The issue here is that you believe what you do based on nothing whatsoever. The word of the only eyewitness that is consistent with 100% of the evidence is in one corner, and something you dreamed up based on nothing at all is in the other......why would any logical person think that the story you dreamed up would be the more likely? Just so we're on the same page, you do realize that there is nothing illegal about watching what someone is doing out in public right? In your mind, you seem to think that watching what someone is doing is the same as assault. It's not, one is a crime, the other is perfectly legal in almost all cases. I think in the end you are blinded by emotion. If this was a white kid getting shot while attacking a black man, you wouldn't care.....and you certainly wouldn't be suggesting that the black man looking at the white kid was justification for assault. I don't think you are intentionally blinded due to the race aspect of this case, I just think you can't help yourself. You can't remove race from the equation and see things from that perspective. It's not your fault, a lot of people fail at that. To hammer home the point, you know who Trayvon Martin is, you know who Micheal Brown is but do you know who Gilbert Flores is without having to look it up? The first two names are cases where there was no wrongdoing on the part of the shooters, the 3rd case.....well that's almost certainly murder, but how much do we talk about it? There's only one reason for that.
To be fair, by all accounts Flores was a scummy person just like Brown and Martin, and the world is likely better off without him but his death looks just a whole lot like an unjustifiable murder. Of course we'll have to wait for the 2nd video to be released before we know for 100% certainty that he's the legitimate "hands up don't shoot" case, but you don't seem worked up about that actual wrongful death as much as you are/were about two self defense cases.....
lol. Zimmerman is going to end up getting capped walking down a street if he doesn't stop his trolling. Obviously not the smartest tool in the shed.
The eyewitness accounts weren't about who started the fight. Just about whether Zimmerman was losing the fight and that was his whole defense man. That he was a wimp who couldn't fight and needed to use a gun to protect himself. I have no idea what you are talking about here. If only he was watching him, he was following him. Also, it is illegal. If he had followed him for several days it could have been classified as stalking and that is illegal. So no, it is not "Perfectly" legal at all. But I didn't say it was justification of assault. Didn't I just say that Trayvon was wrong to confront Zimmerman? Also, Zimmerman didn't simply just look at Trayvon. Look man, if you followed someone to their neighborhood you are going to scare the ____ out of them. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about that. Some people respond to fear by confronting it, it's called a fight or flight response. Including you, when's the last time you were on the side of a black victim in this forum? Even a little bit... No, there wasn't wrongdoing by Wilson in the Michael Brown case. I'm sure I've said that in another thread. If not, I'm saying it here. The main issue of that case was the media's portrayal of a case that was fully in flux. BUT with Zimmerman there was. Had he stopped when he was told by the POLICE to stop, nothing would have happened. I do know about Flores. The difference here though is that Zimmerman wasn't going to face a trial. So the parents pushed to make it public and pushed for the outcry it received.
I see you guys have really changed bobby's mind. Good work. I think if you keep posting you will change his mind eventually!
Yeah, they keep trying to push off their narrative that is based on literally no evidence whatsoever and it keeps failing. I guess they hope that if they keep repeating that narrative that somehow it will become valid one day when that obviously isn't the case. In their minds, the version of the story they dreamed up based on nothing at all is more valid than the version of the story as told by the only people that would know which is backed by 100% of all available evidence.....there's really nothing you can do to help people like that. They are truly a special breed.
You mean the version of the story as told by the juror's and witnesses and even the defense...okay then.
Bobby saying he's glad Trayvon Martin is dead (and that he deserved it) is the worst thing I've ever read on Clutchfans. That takes some doing... congratulations Bobby. I'm going to the Astros forum to read all of cangrejero51's posts to clear my head...
Bobby (and others) like to go around saying the initial Trayvon hysteria was proved wrong in the end. Tell a lie often enough and it'll be accepted as truth. I think it's worthwhile (since its cheap) to record a contradiction every time he pipes up with some BS to remind people (or educate people who weren't paying attention originally) that the matter hasn't been settled at all.
LOL what witnesses supported a story where Trayvon didn't attack Zimmerman? There's literally no evidence to suggest that Trayvon didn't attack Zimmerman. None. A baseless story dreamed up by the defense is still baseless even if some people chose to believe it. I mean 20% of Americans think that cell phones cause cancer based on no evidence whatsoever, so buying in to really stupid, baseless things isn't exactly unheard of.
You really are ignoring a whole half of the story lol. The whole case was decided based on the fact that Zimmerman was crying out for help. That he was in fear of his life and acted on that emotion. What happened before the confrontation as told by Zimmerman himself that he was told to stop following Trayvon. Actually there was not a single witness who could attest to what happened before the actual fight between Trayvon/Zimmerman. You have filled in a gap that not even the defense has. Which shows your clear bias on this case. That Trayvon hunted and attacked Zimmerman is a story that you actually made up. What we do know is that the they were fighting and that Zimmerman was calling out for help and that his head was being banged on the concrete or hit it hard enough that it was a strong piece of evidence to show that he had reason to fear for his life. I'm not the one filling in the gaps here. You are the one that falsely tells the story of this case as "Trayvon attacked Zimmerman." and that's it. That would be like you telling me "The Titanic sank." well yes, there are reasons why this happened. The fact that you won't even admit that had Zimmerman minded his own business and listened to the dispatcher that none of this would have happened shows your clear bias here and also the fact you have been arguing this case for weeks now also with another posters shows your clear emotional attachment to it as well.
When people say racist stuff on this forum against black people you don't come flying in to tell them they are wrong. So you are no better. In fact, you had jumped into this thread because I called Zimmerman a racist and you felt the need to excuse and defend him.
Him being "told" to stop following Trayvon is irrelevant because it doesn't give Martin the right to attack Zimmerman. The entire case was based on the fact that Martin attacked Zimmerman and 100% of the evidence supports that conclusion. Hey, look, you agree with me, even if you don't know it. Clearly you didn't follow the case very closely if you think this. We know Trayvon was at his house at one point, we know that he was found dead 100 yards away from that point.....how else did he get there? Did Zimmerman pick him up and carry him there? It's pretty obvious that he was going after Zimmerman especially given that his first words to him were "What the **** is your problem"....kind of an aggressive tone for someone that you think was afraid...the fact that he punched him seconds later suggests that his intent was always to attack him.....I know, you dismiss that in favor of something you dreamed up based on nothing. No, we don't know that they were "fighting" we know that Martin was beating the hell out of Zimmerman, calling it a fight would imply that he was able to fight back. The lack of "fighting" wounds on Martin supports the notion that it wasn't a fight so much as it was Martin attacking Zimmerman. I mean, that's what the evidence and testimony says....but again, you have your dreamed up version of events based on absolutely nothing at all. No, the correct analogy would be me telling you that the Titanic sunk because it hit an iceberg based on eyewitness testimony and evidence and you dreaming up some scenario where it was sunk by a submarine based on nothing at all. Again though, THERE WAS NOTHING ILLEGAL IN WHAT ZIMMERMAN DID. Literally nothing. At any point. At all. If Zimmerman hadn't left his house then none of this would have happened, if Martin hadn't gotten himself suspended from school and kicked out of his mom's house then none of this would have happened. If Martin wasn't a violent person and hadn't attacked a stranger then none of this would have happened. The fact that different scenarios would have led to this not happening is completely and totally irrelevant. Blaming Zimmerman for Martin deciding to attack him is exactly the same as blaming a rape victim for walking down a dangerous street at night. "If she had listened to those who warned her not to walk down that street at night, it wouldn't have happened" You don't blame the victim for someone attacking them.....well, you do, but you shouldn't.
I'm done after this post because just reading that first part of your post it is clear that you don't actually understand how this played out in court. The defense didn't really try to prove that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman. There is no evidence as to who actually started the fight. When Rachel Jeanteal suggested that Zimmerman grabbed hold of Trayvon first she was asked "Do you know that?" and she didn't. Because there was no proof as to what actually happened when the two people met face to face. It's all based on Zimmerman's account since he's the one alive to tell it. If you don't see how there could be any bias in that then you are just naive. The main case the defense wanted to prove and what they had evidence on was that Zimmerman was rightly in fear for his life. This they had evidence on and this is according to the Juror's own words was what stuck in the end. What the pathologist said was true was only that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman and that along with his injuries and the audio was proof that Trayvon was beating Zimmerman and that Zimmerman had proper fear for his life in that moment. This was the case. Not that Trayvon jumped out of the bushes and assualted Zimmerman. I'm sorry, but there is no proof to that story.
