Originally Posted by ENGINETORQUE

The moral values within each of us will determine whether we think it's right to kill an unarmed boy!

I couldn't support that in any shape or form and I don't believe the USA will either - I can't support Florida's stand your ground law either - that is in need of urgent revoking - it's a licence to legal murder!

I think this case is (among other things) a test as too whether or not SYG is a license to murder.

If the defense can pull a rabbit out of a hat and prove Martin clearly did something other than protect himself from an armed stalker, and Zimmerman is acquitted, then SYG is not proven to be a license to murder.

If nothing novel comes to light, and it is proven that Zimmerman stalked, confronted, and killed an innocent kid, and he is convicted of murder, SYG is not proven to be a license to murder.

If Martin, who was vilified by Zimmerman (saying he is "up to no good" and calling him an "" come to mind), who tried to distance himself from Zimmerman (Zimmerman himself said "! He's running), and who was killed hundreds of feet from where Zimmerman began his pursuit, is not proven to have done anything but vigorously fight his armed stalker, and Zimmerman is acquitted, then SYG is proven to be a license to murder.

Originally Posted by rcposter

I think this case is (among other things) a test as too whether or not SYG is a license to murder.

If the defense can pull a rabbit out of a hat and prove Martin clearly did something other than protect himself from an armed stalker, and Zimmerman is acquitted, then SYG is not proven to be a license to murder.

If nothing novel comes to light, and it is proven that Zimmerman stalked, confronted, and killed an innocent kid, and he is convicted of murder, SYG is not proven to be a license to murder.

If Martin, who was vilified by Zimmerman (saying he is "up to no good" and calling him an "" come to mind), who tried to distance himself from Zimmerman (Zimmerman himself said "! He's running), and who was killed hundreds of feet from where Zimmerman began his pursuit, is not proven to have done anything but vigorously fight his armed stalker, and Zimmerman is acquitted, then SYG is proven to be a license to murder.

I don't get the feeling that you understand how difficult it will be for the prosecution to prove your scenarios occurred "beyond a reasonable doubt". Yeah, you're probably right, but a jury can't convict on "probably". It takes "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Originally Posted by Kenny Sharp

Zimmerman is guilty of murder.

You can't just hunt someone down and kill them.

His story about being attacked by the youth, does not stand up to scrutiny.
More likely, the kid was unsuccessful in defending himself against Zimmerman.

The prosecution will have to prove that happened "beyond a reasonable doubt". It's easy for you to say in a forum. I only hope they can find jurors that understand their job and do it properly. And if there is evidence to prove he's guilty of a crime, I hope they give him the longest sentence possible.

Originally Posted by Treetop

I can't keep up with all these threads, so if this has been covered... Two forensics experts on voice, or sound, said it was not Zimmerman screaming, this was done scientifically, and they both stated it was not Zimmerman. They cannot test for Martin, as they have no recording of his voice.

That testimony, if it is not contradicted by a couple of other documented experts, is damning.

Those two experts have been discounted by other experts in the field. They said there was no way they could have anything conclusive off of the data and tests that they used,