Replies

Glad to see you've come over to the Dark Side Dirtboy. Earlier you were ranting about the idea that the only thing that matters is who hits who first. Now you'll go for the 'whoever shows murderous intent".

You still have a way to go ~ the Florida law requires only that the eventual killer "perceive a threat of lethal force'.

Put those old standards out of your mind and move into the 21st century. Martin had only to observe this armed man following him no matter which way he went. He wasn't privy to the conversation Zimmerman was having with the dispatcher.

I suppose it's OK FOR YOU to devise a personal COAN that brings Zimmerman into view first, but it's Martin who was being followed ~ and who had a right to self defense, even to the point of inflicting lethal force on his tormenter.

I find it quite difficult to believe that so many fail to be able to look at both sides. Remember, Florida law does not require you to retreat. That was repealed.

No court would agree that you have a right to inflict lethal means of self defense when your “tormenter” is walking away, even if the tormenter is “white” and the “victim” is black.

You really are an idiot. You babble nonsensically. You make up laws. You make statements about Zimmerman that border on slander (He was trespassing. He had his weapon out).

Guess what - if there were any reports of Zimmerman having his weapon out prior to a physical altercation or the CLEAR threat of a physical altercation with Martin, the cops would have arrested him. You CANNOT legally brandish a concealed weapon without cause.

So you have no proof that Zimmerman was trespassing, only your own conjecture that is clearly contrary to the facts we do know. You have NO PROOF that Zimmerman was brandishing his weapon at Martin.

Yet you continue to make such claims. While completely bastardizing clear conservative concepts of self-defense. And aligning yourself with the liberals and race pimps trying to make political hay from this event.

You are a real embarassment to FR. And you sure as heck ain't no conservative.

So what did the bus driver who Travon punched that week do wrong?

Zimmermanb was told by the 911 dispatcher to not follow the individual, to which he responded, "OK".

There is no evidence thereafter that he did any more following.

In fact, he was clearly winded at that point and indicates he was retturning to his car when he was confronted and attacked by Trayvon.

The eyewitness account of the struggle tends to support this. Given Zimmerman's injuries, given Zimmerman's account, given the corroborating account of the eyewitness, the Police reached the conclusion that it was self-defense.

Now a special investigative team will review all of that and either decide to convene a grand jury or not.

We do know that the MSM, the race baiters (Sharpton, Jackson, etc.) and even the president are using this politically and have attempted to paint the story exactly the opposite, even down to the pictures of the two individuals that they show all over the country.

Now, apparently, that is all falling apart.

Trayvon had the right to be there. Zimmerman had the right to observe and even follow him as long as he did not threaten, attack, or restrain him.

Apparently Trayvon did not like being followed, so much so that he was willing to confront and attack Zimmerman. He had no right to do that given what we know. Unless more evidence comes out showing that Zimmerman physically incited the physical attack (meaning he attacked Trayvon first), then things are looking worse and worse for Trayvon's case, or that of the people trying to show that Zimmerman deserves to be arrested...in fact who are already trying and convicting Zimmerman in the public eye.

Eyewitness accounts of the fight showing Trayvon as the attacker:

Eyewitness: Trayvon attacked Zimmerman

Picturees being shown of Trayvon and Zimmerman and how they actually appear.

Trayvon and Zimmer man as shown all over the nation by the MSM:

Trayvon and Zimmerman as they actually look recently:

Your speculation is biased by your indignation. It's very telling.

You are creating a scenario out of thin air simply to fit your belief. That is sad.

Honestly, you seem to have Mr. Zimmerman pegged as an out and out vigilante bent upon hunting down the next black person he sees on the street and outright murdering him. I'm sincerely not even trying to exaggerate. This belief of yours, which is not currently supported by any known facts, has severely tainted your judgment over this incident, IMO.

If YOU were stupid enough to start assaulting someone who was following you but not threatening you, you deserve to be shot, IMO. I've been in similar situations before, and one where a man was getting ready to draw a gun on me until I answered his question. As soon as I answered it, the situation defused and we both went on our separate ways.

Why didn't your advocate simply respond truthfully to the questions posed to him? That behavior makes me believe he was up to something. But again, I can only draw such a conclusion from the known facts, and from what we currently know, your assertions are absurd, IMO.

Martin had only to observe this armed man following him
if you imagine Zimmerman having his pistol out

What orifice are you pulling this crap out of?

You seem to be claiming that Martin KNEW Z was armed, and then that he had his pistol in hand?

A bit early to hit the bong, isn't it?