Where's your proof that TM attacked first, all you have is that gz claimed to be the one that was attacked by martin which can't be proven cause you only have one side of the story.
I don't know if you've ever been to a public high school but kids fight a lot. Fact is, since we are going on facts here. Trayvon had no juvenile record. According to his teacher he was a normal kid. A kid who was interested in flying planes and junk. Was he perfect? No, find me anyone that's perfect or even close to it at 17...hell even at 50. He didn't have a juvenile record. Attacking people? That's a bit of a stretch unless you were attending the school. Reading the text messages it sounds like these were your standard public high-school fights. Where two guys meet somewhere after school...a crowd shows up...and they engage in some useless fighting that they hopefully will learn from the experience how dumb it is. Perhaps he felt threatened that some guy was following him? If you felt like someone was following/stalking you the dumbest thing to do would be to go to your house. The law said OJ was innocent too. Perhaps you should think on your own, the law isn't 100% right with every case. Especially when both sides cannot be told. There is a reason why oragnized criminals kill witnesses.
Ah yes, he felt threatened by someone a football field away so clearly the smart thing to do is assault them..... He was already at his house, if he goes in and calls the cops, or goes in and gets a weapon and keeps a lookout, he's still alive today. The ONLY way the kid ends up dead is by heading after Zimmerman and attacking him. There's literally no defending what he did....yet here you are.
Actually, I didn't defend him confronting Zimmerman at all. So try again. But you think it's okay to stalk people even when you are told by the police not to?
If only you were truly as stubborn to side with facts as you claim you are, you would be a respectable poster. The fact that you want to talk about 'Facts' is hilarious considering the amount of science denying you do. Actually should be noted that the law didn't find Zimmerman innocent, they found that there was not enough evidence to convict him of 2nd degree murder. The Juror's own words were that they felt Zimmerman was guilty and at least half to blame but that there was not enough evidence to convict him as the law was read to them. But i'll remember the staunch "Court of Law is always right" people for the future.
Then good, we're in agreement that Martin was wrong in attacking Zimmerman and that his fate was well deserved. Scumbag attacked scumbag and one ended up dead. IMO the only better result would have been if both ended up not breathing.
Nope, I didn't say Martin deserved to die and don't put that to my name. Not sure how you squeezed that out of my post. I just said that he wasn't right in confronting him. Difference is you think it's cool for Zimmerman to stalk people and seem confused as to how someone may feel threatened when being followed by a stranger. It's truly telling though that you think it's a good result that he's dead.
It's not illegal to walk around a neighborhood, it is illegal to walk up to someone and attack them. .....and yes, I do think the world is very likely a better place today with him being dead. He won't get a chance to attack anyone else (for example, he was planning on making another attack on someone who "snitched" on him...alas he never got the chance) and it's good that he never got a chance to progress enough as a "gangsta" (his words) to where he was using the .380 he was planning on owning jointly with another kid. There is nothing tragic about this case, this is how natural selection is supposed to work....the only problem is that Zimmerman made it.
Yes, "kids" do stupid things and sometimes there are consequences for their actions. I don't think it's a tragedy when a fairly awful person ends up dead due to being a fairly awful person. If you do, that's fine, perhaps you just have more of a bleeding heart than I do.
That's one opinion that I believe not many share. Bobby is in a unique group along with Zimmerman there.
Don't sell people short, I'm sure a lot of people think that even if they don't have the courage to admit it since he's been falsely branded as a victim. I'm sure there is a decent enough population out there that are capable of dispassionate logical thinking even when it comes to emotional issues who would come to the same obvious conclusion I did.
You should know that the Juror's do not seem to agree with your line of thinking on this. They simply thought that there was not enough evidence to convict Zimmerman of 2nd degree murder, although a few of them came out as saying they wished they could have found him guilty. You claim that you have dispassionate logical thinking yet won't even admit that Zimmerman was wrong in following and basically stalking Trayvon. You just cling to Zimmerman's side of the story 100% and are claiming that you are the dispassionate logical thinker here. Until you also admit that Zimmerman could have easily just went about his day instead of trying to play vigilante, you don't get to claim the role of dispassionate logical thinker in this.
I believe most people have compassion in their heart. Even those that believe what Zimmerman did was fully justify, would have enough compassion to feel the suffering of his loved one and parent for a lost of a child and wouldn't go where you often go. You have showed a pattern of lack of compassion from repeated statements of the world is better place for a death of a child or adult or a even whole people, including million of innocents. I really doubt many people are like you.
There was no evidence whatsoever which is why even those who may have "wanted to" convict an innocent man based on emotional nonsense, in the end couldn't. I think that says it all. You want me to say that walking around in a public area is "wrong"? C'mon man, that's a ridiculous argument. The ONLY person that actually did anything wrong was Martin when he assaulted Zimmerman. Sorry, but you'd probably realize that if you weren't blinded by emotion or whatever it is that is clouding your judgement on the issue.
Except even the Juror who was said to have believed the defense all the way admits that Zimmerman was in the wrong too. Something you can't even admit too. Yet I'm the one clouded by emotional judgement? Difference is I'm not naive enough to believe Zimmerman's account of things. OF course he's going to say Trayvon attacked him, saying anything otherwise means he goes to prison. I also realize why the jury came to the conclusion they did. I'm not the one thinking illogically here. To believe 100% in a criminals word, that's your issue. You do seem to have a thing for Zimmerman though. I called him a racist and you came flying into the thread to excuse his clear racism. Huh? You are right. Zimmerman was out jogging through the neighborhood and Martin ambushed him out of the bushes...You do realize that it is a fact of the case that Zimmerman followed Trayvon and stalked him through the neighborhood right? In the end they should have never tried to charge him for 2nd degree murder. In the end, they couldn't prove that Zimmerman attacked Trayvon. If they could have proved that Zimmerman put his hands on Trayvon first (which couldn't be proved either way btw) then he's in prison. As it were, there wasn't much evidence at all in this case. In the end, you sound very naive. If you truly think that a court of law gets every case correct you are just wrong. The simple fact is that there wasn't enough evidence at all either way. Do you think OJ was innocent? Is Kobe innocent? Ray Lewis? What about Jena 6? Do you just think every court case once decided is correct?
