Yes will, everyone does have their own understanding of morality, however pretending like all of those understandings are equal is pretty dumb. Also, we are not talking about applying morals to society as a whole (although we do that everyday...in fact without doing that there would be no such thing as society,) we are talking about the morality of GZ's behavior. Now, you can argue the opposing side of my points, if you had even bothered to read them, they are scattered throughtout the tread. That would be fine. That is called discussion. However, to jump on in and say "your morals are irrelevant" and the other horse**** you just spewed is not an argument it is an unwillingness to engage in discussion and admission that, in your mind, morality does not matter. In short, their was not one intelligent thought articulated in your entire post.

GZ doesn't have to prove it. The state has to prove GZ started it. What have they done to disprove the self defense argument? Once self defense is raised as the defense the burden of proof shifts to the state. They have presented literally no evidence that he didn't act in self defense. They have presented literally no evidence that he started the altercation. Wouldn't you agree that since they have the burden and they have presented no evidence, there is reasonable doubt?

That was an engagement. Your ideas and your morals are both irrelevant to the subject at hand, and generally obnoxious. What possible purpose does it serve to discuss your personal feelings wrt a criminal trial? We get it, you don't like gz, you've told us that many many many times. Thanks for your input on the matter. Most everyone itt dislikes gz, including many who have said he shouldn't be prosecuted for over a year now.

A sense of morality where you can't defend yourself from getting your head bounced of concrete is a dumb one

A sense of morality where you can assume anyone you don't know is up to no good and incite a confrontation in which you get your ass kicked and then shoot the person is also pretty dumb.

For example: At this point I would not be a favorite in most fights. So, is it moral for me to follow someone around a neighborhood in the dark, possibly forcing him (or at least making him feel forced) into a confrontation, start getting my ass kicked, and then shoot that person?

(Because if that is moral, let alone legal... )

This forum has changed the rules of law. GZ is required to prove innocence. Isn't the prosecution required to prove guilt? All we know for sure is GZ was losing the fight with TM. No one knows who started the fight.

Will: I have made it pretty clear that i am not discussing it in regards to a criminal trial I have acknowledged, if you bothered to read AT ALL, that he is and should be acquitted.

But thank you for playing "Basic Reading Comprehension," you weren't a winner this time but we have some lovely parting gifts for you.

Making it a moral argument doesn't mean you get to assert things without evidence

My statement was not in regards to burden of proof or the standing of the case. It was in regards to the jump people have made from reasonable doubt, which their clearly is, to the idea that the George Zimmerman version of events is clearly absolutely true.

How do you know Zimmerman incited a confrontation again?

Lol

There was also a broken nose and ME mentioned his head was hit on the concrete a "minimum of three times"

Nothing to see here folks. Getting
Straddled, punched in the face, having nose broken, and Head getting bashed on concrete multiple times with no signs of TM stopping is nothing to worry about.

Is this what you really think?

You think GZ had nothing to worry about here?

I understand the argument of GZ acting in a way that he shouldn't have before Trayvon started beating him, but completely dismissing the position GZ was in is extremely obtuse.

Again, you posit "facts" that aren't proven.

You don't know that GZ was or wasn't going back to his truck.

You don't know that TM was or wasn't waiting to teach the creepy cracker a lesson.

You don't know if GZ asked TM what he was doing there and TM responded by throwing a punch or if something else happened.

Oh, but you know for certain that GZ incited a confrontation. Based on what?

Not from legal standpoint, but from a moral one. What makes you so sure?

Again, if GZ asked TM what he was doing there and TM had responded that he was visiting friends, would a shot have been fired?

Yes I realize you've stated that he should be acquitted, and that is all that really matters. Have you not realized that people simply aren't engaging you on the morality play? It's not because you have come up with a brilliant argument that can't be countered, it's that the discussion is dumb, and really isn't worth having. Let me spell it out in a way that maybe you will understand. YOUR MORALS DON'T MATTER. Stop with the stupidity already.

As you pointed out. Society has a way of dictating morals to the masses. They are called laws, and the legal issues are the only things that are remotely interesting or relevant to this case. That you think gz is a bad guy is well known, and again, most people (including myself) agree with you. Fair point, well made, congratulations. Can we stop littering the thread with a constant stream of aids now?

The fact that you are posting something like this while being a lawyer, should really be embarrassing.

Why take the chance of screwing up on the stand when you have the case already won? There's no way I'd risk taking the stand and making a mistake when I didn't even need to get on it.

I don't know why with him being suspended for the third time and for ten days was not grounded and did not have his phone taken away.

Mr. Martin did say Trayvon was his best friend. Seventeen year olds don't need their dad being their best friend, they need them guiding them and keeping them in line.

The football-spiking when douchebag Zimmerman is acquitted is sure to be the paragon of classiness.

Re: the 'honorable' **** asking GZ to explicitly say he didn't want to testify (jury or no jury, we all know cameras are rolling and that'd be played ad nauseam by GZ's detractors):

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...trios-halikias

Didn't entire chain of events start with TM being followed?

This has seemingly been the prosecutions story all along. It seems like an attempt at a Jedi mind trick where they do not have anything close to a crystal clear narrative.

They have put on a poorly executed defense like case instead of the iron clad "this this and this happened how and when" case that a prosecutor needs to put on for a successful conviction. Even worse they have two massive burdens on them, yet nobody in the world outside of the prosecutors , know what they think happened. Never mind the evidence then needed to support it.

This trial ended up being a sham, a farce and a mockery. Angela Corey should be held responsible for perpetrating this mess.

Maybe the term "best friend" means something different to Trayvon's father than it does to you.

But if you are going to make assumptions about someone's personality based on race then you might as well make assumptions about the entirety of their relationship with their parent based on a single, vague statement- it fits in with your overall mentality. And it fits with the mentality of zim who was so fatally suspicious of Trayvon when he had literally no logical reason to be. Prejudiced people recognize their own and speak up for them.

That's... embarrassing.

That judge... lol. Wow. At least pretend to be impartial.

Wow. What a ****!

What is the evidence even that GZ is a racist or a generally worse person than the average not well educated American? By the way i dont exactly feel great about the average American or avg citizen of earth anyway (in terms of what to expect regarding self serving behavior, ignorance, hostility etc). Regardless of that impression i have about averages i still treat the avg unknown human being i meet out there with a sense of responsibility, respect and standard affection for their promise and potential. You have a friend in me as the standard approach every time.

When you consider the situation that GZ was placed at after the repeated robberies and after helping that neighbor woman and after helping arrest a previous guy and after having the function of community watch/protector etc and the frustration with prior robberies that lead to no arrests ie 400 911 calls past 1-2 years in that community, what on earth its like once a day, are you kidding me that anyone elected by others to be watching there wouldnt be all over observing an erratically moving unknown young guy in a hoodie? The black thing is only minimally relevant as standard Bayesian bias because the prior thieves were seen as black suspects and one was arrested and was black and pretty much prison+FBI homicide rates in US involve like 2-3 times more blacks than their population would suggest if all else was equal (ie if no bias).

So given the bias in crime, the recent activity in the area and the community role the guy was playing where the hell are you all getting the conclusion that he is a racist or a sociopath or a bad guy that deserves to be hated?

All i can say about this guy is that he doesnt look very inspiring and that if i were in his shoes i probably would have spoken to Trayvon from a distance in a kind and still inquiring manner that would feel minimally threatening ( so as to abort any plans) to a potential thief without causing any violence and would also evade any problems or misunderstanding between any hot headed male that was otherwise innocent of any potential assumption/profiling of high probability of criminal intend and also so as not to insult a truly innocent random passing /visiting guy.

So yes i think GZ should have acted better and i reserve a small chance we dont know something important about the story that makes him very bad person but given all else that is available and the situation under it all happened, the injuries, the fight/drug history of young Martin, the proximity of the shooting to body and the inability for the fight to stop after 911 calls were suggested were made (plus the fact GZ knew the police was coming anyway so why kill -or get to a fight- someone in such small window) , i have to wonder exactly where you guys draw the conclusion that GZ is racist or a bad person, worse than the avg not well educated American? To me it seems Martin is worse than Zimmerman here as the evidence paints it all.

Its amazing how screwed up people are (and how bad the history of racism etc) to be jumping the racial issues so fast and instantly converting TM into an innocent little kid victim poster boy for racial equality rights and GZ as the nasty bad sociopath KKK almost member. I mean part of real racism is to be seeing also racism in everything and ignoring any personal responsibility of your own group of people or lack of empathy for the condition others are found!!! That said i have no doubt some serious sob racists exist in America in all races and that blacks in underprivileged areas are essentially profiled all the time and abused by society to a point that it impacts their chances for a happy prosperous life. But to break the cycle you need also to stop feeling like a victim and impose your greatness to others with actions and choices and kindness not behavior that is aggressive and full of lack of self confidence.

What I remember MOM saying is that you have to know someone to have ill will or spite against them. That's laughable. A corollary to that would be that hate speech isn't representative of real hate because the purveyors don't really know the intended targets. I suppose the Nazis didn't have ill will or spite toward the Jewish people since they didn't take the time to know each of the 6 million they killed individually. GTFO with that nonsense.

And GTFO with the nonsense that zim wasn't referring to Trayvon as an *******. Yes he is calling a group "*******s" but he is also explicitly including Trayvon in that group.

Is this the best defense against the charge of ill will or spite? one half-ass easily dismantled semantic fail and the ridiculous assertion that you have to know someone to have ill will or spite towards them? Is that the best you have?