George Zimmerman Trial

[JughedJones]

I agree.

People are going to wake up to this and be rightfully upset that I sat here and yaked away with no opposition but.... You guys started the thread!

It's amazing to me that this case is national news. That a grown *** man initiated aggressive contact with a minor, legally going about his business, then kills him isn't a crime.....

I hate to be this stark about it but, we all know that if a black teenager would have done the same thing, he would have (rightfully) been in jail this whole time and nobody would have heard of t his case.

The sickening part is the "color-blind" racism that is so loud coming out of this. It's even worse than overt racism,

 

[Rhode Irish]

So, to summarize, if you think Zimmerman was acting in self-defense, you're a racist. Got it. Thanks for posting.

That was definitely not the point. Thanks for reading.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Originally Posted by NDWorld247
So, to summarize, if you think Zimmerman was acting in self-defense, you're a racist. Got it. Thanks for posting.

That was definitely not the point. Thanks for reading.

The whole article was filled with racist diatribe. At the least to state otherwise is reckless and careless on your part or racist in and of itself at the opposite end of the spectrum.

 

[Wild Bill]

It doesn't sound right to some people, at all.

You know why.

Because Zimmerman didn't repeatedly follow Martin?

 

[magogian]

Since you asked

784.048 - - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate

Stalking is illegal in Florida. So it would be pretty easy to argue that Zimmerman was engaged in an illegal act that is aggressive by definition and was carrying a loaded weapon, Martin acted in self defense and Zimmerman killed him. Does that sound about right?

Except, of course, if you actually read the statute you would realize it didn't apply here.

But, by all means, don't let the actual statute get in the way of your argument.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Except, of course, if you actually read the statute you would realize it didn't apply here.

But, by all means, don't let the actual statute get in the way of your argument.

784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties.—
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct (GZ follows; check) directed at a specific person (TM) that causes substantial emotional distress (Defense proves this in their rush to claim self defense) in such person and serves no legitimate purpose(GZ accomplished what other than killing TM, as TM was a guest of a lawful resident?).

(b) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, (seconds is fine although this was many minutes including getting out of his car and pursuing on foot, after the 9-1-1 operator advised GZ the police would take over, and, oh yeah withdrawing and firing his weapon) evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of “course of conduct.” Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.

(c) “Credible threat” means a threat made with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety (an adult chasing a teenager in the dark, has anyone even asked if TM could hear the derogatory utterances we all heard on the tape?). The threat must be against the life (death by gunshot, that is against life, check) of, or a threat to cause bodily injury to, a person.

Do you even think through your posts? I mean seriously, do you even believe some of your own posts?

 

[Bogtrotter07]

You sound like one of Zimmerman's prosecutors. Yes it is impossible because "stand your ground" is a defense, so TM would have to have been charged with something.

This is either silly or disingenuous. I will let you decide Golden. People that back Zimmerman want to divorce the concept "Stand your Ground" from the Flordia law. It is the only way they can win a moral argument (or legal) for that matter in this case.

FLA LAW = includes a process by which you have a hearing prior to trial which you are allowed to defend yourself by attacking the victim.

Concept=That a person has the right to defend themselves to the point of and including taking human life outside of their own homes, even if they are not in imminent threat of losing their own life. (AKA Castle doctrine)

Of course TM had the right to do that! What a bunch of stupid shiit to say he didn't! Did he have the right to claim the stand your ground law for his actions? The answer to this question outlines the ridiculousness or disingenuousness of your post; TM was the victim of homicide, not the perpetrator of that homicide!

Now, I have listened to everything from the fact that TM was a huge doped out gangbanger, to who knows what, because anyone who intelligently looked at the facts of this case and doesn't see TM as a human being, who has rights, is in my mind a racist. I look at this picture and you know what I see? A young man that looks like a baby; he could be my son!



And I look at George Zimmerman and I see a lying putz, trying to avoid responsibility for his own actions.

 

[magogian]

This does a good job of summarizing my take on all of this. Just skip to paragraph 5 if you're not interested in the preamble.

"One person, armed with a gun, got in a fight with another person and shot that person dead. This is not a difficult scenario. It's second-degree murder."

Will George Zimmerman Get Away With Murder?

That quote seems to be the meat of it. In other words, simply a dispute of whether a person armed with a gun can justifiably kill an unarmed individual.

Of course, that little nugget is buried under paragraphs of mindless invective. But it makes complete sense that Rhode would cite an article like this, by Gawker no less.

But there's more. The author's final hypothetical is quite revealing: "Turn the case around: a black teenager goes out carrying a gun, gets in a fight with a Neighborhood Watch volunteer, and shoots him, claiming self-defense. We would not even be discussing the case. The cops would have arrested and charged him. He would already be in prison."

Umm, that isn't turning the case around. A far more apropos example is to simply exchange their race, i.e. Zimmerman is a black neighborhood watch volunteer that got into a fight with a white teenager, shooting and killing him. All other facts stay the same, e.g. Martin is known to have been disciplined for drug use, theft, etc.

What would be the result? It would likely be quite interesting. I suspect you would have very few people supporting the now white Martin. I know I wouldn't.

In fact, you would have any number of liberal (and even not so liberal) legal funds tripping over each other to mount a high-powered defense of the black Zimmerman to defend him from this manifest injustice.

God forbid the black Zimmerman was convicted on the basis of this craptastic evidence. That would lead to riots! Frankly, I would even join a protest or two.

And, if anyone here argued, as you have, that Zimmerman should be executed, you would rant about them being horrible racists.

This far more realistic hypo evidences who truly forms their decisions based on race, i.e. the real racists.

 

[magogian]

Do you even think through your posts? I mean seriously, do you even believe some of your own posts?

Bog,

You are in no position to question whether someone else thinks through their posts.

If you are going to quote the statute, try actually quoting the definition of stalking: "Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking."

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Bog,

You are in no position to question whether someone else thinks through their posts.

If you are going to quote the statute, try actually quoting the definition of stalking: "Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking."

Mag,

I am in an absolute position to question the results. Which is what I did! Especially posters like you.

If you would read you would see what "repeatedly" means. Continuity of actions. Drive car, stop car, get out of car, pursue on foot. Your response did meet the putz level of the Zimmerman statement and defense though!

Bogs

 

[magogian]

Mag,

I am in an absolute position to question the results. Which is what I did! Especially posters like you.

If you would read you would see what "repeatedly" means. Continuity of actions. Drive car, stop car, get out of car, pursue on foot. Your response did meet the putz level of the Zimmerman statement and defense though!

Bogs

Normally, I just ignore your posts. But, against my better judgment, I'll explain.

Let's start with the definition of stalking: "Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking."

You focused on "harasses," so I'll discuss that. To be guilty of stalking, Zimmerman had to willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly harass Martin.

What does it mean to harass? "'Harass' means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose."

And what is course of conduct? "'Course of conduct' means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose."

To sum up, for Zimmerman to be guilty of stalking, he has to willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly engage in a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose to cause Martin substantial emotional distress without serving a legitimate purpose.

You have shown a course of conduct to that effect, but not a repeated course of conduct. In other words, what Zimmerman did that night could be construed to be a component of a stalking offense, but it would need to be repeated. The individual acts Zimmerman committed that night comprise, at most, one instance of harassment, not repeated harassment.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Normally, I just ignore your posts. But, against my better judgment, I'll explain.

Let's start with the definition of stalking: "Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking."

You focused on "harasses," so I'll discuss that. To be guilty of stalking, Zimmerman had to willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly harass Martin.

What does it mean to harass? "'Harass' means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose."

And what is course of conduct? "'Course of conduct' means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose."

To sum up, for Zimmerman to be guilty of stalking, he has to willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly engage in a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose to cause Martin substantial emotional distress without serving a legitimate purpose.

You have shown a course of conduct to that effect, but not a repeated course of conduct. In other words, what Zimmerman did that night could be construed to be a component of a stalking offense, but it would need to be repeated. The individual acts Zimmerman committed that night comprise, at most, one instance of harassment, not repeated harassment.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

Tis proven between the 9-1-1 call and Zimmerman's own defense! But thank you.

And feel free to continue to ignore my posts!

 

[Rhode Irish]

The whole article was filled with racist diatribe. At the least to state otherwise is reckless and careless on your part or racist in and of itself at the opposite end of the spectrum.

I mean....no, that is absolutely not true. The guy says off the top that there are some people that feel a certain way about the case because they are racists, but that there is nothing anyone can do about that so we won't focus on them. Other than announcing an intention to ignore the racists, race doesn't play any role in the piece. I know that you will disagree with the point of the story, because you disagree with me and the author and I are saying the same thing. I'm curious, though, if you'd care to challenge the assertions of the author on a substantive level or if you are limited to calling everything with which you disagree "racist diatribe" because you have but one preconditioned response for all things you don't like?

 

[Rhode Irish]

That quote seems to be the meat of it. In other words, simply a dispute of whether a person armed with a gun can justifiably kill an unarmed individual.

Of course, that little nugget is buried under paragraphs of mindless invective. But it makes complete sense that Rhode would cite an article like this, by Gawker no less.

But there's more. The author's final hypothetical is quite revealing: "Turn the case around: a black teenager goes out carrying a gun, gets in a fight with a Neighborhood Watch volunteer, and shoots him, claiming self-defense. We would not even be discussing the case. The cops would have arrested and charged him. He would already be in prison."

Umm, that isn't turning the case around. A far more apropos example is to simply exchange their race, i.e. Zimmerman is a black neighborhood watch volunteer that got into a fight with a white teenager, shooting and killing him. All other facts stay the same, e.g. Martin is known to have been disciplined for drug use, theft, etc.

What would be the result? It would likely be quite interesting. I suspect you would have very few people supporting the now white Martin. I know I wouldn't.

In fact, you would have any number of liberal (and even not so liberal) legal funds tripping over each other to mount a high-powered defense of the black Zimmerman to defend him from this manifest injustice.

God forbid the black Zimmerman was convicted on the basis of this craptastic evidence. That would lead to riots! Frankly, I would even join a protest or two.

And, if anyone here argued, as you have, that Zimmerman should be executed, you would rant about them being horrible racists.

This far more realistic hypo evidences who truly forms their decisions based on race, i.e. the real racists.

If the tables were turned it would be another black guy arrested for another murder and nobody other than the families of those involved ever would have heard a word about it. Putting aside how the media covers it (which I think is a leading cause of anger here but which is ultimately irrelevant, at least to me), there is no way in hell that anyone would buy a self defense claim from the shooter in this case if the shooter was black and the victim was white. If you remove race from the equation entirely, there is a strong argument for Zimmerman being punished for killing Martin. Maybe not everyone agrees, but people are permitted philosophical differences. The case for why Zimmerman is culpable is laid out pretty well in this article, which is why I posted it - I got tired of explaining it anew to another poster in a different way every few pages, and this hits all the key points.

 

[jmurphy75]

Leave it to the State of Florida to screw up another high profile trial.

 

[magogian]

If the tables were turned it would be another black guy arrested for another murder and nobody other than the families of those involved ever would have heard a word about it.

So, if nothing is changed except their races are reversed, then the now-black Zimmerman deserves to die?

 

[jmurphy75]

For all those not local here is what is all over the local channels here this morning....
Heh! This entire affair is being revealed more and more as an attempted lynching of George Zimmerman:

A court employee who retrieved photos and deleted text messages from Trayvon Martin's cellphone has been placed on administrative leave after an attorney testified that prosecutors didn't properly turn over the evidence to the defense, an attorney said Wednesday.

Former prosecutor Wesley White said he was ethically obligated to reveal that Fourth Judicial Circuit Information Technology Director Ben Kruidbos retrieved the data that weren't turned over.

Kruidbos was placed on leave shortly after White testified during a hearing in George Zimmerman's second-degree murder case on Tuesday. White said Kruidbos was interviewed by state attorney investigators twice before the action was taken.

White said he wasn't surprised of possible evidence violations by Zimmerman prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda.

"I was saddened by it, but I'm not surprised," he said.

White first learned about the evidence through Kruidbos more than a month ago, he said.

Phone and email messages left at the office of Fourth Judicial Circuit State Attorney Angela Corey were not immediately returned.

I'll just bet they weren't.

Oh, and the deleted photosthat were recovered? They show Treyvon Martin handling guns and using drugs, as well as various text messages on these topics. Reportedly, there was also a video on the cell phone showing some of Trayvon's pals beating up a homeless man.

This all kind of destroys the prosecution's attempt to portray Martin as a harmless little bunny rabbit viciously gunned down by a foaming at the mouth ra-aa-cist.

Judge Nelson has set up a full hearing on the prosecution's failure to turn over t evidence for next week.

If you remember, Defense attorney Mark O'Mara previously filed numerous motions accusing the prosecution of not turning over evidence in discovery.

O'Mara said Tuesday that he felt compelled to bring this matter to the attention of the judge after a hearing earlier this month in which De la Rionda was emphatic that he'd turned over all evidence related to Martin's cellphone.

"(Kruidbos) knew information that nobody else would know about what (the state attorney's office) didn't give us," O'Mara said. "The picture of the gun in the hand, for example, had not been turned over to us. But that had been created back in late January within the state attorney's office.

"That inquiry, if in fact it continues and it certainly should, could lead to some very dire consequences for those who made presentations to the judge that were not accurate."

Along with all the other prosecutorial misconduct that's occurred, it could also lead to a motion for a mistrial and a slam duck verdict to toss the case out of court on appeal in the event Zimmerman is convicted.

 

[magogian]

Link?

 

[Rhode Irish]

So, if nothing is changed except their races are reversed, then the now-black Zimmerman deserves to die?

Yeah, I am not an activist with respect to capital punishment in either direction. I don't always believe in it, but an adult hunting down an unarmed teenager seems like as good of a reason as any. Having said that, I do admit that at least a small part of my feelings about Zimmerman are influenced by the rage I feel over the fact that there are supposedly able minded people who are supportive of this guy and are treating him like some kind of martyr.

 

[jmurphy75]

Link?

Just hit the news I'll link soon.....but it has to be true Hiraldo Rivera reported it on Fox...LOL

 

[drayer54]

Yeah, I am not an activist with respect to capital punishment in either direction. I don't always believe in it, but an adult hunting down an unarmed teenager seems like as good of a reason as any. Having said that, I do admit that at least a small part of my feelings about Zimmerman are influenced by the rage I feel over the fact that there are supposedly able minded people who are supportive of this guy and are treating him like some kind of martyr.

It enrages some that people can't accept that there is no evidence that Trayvon was getting beaten.

No proof that Trayvon didn't attack Zimmerman.

It enrages some that people are letting their feelings about zimmerman guide them to a verdict not based on facts or evidence.

I think most people would sympathize more with GZ after they had their face beaten and head bashed into concrete.

It enrages some people that others want to convict a man for hunting and killing an unarmed teenager when that statement is a huge load of bs.

He didn't know his age, he looked much older, bigger, etc. He was a neighborhood watch in an area where they had crime. He was legally armed. It appears he legally defended himself.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Really hoping things don't turn ugly down there if some people don't get the verdict they want

 

[Andy in Sactown]

Not touching the riot issue with a ten foot pole.






April 26th, 1992.

 

[GoIrish41]

No proof that Trayvon didn't attack Zimmerman.

Nor is there any proof that he did, other than Zimmerman's self-serving state,emts. Since many of his statements were shown to be exagerations or outright lies, many people are not inclined to take him at his word.

 

[GoIrish41]

With how far we've come, it's amazing how far we still have to go when it comes to racial issues.

Could not agree more Bob.

 

[NDWorld247]

I mean....no, that is absolutely not true. The guy says off the top that there are some people that feel a certain way about the case because they are racists, but that there is nothing anyone can do about that so we won't focus on them. Other than announcing an intention to ignore the racists, race doesn't play any role in the piece. I know that you will disagree with the point of the story, because you disagree with me and the author and I are saying the same thing. I'm curious, though, if you'd care to challenge the assertions of the author on a substantive level or if you are limited to calling everything with which you disagree "racist diatribe" because you have but one preconditioned response for all things you don't like?

Ummm, what? You're right, race doesn't play any role in this piece...

"This is what the real dispute is: do you believe that a 17-year-old black person counts the same as any other human being?"

"Turn the case around: a black teenager goes out carrying a gun, gets in a fight with a Neighborhood Watch volunteer, and shoots him, claiming self-defense."

If the tables were turned it would be another black guy arrested for another murder and nobody other than the families of those involved ever would have heard a word about it. Putting aside how the media covers it (which I think is a leading cause of anger here but which is ultimately irrelevant, at least to me), there is no way in hell that anyone would buy a self defense claim from the shooter in this case if the shooter was black and the victim was white. If you remove race from the equation entirely, there is a strong argument for Zimmerman being punished for killing Martin. Maybe not everyone agrees, but people are permitted philosophical differences. The case for why Zimmerman is culpable is laid out pretty well in this article, which is why I posted it - I got tired of explaining it anew to another poster in a different way every few pages, and this hits all the key points.

Tell me again how this isn't about race for the author or yourself? Some of us do not look at a person and make judgments based on their race. Some of us are capable of removing race from the equation and looking at the evidence. To insinuate otherwise is insulting to those of us that view everyone equally and teach our children to not judge others by the color of their skin.

And let's not forget this became a race issue when the Martin family made it one. Would Zimmerman be on trial if he were a black Neighborhood Watch volunteer and Martin a black teenager? Or, if they were both white or Hispanic? No, because there was not enough evidence to arrest him in the first place and the Martin family wouldn't have played the race card. They would have fought for justice for their son, as I would do in their shoes, but the people in charge wouldn't have caved under political pressure to bring charges because the evidence you speak of didn't warrant it.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Ummm, what? You're right, race doesn't play any role in this piece...

"This is what the real dispute is: do you believe that a 17-year-old black person counts the same as any other human being?"

"Turn the case around: a black teenager goes out carrying a gun, gets in a fight with a Neighborhood Watch volunteer, and shoots him, claiming self-defense."

Ok, I should have been more specific. This isn't the same as calling anyone who disagrees with us racists. It is raising a question about how we deal with these types of things as a society, and I believe that is totally in bounds. What I was referring to in my quote above is that the author was saying some people have an opinion about this because they are plain old racists....forget about those people for the sake of this conversation. I'm not saying that there are no racial aspects to this, because that would be dumb. Your side brings up race every bit as much, if not more than, my side.

Tell me again how this isn't about race for the author or yourself? Some of us do not look at a person and make judgments based on their race. Some of us are capable of removing race from the equation and looking at the evidence. To insinuate otherwise is insulting to those of us that view everyone equally and teach our children to not judge others by the color of their skin.

This is lovely nonsense. Yes, the people that excuse the behavior of the white guy that shot the black kid are above race-related thinking, but anyone who raises the question of whether this case would play out the same if the racial dynamic were different are clear racists. This is not just dumb, it is intellectually dishonest.

And let's not forget this became a race issue when the Martin family made it one. Would Zimmerman be on trial if he were a black Neighborhood Watch volunteer and Martin a black teenager? Or, if they were both white or Hispanic? No, because there was not enough evidence to arrest him in the first place and the Martin family wouldn't have played the race card. They would have fought for justice for their son, as I would do in their shoes, but the people in charge wouldn't have caved under political pressure to bring charges because the evidence you speak of didn't warrant it.

Reading this actually makes me feel better. If you vehemently disagree with someone and it turns out that that someone is a reasonable, educated person with a sophisticated and nuanced worldview, it might cause you to step back and reevaluate your position. Fortunately for me, I know that is not my situation here based on this quoted paragraph.

 

[Golden_Domer]

This is either silly or disingenuous. I will let you decide Golden. People that back Zimmerman want to divorce the concept "Stand your Ground" from the Flordia law. It is the only way they can win a moral argument (or legal) for that matter in this case.

FLA LAW = includes a process by which you have a hearing prior to trial which you are allowed to defend yourself by attacking the victim.

Concept=That a person has the right to defend themselves to the point of and including taking human life outside of their own homes, even if they are not in imminent threat of losing their own life. (AKA Castle doctrine)

Of course TM had the right to do that! What a bunch of stupid shiit to say he didn't! Did he have the right to claim the stand your ground law for his actions? The answer to this question outlines the ridiculousness or disingenuousness of your post; TM was the victim of homicide, not the perpetrator of that homicide!

Now, I have listened to everything from the fact that TM was a huge doped out gangbanger, to who knows what, because anyone who intelligently looked at the facts of this case and doesn't see TM as a human being, who has rights, is in my mind a racist. I look at this picture and you know what I see? A young man that looks like a baby; he could be my son!

And I look at George Zimmerman and I see a lying putz, trying to avoid responsibility for his own actions.

Exactly. That's why "stand your ground" doesn't apply to him. It's unbelievable to me that you guys keep bringing this up. Stand your ground is a tool to avoid prosecution, TM dead and not on trial in this case. Therefore the law doesn't legally apply to him.

Now if you want to argue that TM was within his rights to fight GZ or whatever that's an entirely different issue.

How much clearer can I make this?

p.s.--Check your anger, please. We can have a civil discussion without you stating my posts are silly, disingenuous and "stupid shiit."

 

[GoIrish41]

Exactly. That's why "stand your ground" doesn't apply to him. It's unbelievable to me that you guys keep bringing this up. Stand your ground is a tool to avoid prosecution, TM dead and not on trial in this case. Therefore the law doesn't legally apply to him!

Now if you want to argue that TM was within his rights to fight GZ or whatever that's an entirely different issue.

How much clearer can I make this?

Stand your ground was a phrase long before it was a statute in Florida law. When people ask if Martin had the right to stand his ground and you say no, you are wrong. If they ask if he would have been able to apply stand your ground law (if he wasn't dead) and you say no, you are correct. but you were getting frustrated over a distinction that others may not have been.

 

[IrishLax]

Basically there are two camps of people. Camp #1 bascially takes this point of view: http://gawker.com/will-george-zimmerman-get-away-with-murder-757850043 The general premise is that the only irrefutable facts are that Zimmerman followed Martin with a gun, Zimmerman shot Martin, the end.

Then you have camp #2 says there is nothing illegal about just following someone, there is nothing illegal about carrying, there is plenty of corroborating evidence towards self-defense to make his story plausible, and there is not nearly enough evidence to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt.

What it comes down to really is subjective weighting of the facts. If you don't value anything from when Zimmerman got off the phone to when he shot Martin because there is conflicting evidence then you would convict. If you start saying "the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt..." and weighing testimony/evidence for the confrontation then it's near impossible to make a case for murder as the "motive" is practically non-existent, and still difficult to make a case for manslaughter.

Everything else is window dressing and irrelevant. It doesn't matter that Martin had photos of himself with guns or taking drugs on his cell phone. It doesn't matter that he had THC in his system. It doesn't matter that he has a history of assault (assaulted his bus driver and video taped his friends beating up a homeless man). It doesn't matter what race each person is. It doesn't matter that Zimmerman wanting to be a cop == murderer to some people.

All that matters is whether or not you accept/reject the events in the middle. If you reject them completely, then you have to convict of manslaughter. If you accept them at all and get into a debate of "who was the aggressor?" "was Zimmerman getting his butt kicked 'bad enough' to warrant shooting?" etc. there is no way that the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman wasn't acting in self defense. Legally, it is really that cut and dry. Morally, it is not.