Zimmerman - what is justice?

[True Earthling]

I've taken a lot of flack by presenting evidence that goes against the prevailing opinion that GZ is a racist murderer who stalked his victim and gunned down intentionally. So I felt it was time to clear the air and present my view. If you disagree after reading this I have no problem with it... I appreciate anyone who takes the time to consider my thoughts.

I don't believe it's black and white like most here. Reality is usually much more complicated. There are those who point to stalking or the fact that GZ initiated the sequence of events as proof that GZ is guilty of murder. I don't believe either of those would stand up in a court of law as sole proof of guilt. A jury may consider those as contributing factors but the entire interaction between GZ and TM has to be examined to get the full picture.

GZ is guilty of a crime but I don't believe it's murder. I don't believe he had intentions to kill TM as soon as he locked eyes on him. It doesn't make sense for him to call 911 if his intent was to murder. I also believe he chased TM and when TM stopped he was scared so he attacked GZ in self defense. Trayvon's girlfriend's account backs this up...

"I know he was scared," the girl recounts. "I told him, 'Keep running!' ... He told me the guy was getting real close to him. And the next I hear is , 'Why are you following me for?' … I heard this man... say, 'What are you doing around here?' ..

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/5/18/i_know_he_was_scared_trayvon

Was GZ acting legally by following and then chasing TM? Stalking is normally defined as repeated serial following and associated with previous threats. I'm not sure a jury would see GZ's actions as stalking. Observing someone while walking behind them is not usually a crime. Chasing or persuing while running however is a different animal. I think it could be argued that a reasonable person would feel fear if they noticed someone following them... and in fear for their life if that turned into chase.

Now what was GZ's mind set while chasing TM? Again, Trayvon's girlfriend provides the clue... "I heard this man say 'What are you doing around here?'". Based on that I don't believe GZ's mind set was murder. Unfortunately we have a gross misunderstanding from both... GZ believing TM was a criminal casing a job or getting away with a crime and TM believing GZ was out to rob him, beat him up or maybe kill him. GZ initiated the sequence perhaps not unreasonably out of curiosity but when he initiated the chase... that crossed the line from observation to engagement and that act alone can be viewed as negligent. In the end I see this as a tragic accident that could have been avoided if GZ has used some common sense and less zeal. As far as GZ being racist... that may be so but that alone is not proof of murder.

I really believe the mind set and intent of GZ will be the deciding factor as to whether this is will be decided as a murder or negligent homicide. I see it coming down to negligent homicide.

[Hoyt]

1. At least you acknowledge he's "guilty" of something significant.

Personally (without getting hung up with legalities), I think a degree of intent to do harm to someone was evident when he stuck the gun in his pants. When he saw unarmed teenager in a hoodie, a tragedy was set in motion that would not have happened if Zimmerman was not a police wannabe, left his gun at home, or Trayvon had been white.

With that said, I doubt they can find 12 jurors in Florida to convict Zimmerman. Some right wingers will probably nominate the worthless SOB for a medal.

[True Earthling]

6. People also use guns for protection.

I don't see how one can infer 100% an intent to cause harm. That in no way is a slam dunk.

[Hoyt]

9. "Protection" -- I'm sure Zimmerman felt the same way when he strapped on his legal gun.

In fact, the gunsters would have said Zimmerman was a fine, law-abiding gun toter right up until he shot an unarmed teenager. A significant portion of gunsters still think he is a fine, law-abibing toter.

[The Magistrate]

2. Twenty Years Imprisonment, Sir, For Zimmerman, Would Approximate Justice Here

His entire course of action was based on the premise that he had the right to confront, question, even detain, any black youth he saw. He does not have that right. Every defense of Zimmerman requires sharing the idea he had the right to confront, question, even detain, any black youth he saw, for they all rest on a claim that Mr. Martin's response to being run down and confronted by Zimmerman was unwarranted belligerence, and that can be so only if Zimmerman had the right to act as he did. Zimmerman was pushing it even calling the police over seeing Mr. Martin; he should have stayed in his car and waited for them to arrive.

[arely staircase]

4. what you said nt

[hlthe2b]

12. Yes... Unless DOJ can prove a hate crime in which case it needs to be much more than 20 years.

[Egalitariat]

32. Why the "sir" in your post?

I've seen that for years here, in the same context you used it above, and I've never understood it. It's obviously not used, in this context, as a sign of respect like southern kids when they say "yes sir".

It's more like it is an attempt to add effect to your post. I just don't know what effect you are adding. Do you use "sir" like this in a lot of your posts?

[Fumesucker]

3. Zimmerman would never have gotten out of the car without the gun..

I've seen the very same reaction in my own family, someone with a gun did something really stupid that they wouldn't even have dreamed of without the gun.. Luckily for them it didn't end up in a tragedy but it very well could have.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. Manslaughter applies.

And he had intent to do something. The 911 tape is pretty clear on that score. I believe that is what he is getting charged with, not premeditated murder.

He will likely get off, mostly because of the concerted effort to poison the well on this case with a to of disinformation, a coordinated old and new media campaign to prevent this case cascading into a general backlash against SYG idiocy and rightwing Hollywood Cowboy Gun Culture madness.

[jp11]

7. I take issue with the misunderstanding from both.

George was acting out some hero/detective/vigilante fantasy. Do I honestly think he saw Trayvon and thought he was going to kill this guy no matter what, no I don't. But I do think he thought he'd lean on the guy, scare him, maybe beat him up or just otherwise degrade him by having him get on his knees, empty his pockets or apologize/grovel to him to show he was under his power and if he needed to he'd shoot the guy. Did he think he'd kill him, maybe, maybe not, but I think it is clear he really didn't care if that was the outcome OR he wouldn't have pursued the kid with the mindset that if it came to it he'd use his gun.

Trayvon was not wrong to fightback against that, regardless of what you or I think happened, Trayvon struck first, George did, doesn't matter. George was on this power trip, you can disagree if you want but the facts speak to that being the case. He followed this kid and didn't need to, he was advised to not do it but he didn't care because he was not afraid, he had a gun. He confronts the kid after he tried to run away, who was already leaving the area and had done nothing wrong. The only reason George picked him out was stereotypes/racism he had no evidence that any crime had been committed nor was he empowered by anyone to interrogate or detain people by force or threat of force. So some weird guy has been following Trayvon, who then tries to runaway but George won't let him go, no proof just racism, this is on George.

George crossed the line when he pursued the kid. He called the cops could have given them a description and left it at that but he didn't, again his fantasy of being a crime stopper and not fearing anyone because he had a gun.

I'd agree with you that this isn't murder but only if we know what happened in the altercation. IF there was anyway for George to end the fight without killing Trayvon then it was murder, if not than it was another charge, manslaughter or negligent homicide I'm not clear on the specifics.

Again I agree with you George's mindset has a lot to do with this and what I see factually are the following he picked out a kid based on racial stereotypes with no evidence at all. George called the police, ignored their reasonable advice to not follow him because he had a gun to deal with any resistance. George followed, the kid, at some point running after him, and then proceeds to ask him what he was doing around here. A struggle erupts, someone is screaming for help, likely Trayvon, and Trayvon ends up dead.

[True Earthling]

11. If witnesses come forward testifying to a pattern of this type of confrontation

then I'll buy it. Otherwise it would be hard to believe this was a one time thing. Your theory doesn't hold water unless it can be backed up IMO.

<George was acting out some hero/detective/vigilante fantasy. Do I honestly think he saw Trayvon and thought he was going to kill this guy no matter what, no I don't. But I do think he thought he'd lean on the guy, scare him, maybe beat him up or just otherwise degrade him by having him get on his knees, empty his pockets or apologize/grovel to him to show he was under his power and if he needed to he'd shoot the guy. Did he think he'd kill him, maybe, maybe not, but I think it is clear he really didn't care if that was the outcome OR he wouldn't have pursued the kid with the mindset that if it came to it he'd use his gun. >

[jp11]

13. And if this was the first time he did this?

It is clear since as I've said he had no evidence that Trayvon did anything wrong, he just 'looked wrong' listen to his 911 tape, he looks like he's a drug dealer on drugs. Why is that? I say it is likely because he is black but who knows maybe George thought of all people he didn't personally know as being 'wrong'.

You can't deny that his ignoring the advice and common sense idea to not pursue a person he knows nothing about who he has no evidence of wrongdoing is a direct result of him not being afraid. Why do you think that is? I submit it is because he had a gun and the will to use 'if it came to that' and guess what it wouldn't come to that if he didn't get involved YET that's exactly what he did and there was NO need for him to do so.

How else do you explain his unshakable belief that this kid was 'wrong' and that he was in no danger in doing as he pleased, following him, confronting him? That is what speaks to his fantasy of a being a hero/vigilante and maybe the idea that he'd 'show him' through confronting him and having him prove he wasn't 'wrong'.

[uponit7771]

8. The chase alone was the threat to TM, if TM was a 17yr old girl of any race no one would be

....talking about weather or no GZ should be in jail we'd be talking about how long.

Regards

[Cheap_Trick]

10. What is justice?

Drop Zimmerman off in the 'hood.

End of story.

End of Zimmerman.

Justice served.

[johnnie]

35. In the hood?

Seriously? I love the smell of racism of DU in the evening.

[Cheap_Trick]

48. You know, where the "thugs" live.

Racism was inferred on your part, not intended. Maybe I forgot my "quotation fingers" before. Or maybe you see what you wnat to see. Either way, oh well.

[notadmblnd]

14. Florida's stalking law. Note the bold print which I emphasized

Fla. Stat. § 784.048. Stalking; definitions; penalties. (2008)

(1) As used in this section, the term:

(a) "Harass" means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.

(b) "Course of conduct" means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct." Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.

(c) "Credible threat" means a threat made with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety. The threat must be against the life of, or a threat to cause bodily injury to, a person.

(d) "Cyberstalk" means to engage in a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images, or language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific person, causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose.

(2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.



(3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of the person, or the person's child, sibling, spouse, parent, or dependent, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(4) Any person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence, sexual violence, or dating violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person or that person's property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(5) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks a minor under 16 years of age commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(6) Any law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person he or she has probable cause to believe has violated the provisions of this section.

(7) Any person who, after having been sentenced for a violation of s. 794.011, s. 800.04, or s. 847.0135(5) and prohibited from contacting the victim of the offense under s. 921.244, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks the victim commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(8) The punishment imposed under this section shall run consecutive to any former sentence imposed for a conviction for any offense under s. 794.011, s. 800.04, or s. 847.0135(5).

http://crime.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=crime&cdn=newsissues&tm=7&f=10&su=p284.13.342.ip_p504.6.342.ip_&tt=2&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.ncvc.org/src/main.aspx%3FdbID%3DDB_Florida108


So yes, what GZ did to TM was STALK him. Furthermore before he got out of his vehicle, he armed himself. To me, that shows intent to kill. TM was no threat to GZ and if the little shit had minded his business- as he had absolutly no authority what-so-ever to stop, harass or question anyone, you would not be here agruing in defense of him today

[True Earthling]

16. Even if it is stalking - that is the least of his crime(s)

Stalking is not murder and doesn't change the neg homicide thesis.

[notadmblnd]

18. it was stalking, it was murder. He intended to make TM fear for his life and he ultimately took it

if he hadn't had the intent to do bodily harm, he never would have gotten out of the car with his weapon. In fact, he never would have gotten out of the car at all.

You might want to try selling your argument somewhere else, because you wont find many buyers of it here.

[True Earthling]

19. I'm not selling anything.

As far as my opinion - you can take it or leave it. You disagree - no problem.

[hfojvt]

23. at least two places where that falls short

"and serves no legitimate purpose"

Keeping a neighborhood safe from burglars is a legitimate purpose.

a credible threat is

"a threat made with the intent"

What was Zimmerman's intent again? He intended to have Trayvon Martin be questioned by the police. He did not ever intend for Martin "to reasonably fear for his or her safety".

BTW "arming oneself" does not show an intent to kill. It shows an intent to defend oneself. That's why I carry weapons. It's a dangerous world. You never know when somebody will knock you down and start pounding on you.

[notadmblnd]

29. that is baloney

Keeping the neighborhood safe from burglers is law enforcement's job not GZ's. Especially since no one gave him any authority to police his neighborhood. Residents have no obligation or authority what-so-ever to stop, question, detain or harass anyone at all for anything. If GZ has seen TM in the process of committing a crime, then he may have felt he needed to call the police, however he was under no obligation nor had any authority to do so.

A person simply walking down the street does not translate into posing a credible threat nor does it show any intent.

GZ had no authority to have TM questioned by police and it is only your opinion that he did not intend for TM to fear for his life. My opinion is just the opposite. My reasoning for that is - that if it was not his intent, GZ never would have gotten out of his car. This also proves that GZ was not in fear for his life.

I also disagree that arming yourself does not show intent to do bodily harm. At the very least it shows that you do intend to hurt someone if you or your possessions are threatened. In my 53 years I have never felt so scared or threatened that I've needed to arm myself and I have spent considerable time living, working and visiting one of the deadliest cities in the world (Detroit).

I can't begin to imagine how it feels to live my life in fear or to think that everyone is out to hurt me, nor do I think that the material things I possess are so important that I would be willing to take a human life to defend them.

I guess we must live in very different worlds?

[hfojvt]

33. that's a big IF though

between "intending to do harm" and "intending to do harm IF threatened" because I would have nothing to fear from the second person.

and "everyone" is not out to hurt me, but some people would be more than happy to if they had the opportunity.

And apparently the police disagree with you, since they were responding to Zimmerman's call and would have presumably questioned both Martin and Zimmerman.

Zimmerman was not under any obligation to do what he did, but neither was he prohibited. I am not under any obligation to pick up trash while I walk my dogs, but neither am I prohibited from doing so. Thus keeping a neighborhood clean or keeping a neighborhood safe are both legitimate purposes. Zimmerman does not need any authority to follow or ask somebody a question. Anybody can do that, but the person being asked does not have to answer.

[notadmblnd]

37. But that IS your intent every time you go out armed

And GZ was not threatened. Furthermore, TM was not committing a crime. I also disagree that if I'm walking down the street that you live on, you have no right to ask me what I'm doing there and If you do ask and I ignore you, you have no right to pursue me or detain me.

You also don't know if the police disagree with me, in fact I'm pretty certain that they didn't. GZ was told specifically not to follow or detain TM. GZ took it upon himself to hunt this kid down and ultimately killed him. He had no authority to do so.

[hfojvt]

44. uhm no it is not

and GZ's injuries seemed to show that he was threatened. Actually a broken nose is more than a threat of a broken nose, it's an actual broken nose, and it probably hurts - a lot.

and here's the difference between intending to kill and intending to defend. See if you can understand this real life example.

http://www.kansascyclist.com/news/2008/08/first-thrill-killer-pleads-guilty-in-bicyclists-murder/

"In November of 2005, Robert Osborn was brutally murdered while riding his bicycle home from work in Kansas City, Missouri.

Around 6am on November 20th, two men were “bored, looking for something to do, and so decided kill someone. Their first plan was to knock on area doors, shooting the first person who answered. Then they stalked a woman driving a car. Then they followed Robert Osborn, 43, stopping to fire at him twice from their vehicle and missing both times."

See, those two dumbfucks intended to kill somebody. Now, if Osborn had been armed, he would have been able, perhaps, to defend himself from the two dumbfucks whose path he happened to cross.

[notadmblnd]

47. For all we know GZ inflicted those injuries on himself

TM did not walk up to GZ's car and attack him. GZ followed TM, got out of his car and pursued TM. Are you going to tell me that if TM did STAND HIS GROUND (which is legal in FLA) and hit GZ when GZ confronted him, that it justifies his murder or that it was only GZ that had a right to stand his ground by killing TM after he decided to fight the creep that was following him? None of this would have happened if the little bastard had stayed in his car when the police dispatcher told him he did not need to follow TM.

GZ was told by a police officer not a 911 dispatcher that he did not need to follow TM. The little fuck wanted to cause trouble and he did, now he gets to answer for it in a court of law and hopefully pays a price for killing a young man who was doing nothing wrong. Again, I will say if GZ was in fear of his life, he would never gotten out of his car. The weapon he carried and took with him to pursue TM gave GZ the courage and confidence to confront someone he had no business confronting to begin with.

What if it had been your son or better yet your daughter or perhaps even your grandchild walking home and some creep was following him/her? Would it be alright with you then? Would the murder of your loved one be justified in your mind? Don't think that something like this cant happen to you or one of yours because you are white or that you walk around armed. Your gun is only going to be useful to the one using it and it might just not be you.

[hfojvt]

49. you keep saying that wrong

Just FYI

"None of this would have happened if the little bastard had stayed in his car when the police dispatcher told him he did not need to follow TM."'

The neighborhood watch hero was already out of the car following, when he was advised, mostly for reasons of his own safety, that he did not need to do that. But like a typical hero, he chose to put his own personal safety at risk, for the good of the community.

As far as my family goes, of course, my first response would be "no one messes with my brother!!!" but if I thought about it logically, I might admit that my brother, who I love like a son, is nevertheless capable of doing something either stupid and/or wrong. Once he attempted to elude the police when he was very drunk behind the wheel. Another time he was drunk, did a kung fu kick through a window and needed several stitches in that foot (besides breaking somebody else's window).

Uh, yeah, white skin does make somebody bulletproof. That's why the guy murdered by the two armed dumbfucks - was white.

[Quixote1818]

15. My impression is almost exactly like yours.

I do however wonder if Zimmerman's bullying and racist past show that he had underlying issues that caused him to pull the trigger out of hate more than fear but that would be very hard to prove.

[Blue_Tires]

17. You keep trying to take race out of the equation

There was no "innocent curiosity" in Zimmerman's intentions; he sized up Martin as a ghetto criminal to be apprehended from the second he saw him...People act in unpredictable ways when some stranger assumes the worst of them...

[Woody Woodpecker]

20. Sir, your assumption is incorrect

It became second degree murder the minute George Zimmerman left the car. It showed indifference, and that fits into the definition of 2nd degree murder under Florida law.

I have looked at some of the released evidences and transcripts, and became convinced that GZ deserves to rot in prison in a gen pop in the worst maximum-security prison in Florida.

[hfojvt]

21. at this point, I do not consider the girl's story to be credible or conclusive

I would like to see some time stamps, all those phone calls have a recorded start time and a stop time. I know from the tape, for example, that Zimmerman was on the phone with 911 for about 4 minutes, further that at about the two minute mark Zimmerman said that Martin was running and later that he lost him.

That call should have a time record on it. It began at 7;08 (or something) and ended at 7;12. Martin's call to the girl should have a time record on it. When did it begin and end. '

There are other 911 calls, including some where you can hear a shot. Those establish time of death and also the approximate time of the scuffle. How does that match up to Martin's call to the girl?

Also, somebody was yelling for help. Who? There is a recording of it, so I do not know why some voice analysis cannot be done with it (even if Zimmerman yells at a phone fifteen feet away as part of the test) to determine if it was Zimmerman's voice or not.

I'd also like to see a map (we know where Martin was found) and location and accounts of eyewitnesses.

One thing that still stands out to me, is that we know that Martin had a two minute head start, because he started running and Zimmerman was on the phone for two more minutes. Even a very slow runner can cover 400 yards in two minutes and Martin was less than 1000 yards from home when he was killed. I don't see any way Zimmerman catches him if Martin keeps running.

Now, Zimmerman says that Martin hid in some bushes, jumped out and confronted him (Martin may very well have jumped out because he figured he had already been spotted). Not that that would be illegal or wrong on his part, but it takes away from the story that Zimmerman somehow chased Martin down. It also takes away from the idea that it is "self defense" for Martin to attack Zimmerman. At least as I understand it, you can only claim self defense if you had no option to escape. Thus, fear gives Martin a legal option of escape, but it does not give him a legal option of attack.

Now for all I know (or all anyone knows or doesn't know) Zimmerman attacked Martin first, but I would need to see proof of that before I convicted Zimmerman of anything. Following, even of a running person, does not give them the right to assault you. It does seem clear to me at this point though, that Martin did not exercise the option of escape and that his did assault Zimmerman. Now if there is proof, or even evidence, that Zimmerman did something more than merely follow, then my position would change.

Not that that makes the death of a 17 year old any less awful.

[uppityperson]

25. Voice analysis by 2 experts said it wasn't Zimmy yelling for help.

[True Earthling]

30. FBI analysis was inconclusive

They didn't say it wasn't GZ but who knows how that will shake out in court. The FBI report will carry more credibility IMO. I'm open to the possibility it was TM but that would be harder to prove than ruling out GZ.

And on one 911 call, placed by a neighbor, a police sergeant counted one man yelling "help!" or "help me!" 14 times in a span of 38 seconds.

Who was yelling? When the 911 calls were later played back for him and he was asked if they were from his son, an emotional Tracy Martin "quietly responded 'no'." But an FBI analysis, also detailed on Thursday, said it couldn't be determined whose voice it was due to the "extreme emotional state" of whomever was yelling, a lack of words from which to compare, overlapping voices and "insufficient voice quality" on the recording.
The same analysis also didn't reach conclusions as to whether Zimmerman used a racial epithet to describe Martin on his own 911 call, as some have alleged. Martin's family have said they believe Zimmerman, a white Hispanic, profiled the African-American teen.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/18/justice/florida-teen-shooting-details/index.html

[uppityperson]

31. It's not George Zimmerman crying for help on 911 recording, 2 experts say

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-31/news/os-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-911-20120331_1_voice-identification-expert-reasonable-scientific-certainty

A leading expert in the field of forensic voice identification sought to answer that question by analyzing the recordings for the Orlando Sentinel.

His result: It was not George Zimmerman who called for help.

Tom Owen, forensic consultant for Owen Forensic Services LLC and chair emeritus for the American Board of Recorded Evidence, used voice identification software to rule out Zimmerman. Another expert contacted by the Sentinel, utilizing different techniques, came to the same conclusion.

Oh, you want another CNN link? Here.http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/02/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html

Audio experts Tom Owen and Ed Primeau, who analyzed the recordings for the Sentinel using different techniques, said they don't believe it is Zimmerman who is heard yelling in the background of one 911 call. They compared those screams with Zimmerman's voice, as recorded in a 911 call he made minutes earlier describing a "suspicious" black male, who ended up being Martin.
"There's a huge chance that this is not Zimmerman's voice," said Primeau, a longtime audio engineer who is listed as an expert in recorded evidence by the American College of Forensic Examiners International. "After 28 years of doing this, I would put my reputation on the line and say this is not George Zimmerman screaming."
Owen, a forensic audio analyst and chairman emeritus of the American Board of Recorded Evidence, also said he does not believe the screams came from Zimmerman.
He cited software that is widely used in Europe and has become recently accepted in the United States that examines characteristics like pitch and the space between spoken words to analyze voices. Using it, he found a 48% likelihood the voice is Zimmerman's. At least 60% is necessary to feel confident two samples are from the same source, he told CNN on Monday -- meaning it's unlikely it was Zimmerman who can be heard yelling.

[hfojvt]

42. well that requires some explanation

If it takes 60% to feel confident, then why does 48% likelihood make unlikely so certain? Because 48% is pretty close to 60%, and "not feeling confident" is, or should be, a long way from "feeling confident that it is not".

I am also leery of "experts" who often tell the media what they want to hear. Plenty of supposed "experts" can be found to claim on TV that the Bush tax cuts were, and are, a good idea. Put them under oath, or make it a sworn statement, and it has more credibility.

Even the CNN link says this

"Both Karas and Hostin urged caution in reaching any conclusions about the findings of Primeau and Owen.

"I do think we need to take a step back, as with most of the facts in this case, and look at it the way the court would," Hostin said. "And that is by asking if the circumstances of how, and if, the test was done, OK, and wait to determine whether it's reliable.""

and that apparently there are not enough words in the sample to do an accurate comparison, and a 48% chance seems to me like an almost 50% chance that it is and a 50% chance that it isn't. Which doesn't sound very conclusive.

[ljm2002]

36. Good grief, not this crap again.

You say:

"At least as I understand it, you can only claim self defense if you had no option to escape. Thus, fear gives Martin a legal option of escape, but it does not give him a legal option of attack."

Florida's Stand Your Ground law explicitly permits people to stand and fight rather than retreat from danger when they feel threatened. That law was invoked by Zimmerman, and was given as the reason the police initially released him. Yet here you are, stating that Martin had an obligation to run away, yet apparently you do not believe that Zimmerman had any such obligation.

If you are going to try and justify Zimmerman's actions, and find ways to blame Martin for his own death, then please at least try and maintain a tiny bit of consistency in your argument.

Or, more briefly and to the point: what a load of horse manure.

[hfojvt]

43. I didn't say anything about SYG

and it would seem to be a strange law which allows both combatants to claim self defense.

If, as the witnesses and Zimmerman's injuries seem to show, Martin was on top of Zimmerman and hitting him, that would not seem to leave Zimmerman with many options for retreat.

But speaking of consistency, I am now hearing two things. The first was that "the SYG law is evil" and now I seem to hear "the SYG law gives Martin the right to beat the crap out of Zimmerman because of a perceived threat (and also apparently takes away Zimmerman's right to defend himself)".

But which side seems more credible to you

"I feared for my safety because somebody followed me and asked me a question"

or

"I feared for my safety because somebody knocked me down and started hitting me in the face"

[ljm2002]

45. It would be a strange law...

...that only allowed one person to stand his ground, while requiring the other person to retreat. It is not unusual for each person in an altercation to view the other as the aggressor. Perhaps that is one of the flaws in SYG: it would seem to encourage escalation. But that is another issue.

Let's back up and look again at what we are talking about here. Martin was going home, minding his own business, when along came Zimmerman, who decided that Martin must be a thug who did not belong there. He then decided to pursue and confront Martin, even though he had already called 911 and been advised by the dispatcher to await the police. Instead, he pursued Martin, there was a confrontation of some sort and the unarmed Martin ended up dead at Zimmerman's hand. You seem determined to believe that Zimmerman is the one whose life was threatened, yet it is Martin whose life was actually ended.

Again: Martin was the one who was minding his own business, and Zimmerman was the one who was determined to have a confrontation.

Which seems more credible to you: "I fear for my safety because some goon is following me, giving me the evil eye and challenging my presence" vs. "I fear for my safety because there's a black kid in a hoodie walking home".

[kudzu22]

22. Unfortunately we don't know the critical details of what happened.

We know most of what happened up to the point where GZ asks TM what he's doing there. We pick up the story again with TM on top of GZ beating him up pretty good. What happened in between those events makes all the difference, and that's exactly what we don't know. If GZ started the fight, or threatened violence, then he's guilty of murder. If not, he's innocent.

If GZ asked what he's doing there, and then put his hands on TM or flashed his gun, then GZ is guilty of murder. If the reply was "nothing" or "F you" and GZ turned to head back to his car when TM attacked him, then GZ is innocent. Both are perfectly reasonable scenarios given the evidence we know so far.

It's been suggested that the act of following someone is cause enough to justify being attacked. I have to disagree. If it had been Martin following Zimmerman and GZ turns and fires at him, you wouldn't argue that TM following GZ was sufficient provocation for lethal force. The state will have a hard time arguing that following someone and asking them their business constitutes starting a physical fight. Absent any evidence that GZ was the first to use or threaten force, I think he'll be acquitted.

All that being said, I do think GZ acted stupidly. He should have stayed in his car and none of this would have happened. I'm sure he wishes he'd stayed in his car.

[True Earthling]

24. Agree - following is not justification to attack but when it turned into a chase

that narrowed down the options for TM to avoid GZ. So now TM is feeling cornered and decides to fight instead of run. I find that a reasonable response.

[Rex]

26. Elevating a conflict to lethal force will get you a 2nd degree murder charge.

I have a feeling the FBI is going to wait and then file a hate crime charge against GZ. He might be looking at life in prison.

[kestrel91316]

27. There really is no end to the defense of GZ for you, is there?

Is his defense team paying you??

[True Earthling]

28. There's really no end to your intolerance of other opinions

My opinions are based on what the evidence tells me. We interpret things differently. I don't take pot shots at you or anyone else for having a different opinion. Why do you have to make it personal?

[Starry Messenger]

34. He should have stayed in the fucking car.

Sorry, I don't get all the hand-waving over this self-appointed Mall Cop mentality on the part of GZ. What happened to MTOFB?

[johnnie]

38. MTOFB

?

[True Earthling]

39. I think it's a typo.. should be MYOFB

Mind Your Own Fucking Business.

[johnnie]

40. Oh, ok...duh

I hope not too many people have that attitude, a lot of people get away with a lot of shit because people MYOFB.

[Starry Messenger]

41. In this case, George Zimmerman was the shit that got away. nt.

[Bolo Boffin]

46. "These assholes always get away." - George Zimmerman

There's the mindset and intent of George Zimmerman. He appointed himself judge and jury for an innocent teenage boy walking home from the store. As it turns out, he got to be executioner as well.