary tools and stolen jewelry in his book bag), and was probably in this gated community to case the homes. Of course, that follows yabits's pattern: He can't bring himself to question the motives of the dead black kid who had a history of theft and drug (DMX, which is made up of Arizona Ice Tee, Skittles, and cough syrup) use. Nor can he question why Trade Mark didn't call 911, or why he didn't go on to his dad's house, and instead circled back to jump Zimmerman.

Trade Mark already had a history of burglary (possession of burglary tools and stolen jewelry in his book bag), and was probably in this gated community to case the homes.

Zimmerman had no idea what 'history' Martin had.

Instead of pointing fingers and blaming the plight of the black community on perceived racism, perhaps it would be best to direct the energy on strengthening the black community from within. The real culprit behind the American black community's continued inability to rise in the social social strata is the lack of a proper family unit, poor education, poor role modals, and the continued idea that their troubles are the result of other communities (white, Jewish, Korean, Italian, etc) taking advantage of them. Uttering the truth is tantamount to being a racist., a word that can now destroy careers (especially in the media) and lives. The silent majority (in this case those that agree with the jurors finding that Zimmerman is innocent) basically have no choice but to sit back while the shameful media creates a frenzy and builds ratings, the black leaders shift the responsibility of their communities' plight to others, and America loses yet another chance to learn a lesson and create proper gun control laws...

MadvertsJUL. 14, 2013 - 05:29PM JST - I have to agree suggesting in "The States are you allowed to murder someone for going out for a soft drink" is a boneheaded comment.

Correct it not the states ... IT IS THE STATE OF FLORIDA ..... this is a state that elected JEB BUSH as their first two term Governor. That says something.

Of course the jury found this fool not guilty. The STAND YOUR GROUND law is the most idiotic, vague law passed.

The stand-your-ground law states that a person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat, without an obligation to retreat first.

Hold on, Zimmerman was not "standing-his-ground" he was actually armed with a hand gun and was chasing after someone. And apparently he is not guilty of ANYTHING? ...... Wow that's amazing.

Ones faith in humanity just continues to sink even deeper.

cleo:

Zimmerman had no idea what 'history' Martin had.

That's not my point. Yabits keeps repeating the lie that Trade Mark was completely innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever. While Zimmerman did not know Trade Mark's history, Trade Mark's history justifies Zimmerman's suspicion of him.

@JanesBlonde

Ones faith in humanity just continues to sink even deeper.

I can truly sympathize with you. I have put my faith in a higher source than humanity.

Hold on, Zimmerman was not "standing-his-ground" he was actually armed with a hand gun and was chasing after someone. And apparently he is not guilty of ANYTHING? ...... Wow that's amazing.

You have made an important observation, and asked an important question. Zimmerman's actions were unlawful under Section 784 of Florida's legal code. Mr. Trayvon Martin was an innocent citizen, walking alone, not involved in any criminal activity -- when he came onto Zimmerman's radar screen. Although Mr. Martin was doing nothing illegal, Zimmerman regarded him as a criminal. (The ones who "always get away." Well, what was Mr. Martin trying to get away with?)

Section 784 defines the unlawful activities it calls harassment and stalking. If you read the short description -- and every citizen should make an attempt to understand basic legal principles -- I think you'll agree that Zimmerman's actions were a textbook example of unlawful harassment.

Here is what is critically important: A person cannot be engaged in an unlawful activity and expect the protections of "stand-your-ground" to apply to them, the way the jury allowed SYG to be brought into their deliberations to apply to Zimmerman. I say that, agreeing with the verdict that Zimmerman should not have been found guilty of second-degree murder.

@OldHawk

All of the property is adjacent to other property. In other words, the lots the houses sit on are all different pieces of private property. When you're walking between the houses, as Trade mark was, you're always walking on someone else's private property.

Are you saying that there is no way for any pedestrian to walk from a house within the community to the front gate without walking on private property?

Please respond to my next question and help me understand something about your statement: Running behind the houses was a concrete walkway, the center of which -- I am guessing -- was the property line between the houses. Could any person walk on that concrete pathway and not be on somebody else's property, and, if not, was everyone therefore trespassing?

If the pathway was used by everyone, I am trying to understand why you think it is important that one specific person was wrong in using it -- if that is your meaning.

What yabits refuses to see is that Trade Mark already had a history of burglary

I will not refuse to see Mr. Martin's police record. A "history" means something officially documented. Was Mr. Martin involved in an act of burglary when Zimmerman spotted him? Zimmerman mentions past break-ins, but he doesn't report that Mr. Martin is in the act of committing any crime.

and was probably in this gated community to case the homes.

Do you believe that bearing false witness against someone is wrong? Do you know for a fact that Mr. Martin ever cased any home in the community?

He can't bring himself to question the motives of the dead black kid who had a history of theft and drug

Well, I have taken a vow to try to respect the truth. There is no police report on Mr. Martin that indicates any history of theft. If you are referring to the night of the altercation with Zimmerman, can you point out where Mr. Martin had stolen, or was in the process of stealing anything? Didn't Mr. Martin properly pay for his purchases from the store? Did he have drugs in his possession? (The coroner's report found trace amounts of THC -- marijauna -- in his bloodstream -- about 1/100th the level of someone who just smoked pot within an hour. It is estimated that it takes a day or longer after smoking pot for the level of THC to reach the level it was in Mr. Martin's blood.

There wasn't any trace of DMX in Mr. Martin's blood. He hadn't purchased any cough syrup. So I don't understand how you are making these speculations.

Nor can he question why Trade Mark didn't call 911, or why he didn't go on to his dad's house, and instead circled back to jump Zimmerman..

I fail to understand how not calling 911 is a crime in Florida. Prior to that night, can you provide any proof that Mr. Martin ever fought or violently attacked anyone? (There is violent aggression and assault in Zimmerman's past.)

If Mr. Martin was not involved in a crime from the time he left the store to the time Zimmerman first spotted him, didn't Mr. Martin have a basic right to be free from harassment and stalking -- as Florida law defines it?

That's not my point. Yabits keeps repeating the lie that Trade Mark was completely innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever.

From the time Mr. Martin left the store, through all the time that Zimmerman had him under observation and started pursuing him, Mr. Martin was completely innocent of any wrongdoing. Zimmerman did not report any illegal or criminal activity on the part of Mr. Martin.

The first unlawful act that night between the two was committed by Zimmerman.

Prior to that night, can you provide any proof that Mr. Martin ever fought or violently attacked anyone?

Text messages from Trayvon Martin's cell phone:

In another, he refers to a fistfight with another boy who "snitched" on him.

"I lost da 1st round but won da 2nd and 3rd," he writes, according to transcripts posted on the defense team's website.

"Im not done with fool…he gone hav 2 see me again."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/trayvon-martin-texts-reference-guns-fighting-pot-article-1.1353832

yabits:

Please respond to my next question and help me understand something about your statement: Running behind the houses was a concrete walkway, the center of which -- I am guessing -- was the property line between the houses. Could any person walk on that concrete pathway and not be on somebody else's property, and, if not, was everyone therefore trespassing?

You're claiming that Trade Mark was on that walkway the entire time? What are you using for evidence?

I will not refuse to see Mr. Martin's police record. A "history" means something officially documented. Was Mr. Martin involved in an act of burglary when Zimmerman spotted him? Zimmerman mentions past break-ins, but he doesn't report that Mr. Martin is in the act of committing any crime.

How typically selective of you. You deliberately limit yourself to only seeing Trade Mark's police record. The police record of a minor is typically sealed. Perhaps you'll consider his school record, including expulsions?

Do you believe that bearing false witness against someone is wrong?

That's rich, coming from you.

Do you know for a fact that Mr. Martin ever cased any home in the community?

Do you know for a fact that he never did? Are you familiar with the term police, mental health professionals, and attorneys use, called "Pattern of Behavior"?

Well, I have taken a vow to try to respect the truth.

Keep trying. Your bias and prejudice are getting in the way.

There is no police report on Mr. Martin that indicates any history of theft.

He was previously caught with burglary tools and other people's jewelry in his bookbag. The only reason he wasn't charged was because the items hadn't shown up in theft reports - at that time. Can you explain why a teenager of limited means would have all of that in his possession? (That was a rhetorical question. I've seen you twist, parse, and spin reality to fit your own bias too many times already to know you're more than capable of coming up with some ridiculously unlikely scenario.)

Did he have drugs in his possession?

He had two of the three ingredients for a homemade drug that is popular with teenagers, one that he had previously referenced on his own Facebook page. All he needed was cough syrup, either by stealing it or getting an 18-year-old to buy it. You can make all sorts of wild, baseless conjecture about Zimmerman, but you can't make this one simple connection? Really?

There wasn't any trace of DMX in Mr. Martin's blood. He hadn't purchased any cough syrup. So I don't understand how you are making these speculations.

Trade Mark referenced the drug on his own Facebook page. Is his un-coerced confession good enough for you? And of course you don't understand how anyone else can make any speculations about Trade Mark. You're too busy making up speculations about Zimmerman.

I fail to understand how not calling 911 is a crime in Florida.

Strawman. I never said it was illegal. I asked you why didn't Trade Mark call the police if he felt he was in danger? If all he as doing was heading directly to his father's house (your previous claim, and one proven false by Zimmerman's defense attorney), then he had no reason not to call the police instead of his girlfriend. I guess it hasn't occurred to you that Trade Mark didn't want the police to question his reasons for being in a neighborhood where neither he nor his friends nor family lived. With ingredients for a popular teenage drug in his pockets. And a history of possessing property that wasn't his.

I'll ask you directly: Why didn't Trade Mark call 911 that night? Zimmerman did, so why didn't Trade Mark?

Prior to that night, can you provide any proof that Mr. Martin ever fought or violently attacked anyone? (There is violent aggression and assault in Zimmerman's past.)

Sailwind took care of that already.

If Mr. Martin was not involved in a crime from the time he left the store to the time Zimmerman first spotted him, didn't Mr. Martin have a basic right to be free from harassment and stalking -- as Florida law defines it?

What if his behavior was consistent with that of people casing houses?

The first unlawful act that night between the two was committed by Zimmerman.

Then why wasn't Zimmerman charged with that crime?

Now, to address some points from your previous posts...

I am doubtful how much the average woman understands from experience about physical tussles

Apparently, you are completely ignorant of the subject of domestic violence. Among many other topics, of course. You're versatile in that way. And selective.

Again, I have a hard time accepting that Zimmerman's "peers" are exclusively women.

So you're a sexist too. How... revealing. Say, when was the last time you were in a fist-fight with a 17-year-old?

Trayvon Martin should have been able to walk away that night without much more than the insignificant scratches and bumps that Zimmerman received.

And he certainly had that opportunity. Just as he had the opportunity to call 911 instead of his girlfriend. So at what point do you hold Trade Mark responsible for his actions?

That's what Zimmerman says, uncorroborated by any witness. Provoking and taunting would include physically grabbing or pushing the person.

Why would Zimmerman provoke Trade Mark? What would his motive be?

Pure conjecture.

That's rich, coming from you.

Yabits All of those have been following this topic on JT closely have undoubtedly run across your posts painting Zimmerman as basically a racist thug gunning down a helpless teen. Which is fine; it's your view. But the problem here is that your reasoning is just, well, awful. And I don't mean one example..I mean all of it. In fact, it is so bad that it has even crossed my mind that perhaps you are some overzealous Zimmerman supporter trying to make make the trayvon Martin case look less credible. If you are indeed a Trayvon Martin, I honestly suggest that you learn to properly research facts, improve your debating skills, and understand that the truth behind an event lies in fact...not in conjecture, not in idealistic whims, not in unfortunate incidents crowbarred to support a misguided agenda...We are living in a world with real problems, and to solve them we need to focus on the real truths and root causes or these these issues will continue to perpetuate themselves, expanding bridge the gulf between the haves and have-nots and not the reverse.

JT closely have undoubtedly run across your posts painting Zimmerman as basically a racist thug gunning down a helpless teen.

I would like to respond to the earlier posts, but I would like to make sure this statement is clarified. If JT readers come across your posts and my responses, I hope they will form an accurate opinion about you.

Racist: Do I believe Zimmerman targeted Mr. Martin solely based upon his race? Yes. That is my sincere belief. I leave it right there.

Thug: I don't know if I ever used that word. I am not sure of the exact meaning, and it's a word that might mean different things to different people, and I would not want to risk paying Zimmerman a compliment he does not rate. I believe that I have used words to describe him that are less ambiguous: Zimmerman is a pathetic coward. A gutless punk with a gun. I also referred to him -- perhaps once or twice -- as a sissy-boy. I might have to take back "punk." I'm not sure he rates that either.

gunning down: The words sound more "masculine" than Zimmerman rates. Although outweighing the 158-lb Mr. Martin by over 40 pounds, and sustaining superficial injuries in a tussle that lasted a few minutes, Zimmerman made the decision not to take the humiliation of his rear end being whupped by a teenager -- a black, skinny teenager -- and used his gun to stop the whupping he was receiving from the unarmed Mr. Martin.

helpless teen: Mr. Martin was technically unarmed and engaged in the ancient, manly art of fisticuffs -- using his dukes. Far from helpless, he gave the cowardly Zimmerman all he could handle. All over the United States today, there are thousands of teenagers who have and who will engage in fist-fights. It's been that way for hundreds of years. Zimmerman's like that pathetic little weasel who'll start biting his opponent when he's losing. Weasel -- there's a new one. Thug? Too good for him.

I am laughing too hard to respond to the rest of your post. Anyone reading your reasoning that I am a Zimmerman supporter should enjoy a good laugh too. It is clear to me that you are way out of your element.

Text messages from Trayvon Martin's cell phone

OK. I am not sure. Should we take everything Mr. Martin texted as gospel truth? Since it appears significant enough to post, I will take it that way. I will take the approach that he never engaged in any teenage braggadocio about his fighting prowess.

"I lost da 1st round but won da 2nd and 3rd,"

Wow, a guy who honestly recounts to another person he lost a round in a fight. (I like him!) But what is it with these "rounds?" Did Mr. Martin's opponent in these rounds outweigh him by 40 pounds and have martial arts training? Mr. Martin's opponent, who apparently lost the second round, actually lived to come out for a third? How long were these rounds? How was it that two people walked out alive? (Since Mr. Martin says he'll meet him again.)

If the opponent "snitched" on Mr. Martin, how is it that Mr. Martin didn't just sneak up on him and take his revenge? To me, it sounds more like a challenge to duel and the two of them fighting things out the way teenagers do. Why did Mr. Martin allow the person he calls a snitcher what seems to be a "fair" fight. Wouldn't a "thug" just have brought a gun and killed the snitcher?

What does the above indicate? I'm sure Mr. Martin was very angry at the person he calls a "snitcher." But he did not allow his anger to launch a sneak attack on the person. Based on the word "rounds," and the admission of losing the first round, it seemed like the kind of classic fight among teenage boys that has gone on since the dawn of human history.

What makes it different from the fight with Zimmerman? I believe that along with being angry,. Mr. Martin was terrified.

I think it takes a pretty hard-core racist who won't allow the possibility that Mr. Martin might have been utterly terrified that night. I believe a premonition that he might lose his life came to him. He would have been right to have that premonition.

Racist: Do I believe Zimmerman targeted Mr. Martin solely based upon his race? Yes.

FBI didn't come to that conclusion at all.

FBI records: agents found no evidence that Zimmerman was racist

After interviewing nearly three dozen people in the George Zimmerman murder case, the FBI found no evidence that racial bias was a motivating factor in the shooting of Trayvon Martin, records released Thursday show.

Even the lead detective in the case, Sanford Det. Chris Serino, told agents that he thought Zimmerman profiled Trayvon because of his attire and the circumstances — but not his race.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/07/12/155918/more-evidence-released-in-trayvon.html#.UeiRRW3SaM8

zichi:

OldHawk Why are calling Trayvon Martin "Trade Mark" do you have a problem using his name or is it just some off the cuff racist tag?

His name is Trayvon Martin, not "Trade Mark" have a little respect for the dead teenager, please.

No, it is not a "racist tag"? Jesus H. Christ, does everything even remotely critical of Martin have to be considered racist by default?!?

I refer to him as "Trade Mark" because his parents have trademarked his name. Classy, huh? And no, I'm not kidding. The same parents who shoved their kid off on each other because neither knew how to deal with his "lifestyle" (school expulsions, drug use, trouble with police, etc.), the same parents who sued the homeowners association and got $2 million before Zimmerman ever went to trial.

A little respect? By all recent accounts, Trade Mark was making all the wrong decisions in his life, including the ones he made the night he was killed. He may have meant something to his parents when he was alive, but he's proving to be worth much more to them as a corpse for the media and the race baiters/agitators to rally around. To the rest of society - the productive part - he was just another thug on the shortcut to an early grave. Either by violence or drug abuse. In the U.S., we have far too many of those of every race you can name. "Dime a dozen" doesn't even come close.

The Vegas odds were that he would be killed by another young black male (94%), in which case the media would have completely ignored his death, as they do dozens of others every single week. But nobody (including yabits and the other Leftist hand-wringers) seems to care about them.

FBI didn't come to that conclusion at all.

The FBI has been wrong before. So have I.

I do not believe that Zimmerman imagined hoodies worn by anyone were breaking into homes. I believe he imagined black men were breaking in. I will not call Zimmerman a racist. I sincerely believe however, that without knowing Trayvon Martin, that Zimmerman had a deep animosity for the kind of person he thought Mr. Martin represented.

Even though Mr. Martin was not engaged in any criminal or unlawful activity whatsoever, Mr. Martin was not allowed to walk back to his father's home without being profiled, put under surveillance and finally stalked by Zimmerman. Unjustly and unlawfully.

Reading all of these comments, I can't believe how many people are so quick and unfeeling to the life Trayvon lost. So because he is black and has made bad choices in life, its okay that he's dead. I could bring up that Zimmerman has had previous charges against him for his anger, but it wouldn't matter because some people would bring up statics about black men and their death/crime rate to justify his death. How cold can some of you people be so cruel? So people can't make bad choices in the beginning stages of life and then grow up to change for the better...that's a decision that this boy can never make because Zimmerman decided he was a threat and took him out.....I wonder how this case would have turned out if it was a white boy with all of these drug issues and violent history and Zimmerman killed him what would happen? He would be in jail as we speak, and this without idea of proving someone guilty without reasonable doubt would be irrelevant.

Also, what makes me upset is the fact the jury was made up of majority white woman and one hispanic...this jury worked in the favor of Zimmerman because of the racial demographics...America has already painted the black man as violent, around the world at that, to have no black mothers who understand the difficulties of this race, didn't help this case at all.

Yabits Everything you state is sheer speculation and counter to what the authorities (including black officers ) and the jurors concluded. To wildly state state things without concrete evidence and product your own reality on an important issue such as this is extremely irresponsible.

Yabits And yes, you are correct, I am "way out of my element".

It wasn't just Skittles Trayvon was carrying ... ..." Trayvon Martin’s drug use, explaining how the Skittles and Arizona Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail drink he carried that night are ingredients that, when mixed with dextromethorphan (DXM) cough syrup, create “Lean”, a concocted high which can cause psychosis and aggression over the longer term. According to the autopsy report, Martin’s liver showed damage consistent with DXM abuse." ... Are any people in the world following this media and government aversion aware of all that? Yes? No? Huh?

... And references in the press often state: "17 year old child"? Please, will somebody link any other US news reports that refer to any other 17year old as a child? On that basis alone, one cannot say there has been a non-biased reporting of this to add file to an intended conflagration that takes the public off more pertinent issues in the states.

At 17, do you think of yourself as a child? Did you do child-like things all the time? Enlisted military personnel are and always have been 17. Many people go to university at 17. Give me a break! Reporting has been absurd on a case that wasn't one until Al Sharpton and the rest created one.

more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/it-wasnt-just-skittles-trayvon-was-carrying/#9gwjtjXoF5JSVPIz.99

OldHawkJUL. 18, 2013 - 11:38PM JST - ..... "and was probably in this gated community to case the homes" .... "He can't bring himself to question the motives of the dead black kid" .... "circled back to jump Zimmerman."

Wow ... I think this is Martin Bashir sums up these kinds of ill-informed comments perfectly.

http://occupydemocrats.com/watch-martin-bashir-sum-up-the-trayvon-martin-travesty-in-under-4-minutes/

Wow ... I think this is Martin Bashir sums up these kinds of ill-informed comments perfectly. http://occupydemocrats.com/watch-martin-bashir-sum-up-the-trayvon-martin-travesty-in-under-4-minutes/

Great link, JanesBlonde. Sums it up perfectly. I'd also add that it's a gun rights issue in addition to race. Gun advocates are forced to support this creep Zimmerman, because this is yet another example of how adding guns to the equation makes things ten times worse.

In the official autopsy report its states:

LIVER: No diagnostic abnormality http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2013/07/05/trayvon.martin.autopsy.pdf

However on page 4 of the report it states his liver is damaged and noted as such:

" focal patchy yellow discoloration due to mild fatty metamorphosis is present"

Which something one really doesn't see in the livers of healthy young 17 year males. Fatty livers usually take years to develop usually from chronic abuse of alcohol or other drugs:

Also According to WEB MD DXM abuse does cause liver damage:

Teens and DXM Drug Abuse

Facts parents and teens need to know.

When taken at high doses, these other drugs – like the pain killer acetaminophen – can be quite toxic. They can cause liver damage, heart attack, stroke, and death.

http://www.webmd.com/parenting/teen-abuse-cough-medicine-9/teens-and-dxm-drug-abuse?page=3

Oh yes, indeed. Lets all get on the same page with MSNBC (quickly sinking in viewership), and other highly reputable media.

Poor Little 7 year old child, Treyvon... Oops, that's poor little 17 year old TreyvonMartin. Sorry about that. We accidentally put in a grade school photo of the child, the near infant, who's "best" witness the prosecution could find and last person to talk to him, said he probably threw the first punch, so to speak, being the supreme orator as she demonstrated.

Again, where else have you found a 17 year old referenced as a child in the US media? Billy the Kid? Heck I don't know. I do know I wasn't a child when I was 17. Maybe you were.

Poor little child, that poor innocent little fella. The DoJ sent instigators down to incite demonstrations (fact). But, hey, the DoJ certainly wouldn't support any withholding of evidence, as they wouldn't spy on anyone via NSA call monitoring, releasing any tax records, allow intimidation of law abiding citizens, etc., etc., etc. No way. Nope. Absolutely not. And we can rest assured they'd never allow or promote the holding of evidence in any reports for any reason. (We shant go into any stale business of IRS, Fast & Furious, NSA covilian spying, Benghazi, or any of that other old and insignificant tin foil hat malarkey.). And, hey, if I had a son.... Nope. No chance of political interference on any of this. The US and state and local government has nothing but angels, error free, goodness and good-willing staff running the show, never to allow withholding of any evidence in the spirit of performing as representatives if the people under their sworn oaths to defend the Constitution. They have and always will.

So if I have all this right, it's George Bush's fault. Well, that's a new one on me. Never heard that before, but hey, what do I know?

I give. Lets blame, well, everything on Bush. Seems to capture the minds of the uninformed pretty effectively. What the heck does Bush have to do with this in the first place? That's wherein insanity lies. That people bait their shrinking watchers to hang on with purely irrelevant drivel.

@ Todd Judge ans sailwind You guys are really grasping at straws... You should really ask yourselves why you're going out of your way to paint Martin as the bad guy when he was the one that was killed. Regardless of his "damaged liver," Martin didn't have a history of violence or aggression. Zimmerman on the other hand...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/05/28/george-zimmermans-relevant-past/

Martin didn't have a history of violence or aggression.

Trayvon's Martin Text messages where after winning a fist fight, he is still not satisfied and wants to beat up on the guy some more because "he aint breed (bleed) enough, only his nose"

http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0513/discovery_3/extraction_reports/report6a.pdf

Just for the record, I believe that both parties had made poor choices...And I certainly believe that the ridiculous gun laws in Florida played a major role here. What I believe with all my heart is that race did not play a role in the death of Trayvon Martin.

What the heck does Bush have to do with this in the first place?

I agree, that came out of nowhere and seemed like a cheap shot at Bush. He should of used Zimmerman as an example instead. The rest of the clip was spot on though.

Trayvon's Martin Text messages where after winning a fist fight, he is still not satisfied and wants to beat up on the guy some more because "he aint breed (bleed) enough, only his nose"

I couldn't get the link to work but ok, he got into a fight before and texted that he wanted to do more. Not exactly unusual for a teenager. The fact remains that Martin was minding his own business when he was provoked. Zimmerman got into scuffles with the police in the past. What makes you think he wouldn't start a fight with a kid he thought was suspicious?

There weren't any witnesses when the fight broke out, so we don't know what really happened. Yet you keep reaching for reasons to blame the unarmed kid who was killed instead of the guy who killed him and provoked the whole situation. Why is that?

That does not make him into some violent thug you would like to picture him.

I'm not trying to picture him into some violent thug at all, if that was my goal I would embellish facts with conjecture to slant it that way. I am not engaged in that at all. I'm posting nothing more then undisputed evidence to counter misconceptions such as he didn't have liver damage as he did have it after all and it's noted in the autopsy report. I did not claim he used DMX at all but did note that it does cause liver damage, since there is a theory out there that he did use what is called "lean" on the street that can be made by mixing skittles and an arizona ice tea fruit drink with codeine into a DMX like concoction so people can make judgements for themselves. I also posted his text messages excerpt to counter misconception that he didn't have history of violence or aggression when his own text messages shows that he did have a history of it and even wanted to pursue more aggression even after winning one fight he was in.

The sad part about all of this is if we would had unbiased professional press reporting on the case in the first place the facts that I posted above would have already been well known and I wouldn't have to post them as counters at all to the misinformation out there on the case and spread by our joke of a media these days..

He did, however have photos on his cell phone that were deemed "inadmisable", here: http://www.buzzfeed.com/ellievhall/trayvon-martin-cell-phone-photos-show-weed-guns-and-horsebac (Note: horsebac with no "k" for the valid link) ... "Someone" holding a gun amongst them.

The poor little guy, never did anything wrong in his life... I wasn't there when the situation unfolded. I'd assume, if I maybe so bold, that you all weren't there. And that's why we have juries, which work sometimes, and not so well others. BUT they do get to live with a barrage of info we do not in their participation of the system. And when evidence is withheld things get really weird.

So if looking at all one can find when interested in such an event as this, finding several pieces of evidence that were or were not used, and being able to share these for potential consideration means I'm grasping at straws, then I shall from this point forward never question anything and go along with whoever shouts the loudest, with all their divisive intent and political agenda, regardless of relevant observation and viable evidence. In other words, I'll put my head firmly in ..the sand.

I surely stand corrected. So many have made a believer out of me. I'll trust government never gets involved when they have no place to, all the way up to the top. I'll never question that anything is ever done wrong by any administration because they are angels, too and fully transparent, having nothing to hide. ...about anything anywhere. How could I have been so stupid? Wow. Thanks to all. This will save me boatloads of time in my life. Thanks for that.

Now excuse me while I go through the Soros nudi-scanner and get felt up with my wife and kids. I have to get back into my country for a bit. Toodels!

Am I living in bizarro land? How is that the rest of the people participating this thread don't stop for a second and cite how moronic this Yabit's posts are? He has not produced one credible argument and he continues to inundate this and other threads with unintelligent observations and gross speculation. Does anybody else feel that Trayvon Martin was racially profiled? The rest of the questions are irrelevant....

Mr. Bum and Zichi,

I'll address both comments with the same answer:

Yet you keep reaching for reasons to blame the unarmed kid who was killed instead of the guy who killed him and provoked the whole situation. Why is that?

Nothing from you on Zimmerman and his criminal history like being accused of domestic violence and tussling with a cop for over-speeding

I'm not blaming Martin at all and I don't post much about Zimmerman because the media has flooded me with more information about Zimmerman then I could ever care to know about almost all of it negative and almost all of it with a bias to try to make me form an opinion that he is the worst human being this side of Hitler. The media hasn't flooded me with information about Martin other than he was the about the most perfect human being to ever walk in a hoodie and any information to the contrary has to be dug out from other sources other then the media to find out anything really about him and his life (such as the autopsy, text messages and such). This is the only reason my posts focus more on Martin then on Zimmerman period.

The blatant fact of Zimmerman's call is that he refers to Trayvon Martin as being among those "effing punks" and "a-holes" who "always get away."

The gated community where Zimmerman was a member of the Neighborhood Watch had 402 police calls in a few months, mostly for break ins and attempted break-ins. There had been a break in a few days previously. He had a lot of experience with 'punks' and because Trayvon wasn't walking on the sidewalk, but across people's yards, Zimmerman thought he looked suspicious.

Lay off the 'while walking home with tea and skittles' already, will you? Would you do what Trayvon did, either here or in the US? When someone asks you to identify yourself, would you run, only to double back and sucker punch the person who asked you? Would you then knock him down, straddle him and start punching away? I don't think the gun should have been used. That was not warranted. BUT, I am getting a little sick of the Trayvon as innocent angel schtick. It was while he was pummeling him , not 'just walking home'.

nishikatJul. 20, 2013 - 01:29AM JST If Zimmerman had listened to the operator (oh, also following the rules for neighborhood patrol volunteer -- you are not supposed to follow people you see as suspicious -- police also say this),

Nothing illegal in following someone once. The operator didn't say "Don't follow him", the operator said it wasn't necessary. There's a WORLD of difference between the two.

he wouldn't be in hiding right now. he would not have been dragged into that trial, among other looming problems such as what the federal government could do. No, he is not a free man at all. It was Zimmerman who got himself in his current situation. Don't blame TM.

Oh, so don't blame the aggressor who assaulted Zimmerman, blame the victim instead. Wow, talk about blatant victim blaming here. Didn't anyone ever tell you that victim blaming is perfectly natural, a perfectly normal human reaction ... AND 100% WRONG.

Is Zimmerman's predicament (which is still continuing) all TM's fault then?

zichi:

That does not make him into some violent thug you would like to picture him.

It doesn't? What does it take, then? All the other gangsta-wannabe stuff he posted? His subscription to an MMA-fighting internet video channel?

Sounds just like so many teenage boys regardless of their race.

Happened at my school over 50 years ago so I guess much hasn't changed.

Today, yes. But 50 years ago? Was "thug life" glamorized with movies and an entire music genre back then? I don't go back quite that far. But I don't remember anybody wanting to be - or even emulate - criminal gangs back in the 70's and 80's. Tattoos were just for military guys and prostitutes. Bandanas were for Harley riders. Hoodies were for cold days.

But yeah, it's an unfortunate part of American youth culture now. And sadly, we're exporting it to other countries. Good ol' MTV. Kind of adds new meaning to the term "fashion victim", doesn't it?

Overall, the world is becoming safer and safer. With or without MTV and with or without guns.

He was captain of the neighborhood guard in a (multi-racial) gated community. He saw someone he didn't know walking not on the sidewalk, but closer to the houses in the middle of the rain. The community had a recent rash of burglaries (sidenote: Trayvon had a history of burglary). Zimmerman called the cops and got out of his car NOT TO STALK HIM but to keep an eye on his location until the police arrived, as any neighborhood watch captain would. According to most witnesses, the phone recordings, and everything else, Trayvon attacked first. Where does this narrative get that he was stalking him? Only 4 minutes after Zimmerman got off the phone with 911 did the gunshot happen. And within the four minutes, witnesses saw Trayvon beating up Zimmerman. Anyone with a brain in their head who doesn't blindly follow what the media says can clearly see this was not a pre-meditated case of "I wanna kill this black kid". Everyone needs to get over what they THINK happened and realize what MOST LIKELY happened due to testimony and evidence, not emotion and your desire to cry racism. This has nothing to do with race, especially as Zimmerman is from a multi-racial family with many black relatives and has a documented history of helping stand against injustices against the black community. Even the prosecution didn't note the race aspect, only THE MEDIA. Yes, Trayvon was unarmed, but that didn't stop him from breaking Zimmerman's nose and generally beating the shit out of him.

"Trayvon had a history of burglary"

Really? How many houses did he burglarize in that area? Also, should all neighborhood watch volunteers behave the way GZ did?

"Zimmerman called the cops and got out of his car NOT TO STALK HIM but to keep an eye on his location until the police arrived"

GZ's legal situation changed since as soon as he left his car SYG no longer applied. What exactly caused this? If he was just watching him from a distance simply he still could have been protected by SYG rights. What exactly did Zimmerman do to void SYG rights in that situation?

@OrangeXenon54

what MOST LIKELY happened due to testimony and evidence

Evidence...

sidenote: Trayvon had a history of burglary

Where is the evidence that Mr. Trayvon Martin had a history of committing burglary? Supposing that he had something that was stolen in his possession, where is the evidence that he personally burgled it?

called the cops and got out of his car NOT TO STALK HIM but to keep an eye on his location

Please answer this: Supposing you were asked to walk some distance from Point A to Point B and then back again. In one direction there will be someone who has been instructed to stalk you. In the other direction there will be someone who has been instructed to keep an eye on your location. Do you think you would be able to tell the difference? If so. how?

Supposing it was your child who was walking. Could you tell from a distance which person following your child was stalking and which was just keeping an eye on their location?

According to most witnesses, the phone recordings, and everything else, Trayvon attacked first.

That is wrong. There are no witnesses to the start of the fight, outside of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. There are no phone recordings of the start of the fight. And there is nothing else. We only have Zimmerman's word that Martin attacked first. There are many problems with Zimmerman's version of the events, as he told them to the police and in later interviews. MANY problems. But he never took the stand to have his version of the events challanged. And that is a fact.

this was not a pre-meditated case of "I wanna kill this black kid"

I haven't read anyone who said that it was.

Trayvon was unarmed, but that didn't stop him from breaking Zimmerman's nose and generally beating the shit out of him.

Literally tens of thousands of fist-fights are fought all throughout the USA every week. Nearly all of them have a winner and a loser. In all those thousands of fights, I can't think of a reason where it's OK if the loser takes a gun and shoots the winner. Can you?

There's a reason why boxing rounds only go a few minutes. The normal human body can only go on punching for so long before getting tired, and fists can only do so much damage. The more tired a person gets, the less damage they can cause. When muscles are tired, they hit with less force.

Look at the evidence of the injuries of the Zimmerman-Martin fight. The worst injury Zimmerman received was a fractured nose, which he claims was delivered by Mr. Martin's first punch. The injuries to the back of Zimmerman's head were very slight contusions, and did not require stitches. There was no evidence of concussion whatsoever.

In his interview with Sean Hannity, Zimmerman claims his head was no longer on the concrete when, as he claims, Mr. Martin started to "strangle" him. (The main reason why a person might shift from punching to attempted strangulation is that his arms are tired.) Keep in mind that Zimmerman outweighed Mr. Martin by 40 pounds. That is quite a difference.

Zimmerman claims his afraid of losing consciousness, but his head is no longer on the concrete, Mr. Martin is no longer punching him (by trying to strangle him). Zimmerman is consciously aware and reports that Mr. Martin was yelling obscenities, and -- unbelievably -- he claims he can notice when Mr. Martin sees his gun. In the middle of the heat of a fight in a very dark area, a person has to be very conscious and aware to detect something like that. FAR away from anything like delirium

Despite killing another person, Zimmerman told Sean Hannity that he had no regrets for getting out of his car to follow Trayvon Martin that night. Does that sound like a person who almost lost his own life -- if you believe him?

I would ask you to consider those questions as honestly as you can.

I did not claim he used DMX at all but did note that it does cause liver damage, since there is a theory out there that he did use what is called "lean" on the street that can be made by mixing skittles and an arizona ice tea fruit drink with codeine into a DMX like concoction so people can make judgements for themselves.

Many people in the US have "fatty livers" = 10% of teens, maybe double that with adults.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Diet/fatty-liver-teens/story?id=16374773

On Thursday, the Brevard County Sheriff’s Department suspended Corporal Chris Wood for bringing a can of Arizona Ice Tea and a bag of Skittles to work at the Brevard County Jail on Saturday morning. He said that he was trying to send a message about the importance of keeping personal predilections about cases from affecting the work environment; instead, his superiors suspended him. This is Wood’s first disciplinary action in 10 years of working for the force.

People should not be smoking Skittles. ==> Very, very bad.

Trayvon, with his hoodie up, grabs two items from the shelves of 7-11. One is the Skittles. The other is Arizona Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail. The media avoid the name of the real drink — possibly because of the racial implications of the word “watermelon,” but possibly to avoid probing the real reason for Trayon’s trip. Trayvon, in fact, had become a devotee of the druggy concoction known as “Lean,” also known in southern hip-hop culture as “Sizzurp” and “Purple Drank.” Lean consists of three basic ingredients — codeine, a soft drink, and candy. If his Facebook postings are to be believed, Trayvon had been using Lean since at least June 2011. On June 27, 2011, Trayvon asks a friend online, “unow a connect for codien?” He tells the friend that “robitussin nd soda” could make “some fire ass lean.” He says, “I had it before” and that he wants “to make some more.” On the night of February 26, if Brandy had some Robitussin at home, Trayvon had just bought the mixings for one “fire ass lean” cocktail.

nishikatJul. 20, 2013 - 07:31AM JST Is Zimmerman's predicament (which is still continuing) all TM's fault then?

Yes.

You see this same sort of victim blaming with rape victims, e.g. "she was walking in a dangerous area", or "she knew there were dangerous people around".. etc.

Zimmerman was a citizen going around doing NOTHING illegal (he wasn't stalking, go and read the Florida state laws, he doesn't meet the criteria since it wasn't repeated).

All evidence indicates he was attacked by Martin.

This wasn't a fist fight like happens in bars every day. Those have a social context, and understood rules and witnesses that prevent serious injuries. In a bar fight if someone goes down the social rules prevent you from kicking or striking someone who is down. Zimmerman went down and Martin kept on hitting him. That's where Martin crossed the line.

If Martin had hit Zimmerman once and knocked him down, and then walked away and Zimmerman had fired under those circumstances, hitting Martin as he walked away then Zimmerman would be a murderer, but we have eyewitness testimony that Martin just kept hitting.

Yes, it is ALL Martin's fault. Yes, Zimmerman was legitimately in fear of his life. Zimmerman is innocent.

Stop victim blaming.

It might be Florida law but the law is clearly dumb. You can't just shoot people in a civilized country. I also find it hard to believe that the all white jury wasn't influenced by race perception.

In most of the commonwealth, in the same scenario, you couldn't instigate a confrontation - against the advice of police dispatchers - get into a scuffle and end up killing a teenager without some kind of legal punishment.

Maybe the prosecutors went too far to demand murder. I don't believe Zimmerman intended to kill anyone that day. But in NZ, Australia or the UK there'd be a negligent homicide or manslaughter conviction for sure.

You see this same sort of victim blaming with rape victims, e.g. "she was walking in a dangerous area", or "she knew there were dangerous people around".. etc.

Zimmerman was the one running around the neighborhood with a loaded weapon that night, not Martin. If Zimmerman's gun discharged more than once in the struggle and, before killing Mr. Martin, a bullet went through the wall of nearby residence, killing a 3-year-old child -- a white child -- you think everyone is going to blame it on dead Mr. Martin? You think as many people are going to let Zimmerman off the hook for leaving his vehicle with a loaded weapon in pursuit of a high school kid who had committed no crime whatsoever?

This wasn't a fist fight like happens in bars every day.

Yes, and that's because they don't allow 17-year-old high school kids in bars!! Sheesh. This was the kind of fist fight that happens hundreds of times a day in high schools from Alabama to Wyoming. Many of those fist fights -- and I know from personal experience -- are one-on-one. Many are pretty vicious. But if you're going to kill someone, you're going have to do it before fatigue sets in. An intense fight drains a lot of energy, very fast. Once it reaches the stage where the blows turn to wrestling, it's nearly over.

Out of many, many thousands of high-school fist fights, the number of fatalities is miniscule. But, slender, 158-lb, Martin has got the power and fighting skill to kill an adult with his bare hands, who outweighs him by 40 lbs. Yeah, right.

Those have a social context, and understood rules and witnesses that prevent serious injuries.

That one sure pegged the BS meter. But let's play along. One of the "rules" is that when you feel yourself being defeated, you cry out, "I give up!!" or "Uncle!!" -- letting your opponent know he's got the upper hand. Where is the evidence that Zimmerman tried at least to play by that rule?

Zimmerman went down and Martin kept on hitting him. That's where Martin crossed the line.

You are absolutely wrong and Zimmerman says so in his interview with Sean Hannity. At the time that Zimmerman was going for his gun, Mr. Martin was not hitting Zimmerman. According to Zimmerman, Mr. Martin was trying to strangle him with his bare hands. Do you have any earthly idea how difficult it is for a 158-lb kid to strangle an adult male who outweighs him by 40 lbs (!!) with his bare hands?

Zimmerman also tells Hannity Mr. Martin has got his hand on his broken nose, right before Zimmerman draws his weapon and shoots him. Which is it, George? Is he trying to strangle you, or is he pushing on your nose? And where are your hands while he's trying this? (One of them is going for his weapon. He's really pissed at this kid.)

Keep in mind that, from what he tells Hannity, he has already "shimmied" his way off the concrete and onto the grass, and so there's no way that Mr. Martin is causing any further severe "concrete-pounding" injury. Based on experience, it's my guess that all that swinging has tired out Mr. Martin's arms and he can't swing any more. He's dog tired and is doing all he can to try and maintain his position.

Zimmerman claimed he was afraid to lose consciousness. (George Zimmerman was afraid of a lot of baseless things that night. He embellished a lot too. He was on a roll.) Nevertheless, with his head on the grass and not the pavement -- and no more serious injury than the slight contusions that didn't require a single stitch! -- Zimmerman is conscious enough to describe in great detail how Martin is yelling at him, how his jacket rose up while he was shimmying -- (physically impossible) -- and, in severe darkness, how he observed Mr. Martin "discovering" his gun. (In a fight in darkness, a person whose afraid of losing consciousness is perceptive enough to tell what his opponent is looking at!!?? Anyone who believes this story -- Zimmerman's story -- is a complete sucker and idiot.

If the kid Zimmerman shot was white, and this was his story, they'd be putting Zimmerman's picture next to OJ's.

If Martin had hit Zimmerman once and knocked him down, and then walked away and Zimmerman had fired under those circumstances, hitting Martin as he walked away then Zimmerman would be a murderer, but we have eyewitness testimony that Martin just kept hitting.

First of all, what if it was Zimmerman who started the altercation by grabbing Mr. Martin and trying to throw him to the ground, and while he's struggling, Mr. Martin swings his fist and lands one right on Zimmerman's nose? Would Mr. Martin deserve to die under those circumstances?

Stop victim blaming.

Stop defending an irresponsible, lying, cowardly killer.

yabitsJul. 20, 2013 - 12:49PM JST Zimmerman was the one running around the neighborhood with a loaded weapon that night, not Martin. If Zimmerman's gun discharged more than once in the struggle and, before killing Mr. Martin, a bullet went through the wall of nearby residence, killing a 3-year-old child -- a white child -- you think everyone is going to blame it on dead Mr. Martin? You think as many people are going to let Zimmerman off the hook for leaving his vehicle with a loaded weapon in pursuit of a high school kid who had committed no crime whatsoever?

Didn't happen. Stop making up reasons to blame Zimmerman. The same could be said of ANY gun. I'm not a fan of guns. However U.S. law allowed him to carry, Florida laws allowed him to use it. Don't blame Zimmerman for state laws, he didn't make them.

I see you've dropped the stalking claim now that I pointed you at the Florida law and showed that you were mistaken.

But that still hasn't stopped you from trying to fabricate some reason why Zimmerman is responsible. You're utterly convinced of his guilt, despite the court findings, despite your lack of expertise, despite your lack of knowledge, and despite the fact that you've been proven wrong.

You're a bigot. Pure and simple.

yabits:

According to Zimmerman, Mr. Martin was trying to strangle him with his bare hands. Do you have any earthly idea how difficult it is for a 158-lb kid to strangle an adult male who outweighs him by 40 lbs (!!) with his bare hands?

Oh well, no need for GZ to worry about his life, then. He was only being strangled by a 6'2" kid with big hands. /sarcasm

TM was on top, so GZ's weight was of no advantage. The only thing that mattered was whether TM's hands could get to GZ's neck.

Nevertheless, with his head on the grass and not the pavement -- and no more serious injury than the slight contusions that didn't require a single stitch! --

Oh, he had time to to do a medical examination on himself, then? It's amazing what you expect GZ to do during a fight, but don't expect of TM. You know, people die of head injuries. And not always at the time of the injury. Natasha Richardson, late wife of Liam Neeson, hit her head during a skiing accident. She refused medical attention and left the ski slope on her own. And then died two days later from an epidural hematoma. Back in the 70's, racing driver Mark Donohue crashed during practice for a race and hit his head, but didn't seem seriously injured. He died the next day from a cerebral hemorrhage. So head injuries are to be taken seriously. People can Monday-morning-quarterback all they want about GZ's head injuries, but for him, during the heat of the fight, there was no way for him to know how badly he was injured.

Zimmerman claimed he was afraid to lose consciousness. (George Zimmerman was afraid of a lot of baseless things that night.

If someone were strangling him, then losing consciousness is not a baseless fear.

In a fight in darkness, a person whose afraid of losing consciousness is perceptive enough to tell what his opponent is looking at!!??

Adrenaline? Just a guess. If you expect others to take your guesses seriously, will you extend the same courtesy to others?

First of all, what if it was Zimmerman who started the altercation by grabbing Mr. Martin and trying to throw him to the ground, and while he's struggling, Mr. Martin swings his fist and lands one right on Zimmerman's nose? Would Mr. Martin deserve to die under those circumstances?

If, if, if. That's all you've got? Did any witnesses testify to seeing GZ grab Martin? Was there any testimony or evidence that GZ started the physical confrontation? No? Of course, there was no evidence - past or present - to support your insinuations (guesses, hopes, speculation) that GZ is/was a racist, but that didn't stop you from trying to paint him as one. So I don't expect you to deviate from your typical pattern here either. Just wanted to draw attention to it.

I would ask you to consider those questions as honestly as you can.

Hey yabits, you keep ignoring these questions, so here they are again:

If TM was only in that neighborhood to head directly to his dad's house, then why didn't he? He had ample time, as GZ's defense attorney proved in court. Why did he hang around the neighborhood to fight GZ, when he could have just gone to his dad's house when he lost GZ?

Why didn't TM call 911? GZ certainly did. But TM called his girlfriend. You've only said that it's not a crime to not call 911, which is a strawman. A non-answer. So if TM was completely innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever, as you repeatedly assert, then why didn't he call 911 about the "creepy-(deleted) cracka" following him?

This was not blame. This was justice. The system worked so he was arrested, tried, acquitted, then released. If there is further legal civil legal action it will not be about blame. And if there is action from the fed. govt. it will not be about blame either. It will be about how the system works.

Also, rules. Zimmerman was kicked off volunteer patrol because of his behavior The neighborhood association was also sued for Zimmerman's actions. This was about justice due to negligence that was settled legally and not about personal blame.

Please explain how this is all TM's fault. Again if it were there would have been no trial and other legal action in the first place.

for those of you complaining there was only 1 black in the 6 woman jury, that's pretty much in line with the percentage of blacks in Florida or the US in general, so I don't see anything wrong with it. Why should they inflate the number of blacks in the jury just to increase one side's odds? And Zimmerman is only half-white and looks more hispanic, so the race card is getting old. Not quite as old as the little boy photos shown over and over by the media though.

The fact that Zimmerman didn't shoot the "boy" when he first came after him pretty much shows he had no intent to hurt him. The "boy" should have stopped once he knocked Zimmerman down instead of continuing to beat him. He crossed the line and paid the price. End of story.

Zichi

He did not have a history of burglary?

Yes, he did. During an investigation at the school where he went (which he got suspended from multiple times for multiple issues, including violence), they searched his belongings and found multiple items of ladies jewelry and a "burglary tool" http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3014413/posts

Nishikat

GZ's legal situation changed since as soon as he left his car SYG no longer applied. What exactly caused this? If he was just watching him from a distance simply he still could have been protected by SYG rights. What exactly did Zimmerman do to void SYG rights in that situation?

SYG has absolutely no bearing on this case. Why? Because even more basic self-defense laws cover what occurred. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/07/17/10-Facts-the-media-Arent-telling-you-about-the-zimmerman-case

The way I keep hearing people talk is that GZ went out with the express intention of killing someone. He had every right to be carrying a gun and the reason he carried it was for situations such as this where you are violently attacked in your own neighborhood. You can refute the facts all you want, but you have no legal or moral legs to stand on. It's open and shut and will never be opened again because the truth came out.

"GZ's legal situation changed since as soon as he left his car SYG no longer applied"

"SYG has absolutely no bearing on this case."

Someone please explain the difference between these two situations.

@Nishikat:

Because you're bringing it up even though it's not related to this case at all. The entirety of the legal proceedings didn't use SYG at all. Why would you even bring it up?

You simply repeated what I said in different words. You argued with me by saying the same thing I did.

nishikatJul. 20, 2013 - 01:52PM JST This was not blame. This was justice. The system worked so he was arrested, tried, acquitted, then released. If there is further legal civil legal action it will not be about blame. And if there is action from the fed. govt. it will not be about blame either. It will be about how the system works.

Actually Zimmerman was only arrested because of political pressure. In the opinion of the police at the time it was a clear-cut case of self-defense. ... an opinion that was proven in court.

The U.S. system is based on separation of powers. Legislative, executive and judicial. The Judicial system shouldn't be used to pursue a political agenda. That's how the system is supposed to work.

It is not working that way in Zimmerman's case. He should never have been in that court room. He should never have had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a defense team. The state should never have wasted millions of dollars of taxpayer's money on the trial.

Also, rules. Zimmerman was kicked off volunteer patrol because of his behavior The neighborhood association was also sued for Zimmerman's actions. This was about justice due to negligence that was settled legally and not about personal blame.

I could sue you for looking at me funny in the U.S. It doesn't mean there's any basis to the case, it doesn't mean I'm right. You can sue for nearly anything, and often just the threat of a lawsuit will make employers fire employees and volunteer groups dismiss members, simply because they do not have the money to fight nuisance lawsuits.

Please explain how this is all TM's fault. Again if it were there would have been no trial and other legal action in the first place.

There would have been no trial without racist political pressure. The cops at the scene thought it was clear-cut self-defense and didn't want to file charges. The ONLY reason this case went to court was because Zimmerman was "white" and Martin was "black". That's racism. That's political interference in the judicial system. That's unconstitutional conduct.

Hell, the state prosecutors even tried to hide evidence showing Martin's bad habits. This case has been riddled with political interference and misconduct. I'm frankly shocked that the judge had the balls to rule in Zimmerman's favor since there must have been tremendous political pressure to find him guilty. Hats off to the judge.

... and then you have Obama standing up and interfering too. Wow, as a student of the law he REALLY should know better. Of course this isn't the first time Obama has tried to interfere with the courts in clear violation of the constitution (hint: last time was when he pretty much told the Supreme Court to pass Obama Care).

Martin attacked Zimmerman. Zimmerman defended himself. Martin died. Sad, but clear self-defense. A judge and jury with all the facts and expert testimony think so. ... but you think that with a few biased newspaper articles you know better. Wow.

Prosecution never said they never based their case on race. Political pressure pressure. Maybe, that's the way the dice roll at times. But it happened so it happened. Justice was carried out. The charges stuck until the end and there were never any signs of misconduct in the courts.

If it was Trayvon's fault (he was a minor, right?) Zimmerman could have sued TM's parents.

"I could sue you for looking at me funny in the U.S." Really??? Are you sure?

"the state prosecutors even tried to hide evidence showing Martin's bad habits. " Really? Why aren't they being tried for misconduct like the Duke Univ. case?

"it was a clear-cut case of self-defense. ... an opinion that was proven in court." The court is not used to prove stuff like this. It is used for the prosecutor to prove the case of guilt -- which did not happen. The defense does not prove anything.

"as a student of the law he REALLY should know better." Are you saying that if Romney had been elected the TM trial wouldn't have happened?

" I'm frankly shocked that the judge had the balls to rule in Zimmerman's favor " ....the jury..?

nishikatJul. 21, 2013 - 01:12AM JST Prosecution never said they never based their case on race. Political pressure pressure. Maybe, that's the way the dice roll at times. But it happened so it happened. Justice was carried out. The charges stuck until the end and there were never any signs of misconduct in the courts.

You're kidding, right? You mean the bit where the prosecution tried to conceal evidence about Martin wasn't "misconduct"? Oh, you must have a different definition of misconduct, perhaps like you have a different definition of "Justice" that includes an obviously innocent man being charged with a crime he didn't commit.

If it was Trayvon's fault (he was a minor, right?) Zimmerman could have sued TM's parents.

So Zimmerman is now guilty because he showed a little compassion towards Martin's parents and didn't sue people who were grieving over their dead son? Wow, you are all sorts of messed up.

"I could sue you for looking at me funny in the U.S." Really??? Are you sure?

Yes, I'm sure. I probably wouldn't win, but if I had the time and money I could make you waste your time and money. Its called a "harassment lawsuit", and they're quite common in the U.S. Often the threat of legal action is sufficient to intimidate, so people use this tactic.

"the state prosecutors even tried to hide evidence showing Martin's bad habits. " Really? Why aren't they being tried for misconduct like the Duke Univ. case?

I don't know. Pehaps they'll get away with it because it was politically favorable. Do I look like the district attorney? No. So there's your answer.

"it was a clear-cut case of self-defense. ... an opinion that was proven in court." The court is not used to prove stuff like this. It is used for the prosecutor to prove the case of guilt -- which did not happen. The defense does not prove anything.

Innocent until proven guilty. Not proven guilty, therefore innocent. Can you follow that logic chain, or should I write it in bigger letters? Zimmerman is innocent.

"as a student of the law he REALLY should know better." Are you saying that if Romney had been elected the TM trial wouldn't have happened?

No, that wasn't what I was saying. And again, do I look like Romney? I checked my bank account and I'm pretty sure I'm not him (hint: my account should have more zeros). My criticism of Obama was for forgetting about separation of powers and speaking out on a legal matter where federal charges might be pending. It violated the constitutional principle of separation of powers, which Obama should know about as a student of law.

" I'm frankly shocked that the judge had the balls to rule in Zimmerman's favor " ....the jury..?

Judges can and have overruled juries in the past. At the end of the day the JUDGE is the one who decides if someone is innocent or guilty. If the sum total of your legal expertise is TV dramas then you may think otherwise, but you'd be mistaken. The jury merely recommends a course of action. The judge is also a government employee, who can be pressured politically (although this is illegal there have been numerous cases where it happened).

No, you just think it's misconduct. Sorry, no authority that would have the power to discipline the prosecution agrees with you. But go ahead and think all you want. No one is stopping you. Why don't you make your case with the Florida Bar Association.

Judges in the US have ordered plaintiffs to pay for court costs for such cases. No, you would not be able to waste my time and money if I looked at you funny. Please state a case about that if so.

The jury said "not guilty"

You are the one blaming Obama as if this whole thing would not have happened if he wasn't president. You don't like what Obama did. Did he break any laws?

"Judges can and have overruled juries in the past." What cases, specifically?

Zimmy was committed to committing the crime when he walked after somebody he knew was not armed from the initial encounter. He couldn't lose.....? When did it become okay to fire a "metal" "bullet" into somebody for punching you? Aren't you suppose to throw one back? A punch? Not a bullet. That's a lot of hatred. In that bullet. And not fair.

[Zimmerman] was committed to committing the crime when he walked after somebody he knew was not armed from the initial encounter.

I would not agree. As long as Zimmerman knew that Martin had spotted him and was trying to get away (retreat), Zimmerman was in the wrong as soon as he left his vehicle to pursue him -- because of the increase fear it caused Martin.

According to Zimmerman's story, when the two met up, Mr. Martin approached him from the rear left, but Zimmerman had time to face him and to respond to the question asked by Mr. Martin: "You got a problem?" Zimmerman says he answered "No, I don't have a problem." Then, according to Zimmerman, Mr. Martin said something like, "Well you got one now." and punched him in the nose.

Zimmerman already classified Martin as a suspect and a "punk." He's now being confronted by the "punk," and the punk actually asks him a question and waits for his response. Zimmerman knows he is armed with a deadly weapon and has to sense that the risk of a confrontation is very high.

I don't have a problem.

His punk suspect is coming towards him on a dark pathway and Zimmerman is telling him there's no problem??!! He's just out for a leisurely stroll through the neighborhood -- following prey.

Whoa there.... Why not: "Hold it right there!! -- Don't take another step towards me. I am armed!! " (Zimmerman claims he was trying to locate his cell phone to call 911. He's lying. Listen to him. Zimmerman is telling us that he thinks he has time to call 911 and talk to them while his punk suspect is closing in on him.

How stupid can you be, people?

yabits:

I would not agree. As long as Zimmerman knew that Martin had spotted him and was trying to get away (retreat),

Then why didn't TM retreat? I keep asking you, and you keep ignoring the question. Why did TM confront GZ if all TM was doing was innocently going to his dad's house? He had lost GZ, and had plenty of time to make it to the safety of his dad's house. GZ's defense attorney proved this in court. So if TM wasn't doing anything wrong, if TM had nothing to hide, then why didn't he leave the scene? Why didn't he call 911?

Hello? Yabits?

OldHawk.

Then why didn't TM retreat? What would Zimmerman done if he had retreated? Let him go? Or assume he was definitely bad and shoot him for trying to escape. Reached for his mobile (did he have one?)? Sure, Zimmerman wouldn't think he was going to pull out a weapon would he? No, because he thinks this is just a normal kid, right? Zimmerman has no malintent whatsoever other than to not let this one get away. The whole event could have been avoided if Zimmerman just kept himself in control, and listened to the instructions given to him when HE called 911. That's all he had to do, but he took it to the next stage, took it into his own hands and now a young guy is dead, and Zimmerman will be hounded for the rest of his life.

Justice has been served. But most would agree that this happened because Zimmerman is such a screw-up. In the eyes of the courts he's free -- pending other litigation, etc. But in the eyes of the public (except for people who like Zimmerman) he's far from free. TM was just some guy who didn't want to be messed with or perhaps scared and could have thought Zimmerman was out to sexually assault him. If Zimmerman hadn't gone after him, or if TM hadn't started whooping his butt and cussed him out instead...accusing him of being some "gay freak" (expected words out of a 17-year-old boy, not me) and walked on this would not have made news either. But in this engagement Zimmerman was the one who whose behavior was less than normal which is why he is in his current situation.

@No Miso

The questions of Martin not retreating are not relevant when assessing Zimmerman's recount of the altercation.

Zimmerman claims Mr. Martin punched him for no reason. His version is completely unbelievable. He allows his suspect to gradually approach him after first asking Zimmerman -- "You got a problem?"

Zimmerman is lying. Mr. Martin probably did land the first actual punch, but only after Zimmerman tried to manhandle him to the ground. Zimmerman was really upset when he confronted Mr. Martin, asking him, "What are you doing around here!?" A bully, he thought he was dealing with a skinny, teenage kid. (He was.) But that first punch had him seeing stars, and it would be within a minute when that nose would really start to hurt.

Zimmerman was enraged. He blew Mr. Martin away in a fit of anger. And embellished every part of his story from beginning to end.

@yabits I agree - he had one intent, to not let him get away.

yabitsJul. 21, 2013 - 12:58PM JST Zimmerman is lying. Mr. Martin probably did land the first actual punch, but only after Zimmerman tried to manhandle him to the ground. Zimmerman was really upset when he confronted Mr. Martin, asking him, "What are you doing around here!?" A bully, he thought he was dealing with a skinny, teenage kid. (He was.) But that first punch had him seeing stars, and it would be within a minute when that nose would really start to hurt.

If Zimmerman had tried to manhandle Martin to the ground then there would have been defensive bruising. There wasn't. Your version doesn't match the facts. In fact your entire version is a fantasy. Ever been hit in the nose? I was when I was about 9 ... there's a moment of shock, followed almost immediately by a wash of incredible pain as your eyes water, your vision blurs and everything is foggy. Get a pair of tweezers and pluck a nose hair... your eyes will water and the pain is completely disproportionate compared to, for example, pulling a hair from anywhere else on your body. Now take that nose hair pain and multiply it by thousand.

Zimmerman's version fits the facts and is entirely consistent with REALITY... something you've apparently never met.

nishikatJul. 21, 2013 - 01:44AM JST No, you just think it's misconduct. Sorry, no authority that would have the power to discipline the prosecution agrees with you. But go ahead and think all you want. No one is stopping you. Why don't you make your case with the Florida Bar Association.

You're wrong. Ben Kruidbos was fired for the misconduct.

Judges in the US have ordered plaintiffs to pay for court costs for such cases. No, you would not be able to waste my time and money if I looked at you funny. Please state a case about that if so.

They might, or they might not. If, for example, I alleged harassment and that you had been looking at me threateningly on the bus for several days I could quite easily get a restraining order. Even if I didn't win though I definitely COULD waste your time by making you appear in court. It is a common tactic because it works.

The jury said "not guilty"

Innocent until proven guilty. Not proven guilty. Therefore INNOCENT. Wow, you just can't master that idea. Courts NEVER find someone innocent, merely not guilty. Why? Because they're ALREADY innocent.

You are the one blaming Obama as if this whole thing would not have happened if he wasn't president. You don't like what Obama did. Did he break any laws?

Yes, the constitution. Separation of powers. He should keep his nose OUT of the judicial arm.

"Judges can and have overruled juries in the past." What cases, specifically?

Way too many to list. Since 1976, Alabama judges have overridden jury verdicts 107 times.

Let me count. 5 points, 5 points proven wrong. You're full of wrong.

Ben Kruidbos is an IT person. Not a lawyer. He was fired for not doing his office duties. It would seem his boss lawyers did this in order to avoid legal misconduct. It shows the prosecution did the right thing here when they found out about it. Again, I don't hear any stories of lawyer misconduct...something the Florida Bar would care about. Something you don't like and what is actually prosecutorial misconduct are two different things.

(1)"I could sue you for looking at me funny in the U.S." (2)"I alleged harassment and that you had been looking at me threateningly on the bus for several days I could quite easily get a restraining order. " Now you are saying two different things. But I don't have this legal history anyway so it's not relevant to me. Ask me about a hypothetical situation what would pertain to me. I don't stare at people.

The jury said "not guilty." Zimmerman was never exonerated like what happened with the Duke U. case from real misconduct. Those Duke U. guys are innocent. "Innocent until proven guilty" is simply political rhetoric. It's not a legal technicality. If Zimmerman was exonerated he could sue the prosecutor like the Duke U. case. Are there any signs of this happening?

Sorry, you don't like what Obama is doing. You think he should, but he doesn't have to. It's like when some people think ObamaCare is illegal but it really isn't (it's a Republican idea, anyway). Sorry, can't help you there. Vote for the president who thinks more like you, then.

Only Alabama? But you didn't list any examples. Please list a recent example (not 30 years ago) that has to do with a violent issue. I'm listening.

Zimmerman could be still sued in civil court so he problems are not over. He will then have to testify.

nishikatJul. 21, 2013 - 02:46PM JST

Wow... just wow...

Ben Kruidbos is an IT person. Not a lawyer. He was fired for not doing his office duties. It would seem his boss lawyers did this in order to avoid legal misconduct. It shows the prosecution did the right thing here when they found out about it. Again, I don't hear any stories of lawyer misconduct...something the Florida Bar would care about. Something you don't like and what is actually prosecutorial misconduct are two different things.

Ben Kruidbos works for the prosecutor's office. He is part of the prosecution's team.

What you're doing is constructing a straw man. By repharasing what I said into "prosecutorial misconduct" (which is NOT what I claimed, I claimed misconduct by the prosecution... which means anyone in the prosecution's team) and then disproving what YOU claim ... well, you just end up looking like an idiot who can't read.

(1)"I could sue you for looking at me funny in the U.S." (2)"I alleged harassment and that you had been looking at me threateningly on the bus for several days I could quite easily get a restraining order. " Now you are saying two different things. But I don't have this legal history anyway so it's not relevant to me. Ask me about a hypothetical situation what would pertain to me. I don't stare at people.

Yet more idiocy. You claim my example isn't correct... because you don't do that. That wasn't the point, you know it isn't the point and you're just evasive. You know you're wrong. Give up.

The jury said "not guilty." Zimmerman was never exonerated like what happened with the Duke U. case from real misconduct. Those Duke U. guys are innocent. "Innocent until proven guilty" is simply political rhetoric. It's not a legal technicality. If Zimmerman was exonerated he could sue the prosecutor like the Duke U. case. Are there any signs of this happening?

There is a small technical difference. Exonerated means the defense were able to PROVE the person didn't do it. Acquitted means the prosecution couldn't prove the person DID do it.

Let's take a simple example to show you why they both are the same as innocent: If you're accused of murder you'd be exonerated if you could produce a dozen reliable witnesses showing that you were at a party in a different country at the time. You'd be acquitted if the prosecution could produce no evidence linking you to the crime (i.e. if they just arrested some random person for no reason).

In both cases the person is innocent, and in BOTH cases the prosecution can be sued for wrongful arrest and malicious prosecution. Your understanding of the law is woefully lacking.

Sorry, you don't like what Obama is doing. You think he should, but he doesn't have to. It's like when some people think ObamaCare is illegal but it really isn't (it's a Republican idea, anyway). Sorry, can't help you there. Vote for the president who thinks more like you, then.

Obamacare IS illegal because Obama put publically put political pressure on the supreme court. That is unconstitutional. If the president of the country can disregard the constitution then it says very bad things about the health of the U.S. justice system.

Only Alabama? But you didn't list any examples. Please list a recent example (not 30 years ago) that has to do with a violent issue. I'm listening.

Are you thick or just stubborn? Those cases are SINCE 1976... they didn't all HAPPEN in 1976. Go and read, maybe, just maybe you'll learn something... but I doubt it.

Zimmerman could be still sued in civil court so he problems are not over. He will then have to testify.

He will NOT have to testify. Again your legal knowledge is zero. He has the right not to testify in criminal or civil proceedings. You are truly a wellspring of misinformation and ignorance. Perhaps you should shut up now before you humiliate yourself any further.

What I find hilarious is that my comments will probably be deleted because they're rude to you... but you're coming on here slandering Zimmerman, and those comments aren't deleted. Come on Moderator, a little fairness. Zimmerman was found innocent by a court of law. Delete all comments being rude about Zimmerman and I'd be happy to have my comment here deleted.

Is anyone going to be disbarred on the prosecution team? Is there even anyone talking about this anymore?

OK, I don't stare at people. Also, no one has ever made a legal claim against me. Please be specific what I should be careful about if I were in the United States so I don't get into legal trouble. I'm listening.

ObamaCare is the law.

Zimmerman would have to testify in civil court. OJ did.

Zimmerman was found "not guilty". They don't say "innocent".

"If you're accused of murder you'd be exonerated if you could produce a dozen reliable witnesses showing that you were at a party in a different country at the time. You'd be acquitted if the prosecution could produce no evidence linking you to the crime (i.e. if they just arrested some random person for no reason)." Then there probably would not be a trial in the first place. Prosecutors don't produce evidence.

Please cite an example of a murder trial where the judge just overturned a verdict like you were worried about with the Zimmerman trial. Are you sure examples like this exist?

No Miso:

What would Zimmerman done if he had retreated? Let him go?

yabits:

The questions of Martin not retreating are not relevant when assessing Zimmerman's recount of the altercation.

Didn't GZ lose track of TM? Perfect opportunity for TM to leave the scene. As GZ's defense attorney proved in court. Yabits, you only think this is "not relevant" because it's inconvenient to your desired narrative of the night's events. Which, as Frungy has been pointing out, is full of fantasy. That's why you're having such a difficult time accepting the jury's verdict, despite your previous claims that you would accept the jury's verdict.

As GZ's defense attorney proved in court.

Proved? Nothing was proved. And all the discussions on this point were based on testimony from......er, the defendant? I think you have just proved you are inept in understanding the fundamentals. The fantasy, which is not a very apt label to be honest, is all in the only persons head who is left alive to tell the tale. If you think he is telling the truth, you need to ask yourself what on earth was he doing there, putting himself in harms way, when the really sensible option would be to let the law enforcement agencies handle it, which they said they would, and asked him to step back, and which he ignored.

@Frungy

If Zimmerman had tried to manhandle Martin to the ground then there would have been defensive bruising. There wasn't. Your version doesn't match the facts. In fact your entire version is a fantasy. Ever been hit in the nose? I was when I was about 9 ... there's a moment of shock, followed almost immediately by a wash of incredible pain as your eyes water, your vision blurs and everything is foggy. Get a pair of tweezers and pluck a nose hair... your eyes will water and the pain is completely disproportionate compared to, for example, pulling a hair from anywhere else on your body. Now take that nose hair pain and multiply it by thousand.

When growing up, I used to box. The usual custom on our street was that when two kids wanted to square off on each other, we'd get the boxing gloves and they would have it out. This was practiced at my elementary and my middle school too. In boxing, it's going to be very common to get hit in the face -- and I guess the first time it happened to me probably was the worst -- but unless it's a blow that is hard enough to really stagger a person, you learn to recover quickly, keeping your wits about you, and stay in the fight.

I've been hit in the face with bare fists before too. But the key is endurance. Punching drains energy, and wildly punching drains it really fast. Once you have your opponent resorting to trying to hang on, and you haven't been punching a lot yourself, you can really go to work on them. If one does well in a few fights -- win or lose -- usually that's enough to gain the respect that keeps fights to a minimum.

While in the Navy, I was playing basketball at a gym, and was diving for a loose ball during a game. An opponent was also diving for it from the opposite direction. The front of my face smashed full force into the top of his head. The damage to my nasal septum was severe, but I wasn't knocked out. I recall the gym manager almost throwing up at the site of all the blood. My face was black and blue for weeks and I've got a permanent reminder every time I look in the mirror. So, yeah, I know what it's like.

When I try to imagine myself in Zimmerman's position, sure I can relate to the pain of his broken nose. I believe that the pain was so great that when Mr. Martin pushed or hit the nose again, and if I had a gun that I could access, I could see myself going for it. But I can't imagine myself being so out of control that I could just go ahead and shoot someone. I was really angry when my nose was broken in the basketball game, but I was aware enough to recall the reaction of the gym manager -- the way Zimmerman claims to be aware of the position of his jacket and where Mr. Martin is looking.

But if I did shoot someone, there is no way I could claim I was defending my life in that situation. It's just that I couldn't take the pain to my nose any more and that was the only way I saw to stop it. If I killed the person, I would fully expect to be charged and convicted of manslaughter. There would be no end to my remorse about taking a life -- in fact that feeling is so strong in me that I swear I think I could withstand just about anything for a few minutes without giving in to it. I know I could withstand a fist-fight -- especially with a teenager who has punched himself tired and who I outweigh by 40 pounds.

One thing about pain, it causes the body to go into shock, which helps to dull the pain. That's the body's way of enabling the mind to keep thinking and making decisions.

Zimmerman was aware of the position of his jacket because his own right hand reached down and pulled it up, so that he could access his weapon. The gun didn't appear in his hand by magic. Note carefully his words to Sean Hannity: "It wasn't my gun; it wasn't his gun; it was just a gun." Sorry Zimmerman, you're lying. The moment I am reaching to get my gun, it is always my gun.

He had to embellish the story by saying Mr. Martin saw it and was trying to go for it, because saving himself from more nasal pain falls short of a life-threatening situation. Mr. Martin is not looking down towards where Zimmerman's gun is; he's concentrating his efforts on Zimmerman's face.

Zimmerman can't possibly see Mr. Martin's eyes because Mr. Martin is on top of him, and any light source would be above and behind Mr. Martin's head, putting his face in a complete shadow. (Mr. Martin's face was dark already.)

Mr. Martin's crime was that, in Zimmerman's estimation, from the beginning, he was a useless, worthless [expletive]. In Florida today, he (and his legal team) could be confident that he could get the police, the justice system and the larger society to see Mr. Martin the same way. In fact, they could depend on much of society to supply the narrative. And every "decent" member of society knows that a useless, worthless [expletive] is going to have useless, worthless [expletive] friends. Ms. Rachel Jeantel was led to play her role beautifully.

I happen to view Mr. Martin and Ms. Jeantel as beautiful human beings and children of the One Creator of us all. I have not witnessed anything from either of them to shake that view. While angry and disgusted with Zimmerman's cowardly actions, I view him as a brother who has spilled innocent human blood -- and who is in very deep spiritual trouble. I join the parents of Mr. Martin in prayers for him.

But let's not kid ourselves about the version that Zimmerman is telling us about what happened, shall we? The man is in deep, deep trouble. And it's not because of all the useless, worthless [expletives] who some believe are out to get him.

Yabits. Thanks for acknowledging the pain of a broken nose.

Now how about considering that it wasn't JUST the broken nose. I'd agree with you, if someone just gave me a broken nose I'd consider it a standard night at the pub (ever heard of an Irish handshake?) and while it hurt like hell I wouldn't kill someone for it (stamping down hard on their foot and uppercutting them into the solar plexis would definitely be on the menu though).

But what you're conveniently ignoring though is that it wasn't JUST Martin yanking at the broken nose. Martin was doing that so that Zimmerman was distracted by the pain while Martin strangled him. There are plenty of one-handed strangle techniques that are damned effective. Tiger style kung fu has one that is particularly effective because not only does it strangle, but it also kicks in the gag reflex, adding the risk of someone choking on their own vomit... I've had it used on me and I couldn't breath for about 10 seconds AFTER the person let me go, plus I was swallowing down like a madman to stop myself from throwing up. Strikes to the windpipe, pressure under the jaw on the internal carotid, etc, etc. There are lots of techniques.

If Martin knew just ONE effective technique he could have choked Zimmerman out in less than 20 seconds (fastest unconsciousness from a properly applied carotid Blood to Brain (B2B) choke I've ever seen was 3 seconds, slowest was about 20 seconds).

The nose thing is only relevant because it shows that Martin was intent on causing serious pain and injury to Zimmerman. Hitting someone in the face? Harsh, but okay. Holding them down and choking them while yanking at the nose? Now you've crossed the line from "punch up" to "intent to cause serious bodily harm" or "attempted murder".

This is something you never seem to get in your posts. You treated Zimmerman's following as stalking because you failed to acknowledge that it is a matter of degree. Do it once and it is nothing, not even a misdemeanor. Do it twice or three times and it becomes a crime. Hit someone in the face once so they back off? Yeah, that could be defended. Keep on hitting them once they're down, yanking at their broken nose and trying to choke them out? Now you're into entirely different territory. Have one witness (e.g. Zimmerman) saying that he was assaulted and there's doubt. Add to that the testimony of another eyewitness, plus medical reports, plus other evidence and you have an ironclad case that Zimmerman was assaulted by Martin.

A lot of things are a matter of degree. Speed by 1 or 2 kilometers per hour and the cops will probably ignore it. Speed by 20 kilometers per hour and you're in for a large speeding fine. Martin wasn't (metaphorically) going 1 or 2 kilometers over the limit, he had his foot down on the accelerator and was doing 100 in a 40 zone.

But what you're conveniently ignoring though is that it wasn't JUST Martin yanking at the broken nose. Martin was doing that so that Zimmerman was distracted by the pain while Martin strangled him. There are plenty of one-handed strangle techniques that are damned effective.

Joining you on that flight of fancy would require denying my own experience, the near-certainty that Mr. Martin was completely exhausted, and overlooking the story that Zimmerman is telling us -- which is a complete fabrication designed to save his skin.

I am convinced that Ms. Jeantel heard the start of the altercation and the thud when Mr. Martin's cell phone hit the ground. I believe her when she says she heard Mr. Martin, with some fear or desperation in his voice, "Why are you following me?" If Mr. Martin had said what Zimmerman claims he said -- "You got a problem?"-- I am 99.999% certain that Ms. Jeantel would have seen no reason to change it. She already has Mr. Martin referring to Zimmerman as the N-word and "creepy cracker." She's almost totally naive. A really good liar is of a different breed altogether. She's not up there to fool anyone.

In a tense confrontational situation where you've been pursuing someone and they are reacting to it by trying to increase their distance, and you're feeling hostile to them already, and now you're claiming this suspect is approaching you in a dark area, and you're letting him get closer to you. Based on Zimmerman's own feelings of hostility towards this particular target, I'm not buying it. You can if you want to.

Zimmerman is consistent in that his stories are completely full of holes. I do believe Mr. Martin asked Zimmerman a question -- the natural question -- "Why are you following me?" The hostile Zimmerman was the aggressor, demanding to know of Mr. Martin -- the natural question -- "What are you doing here!" Zimmerman is lying. The actual initial words between them are nearly exactly as Ms. Jeantel has related them, and nothing like how Zimmerman tells it. If Zimmerman reached out and grabbed the kid, he would never, ever admit it. So you look for other evidence that he's not telling the truth. Something will crack somewhere. Zimmerman's not all that smart either, but he's sure fooled a lot of people.

There are plenty of one-handed strangle techniques that are damned effective.

Mr. Martin is not kicking, biting or using "one-handed" strangling techniques. He's on top of Zimmerman dog tired and losing more strength. If Zimmerman was having an effective strangling technique applied to him at the moment, he would not be telling us in his detached manner that he was aware of his jacket and where Mr. Martin was looking. You keep wanting us to believe that the hoof-beats mean zebras. Zimmerman says that he feels Mr. Martin's hand slowly going down towards the area of his gun -- which hand, the one he's poking his nose with, or the one he's strangling him with? Zimmerman's recount sounds like a slow-motion replay on NFL Today. He's noticing all these details and every detail is design to get us to believe he was in fear for his life.

When, after all is said and done, he's simply just a coward who couldn't take a punch from a now-exhausted, 17-year-old high school kid. He's humiliated and now he's really pissed at this tired, scrappy kid who is not applying any Tiger style kung fu. (Your inventiveness rivals Zimmerman's.) In no danger for his life whatsoever, he finally manages to get his right hand on the pistol underneath him -- the one that there's no way Mr. Martin could have seen, jacket up or jacket down.

If Mr. Martin's hand WAS in the vicinity, AND he actually saw the gun. There is no way -- NO WAY -- he was going to allow George Zimmerman to raise that gun to point at his heart from a few inches away. Not if he's got enough strength to apply a one-handed strangulation technique. Think horses, not zebras. When you've got a guy pinned, it takes relatively little energy to keep him from raising his arm. A gun that he claims you now see in his hand would have provided tremendous incentive.

But no, Martin is a master streetfighter. Skilled in all manner of techniques. And he sees the gun! Zimmerman is suggesting that Mr. Martin is in total control of the fight and he -- Zimmerman -- going to lose his life! And Martin just lets him raise his gun to within a few inches of the core of his body and fire away.

Zimmerman's story is a fabrication from start to finish. You find the slightest crack, and the whole thing tumbles like a house of cards when the fan kicks on. The only living witness to the events that night could NOT be allowed to take the stand.

It will all come out in the civil trial.

The nose thing is only relevant because it shows that Martin was intent on causing serious pain and injury to Zimmerman.

Have one witness (e.g. Zimmerman) saying that he was assaulted and there's doubt. Add to that the testimony of another eyewitness, plus medical reports, plus other evidence and you have an ironclad case that Zimmerman was assaulted by Martin.

Aha, because Zimmerman was of course just passing by, no intent to correct a wrong by the "punk" just being there, and no other motive, right? Can you actually answer that?

This is not a case of racial profiling, something the media and protesters have been pushing from day one, but rather ridiculous gun laws that exist in the United States. If people anything good could come of this perhaps it would be to put a major push to change the gun laws and to address the root causes and frustration of the black community. Racial profiling exists but it exists for a reason...Something any newscaster commentator, editor, celebrity, or man on the street dare not say...Because if you openly address the issues that are plaguing the Black community (and you are non-black) such as the disproportionate amount of black children born into one parent homes, disproportionate crime rare stats, disproportionate educational drop out rate, you will be labelled a racist...you will be crucified. Therefore, instead of addressing these issues, everybody tap dances around the elephant in the room and talks about racial profiling as if at is the cause of all these issues. Which it is not...And everybody (including black people know this). Shame on all those who have jumped on the band wagon to serve their own self righteous agendas; meanwhile the black community continues to wallow in desperation with no solutions to their community's plight other than excuses. Yabits...You want to do real good? Take all this misguided energy you've been putting into your posting about this case and direct it toward long term solutions for the black community. Petition the government to: invest into educational programs for inner city children Reinitiate affirmative action programs in both the work place and in colleges and universities invest into programs that encourage and assist the black family unit. invest into the economies of inner cities

No Miso:

Proved? Nothing was proved.

It appears the jury disagrees with you.

And all the discussions on this point were based on testimony from......er, the defendant?

And the time elapsed between TM's phone use. And the fact that all of fight injuries were on GZ, TM didn't call 911, etc.

TM had time to leave the area after GZ lost track of him. He chose not to. TM is responsible for that decision, and only TM.

I think you have just proved you are inept in understanding the fundamentals.

You can think what you want. But you're demonstrating that you're being selective with the evidence from the trial. Just as yabits is being selective with whom holds responsible. According to yabits, TM holds no responsibility for anything that happened that night. Not his decision to contact his girlfriend instead of 911, not his decision to confront GZ instead of going to his dad's house (which yabits insists was TM's only reason for being in the neighborhood), and not his decision to beat the snot out of GZ. It makes me wonder what it would take for yabits to concede that TM was responsible for the poor decisions he made that night. Maybe he's afraid of falling into the Left's trap: that criticizing TM in any way is tantamount to racism. Zichi tried it on me and failed. But I don't play those games because I can form substantive arguments. So c'mon, yabits, let's see if you can do it.

According to yabits, TM holds no responsibility for anything that happened that night.

Despatcher said, very clearly: "We don't need you to do that sir". Now, what was it that the law enforcement agencies didn't need him to do? Can you recall the very core of this incident that could have changed everything, if Zimmerman had just done what he was told to do?

It appears the jury disagrees with you.

It also appears that the jury have HUGE misgivings about the process. Or are you being selective?

ViennaSausage2:

While I agree with you that the root causes of racial biases need to be addressed, to be fair to yabits, tackling all those problems would require a lot more energy than posting comments. Trying to change people's minds on the internet might be futile, but I wouldn't call it "misguided."

I don't think it's racist at all to talk about the problems you described. They just involve a lot of complex societal issues that are a lot harder to solve. Stopping to think before acting on racial biases, on the other hand, is something we could all do on an individual level. I found this interesting video that shows that most people hold racial biases regardless what race they are. Not necessarily directed at you Vienna, because I don't think you doubt the existence of racial profiling. Just wanted to share.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0kV_b3IK9M

Don't forget. The biggest reason for all this is from how much of a screw up Zimmerman is -- even with the "not guilty" verdict. Yes, TM could have done this....or that.... He could have walked, or run...He could have called 911, or just try to talk to Zimmerman politely.

But in the eyes of the public Zimmerman is one infamous outcast. Even one of the jury members who did her job well by fulfilling her responsibilities said that personally she didn't like what Zimmerman did. But she still did her job and should be commended.

I support carry laws but only for people who are not idiots.

But she still did her job and should be commended.

No. I do not commend that jury. They are a complete disgrace to anything that would purport itself as being a "system of justice." They were only willing to regard the superficial, even when it was blatantly false. Example:

Here is one of the biggest mistakes they made, as revealed by Juror B37 herself: They regarded George Zimmerman as a kind of quasi-official law enforcement officer. She'd be proud to have George patrolling her neighborhood. His heart was in the right place.

No, you silly woman, it was not. And you would be the first to admit it if Zimmerman did to your kid what he did to Trayvon Martin.

Everything about this case is ugly -- right down to its core.

@Oldhawk

It appears the jury disagrees with you.

I'm not really who they should agreeing with.

From Foxnews:

"Juror B37 added that the jurors were initially divided on Zimmerman's guilt, with three jurors believing he was guilty of either manslaughter or second-degree murder, but that the jury agreed to acquit the 29-year-old Zimmerman after studying the law."

So at least 3 of them thought he killed Trayvon but couldn't PROVE it against the word of law. This is where legal systems resemble comedy, except no one is laughing (apart from Zimmerman - briefly).

No Miso:

Despatcher said, very clearly: "We don't need you to do that sir". Now, what was it that the law enforcement agencies didn't need him to do? Can you recall the very core of this incident that could have changed everything, if Zimmerman had just done what he was told to do?

Dispatchers are very careful, because they do not have the authority to give instructions (lest they be sued; this is America, after all). When the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that sir", they were NOT saying, "Don't do that sir" or "Stop doing that sir". Can you see the difference? An attorney looking for a juicy lawsuit certainly would.

Again, GZ had every legal right to be walking in his own neighborhood, even keeping an eye on non-residents walking through yards and between houses. TM would not have had as clear an explanation for his presence that night, or else he would have called 911 himself.

It also appears that the jury have HUGE misgivings about the process. Or are you being selective?

Apparently not that "huge", or else they wouldn't have turned in a verdict.

@No Miso

I strongly recommend you watch the video of Zimmerman taking police through a re-enactment at the scene. Please note the following:

The design of the houses, and how they are nearly all garage doors with little or no view to "case out" anything.

Where Zimmerman is telling the police the dispatcher was instructing him to "Get to somewhere where you can see him." The 911 dispatcher made no instruction resembling that. NOTHING like it. It's Zimmerman's fantasy.

When they enter the small walkway, look at the front of the house at the right. Zimmerman claims none of the houses have addresses, but he's pointing to the backs of the houses to the left.

Zimmerman says something to the dispatcher that tips off everyone he's not returning to his vehicle as he later claimed to be doing.

There is no way this guy is going to withstand the cross-examination of a civil suit.

OK - Mr Oldhawk, I can't see anything in your arguments that suggests you comprehend the situation, so I'm backing away from this discussion. If you don't know how dispatchers are trained to interact then you aren't going to understand this situation, which actually explains your line of thinking.

I see you've dropped the stalking claim now that I pointed you at the Florida law and showed that you were mistaken.

On further examination and verification, I find was not mistaken. Zimmerman was unlawfully stalking Trayvon Martin.

The word of contention was "repeatedly." It does not mean, "done on one day; and then on another day." Think "Lather, rinse, repeat." It doesn't mean you wait until your next shower. It means one act, punctuated by a pause (or other act) and then repeated. If one person follows another and then stops when their prey stops, they have stopped following them. The very next moment that person starts to follow again, they are repeating the action. That's how you know someone is harassing or stalking you.

The pedestrian who thinks someone is following them while in their vehicle are going to try to take a path that the vehicle can't go on. Once the vehicle stops, and the stalker gets out, as soon as he repeats his action of stalking, he is in violation of Florida law. Note the Florida statute on harassment and stalking specifies, as it relates to time, that the repeated action may occur within a period, however brief. That means the law is very aware of situations just like this one.

The law on stalking and harassment was meant to protect people like Trayvon Martin from the Zimmermans of the world. He had no reason to be put in such fear by Zimmerman's unlawful pursuit.

No Miso:

OK - Mr Oldhawk, I can't see anything in your arguments that suggests you comprehend the situation, so I'm backing away from this discussion.

Translation: You can't refute my points, so you're bailing out and blaming me for it. Gotcha.

If you don't know how dispatchers are trained to interact then you aren't going to understand this situation, which actually explains your line of thinking.

You do?

@oldhawk

You do?

Yes. My cousin is one. And refuting junk is not a worthy passtime, hence best avoided. Got me? Hmmm, lucky this is the virtual world and you didn't shoot me out of frustration that you weren't going to win an argument - now that would have been ugly!

And refuting junk is not a worthy pastime

That's putting it mildly.