At this point it is a toss up as to whether he will be convicted. If he abandoned pursuit and was attacked by Martin or if Martin initiated physical contact, it is possible for him to walk. A majority of the evidence released seems to substantiate his claim of self defense being plausible. However evidence is still being gathered and the trial is far away. I have been involved in cases where juries have convicted with less evidence, and likewise seen juries believe self defense with less evidence.
wow, isn't there an age limit around here? Sheesh, just idiots in here who know nothing but what they see out the window. You should STFU! And I bet you would not call him a bigot to his face, dickwad. You're a p***y with a keyboard.
That's precisely what proves Zimmerman was lying. On the one hand he tells cops Martin was covering his mouth while beating his head in and also reaching for his gun (of course this begs the question as to just how many arms Travyon Martin had!). On the other hand he says he was the one screaming. There were 24 screams on the 911 call and none were muffled. So that obviously wasn't Zimmerman screaming since he told the police his mouth was being covered. This is why charges were filed. His story just doesn't add up. It's transparently bull$hit. Zimmerman also told police Trayvon was circling his car to intimidate him and that this frightened him so much, he rolled up his windows. Why would you then get out of your car if you were so scared? It shoots your self-defense argument in the foot when you say an action inciting fear in you was taken but your response to that fear was get out of the security of your vehicle and approach the very person who threatened you. Either you weren't that scared by his action or you went looking for trouble. When you listen to Zimmerman's call and look at his past, it's pretty obvious the guy was looking for trouble. He sure found it. Now it's his time to be accountable like others who break the law and pay the price. Simple as that.
It was Martin's decision to resort to violence to resolve something that initially wasn't a big deal. Suspended 3 times in not even a full school year, the kid had a lack of respect for authority. He damn sure didn't need to have any priviledges much less given free reign walking about smoking dope.
I get that you're trying to be cool with your smartass response, but it makes you look like an idiot. First of all, I've read the thread. My question wasn't answered. And secondly, there has been new evidence released since the bulk of this thread was created. When circumstances and evidence change, arguments change.
And based on my own experience, I have noticed a lack of respect for authority among many 17 year olds.
I've noticed this same thing but when put into perspective among other races, it pretty much is even. In my own experiences of course. I'm not foolish enough to blame the entire race or even the majority of the race of acting the same. Not saying that you're doing that, it was just a statement.
Here's George Zimmerman's former co-worker talking about Mr. Zimmerman bullying the co-worker for being of Middle-Eastern origin (including comments about "bombing" and "I'll kill your family") and about how Mr. Zimmerman was fired after a few months on the job for "calling the HR hotline too many times" to "complain about every manager and employee." Audio of interview linked below: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...d-him-at-work-targeted-him-with-racist-jokes/ So, it appears that George Zimmerman and Treyvon Martin, like most of us, are no angels. I suspect that, the more things drag out, the more negative stuff we'll hear about each of them. The question is which of these descriptions of their past mistakes and character flaws are relevant to determining what really happened. Does the fact that Martin smoked weed mean that he was likely to have initiated and/or used the kind of violence that makrs Zimmerman's defense claim credible? Does the fact that Zimmerman seemed to have spoken/acted aggressively toward others in the past make him more likely to have been an aggressor?
Incorrect ... Either side at any point may ask the court to consider lesser charges, which would include manslaughter.
You are really out of the loop. #1 you don't know that GZ wanted a confrontation, you AGAIN have taken an assumption and passed it off as fact.
Short answer: NO If the prosecution is going to meet their legal burden it isn't going to be because a dispatcher told him to not pursue. Further, there are a number of scenarios that can be used to defuse the effect of the dispatcher; including simply stating he abandoned pursuit and began retreating to his vehicle.
The background of Martin should never be heard by a jury, there has been no relevant evidence presented so far that would be compelling enough to be admissible. Concerning Zimmerman, there will always be someone in the past that will come forward and make claims. So far I don't see relevant evidence to show act or habit to be admissible.
