Interesting, we are to know the severity of the beating we are receiving in advance to acting upon it? So how severely must one be beaten before utilizing deadly force? Where exactly should the line be drawn? At what point should one must wait until before his/her life feels threatened?

It's what people who have a God Complex do.

But he a Kenyanite not an American is Muslim

Meanwhile, back in this universe . . .

part of the issue is IF he had it 'hidden'...the police on the scene first said he saw it when z moved,,,when he moved,, not very 'concealed',,,in my opinion
zimmerman raised his arms when the police arrived. that action raised his jacket, exposing the weapon. zimmerman told the police he was armed, and with his arms still raised, motioned to where the police could find the weapon. carring a weapon in a holster that attaches to a belt that keeps it by the side of the body would not be permitted, unless a long enough jacket is worn to cover the weapon. this covers the weapon and holster
and even if martin didnt KNOW he was carrying, I promise that if I suspect someone has gone out of their way to follow me at night, and they dont show any indication of having a good reason, become combative when I ask them why they are following me, and then approach, reach for me, or reach for anything else while in close proximity to me,, IM going to feel that I may be in potential danger, and they MAY be armed and Im not waiting around to find out before I fight,,,,me and most people I know feel t hat way too
i think i am bigger than you, and i would try to never get aggressive with a stranger that followed me. especially if i had a cellular telephone that had service available, and there were plenty of homes in the area that i could knock on a door. if that stranger got physical with me, as he approached, i would scream like a ten year old schoolgirl with spider on her, then i would try to over power with the intent of fleeing as soon as possible. many of my marine corps brothers would do the same
and again, for many people, calling the police isnt something that seen as a solution,, depending upon the situation and where and who they are they can in fact expect that the police would do nothing,,,,
i'm not sure where all these people you claim that calling the police is not an option live, but even as a child i was taught to call for help. if anything, i might have a telephone connection good enough for someone to hear what transpired. if i was shot in the back as i was fleeing and died, the shooter could no way claim self defense. if i was knocking on a door that a person inside refused to open and i was shot in the doorway, again the shooter would have difficultly claiming self defense
he didnt call the police, as he was already on a phone call, but he did do everything text book to avoid this confrontation as long as it seemed reasonable,, before asking the very justifiable question...'why are you following me'......from there any combative answer with a slightly provocative or threatening approach is grounds for T to feel the right to defend himself...
how you think that staying on the phone with someone instead of asking the person to call 911, terminating the call and dialing 911 (they can locate a cell phone even if you are unable to speak) is not an option is beyond me. how you know "why are you following me" was said is beyond me. finally a slightly provocative or threatening approach is grounds to break someone's nose may be an option, but doing that to an armed person may not turn out well
but those praising the watchmen obviously just dont see it that way,, and the jury didnt feel they had the proof of that to counter Zs bs story about just suddenly being 'jumped' by the young black male,,,,
there may very well be people who are praising zimmerman, but i don't personally know any. zimmerman didn't say that he was suddenly jumped. it seems that zimmerman's story isn't bs, that is why the jury didn't convict him

ya know, its not an unreasonable question

be interesting to see how many people have gotten away with shooting someone dead because they had a busted nose,,,,

nice precedent that mere fearfulness is enough excuse for homicide,,,

it would actually also excuse Ts actions regardless of the circumstances,,, after all,, at one point when one is being pursued should they utilize FIGHTING,,,lol

should they wait until they actually SEE a weapon, or until someone actually punches them? or is the mere process of the stalking itself followed by combative words and contact of any sort enough for them to feel 'threatened'?


I doubt it will be set in stone though,, thank goodness,,,that being 'fearful' justifies shooting someone dead

there are alot of fearful wimps out there that bite off more than they can chew,, used to be a good butt whooping was a way for them to learn,,,,,and everyone walked away alive,,,,

i don't disagree with the law, i disagree with a young man dying, just walking down the sidewalk...it seems the law could be adjusted so this idiocy doesn't happen again... and, last i heard, profiling was illegal...

Would you please site that specific law where it might apply in this particular situation and then please provide your evidence that Zimmerman was profiling.

He was watching a suspicious person, who was loitering in the rain, in the dark, in a neighborhood that had had break-ins. He had a right to be there. To not watch or follow this guy would be to not do the job he was there to do.

i don't disagree with the law, i disagree with a young man dying, just walking down the sidewalk...it seems the law could be adjusted so this idiocy doesn't happen again... and, last i heard, profiling was illegal...

The only people's opinion that matter in this are the 9 women who sat in that jury box. The burden of proof was entirely on the prosecution and obviously they didn't have the proof.

The presidents opinion is worthless and yall's opinion who wanted this Zimmerman cat put to death is worthless.

Martin was walking back to the home where his father was staying.
Martin wasn't doing anything wrong when Zimmerman first saw him.
Martin had just as much a right to be there that Zimmerman had.

In his call to 911, Zimmerman indicated that he had already decided that Martin was going to commit a crime.

Zimmerman was told by the 911 police operator not to follow Martin, but Zimmerman did so anyway.

It looks to me that Zimmerman did prejudge Martin.

the jury decided it was 'not guilty'....six people who were given the authority to make a choice and that's THEIR choice

doesn't make it right, or true, or accurate,, but it does stand as the law,,,
the point of having a judicial system is to make it right. jurors are selected by both sides and both sides try to select jurors who they think will be favorable to their side, but both sides have the opportunity to dismiss anyone they choose. the whole process is designed to be as fair as possible. the judge also tries to make sure what the jury hears is as fair as possible
would have been a hung jury if I was there,,,
no doubt, but a lawyer may notice your attitude and dismiss you so that there would not be a bias
aside from zimmermans 'story',, both the witness for the prosecution who was speaking with t and the witness for the defense whose back patio was near the altercation

janelles story

martin is walking, martin stops to get out of rain and notices man staring at him, martin walks another way and notices the man still following him, martin walks another way , t hinks the man is gone, and then notices the man is again 'right behind me'

martin says he isn't going to try to lose him anymore and turns to ask 'why are you following me',,,,to which Z response 'what are you doing here'...the phone drops, martin is heard saying get off of me,, the phone goes dead
this story could be believable. thing is martin is speaking to her and cursing, he is annoyed at being followed. so when he desides to ask zimmerman "why are you following me" it would be more believable if the choice of words were more in line with his choice of words to her. zimmerman's response "what are you doing here" does not seem aggressive enough to merit a punch in the nose. if martin dropped the phone and the line stayed open after the phone impacted the ground long enough for her to hear martin say get off me, who then terminates the call? if a phone is dropped, does it normally work a few minutes or even seconds, or does it normally cut out after the impact? the last thing that raises questions about her story is her credibility

the residents story,,,

he hears voices,, he looks out his window and first sees two men tussling in a VERTICAL position,,, he goes back to call 911 and when he comes back they are on the ground,,,,,,allegedly martin is throwing 'mma style' blows although there is only a scratch on his finger in the autopsy which was potentially not a fresh wound,,,,
zimmerman stated that words were exchanged before the fight. zimmerman stated that martin punched him in the nose as they were standing face to face. zimmerman stated martin was on top of him. his story lines up with what the resident saw and heard. could the lack of wounds on martin's hands be because zimmerman claimed martin was holding his head and slamming it to the concrete? would bruised knuckles be easily seen on a dark skinned person? those questions don't really matter when the resident saw and heard what zimmerman described

,,,the stories line up,, the witness for the defense first seeing from the time when martin is telling Zimmerman to get off of him,, Zimmerman who on the phone is verbally expressing anger over the idea of fing 'goons' 'getting away'

this 'tussle' ends up on the ground, zimmerman gets a broken nose and panics and shoots a boy dead

,,,,,that's not the version the jury obviously thought was proven, but I thought it more than proved it,,, and proved martin wasn't some animal that decided after trying to lose a man and get back home for a game that he would delay things to go back and initiate a fight with a man who was supposedly walking away at that point

zs was a ******** story, but the jury believed it,,,it happens,,,
zimmerman expressed anger to the 911 operator. martin expressed anger to his girlfriend. zimmerman's nose was more likely broken before the tussle ended up on the ground. if you want to find fault with zimmerman you will, but in fairness you should see the fault with martin. in the end, these two witnesses that sealed the case for you could not out weigh the scales of justice of the other witnesses and zimmerman's story for the jury

1. the point is to TRY to make it right, the possibility of it being WRONG however exists whenever there is a human element, as is evidenced by how many 'guilty' people have later been set free from new dna evidence procedures,,,so , like I was saying, six people coming back with a verdict, doesn't automataically mean the verdict is right or true,,,


2. yep, I could be dismissed, or I could NOT be dismissed and still come to the same conclusion not because of bias but because of evidence and testimony and jury instructions regarding murder and manslaughter and justifiable homicide,, as I clearly explained already

3. the story is believable because it lines up with what the DEFENSE witness claimed to see AND because the prosecution witness DIDNT seem to mince words about the vulgarity that was used on the phone it makes it less likely that she would lie about the language through the rest of the call,,,she didn't try to paint an 'innocent' picture like the defense witnesses did,,,she was a witness that I would believe because of her non professional, non sugar coated testimony,,,

'wht are you doing here' after someone has been following you in car and on foot and you have asked why they are following you,, COUPLED with a gesture like reaching for something (a gun) or grabbing you (making sure you don't 'get away',, IS MORE THAN ENOUGH for me and everyone I know to feel in enough danger to start fighting,,,


the call could terminate for any number of reasons, its a cell phone, nothing odd about that,,,,


4. the story doesn't line up with what the witness saw,, 'tussle' verticle doesn't mean STANDIG face to face, it means a physical contact between two people,,, not a SUCKER punch that knocks one down,,,watch the tape, his original story said nothing about standing face to face, but that t was about a foot or two away when he asked him if he had a problem and THEN all of a sudden hit him,, NO TUSSLE mentioned by Z as his witness claimed to have FIRST seen, before there was any fight on the ground,,,,

the lack of wounds would mean it was probably not an 'MMA STYLE' beating, the lack of anything but knicks on Zs head would mean to me his head impacted the concrete due to the fight happening atop it,, but NOT that anyone 'slammed' it into the concrete

bruising on any skin is detectable by medical examiners,, its their job,,,

those questions do matter when what the resident saw DOESNT match Zs story,,


5. yeah, martin expressed REASONABLE concern because some strange man was watching and following him around,, yeah, Id expres concern too, without the slurs, but still REASONABLE CONCERN. and zimmermans nose could have been busted before or after the ground and it wouldn't matter if he was the clear AGGRESSOR in the situation,,, I don't find fault with ZIMMERMAN and MARTIN, cause in the end, I still believe ZIMMERMAN was the adult and MARTIN The child, ZIMMERMANS pursuit and aggressive action were unjust and inexcusable and lead to that boys death,, and MARTINS' bad judgment' seems more in line with his age and trying to survive and 'defend himself' , as the jury seemed so easy to believe Z was doing,

T tried so hard to avoid a confrontation,,,and didn't end up taking a life,but reacting to how someone was treating his own,,

in the end ,the 'scales of justice' were against the victim, and he didn't receive justice for his death,,, in the end assumptions about the victims character got the witness off,

wont be the first or last time