Having followed this story since the beginning, I have formed the opinion that George Zimmerman is not guilty of murder in the second degree. This does not in any way diminish the seriousness of what happened on the night that Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by George Zimmerman in an act that can be described as self-defense. This case is not even a Stand Your Ground case, which is Florida Law. It is self-defense because George Zimmerman was pinned beneath Trayvon Martin when the shot was fired.
In a court of law, it is expected that the standard is what would a reasonable man do, according to the facts of a case. I can only work on the facts as they have been presented, and that means to some extent accepting the George Zimmerman version of events.
According to Zimmerman, he was on his way to do some shopping at Target. He was not on any neighbourhood watch duty. I point out that in my own communities there is no such thing as a neighbourhood watch guard etc. People are expected to keep an eye out for anything that looks suspicious. This is precisely what George was doing when he spotted a person who was in his mind acting suspiciously. I can only assume that George saw Trayvon Martin walking in a place where he should not have been, and this assumption coincides with what George said in the NEN call: “He looks like he is on drugs or something”. Obviously at the moment that Martin was spotted he was doing something that drew the attention of George as he set out on his shopping trip.
Traybots have the extremely nasty habit of making what are in fact assumptions about the events that happened that night. They constantly scream that if George had not gotten out of his car, then he would not have had his head smashed in by Trayvon Martin….BUT wait a minute, what did in fact take place, and is there any proof that George Zimmerman was in fact ever following Trayvon Martin? Granted, when Zimmerman exited the car he went in the same direction, BUT could it be said that he was following Trayvon Martin? I ask that question because during the NEN call, George Zimmerman stated that he had lost the person who had acted suspiciously that night.
So, is it reasonable for a resident of a complex to get out of his car to at least try and find out which direction the person went so that he could inform the police when they arrive? I think that is a fair question to be asked about what took place that night. In my view it is quite reasonable for George to have exited his car.
It needs to be pointed out that when the NEN operator said “we do not need you to do that”, George was heard to say ok. This is further evidence that George Zimmerman was not in pursuit of Trayvon Martin. I will now use George’s own explanation about what he did next, after he ended the NEN call. He continued walking to the end of the pathway to find a number and street address. He then turned and began walking back to his truck. His flashlight was not working properly . He had his car keys in his hand when he was accosted by Trayvon Martin.
According to George Zimmerman, and witness testimony supported his story, Trayvon Martin began the confrontation demanding to know why he was being followed, or rather according to George “have you got a problem?” to which George answered “NO” and Trayvon Martin stated “you do now” and then Trayvon Martin punched George Zimmerman in the nose, startling him and causing him to stumble. According to George, there was a bit of push and shove until George ended up on the ground in the vicintiy of John Good’s residence.
George’s version of the conversation differs from that of the alleged ear witness Rachel Jeantel. I think there is a good reason for the difference, and it is that Rachel was coached by someone. She had to say something that was contrary to what George had stated when he did the walk through with Chris Serino. Thus Rachel Jeantel testified that the words were ” why are you following me”. This is meant to impeach George Zimmerman, but the question I have is: Did Rachel Jeantel hear anything after the phone went dead? I actually think that she did not hear what happened because the phone was switched off prior to Trayvon Martin attacking George Zimmerman. The battery of the phone was certainly flat by the time the police took it into their custody.
If you notice I have nothing to say about Rachel Jeantel’s behaviour on the stand. I actually think that there was probably a reason for her hostility. She did not not want to testify, but she was more or less forced to give statements and to testify by Sybrina Martin and Benjamin Crump. There is definitely something wrong about the way that this has happened. Rachel is in fact a hostile witness for the persecution.
Also, I have already tried to counter the comments about whether or not the way she speaks has anything to do with her braces. I repeat, that if it is braces, then no, she should have no speach impediment. If, on the other hand she has an upper jaw plate, then YES, she would have difficulty saying certain words, especially anything ending in a k. (when I had plates, the hardest word was thank you because I could not form the k sound).
I do think that if Jeantel is recalled, then it will be for her to tell about how Crump and Sybrina Fulton railroaded her into giving testimony that she did not want to give. I actually think that Jeantel is a somewhat truthful person, and that she does not like lying, especially under oath. If she was coerced by Fulton and Crump to give this statement and testimony then this needs to come out in court and on the stand.
As far as the trial is concerned, the State has not proved its case of depraved mind. In fact they are not even close!!