State Pushes To Keep Trayvon Martins Past Out of Zimmerman Trial

Originally posted by Slugworth
So we have a lawyer with no professional experience writing or interpreting DNA results who claims to know what happened, and a scientist who specialises in writing and interpreting DNA results cautioning us against viewing any such interpretation, including his own, as wholly indicative of the facts. I'm inclined to hold to the opinion of the scientist and much higher than that of the lawyer, and especially so given that he leaves room for doubt in his interpretation while the lawyer claims authority without room for doubt.
....

... that lack of good judgement does not in itself make him guilty of a crime. I don't know if he's innocent or guilty, but you are certain of his guilt. You would make a very poor juror.

What was the point of your post? The DNA expert essentially confirms what the lawyer with the "questionable reputation" asserted -- the fact that there was NOT a widespread commingling of DNA on Trayvon's body.

I'm well aware that though absolutely definitive proof cannot be extrapolated based on the evidence presented, some conclusions CAN certainly be drawn. As already mentioned, if the encounter was as violent and intense as gz alleges, there would hardly have been a spot on Trayvon's body or clothing where a heavy dose of gz's DNA did not exist.

Common sense then dictates that the struggle, if such occurred at all, was very likely not anything like how gz portrayed it.

Your second point is nonsensical as well. There is no doubt that gz is guilty of a crime, because he killed someone in a confrontation that he initiated. There's no way out of that one. The killer was not in his house, or on some ground that he had a blanket right to defend. He was in the deadly situation because he CHOSE to leave his vehicle, sprint after an innocent teen, and confront him.

Doing so violated every single "neighborhood watch" rule, which stipulate that when a call is made to the police about a "suspicious" person, the individual on watch is NEVER supposed to confront the other person. Moreover, it is even more taboo to confront the person while armed. So Georgie Porgy VOLUNTARILY PLACED himself in a position for the tragedy to occur; it was not forced upon him in any way, shape, or form. It goes without saying that he deliberately ignored the police dispatcher, who said that he did not need to pursue Trayvon at all.

Added to the above is the fact that the DNA evidence indicates that Trayvon never got hold of gz's gun. In short, there appears to be absolutely no reason for gz to kill the young man, none at all. Let's see what kind of story gz puts together to convince a jury that he was honestly felt he had to use lethal force because he felt his life was in danger. It will be a doozy, I'm sure.

As to your last petty point about my probably being a "poor juror", it would be interesting to see your reaction should one of your loved ones perish under exactly the same circumstances that Trayvon did. I'll bet everything I own that you would have zero problem in coming to the exact same conclusions that a great many people have when looking at the evidence in this case -- that gz caused the confrontation and unjustly murdered a young man who was minding his own business. If a member of your family was similarly killed, there would be no "wait for the evidence" quotes from you, and your current detached attitude would be quite different, I'm sure.

Whether the killing was premeditated, or not, gz is guilty of causing Trayvon's death. All that remains is to determine the appropriate length of incarceration.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by verylowfrequency
You have been demanding links and proof from several users, I question your intentions.

It's very simple ...
A poster says that Zimmerman has a history of violence and/or racist remarks.
The poster doesnt' give any information about it .. but just posts that claim.
It is up to that poster to provide proof of the statement, otherwise, it's just a claim.

My intent ... TO GET THE FACTS whatever direction they take.

Another issue with the so-called 'facts' is how distorted are they being as they come from the biased MSM?
The person writing the article could be projecting their own personal feelings into the issue which is gonna be one sided or twist the info and distort the facts to suit their interest.
[CBS comes to mind...]

Until the trial gets started, all we have is hearsay from the media.........whoopidy doo.

If reporters had integrity like they used to back in the good old days, it might be a different story.
But as it is now a days, it's all about the ratings, not the truth.

reply to post by shepseskaf

What was the point of your post? The DNA expert essentially confirms what the lawyer with the "questionable reputation" asserted -- the fact that there was NOT a widespread commingling of DNA on Trayvon's body. I'm well aware that though absolutely definitive proof cannot be extrapolated based on the evidence presented, some conclusions CAN certainly be drawn. As already mentioned, if the encounter was as violent and intense as gz alleges, there would hardly have been a spot on Trayvon's body or clothing where a heavy dose of gz's DNA did not exist.

The DNA expert says that we should not draw conclusions based on the the publicly released DNA report, but you insist on doing that. The DNA report does not say that Martin had none of Zimmerman's DNA on his hands. It does not mention his hands at all, other than his fingernails. You are assuming this is because his hands were tested and nothing was found. There could be very good reasons why his hands were not tested, or not included in the report. Can reliable DNA information be lifted from the knuckles of a corpse? Maybe it can, I don't know, but I'm not going to assume that it can based on "common sense" because there is nothing common about knowledge of DNA forensics. By assuming that you have the knowledge and context necessary to interpret and draw conclusions from that DNA report you are still taking the advice of the lawyer over that of the scientist, who advised that we not make such conclusions.

Another quote from forensic scientist Mehul B. Anjaria

I hope that this blog posting provided a better understanding of the DNA report in this case, but more importantly of how DNA is interpreted in general and how complicated it is. Without reviewing all of the notes, data, etc. behind the testing I as an expert cannot fully determine the significance of the findings. Certainly laypersons in the media reading only a DNA report cannot either.

DNA results are complicated, and I think it can be surprising to the public just how much “grey area” there is. The DNA report in this case raises a lot of questions that will have to be answered by experts on both sides who have full DNA discovery.

violated every single "neighborhood watch" rule, which stipulate that when a call is made to the police about a "suspicious" person, the individual on watch is NEVER supposed to confront the other person. Moreover, it is even more taboo to confront the person while armed. So Georgie Porgy VOLUNTARILY PLACED himself in a position for the tragedy to occur; it was not forced upon him in any way, shape, or form. It goes without saying that he deliberately ignored the police dispatcher, who said that he did not need to pursue Trayvon at all.

Neighborhood watch rules are not laws. The punishment for violating the neighborhood watch rules is being kicked off the neighborhood watch, not prison. The same goes for disobeying the 911 operator.

gz caused the confrontation and unjustly murdered a young man who was minding his own business.

Even if Zimmerman were unambiguosly harrasing Martin, throwing racial slurs at him, and insulting his mother it is not a legal excuse for Martin to attack Zimmerman. If Martin was attacking Zimmerman and he feared for his life then he may have been justified in shooting Martin. Zimmerman may have been in violation of the law when he shot, and that is why he is going to trial and facing prison. However, Martin was clearly and inarguably breaking the law when he attacked Zimmerman. He didn't deserve to die, but he made the choice that he was going to fight Zimmerman and he lost the fight. That is why I don't go around picking fights with people, and it is why I ignore people who try to pick fights with me. If Martin had ignored Zimmerman and walked home nothing would have happened.

As to your last petty point about my probably being a "poor juror", it would be interesting to see your reaction should one of your loved ones perish under exactly the same circumstances that Trayvon did.

Are you related to Trayvon Martin? If so, you have my condolences as it is without doubt a terrible thing that happened. It could have easily been avoided, and there are lessons to be learned from it by us standing on the outside and watching. However, the emotions of family members have no relevance to the legality of what happened.

If you are not related to Trayvon Martin than you should not presume to know how they feel about the situation.

Originally posted by Slugworth
Even if Zimmerman were unambiguosly harrasing Martin, throwing racial slurs at him, and insulting his mother it is not a legal excuse for Martin to attack Zimmerman. If Martin was attacking Zimmerman and he feared for his life then he may have been justified in shooting Martin. Zimmerman may have been in violation of the law when he shot, and that is why he is going to trial and facing prison. However, Martin was clearly and inarguably breaking the law when he attacked Zimmerman. He didn't deserve to die, but he made the choice that he was going to fight Zimmerman and he lost the fight. That is why I don't go around picking fights with people, and it is why I ignore people who try to pick fights with me. If Martin had ignored Zimmerman and walked home nothing would have happened.

Ah, as expected the mask begins to slip. While masquerading as an unbiased observer, you're little more than a gz supporter and apologist. How unsurprising.

From my previous comments, you should have inferred that I have considerable doubt that an altercation actually took place in the manner gz has alleged. All we have is the word of an prolific liar that it did -- a liar who is desperately trying to keep himself out of prison.

You, however, as shown in the above quote, have based your entire position on assuming not only that a fight took place, but that Trayvon started it. Let's examine the facts.

We do know that gz aggressively left the "safety" of his car to chase Trayvon. We also know, despite your ridiculous brushing aside that he did not obey the neighborhood watch rules and the police dispatcher, gz was well aware that he wasn't supposed to be actively chasing anyone. We also know that gz was cited for assaulting a police officer and for physically abusing his ex-fiancée. There is a report that while working as a bouncer, he went over the top in roughly throwing a woman out of a club. So, there is a plethora of evidence which paints gz as someone prone to initiate physical violence. For Trayvon, no such evidence exists.

Therefore, we know without question that one participant in this tragic episode was both aggressive, belligerent and violent. That was gz. There is NO definitive evidence that Trayvon started a fight at all. None. The DNA doesn't confirm it, nor do the injuries to his body. If you want to put your trust in the word of a proven liar, that's up to you. I don't believe that's a viable option. I think gz lied extensively about the character of the "fight".

All Trayvon knew that night is that a strange, aggressive man with a gun was chasing after him in the night. In no way, shape or form does gz get the immunity card of "self-defense". He initiated the confrontation, actively pursued Trayvon and killed him roughly 50 yards from his vehicle. That's a long, long way to chase someone -- almost half the length of a football field.

To reiterate, if one follows the evidence and assumes that gz was the only aggressor, then your argument falls completely to pieces. There is no direct evidence that Trayvon was "clearly and inarguably breaking the law when he attacked" gz. None at all.

Some of your post makes a complete mockery of common sense. You wrote, "If Martin had ignored Zimmerman and walked home nothing would have happened". To refresh your memory, that's what Trayvon was trying to do in the first place, before being attacked by gz. Suppose Trayvon couldn't simply "ignore" an aggressive, crazed man who was chasing him with a gun?

So, thus ends this debate. All of your arguments are based on the assumption that gz is telling the truth and that Trayvon initiated a fight, when the preponderance of the evidence indicates that this was not so. Trayvon was not the person with the reputation for aggression and physical assaults; gz was. In all likelihood, Trayvon was simply attempting to free himself to get away from a man he very likely thought might have deadly intentions. Unfortunately, he was right.

reply to post by shepseskaf

While masquerading as an unbiased observer, you're little more than a gz supporter and apologist.

I don't support Zimmerman in the least. I hope he is found guilty based on strong evidence and sent to jail. Satisfied? I just don't think it will happen unless there is some bombshell information that will come out in the trial. I haven't heard anything that proves his guilt.

From my previous comments, you should have inferred that I have considerable doubt that an altercation actually took place in the manner gz has alleged.

You have not expressed any doubt about the altercation. You are certain that Zimmerman attacked Martin. I do not claim to know what happened, but you do.

We do know that gz aggressively left the "safety" of his car to chase Trayvon. We also know, despite your ridiculous brushing aside that he did not obey the neighborhood watch rules and the police dispatcher, gz was well aware that he wasn't supposed to be actively chasing anyone.

Zimmerman is legally allowed to get out of his car. He is allowed to walk near Martin. He is allowed to follow him. If Martin runs he is allowed to run in the same direction. He is allowed to break neighborhood watch protocols. He is allowed to ignore the recommendations of the 911 operator None of those actions break any laws.

We also know that gz was cited for assaulting a police officer and for physically abusing his ex-fiancée. There is a report that while working as a bouncer, he went over the top in roughly throwing a woman out of a club. So, there is a plethora of evidence which paints gz as someone prone to initiate physical violence.

All relevant points when considering Zimmerman's intent, but circumstantial with regard to Martin's homocide.

There is NO definitive evidence that Trayvon started a fight at all. None. The DNA doesn't confirm it, nor do the injuries to his body. If you want to put your trust in the word of a proven liar, that's up to you. I don't believe that's a viable option. I think gz lied extensively about the character of the "fight".

Likewise, there is NO definitive evidence that Zimmerman started the fight either. The DNA doesn't confirm it, nor do the injuries to his body. There is no evidence of who started it, but you are certain that Zimmerman was the aggressor. I admit that I do not know.

if one follows the evidence and assumes that gz was the only aggressor, then your argument falls completely to pieces.

Sure, but why are you making assumptions? Why not wait and see what is revealed during the trial? You are accusing me of being a Zimmerman supporter. I admit that I don't know if he is guilty or innocent. If Zimmerman is sent to jail I won't shed any tears for him, trust me. If he avoids jail but has a terrible accident I won't mind either. That said, I think everyone deserves to be treated as innocent until proven guilty. Why are you so sure that he is guilty before he has a trial? Why is his innocence not a possibility worth considering?

So, thus ends this debate.

lol, I wish. People will be arguing about this for decades. Too many people who weren't there seem to magically know exactly what happened.

Originally posted by Slugworth
Likewise, there is NO definitive evidence that Zimmerman started the fight either. The DNA doesn't confirm it, nor do the injuries to his body.

You're getting confused. The most important, and unassailable, fact is that gz killed Trayvon Martin. This isn't a case of someone being given a bloody lip. A young man was brutally, senselessly, and violently killed in a completely avoidable situation.

The killer has already confessed to doing so. That isn't in dispute The burden on gz and his lawyer is to convince a jury that he had the legal justification to do so.

That is the crux of the case.

There are physical confrontations that take place every day, all over the world. However, if one of the combatants turns up dead as a result, then the other person generally goes to jail. Even if you kill someone by mistake, you will most likely be incarcerated. Its called 'manslaughter', and it is one of the felonies that gz has been charged under, and can be convicted for.

There is a woman in Florida who was convicted and sentenced to 20+ years in prison for simply firing a bullet past her abusive ex-husband to get him to leave her alone. She didn't kill or even injure him, yet she's going to be in jail for a long, long time..

That is what gz is facing. When you kill someone, there had better be an air-tight reason for doing so.

So, it all boils down to whether in the eyes of a jury, gz was legally justified in killing Travyon. The entire case thus hinges on proving the whole "pounding of the head into the ground" scenario that gz has alleged. Not only that, gz must prove that even if his head was being "pounded", he was in such fear for his life that he was legally justified in using lethal force.

That is going to be an extremely tough standard to measure up to.

Here is the forensic evidence that will ultimately sink gz.

From the article written by the DNA expert in the link you provided:

Exhibit ME-2: Fingernail scrapings represented as being from Trayvon Benjamin Martin

“gave chemical indications for the presence of blood”

Right hand: “No DNA results foreign to Trayvon Benjamin Martin (ME-3) were found on Exhibit ME-2A”

Read that again, then think about its implications.

The killer has stated that Trayvon was pounding his head into the concrete repeatedly. At one point, Trayvon "allegedly" put his hands all over gz's face and mouth.

Now use your common sense. It would be physically impossible for a person to do what Trayvon is alleged to have done and NOT get any of the other persons DNA under his fingernails. If the confrontation happened as gz described, then his DNA would be heavily represented all over Trayvon's hands, in every nook and cranny.

Again, it would not be possible for hold someone's head in your hands and violently move it up and down without getting some "foreign DNA" under your fingernails. Absolutely impossible.

Add that to the lack of DNA evidence on the rest of Trayvon's body and clothing, and you have a huge reason to reasonably doubt gz's described scenario. And if there wasn't a violent fight, then gz has absolutely no legal justification for killing Trayvon. None at all. Also note that Trayvon's DNA was not found anywhere on the murder weapon.

That is the evidence that will convict gz. The DNA does not support his alibi.

Why are you so sure that he is guilty before he has a trial? Why is his innocence not a possibility worth considering?

Here are the facts: gz is guilty of pursuing Travyon when he had no right to, and when he was specifically told not to. He is guilty of bringing a gun into the situation. He is guilty of killing Trayvon.

So, under no circumstances is gz "innocent". He killed someone in a situation that he aggressively inserted himself into. He carried a gun into the confrontation, when all of the rules he was supposed to be following forbade him from doing so. He ignored the advice given to him by the police dispatcher.

All of these facts would be negligible, as you've already noted, if a murder did not take place. As already noted, when someone is killed, even if in error, the person who does it typically goes to jail. Any claims of "self-defense" are, of course, significantly vitiated by gz's own actions. You can't deliberately insert yourself into a confrontation, then claim self-defense.

The best that gz can hope for is to be found "not guilty". He can never be judged "innocent" because he admittedly perpetrated the crime.

But, as stated several times, even killing a person by accident is not generally accepted as an excuse. The perpetrator must have an iron-clad reason for depriving another person of life. Given all of the evidence that gz aggressively placed himself in a confrontation that turned deadly, it is extremely unlikely that such an iron-clad justification exists.

There was no excuse for this murder.

reply to post by shepseskaf

The most important, and unassailable, fact is that gz killed Trayvon Martin.

This in itself does not make him guilty of a crime.

Now use your common sense. It would be physically impossible for a person to do what Trayvon is alleged to have done and NOT get any of the other persons DNA under his fingernails.

DNA forensics is not based on common sense. There is nothing common about that topic. If I performed heart surgeory on someone using common sense the patient would die. If I make an assessment of someone's guilt by applying common sense to a partial DNA forensic report there is a good chance I would come to an incorrect conclusion.

He killed someone in a situation that he aggressively inserted himself into. He carried a gun into the confrontation, when all of the rules he was supposed to be following forbade him from doing so. He ignored the advice given to him by the police dispatcher.

None of these are inherently criminal acts.

You can't deliberately insert yourself into a confrontation, then claim self-defense.

Yes you can. If I am going door-to-door passing out literature, someone does not appreciate the literature and attacks me, and I defend myself it is self defense despite the fact that I deliberatly inserted myself into the confrontation.

The best that gz can hope for is to be found "not guilty". He can never be judged "innocent" because he admittedly perpetrated the crime.

What is the difference between "not guilty" and "innoncent"? Should the popular phrase "innocent until proven guilty" be ammended to say "not guilty until proven guilty"? Are you critiquing my semantics?

There was no excuse for this murder.

Sure, there is no excuse. However, it may have been justifiable. Semantics!

Originally posted by snarky412
My, my, aren't we open-minded and nonjudgmental for some one who doesn't know all the facts surrounding the case.

So if you were picked as a juror, I take it you would have your decision made before the facts were known??
Nice to know......

Hey, it's not like youu don't have your own preconceptions... see below.

Originally posted by snarky412
Both sides were at fault, no doubt about that,

Were they really? How've you come to that conclusion? Not via that untrustworthy msm reporting, I hope?

Originally posted by snarky412
but if you want to get picky, the 'rumors' are TM slammed Zimmerman MMA style. Many would see that as self-defense excuse.....

"Rumors?" So, you're accepting rumours as a basis for your decisions on this case? Nice to know. And despite Zimmerman never mentioning being MMA-style body slammed to the ground by his vicious attacker.

Originally posted by snarky412
I'm on the fence on this one until I hear ALL the facts not just hearsay......

Seems that's not entirely true, is it?

Originally posted by snarky412
And yes, both families are hurting in different ways.
Sorry if you don't or won't understand that.

I do understand it. One family is hurting because their son's life was brought to an unwarranted end, and the other is hurting because their son is being made to face the music and doesn't like the way the band is playing.

Originally posted by Slugworth
Yes you can. If I am going door-to-door passing out literature, someone does not appreciate the literature and attacks me, and I defend myself it is self defense despite the fact that I deliberatly inserted myself into the confrontation.

That's a good example, but Z was not selling products door to door. He was, by his own admission, on the trail of a person he believed was involved in local burglaries and might even be dangerous, as he looked as if he was on drugs and had his hand near his waistband, like he might have had a weapon there. Yet, we are expected to believe that under such circumstances, Z got out of his vehicle, headed towards a dark pathway where he had seen this suspicious person enter, then totally took his eye off the ball and got ambushed?

reply to post by IvanAstikov


The point is that, just as the door to door salesman was not in violation of the law simply because he inserted himself into the situation Zimmerman was not necessarily in violation of the law simply because he inserted himself into the situation. The standard of self defense is not about whether you chose to put yourself in the situation. Choosing to walk down a dark pathway does not inherently remove the right to self defense.

Originally posted by Slugworth
reply to post by IvanAstikov

 

The point is that, just as the door to door salesman was not in violation of the law simply because he inserted himself into the situation Zimmerman was not necessarily in violation of the law simply because he inserted himself into the situation. The standard of self defense is not about whether you chose to put yourself in the situation. Choosing to walk down a dark pathway does not inherently remove the right to self defense.

T'is true, but Z didn't transport magically into that dark pathway, he arrived there by a result of previous decisions, ones which a reasonable person should have known might have led to a confrontation whereby he might have to defend himself. Almost as if he was looking for such an outcome..

Originally posted by Slugworth
Yes you can. If I am going door-to-door passing out literature, someone does not appreciate the literature and attacks me, and I defend myself it is self defense despite the fact that I deliberatly inserted myself into the confrontation.

Selling literature door-to-door is NOT analogous to inserting oneself into a confrontation. It also bears absolutely no relation to what gz did.

What is the difference between "not guilty" and "innoncent"?

Under the aegis of the law, every accused person is supposed to be viewed as innocent until proven guilty. In actuality, an "innocent" person has not committed, or has nothing to do with a given crime. Killing another human being is the ultimate criminal act, and gz has already confessed to doing so. The best he can hope for is to be judged "not-guilty". He will never be "innocent".

Originally posted by shepseskaf
He is guilty of bringing a gun into the situation

He had the legal right to carry the gun. He is guilty of nothing in regards to carrying a gun.

So, under no circumstances is gz "innocent".

That's wrong. If he killed in self defense, he's innocent.

He ignored the advice given to him by the police dispatcher.

Not a crime.

The best that gz can hope for is to be found "not guilty". He can never be judged "innocent" because he admittedly perpetrated the crime.

No. He admitted he killed Martin. He admitted no 'CRIME'.
We don't know if any crime by Zimmerman actually took place.

There is no excuse for this murder

At this point It isn't 'murder'. It is an unnatural death.
We dont' know if it's murder or self defense.
We'll know after the trial.

reply to post by shepseskaf

Killing another human being is the ultimate criminal act

Killing another human being is not always a criminal act.

Is a court-ordered execution a criminal act?
Is an abortion a criminal act?
Is a police officer killing a gunman shooting random people on a killing spree a criminal act?
Is a soldier killing an enemy a criminal act?
Is an accidental, non-negligent vehicular homicide a criminal act?
Is removing someone from a life support system according to their written will a criminal act?

These are all examples of legal homicides.

The best he can hope for is to be judged "not-guilty". He will never be "innocent".

My premise through this whole discussion has been that we should at least recognize the possibility that he is not guilty, and I am glad that you have done that.

Originally posted by shepseskaf
We also know that gz was cited for assaulting a police officer and for physically abusing his ex-fiancée. There is a report that while working as a bouncer, he went over the top in roughly throwing a woman out of a club. So, there is a plethora of evidence which paints gz as someone prone to initiate physical violence. For Trayvon, no such evidence exists.

If you wish to bring in Zimmermans history .... then you have to bring in the Martin history. Martins drug use. Martins aggressive nature and fights. Martins truency. Martins thefts. If the history of one of these people matters, then the history of both of them do.

Zimmermans history doesn't matter. Martins history doesn't matter. The ONLY thing that matters is what happened when the gun went off. Was Martin beating the snot out of Zimmerman and Zimmerman fired in self defense? Or did Zimmerman just open fire on an unarmed pedestrian who wasn't threatening him? That's it.

Side note .. just because Zimmerman had been following Martin briefly in the neighborhood, that is NOT an excuse for Martin to turn on Zimmerman when his back is turned and to assault him. If it turns out that is what happened, then Martin is the one who broke the law by assaulting Zimmerman.

Like I said .. the facts will come out at the trial. Then we'll know.

Not said to me but I just have to respond -

Originally posted by shepseskaf
While masquerading as an unbiased observer, you're little more than a gz supporter and apologist. How unsurprising..

...... says the Martin supporter and apologist.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
He had the legal right to carry the gun. He is guilty of nothing in regards to carrying a gun.

Completely incorrect. While performing duties under Neighborhood Watch, the National Sheriffs Association is quite clear in stipulating that regardless of any permits, "MEMBERS...SHALL NOT CARRY WEAPONS.."

Relevant portions of the Neighborhood Watch Manual:

"It should be emphasized to members that they do not possess police powers and they shall not carry weapons...."

"Members should never confront suspicious persons....."

Neighborhood Watch Manual

Also understand the context in which I am stating that gz is guilty. I am well aware that he cannot be truly adjudged to be "guilty" until the trial has concluded. My use the word is analogous to 'culpability' for the acts that he committed.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
...... says the Martin supporter and apologist. :@@

I have never attempted to pretend not to be a Trayvon Martin supporter. The poster I referred to has made a big show of trying to project impartiality, when -- in my view -- he is actually far from that.

Originally posted by Slugworth
Killing another human being is not always a criminal act.

Is a court-ordered execution a criminal act?
Is an abortion a criminal act?
Is a police officer killing a gunman shooting random people on a killing spree a criminal act?
Is a soldier killing an enemy a criminal act?
Is an accidental, non-negligent vehicular homicide a criminal act?
Is removing someone from a life support system according to their written will a criminal act?

These are all examples of legal homicides.

Statements must be recognized for the context in which they are made. In every single one of the examples you noted, except for a state-ordered execution, a court could conceivably judge that the killing was a criminal act.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Zimmermans history doesn't matter.

A killer's/perpetrator's history DOES matter. A victim's history can certainly be examined, but is generally not given as much weight as the previous acts of the person who actually committed the fatal act.

Originally posted by shepseskaf

Originally posted by FlyersFan
He had the legal right to carry the gun. He is guilty of nothing in regards to carrying a gun.

Completely incorrect. While performing duties under Neighborhood Watch, the National Sheriffs Association is quite clear in stipulating that that, regardless of any permits, "MEMBERS...SHALL NOT CARRY WEAPONS.."

Interesting.
Was he officially on a Neighborhood Watch? Or was he on his own?
I've heard it both ways. That's something worth looking into.

Originally posted by shepseskaf
"Members should never confront suspicious persons....."

Zimmerman didn't confront Martin. He followed him at a distance.
That's different.