So Zimmerman is charged with 2nd degree murder.

[CexMashean]

Geotag, the only time it'll be a good thing for someone.

[Hobie]

Wow, that is some seriously slanted reporting.

It certainly supports Zimmerman's side of the story as they said. How can you deny that?

Or are you saying it's slanted against Zimmerman since they also presented the prosecution's point?

[Hobie]

Geotag, the only time it'll be a good thing for someone.

lol right

[Jimbo]

It looks bad that Zimmerman told the kid he wasn't following him from the truck, then appeared on foot following him again, then reached into his pocket. I think the prosecution will focus on that. As long as Zimmerman maintains that Trayvon started the fight I think he's good. There are no witnesses to dispute his version of the beginning of the struggle.

How does that look bad? That helps the defense. It is not illegal to follow someone in public. It is not illegal to lie to them about following them. It is not illegal to reach into your pocket. It is illegal to attack someone. It is legal to defend yourself with deadly force when in fear of your life.

[Jimbo]

It certainly supports Zimmerman's side of the story as they said. How can you deny that?

Or are you saying it's slanted against Zimmerman since they also presented the prosecution's point?

Wow, you really have a some sort of an issue with professing your ability to see both sides and then disproving your statement.

[CJ]

How does that look bad? That helps the defense. It is not illegal to follow someone in public. It is not illegal to lie to them about following them. It is not illegal to reach into your pocket. It is illegal to attack someone. It is legal to defend yourself with deadly force when in fear of your life.

The prosecution's case is extremely weak. It's so weak that they had no intention to pursue anything. Now they've been forced into it. Can you recall any physical evidence in the prosecutions favor? Any at all? Obviously that may yet to be seen, but as of right now it's pretty weak. This whole case is circus to make the black community feel better. It's a joke.

[Hobie]

How does that look bad? That helps the defense. It is not illegal to follow someone in public. It is not illegal to lie to them about following them. It is not illegal to reach into your pocket. It is illegal to attack someone. It is legal to defend yourself with deadly force when in fear of your life.

Rather than going from a conclusion and working backwards look at what happened, be objective, and think of the possibilities.

I can see the prosecution saying, "he followed the kid in his truck, told the kid he wasn't following him, then followed the kid on foot after he ran off, he went to confront the boy, he was the aggressor, when he reached into his pocket (for a weapon?) then he was attacked." I can see them saying that going after a kid and reaching for something in his pocket was the reason the kid struck him and didn't give him the right to use deadly force. Had he not chased the boy who did no wrong the boy would be alive.

I can see the defense saying "he wasn't chasing Trayvon, he didn't go to confront Trayvon, he only wanted to keep him in sight for police." Maybe Trayvon was hiding and if Zimmerman was following him he was going to confront him. Trayvon sees Zimmerman still following and boom attacks Zimmerman. When he put a hand in is pocket he probably had his other hand down too. The kid could have popped him 2-3 times before he even got his hands up or knocked him down with those first couple blows. Zimmerman was simply trying to keep eyes on him now he's in a fight for his life.

If either way is beyond the realm of possibility to you or anyone else it seems your mind is already made up.

[Hobie]

Wow, you really have a some sort of an issue with professing your ability to see both sides and then disproving your statement.

I'm not following you

[bcoop]

The prosecution's case is extremely weak. It's so weak that they had no intention to pursue anything. Now they've been forced into it. Can you recall any physical evidence in the prosecutions favor? Any at all? Obviously that may yet to be seen, but as of right now it's pretty weak. This whole case is circus to make the black community feel better. It's a joke.

Exactly. It was the DA in whatever county that is, that told the police there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute. Then came in the State's "special investigators", who flat out made up evidence and got called on it in the bond hearing this morning. That fat fuck couldn't make up shit enough when put on the spot.

"How did you come about this conclusion."

"Uh, well.... Hmmm."
"Do you have any evidence to support this?"
Well, no, but..."
Thank you, that's all I have your honor."

Granted, I'm a fucking prick, but I'd have driven that shit home with a freight train. I'm sorry, what? No evidence? No witness statement to ____? So, you falsified the reports in your investigation? What drove you to do that? Do you know what ethics are? Are you being pressured by your superiors to falsify evidence to secure a conviction? One man already lost his life in this incident, why do you want to see another man lose his life?"

[stevo]

I can see them saying that going after a kid and reaching for something in his pocket was the reason the kid struck him and didn't give him the right to use deadly force.

You can see the prosecution saying something that is entirely not legal?

Stevo

[Hobie]

You can see the prosecution saying something that is entirely not legal?

Stevo

That's out of context, quote the whole paragraph.

Everyone on boards gets all cunty and wants to argue each and every word with attempts to twist this way and that.

I'm basically saying, I see the prosecution saying Martin was in fear and Zimmerman's actions make him the aggressor. I see the defense saying Zimmerman was simply trying to follow the boy and Martin was the aggressor.

There is no one to refute Zimmerman's version of how the fight started so I think he'll be fine. Have I said this before? Seems like it.

[Broncojohnny]

I can see the prosecution saying, "he followed the kid in his truck, told the kid he wasn't following him, then followed the kid on foot after he ran off, he went to confront the boy, he was the aggressor, when he reached into his pocket (for a weapon?) then he was attacked." I can see them saying that going after a kid and reaching for something in his pocket was the reason the kid struck him and didn't give him the right to use deadly force. Had he not chased the boy who did no wrong the boy would be alive.

This is the only case the prosecution can make because they have nothing. It is also a joke.

[unkoricky]

Really? You sound like you're about twelve with that statement.

[dee]

That's out of context, quote the whole paragraph.

Everyone on boards gets all cunty and wants to argue each and every word with attempts to twist this way and that.

I'm basically saying, I see the prosecution saying Martin was in fear and Zimmerman's actions make him the aggressor. I see the defense saying Zimmerman was simply trying to follow the boy and Martin was the aggressor.

There is no one to refute Zimmerman's version of how the fight started so I think he'll be fine. Have I said this before? Seems like it.

Wouldn't this all be thrown out since the kid made it to his house then left to confront?

[347Mike]

Wouldn't this all be thrown out since the kid made it to his house then left to confront?

Yeah, I agree. His house was around 100 feet away and could have just walked or ran for that matter back to his house. He was also on the phone with DeeDee or whatever. If her story is true why didn't she call the cops or walk out to see what was going on? I mean it is a straight path from her place to where he was, she could have stood outside and watched it all go down....