prosecutors can convict people who weren't even in the same state when the crime was committed, even when the person has corroborative witnesses. Not that it's right, by any means, but because our system kinda sucks it doesn't have to be near rock solid a case as some seem to think.

b

ffs, People are still clamoring over this kid hiding? As in, "He obviously wasn't afraid, why didn't he sprint home?"? I can give a bunch of logical reasons that don't end with scoffing at this kid's fear. I have no problem conceding GZ feared for his life at the time he shot his gun, but mother of god, you guys can't even concede that this kid was afraid being followed at night??? Fear, how the **** does it work?

I've already gone over when I was in a similar circumstance--sometimes taking cover and trying to lose someone seems safer than an all-out race to a close-by front door. You risk engaging in a footrace against someone who's faster than you, and you risk letting the person know where you live.

Also, as DJB pointed out, fear isn't static. Minor alarm can turn to life-fearing terror in an instant, e.g., when the guy you suspect is following you at night appears inexplicably right in front of you behind houses.

And remember this is a teenager. The scrutiny of this kid's behavior is amazing. The very fact of assuming he hid in wait without fear and then attacked from behind presupposes TM is messed up. He either has balls of steel or has inhumanly low levels of fear, and he's also violent and calculating. If I get even a hint that someone is following me at night I can barely think at all, and I assume it's the same for most of you, because that's natural. Some of you are applying rigorous hindsight rationalization to a situation where what to do not only isn't clear in hindsight (like I said, sometimes it's logical just to lose the person), but isn't clear at the time when your head is clouded with fear. And you lose a *ton* of credibility when you assume TM couldn't have been afraid, that he had bad intentions, or that TM acted unreasonably, but assume GZ's intentions were pure or that his actions fall at all within normal behavior. I wanna tear my hair out every time I see "I would've just sprinted home, this kid musta been up to something" next to "What? Nothing wrong with what GZ did."

If the defense tries this strategy--one where it presupposes TM is a violent thug capable of coolly lying in wait, possibly even hoping GZ passes him (WHY ELSE WOULDN'T HE HAVE RAN??), the defense had better have some solid character evidence to back it up. If they baselessly demonize the deceased victim, where the jury's sympathy will initially be, they risk coming across as callous and irrational. It's not good trial strategy for the person on trial to piss the jury off.


And one final thing for those of you who can't fathom why GZ is currently awaiting trial or how he can possibly be guilty of anything or how the prosecution can possibly have a case. You have a sensational mixture of a misunderstanding of the case's facts, how trials work, and reasonable behavior. As a simple example for how GZ can be ****ed, the jury does not have to believe a word of his story. There is no presumption of truth to his words. His full story is thin as it is (ymmv on this point I guess), and all it takes is for the prosecution to find a single hole for the dominoes of credibility to start to fall. Imagine if there's more than one hole. Hell, apparently there are a bunch of text messages the prosecution hopes to introduce, and those had better corroborate 100% his story.

Are they checking his timecard or something? Does he have specific times he's 'on duty?'

b

I don't think the HOA would have said 'you should carry a gun' but they couldn't exactly tell him not to carry the gun while walking around the neighborhood either.

Neblis already pointed out that TM running was wrong.

b

There are a bunch of people arguing that not running is per se evidence of bad intentions.

That was a good post, timotheeee.

inb4 someone says Timotheeee clearly doesn't understand the law or how the trial works.

b

Im curious if GZ actually said that to cops, if he did then as Ive said before it is pretty clear that he is covering up for him trying to draw his gun and thus by his own words he made the first aggressive move.

Wait... someone needs a good reason to run away from complete strangers following them?

I love it... TM looked "suspicious" so GZ followed him. A 17 year old kid gets nervous that an older man is following him and if he runs away its 'for no reason.'

I'll remember to teach that to my kids. "Boys, if some strange man is clearly following you make sure you don't run away... you'll just look suspicious."

After the realization that the government can prosecute and convict a turnip if so desired. They have an extraordinary amount of power that they can use and abuse. That's a reality and its bizarre that so many here are actively hoping the government will do just that.

You completely missed the context.

So, if Zimmerman wasn't chasing after Martin with a gun, how did he wind up shooting Martin behind some apartments a considerable distance from his vehicle?

It would not be the first time.

Actually, I think you did.