That's precisely it.

A few years ago a friend used the term "retards" in reference to MD/MR people. I and another of our friend stopped him and started to explain why he shouldn't do that.

He got angry and started yelling "I'm not going to be all politically correct!" and I said to him "I'm not talking about being politically correct, I'm talking about not being an asshole."

Political correctness USED TO BE what we call common courtesy. There's a world of difference between the thought police and the pointless regulation of the minutiae of every day speech versus just plain not being an asshole.

LK

And, you are just assuming Zimmerman lied There is no evidence for what you imply happened but there is evidence for what Zimmerman said. You are a biased asshole who believes Zimmerman should have been assumed guilty and had to prove his innocent. You made up your mind without looking at any of the evidence and you don't give a shit about the truth.

So did I. I was thinking "No shit Sherlock" until I went back and re-read the title.

LK

So, what we have is you cherry picking my words to misrepresent them, lying about what eye witnesses said, making unsupported assumptions, resorting to insults to avoid admitting you know I'm right, and generally making an ass out of yourself. Nice to know that you think you know everything that happened that night and have basically convicted a man on that unsupported knowledge. You obviously know better than the jury and, in fact, have magical knowledge of the events of that night.

I like how you totally discount my actual experience, to the point of saying that it is in no way like what happened to Zimmerman. We were both attacked, knocked to the ground, straddled, and had our head slammed into concrete. The only difference was the races in involved and the fact I didn't have a gun. Tell us, have you ever experienced anything like it at all? Or, are you just spouting off saying what Zimmerman could and could not have done with no experience what so ever?

We also know that if Martin hadn't attacked Zimmerman, no one would have been shot.

Oh, and just so we know exactly how much you are lying, 29 year old George Zimmerman was 5'8" and weighed approximately 170 pounds at the time of his arrest while the police estimate 17 year old Trayvon Martin was 6'0" and weighed 160 pounds. Martin's own family say he was 6'2" tall. So, when did 10 pounds become barely half of 170 pounds? As, according to Martin's own family, Martin was an high school football player, would you care to bet he was quite a bit more muscular than Zimmerman?

By the way, if an armed man was following you through a residential neighborhood in which you were a guest, would you approach the door of the nearest residence with lights on to knock, ask for them to call the police and provide you protection or at least a witness; or would you run to the house where you are staying to get behind a locked door from the perceived threat; or would you tell the person you are currently on the phone with and then call 911 and ask for the police yourself; or would you try to do more than one of the above; or would you, as an unarmed individual, approach and confront the man you believed to be armed and possibly dangerous?

According to prosecution testimony, we know which course Martin appeared to have chosen, which seems a very unlikely course if Martin thought Zimmerman was armed or was any real threat to Martin.

And, yet, Martin didn't know Zimmerman was armed as Zimmerman had a concealed carry permit and was carrying his weapon concealed.

In the real world universe we live in, not the imaginary one where you try to twist my words. I said Zimmerman was "apparently unarmed", which means he wasn't obviously armed but rather he appeared unarmed. Zimmerman was armed, but didn't have a his weapon visible as he had a concealed carry permit and a concealed weapon. Martin had no way of knowing Zimmerman was armed.

That is a false statement. Perhaps you should review the witness testimony. A prosecution witness indicated that Martin approached and confronted Zimmerman. Zimmerman was following a person who behaving suspiciously and was breaking no laws. If Martin had continued on to his destination, there would have been no confrontation at all.

Zimmerman's wounds were consistent with his story. A witness stated he saw a light skinned man underneath a person who was either dark skinned or wearing a dark hood. You are ignoring evidence and testimony.

Are you suggesting we should assume Zimmerman is guilty and he should be required to prove his innocence?

I see you are failing at reading comprehension. According to Zimmerman, he didn't draw his gun until after Martin was on top of him. You also seem to be failing logic. If you saw a person with a gun, would you run up to him, hit him in the face, then get on top of him without disarming him? Would you even approach and/or attack him? Or, would you run away as soon as you saw the gun, especially if you thought the person was following you? If you were in a residential neighborhood, wouldn't you run to the nearest door, knock and ask them to call the police? If you were near home, wouldn't you run for home? If you had a phone, even if you were on it talking to someone, wouldn't you call the police?

Aren't you going to address the claim and offer? No? I guess we can infer your answer from that. Zimmerman didn't have to aim. All he had to do was draw the weapon and put it in approximate contact with the person on top of him and pull the trigger. And, having been in the position Zimmerman claims to have been in and having experienced such a thing, yes such an event is possible. Granted I didn't have a gun, but I was able to grab something from the ground and hit my assailant dazing him and then buck him off me.

They had no case and they knew it. This prosecution was solely because of those protests and it failed because there was no evidence to disprove Zimmerman's version of events. The prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was guilty and the original DA knew they couldn't. Because of the uproar, a special prosecutor was appointed who brought charges and lost at trial because, like you, they decided to ignore the fact in America one is considered innocent until proven guilty. This trial was nothing but a politically motivated malicious prosecution to appease the protesters.

Zimmerman's next move should be to sue the state of Florida for malicious prosecution asking for legal fees, lost wages, pain and suffering, and enough compensatory damages to allow him to move elsewhere and start a new life.

That 'unarmed kid' was a 17 year old football player who had hit and knocked down a person, straddled him, and was pounding his head into the concrete sidewalk while stating he was going to kill the person he was battering.

If I were straddling your chest and pounding your head into a sidewalk, would you feel in danger of serious injury and death?

Except, that is not what the evidence and the testimony showed. The testimony showed that Zimmer followed Martin, and that Martin confronted Zimmerman

You seem unclear on the American legal system. Zimmerman is considered innocent until proven guilty. In fact, there was hard evidence Zimmerman's head had been slammed into the sidewalk. His wounds were consistent with that. But, that is actually irrelevant because there was no hard evidence that it didn't happen and that is what the prosecution had to provide. Zimmerman never had to prove his innocence, rather the prosecution had to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

As to the excluded evidence, it goes to the character of the victim and the claims of the prosecution. The prosecution's whole case revolved around the idea that Martin was an innocent victim who did nothing wrong, wouldn't attack anyone, and was unjustly targeted and murdered. They put forth Martin as a good kid who wouldn't commit a crime, wouldn't hurt anyone, and wouldn't be the aggressor. The excluded evidence cast doubt on that characterization. It showed that Martin could have been the aggressor and wasn't such a good kid after all.

Actually, whether or not Martin was a thug has bearing as it directly effects the prosecutions case. The prosecution case revolved around the idea that Martin would never have been and was not the aggressor, but that isn't the way thugs act. If Martin was a thug, then he might have attacked Zimmerman as Zimmerman claimed.

By the way, it was Martin on drugs, not Zimmerman.

Early on in your post, you state "I think they probably could make the case. Murder no way, but Manslaughter ", but then later you say "I don't care enough to go and review the evidence". You are making statements based on ignorance and it really sounds like you believe Zimmerman should have been treated as guilty until proven innocent.

So, if I am beating your head against a concrete sidewalk, no one can attempt to stop me because your life isn't in danger, right? Remember, you are stating one that slamming someone's head repeatedly into the ground while saying one is going to kill said someone isn't life-threatening.

Except, Martin didn't know Zimmerman was armed. All he knew was that someone was watching/following him. Neither watching nor following is a crime. If Martin felt threatened, he could have called the police, yet he didn't. Martin didn't have to confront Zimmerman at all. He could have just continued on to his destination at which point nothing would have happened.

You are making assumptions based on absolutely no evidence to justify your biased opinion. Or, to put it more bluntly, you are making shit up.

No, that is not what this case boils down to. What this case boils down to is who attacked whom first and how. That is why this case should never have gone to trial. The physical evidence corroborated Zimmerman's account and didn't disprove it. Eye witnesses corroborated Zimmerman's version. And, in the United States of American, a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution couldn't prove it's case and appealed to emotion and tried to mislead the jury and shift the burden of proof during closing arguments. The prosecutor stated that Zimmerman's defense needed prove Zimmerman's version of events and had not done so. But, Zimmerman didn't have to do that. It is the prosecution's job to prove it was false beyond a reasonable doubt. They couldn't and didn't and so tried to shift the burden of proof and used appeal to emotion to win. They failed.

It is quite amazing to see so many comments that are stating that Zimmerman is guilty while not knowing the facts. Some obviously started from the position that Zimmerman should be assumed guilty and that his defense had to prove him innocent beyond a shadow of a doubt. That is not how the law works.

Really? To which laws are you referring? Please be specific.

Actually, witnesses testified that Martin was on top of Zimmerman AND testified that the only way Martin could have received the wounds he had was if he was bent over Zimmerman.