Zimmerman Case Analysis

Well, the verdict is in…. NOT GUILTY. I honestly did not have enough faith in our criminal justice system to feel confident this is how it would end since it was started so improperly. 

While legally speaking, not guilty is not the same as innocent (at least in Florida), I think for those who believe justice was served, they feel a certain level of innocence was established. At the end of the day, George Zimmerman did not commit a crime. It is for that reason that he was not arrested at the scene. It was only when the District Attorney’s Office caved under the political pressure of racially motivated protesters and professional social manipulators was he charged and arrested. It is very telling that overwhelmingly the police officers and experts that testified, even many for the state, provided testimony that was supportive of George Zimmerman. 

Was Justice Served?

First, what is Justice? Justice is a subjective term. As such, we can never really say if justice is ever served except within our own determination. Justice ranks up there with fair, righteous, equality, and proper. They are wholly subjective terms that are only relevant to those seeking their accomplishment and as such, their quantitative definition lies within the one seeking it as well. Kind of how beauty is in the eye of the beholder, the same is true with justice. 

We do know that the “justice system” worked… in so much as someone wrongfully placed in custody can be found not guilty of a crime he never should have been arrested for. 

A man is by many accounts unjustly arrested, put through a year long ordeal where his life (literally) hangs in the balance, death threats against him and all members of his perceived race, unknown hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on a defense, a name that will now live in infamy, his personal information posted across all time and space, yet many are saying “but he is not being held accountable.” Seriously?

Never mind the fact that while Florida law provides him protection from most forms of civil litigation, that does nothing to help against those who are now calling for the Department of Justice to file federal civil rights violation charges against him. 

His life will never be his again. He will forever be persecuted for defending himself while trying to look out for his community. He has been labeled a wannabe, racist, murder, liar, and all manner of social stigma has been tattooed to his forehead by the media…before the trial. 

It seems to me that many people simply cannot grasp the fact that Trayvon Martin is responsible for his own death because he began an illegal physical confrontation with George Zimmerman. George Zimmerman did nothing illegal in his actions. While he made decisions that many would not have chosen, that does not mean his actions were illegal. Trayvon Martin made some very poor decisions that led to his death– a very unfortunate death. However, the evidence suggests that he ambushed George Zimmerman, not the other way around. As such, George Zimmerman did what any person in his shoes could and should have done, he survived. 

The fact he “got out of his car”, “ignored 911″, followed a “child” are varying degrees of inaccurate, misleading, and in some cases flat out false. Let’s look at some of this in detail. 

I filmed this the night before the verdict was released.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gf39_rBRXQA]

Brannon LeBouef is the owner and founder of NOLATAC Training and Consulting and The St Bernard indoor Shooting Center. Brannon is an 11-year veteran of the US Marine Corps, a 15 plus year veteran of law enforcement, a former private military security contractor, and professional firearms trainer. He can be reached at Brannon@nolatac.com or www.nolatacforum.com.



MAC is an avid shooter, former MCSF Marine, NRA member, Oath Keeper and is commissioned as a Colonel by the Governor of Kentucky. Known for his videos on the Military Arms Channel, he also writes for The Bang Switch, for Shotgun News (Be Ready!) and freelances for Guns & Ammo. MAC has been a life long shooter who has an interest in all things that go "bang" but gravitates towards military type firearms.

More Posts - Website

Follow Me:
TwitterFacebookGoogle PlusYouTube

  • Guy

    I was surprised he was acquitted, happy, but surprised. As you correctly stated, his life won’t be getting any easier in the near future, which is a shame. The man did nothing illegal, yet he’s been slandered to the Nth degree. I’m just glad the jurors went with the FACTS, not emotions.

    • http://www.nolatacforum.com Brannon LeBouef

      Pretty Much

  • Resseman67

    I DO believe that the correct verdict was reached considering the evidence presented and I don’t believe any malice was present in Zimmermans’ actions and feel he was just trying to look out for his community in the wake of recent break ins, etc… Regardless, its still sad that such an outcome had to happen, but when you fear for your life, 17 years old or 77 years old, armed or unarmed, if someone is beating your head against the pavement…would you just lay there and welcome your death?

  • Hybris

    Zimmerman and probably his family too will be be watching over their backs for the next 10 years plus given how crazy some people are.

    Not to mention I can almost guarantee that he will have to move out of state and probably out of the region just to get to a area that isn’t as unfriendly as Florida.

  • http://Www.calamityarms.com Daniel lance

    Semper Fi brother! Keep up the good work.

    • http://www.nolatacforum.com Brannon LeBouef


  • ghostwheel

    Trying to NOT imagine Zimmerman in a short skirt :P

  • http://www.facebook.com/nick.cochran.182 Nick Cochran

    It is a good analysis.

    Folks have to remember that people get killed in unarmed conflicts more often than we know. This year a soccer ref was killed after being sucker punched by a teenager, and here in Arkansas a man was killed in a barroom brawl when his he fell and hit his head.

    Also, I believe we have to reject the notion that there are acts for a concealed carry holder that are illegal for them that are not illegal for anyone else. It is just as illegal to instigate a conflict bare knuckled as it is to do it with a gun. In this case, is there evidence that Zimmerman initiated a conflict? Simply following a person is not illegal, and it does not give the person being followed the legal right to attack.

    If Zimmerman shows any hostility, initiates a verbal altercation or makes the first physical contact, this thing turns on a dime and he is guilty. Thing is, the prosecution was unable to prove any of that, and juries must decide based on evidence. It is plausible that Zimmerman did all of that, but the evidence just was not there for a conviction.

    • Jaaay

      The evidence that Mr. Zimmerman instigated the fight came from Rachael Jeantel. The only evidence that Trayvon attacked Mr. Zimmerman came from Mr. Zimmerman, the man who killed a boy and had a reason to lie about how the fight started, himself; depending on which of his three versions of the story you believe.

      • http://www.nolatacforum.com Brannon LeBouef

        1- Please stop calling TM a boy. He was 17. He was legally a minor, but he was old enough to join the military with parental consent, open a checking account, and be charged as an adult for the crimes he committed had GZ not saved his own life with self-defense.

        2- So your telling me that a developmentally challenged girl, who cannot even read, with a personal relationship to the deceased, who was not at the scene, is more credible than someone with a history of positive interactions with the police, the neighborhood watch coordinator, countless hours donated at various black youth groups, homes, etc. to you?

        While I am sure it is convenient for your argument to ignore the physical evidence, allow me the liberty of bringing it up. TM had not a single scratch on him except the gunshot that killed him. Meanwhile, GZ had wounds consistent with the story he told about how the fight ended. Pleas explain to me how I would start a physical confrontation with you where you were never touched, yet I was completely injured, with gras stains on my back, yet I made it all up? These facts are enough and supersede any credibility issues with either Jeantel or GZ. Physical evidence trumps “phone witness” testimony any day in real court, as the verdict proves.

        Lastly, I think your apparent lack of familiarity with how police investigations, actual use of force incidents, and general human interaction is apparent when you claim he had “three stories” With just a little more education or experience in these areas, you would understand that his story did not change, it simply got more detailed as he told it. Those details were always consistent with the story he told. You are simply buying into the manipulations of fact and insinuations that the prosecution weaved. It is OK, they did a good job of beating in irrelevant but emotional elements and painting pictures that were all shades of misleading. That is kind of their job in a sick and unethical way.

        Likewise, most elements of his story that did change at all, which were minimal, can easily be explained by how we know people recall facts immediately following and as time passes after a use of force incident. The mind remembers things in chunks. As time passes, the chunks start to fill in, but for most, there will always be gaps. As we sit for a year wondering if we will go to prison for saving our own life, thinking of those events every single day and retelling the story, our mind subconsciously starts to make things it thinks SHOULD fit in those gaps in there. It is not a lie as you really believe it, even though the physical evidence may directly refute it.

        LUCKILY for GZ, ALL the physical evidence supported his story, as well as most of the law enforcement and other witnesses THE SATE called.

        Look, I get the whole “you are entitled to your opinion” thing, but your coffee table talk understanding of the case facts and the law in general is simply not enough for you to formulate a logical argument. This si actually one of the most clear cut cases of self defense in recent times. But for most people to see it, they have to take of their race, emotion, hatred glasses, whichever apply, and look at the facts.

        I do not say that as an insult, it is just the reality that like everything else in life, those with minimal to know knowledge or experience with something formulate emotional opinons on things and then speak out of their level. Also, please forgive me if I come across a little curt. Besides being horrible at communicating via online in these kinds of discussions, it is in fact very frustrating to have to keep repeating yourself because besides not seeing the obvious, people keep talking the same points in circles.

        If you have any actual facts that refute information in the case, please do share. Otherwise, the court has spoken, even though it should have never been allowed to open its mouth.

        • http://gravatar.com/bbarnavi bbarnavi

          You wanted to come off as a neutral party, but everything falls apart with these two statements:

          “charged as an adult for the crimes he committed”
          “a developmentally challenged girl, who cannot even read, with a personal relationship to the deceased,”

          The first is an example of the pure hypocrisy of Zimmerman defenders, in that they claim that lack of evidence exonerates Zimmerman, but are all too willing to posthumously indict Trayvon based on… lack of evidence.
          The second is just straight-up ad hominem. I thought we were an evidence-based crowd here.

          • http://www.nolatacforum.com Brannon LeBouef

            Your assumptions are the weak link in your argument. I never said i wanted to come off neutral. I ALWAYS side with the facts.

            Apparently you do not realize that is is not for a LACK of evidence that GZ is innocent. There was plenty of evidence. The same evidence that shows GZ justifiably utilized self defense is the same evidence that shows TM was trying to kill him.

            The fact that a person is not at a full mental capability, allegedly wrote a statement she cannot read, and has a personal relationship with the deceased are not ad-hominen. These are facts that are directly relevant to the credibility of her testimony.

            If I had made comments about how she looked, then that would have been ad hominem. Your inability to grasp how the things I pointed out affect the material facts of her testimony do not an ad-hominen attack make.

            This is an evidence based discussion, but you seem to be ignoring the evidence. That is not conducive with a fruitful discussion.

            • Sorel366

              All we know is that these two were fighting and TM got on top at some point, and GZ got on top at some point. There is absolutely zero evidence that either GZ or TM started the fight. However our common sense tells us it’s not the guy running away who was the aggressor.

            • http://www.nolatacforum.com Brannon LeBouef

              That may be all YOU know, but some of us have actually researched the case extensively which means we also know that you are so wrong it is painful.

              What evidence (provide links) says GZ was ever on top of TM?

              Please feel free to continue to ignore the actual evidence, like the testimony from “Precious” that TM hit zimmerman first, and the evidence that TM showed no signs of trauma from a punch while GZ had a busted nose and multiple lacerations.

              Your common sense is not that common I am afraid. Who was running away when TM came from around a corner and confronted GZ? Did GZ chase TM down and tackle him? WHen did TM allegedly stop “running away”. The inconsistencies in your own post pretty much tell us what you “know” is not at all what you think you know.

    • http://gravatar.com/mcattack1 mcattack1

      Zimmerman knew all that . that is why he maintains he stayed at the Tee while on his way back to his truck and that Martin approached him. What Zimmerman does not account for are the 2 minutes he was out of truck . he says he was going to get an address for 911. 911 does not ask for an address until 3;30 into the call . He does not have one after say 1;20 minutes , which was enough time to have gone down to the end , gotten the address he said he went to get that no asked for and passed the Tee back toward his truck. Then hangs up and has 30-45 secs before he sees Martin. He tells 911 to have the police call him because he is not going back to his truck. When the police have a walkthrough of the crime with Zimmerman he leaves this part out. This is all to show no pursuit or hostility. It looks like they meet or wound up at the Tee, but not quite how Zimmerman describes it. You can walk a football field in a minute.
      If there is a Fed case you can be sure this will come up. His walthrough explanation when compared to the 911 or non emergency has holes a mile wide in it. Zimmerman was lucky that the detectives and the prosecution were lame.
      This was a convoluted case. I think people took sides because the convolution was so disturbing and arguments could be made for all sorts of stuff

      • http://www.nolatacforum.com Brannon LeBouef

        Actually, the two minutes he was out of his truck are accounted for. He got out of the truck while on the phone with 911, hence why 911 asked “are you following him?” and he replied “Yeah”.

        “Holes a mile wide?” LOL

  • brian z

    it’s just hard to imagine gettin cocked locked and ready to rock, then goin out and pickin a fight, then when im losing that same fight, shooting and killing the person who’s kickin my ass. no it aint illegal. just seems retarded…

    • brian z

      then again, florida aint the sharpest knife in the drawer…

    • jay

      Walking around and looking is not “picking a fight”, as stated in the video lets try and look at what we know to be facts

      • brian z

        when was the last time you were just “walking around and looking” and ended up in a fight for your life so much so that you had to kill? haaaaahahaha!!! walking around and looking sure is dangerous!!! remind me never to go site-seeing…

        • A Snellenberger

          Maybe you should ask that question to the hundreds of African American teenagers in Chicago who continue to kill each other on a regular basis. An African American teen was found dead in Chicago recently. Why was he murdered?? He didn’t want to join a gang…..Have we heard anything about that tragedy? Where’s Al Sharpton?

    • MrAlligam

      I agree. Zimmerman is suing NBC for saying he was a wanna be cop — but it sure looks like that’s what he was.

      • A Snellenberger

        He’s suing NBC because they EDITED the 911 tape in an attempt to highlight Zimmerman in a racist manner. NBC admitted “inadvertently editing” the tape and apologized.

      • Don Scoby

        What a stupid statement, every police officer out there was a wanna be cop at some point in his life.

    • Adam

      Is that what you think Zimmerman did? Might wanna check out the evidence again, unless you’re just trolling.

    • EAGLE115

      That is illegal, you can t start a fight & then draw a weapon & kill or hurt someone just cuz you re losing. That s not what Zimmerman did!

      • brian z

        what did he do?

    • Matt

      You are missing the point. Nothing Zimmerman did remotely constitutes “pickin a fight”. That is what the MSM was selling, but it never happened, at least not from any of the evidence.

      • brian z

        yeah i guess youre right. i just cant help but think that all this bs could have been avoided. i mean im sure alot of dudes on this blog carry concealed and never once have they pulled their piece. mainly because theyve avoided situations instead of gettin into ones that get out of control. even in martial arts we are taught to avoid confrontation. i did 8 years in the military and they tell you to avoid being in lethal force encounters when in town. i just hate another mal-stigma on responsible gun owners like myself.

    • http://www.youtube.com/nolatac Brannon LeBouef

      What you stated would be illegal, but what you stated is nowhere near wat happened in this case.

    • TAC

      I think you need to reread the testimony from the trial. Did you not hear the part about him following the “teen” when he went behind a building, THEN when the dispatcher said “Are you following him…we don’t need you to do that.” Mr. Zimmerman said, “Ok” and returned to his truck. Did you not hear the testimony, corroborated by evidence from the 911 call and others that Mr. Zimmerman THEN was ambushed by Martin? Did you not hear the part about how Martin said, “You got a problem?” and then punched Zimmerman in the nose, knocking him to the ground, grabbed his head and began bashing his head into the sidewalk repeatedly, only stopping to punch him in the face a few times? Which part of the EVIDENCE pointed to Zimmerman “…pickin a fight…”?

    • sambalbadjak

      Who said he was “picking a fight”?

  • Darrell

    Well presented and a good job helping to correlate the three “axis of thinking” (legal, wise, moral) I’ve been engaging folks with these past few days …

  • EAGLE115

    I wish I could explain this as well as you just did!
    It s kinda scary so many decisions the good guy has to make, usually in a matter of seconds, on the use of deadly force!

  • MrAlligam

    I only have two points that I’d like to make:
    1.) Neighbor Watch is typically not armed, it is intended to be a deterrent (Marked Cars, Communications, Flashlights etc) even hired security in most neighborhoods is unarmed.
    2.) Gun grabbers are going to point to this case as evidence of trigger happy gun owners — and the verdict will get the grabbers more support (for a short time).

    I don’t agree with the choices he made to get him “in extremis”, but I do support his right to protect himself once he got to that point.

    • brian z

      two great points darn it. grabbers are itchin for cases like these.

      • DMP

        No we’re not; we’d just like tragedies like this to not be encoded into law. Trayvon Martin also had a right to stand his ground (trying to get home), but at his age his stupidity (if in fact he did anything illegal) makes a little more sense than Zimmerman’s stupidity in his taking the law into his own hands. Unfortunately Martin was out-gunned by a guy who should have just kept heading to his weekly shopping trip at Target, called NEN or 911 while on the way instead of getting out of his truck, and let the cops handle the situation. “Near the club house” should have been an accurate enough location.

        Is this what you call responsible gun ownership and a legal, prudent, and moral license to kill in self defense?


        • http://www.nolatacforum.com Brannon LeBouef

          You are wrong. Based on what we know about the case, SYG never applied to TM, because he was never attacked and was actually the aggressor.

          GZ did not take the law into his own hands. He defended himself from an armed attacker.

          While you are certainly entitled to “think” what you want and have an opinion, based on your post, you are woefully misinformed of the legal issues surrounding this case and how they apply.

          Every decision GZ made was legal, well within his rights, completely reasonable, and noble for someone looking out for his community and fellow man. In no way shape or form was he “taking the law into his own hands.”

          WHile you might not agree or make the same sacrifices for your community, he chose to. That said, if you stilll have questions, you might want to re-watch the video since you seem to not have fully digested my stance on the matter.

          Meanwhile, you just keep your eyes forward, hope your house is not next, keep railing about the injustices on the net while people like George Zimmerman follow the law and do something positive for their community and others like he did for years before this incident.

    • EAGLE115

      He was a neighborhood watch captain, but I don t think he was on patrol, or whatever they call it, that night. he was driving home & saw the kid. I thought they were always in pairs when on watch.
      You re right gun grabbers are gonna spin this like crazy against us!

  • jay

    Walking around and looking is not “picking a fight”, as stated in the video lets try and look at what we know to be facts.

  • http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/forum.php Just Bob

    A certifiable,unarmed thug whooped up an armed man and got shot.

    What’s the problem here?

  • Thomas McManus

    George Zimmerman’s defence team did a very good job bringing facts to the case. That said, I would like for a minute to take those same facts, and place ourselves in Trayvon Martins shoes.
    I’m Trayvon walking home from the store, I notice someone following me in their truck. I don’t know why or who, or what this person’s intentions are. Out of fear, I start running home, I think I lost him, ( the 4 minute time gap) all of a sudden this person is now standing at the T intersection near me. I ask why are you following me ( heard on last call) I punch him in the nose. The man is reaching for something in his waistband, ( Zimmerman claimed he was reaching for his phone) I go for his hand and we struggle, i get on top of him and start punching him and beating his head on the ground, he’s screaming help, but he’s still trying to get to his waistband. I am dead, I was only trying to ” Stand my ground and protect myself from this crazy person.
    Trayvon Martin also has a right to defend himself, he stood his ground and lost. That’s my “OPINION”

    • Duane D

      In your scenario, why does Martin (if as you said “out of fear”) get close enough to Z to punch Z in the nose and then why does he punch him? According to your logic, Z has a duty to retreat, but Martin has no such duty. The evidence given does not prove which of them was advancing, which was retreating, but you ASSume.

    • http://www.nolatacforum.com Brannon LeBouef

      Your opinion is more like a fairy tale. You would be better served basing your opinion on actual facts.

      BTRW, your “opinion” on TM having a right to stand his ground is not an opinion. It is a statement of an incorrect fact.

  • Matt

    Spot on Brannon! You very articulately said what I have been trying to tell people since this hit the national news. None of the evidence suggested Zimmerman did anything illegal. Not necessarily smart, yes; illegal, no. The ONLY reason this went to trial was because of all the pressure from the public and the POTUS poking his nose in where he had absolutely no business being (nothing new there, remember the Henry Louis Gates arrest/police acted stupidly incident?).

    I’m just glad the jury had the guts to render the decision they did considering all of the pressure from the MSM and all the non-racists like Al Sharpton and the New Black Panthers….

    • Matt

      Just to clarify, the ONLY reason race became an issue in this case is because the MSM made race THE issue. Once they made race the primary issue, the s#*t storm ensued which got us to where we are now.

    • http://www.nolatacforum.com Brannon LeBouef

      Thanks man

  • Bub

    Nice video. I’m sure like many of you out there I was both relieved and pleased with the not guilty verdict.

  • Ben

    Calling trayvon a thug is as bad as calling Zimmerman a wanna be cop or whatever the media told us… Bottom line is this all could have been avoided. Even though he was found not guilty of murder, Zimmerman still killed a kid armed with a soda and skittles. Saying the media is all to blame for his hardships is wrong. Zimmerman chose his actions and he now has to live with the consequences. Only him and Martin know what really happened, anyway.

    • http://www.military-arms.com MAC

      Painting Martin as a little kid with soda and Skittles is a dishonest representation of Martin. Martin posted pics of himself on Twitter with weapons, illegal drugs, and had been suspended from school several times including for being in possession of burglary tools and women’s jewelry that he claimed belonged to a friend, which he refused to name. Martin also had text messages on his phone where he was bragging to friends about fights he had gotten into. That doesn’t seem to jibe with the notion he was an innocent kid just trying to drink his soda and eat some Skittles.

      If he had a problem with being followed by Zimmerman, he could have avoided being shot by simply calling the police himself. He had a phone on him, but he instead decided to attack Zimmerman and ultimately was shot for it.

      • Ben

        Zimmerman had also been charged with assaulting a police officer and had a restraining order against him from an ex-girlfriend, but know one has brought up that information. Seems like a lot of dishonest pictures of Zimmerman are being portrayed as well. If Zimmerman was in neighborhood watch, what did he prevent that night? I’m not saying Martin was an angel, but Zimmerman played a major part in what occurred. You’re right MAC, the justice system did what it was supposed to do. Media outlets have spun the story many ways. Still, Zimmerman has to face the consequences of his actions. You stated he’ll never have the same life back, but neither will Martin or his family.

        • http://www.nolatacforum.com Brannon LeBouef

          No one has brought it up for two reasons.

          1. Those past events bear no legal or even contextual relevancy to the incident he was unjustly arrested for, and they were relatively far in his past… hence the lack of relevancy.

          2. No one is perfect, but his overwhelmingly positive life overshadowed the mistakes he made in the past. He tireless service to the impoverished black community in his area was not brought up either. Do you have issues with that as well?

          Besides his own death? Clearly TM was someone capable of murder. He at least stopped a murderer. You ask as if you think NW is some kind of zero sum game. He saw someone suspicious and investigated. That is both reasonable and legal for anyone, ESPECIALLY the NWC to do.

          Zimmerman played no part in TM death. Could you tell me EXACTLY what “large part” he played? Please try to read all the posts before commenting, as most of this has been explained a few times.

          • Ben

            So Martin’s past has bearing on what happened but not Zimmerman’s? Seems pretty fair. And I didn’t know being black and wearing a hoodie while walking behind an apartment complex equates to suspicious. And sorry if I don’t have time to read every post on here, but the fact that Zimmerman pulled the trigger and actually shot Martin is the part he played. Your comment makes Martin out to be a walking murderer, but I’m pretty sure if Zimmerman left Martin alone then he would have went home and nothing would have happened.

          • Steph

            Why make the assumption that TM was capable of murder? How does that statement serve your point?

          • http://www.nolatacforum.com Brannon LeBouef


            He was IN THE PROCESS of murder. CLearly he is capable if he is actively doing it.

            Are you serious or are you just trolling?

    • http://www.nolatacforum.com Brannon LeBouef

      Why do you insist on posting things that are not true?

      Are you intentionally lying and trying to mislead people, or are you just refusing to accept UNDISPUTED FACTS int he case that both the defense and prosecution agree on?

      “Zimmerman still killed a kid armed with a soda and skittles”

      1. Trayvon Martin was not a “kid”. Kid, is a social term used to express young age based on relativity. Many 60 year olds call 30 year olds “kids”. Trayvon Martin was no more a kid than I am at 36 years old. He was a legal minor, but that does not mean he somehow was clueless about what he was doing as we would take from “a kid”. If he was old enough to go to the store to buy Skittles and Tea by himself at night, then he was old enough to know he should not sucker punch a grown man.

      2. He was not “armed with a soda and Skittles”. He did possess Arizona Tea and Skittles, and while they certainly could be used as weapons in other circumstances, the Tea & Skittles nursery rhyme that the media tried to paint is another example of information that is 100% irrelevant to the case and was only harped on to try and paint a picture of TM as a “poor little helpless, defenseless, and victimized little kid just out for a leisurely stroll in the rain sipping on some watermelon tea and having candy like a nice little kid.” This is the same tactic as repeatedly posting pictures of hin from years earlier in cherubic poses instead of his “gansta wannabe” poses blowing smoke from his mouth. These are all media tactic s and you filled your belly with them.

      the fact that you do not see or are being dishonest about the affect the media misrepresentation had like the teaser they played before the trial breaks that looks like the intro to a horror movie, is laughable and no longer worthy of intelligent response.

      Zimmerman chose his actions and because of them, HE ENSURED he gets to live.

      Before GZ ever had a chance to make a choice, Martin chose HIS actions which forced GZ hand and for those poor choices, he no longer is alive. That is unfortunate, but the responsibility lies with TM and TM alone.

      The fact that you cannot see the difference between the choice to exit a vehicle and investigate a suspicious person and the choice to sucker punch someone and beat their head into the ground is appalling, though indicative of the masses who lack the ability or desire to put in the time to see the truth and instead gobble up the emotional story line fed to them.

  • http://www.facebook.com/lisa.henson.315 Lisa Henson

    You must be kidding. Zimmerman had no business following a kid at night who was just on his way home. He had no business getting out of his car even when instructed not to by police. Zimmerman caused the situation not Martin.

    • TAC

      Zimmerman was acting as a concerned individual and was watching out for his neighbors WHO had recently been burglarized by a black male! He had every right and business to get out of his car to observe where Martin was going and then even returned to his car when advised by the 911 dispatcher. By the WAY, a police dispatcher cannot “instruct” you to do anything and there are NOT “the police.” So exactly WHERE did Zimmerman “cause” the situation? Since when is being aware of the crime in your neighborhood and watching out for your neighbors a bad thing?

    • http://gravatar.com/conalmc invsibleAzN

      Was it trayvon’s business to initiate the aggression on someone who was not posing a threat to their person or property. Sure Zimmerman was stupid to follow, but murder2? That is completely the wrong charge. Man Slaughter or some kind of negligence charge maybe but no body that night was planning on murdering anyone. Would be pretty stupid to call the cops on someone if you planned to murder them. And where is your outrage for this lady?


      to busy focussing on the baited race war maybe? Why would so much effort be placed on case that had low probability of winning…..To further divide this country. Good one for falling for the same old bullshit. What is the definition of insanity again?

      Everyone is allowed to dissect zimmerman’s past and possessions, but apply the same to trayvon and oh no, lets not be racist Nevermind Trayvon had women’s jewelry in his bag, that means nothing. Nevermind he had 2 of 3 ingredients to make the drug called lean which is further corroborated by his tweets to someone asking for the third ingredient codeine. No no body is allowed to draw any conclusions there. But zimmerman says he had interests of being a cop in the past and now he is a cop wannabe…..

      You people over played the race card. Zimmerman is half latino and his grandfather was at least part black. Guess what FL has more latinos the black people…..any riots will be most likely instegated by hired thugs, most likely by our own government.

      Fuck you and your NSA puppet leaders.

    • tom

      did zimmerman know he was going home???????? He was acting strange

    • http://gravatar.com/rossifumifan1 rossifumifan1

      Martin had no business walking behind houses at night in a neighborhood that he did not live in. I don’t know if your home has ever been invaded before but if it had happened to you I’m more than sure you would see things differently. Martin attacked Zimmerman and unfortunately got the worst of it. Martins hands were lethal weapons and if you doubt that go to google and look up underage murderers. Its funny that just this past week there were at least four to six teenagers murdered in Fort Peirce Florida and there has been very little mention of it on the news. The media cant make money off of gang on gang or black on black murders so they rather stoke the fires of racism instead. We saw a lot of that during the Zimmerman trial. I don’t see any activists marching in Fort Peirce urging the people that live there to stop the killings. Where is your opinion on that? Bottom line is, if it had been you under Martin that night under any circumstances you would have done the same thing Zimmerman did. We have the RIGHT in this country not to cower down to anyone and question everything especially in and around the most sacred of all places, our homes. This is America.

      • http://www.nolatacforum.com Brannon LeBouef

        Allow me to rebut for a moment here IN DEFENSE OF TM….

        1. As long as he was not legally trespassing, him walking down the sidewalk (not cutting through yards) is perfectly legal.

        Doing it at night, wearing a hoodie, in the rain when most people would not be out, behind houses, running away from someone watching him, are all suspicious and probably not the smartest thing to do, but certainly not illegal in this case.

        It is for that reason that GZ was completely justified in his actions of investigating what was by definition a suspicious person. Now, if he had a chance to make verbal contact before being attacked and talking with TM, TM could have explained away the suspiciousness of his actions. All good.

        • Elle

          Exactly, simple communication, if GZ would have informed TM that he was Neighborhood Watch and if TM would have stopped and let him know he was going to his Father’s house this would have all been avoided. Typically in a gated community, it would look suspicious for a guy to be wandering around alone at night, especially if he was walking behind houses or whatever.

          I didn’t keep up with this case and don’t know all the details. However, if it is true that TM punched GZ in the face and knocked him to the ground and continued to use the concrete sidewalk as a weapon to bang GZ’s head against then GZ had every right to protect himself.

  • Sherry manross

    Did he not get out of his car? Did the police dispatcher tell him not to get out of his car? Did he not have a gun? The fact is if he had done what was proper of a neighborhood watchman which is to WATCH!!!! This young man would be alive. Simple. George Zimmerman says he was jumped. Evidence suggests it is true? “Suggests” being the operative word in that sentence. It is a fact that Zimmerman followed Martin in his car and then on foot. He had a gun. All facts. He had no ground to stand because he was the pursuer. He was not the police. He disregarded police instructions. Martin is dead because this man at the very least made bad decisions. His life is ruined is a true statement. He has a life. Travon Martin does not have a life and Zimmerman is responsible. Those are facts not suggested evidence. What if the young man killed was the police chief’s son? Mayor’s son? A wealthy businessman? High school football hero?

    • http://www.military-arms.com MAC

      It’s not illegal to get out of your car. It’s not illegal to follow someone through your neighborhood. It’s not illegal to disobey 911. There’s no evidence Zimmerman started a conflict with Martin. If someone is following you, you can’t attack them and pound their head against a concrete sidewalk. That *is* illegal and is ultimately why Martin was shot and why Zimmerman was acquitted. That’s the point Brannon is trying to make I believe.

      • Josh

        Mac, But where do you draw the line? And i’m not trying to be a dick about this. Its true that nothing GZ did was illegal. Stupid and irresponsible? I think so, but not illegal. But is there a line someplace where you say that guy was looking for trouble. Where do you draw the line where say i didn’t start a fight though i put myself in a situation where something bad is going to happen. Let me try to make an example of what i’m trying to say.
        Say I’m walking one day and i see a protester for or against abortion( that’s politically charged right?). And i walk up to said person and i’m really getting up in said persons face yelling and carrying on. Suddenly said person throws a punch and then its a full on fight. I fear for my life pull my CCW and shoot said person dead.
        Now whose fault is it? Is it my fault for not just walking away and never saying a thing? Is it the protesters fault for protesting a charged topic? Mine for getting in someones face? There fault for throwing the first punch? Both of ours fault for getting out of bed and not staying at home that day? I feel its a good question that needs to be figured out.

        • http://www.military-arms.com MAC

          I draw the line at Zimmerman attacking Martin. Had Zimmerman initiated a conflict with him, he would have been in the wrong in my view. The evidence suggests that Zimmerman was doing nothing but following Martin while reporting his description and whereabouts to 911. This apparently angered Martin to the point he physically attacked Zimmerman. Zimmerman had a long history as a neighborhood watch captain as being non-confrontational and doing nothing more than reporting things to police that he saw. I see no reason why Zimmerman would have broken out of this established MO and suddenly decided to attack Martin. None of the evidence suggested that he attacked Martin. It seems that Martin initiated the confrontation by approaching Zimmerman and physically attacking him. He put his own life in danger when he did that. He likely assumed Zimmerman was unarmed and unable to defend himself, a mistake that cost him his life.

          If someone had me down beating my head against the sidewalk, I would be inclined to use whatever force necessary to make it stop too. What Martin was doing went far beyond punching the guy to make a point and walking off, he was sitting on Zimmerman smashing his head into the ground. Martin had no signs of being battered by Zimmerman, the only wound he had was a single gun shot wound. If Zimmerman attacked him, you would think there would be evidence of that on Martins body.

          I’ve followed people through my own neighborhood. Last night I walked around my house because I heard voices coming from my backyard. It turns out they were coming from across the pond. We were burglarized on Christmas night last year, so I’m on the lookout for people on my property or in my neighborhood that shouldn’t be here. Five other homes were hit that night in my area, so yes — I’m looking out for suspicious people/behavior in my area too. There’s nothing wrong with me doing that or with Zimmerman doing that.

        • http://www.youtube.com/nolatac Brannon LeBouef

          Stupid is relative, and he was not irresponsible or he would have been charged with negligent homicide.

          The”line” is intent. I do not think in any way he was a cowboy, wannabe, looking for trouble, etc. He was a man who was standing up in a righteous and legal way for himself and his community. The fact that TM decided to attack him is the impetus and cause of his death, not the legal and righteous decisions that GZ made.

          Your theoretical example os irrelevant as it in noway parallels this case. However, looking at it as an isolated case, if witnesses can articulate that you were presenting a reasonable threat of violence, then his preemptive strike could be legal.

          What you are not understanding, is that TM was out of the equation when he fled and left the sight of GZ who did not in anyway at that point follow or chase what he could not see. TM decided to come BACK and confront GZ and then physically assault him.

          Even by your own definition of “starting it”, TM martin started it when he began the 2nd confrontation. Depending on your interpretation of the evidence, the logical one supports two distinct “contacts” The first was brief, non verbal and only a contact in so much as the two parties were aware of each other.

          The second was initiated and escalated by TM, and justifiably and reasonably ended by GZ.

      • brian z

        we will never know what exactly happened at the moment of contact. we have the word of one participant only. everybody is saying “fact.” truth is it’s a fact of zimmerman’s own account as he saw it. just goes to show you if you have a lethal force encounter it’s better to just kill the other person and leave your word the only word…

        • http://www.nolatacforum.com Brannon LeBouef

          I am sure the prosecution in YOUR self defense case will greatly appreciate your statement of intent here.

          Not a prudent post.

    • Matt

      “Did he not get out of his car?” – yes he did, what of it? Nothing illegal, immoral or remotely wrong with that.
      “Did the police dispatcher tell him not to get out of his car? ” – No, in fact the 911 operator did NOT tell him not to get out of his car. He was already out of his car when the operator asked if he was following Martin, and then told him he did not need to follow Martin. He was never told not to follow, and even if he had been, there is nothing legally compelling him to follow instructions from a 911 operator.

      Your argument is all based on false evidence and assumptions. Following someone you say is suspicious, while on the phone with 911 no less, 1) does not constitute “pursuing”, 2) does not make you an aggressor and 3) does not justify the person being followed physically attacking the follower. You are assuming that Zimmerman disregarded instructions from the 911 operator, but there is absolutely no evidence to back that assumption.

      Most of these points are addressed in the video, which leads me to believe you either did not watch it or just chose to ignore it.

    • http://www.youtube.com/nolatac Brannon LeBouef

      Sherry, it appears you lack of knowledge of basic legal precedence, Constitutional rights, neighborhood watches, evidentiary rule, criminal law, generally how human beings interact in real life, and many other factors is clouding your ability to reach the logical conclusion.

      First, thank you for referring to TM as a young man and not a child.

      Second, Your assertion of facts are not all facts and some are irrelevant.

      Your being emotional and not rational.

  • TAC

    Not my research but good info and the truth!!

    Did you happen to know that Zimmerman and his wife mentored African American children for several years prior to this incident?

    Did you know that even when the state and local funding for the program was cut and the program ended they worked with the parents and continued to do so out of the kindness of their hearts? (Look it up)

    Did you ever see or hear from the mother of these children? (She gave several interviews that were not aired because they didn’t flow with the racist portrayal of Zimmerman)

    Did you ever hear from the African American neighbor who was close with Zimmerman? She said he was the first to welcome her to the neighborhood and always stopped by to check on her…

    A jury of six women (picked by both sides as THE jury that they wanted) found Zimmerman NOT GUILTY of any crime…why is that sad? Because it doesn’t fit your views on the situation?

    Had the roles been reversed, black on black or white on white crime IT WOULD HAVE NEVER GONE TO TRIAL!

    Why did a chief of police get fired for doing his job? Why was there no grand jury (standard process of law)?

    It is a tragedy that a young man lost his life. That is fact!

    It’s also a tragedy that the media and race-baiters (incl. Our current president) spun this non point non-criminal act into a racial circus to spark tension among the masses.

    • Guy

      Don’t forget the DOJ getting involved as well as the POTUS. PURELY political. Where is the outcry for all the victims you don’t hear about in Chicago and other cities/towns across the US?

  • Roger

    What does his position with Neighborhood Watch have to do with this case at all? He was not acting in that capacity, he was on his way to Target. Not , “On Duty” if you will.

    Why are all these people so ticked off about the deciaion made by a jury that was agreed upon by both sides? The prosecution just couldn’t make their case, even with a judge who appeared to be on their side.


    • http://www.youtube.com/nolatac Brannon LeBouef

      On one hand it does not, and it should not play a part in any criminal culpability as GZ did what any person legally able to possess a firearm would have been able to do. Being NW Coordinator only ADDS to the credibility and “need”, while none is required, for him to be where he was and doing what he did.

      The fact that he was not “on duty” is likewise” inconsequential. Any person has a right, and I would argue to a certain relative degree responsibility, to question what they consider to be reasonably suspicious in their neighborhood or any public place.

      Remember… if you see something, say something. CHoosing to get a better description is only a more diligent execution of tat same spirit.

  • http://gravatar.com/conalmc invsibleAzN

    Harry Reid is already saying the federal courts are going to prosecute….


  • brian z

    im an rn in an er in down town los angeles. 99% of the people that come through the doors with injuries (serious enough to go to an er) from a fight say the exact same thing, “i wasnt doin anything, they just jumped me.” we must call pd for every assault victim for a report and they get the same answer when they ask, “what happened?” i know for a fact some of those people are lying…

    • http://www.nolatacforum.com Brannon LeBouef

      People involved in fights sometimes lie? Hell, you would almost think people in general sometimes lie! O…M…G!

      Seriously though, I am assuming you are saying that you believe George Zimmerman is lying about who started it?

      • brian z

        let me first start out by saying great job explaining some of the legal aspects of the incident. few people could have done better. im saying he aint an angel of the community who was just jumped outta the blue. it sounds like he’s being painted as the upstanding pillar of the community. that’s all. i mean didnt he lie about a class he took? so he coulda lied about being jumped to. and then wasnt there something about some money or somethin that he recieved that wasnt true either? i dont think (and honestly im letting my instinct run the show) he’s as innocent as he makes out. that’s all. he didnt do anything illegal. and that’s been provin in court.i totally 100% accept that.

        • http://www.nolatacforum.com Brannon LeBouef

          Thanks for the kind words. I sincerely appreciate that.

          I understand what you are saying, i just think no matter what evidence people keep showing you, you aree reaching for a way to paint GZ as a bad guy.

          It is certainly plausible that he told lies, just like every human being alive. That said, i believe the overwhelming majority of his case is true, especially what applies to the point of his justified use of force.

          Big Picture – George Zimmerman defended himself from someone who was in the process of killing him. Nothing GZ did that night justifies him being attacked. The only element of what we know about that night that could have changed the course of events would have been for TM to not physically attack George Zimmerman.

          While it is unfortunate TM is dead, it was his decisions, his actions, and his deeds that brought about his death. If blame must be laid for the death of TM, it is to be laid at his own feet, as unfortunate as that may be.

          If you want to talk about people who “do not seem as innocent as they claim”, I would suggest you look at the way TM was depicted. Any skeletons you find in GZ closets will pale in comparison to the boneyard in TM’s, especially when you understand the way the media and the prosecution twisted facts to create the perception of dishonesty on the part of GZ.

          i think the defense could have made better use of expert testimony to demonstrate why GZ’s story changed” as time went on. When you follow the progression of the very few things that changed, you realize that his story never changed, it simply got more descriptive and detailed as he worked through the timeline.

          • brian z

            yeah. i guess the big lesson is dont take skittles and tea to a gun fight…

  • Steve

    GZ did nothing illegal or morally wrong. Maybe by prudence for self preservation he did actions that were not entirely logical to someone in that mind set. But for someone with a social preservation, especially a neighborhood watch captain, to find something suspicious and then attempt to report it to the appropriate authorities, GZ did everything right. He stopped and attempted to get a better description of the suspicious person or suspect and the last known location so that the responding officer(s) would have enough information to potentially do their job a little easier. However, it seems that in this country race, gender, religion are all things people just seem to put into the wrong context. Those things matter in making up who a person is or what they personally identify with. However, under the equality of the law they do not matter for equal protection. So without braking a law and attempting to help the police (gasp that’s what neighborhood watch is for), a man is attacked by someone who is later found to be some sort of criminal and watch captain shoots the man once to protect himself, people have a problem with that? It says more about the reality of are society and media than it does about the watch captain or anyone else who is truly defending themselves or others from life threatening harm. Last time I checked, pounding someone’s head into pavement repeatedly is life threatening and therefore constitutes a respond to make it stop. GZ was older and caught off guard; so he used the appropriate force to protect himself and he had trained to use the weapon appropriately. So one shot stopped it. He didn’t taunt TM; he didn’t try to even make any verbal contact until after attacked, which was the work help; he only stopped (and accurate too) the attack. So if you have a problem with this, move to somewhere you aren’t allowed to protect yourself from attack like Chicago or DC.

    • Guy

      brian z says: yeah. i guess the big lesson is dont take skittles and tea to a gun fight…

      ^^^^^Is this Al Sharpton on here? Sure sounds similar.

      As for the skittles and tea. I’ve heard that according to TM’s twitter or facebook post (can’t remember which) that the skittles and tea were for a drink called “lean” which consists of the two fore mentioned ingredients and then some Robitussin. Take that for what it’s worth, either way the media would have chose to ignore it regardless as it doesn’t paint the desired picture they had in mind.

      • brian z

        sorry! poor attempt at a joke, guy…

  • http://www.thearmsguide.com Brian

    Good post. Helpful dialogue.


  • http://www.thearmsguide.com Brian

    Massad Ayoob’s closing comments in this lecture may be helpful in this discussion as well.

  • http://www.thearmsguide.com Brian
  • Jaaay

    “While he made decisions that many would not have chosen, that does not mean his actions were illegal.”

    The law requires everyone, including Mr. Zimmerman, to act reasonably. If you agree that Mr. Zimmerman did something that “many would not have chosen,” then you must also agree that he failed to act reasonably. His failure to act reasonably is what make his actions illegal. Since his actions were illegal, he should have been held accountable.

    Your statements that Mr. Zimmerman ” made decisions that many would not have chosen,” and, “Trayvon Martin is responsible for his own death because he began an illegal physical confrontation” reveal a double standard..

    Assuming Trayvon jumped out of the invisible bushes and attacked Mr. Zimmerman for no apparent reason, his decision “that many would not have chosen” led to his death. But Mr. Zimmerman’s decision “that many would not have chosen” led to his acquittal. For Trayvon, for his alleged unreasonable behavior, he got life taken away from him. For Mr. Zimmerman’s unreasonable behavior, he got his life back.

    Please tell me which one of the two standards were used to make this outcome just.

    • http://www.nolatacforum.com Brannon LeBouef

      Your assertion of what I must agree abouti s not only incorrect, but it is also illogical. Your attempt to make a correlation between reasonable and choice is invalid.

      I choose not to have sex with other men, though many people consider it reasonable. Likewise, I am free to choose to skydive while many consider that activity unreasonable.

      Allow me to assist – http://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/articles/articles-legal-issues-personal-defense-network/reasonable-man-doctrine/

      Now that we have established what reasonable actually in this context, every single one of GZ actions were reasonable. They may not be what you would do, but they were reasonable. Shooting TM in the back when he fled the scene would have been unreasonable.

      Even if your skewed logic were not false, your determination that his actions were illegal is again false as not only evidenced by the actual verbiage of the FL statutes, case law, but most obviously, the fact that he was found NOT GUILTY. Regardless of what you think was right or wrong, the fact that he was found not guilty is the very definition of legal as it pertains to his actions in this case. My apologies that I can not think of any simpler and more obvious way to illustrate that.

      You might want to look at what the concept of “double standard” means. I do not think those words mean what you think they do. Perhaps that is a natural product of your earlier faulty logic. Either way, no double standard exists.

      By your logic, we can keep walking back in the timeline until the birth of GZ and say if he was never born then this would not have happened. While logically if he was never born nor exited his vehicle this most likely would not have happened, neither of those things are illegal, therefore he had no culpability.

      What if TM had never worn a hoodie?
      What if TM had never approached GZ’s vehicle and then suspiciously ran away?
      What if TM had never re-engaged with GZ after completely getting away?
      What if TM had simply punched GZ instead of trying to beat him to death?
      What if TM had come in through the gate like a normal non-suspicious person instead of through a cut like someone trying to be sneaky?
      What is TM had not threatened GZ’s life by saying”Your going to die tonight motherfucker?”
      What if TM had called 911 instead of Ms Jenteal if he was so scared?
      What if TM had simply said “I am heading down the street. I have family that lives here.”
      What if TM had…..

      We can play this game all night. While it is clearly logical that each of the decision’s above made by TM would have probably changed the series of events, the fact remains he decided to try and kill someone. Your attempt to try and justify that because a man decided to exit his vehicle because he saw a suspicious person is laughable.

      The first event where we can say “if this had not happened” where someone broke the law was where TM physically assaulted GZ as evidenced by the multiple pieces of physical evidence on GZ to evidence a physical attack yet not a single on one TM to suggest GZ ever touched him other than a single gunshot wound.

      As far your last couple of sentences, they seem to be the inappropriate use of a lot of big words, and I am not able to decipher exactly what you are asking.

      You seem to lack the comprehension that you cannot pick a random moment in time to begin the timeline of criminal culpability. It begins when someone commits criminal act for the most part. In this case, that person was TM. The act was the physical and unwarranted attack on GZ, after returning to the location of GZ and closing distance with him. TM was the agressor in every logical, legal, and social sense of the concept.

  • Josh B

    If people were to actually look at the evidence of the events, not the media version, but the real complete evidence of what actually happened, it can’t get anymore cut and dry. Self-defense and should never have been arrested. Period.

    With that being said, one of the things that keeps getting said that I am sick of hearing is that “If Zimmerman had just stayed in his car, none of this would have happened.” My response to that is: If Martin had not been a typical teenage thug and got himself suspended from school, his mother wouldn’t have sent him to stay with his father in the first place.

  • Jaaay

    1. Trayvon was a boy. He was a high school student. He played video games. He ate candy. These are the activities of boys. Anyone who needs parental consent to do something is not an adult. He was a boy by any definition of the concept of boy. He was not an adult by any definition of the concept of adulthood. He was either a child or an adult. Nothing about his life made him an adult. He was a boy.

    2. A person who has no reason to lie is more credible than a person who has every reason to lie. Ms. Jeantel did not benefit from testifying. In fact, she opened herself up to criticism and ridicule by biased and narrow-minded people. So she had plenty of reasons to avoid testifying. And she did so reluctantly. Mr. Zimmerman gave inconsistent statements to the police. When he was pressed on some of his allegations, he appeared less than truthful. You don’t have to believe Ms. Jeantel, but she testified that a heavy breathing man asked Trayvon what he was doing in the neighborhood. Then she heard a bump. Mr. Zimmerman killed Trayvon shortly thereafter.

    Many fights don’t start with punches. They frequently start with shoves and wrestling. It is a perfectly reasonable theory that Mr. Zimmerman shoved or grappled with Travyon before Trayvon punched him the face. In fact, there are MMA techniques that Mr. Zimmerman probably observed at his gym or in bouts, where a fighter grabs his opponent and immediately goes to the ground, on his back. That is how a person who did not start a fight could “not have a scratch on him.” If Mr. Zimmerman takes Trayvon to the ground and Trayvon gains an advantage, Mr. Zimmerman gets punched in the face. That that is a theory consistent with the physical evidence that differs from your theory. You don’t have to agree with me. But you have to acknowledge that your theory is just as likely to have happened as mine.

    You say that Mr. Zimmerman’s story became more detailed the more he told it. Mr. Zimmerman avoided answering some police questions by saying he had a bad memory. But you’re saying that his ability to recall details improved as time passed despite the fact that he admitted to having a bad memory. That sounds far fetched to me. I would not trust the statements of a man who experienced a traumatic event AND admits to having a bad memory. At least, I wouldn’t do that unless I was predisposed to believing someone like that.

    So which detail supported his claim that Trayvon jumped out of the bushes? Which detail supported his claim that he separated Trayvon’s arms from his body after he shot Trayvon? Which detail supported the fact that he shot Trayvon while getting his head bashed on the concrete but Trayvon was found on the grass in someone’s yard? How did Mr. Zimmerman explain all the blood his person that was not washed away by rain but all of his blood on Trayvon’s hands was washed away by the same amount of rain? If he is giving more details, why do a number of the details change when he re-tells the story? Anyone who beleives Mr. Zimmerman’s statements want to beleive them and believes them despite the fact there are reasons to not believe them.

    You lose credibility by making bald statements about race and emotion. Please address the merits of my statements. General statements about my lack of intelligence, education and information are immature. I believe that you are better than that. Please behave so.

    • http://www.nolatacforum.com Brannon LeBouef

      I shall address your reply by paragraph.

      1) Boy is a denotation of sex directly and age indirectly. This is a legal argument. If you want to try and refute things, please use the proper terminology. It is the same as having a legal discussion about firearms and you start calling a magazine a clip, it is an indication of your lack of knowledge or attention to detail about the subject. The proper term is minor. Boy, kid, child, etc are used by people to elicit an emotional response. I just replied to someone else explaining this tactic.

      Here is that segment: “Trayvon Martin was not a “kid”. Kid, is a social term used to express young age based on relativity. Many 60 year olds call 30 year olds “kids”. Trayvon Martin was no more a kid than I am at 36 years old. He was a legal minor, but that does not mean he somehow was clueless about what he was doing as we would take from “a kid”. If he was old enough to go to the store to buy Skittles and Tea by himself at night, then he was old enough to know he should not sucker punch a grown man.”

      The actions performed by TM would have availed the prosecution to charge him as an adult. Likewise, he was too old to be charged as a minor for anything related to a delinquent act or status offense, so again… in the context of this legal discussion, he was more an adult than a minor.

      2. That is not a true statement and not one you could even begin to quantify. How would you know if Jeantel had a reason to lie? Making the bad white man pay for killing her boyfriend is not a reason to lie? Based on your argument, Jeantel had just as many reasons to lie as GZ, they are different reason, but they were reasons. So, your assertion on that front is invalid.

      She testified under subpoena, not the goodness of her heart I am almost positive. I do not believe she had a choice in the matter. if that is the case, your point is again invalid.

      Well, you are certainly entitled to your completely subjective opinion of GZ “les than believable” statements, but I believe the things he said before her. At least on that front, you are not factually invalid. That said, I do not know you or how much time you have spent in courtrooms or dealing professionally with people who lie professionally, but while I do not think Ms. Jeantel was necessarily lying, I believe things went down like GZ said. I do have problems with placing faith in the testimony of relatively complex ideas on someone who is clearly developmentally challenged. Nevermind the fact that she was not there and is relaying what she heard through a phonecall.

      Out of curiosity, how do you exactly hear “a heavy breathing man” through a phone, when it is raining? I am not saying she did not hear GZ say that, but for her to infer he was heavily breathing, which if he was would be completely explainable by the fact that while slimmer at the time of the incident, he was not exactly in the best of shape and was probably experiencing a dump of adrenaline seeing someone he perceived as a possible threat suddenly appear. There are a lot of factors you simply are not accounting for and simply going off the elements of an incident you like and that you THINK support your case.

      3. Fair enough. Your suppositions about how it could have happened I think are very valid. That said, when you look at the totality of the circumstances, I do not think anyone can make a strong argument, as it appears you are suggesting, that GZ, suddenly grabbed TM, performed a rather advanced MMA move on someone who by all accounts was his physical best, all to orchestrate a situation where TM was in the mount (a universally viewed less than desirable fighting position) just so he could shoot him. I think you are reaching.

      You are suggesting GZ went out looking and started a fight. Absolutely nothing supports that intent except people reaching for a way to shift the blame for TM death away form the person responsible.. TM. I do not agree they are “just as likely” I think the evidence strongly supports the events as I described them and the defnse described them and the jury agreed with rather than this STreet-Fighter scene where GZ initiated a completely unprovoked attack.

      4. Again, research. Memory is in fact “bad” immediately following these kinds of incidents for most people. Furthermore, a “bad memory” is certainly not a medical diagnosis. It would be consumate to me saying, “I have a bad back” and then helping my sister move my couch. You are harping on a single statement out of context trying to make it fit something it does not. Also, it does not matter what think is far-fetched. i am not sure what your statement about being “pre-diposed to believe someone like that”, but I am taking it as a back handed insinuation about me. I am educated formally and experienced enough in these kinds of matters to recognize what i see instead of simply making ill-informed guesses. Again, there are a lot of factors that unless you dig very deep into this case, beyond the simple fact, you will miss how the facts relate to each other. Your posts are an example of this. You are basically like a mother seeing a child holding his belly and saying he has a belly-ache, while not realizing, as a doctor would, that he actually has appendicitis. She is simply not knowledgeable enough to see past the obvious to understand how it is more telling of the less-obvious.

      5. This paragraph is way too vague and is simply too argumentative of facts that have already been discussed. If you want to discuss these facts, please first read my other posts where most all of them have already been addressed multiple times.

      6. I may lose credibility to you “making bold statements about race and emotion”, but based on the lack of credibility, factuality, and overall cohesion of your statements, I am OK with you feeling that way. If you fail to see how race and emotion affect this case and people’s opinion of it, then there is not much I can do to help you.

      General statements about your lack of intelligence, education, and information are not immature. They are necessary components to a fruitful discussion. The fact that you are lacking in them in regards to this discussion are not insults, which insulting for the sake of insult is in fact immature, they are evident in the positions you attempt to argue from. My statement of them, again, is not to insult, it is to try and get you to understand that you are speaking outside of your knowledge base, as I would be should I try and argue the finer points of vascular constriction with a doctor, Louisiana contract law with a contract attorney, funky beats with Snoop Dogg (Sorry, Snoop Lion), or how much flour to use in a cake with Paula Dean.

      We all have opinions and we are free to express them, that however does not mean just because we have them, they are factually accurate. Just because you claim your opinion is that the sky is green, that does not make it so.

      Lastly, please feel free to take your condescending and presumptive “I believe you are better than that, please behave so” home with you. Of all your rhetoric, that is the most obvious of ad-hominem arguments without the integrity to do it directly.

      Here is the bottom line Jaay. The jury made a ruling. I agree with that ruling and I am trying to better explain to people who might not understand some of the finer points of the law why the jury came to that conclusions. Certainly everyone will not agree with the jury, me, GZ, or any element of this case. However, the facts that are publicly known IMP clearly show GZ acted in self defense. ANything beyond that is simply discussion about extraneous issues that while possibly helpful or fun, do nothing to deter from the real fact and the legal fact, that GZ is alive because he successfully stopped an attacker from murdering him. That attacker was TM. Had TM not attacked GZ, TM IMO would most likely de alive today and we would not know either of their names.

  • http://none R Tyler

    Let’s look at your scenario:
    “I’m Trayvon walking home from the store, I notice someone following me in their truck. I don’t know why or who, or what this person’s intentions are. Out of fear, I start running home, I think I lost him,….”

    If you are fearful why do you not continue to go home, get inside, lock the door and call the police? You lost him.

    “( the 4 minute time gap)”

    If you are fearful why do you wait here just out of sight of the guy that was following you for four minutes instead of finishing your run to home?

    “all of a sudden this person is now standing at the T intersection near me. I ask why are you following me ( heard on last call)”

    And that person asks, what are you doing around here (also heard on the last call)

    “I punch him in the nose.” (And knocked him down to the ground with that suprise punch.)

    Why did you punch him for asking his question? (He did not punch you when you asked your question.)

    Why didn’t you just tell him your name and that your staying at your father’s girlfriend house in the complex while visiting Dad? (Instead of punching him.)

    Why didn’t you just start to run away again instead of punching him, you played as a reciever for H.S. football, you can run pretty fast, faster than that overweight guy, right? (You were doing it before, remember.)

    Why didn’t you run away after punching him, knocking him to the ground?

  • http://bangswitch aalexander

    Bottom line is GM followed Trayvon trying to be a supercop and most likely started a confrontation and got his ass beat by a 17 year old boy. GM pussy ass was shamed then he pulled out his gun like a bitch. Thats what happened. Lord forbid if that was my baby brother. I would be crip walking in my jail cell. All of this could have been avoided if GM would have stayed in his place. He followed and got his ass wooped. I don’t give a fuck who don’t like it. Bastard playing robocop and made a bad judgement then tried to cover it up. Im ANGRY as HELL. Fuck all who is riding GM little pecker.

    • http://www.nolatacforum.com Brannon LeBouef

      Bottom-line, could you teach me to “be crip walking?”” I would travel to your jail cell for convenience and put 3.00 in your commissary.


  • Will

    Excellent video. However, what do you believe Zimmerman was accomplishing by choosing to exit his vehicle in search of Martin? He had already reported a last known location and direction of travel. What was his plan if he happened to encounter him? He would have had no legal justification or authority to stop or question him, and if the encounter did become violent, as it apparently did, Zimmerman would then be forced to use his weapon. If Zimmerman suspected Martin to be a potential burglar, then exiting his vehicle in order to search for him would clearly be an irresponsible decision as one could reasonably assume that such a person may be armed or violent if encountered –especially after that person has noticed you following them in your vehicle. Concealed weapon permit holders are taught and expected to exercise discretion beyond reproach by avoiding situations in which they may need to use their weapon. Wouldn’t searching for a potentially armed, suspected burglar qualify as such a situation?

    Also, and this is complete speculation on my part, I don’t believe Zimmerman would have exited his vehicle in search of this potentially dangerous person had he not been armed. If true, I would believe this to be proof of poor decision-making, as carrying a concealed weapon should not embolden one to take risks that they would not take unarmed. Rather, the knowledge that you are carrying a potentially deadly tool should cause one to modify their behavior to avoid circumstances in which they may be required to use it.

    • http://www.nolatacforum.com Brannon LeBouef

      I think he thought TM had fled the area (which he had) and was attempting to get more information to give to 911. I do not think he planned to encounter him except that TM either laid in wait or returned to confront GZ.

      He does have ALL LEGAL RIGHTS to question. Likewise, TM has ALL LEGAL RIGHTS to ignore, walk away, discuss, call 911. WHat TM DID NOT have the right to do was physically attack GZ.

      I agree that we should be HOLD OURSELVES to a higher level of care when carrying. However, legally speaking, a man armed with a firearm legally and one who is not, is not a different class of citizen and is afforded the same legal protections and freedoms.

      Thanks for the discussion.

  • Paul

    Went through the exact same thing. My brother had four men outside his 3 level apartment complex, disturbing the peace and walking around randomly. Not the first time they did this. The have a business on the 1st level, so they had every right to be there just like GZ and TM even though they were outside shouting & drinking/smoking. He asked them to keep it down from his 2nd level balcony, who was this guy telling them to stay quiet? they had done nothing, in their minds, to disturb him; just like TM had done nothing to disturb GZ but yet GZ was following him. So this wannabe authoritative accusation provoked the men just like it provoked TM when some creep was following them (no words were spoken but GZ’s actions provoked TM). So one of the four men said they are coming in and going to rape his wife tonight or another night when’s he not there. They started to walk to the entrance.

    This enraged my brother just like GZ was angry these punks always get away. Different than the GZ case but still the same since GZ was provoked by TM actions. My brother had anger in him just like GZ because they had disturbed the neighborhood before. He left the safety of his apartment with a weapon (a metal bar) and concealed knife after his wife said not to.

    He approached them just like GZ, my brother knew he was going into an ambush just like GZ knew someone could ambush him, four versus one, about 30 feet back said “please leave”, my brother was also looking back because he thought there was one more person inside the business on the 1st floor, my brother cornered them and would only allow them to go the street, they got closer, one of men surprised my brother and lunged just like TM did to GZ, grabbed him, tore his shirt, one of them punched my brother and grabbed the bar, both struggling to get the weapon, other men were also holding my brother’s arm’s and shouting “stop”, he overpowered the men and my brother swung and hit one of them, swung again and hit his ankle, then my brother ran back to his apartment gate, all caught on video. Two men chased (while the other’s attended the victim), tackled him and he was over-welmed by the two of the men. Again struggling for the metal bar. Two versus one, they got him pinned, he overpowers them, gets the bar, gets away and then runs back upstairs. Luckily the man didn’t die. My brother was charged and convicted after 4 hours of deliberation.

    Lawyer said he gave up his right to claim self defense as soon as he left his house (or car in GZ case). Even though the roles reversed during the confrontation. As soon as my brother left his house that was enough provocation for them to attack him, surprised or not. GZ provoked TM. GZ could either wait in the car and wait for TM to surprise him or get out of the car and confront this punk.

    So how come we spent $85,000 on his defense, it was the same race on race, so that’s out of the picture, and my brother’s doing 12 years? He’ll be out in six. Why is he accountable for injuring the other person and GZ is not?

    The lawyer said no matter what my brother would of been guilty even if they were beating the hell out of my brother, yelling for “help” which would of happened if my brother was a weakling like GZ. My brother could of died from a beating but used his weapon to defend himself but he still would of been accountable for causing the confrontation and the other parties would have been justified just like TM was justified to attack GZ. My brother knew he put himself in harm’s way soon as he left his home to confront these men. He was looking for confrontation just like GZ but my brother wasn’t gonna wait around for them to come upstairs and commit a felony, my brother wanted to teach these guys a lesson. If the man had died, it would of been a murder charge not manslaughter, that’s what the lawyer said since he left the house with ill-intent just like GZ left his car to get these punks once and for all. The victim in my brother’s case played a huge role in the injury he suffered, just like TM did with his fatal injury, had the victim just walked away he never would of been hit but the victim wasn’t going to let my brother scare him. The victim also wanted to get back to his business dwelling and felt corned by my brother. The victim(like TM) wanted to confront my brother as well and paid the price (later taking out pieces of his skull out of his brain at the hospital). But my brother was still the aggressor, just like GZ, the victim was not the aggressor even though the victim attacked first. My brother is alive because he had a weapon and he stopped an attack by four men but he’s still responsible because he put himself in that situation, he knew it was going to be trouble soon as he stepped out of his home. But my brother thought he had the upper hand since he had the weapon just like GZ. The jury, unlike the Florida jury, saw my brother’s intent but didn’t see GZ’s.

    The point is my brother just like GZ caused the confrontation. I don’t know what elements of my brother’s case have to do with the law, but my brother was the aggressor (just like GZ) even though they attacked him first. He never should of left his home. He couldn’t just claim self defense when things didn’t go his way. The jury was wrong to acquit GZ. The following of TM by GZ was unprovoked just like my brother telling them to shutup was unprovoked. I have no doubt in my mind GZ was the aggressor. Its not illegal to follow someone but it looking at the facts it looks like TM wanted to go somewhere else and GZ was blocking TM, he like my brother’s case, were just minding his own business. That’s why it was illegal for GZ to corner TM like some animal in which a confrontation was inevitable and he should be held responsible.

    Unprovoked attack on GZ?, please, GZ was provoked by the way TM looked like and the way he was acting, and then took it upon himself to provoke TM by following and cornering him when all he had to do was observe Just like my brother came out and would not let the victim go to his business office. TM didn’t have the right to attack GZ first once asked what his business is here just as my brother asked the victim to leave but he knew GZ was drawing a weapon and had no choice; just like my brother was carrying a weapon, once the victim saw the weapon, the victim had no choice but to attack first.

    TM’s murderous intentions only came about once he saw the weapon and had to beat him senseless, he couldn’t run away, he had to make sure GZ didn’t draw his weapon on him, if he decided to run. TM didn’t know if this man wanted to come into his home, he had to finish him. TM knew one of them had to die that night. GZ’s intentions were ill-intent when he stepped out of his car to supposedly look for a street sign which he knew w/o even blinking later on. GZ’s actions led to this, not TM’s and that is where GZ’s intentions don’t meet the letter of self-defense. To me, TM had a right to defend himself from this aggressor by throwing the first punch upon seeing GZ reaching for his weapon.

    Your entire analysis falls flat because the act of following someone and intentionally blocking someone, confining TM intentionally without means of escape, surrounding his house with no means of escape, suspiciously driving and following around without identification, every where TM walked, he saw GZ, no physical confinement but still nowhere to go, when your only job is to observe and report, these actions by GZ is where GZ’s criminal culpability starts and thus can be responded to. However, this does not give TM the right to attack him but what was not shown is that GZ was about to draw his weapon to appeared to be holding a weapon so TM had to attack. Maybe he saw that in invisible bushes he was hiding in but his assumption was correct and he knew his life was in danger even if GZ was totally vunerable to attack, GZ was looking for him. GZ admitted this. GZ could of been trying to break into his home or someone else, who knows but GZ should of stayed in his car only to observe not lie to the cops to look for a street sign.

    GZ was only allowed to confine TM if TM attempted to commit a crime. GX followed and blocked him because he looked suspicious but had no fact in law to base that on. GZ was confining and corning TM for at least if not more than 4 minutes without ever identifying himself as an authority of the gated community. TM was unable to move freely, perhaps he wanted to go somewhere else. Only a police officer can legally surround, confine and question a suspect. What GZ did was unlawful, even the police can be held accountable if they surround someone without reasonable cause. GZ used covert undercover tactics to follow TM which is entrapment because TM had no response except to commit a criminal act on GZ. But GZ under the law has no authority to act covert and follow someone. GZ did not have the right to take the place of law enforcement when he surrounded TM just like my brother had no right to tell someone to shutup, he does not have the authority, that is unlawful, citizen’s arrest or not. TM had a right to throw a punch when GZ was about to draw his weaspon. GZ was in a safe place, TM was cornered, then, GZ purposefully left his safe place and went into a dangerous situation.

    GZ was trying to be a hero, TM was tryin to be a hero but who started it? GZ did when he followed & cornered TM. And he wants to claim self defense, please. Give me a break.

    • http://www.nolatacforum.com Brannon LeBouef

      You took a whole lot of words to say a whole lot of nothing.

      GZ did not provoke anything.

      How could you know is he was angry?

      This very poorly written run-on sentence, while hard to comprehend, is false. It simply has not a single shred of legal credence whatsoever. “Your entire analysis falls flat because the act of following someone and intentionally blocking someone, confining TM intentionally without means of escape, surrounding his house with no means of escape, suspiciously driving and following around without identification, every where TM walked, he saw GZ, no physical confinement but still nowhere to go, when your only job is to observe and report, these actions by GZ is where GZ’s criminal culpability starts and thus can be responded to.”

      Please translate the rest into English as I would truly enjoy reading the rest of this tale you weave.

      Please feel free to continue to ignore the proven facts that TM laid in wait or came back to confront GZ.


  • Bibi

    I don’t get how you can compare Zimmerman to a girl being raped. Zimmerman broke all the rules of neighborhood watch which is what he was doing in this situation. He also confronted TM who he already assumed was a bad person just for looking around (not once thinking TM was lost)…I will assume Z confronted TM in a very antagonistic way which caused a fight…which Z is responsible for. Z started a fight and then claimed self defense. .. I will ask you the same question. If it was you, do you think Z would have confronted you in the same way – be real knowing what you know from listening to his racist assumption on the 911 call. Would he had assumed you were on drugs just because you were wearing a hoody and looking around and followed you? or calmly asked you what you were doing there? What if you just don’t like him following you and questioning your right as a citizen, thereby starting a fight because you are also antagonistic with Z which lead to your death. Do you think its just self defense since Z started this confrontation with you? I still think Z was wrong and should be held accountability on some level for his inappropriate actions.

    • http://www.military-arms.com MAC

      There is no evidence Zimmerman confronted Martin. As a matter of fact, the court evidence shows that Zimmerman never made contact and was going back to his truck when Martin circled back (which he did a couple of times) and ambushed Zimmerman. Martin wasn’t running scared, as many would have us believe, it seems as though he baiting Zimmerman into a trap.

    • http://www.nolatacforum.com Brannon LeBouef

      Bibi, it is very difficult (and frustrating) to address your post since it is fraught with so much hyperbole, misinformation, and assumptions that are not rooted in information known from the case, but because I love a challenge, I will try.

      [ Zimmerman broke all the rules of neighborhood watch which is what he was doing in this situation.]

      This is irrelevant. Rules are not laws, and sometimes, even breaking laws does not necessarily mean anything in the context of the incident, as it does not in this case. I think this singular point was pretty well explained in the video as expressed by so many others. Perhaps you did not watch it or would benefit from watching it again.

      [He also confronted TM who he already assumed was a bad person just for looking around (not once thinking TM was lost)…]

      The first part of your compound statement is not supported by a single fact, and actually the physical evidence, circumstantial evidence, as well as witness testimony disagree with your random statement. The second part, about what Zimmerman may have thought TM was doing is irrelevant to the material facts of the case as regardless of what he thought he was doing, he still had a right, and IMO a responsibility to a certain degree to seek information. Furthermore, what he may or may not have thought TM was doing does not excuse the physical attack he suffered at the hands of TM.

      [I will assume Z confronted TM in a very antagonistic way which caused a fight…which Z is responsible for.]

      Your assumption is wrong based on the information presented through the trial, including “ear-witness” testimony from Mrs. Jeantel.

      [Z started a fight and then claimed self defense. .. ]

      Your wrong again. Perhaps you should review the actual facts of the case which are publicly available instead of assuming and making things up. It makes this discussion flow much more rationally if we are all working in the same reality.

      [If it was you, do you think Z would have confronted you in the same way – be real knowing what you know from listening to his racist assumption on the 911 call.]

      I am going to “be real” as much as I can while laughing at your assertion here. Just because someone mentions race, especially after being SPECIFICALLY asked what race the suspect is by the 911 operator, does not mean it is “racist” I suggest you look that word up as I do not think you truly understand the meaning of it.

      [Would he had assumed you were on drugs just because you were wearing a hoody and looking around and followed you?]

      Unlike you, I will not suppose to know what another person would think, though I am pretty sure by reasonable standards, i would not be nearly as suspicious as TM based on my behaviors, as have been documented throughout this case. It appears you think GZ thought TM was suspicious just because he was black… once again, your lack of knowledge about the facts of the case have lead you astray.

      [or calmly asked you what you were doing there? ]

      GZ never had the opportunity to take this course of action before he was physically attacked by TM. If TM had not attempted to murder GZ, perhaps what you suggested is exactly how it would have occurred.

      [What if you just don’t like him following you and questioning your right as a citizen, thereby starting a fight because you are also antagonistic with Z which lead to your death. ]

      From this incoherent jumble of mostly words, i think I know what you were attempting to convey. If TM was scared, angry, etc about being followed or even suspected of something, there is a myriad of legal and normal reactions to that; however, none of them involved punching someone in the face and then attempting to kill him. Also, he had the opportunity, and the evidence would suggest actually did make it home, when he made a decision to approach GZ, thus starting the second contact.

      [Do you think its just self defense since Z started this confrontation with you? ]

      GZ did not start the confrontation. Even is GZ had actually done all the things your mind seems to think he did, it still would not legally or morally justify TM laying in wait or circling back around and attacking GZ.

      TM thought he could beat up GZ and he was wrong.

      [I still think Z was wrong and should be held accountability on some level for his inappropriate actions.]

      SO you do not believe in the legal system at all and people should just be able to do to others what they want based on what they “think they should be held accountable for?”

  • Sorel366

    I have extensively researched the case so do not imply that you know
    more than I do because you obviously do not. If you had watched the
    trial you would know that a witness testified seeing GZ on top.

    Jeantel who by the way deserves your respect as much as any other woman
    never testified that TM actually hit first. You just made that up. GZ
    did not have a “busted nose”, at the trial it was shown his injuries
    were actually very insignificant. The extent of these injuries however
    is not at all relevant because to anyone with honesty all they prove is
    that a fight occured, not who started it.

    Your eagerness to admit
    GZ’s testimony as “evidence” demonstrates that you are prejudiced
    against the victim, Trayvon Martin. There is no way to back up your
    claim that the victim “came from around a corner”. You just want to
    believe that, even if it means giving credit to a known perjurer who
    changed his story at least 10 times and that was proved by the

    I can sense your emotions through your words and I see they overcome your reason.