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.
Well said. But I don’t expect it to soak in. Willful ignorance is not curable in my experience. All you can do is show others how the poster in question is being a rank idiot.
Hey, I’m going to circle back around to you tomorrow night. I’m on my phone and it’s hard to read the entirety of your posts.
Since you are less rude than DirtBoy I’d be glad to hear you out.
I’m really conflicted about it.
I think if we’re giving self-defense rights to Zimmerman in this court of public opinion, why are those not awarded to Trayvon as well.