The minute Zimmerman got out of his car and started chasing Martin, he lost all right to claim self defense under the stand your ground law. It does not matter whether what the dispatcher said to Zimmerman was a legal order he had to follow or not, Zimmerman clearly became the aggressor. Even if there had been some kind of confrontation when Zimmerman caught up with Martin, there is no way you can tell me that Zimmerman was legitimately afraid for his life. The kid was unarmed and Zimmerman is considerably taller and at least 40 pounds heavier than Martin. Zimmerman simply chased down and shot this unarmed kid because the kid was black. It is also pretty clear from the numerous previous calls that Zimmerman had made to 911 over the past few months that he is a racist. He called something like 40 times to report suspicious people in his neighborhood, every one of them black. He never once called to report a suspicious person of any other race. In addition, Zimmerman was clearly not acting in his role as a member of the neighborhood watch since there procedures clearly tell watch members not to pursue or confront a suspicious person and to leave that to the police. Watch members are only supposed to observe and report, not pursue, confront, or try and detain anyone. In addition, neighborhood watch rules clearly state that watch members should not be armed.

Zimmerman is nothing more than a racist vigilante with an itchy trigger finger who was looking to shoot someone. He should be immediately arrested, charged with second degree murder with a hate crime enhancement, and bound over for trial. The police chief should be fired for his failure to conduct anything even resembling an honest investigation. It was not until the FBI and the Justice Department got involved that the Sanford Police even began investigating what happened. They were prepared to just write this off as self defense with no investigation, letting Zimmerman get away with murder.

I agree that Zimmerman was wrong to pursue the "suspect" but that doesn't necessarily void his case for self-defense. Consider the following excerpt from the local news report:

SANFORD, Fla. (WOFL FOX 35) - Investigators with the Sanford Police Department are still trying to figure out exactly what happened during an altercation which resulted in a fatal shooting in the Twin Lakes area. The shooting happened just after 7 p.m. Sunday evening on Twin Trees Lane. A man who witnessed part of the altercation contacted authorities.

"The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911," said the witness, who asked to be identified only by his first name, John.

John said he locked his patio door, ran upstairs and heard at least one gun shot.

"And then, when I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point."

So apparently, at one point, Martin was on top of Zimmerman and kicking his ass-- this is consistent with initial police reports that indicated Zimmerman had defensive wounds. If at any point Zimmerman felt that Martin was reaching for his firearm or otherwise had the capacity to seriously injure or kill him, then, by law, he had a right to use his firearm defensively--- Now, that being said, that does not explain why he pursued Martin in the first place and if prosecutors can show that he was the aggressor, which certainly seems likely, then his self-defense case becomes harder to prove-- but it still won't void that defense. There are a number of possible scenarios where his confrontation could paint Martin as the aggressor:

Zimmerman: Hey, what are you doing around here?

Martin: F*ck off, I ain't doing nothin'.

Z: Hey, I just need to talk to you for a second.

M: F*ck that! (Wild haymaker knocks Zimmerman to the ground)

I'm obviously not saying that that's what happened definitively, I wasn't there, but its a possible scenario. The only people that really know what happened are the witnesses, the investigators and Zimmerman. I think we all need to stop crying for his blood and let the ongoing investigation complete itself before rushing to judgments based on incomplete and biased media coverage.

They have started a grand jury hearing. The grand jury will review all the facts and then decide if there is enough evidence to have a trial. The grand jury is made up of his peers. So the police aren't afraid of it. The process is taking place. The legal process is just slower than you would like.

The fact that he followed Martin in the first place is where the main debate should be. In no case is someone going to use 'Self defence' if the person they claim they are defending against is "running" away from them. Both the Phone call with Zimerman and Martin indicate Martin wasn't looking to confront Zimmerman, it was Zimmerman looking to confront Martin... These people handeling the case are either stupid or don't care. In either case they should be fired.

Seventeen year old child... He barley was getting started in life... And to just be shot dead while walking home... Something is so very wrong with this...

This is why even "law-abiding" idiots should not be allowed to carry guns. All he saw was a black kid in a hoodie running away, and he couldn't even wrap his head around the fact that it was both raining, and that HE was the one causing a problem by aggressively PURSUING an innocent boy who was just running home in the rain. There may or may not be a racist element involved here, but one thing is for sure: someone that dim should not be allowed to carry a weapon. Period.

pandy,

I think your rationalization that it is an unfortunate incident is a bit light.

I am viewing it as a homicide.

the problem we have with the 2nd amendment aquatone, is we cannot deny them their right to bear arms just because they are a dimwit.

Not sure why watch group personnel are allowed to carry firearms. Their description tells me that they are watching for suspicious activity and reporting it to the police. That is where their authority and responsibility ends.

so if that's a possible scenario, why couldn't Martin have been acting under the Stand Your Ground Law? Lets look at this. He clearly knows this man is following him and he doesn't know why. Mr. Martin is under NO obligation to hold a conversation with any person especially one who did not identify himself. Nor is he under any obligation to explain to a perfect stranger why he is walking on a public sidewalk. Perhaps Mr. Martin felt threatened and in fear of HIS life? I would be on the defensive if I was approached by the likes of Zimmerman. Mr. Zimmerman knows all about the stand your ground law which may be why he yelled Help! A reasonable person (unlike the said "witness") could see that Zimmerman outweighed and was larger than Martin. And while the police didn't issue a lawful order to stand down, it is CLEARLY written in the handbook that he (zimmerman) was NOT to approach any subject. Irregardless of wheter Mr. Martin swore at zimmerman (which I highly doubt because it seems he was in fear of his own life at this point and for good reason), zimmerman had NO right to use a gun on this poor kid. Zimmerman put himself in harms way. Under the law, he had an obligation to keep his distance from Mr. Martin. This man needs to be in jail. NOW.

If and when the Grand Jury comes back with an indictment, that means there will hopefully be enough evidence for a trial.

If, as the reports claim, there is an eyewitness who saw Treyvon on the ground crying out for help and this person stood over him, then fired a shot, the 'Stand your ground' law doesn't apply because Zimmerman pursued Treyvon and the law isn't meant to cover pursuit.

I say this as a citizen of the beautiful state of Florida. I am outraged over this crime. Zimmerman should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and the police chief should be removed and prosecuted for not doing his job.

Vigilantism shall not be tolerated in this or any state.

The only person who the "Stand Your Ground" law applied to in this situation was clearly Trayvon Williams. HE was the one being pursued and assaulted. If there was a scuffle and he ended up on top of Zimmerman, then again HE was the one defending himself from the unsolicited stalking and assault from Zimmerman.

If Trayvon had gotten a hold of Zimmerman's gun during his assault and shot him with it in his own defense, I wonder if he would have been arrested already???? I wonder if the police would be protecting him under the "self defense" Stand Your Ground plea?

Unfortunately I already know the answer! And you do to, even if you don't want to admit it.

God help our country and be with the family as they grieve the senseless loss of their son. Let justice for his life prevail!

Can any of you people read?

"The man who fatally shot Miami Gardens teen Martin was not arrested the night of the incident because his self-defense claim “was supported by physical evidence and testimony,” according to Lee."

Physical evidence and testimony at the location at the time. not what he said or she said. an investigation is under way and cell phones and timelines will be put together. also it has been reported that it was by his car so how could he have chased him and been by his car.

"Velma Williams, the city’s only black commissioner" "She nearly fainted after the vote because she became so emotional, and had to be treated by a paramedic." People don't like stereo types but why should this act and drama, be reported it has no bearing on this case she was just acting a fool. and how many black men killed black men on this same day across the US? where are all the people yelling for that injustice

This is not about white and black the shooter was Hispanic. so why don't we just let the police finish the investigation before we start calling for peoples heads!

WMG,

So apparently, at one point, Martin was on top of Zimmerman and kicking his ass-- this is consistent with initial police reports that indicated Zimmerman had defensive wounds.

If it's just me and another guy who has shown himself to be hostile (like if he were chasing me down the street) you can bet I'd kick his ass if I saw him reaching for a gun. I'd have every reason to believe he's going to harm me.

I think we all need to stop crying for his blood and let the ongoing investigation complete itself before rushing to judgments based on incomplete and biased media coverage.

The outcry for blood was due to the lack of an investigation at the time of the incident. The police didn't do the bare minimum of an investigation after a kid was shot. Such as pressing witnesses, testing Zimmerman for drugs and alcohol, doing a patrol of the neighborhood, checking for additional evidence, etc. This wasn't a robbery or act of vandalism, it was a homicide. The standard of practice when investigating a homicide is a lot higher than for a robbery. The police screwed this up bad. The crime scene is no longer secure. Witness memory is beginning to fade or become muddled.

That brings me to the next reason why there's an outcry for blood. It's been a month now, it's too damn late to say "oops" and investigate. This is why the police chief received a no confidence vote.

From the alleged facts in the story, it would appear that Zimmerman may have used excessive force, which is a crime.

Someone has to make a determination on whether there is sufficient evidence to make an arrest. There may well be insufficient evidence to prosecute, but then many criminals get off for the same reason virtually every day.

Wow, it must be a cold day in hell, because Roy Wilson and I actually agree on something.

Although I think Zimmerman's own 911 call where he freely admits to following Trayvon is more than enough to get him for manslaughter.

The outcry for blood was due to the lack of an investigation at the time of the incident. The police didn't do the bare minimum of an investigation after a kid was shot. Such as pressing witnesses, testing Zimmerman for drugs and alcohol, doing a patrol of the neighborhood, checking for additional evidence, etc. This wasn't a robbery or act of vandalism, it was a homicide. The standard of practice when investigating a homicide is a lot higher than for a robbery. The police screwed this up bad. The crime scene is no longer secure. Witness memory is beginning to fade or become muddled.

That brings me to the next reason why there's an outcry for blood. It's been a month now, it's too damn late to say "oops" and investigate. This is why the police chief received a no confidence vote.

Bingo!

We have no idea whether Zimmerman is a racist or not. However, we can safely assume the following:

#1.Zimmerman knew he was bigger than the suspect

#2. Zimmerman knew had a legal gun

#3. Zimmerman knew he was the watchman and therefore he had complete authority.

#4. Zimmerman felt he could deliver justice and become the hero. Most likely his life did not contain the satisfaction he craved (power, hero, control)

#5. High indication is that if the kid was white then all bets off and this never happened. Those who are not black need to fully appreciate this. I am not black but can understand that by basic observations. Similiar to a woman who is walking late at night alone and man is walking behind.

Based on this I believe he should be charged

Zimmerman is employing the "He hit me back first" defense. If you push and push and push someone until they react, you can't then claim you were defending yourself.

I would have reacted in exactly the same way as Martin, if a total stranger came up to me on the street and demanded to talk to me. I'd walk away, and if he kept following me, I'd tell him to get the @!$%# away from me. People who behave like that are up to no good. They're trying to waylay you, and it definitely isn't for your benefit.

DrowningGrover "Wow, it must be a cold day in hell, because Roy Wilson and I actually agree on something."

I'll re-examine my comment. Wouldn't want you to catch a cold.

lol

WMG,

You are using all of the facts that you are aware of in order to show that Zimmerman might have been within his rights to shoot Martin in self-defense because Martin may have beat his @$$ when Zimmerman came up and confronted him without justification. Did it ever cross your mind that perhaps MARTIN was exercising HIS self-defense rights when Zimmerman stalked him in a highly creepy manner and then came up and confronted him? Considering the size and age difference, Martin could easily have felt threatened and, under the law, would not be required to "retreat first."

So, if Martin felt threatened enough to defend himself against Zimmerman, then the whole thing boils down to the question: who initiated the hostilities? Who is the one who instigated all of this? The clear answer, as even you must admit, is Zimmerman. So, without saying Zimmerman is necessarily guilty of murder (that isn't for me to decide), certainly he should have been arrested and TRIED due to the facts of the case.

In other words, if Zimmerman had the right to use deadly force in self-defense because Martin was "attacking" him, then surely, without any doubt, Martin had the exact same right under the law to use deadly force in self-defense against the initial aggressor, Zimmerman, even though he was only at worst hitting him with his fists. So why are you defending Zimmerman when, had he acted in accordance with all stated policy, with the guidance from 911, and used some common sense, neither he nor Martin would have been in such a situation?

WMG, what a truly irresponsible post. Making light of you @ssinine and baseless assumptions by saying "I'm not saying that's what happened..." is nonsense. Your post is inflammatory, making up details that do not exist, putting them in writing for all to read (and will mislead some) and then saying your fantasy could justify what happened is ridiculous. Even if things did happen the way you claim, even if the boy was beating the snot out of this psycho at one point -- wouldn't that only prove that the kid was the one justified in invoking the stupid "stand your ground" law? This gun toting lunatic broke his own neighborhood watch's rules to go after this kid. He confronted the kid with a loaded weapon. He was the aggressor!! Does not that then make it legal and legitimate for the kid to stand his ground and do whatever he felt was necessary to protect himself? Was not he completely within his legal rights to fight back? Unfortunately, with this ridiculous law, we only have the survivor's word for what happened -- kind of the major inherent flaw in the law -- so if he says he felt threatened (regardless of the fact that he was instigator), how do we counter that? The victor write the history, and all that. This was a stupid law and anyone who supported it and didn't see this glaring abuse coming was quite simply naive and blind. What the authorities (and hopefully the jury) need to do is look at the entirty of the evidence, not just take this guy's word for it. The evidence is, he broke his own group's rules, ignored the advice from law enforcement, terrorized the young man he was stalking, confronted an unarmed child with a deadly weapon and created the entire situation in which this boy lost his life. This man is completely and totally responsible for what transpired and for the death of an unarmed young man. Suggesting that the boy might have used foul language or failed to meekly submit to the man with a gun in his face in no way mitigates or excuses what Zimmerman did. Period.

You cannot (or should not) be able to start a fight, kill the person you are fighting with and then claim self defense for the act.

"Let the police finish their investigation" And "let us get all the facts in a real trial"

Wow, so you can officially fulfill the Constitution of USA!!!!! So things look good to the world---wow how often do we get the real facts from any trial here in The USA, a trial that is not manipulated by the "police" or the Attorneys, by withholding almost always part of the evidence--And I do mean always-- It would be quite different if we strictly went by facts, but no one will allow that, because they could not then have a chance to modify the courts to fit the amount of money spent on each trial, it would then be like in northern EU, make no sense to have a lot of trials, based on evidence.

@Constitution Thumper-- Well stated. And I think that that is exactly the case that the prosecution will bring.

@Saddened-- please recognize that I am playing devil's advocate here. Everyone is out to lynch this guy when the evidence suggests that there was more to this confrontation than your simplified version of events. FYI-- Zimmerman did NOT (according to witnesses) walk up to Martin and stick a gun in his face. They argued, got into a physical altercation, and Zimmerman drew and fired during the struggle. Your version of events makes it sound much worse, as though this were some premeditated assassination, which is unsupported by extent, public evidence. That sort of speculative mishandling of the story is more inflammatory than my statements specifically because I acknowledge that my suggested version of events is speculation, where you have stated yours as fact, without any corroborating evidence. Think about it.

@Rod Father

WMG go screw yourself, it was a scenario just as bs as your scenario.

My scenario is at least plausible based on witness testimony. Yours isn't. Your scenario is also needlessly inflammatory and is a personal attack on me. Your emotional attachment to the case at hand indicates you are the least fit to make judgments regarding it.

To make myself abundantly clear: all I am saying is to let the ongoing investigation thoroughly and completely review the evidence and determine this man's fate. Sitting here as an armchair lynch mob serves no justice to anyone.

Thank goodness that phone conversations were recorded or remembered to witness this event.

There must be many similar killings out there with no witnesses and the paranoid perpetrators with guns get away with murder!

Zimmerman is an idiot and he provoked this incident, but the issue is not clear of how he and the kid ended up on the ground with the kid on top having the upper hand, as testified by witnesses. If Zimmerman grabbed, pushed or touched this kid, he is the one that started the fight and has no right to shoot the kid, but even if he followed the kid and the kid, understandably got upset because of being followed by this clown and started the attack and beat Zimmerman up, then Zimmerman still has the right to defend himself.

I think this part is what the police is seeking help to investigate. Based on the witnesses accounts Zimmerman was under the kid being beat up.

I don't think you should be rushing the police to act before the investigation is done, it seems like a mob demand.

You are truly retarded and gullible if you believe everything that you hear or read. The "witness" did not see the beginning nor the end of the altercation...which certainly does not make him much of a witness. Secondly, the police cannot make an assumption that Zimmerman acted in self defense. If you get into a fight with any random person, there will be bruises on you both. Did the article say anything about the teenagers bruises? Ah! The plot thickens. Third, lets take a look at how the pursuit began. Zimmerman never alleged that he saw the victim commit a crime, he looked suspicious running in the rain. After this young African American man was being pursued and stalked by a man with a gun. Wake the @!$%# up you DIM WIT! I didnt see any mention of a car in the article, but if it is in there, this may be an explanation for it. Trayvon told his girlfriend that he believes that he lost the man who was following him. This may mean that Zimmerman went back to his car because he could not keep up with a 17 year old on foot. Once he spotted Trayvon, he got out of his car. Why he would get out of his car is a mystery to me. He has the advantage already. He is safe in his car with his gun...only further suggesting that he WANTED a confrontation and the opportunity to kill a black guy.

While one of the neigbhors that witnessed the event said he actually jumped on this kids back. How the hell is that self defense? Zimmerman initiated the altercation after stalking him, and if the kid fought back, what was he supposed to do just let him kill him? Zimmerman had a gun and he used it, the kid was unarmed.

This is a failure of the police to allow this to go through the system and allow a jury and judge to decide the facts of the case. The police had no right to just dismiss this.

OK. If an unarmed teenage boy was shot and killed by a police officer, there would have been more of an investigation than what happened with Zimmerman. They would've confiscated his gun, done a drug test, talked to witnesses, and suspended the officer pending an official investigation to ensure that the officer used correct judgement.

But Zimmerman was questioned and released with no investigation into the events. It's ridiculous.

Not when a neighbor said she witnessed him jump on the kids back, which means the kid was trying to get away again.

Zimmerman can be heard on his call to 911 admitting that he was following Martin.

He can also be heard muttering a racist comment.

That he has not been arrested is mind-boggling.

I only hope this incident will not incite more gun violence. We have had enough, haven't we?

Floridians, you need to get your act together, pronto!

To: “Tired in Tx-533625”

Your comments of “Can any of you people read?”

"The man who fatally shot Miami Gardens teen Martin was not arrested the night of the incident because his self-defense claim “was supported by physical evidence and testimony,” according to Lee."

You truly are tired. Maybe you need to go take a nap. Can you read??? The subject matter is what happened in Florida. Get it?? And, who gives a crap whether he’s white or hispanic? Oh yeah! All of my hispanic friends have surnames of Zimmerman. The fact remains – his acquisation of “self-defense” is clearly false.

Maybe when you wake up from your nap you can join the discussion. Try and keep up!

Not when a neighbor said she witnessed him jump on the kids back, which means the kid was trying to get away again.

32 neighbors said she witnessed the kid jump on Zimmerman's back.

Both statements have one thing in common.

@Paris,

"Stand your ground law", clearly has it issues.

The Tampa Bay Times newspaper found 132 cases in Florida where the law has been
invoked; 74 defendants were cleared.

It's not clear that this law promotes vigilantism but, for sure it leaves loopholes for guy's like Zimmerman, who probably embrace the concept that, "what goods a gun if you can't kill someone with it" mentality.

If Trayvon had gotten a hold of Zimmerman's gun during his assault and shot him with it in his own defense

This is exactly why idiots like Zimmerman should not be allowed to carry a gun. Furthermore, if you wish to be a participant in your "local neighborhood watch organization", you should have to be registered with the police with the understanding that any confrontation you engage off your property would be a chargeable offense of assault against you. In other words, the only prerequisite for being a member of theses organizations should be the ability to run and dial 911. In fact, if Zimmerman did not have the right to carry a gun, all you would have is a good old ass whipping that Zimmerman went out of his way to get.

Trayvon, RIP.

Ron- The 911 tapes also state (after he said Trayvon was walking towards him)... "$hit he's running away towards the back entrance of the complex"

So, Zimmerman is in his car with 911 and gets out of his car to pursue Trayvon once Trayvon starts "running away towards the back entrance of the complex."

That negates his self defense claim. You cannot claim self defense when you pursue someone. Even the chief sponsor of the bill says that as soon as Zimmerman said he's following him, he cannot use the "Stand your Ground" bill as a defense. He states "there is no provision in the law that allows you to pursue and then kill" a person.

The 911 tapes also state

(The kid is coming over here to check me out)

The (written witness statements) back up Zimmerman.

That negates his self defense claim. You cannot claim self defense when you pursue someone.

I can claim self defense any time I want.

The law does work in this case,That is why even the government has not made an arrest.

Zimmerman will never be convicted for anything.

ron lets take race out of this completely because I think its very much in your mind.

If you are walking down the street and neighborhood patrol doesn't recognize you. You notice that you are being followed by someone....you speed up and they continue to follow and then they get out of their vehicle. What do you do?

Who exactly can claim self defense here? There is no evidence that he was doing anything but walking down the street towards home. With your logic, the person that followed you can legally kill you. Is that really the kind of laws we need on the books?

WMG, what evidence do you speak of? The only evidence I see here implicates Zimmerman in murder. The evidence police used to in this case was Zimmerman's word that he was attacked. They did not investigate this, thus why this has turned into outrage. No one but Zimmerman and Treyvon saw what happened.

Not only should the police chief lose his job, but so should the other officers involved in this incident. This is insane that Zimmerman was able to murder Martin and then just go home as if nothing even happened. Martin was violently killed. His final moments were filled with terror, agony and pleading for someone to help him. He was not a person committing a crime. He was stereotyped by Zimmerman and then murdered in cold blood because of Zimmerman's false presumptions and his bitter cold heart. Of course this is a hate crime and a race issue too. I understand why people (blacks and whites) are in an uproar about this. This is an outright murder and there was NO accountability whatsoever for the murderer. Everyone just shrugged and said "oh well". It's sickening!

All you people on here who are making these comments like "it's a black issue" or "just another reason for black people to protest"...you are letting your opinions about black people interfere with the your comprehension of the REALITY of this situation. A person was murdered in cold blood and their murderer was not held accountable for his actions. PLUS he was murdered due to the fact that the person who murdered him had a hateful opinion about black people. Stop letting your own hate issues or "opinions" keep you from seeing reality! Your comments are only fueling other peoples hate issues or "opinions" and are very cruel also. Hate is a vicious circle.

Just look at the picture of this badge heavy fool. Four Stars on his collar what a joke this is the picture of a self centred fool. Why every hick Chief thinks he is General Patton is beyond comprehension. Look at the other fool in AZ.

Ultimately the problem I have with this is, that there are some that have tried and convicted Zimmerman, and there are some that have tried and found him innocent. Yet there was never a thorough investigation to really make either determination...that is the problem.

A 16 year old boy died without adequate investigation and maybe Zimmerman was acting in self defense, I tend to believe that the kid was acting in self defense but it should be a jury deciding this not any of us.

I think I can say this without any dilusion of doubt. Trayvon's parents are much better people than me. If that had been my son, I would be the one in jail at this point!!

This is fricken America people!! My son should be able to safely walk across my entire city without being harrassed or shot! The greatest danger should be crossing busy streets!!

how many people have heard the racist remark zimmerman said on the 911 call? zimmerman can be heard calling the kid an f'n coon on the recorded 911 call. google it and listen for yourself. abc news had a link.

ron, actually not all the statements or evidence does back up zimmerman and neighbors are coming out to say that. True witnesses? Really you are believing who you want to believe, all I want is for a trial on it so all the evidence can be brought out. Because there is much conflicting evidence.

I repeat if this was YOU walking down the street towards home, does someone have the right to follow you, confront you and then ultimately kill you? Because you are in their neighborhood? If someone was following you when you were walking and they confronted you what would you have done? I asked you to take race out of it because I want you to consider if you were in Trayvons position that night, what would you have done? The stand the ground law really doesn't apply because they were not on any of Zimmermans property.

listen to the racist remark made by zimmerman on the 911 tape here.....http://www.wftv.com/videos/news/original-zimmerman-controversial-comment-explicit/vGbyc/

Casey Anthony got away with murder because the D.A. over reached. Zimmerman's actions would not meet the legal definition of first degree murder. He should be charged appropriately and convicted on the evidence that we can all hear on the 911 tape.

There must be justice for Trayvon Martin. That is all his family is asking for.

This time they need to get it right in Florida.

ron, I ask you again, what would you have done in Trayvons position? He isn't alive to tell his side of the story, and honestly the witnesses mostly only saw what happened after he was already shot.

If Zimmerman attacked him first, did he not have a right to fight back? You act like this kid had no right to walk down a street and that justifies homicide.

Tired in Tx-533625--ummm, guy. The "testimony" would be what Zimmerman said. And, what the 911 call says is

"I just heard a shot right behind my house," a male caller said. "They're wrestling right behind my porch.

Doesn't sound to me like they were right beside Zimmerman's vehicle, does it?

I do think that Zimmerman pursued Martin, I do think that Martin tried to attack Zimmerman because he heard Zimmerman calling him racial epithets and Martin feared for his life, and then I do think that Zimmerman shot Martin once he thought that he could claim "self-defense." All this fits with what we know so far.

Whether or not Zimmerman will be convicted, based on the bizarre Florida law that lets a someone kill another person because that someone "felt threatened" is what will be interesting to see. Any racist is going to "feel threatened" when s/he sees a person of another race in his/her neighborhood (and that includes black people feeling "threatened" by whites, as well as vice versa). It is a stupid law that needs revision.

I am very much hoping that the location of the body and its distance from the vehicle will be telling enough to negate the argument that Zimmerman was attacked right outside his vehicle. Remember that the boy was within about 50 feet of home when he was shot--I really do think that the basic distance of the body from the vehicle will take care of the problem.

Otherwise, I will hope that someone has a camera outside his/her house because there had been burglaries, and that the camera evidence will help. Otherwise, Zimmerman (despite the fact that he is pretty clearly guilty) will get off.

The key point here, however, is that the opponents of the Stand Your Ground bill were right. This bill has been license for people to murder others and get away with it. We can only hope that the 911 calls from someone other than Zimmerman, who was clearly not being candid as he wanted to create an alibi, will help with the investigation, as will the presence of the FBI and all of the physical evidence being very belatedly gathered.

Zimmerman told police he was attacked by 17-year-old Trayvon Martin after he had given up chasing the boy and he was returning to his truck. He had a bloody nose and blood on the back of his head, according to police. Martin's family questions Zimmerman's story and believes if their races were reversed, there is no doubt a black shooter would be jailed, even if he claimed self-defense.

This was backed up in writing by more than one witness,

A total of 0 witnesses have said Zimmerman attacked the kid.

It was self defense, Zimmerman will never be convicted.

By the way he may not be convicted by Florida but the feds have a good case on civil rights violations and he could serve seven years in prison for that. They also have a 99% conviction rate. The racist comments were heard as he talked to the 911 operator, one way or another Zimmerman isn't getting off scott free.

Ron-

well we can safely assume that if the law is questioned if this goes to trial, the attorneys will call to witness the authors of this bill who will clearly state that Zimmerman's defense is not covered by the provisions in this bill. His entire case is based upon his self defense claim.

The LOCAL police did not arrest Zimmerman. The local police interpreted the "Stand your ground" law incorrectly according to the republican authors of this bill. The government is investigating the local police to see if the investigation and subsequent actions were handled correctly. If they find that it wasn't, then an arrest will be made.

Even if the witness statements back up Zimmerman's claim that he was coming to check him out, those same statements and 911 calls state that Martin was running away after he was walking towards Zimmerman.

Zimmerman is not an official law enforcement agent, therefore Martin is under no obligation to answer any of his questions. Martin does have a right to defend himself against a strange man following him. He has the right to defend himself to a point at which he feels safe. Obviously he never felt safe, because he's dead. Martin did not have a rule book stating he cannot walk at night with a hoodie on. Zimmerman, however, does have a rule book stating that he cannot pursue nor apprehend any possible criminals while patrolling as a neighborhood watch representative.

I appreciate your viewpoints on this topic. From your posts I have viewed (although I'm sure I haven't viewed all of them), you have been civil in the discussion. It lets me know what the other argument will be. I do, however, hope that your viewpoint is not the consensus of the Grand Jury . I hope that Zimmerman will be convicted.

ron you still refuse to say what you would have done in that situation because you don't want to admit that you probably wouldn't have handled it differently than Trayvon if someone was following you and acting threateningly.

Thumper,

In other words, if Zimmerman had the right to use deadly force in self-defense because Martin was "attacking" him, then surely, without any doubt, Martin had the exact same right under the law to use deadly force in self-defense against the initial aggressor, Zimmerman, even though he was only at worst hitting him with his fists. So why are you defending Zimmerman when, had he acted in accordance with all stated policy, with the guidance from 911, and used some common sense, neither he nor Martin would have been in such a situation?

My wife and I had that exact conversation just this morning. Well stated.

What behavior or actions did this kid exhibit in order to justify any use of force?

@Ron

All the witness statements ( true witnesses) back up Zimmerman

The scene Backs up Zimmerman

The cops back up Zimmerman.

The law backs up Zimmerman.

I think that drastically oversimplifies a complex scenario. Also, as to your first statement in the list, not every witness backs up Zimmerman's story, though none of them (that have been made public) have contradicted his story, either.

@TFNJ

WMG, what evidence do you speak of?

Independent witness testimony and defensive wounds.

The only evidence I see here implicates Zimmerman in murder. The evidence police used to in this case was Zimmerman's word that he was attacked.

No, they used witness testimony, his own testimony, and his wounds to make their decision.

They did not investigate this, thus why this has turned into outrage.

They did investigate it, though not thoroughly enough. Mistakes were made, but Zimmerman's guilt is not as clear as you would like to believe that it is. The family decided to make it a media circus, and now it is.

No one but Zimmerman and Treyvon saw what happened.

There were other witnesses. True, no one saw the entire event, but taken together, the witness testimony can create a reasonable timeline of events.

Zimmerman on 911 call ( he is coming over here to check me out)

Zimmerman told investigators that Martin was the aggressor and that he was taking such a beating - and that no one responded to his calls for help - that he was forced to fire. "He had injuries consistent with his story," Lee said.

Zimmerman's statement to police has not been released to the public, but legal experts say that he could claim the boy was reaching for a perceived weapon, or even for Zimmerman's own gun during the scuffle.

March or no march, this guy will not be convicted of murder.

Bill Lee is more than likely a racist.

Check his closet. You'll probably find his white sheet and hood.

.

WMG-21, It sounds as though you are blaming him because he faught back for his life, WOW so you can't even be a victim and try to get away from you attacker because if you do then you are at fault. I hope you will never be pursued by someone you don't know and then try to defend yourself but have you memory tarnished because you defended yourself from a attacker.

ron, an inadequate investigation took place. You are just as wrong to find him innocent as people are to convict him, a thorough investigation needs to take place. And the police did not interpret the law correctly, this is not a stand your ground case.

I will just assume its okay with you that if you are walking down the street that someone can stalk, fight and then kill you.

I don't understand how a person can claim self defense when he followed the kid. Not only that but, at one point, it sounds like the kid lost him and this Zimmerman wacko had to find him again and then start following him again. He had every chance in the world to stay where he was and wait for the actual police to do their job.

@littlemiss -- that isn't what I am stating at all. Please review all of my comments. I feel that Zimmerman ought to be charged and the facts brought out in court-- but that's not a decision I can make. Ultimately, the DA will decide whether to prosecute after reviewing the available evidence. If the evidence shows that the self-defense claim is accurate, then it doesn't matter what I or anyone else thinks. I am opposed, fundamentally, to the lynch mob mentality that this case is bringing to the surface. Let the facts stand alone to determine this man's fate. Bringing in all of this ridiculous emotional, racist garbage to the table doesn't do anyone any good.

ron-

and that no one responded to his calls for help

Witnesses are not in agreement as to who called for help. Some witnesses say it sounded like a child. Martin's parents are certain that it was Martin who could be heard on the tape. I have to admit, I know the sound of my children crying for help. Some witnesses believe it was surely Martin because the screams were cut off exactly as the gun shot was heard. Some witnesses have stated they heard "whimpering and crying like a child".

However, the FBI will perform voice analysis on the call to attempt to determine which voice is heard on the tape. So let's hold off judgment about the "Help" cries until we have more evidence.

JS, you've got it right with the second degree murder charge. Zimmerman is a trained neighborhood watch responder, which means he is supposed to know what he's doing.

Everything says Zimmerman was intent on some sort of incident happening even if he had to make it happen. The audio tape shows he wanted an incident. He disregarded the instructions of police dispatch and escalated the situation by initiating a pursuit; his job is to maintain surveillance from where he was and report his information to police when they arrive.

What makes this murder two and not manslaughter: this is intentionally reckless and stupid conduct by someone who is trained to know better but makes clear, conscious decisions not to. His intent was incident, not kill, but he needlessly put himself in a situation where he could end up killing someone. Every action he took was clear-minded and with intent, even if that intent stops short of someone ending up dead. Every one of those actions increased the probability of Zimmerman doing something that would result in him killing someone.

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also addressed what she called a "great tragedy" and commented on what it says about the state of U.S. race relations.

"I've always said that, obviously, we are not a race-blind society," Rice said Wednesday on MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Reports. "We aspire to be one, we work toward it, we've gotten better but we are not yet. But I'm not going to comment on the legal aspects of this case."

lol.

Jan-21270

ron, an inadequate investigation took place. You are just as wrong to find him innocent as people are to convict him,

Go back and read all of your statements, you have convicted him more than once,

I am on the side of the evidence (so far), Self defense.

If you go looking for trouble, you will find it.

That is what Zimmerman did. Guilty of what? That remains to be determined.

JS, you've got it right with the second degree murder charge.

If they charge him ,it will be with a manslaughter charge, he will not be convicted.

They may decide to give him immunity from any prosecution.

ron I have been pointing out conflicting evidence but there is no doubt on the civil rights violations given the racial epitaphs, following because he was black. This could have all been avoided if Zimmerman had followed the watch guidelines and done what the 911 operator asked him to do. If this was self defense, he brought the fight on himself. I just want an investigation and hopefully a trial.

Bill Lee is more than likely a racist.

Check his closet. You'll probably find his white sheet and hood.

That just makes you look like the racist.

If somebody starts a kill Zimmerman fund, they can count on a few bucks from me.

reported for soliciting a murder.

If for any reason Zimmerman end up scott free from conviction, he will not last long in civil court.

I am disgusted by this case. Zimmerman deserves to be in jail. His bad choices led to this.

However, and this really stinks, but it may not be the fault of the police or event the prosecutor.

If his story is true, his actions were legal as per this very ill conceived "stand your ground" law. I believe it is worth having a trial to hear all of the facts, but this law is the barrier to justice.

I blame the lawmakers who put this law into place and the advocacy groups, including the NRA, who pushed for this law. If everyone who owned a gun were a responsible citizen who used good judgement, this law would be fine-but it is beyond irresponsible to create a law that presumes that everyone is always going to use good judgement-especially when it involves guns!

Most gun owners are good responsible citizens who would not do things like chase a guy who was committing no crime against the instructions of the dispatcher. Clearly, not all are.

@Ron - If you punch me in the face and I whop ya racist a$$ can you still claim self-defense when you shot and kill me? You should look up the two words known as defense and offense. Self-Defense would have been waiting in his car for the Real police. Offensive would be grabbing your gun and chasing this poor kid, which is just what Zimmerman did. Maybe after this happens to one of your children you can come back and spew your bs for us!

@Ron - If you punch me in the face and I whop ya racist a$$ can you still claim self-defense when you shot and kill me?

Yes, but it will not hold up if I hit your racist @ss first.

The man has not been arrested because acording to the evedince (so far) the kid hit Zimmerman first.

Maybe after this happens to one of your children you can come back and spew your bs for us!

You ar the one spewing BS.

Lets not tarnish this childs memory because he acted in self defense lets remember who the victim is.

This reminds me of how twisted people really are and how they choose to have their eyes wide shut. Martin is and from the moment this incident occured a victim. I don't see how people can excuse a attacker for following and pursuing a young boy to his death and for no reason. Lets not forget that those that scream that Zimmerman had the right to protect himself so did Martin, people don't get to stalk you approach you and then shoot you and say it's self defense if they do then we are in big trouble. No matter how many hits Martin got in he was the victim defending himself. Can we not defend ourselves anymore?????

ron-1902603

I can claim self defense any time I want.

Not if he's running away from you...LOL!

Meanwhile, hundreds of demonstrators assembled a "Million Hoodie March" in New York City to call for the arrest of Martin's killer. NBC's Lilia Luciano reports.

I have a few minutes to get on here, but how do these people get off for a Million Hoodie March for something that happened to someone esle in another state? I don't care what color his skin is or theirs.

I can claim self defense any time I want.

Not if he's running away from you...LOL!

May not hold up,but i could claim it.

Lets not tarnish this childs memory because he acted in self defense lets remember who the victim is.

The victim is at home.

According to the evidence so far.

WMG, has it occurred to you, and 911 tapes seem to corroborate this, that Zimmerman attacked Treyvon, but Treyvon got the upper hand in the struggle? Thus Zimmerman then decided to use his weapon and shoot him. Of course Zimmerman would have wounds. In a fight whether you are the attacker or not, you get wounds. I also ask that you show me where it says a witness claims they saw Treyvon attack Zimmerman.

WMG-21 I hear you!

If for any reason Zimmerman end up scott free from conviction, he will not last long in civil court.

They are thinking of giving him immunity from civil prosecution,they can legally do that if it comes down as being self defense.

WMG, has it occurred to you, and 911 tapes seem to corroborate this, that Zimmerman attacked Treyvon, but Treyvon got the upper hand in the struggle?

The 911 tapes along with the witnesses support that the kid attacked Zimmerman, that's why there has been no arrest.

@TFNJ -- yes, I have considered that possibility, which is why I feel that he should be charged and the evidence brought to court to be reviewed by a jury of his peers. As to the witness who said Zimmerman was being attacked, I posted it in comment 2.4 above, but here it is again (with the link):

Investigators with the Sanford Police Department are still trying to figure out exactly what happened during an altercation which resulted in a fatal shooting in the Twin Lakes area. The shooting happened just after 7 p.m. Sunday evening on Twin Trees Lane. A man who witnessed part of the altercation contacted authorities.

"The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911," said the witness, who asked to be identified only by his first name, John.

John said he locked his patio door, ran upstairs and heard at least one gun shot.

"And then, when I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point."

Local News Link Here

Comment for Ron: considering you want to chip in few bucks to kill Zimmerman. Remember that he is hispanic and that is considered a hate crime.

I can't believe that the Florida government allowed a guy who actually had a domestic violence suit against him the right to own and use a legal gun...Zimmerman wasn't totally "law abiding". I think this also deals with the stereotype of gangsters wearing hoodies and walking down the street at night. Nobody is confronting this stereotype but it should be addressed. But Zimmerman did not do what he should have...reported it to police and let them handle it. As it explicitly said in bold: "What you will not do is get physically involved with any activity you report or apprehension of any suspicious persons. This is the job of the law enforcement agency," it says in bold." That was from the article from the Stanford Neighborhood Watch handbook. Apparently he disobeyed that rule...

There can be no self-defense claim, primarily because of Zimmerman's 911 call where he provided zero indication of any immediate danger to himself, just some apparently misguided suspicions. At that point, they specifically told him he didn't need to pursue anyone. He didn't have to be there at all. He knew it. If he pursued anyway and ended up killing an innocent kid as a result of that pursuit, that isn't self defense, in any court in the land. His actions led to some kind of a confrontation and it sure didn't turn out the way he expected...I guess. He certainly can't use self-defense as a strategy, at least not as a WINNING strategy. Not even in Florida, not even with "Stand Your Ground" in effect. Zimmerman DIDN'T stand his ground, he ADVANCED.

He will be convicted, although I don't know what the charge will turn out to be in the end. I think it should be murder, but we will see. He will serve time, period. I guarantee it.

Ron-

well we can safely assume that if the law is questioned if this goes to trial, the attorneys will call to witness the authors of this bill who will clearly state that Zimmerman's defense is not covered by the provisions in this bill. His entire case is based upon his self defense claim.

The LOCAL police did not arrest Zimmerman. The local police interpreted the "Stand your ground" law incorrectly according to the republican authors of this bill. The government is investigating the local police to see if the investigation and subsequent actions were handled correctly. If they find that it wasn't, then an arrest will be made.

Even if the witness statements back up Zimmerman's claim that he was coming to check him out, those same statements and 911 calls state that Martin was running away after he was walking towards Zimmerman.

Zimmerman is not an official law enforcement agent, therefore Martin is under no obligation to answer any of his questions. Martin does have a right to defend himself against a strange man following him. He has the right to defend himself to a point at which he feels safe. Obviously he never felt safe, because he's dead. Martin did not have a rule book stating he cannot walk at night with a hoodie on. Zimmerman, however, does have a rule book stating that he cannot pursue nor apprehend any possible criminals while patrolling as a neighborhood watch representative.

I appreciate your viewpoints on this topic. From your posts I have viewed (although I'm sure I haven't viewed all of them), you have been civil in the discussion. It lets me know what the other argument will be. I do, however, hope that your viewpoint is not the consensus of the Grand Jury . I hope that Zimmerman will be convicted.

Under the National Rifle Association-backed Florida law passed in 2005,
Florida, unlike most other states, grants immunity from prosecution or arrest to
suspects who successfully invoke the "stand your ground" claim. And if a suspect
is arrested and charged, a judge can throw out the case well before trial based
on a self-defense claim.

That happened Wednesday in an unrelated case. A Miami judge dismissed a
second-degree murder case, citing the Stand Your Ground law and ruling that
25-year-old Greyston Garcia's testimony about self-defense was credible. The
Miami Herald reported that Garcia was charged after chasing down and stabbing to
death a 26-year-old suspected burglar in January.

I think nothing will come of this case.

That is just my honest opinion,nothing more.

the authors of this bill who will clearly state that Zimmerman's defense is not covered by the provisions in this bill.

Makes no difference, The way the law was written,he is covered and others have been covered as well.IMHO.

They may hang this guy, I just do not think the evidence (so far) supports arresting him.

He will serve time, period. I guarantee it.

they specifically told him he didn't need to pursue anyone.

Not a legal command and besides that,

The kid came to him and attacked him,

(as things stand right now)

self defense will hold up,

No conviction, More than likely,no trial.

your guarantee is worthless.

Clearly the Sanford City Manager is incapable of performing his duties. If the DA is advising him, they apparently don't want to be involved. If the Police Chief of Sanford cannot even do the right thing and voluntarily place himself on administrative leave or step down when the entire world is focused upon this tragedy, what does that say to their Duty to protect the citizens they sworn to serve? It is apparent that Local Leaders refuse to perform their Duty, they want to pass this on to the Grand Jury and the Federal Branch of Government Intervention by investigating the very incident that occurred within the boundaries of the City of Sanford. So, Republicans want smaller Government? Why are they incapable of managing their own State Laws? If the Stand Your Ground Law is so questionable that the Federal Government Branch has to perform an independent investigation of the events when apparently the Police Chief failed to perform those Duties, why is it still in effect? The Police Chief appears incompetent, the City Manager appears to be protecting his position as well as his own by deflecting direct questions. The sins of the leaders in Rubio and Bush are going to haunt them forever. This child's blood is now on the hands of every official who refuses to perform the clarity of their sworn duties to administer. FL is an Employment At Will State including all Civil Service Positions.

I think not, Ron. All we have to do is wait and see. I believe you are dead wrong, and time will prove it.

"Not a legal command". So what? He didn't have to chase the kid. He had the gun and did so anyway. Not self-defense, no matter how many times you claim otherwise.

Comment for Ron: considering you want to chip in few bucks to kill Zimmerman. Remember that he is hispanic and that is considered a hate crime.

Considering that everyone can read my comments,

You have shown yourself to be a liar.

You have just shown others not to trust anything you say.

Have a great day kid.

I believe you are dead wrong, and time will prove it.

I think the same of your opinion.

Not self-defense, no matter how many times you claim otherwise.

We will see.

Under the National Rifle Association-backed Florida law passed in 2005,
Florida, unlike most other states, grants immunity from prosecution or arrest to
suspects who successfully invoke the "stand your ground" claim. And if a suspect
is arrested and charged, a judge can throw out the case well before trial based
on a self-defense claim.

That happened Wednesday in an unrelated case. A Miami judge dismissed a
second-degree murder case, citing the Stand Your Ground law and ruling that
25-year-old Greyston Garcia's testimony about self-defense was credible. The
Miami Herald reported that Garcia was charged after chasing down and stabbing to
death a 26-year-old suspected burglar in January.

This case is a non starter, that is why Zimmerman is still at home.

That's just it: he WON'T be able to successfully claim "Stand Your Ground" status, since he DIDN'T stand his ground, he actively and voluntarily pursued the victim. Interestingly, if the kid was an adult with a CWP, HE could have "stood his ground" and shot Zimmerman without any controversy whatsoever. Just because Zimmerman had a gun and used it, doesn't mean he was following the letter or even the intent of the "Stand Your Ground" law. He has no apparent defense whatsoever, but again, I'm not familiar with how they formulate charges in Florida so I have no idea what the eventual charge might be. But, he will be charged and unless there is some kind of oddball technicality that his defense can use, he will be convicted. IMHO.

The shame of this is that the neighbors and commissioners who side with Zimmerman or basicly oking what he did..and that is shoot an unarmed boy to death for no reason..Questions should be asked like...was this boy breaking into anything..or, caught coming out of someones house ? The answeres are no to all...yet...this boy was shot to dealth...and it is being condoned by the police...the shooters neighbors..and some of the commissioners of Sanford. The 911 calls ...and hearing this boy call for help go a long way toward disproving all this zimmerman makes claims of,,alos the claims made by the police as of today. If this was turned around..and a white boy had been shot by a black using the same excuses..he would at this time be behind bars. Even a police officer who shoots and kills someone is taken off the job and street untill the investigation is done..hat makes this zimmerman better than everyone else ?

beanathome
I got my quotes from this article I do not claim to know any facts in this case. My statement is to let the police finish the investigation and not start a race war over speculation and rumors! People are on here making up their version of the “FACTS” or what could have happened, talking about race and killing Zimmerman. I believe the police know more about this case then anyone commenting on this site so we should let them do their job without demanding they be fired. After the Police and the D.A. have finished the investigation (YES IT”S ONGOING) then people can vent their frustrations about the outcome or the law. People continue to play the white-black card although the father of Mr. Zimmerman has said he is Hispanic. just because his name is not Martinez or Sanchez or some thing like that, so stop making this a white black thing. NOT EVERY THING IS BLACK AND WHITE!!!!
When is it ok to say someone is black? The fact is the kid was “BLACK” and in the 911 call he said the kid was black how is that racist? when giving a description to police the skin color is the only thing that can’t be changed, he could go around a corner and take off the black or blue hoodie (I don’t know the color) and have on a red or yellow shirt but he cant change his skin color, So why have police looking for an Asian, Indian, Hispanic or white guy if the suspect is black?

For argument sake lets say your in your gated community at night and its dark you see someone walking down the street and you walk up to him and ask if he lives around here. He tells you to f*** off then hit you and starts beating you, You pull your legal gun and shoot him then find out the guy was wanted for murder. Is that self defense even though you walked up to him? (not saying that’s what happened) but you did walked up to him he did not come after you!

Hear it for yourself.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj4RHJ0taoc

Sad story but same old story, unfortunately. I was hoping my children wouldn't have to face this kind of mindless bigotry but it is what it is..... Killed for being black and "not in his place" (as if we had a tier we are not allowed to leave....)

Here's to hoping for the grand kids.......

WMG, thank you for that. But all that shows is that the witness saw a fight, with Treyvon on top. It does NOT show that Treyvon attacked Zimmerman. Its actually important where this fight was, and how far away from Zimmerman's car, since he claims he was headed back to his car and was attacked from behind. I don't question what the witness says he saw, but I do question who attacked who, and what led to the shooting.

On the first point, I read your earlier post as meaning you felt Trayvon must have attacked Zimmerman because of his wounds. I guess I misread your post.

Unless you are the DA, you have no clue what will happen..your total apathy toward this tragedy makes you a sad individual.........

That's just it: he WON'T be able to successfully claim "Stand Your Ground" status, since he DIDN'T stand his ground

That's just it, The kid came to him and started the physical confrontation, no charges have been filed and Zimmerman will never be convicted.

Sanford's neighborhood watch handbook, which is also posted on the city's site, says that program participants' main role is to "observe and report suspicious activities" happening in their neighborhood to police.

"What you will not do is get physically involved with any activity you report or apprehension of any suspicious persons. This is the job of the law enforcement agency," it says in bold.

On another page that spells out watch members' responsibilities, the handbook says, "Remember always that your responsibility is to report crime. Do not take any risks to prevent a crime or try to make an arrest. The responsibility for apprehending criminals belongs to the police department."

For those of you still confused, "observe and report" are not synonymous with "pursue and murder". This guy was clearly seeking notoriety in this neighborhood. There was no threat! Candy and beverages are not menacing! He wanted to be known as "the guy that was responsible for getting the bad man breaking into houses". I ask all you Zimmerman supporters/haters of the race card: if this incident isn't an issue of race, then why the hell would Zimmerman make an emphasis to point out that the person he was stalking through the neighborhood was black? Why in the hell would that matter!? Skin color does NOT justify the way this guy acted. Period. Like he was expecting the 911 operator to say "Oh he's black!? Well that changes everything! Pursue away and make sure you shoot when you have him cornered!". "Oh but Trayvon was beating the guy from witness accounts so it was self defense!" So what if this guy was all bruised and battered, he was STALKING this kid with his gun out and ready! Fight or Flight response doesn't just apply to animals, look it up. Most individuals, higher chances amongst males, tend to go into fight mode after they've been cornered and when they feel as if their lives are in jeopardy. This kid was cornered by an idiot with a gun of course he went into fight mode!! Trayvon doesn't get a chance to defend his actions as self defense because he was murdered by this buffoon and his authority complex. Zimmerman was out for blood and he was looking for a reason to shoot someone. I hope they throw the entire book at him. He deserves whatever punishment, be it divine or otherwise, that comes his way. His self defense claim lost any and all credibility the moment he got out of his car and pursued this kid.

FYI, it isn't illegal to walk in the same direction as someone else... It isn't illegal to call out, yell, etc. in an attempt to get someone's attention. (Also, it isn't a legal requirement to respond to said attempts...)

It is, however, illegal to turn around and tackle/hit/get physical with a person you believe to be following you.

Should that be the case (which I'm assuming based on what I've read here... Chances are the cops felt the same way, based on their actions...) then the erroneous actions here were Martins. He didn't have to reply to Zimmerman- but he also didn't have to get physical with him. Zimmerman following the kid has no bearing on 'self defense' or not- the self defense situation didn't occur until ONE of them physically assaulted the other.

The only question that is left to be asked is who assaulted the other first?

Chances are the kid, rightfully irritated at being followed, turned around to confront the guy. It's entirely possible the kid felt unsafe himself, perhaps as to the possibility of becoming a victim to a crime. It sounds like, IF this were the case, the kid figured he'd be proactive instead of reactive- a VERY bad decision made in ignorance, not even considering that he is now dead.

ron-1902603

I see you are still wearing egg all over your face. ROFLMAO!

Zimmerman has a history of violence. His ex-fiance filed an injunction against him for violence. He got in a bar fight and afterward attacked the officer on scene. Now we are to believe that the teenager with NO RECORD AT ALL was the violent one and the guy with a HISTORY OF VIOLENCE was just peacefully walking with a loaded TEK 9 in his pocket. This is so sad and so far from justice!

Heres my look at this whole thing. You NEVER see Blacks outraged over a White killing a White and demand National Attention.

Blacks never get outraged over a black killing a White, and demanding National Attention.

Blacks never get outraged over a Black killing a Black and demanding National Attention

Here a White killed a Black and suddenly the whole Black community is outraged, demanding "Justice" and Screaming "Racism"

Well let me tell you, If Blacks ONLY get outraged over a White killing a Black, that makes all the outraged Blacks the actual Racists.

HOW DARE YOU say that only ONE kind of killing matters to you while you barely sniff in disgust over all others? Your only justification is because you are Racists. If you hate Whites that much, i feel sorry for you. But answer me this, do you think the Whites don't SEE that hatred?

I'm not going to pretend to know all the facts, but I'm pretty sure there is no reason not to have a trial.

radical 1, you should take a minute and read over your post. It seems like maybe you are not aware of how racist you sound.

It's more of an emotional issue than anything else. The racist fire was stoked the minute MSNBC ran the story. The original headline was kid killed because of the color of his skin. That right there already convinces people racism was involved before any facts were even read.

I will wait until the case is over before formulating any opinion on racism. And yes there should have been a case from day one.

He (Zimmerman) hunted him (Martin) down and killed him, plain and simple!! Zimmerman is one of the people who give guns and CCW permit holders a bad name/reputation!

He way overstepped his duties as an area watch patrol volunteer, he should have never left the confines of his vehicle (that is standard policy for most area watches,, never leave the patrol vehicle) observe and report, nothing more nothing less!!!

First, this will play all play out in the legal system and I will leave it up to the local authorities and the FBI to do so. I only have one additional opinion/observation to add. There are many citing the rule book for the local neighborhood watch as evidence that he knew he shouldn't pursue the kid. I wonder if he actually signed anything saying he read and understood the guide? This would add alot to the case if he had in fact "signed off" that he read and understood the manual.

If he hadn't signed off on it, who is to say that he actually read the manual? The same thing applies in Environmental and Safety Law. In the law's eyes, if there is no documentation for the training, it didn't happen. Lack of documentation of training could open the Neighborhood Watch to a civil suit. I would hope that nothign would happen to that organization as it appears they did everything within reason to prevent siutations like this.

Either way, my prayers go out to the young kid's family. No matter how the legal system carries out justice, this was an entirely preventable situation.

This is really very simple.

If Zimmerman started the fight, but then Martin went for Zimmerman's gun: then the most they can charge

Zimmerman with is assault.

If Martin started the fight, then went for Zimmerman's gun: they can't charge Zimmerman with anything.

I am assuming Zimmerman says Martin started the fight, and then went for Zimmerman's gun.

Which is likely what happened since there are no charges.

All the other info on this case is meaningless. Unless they have new evidence that Zimmerman is lying,

then there is no case.

So is there any witness that disputes Zimmerman's account?

NOPE.

Absolutely no one has disputed Zimmerman's account. In fact every witness descibes a fight before the

shooting.

You might not like it, but that's your emotions, not logic.

There is no evidence independent of Zimmerman as to who started the fight.

You are simply trying to make the facts fit your opinion.

The only witnesses simply heard a fight start. They have no way of knowing who started it.

And of course a person who is in neighborhood watch can ask a person if they live in the gated

community. When the person is evasive in answering or physically evasive, you certainly can follow

them. At that point, no laws were broken.

Can you imagine the police arresting Zimmerman for asking him if he lived there and then following him

when he wouldn't answer and took off?

Of course not. Had it ended there, no one would say Zimmerman should be charged.

So then it comes down to the fight itself. Namely, who started it. If Zimmerman says that Martin

started it, there simply is no evidence to the contrary.

Then (and I'm speculating here) I figure Zimmerman said that Martin went for his gun. Again, no

evidence to the contrary.

Without any evidence to the contrary, there is more than reasonable doubt for a murder charge. Heck, at

this point there is reasonable doubt for a assault/battery charge.

The police need evidence to prove Zimmerman is lying. They simply don't have it - hence why there are

no charges.

There are plenty of people the police would like to charge, but they have to have enough evidence to

actually get a conviction.

Despite all the trumped up racism and emotions of this case, Zimmerman is still the only witness.

WMG has tossed out so many scenarios, that one of them has to have an ounce of truth. Or maybe he's writing a movie script with multiple endings and trying them out here

(sorry my post 2.119 was unreadable)

This is really very simple.

If Zimmerman started the fight, but then Martin went for Zimmerman's gun: then the most they can charge Zimmerman with is assault.

If Martin started the fight, then went for Zimmerman's gun: they can't charge Zimmerman with anything.

I am assuming Zimmerman says Martin started the fight, and then went for Zimmerman's gun.

Which is likely what happened since there are no charges.

All the other info on this case is meaningless. Unless they have new evidence that Zimmerman is lying, then there is no case.

So is there any witness that disputes Zimmerman's account?

NOPE.

Absolutely no one has disputed Zimmerman's account. In fact every witness descibes a fight before the shooting.

You might not like it, but that's your emotions, not logic.

There is no evidence independent of Zimmerman as to who started the fight.

You are simply trying to make the facts fit your opinion.

The only witnesses simply heard a fight start. They have no way of knowing who started it.

And of course a person who is in neighborhood watch can ask a person if they live in the gated community. When the person is evasive in answering or physically evasive, you certainly can follow them. At that point, no laws were broken.

Can you imagine the police arresting Zimmerman for asking him if he lived there and then following him when he wouldn't answer and took off?

Of course not. Had it ended there, no one would say Zimmerman should be charged.

So then it comes down to the fight itself. Namely, who started it. If Zimmerman says that Martin started it, there simply is no evidence to the contrary.

Then (and I'm speculating here) I figure Zimmerman said that Martin went for his gun. Again, no evidence to the contrary.

Without any evidence to the contrary, there is more than reasonable doubt for a murder charge. Heck, at this point there is reasonable doubt for a assault/battery charge.

The police need evidence to prove Zimmerman is lying. They simply don't have it - hence why there are no charges.

There are plenty of people the police would like to charge, but they have to have enough evidence to actually get a conviction.

Despite all the trumped up racism and emotions of this case, Zimmerman is still the only witness.

This is a Human Rights issue...it is shameful. Where was Zimmerman treated for his injuries? Where are the Sanford Police Department Photographs of his injuries as evidence? Who will give a deposition or answer interrogatories to the extent of his injuries? Only a few unanswered questions that would truly defend Zimmerman. Only a qualified Medical Examination and report of Medical Treatment will be admissible evidence of "self-defense." Again, Police Investigation at the time of the incident should have reported and followed through on any attempts of self defense including Zimmerman's follow up medical treatment. Its amazing how little you all seem to "think" what constitutes a defense. Again, Trayvon Martin's Parents have two legal remedies without question and whatever the Federal Investigation will bear out.

I'm pretty sure that any time a kid ends up dead, it calls for at least a cursory investigation. At least screen the guy who pulled the trigger for drugs. At least take away his gun pending an investigation.

Realist-502574

I see you are still wearing egg all over your face. ROFLMAO!

Self defense.

that is how it stands now, you are the one with a sticky face.

Outrage comes to insure a real investigation in the matter to be performed. The family reached out to the public, and the public answered.

Has anyone bothered to actually read the Q&A from the Police Chief? At least before crucifying him for stepping back, read his responses (in full, and in context...) It actually gives parts of the report, and bits and pieces that I haven't read here as of yet.

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Zimmerman_Martin_shooting.pdf

Bonaparte, did the right thing if he fired Lee, this could fan the flames and this could very well become a racial issue being Bonaparte looks to be a person of color, how would the White's react too that, everyone needs to take a step back and let the Justice department do their job, I doubt that Zimmerman killed the kid just because he was Black, but he did single him out because he was Black, who knows it could have been an accidental discharge, but if that was the case he should have not lied, this whole thing hinges around Zimmermans claim that the kid followed him back to his car, which of course is most likely a lie, because that makes no sense, but looking at Zimmermans picture a pet Monkey would probably be more smart ....

OK Ron, you copied and pasted that a Witness said he saw the man in the red sweater under the other man, getting his *** handed to him. That's all well and good for a self defense claim, except that it still does not indicate HOW or WHO started the altercation. According to the girl friend, Trayvon Martin told her he wasn't going to run, but he was going to walk fast. That indicates to me, he was afraid and trying to get away. How does that suddenly eqwuate to Zimmerman being afraid for HIS life and shooting Trayvon?

If you ask me, Zimmerman caught up with Trayvon and tried to stop or apprehend him, and Trayvon decided to pursue HIS rights to "stand his ground" defense. It's too bad he didn't also have a gun to defend himself with. Maybe then we'd be hearing his side of the story instead of the neighborhood watch bully who disregarded all the watch handbook had to say about doing his responsibilities and followed someone he wasn't supposed to, tried to detain someone he also wasn't supposed to.

What it all boils down to is that one person is dead, and another is the fault of that. Had he followed the Handbooks guidelines, there would never have been an issue or altercation. You can all scream Self Defense until you're blue in the face, but it still comes down to Zimmerman NOT adhering to the guidelines. And his actions to me also indicate that HE was the aggressor, not Trayvon. Zimmerman was following Trayvon, not the other way around.

Why is anybody bothering answering Rons BS at all? Can't you see that he is just playing the neener neener card? He is currently right....that the jerk in question is home. However, in light of all that has come up, Ron will almost definitely be wrong about what ends up happening to this a&$hole. I'm really not sure how any intelligent person could possibly defends the actions of this guy....that's right, intelligent people can't. However....I will reserve my neener neener until after the trial...at which time, I suspect Ron will be nowhere to be found.

Gingersnaps

Outrage comes to insure a real investigation in the matter to be performed. The family reached out to the public, and the public answered.

Yep.. Real public support ... in NEW YORK. Isn't that one of the states that Florida is always telling to stay out of their legal issues?...hmmmm and 1000 does not equal 1 million if they even managed to get 1000.

Sam995

OK Ron, you copied and pasted that a Witness said he saw the man in the red sweater under the other man, getting his *** handed to him. That's all well and good for a self defense claim, except that it still does not indicate HOW or WHO started the altercation.

when was this,

it sure is not anywhere near your comment,

what context did I use it in?

what comment number is it?

Why is anybody bothering answering Rons BS at all? Can't you see that he is just playing the neener neener card? He is currently right

Well, I agree with the,He is currently right part.

WOW!!! I am so pleased to see all of the Florida legal experts and lawyers certified by Florida BAR in this forum! It makes me feel comfortable that FACT OF LAW and not emotions, presumptions, or assumptions are being made based of credible information released by the court as opposed to non-credible information published by the media to instigate a story.

Oh, wait that wasn't in this forum.....all I have read are presumtions, assumptions, and emotions based on an truly unfortunate incident's piss poor reporting. To make matters worse, the race card has been played. How sad and even more rediculous is that a standing member of the community and member of the counsel is acting truly unprofessional. Using a position of authority to bend the standing legal process by "implying" that unless the investigation is handled the way they feel is should then more people will be replaced. Pathetic!

There is an on going investigation and regardless of who is in charge, law cannot be changed at the will of the people's emotion or assumption. A grand jury has been convened to determine if criminal activity has happened. If so, there will be an arrest with charges and then a trial.

Mostly there is process and it works the way it is supposed to without outside interferance from those who haven't a clue, like this forum. The outcome may be very likely that the person involved is sent to prison or it might have been a justified action. Who knows?? I don't! I wasn't present for the incident, investigation, nor OFFICIAL testimony in the court.

Until then, I see a tragic incident and morn for the parent's loss. I feel for the AMERICAN's involved, both the victim and the person of interest. I do not see racism, hate, or a biligerant crime until the final outcome released by the court. To my knowledge, we are all innocent until PROVEN beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt. PERIOD.

I am ashamed that people act the way they do because a man of color was shot by another man who is of lighter skin. First thing thrown out is the race card. It is disgusting, truely. Parent's scream for justice, well it will happen. However, the outcome may not be what they want. Only the presiding authority will determine what is just based on city, county, state, and federal law. Not personal assumptions, presumptions, or wasted emotion.

I would HATE to see what happens in the community had it been the other way around where the victim and person of interest trade places. Does this situation gain the same attention? Does that race card get thrown out there? Do the city counsel members behave the same? I doubt it, but that is an assumption!

Get a grip people and let those who do what they are legally charged to do, do it!

This is the problem with this Nation.................................................................

From part of Zimmerman 911 call he states; they are not going to get away with it this time...what was that about?

No clear lines in what our laws are - and when an amateur vigilante thinks he does know the law, is when all hell breaks loose.

Gated community - first sign you may not be stable.

PS; I like candy - am I in danger?

They're are really getting it going. Even busing them in from Atlanta to protest. If that kid had been white and white people called for all this reaction you'd be lucky if four or five people even showed up.

Stand Your Ground laws do not protect someone who pursues another with the intent of initiating a confrontation. Zimmerman was the aggressor and he had no business stalking this kid. If he had not pursued Trayvon then Trayvon would still be alive. Zimmerman needs to see the inside of prison for the rest of his natural life.

@tex-478405

Your last sentence says it all. If you were forced to live in a diverse area you would want Ole Zim patrolling... To shoot people for being black in your neighborhood?

Blatant racist.

There was nothing to indicate that any crime had taken place. And, if the fairy tale scenario you described were true, and Trayvon had committed some crimes of which Zimmerman had no knowledge, Zimmerman could still not claim self defense as he had no authority to pursue. He is not in any way an LEO, just because he takes it upon himself to patrol his neighborhood.

Why am I not shocked at all the comments here both pro and con to convict. I have read all the stories and all I know for sure is that a young man is dead and the man responsible will be investigated. All the reactions including the city commissioners are going off of hearsay and emotions. This does nothing but fan the flames of hate. The D.A. will decide if charges are to be levied after a grand jury hearing. Most of the comments cannot separate fact from fiction, and no you can't just fill in the blanks with whatever you dream up. Give it some time people listen to the evidence presented then make an educated decision. I'm sorry for the loss of this young man and my heart goes out to his family, the shooter innocent or not will have to live with this for the rest of his life including all crap from people like the posters here.

I am not going off of hearsay. I am going off of the released 911 call. Zimmerman himself stated, along with multiple racist comments, he was following the kid and continued to do so even after being instructed not to. I am going off of a witnesses 911 call where Trayvon can be heard repeatedly screaming for help before he was shot and killed.

Zimmerman himself stated, along with multiple racist comments, he was following the kid and continued to do so even after being instructed not to.

First, there is only one supposed racial comment- and that is too muffled and muted to be verified (the 'coon' comment.) Second, the 'instruction' wasn't a lawful order he legally had to obey, and third- he wasn't breaking any law by trying to follow the kid and find out what was going on.

I am going off of a witness 911 call where Trayvon can be heard repeatedly screaming for help before he was shot and killed.

Which call was that? All of the witness statements I've seen and read so far seem to agree that Zimmerman was the one on the bottom yelling for help- before he shot the kid.

Those that look like "bay .. beeee" are taught to hate, confront, and intimidate. Just look at the mob of demonstrators for a good example.

If I were forced to live in a "diverse" area I woulde WANT Ole Zim patroling

Easy to say - until ol' zim, shoots your grandson. Bruce Lee could not catch a bullet, neither could his son... excuse me - what I meant to say was he could catch a bullet - before it hit him.

Until the Mushroom cloud goes off over your house - its real easy to contemplate using the bomb. Then its an ol' Patsy Cline tune playing on the juke box, in a dirty bar - "its crying time again...".

@TFNJ -- I hear you... I probably could have worded that comment a little better.

@Headhunter -- lolz... maybe I should be writing a script... In all seriousness though, I just want to stimulate peoples minds to the possibility of alternative scenarios. Whether or not one or the other is accurate is secondary to my goal of (hopefully) getting people to look at the situation objectively before crucifying this guy over some (obviously biased) media coverage. In any case, the initial cops botched the job in a number of ways.

@Mikayo is Rawr

You had me up until:

So what if this guy was all bruised and battered, he was STALKING this kid with his gun out and ready!

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the gun was in the open prior to the physical confrontation. Witness testimony seems to favor the scenario where the gun was drawn during the struggle.

Mike-416

ron-1902603

I can claim self defense any time I want.

Not if he's running away from you...LOL!

Is that so?

As critics assail Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law in the wake of the killing of an unarmed Miami Gardens teen in Sanford, a Miami-Dade judge on Wednesday cited the law in tossing out the case of a man who chased down a suspected burglar and stabbed him to death.

Greyston Garcia was charged with second-degree murder in the slaying of Pedro Roteta, 26, whom he chased for more than a block before stabbing the man.

The case illustrates the difficulty police and prosecutors statewide have experienced since the 2005 law eliminated a citizen’s duty to retreat in the face of danger, putting the burden on a judge, not a jury, to decide whether the accused is immune from prosecution.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/21/2706789/miami-judge-stabbing-in-the-back.html#storylink=cpy

The incident took place on Jan. 25, when Roteta and another youth were behind Garcia’s apartment at 201 SW 18th Ct. According to police, Roteta was stealing Garcia’s truck radio.

Garcia, alerted by a roommate, grabbed a large knife and ran downstairs. He chased Roteta, then stabbed him in a confrontation that lasted less than a minute, according to court documents.

The stabbing was caught on video. Roteta was carrying a bag filled with three stolen radios, but no weapon other than a pocketknife, which was unopened in his pocket and which police said he never brandished.

After initially denying involvement in the man’s death, Garcia admitted to homicide detectives that he attacked Roteta even though “he actually never saw a weapon.”

Garcia claimed Roteta made a move that he interpreted as a move to stab him — so he struck first.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/21/2706789/miami-judge-stabbing-in-the-back.html#storylink=cpy

Good news, as of 3:30 pm CSDT he has "temporarily" stepped down.

Why the hell is he the chief then if he's going to step aside when there is a 'possible' crime in his town????

Why the hell is he the chief then if he's going to step aside when there is a 'possible' crime in his town????

He is stepping down because this is such a hot button issue and he is being accused of handling the investigation improperly. I actually think it shows good leadership and humility for him to step aside and let someone else come in and take a look at the investigation he lead.

So why is it good judgment nearly one month following the incident? He was forced into "temporarily stepping down" from his position by a no-confidence vote and inaction on the part of his staff of investigators if you can call them investigators. The term thorough does not seem to exist within the scope of practice of these law enforcement officials otherwise why does there have to be a Federal Investigation on the part of DOJ? Unless it is politically strategic in removing the rediculous "stand your ground" statute. They turned this case over to the DOJ for reasons more powerful than the death ofan innocent child. Zimmerman will never be able to go anywhere in the world with this hanging over him regardless if he is charged or not. Someone who is this dangerously obsessive probably has no conscience.

Since All written statements seem to back up Zimmerman,the scene backed up Zimmerman and the cops backed up Zimmerman.

It was ruled self defense.

Now that people that were not there and had made no statement are coming forward with what they think may have happened.

They will look at it again,then rule it as,

Self defense.

So why is it good judgment nearly one month following the incident?

I'm sure there wasn't as big of a 'fuss' until now.... Nothing made it necessary for him to step back until now.

They will look at it again,then rule it as,

Unless more comes out, I generally agree with this... But they may let it fly with a manslaughter charge, just to try to calm the public. Some would rather let that battle out in court and clarify the law with precedent for future cases, than run too high of a risk of rioting.

JS in SD, I agree with every single item in your reply. Except your statistics. I'm going off memory here, and I'm old so bare with me. He called the police something like 14 times, 9 of which were to report suspicious black persons. The other calls were for mundane reports such as people leaving their garage doors open, and unattended children playing in the street at dusk (apparently white kids as he didn't shoot them). The relevant item is that, yes, EVERY "suspicious individual" he reported was black. The man belongs in prison, period. The Stand Your Ground law is only pertinent because HE BROKE IT. Had the kid killed HIM It would have been justified by Stand Your Ground. Have you signed the petition? I can't recall the website but I'm sure you can google it. Wife and I and every friend we could get in touch with have done so, so PLEASE look it up and add your name.

Ryan in Texas, you've either been skimming the articles or reading as you choose, my friend. The witnesses that came forth BEFORE an investigation became imminent claimed Zimmerman chased and cornered him. Zimmermans own comments make him sound like a fed up racist who'd had enough of them "getting away with this" all the time. Every report he ever made of a "suspicious person" involved a black male. His claim that he'd gotten out of the car to read the street sign (just up the street from HIS OWN HOUSE in his OWN SUBDIVISION) are ludicrous to the point of being insulting. No, the dispatchers advice not to pursue was just that, advice, but his attitude on the 911 tape made it clear he would not have stopped if it HAD been an order. The witnesses who came forward stating Zimmerman did NOT start the fight all did so AFTER it became clear an investigation would be opened. As someone else noted this MAN had at least 40 pounds (I'm thinking more like 60) on this kid, a good 4+ inches of reach, and at least a half a foot. If the young man went for his gun it well could have been in trying to save his OWN LIFE.

The content of the 911 call that Zimmerman made clearly demonstrates that he was the aggressor and initiated the confrontation. He had no business approaching Trayvon. A self appointed neighborhood watch title does not give him authority to chase people for being black in his neighborhood and then shoot them for it.

I went through the training class and I have a permit to carry. What we were taught is that you cannot pursue someone and then claim self defense. The chief needed to step down. That department needs to be overhauled and the officers retrained on exactly what constitutes self defense and how the Stand Your Ground law applies. Maybe the next time some vigilante chases someone down and murders them he will be arrested and tried.

Profiling is the cause of this problem, people don't get it a person who fits a profile is guilty until proved innocent, but I hate to say this White people don't see this as a problem because they are not the ones that gets profiled, if they were they would be crying the loudest believe me, it's like TSA and the searches, because they don't profile, White people bitch and whine constantly, but the reality is they don't care as long as it does not affect them ...

Ron B-781152

I went through the training class and I have a permit to carry. What we were taught is that you cannot pursue someone and then claim self defense. The chief needed to step down. That department needs to be overhauled and the officers retrained on exactly what constitutes self defense and how the Stand Your Ground law applies. Maybe the next time some vigilante chases someone down and murders them he will be arrested and tried.

WHICH class did you attend and WHEN Ron? If it wasn't in Florida and if it was before 2005 your training does NOT apply. There is NO TRAINING requirement in FL. Click here to see the requirements. Outside the federal restrictions all that FL requires is that you demonstrate proficiency with a gun.

Read the FL LAW. Don't base it on other states laws. If you think your state law is the same you are in for a surprise. The aggressor clause is not there.

It seems to me, though, that Zimmerman was not "standing his ground" when he chased a teenager who was running from him.

You're damn right on that one. Did you hear the ignorant things he called the kid while he chased him down and killed him? It is clear from his own words that he had only one intention, and that was to play at vigilante. He wanted blood and he chased down an innocent kid to got it, I'm sorry, but that is not standing your ground. Unless, of course, his 'ground' was that of a piece of @!$%# murderer racist, in which case he did exactly that.

jerryb-1604912 "It seems to me, though, that Zimmerman was not "standing his ground" when he chased a teenager who was running from him."

Unfortunately, that is not the test of whether his actions were legal. Citizens have the right to make arrests, and while Zimmerman showed extremely poor judgment in chasing the youth, what he did was not illegal. It all hinges on what happened at the moment of confrontation, and we only have Zimmerman's version, supported by physical evidence.

It may not be 'fair', but there may just not be 'sufficient evidence' to make an arrest. Unfortunately, this happens all the time with criminals. In my review of a criminal justice textbook many years ago, it showed that, out of 100 crimes committed, only about 3% actually resulted in the arrest and successful prosecution and incarceration of the criminal responsible. That means that, for every criminal actually locked up, they probably got away with about 30 other crimes, on average.

Exactly, standing your ground is just that, standing your ground. It is not nor will it be 'actively chasing down a fleeing suspect'. The idea that this is falling under that law is abusive of the spirit in which the law was created. You have every right to defend yourself, however this man didn't. He called the police, made statements that showed he was already prejudice against the poor young man, then followed him after the operator specifically told him not to. At no point when he started chasing after the boy did he act in 'self defense' and it's sickening that cops are using this law to protect him.

If you stalk someone it is not self defense. He is a grown man, he called police, they told him not to act, he disobeyed got out of his truck and chased a KID down the street, then murdered him. Explain what part of that is self-defense because you must have taken a different law school program than I did. If Trayvon did anything to defend himself that would have been in self-defense, but Zimmerman, definitely not!

And Roy, at least in the state of Texas, it is not self-defense if someone is getting away from you and you chase to kill. It is only an act of self-defense if they are charging at you and you need to stop them. Although in this circumstance as Zimmerman was stalking Trayvon, if Trayvon did attempt to defend himself and Zimmerman proceeded to shoot him Zimmerman's actions still would not be self-defense as he initiated the confrontation.

Well thank you for that disrespectful and negative tone... One could argue that Zimmerman did repeatedly, persistently and maliciously harass Trayvon, as he followed him in his truck then (dispite being told not to) proceeded to follow him on foot. That is both repeated and persistent. His intents were malicious and harrassing, especially as the 911 transcript shows that he was using racial slurs when talking about the boy. I'm not claiming to know Florida laws, I'm just saying that there is definitely a case against Zimmerman from the facts that have repeatedly been provided through various news outlets. And that is not talking out of my rear.

Leatherneck,

What difference does it make whether Zimmerman stalked the kid once or 100 times? It only takes one instance of pursuing with deadly intent to create a situation where you have an innocent dead kid.

In the animal world predators stalk their prey, keeping a close eye on their movements, slyly following them, tracking them. When they feel the time is right, they make their move, chase their prey down, and kill it. I see very little distinction, other than the fact that Zimmerman wasn't hunting for food, between a predator stalking its prey and Zimmerman stalking Martin.

It may not be the legal definition of "stalking," in terms of considering it a crime, but stalking it was. What he did was absolutely wrong in all ways.

Don't people like you always talk about "personal responsibility?" Or does that only count when someone smokes a joint at home? Zimmerman killed a kid, for no reason, and you aren't holding him responsible in any way shape or form. Hello! There was an actual VICTIM in this case... this is a situation where personal responsibility ACTUALLY MATTERS!

allie-2746746: By your definition yes, but not by law. Had say the kid went into his dads unit and ZIM continued to stay out side and say a couple of hours later the kid came back out. Then ZIM again continued to follow the kid that would be stalking.

Better example say your at the mall you see this hot chick or guy what ever your preference is. You start to follow her or him, yet your trying to figure out how to approach him or her. As your following him or her, they notice you following them so they go in to the food court area, but its empty. As you walk up to him or her you start to ask them questions. Yet him or her pulls out a can of mace and maces you. Guess what, where you stalking them. No did they assault you YES.

To prove repeated, persistent and malicious harassment for stalking will be very hard since ZIM has by any account never had any contact with this KID.

ConstitutionThumper: pursuing with deadly intent=Prove it, prove that ZIM in his mind was following the kid so he could kill him. YOU CANT. Unless your a mind reader and I dont think you are.

Ok, Leatherneck, would you prefer the word "hunting"? Does that one work better for you? After all, that is the snse inwhich people are using the word "stalking," not the technical, legal sense of the word.

You are right Allie.

If some stranger, who is NOT a LEO, was pursuing me at night, I'm going to assume they intend me harm. If they catch up to me, and I feel like there is no way for me to get away from them, I'm coming out swinging. And I'll do everything in my power to incapacitate my pursuer, or make him flee, even if that means I have to beat the crap out of him.

Does that suddenly give my pursuer the right to claim self-defense?

What about all the bullies I had to deal with growing up. On at least half of those occasions, I managed to win the fight they started, despite them being larger than me. Do those bullies suddenly have the right to shoot me, just because I managed to kicked their butts when they came after me?

Zimmerman is a bully and a punk, just like the guys who used to come after me in school. And just like them, he deserved to get his butt kicked.

It doesn't matter if he was pursuing with deadly intent or not. The kid is dead because Zimmerman was "stalking" him, with heightened suspicions, anger, and the thought that "they" always get away. His own buddy in the watch program said he was reacting to Martin with a lot of anger and tension due to the recent property crimes in the area.

A prejudiced man (and by that, I mean one who jumps to conclusions about someone else, not necessarily due to race), as Zimmerman clearly was when describing Martin to the 911 dispatchers, carrying a gun, with a chip on his shoulder, intent on personally putting a stop to break ins, is a good mashup of circumstance to end in the death of someone. He acted irresponsibly, and if anyone would have the right to self-defense in this case, under the law, it would have been MARTIN, since MARTIN was the one being threatened and confronted (most likely in a hostile manner according to the way Zimmerman was acting prior to the scuffle) by a much larger, older man, for NO REASON.

Yet you don't defend Martin, you defend the aggressor who ended up shooting Martin.

If I walk into a bar and get up in someone's face and threaten them, do I have the right to kill them if they defend themselves? That would seem to be your position.

Ok Zim may not have been guilty of stalking, at the same time he also has no protection of the stand your ground defense when in reality he was the aggressor. Anyway you try to spin it this guy was out of control and should be in jail at the very least his gun permit taken away.

ConstitutionThumper and saddened-1829725: Does not matter what words you use, what you think, what you expect. Does not matter.

Its the Law and the WORDING of the law that it will come down is ZIM is Guilty or not Guilty.

Following someone is not against the law unless you do it repeated ( BY LAW that means more than one contact, not the same one. Like following someone for it to be stalking has to be multiple contacts not just one and following.

Talking or asking question of someone is not against the law.

Making Racial Remarks is not against the law.

Being an Idiot is not Aginst the law.

Being black is not against the law.

Being an idiot with a CCWis not against the law.

What is against the law is using Physical Force, uses of bodily fluids, touching someone against there will. In a criminal case like this one it comes down to WHO ASSAULTED WHO FIRST and was the USES OF DEADLY FORCE AUTHORIZED UNDER FLORIDA LAW. That's all that matters in this criminal case. Once it goes to a civil case ZIM will be found responsible for his action do to Criminal and Civil cases are totally different in how they determine guilt and innocents. You can be found innocent of Murder but be charged guilty of responsibility for that person being dead by your actions.

Mike-3849834: Just following and trying to talk or question someone does not make anyone an Aggressor. If that was the case allot of Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons would be getting there ***es handed to them daily.

A citizen has the right to make a citizen's arrest for the commission of a crime, not for the suspicion that someone may have or may plan on committing a crime. Walking down the street with his hoodie up in the rain is not a crime. Running away from a stalker is not a crime. Having an iced tea, skittles and a cell phone in his hand are not crimes. Zimmerman by his own admission was chasing Martin even when the police dispatcher told him not to and to let the police handle it. He had no evidence that Martin had or was intending to do anything wrong. Zimmerman had no authority to stop and question Martin and Martin had no obligation to respond to any questions by Zimmerman unless he wanted to. When someone is chasing you when you have done nothing wrong you have no idea what their intentions are. Zimmerman was the aggressor which gave Martin the right to defend himself under the stand your ground law. To say that Zimmerman had the right to defend himself under the stand your ground law just because Martin may have ended up getting the better of him when he defended himself is ludicrious.

Zimmerman is an idiot and he provoked this incident, but the issue is not clear of how he and the kid ended up on the ground with the kid on top having the upper hand, as testified by witnesses. If Zimmerman grabbed, pushed or touched this kid, he is the one that started the fight and has no right to shoot the kid, but even if he followed the kid and the kid, understandably got upset because of being followed by this clown and started the attack and beat Zimmerman up, then Zimmerman still has the right to defend himself.

I think this part is what the police is seeking help to investigate. Based on the witnesses accounts Zimmerman was under the kid being beat up.

I don't think you should be rushing the police to act before the investigation is done, it seems like a mob demand.

A neighbor said she witnessed Zimmerman jump on the kids back. Who initiated what?

Sorry, you are wrong. Zimmerman was chasing Martin (not just following), and under the stand your ground law if Martin felt he was in iminent danger from Zimmerman, MARTIN would be within his rights to defend himself, which it seems is what he did. Zimmerman was the instigator and was not within his rights to use the stand your ground law. Without the stand your ground law it would be a different story.

Jan-21270 & Donna P-2692688 Source of my comment.

"The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911," said the witness, who asked to be identified only by his first name, John.

John said he locked his patio door, ran upstairs and heard at least one gun shot.

"And then, when I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point."

Read more:

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/022712-man-shot-and-killed-in-neighborhood-altercation

Donna P-2692688 Also, I can follow and chase you all I want, as long as I don't touch you I'll be fine, but if you just touch me because you are upset of my chasing, you commit assault and I can shoot you if I fell threaten.

Donna P-2692688: Romilio said it. I can run, walk, follow you, talk to you, question you. Yet what I cant do is Touch you at that point it becomes assault and you have a right to defend yourself not before. The only way for you to be able to uses force is if I am holding a weapon.... by the way having a CCW or carry my weapon in the open say like AZ laws in a open holster. Does not mean then you can assault me since my weapon is not in my hands. I have to be assaulting you or holding a weapon in my hands and advancing towards you before you can legally uses force against me, not before.

By the way: A citizen has the right to make a citizen's arrest for the commission of a crime, not for the suspicion that someone may have or may plan on committing a crime.

Your right, but he was not making a citizens arrest was he. All he did was follow the kid and started to ask him questions. Last time I checked that would not be citizens arrest that would be just following and asking questions.

This is a different case, a white women was chased and shouted at by a black male during evening hours. After almost a block of chase, the women turned around and open fire, killing the man.

The women dropped her purse and the man was trying to return it.

I think people are reacting too quick when they are followed, because they are afraid. Perhaps Zimmerman was trying to ask "Are you from here?" or "Where are you staying at?", we don't know and we still don't know who touched (assaulted) who first.

thumbs up.

Leather is correct.

Mr. Zimmerman was NOT stalking this kid by the letter of the law. He WAS however, stalking the neighborhood if would seem, 46 calls to 911 in 19 months. Do you know anyone, ANYONE that has called 911 46 times in their entire lifetime?

@Leatherneck918: Come on, you're smarter than that (or maybe not, I don't know you).

It's completely obvious that "stalk" is not being used in the context of repeatedly harassing and following someone over a period of time; it's used as an intransitive verb meaning "to move threateningly or menacingly" or "to track prey or quarry."

The English language: it can be your friend.

gdsmithtx: The term "stalking" is used in a variety of ways, many of which have little to do with the criminal law's use of the term. The resultant potential for confusion is rarely recognized. Even professionals in the field of stalking do not always distinguish between the term "stalking" in common usage and as a criminal law term. For example, the threat assessment literature often uses the phrase "celebrity stalking," while at the same time noting that such "stalkers" do not usually provide the victim with advance notice of a planned attack.

ROY WILSON-336103

Unfortunately, that is not the test of whether his actions were legal. Citizens have the right to make arrests, and while Zimmerman showed extremely poor judgment in chasing the youth, what he did was not illegal.

There is a very fine line between making a legitimate citizens arrest and assault.

Mike-416; Your right there is a very very fine line about making a citizens arrest. Yet following someone and trying to talk to them or question them does not=Citizens arrest. For a citizens arrest you have to verbally or physical hold them and tell them that they are under arrest and what for.

Thank you!!!!!

The only way for you to be able to uses force is if I am holding a weapon..

False.

Donna P-2692688

Sorry, you are wrong.

ron-1902603: Ok ron so you think just because someone is following you and you noticed this person has a weapon in a holster on his hip gives you the right to uses force against that person?

So basically I'm following you do to you're acting suspicious to me, I have my gun in a holster on my hip by law is legal. As I'm following you, you take a wrong turn to a dead end. I come around the corner and say hey who are you what are you doing here? You pull out a concealed fire arm and shoot me dead. Are you justified **** no. Your uses of force does not meet the justification of Deadly force.

Now lets say:

So basically I'm following you do to you're acting suspicious to me, I have my gun in a holster on my hip by law is legal. As I'm following you, you take a wrong turn to a dead end. I come around the corner with my gun in my hand. You pull out a concealed fire arm and shoot me dead. Are you justified **** Yes you are. Your uses of force meet the justification of Deadly force.

Does anyone else get a little sickened that the witnesses who saw this kid being pinned to the ground and attacked, did nothing but lock their doors and hide? I realize one has to think of safety however if just one person had gone to help instead of putting their heads in the sand, maybe this kid would still be alive.

Lyrica: really please cite source?

Lyrica-

Most get a little sickened when someone makes comments that twist, or have nothing to do with what occurred.

The reality- the GUY was pinned to the ground and attacked by the KID- not the opposite.

So any 'sickening' to occur would be due to your comment, not to actions of people who did what they were taught to do- lock your doors and call the cops, DON'T get involved because you don't know when someone will draw a gun.....

ron-1902603: Ok ron so you think just because someone is following you and you noticed this person has a weapon in a holster on his hip gives you the right to uses force against that person?

No, I never said that at any time, show me where I ever said anything even close to that,if you can..

So basically I'm following you do to you're acting suspicious to me, I have my gun in a holster on my hip by law is legal. As I'm following you, you take a wrong turn to a dead end. I come around the corner and say hey who are you what are you doing here? You pull out a concealed fire arm and shoot me dead. Are you justified **** no. Your uses of force does not meet the justification of Deadly force.

Now lets say:

So basically I'm following you do to you're acting suspicious to me, I have my gun in a holster on my hip by law is legal. As I'm following you, you take a wrong turn to a dead end. I come around the corner with my gun in my hand. You pull out a concealed fire arm and shoot me dead. Are you justified **** Yes you are. Your uses of force meet the justification of Deadly force.

Pure fictional story telling on your end, you should add a few more characters.

Romilio said:This is a different case, a white women was chased and shouted at by a black male during evening hours. After almost a block of chase, the women turned around and open fire, killing the man.

The women dropped her purse and the man was trying to return it.

So when are where exactly did this happen? Sorry, but I don't believe it at all. "Almost one block" isn't very much of a chase. Sounds like an urban legend to me.

Leather~ The article looks like it has changed since I last posted however here is another link:

http://www.whitecivilrights.com/?m=20120321

John: “The guy on the bottom (Zimmerman) who I believe had a red sweater on was yelling to me ‘help, help’. I told him (Trayvon) to stop (beating Zimmerman) and called 911.

Narration: John locked his patio door, ran upstairs and heard at least one gun shot.

John: And then when I got upstairs and looked down, the person (Trayvon), who was on top, beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass and I believe he was dead at that point.”

There are a couple other links but it looks like most of them are discussion links so I'll have to look further into it, I was mistaken about who was on top though so for that I apologize.

Zanilth~ My apologies I did misread and thought the guy had the kid pinned. Now here's what you can do. Realize that people make mistakes. Either way, it may not be smart, but if I saw two people fighting I would try to break it up. Now a days people stand there and instigate fights by egging combatants on, or hide in a corner and to me, that makes me sick. There is a stunning lack of concern for fellow human beings, whether or not you agree with it is on you. I may be the next victim trying to help but at least I won't be a coward and I won't have the death of (in this case) a child on my conscience. I'm sorry if I 'sickened' you with that, hopefully the bathroom is close by to you.

Realize that people make mistakes.

I know people make mistakes. In this case, yours was a reading mistake. Perhaps pay slightly more attention, (re: slow down a bit when reading) or read over a few comments on the specific post you're replying to. Most mistakes on this specific discussion are regarding how the self defense law applies in this case. Most think as soon as he stepped out of his car, he lost that- most are wrong.

Now a days people stand there and instigate fights by eggign combatants on, or hide in a corner and to me, that makes me sick.

Believe it or not- me too. However, I don't expect everyone to be able to have the fortitude to step into a fight and break it up themselves. Not everyone can handle that, and I don't expect MOST people to be able to- especially not as far as things go today.

Considering that MOST people likely couldn't handle that responsibility while knowing what goes on in fights nowadays, I won't bastardize people for not doing what it takes a LOT of courage to do. Instead, I'll advise regular groups of people (such as the group of people on here reading, you to be included in that group) to generally do what law enforcement usually states to do- the safest thing, which is to separate yourself from the situation to where you are safe, and then call the cops.

Dealing with violence isn't YOUR job- but it is THEIRS.

Dealing with violence isn't YOUR job- but it is THEIRS.

Agreed it's not my job, but chances are the police are 5 minutes away when it can only takes seconds to turn from a fight to murder. Like I said, whether or not you agree is on you. Personally if I can stop a fight, huzzah.

Agreed it's not my job,

Ok- and to the individuals who have the courage and ability to do such, that's awesome.

YOU need to not forget that NOT EVERYONE can or will- and you ultimately cannot blame them for choosing personal/family safety over something like that. That is how your average people are taught- safety, and flight over fight.

Lyrica

Dealing with violence isn't YOUR job- but it is THEIRS.

Agreed it's not my job, but chances are the police are 5 minutes away when it can only takes seconds to turn from a fight to murder. Like I said, whether or not you agree is on you. Personally if I can stop a fight, huzzah.

Most people are going to err on the side of caution and not risk being the one who is murdered. If you aren't law enforcement or SUPERMAN it is best to leave it sort out or let police handle things. Even police will use non contact methods to stop the fight before getting physically involved. Nothing like two people duking it out and a third party steps in and they gang up on them.

Dealing with violence isn't YOUR job- but it is THEIRS.

If someone attacks you,you better make it your job if you want to survive.

If someone attacks you,you better make it your job if you want to survive.

Most definitely. I was mainly referring to being a witness to a possible violent crime, calling 911 instead of jumping in... Some don't have the courage to jump in and try to help someone- and in some cases, it's quite understandable.

I agree.

I do not think being innocent will be good enough for Zimmerman.

I do not believe that there is any proof at all that Zimmerman broke the law,but there is a mob justice mentality out there right now and the law is starting to bend under pressure to what I consider to be organised extortion and obstruction of justice.

I do not think it will benefit Zimmerman to stay in the US any longer, the President and all the leaders calling for his head as if they know what happened should be ashamed of what they have done to this man without proof of guilt. Not one person in power has said a word about giving the man a chance.

I think if i were you Zimmerman, i would haul @ss out of here. IMHO

Well Wylde, you can keep that law which, in this case, Is the Whole Problem. That law labels your state (and any state w/a law like that) as the Wild,Wild West! I certainly won't be spending anymore tourist dollars there; I'd feel safer vacationing in a Mexican border town!

How 'bout this? You rename that law the Stand-Your-Ground-Let's-Have-an-Argument-Lose-Our-Tempers-and-Shoot-Each-Other-To-Death-in-the-Street-Let-Passerbys-Beware Law!

Pretty catchy, no?

Really, the law is the whole problem??? No, a racist moron is the problem. Since the law passed I don't believe there has been an upswing in the number of killings where the killer claimed self-defense. People should be able to protect themselves. THIS WAS CLEARLY NOT THE CASE HERE! Don't blame the law, blame the person responsible, and the police for not doing there job properly.

Mmm I don't think that's exactly correct. Since the law has been enacted, self defense has tripled in murder cases in Fl. Found this from a news article:

Florida Department of Law Enforcement statistics show that before the law was enacted in 2005, there were about 13 justified killings each year by citizens from 2000 to 2005. Between 2006 and 2010, the average has risen to 36 justified killings each year.

I was living in largo fl when this law came into affect ... not a week later a PUPPY was stabbed several times because a man "felt threatened" come on ... this law was a mistake on Jeb Bush's part and left florida open to "wild west" tactics .. the only people who could even agree with it would be someone who thinks it is ok to "deputize" citizens and have lynch mobs ... self defense is more clearly defined and this law could, and obviously has, caused more problems than it solved.

actually @middle you are incorrect...statistics and facts show that the number of killings have TRIPLED since the time that this law has taken effect with the majority of ppl claiming the stand your ground law as their defence.....research it and see.

Florida has a big problem with racism as does most of the south...it goes back to the days of slavery and even now being turned against the undocumented

Florida has made murder legal, congratulations gun owners, you win.

Jan,

I have had guns all my life. I have never killed anyone. That also goes for millions of gun owners that are law abiding citizens. I agree that the Florida law is stupid. Gun owners are not the problem.

BTW how many people were killed last year by drunk drivers? When do we outlaw alcohol? Cigaretts? Football? Obesity? Anyone of these kills far more people each year than guns.

TXHorseman

BTW how many people were killed last year by drunk drivers? When do we outlaw alcohol? Cigaretts? Football? Obesity? Anyone of these kills far more people each year than guns.

Nonsensical analogies. When was the last time someone went up to someone else and killed them with a cigarette or their fat belly (and please skip the second hand smoke response)?

Its not so much about you being able to kill yourself with tobacco or sugar - its about you taking someone elses life.

Interesting speculation on Zimmerman's Defense. I'm sure he will appreciate it. If the City of Sanford, County of Seminole AND the State of Florida cannot even interpret their own flawed laws and must call upon the Federal Government to interpret them...Where did you go to Law School Leatherneck? What is your practice area? The facts will bear out, the Martin Family has, can and will satisfy all elements required within a Criminal and Civil Suit. Failure to perform Duty. Breach of Duty. Intent (given the publicized data) evidenced by cell phone transcripts. Causation...Death of an indefensible minor. So far, the evidence released for public information satisfies all of these elements. Zimmerman appears to have very little within his line of defense. The Officials are all in Breach of their Duty to perform. There have been some very intelligent questions asked and evasive, deflecting indirect, answers. Apparently some very large political positions are at stake here.

Zimmerman does not need a defense.

No crime has been committed.

If they decide to charge him with a crime and he is found guilty,then he will have problems.

Right now it is written up as self defense, if it stays that way he will more than likely be given immunity from any civil suit.

Mike 416,

Then I stand by my drunk driver debate. I will give you your point on the remainder. I think I am pretty clear on the facts given the votes on my posts over the last three days on this subject matter.

I agree that this kid was murdered, but Jan is trying to grand stand with it!

Ron said: "Right now it is written up as self defense, if it stays that way he will more than likely be given immunity from any civil suit."

And why is that? Trayvon's parents can sue him for wrongful death just like Ron Goldman's family sued OJ Simpson. And won.

Hey Ron; You say Zimmerman doesn't need a defense. Why don't you ask HIM that. I'll bet he is seriously thinking of fleeing the state right now, if he hasn't already done that. Does anybody actually know where he is?

A really dumb anology.

The difference is that cars and football weren't invented for the purpose of ending lives.

"What analogy are you talking about headhunter?

And why is that? Trayvon's parents can sue him for wrongful death just like Ron Goldman's family sued OJ Simpson. And won.

You are another proof of exactly how many people don't really know what they are talking about in reference to this case.

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Zimmerman_Martin_shooting.pdf

The publicly released Q&A with the former chief, that states the exact law and code protecting someone who killed in self defense from criminal AND civil charges. The information IS out there, yet people formulate opinions without actually knowing what the facts are that are relevant to this case and locality...

OJ Simpson was a completely different case, with different standards, etc. Why would you even come close to considering them in the same light?

There is obviously a bloody, political trail that leads to the very top of FL Government. Why else would the Fed. Gov't. be required to step in? Doing nothing and allowing Zimmerman to go without thorough investigation, in complete consideration of the fact that the child was a minor with no apparent reason of being suspect (in a REASONABLE tresspass investigation at the very least), justifies termination in an At Will Employment State. All kinds of red flags would have gone up if an experienced, law enforcement official were presented with these circumstances. This was a beautiful young man. It would make me sick if I saw someone's child lying dead, weaponless with a grown man twice his size along side of him. If this did not spark any questions in the minds of Police Officers answering that call, they don't deserve to wear a badge.

I have a question. Where is this racist tub of lard? And EVERYONE NEEDS TO LOOK AT IT AS WHAT IF THIS WAS MY SON? What if that bullet had of missed or traveled into one of the houses and hit someone's child? Think long and hard about all of this before Zimmerman gets a PASS! He needs to do some sort of time weither it be for manslaughter or murder or on civil rights violations. He can hang out in San Quentin with the kkk members as they beat him and tell him what they think of him.

I totally agree, this over-zealous wannabe cop is the real danger. The fact that he STILL hasn't been charged is a travesty. My heart aches for the family of this young man, who made the mistake of encountering this nutjob playing cop.

And MSNBC, have you no shame, employing the likes of Al Sharpton, one of the biggest racists in the country! This man also has blood on his hands - didn't you ever hear of Crown Heights? Tawana Brawley? I can't believe you'd try to give a sliver of credibility to this charletain. SHAME ON YOU MSNBC.

What rent-a-cop? He was a volunteer neighborhood watch person, Ronnie. Read the info again. He's not a security professional. He has no more jurisdiction than you or I, watching our houses at night from our car or pickup truck.

This was your next-door-neighbor, killing another neighbor's son. That's what makes it so despicable, so heinous. It's appalling.

I find these so-called witness reports that Zimmerman was on the bottom getting the crap beaten out of him dubious at best.First because it is coming from Fox News and second because the victim was a skinny 14 year old with skittles,a drink and a cell phone in hand and Zimmerman was a burly adult with a wannabe vigilante attitude. At the time Martin was shot his girlfriend was on the phone with him,how did he handle the skittles,drink,cell phone & conversation and still beat the crap out of someone twice his size?

Peridot; Thre are some who question if this guy was even a legetimate neighborhood watch person.

Joe F Las Vegas

I find these so-called witness reports that Zimmerman was on the bottom getting the crap beaten out of him dubious at best.First because it is coming from Fox News and second because the victim was a skinny 14 year old with skittles,a drink and a cell phone in hand and Zimmerman was a burly adult with a wannabe vigilante attitude. At the time Martin was shot his girlfriend was on the phone with him,how did he handle the skittles,drink,cell phone & conversation and still beat the crap out of someone twice his size?

Just what story are you reading? The victim was 17 not 14 and had at some point been on a football team. You did read that the phone was dropped then the call dropped? Just how was he managing skittles, drink AND a cell phone or did he have 3 hands? Why are the witnesses wrong other than it doesn't fit you outcome? As to someone beating the tar out of someone larger might be because one was in better physical shape????? There is also the statement that he jumped Zimmerman from behind.. which I am having trouble believing but I wasn't there. Witnesses picked things up with the two on the ground and one or both yelling for help. The "girlfriend" was not physically present, the conversation was not recorded, and she would only be guessing at best as to who touched who first.

Peridot; Thre are some who question if this guy was even a legetimate neighborhood watch person.

Would make no difference if he never was a neighborhood watch person.

There is also the statement that he jumped Zimmerman from behind.. which I am having trouble believing but I wasn't there.

The cops believed it and that's the way they wrote it up, If there is no proof that it did not happen that way,Then Zimmerman can not be convicted.

temporarily stepped down

So what is that.........it sounds like a paid vacation.

Right now Sharpton is on his way to New York to a rally for Trayvon Martin. When is this guy going to quit riding the coat tails of grieving parents?

"When is this guy going to quit riding the coat tails of grieving parents?"

Probably when racist bigots stop shooting black kids with nothing more than juice and skittles and getting away with it. Sharpton adds a much needed voice to these kinds of incidents. The guy looks out for the less fortunate and the victims of prejudice, he's a warrior for the unprivileged.

schoolyard, it takes courage to stand up for what's right, and to fight aginst the evils in America. You sound like a jealous coward in the schoolyard. The good Rev is being BLESSED everyday for his years of fighting for justice. And he's on his way to Florida for your info. Keep your mind in the schoolyard, this is a grown folk issue!

@xmit, you don't need to be a law professor to realize this was murder, but you can be a bigot and think that it was ok for a grown man to murder an innocent, unarmed CHILD!!

Al Sharpton is on his way to Florida, not New York.

@mackman:

You are quite obviously not a law professor. Look up murder in any state and you'll realize that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I hope you're not a teacher of any sort. In fact, I'd all but guarantee you annoy the $hit out of everyone around you with your ridiculous "knowledge" of everything. We've all met someone like you.

Owen, Al Sharpton is a grandstanding idiot. Nothing more. He ONLY shows up when the cameras are alaready rolling. They don't need him on this one!!!

I saw a special an a black teen that was allegly hanged by some white kids. When the young man's brother approached Brother Al to seek help, he didn't give this kid the time of day. How do we know? Hidden cameras.

@xmit, you don't need to be a law professor to realize this was murder, but you can be a bigot and think that it was ok for a grown man to murder an innocent

Close,

@TexLawTooyou don't need to be a law professor to realize this was self defense, but you can be a bigot and think that it was OK for a 17 year old young to attack an innocent man.

So far,the cops are going with the 17 year old attacked the man, If that holds,it will stay self defense.

Wow, Ron. You really amaze me. Care to answer my question up the page a bit about the civil suit? After all, you seem to know so much about this, I'm really curious to read your answer.

Kat-1745504

O J never had a self defense case.

Florida, like many states, provides civil immunity to anyone who is involved in legitimate and lawful self-defense situation

I would look it up for myself.

Kat-1745504

Care to answer my question up the page a bit about the civil suit?

Sure thing.

Under Section 776.032 of the Florida Statutes, a person who uses force as permitted by law is immune from criminal prosecution as well as civil action. In reviewing this case to determine whether or not Zimmerman is in fact immune from prosecution, the Florida Attorney General must determine whether or not Zimmerman did in fact use force as permitted by law under Sections 776.012, 776.013, and 776.031.

In the Martin case, the department is likely to first closely watch how
Florida officials handle it in the face of increased public pressure. And one
DOJ official, who did not want to be quoted, said at
least the initial evidence suggests it will be hard to prosecute Zimmerman under
federal hate crimes law.

"While the investigation of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin will go forward, it
will be difficult to prosecute the case under federal law. Civil rights law
protects against hate crimes or actions by police officers, but Martin's
shooting may not have either of those elements," the official said.

Thanks for the info. I appreciate it. It certainly looks like Zimmerman has a stacked deck, doesn't he? Personally, I find the thought of him getting out of this abhorrent but that's just me. I see he has his supporters in people like you but I do take comfort in knowing that the majority of the population feels the way I do and that Zimmerman clearly went looking for a fight. Had he simply waited in his car for the police to arrive, Trayvon Martin would still be alive and George Zimmerman wouldn't be afraid to come out of his house right now. Clearly he doesn't want to live like this - being hated by such a large percentage of the country. He not only ruined the Martin family by his actions, but his own family, as well. His life must be a living hell right now. And I can't say I'm sorry for him.

@Kat,

Well said!

Well said Kat, and I completely agree. I also think that now the Sanford PD are obligated to pursue charges to avoid the potential civil unrest.

Speaking for myself only (not Ron) but Kat-1745504, you (and others) seem to be under a VERY wrong assumption.

Just because people speak out and say he's clear under self defense, doesn't mean we support him.

Personally, I don't like the situation that happened, and think it shouldn't have- I don't like Zimmerman for it, and don't support him whatsoever.... But based on the letter of the law, his name is clear. He doesn't have to prove self defense- the state has to prove it wasn't, and as of yet, they haven't found any way to do that.

Pro law does not mean you advocate for what you feel or opine- it means you are for the law.

Those from Florida who don't like this law are more than welcome to petition their legislature to reword or strike the law from the books- and I'm sure that will be done in some form or fashion after this- but that won't help with Zimmerman, laws are not proactive.

I also think that now the Sanford PD are obligated to pursue charges to avoid the potential civil unrest.

If they do, they better have some ironclad evidence, because otherwise there will be civil unrest because they pressed charges against the law- they aren't going to break a law in order to press charges against someone who didn't break a law.

Zanilth, I understand what you are saying, and I agree to a point. But his reasoning for shooting Trayvon was that he was attacked from behind. The 911 calls, and other factors show differently. He now has to prove that what he said happened was true, in order to show he is innocent. This case seems a little out of the norm, and its because of the horrible Stand your Ground law.

zanilth

Speaking for myself only (not Ron) but Kat-1745504, you (and others) seem to be under a VERY wrong assumption.

Just because people speak out and say he's clear under self defense, doesn't mean we support him.

You said it for a lot of us. People are demanding the LAW do something and if it isn't within the law they want heads to roll. Your last says the same thing.

If they do, they better have some ironclad evidence, because otherwise there will be civil unrest because they pressed charges against the law- they aren't going to break a law in order to press charges against someone who didn't break a law.

Zanilth, I understand what you are saying, and I agree to a point. But his reasoning for shooting Trayvon was that he was attacked from behind. The 911 calls, and other factors show differently.

No they don't, you want it that way so that is how you see it.

Speaking for myself only, I do not know either party involved in this case and if there is evidence that proves Zimmerman murdered this kid then I could not care less if Florida kills him.

The problem is that they can not prove this man commited any crime and I do not want people in jail or hung, just for the hell of it.

He now has to prove that what he said happened was true, in order to show he is innocent. This case seems a little out of the norm, and its because of the horrible Stand your Ground law.

Not trying to be crass, but do some reading of the actual Florida Stand your Ground law. Under no circumstances whatsoever, if his self defense story is valid (as in backed up by the evidence, with no evidence stating otherwise) he is under NO obligation whatsoever to prove his innocence. It is 100% up to the state to prove his story is a lie.

if there is evidence that proves Zimmerman murdered this kid then I could not care less if Florida kills him.

Assuming they went for the death penalty- which while possible (and I'm by no means up and up on Florida's death penalty laws) likely doubtful. Chances are even if they decide to not consider it self defense, there wouldn't have been any premeditation to it- there are other factors that came into play that would have changed the situation of Trayvon being shot in the first place. If Florida requires intent to be shown for death penalty, that would be incredibly hard to do. No one denies there was a fight, if the intent were to shoot him he never would have gotten that close.

You said it for a lot of us.

Glad to know I'm not the only one who sees the law as it is supposed to be, not how people feel it to be on random occasions.

What makes this a big deal is the fact that a hate crime is a Constitutional violation. And clearly this is a hate crime. The "Mexican" (as you called him) had a gun, ran after a black kid, who was unarmed (except with skittles and a tea), disregarded what the dispatcher told him to do, a shot Trayvon dead, for being in his neighborhood. It's not like the kid was breaking into houses and there was a reason to subdue him. He was walking, on the phone with his girlfriend, and got shot for no justifiable reason at all. That's what the big deal is. All this racism has to stop.

So Donald, if I chased you down while having a gun and tried to subdue you, and you fought back and I shot you there is no big deal?

What about a female in your family? Its no big deal if I chase after them, and in response to any resistance from them, I shoot them?

Do I get to claim self defense there too?

Zimmerman sought out a confrontation by chasing the kid. If you don't see the problem with that, I'm going to walk down the street and just punch everybody I see in the face. When they try to fight back, I'm gonna fill them full of lead. Self defense, right? You'd better hope I don't run into you, Donald.

Donald, you're wrong. The 17-year old kid only had an iced tea and a bag of Skittles, not a weapon. Trayton was going home from the minimart with a snack, in the rain. He was attacked for no reason other than he was black and wearing a hoodie in the chilly rain and shot to death by a maniac.

If you don't know what you're talking about, read more. Or shut up until you have a clue about what happened. Trayton wasn't armed.

Or are you a racist, too?

Read what "Emanuel-0684" wrote. You can't chase someone down because you're a racist puke and expect them to be all cool about it. You can't go ahead and shoot them if they defend themselves against YOUR chasing them. This guy had no right following the Skittle packing kid in the first place, much less confronting and then shooting him.

That's a very good question, and I can certainly see your point. The only problem with it, in this case: Did the mexican guy threaten the black guy first with the pistol and then attacked him and then shot him, or did the mexican just ask the black guy, what he was doing in the neighborhood, and the black guy attacked the mexican and the mexican guy then shot him in self defense. With only two people there, and only one left, this is going to be a tough go. Add on top of that the Florida Stand Your Ground Gun Law. Looks to me, the mexican is in a pretty good legal situation.

Wow Donald, what if it were your child that this happened to? No matter what race you are, you have every right to walk on the sidewalk in your neighborhood and cover your head from the rain. I think Zimmerman should get the death penalty!! He wanted to kill. He blatantly disobeyed the 911 dispatcher AND the neighborhood watch directives. Zimmerman is a cold blooded MURDERER.

Hey, Rilysilly: We can't say Mexican now? Is that somehow offensive to you? You can call me American all day long and I won't take offense. But we can't call a Mexican a Mexican? How 'bout a Texan? Or an Englishman? How about a German (or does that have connotations of Hitler for you and is off limits, too?) Is any of this okay with you? Shut your hole.

Donald,

He chased the boy. He didn't just stop him and ask him what he was doing, which Martin didn't have to respond to anyway since he had no authority to make Martin do anything. He even lets the 911 dispatcher know that he is chasing the kid and he continued to chase him even after he was told not to and to let the police handle it. Martin was probably scared since he was being chased by (as far as he knew) a lunatic.

PBgeorgia99: That's the problem, your only looking at this with emotion not your brain.

The laws are the Laws. We are a nation of law or not?

Law is that its not against the law for the following:

1. To walk, run, skip, jump next to someone.

2. To follow someone we think is up to no good.

3. To Talk or question anyone.

4. To make racial remarks to a 911 dispatcher.

5. Not following a 911 dispatchers advice of stop following the person.

None of these are against the law PB so what are you going to charge ZIM with when there are no laws against what he did up to the fight.

The answer is nothing why its not criminal or illegal.

Now once up to the fight started it comes down to who assaulted who first. Period nothing else matters.

Under witness statements and evidence ZIM fired in self defence Period.

Now what remains to be seen is if any new evidence or witnesses come forward and if so do they correspond with what ZIM stated happened or does it not.

If not they will arrest him for murder, if so guess what he will walk. Period

"hate crime" is only illegal because it's a crime. Racism isn't illegal, getting out of your SUV, chasing a kid down, and shooting him is. zimmerman, thanks to the cries of the neighborhood, will be lucky if he doesn't get the death penalty. the 2nd amendment isn't an issue here, and states can restrict gun control as much as they want, the national govt. cant, the state can.

Donald and Leatherneck,

Your question doesn't matter, it's irrelevant. Stand your ground gives you the legal justification to defend yourself when threatened. Zimmerman chased the kid against the advise of dispatch and against the neighborhood watch code. He was fully aware that it was a bad idea to pursue shady characters who could be criminals. He knowingly placed himself in a dangerous situation of his own free will. It isn't illegal to do this. But that means Zimmerman is accountable for everything that he did after that. He is responsible his actions in the homicide, at the very least manslaughter.

Again, I support stand your ground. I believe you are perfectly right to shoot someone trying to mug you or break into your house or otherwise do you or your family harm. But I don't believe it gives you the right to manufacture a dangerous situation that you must then defend yourself from.

I find it absolutely amazing when people who appear, by their comments, to be total ignorant wipes figure out how to operate a computer! Let's use Donald Spake as an example of why people with half a brain had to have had help getting on the Internet in order to make ignorant posts on a comment page. It's a sad reality, but it's true...even the ignorant get to own and use a computer in the USA. Now that's equal rights!

Pragmatic-3918582:

Stand your ground gives you the legal justification to defend yourself when threatened. Read and Read and Read. Now show me where its says any where in Stand your ground law that failure to follow a 911 dispatchers advice, Following someone or Asking someone Questions stops this right from being implemented.

No where does it have a clause in it saying anything except gives you the legal justification to defend yourself when threatened.

That is why ZIM has yet to be arrested do to as far as they can find right now he has broken ZERO LAWS. If they find ZIM lied about anything you can bet they will go down and arrest his *** faster than you can say Finally.

Have no doubt - he will be.

Ya know what texlawtoo? I don't have to shut my hole. I prefer not to say Mexican, because I would rather not offend anyone. So on that grounds, you shut your hole, dick. Do you know of he is actually Mexican or not? He is Hispanic which means he could be of a very different nationality. I don't really understand how you can bitch me out and tell me to shut up when all I was doing was following what my Momma told me to do, which is play nice with everybody. But sometimes I can't help it and the ugly comes out just like right now with you. While it may be ok for someone in big ol' bad Texas to say Mexican, we here in the North, use the word Hispanic. Americans are born in America... Mexicans are born in Mexico...Do you know Zimmermans from? Besides that does it really matter that I quoted Mexican, or did you just have your panties in a bunch? For me, calling someone of Hispanic origins, a Mexican is just as offensive as calling a Black person a @!$%#. It's not right.

By the way I'm a lil ol' white girl, with Native American heritage, I prefer Indian, but that was found to be offensive. My ancestors were here first, were yours?!!! =)

Donald, I have an idea for you. It's called "read-the-news-for-yourself-instead-of-asking-everyone-questions-on-the-vine." Then, when you're informed, come back and make your comments. Why would you even come here to comment in the first place if you didn't know what the facts of the story were?

Now show me where its says any where in Stand your ground law that failure to follow a 911 dispatchers advice

As is often the case in law, there is legal context that goes beyond the scope of a single law. It's not breaking and entering if I lock myself out of my house and smash a window to gain entry, but according to the letter of forced entry laws I am breaking and entering.

Zimmerman had reasonable notice both in the 911 dispatcher and the neighborhood watch code of conduct that what he was doing was not a good idea. There is no law that says he must comply. He made a choice. But now he has to be responsible for that choice. He chose to put himself in danger. It isn't self defense if you do that. I'm advocating personal responsibility. Make a choice, live with the consequences. He killed a kid. He started the fight by chasing him. He's responsible in some way for that. He chose it!

I know that in FL it is still illegal to kill someone for any other reason. He knowingly placed himself in a situation he knew to be dangerous. He thought the kid was a criminal. He actively sought out a confrontation. This action elevates it from self defense to manslaughter at least.

Here's a plausible self defense argument: Zimmerman is eyeing a suspicious looking kid. The kid begins running at Zimmerman. Zimmerman panics, assumes the worst, and fires on the kid. Even if the kid is unarmed, it is clear he meant to do Zimmerman harm. Zimmerman is justified. That ain't what happened.

He chose to put himself in danger. It isn't self defense if you do that.

So if I hear a woman screaming and I go to investigate, and a guy is trying to rape her... He attacks me, but because I chose to put myself in danger it isn't self defense when I kill him?

Your knowledge of the law needs some drastic improvement.

Pragmatic-3918582 and a few others...

READ the LAW please. It is HERE on the state of FL web site. IMHO the law was well intended but POORLY written.

Pragmatic... your statement that he had reasonable notice???? WTF??? A non LEO suggested, at best, that he need not follow. Never said don't. Was Zimmerman stupid... you bet your backside. Was it illegal.. not in FL.

Read the LAW... Fix the law. it is FLAWED. Other states include a bit more that basically says if you are the one who instigates things you lose the shield of self defense. For example if you flip someone off and they return with a tire iron you've screwed yourself.. FL simply leaves it: "Verbal threats are not enough to justify the use of deadly force. There must be an overt act by the person which indicates that he immediately intends to carry out the threat. The person threatened must reasonably believe that he will be killed or suffer serious bodily harm if he does not immediately take the life of his adversary." Getting your face beat in appears to be enough and there is not a penalty for being the one who started things.

Excellent idea! I think it would have to be done by the neighbors that actually witnessed the incident though, otherwise it seems like hear say. Zimmerman should be sitting in jail awaiting a trial instead of hiding out wherever he is. I imagine he is one scared person right about now.

Zimmerman doesn't have to be lynched. Just go get the man and bring him to a police station.

The cops took him in after they handcuffed him, they questioned him and his neighbors that saw anything,

He was released because it was self defense,

He has not been arrested because self defense is legal in Florida.

You must have proof of a crime to put people in jail for committing it.

You don't need proof of a crime to put people in jail. You can be detained for probable cause. And although I'm not an attorney, in my humble opinion, Ron, you seem to be more interested in correcting people and offering your sure-fire opinion about what you think you know. Truth is...you may be right about self-defense, but you're wrong about how one lands in jail. I also point out your significantly repeated stance in your knowledge of the law, although admirable in the eyes of "innocent until proven guilty", might not be the best choice in this situation. I recall your attention to a very unfortunate circumstance...a young man is dead. He's not coming back. And regardless of how much you belive you know in this matter, the real fact is you know about as much as everyone else that has posted here...which really and sadly, isn't very much. I do not say that to offend anyone's intelligence. I say that to bring to your attention that you may not know as much as you profess. So, while I applaud you for your reasoning and your intent in allowing the law of the land to prevail, I must say your lack of ethics and morality along with your absence of emotion is disturbing. We are all free to express an opinion here, however, I would invite you to express the same opinion to the faces of the family who has lost someone so dear to them. Would you be so callous? Would you quote the law to them? Would you record their statements of hurt and anguish and then play those back to them? Would you then add some sort of useless rhetoric? I would sincerely hope not. I am an eternal optimist, and I wish these things did not occur. It's a tragedy of epic proportion, and I would hope that we, ALL OF US UNDER THE LAW, could find the truth and impose a consequence on those who deserve it. Unfortunately, I feel as though we will never know what happened. Zimmerman will most likely not come forward with an honest account of what happened for fear of incriminating himself. Not many people would...for example "Hello, 911? I think I really screwed up here. I just shot somebody. Please send the police so they can take me in." That just doesn't happen. If it does, then please, ask that person who raised them and call them immediately to compliment the parents on what a wonderful job of raising their child they did.

Dennis Parker-1290930
Yes there is a citizens arrest law. Specifically it REQUIRES the citizen to have first hand witnessed certain crimes, usually felonies. So the only CITIZENS able to make an arrest would be those who have given statements apparently clearing Zimmerman. Oh I think the requirement is also the citizen must be an adult (18/21???) So NO you can't go arrest him. Actually any person attempting to make an arrest other than police at this point would be acting to make a false arrest or a kidnapping and Zimmerman could fear for his life or great harm.... There would be NO question on that Stand Your Ground encounter. Sorry I can't find a link other than to police and corrections officers. I did see one the other day in a news report, not here.

Stonebreaker777

I also point out your significantly repeated stance in your knowledge of the law, although admirable in the eyes of "innocent until proven guilty", might not be the best choice in this situation. I recall your attention to a very unfortunate circumstance...a young man is dead. He's not coming back. And regardless of how much you belive you know in this matter, the real fact is you know about as much as everyone else that has posted here...which really and sadly, isn't very much. I do not say that to offend anyone's intelligence. I say that to bring to your attention that you may not know as much as you profess. So, while I applaud you for your reasoning and your intent in allowing the law of the land to prevail, I must say your lack of ethics and morality along with your absence of emotion is disturbing. We are all free to express an opinion here, however, I would invite you to express the same opinion to the faces of the family who has lost someone so dear to them. Would you be so callous? Would you quote the law to them? Would you record their statements of hurt and anguish and then play those back to them? Would you then add some sort of useless rhetoric? I would sincerely hope not. I am an eternal optimist, and I wish these things did not occur. It's a tragedy of epic proportion, and I would hope that we, ALL OF US UNDER THE LAW, could find the truth and impose a consequence on those who deserve it. Unfortunately, I feel as though we will never know what happened. Zimmerman will most likely not come forward with an honest account of what happened for fear of incriminating himself.

Read your entire post, you basically told me not to express my opinion do to respect, Then you flat out call Zimmerman a liar,

You sir are a hypocrite.

Florida law only requires that Zimmerman say he was afraid for his life, the fear does not have to be rational.

There was some kind of physical altercation between the two of them. Whether Zimmerman started the physical altercation and Trayvon was defending himself, or whether Trayvon started the physical confrontation, will never be known, as there is only one remaining witness....Zimmerman.

Thus, the incident as told to police was one sided.

I am curious as to whether the police retained the handgun and the rounds for ballistics tests, as well as advised Zimmerman of his constitutional rights prior to Zimmerman making a statement.

If Zimmerman made a statement prior to being advised of his rights, it cannot be used in court. If the handgun "disappears" there may be no legal connection to Zimmerman actually shooting Trayvon.

If that brief police investigation of the incident did not produce any evidence admissible in court that Zimmerman pulled the trigger, Zimmerman walks.

I have many questions about this case too. Besides the wound that killed him, did Treyvon Martin have any other marks on him? Why didn't the police attempt to find out who he was (using his cell phone which they had in their posession) and whether he lived in the condo community? Piss poor police work if you ask me.

Sharkey, is that you, my friend?

CPO, that is not true. The person who wrote the Florida laws was on ABC news last night. The law was meant to protect someone who was attached and then shot the attacher. Not someone who chases someone down and causes an altecation then decides to shoot that person and claim self defense.

Jvalen13, I think you mean "attacked" and "attacker" and I totally agree with your point.

The incident points up the basic irrationality of our society's whole attitude about carrying guns. Thinking that carrying guns makes anyone safer is lunacy. We have more gun deaths than any other country in the world, because we have more guns than any other country. Yes, its as simple as that. When you (personally) carry a gun, you (personally) make everyone around you more unsafe. It doesn't matter who you are, what your motivation, or training. When you carry a gun, you threaten everybody around you.

Martin was being stalked, and obviously felt threatened. By Florida law, he had every right to shoot and kill Zimmerman, had he been armed. (I didn't make the stupid law, but that's what everybody says the law is, when its protecting Zimmerman.) Zimmerman could be laying dead right now, because Martin's fear of "feeling threatened" allows him to claim "selfdefense" when he feels threatened!

Doesn't sound so smart a law when you say that a black person can kill a white person, for no real reason, other than FEELING IN DANGER, does it?? The police dept. had told Zimmerman not to persue Martin, and Zimmerman did so anyway. Yet, it released him, and took little action, when he shot Martin. Until all the media hoo-haw, anyway.

The law allows you to carry a gun, and to shoot and kill me (or vice-versa), because one of us feels threatened. Let me tell you now, even though the law gives me the right to kill you, for whatever reason, and then claim self defense, I'm not going to do it. The problem is, it also lets you kill me for no reason, and then claim selfdefense, and I don't trust you.

When you look at the situation, we look like lunatics. We have a superstition that a gun will make us safer. It simply isn't true, and it doesn't even make logical sense. Before guns washed over our society, neither criminals, cops, nor common citizens carried guns, and there were NO GUN DEATHS!

Yeah, guns don't kill people, but they do put people more in mind to kill other people. Moreover, there doesn't seem to be any long term "deterrant" value to carrying guns. More guns does not make the place more civilized. In the end, if we carry guns, we will use them. At the point when everybody carries, the good guys better hope they are better shots than bad guys (and the normally good guy, who takes a notion to kill somebody else, "just because").

I am curious as to whether the police retained the handgun and the rounds for ballistics tests

Yes, and only one round had been fired.

The incident points up the basic irrationality of our society's whole attitude about carrying guns. Thinking that carrying guns makes anyone safer is lunacy.

It may have saved Zimmermans life.

I agree, Hate Crime is what he will finally be convicted and found guilty. There is a pattern of evidence. Wouldn't is be helpful if a camera on top of the building were to be found and recorded the whole incidence. Many of you do not know "racial history". You need to ask "old timers" what it was like in the south in the 1950's and 1960's (not to exclude time before that.) I am a white man. BTW, Jeb Bush was politically OWNED by the NRA.

big ed-1492169: I been carrying a gun for over 20 years and have only had to pull it out twice. Yet I have not had to shot anyone.

1st time I had to pull my weapon was do to a guy tried to carjack me.

2nd time a guy tried to rob me after I pulled out money from a walk up ATM. Now I only uses Drive up ones.

If you out law guns then Crime will skyrocket. Is that what you want, to be the victim over and over again.

That is absolutely not true. If you purchase a gun there has be a background check done, there is a three day waiting period (in FL), and you MUST be 21 to purchase a firearm. Guns are also very expensive.

My family has always had guns in the house, and now I own a gun. I never feel that I "must use it." I practice with it, but I don't EVER want to have to use it for self defense.

Self defense is a legitimate purpose, not saying that in this case the laws were obeyed, but millions of people carry firearms and use them for self defense lawfully. Do not punish everyone because one person out of millions didn't follow the law. Cars kill far more people than concealed carry permit holders do each year, but we still allow people to drive.

Guns cannot pull their own triggers. Therefore: Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Guns just happen to be easier and quicker to use then other such weapons that can take a life, and you don't have to get as close to your victim (unless you prefer to!)

Just so happens that some people who have guns, have that little impulse in their brain that tell them it's ok to take a life, when clearly it is not ok to do so. It isn't any gun's fault that it was used to take a life.

Any way you cut the deck, from what is known now, the mexican man appears to be on the right side of the law and the black man on the wrong side of the law.

Crying, calling people names, marching and other useless distractions will not make it in the justice system. Someone already has looked into it, and didn't find a problem. The law is the law, and that's it.

"GUNS CAUSE DEATHS. There's no other purpose for them."

You`re right! Thats why I have them. They make my would-be murderer dead. God Bless America!

Well, well, let's all have guns and shoot it out. I can get a gun ANYTIME, illegally. Don't be a fool.

Donald, MARCHING did accomplish something IMPORTANT in the 60's. That was non-violent. Even some demostrations that were distructive in the past were "agents of change". If I were Zimmerman, I'd leave the COUNTRY and hide the rest of my life. There may still be some man around that says "enough is enough". He may be a member of the NRA also and carrying a S&W.

How do you know that he was scared? This dude is following me, doesn't denote scared. Maybe he was pissed that he was sweatin' him. It was raining, he had "stuff" in his hands, maybe he didn't see well enough. He didn't deserve to be shot, but I understand Zimmerman's frustrations. You are forced in this country to "defend" everything you own. If a neighborhood had 3 child rapes, and they were committed by white adult males, if a white adult male was hanging around that neighborhood, how much cr@p would he face?

He is a murderer and there is no way on God's green earth he can say he was in fear of great bodily harm to justify his actions.

No he is not.

Yes he can and he did,

No charges have been filed in this case of self defense.

Steve, we know he was scared because he told his girlfriend on the phone that he was right before he was shot. Look up the article where she tells her story. It's sad.

Steve, we know he was scared because he told his girlfriend on the phone that he was

Anything the girlfriend says is hearsay.

The phone call was not recorded.

How do you know that he was scared? This dude is following me, doesn't denote scared. Maybe he was pissed that he was sweatin' him. It was raining, he had "stuff" in his hands, maybe he didn't see well enough. He didn't deserve to be shot, but I understand Zimmerman's frustrations. You are forced in this country to "defend" everything you own. If a neighborhood had 3 child rapes, and they were committed by white adult males, if a white adult male was hanging around that neighborhood, how much cr@p would he face

You ask how do you know he was scared, to me that means lets remove "all" the suppositions, which can not be independatly confirmed by evidence.

He couldn't see well enough. Who couldn't see well enough - Trayvon or George? Trayvon did see George following him, that much is true - he mentioned that someone was following him. It obviously meant something, since he conveyed the information ,casually, to his freind on the phone. George mentioned that he too noticed this black kid, however he went on to make judgements, as to motive, intent, mental state and future events. So Trayvon was curious. Geroge was suspicious. Totally different threat level interpretation.

Which leaves "it was raining" = fact,

Didn't see well enough = fact.

He didn't deserve to be shot = fact.

What happened to you has nothing to do with what happened to Trayvon, you are alive Trayvon is dead, different case, different outcome. Someone will have to speak for Trayvon, he is dad and can't speak for himself. That leaves only the collection of facts to reconstruct the evidence and see if we can interpret the likely trail of what happened. That means a judge, a jury and the Police collecting evidence to support if the death was justified.

The items found in the pockets of Trayvon, the fact that he was on the phone - do not seem to support that he had anything in his hand - other than possibly his phone., held next to his ear.

Yu can understand George but you can not understand Trayvon? From that point forward your story starts to fall apart, much like George's claim of self defense. You personal expereinces remove you from offering an opinion which is based on the "Facts" used to generate your interpretation.

I never said I do not understand Trayvon. Everyone is just trying to jump on his bandwagon in a rage. And there aren't too many "facts" in this case except for the 911 tape and a dead kid. And the only thing that I stated as fact is you are forced in this country to defend everything you own. Leave your car unlocked and go somewhere for an hour if you doubt me.

Didn't see well enough = opinion

He didn't deserve to be shot = opinion

Am I missing something? T-h-e-r-e a-r-e-n't t-o-o m-a-n-y f-a-c-t-s i-n t-h-i-s c-a-s-e. Therefore everything else is my opinion or I am just asking a question about it in statement form.

Thanks for the rehash.

You are so wrong. Notice that when a white kid disappears, every single media outlet covers the event, and it seems every law enforcement agency in the nation devotes a lot of manpower to search and investigate the disappearance. When a black kid goes missing, you don't ever see it on national news or the front page of newspapers. How is that for fairness?

because the white kid always gets justice

white person get killed by black person

black person is arrested

if blacks were treated the same, we wouldnt be marching, slave owner

But you see, we can get away with it because im a slave owner, an you have to do what I say.....

JohnnyD, I beg to differ, I have seen many nationalized cases of missing african americans. 25 to 30 years ago, do you remember all the missing and murdered african american kids in Atlanta? I think the racial temperature is finally changing and it is a good sign. I think this Zimmerman devil should be arrested, convicted, and never see the light of day, wish he'd get life with extremely hard labor.

you guys do know that zimmerman isn't white right?

white person get killed by black person

Nice, Shaunte. If you could speak English, maybe you'd have some credibility. Is that street lingo? O is dat how you'se really think da langage done works?

You can be racist and not be white. But I'm not sure race was a motivating factor in the homicide.

Sure, yeah, that Atlanta thing 40 years ago with the 30 poor black children getting abducted and murdered.

Try this test: without looking anything up on the internet, name another high profile missing person case that involves African Americans.

[crickets]

How about these names, any of these strike a bell:

• Natalie Holloway
• Laci Petersen
• Jon Benet Ramsay
• Chandra Levy
• Elizabeth Smart
• Taylor Behl
• Dru Sjodin
• Lauren Spierer
• Polly Klaas
• Caylee Anthony
• Jennifer Wilbanks
• Jessica Lynch

And that's just off the top of my head.

What do they all have in common? Their cases had a very high profile in the media ... and they were white.

Nearly a third of all missing persons are black, and yet when do you get a high profile case that inflames media attention across the nation?

[crickets]

What happened to all those women and young ladies -- and the ones we don't hear about -- is a horrible tragedy that should never happen to anyone. Except for Jennifer Wilbanks, the 'Runaway Bride' of course: she was never actually missing or in danger, she was just hiding out.

But I-- a middle-aged white US Army veteran from the South -- will tell you this: anyone who doesn't see the plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face disparity in media/public/law enforcement attention between white victims and black victims is in denial, either willfully because of their own biases or simply through never having never thought about it.

But it exists. It is real. In fact, there is even a term for it: Missing white woman syndrome (MWWS). Look it up (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_white_woman_syndrome)

They just cover those thinking that there has some hollywood-like potential. It is an easy news cycle. And if you want to claim that the poor minorities are picked on by unfair media scrutiny now too, what if there is a black hate crime like this:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/report-black-mobs-attack-white-patrons-outside-wis-state-fair/

That is not to mention all of the little shoplifting mobs they pull off around the country. It is very dangerous to cover anything black because you will be forced to start paying billable hours to your attorneys. Ask yourself this. They run "President's Day" sales and use the memory of Lincoln and Washington like a cheap slogan, and the same goes with Memorial Day. Nothing like 1000s of dead soldiers memory to stir someone into buying a car this weekend. But you never, ever have an MLK sale. Geez, I wonder why that is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lqanl8hCjNE

And to add one more nugget, I watched this on ESPN, and chuckled, but thought to myself, hey if it was reversed, someone would have to answer for that, so I wrote the staff and said it wasn't appreciated, they told me that it was "satire" and that it was meant for entertainment purposes only. Now what would be great if they had a skit with Michael Vick in it, and they used crayons or stick people instead of watching film and analyzing it and said, "but is he white quarterback smart." The black community would be yelling for dismissals. So you can keep your media prejudice theories to yourself because in the end it just all balances out nicely for everyone.

Shaunte Mosley

if blacks were treated the same, we wouldnt be marching, slave owner

Seems racist to me.

You seem to be getting away with it though.

Obviously you don't watch much TV, listen to radios or get out of the house.The whole country has been upset about the Casey "getting" away with murder. Even now after she has been release it continues. In California and Utah... several young girls were kidnapped and finally found alive - their lives are being followed daily.

Either you are deliberately ignoring the difference in news coverage, totally fixated on what benefits "blacks" get, which somehow bother you that any attention is given or you have no clue about why a parent and other adults would every worry about a child's death, abduction abuse - enough to hold marches, hold search parties and demand that Police, FBI any and every Law enforcement body do something about monsters who prey on children.

It took 3 days for the police to find time to even talk to the parents, where they were informed in a very officious and dispassionate way that theier son was in the orge and had been since the bight he was shot - the to add insult to injury, they were quried about his police record - which they and arlready checked.

It took nearly a month to even get the police to repsond ... unded threat of a law suit and judges order.

Obviously you don't watch much TV, listen to radios or get out of the house.The whole country has been upset about the Casey "getting" away with murder.

She was found not guilty for lack of evidence.

All I know is brown on brown crime equals no sharpton. His buddies in the white house need the mexican vote.

Colored people take note sharpton is a race hustler and this proves it LMAO....

Comment collapsed by the community

There would be no need .. the perp would get arrested.

In this case, the police had swept the incident under a rug and the media were not reporting it.

Do you people think we are that stupid to understand what is happening here?