The media has been advocating so much that Zimmerman was in the wrong, it will be a small miracle the Zimmerman gets a fair trial.

I just can't wait for the riots if Zimmerman is acquitted.

The media has been advocating so much ...snip...

I just can't wait for the riots if Zimmerman is acquitted.

I can't wait for the LameStreamMedia to try and explain the rioting, pillaging and burning as Free Speech protected by the First Ammendment.

If it isn't clear in your mind if this was self-defense or not, here's a thought experiment for you: Imagine for a moment that it wasn't a man pinned down having his nose broken and his head smashed against the pavement repeatedly, imagine instead that it was just a petite WOMAN pinned down on the ground having her nose broken and her head smashed against the pavement repeatedly ... now, would it seem more like valid self-defense, if it was a woman instead? Or would you insist the woman in that situation has NO RECOURSE to self-defense, or that she is the aggressor?

Fact is, nobody with any honest moral sensibilities would claim that a woman pinned down having her nose broken and her head smashed against the pavement would not have had a right to defend herself at that point .. (in fact, it should suddenly become clear if it wasn't before). I think there is a form of unconscious sexism at work in cases like this, that few speak about or recognize, in that basically just for having a penis, we automatically in our minds regard people like George Zimmerman as having 'less of a right' to self-defense. No, men should have every much the same right to self-defense as women.

"Zimmerman was determined to "rid the neighborhood of anyone that he believed didn't belong.""

Admittedly, someone who will smash your nose and hold you down and repeatedly bang your head against the pavement, probably actually doesn't 'belong in your neighborhood'. I'm afraid the prosecution don't really have a case, it's almost textbook 'open and shut' self-defense.

There shouldn't even be a trial for George Zimmerman. He had a right to be where he was, and he acted in self-defense. The police were right to release him the first time.

I respectfully have to disagree with you, Patrick. The 911 dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow Martin. How do we know Martin didn't feel threatened by Zimmerman, who kept following him, after being told NOT to, and that he (Martin) felt he was acting in self-defense?

It's a tough call, and I wouldn't want to sit on that jury. I believe Zimmerman had a right to be there, but he also wouldn't be on trial if he had just left Martin alone. He should have just stopped following him and let the police handle it!

But done is done, and nothing will bring that boy back from the grave.

I've said it before and I'll probably say it again: whatever happens in the Zimmerman case it won't be justice.

I respectfully have to disagree with you, Patrick. The 911 dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow Martin. How do we know Martin didn't feel threatened by Zimmerman, who kept following him, after being told NOT to, and that he (Martin) felt he was acting in self-defense?

The dispatcher suggested that Zimmerman not follow Martin--the dispatcher said during testimony that they are trained to offer suggestions not commands.

The main issue is that no one knows who started the confrontation (though everyone seems to have an opinion) so it will be very hard for the state to prove deliberate murder. If the prosecutor hadn't gotten greedy and tried for manslaughter they might have pulled that, although based on the evidence we have, it's hard to see how even that standard could be achieved. But then, OJ seemed pretty obviously guilty too.

"How do we know Martin didn't feel threatened by Zimmerman"

Feelings are so important, you know?

Zimmerman's feelings that Martin could be a violent thug were apparently correct.

Martin's feelings that Zimmerman was an unarmed victim ripe for a beatdown were obviously incorrect.

Yeah, Gog, but Zimmerman was following Martin, not the other way round. He wouldn't be on trial if he had listened to the dispatcher, and just let the police handle it.

Martin was unarmed. Well, okay, he had a can of iced tea and a package of Skittles. Lotta damage those'll do...

Yeah, Gog, but Zimmerman was following Martin, not the other way round. He wouldn't be on trial if he had listened to the dispatcher, and just let the police handle it.

Note that this is not a statement of proven fact. Zimmerman claims he did not follow Martin and I don't believe there are facts to show whether his is lying or not.

Not to say that I am particularly sympathetic to Zimmerman. The first rule of carrying a weapon is to behave with extra caution when interacting with others. Unless Zimmerman was jumped from behind by Martin, I would hold Zimmerman morally responsible for escalating a situation he himself created. Morally and legally responsible are not the same thing, though.

Note that this is not a statement of proven fact. Zimmerman claims he did not follow Martin and I don't believe there are facts to show whether his is lying or not.

I thought the dispatcher testified that when asked, Zimmerman said he was following Martin, and that the dispatcher "suggested" he not do that. But I do agree that when carrying a weapon, extra caution is most certainly called for. Again, Zimmerman should have let the police handle it.

Martin was unarmed. Well, okay, he had a can of iced tea and a package of Skittles. Lotta damage those'll do...

Posted by: Flynne at June 26, 2013 8:14 AM

And a screwdriver, but anything Martin was carrying was discovered after the fact.

George Zimmerman lived in the development, Martin did not. Martin's father did not. Martin's fathers girlfriend did not. Martin was cutting between houses in a fenced development that was not on any kind of a direct route between the 7-11 and the house where his father was staying.

Flynne, if you think the police even respond to actual burglaries, never mind suspicious characters, in high crime areas anymore, you are seriously out of touch.

If the police had been handling it, there would have been no need for a neighborhood watch.

"should have let the police handle it"

Haven't most of us agreed time and again here that the police are NOT there to protect you? If citizens did take it upon themselves to patrol their neighborhoods more, there wouldn't be so many crappy high crime neighborhoods. And I can assure you that "suspicious person" calls are very low on the priority list for cops.

So basically had he left it alone, the cops would maybe have come out at some point, but Martin would have been gone, and the rash of burglaries would have continued. Yes, we can all give lip service to how sad it is a teen was killed, but lets be honest-he is no loss to society and his death almost certainly prevented others. He was right on track to be your typical shooting people gangster thug.

In Texas he wouldn't even be on trial.

I thought the dispatcher testified that when asked, Zimmerman said he was following Martin, and that the dispatcher "suggested" he not do that.

Yep, sorry, I meant after that point.

I have no problem with Zimmerman following someone who looks suspicious. I have no problem with Martin getting angry for being followed while black. We none of us know what happened to escalate this which is why I have a hard time seeing how the state thinks they can prove 2nd degree murder.

"Martin was unarmed. Well, okay, he had a can of iced tea and a package of Skittles. Lotta damage those'll do"

Martin wasn't unarmed, he was large and strong and had fists - FISTS ARE DEADLY WEAPONS. 'Fists and legs' are the FOURTH MOST COMMON MURDER WEAPON in the United States.

I promise you, if you are pinned down by someone on the pavement, they've already broken your nose, and are now smashing your head against the pavement - I promise you Flynne, you are at that point in mortal danger.

It takes only ONE punch to kill a person.

"CCTV of man killed by one punch in Oldham"
www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-pVvmHnBj4

"Yes, One Punch Can Kill You" ... "One punch to the side of the face and he was out," Roberts said of the dead man. "Never got back up."
gawker.com/5818732/yes-one-punch-can-kill-you

edition.cnn.com/2013/05/05/us/utah-soccer-death
"A referee for a recreational soccer league who was punched in the face by a teenager has died"

"Gentle giant killed by one punch from youth for refusing to hand over a cigarette"
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1184167/Gentle-giant-killed-punch-youth-refusing-hand-cigarette.html

www.onepunchcankill.qld.gov.au/

www.herald.ie/news/ill-always-regret-that-one-punch-says-man-who-killed-journalist-29354575.html
"A MAN who killed journalist Eugene Moloney by punching him in the head has written a letter to his family" ... "I will always regret the outcome of that one punch"

www.truecrimereport.com/2011/07/benjamin_hawkins_charged_with.php
"Benjamin Hawkins Charged With Murder for One-Punch Killing"

etc.

So basically had he left it alone, the cops would maybe have come out at some point, but Martin would have been gone, and the rash of burglaries would have continued.

So there was positive proof that Martin was the one committing these burglaries? And they stopped happening after Martin was killed? I wasn't aware of that.

Look, I'm not trying to say the kid was innocent, because I don't know. None of us do. But even Martin is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, isn't he? Did Zimmerman have proof that Martin was the one doing the burglaries? If so, why didn't he share that with the police? And you know me, from posting on here, you know I have a carry permit, you know where I stand on these issues (pretty much, anyway). I know the cops are slow to respond to certain things, but I still think Zimmerman way over-stepped his bounds by following the kid.

As Martin Luther King Jr. famously said:

"In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds."

In the same speech, "We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force."

And, of course, "I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

None of this seems to comport with violently attacking a neighborhood watch volunteer with your bare hands.

"But even Martin is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, isn't he?"

No, because he is not the one on trial here.

What Travon Martin was, and what he did,is very relevent to George Zimmerman's claim of self defense.

Circumstances and character matter. The fact that Martin was a drug using thug, who had been repeatedly suspended from school, and was caught with suspected stolen property matters.

If his parents try to testify that their little darling was an angel, these prior bad acts can be introduced as evidence.

The fact that Martin was a drug using thug, who had been repeatedly suspended from school, and was caught with suspected stolen property matters

Thank you, I was unaware of all this. Was he, too, given a trial, and found guilty, based on evidence?

Trials and justice are for the living.

If you have to be found guilty in a court of law to be considered a criminal or a less than steller person, I guess you would be hunky dory with letting a bunch of unconvicted child molestors live in your house?

This is what we call: ,so open minded your brains have fallen out.

Travon Martins drug use, and brushes with the school authories were well documented by facebook, law enforcement, and his autopsy. .

Travon Martins drug use, and brushes with the school authories were well documented by facebook, law enforcement, and his autopsy

I didn't know any of this. I was sincerely asking. You don't have to ASSume I would be hunky dory with letting a bunch of unconvicted child molestors live in [my] house, because you damn well know I would NOT. Had Martin been arrested and convicted? Because Zimmerman was STILL wrong to follow him. Did he have proof of Martin's drug use, brushes with the law, and thefts? No? So, he took it upon himself to be judge, jury, and executioner. And look where he is now.

Flynne, have you seen pics of both of their faces from the night of the incident?

No, lujlp, I haven't. I heard that Zimmerman was treated for injuries, but that the pictures of him at the police station didn't show them. I really am glad I'm not sitting on this jury. I believe in the 2nd Amendment, as you well know, but I think Zimmerman overstepped his bounds. IF he had listened to the dispatcher, and stopped following Martin, he wouldn't be in this mess. I understand where he was coming from, wanting to protect his neighborhood and all, but I still think he should not have been following the boy, never mind confronting him. You see how badly it went.

From one of Amy's links above:

"Drawing from Zimmerman's call to police, Guy argued that he viewed Martin, based on his age and attire (he did not mention race, per another ruling by Nelson), as a "fucking punk" who was "real suspicious" and "up to no good." He also noted that Zimmerman, who was on edge due to a recent series of burglaries committed by young black men, at one point tells the dispatcher, "These assholes, they always get away." Gray argued that Zimmerman "profiled [Martin] as someone who was about to commit a crime in his neighborhood, and then he acted on it, and that's why we're here"—because Zimmerman was determined to "rid the neighborhood of anyone that he believed didn't belong." Maybe so, but probably not through lethal means. How do we get from the neighborhood watch organizer mistaking a teenager for a burglar to that teenager dead from a gunshot to the chest? Zimmerman's wounds after the shooting are consistent with his account of a violent struggle, although they do not show that Martin started the fight. It is even possible that Zimmerman and Martin both were acting based on a reasonable fear of serious injury or death. But assuming Zimmerman was not, manslaughter would have been a more appropriate charge for what seems like a heat-of-the-moment decision based on fear rather than hostility."

"Because Zimmerman was STILL wrong to follow him"

Why is it wrong to try and see where a suspicious character who is walking behind houses and between buildings is going?

I live in a gated community as Zimmerman did, and I have every right to look at, and follow somone who I dont recognize who is walking behind and between houses in my neighborhood. The only time people have any kind of a right to privacy, is when they are on their own property, as Trayvon Martin was not.

And you are also wrong to assume Zimmerman was following him. My understanding is that Travon Martin is alleged to have doubled back around, and jumped Zimmerman from behind.

Zimmermans injuries were well documented by police and the EMT when they arrived at the scene. The prosecution tried to use a grainy video taken from a poor camera in the police station to prove after the fact, that Zimmerman had no injuries.

Why is it wrong to try and see where a suspicious character who is walking behind houses and between buildings is going?

It isn't necessarily wrong, but if you use some common sense, you don't LET someone KNOW if you're following them "to try and see where a suspicious character" is going. And you know what? When we were younger (well maybe not you) we used to walk behind houses and between buildings to get from one place to another, and we WERE NOT going to rob anyone. It was just the layout of the neighborhood, and it was quicker to get to a friend's house by going through the alley and behind some other houses. So what? Granted it wasn't a "gated community" but even so.

I'm just saying, if Zimmerman had used a little common sense and kept his distance, none of this would have happened. It's too late now.

When you and I were kids, people mostly didn't live in gated communities with big walls designed to keep people who did not live there from strolling through looking for targets of opportunity.

I think Zimmerman did use a lot of common sense, and it has only been the one sided witch hunt press coverage that has tried to paint it otherwise.

Well, maybe. But did he really have to kill the kid?

OK Flynne, what is the appropriate response to having your skull held by another person and smashed into the ground while they sit on your chest?

I could have seen an involentary manslaughter charge.

But a murder charge requires intent

Well, maybe. But did he really have to kill the kid?

Posted by: Flynne at June 27, 2013 8:31 AM

Confession here. I am a ranked competitive shooter who can mostly keep my shots one handed with a semi auto pistol inside a 6 inch circle at 50 yards.
I practice all the time to be able to do this.

If someone is pounding my head in the pavement, and I am on my back, with the gun pointed up, I don't think I am going to be able to place my shot to hit a non vital part of his anatomy. If I don't kill him, and he gets hold of the gun, i emerge from this situation the dead one.

Zimmerman is damn lucky not to be the dead one here.

OK Flynne, what is the appropriate response to having your skull held by another person and smashed into the ground while they sit on your chest?

Well, geez, lujy, not getting myself into that position in the first place!

However, if I ever were in that position and had a weapon, yeah, I'd fire wherever I could to get the sumbitch off me. But my point is, Zimmerman could have avoided all that.

Isab, I hear ya. I'm not as good as you with a handgun (yet), but I get what you're saying. Still, my point is, see above.

Done is still done. He didn't have to pursue the kid, thug, whatever. He could have stayed in his car. He called the police, he did what he could. He is NOT a member of any law enforcement organization and he should. Not. Have followed. That boy. And if that kid was sneaky enough to have doubled back and took Zimmerman by surprise, well then, I think I've made the point. Zimmerman should not have engaged. When the 911 dispatcher said, "you don't need to do that (follow Martin)", he should not have gotten out of his car, is what I'm saying. Again, look what it got him. A freakin shitload of trouble that could have been avoided.

"He is NOT a member of any law enforcement organization and he should. Not. Have followed"

Hind sight is 20-20. You can G-2. the situation to death and still not know what would have happened had Travon been smart enough to avoid jumping an armed man.

We don't know for sure that Zimmerman was even following him, but you keep stating that as if it were a fact.

But when the majority of the population believe what you stated above, namely, that law enforcement is the only one who can defend you, we are done, as a republic.

My point was, not that I am a better shot than 99.9 percent of the population. My point was, that my very specific skill set would have given me no advantage in this particular situation, and neither would yours..

...that law enforcement is the only one who can defend you...

I don't believe this. I'm just saying that Zimmerman should have stood down and not pursued the kid. He DID get out of his car, the dispatcher says he heard the bell and asked him if he had gotten out of the car, even though he also said that Zimmerman didn't sound "agitated" or whatever. He should have left the kid alone. He couldn't have prevented Martin from committing a crime any more than any cop, but he still should not have engaged the kid at all. Because what did it get him? A shitload of trouble. He would have been better off waiting for Martin to try and rob his house. Then he could have claimed self-defense and it would have been seen as such with little to no scrutiny. As it is, he opened himself up to such, thinking he was doing the right thing. No good deed goes unpunished, as it were.

No, it doesn't, but the only reason we are even talking about a legitimate act of self defense, is because the prosecutors office has become a wholly owned subsidiary of the Obama administration with a political axe to grind.

Just for a moment imagine Zimmerman hadnt been following Martin and just out for a walk, would you still want him charged with murder 2?