Again, isn't that simply GZ's word?

 

If the prosecution thought he was lying to the 911 operator to give himself an alibi for something he was getting ready to do then they would have went after murder 1 because it would have proven premeditation.

A crime.

 

His ignorance and negligent actions directly lead to Martin's death. At the very least he's guilty of that.

 

I agree that had GZ never have gotten out of his car then TM would not have died by his hands. He may be ignorant and he may even be a racist, neither of which proves negligence. I have a son not much older that Trayvon and I would be outraged if he died in this manner and would want satisfaction also. It is a tragedy that this young man died. In the end I hope that Justice prevails and after watching the majority of this trial I'm not justice will be served with a guilty verdict or an acquittal.

If the prosecution thought he was lying to the 911 operator to give himself an alibi for something he was getting ready to do then they would have went after murder 1 because it would have proven premeditation.

 

No, because there's no way to prove it. I'm simply saying based on the fact that he's been caught in multiple lies throughout the whole ordeal, I can't understand why anyone would believe anything he says.

I agree that had GZ never have gotten out of his car then TM would not have died by his hands. He may be ignorant and he may even be a racist, neither of which proves negligence. I have a son not much older that Trayvon and I would be outraged if he died in this manner and would want satisfaction also. It is a tragedy that this young man died. In the end I hope that Justice prevails and after watching the majority of this trial I'm not justice will be served with a guilty verdict or an acquittal.

 

Negligence is not acting in a manner that a reasonable, responsible individual would act in the same scenario. His actions were negligent in that respect. Not many reasonable people would've followed TM or gotten out of their vehicle.

No, because there's no way to prove it. I'm simply saying based on the fact that he's been caught in multiple lies throughout the whole ordeal, I can't understand why anyone would believe anything he says.

He's not lied in court (of course he didn't testify) and nothing he has said during his interviews with the police has been proven in court to be a lie either. He may have lied during his bail hearing (actually it was his wife) and he may have lied on TV (not sure if he did or not). But his account to the police never changed and what few witnesses and what evidence their is back up his story.

 

I wish it was a slam dunk conviction, but I don't think it is.

Negligence is not acting in a manner that a reasonable, responsible individual would act in the same scenario. His actions were negligent in that respect. Not many reasonable people would've followed TM or gotten out of their vehicle.

True, but he was part of the neighborhood watch and may have felt it was his duty to see what this kid (not from his neighborhood) was up to. I'm not saying that is OK but I don't think he got out of his car with malice of intent either.

Negligence is not acting in a manner that a reasonable, responsible individual would act in the same scenario. His actions were negligent in that respect. Not many reasonable people would've followed TM or gotten out of their vehicle.

 

Any lies he's told (and I'm not in tune enough to know which ones you reference) are really moot. Witnesses say they saw someone on top. An expert says the shot first hit clothing and then a gap existed before it hit body. That would support the witnesses who say they saw Trayvon on top.

 

The guy may have a big L on his forehead but the law says he didn't commit 2nd degree murder/manslaughter (whichever the charge is).

A crime.

 

His ignorance and negligent actions directly lead to Martin's death. At the very least he's guilty of that.

 

Of course it is, so is DUI, doesn't mean he's guilty of either.

For those claiming that GZ's decision to follow TM was in and of itself a criminal act because TM ultimately died, consider the following scenario: It's 11 pm on a Thursday night. I've finished a late dinner with clients. In order to get back to my parking garage, I decide to take a short cut that results in me walking several blocks through a section of town that has had elevated racial tension for several weeks as a result of gentrification occuring. I'm in a suit and tie. As I walk past a corner, a young black mail gets off his chair and starts following me. I get nervous that he's following me. I turn around and walk up to his face and ask him why he's following me. Words are exchanged. I swing first and am whipping the young man's butt to the point I'm on top of him and slamming his head against the sidewalk. Kid shoots me and I die. Are you telling me that my decision to stop and confront the young man as to why he is following me and am the first to swing was not a leading cause of my death? Are you telling me that the mere fact that the young man decided to follow the suit walking though "his" section of town was in and of itself a criminal act by the young man? Are you telling me that you believe the young man should go to jail because he did nothing more than follow me a couple of blocks before I stopped, approached him, hit him first and was beating him badly before he pulled out a gun and shot me?

For those claiming that GZ's decision to follow TM was in and of itself a criminal act because TM ultimately died, consider the following scenario: It's 11 pm on a Thursday night. I've finished a late dinner with clients. In order to get back to my parking garage, I decide to take a short cut that results in me walking several blocks through a section of town that has had elevated racial tension for several weeks as a result of gentrification occuring. I'm in a suit and tie. As I walk past a corner, a young black mail gets off his chair and starts following me. I get nervous that he's following me. I turn around and walk up to his face and ask him why he's following me. Words are exchanged. I swing first and am whipping the young man's butt to the point I'm on top of him and slamming his head against the sidewalk. Kid shoots me and I die. Are you telling me that my decision to stop and confront the young man as to why he is following me and am the first to swing was not a leading cause of my death? Are you telling me that the mere fact that the young man decided to follow the suit walking though "his" section of town was in and of itself a criminal act by the young man? Are you telling me that you believe the young man should go to jail because he did nothing more than follow me a couple of blocks before I stopped, approached him, hit him first and was beating him badly before he pulled out a gun and shot me?

 

That's exactly what I'm saying. Reckless, irresponsible actions on Zimmerman's part directly led to Martin's death.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Reckless, irresponsible actions on Zimmerman's part directly led to Martin's death.

 

Then we'll strongly, strongly disagree. The young black man in my scenario was not being reckless or irresponsible when he decided to follow me. This lawyer of almost 30 years wouldn't even consider it negligent.

 

Another scenario: I see some suspicious looking characters hanging out on the corner across the street from my home late at night. I open the door and step into my front yard. While visible to the characters I use my cell phone to call the police. The characters cross the street, approach me and ask me who I was calling. I tell them the police. Words are exchanged. They punch me and knock me to the ground. I shoot one that is on top of me beating my head against the rock. Was it reckless and irresponsible for me to step outside my house when I called the police?

Then we'll strongly, strongly disagree. The young black man in my scenario was not being reckless or irresponsible when he decided to follow me. This lawyer of almost 30 years wouldn't even consider it negligent.

 

Another scenario: I see some suspicious looking characters hanging out on the corner across the street from my home late at night. I open the door and step into my front yard. While visible to the characters I use my cell phone to call the police. The characters cross the street, approach me and ask me who I was calling. I tell them the police. Words are exchanged. They punch me and knock me to the ground. I shoot one that is on top of me beating my head against the rock. Was it reckless and irresponsible for me to step outside my house when I called the police?

 

That's not even close to the same scenario and you know it. Can't compare apples to oranges.

That's not even close to the same scenario and you know it. Can't compare apples to oranges.

 

No I don't know it, and you need a much more convincing argument than "can't compare apples and oranges". What makes GZ's decision to get out of a car and follow someone reckless and irresponsible but my hypothetical decision to leave my home and call the police from outside my home where I could be seen by the chararters across the street acceptable to you?

 

Had GZ stayed in his car, TM wouldn't have been shot by GZ. In my scenario, if I had stayed in the house when I called the police, the character I shot in my hypothetical wouldn't have been shot.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Reckless, irresponsible actions on Zimmerman's part directly led to Martin's death.

Zimmerman following Martin was neither reckless or irresponsible. Kind of dumb considering he had not idea who he was following or if Martin may have a gun but not even remotely close to reckless and not irresponsible. Zimmerman following Martin did not led to Martin's death. Martin decided to physically assault Zimmerman directly lead to Martin's death. Now whether Martin thought Zimmerman was pulling his gun and that's why he punch Zimmerman, as some have suggested, would put a different spin on it. However show me the evidence that suggests or even proves that is what happen. Otherwise Zimmerman following Martin was not illegal and was not negligent and did not cause Martin's death.

Zimmerman following Martin was neither reckless or irresponsible. Kind of dumb considering he had not idea who he was following or if Martin may have a gun but not even remotely close to reckless and not irresponsible. Zimmerman following Martin did not led to Martin's death. Martin decided to physically assault Zimmerman directly lead to Martin's death. Now whether Martin thought Zimmerman was pulling his gun and that's why he punch Zimmerman, as some have suggested, would put a different spin on it. However show me the evidence that suggests or even proves that is what happen. Otherwise Zimmerman following Martin was not illegal and was not negligent and did not cause Martin's death.

 

Bingo!