1. Post #41
    Dennab
    May 2007
    1,218 Posts
    He honestly didn't do anything wrong under Florida law. True, he did creep the kid out by following him which is probably why the kid started the fight, that much has been said. But Zimmerman had a gun and the law states he could defend himself so he shot. It wasn't an issue of hate but a guy who took his neighbourhood watch gig a little to serious, but didn't break a law. He's being investigated, he is on trial and the trial will hopefully end with a not guilty charge for him. They've already backed up his statement, witnesses already confirmed what he said. He did absolutely nothing wrong in the state. He waited for police, he explained what happened, he has shown more remorse then I've seen from other killers. It was the wrong place at the wrong time and two people made mistakes, not just Zimmerman, Martin fucked up as well.

    This case isn't straight black and white, or black vs. white it's just what law did he ACTUALLY break? He didn't lie in his statement, he didn't flee the scene, he didn't break A SINGLE LAW. People want him arrested based on the fact it was a young, unarmed man who was killed but the problem with that is they have no legal grounds to actually put him in prison, if you can find some then let me know, because as I see it he was following a person he hadn't seen before in the gated community who kept on walking and then started yelling and eventually hitting him. The minute people can just think about what must have happened during this situation to cause a rational, likeable person to use deadly force to kill a teenager then they can start to argue the case, because I just see two people who made mistakes and one ended up dead. No hate, no crimes, no ulterior motives, just a series of bad choices that led to a sad, avoidable outcome.
    That's what the elite-conservatives would have you believe.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Dumb Dumb x 4 (list)

  2. Post #42
    Gundevil's Avatar
    April 2009
    502 Posts
    That's what the elite-conservatives would have you believe.
    What? Honestly find me a law he broke and I'll be glad to reconsider. I don't like that the kid died, I think Zimmerman should have taken the beating instead of killing him. But he didn't, he shot him, he killed Martin and there isn't a law he broke while doing so.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Canada Show Events Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  3. Post #43
    Gold Member
    J Paul's Avatar
    October 2007
    2,798 Posts
    He was acting as a vigilante who saw fit to make contact with and continue pursuit of someone who only he decided was a suspected assailant. In no description of any neighborhood watch captain I've ever found in any place that speaks English, does it say that they should do anything besides make calls, assist authorities with investigations involving the neighborhood by providing them with information by phone, they also schedule meetings, etc. Please, if you can find one whose description includes anything other than this, please let me know, because I sure looked around a lot and didn't find anything.

    None of those things found in any description of a neighborhood watch captain involve going out and deciding that you're the person who is fit to label people as suspects and then to administer justice or anything of the sort. He called the police and their evaluation of the situation was that it was not necessary to make contact with or pursuit of the target. He acted wrongly in the beginning of the situation by even thinking he was above the law and that he was capable of taking action in the situation, fumbled around even further and made contact with someone he had no business stalking, and by the looks of things, at that point he made a terrible situation even worse.

    What makes all of this especially interesting is the fact that he held the role on a volunteer basis and has a known public history of taking situations into his own hands, often resulting in violence, to the extent at which he's even assaulted an undercover officer of the law. I'm sure he thought he was the person to administer justice and act in that situation as well, but he was clearly wrong, because the actual lawmen didn't take too kindly to it.

    My feeling is that if he's the type of person who genuinely believes he is capable of taking justice into his own hands, and his history beyond just this event lends some credibility to that, then I believe this does qualify as Murder in the second degree.

    I just want to add again that I have no problem with his being out on bail. He has the right. I do not sympathize with him, but I do not believe he should have been denied bail. He is in no way a flight risk. He probably can't step outside of his home without being mobbed.

  4. Post #44
    Gold Member
    Lachz0r's Avatar
    August 2008
    11,197 Posts
    What? Honestly find me a law he broke and I'll be glad to reconsider. I don't like that the kid died, I think Zimmerman should have taken the beating instead of killing him. But he didn't, he shot him, he killed Martin and there isn't a law he broke while doing so.
    well one guy said that stand your ground law doesn't cover situations in which you were the instigator of the conflict.

  5. Post #45
    Gold Member
    J Paul's Avatar
    October 2007
    2,798 Posts
    well one guy said that stand your ground law doesn't cover situations in which you were the instigator of the conflict.
    I believe that might have been me, but don't confuse my post; I was asking if someone more well-versed in Florida law could tell me whether or not the law would actually be relevant in this situation seeing as how the survivor of the conflict also happened to be its instigator, and I asked a few other questions about it that didn't get answered.

    I wasn't necessarily proven correct, it's just nobody told me I was incorrect either. So take that with a grain of salt. There is something to be said for not being told you're wrong on Facepunch, though. Telling people they're wrong is almost the official pastime of this forum. It's fun.

  6. Post #46
    Gold Member

    May 2005
    2,268 Posts
    What? Honestly find me a law he broke and I'll be glad to reconsider. I don't like that the kid died, I think Zimmerman should have taken the beating instead of killing him. But he didn't, he shot him, he killed Martin and there isn't a law he broke while doing so.
    Well you probably shouldn't assume that someone beating you up just wants to rough you up a bit. For all you know that person could be a psychopath who plans to beat you to death or into severe brain damage. If I'm being assaulted to the point where I feel my life is threatened, I'll defend myself by any means necessarily, including shooting my attacker if I have to. I would not care too much for the safety of someone who is endangering my life.

    well one guy said that stand your ground law doesn't cover situations in which you were the instigator of the conflict.
    It hasn't been proven that George Zimmerman instigated a conflict. There's only proof that he followed Trayvon around for a short time, that's it. That certainly doesn't count as instigating him getting physically attacked from behind, if what he claims is true.

  7. Post #47
    Gold Member
    J Paul's Avatar
    October 2007
    2,798 Posts
    He instigated contact and pursuit. Regardless of what happened afterward, the entire situation came about starting from the point where Zimmerman decided that he was more capable than the police dispatcher of distinguishing suspect from citizen. And as if that were not enough, he would go even further and take action.

    Regardless of anything that happened after Zimmerman started following the guy, the fact is Zimmerman started following the guy.

    And this isn't a childish game of 'who started it' because in this case it's crucial, relevant information. You can't start talking about the events that transpired after Zimmerman started following Martin of his own free will and against the advice of the police, without first addressing the fact that Zimmerman decided to start following martin of his own free will against the advice of the police.

    I hate to be so redundant here, but I feel like it's important. Because to me this is like if I started stalking someone and then called the police and told them I was stalking someone and they told me to stop, and then I didn't, and then I contacted the person I was stalking which resulted in an altercation where I had to kill the person. So I mean even if you stick to Zimmerman's story 100% and only consider things that are verified as fact, it still stands that he should have never even considered putting himself in that situation in the first place because it's not his business to be following anyone under any circumstances. I've still yet to see any neighborhood watch captain's job description that includes any kind of shit like that.

    Do hired private security guards even do shit like that?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  8. Post #48
    So why exactly did FP go from hating his fucking guts and calling for action to asking for witness protection for him?
    because facepunch is collective of people with different opinions, not a hivemind.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows Vista United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  9. Post #49
    Gold Member
    Jim_Riley's Avatar
    February 2006
    1,497 Posts
    Because to me this is like if I started stalking someone and then called the police and told them I was stalking someone and they told me to stop, and then I didn't, and then I contacted the person I was stalking which resulted in an altercation where I had to kill the person.
    You're trying to argue that by following Martin that instigated the fight but that wouldn't make sense when we hear Zimmerman (on the phone call recording released to the public) agree to stop following the boy at the dispatcher's request and thus stops and begins walking back to his car to meet with police. It would be at that moment the tables shift. Everything that happens after that is indeed crucial and it's details like that that we (the public) don't really have but would also be the details that blow the case open enough for Zimmerman's self defense if you ask me.

    Zimmerman following Martin means jack shit at that point because nobody's life was threatened once the "stalker" stopped stalking the kid.

  10. Post #50
    Gold Member
    J Paul's Avatar
    October 2007
    2,798 Posts
    You're trying to argue that by following Martin that instigated the fight but that wouldn't make sense when we hear Zimmerman (on the phone call recording released to the public) agree to stop following the boy at the dispatcher's request and thus stops and begins walking back to his car to meet with police. It would be at that moment the tables shift. Everything that happens after that is indeed crucial and it's details like that that we (the public) don't really have but would also be the details that blow the case open enough for Zimmerman's self defense if you ask me.

    Zimmerman following Martin means jack shit at that point because nobody's life was threatened once the "stalker" stopped stalking the kid.
    How does it mean jack shit? Nothing in the description for the position he voluntarily held involves going out and following people in the first place, therefore he has no business ever being there in the first place, therefore it's very important that his decision making is what led him to that circumstance, and I believe he has a personal responsibility to the decisions he made.

    Besides, the other point is the fact that stand your ground applies to any perceived threat. The problem here is the fact that Martin isn't alive to tell us whether or not he felt he perceived a threat that he felt he needed to act against.

  11. Post #51
    Gold Member
    Jim_Riley's Avatar
    February 2006
    1,497 Posts
    How does it mean jack shit? Nothing in the description for the position he voluntarily held involves going out and following people in the first place, therefore he has no business ever being there in the first place, therefore it's very important that his decision making is what led him to that circumstance, and I believe he has a personal responsibility to the decisions he made.

    Besides, the other point is the fact that stand your ground applies to any perceived threat. The problem here is the fact that Martin isn't alive to tell us whether or not he felt he perceived a threat that he felt he needed to act against.

    Nothing says he can't either and I'm pretty sure following Martin for a short time isn't enough of instigating a fight...especially since he apparently loses Martin at some point and agrees to meet up with police.

    So, if what Zimmerman says is true about being attacked from behind, after he STOPPED at the request of the dispatcher, then the stand your ground law applies to him and he can claim self-defense.

  12. Post #52
    Gold Member
    Nazereth666's Avatar
    September 2006
    2,527 Posts
    Nothing says he can't either and I'm pretty sure following Martin for a short time isn't enough of instigating a fight...especially since he apparently loses Martin at some point and agrees to meet up with police.

    So, if what Zimmerman says is true about being attacked from behind, after he STOPPED at the request of the dispatcher, then the stand your ground law applies to him and he can claim self-defense.
    His word is not gonna hold in court, there is no proof of who attacked who first. Although he SAID he stopped does not mean that is exactly what happened.

  13. Post #53
    Gold Member
    J Paul's Avatar
    October 2007
    2,798 Posts
    Nothing says he can't either and I'm pretty sure following Martin for a short time isn't enough of instigating a fight...especially since he apparently loses Martin at some point and agrees to meet up with police.

    So, if what Zimmerman says is true about being attacked from behind, after he STOPPED at the request of the dispatcher, then the stand your ground law applies to him and he can claim self-defense.
    If I were the prosecution, I'd attempt to demonstrate the possibility that Martin could have perceived a threat from the guy following him stopping and returning to his car. A car can be a serious hazard to a pedestrian, especially one that is being actively pursued by the driver of the car. So even in a situation where Zimmerman's story is 100% accurate, it can still be reasoned that Martin reacted in the way he did because he honestly felt that he perceived a threat.

    That's why I was originally asking about the law in the previous thread. My understanding of it is that if you perceive a threat against your life, retreat isn't a requirement. Could it not be reasoned that Martin merely attempted to take action against the threat at what he saw to be the most opportune time?

    I don't claim to know what happened. All I know is what's out there. But what's out there just screams to me that this stand your ground shit can be reasonably applied to either side here and the only reason it's really only being discussed in Zimmerman's favor is because he's the only one still alive.

    I seriously believe that if Martin were alive, this whole thing would be a simple case of two people, one confused and the other paranoid and delusional, both saying "but this crazy guy was trying to kill me so I had to defend myself". Zimmerman just unfortunately happened to have a firearm at the time. But it's his exceptional wilfulness to put himself into a position where this type of thing can happen to him that makes me feel like Zimmerman is responsible for this situation. Because it's not just this time, he has done stuff similar to this before and public record shows he appears to have been a creepy, self-entitled, sometimes violent guy who acts on his own whims on almost a consistent basis for quite a while. It was this acting on his own selfish whims that led him to the altercation, so he should be held responsible for that.

  14. Post #54
    Gold Member
    supersoldier58's Avatar
    August 2009
    2,254 Posts
    I wan't to say that Zimmerman is guilty but I think my opinion has been compromised with all the shit the media has shoved down my throat. I just wish this case would end.

  15. Post #55
    Gold Member

    May 2005
    2,268 Posts
    He instigated contact and pursuit. Regardless of what happened afterward, the entire situation came about starting from the point where Zimmerman decided that he was more capable than the police dispatcher of distinguishing suspect from citizen. And as if that were not enough, he would go even further and take action.

    Regardless of anything that happened after Zimmerman started following the guy, the fact is Zimmerman started following the guy.

    And this isn't a childish game of 'who started it' because in this case it's crucial, relevant information. You can't start talking about the events that transpired after Zimmerman started following Martin of his own free will and against the advice of the police, without first addressing the fact that Zimmerman decided to start following martin of his own free will against the advice of the police.

    I hate to be so redundant here, but I feel like it's important. Because to me this is like if I started stalking someone and then called the police and told them I was stalking someone and they told me to stop, and then I didn't, and then I contacted the person I was stalking which resulted in an altercation where I had to kill the person. So I mean even if you stick to Zimmerman's story 100% and only consider things that are verified as fact, it still stands that he should have never even considered putting himself in that situation in the first place because it's not his business to be following anyone under any circumstances. I've still yet to see any neighborhood watch captain's job description that includes any kind of shit like that.

    Do hired private security guards even do shit like that?
    Zimmerman is claiming that he did not initiate contact. He was (according to his story) following him, lost track of him, then was assaulted from behind while walking back to his car. According to his story he did not even have verbal, let alone physical contact with Trayvon.

    It's also legally irrelevant when he was told that he didn't need to follow Trayvon, he didn't commit a crime by doing that, whether or not anyone agrees with what he did is another story. The problem with your "if I started stalking" analogy is that in your analogy you "contacted the person" you were stalking, which according to Zimmerman's account, is not the case here. By Zimmerman's account, he was walking back to his car when Trayvon assailed him and made physical contact.


    If I were the prosecution, I'd attempt to demonstrate the possibility that Martin could have perceived a threat from the guy following him stopping and returning to his car. A car can be a serious hazard to a pedestrian, especially one that is being actively pursued by the driver of the car. So even in a situation where Zimmerman's story is 100% accurate, it can still be reasoned that Martin reacted in the way he did because he honestly felt that he perceived a threat.
    I highly doubt that would get far in court if it's true that Trayvon came up behind Zimmerman and launched an unprovoked assault against him.

  16. Post #56
    President of the Westboro Baptist Church Fan Club
    Dennab
    February 2012
    2,084 Posts
    What? Honestly find me a law he broke and I'll be glad to reconsider. I don't like that the kid died, I think Zimmerman should have taken the beating instead of killing him. But he didn't, he shot him, he killed Martin and there isn't a law he broke while doing so.
    Head being smashed repeatedly into concrete.

    "take the beating"

  17. Post #57
    Gold Member
    J Paul's Avatar
    October 2007
    2,798 Posts
    Zimmerman is claiming that he did not initiate contact. He was following him, lost track of him, then was assaulted from behind while walking back to his car. According to his story he did not even have verbal, let alone physical contact with Trayvon.

    It's also legally irrelevant when he was told that he didn't need to follow Trayvon, he didn't commit a crime by doing that, whether or not anyone agrees with what he did is another story. The problem with your "if I started stalking" analogy is that in your analogy you "contacted the person" you were stalking, which according to Zimmerman's account, is not the case here. By Zimmerman's account, he was walking back to his car when Trayvon assailed him and made physical contact.

    I highly doubt that would get far in court if it's true that Trayvon came up behind Zimmerman and launched an unprovoked assault against him.
    I'm aware of that and in agreement, that is Zimmerman's story. And I agree it probably wouldn't get far in court because nobody is here to argue from Trayvon's point of view and define whether or not he felt he perceived a threat and acted against it in accordance with the law. But by contact, I suppose I mean physical proximity, not an exchange of words. My mistake, I should be more clear. By the initial point of contact, I was actually referring to the point where Zimmerman basically decides he's defined an individual as a suspect. Sorry if this wasn't worded correctly, contact does imply a more direct, less one-sided exchange, I should have used a different word.

    Have you ever been followed before? Or followed someone? It's possible for a person to know you're following them without you walking up and saying hello. The fact that he lost Martin lends credence to the idea that Martin probably noticed he was being pursued and tried to get away, hid, observed his pursuer, and then reacted to this perceived threat at what he believed was the most opportune time to do so in order to preserve his life.

    What I'm saying is that regardless of the fact that Zimmerman may have honestly felt that he had to defend himself, it can be reasoned that Martin's motive for acting in accordance with Zimmerman's story would be the very same thing, that he honestly felt that he had to defend himself. Except Zimmerman is responsible for the whole scenario, having placed Martin into this position by effectively playing cat and mouse with him. The mouse tried what he thought would be a last ditch sneak attack effort after briefly evading pursuit, and that turned out to be a bad decision.

    I'm not saying Martin's innocent either, he made a bad decision in defending where there wasn't a real threat to him (in Zimmerman's story). But what I'm saying is that from a legal responsibility point if view, I feel it all goes back to Zimmerman's actions in that he did what he did and took the situation into his own hands by imagining a threat and taking action to pursue it where there was no real threat to begin with. What happened after that can be well reasoned to be a purely accidental circumstance resulting from another bad decision influenced by the first, but regardless of the accident that happened later, Zimmerman as a human being who is responsible for his own actions, should be held responsible for what occurred.

  18. Post #58
    RopaDope's Avatar
    June 2011
    1,000 Posts
    Zimmerman made an apology to the family saying he thought he was older before he killed him.

  19. Post #59
    Gold Member
    Jim_Riley's Avatar
    February 2006
    1,497 Posts
    His word is not gonna hold in court, there is no proof of who attacked who first. Although he SAID he stopped does not mean that is exactly what happened.

    I never said that's what happened and whether it's conclusive in anyway. It's all assumption and I'm being objective based on current information.

    Jim_Riley posted:
    So, if what Zimmerman says is true...

    What I'm saying is that regardless of the fact that Zimmerman may have honestly felt that he had to defend himself, it can be reasoned that Martin's motive for acting in accordance with Zimmerman's story would be the very same thing, that he honestly felt that he had to defend himself. Except Zimmerman is responsible for the whole scenario, having placed Martin into this position by effectively playing cat and mouse with him. The mouse tried what he thought would be a last ditch sneak attack effort after briefly evading pursuit, and that turned out to be a bad decision.
    With that said, then wouldn't Martin be more likely deemed the aggressor since he went out of his way to do a stupid "sneak attack"? Martin wasn't forced into fighting Zimmerman if he wanted to do a "sneak attack". Martin could have easily kept going and ignore the strange man that followed him and stopped (by Zimmerman's account of course). Martin had nothing on him and you'd think since he's so close to home that it'd be more realistic that he just lose the man he was one minute trying to keep his distance from rather than move in for an attack. That's blatant self-defense for Zimmerman then.

    Honestly, I understand exactly what you're saying and I don't disagree with it because it's stupid or anything like that. It's a reasonable assumption to make and it can make sense. However, it can be trumped if what happened is exactly as Zimmerman described it, imo.

    Ultimately, we don't know right?

    I'm still waiting for some massive trump card that the public has yet to hear and that it'll be revealed in court.

  20. Post #60

    February 2012
    5 Posts
    He killed a kid, and he is released on bail. What the fuck...
    haha he killed a black kid who needed to stay in his cage!

    Edited:

    well one guy said that stand your ground law doesn't cover situations in which you were the instigator of the conflict.
    Not if trayvon hit him first!

    (User was permabanned for this post ("Gimmick" - Swebonny))

  21. Post #61
    Gold Member
    Meller Yeller's Avatar
    June 2010
    10,243 Posts
    With all the ridiculous back and forths I still have absolutely no idea what happened

  22. Post #62
    Gold Member
    J Paul's Avatar
    October 2007
    2,798 Posts
    I never said that's what happened and whether it's conclusive in anyway. It's all assumption and I'm being objective based on current information.






    With that said, then wouldn't Martin be more likely deemed the aggressor since he went out of his way to do a stupid "sneak attack"? Martin wasn't forced into fighting Zimmerman if he wanted to do a "sneak attack". Martin could have easily kept going and ignore the strange man that followed him and stopped (by Zimmerman's account of course). Martin had nothing on him and you'd think since he's so close to home that it'd be more realistic that he just lose the man he was one minute trying to keep his distance from rather than move in for an attack. That's blatant self-defense for Zimmerman then.

    Honestly, I understand exactly what you're saying and I don't disagree with it because it's stupid or anything like that. It's a reasonable assumption to make and it can make sense. However, it can be trumped if what happened is exactly as Zimmerman described it, imo.

    Ultimately, we don't know right?

    I'm still waiting for some massive trump card that the public has yet to hear and that it'll be revealed in court.
    Well yeah that's kind of what I was saying as well, either way can be reasonably argued, there's no doubt there. Like I said, with what we know, it can be reasonably argued that it was just an unfortunate accident. But do you disagree with me that Zimmerman should bear responsibility for putting both himself and Martin in that position? And this is entirely outside of fact, this is pure opinion.

    Like I said, definitely a bad idea to turn around and attack your pursuer, I agree with that too, that's why it can be reasoned either way. Like say someone's getting mugged and they make the stupid, wrong, terrible decision to fight back and they picked the wrong guy on the wrong day and just turned a regular jacking into a murder. Both parties fucked up, but there is a clear line somewhere that someone fucked up first and I personally feel that person probably should bear some legal responsibility for it. That someone had to fuck up first is a fact that I'm sure we can agree on, but how you feel about that person's obligation to personal responsibility for that is the opinion part I'm asking you. If you care to indulge.

  23. Post #63
    Gold Member
    Nazereth666's Avatar
    September 2006
    2,527 Posts
    I never said that's what happened and whether it's conclusive in anyway. It's all assumption and I'm being objective based on current information.
    I apologize, I read your post way too fast.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Friendly Friendly x 1 (list)

  24. Post #64
    Gold Member
    flamehead5's Avatar
    August 2008
    1,299 Posts
    The only way witness protection would work is if he had a private security team, and he movied to an extremely remote area.

  25. Post #65
    Gold Member

    May 2005
    2,268 Posts
    The only way witness protection would work is if he had a private security team, and he movied to an extremely remote area.
    Meh, well no one really cares about Casey Anthony anymore, to use a comparison. People don't really have huge attention spans for these kinds of things. If the charges are dropped and he goes free there would probably be outrage for a short while, then after a few months no one would care.

  26. Post #66
    Gold Member
    Jim_Riley's Avatar
    February 2006
    1,497 Posts
    I personally feel that person probably should bear some legal responsibility for it. That someone had to fuck up first is a fact that I'm sure we can agree on, but how you feel about that person's obligation to personal responsibility for that is the opinion part I'm asking you. If you care to indulge.
    I don't entirely agree with such a an open-ended statement like "If he didn't follow him in the first place..." because that's hardly conclusive. That doesn't mean anything. 'Would've, Could've, Should've' (pardon the expression) can't realistically hold up in court. You could say that Martin shouldn't have assaulted Zimmerman from behind (in accordance to Zimmerman's story again, bare with me) and he'd still be alive.

    Maybe there shouldn't have been so many break-ins in that neighborhood in the last two months then Zimmerman wouldn't feel like patrolling the streets (I'm not entirely sure how true all that was but I had heard on the radio that THAT was the reason Zimmerman was even out that night). You could even say something like Zimmerman should have never been born and Martin could be alive today because they'd never cross paths that day (a bit extreme but you understand where I'm going with it?).

    With regards to personal responsibility, I look at it a little differently. It's definitely something that Zimmerman has to weigh on his own shoulders and I'm sure he feels the guilt on his end because not only did he kill someone but it was a teenager as well. At least I'd like to think he feels guilt. I don't actually know how he feels about it.

    To a degree, Martin was put into a situation when Zimmerman began following him, sure. However, that situation would have ended if Zimmerman gave up chasing the kid and was walking back to his car, losing sight of the kid. No necessary action needs to be taken on Martin's side; Danger was avoided. And thus I feel the personal responsibility here is no longer just on Zimmerman, but on Martin as well. Since there's no law that says you can't actually follow somebody and since Zimmerman followed him for only a small amount of time, ultimately losing sight of him (so we hear him comment of course),--turns his back and heads for his car--that's why I can't say that it's at that moment Zimmerman would be the person who "fucked up" first. Now do I believe that Zimmerman should get off scot-free? Not necessarily. I believe he should lose his gun license or at least let the police make him reconsider the neighborhood watch business, regardless of his good intentions. He shouldn't be tried for Second Degree Murder though.

    I initially said once that this was a case of two stubborn SOB's butting heads but one ended up dying. So you're right that both parties fucked up. Specifically where and when they fucked up...well, obviously we don't entirely agree on that.