Polls: Public opinion on George Zimmerman shifting

View Comments (51)

• If only the dead kid would have been a white boy. Then we would never have heard one word about this and we could all go on pretending there is no problem.

  • If only there was no dead kid at all...

    • You aggressively challenge someone by coming up from behind him, then sucker punch him, then try to bash his brains out, then get excited when you see his weapon and announce "someone is going to die tonight" then the logical result is your death. I'm glad Zimmerman had the courage to pull the trigger, otherwise his wife would be a widow and Tryvon would be back to "kickin' back and smokin' dope". No wonder Obama claims him as a "son". If only a chain of events wasn't put in motion ........

      • Okay you all. Go to Drudge and view the re-enactment video of the assault and parts of the polygraph exam. That it what the testimony in court is going to be, along with the physical evidence. Mr. "Skittles" started and escalated the confrontation which caused his own death. Race has NO part in this, other than if the decedent was white it would not be so polarized.

    • I'm so sick of this subject.

      • I agree.

        I am really sick of this subject and sick of the drama. I am done. I am tired of repeating myself and it is interesting that becuse of the race component people don't seem to want to see the other side of the issue, nor understand that a Mother lost a son and all she wanted to know was why and the police failed to a good job of determining why and everything is now screwed up.

• Zimmerman told the police that Trayvon confronted him, asked him if he had a problem, then said you do now as he sucker punched him. That is uncontroverted evidence, which has been supported and consistent with the physical evidence of both Zimmerman and Trayvon. There is no question Trayvon not only threatened deadly force but used it as well. Zimmerman was justified in the killing if the story he has told is proven in court, and there exists little evidence to the contrary. The affidavit for the arrest warrant should never have been signed off on by the prosecutor nor Judge. Any cop with 25 minutes of experience (let alone 25 yrs. in homicide) would know no probable cause was alleged in the affidavit. Why did two experienced cops, prosecutors and Judge sign off on it? Politics.
  BTW, the purpose of bond is to secure the presence of the accused at trial. Just because Zimmerman had come into funds is no reason to raise the bond. Crap like this happens all the time which is exactly why I do not practice law anymore.

  • "Zimmerman told the police that Trayvon confronted him, asked him if he had a problem, then said you do now as he sucker punched him. That is uncontroverted evidence, which has been supported and consistent with the physical evidence of both Zimmerman and Trayvon."

    ??? A statement or his side of the story is not uncontroverted evidence. The physical evidence shows that there was a fight between the two, even perhaps that one got beat up more than another. However, the physical evidence in no way shape or form proves that Trayvon confronted George, asked him if he had a problem, and responded ever... I have no idea how you can say the physical evidence supports all of that. That it supports that there was a punch? Absolutely, however the rest of that statement is his account and Martin is not able to refute and there are no witnesses to the beginning of the fight so unfortunately for Zimmerman someone else can come up with another theory of the events. It could have been as easily that Zimmerman punched Martin first and Martin stood his ground and was winning the fight. That is one of the many reasons this case is interesting. It will in the end depend on the jury and how well the prosecutor and the defense make their cases.

    "There is no question Trayvon not only threatened deadly force but used it as well." ???? Did someone see the start of the fight OTHER than Zimmerman and Martin? If not then there is a question of this being a true statement or not.

    What we know is that Martin was walking, Zimmerman followed, called 911, he never met the cops as he was advised to do, the physical evidence shows that there was a physical fight and that Martin was shot and then the police finally came. That is what we truly know that is the true evidence. It is based on the 911 call, on the witnesses and the physical evidence and the cops after the fact.

    What you are saying there is strictly based on statements made by the shooter and overall because he is the shooter it is not uncontroveted evidence.

    "Zimmerman was justified in the killing if the story he has told is proven in court, and there exists little evidence to the contrary." The evidence actually showcases all sides of the controversy that is what makes this very interesting. Basically it comes down to the performances of the lawyers, the witnesses, th e911 call and how the jury interprets the physical evidence. Those who believe the way that you do will see the evidence in that way. Those who don't will see it differently and interestingly enough the evidence will fit just fine either way.

• I don't understand why a defendant is supposed to exhaust their life savings for attorney's fees. The government accuses them of something, and they have to pay for their own defense? Why? But if you're accused of something and you're poor, no problem. It's paid for.

• Few of us are familiar with the arena Zimmerman is forced to participate in and it is unfortunate that it looks like he wasn't fully advised and guided by his legal counsel. However, it is shameful how the media have worked for months to make him look guilty. Nobody should be surprised at their success in demonizing him - even if he didn't help himself by making poor decisions.

  • I think both sides have done a good job of reporting the weaknesses and the liability of both parties involved. In the end though none of that matters, what matters is if this is going to make a more definitive law in self defense...

    The crux is that if he goes to prison essentially people cannot start events even if it is just following, and then use the weapon to end the event in their favor. If he doesn't go to prison there may be people who feel okay to start an event and then use a weapon to end the event in their favor and then use self defense as a way to get out of trouble. It will be interesting to see what happens and that is in essence the most important point of this whole thing.

    • KQ I luv ya but you gotta know that in any self defense case, one cannot start the conflict, escalate it and then use what would otherwise be lawful, allowable force. Of course, dead men tell no stories so we are left with Zimmerman's version, but the physical evidence supports his case. He doesn't strike me as being that smart to plan his words and physical evidence to support his plan to wack the kid all on the spur of a moment. I'd be more worried about the folks trying to persecute him, and the system that allowed it. As a former prosecutor, I can tell you the oath taken by prosecutors is to administer justice, not blind, unsupported prosecution at all risk, that is why this is a persecution, not prosecution. Both scary and pathetic.

      • That is what I am saying. It is up to the courts to decide if that is the case here. The physical evidence shows there was a fight, now it is interesting to see if it can be determined if the act of following in of itself constituted enough of a reason for his self defense claim to be shattered. That is all I am sayin'. I really dont understand the hate around here. The fact that the media went crazy and Obamie went crazy and whatever went crazy all of that is inconsequential. The interest here is to determine if Zimmerman by the act of following created a situation where Martin had to stand HIS ground and therefore a fight ensued and it was ended by deadly weapon. I think that people are so emotional about this case that they fail to see things from Martin's point of view. I understand Zimmerman's point of view perfectly mainly because he is alive. Since Martin is dead he has no one to speak for him, so I don't blame the Mother for doing something to make sure that her son's death has some meaning to her. I just hope that whatever the outcome it doesn't mean that someone somewhere wants to take away my guns, but it also is great to have more definition to laws when it gets down to these types of specifics.

        • A fight? The only marks on Trayvon were on his knuckles from beating Zimmerman's head into the concrete and punching him in the face. That's not a fight. That's an assault.

        • Right. That is Zimmerman's side. It will be up to the prosecutors to state their case that Martin was standing his ground at the knowledge of being followed without cause. That is all that I am saying. That is what makes the case interesting. So we will see.

        • Autopsy report indicates no fight marks on dead man other than knuckles.

        • Well I am sure a bullet hole can be considered the mark of a fight ending. I am going to state it again: The case can be made that Martin was standing his ground at the knowledge of being followed without cause. In his mind, he was doing nothing to warrant being followed by some guy he didn't know, therefore he could have chosend to stand his ground to stop the follower. Again like I said that is what makes the case interesting. It is the fact that people are emotionally invested due to the poorly executed act of the President and other. In the end it all goes back to the original timeframe and the police actions afterward. If they had satisfied the questions by the Mother of the young man that was shot, she wouldn't have run to the media. If Martin assaulted Zimmerman to rob him or to do something evil for no reason we wouldn't be discussing this at all. Thefact that there was an action started by Zimmerman is why this is an issue. We will see.

        • There is no law against walking behind someone in this country. What knowledge do you have of this "fact that there was an action started by Zimmerman" that no one else has?

        • OMG! This is the reason why this subject is so tiring. We are repeating ourselves again and again. I already said my pieces and sometimes more than once. I this point in time no one is going to convince no one else of what they believe so at this point in time it is left in the hands of the court. My initial apport to thsi thread is that Zimmerman and his wife are not helping themselves in the credibility matter, so that will count against him in court and he already had a lot of chips on his negative side.

    • I wish that if you want to TD at least post why you disagree. I am being civil here. This is a debate site, however if you are not going to debate and only TD I find that the mark of a cowardly person.

      • I haven't conducted friendly thumb fire in over a year, so it ain't me! I'll go slap all your posts with an up thumb just for fun right now!

        • Thank you. I respect everyone here. I respect you and all of your opinions. It is a very interesting case that is arising a lot of emotions from people. I think that it merits civil discussion, sadly because of the race issue it is causing a lot of strife.

        • There. That was a bunch!

• Here's the deal. Zimmerman is a jerk. I always knew it. BUT the fact remains that he should not have been charged with murder. He was, by all accounts, within his rights when Trayvon Martin committed assisted suicide. By the way, I always thought it was interesting how a bunch of white conservatives were the ones standing up for the Hispanic hard-core lefty through the media travesty. So, yeah. Take George Zimmerman and his porky wife to task for being cheating, money-grubbing slobs. But he was still within his rights when he killed Martin.

  • The question is: Is someone in the right to shoot someone dead because they are loosing the fight if there is a chance that by his actions the shooter essentially started the fight?

    If I follow you around because I think that you are a thug, and regardless of who you are and your antecedents and if you are high or not, at the point in time I am following you I do not see you do anything illegal at all, then I call the police because I THINK you are a thug and even though you are still doing nothing illegal, I want the police to come and get you. The police advises to stop pursuit and meet them, but instead I continue to follow...

    Now at some point I could have turned around because I lost you and as I am walking to the car you come back to meet me because you realize I have been following you or I turned the corner and you are there waiting for me, or I turned the corner and you are still walking and you turn around and realize I am following you... whatever the case might be how would you feel knowing that I am following you for no reason? Regardless of what went down, the question will always be am I completely guiltless of any wrongdoing? The mere act of following you could make you angry enough to beat me off, you don't think you have a right to be angry? If I follow you with a gun and realize you have no gun but you are beating me up and I am loosing this fight, is it okay for me to shoot you to death in order to win the fight that I essentially started by MY actions (following you for no actual verifiable reason)?

    • No. One does not have the right to attack another person because the other person followed them around. Actors who slug paparazzi know this to be true. No matter how annoying it is, following someone on public property is not a crime. And, in this particular case, all indications are that Zimmerman did what he was supposed to as a CITIZEN (as opposed to a professional law enforcement officer.) He called 911, he followed their advice.

      I live in a city near Camp David. Last month, the G8 summit was held up there, and we were preparing for trouble (which thankfully never came.) But we were told, over and over, that if we saw anything suspicious, we should report it. Don't try to figure out "how" dangerous it was or anything - just call right up and report it. Let the authorities know. Period. Would I have followed a suspicious looking person? Probably, at least until I could get the authorities on the phone to give them specifics. If the suspect turned around and beat the crap out of me, would that be OK?

      I see it as Zimmerman followed the suspect to let the authorities know where he was , so they could find him. (Calling and saying "I saw a strange guy somewhere in my neighborhood" would hardly be useful, would it?). The authorities said "we don't need you to follow him", so he stops. Done. Then he gets attacked and defends himself.

      That's where all the evidence points. It always has, even when the media was fanning the race war.

      • every hear of "stalking"?

        • Under Florida law, the least offensive stalking is defined as: Willful, malicious, and repeated following or harassing. (704.048(2))

          Note the "AND". In other words, a single follow could not, ever, under the law, be stalking.

        • A lawyer could make the case that it was willful and repeated following as he followed Martin for several blocks. He could have called 911 the moment of spying Martin, told them how he looked like and what street he was taking and not follow at all.

      • "No. One does not have the right to attack another person because the other person followed them around."

        I disagree. I believe that if someone whom you don't know follows you around on a rainy night while you are walking talking on the phone and doing nothing illegal you may see things differently.

        "Actors who slug paparazzi know this to be true." Cute... but Martin was not an actor and Zimmerman is not a papparazzi. If that was the situation Martin would have been perhaps pissed that he can't as an actor walk around without some a**hole following him taking pictures of him, but I am sure that he would know it is part of the game of fame. This is a completely different situation and you know that. You are failing to put yourself in Martin's shoes. I know that if some guy was following me around I would not take it as a good thing especially since I am not famous.

        "No matter how annoying it is, following someone on public property is not a crime." No it isn't. However you also fail to remember that he did call 911 and he was advised to not pursue anymore and instead meet the cops. A good deal of time was between the call and the shooting... what exactly did Zimmerman do in all that time? Since he didnt meet the cops one can assume he considered to follow and if he did he essentially continued to put himself in a situation that was dangerous (since he believed he was following a thug). If anything he didn't employ common sense and put himself in danger, so he got beat up indeed and then he couldn't win the fight and shot. So now the jury has to determine if he is culpable of starting an event that led to the death of a person that AT THE TIME was doing nothing illegal or at the very least visibly illegal as Zimmerman himself stated on the 911 call.

        It in if anything a very interesting case that will I am sure determined many more self defense cases in the future.

        "And, in this particular case, all indications are that Zimmerman did what he was supposed to as a CITIZEN (as opposed to a professional law enforcement officer.) He called 911, he followed their advice." No, he did not. At least not completely or at the very least not promptly. He never met the cops.

        "I live in a city near Camp David. Last month, the G8 summit was held up there, and we were preparing for trouble (which thankfully never came.) But we were told, over and over, that if we saw anything suspicious, we should report it." Fantastic... Report it, not following the person and putting yourself in the midst of what you are reporting. I am sure the authorities would never advise you to follow someone.

        "Don’t try to figure out “how” dangerous it was or anything – just call right up and report it." Great! Zimmerman failed to do that. He followed for several blocks he admitted to following. He did more than report.

        "Let the authorities know. Period." Fantastic. Zimmerman failed to do that.

        "Would I have followed a suspicious looking person? Probably, at least until I could get the authorities on the phone to give them specifics. If the suspect turned around and beat the crap out of me, would that be OK?"

        Not good. Putting yourself in danger like that is not a good move. The 911 operator advised to stop pursuit and meet the police at that point in time he could have given the police all particulars in person. If the person that you suspect is a thug turns around after you following him or her for several blocks (how long does it take to give the police on the phone spefics anyway?) and beat you up I would say that you did not employ common sense and you put yourself in a position of victim. The question is if you choose to kill the person you followed because you cannot win the fight is that ok?

        "I see it as Zimmerman followed the suspect..." You keep calling Martin a suspect... a suspect of what? Zimmerman thought he could be part of home breaking that happened weeks ago, but he had nothing to say when the operator asked him if he did something wrong. So at the time Zimmerman was going with the suspicion based on looks but not on any action on Martin's end.

        ".. to let the authorities know where he was..." and it takes several blocks to do that? and what happened between the end of the 911 and the shot? Several minutes many minutes happened in between. He could run the other way and be on his car and go meet the cops as quickly as he followed Martin.

        "so they could find him." Yes and he did that and then continued to follow or else did not move quickly enough to go meet the cop.

        " (Calling and saying “I saw a strange guy somewhere in my neighborhood” would hardly be useful, would it?). " Actually yes as he followed Martin for several blocks he had moer than enough time to do that and then stop pursuit and meet the cops as he was advised to do.

        "The authorities said “we don’t need you to follow him”, so he stops. Done. Then he gets attacked and defends himself." As per his side of the story, sadly we don't know Martin's. The truth is that between the end of the call and the shot several minutes happens several where if he stopped pursuit and ran to his car to meet the cops Martin who at the time had already continued to move on may have not had the time to come back for Zimmerman if indeed he did as Zimmerman attested.

        "That’s where all the evidence points. It always has, even when the media was fanning the race war."

        Actually the evidence points to many different scenarios. As for the race war and all of that is wrong, but not surprising. It muddied the waters. I would have hoped no one died, but if this had to happen that it was would have been people of the same color of skin, this whole issue of race wouldn't be an issue.

        • Kimmy - Please don't take this wrong, but your disagreement does not matter. It is a matter of LAW! The law sets boundaries for what is and is not acceptable, and there is no law that says that a person cannot follow another person. There are specific cases in which a specific person cannot - such as when there is a restraining order, or if the parties are on private property, but other than that - nada.

          Seriously, if you think that there SHOULD be a law to prevent that, I can't say I would disagree, but we can't prosecute someone when they didn't break a law.

          And that's kind of the whole point. Zimmerman apparently didn't break any laws. He gets the benefit of the doubt, since there is corroborating evidence. IF there was a witness who actually saw Zimmerman provoke Martin, that would be different, but lacking that, and with the corroborating evidence, justice says clearly that Zimmerman should have the benefit of the doubt, under Florida law.

        • Actually it matters because this is a debate site. We are having a discussion as civil adults. I disagree with you but I don't think that your disagreement isn't valid in of it self, I am just debating that you are not looking at things from all points of views and are essentially defending Zimmerman because you are angry that the media got its teeth on him (which I also do not like actually).

          That is the POINT of my entire conversation. Is it lawful to follow someone for several blocks especially after being told not to do that anymore...? Is the act of following can it be considered an aggressive move? Could Martin "attacking" Zimmerman be considered a move to stand his ground and therefore was it lawful for Zimmerman to end Martin's standing his ground by using a deadly weapon?

          These are all good questions that the law DOES NOT SATISFY and therefore why it should be sent to court.

          Also following someone can be considered an act of aggression as there are stalking laws in place. Martin was not doing anything illegal at the time, so there was no viable reason for Zimmerman to follow. It would have been a completely different case if Zimmerman saw Martin vandalizing or entering a home with tools or exiting a home with items in the middle of the night.

          As far as Martin could have thought he was being stalked again you fail to see the other side because of your anger at the media.

          Martin did not break any laws. Zimmeran by following did not break any laws, however he ended up killing Martin. So now that a person is dead the question is should the stand your ground be amended...? That is the whole point of this discourse! Stand your Ground did not foresee this that is what makes this case interesting and why it should continue in the courts.

          Sure he gets the benefit of the doubt and that is why he is in court. The point is was the act of following a provocation my goodness that is the point!!! If he looses it means that a person that follows a "suspect" in order to help the cops will get into trouble if they end up killing the person, if he wins then it means that a person can follow another person and kill the person and claim self defense without punishment.

    • There is no evidence zimmerman 'started' the fight, unless you're suggesting that looking at someone, watching from well out of the range of 'personal space' is an act of violence.

      • There is no evidence that he didn't either. There is also NO EVIDENCE that he was "merely" looking at Martin from well out of the range of personal space. That is your opinion based on one side of the story, sadly we won't know Martin's. Both opinions that he by following could have initiated or not initiated the events that led to Martin's death are supported by the facts that are available and Zimmerman will be indeed a great fool if he admits that he started the fight either verbally or physically (other than following). However the question is can following someone be considered enough of a reason for a person to "stand their ground" if they see themselves loosing the fight that by following they could have in essence started?

        One could make the case that Martin STOOD HIS GROUND. So both stood their own grounds and one won because of a gun, yet the one with the gun COULD HAVE by the mere act of following in essence start the events that led to the death of the one without the gun. It is an intricate question and situation. Even though a young man is dead, you have to admit it is an interesting situation that merits civil and cordial discussion.

        I am not here to argue with people and be all negative about it. However the question merits an answer because self defense laws in FL and even perhaps in other states will indeed change after this case is decided in court.

        • As long as there's a question whether or not Zimmerman could have found a less lethal solution, he needs to go on trial. This has to be sorted out. Like you, I have a lot of doubts as to whether he *had* to resolve the issue by shooting his gun. Sometimes, staring down the barrel of a pistol is all a person needs to back down and leave the neighborhood. So far as "stand your ground" goes, with the *actual* evidence (as opposed to the media frenzy BS), you can make a fair argument that Martin was *also* standing his ground.

          That's why we have courts. I can only hope that the actual truth comes out. However, I have my doubts anymore that we'll know the truth until twenty years down the road, when it no longer matters.

        • I agree with Perlcat 100%. I think that this case is exceptional because the self defense is not so clear cut. In this case the courts really have to make a hard choice here and it is really terrible that all these extraneous things happened that in essence muddied the water. It is an important case because I am sure it will determine self defense laws not only in FL but other states.

        • Under normal circumstances I wouldn't have a problem with him being brought to trial. That's fair. However, Florida has a very specific law. Based on the law, (and the facts that we now know to be true, and the investigators knew from the beginning) Zimmerman was within his rights to stand his ground. He didn't need to KNOW that the other guy had a gun or not. He didn't need to know why the guy was wanderiung was wandering around the property. He just had to be ATTACKED and in fear for his life. The evidence supported that.

          It was only after pictures of Trayvon as a saintly little choir boy came out, and that misinformation was deliberately pumped out through the media's complicity (Zimmerman used RACIAL EPITHETS!!! Zimmerman CONTINUED TO CHASE HIM!!! etc. etc.) that this got enough steam to become a story.

          Personally, I want to have the right to carry a weapon in case a Trayvon jumps me. I don't want to have to wait to see if he has a gun in order to legally protect myself. Do you? I don't really want to have to have a bloody head, black eye and broken nose to "prove" my fear, either. But that should certainly be enough "proof" that I was in fear for my life.

        • Good call. What the re-enactment video.

        • Well actually the Mother (and Father) wanted to know why her son was dead. Did he commit a crime? Did he attack Zimmerman for no reason or to rob him or to kill him? When the police let Zimmerman go and refused to answer her questions or to release the 911 call, she ran to a lawyer in order to get answers. Weeks and weeks went by and nothing happened until pressure was made from the media after she ran to the media with her story. Even though I do not agree that she allowed Sharpton and other fools to speak on her behalf, I don't blame her for wanting to know why she as a Mother must bury her son when there was no information from the police that he actually deserved to die alone on the pavement. He was a thug he was a this or he was a that, but all she wanted to know why was her son dead... Since no one answered her she ran to the media if that is good or bad I dont know. I am not a Mother that lost a child and trying to get answers from the police doesn't work.

• Evidence seems to corroborate Zimmermans telling of the story. I think he confronted the kid, the kid began kicking the crap out of him, and he shot him.
  What bothers me about the latest development is why the prosecution would release the tapes in the first place. That seems ethically off. And why does how much money you have make any difference on how much bond you pay. Does this mean if they had a million dollars, the bond would be a million dollars ?? Something about that doesnt seem right either.

  Doesn't anyone else think some of these actions taken by the prosecution/legal system shouldnt be legal.

  • Real simple. Increased flight risk. Someone who is scared of the legal system, and suddenly in possession of more funds than they've ever had in their life has a much greater chance of deciding that Sunny Mexico is the place to be. Lying about it would only convince a judge trying t evaluate whether they are a flight risk is enough to convince the judge that "Yeah, they're *that* stupid.", and put the hammer down on bail.

    Lying to the judge about funds in this situation will p*ss the judge off to the point where both will stay in jail until the date of the trial, even if the funds are all gone. Makes them look real creepy, and hurts them horribly. No fair trial anymore. If their lawyer gave them this advice, their lawyer was a fool.

    If they'd have waited until the whole thing was over, they could have banked the funds and done whatever with them. Now, they have no chance at raising the kinds of funds they need for a good defense for a high profile case like this.

    Kids, don't lie to the judge, especially about stuff they can find out about easily. It won't end well.

    • The lawyer at first said it was a misunderstanding they could explain in court, when the tapes came out he stated that it was a wrong decision that they made and they will try to explain in court... ??? The lawyer essentially told everyone that the did lie. I don't know about that lawyer and the lawyers he had previously essentially dumped him. Zimmerman is toast and a lot of it is either his fault and the fault of people that do not have his best interests at hand. Even if he didn't necessarily deserve to go to prison (for a long time) due to the shooting (that I still think could have been avoided had he applied common sense), at this point in time he is adding days to his prison sentence from his actions from the shooting until now.

      • Exactly. He will get up on the stand, the prosecuting attorney will say: "So, how do we know you're telling the truth *this* time?", and it'll be game over.

        In a just world, his lawyer would be doing time right beside him -- but good luck finding a lawyer to help you sue for legal malpractice.

        I could be wrong -- this could be a plot to keep him *off* the stand, and let the circumstantial evidence decide the case. I doubt that. Most lawyers are more careful than that with their personal bung-holes, and won't go to prison for perjury that is easily discovered.

        • Yes the lawyer really messed him up in my opinion, he should have said nothing until he actually saw the judge and after hearing the other side's evidence. All that she had to do was tell the truth, the lawyer in essence stated that she (and Zimmerman) did indeed lie because they were "afraid"... ??? I mean he may as well put the cuffs on his client himself.

• He and his wife are not helping themselves either. I find it interesting that the story about them (potentially) lying about having funds, which the lawyer seems to agree they did and tried to explain it away, they are looking a little greedy... is not here. In any case, with time passing I am sure the hot temperedness that came with the shooting is easing off, but Zimmerman is most defintely not helping himself and again surprised that the story of his wife being arrested and him being rearrested was not posted around here.

  • Sad, really, and keeps on getting sadder. Much like the woman who thought that getting harassed by DSK was her ticket to fame, they got greedy, and so far as I can see, have pretty much blown every iota of credibility they had. I guess people watch too many reality shows, think that it will work for them.

    It was more money than what they had ever seen in any one place in their entire lives. What it will mean, eventually, is that they won't get the support to buy the expensive lawyers, and are going to spend jail time for this in addition to the shooting episode. [shakes head] Stupid is as stupid does, I guess.

    They wanted justice, now they are going to see it -- and it won't be anything like they expected.

    • DSK? Not familiar with that acronym.

      However it is true, they made a bad situation worst by their actions and his credibility is in play as this will obviously come up in the trial.

      • DSK == Dominique Strauss-Kahn -- the serial rapist who was supposed to be the next French president until one of his rape victims spoke up -- then a whole string of molested women started to pop up, and he became too rapey for even the French to elect.

        The maid he attacked decided it would be a good idea to go for the book deal before the case went to trial, and so with her credibility blown, he got off from that one.

        • Oh I see. Yes a lot of victims do not help themselves when they get greedy. In the case of Zimmerman he either got bad advice or he is a dumb person or both. He should have never lied and the wife should have never lied.

        • It's the same mentality of this:

          Convenience Store clerk wins lottery.
          Convenience store clerk quits job.
          ex-Convenience store clerk takes lottery proceeds as a lump sum.
          ex-Convenience store clerk blows winnings.
          Convenience store clerk back working at (different) convenience store.
          Convenience store clerk goes to prison for not paying taxes.

          An American tragedy in 6 acts. It'd be funny if it wasn't so damned sad. (Not to disparage convenience store clerks -- this could be pretty nearly anybody working as a wage slave.)

• Reading the whole article, I don't see it looking good for Zimmerman. The press is still pushing racism, and ignoring the rest of the story.