Regardless of whether or not Zimmerman acted in self defense, a large segment of the population, particularly the black population, are demanding Zimmerman be punished.  And if they don't have their demands satisfied, it is possible they might riot.
 
So would it be appropriate to consider potential riots when deciding on whether or not to prosecute Zimmerman?  Or should justice be blind and follow the rule of law?

Liberals don't believe in the rule of law!

No, bring them on, the nation is well armed to handle them.

Let the riots begin.

Zimmerman deserves the same rights as any other person.  If he is arrested, he deserves the right of a trial by a jury of his peers.  He deserves to hear the evidence against him, and to have legal counsel.

Regardless of guilt or innocence, he does NOT deserve to be lynched.

Myself, I thought that he should be arrested.  Now there are new and conflicting stories being released.  I'm not sure what to think now.  But I keep coming back to the fact that he was told NOT TO GET OUT OF HIS CAR, and to quit following Trayvon.

We'll find out after the grand jury convenes.

They never did... those they don't like, they CHANGE (see 0bamacare).

 
Zimmerman will never ever get a fair trial.  If a white judge presides, even with an all black jury and is acquitted, the mod will say the judge lead the jury and/or the jury were uncle toms and aunt millie's. Same if the Judge is black and the jury is black. 
 
The crowd, led by the hoots of the Black Panthers, want "Justice", and they do not mean American Constitutional Justice, they mean Black Panther Justice.  Street Justice.   Not Justice for Traynor, though they will shout his name as though they mean it.
 

Let the riots begin.
 
 
HAHAHAHAHA You fucking old coward. It would surprise me if you can stand or walk. 

HIS STREET SWEEPER WILL DO THE STANDING AND WALKING FOR HIM.

Should the national guard be called in in order to avoid riots.? YES.!

Should the streets be cleared at a certain time.? YES.!

I would not doubt that the governor of Florida would call in the National Guard if full-fledged riots break out over this.  He'd have to, and he'd have to impose a curfew as well.

This case was botched from the word go.  I just hope that the grand jury can get to the bottom of it.

The best way to handle a riot is like the british handled it in south africa issue one warning and one warning only,and those that fail to abide to the warning let them fall were they may.!

He will be convicted for the Murderer he is

Moneill, what proof do you have that Zimmerman didn't shoot in self defense?

http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/was-trayvon-martin-a-drug-dealer (http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/was-trayvon-martin-a-drug-dealer)

More evidence of his violent nature!

Yeah, Moneill, Zimmerman had one hundred pounds of fat on Treyvon!

Treyvon could easily have outrun Zimmerman and the only way Zimmerman could have caught up to Treyvon would be if Treyvon waited for him!

If, as you claim, Zimmerman had a record of domestic violence he would have been a prohibited person wholly ineligible for a concealed carry permit which he had!

Proving your claim is a lie!

"The only comment I have to say right now is that they killed my son and now they are trying to kill his reputation," Trayvon's mother, Sabrina Fulton, tells reporters today.
Also today, the state Department of Juvenile Justice confirms that Trayvon did not have a juvenile offender record. The information came after a public records request by the Associated Press.

 Meaning what?  That he was smart enough not to get caught?  That people covered for him because he was a football player?

Wouldn't be the first time an athlete was protected from the law!

During Zimmerman's call to 911, the dispatcher asked him if he was following the teen. When Zimmerman replied that he was, the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that."

 So?

For all you know Zimmerman was following at a distance and Treyvon laid in wait to ambush him!

Correction...Zimmerman was not told not to get out of the car and to quit following Martin. The quote when asked if he was following Martin and he said he was went "We don't NEED you to do that."

At first the Dispatch told Zimmerman to 'Keep an eye on him'.

OBTW: The autopsy report will show Trayvon tested positive for drugs in his system.

 
Willy,
That's a weak argument. When the police dispatcher told Zimmerman, "We don't need you to do that," he meant just that: The police dispatcher told Zimmerman, "We (the Sanford Police Department ) don't need for you (a civilian) to pursue the suspect." It's illogical to argue that Zimmerman, a neighbourhood watch captain, didn't understand the dispatcher's implied order, even more illogical when  consider the fact that Zimmerman was in his last semester of study for a degree in Criminal Justice.



Oh, by the way, Martin's autopsy turned up only a negligible amount of THC (the active ingredient in marijuana) in his blood and urine, an amount so low as to certainly not be connected to recent intoxication. In addition to that, even if Martin had been stoned out of his mind, marijuana wouldn't predispose him to violence.

http://healthland.time.com/2012/05/18/traces-of-marijuana-found-in-trayvon-martins-body-does-it-matter-2/




 

 

After the dispatcher said, "we don't need you to do that", Zimmerman replied, "OK", then told the dispatcher that Martin got away and discussed for some time with the dispatcher where he would meet police.  Later when interviewed, Zimmerman told investigators he was returning to his vehicle when Martin approached him from his left rear and decked him.

http://www.motherjones.com/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman

 
DUMB2DOOFAS,

Are you trying to say that bullshit you posted above is evidence Zimmerman shot Martin in self-defense?

LOL

(( Later when interviewed, Zimmerman told investigators he was returning to his vehicle when Martin approached him from his left rear and decked him. ))


Again, where are the witnesses than can testify that what GZ told the investigators actually happened.  Right now they seem to be MIA...

If you hate blacks, then you will side with GZ, and believe anything he says.  The rest of us will go with the evidence and witnesses or the lack of.  Ignoring the side shows and grand standing...

 
"If you hate blacks, then you will side with GZ," ??
 
Right..... Evidence and truth has nothing to do with this.   "If you hate blacks, then you will side with GZ, ".   What a totally ignorant and Racist thing to say.   Why don't you just wait until the evidence is presented and choose your side then?  Or is that too fair for you?   Or perhaps it doesn't favor Trayvon enough for you because of your White Guilt?
 
Me?  I'll wait for all the evidence.  I'll try to remain American about this. You know, "Innocent until proven guilty."  Not the other way around that far too many of you have become too accustomed to.
 
 
On another note: Kinda weird that this topic has received 1,417 views so far..  Thats likely from all the "guests" following their Google searches and ending up here.
 

 
Why would Zimmerman be returning to his vehicle in the first place if the police dispatcher had specifically told him, "We (the police) don't need you to do that (follow Martin)?" By arguing that Martin was returning to his vehicle, you're admitting that Zimmerman disregarded the advice of the dispatcher and began following Martin, even leaving his vehicle to stalked Martin on foot for a considerable distance and time before the shooting occurred. And why should we accept what Zimmerman said without question? He knows he can say anything, because Martin is dead. Remember?

And, yes, Zimmerman spoke at length with the dispatcher. But at no time did he tell Zimmerman to follow Martin. In fact, when the dispatcher advised Zimmerman that it wasn't necessary for him to follow Martin, Zimmerman's response was, "OK," indicating that Zimmerman clearly understood the dispatcher. Isn't that right, chuckles?

http://www.motherjones.com/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman

DUMB2DOOFAS,

Why would Zimmerman be following Martin in the first place (even a distance) after the dispatcher specifically told him, "We (meaning the police) don't need you to do that?" And, in addition to that, after the dispatcher specifically told Zimmerman that it wasn't necessary for him to follow Martin, Zimmerman's response was, "OK," indicating that he clearly understood the dispatcher's advise. Right?

(( On another note: Kinda weird that this topic has received 1,417 views so far..   ))
 
 
What weird Jim is you don't know your own board very well.  This thread is three months old.  Free willy found this thread and posted on it.  Those who use the last post feature saw it at the top of the current page an then stared posting to it.
 
 
 
No body is saying GZ is guilty.  We are just having a debate/discussion on if/and/why. There are doubts as always is in any case such as this one. 
 
So Jim, don't get your shorts in a twist.  It's just a discussion that will have NO EFFECT on the trial...

Correction >>
 
This thread is one year and three months old.  Started >> 3-26-2012
 
 

 
 
"We don't need you to do that"   was not an order, it was information. 
 
At no time did the dispatcher say "Do Not Leave your vehicle."   Zimmerman should have stayed in his car, however, unless his Neighborhood Watch had rules or codes that had to be followed, then he was under no legal obligation to remain in his car.   He was stupid for getting out, but stupidity is not on trial.

What weird Jim is you don't know your own board very well.
 
Actually, I know this board very well.  Down to the coding of each module.   When I saw the view count I in turn checked the original posting date.  How else could so many guests have viewed the topic?   Something like that would take a while.  All at once, or even over the course of one day would cause serious lag for the rest of us.  However, its not the top viewed topic. Internetto, from 2010 has over 6,000 views.
 
You can sort by Views too, ya know....
 
 
 
 

Jivin' Jim,

Please cut the crap: The dispatcher told Zimmerman specifically that he did not need to follow Zimmerman. That was not "information," it was an implied order, and Zimmerman understood it clearly.

Dispatcher: Are you following him?

Zimmerman: Yeah.

Dispatcher: OK, need don't need you to do that.

Zimmerman: OK.
http://www.motherjones.com/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman

And since the dispatcher had already told Zimmerman that it wasn't necessary for him to follow Martin in the first place, it's pointless to argue that the dispatcher didn't tell Martin not to leave his vehicle.

Why would Zimmerman be returning to his vehicle in the first place if the police dispatcher had specifically told him, "We (the police) don't need you to do that (follow Martin)?"

Erm, because he was already following Martin when the dispatcher said that?

(( However, its not the top viewed topic. Internetto, from 2010 has over 6,000 views. ))


That's interesting Jim.  If Internetto has over 6,000 views, then why is it, anchoragedan with only 1,479 views so "kinda weird"??


FYI ~ I too know the coding for this web site... (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/grin.gif)

The moment Trayvon had Zimmerman on the ground and helpless while continuing the attack Zimmerman became justified in using deadly force no matter what preceded it!

Please cut the crap: The dispatcher told Zimmerman specifically that he did not need to follow Zimmerman. That was not "information," it was an implied order, and Zimmerman understood it clearly.

 
Cops, or dispatchers never give "implied" orders.  They are specific so that there is no doubt what they want you to do.  I worked with police for a year.  So don't sit there and try to tell me how they act.  They are specific.   
 
I was on neighborhood watch in the 80s. We worked with the police. We had our own Base Radio operator who stayed in contact with us as well as the Police.  When we saw something suspicious, like teens out at 3am dodging the alleys, we called it in.  We never got out of the car.  In our case the police ordered us to stay in our cars because we were under their control.   Zimmerman should never have left his car either.  But he was not obligated to.  He was not working through the department.
 
When the dispatcher said "we don't need you to leave your car" she was saying that neither she, nor the department, would be responsible if you do.   She was saying 'we cannot guarantee your safety.'  She was saying 'if you take matters into your own hands then you suffer the consequences', She was saying 'you could make matters worse.'
 
But she was not ordering him to stay in his car.   She can't do that.
 
 
 

(( The moment Trayvon had Zimmerman on the ground and helpless while continuing the attack Zimmerman became justified in using deadly force no matter what preceded it! ))
 
 
Oh really now ~~  Is that what they taught you, in your little sand box.  Just how "helpless" was GZ, who was able to take out his weapon and shoot TM dead?? 
 
Sending GZ to train for the NSA Neighborhood Watch Program, was a waste of time,  GZ apparently didn't learn anything from it...

 
If you feel your life is threatened, you have a Right to protect it.  Having your head bashed onto cement sounds like a reason.
 

(( If you feel your life is threatened, you have a Right to protect it. ))
 
You seem to forget Jim, that works both ways.  TM could have felt threaten also,  If someone I didn't know was stalking me I'd feel threatend and you would too, unless of course you are carrying a loaded weapon...
 
 
(( Having your head bashed onto cement sounds like a reason. ))
 
Geee ~ I wonder what would have happened if GZ didn't have his weapon.  If Zimmerman had followed the ADVICE, and I repeat, ADVICE, of his neighborhood watch program's trainer and the Police dispatcher, GZ would not have needed to worry about using self defense...
 
 
If you can't produce a witness that can point out the aggressor, then you have nothing to contribute to this discussion.  All everyone is doing now is repeating the same old arguments...
 

 
Why would you "wonder?"  This is no longer about "what if's".   It is now in trial. Facts only...
 
Also, nobody said that Trayvon didn't feel threated as well.  He may have. They both may have.   We'll never know.
 
 
 

 
Without that firearm Zimmerman would either be dead or permanently disabled due to brain trauma!

What about that don't you understand?

Jivin' Jim,

Zimmerman stalked Martin for a considerable time and distance without identifying himself. Is that not probable cause for Martin to feel threatened? And, remember, pursuant to Florida's stand your ground law, simply feeling threatened is grounds for use of deadly force. Thus, being followed by an unknown "creepy-ass cracker" gave Martin the legal right to bash Zimmerman's  head into the concrete, to stab Zimmerman had he been armed with a knife, or to shoot him if he  had been armed with a firearm. Wouldn't you agree?

DUMB2DOOFAS,

If Zimmerman had heeded the dispatcher's instruction (and had not followed Martin in the first place), wouldn't you agree that he would not had risked being injured? Zimmerman could had avoided being injured, just as martin's death could had been avoided.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/detective-faulted-george-zimmerman-not-avoiding-confrontation-trayvon-192523670.html

That has nothing to do with it!

Zimmerman did nothing to provoke the attack and would be dead if he had been unarmed!

DUMB2DOOFAS,

Get your head out of your ass.

Zimmerman dismissed the dispatcher's advise and stalked Martin for a considerable time and distance during a dark rainy night. There is no evidence that he ever identified himself to Martin. Zimmerman provoked the altercation by making Martin feel threatened. Given the what we know happened that night, and given the fact that he was not carrying a weapon, one could safely presume that Martin feared for his life. So he had every legal right to defend himself against the "creepy-ass cracker" who was stalking him. Yes. Zimmerman provoked the attack, and Martin might be alive today if not for Zimmerman's actions that tragic night.

So you believe you have the right to assault anyone you think is following you at any time?

DUMB2DOOFAS,

No I don't, and that's the main reason stand your ground laws should be repealed.  Pursuant to stand your ground laws, a person only has to feel threatened and the use of deadly force is justified. Thus, it stands to reason that Martin had every legal right to use deadly force against an unknown, crazy, creepy-ass white man who had followed him for a considerable length of time. Wouldn't you agree?

Ass, read first, think about what you have read and then respond!

Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman not the other way around!

So you believe you have the right to assault anyone you think is following you at any time?

DUMB2DOOFAS,

Don't try that DUMB shit with me. Go back and read reply #46. Stand your ground laws require only that a person feels threatened. If so, then deadly force is justified. To Martin, Zimmerman was a crazy, creepy-ass white man who had stalked him for a considerable distance and time (in the dark) without identifying himself. And notice that there's no evidence to suggest that he ever did identify himself to Martin. We can safely presume that Martin feared for his life, that he felt threatened. Under Florida's stand your ground law, Martin didn't have to wait for Zimmerman to attack him.

We can safely presume that Martin feared for his life, that he felt threatened.

If he feared for his life why did he double back to attack Zimmerman instead of going home??

So you believe you have the right to assault anyone you think is following you at any time?

Answer the question coward!

Testimony at the trial stated that GZ's injuries where not life threating.  It was also stated that his injuries were not consistent of someone's head being repeatedly "slammed" against concrete, as GZ has stated.  There were other statement that are very interesting, and contradict some of GZ's statements.   

I already did, dickhead_john.

(( So you believe you have the right to assault anyone you think is following you at any time? ))
 
 
One more time D2D.  So pay close attention. ~~~~  YES YES and YES for the next time you ask that same question.
 
I'd go into deeper details, but with your lack of intelligence, it would be a waste of time.  Besides, you have already shown to most everyone here, this thread is way over your head...

Loco,
You're confused again: Before passage of stand your ground laws, a person was obliged to retreat when threatened. That all changed when stand your ground laws took effect. Pursuant to Florida's  stand your ground law, Martin had the legal right to confront Vimerman rather than retreat. Isn't that right?

And Zimmerman certainly can't make the claim that he was in fear of bodily harm. If so, why did he leave his vehicle and pursue Martin in the first place?

 Wow, what a glittering jewel of ignorance!

So every time I go for a walk I can punch out anyone who happens to be walking in the same direction!

Can you get any more foolish?

And Zimmerman certainly can't make the claim that he was in fear of bodily harm. If so, why did he leave his vehicle and pursue Martin in the first place?

I doubt Zimmerman was perusing anyone. Haven't you ever walked down the street in you neighborhood to check on a stranger acting a bit odd? I have and I wasn't in pursuit or stalking.

JigSaw,

You're wasting your breath. I've chided DUMB2DOOFAS several times already about her using the logical fallacy of the repeated assertion--repeating the same bullshit over and over despite the fact that it's been debunked. But, apparently, that's her favourite tactic when all else fails--repeating the same refuted and debunked claim over and over again. I call it being stuck on stupid.

And, by the way, I see it didn't take you long to be convinced of DUMB2DOOFAS' lack of intelligence and intellect, something I've known for quite sometime now.

(( So every time I go for a walk I can punch out anyone who happens to be walking in the same direction! ))


If you feel threaten by that person following you, then go for it.  But I hope you are a better fighter than Zimmerman...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(( Haven't you ever walked down the street in you neighborhood to check on a stranger acting a bit odd? ))

NOPE ~~~ I call 911 give them a description of the person I saw, and leave the rest to the police officers.  Remember, that is their job, not mine...

NOPE ~~~ I call 911 give them a description of the person I saw, and leave the rest to the police officers.  Remember, that is their job, not mine...

If you want to wait a half hour or more I suppose that is fine. The point is one can do it without stalking or pursuing.

Your doubts are irrelevant, my loco friend:

[1] Zimmerman was indeed pursuing Martin, in fact had stalked him for quite some time and distance--on foot, no less. And he was doing this despite being told by the dispatcher that it wasn't necessary for him to do that. Remember?

[2] And your second argument is a false analogy: There's no mention of your calling the police to report the stranger in your neighbourhood, and no mention of your speaking with a police dispatcher. In your scenario, you simply began stalking the stranger on your own volition. That was not he case with Zimmerman. Was it?

In your scenario, you simply began stalking the stranger on your own volition.

No. I just walked down to the end of my street and back. (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/grin.gif)

(( something I've known for quite sometime now. ))


Oh I too have known for a long time (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/grin.gif)  But for some reason I feel compelled to remind D2D of his lack of intelligence every now and again.

To be honest with you Hawks, We are both wasting our breath on D2D.  As of now, I'm gonna stop...(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/grin.gif)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(( The point is one can do it without stalking or pursuing.))

The problem with that is, you may say your not stalking or pursuing a person by walking/following behind him,  But you don't know what that person is thinking.  He may think your out to rob him.   

The problem here is people do things with out taking into consideration what other people are thinking.  One has to put themselves in the other persons shoes before doing something stupid...   

Zimmerman was indeed pursuing Martin, in fact had stalked him for quite some time and distance--on foot, no less. And he was doing this despite being told by the dispatcher that it wasn't necessary for him to do that. Remember?

Maybe, but you don't know that for a fact.

One has to put themselves in the other persons shoes before doing something stupid...   

Yup. Attacking before you know is a bit stupid.

(( Yup. Attacking before you know is a bit stupid. ))
 
Do you know who attacked who?  I don't.  And I've been keeping up to date with GZ's trial.  Thanks to some pretty  informative web sites...

DUMB2DOOFAS,

Your logical fallacy: appeal to ridicule--a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted as "evidence" to support a claim or argument. The idea is to show that an absurd result would result from the opponent's claim.

I'm always amused at your childish and laughable attempts to salvage your refuted and debunked arguments and claims. If you began punching people for no reason every time you went for a walk, you would soon land in the nuthouse--where your crazy ass belongs now. But if you live in Florida, or any other state with a stand your ground law in effect, you have the legal right to to use force--even deadly force--against anyone who you "feel" is threatening you and claim seal-defense. That's why all stand your ground laws should be repealed.

WTF are you talking about, my loco friend?

[1] The transcript of the conversation between Zimmerman and dispatcher reveals the dispatcher told Zimmerman, specifically, that it was not necessary for him to follow Martin. Zimmerman ignored the dispatcher and did so anyway, even leaving his vehicle to pursue Martin on foot.

]2] The police report shows that Zimmerman stalked Martin for a considerable time and distance.

By definition, you were in pursuit; you were stalking, Loco. So was Zimmerman.

(( Maybe, but you don't know that for a fact.  ))

Ahhh ~ But I do know that for a fact.  If you would follow the court transcripts, pay closer attention to the analysis of the proceeding you would know more about what is gong on also.  The only thing nobody knows yet, not even me,  is who attacked who first.  There is about a minute and a half from the time GZ ended the 911 call and the time he shot TM and more 911 calls came in, that is missing.  In other words, nobody know what happened...

Do you know who attacked who?  I don't.

Me neither. But since both could of prevented this stupidity I hold the equally accountable.

By definition, you were in pursuit; you were stalking, Loco. So was Zimmerman.

I've stalked/hunted men before Hawk. Had I been stalking they wouldn't of seen me and they would of been dead before they hit the ground.

Walking down the street to see what someone is doing is just that. One bunch jumped in a truck, left and never came back, and the other and I talked for some time.

(( I hold the equally accountable. ))


Isn't it kind of hard to hold a dead person accountable.  Actually only one person could have prevented the shooting, cause only one person had a gun.  An unauthorized wan-a-bee cop had no business doing what he did.  Especially, if what GZ said is true, about NOT being on duty.  Making the 911 call was reasonable.  Getting out of his vehicle was not.   

I have learned,  Because GZ got out of his vehicle during that 911 call, is what prompted the police dispatcher to ask the question, "are you following him".  GZ ignored the advice of "OK, we don't need you to do that" and continued to follow TM anyway.   

GZ was over a block away from his vehicle when the 911 call ended.  Between GZ and his vehicle were two rows of apartment buildings and the sidewalk where the shooting took place.  GZ couldn't see his vehicle let along be near it...

Doesn't matter under the law Martin became the aggressor when he punched Zimmerman!

He had no right to do so under law!

[1] The transcript of the conversation between Zimmerman and dispatcher reveals the dispatcher told Zimmerman, specifically, that it was not necessary for him to follow Martin. Zimmerman ignored the dispatcher and did so anyway, even leaving his vehicle to pursue Martin on foot.

This is repeatedly asserted, however, what evidence shows that Zimmerman ignored the dispatcher and continued to follow Martin after the dispatcher informed Zimmerman that they didn't need him to do that?  The evidence indicates that Zimmerman, afterward, discussed with the dispatcher where police could locate him and his vehicle once they arrived.

(( This is repeatedly asserted, however, what evidence shows that Zimmerman ignored the dispatcher and continued to follow Martin ))
 
 
Chuck ~ If you listen closely to the 911 tape.  You can hear GZ's car door open (door open alert sound) GZ getting out and then closing the door.  You then can hear GZ running by the wind noise, labored breathing from running.  right after that, the Dispatcher asked if GZ was following him.  GZ continued to follow, even after he was told he didn't need to follow TM...
 
That my friend Chuck, is your evidence.  I could provide you more evidence.  But I feel if you are really that interested in this case, you could do your own research and be more informed...

You offered no evidence at all.  You only restated the point.  Saying something repeatedly is not evidence for it, nor is saying you have it.

You idiots continually criticize posters for making assumptions, but then you expect us to take you seriously? 

Actually only one person could have prevented the shooting, cause only one person had a gun.

No. Martin could of prevented the shooting had he gone home instead of circling back and attacking Zimmerman.

(( You offered no evidence at all. ))


It is clear, chuck, you are not the least bit interested in this case.  All your doing is lock-stepping your GZ support's opinions.  You agree with opinions and ignore the evidence.   

The 911 tape is evidence.  If you don't want to except it as evidence then so be it.  but don't expect my discussion with you to continue if your not going to except the evidence...   

This thread has pretty much run it's course anyway...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(( had he gone home instead of circling back and attacking Zimmerman. ))

And where is YOUR evidence that happened?  The word of an accused killer.  Hahahaha

What on the 911 tape indicates Zimmerman is guilty of murder?

The word of an accused killer.

Why not? The
Duke Lacrosse team was accused of rape yet they were telling the truth. Could be the same here. God knows the same hate, same racist charges, same need to see someone pay, and same press slanting stories against the charged is present and accounted for.

Seems he is too cowardly to answer!

Jigsaw:  And again, I asked for evidence of this repeated assertion that Zimmerman did not cease following Martin after the dispatcher said they did not need him to do that (follow) and you offer none.  You only offer opinions about my interest in the matter having no basis and are irrelevant to the question.  That is apparently what you are most interested in.

(( Jigsaw:  And again, I asked for evidence of this repeated assertion that Zimmerman did not cease following______  ))
 
Do you own research.  That way I'll know you have a REAL interest in this case...
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
D2D ~ YAWN (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/sleepy.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/sleepy.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/sleepy.gif)


BTW Chuck ~ Google/Bing are wonderful  tools for doing research...  Just thought I'd give you a hint... :-)
 

Jigsaw:  If you have a valid reason for making that repeated claim you should be able to say what that reason is.   If you don't, or won't, then you can't expect anyone to rationally believe it.  I am fairly familiar with the evidence that is out there and I just don't see it.

(( I am fairly familiar with the evidence that is out there and I just don't see it. ))
 
And there lies your problem Chuck,  You are fairly familiar, I'm very familiar with the case.  Right now, this is not about seeing, it's about listening.  Listen to and analyze the 911 tape.  You can't see anything but you can hear a lot... 
 
 
Gotta go ~ Think about what I have said... 

Clearly, Jigsaw is too cowardly and ignorant to answer my simple and direct question!

What on the 911 tape indicates Zimmerman is guilty of murder?

Jigsaw, what on the tape justifies Martin's unprovoked and vicious attack on Zimmerman?

What on the tape justifies Martin's continuing the attack even after Zimmerman was on the ground?

Still too cowardly to answer!

Seems all he is good for is childish name calling!

(( Still too cowardly to answer! ))
 
 
You can call me all the names you want.  But that still won't compile me to answer your stupid questions.  First, educate yourself, then ask questions... 

It is blatantly obvious you have no answer!

No, DUMB2DOOFAS. It's apparent that JigSaw has learned to spot your childish rigamarole and learned to avoid getting bogged down in your silly arguments. Why don't you and DUMB_john start a DUMB Losers Club and just babble to yourselves?

It is blatantly obvious you have no answer!

Have no answer to WHAT?

WHAT THE FUCK IS YOUR DUMB ASS ASKING?

So, 1965hawks, you have been mindlessly posting childish insults without knowing what the conversation is about?

How foolish!

What on the 911 tape indicates Zimmerman is guilty of murder?

DUMB2DOOFAS,

Don't try that DUMB bullshit with me. I had to ask what point  you're trying  to make because I can't even remember when you submitted an intelligent post. For the past several days, you've been stuck on stupid, posting only irrelevant poppycock. If our conversation is foolish, you made it foolish.

I've never made the claim that the 911 transcript makes Zimmerman guilty of murder.   

Clearly, you have nothing to say!

Go away profane one!

Folks like Hawks are some of the "Trials and Tribulations" mentioned in the Bible

(( I've never made the claim that the 911 transcript makes Zimmerman guilty of murder.  ))
 
 
Nor did I.  What the tape does, is contradict some of Zimmerman's statements that he made to the police and Detectives.
 
Here's a little Judiciary mini history lesson D2D.  Only a seated Jury can find a person Guilty or not of murder.  Not just anybody...   

Answer the question!

(( Answer the question! ))
 
FUCK YOU and the horse you rode in on...  'ignore' button (click)

Proof Jigsaw cannot back up his claims!

And proof you can't tell us what question you want us to answer, probably because you don't even know yourself, D2D.

 This from a person too stupid to know how to scroll up!

D2D's question has been answered,  You answered it and so did I.  But due to D2D's ignorance, and incapability of grasping onto civil discussion, he can only repeat the same three words "answer the question"

I put D2D and tommi-boi in the same sand box.  Tommi-boi keeps repeating "Why do you find it necessary to lie" and of course D2D with his/her's "answer the question".  Often wondered if he/she is just one member with two screen names...


D2D ~ As I stated before, you are on my ignore list.  I will still talk About you, but not to you.  And judging by the low responses to your post/threads I'm not the only one who isn't talking to you...

Hear! Hear!

Good show, JigSaw!

(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif) ~ Thank You Hawks!!!   

You did nothing but respond with childish name calling!

That's another funny one, Jigsaw.