Now, to be fair, a confrontation broke out after Zimmerman made the (bad) choice to follow Martin.  But there is no law against that, nor should there be.  Martin would not be dead if Zimmerman had not followed him.  However, that fact does not mean that Zimmerman is guilty of any crime.  Unfortunately, there are many deaths that happen as a result of bad choices without those choices being a crime.

Whoever "confronted" the other, whether it was Zimmerman or Martin, also made a bad choice.  It resulted in the tragic death of a 17-year-old.  But again, you have no provable crime to convict anyone of.  That leaves people hungry for justice - understandably so.  But the hunger for it doesn't make it okay to convict on such a weak case.  That wouldn't be justice at all.  If it was you or me, I wouldn't want to be convicted based on someone's projection of my motives and without facts - especially if things actually did happen the way I claim they did.

We don't know.  Rioting and protesting over this just doesn't seem rational...

Something about what happened is completely accurate. [edit: meant to finish this thought].  It might be Zimmerman's account.  It might be the opinion of those makikng the charges.  I just don't think you can get there from here.

One thing I do know:  the media has once again played the race card without factual back up and have helped to fan the flames of racism in this country.  That part is sad.  I'd like to see us confront the real thing when we see it - not deal with dishonest reporting and networks trying to make a story fit their already-decided narrative.

BL -

Yes, he has the right to protect himself.  Unless it was Martin that jumped Zimmerman after he was annoyed he was being followed, and Zimmerman needed to protect himself.  If that was the case (and it certainly could have been), Martin would be alive if he simply continued on his way home or stopped to talk to Zimmerman.

BL,

If you're now saying that it was perfectly legal for Zimmerman to follow Martin, then what crime exactly is Zimmerman guilty of?

In your opinion, of course.

I think a manslaughter conviction would have been a just outcome.

Zimmerman didn't intend to kill Martin and may have believed his life was in danger but is guilty because he acted unreasonably.

Up until the confrontation, Martin was completely innocent. I don't see why we give the benefit of the doubt to the guy that lived but not the guy that got killed.

First of all, there is no way of knowing if Martin was or was not completely innocent before the confrontation. Maybe he was innocent, but SOMETHING made Zimmerman suspicious. Perhaps that something was a legitimately criminal action and NOT simply Martin's race.

Until Zimmerman decides to get his gun and start following Martin, no one was in danger.

We can't know this for sure either. Martin could have been putting people in danger with whatever he was doing that night.

And while Zimmerman could have chosen to stay in the car, Martin could have chosen not to start a fight with Zimmerman.

Zimmerman's actions were the proximate cause of the confrontation.

So why didn't Martin just continue about his business if he was "innocent" and doing nothing wrong? Who cares if Zimmerman is following him if he has nothing to hide?

Zimmerman can walk where he wants, even if the path he takes just happens to follow Martin's path.

If we can argue that Zimmerman should be able to stand his ground and defend himself, don't we also have to grant Martin that right?

What exactly was Martin defending himself against? Someone who happened to be walking the same direction he was?

We don't know.  Rioting and protesting over this just doesn't seem rational...

No, it isn't rational. It's what idiots do when things don't go their way: "Let's get angry over one crime by committing several others!"

Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 1:33:00 PM (view original):
I think a manslaughter conviction would have been a just outcome.

Zimmerman didn't intend to kill Martin and may have believed his life was in danger but is guilty because he acted unreasonably.

Acted unreasonably in what way?  What do you do if someone attacking you tries to get your gun from you?

Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 1:33:00 PM (view original):
I think a manslaughter conviction would have been a just outcome.

Zimmerman didn't intend to kill Martin and may have believed his life was in danger but is guilty because he acted unreasonably.

Evidence (again)?

Technically, he was already tried of manslaughter and found not guilty.  How did the jurors get it wrong in the eyes of the law?

And...what is "reasonably"?  (Hint:  defending yourself is considered reasonable).

Posted by burnsy483 on 7/16/2013 1:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 1:33:00 PM (view original):
I think a manslaughter conviction would have been a just outcome.

Zimmerman didn't intend to kill Martin and may have believed his life was in danger but is guilty because he acted unreasonably.

Acted unreasonably in what way?  What do you do if someone attacking you tries to get your gun from you?

I think it's more likely that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation. That makes his actions unreasonable.

Acted unreasonably in what way?  What do you do if someone attacking you tries to get your gun from you?

This is an interesting question, bc  a six-year-old recently tried to take a gun from a police officer. The kid was trying to steal bikes and the officer confronted him on it, and the kid immediately went for the officer's gun (the kid outright admitted he did this). This kid has to have been raised in a HORRIBLE environment without real parenting in order to think the natural reaction upon being confronted by a police officer is "go for his gun".

By the way,  take one guess as to the race of the kid. Maybe the kid learned that move from Trayvon Martin.

Posted by silentpadna on 7/16/2013 1:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 1:33:00 PM (view original):
I think a manslaughter conviction would have been a just outcome.

Zimmerman didn't intend to kill Martin and may have believed his life was in danger but is guilty because he acted unreasonably.

Evidence (again)?

Technically, he was already tried of manslaughter and found not guilty.  How did the jurors get it wrong in the eyes of the law?

And...what is "reasonably"?  (Hint:  defending yourself is considered reasonable).

Clearly, I disagree with the verdict.

I think it's more likely that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 1:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 7/16/2013 1:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 1:33:00 PM (view original):
I think a manslaughter conviction would have been a just outcome.

Zimmerman didn't intend to kill Martin and may have believed his life was in danger but is guilty because he acted unreasonably.

Acted unreasonably in what way?  What do you do if someone attacking you tries to get your gun from you?

I think it's more likely that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation. That makes his actions unreasonable.

Based on what? Why do you feel that way?  Is there any reasonable doubt in your mind that maybe it was Martin who attacked Zimmerman first?

It's good to know that bad_luck thinks that the American legal system would be better served if it made decisions based on what he thinks rather than on trivial things like facts and evidence (or lack thereof).

Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 1:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 7/16/2013 1:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 1:33:00 PM (view original):
I think a manslaughter conviction would have been a just outcome.

Zimmerman didn't intend to kill Martin and may have believed his life was in danger but is guilty because he acted unreasonably.

Evidence (again)?

Technically, he was already tried of manslaughter and found not guilty.  How did the jurors get it wrong in the eyes of the law?

And...what is "reasonably"?  (Hint:  defending yourself is considered reasonable).

Clearly, I disagree with the verdict.

I think it's more likely that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation.

If you're going to throw a man in jail for potentially many years, you gotta have more than "thinking it's more likely..."

That's what tyrannies and dictatorships do.  Do we really want to go there?

BTW, the defense had a part in jury selection too.  Why do people think they "got it wrong"?  Those closest to the testimony can't see something the protestors see as "obvious"?

Posted by burnsy483 on 7/16/2013 1:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 1:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 7/16/2013 1:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 1:33:00 PM (view original):
I think a manslaughter conviction would have been a just outcome.

Zimmerman didn't intend to kill Martin and may have believed his life was in danger but is guilty because he acted unreasonably.

Acted unreasonably in what way?  What do you do if someone attacking you tries to get your gun from you?

I think it's more likely that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation. That makes his actions unreasonable.

Based on what? Why do you feel that way?  Is there any reasonable doubt in your mind that maybe it was Martin who attacked Zimmerman first?

None of us know exactly how the physical confrontation started but I'll tell you this, if I thought someone was following me and then I ran away (as Martin did per Zimmerman) and then saw the guy who had been following me was still following me I might well think I was about to be attacked myself and to be honest I'm not sure how I'd react in that situation. How would you react under those circumstances?