79 replies to this topic

[Konohakitten]

I remember hearing about this back in 2012 but we don't have cable so I didn't follow any of it, the court case that is. I only learned about the verdict due to it being plastered everywhere on the internet. Now  I don't really know that much about law and I can't really say that the verdict wasn't fair because I just found out about this. I don't have that emotional connection to it like a lot of people do. My cousin who is half black was heart broken, and she sided with the whole racist thing. I was curios so I read up on as much as I could and I have to ask can't he be charged with Involuntary Manslaughter instead? I mean he needed to use self defense but he put himself in that situation. Now I know that he had no way of knowing what the consequences would be once he got out of his car like Nate said but his actions lead to the the fatal confrontation. So would Involuntary Manslaughter be something he could face?

[desaix]

I remember hearing about this back in 2012 but we don't have cable so I didn't follow any of it, the court case that is. I only learned about the verdict due to it being plastered everywhere on the internet. Now  I don't really know that much about law and I can't really say that the verdict wasn't fair because I just found out about this. I don't have that emotional connection to it like a lot of people do. My cousin who is half black was heart broken, and she sided with the whole racist thing. I was curios so I read up on as much as I could and I have to ask can't he be charged with Involuntary Manslaughter instead? I mean he needed to use self defense but he put himself in that situation. Now I know that he had no way of knowing what the consequences would be once he got out of his car like Nate said but his actions lead to the the fatal confrontation. So would Involuntary Manslaughter be something he could face?

 

No.  The prosecution required that the jury be instructed on the possibility of finding the defendent guilty of "lesser included charges," which included (specifically) manslaughter, so it would be double jeopardy.

[Strangelove]

You guys really want it? I actually share Desaix's opinion about being afraid to post. I have a contrary opinion, but I'll go ahead and stick my neck out.

 

You won't like it. I think the case was a pile of horsesh*t and that the original prosecutor was right to decline it. Alan Dershowitz thinks the prosecutors should be disbarred. I wouldn't go that far, but I don't think much of Corey and her team for this. 

 

A few thing must be kept in mind.

 

The first is what "Not Guilty" means. It does not mean he is innocent. In criminal cases,the burden of proof rests with the State and it never shifts to the defendant. The State must also prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil cases, it's preponderance of the evidence, which means more likely than not. Then there is clear and convincing (child custody case in my state). Beyond a reasonable doubt is higher. So, if a jury gets a case and at the end cannot figure out who did what, it's a not guilty. If they think it probably happen, but still have some doubt, it's not guilty. Not Guilty, means the state failed to prove it's case.

 

In the process of laying waste to his own argument, Derock hits on the basic problem with case. "Some sort of fight." By your own admission, Derock, you don't know how the fight began. Unfortunately for the prosecution, this makes it exceptionally difficult to overcome a self-defense claim, if not impossible. In my State, all that is necessary to raise a self-defense claim is a "scintilla" of evidence, which is a really really low standard. You can do it using state witnesses, other fact witnesses, or the defendant. There is no set method. Once the issue is raise, it's the state's duty to overcome it. The same was true of the prosecution. 

 

Zimmerman could have been following him because he where a hoodie like Derock said. He could have been doing it because he hated blacks. He could have been standing their flipping the kid the bird. Zimmerman said it was because there had been a rash if Burglaries, which were committed by black people, and here was a black guy who he didn't recogize wandering around the community. Zimmerman stated in the 911 he thought the guy was high. The toxicology report bore that out (which is one of the places the weed came from). Even if you don't believe him, there is no evidence he was guilty of a crime or that he did anything to invalidate his self-defense claim, like starting the fight.  All the 911 DISPATCHER said was they didn't need Zimmerman to follow him. Whether he as a practical matter should or should not is irrelevant, unless you can use it to show he started the fight, but it's not even close to being able to do that. He had no legal duty to do so. So unless, Zimmerman started the fight...the prosecution was totally screwed.

 

How could the jury have known who started the fight? I don't see how anyone knows based on the evidence present. The only evidence of the actual confrontation is that Martin was on top of him, beating him MMA style, a fact supported the injuries to Zimmerman's head. People have been trying to make hay of Zimmerman's injuries being minor, but it misses the point. Self-defense-Deadly Force only requires that there be a reasonable belief you are about to suffer Serious Bodily Injury or Death. You don't have to wait until SBI has been inflicted on you and it should be clear why that is. 

 

The other piece of evidence: who was asking for help. I don't see how the jury could decide either way. All they got where invested witnesses on both sides. Prosecutors tend to lose swearing matches because it leaves jurors in a position who not being able to tell who they should believe which = a big fact NG in criminal cases. A jury saying "I don't know" is NG.

 

Finally, the state's star witness: No matter what she heard over the phone, she didn't know who started the fight anymore than anyone else and she sunk her own credibility she said she couldn't read a letter she claimed to have written. Her testimony was a total disaster. 

 

Remember the charge: Murder 2 and what it requires. The mental state is a "depraved mind" which has a specific definition in Florida. The state has to prove this regardless of whether Zimmerman invokes self-defense or not. And the prosecution had nothing to work with here. The fact that he continued to follow just doesn't get you there, especially when you consider Zimmerman's role as a neighborhood watchman and the fact that it happened at the end of a fight of totally unknown origins. I didn't see any credible evidence that would refute the reason Zimmerman claimed he was following him and Martin was still on top of him beating the crap out of him. 

 

The prosecution's own witnesses spent as much time helping the defense as they did the state, and it wasn't just the cops. 

 

I am not here sing Zimmerman's praises. The jury had to decide whether the State proved its case. It didn't come close to doing so. The prosecution knew it, too.

 

This was a horse-kitten case and the verdict given was the correct one.

 

Derock, do you mean the Stand your Ground law? Because it's hard to believe you don't understand why self-defense is a defense. If you do, just so you know...this wasn't a stand your ground case. It's not the same thing.

 

EDIT: You could argue the dispatch was wrong to instruct them to do that. When law enforcement shows up to find the guy, how are they to know they found the one Zimmerman was talking about? When people call in Drunk Driver's from the road, I generally prefer the driver continue to follow the guy until cops show up to make sure it's the same car the citizen called in about. It helps when developing your probablyecause for the stop, especially if you can;' make out the plate.

 

Long read.

 

But I agree with this. Zimmerman didn't have to prove anything, that is what we mean with innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution failed to prove Zimmerman was guilty beyond reasonable doubt to the jurors, thus the jurors had no choice but to rebuke the prosecution's case.

 

 

 

 

 

Other than that, this whole case was a media shamble, an excuse for them to get ratings by making this into a racial issue or a second amendment issue...thank you MSNBC's Al Sharpton.

[Beastbomb]

I truly believe that this was a race issue. It had nothing to do with who did what or who killed who. Rachel Jeantel's answer to one of Zimmermans attorney's when she was on the witness stand ( "creepy, white cracker. Creepy a$$ cracker.") and the president commenting "if I had a son, then he would look like Treyvon." help prove that racial bias was defenatly involved. I do believe that even though Zimmerman may have made the stupid decision to get out of the car (although, if the kid as high, then tailing him was justifiable. (Zimmerman did not need to get out of the car.), he is innocent and did not attack Treyvon. This was just another incident that the media blew it out of proportion like they always do.

Edited by Beastbomb, 15 July 2013 - 03:10 AM.

[Konohakitten]

 

No.  The prosecution required that the jury be instructed on the possibility of finding the defendent guilty of "lesser included charges," which included (specifically) manslaughter, so it would be double jeopardy.

 

Well then that sucks :/ if they would have gone for manslaughter to begin with would it have been different, or does it all cancel itself since they weren't able to prove him guilty at all. Sorry if that doesnt make sense, again I know nothing about law ^^; Anyhow I think one thing people need to remember is that he maybe innocent in the laws eyes, or even in real life, but do you think he's happy right now? I mean can you imagine knowing that most of the nation wants you to rot in a cell. He must feel so vulnerable and scared, society and the media are going to destroy him even more. Again I personally don't know how to feel about this guy but for those who feel he should have been found guilty just think of what his life is going to be like from now on. I know it's nothing compared to what the victims family has to live through but the world is going to be watching his every move for a while. That and he will be branded a monster that was let free.

[Nate River]

Well then that sucks :/ if they would have gone for manslaughter to begin with would it have been different, or does it all cancel itself since they weren't able to prove him guilty at all. Sorry if that doesnt make sense, again I know nothing about law ^^; Anyhow I think one thing people need to remember is that he maybe innocent in the laws eyes, or even in real life, but do you think he's happy right now? I mean can you imagine knowing that most of the nation wants you to rot in a cell. He must feel so vulnerable and scared, society and the media are going to destroy him even more. Again I personally don't know how to feel about this guy but for those who feel he should have been found guilty just think of what his life is going to be like from now on. I know it's nothing compared to what the victims family has to live through but the world is going to be watching his every move for a while. That and he will be branded a monster that was let free.

They jury was instructed on Manslaughter as well as Murder 2. He was found not guilty on both. The only difference between the two charges is intent. They couldn't prove the requisite intent for Murder 2 and they couldn't overcome the self-defense claim for manslaughter.

Even if the lesser included had not appeared in the charge it would still be bared by Double Jeopardy. In this case, the prosecution asked for the lesser included because they knew their Murder charge was crap. In fact they tried to include Murder 3 (Felony Murder) with the Felony being child abuse, which was a nod to just how bad that case was. I don't doubt that the prosecution knew they were going to lose.

However, Double Jeopardy doesn't just kill off lesser included offenses. It does the same to higher ones (i.e. charges were the charge alleged would be a lesser included of something else; Murder 2 and Murder 1). The standard is what is called the Blockburger test. Each charge must have a different element that the other does no have. Murder 1, Murder 2, and Manslaughter...the only difference is the intent when the death was caused. Ergo, all those charges are now barred. Their inclusion in the jury charge does not matter.

The problem with the Manslaughter is the the same as Murder 2: Nobody knows what happens after the 911 call ends and that is the make or break for both charges. The state can't prove what happened, so it had no chance of winning.

Speaking of Zimmerman, he's suing NBC for doctoring the 911 tape. This isn't the first time they have done something like this. Discover ought to be real interesting since NBC says they fired the producers involved, but never revealed the names. In other words, take their word for it that they know who the offenders were, that they were punished, and that those were the only people involved. Do I believe them? Nope. That what happens when you make kitten up. He probably ought to add the NYT to the list since they ran the same tape.

 

I truly believe that this was a race issue. It had nothing to do with who did what or who killed who. Rachel Jeantel's answer to one of Zimmermans attorney's when she was on the witness stand ( "creepy, white cracker. Creepy a$$ cracker.") and the president commenting "if I had a son, then he would look like Treyvon." help prove that racial bias was defenatly involved. I do believe that even though Zimmerman may have made the stupid decision to get out of the car (although, if the kid as high, then tailing him was justifiable. (Zimmerman did not need to get out of the car.), he is innocent and did not attack Treyvon. This was just another incident that the media blew it out of proportion like they always do.

Oh No.

The media did not just blow it out of proportion. That gives them far, far too much credit. What they did was so much worse than that. This case was not a race case until Sharpton and the media jumped in. The local investigators AND the FBI didn't think it was racially motivated and there is no evidence that it was.

Even before the facts and evidence came out the media decided that Zimmerman was a racist motivated by race to do what he did, that he did in cold blood because he was a racist, and that Sanford law enforcement were racists who were sweeping this under the rug because Martin was black and Zimmerman was white (even though he wasn't white). There was no evidence of that, but hey, who needs evidence? This was the narrative, facts be damned. When facts did come out that contradicted this, they made kitten up and lied.

Desaix has a good run down of some of their more despicable acts.

CNN accused him of using a racial slur when he did not. NBC edited the 911 taped to make it sound like he was being a racist when it was the dispatcher who asked Zimmerman what Martin's race. The NYT repeated this. ABC went out of their way to hide Zimmerman's injuries when they aired the tape showing Zimemerman right after the incident and then used that to claim he didn't have any injuries. In truth, their own tape (After digital enhancement) showed that he did have injuries to the back of his head. The most common photo they showed of Martin was when he was 12 (which actually helped taint one of the prosecution's own witness who thought that 12 version was what he looked like NOW) and the most common one of Zimmerman was his arrest photo from 2005 and not the one of him in the immediate aftermath...you know the one where his nose was broken. Numerous outlets including AP and Rueters repeatedly called Zimmerman white when he wasn't and when it was learned he wasn't they changed it "White Hispanic."

They tried to railroad him. And that's being nice.

One of my favorite pundits Allahpundit tweeted that however much contempt you have for the media because of this, it's not enough.

I would have thought Obama was have stayed away after the Henry Gates fiasco when his premature statements resulted in the beer summit. In Obama's partial defense, he didn't make a special attempt to comment on it, the media went to him for it. But he should have known better and stayed away....you know, like he somehow managed to do during the Gosnell trial. He deserves to be criticized for taking the bait and fanning the flamed, but even if had not the damage was already done.

EDIT: You don't have to like Zimmerman of the verdict to see that malfeasance for what it is.

[desaix]

Nate (or anyone, I suppose), do you know if they've set a date, yet, for the hearing into the state's witholding evidence?  The Judge ruled that it couldn't happen until "after the trial," I know, but now that there's a Not Guilty verdict reached I'm not sure if that's supposed to go forward or not.

[Nate River]

I don't.

I have no faith in this particular Judge to follow up anyway, given that she denied the continuance after the State was busted doing that.

[Kamina-Yoshi]

 

"So, I heard there was some potential Double Jeopardy going on in here?"

Edited by Kamina-Yoshi, 15 July 2013 - 05:41 AM.

[Quinny52]

Well, it looks like my last statement of tensions boiling over turned out to be right. Now, while most of the demonstrations have been 'peaceful', several protesters have clashed with police, particularly around L.A. That said, the conflicts haven't yet escalated into full blown riots.

 

Hope the the Mayor's Office and police can nip this in the bud before things get out of hand.

[Jake]

From what I've heard a some of the protesters are trying to get the Department of Justice to try Zimmerman for denying Trayvon of his civil rights, I don't think that it will go anywhere, I don't think that Holder is stupid enough to try it because it would A: prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the murder trial was motivated by race from the start, and B: It could potentially open a proverbial Pandora's box that best-case scenario, the Democrats could lose the Hispanic vote, and possibly paving the road for Sen. Marco Rubio or Sen. Ted Cruz to run for president.

[KnS]

Let me put it this way:  The anger expressed in this thread, and about this case in general, is such that I am afraid of expressing my opinion.

 

I'm glad you and Nate River chose to speak.  I was out of town when the verdict was announced or I would have visited this thread sooner, and lent my voice to those who believe the Zimmerman verdict was just and appropriate.
 

You won't like it. I think the case was a pile of horsesh*t and that the original prosecutor was right to decline it. Alan Dershowitz thinks the prosecutors should be disbarred. I wouldn't go that far, but I don't think much of Corey and her team for this. 

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

When Martin was on top of him beating his head into the concrete. 

 

As you have said, Nate, there is no way to know for certain how the physical altercation between Martin and Zimmerman began.  But what we do know is that at some point, Zimmerman ended up on the ground with Martin on top of him, beating him, and Zimmerman had the injuries to prove it.  It astonishes me how many people seem to conveniently forget this fact, or decide to dismiss Martin's actions as totally justified.

One of the things that disturbs me the most is how the public never seems to learn that their perceptions and emotions are intentionally manipulated by the vile "mainstream" media.  The greasy haze of the media's reprehensible bias colluded to paint Zimmerman as a frustrated, racist, "wannabe cop" while at the same time portraying Martin as an unassailably innocent, unarmed "child" out for a "stroll" to buy Skittles.  

I personally don't know too many innocent, unarmed boys who would go out to buy candy and end up beating on the Neighborhood Watch captain and smashing his head into the pavement.  However, how such an event might have occurred becomes much clearer when you factor in the relevant details of Martin's life and his behavioral choices -- details that were for the most part ignored by the media or suppressed during the court proceedings.

The way I see it, neither Zimmerman nor Martin showed the best judgment that night, and both played an active role in what happened.  The result was a tragedy that scarred two families for life, and inflamed racial tensions and the issue of gun control for the rest of the nation.

 

When CNN invents a story claiming that Zimmerman used racist language ("f**king Coon") when he did not... (CNN story, Mar 21 2012; retracted April 5, 2012)

 

When NBC edits the 911 audio to make Zimmerman sound racist... (March 27th)

 

When ABC falsely claims Zimmerman was not injured on the night of the shooting, despite photo evidence of gashes on Zimmerman's head and a busted up nose... (retracted FOUR days later, despite being confronted with the photo evidence immediately)

 

When MSNBC contradicts the photos they were showing, themselves, to repeat that claim of no injury in a story a day later...

 

When the New York Times AGAIN alters the transcript of the 911 call (on April 1, 2012, four days after NBC was caught doing the same thing) to make Zimmerman sound racist...

 

When the prosecution attempts to withhold evidence and is caught at it (http://www.cnn.com/2...ring/index.html )...

 

When the judge in the case does this:  http://www.nationalr...itrios-halikias ...

 

Oh, I know.  That's what I'm talking about -- how people accept this kind of garbage hook, line, and sinker, regardless of how many times the media has been proven to be a pack of lying jackals.

And I would add to this list the Department of Justice's Community Relations Service supporting the pro-Martin rallies in Florida. (reference)

 

Speaking of Zimmerman, he's suing NBC for doctoring the 911 tape. This isn't the first time they have done something like this. Discover ought to be real interesting since NBC says they fired the producers involved, but never revealed the names. In other words, take their word for it that they know who the offenders were, that they were punished, and that those were the only people involved. Do I believe them? Nope. That what happens when you make sh*t up. He probably ought to add the NYT to the list since they ran the same tape.

 

I really hope his lawsuit is successful.  I would love nothing more than to see someone score against those asshats.

 

I would have thought Obama was have stayed away after the Henry Gates fiasco when his premature statements resulted in the beer summit. In Obama's partial defense, he didn't make a special attempt to comment on it, the media went to him for it. But he should have known better and stayed away....you know, like he somehow managed to do during the Gosnell trial. He deserves to be criticized for taking the bait and fanning the flamed, but even if had not the damage was already done.

 

No kidding.  You're absolutely right that the Gates thing should have been lesson enough.  However, I don't believe for a moment that Obama is a clueless man who doesn't understand the power and impact of his words and opinion.  Far from it, and that leads to a conclusion that is not only unflattering but dangerous.

In the end, I feel sorry.  Sorry for Martin's family who have lost their loved one.  Sorry for Zimmerman's family for the ordeal, and everything that is yet to come.  Sorry for the six jurors who are probably living with a certain amount of fear of reprisals.  Sorry for every person who feels that, somehow, the verdict was unjust and a threat to their ongoing safety and civil liberty.  It's a shame that it happened.

As the days go by, I sincerely hope that more and more people will stop and make an effort to consider the facts, the rule of law, and to think rationally.  As Harvey Two-Face said, "Emotion is always the enemy of true justice."

[Nate River]

I really hope his lawsuit is successful. I would love nothing more than to see someone score against those asshats.

The one I hope successeds is the one the IT guy should file against Corey for being canned after he blew the wistle on the State witholding evidence.

[KnS]

The one I hope successeds is the one the IT guy should file against Corey for being canned after he blew the wistle on the State witholding evidence.

 

That too.

 

And what about the Sanford police chief (Bill Lee) who claims he was fired for not arresting Zimmerman immediately?  I wonder about that one, too.

[Lid]

The Trayvon Martin case sure did keep the broadcasters on Headline News busy. And now they are already going to move on to another trial with the Andrea Sneiderman case. Channel has turned into CourtTV.

[tricksie]

Think this whole thing is a tragedy.

 

And at the end of the day Zimmerman still has an unarmed teenager's blood on his hands. And that's not an emotional plea or some sort of manipulation by media outlets. 

 

When Zimmerman put a loaded gun in his car, he decided that he was ready and willing to kill someone. When he got out of the car, not heeding poice requests to wait, and took the gun with him, he was making the choice to kill someone. When he approached Trayvon Martin, gun in hand, he was making the choice to instigate a confrontation that could result in his needing to use that weapon. Even when Martin fought back, Zimmerman still didn't have to shoot. He could have taken the beating, knowing the cops were on the way. 

 

Instead, he used his gun, his trump card. The term "spoiling for a fight" comes to mind. As the instigator, Zimmerman had the greater responsibility to self control. Not Martin.

 

While you can point fingers at a media circus, I prefer to look at the interviews with Zimmerman himself, where he said that the shooting was God's will and he wouldn't have done anything differently. He clarified later, saying that he misheard the question, then apologized to anyone and everyone, and wished he hadn't done it. But, just as on the night he shot Martin, the first response was aggression and defensiveness. If only he had taken time to "clarify" his thoughts that sitting in the car that night, maybe he would have realized how precious any life is before he decided an armed confrontation was his only choice.

 

At the end, the verdict is simply a footnote to a tragedy. It doesn't change anything. Martin is still dead, and Zimmerman will forever be his killer. That's his life sentence.

[merryGOflava]

Think this whole thing is a tragedy.

 

And at the end of the day Zimmerman still has an unarmed teenager's blood on his hands. And that's not an emotional plea or some sort of manipulation by media outlets. 

 

When Zimmerman put a loaded gun in his car, he decided that he was ready and willing to kill someone. When he got out of the car, not heeding poice requests to wait, and took the gun with him, he was making the choice to kill someone. When he approached Trayvon Martin, gun in hand, he was making the choice to instigate a confrontation that could result in his needing to use that weapon. Even when Martin fought back, Zimmerman still didn't have to shoot. He could have taken the beating, knowing the cops were on the way. 

 

Instead, he used his gun, his trump card. The term "spoiling for a fight" comes to mind. As the instigator, Zimmerman had the greater responsibility to self control. Not Martin.

 

While you can point fingers at a media circus, I prefer to look at the interviews with Zimmerman himself, where he said that the shooting was God's will and he wouldn't have done anything differently. He clarified later, saying that he misheard the question, then apologized to anyone and everyone, and wished he hadn't done it. But, just as on the night he shot Martin, the first response was aggression and defensiveness. If only he had taken time to "clarify" his thoughts that sitting in the car that night, maybe he would have realized how precious any life is before he decided an armed confrontation was his only choice.

 

At the end, the verdict is simply a footnote to a tragedy. It doesn't change anything. Martin is still dead, and Zimmerman will forever be his killer. That's his life sentence.

 

I agree.

 

I don't know all the details of the fight.

 

but do people wonder why Martin was fighting back? did it ever cross your mind that Zimmerman might have threatened him with a gun, and Martin took his chance by trying to knock him out? 

 

if your life was in danger, would you not try to knock that person out?? running might not have been an option.

 

anyways.........Zimmerman caused an unnecessary death, by confronting Martin, who was simply walking and doing nothing. I think we can all at least agree on that.

Edited by merryGOflava, 16 July 2013 - 04:20 AM.

[Kamina-Yoshi]

 doing nothing. I think we can all at least agree on that.

 

That remains to be determined.

[merryGOflava]

 

That remains to be determined.

 

......yea a kid walking with skittles and iced tea....very suspicious. 

 

but you're right we will never know.

Edited by merryGOflava, 16 July 2013 - 05:25 AM.

[Jake]

When Zimmerman put a loaded gun in his car, he decided that he was ready and willing to kill someone. When he got out of the car, not heeding poice requests to wait, and took the gun with him, he was making the choice to kill someone. When he approached Trayvon Martin, gun in hand, he was making the choice to instigate a confrontation that could result in his needing to use that weapon. Even when Martin fought back, Zimmerman still didn't have to shoot. He could have taken the beating, knowing the cops were on the way.

 

First, Zimmerman was not on the phone with the Police, he was on the phone with a 911 operator, and 911 operators have been know to give people bad advice.

 

Second, Zimmerman did not have the firearm in hand it was in his hip holster and based on what I understand when Zimmerman got out of his Truck he was still on the phone and he had a flashlight in hand.

 

Third, according to Zimmerman Trayvon was reaching for the firearm and had actually grabbed the holster when he drew the weapon.

 

Instead, he used his gun, his trump card. The term "spoiling for a fight" comes to mind. As the instigator, Zimmerman had the greater responsibility to self control. Not Martin.

 

Actually there is no evidence that indicates that Zimmerman was the instigator.

 

but do people wonder why Martin was fighting back? did it ever cross your mind that Zimmerman might have threatened him with a gun, and Martin took his chance by trying to knock him out?

 

Pretty sure the 911 tape would've caught that.

 

if your life was in danger, would you not try to knock that person out?? running might not have been an option.

 

Martin was in better physical condition then Zimmerman, Zimmerman's Physical Trainer rated Zimmerman's athletic ability as 1 out of 10, plus the incident happened at about 7:00 in the evening in Florida in February, not to mention that it was raining so visibility was low, running away into the darkness was an option.

 

anyways.........Zimmerman caused an unnecessary death, by confronting Martin, who was simply walking and doing nothing. I think we can all at least agree on that.

 

I've gotta agree with Yamina-Yoshi on this. Prior to the incident there was a rash of burglaries in the neighborhood perpetrated by young black men, and while there is no evidence to prove it, it is possible that Travon was one them, and could have been casing the area.

 

 

Another thing about the Incident, had the police arrived sooner or had Zimmerman had been able to get Martin off of him, Zimmerman would probably never of been arrested but Martin would have been arrested and charged with Assault and Battery, possibly Assault with Intent to Kill since according to Zimmerman's claim Trayvon said to him that he (Zimmerman) was going to die that night.