Zimmerman Trial....divisive or definitive?
- Thread starter SonInMe
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
A
Zimmerman's statement, which the evidence supports, is that he Martin but then lost track of him and eventually got out his car only to have the teenager reappear suddenly and ask him "What's your problem?"
Not wanting to escalate the situation further, Zimmerman replied with "I don't have a problem" and began to return to his car. That's when Martin attacked punching him to the ground...
You need to get your facts straight.
Blacks comprise only 13 percent of the U.S. population but commit 52.4 percent of U.S. homicide (FBI-2011). Their per capita rates for other serious crimes are far beyond both the mode and median.
And, as I stated, they are also the demographic most victimized by homicide and serious crime and it is by far at the hands of other blacks and to a far lesser degree non-white Hispanics. It's easy to see from this FBI expanded table: FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 6 though you'll have to pull other studies to separate non-white Hispanics from the Hispanic population of criminal perpetrators.
^ In 2011, for example, 193 "whites" ("whites" are 72.4 percent of the U.S. population) killed a black person with most of them done in self-defense. But, 448 blacks (blacks are 13 percent of the U.S. population) killed whites in the same year with most of them murder.
And interestingly, in Florida, some of the most ardent defenders of the stand your ground law have been black defense attorneys. The reason: Their black, often young, clients are the most successful users of the law. Indeed, data show that black defendants have a high success rate in invoking stand your ground in black-on-black violence. In fact, if all cases are taken into account, black defendants have a higher success rate in claiming stand your ground than do white defendants, and they attempt to claim stand your ground at higher rates.
The statistics reveal a stark disparity both numerically and with respect to intent between the two demographics.
Now, I'll ignore your infantile ad hominem as it's irrelevant but I will state that the black family has crumbled under modern liberalism greatly exacerbating what the many 'sociological examinations of criminality' studies clearly reveal. Look at the census: http://www.census.gov/prod/1/statbrief/sb93_2.pdf
In 1950, 78 percent of black adults were married and their children grew up with the benefit of both parents in a nuclear family and usually a moral, hard working, nuclear family. Today, blacks have the lowest marriage rates among all races in the U.S., the census shows and the highest rate of households headed by a single mother and their children run wild all over the country engaging in sexual immorality, crime, and the using and selling of drugs.
And they do so despite about one and half trillion dollars a year spent on more than 80 welfare programs that presently dominate a deficit ridden federal budget which the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) states is "unsustainable." <-- that little gem means that welfare and entitlement programs are going to be cut to the nub within two decades (consider that just the skyrocketing interest payments on the skyrocketing national debt which have to be paid out of the federal budget each year will surpass all annual military spending by 2020).
USC studies show that "African Americans and Hispanics comprised 93 percent of all the gang-related homicide." That doesn't leave much room for non-Hispanic whites especially since they comprise only about 63% of the U.S. population.
And to use your skewed formula; there's more poor white people in the U.S. than any other race (In 2012 the census shows 18.9 million poor non-Hispanic whites, 13.6 million poor Hispanics, and 10.9 million poor blacks) were living in poverty.) but per capita whites used welfare the least.
I can keep going. I have all the statistics right here. And, they all show that the closer a demographic associates its behavior with modern "progressive" liberal ideology; the worse their real life performance is morally, socially, culturally, economically, and spiritually.
And when the government's ability to continue borrowing enormous amounts of money each year to pass out in welfare runs out in one to two decades, the resulting riots won't change anything because the government won't be able to borrow its way out to pacify them, as they presently do, by then.
It's tragic really so many lost deceived souls and misspent lives. I take zero joy in pointing any of this out. Yes, the situation is fully reformable but what it takes to get from here to there; this generation explicitly voices it has no interest in doing. If they stay the course, and it looks like they're going to, then their chosen destiny is to learn the hard way and you do them no favors by acting as a co-enabler.
I mean no offense to you personally, of course, it's just that the facts are what they are.
Not wanting to escalate the situation further, Zimmerman replied with "I don't have a problem" and began to return to his car. That's when Martin attacked punching him to the ground...
You need to get your facts straight.
Blacks comprise only 13 percent of the U.S. population but commit 52.4 percent of U.S. homicide (FBI-2011). Their per capita rates for other serious crimes are far beyond both the mode and median.
And, as I stated, they are also the demographic most victimized by homicide and serious crime and it is by far at the hands of other blacks and to a far lesser degree non-white Hispanics. It's easy to see from this FBI expanded table: FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 6 though you'll have to pull other studies to separate non-white Hispanics from the Hispanic population of criminal perpetrators.
^ In 2011, for example, 193 "whites" ("whites" are 72.4 percent of the U.S. population) killed a black person with most of them done in self-defense. But, 448 blacks (blacks are 13 percent of the U.S. population) killed whites in the same year with most of them murder.
And interestingly, in Florida, some of the most ardent defenders of the stand your ground law have been black defense attorneys. The reason: Their black, often young, clients are the most successful users of the law. Indeed, data show that black defendants have a high success rate in invoking stand your ground in black-on-black violence. In fact, if all cases are taken into account, black defendants have a higher success rate in claiming stand your ground than do white defendants, and they attempt to claim stand your ground at higher rates.
The statistics reveal a stark disparity both numerically and with respect to intent between the two demographics.
Now, I'll ignore your infantile ad hominem as it's irrelevant but I will state that the black family has crumbled under modern liberalism greatly exacerbating what the many 'sociological examinations of criminality' studies clearly reveal. Look at the census: http://www.census.gov/prod/1/statbrief/sb93_2.pdf
In 1950, 78 percent of black adults were married and their children grew up with the benefit of both parents in a nuclear family and usually a moral, hard working, nuclear family. Today, blacks have the lowest marriage rates among all races in the U.S., the census shows and the highest rate of households headed by a single mother and their children run wild all over the country engaging in sexual immorality, crime, and the using and selling of drugs.
And they do so despite about one and half trillion dollars a year spent on more than 80 welfare programs that presently dominate a deficit ridden federal budget which the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) states is "unsustainable." <-- that little gem means that welfare and entitlement programs are going to be cut to the nub within two decades (consider that just the skyrocketing interest payments on the skyrocketing national debt which have to be paid out of the federal budget each year will surpass all annual military spending by 2020).
USC studies show that "African Americans and Hispanics comprised 93 percent of all the gang-related homicide." That doesn't leave much room for non-Hispanic whites especially since they comprise only about 63% of the U.S. population.
And to use your skewed formula; there's more poor white people in the U.S. than any other race (In 2012 the census shows 18.9 million poor non-Hispanic whites, 13.6 million poor Hispanics, and 10.9 million poor blacks) were living in poverty.) but per capita whites used welfare the least.
I can keep going. I have all the statistics right here. And, they all show that the closer a demographic associates its behavior with modern "progressive" liberal ideology; the worse their real life performance is morally, socially, culturally, economically, and spiritually.
And when the government's ability to continue borrowing enormous amounts of money each year to pass out in welfare runs out in one to two decades, the resulting riots won't change anything because the government won't be able to borrow its way out to pacify them, as they presently do, by then.
It's tragic really so many lost deceived souls and misspent lives. I take zero joy in pointing any of this out. Yes, the situation is fully reformable but what it takes to get from here to there; this generation explicitly voices it has no interest in doing. If they stay the course, and it looks like they're going to, then their chosen destiny is to learn the hard way and you do them no favors by acting as a co-enabler.
I mean no offense to you personally, of course, it's just that the facts are what they are.
Last edited:
A
Except for a few woods in SoCal belonging to white gangs, and white gang members make up a very small percentage of gang members overall; I've never personally met an active or inactive member of what can be termed an organization that engages in criminal behavior that was not a liberal in their ideology whether or not they voted. Even the white punk gangs are liberal... lol.
In fact, the vast majority of criminals that vote do vote Democrat Study: Most Convicts Vote Democrat and the vast majority of those polled, whether or not they vote, align with modern liberalism. This is no secret to anyone who's work or ministry brought them into close contact. Mine once did. Yours never has. So pull up a chair and maybe you'll learn something.
In fact, the vast majority of criminals that vote do vote Democrat Study: Most Convicts Vote Democrat and the vast majority of those polled, whether or not they vote, align with modern liberalism. This is no secret to anyone who's work or ministry brought them into close contact. Mine once did. Yours never has. So pull up a chair and maybe you'll learn something.
I don't have the statistics, but I'd speculate black males are 6 or 7% of the population but commit 40+% of total the violent crimes. Correspondingly, I speculate that crimes by blacks and black males are more aggravated and less provoked in nature. In other words, Zimmerman would have been very rational and reasonable to worry more about Trayvon Martin, knowing he was a black male. Being reasonable is not something one should feel guilty for (but, Zimmerman didn't appear to know Martin's race when the police call was initiated). But, whites are constantly made to feel guilty for being reasonable, as if there's some virtue in seeing a 17-year-old black-hooded black male as an equal threat with an old irish woman in a dress. (17 is about the peak age for random violence, black hoods are the dress of choice for criminals)
Again, Zimmerman didn't appear to know Martin's race when he initiated the 911 call. Yet, in spite of the "evil" that is racial profiling, it's completely socially acceptable, even mandatory in Liberal circles, to racially profile Zimmerman, because he's white (actually Jew/hispanic) as someone who would racially profiling Martin. They don't see it as realistic that Zimmerman, a neighborhood watchman, might have called police (non-emergency number) because he saw someone he couldn't identify meandering around apartments at night, in a high-crime area. Then, of course, the meandering person who looked like he was up to no good ambushed and viciously assaulted Zimmerman, vindicating Zimmerman's judgement.
One thing is apparent, every word from a Liberal's mouth is insincere.
Again, Zimmerman didn't appear to know Martin's race when he initiated the 911 call. Yet, in spite of the "evil" that is racial profiling, it's completely socially acceptable, even mandatory in Liberal circles, to racially profile Zimmerman, because he's white (actually Jew/hispanic) as someone who would racially profiling Martin. They don't see it as realistic that Zimmerman, a neighborhood watchman, might have called police (non-emergency number) because he saw someone he couldn't identify meandering around apartments at night, in a high-crime area. Then, of course, the meandering person who looked like he was up to no good ambushed and viciously assaulted Zimmerman, vindicating Zimmerman's judgement.
One thing is apparent, every word from a Liberal's mouth is insincere.
Blanket of assault on Liberals? You do know that "Liberal" is a label? Accusing someone of a blanket assault on Liberals is sort of like accusing someone of a "blanket" assault on Calvinism for saying Calvinists believe in predestination. If you don't believe in predestination, then you're not a Calvinist. "Liberal" is just a label to identify those who presume Zimmerman was guilty of racial profiling, even of initiating the fight with Martin. "Conservative" is the label for people who looked at the evidence, Martin was acting suspiciously. And, Martin did double back to ambush Zimmerman, when he was shot while pounding Zimmerman's head into the pavement. If you believe that Zimmerman is innocent, then you're not a Liberal, at least on this issue.
Yes, the Zimmerman trial that should never have been is over, but the cold racial battles engaged in by Liberals in the Zimmerman case continue today, and not just by "community activists" like Al Sharpton, but also all the way up to our president on his AG. We're still waiting for the findings of a grand jury in Fergason, regarding the young man who committed strong-armed robbery, blocked traffic after leaving the scene of the robbery, then assaulted a cop who just wanted him to leave the middle of the street, and then was shot during disputed circumstances. Of course, it's not really about the criminal vs. that cop, or Martin vs. Zimmerman, if it were, anyone who isn't a friend or relative wouldn't care.
And, it's good to continue to put out the truth about these cases, because you can bet Liberals will continually misrepresent these cases to try to keep anger alive.
Yes, the Zimmerman trial that should never have been is over, but the cold racial battles engaged in by Liberals in the Zimmerman case continue today, and not just by "community activists" like Al Sharpton, but also all the way up to our president on his AG. We're still waiting for the findings of a grand jury in Fergason, regarding the young man who committed strong-armed robbery, blocked traffic after leaving the scene of the robbery, then assaulted a cop who just wanted him to leave the middle of the street, and then was shot during disputed circumstances. Of course, it's not really about the criminal vs. that cop, or Martin vs. Zimmerman, if it were, anyone who isn't a friend or relative wouldn't care.
And, it's good to continue to put out the truth about these cases, because you can bet Liberals will continually misrepresent these cases to try to keep anger alive.
This is first part is true, but don't think I am not familiar with the case. Both liberals and conservatives are still hung up on this case, and I hear about it all the time. Yet I perceive both miss the mark because they just try to twist this case to suit their own agendas of defaming the other.
My view is that this is a case of the Unnecesary. It was not necessary for Zimmerman to stop Trayvon just for walking home. It was not necessary for Trayvon to attack Zimmerman just for asking questions. Two wrongs don't make a right, and the lives of both men are now ruined from one night of poor choices.
My view is that this is a case of the Unnecesary. It was not necessary for Zimmerman to stop Trayvon just for walking home. It was not necessary for Trayvon to attack Zimmerman just for asking questions. Two wrongs don't make a right, and the lives of both men are now ruined from one night of poor choices.
A
First of all, there are different types of liberals and conservatives. For example, classical liberalism and paleoconservatism share many comparisons while simultaneously both contrasting with modern/progressive liberalism and neo-conservatism.
The type of liberalism we're asserting has gotten our society far off track and is leading it downwards further is modern/progressive liberalism. The type of conservatism we're asserting as also culpable (though not to the same extent societally) is neo-conservatism.
Secondly, it's not true that every conservative and every liberal "just try to twist this case to suit their own agendas of defaming each other."
Not at all. Accurately pointing out the causes behind the undesirable rapid societal breakdown that is increasingly resulting in these types of incidents isn't twisting anything but rather an act of explaining them. You just aren't knowledge enough to tell the difference between someone deliberately twisting the truth and someone sharing it when it comes to the sociological complexities in the world around you.
I do agree with you; however, that despite a rash of B&E's (e.g. breaking and entering) in which property was stolen in the complex he volunteered to patrol; it was both unwise and unnecessary for Zimmerman to actually follow Trayvon all the way to Trayvon's complex without having witnessed a crime.
I also agree with you that it was wholly unjustified for Trayvon to violently assault Zimmerman in what certainly was an attack and not self-defense.
Definitely poor choices from both. However, following someone to ask them a few questions and violently attacking someone for following you are not equitable. The first may or may not be unwise depending on the circumstances (in this case it was); however, the second is ALWAYS both unwise and illegal.
But it's not just this one case that has our attention but rather the wholesale dismissal of God's normative morality by our society that has resulted in sweeping immorality, criminality, irresponsibility, a lack of sociability and socialization, etc... etc... etc... which produces millions and millions of wannabe "gangasta" thugs like Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown and subsequently reactionary characters like George Zimmerman.
The type of liberalism we're asserting has gotten our society far off track and is leading it downwards further is modern/progressive liberalism. The type of conservatism we're asserting as also culpable (though not to the same extent societally) is neo-conservatism.
Secondly, it's not true that every conservative and every liberal "just try to twist this case to suit their own agendas of defaming each other."
Not at all. Accurately pointing out the causes behind the undesirable rapid societal breakdown that is increasingly resulting in these types of incidents isn't twisting anything but rather an act of explaining them. You just aren't knowledge enough to tell the difference between someone deliberately twisting the truth and someone sharing it when it comes to the sociological complexities in the world around you.
I do agree with you; however, that despite a rash of B&E's (e.g. breaking and entering) in which property was stolen in the complex he volunteered to patrol; it was both unwise and unnecessary for Zimmerman to actually follow Trayvon all the way to Trayvon's complex without having witnessed a crime.
I also agree with you that it was wholly unjustified for Trayvon to violently assault Zimmerman in what certainly was an attack and not self-defense.
Definitely poor choices from both. However, following someone to ask them a few questions and violently attacking someone for following you are not equitable. The first may or may not be unwise depending on the circumstances (in this case it was); however, the second is ALWAYS both unwise and illegal.
But it's not just this one case that has our attention but rather the wholesale dismissal of God's normative morality by our society that has resulted in sweeping immorality, criminality, irresponsibility, a lack of sociability and socialization, etc... etc... etc... which produces millions and millions of wannabe "gangasta" thugs like Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown and subsequently reactionary characters like George Zimmerman.
Martin's skulking around people's homes may or may not have been premeditated. His thug-like appearance and mannerisms was premeditated and long cultivated. Martin's decision to double-back, ambush, and assault Zimmerman was premeditated. However, I'll give it to you that it wasn't Martin's premeditation to be noticed the the neighborhood watchman.
Quite a little story there you have concocted in your own mind.
As far as I am aware the only hard facts are:
Trayvon was returning from a conveniece store en route to his home on a public road which is legal.
Zimmerman began stalking Trayvon for no apparant reason.
Trayvon becomes aware of Zimmerman stalking him according to his girlfriend whom he was on the phone with.
Zimmerman called the police and was told by the lawful authorities to remain in his car until the legal authorities could arrive.
Zimmerman made the poor choice to ignore the advice of the lawful authorities and get out of his car anyways and confronted Trayvon for walking down the public road, which is legal but unprudent.
Trayvon made the poor choice of assaulting Zimmerman which is not legal and unprudent
Zimmerman in self-defense killed Trayvon which is legal, but now he must suffer the consequences the rest of his life.
As far as I am aware the only hard facts are:
Trayvon was returning from a conveniece store en route to his home on a public road which is legal.
Zimmerman began stalking Trayvon for no apparant reason.
Trayvon becomes aware of Zimmerman stalking him according to his girlfriend whom he was on the phone with.
Zimmerman called the police and was told by the lawful authorities to remain in his car until the legal authorities could arrive.
Zimmerman made the poor choice to ignore the advice of the lawful authorities and get out of his car anyways and confronted Trayvon for walking down the public road, which is legal but unprudent.
Trayvon made the poor choice of assaulting Zimmerman which is not legal and unprudent
Zimmerman in self-defense killed Trayvon which is legal, but now he must suffer the consequences the rest of his life.
A
Trayvon does not have to pre-meditate George's decision to follow him in order to pre-meditate his own violent assault upon George just like I don't have to write your posts for you in order to determine how I am going to respond to them.
And you have your facts wrong again. Zimmerman followed (e.g. to pursue in an effort to overtake) not stalked (e.g. to pursue stealthily) Martin but Martin used the bushes to stalk Zimmerman and surprise him.
And you have your facts wrong again. Zimmerman followed (e.g. to pursue in an effort to overtake) not stalked (e.g. to pursue stealthily) Martin but Martin used the bushes to stalk Zimmerman and surprise him.
A
GodIsSalvation stated as far as I am aware the only hard facts are which I have replied to below:
Trayvon was returning from a conveniece store en route to his home on a public road which is legal. <-Wrong. It was a gated community on private property that was posted no trespassing and it's a first degree misdemeanor to willfully enter such a community in Florida illegally according to Florida statue 810.09 which you can read here. The reason; however, why he was not trespassing is his mother lived in the complex and had given him permission to visit her. You can Google Map the entrance to the complex. Here's a picture of the entrance Trayvon used to enter the complex:
Zimmerman began stalking Trayvon for no apparant reason. <- Wrong. There had been numerous break ins and burglaries in the complex preceding the incident and the complex's neighborhood watch, which Zimmerman was captain of, was working with authorities to bring them under control. Crimes committed at The Retreat in the year prior to Martin's death had included eight burglaries, nine thefts, and one shooting.[SUP][50][/SUP] Twin Lakes residents said there were dozens of reports of attempted break-ins, which had created an atmosphere of fear in their neighborhood.[SUP][3][/SUP]
Trayvon becomes aware of Zimmerman stalking him according to his girlfriend whom he was on the phone with.
Zimmerman called the police and was told by the lawful authorities to remain in his car until the legal authorities could arrive. <-Kind of true but not exactly. The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah", the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay." See here.
Zimmerman made the poor choice to ignore the advice of the lawful authorities and get out of his car anyways and confronted Trayvon for walking down the public road, which is legal but unprudent. <- Not exactly. Zimmerman was already out of his car when the civilian dispatcher (note that civilian dispatchers carry no more legal authority than a typical civilian) said "We don't need you to do that" with respect to Zimmerman following Trayvon any further. Zimmerman chose to disregard the non-authoritative advice and enter the non-gated apartments which Trayvon resided with his father.
Note: I have not yet been able to determine if Zimmerman was trespassing when he entered the non-gated apartment complex of Trayvon's father without the permission of the landlord or a tenant. If it was posted no trespassing... possibly. If Trayvon had told him to leave and Zimmerman had no other lawful reason to be there which overrode being asked to leave private property in the state of Florida, he would have been trespassing for sure. Zimmerman may have known this and that's why he turned to leave after responding with "I don't have a problem." Because he's very close to trespassing at that point if he's not already.
Trayvon made the poor choice of assaulting Zimmerman which is not legal and unprudent. <- Absolutely true. He could have simply walked into his house and closed the door, asked Zimmerman why he was following him and explained that he visits his mother in the complex Zimmerman was neighborhood watch captain over, told Zimmerman to get off the private property and called police to enforce Zimmerman's removal. The latter approach could result in questioning by the police as to what he was doing in Zimmerman's complex but since he had a right to be there and if he was not guilty of any of the B&Es or any criminal behavior then he should have been fine.
Zimmerman in self-defense killed Trayvon which is legal, but now he must suffer the consequences the rest of his life. <- Absolutely true. The media circus and misinformation surrounding the incident ensures that it is and will be true for the rest of George's natural life.
Trayvon was returning from a conveniece store en route to his home on a public road which is legal. <-Wrong. It was a gated community on private property that was posted no trespassing and it's a first degree misdemeanor to willfully enter such a community in Florida illegally according to Florida statue 810.09 which you can read here. The reason; however, why he was not trespassing is his mother lived in the complex and had given him permission to visit her. You can Google Map the entrance to the complex. Here's a picture of the entrance Trayvon used to enter the complex:
Zimmerman began stalking Trayvon for no apparant reason. <- Wrong. There had been numerous break ins and burglaries in the complex preceding the incident and the complex's neighborhood watch, which Zimmerman was captain of, was working with authorities to bring them under control. Crimes committed at The Retreat in the year prior to Martin's death had included eight burglaries, nine thefts, and one shooting.[SUP][50][/SUP] Twin Lakes residents said there were dozens of reports of attempted break-ins, which had created an atmosphere of fear in their neighborhood.[SUP][3][/SUP]
Trayvon becomes aware of Zimmerman stalking him according to his girlfriend whom he was on the phone with.
Zimmerman called the police and was told by the lawful authorities to remain in his car until the legal authorities could arrive. <-Kind of true but not exactly. The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah", the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay." See here.
Zimmerman made the poor choice to ignore the advice of the lawful authorities and get out of his car anyways and confronted Trayvon for walking down the public road, which is legal but unprudent. <- Not exactly. Zimmerman was already out of his car when the civilian dispatcher (note that civilian dispatchers carry no more legal authority than a typical civilian) said "We don't need you to do that" with respect to Zimmerman following Trayvon any further. Zimmerman chose to disregard the non-authoritative advice and enter the non-gated apartments which Trayvon resided with his father.
Note: I have not yet been able to determine if Zimmerman was trespassing when he entered the non-gated apartment complex of Trayvon's father without the permission of the landlord or a tenant. If it was posted no trespassing... possibly. If Trayvon had told him to leave and Zimmerman had no other lawful reason to be there which overrode being asked to leave private property in the state of Florida, he would have been trespassing for sure. Zimmerman may have known this and that's why he turned to leave after responding with "I don't have a problem." Because he's very close to trespassing at that point if he's not already.
Trayvon made the poor choice of assaulting Zimmerman which is not legal and unprudent. <- Absolutely true. He could have simply walked into his house and closed the door, asked Zimmerman why he was following him and explained that he visits his mother in the complex Zimmerman was neighborhood watch captain over, told Zimmerman to get off the private property and called police to enforce Zimmerman's removal. The latter approach could result in questioning by the police as to what he was doing in Zimmerman's complex but since he had a right to be there and if he was not guilty of any of the B&Es or any criminal behavior then he should have been fine.
Zimmerman in self-defense killed Trayvon which is legal, but now he must suffer the consequences the rest of his life. <- Absolutely true. The media circus and misinformation surrounding the incident ensures that it is and will be true for the rest of George's natural life.