I’m not ignoring everything!
I did think he was 14, I posted that I stand corrected on his age.
Why did Zimmerman have a right to follow Trayvon, but Trayvon is not afforded the same?
Why did Zimmerman have a right of self-defense that you are unwilling to give to Trayvon?
Zimmerman got out of the truck to follow Trayvon: ok with you.
Trayvon comes out of the house to confront the weird guy following him: not ok with you.
Zimmerman did not assault Trayvon, you moron. Zimmerman posed no danger to Trayvon when Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman, Zimmerman was walking away. Gawd, you are too stupid to be a conservative with this mindset. If you cannot figure out the difference, please, do us a favor. Get the flock off this website. The rest of us are smart enough not to fall for the typical liberal narrative.
OK, I'll keep this simple. Who followed, and who later initiated assault after not being followed any longer.
Extra credit - do you think sucker-punching someone and bashing their head against the pavement is considered a potentially deadly assault?
I really hope you do not have a concealed carry permit, as you have no concept of a rational response to attempted deadly force. And I think you are the only FReeper I have ever said that to.
Right. You acknowledged getting his age wrong. The rest of the stuff has been answered and you ignore the answers. Why?
Let's go over this again.
"Why did Zimmerman have a right to follow Trayvon, but Trayvon is not afforded the same?"
Meaningless question. Trayvon's right to follow isn't in dispute. His right to kill someone is.
"Why did Zimmerman have a right of self-defense that you are unwilling to give to Trayvon?"
Another meaningless question. Everyone has a right to self-defense. But only Trayvon attacked someone, so only Zimmerman's right to defend himself has any bearing.
"Zimmerman got out of the truck to follow Trayvon: ok with you."
You can dispute the propriety or wisdom of doing so, but so what? Does getting out of the truck mean Trayvon had the right to kill him? Answer the question.
"Trayvon comes out of the house to confront the weird guy following him: not ok with you."
Again, you could dispute the wisdom of confronting him, and if that's all Trayvon did we wouldn't be talking about this. But Trayvon tried to kill Zimmerman. Why do you keep avoiding that fact?
This is the thing. You avoid the things the interfere with your narrative, and mix up grossly different actions as if they were the same thing. Following someone is not beating their head in. Getting out of your truck is not attempted murder. Deal with the actual facts.