<p>[Trayvon</a> Martin Documents Released in Shooting by George Zimmerman - ABC News](<a href=“Cops, Witnesses Back Up George Zimmerman's Version of Trayvon Martin Shooting - ABC News”>Cops, Witnesses Back Up George Zimmerman's Version of Trayvon Martin Shooting - ABC News)</p>
<p>I don’t see anything that changes the basic facts of the case.</p>
<p>Zimmerman was told to stay in his truck. Instead he got out, with a gun and confronted an unarmed teenager who is now dead. </p>
<p>Everything else is noise.</p>
<p>very disturbing how the focus in the article seems to be on showing Z as a victim in this. Seems inappropriate to reveal Trayvon’s drug screen result when none was even done on Z. I agree pugmadkate, but I am worried about this case.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Could you provide a citation for your “facts”?</p>
<p>Um the 911 tapes are pretty conclusive, he did have a gun, trayvon didn’t…and Zimmerman followed him, via his own words…gee what more citation domyou need</p>
<p>Even if trayvon said, dude what the bleep are you doing foliowing me and stood there, Zimmerman was the aggressor. Period. </p>
<p>Sadly there was a case of a black women in Florida who killed her abusive husband who beat her and she got convicted. Stand your ground didnt help her.</p>
<p>Oh man, this is getting tiresome. No one yet knows what transpired between Zimmerman and Martin. I’m content to let the jury make that determination, though it’s kind of Pugmadkate to try to save Florida the time and money of holding a trial by making a determination based on newspaper stories, intuition or whatever. Really, we could expedite the judicial process so nicely if we just asked the right people for their opinions.</p>
<p>It doesn’t matter what happened between them. What matters is that in this country you cannot go against what the 911 operator tells you and then stalk another human being down like an animal. Well, at least in most of the country. This did happen in Florida and the victim is black, so my confidence that Zimmerman will be convicted of a crime is not high.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>An interesting perspective from which discussion is unproductive.</p>
<p>I believe we don’t know exactly what happened and I am not willing to convict based on the press. I’ve seen too many trials where the evidence is a lot different than what people want to think.</p>
<p>I have little faith in FL trials. Goodman may be leaving jail, and Casey’s trial non conclusive. Meanwhile, these trials cost millions, and teachers get no raises, mental health clinic budgets cut in half…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I didn’t realize 911 operators had any authority. From where do they get this power exactly?</p>
<p>I’m actually handling a legal matter right now where a 911 operator reacted incorrectly and caused a “situation” that could have been avoided.</p>
<p>Martin was supposedly on top of Zimmerman hitting him “MMA style” according to one witness. That’s consistent with Zimmerman’s claim of self defense.</p>
<p>There are no third party witnesses to who started the fight, so we can never really know who started the fight. Just because Z had more injuries is not evidence of who was the aggressor.</p>
<p>I think the issue is not necessarily who “started” the fight, but a combination of issues such as who approached whom, did Z raise his gun before the first punch was thrown, what did they say to each other? The concept of “self defense” can be complicated. If Martin were beating Zimmerman and Z shot him, one could argue that’s self-defense. On the other hand, Martin, near his own back yard, was followed and approached by a man carrying a gun, 10 years older and 30 pounds heavier, whom he didn’t know. Does he have a right to perceive himself in danger and defend himself?</p>
<p>There are strong arguments that just because Martin fought better/harder does not imply anything so far as self defense goes. To use a fictional example, in the movie “The Karate Kid”, when Mr. Miyagi wipes out the gang of kids attacking Daniel, he beats them aggressively and completely while none of them laid a finger on him. Who was the defender and who was the aggressor? To listen to some of your reasonings, Miyagi was clearly the aggressor because the gang had more injuries.</p>
<p>The documents that were released do back up Z’s argument that he was hit. Yet the documents also clearly show that the police wanted to charge Zimmerman with a crime. You shouldn’t fix on one set of facts and ignore the other.</p>
<p>New reports have come out that Martin’s father initially told police the cries for help were not his son’s, while Zimmerman’s father told police they were his son’s cries.</p>
<p>I think the important concern is not the legal one at all, but the fact that a “neighborhood watchperson” is free to carry a loaded weapon and follow (and confront?) “suspicious” characters without any particular reason to be suspicious, and against direct police advice, and then use that weapon. This is to me is far more disturbing than anything that might (or might not) happen in a court of law. (The civil suit will be interesting, to say the least.)</p>
<p>Let’s not confuse legal standards with ethical ones.</p>
<p>^beautifully stated mini. </p>
<p>Encounter between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin ‘avoidable,’ cops said in report.</p>
<p>Your post #16 perfectly summarizes my feelings about this case, mini. There is something wrong when a 17-year-old boy, on an innocent errand, ends up dead at the hands of an armed vigilante. I wonder how those who are defending Zimmerman or reserving judgment would feel if this had happened to their child.</p>
<p>Anybody who has a concealed weapon, legal or otherwise, is an armed vigilante. Anybody who owns a gun who isn’t in the military or police/sheriff is a potential vigilante.</p>
<p>I agree, parent1986. I can see the reasoning behind the desire to own a gun for protection (although I don’t agree with it), but this does not apply to Zimmerman’s behavior that night. As a neighborhood watch “captain,” he must have been aware of the principles of that organization (do not carry a weapon, do not pursue or confront a suspicious person, etc.). It is clear from the 911 tape that the dispatcher instructed him not to pursue Trayvon. He was clearly in the wrong, whether or not he manages to escape conviction under the stand-your-ground law.</p>