Trayvon Martin

JonnyPistachio

Blockhead wrote:

Your right we don't know for sure, or who started what, but we do know the zimmermans story consistant with the injuries and the state could not PROVE that zimmerman didn't act in self defense.
So why do you continue with your assumptions?

I know this wasnt directed at me, but this is the point ive been making all along, since none of us are on the jury, we can assume what we want all day long, because most of the facts came from a liar with a sketchy track record during the trial (Zimmerman)... Just as you said, we dont know for sure who started what .Honestly, thats the only thing I'd like Zimmerman supporters to admit. Its healthy to question Zimmerman's claims, thats all.

Gern Blansten

Blockhead wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

My point is that this person was on the jury. You weren't. She says that the jury agreed that it was unjust but that the law just didn't allow for Zimmerman to be punished.

That's what I'm saying as well.

I've got the juror on my side....you've got....nothing

Ummmm...
You need to read her quote again, the one I posted. the one you clearly left out....

"That's where I felt confused, where if a person kills someone, then you get charged for it," Maddy said. "But as the law was read to me, if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can't say he's guilty."

I don't disagree that there was no proof that he killed him intentionally.

It was a perfect crime in a sense. The guy was a cop wannabe who got to shoot his little gun after he got in over his head. That Trayvon wasn't mature enough to just let it go (if you believe that he confronted Zimmerman by choice) shouldn't result in the loss of his life. He was taking Skittles home to his little brother....that was his mission. Zimmerman decided to get involved in his mission.

Blockhead

JonnyPistachio wrote:

That's why is a fascinating and tough case to me. and thats also why rape, to me is a differnt story...it would definitely depend on the factors leading to that rape. For instance, if a guy comes out of the bushes and growls at a woman, she might think she is about to get raped. She can therefore shoot and kill that man. But maybe he was mentally unstable and crazy and her decision was to kill him was misguided. We can talk about rape and specific rape cases if you want to start another thread, but a "speculative" idea of rape all depends on the factors and the situation.

For some reason your having an extremely hard time grasping what is and what isn't against the law.
growling at someone - Is not illegal, and also not "life threatening"
Your neighbor tapping you on the shoulder - is not illegal, and also not "life threatening" (since in your scenario your trying to conclude the something as an innocent tap from an innocent person, may catch someone off guard and cause them to kill them out of perceived self defense.)

Attacking/Assaulitng someone - IS illegal - Also it is life threatening if someone is on top of you (while your in a helpless position) hitting and slamming your head into the concrete. The concrete in this scenario can also be used as a weapon. (which is what treyvon did)

My point on the rape analogy which you still can't seem to get.
If the rapist has you on the ground taking his pants off trying to pin you down to rape you and then rips your blouse. According to you a ripped blouse is not a sever enough injury or action to defend your self with a gun.
Just like you said that zimmerman with martin on top of punching him in the nose/slamming his head into the concrete yet only leaves scrapes and a broken nose.
According to you a punch in the face not a sever enough injury or action to defend your self with a gun.
So in both of these cases the injuries are minimal, and I assume since your consistent, that in both of these instances that using a gun to shoot/kill the person on top of you out of fear for your life (self defense) is both excessive and should be charged with manslaughter right?

Blockhead

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

Your right we don't know for sure, or who started what, but we do know the zimmermans story consistant with the injuries and the state could not PROVE that zimmerman didn't act in self defense.
So why do you continue with your assumptions?

I know this wasnt directed at me, but this is the point ive been making all along, since none of us are on the jury, we can assume what we want all day long, because most of the facts came from a liar with a sketchy track record during the trial (Zimmerman)... Just as you said, we dont know for sure who started what .Honestly, thats the only thing I'd like Zimmerman supporters to admit. Its healthy to question Zimmerman's claims, thats all.

That's fine to question his claims. But you still need to prove that he was guilty, which they couldn't,

And for someone who continually bashes Zimmerman for a sketchy track record and continually calls him a liar, let me remind you this his story is consistent with the facts of the trial and the injuries, to which the pathologist testified to.
So you continually call him a liar, yet his story held up to all the evidence produced in the court room.

So again, why are you wanting him to prove his innocence.
Because that is what you are doing, your basically saying " you killed someone, I don't believe you, prove your innocence"


Which again, is not how the court works, nor should it work that way...

Gern Blansten

Blockhead wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

My point is that this person was on the jury. You weren't. She says that the jury agreed that it was unjust but that the law just didn't allow for Zimmerman to be punished.

That's what I'm saying as well.

I've got the juror on my side....you've got....nothing

So what your saying is people don't have the right to defend them selves.
That any time you kill someone, even if they are trying to kill you or your family you should be convicted of murder?

I'm saying that there is no proof that Trayvon was trying to kill him. His injuries don't jive. Someone on the verge of being killed that doesn't need medical attention? come on....

I think it's more likely that Zimmerman hit his head on the concrete when he went down initially. There was only a small cut on his head. Trayvon may have been swinging some fists at him which resulted in his head making contact with the concrete but I don't believe his injuries show that his head was being slammed multiple times on the sidewalk.

Zimmerman outweighed the kid...Trayvon was tall and skinny, no way Zimmerman couldn't have taken control and ended the confrontation without killing him. He panicked like a little cop wannabe prick and shot him.

Blockhead

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

Your right we don't know for sure, or who started what, but we do know the zimmermans story consistant with the injuries and the state could not PROVE that zimmerman didn't act in self defense.
So why do you continue with your assumptions?

I know this wasnt directed at me, but this is the point ive been making all along, since none of us are on the jury, we can assume what we want all day long, because most of the facts came from a liar with a sketchy track record during the trial (Zimmerman)... Just as you said, we dont know for sure who started what .Honestly, thats the only thing I'd like Zimmerman supporters to admit. Its healthy to question Zimmerman's claims, thats all.

I also want to ask this question:
You keep making assumptions that Zimmerman made all these bad decisions, was a liar, sketchy track record, etc... And you seem more than eager to assume that Zimmerman was the one to start the confrontation... And want to convict him on those alone, and discredit his story (which again, held up to the evidence)
yet by all the accounts, Zimmerman was a stand up neighbor and actively participated in the community, mentor minorities, etc.

Yet, you never make assumptions towards treyvon's judgement or actions about him attacking zimmerman first. You seem to ignore the character and image that treyvon was trying to convey. Why don't you view treyvon as the drug dealing, assultor, suspended kid for fighting, braging about being in fights, searching/buying illegal weapon (gun), racist, kid that he was?

Why is that?

Blockhead

Gern Blansten wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

My point is that this person was on the jury. You weren't. She says that the jury agreed that it was unjust but that the law just didn't allow for Zimmerman to be punished.

That's what I'm saying as well.

I've got the juror on my side....you've got....nothing

So what your saying is people don't have the right to defend them selves.
That any time you kill someone, even if they are trying to kill you or your family you should be convicted of murder?

I'm saying that there is no proof that Trayvon was trying to kill him. His injuries don't jive. Someone on the verge of being killed that doesn't need medical attention? come on....

I think it's more likely that Zimmerman hit his head on the concrete when he went down initially. There was only a small cut on his head. Trayvon may have been swinging some fists at him which resulted in his head making contact with the concrete but I don't believe his injuries show that his head was being slammed multiple times on the sidewalk.

Zimmerman outweighed the kid...Trayvon was tall and skinny, no way Zimmerman couldn't have taken control and ended the confrontation without killing him. He panicked like a little cop wannabe prick and shot him.

OK, its official...
You don't know any about the case,trial, or evidence.
Ill ask this question again, why are you continually posting questions that were answered in the court room.
You need to leave this thread.

JonnyPistachio

Blockhead wrote:

For some reason your having an extremely hard time grasping what is and what isn't against the law. No, im not, Im just pointing out that some of these situations depend on ONE persons emotional state.
growling at someone - Is not illegal, and also not "life threatening"
Your neighbor tapping you on the shoulder - is not illegal, and also not "life threatening" (since in your scenario your trying to conclude the something as an innocent tap from an innocent person, may catch someone off guard and cause them to kill them out of perceived self defense.) Like you said earlier, what is the cut off then? someone must be bleeding? I honestly felt threatened the night my neighbor came up behind me. It was similar to the night treyvon was killed. Rainy and dark. The only difference is, the neighbor touched me but didnt draw blood?

Attacking/Assaulitng someone - IS illegal - Also it is life threatening if someone is on top of you (while your in a helpless position) hitting and slamming your head into the concrete. The concrete in this scenario can also be used as a weapon. (which is what treyvon did) Of course it is, but the many, many people that questoin Zimmerman, simply wonder if Treyvon saw a gun or felt threatened as well. Have you considered whether treyvon felt threatened?

My point on the rape analogy which you still can't seem to get. Well, as I suggested, there are many ways one can rip a blouse, but if the attacker has his pants down and is about to rape a person, its evident what is happening. But where your analogy goes wrong, is there is no room for the idiotic thing we sometimes hear about rape regarding if she was asking for it, her clothes were provacative. etc (those are the worst)... meaning, that your scenario of rape completely leaves out the idea of Zimmerman (a man with a gun), following a person who might have felt threatened. Those factors CANNOT be similar to a rape case, therefore its irrelevant, sorry.

If the rapist has you on the ground taking his pants off trying to pin you down to rape you and then rips your blouse. According to you a ripped blouse is not a sever enough injury or action to defend your self with a gun.
Just like you said that zimmerman with martin on top of punching him in the nose/slamming his head into the concrete yet only leaves scrapes and a broken nose.
According to you a punch in the face not a sever enough injury or action to defend your self with a gun.
So in both of these cases the injuries are minimal, and I assume since your consistent, that in both of these instances that using a gun to shoot/kill the person on top of you out of fear for your life (self defense) is both excessive and should be charged with manslaughter right?

Injuries can be different, motive says it all. There is another factor you're leaving out, along with the important "who accosted who" angle... motive. If you want to use rape as an analogy to the Zimmerman case, then the person being raped should be tailing the rapist with a loaded gun in a dark rainy backyard too. But honestly, I get what you're saying, and I just think the two are different because of motive. and again, I think what Zimmerman did was within the law. I just think he''s a piece of shit and manslaughter was definitely something to consider.

JonnyPistachio

Blockhead wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

Your right we don't know for sure, or who started what, but we do know the zimmermans story consistant with the injuries and the state could not PROVE that zimmerman didn't act in self defense.
So why do you continue with your assumptions?

I know this wasnt directed at me, but this is the point ive been making all along, since none of us are on the jury, we can assume what we want all day long, because most of the facts came from a liar with a sketchy track record during the trial (Zimmerman)... Just as you said, we dont know for sure who started what .Honestly, thats the only thing I'd like Zimmerman supporters to admit. Its healthy to question Zimmerman's claims, thats all.

I also want to ask this question:
You keep making assumptions that Zimmerman made all these bad decisions, was a liar, sketchy track record, etc... And you seem more than eager to assume that Zimmerman was the one to start the confrontation... And want to convict him on those alone, and discredit his story (which again, held up to the evidence)
yet by all the accounts, Zimmerman was a stand up neighbor and actively participated in the community, mentor minorities, etc.

Yet, you never make assumptions towards treyvon's judgement or actions about him attacking zimmerman first. You seem to ignore the character and image that treyvon was trying to convey. Why don't you view treyvon as the drug dealing, assultor, suspended kid for fighting, braging about being in fights, searching/buying illegal weapon (gun), racist, kid that he was?

Why is that?

I already explained this. They are both pieces of shit. Its just necessary to question everything because everything Zimmerman said sounded too prefect for him to get off. he could create any scenario he wanted because he was the only survivor. he main thing that made me question him was on the recording with the dispatcher he said he'd wait by the mailboxes. From the overhead map, within minutes, he was very far from that area, following treyvon. Hes not trustworthy, is the first thing I thought when I heard each and ever thing he said. Bu thats just me judging someone describing themselves and how they carry themselves. And I also assume he wouldve never gotten out of his car without his gun. I think this mentality is pathetic and is sending our communities in the wrong direction. Its is saying its ok to accost someone, possibly provoke a fight, then kill them. (I did say "possibly" back there, trying to remain neutral.)

Gern Blansten

Blockhead wrote:

OK, its official...
You don't know any about the case,trial, or evidence.
Ill ask this question again, why are you continually posting questions that were answered in the court room.
You need to leave this thread.

What evidence are you talking about?

vant0037

Being proven "not guilty" is not synonymous with "innocence." A jury of Zimmerman's peers found that there was insufficient evidence to convict, but it doesn't mean he was simultaneously innocent. A lot people seem to be having a hard time separating that.

I can see how those with a black and white view of the world, those who allow for no nuance or gray, would have a hard time not feeling completely vindicated by a verdict that acquitted a guy who probably championed the same gun values that they do.

But the reality is, a not-guilty verdict only meant he couldn't be convicted. It doesn't mean he was also innocent, and it certainly wasn't a stamp of approval for someone's beliefs on gun laws or self-defense laws.

The only question that was answered in the court room was whether or not the State had met it's burden of proof.

Blockhead

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

For some reason your having an extremely hard time grasping what is and what isn't against the law. No, im not, Im just pointing out that some of these situations depend on ONE persons emotional state.
growling at someone - Is not illegal, and also not "life threatening"
Your neighbor tapping you on the shoulder - is not illegal, and also not "life threatening" (since in your scenario your trying to conclude the something as an innocent tap from an innocent person, may catch someone off guard and cause them to kill them out of perceived self defense.) Like you said earlier, what is the cut off then? someone must be bleeding? I honestly felt threatened the night my neighbor came up behind me. It was similar to the night treyvon was killed. Rainy and dark. The only difference is, the neighbor touched me but didnt draw blood?

Attacking/Assaulitng someone - IS illegal - Also it is life threatening if someone is on top of you (while your in a helpless position) hitting and slamming your head into the concrete. The concrete in this scenario can also be used as a weapon. (which is what treyvon did) Of course it is, but the many, many people that questoin Zimmerman, simply wonder if Treyvon saw a gun or felt threatened as well. Have you considered whether treyvon felt threatened?

My point on the rape analogy which you still can't seem to get. Well, as I suggested, there are many ways one can rip a blouse, but if the attacker has his pants down and is about to rape a person, its evident what is happening. But where your analogy goes wrong, is there is no room for the idiotic thing we sometimes hear about rape regarding if she was asking for it, her clothes were provacative. etc (those are the worst)... meaning, that your scenario of rape completely leaves out the idea of Zimmerman (a man with a gun), following a person who might have felt threatened. Those factors CANNOT be similar to a rape case, therefore its irrelevant, sorry.

If the rapist has you on the ground taking his pants off trying to pin you down to rape you and then rips your blouse. According to you a ripped blouse is not a sever enough injury or action to defend your self with a gun.
Just like you said that zimmerman with martin on top of punching him in the nose/slamming his head into the concrete yet only leaves scrapes and a broken nose.
According to you a punch in the face not a sever enough injury or action to defend your self with a gun.
So in both of these cases the injuries are minimal, and I assume since your consistent, that in both of these instances that using a gun to shoot/kill the person on top of you out of fear for your life (self defense) is both excessive and should be charged with manslaughter right?

Injuries can be different, motive says it all. There is another factor you're leaving out, along with the important "who accosted who" angle... motive. If you want to use rape as an analogy to the Zimmerman case, then the person being raped should be tailing the rapist with a loaded gun in a dark rainy backyard too. But honestly, I get what you're saying, and I just think the two are different because of motive. and again, I think what Zimmerman did was within the law. I just think he''s a piece of shit and manslaughter was definitely something to consider.

Your not going to believe this, but people that have CC, carry guns on them. Nothing illegal or "motive" about someone who legally register their gun and pays the permit to have a CC.

Your also not going to believe this. Some people, me included. Will following a suspicious person in their neighborhood, especially one that had an entire binder full of criminal activity (thefts/break-ins) submitted to the court to show the "motive" of why zimmerman would follow the suspicious person and CALL THE POLICE.

your making assumptions for the actions zimmerman took and trying to turn them into motives. The STATE tried to do the same thing if you actually watch/read the trial. and guess what there is/was no evidence in those assumptions.

Your also seem to be forgetting one important aspect. Zimmerman account of the story held up to all the evidence in court. (Which is why the state kept changing their charges) Zimmerman was near the T when he said "OK" to the dispatcher. 4 minutes later when the attack began, he was near the T. This timeline was proven thoroughly based on a variety of evidence.

Blockhead

vant0037 wrote:

Being proven "not guilty" is not synonymous with "innocence." A jury of Zimmerman's peers found that there was insufficient evidence to convict, but it doesn't mean he was simultaneously innocent. A lot people seem to be having a hard time separating that.

I can see how those with a black and white view of the world, those who allow for no nuance or gray, would have a hard time not feeling completely vindicated by a verdict that acquitted a guy who probably championed the same gun values that they do.

But the reality is, a not-guilty verdict only meant he couldn't be convicted. It doesn't mean he was also innocent, and it certainly wasn't a stamp of approval for someone's beliefs on gun laws or self-defense laws.

The only question that was answered in the court room was whether or not the State had met it's burden of proof.

Self defense. They couldn't prove that he didn't act in self defense. It is pretty black and white...

vant0037

Blockhead wrote:

vant0037 wrote:

Being proven "not guilty" is not synonymous with "innocence." A jury of Zimmerman's peers found that there was insufficient evidence to convict, but it doesn't mean he was simultaneously innocent. A lot people seem to be having a hard time separating that.

I can see how those with a black and white view of the world, those who allow for no nuance or gray, would have a hard time not feeling completely vindicated by a verdict that acquitted a guy who probably championed the same gun values that they do.

But the reality is, a not-guilty verdict only meant he couldn't be convicted. It doesn't mean he was also innocent, and it certainly wasn't a stamp of approval for someone's beliefs on gun laws or self-defense laws.

The only question that was answered in the court room was whether or not the State had met it's burden of proof.

Self defense. They couldn't prove that he didn't act in self defense. It is pretty black and white...

Sure. Reread your statement though. "They couldn't prove that he didn't act in self defense." Just because the negative of something isn't proven, does not mean that the positive is.

In other words, just because the State couldn't prove he didn't act in self-defense does not mean that he DID act in self-defense. The State had the burden and they could not meet it, according to the Constitutionally-mandated jury of his peers. That jury was charged only with determining whether the State met it's burden. Period. They passed no judgment on whether he was actually innocent or whether he acted in self-defense, so why do you continue to?

You've waged a long argument in this thread on the premise that because the State didn't meet it's burden, Mr. Zimmerman therefore must either be innocent or have acted in self-defense or both. Legally, that's untrue because the jury was not tasked with finding innocence, they were tasked with measuring evidence to the standard of proof. Logically, that's not true because again, absence of proof for the negative does not necessitate a finding of the positive. In short, "not guilty" is not the equivalent of "innocent."

The only question that was answered in that courtroom was whether the State met it's burden. There are no other conclusions to be drawn about gun laws, self-defense laws or what really happened that night.

JonnyPistachio

Blockhead wrote:

Your not going to believe this, but people that have CC, carry guns on them. Nothing illegal or "motive" about someone who legally register their gun and pays the permit to have a CC.

Your also not going to believe this. Some people, me included. Will following a suspicious person in their neighborhood, especially one that had an entire binder full of criminal activity (thefts/break-ins) submitted to the court to show the "motive" of why zimmerman would follow the suspicious person and CALL THE POLICE.
Yes, you call the police, follow the directions from dispatch, and let the POLICE do their job at some point.

your making assumptions for the actions zimmerman took and trying to turn them into motives. The STATE tried to do the same thing if you actually watch/read the trial. and guess what there is/was no evidence in those assumptions. Well, the only two things we have are our assumptions, and/or believing a proven liar who acted sketchy.

Your also seem to be forgetting one important aspect. Zimmerman account of the story held up to all the evidence in court. THERE"S ZERO EVIDENCE WHETHER TREYVON FELT THREATENED or NOT CAUSE HE'S DEAD (Which is why the state kept changing their charges) Zimmerman was near the T when he said "OK" to the dispatcher. 4 minutes later when the attack began, he was near the T. This timeline was proven thoroughly based on a variety of evidence. Yes, and he went against all the directions of the professionals.

thats fine and dandy, but if you carry a gun, you should consider what might happen if you put yourself in that situation. I just hope people with CC learned something from this case (as well as hot-headed teenagers). Its simply not worth it to go too far. Zimmerman's decisions were obviously poor decisions and MArtin was doing nothing wrong,,,What Zimmerman did was simply unnecessary (obviously form the facts of the case, skittles, drink and NBA game was his plan apparently) following martin on foot (mayb in the car is OK)., and if you did the same things as Zimemrman did, getting out of the car and following a kid in the dark and rain, I'd label you or anyone else an idiot.

Plase answer me this -- If you were in the same situation, you're telling me you'd do the same things as Zimmerman??

Blockhead

vant0037 wrote:

Sure. Reread your statement though. "They couldn't prove that he didn't act in self defense." Just because the negative of something isn't proven, does not mean that the positive is.

In other words, just because the State couldn't prove he didn't act in self-defense does not mean that he DID act in self-defense. The State had the burden and they could not meet it, according to the Constitutionally-mandated jury of his peers. That jury was charged only with determining whether the State met it's burden. Period. They passed no judgment on whether he was actually innocent or whether he acted in self-defense, so why do you continue to?

You've waged a long argument in this thread on the premise that because the State didn't meet it's burden, Mr. Zimmerman therefore must either be innocent or have acted in self-defense or both. Legally, that's untrue because the jury was not tasked with finding innocence, they were tasked with measuring evidence to the standard of proof. Logically, that's not true because again, absence of proof for the negative does not necessitate a finding of the positive. In short, "not guilty" is not the equivalent of "innocent."

The only question that was answered in that courtroom was whether the State met it's burden. There are no other conclusions to be drawn about gun laws, self-defense laws or what really happened that night.

Whats your point with this. Everyone knows Zimmerman is guilty of killing someone, its whether it was in self defense or not.
What your saying could be said about any criminal case ever, since you have to prove guilt based on the evidence in the case.
So whats your point in posting this? I think everybody on this planet knows that your guilt/innocence in court will always come down to the evidence present or lack there of.

People can only go by what evidence is presented in court, unless your a fan of making assumptions.

JonnyPistachio

Blockhead wrote:

vant0037 wrote:

Sure. Reread your statement though. "They couldn't prove that he didn't act in self defense." Just because the negative of something isn't proven, does not mean that the positive is.

In other words, just because the State couldn't prove he didn't act in self-defense does not mean that he DID act in self-defense. The State had the burden and they could not meet it, according to the Constitutionally-mandated jury of his peers. That jury was charged only with determining whether the State met it's burden. Period. They passed no judgment on whether he was actually innocent or whether he acted in self-defense, so why do you continue to?

You've waged a long argument in this thread on the premise that because the State didn't meet it's burden, Mr. Zimmerman therefore must either be innocent or have acted in self-defense or both. Legally, that's untrue because the jury was not tasked with finding innocence, they were tasked with measuring evidence to the standard of proof. Logically, that's not true because again, absence of proof for the negative does not necessitate a finding of the positive. In short, "not guilty" is not the equivalent of "innocent."

The only question that was answered in that courtroom was whether the State met it's burden. There are no other conclusions to be drawn about gun laws, self-defense laws or what really happened that night.

Whats your point with this. Everyone knows Zimmerman is guilty of killing someone, its whether it was in self defense or not.
What your saying could be said about any criminal case ever, since you have to prove guilt based on the evidence in the case.
So whats your point in posting this? I think everybody on this planet knows that your guilt/innocence in court will always come down to the evidence present or lack there of.

People can only go by what evidence is presented in court, unless your a fan of making assumptions.

I think its a point to consider in relation to what the jurors said after the case, but we all know you dont care about that... Personally, I think there was little evidence of anything aside form Zimmermans injuries and his claims that had to do with the provocation of the fight. It's a case where there are a lot of unanswered questions and even the jurors were upset and questioning their own decisions. I believe one juror said they were forced to not guilty, but felt an injustice. Its just interesting to the specifics of this case. Its easy to see why its not black and white to some people...as seen in the Casey Anthony case as well - the laws arent perfect.

Blockhead

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

Your not going to believe this, but people that have CC, carry guns on them. Nothing illegal or "motive" about someone who legally register their gun and pays the permit to have a CC.

Your also not going to believe this. Some people, me included. Will following a suspicious person in their neighborhood, especially one that had an entire binder full of criminal activity (thefts/break-ins) submitted to the court to show the "motive" of why zimmerman would follow the suspicious person and CALL THE POLICE.
Yes, you call the police, follow the directions from dispatch, and let the POLICE do their job at some point.
Nothing wrong or illegal with what Zimmerman did, dispatch have no authority and you should also know what dispatch specifically said, which was "Ok, we don't NEED you to do that". They weren't giving him a command or an order. You must have gotten your information from one of the media outlets that doctored the audio tapes.
your making assumptions for the actions zimmerman took and trying to turn them into motives. The STATE tried to do the same thing if you actually watch/read the trial. and guess what there is/was no evidence in those assumptions. Well, the only two things we have are our assumptions, and/or believing a proven liar who acted sketchy.
Ill go with the evidence, and the word of someone who's story matched the evidence. I think that it is a much safer and smarter option than leaning towards assumptions.
Your also seem to be forgetting one important aspect. Zimmerman account of the story held up to all the evidence in court. THERE"S ZERO EVIDENCE WHETHER TREYVON FELT THREATENED or NOT CAUSE HE'S DEAD It does not matter if Treyvon felt threatened, that does not give you the right to attack someone who is doing nothing illegal or threatening. (Which is why the state kept changing their charges) Zimmerman was near the T when he said "OK" to the dispatcher. 4 minutes later when the attack began, he was near the T. This timeline was proven thoroughly based on a variety of evidence. Yes, and he went against all the directions of the professionals.

What professional directions did he go against. Please quote...

thats fine and dandy, but if you carry a gun, you should consider what might happen if you put yourself in that situation. I just hope people with CC learned something from this case (as well as hot-headed teenagers). Its simply not worth it to go too far. Zimmerman's decisions were obviously poor decisions and MArtin was doing nothing wrong,,,What Zimmerman did was simply unnecessary (obviously form the facts of the case, skittles, drink and NBA game was his plan apparently) following martin on foot (mayb in the car is OK)., and if you did the same things as Zimemrman did, getting out of the car and following a kid in the dark and rain, I'd label you or anyone else an idiot.
Zimmerman may not have made the best decision, but still, its not a decision where you lose your right to self defense. I think the skittles and drink according to Treyvons own facebook messages was more for drug use. But please keep painting him as this innocent child.
Plase answer me this -- If you were in the same situation, you're telling me you'd do the same things as Zimmerman??

I don't know what I would do in the "same situation" but I will tell you that, I have asked teens before, what they were up to when I walked my dog on friday and saturday nights. We've had vandals in our neighborhood and its also a development neighborhood meaning there is only about 15 - 20 houses and several that are in the process of being built. Most roads are dead ends right now because "most" of the neighborhood is not developed, so if/when it has happened, i do my community service by looking out for both my neighbors and the builder because they also get alot of building materials stolen. I don't go out of my way to follow or pursue, but I will certainly ask questions to someone I've never seen before. I do that alot at our community pool. Its only for people of the neighborhood as part of our HOA fees, there have been many times where people will sneak in or jump the fence at night and go swimming, so I will ask If I feel something isn't right...

JonnyPistachio

Blockhead, I heard the original tapes of the phone conversation , not the doctored ones. Those were the directions from the professionals, whose job it is to connect the citizens with police. They suggested Zimmerman wait near an identifiable place. he said the mailboxes will do. Then he went in the opposite directions to pursue Martin. I know he didnt do anything illegal according to his story. Im fully aware of that.

It very much does matter if Treyvon felt threatened. If he saw a person following him with a gun, a jury might think his rights to self defense included kicking Zimmerman's ass.

And for one who condones the shit out of others assumptions, I find it really wired that you'd assume the skittles were for this drug concoction.

There's a right an wrong way to ask questions and keep an eye on your community. Zimmerman also likely knew this since he was citizen watch guy... But I'm really glad to hear you wouldnt pursue as Zimmerman did. And I bet most CC wouldnt have done what Zimmerman did. At least, I hope.

Its Evolution Baby

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Blockhead, I heard the original tapes of the phone conversation , not the doctored ones. Those were the directions from the professionals, whose job it is to connect the citizens with police. They suggested Zimmerman wait near an identifiable place. he said the mailboxes will do. Then he went in the opposite directions to pursue Martin. I know he didnt do anything illegal according to his story. Im fully aware of that.

It very much does matter if Treyvon felt threatened. If he saw a person following him with a gun, a jury might think his rights to self defense included kicking Zimmerman's ass.

And for one who condones the shit out of others assumptions, I find it really wired that you'd assume the skittles were for this drug concoction.

There's a right an wrong way to ask questions and keep an eye on your community. Zimmerman also likely knew this since he was citizen watch guy... But I'm really glad to hear you wouldnt pursue as Zimmerman did. And I bet most CC wouldnt have done what Zimmerman did. At least, I hope.

Let me add who cares what the skittles were being used for. Who cares if Trayvon was high as a kite. That is the least important thing about this case. And I totally agree in a thread FULL of assumptions that is the ultimate assumption.