We do not know who confronted who. So that is an element which must be answered to answer this question.

Feelings have no bearing on the facts. You hear a 911 tape and think oh yea this guy confronted the other one, you dont know that.

Knowing that takes more. This is what is called circumstantial evidence. Now if we heard via the 911 tape Zimmerman confronting Martin that would be first order evidence.

Without that all you have is speculation about his motivation to follow Martin.

Do we know her statement, or just what the news mentioned? Was it quoted? I dont think it was. So right now we are speculating as to what exactly was in her statement.

I hope she has a recording.

i thought we knew that.. he was following the kid, not the other way around...all he had to do is follow the kid till the police got there, it was not his job to detain or harass the boy, just watch him till the police got there. you cannot detain someone that has not broken any laws... what law did the kid break again?

but how do you 'know'

at this point, people are going to either say what they saw or what they heard and how do you 'know' they are right or honest either....?


we have a girl who says she was on the phone with him and thats verified by the times on his call log,, that doesnt prove she had the conversation she said she had though,,,,

so what would make us 'know' which witnesses, accounts are actually true and accurate?

unless she has a recording, her testimony about what initiated the scuffle shouldnt be valid

but the neighbors dont need recordings for us to consider their accounts of the scuffle accurate?

dont we usually put the onus of responsibility on adults in situations where there is an adult and a child?

if the adult was in the safety of his car and told not to pursue the boy, wouldnt the responsible thing be to sit in his car by the mailboxes until police arrived , he was the ADULT

he shot and killed a KID after the KID got the upperhand on him in a scuffle (fist fight)

Im judging that hasty and irresponsible decisions on this ADULTS part led to this childs death,,,and there should be some accountability for it,,,,

Where are the facts that show he confronted Martin?
It is just as likely that Martin recognized him from being followed earlier and decided to confront Zimmerman.

Please let me know if you have additional facts.

Too much speculation without facts.

We need facts msharmony. You are speculating on how it went down.

To convict you need evidence that amounts to BEYOND A SHADOW OF DOUBT.

You are filling in the details with no regard to the facts on the ground, which currently only the authorities have available.

In this forum all you are doing is showing you cannot be an unbiased commentator on this subject.

I understand the emotional responses from the family, but as someone who works in law you should try to remain unbiased.

but what if he did?

you seriously consider that a man 200+ pounds could make a kid 140 pounds feel threatened enough to run when he followed him?

but felt his life in danger when confronted by this same kid?


it just doesnt add up billy, no matter how diplomatic or reserved a judgment one tries to have,,,

I suppose all that coward in the park had to do the day he tried to rape me was shoot me and claim self defense.

AFter all, I could have confronted him after being aggravated that he followed me into the woods,,,and the moment I got the better of him he could have felt his life was legitimately threatened,,,,,


amazing,,,

martin is dead...thats a fact...
martin had no weapons, thats a fact...
martin was a 16 year old boy, thats a fact...
martin had every right to be in that neighborhood, thats a fact...
if zimmerman would have stayed in his car, martin would still be alive, thats a fact...
zimmerman is not a cop, thats a fact....
zimmerman disobeyed the police, thats a fact...
zimmerman shot martin, thats a fact....
did i miss any?

I am not disregarding the facts. I heard with my own ears the mentality of this man on the phone. He saw this boy as a suspect and did not want him to get away. He had the mentality of a 'predator' wanting an ahole to be captured.

I cant be unbiased about what I heard. It seems plain as day to me.

Even if it had went down that this boy caught him off guard, it wouldnt matter to me. He set that in motion by getting out of his car to follow this boy at night, in the rain, in the dark

I told my children their whole life to be suspicious themself of JUST THAT TYPE OF BEHAVIOR

it should have been at the worst a scuffle, the child ending up shot dead is unfathomable, tragic, and a desperately unnecessary end to this story.

I dont think his story will hold water, unless the boy decided to try continuing his conversation on the phone while he 'snuck up' on the man,,,,which is sort of a ridiculous and slim possibility...

Of course it doesn't add up, you dont have all the facts.

It doesn't add up for me either, all the more reason to not take sides when all the facts are not available.

If you rule out conspiracy, and racism then we must all assume the PA is withholding indictment for good reasons.

============================================

Complete side bar here for me. (regardless of outcome these are words of wisdom for everyone)

Rule #1
--Treat others as you would like to be treated.

Rule #2
--Never mess with anyone, you dont know them, treat everyone as if they are armed and dangerous, becuase they could be.

Rule #3
--Record anything and everything anytime you get those bad suspicious feelings about something.

This may seem paranoid, but if you follow these three rules you will be able to navigate life and remain justified in your own actions.

These three rules make me a pacifist for all intents and purposes. I want no one to harm me, so I cannot harm anyone else. If I treat every person with the respect due to an armed and highly capable person I will never underestimate them and find myself in a situation of my own creation that I cannot handle and was not prepared for.

If Both parties had called the police, and REMAINED on the line, or continued to record using a personal device then we the people who are trying to judge the situation would not be so want to imagine what we want to imagine in coming up with the events that surround this tragedy.

ok, we will assume, (this time), that the police and DA .. DO their job well,,,(unless you are a potential victim and then you have to defend yourself because they suck so much),

and Im assuming that an endictment will come shortly,,,,

msharmony please make sure to tell your kids about my three rules. Better yet print it out, and make sure they understand what rule two really means more than any other.

Scuffles are all well and good in play grounds, but in the real world they are unacceptably dangerous.

A person can get you into a compromising position and choke the life out of you, sometimes even on accident, during a scuffle.

The only way to take control of such a scuffle when you are being overpowered is to use deadly force. (When the SCOTUS agrees you have the right in such a scenario to defend using deadly force you must learn this and act accordingly even if you disagree with it)

Scuffles are unacceptably dangerous

Maybe that will be rule #4


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57366771-504083/cops-man-65-shoots-teens-who-pushed-him-off-bike-kills-one/
Another example of a justified shooting, where if the kids had followed my rules no one would have died.

good advice

with the exception that its probably best for witnesses to record, because 'devices' can be destroyed in a physical altercation,,,

Better to use it and hope it captures the data, then not use it for fear of it being destroyed.

Most of these devices even when destroyed can have the data recovered.

u-stream allows you to record straight to the web if your cell has signal.

your odds against dying from strangulation during a 'scuffle' (Which takes physical effort) are much much different than those from a bullet (which takes very little force or effort)

you have a MUCH better chance of walking away from a scuffle than from a BULLET

I will NEVER teach my kids to kill people they get in fights with, and if that person has a 'weapon' that can kill them, they need to use that same 'weapon'

ie, a threatening hand deserves a t hreatening hand ,, not a HAND GUN

You can never predict someone actions. I hope instead of teaching your kids to try to fight "fair" you teach them to not fight. I hope instead of teaching them to meet force with equal force to teach them to end deadly conflict quickly and decisively after making sure they are in the right.

msharmony. I am 6'4 260lbs (mostly muscle), but if someone were to hit me they may cripple me. I have broke my back 2 times, and while I look imposing I would not do well in a fight.

If one of your kids decided to attack me (fairly in there minds or otherwise) I would use vocalizations to warn off the attack, but if that did not work, id use deadly force.

I will not risk my life and limb to try to go easy on an attacker who attacked even when I tried to prevent the attack. I do not know they have no weapons, I only know they may not have one in there hand right then, they may pull it later, or they may intend to knock me out then choke me to death, or cut my throat, or . . . endless ways in which to end someone once you have compromised there ability to defend. They could take my firearm and shoot me with it once they overpower me. This is part of rule 2, never mess with anyone, YOU DONT KNOW THEM. Not knowing someone is plenty reason to fear for your life when they attack you weapon or not.

To do otherwise is to invite disaster. I have a friend who lost brain function after being choked unconscious during a sporting event, he lost who he is because of an accident at a monitored event. There are no safe bets in a fight but to end the fight before it starts, or to end the fight once you have exhausted your abilities to prevent it. In this case he signed up for it, but if someone attacks me I have not signed up for it and they will be met with deadly force.

You may disagree but you cannot disagree that the SCOTUS has given every citizen in the US the right to use deadly force in just such situations. My disability factors into such an account. My fear for my life is a personal affair unknown to my attacker. He is not going to know I fear of being rendered paralyzed and I fear the attacker could then do anything he wants once I am completely unable to defend myself.

As soon as you think fair fights are a good thing, and that you want to engage in a fair fights vs end them then what you are doing is setting yourself up for a disaster because you are not playing by the rules of the environment. The environment is that no one knows you, and no one expects you to fight fair. People who have never really fought always have this movie concept of fighting, where people can take hit after hit and are never rendered unable to defend themselves. The winner always lets the looser up, and no one ever decides to do something heinous to the looser. Its ridiculous.

You keep talking about odds, and statistics. THEY DON'T MATTER, all that matters is the threat of life and limb and the moment of no going back.

Teach your kids there is no such thing as a fair fight out in the real world, to never engage in fights, and to never be the aggressor against anyone. Also teach them to keep a personal recorder with them at all times without that anyone's bias about statistics, or capability, or race, or who confronted who may end up determining their freedom.

I hope in this case justice is achieved.

In neighborhood watch, they aren't supposed to follow anyone. He was not a member of the neighborhood watch patrol.

Just want to make sure everyone knows. The police have verified that Zimmerman had defensive wounds, and grass stains on his back where he was on the ground in a defensive position. Zimmerman was being beaten. Why they got into a fight, who started it, who confronted who these are all unknowns. But the fact that a fight occurred is enough to warrant a possible defensive shooting.

Teach your kids to not fight! Teach them to avoid conflict!
Doesn't really matter. If I wanted to right now I could go walking around my neighborhood and call myself a captain of a neighborhood watch. This would not change the law in regards to a self defense claim one iota.

[Personally I am not interested in this, but I support those who do.)
I do walk around my neighborhood, for exercise not as a neighborhood watch, but the situation could end up being the exact same.

what if conflict follows and confronts you after you have TRIED to avoid it....what then?

what if the man had gotten shot? would he not be responsible by his reckless choice to follow someone in the rain at night who was a hundred pounds lighter than him and walking AWAY from him?

he was reckless, should have left it to the cops, and instead tried to play cop which ended in a child dead,,,,

I am not going to speculate. Its my opinion that speculating without all the facts leads to these emotional displays which we see in the media, which sadly prevent a fair trial and subvert the system in favor of emotional justice.

His story which so far has been corroborated is that he did not confront the teen, he was attacked, which matches the physical evidence, and that he cried for help for nearly a minute and continued to be beaten, then shot after a struggle for the gun ensued.

I am sorry msharmony, I can tell how much you want this to be in favor of the teen, but unless evidence surfaces that contradicts these events then prosecution will have a hard time convicting. (Also its election year for officials, so you can bet this wont be settled until October at the very least)

No amount of him walking the neighborhood was illegal, no amount of him asking the teen a question is illegal. Nothing he did so far (as the evidence can show), was illegal, the shooting itself was legal based on the current set of evidence. If more evidence is available that we do not have, it would seem to favor Zimmerman, or else Id imagine he would be arrested.

That he had wounds to his nose, and the back of his head and grass stains on his back indicate he was in a defensive position on his back on the ground being beaten on. You do not attack someone from your back on the ground.

If the 911 tapes can be used to determine if the screaming was not in fact his (Zimmermans) that might be a way to call into question the events as depicted by Zimmerman.

Lets hope some audio wizardry can parse the vocal range and distinguish between the two.

I do not know the contents of the call to the girl friend, does anyone know if that was recorded?

(Also everyone keeps talking about the weight difference, the teen was 6'3 140 lbs of pure muscle, he was an athlete and football players, fully capable with good leverage with that height. Do we know Zimmermans physical characteristics? I heard somewhere he was 220, but looks fat, short, and out of shape in his pics. To my knowledge the teen had no marks on his body indicating taking blows in a fight, this may indicate that Zimmerman did not fight back at all.)

how was his story about not confronting the teen 'corroborated'

because people saw them fighting and at some point he was losing?

that doesnt prove he didnt initiate the threat or confront the teen,,,