To Kill a Mockingbird, George Zimmerman, and Ferguson

He was not Told not to follow. he was merely told by a despatacher that he was not required to follow. No prohibition was made. the left constantly lie about this.

 

Dispatcher : Are you following him?
Zimmerman : Yeah
Dispatcher : OK. We don't need you to do that
Ziummerman: OK

Definition of Don't, contraction of do not ie "OK We do not need you to do that"

BTW, your assumption that I am "left" is funny.

 

it would be foolish to bite the hand that feeds you, wouldnt it

 

Feel free to elaborate.

Are you saying East Asians are being 'fed' by Whites in this country?

As opposed to Blacks disproportionately living off welfare?

 

no.
you stated that chinese dont fill prisons in america, istated that it would be foolish for americans to bite the hand that feeds them otherwise... :icon_(*)(*)(*)(*)hitsthefan

 

If they are in fear of being attacked, why would they confront someone?

But, yes, it is legal to confront someone, but not slam someone's head against concrete.

Stand your ground laws weren't used in the trial and police investigation. And no, approaching someone in public would not justify shooting someone. Zimmerman neutralized Martin after Martin was using lethal force after attacking Zimmerman.

You have forensic/crime scene evidence. Did Dr. Valerie Rao dispute Zimmerman's head was being pounded against cement?

 

For the same reason any other person would

I didn't say stand your ground laws were used in the trial.

Perhaps a little confusion here when I said "as he approached him" I meant Zimmerman approaching Martin

 

They chose their words carefully. At no point do they say" Do not do that" only that such an action is not required. They are covering themselves against a lawsuit.

So no one told him not to do it.

 

I think he was guilty of manslaughter, but was overcharged with murder, many including some on the jury thought he was guilty, just not enough evidence for murder charge

by your logic the same is true of OJ cause he was also found not guilty

.

 

I realise you are a little hard of thinking but the onus of proof is on the prosecution. It is certainly possible that the incident happened as Zimmerman sais and unless you can prove otherwise there was no murder

Define stalked. the 911 call shows nothing of the sort and there is no evidence of cold blood at all. The gfact that zimmerman has anger issues in no way proves anything

 

What if your child was followed all over the neighborhood at night by George Zimmerman?

 

So "We do not need you to follow him" is not telling him not to follow him

 

He wouldnt be. My child would go straight home and tell me or call the Police. I wouldnt tell him to attack someone just because they were following him. if you would then you are an idiot and should be arrested.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course not.

It is informing him that he is NOT REQUIRED to follow. In No way does it prohibit him from following.

I do not need you to give me twenty quid. But if you give it to me Ill be quite chuffed.

 

Then we differ in what telling someone they don't need them to follow means, and you have two hopes of twenty quid, no hope and Bob Hope.

 

I would tell them not to attack the person. Duh.

Trayvon's dead because he was a thug.

 

There was NO evidence to convict him, he was NOT crazed and he acted rationally during the whole event. An arrogant, belligerent, young black male got himself killed because he thought he had been "dissed". The evidence overwhelming pointed to the fact Zimmerman was attacked and he defended himself because he had a reasonable fear of serious bodily harm or death. And that last part is all that matters.

 

If my son had done the same thing Martin had done and had called me I would have told him get in the house, wandering around at night looking into apartments and hanging at the community center where they had already had problems in an apartment complex which was having a crime problem is not a good idea. My son would not have felt dissed he would have understood and he would have walked home and gone inside and be alive today.

Martin choose a different course of action and got himself killed.

 

Where on earth did you get the idea Brown was shot because he stole the cigarillos? What utter nonsense.

 

So you are totally oblivious to the trial and the facts of the case then. It sounds like the actions of some kid who just cold cocked someone to the ground and who is now beating their head against a concrete sidewalk and now sees the guy has a gun on his side.

Didn't know about those details?

 

I watched the whole trial. There's no evidence that Trayvon Martin sucker punched George Zimmerman either. There was a fight. We don't know who started it. We don't know how it escalated. All we know is that there was a fight, Zimmerman had a bloody nose and some damage to the back of his head which one examiner said was consistent with ONE concrete collision. What we know for a fact is that Trayvon Martin was on his way home when George Zimmerman got out of his car and CHASED him then continued to follow him after the 911 dispatcher advised against doing that.

For all we know Zimmerman caught up to Martin before he got home, interrogated him, tried to restrain him for police (grabbed his arm or something) and Trayvon, in fear for his life punched him in the face, then they fought on the ground and Zimmerman shot him for no other reason than he was losing a fight. There's no evidence for any of Zimmerman's side of the story about being sucker punched, threatened to be shot with his own gun etc. There was enough evidence to convict in this case (Zimmerman followed Martin, Trayvon Martin ends up shot dead) and at least 3 jurors were ready to find Zimmerman guilty when they were aggressively talked by other jurors in to going with Not Guilty because there wasn't enough evidence in their mind to convict of second degree murder or manslaughter.

[video=youtube;8VB8Ptyyuf0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VB8Ptyyuf0[/video]

There are plenty of holes in Zimmerman's story and no evidence that exonerates him. Those are the facts. You can feel confident in the juror's decision as much as you want (I bet you don't feel that way about OJ Simpson's murder trial verdict) but there's no basis for claiming Zimmerman is innocent.

 

Yes there was.

And that examiner was totally destroyed by the expert testimony that there were two distinct markings of seperate hits but SO WHAT, all it took was, Zimmerman didn't have to wait for a certain number of them. Martin through his own actions brought about his own death. It was Martin who confronted Zimmerman and overwhelmed him and was threatening him with serious bodily harm. There was NO evidence to refute that, your supposition and conjecture are NOT evidence.

Factually wrong and you claim to have watched the trial. Martin WAS on his way home but acting suspiciously, when he saw Zimmerman watching him he acted even more suspiciously and then ran off losing Zimmerman. He told the girl friend several times he had lost the guy and then told her he was back at that apartment. "Chase" implies a desire to catch. Zimmerman wasn't chasing Zimmerman he was, AS HE WAS REQUESTED, trying to let the dispatcher know which way he ran. And Zimmerman had no idea where Martin was and was passed the T junction when the dispatcher advised him not to follow Martin. There was no following afterwards because Martin wasn't even around, Zimmerman then turned to head back to his truck.

So get your facts straight.

You just proved you don't know what you are talking about. What happened was clearly laid out in court, your suppositions and conjecture do NOT change the facts of the case.

Martin made it back to the apartment, instead of going inside he went back to the T junction and there confronted and then attacked Zimmerman. Zimmerman knew the police would be arriving any second. Any attempt to restrain, or restrict or apprehend Martin would have been a criminal act on his part, he would have been arrest on the spot for doing so. For all he knew the police could have been watching him at that very moment.

But the one salient fact is Martin was threatening him with serious bodily harm or death if Zimmerman could not stop the beating. He exercised his right to self defense.

There was NO cause for Martin to attack Zimmerman, Martin made the decision to confront Zimmerman and then attack him, it cost him his life.

 

he was following him in a vehicle at night, then when noticed, stopped, then when the teen walked off he got out and followed him on foot, that would scare anyone into fight or flight mode

.

 

Where? Provide the evidence.

You have no evidence that Trayvon Martin is the one who confronted George Zimmerman and not the other way around.

That never happened. Trayvon never made it back to the apartment according to his friend. She said that Trayvon decided to speed walk home and was later confronted by Zimmerman and that she could hear a pushing sound that sounded like Trayvon was attacked. That was her testimony. She also said she could hear Zimmerman on the other end asking Trayvon what he was doing there. Nothing was said about him making it home.

What evidence do you have for that?

That's Zimmerman's story. Forensic analysis determined that his injuries were not serious and we simply do not know who started the fight. All we know for a fact is that Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin that night, there was a struggle and Trayvon Martin ended up shot dead. There's no evidence that Zimmerman acted in self defense.

You don't know that. You are speculating. Your speculation is as good as mine. There was enough evidence to convict Zimmerman of murder. His absurd story and his history of violence and lying strongly indicate that he is guilty.

 

Flight would have gotten him home. Fight was illegal and he died because of it. You are not entitled to kill someone because they are following you.

 

hindsight is 20\20, but when your in fight of flight mode, your pretty much on autopilot