auditor0007
Gold Member
One fellow had a gun, and had been told by the police to back off.
Wrong. When he asked of they wanted him to follow Martin he was told by non-emergency dispatcher "we don't need you to do that." The police didn't tell him jack squat.
The other fellow was a 17 kid being followed at night by a man he did not know. What was said between them, we have only Zimmermann's word for, because the kid is dead.
He was a 17 year old thug, and he was in a place he shouldn't have been in. I've been followed by lots of people I didn't know. I didn't break their nose or smash their skulls against the pavement. Being followed is not an excuse to assault someone.
The arguments of the Zimmerman lynch mob couldn't be more pathetic.
You are as bad as those who think Zimmerman should be convicted, because in your mind he is completely innocent of any wrongdoing. The fact is that even with all the testimony, nobody other than Zimmerman really knows what happened. I have a good hunch that Zimmerman stalked this kid, confronted him, and then started threatening him. At some point, Martin retaliated or was forced to defend himself at which time Zimmerman killed him. The problem is we just don't know and therefore the jury cannot convict him. It's up to the state to prove Zimmerman pursued this kid with the intent to do him harm, and there is no way they are going to be able to do that. If for some unknown reason, the jury does convict, I would be willing to bet money that the verdict is overturned either by the judge or on appeal.