Zimmerman 'got away with murder' of black teen: juror

She said that after the controversial verdict, she feels she owes an apology to the parents of Martin

She doesn't. She was hamstrung, probably intentionally, by a prosecution that far over-reached by going for murder when they should have gone for manslaughter. The whole case was also hamstrung by the delay of police to investigate fully and quickly.

Also throw in the utter ineptitude of the prosecution for their failure to expose the major plot holes in Zimmerman's story and also his complete lies.

And an all female jury? I expect that had a few men been on that jury, more of this sham would have been seen through. And don't think I am knocking women. I think men and women together make good teams, but a group of one or the other is going to miss things, just like this all female jury did.

I think men and women together make good teams, but a group of one or the other is going to miss things, just like this all female jury did.

A jury only makes a decision with the information and law presented to them ==> it is not their responsibility do dig up the facts in a case.

Sounds like someone just wants money or fame for 15 minutes...if she felt so strongly she could have stuck to her belief but evidence did not support it. In my opinion what does that say about an individual....if you just went along with everyone else?......great message to send to children. Say what you will about Zimmerman but in reality when someone asks what you are doing you do not start that conversation by punching them in the nose. Zimmermans injurys were inline with his statement (as proved)....granted you could say he could have shot him in the leg but if you feel that your life is threatened then lethal force is justified. I read one site that had portrayed Martin as just another kid on his way home from the candy store.....wth...according to the prosecution (whom is now being looked at for not sharing evidence) Martin had pictures on his cell phone of him sitting with a pile of jewelry - pictures of naked girls (supposedly under age) and a semi automatic pistol. If that's the type of person that they call "Just another kid on his way home from the candy store" then you have serious problems in your neighbor hood...someone might even end up getting killed.

A jury only makes a decision with the information and law presented to them ==> it is not their responsibility do dig up the facts in a case.

But they are expected to be able to determine fact from fiction. And its unpopular notion in America, but nonetheless true, that females and males are different. For example, females are generally less interested in and less experienced with violence and have great difficulty understanding males' reactions and motives with regard to violence. They just can't put themselves into male shoes. So how are they supposed to see through Zimmerman's lies?

These jurors should keep their yaps shut. It's already bad enough that the media had turned this into a witch hunt and tried to influence the case. What they should really be focusing on is the amount of black on black crime in the inner cities (pick one), and really be honest about all this. Most of the crime in the inner cities is committed by black youths that come from broken homes. The breakdown of the black community and family has perpetuated a culture of ignorant & illegitimate children. This is where the media should be looking at instead of pretending to be so noble about an issue that is far deeper than one young kid that got into a horrible situation. White people phoniness and self-gratifying pats on the back are the media continue to report. Shame shame.

...says he “got away with murder.”

No. He didn't. At least not murder as defined by existing laws and via the system of justice which mandates innocent-until-proven-guilty.

George Zimmerman was found by a jury of his peers (i.e., you, Juror B-29) not to have broken the law. If that decision was wrong, then it is the fault of the jury. Otherwise, he is innocent in the eyes of the law.

RR

And an all female jury? I expect that had a few men been on that jury, more of this sham would have been seen through.

Qualifying question to prospective juror: "Have you ever personally been involved in a fist-fight?"

Prospective juror: "No"

Disqualified.

“You can’t put the man in jail even though in our hearts we felt he was guilty,” the 36-year-old woman said. “We had to grab our hearts and put it aside and look at the evidence.”

And this is the reason why we have a trial system. Feelings aren't enough.

Don King once said "only in America." Yes, only in America could a self-chosen non-police officer with multiple arrests to his credit carry a firearm that was not licensed for that purpose, racially profile an unarmed man, continue pursuit in spite of being specifically told to stop by designated law enforcement, precipitate a confrontation, then claim his life was in danger after the killing and walk away free.

Only in America could such a man become a celebrity to a certain portion of the population.

And only in America could the juror differ responsibility for judgement to a theoretical deity. (Full disclosure: I'm American).

Last I checked, the US is a nation of laws(except when inconvenient for TPTB), and the trial followed the law, not mob rule. Acquitted because he is not guilty. Unlike the OJ Simpson debacle.

“You can’t put the man in jail even though in our hearts we felt he was guilty,” the 36-year-old woman said. “We had to grab our hearts and put it aside and look at the evidence.”

and

“George Zimmerman got away with murder, but you can’t get away from God. And at the end of the day, he’s going to have a lot of questions and answers he has to deal with,” Maddy said.

This woman is an idiot. She contradicts herself.

The only non-white juror on the six-woman panel that acquitted Florida neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman in the killing of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin says he “got away with murder.”

What a surprise.

not murder as defined by existing laws

Then the existing laws are rubbish.

George Zimmerman was found by a jury of his peers (i.e., you, Juror B-29) not to have broken the law. If that decision was wrong, then it is the fault of the jury.

No, it is the fault of the rubbish laws that allow a cop wannabe to wander around the neighbourhood with a loaded gun, shooting whenever he 'feels threatened' in a confrontation of his own making.

Zimmerman has admitted to shooting Martin, but insisted it was in self-defense after the teen wrestled him to the ground and pounded his head against the sidewalk.

Zimmerman's head was not being pounded against the sidewalk when he shot Mr. Martin. By his own admission, he had "shimmied" away from the sidewalk and his head was on the grass. According to Zimmerman, Mr. Martin was no longer pounding his head but mainly choking him and pushing his broken nose. If the screams on the 911 call are Zimmerman's he sounds nowhere near like a person ready to lose consciousness. (Not sure how a person can scream while being choked, but he claims the screams are his.)

The first neighbors on the scene report Zimmerman walking around normally, after he shot the teenager, with no trace of staggering or tentativeness. Nothing he says can be trusted.

@Graham DeShazo

Don King once said "only in America." Yes, only in America could a self-chosen non-police officer

Ever heard of a citizens arrest?

with multiple arrests to his credit

What is the problem there??

carry a firearm that was not licensed for that purpose,

It's pretty obvious you don't understand gun licencing laws...

racially profile an unarmed man,

He didn't racially profile anyone. He profiled TM because it was the profile of the people who had been breaking into homes in the area. It's not GZ's fault that those people were young black males wearing hoodies.

continue pursuit in spite of being specifically told to stop by designated law enforcement,

You didn't watch any of the trial, did you? And you know just about nothing about it, do you?

First, he wasn't "specifically told to stop by designated law enforcement". He was told to stop by the non-emergency operator. They AREN'T "designated law enforcement.

Second, they told him they didn't need him to follow TM for his (GZ) own safety.

precipitate a confrontation,

We don't know what actually happened, but from the evidence, it looks like TM doubled-back towards GZ and initiated the confrontation.

then claim his life was in danger after the killing and walk away free.

There was a witness who saw TM on top of GZ, beating him. Also, medical evidence supports GZ claims of having his head bashed onto concrete; and he had a broken nose. TM didn't have a scratch on him except for the bullet wound.

Only in America could such a man become a celebrity to a certain portion of the population.

You are obviously talking about Trayvon Martin here.

And only in America could the juror differ responsibility for judgement to a theoretical deity. (Full disclosure: I'm American).

BS. She was probably taking a lot of flack from other black people, calling her a "race-traitor" or something.

The "innocent child" was a 17 year-old. He had training in MMA. He was on his way to buy skittles and an Arizona ice-tea because he wanted to mix them together with cough syrup to make a drug called "Lean." Zimmerman was beaten up, but Martin was not.

Get your facts straight.

The real issue is not that the court system did not work. It did. It is overwhelmingly obvious that the established media is failing. The iron triangle of the media-government-corporations is the problem.

Here's a great video about the Zimmerman-Martin tragedy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebu6Yvzs4Ls I've looked and haven't found any fact-check that debunks it. Watch it or don't. Everyone has the right to choose for themselves whether they take the red pill or the blue pill. (Matrix reference)

I'm amazed that there are so many uninformed people who just bleat out what they saw on the biased news, and ignore the facts.

They all think Trayvon was an innocent 12 year old in his football jersey. Not the 17 year old thug in a hoodie that he was.

Ever heard of a citizens arrest?

Only when a crime was being committed. Mr. Martin was not in the commission of any crime. Zimmerman was acting unlawfully when he pursued Mr. Martin in his vehicle, then repeated pursuing him on foot. (Per Florida's harassment and stalking statute.)

At no time did Zimmerman ever attempt to identify himself to Mr. Martin. He had the opportunity to get out of his vehicle at the "club house" and approach Mr. Martin from a safe distance to ask him what his business was -- that is just basic decency -- but Zimmerman didn't do that. I mean, you can stalk someone but you can't simply meet with them on an initial contact? In this case, over and over again, we are dealing with the phantoms and demons in Zimmerman's imagination.

Second, they told him they didn't need him to follow TM for his (GZ) own safety.

In the police reenactment after the incident, Zimmerman is telling the police that the dispatcher instructed him to "Get to a place where he could observe the person." The dispatcher gave nothing resembling that instruction. Keep in mind, we are dealing with the phantoms and demons in Zimmerman's imagination.

We don't know what actually happened, but from the evidence, it looks like TM doubled-back towards GZ and initiated the confrontation

There is no evidence of that. Zimmerman is acting bizarrely. He's living in a community housing development and acting as a Watch. He's been there for at least a year. The community has three streets. Only three. And Zimmerman, the dutiful watch, can't remember the name of one of the two main ones (Twin Lakes). So he makes an excuse -- which will enable him to keep pursuing Mr. Martin -- of having to go over to Retreat View Circle to get a house number. Which really won't help the dispatcher since Zimmerman's vehicle is back on Twin Lakes.

Zimmerman doesn't suspect that Mr. Martin lives in the development, so what he's actually doing is getting over to Retreat View to see if he can spot his "suspect" heading towards the back entrance. Notice that he never gives dispatch that house number he claimed to be heading over there to get. Prior to this, he was telling the dispatcher to have the police meet him at his vehicle. When starting to walk back towards the dogwalk, in the direction of his vehicle, he spots someone in the dark, possibly his suspect, and tells the dispatcher to have the police call him. He's decided that he's not going directly back to his vehicle and it's likely he won't be there to greet the police when they arrive.

For some reason, he didn't want to stay on the line with the dispatcher until he got back to his vehicle safely. It would only have taken a few extra minutes.

I don't believe that Trayvon Martin doubled-back. There's no evidence how far down the dog-path he got. I personally believe he was staying as inconspicuous as possible off to the side until his stalker left the scene before continuing on to his home -- where he was alone that evening with his younger sibling. His motive would be not wanting to lead this unknown stalker to where he lived.

Zimmerman's story about his allowing Mr. Martin to approach him from 10 feet away -- while claiming not being able to find the cell phone he was just using -- is too bizarre to be believed. It is Zimmerman who finds Mr. Martin and initiates the confrontation, in which Mr. Martin has to defend himself.

Not the 17 year old thug in a hoodie that he was.

He actually looks pretty innocent in a hoodie too. He doesn't look tough at all. Except perhaps, to people who scare easily.

. . . . it is the fault of the rubbish laws that allow a cop wannabe to wander around the neighbourhood with a loaded gun, shooting whenever he 'feels threatened' in a confrontation of his own making.

Bravo, Cleo. Bravo.

As Jon Oliver, comedian and political satirist, put it:

"According to current Florida law, you can get a gun, follow an unarmed minor, call the police, have them explicitly tell you to stop following them, then choose to ignore that, keep following the minor, get into a confrontation with them, and if at any point during that process you get scared, you can shoot the minor to death, and the state of Florida will say, "Well, look. You did what you could."

There's something fundamentally wrong with the laws of Florida when Zimmerman can walk away a free man for killing another human being under the circumstances seen in this particular case. The jurors knew this, the American public knows it, and you can be damned sure Zimmerman knows it, but is eternally grateful for the flaw.

It's even more frustrating to see the significant enough number of voices positing, "We're a nation of laws," as if that pedantic rationale magically erases any need for a critical reexamination of inconsistencies in the legal code that serve to undermine the very intent of law, namely order and justice, both of which were effectively raped with this verdict.

We've got a whole lot more to worry about as a society when we try to convince one another that killing a person for punching you in an altercation you provoked entirely could in any way be defined as self-defense.

The jury probably followed the instructions and came to the correct decision based on what was required of them. But we need to take a serious look at the laws and how they apply in these fuzzy situations when one person ends up dead.

There was a witness who saw TM on top of GZ, beating him. Also, medical evidence supports GZ claims of having his head bashed onto concrete; and he had a broken nose. TM didn't have a scratch on him except for the bullet wound.

Zimmerman looked he'd been beaten by a 15-year-old. A much stronger 17-year-old than Mr. Martin would have caused him to look much worse. His nose wan't bleeding except for a little, and there was no blood on his clothes.

Head "bashed" into concrete? If one were to be asked to "bash" something onto concrete and leave no more damage than the superficial cuts -- requiring not a single stitch -- received by Zimmerman, one would have to be extra careful not to bash too hard. Zimmerman's head hit the concrete most likely only once, and not very hard at that.

He got his first really good look at Mr. Martin near the clubhouse and estimated that the kid returning home with candy and a drink was in his late teens, according to the call to the dispatcher. Later, at his arraignment, Zimmerman addressed the parents of Trayvon Martin, telling them, "I didn't know how old he was. I thought he was just a couple years younger than me."

The stuff that comes out of Zimmerman's mind.

Ever heard of a citizens arrest?

Only when a crime was being committed. Mr. Martin was not in the commission of any crime. Zimmerman was acting unlawfully when he pursued Mr. Martin in his vehicle, then repeated pursuing him on foot. (Per Florida's harassment and stalking statute.)

I was referring to "only in America could a self-chosen non-police officer", not about this case directly. BTW, you love that Florida harassment and stalking statute, don't you? Even though it has nothing to do with this case.

At no time did Zimmerman ever attempt to identify himself to Mr. Martin. He had the opportunity to get out of his vehicle at the "club house" and approach Mr. Martin from a safe distance to ask him what his business was -- that is just basic decency -- but Zimmerman didn't do that. I mean, you can stalk someone but you can't simply meet with them on an initial contact? In this case, over and over again, we are dealing with the phantoms and demons in Zimmerman's imagination.

As I said before, despite what Yabits esquire, D.A. thinks, following someone is not a crime.

Second, they told him they didn't need him to follow TM for his (GZ) own safety.

In the police reenactment after the incident, Zimmerman is telling the police that the dispatcher instructed him to "Get to a place where he could observe the person." The dispatcher gave nothing resembling that instruction. Keep in mind, we are dealing with the phantoms and demons in Zimmerman's imagination.

"Observe" and "follow" are different things.

We don't know what actually happened, but from the evidence, it looks like TM doubled-back towards GZ and initiated the confrontation

There is no evidence of that.

There IS evidence of that! Learn the facts before making comments like that.

Zimmerman is acting bizarrely. He's living in a community housing development and acting as a Watch. He's been there for at least a year. The community has three streets. Only three. And Zimmerman, the dutiful watch, can't remember the name of one of the two main ones (Twin Lakes). So he makes an excuse -- which will enable him to keep pursuing Mr. Martin -- of having to go over to Retreat View Circle to get a house number. Which really won't help the dispatcher since Zimmerman's vehicle is back on Twin Lakes.

That doesn't matter. The only crime committed in this case, is when TM attacked GZ.

Zimmerman doesn't suspect that Mr. Martin lives in the development, so what he's actually doing is getting over to Retreat View to see if he can spot his "suspect" heading towards the back entrance. Notice that he never gives dispatch that house number he claimed to be heading over there to get. Prior to this, he was telling the dispatcher to have the police meet him at his vehicle. When starting to walk back towards the dogwalk, in the direction of his vehicle, he spots someone in the dark, possibly his suspect, and tells the dispatcher to have the police call him. He's decided that he's not going directly back to his vehicle and it's likely he won't be there to greet the police when they arrive.

And not long after that, Trayvon came back and attacked him. Your point is?

For some reason, he didn't want to stay on the line with the dispatcher until he got back to his vehicle safely. It would only have taken a few extra minutes.

I agree with that.

I don't believe that Trayvon Martin doubled-back. There's no evidence how far down the dog-path he got. I personally believe he was staying as inconspicuous as possible off to the side until his stalker left the scene before continuing on to his home -- where he was alone that evening with his younger sibling. His motive would be not wanting to lead this unknown stalker to where he lived.

Just Google this: "evidence that trayvon martin doubled back".

Zimmerman's story about his allowing Mr. Martin to approach him from 10 feet away -- while claiming not being able to find the cell phone he was just using -- is too bizarre to be believed.

Well, the jury didn't think it was serious.

It is Zimmerman who finds Mr. Martin and initiates the confrontation, in which Mr. Martin has to defend himself.

The evidence goes against that, and that is why GZ is a free man.

Not the 17 year old thug in a hoodie that he was.

He actually looks pretty innocent in a hoodie too. He doesn't look tough at all. Except perhaps, to people who scare easily.

It's not about looking "scary". The area had a problem with break-ins committed by young black males in hoodies. TM was a young black male in hoodie. Does he look so innocent in the pictures on his cell phone too? Do innocent kids always have pictures of themselves with illegal guns and drugs?

No, it is the fault of the rubbish laws that allow a cop wannabe to wander around the neighbourhood with a loaded gun, shooting whenever he 'feels threatened' in a confrontation of his own making.

Ms. Cleo there is another "rubbish law" that states you just can't punch someone in the face just because he is checking you out, it's called assault and I highly doubt that you would support dropping that law off the books.

You don't have to be a mental heavyweight to know that the jury selection was geared for an acquittal.And with a court system based on money,race and location,blatant miscarriages of justice like in this case,will never end.

Anyone who says this case was a "blatant miscarriage of justice", with all due respect, doesn't know what they are talking about.

This case shouldn't have even been a case.

there is another "rubbish law" that states you just can't punch someone in the face just because he is checking you out, it's called assault

Yes, and if someone punches you in the face by all means call the police, take the punk to court and have your day. That's what the law is there for. Don't respond to a punch in the face with a bullet in the chest.

The problem is that the rubbish laws of Florida say it's OK to respond with a bullet not only to a punch in the face, but to 'he looked at me funny and I felt threatened'.

The acquittal was just. Justice has been served. But what the race-baiters are after isn't justice but revenge.

sailwind: Ms. Cleo there is another "rubbish law" that states you just can't punch someone in the face just because he is checking you out, it's called assault and I highly doubt that you would support dropping that law off the books.

But if he's checking you out in a threatening manner and you feel that your life is in danger, you can kill him, right?

Ms. Cleo

Yes, and if someone punches you in the face by all means call the police,

Moot point: as he already had called the police prior to his being assaulted by Martin and,they were already on the way to the scene. I will predict that you will respond that he should have waited until they arrived no matter how bad his head was being battered on the concrete and I would sympathetic to that view, however I wasn't being beaten to the point where I felt my life was going to end. Zimmerman obviously thought his was and that's why we are here at this point today.

.Super,

But if he's checking you out in a threatening manner and you feel that your life is in danger, you can kill him, right?

No, of course not, ,but If he's checking you out and waving a knife in your face at the same time or reaching for a gun or after punching you in the face continued beating on you and pounding your head in the ground and wasn't showing any signs of stopping......,.Yes..

So basically he shot someone dead? Couldn't he fended him off and ran away to contact police before shooting him dead? What a freak! Following him around? He was asking to get jumped. Probably scared the black dude, the black dude probably thought he was trying to mug him.

Did the victom plead for his life? What happened? Man drunk people bash people all the time....and they deserve to get shot? Obviously this dude had an intent to kill. Atleast slap him with man slaughter?

you love that Florida harassment and stalking statute, don't you? Even though it has nothing to do with this case.

It has everything to do with Zimmerman's actions towards Mr. Trayvon Martin that night. His action of stalking Mr. Martin put Mr. Martin in great fear for his safety. It is also important to note that the stalking action was the first verifiable unlawful act that either of the two committed that night. Mr. Martin had a right to be free to walk home without being harassed or stalked (as Florida law clearly defines it). Zimmerman knew that the rules for the Watch group included "No following." So he held Florida law as well as the rules for citizens acting as Watches in contempt. Learn the facts.

As I said before, despite what Yabits esquire, D.A. thinks, following someone is not a crime.

There is a line where mere "following" becomes stalking, and Zimmerman crossed it. All a citizen has to ask themselves is if they would want their kid subjected to some stranger's treating them like prey and "following" them with a loaded weapon. I believe most would say "No," and would agree that Zimmerman crossed the line, and deprived Mr. Martin of his civil rights.

"Observe" and "follow" are different things.

You missed the point. Zimmerman is claiming that the dispatcher told him to "Get to somewhere you can see him." The dispatcher said no such thing. You appear to excuse Zimmerman making things up. Note also in his interviews how Zimmerman insists that the dispatcher "needed an exact address." Not true at all. Zimmerman's making it up.

And not long after that, Trayvon came back and attacked him. Your point is?

There is no evidence that Mr. Martin "came back." If by "attack," you mean defended himself after the stranger who was stalking him tried to apprehend him, yes. Mr. Martin had a right to defend himself and to stand his ground.

And not long after that, Trayvon came back and attacked him. Your point is?

The point is that the evidence clearly shows Zimmerman is being deceptive with the police department dispatcher and the police every step of the way. You are simply too blind to see it.

Just Google this: "evidence that trayvon martin doubled back".

Googled it and saw nothing of substance. There is not a single bit of evidence that indicates how far Mr. Martin made it down the lateral "dogpath" that led to where he was staying with his father. Not one.

Note that, Zimmerman knew is was improper to keep following Mr. Martin. (Unlawful at that point, actually.) That is why he concocts the story of the Dispatcher needing the exact address. His failure to remember one of the two main streets in his own subdivision. (There are three streets total.) His failure to use the address his vehicle is parked right in front of. (Where the Lauer's are living -- the woman who made the call to 911 on which the shot and screams are heard.) With his vehicle parked on Twin Trees, Zimmerman is claiming he's going all the way over to Retreat View to get an address -- which he never gives the dispatcher. He's actually still trying to follow Mr. Martin, but he's lying about it to the police.

If he's so in the right, why doesn't Zimmerman just admit that he's continuing to follow Mr. Martin? That's what he is doing. Why does he have to try to be so deceptive about it? It is interesting that Zimmerman's defenders are claiming he has a right to do something that he himself denies he is doing. We all know that Zimmerman continued to search for and pursue Mr. Martin throughout the call with the dispatcher.

The evidence goes against that, and that is why GZ is a free man.

The evidence, as presented, was inconclusive. Juror B29 thought he was guilty and still thinks he is. I have looked through the evidence thoroughly and it's Zimmerman's constant lying and deception that make him guilty as hell of manslaughter. Mr. Martin died defending himself from an unknown armed stalker.

Do innocent kids always have pictures of themselves with illegal guns and drugs?

Marijuana? OK, he looks like an innocent kid who occasionally smokes pot. There is no evidence that Mr. Martin possessed an illegal gun. The picture of the gun that I've seen shows just a hand and the weapon. There is no evidence that it's Mr. Martin holding it. We don't know whose hand his holding it, whose gun it is or whether it is illegal. There are lots of guns in Florida, and probably easy to get a picture of someone holding one. It's also probably easy for a kid to be shown a legal gun, ask to hold it, and take a picture of himself doing so.

Teenage boys have often wanted to appear tougher than they actually are. In his hoodie picture -- Trayvon Martin doesn't appear tough at all. Except, perhaps, to people who scare easily.

The comment from the woman is bs. It doesnt matter that she "feels" he got away with murder. What causes you to feel someone has broken a law is examination of the law and evidence that the law in question has been broken. If there is no evidence that the law as WRITTEN has been broken, then you acquit.

It is not as you wish the law is written but how it actually is. So how can someone who examined the law and the evidence and vote to acquit then turn around and say they "feel" differently? In a court case you should only feel what the evidence shows you. On what basis except racism or bias would you have any other feeling that doesnt match what the evidence shows you?

Its a crap story so she gets to be not held responsible for the decision she made and so that her fellow minorities wont get mad at her. She said she "fought until then end" to not acquit. A whole NINE hours until it was time to eat and then she gave up....must not have been very important

No. He didn't. At least not murder as defined by existing laws

That's her point.

Moot point: as he already had called the police prior to his being assaulted by Martin

You forgot a detail, After he called them, Martin did not come to assault him as he was walking away after passing the car. Zimmermann decided to follow him, and the police told him to stop and wait. He refused. That's on the tape. Zimmermann was not threatened before his action. Why he followed him ?

being assaulted by Martin

Then we can't know if Zimmermann was "assaulted" or "assaulting". It's his word. Martin can't say otherwise now. If he had waited as the police said, it's very unlikely Martin would have beaten him. Even if the gun had simply fallen and shot by accident (not the case), Zimmerman would be guilty of not obeying the police and of something over Martin : stalking and harassment. He did not do nothing and got punched just like that.

and,they were already on the way to the scene. I will predict that you will respond that he should have waited until they arrived no matter how bad his head was being battered on the concrete

That would not have happened to a normal person. I wouldn't get punched if I had a gun in hand. I'd take it out and the guy would renounce. That's the principle of carrying a gun for self-defense. Witness all saw that Zimmermann kept his gun hidden and let Martin beat him a number of times. Why that ? Then he shot the guy in the heart at 4 inches maximum, not in the shoulder, the arm, the leg, even the stomach, just at the most lethal point. At 4 inches, that's not that you aimed imprecisely. So he made 3 weird choices. Me in the jury ? First degree murder.

the prosecution bungled their case, and florida law states what Zimmerman did was "legal"... not that I agree with what happened - both parties put themselves in this situation and this could have easily been avoided

Neither Zimmermann nor his defense team prove that Zimmermann was innocent of murder or manslaughter. Zimmermann never took the witness stand. All his defense team did was argue reasonable doubt to which the jury had to acquit. The prosecution did not have a legal strategy or plan to convict. At the same time Zimmermann received donations to pay for his legal defense. Had he received a public defender like most people the outcome may have been different.

Murder and manslaughter were stupid charges that the prosecution was pushed into thanks, in no small part, to the actions of a deliberately misinformed public. They should have gone for criminal negligence or spent some time building a case for manslaughter, as it was the case was poorly handled by the prosecution and it shows in the verdict.

Murder requires intent, not intent to follow or intent to observe, but intent to cause harm. Nothing brought forth in the trial gives any indication that he intended to do harm.

The problem is that the rubbish laws of Florida say it's OK to respond with a bullet not only to a punch in the face, but to 'he looked at me funny and I felt threatened'.

The laws in Florida are fine and he would have been found guilty if he had been prosecuted under different charges or if the prosecution had been more competent. But individuals like some of the posters got so whipped up into a tizzy that there would have been riots if the prosecutor hadn't pressed for the murder charge. They overplayed their hand because of public pressure and got burned for it.

Murder requires intent, intentional manslaughter requires malice, nothing in any of the evidence shows any of that. And even involuntary manslaughter would have required Zimmerman to initiate the fight, which the prosecutor could not prove anyway but they might have been able to make a case out of it if they weren't so focused on the murder charge.

Mr. Martin had a right to be free to walk home without being harassed or stalked (as Florida law clearly defines it). Zimmerman knew that the rules for the Watch group included "No following."

Florida law says no such thing and defines stalking as "A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083."

Please note the "and" in the law which would require Zimmerman to repeatedly follow the same individual. Like manslaughter the charge requires malice or ill intent which the prosecution could not prove.

End note, if you don't like the verdict than I suggest you blame the prosecution and the media. The laws are written appropriately and I'm hard pressed to find any state in the US that would have found him guilty of murder or manslaughter given the case that was made against him. The prosecution overplayed because of public pressure, you wanted a murder charge, you got a murder charge and it failed.

Despite years of experience I felt neither the prosecution or defense team were competent. Too many SuperLawyers where I come from. However, O'Mara (the defense attorney) did a good job by pausing in silence for four minutes during the closing argument. Had Zimmermann been in Japan, though, he would have been convicted. Never heard of a defense attorney winning a case in Japan.

@cleo

No, it is the fault of the rubbish laws that allow a cop wannabe to wander around the neighbourhood with a loaded gun, shooting whenever he 'feels threatened' in a confrontation of his own making.

For some odd reason, a lot of people are somehow overlooking that seriously critical part.

@Jean

Last I checked, the US is a nation of laws(except when inconvenient for TPTB), and the trial followed the law, not mob rule. Acquitted because he is not guilty. Unlike the OJ Simpson debacle.

Just because they followed THE LAW doesn't mean it's right. Blacks at one point NOT too long ago, weren't allowed to vote, walk through the front door of many establishments, drink from water fountains, only the one's that were designated as "colored" marrying whites and on and on. These were all written laws once, so what you are saying is, those injustices stood corrected and just because Zimmerman was found NOT guilty, he was completely innocent??

being beaten to the point where I felt my life was going to end. Zimmerman obviously thought his was

'Obviously'? How so? Because he says so?

I thought he was going to kill me, so I shot him. - What you'd expect the shooter to say.

He shot him, so obviously he thought his life was in danger. - A pretty naive and astoundingly credulous assumption.

So why didn't she vote to convict? I guess she didn't have the spine to send the judge a note saying they couldn't agree on a verdict? She didn't hold out, she caved in. But she is right on one point - the whole thing was a show trial. If the prosecutor had been allowed to go for a different indictment from the start Zimmerman might have been found guilty.

'Obviously'? How so? Because he says so?

Not because he said so at all,, but because the evidence supported his claim that it was self-defense and the jury after seeing all of the evidence concurred with his self defense claim by returning a verdict of not guilty., That is how so..

So why didn't she vote to convict?

Based UPON the evidence, they DID follow the law and based on THE LAW, there was theoretically no other way. On that part I get it and the prosecution should have NEVER filed 2nd degree muser charges, they knew it was an uphill battle, but having said that and all the legal stuff aside. Realistically, Zimmerman got away with murder, intentional or not. Some of you guys think, that just because Zimmerman said he feared for his life, that gave him his right. What about Trayvon, he too, could have felt that his life was in danger, then in that case according to the Florida's nutty stand your ground, he was also doing the same. As to why the Jury didn't take that into consideration just baffles me. Because Zimmerman said it, it has to be true? Just because he got his head bashed in? Why would a kid do such a thing and so brutally? Could it be he was in a panic to get away and had to fight for HIS life and knew Zimmerman had a gun and that he was severely at a disadvantage, therefore, he needed to hurry, knock this guy out and get out of there asap! Maybe Zimmerman threatened him, taunted him, cursed at him. How does anyone of us know that it didn't go down like that? Because Zimmerman is honest and telling the truth? We just don't know, but the Jury was quick to ONLY look at the evidence and not other possibilities. That is the reason why I'm not jumping on that Zimmerman band wagon.

@ Cos; a police operator may have given good advice but it's not a must follow command. Carrying a concealed firearm is a huge responsibility. If he were to present his firearm, two possibilities. 1: risk arrest for producing a firearm. It's against the law as far as I know. Only if threatened. 2: risk loosing it to a thug after you think he is gone. 3: you may need to use it if threatened which Zimmermand. But, Zimmerman did use restraint which is in his favor.

And shooting 4" away bolsters the claim of self defence. And it dit take time for him to shoot because Zimmerman did not want to shoot and or he could not access his firearm with assurance it could not be removed from him and used on him. 4" away shows in a struggle or controlled execution style shooting. The latter is certainly not the case. In the heart, a big misfortune when in a struggle. Until you are in those shoes no one can predict how we'll placed a shot can be. What comes to mind is Steve Irwin. What are the chances of through the heart! It was a series of mistakes and resulted in a death of a 17 year old. George Zimmerman will live with the guilt of killing (in self defense) another human being.

I ask anti Zimmerman folks this, how do you think you would feel if you were guilty of ending a life?

" Neither Zimmermann nor his defense team prove that Zimmermann was innocent of murder or manslaughter."

Here's a major flaw in the logic, if it can be called that; The onus is on the PROSECUTION to prove GUILT beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not the Defense responsibility to prove innocence, but rather to prove the Prosecution has not proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt, hence Innocent Until Proven Guilty.

@bass, the homocide laws are colorblind. The segregation laws, which your hero Lincoln fully supported BTW, were indeed unjust and were abolished. But this isn't about segregation or race oppression, rather the merits of the case and the law. The laws concerning homocide are clear. Read them, if you doubt.

TheQuestion's post is very well-reasoned. A couple of points are worth repeating:

They should have gone for criminal negligence or spent some time building a case for manslaughter, as it was the case was poorly handled by the prosecution and it shows in the verdict.

The prosecution's biggest failure: They never constructed a plausible scenario of what happened from their view to warrant the charges. It is not that the evidence isn't there. It certainly is, and Zimmerman provides it in abundance. They really messed up on jury selection. Every juror who could not answer "Yes" to the question "Have you ever been in a fist-fight between the ages of 14 to 20?" should never have been impaneled.

You are asking jurors to make a decision on the lethal potential of a high school fist-fight. Zimmerman's injuries were superficial, and his claims should have been met with derisive laughter. Highlighting his many lies and inconsistencies would have put an extremely low level of credibility on his claim to be afraid for his life. He actually blew the kid away more out of extreme anger and annoyance -- fully conscious of what he was doing.

And even involuntary manslaughter would have required Zimmerman to initiate the fight, which the prosecutor could not prove anyway but they might have been able to make a case out of it if they weren't so focused on the murder charge.

Agree.

Please note the "and" in the law which would require Zimmerman to repeatedly follow the same individual.

Zimmerman did repeatedly follow Trayvon Martin. Note the wording in the statute very carefully regarding to "harass." It means a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.

Trayvon Martin was an innocent citizen on his way home. As he had not been observed in the commission of any crime, there was no legitimate purpose in causing substantial emotional distress to befall him.

It is under "course of conduct" that the meaning of "repeatedly" can be extracted: “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose.

Example: Person A is following Person B. (Person B senses they might be being followed.) Person B stops; and Person A stops. Person B starts to walk again, and Person A follows. (Person B has more reason to believe they ARE being followed. Distress is felt.) Person B turns a corner and Person A turns the same corner. Distress increases. Person B now heads off the beaten path on a course that nobody normally walks. To their horror, they find that Person A is still trailing them. They are being stalked. What repetition does is to "confirm" that Person B IS being purposefully and maliciously followed by Person A.

How much repetition does it take? Enough to confirm to the person being followed that the pursuit is not coincidental. In other words, that Person A just doesn't happen to be walking in the same direction as Person B with no intent of targeting them. We know that is not true of Zimmerman. His intent from the beginning was to pursue Trayvon Martin. Mr. Martin picked up on it when Zimmerman spotted him and started following him with his vehicle. Zimmerman stopped at the clubhouse and let Mr. Martin pass him, noting that Mr. Martin reacted in a way that he knew he was being tailed. Mr. Martin headed down the road to the pathway, and Zimmerman pursued again in his vehicle. Mr. Martin went onto the pathway, and Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and pursued on foot. This repeated course of action, however brief, constitutes stalking.

So, now there's the attempt to use Aggravated Stalking? I see, Mr Zimmerman is now accused of stalking Mr Martin on multiple occasions(the legal def)? False, he followed Martin only once, the night of the incident.

Remember the chuckle in the courtroom when the Prosecution tried for the Child Abuse charge? Ludicrous!

It was self-defense. Shall we re-try him for the same offense until a verdict is reached to satisfy the angry mob? No.

So, now there's the attempt to use Aggravated Stalking?

Not aggravated stalking, which is a different charge. Reading will improve your thinking.

False, he followed Martin only once, the night of the incident.

LOL! It's a repeated action over a period of time, however short. He didn't have to come back another day.

Lather, rinse, repeat doesn't mean your next shower.

RealJapan

In the U.S., one is innocent until proven guilty. The defense had no responsibility or duty to prove anything, not a single thing. It was entirely the job of the prosecution to provide evidence that would prove (in the case of this murder charge) beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime had been committed. The defense obviously failed to do so, and the defendant was naturally and necessarily found not guilty. It's pretty black and white really, no pun intended.

" http://law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/chapter782.html

@yabots, if you are still trying for some kind of murder charge, it would have to be Aggravated Stalking.

But, it doesn't really matter to you what the law says, or what people say that doesn't jive with your preconcieved conclusions.

Lather, rinse, repeat, yourself. Read a law book and not some bigoted rag.

if you are still trying for some kind of murder charge, it would have to be Aggravated Stalking

Not what I'm trying to do, VF. You just don't understand.

Read a law book and not some bigoted rag.

Reading with understanding will improve your thinking, which is sub-par.

It means a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.

But the problem for you is that very last part, serves no legitimate purpose. Following someone because you believe they are up to no good, something that can be proven by the non-emergency dispatcher tape, shows that there is a legitimate purpose and no being told that it is no not necessary does not mean it doesn't serve a legitimate purpose.

yabots, what you really mean is to read with your particular view, and those daring to contradict your slant are demeaned. You turn to insults, and that is rather telling, VF.

The fact is Zimmerman was justly acquitted according to the law of the land.

But the problem for you is that very last part, serves no legitimate purpose.

Principles are involved here, and an example or two might help: A person receives constant phone calls from an angry caller at all hours, that he feels are harassing him. If the person has done nothing wrong, then there is no legitimate reason for making them. The person can file a complaint and, no legitimate reason forthcoming, can expect the person making the harassing calls to be cited. If, however, the person owes money to the caller, or is behind on alimony or child support, most could agree that there is a legitimate reason for them.

If someone owes a person money, and they start calling a wrong number and harassing the person at the other end because they think this is the person who owes them money, they are equally guilty of harassment. This closely resembles the situation with Mr. Trayvon Martin. From the start Zimmerman treated him as a guilty party, and lumped him with some set of people who "always got away." Got away with what? And what did Mr. Martin have to do with that?

You seem to overlooking the basic fact that a person has a right to be free from harassment, and that the legitimate purpose has to be pretty strong to outweigh that right. (Like the other person's right to expect that a contract is upheld.) But once you've let yourself fall into the area of mistaken identity or profiling, you are on very thin ice.

In the case of following, there may a legitimate purpose if you have observed the person committing a crime. Zimmerman never claims that he personally witnessed a break-in, or that the person he saw fit the description of someone who he witnessed involved in one. It was profiling, pure and simple.

When I saw a video of the community -- Zimmerman's reenactment, for example -- I was stuck by how stark the fronts of the residences are. It's mostly garage doors in front with small windows. Zimmerman doesn't claim the person he is watching is peeping in any windows. (I think it's reasonably certain that if Mr. Martin was peeping in, Zimmerman would have noted it.) No, he's just "looking at the houses." Wow. Not much to see. (He might just be getting his bearings on a dark night in the rain, wondering about the shortest route back to where he is staying.)

Following is not stalking as long as the other person is not aware of it, and there is no one else to witness it. As soon as the other person becomes aware, and gives an indication that they are disturbed by your pursuit, the threshold for legitimacy is raised to a high level. You'd better have a darned good reason for persisting (repeating) your stalking action. The community (via the Neighborhood Watch program), working with the police, established rules against following suspects. Explained as simply as this, I would believe that it would be extremely hard for most reasonable people to find a legitimate purpose for Zimmerman's stalking Mr. Martin that night.

Mr. Martin's right to walk home free from stalking or harassment superseded any legitimate purpose Zimmerman may have had for subjecting him to it. Zimmerman was the first of the two to commit an unlawful act that night.

All Zimmerman had to do when he first spotted Mr. Martin was to roll down his window, taking the view that the kid was not guilty of anything, and simply ask him if he lived in the community. If it were me, I would have gotten out of my vehicle, smiled and/or waved in a non-threatening manner to get his attention, excused myself for interrupting his walk (or conversation) out in the rain, explained the situation of myself as a Watch and asking if he lived in the neighborhood or if he was just passing (cutting) through. It's just basic respect and decency.

This all could have been avoided with just a little common respect. One would have expected the armed Zimmerman, who claimed to want to "protect and serve" as law enforcement, to have been able to act like an adult. In his case, it's way too much to expect.

Apparently the law disagrees with you on that very last part, other wise they would have prosecuted him for it.

Apparently the law disagrees with you on that very last part, other wise they would have prosecuted him for it.

That would be a very bad assumption on your part. The test of whether a law is being broken or not is not whether a charge is filed or not. It would be like someone claiming that, just because the owner of a stereo system who had it stolen from him didn't file a charge, it means that no crime was committed. As citizens in a system based upon law, we don't leave it solely up to police and prosecutors, and even judges and juries, to decide. As the rise of DNA evidence proves, serious errors are made all too often.

Often it's the one detective who smells something wrong, or some citizen who is certain something was missing, that often reopens an event and uncovers a horrible injustice. Take the famous case of Randall Adams, a man sentenced to death row for the murder of a Dallas police officer. In that case, it was a documentary film maker, Errol Morris, who stumbled on the case in the course of making a film about the Texas judge who sentenced more people to death row than any other. The film he ultimately made, The Thin Blue Line, is unforgettable in portray how the so-called "justice system" can almost willfully get it so wrong.

My interest in piecing together the events of that night, from the moment that Mr. Trayvon Martin entered the radar screen of George Zimmerman, is to satisfy myself that the history of the events is recorded accurately.

Via the recorded evidence, I am witnessing a man who knew full well, as a Neighborhood Watch, that pursuing a "suspect" was against the rules. I witnessed that the subject of his pursuit was in very great distress, and tried to elude his unknown pursuer, a man he considered "creepy." Whether it was actually charged or not, the evidence is abundantly clear that Zimmerman was harassing and stalking Mr. Martin that night.

As we all can witness a break-in and call it a crime, whether or not the victim files a charge and it never sees the light of day in a court of law, we can also piece together a continuous, repeated course of action against a citizen -- guilty of no crime, and which caused him to fear for his safety -- and call it unlawful. (Stalking, per Florida law.)

Zimmerman clearly held the rules for Neighborhood Watches -- rules which were formed with the advice and assistance of local police -- in contempt. He acted as though he thought he was above the rules. His attitude towards the rights of the "suspicious-looking" stranger who popped on his radar screen, were nothing but contemptuous also. Not for an instant was he giving the kid the benefit of any doubt. For a person aware that he was carrying a loaded weapon into an unlawful pursuit, I would call his mind at the time "depraved." Rules and laws be damned; he was going to get his suspect.

The thing at the bottom of all of this is Zimmerman's imagination, and how he allowed it to cause his actions to go completely out of control. Zimmerman's pursuit instigated this, and his constant stream of lies, inconsistencies and deceptions have convinced me that what actually happened that night is not as he described it to police.

That would be a very bad assumption on your part.

I don't think it is, the Ohio kidnapper originally had around 900 charges brought against him. Prosecution in this case, Zimmerman one, knew there homicide charge was weak because of lack of evidence, if the stalking and harassment charge is that clear cut there is no excuse for them to not at least bring charges against him on those grounds while at the same time bringing charges against him for homicide and or manslaughter. There is especially no excuse on their part now to not bring stalking/harassment charges. So why aren't or why didn't they bring those charges especially with the evidence, according to you, proof beyond doubt that he was breaking such laws?

There is especially no excuse on their part now to not bring stalking/harassment charges.

Well, simple stalking, according to Florida law, is a misdemeanor, and is rarely fought out in a court case. They had more serious charges against him. However, two main points apply, aside from the fact that Zimmerman was the first of the two of them to be acting unlawfully that night:

1) Prosecution did fail to emphasize that Zimmerman, beyond a reasonable doubt, was stalking Trayvon Martin. As such, he was acting unlawfully, showing contempt for the basic rules he knew well as a member of the Watch group. This should have tempered the judge's inclusion of Stand-Your-Ground in the instructions. Prosecution didn't catch that either.

2) More importantly, their failing to note the profiling and stalking means the Feds get to pick it up and run with it. I will be very surprised if the Justice Department looks the other way on this. It was Zimmerman's profiling and stalking of Mr. Martin -- which deprived him of his civil rights -- that directly led to the altercation.

Note also that at least one neighbor had filed a prior complaint with the Sanford police on Zimmerman's aggressive tactics. His aggressive style was the topic of an emergency homeowner's association meeting, after the shooting, with several residents coming forth with complaints about him. He was a Jekyll-Hyde type. Trayvon Martin ran into Mr. Hyde, who was devious and deceptive with the police dispatcher.

Here are two very odd things: The development where Zimmerman lived has three streets. He'd lived in the community since 2009. He had made over 40 calls to 911 over a two year period, often reporting goings on at the Clubhouse, which is on Twin Trees Lane. He's a leader of the Neighborhood Watch with some goal to becoming a police officer. And, on his big night, hot on the trail of his suspect, he is unable to tell the dispatcher the name of the street he is on. The main street. Twin Trees. The development is called "Retreat at Twin Lakes." Twin Lakes, Twin Trees. I mean, how hard can it be? Does he pretend not to know so that he can pursue his "suspect" over to Retreat View Circle, claiming to get an address there? (An "address" which he never gives the dispatcher.)

The second thing is a photo of the scene and placement of the evidence as the police found it. Zimmerman claims that Mr. Martin approached him and started the altercation on the main pathway between Twin Trees and Retreat View. Yet Zimmerman's flashlight (Item #5) and Mr. Martin's cell phone (#7) are farther down the lateral "dog-path" towards where Mr. Martin was staying than where Mr. Martin's lifeless body was found by the police. The drink and the candy are nearby too. Seems to me that most of the stuff is going to get dropped close to where the altercation started.

It doesn't make sense that a skilled streetfighter [sic] as Mr. Martin was purported to be, is taking his cell phone and candy into an altercation. He could have dropped them there, but that wouldn't explain Zimmerman's flashlight being close by. Also, Rachel Jeantel reports hearing the start of the altercation and then hearing what sounds like the cell phone hitting the ground.

These police are really something. How long was it before they actually tried extracting the information off of Mr. Martin's phone?

Well, simple stalking, according to Florida law, is a misdemeanor, and is rarely fought out in a court case. They had more serious charges against him. However, two main points apply, aside from the fact that Zimmerman was the first of the two of them to be acting unlawfully that night:

Yes serious charges but that still isn't an excuse for them to not have included the stalking and harassment, if it is indeed stalking and harassment they might as well take what they can get.

Tray on didn't do drugs,didn't have problems at school,didn't study mms,didn't talk about about raping people and was a brass band member and an honors student......

you love that Florida harassment and stalking statute, don't you? Even though it has nothing to do with this case.

It has everything to do with Zimmerman's actions towards Mr. Trayvon Martin that night. His action of stalking Mr. Martin put Mr. Martin in great fear for his safety. It is also important to note that the stalking action was the first verifiable unlawful act that either of the two committed that night. Mr. Martin had a right to be free to walk home without being harassed or stalked (as Florida law clearly defines it). Zimmerman knew that the rules for the Watch group included "No following." So he held Florida law as well as the rules for citizens acting as Watches in contempt. Learn the facts.

"Mr. Martin", wow, you love the little thug, don't you? You are ignoring the fact that GZ didn't "stalk" anyone that night.

As I said before, despite what Yabits esquire, D.A. thinks, following someone is not a crime.

There is a line where mere "following" becomes stalking, and Zimmerman crossed it. All a citizen has to ask themselves is if they would want their kid subjected to some stranger's treating them like prey and "following" them with a loaded weapon. I believe most would say "No," and would agree that Zimmerman crossed the line, and deprived Mr. Martin of his civil rights.

I agree that there were other options to GZ rather than to shoot. But, the person who escalated the situation was TM. Absolutely NOTHING to do with civil rights though. Also, "treating them like prey and "following" them with a loaded weapon" would mean GZ intended to kill TM, which he obviously didn't.

"Observe" and "follow" are different things.

You missed the point. Zimmerman is claiming that the dispatcher told him to "Get to somewhere you can see him." The dispatcher said no such thing. You appear to excuse Zimmerman making things up. Note also in his interviews how Zimmerman insists that the dispatcher "needed an exact address." Not true at all. Zimmerman's making it up.

The jury still believed him because most of what he said was backed up with evidence. Don't start talking about lies, because we all know the only person who was exposed as an outright liar, was the illiterate Biz Markie.

And not long after that, Trayvon came back and attacked him. Your point is?

There is no evidence that Mr. Martin "came back."

Yes there is. Stop cherrypicking.

If by "attack," you mean defended himself after the stranger who was stalking him tried to apprehend him, yes.

No. The evidence shows that TM turned back and approached GZ and attacked him. Where is your evidence that he didn't do just that? If you have any, you have done a better job than the prosecution, because they found none. Maybe you're in the wrong line of work?

Mr. Martin had a right to defend himself and to stand his ground. And not long after that, Trayvon came back and attacked him. Your point is? The point is that the evidence clearly shows Zimmerman is being deceptive with the police department dispatcher and the police every step of the way. You are simply too blind to see it.

I'd like to see your evidence for that. Did you listen to the call? He asked them to get the police to call him, and that he'd be waiting in his truck. TM attacked him on his way back to his truck.

Just Google this: "evidence that trayvon martin doubled back".

Googled it and saw nothing of substance.

Then you are either blind, or have problems with comprehension.

There is not a single bit of evidence that indicates how far Mr. Martin made it down the lateral "dogpath" that led to where he was staying with his father. Not one. Note that, Zimmerman knew is was improper to keep following Mr. Martin. (Unlawful at that point, actually.) That is why he concocts the story of the Dispatcher needing the exact address. His failure to remember one of the two main streets in his own subdivision. (There are three streets total.) His failure to use the address his vehicle is parked right in front of. (Where the Lauer's are living -- the woman who made the call to 911 on which the shot and screams are heard.) With his vehicle parked on Twin Trees, Zimmerman is claiming he's going all the way over to Retreat View to get an address -- which he never gives the dispatcher. He's actually still trying to follow Mr. Martin, but he's lying about it to the police. If he's so in the right, why doesn't Zimmerman just admit that he's continuing to follow Mr. Martin? That's what he is doing. Why does he have to try to be so deceptive about it? It is interesting that Zimmerman's defenders are claiming he has a right to do something that he himself denies he is doing. We all know that Zimmerman continued to search for and pursue Mr. Martin throughout the call with the dispatcher.

No. The evidence goes completely against what you say. The evidence shows that TM doubled back towards GZ and attacked him. If TM had carried on home, he would be alive and making his purple drank at home that night.

The evidence goes against that, and that is why GZ is a free man.

The evidence, as presented, was inconclusive. Juror B29 thought he was guilty and still thinks he is. I have looked through the evidence thoroughly and it's Zimmerman's constant lying and deception that make him guilty as hell of manslaughter. Mr. Martin died defending himself from an unknown armed stalker.

Juror B29 is an idiot. They said that they think he "got away with murder", but also say that you "could not find him guilty based on the law?". THAT MEANS HE'S NOT GUILTY!! She's a dumbass.

Do innocent kids always have pictures of themselves with illegal guns and drugs?

Marijuana? OK, he looks like an innocent kid who occasionally smokes pot.

He only looks innocent in the picture the news loves of him as a 12 year old in his football jersey. Oh, and marijuana is still illegal in Florida.

There is no evidence that Mr. Martin possessed an illegal gun. The picture of the gun that I've seen shows just a hand and the weapon. There is no evidence that it's Mr. Martin holding it. We don't know whose hand his holding it, whose gun it is or whether it is illegal. There are lots of guns in Florida, and probably easy to get a picture of someone holding one. It's also probably easy for a kid to be shown a legal gun, ask to hold it, and take a picture of himself doing so.

It's amazing how you accept that everything TM does is circumstantial and that he could do no wrong, but GZ is a crazy stalker who murdered him.

Teenage boys have often wanted to appear tougher than they actually are.

And TM certainly did. Wasn't "I'm a gangster" or something written by him in a text message?

In his hoodie picture -- Trayvon Martin doesn't appear tough at all.

Yeah, I'm sure he looked like that all the time.

Except, perhaps, to people who scare easily.

GZ obviously scares easily.

He should have been able to pound the little gangster wannabe thug into the ground. But he couldn't. That is probably why he carried a gun. He wanted to protect his neighborhood, but he knew that he wasn't going to be able to punch the bullets shot as him by the criminals out of the air.

If anything, that supports GZ's case. The stand your ground law, applies when you feel threatened with physical violence. If you're easily scared, then, well... I'm sure you can finish that sentence yourself.

No. The evidence goes completely against what you say. The evidence shows that TM doubled back towards GZ and attacked him.

No. Just the opposite. There is far more actual, physical evidence (and witness testimony) to indicate the altercation actually started much farther down the lateral path away from the T. There is almost zero probability that the altercation started at the T -- where no eyewitness or physical evidence supports it. It puts Zimmerman's credibility at zero.

"Mr. Martin", wow, you love the little thug, don't you? You are ignoring the fact that GZ didn't "stalk" anyone that night.

I have respect for Mr. Trayvon Martin. I don't have respect for the pathological liar and coward that Zimmerman has proved himself to be. As for stalking, I am confident that, put to a panel of adults with teenage children, and asked if they would regard if an armed stranger pursued them the way Zimmerman pursued Mr. Martin that night, most if not all would call it "stalking," as defined by Florida law.

It's clear that your complete ignorance of the actual physical evidence at the crime scene has greatly contributed to your being utterly taken in by Zimmerman's false story.

@Probie you just don't get it do you? I notice you keep referring to Trayvon's past criminal activities to try and justify your rather obscene view but can't refer to Zimmermans past questionable activities to make it seem Zimmerman was in the right.

The issue here is that Trayvon (past criminal history or not) was walking down a sidewalk on a rainy night (with his hoody up because of the rain) not doing any criminal actions like walking up to random houses and testing the windows to see if they were open etc. If he was doing that then Zimmerman would have at least some justification in confronting the issue AFTER fufulling the observation, and contacting the proper authorities procedure. By your method if you were walking down that same street with your hoodie up because it was raining and you didn't have an umbrella you would have been perfectly fine with some strange man driving behind you, then suddenly getting out of his car and walking up to you resulting in a possible altercation leading up to you believing you have the right to defend yourself from him because no normal person would do such a thing such as follow someone without trying to get your attention first before walking up to you.

This has brought up the whole issue that any person, anywhere can be followed and confronted by someone they don't know and be killed just because the person that chose to follow (also known as stalking here) confront them because thought they looked "suspicious". Remember the old line, "We got in a fight cause he looked at me funny" that is exactly what happened here and Zimmerman instigated it further than it ever should have gone.

Let me know when you've experienced having people crossing the street because they thought you looked "suspicious". I've had this happen more than I can count, and I don't dress like a thug either.

The evidence shows that TM doubled back towards GZ and attacked him.

The physical evidence proves that Zimmerman was farther down the lateral pathway from the T than where the fight ultimately ended. And the more that Zimmerman was down that pathway, the less likely it is that Mr. Martin "doubled-back."

As the detective pointed out to Zimmerman, the thugs who case out apartments and homes almost always prefer much darker clothing. Mr. Martin was wearing a gray hoodie, beige pants, and white tennis shoes. This is very important for another reason: Zimmerman says he was making his way back from Retreat View to his truck and he just passed the T when he heard Mr. Martin come up from his rear left -- and placed him on the lateral pathway in the reenactment.

One very big problem with that story: There can be no doubt that Zimmerman was scanning the courtyard carefully as he was coming up to the T and crossing the lateral. He wasn't on the phone so there was nothing distracting his attention. There was absolutely nothing for a person to hide behind. A guy wearing beige pants and white tennis shoes is not going to be able to get within ten feet of someone that fast. Not without being seen (or heard running). Score Zero for Zimmerman again.

Zimmerman actually spotted Mr. Martin much farther down the lateral and ran down to pursue him. It's the timing that works against him too: He ended his call to dispatch at 7:13:41. The start of the fighting sounds came roughly 40 to 50 seconds before Jenna Lauer placed her call to 911 (7:16:11). That would place the start of the fight at roughly 7:15:20. Zimmerman should have been back at his vehicle well before 7:15 easily, if that's where he was headed. But instead of confirming with the dispatcher to meet the police at his vehicle, he suddenly changes gears and asks the dispatcher to have the police call him. He has just spotted Mr. Martin down the path and is getting ready to run down and apprehend him. He senses there's a very good chance he won't be at his vehicle when the police arrive.

One piece of physical evidence that Zimmerman was carrying in his hand was found down that path, very close to Mr. Martin's dropped cell phone. One of the first eyewitnesses saw two men on their feet with arms flailing down the lateral and heading in the direction towards the T. The placement of the physical evidence backs that up.

@HonestDictator

@Probie you just don't get it do you?

No. It's you guys who just don't get it.

I notice you keep referring to Trayvon's past criminal activities to try and justify your rather obscene view but can't refer to Zimmermans past questionable activities to make it seem Zimmerman was in the right.

What are Zimmerman's past questionable activities?

The issue here is that Trayvon (past criminal history or not) was walking down a sidewalk on a rainy night (with his hoody up because of the rain) not doing any criminal actions like walking up to random houses and testing the windows to see if they were open etc.

He fit the profile of the people who were committing crimes in the area. Are you saying that if you lived in that area, and saw him walking towards you, you wouldn't feel even a little nervous?

If he was doing that then Zimmerman would have at least some justification in confronting the issue AFTER fufulling the observation, and contacting the proper authorities procedure.

As I have said DOZENS of times. Following someone is NOT a crime.

By your method if you were walking down that same street with your hoodie up because it was raining and you didn't have an umbrella you would have been perfectly fine with some strange man driving behind you, then suddenly getting out of his car and walking up to you resulting in a possible altercation

That is NOT what happened. You need to learn more about the case before commenting and making your points look stupid.

leading up to you believing you have the right to defend yourself from him because no normal person would do such a thing such as follow someone without trying to get your attention first before walking up to you.

That is NOT what happened.

This has brought up the whole issue that any person, anywhere can be followed and confronted by someone they don't know and be killed just because the person that chose to follow (also known as stalking here) confront them because thought they looked "suspicious".

If things happen as they did in this case, yes. TM shouldn't have doubled back and attacked GZ.

Remember the old line, "We got in a fight cause he looked at me funny" that is exactly what happened here and Zimmerman instigated it further than it ever should have gone.

You just shot your idea in the foot there. The person who started the fight was TM, so "We got in a fight cause he looked at me funny" would be something he said, not GZ.

Let me know when you've experienced having people crossing the street because they thought you looked "suspicious". I've had this happen more than I can count, and I don't dress like a thug either.

I don't look suspicious. But, if I was dressed like a thug in an area that has a high crime rate, and most of the crimes there were being committed by thugs, I would certainly expect people crossing the street because of how I looked. Which is what happened in this case.

@Yabits

The evidence does NOT support what you said. If the prosecution didn't use that "evidence" or push how important it was, that means it was very weak, or not important at all.

Secondly, even if GZ lied about what he was doing up until the confrontation, which I agree with you that he probably did to try and make his story more towards him doing no wrong (and doing the exact opposite of that); the only crime that was committed, was when TM attacked GZ. You can follow someone and it's not illegal, you can confront someone and that's not illegal, but the moment you physically attack someone you commit a crime.

Now, whether GZ flashed his gun at TM and said something to make TM want to attack him, we don't know that. I don't think that is very likely, but nobody knows that other than GZ.

The evidence does NOT support what you said. If the prosecution didn't use that "evidence" or push how important it was, that means it was very weak, or not important at all.

The physical evidence (per Crime Scene Photo 11) completely supports the scenario that Mr. Martin's punch was landed down the lateral pathway. That's where Zimmerman dropped his flashlight. It's farther away from the T than where Zimmerman finally killed Trayvon Martin. That the prosecution didn't use that evidence is inexplicable; they didn't present their own scenario of what likely happened, and how they deposed Witness 1 was so inept and negligent as to be criminal. It was as if they wanted to lose the case. That they still got three to convict initially shocked me.

Secondly, even if GZ lied about what he was doing up until the confrontation, which I agree with you that he probably did to try and make his story more towards him doing no wrong

Every detail is made up to make Zimmerman completely blameless. He's lying every step of the way.

You can follow someone and it's not illegal..

Wrong. If you purposefully follow someone so that they fear for their safety, and you see them trying to avoid you and you repeat your pursuit, having made no attempt to identify yourself, that is stalking under Florida law. In a concealed carry, Stand-your-Ground state, it can lead to explosive consequences. Following is considered a harassing behavior, and citizens have a right to be free from it. A far stronger right than anyone's "right" -- which doesn't exist -- to intentionally follow them.

you can confront someone and that's not illegal

If you've been stalking a person so that they are afraid for their safety, and your confrontation involves putting your hands on them and grabbing them, they have the right to defend themselves. And anything that's going to shake loose in a confrontation will most likely do so at the starting point. Zimmerman claims Mr. Martin hit him way back at the T, but there's no physical evidence of that, nor any witnesses. After he's been hit, I don't see Zimmerman holding onto his flashlight and the dropping it 35-40 feet away near Mr. Martin's cell phone. He dropped the light close to where he was first hit.

Now, whether GZ flashed his gun at TM and said something to make TM want to attack him, we don't know that.

It was Zimmerman who was out for a confrontation that night. Mr. Martin tried to elude him and get away. Zimmerman kept pursuing -- right on down to the path where he ran up and caught Trayvon, grabbed him and tried to physically escort him back towards his vehicle. If Trayvon Martin wanted to attack Zimmerman, he could have easily have done it when Zimmerman passed him the first time on his way to Retreat View Circle. Zimmerman is clearly lying about where the initial attack took place. He's also lying about how it started.

This is a man who attacked an undercover cop -- throwing him against a wall -- when the cop challenged one of Zimmerman's buddies for underage drinking.

If things happen as they did in this case, yes. TM shouldn't have doubled back and attacked GZ.

I'm sorry but you've got that bass ackwards.

You just shot your idea in the foot there. The person who started the fight was TM, so "We got in a fight cause he looked at me funny" would be something he said, not GZ.

Once again bass-ackwards. From my own personal experience, when someone is following you that you don't know instinct of fight or flight kicks in.

I was minding my own business walking to work late in the evening and some caucasian male was following me at that time of night. I wasn't wearing a hoodie but my scrubs because I work in the medical field. This man suddenly charged me while my back was to and I automatically turned around to defend myself. He freaked out and ran away cursing, I can guarantee you he was no neighborhood watchman because it was no neighborhood that close to the hospital facility. Now once again tell me how justified GZ was in following TM who was minding his own business. You just don't follow someone because you think they look "suspicious". GZ was the one who fully instigated the whole situation by getting out of his vehicle. You have absolutely no grounds to vouch that GZ completely lost an legal credence as soon as he started instigating the situation from that point.

I can hammer my point at you as much as possible but until it specifically happens to you, you obviously will never get it. Fools have to learn by actual experience (if they survive) instead of imagination and speculation. Let me know when you have a couple of people or a person you don't know start following you around out of nowhere and let me know how comfortable you feel. The only time when I felt safe being followed was when a law enforcement was the one in the car because they have procedures they have to go through before confronting someone who they think looks suspicious. GZ was in no way an official law enforcement agent. Just an overzealous guy who wanted to become a police officer (which he's automatically shredded by his own actions). As I said before this isn't a case of racial profiling, it's a case of the ability for anyone not engaging in criminal actions being put in a situation by another person who has gone off in their own mind speculating and assuming too much and creating a situation that never had to be. TM should only have been stopped by the police officer that was on the way to check out GZ's call on the "suspected" person not GZ.

@Probie

"I'm amazed that there are so many uninformed people who just bleat out what they saw on the biased news, and ignore the facts."

I asked you this before but you didn't answer so I will ask you again. How did you come to your conclusion/opinions since you claim that news are biased ?

Somehow you have an ability to tell which news are true and which ones are biased ? Or have you spent your own money to do unbiased investigation ?

＠HideSuzuki

I asked you this before but you didn't answer so I will ask you again. How did you come to your conclusion/opinions since you claim that news are biased ?

Oh, I don't know. Maybe because of the edited phone call; the misleading photos they continually used; the way they support the Martin side?

Somehow you have an ability to tell which news are true and which ones are biased ? Or have you spent your own money to do unbiased investigation ?

Did you watch any of the actual trial? Did you see any of the actual evidence? I'm betting your answer to both of those is "no". Because if you had, you would be saying the media has had a bias too.

@Probie

"Maybe because of the edited phone call"

Right, I'm sure you have the original so you know which one is edited and which one isn't, right ?

"Did you watch any of the actual trial?"

Yes, some of it. Did you watch the entire trial and took notes or something?

Again wake up dude, you are as biased as other people.

Readers, please stop bickering.

"Maybe because of the edited phone call"

Right, I'm sure you have the original so you know which one is edited and which one isn't, right ?

The original was released. The TV station who edited the call also apologized for what they did.

I can't believe you didn't know this. How can someone make a comment like that and expect to be taken seriously??

"Did you watch any of the actual trial?"

Yes, some of it. Did you watch the entire trial and took notes or something?

Yeah, mental notes. I also followed this case right from the start, even before the special interest groups pushed the cops into arresting GZ.

Again wake up dude, you are as biased as other people.

No. I'm not biased towards anything other than the truth. I'm pretty sure that everything I have said, I have backed up with facts and information.

The only people who need to wake up, are the ones who are so uninformed that they only believe what the TV or internet has told them.

I've given up debating most of them, because trying to get them to look at things unbiasedly, is futile.

The TV station who edited the call also apologized for what they did.

But one television network is not "the media."

I'm pretty sure that everything I have said, I have backed up with facts and information

But bias also must take into consideration the things that are omitted. One of the greatest examples of bias in this case is the complete denial of Trayvon Martin's right to self-defense. Your claim that Mr. Martin was going home to make some drug is completely unfounded. The facts are that Mr. Martin had over $40 on him and could have easily purchased cough syrup if that was his intent. There were no drugs found in his system, other than a trace amount of THC, which means he hadn't smoked pot in at least 24 hours.

The whole event is heavily based upon Zimmerman's own word, and there is zero chance the actual start of the fight took place where Zimmerman claims it did. No witness saw Zimmerman's head being pounded into the pavement. Zimmerman's superficial head wound was consistent with a light or broken fall onto a hard surface -- a fall he easily may have been responsible for himself, or through slipping on the wet grass and going down.

When Zimmerman ended his call with the non-emergency dispatcher, the time was 17:13:41. He could not have been walking straight back to his vehicle. Too much time is unaccounted for before neighbors heard the fighting. Mr. Martin's call to his girlfriend ended somewhere near the middle of the time between 17:15 and 17:16. Even his defense lawyer admitted that Zimmerman probably wasn't heading straight back. But that makes Zimmerman a liar on a very key point. (Just one of many of his lies.)

During his 40-plus minute interview with two Sanford detectives, one of them asked him why he didn't try to identify himself when he first spotted Mr. Martin. "Most of police work involves talking to people," the detective explained. Zimmerman told him he was "afraid." He'd already identified the kid as being in his late teens, and Zimmerman, armed as he is, is claiming he's afraid. A bit later he mentions his "suspect" putting his hand in his waistband, but soon admits that he didn't think it the gesture had anything to do with a weapon.

Would he have been just as "afraid" of a white kid dressed the same way -- beige pants, white tennis shoes, and a gray hoodie on a cool rainy evening? (It was still very early.) I seriously doubt it. As the detectives explained, it's not the get-up of someone whose intent is to case out dwellings.

Later in the same interview, the detectives asked him why -- with (according to Zimmerman) his "suspect" now approaching him -- he still made no effort to try to identify himself and his purpose for following. Why did he tell them he had "no problem" with the kid, when he most certainly did have a problem with him. Again, Zimmerman answered them that he was "afraid."

There is nothing that explains what, as the detectives described it, "set the kid off." He's never had any history of violence against an adult. (Zimmerman has.) Most normal people would not initiate an assault while engaged in a telephone conversation, as Mr. Martin was. No, it was Zimmerman who approached Mr. Martin that night -- as he had been stalking him since he first spotted him.

And his lie, in that same interview, about "not remembering" the name of the main street into the front gate of the community, Twin Trees. The street on which his vehicle was parked. He said it was due to his attention deficit disorder (ADHD). The people I know with ADHD scoff at that. He lives in a place for years, a place that has only three streets to remember, he is a Watch, and has reported dozens of issues in the complex over a couple of years, and he can't remember the name? (That's not a sign of ADHD.)

The sign of ADHD that pertains here is a person's not always being in control of their own behavior. And Zimmerman was clearly out of control that night.

The TV station who edited the call also apologized for what they did.

But one television network is not "the media."

Semantics. One news station did it, but all the others didn't call them out straight away. The media looks after itself. Besides, more than one news source ran the biased photos too.

I'm pretty sure that everything I have said, I have backed up with facts and information

But bias also must take into consideration the things that are omitted. One of the greatest examples of bias in this case is the complete denial of Trayvon Martin's right to self-defense.

He wasn't attacked. He was the one who committed the crime in this case by attacking GZ.

Your claim that Mr. Martin was going home to make some drug is completely unfounded. The facts are that Mr. Martin had over $40 on him and could have easily purchased cough syrup if that was his intent.

What if he had some at home and only needed the ice tea and Skittles?

There were no drugs found in his system, other than a trace amount of THC, which means he hadn't smoked pot in at least 24 hours.

Last I heard, smoking pot was illegal. Doesn't matter if he had smoked it over 24 hours ago. It's still a crime to smoke it.

The whole event is heavily based upon Zimmerman's own word, and there is zero chance the actual start of the fight took place where Zimmerman claims it did.

Zero chance? Really? Believe that if you want and keep on being ignorant.

No witness saw Zimmerman's head being pounded into the pavement. Zimmerman's superficial head wound was consistent with a light or broken fall onto a hard surface -- a fall he easily may have been responsible for himself, or through slipping on the wet grass and going down.

Keep on ignoring what the medical examiner said too.

When Zimmerman ended his call with the non-emergency dispatcher, the time was 17:13:41. He could not have been walking straight back to his vehicle. Too much time is unaccounted for before neighbors heard the fighting. Mr. Martin's call to his girlfriend ended somewhere near the middle of the time between 17:15 and 17:16. Even his defense lawyer admitted that Zimmerman probably wasn't heading straight back. But that makes Zimmerman a liar on a very key point. (Just one of many of his lies.)

I like how you cherry-pick the telephone evidence when it suits you, but ignore the telephone evidence that shows TM doubled back.

There is no point in replying to your other comments, because it's like banging my head into a brick wall. You don't want to know any facts, and continue to ignore what evidence there is.

Whatever "evidence" you claim, or whatever you claim that GZ lied about, the fact is that the prosecution didn't have a case, and the points you are bringing up obviously aren't very strong since the prosecution didn't use them, or couldn't prove them, and I think the prosecution are more knowledgeable of the law and evidence than you are.

GZ is innocent.

One news station did it, but all the others didn't call them out straight away.

Huh? Straight away? That's a pretty strange standard. A very biased standard, actually. Elements of the media patrol other elements. Not commenting on one aspect of a particular story soon enough does not necessarily mean bias.

He wasn't attacked. He was the one who committed the crime in this case by attacking GZ.

There' s not a single bit of evidence for that, except for Zimmerman's word -- which is completely unreliable. As soon as Zimmerman left the main pathway to pursue Mr. Martin down the lateral -- where his flashlight was found on the ground -- the entire story of how Mr. Martin approached him at the T can be thrown out. It's complete bias to throw out the evidence that it was Zimmerman who was on the hunt and the aggressor that night.

What if he had some at home and only needed the ice tea and Skittles?

What if? Your bias made it sound as though it was a sure thing. Part of your ongoing efforts to paint the kid in the worst possible light to excuse the actions of a lying coward. Some kids just like to drink sweet drinks and eat candy. In fact, far more of that is consumed without cough syrup than with.

Last I heard, smoking pot was illegal. Doesn't matter if he had smoked it over 24 hours ago. It's still a crime to smoke it.

If the past is under discussion, smoking pot is far less of a crime than it is to take your underage buddy to a bar and buy him drinks -- and then physically assault an undercover police officer when they challenge your buddy -- as Zimmerman did. It takes more bias to excuse or omit that than pointing the finger at some media outlet for not mentioning some other network's editing of a call to dispatch "straight away." There is no record of physical assault on an adult in Mr. Martin's past, or even overt disrespect to one.

Believe that if you want and keep on being ignorant.

How many times does it take someone to lie to you before you start to doubt them? Anyone who swallows what Zimmerman is telling them is far worse than ignorant.

Keep on ignoring what the medical examiner said too.

Medical examiner said it was consistent with contact against concrete. Medical examiner didn't verify multiple times or the force. The fact that there was no concussion or even no stitches required speaks to that. You need a medical examiner to rule out your own common sense, such as it is? It would be very challenging to hit one's head against concrete light enough so that it would not cause a gash that needed stitches to close.

I like how you cherry-pick the telephone evidence when it suits you, but ignore the telephone evidence that shows TM doubled back.

There is none. ZERO. The strongest evidence that indicates where the actual fight started is where Mr. Martin dropped his cell phone, which is very close to where Zimmerman dropped his flashlight. Both are farther down the lateral from the T than where Zimmerman killed the unarmed kid -- and both farther down from where Zimmerman claims Mr. Martin approached him. The farther Zimmerman is down that lateral, the less evidence there is that Mr. Martin doubled-back. It is Zimmerman on the pursuit with the goal of physically stopping Mr. Martin so that the police can deal with him. That's why he knows he won't be able to meet the police at his vehicle, but to have them "call him."

You don't want to know any facts, and continue to ignore what evidence there is.

Your claim that Mr. Martin was going back to make some drug is not based on any fact, but on pure bias. There's an undercurrent of bias in all your claims, and not one even halfway decent response to the real evidence of that night, starting with Zimmerman's many lies and deceptions.

and I think the prosecution are more knowledgeable of the law and evidence than you are.

You would think that. It's the reasoning of a fool. The prosecution made many, many errors, the most inexplicable and inexcusable of which was never presenting their own synopsis of what happened that night. And, as utterly lousy as they presented their case, they still got three jurors to vote to convict when the first vote was taken!