I think Zimmermann may be innocent, but isn't he obviously lying on one issue?

The led detective testified today that even if Zimmerman ignored the non emergency operator and followed Martin he didn't break any laws by doing so.

-and then of course there is also the obvious disregard of evidence as well.

Martin had no injuries (other than the fatal gunshot wound of course - not making fun of you, just contextualizing we are talking about injuries relating to any possible altercation preceding the shooting), so you think that suggests he must have been the attacker? Sorry, but what that suggests far more than any other possibility is that Martin was never involved in any physical altercation at all before he was shot. Perhaps some sort of grasping at clothing articles and wriggling loose therefrom may have occurred, something involving no striking with fists or rolling on the sidewalk, but it is going to be a rare anomaly if any kind of actual physical altercation (especially one that involves rolling on the sidewalk) does not cause at least one visible abrasion on each party involved. If the only injury Martin sustained was the gunshot wound, that does not suggest he is an invulnerable titan that vanquishes foes at will, without effort, strain or difficulty, it suggests he never engaged in any physical altercation. How does that fit your self-defense scenario?

Yeah, I think it's funny too.

I don't think he's innocent, meaning that I don't think he fired in self defense. I think he overreacted to the situation and Martin is dead as a result. In my view, based on what I have seen so far, a manslaughter charge would have been more appropriate and more in keeping with what happened. I will be interested to see the physical evidence collected. So far, aside from some photographs, there hasn't been much of that. I'm sure the medical examiner will testify and discuss whether or not the actually were marks on Martin's body. Keep in mind that bruises and swelling can take some time to appear and won't appear if someone is punched but then killed immediately after.

You know, when it comes right down to it, he ignored the 911 operating saying that "We don't need you to do that" when he was asked if he was following Trayvon. Then he gets out of the car and follows him anyway. To my mind, he wouldn't be where he is and this kid wouldn't be dead if he had stayed in the car.

And you know what? If someone was following me, I'd be nervous too. And I'd want to know who they thought they were, and if they came across as a bullying nitwit with manhood issues, things would go badly. But my refrain has always been this: George Zimmerman is guilty because 1) he didn't stay put. No matter how much he was a "wannabe" cop, he had no enforcement authority.

and 2) right to carry or not, you don't get to track someone down, get chesty with them, and then shoot them just because you're getting your *** kicked. It's unamerican, for pete's sake! If you start something, you take your whipping like a man.

If nothing else, Zimmerman deserves to be found guilty for being a bully and a coward who thought he could get chesty with a boy he didn't recognize. Then when the tables turned and he was getting his *** kicked, instead of manning up and taking it, he shot a 17 year old boy he didn't think anyone would miss.

And he tried to count on his father's legal connections to get him out of it. Now THAT'S cowardly.

The whole trial is a waste of the taxpayer's money. As sure as sun is going to come up tomorrow, GZ will walk.

The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ was the aggressor, that he did not reasonably fear for his life or great bodily harm, and/or that he did not reasonably try to escape.

That is an extremely tall order. For all practical purposes, it is impossible. The state's attorney should have known that fact. Clearly, she gave into political pressure to bring this to trial and the taxpayers of Seminole County are going to be picking up the tab. And, why not. After all, it's not the state's attorney's money, is it?

His explanation of how the fight started makes no sense. He says Martin walked towards him and asked "You got a problem?". Zimmerman says he reacted to this by taking his eyes off Martin to look for his cell phone. It seems like a very strange response to a man who he thinks might be armed approaching him aggressively. The crime scene does not fit his story. I don't believe him when he says he stumbled some 20 to 30 feet towards his attacker after getting punched by him.

http://youtu.be/7qfkRTC5gF4?t=7m7s

Zimmerman was a neighborhood watchman on patrol in the neighborhood, following a suspicious looking person (regardless of race) is natural to do.

The 911 operator did not tell him to stop following Martin, she said that Zimmerman wasn't required to follow him.

George Zimmermann Is not Guilty , I have been watching this trial and the prosecutor is failing to show any intent and wrong doing ....all their witnesses are failing to support the States evidence, and supporting the Defense ...I say the jury will either find him not guilty or this will be a hung jury

Makes sense, he got out to observe a suspicious person and very well could have checked the street signs before calling it in to the police (which he did) It’s not a lie at all.

He has been inconsistent in his accounts. For example, he said in one account that Trayvon was running away from him, and in another he said that Trayvon was circling his car. George also said that Trayvon jumped him from some bushes but when he was taken to re-enact the event, there were no bushes around.

Hmmm......

You might be interested in reading this:

http://globalgrind.com/news/8-reasons-george-zimme...