George Zimmerman Trial Thread (Found Not Guilty Jesus help us...)

[Tommy bilfiger]

We should push to make the day Trayvon got shot a holiday. I don't want people to forget what they have done. Every year we should be reminded that in a "post racial" society, they let a murderer go free.

NO

The day emmett till was murdered isn't a holiday and it took years for dr kings b day to become a holiday.It wouldn't work and more importantly it makes no sense

 

[can'tyoutell]

Neither the bolded nor the underlined have been established; also speculation.

LMAO. Interesting how you keep bringing up how something is only "speculation" to help you get out of a corner.

And to answer your question, you speculated earlier with this:

...But amazingly, he somehow found Trayvon again and when confronted, Tray himself said, "Why are you following me?"...

That's because you brought up that Rachel Jeantel said that he ran, and I merely brought up a point that under that scenario, the loophole could still be applied. Oop.

I said the claim that Zimmerman followed Treyvon after the non-emergency call was not established. You're responding with speculation.

Speculating about what could've happened is not the same as establishing what did happen.

One could also claim that Treyvon followed Zimmerman after the non-emergency call; without proof, it's still speculation.

This is why I said:

This was not established either.

One could, but it wouldn't make sense, being that Rachel said that he ran and Zimmerman himself said that he ran.

"Jeantel said Martin told her the man watching him was a "creepy-ass cracker." She recalled suggesting that the man might be a rapist. She went on to say that Martin told her he was going to try to elude the man, and that the teen left the area but that he was still being followed. Jeantel said she told him to run, but Martin replied that he was close to his father's fiance's house. Shortly after, Martin told Jeantel he would run home and then the phone went dead.

Later in her testimony, Jeantel said that when she called Martin back, he told her "the nigga is behind me." Jeantel said she heard a bump and then the sound of "wet grass." She said she heard Martin say "get off," the call was cut off and she never spoke to Martin again."

You say it's speculation...but no one else except Rachel, Tray, and Zimmerman were there for the entire tragic incident. So, we must rely on Rachel's testimony heavily. Now, it's clear from taking that dispatcher call and the testimony that Zimmerman most likely followed Tray repeatedly...and the loophole.

Zimmerman's claim is that he didn't see Treyvon until Treyvon approached him as he was walking back to his truck.

One has to speculate to conclude which of these contradicting claims is correct.

This is why I said it was not established.

Exactly why would he be out of his truck in the first place?

He would only get out of the car if he was looking for someone.

That would to have meant that he was at least following Trayvon again (the loop hole).

Or he is lying about Trayvon sneaking up behind him and Rachel is telling the truth.

The bolded is still speculation.

If I pull my dick out in front my gf, you could only speculate that I wanted to have sex with her. If we had proof that he was walking in Trayvon's direction, how do we know he wasn't just walking to his friends house? Sometimes you just have to logically deduce.

 

[Batman.]

Neither the bolded nor the underlined have been established; also speculation.

LMAO. Interesting how you keep bringing up how something is only "speculation" to help you get out of a corner.

And to answer your question, you speculated earlier with this:

...But amazingly, he somehow found Trayvon again and when confronted, Tray himself said, "Why are you following me?"...

That's because you brought up that Rachel Jeantel said that he ran, and I merely brought up a point that under that scenario, the loophole could still be applied. Oop.

I said the claim that Zimmerman followed Treyvon after the non-emergency call was not established. You're responding with speculation.

Speculating about what could've happened is not the same as establishing what did happen.

One could also claim that Treyvon followed Zimmerman after the non-emergency call; without proof, it's still speculation.

This is why I said:

This was not established either.

One could, but it wouldn't make sense, being that Rachel said that he ran and Zimmerman himself said that he ran.

"Jeantel said Martin told her the man watching him was a "creepy-ass cracker." She recalled suggesting that the man might be a rapist. She went on to say that Martin told her he was going to try to elude the man, and that the teen left the area but that he was still being followed. Jeantel said she told him to run, but Martin replied that he was close to his father's fiance's house. Shortly after, Martin told Jeantel he would run home and then the phone went dead.

Later in her testimony, Jeantel said that when she called Martin back, he told her "the nigga is behind me." Jeantel said she heard a bump and then the sound of "wet grass." She said she heard Martin say "get off," the call was cut off and she never spoke to Martin again."

You say it's speculation...but no one else except Rachel, Tray, and Zimmerman were there for the entire tragic incident. So, we must rely on Rachel's testimony heavily. Now, it's clear from taking that dispatcher call and the testimony that Zimmerman most likely followed Tray repeatedly...and the loophole.

Zimmerman's claim is that he didn't see Treyvon until Treyvon approached him as he was walking back to his truck.

One has to speculate to conclude which of these contradicting claims is correct.

This is why I said it was not established.

Exactly why would he be out of his truck in the first place?

He would only get out of the car if he was looking for someone.

That would to have meant that he was at least following Trayvon again (the loop hole).

Or he is lying about Trayvon sneaking up behind him and Rachel is telling the truth.

The bolded is still speculation.

If I pull my dick out in front my gf, you could only speculate that I wanted to have sex with her. If we had proof that he was walking in Trayvon's direction, how do we know he wasn't just walking to his friends house? Sometimes you just have to logically deduce.

Hurr hurr sounds like more speculation to me.

 

[fuc_i_look_like]

larry elder, smh. coon of coons, get this nigga off TV.

 

[Gold_Certificate]

Gold_certificate, we know Zimmerman exited his vehicle. For you to think he didn't continue following him, you would have to believe his story that he got out of the car to look at a street sign, one of three in his neighborhood. It sounds like a lie, and that is compounded with the testimony of Jeantel. At one point, Zimmerman slips up and says he followed him. There's just too much evidence pointing in the direction that he followed Trayvon.

Neither the bolded nor the underlined have been established; also speculation.

LMAO. Interesting how you keep bringing up how something is only "speculation" to help you get out of a corner.

And to answer your question, you speculated earlier with this:

...But amazingly, he somehow found Trayvon again and when confronted, Tray himself said, "Why are you following me?"...

That's because you brought up that Rachel Jeantel said that he ran, and I merely brought up a point that under that scenario, the loophole could still be applied. Oop.

I said the claim that Zimmerman followed Treyvon after the non-emergency call was not established. You're responding with speculation.

Speculating about what could've happened is not the same as establishing what did happen.

One could also claim that Treyvon followed Zimmerman after the non-emergency call; without proof, it's still speculation.

This is why I said:

This was not established either.

One could, but it wouldn't make sense, being that Rachel said that he ran and Zimmerman himself said that he ran.

"Jeantel said Martin told her the man watching him was a "creepy-ass cracker." She recalled suggesting that the man might be a rapist. She went on to say that Martin told her he was going to try to elude the man, and that the teen left the area but that he was still being followed. Jeantel said she told him to run, but Martin replied that he was close to his father's fiance's house. Shortly after, Martin told Jeantel he would run home and then the phone went dead.

Later in her testimony, Jeantel said that when she called Martin back, he told her "the nigga is behind me." Jeantel said she heard a bump and then the sound of "wet grass." She said she heard Martin say "get off," the call was cut off and she never spoke to Martin again."

You say it's speculation...but no one else except Rachel, Tray, and Zimmerman were there for the entire tragic incident. So, we must rely on Rachel's testimony heavily. Now, it's clear from taking that dispatcher call and the testimony that Zimmerman most likely followed Tray repeatedly...and the loophole.

Zimmerman's claim is that he didn't see Treyvon until Treyvon approached him as he was walking back to his truck.

One has to speculate to conclude which of these contradicting claims is correct.

This is why I said it was not established.

Exactly why would he be out of his truck in the first place?

He would only get out of the car if he was looking for someone.

That would to have meant that he was at least following Trayvon again (the loop hole).

Or he is lying about Trayvon sneaking up behind him and Rachel is telling the truth.

The bolded is still speculation.

If I pull my dick out in front my gf, you could only speculate that I wanted to have sex with her. If we had proof that he was walking in Trayvon's direction, how do we know he wasn't just walking to his friends house? Sometimes you just have to logically deduce.

You can deduce whatever you want from anything you want bruh, that doesn't establish it as true.

The prosecution had to establish their claims in court beyond a reasonable doubt.

Simply speculating about what could've happened is not enough.

It wasn't enough.

This was not established either.

 

[young_reezy]

the prosecution was weak as fuck, their whole argument was the fact that Zimmerman changed certain details in his story. You have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, it would have been easier to get him on manslaughter but at the same time that jury was suspect. This whole fuckin case stinks, it reeks of media sensationalism and propaganda.

 

[Batman.]

Reminds me of the Casey Anthony case.

 

[can'tyoutell]

Gold_certificate, we know Zimmerman exited his vehicle. For you to think he didn't continue following him, you would have to believe his story that he got out of the car to look at a street sign, one of three in his neighborhood. It sounds like a lie, and that is compounded with the testimony of Jeantel. At one point, Zimmerman slips up and says he followed him. There's just too much evidence pointing in the direction that he followed Trayvon.

Neither the bolded nor the underlined have been established; also speculation.

LMAO. Interesting how you keep bringing up how something is only "speculation" to help you get out of a corner.

And to answer your question, you speculated earlier with this:

...But amazingly, he somehow found Trayvon again and when confronted, Tray himself said, "Why are you following me?"...

That's because you brought up that Rachel Jeantel said that he ran, and I merely brought up a point that under that scenario, the loophole could still be applied. Oop.

I said the claim that Zimmerman followed Treyvon after the non-emergency call was not established. You're responding with speculation.

Speculating about what could've happened is not the same as establishing what did happen.

One could also claim that Treyvon followed Zimmerman after the non-emergency call; without proof, it's still speculation.

This is why I said:

This was not established either.

One could, but it wouldn't make sense, being that Rachel said that he ran and Zimmerman himself said that he ran.

"Jeantel said Martin told her the man watching him was a "creepy-ass cracker." She recalled suggesting that the man might be a rapist. She went on to say that Martin told her he was going to try to elude the man, and that the teen left the area but that he was still being followed. Jeantel said she told him to run, but Martin replied that he was close to his father's fiance's house. Shortly after, Martin told Jeantel he would run home and then the phone went dead.

Later in her testimony, Jeantel said that when she called Martin back, he told her "the nigga is behind me." Jeantel said she heard a bump and then the sound of "wet grass." She said she heard Martin say "get off," the call was cut off and she never spoke to Martin again."

You say it's speculation...but no one else except Rachel, Tray, and Zimmerman were there for the entire tragic incident. So, we must rely on Rachel's testimony heavily. Now, it's clear from taking that dispatcher call and the testimony that Zimmerman most likely followed Tray repeatedly...and the loophole.

Zimmerman's claim is that he didn't see Treyvon until Treyvon approached him as he was walking back to his truck.

One has to speculate to conclude which of these contradicting claims is correct.

This is why I said it was not established.

Exactly why would he be out of his truck in the first place?

He would only get out of the car if he was looking for someone.

That would to have meant that he was at least following Trayvon again (the loop hole).

Or he is lying about Trayvon sneaking up behind him and Rachel is telling the truth.

The bolded is still speculation.

If I pull my dick out in front my gf, you could only speculate that I wanted to have sex with her. If we had proof that he was walking in Trayvon's direction, how do we know he wasn't just walking to his friends house? Sometimes you just have to logically deduce.

You can deduce whatever you want from anything you want bruh, that doesn't establish it as true.

The prosecution had to establish their claims in court beyond a reasonable doubt.

Simply speculating about what could've happened is not enough.

It wasn't enough.

This was not established either.

The more you guys rebut, the more I think about Zimmerman's story and how you have to crazy to believe it. So, this guy gets out of his car to check a street sign 40 feet away from his car. One of three street signs in his neighborhood. Testimony from someone else saying he was following Trayvon Martin. His expressed need to catch Trayvon. "they always get away." The fact that he was following him while on the phone with dispatch. And we are supposed to believe he got out of his car and walked 40 feet to check a street sign? Why do we have trials in the first place? If every case was open and shut without holes, we wouldn't have a need for trials, for arguments to be made, for "speculation" and evidence to fill in the holes of the story.

 

[Gold_Certificate]

Gold_certificate, we know Zimmerman exited his vehicle. For you to think he didn't continue following him, you would have to believe his story that he got out of the car to look at a street sign, one of three in his neighborhood. It sounds like a lie, and that is compounded with the testimony of Jeantel. At one point, Zimmerman slips up and says he followed him. There's just too much evidence pointing in the direction that he followed Trayvon.

Neither the bolded nor the underlined have been established; also speculation.

LMAO. Interesting how you keep bringing up how something is only "speculation" to help you get out of a corner.

And to answer your question, you speculated earlier with this:

...But amazingly, he somehow found Trayvon again and when confronted, Tray himself said, "Why are you following me?"...

That's because you brought up that Rachel Jeantel said that he ran, and I merely brought up a point that under that scenario, the loophole could still be applied. Oop.

I said the claim that Zimmerman followed Treyvon after the non-emergency call was not established. You're responding with speculation.

Speculating about what could've happened is not the same as establishing what did happen.

One could also claim that Treyvon followed Zimmerman after the non-emergency call; without proof, it's still speculation.

This is why I said:

This was not established either.

One could, but it wouldn't make sense, being that Rachel said that he ran and Zimmerman himself said that he ran.

"Jeantel said Martin told her the man watching him was a "creepy-ass cracker." She recalled suggesting that the man might be a rapist. She went on to say that Martin told her he was going to try to elude the man, and that the teen left the area but that he was still being followed. Jeantel said she told him to run, but Martin replied that he was close to his father's fiance's house. Shortly after, Martin told Jeantel he would run home and then the phone went dead.

Later in her testimony, Jeantel said that when she called Martin back, he told her "the nigga is behind me." Jeantel said she heard a bump and then the sound of "wet grass." She said she heard Martin say "get off," the call was cut off and she never spoke to Martin again."

You say it's speculation...but no one else except Rachel, Tray, and Zimmerman were there for the entire tragic incident. So, we must rely on Rachel's testimony heavily. Now, it's clear from taking that dispatcher call and the testimony that Zimmerman most likely followed Tray repeatedly...and the loophole.

Zimmerman's claim is that he didn't see Treyvon until Treyvon approached him as he was walking back to his truck.

One has to speculate to conclude which of these contradicting claims is correct.

This is why I said it was not established.

Exactly why would he be out of his truck in the first place?

He would only get out of the car if he was looking for someone.

That would to have meant that he was at least following Trayvon again (the loop hole).

Or he is lying about Trayvon sneaking up behind him and Rachel is telling the truth.

The bolded is still speculation.

If I pull my dick out in front my gf, you could only speculate that I wanted to have sex with her. If we had proof that he was walking in Trayvon's direction, how do we know he wasn't just walking to his friends house? Sometimes you just have to logically deduce.

You can deduce whatever you want from anything you want bruh, that doesn't establish it as true.

The prosecution had to establish their claims in court beyond a reasonable doubt.

Simply speculating about what could've happened is not enough.

It wasn't enough.

This was not established either.

The more you guys rebut, the more I think about Zimmerman's story and how you have to crazy to believe it. So, this guy gets out of his car to check a street sign 40 feet away from his car. One of three street signs in his neighborhood. Testimony from someone else saying he was following Trayvon Martin. His expressed need to catch Trayvon. "they always get away." The fact that he was following him while on the phone with dispatch. And we are supposed to believe he got out of his car and walked 40 feet to check a street sign? Why do we have trials in the first place? If every case was open and shut without holes, we wouldn't have a need for trials, for arguments to be made, for "speculation" and evidence to fill in the holes of the story.

I didn't say I believe his story either bruh.

I simply said that the claim that Zimmerman followed Treyvon after losing him when he ran during the non-emergency call was not established.

Just like how Zimmerman's claim that Treyvon reached for his gun or that Treyvon hit him first was not established.

Speculation≠Proof

 

[can'tyoutell]

Gold_certificate, we know Zimmerman exited his vehicle. For you to think he didn't continue following him, you would have to believe his story that he got out of the car to look at a street sign, one of three in his neighborhood. It sounds like a lie, and that is compounded with the testimony of Jeantel. At one point, Zimmerman slips up and says he followed him. There's just too much evidence pointing in the direction that he followed Trayvon.

Neither the bolded nor the underlined have been established; also speculation.

LMAO. Interesting how you keep bringing up how something is only "speculation" to help you get out of a corner.

And to answer your question, you speculated earlier with this:

...But amazingly, he somehow found Trayvon again and when confronted, Tray himself said, "Why are you following me?"...

That's because you brought up that Rachel Jeantel said that he ran, and I merely brought up a point that under that scenario, the loophole could still be applied. Oop.

I said the claim that Zimmerman followed Treyvon after the non-emergency call was not established. You're responding with speculation.

Speculating about what could've happened is not the same as establishing what did happen.

One could also claim that Treyvon followed Zimmerman after the non-emergency call; without proof, it's still speculation.

This is why I said:

This was not established either.

One could, but it wouldn't make sense, being that Rachel said that he ran and Zimmerman himself said that he ran.

"Jeantel said Martin told her the man watching him was a "creepy-ass cracker." She recalled suggesting that the man might be a rapist. She went on to say that Martin told her he was going to try to elude the man, and that the teen left the area but that he was still being followed. Jeantel said she told him to run, but Martin replied that he was close to his father's fiance's house. Shortly after, Martin told Jeantel he would run home and then the phone went dead.

Later in her testimony, Jeantel said that when she called Martin back, he told her "the nigga is behind me." Jeantel said she heard a bump and then the sound of "wet grass." She said she heard Martin say "get off," the call was cut off and she never spoke to Martin again."

You say it's speculation...but no one else except Rachel, Tray, and Zimmerman were there for the entire tragic incident. So, we must rely on Rachel's testimony heavily. Now, it's clear from taking that dispatcher call and the testimony that Zimmerman most likely followed Tray repeatedly...and the loophole.

Zimmerman's claim is that he didn't see Treyvon until Treyvon approached him as he was walking back to his truck.

One has to speculate to conclude which of these contradicting claims is correct.

This is why I said it was not established.

Exactly why would he be out of his truck in the first place?

He would only get out of the car if he was looking for someone.

That would to have meant that he was at least following Trayvon again (the loop hole).

Or he is lying about Trayvon sneaking up behind him and Rachel is telling the truth.

The bolded is still speculation.

If I pull my dick out in front my gf, you could only speculate that I wanted to have sex with her. If we had proof that he was walking in Trayvon's direction, how do we know he wasn't just walking to his friends house? Sometimes you just have to logically deduce.

You can deduce whatever you want from anything you want bruh, that doesn't establish it as true.

The prosecution had to establish their claims in court beyond a reasonable doubt.

Simply speculating about what could've happened is not enough.

It wasn't enough.

This was not established either.

The more you guys rebut, the more I think about Zimmerman's story and how you have to crazy to believe it. So, this guy gets out of his car to check a street sign 40 feet away from his car. One of three street signs in his neighborhood. Testimony from someone else saying he was following Trayvon Martin. His expressed need to catch Trayvon. "they always get away." The fact that he was following him while on the phone with dispatch. And we are supposed to believe he got out of his car and walked 40 feet to check a street sign? Why do we have trials in the first place? If every case was open and shut without holes, we wouldn't have a need for trials, for arguments to be made, for "speculation" and evidence to fill in the holes of the story.

I didn't say I believe his story either bruh.

I simply said that the claim that Zimmerman followed Treyvon after losing him when he ran during the non-emergency call was not established.

Just like how Zimmerman's claim that Treyvon reached for his gun or that Treyvon hit him first was not established.

Speculation≠Proof

If you don't believe his crazy story, that's all the proof you need, because the facts speak for themselves.

 

[THIRDSUPREME]

larry elder, smh. coon of coons, get this nigga off TV.

=youtube_gdata_player

The Coons Come out at night

The coons come out at niiiiiight

The coons come out at night (The Coons Come Out!!!)

The coons come out at niiiiiight.

 

[stringer bell]

 

[stringer bell]

 

[Gold_Certificate]

Gold_certificate, we know Zimmerman exited his vehicle. For you to think he didn't continue following him, you would have to believe his story that he got out of the car to look at a street sign, one of three in his neighborhood. It sounds like a lie, and that is compounded with the testimony of Jeantel. At one point, Zimmerman slips up and says he followed him. There's just too much evidence pointing in the direction that he followed Trayvon.

Neither the bolded nor the underlined have been established; also speculation.

LMAO. Interesting how you keep bringing up how something is only "speculation" to help you get out of a corner.

And to answer your question, you speculated earlier with this:

...But amazingly, he somehow found Trayvon again and when confronted, Tray himself said, "Why are you following me?"...

That's because you brought up that Rachel Jeantel said that he ran, and I merely brought up a point that under that scenario, the loophole could still be applied. Oop.

I said the claim that Zimmerman followed Treyvon after the non-emergency call was not established. You're responding with speculation.

Speculating about what could've happened is not the same as establishing what did happen.

One could also claim that Treyvon followed Zimmerman after the non-emergency call; without proof, it's still speculation.

This is why I said:

This was not established either.

One could, but it wouldn't make sense, being that Rachel said that he ran and Zimmerman himself said that he ran.

"Jeantel said Martin told her the man watching him was a "creepy-ass cracker." She recalled suggesting that the man might be a rapist. She went on to say that Martin told her he was going to try to elude the man, and that the teen left the area but that he was still being followed. Jeantel said she told him to run, but Martin replied that he was close to his father's fiance's house. Shortly after, Martin told Jeantel he would run home and then the phone went dead.

Later in her testimony, Jeantel said that when she called Martin back, he told her "the nigga is behind me." Jeantel said she heard a bump and then the sound of "wet grass." She said she heard Martin say "get off," the call was cut off and she never spoke to Martin again."

You say it's speculation...but no one else except Rachel, Tray, and Zimmerman were there for the entire tragic incident. So, we must rely on Rachel's testimony heavily. Now, it's clear from taking that dispatcher call and the testimony that Zimmerman most likely followed Tray repeatedly...and the loophole.

Zimmerman's claim is that he didn't see Treyvon until Treyvon approached him as he was walking back to his truck.

One has to speculate to conclude which of these contradicting claims is correct.

This is why I said it was not established.

Exactly why would he be out of his truck in the first place?

He would only get out of the car if he was looking for someone.

That would to have meant that he was at least following Trayvon again (the loop hole).

Or he is lying about Trayvon sneaking up behind him and Rachel is telling the truth.

The bolded is still speculation.

If I pull my dick out in front my gf, you could only speculate that I wanted to have sex with her. If we had proof that he was walking in Trayvon's direction, how do we know he wasn't just walking to his friends house? Sometimes you just have to logically deduce.

You can deduce whatever you want from anything you want bruh, that doesn't establish it as true.

The prosecution had to establish their claims in court beyond a reasonable doubt.

Simply speculating about what could've happened is not enough.

It wasn't enough.

This was not established either.

The more you guys rebut, the more I think about Zimmerman's story and how you have to crazy to believe it. So, this guy gets out of his car to check a street sign 40 feet away from his car. One of three street signs in his neighborhood. Testimony from someone else saying he was following Trayvon Martin. His expressed need to catch Trayvon. "they always get away." The fact that he was following him while on the phone with dispatch. And we are supposed to believe he got out of his car and walked 40 feet to check a street sign? Why do we have trials in the first place? If every case was open and shut without holes, we wouldn't have a need for trials, for arguments to be made, for "speculation" and evidence to fill in the holes of the story.

I didn't say I believe his story either bruh.

I simply said that the claim that Zimmerman followed Treyvon after losing him when he ran during the non-emergency call was not established.

Just like how Zimmerman's claim that Treyvon reached for his gun or that Treyvon hit him first was not established.

Speculation≠Proof

If you don't believe his crazy story, that's all the proof you need, because the facts speak for themselves.

They do, and that's why he was acquitted:

I'll break this down for you--by focusing what I've seen repeated the most here--to sum things up and so I can reference this in the future.

"Zimmerman shouldn't have followed Treyvon"

The extent of this "following" has not been established. It is not illegal. And it happens prior to the altercation so it has no bearing on the self-defense claim.

"Zimmerman is a liar"

This doesn't disprove his claim that he shot Treyvon because he feared being killed or critically-injured, nor does it disprove his injuries or witness testimony.

"Zimmerman exaggerated his injuries"

Although this is substantiated by a prosecution witness who said she was only giving the very minimum number of hits and that there could be more, it still doesn't disprove Zimmerman's injuries or witness testimony.

"Treyvon lacked wounds from fighting" and "Zimmerman has no defensive wounds"

This doesn't disprove Zimmerman's injuries nor does it disprove witness testimony that there was a fight with Treyvon on top hitting Zimmerman.

Even if you assume that none of Zimmerman's words are reliable, these facts still remain:

1. Witnesses saw and heard a fight.

2. One witness saw Treyvon on top beating Zimmerman, with Zimmerman screaming for help.

3. Zimmerman shot and killed Treyvon.

4. Zimmerman had injuries immediately after the fight; which were photographed by a witness who said it looked like he'd just been beaten up.

^^These four facts alone are enough to support the claim of self-defense, and they are why I think it's a stronger case for the defense.

 

[BIRGGin]

BIRGGin you're this close to getting banned. I'm just letting you know.

If I had an account on stormfront I would probably feel the same way when they said this.

 

[MR.CJ]

I see that some artists said they ain't performing in florida until they change the law.

 

[ghostdog56]

Its scary as fuck to me how easy it is to portray a black person as a thug especially considering that TM did not even have a criminal record and these white honkeys need to get off this im scared of black people shit just 50 years ago you was running around lynching niggas and beating the shit out of them now you scared for your life get the fuck outta here with that bullshit

 

[riddlerap]

Loca is really fucking stupid. more worried about including gifs in her posts than actually understanding laws/reality. youre not one-upping anyone with your comments, youre just continually looking like a moron who cant grasp simple concepts.

 

[can'tyoutell]

I can't post my rebuttal for some reason.

 

[can'tyoutell]

To gold_certificate:

When i said the facts speak for themselves, I was specifically talking about Zimmerman continuing to follow Trayvon. I wasn't talking about the entire case. We were arguing whether it had been established if Zimmerman continued to follow after he was told not to by dispatch. (The next argument is Dispatch doesn't have authority to give orders, we aren't talking about that right now.) So lets establish Zimmerman following Trayvon after the call ended. Trayvon's body was found 40 feet away from Zimmerman's car. That is where the physical confrontation happened. The call ended after Zimmerman reported Trayvon running and expressed a want to keep following him. We know the desire to continue following is there. We know he had been pursuing him before. Soon after that, he found him again, got out of his car, walked 40 feet in the direction of Trayvon, and the altercation happened. But he wasn't following him anymore, he just randomly parked his car 40 feet away from a street sign to look at it. It's all a coincidence.

Let me ask you something. What would be considered proof to you in this scenario? Do we need a video camera there? That wouldn't prove it either based on your argument. Following Trayvon isn't proof of following him, right? He could have been taking a stroll down the block just for the heck of it. We would only be speculating he was following him, he was just walking in the same direction is all.