It was a dispatcher who told him he did not need to follow Trayvon and George said he had lost him and was returning to his car. It seem that then Trayvon doubled back and attacked George.
The cops say Z should have talked to M. But...had he done that and M attacked him, he would have been accused of confronting M with fighting words. Z handled it correctly in keeping his distance and just trying to see where M went for the police.
In hindsight, it would have been better for Z not to have followed him for location information. But it was not an unreasonable thing to do either. If any one of us could repeat events in our lives with the benefit of hind sight, that would be ideal. Also, remember the cops were probably angry at Z because he stood up against them when they beat a homeless man.
I think it was a good thing that he followed him. Based upon what happened I think Zimmerman did our society a big favor by removing a thug from society. He also most likely saved someone else’s life by removing Trayvon from the gene pool, the kid was going to kill someone in the future based upon his attitude.
I'm sick of paying for cops to babysit communities of out-of-control young people from fatherless homes. I'm sick of cops ignoring the protection of those who foot the bills for their pay and pensions. I'm sick of cops blaming people trying to protect their own communities BECAUSE they aren't doing their job. We're paying security companies to monitor our homes, forming community watch groups and the cops are babysitting the black community - ON OUR DIME?
This has to stop.
> Charge for 'cop service' the same way the city changes for water - by how much is used.
If the 'communities' that use all the cop service can't afford to pay, then fire the cops. They're not protecting honest citizens anyhow - and the babysitting costs are too high.
I forgot about Z standing up to the cops on that incident. And boy....cops stick together. We had 2 disgusting cases here...one involving a police chief...and another...a drunk cop hit and run
“In hindsight, it would have been better for Z not to have followed him for location information. But it was not an unreasonable thing to do either.”
Heck, pretend it was unreasonable. What’s the difference? You’re allowed to be as stupid as you want without breaking the law. Doing something that in hindsight was misguided because it would eventually lead someone committing a crime against you—i.e. assuming Martin attacked Zimmerman; again, it could have been the other way around, but according to our legal system the burden of proof is on the state; since they have no evidence Zimmerman started it they are going to rely on his perfectly legal mistakes—does not remove your right to self-defense.
This stuff about Zimmerman precipitating it by following and confronting and leaving his truck is blaming the victim, and it makes me sick. It makes me hear prosecutors in my head asking, “Why were you wearing such a short skirt that night, ma’am?...How many sexual partners have you had in the past?”