The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[pioneerpete]

The Stand Your Ground law that gained notoriety in the wake of Trayvon Martin’s shooting became central to the case again last week, when written instructions advised the jury that found shooter George Zimmerman not guilty to take the law’s central provision into account.

Why Stand Your Ground Is Central To George Zimmerman's Case After All

In an interview on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 Monday night, an anonymous juror said the panel that found George Zimmerman not guilty considered Florida’s Stand Your Ground law in its deliberations. Earlier reports suggested the notorious law that authorizes the unfettered use of deadly force in self-defense was not applied to the case, because Zimmerman’s lawyers opted not to request a Stand Your Ground hearing. But as ThinkProgress explained in a post earlier today, the jury instructions contained the law’s key provision and instructed jurors that self-defense meant Zimmerman was entitled to “stand his ground” with “no duty to retreat.”

The juror’s interview with Anderson Cooper Monday night confirms that the jury not only considered this language in their deliberations, but that their decision hinged in part on the Stand Your Ground Law:

Zimmerman Juror Says Panel Considered Stand Your Ground In Deliberations: 'He Had A Right To Defend Himself'

The words "stand your ground" are in the jury instructions for self-defense in all 50 states and federal jury instructions for self-defense. It means that if you are legally where you are suppose to be that you don't have to try and get away before using force. GZ screamed for help for 45 seconds and tried to squirm from underneath TM. He actually went above and beyond even the federal statute of self-defense. People are grasping at straws to have something to take away since they couldn't get GZ.

 

[beagle9]

The liberal networks are killing me with their bias for anything that keeps America stirred up into a frenzy. and just so they can use anything and everything as an issue to further their huge agenda being sought after in it all. I mean it's like there is a certain set of groups who are united now against another set of groups, and so may the best groups finally win, because it has absolutely no more to do with unity in America at all than these groups just fighting one another.

The move by the Rolling Stone magazine was yet another move by the liberal left to stick it to the groups in which they are hating on these days (In this case it went against the majority of Americans), and they think they are so smart that when the blow back comes, well they will just bring out yet another liberal excuse where all will just be forgotten about instantly. I tell you this, that it is all coupled with the larger agenda in which these institutions are being run by, and by their power brokers for which are using such shock and awe tactics in order to make change with or to edge on the anti-American crowds with. They do this in order to attack America and Americans either non-violently in the case of this cover or in some cases indirectly in hopes that some will violently act as would be administered by some who may take matters further on their own, and against those for whom they have been led to hate in America.

The libs seemingly have united completely with anti-American groups in some hope that these groups will win the whole show someday, and that they will also be in power with them to run America the way they see fit within this power sharing ideal in which they look forward to in the near future, but won't they get a surprise when who ever was using who finally comes out, and one or two groups finally turn and decide that they don't need the other groups anymore who had helped them, just like a bank heist where when it comes time to split the booty, a few of the felons decide they want it all for their own, and therefore shoot the ones they used to get the job done. Off topic a bit, but does it all line up with the over all when think about it in the over all? Um isn't this what happened in Egypt, where as the groups were together on the electing of that President, until he got in there and decided that he would only cater to the ones whom he was with all along, and to discard whom it was that he used just to get the power ? Now he is ousted, and the nation is happy for this, because they knew that they had been duped by allowing this brotherhood President to trick them in this way. Where else have we seen this take place or has taken place in the world ?

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

The ridiculous Trayvon Martin case

It’s a failure of US judicial system. It failed to help the weak side people.

When it says Zimmerman is not guilty to kill Trayvon Martin, then what Trayvon was? He became an attacker – a threat to other’s life. That’s how a court to turn an innocent man to be a potential life threatener. An unarmed teen on his way to his relative’s house. He now was believed to be a threaten to other’s life. The other one, though proved having original bad will against Trayvon and finally killed him, became victim.

It indicates that any law abiding citizens should be obedient to unreasonable search (followed, monitored, provoked…). Or he would be killed, if the provoker announced that his life has been threatened.

This case also would encourage people to use guns in argument because dead people losing their voice in the case.

What in the HELL is this? We're now going to prosecute someone because we think it's in the vein of "social justice?" Does everyone understand how incredibly DANGEROUS this sort of thinking is? How against the rule of law this sort of low information knee-jerk reactionary spewing is?

Because we don't like you, your speech, your politics, the color of your skin, what you think, what you do, we are now going to prosecute you (with a guaranteed outcome of this prosecution) with what ever we feel is proper at the time, all in the name of 'social justice?'

My GOD people, surely this is the rambling of a misinformed, uneducated individual who has NO KNOWLEDGE of what happens in fifty SHITHOLE countries in Africa and the Middle East where people are rounded up, stood against a wall and summarily executed WITHOUT the benefit of a trial. Or those who are taken in the middle of the night by the 'religious police' for thinking that a certain tribe of people deserve the same rights as everyone else in the country?

This kind of crap scares me. The fact that people actually espouse this kind of drivel scares me...

 

[Wry Catcher]

Thank you.

Obviously, in this particular case no "murderous thug" was put behind bars, but I get your point about revenge.

So, perhaps the jurors' desire to be anonymous - seeing the political power of those who are capable to harm them - is justified.

Seems like the only ones that MAY threaten the lives and livelihoods of the jurors in this particular case are those who are doing their best (worst??) to foment riots, those who can not be respectful of existing law and the justice system, those who will NEVER be happy as long as there is a single white (or "White Hispanic) person is alive.

The only ones who are peeved are the race-hustling poverty pimps, like Al Sharpton, Eric Holder, Jesse Jackson and the One who would love to have Trayvon Martin as his son.

I see by this post that you hate the black race and in particular those African Americans who have a voice; inferred from this you must be a right wing Republican and a scared little bunny rabbit who covets guns. See how that works?

Your pathetic ilk never disappoint. (Suggests general bigotry of all liberal Democrats)

Your accusation of me being racist was right on queue and predictably mindless.

Sorry, did you find out who the racist was who posted this under your name:

"The only ones who are peeved are the race-hustling poverty pimps, like Al Sharpton, Eric Holder, Jesse Jackson and the One who would love to have Trayvon Martin as his son."

Shame on them, you have a right to be outraged



Sarcasm alert.

 

[FJO]

Maybe its because they put murdering thugs behind bars, and the associates of said murdering thug may be a bit peeved by it.

Thank you.

Obviously, in this particular case no "murderous thug" was put behind bars, but I get your point about revenge.

So, perhaps the jurors' desire to be anonymous - seeing the political power of those who are capable to harm them - is justified.

Seems like the only ones that MAY threaten the lives and livelihoods of the jurors in this particular case are those who are doing their best (worst??) to foment riots, those who can not be respectful of existing law and the justice system, those who will NEVER be happy as long as there is a single white (or "White Hispanic) person is alive.

The only ones who are peeved are the race-hustling poverty pimps, like Al Sharpton, Eric Holder, Jesse Jackson and the One who would love to have Trayvon Martin as his son.

I see by this post that you hate the black race and in particular those African Americans who have a voice; inferred from this you must be a right wing Republican and a scared little bunny rabbit who covets guns. See how that works?

Let me tell you something straight up: I do NOT think you are and idiot, since I don't know you, just because you accuse me being a racist, in spite the fact that you don't know me.

Now that we are on equal footing, tell me why - if I am supposed to hate African Americans - do I have a great admiration for Justice Clarence Thomas, author Thomas Sowell, actor Bill Cosby and Morgan Freeman, former Congressmen J.C. Watts and Alan West, columnists Walter Williams, Juan Williams and Armstrong Williams, singers Ella Fitzgerald, Della Reese and Stevie Wonder, musicians Lois Armstrong and Duke Ellington, just to name a few black idols of mine, some of whom happen to be politically opposed to my way of thinking.

And tell me, why if I am such a racist and hater of African Americans, did I spend so much time doing volunteer work from 1993 till 2004 in Homestead, Gould, Naranja and Overtown with Habitat for Humanity.

Your accusation of me being racist is every bit as mindless and hollow as koshergirl's (not that I would mention any names) accusing me of targeting jurors for assassination.

Maybe you two should get together.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Follow up: What do you think of Stephanie and CrusaderFrank?

Two morons desperate for attention, IMO.

As for B-37 I agree with Lakhota, she had an agenda going in, and that agenda had nothing to do with trying to determine the truth.

no problem what you think of me, I think you are a arrogant ass who thinks your shit doesn't stink..so there...

It doesn't, if it did I'd have the courtesy to use air freshener.

 

[martybegan]

Can anyone explain why there is a secrecy about the identity of jurors?

I was under the impression that serving jury duty is a civil obligation and having served jury duty is something to be proud of.

Yet, time after time, I see jurors hiding behind anonymity. Are they ashamed? Are they afraid? Is their identity protected/hidden under some law? If so, why?

Maybe its because they put murdering thugs behind bars, and the associates of said murdering thug may be a bit peeved by it.

Thank you.

Obviously, in this particular case no "murderous thug" was put behind bars, but I get your point about revenge.

So, perhaps the jurors' desire to be anonymous - seeing the political power of those who are capable to harm them - is justified.

Seems like the only ones that MAY threaten the lives and livelihoods of the jurors in this particular case are those who are doing their best (worst??) to foment riots, those who can not be respectful of existing law and the justice system, those who will NEVER be happy as long as there is a single white (or "White Hispanic) person is alive.

The only ones who are peeved are the race-hustling poverty pimps, like Al Sharpton, Eric Holder, Jesse Jackson and the One who would love to have Trayvon Martin as his son.

In the Zimmerman case the opposite is true, and due to the national nature of the case you could have completely unrelated people gunning for jurors.

 

[Stephanie]

and remember to never walk with any kind of object or food item in your hand ..it just makes people think you have a gun ,drugs or stolen goods...and for god sake don't put your hands in your pockets always keep them in plain veiw

oh for gods sakes is right...good gawd you people are hysterical stupid over this case
the stupid hoodie is now some symbol, ask people who have been ROBBED by all these saints in hoodies what THEY SHOULD of done different.. how about the pants worn down to the knees with the undies showing...what should they do?

 

[Stephanie]

Follow up: What do you think of Stephanie and CrusaderFrank?

Two morons desperate for attention, IMO.

As for B-37 I agree with Lakhota, she had an agenda going in, and that agenda had nothing to do with trying to determine the truth.

no problem what you think of me, I think you are a arrogant ass who thinks your shit doesn't stink..so there...

It doesn't, if it did I'd have the courtesy to use air freshener.

well dear, there are times we could use some here after one your post...hehehe

 

[FJO]

I base my impression of you on your comments here. You state we should be able to target jurors...for the purpose of *congratulating* them. Yet you seem incapable of understanding that anonymity protects them from those who would do them harm.

Or bribe them.

Either way, you're dismissed as a simpleton.

I don't know about you, but I never approached a person that distinguished themselves with any intention but congratulations. If you think that I would approach a juror with killing in my mind, it speaks about YOUR intentions to them harm.

Only a true simpleton would think about bribing a juror after the juror has rendered a verdict. And of course, only a simpleton would thank a post that she negged with considerable prejudice.

I am not dismissing you as a simpleton or otherwise, because your ilk always must hav the last word, so have at it!

 

[Dot Com]

Follow up: What do you think of Stephanie and CrusaderFrank?

Two morons desperate for attention, IMO.

As for B-37 I agree with Lakhota, she had an agenda going in, and that agenda had nothing to do with trying to determine the truth.

Stephie does just jump into threads "head first" w/o regard to her *cough* "knowledge" on the topic. I'm beginning to wonder if she's a bot or a 14 yr old.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Follow up: What do you think of Stephanie and CrusaderFrank?

Two morons desperate for attention, IMO.

As for B-37 I agree with Lakhota, she had an agenda going in, and that agenda had nothing to do with trying to determine the truth.

It is a safe bet that you would sing a different tune if the verdict had been more to your liking.

I think not. Whenever a juror brings attention upon themselves I would be suspicious of the motives. The fact that four members of the jury have distanced themselves from her speaks volumes. Note I have not and will not comment on any of the other jurors who have not sought profit or other benefits from doing their civic duty.

 

[Dot Com]

Follow up: What do you think of Stephanie and CrusaderFrank?

Two morons desperate for attention, IMO.

As for B-37 I agree with Lakhota, she had an agenda going in, and that agenda had nothing to do with trying to determine the truth.

It is a safe bet that you would sing a different tune if the verdict had been more to your liking.

I think not. Whenever a juror brings attention upon themselves I would be suspicious of the motives. The fact that four members of the jury have distanced themselves from her speaks volumes. Note I have not and will not comment on any of the other jurors who have not sought profit or other benefits from doing their civic duty.

I call that "doing a DeMint (R-SC)" Quit the senate and went directly to a rw think tank. I use the last term loosely.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Thank you.

Obviously, in this particular case no "murderous thug" was put behind bars, but I get your point about revenge.

So, perhaps the jurors' desire to be anonymous - seeing the political power of those who are capable to harm them - is justified.

Seems like the only ones that MAY threaten the lives and livelihoods of the jurors in this particular case are those who are doing their best (worst??) to foment riots, those who can not be respectful of existing law and the justice system, those who will NEVER be happy as long as there is a single white (or "White Hispanic) person is alive.

The only ones who are peeved are the race-hustling poverty pimps, like Al Sharpton, Eric Holder, Jesse Jackson and the One who would love to have Trayvon Martin as his son.

I see by this post that you hate the black race and in particular those African Americans who have a voice; inferred from this you must be a right wing Republican and a scared little bunny rabbit who covets guns. See how that works?

Let me tell you something straight up: I do NOT think you are and idiot, since I don't know you, just because you accuse me being a racist, in spite the fact that you don't know me.

Now that we are on equal footing, tell me why - if I am supposed to hate African Americans - do I have a great admiration for Justice Clarence Thomas, author Thomas Sowell, actor Bill Cosby and Morgan Freeman, former Congressmen J.C. Watts and Alan West, columnists Walter Williams, Juan Williams and Armstrong Williams, singers Ella Fitzgerald, Della Reese and Stevie Wonder, musicians Lois Armstrong and Duke Ellington, just to name a few black idols of mine, some of whom happen to be politically opposed to my way of thinking.

And tell me, why if I am such a racist and hater of African Americans, did I spend so much time doing volunteer work from 1993 till 2004 in Homestead, Gould, Naranja and Overtown with Habitat for Humanity.

Your accusation of me being racist is every bit as mindless and hollow as koshergirl's (not that I would mention any names) accusing me of targeting jurors for assassination.

Maybe you two should get together.

Good for you (did your sister marry one?). If what you posted is true, why call four black men who are accomplished in their careers, "Pimps"?

Of course I modified my comments with my final sentence, "See how that works". Did my intent in posting that last sentence go over your head? If so I'll be happy to explain, but to me it's self evident.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

7 Mind Blowing Moments From Zimmerman Juror B37's First Interview | ThinkProgress

1. Martin was responsible for his own death.

JUROR: It was just hard, thinking that somebody lost their life, and there’s nothing else that could be done about it. I mean, it’s what happened. It’s sad. It’s a tragedy this happened, but it happened. And I think both were responsible for the situation they had gotten themselves into. I think both of them could have walked away. It just didn’t happen.

2. Juror felt just as sorry for Zimmerman.

COOPER: Do you feel sorry for Trayvon Martin?

JUROR: I feel sorry for both of them. I feel sorry for Trayvon, in the situation he was in. And I feel sorry for George because of the situation he got himself in.

3. Zimmerman should continue to serve as a neighborhood watchman because he has learned his lesson about going too far.

COOPER: Is George Zimmerman somebody you would like to have on a neighborhood watch in your community?

JUROR: If he didn’t go too far. I mean, you can always go too far. He just didn’t stop at the limitations that he should have stopped at.

COOPER: So is that a yes or — if he didn’t go too far. Is he somebody prone, you think, to going too far? Is he somebody you would feel comfortable —

JUROR: I think he was frustrated. I think he was frustrated with the whole situation in the neighborhood, with the break-ins and the robberies. And they actually arrested somebody not that long ago. I — I mean, I would feel comfortable having George, but I think he’s learned a good lesson.

COOPER: So you would feel comfortable having him now, because you think he’s learned a lesson from all of this?

JUROR: Exactly. I think he just didn’t know when to stop. He was frustrated, and things just got out of hand.

4. Verdict hinged on “Stand Your Ground” law, even though Zimmerman did not use it in his defense.

COOPER: Because of the two options you had, second degree murder or manslaughter, you felt neither applied?

JUROR: Right. Because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground. He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right.

5. Zimmerman was only guilty of using poor judgment and was “egged” on to follow Martin by the 9/11 operator.

COOPER: Do you think he’s guilty of something?

JUROR: I think he’s guilty of not using good judgment. When he was in the car and he called 911, he shouldn’t have gotten out of that car. But the 911 operator also, when he was talking to him, kind of egged him on.

6. Race played absolutely no factor in Zimmerman’s profiling of Martin.

JUROR: I think just circumstances caused George to think that he might be a robber, or trying to do something bad in the neighborhood because of all that had gone on previously. There were unbelievable, a number of robberies in the neighborhood.

COOPER: So you don’t believe race played a role in this case?

JUROR: I don’t think it did. I think if there was another person, Spanish, white, Asian, if they came in the same situation where Trayvon was, I think George would have reacted the exact same way.

COOPER: Why do you think George Zimmerman found Trayvon Martin suspicious then?

JUROR: Because he was cutting through the back, it was raining. He said he was looking in houses as he was walking down the road. Kind of just not having a purpose to where he was going. He was stopping and starting. But I mean, that’s George’s rendition of it, but I think the situation where Trayvon got into him being late at night, dark at night, raining, and anybody would think anybody walking down the road stopping and turning and looking, if that’s exactly what happened, is suspicious. And George said that he didn’t recognize who he was.

COOPER: Well, was that a common belief on the jury that race was not — that race did not play a role in this?

JUROR: I think all of us thought that race did not play a role. [...]

COOPER: It didn’t come up, the question of, did George Zimmerman profile Trayvon Martin because he was African-American?

JUROR: No, I think he just profiled him because he was the neighborhood watch, and he profiled anyone who came in acting strange. I think it was just circumstances happened that he saw Trayvon at the exact time that he thought he was suspicious.

7. Zimmerman’s history of reporting black men to the police and his decision to follow Martin played no role in the verdict.

COOPER: So whether it was George Zimmerman getting out of the vehicle, whether he was right to get out of the vehicle, whether he was a wannabe cop, whether he was overeager, none of that in the final analysis, mattered. What mattered was those seconds before the shot went off, did George Zimmerman fear for his life?

JUROR: Exactly. That’s exactly what happened.

I find nothing shocking about any of these comments. She followed the jury instructions and the evidence provided. I dont see any agenda or racist "tones" displayed in her commentary. I do think that people with agendas regarding race baiting like to throw anything they can at the wall and hope something sticks.

As for the other jurors distancing themselves, I would too. People are receiving death threats from the mob of hate that desperately wants this to be racially charged.

 

[testarosa]

Next year we have to do the Canadian cannibal trial.

THERE's some drama right there.

 

[koshergrl]

I base my impression of you on your comments here. You state we should be able to target jurors...for the purpose of *congratulating* them. Yet you seem incapable of understanding that anonymity protects them from those who would do them harm.

Or bribe them.

Either way, you're dismissed as a simpleton.

I don't know about you, but I never approached a person that distinguished themselves with any intention but congratulations. If you think that I would approach a juror with killing in my mind, it speaks about YOUR intentions to them harm.

Only a true simpleton would think about bribing a juror after the juror has rendered a verdict. And of course, only a simpleton would thank a post that she negged with considerable prejudice.

I am not dismissing you as a simpleton or otherwise, because your ilk always must hav the last word, so have at it!

My *ilk* lol.

I'm sorry you don't understand the language or the rule of the law. I'm sure it makes things difficult for you.

I did not say you were interested in killing anyone and I certainly never said you wanted to target anyone for assassination, you nitwit. I said the anonymity of jurors is maintained for their safety and the integrity of the trial. You did not say that you were only talking about post-trial jury anonymity, and prevention of jury tampering is one of the primary reasons jurors are sequestered, and their identities protected. The other primary reason is to protect their lives, and their families.

It isn't rocket science.

 

[FJO]

I see by this post that you hate the black race and in particular those African Americans who have a voice; inferred from this you must be a right wing Republican and a scared little bunny rabbit who covets guns. See how that works?

Let me tell you something straight up: I do NOT think you are and idiot, since I don't know you, just because you accuse me being a racist, in spite the fact that you don't know me.

Now that we are on equal footing, tell me why - if I am supposed to hate African Americans - do I have a great admiration for Justice Clarence Thomas, author Thomas Sowell, actor Bill Cosby and Morgan Freeman, former Congressmen J.C. Watts and Alan West, columnists Walter Williams, Juan Williams and Armstrong Williams, singers Ella Fitzgerald, Della Reese and Stevie Wonder, musicians Lois Armstrong and Duke Ellington, just to name a few black idols of mine, some of whom happen to be politically opposed to my way of thinking.

And tell me, why if I am such a racist and hater of African Americans, did I spend so much time doing volunteer work from 1993 till 2004 in Homestead, Gould, Naranja and Overtown with Habitat for Humanity.

Your accusation of me being racist is every bit as mindless and hollow as koshergirl's (not that I would mention any names) accusing me of targeting jurors for assassination.

Maybe you two should get together.

Good for you (did your sister marry one?). If what you posted is true, why call four black men who are accomplished in their careers, "Pimps"?

Of course I modified my comments with my final sentence, "See how that works". Did my intent in posting that last sentence go over your head? If so I'll be happy to explain, but to me it's self evident.

My sister lives in a country where there are very few people who obviously could not be described the assinine hyphenated term, "African-American" for the self-evident reason that they don't live in America, so she did NOT marry one. I, myself, almost did, but we broke up for no more reason than I broke up with other girls in my life.

Here is the definition of the word "pimp": "a prostitute's agent, living off the proceeds of the prostitute's activity".

Well, that tells me that if there were no prostitutes, there would not be pimps.

So, logically, if there was no racial tension, racial hatred, racial dissention, there would be no need for pimps like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. They could go back to do something that they neglected to do, in spite of their being "Reverends": Perform a religious service.

See, how that works?? Well, it will probably go over your head.

 

[G.T.]

Neither the prosecution n'or any of you have enough evidence to convict George Zimmerman of Murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

Just because you feel it went down a certain way, or it's what your gut tells you or whatever else - the evidence you have to work with still allows for the possibility that George felt he was in imminent danger of dying. Simply the allowance of that POSSIBILITY, means there is a DOUBT of guilt, that exists, based on the evidence. There is also NO sufficient evidence of who approached who, physically, first. If you think that there is, you need to learn what evidence means. Since the 9/11 call does not lead up to the encounter, all you have is speculation & George's word. You can't use speculation in Court to put a man away for life, and you don't even need George's word after that.

Onto the race discussion - it is beyond ridiculous. I do my great fair share of beating down racism where I see it, but this time - you know, it's really hard to watch such dishonesty. Race is not even involved in this case, yet here we are having a nation-wide discussion about it based on pure conjecture. It's really disgusting, to me.

You may speculate that George thought Trayvon was suspicious because of his color, but you don't have any convincing evidence of that unless you're kidding yourself. There was a proven rash of burglaries in the neighborhood, and a kid was cutting through people's side yards. That's not suspicious enough for a neighborhood watchman to place a call? Gated communities are for folks who are very serious about theirs and their family's safety. I'd call his suspicion - based on the burglaries - warranted, even though hindsight would have been 20/20. But to make the stretch to say it was "because he was black," is based on...............nothing. George's life shows that he was not a racist. If you don't know what I mean, you haven't really looked into it before forming your opinion. More disgust.

 

[G.T.]

I have a theory on what happened, myself, but I have no delusions that a jury should take my theory based on its lack of reaching the reasonable doubt standard.

I think George was a bit of a busy body, partly justifiably because of the break ins and such, and partly because of his apparent nature.

I think he truly thought Trayvon was acting funny.

I think Trayvon became interested as well, as George would seem to him, to be acting funny.

I think that Trayvon stuck around the in-between of those two rows of houses.

I think George approached him and they had a few words, perhaps an argument.

I think George might have showed his waistband.

I think Trayvon got testy, and punched George in his face. As George then began to try to unholster, Trayvon took him down. George didn't have both hands free to stop the takedown, as he'd be well equipped to do with 18mos of mma training. Trayvon was then on top trying to get control of George from getting to his gun. George was solely focused on getting to his gun, which is why Trayvon had no marks on him.

I think that Trayvon was the one yelling for help, as he tried to control George from getting to his gun.

The rest is history.