Zimmerman trial: Man carrying loaded handgun shoots and kills unarmed teen-

[kpete]

ZIMMERMAN TRIAL
Zimmerman trial: Man carrying loaded handgun shoots and kills unarmed teen


I am troubled with what I perceive to be the failure to focus on the obvious in the death of the teenage boy in the trial of George Zimmerman.

.......................................

Let’s examine the undisputed evidence:

Let’s examine the undisputed evidence:

1. The man thought the teen looked suspicious.

2. The man called the police to report his suspicions about the teen.

3. The man was told by the police not to chase and pursue the teen.

4. The man decided to chase and pursue the teen anyway.

5 . The man was carrying a loaded gun.

6. The teen was not carrying a gun.

7. The teen was not carrying any weapon.

8. The teen was carrying candy.

9. The teen was not committing any crime.

10. The teen was not trespassing, as he was walking toward his father’s condo.

11. The man and the teen met in a physical confrontation.

12. The man and the teen fought, wrestled to the ground, and punches were exchanged.

13. The man shot the teen with his gun.

14. The man shot the teen while both were on the ground.

15. The shot from the man’s gun killed the teen.

16. There is no evidence that the teen was committing a crime or about to commit any crime.

17. But for the man chasing and pursuing the teen, there would have been no physical confrontation.

18. But for the physical confrontation, there would have been no fight.

19. But for the fight, the man would not have shot the teen.

20. But for the shot, the teen would be alive.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/11/3496085/zimmerman-trial-man-carrying-loaded.html#storylink=cpy

[Chico Man]

1. Why post this?

The man wasn't told by police to not chase the teen.

He was told by a dispatcher that they didn't need Z to follow him.

Only two people know what happened - one is dead - we have no idea who caused the physical confrontation.

It's up to the jury to decide if there is reasonable doubt - that is it.

[kpete]

2. why post this?

for mr. pete and anyone else who likes their info in bullet points.

personally, i am a lot less linear.


I prefer pics and graphs:


http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/zimmerman-violated-sheriffs-department-rules-by-carrying-his-weapon/question-2546513/


as to the last argument:

It's up to the jury to decide if there is reasonable doubt - that is it

I give you that one


peace, kp

[Chico Man]

4. That's fine

And I'm not defending Zimmerman.

I will state that these are misleading.

Zimmerman was not part of any registered neighborhood watch program, so he didn't violate any rules by carrying the weapon - you left out the context.

But whatever.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

9. He was violating the law by acting like a vigilante.

But whatever.

[Spazito]

14. If Zimmerman was not part of any registered neighborhood watch program,...

as you contend, why did the HOA of The Retreat at Twin Lakes settle the wrongful death suit with the Martins? If he wasn't part of the neighborhood watch then the HOA would have had no legal liability at all.

Zimmerman was the designated Neighborhood Watch coordinator, because he volunteered himself for the position doesn't negate he became the designated coordinator hence the out of court settlement by the HOA.

[Chico Man]

19. That document is a "Neighborhood Watch" document

Was the Twin Lakes neighborhood watch part of this program?

http://www.usaonwatch.org/

[Spazito]

25. Yes, it seems so, as they settled out of court...

on that very question re their liability re Zimmerman's shooting of Trayvon Martin.

[Chico Man]

66. George Zimmerman not a member of recognized neighborhood watch organization

George Zimmerman not a member of recognized neighborhood watch organization
http://thegrio.com/2012/03/21/zimmerman-not-a-member-of-recognized-neighborhood-watch-organization/

[Spazito]

69. That is in reference to the National Sheriffs' Association

the parent organization of USAonWatch-Neighborhood Watch as stated in the article. The article goes on to say in the next paragraph:

"Zimmerman violated the central tenets of Neighborhood Watch by following Martin, confronting him and carrying a concealed weapon."

Add to that the testimony of the officer, Wendy Dorival, who came to the gated community to talk about setting up a Neighborhood Watch at the invitation of Zimmerman, and it is clear he was recognized as the designated, through volunteering for the job, Neighborhood Watch coordinator.

The HOA settled out of court because of that recognition.

[Chico Man]

70. Of course he did

But kpete posted the guidelines as if Zimmerman somehow violated the tenants of his own organization, and that is misleading, because we wasn't a member of any official organization.

[Spazito]

71. It was obviously official enough for the HOA to settle out of court due to their liability...

because the National Association does not have them listed is, in reality, a tangential issue not related to recognition at the local - Sanford, gated community level - the one that counts in this case.

[Chico Man]

73. Right

But those guidelines were not from the Sanford organization.

I'd wager most independent community watch programs are reevaluating / tightening their policies.. And insurance companies are probably looking more closely as well.

[JimDandy]

76. "Neighborhood Watch Program in Force" sign

with their nationally recognizable logo was posted right outside the gate of the HOA community at the time Trayvon was shot (easy to google). How was the HOA able to use their trademarked sign without being part of the official organization?

[Chico Man]

78. Not sure

Why don't you ask them?

Neighborhood Watch seems to have washed their hands of this mess..

[Rex]

20. Then why did they call him a 'neighborhood watch captain' for months and months?

You seem to be leaving out some context too...but whatever.

[Chico Man]

67. George Zimmerman not a member of recognized neighborhood watch organization

George Zimmerman not a member of recognized neighborhood watch organization
http://thegrio.com/2012/03/21/zimmerman-not-a-member-of-recognized-neighborhood-watch-organization/

[Voice for Peace]

64. I thought he was officially the captain of the Neighborhood Watch?

[Chico Man]

65. Not "The Neighborhood Watch"

You know, the one that those guidelines come from


George Zimmerman not a member of recognized neighborhood watch organization
http://thegrio.com/2012/03/21/zimmerman-not-a-member-of-recognized-neighborhood-watch-organization/

[hfojvt]

89. does he also like the bullet points to be wrong?

It's not information then, it is disinformation

"3. The man was told by the police not to chase and pursue the teen.

4. The man decided to chase and pursue the teen anyway. "


Nope, sorry, wrong and false.

Man was ALREADY following the teen when he was told "we don't need you to do that".

Following though - not chasing. A subtle distinction, but still a distinction. If you are going behind somebody, you are not necessarily trying to CATCH up to them.


Also, I tell people "I don't need you to do that" all the time - and they do not listen. Because that is not a forceful COMMAND. I have to clean rooms after wedding receptions and other events. Like tonight is a class reunion. Cleaning the room means stacking chairs. Often people are still milling about after these events, and sometimes people try to HELP. They start stacking chairs too. And I tell them "you don't need to do that".

I want them to stop, but they keep going anyway, because they want to HELP even if they don't HAVE to help, they still WANT to. The worst part is when little kids try to help with the dance floor. Those are fairly heavy tiles and a six year old could get hurt messing around with them. In those cases, I find a parent to MAKE them stop. Funny though, how humans want to work when they are young.

Of course, the reason I do not want their help is because it usually makes more work for me. Even though it is a simple task, MOST people will SCREW IT UP. The chairs will not be stacked straight, so I will have an amateur stack of ten that is at risk to tip over because one of the chairs at the bottom is not stacked properly (and actually much of my staff does the same damned thing too, but not quite as often). That means I will have to unstack those chairs and re-stack them. More work than if they had just left them alone. Aggravating, but they mean well, Their heart is in the right place, but the road to hell ...

[noiretextatique]

3. splitting hairs

in any case, if that asshole had listened, Martin might still be alive.

[Chico Man]

5. I agree

But he can't be found guity for following him, he didn't break a law, unfortunately.

It's not splitting hairs, because if it actually were police, he would have broken the law. BIG difference. enough of a rumor to fan the fire, considerably.. dangerous even.

[Generic Other]

6. Stalking is following

It is against the law. I thought K-Pete's bullet points were just right.

[Chico Man]

8. Not true

Stalking has a legal definition, it is not simply following someone.

In florida law:

Any 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.

[Lee-Lee]

11. NC Stalking law is the same

The key that makes what Z did not stalking is that it must be repeated.

[Generic Other]

12. So which of the definitions don't fit Z?

Willfully? Y. Maliciously? Y. Repeatedly? More than once? Apparently. He says he followed then stopped following, yet ended up encountering again. So minimum of twice he's following. Trayvon thought he lost him. Then Z. turned up again. So that is enough to fit the minimum definition of stalking.

[Chico Man]

15. I don't think so

And there would have to be evidence of stalking.. if Trayvon said / documented that this creepy guy followed him home from school every day, then we are talking stalking.

[Lee-Lee]

17. No

It has to be real separate incidents, not a gap of a few minutes. All this would be considered one incident, just because somebody loses sight momentary doesn't make it a separate incident.

I have arrested people for stalking before. To make it stick you need a minimum of two distinct and separate incidents. But most prosecutors wouldn't take a charge to court without a stronger pattern than two incidents.

[1monster]

87. People who want to believe that Zimmerman was not stalking always seem to miss

Section (1)(b) of the Florida Stalking Statute 784.048?Stalking; definitions; penalties.—

Relevant section:

(1)(b)?“Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of “course of conduct.” Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.

(emphasis mine)

[Chico Man]

88. He was not stalking

There is no way any stalking charge would hold up, even with your emphasis.

If there was a repeated pattern, this case would have played out much differently.

Ask anyone who actually has tried to bring stalking charges on someone. You need to establish a pattern and have evidence to support it.

[noiretextatique]

21. he's not guilty of following him: he is guilty of killing him

against the advice of the POLICE dispatcher.

per zimmerman:
“The dispatcher told me not to follow the suspect and that an officer was in route,” Zimmerman wrote in the statement, which was released to the public for the first time on Thursday morning. “As I headed back to my vehicle, the suspect emerged from the darkness and said ‘you got a problem?’”

more:
Florida prosecutors who later charged Zimmerman with second-degree murder have a different take. In an affidavit filed in April, special prosecutor Angela Corey wrote that Zimmerman kept following Martin through the gated community despite being told to stop.

“Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher and continued to follow Martin who was trying to return to his home,” the affidavit said. “Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued.”

The discrepancy is key in the case against Zimmerman, who has pleaded not guilty and claims he was acting in self defense the night of Feb. 26 in Sanford, Fla.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/george_zimmerman_statement_dispatcher_stop_trayvon_martin.php

[Chico Man]

24. He didn't break the law by not following the advice of the dispatcher

And we don't know who started the actual altercation. It's up to the jury to decide now.

[Hoyt]

34. You can break this down into who mounted who, who hit who first, etc. Doesn't matter in big picture.

Zimmy got out of his car and shot an innocent kid in the heart.

It really is that simple, and all the legal machinations are simply an attempt to shift the reasonable doubt from "did Zimmerman kill an unarmed kid," to something like "where were they on the grass and who was on top." The latter doesn't matter. Anyone mired in the minutiae is trying to rationalize Zimmerman murdering a kid.

Damn, the gunners can't even read the 2nd Amendment correctly, yet they've all suddenly become legal scholars in this case looking for some loophole to free the bigot and allow him to carry a gun among us again.

[Chico Man]

36. He very well may get manslaughter

One thing for sure is that Zimmerman pulled the trigger.

The question is whether he hunted the kid down and killed him.. I just don't think there is enough evidence to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. Martin very well may have attacked Zimmerman, we will never know.

So funny to be called a "gunner" too. Might as well call you a "gunner" too!

[Hoyt]

40. If Martin did "attack" Zimmy, it was because he was trying to save his life. That's not a crime.

[Chico Man]

43. Again, I can't disagree my gut tells me the same thing

But there is not enough evidence.

[Spirochete]

44. He broke the law by shooting him

If fear was a component, he could have stayed in his truck, locked the doors, and hid on the floorboard, hoping that the big, scary, Skittle-packing Negro would just go away. Instead he followed him and sought out a confrontation.

[Chico Man]

45. That is certainly one interpretation

There are plenty of other ways the events could have unfolded. It's up to the jury to decide if Zimmerman is lying and was out in cold blood to murder Trayvon.

[MjolnirTime]

51. Zimmerman hunted Martin like an animal. He will pay for his crime.

[Chico Man]

56. You are assuming this

You have no idea what actually happened, neithe do I. You can only assume.

[MjolnirTime]

59. Zimmerman has lied repeatedly, proveably. Innocent men don't need to do that.

[Chico Man]

60. Maybe you are right

But still we can't fill in the blanks with assumptions without any evidence.

[SlimJimmy]

86. Sure they can. Many in this thread have already done so. From making up

facts not in evidence, to making up new laws that don't exist. Whatever it takes to justify the guilty verdict they want. I am on the side of finding the truth and letting the jury decide which facts are relevant. I am in favor of the justice system working as intended without clouding the conversation with conjecture and wishes.

Personally, I think the case was over-charged from the beginning. Manslaughter would have been much more appropriate and easier to prove based on the facts in evidence.

Bottom line. We will see what the jury thinks.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

77. no. one died, and one lied. Zimmerman is a ridiculous liar. he's so dishonest

that it is not beyond belief that he could have inflicted those superficial wounds on his face and head himself to buttress a false self defense claim.

The dude is bad news.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

7. That's what I said here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3234773

I'm not saying that the judge provide the instruction. I'm saying that the prosecution should have stressed this very relevant and important factor of the case.

The whole fight fiasco happened as a result of whom? Would a fight have occurred if Zimmerman followed instructions? Would a fight have occurred if Trayvon Martin was allowed to go home as was his intention?

A fight occurred because of what? Zimmerman decided to disregard specific instructions and stalk Martin. As a result, a fight ensued. As a result, a person is dead. The person who is dead was minding his own business. The person who is alive, and had a lethal weapon, was not minding his own business.

The instigation of the fight starts the moment Zimmerman made the decision to disobey instructions and stalk Martin, who is dead as a result.

This is murder.

[Chico Man]

13. It is easy to think of it that way

But he wasn't "stalking" Martin, unfortunately. Perhaps if he followed him home repeatedly over the course of a few days.

You and I have no idea how the fight fiasco started. Only Zimmerman knows. The fact that Zimmerman followed Martin before the fight fiasco began has no relevancy. If it were an actual police order, or Zimmerman were stalking him, according to the law, it could come into play.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

18. Firstly, he stalked him.

Trayvon Martin was running, and Zimmerman was in pursuit. This is stalking.

stalking present participle of stalk (Verb)
Verb
Pursue or approach stealthily: "a cat stalking a bird".
Harass or persecute (someone) with unwanted and obsessive attention: "the fan stalked the actor".

https://www.google.com/search?q=definiton+of+stalking&oq=definiton+of+stalking&aqs=chrome.0.69i57j0l3.4410j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

The fiasco started when Zimmerman, despite instructions to do otherwise, decided to play vigilante, and harass a law-abiding citizen - until he was dead.

[Chico Man]

22. No, this is stalking in Florida:

Any 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.

A dictionary definition is not the law..

[Fantastic Anarchist]

27. Stalking or following ...

What occurred as a result?

Is a person any less dead because Zimmerman followed instead of stalked?

The moment Zimmerman decided to follow Martin is what set the events in motion that led to Martin's death.

I shouldn't have let you frame the discussion about the irrelevancy about the definition of stalking. That was my mistake. However, my point is not negated in the least. My premise didn't rest on the definition of stalking. It rested on the actual actions of the individual who was in pursuit of another individual (who was obeying the law, by the way). The fight occurred as result of Zimmerman's actions, not Martin's.

The verdict should be murder.

[Chico Man]

28. I agree to some extent

But unfortunately there were no wintesses or evidence that proves that

1) Zimmerman attacked Trayvon
2) Trayvon didn't attack Zimmerman

[Fantastic Anarchist]

29. Again, irrelevant.

My point of contention starts the moment Zimmerman got out of his car and decided to pursue another law-abiding citizen. That instigated the events that resulted, including the fight.

Zimmerman doesn't follow Martin, then Martin would still be alive.

[Chico Man]

31. But it wasn't illegal for him to get out of his car

Imagine that he got out of his car and Trayvon actually did attack him from the bushes. Can you prove that this didn't happen? no one know what actually happened, besides Zimmerman.

It is too bad he didn't break the law at some point and provide evidence of doing so, then this case would have been open and shut.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

32. Your hypothetical didn't happen.

Zimmerman's action resulted in the death of Martin. Martin would still be alive had Zimmerman remained in place.

The verdict should be murder.

[Chico Man]

33. Can you prove it didn't happen?

It's not a hypothetical - it is Zimmerman's defense!!!

[Fantastic Anarchist]

35. Yes, by Zimmerman's own statement.

Zimmerman stated that Martin was running away.

So your hypothetical couldn't possibly have happened.

[Chico Man]

37. No

He said Martin attacked him from the bushes.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

48. No, while he was in pursuit, he said that Trayvon was running away.

He followed, making him the aggressor, which negates his "self-defense" theory.

[TorchTheWitch]

80. he said two things

That Martin sprang out of non-existent bushes and attacked him and when he realized there were no bushes where he claimed Martin was hiding close by him he changed his story to Martin suddenly just appeared out of no where and attacked him. That in itself makes Zimmerman a liar on just that one point. There are many other lies he was caught in by his very own words.

There is also physical evidence that shows Martin did not attack Zimmerman. He was holding his phone that was connected to a call with a friend when the physical confrontation began and he died with his headset still on his head. No reasonable person would believe that Martin was intent on attacking someone while engaged in a phone call, holding his phone in his hand and wearing his headset.

This isn't about what is legal and what isn't with each thing that Zimmerman did. It's his legal actions that a reasonable person would believe instilled fear in Martin who then had the legal right to protect himself from the creepy pursuing Zimmerman when they came into contact. And not only that Zimmerman's insignificant injuries do not reflect in any way a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm but that he also lied about how he obtained those insignificant injuries.

Zimmerman's own proven lies about what occurred will be his undoing.

Clearly, you have been paying attention to nothing about this trial.

[Chico Man]

81. Still though

There isn't enough evidence to prove Martin didn't attack Zimmerman, confusion aside.

I think it will be a manslaughter conviction because no neighborhood watch person should be armed and no neighborhood watch person should be following people. Even if he didn't break any laws, he was careless.

The rest is just Zimmerman's recollection, that could be fuzzy given the circumstances, but with no eye witnessed difficult to overcome a reasonable doubt.

There certainly is not enough evidence for 2nd degree murder.

[TorchTheWitch]

83. if he did attack Zimmerman he had a right to

He was the one in reasonable fear of some strange man following him in his car and pursuing him on foot to confront him between those homes in the dark. Zimmerman's own words in his many descriptions of the event show how many times he lied. Not just inconsistencies but outright lies. His own words on the dispatch phone call tape show his ill intent and that his ill intent is what made him get out of that car with a loaded gun and pursue Martin. All the prosecution has to prove is that ill intent for murder 2. Whether or not they have is anyone's guess. I think his own words and actions show without any doubt his ill intent both in profiling Martin and in pursuing and confronting him especially when he had according to his own multiple stories 2 chances to say who he was and diffuse the situation but didn't.

Again, it's evident that you haven't been watching the trial.

[Chico Man]

84. I was watching it

I thought both sides made a compelling argument, but I feel the murder charge to be a stretch (as do many others who have watched..)

Zimmerman is on lucky SOB to be so close to getting off. All it would have taken is one eye witness.

[SlimJimmy]

39. No, the incident in question started when the two had a confrontation. That is

the point where the issue of self defense or 2nd degree murder starts. It is now up to the jury to determine whether Zimmerman acted in self defense as a result of that confrontation or not.

[onenote]

46. Again, the fact that Zimmerman followed Martin is legally irrelevant

Sure its factually relevant in the sense that the entire situation would have not occurred had Zimmerman stayed in his car. But he was under no legal obligation to stay in his car.

Let's consider a real case:

40 year old African-American woman passes elderly white couple sitting on bench. Says "Good morning. How are you?" When white couple ignores her, she "pointedly" (whatever that means) asks them why they didn't return her greeting. At that point, the white woman calls the African American woman a very bad name and she responds by calling the white couple a bad name and "mooning" them. The white woman gets off bench and a physical confrontation ensues. During the confrontation, African-American woman pushes white woman, who falls and as a result of the fall, dies. The African American woman is charged with murder in the second degree and convicted of a lesser offense, culpable negligence with injury. There was conflicting evidence as to who initiated the physical confrontation and amount of force used.

The defendant claimed self-defense. The court instructed the jury that if the defendant provoked the altercation, then she can't claim self-defense. On appeal, it was held that the trial court erred by not making clear as part of its instruction that the provocation had to be a made by force or threat of force and could not be the simple act of complaining that the couple didn't respond to her greeting.

As a factual matter, if the African American woman had simply walked on by after getting no response, or if she had walked away after being insulted and not returned the insult, no one would have died. But as a legal matter, what matters is that at no point prior to the altercation did the African American woman use force or threaten to use force.

As a legal matter, Zimmerman's actions in getting out of the car and following Martin may have been ill-advised and inappropriate. But they weren't illegal and they don't amount to "provocation" as a legal matter. The prosecution didn't make an issue of it because they understood it wasn't a legally sound argument; indeed, the court did not even bother to instruct the jury about the provocation exception to self-defense presumably because there simply wasn't any cognizable evidence to support it.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

47. I beg to differ.

I think the two cases are different. One involves to parties, who by the way, didn't possess a lethal device. The other involves the party who actually did the killing initiating, by pursuing the victim, an altercation, and who possessed a lethal device. The black woman and the white couple were in conflict as a result of words at first being exchanged. Trayvon Martin didn't initiate anything, but was minding his own business, and then when forced to do so, ran to get away from his pursuer. He was unable to do so, and as a result, he was killed.

Now, I just saw on MSNBC, that Alan Dershowitz has weighed in on this issue. Uggh, he's such a plagiarist asshole.

[SlimJimmy]

52. You can beg to differ, but the law is very clear. Zimmerman could follow Martin till the

cows come home, and it's *not* an illegal act under Florida law. The incident started (for legal purposes) when the confrontation occurred. I've read repeatedly here that *if* Zimmerman hadn't gotten out of his vehicle and followed Martin, none of this would have occurred. That's true, that's very true. But it has absolutely no bearing on the application of the law.

There's a huge difference between what we'd like to be the law, and what actually *is* the law.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

55. Pursuing the victim certainly does have relevance here.

That's what set the events in motion. The victim tried to run, and then tried to fight, both in an attempt to defend himself, from his pursuer - it is an element when considering if Zimmerman attacked Martin.

Did Martin attack Zimmerman by running away? Or did Zimmerman attack Martin by following him? It goes to context.

Simply just saying that it's not illegal for Zimmerman to get out of a car is inadequate when not put into context. He didn't get out his car in a vacuum, or on some sunny day to smell the flowers. He got out of his car with the intent to pursue, track down and attack a law-abiding citizen who was otherwise uninvolved with Zimmerman, and minding his own business. Zimmerman's actions, and not Martin's, resulted in Martin's death.

The verdict should be murder.

[SlimJimmy]

68. Not according to the laws of Florida. You are arguing emotion, not law.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

72. My emotion just imagined Zimmerman getting out of his car ...

... and pursuing a law-abiding citizen which eventually resulted into the citizen being dead?

What ground was Zimmerman standing when he was pursuing another person? Was he acting in self-defense when he ran after another person?

[SlimJimmy]

74. You are just being really hard-headed about this. You might not agree with the

law as written in Florida. You might think that the following is an integral part of the crime. You'd be wrong. According to the law, the crime started at the point of confrontation, not the following. You may not like it; and you certainly don't agree with it. But the law is just that, the law. I don't know how to better explain this to you.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

75. I'm not being hard-headed.

Zimmerman can't reasonably claim self-defense while running, with a deadly weapon, after someone else!

No matter how much you contort it otherwise. All I'm saying, putting everything together in context, and the verdict should be murder.

Sure, getting out of the car, in and of itself, is not illegal. Getting out of a car, and then running after someone with a gun in your pants, looking to provoke something, after being told otherwise, and then shooting said someone dead, is not self-defense.

The events didn't start at the confrontation.

[SlimJimmy]

82. You are the one contorting facts in the case. The law in Florida is clear, very clear.

Following someone, running after someone, is not a crime. Let me repeat that ... not a crime. Having a weapon on him, not a crime (he had the legal right to carry it concealed since he possessed a CCW.) Disobeying the request of a 911 dispatcher, not a crime. Let's stop the incident at this point. If that happens, what exactly would Zimmerman be charged with? The answer is clear ... nothing.

We could certainly argue that what he did was ill-advised, and on that point I'd agree. But you absolutely can't say that he did anything illegal prior to the confrontation. The facts in the case just don't support it. Nothing you can say will legally support it.

So, with that said, at what point did the crime start? Answer: at the confrontation and continuing into the fight. The law says so, not me. If Zimmerman killed Martin during the fight, and self defense from *that* point forward cannot be shown, then there's at least manslaughter or possibly, 2nd degree murder. Personally, and based on what I know of the case, I'd say manslaughter fits much better than 2nd degree murder.

Nothing before that confrontation matters, as a point of law. As I said earlier, you may not like it (and clearly, you don't), but you can't change the law to fit your desires. You can't make up new laws to fit your scenario.

See my signature for my bottom line here.

[onenote]

53. The cases are similar in three important respects

They both involve conflicting evidence as to who did what to whom when.
And they both could have been avoided if the person that ended up claiming self defense had not taken certain actions that they were entitled to take that were ill-advised.
And the fact that the person asserting self defense took actions that were ill-advised doesn't amount to provocation that negates a self-defense claim because those actions (following Martin, insulting the white couple) were not legally cognizable as "provocations."

I'm not asking you to like the law (although I think it worked out well in the case involving the African American woman and the old white couple). But ignoring it doesn't make any sense to me. It is what it is and you can't wish it or rationalize it away.

[noiretextatique]

23. = no claim for self-defense

he became the aggressor when he got out of the car....with a loaded weapon...to pursue Martin.

[TorchTheWitch]

79. the prosecution did just that

Apparently, you missed it.

[bushisanidiot]

10. There were no stains on Trayvon's knees. he had khaki pants on that would have shown them.

my guess is that zimmerman shot trayvon then wrestled him to the ground,
flipped him over and searched his body for something to justify why he shot him.

zimmerman was unaware of any witnesses so he knew he could do what he wanted
to enhance his story before the police arrived. apparently, his friend somehow showed
up first and my guess is he had his friend punch him a few times to show he received
injuries.

however, his injuries weren't bad enough because they didn't show up on the police
surveilance video very well. so, after he was released from the police station, which
was almost immediately after giving a statement, i believe his friend beat him up
some more. his nose was NOT swollen when he arrived at the police station. and
there was no blood on his head either.

[madokie]

16. In the video I seen

I don't think he had even been touched by another, damn sure hadn't been on his back getting his head bashed in.
He murdered the kid in cold blood. Z should be seeing life without the possibility of parole

[noiretextatique]

26. +1000 add: no remorse...whatsoever

and he crafted and elaborate, self-serving, racist lie to save his ass. he belongs behind bars.

[Nevernose]

50. Here's one time he "apologized"

"The woman described Zimmerman molesting her during annual family get-togethers and trips.

"The woman said she finally told her parents in 2005 when she was 20. She said her parents called Zimmerman to a meeting at a pizza restaurant in Lake Mary.

"Instead of talking about it, all he did was come in the room, come in the restaurant, he sat down on the end of the booth and he said 'I'm sorry' and just got up and walked out ... my parents, their jaws dropped," the woman said.

"She said her mother discouraged her from taking further action at the time, saying it would be his word against hers, and she would wind up in jail."

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0716/George-Zimmerman-s-cousin-accuses-him-of-sexual-molestation-video

[truth2power]

30. "But for"... Has to do with proximate cause, does it not?..

" But for the man’s negligence in carrying a loaded gun and chasing and pursuing the teen, after being told not to by the police, there would have been no physical confrontation and the teen would be alive."

George Zimmerman was the proximate cause of Martin's death. No?

[Chico Man]

38. Unless Martin attacked Zimmerman..

Can you prove he didn't?

The dispatcher (not the police) also asked Zimmerman to update them on where Trayvon was..

[Hoyt]

41. If he did, it was in self-defense against a bigot with a gun.

[Chico Man]

42. I can't disagree

But its difficult to prove.

[truth2power]

61. Prove a negative?? n/t

[Chico Man]

62. It is Zimmermans defense

Can you prove Martin did not attack Zimmerman?

[avaistheone1]

49. Amen kpete!

[Chico Man]

58. Amen to spreading half truths and lies!

Dangerous ones at that!

[Deep13]

54. Yup, when someone is shot to death, the guy holding the gun is at fault.

There are a few exceptions that make good TV dramas, but generally, shooting+death=murder.

[Chico Man]

57. In this case there happened to be an exception

Hence the trial....

At least they decided to look into it a bit more.

[Deep13]

63. How much evidence actually exists for self-defense...

...when Z never actually told the jury he was in danger?

We'll see what the jury says, of course.

[SlipperySlope]

85. Much of that "undisputed evidence" is disputed.

Not trying to start an argument, but several of the points that are posted above as being "undisputed" are actually in dispute. At least one of the points isn't even in the realm of what has been asserted.