Maybe, but Trayvon is dead so we can't get his side of the story. There is some physical evidence that it appears to be able to help the prosecution and GZ's credibility could be exploited more as well but I have no faith in the prosecution at all. I can see GZ leaving the courtroom and going straight home to grill burgers and dogs when the trial is over.

 

I just think the whole thing was messed up from the start. If this didn't catch national attention there hardly would have been an investigation. Zimmerman was essentially off the hook before this hit the media.

 

I also think there are some inconsistencies in his story that I hope the prosecutor will ask him about and he will have a chance to give his answer.

 

At the end of the day I think there needs to be a serious re-evaluation of this type of self-defense law. All the Florida law requires is that you have a "reasonable belief" that your life is in danger to use deadly force. That this kind of thing can not only happen but be encouraged should give everyone pause.

Wrong. They said the screams sounded like a boy. I've heard Zimmerman talk and he doesn't have a deep voice.

 

Your bottom line is meaningless here IMO. Getting out of your car and walking on a public sidewalk isn't illegal.

 

Isn't that what Martin was doing, just walking on a public sidewalk? The only difference? He didn't have a gun to defend himself with. I said earlier that I don't think Zimmerman is guilty of murder. However, his actions towards Martin resulted in Martin feeling the need to defend himself and ultimately in his death. I don't think he should walk out of this scot free. He should have been charged with a lesser charge. I think that any civil charge against him will be a slam dunk win for the plaintiffs.

 

Isn't that what Martin was doing, just walking on a public sidewalk? The only difference? He didn't have a gun to defend himself with. I said earlier that I don't think Zimmerman is guilty of murder. However, his actions towards Martin resulted in Martin feeling the need to defend himself and ultimately in his death. I don't think he should walk out of this scot free. He should have been charged with a lesser charge. I think that any civil charge against him will be a slam dunk win for the plaintiffs.

 

I guess that depends on whether or not you believe Zimmerman's story. He says Martin initiated the attack. If that's true then no, Martin wasn't just walking around.

Isn't that what Martin was doing, just walking on a public sidewalk? The only difference? He didn't have a gun to defend himself with. I said earlier that I don't think Zimmerman is guilty of murder. However, his actions towards Martin resulted in Martin feeling the need to defend himself and ultimately in his death. I don't think he should walk out of this scot free. He should have been charged with a lesser charge. I think that any civil charge against him will be a slam dunk win for the plaintiffs.

So if you feel like I'm doing something to make you defend yourself and you attack me I don't have the right to defend myself without being guilty of something?

 

I just think the whole thing was messed up from the start. If this didn't catch national attention there hardly would have been an investigation. Zimmerman was essentially off the hook before this hit the media.

 

I also think there are some inconsistencies in his story that I hope the prosecutor will ask him about and he will have a chance to give his answer.

 

At the end of the day I think there needs to be a serious re-evaluation of this type of self-defense law. All the Florida law requires is that you have a "reasonable belief" that your life is in danger to use deadly force. That this kind of thing can not only happen but be encouraged should give everyone pause.

 

I disagree. There was an investigation before the media outrage and the lead investigator wanted to charge Zimmerman.

 

The outrage forced the prosecution to go ahead with charges when I don't think they were 100% ready/confident.

So if you feel like I'm doing something to make you defend yourself and you attack me I don't have the right to defend myself without being guilty of something?

 

I don't think you should be able to instigate a confrontation to the point that a person feels threatened enough to physically defend themselves and then you escalate the confrontation (that you initiated) by using deadly force against an unarmed person. If that happens and someone loses their life I think you are guilty of a crime. I'm not in cavorted of a murder charge in this case but I feel as though Zimmerman should be guilty of something.

I guess that depends on whether or not you believe Zimmerman's story. He says Martin initiated the attack. If that's true then no, Martin wasn't just walking around.

 

Yes he was. If Zimmerman does not follow Martin in his car and then get out of his car and pursue him (and I don't care what he says that is the only reason for him to get out of his car) then Martin never confronts Zimmerman. If Martin, who initially was only walking home, felt threatened by Zimmmerman he had every bit as much right to defend himself as Zimmerman did.

I don't think you should be able to instigate a confrontation to the point that a person feels threatened enough to physically defend themselves and then you escalate the confrontation (that you initiated) by using deadly force against an unarmed person. If that happens and someone loses their life I think you are guilty of a crime. I'm not in cavorted of a murder charge in this case but I feel as though Zimmerman should be guilty of something.

 

Here's the problem I have with all of this. Should GZ have gotten out of his car, probably not. If he thought Martin was up to no good he should have left it to the police. However getting out and following Martin is not a crime. By all accounts he lost Martin and gave up then started walking back to his car. There is no evidence to dispute that. Martin then attacked GZ, again there is nothing to dispute that. GZ's nose was busted up and he had cuts on the back of his head. There is nothing in evidence to support that GZ instigated a confrontation except for following Martin for a short period. That in of itself is not a reason for Martin to physically attack GZ. Now if GZ approached Martin and was told to back off but didn't then I would agree. However there is nothing in evidence to support that is what happened. According to GZ he was on his way to his car when Martin confronted then attacked him. Pretty much your entire post is based on assumption, primarily because it's an assumption that GZ confronted Martin. Again there is no evidence that happen. While I agree that Martin would not have died that night had Martin not gotten out of his car he would also not have died that night had he not attacked GZ.

GZ doesn't have to testify.

 

What physical evidence supports the prosecution?

 

The dead unarmed kid.

Prosecution should not have gone after murder. No way they will get that, too hard to prove in a situation like this. That said, the "star witness" that was on the stand yesterday was ripped apart I believe the defense effectively weakened her credibility. Prosecution is going to have to show GZ got out of his car with intent, and attacked Martin. Pltf's counsel would have been more wise to go after a lesser charge.

Here's the problem I have with all of this. Should GZ have gotten out of his car, probably not. If he thought Martin was up to no good he should have left it to the police. However getting out and following Martin is not a crime. By all accounts he lost Martin and gave up then started walking back to his car. There is no evidence to dispute that. Martin then attacked GZ, again there is nothing to dispute that. GZ's nose was busted up and he had cuts on the back of his head. There is nothing in evidence to support that GZ instigated a confrontation except for following Martin for a short period. That in of itself is not a reason for Martin to physically attack GZ. Now if GZ approached Martin and was told to back off but didn't then I would agree. However there is nothing in evidence to support that is what happened. According to GZ he was on his way to his car when Martin confronted then attacked him. Pretty much your entire post is based on assumption, primarily because it's an assumption that GZ confronted Martin. Again there is no evidence that happen. While I agree that Martin would not have died that night had Martin not gotten out of his car he would also not have died that night had he not attacked GZ.

 

To the bolded, why, because Zimmerman says so? I'm sorry, but if you're morally okay with ending another's life, I think it's a safe bet you'd be morally okay with lying out your backside to save yourself.

 

I'm sure Martin would paint a completely different story, but Zimmerman made sure he isn't around to tell his side.

Let this be a lesson to you BGPer's...you have a phone. It has a video camara. Video tape everything. This is borderline dumb.

 

The dead unarmed kid.

 

That is really overlooking all other evidence now isn't it?

 

To the bolded, why, because Zimmerman says so? I'm sorry, but if you're morally okay with ending another's life, I think it's a safe bet you'd be morally okay with lying out your backside to save yourself.

 

I'm sure Martin would paint a completely different story, but Zimmerman made sure he isn't around to tell his side.

 

Is there any proof he's lying or are you speculating?

Is there any proof he's lying or are you speculating?

 

Taking out any criminal considerations: If this was a civil suit what percentage blame would you place on Zimmerman for the incident?