Bobert, You state:
"Okay, Bruce... Let's say that Martin had said that he was going to check out a house to burglarize and beat the crap out of the owner of the house... Let's also say that he had said this just the night before...

Unless Zimmerman knew that this prior to following and murdering Martin why is it relevant...
"


It would be relevant, because the defense has stated that it is using self-defense as it's plea. The "fact" that Martin had stated he would attack "anyone who tried to stop him" would strengthen the defense claim that Trevor *did* attack Zimmerman, and support the plea of self defense. Otherwise, it is entirely Zimmerman's word.

The present defense story is that Zimmerman followed Martin ( a mistake in my opinion, but he had his reasons) and confronted him. Zimmerman then claims he was attacked by Martin, and was having his head beaten against the ground. In self-defense, Zimmerman shot Martin.

I *do* *not* *know* the truth of this story- and neither do you. But to deny Zimmerman his rights to a fair trial because of past injustices in the legal system is wrong, as wrong as lynching someone because of his skin color.