You said:
Because he had no choice.
My response:
Yes, he did. He could have done what the 911 operator had told him to do and not done anything. He CHOSE not to.
You said:
The "kid" attacked him and tried to take away his gun, telling Zimmerman that he was going to die that night.
My response:
And you have a tape of this conversation? BTW, if what you claim is true, just how did Trayvon Martin KNOW that Zimmerman had a gun? Your theory is so full of holes it would be laughable if you weren't defending a thug who chased down a kid and killed him.
You said:
Okay, you appear to like the words of the 911 dispatcher an awful lot. SO lets see what was said BEFORE they said that they did not need him to "follow" anyone. The dispatcher said, "We’ve got him on the wire. Just let me know if this guy does anything else."
At that point, Zimmerman says he is running, and he gets out of his car, and starts towards where the kid ran.
My response:
So you admit that he CHOSE to get out of the car and follow a kid rather than let the cops do their job? The very least that he is guilty of is manslaughter (along with perjury), if not 2nd degree murder.
You said:
He is NOT "following" him now, he cannot SEE the kid, as the kid took off running.
My response:
So he didn't get out of the car to follow Trayvon Martin to "see where he went"? You are grasping. And not doing a very good job of it.
You said:
When the dispatcher hears Zimmerman out of breath, she says they do not need him to do that, and he begins to arrange where he will meet the police.
My response:
If Zimmerman had just remained at his vehicle, Trayvon Martin would not be dead. And Zimmerman wouldn't be in jail for killing him.
You said:
At that point, ALL of the evidence available from all sides, physical, testimony, including that of Martin's girlfriend, have Martin initiating contact. He went around the corner of the buildings, and instead of continuing down the path to the house he was going to, he double BACK and confronted Zimmerman.
My response:
So he confronted someone who was stalking him? If what you claim is true, Trayvon Martin handled his stalker incorrectly. He should have called the cops and reported the person (Zimmerman) that was stalking him and that he was afraid to lead the stalker to his home. But that didn't give Zimmerman the right to kill him. Nor does it change the fact that Zimmerman had a choice, starting with this choice to leave his vehicle and FOLLOW (which can be construed as stalking and suspicious activity to a kid) Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman is where he is now because of a situation that he created.
You said:
So, to summarize, Zimmerman was ALREADY out of his vehicle and well on his way to where the confrontation took place when he was told that they didn't need him to do that.
My response:
Okay, so Zimmerman was acting in a suspicious manner and following a kid while he was packing a gun. And completely ignored what he was told. Yep, he had a choice in what he did. And because of his choices, a kid is dead.
You said:
He passed the path between the rows of houses and was almost to the opposite street when he turned around and headed back to verify which address he was in front of when Martin confronted him.
My response:
Like you wouldn't have confronted someone who was following you on your way home.
You said:
Martin was trying to GET Zimmerman's gun.
My response:
Let's see:
Trayvon Martin, who is 17 YEARS OLD, was minding his own business walking home when a suspicious character starts following him. He did something stupid and confronted him instead of calling the cops for assistance. But that didn't give Zimmerman the right to kill him.
You said:
I hope you are able to see that you do not have to wait until someone SHOOTS you with your own gun before you can defend youself, right?
My response:
I hope that you are able to see that you do not have to wait for a suspicious person who is following you to shoot you before you try to disarm him. But I doubt it.
You said:
That one party was better armed does not indicate guilt or innocence.
My response:
His being armed isn't what he is guilty of. What he is guilty of is killing someone because of choices he made. He is, at the very least, guilty of manslaughter.
You said:
He was already OUT of the car when he was told that they did not need him to do that (for the record, they did NOT tell him to stay in the car. Matter of fact, it was a very vague statement. What did they not need him to do? Run? See the person? But DEFINITELY not stay in the car, because telling you to stay in a car you have already EXITED makes no sense.
My response:
Okay, so he had already made the CHOICE of getting out of the car. There was NOTHING vague about what he was told, though. He was told that they did not need him to do that. He should have GOTTEN BACK INTO HIS CAR. He CHOSE not to.
You said:
You know, we want to place the blame on Zimmerman,
My response:
That is where it belongs.
You said:
but if the PERFECTLY LEGAL act of getting out of your car can be blamed on the death,
My response:
That isn't why he is guilty.
You said:
ignoring the ATTACK by Martin,
My response:
IF there was an attack. To be blunt, Trayvon has the LEGAL RIGHT TO DEFEND HIMSELF. Zimmerman, an adult who should have known better, was acting in a suspicious manner. He was following Trayvon on his way home. Zimmerman had no business playing cop. He should have let the police handle it.
You said:
that Martin tried to get his gun,
My response:
Like you wouldn't try to take away the gun of some strange guy who was following you home.
You said:
etc etc, why not go a little further. This "kid" had been suspended three times in less than 6 months.
My response:
So? Still doesn't change the fact that Zimmerman acted in a suspicious manner and made choices that led to Zimmermen killing a kid.
You said:
Yet here he was, out to the store, getting ready to watch a game with his cousin, chatting on his cell phone to his girlfriend.
My response:
Trying to deflect blame onto the victim (and to be clear, Trayvon Martin is the victim here) because he was out and about doesn't change the fact that Zimmerman should be found guilty of manslaughter at the very least.
You said:
Now NONE of this would have occured if his PARENTS had actually PARENTED him and punished him for the behavior.
My response:
You have absolutely no idea whatsoever if his parents punished him or not. And that still doesn't change the fact that none of it would have occured HAD ZIMMERMAN not stalked a kid.
You said:
First, how do you give them the location when the person takes off running?
My response:
I tell them where I last saw the person. And that is it. It's the police's job to take it from there.
You said:
Second, sorry that YOU are a coward that expects the police to provide for your safety, unfortunately, it is people like you who learn the lesson that hard way.
My response:
And there is how I know that you would have gone after the gun of anybody who was following you in a suspicious manner.
And it also shows just what a bully you are. Calling the cops and letting them do their job is not being a coward. Its' being smart.
You said:
The police are NOT there to protect you, they are there to enforce the law, at THEIR discretion.
My response:
BAER.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Flat
Re: Poor George Zimmerman
Edit
Reply
Quote
