For contrast:   A Florida woman who fired warning shots against her allegedly abusive husband has been sentenced to 20 years in prison.

The judge ruled the "Stand Your Ground" law didn't apply to her. 

I followed that case too and I thought she should have gotten off. There were some issues with her story, but the same idea that she was defending her self didn't work as a defense. Personally, she should have gotten off and set free. There was a history of violence, but she went back to the house after having an opportunity to leave. She also had an opportunity to leave the house the night of the shooting. Instead she went to her car and got a gun. That is where she failed. Stand Your Ground laws do not allow for this if you had the opportunity to leave.

There is also this guy in Texas who was dumb enough to video tape his confrontation.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-06-27/texas-stand-your-ground-sentence/55868954/1

I watched the video and he is clearly guilty. He went looking for a fight.

Do you think that Zimmerman is likely to shoot someone again?

Yeah, that is a flaw in the laws of many states. It is often better to actually kill someone than to fire a warning shot to avoid jail, that is messed up imo. And 20+ years strikes me as a ridiculously long sentence for anything short of a serial killer or mass murderer. I don't think most murderers should be sentenced that long, let alone manslaughter or attempted murder. 

I think someone will just gun Zimmerman down. Hopefully they get off too.

I thought about this in two ways: 1) Zimmerman was living a normal life, answer, no. 2) Zimmerman is in hidding for the rest of his life, answer, yes it is highly likely.

I've been waiting for some one to say this, of course the media didn't touch on the subject. It would have desensationalized the story and lowered ratings.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You know, another key thing for me was the tying (ph) -- or Rachel Jeantel's testimony to when she was on the phone with Trayvon. And you know, you can't really -- you really -- you can't say what she was saying when except for when the phone disconnected. And then she called back and she called to talk to him again.

At that point, Trayvon said he had lost the man and he was at this -- this -- where his father was staying. He was at that place. At the same time of that -- that happening, George Zimmerman had only just gotten out of his car about 25, 30 seconds. So he was still up at the T.

And Trayvon, according to Jeantel's -- or Rachel's testimony, would have been down the other end of the buildings at that point. So somehow, those two got back together up at the top of the T.

And you know, we don't know how that happened but -- and in all likelihood, in my mind, you know, even if George Zimmerman had walked down to where Trayvon was, they both walked back up to the T. So that would have implied that Trayvon had followed George Zimmerman back up.

If George Zimmerman didn't walk down there, then Trayvon walked up, back up to the T somehow because then the earwitnesses heard the noises up there, most of the earwitnesses, I believe. One of them said the noises went the other direction. But the majority of them had the noises coming from the top of the T down to the truck where -- where John Good saw him laying on the ground, or Trayvon on top of George Zimmerman.

www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/2013/07/18/record-legal-panel-breakdown-zimmerman-alernate-juror-speaks-out

The cops told Zimmerman to quit following the kid. He didn't. He provoked the issue. Too bad he isn't the one 6 feet under.

A Non-Emergency Dispatcher told him to stop following, or more accurately told him they 'didn't need him to do that' to which he responded 'okay'.  You can listen to the full call Here.  It is my understanding that the Media has been chopping the 'okay' off, but I have not listened to any news media outlet's coverage of the incident as I don't have TV Access so reserve the right to retract that statement. 

According to Zimmerman he was trying to get a street sign or address as he did not live on that street, and he wanted to be able to give the Police some more information once they arrived.  You can see his account Here.  His account lines up with the police call.

Given that the only injury Martin suffered was the gunshot while Zimmerman's nose and the back of his head were injured and bleeding this suggests that prior to the gunshot the altercation was laughably one-sided in Martin's Favor, which supports the idea that Martin began the confrontation when Zimmerman was not expecting it.

I have also heard of texts from just prior to the fight where Martin claimed he was 'looking for a fight' but I have been unable to find the texts themselves, just articles about the judge not letting them in as evidence.

I see no evidence to prove that Zimmerman Lied, what evidence I have seen tends to corroborate his story.

Ultimately, The United States operates on the principle of Innocent until Proven Guilty.  The trial was unable to prove Zimmerman Guilty beyond reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers.

Treyvon started it?

SO THE FUCK WHAT?

If you do not understand why he threw the first punch, ask your black friends and co workers who don't throw the first punch how they are looked at. If you cant do that  or are unwilling to have that conversation with your black friends, SHUT THE FUCK UP.

No, my take on it is that Zimmerman saw a black guy in a hoodie and thought "criminal".

I accept the verdict because of our system. But in no way do I agree with it. If the rolls had been reversed and it was Treyvon shooting Zimmerman, does anyone really think the same verdict would have been reached?

FUCK YOU.

That has pretty much been my impression but I admit I have not paid close attention to the trial. As with any high profile trial it is not a surprise that the verdict goes the opposite way the news media thinks and it is not a surprise that a lot of people disagree with the verdict. In a few months, this trial will be history and no one will remember it as the media focuses on the next trial they can sensationalize. The only thing that disturbs me is the talk about pressing federal hate crimes charges. Hopefully that is just media sensationalizing mixed with frustration, because that would be a very dangerous precedent to set. 

The whole point of the trial... if he started it then the shooting was self defense. If he didn't then it was murder. 

So black people should be free to walk around punching non-blacks? And non-blacks are not allowed to defend themselves? I'm pretty sure 0% of my black friends hold that opinion. I will ask. 

Well we know that Zimmerman thought he was a criminal, or at least suspicious, hence why he called 911 and supposedly why Zimmerman was following Trayvon. Whether Zimmerman is racist or not is completely irrelevant to whether or not the shooting was self defense. 

Hard to say. Given the exact same evidence I think so. One thing that is certain is that the media would not have talked about it as much. Like they are not talking about Cordell Jude shooting Daniel Adkins http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/20120727phoenix-taco-bell-shooter-suspect-indicted.html?nclick_check=1 (who also like Zimmerman was not initially arrested by police) or Crystal Scott shooting Jonathan Ables http://www.speroforum.com/a/ABTQXCNTFM32/73128-Black-woman-stands-her-ground-kills-white-man#.UehJh41kxTM 

We have some 12-14,000 people charged with murder every year and about 1.5% of those claim self defense so that is about 200 cases every year. The news media decides to focus on one because they think it is sensational enough and in this case it is clear that they dedicated themselves to playing up the role of race in the case. (Such as when they played a flagrantly doctored 911 call to make it sound like Zimmerman was obsessed with race) That leaves over 200 self defense shootings that the media completely ignores which includes white on black, black on white, white on white, black on black, hispanic on black, black on hispanic, white on hispanic, hispanic on white etc. Whether a conviction results also varies greatly depending on the particular scenario and the state laws on self defense which vary greatly. It is really impossible to get an apples to apples comparison when you are talking about different confrontations. 

I don't think the jury was racist, I don't think there is any evidence the jury was racist or influenced by race and I think that the portrayals in the media that this was somehow a racist process are unfair. I think the members of the jury honestly believe that Zimmerman acted within the bounds of the law, as to whether or not they got it right I can't comment because I didn't watch the trial. I do know it is very different being a juror on a trial where you are literally deciding whether or not to deprive a person of the rest of their life (20 years in prison fucks up anyone's life forever) than it is to watch from the outside. It is much easier to say "throw him in jail" when you are not the one person who actually has the power to give that kind of punishment. I know for me to make that decision and sleep for the rest of my life I would have to be absolutely convinced the person was guilty without any doubt at all in my mind. Also, the jury is sequestered so they don't see the trial through a very different filter than those who watch all the talking heads and interviews, which is why the actual verdicts in many of these publicized trials are very different from what everyone believes they will be.  

No thanks, you are not my type. 

An interesting study done recently calculating the probability of being convicted of murder based on race.   

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15377938.2013.739386

"A Non-Emergency Dispatcher told him to stop following, or more accurately told him they 'didn't need him to do that' to which he responded 'okay'. "

Same difference. He was told to stop, he didn't stop, he provoked the issue. I'd have kicked his ass for stalking me too.
The onus was on him to prove it was self defence and necessary, he didn't do that. And an all white all female jury let him off the hook. I sincerely hope someone takes him out.

Actually, I wouldn't kick his ass, I'd just shoot him dead. This trial has shown you can't defend yourself against a creepy prick who's stalking you then shoots you when you confront him, so I'd just end him from a distance and deny him the opportunity.

Here is what came out in court testimony.

1) Trayvon was the only person making racist comments

2) Zimmerman lost Trayvon but then found him again when Trayvon jumped Zimmerman

3) Trayvon wasn't coming back from the store with Skittles and tea, he had already made it back to his father's residence but then went back out looking for Zimmerman

4) Zimmerman was an idiot, he should have gone home when he was told to by the dispatcher.

5) Trayvon was an idiot, he should have gone home and smoked some weed.

6) If Zimmerman was looking for a fight he must be a complete dumbass. He waited until Trayvon was pummeling him to pull the gun. What gun owner would go looking for trouble, with the intent to kill another person, but not pull out the gun and use the advantage of shooting the person at long range? I mean, that is the purpose of the gun right?

In closing, Zimmerman is (and I'll use the words of Trayvon) a "creepy ass cracker". I think he should get 30 years for just being a dumb ass.

Trayvon is dead because angry and weed don't mix.

How do you get from

To

Zimmerman is an idiot, but he didn't commit any crime (per the law); but if he would have gone to prison I wouldn't have cared. It would be fitting for his stupidity.

Trayvon is was an idiot, but as it shows in court transcripts, he obviously attacked Zimmerman and he died because of his anger and being high.

Apparently you never smoked weed. > >

A very long time ago.

I hope you are just trolling me. 

I don't troll.

Then that is just scary that you have no problem with people being jailed when they have broken no law.

Nope. I don't want him jailed for not violating a law, I thought he should be jailed for being ignorant and dumb, but you didn't catch the sarcasm.

ABC news had this black 13 year old boy, Austin Brown (or McLendon) on video as saying that he saw a guy in red on the ground being hit by a guy in black on top. He specifically stated that the guy on the ground, in red, was screaming for help.

Funny how this didn't make it in the court room or that the media didn't make more of it. I thought the media handled this case horribly. They did every thing to fan the flames of racism.

There's no way in hell that someone being straddled and pounded can pull a gun and get a single perfect shot off to the head.
No. Fucking. Way. In. Hell.

He didn't shoot him in the head. The shot went through his chest, in to the lung.

There was a Sergent who gave CPR to Trayvon and he said that there was air coming out of the one wound. The shot was located at the bottom of the rib cage. This would be consistent with the testimony of three people who said Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman.

When Zimmerman pulled the gun it was down low, at his waist. Which then was brought up at a low angle and then fired in to the lung.

He wouldn't be pulling a gun period. He'd be getting his ass kicked.

Why didn't Zimmerman pull the gun earlier? Is this not a sign that he was jumped? Surprised? He didn't have time to pull the gun. Eyewitnesses said they didn't see a gun. This means that while on the ground he pulled the gun seconds before shooting.

No. Hell no. If he was on the ground, mounted, and getting pounded, and the attacker was intent on causing serious injury, and the defender was trying to pull out a gun instead of defend himself, then his entire head would be mush. Broken jaw, broken nose, broken cheekbones. Within 5 punches.
He'd probably have been KO'd, and the attacker would have no trouble at all preventing him from pulling the gun out while making his head mush.
You will not be able to pull a gun and fire it while someone is performing a ground and pound on you. The attacker has every possible advantage in that position, and can see everything you try to do. There's a reason that even the best fighters tap out as soon as they are mounted.
I don't believe for even a fraction of a second that it went down that way. It's simply not possible unless the attacker was not causing any real threat to the defenders life or even his appearance, in which case the defender did not have sufficient cause to kill the attacker.

I've run this over in my head a hundred times, yes, if I was on the ground getting punched I imagine I'm getting pretty well beat. I rock back and forth trying to avoid hits. As I rock back and forth I wiggle a bit from their advantage so that my waist and legs are flush with their butt. This all depends on if Zimmerman had his legs straight or bent.

The gun is on my primary hand side, the attacker has no advantage to it. My waist is covered by his legs because he is straddling me. I reach down with my primary hand and grab the gun. He is now at the disadvantage. The gun is down away from him and he would have only one hand free to block. If he brought his opposite hand across I could use that to throw him off me.

Then as I rolled him over my gun hand is free, I place the gun against his chest and <pop>.

 (btw)

I wouldn't be carrying a gun and I wouldn't be outside chasing the individual. I would be in the house or car talking to 911.

   I don't care what Vastet or Digitbeachbum say.  There was no 'magic bullet'; The 1961 Presidential Lincoln Limo  had been altered,  having the passenger-side front seat removed. So, the trajectory the bullet took, from the Book Repository building, would not suggest the bullet had to have taken an impossible zigzag path to have passed through both men.

LMAO good one!

Bullshit. Even if Trayvon had a full mount (which is different from simply being "on top" as I understand was described by the witnesses, there are many ways a person can be on top without having a full mount) it is far from certain that he had the knowledge and skill set to completely subdue Zimmerman. The reason the full mount is considered so dominating in MMA is because it allows the person on top to completely control the hips of the person on the bottom, which makes it extremely difficult to do anything with any kind of force, while giving the person on top maximum leverage to control both bodies. However, until hip control is established the mount cannot be used to maximum effectiveness. 

That is why in MMA a person will get the mount and it will sometimes be a fairly long time before they start raining bombs on their opponent, because they are trying to gain complete hip control first before posturing up. If you posture up to strike too early the person on the bottom has a good chance to escape. It is hardly "oh you got the mount, you win I give up". Depending on the relative grappling skills (and the time on the clock), you will often see a fighter use the mount as a way to wear down their opponent as the person on the bottom will be struggling to escape, while the person on top just prevents their attempts. This causes the person on the bottom to become fatigued far more quickly. Only after they feel their opponent is exhausted will the top fighter let their hands loose. 

Someone without professional training is not going to benefit fully from the position. IME, people in street fights tend to be far too impatient with their striking and usually fail to focus on hip control at all. They leave their legs loose which allows the person at the bottom to twist their torso which aids in dodging and blocking strikes. While it is still clearly better to be on top in the mount, it significantly reduces the effectiveness of the position and the potential power. It is highly unlikely that Trayvon had the skills to get a complete body lock on Zimmerman. Hence, Zimmerman was able to reach for his gun and simply take the damage. 

As far as being KO'd it is extremely hard to knock a person out with 5 punches. The human body is quite resilient and professional fighters spend a significant amount of time perfecting their punching technique to get maximum power. Expecting an amateur to KO someone in a few punches from any position is like expecting them to through a fastball at 90mph. If you get lucky and hit the button a relatively weak punch can knock out anyone, but short of that knocking out a person is not as easy as some UFC fighters make it look.

What we know for certain is that Zimmerman took quite a beating and Trayvon did not. We know that Trayvon was shot in the chest from a range of 1-18 inches. Both of which make Zimmerman's story of being on the bottom plausible. It is hard to imagine how Zimmerman got the scrapes on the back of his head if he wasn't on the bottom at some point.

Like I said, I didn't watch the trial so I don't really know how the prosecutors tried to frame the story. Did they try to deny that Zimmerman was getting beat up and was on the bottom? I would think for them it would be better to focus on what happened before the fight and try to portray it like Trayvon saw the gun and tackled Zimmerman because he feared for his life as the physical damage to Zimmerman can certainly be logically explained as self defense from Trayvon's standpoint. If someone pulls a gun on me, we are going to the ground and I am smashing your head into the pavement while we struggle for control of the gun. Which would lead to a similar pattern of injuries. Just because Trayvon was clearly getting the best of the fist fight does not mean he was the aggressor.  

Sunday evening, Feb. 26: It was raining in Central Florida while the NBA All-Stars game and the Oscars were about to begin on TV.

A 17-year-old high school junior from Miami Gardens serving a 10-day suspension went to 7-Eleven to get candy. It was the third time Trayvon Martin was disciplined at school, so this time his parents sent him up to a quiet, racially mixed, gated community in Sanford with his dad to get his priorities straight. He was black and wore a hoodie.

George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old neighborhood watch volunteer who routinely called police to report anything awry, had just made dinner and told his family he was headed to Target. He was Hispanic and wore a holstered Kel Tek 9mm semiautomatic handgun.

The brief encounter between the two at the Retreat at Twin Lakes community would leave one dead and the other in hiding, give rise to a social movement and, at least temporarily, cost the local police chief his job. In the next 30 days, the name "Trayvon" would be tweeted more than 2 million times.

In a fast-paced world of 24-hour cable news and nonstop social media, what happened that night has become both common knowledge and a blur of unattributed rumor accepted as fact. A controversial police report incited conspiracy theories and failed to definitively resolve what everyone wants to know: Who picked the fight? Armchair crime scene investigators around the nation insist on access to the evidence, and millions more demand an arrest in a case now being looked at by at least three agencies, including the FBI.

The protagonists in the saga gripping the nation are Zimmerman, a man with a history of going after suspects in hot pursuit, and Trayvon, a chronically tardy teenager who liked aviation, was making plans for college and got suspended for having a small empty plastic bag containing marijuana residue. Their story begins when Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and pursued Trayvon on foot.

But in the tale pieced together from 911 calls, witnesses, police, Zimmerman's family and the girl who was on the phone with Trayvon in the last minutes of his life, a key one-minute gap remains a mystery that may never be solved: Who approached whom? Who threw the first blow?

And the key question a special prosecutor in Jacksonville is now tasked to investigate: Did Zimmerman justifiably take Trayvon's life to save his own?

The encounter

Trayvon, a junior at Dr. Michael M. Krop High, was a lot like most teenagers: He spent an inordinate amount of time on the phone. On that Sunday, he talked for nearly five hours.

Earphones in his ears, Arizona iced tea in hand and a cellphone, Skittles and $22 in his pockets, he chatted the whole way back from the store. It started raining harder as he walked, so he pulled up his hood and sought shelter at one of the buildings in the townhouse complex, the girlfriend he was chatting with on the phone told attorneys.

At 7:11 p.m., Zimmerman, who was in his truck, spotted Trayvon. There had been a rash of burglaries in the neighborhood attributed to young black men, and Zimmerman was wary of someone he did not recognize walking along the path that goes through the back of the townhouses, his father later told a local TV station.

Zimmerman called police. Records show it was the fifth time in a year that he had alerted authorities to the presence of a black male he found suspicious. This one, he said, looked high and had something in one hand while he kept the other in his waist as he peered at houses.

"Hey, we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy," he told the police operator. "This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining, and he's just walking around looking about."

Trayvon spotted something suspicious, too: He was being followed.

A T-Mobile phone log provided by the family's attorney shows Trayvon's girlfriend called him again at 7:12 p.m., just moments after having hung up with him. "I think this dude is following me," Trayvon told her, according to her account to family attorney Benjamin Crump.

The girl says she offered Trayvon advice: "Run!"

"When he said this man was behind him again, he come and say, this looks like he's about to do something to him," the girl told ABC News. "And then Trayvon come and said the man was still behind him, and then I come and say, 'Run!' "

Trayvon did just that.

At 7:13, two minutes into Zimmerman's call, he tells the police operator: "S---, he's running."

A beeping sound is heard, indicating that he has opened his car door. Zimmerman went after Trayvon and, out of breath, muttered profanities. He lost sight of him.

"Are you following him?" the operator asked.

"Yeah."

"Okay, we don't need you to do that."

Zimmerman spent almost two more minutes offering directions to the operator. He said he'd meet police by the mailboxes and then, just before hanging up, apparently thought the better of it. "Actually, could you have him call me, and I'll tell him where I'm at?" he said three minutes and 50 seconds into the call. At 7:15, he hung up .

Lawyers for Trayvon's family say Zimmerman's decision not to wait for police by the mailboxes and instead be reached by phone proves he planned to keep looking for the teen instead of simply waiting for a patrol car.

The two met up along a dark paved path that runs between the back of two rows of townhouses.

The girl on the phone told Crump that she heard the two exchange questions, like "Why are you following me?" and "What are you doing here?"

Zimmerman's father told an Orlando TV station that it went more like, "Do you have a f----ing problem?" to which George Zimmerman replied "no" and reached for his phone to call police a second time.

Zimmerman, a married insurance underwriter who studied criminal justice at Seminole State College, told police that Trayvon approached him from behind as he was returning to his car.

He told police, his family and his attorney that Trayvon decked him in the nose hard, causing him to hit the ground. Then, he says, Trayvon started punching him and slamming his head on the concrete.

"It's my understanding Trayvon Martin got on top of him and just started beating him in the face, in his nose, hitting his head on the concrete," Zimmerman's father, Robert, told Orlando's Fox35.

The girl who said she was talking to Trayvon told the attorney that she heard a scuffle until the line went dead. Her four-minute call ended at 7:16.

Shooting, witnesses

Although the Sanford police would not reveal the times, from 911 tapes it is known that the first of the calls from residents came while Zimmerman and Trayvon were still fighting. Desperate wails are heard in the background of at least one 911 call. Two witnesses have said they saw the encounter, but their stories contradict each other.

One man interviewed by a local Fox news station, who asked to be identified only as John, said he saw the man wearing a red jacket — Zimmerman — on the ground, being beaten by someone on top of him — Trayvon.

"The guy on the bottom, who I believe had a red sweater on, was yelling to me 'Help, help,' and I told him to stop and I was calling 911. I got upstairs and looked down. The person that was on top beating up the other guy was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point," he said.

But last week another unidentified man told CNN that he saw a larger man on top and a boy underneath. There wasn't much movement, he said.

Zimmerman's father told the Orlando TV station that as his son was being beaten he tried to move from the concrete onto the grass. In doing so, he said, the gun his son kept in a holster on his waist was exposed.

"Trayvon Martin said something to the effect of 'You're going to die now' or 'You're gonna die tonight' — something to that effect," Robert Zimmerman said. "He continued to beat George. At some point, George pulled his pistol and did what he did."

Seven calls came in to 911.

"They're wrestling right in the back of my porch," one caller said. "A guy is yelling, 'Help.' … I'm pretty sure the guy is dead."

"I saw a man lying on the ground and he needed help, screaming," one 13-year-old boy told 911. "I heard a loud sound, and the screaming stopped."

Selma Mora Lamilla heard no fighting, only what she says was the wail of a child and the distinct crack of gunfire that silenced it. She ran outside her back porch, where she said she saw Zimmerman standing above Trayvon, apparently holding him down.

"I asked him, 'What's happening here? What's going on?' " Mora said. "The third time, I was indignant, and he said, 'Just call the police.' Then I saw him with his hands over his head in the universal sign of: 'Oh, man, I messed up.' "

Police arrive

The police arrived at 7:17. Trayvon was dead.

The first officer to arrive was Timothy Smith, who found a white man in a red jacket and jeans standing and a black male in a gray hoodie facedown in the grass.

Smith later wrote: "Zimmerman stated that he had shot the subject, and he was still armed. … Located on the inside of Zimmerman's waistband, I removed a black Kel Tek 9mm PF9 semiauto handgun and holster. While I was in such close contact with Zimmerman, I could observe that his back appeared to be wet and was covered in grass, as if he had been laying on his back on the ground.

"Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and back of his head."

Officer Ricardo Ayala and Sgt. Anthony Raimondo attempted CPR on Trayvon until Sanford Fire Rescue arrived. A paramedic pronounced Trayvon dead at 7:30.

Zimmerman was handcuffed and placed in the back of Smith's patrol car. Sanford Fire Rescue administered first aid.

"While SFD was attending to Zimmerman, I overheard him state, 'I was yelling for someone to help me, but no one would help me,' " Smith wrote.

That someone shouted is corroborated by 911 callers, who reported hearing screams for help just before they heard gunfire. One woman sobbed for 14 minutes, because she felt guilty for not having given aid.

It remains unclear which of the two cried out for help. All the callers now believe the person who cried for help is the one who ended up dead; the parents of Zimmerman and Trayvon are each convinced that it was their son screaming for help.

The detention

Zimmerman was taken to the Sanford Police Department in handcuffs. A time stamp on the precinct security camera video shows Zimmerman got to the police station at 7:52 p.m. An officer patted him down at that time.

The video shows no obvious sign of injury or bloodstains on his clothes, although one shot shows an officer examining the back of Zimmerman's head, then wiping his hands on his uniform pants.

Meanwhile, police fingerprinted the dead teen, who carried no ID. He had never been arrested, so 12 hours passed before anyone knew his name.

"I have never seen a crime scene cleaned up so fast," Trayvon's father, Tracy Martin, told the Miami Herald. He came home that night just before 11 p.m. and saw no trace of a crime. It was not until he called police the next morning that a major-crimes detective went to the townhouse where his girlfriend lives to break the news.

Zimmerman, in the meantime, had been questioned by police and released without charges.

Police stressed that Zimmerman was interviewed at least three times and gave a videotaped statement and a walk-through of what happened. Zimmerman, whose father is a retired Virginia magistrate, never asked for an attorney or changed his story, former Sanford police Chief Bill Lee said.

The investigation

The investigation began with detectives interrogating Zimmerman and patrol officers canvassing the 911 callers.

One caller said he had seen a man with a white T-shirt on top of the other. Neither Zimmerman nor Trayvon wore white T-shirts.

Another caller, Mora's roommate, Mary Cutcher, phoned police after the gunshot and said the black man was standing over another man, which would have been impossible, because Trayvon was already dead.

Cutcher later blasted the Sanford police, saying detectives did not return her phone calls because she clearly believed that the person crying was the boy, and that was not the story investigators were looking for. Police issued a news release saying she had given an "inconsistent statement."

ABC News later reported that a boy who witnessed part of the incident said he saw someone matching Zimmerman's red-jacket description lying on the grass, suggesting the shooter had told the truth when he said Trayvon had knocked him down. But the boy, 13-year-old Austin McLendon, gave 911 and the Miami Herald a different account.

"He never said he saw someone in a red shirt or someone on top of another person — someone is switching his story," said Austin's mother, Cheryl Brown. "The police came here and asked him leading questions like, 'The first person had a red shirt?' because they wanted him to say, 'Yes, the person had a red shirt.' "

Brown said she will hire an attorney to demand a copy of the audio statement her son gave to prove he has never wavered, and never claimed to see Zimmerman on the ground.

Florida Department of Law Enforcement investigators were at the gated community last week, reinterviewing witnesses. The probe is also expected to lean heavily on audio experts to try to determine whether it was Trayvon or Zimmerman crying in the first 911 call.

Several days passed before police released a report with an account that said Zimmerman had blood on his nose and the back of his head, fueling suspicion that the department was attempting to bolster Zimmerman's story and defend the lack of an arrest.

The report listed the height and weight of every person, including the 911 callers. The only person whose size is not noted is Zimmerman. At 5 feet 9, Zimmerman was much shorter but heavier than Trayvon. The report listed Trayvon at 6 feet and 160 pounds, though his family said he was actually 6-foot-3 and weighed at most 150 pounds.

Although some people thought they heard two shots, a review of the confiscated weapon showed that only one shot was fired, a police spokesman told the Miami Herald. Much has been made by people critical of the investigation of the fact that Zimmerman was not tested for drugs or alcohol, although Miami police experts say homicide suspects are rarely tested unless it's a DUI case.

The Seminole County State Attorney's Office was called the night of the shooting, as is routine with all killings, but no one from the office went to the scene. It is unclear who gave the order to let Zimmerman go.

Although police publicly said there was no probable cause to arrest Zimmerman, it was later revealed that early on investigators did request an arrest warrant from the state attorney's office, which held off for further review. The case has since been reassigned to a special prosecutor in Jacksonville.

The Sanford police and the Seminole state attorney have referred questions to special prosecutor Angela Corey. Her office said it will not answer any inquiries about the case.

Much of the evidence, such as the autopsy report, which would show results of Trayvon's toxicology test, are not yet public record. Police have declined to release Zimmerman's statements or that of the witnesses. The Fort Lauderdale funeral director who handled the arrangements for Trayvon's family has told reporters that he saw no bruises or blood on the teen's knuckles. Police said Zimmerman provided medical records to support evidence of his injuries.

In an interview two weeks after the incident, Lee said witness statements and physical evidence backed up Zimmerman's version of events. He suggested that based on the timing of the call, he believed that Trayvon went out of his way to approach the person tailing him and mouth off.

"If Trayvon has made it that far, and Zimmerman is getting out of his truck, why doesn't Trayvon keep walking?" Lee said. "He's 70 yards from his house. I think based on the timing of the call and Zimmerman losing sight of him that he had made it to that 'T' (at the end of the path) and was starting to walk toward his house.

"My wish is that he would have kept walking."

In the midst of public fury over his handling of the incident, Lee stepped down from his post. Reached by the Herald on Friday, he declined to discuss the case.

"We can't discount (Zimmerman's) story, based on — not evidence we put anywhere, not testimony we put in anybody's mouth — but testimony of witnesses who were there, that called, and the physical evidence that's there. You can't refute it," Lee said in the early interview. "The conclusions that are drawn from the basic information is that George Zimmerman shoots a 17-year-old kid with a bag of Skittles and an Arizona iced tea can. And you know, those are facts: George Zimmerman did shoot Trayvon Martin, and Trayvon Martin did have a bag of Skittles and an Arizona iced tea.

"The fact that he had a bag of Skittles and an Arizona iced tea does not have anything to do with the facts of why George Zimmerman thought he needed to use deadly force."

 (from the Miami Herald)

Look at this map. Martin was almost home, per the testimony of Ms Jeantel.

If he was almost home, why did he die 100 yards away from his dad's home? 

 The sad thing is that all those people called 911. If I see a fight happening my last thought is to call the police, there is no possible way they can arrive on time. All it would have taken was one good samaritan to go over and pull Trayvon off of Zimmerman (or vice versa) and Trayvon would be alive today. Then they could argue in court about who should get assault charges. Police are the cleanup crew that come in after the crime and try to sort out who is guilty, they should not be expected to magically appear before a crime happens or during the crime. In this case, they were already called beforehand and still arrived too late. Grow some balls, if you see someone who needs help, help them. 

You are the first person to say this and I must totally agree with you. The cops are usually an afterthought, but there are times, in other situations, where I would not get involved.

I have often imagined that if I was walking my dog I would have gotten her to take out Trayvon. She is a 125lb German Shepard with attack training.

"~snip~ As I rock back and forth I wiggle a bit from their advantage so that my waist and legs are flush with their butt. This all depends on if Zimmerman had his legs straight or bent.~snip~"

Ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. You have no wriggle room, you are mounted and pinned. Your face is mush. Period.

If you are NOT mounted and pinned, then you have no reasonable fear for your life, and you are not justified in killing your opponent, as I previously mentioned, which certain people decided to ignore.

Ridiculous, so until you are physically incapable of defending yourself you have no reasonable fear for your life and can't defend yourself... but once you are physically incapable of defending yourself it is too late (by definition). So in your fucked up assessment, no person should ever be able to claim self defense because if they are able to defend themselves they don't need to...

Personally, if anyone jumps me and starts bashing my head into the ground, I am going to incapacitate them as efficiently as possible and if that means they die, oh well. I'm not going to wait until they manage to pin me and I am incapable of defense, no rational person would. If you are being assaulted by a stranger on the street you have a reasonable reason to fear significant injury or death. 

Ridiculous. Fights and ass kickings happen constantly. Very rarely does a beating end up in serious injury or death. Weapons are almost always involved in a street murder, this one included.
And if his head was being slammed into the ground he wouldn't have had the wherewithal to pull his gun in the first place. Human biology has limits. Life isn't a comic book or a movie. And he had very minor, cosmetic, injuries.
He had no reason to fear for his life.
He had every right to fight back, no right to murder his assaulter. If the incident happened here he'd be in jail right now.
This is the 21st century. Not the 18th. Your argument is ridiculous and archaic.
Especially since the asshole provoked the issue in the first place.

When someone is on top of you and swinging away serious injury or death is a real concern. You pointed out above many of the potential injuries that could be sustained, including a concussion which could lead to death, especially if the attacker doesn't stop after you are unconscious. It is rare, it is also rare to be assaulted by a stranger in a middle class subdivision. It is rare to be murdered. However, it does happen and when you are in a situation where you are on the ground getting beat up, the odds of it happening to you have just skyrocketed. 

In the US 800-900 people are murdered every year by "hands, fists or feet". That is more than evil assault rifles, shotguns and blunt objects (hammers, clubs, bats etc). In fact, the only two murder methods that exceed it in numbers are knives/sharp objects (about twice as much) and handguns which is without a doubt the preferred murder weapon in the US with 6000+ every year. All told, hands, fists and feet account for roughly 6% of murders.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

In Canada, beatings account for over 20% of murders. 

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2012001/article/11738/tbl/tbl02-eng.htm

Obviously he was losing the fight so he apparently didn't have the ability to fight back without using something else. Life isn't a comic book or a movie and your comments have demonstrated that you have little to no experience in fighting. When someone has a superior position and is taking shots at you, serious injury is a concern. Even if you are defending adequately for the moment it takes literally seconds for that to change. The nerves in your arms start to deaden, your muscles become exhausted, your vision begins to blur and your will begins to sap. Eventually, you become unable to defend yourself.

In a sports fight a referee is going to take the assailant off as soon as your defenses break down and for the most part, significant injury is avoided. In a street fight, no one is there to stop him. You reach the point where you can no longer defend yourself and whether or not you die or get significant brain damage depends completely on the good will of the person assaulting you.  

I looked up the law in Canada. It does not differ substantially from the law in Florida which is hardly a surprise since both evolved from English Common Law. The main differences are Florida's "Stand Your Ground" and "Castle" statutes, the first allows a judge to dismiss prior to trial and the second allows you to shoot anyone who breaks into your house even if you don't have reason to believe they pose an imminent threat. Neither of those laws applied in this case at all.     

Obviously you have different prosecutors, different judge, different jury etc. but the law is substantively the same. 

Beyond as he has already pointed out what I would have wanted to say, so I'll point out again several things you seem to be ignoring.

When I first heard about this incident I thought for sure that some older white-ish dude shot some kind, little 12 year old kid. After all that is what all the early reports seemed to lead you to believe. I was supportive of the public opinion and even signed a petition to have Zimmerman arrested because I couldn't believe that he was walking around free.

After the trial started facts started to roll out. I watched some of the trial but mainly followed online the "Cliff Notes" version of the core of the proceedings. It was then that I started to see how the media manipulated the story to make a profit. I started to see how black leaders were using this incident to remind the public that they needed to give black people more benefits and more rights. As if they didn't have enough already. As if they didn't already get more than whites or Hispanics.

The media and the Martin family lawyers made Zimmerman out to be a black hating, child killing, cold blooded murder. He isn't any of those things. In fact, as I continued to learn more about the incident I realized that Zimmerman wasn't guilty of any thing other than make several stupid decisions even thought he was in his legal rights.

The real reason why Zimmerman's wasn't arrested is just that, he didn't break any laws and the investigators knew this to be true.

So what about Martin? Notice how every one uses Trayvon (his first name) and Zimmerman's last name when they talk about the trial? This was the strategy of the media and the manipulators behind the scenes. They wanted to make Trayvon more personal and create more sympathy from the public. Mr. Zimmerman is older. Trayvon is younger. Mr. Zimmerman is a cranky, evil, old man who lives down the street and yells at kids. Trayvon was innocent and playing like a normal well adjusted child, walking home from the candy story.

As I have mentioned previously, the media made George out to be a evil old man. He was hunting Martin and this was because Martin was black.

George had his gun drawn and pointed it at Martin who was cowering in the corner, cold, wet and scared. All he wanted to do was go home.

"What are you doing around here punk? You nigger! Get out of my neighborhood!" said George.

"Please mister! I didn't do any thing wrong! I just wanna go home to play my Xbox" said Martin

"Shut up punk! If you make one wrong move I'll shoot you!" said George.

"OK mister. I'll stay right here!" said Martin

Just then George suffered an apparent seizure and he fell to the ground banging his head on the pavement. Martin, being the wonderful little kid that he was ran up to Mr. George and shook him. Mister! Mister are you OK?

In his debilitated state, Mr. George Zimmerman pull the gun up and shot Trayvon Martin in the chest.

"That will teach you little punk! I'll teach you to eat Skittles with an iced tea"

To find some one not guilty by reasonable doubt in a trial for murder, then to flip it and say that the Stand Your Ground law protected him, is a fucking cop-out.

He was not guilty. Case closed.

"When someone is on top of you and swinging away serious injury or death is a real concern."

Bullshit.

"You pointed out above many of the potential injuries that could be sustained"

And yet no such injuries were sustained, casting significant doubt on the claim he was in such a position, therefore casting significant doubt on the claim he had reasonable fear for his life.

"In the US 800-900 people are murdered every year by "hands, fists or feet". That is more than evil assault rifles, shotguns and blunt objects (hammers, clubs, bats etc). In fact, the only two murder methods that exceed it in numbers are knives/sharp objects (about twice as much) and handguns which is without a doubt the preferred murder weapon in the US with 6000+ every year. All told, hands, fists and feet account for roughly 6% of murders."

Proving my point. Thanks.

"Neither of those laws applied in this case at all. "

It most certainly did. The judge instructed jurors to consider the stand your ground law at the beginning of trial

He was guilty. He got off because of a law that has no place on the books.

Wow. You obviously never had any military, police or advance combat training of any sort. You sound like a fucking pacifist, which is supposed to be my stance on things. When a person is pinned, trapped, being punched, being whacked, what ever the action is, there is always a natural fear for the "what if" scenario. You can't just lay there and take the beating. You have the right to defend yourself and if that means you kill another human then so be it.

If George was on the ground being beaten by a 5 year old then I'd say, "yeah, he wasn't in fear for his life" but guess what? It wasn't a fucking 5 year old. It was a 17 year old who liked fighting. It was a 17 year old who surprised George and got him knocked down to the ground.

Of course George is in fear for his life. He is being smacked around, beaten, bruised. I bet that concrete was hard and cold. I bet he yelled, "get off of me" "Help" and "Stop" but that 17 year old didn't care. He was in command of the situation and he was going to get the upper hand. "Wait until I tell my home-boys about the beating I gave this dude".

To say, "Yeah he was getting his ass beat but he really had no reason to be fearful for his life" is a complete and utterly ignorant thing to say.

LMAO. Really. He was guilty? I could have sworn they said, "Not Guilty" when they read the verdict.

He got off? Really? Like OJ Simpson got off on murder charges? Are you saying both trials were the same? George and OJ were both murderers and they got off on murder charges?

"Wow. You obviously never had any military, police or advance combat training of any sort. "

Actually I have. Obviously you haven't.

"You have the right to defend yourself and if that means you kill another human then so be it."

BZZZ Wrong answer. You have the right to defend yourself. You do NOT have the right to shoot dead an unarmed individual unless your life is in clear jeapordy, which Zimmermans was NOT.
And if you go around stalking innocent people you'd best expect an ass kicking, because there are millions of people who will give you one. Even more likely if you're stalking an actual criminal.

"MAO. Really. He was guilty?"

Yep.

Actually I've not only had military training, but I've studied a variety of combat and martial art systems with Aikido being my favorite.

Defending yourself has several levels of results. You can't keep thinking that you can avoid killing an attacker, which is what happened to George. He didn't have other options since Martin blind sided him and was beating him.

So easy to criticize some one else who is in a position of being harmed. He should have done this. He should have done that.

"Actually I've not only had military training, but I've studied a variety of combat and martial art systems with Aikido being my favorite."

Then you obviously weren't paying much attention. I've been schooled in multiple martial arts since childhood, and had extensive training in violent and non-violent crises intervention. The same training cops get. It was a requirement to work security in hospitals, particularly due to having to deal with psychiatric patients and drug abusers on a daily basis.
I've also had multiple courses on emergency medicine and first aid. I know what happens and how when someone is being assaulted, and am quite capable of picking out real injuries compared to cosmetic injuries.
I have no doubt Zimmerman panicked, pulled a gun, and shot the kid. I also have no doubt he thought he was justified. The question is whether he was actually justified, and the answer is a resounding NO.

He wasn't a kid. Stop making him out to be a child still sucking on his mama's tit.

George didn't have that extensive training, but it DOES NOT MATTER. A jury of his peers voted unanimously "not guilty".

And the law you seem to dislike so much, it had nothing to do with this trial. It was not used by the defense and it did not play a factor in the decision of the jury.