[hga]

If you were even vaguely familiar with the case and/or fair minded---after all, the jury validated to some degree the following---you would know that according to Zimmerman he never "approached" Martin in any sense of the word that I'm familiar with.

Let's put it this way: you're implicitly asking to know the truth of the incident; I suggest you don't ask unless you're willing to face the truth, whatever it might turn out to be.

The investigating officer testified at the trial that when he lied to Zimmerman and told him a video had been found of the entire incident, he looked relieved and said "Thank God." Assuming that someone with a documented history of fighting like Martin would want the truth to be available for the authorities is ... a bit further than I'm willing to go, and there fails your concept ... well, unless you put the pair of glasses on Zimmerman.

I'll bet you more than a few Neighborhood Watch types are going to start using Google glasses when they become generally available.

[DanBC]

> If you were even vaguely familiar with the case and/or fair minded

There are a number of court cases that find one way, but the public disagree.

We should not need glasses style propaganda to persuade the public, we should be happy with the jury, but you can see how it'd be handy? When we have someone saying they did something, and a video showing that they did do that it would go some way to stopping people knee-jerking.

[erickuhn19]

Having more information would be useful regardless of which side of the debate you are on. Knowing that video evidence will be available can also act as a deterrent. The point is technology might help prevent some tragedy's from occurring.