http://www.gzdefensefund.com/donate/Posted on 07/14/2013 2:13:05 PM PDT by katieanna
Excuse the vanity, but the matter of Zimmerman getting out of his vehicle has not been understood by me. Why did that occur? I have not followed the trial as closely as many have and I've never quite gotten that. Thanks in advance. Kate
A valid question. I imagine I might have done the same if lost track of a suspicious person in my neighborhood AND I was the neighborhood watch volunteer. I would have provided his whereabouts to the police and then returned to my car.
http://www.gzdefensefund.com/donate/Thank you. That makes sense.
But the THC-paranoid child Trayvon had doubled back, and snuck up on Mr. Zimmerman before he could get to his car. Then the altercation occurred, with long-lasting consequences for the 12-year-old choirboy, I mean the 17-year-old burglar-thug. That's what I recall.
He passed a stinky one, and the windows were stuck.
Your “understanding” is incorrect. Regardless of what MSNBC and DU spoon fed you, Zimmerman was in his rights to walk the streets, get into and out of his car and in the end, defend his life.
IF Trayvon had a right to be in the complex, so did George. If Trayvon had a right to be walking on the sidewalk, so did George.
What happened here could have been avoided by one party not deciding he was not shown proper respect and starting a fight instead of being civilized and talking to someone, rather than being gangsta tough and smacking someone down and not bothering to determine what was even going on.
If you want to talk about someone making assumptions, that BDLR said, it was Trayvon who made a bunch of assumptions , beginning with the “nigga” that was following him, and the “crazy ass cracker” he was obviously pissed off at before he ever said one word to him. He just assumed the worst, and assumed the guy dissed him and assumed the guy for no other reason than that deserved an ass-kicking from trayvon himself.
Ok. How far from the car did the shooting take place?
Maybe he should have moved to Alaska after lunch.
Thank you. I appreciate that answer. I haven’t followed the case as closely and wanted to know what happened there. I like how you explained it. thanks
see my prior first post to you.
The exact words were "you don't have to do that" , thus absolving any dispatcher of any consequences regardless of what took place. If he stayed in the car and did nothing, or if he followed to see where he was going, the 911 operator was okeedokee.
From a legal standpoint it is irrelevant. I suspect he was trying to keep an eye on Trayvon from a distance. He had no idea how close Trayvon was or he probably wouldn’t have gotten out.
If we had ham, we could have eggs if we had eggs.
In the eyes of the law, Z was attacked while walking down a path. In resonse, he used his gun to defend his life. Any assumptions or actions Taryvon or Z made up to the point of Trayvon’s attack just don’t matter....and they both made assumptions took actions they should not have done....
No, he wasn’t told any such thing.
He was already out of the car when advised not to follow. Did he get in and back out again. He was advised not to follow and his answer was ok. There is no evidence he started following again.
I thought the exact words were “we don’t need you to do that.”
Because it has doors that open and close.
“My understanding is that Zimmerman phoned 911 from inside his car and was told to stay put and not to pursue TM.”
People who answer the phone for a living have to right to order you to do anything. You might be a sheep, many are not.
Spend 12 minutes watching that and you will expand your knowledge of the story geometrically.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.