I agree, also, many of journalists are liberal so their bias will come out at times. But in the end, the Media is a business, plain and simple. If they can spin it a little to create a story or fuel it, they will, like the sleaze bags at NBC did.
This whole thing is interesting. I don't always like reading ad-hom that gets created here when discussing an issue.
What evidence is there that supports Zimmerman's story? What are the inconsistencies if there are?
A couple of things i heard recently:
- He frequently called 911 other times/other days
- He didn't represent himself properly as a neighborhood watchman when he called 911
Other questions:
Should Neighborhood watchmen carry guns?
Did someone see Trayvon assaulting Zimmerman?
I think it's irrelevant on watchman carrying firearms. If he had a license, he should be able to carry it, regardless of his duties as a watchman. (I dont think there is any kind of unified law for watchman either.)
Yes, multiple neighbors have come out and said they saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman assaulting him. One said he saw him on top, ran and got the phone, heard the shot, and came back and TM was laying in the grass next to Zimmerman.
He did frequently call 911 (which being a watchman with a neighborhood history of break-ins, I dont really think is relevant).
The evidence supporting him would be the neighbors testimony, the gash on the back of his head, and it pretty much fits with the story he told the PD.
The only real counter argument I see thats plausible would be, did he chase down Trayvon and initiate contact or did Trayvon come up to him (like he said in his official story).
The only way I can see that argument hold water is if not only did he run Trayvon down, but that he then attacked Trayvon 1st. If he just caught up to him and asked him what he was doing in the neighborhood and Trayvon attacked him, its still a legal self-defense.
There is a lot of little things that are quirky, as there always is in any high-adrenaline situation, because obviously everybody has a little different version of what happened based on where they were, what they saw, and how close they were. The truth is somewhere in the middle. And there really isnt enough evidence to the contrary that I can see him going to jail.
Keep in mind this is just my take on the LEGALITY of it, not the MORALITY of following someone down the road, we have to remember that just because someone may disagree with something on a moral level does not mean its a crime. (i.e. following somone at night that looks suspicious). And remember as well that there has to be irrefutable evidence that he committed a crime before he can be convicted as guilty.