If they are in your yard, you ask them to get out of your yard. If they don't, they are committing a crime. I've had the cops called on me, and have the opposite experience. I've actually had enough bad experiences with cops to know that way too many of them are total pricks. I'm not saying he should, or shouldn't have called the police. I'm just saying he didn't need to. He definitely shouldn't have gotten out of his vehicle and chased somebody who was doing nothing wrong at the time.
He had no way to know the kid wasn't doing anything wrong. That's what suspicion is all about. The neighborhood was riddled with crime. Home invasions, robbery, etc. The crime stats posted earlier in this thread are startling. If you see someone in your yard that you want to leave, I'm confused as to what you'd have that person do. You are saying here that you'd tell them to leave but throughout the thread the argument has been made that you should just call the police and let them handle it. Don't confont! Now it's confront! The reality here is this is a waste of time. A black kid is dead at the hands of a non-black adult. For a lot of people that simply means he is guilty and the facts of the case aren't even relevant.
Your argument first about the gun picture was it wasn't illegal or immoral for him to own a gun. I pointed out it was actually illegal and you returned with how do you he owned it. The goal posts will move in perpetuity.
At your house? Yes, you ask the person in your yard to leave (assuming he is walking through your yard or just standing there). If you think the person is dangerous, you call the police. I recommend not leaving the safety of your house. Don't follow the guy. No question there. For me it isn't about race. I think it played a role, but only thanks to recent break-ins by other young black males. To me it is about an adult shooting an unarmed teenager. I think George Zimmerman's story is true in substance, but sketchy in details. To me the question of Zimmerman's legal guilt is tied purely to reasonable fear for his life. Based on what we know, I think Zimmerman had other choices, and I fully believe they'd both be alive if he didn't have a gun. I of course don't know that for sure. The prosecution didn't do much regarding that point, since they were after a murder 2 verdict, which just wasn't there. Even measure in lesser terms than reasonable doubt, murder 2 was not likely. GZ has suffered as a result of his mistakes. A trial happened, and while I'm disappointed by Angela Corey's overreach, I am satisfied that the system gave it a 2nd look, and let it be decided by a jury.
And TM was just walking home from 7/11 back to watch the NBA all-star game. GZ made a mistake. Honestly I don't care if GZ was profiling TM by race or not. Nor does it matter if TM had pot in his system. The fact is, GZ should not have engaged TM in any way, or followed him, or got out of his car. And TM should never have gotten on top of GZ and hit him. The reason GZ walks - the only reason, is because TM was on top of him and was hitting him. If that wasn't the case, GZ would have been convicted regardless of what TM was carrying or his past school record.
Like I said earlier... The dispatcher twice gave GZ fuzzy direction, "Keep an eye on him", (The juror said that was brought up in the jury room) which could have led GZ to believe he needed to keep an eye TM if he was moving out of his sight. Once the dispatcher heard wind noises he then asked GZ if he was following TM and then asked that he discontinue doing so. There was no concrete (pardon the pun) evidence that GZ continued to follow TM. THere's no proof that GZ engaged with TM first. There was the Jeantel testimony that said TM confronted GZ as well as GZ's video and written statements.
The dispatcher never said that. That was pure spin by the defense. It's sad the juror believed it. The dispatcher's exact words were "Which way did he go now?". The defense suggested that was the dispatcher imploring GZ to "keep an eye on him". It would have been a complete 180 for the dispatcher to say "We don't need you to follow him" and then say "Please keep an eye on him". Jeantel absolutely did not testify that TM confronted GZ. Her exact testimony was that TM asked GZ "Why are you following me?" and then she felt GZ started the physical altercation. Again, I've never heard of anyone starting a confrontation WHILE on the telephone. It's common sense if you wanted to attack someone you'd be impaired doing so WHILE on the phone. Please cite any case where an assault has been perpetrated WHILE the attacker was on the phone if you disagree. You have to exercise common sense in these situations.
GZ never told this to the 911 Dispatcher now, did he? His exact words were "He's walking in the rain and looking about". It's truly comical how the testimony of a man with a history of lying and perjury who was on trial for his liberty (and thus had clear reasons to lie) is presented as factual evidence. Just wow. You could just as easily parrot around the bogus excuses Casey Anthony and OJ gave and say "See, they were innocent".
this photo was refuted over a year ago as not even Trayvon. even Michelle Malkin of twitchy apologized for tweeting this one out over a year ago. way to get caught up in your witchhunt against media bias and show that you just fell for false viral information hook, line, and sinker.
If I saw someone walking near houses in the pouring rain, looking about , I too would become very suspicious . People in the rain are usually head down and in a hurry to get somewhere .
Also Monday, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said a speech at the social action luncheon of the Delta Sigma Theta sorority, that he shares concerns about “the tragic, unnecessary shooting death” of Trayvon Martin last year, and he vowed to pursue a federal investigation into the matter, the Washington Post reported. Holder pledged that the Justice Department would work to “alleviate tensions, address community concerns and promote healing” in response to the case. Sounds horrible. How dare he do that? Good call tallanvor.
