Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
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.
Quote Originally Posted by Viral View Post
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.