[Parallax]

Fair enough, but when did the penalty for being rude and argumentative with someone who is stalking and harassing you become death by firing squad?
From the sounds things, the situation under discussion was elevated from nothing to potentially violent to violent to a killing by Zimmerman. He may not have set out to kill, but he certainly set out to find trouble and be violently confrontational himself. I suspect, given that Zimmerman seems to have hunted Trayvon down the way you or I would hunt down a rabid skunk, there wasn't much the boy could have done to avoid some sort of violence.

I think that is the absolute bottom line here. He was looking for trouble, he found trouble, and he either A. Found more than he could handle; or, B. Found what he thought was an excuse to shoot one of these (.......?).

[GeneV]

Gene, good story but this wasn't one kid following another. It was an adult following an unfamilliar kid in a neighborhood recently plauged with break ins. I just don't get why Trayvon didn't simply stop and explain that he was staying with his Dad at the house in the neighborhood....

Your question is full of assumptions that are a little troublesome. You seem to assume that Trayvon was doing something suspicious and that Zimmerman had some kind of authority to question him. Why does someone who is invited to visit a nearby house have to stop and explain anything to a stranger who is following him? Isn't the normal reaction to an unknown heavier man following you in the dark going to be fight or flight?

[Wheatfield]

Your question is full of assumptions that are a little troublesome. You seem to assume that Trayvon was doing something suspicious and that Zimmerman had some kind of authority to question him. Why does someone who is invited to visit a nearby house have to stop and explain anything to a stranger who is following him? Isn't the normal reaction to an unknown heavier man following you in the dark going to be fight or flight?

Fear based reactions are going to be the norm in that sort of situation. To someone who is "profiling", the fear reaction of flight makes the person even more suspicious. Why run if you are doing nothing wrong? Why not run if I am afraid of what may end up being a violent confrontation with a lunatic that has already shown some amount of psychopathy by stalking me?
And this doesn't even begin to take into account the racial aspect of being a black kid in a primarily white gated community (weren't they built to keep the darkies out?), or the racial aspect of being a black kid being stalked by a white guy who may well be making racial slurs that you can hear. Even if the guy wasn't making any racial comments, I suspect that a black kid being harassed by a white guy with an attitude and a hundred pound weight advantage would lead perhaps be fearful that the white guy had some race relation problems.
This Zimmerman guy may also feel that he isn't "white enough", being half Hispanic, he might think he has something to prove as well.

[seacapt]

Your question is full of assumptions that are a little troublesome. You seem to assume that Trayvon was doing something suspicious and that Zimmerman had some kind of authority to question him. Why does someone who is invited to visit a nearby house have to stop and explain anything to a stranger who is following him? Isn't the normal reaction to an unknown heavier man following you in the dark going to be fight or flight?

I find popular opinion full of assumptions that are a bit troublesome.
Lets try a few what if and why scenarios;
* If Trayvon fealt in danger why didn't he get off the girlfriend call and dial 911? Dispatcher would have kept him on the line till he got home and probably called Zimmerman about it.
* Zimmermans 911 call states that Trayvon walked towards his truck put his hand in his waistband, held it there and then walked away. One could easily draw a conclusion that Trayvon wanted Zimmerman to believe he was carrying a weapon.
* What if that was Zimmerman yelling for help? His voice sounds a bit effeminate to me. Complete analysis of the tapes may in fact surprise us.
*CNN stated that their techs could not conclusively determine if there was a racial slur or another word used so why is everyone else so sure?
* You are 100% correct that Trayvon had no legal obligation to talk to explain to or comply with Zimmerman but what if he had?

Having personally been a victim of assault with a deadly weapon and multiple burgleries while living in FL I guess I have a different take on things.
My speculation is that Zimmerman is a less tough than portayed cop wannabe who saw an unfamilliar kid acting strangely in his crime ridden neighborhood. He called 911 and followed the kid. Trayvon instead of talking to Zimmerman played the I'm a badass gangsta bit thereby making the situation worse. When Zimmerman on foot found Trayvon and asked what he was doing here instead of answering the question Trayvon became aggressive. Ithink Zimmerman was getting the crap kicked out of him and out of fear used his weapon.
Personally I thinkm it's a story of all the wrong moves by both parties involved

[seacapt]

And this doesn't even begin to take into account the racial aspect of being a black kid in a primarily white gated community (weren't they built to keep the darkies out?), .

It has been stated by multiple news sources that the community was a 50% black white mix. In Fl allmost all newer developemennts and appartment/ condo complexes are gated. Its a cheap way to increase the perceived property value.

[ihasa]

The point is, it's all conjecture - because the crime was not investigated. Making up scenarios in our heads about Trayvon playing the gangsta (not that that someone should ever end up shot dead based on appearance or demeanour) or Zimmerman some drooling racist are *irrelevant*. What is relevant is that no serious investigation was launched by Sanford PD and there is therefore either a problem with the law, or the way they are interpreting how to respond to the law. Thankfully because of the media outrage, the case is getting some serious attention. I'm glad the cause has been taken up by the public, otherwise, it would still be someone's son shot down with no justice pursued, let alone done.

Who knows how many times similar things have happened, without public outcry, where the victim didn't have the 'media appeal' of Trayvon Martin in his angelic press release pictures.

[Wheatfield]

My speculation is that Zimmerman is a less tough than portayed cop wannabe who saw an unfamilliar kid acting strangely in his crime ridden neighborhood. He called 911 and followed the kid. Trayvon instead of talking to Zimmerman played the I'm a badass gangsta bit thereby making the situation worse. When Zimmerman on foot found Trayvon and asked what he was doing here instead of answering the question Trayvon became aggressive. Ithink Zimmerman was getting the crap kicked out of him and out of fear used his weapon.
Personally I thinkm it's a story of all the wrong moves by both parties involved

Even if your speculation is correct, Zimmerman started the whole thing and then escalated it via confrontational behaviour. He doesn't get to play self defense when he started a fight, even if he was getting spanked. He started it, he takes his licking. That's called manning up to your mistakes.
He had the option of staying in his vehicle, obeying the police directives to not get involved, and not trying to be some sort of Rambo.

[FlashCube]

Even if your speculation is correct, Zimmerman started the whole thing and then escalated it via confrontational behaviour. He doesn't get to play self defense when he started a fight, even if he was getting spanked. He started it, he takes his licking. That's called manning up to your mistakes.
He had the option of staying in his vehicle, obeying the police directives to not get involved, and not trying to be some sort of Rambo.

Actually, your assumptions are incorrect. From the police:

If Zimmerman was told not to continue to follow Trayvon, can that be
considered in this investigation?
Yes it will; however, the telecommunications call taker asked Zimmerman “are you
following him”. Zimmerman replied, “yes”. The call taker stated “you don’t need to do
that”. The call taker’s suggestion is not a lawful order that Mr. Zimmerman would be
required to follow. Zimmerman’s statement was that he had lost sight of Trayvon and
was returning to his truck to meet the police officer when he says he was attacked by
Trayvon.

Go here for all the stuff regarding the Sanford PD investigation that has been made public. You will see there was an on going investigation with files turned over to the States Attorney. (The State's Attorney withdrew over the weekend and there is a new one due to the controversy which may actually be a set back to the case.)

City of Sanford

Plus, there is this Statute. Regardless of who threw the first punch, which is unknown for sure.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unlessa) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

[FlashCube]

We can pontificate about what Zimmerman did and what Trayvon did all we want, but the main thing people are (rightly) railing against is that Zimmerman, who had self evidently committed a homicide, was simply let walk free. He should have been held and the facts, whether they support self defense or not, should have come out via the usual process- a trial.

ALL people suspected of a homicide, even if they claim it was in self defense, should be treated this way.

Even in your bedroom at 3:30 am and a perp with a ski mask on?

I don't get the argument about people who are being attacked being too worried about the legal consequences to use lethal force. If you are in a position where you are mulling over the legal consequences, the situation isn't serious enough to justify using lethal force. Conversely if you know that the law will give you a free pass, you're probably going to be more likely to use lethal force in debatable circumstances.

As an aside, while I think answering 'what's it to you' or 'mind your business' are not polite responses, that is irrelevant, because obviously being impolite is not just cause for being shot dead. Suppose Trayvon had been 'profiled' by other nut jobs like Zimmerman in the past. You can excuse him for getting up in Zimmerman's face a little. Not that there's currently any indication that he DID.

Other than stitches to the back of the head and broken nose . . .

[Wheatfield]

The call taker stated “you don’t need to do that”.

Sounds like a directive to me, obviously not legally binding, but a directive none the less. It was certainly a statement of dissuasion. And had Zimmerman followed it, there is a very high probability, bordering on 100% that the kid wouldn't have been whacked.
The guy followed a citizen, started an altercation of some sort with him, and ended up pulling a gun and shooting the kid who was doing nothing wrong. This you find nothing wrong with?
I'm amazed. People hunting is legal in Florida.

[GeneV]

Quite frankly, even Zimmerman's current story is good cause to rethink how this law is being used. According to Zimmerman, (if he is to be believed) Martin acted exactly as I did when pursued by a heavier guy. In this case, Zimmerman outweighed Martin by close to 100lbs. If a bigger guy is following, you try to get the element of surprise. If a fistfight with a smaller guy gets you justification for shooting him, someone really needs to rethink this.

[ihasa]

Even in your bedroom at 3:30 am and a perp with a ski mask on?

Yes, even then. Killing a person is a serious act. Only a court should be able to determine self defence. If I was in that situation I would probably not defend my property, as the risk of being shot myself is probably increased by doing so - plus I would be taking another person's life, an act I don't think I could live with. The proper system for dealing with burglars is the justice system. Perhaps I'm peculiarly moral.

On the other hand, if I was genuinely in a position of defending my life, the prospect of being held pending trial would not be of any concern to me.

Other than stitches to the back of the head and broken nose . . .

Obviously an altercation ensued, but we don't know whether this was due to gratuitous threatening behaviour from Martin. We just don't know and these things need a properly conducted trial to be fully established.

[Wheatfield]

Obviously an altercation ensued, but we don't know whether this was due to gratuitous threatening behaviour from Martin. We just don't know and these things need a properly conducted trial to be fully established.

Unfortunately, the eyewitness testimony will be a bit one sided.

[ihasa]

I would hope a court would take that into account where the Sanford Police Dept obviously didn't!

[FlashCube]

Yes, even then. Killing a person is a serious act. Only a court should be able to determine self defence. If I was in that situation I would probably not defend my property, as the risk of being shot myself is probably increased by doing so - plus I would be taking another person's life, an act I don't think I could live with. The proper system for dealing with burglars is the justice system. Perhaps I'm peculiarly moral.

On the other hand, if I was genuinely in a position of defending my life, the prospect of being held pending trial would not be of any concern to me.



Obviously an altercation ensued, but we don't know whether this was due to gratuitous threatening behaviour from Martin. We just don't know and these things need a properly conducted trial to be fully established.

Getting killed or watching family getting killed is a serious business also. You do realize that even in a justifiable shooting situation, the legal fees will mount up?