Drugs being smuggled in by the government??

I surmise you also believe AIDS was concocted to eliminate blacks by the government.

Put the tin foil hat back on.

"Put the tin foil hat back on"

LMAO!...

XD & MD..

It's called, THE IRAN CONTRA AFFAIR...

only one guy went to jail for it...

and his name is RICK ROSS.

but REAGAN, BUSH 1, and OLLIE NORTH WERE DOPE DEALERS.

I'm glad that you mentioned that. Slaves were promised 40 acres and a Mule where is that. There were over 20,000,000 Slaves killed and no reperations paid out. Japan Bombed Pearl Harbor. We helped to rebuild that also.

Shut the door Edward - WTH is that 40 acres and a mule? Are you sure they didn't get it, Were you there to get an accounting for all the slaves. Maybe they paid the tribes in Africa that sold them.

Bull @!$%#....what about all that wonderful goverment cheese ya all got. Forgot about that huh?

Correction Will..... The Japanes recieved neither an apology nor reparations from the government after WWII. The Native Americans were pushed into "reservation" and tribal schools. The African-Americans recieved nothing, altho we are ALL descendants of Africa; even ultra white Swedes and Finns.

FYI, Ssimmons...the Bloods are/were a particularly dangerous and brutal gang....the genesis of all gangs....in California, late '50's +

Been There-406834, yes, I am sure that it was never paid. If you look at the history of this you will find that the government reneged on this PROMISE. Look in any historical doc it will tell you. And thank to for show your lack of understanding to this issue. Most of the cheese that you speak of was dolled out during the GREAT Depression and most was given to immigrants. Frome all over the world like Poland, Germany, Italy, France and England. Head your History Please?????/ !!!!!!!!!!

EdwardL--sorry, I totally agree with you about Limbaugh (that was who you were talking about in your first paragraph?) but when you start glorifying Sharpton and Jackson and saying THEY are not also spinning hate, you lose me. HOW many times do they have to jump into a case on the ASSUMPTION that since one side is black and the other is white, the WHITE MUST BE GUILTY, and then be proven WRONG (Duke LaCrosse team absolved, accuser found to be a 'serial accusor', Tawana wasn't raped by the evil cop, she just made that up to keep mom from finding out she and her BF were having sex, black teens DID beat up on the white kid for sitting under their tree, etc.)

I'm almost the same age as Jesse Jackson, and was FULL of admiration for him back in the 60's when he had his 'rainbow coalition. I TRULY thought then that Jesse would be our first "Black President" and deservedly so.

However, over the years, he has become what he denigrated so much in those days, living rich off the 'little people' he supposedly represents, playing the 'racist card' no matter WHAT while never ONCE apologizing when he is wrong for the havoc he has done, and playing the media for personal attention.

I find it sad that he is no longer a giant in the battle for equality, and is reduced to being a shill for everything that is NOT worthy in the Black community in this country.

And whatever you or I think happened on the night Trayvon Martin died, we weren't there, and we don't KNOW. Will YOU be able to accept it if legitimate testimony/phone photos PROVE that Trayvon had Zimmerman on the ground beating on him? The PHYSICAL evidence already backs that story up. Or will you insist that despite the facts, Zimmerman has to PAY with his life?

You know what no one should have died that night. We are protecting a person that if it was your own son would you even ask that question? The answer is no. I have asked this over and over on various sites an all someone wants to do is ask for circumstances. What ever the court does does not really matter to me. Here there is a teen that is dead not because He went to to attack someone but, because he feared for his life. If he is found Not Guilty, No I will not be angered. I will look at it and say another one got away.

That night someone was looking for trouble and one was just heading home from the store that seemed to not have the right to walk home. That night they both were coming home from a store. No, Zimmerman was not on patrol that night. He was returning home from the store. He may have been drinking. That is the only reason if he was hit with one punch that he went down so quickly.

I was hit with over 26 punches when I weighed 150 LBS and did not go down. They never did a blood test on Zimmerman but, did one on the dead Black teen. The belief here is that it is automatic that the Black was the cause of the altercation. He is not alive to tell his side of it. His girlfriend has to tell it. Since that was who he was speaking to on the phone. So, I was not there but, I know one thing that as a Black man I have been followed a number of times by others and if they were get close to me and not identity themselves.

I would fear for my life like I did in 1975 when 2 6'2" White guys jumped me because I had my name on my jack and they said, "Ed Lewis suck", I turned and said, "Ed Lewis What"? They repeated it and then outside of the store they tried to punch me two times and tried to kick me once between the legs once. I said nothing more than what is in here but, they found it necessary to attack me. I never through a single punch.

The only thing that stopped them was a person that they were riding with said, "Come on he does not want to fight you".

Had I thrown one they would have tried to claim I attach two grown me over 25 years old over 6 inches taller. I would have been arrested. I was only 17 years old, same as Trayvon. Had I not been trained in Karate they would have hit me and gotten away.

The Duke Lacross girl no black person in their right mind believed her. When I heard it I thought she should have been in jail. You could tell she was lieing and flaunting the lie like it was nothing. Some girls are loose and you know a loose one when you see one.

Does anyone here know the STORY of Rosewood? It was a city in Florida.

Rosewood was pretty close to Sanford,

Sanford racial problems go WAY back!

I don't like any violence against anyone. ANYONE!!!!!!!!! ANYONE!!!!!!!!!

If he was near the front entrance, when he first called the police, then he was NOT in the same area, or nearly the same area 2 1/2 mins later!

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/02/us/the-events-leading-to-the-shooting-of-trayvon-martin.html

No one knows where GZ's vehicle was parked, it's pure speculation!

Why was Trayvon walking so slowly? Because he was barely 17 years old, talking on the phone to a GIRL...

This should be obvious!

They did say that Zimmermans vehicle was parked on street facing the walkway to where the shooting occurred. He was parked on the correct side of the street front of his car facing towards the sidewalk of the shooting.

@Jo-An please re-read my post. I made no reference to TM's location at the start of the call. My question refers to the time stamp from where GZ indicates TM ran. That is no where near the front gate. And I made absolutely no mention of GZ car. If you are going to respond at least respond to the question posed.

And yes, TM began running at or near the cut through path and the altercation took place approx 30 feet in to the first building. That would be a maximum of 130 to 150 fett from the point he "ran" after passing GZ in his car. So where was TM for 2 1/2 minutes?

ric,

My question refers to the time stamp from where GZ indicates TM ran. That is no where near the front gate.

None of us knows where GZ was when he was on the phone with the police, so my answers stands!

rliberto

Shut up Jo An,

Every time you speak, you make an a$$ out of yourself.

Really? Do you have any mirrors?

Jo-An--your #85.1

"No one knows where GZ's vehicle was parked, it's pure speculation."

So what are you trying to say, that AFTER he was beat up, and AFTER he shot Trayvon, Zimmerman rushed around and MOVED his car? I'd say that wherever his car was when the cops got there is where it was all along.

As for why TM was walking slowly, I thought I read that supposedly he told his GF that someone was following him, so he STILL just 'moseyed' along until Zimmerman shot him in the back, right?

Any one out there have a reasonable reply to my question at post #85?

I'm still quite curious about that particular issue that seems not to make sense from the info we currently have available.

Thanks

MOmaid,

So what are you trying to say, that AFTER he was beat up, and AFTER he shot Trayvon, Zimmerman rushed around and MOVED his car? I'd say that wherever his car was when the cops got there is where it was all along.

You are assuming GZ spotted Trayvon right by where he murdered him, I don't "believe" that! I "believe" he started following him shortly after he entered back into the neighborhood (based on the fact that he, GZ, said he was on an errand, when he spotted Trayvon) he would have NO reason to be on that side of the neighborhood UNLESS he followed Trayvon OVER there!

@Jo-An

You are assuming GZ spotted Trayvon right by where he murdered him, I don't "believe" that! I "believe" he started following him shortly after he entered back into the neighborhood (based on the fact that he, GZ, said he was on an errand, when he spotted Trayvon) he would have NO reason to be on that side of the neighborhood UNLESS he followed Trayvon OVER there

Not truly critizing you But.....

I find it interesting that you find all of GZ statements "twisted lies" except when you need one of those statements to attempt to make a point. Really can't have it both ways girl..... If his statements are lies and keep changing with the wind, as you say, then you really shouldn't utilize them to make a point.

Which of GZ's statements have I believed?

@Jo-An....

Post #85.8....

I "believe" he started following him shortly after he entered back into the neighborhood (based on the fact that he, GZ, said he was on an errand, when he spotted Trayvon) he

Sounds like you ARE quoting a GZ statement? Unless GZ did not state that but it was reported somewhere? Sounds like you state that "GZ said......" That appears to have you base your belief on a GZ statement.

If I am wrong let me know.

Based on that "GZ statement" GZ would NOT be near the spot he ended up in!
Unless he followed Trayvon!

Here is a theory as to where Martin could have been for those 2 1/2 minutes. It seems that Zimmerman lost sight of him fairly quickly which could indicate that Martin found someplace that he could hide and was staying there until he felt that Zimmerman was giving up before proceeding on his way home. I have a hard time believing that Zimmerman turned around and was on his way back to his vehicle since he asked the dispatcher to tell the police (that he was supposed to be on his way to meet according to him) to call him so that he can direct them to his location at the time that they arrive. From that part of the conversation it is more likely that he was plannig on looking for Martin. He was all pumped up, he already had Martin convicted of being a thief and he was not going to let him get away.

He wasn't in the same area, he got almost to the house but was in the backyard of a woman near the house.

More than likely he was hiding. Zimmerman may have found his hiding place. Then he confronted him. I would hide to if I was Black. Since we know that in the past men will rape another male. He was in protection mode if it is true that Zimmerman said, "I am not following you," when he was asked. So, how does that answer work for you?

Ric 635471, To answer your question. It seems to me that the kid was hiding from Zimmerman. Zimmerman kept looking after told we don't need you to do that and found him and confronted him. That is what the girlfriend heard. What are you doing hear in the back ground. He was hiding because he wanted to see if Zimmerman was following him as he had asked him previously, that Zimmerman had denied. This may be seen on the Video from the Club House.

He is black and hispanic and white.

If he was Black there would have been no need for this story, because he would have been arrested the first instant that a police officer heard his story at the scene. So, if you want to say that it is just because he was Black that it made news then let it be. A black persons life to others mean little. Let me say this also to some other Blacks a Black life means little.

In order to understand that you have to care enough to look far behind the reason for the Black on Black crimes. NO ONE, Really wants to do that that change it. Talking about the people in power. Blacks continue to have the highest Unemployment rate. Blacks rarely get the benefit of the doubt for a crime. Zimmerman has never claimed to be Black. There is nothing that says that. In-fact his police report does not claim that. He claims being white i'm sure.

Then why did he shoot his neighbor?

Trayvon was not his neighbor. Trayvon's dad wasn't even his neighbor. Read the articles - it was his dad's girlfriend's house.

Trayvon was there because he had been suspended for 10 days from Michael M. Krop Senior High. Go to Google Maps and get directions from there to Sanford, FL. It's 242 miles away.

Bottom line, Zimmerman knew his neighbors, and he knew Trayvon was not one. Period.

Be careful there InvisibleTruth...using ones common sense dosent go over real big around here Im afraid. Im glad to see that didnt stop you from looking at the facts...whats been gatherd so far...and reaching a reasonable conclusion.

Lets hope the jurry does the same....shouldn't be to difficult.

The Probable Cause Affidavit is a total travesty of justice that should get this thrown out before trial. Of course no judge will take the responsibility to do the right thing in the face of the Obama-sanctioned lynch mob.

And I don't believe I'm being sensationalist when I say that - by not responding to open bounties and public lynching activities, such as tweeting addresses and so forth, the government was certainly complicit in the lynch mob, if not supportive. Add to the fire Obama's completely inappropriate jumping in on a local legal matter, that has not been investigated with a (I can't believe I'm writing this or even living in this world) racial comment, and you have a situation where our Executive Branch of government was not only endorsing the vigilante activities, but also warning local law enforcement to back off as well.

Once this is finally over and the riots have ended, Angela Corey needs to be disbarred and put on trial for perjury in the PC Affidavit. Once that movement starts, I'll happily donate thousands of dollars. We cannot live in a world where baseless kangaroo court is held any time citizens threaten riots.

I blame the Republican FL governor far more than Obama.

The FL governor could have publicly supported the decision of the original DA not to charge Zimmerman rather than throw him to the wolves.

The FL governor appointed Angela Corey as special prosecutor knowing her reputation for not using grand juries, overcharging and indicting even when she doesn't have decent evidence.

Visible Truth,

If Martin was so upset that he was being followed and attacked Zimmerman because of that, why did he run away in the first place?

Sorry but all the evidence does not support your conjecture. You are taking the word of Zimmerman, someone who saw seconds of the altercation and the fact that Zimmerman had some injuries as absolute proof that Zimmerman was not the initial aggressor. None of that proves who attacked who. There is evidence that can provide reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not on his way back to his vehicle like he claims but it seems like you want to ignore that part of the 911 call. You seem to stop at, well he said okay and that he was going to meet the police at his vehicle. Yet you ignore him telling the dispatcher that he wanted the police to call him when they arrived so he could direct them to where he was. Why would he have to direct the police to his location if he was on his way back to his vehicle to meet them?

Mike,

Sorry, but common sense would lead a person to believe that when a person who was supposed to go back to his vehicle to meet the police and then decides to have the police call him when they arrive so that he can direct them to where he is that he was not on his way back to his vehicle. The only facts that he has looked at are the ones that support his idea of what happened. Common sense would also seem to lend logic to the fact that it is pretty convenient that the only thing that was witnessed by anyone was a few seconds of the altercation where Martin was on top of Zimmerman. Not one single person saw the attack, not one single person saw Zimmerman shoot Martin. Logically, how does that prove that Martin attacked Zimmerman and that Zimmerman shot Martin in self defense?

One Question for you it is really simple. If that was your son regardless would you say he deserved to die? Don't say my son would not be there be honest. If it was your son would you say that Zimmerman was right to Kill your son UN-ARMED???????????????? Would there even be a debate?

Point blank no, i love my little cousin like she is my child. i think i would go nuts if someone got away with killing her. A grown person at that, that knows better would make me even more mad. Children don't think when they do retarded things. Adults on the other hands do, so I would feel he needs to be in jail.

There is no issue about reporting a stranger in the community. I have no issue with that. The thing is simple. If Zimmerman would not have found him that night then he would have reported a non burglary. In other wards he made the call to Dispatch. If there was a Burglary after the sighting then the Police would have a description of a possible perpetrator. Zimmerman had other option that night. I was on a Watch group. I had the same duties. In-fact we even wore a bright YELLOW Jacket. That is what our name was, "The YELLOW JACKETS". We never confronted anyone as a group or individually. I have stopped people from being killed or severely injured though. Yes, I did step in without a gun and at my own risk. That is the thing with these groups you are responsible for your own actions. So, one must be careful about profiling regardless of who committed the previous crimes.

it wasn't name the same thing

Of course it wasn't.

Also, there is no apostrophe in the word "ideas."

Grammar police always show up when they run out of facts!

George Zimmerman: Prelude to the shooting of Trayvon Martin

Click it and weep!

I stand corrected. See how that works? When someone presents evidence, and you have none, you admit you may be wrong - or at least shut up and go away.

Four things:

1) I have a TON of facts. Would you like me to post them?

2) I see that your facts amount to an interview with a woman who HEARD the altercation and decided that the crying voice must be that of a "little boy." She did not SEE anything. If you can find something contradicting this, please post it.

3) The grammar police are always here.

4) While I'm clearly wrong about MSNBC not publishing the article, I read the main sections several times a day and don't recall it being featured. Of course, I have no evidence to support my theory, so I will concede that I may be wrong about that as well.

VisibleTruth

I stand corrected. See how that works? When someone presents evidence, and you have none, you admit you may be wrong - or at least shut up and go away.

Oh.....I see...I was suppose to "just shut up and go away"?

Nope!

1) I have a TON of facts. Would you like me to post them?

Sure!

2) I see that your facts amount to an interview with a woman who HEARD the altercation and decided that the crying voice must be that of a "little boy." She did not SEE anything. If you can find something contradicting this, please post it.

No, (I see you can have "other facts" not mentioned here, but I can't.) Here is one that came forth on CNN, but the prosecution has said they have other's.

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/27/kth-trayvon-martin-witness-steps-forward/

You keep fighting for Zimmie, he needs all the help he can get!

A little Boy? who has gone through puberty, voice has changed, and is over 6' tall? I don't think he would sound like a little boy.

Jo-An:

I'm sorry, before I post anything else I just have to ask: Did you even read the caption or watch the video on that link? If you did and somehow think it's evidence that supports Trayvon, you're in far worse shape than I thought and you should seek help and avoid sharp objects.

The MAIN CAPTION under the video:

"Among other new developments, a man says he saw George Zimmerman yell for help during the scuffle with Trayvon Martin. Anderson Cooper is Keeping Them Honest."

And, here you go:

1) EVIDENCE GZ WAS WITHIN HIS RIGHTS TO SURVEIL AND REPORT

This is a link to the actual sign posted outside the community. "We report all suspicious persons." Here's a guy who Zimmerman KNOWS DOES NOT LIVE THERE, inside a gated community, walking between the houses in the dark in the rain, in a neighborhood where "There were eight burglaries, nine thefts and one other shooting in the year prior to Trayvon’s death." So this isn't some rogue policy Zimmerman made up. It's clearly posted outside the gated entrance.

http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/gty_george_zimmerman_11_nt_120412_ssh.jpg

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/17/2700249_p2/trayvon-martin-shooter-a-habitual.html

2) EVIDENCE TM DID NOT GO HOME AFTER INITIALLY CONFRONTING GZ

The ACTUAL 911 call is 4:07 long (and the altercation happens 2:30 after the call ends), and Zimmerman says Trayvon is running about 2:05 into it. The call was placed about 70 yards from the home where Trayvon was staying. If he would have slowly walked home, he would have been there in 45 seconds - a fulll minute and 15 seconds BEFORE Zimmerman even finished the call. Alternatively, if Trayvon was so frightened he had two minutes to call 911 before Zimmerman had finished his call, and 5 and a half minutes before the altercation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj7qEcD8R-8

Did you listen? Does Zimmerman sound like some maniac who's about to go into a rage and stalk some kid for no reason? Trayvon had plenty of chances to go home, call for help or whatever - FACT is, he did not. He came back to Zimmerman, for reasons only he knew.

Another thing you can learn if you actually listen is how things went down after the famous "We don't need you to do that" line. 2 minutes elapse after that moment, and Zimmerman is very calmly speaking with the 911 operator - who continues to ask him for information on the whereabouts of Trayvon. He wasn't chasing Trayvon in some blood-lust rage.

3) EVIDENCE THE ONLY EYE WITNESS CONFIRMS TM BEATING GZ ON GROUND

This is the guy who lives right in front of where the fight/shooting happened. He is the ONLY one who saw it. No need for words, just listen to him in the interview. Zimmerman, in red sweater, is on the bottom yelling for help.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTZ3zsZBtEM

4) EVIDENCE GZ WAS ON GROUND SCREAMING FOR HELP

Aside from the direct eye-witness statement above that it was Zimmerman screaming for help, listen to Zimmerman's voice in the 911 call. He sort of sounds like a woman, right? Now listen to the screams. It's him, no question. If you read the police report, you'll see that Zimmerman told them he was screaming for help. This was BEFORE he could have possibly known about the existence of the 911 call with the screams in the background. Forget about the "audio forensic experts." They've already been disproven as self-serving frauds (the one guy created the actual "software" he was using, the other is just a nut). If you read the transcript from the prosecution below, you will see that despite the fact they reference those "experts," they admit they do not provide any actual insight into whose voice it may be (I'll give you a hint, it's GZ):

SCREAMS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WI4x2JPcOA

POLICE REPORT: http://cnninsession.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/martinpolicreport.pdf

5) EVIDENCE GZ'S HEAD WAS SPLIT OPEN + POLICE TESTIMONY ON MATTER

The photo of Zimmerman's head clearly shows he was beaten badly, consistent with having his head slammed on the concrete. Conspiracy theorists are saying of course this must be fake, but ABC, who vetted the photo had this to say: "GPS and other data embedded in the photo shows it was taken at the scene with an iPhone just three minutes after the shooting, according to ABC News."

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/abc-news-photo-taken-after-trayvon-martin-shooting/nMdbw/

Also, I'm just putting all the prosecution testimony below, but here's a highlight:

O’MARA: The injuries seem to be consistent with his story, though, don’t they?
Dale; The injuries are consistent with a harder object striking the back of his head than his head was.
O’MARA: Could that be cement?
GILBREATH: Could be.
O’MARA: Did you just say it was consistent or did you say it wasn’t consistent?
GILBREATH: I said it was.

6) EVIDENCE GZ HAD A BROKEN NOSE

Again, the transcript and ALL the great excerpts are referenced below, but here is a highlight where O'Mara puts it on record that they have medical evidence Zimmerman suffered a broken nose:

O’MARA: Have you ever had your nose fractured or broken.
GILBREATH: No.
O’MARA: You know that that was an injury that Mr. Zimmerman sustained, correct?
GILBREATH: I know that that is an injury that is reported to have sustained. I haven’t seen any medical records to indicate that.
O’MARA: Have you asked him for them?
GILBREATH: Have I asked him for them? No.
O’MARA: Do you want a copy of them?
GILBREATH: Sure.
O’MARA: I’ll give them to the state. It’s a more appropriate way to do it. If you haven’t had them yet, I don’t want to cross you on them.

7) LEGAL EXPERT OPINION ON PROBABLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT (which allowed GZ's arrest)

The prosecution itself lays out the best case by presenting a complete lack of evidence in the probable cause affidavit. Here is Alan Dershowitz's (hardcore democrat, Harvard Law Professor, and largely regarded as a top legal expert in the country) breakdown of how utterly ridiculous this circus is:

"This affidavit doesn't even make it to probable cause. Everything in the affidavit is completely consistent with a defense of self-defense. Everything. Even if he was the provocateur, you still have traditional defense under Florida law. If, in fact, Zimmerman provoked it but then Martin got on top and was banging his head against the ground, he still has a traditional right of self-defense. So, there is nothing in this affidavit -- and I've read it quite carefully -- that suggests the crime. It suggests the possibility of a crime, but a good judge will throw this out."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcxSQJ6gWp8&feature=related

8) EVIDENCE THAT THE STATE IN FACT HAS NO EVIDENCE GZ SELF DEFENSE

At the bottom, I'll provide links to the actual CNN transcripts. But here are the highlights of this complete circus where the guy who wrote the Probable Cause Affidavit admits he doesn't actually know anything about the following allegations he wrote as fact (also known as perjury): *summaries borrowed from the "stop making sense" blog.

8-a). George Zimmerman profiled Trayvon Martin.

O’MARA: That he had an ice tea and a bag of Skittles, that he walked back into the gated community, he was on his way back when he was profiled by George Zimmerman. If I say to you the word peanut butter, what do you think?
GILBREATH: Jelly.
O’MARA: OK, Moe, Larry and —
GILBREATH: Curly.
O’MARA: OK, when I say the word profiling, what do you think?
GILBREATH: I believe you’re applying a predetermined thought pattern to a set of circumstances.
O’MARA: No other word comes to mind when I say profiled to you?
GILBREATH: I gave you my answer, sir.
O’MARA: OK, I appreciate the answer. Did you consider it to be some specific type of profiling?
GILBREATH: No.
O’MARA: Why did you use the word profiling rather than noticed, observed, saw, or anything besides the very precise word profiled? And by the way, was that your word?
GILBREATH: I don’t recall. This was a collaborative answer — excuse me, collaborative document.

From the examination, the investigator admits there is no evidence of profiling. George Zimmerman may have profiled Trayvon Martin, but may have just called because he saw someone suspicious, as he contends.

8-b). George Zimmerman confronted Trayvon Martin.

O’MARA: Zimmerman confronted Martin, those words. Where did you get that from?
GILBREATH: That was from the fact that the two of them obviously ended up together in that dog walk area.According to one of the witnesses that we talked with, there were arguing words going on before this incident occurred. But it was between two people.
O’MARA: Which means they met. I’m just curious with the word confronted and what evidence you have to support an affidavit you want in this judge to rely on that these facts with true and you use the word confronted. And I want to know your evidence to support the word confronted if you have any.
GILBREATH: Well, it’s not that I have one. I probably could have used dirty words.
O’MARA: It is antagonistic word, would you agree?
GILBREATH: It could be considered that, yes.
O’MARA: Come up with words that are not antagonistic, met, came up to, spoke with.
GILBREATH: Got in physical confrontation with.
O’MARA: But you have nothing to support the confrontation suggestion, do you?
GILBREATH: I believe I answered it. I don’t know how much more explanation you wish.
O’MARA: Anything you have, but you don’t have any, do you?
GILBREATH: I think I’ve answered the question.

From the transcript, the investigator admits he does not know if George Zimmerman confronted Trayvon Martin or the other way around. We know George Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin. From the tape, we know he followed him at least until the investigator told him not to. Some suggest he stopped running after that, evidenced by the change in his breathing. After that point, either Zimmerman confronted Trayvon Martin or Trayvon Martin confronted George Zimmerman.

8-c). Analysis reveals that the voice crying for help is Trayvon Martin:

O’MARA: Witnesses heard people arguing, sounded like a struggle. During this time, witnesses heard numerous calls for help. Some of this was recorded. Trayvon’s mom reviewed the 911 calls and identified the cry for help and Trayvon Martin’s voice. Did you do any forensic analysis on that voice tape?
GILBREATH: Did I?
O’MARA: Did you or are you aware of anything?
GILBREATH: The "Orlando Sentinel" had someone do it and the FBI has had someone do it.
O’MARA: Is that part of your investigation?
GILBREATH: Yes.
O’MARA: Has that given any insight as to the voice?
GILBREATH: No.

There is no evidence that the voice crying for help was Trayvon Martin. It may have been, but it could have been George Zimmerman, as his family contends.

8-d). George Zimmerman started a fight with Trayvon Martin

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So do you know who started the fight?
GILBREATH: Do I know?
O’MARA: Right.
GILBREATH: No.
O’MARA: Do you have any evidence that supports who may have started the fight?
GILBREATH: No.

No evidence on who started the fight. It may have been George Zimmerman. It may have been Trayvon Martin.

Here is another interesting bit from the transcript:

O’MARA: That statement that he had given you — sorry, law enforcement that day, that we just talked about, turning around and that he was assaulted, do you have any evidence in your investigation to date that specifically contradicts either of those two pieces of evidence that were in his statement given several hours after the event?
GILBREATH: Which two?
O’MARA: That he turned back to his car. We’ll start with that one.
GILBREATH: I have nothing to indicate he did not or did not to that.
O’MARA: My question was do you have any evidence to contradict or that conflicts with his contention given before he knew any of the evidence that would conflict with the fact that he stated I walked back to my car?
GILBREATH: No.
O’MARA: No evidence. Correct?
GILBREATH: Understanding — are you talking about at that point in time?
O’MARA: Since. Today. Do you have any evidence that conflicts with his suggestion that he had turned around and went back to his car?
GILBREATH: Other than his statement, no.
O’MARA: Any evidence that conflicts with that.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He answered it. He said no.
O’MARA: Any evidence that conflicts any eyewitnesses, anything that conflicts with the contention that Mr. Martin assaulted first?
GILBREATH: That contention that was given to us by him, other than filling in the figures being one following or chasing the other one, as to who threw the first blow, no.
O’MARA: Ok. Now, you know as one of the chief investigators that is the primary focus in this case, is it not?
GILBREATH: There are many focuses in this case.
O’MARA: That would be considered the primary, would it not, in your opinion, 35 years experience?
GILBREATH: I don’t know that it’s primary. It’s one of the concerns, yes.

And this

O’MARA: The injuries seem to be consistent with his story, though, don’t they?
Dale; The injuries are consistent with a harder object striking the back of his head than his head was.
O’MARA: Could that be cement?
GILBREATH: Could be.
O’MARA: Did you just say it was consistent or did you say it wasn’t consistent?
GILBREATH: I said it was.
O’MARA: Ok. Have you ever had your nose broken?
GILBREATH: No.
O’MARA: Have you ever had your nose fractured or broken.
GILBREATH: No.
O’MARA: You know that that was an injury that Mr. Zimmerman sustained, correct?
GILBREATH: I know that that is an injury that is reported to have sustained. I haven’t seen any medical records to indicate that.
O’MARA: Have you asked him for them?
GILBREATH: Have I asked him for them? No.
O’MARA: Do you want a copy of them?
GILBREATH: Sure.
O’MARA: I’ll give them to the state. It’s a more appropriate way to do it. If you haven’t had them yet, I don’t want to cross you on them.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1204/20/cnr.01.html

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1204/20/cnr.02.html

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1204/20/cnr.03.html

You are correct VT, I gave an earlier CNN clip, here is the newer one, my bad!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JBXSwou9Kc

The call was placed about 70 yards from the home where Trayvon was staying. If he would have slowly walked home, he would have been there in 45 seconds - a fulll minute and 15 seconds BEFORE Zimmerman even finished the call. Alternatively, if Trayvon was so frightened he had two minutes to call 911 before Zimmerman had finished his call, and 5 and a half minutes before the altercation.

There is no evidence as to where GZ was, when he phoned police.

Did you listen? Does Zimmerman sound like some maniac who's about to go into a rage and stalk some kid for no reason?

Yes, I listened to the tape, and I never said he was some maniac....my opinion is that GZ thought he could detain Trayvon until the police got there (after all he knew they were on the way) and Trayvon "freaked" and tried to run and get away form GZ, and a fight broke out!

There is no doubt that GZ had visible signs of a fight, just not a life threatening fight!

We don't know who started it, but we do know who finished it! GZ with a gun!

Your whole section on the bond hearing testimony is meaningless, the detective made it clear, up front, that he was NOT "ready" for testimony that day, and that he was "part of a team" that put the PCA together. Did you really think they would be "tricked" into giving testimony pertinent to the case at the bond hearing? I don't think so!

1) Would you mind putting down whatever excerpt (timecode would be fine) from that video you feel is relevant? All the guy keeps saying is "Well, I didn't see anything, but in your mind you can imagine..." Seriously?!?

2)

There is no evidence as to where GZ was, when he phoned police.

Really? So the sound of his car door closing was not evidence that he just got out of his car?

3)

There is no doubt that GZ had visible signs of a fight, just not a life threatening fight!

I must have missed your MD credentials on your profile. What makes you say it wasn't life threatening? Try this - go outside and slam your head backward on the concrete. You'll have to do it pretty hard to split it open like the images show, and you'll have to do it many times. Oh, and before you do that, make a fist and punch your self in the nose so hard that it breaks.

Now imagine it being dark, raining, and a 6' young man with gold teeth (relevant because it gives reason to believe he's a sociopath) inflicting those injuries on you while you're screaming for help and nobody is coming. I'd love to see you argue that George could not have felt his life was in danger at that moment. Please, just be honest.

4)

Your whole section on the bond hearing testimony is meaningless, the detective made it clear, up front, that he was NOT "ready" for testimony that day

So when he testified that he had no evidence whatsoever, you feel it was simply that he was out of the loop? He wrote the PC Affidavit, and you feel they didn't clue him in on this magical mystery evidence? Is that your assertion?

You can't just dismiss everything you don't like. Someday you won't be hiding behind a computer screen and someone is going to ask you to logically defend your position.

In what percentage of bond hearings are investigators for the prosecution questioned?

In what percentage of bond hearings are investigators for the prosecution questioned?

In 100% of the hearings where the defense attorney calls them to the stand.

And in 100% of those cases, they are required to tell the truth under oath.

So in this case, even an intellectually-challenged person can easily draw the conclusion that the investigator who wrote the PC Affidavit did, in FACT, have no evidence.

That is all that matters here, period. Everything else is just a game being played by people who refuse to acknowledge the truth.

VisableTruth....

I have been waiting for that post. Just knew you had your facts in order. The only thing I would add regarding the "following or we don't need you to do that" issue..

Prior to TM running and GZ following (for actually LESS than 16 seconds according to the call audio @7:13:27 "he's running") - Earlier @ 7:12:47, as GZ is relaying info to dispatch, dispatch states "let me know if this guy (TM) does anything else". He (GZ) was actually requested to maintain surveillance.

That, in my opinion, was a indication to GZ from dispatch, that he (GZ) should maintain contact with TM. So, logically, when TM ran, GZ would have been inclined to follow.

When then asked if he (GZ) was following, he responded "yes" and dispatch then said "we don't need you to do that" and again, for the second time, he complied with the request. (Keep eyes on individual, therefore follow if needed, then ceased when asked not to) Sounds like GZ was in total compliance with dispatch requests during the entire time.

You're right, @ric, that's a very good point. I had missed that when I originally wrote this, and forgot to add it to this post.

Everyone points to "We don't need you to do that" as some sort of legal command and smoking gun testament to Zimmerman's madness, yet they simply ignore the two minutes of calm, non-running conversation that happens afterward.

The dispatcher telling George to continue to surveil Trayvon completely destroys the entire argument that George was acting in contradiction to the dispatcher's half-hearted suggestion - if you can even call "We don't need you to do that" a suggestion. Technically it's simply an informative statement.

In what percentage of bond hearings do defense attorneys call the investigator for the prosecutor to the stand?

I would assume in a large percentage of cases where the PC Affidavit is full of lies, exaggerations an blatant omissions, and the prosecution has no evidence or basis for its case.

Maybe, let's see!

All of your so called testimony proves nothing beyond the point that he got off of the phone with the dispatcher. He stopped when the dispatcher told him he didn't need to. They made arrangements for him to go back to his vehicle to meet the police. He then changed his mind and decided that he wanted to have the police call him so that he could direct them to where he is when they arrive. Why would he need the police to call him when they arrived if he was on his way to meet them? His final conversation with the dispatcher indicates that he is going to look around the area and see if he can find where Martin went not that he was going to go back to his vehicle to meet the police.

I have seen no evidence that is absolute, 100% proof that Zimmerman was on his way back to his vehicle or that Martin initially attacked Zimmerman. I also think that it is very convenient for Zimmerman that no-one saw any part of the altercation except where Martin is on top of Zimmerman. Not one single person saw who attacked who, not one single person saw him shoot Martin. I also find it unbelievable that in the dark, in the rain a person who states they could tell who was on top and who was screaming for help was not willing to actually help their neighbor and instead left, went in the house and called the police. There are supposedly a few witnesses that seem to have seen pretty much the same few seconds and not one of them came to the assistance of their neighbor.

This case is in no way as cut and dry as you want to make it out to be. You have no idea what evidence that the DA has that the public has not been privy to so you have no idea if the affidavit is full of lies, exaggeration and/or blatant omissions. I agree that in reality they don't have any evidence proving who attacked who but they do have evidence that could be used by the jury to make a decision as to whether or not they find Zimmerman's testimony to be credible or not. In reality Zimmerman's testimony does not prove anything either. It is his word against the word of a dead young man. Since the dead young man cannot testify, they have to rely on other evidence to determine whether or not his testimony is credible. The whole "self defense" lies in the fact that Zimmerman was on his way back to his vehicle when Martin attacked him. His final words to the dispatcher can indicate that he was not going back to his vehicle and he was going to see if he could find Martin. I can't think of any case where the only evidence was nothing but eyewitness testimony. The jury relies on all the evidence that is presented. From what has been released, there is enough evidence in this case to cause reasonable doubt as to whether or not Zimmerman is telling the truth in part or all of his testimony.

@Donna P....

Actually GZ self defense claim is based on GZ being on the ground with TM beating him and causing his head to be pounded into pavement. It is at that point that GZ claims he was in "imminent danger" that warranted defense. His defense claim is not that he was "attacked" by TM. That can only be construed to be a supporting factor if proven (but we all know that it can not be proven or disproven as of now)

I agree that his claim to being attacked by TM cannot be proven anymore than the accusation that he attacked TM. The only "Credibility" issue is whether or not he sustained sufficient injuries which a "reasonable" Individual (ie Juror) could assume warranted the use of deadly force.

It appears you have it somewhat backwards regarding "reasonable doubt". If a Jury believes the series of events as portrayed by the Prosecution then they will find him guilty. If, on the other hand, there is "reasonable doubt" in their minds as to the Prosecutors' description or display of the series of events then "reasonable doubt" exists and they must aquit. Common Law principles dictate that when a point or issue cannot be decisively proven one way or the other, the benefit of doubt always favors the defendent.

The Prosecutor must prove their case as to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt rather than the defense proving their innocense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Ric,

The Prosecutor must prove their case as to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt rather than the defense proving their innocense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Unless GZ is using the "Stand Your Ground" law. If GZ is using that law, it is an immunization against prosecution, and GZ will have to "prove" to a judge that he was in "imminent danger". If a judge believes that, he walks, no trial.

@Jo-An...

Even using SYG Law, GZ does not have to "prove" anything.

That would be at a pre-arraignment hearing (not a trial) and GZ would (via O'Mara) submit a motion to Judge Lester to dismiss the charges. Lester would rule on the motion based on a "preponderence of evidence" not "beyond a reasonable doubt". His (Judge Lesters') ruling would be based on whether or not he believes the prosecutions' case has sufficient evidence provided and produced via the investigation to disprove self defense and actually prove 2nd degree murder. GZ does not have to "prove" anything. If the evidence, in the opinion of Lester, is weak, unsubstantiated, or unsupported, GZ walks, if not GZ proceedes to trial.

I'm talking specifically about the SYG law.

IF GZ wants to invoke SYG he MUST convince a judge that he was in imminent danger. If the judge says he doesn't believe SYG can be invoked, THEN the prosecution has to "prove beyond a doubt" that GZ is guilty of 2nd degree murder!

He can not invoke SYG as a defense unless he is on trial and wants to use it as a defense.

In the SYG statute there is a provision for an immunity hearing. That will happen shortly at the arraignment. What you are referring to is GZ "using SYG" as a defense at trial. If that will be the defense (and that will be determined by how well or poor the prosecutions' case is presented) THEN SYG becomes a defense and THEN GZ must take the stand and convience (PROVE) a Jury (not the Judge) that he was in immenient danger for his life and had to use deadly force.

So you still have it backwards.

Ric,

A defendant charged with a crime who wants to raise Stand your Ground files a motion to dismiss claiming stand your ground immunizes him from prosecution....

A hearing is held before trial. The burden is on the defendant to prove by a preponderance of evidence that stand your ground immunity applies.

The judge weighs the facts. If the judge agrees the defendant has shown stand your ground immunity applies by a preponderance of evidence, the charges are dismissed. The defendant can't be prosecuted.

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/04/stand-your-ground-is-not-defense-but.html

He can't use SYG as a "defense" at his trial! If a judge agrees to the SYG "strategy", there will be NO TRIAL!

Do you guys even realize the police reports have been leaked? So all of the versions don't make sense to even them. Even one of his versions some of you don't seem to want to admit. He claimed he did confront him but trayvon attacked him after he confronted him asking trayvon what he was doing there. After i heard that version I thought yeah the boy had to have attacked him. Because thats what a male teenager would do that feels threatened.

I changed my mind after I saw all the rest. In any other case were stories changes completely many times. That person is seen as guilty flat out because your story would never change that much. Even the one with the boy circling the car and he was scared for his life and rolled up the windows. That doesn't make sense with getting out the car to follow if your scared for your life.

Terri804,

You are right, there are PLENTY of stories going around out here in cyberspace, I have been trying to use only the written reports from "news organizations" and those have evolved as well. Where does the story about GZ saying Trayvon "circled his vehicle" come from? Did GZ's father or brother tell that? I know the brothers statements were basically all garbage, GZ's lawyers at the time told the media the brothers hadn't spoken in 3 years and that the brother should "stop talking"....LOL...he also said GZ was one step away from needing "nursing home care" from the "head pounding"....

Common sense tells us, GZ did NOT fear Trayvon, or he wouldn't have gotten out of his vehicle! PERIOD!

Lots of the stuff is coming from the lawyer on the site to try to set things straight. Jo-an you would probably like that site better. The zimmerman supporters on that are nice. You get both point of views and its not nasty. That's what makes alot of the posters on here look stupid. His lawyers is telling things on the site and chating with people. People on this are saying one thing and the trayvon supporters on here seem to be repeating the things the zimmerman's lawyer is now letting out.

Many of them need to go to that site and read up. Then come back here to say the things you need too. Once you read what their saying it seems true til they hit things that you know aren't true. His lawyer is saying something totally different against what they are saying. One thing I will say the site from last year would take the racist idea out of the picture. That's the only one mistake i will say that lawyer made. After you read everything he says you cant look at him as racist to blacks anymore.

He seems like a pure hoodlum, also you can't use the no limit nigga thing on trayvon anymore. Because that account looks just like trayvons and even far worse then his. Once you read his you would think instantly he is a black thug wannabe.

Jo-an you would probably like that site better.

Many of them need to go to that site and read up.

Website, please....

Are you REALLY that stupid, or are you just trying to impress us?

Oh you mean Zimmerman had no priors??? I guess your NOT that informed. He was arrested and also a Restraining Order filed on him. Let's not forget a Bigoted Web Site of his with Hate of People's! He also had a weapon and not a Law Officer. You can't just go around killing folks for reasons of your own. Oh he was told NOT TO PURSUE and DID NOT listen. Do you live under a rock or what?

I actually did not mean Zimmerman had no priors. I know what he has, most of the people on here have priors, but if you look into the facts, they add up in Zimmermans favor. I agree the family should get a trial. But lynching Zimmerman was exacerbated because apparently some think turning this into a RACE issue is a good thing. Why on earth would media outlets purposefully alter the audio on the 911 recordings to make it sound like it was about race.

When a really cute picture of a 12yo treyvon was posted, everyone initially thinks some small young teen was just gunned down for no reason.

Treyvon was new to the neighborhood, Zimmerman knew it. Treyvon was in his neighborhood because he was suspended from school and staying with someone else at the time.

Well is it possible that George could have fabricated most of what he said, "remember one witness said, that she saw him with his hands on his head. That in physiology is a place of thinking. Using the creative mind to come up with a story. How often do you stop in the middle of something and put your head down or back and put your hands on your head? Why do you do it? To think through something. You are using your creative mind when you do that. A pro-filer does the same assessment of people they look at for a crime. They put together actions of a person to access their motive. like what is your motive here? Do you have your hand on your head writing here, or does it just flow? If it just flow then you have a strong belief you probably have said, if your head is leaning on your hands you are thinking and being creative in what you are saying. Psychology has a lot to do with a persons actions. What does your actions say about you?

this summer?????? WHAT??

I do not understand how people can say he is guilty so swiftly. No one knows the evidence yet. IMO I do not see this man shooting someone just to shoot them. I do believe there was an assault against him but for what reason I will wait and find out.

Shame on the media for all the editing of calls and falsifying facts. Makes others hate a possibly innocent man.

I hope he is found innocent so only one life was lost in this mess and so maybe those slandering Mr Zimmerman will be charged.

If he is found guilty, let him rot in jail but still "shame on the media".

He won't go to court for a year or more.

Hey Bill, it might rain tommorrow. Is that Obama's fault to? Why even bring Obama up in this discussion. It has nothing to do with the topic.

Jack, Obama became a party to this when he pulled the race card on a Florida case, without knowing all the facts. In not so many words, he framed this as a racially motivated killing. He totally crossed the line, and I think this will become clear in November.

Although I'm very fiscally conservative, I'm a social liberal and was happy to see Obama get into office. We needed him, especially after the Bush fiasco. All things equal, I'd pick him over Romney any day. That said, I have serious doubts about his judgement after this. As an American president, you have to be an American citizen first and foremost. You have to embrace the justice system and refrain from any comments that could inflame an already hostile situation - particularly if you're speaking from a place of ignorance.

He blew it. It was more important for him to be on the "black team" than to be president. He apparently can't see past the issue of race enough to think like a president. That is scary and I feel he needs to go before he creates more racial animosity in this country.

It's sad, but I really can't forgive him for this. Totally inappropriate and beneath the office he holds.

VT,

He blew it. It was more important for him to be on the "black team" than to be president.

What is THIS statement is RACIAL? The President was asked a question, and he responded!

“Obviously this is a tragedy. I can only imagine what these parents are going through. When I think about this boy I think about my own kids and I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this and that everybody pulls together, federal, state and local to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened.

I’m glad that not only the Justice Department is looking into it, I understand now that the governor of the state of Florida has formed a task force to investigate what is taking place.

I think all of us have to do some soul searching to figure out how something like this happened. That means that we examine the laws and the context for what happened as well as the specifics of the incident.

But my main message is to the parents of Trayvon. If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon. I think they are right to expect that all of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves and we will get to the bottom of exactly what happened.”

Please explain!

Jo-An,

Thanks for posting this. It really points out how ridiculous the entire statement is. I can't wait to dissect this and help it go viral ahead of the elections.

His entire response should have been the second paragraph, then it should have ended. That was all he needed to say: "We understand the parents and other people have questions, and they deserve answers. So both federal and local agencies are taking a second look to make sure everything was handled properly." Period. Nothing else, no assumptions, no introduction of race. That is how a true American president would have handled it.

Instead, he chose to wrap it in his agenda:

I can only imagine what these parents are going through.

Translation: Because it MUST have been a hate crime. There is NO chance it was self-defense, as the police concluded, and the parents are right in refusing to accept the notion that Trayvon brutally attacked the dad's girlfriend's neighborhood watch guy. The facts that George called the police, the only eye-witness reports him being attacked, and he had a broken nose and split-open head are irrelevant.

every parent in America should be able to understand

Translation: White people should be able to understand this too, even though they're not black. They may have a hard time understanding, because this was obviously a race-motivated crime that would never happen to them (after all, black-on-white crime is justified), so I'll spoon-feed them the idea that they "should" be able to understand.

I think all of us have to do some soul searching to figure out how something like this happened.

Question: Why? Why do WE ALL have to do some soul searching? What if it REALLY was self defense as George claimed, and as the Sanford police determined? What if they all did their jobs and weren't some racist band of lunatics? Is that possible??

Does "soul searching" require that we arrest and drag someone through trial who has a clear-cut case of self-defense, backed up by eye-witnesses and medical evidence? Have you ever been through a trial? It's horrifying, expensive (read: all your money, gone) and the most stressful thing you will ever go through.

If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon.

Translation: Since this was obviously a vicious racist attack on a sweet, innocent, Skittle-toting little boy, it could have just as easily happened to my son, who would also be black.

First of all, the real comedy here is that Obama knew so little at this point, that he probably believed the 11 year-old boy in the pictures was who got shot that night. And, yes, he was 11 in some of those pictures. I learned this from the Anderson Cooper link you posted yesterday. Thank you.

Secondly, he decided a civilian, who had been deemed to be acting in self-defense by local authorities, was engaged in a racially-motivated incident, simply because Trayvon was black. There was absolutely no evidence of this, and therefore Obama grossly crossed a line that should never be crossed.

This was the grand finale, for me. An American president should not be creating division and inflaming racial issues. I would go so far as to say he was CAUSING it to be a racial issue by bringing it to the level of the country's highest office.

VT,

I would go so far as to say he was CAUSING it to be a racial issue by bringing it to the level of the country's highest office.

Nothing you said makes any sense to a NON-racist white person, so I can't even have a conversation with you!

I'm sure you can get some bigots on here to totally agree, high five you, and toast to Trayvon's death, but not me.

Nothing you said makes any sense to a NON-racist white person

Funny, I am a non-racist white person and it makes perfect sense to me. Oh, I forgot, if you say someone black is being racist, that makes YOU a racist. Gotcha.

Your response is typical - cry racist when you've got nothing else to say. It's ok, everyone with two functioning neurons to rub together can see it for what it is.

I would NEVER bring race into an issue. Obama did so blatantly and lost my vote, and hopefully millions of others. End of story.

"Blissful ignorance is still blissful." --unknown

Why aren't the blacks in jail for the same law that never touched the people still in there? People are crying for him but your not crying over the one's in jail for trying to protect themselves in there own homes.

VT,

Funny, I am a non-racist white person

What IS FUNNY, is YOU probably "believe" that statement...

Oh, I forgot, if you say someone black is being racist, that makes YOU a racist. Gotcha.

I would NEVER bring race into an issue. Obama did so blatantly and lost my vote, and hopefully millions of others. End of story.

Your ENTIRE "translation" of the President's statement is BASELESS, it's YOUR teeny tiny minds view....the view of a raging RACIST! I don't expect "you" to understand....your mind is too small to understand, so it would be a waste to even try. Go back to FAUX, I hear Sean calling you home!

Terri804, They don't care if the "blacks" are in jail for "protecting their own homes", they REALLY don't care if GZ were to rot in jail TOO, they only want to "preserve THEIR RIGHT to gun down 'BLACK' kids they deem a threat"...That is what it ALL comes down to!

This is horrible that the President cannot be real and say, "if this". Some people have just one view and that is if they don't like the President anything that he says is going to be bad. Well there has many Presidents that made statements in this exact same fashion. Like when Chernobyl happened, did we say that the President was wrong to relate to it No!!! We were understanding he was White and he was relating to other whites. But a Black President cannot relate to his own race because? That is the question.

Think about it....!!!! Did he relate because he was communist? This is just so revealing about how you view a Black President as apposed to a White President. Everything Obama does is wrong by some of you. If he would have just said, "I'm sorry for your Tragedy, you would have said, "That was stirring the pot also. It just so happens he showed compassion just as other Presidents that preceded him and now he's a racist or starting a race riot for it. Why can't he just be showing compassion like his counterparts? Can you tell me..?

Edward L-5900487,

You are right, the president can't say anything without it relating somehow back to his "black" half!

There is NOTHING racial in the answer he gave, about Trayvon, but a racist "translates" the who;e statement to their agenda! I have to laugh because these guys really don't believe they are "racist".....sheeesh....

So True, so true!!!!

Or.

1. Zimmerman listened to dispatch and NOT pursue. No killing

2. Zimmerman's arrest of a felony not pleaded to lesser crime he could not have a legal weapons license. No weapon. No Killing

3. Not bigoted as seen in his Web Site of Hate towards other People's. No killing.

4. See no crime, take no action and let Law Officers take care of your wannabe Crime Stopper mentality. Again no killing.

I'd be the first to say if a person was breaking into your home or another home and got shot, so be it. Too damn bad. This is not a crime being committed and being killed regardless of race, period.

Nope...not when you are trespassing on private property....

Jello heads!

Oh I see. You mean the sign that read "Do Not Enter Or You Will Be Shot Dead Regardless" Or the one that states "Armed Wannabe Cop On Duty and Bigoted" or maybe the one that read " I Hate Mexicans (see website) But a Black Will Do" last and best "I Don't Take Orders From Law Enforcement I Shoot First"

Seriously some of the worst logic I've ever heard.

@youallhave... Attempting to report someone's position to police whom you deem suspicious is not provocation. If Trayvon was afraid, he should have ran or called 911. He chose to confront George and attack him.

And before you give me the insane "Trayvon was standing his ground" argument - try to understand that attacking someone physically because you don't like the fact that they're watching you is NOT standing your ground. George was 100% within his right to follow him and ask him questions.

@Allan:

1. Zimmerman listened to dispatch and NOT pursue. No killing

1) Follow and pursue have very different connotations. Please look them up.

FOLLOW: to move behind someone or something and go where they go.

PURSUE: to follow someone or something, usually to try to catch or kill them.

George had called the police and knew they were moments away. He clearly was trying to report Trayvon's location, not trying to catch or kill him. Therefore, pursue does not apply. Please stop using it.

1.1) George said "He's running" and you hear his car door shut at 2:18 into the call, then dispatch asked if he was following Trayvon and said "We don't need you to do that", to which George replied "ok" at 2:32 and you can hear him stop walking. This "hot pursuit" you refer to went on for 14 whole seconds, then stopped and George calmly spoke to dispatch for another 1:44. Here's the entire call, if you can handle hearing the truth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj7qEcD8R-8

2. Zimmerman's arrest of a felony not pleaded to lesser crime he could not have a legal weapons license. No weapon. No Killing

2) People cut plea bargains all the time to reduce charges. A 21 year-old who pushes a plain-clothes cop who is trying to detain his friend in a bar is hardly a federal crime.

3. Not bigoted as seen in his Web Site of Hate towards other People's. No killing.

3) His "Web Site of Hate" - are you serious? First of all, it's "website." Secondly, it's called MySpace, a blog (all the kids are doing it) much like Twitter where Trayvon was much worse. Finally, he said Mexicans were messing with cars and stabbing people. So what?!? If they were Mexican, he can't say that? He's freakin' latino, I think he can point out a Mexican doing something if he sees it. How ridiculous has this country become??

4. See no crime, take no action and let Law Officers take care of your wannabe Crime Stopper mentality. Again no killing.

4) He was the neighborhood watch guy in a community that was being plagued by crime. Are you suggesting he's not allowed to investigate a guy he doesn't know walking around in his gated community? Would you put these restrictions on yourself? He was trying to do the right thing and you're just twisting the truth to suit your agenda.

Again, if you can stomach the truth, read this Reuters article and learn about what was going on in that neighborhood and why he felt the need to keep a visual on this guy:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425

This is not a crime being committed and being killed regardless of race, period.

5) The crime is called felony assault with GBI (great bodily injury). When Trayvon was shot, he was committing that crime, so please spare me the "innocent boy with Skittles" nonsense. He brutally assaulted George, and all the facts support this.

Getting out of a vehicle to pursue someone that you had been using to follow someone who is minding their own business when they try to get away from you is provocation. Martin did attempt to get away, Zimmerman was not going to allow that to happen.

1. You are right follow and pursue have different connotations. He was following him in his car. When he tried to get away and Zimmerman got out of his car and chased him, he was pursuing him, you can try to sugarcoat it by saying that he wasn't trying to catch him but his comments that they always get away seems to dispute that.

2. And in that 1:44 he also changed his mind about meeting the police at his vehicle and that he wanted them to contact him by phone when they arrived so that he could direct them to his location. Why would he need to direct them to his location if he was planning on going back to his vehicle to meet the police?

4. He was not investigating Martin. If he was investigating him, why didn't he identify himself to Martin and ask him what he was doing in the neighborhood?

5. There is no proof that Martin assaulted Zimmerman. As far as anyone knows, he could have been defending himself against and assault from Zimmerman. Sorry, call me skeptical but I certainly wouldn't just take the word of a person who has everything to lose if he was the instigator of the situation. As for the injury, you have claimed that his skull was split open which is a lie in itself, since the picture only showed a couple of scratches and if his skull was split open police protocol would have been to have him seen in the ER prior to taking him in for questioning so that they would not be liable if something happened to him while in their custody.

The witness does not prove that Zimmerman was acting in self defense. It only proves that at some point Martin was on top of Zimmerman and he could have been the one defending himself from being assaulted. NO ONE SAW THE ASSAULT. NONE OF THE FACTS SUPPORT THAT MARTIN BRUTALLY ASSAULTED ZIMMERMAN. That is just your perception of the facts. The facts as they are right now only prove

1. Zimmerman was following Martin in a vehicle and when Martin attempted to get away from the stranger that was following him, he got out of his vehicle and pursued him.

2. Zimmerman and Martin got into an altercation.

3. Martin at some point was supposedly on top of Zimmerman.

4. Zimmerman shot and killed Martin.

It is not a fact that he was on his way back to his vehicle. It is not a fact that Martin assaulted Zimmerman. It is not a fact that Zimmerman should be able to be exonerated on the SYG statute.

When the evidence is a "confusing mish-mash" at trial, that is reasonable doubt and a not guilty verdict.

So far, we have not seen any of the physical evidence the police collected such as the autopsy report, ballistics, crime scene photos, analysis of clothing for blood, gun powder residue, fibers, DNA, etc.

If the prosecution does not meet their burden of proof due to lack of evidence or inconclusive evidence, that still results in a "valid verdict."

In this case, Martin's supporters will almost assuredly riot at a not guilty verdict regardless of the evidence.

Do you get what you just said? You blamed the parents for someone killing there child. Would you blame a parent if a rapist, raped then killed their child?

Nope...hard to stalk someone on PRIVATE PROPERY. Better beware when you are trespassing on private property....

Jello heads!

Are you really that ignorant? The kid was visiting his FATHER! Its been a while since I heard from you sloppy. And yes, that name reflects your thinking proccess perfectly!

Nope, Jockoo...."visitor" my ass! He was trespassing on PRIVATE PROPERTY!

What is mine is still NOT yours...

You best stay out of my gated subdivision as well!

Jello heads!

It wasn't zimmerman's property. He was far from where he lived where that happened. They both were on private property. However, trayvon was only 70 feet from the dads girlfriends property.

He was not on public streets. He was trespassing on PRIVATE PROPERTY.

Big difference. We call the police in our GATED PRIVATE SUBDIVISION as well for any unseemly characters walking around that don't look like they belong.

The Zimmerman would not have followed him out onto public streets.

Jello heads!

Trayvon was not trespassing. He was a guest at his father's girlfriend's house where he was staying while on school suspension. Residents in gated communities are allowed to have guests.

Actually, he was not calling 911. Mr. Zimmerman called police dispatch.

Zimmerman did not call 911, he called the police non emergency number.