As a good neighborhood watch guy, the dispatcher instructed him, we don't need you to do that, police were on their way, he had done his civic duty.
No. And your belief that TM threw the first punch isn't based on any evidence either.
As a good neighborhood watch guy, the dispatcher instructed him, we don't need you to do that, police were on their way, he had done his civic duty.
It is based on the fact that Martin did not have any bruises or indications of being hit. Now, I grant that he could have been shoved or something, but the injuries to Zimmerman, the evidence that Martin was on top, the lack of injuries to Martin would indicate he was the aggressor. Much has been made of the fact that Zimmerman was training MMA. That also would suggest that Martin surprised him with the initial attack. Not conclusive by any means, but the indications are there to support my position, whereas there is nothing that supports your position that I have seen.
He's young, he avoided Zimmerman trying to detain him, he avoided the punch. Remember, Zimmerman sucks at punching.
Watch does mean watch. Which is precisely what Zimmerman was doing until Martin started beating the shit out of him. He did not take the law into his own hands. He was abiding by it. You try to paint him as a vigilante, but if that were the case... why would he call 911 to begin with?
As to your other post... there is no way Zimmerman could have known whether Martin was just lost and looking around or casing a house. His intent was to watch. There is no indication he would have done anything else had Martin not initiated physical confrontation.
1. He didn't call in any white, Asians or Hispanics, so how would you describe his actions? You know there were strangers in his neighborhood other than just black male youths.
It is based on the fact that Martin did not have any bruises or indications of being hit. Now, I grant that he could have been shoved or something, but the injuries to Zimmerman, the evidence that Martin was on top, the lack of injuries to Martin would indicate he was the aggressor.
Much has been made of the fact that Zimmerman was training MMA. That also would suggest that Martin surprised him with the initial attack. Not conclusive by any means, but the indications are there to support my position, whereas there is nothing that supports your position that I have seen.
Here's the transcript. Where does the cop say he should get out of the truck?
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html
Does he have to be told ?....The cop wanted to know where the guy went and Z tried to find out...on foot.
Martin running ?....why didn't he keep running all the way to his residence, he was certainly close enough.
Disagree. GZ's injuries could just mean that Martin was the stronger fighter. It shows nothing about who threw the first punch, that's supposition.
I wouldn't lead him home to my 12 year old brother, not knowing who he was, would you?
So instead you confront the guy? yeah, that makes sense.
Zimmerman already did not know where he was...he was in the clear...he had a phone and didn't call 911 to report he was being followed or threatened....
you need to get a clue....
Martin didn't have a mark on him from a fight, nada, nothing....not even rumpled or dirty clothes, he didn't even lose his candy and ice tea....
Physical evidence has to carry the burden of proving the testimony, without using far fetched why didn't's or maybe's or how come's....
The tape of the on-going attack is powerful proof.....witness testimony is next in support of Z...
The evidence is so one sided, its unthinkable that Z could be found guilty of anything.
Zimmerman already did not know where he was...he was in the clear...he had a phone and didn't call 911 to report he was being followed or threatened....
you need to get a clue....
so all those witnesses that said someone was on top of the other person just wailing away were all seeing things when what they actually saw was zimmerman tell martin to stop as he walked up and shot him in the chest?George just shot him, that is why Trayvon didn't have any marks on him. Trayvon was trying to protect himself. Zimmerman didn't do anything but shoot.
Martin didn't have a mark on him from a fight, nada, nothing....not even rumpled or dirty clothes, he didn't even lose his candy and ice tea....
Physical evidence has to carry the burden of proving the testimony, without using far fetched why didn't's or maybe's or how come's....
The tape of the on-going attack is powerful proof.....witness testimony is next in support of Z...
The evidence is so one sided, its unthinkable that Z could be found guilty of anything.
Did TM have the right to confront his follower, yes or no?
zimmerman didn't testify, did he?I can tell you didn't listen to Zimmerman's testimony, did you. He lies, he slips up, he fabricates, he chnges his story.