What kind of person would think that Zimmerman had the right to...
While armed, walk up to a complete stranger who was doing absolutely NOTHING wrong and initiate a confrontation with that person?
If Trayvon Martin was left unmolested to walk home, who doesn't think that he would have gotten to his destination without getting into a fight and getting shot?
Who had more to fear, the unarmed person who was being chased or the armed person who was doing the chasing?
There's only one victim here and he's dead.
A person who carried a loaded weapon into a confrontation, that he was the only person who was intent on having, and then shoots that person that he initiated the confrontation with should face the consequences of his actions if he shoots and kills the unarmed person that he confronted.
Even if Zimmerman was on the losing end of a fight, it was a fight that was only STARTED from his actions alone.
Being armed didn't given him the right to avoid getting his ass beat when he started the goddamned fight in the first place.
Other than the lawyers who he's paying, I can't see how anyone can honestly defend any of Zimmerman's actions here.
= new reply since forum marked as read
up the good work. Zimpig will get off and you will feel better about that unarmed black guy scaring the zimpig so bad he had to shoot him.
for double, triple, quadruple emphasis!!!!!!!!!!!!!damn!!!!!!!!!!!!!
good contribution. Keep up the good analysis of what the zimpig was entitled to do to that young, unarmed black kid who was in the right place at the wrong time. If some person shouted out a question to me, a person I did not know, in a suspicious and confrontational manner, I would ignore them. They don't have the right to an answer. Zimpig by his stalking engagement scared this kid and when the kid defended himself(alleged)zimpig shot him. 
you're on the money.....again. I'm through with you.
You have a fan club!
right. All I see you saying is the WHITE looking man had a right to ask "who are you". "what are you doing here black person(implied)". Freedom is it great or what!!!!!!
yeah, yeah, yeah. I know what you said. My statement to you stands. Call yourself whatever you want to .I didn't and I'm finished with a wannabe slick zimpig apologist. 
glad then, that I wasted FIVE seconds of your life.
for the reminder. 
If that's true, Zimmerman was absolutely in the wrong. No question about it, Trayvon had every reason to fear him. And it's certainly possibly Zimmerman could have caught him there even if he was a slower runner. It was dark, raining, and I doubt Trayvon Martin knew exactly which way to go.
Also for what it's worth, I'm on the X/Millennial cusp, some sources consider me X some consider me Millennial. Growing up with a lot of technology in an above average income family, I relate more to Millennials.
Response to davidpdx (Reply #232)
Zimmerman should go to jail based on your assumptions about his acts, and those who disagree support lynchings 
if you were on the jury, zimpig would walk. Right?
have suspended logic because of your love for zimpigs action. You need to check yourself.
it seems pretty obvious to me, who would be in the crowd watching the 'bitter fruit' swing in the wind.
I do hope he is found guilty and no rants if he isn't. It will just further my understanding of racism and how it is applied in this modern age. Open season on young, hooded blacks with dangerous skittles and tea in hand. Very, very wicked and vicious times.
And this Fox News talking point is beyond offensive. 
If anything, Trayvon Martin was lynched when Zimmerman played judge, jury and executioner.
Bye Danny!
you're cursing, to defend zimpig, you know you're wrong.
And that's sexism my friend - aside from racial prejudice. 
It seems to me Trayvon was taught the same thing I was - Stranger Danger. Beware of suspicious looking and behaving strangers. I would hope my 17 and 19 years old nephews would be wary and get their spider sense up to . . . If they walked down to the quick check from my place at 7 pm on a rainy late winter night.
The difference is - the police in my town would be pissed to high holy hell that Zimmerman got in the way of doing the job they were paid and trained to do.
I hope it works out for you
I think he was itching for an opportunity to be a hero but no damsels in distress were presenting themselves so he...
Hey!
Howyadoin?
Damn Skippy!!
NO! Haa! I mean....
Z has to produce evidence of self-defense.
"When self-defense is asserted, the defendant has the burden of producing enough evidence to establish a prima facie case demonstrating the justifiable use of force. Montijo v. State, 61 So. 3d 424, 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). Once the defendant makes a prima facie showing of self- defense, the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense. Fields, 988 So. 2d at 1188. The burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, including the burden of proving that the defendant did not act in self-defense, never shifts from the State to the defendant. Montijo, 61 So. 3d at 427; Fields, 988 So. 2d at 1188."
So, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime charged and that Z did not act in self-defense.
The FL statute on self-defense:
776.012?Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1)?He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;...
I have not really been following the trial, but I assume this statute will apply:
776.041?Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter (justification of self-defense) is not available to a person who:
(2)?Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a)?Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b)?In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
My understanding of FL case law on initial provocation is that the initial provocation must be done “by force or the threat of force.” For example, one case (Gibbs v State) ruled that "provoked" could not refer to mere words or conduct without force or threat of force.
Those who practice in FL may be able to add more to the legal standards that apply. I believe the jury instruction would be as follows: "If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty. However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved."
Edited to add: I'm from another state, so had to check FL law on all this. Hopefully if there are any material mistakes a FL atty will chime in. I will also mention, I hope without sounding condescending in any way, that 2 things I've noticed re the coverage and comments of this case is that (1) people refer to legal issues generally such as a Wiki explanation as opposed to specific FL law, and those can vary in very important ways, and (2) they comment as if the legal situation is how they think it should be rationally when case law often gives very specific examples. For example, case law gives many examples of what constitutes initial provocation in self-defense cases.
Hope all that helps more than, you know, the other way. 
extreme clarity.
Justice for Trayvon..
http://theleftahead.com/2012/03/21/justice-for-trayvon-martin/
Response to MrScorpio (Original post)
feel sorry for you. Keep up the good work on making this a better place to live.
you're back.
gone???!!!! Like magic.
Response to MrScorpio (Reply #284)
Response to heaven05 (Reply #331)
damn fools? You miss the mark as a human being. You sicken me.
You do understand that you're not winning anyone over to whatever point you're trying to make by doing that, right?
Well let's take a look at it:
(1)?Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2)?Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a)?Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b)?In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/776.041
Let's itemize this:
A - "
1)?Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony;"
Let's throw that one out... Neither of them has committed a felony up to the point of the assault.
B - "
2)?Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:" Well clearly it was Zimmerman who was chasing Martin and not the other way around... This is where it gets interesting...
"Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or"
Think about that one... Who is that more likely to apply to... Martin, who was unarmed and was clearly trying to avoid contact with Zimmerman, or Zimmerman who was actively chasing Martin with a loaded weapon?
How was Zimmerman trying to escape from Martin while he was chasing him around that complex again? I'm still trying to figure that one out.
And last but not least, C - "
b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force."
Alright, it was testified in court that it was Zimmerman who caught up with Martin and aggressively asked him what he was doing there? Why didn't Zimmerman simply not get out of his car?
He could have easily stayed in the safety of his vehicle and allowed the police to handle the situation, could he have not? He could have simply drove away if he felt that Martin presented a danger to him... He did neither. He went on a chase.
Where is it that you believe that Zimmerman exhibited good faith to not initiate contact? I mean, that in order to have to withdraw from contact, it stands to reason that one should have not put themselves in a situation where contact had commenced. Zimmerman, by chasing Martin, was the one intent on having contact.
Which party do you think had more control over that particular situation and why?
Or is simply losing in a beatdown that Zimmerman asked for in the first place, to you, was enough to think that he was justified to kill the unarmed innocent person that he was chasing down and tried to defend himself against?
a moniker RGR375, I see what kind of 'good amurikkkun' you are. You sicken me.
Last edited Sun Jun 30, 2013, 02:24 PM USA/ET - Edit history (4)
You do understand that you're not winning anyone over to whatever point you're trying to make by doing that, right?
Well let's take a look at it:
776.041?Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1)?Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2)?Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a)?Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b)?In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/776.041
Let's itemize this:
A - "
1)?Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony;"
Let's throw that one out... Neither of them has committed a felony up to the point of the assault.
B - "
2)?Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:" Well clearly it was Zimmerman who was chasing Martin and not the other way around... This is where it gets interesting...
"Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or"
Think about that one... Who is that more likely to apply to... Martin, who was unarmed and was clearly trying to avoid contact with Zimmerman, or Zimmerman who was actively chasing Martin with a loaded weapon?
How was Zimmerman trying to escape from Martin while he was chasing him around that complex again? I'm still trying to figure that one out.
And last but not least, C - "
b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force."
Alright, it was testified in court that it was Zimmerman who caught up with Martin and aggressively asked him what he was doing there? Why didn't Zimmerman simply not get out of his car?
He could have easily stayed in the safety of his vehicle and allowed the police to handle the situation, could he have not? He could have simply drove away if he felt that Martin presented a danger to him... He did neither. He went on a chase.
Where is it that you believe that Zimmerman exhibited good faith to not initiate contact? I mean, that in order to have to withdraw from contact, it stands to reason that one should have not put themselves in a situation where contact had commenced. Zimmerman, by chasing Martin, was the one intent on having contact.
Which party do you think had more control over that particular situation and why?
Or is simply losing in a beatdown that Zimmerman asked for in the first place, to you, was enough to think that he was justified to kill the unarmed innocent person that he was chasing down and tried to defend himself against?
disgust me.
have no sympathy for the martin family!!!!!!!!!!!! According to you, he, Trayvon, was a damn fool and I harbor the suspicion you personally think Trayvon got what he deserved! You're sickening.