[TheRealVille]

I never said that you took up for him. I said that you share his views in this case and are behaving exactly the way that he wants you to behave - demonizing anybody who voices an opinion different than his. In simple words that even you might understand, the Al Sharptons of the left manipulate dupes like you into doing their bidding at the keyboard.

All I have said is Treyvon was walking in a neighborhood, legally, Zimmerman stalked and killed him, even after the police told him not to follow him. These are the facts.

[TheRealVille]

I never said that you took up for him. I said that you share his views in this case and are behaving exactly the way that he wants you to behave - demonizing anybody who voices an opinion different than his. In simple words that even you might understand, the Al Sharptons of the left manipulate dupes like you into doing their bidding at the keyboard.

What does atheism have to do with anything here?

[Hoot Gibson]

All I have said is Treyvon was walking in a neighborhood, legally, Zimmerman stalked and killed him, even after the police told him not to follow him. These are the facts.

No, that is not all you have said - not by a long shot. You have called people racists for pointing out the bias in media reports on this case and for questioning whether Zimmerman would be found guilty of murder because of the beating he allegedly received and the stand your ground law - people who have not once questioned whether Zimmerman was wrong for following Martin and killing him. It is a little too late for you to claim the high ground after trying to drag everybody down into the mud with you.

Anyway, your insults and posts that are devoid of content are getting boring again, so I think that I will call it a night.

[TheRealVille]

No, that is not all you have said - not by a long shot. You have called people racists for pointing out the bias in media reports on this case and for questioning whether Zimmerman would be found guilty of murder because of the beating he allegedly received and the stand your ground law - people who have not once questioned whether Zimmerman was wrong for following Martin and killing him. It is a little too late for you to claim the high ground after trying to drag everybody down into the mud with you.

Anyway, your insults and posts that are devoid of content are getting boring again, so I think that I will call it a night.

The media have no bearing on facts. If anybody had a legal right in the "stand your ground" law, it was Martin, after Zimmerman stalked him. You don't want to go further with the atheism stuff? Yea, I'd quit if I were you, too.

[Hoot Gibson]

The media have no bearing on facts. If anybody had a legal right in the "stand your ground" law, it was Martin, after Zimmerman stalked him. You don't want to go further with the atheism stuff? Yea, I'd quit if I were you, too.

One last post for the road. The only moral compass that an atheist possesses is the one that he or she creates using their own brainpower. That is a tall order, even for an intelligent atheist like the late Christopher Hitchens or Penn Jillette. For an atheist who falls way down the IQ scale, building a functional moral compass with their limited resources is a near impossibility. Consequently, they tend to be easily frustrated and quick to resort to profanity and insults, as well as frequent lies. If my explanation does not make any sense to you, don't worry about it - I did not expect you to understand my point.

[TheRealVille]

One last post for the road. The only moral compass that an atheist possesses is the one that he or she creates using their own brainpower. That is a tall order, even for an intelligent atheist like the late Christopher Hitchens or Penn Jillette. For an atheist who falls way down the IQ scale, building a functional moral compass with their limited resources is a near impossibility. Consequently, they tend to be easily frustrated and quick to resort to profanity and insults, as well as frequent lies. If my explanation does not make any sense to you, don't worry about it - I did not expect you to understand my point.

Again, not believing in a christian god does not make one an atheist. You need to go back to school Hoot, you didn't learn it all. The resorting to insults is in black and white for all to see in this thread. We will let the readers decide.

[Hoot Gibson]

Again, not believing in a christian god does not make one an atheist. You need to go back to school Hoot, you didn't learn it all. The resorting to insults is in black and white for all to see in this thread. We will let the readers decide.

Yes, let's let the readers review the previous posts to find where you launched this exchange of insults by calling me a racist with no provocation from me. Let`s let them count how many other conservatives who you have either called a racist or some other perjorative when your tiny mind was unable to come up with anything resembling a cogent thought.

I really don't care how you describe your religious beliefs. Claiming to believe in some nebulous god who leaves no mark on humanity, places no expectations on our morality, and never intervenes in our daily lives really does little to distinguish your religious beliefs from those who proudly claim to be atheists. So (not) sorry if my description of your religious beliefs is offensive to you, seeing how you have repeatedly described yourself as not being religious. Just in this thread, you described yourself as not being religious as an excuse for your offensive insults. Now, your feelings have been hurt again because I referred to you as an atheist. Me thinks thou doth protest too much. You have no problem with insults as long as your target does not respond in kind. :biglmao:

[TheRealVille]

Yes, let's let the readers review the previous posts to find where you launched this exchange of insults by calling me a racist with no provocation from me. Let`s let them count how many other conservatives who you have either called a racist or some other perjorative when your tiny mind was unable to come up with anything resembling a cogent thought.

I really don't care how you describe your religious beliefs. Claiming to believe in some nebulous god who leaves no mark on humanity, places no expectations on our morality, and never intervenes in our daily lives really does little to distinguish your religious beliefs from those who proudly claim to be atheists. So (not) sorry if my description of your religious beliefs is offensive to you, seeing how you have repeatedly described yourself as not being religious. Just in this thread, you described yourself as not being religious as an excuse for your offensive insults. Now, your feelings have been hurt again because I referred to you as an atheist. Me thinks thou doth protest too much. You have no problem with insults as long as your target does not respond in kind. :biglmao:

Not in the least. We all know you are prone to go down to religious insults when you have nothing beneficial left to say. You can always be counted on to start the religious, atheist stuff, you have even been called out for it by another poster on BGR.


Let's do a count in just this thread: I said you are a racist conservative. You called me, "an IQ way down on the scale, athesist, fool, lack mental horsepower, with multiples in the post below, and other posts.

One last post for the road. The only moral compass that an atheist possesses is the one that he or she creates using their own brainpower. That is a tall order, even for an intelligent atheist like the late Christopher Hitchens or Penn Jillette. For an atheist who falls way down the IQ scale, building a functional moral compass with their limited resources is a near impossibility. Consequently, they tend to be easily frustrated and quick to resort to profanity and insults, as well as frequent lies. If my explanation does not make any sense to you, don't worry about it - I did not expect you to understand my point.

[Hoot Gibson]

Not in the least. We all know you are prone to go down to religious insults when you have nothing beneficial left to say. You can always be counted on to start the religious, atheist stuff, you have even been called out for it by another poster on BGR.


Let's do a count in just this thread: I said you are a racist conservative. You called me, "an IQ way down on the scale, athesist, fool, lack mental horsepower, with multiples in the post below, and other posts.

Let's don't - your math skills are as weak as the rest of your cognitive abilities. You are already fudging the numbers. It really is not possible to hold an intelligent conversation with one who is not. You initiated this exchange of insults, and it is irrational to expect that the exchange will end in a draw.

You forfeited the debate over the photos when you resorted to calling me a racist for confronting you with the evidence. You lose...again.

[TheRealVille]

Let's don't - your math skills are as weak as the rest of your cognitive abilities. You are already fudging the numbers. It really is not possible to hold an intelligent conversation with one who is not. You initiated this exchange of insults, and it is irrational to expect that the exchange will end in a draw.

You forfeited the debate over the photos when you resorted to calling me a racist for confronting you with the evidence. You lose...again.

The two pictures of Treyvon you posted look the same, except one is smiling and one is not. They kid looks almost the same age in both pictures. OrangenowBlue said it best when he stated that "some conservatives would like to see Zimmerman set free, just to get back at the liberal media." You appear to fall into that category, because other than insults about someone's intelligence, that's all you seem to focus on, how the media are portraying both people.

[Hoot Gibson]

The two pictures of Treyvon you posted look the same, except one is smiling and one is not. They kid looks almost the same age in both pictures. OrangenowBlue said it best when he stated that "some conservatives would like to see Zimmerman set free, just to get back at the liberal media." You appear to fall into that category, because other than insults about someone's intelligence, that's all you seem to focus on, how the media are portraying both people.

The problem for you is that not a single conservative has come remotely close to saying that Zimmerman should "get off" to pay back the media for its irresponsible reporting. You are once again resorting to what you do best - lying - and you are not particularly good at it.

[TheRealVille]

The problem for you is that not a single conservative has come remotely close to saying that Zimmerman should "get off" to pay back the media for its irresponsible reporting. You are once again resorting to what you do best - lying - and you are not particularly good at it.

Where's the lie? OrangenowBlue said that in post #36. And you are focusing on the media portrayal, there is no lie in either statement.

[Hoot Gibson]

Where's the lie? OrangenowBlue said that in post #36. And you are focusing on the media portrayal, there is no lie in either statement.

You said that I fall into that category of conservatives hoping that Zimmerman gets off, which is a lie. Stop trying to hide behind OB's quote. It has nothing to do with your lie.

[TheRealVille]

You said that I fall into that category of conservatives hoping that Zimmerman gets off, which is a lie. Stop trying to hide behind OB's quote. It has nothing to do with your lie.

No, I said you seem to fall into that category because all you seem to be focusing on is the media portrayal of it. Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, huh?

You appear to fall into that category, because other than insults about someone's intelligence, that's all you seem to focus on, how the media are portraying both people.

[Hoot Gibson]

No, I said you seem to fall into that category because all you seem to be focusing on is the media portrayal of it. Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, huh?

Actually it is one of my strong points, as is writing in clear, unambiguous terms. I have made my belief clear that, based on the facts that I know, I believe that Zimmerman is probably guilty of a crime such as manslaughter but probably not guilty of murder. The difference between us is that I lack the mob mentality that you possess and I realize that none of us could possibly have enough facts to state as a matter of fact what a just outcome would be in this case.

What you did was ignore the position that I stated in my posts while attributing a bogus one to me. Maybe if you stopped trying to distort other people's opinions your own would make more sense to the rest of us. Arguing against straw men is a dishonest way to debate.

[TheRealThing]

The latest on the Trayvon Martin case. They televised a picture, taken by police, of the bloody head of George Zimmerman, it was way worse than I envisioned during all the hoopla. Secondly, and possibly far more important to the case. During the bail hearing the DA asked the lead detective, who just happens to be one who filed the probable cause complaint on which the judge's decision to indict Zimmerman is based, and in which said lead detective's written statment said, he believes Zimmerman was at fault in the matter. "Do you have any evidence to support your stated conclusions that Zimmerman confronted Martin, and started a fight." The lead detective, under oath now, said "No your honor". The DA repeated incredulously, "You have no evidence?" Lead Detective, "No"

This exchange between the prosecutor and the man who filed the Probable Cause paperwork effectively cancelled out the authority under which the judge based her indictment. So far, the prosecution in this case is on tenuous footing.

[TheRealVille]

The latest on the Trayvon Martin case. They televised a picture, taken by police, of the bloody head of George Zimmerman, it was way worse than I envisioned during all the hoopla. Secondly, and possibly far more important to the case. During the bail hearing the DA asked the lead detective, who just happens to be one who filed the probable cause complaint on which the judge's decision to indict Zimmerman is based, and in which said lead detective's written statment said, he believes Zimmerman was at fault in the matter. "Do you have any evidence to support your stated conclusions that Zimmerman confronted Martin, and started a fight." The lead detective, under oath now, said "No your honor". The DA repeated incredulously, "You have no evidence?" Lead Detective, "No"

This exchange between the prosecutor and the man who filed the Probable Cause paperwork effectively cancelled out the authority under which the judge based her indictment. So far, the prosecution in this case is on tenuous footing.

The 911 calls say that Zimmerman was following Martin.

[Hoot Gibson]

Looks like reasonable doubt to me.

First, from ABC - directly from the police file:

[Image: http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/ht_georg..._wmain.jpg]

Now we know why the Sanford prosecutor had not filed murder charges against Zimmerman before the media blitz and the Obama administration's good friend, the dishonorable tax cheat Rev. Al Sharpton's race baiting. It is extremely unlikely that the state of Florida can make a murder charge against Zimmerman stick. At best, a case for manslaughter might be made, considering the physical evidence seems to support Zimmerman's account of the events leading up to the shooting, as well as the accounts of eyewitnesses in the case.

So much for the fuzzy video that some resident legal experts contended proved that Zimmerman suffered no injuries in his scuffle with Martin.

Zimmerman was wrong to continue following Martin after reporting what he thought was suspicious behavior to the Sanford police but the evidence that is now available does not seem to support a murder charge against him.

From Breitbart.com:

[INDENT]

With ABC News’ release of the George Zimmerman photo showing blood flowing freely from his head, the question becomes whether Angela Corey, the prosecutor in the case, had access to the photo before charging Zimmerman with second-degree murder.

DERSHOWITZ BLASTS ZIMMERMAN PROSECUTION: 'NOT ONLY IMMORAL, BUT STUPID'

The arrest affidavit did not mention the photograph, or the bleeding, gashes, and bruises on Zimmermans’ head. Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School stated upon release of the arrest affidavit that it was “so thin that it won’t make it past a judge on a second degree murder charge … everything in the affidavit is completely consistent with a defense of self-defense.”
After the release of the photo, however, Dershowitz went much further, telling Breitbart News that if the prosecutors did have the photo and didn’t mention it in the affidavit, that would constitute a “grave ethical violation,” since affidavits are supposed to contain “all relevant information.”

Dershowitz continued, “An affidavit that willfully misstates undisputed evidence known to the prosecution is not only unethical but borders on perjury because an affiant swears to tell not only the truth, but the whole truth, and suppressing an important part of the whole truth is a lie."

When asked if it made a difference whether the prosecution had the bloody photograph at the time they charged Zimmerman, Dershowitz responded, “We do know that there were earlier photographs before the affidavit was done that strongly suggested blood on the back of the head, and we know the police had first access to him, so if there was blood they [the prosecution] would know about it …

"I've had cases in Florida against prosecutors,” Dershowitz said, “and this is not the first time they have willfully omitted exculpatory evidence. It's a continuing problem. Here, it’s not only immoral, but stupid. The whole country is watching. What do they benefit from having half-truths in an affidavit?"

Dershowitz added, "I'm not taking sides, but I'm insisting that both sides play by the rules, and so far the prosecution is not playing by the rules."

[/INDENT]

[TheRealThing]

Looks like reasonable doubt to me.

First, from ABC - directly from the police file:

[Image: http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/ht_georg..._wmain.jpg]

Now we know why the Sanford prosecutor had not filed murder charges against Zimmerman before the media blitz and the Obama administration's good friend, the dishonorable tax cheat Rev. Al Sharpton's race baiting. It is extremely unlikely that the state of Florida can make a murder charge against Zimmerman stick. At best, a case for manslaughter might be made, considering the physical evidence seems to support Zimmerman's account of the events leading up to the shooting, as well as the accounts of eyewitnesses in the case.

So much for the fuzzy video that some resident legal experts contended proved that Zimmerman suffered no injuries in his scuffle with Martin.

Zimmerman was wrong to continue following Martin after reporting what he thought was suspicious behavior to the Sanford police but the evidence that is now available does not seem to support a murder charge against him.

From Breitbart.com:

[INDENT][/INDENT]

{ "There is zero proof that the kid was attacking him. None. Not one mark on either body. If you shot someone without provocation, I would assume you would make up some self defense story also." }


I told you, hard and fast conclusions could not be drawn by folks in Kentucky about this case. All we know is it happened, it's a tradgedy, and Al Sharpton and the Sharptonettes are running amok. Oh, and we know the media are sensationalizing the whole affair. On a side note, I'd still like to know how people can say Zimmerman looks white.

[Hoot Gibson]

It is amazing that the FBI has been ordered to investigate this case as a possible hate crime. The only injuries on Martin's body besides the fatal gunshot wound turned out to be to his knuckles. I am starting to doubt that prosecutors will even be able to get a manslaughter conviction in this case.

What is troubling to me is that Zimmerman's injuries had to be known by the police department and prosecutor immediately after the investigation began, yet the media is only now communicating that information to the general public, and most of the media is simply ignoring the story.

It looks like a lot of people were ready to hang Zimmerman with only one side of the story.

[INDENT]

[COLOR="Blue"]
Trayvon Martin's shooter had broken nose, black eyes the next day

The Miami Herald

The day after he killed Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman showed up at a doctor's office with a broken nose, two black eyes and two small cuts on the back of his head, ABC News reported Tuesday.

According to medical records obtained by the network, he also had a minor back injury.

Zimmerman takes Temazepam, an insomnia medication, and Adderall -- which is prescribed for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder or narcolepsy -- "medications that can cause side effects such as agitation and mood swings, but in fewer than 10 percent of patients," ABC reported.

The three-page medical report prepared by a physician near Sanford, Fla., showed that Zimmerman declined to go to the hospital and did not get follow-up care, ABC said. He also complained of stress and nausea.

In the report, a doctor wrote that Zimmerman became nauseated when he thought about the violence that had occurred Feb. 26 near his home in Sanford and that it was "imperative that Zimmerman speak with his psychologist."

The medical records were among 67 CDs of evidence turned over Monday to defense attorney Mark O'Mara. By law, the prosecution must now provide the evidence to the news media as well, but State Attorney Angela Corey's office said it needs time to review the records and black out sensitive information.

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/05/15/...rylink=cpy

[/COLOR]

[/INDENT]

[Granny Bear]

I remember seeing photographs taken of the back of Zimmerman's head that were posted on the internet. They had allegedly been taken at the police station when he was arrested. There were NO visible injuries in those photos. I remember this explicitly because I examined those photos very carefully, and thinking at the time that he had NOT suffered any head injury....so he had probably lied about the event.

I now have to wonder if those original photos had been touched up by the posting media...

I resent having to search and research stories that are posted by media who are supposed to be reputable. You used to be able to believe stories that reported by the news media; not so anymore.

[TheRealVille]

Did Treyvon not have the right to defend himself from an aggressor?

[TheRealVille]

Evidence mixed for Zimmerman's self-defense claim
By KYLE HIGHTOWER, Associated Press – 6 minutes ago
ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — When George Zimmerman tries to convince a judge or jury that he shot Trayvon Martin in self-defense, the evidence he'll be able to call on appears to be a mixed bag.
More than 200 pages of photos and eyewitness accounts released by prosecutors Thursday show Zimmerman and Martin were in a loud and bloody fight in the moments leading up to the shooting and that Zimmerman appeared to be getting the worst of it, with wounds both to his face and the back of his head.
But the original lead detective in the case believed Zimmerman caused the fight by getting out of his vehicle to confront Martin, who wasn't doing anything criminal, and then could have defused the situation by telling Martin he was just a concerned citizen and tried to talk to him. He didn't think Zimmerman could legally invoke Florida's "stand your ground" law and should be charged with manslaughter.
Under that law, people are given wide latitude to use deadly force rather than retreat in a fight if they believe they are in danger of being killed or seriously injured, they weren't committing a crime themselves and are in a place they have the legal right to be. The original prosecutor in the case accepted Zimmerman's invocation of the law after the Feb. 26 shooting but a special prosecutor rejected his claim last month and charged Zimmerman with second-degree murder. The former neighborhood watch volunteer has pleaded not guilty, has been released on bail and reportedly is in hiding.
He and his attorney will have two more chances to invoke the law. First, they will try to convince a judge during what will be a mini-trial. If the judge agrees, the charges will be dropped although prosecutors could appeal. That is likely months away. If the judge rejects the claim, Zimmerman could they try to convince the jury and win an acquittal. A trial is unlikely to start before next year. Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O'Mara, didn't return a phone call seeking comment Thursday from The Associated Press.
Speaking Friday on NBC's "Today" show, O'Mara said he couldn't talk about the individual pieces of evidence in the case. But he said that rather than talking about the "what-if's" — as in what if Zimmerman had stayed in the car — O'Mara said "we have to deal with what happened and try to explain that."
Joelle Moreno, a Florida International University law school professor, said the evidence now released makes it difficult to predict if a "stand your ground" defense will work. She is a member of a state senator's task force examining the law.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/arti...43b71e48e1

[judgementday]

^What RV has bolded above.......

Zimmerman was the aggressor by following Martin (for no reason might I add). Had he stayed in his vehicle this would have never happened. Fault lies with Zimmerman.

[Granny Bear]

I'm not so sure now.
You can say that Zimmerman should have never left his vehicle, farther back you can say Martin shouldn't have been walking in a gated community. Either action could or couldn't be considered aggressive. It would depend on several factors, and probably none that you could determine with any accuracy. Either action is also their "right" to do, depending on those undetermined factors.

I'm starting to change my mind in this case. Martin's injuries other than the fatal gunshot wound were abrasions on his knuckles. Zimmerman has a broken nose, two black eyes, cuts on the back of his head and various contusions.

Was Zimmerman the aggressor by repeatidly hitting Martin in the knuckles with his face???

I also read an article this morning, giving marjiuana levels and other findings of the autopsy, that leads me to believe that Martin wasn't as innocent as I originally thought.

[Truth]

Argue all you want. The true facts won't matter. The liberal media has concluded, without waiting for any real facts, that Zimmerman must be found guilty. In the politically correct atmosphere that is smothering the country, Zimmerman must be punished.

Can you imagine what would happen if a jury, a predominately non-black jury, found Zimmerman not guilty. The rioting and destruction would be rampant. All of you know it and I know it.

Thus, mob justice must prevail and Zimmerman must be punished. Of course, in this day and age, it must be a "hate crime". The U.S. Constitution doesn't provide any hint of a justification for the category of "hate crime". However, political correctness demands it. Hurting a minority is far more serious than injuring a mere Caucasian. Or so they say. Of course, I thought that the Fourteenth Amendment provided for equal protection of the law. I guess that is no longer the case. Constitutional rights have been trumped by political correctness.

Too bad that, like the situation in the liberal media ignored crime in Virginia, Zimmerman wasn't black and Martin white. If that were the case, no one would have heard of either of them.

Now, you wild eyes may not like my post but it is the truth. And that is why you won't like it. A bit of truth is still relevant to most.

[RunItUpTheGut]

It is amazing that the FBI has been ordered to investigate this case as a possible hate crime. The only injuries on Martin's body besides the fatal gunshot wound turned out to be to his knuckles. I am starting to doubt that prosecutors will even be able to get a manslaughter conviction in this case.

What is troubling to me is that Zimmerman's injuries had to be known by the police department and prosecutor immediately after the investigation began, yet the media is only now communicating that information to the general public, and most of the media is simply ignoring the story.

It looks like a lot of people were ready to hang Zimmerman with only one side of the story.

[INDENT][/INDENT]

This. Spot on.

[TheRealVille]

I'm not so sure now.
You can say that Zimmerman should have never left his vehicle, farther back you can say Martin shouldn't have been walking in a gated community. Either action could or couldn't be considered aggressive. It would depend on several factors, and probably none that you could determine with any accuracy. Either action is also their "right" to do, depending on those undetermined factors.

I'm starting to change my mind in this case. Martin's injuries other than the fatal gunshot wound were abrasions on his knuckles. Zimmerman has a broken nose, two black eyes, cuts on the back of his head and various contusions.

Was Zimmerman the aggressor by repeatidly hitting Martin in the knuckles with his face???

I also read an article this morning, giving marjiuana levels and other findings of the autopsy, that leads me to believe that Martin wasn't as innocent as I originally thought.

He was walking in a gated community he was perfectly legal in walking in. He was staying with his father at his fathers girlfriend's house in the community. Him staying with her, and her living there, made it legal.

The second bold is an idiotic statement. Zimmerman was stalking him, and confronted him. Treyvon had every right to protect himself from Zimmerman. Again, he was he was legally allowed to be.

[Truth]

He was walking in a gated community he was perfectly legal in walking in. He was staying with his father at his fathers girlfriend's house in the community. Him staying with her, and her living there, made it legal.

The second bold is an idiotic statement. Zimmerman was stalking him, and confronted him. Treyvon had every right to protect himself from Zimmerman. Again, he was he was legally allowed to be.

I'm relieved to know that TheRealVille of Paintsville, KY has all the facts. Unfortunately, he got them from Chris Matthews (with the trembling leg), Al Sharpton (no stranger to lying and perjury), Shultz (he is so insignificant that I don't even know his first name), and the "quasi-feminine" Rachel Maddow.

I know a lot of people in Johnson County, many of them attorneys-at-law, and I can assure you that TheRealVille does not express the feeling of the majority in that fine area of the Commonwealth.

[Crossbones]

He was walking in a gated community he was perfectly legal in walking in. He was staying with his father at his fathers girlfriend's house in the community. Him staying with her, and her living there, made it legal.

The second bold is an idiotic statement. Zimmerman was stalking him, and confronted him. Treyvon had every right to protect himself from Zimmerman. Again, he was he was legally allowed to be.

It was also perfectly legal for Zimmerman to follow Martin and to be curious as to what he was doing in Zimmerman's community. Seeing as Zimmerman was a home owner and paid taxes on his property and not knowing Martin, because Martin by all rights did not live there. He (Martin) was simply shacking up with his dad who was shacking up with his girlfriend. If I see someone walking in front of my home in the middle of the night, I will ask them what they are doing and if they want to throw down because of it and beat my head into the concrete, I will defend myself to death if need be. You nor I or anyone else know the conversation that took place that night between them before the beating took place. One thing that is known thou is that Zimmerman is the only one that took a beating and Martin is the only one that took a bullet.