“I know you feel strongly about this due to the lengthy response. Z got out, on foot, and followed him. Do you deny this? This is all there. Stalking someone is instigation. He should have just shot him imo. I think Z was right legally, but wrong in chasing him. I think they were both wrong.”
To be blunt - what an amazing amount of idiocy in so few words. On the one hand you claim that Zimmerman’s brief pursuit of Martin’s whereabouts was stalking and thus Martin had some perfect right to retaliate. Then you say Zimmerman should have just shot Martin, essentially no questions asked. Then again maybe you meant Martin should have shot Zimmerman. Whatever.
My guess is you don’t know jack squat about the case other than the most basic framework. Riddle me the answers to these simple questions:
1-How long was Zimmerman’s call to the police last?
2-Using the wind noise heard in the police recording, how long did Zimmerman continue to follow Martin after the dispatcher told Zimmerman he didn’t need him to do that?
3-What reason did Zimmerman give for cutting short the disclosure of his full address to the dispatcher?
4-How many seconds did we hear a voice screaming for help on the single 911 call before the fatal shot is heard?
5-How long after the shooting was Zimmerman brought to the police station?
6-How long was it before Tracy Martin called in a missing persons report?
7.What day of the week did the shooting occur?
I could go on and on and on and on because this is a complex case yet still a lot has gotten out into the public domain. And yet I bet you couldn’t answer most of those simple questions because you have, like so many on the left, simply come to, well, a simple conclusion without having gathered as many facts as possible to temper your opinion.
My verdict on your brief opinions offered: emotionally-charged and intellectually bankrupt.