Posted on 07/22/2013 10:14:41 AM PDT by RinaseaofDs
I never once referred to the dispatcher.
I did refer to the juror interviewed, so I’m not sure what you are talking about.
The juror said Zimmerman erred in judgment by leaving his vehicle in the first place, regardless of his right to do so, and regardless of his desire to protect his neighborhood.
You referred to the dispatcher. The dispatcher wasn’t on the jury.
And I answered your question already.....
He must have. After all, he was headed BACK to his vehicle when Trayvon 'approached' him (for the second time).
“advice” (noun)
Stop repeating this lie told by the racists. It didn't happen.
My mistake.
Stop making false claims.
RE: simple George headed back to the mail boxes to meet the police (part of the testimony and tapes played in the trial) and during that effort he was attacked by a thug who was bashing his head into the ground after breaking his nose
That was George Zimmerman’s version of the story ( which I believe ).
Jack Cashill:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/06/getting_the_facts_straight_in_the_zimmerman_case.html
Zimmerman picked up the written narrative: “The dispatcher told me not to follow the suspect & that an officer was on the way. As I headed back to my vehicle the suspect emerged from the darkness and said, ‘You got a problem?’” When Zimmerman answered “No,” the suspect said, “You do now.”
If the above is correct, Trayvon was the one who followed Zimmerman BACK to his car.
Has Hitler appeared in this thread yet?
Totally agree.
Let add another little nugget of logic:
Eric Holder and Obama claiming “Stand Your ground” laws are what contributed to Zimmerman shooting Trayvon means asking if Trayvon felt Zimmerman was a threat why didn’t Trayvon flee. I mean, Trayvon already escaped Zimmerman’s watch and could easily have ran home the rest of the way, but, instead, Trayvon confronted and attacked Zimmerman. According to Holder and Obama, Trayvon should have fled.
In modern America, a prudent citizen should know to remain in their vehicle, doors locked, and windows up, when there are young black males known to be in the vicinity.What does this say about our society? Are we living in a drive through Safari Park?
If we get out of our vehicles we deserve what we get and shouldn’t blame the attacker, much less shoot them in self-defense?
People are foaming at the mouth calling George Zimmerman a racist while at the same time saying he’s at fault for not following the rules on the Safari Park safety brochure.
Those questions he asked Zimmerman seem to be contradictory.
Blacks are the major beneficiaries of SYG laws.
When Crump, Holder, Obama and other racists want Stand your Ground laws repealed - they mean only for white people.
I know it was at least consistent with the tape where he said to the dispatcher I don’t see him now. The dispatcher says do you want to meet them (meaning the police) near the mail boxes? and Zimmerman replied yes. That was on the tapes played in court and what the dispatcher testified to.
Since that is consistent with Zimmerman’s story why shouldn’t I believe it?
The evidence supports it. Moreover the previous commenter had it right. The dispatcher is not a police officer. All they can do is suggest. Zimmerman is not required to obey the dispatcher. The point of the original post was that Zimmerman had every right to protect his neighborhood.
“Stop repeating this lie told by the racists. It didn’t happen.”
Where did I once say this?
I said that A JUROR SAID THAT ZIMMERMAN SHOULD HAVE STAYED IN HIS CAR!!
Does anybody read before posting any more?
Came from the juror’s own interview on Fox News. First vote, they all had him guilty of something, based upon the foundational argument in their own minds that HE SHOULD HAVE STAYED IN THE CAR.
Not an assertion - statement of fact.
It was on Hannity, do your own homework.
Those were your words. That is a far jump from "he should have stayed in the car". Yes the whole thing would not have happened if he stayed in the car. That is far different than saying he was nearly guilty of murder because he got out of the car.
Read your own words. They are not supported by anything.
Actually I think the analogy is pretty good.
And for all of you posting that George was never instructed to stay in his car ... you're right.
The problem is, dozens of ignoramus commentators (and even so-called legal analysts) continue to repeat that claim, even now after all the audio evidence came out at trial.
So not only do we as truth-tellers have an ongoing task to refute that piece of mythology:
but we also have a duty to point out how absurd it is to demand that a law-abiding citizen --somehow-- "has no right" to get out of his own car, in his own neighborhood, when he sees something that looks wrong.
And I thought RinaseaofDs did a pretty good job of pointing that out.
The juror I listened to said the first vote was split 3-2-1. 3 to acquit, 2 for manslaughter, and 1 for 2nd degree murder.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.