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

 

The only evidence needed is that an unarmed kid was walking home from the store, was followed by an overzealous wanna-be cop, and ended up being shot dead.

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

 

He shot an unarmed kid. I don't need proof to know that someone who would do that would also life if they had to, to save themselves.

The only evidence needed is that an unarmed kid was walking home from the store, was followed by an overzealous wanna-be cop, and ended up being shot dead.

 

Dude, your better than that. Come on, man!

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

 

If you say so. An unarmed kid is dead and the only side of the story being called 'credible' is from the guy who is alive. You say tow-may-toe I say tah-maw-toe.

Dude, your better than that. Come on, man!

 

Here's what you guys aren't getting....We aren't on the jury. We don't have to be impartial, unbiased, or objective. We can form whatever conclusions we want based on whatever criteria we want.

 

Obviously it's simply my opinion, but anyone that would stalk a random unarmed kid and shoot him dead is scum, and doesn't deserve my objectivity.

Why was GZ even following him in the first place? Are people not allowed to walk around in a neighborhood anymore?

Why was GZ even following him in the first place? Are people not allowed to walk around in a neighborhood anymore?

 

I still feel like people gloss over this question way too much when discussing this situation. And if they do answer they say...well he didn't start the fight or throw the first punch. That befuddles me to no end.

I still feel like people gloss over this question way too much when discussing this situation. And if they do answer they say...well he didn't start the fight or throw the first punch. That befuddles me to no end.

 

The reason they gloss over it, is because they don't like the answer, and want to ignore it.

I still feel like people gloss over this question way too much when discussing this situation. And if they do answer they say...well he didn't start the fight or throw the first punch. That befuddles me to no end.

 

So at what point does GZ suddenly lose his right to defend his life if he so feels that it is threatened?

We don't know how it went down. We know these facts: Martin was walking home in a place he had every right to be. He was unarmed and breaking no laws. He was shot and killed by Zimmerman. Everything else comes down to whose story you believe. Maybe Martin was unnerved by being followed and attacked Martin. Maybe Zimmerman confronted Martin, words were exchanged and it escalated from there. Maybe Martin saw the gun and felt like his only chance was to attack Zimmerman. We'll never know. To me this all boils down to the fact that Zimmerman pursued someone that was not breaking any laws and made that person feel as though they had to physically defend themselves then when they did he shot them to defend himself. To me he is responsible for the incident and should be punished in some way. I don't think he should be charged with murder but his negligence caused a death. You can bet that if Martin had beaten Zimmerman and killed him or hospitalized him he would have been charged.

So at what point does GZ suddenly lose his right to defend his life if he so feels that it is threatened?

 

Why did Martin never have that right?

 

The only evidence needed is that an unarmed kid was walking home from the store, was followed by an overzealous wanna-be cop, and ended up being shot dead.

 

Good thing you aren't on the jury because you don't understand the law.

So at what point does GZ suddenly lose his right to defend his life if he so feels that it is threatened?

 

Didn't Martin have that same right? If someone follows you while you're walking home then gets out of the car to come after you how would you react? Now imagine the same scenario and you saw that they had a gun in their waistband. Would you defend yourself? If you cause an altercation and then use deadly force against an unarmed person to me you are responsible, even if they were getting the best of you.

Good thing you aren't on the jury because you don't understand the law.

 

I understand the law fine, but since I'm not on the jury, I can form whatever opinion I want based on whatever criteria I see fit. Why are you not understanding that?

Why did Martin never have that right?

 

At what point was Martin's life threatened up until GZ felt like his was?

 

I have no answer....and you don't have one either. Pure speculation, that is why the murder charge was a huge overreach.