Zimmerman not guilty!

[Rhaps]

So Treyvon jumped him and punched him to the ground, he pulled out a gun, but why didn't he warn him first and started shooting right away? This is where it gets mooty. Treyvon could've continued to attack and Zimmerman had no choice but to put him down. It all happens in a flash and next thing you know you've killed somebody. I guess the way the corpse fell would be a clue if Treyvon was still attacking or not, when Zimmerman pulled out his gun. In any case, this racism uproar is wrong. Zimmerman could've really been innocent, but the black community just see it all one way. It's just ignorant.

Why weren't Martin's hands marred/ Martin's person slightly bloody if he was assailing Zimmerman? Zimmerman's blood (from Martin) was on him, so it can't have been raining that hard. That, and the fact that Zimmerman pursued an unarmed person against authorization are what don't sit well with me. My dad lost his dad to a man who shot him for no other reason than being drunk/ challenged after the gunman punched his wife. He walked out of court because he was a cop and used the evidence that he was physically threatened by my grandfather. The case is similar in that aspect, and I feel that both cases ended wrongly. Ignorant or not, murder is murder, and there should've been more consequence. Zimmerman kept his ****ing gun, for christ sakes.

[Lacquer Head]

How can it be considered self defence to consciously pursue someone?

How can an unarmed person, moving away from you, who is physically smaller than you, be considered threatening?

By ignoring instructions to wait for people who are actually entitled to execute the will of the law, Zimmerman instigated the altercation.

Why did he shoot to kill?

I cannot fathom why this is not manslaughter at the very least.

Why weren't Martin's hands marred/ Martin's person slightly bloody if he was assailing Zimmerman? Zimmerman's blood (from Martin) was on him, so it can't have been raining that hard. That, and the fact that Zimmerman pursued an unarmed person against authorization are what don't sit well with me. My dad lost his dad to a man who shot him for no other reason than being drunk/ challenged after the gunman punched his wife. He walked out of court because he was a cop and used the evidence that he was physically threatened by my grandfather. The case is similar in that aspect, and I feel that both cases ended wrongly. Ignorant or not, murder is murder, and there should've been more consequence. Zimmerman kept his ****ing gun, for christ sakes.

1. There's no law that states you can't follow someone. Apparently he matched a neighbor's description of a recent robber, so the neighbor claims, and I would do the same. There has been a problem with break ins around here as well, and if I see someone suspicious walking down the road, I'm going to see where the **** they go. They 911 dispatcher asked him not to continue pursuing, and he didn't. As the phone records show, Treyvon ran and disappeared. A few minutes later, the incident occurred.

2. Treyvon ran home, then came back. His text records support this...in which he calls Zimmerman a creepy cracker.

3. Martin had a bruise on his left hand, other than that, no injuries of any kind...besides the bullet wound. Look at Zimmerman. If you really don't feel that constitutes self-defense...

4. Florida law states that you just have to FEEL threatened to defend yourself, so Zimmerman was WELL within his rights to shoot with the attacker.

5. If someone is on top of you, punching your face in, it's kinda hard to think "well, I'd better try not to kill him, best to just get him off". You're lucky to just get the gun out and use it, let alone think about where you're aiming. And yes, the coroner reports confirm that the gun was only inches away when he shot.

The evidence just plain backs up Zimmerman's claims. There's no RATIONAL reason to believe otherwise. Let's not forget, the burden of proof isn't on the defendant. Hell, the police never planned to press charged til the media got all up in arms. There isn't one shred of evidence to back up the prosecution, it's pretty damn open and shut. It's a tragedy and both sides acted ignorantly, but when it comes down to it, Treyvon is the one that attacked (based on evidence and Zimmerman's testimony, you can say he COULD be lying, but there's just too much evidence to the contrary) which makes him the criminal.

[Alpha]

I wrote up a big reply, but I don't even want to do this. I'm too angry. I cannot believe this case.

Edit:

Florida law states that you just have to FEEL threatened to defend yourself, so Zimmerman was WELL within his rights to shoot with the attacker.

Although I will ask you to link to where this is written in law. If I go walk about in Florida, I can legitimately kill anyone that makes me feel threatened?

[Fluffy]

Florida law states that you just have to FEEL threatened to defend yourself, so Zimmerman was WELL within his rights to shoot with the attacker.

So what you're saying is that if Martin felt threatened, he had the right to defend himself and possibly kill Zimmerman?

[Rowan]

So what you're saying is that if Martin felt threatened, he had the right to defend himself and possibly kill Zimmerman?

Since they are the only 2 people involved in the situation, therfor noone elses opinion means shit because noone has a clue of what actually happened. Everything is guessing based on assumption.

[Fluffy]

Since they are the only 2 people involved in the situation, therfor noone elses opinion means shit because noone has a clue of what actually happened. Everything is guessing based on assumption.

And that is what this verdict is based on. Opinions of people, and guessing based on assumption.

[Rowan]

And that is what this verdict is based on. Opinions of people, and guessing based on assumption.

but when people claim to know what sentence should have been passed, makes you seem a little arrogant.

[Fluffy]

but when people claim to know what sentence should have been passed, makes you seem a little arrogant.

Although none of us had to sit through 100% of the evidence presented, the fact is that a jury is made up of people just like those posting here. With how much of this trial was publicized, I'd say their opinion of what sentence should have passed is generally acceptable.

I've been on a jury for murder/manslaughter trials before. Based on the evidence I've seen of this trial, there's no way I would have gone with this verdict.

[Odin1199]

If someone is on top of you, punching your face in, it's kinda hard to think "well, I'd better try not to kill him, best to just get him off". You're lucky to just get the gun out and use it, let alone think about where you're aiming. And yes, the coroner reports confirm that the gun was only inches away when he shot.

Didn't know he was on top of him. In that case Zimmerman had the right to defend himself by any means necessary. Also yeah, he could follow him, since he was the night watch. Why do people have a problem with that? He didn't attack first, he got attacked and had to kill him. End of discussion. The way media blows this out of proportion is sickening.