George Zimmerman Trial

[ToomersRevenge 284]

so your both saying, if neither had done anything nothing would have happened. However, both did do something.

Yeah, one bought Skittles.

And then violently attacked a man walking around outside.

I mean you can make it sound however you want.

[TexasTiger 12,961]

so your both saying, if neither had done anything nothing would have happened. However, both did do something.

Yeah, one bought Skittles.

And then violently attacked a man walking around outside.

I mean you can make it sound however you want.

Except what I said isn't even in dispute. A kid bought Skittles and started walking home around 7pm-- barely into the early evening. A guy with a loaded gun said he looked "suspicious" without describing suspicious behavior, said "these a@@holes always get away" although the kid hadn't been seen doing anything illegal, followed him in an obvious way that, for anyone being followed would definitely make GZ seem very suspicious. Those are undisputed facts. You can keep speculating since that is what you need to do to make your case.

[ToomersRevenge 284]

so your both saying, if neither had done anything nothing would have happened. However, both did do something.

Yeah, one bought Skittles.

And then violently attacked a man walking around outside.

I mean you can make it sound however you want.

Except what I said isn't even in dispute. A kid bought Skittles and started walking home around 7pm-- barely into the early evening. A guy with a loaded gun said he looked "suspicious" without describing suspicious behavior, said "these a@@holes always get away" although the kid hadn't been seen doing anything illegal, followed him in an obvious way that, for anyone being followed would definitely make GZ seem very suspicious. Those are undisputed facts. You can keep speculating since that is what you need to do to make your case.

Right, and you don't know what happened after that. Which is pretty crucial for the trial. I'm not arguing GZ's rightness or wrongness, I'm arguing whether he can be convicted; and the trial so far has not met that burden to me.

[TexasTiger 12,961]

I find it interesting that views on this case seem to follow political philosophies. Those with a more liberal view seem to think that GZ should be found guilty of manslaughter and those with a more conservative view seem to think GZ should not be found guilty. (alexava is an exception to this). I don't see why this case should follow party lines. Could someone explain it for me?

me too. I keep waiting for the paula deen thread to start just to test your theory farther.

I consider my perspective on individual accountability to be quite conservative.

I do too. I have little tolerance for crime. But I do give the benefit of the doubt to a man who didn't break a law and found himself in a position to defend himself from an attack and beating. Following a person does not give that person the right to beat the hell out of you.

IF TM assessed GZ's unnecessary following of him to be threatening to his well being, he was right.

We don't know that. GZ's following of him could have ended with a conversation with the police at his truck or the clubhouse and TM safely back at the place he was staying had TM decided to stay hidden and not confront him.

or it could have ended with TM asking" hey man wtf are you following me?" not busting him in the head and beating him.

Maybe it did. That's what his friend on the phone said she heard him say. She also had said Trayvon was trying to get away, which is consistent with GZ telling the dispatcher TM ran. If TM was wanting to confront the guy following him why run in the first place?

[TexasTiger 12,961]

so your both saying, if neither had done anything nothing would have happened. However, both did do something.

Yeah, one bought Skittles.

And then violently attacked a man walking around outside.

I mean you can make it sound however you want.

Except what I said isn't even in dispute. A kid bought Skittles and started walking home around 7pm-- barely into the early evening. A guy with a loaded gun said he looked "suspicious" without describing suspicious behavior, said "these a@@holes always get away" although the kid hadn't been seen doing anything illegal, followed him in an obvious way that, for anyone being followed would definitely make GZ seem very suspicious. Those are undisputed facts. You can keep speculating since that is what you need to do to make your case.

Right, and you don't know what happened after that. Which is pretty crucial for the trial. I'm not arguing GZ's rightness or wrongness, I'm arguing whether he can be convicted; and the trial so far has not met that burden to me.

There is evidence that supports GZ attacking TM and it fits with the evidence that isn't in dispute.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

I find it interesting that views on this case seem to follow political philosophies. Those with a more liberal view seem to think that GZ should be found guilty of manslaughter and those with a more conservative view seem to think GZ should not be found guilty. (alexava is an exception to this). I don't see why this case should follow party lines. Could someone explain it for me?

me too. I keep waiting for the paula deen thread to start just to test your theory farther.

I consider my perspective on individual accountability to be quite conservative.

I do too. I have little tolerance for crime. But I do give the benefit of the doubt to a man who didn't break a law and found himself in a position to defend himself from an attack and beating. Following a person does not give that person the right to beat the hell out of you.

IF TM assessed GZ's unnecessary following of him to be threatening to his well being, he was right.

We don't know that. GZ's following of him could have ended with a conversation with the police at his truck or the clubhouse and TM safely back at the place he was staying had TM decided to stay hidden and not confront him.

Please. If GZ had actually waited for police that could have happened. He didn't.

True. But what I said is also true. If TM doesn't decide to confront GZ, GZ ends up walking back to his truck and the police arrive and no one is hurt or killed.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

so your both saying, if neither had done anything nothing would have happened. However, both did do something.

Yeah, one bought Skittles.

Actually, he bought Skittles and then at some point decided not to wait until GZ was gone and get back to where he was staying but confront GZ and punch him in the face.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

so your both saying, if neither had done anything nothing would have happened. However, both did do something.

Yeah, one bought Skittles.

And then violently attacked a man walking around outside.

I mean you can make it sound however you want.

Except what I said isn't even in dispute. A kid bought Skittles and started walking home around 7pm-- barely into the early evening. A guy with a loaded gun said he looked "suspicious" without describing suspicious behavior, said "these a@@holes always get away" although the kid hadn't been seen doing anything illegal, followed him in an obvious way that, for anyone being followed would definitely make GZ seem very suspicious. Those are undisputed facts. You can keep speculating since that is what you need to do to make your case.

Right, and you don't know what happened after that. Which is pretty crucial for the trial. I'm not arguing GZ's rightness or wrongness, I'm arguing whether he can be convicted; and the trial so far has not met that burden to me.

There is evidence that supports GZ attacking TM and it fits with the evidence that isn't in dispute.

Which evidence is that? I wasn't aware Martin had any other real injuries besides the gunshot.

[TexasTiger 12,961]

so your both saying, if neither had done anything nothing would have happened. However, both did do something.

Yeah, one bought Skittles.

And then violently attacked a man walking around outside.

I mean you can make it sound however you want.

Except what I said isn't even in dispute. A kid bought Skittles and started walking home around 7pm-- barely into the early evening. A guy with a loaded gun said he looked "suspicious" without describing suspicious behavior, said "these a@@holes always get away" although the kid hadn't been seen doing anything illegal, followed him in an obvious way that, for anyone being followed would definitely make GZ seem very suspicious. Those are undisputed facts. You can keep speculating since that is what you need to do to make your case.

Right, and you don't know what happened after that. Which is pretty crucial for the trial. I'm not arguing GZ's rightness or wrongness, I'm arguing whether he can be convicted; and the trial so far has not met that burden to me.

There is evidence that supports GZ attacking TM and it fits with the evidence that isn't in dispute.

Which evidence is that? I wasn't aware Martin had any other real injuries besides the gunshot.

Jeantel says she heard Martin talking to Zimmerman in the background of the call.

"He said, 'Why are you following me for?' And I heard a hard-breathing man say, 'What you doing around here?'" said Jeantel.

Jeantel also said she heard a bump from Martin's headset hitting something and "wet grass sounds."

"I start hearing a little bit of Trayvon saying, 'Get off, get off!'" said Jeantel.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/26/justice/zimmerman-trial

[TexasTiger 12,961]

so your both saying, if neither had done anything nothing would have happened. However, both did do something.

Yeah, one bought Skittles.

Actually, he bought Skittles and then at some point decided not to wait until GZ was gone and get back to where he was staying but confront GZ and punch him in the face.

Okay, George.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Look, neither you nor me really know what happened. I'm not understanding what makes you so cocksure that your take on this is correct.

[homersapien 11,393]

I find it interesting that views on this case seem to follow political philosophies. Those with a more liberal view seem to think that GZ should be found guilty of manslaughter and those with a more conservative view seem to think GZ should not be found guilty. (alexava is an exception to this). I don't see why this case should follow party lines. Could someone explain it for me?

me too. I keep waiting for the paula deen thread to start just to test your theory farther.

I consider my perspective on individual accountability to be quite conservative.

I agree, and I agree with your perspective except it has nothing to do with the law.

But that's the liberal in me!

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

so your both saying, if neither had done anything nothing would have happened. However, both did do something.

Yeah, one bought Skittles.

And then violently attacked a man walking around outside.

I mean you can make it sound however you want.

Except what I said isn't even in dispute. A kid bought Skittles and started walking home around 7pm-- barely into the early evening. A guy with a loaded gun said he looked "suspicious" without describing suspicious behavior, said "these a@@holes always get away" although the kid hadn't been seen doing anything illegal, followed him in an obvious way that, for anyone being followed would definitely make GZ seem very suspicious. Those are undisputed facts. You can keep speculating since that is what you need to do to make your case.

Right, and you don't know what happened after that. Which is pretty crucial for the trial. I'm not arguing GZ's rightness or wrongness, I'm arguing whether he can be convicted; and the trial so far has not met that burden to me.

There is evidence that supports GZ attacking TM and it fits with the evidence that isn't in dispute.

Which evidence is that? I wasn't aware Martin had any other real injuries besides the gunshot.

Jeantel says she heard Martin talking to Zimmerman in the background of the call.

"He said, 'Why are you following me for?' And I heard a hard-breathing man say, 'What you doing around here?'" said Jeantel.

Jeantel also said she heard a bump from Martin's headset hitting something and "wet grass sounds."

"I start hearing a little bit of Trayvon saying, 'Get off, get off!'" said Jeantel.

http://www.cnn.com/2...zimmerman-trial

Many wish to discredit / not believe Rachel's statement because of her appearance and the way she speaks but many don't really have an understanding of who she is and how she has grown up. Her mother barely knows English as her family speaks Creole and Haitian as their first languges. I agree that she should've had more respect for the court and not had an attitude but with the defense (West) constantly asking the same question and trying to trip her up a teenager is going to be a teenager IMO. The media and social networks have ripped this girl for simply trying to do the right thing when many her age and in her community don't come forward to cops/lawyers.

So what if she doesn't speak like a well educated person...doesn't mean her statements are not the truth. I believe her. She testified to some bad things about TM. I don't think the lawyers would've advised her to say "creepy ($(#@ cra(#r" and/or use the N word but she told the truth about what TM really said on the phone. She didn't portray TM as some perfect 17 year old boy.

She didn't want to be involved in testifying and did everything not to be involved so what reason would she have to lie? They had only started being friends again in Feb.; before then they hadn't spoken since they were little. She admitted why she lied about not attending TM's wake and his funeral. A teenage girl who was the last person to talk to a good friend. She said she felt guilty that she could've done more but she didn't know it was that serious of a situation at the time. She didn't want to see TM's body. She didn't want to tell his mother what happend b/c of her guilt.

I read an article this week about an interview Rachel's lawyer had and he was asked how TM and Rachel became good friends (as many where mocking her looks and wondering why a nice looking boy like TM would be friends with her). Rachel explained to her lawyer that they grew up together when they were smaller and had recently re-connected and out of all the boys she knew TM was the only boy who didn't make fun of the way she looked and how she talked...he was actually a real friend. I didn't care for her attitude but after getting past what some see as not intelligent or being well spoken..her statements are just as consistent or even more than GZ's story.

[homersapien 11,393]

Ok homer let me ask you this way. Hypothetically, GZ had stopped trying to follow TM. Got out to look for address to give dispatch. Was returning to truck to meet patrol at the clubhouse or go on to the grocery store(the opposite direction from where TM was headed). TM comes out of nowhere and knocks him down and begins pounding him. GZ yells for help then pulls his gun out and shoots TM. All this is confirmed by unbiased witnesses. What do you feel is the correct finding for this trial and punishment for GZ.

Manslaughter. Your "hypothetical" is not relevant. The incident didn't start with TM knocking him down, even if he did.

Don't really care about the punishment. I expect Zimmerman will be paying for this one way or the other for the the rest of his life. I hope so. Maybe he will eventually come to regret his actions. In fact, if I were him, I'd be looking over my shoulder for the rest of my life.

This is where you lose people homer. In the reality of the situation, sure GZ may be morally or legally (or both) responsible for Trayvon's death. But in the hypothetical where he did nothing more than report suspicious activity and start to leave, and was then violently attacked, he has every right to defend himself up to what he considered the need for deadly force.

Except what you claim is demonstrably not what GZ did. Report it and leave. Fine. No problem. Perhaps the police question TM, confiscate his loaded Skittles and send him on his way. Had GZ reported it and left, or waited to meet the police by the club house or mail boxes as suggested by the 911 dispatcher, no one would be dead.

Doesn't that work both ways? Was TM prevented from running off? From what I understand (but don't know) TM hid and jumped out at GZ.

GZ didn't report it and leave. Now that he's defending himself from a murder charge, he claims TM jumped him.

Do you know TM didn't jump him?

Well, we know that he didn't report it and leave. And that alone makes him accountable for whatever happens next.

It's clear where you place the benefit of doubt. Considering the facts, why is that?

Some of us place the benefit of doubt on "innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond a reasonable doubt". These concepts are kind of a big deal.

But Zimmerman admits to killing the kid... he admits to following him against police orders, he admits to confronting the teen. He admits to more than just bad judgement. He admits to knowingly and willfully disobeying a police order and killing a person who was unarmed and within their rights to defend themselves as well. Zimmerman has the right to carry a firearm but he doesn't have the right to provoke someone (if his story is to be believed) and then kill them. He just doesn't. And if he is found innocent then Florida officially becomes a vigilante state.

And he actually doesn't regret anything he did. That is an amazing thing to say and very revealing.

You have no way to know that and are being dishonest by saying so.

Well, that's what he said when asked directly by Sean Hannity. Go back and listen to it.

And maybe you should have looked that up before calling me dishonest. It makes you sound "uninformed".

I know that he said under oath, "I am sorry for the loss of your son". I realize that does not mean that he regrets shooting TZ. I also realize that GZ did not say "I do not regret shooting TZ." And even if he SAID it (which he didn't) that does not mean that he doesn't regret it. If my doubting your knowledge of what is in GZ's heart makes me uninformed, then I admit to being uninformed. But it is FACT that you don't know if GZ regrets shooting TZ.

I have no interest in your excuse. My problem is you said I was "dishonest" for quoting Zimmerman.

That's hardly dishonest.

[homersapien 11,393]

so your both saying, if neither had done anything nothing would have happened. However, both did do something.

No, actually one "did something": GZ got out of his car.

The other reacted.

[homersapien 11,393]

I find it interesting that views on this case seem to follow political philosophies. Those with a more liberal view seem to think that GZ should be found guilty of manslaughter and those with a more conservative view seem to think GZ should not be found guilty. (alexava is an exception to this). I don't see why this case should follow party lines. Could someone explain it for me?

me too. I keep waiting for the paula deen thread to start just to test your theory farther.

I consider my perspective on individual accountability to be quite conservative.

I do too. I have little tolerance for crime. But I do give the benefit of the doubt to a man who didn't break a law and found himself in a position to defend himself from an attack and beating. Following a person does not give that person the right to beat the hell out of you.

"Following a person" doesn't give you the right to shoot them if they do decide to respond.

Especially when you are armed and they aren't.

[TexasTiger 12,961]

so your both saying, if neither had done anything nothing would have happened. However, both did do something.

Yeah, one bought Skittles.

And then violently attacked a man walking around outside.

I mean you can make it sound however you want.

Except what I said isn't even in dispute. A kid bought Skittles and started walking home around 7pm-- barely into the early evening. A guy with a loaded gun said he looked "suspicious" without describing suspicious behavior, said "these a@@holes always get away" although the kid hadn't been seen doing anything illegal, followed him in an obvious way that, for anyone being followed would definitely make GZ seem very suspicious. Those are undisputed facts. You can keep speculating since that is what you need to do to make your case.

Right, and you don't know what happened after that. Which is pretty crucial for the trial. I'm not arguing GZ's rightness or wrongness, I'm arguing whether he can be convicted; and the trial so far has not met that burden to me.

There is evidence that supports GZ attacking TM and it fits with the evidence that isn't in dispute.

Which evidence is that? I wasn't aware Martin had any other real injuries besides the gunshot.

Jeantel says she heard Martin talking to Zimmerman in the background of the call.

"He said, 'Why are you following me for?' And I heard a hard-breathing man say, 'What you doing around here?'" said Jeantel.

Jeantel also said she heard a bump from Martin's headset hitting something and "wet grass sounds."

"I start hearing a little bit of Trayvon saying, 'Get off, get off!'" said Jeantel.

http://www.cnn.com/2...zimmerman-trial

Many wish to discredit / not believe Rachel's statement because of her appearance and the way she speaks but many don't really have an understanding of who she is and how she has grown up. Her mother barely knows English as her family speaks Creole and Haitian as their first languges. I agree that she should've had more respect for the court and not had an attitude but with the defense (West) constantly asking the same question and trying to trip her up a teenager is going to be a teenager IMO. The media and social networks have ripped this girl for simply trying to do the right thing when many her age and in her community don't come forward to cops/lawyers.

So what if she doesn't speak like a well educated person...doesn't mean her statements are not the truth. I believe her. She testified to some bad things about TM. I don't think the lawyers would've advised her to say "creepy ($(#@ cra(#r" and/or use the N word but she told the truth about what TM really said on the phone. She didn't portray TM as some perfect 17 year old boy.

She didn't want to be involved in testifying and did everything not to be involved so what reason would she have to lie? They had only started being friends again in Feb.; before then they hadn't spoken since they were little. She admitted why she lied about not attending TM's wake and his funeral. A teenage girl who was the last person to talk to a good friend. She said she felt guilty that she could've done more but she didn't know it was that serious of a situation at the time. She didn't want to see TM's body. She didn't want to tell his mother what happend b/c of her guilt.

I read an article this week about an interview Rachel's lawyer had and he was asked how TM and Rachel became good friends (as many where mocking her looks and wondering why a nice looking boy like TM would be friends with her). Rachel explained to her lawyer that they grew up together when they were smaller and had recently re-connected and out of all the boys she knew TM was the only boy who didn't make fun of the way she looked and how she talked...he was actually a real friend. I didn't care for her attitude but after getting past what some see as not intelligent or being well spoken..her statements are just as consistent as GZ's story.

Good points. How people have responded to her tells me a ton about them. Her testimony fits the known facts.

[TexasTiger 12,961]

Look, neither you nor me really know what happened. I'm not understanding what makes you so cocksure that your take on this is correct.

Some things aren't in dispute. Other things fit better and more logically within the known facts-- if TM wanted to confront GZ then why run in the first place? If GZ didn't want to confront TM then why continue to follow him and why get out of the car? Why say, "they always get away"? And why dismiss the testimony of the only other person who heard their confrontation?

[homersapien 11,393]

so your both saying, if neither had done anything nothing would have happened. However, both did do something.

Yeah, one bought Skittles.

And then violently attacked a man walking around outside.

I mean you can make it sound however you want.

Well we do know that TM was "armed" with skittles, and he wouldn't have attacked anyone if GZ hadn't been there. He'd still be alive.

But I guess you can make it sound like however you want.

[homersapien 11,393]

I find it interesting that views on this case seem to follow political philosophies. Those with a more liberal view seem to think that GZ should be found guilty of manslaughter and those with a more conservative view seem to think GZ should not be found guilty. (alexava is an exception to this). I don't see why this case should follow party lines. Could someone explain it for me?

me too. I keep waiting for the paula deen thread to start just to test your theory farther.

I consider my perspective on individual accountability to be quite conservative.

I do too. I have little tolerance for crime. But I do give the benefit of the doubt to a man who didn't break a law and found himself in a position to defend himself from an attack and beating. Following a person does not give that person the right to beat the hell out of you.

IF TM assessed GZ's unnecessary following of him to be threatening to his well being, he was right.

We don't know that. GZ's following of him could have ended with a conversation with the police at his truck or the clubhouse and TM safely back at the place he was staying had TM decided to stay hidden and not confront him.

Please. If GZ had actually waited for police that could have happened. He didn't.

True. But what I said is also true. If TM doesn't decide to confront GZ, GZ ends up walking back to his truck and the police arrive and no one is hurt or killed.

Yeah, shame on TM for not having "situational awareness". But then, he wasn't talking to the cops, huh? :-\

[TitanTiger 20,499]

I'm just saying, according to the story we know GZ was walking past where TM was and didn't apparently see him. TM decided to confront him and not just ask him why he's following him but initiate the physical aggression by punching GZ.

If there's some witness that can tell me different (that GZ wasn't walking away, started the physical confrontation, etc.) I'm not sure what charge you could fit within "beyond a reasonable doubt."

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Some things aren't in dispute. Other things fit better and more logically within the known facts-- if TM wanted to confront GZ then why run in the first place?

Initially he ran, but then he decided that confronting him would be better?

If GZ didn't want to confront TM then why continue to follow him and why get out of the car?

Well, there's the stated reason for getting out of the car. And he didn't want to lose his whereabouts so hopefully when the police arrived they'd be able to get the guy. I'm not sure how you see this as "wanting a confrontation." If he wanted a confrontation, he could have jumped out with his gun drawn the first second he saw the kid.

Why say, "they always get away"?

Because he felt like the people who had done the recent break-ins in the area do seem to "always get away" and he thought it was about to happen again?

And why dismiss the testimony of the only other person who heard their confrontation?

I'm not dismissing, but does it line up with the eyewitness testimony? And there's some inconsistencies in her testimony as to what was first said between them:

Jeantel gave different accounts of what Martin first said to Zimmerman and vice-versa. This was the only "inconsistency" that was a problem for the prosecution. During the prosecution's questioning, she told the court Martin asked Zimmerman, "Why are you following me for?" Initially, Jeantel said Zimmerman responded with, "What are you doing around here?" Jeantel had told the Martin family attorney, Benjamin Crump, that Zimmerman's response was, "What are you talking about?" Upon cross, West cited a recorded conversation between Jeantel and Crump. She dismissed the Crump recording (which she did in a closet) by saying she "didn't care" about that. She clarified again, adamant that Zimmerman asked what Martin was doing in the area.

She was compelling on Travyon's state of mind. He was being followed by a "creepy a** cracker," and Zimmerman was clearly closer than he thought when he said "**** right here". But she was inconsistent on the actual first words that were spoken between Martin and Zimmerman. Regardless of your standard for judging people, in a court of law, you still judge a case based on the burden of proof. Jeantel convinced me beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin was creeped out by Zimmerman, who was following him. But based on the inconsistency in her testimony, I still have reasonable doubt as to what the first words were that they spoke to each other.

I suppose, in the end, it doesn't matter. She didn't see the fight and doesn't know who threw the first punch. Like us all, she's in the dark on exactly what happened when Zimmerman confronted Martin. Unfortunately, the only thing we are all certain about is that it was avoidable and of course, how it all ends -- tragically.

http://www.hlntv.com...tin-credibility

[TitanTiger 20,499]

I find it interesting that views on this case seem to follow political philosophies. Those with a more liberal view seem to think that GZ should be found guilty of manslaughter and those with a more conservative view seem to think GZ should not be found guilty. (alexava is an exception to this). I don't see why this case should follow party lines. Could someone explain it for me?

me too. I keep waiting for the paula deen thread to start just to test your theory farther.

I consider my perspective on individual accountability to be quite conservative.

I do too. I have little tolerance for crime. But I do give the benefit of the doubt to a man who didn't break a law and found himself in a position to defend himself from an attack and beating. Following a person does not give that person the right to beat the hell out of you.

"Following a person" doesn't give you the right to shoot them if they do decide to respond.

Especially when you are armed and they aren't.

If all you're doing is following them and they are beating your head into the concrete to the point where you fear for your life, I think you do have the right to use deadly force. The question becomes, is this an altercation you initiated or did they attack you merely for following them?

[TexasTiger 12,961]

I'm just saying, according to the story we know GZ was walking past where TM was and didn't apparently see him. TM decided to confront him and not just ask him why he's following him but initiate the physical aggression by punching GZ.

If there's some witness that can tell me different (that GZ wasn't walking away, started the physical confrontation, etc.) I'm not sure what charge you could fit within "beyond a reasonable doubt."

"The story we know..." i.e. GZ's., doesn't jive with the known facts.

I haven't said the prosecutor will be able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, and he's done a lousy job so far, but I do disagree with folks indicating that this is 50-50 case, at best. Well presented, these facts show, at least, that it is more likely than not that GZ caused TM's wrongful death.

I hope there's a civil case.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

I'm just saying, according to the story we know GZ was walking past where TM was and didn't apparently see him. TM decided to confront him and not just ask him why he's following him but initiate the physical aggression by punching GZ.

If there's some witness that can tell me different (that GZ wasn't walking away, started the physical confrontation, etc.) I'm not sure what charge you could fit within "beyond a reasonable doubt."

"The story we know..." i.e. GZ's., doesn't jive with the known facts.

I haven't said the prosecutor will be able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, and he's done a lousy job so far, but I do disagree with folks indicating that this is 50-50 case, at best. Well presented, these facts show, at least, that it is more likely than not that GZ caused TM's wrongful death.

I hope there's a civil case.

Well I think from the start I've said that I think GZ probably did something more than what he's saying, but it's just a gut feeling. And while there are some inconsistencies (though not as big as I previously thought) in what he said vs the known facts, there are also inconsistencies in Jenteal's story, there are inconsistencies in his parents' statements regarding whose voice is yelling for help, etc. What we don't have is anyone that can tell us exactly how the initial confrontation went down and I think that matters. Even if Zimmerman shouldn't have been following him (or appearing to follow him), he's not culpable for TM's death by that mere act. If I were on the jury, I haven't heard anything that would make me comfortable sending a man to jail for manslaughter.

There probably will be a civil case and I think there's a good chance the Martins will win. But it'll be a symbolic victory for the most part because Zimmerman isn't a rich guy.