Here is the video of his story he explained within days of the actual shooting. I think if the witnesses come foward for the trial and corroborate his story he'll walk.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/us/documents-tell-zimmermans-side-in-martin-shooting.html?pagewanted=all

He should walk, there shouldn't be a trial. Stand your ground, self defense.

This is ridiculously over the top. "I yelled 'help me' probably 50 times." Okay.

I actually laughed.

I'm also excited to see how he explains using his legal defense funds to pay off Sam's Club and American Express credit cards. But I'm most interested in hearing why the hell anyone would own a Sam's Club Credit Card.

2kool4skool;1209041 wrote:I actually laughed.

I'm also excited to see how he explains using his legal defense funds to pay off Sam's Club and American Express credit cards. But I'm most interested in hearing why the hell anyone would own a Sam's Club Credit Card.

I have one because it doubles as my membership while discounting my purchase.

Although none of that has anything to do with the case at hand. He was attacked by Martin and as a last resort shot him.

bases_loaded;1209057 wrote:I have one because it doubles as my membership while discounting my purchase.

Bro, it's Sam's Club.

Serious question: is there anyone here who if they found themselves married to a 2/10, in debt to SAM'S CLUB, and getting beat up by a teenager, wouldn't just shoot themselves? Why waste the bullet on someone else.

2kool4skool;1209063 wrote:Bro, it's Sam's Club.

Bro its a discover card that gives me 3% back there and 1% everywhere else

bases_loaded;1209057 wrote:I have one because it doubles as my membership while discounting my purchase.

Although none of that has anything to do with the case at hand. He was attacked by Martin and as a last resort shot him.

Since when is it a crime to walk home? If he just would have done what the police dispatcher told him to, he would not be in jail, and would not have been in a fight and Martin would still be alive and this conversation would not be happening. He might walk, but the civil suit will take care of the rest of his money, so keep sending it in to him.

Abe Vigoda;1209168 wrote:Since when is it a crime to walk home? If he just would have done what the police dispatcher told him to, he would not be in jail, and would not have been in a fight and Martin would still be alive and this conversation would not be happening. He might walk, but the civil suit will take care of the rest of his money, so keep sending it in to him.

Before Al Sharpton got involved martins father said the voice in the 911 tape wasn't his sons. Zimmermans medical report show multiple wounds from a scuffle and the autopsy report shows the gun wound to have occurred within 12" of the barrel.

Sounds pretty clear as to why he was shot, what lead up to the scuffle well never know, but it's clear why he was shot

bases_loaded;1209220 wrote:Before Al Sharpton got involved martins father said the voice in the 911 tape wasn't his sons. Zimmermans medical report show multiple wounds from a scuffle and the autopsy report shows the gun wound to have occurred within 12" of the barrel.

Sounds pretty clear as to why he was shot, what lead up to the scuffle well never know, but it's clear why he was shot

Is it now?

I think most people who get in a fight, whether they start it or not probably don't shoot the person to death. So it doesn't make it clear why he was shot. You're right in that there are aspects we'll probably never know but it's still such a shitty situation.

IWP is correct it is an unfortunate situation where two lives have been forever altered. Dude should have listened and stayed in the car.

What were George's wounds? For him to justify shooting, he needed to feel his life was in danger, not just getting his ass kicked. Scrapes and bruises aren't justified wounds for pulling a trigger.

WebFire;1209435 wrote:What were George's wounds? For him to justify shooting, he needed to feel his life was in danger, not just getting his ass kicked. Scrapes and bruises aren't justified wounds for pulling a trigger.

Proving what someone's "feel"ings were might not be that easy.

WebFire;1209435 wrote:What were George's wounds? For him to justify shooting, he needed to feel his life was in danger, not just getting his ass kicked. Scrapes and bruises aren't justified wounds for pulling a trigger.

I believe an individual stronger than himself had him on his back and was bashing his head into the ground...thats just what I got from the wounds on the BACK of his head.

The monologue starts around 2:30

http://www.americanowradio.com/pages/media/listenlive.html?uri=channels/465075/1632698%20

Con_Alma;1209440 wrote:Proving what someone's "feel"ings were might not be that easy.

Ok, "feel" was bad wording. There has to be proof that his life was in danger. I haven't paid much attention to his wounds, so I was curious.

WebFire;1209483 wrote:Ok, "feel" was bad wording. There has to be proof that his life was in danger. I haven't paid much attention to his wounds, so I was curious.

Technically, the defense only has to demonstrate a reasonable person could have been in fear for their life in that situation. There's a difference between proving your life was in danger and having reason to believe so.

Based on the facts and evidence I've seen, the prosecution has little chance of getting 12 jurors to agree to convict.

Yes, after thinking more about what I was saying, you are correct. You don't necessarily have to have medical evidence that your life was in danger. However, if you are outside your own house, it sure the hell helps your chances.

Abe Vigoda;1209168 wrote:Since when is it a crime to walk home? If he just would have done what the police dispatcher told him to, he would not be in jail, and would not have been in a fight and Martin would still be alive and this conversation would not be happening. He might walk, but the civil suit will take care of the rest of his money, so keep sending it in to him.

since when is it a crime to get out of your car and walk around in your own neighborhood? hell, since when is a crime to follow someone? if Martin would have just kept walking home instead of in circles, this conversation wouldnt be happening...

see how that works?

rmolin73;1209414 wrote:IWP is correct it is an unfortunate situation where two lives have been forever altered. Dude should have listened and stayed in the car.

Make that at least 3. IMO, the police chief did his job recognizing the facts did not warrant immediate arrest. That never prevented the prosecutor - whom also declined to seek a grand jury indictment - from proceeding. What appears to be a pretty weak case was probably only brought on the basis of political pressure. Zimmerman will end-up going home and they'll spend a few million of taxpayer dollars to appease the racial unrest, and that's a win-win politically.

WebFire;1209483 wrote:Ok, "feel" was bad wording. There has to be proof that his life was in danger. I haven't paid much attention to his wounds, so I was curious.

Are you sure about that? I think it comes down to what Zimmerman believed. "Reasonable Belief" He doesn't have to have proof his life was in danger. He has to have reasonable belief.

A stand-your-ground law states that a person may use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first.

Con_Alma;1209496 wrote:Are you sure about that? I think it comes down to what Zimmerman believed. "Reasonable Belief" He doesn't have to have proof his life was in danger. He has to have reasonable belief.

A stand-your-ground law states that a person may use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first.

Keep reading.

gut;1209486 wrote:Technically, the defense only has to demonstrate a reasonable person could have been in fear for their life in that situation. There's a difference between proving your life was in danger and having reason to believe so.

...

Oops. gut beat me to it.

WebFire;1209497 wrote:Keep reading.

Yeah, I did. I just wasn't that far yet.

FWIW, if someone is bashing your head into the pavement I view that as assault with a deadly weapon and lethal force is justified self-defense. The question would then be if the prosecution can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that didn't occur.

Also, just to comment about Zimmerman being told not to follow. The 911 call from the neighbor is like 2 minutes later, which would indicate the fight started almost immediately after Zimmerman got off the phone with police. Did Travon come up to confront him? Did Travon drag him from the car? Why did Zimmerman get out of his car? If it can be shown Zimmerman started the fight, or confrontation leading to a fight, then what? IMO, in that scenario while self-defense may still be valid, it's still negligent homicide(?) as a potential and foreseeable consequence of your own actions.

That's the only prosecution angle I can see. You got out of the car (I've not heard any explanation in that regard). You confronted him against police orders. You're accountable and responsbile for whatever happens after, jointly responsible, perhaps, if you want to get technical.