Court rules for NBC in George Zimmerman defamation case

[Cozarkian]

I didn't add facts.

Zimmerman told the police that Trayvon said "is there a problem homie?" And instead of answering the question, he reached (in the area where he keeps his gun) for his phone. Then Trayvon punched him. :/

I said if the only facts were that Zimmerman left the truck and followed him...

You stated I was wrong based on the above facts. Those go beyond leaving the truck and following him. So, yes, you added facts.

 

[Sc0rp]

I said if the only facts were that Zimmerman left the truck and followed him...

You stated I was wrong based on the above facts. Those go beyond leaving the truck and following him. So, yes, you added facts.

But him leaving his truck and following Trayvon aren't the only facts. That's the point. If the only facts of Trayvons behavior are that he was walking around and ran away from Zimmerman, then Zimmerman was wrong to leave his truck. See how this works?

I didn't add facts to the scenario as Zimmerman states it. I included bits that support my argument from Zimmermans own mouth. Why would he lie in my favor? Why would he lie about reaching for something? Perhaps he doesn't know if anyone saw him reach for something, so he figures that he better mention and explain what he's reaching for now. The point is that it is a fact that he admitted to reaching for something. Blame Zimmerman for that, not me.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Well, I'm not the one that's trying to say people are posting from multiple accounts and I'm not the one that's in full denial mode like you are.

You keep saying that you'll wait for an appeal, but I don't see you shutting up and doing what you said you'd do.

Nor do I see accepting the actual facts of the case and the fact there's no evidence that backs up your half truths, innuendo, or fairy tales. If there was any concrete evidence that proved this was not a case of self defense GZ would have been convicted. I'm sure we'll you continue to see you twisting in the wind trying to get people to believe in your fairy tales.

 

[Sc0rp]

Nor do I see accepting the actual facts of the case and the fact there's no evidence that backs up your half truths, innuendo, or fairy tales. If there was any concrete evidence that proved this was not a case of self defense GZ would have been convicted. I'm sure we'll you continue to see you twisting in the wind trying to get people to believe in your fairy tales.

The facts support a great many differing beliefs of what happened. It isn't my fault that your mind is so limited that you look at the facts and believe whatever you are told by a liar like Zimmerman without looking at the situation or his claims critically.

 

[Cozarkian]

But him leaving his truck and following Trayvon aren't the only facts. That's the point.

This whole argument started when you typed this:

People hear that Zimmerman left his truck and ran after someone that he eventually killed. An overwhelming majority of the people that oppose him see something diametrically wrong with the behavior of him leaving his truck to run after someone into a figurative dark alley under those circumstances. Then there's the fact that everything he says out of his mouth gives off serious 'I'm lying to your face' vibes. Then he came out of the acquittal and suddenly he's a boxer and is chumming it up at Kal-Tek's headquarters and generally being a giant douche online. Then there are the get rich quick schemes and lastly his supporters and his family all over the Internet from day one.

Those were the only facts upon which you relied to condemn him. Now you are changing your tune when I pointed out that was akin to blaming the women who was raped.

I agree you should include those other facts before you try to condemn Zimmerman, but don't pretend I'm the one ignoring them, because it was you that didn't include them earlier.

 

[Sc0rp]

This whole argument started when you typed this:



Those were the only facts upon which you relied to condemn him. Now you are changing your tune when I pointed out that was akin to blaming the women who was raped.

I agree you should include those other facts before you try to condemn Zimmerman, but don't pretend I'm the one ignoring them, because it was you that didn't include them earlier.

I didn't change my tune about the rape thing, that is a stupid analogy that does not fit. A better analogy is that Zimmerman has a totaled car or a burned down house and he wants to blame NBC because they scratched the paint on the door to his totaled car, or flicked a cigarette onto the smoldering remains of his house that was already burned down. You can't wreck what's already destroyed.

Also you quoting me was again inaccurate. First off, you weren't directly responding to THAT statement in the comment that I responded to. By that time, the subject had completely changed. Secondly, see where I said 'under those circumstances'? That means that there was more involved than him simply leaving his vehicle and walking.

Looks like you're trying to move the goalposts.

The comment that you were just now quoting was in reference to why people hate Zimmerman. They hate him because he's perceived as someone that just had to be a big goddamn hero and escalated a situation unnecessarily resulting in a fatality. There is no doubt that Zimmerman was the first one to direct action at the other. My other comment about Zimmerman was about why Trayvon would have a reason and a right to use force upon Zimmerman, because Zimmerman made a false move after agitating the situation by following Trayvon around and then basically chasing him. The comment that YOU made that I was responding to, was itself a response to a comment someone else entirely made, and not a response to the comment that you deigned to post. Two different subjects entirely.

 

[WackyDan]

Right, and his current reputation on the issue at the time would clearly matter as to whether or not harm were done. This should be obvious to everyone.

If you were the Grand Dragon of the KKK and someone made up a story about you being mean to a black guy you would be very hard pressed to prove any kind of damages.

In this case, Zimmerman was a relative unknown was he not? You can speculate all you want about what his reputation was in his community or otherwise. What matters is that soon after the shooting, NBC aired an edited 911 tape that was damaging to his image in the whole affair. There are still people today who base their opinions on the Trayvon Martin shooting on that specific tape.

I can be an asshole in real life. It doesn't mean that you can't cause further damage to my reputation or cause a different negative view of my person. You can argue that his person prior to the shooting didn't have the best reputation - much of which could be construed as hearsay and much of which may be based simply on whether you judged him to be guilty before he even had a day in court. You need to step back and assess how much your opinion of Zimmerman impacts what you and others are trying to substantiate here.

 

[WackyDan]

What makes Trayvon a suspected criminal? Walking down the street is not against the law.

Look, it is NOT a criminal act for Trayvon to use force to defend himself if he believes that Zimmerman may use unlawful force upon him. Especially if Zimmerman had actually used unlawful force.

There is no evidence that Zimmerman used force first. Your argument is hollow.

Read what you wrote. By you logic, I can come up to you and use force on you if you don't threaten to use or use force against me first.

Sorry man, but even in SYG states, that doesn't fly and it is counter to pretty much every self defense statute on the books.

 

[Sc0rp]

There is no evidence that Zimmerman used force first. Your argument is hollow.

Read what you wrote. By you logic, I can come up to you and use force on you if you don't threaten to use or use force against me first.

Sorry man, but even in SYG states, that doesn't fly and it is counter to pretty much every self defense statute on the books.

Self defense law DOES NOT require someone else to use force first before you can initiate force upon them in self defense. Your belief that it does, is a complete fallacy.

Self defense law requires the REASONABLE BELIEF that someone else will imminently use force upon you. I cited TWO (2) cases in Florida where a person shot and killed an unarmed person that Did not lay a finger upon them based on the belief that they were reaching for a weapon.

There is NO self defense law in the union that I'm aware of that requires you to allow yourself to be attacked first before using force to defend yourself.

Florida's primary statute on justifiable use of force.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.012.html

This guy shot an unarmed guy that never laid a finger on him, and walked.

http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_128

This guy shot another guy that was walking away from an argument, and wasn't even arrested or charged with a crime.

http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_36

Both in Florida.

 

[Sc0rp]

In this case, Zimmerman was a relative unknown was he not? You can speculate all you want about what his reputation was in his community or otherwise. What matters is that soon after the shooting, NBC aired an edited 911 tape that was damaging to his image in the whole affair. There are still people today who base their opinions on the Trayvon Martin shooting on that specific tape.

I can be an asshole in real life. It doesn't mean that you can't cause further damage to my reputation or cause a different negative view of my person. You can argue that his person prior to the shooting didn't have the best reputation - much of which could be construed as hearsay and much of which may be based simply on whether you judged him to be guilty before he even had a day in court. You need to step back and assess how much your opinion of Zimmerman impacts what you and others are trying to substantiate here.

Zimmerman was already in the national news before NBC made their first story on him. His name was already hated, he was already being called a racist by people all over the country and NBC's broadcast had nothing to do with that.

 

[TerryMathews]

The facts support a great many differing beliefs of what happened. It isn't my fault that your mind is so limited that you look at the facts and believe whatever you are told by a liar like Zimmerman without looking at the situation or his claims critically.

Tl;Dr the facts support many different scenarios but you're stupid if you don't subscribe to mine.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I can remember many in here reading each discovery dump to see what the prosecution had used to arrest GZ due to the weak affidavit that was used. Many thought there had to be more to know, a big revelation or smoking gun only to find the prosecution had absolutely nothing to refute GZ's self defense claim. The trial showed that the prosecution never had a case and violated the justified use if force law as they had no probable cause that was backed up with evidence that proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt. No doubt this case was driven on political influence rather than evidence and the law.

 

[Sc0rp]

Tl;Dr the facts support many different scenarios but you're stupid if you don't subscribe to mine.

That's basically what the other guy said. What I'm saying is that he is saying that it is completely impossible for any other scenario to exist, which is foolish.

 

[Sc0rp]

I can remember many in here reading each discovery dump to see what the prosecution had used to arrest GZ due to the weak affidavit that was used. Many thought there had to be more to know, a big revelation or smoking gun only to find the prosecution had absolutely nothing to refute GZ's self defense claim. The trial showed that the prosecution never had a case and violated the justified use if force law as they had no probable cause that was backed up with evidence that proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt. No doubt this case was driven on political influence rather than evidence and the law.

There was plenty to refute his claim in the evidence. The prosecution simply did not use what was actually there. Remember when I brought up the misalignment earlier? I knew about that before the trial and the evidence in the discovery supports it. Did the prosecution use it? Nope. Did they know about it? They'd have to be blind not to.

Also, the fact that there's a dead body is enough to justify an arrest and at the very least an immunity hearing. To say there was no probable cause when there were legitimate questions as to Zimmermans behavior and motive, is absurd. Seriously, if they require an immunity hearing for all 'self defense' cases that use deadly force, then Florida wouldn't have the problems it has now.

 

[Cozarkian]

I didn't change my tune about the rape thing, that is a stupid analogy that does not fit. A better analogy is that Zimmerman has a totaled car or a burned down house and he wants to blame NBC because they scratched the paint on the door to his totaled car, or flicked a cigarette onto the smoldering remains of his house that was already burned down. You can't wreck what's already destroyed.

Looks like you're trying to move the goalposts.

Okay, let's play follow the post-trail. You started the argument with post #440, to which I responded in #445 (okay, maybe I started the argument by responding to #440). Emperus jumped in to give you an assist on the same topic in post #448. We exchanged posts 451, 463, and 465. At that point, apparently forgetting what the discussion was about, you jumped in on post 467 by adding facts not in the original hypothetical, leading to posts 468, 469, 476, 477, 480, 481 and this one.

The trail of posts relate directly back to post #440, the very one I quoted in post #480. It's okay, there was a lot of conversation on various topics on, and you were involved in most of it, so it is understandable that you lost track of the specifics of that argument.

The point is, if Zimmerman had done nothing but left the truck and followed Martin, it would be improper to blame him merely for those actions, either for the murder of Martin or for contributing to self-defamation. In post #440, you appeared to do just that. Your later position, that his subsequent actions, such as reaching for something that Martin could have thought was a gun, are a much more reasonable basis for blame.

 

[Cozarkian]

Also, the fact that there's a dead body is enough to justify an arrest and at the very least an immunity hearing.

You don't arrest someone when you have enough information to justify it. You arrest someone when you believe you will be able to gather sufficient evidence to convict him within the time allowed for a speedy trial. The cops probably wanted to dig around for witnesses and into Zimmerman's and Martin's history before making an arrest.

Assuming you can compel someone to come to an immunity hearing before they are charged, that seems like a good idea.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

There was plenty to refute his claim in the evidence. The prosecution simply did not use what was actually there. Remember when I brought up the misalignment earlier? I knew about that before the trial and the evidence in the discovery supports it. Did the prosecution use it? Nope. Did they know about it? They'd have to be blind not to.

Also, the fact that there's a dead body is enough to justify an arrest and at the very least an immunity hearing. To say there was no probable cause when there were legitimate questions as to Zimmermans behavior and motive, is absurd. Seriously, if they require an immunity hearing for all 'self defense' cases that use deadly force, then Florida wouldn't have the problems it has now.

If the prosecution had the evidence that would have convicted GZ they would have used such. The fact of the matter is the prosecution had absolutely nothing that would prove their case against GZ. All they had was "Fu$king Punks" and "Azzholes" which Guy screamed at the jury ad nauseam.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Also, the fact that there's a dead body is enough to justify an arrest and at the very least an immunity hearing.

Nope, that is why there are justified use of force laws, if the use of force is justified there's no reason to pursue it any further.

The 5th DCA had an interesting comment concerning such.

"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

 

[Sc0rp]

The point is, if Zimmerman had done nothing but left the truck and followed Martin, it would be improper to blame him merely for those actions, either for the murder of Martin or for contributing to self-defamation. In post #440, you appeared to do just that. Your later position, that his subsequent actions, such as reaching for something that Martin could have thought was a gun, are a much more reasonable basis for blame.

I don't have time to go through all those posts, the point is that all of my posts have been responses to what someone else said based on the subject matter of THEIR posts.

In post 440 I was talking about why people were pissed off at Zimmerman and why that pissedoffitude continued to mount. None of that had anything to do with NBC. You know the video that I linked of him doing his little walk through? That was released in the media, so were several other things. A lot of people left watching that video, or listening to the audio, of his interview with the police, with the impression that he is a bold-faced liar! Especially since many things that he told the police are simply not accurate with the objective facts.

I never said him reaching was something reasonable for people to blame anyone as the concept is OBVIOUSLY beyond the depth of many people's comprehension judging from a lot of the things I see people say about what's required to defend oneself. All I was saying about the reaching thing (in not so many words) was that it could be argued that him reaching the way he said he did, at that moment, under THOSE circumstances, is likely to trigger another person to go into a flight or fight mode to defend themselves from an unidentified man that:

1) looks like a potential mugger
2) has been following them around, likely while staring at them
3) chose to get out of his vehicle to run after them when they tried to de-escalate the situation by simply leaving.

You better bet your bottom dollar that if you did all the above and directed it at me, I'd want to know WHY I'm being followed and I'd want to know WHAT your problem is. If you make a false move, then I'd probably not take any chances on you pull out what you're reaching for and use whatever I have at my disposal to end the perceived threat that you just rolled out through your own reckless behavior.

That said, I NEVER said that the reaching was much more reasonable reason to blame because most people BLAME Zimmerman for leaving his truck and running after Martin at all! That's not copacetic behavior at all especially if you are from an area or background where real violence happens to people all the time. Personally, I blame Zimmerman because I can relate to Trayvons BEHAVIOR that night, but I can't relate to the action of getting out of the truck in a situation like that. From where I sit, he didn't have a reason to leave his vehicle other than to be a big goddamn hero and likely MAKE SURE that this is one A-Hole that doesn't get away. His decision was proactively directed at Trayvon. Trayvon's behavior was a REACTION to Zimmermans proactive behavior. Remove Zimmermans proactive behavior and you don't have an incident because there's nothing that's awry for Trayvon to react to.

 

[WackyDan]

Self defense law DOES NOT require someone else to use force first before you can initiate force upon them in self defense. Your belief that it does, is a complete fallacy.

Self defense law requires the REASONABLE BELIEF that someone else will imminently use force upon you. I cited TWO (2) cases in Florida where a person shot and killed an unarmed person that Did not lay a finger upon them based on the belief that they were reaching for a weapon.

There is NO self defense law in the union that I'm aware of that requires you to allow yourself to be attacked first before using force to defend yourself.

Florida's primary statute on justifiable use of force.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.012.html

This guy shot an unarmed guy that never laid a finger on him, and walked.

http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_128

This guy shot another guy that was walking away from an argument, and wasn't even arrested or charged with a crime.

http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_36

Both in Florida.

I could have worded that better, but you should learn how to fucking read.

I said this:
"Read what you wrote. By you logic, I can come up to you and use force on you if you don't threaten to use or use force against me first."

Unless you have reason to believe you are about to be assaulted, you can't simply attack someone. That person has to convey a threat - verbally or physically. If that person has not conveyed a threat to you verbally or physically, you are the instigator and any claim to self defense goes out the window. Pretty standard fare and considering I've been through four CCW classes where this logic is covered in detail, I think I might know a bit about it. Oh, and the force has to be deemed an appropriate response. Those cases in FL that you cite are a gross example of how SYG gets abused.

 

[Sc0rp]

If the prosecution had the evidence that would have convicted GZ they would have used such. The fact of the matter is the prosecution had absolutely nothing that would prove their case against GZ. All they had was "Fu$king Punks" and "Azzholes" which Guy screamed at the jury ad nauseam.

Were still on this?

I'm saying that the prosecution didn't want to win the case. It was a show trial that was fixed up from the ground up. Even the medical examiner (who they didn't prepare AT ALL) said that they didn't want to win the case and flat out told him what he will and won't discuss in court. Other witnesses were simply not asked obvious questions about what they saw and heard. They even allowed defense-friendly witnesses to lie on the stand with near impunity, only taking them to task when there was an uproar about it and there was rock solid evidence. On top of that, the prosecution didn't even call several witnesses at all. Not only that, they picked the absolute worst voice experts for the pretrial. The prosecution never mentioned that Trayvon had a right to defend himself if he believed Zimmerman was a threat and Trayvon never had a duty to go home. Instead, they wanted to argue that the fight didn't start at the T, which it did start at the T. They didn't object to a great deal of the objectionable things the defense said and did in the court. They even stood idly by and let O'Mara flat-out LIE to the court about the contents of a video that was on Trayvons phone. Then there was Matai using an Internet MEME during a presentation. There was Bernie pointing out that it would be impossible for Zimmerman to get his gun if he is being straddled. While that's true, he didn't get any of the experts to say that on the stand and I'm positive that they would agree that it was impossible.

Contrasts that to when the prosecution was in the line of fire and the defense tried to make a move against the prosecution itself. The prosecution was then a master surgeon that could cut gonads off with expert precision. As I recall, Bernie wrote a passion-filled response to a call for sanctions from the defense where he literally went Shakespeare on the defense and made them look like a pack of clowns on a level that they are still feeling to this day and was one of the high points of the entire trial. Other efforts to attack Bernie and the state failed to get any traction and were thoroughly quashed. The defense got nowhere on those motions.

I find it hard to believe that the prosecution would make all of these errors given their combined experience. These weren't first year law school grads. Bernie was a seasoned veteran with an excellent record of success. Matai and Guy weren't anything to scoff at either.

Like I said, they did not bring their guns to the shootout, but they had lots of guns to use that they just left on the shelf.

 

[Sc0rp]

I could have worded that better, but you should learn how to fucking read.

I said this:
"Read what you wrote. By you logic, I can come up to you and use force on you if you don't threaten to use or use force against me first."

Unless you have reason to believe you are about to be assaulted, you can't simply attack someone. That person has to convey a threat - verbally or physically. If that person has not conveyed a threat to you verbally or physically, you are the instigator and any claim to self defense goes out the window. Pretty standard fare and considering I've been through four CCW classes where this logic is covered in detail, I think I might know a bit about it. Oh, and the force has to be deemed an appropriate response. Those cases in FL that you cite are a gross example of how SYG gets abused.

The law flat out says that I can use force upon you in self defense if you don't threaten me or use force upon me first as long as I have a reasonable belief that you will IMMINENTLY use force upon me. I don't have to hear or see a clear threat. Do you think muggers just neatly announce themselves to their victims? Nope. Self defense is based on a PERCEPTION of BEHAVIOR and a SITUATION. Self defense is not based on what another party factually did or what another party factually said. Perhaps you should "learn how to fucking read"

What they teach you in a CCW course is more along the lines of safety guidelines, they are not exactly the law. Nobody wants you running around looking for excuses to shoot people. I understand the concept of the amount of force being appropriate, but life is NOT that simple and it is NOT that clean and antiseptic. Did you read the cases I cited? One guy shot and killed a guy for simple asking a question and reaching for his waistband. The shooter WALKED. Another case was two guys having an argument, one guy turns to leave and he gets shot in the neck and shoulder and dies. The shooter WAS NOT CHARGED. He was not threatened in that argument and the guy was walking away. But he said that he thought the other guy was going to go get a gun. The guy didn't SAY he was going to get a gun and he didn't lay a finger on the shooter.

 

[Sc0rp]

Nope, that is why there are justified use of force laws, if the use of force is justified there's no reason to pursue it any further.

The 5th DCA had an interesting comment concerning such.

"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

Under the law in Florida, Trayvon had a right to use force to defend himself. You are basically saying that if someone defends themselves and are killed, it is their own fault.

Also, in your cited case, the guy that's asking for an appeal was on HIS OWN PROPERTY and the other guy was CLEARLY NOT DEFENDING HIMSELF. The person that he shot came OVER TO HIS PROPERTY and attacked him and there were several witnesses there to see the whole thing, so there is NO QUESTION as to what happened.

Zimmerman, on the other hand, was NOT on his own property and he left his truck and RAN AFTER Trayvon, who was where he had a right to be and was apparently conducting lawful activities and then he made an admission conducting behavior that would justify Trayvon using force upon him in self defense. Not only that, but Zimmerman is on tape making statements that evince his state of mind concerning Trayvon and Zimmermans UNFOUNDED belief that Trayvon was a criminal of some sort without actually witnessing any criminal activity on the part of Martin.

In YOUR cited case, STINSON seems to have known the person that he shot and killed. Trayvon Didn't know who Zimmerman was. To a casual observer in Trayvons situation, Zimmerman could seem to be almost anything based on his behavior. He certainly never communicated that he was NHW.

The guy in that case didn't chase the guy he shot. THe Guy he shot came over to him. Also the shooter tried to save the shootee's life by taking him to the hospital.

Dude, this case is totally different. Why are you trying to ruse me?

 

[Cozarkian]

That said, I NEVER said that the reaching was much more reasonable reason to blame because most people BLAME Zimmerman for leaving his truck and running after Martin at all! That's not copacetic behavior at all especially if you are from an area or background where real violence happens to people all the time. Personally, I blame Zimmerman because I can relate to Trayvons BEHAVIOR that night, but I can't relate to the action of getting out of the truck in a situation like that. From where I sit, he didn't have a reason to leave his vehicle other than to be a big goddamn hero and likely MAKE SURE that this is one A-Hole that doesn't get away. His decision was proactively directed at Trayvon. Trayvon's behavior was a REACTION to Zimmermans proactive behavior. Remove Zimmermans proactive behavior and you don't have an incident because there's nothing that's awry for Trayvon to react to.

Okay, I think we've now come full circle, but let's make this clear. Assume the following: Zimmerman leaves his truck with the intention of following to make sure Trayvon Martin leaves the neighborhood without committing a crime. He takes no action that suggests he is carrying a weapon and makes no threatening sounds or gestures. Nonetheless, Trayvon Martin was worried about being followed and decides not to take any risks. He walks around a corner, ducks behind some bushes, waits for Zimmerman to catch up, and ambushes Zimmerman. Caught by surprise, Zimmerman is knocked to the ground and calls for Martin to "stop." Martin continues punching him, Zimmerman goes for his gun, which is knocked out of his hand and lands a few feet away. Zimmerman and Martin both reach for the gun.

Based on the above hypothetical, without adding any facts or crying about that not being what happened, please answer the following:

1) If Martin gets to the gun first, should Martin be guilty of murder in your opinion (not legally)?
2) If Zimmerman gets to the gun first, should Zimmerman be guilty of murder in your opinion (not legally)?
3) If your answer to #2 is no, should Zimmerman be otherwise punished for leaving his truck and following Martin?
4) If your answer to #2 is no, should Zimmerman be otherwise punished for leaving his truck and following Martin?
5) Would your answer to the above change if Zimmerman was not merely "making sure Martin didn't commit a crime" but had a delusional belief Martin was already guilty of a crime and was trying to track him so he couldn't escape before the cops arrived?

 

[Sc0rp]

Okay, I think we've now come full circle, but let's make this clear. Assume the following: Zimmerman leaves his truck with the intention of following to make sure Trayvon Martin leaves the neighborhood without committing a crime. He takes no action that suggests he is carrying a weapon and makes no threatening sounds or gestures. Nonetheless, Trayvon Martin was worried about being followed and decides not to take any risks. He walks around a corner, ducks behind some bushes, waits for Zimmerman to catch up, and ambushes Zimmerman. Caught by surprise, Zimmerman is knocked to the ground and calls for Martin to "stop." Martin continues punching him, Zimmerman goes for his gun, which is knocked out of his hand and lands a few feet away. Zimmerman and Martin both reach for the gun.

Based on the above hypothetical, without adding any facts or crying about that not being what happened, please answer the following:

1) If Martin gets to the gun first, should Martin be guilty of murder in your opinion (not legally)?
2) If Zimmerman gets to the gun first, should Zimmerman be guilty of murder in your opinion (not legally)?
3) If your answer to #2 is no, should Zimmerman be otherwise punished for leaving his truck and following Martin?
4) If your answer to #2 is no, should Zimmerman be otherwise punished for leaving his truck and following Martin?
5) Would your answer to the above change if Zimmerman was not merely "making sure Martin didn't commit a crime" but had a delusional belief Martin was already guilty of a crime and was trying to track him so he couldn't escape before the cops arrived?

1) It depends. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. In my opinion, it would depend on what Trayvon does with the gun and what he is facing after he has control of it. Tho I seriously doubt that he was reaching for Zimmermans gun.
2) I think Zimmerman committed manslaughter.
3) like I said, I think he committed manslaughter because his behavior of leaving his truck and pursuing a retreating party is the source of the whole altercation.
4) you just asked that exact same question in 3.
5) Zimmermans behavior is the source of the incident. If he handled the situation responsibly then there likely would have never been an altercation at all. If he had simply COMMUNICATED with Martin while he was still in his truck, then the whole situation would have likely been a non-incident because Martin would have had important information about who Zimmerman was and what his intent was. But NO Zimmerman didn't have any respect for the rights of this person that he left his truck to chase. It takes respect to open your mouth and talk before acting. Furthermore, Had Zimmerman simply stayed in his truck, an altercation would have been nigh-impossible. Given what Zimmerman himself said he saw, he had no real reason to leave his truck.

Seriously, is it so hard to say: "Hey, can I help you with something? I noticed you walking around in the rain. I'm in the neighborhood watch and we've had a lot of break-ins lately."

Also, 'make sure Trayvon didn't commit a crime?' Where is it justified for him to believe Trayvon will commit a crime in the situation? Maybe he should ask some questions first before he jumps to conclusions and thinks that this person is going to commit crimes. It is pretty much a fact that Zimmerman didn't know most of the people that lived in the neighborhood. Could Trayvon be a cat burglar? Sure. Could Trayvon be a resident? YUP! He didn't care to get to know most of the people in the neighborhood to find out. Worst NHW captain ever.

Zimmerman didn't know and didn't bother to ask.

Had this incident happened on Zimmermans own property, I'd feel differently about him. Had he actually witnessed a crime, I'd feel differently. If he had a REAL belief the Trayvon had his personal property in his possession, I'd feel differently. But all I can see in this case is that Zimmerman made a stupid STUPID choice and now he's paying for it. I don't blame Trayvon because most people would want to know who Zimmerman is and why they are being followed in his situation. It isn't unusual to me that Zimmermans behavior would result in someone getting hurt. Words can't describe how stupid Zimmermans behavior was.

And then the worst sin is that Zimmerman couldn't keep his damn mouth shut. It's kinda hard to let him slide when every other word that comes out of his mouth sounds like a lie especially when it is held up to the objective evidence and my own experience.