In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
In response to pezz4pats' comment:
Sorry Z but the guy was not killed because he had stolen jewelry but followed because he acted suspicious. If he were merely walking home at a normal pace, I don't think he would have been looked at as suspicious.
Zimmerman said he was acting suspicious. But there's no evidence the kid was doing anythning but walking down the street. C'mon. People don't get reported as suspicious for merely walking down the street unless it's by some nut-job. Since there is no evidence of him being a nut, I'm going to conclude he was reasonable and sincere.
Whether he was justified in following him, none of us can say. You would have to be in that position. I don't see why you are assuming he was innocent. He wasn't reported for merely walking home.
Reported by whom? Zimmerman jumped to a conclusion about the kid. why do you think he just jumped to a conclusion? It appears he has good experience in determining what is suspicious or not.
Zimmerman committed no crime. It is not illegal to carry a gun as a law abiding citizen. It is not illegal to follow a person you feel is suspicious nor is it to confront him. It is not illegal to protect yourself while being attacked.
Sure. He did kill a 17 year old though...and could have avoided doing so if he merely minded his own business. It was his business to try and deter crime with his presence and assist the police. Neighborhood watches are organized and endorsed by the law
All the evidence proves that he was attacked, not the other way around.
No it doesn't "prove" that. The evidence is ambiguous. That's why Zimmerman was acquitted and why Martin probably would (or should) have been acquitted if Zimmerman had ended up dead. So the evidence of only one person doing the punching, does not prove who was attacking whom? What did he attack him with? His words?
There were wounds on Martins hands from punching and none on Zimmerman's. There was a broken nose and a cracked skull and blood coming from Z's ears, not Martins. There were no blows to Martins body, therefore he was not attacked. There were eye witness accounts saying Martin was on top and doing all the punching.
Martin was shot through the heart. Whose injuries were more serious again? Eye witnesses said conflicting things and no one witnessed the start of the fight. And Zimmerman's skull wasn't "cracked." He had cuts. There very likely was a scuffle. But it's not clear at all that Zimmerman didn't initiate it. Maybe Martin was acting in self defense and Zimmerman then decided to shoot. I would think if someone was bashing your head on the ground and reaching for your holstered gun that you would feel it was pretty serious and life threatening. Wouldn't you? I would hope so.
The only person who committed a crime here is Martin. Right or wrong, that's the truth of the matter. He was the only one with blood on his hands prior to the shooting.
Martin wasn't convicted of anything. Innocent until proven guilty, no? Or does that only apply to Zimmerman? No he wasn't convicted but if it was determined that he was the one with the bloody hands and the other had the bloody face, he would have been. Can you deny he assaulted him.?
Are the bruised knuckles and bloody face of no consequence to you?
Yes, it could have all been avoided if Zimmerman just waited for the police but the police ARE slow in responding to these types of calls and a lot of the times, they simply take a report and the guys do get away.
So. That doesn't mean people should shoot kids walking home from convenience stores because they look suspicious to the shooter. He didn't shoot him for walking home. He shot him because he was being beaten to a pulp.
While catching shoplifters, I was sometimes in the office for two hours with them, waiting for the cops. They weren't the ones in danger. I was, for simply doing my job.
Did you shoot them? No, but no one beat me and tried to grab my gun. One guy tried to fight but he was more trying to get away, rather than beat me. I can't even imagine taking someones life but if it were me or them, you can bet your a@@, it wouldn't have been me.
Apparently, so was he.