“Sadly you grasp at straws to support your position. Just what did “acting suspiciously” mean to Zimmerman? Were you there that night? At least tell me the crime in progress Zimmerman observed that supports his actions.”
Read the transcript. It explains what Zimmerman thought was suspicious. Were you there that night?
“All we have is Zimmerman’s self serving account of someone “acting suspiciously” as his rational for encountering someone walking down the street.”
You’re right. That’s all we have. So why are you making things up to fill in the blanks?
“Shooting and killing an unarmed person because in your mind, they were “acting suspiciously”, sure is against the law.”
Prove that that’s what happened.
“Again tell me what crime was Zimmerman observing when he left his car to accost Martin. Give that a try.”
He doesn’t have to be observing a crime to report someone or to leave his vehicle.
“But we both know you have no answer for that. None of you Zimmerman supporters have that answer”
Why would I answer questions based on fallacies and speculation? And I’m not a “Zimmerman” supporter. That’s your problem. You’ve chosen a side and are completely immune to logic, reason, or evidence.
Both were in public space and were free to "encounter" each other however they want, short of physically assaulting one another. Trayvon had no right to fight Zimmerman; hitting someone's head against the concrete is an attempted murder. There are wounds on Zimmerman and no wounds, besides the bullet hole, on Trayvon. This tells us how the unarmed phase of the confrontation unfolded.
Shooting and killing an unarmed person because in your mind, they were "acting suspiciously", sure is against the law.
That particular strawman would matter only if Zimmerman approached Trayvon and shot him. However obviously that's not how it happened. By the time of the fatal shot Trayvon was assaulting Zimmerman to the point that it became a danger for his life. Zimmerman had no help and had no other way to stop the attack except to shoot the attacker.
It is important to understand that all actions of both parties before Trayvon's first strike landed are IMMATERIAL. Both Zimmerman leaving his car, and Trayvon walking (in any way, suspiciously or not) do not matter - these were legal actions done legally by both men. The only thing that matters is the physical altercation. In this phase Trayvon was the attacker because he hit Zimmerman, brought him down and continued the assault when Zimmerman, already on his back, couldn't possibly fight.
The only way here for Zimmerman to be guilty is if he started the fight. Not by following - he had to do the first strike. Then he becomes an attacker, and Trayvon becomes the defending party. Let's see what the physical evidence from the Coroner's office shows.