The Blue Board

There is only 1/2 (only saw Martin on top of GZ beating him "MMA style", but not how it started) an eye-witness and his account is consistent with GZ's account. Ballistics show that the gun was fired from no more than 18" from TM's chest. Autopsy showed scrapes on TM's knuckles and the photos of GZ show his injuries.

Unless there is an eyewitness that saw GZ physically start the altercation that is unknown at this time, a NOT GUILTY decision is a matter of time. Do you think there will be riots? and do you blame the media for early misleading reporting (edited 911, 13 yr old pic ...). GZ may have committed manslaughter and certainly used bad judgement (following), but no sane person would find him guilty of murder 2 (with what is known at this time).

Based on what we know know, TM is dead because of his actions.

someone remind me again why we should care about this media hyped case because i forgot why it was important the minute after it happened

It's pretty hyped on both sides. As you see in this thread, many assume it's a fact that martin struck first.

I don't see the point in getting emotional about it since we know so little. But I think it's still a very interesting discussion

youre right. i just dont see how a case like this gets so much publicity when there is worse crimes happening out there that the national media doesnt touch with a 50 foot poll. oh well what the hell do i know

You are using a typical liberal tactic, argue against something I did not say and is easily refutable. I never said you do not have the right to defend yourself with your hands. If GZ's account is true (all evidence seems to support it and there is no known contrary account by a witness), then TM attacked him after they exchanged words. You DO NOT have a right to bash someone's head into the concrete b/c of something they said. This is where it appears that TM made the mistake that cost him his life. If he had just knocked him down, kicked him and run, he would still be here.

Look at it from GZ point of view, a guy a half a foot taller than you attacks you after a verbal exchange (as you were heading back to your car). You originally thought he may be a robber and now he is on top of you pounding you. You scream for help and nobody comes and he is still pounding you. Is it fair for a reasonable person to fear for their life in this situation? The answer is a resounding yes and at this point GZ would and did have the right to defend himself with deadly force if necessary (true in every state in the US and the stand you ground law is moot). That why I agree with virtually every legal expert that has commented about this case since the release of the evidence; there are no grounds for a 2nd degree murder charge (not even close). How the incident got to TM physically attacking GZ has the potential for manslaughter, but the stand your ground law would make that harder to prove. I am not saying that GZ is guilty of manslaughter, but it is a more fitting charge and one with a chance of conviction. From the evidence I know about GZ is only guilty of stupidity (should not have followed TM). TM is the one that appears to have started the physical altercation which lead to the loss of his life, thus TM is ultimately responsible for his own death.

The loss of a 17 year old is the biggest tragedy. The biased initial reporting by the media is a tragedy. I do not want to rub salt in the parents wounds, but what had they been doing to try and change the path that TM was on. He was in his third school suspension (drugs), had been caught with a backpack full of stolen jewelry and a large flat blade screwdriver and had punched out a bus driver (per tweet from TM's cousin). None of this warants the kid losing his life, but it was as plain as the nose on your face that TM was either heading to prison or worse. Unfortunately he learned the hard way that his actions can have severe consequences.

I am not a lawyer, but I am positive that such a law does not exist. In some circumstances the term "reasonable force" may be in a particular law. However in this case I am pretty sure it will come down to this, you have the right to defend yourself with deadly force if you fear for your life. Was it reasonable that GZ feared for his life given what GZ knew at the time (TM being 17 is irrelevant as all GZ knew at the time was that TM was a head taller than him). If someone you originally thought was a thief physically attacked you and was on top of you pounding your head in the concrete, would you fear for your life? I think it is clearly reasonable to fear for your life in that situation.

Different states have different laws. Florida only requires that you have a "reasonable" fear for you life...then you can use deadly force.

That's why I'm asking if Martin could've have reached a reasonable level of fear for his life. If so, can you stand your ground against someone who is standing his ground?

so there you go, you spend the whole tread saying everything else is just speculation and then all of a sudden put out the idea that zimmerman was directly confronting martin with the gun. If you have any evidence this happened, please link it. Despite a few of your opponents being inarticulate, they do have a point that you're advancing a particular point of view (and not just 'initiating discussion' etc)

The only evidence we've seen is that there was confrontation, zimmerman was getting beat down, he shot martin. We don't know a thing about what started it so no matter what racial preference you have in this battle, unless big evidence is shown that zimmerman directly made martin fear for his life there will be a not guilty verdict based upon reasonable doubt (no pun intended).

Why would you think that I have a racial preference if i haven't mentioned race? Why are you guys stuck on the racial stuff?

I didn't put out any ideas, I examined both:

One viewpoint is that Zimmerman pushed Martin first. If that's the case, there is no need to discuss further.

Zimmerman's viewpoint (according to his father) is that Martin saw the gun. I didn't make that up or assume anything. His father said that GZ reached for his phone and Martin saw the gun. That may sound odd but that's the story that his father is telling.

I don't think that is a fact, at least not according to syg. If you initiate a confrontation, you have a responsibility to calm it down. The statute even says that you have to retreat and make it clear to the other person that you mean them no further harm.

I don't think Zimmerman ever did that b/c he was arguing with TM loudly the entire time. GZ continued to push the situation until the point of no return. You mock the retort that many make but it's valid. You don't really think that you can start a fight and urder the other person when you start losing do you?

I think the most important part of the case will be who started the fight, it won't be about who won. And if TM struck first, will the prosectution be able to show that he had a reasonable fear in order to stand his ground against GZ.

Yes, but how hard is it to judge weight when someone is in sweats, especially if loose fitting.

There is no doubt that GZ made some errors in judgement, just none that appear to be criminal. GZ will have to live with these errors and killing a kid for the rest of his life. I do not think that will be easy for a guy who volunteered to mentor young kids.

According to Zimmerman, the physical altercation began when he (GZ) began to turn and walk back to his car. It may or not be true, but unless there is evidence to the contrary, GZ should walk. I do not think involuntary manslaughter would stick without additional evidence. By turning to leave, GZ presented no threat to TM and everything that happened after that point was the result of TM's decision to physically attack GZ.

Exactly. You only care about the one case that has a huge racial angle to it, that's my point. And in mirror image to the others that you've been arguing with, you fabricate a reason to convict GZ based off of your own conjecture (like how people have been totally exonerating GZ as well).

I never said GZ was a good source. All I said was the evidence we have seen backs up his claims that he was in a fight for his life. We don't know what preceded the fight so any theories one advances will only demonstrate your bias to believe one vs. the other (and for most people, that has been a racial bias). I have no idea if he's guilty or not, all I know is that based on what we've seen so far there will be no conviction for murder.

I still have not seen what you're talking about with GZ's father. I don't know what story that came from.

The next time I get in a fight just let the other guy beat me up and I get to shoot and kill!