“George Zimmerman, Off The Hook”

  • submit to reddit

With George Zimmerman off the hook for shooting Trayvon Martin, Shoot-em-up Charlie takes a look at how the case was won. With ALEC, the NRA and Stand-Your-Ground laws, this case was about much more than race. A Mark Fiore political animation.

Note: The audio played over the credits is a tape of a 911 call that Texas resident Joe Horn made in 2007. The dramatic call documents Horn’s decision to use his shotgun to stop a burglary in progress at his neighbor’s house — against the instructions of the 911 operator. Horn shot and killed both burglars, and was later cleared of all charges by a grand jury. The Tampa Bay Times reports that over 200 cases have involved Stand Your Ground laws in Florida since 2005.

  • submit to reddit

BillMoyers.com encourages conversation and debate around issues, events and ideas related to content on Moyers & Company and the BillMoyers.com website.

  • The editorial staff reserves the right to take down comments it deems inappropriate.
  • Profanity, personal attacks, hate speech, off-topic posts, advertisements and spam will not be tolerated.
  • Do not intentionally make false or misleading statements, impersonate someone else, break the law, or condone or encourage unlawful activity.

If your comments consistently or intentionally make this community a less civil and enjoyable place to be, you and your comments will be excluded from it.

We need your help with this. If you feel a post is not in line with the comment policy, please flag it so that we can take a look. Comments and questions about our policy are welcome. Please send an email to feedback@billmoyers.com

Find out more about BillMoyers.com's privacy policy and terms of service.

  • rubyruby

    He had time to take a picture of them, read a license plate if he could see it from a window. Don’t kill somebody over material stuff. All Joe Horn could think of doing was to kill them. Police usually give you a chance to put your hands up, drop the weapon, or whatever.

    Is Joe gonna shoot somebody putting a flyer in his neighbor’s door? Too many of our problems seem to be solved only with bullets.

  • Anonymous

    For some, race is more than enough. It is their existence, their experiences, their life, the lives of their family and friends.

  • Bernadene

    don’t you think this cartoon is a little extreme?

  • Anonymous

    This is shameful.

  • JonThomas

    Nope, it’s political satire meant to prove a point.

    That someone can put themselves in a dangerous position, threaten another person’s safety by following and approaching them in a suspicious manner, then because of a law that provides validity to use a gun to commit a normally punishable crime(in the Zimmerman case, murder) they get to walk away without punishment.

    The extreme is when you take a concept like self-defense, corrupt it by passing a law that provides shelter for you to accost someone and claim killing as a right.

    Martin was the one protecting himself. Zimmerman put himself in the threatening position. This cartoon makes the point that if this corruption of basic concepts were applied to other situations, the silliness would be evident.

  • JonThomas

    What is shameful? The cartoon? The message of the cartoon? Or Zimmerman getting “off the hook?”

  • Reynard Vulpes

    Turn it around. What if you were NOT allowed, by law, to approach or intervene?

    Stop and think. Criminals, especially the violent kind, LOVE, absolutely adore laws that stop citizens from protecting themselves and others.

    You see it where the gun prohibition laws are toughest… more violent crime.

    The GZ case, by the way, had NO Stand Your Ground element to it whatsoever. TM approached GZ and slugged him in the face. GZ goes down. He now cannot retreat even if he wanted to.

    A clear simple case of self defense.

    That out of the way, yes, there are other issues that call for a NEW but different trial. Did GZ in fact pursue TM? Nothing so far in the evidence suggests that he did anything but hang back and observe.

    It’s his neighborhood. TM is a stranger visitor. I EXPECT people to stare at me and watch me when I’m new in their neighborhood.

    Did GZ confront or was he confronted?

    It’s not such an easy call when you get down to details.

    Now we have to figure out what, if anything, GZ did that was illegal. If he violated the civil rights of TM how exactly did his actions do that?

    Or were both responsible for the tragedy? I know, that looks racist, but set race aside and have two white people in the same situation (yes, it has occurred, many times) where one kills the other.

    Same scenario. Now try to figure it out.

  • David Haggard

    I’m a huge fan of you, Bill Moyers and believe that the Zimmerman acquittal is wrong for several reasons, but I don’t think this cartoon belongs on your page.

  • JonThomas

    Well, you presented a lot of variables and it would take a small novel to address them all properly. I’ll try to pick and choose.

    First, the “Stand Your Ground” law was indeed an element in the case. The Judge’s instructions to the jury included the direction for the jurists to measure the ‘right’ of Zimmerman to ‘Stand His Ground.’

    “If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”

    http://billmoyers.com/2013/07/17/outrage-is-rising-in-florida-and-nationally-against-stand-your-ground/

    As far as any specific details which you refer to about whether this one did that, or that one may have done this…it is good to keep in mind that Zimmerman was not found to be innocent, nor were the charges thrown out or dismissed.

    Rather, that due to the available evidence presented against him, and the inability of the prosecution to exceed Reasonable Doubt, keeping in mind(as the judge reminded the jurors) the new right that the “Stand Your Ground” law provides, he was found Not Guilty.

    The rest of your comment goes into details of the trial. The subject of this post is …

    a “look at how the case was won. With ALEC, the NRA and Stand-Your-Ground laws…”

  • Anonymous

    “Boom. Your dead!” Sure sounded like that redneck with a shotgun feared for his life. ALEC and the NRA are only trying to reduce the consequences of gun users regardless of the circumstances. Our cultural fascination with death and guns is a sickness.

  • Anonymous

    you know what is shameful?

    This:

    7:15:43 end of Trayvon’s call with Rachel Jeantel
    7:16:56 shot.

    Trayvon had exactly 1 minute and 13 seconds to find out what this guy was about before he was dead.

  • Anonymous

    What needed to happen was to prove the wounds GZ had were self inflicted. Prove that & everything falls into place. Unfortunately the prosecution was willing to concede that a fractured nose & lacerations to the back of the head were caused by TM. Regardless of whatever happened prior, the image of TM on top of GZ pounding his head will cause doubt every time. Mr Moyers, this is getting old.

  • https://www.facebook.com/JohnCLindsay John Lindsay

    If you still don’t get it:

    1.) Is it lawful to stalk and confront a person? According to state and federal law the answer is no.

    2.) Is it legal to stalk, confront, harass, beat, then kill a person? According to state and federal law the answer is no.

    3.) Was Trayvon Martin trespassing on George Zimmerman’s personal
    property? Based on released facts, the answer is no. Martin was on
    communal roads in his father’s neighbor and as such had every right to
    be there.

    4.) Is George Zimmerman responsible for Trayvon
    Martin’s murder, as he disobeyed 911 and went after a minor that was not
    bothering him. The answer would be yes. Martin would be alive today had
    Zimmerman simply left the unarmed teen alone, rather than stalking and
    picking a fight with him, then pointing a gun at his chest and fatally
    pulling the trigger.

    5.) Who was the dangerous one Martin or
    Zimmerman – an unarmed 17-year-old minor, with no criminal record,
    carrying a bag of Skittles candy and an Arizona Ice Tea drink (Martin)
    or a gun toting 28-year-old man with two prior, unrelated arrests for
    outright violence against a police officer (of all people) and
    separately the assault of his former fiancée in a domestic violence
    incident, which led to a restraining order against him (Zimmerman). The
    answer to that question would be Zimmerman was the dangerous one that
    fateful night, which is confirmed by the fact defenseless Martin is now
    dead.

    JL: Indeed ironic…that Zimmerman ended up committing
    one of the worst –if not THE worst– crime in the very community he
    was supposed to be protecting.
    Just another “paradoxical” reminder
    that those inside the gates…are often just as dangerous…as the ones
    they think are lurking outside those gates.
    http://www.judiciaryreport.com/irrelevant_issues_continue_to_cloul_the_trayvon_martin_murder_case.htm

  • Robar1

    There simply was not time to self inflict the wounds. I think the witness, Good, was pretty clear as to what he saw. That alone raises plenty of doubt. I think it outrageous that people think GZ could think so fast that in a matter of seconds he could concoct a story and THEN fabricate the evidence to support that story…..and this is the best part…..and he KNEW what would be on the 911 tape so he could make sure it matched that too! If that is the case he deserves to get off just so he can be studied by criminalists all over the world.

  • Robar1

    There is nothing in evidence to show that Trayvon was in fear for his life. You need to meet force with force. There is no evidence to show that George Zimmerman physically assaulted Trayvon Martin. No evidence. The defense, by nature can raise questions. The prosecution can offer up a theory and then it must be supported by evidence. No evidence, no conviction.

  • Pete Joachim

    you are right. And I’ve been in many a fist-a-cuffs in my day that lasted well over 1:13 in which no one got killed. In fact no one probably thought their life was in so much danger they needed a deadly weapon – its kind’ve like cheating – not being a MAN. Sure, we ended up in the hospital, but no one is dead.

  • Anonymous

    “There is nothing in evidence to show that Trayvon was in fear for his life” – there is nothing because we are incapable of talking with the dead.

    There is also no evidence that proved that Zimmerman was in fear of his life. We only have his word.

    If you see nothing wrong with this picture, then you don’t understand the problem.

  • Pete Joachim

    The problem with SYG law as applied to TM death is that itbasically lets you ignore the entire context of the situation and only focus on the last 1:13. GZ, a 28 yr old adult, instigated the issue, didn’t follow police instructions, showed no ability to defuse the situation, only escalated it, with none other than a black male teenager who dam well knew he was being profiled, labelled a troublemaker and being judged as a guilty man by non-police officer (which his race has been subject for the last 250 yrs),. GZ never showed his gun to TM as a means to defuse. So a mature male adult given the duty to watch the neighborhood failed multiple times in making adult decisions, and an unarmed teenager made one mistake by taking his anger a little too far (which he may not have done had he known GZ had a gun) and he pays with his life.

    So a black male teenager is dead, and apparently, it was entirely his fault – that is the end result of SYG law as applied by the jury (as they said so themselves). That just can’t be RIGHT?

  • Anonymous

    Do you consider two scratches, 0,4 to 0,6 inches long “wounds”? I would call that what it is: scratches.That could happen from a simple maneuver on the ground over a sprinkler or on the path with Trayvon trying to “Stand his Ground” against someone that did not ever tell him why he was following him. if he tried to shimmy from under him it could indeed be self-inflicted.The face? I doubt the broken nose. considering events he surely would have wanted it documented by an expert had it been broken, have it x-rayed, no? Would you worry about money in a context like that? The photo is heavily distorted by the angle from which it is shot. What about a recoil of the gun? Why a dot of blood on the nose, and why did the rain not wash that away as supposedly the blood on Trayvon’s hands?

    According to the phone records (end of Rachel’s call and 911 call with shot) the encounter lasted not more than 1 minute 13 seconds. He knew police was on the way. “The wounds” are hardly evidence of serial strikes against concrete. He never stopped in front of the clubhouse as the clubhouse camera for the front shows. Not as O’Mara claimed maybe one minute or two minutes earlier or later than the time was off the next day, but never ever that evening any car stopped there as the videos show. He did not first observe Trayvon Martin in front of Taaffe’s house as he claims …. It would have been physically impossible for Trayvon to get on foot to the clubhouse as we hear on the tape in time and on and on. Remember the screams and one hand on the nose the other on the mouth. How can we possible hear the screams not altered if that really happened?

    George Zimmerman indeed tweaked his narrative “about the suspect”, the burglar suspect, who turned out to be a killer machine for no reason at all, and prosecution did a bad job to make it visible.

  • Robar1

    Proof is on the side of the prosecution. It is NEVER on the defense. Never has been and never will be. Yes there is evidence that GZ was in fear. You may not believe it, but the jury did. Both sets of parents each claim it was their child that was screaming for help, so lets just toss them both out. That leaves John Good, the witness that came outside and was only 15 feet or so away. It is his testimony that he believes the person on the bottom was hollering for help. While he didn’t see actual blows he did see the hands/arms going down toward the head of GZ. Again, it is very, very simple the prosecution has to prove their theory, the defense does not. If the defense can poke enough holes in the theory then there is reasonable doubt. There are many, many cases where people are killed and there are no witnesses to the event. In most of those cases the evidence paints a clear picture. This case does not have that. I have no problem with the outcome. Had the jury come back with a guilty verdict I would have not been able to follow that logic, but I would accept it and move on. That is life.

  • Robar1

    Funny, as much as I do think the prosecution erred in some of the things they did it is very interesting that people here think they know more about the law and evidence than the prosecution! Funny beyond belief! Almost every legal analyst (even those with a huge racial bias) say that at the very least the verdict is correct based on EVIDENCE. They may feel that morally a wrong happened, but LEGALLY it is above board. In spite of that the internet lawyers in forums such as this think they have it right! LOL!

  • James Edward Johnson

    BIG UPS TO YOU Mark Fiore..

  • Anonymous

    Again, the prosecution CONCEDED his injuries, it’s got nothing to do with my opinion. His nose was fractured, read the info out there.

  • Wolf3

    Bunch of idiots produced this. But, then, all of you should know that by now. So enjoy.

  • Robar1

    Show the gun to diffuse? Really? If you are not under attack, displaying your weapon is enough to get you arrested. I really do think that everyone should have to take a class on carrying a concealed weapons so people don’t say things that will get you tossed into jail.

  • Anonymous

    The bottom line was that Zimmerman was not in any danger, he was clearly advised to not intervene in which he took the life of another with the power of a deadly weapon. How can anyone stand their ground when they are dead? This is the most barbaric and cowardly way to deal with any delusional assumption.

  • Anonymous

    Don’t you think using a gun is a bit extreme?

  • Anonymous

    He didn’t stalk and didn’t harass. Remember TM was the one that talked first. Nice try.

  • AparadoxisOK

    A funny thought, what if all of the adult blacks and Hispanics, and other minorities showed up at the gun stores buying up all of the guns that they could get their hands onto, and then they all took the concealed weapons courses. Then they to could go loaded for white bear in public, day or night. I do think that the gun rights lobby would surely be changing its tune quickly! The right to carry laws would come crashing down, you can count on it!

  • http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com/ John Bailo

    I agree. If a thief with a gun was stalking an alley, and you walked into it and five minutes later, the thief emerged, and you were dead, could the thief declare self defense?

    The question is intent. When George Zimmerman left his car with a loaded weapon, he had decided that Trayvon Martin was someone who he would pursue and one of the outcomes was that he would kill Martin.

    In the same way a thief committing a crime with a gun, gets a mandatory stiff sentence, Zimmerman pursuing Martin without justification should net him a mandatory 25 years. For killing Martin, Zimmerman should get the gas chamber.

    Given that the events after Zimmerman left is car are irrelevant. The fight ,etc does not matter!

  • Dorothea Petrosky

    Job well done Mark. It’s a terrifying reality that any “yahoo” with a gun can become judge, jury & executioner! How sad for our country.

  • DJ W

    alicat321, YOU do not know what happened that night. YOU were not there.

  • Marilyn Barrio

    Trayvon should have kept his hands to himself- He had no right to beat GZ

  • Marilyn Barrio

    WRONG – YOU HAVE YOUR FACTS WRONG

  • Marilyn Barrio

    tHE FACTS CAME OUT IN THE TRIAL

  • charles miller

    yea but they dont they carry them illegally and commit crimes with them.

  • Mikado Cat

    I don’t see why people are defending Trayvon for gay bashing.

    Trayvon runs to Brandy’s condo 100 yards from the T where Zimmerman is waiting for police to arrive, and out of his sight. Trayvon tells Jeantel that (slang for pervert) creepy “as scracker” is following me again. A minute later Trayvon has returned to where Zimmerman is waiting and 911 calls report his screams for help.

  • Inclement Weather

    Of course, there is no indication that Zimmerman used his firearm improperly.

  • Dorothea Petrosky

    Self-defense my ***! Hope Zimmerman has an experience where he’s profiled – how I wish the tables were turned. Hope he never has a moment’s peace.

  • wope

    Dumbass it was a Hispanic that shot him

  • Anonymous

    You confuse “improper” with “illegal”. Not everything that’s legal is proper. He definitely used his firearm improperly even if it was legal due to a deeply flawed law.

  • Anonymous

    In other words, it’s ok for GZ to stand his ground with a gun but not ok for Trayvon to stand his ground against a creepy night stalker with his fists? You have a strange sense of morality, Marilyn.

  • Anonymous

    In other words, it’s ok for GZ to stand his ground with a gun but not ok for Trayvon to stand his ground against a creepy night stalker with his fists? This is getting old, JeffD.

  • Anonymous

    Any injuries incurred as a result of being a creepy night stalker, are deserved.

  • Anonymous

    “Stop and think. Criminals, especially the violent kind, LOVE, absolutely adore laws that stop citizens from protecting themselves and others.”

    So Trayvon was guilty of being a violent criminal before being proven innocent? If my 16 yr old were approached by a strange, creepy, night stalker, I would hope he would respond the same way as Trayvon and stand his ground. But we now know that “stand your ground” laws do not apply to the likes of Trayvon Martin. They only apply to armed, creepy, night stalkers.

  • Carmon

    Marilyn, would your response be the same had Trayvon been a young lady being stalked by a man with a gun in the night? Would “she” be justified in fighting back to protect herself? Would Zimmerman be justified in killing her if she did?

  • Anonymous

    No, not all the facts came out in the trial which is why the jury claimed “reasonable doubt”. Only two people knew the facts and one of them is dead. So, by a misguided Florida law, we have to take the word of the killer.

  • Anonymous

    It wasn’t a stand your ground case
    It was an old fashioned self defense case
    You can’t try to beat someone to death even if they began the fight

  • Anonymous

    You didn’t watch the trial
    The jury acquitted him since it would have been impossible for anything to have occurred but that Trayvon jumped him
    It’s not illegal for a community member to check out a relative stranger
    Trayvon thought Zimmerman was a gay man stalking him to rape him and told his girlfriend he was going to pound him
    He should have called 911 if that was the case

    Not the brightest bulb in the pack -he thought zimmerman was a soft target
    Then again he was high as a kite

  • Anonymous

    Very true. Granny with a brick in her purse clocking Zimmer up side the head and killing him and she’d have been free by the morning after.

  • Anonymous

    The FACTS as you call them are the well coached STORY of the shooter. The opposing FACTS died with the victim. The law HAS to be rewritten that the party with the disproportionate Power is subject to the higher standard of care or there are going to be dead people everywhere.

  • Anonymous

    It’s funny how all the Trayvon supporters are out for blood. It’s this violent, vengeful attitude that killed Trayvon. If Trayvon hadn’t sucker punched and beaten the neighborhood watchman who was looking out for his community, he would never have been killed.

  • Anonymous

    Are you ignoring the fact that the shooter in this case was Hispanic?
    Also, more than a third of black, male adults can’t get guns legally, because they’ve been convicted of a crime.

  • http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com/ John Bailo

    1. We know Zimmerman sat in his car stalking for weeks.
    2. We know Zimmerman set out on foot in pursuit of Martin, without just cause, with a loaded weapon.
    3. We conclude that Zimmerman at that point set up an option where he would shoot and possibly kill Martin without justification.

    What happened thereafter is irrelevant except two went into an alley and one came out dead. The one with the gun should not have been there.

    Case closed. Murder One.

  • Anonymous

    You are insane, and haven’t gotten a single fact right.
    Zimmerman did not stalk Trayvon. He followed him for about 30 feet, before he lost sight of him. This was in his right, as Trayvon acted strangely by approaching his car in a provocative manner, circling it, then suddenly running, all while Zimmerman was on the phone with the police.

    Zimmerman did not assault Trayvon. Trayvon hid from Zimmerman, waited until Zimmerman was on his way back to his car, then sucker punched and beat him.

    Zimmerman did not want to shoot Trayvon. He was left screaming on the ground for several minutes, begging for someone to help him, while Trayvon sat on top of him and beat him. 50 seconds of his screams can be heard in a 911 recording. It was only after no one helped him and Trayvon would not relent that he was forced to use the gun to protect his life.

    Trayvon was not innocent. He was a drug dealer, robber and even sprayed down his school with graffiti. He got expelled from school repeatedly, posed with guns and arranged fights. The only reason he wasn’t arrested was because of the high amount of black crime in his school, and his school was trying to artificially lower the reported crime committed by black students by not having Trayvon arrested. These facts can be read in publicly available police reports.

    If you want to learn the truth of what happened, I suggest you listen to the 911 calls made by Zimmerman and his neighbours. Look at the video of Zimmerman reenacting the whole incident in his neighbourhood. Also, look at the map of the area, where the car was parked, where the shooting took place and where Trayvon was living.
    All the facts point to Trayvon being a thug who instigated the whole thing through violence, and the whole situation could easily have been avoided.

  • Anonymous

    He stalked for weeks? Ha ha that’s funny! I’ve lived in that area of Florida. Burglaries left and right. When I moved to my gated community the guys who worked at the clubhouse warned me about them. They would follow and chased people ALL THE TIME and they weren’t even part of any organized watch program. Guess you would have to live there to understand.?

  • Anonymous

    Then that’s where we’re at, you can’t approach anyone you’re not familiar with in your neighborhood because if you’re perceived as creepy, you can get clocked. Stand Your Ground was a non-issue in this whole trial, why it’s being brought up is beyond me. It wasn’t part of the defense at all & the jury based their decision without considering that law per the judge.

  • Anonymous

    There are no hard fast rules even if you wish otherwise, Jeff. Whether of not to approach a stranger depends on the circumstances or context. It depends on time of day or night, the neighborhood, the body language, race and more.

    Moreover, given GZ’s past history and suspicious nature, it’s not a leap to think he was simply offering Trayvon a ride home in the rain.

    That’s why such laws as “stand your ground” are wrong. They are too broad to take into account context. And contrary to your opinion, “stand your ground” was a factor and thus an issue in the trial. The judge instructed the jury they could take it into account and the lone juror who has spoken to the media has admitted that it was a factor in their decision.

  • 19obert63

    C’mon everyone-The above headline should read:
    SUPREME COURT, OFF THE HOOK

    Don’t you think that this is a media distraction, with the Supreme court escaping out the back door after one of the worst historical decisions ever made; gutting the 1964 Voting Rights Bill, allowing Jjm Crow Laws to rule the land once again. Of course the loss of this young man’s life is tragic, but the Supreme Court just took away your right to vote!
    I’m afraid that even one of my heroes, Bill Moyers, who ironically help pass the Civil Rights Voting bill of 1964 seems to have fallen for it. C’mon Bill you have taught us to well to be this gullible.

  • Anonymous

    No, I don’t think it’s a distraction. Both things are important! Both are intended to have similar effects: to keep Black people (and others) in their place, so to speak.

  • Salvatore DiSanto

    But you only have one side of the story….the real victim didn’t live to tell his side……

  • AparadoxisOK

    He was of mix heritage that I am aware of. My point is that if all of these folks were to flood the weapon’s dealers and the license to carry concealed weapons training sessions, they would be overwhelm them and strike fear into them as well. Also, the same “freedom lovin’ folk that own the gun shops and training joints” would probably start to deny these folks their right to have a concealed weapon, which might cause a civil rights claim among other things. Frankly I do think these right to carry and stand your ground laws were created by very scared white people and it never occurred to them that the minorities might gain access to these laws, sort of a “cost to much to do Jim Crow” law for gun owners. I do think that if what I suggested was taken seriously, that those in power would jump to change these laws very fast.

  • Robar1

    That is true, but the defense is not required to put on a story or give a version. The prosecution is supposed to put up a theory and support it with evidence. They failed, badly. The defense, however did offer up a story (mostly presented by taped interviews). They could have not put the tapes in and then GZ would have most likely had to testify. You can’t hold it against GZ that the state did not do their job (legally).

  • Robar1

    If you use your logic, NOBODY that ever is found not guilty is also not innocent. There is never a finding of innocence. There is a legal reason for that! Before trial, and all during the trial and right up through deliberations the accused is PRESUMED to be innocent. That does not change until the evidence causes a shift from there to guilty. Because of that, he is still presumed to be innocent after the trial. That is a legal position. Now, if you want to run around and still say he is guilty then that is your choice but it is simply an unfounded, unproven position. Also, guilty does not mean a person actually did a crime, just as not guilty does not mean they did not do the crime. Look at all the people that have gone to prison for crimes they did not do. Look at all the people that have been found guilty and yet later in life they admit to the crime. Guilty, the way we use it is a legal term. Same with not guilty.

  • Robar1

    I love idiots!
    If you still don’t get it:

    1.) Is it lawful to stalk and confront a person? According to state and federal law the answer is no. STALKING MOST CERTAINLY IS A CRIME AT THE STATE LEVEL.

    2.) Is it legal to stalk, confront, harass, beat, then kill a person? According to state and federal law the answer is no. STALKING, HARASSING, BEATING AND THEN KILLING A PERSON IS MOST CERTAINLY AGAINST THE LAW. OF COURSE IN THIS CASE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AS TO STALKING, HARASSING AND BEATING. CLEARLY EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THAT TM WAS KILLED.

    3.) Was Trayvon Martin trespassing on George Zimmerman’s personal
    property? Based on released facts, the answer is no. Martin was on
    communal roads in his father’s neighbor and as such had every right to
    be there. SORT OF. TM WAS WALKING INITIALLY BETWEEN HOUSES (NOT ON A SIDEWALK OR ROADWAY). IT WAS NOT HIS FATHER’S NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS IS NOT A BIG DEAL, AS TM STILL HAD A RIGHT TO BE IN THE COMMUNITY. BUT, IF YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE A POINT AT LEAST US FACTUAL INFORMATION.

    4.) Is George Zimmerman responsible for Trayvon
    Martin’s murder, as he disobeyed 911 and went after a minor that was not
    bothering him. The answer would be yes. Martin would be alive today had
    Zimmerman simply left the unarmed teen alone, rather than stalking and
    picking a fight with him, then pointing a gun at his chest and fatally
    pulling the trigger.
    NOT IS MURDER, PER THE JURY. HE DID NOT DISOBEY 911. HE NEVER CALLED 911. WHAT THE NON EMERG. NUMBER SAID, WAS, “OK, WE DON’T NEED YOU TO DO THAT.” THAT IS NOT A DIRECTIVE. GO LISTEN TO THE 911 PERSON IN THE CASE WHERE THE GUY SHOT 3 WITH A SHOTGUN. THAT IS WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE WHEN A PERSON IS TOLD NOT TO DO SOMETHING. IN THAT CASE, THE MAN WAS ALSO ACQUITTED. AGAIN, STALKING DID NOT OCCUR OR ANGELA COREY WOULD HAVE CHARGED HIM WITH IT. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE GZ PICKED A FIGHT. FOLLOWING IS NOT PICKING A FIGHT. FINALLY WE DO AGREE THAT GZ DID IN FACT POINT HIS GUN AT TM AND PULL THE TRIGGER…..BUT THAT WAS NEVER, EVER A QUESTION IN THIS CASE.

    5.) Who was the dangerous one Martin or
    Zimmerman – an unarmed 17-year-old minor, with no criminal record,
    carrying a bag of Skittles candy and an Arizona Ice Tea drink (Martin)
    or a gun toting 28-year-old man with two prior, unrelated arrests for
    outright violence against a police officer (of all people) and
    separately the assault of his former fiancée in a domestic violence
    incident, which led to a restraining order against him (Zimmerman). The
    answer to that question would be Zimmerman was the dangerous one that
    fateful night, which is confirmed by the fact defenseless Martin is now
    dead.
    WELL, ACCORDING TO THE JURY, BY VERDICT, MARTIN WAS DANGEROUS AS HE ASSAULTED GZ AND THEN SMACKED HIS HEAD INTO THE CONCRETE. READ AGAIN WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED TO GET THE CHARGE WITH THE POLICE. YOU MIGHT BE ENLIGHTENED! LOL!

  • Robar1

    Apparently the fight was relevant, per the jury AND Florida State Law! Him pursuing w/o justification…….not a crime. I like how you advocated for prison time when a law has not been broken! Please tell me you don’t live in Florida!

  • moderator

    Once again, please read our comment policy before commenting. Personal attacks and hate speech will be deleted and you will be unable to participate in the community.

    Sean @ Moyers

  • JonThomas

    Good points… if we were talking in the abstract. We aren’t! This is about a specific case, and a specific man…who killed an innocent person who was just trying to cross a neighborhood!

    We aren’t speaking in the abstract. Zimmerman IS Guilty! There was never a question of his guilt. He killed someone! The only question was whether he was to be found guilty in a court of law of the crime with which he was charged.

    Go back to your corner and try again.

    Come back when you are ready to stop defending a killer!

    Zimmerman carried a gun. He has murder in his heart. Anyone who carries a gun has at least 2 potentials that they must come to terms with upon deciding to carry…

    First… They may wind up taking a life…this is especially telling from the second half of this cartoon. It has been said that there are a lot of thefts in the area where Zimmerman lived. Zimmerman found it necessary in his mind to carry a gun. The Texas 911 recording reveals the type of violence that exists in the hearts of these neighborhood ‘defenders’. These types of people are willing to kill in response to burglary. Not exactly eye for an eye, is it?

    Second… That a person MUST be willing to use that gun. If you are not ready to use your gun for the slightest reason, you can be killed with your own weapon. Relatively speaking, few people carry guns in everyday life. The chances that you will encounter an armed person are actually quite slim. So, if you are carrying, and not ready to use your gun, you have made a grave mistake. Since the person who you deem a threat becomes scared of your gun, there is more than a chance that they see the situation as a fight for their life.

    If you are carrying, you have to be willing to use the gun!

    In any case, you don’t carry a LOADED gun unless you have already decided that killing is acceptable.

  • Sandra Eddy

    This country is losing its mind & setting us up for our demise. It is a shame & shameful.

  • Anonymous

    Obiously, Z. got out of the car and confronted M. What each one said doesn’t matter: harrassment had begun. So if M. had just kept on walking, would Z. have got back in the car and driven off? Unlikely, since he had already ignored a dispatcher’s advice to do just that. So, in a way, M. stood his ground – and died for it.

  • Eric Brown

    No sir, it is you who don’t get it.

    1) “Stalking” is a specific crime: repeated following and harrassment. Apparently, G.Z. followed T.M. one time. (Stalking is illegal, G.Z. was not stalking.)

    2) Who did the beating? Who doubled back?

    3) Apparently, T.M. was not tresspassing. But it is perfectly legal to observe someone, and even follow them on the public thoroughfare. (You may want to lobby to have investigative journalists thrown in jail if you disagree.) Furthermore, G.Z. was on the Neighborhood Watch. He was acting with community endorsement.

    4) I am not a lawyer, to accuse G.Z. of “murder” might be a defamatory statement. You seem to ignore the fact that T.M. doubled back to confront G.Z. of the neighborhood watch. Who picked the fight? Who got shot after apparently beating someone’s head into the pavement?

    5) You may wish to do some actual research into the character of these two individuals if you wish to invoke this as an argument in favor of T.M.

    It seems like you keep accusing G.Z. of all of these crimes. I don’t know why you keep blaming the victim. Maybe you are the sort of person who blames rape victims for being in the wrong place, wearing the wrong dress.

  • Eric Brown

    You really should look at the evidence. It appears that T.M. doubled back to confront G.Z. Apparently T.M. didn’t stand his ground, he went back to settle the score.

  • Eric Brown

    since when does “neighborhood watch” = “creepy night stalker”?

  • Anonymous

    Settle what score? For being stalked? Well, fair enough. That’s what I call “standing his ground” against harrassment.

  • Anonymous

    GZ was not a part of any organized “neighborhood watch”. He was a self appointed vigilante. Most 16 yr olds are taught to be suspicious of strangers. Especially a stranger who follows you in his vehicle on a rainy night, gets out of the vehicle and confronts you. That’s what equals “creepy night stalker”.

  • Marilyn Barrio

    Wrong – The facts DID come out in the trial -and it WAS self defense

  • Anonymous

    According to the transcript, one of the two yelled for help. Do you know which one it was since you believe the “facts” support your position?

  • Jeffery LeMieux

    Unfortunate distortion, par for the course for the true believers, though.

  • bhaggen

    I, for one, love your idea. Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, Asians, all going through the legal process of gun ownership. What a wonderful world this could be.

  • old lady

    if Trevon Martin had been able to take the gun away from George Zimmerian and shoot him would the”stand your ground” law deem him innocent?

  • MadLion

    Did not Trevon Martin have as much right to “Stand his ground” as George Zimmerian? And if not, Why not?