His father did an interview with Fox 16 News in Miami. His father is a former judge, apparently. The father that Zimmerman had a broken nose from the fight with Martin and that he was attacked. Assuming the broken nose part is true (kind of hard to fake that), if the state only has the evidence we've heard in public, then that may be all she wrote as far as any possible indictment.

I disagree.

Trayvon Martin could have been defending himself just as George Zimmerman claims self-defense.

A broken nose (are there medical records?) after you follow someone and "just so happen" to have a gun--seems potentially justified to me. I see a possible indictment and hopefully no amount of family and friends in powerful positions will reduce that.

*****

Just like people want a lesson to be learned regarding young Black and Latino males and hoodies, I hope a lesson is being learned regarding what Neighborhood Watch is NOT about and vigilante justice.

The burden will be on the state to prove that Martin was not the aggressor. Not the other way around. Innocent 'til proven guilty. If Zimmerman was just following and was in a place he had a legal right to be, there's no duty to retreat. If that was the case and Martin attacked and caused the injuries described, I'd say lethal force was privileged at that point.

A broken nose is pretty hard to make up. Zimmerman's legal team is playing this exactly right. They're holding everything back until and if they have to deal with it in court. They don't have to convince the public that they're innocent. Just the Judge at the preliminary hearing or the Jury at trial.

Well, assuming Zimmerman's story is true (and I don't know what evidence there is to contradict it), vigilante justice isn't the story. We may just be talking about a cautionary tale for neighborhood watchers where if they scare the folks they are watching, they may end up being jumped.

That much is obvious.

A lot of things are hard to make up yet they are still fabricated.


Or a cautionary tale for neighborhood watchers where if they watch too closely, follow, and do what can be interpreted as veering into vigilante justice...and just so happen to have a gun...they may be brought up on charges. We shall see.

Nah. His attorney is handling this spectacularly. Everything which has been released from their side has been released purposefully, at least from what I've seen. If they say his nose was broken, it was. It would be up to the state to prove that Martin broke Zimmerman's nose in self-defense. There has been quite a bit of stuff, i.e., this, the Martin's juvenile charges, etc. which really don't fit with the narrative found in the first few pages of this thread. I'm not making the call either way at this point, but whether Martin is any kind of a victim at all in this thing is yet to be seen.

"Following closely" cannot be vigilante justice. Period. As far as carrying a gun while on neighborhood watch, you'd be nuts not to. There are bad people out there and sometimes it's you or them. To think otherwise is naive.

I've always been under the impression that the operative word in "Neighborhood Watch" was "watch." In all of the neighborhoods that I've lived in with a NW program, the participants kept an eye on things and contacted the proper authorities when things were fishy. I have never seen or heard of someone try to take down a suspicious person.

Is this not the case in most places? That was one of the things that stood out to me the most with this incident.

This is my understanding of the term and has always been the case from the time my childhood neighborhood formed a watch. If my parents knew the watchmen were carrying guns, we probably would have moved.

Exactly.

As for the bolded, I assume you are talking about people who are affiliated with NW rather than the Joe Horns of the world. The national rep for Neighborhood Watch was on on Nancy Grace talking about this.

Interesting:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...9.story?page=2

http://www.walb.com/story/17193827/n...-phone-not-gun

Maybe.

Exactly what Zimmerman was doing is not yet determined.

Sure. All I can go on is what evidence is out there. The evidence we now know about, that he did have some wounds consistent with his story, etc., this was plausibly self-defense. The state is going to have to prove it wasn't.

That doesn't mean Zimmerman isn't a dumbass for doing what he apparently did, but that also doesn't make him guilty of murder.

Starting with the audio tape evidence that Zimmerman was following Martin, and, obviously continued to do so after being told not to by a police dispatcher, that would make Zimmerman the agressor in the minds of most reasonable people. Add to that the fact that Martin was unarmed and according to reports no more than 500 feet from his destination, Martin suddenly turning to attack his pursurer is not as reasonably plausible as other scenarios.


If Zimmerman had a legal right to not retreat, so to did Martin. If you cannot prove Zimmerman attacked, how can you prove Martin attacked? Yet Martin is dead. Other audio evidence regarding timeline and the confrontation, calls into question motives that night.

You mentioned Martin's past juvenile record, so I assume you think Zimmerman's 2005 attack on a police officer will be fair game as well?

Even if Zimmerman's nose is broken (we'll see) that's not proof that he still was not the agressor. Broken noses usually result in lots of lost blood. Yet Zimmerman's shirt appeared to be virtually free of blood (from video), and his face was bandage-free, 35 minutes after the confrontation. Add to that the EMT, heard on audio cancelling the second ambulance (meant for Zimmerman). There are plenty of reasons for reasonable minds to question the severity of the alleged injuries and whether deadly force was necesary.

There indeed are plenty of questions to be answered in the case.

The state will have to prove that Zimmerman attacked. Not that it was likely or plausible that he attacked.

If Zimmerman takes the stand, it could be introduced that he plead to resisting an officer without violence.

You don't have to wait until you've suffered severe injuries to defend yourself. Don't be so obtuse.

But to defend yourself with lethal force against someone half your age and half your size? That's a bit much.

Save the ad hominem. Zimmerman's surrogates claim he was beaten severely, and his fear led him to shoot Martin. Hopefully, a jury will get to decide whether they saw sufficient "injury" to fuel the fear his surrogates say led to his actions.

Fox News has released "enhanced" video, which could mean enhanced as in improved or enhanced as in doctored which shows possible injuries to Zimmerman's scalp area.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/03...show-injuries/

That's consistent with the story that he was knocked down and his head was hit on the curb.