17yr old black kid shot and killed for walking in white suburbia?

[yodajazz]

Again, you can't claim 'self defense' if you are the one who provoked the confrontation.

If I follow you in the middle of the night in my car, get out and chase after you on foot and then YOU smack me in the face, afterwards I don't have the justification to claim 'self defense' and shoot you dead through the heart.

Eliminate race, pretend Trayvon is a close loved one in your family, then ask yourself was your loved one's death justified or fair because a stranger decided to follow them home because they looked 'suspicious'??

Does that make sense?

At the time of the murder, Zimmerman outweighed this kid by FORTY POUNDS, despite being roughly 4 inches shorter than Trayvon.

This was murder by a paranoid vigilante, plain and simple.

Exactly! It is reasonable, to think that if an physical altercation ocurred, then it was Martin, was defending himself against a person pursuing him. The very fact that Martin is now dead, is evidence, that he had a right to fear, the person pursuing him. Let's look a Zimmeerman's story. Was there any real evidence that Martin had committed a crime? Perhaps if there had been a break-in in the neighborhood within an half hour of the shooting incident, then Zimmerman's suspicions would appear to be be more reasonable. Or perhaps, if Maritn were carrying a household item, such a video game console. Zimmerman's thoughts and actions of following Martin, were not based the actual real situation, but a figment of his mental state.

[Stavros]

Generally speaking, in the US the lawyer for the accused would strongly advise him to not discuss the case to anybody, much less to give an interview on TV. I think some lawyers have even asked judges for permission to drop a client because of them not following this advice.

I think the US has different rules than the UK does about what the media can report about a case before the verdict. Can the UK media report the kind of things that the US media has been reporting? Or are they not allowed to?

Even under US rules, this case is very different than the average case. This case is very much a trial by media, where the media has had to retract some of their reports, which were the result of their own technical analysis of audio and videotape, which they had complete control over, as opposed to an interview with a witness.

The chance of finding a juror who hasn't heard about this case is very slim. So, the defense is trying to let those potential jurors hear things that are favorable to the defense. Make Zimmerman less of 'a monster'.

Also, if he is seen as less of 'a monster', it decreases the chance of riots if he is eventually found not guilty.

Trial by media is common here, but I don't know of accused in criminal trials being given an opportunity to tell their story on tv before the trial begins. Reportage tends to take place in the newspapers before any proceedings have begun when even the more lurid papers such as Murdoch's Sun, will use words like 'allegedly' and 'according to police sources' when referring to someone under questioning -even if it turns out later they are innocent. More serious is the way that the press in a desperate attempt to get readers can stray over the boundaries; two tabloids, the Mirror and the Daily Mail were this week found guilty of contempt of court for publishing a story about a man already found guilty of murder, whose trial for abduction of another young woman was halted because of the prejudicial content of the articles -the papers will be fined at a later date, the report on it is here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012...ld?INTCMP=SRCH

Another example is that the judge in a trial of people accused of rioting in the UK last year, used his powers to stop the BBC from broadcasting two documentaries this week on the riots in case they prejudiced the outcome in court, the report on that is here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/j...?newsfeed=true

The Courts take prejudice very seriously here, even if the media tries to get round it with as much sensational coverage as they can before the trial, and often to bad effect, too many innocent people have had their lives ruined by the outrageous needs of the press for lurid stories. Note that this only applies to England and Wales, as Scotland has its own legal system.

[dabaldone]

Exactly! It is reasonable, to think that if an physical altercation ocurred, then it was Martin, was defending himself against a person pursuing him. The very fact that Martin is now dead, is evidence, that he had a right to fear, the person pursuing him. Let's look a Zimmeerman's story. Was there any real evidence that Martin had committed a crime? Perhaps if there had been a break-in in the neighborhood within an half hour of the shooting incident, then Zimmerman's suspicions would appear to be be more reasonable. Or perhaps, if Maritn were carrying a household item, such a video game console. Zimmerman's thoughts and actions of following Martin, were not based the actual real situation, but a figment of his mental state.

Thank you for this comment. A tall kid being followed by an unknown person who was not law enforcement. I have a teenaged and a grown son. If someone stalked and killed my son, there wouldn't be a court date. Zimmerman has the nerve to say "it was God's plan" for him to kill this boy. Anyone who thinks that's okay has mental issues.

[eccentricBlue]

Seanchai! I am on Trayvon's side please read the whole paragraph in this case maybe you wouldn't misunderstand.

You should only be on the side of truth and justice which hasnt been decided by a jury yet.

[Silcc69]

You should only be on the side of truth and justice which hasnt been decided by a jury yet.

How much did you donate to Zimmerman?

[GroobySteven]

You should only be on the side of truth and justice which hasnt been decided by a jury yet.

There have been plenty of executions decided by a jury and found o have been wrong. There is a simple right and wrong. Killing somebody needlessly, is clearly wrong. You are part of the God Squad ... don't you have "Though shall not kill" ?

[runningdownthatdream]

There have been plenty of executions decided by a jury and found o have been wrong. There is a simple right and wrong. Killing somebody needlessly, is clearly wrong. You are part of the God Squad ... don't you have "Though shall not kill" ?

Come now, you know that all their bible bullshit is adapted for convenience. The God Squad uses what they want when they want and how they want to justify to themselves their own inappropriate and often repulsive behavior. Modern 'Christians' have mastered the art of NewSpeak.......Orwell couldn't have created them if he tried. They far surpass any of the mind-control freaks he did create.

[EvonRose]

You should only be on the side of truth and justice which hasnt been decided by a jury yet.

justice sometimes has no truth, it's time for people to use commonsense.

[runningdownthatdream]

You should only be on the side of truth and justice which hasnt been decided by a jury yet.

'Truth and Justice'??? 'Decided by a Jury'????? You're kidding right? Or just out of high school? The only damn truth and justice is found in books and Hollywood - it is a self-perpetuating fiction.

[eccentricBlue]

justice sometimes has no truth, it's time for people to use commonsense.

Just imagine of common sense was more common.... lol. But I agree, the justice system is in no way perfect, however I just don't want to buy into the hysteria on either side. Some people disagree with me and go straight into attack mode, however cooler heads must prevail because 2 wrongs never make a right. Race should not be a factor so I refuse to let that sway my opinion.