George Zimmerman Trial

[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.

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??

You're explaining just fine. You just are thinking straight...

[homersapien 11,366]

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.

Didn't say there was. But he becomes accountable for whatever happens after he does.

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???

Yes. Armed intervention is not expected or desired.

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.

Doesn't matter. He didn't have to get out. If one is carrying a gun and takes any unnecessary action that makes the use of that gun more likely, he should be accountable for what happens.

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.

Doesn't matter. He didn't have to get out. If one is carrying a gun and takes any unnecessary action that makes the use of that gun more likely, he should be accountable for what happens.

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.

Doesn't matter. He didn't have to get out. If one is carrying a gun and takes any unnecessary action that makes the use of that gun more likely, he should be accountable for what happens.

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...

No, it's easy to imagine a justifiable shooting. In such a case, accepting accountability is not so painful.

But a shooter must accept accountability for any time he pulls the trigger, justifiable or not. This shooting (of an unarmed person) was easily preventable and thus, unjustifiable.

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...

The true alternative here was not to get out of the car. He chose to do so when it was not necessary. And like I said, a shooter is accountable for discharging his weapon regardless of circumstances. In this particular case, he killed an unarmed man.

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?

No, GZ deliberately put himself at the scene when he had no responsibility or need to do so.

Your stance exonerates TM from any guilt whatsoever simply because GZ left his vehicle. That's beyond ridiculous.

No, it may be that TM acted inappropriately but if GZ hadn't been there, he wouldn't have acted at all and he would still be alive.

If you want to hold TM accountable for however he reacted to GZ, fine, but he's dead so it's sort of a moot point isn't it? Whatever TM did doesn't absolve GZ's accountability for discharging his weapon, which is something that would not have occurred had he not put himself on the scene.

One might say that trying to make TM responsible for his own shooting that would not have occurred had an armed GZ simply not put himself on the scene is "beyond ridiculous". But it does get to the heart of who is really more accountable for the round that was fired, the guy who was stalking the victim for no good reason, or the victim.

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.

Well, obviously, there is no "correlation" :-\ but the comparison perfectly analogous. You are accountable for your weapon even if you aren't wearing it. It doesn't matter if it was an accident or due to stupidity. You are accountable.

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!!

Of course he should apologize. But since he doesn't actually regret anything that happened, I doubt his apology is sincere.

Regardless, he should be held accountable. A manslaughter conviction sounds about right.

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

No one, including you, has presented any information that would change my position. Now if someone can show that TM pulled GZ out of his car (for example), I will reconsider.

And I am amazed that you are so incapable of even understanding my position. It's not like I expect you - or anyone else - to agree with it, but I don't think it's that obscure, at least to anyone who is capable of thinking objectively. I feel like I can understand anyone's position without having to agree with it.

Not accepting my standard of accountability when it comes to firearms is one thing. But you should at least be able to follow the logic of my argument given that standard. You don't have to agree, but you should understand my argument. You clearly don't.

It's as if you are intellectually incapable of considering a hypothetical or accepting a premise for the sake of debate. That's kind of sad.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

I think it does.

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

It's not a matter of opinion. You don't just get to declare such a thing by fiat. The reason for getting out of the car matters. According to his version of events, he was on the phone with police dispatch and was attempting to tell them an address where he was located and got out to find a street sign to indicate where he was. If his story is true, there is nothing about that reason for getting out of the car that is de facto an act of instigation or aggression toward anyone.

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.

While the former may be true, there is nothing automatically wrong about calling police. In fact, if you're suspicious for some reason, this is the preferable course of action to either engaging in vigilantism or merely ignoring it.

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.

This is weak logic. He saw someone he thought was acting suspicious. Even if his suspicions were wrong, getting out to figure out an address is not instigating anything.

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.

Well, he is part or head of the neighborhood watch so he sort of does have a responsibility to at least be vigilant and aware of people in the neighborhood and whether they are acting suspiciously. Now whether his assessment of TM's behavior is accurate neither of us will every really know. But you can't just declare that he shouldn't ever bother to call police over it just isn't true.

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

And?

All of this started with GZ's interest in TM. It ended with a dead TM.

In and of itself, that's not a crime.

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.

Getting out of the car in and of itself is not relevant, unless he saw TM approaching him and chose to get out to have a confrontation. If he got out to ascertain a street address, that is not a problem. Now, if he SUBSEQUENTLY chose to go persue or stalk TM, then THE PURSUIT is what brings possible culpability into play.

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).

In a very general sense, I agree. But the specific way in which you're applying this is off base.

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.

Wrong. And nonsensical. If you are out fulfilling your responsibilities as head of your neighborhood watch, there is not a thing wrong with legally carrying a gun while doing so. You never know if you stumbled upon an actual criminal who then decided to come after you. You'd be an idiot to choose to leave your gun at home.

And staying in or exiting the car is not the tipping point, especially if it happened as he testified.

If he was baiting or stalking him, that's another matter entirely.

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.

And getting out to get a street address is not doing that. And no court of law anywhere would consider it to be so.

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

Actually, it's quite different.

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.

No, he just rejects your unique and out in left field version of accountability. It's not a version that is held to anywhere.

Any sane person should have regrets about killing an innocent person, especially as a result of your own initiative.

All indications are that he was remorseful even though he believed he did so in self-defense.

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.

These ideas are not mutually exclusive. You can be remorseful and regretful for what happened AND feel the other person was the aggressor. Of course, I have my doubts about who was the aggressor as I've mentioned before.

And while I agree there is accountability when you choose to carry a weapon, your standards for it are unreasonable and have no connection to reality.

[TexasTiger 12,831]

There was no compelling reason to get out of his car. There were only three streets in the neighborhood that he lived in. When I'm looking for a street sign even in a strange area, I don't need to get out of my car to find it. He ended up a long way from his car. Whatever the legal finding may be, Zimmerman's actions led to an unnecessary death.

[autigeremt 6,599]

There was no compelling reason to get out of his car. There were only three streets in the neighborhood that he lived in. When I'm looking for a street sign even in a strange area, I don't need to get out of my car to find it. He ended up a long way from his car. Whatever the legal finding may be, Zimmerman's actions led to an unnecessary death.

Both parties contributed to the unnecessary death, but there's nothing illegal about getting out of your car.

[alexava 6,973]

getting out of your car when you don't even see the person you are trying to locate is not instigating a fight. I don't care if he was looking for a street sign, address or just trying to see where the kid went. he had as much right to walk the neighborhood as the kid did.

[TexasTiger 12,831]

There was no compelling reason to get out of his car. There were only three streets in the neighborhood that he lived in. When I'm looking for a street sign even in a strange area, I don't need to get out of my car to find it. He ended up a long way from his car. Whatever the legal finding may be, Zimmerman's actions led to an unnecessary death.

Both parties contributed to the unnecessary death, but there's nothing illegal about getting out of your car.

There's nothing illegal or threatening about walking home, either.

[TexasTiger 12,831]

getting out of your car when you don't even see the person you are trying to locate is not instigating a fight. I don't care if he was looking for a street sign, address or just trying to see where the kid went. he had as much right to walk the neighborhood as the kid did.

Wow. Talk about taking one brief segment out of a series of decisions/actions as if it stands by itself.

[ToomersRevenge 284]

Legally though you cannot use a legal action as part of an illegal event.

For instance, having the gun was legal. Walking the street was legal.

It comes down to the fight which is where any illegality occurs, and that's why it's important to determine who attacked who.

[alexava 6,973]

Legally though you cannot use a legal action as part of an illegal event.

For instance, having the gun was legal. Walking the street was legal.

It comes down to the fight which is where any illegality occurs, and that's why it's important to determine who attacked who.

bingo

[alexava 6,973]

There was no compelling reason to get out of his car. There were only three streets in the neighborhood that he lived in. When I'm looking for a street sign even in a strange area, I don't need to get out of my car to find it. He ended up a long way from his car. Whatever the legal finding may be, Zimmerman's actions led to an unnecessary death.

Both parties contributed to the unnecessary death, but there's nothing illegal about getting out of your car.

There's nothing illegal or threatening about walking home, either.

did he walk home or double back and attack the "cracker" that was following him? We dont know.

[telling tiger 156]

The rhetoric is just great, but GZ had no problem either, identifying TM as " one of the MF bastages that always get away." That is a two way street. Hard to find a less blame stance in rhetoric.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Let me clarify also...my suspicion is that Zimmerman is guilty of something like manslaughter if we knew all the facts. It's just my gut feeling after hearing his version of events. But so far, I can't prove that and being unable to do so, I don't see how I could convict him.

[alexava 6,973]

The rhetoric is just great, but GZ had no problem either, identifying TM as " one of the MF bastages that always get away." That is a two way street. Hard to find a less blame stance in rhetoric.

not my words but the prosecutions #1 witness.

[telling tiger 156]

The rhetoric is just great, but GZ had no problem either, identifying TM as " one of the MF bastages that always get away." That is a two way street. Hard to find a less blame stance in rhetoric.

not my words but the prosecutions #1 witness.

My quoted words came from Zimmerman's own mouth. Someone, though he doesn't have to, who isn't even going to take the witness stand. How does one coming from the prosecutions #1 witness and the other from Zimmerman's own mouth make a difference? lol Somehow one of those is better than the other to you? Bizarre.

[alexava 6,973]

Didn't say it was better. Im saying its on the state to prove the case and the states star witness gave those words. They put her on the stand to convince the jury and wanted her to be believed. We know how this ended, we know why it started. We dont know how two people who were not breaking laws ended up fighting. Do you think its more likely that GZ started the physical fight or TM. I think its more likely that TM did attack GZ but I DONT know this. GZ was legally concealing a gun, legally walking his neighborhood that does not make him fair game to be attacked and take away his right to protect himself. The prosecution has not and cannot prove that did not happen that way. The burden of proof is on the state. They don't have it.

[telling tiger 156]

I don't disagree that the state has, at best, done one of the worst jobs imaginable in presenting anything they've done. The case is not cut and dry in any direction you look and personal belief is the only thing that would make that so, to an otherwise rational person. Proving a case is one thing, knowing what happened is another. TM is just as free to walk a street on his way home without being followed by someone who is nothing more than a neighborhood watch member at best. More subterfuge here than black and white. Ironic ,huh? The same argument can be made for Zimmerman's words, "one of those MF bastages that gets away". Gets away from what, the store he went to? Trayvon was just as free to walk that neighborhood. Only one person is still here to give his account. I've been astounded by some of the commentary here, belief and inerrancy are not always the same things. At the same time, some rational statements have also been made. Interesting , nonetheless.

[homersapien 11,366]

I think it does.

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

It's not a matter of opinion. You don't just get to declare such a thing by fiat. The reason for getting out of the car matters. According to his version of events, he was on the phone with police dispatch and was attempting to tell them an address where he was located and got out to find a street sign to indicate where he was. If his story is true, there is nothing about that reason for getting out of the car that is de facto an act of instigation or aggression toward anyone.

No you are wrong. It is not opinion it is fact. There is nothing that compelled or forced him to get out of his car.

But the point is, if you are carrying a gun, you are accountable for every voluntary action that leads to the use of that gun. Getting out of the car per se' is not an issue. But he had the opportunity to simply stay put and let the cops handle it. But he decided not to. He decided to continue "playing" cop and intervene while carrying a gun. He could have left the gun in the car, but he didn't. He carried it with him, obviously thinking he might "need" it.

Bottom line, it was GZ's series of actions that ultimately led to the death of TM who was simply walking home minding his own business.

To assign accountability to TM for his own death is absurd. Had an armed GZ simply stayed out of it, TM would be alive today. This was not just a series of unfortunate events. Everything was initiated by GZ who armed himself and intervened in the situation when he had no need or responsibility to do so.

If you are going to carry a gun self-defense you must be ultimately accountable for the use of that force.

This is a case of GZ arming myself, then putting himself in a position to provoke a response from unarmed kid. It doesn't really matter if or how the kid responded. It is GZ that is ultimately accountable for the shooting. He is the one that pulled the trigger.

[homersapien 11,366]

Legally though you cannot use a legal action as part of an illegal event.

For instance, having the gun was legal. Walking the street was legal.

It comes down to the fight which is where any illegality occurs, and that's why it's important to determine who attacked who.

BS.

If I arm myself and then go out of my way to confront someone - or just deliberately put myself in a position where a confrontation is possible - I should be held accountable for the use of that gun.

TM was unarmed and simply walking home. The proposition that TM is responsible for his own shooting because of his reaction to GZ is Kafkaesque.

This is pure vigilantism. Has anyone seen the Charles Bronson movie

[ToomersRevenge 284]

I think it does.

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

It's not a matter of opinion. You don't just get to declare such a thing by fiat. The reason for getting out of the car matters. According to his version of events, he was on the phone with police dispatch and was attempting to tell them an address where he was located and got out to find a street sign to indicate where he was. If his story is true, there is nothing about that reason for getting out of the car that is de facto an act of instigation or aggression toward anyone.

No you are wrong. It is not opinion it is fact. There is nothing that compelled or forced him to get out of his car.

But the point is, if you are carrying a gun, you are accountable for every voluntary action that leads to the use of that gun. Getting out of the car per se' is not an issue. But he had the opportunity to simply stay put and let the cops handle it. But he decided not to. He decided to continue "playing" cop and intervene while carrying a gun. He could have left the gun in the car, but he didn't. He carried it with him, obviously thinking he might "need" it.

Bottom line, it was GZ's series of actions that ultimately led to the death of TM who was simply walking home minding is own business.

To assign accountability to TM for his own death is absurd. Had an armed GZ simply stayed out of it, TM would be alive today. This was not just a series of unfortunate events. Everything was initiated by GZ who armed himself and intervened in the situation when he had no need or responsibility to do so.

If you are going to carry a gun self-defense you must be ultimately accountable for the use of that force.

This is a case of GZ arming myself, then putting himself in a position to provoke a response from unarmed kid. It doesn't really matter if or how the kid responded. It is GZ that is ultimately accountable for the shooting. He is the one that pulled the trigger.

But you are continuing to say that what should have happened vs. what did happen is the same as what's legal vs. what's illegal. It's not. Everyone right now would agree GZ should have stayed his happy ass in the car.

But by all accounts we have, he got out and was ultimately confronted OR confronted TM. According to GZ the gun was never pulled until TM made a threatening statement during the fight, at which point GZ was on the ground being beaten, and reached for his gun. GZ did not just walk up to TM, pull his gun, and shoot him in the chest. The scenario as it played out matters legally.

[homersapien 11,366]

And while I agree there is accountability when you choose to carry a weapon, your standards for it are unreasonable and have no connection to reality.

I think my standards of accountability are perfectly reasonable. The "obligation to retreat" (or to avoid the "need" to use of your gun) is a reasonable and sensible standard to require of people who choose to carry a gun.

I am sure TM's family think they are reasonable. In fact, I am pretty sure you would think they are reasonable if it were your unarmed son killed by a neighborhood watch person for simply walking home.

But if you really believe they are not, then there is no point in your arguing with me at all. My standard of accountability is the basis of my argument.

Like I said, this was not just a situation where s*** happens. An unarmed kid was shot and killed by someone who had no duty or obligation to even be on the scene. There should be accountability for this and it resides with the shooter.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

I think my standards of accountability are perfectly reasonable.

No law I'm aware of agrees with a standard that says "getting out of the car while armed for any reason is instigating a confrontation." You need to refresh your understanding of "reasonable."

I am sure TM's family think they are reasonable. In fact, I am pretty sure you would think they are reasonable if it were your unarmed son killed by a neighborhood watch person for simply walking home.

I doubt they think Zimmerman was ipso facto guilty of instigating a deadly confrontation simply by getting out of his truck. It's what actions he took after that which determines his culpability.

No doubt they are heartbroken and upset at their son being killed as would I. But that doesn't mean I erect artificial and nonsensical standards of accountability.

But if you really believe they are not, then there is no point in your arguing with me at all. My standard of accountability is the basis of my argument.

Your standard of accountability is anchored in Jello. It has no connection to anything in reality. And therefore it undermines your entire argument. Intent/motive for leaving the vehicle actually matters in this reality. If he left it to stalk TM, then there's culpability for what happened as a result. If in fact he left to get his bearings and give a specific location to police, then that in and of itself does not make him culpable for what followed. Now, if he subsequently engaged in confrontational action (he's telling the truth about getting out to get a specific location for the police but then decided to chase TM somewhere), then THAT is where his culpability would come into play.

Like I said, this was not just a situation where s*** happens. An unarmed kid was shot and killed by someone who had no duty or obligation to even be on the scene. There should be accountability for this and it resides with the shooter.

The standard that his actions are measured against are not "duty" or "obligation" to be on the scene. He was the head of the neighborhood watch. It is completely normal and reasonable for him to be on the lookout for anyone that appears to be lurking in the neighborhood, even if he's just on his way to the store and not on official patrol when he happens to see the person(s).

He shouldn't have been following TM though after the police dispatcher said they didn't need him to do that. But even so, that still wasn't illegal. Once he determined where he was and gave that info to the dispatcher, that should have been the end of his involvement. What happened after that is what determines his guilt though. Up to this point, he has not confronted TM or threatened him. And according to GZ (and there is no witness testimony that contradicts or corroborates this), he never did confront him. He was walking back to his vehicle when TM attacked him. If that story is true, then it is unfortunate but he didn't instigate the fight and should not be culpable for TM's death. If however through inconsistencies in his story or some heretofore unknown witness account, we find that GZ appears to have been chasing or attempting to accost TM, then used the gun once he was getting his ass kicked, that's different.

Look, I think the guy did more than he's saying he did too. And I think if we knew all the facts that would come to light. But unfortunately the facts we have don't prove that. And we don't (or shouldn't) convict people on hunches or trumped up, unrealistic and artificial standards of accountability that no one uses anywhere.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

I think my standards of accountability are perfectly reasonable.

No law I'm aware of agrees with a standard that says "getting out of the car while armed for any reason is instigating a confrontation." You need to refresh your understanding of "reasonable."

I am sure TM's family think they are reasonable. In fact, I am pretty sure you would think they are reasonable if it were your unarmed son killed by a neighborhood watch person for simply walking home.

I doubt they think Zimmerman was ipso facto guilty of instigating a deadly confrontation simply by getting out of his truck. It's what actions he took after that which determines his culpability.

No doubt they are heartbroken and upset at their son being killed as would I. But that doesn't mean I erect artificial and nonsensical standards of accountability.

But if you really believe they are not, then there is no point in your arguing with me at all. My standard of accountability is the basis of my argument.

Your standard of accountability is anchored in Jello. It has no connection to anything in reality. And therefore it undermines your entire argument. Intent/motive for leaving the vehicle actually matters in this reality. If he left it to stalk TM, then there's culpability for what happened as a result. If in fact he left to get his bearings and give a specific location to police, then that in and of itself does not make him culpable for what followed. Now, if he subsequently engaged in confrontational action (he's telling the truth about getting out to get a specific location for the police but then decided to chase TM somewhere), then THAT is where his culpability would come into play.

Like I said, this was not just a situation where s*** happens. An unarmed kid was shot and killed by someone who had no duty or obligation to even be on the scene. There should be accountability for this and it resides with the shooter.

And according to GZ (and there is no witness testimony that contradicts or corroborates this), he never did confront him. He was walking back to his vehicle when TM attacked him. If that story is true, then it is unfortunate but he didn't instigate the fight and should not be culpable for TM's death. If however through inconsistencies in his story or some heretofore unknown witness account, we find that GZ appears to have been chasing or attempting to accost TM, then used the gun once he was getting his ass kicked, that's different.

This is how the prosecution could be able to get a conviction without having eyewitness...the inconsistencies. It will have to be through circumstantial evidence and expert testimony thus why many are focusing on the following and pursuing of GZ. But like you stated...that alone doesn't make GZ guilty but it does play a factor for the state in the circumstantial theory that GZ was the initiator of the fight. If GZ followed and followed again then it is likely that he instigated the fight as well. A + B = C. Not saying this is true.

Just stating that's what the prosecution is trying to go in their case but in order to do that they have to tear apart GZ's story and they are finding holes and new versions of his stories. I'm not sure if it will be enough as i think they need to dig deeper and ask more questions. I don't think they've proven murder 2 but i do think manslaughter is still possible but they need to pick things up because they are getting towards the end of their case and it's not strong as it should be. The prosecution hasn't been up to par in my opinion b/c they have some good information/evidence to work with but they have not dived deep into the witnesses like they should have.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

I agree. I don't know that I've seen the prosecution do much to point out any inconsistencies so far though.

[alexava 6,973]

I have never seen a case that did not have inconsistencies. Things happen fast. You remember, forget, reremember, misremember, the you have thousands of people punch holes in your story. Some want the truth, some some have already decided the truth for you and attempt to make you a liar. I think the main script has been fairly steady.