There is support for those views, you just insist on calling them biased and dismissing them. Martin's girlfriends' account, for example, clearly suggests that Zimmerman did eventually find and confront Martin.

What exactly do you guys believe happened, anyway? That Zimmerman just happened to be chillin' out around his neighborhood, carrying a gun for some reason, making an innocent 911 call about something and then OH NO LOOK OUT A BLACK DUDE CAME OUT OF NOWHERE and Zimmerman barely escaped with his life?

I mean, seriously, I'd like to hear what your version is and how it results in Zimmerman "obviously" going free.

Does that entitle the other person to bash my face in?

Martin approaches Zimmerman from behind.

Martin attacks Zimmerman, bowling him to the ground before mounting him and pummeling him with fists and slamming Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk.

Martin realizes Zimmerman has a gun, and reaches for it. There is a scramble for the weapon; Zimmerman draws first and fires. Martin dies.

Everything I'm relating here is in evidence. There are no credible accounts, including that of Martin's girlfriend, that disputes anything I've related here. Anything not stated here is likely just conjecture, unsupported by evidence or witness testimony.

And if you think all of this leads to a murder conviction, you're insane.

We don't know that. There's no evidence that this was the case.

We don't know this either, as there is no evidence of it. Just conflicting reports from Zimmerman and various eyewitnesses.

Again, we don't know this. No evidence of it, just Zimmerman's account.

I agree, it's unlikely that it will result in a murder conviction. I do think it's possible that Zimmerman gets a manslaughter conviction though.

Wrong. Timelines presented by the call to the police support Zimmerman's account.

Wrong. The medical reports, photographs from the scene and from the police, as well as testimony from the witness with the clearest view of the altercation all support this. The injuries to Zimmerman were consistent with being struck repeatedly in the face while on his back. The only witness that was certain of the position of the two men places Martin on top of Zimmerman, even if he can't recall whether Martin was actually striking Zimmerman. Again, that doesn't matter: we have Zimmerman's injuries as proof of that.

I find manslaughter unlikely as well. There's no proof that Zimmerman isn't telling the truth about leaving off pursuit of Martin, of Martin approaching him from behind, or of Martin instigating the attack. Nor is there proof that Martin didn't reach for Zimmerman's weapon.

Anyone who believes Zimmerman killed Martin for any other reason than self-defense is deluded. They aren't basing their opinion on the facts. They are speculating and theorizing and, frankly, ignoring the facts in most cases. Just because you want him to be guilty doesn't mean he is.

Everything I'm relating here is in evidence.

That's a straw man. You didn't answer my question.

Extra bonus points because the guy with the gun is the only one left alive to make a statement into evidence, so guys like Tyral can say, "The only evidence says he's innocent!"

So yes, that bothers me.

You know what? Tough shit. You're ignoring the evidence in favor of what you "think" or "hope" happened.

You not only expect him to be lying, you WANT him to be lying. It's like this ridiculous, pathological need.

But when you start ignoring everything that's been reported on the case, then you just look like vindictive assholes who want someone punished.

It might hurt him in the court of public opinion.

Yes, again, that evidence that boils down to, "The statement from the accused."

Flip back through the logic book, back before Straw Man (I know! I have it earmarked too), and find Ad Hominem. Then stop doing it. My reasons for believing Zimmerman belongs in jail are simple; vigilantism is bad, a kid is dead because Z couldn't leave it to the cops, and I think he should be held responsible for it. If you can't argue the point without trying to portray all your opponents as sinister conspirators trying to frame Zimmerman, the perspective in need of objective re-evaluation isn't ours.

And if you can't argue your point in terms of actual evidence, then of course I'm going to point that out. And if you ignore the evidence in favor of whatever opinion you've already crafted, it isn't ad hominem to point out bias. You're biased. And you don't care whether Zimmerman's story is true, you just want him punished.

Hang on. Are you seriously contending that by refuting your statements, I'm ignoring the evidence? That a post with no links in it should be discarded because it's just a response, and presents nothing from Associated Press? That a reaction to the evidence somehow counts as ignoring the evidence?? And you have the balls to call me biased?

I don't need to present evidence, I'm not a fucking attorney.

And now the wife has been arrested for perjury, regarding money from the "donation fund" being omitted from their financials during the bond hearing.

Except that "initiate a confrontation" isn't what happened. Or at the very least, there's no evidence to suggest that Zimmerman did so. In fact, the evidence suggests that Martin was at his father's house and elected not to go in, instead doubling back and confronting Zimmerman.

Except that "initiate a confrontation" isn't what happened. Or at the very least, there's no evidence to suggest that Zimmerman did so. In fact, the evidence suggests that Martin was at his father's house and elected not to go in, instead doubling back and confronting Zimmerman.

Stalking someone with a gun drawn isn't initiating a confrontation? What an amazing world you live in.

The Young Turks? Really Fin?

I'd have a tough time finding a more uneducated, thoughtless, biased opinion anywhere on the internet.

What Zim did was wrong, stupid, and reckless, but it wasn't illegal. That's the end of the story.

What Zim did was wrong, stupid, and reckless, but it wasn't illegal. That's the end of the story.

That's the real problem here. There are just too many "Tough Guy" laws on the books in some states now that just encourage insecure macho men to hurt people as long as there's a "Tough Guy" reason to do it.

Laws like "Stand Your Ground" or the even more absurd "Nighttime Property" laws in Texas that say you can kill someone if you see them doing something even as simple as graffiti, even if they start fleeing when you see them.

If you have to kill someone to defend yourself from a situation you started it's still your fault.

Martin approaches Zimmerman from behind. Zimmerman turns to him, there is a verbal exchange of some sort (there are two differing accounts of this exchange; Zimmerman's, and Martin's girlfriend - in neither case is Zimmerman described as being aggressive). Martin attacks Zimmerman, bowling him to the ground before mounting him and pummeling him with fists and slamming Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk. Martin realizes Zimmerman has a gun, and reaches for it. There is a scramble for the weapon; Zimmerman draws first and fires. Martin dies.