George Zimmerman Trial

[alexava 6,973]

At this point i don't see GZ being convicted on Murder 2. The prosecution is not doing a good job of pointing out key inconsistences in GZ's story and not asking obvious key questions that contradict his story. I think it will be manslaughter.

I think given how the trial is going, getting a manslaughter conviction is a stretch.

+1

[TeBoneAU 88]

At this point i don't see GZ being convicted on Murder 2. The prosecution is not doing a good job of pointing out key inconsistences in GZ's story and not asking obvious key questions that contradict his story. I think it will be manslaughter.

I think given how the trial is going, getting a manslaughter conviction is a stretch.

Good points however I am hoping that Zimmerman is atleast charged with manslaughter.

[AUGradinTX 0]

I'm aware of the curve and where he parked. It still doesn't make sense that he got out looking for a street sign but ended up around 300 feet away from the corner and around a row of condos. What street sign was he expecting to find in that courtyard?

If you watch the video, you will see why he ended up where he did. GZ said he walked from the curve on Twin Trees down the sidewalk to Retreat View Circle to look for a number on a house that he could give to the dispatcher. His reason for walking to Retreat View is because he did not know the name of the street he was on (Twin Trees) , therefore a number off a house there would be useless to police. The detective has stated during testimony that dispatch asks for a specific address to relay to police and that having an exact address will allow the police to get there faster.

He tells the dispatcher TM is no longer in the area and they decide to meet at the clubhouse instead. As he was walking back to his vehicle, he was confronted by TM where the sidewalk he was on meets the sidewalk that runs behind the residences on Twin Trees and Retreat View. This is more like 100 feet away from his vehicle.

GZ says TM approached him from behind and struck him in the face. GZ says he stumbles in the direction of where TM was shot and the next thing he knows is TM is on top of him.

Something I believe is telling is that during testimony the lead detective was asked if he found GZ's story to be truthful. He said he did. The prosecution has since had this statement stricken from the record.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

At this point i don't see GZ being convicted on Murder 2. The prosecution is not doing a good job of pointing out key inconsistences in GZ's story and not asking obvious key questions that contradict his story. I think it will be manslaughter.

I think given how the trial is going, getting a manslaughter conviction is a stretch.

Good points however I am hoping that Zimmerman is atleast charged with manslaughter.

I don't think it's a stretch. Today the prosecution has pointed out some good things...things in which question GZ's story. GZ's best friend is testifying to the fact that GZ told him that TM had his hands on his nose and mouth area. So how can GZ be calling for help if that occurred. This case is certainly within the realm of manslaughter.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

I'm aware of the curve and where he parked. It still doesn't make sense that he got out looking for a street sign but ended up around 300 feet away from the corner and around a row of condos. What street sign was he expecting to find in that courtyard?

If you watch the video, you will see why he ended up where he did. GZ said he walked from the curve on Twin Trees down the sidewalk to Retreat View Circle to look for a number on a house that he could give to the dispatcher. His reason for walking to Retreat View is because he did not know the name of the street he was on (Twin Trees) , therefore a number off a house there would be useless to police. The detective has stated during testimony that dispatch asks for a specific address to relay to police and that having an exact address will allow the police to get there faster.

He tells the dispatcher TM is no longer in the area and they decide to meet at the clubhouse instead. As he was walking back to his vehicle, he was confronted by TM where the sidewalk he was on meets the sidewalk that runs behind the residences on Twin Trees and Retreat View. This is more like 100 feet away from his vehicle.

GZ says TM approached him from behind and struck him in the face. GZ says he stumbles in the direction of where TM was shot and the next thing he knows is TM is on top of him.

Something I believe is telling is that during testimony the lead detective was asked if he found GZ's story to be truthful. He said he did. The prosecution has since had this statement stricken from the record.

The detective didn't say he believed all parts of GZ's story. Also, GZ's story is not fact until proven...where are the fact that prove ALL of his story is true. I believe parts of GZ's story but not all and even something that may be considered small can be huge in a case....the smallest details. The prosecution re-directed and make some good inconsistencies; like how did TM's hands get back under his body if GZ is telling the truth?

[AUGradinTX 0]

Is it really self defense to pick a fight with a stranger while packing heat?

I don't understand the question. Trayvon " picked the fight " , not GZ.

You don't know this and no witness backs up such an assertion.

And I disagree with homer that the simple act of getting out of his truck constitutes instigating the fight. But there is nothing other than GZ's word that says TM picked the fight.

Getting out of his truck instigated the confrontation, period. Everyone seems to assume that Trayvon had an obligation to submit to a stranger confronting him for no reason. Maybe he was afraid for his life. (And anyone who has actually been in a fight can understand his aggressive statements, Once the fight starts you are liable to say anything to intimidate your opponent.)

Bottom line, GZ took the initiative to confront TM for no valid or legal reason. If you are carrying a gun you should be obligated to avoid any confrontation if possible. He may get off, but he is guilty as hell.

If he does get off, it's open season on "suspicious" persons.

Bottom line, reading your posts about this case tells me you don't know much about it. You are basing your opinion on the media coverage immediately after the event and it's obvious. GZ tells the dispatcher that TM runs off, then states that he doesn't know where TM is. How do you confront or initiate contact with someone when you don't know where they are?

And If TM was afraid for his life he would have ran straight to the house he was staying at. He had the opportunity to do just that. He didn't. In fact, if you listen to the phone call to police, GZ says at one point that TM is walking in the OPPOSITE direction of his house towards GZ's vehicle with his hand in his waistband. You know, where some people carry a pistol. GZ then tells the dispatcher that TM has something in his hand. Hardly sounds like a frightened kid.

[AUGradinTX 0]

What I remember is that the local police and prosecutor were going to drop this as a case of self defense. Then the demonstrations started and scared the state government in to appointing a special prosecutor to go forward with a criminal case against Zimmerman.

http://www.thv11.com...7CFRONTPAGE%7Ct

If Zimmerman had stayed in or near his car and waited for the police, this would not have happen.

If Zimmerman had not been armed and then got out to follow Martin, most likely Zimmerman would have been found beaten up or dead on the sidewalk.

And you know this how? Clearly some of you have not actually watched the trial but buying into the media reports.

I'm watching it. And we know he would have at least been beaten up, because he actually was beaten up! He may have wound up dead, too. It was reported by GZ that TM told him he was "going to die tonight."

Listen to the 911 call where you can hear GZ screaming for help in the background. It's pretty haunting. He sounds like someone in fear for his life.

[AUGradinTX 0]

I'm aware of the curve and where he parked. It still doesn't make sense that he got out looking for a street sign but ended up around 300 feet away from the corner and around a row of condos. What street sign was he expecting to find in that courtyard?

If you watch the video, you will see why he ended up where he did. GZ said he walked from the curve on Twin Trees down the sidewalk to Retreat View Circle to look for a number on a house that he could give to the dispatcher. His reason for walking to Retreat View is because he did not know the name of the street he was on (Twin Trees) , therefore a number off a house there would be useless to police. The detective has stated during testimony that dispatch asks for a specific address to relay to police and that having an exact address will allow the police to get there faster.

He tells the dispatcher TM is no longer in the area and they decide to meet at the clubhouse instead. As he was walking back to his vehicle, he was confronted by TM where the sidewalk he was on meets the sidewalk that runs behind the residences on Twin Trees and Retreat View. This is more like 100 feet away from his vehicle.

GZ says TM approached him from behind and struck him in the face. GZ says he stumbles in the direction of where TM was shot and the next thing he knows is TM is on top of him.

Something I believe is telling is that during testimony the lead detective was asked if he found GZ's story to be truthful. He said he did. The prosecution has since had this statement stricken from the record.

The detective didn't say he believed all parts of GZ's story. Also, GZ's story is not fact until proven...where are the fact that prove ALL of his story is true. I believe parts of GZ's story but not all and even something that may be considered small can be huge in a case....the smallest details. The prosecution re-directed and make some good inconsistencies; like how did TM's hands get back under his body if GZ is telling the truth?

This implies there are parts of GZ's story that he does not believe. He has not made a statement like that.

"Serino said he falsely told Zimmerman the entire encounter had been videotaped in a bluff to see if he would stick to his story of shooting in self-defense after Martin attacked him. Zimmerman seemed relieved, Serino said, leading him to conclude the defendant was either telling the truth or was a pathological liar.

"Do you think he was telling the truth?" asked one of Zimmerman's lawyers, Mark O'Mara.

"Yes," Serino replied.

You aren't going to get "facts" proving all of his story is true. The verdict will be what the jury believes the truth is. And hearing the lead detective say he believes GZ was being truthful is pretty powerful. The person who knows more about this case than anyone else believes GZ acted in self defense.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/02/us-usa-florida-shooting-idUSBRE9610TY20130702

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

What I remember is that the local police and prosecutor were going to drop this as a case of self defense. Then the demonstrations started and scared the state government in to appointing a special prosecutor to go forward with a criminal case against Zimmerman.

http://www.thv11.com...7CFRONTPAGE%7Ct

If Zimmerman had stayed in or near his car and waited for the police, this would not have happen.

If Zimmerman had not been armed and then got out to follow Martin, most likely Zimmerman would have been found beaten up or dead on the sidewalk.

And you know this how? Clearly some of you have not actually watched the trial but buying into the media reports.

I'm watching it. And we know he would have at least been beaten up, because he actually was beaten up! He may have wound up dead, too. It was reported by GZ that TM told him he was "going to die tonight."

Listen to the 911 call where you can hear GZ screaming for help in the background. It's pretty haunting. He sounds like someone in fear for his life.

Because it was a fight. No one disputes that. The dispute is the fact as to who started the fight and the fact that GZ said TM did is not automatically the TRUTH just b/c GZ said so. The State has been breaking down some inconsistences in his story today and he has changed it a little each time. That questions as to if GZ's story is the actual truth. We can't get TM's side because he is dead. Also, it hasn't been shown in court as to who's voice is on the 911 call screaming.

The judge has ruled that a voice expert could not be allowed for both the State and defense b/c both sides can call witnesses and say it's either GZ or TM. As to who's voice it is will be left up to the jury as to who they believe if it's TM or GZ. You clearly have not watched enough b/c what you are stating is assumption and has not been classified yet as truth.

That's why this case is in court to try to get some understanding. Although we may never know who hit who first as the only people know are GZ and TM. The witness John Good didn't see who hit who first and testified that he only say about 10 seconds at the most of them fighting...10 seconds is not a lot to determine which person is defending themselves and which is not...so that's why he just called the police to sort it out.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

I'm aware of the curve and where he parked. It still doesn't make sense that he got out looking for a street sign but ended up around 300 feet away from the corner and around a row of condos. What street sign was he expecting to find in that courtyard?

If you watch the video, you will see why he ended up where he did. GZ said he walked from the curve on Twin Trees down the sidewalk to Retreat View Circle to look for a number on a house that he could give to the dispatcher. His reason for walking to Retreat View is because he did not know the name of the street he was on (Twin Trees) , therefore a number off a house there would be useless to police. The detective has stated during testimony that dispatch asks for a specific address to relay to police and that having an exact address will allow the police to get there faster.

He tells the dispatcher TM is no longer in the area and they decide to meet at the clubhouse instead. As he was walking back to his vehicle, he was confronted by TM where the sidewalk he was on meets the sidewalk that runs behind the residences on Twin Trees and Retreat View. This is more like 100 feet away from his vehicle.

GZ says TM approached him from behind and struck him in the face. GZ says he stumbles in the direction of where TM was shot and the next thing he knows is TM is on top of him.

Something I believe is telling is that during testimony the lead detective was asked if he found GZ's story to be truthful. He said he did. The prosecution has since had this statement stricken from the record.

The detective didn't say he believed all parts of GZ's story. Also, GZ's story is not fact until proven...where are the fact that prove ALL of his story is true. I believe parts of GZ's story but not all and even something that may be considered small can be huge in a case....the smallest details. The prosecution re-directed and make some good inconsistencies; like how did TM's hands get back under his body if GZ is telling the truth?

This implies there are parts of GZ's story that he does not believe. He has not made a statement like that.

"Serino said he falsely told Zimmerman the entire encounter had been videotaped in a bluff to see if he would stick to his story of shooting in self-defense after Martin attacked him. Zimmerman seemed relieved, Serino said, leading him to conclude the defendant was either telling the truth or was a pathological liar.

"Do you think he was telling the truth?" asked one of Zimmerman's lawyers, Mark O'Mara.

"Yes," Serino replied.

You aren't going to get "facts" proving all of his story is true. The verdict will be what the jury believes the truth is. And hearing the lead detective say he believes GZ was being truthful is pretty powerful. The person who knows more about this case than anyone else believes GZ acted in self defense.

http://www.reuters.c...E9610TY20130702

Serino also raised questions to GZ about his following and him ways he could've avoided the situation. I'm not saying parts of GZ's story is not true...as i do. But the fact is just b/c GZ says it is true it doesn't mean all parts are true b/c the State has shown through Serion's and GZ's friend's testimony there are some inconsistences and some that are really important so that questions his entire story unless there is an eye witness that say the fight start..which there is not. Every witness that has testified saw events that happend after whoever hit who first. If that can't be figured out..then that's why it's important to the state's case that they point out how many times GZ followed TM. That's why GZ's account and if he is consistent in his story is important.

[AUGradinTX 0]

What I remember is that the local police and prosecutor were going to drop this as a case of self defense. Then the demonstrations started and scared the state government in to appointing a special prosecutor to go forward with a criminal case against Zimmerman.

http://www.thv11.com...7CFRONTPAGE%7Ct

If Zimmerman had stayed in or near his car and waited for the police, this would not have happen.

If Zimmerman had not been armed and then got out to follow Martin, most likely Zimmerman would have been found beaten up or dead on the sidewalk.

And you know this how? Clearly some of you have not actually watched the trial but buying into the media reports.

I'm watching it. And we know he would have at least been beaten up, because he actually was beaten up! He may have wound up dead, too. It was reported by GZ that TM told him he was "going to die tonight."

Listen to the 911 call where you can hear GZ screaming for help in the background. It's pretty haunting. He sounds like someone in fear for his life.

Because it was a fight. No one disputes that. The dispute is the fact as to who started the fight and the fact that GZ said TM did is not automatically the TRUTH just b/c GZ said so. The State has been breaking down some inconsistences in his story today and he has changed it a little each time. That questions as to if GZ's story is the actual truth. We can't get TM's side because he is dead. Also, it hasn't been shown in court as to who's voice is on the 911 call screaming.

The judge has ruled that a voice expert could not be allowed for both the State and defense b/c both sides can call witnesses and say it's either GZ or TM. As to who's voice it is will be left up to the jury as to who they believe if it's TM or GZ. You clearly have not watched enough b/c what you are stating is assumption and has not been classified yet as truth.

That's why this case is in court to try to get some understanding. Although we may never know who hit who first as the only people is GZ and TM. The witness John Good didn't see who hit who first and testified that he only say about 10 seconds at the most of them fighting...10 seconds is not a lot to determine which person is defending themselves and which is not...so that's why he just called the police to sort it out.

I have been watching. And of course much of what I'm saying is assumption; I wasn't there. I'm not claiming that I know for a fact what happened and I know what GZ says isn't automatically the truth. From what I have seen/read/watched/heard, I believe he is telling the truth and so does the lead detective.

Take a step back and look at everything as a whole. GZ's story is the most logical. Who is the person most likely to start the fight? Why would a guy with a gun start a fight with someone? Especially in an unlit area. Wouldn't it make more sense to just hold him at gun point until police arrive? Starting a fight with someone when you have a firearm on your hip is a very bad idea. You know the person is going to try and take it from you. I don't think GZ is that stupid. Furthermore, if GZ was out to get TM, why would he have called the police in the first place?

TM had a clear path to the house he was staying and it was nearby. He did not go. He waited around. Why? GZ passed by the location of the fight once while on the phone with the dispatcher. When he passed back by, he was not on the phone. At this point, I believe TM was waiting for him and approached him from behind. If this was not his intention, like I mentioned earlier, TM would have gone home. Keep in mind TM had only two injuries according to the autopsy. The bullet hole and a cut on one of his knuckles. http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/05/17/trayvon.martin.autopsy.pdf?hpt=hp_t2

Also, this isn't the first call made by GZ to the police about suspicious people in the community. If he is this rogue vigilante type, why are there no other incidents of him going after people in the past?

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

Well the chief medical examiner is stating his wonds are not great force injuries. I'm just saying that i don't believe him 100% and if TM was alive i probably wouldn't believe him 100% but this is not the case. Some of it is logical some of it is not. Believe me i've been following this from day 1 and i've changed my mind in regards to murder 2 as i don't see "ill will" or hatred but he was negligent and there is some evidence to support that he certainly could've initiated the situation on a couple of occassions.

The more the inconsistences in GZ's and the more they clearly get pointed out by different witness accounts the more his story is going to be questioned is all i'm saying. The detective account does make a difference but in saying that GZ is believeable doesn't mean it's the truth and on the video tape where he and the female witness asked him questions it was clear that they had some suspension about certain things but the detective didn't get a chance to follow up and dig deeper with GZ it was only that one time.

As i stated earlier there was a 12 year old boy at his father's apt. no adult was home. Ever thought that he didn't want to led a potential rapist, killer or criminal to his father's house and put the 12 year old in danger as well. On the 911 GZ didn't want to give out his address. Ever think TM didn't want the person who kept following him to know where he lived? He didn't know GZ from a can of paint. Why couldn't GZ just simply say "Hey i'm from neighborhood watch...can i help you?" when he was in his car? It could've avoided any confusion. GZ was in his car and had a gun so by asking TM this he was protected. Don't think many criminals would've stayed around if someone from NW acknowledged themselves.

Lastly it doesn't take a history of events to show that a person was in the wrong. There have been plenty of people who have committed only one crime but that crime was a serious one. This could've been that one time where GZ didn't make a good decision as a neighborhood watch person. Everyone is entitled to what they believe...just saying my beliefs come from what's been presented in court thus far.

[homersapien 11,354]

1) GZ was armed. TM was not.

2) GZ shot TM.

3) GZ had no responsibility or need to leave his car that night.

Everything else is just GZ's explanation of what happened. Frankly, considering fact #3, the details of whom attacked whom don't matter.

All this stuff about TM not running home, or waiting for GZ, or whatever, are irrelevant. TM was shot and killed by a guy who had no business being outside of his car, period. Any details that try to justify GZ's actions after he left his car do nothing more than assign blame to the victim.

TM did not force GZ from his car.

Again, this is not about the details of who swung the first punch. It's about the responsibility that any civilian assumes when they choose to carry a gun for self-defense. As a civilian, carrying a gun does not bestow any responsibilities for enforcing the law, which was not being violated anyway.

It's about the accountability that comes with carrying a gun.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

He certainly needs to take some accountability. I don't think he has to this point.

[homersapien 11,354]

He certainly needs to take some accountability. I don't think he has to this point.

I listened to the interview he gave S. Hannity. Hannity asked him point blank is there anything he regrets that night:

HANNITY: Is there anything you regret? Do you regret getting out of the car to follow Trayvon that night?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

HANNITY: Do you regret that you had a gun that night?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

HANNITY: Do you feel you wouldn’t be here for this interview if you didn’t have that gun?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

HANNITY: You feel you would not be here?

ZIMMERMAN: I feel it was all God’s plan, and for me to second guess it or judge it --

Apparently, he doesn't even regret that it happened. I think he sees himself as the victim here.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

GZ's best friend didn't help him any with his testimony today. His friend wrote a book and told a different story as to what GZ told him what happend. It was a different story. Plus, it was crazy to me as to why GZ's lawyer would allow him to go on Hannity's show?! That was just crazy! Keep your mouth closed. Now there are different stories on video or audio tape by GZ. That was just dumb by his lawyer!

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

He certainly needs to take some accountability. I don't think he has to this point.

I listened to the interview he gave S. Hannity. Hannity asked him point blank is there anything he regrets that night:

HANNITY: Is there anything you regret? Do you regret getting out of the car to follow Trayvon that night?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

HANNITY: Do you regret that you had a gun that night?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

HANNITY: Do you feel you wouldn’t be here for this interview if you didn’t have that gun?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

HANNITY: You feel you would not be here?

ZIMMERMAN: I feel it was all God’s plan, and for me to second guess it or judge it --

Apparently, he doesn't even regret that it happened. I think he sees himself as the victim here.

Yea..i've been watching the trial live each day. Just posted as to why in the world would his lawyer allow him to do that? Keep your mouth closed! That's what lawyers normally say themselves and then his lawyer allows him to do that?! That's crazy but yea..it bugs me that he really hasn't felt bad about the situation at all. Even if he does believe it was self defense...i'd be a little shook up at the fact that i killed someone and he was a kid at that. Even when he was on the stand and apologized to the Martin family it seemed more about him. He said he didn't know he was a teenager. What does that have to do with anything? Like i said i believe some parts of his story but certainly not all and it looks like the important parts are turning into being questionable b/c his account is changing.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

1) GZ was armed. TM was not.

2) GZ shot TM.

3) GZ had no responsibility or need to leave his car that night.

Everything else is just GZ's explanation of what happened. Frankly, considering fact #3, the details of whom attacked whom don't matter.

All this stuff about TM not running home, or waiting for GZ, or whatever, are irrelevant. TM was shot and killed by a guy who had no business being outside of his car, period. Any details that try to justify GZ's actions after he left his car do nothing more than assign blame to the victim.

TM did not force GZ from his car.

Again, this is not about the details of who swung the first punch. It's about the responsibility that any civilian assumes when they choose to carry a gun for self-defense. As a civilian, carrying a gun does not bestow any responsibilities for enforcing the law, which was not being violated anyway.

It's about the accountability that comes with carrying a gun.

You again don't address why he may have gotten out of his car and assume something that which still must be proven. Simply stating that he had no good reason to leave his car is not something that just stands on its own. You have to demonstrate it. And all your other assertions are contingent upon that.

He stated that he got out of the car because he needed to give an address to the police but wasn't exactly sure where he was. He was looking for a street sign. Whether you believe him or not, you cannot assert that this is not a good reason to get out of the car or that doing so for this reason makes him an instigator.

[homersapien 11,354]

1) GZ was armed. TM was not.

2) GZ shot TM.

3) GZ had no responsibility or need to leave his car that night.

Everything else is just GZ's explanation of what happened. Frankly, considering fact #3, the details of whom attacked whom don't matter.

All this stuff about TM not running home, or waiting for GZ, or whatever, are irrelevant. TM was shot and killed by a guy who had no business being outside of his car, period. Any details that try to justify GZ's actions after he left his car do nothing more than assign blame to the victim.

TM did not force GZ from his car.

Again, this is not about the details of who swung the first punch. It's about the responsibility that any civilian assumes when they choose to carry a gun for self-defense. As a civilian, carrying a gun does not bestow any responsibilities for enforcing the law, which was not being violated anyway.

It's about the accountability that comes with carrying a gun.

You again don't address why he may have gotten out of his car and assume something that which still must be proven. Simply stating that he had no good reason to leave his car is not something that just stands on its own. You have to demonstrate it. And all your other assertions are contingent upon that.

He stated that he got out of the car because he needed to give an address to the police but wasn't exactly sure where he was. He was looking for a street sign. Whether you believe him or not, you cannot assert that this is not a good reason to get out of the car or that doing so for this reason makes him an instigator.

I think it does.

He didn't have to have get out of his car.

First, he was making assumptions about a kid who was simply walking home. There was no reason for him to call the police to begin with, much less to provide them with the exact address.

The only reason for him to get out of his car was to actively follow-up on his assumptions, regardless if his purpose was to confront TM or simply get a more accurate address. Had he not been following TM, he obviously wouldn't be getting out, regardless of his stated reason.

But he had no responsibility or need to do anything regarding TM. It was not his responsibility to check-out anyone. It was not his responsibility to get a more precise address for the police. He was acting on his own initiative.

More importantly, GZ gets out of the car with his gun.

All of this started with GZ's interest in TM. It ended with a dead TM. Maybe he was just being dumb with the whole thing. But once he armed himself, he became directly responsible for the use of that weapon, period. Had GZ simply minded his own business, or at least not gotten out of his car, the shooting would not have happened.

In my mind, that makes him accountable. That is the degree of accountability that should come with carrying a gun. If that gun is used in a situation that could have otherwise been avoided by the shooter, it's on him (or her).

I realize that standard of accountability may be stricter than yours, but that's the way I feel. If you want the right to carry deadly force in order to protect yourself, that degree of accountability is perfectly appropriate IMO.

If GZ felt he needed to patrol the neighborhood, he should have either left his weapon at home or stayed in his car. In terms of accountability, it doesn't matter if everything happened as he testified or if he was "baiting" TM (since he was armed). It was his actions that put them both together and the result was the death of an innocent person.

If you chose to carry a gun, you should accept the accountability for it's being used. That includes responsibility for deliberately putting yourself in a position where you feel you need to use it.

It's no different than being accountable for a tragic accident because you left a loaded gun unsecured.

Obviously, GZ rejects that sort of accountability, since he has no regrets about either having the gun with him or getting out of the car. Any sane person should have regrets about killing an innocent person, especially as a result of your own initiative. Instead, he is trying to shift responsibility to TM by portraying him as the aggressor, when TM was simply walking home. Yeah, it was all a big mistake. But that doesn't negate the accountability of the shooter in my mind. That accountability comes with arming yourself, like it or not.

[AUGradinTX 0]

1) GZ was armed. TM was not.

2) GZ shot TM.

3) GZ had no responsibility or need to leave his car that night.

Everything else is just GZ's explanation of what happened. Frankly, considering fact #3, the details of whom attacked whom don't matter.

All this stuff about TM not running home, or waiting for GZ, or whatever, are irrelevant. TM was shot and killed by a guy who had no business being outside of his car, period. Any details that try to justify GZ's actions after he left his car do nothing more than assign blame to the victim.

TM did not force GZ from his car.

Again, this is not about the details of who swung the first punch. It's about the responsibility that any civilian assumes when they choose to carry a gun for self-defense. As a civilian, carrying a gun does not bestow any responsibilities for enforcing the law, which was not being violated anyway.

It's about the accountability that comes with carrying a gun.

You couldn't be any more wrong. Saying GZ is at fault for simply leaving his vehicle is absurd and it has no validity pertaining to the law. You claim TM has the right to walk around that complex, well guess who has that same right. Of all the crazy s*** you say here, this takes the cake. Who initiated the physical altercation is everything in this case. That person would have committed a crime leaving the other person the right to defend himself.

You making up words to back your argument on assault weapons was far better than this garbage.

[AUGradinTX 0]

He certainly needs to take some accountability. I don't think he has to this point.

I listened to the interview he gave S. Hannity. Hannity asked him point blank is there anything he regrets that night:

HANNITY: Is there anything you regret? Do you regret getting out of the car to follow Trayvon that night?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

HANNITY: Do you regret that you had a gun that night?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

HANNITY: Do you feel you wouldn’t be here for this interview if you didn’t have that gun?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

HANNITY: You feel you would not be here?

ZIMMERMAN: I feel it was all God’s plan, and for me to second guess it or judge it --

Apparently, he doesn't even regret that it happened. I think he sees himself as the victim here.

Maybe he is the victim! Some people have been listening to the broken record, also known as MSM, too much. Getting out of your car in your own community is not a crime. Carrying a firearm is not a crime. Having concerns that someone in your community is up to something is not a crime.

This means if you have concerns that someone is up to no good in you community you can get out of your vehicle while carrying your registered firearm and you have done nothing wrong! The crime happened when one of them attacked the other. You would have to be a bit dense to not understand this.

[homersapien 11,354]

1) GZ was armed. TM was not.

2) GZ shot TM.

3) GZ had no responsibility or need to leave his car that night.

Everything else is just GZ's explanation of what happened. Frankly, considering fact #3, the details of whom attacked whom don't matter.

All this stuff about TM not running home, or waiting for GZ, or whatever, are irrelevant. TM was shot and killed by a guy who had no business being outside of his car, period. Any details that try to justify GZ's actions after he left his car do nothing more than assign blame to the victim.

TM did not force GZ from his car.

Again, this is not about the details of who swung the first punch. It's about the responsibility that any civilian assumes when they choose to carry a gun for self-defense. As a civilian, carrying a gun does not bestow any responsibilities for enforcing the law, which was not being violated anyway.

It's about the accountability that comes with carrying a gun.

You couldn't be any more wrong. Saying GZ is at fault for simply leaving his vehicle is absurd and it has no validity pertaining to the law. You claim TM has the right to walk around that complex, well guess who has that same right. Of all the crazy s*** you say here, this takes the cake. Who initiated the physical altercation is everything in this case. That person would have committed a crime leaving the other person the right to defend himself.

You making up words to back your argument on assault weapons was far better than this garbage.

Well, it may sound like "crazy s***" and "garbage" to you but it's what I believe and I am sincere. If you calm down and consider what I have written a little more carefully, maybe you will come to understand my position (but it's doubtful).

The basis for my position is philosophical. It's about the standard of accountability appropriate for those who decide to carry a gun. But even so, my perspective has direct relevance to this case. It is a perfectly appropriate standard to apply, even if you don't quite understand it. And the key facts, as I have described, support my position, at least once one accepts the standard of accountability I propose.

Unfortunately, I really don't think I can express is any better than I already have and I have no reason to think simple repetition would help. Frankly, I think the problem is less with my explanation that it is with your ability to think outside of the (very small) box you are comfortable in. But there's not much I can do about that.

[AUGradinTX 0]

1) GZ was armed. TM was not.

2) GZ shot TM.

3) GZ had no responsibility or need to leave his car that night.

Everything else is just GZ's explanation of what happened. Frankly, considering fact #3, the details of whom attacked whom don't matter.

All this stuff about TM not running home, or waiting for GZ, or whatever, are irrelevant. TM was shot and killed by a guy who had no business being outside of his car, period. Any details that try to justify GZ's actions after he left his car do nothing more than assign blame to the victim.

TM did not force GZ from his car.

Again, this is not about the details of who swung the first punch. It's about the responsibility that any civilian assumes when they choose to carry a gun for self-defense. As a civilian, carrying a gun does not bestow any responsibilities for enforcing the law, which was not being violated anyway.

It's about the accountability that comes with carrying a gun.

You again don't address why he may have gotten out of his car and assume something that which still must be proven. Simply stating that he had no good reason to leave his car is not something that just stands on its own. You have to demonstrate it. And all your other assertions are contingent upon that.

He stated that he got out of the car because he needed to give an address to the police but wasn't exactly sure where he was. He was looking for a street sign. Whether you believe him or not, you cannot assert that this is not a good reason to get out of the car or that doing so for this reason makes him an instigator.

I think it does.

Coo Coo!

He didn't have to have get out of his car.

No law saying he had to stay in his car.

First, he was making assumptions about a kid who was simply walking home. There was no reason for him to call the police to begin with, much less to provide them with the exact address.

Do you even know the purpose of neighborhood watch programs???

The only reason for him to get out of his car was to actively follow-up on his assumptions, regardless if his purpose was to confront TM or simply get a more accurate address. Had he not been following TM, he obviously wouldn't be getting out, regardless of his stated reason.

What is the point here? Getting out of your vehicle is not against the law. Why he got out is speculation on your part. No matter the reason, see sentence #2.

But he had no responsibility or need to do anything regarding TM. It was not his responsibility to check-out anyone. It was not his responsibility to get a more precise address for the police. He was acting on his own initiative.

This proves you are clueless. 1. It was procedure to keep a visual on someone you believe suspicious until LE arrives according to the neighborhood watch program. 2. He was asked by the police dispatcher for an exact address.

More importantly, GZ gets out of the car with his gun.

So? That's what his gun was for. Protection. It doesn't work unless you can reach the trigger.

All of this started with GZ's interest in TM. It ended with a dead TM. Maybe he was just being dumb with the whole thing. But once he armed himself, he became directly responsible for the use of that weapon, period. Had GZ simply minded his own business, or at least not gotten out of his car, the shooting would not have happened.

Period? So, anytime anyone shoots someone it is their fault because they were carrying the weapon... Got it...

In my mind, that makes him accountable. That is the degree of accountability that should come with carrying a gun. If that gun is used in a situation that could have otherwise been avoided by the shooter, it's on him (or her).

Yeah, this fails to take into account what the alternative could have been if he hadn't had the gun. Well thought out...

I realize that standard of accountability may be stricter than yours, but that's the way I feel. If you want the right to carry deadly force in order to protect yourself, that degree of accountability is perfectly appropriate IMO.

If GZ felt he needed to patrol the neighborhood, he should have either left his weapon at home or stayed in his car. In terms of accountability, it doesn't matter if everything happened as he testified or if he was "baiting" TM (since he was armed). It was his actions that put them both together and the result was the death of an innocent person.

If you chose to carry a gun, you should accept the accountability for it's being used. That includes responsibility for deliberately putting yourself in a position where you feel you need to use it.

Wait, did GZ deliberately put himself on his back so his head could be slammed into the sidewalk deliberately? Your stance exonerates TM from any guilt whatsoever simply because GZ left his vehicle. That's beyond ridiculous.

It's no different than being accountable for a tragic accident because you left a loaded gun unsecured.

Uh, there is no correlation here... A decision was made to pull that trigger. We just need to know why.

Obviously, GZ rejects that sort of accountability, since he has no regrets about either having the gun with him or getting out of the car. Any sane person should have regrets about killing an innocent person, especially as a result of your own initiative. Instead, he is trying to shift responsibility to TM by portraying him as the aggressor, when TM was simply walking home. Yeah, it was all a big mistake. But that doesn't negate the accountability of the shooter in my mind. That accountability comes with arming yourself, like it or not.

So, would you say GZ should apologize to the Martin family for their loss?

HE DID OVER A YEAR AGO!!!

It amazes me that you continue to make statements that you wouldn't dare make if you knew anything about the subject...

[homersapien 11,354]

He certainly needs to take some accountability. I don't think he has to this point.

I listened to the interview he gave S. Hannity. Hannity asked him point blank is there anything he regrets that night:

HANNITY: Is there anything you regret? Do you regret getting out of the car to follow Trayvon that night?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

HANNITY: Do you regret that you had a gun that night?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

HANNITY: Do you feel you wouldn’t be here for this interview if you didn’t have that gun?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

HANNITY: You feel you would not be here?

ZIMMERMAN: I feel it was all God’s plan, and for me to second guess it or judge it --

Apparently, he doesn't even regret that it happened. I think he sees himself as the victim here.

Maybe he is the victim! Some people have been listening to the broken record, also known as MSM, too much. Getting out of your car in your own community is not a crime. Carrying a firearm is not a crime. Having concerns that someone in your community is up to something is not a crime.

This means if you have concerns that someone is up to no good in you community you can get out of your vehicle while carrying your registered firearm and you have done nothing wrong! The crime happened when one of them attacked the other. You would have to be a bit dense to not understand this.

What I just said.

And if I am "dense" it's only in regard to my inability to adequately explain the standard of accountability that forms the basis of my position to you. But like I said, I think this has more to do with your own "density" than it does my explanatory skills.

But maybe I am wrong.

Surely there is someone out there that "get's" where I am coming from? Anyone??

[AUGradinTX 0]

1) GZ was armed. TM was not.

2) GZ shot TM.

3) GZ had no responsibility or need to leave his car that night.

Everything else is just GZ's explanation of what happened. Frankly, considering fact #3, the details of whom attacked whom don't matter.

All this stuff about TM not running home, or waiting for GZ, or whatever, are irrelevant. TM was shot and killed by a guy who had no business being outside of his car, period. Any details that try to justify GZ's actions after he left his car do nothing more than assign blame to the victim.

TM did not force GZ from his car.

Again, this is not about the details of who swung the first punch. It's about the responsibility that any civilian assumes when they choose to carry a gun for self-defense. As a civilian, carrying a gun does not bestow any responsibilities for enforcing the law, which was not being violated anyway.

It's about the accountability that comes with carrying a gun.

You couldn't be any more wrong. Saying GZ is at fault for simply leaving his vehicle is absurd and it has no validity pertaining to the law. You claim TM has the right to walk around that complex, well guess who has that same right. Of all the crazy s*** you say here, this takes the cake. Who initiated the physical altercation is everything in this case. That person would have committed a crime leaving the other person the right to defend himself.

You making up words to back your argument on assault weapons was far better than this garbage.

Well, it may sound like "crazy s***" and "garbage" to you but it's what I believe and I am sincere. If you calm down and consider what I have written a little more carefully, maybe you will come to understand my position (but it's doubtful).

Not likely. It is irrational. Illogical. Lacking in common sense.

The basis for my position is philosophical. It's about the standard of accountability appropriate for those who decide to carry a gun. But even so, my perspective has direct relevance to this case. It is a perfectly appropriate standard to apply, even if you don't quite understand it. And the key facts, as I have described, support my position, at least once one accepts the standard of accountability I propose.

Unfortunately, I really don't think I can express is any better than I already have and I have no reason to think simple repetition would help. Frankly, I think the problem is less with my explanation that it is with your ability to think outside of the (very small) box you are comfortable in. But there's not much I can do about that.

You don't need to express it any better. I understand exactly what your position is. I just think it is lacking in logic and does not consider the multiple other conclusions that could have resulted from the incident.