Why isn't this murder?

[The Mad Monk]

Not murder, and, considering what happened on that Brazilian soccer pitch, not particularly brutal, either.

[Wezil]

Oh please, when you ring the cops its a complete copout to try and claim that because its a dispatcher telling you to back the **** off, that it somehow doesn't count.

**** man, how many times do you need this explained to you? Go back and check the beginning of this thread, I'm sure it's there.

I was generous in calling it "selective amnesia". The more likely cause is intellectual dishonesty. The argument just isn't as good unless you can squeeze the "cops told him" in there.

[regexcellent]

Bull**** supposition that relies on believing the killers version of events at all times.

Which the evidence and timeline both support. And whose other account is there to believe? Trayvon's? You can't convict him on the basis that "oh, he's a killer, something about this story must be false!"

e: and do you even have any evidence that George Zimmerman's account is false even in part? Other than clearly he's a racist! or some other nonsense?

[PLATO]

Sure it's different legally.

I'm actually sat in disbelief right now at the number of people who don't give a single **** that a young boy got brutally murdered for literally nothing. I'm not including you in that btw Plato, you're a good guy.

Thanks ken...and likewise.

I think it is a huge tragedy that a young man is dead. Under the definition of "murder", I don't think that Zimmerman is guilty. IMHO. Zimmerman is an idiot who is responsible for this situation, but I do think that at the moment the trigger was pulled that he was acting in self defense. The right to self defense has to be protected. It is as fundamental, imo, as the right to breath.

All that being said, I would not mind one small bit if Zimmerman lost a civil suit that kept him paying the living victims (Martin's family) for the rest of his life. Even with that though, let's not forget that Martin didn't act that responsibly either.

[Wezil]

At least Ken and I can agree (I think) that the US justice system in this case is BS.

Although I think there's more than a little reasonable doubt in this case my prediction of guilt or innocence is based entirely on the makeup of the jury.

[regexcellent]

I can't argue with that.

[Wezil]

Oh go ahead. It isn't the Poly way to agree.

[Berzerker]

Z and M saw each other, M walked up to Z's truck and around it and then headed east from the clubhouse toward the T in the sidewalk (the top of the T runs east-west with the stem running south for a much greater distance (ie standing at the T one can see further south between the apts than either east or west).

Z was on the phone with dispatch as M approached him and ran down the street heading east toward the T. Thats when Z drove his truck east past the clubhouse parking where the sidewalk begins leading to the T.

By that time M had entered the T and "hid" - it was raining so M probably stood under an over hang while talking to his GF. M stood there somewhere near that T as Z walked past him and disappeared as he headed for the street east of the T looking for an address near M's last observed location and direction.

M told his GF about being followed and she told him to run home, he didn't. He stood at that T out of sight while Z continued walking east. Thats when the dispatch became aware Z was following M, not before Z left his truck.

So dispatch told Z not to follow and Z agreed and Z's plan to get an address on the street to the east of the T was aborted - he and dispatch instead discussed where Z would meet the cops and they decided his truck back west thru the T became the meeting place.

At this time M lost sight of Z as he walked east, but then M saw him again as Z returned to his truck. M told his GF the creepy ass cracker was back. That was Z walking thru the T for the 2nd time heading west for his truck.

M waited for Z to pass thru the T and then approached him from behind giving Z the impression M came at him from bushes - Z had just walked thru the T twice and didn't see M.

Thats when M came up behind Z and asked why he was following him. And we know from the GF Z asked M what he was doing in the neighborhood. M didn't like being followed by this nosy cracker and lit him up.