Do you think Zimmerman will be convicted of murder?

You have no idea whether Zimmerman was attacked, or whether Martin reacted defensively because he feared Zimmerman was about to harm him. That's the whole issue with this case and why it belongs in court.

You keep ignoring the fact that Zimmerman pursued Martin--he followed him, in the dark, and in the rain--which would certainly have seemed suspicious and menacing to a teen, particularly one not familiar with that housing complex. And that's consistent with what Martin said to the girl he was speaking to on the phone just prior to the confrontation--and, from his last words during that phone conversation, it appeared that Zimmerman had just confronted him, and possibly put his hands on him. Martin may have well been defending himself from Zimmerman.

Your overly simplistic version of events is ludicrous. When this case is in court, all of the evidence will be presented--including that phone conversation, and the inconsistencies in Zimmerman's accounts, and the fact that the lack of Zimmerman's DNA on Martin's hands doesn't jive with those hands having been placed over Zimmerman's mouth, etc.--and nobody is going to just take Zimmerman's word for what happened, as you seem to be doing.

They wouldn't take someone with such demonstrated poor judgment and lack of impulse control. If Zimmerman had just stayed in his vehicle, and waited for the police to show up, Trayvon Martin would still be alive.

And let's not forget his lying about his assets, and his second passport, and intentionally misleading the court.

Yeah, sure, he'd make a terrific law enforcement officer.

He couldn't even properly handle his neighborhood watch duties, which only required him to report suspicious activity and let the real police handle it after that.

You just keep babbling the same nonsense repeatedly, and ignoring the evidence that contradicts Zimmerman's accounts, or casts doubt on his credibility. There's not much point in discussing the case with you, there's too much evidence you seem to just disregard in order to bolster your belief that Zimmerman was some sort of innocent victim. But that evidence is precisely what raises doubts about whether this homicide was legally justified. Maybe this case is too complicated for you to fully absorb.

Bill probably thinks that "not guilty" means "innocent," too.

if you ever paid attention you would know that bill has repeatedly pointed out that not guilty does not mean innocent, that we have no bleaching process. this is the very reason that bill and i think that the state must be very careful not not throw innocent people into the "justice" system, something that we claim happens way too often for a healthy democracy. we are sick, THAT is the problem that we keep yammering about.

I personally think Trayvon Martin was playing the "knockout game."
Two problems, however:
1. He was bad at the game.
2. He didn't have a gun.

The other thing is that he may be trying to raise some dough for his defense. He could be broke. I mean he has his own legal case to mind, and so I think his lawyers are just milking him with this lawsuit, and this will be likely part of his defense in the frivolous trial.
Geeeez! The hoops a racist vigilante has to jump through to get a fair shake in this country. It's a travesty!!!

Well, it does.

I can't believe you got voted down for saying it is wrong to send innocent people to prison.

Got any evidence of racism or vigilantism on Zimmerman's part?

Love it that facts had no impacts on some people.

The fact that when Zimmerman saw a black homeless man arrested wrongly he started the campaign to do something about it working with the local black churches or that a full blown FBI investigation could not show a racial bone in the man body or the fact that he is far from what any good old boy would consider white or...................

Nonsense on top of nonsense concerning the idea that is without foundation that he is some racist vigilante instead of a man going out of his way to help his neighborhood and who was attacked by a young hoodlum for doing so.

His cousin told investigators that his whole family is racist, including him, besides the fact that he molested her.

If NBC looses, Fox should be the next target. Fox News lies and distorts news all the time. Just look at the 2003 lawsuit in Florida, Fox news argued in court that broadcasters have the right to lie and obfuscate on public airwaves, and what do you know, they won. It's not just NBC, most of the large news corps are biased.
I just see this is just as a sideshow pretense of innocence created by his lawyers to chum the jury pool with his narrative pretrial.
After he is convicted, this silly civil suit of his will will be blown away in the wind just like Mark O'Mara. After conviction, Zimmerman will say to Mark O'Mara, "where do we go from here?" Mark O'Mara will respond, "I am going back to my office, you will go to jail."

He was attacked and beaten and the attacker had not a mark on him but for the bullet hole that ended the attack.

Can not be any clearer who was the victim in this case and it was not Trayvon.

That's a really damning statement about Zimmerman.

Zimmerman got punched in the nose--which may have been a defensive reaction on the part of Martin--the blow knocked him down, causing two tiny scrapes, both under 1/2 inch, on the back of his head. There were no marks on Martin's hands to suggest he had "beaten" anyone, Zimmerman's cheeks and face showed no signs of injury beyond the blow to the nose, Zimmerman's body showed no signs of bruising or punches, and Zimmerman's DNA was not found on Martin's hands. There simply is no evidence of a "beating".

In response to a punch in the nose, Zimmerman made no attempt to defend himself with equal force--you've just told us, "the attacker had not a mark on him." which indicates Zimmerman made no attempt to fight back with equal force. Instead, Zimmerman, quite quickly, unjustifiably responded with lethal force--killing someone, who was unarmed, in response to a single punch, that caused such minor injuries he required no follow-up medical treatment, and his tiny "wounds" were easily covered the next day by a few band-aids.
The back of Zimmerman's head showed no goose-eggs or significant swelling the next day, nor did he report, or seek treatment for, any signs or symptoms of a concussion or head trauma, to support his contention that his head had been pounded into the pavement. His claim that he feared his life was in imminent danger, or that he feared life-threatening injuries, or that he had no other means of defense beside lethal force, is not supported by the evidence.

You've just told us how unjustified this homicide was.

Just because Zimmerman had his gun available to him, it's use was not justified in response to a punch in the nose--a punch that Zimmerman may have well provoked-- or even to having the other person on top of him and trying to subdue him, because that person may well have seen Zimmerman, who had been following him, as the menacing party. Neither the situation, nor the extent of Zimmerman's injuries, justified his use of deadly force against an unarmed person.

Firing a gun out of panic, rather than in legally justifiable circumstances, is a good example of why people like Zimmerman, a man with a history of impulse control problems, should not have been carrying a gun.

And if you think lethal force is justified in response to a punch in the nose, or getting a little roughed up--in a situation that you may well have provoked by your own behaviors--you shouldn't be carrying your gun either.

Instead of promoting your fantasies of what happened, try considering the actual evidence in this case, including the lack of evidence to support Zimmerman's contentions.

After more than 6 months of repetitive and baseless posts by certain clueless, why do you bother rebut? Take the fuel away. It's not like you can pound any common sense or inject logic into a discussion with an unarmed simpleton.

I can't believe that the same points are being written here all these months later.

It's wrong to even put anybody in danger of any sort of a rogue conviction on the kind of imaginary evidence involved in this case. There are a number of other bad actors in this picture who need to be sued into oblivion, including Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, the prosecutor (Corey), Eric Holder, and Bork Obunga ("If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon Martin") for starters.

Once again for anybody who might have missed it:

This whole thing is not about guilt or innocence, we have the opinions of several of America's foremost legal experts that the prosecution has no case at all. It's not even about the 2'nd amendment or gun rights.

This is about:

• A quasi-trained MMA fighter whose mind was blasted on "purple drank" trying to kill a guy with no combat training.
  
• The victim saving his own life and likely the lives of other people with a small pistol.
  
• A rogue political party legitimizing a pair of race-hustling criminals by the names of Jackson and Sharpton.
  
• An open threat of large numbers of brainwashed and ignorant people rioting and demanding a human sacrifice not to riot.
  
• A desperate rogue-party president claiming that if he had a son, the son would look like an asshole, i.e. like the purple-dranked-out former MMA artist.
  
• A rogue prosecutor and judge insisting on holding the victim in prison prior to trial for no rational reason and in fact seeking to force him to cop a plea to bullshit charges by threatening his wife with prison over more bullshit occasioned by themselves, and otherwise conducting themselves in a rogue, unprofessional, corrupt, and illegal manner.
  

It's also about the basic idea of equality in our society and the question of whether or not we now have special/protected groups of people who are legally untouchable to the extent that the rest of us can't even defend ourselves when one of them goes crazy on drugs and tries to kill us.

Alan Derhowitz:

I would not be that hard of the GOP even if they are the party in control of the state of Florida and it was the GOP governor who promote this prosecution.

I'd guess that 2/3 of the people on a2k wouldn't know what the "knockout game" was...

http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/black-mobs-knockout-game-raising-alarms/

That's the part of the thing I don't understand.

Yes you are on the ground with someone slamming your head into the sidewalk yelling for help but because the younger man had you in a position you could not fight back and in fear of your life you used lethal force that should somehow be a crime!!!!!!!!!!

The fact that there was not a mark on this hoodlum body would imply first it was not some form of mutual combat but an assault by Trayvon from the very start and then hitting someone head on a hard object such as a sidewalk can be lethal without a question.

Let see by your picture Zimmerman marks all result from one blow either directly or indirectly and of course Trayvon was not on top of the man on the ground.

Come om what damn bullshit are you trying to sell and as a matter of fact a similar attack a few weeks before the attack on Zimmerman on a police officer resulted in the death of the attacker and the clearing of the police officer.

The train police officer once knocked to the ground by an unarmed man feel his life was endanger and killed his attacker and Zimmerman had as must rights to defense his life as that police officer did.

It is an open and shut case of self defense that is the reason he was not arrested until the like of Al Sharpton got involve as he did in the Duke players case and dating back the New York case both of gang rapes that never happen and got him arrested with the help of a new media that even change the 911 tapes and show Trayvon picture as a 14 year old not as the young man who attacked Zimmerman that night.

We need to stop this nonsense as if a similar hoodlum of whatever color would knocked down my wife and begin pounding her head on the sidewalk I do not wish her charge with murder of all things for defensing her life.

Trust me, there's much more of this that you don't understand.

Reality, for one.