Anyway, the transcript of the 911 call clearly has Zimmerman describing Martin as a black male in his late teens.

Zimmerman was not just watching, he was actively pursuing him which is also quite clear from the 911 call.

According the the call, Zimmerman said that Martin was RUNNING away from Zimmerman.

As Martin wasn't doing anything criminal except for walking home, we can probably assume Martin was AFRAID of Zimmerman and saw Zimmerman as a hostile aggressor.

Zimmerman then pursued even though the 911 responder said WE DON'T NEED YOU TO DO THAT.

Zimmerman early on reported something in Martin's hand, clearly thinking it was a weapon.

It was the something like the Skittles and/or the Arizona can of tea as Martin had no weapon.

Zimmerman was kind of paranoid, fitting with his wanna be cop persona.

Bottom line a man armed with a gun murdered a boy armed with skittles after CHASING him. Do the math.

You are getting more and more desperate. The police asked Zimmerman what race Trayvon was and he told them. People go to war all the time in their late teens.

You are getting more and more desperate. The police asked Zimmerman what race Trayvon was and he told them. People go to war all the time in their late teens.

I never said he wasn't asked what race. Before it was asserted Zimmerman didn't know he was a boy. He knew and he said it clearly.

This wasn't Iraq. It was a teen walking home. Many teens don't have cars, you know. So they walk. It's normal.

Trying to make excuses for this killing or implying he deserved it, it's getting kind of nauseating.

No, I'm not suggesting Martin was an Eagle Scout but I am suggesting that there was no excuse for shooting him dead that night.

My guess is if trevon had committed a crime he would have been judged an adult man so why is he referred to as an unarmed boy? It was night it was dark and he looked and behaved like a criminal there was no way anyone could have known that he was a minor or unarmed

Oh please, Zimmerman knew he was a teen boy all along.

He was walking home.

Is it criminal for a boy to walk home? Geez!

Uh, Trayvon did not live in that estate. He was visiting somebody there so he could not have been walking home and was not known to anybody that lived in the estate, other than the person he was visiting.

I thought that picture had been proven to have been taken when he was 14 years old, not the 17 or so when he attacked Zimmerman.

...

I thought that picture had been proven to have been taken when he was 14 years old, not the 17 or so when he attacked Zimmerman.

You thought wrong. He was 16, about six months before being murdered at 17.

Anyway, the transcript of the 911 call clearly has Zimmerman describing Martin as a black male in his late teens.

Zimmerman was not just watching, he was actively pursuing him which is also quite clear from the 911 call.

According the the call, Zimmerman said that Martin was RUNNING away from Zimmerman.

As Martin wasn't doing anything criminal except for walking home, we can probably assume Martin was AFRAID of Zimmerman and saw Zimmerman as a hostile aggressor.

Zimmerman then pursued even though the 911 responder said WE DON'T NEED YOU TO DO THAT.

Zimmerman early on reported something in Martin's hand, clearly thinking it was a weapon.

It was the something like the Skittles and/or the Arizona can of tea as Martin had no weapon.

Zimmerman was kind of paranoid, fitting with his wanna be cop persona.

Bottom line a man armed with a gun murdered a boy armed with skittles after CHASING him. Do the math.

His comment about Trayvon being black was in response to a direct question asked by the 911 dispatcher.

And your statement about Zimmerman "chasing" Trayvon is laughable. When have you ever seen an out of shape Latin American man able to run down a 17 year old black male?

Your minds are made up. There is no evidence that would sway the true believers in Zimmerman's innocence. Let the jury decide.

Your minds are made up.

As is yours. The difference is that most lawyers say that the prosecution is failing and that Zimmerman should never have been charged with murder in the first place.

Your minds are made up.

As is yours. The difference is that most lawyers say that the prosecution is failing and that Zimmerman should never have been charged with murder in the first place.

Correct. He should have been charged with manslaughter. But he can still be convicted of manslaughter and will be. My understanding is the jury doesn't know how serious manslaughter is in Florida when the victim is a minor. That increases the chances he will be convicted of manslaughter.

BTW, there is a chance this overcharging was a smart tactic of the prosecution all along with the assumption they could still easily get a manslaughter conviction.

Was it also a "smart" tactic of the prosecution to keep calling winesses that help the defence's case more than their own? Again, most lawyers agree that the prosecution is failing and the defense has not even presented their case yet. The jury will not convict Zimmerman unless they are BSed into ignoring the law.

Failing on murder one. Not failing on manslaughter. You'll see.

Sent from my GT-S5360B using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Flame/troll post removed

Just to add: I will accept the decision of the jury. I would hope other would as well regardless of the outcome.

That would be something new from the left

OK, some more info on this.

They obviously won't get a first degree murder conviction.

The jury will be instructed to consider murder first then on to manslaughter.

So they can hang on murder, doesn't end it.

So it's going to go down to manslaughter. No way will they acquit on that. It'll be either convict or hang.

The jury WILL be informed of the sentence for murder and manslaughter under Florida law.

I think manslaughter is fine but yes it may be a hang.

If the jury follows the law, Zimmerman will be found not guilty. Practically every lawyer I have seen says that the state has not proven its case and the burden of proof is on the state.

yawwwnnnnn...

They haven't proven murder one.

But there are other possible convictions.

BTW, there is a 2nd level conviction that is possible and more serious than manslaugher and less serious than murder one:

Aggravated Homicide.

The inconvenient truth for the defense is they've got a boy's corpse who was unarmed who was stalked by a man with a gun. When the man with a gun possibly starting losing a normal fight, he shot to boy dead. NOT acceptable.

The inconvienient truth for the defence is that there is way more evidence in Zimmerman's favor than against it and the state has the burden of proof.

There is no evidence - at all - that anyone was "stalked" and murder one is not even on the table.

Ttayvon was anything but some innocent kid. http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/26/the-daily-caller-obtains-trayvon-martins-tweets/

Nobody said he was an innocent kid.

This is a case about a killing.

In a normal fight you have NO RIGHT to murder your opponent if he is losing, especially if unarmed as was the VICTIM here.

I have said I will accept the jury verdict.

It's interesting that it seems the Zimmerman apologists will not accept the verdict if they don't like it.

They haven't proven murder one.

But there are other possible convictions.

BTW, there is a 2nd level conviction that is possible and more serious than manslaugher and less serious than murder one:

Aggravated Homicide.

The inconvenient truth for the defense is they've got a boy's corpse who was unarmed who was stalked by a man with a gun. When the man with a gun possibly starting losing a normal fight, he shot to boy dead. NOT acceptable.

What has he been charged with?

Surely the trial is to find out whether he's guilty / not guilty of the offence(s) with which he has been charged?

If he has been charged only with murder one, then the jury can only consider whether he is guilty or not of murder one. If he has been charged with murder one / murder two / manslaughter / carrying a concealed weapon / spitting on the pavement - then he can be found guilty / not guilty on each of those charges.

No point in dreaming about the jury bringing in verdicts on things he has not been charged with.

They haven't proven murder one.

But there are other possible convictions.

BTW, there is a 2nd level conviction that is possible and more serious than manslaugher and less serious than murder one:

Aggravated Homicide.

The inconvenient truth for the defense is they've got a boy's corpse who was unarmed who was stalked by a man with a gun. When the man with a gun possibly starting losing a normal fight, he shot to boy dead. NOT acceptable.

What has he been charged with?

Surely the trial is to find out whether he's guilty / not guilty of the offence(s) with which he has been charged?

If he has been charged only with murder one, then the jury can only consider whether he is guilty or not of murder one. If he has been charged with murder one / murder two / manslaughter / carrying a concealed weapon / spitting on the pavement - then he can be found guilty / not guilty on each of those charges.

No point in dreaming about the jury bringing in verdicts on things he has not been charged with.

That's a fair question which indicates you are not well informed about the Florida justice system.

The jury will instructed as such:

Deliberate on Murder One -- if no decision

Deliberate on Aggravated Homicide -- if no decision

Deliberate on Manslaughter

The defense will fight this but precedent shows they won't win.

Whether that sounds fair to you or not is your opinion. I am talking about the LAW and how this actually is going to go down.

This is why I do not believe the jury will let the killer walk free without SOME conviction.

IF the defense only had to worry about Murder One, I would agree, there would be no conviction and I would also agree there should not be. They don't seem to have even tried to prove Murder One. But I think they've done enough for the lessor convictions.

Isn't the whole case sub judice?

Isn't the whole case sub judice?

Not an issue.

The jury is well sequestered.

We can discuss the case ALL WE WANT.

Nobody said he was an innocent kid.

This is a case about a killing.

In a normal fight you have NO RIGHT to murder your opponent if he is losing, especially if unarmed as was the VICTIM here.

I have said I will accept the jury verdict.

It's interesting that it seems the Zimmerman apologists will not accept the verdict if they don't like it.

In Florida, if you are in fear of your life, you can use a gun to defend yourself. Why wouldn't someone who is attacked by a six foot male, that he has never seen before, who breaks his nose, bashes his head and threatens to kill him be in fear of his life?

Why would I accept a juries verdict if I thought that it was motivated by emotion and not following the law? Most of us know that OJ was guilty even though the jury said he was innocent. If there is any justice and by some chance Zimmerman is not acquitted, he will appeal it and win

.

His nose was NOT broken. That is a myth. Indeed, his injuries were very trivial. His murder victim on the other hand didn't come out of the fight so well. Where is the compassion for this dead boy?

Also you act like you believe 100 percent every word out of the killer's mouth.

That's extremely unfair.

His murder victim doesn't have the chance to tell his side of the story.

There is no logical reason to believe everything the killer says.

The trial is about justice for the dead boy. I hope he gets it and his killer pays.

If you're in a fight you don't get to murder your opponent just because you are losing the fight.

Experts: George Zimmerman Just Caught a Big Break

Jul 10, 2013 4:45 AM EDT

Did a forensic pathologist just save George Zimmerman’s tail? Christine Pelisek on how one key witness turned the high-profile murder trial on its head. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07/10/experts-george-zimmerman-just-caught-a-big-break.html

Even the liberal press are calling it for Zimmerman. He was well ahead before this renown expert testified for him, but most people agree that this guy cinched the not guilty verdict.

Also you act like you believe 100 percent every word out of the killer's mouth.

The preponderance of evidence supports his story.

In Florida you can say something is "consistent" with a story if it is only ONE PERCENT probable. You will hear a lot about that in the closing prosecution argument. Consistent doesn't mean probable. That hack expert witness used consistent a lot.

Anyway, I find it to be quite an immature attitude to say that a GUILTY verdict won't be accepted as a sincere judgment of the jury the same as a NOT GUILTY verdict.

That "hack" served until 2006 as chief medical examiner of San Antonio, Texas, and is the author of a forensic pathology handbook as well as a book about gunshot wounds called Gunshot Wounds: Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques. Pretty much every medical examiner has it on their shelves.