....come on, where have people been /saracasm

You're point is what the defense is starting to sound to me....like he's making the case that just because TM was black kdi means he was a welter weight contender.



Good said he saw an MMA "ground and pound" and the ONLY one with MMA training was Zimmerman!!


A person with a years worth of training would be able to beat someone none any day

is over the hill. He's past his prime, physically. GZ was also overweight.

BUT, I will tell you that once you knock someone off their feet & get them down, you have an advantage.

Weight is not as big a deal as people make. For example, do you think a 200 lb woman would be able to beat TM up? Just because she's fat? Well...only if she were able to knock him down and sit on him.

Trivia: Men are easier to knock off their feet than women because they have a higher center of gravity. I just think that's interesting.

I'm really worried about the outcome of this trial.

Are they able to see through the defense tactics? Can they sort out the logical truth. Unfortunatly they haven't had the advantage of seeing all the details of the case. Our legal system needs renovation.

Few (if any) of our institutions actually work anymore.

Gosh it might have been 20 years ago now when I was living in S.D. There was a young black kid, Straight A student if i remember right, who was stopped for no reason by a police officer downtown. well the officer ended up with the kid on the ground beating him with his night stick when the kid took the officers gun and shot him and someone in the police car (a ride along). The kid was acquitted of murder charges. Once the jury heard all the evidence, they believed the kid had every right to defend himself against a vicious attack. If any of you have been to S.D. you know it fairly conservative so maybe the jury in this case will listen to common sense, but then again this is Florida.

Turns out he was a black belt in Karate or something and church going kid I believe he was fairly young when it happened. Thanks for the welcome, I've been lurking for a while, living in Idaho.... well lets just say even the few Dems we have here are more like Reps then Dems. Nice to have some fresh air. But to be fair 90% of the people are nice and would help you on the side of the road if needed.

Zimmerman is getting all of the benefit of the doubt and it stinks.

Martin had no way of knowing that Zim wasn't some predator a al Sandusky who liked to troll for young Black men to rape.

If this were a case about a young white girl getting shot and killed while fighting off an older man, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Black people are aggressive and dangerous, duh.

Plus he was wearing a hoody. Oh, it was raining? Doesn't matter.

I saw that in Reader's Digest so it's probably true...




Just in case:

With a random stranger? You know - maybe he missed it after not playing since his Jr. High days? Maybe he said - Hey. It's a rainy night and that guy looks like the Michelin Man. Let me just try a tackle for shits and gigs.

Martin saw Zimmerman following him in the vehicle and then saw Zimmerman get out of the vehicle and the girl said Martin told him somebody was following him. That may have been enough for him to believe he had to take some action.

So he had no reason to be in fear of Zimmerman if Zimmerman's story is true. Zimmerman claimed Martin disappeared between some houses and then came back out while Zimmerman was still on the phone with the dispatcher (something Zimmerman didn't mention to the dispatcher in real time), circled Zimmerman's car, and then disappeared between the houses again. Then Zimmerman claims he got out of his car to look at a street sign and that's when Martin jumped out from behind some bushes and attacked him. If we reject Zimmerman's version of events, there are plausible reasons why Martin could have attacked him. But it doesn't make any sense WITHIN Zimmerman's version.

"...Zimmerman claims he got out of his car to look at a street sign and that's when Martin jumped out from behind some bushes and attacked him."

You seem to be contradicting yourself.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no Zimmerman supporter. I was just attempting to answer your question.

There weren't any bushes. Zimmerman had to change that part of his story when he realized there were no bushes anywhere around for Martin to have jumped from. The story then became he appeared from nowhere right in front of him.

Also, zimmy claimed he got out of the car to look for a street sign. Hogwash!

He lived there for several years.

There are only 3 streets in the neighborhood.

He lived on one of them.

He was the vigilant neighborhood watch guy so how could he not know the neighborhood and the name of the 3, count 'em, 3 streets like the back of his hand?

So not believable. He's a lying scumbag killer who claims there were bushes then has to change that because there were no bushes.

How can anyone believe anything this liar says?

I don't always look for rational responses from teenage boys. Which is also why I expect adults not to kill them.

After all, Zimmerman didn't say anything to Martin, Zimmerman claims.

And are we shifting this from "young black males are irrational animals" to "young males are irrational animals"? But somehow I think people wouldn't accept Zimmerman's story so easily had Martin been white.

(edited for pronoun clarity)

I'm agnostic on who attacked whom, but a teenager who feels challenged turning to violence doesn't seem crazy to me, anymore than a racist dbag who thinks "they" are getting away does

But those plausible reasons have to fit into the framework of Zimmerman's version of events. That's the whole basis of his self defense claim. In Zimmerman's version, he neither pursued nor confronted Martin. So you can't argue, for example, that Zimmerman walked up to Martin and said something to him (whether innocent like "Can I help you?" or provocative like calling him a racial slur), and Martin then threw the first punch, because Zimmerman claims he did NOT speak to Martin before Martin jumped out of the bushes. If you have to reject Zimmerman's story to construct a chain of events that makes sense... well, then, you have to reject Zimmerman's story and thus his self-defense claim.

That much is pretty much incontravertable.

I was a 17 year old mixed race kid once. I know for me " you got a problem?" wasn't that far removed from fighting.

There's either Zimmerman's version of events or there's nothing. Either Zimmerman is telling the truth or he's lying. There's not some alternate version of events that doesn't match his story but still might exonerate him. Zimmerman gets one story to present, which is one more than Martin got. And Zimmerman's story simply doesn't make sense.

Nobody has testified that the heard Martin say anything to Zimmerman.

People keep taking Zimmerman's word as gospel. He's been caught in numerous lies. He didn't even testify. You can't say that something is incontrovertible just because Zimmerman said it. He's got a very compelling reason to lie.

Am I wrong about that?

I listened to all the 911 tapes when they were released and all I heard was Trayvon Martin screaming in terror.

I've never heard anybody outside a Hollywood movie say, "You got a problem man?"

That line is nothing more than what Zimmerman claims he said. The only actual witness testimony about what Martin said was from his friend Rachel who was on the phone with him and heard through the phone Martin say "Why are you following me" which is a hell of a lot different than "You got a problem homie" that Zimmerman claimed Martin said. None of this was recorded.

There was a gap in time of 2 minutes between Zimmerman hanging up his call with dispatch and when Zimmerman encountered Martin (that time discovered by Rachel's phone logs). What was Zimmerman doing during that two minutes? He claims he was walking back to his car, but from where he claims he was when he hung up with dispatch was already only a few yards from his car but he never got back to it. So, what was he doing for those two minutes and instead of getting back to his car ended up two houses down the "T" in a fight with Martin? Zimmerman has no explanation for where he was or what he was doing for those two minutes. He says he was walking back to his car after hanging up with dispatch, got to the top of the "T" which was about halfway between where he hung up with dispatch and where his car was. Walking that short distance couldn't possibly have taken two minutes.

Besides that, other witnesses claimed they heard running footsteps on the dog walk (the long arm of the "T&quot of two or more people TOWARD the top of the "T" just before the physical altercation started. Therefore, Zimmerman could not have already been at the top of the "T" when he encountered Martin. During those two minutes of unaccounted for time he had to have continued walking either down the dog walk or more likely down Retreat View Circle which was parallel to the dog walk but on the opposite side of those houses, and probably cut through the gap between house rows and intercepted Martin back on the dog walk, then chased Martin on foot until he caught up with him two houses down from the top of the "T".

This is the only thing that makes logical sense and also coincides with the witnesses that heard the running footsteps and where they heard them as well as Rachel's account of what was happening while she was on the phone with Martin. She testified that Martin had thought he lost the creep that was following him, and a short time further in their conversation he suddenly says "oh shit, he's back" then come the words she heard him say and the response by Zimmerman of "what are you doing here" and then the physical altercation when her phone call gets cut off.

Like to hear it if it's around.

Sorry.

Don't be sorry; that makes GZ look wise.

A teenager might be brave around friends and confront but not alone like that. Zimmerman must have grabbed his arm or something. I could see Martin pushing back violently--maybe hitting him, perhaps causing Zimmerman to slip on the wet grass or pavement and lose his balance. The kid may have fell down too and some kind of struggle ensued where Zimmerman decided he was going to pull out his gun. Perhaps something happened in which the kid could bring charges against him,--maybe the noise/yelling that was bringing out witnesses -- therefore ruining his chances as law enforcement officer. I don't know the evidence of this trial (for instance the forensics) but it strikes me as highly unlikely this kid sought Mr. nosey Rent-a-Cop out.

Who causes the most grief in this country?

That's who commit about 80% of the crimes in this country

n

on that: here

nt.

That's weird to me; a teenage boy responding to a challenge with violence is entirely plausible, from my experience.

I don't believe anything George Zimmerman said.

Hell, is his name even George?

I'm just afraid that the self-defense law is written in such a way that the jury won't be able to find GZ guilty. We don't know what happened. I just hope they think he is a liar too and find him guilty. And I do think he's guilty of murder.

I just feel as though something has been left out. I think the jury will think this as well, and in that case, how do you deliberate??

I don't know trayvon and couldn't say. However, I have witnessed many people try to start fights just because they did not like someone looking at them. Not common, but not terribly uncommon among 15-25 year old boys sadly.

I don't think racism is dead in America and I doubt that Martin, as a black male teen, led such a sheltered life that no white (or white/hispanic) person had ever given him the "stink eye" before. We're expected to believe that Martin was so offended by this stranger who hadn't spoken a word to him, that he hid in some wet bushes, waited for Zimmerman to illogically get out of his car after Martin had already approached and circled around it (presumably to intimidate Zimmerman), and then launched an all-out attack that had Zimmerman fearing for his life. How can any reasonable person be expected to believe that?

One, I was in my young 20's and walking out of a bar. A guy was backing his car up slowly and I let him know he had plenty of room. He jumped out of his car, tore into me and literally came after me to fight.

Second, when I was 17, I dated a girl in a rough neighborhood. Many times, when leaving her house at night, I would have to turn my car around in a residential street because young men/boys would make it a habit of refusing to get out of the street. If you waited and looked at them too long, they would start coming after you (happened to me twice before I learned to just turn around).

I think you are underestimating the propensity for young men to be assholes.

Now, I am not accusing Trayvon of being this type of person. However, for someone to make your claim, they HAVE to have lived a sheltered life.

you are not accusing Trayvon Martin of being that type of person. Uh Huh. Being an asshole is not exclusive to teenage kids.

I NEVER made a claim about 30-99 year old men. I responded to an idiotic claim someone made about the behavior of young men. Nice attempt to attack me instead of the argument. I think that summarizes how confident you are about the merits of your views.

Like that is exclusive to young men?

Personal attacks don't bother me unless they are nothing close to the truth.

NOT about old men.

Just got a whiff of it.

Now, make to sure to stay in suburbia tonight.

unfazed

none of which excuse Zimmerman in the least - are if Trayvon thought Zimmerman was a creepy stalker in the Ted Bundy mode, and thought he was going to be a victim or rape/kidnapping/murder.

Zimmerman would be if Zimmerman already had the gun out and pointed at Martin. We have only Zimmerman's word that it was in his holster and he has not proven to be the most honest, trustworthy person.

there is already evidence, Zimmerman first followed Martin, from Zimmerman's response to the 911 operator. The 911 operator replied on tape that we don't want you to do that. Zimmerman replied OK, but there is no evidence to prove he stopped his pursuit.

Martin's conversation with Jenteal, indicated he was concerned about Zimmerman following him. There is no indication Martin implied, that he circled back on Zimmerman.

Zimmerman changed his testimony about Martin jumping out of bushes to he just came out of no where. It was obvious on his re-enactment, there were no bushes close enough for Martin to hide or jump him.

The legal definition of assault is the following: Assault is an act that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact, not actual contact. An actual physical contact is battery. The provocation is the assault. That gave Martin the right to defend himself.

George Zimmerman provoked the entire incident with profiling and following Martin for no reason, which resulted in Martin's apprehension of Zimmerman. An imminent harmful or offensive contact, does not have to be touching, but the fear of it. Zimmerman initiated the provocation.

Nobody has the right to follow a person or intimidate them for no reason. Martin had the right to defend himself against Zimmerman's offensive behavior if he reasonably felt Zimmerman caused an imminent threat to him. If Martin saw Zimmerman with his gun drawn. he had every right to disorient Zimmerman by knocking him to the ground.

There is no evidence on who snuck up on whom out of the Dark. The only person gave evidence to that was Jenteal, when she claimed Zimmerman appeared again, and Martin's cell phone fell to the ground. When the cell phone fell to the ground, that is when she claimed that she heard something like wet grass and someone saying get off me.

No matter how you put it, we only heard evidence about one person puruing someone. The rest is murky after that. Zimmerman's witness claimed in order to defend your self, it is better to carry a round in your chamber. Is he claiming Zimmerman loaded his gun, because he knew that he was going to confront Trayvon Martin when he got out of his car? Is that when he released the safety too?

What I meant to indicate is that the only reason the Martin would have responded to Zimmerman would be if he really thought that his life was in imminent danger. If Zimmerman tried to grab Martin in order to hold him for the police and already had the gun out, Martin might have twisted away thereby elbowing Zimmerman in the nose.

He was following (against the advice of 911 Dispatch) but ... lost him? Conveniently into some bushes that happened to be then BEHIND HIM, between him and his car? From which the person he was so vigilantly watching could then spring from?

None of this shit makes any sense at all.

I think that everyone can agree that Martin had no reason to think that he was doing anything wrong or suspicious. We have no reason to believe that Martin was up to no good.....he was just a kid walking home from the store.

When Zimmerman is following him in the car, Martin doesn't say he thinks he's being followed by a cop, or a neighborhood watch guy...he thinks he's being followed by some random creepy guy (maybe a would-be molester or mugger?) He runs out of sight, and then either hides, goes home and doubles back, or gets lost. In any case, he eventually encounters Zimmerman. According to Zimmerman Martin asked him if he had a problem (I would speculate that if Martin just wanted to attack Zimmerman just for the heck of it, he wouldn't have warned him by speaking to him....he just would have jumped him from behind). Zimmerman's answer is that he doesn't have a problem. Martin could feel (and rightfully so, I think) that at this point Zimmerman was denying that he was following him.....even though Martin already knows Zimmerman was following him. At this point, Martin would probably see Zimmerman as a bad guy that meant him harm (after all, why would he be following Martin, and then lie about it?). Martin could have decided Zimmerman deserved an ass-beating, and he could even have thought that he was about to be a hero, and apprehend a criminal.

Why the prosecution team is acting like the defense team shows how retched this stand your ground law is ,it isn't logical but law sure is profitable .

I've been followed in a car before, just as Trayvon was followed. Here's how I got away unscathed.

I was on a lonely stretch of highway at night, when a driver started acting strange. He (could have been a woman, too, I couldn't see) was driving very slowly, so I passed. Then the car sped up and started tailgating me in a threatening manner. I grabbed my cell phone and dialed 911, using the speakerphone and holding my phone up so the driver could see the light of my phone, indicating I was using it.

He/she immediately backed away, and made an illegal 180 turn in the middle of the highway to get away from me. Funny thing was, he/she was heading straight toward the police I had just called!

This illustrates 2 points.

1. If a driver in a car at night can see another driver using a cell phone to call 911, then anyone could have seen Zimmerman using his phone to call 911.

2. If Trayvon truly felt threatened, as I did, why didn't he use his phone to call the police, as I did? Why call a teenaged girl? When I was scared for my life, it didn't even cross my mind to call a friend--I was afraid that even the cops wouldn't arrive in time, as I was 10 miles away from the Sheriff's office.

I can tell you from personal experience that when I was being followed in a threatening manner, my only thoughts were calling the police and getting away. Even though that driver did a 180, I was still so scared that I drove 80 mph the rest of the way home. I was actually hoping to get stopped by a cop, so there would be a cop nearby if that car would around again and start following me.

If anyone claims they wouldn't call 911 while being followed, they're either a liar or they're suffering delusions of grandeur, thinking they can fight anybody and win.

with yet another excuse for Zimmerman, is Trayvon Martin was a just turned 17 year old kid. That 17 year old kid, called his closest friend on a cell phone, saying that he was being followed by a creepy white man too. The problem is he was concerned enough about Zimmerman to call someone. I doubt he called her, to say, I'm going to kill someone tonight, in front of witnesses that can hear Zimmerman screams. And your assumption is every person or kid would call 911, when they are in trouble, instead of someone they know. Any kid calling their parents will be guilty, instead of calling 911 too. I don't think you have any evidence to base that on?

I don't think Trayvon realized he was in that much danger until the end. My grandson is also 17. Although not a black urban boy, he has done some stupid stuff. I'm sure the idea that someone could actually wish you bodily harm when all you are doing is walking through a gated community carrying a bottle of soda never occurred to him. Until too late. I can easily see Zimmerman following him around, getting closer. He already said he didn't tell Martin that he was with a Neighborhood Watch. Then when Martin charges him, he pulls the gun, Martin attacks, and then Trayvon is shot.

He had been on the phone for some time when he noticed that Zimmerman was following him.

talking to his friend when he notice the stalker. That long since been established.

His friend even told him to run. Martin even said to her I think I lost him.

He certainly didn't think the guy was about to shoot him.

We'll never know what if any reasons. All the defense has to do is present plausible reason(s) for the claim of self defense.

..and wanted to "get away", as "always".

Ask Boy George Z. That's what he'd tell you.

( on my part. Probably not on his, though.)

to provide reasonable doubt, that's why. The second Zimmerman stepped out of his truck after advice to the contrary he became the aggressor in my mind, and I have always thought that.

after he got out of the car, all claims to "self-defense"{ were invalid. i believe he concocted his story because he was indeed the aggressor and started the conflict. he's relying on good old-fashioned racism to fill in the blanks.

If someone follows me even though I'm not planning to do anything wrong, I'd be mad.

Perhaps Trayvon got mad at Zimmerman due to Zimmerman following him.

That's a stretch, Stretch.

That can was in his sweatshirt pocket the whole time, and was found still in his pocket on his dead body.

Why the prosecution doesn't slam that point home is beyond me.

After theatrically announcing, "you gonna die tonight, homie!" or whatever nonsense Martin is "supposed" to have said.

Incidentally? I haven't heard anyone use the word "homie" since In Living Color went off the air, except dumb white people trying to caricature black people.

more common for someone Zimmerman's age since that was used more when he was trayvon's age.

Trayvon's blood was found in three places: a few drops on Zimmerman, a little bit more next to the chest wound, and yet more on the Skittles on the ground. Also he was holding Zimmerman down, and bashing his head, and pinching him repeatedly, and reaching for the gun.

I swear, it's like some people aren't buying George Zimmerman's stories!

Trayvon Martin was actually Goro?

According to the Police Report (page 7, item 14 )

I have no idea how this claim that they were in his hand has gotten around. They were photographed poking out of that pocket, and the forensic tech person testified she took both the iced tea can and the Skittles out of that pocket to bag and tag.

My guess is that it started because there was blood on them, as if he'd been holding them.

the bullet wound.

If Trayvon slammed Zimmerman's head so hard on the pavement, as both Zimmerman and his lawyers claim, then why didn't Zimmerman have more serious injuries than just cuts and bruises? If his head was slammed that hard, I would expect a concussion at the least, and a skull fracture at the worst.

No wonder Zimmerman declined to testify. He's a lying sack of shit. But I'm resigned that he is going to get off.

take off his headset and also put that away? Nobody attacks a person encumbered by a connected phone in their hand and their headset on their head. We know he still had his phone in his hand connected to another's and with his headset on his head because of Rachel's testimony, her phone logs and both Martin's phone and headset lying in the grass near his dead body.

I don't need any more information than that to know that Martin was not the one intent on attacking Zimmerman.

n

He says he didn't know Trayvon was dead so he would have still needed the same help and police he was screaming for after the gunshot the same as before. There was no reason for him to stop screaming.

n

you're not screaming. You're confident because you have the power over the kid's life.

Who in the world would believe zimmy was screaming but the most naive, or the most in denial, or the most bias wanting to believe "surrogate" white gun toter.

connect the dots

he could tell on sight that Zimmy was a right-wing libertarian Obama-hating pervert working for a front group.

You need to get out more. In the real world, many teenage boys start fights to prove that they are tough or because they are just pissed off or because someone dissed them or because they fashion themselves a gangsta or a fighter or a tough guy or because they don't like creepy ass crackers following them around or . . .

Someone in another thread said, "Self-defense claims are never accepted without question. The person defended against has to have means, motive, opportunity and a demonstration of intent to seriously harm the defender before self-defense can be invoked. Only after those four have been met can you defend" (bolding mine)

Ok, so let's look at motive. (I don't think the defense succeeded in showing means, opportunity, and intent to seriously harm either, but we'll save those for other threads.) I have yet to hear a plausible motive that makes sense within the framework of Zimmerman's version of events. Zimmerman dissed Martin? How could he have when Zimmerman claims he never even approached Martin? And Martin didn't just "start a fight." According to Zimmerman, Martin attacked him to the point where Zimmerman was in fear for his very life. But the only explanation anyone has to offer for this, within the framework of Zimmerman's story, is that young men (although I think if we're honest, it's only a particular subset of young men that people are thinking about) are just crazy and irrational and will go around starting fights with strangers for basically no reason. Sorry, but "those people are just crazy," does not qualify as a motive.

Zimmerman doesn't deny that he was in his car following Martin and that Martin, having noticed that he was being followed, even approached the car to check Zimmerman out. Not that Rachel Jaentel has an ounce of credibility, but she does say that Martin called Zimmerman a creepy ass cracker, hardly a sign of good will towards Zimmerman. And yet you can't imagine a 17-yr-old deciding to teach the creepy guy a lesson? Look, I have seen young people go out of their way to start a fight just because they wanted to fight. Anyways, the defense does not need to prove motive. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's shooting Martin was not justifiable self-defense under Florida law. They obviously haven't done that and, although members of juries can be crazy and irrational animals, I expect an acquittal.

And by the way, enough with the suggestion that anyone who disagrees with you must be a racist. That is really offensive (and not very intelligent).

Waste of time.

of zimmerman's story, especially the part of him being the one screaming.

He had the gun.

He knew he had the gun.

The gun gave him the ultimate power.

He knew all had to do was use it.

He used it.

In your world do people scream out in terror as they shoot someone.

I don't think so.

Is that Trayvon saw Zimmerman following him and considered him a danger so though he'd jump him to catch him off guard rather than waiting for Z. to attack. Who knows what happened though, and that's the problem for the jury. I'm afraid to say that I'll be surprised if Zimmerman is convicted of anything, which would be very bad because some will see this as open season on young black men.

In the real world.

I would caution you not to be too certain who started the fight. Neither of us were there. We don't really know what happened. There is some evidence, but it is not conclusive.

are rooting for the killer.

baddy because of his age. Generalities don't cut it. Sorry. We KNOW Zimmerman is bad news, he has police records of violence and other questionable and unsavory activities.

that he wanted to teach the "creepy ass cracker" a lesson.

The thing is, TM had the choice to stay within range of GZ or get the hell away from him. Some here have suggested that running towards his father's home might have been a mistake, but hiding between houses was another option. With GZ being pretty much protective of his vehicle, that might have provided a way to have eluded him until he took off, or the police came.

Yes, the jury will not see the tweets and photographs, but all of us have, and to me, it is a possibility that TM thought he could whup the Pillsbury Doughboy figure that he had been disparaging to his girlfriend. I'm sure he didn't know GZ was armed, or he wouldn't have tried it, but in states where it's easy to get and carry a gun, it's best to assume that anyone you encounter that you feel uneasy about probably has one.

You apparently reject the rest of Jeantel's testimony but will use this part because you think it helps Zimmerman.

Why do you claim that Martin "had the choice to stay within range of GZ or get the hell away from him"? That's not an established fact. Why do you claim that Zimmerman was being protective of his vehicle? You're just making things up now.

Zimmerman was certainly not a "doughboy" on that night; he was much trimmer than he is now. And, yeah, I've read the things about Martin's past AND Zimmerman's, and I wish the jury COULD see it all because I think Martin comes off a hell of a lot better than Zimmerman. A hell of a lot better.

Of course Trayvon was the better person. Zimmerman had 30yrs to get it right, and he just didn't. Some on this forum use information wisely, logically, fairly with common sense. Some do not. Must be a lot of axes to grind.

In any case, by allowing only some facts into the case, the judge and the process have already given a set of facts to this jury. They're left with only their own experiences and the law to deal with what they find as facts.

I think the defense managed to stack up enough facts on its own side, and exclude as many as possible that would have hurt their client. I've long said that O'Mara didn't take this case to manage a soft landing in losing it, he figured he could take someone "who everybody knew was guilty" and get an acquittal, making his fees skyrocket for potential rich defendants.

n

A lot of violence doesn't make sense at all.

I've known white guys who would start fights for essentially no reason. I've known black guys who would do so as well. That's not a skin-color thing, it's to some extent a 'how rough was the neighborhood you grew up in' thing which by itself is somewhat of a socioeconomic thing - but even given that I've known people who would attack people for essentially no reason who *didnt'* have any of those factors in their life.

There was a guy I worked with, a long time ago, who was a really good person, in my estimation, but I happened to run towards him while he was faced away from me to tell him something, yelling his name. He heard me coming up and moved quick into a low crouch and got ready to swing on me.

Why did that happen? It wasn't because he or I was a bad guy. It wasn't because he had any reason to act that way towards me. It was because I grew up in a nonviolent area and running up behind someone yelling their name meant nothing - and he grew up in a violent area where someone running up behind you yelling stuff meant bad things were about to go down.

I told him I was sorry and he told me he was sorry and yes - I am white, and yes - he is black. I can't think of a single reason anyone would want to attack him - but evidently it had happened enough that his reaction in that situation was basically automatic. Which, given his character as I saw it, meant there are people in this world who will attack people for reasons that are not at all reasonable, or logical, or make sense.

There is some evidence, that the jury will never see, that Martin was involved in arranged street fighting, that he'd been trying to commit a felony by obtaining a gun, etc. Why did he do that? I don't know his reasons. However, it is completely unrealistic, in my humble opinion, to claim it is not possible that Martin actually did attack Zimmerman, just because you can't think of a reason that makes sense to you.

Did he? I don't know - but it is not as out of the realm of possibility as you are claiming it to be.

Sure. I cite the Zimmerman trial itself - the hearing on whether or not the judge was going to let that evidence in. It was ruled on this morning (July 10th) and argued the night prior.

It was not ruled admissible because the defense had not yet properly authenticated it to a legally required standard. However, it was from Martin's phone, which is why I worded that as 'may' and not 'did'.*


*Well, gah. I just went back and looked at my original post and the wording reads more strongly than I intended. The point is that there is some evidence that *may* indicate he did those things, not that he absolutely did do so. The evidence in question was not admitted partially because it was not correctly tied back to Martin in time, if it actually was Martin.