Is there a law or a rule that states a seventeen year old boy can't take his time waking back from the store?

Maybe he wasn't in a hurry to get home? Maybe he was talking to the chick on the phone?

Are you saying that Martin did something wrong because he wasn't in a hurry to get home?

It was his father's finance's condo and he was visiting. He had spent the night there before, been there multiple times, and it was his destination. He left the condo to go to the store, was returning to the condo when was shot dead.

Do we know this really?

Testimony suggests TM came back around and confronted GZ. If he was really going home, he would have been there when GZ lost him.

He stalked the kid. He stalked the kid for seventeen minutes.

Zimmerman followed the kid for seventeen minutes. Zimmerman followed him in his truck, and then on foot when Martin went between buildings. That's not following, that's stalking. He stalked the kid, confronted him, and then shot him.

Really Baddog? No, it wasn't his destination. Clearly he was going walk right by the condo, keep on going, and run all the way to the police station.

I don't know what the kid was doing, but Martin - MARTIN RAN from Zimmerman. Maybe he he was confused in the dark, wasn't sure where he was, but Martin RAN AWAY from a man ARMED WITH A HANDGUN that was following him for seventeen minutes.

Obviously the condo was his destination, but he was too busy running away from Zimmerman.

I would think it is to be expected. Most trials with murder on the table take a minimum of 24-48 hours. I would expect something Monday, but I am assuming they are meeting this weekend.

I think it's good that they asked for a list of the evidence - that shows they are giving the case the attention it needs.

As for what the verdict will be, I will go with at least manslaughter. I know I tend to see things in black and white, but this case just seems to obvious to me. It scares the piss out of me that my daughter might be shot dead walking to a friend's house in the dark because she was wearing a hoodie....

I wonder if the last couple of weeks will do anything to save Piers Morgan's show on CNN with all of his annoying, smarmy "reporting" on the Zimmerman trial.

I'm gonna say "probably not". He has got to be on his last legs.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/liv...s-worst-578127

Really? He ran from him . . . and you got this where? I must have missed that testimony.


Police records show that Zimmerman told non-emergency dispatch “oh shit, he’s running” at 7:11:40. Rachel Jeantel, the friend of Martin’s who was the last one to speak to him, testified that she could hear an altercation between Martin and Zimmerman shortly before the phone cut off at 7:15:43.

Martin’s decision to run — but not go home — was evidence that he was not afraid of Zimmerman, O’Mara argued, noting that Jeantel had testified that Martin called Zimmerman a “creepy ass cracker” who was following him.

For me and I would expect the jurors it will come down to believing Zimmerman's version of the story where Martin went for Zimmerman's gun and uttered a death threat - who started the fight to me is irrelevant, I don't believe in a brawl where two people are on the ground without weapons that anybody is in mortal danger, therefore I don't buy the self defense defense. I definitely have reasonable doubt whether Zimmerman's account is the truth. But I also believe Zimmerman's story could be true, 50/50 for me true or bullshit. So if I was on the jury would my opinion that Zimmerman's account *could* be true be 'reasonable doubt' which would compel me to find him not guilty on any charges? Or do I have to believe Zimmerman's account is the truth beyond a reasonable doubt?

I'd have no problem convicting him of manslaughter UNLESS the judge instructed me that my doubt that Zimmerman might be lying about Martin going for the gun doesn't mean I still don't have reasonable doubt which means I should vote to acquit.

So armchair judges - if I only believe that Zimmerman's story might be true, say 50%, is that 'reasonable doubt'?

Martin's girlfriend that was on the phone with him for much of this event testified that she told Martin to run and he told her no...so much for him running. In addition you keep saying that Zimmerman confronted Martin and the girl testified that Martin confronted Zimmerman not the other way around.

You just make up whatever shit you want to and rant on about it.

GZ does not have to prove anything to you; he is presumed to be innocent unless the state has convinced you beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it and that he was not in fear of his life at any point in the confrontation.

Don't know if this has been posted before. Saw it on a link off Yahoo.

7 questions and their answers about the whole mess.

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnh...trial-n1639838

The conclusion seems rather fair though the site is conservative at best.

Was it proven that TM currently played football or was that something he did a few years ago?

What was Trayvon's answer when he was asked under oath on the stand about whether he was standing his ground due to an immediate threat after being potentially stalked by Zimmerman?

Don't let the facts, the trial, the testimony of TM's girlfriend, the 911 dispatch and the state's experts AND the evidence get in your way.:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Nothing in this case has anything to do with "Stand Your Ground" (which is the name the MEDIA gave that particular law).

It's strictly self-defense...which is a pretty universal concept.

Use of the word "stalked" or "stalking" is an inflammatory way to try and create a picture of something that takes one "side" over the other.

You know that "stalk" is a term used in hunting an animal. And by using that word you are trying to convince people that the Hispanic guy was hunting the black guy like an animal.

I don't understand the reasoning for that.

That kind of talk is what will cause a lot of violence between the Hispanic and Black community.

Is it unreasonable to expect a discussion that doesn't use foolish language?
Probably not on GFY I guess. :1orglaugh

well then i would have to vote to acquit even though i have serious reservations about his credibility pertaining to his version of the events. and since self defense is also a defense for manslaughter i couldn't vote to convict him of manslaughter either - even though I'd probably like to do that.

'fear for his life' - hypothetically what would happen in an altercation where one person by nature is a person very easy to frighten, people are all different, there are people who won't fly in an airplane, people who don't drive on highways, even though statistics tell us it's very safe to do both those things many people exaggerate the danger for themselves - so one of these types of persons is out walking his dog one night, he has a license to carry a gun, there's a stranger in the neighborhood walking towards him on the other side of the street, the dog walker nervously keeps walking with the stranger coming closer, as the stranger gets very close he crosses the street and moves towards the nervous dog walker - the nervous dog walked is scared shitless, pulls out his gun and shoots the stranger.

the police investigate, what the police find out is that the stranger was a friend of one of the neighbors who was on the street that night to visit the neighbor, all the houses on the street look alike, the way townhouses do often and the man who was shot was probably going to ask the dog walker if he knew which home was the friends of his because he had forgotten the house number.

the dog walker gets charged with manslaughter - his defense is self defense, he genuinely feared his life was in danger. so he is not guilty of manslaughter even though the vast majority of people in the same situation would not feel like their life was in danger?

There's an opinion piece of CNN's website that asks the same question.

So let's say events played out differently that night, Trayvon Martin is a black teenager returning on foot from the convenience store to the house he's living in, he notices a white adult male out on the street seemingly with no purpose being out there, it's dark and rainy, the teenager sees the man watching him, then the older white man begins to follow him, he's definitely nervous about being followed, he calls a friend and tells the friend he's scared, somebody is following him, he turns around and the white guy approaches him, at this point he can either run or find out what this guy wants - the white guy isn't friendly, he grunts 'What are YOU doing here?', the male teenager shows some macho pride and says 'Why should I tell you' - things escalate and the two fight, this time it's Trayvon Martin who has the gun and he shoots George Zimmerman dead. Cops come and Trayvon Martin tells them his story, the man was following him for no reason, he was just walking home from the store, he turned around to find out what he wanted and Zimmerman was there, and hostile towards him, and then pushed him and a fight occured, Zimmerman noticed the gun in Trayvon's pocket and was about to grab it and said 'You're dead punk/nigga' when Martin beats him to the gun and shoots Zimmerman dead.

All we'd have is Trayvon Martin's story, and a bunch of 911 calls from people in the neighborhood who heard the fight and the shot and the call Trayvon called and told about being followed.

How would that case have played out? It's just Martin's word now, only difference is that Martin's a black teenager with a gun and Zimmerman we find out is a neighbor who is part of the neighborhood watch program.

EVEN if Martin's story is 100% true, not a chance anybody is going to believe him.

Trayvon Martin should have the same right to self defend himself if he feels his life is in danger BUT in a situation where there's only one side of the story and the white guy can't talk because he's dead Trayvon Martin is going to jail for 2nd degree murder.

The full text of the jury's instruction for JUSTIFIABLE FORCE:

The case is messed up. One thing I noted was where Zimmerman claimed to have his hands in his pocket and that he was fumbling for his cell phone after Martin supposedly confronted him. It was at that point GZ claims TM sucker punched him.

What I wonder is was GZ really looking for his cell or was getting out his gun or otherwise getting it ready? Or did he take out his gun and this is when TM attacked him?

For all we know TM could have been using Justifiable Force too. But the difference is he used Justifiable force with his fists so the other guy lived while GZ may have used it with his gun so TM didn't survive to talk. We're stuck with only GZ's side of things.

GZ's side and forensic evidence and experts who support his version. I was born and raised in Florida, in another time. Usually 4-5 gang up on one. I would love to see the threads if that scenario had occurred.:upsidedow

Well it's tough to say because the law and case is pretty unusual. There is no possibility for reasonable doubt that GZ shot and killed TM. The whole issue is whether it was Justifiable Force. It's not like a normal crime in that way then. You have to try to figure out what was in GZ's head and then you also have to look at whether GZ committed any actions which were unlawful.

The jury was instructed not to hold this against GZ but for me his lack of taking the stand would be something I would have to consider secretly. For most of the events he is the only witness still alive. His testimony and reenactments to the police may have helped fill in some of the story but his not taking the stand would make me think he has something to hide or that he is afraid to be questioned. A normal responsible citizen who just shot an unarmed teen under these circumstances would usually feel it their duty to help set the record straight and to open themselves up for questioning.

So you could say that your not being sure whether to believe him or not is partially his own fault due to his not taking the stand as a normal responsible innocent person would.

as per the judges instructions... If you believe it's possible that Zimmerman was not acting in self defense, you must find him not guilty.

The way a trial this is supposed to work is that the prosecution is supposed to offer a theory as to exactly what happened at every step and then prove it to the extent that there can be no doubt that it happened exactly that way.

I quote Michael Savage:
"Savage said the fact that Zimmerman?s handgun, a Kel Tec 9mm, had no safety on and a bullet in the chamber meant that he had intentions to shoot someone that night.
?Had he not chambered a round prior to meeting Trayvon, and had he not taken the safety off ? even if Trayvon, during the altercation even if Trayvon had tried to grab the gun away from Zimmerman ? had that gun not been chambered with a round and safety off, Trayvon Martin would have had to use two hands. You can?t do it with one hand,? Savage asserted.
?Because Zimmerman carried a loaded weapon with the safety off, Trayvon Martin is dead,? he continued. ?Therefore, the responsibility is in the hands of Zimmerman.?

I think he had the gun out already the kid saw it, he asked the kid what are you doing here. The kid scared hit him. I can see them rolled around because the kid knew he had the gun and didnt want to get shot. Him screaming help would make sense even though he is on top.

No, obviously the smart choice was to confront someone who had been following him for 17 minutes...

I mean seriously Rochard, are you really that dense? On one hand you say GZ was following TM for 17 minutes, which means that TM had 17 minutes to get to where he was going. Instead, he chose to play the tough little gangsta kid and paid for it with his life.

But seriously, sitting here arguing that GZ followed him for 17 minutes and then following that up by saying TM wasn't in a hurry to get to where he was going -- again, not his home -- makes you look completely and utterly stupid... then again, the bulk of your opinions -- again, not to be confused as facts regardless of how much you wish them to be true --make you look completely fucking moronic anyway...

I guess what they say about Marines is true... leave you brain at the door, jarhead.

That was covers extensively in the trial, it's not even close to accurate and the pistol was double action and had no safety. But again, why do emotional people arguing with feelings need facts?

The idea that someone is going to carry a weapon for self defense without one in the chamber is absurd by any measure.

This writer from Townhall.com summed the whole ordeal up perfectly:

Conclusion: It's sad that this case has become polluted with politics, racial grievances and wild speculation in the media because the evidence in this case overwhelmingly suggests that it should be considered a tragedy, not a crime.

************************************************** *******************

People are concocting their own storylines - one of them may be true but the prosecution through no fault of their own can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that their storyline nor anybody else's who's thrown one out is fact. The nature of the case and the criminal justice system dictates Zimmerman should walk on all counts.

Remember the system is set up to favor the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt is a huge burden of proof, with this system guilty men go free in the belief that it's better than innocent men going to jail or executed for a crime they didn't commit. how tragic would it be if the burden of proof in criminal trials was the same as in civil trials, the burden of proof only being a preponderance of the evidence. in civil trials a wrong decision only costs somebody money, not their life.

No you aren't, unless you want us to believe he speaks in the third person.

Tony doesn't care about that because it does not comport with what he thinks happened.

And not only did the prosecution not prove their storyline, they actually changed their story a few days ago when they conceded that Martin was on top, just trying to back away when shot. Obviously the facts and experts hurt their original story. And it was pretty obvious they switched gears to try and secure a manslaughter conviction instead.

That alone is reasonable doubt, when the state changes their story 85% of the way through a trial.

That was a few years ago.

Media bias playing to their audiences is amazing and appalling. College? Outside chance at best. Its like when you see a teen or 20-something on MAURY and she has 3 kids and after getting DNA from 12 guys, still no match...and she says she wants to go to medical school. There is a big disconnect between reality and the dream in the US anymore.

This article seems to be fiction if you look at the reality of TM's last year of school.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/2...ical-teen.html

This is from the Townhall article.
4) Did George Zimmerman continue to follow Trayvon Martin after a police dispatcher told him not to do so? Keep in mind that George Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch captain and there had been 8 burglaries there in the preceding 14 months. Additionally, most of those crimes were committed by young black males. Furthermore, while there are no indications that Martin was doing anything illegal when he ran into Zimmerman, it's worth noting he had been suspended from school for possession of a "'burglary tool' and a bag full of women's jewelry." (Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...lary-tool.html )Given all of that, it doesn't seem remarkable that Zimmerman may have initially followed Martin.

However, after calling the police and reporting what he believed was Martin's suspicious behavior, the 911 dispatcher told Zimmerman he didn't need to continue to follow Martin. It's worth noting that the dispatcher had no legal authority to tell Zimmerman what to do and even if Zimmerman continued following Martin, it wouldn't be a crime. Regardless, Zimmerman says he obeyed and began walking back to his truck to meet with a police officer when Martin confronted and then attacked him shortly afterwards. While it's impossible to prove one way or the other with the evidence available, Zimmerman's story is consistent with the facts presented at trial.

Your observations are spot on.

What the fuck kind of retardedness is this? You asked "He ran from him... and you got this from where?" and then you fucking quote Zimmerman as saying "He's running".

You imply he didn't run, and then quote the killer as saying he ran?

Duh.

Are you really going to question how long it takes for a teenager to walk home?

Gee, maybe he wasn't in a hurry. (You clearly don't have kids.)

Well, I don't think I suggested he never ran, just that he wasn't running away from GZ; since the testimony from TM's girlfriend said he has going after the cracker.

Yeah, they all just walk around in the rain.

The burglary tool is otherwise known as a "screwdriver". It's also worth noting that no charges were ever brought against him nor does he have a criminal record. Nor did anyone ever claim the jewelry to be theirs. For all we know the story was exactly as he claimed although it is suspicious.

So if you are otherwise talking about "reasonable doubt" for GZ it also makes sense to apply it here to TM who wasn't even charged with a crime.

If you're coming home from the store and you're 17 years old with have no car, yes, you probably will walk home in the rain.

GZ also claimed he was looking at all the houses. I also caught that he was only living there temporarily and that he had only been there a few times. If so isn't it very possible that he was a bit lost in the dark and the rain at that this was why he was looking at all the houses?

Well, I guess if you want to ignore the testimony of his girlfriend, sure.

Can you share exactly which testimony you are referring to or would that require you to write more than your one customary vague sentence?

Great article from the Washington Times

George Zimmerman is innocent. The evidence clearly shows this. Yet the liberal media have already convicted him in the court of public opinion. The result is not only that a man?s life ? regardless of the verdict ? has been shattered. Race relations have been poisoned, paving the way for possible deadly riots if Mr. Zimmerman is acquitted.

The entire mainstream media narrative, however, is based on lies. Trayvon was not killed because he was black....

It really doesn't matter what Martin was doing - or Zimmerman for that matter except for what happened at the very moment the gun came out and the trigger was pulled. The prosecution has to prove what was happening inside Zimmermans mind in that very moment and whether or not a reasonable fear or grave bodily harm existed on Zimmermans part. Everything else is is just theater and emotion.. There is no evidence that discredits Zimmermans account. There is no proof of an alternative sequence of events. The prosecution has not proven or even put forward and alternative theory. The prosecution even changed their story as to what "might have happened" which is retarded and should tell anyone that's the slightest bit reasonable that you can't have two possibilities and not have reasonable doubt as to either happening.

Did the prosecution prove Zimmerman was acting out of malice, ill will, spite etc AND of a depraved mind with no regard for human life when the physical altercation started? No. He proved that a dopey, aloof guy that basically sounded like Forest Gump was doing his job, calling police and guiding police to his location because he felt this guy was out of place and was darting in and out of peoples private property.

As I mentioned... I once was attacked by a guy that broke into my house to confront his ex who lived with me. I pistol whipped him to the point that the walls we basically painted the walls in blood in 2 rooms. Police arrived and he immediately started trying to argue that he was assulted. The police looked at him and asked "was this gentleman ever between you and the door? No? Ok, then you are under arrest". This apllies directly to Martin. He was not stopped from going home. No one got between him and where he was going. In fact, he was completely free to keep walking OR to call the police instead of continuing to talk to his female friend. Any argument to the contrary is speculative, not fact. Any argument Martin was somehow defending himself is again speculative and not fact. Being followed by someone does not give you the legal right to attack them. the presumption is that Martim dod attack him as no evidence contradicts that. You don't get a conviction based on speculation and hypotheticals.

that's a bad way to go :(

Tony, how do they know the gun had the safety off with a bullet in the chamber BEFORE the incident?

Of course the safety was off and a bullet ready to go AFTER he shot the gun. Right?
That just makes sense. But I'm confused on how they know that the gun had the safety off and a "bullet chambered".

I'm no expert on guns. I don't even know what kind of gun GZ used. All I ever owned as a pistol was a 38 special. So there is always a bullet ready to go.

Isn't that how all pistols work? You take the safety off, point it, and shoot it right? You don't have to take the safety off, put a bullet in the "chamber" and then shoot it do you? Seems like that would be a pretty inefficient gun.

exactly! :2 cents:

One thing about these sensational trials is that you learn interesting facts.

Like when the forensic expert said that you would be conscious and able to talk a few seconds (maybe up to 15 seconds depending on the person) after your heart is stopped.

I never knew that.

It was a double action, semi automatic pistol. There is no safety button, switch etc....just a longer, heavier trigger pull.

And no one... Police, security, military or anyone else carries a weapon for self defense without a round chambered. There is never a presumption that you will either have time or both hands freely available to chamber a round in the heat of the moment.

Baddog will now say this provides proof and it is now 'fact' that he clearly had 15 seconds to wipe Zimmermans blood from his hands.

Why would Martin have blood on his hands if he is the one doing the punching? It's clear most of you have never been in a fight. The bloody nose, lip etc is after the fact ... Its not instantly happening in the 1/200th of a second that a knuckle is making contact with the nose. Martin did have abrasions on his knuckles to indicate he was punching. Zimmerman had multiple wounds to indicate he was punched.

Seems to me like Martin was no hurry that night. He was walking in the rain, talking to his chick there.... Nothing wrong with that.

You know Baddog... Some people just.... Walk. And when they do that, they don't always take the shortest route home.

When you punch someone twenty-five times giving them a bloody nose, there should be blood on your hands.

Clearly Zimmerman wasn't punched twenty-five times.

Funny how he insists he is an expert but never backs anything he says with evidence.