Originally Posted by trob888

So if you took on the responsibility to protect your neighborhood, a neighborhood that has a history of break-ins, and you see someone you think is snooping around suspiciously at night, in the rain, you wouldn't feel that you have a responsibility to make sure he isn't up to no good?

Originally Posted by trob888

So if you took on the responsibility to protect your neighborhood, a neighborhood that has a history of break-ins, and you see someone you think is snooping around suspiciously at night, in the rain, you wouldn't feel that you have a responsibility to make sure he isn't up to no good?

Originally Posted by RacersEdge

come on timothee - that's a pretty big spin job - the bottom line to objective observers is that there is no evidence contradicting self defense - and for proof see the affidavit put together by the state - and they were trying to show potential guilt.

Originally Posted by timotheeeee

I was reading the comments from the most recent CNN article last night. I was flabbergasted at the amount of people who think Zimmerman did absolutely nothing wrong. I get the argument that—if you buy Zimmerman’s entire story—that he might have been justified via a reasonable belief that he was in great danger. But jfc, it takes a special person to look at his actions up to the point of the fight and think this guy did nothing wrong.

Admittedly the comments on CNN are more retarded than on here, but itt I still see crap like, “What? Perfectly legal to follow people. Can’t hold that against Zimmerman.”

You can’t just say “following people is legal” and leave it at that. A lot of things that are perfectly legal in one context are creepy/wrong in another. Following behind a hot girl in the mall for a short while is fine. Following her into Victoria’s Secret, waiting outside the changing area for her to finish, then following her home to see where she lives crosses a line, even though at that point it’s still probably legal. Regardless of whether it’s legal to follow her around the mall, at some point she’s justified in approaching you to find out what the hell you’re doing.

Originally Posted by bernie

I agree.

But then there's the part of who's fault the potential became reality by bringing the gun along in the first place. It's plausible to say if there was no gun, TM would be alive and Zim would likely have just had his ass kicked.

b

Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson

Hypothetically, if you actually knew someone on the inside who was dumb enough to violate rules of evidence on a case with this much publicity and federal involvement by emailing you inside information, would it really be a smart move to drop teaser hints about it on an internet forum?

Just a hypothetical.

Originally Posted by Money2Burn

Hey guys, GZ was just doing his dutiful best to protect his neighborhood and make it a better place. So what if innocent people get harassed and an innocent kid gets killed, you have to break a few eggs to make an egg white omelet, AMIRITE?

Originally Posted by fatkid

Very, very good post. Team Zimm gonna Team Zimm.

The procecution let on about huge inconsistencies in Zimms statements to police. If the self defense is so cut and dry why would Zimm have to change his story one bit to the police? I wonder if the Zimmfriends will still defend him after these lies are exposed?

Originally Posted by BCPVP

See the famous James Duane video Don't Talk to the Police. Even if you're completely innocent, you shouldn't talk to the police because if they get you to talk for long enough, eventually they'll find something inconsistent.

If all the prosecution has are some inconsistencies in Z's story that he wound up telling 5 separate times or so, it seems like they still have an uphill battle. The lead investigator admitted under oath that the State:
1) doesn't know who started the fight
2) has nothing to contradict Z's story of walking back to his car
3) can't tell who was screaming for help via audio forensics and
4) Z's injuries may be consistent with his story.

Originally Posted by RacersEdge

come on timothee - that's a pretty big spin job - the bottom line to objective observers is that there is no evidence contradicting self defense - and for proof see the affidavit put together by the state - and they were trying to show potential guilt.

Originally Posted by [Phill]

He should do a followup video entitled "Dont harass teen then shoot them dead cos they dont like you harassing them".

Originally Posted by [Phill]

He should do a followup video entitled "Dont harass teen then shoot them dead cos they dont like you harassing them".