I said that this was what i thought happened and that we could only go by speculation of who really started the scuffle. She said she heard "TRAYVON" say it and i would believe her because she knows his voice and was talking to him. I would also believe someone who talk and knew personally than voice experts who didn't know Trayvon.

That reasonable doubt on this part seems to be more of you just reaching lol

I said that this was what i thought happened and that we could only go by speculation of who really started the scuffle. She said she heard "TRAYVON" say it and i would believe her because she knows his voice and was talking to him. I would also believe someone who talk and knew personally than voice experts who didn't know Trayvon.

That reasonable doubt on this part seems to be more of you just reaching lol

Pschologically speaking, she's going to have a built-in bias to see Trayvon in the best light since he's her friend, so she's going to believe that he wasn't the agressor based on that bias. Because of this, she's less credible on this front in a court of law than a voice expert in the mind of a jury. There are very clear arguments to be made that she couldn't have identified the voice 100% over a cell phone, especially since trained experts could not, there's really no qustion about that. I understand why YOU came to that conclusion, and you're entitled to your opinion for sure, but that's not how it works in a trial. Please go and do a little reading about how our justice system works in relation to reasonable doubt, it might help you to understand why the jury could not convict Zimmerman.

You have to remember that Zimmerman supposedly identifies his self as being white.

But he is hispanic and white though

I knew it Lol

I knew you were going to do it 

We must disregard everything that might even remotely make Trayvons side look even remotely justifiable and take Zimmermans words as gospel even though he is known to have backtracked his story lol

Good day, sir

Nice, so in your world, I could just beat the shit out of (and maybe kill) anybody and just claim they were following me? What if you think they're following you, but you're just going to the same place? Oops. Interesting world you live in. You can't legally beat somebody into the ground just because they're following you, but good luck with that mindset. It'll get you far in life. On the other hand, it's legal to use deadly force if you are being beaten (which Zimmerman was). All the speculation about what led to the confrontation is not evidence, and not something a jury can use to convict. The verdict was correct based on the EVIDENCE. That doesn't make Trayvon's death less of a tragedy, but it is what it is.

By the way, there was no evidence presented, nor any argument made that Zimmerman 'antagonized' Martin. Everybody on your side of the argument keeps doing the same thing, using a ton of speculation, and making nutty statements that don't line up with law or what is actually admissible in a trial, and somehow speculation and arguments based on emotion are the core reason for what you see as a need to convict. So, because your personal opinion is that it's ok to beat somebody up for following you, that means Zimmerman should have been convicted? You either don't understand the legal system and jury instructions, or you don't care to.

lol, there a many ways to know if someone is stalking you.  and we already know from the facts in this case that he was... thats why the cops told him not to do it.   derp, someone looks suspicious... thats not good enough.   you stalk someone when that person didn't do anything wrong.  thats harrassment... and an ass whooping thats ready to happen.   go ahead, at night stalk some random guys who "look suspicious".  lets see how fast you get your ass beat. lol

Are you really going to blatently misrepresent what I'm saying? Really? I never said or insinuated anything of the sort. You have quite a habit of jumping to rash conclusions. I was simply explaining why there was reasonable doubt, and why her story cannot be considered as 100% fact by the jury, it has to be weighed along with other evidence and testimony. It's a simple matter of how a court of law is supposed to work, and how the jury is supposed to view testimony and evidence in total. I fully believe that she is confident that she heard Trayvon, I don't think she's lying about that, but you have to at least try to understand why a jury cannot take the testimony of one individual as gospel and decide the whole case on that, especially when there are so many what-ifs and seeming contradictions from other witnesses. The evidence and all the testimonies in total left reasonable doubt, so the jury could not convict. I'm at a loss as to why you can't grasp this simple concept. Maybe if she was the only witness and there were no physical evidence presented you'd have a point, that's not the case.

Ok, you've just shot every bit of your credibility out the window. He wasn't stalking, he was following, this was evident throughout the trial and corroborated by testimony from law enforcement experts. Stalking is defined as:

A person who intentionally and repeatedly follows or harasses another person and who makes a credible threat, either expressed or implied, with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm is guilty of the crime of stalking.

You have to prove intent and a credible threat, none of that was proven in court, there was never an alligation of 'stalking'. Based on Zimmerman's recorderd coversation with the dispatcher, his intent was to track Trayvon, not to harm him. Intent is everything in a stalking case. Get your facts straight please.

Secondly, you also showed how much you don't know about the case by saying 'the cops' told him not to follow. It was a civilian 911 operator who suggested he go back to his truck, and he told her he was going to, he also stated to the police he was going back to his truck when he was confronted by Martin. Whether you believe this or not is irrelivent, there was not any evidence to the contrary. Juries have to convict on Evidence, a concept that is apparently lost on some here.