Quote Originally Posted by Greenbeanz View Post
Why all this bending over backwards to justify Zimmerman? If he was not armed it is highly unlikely he would gave shown such poor judgement. What kind of land of the free is it where people follow you around as though they are doing the community a service? If their are no witnesses to the initial confrontation why assume that Zimmermann was the victim? It's only because it suits peoples agenda that they assume Martin threw the first punch, that is a lot of presumption. If George pushed him, attempted to wrestle him or verbally threatened him the whole situation becomes far less cut and dry. Zimmerman was not threatened with a gun or faced with an intruder in his home and yet he is being portrayed as the poor wronged victim.
I don't really understand the reasoning behind the first bolded part. I don't see how him following someone at night that fit the description of the person committing theft and vandalism in the neighborhood is predicated on him being armed. Hell I've confronted people in my neighborhood that I didn't recognize. Now I didn't do it Zimmerman style, I said "Howdy, I'm VC and live down the road are you new to neighborhood?" I caught a kid stealing my weedeater out of my garage and chased him down the street before tackling his ass. Not only was I not armed I didn't even have shoes on. I just don't buy the whole if he hadn't had a gun it never would have happened. As far as the rest of it, I'm not trying to make Zimmerman out to be someone to feel sorry for but per what the jury (arguably the people most familiar with the facts of the case) found to be true only Martin committed a crime by doubling back and assaulting Zimmerman. The jury didn't find any compelling evidence that Zimmerman acted aggressively so that is what I have to go off of.