[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

its not emotional but certainly disagrees with interpretation of law. But by your assessment you support law that say you can kill a child if you fear for his your life after chasing down, after harrassing him. Which is fine. Wasnt Zimmerman told by someone not to go after him...blotchy on that. And i guess people who disagree with that interpretation are a lynch mob, which is common but expected.

It also assumes facts not proven, facts in dispute, and facts relating to Zimmerman's and Martin's thought processes. You say things like "chasing him down" as if it undisputed that Zimmerman was trying to catch and tackle the Martin rather than make sure he know where Martin was when the police arrived. Maybe Zimmerman was trying to "chase him down" as you say - I don't think it's shown by the known facts but possible. If true and Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation, then - yup - he would be liable for murder.

Would your opinion change, however, if Martin saw Zimmerman following him, lay in wait for Zimmerman to pass, then sucker punched Zimmerman first and attempted to bash Zimmerman's skull on the sidewalk? Not saying this happened just asking if, under those facts, you think Zimmerman would be the guilty party.

A dispatcher said, don't follow and Zimmerman did. Bad judgment no doubt, but not illegal. Perhaps, just perhaps Zimmerman had seen one too many break-ins in his neighborhood (there had been eleven in the last month) and too many slow police responses so he just wanted to be sure he know where Martin was going. He was legally allowed to do that as long as he didn't threaten Martin with physical harm.

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Zimmerman is responsible for the child's death. And Martin was harrassed by an unknown person to him not of any authority but some joe on the street. Who knows what Zim said to him, but i guess he can say anything he wants to him considering he's packing a gun like a damn coward.

He can "say anything he wants to" so long as he didn't threaten physical harm with the weapon - please show me one piece of evidence that Zimmerman's gun even made an appearance before the gun shot. One statement from any witness that Zimmerman threatened physical harm to Martin. I have not seen it. Please show me something that would indicate it is more than speculation or more emotionally charged rhetoric on your part. Quite simply, it's just as easy to speculate from the facts known or disputed that Martin was responsible for causing the situation to esculate.

Sorry, I just keep coming back to the facts.

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Zimmerman was clearly in the wrong and Martin did not deserved to be killed. Gotta be a law that was broken somewhere.

Zimmerman may have been wrong. Martin did not deserve to die. If Martin was the initial aggressor, if Zimmerman was truly acting iin self-defense, and if Martin was bashing Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk, I simply disagree with your assertion that Zimmerman was at fault.

You assume it was not self-defense based on your personal resolution of facts that I assert are disputed or not proven. Fair enough. I simply say, it may well be as you say, but the facts are in dispute and you are operating on a lot of speculation. I don't want to put anyone in jail based on speculation.