George Zimmerman Trial

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Which means he didn't watch the trial to form a solid argument.

Sorry, one doesn't have to watch every single minute of the trial to form a solid argument.

Closing arguments..that's it? lol. Getting 2 - 3 hours from hours and hours of testimony is not credible.

Um, seven hours to be exact. Plus extra reading. It's plenty credible.

Beyond stating TM called GZ as a "creepy......." guy, he failed to address exactly how that blame resulted in his death. He didn't state what TM should've done which is why I asked was he expecting TM go up to GZ and offer him some candy. What's wrong with asking someone why are you following me? I'm sure anyone would want to inquire why a person who has clearly been following them; then they suddenly appear where you are which was according to Rachel J's testimony.

I think the "blame" is the wrong word. He simply said that Martin misread Zimmerman as well and his decision to challenge him (and instigate the physical altercation) stemmed from that misreading. No one suggested offering candy or any other silliness. But I've said before...what if Zimmerman had clearly identified himself and asked Trayvon if he lived around here because he hadn't seen him before? What if instead of walking up behind Zimmerman and asking him if he had a problem and then punching him, Trayvon would have asked why he was being followed and explain that he was staying with someone in the neighborhood. Or what if Trayvon had let Zimmerman just keep walking until he was out of sight then gone the opposite way back to his dad's girlfriend's house? The way this was misread by both sides matters.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

She didn't say that's why TM confronted GZ. What part in the video did she say that? lol. She gave an example about parents informing their kids what they should do if confronted by a creepy man.

"When see a grown person you run away?" "You going to just stand there?" "You're going to tell your child to stand there or run." "If you tell your child to just stand there...we're going to see your child on the news."

I think you interpreted her words wrong. She was insinuating why would anyone expect TM to not run...not confront the person. Not being on her side but just stating the facts what she actually said.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

Which means he didn't watch the trial to form a solid argument.

Sorry, one doesn't have to watch every single minute of the trial to form a solid argument.

Closing arguments..that's it? lol. Getting 2 - 3 hours from hours and hours of testimony is not credible.

Um, seven hours to be exact. Plus extra reading. It's plenty credible.

Beyond stating TM called GZ as a "creepy......." guy, he failed to address exactly how that blame resulted in his death. He didn't state what TM should've done which is why I asked was he expecting TM go up to GZ and offer him some candy. What's wrong with asking someone why are you following me? I'm sure anyone would want to inquire why a person who has clearly been following them; then they suddenly appear where you are which was according to Rachel J's testimony.

I think the "blame" is the wrong word. He simply said that Martin misread Zimmerman as well and his decision to challenge him (and instigate the physical altercation) stemmed from that misreading. No one suggested offering candy or any other silliness. But I've said before...what if Zimmerman had clearly identified himself and asked Trayvon if he lived around here because he hadn't seen him before? What if instead of walking up behind Zimmerman and asking him if he had a problem and then punching him, Trayvon would have asked why he was being followed and explain that he was staying with someone in the neighborhood. Or what if Trayvon had let Zimmerman just keep walking until he was out of sight then gone the opposite way back to his dad's girlfriend's house? The way this was misread by both sides matters.

Well one shouldn't simply disqualify and call another person names without the supporting facts if they didn't have the time to review all the facts to support their statements. Pretty simple so i guess our conversation is finished; agree to disagree and move on.

[cptau 169]

She didn't say that's why TM confronted GZ. What part in the video did she say that? lol. She gave an example about parents informing their kids what they should do if confronted by a creepy man.

"When see a grown person you run away?" "You going to just stand there?" "You're going to tell your child to stand there or run." "If you tell your child to just stand there...we're going to see your child on the news."

I think you interpreted her words wrong. She was insinuating why would anyone expect TM to not run...not confront the person. Not being on her side but just stating the facts what she actually said.

You will not see her making these comments or anything like this again. She's not helping

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

Which means he didn't watch the trial to form a solid argument.

Sorry, one doesn't have to watch every single minute of the trial to form a solid argument.

Closing arguments..that's it? lol. Getting 2 - 3 hours from hours and hours of testimony is not credible.

Um, seven hours to be exact. Plus extra reading. It's plenty credible.

So says you. lol. I'm sure lawyers would disagree.

Beyond stating TM called GZ as a "creepy......." guy, he failed to address exactly how that blame resulted in his death. He didn't state what TM should've done which is why I asked was he expecting TM go up to GZ and offer him some candy. What's wrong with asking someone why are you following me? I'm sure anyone would want to inquire why a person who has clearly been following them; then they suddenly appear where you are which was according to Rachel J's testimony.

I think the "blame" is the wrong word. He simply said that Martin misread Zimmerman as well and his decision to challenge him (and instigate the physical altercation) stemmed from that misreading. No one suggested offering candy or any other silliness. But I've said before...what if Zimmerman had clearly identified himself and asked Trayvon if he lived around here because he hadn't seen him before? What if instead of walking up behind Zimmerman and asking him if he had a problem and then punching him, Trayvon would have asked why he was being followed and explain that he was staying with someone in the neighborhood. Or what if Trayvon had let Zimmerman just keep walking until he was out of sight then gone the opposite way back to his dad's girlfriend's house? The way this was misread by both sides matters.

Problem is we don't know if that's what TM actually did. We know GZ clearly followed TM as evidence in the 911 tape. How can outright blame be applied partially to TM when it wasn't proven who started the fight by either lawyers is the point. According to Rachel J's testimony he did ask GZ why was he following him. Blaming him for not leading a potential rapist (as what he may have thought at the time b/c Rachel stated it may be a rapist) back to his home where no adult was at home during the time? Why would you want someone following you to know where you lived? GZ even refused giving the 911 operator his home addressed when asked for it saying "i don't want this kid to know where i live." That's why i didn't quite understand the blame he was applying to the victim as there wasn't further explanations or reasoning as to why he came to that conclusion.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

She didn't say that's why TM confronted GZ. What part in the video did she say that? lol. She gave an example about parents informing their kids what they should do if confronted by a creepy man.

"When see a grown person you run away?" "You going to just stand there?" "You're going to tell your child to stand there or run." "If you tell your child to just stand there...we're going to see your child on the news."

I think you interpreted her words wrong. She was insinuating why would anyone expect TM to not run...not confront the person. Not being on her side but just stating the facts what she actually said.

You want see her making these comments or anything like this again. She's not helping

Point is you were wrong about what she actually said. lol. You took "your going to stand there" as if that meant she thought TM decided to confront GZ but that's not what she said or testified to. She was providing an example of what a parent would inform their child to do...run. I mean she's free to speak out like all the others did. GZ's brother, the juror, defense and prosecutors have all spoken since the verdict. I think they ALL should just avoid the media and let things cool off. GZ's brother and best friend certainly are not helping his efforts to remain safe.

[cptau 169]

She didn't say that's why TM confronted GZ. What part in the video did she say that? lol. She gave an example about parents informing their kids what they should do if confronted by a creepy man.

"When see a grown person you run away?" "You going to just stand there?" "You're going to tell your child to stand there or run." "If you tell your child to just stand there...we're going to see your child on the news."

I think you interpreted her words wrong. She was insinuating why would anyone expect TM to not run...not confront the person. Not being on her side but just stating the facts what she actually said.

You want see her making these comments or anything like this again. She's not helping

Point is you were wrong about what she actually said. lol. You took "your going to stand there" as if that meant she thought TM decided to confront GZ but that's not what she said or testified to. She was providing an example of what a parent would inform their child to do...run. I mean she's free to speak out like all the others did. GZ's brother, the juror, defense and prosecutors have all spoken since the verdict. I think they ALL should just avoid the media and let things cool off. GZ's brother and best friend certainly are not helping his efforts to remain safe.

Thanks for trying to read my mind. Fortunately you and the rest of us would never have gotten on that jury.

[autigeremt 6,652]

It's obvious from her interview that it wasn't about race. It never has been. Both parties failed to properly address the issue at hand. Both should have used better judgment, but one crossed the line, the other felt his life threatened, and in the end a young MAN died. The other was found not guilty. The continued media discussion is just another attempt to create division and chaos.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

She didn't say that's why TM confronted GZ. What part in the video did she say that? lol. She gave an example about parents informing their kids what they should do if confronted by a creepy man.

"When see a grown person you run away?" "You going to just stand there?" "You're going to tell your child to stand there or run." "If you tell your child to just stand there...we're going to see your child on the news."

I think you interpreted her words wrong. She was insinuating why would anyone expect TM to not run...not confront the person. Not being on her side but just stating the facts what she actually said.

You want see her making these comments or anything like this again. She's not helping

Point is you were wrong about what she actually said. lol. You took "your going to stand there" as if that meant she thought TM decided to confront GZ but that's not what she said or testified to. She was providing an example of what a parent would inform their child to do...run. I mean she's free to speak out like all the others did. GZ's brother, the juror, defense and prosecutors have all spoken since the verdict. I think they ALL should just avoid the media and let things cool off. GZ's brother and best friend certainly are not helping his efforts to remain safe.

Thanks for trying to read my mind. Fortunately you and the rest of us would never have gotten on that jury.

No one read your mind. lol. Your thoughts were typed in plain view "That was her warning to TM on the phone that night and why she thinks he confronted GZ..." which wasn't stated in the video "you" provided. I'm don't desire to be on any jury. Don't get mad at my b/c you posted and stated wrong information.

[tgr4lfe 220]

The prosecution's main witness is now explaining that TM thought GZ was a gay rapist? That was her warning to TM on the phone that night and why she thinks he confronted GZ...

Based on this TM was using "Stand-Your-Ground" and GZ was using "self-defense"?

LMAO, yea, cause we all know that cracker is black people slang for "gay white rapist", please!! Cracker is like the n word.

[autigeremt 6,652]

Cracker can also mean security/cop or police in the Miami/Dade area of where Mr. Martin grew up.

[cptau 169]

She didn't say that's why TM confronted GZ. What part in the video did she say that? lol. She gave an example about parents informing their kids what they should do if confronted by a creepy man.

"When see a grown person you run away?" "You going to just stand there?" "You're going to tell your child to stand there or run." "If you tell your child to just stand there...we're going to see your child on the news."

I think you interpreted her words wrong. She was insinuating why would anyone expect TM to not run...not confront the person. Not being on her side but just stating the facts what she actually said.

You want see her making these comments or anything like this again. She's not helping

Point is you were wrong about what she actually said. lol. You took "your going to stand there" as if that meant she thought TM decided to confront GZ but that's not what she said or testified to. She was providing an example of what a parent would inform their child to do...run. I mean she's free to speak out like all the others did. GZ's brother, the juror, defense and prosecutors have all spoken since the verdict. I think they ALL should just avoid the media and let things cool off. GZ's brother and best friend certainly are not helping his efforts to remain safe.

Thanks for trying to read my mind. Fortunately you and the rest of us would never have gotten on that jury.

No one read your mind. lol. Your thoughts were typed in plain view "That was her warning to TM on the phone that night and why she thinks he confronted GZ..." which wasn't stated in the video "you" provided. I'm don't desire to be on any jury. Don't get mad at my b/c you posted and stated wrong information.

Your still trying to read minds.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

She didn't say that's why TM confronted GZ. What part in the video did she say that? lol. She gave an example about parents informing their kids what they should do if confronted by a creepy man.

"When see a grown person you run away?" "You going to just stand there?" "You're going to tell your child to stand there or run." "If you tell your child to just stand there...we're going to see your child on the news."

I think you interpreted her words wrong. She was insinuating why would anyone expect TM to not run...not confront the person. Not being on her side but just stating the facts what she actually said.

You want see her making these comments or anything like this again. She's not helping

Point is you were wrong about what she actually said. lol. You took "your going to stand there" as if that meant she thought TM decided to confront GZ but that's not what she said or testified to. She was providing an example of what a parent would inform their child to do...run. I mean she's free to speak out like all the others did. GZ's brother, the juror, defense and prosecutors have all spoken since the verdict. I think they ALL should just avoid the media and let things cool off. GZ's brother and best friend certainly are not helping his efforts to remain safe.

Thanks for trying to read my mind. Fortunately you and the rest of us would never have gotten on that jury.

No one read your mind. lol. Your thoughts were typed in plain view "That was her warning to TM on the phone that night and why she thinks he confronted GZ..." which wasn't stated in the video "you" provided. I'm don't desire to be on any jury. Don't get mad at my b/c you posted and stated wrong information.

Your still trying to read minds.

You're funny. I guess a ghost typed your statement then. All good.

[cptau 169]

It's obvious from her interview that it wasn't about race. It never has been. Both parties failed to properly address the issue at hand. Both should have used better judgment, but one crossed the line, the other felt his life threatened, and in the end a young MAN died. The other was found not guilty. The continued media discussion is just another attempt to create division and chaos.

Correct. And this trial has been a better diversion than the You Tube Video was for Benghazi.

[AUGradinTX 0]

Juror 37 clearly didn't even have an understanding as to what she was issuing a verdict on in addition to important legal terms as she stated. She was discussing SYG..not a defense arguement that was presented. Your statements are assumptions just like my opinions. There was never any evidence to show 1). Who was screaming and 2) Who started the fight. Your assumptions are that since GZ had some minor injuries that TM started the fight but how is it not possible that GZ couldn't have started it and got his azz beat in the process? Bottom line is we don't know and the jury didn't either so their decision wasn't based on if GZ was telling the truth it was based on not enough evidence. Not guilty is not the same as innocent.

No one saw the altercation from start to finish; only bits and pieces. I'm sorry if can't understand my short had phone texting; maybe you can get a teenager to break it down for you. You and TT can spin all you want if it makes you feel good. It's quite amusing. The only points i've ever made pertain to seeing things from a different point of view that related to the evidence that certainly could've occurred that was simply ignored for whatever reason.

Nobody is spinning anything. It's deductive logic. There was evidence. Yes, it was circumstantial, but when you have three or four pieces of circumstantial evidence it then becomes corroborating evidence that supports one inference over the other. There was no circumstantial evidence suggesting it was TM's voice on the recording.

There was circumstantial evidence suggesting either could have started the fight. I just believe there was more supporting GZ's claim.

Key word: circumstantial which means not direct evidence to come to a conclusion that clearly tells the story which is why the verdict was not guilty. Again "your" belief..doesn't mean it's actual truth just like what i believe what i do but nothing to support which version is the actual truth. I respect everyone's point of view that's unpopular point but i based nothing off what i "feel" but rather how i saw the trial and interpreted the evidence not feelings.

No, it doesn't mean it is 100% the truth. You're fault is that you keep saying there is no evidence to support what I believe to be the truth. There is. You need to take a deep breath and realize that even though the evidence that supports what I believe is corroborative, there is NONE, ZERO, ZIP that supports what you believe. Hence the "not guilty" verdict. You can knock on my circumstantial and corroborative evidence all you'd like. But when it comes down to it, my circumstantial/corroborative evidence is more than you've got. All you have is far-sighted speculation with nothing to back it up except "it could have happened." A lot of things could have happened. Luckily for us, wild speculation doesn't mean squat in a courtroom. Evidence does.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

Juror 37 clearly didn't even have an understanding as to what she was issuing a verdict on in addition to important legal terms as she stated. She was discussing SYG..not a defense arguement that was presented. Your statements are assumptions just like my opinions. There was never any evidence to show 1). Who was screaming and 2) Who started the fight. Your assumptions are that since GZ had some minor injuries that TM started the fight but how is it not possible that GZ couldn't have started it and got his azz beat in the process? Bottom line is we don't know and the jury didn't either so their decision wasn't based on if GZ was telling the truth it was based on not enough evidence. Not guilty is not the same as innocent.

No one saw the altercation from start to finish; only bits and pieces. I'm sorry if can't understand my short had phone texting; maybe you can get a teenager to break it down for you. You and TT can spin all you want if it makes you feel good. It's quite amusing. The only points i've ever made pertain to seeing things from a different point of view that related to the evidence that certainly could've occurred that was simply ignored for whatever reason.

Nobody is spinning anything. It's deductive logic. There was evidence. Yes, it was circumstantial, but when you have three or four pieces of circumstantial evidence it then becomes corroborating evidence that supports one inference over the other. There was no circumstantial evidence suggesting it was TM's voice on the recording.

There was circumstantial evidence suggesting either could have started the fight. I just believe there was more supporting GZ's claim.

Key word: circumstantial which means not direct evidence to come to a conclusion that clearly tells the story which is why the verdict was not guilty. Again "your" belief..doesn't mean it's actual truth just like what i believe what i do but nothing to support which version is the actual truth. I respect everyone's point of view that's unpopular point but i based nothing off what i "feel" but rather how i saw the trial and interpreted the evidence not feelings.

No, it doesn't mean it is 100% the truth. You're fault is that you keep saying there is no evidence to support what I believe to be the truth. There is. You need to take a deep breath and realize that even though the evidence that supports what I believe is corroborative, there is NONE, ZERO, ZIP that supports what you believe. Hence the "not guilty" verdict. You can knock on my circumstantial and corroborative evidence all you'd like. But when it comes down to it, my circumstantial/corroborative evidence is more than you've got. All you have is far-sighted speculation with nothing to back it up except "it could have happened." A lot of things could have happened. Luckily for us, wild speculation doesn't mean squat in a courtroom. Evidence does.

But there wasn't any evidence to support who attacked who first thus proof or dis proof self defense. GZ's injuries alone is not evidence he was hit first. lol. You backed up key parts of GZ's story. I have not even stated what i think happened. I''ve only questioned certain elements of your theory that didn't have any evidence from trial to support it. I've always stated we have no indication who started the fight. lol. Sounds like you're the one that needs to take a deep breath. You're certainly within your right to believe as you please but to say there was clear evidence to support the theory you gave is false. There is a difference between not guilty and being innocent and that's my point. Casey Anthony was found not guilty but doesn't mean she's innocent.

GZ's story didn't have to be true in order from him to be found not guilty it simply means the burden of proof wasn't met not that GZ's version of the story was true. Everything i've addressed has been backed by testimony and evidence. You might need to re-read as i've never given my theory as to what happened nor did i say i agreed with everything the prosecution proposed. Make sure you know someone's stance before accusing them of not providing facts.

[AUGradinTX 0]

Juror 37 clearly didn't even have an understanding as to what she was issuing a verdict on in addition to important legal terms as she stated. She was discussing SYG..not a defense arguement that was presented. Your statements are assumptions just like my opinions. There was never any evidence to show 1). Who was screaming and 2) Who started the fight. Your assumptions are that since GZ had some minor injuries that TM started the fight but how is it not possible that GZ couldn't have started it and got his azz beat in the process? Bottom line is we don't know and the jury didn't either so their decision wasn't based on if GZ was telling the truth it was based on not enough evidence. Not guilty is not the same as innocent.

No one saw the altercation from start to finish; only bits and pieces. I'm sorry if can't understand my short had phone texting; maybe you can get a teenager to break it down for you. You and TT can spin all you want if it makes you feel good. It's quite amusing. The only points i've ever made pertain to seeing things from a different point of view that related to the evidence that certainly could've occurred that was simply ignored for whatever reason.

Nobody is spinning anything. It's deductive logic. There was evidence. Yes, it was circumstantial, but when you have three or four pieces of circumstantial evidence it then becomes corroborating evidence that supports one inference over the other. There was no circumstantial evidence suggesting it was TM's voice on the recording.

There was circumstantial evidence suggesting either could have started the fight. I just believe there was more supporting GZ's claim.

Key word: circumstantial which means not direct evidence to come to a conclusion that clearly tells the story which is why the verdict was not guilty. Again "your" belief..doesn't mean it's actual truth just like what i believe what i do but nothing to support which version is the actual truth. I respect everyone's point of view that's unpopular point but i based nothing off what i "feel" but rather how i saw the trial and interpreted the evidence not feelings.

No, it doesn't mean it is 100% the truth. You're fault is that you keep saying there is no evidence to support what I believe to be the truth. There is. You need to take a deep breath and realize that even though the evidence that supports what I believe is corroborative, there is NONE, ZERO, ZIP that supports what you believe. Hence the "not guilty" verdict. You can knock on my circumstantial and corroborative evidence all you'd like. But when it comes down to it, my circumstantial/corroborative evidence is more than you've got. All you have is far-sighted speculation with nothing to back it up except "it could have happened." A lot of things could have happened. Luckily for us, wild speculation doesn't mean squat in a courtroom. Evidence does.

But there wasn't any evidence to support who attacked who first thus proof or dis proof self defense. GZ's injuries alone is not evidence he was hit first. lol. You backed up key parts of GZ's story. I have not even stated what i think happened. I''ve only questioned certain elements of your theory that didn't have any evidence from trial to support it. I've always stated we have no indication who started the fight. lol. Sounds like you're the one that needs to take a deep breath. You're certainly within your right to believe as you please but to say there was clear evidence to support the theory you gave is false. There is a difference between not guilty and being innocent and that's my point. Casey Anthony was found not guilty but doesn't mean she's innocent.

I should have listened to my gut instict about discussing this with you. You are questioning my theory that is supported by evidence. I'm questioning the alternative. There were only two people who could have started the fight and there are only two people who's voice could be on that recording. I've stated the evidence to support my stance. Either state yours or GTFO with it. Period. As much as Homer frustrates me with his opinions, at least he can support what he believes. You, on the other hand, have NOTHING to support what you believe.

GZ's story didn't have to be true in order from him to be found not guilty it simply means the burden of proof wasn't met not that GZ's version of the story was true. Everything i've addressed has been backed by testimony and evidence. You might need to re-read as i've never given my theory as to what happened nor did i say i agreed with everything the prosecution proposed. Make sure you know someone's stance before accusing them of not providing facts.

My point exactly. The Jury didn't have the luxury of staying undecided and playing the critic. They had to reach a verdict based on the EVIDENCE that was shown and they rulled like they did because the alternative (your stance) is supported by ZERO evidence.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

Juror 37 clearly didn't even have an understanding as to what she was issuing a verdict on in addition to important legal terms as she stated. She was discussing SYG..not a defense arguement that was presented. Your statements are assumptions just like my opinions. There was never any evidence to show 1). Who was screaming and 2) Who started the fight. Your assumptions are that since GZ had some minor injuries that TM started the fight but how is it not possible that GZ couldn't have started it and got his azz beat in the process? Bottom line is we don't know and the jury didn't either so their decision wasn't based on if GZ was telling the truth it was based on not enough evidence. Not guilty is not the same as innocent.

No one saw the altercation from start to finish; only bits and pieces. I'm sorry if can't understand my short had phone texting; maybe you can get a teenager to break it down for you. You and TT can spin all you want if it makes you feel good. It's quite amusing. The only points i've ever made pertain to seeing things from a different point of view that related to the evidence that certainly could've occurred that was simply ignored for whatever reason.

Nobody is spinning anything. It's deductive logic. There was evidence. Yes, it was circumstantial, but when you have three or four pieces of circumstantial evidence it then becomes corroborating evidence that supports one inference over the other. There was no circumstantial evidence suggesting it was TM's voice on the recording.

There was circumstantial evidence suggesting either could have started the fight. I just believe there was more supporting GZ's claim.

Key word: circumstantial which means not direct evidence to come to a conclusion that clearly tells the story which is why the verdict was not guilty. Again "your" belief..doesn't mean it's actual truth just like what i believe what i do but nothing to support which version is the actual truth. I respect everyone's point of view that's unpopular point but i based nothing off what i "feel" but rather how i saw the trial and interpreted the evidence not feelings.

No, it doesn't mean it is 100% the truth. You're fault is that you keep saying there is no evidence to support what I believe to be the truth. There is. You need to take a deep breath and realize that even though the evidence that supports what I believe is corroborative, there is NONE, ZERO, ZIP that supports what you believe. Hence the "not guilty" verdict. You can knock on my circumstantial and corroborative evidence all you'd like. But when it comes down to it, my circumstantial/corroborative evidence is more than you've got. All you have is far-sighted speculation with nothing to back it up except "it could have happened." A lot of things could have happened. Luckily for us, wild speculation doesn't mean squat in a courtroom. Evidence does.

But there wasn't any evidence to support who attacked who first thus proof or dis proof self defense. GZ's injuries alone is not evidence he was hit first. lol. You backed up key parts of GZ's story. I have not even stated what i think happened. I''ve only questioned certain elements of your theory that didn't have any evidence from trial to support it. I've always stated we have no indication who started the fight. lol. Sounds like you're the one that needs to take a deep breath. You're certainly within your right to believe as you please but to say there was clear evidence to support the theory you gave is false. There is a difference between not guilty and being innocent and that's my point. Casey Anthony was found not guilty but doesn't mean she's innocent.

I should have listened to my gut instict about discussing this with you. You are questioning my theory that is supported by evidence. I'm questioning the alternative. There were only two people who could have started the fight and there are only two people who's voice could be on that recording. I've stated the evidence to support my stance. Either state yours or GTFO with it. Period. As much as Homer frustrates me with his opinions, at least he can support what he believes. You, on the other hand, have NOTHING to support what you believe.

GZ's story didn't have to be true in order from him to be found not guilty it simply means the burden of proof wasn't met not that GZ's version of the story was true. Everything i've addressed has been backed by testimony and evidence. You might need to re-read as i've never given my theory as to what happened nor did i say i agreed with everything the prosecution proposed. Make sure you know someone's stance before accusing them of not providing facts.

My point exactly. The Jury didn't have the luxury of staying undecided and playing the critic. They had to reach a verdict based on the EVIDENCE that was shown and they rulled like they did because the alternative (your stance) is supported by ZERO evidence.

We can just agree to disagree and move on not respond to one another b/c you clearly need a drink. You've clearly avoided several questions i've raised which went unanswered that don't support the comments, so called evidence and assumptions you've made. Have a nice day though.

[tiger88 934]

It's such a laughable idea it's hard not to use a little sarcasm when referencing it.

It's exactly the same "laughable" idea that was presented in the Slate write up referenced by Titan. (And I agree with Titan it was a good analysis.)

Taking responsibility for your own actions is hardly a "laughable" proposition. In fact, I consider it to be a very conservative value.

It's not the same at all. The writer says, "morally, if not legally". You have been adamant the entire time that he was legally guilty.

I'm not certain how morally culpable GZ is. I don't know exactly how things went down that night.

[homersapien 11,393]

It's obvious from her interview that it wasn't about race. It never has been. Both parties failed to properly address the issue at hand. Both should have used better judgment, but one crossed the line, the other felt his life threatened, and in the end a young MAN died. The other was found not guilty. The continued media discussion is just another attempt to create division and chaos.

This is where I have a problem. Trayvon is the one who crossed the line and Zimmerman never did?

Zimmerman crossed the line when he got out to pursue Trayvon on foot. He is a civilian. He is a wanna-be cop, not a real cop. Had he not "crossed the line" before Trayvon (supposedly) did, this would not have happened. Yet somehow it's Trayvon's fault?

I just don't get this perspective. It seems to reflect a clear bias to Zimmerman by justifying the results of actions HE took.

[homersapien 11,393]

Juror 37 clearly didn't even have an understanding as to what she was issuing a verdict on in addition to important legal terms as she stated. She was discussing SYG..not a defense arguement that was presented. Your statements are assumptions just like my opinions. There was never any evidence to show 1). Who was screaming and 2) Who started the fight. Your assumptions are that since GZ had some minor injuries that TM started the fight but how is it not possible that GZ couldn't have started it and got his azz beat in the process? Bottom line is we don't know and the jury didn't either so their decision wasn't based on if GZ was telling the truth it was based on not enough evidence. Not guilty is not the same as innocent.

No one saw the altercation from start to finish; only bits and pieces. I'm sorry if can't understand my short had phone texting; maybe you can get a teenager to break it down for you. You and TT can spin all you want if it makes you feel good. It's quite amusing. The only points i've ever made pertain to seeing things from a different point of view that related to the evidence that certainly could've occurred that was simply ignored for whatever reason.

Nobody is spinning anything. It's deductive logic. There was evidence. Yes, it was circumstantial, but when you have three or four pieces of circumstantial evidence it then becomes corroborating evidence that supports one inference over the other. There was no circumstantial evidence suggesting it was TM's voice on the recording.

There was circumstantial evidence suggesting either could have started the fight. I just believe there was more supporting GZ's claim.

Key word: circumstantial which means not direct evidence to come to a conclusion that clearly tells the story which is why the verdict was not guilty. Again "your" belief..doesn't mean it's actual truth just like what i believe what i do but nothing to support which version is the actual truth. I respect everyone's point of view that's unpopular point but i based nothing off what i "feel" but rather how i saw the trial and interpreted the evidence not feelings.

No, it doesn't mean it is 100% the truth. You're fault is that you keep saying there is no evidence to support what I believe to be the truth. There is. You need to take a deep breath and realize that even though the evidence that supports what I believe is corroborative, there is NONE, ZERO, ZIP that supports what you believe. Hence the "not guilty" verdict. You can knock on my circumstantial and corroborative evidence all you'd like. But when it comes down to it, my circumstantial/corroborative evidence is more than you've got. All you have is far-sighted speculation with nothing to back it up except "it could have happened." A lot of things could have happened. Luckily for us, wild speculation doesn't mean squat in a courtroom. Evidence does.

But there wasn't any evidence to support who attacked who first thus proof or dis proof self defense. GZ's injuries alone is not evidence he was hit first. lol. You backed up key parts of GZ's story. I have not even stated what i think happened. I''ve only questioned certain elements of your theory that didn't have any evidence from trial to support it. I've always stated we have no indication who started the fight. lol. Sounds like you're the one that needs to take a deep breath. You're certainly within your right to believe as you please but to say there was clear evidence to support the theory you gave is false. There is a difference between not guilty and being innocent and that's my point. Casey Anthony was found not guilty but doesn't mean she's innocent.

GZ's story didn't have to be true in order from him to be found not guilty it simply means the burden of proof wasn't met not that GZ's version of the story was true. Everything i've addressed has been backed by testimony and evidence. You might need to re-read as i've never given my theory as to what happened nor did i say i agreed with everything the prosecution proposed. Make sure you know someone's stance before accusing them of not providing facts.

You are absolutely correct.

The only things we know for sure are the things that happened before Zimmerman left his car.

[homersapien 11,393]

It's such a laughable idea it's hard not to use a little sarcasm when referencing it.

It's exactly the same "laughable" idea that was presented in the Slate write up referenced by Titan. (And I agree with Titan it was a good analysis.)

Taking responsibility for your own actions is hardly a "laughable" proposition. In fact, I consider it to be a very conservative value.

It's not the same at all. The writer says, "morally, if not legally". You have been adamant the entire time that he was legally guilty.

I'm not certain how morally culpable GZ is. I don't know exactly how things went down that night.

I think he is legally guilty of manslaughter. I also think if that had been the only charge made, he would have been convicted.

Regardless, to argue his "legal innocence" makes no more sense than acknowledging OJ's "legal innocence", which is just as valid.

[tgr4lfe 220]

Juror 37 clearly didn't even have an understanding as to what she was issuing a verdict on in addition to important legal terms as she stated. She was discussing SYG..not a defense arguement that was presented. Your statements are assumptions just like my opinions. There was never any evidence to show 1). Who was screaming and 2) Who started the fight. Your assumptions are that since GZ had some minor injuries that TM started the fight but how is it not possible that GZ couldn't have started it and got his azz beat in the process? Bottom line is we don't know and the jury didn't either so their decision wasn't based on if GZ was telling the truth it was based on not enough evidence. Not guilty is not the same as innocent.

No one saw the altercation from start to finish; only bits and pieces. I'm sorry if can't understand my short had phone texting; maybe you can get a teenager to break it down for you. You and TT can spin all you want if it makes you feel good. It's quite amusing. The only points i've ever made pertain to seeing things from a different point of view that related to the evidence that certainly could've occurred that was simply ignored for whatever reason.

Nobody is spinning anything. It's deductive logic. There was evidence. Yes, it was circumstantial, but when you have three or four pieces of circumstantial evidence it then becomes corroborating evidence that supports one inference over the other. There was no circumstantial evidence suggesting it was TM's voice on the recording.

There was circumstantial evidence suggesting either could have started the fight. I just believe there was more supporting GZ's claim.

Key word: circumstantial which means not direct evidence to come to a conclusion that clearly tells the story which is why the verdict was not guilty. Again "your" belief..doesn't mean it's actual truth just like what i believe what i do but nothing to support which version is the actual truth. I respect everyone's point of view that's unpopular point but i based nothing off what i "feel" but rather how i saw the trial and interpreted the evidence not feelings.

No, it doesn't mean it is 100% the truth. You're fault is that you keep saying there is no evidence to support what I believe to be the truth. There is. You need to take a deep breath and realize that even though the evidence that supports what I believe is corroborative, there is NONE, ZERO, ZIP that supports what you believe. Hence the "not guilty" verdict. You can knock on my circumstantial and corroborative evidence all you'd like. But when it comes down to it, my circumstantial/corroborative evidence is more than you've got. All you have is far-sighted speculation with nothing to back it up except "it could have happened." A lot of things could have happened. Luckily for us, wild speculation doesn't mean squat in a courtroom. Evidence does.

But there wasn't any evidence to support who attacked who first thus proof or dis proof self defense. GZ's injuries alone is not evidence he was hit first. lol. You backed up key parts of GZ's story. I have not even stated what i think happened. I''ve only questioned certain elements of your theory that didn't have any evidence from trial to support it. I've always stated we have no indication who started the fight. lol. Sounds like you're the one that needs to take a deep breath. You're certainly within your right to believe as you please but to say there was clear evidence to support the theory you gave is false. There is a difference between not guilty and being innocent and that's my point. Casey Anthony was found not guilty but doesn't mean she's innocent.

GZ's story didn't have to be true in order from him to be found not guilty it simply means the burden of proof wasn't met not that GZ's version of the story was true. Everything i've addressed has been backed by testimony and evidence. You might need to re-read as i've never given my theory as to what happened nor did i say i agreed with everything the prosecution proposed. Make sure you know someone's stance before accusing them of not providing facts.

The physical injury evidence showed TM to be the primary aggressor based on TM's knuckles and GZ's head injuries. I believe based on the evidence from 911 tapes and TM's call to the girl, and that TM circled back on GZ and hid, that is pretty good circumstantial evidence to point toward TM as the primary aggressor also.

[tgr4lfe 220]

It's such a laughable idea it's hard not to use a little sarcasm when referencing it.

It's exactly the same "laughable" idea that was presented in the Slate write up referenced by Titan. (And I agree with Titan it was a good analysis.)

Taking responsibility for your own actions is hardly a "laughable" proposition. In fact, I consider it to be a very conservative value.

It's not the same at all. The writer says, "morally, if not legally". You have been adamant the entire time that he was legally guilty.

I'm not certain how morally culpable GZ is. I don't know exactly how things went down that night.

I think he is legally guilty of manslaughter. I also think if that had been the only charge made, he would have been convicted.

Regardless, to argue his "legal innocence" makes no more sense than acknowledging OJ's "legal innocence", which is just as valid.

Based on FL statute of manslaughter:

782.07 Manslaughter; aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult; aggravated manslaughter of a child; aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic.—

(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(2) A person who causes the death of any elderly person or disabled adult by culpable negligence under s. 825.102(3) commits aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(3) A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence under s. 827.03(2)( commits aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(4) A person who causes the death, through culpable negligence, of an officer as defined in s. 943.10(14), a firefighter as defined in s. 112.191, an emergency medical technician as defined in s. 401.23, or a paramedic as defined in s. 401.23, while the officer, firefighter, emergency medical technician, or paramedic is performing duties that are within the course of his or her employment, commits aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

How is GZ guilty of manslaughter? I'm assuming you are completely ignoring the self defense as that is the ONLY way you can even remotely say he is guilty of manslaughter and by ignoring self defense you ignore a great deal of evidence.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

Juror 37 clearly didn't even have an understanding as to what she was issuing a verdict on in addition to important legal terms as she stated. She was discussing SYG..not a defense arguement that was presented. Your statements are assumptions just like my opinions. There was never any evidence to show 1). Who was screaming and 2) Who started the fight. Your assumptions are that since GZ had some minor injuries that TM started the fight but how is it not possible that GZ couldn't have started it and got his azz beat in the process? Bottom line is we don't know and the jury didn't either so their decision wasn't based on if GZ was telling the truth it was based on not enough evidence. Not guilty is not the same as innocent.

No one saw the altercation from start to finish; only bits and pieces. I'm sorry if can't understand my short had phone texting; maybe you can get a teenager to break it down for you. You and TT can spin all you want if it makes you feel good. It's quite amusing. The only points i've ever made pertain to seeing things from a different point of view that related to the evidence that certainly could've occurred that was simply ignored for whatever reason.

Nobody is spinning anything. It's deductive logic. There was evidence. Yes, it was circumstantial, but when you have three or four pieces of circumstantial evidence it then becomes corroborating evidence that supports one inference over the other. There was no circumstantial evidence suggesting it was TM's voice on the recording.

There was circumstantial evidence suggesting either could have started the fight. I just believe there was more supporting GZ's claim.

Key word: circumstantial which means not direct evidence to come to a conclusion that clearly tells the story which is why the verdict was not guilty. Again "your" belief..doesn't mean it's actual truth just like what i believe what i do but nothing to support which version is the actual truth. I respect everyone's point of view that's unpopular point but i based nothing off what i "feel" but rather how i saw the trial and interpreted the evidence not feelings.

No, it doesn't mean it is 100% the truth. You're fault is that you keep saying there is no evidence to support what I believe to be the truth. There is. You need to take a deep breath and realize that even though the evidence that supports what I believe is corroborative, there is NONE, ZERO, ZIP that supports what you believe. Hence the "not guilty" verdict. You can knock on my circumstantial and corroborative evidence all you'd like. But when it comes down to it, my circumstantial/corroborative evidence is more than you've got. All you have is far-sighted speculation with nothing to back it up except "it could have happened." A lot of things could have happened. Luckily for us, wild speculation doesn't mean squat in a courtroom. Evidence does.

But there wasn't any evidence to support who attacked who first thus proof or dis proof self defense. GZ's injuries alone is not evidence he was hit first. lol. You backed up key parts of GZ's story. I have not even stated what i think happened. I''ve only questioned certain elements of your theory that didn't have any evidence from trial to support it. I've always stated we have no indication who started the fight. lol. Sounds like you're the one that needs to take a deep breath. You're certainly within your right to believe as you please but to say there was clear evidence to support the theory you gave is false. There is a difference between not guilty and being innocent and that's my point. Casey Anthony was found not guilty but doesn't mean she's innocent.

GZ's story didn't have to be true in order from him to be found not guilty it simply means the burden of proof wasn't met not that GZ's version of the story was true. Everything i've addressed has been backed by testimony and evidence. You might need to re-read as i've never given my theory as to what happened nor did i say i agreed with everything the prosecution proposed. Make sure you know someone's stance before accusing them of not providing facts.

The physical injury evidence showed TM to be the primary aggressor based on TM's knuckles and GZ's head injuries. I believe based on the evidence from 911 tapes and TM's call to the girl, and that TM circled back on GZ and hid, that is pretty good circumstantial evidence to point toward TM as the primary aggressor also.

His injuries showed he got beat up...not who started the fight thus GZ could've been the aggressor who just go beat up in the process. We don't know who hit who first. A person can't start a fight and just b/c they are losing...pull a gun. Again we don't know who hit who first and that's what hurt the state's case but there were events leading up to the fight that do show GZ as the aggressor and his numerous lies. It is what it is but bottom line is don't bring a gun to fist fight and if a person is that scared as GZ claimed...stay your butt in the car or go to a safe place and let the police handle the situation like they are paid to do.