Off-Topic

It doesn't matter to me what Martin's intentions were, Zimmerman was never sworn in to protect and serve and had no basis for the type of conduct that instigated the confrontation. Zimmerman predetermined Martin's intent which was wrong but more importantly, he didn't have the authority to deal whatever the situation was in reality.

Let's say Martin was armed and was burglarizing a house, i'm not sure if I want an armed watch captain creating a lethal confrontation either. He needed to call the police and let the professionals handle the situation. Do you think Martin would have fought the police in that situation if he saw a badge and uniforms?

i love the "allegedly checking out houses" claim. where was that in the transcript of the 911 call? And checking out houses is not illegal. When I walk through my hood, I check out houses. WTH does this mean? Walking in the rain a 7pm is not illegal nor should it be suspicious for a teenager who likely doesn't have a car. this is zimmerman following his pattern of being mall cop period. He has demonstrated a pattern of prejudging and being overzealous with past non-emergency calls, and this time he did it again except he took it further and PUT himself into position to kill someone.

Apparently shooting the person you followed isn't either.

Does not mean it shouldn't be.

Shooting people isn't illegal either, apparently.

And Leafee beat me to it...

And self-defense in not. If you assume that person committed murder, then yes, everyone agrees that the murderer should be charged.

Should I have amended to say "shooting unarmed 16 year olds wearing hoodies walking through your neighborhood because you don't like the look of them because you think you are the neighborhood Dirty Harry isn't illegal either apparently"?

Just curious.

Perhaps. But when you start putting prosecutors in a position where their reflexive reaction is to just start charging people with serious crimes and letting the jury figure it out because otherwise society will get really pissed, that often leads to really crappy results.

Based on the public outrage, do you also believe it was entirely correct for the prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse case to charge all those people with rape and pursue that prosecution?

Once again, if you just assume the part you're trying to prove and state it as an assertion, then there's little to discuss.

Should the Duke lacrosse case have been pursued in the manner in which it was? Just curious.

What if I use the same rhetoric and say stuff like "apparently a bunch of white guys raping a black girl isn't illegal either!" Yes, if you just assume the guys raped her, then they probably should have been prosecuted.

I was just being a smartass.

If Trayvon Martin was commiting a crime or had a 9mm on him I'd agree. But that clearly wasn't the case here.

Here's where I'm at with this.

What is needed in order to prove Zimmerman committed murder and that he did not act in self defense? He has a permit for the concealed weapon. No matter how bogus Florida's laws are, they are still there. There is one eye witness that says he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman. There may or may not be physical evidence to show Zimmerman received a broken nose and had lacerations on the back of his head.

No matter how stupid he was to follow Martin, there is no way that justifies that he was on a mission to murder him or even on a mission to confront him. It's very possible Zimmerman turned that corner expecting Martin to still be walking towards that back entrance and not hiding on a patio possibly waiting to confront Zimmerman. The 911 tapes do not prove Zimmerman called 911 for the sole reason that Martin was black. It wasn't until the operator asked what color he was when he told them I think black. I've heard that Zimmerman tutored young black kids. The fact that he may have called Martin "a coon" does not mean he was on a racist mission either. You and I could be with our friends in our own houses making jokes and that word along with the n word could be used....it doesn't automatically equate we are racist.

My view is this...no matter how stupid or dumb or irresponsible you think Zimmerman was in his actions or decisions leading up to the confrontation it's not enough to prove he was on a mission to murder or murder based on race.

Now the question for self defense comes into play. After all the facts are presented and law enforcement makes a decision then we'll see. If they conclude there isn't enough evidence to support self defense then so be it, send Zimmerman to jail.

Correct. at a min the state has GZ dead to rights for assault with a deadly weapon. The burden is on GZ to prove a defense to a jury. it isnt the state's burden to show anything beyond a dead body, GZ's gun, and some ballistics showing GZ killed him.

If the state went for murder, it would have the burden of proving additional factors, like state of mind. But right now it has an open and shut felony case, and the burden would be on GZ to prove a defense. He could take the stand and claim he acted in self-defense. Just like the new orleans cops did. doesnt mean the jury will buy it.