The Zimmerman Trial

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by WonderBoi

 

He was not following Martin when Martin attacked him and he didn't shoot him because he was suspicious. He had caught a burglar and made 7 calls on suspicious people and never shot a one. He shot this one because this one assaulted him ad was in the process of assaulting him.

You are the one flipping the script and aren't capable of looking objectively. The operator NEVER told him to not to follow - FACT, he did say "what is he doing now" twice, and "we don't need you to do that" when he realized his questions had led Zimmerman to follow.

Martin DID attack Zimmerman out of nowhere. Zimmerman was walking back when Martin came up on him and attacked, unprovoked.

edit on 2-7-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

The operator NEVER told him to not to follow - FACT,

FACT, huh? 12:42 of Zimmerman's re-enactment video...the operator SPECIFICALLY ASKS: "ARE YOU FOLLOWING HIM?" And Zimmerman said: "YES"! What other "FACTS" do you have that i can rip apart??? You're waaaaaaaaay off base!

reply to post by WonderBoi


Trayvon wasn't old enough to keep a gun legally, yet his mom had straw purchased one. Why do you think a 17 year old that was constantly being kicked out of school need a gun he can't legally carry?

Yeah, had Zimmerman not defended himself Zim might be dead and Martin in jail. If Zim survived though Martin would still be in jail for assault.

reply to post by RalagaNarHallas
It doesn't matter why he was following a teen age boy!!! FACT IS: HE WAS. End of the "self defense" argument. Maybe, if that excuse doesn't work, he can plead insanity; or, just plain ole stupidy! THAT i'll give him!

reply to post by WonderBoi


LOL yes it is a FACT. The reenactment video is him recalling. I am telling you verbatim what the dispatch said on the 911 call that is widely available online. It's funy that you chose that video instead of the ACTUAL call where you can hrar the EXACT phrasing.

Truust me I am absolutely 100 percent correct.

Now did you seriously not know this existed or are you trying to manipulate readers with your bias?

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by WonderBoi

 

Trayvon wasn't old enough to keep a gun legally, yet his mom had straw purchased one. Why do you think a 17 year old that was constantly being kicked out of school need a gun he can't legally carry?

Yeah, had Zimmerman not defended himself Zim might be dead and Martin in jail. If Zim survived though Martin would still be in jail for assault.

Don't change the topic, now that you mentioned about facts. Please, let's get back to your "fact" comment. Did you go to 12:42 of the video and prove yourself wrong???

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by WonderBoi

 

LOL yes it is a FACT. The reenactment video is him recalling. I am telling you verbatim what the dispatch said on the 911 call that is widely available online. It's funy that you chose that video instead of the ACTUAL call where you can hrar the EXACT phrasing.

Truust me I am absolutely 100 percent correct.

Unfortunately for you, the re-enactment video i posted has that 911 call. And the operator AGAIN, SPECIFICALLY ASKED: ARE....YOU....FOLLOWING...HIM?!!!!!!! And, again, it's at the 12:42 mark of that video.

reply to post by WonderBoi


Okay back to my fact topic. You posted a video where he says the operator said "are you following" he was wrong in his recall and my FACt stands that the operator DID NOT say don't follow but instead "we don't need you to do that" Also I wasn't changing the subject, I posted that before I saw your bias, manipulative post.

Originally posted by WonderBoi
reply to post by RalagaNarHallas

 

It doesn't matter why he was following a teen age boy!!! FACT IS: HE WAS. End of the "self defense" argument. Maybe, if that excuse doesn't work, he can plead insanity; or, just plain ole stupidy! THAT i'll give him!

Curious...where is the "fact" that he was following? Unless you were there or another witness testifies to that, it is very vague on the series of events that led up to the altercation.

So no, not the end of the self-defense argument.

reply to post by WonderBoi


You aren't understanding obviously. The point is not the operator asking if he was following. The point is you ARE WRONG about the operator telling him NOT to follow. He never made a direct command or order not to follow which is what you said. You don't even know what you are arguing about. I said the operator never told him not to follow and that is in fact true.

When the operator said "we don't need you to do that" zimmerman said "okay" and stopped. He was on his way back to his truck, NOT following , when Martin jumped him.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
The 911 call is in this re-enactment video. No need to break out another youtube video. George was told AFTER they asked: "Are you following him?" (VERBATIM). And after he replied: "YES!" (VERBATIM) "We don't need you to do that!"

And please, stop telling i'm not hearing what i'm hearing. I hear just fine! The words i heard, with my own ears was: "ARE YOU FOLLOWING HIM". 12:42 mark. Listen for yourself.
You know what else? In the beginning of the video, when Zimmerman saw Trayvon standing in the rain, he drove up the street a little, and parked. Then, when he saw Trayvon "getting away", he backed out of his parking spot, and continued to pursue. Parking his vehicle, AGAIN. Eventually, leaving his vehicle unattended, as he searched for Trayvon, who had disappeared. He was told not to follow him, after he had already done so. What sense do you make.

Keep in mind: Zimmerman was supposed to be "grocery shopping".

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by WonderBoi

 

You aren't understanding obviously. The point is not the operator asking if he was following. The point is you ARE WRONG about the operator telling him NOT to follow. He never made a direct command or order not to follow which is what you said. You don't even know what you are arguing about. I said the operator never told him not to follow and that is in fact true.

When the operator said "we don't need you to do that" zimmerman said "okay" and stopped. He was on his way back to his truck, NOT following , when Martin jumped him.

edit on 2-7-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

Imma say this ONE MORE TIME: 1ST the operator said: ARE YOU FOLLOWING HIM. Then George replied: "Yes". That's when the operator said: "Ok, we don't need you to do that." And he replied: "OK". 12:42 - 12:48 mark.

You're the one that doesn't know what the heck you're talking about.

reply to post by WonderBoi


I know exactly what I am talking about. I hate it when people can't admit they're wrong. I suspect you can't because you have an agenda though.

You obviously don't understand the meaning of what you are hearing then! "We don't need you to do that" is a far xry from "don't do that" or "stop, don't do that." It is basically a suggestion. It doesn't tell him what to do either way, it just informs him it isn't necessary. He also complies at that point and stops. He was probably only trying to find Martin because the operator kept asking what the guy was doing in the first place.

We did need the other video because it's the whole call. You said the 911 operator said don't follow him and that wasn't true. I proved otherwise and now you are trying to twist your way out of it. Just admit they didn't tell him what to do and move on.

reply to post by WonderBoi


Again, another repeat of your same lie in this post. HE WAS NEVER TOLD NOT TO FOLLOW HIM. Fact, proven multiple times. I make all the sense in the world compared to you being shown the proof and still repeating the same falsehood. He was never told not to follow, do I need to post the 911 call a third time for you to understand that?
Do you understand the difference between a command and an informative statement?

reply to post by WonderBoi


Just as you pro Trayvon guys have stated Zimmerman couldn't have known about Martins criminal past, he also didn't know Martins age. He briefly followed a suspect and then stopped and was then attacked by that suspect. He had every right to defend himself.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by WonderBoi

 

Again, another repeat of your same lie in this post. HE WAS NEVER TOLD NOT TO FOLLOW HIM. Fact, proven multiple times. I make all the sense in the world compared to you being shown the proof and still repeating the same falsehood. He was never told not to follow, do I need to post the 911 call a third time for you to understand that?

edit on 2-7-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

No, he was asked...then told: We don't need you to do that? Do what, operator???? FOLLOW HIM!!! That's when George decided to head back to his vehicle and got snuck.

Are you making a case that because he was never told not to follow him, he had the right to follow him? Isn't that considered "stalking"? George was FOLLOWING Trayvon, in his vehicle. Got out of his vehicle, continued to look for him, then was told "we don't need you to do that".

BTW: Every ACTION has a RE-ACTION. George shouldn't have been following a teenage boy, during these times of pedophiles and human trafficking. George should have let the authorities do their J.O.B. Then, Trayvon would still be alive. Maybe, in jail....but still, alive! George stole someone's life, and is using a weak "self defense" argument to excuse him of murder! You fight FIRE with FIRE. You don't fight fists with bullets. Only COWARDS do that! #WeakIndividuals

Originally posted by WonderBoi
reply to post by Libertygal

 

Why is Trayvon's past under the microscope, and he's the one that's dead? Regardless of Trayvon's past, Zimmerman had NO BUSINESS taking matters into his own hands. He should have let the police do their job. That's what they get paid to do. Catch "bad guys".

I wonder what the spin would have been, if Trayvon shot and killed Zimmerman, with his own gun. I'm SURE the cops would have opened fire; and both, Trayvon and Zimmerman would be dead.

Because fair is fair. If Zimmermans' past is under the micrscope, then so should be Martin's

Yin and Yang, and all of that. You cannot use the past to morally convict someone and claim the other is off limits. That is very hypocritical.

So, if people wish to bring up Zimmermans' past, we must discuss Martin's.

I am not, however, going to play "if Trayvon did this to Zimmerman..." because that is not what happened. You can take the hypothetically moral highground somewhere else. I don't desire race-relation games.

My interest is the legalities, fairness, and rule of law. I also have pointed out a lot of media errors and pandering. I think the race war issues are sickening, repulsive, and had nothing to do with this until it was forced upon the PD.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by WonderBoi

 

Just as you pro Trayvon guys have stated Zimmerman couldn't have known about Martins criminal past, he also didn't know Martins age. He briefly followed a suspect and then stopped and was then attacked by that suspect. He had every right to defend himself.

Ease up on the "pro Trayvon" comments, ok? I'm on the side of justice! And your BS theory of why he should be excused of murder, is just that: B.S.! You seem to have more of a street thug mentality, than what's been portrayed with Trayvon. Somebody kicks your @$$ with their hands, are you gonna retaliate with your gun; and then claim it was self defense??? That's what street thugs do, homie!

reply to post by WonderBoi


Now you are just flat out lying. He never said "do what."

Also you don't understand what stalking is. Following someone one time for a reason is not stalking. Stalking is when you repeatedly follow and harras the same person. This is not stalking.

Anyway no sense in talking to you further becausee you are biased and lying to confuse information on the case. It's a shame you made the thread instead of someone more reliable.

I've been thinking about George's lying lies and self-serving statements.

Is George's repeated use of the words "the suspect" in his written statement rather self-incriminating of his profiling mindset? Is it not just a little odd that George never once refers to Trayvon as "my attacker" or "the guy who attacked me"?

reply to post by Libertygal
How did Zimmerman know Trayvon's past? Little bit of "racial profiling" going on, or what? See a young black man, wearing a hoodie, he's GOT TO BE A CRIMINAL? That was Zimmerman's mentality, that night. That's why he pursued. If he DIDN'T PURSUE Trayvon, we wouldn't even be discussing this matter. Heck, if Zimmerman had STAYED IN HIS VEHICLE, UNTIL THE AUTHORITIES ARRIVED, NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED. This happened because of someone's "suspicious" belief. TRUE or FALSE???