Guy’s got a right to sell the piece.
Trolls got a right to troll.
From what I know of the case Zimmy was looking for trouble...
You want to find a crook? They’re easy to find.
Trayvon bit it, Zimmy made it, but they’re both creeps.
I’d rather have the canoli.
He was a night watchman. He was supposed to look for trouble.
He called the cops, backed off when told to. Trayvon circled around behind him and attacked him.
Trayvon admitted trying to kill him. If he didn't shoot Trayvon, Zimmerman would be dead.
If the exact same thing happened to an off-duty cop, it wouldn't even have made the news. Obama alone made this famous and defamed Zimmerman.
” Zimmy was looking for trouble..”
From what I recollect on reading about this, Z could’ve handled the initial conversation better but nevertheless, I’m on his side on this one.
Z was part of neighborhood watch which was formed in response to break ins. While doing this, he didn’t recognize T and followed him. T noticed and challenged Z. Z gave a ham-handed excuse. After some more back n forth, ultimately, T attacked Z.
So, I certainly don’t like nosy neighbors. Some are pretty much nazis. The thing against Z is that this was a condo type neighborhood and T was a guest of one of the residents.
This is part of my prob w/the nosy neighbor bit. There is simply no way for a neighborhood watch person to know every single person who’s a visitor and as such, can’t possibly know who’s up to no good. I myself have been confronted when visiting friends in apt complexes or what not though only in a minor way - “Can I help you?” I hear shouted out.
So Z should have identified himself as a neighborhood watch person and stated clearly why he was watching T. Who’s to say if T would respond reasonably, but this may have gone a long way to avoiding the conflict.
Nevertheless, Z not handling it well does not justify T’s attack. T could’ve started running to his grandfather’s place instead, if he feared him.
Consider this, if you believe it was justifiable for T to attack Z for not knowing what Z was really up to, then on those same grounds you could argue that Z could’ve attacked T as soon as he saw him.
The common property in a condo neighborhood is owned by all residents, so any resident has grounds to ask folks what they’re doing there just as an owner of a single family home could ask of someone on their property.
So imagine if you’re in a single family, and you see someone at night in your driveway by your car. You say “Hey, what are you doing there.”, but you don’t identify yourself as the owner of the property.
Does that justify the other person in attacking the home owner?
If attacked, wouldn’t the owner be able to defend themselves?
With deadly force?
My answers to the above or no, yes, and yes if necessary.
That’s how I see this case. To me, those on T’s side are fighting for the right to assault people without those people fighting back. Just like BLM.
I feel sorry for Z because I know he’s going to be hunted down by left-wingers for the rest of his life and will continue to get a bad rap in the press.