True . . . I did not go back inside and slaughter the family.
Did the dispatcher tell Zimmerman not to follow T? What did dispatcher tell Z?
If cops were on the way . . . all Z needed to do was keep T in view. Right?
Tell you what weak little ‘racehorse’ - I’m going to report you for disturbing this thread. You cannot come in at the very end of the saga and toss your insane comments out.
How about you scuttle back to DU or wherever your kind hangs out these days, maybe still wonkette?
What you are doing is wrong.
How in the HELL do you “keep someone in view” in the pitch black unless you’re following them? You are an absolute idiot!
“Did the dispatcher tell Zimmerman not to follow T?”
No. He did not.
“What did dispatcher tell Z?”
“We don’t need you to do that”
And again, the dispatcher is not a police officer and cannot issue commands. Dispatcher said that for legal reasons.
Done.
No more.
Go back and read the thousands of previous threads and posts and educate yourself on the facts of the case.
You owe everyone that if you insist on commenting. . .at least be informed and dispute opinion if you wish, but don’t misrepresent or omit facts.
You need to get your lie straight. Either he shouldhave stayed put our followed, right? So which one is it?
He didn’t confront TM, that makes no sense. If he wanted to confront him, he would have the first time when TM walked right by his car and locked eyes with him.
Right??
Yet he didn't. Zimmerman lost sight of Martin which proves he was no longer following him. So it really doesn't matter what the dispatcher says, now does it?
You’re very late to the party.
Z lost visual contact with T. That’s what he said, that he had visually lost him. If you know the layout of the area and that T was walking near houses and Z was in a truck on the street, you see how that makes sense.
There has been evidence presented that T had actually made it to the back of the apt. in which he was living, and that Z was returning to his truck after the dispatcher said “we don’t need for you to do that” (re-establish visual contact), when out of the dark appeared T and sucker punched him. There was almost the length of a football field from where T had made it back to and where he sucker punched Z. Reasonable conclusion, he circled back and attacked instead of going inside the safety of the apt.
However, none of that, racehorse, none of that has any bearing whatsoever on the florida self-defense law. In that law, at any point in an encounter or altercation if you reasonably believe you are in danger of being killed or seriously injured, you have the right to defend yourself by necessary means.
You can ignore that truth all you want, it’s still the law and this jury is obligated to follow the law when they decide this.
If they have reasonable doubt as to Z’s guilt from the prosecution’s case, they are obligated to render “not guilty”.
Why are you trolling this thread? Are you trying to get good people angry?
Dispatcher said, "We don't need you do to that." Dispatcher wanted street name. Z walked to look at street sign. He was walking back to his truck when Trayvon approached him. Trayvon turned back from the family house to approach Z. If Trayvon had gone in family house, this would not have happened.
“What did dispatcher tell Z?”
Haven’t been paying attention, have you? That is well documented, and if you don’t know by now you need to stop blathering and start catching up on published facts.
“If cops were on the way . . . all Z needed to do was keep T in view. Right?”
Yup. And that’s exactly what he was trying to do. T managed to evade Z’s view, went home (or nearly so), then came all the way back to...what? If somebody is eyeing you suspiciously while you’re engaged in suspicious behavior, and you go home, then come back to the guy (who has lost you by now) *in the rain*, what’s your reasoning?