You want to know what lies and misinformation you are spreading? Okay, how about saying trayvon was stalked? Because he wasn't. But go on being blind and thinking Trayvons defense lawyer prosecuted Zimmerman

How could you know someone was going to attack you first? Also he was stalking the guy with a hand gun. Of course he claimed he did not provoke Trayvon but who the hell whispers to themselves "they always get away in frustration" hangs up the phone and coincidently gets attacked right after?  Thats a hell of a coincidence for a guy that deliberately went with a gun to suddenly turn around and walk back to his car to get attacked by a kid who realized he was being stalked and was trying to avoid him

It was an act of intrusive and unwanted attention towards Trayvon. Did Zimmerman want Trayvon to know he was following him? common sense will tell anyone the answer is NO.

Yes it is. It speaks about his character and personalty but fuck lets try to sweep that under the rug and act like a person like that would NEVER put himself in a position to be shot. There is a difference between obtaining one illegally like Trayvon who didn't have a permit and couldn't even get one if he wanted to try to legally obtain one and Zimmerman who was following the law carrying a gun. Its irrelevant that Zimmerman had a gun. Millions of people are carrying a gun on a daily basis. Many people you walk by have guns on them or in their car. And Trayvon wasn't stalked... or you know what? The prosecution would have gotten the 3rd charge they were seeking into consideration. (But since you didn't follow the case you wouldn't know that).  They were seeking 3rd charge that said if another crime (AKA stalking) were in process when he killed trayvon then Zimmerman would be charged with said crime. But prosecution didn't even argue that he was stalking Trayvon. They argued he was violating "child abuse" laws. It was so ridiculous the judge didn't allow it

Again going on being misinformed. Just bow out of this argument because you really have no clue what happened. You are judging Zimmerman based on events you believed happened that never did. The bolded never happened. Thats now 2 things of misinformation/lies I pointed out to you

Thats not what stalking is. That's 3 things of lies/misinformation that I pointed out to you know.

What about Zimmerman's unrelated violent past? How come that is not evidence. I find it funny you are so focused on painting a innocent picture for Zimmerman. I guess only certain people's criminal records are taken into consideration. Anyway im done with you, i will agree with you that Zimmerman was a saint and call it a rest.

That's exactly the point.  The Person who attacks first is at fault... that's exactly how the law should be.

If Zimmerman committed a crime there is zero proof he did.

Actually, even then he didn't comit manslaughter.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/07/11/the-manslaughter-option-in-zimmermans-trial-an-explainer/

Reckless Endangerment, maybe?

By the way, since it seems like your only working on about half the facts, (Like everybody in this thread).

"They always get away" was a refrence to the recent string of robberies in the area... being committed by young adults who just happened to rob places in Black Hoodies.  Or at least that's what the Justice Depeartment Inquiry seems to show.  So even the racial profiling seems out the window.

Though yeah... I imagine if I were looking to jump so guy who was following me... I would wait until AFTER he hung up his phone.   Since otherwise i'd have the police on me pretty fast.  Even if such a situation is 5% likely you can't convict.

What happened?  Who knows.   Anyone who thinks George Zimmerman should of been found guilty though just wasn't paying attention and letting emotion get in the way of fact... and I don't know what's up with people who think Trayvon is definitly guilty.

Though, if the evidence were reversed.  Trayvon following Zimmerman, and Zimmerman beat trayvon to death.  There is a much better chance he would of been convicted of manslaughter.

He doesn't have a violent past. He got arrested once for pushing a cop and the charges were dropped. But again, lets spread lies and misinformation to try to make someone guilty. I didn't say he was a saint, though his neighbors of all races pretty much painted him out to be... the people who knew him personally, but you havent provided evidence to the contrary. There is no arrest or police report to go with the restraining order of his ex which to me just says bad break up... and I would see how considering they were engaged. If there was domestic abuse you would expect the prosecution to dig it up. But they couldn't. If there really was domestic abuse his ex would have been called by the prosecution. But she wasnt. Your not done because you want to stop arguing with me because you think Im wrong. You are done arguing because you have no leg to stand on. No facts to support your claims.

Well, typically "violent past" issues are pretty much never considered relevent unless directly related to the case in a very specific way.

Crimes do happen to bad people afterall.  So technically the only "Prior bad acts" that should be allowed are ones that show a path of behavior.

So for zimmerman it would be Racism hate crimes/Other "self defense" shootings.

For Trayvon Martin it would be starting fist fights.

Sure you could use Zimmerman's violent past to show he MIGHT have grabbed Trayvon first... but without actual proof he did you in no way helped your case.

Essentially you are making a "Defense" Manuever as the prosecution.  Which was the whole problem with the case.  The Prosecution had little to no evidence so they could only put on a Hypothetical "Reasonable doubt" case that Martin didn't attack first... hoping the jury would convict on emotion/ignoring the law.

It was the right call... and really would of played out that way in most states... and most countries.  There is just no way to prove a crime here.