Btw, lets get you on the record in order to establish just how stupid and ignorant you are Hondo. Are you claiming the photos I posted aren't Trademark?
Let's get you on record with a precise and readable reason why a 17-year old kid from Miami Gardens acting like a thug - in this case, meaning smoking weed, vandalism, a few altercations at school and acting the part on social media - is somehow germane to this case?
Zimmerman was acquitted.
Politically-motivated people politicize (you know, not all immigrants, illegal or otherwise, are rapey).
What is the obsession with showing Treyvon is the most thug light as possible? Why do you so desperately cling to this point? No matter what, George didn't see any of that on the night in question.
Rather, he saw a black kid he didn't know walking around after dark. That. Is. It. He didn't see suspicious behavior. He didn't see a gun. He didn't behavior suggestive of an intent to rob or vandalize. He saw a walker.
So, let's get you on record for why any of that matters?
Btw, lets get you on the record in order to establish just how stupid and ignorant you are Hondo. Are you claiming the photos I posted aren't Trademark?
Let's get you on record with a precise and readable reason why a 17-year old kid from Miami Gardens acting like a thug - in this case, meaning smoking weed, vandalism, a few altercations at school and acting the part on social media - is somehow germane to this case?
Zimmerman was acquitted.
Politically-motivated people politicize (you know, not all immigrants, illegal or otherwise, are rapey).
What is the obsession with showing Treyvon is the most thug light as possible? Why do you so desperately cling to this point? No matter what, George didn't see any of that on the night in question.
Rather, he saw a black kid he didn't know walking around after dark. That. Is. It. He didn't see suspicious behavior. He didn't see a gun. He didn't behavior suggestive of an intent to rob or vandalize. He saw a walker.
So, let's get you on record for why any of that matters?
He has gold teeth. Obvious thug walking around the neighborhood looking for a house to rob.
But you Zimmerman apologists really can't see that he provoked, escalated and caused the confrontation? And you actually claim Zimmerman wasn't stalking the kid? Amazing.
So if someone was watching me and trying to follow me I would be concerned. I have a cell phone I'd probably call the police. I wouldn't beat the shit out of them and repeatedly slam their head onto the concrete without some other mitigating factor.
I could really care less about Zimmerman. But being a fat nosy neighborhood watch guy isn't reason enough.
Well, first of all, you're not 17. Second of all, it's easy to talk about it in the abstract. If you actually dig into the facts of this case, it's not as antiseptic as Bob tries to make it seem. He was tracking him in his car, and when the kid tried to shake him, he got out of his car (thus escalating the situation) and tried to give chase. The tone of his voice and the words he used, on tape, express a state of agitation and anger. Martin's conversation with his girlfriend expressed a state of concern, which is not unreasonable because he's a kid and he's being stalked by an adult he doesn't know for reasons he doesn't understand.
Other than Zimmerman not being very good at fighting and the bullet hole in Martin's chese, literally everything else is open to speculation. But if it were your kid, would you not wonder WTF happened and take Zimmerman to task for stalking and then chasing your kid? For not just letting him go? Your kid. Walking alone at night. Unarmed. Doing nothing. Grown man following in a car. Your kid runs. Adult guy gives chase. Altercation happens, and, good for him, kid handles himself. But dummy has a gun and shoots him.
You sure that situation sits well with you?
My kid would have gone in the house and gotten me. He would not call his girlfriend He would not attack that person beat him to the ground then mount him and beat his head on the concrete.
I've read the case a number of times. You also leave out the high crime rate the gated community was experiencing which was certainly cause for residents to be concerned. Or that Zimmerman had lost Trayvon and asked police to call him when a unit arrived. You also didn't mention the witness that saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman wailing away and Zimmerman screaming for help.
Yeah there's stuff we don't know. But what we do know is quite a bit and sufficient to support Zimmermans claims.
Of course. How could I forget? Your kid's a giant pussy. Trayvon wasn't.
Fuck off; You haven't read shit.
I didn't leave anything out. Those points are not relevant. We still (for the time being) live in a country without state curfews and where one has the right to generally walk in public spaces without being harassed. You know, freedom and shit.
The only thing we don't know ... at all ... is whether Zimmerman gave up the stalk and was withdrawing and was attacked by Martin ... effectively a reversal of what Zimmerman started. Zero evidence. All the evidence relates to Zimmerman the instigator. All of it. The rest of it is simply biased conjecture.
You know, it is Ok to win the struggle when you're defending yourself. Like Martin did. Doesn't make you an attacker under the law.
So Zimmerman attacked Trayvon? Trayvon on top of Zimmerman beating the shit out of him and Zimmerman screaming for help irrelevant?
Was your degree from the Close Cover Before Striking School of Law and Heavy Machinery?
The picture of Tray in this meme was used throughout the entire ordeal by the MSM.
You're such a dufus. I didn't write any of that. Try reading this part again dumb dumb:
The only thing we don't know ... at all ... is whether Zimmerman gave up the stalk and was withdrawing and was attacked by Martin ... effectively a reversal of what Zimmerman started. Zero evidence. All the evidence relates to Zimmerman the instigator. All of it. The rest of it is simply biased conjecture.
Translation: we don't know the version of this that you and Bob want to be true (Trayvon the attacker). There is evidence, however, that Zimmerman was the instigator. "Instigator" does not translate in Engrish to "Attacker". @TurdBuffer , a little help here?
Who cares about the pictures? So you're saying the left politicized the event? Like the right politicized the last time some illegal killed someone? You don't say? Pretty insightful.
You and Bob are struggling with some basic thought process here, so Creep's gonna help you out:
Person A instigates, provokes or causes a fight with person B, but nobody is around to see this stage of the altercation. (Some evidence for this version).
Person B winds up getting the better of Person A. (We all know this happened).
When people start showing up, they see Person B getting the better of Person A. (We all know this happened).
[And this is the important part!]: Person B attacked Person A. (Sled and Bob enthusiastically jump right to this conclusion).
Person B is now justified in killing Person A. (Sled and Bob really like this result because Martin was a thug, there had been robberies in the neighborhood, etc.).
That's your logic.
This case is all about what we don't know and is the only explanation one could have for acquitting Zimmerman.
Of course assholes like you and Bob were raised to angle against Martin every modicum of conjecture you can gather, and at the same time feel absolutely no obligation to consider Zimmerman's role or motives - even though we learned that Zimmerman is a bigger piece of shit than was Martin, the latter of whom at least had youth on his side as a mitigating factor. You and Bob can figure out why you do that; IDRGAF.
One of the (many) big differences between you and me is that I can question and see a thing for what it is, even if something doesn't fall the way I'd like it to, accept it, admit it, and emotionally move on with life. You, by contrast, cannot seem to do any of that and are an emotional child.
But I still love you man.
Funny how we can't know that Trademark started the fight, despite the fact that all of the evidenced supported that conclusion but Coug "knows" that Zimmerman instigated and "provokes" a fight. Following someone in public doesn't give the person being followed the right to assault the person who is following. The police investigated the shooting and came to the conclusion that Zimmerman wasn't guilty of any crime and that he'd engaged in self-defense. The left in their best lynch mode imitation then pressured the the State AG to bring charges against Zimmerman when there was no evidence to support any charges against him.
The second investigation was political. The fact that it resulted in a bad charge doesn't bother leftards who favor political charges. Zimmerman instigated nothing.
You don't actually know that.
Nobody likes politically-motivated anything when the political motivation is on the other side of the aisle. I'm sure you're super fair and balanced in those assessments, so I'll take your word for it.
I don't dispute the fact that the left does such things all the time, and are doing it now.
What I find amusing is when people suggest that the right somehow has seen its way to being above such tactics. Laffable.
Zimmerman was and is a loser. You would do well to save your tears for a more sympathetic person. Again, people forgot about this whole matter 5 minutes after he was acquitted. That is America. He only stayed in the news for a few more years because he's a fucking retard and would put himself there.
Losers lose. George is a loser.
Who here said the right is above such tactics? People forget about this matter 5 minutes after he was acquitted? Yeah that's why JayZ just put out some propaganda piece of crap about this case and Zimmerman still receives death threats.
Zimmerman is a loser and Trademark was a punk thug.
The second investigation was political. The fact that it resulted in a bad charge doesn't bother leftards who favor political charges. Zimmerman instigated nothing.
You don't actually know that.
Nobody likes politically-motivated anything when the political motivation is on the other side of the aisle. I'm sure you're super fair and balanced in those assessments, so I'll take your word for it.
I don't dispute the fact that the left does such things all the time, and are doing it now.
What I find amusing is when people suggest that the right somehow has seen its way to being above such tactics. Laffable.
Zimmerman was and is a loser. You would do well to save your tears for a more sympathetic person. Again, people forgot about this whole matter 5 minutes after he was acquitted. That is America. He only stayed in the news for a few more years because he's a fucking retard and would put himself there.
Losers lose. George is a loser.
Who here said the right is above such tactics? People forget about this matter 5 minutes after he was acquitted? Yeah that's why JayZ just put out some propaganda piece of crap about this case and Zimmerman still receives death threats.
Zimmerman is a loser and Trademark was a punk thug.
You have spent a shit ton of time defending a loser.
The second investigation was political. The fact that it resulted in a bad charge doesn't bother leftards who favor political charges. Zimmerman instigated nothing.
That's because the left believes in political prosecutions. It's what they are trying to do to Kavanaugh right now. The right will use the death of someone who is killed by an illegal in order to push their agenda against illegal immigration. The left will happily prosecute an innocent person in order to advance their political objectives.
The second investigation was political. The fact that it resulted in a bad charge doesn't bother leftards who favor political charges. Zimmerman instigated nothing.
That's because the left believes in political prosecutions. It's what they are trying to do to Kavanaugh right now. The right will use the death of someone who is killed by an illegal in order to push their agenda against illegal immigration. The left will happily prosecute an innocent person in order to advance their political objectives.
Investigations into emails and Benghazi laugh at this post.
The second investigation was political. The fact that it resulted in a bad charge doesn't bother leftards who favor political charges. Zimmerman instigated nothing.
That's because the left believes in political prosecutions. It's what they are trying to do to Kavanaugh right now. The right will use the death of someone who is killed by an illegal in order to push their agenda against illegal immigration. The left will happily prosecute an innocent person in order to advance their political objectives.
Investigations into emails and Benghazi laugh at this post.
Who was the innocent person they were trying to prosecute? Let the Kunt act begin!!!!
The second investigation was political. The fact that it resulted in a bad charge doesn't bother leftards who favor political charges. Zimmerman instigated nothing.
That's because the left believes in political prosecutions. It's what they are trying to do to Kavanaugh right now. The right will use the death of someone who is killed by an illegal in order to push their agenda against illegal immigration. The left will happily prosecute an innocent person in order to advance their political objectives.
Investigations into emails and Benghazi laugh at this post.
Who was the innocent person they were trying to prosecute? Let the Kunt act begin!!!!
We there any charges? Yeah no.
Are you really this dumb or just trolling? I know the answer but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.
The second investigation was political. The fact that it resulted in a bad charge doesn't bother leftards who favor political charges. Zimmerman instigated nothing.
That's because the left believes in political prosecutions. It's what they are trying to do to Kavanaugh right now. The right will use the death of someone who is killed by an illegal in order to push their agenda against illegal immigration. The left will happily prosecute an innocent person in order to advance their political objectives.
Investigations into emails and Benghazi laugh at this post.
Who was the innocent person they were trying to prosecute? Let the Kunt act begin!!!!
We there any charges? Yeah no.
I can't tell you how much it stings being called dumb by a Kunt who just wrote that.
The second investigation was political. The fact that it resulted in a bad charge doesn't bother leftards who favor political charges. Zimmerman instigated nothing.
That's because the left believes in political prosecutions. It's what they are trying to do to Kavanaugh right now. The right will use the death of someone who is killed by an illegal in order to push their agenda against illegal immigration. The left will happily prosecute an innocent person in order to advance their political objectives.
Investigations into emails and Benghazi laugh at this post.
Who was the innocent person they were trying to prosecute? Let the Kunt act begin!!!!
We there any charges? Yeah no.
I can't tell you how much it stings being called dumb by a Kunt who just wrote that.
So your agree that you are a hypocrite. Supporting the Benghazi and email political investigations.
When Sledog does this, I know it's the expression of intellectual limitations. What's your drive here?
I didn't say I "knew" Zimmerman did anything. I said, a lot, that (1) we had no evidence that Martin started the fight, (2) the fact that he was winning the fight did not mean, ergo, that he started it, and (3) that the evidence we did have was that Zimmerman (a) was following/tracking/stalking (pick your word) him with a purpose expressed in the taped call, (b) was in an agitated state (taped call) and had already concluded (taped call) the kid had done something wrong with no evidence to support the conclusion other than profile, and (c) left his vehicle and gave chase, thereby clearly escalating the situation and increasing his own agitation and likely Trayvon's.
For normal, rational and well-adjusted people, the same act done in varying contexts produces varying results. Understanding those differences is one of the ways we separate smart people from stupid people. If when I go out to lunch in a moment some guy is walking behind me, it won't be a big deal. If I wind up walking quite a bit and he is behind me after every turn, then I might think he's following me and, if so, I'll be aware of it and on some level bothered by it and perhaps feel threatened. If I run to get away from him and he starts chasing me, then I'll definitely know I have a problem. From that point on, anything can happen.
Some guy, who as @TurdBuffer noted, could be a perv or some other person who means him harm, is following a black kid in Seminole County, at night, in a car and then GETS OUT OF THE CAR and starts chasing him.
If you think that is the same as the first stage of my hypothetical experience, you are as dumb as Sledog. But I think you know they are very different. Mysteriously (or not), you try and equate them as if you can't appreciate the difference.
This isn't a commentary on the police or the jury who bought Z's version. Those are separate discussions. As I said elsewhere, Z was in the right place for this to happen. The problem with this case has always been with the lack of witnesses at the key moment. Legally, if there had been evidence that Zimmerman started the altercation (an entirely plausible scenario in these facts), the fact that he was getting his ass kicked would not have justified his use of lethal force. In other words, if you commit felony assault, you can't claim self-defense later, any more than you can claim self-defense by shooting a homeowner during a break-in to prevent them from shooting you. Felony murder rule.
If on some level Zimmerman's actions don't bother you, then you cannot have a civil libertarian bone in your body. You get to walk around and mind your own business free of assault or threat. If the left's subsequent politicization of it is all you can mentally absorb, then you are a one-track minded sheep.
When Sledog does this, I know it's the expression of intellectual limitations. What's your drive here?
I didn't say I "knew" Zimmerman did anything. I said, a lot, that (1) we had no evidence that Martin started the fight, (2) the fact that he was winning the fight did not mean, ergo, that he started it, and (3) that the evidence we did have was that Zimmerman (a) was following/tracking/stalking (pick your word) him with a purpose expressed in the taped call, (b) was in an agitated state (taped call) and had already concluded (taped call) the kid had done something wrong with no evidence to support the conclusion other than profile, and (c) left his vehicle and gave chase, thereby clearly escalating the situation and increasing his own agitation and likely Trayvon's.
For normal, rational and well-adjusted people, the same act done in varying contexts produces varying results. Understanding those differences is one of the ways we separate smart people from stupid people. If when I go out to lunch in a moment some guy is walking behind me, it won't be a big deal. If I wind up walking quite a bit and he is behind me after every turn, then I might think he's following me and, if so, I'll be aware of it and on some level bothered by it and perhaps feel threatened. If I run to get away from him and he starts chasing me, then I'll definitely know I have a problem. From that point on, anything can happen.
Some guy, who as @TurdBuffer noted, could be a perv or some other person who means him harm, is following a black kid in Seminole County, at night, in a car and then GETS OUT OF THE CAR and starts chasing him.
If you think that is the same as the first stage of my hypothetical experience, you are as dumb as Sledog. But I think you know they are very different. Mysteriously (or not), you try and equate them as if you can't appreciate the difference.
This isn't a commentary on the police or the jury who bought Z's version. Those are separate discussions. As I said elsewhere, Z was in the right place for this to happen. The problem with this case has always been with the lack of witnesses at the key moment. Legally, if there had been evidence that Zimmerman started the altercation (an entirely plausible scenario in these facts), the fact that he was getting his ass kicked would not have justified his use of lethal force. In other words, if you commit felony assault, you can't claim self-defense later, any more than you can claim self-defense by shooting a homeowner during a break-in to prevent them from shooting you. Felony murder rule.
If on some level Zimmerman's actions don't bother you, then you cannot have a civil libertarian bone in your body. You get to walk around and mind your own business free of assault or threat. If the left's subsequent politicization of it is all you can mentally absorb, then you are a one-track minded sheep.
Btw, lets get you on the record in order to establish just how stupid and ignorant you are Hondo. Are you claiming the photos I posted aren't Trademark?
Let's get you on record with a precise and readable reason why a 17-year old kid from Miami Gardens acting like a thug - in this case, meaning smoking weed, vandalism, a few altercations at school and acting the part on social media - is somehow germane to this case?
Zimmerman was acquitted.
Politically-motivated people politicize (you know, not all immigrants, illegal or otherwise, are rapey).
What is the obsession with showing Treyvon is the most thug light as possible? Why do you so desperately cling to this point? No matter what, George didn't see any of that on the night in question.
Rather, he saw a black kid he didn't know walking around after dark. That. Is. It. He didn't see suspicious behavior. He didn't see a gun. He didn't behavior suggestive of an intent to rob or vandalize. He saw a walker.
So, let's get you on record for why any of that matters?
The issue was about the images the media chose in order show pictures of Zimmerman and pictures of Trademark. Do you agree with Hondo that the images I posted of Trademark could be fake?
The second investigation was political. The fact that it resulted in a bad charge doesn't bother leftards who favor political charges. Zimmerman instigated nothing.
That's because the left believes in political prosecutions. It's what they are trying to do to Kavanaugh right now. The right will use the death of someone who is killed by an illegal in order to push their agenda against illegal immigration. The left will happily prosecute an innocent person in order to advance their political objectives.
Investigations into emails and Benghazi laugh at this post.
Who was the innocent person they were trying to prosecute? Let the Kunt act begin!!!!
We there any charges? Yeah no.
I can't tell you how much it stings being called dumb by a Kunt who just wrote that.
So your agree that you are a hypocrite. Supporting the Benghazi and email political investigations.
Yeah I believe I agreed to that right after you agreed that you're a pig fucker. Other than being a troll and a Kunt what is your purpose here Hondo?
Btw, lets get you on the record in order to establish just how stupid and ignorant you are Hondo. Are you claiming the photos I posted aren't Trademark?
Let's get you on record with a precise and readable reason why a 17-year old kid from Miami Gardens acting like a thug - in this case, meaning smoking weed, vandalism, a few altercations at school and acting the part on social media - is somehow germane to this case?
Zimmerman was acquitted.
Politically-motivated people politicize (you know, not all immigrants, illegal or otherwise, are rapey).
What is the obsession with showing Treyvon is the most thug light as possible? Why do you so desperately cling to this point? No matter what, George didn't see any of that on the night in question.
Rather, he saw a black kid he didn't know walking around after dark. That. Is. It. He didn't see suspicious behavior. He didn't see a gun. He didn't behavior suggestive of an intent to rob or vandalize. He saw a walker.
So, let's get you on record for why any of that matters?
The issue was about the images the media chose in order show pictures of Zimmerman and pictures of Trademark. Do you agree with Hondo that the images I posted of Trademark could be fake?
I just asked for a link. Which you haven't provided. (And I've already done my research. But keep coming to conclusions about shit I didn't say).
When Sledog does this, I know it's the expression of intellectual limitations. What's your drive here?
I didn't say I "knew" Zimmerman did anything. I said, a lot, that (1) we had no evidence that Martin started the fight, (2) the fact that he was winning the fight did not mean, ergo, that he started it, and (3) that the evidence we did have was that Zimmerman (a) was following/tracking/stalking (pick your word) him with a purpose expressed in the taped call, (b) was in an agitated state (taped call) and had already concluded (taped call) the kid had done something wrong with no evidence to support the conclusion other than profile, and (c) left his vehicle and gave chase, thereby clearly escalating the situation and increasing his own agitation and likely Trayvon's.
For normal, rational and well-adjusted people, the same act done in varying contexts produces varying results. Understanding those differences is one of the ways we separate smart people from stupid people. If when I go out to lunch in a moment some guy is walking behind me, it won't be a big deal. If I wind up walking quite a bit and he is behind me after every turn, then I might think he's following me and, if so, I'll be aware of it and on some level bothered by it and perhaps feel threatened. If I run to get away from him and he starts chasing me, then I'll definitely know I have a problem. From that point on, anything can happen.
Some guy, who as @TurdBuffer noted, could be a perv or some other person who means him harm, is following a black kid in Seminole County, at night, in a car and then GETS OUT OF THE CAR and starts chasing him.
If you think that is the same as the first stage of my hypothetical experience, you are as dumb as Sledog. But I think you know they are very different. Mysteriously (or not), you try and equate them as if you can't appreciate the difference.
This isn't a commentary on the police or the jury who bought Z's version. Those are separate discussions. As I said elsewhere, Z was in the right place for this to happen. The problem with this case has always been with the lack of witnesses at the key moment. Legally, if there had been evidence that Zimmerman started the altercation (an entirely plausible scenario in these facts), the fact that he was getting his ass kicked would not have justified his use of lethal force. In other words, if you commit felony assault, you can't claim self-defense later, any more than you can claim self-defense by shooting a homeowner during a break-in to prevent them from shooting you. Felony murder rule.
If on some level Zimmerman's actions don't bother you, then you cannot have a civil libertarian bone in your body. You get to walk around and mind your own business free of assault or threat. If the left's subsequent politicization of it is all you can mentally absorb, then you are a one-track minded sheep.
Hey Coug detail for us your evidence that Zimmerman started the fight. I don't want your conjecture, I want solid evidence that points to Zimmerman being the person who started the fight. And no, following someone in public isn't grounds for the person being followed to attack the other person.
Btw, lets get you on the record in order to establish just how stupid and ignorant you are Hondo. Are you claiming the photos I posted aren't Trademark?
Let's get you on record with a precise and readable reason why a 17-year old kid from Miami Gardens acting like a thug - in this case, meaning smoking weed, vandalism, a few altercations at school and acting the part on social media - is somehow germane to this case?
Zimmerman was acquitted.
Politically-motivated people politicize (you know, not all immigrants, illegal or otherwise, are rapey).
What is the obsession with showing Treyvon is the most thug light as possible? Why do you so desperately cling to this point? No matter what, George didn't see any of that on the night in question.
Rather, he saw a black kid he didn't know walking around after dark. That. Is. It. He didn't see suspicious behavior. He didn't see a gun. He didn't behavior suggestive of an intent to rob or vandalize. He saw a walker.
So, let's get you on record for why any of that matters?
The issue was about the images the media chose in order show pictures of Zimmerman and pictures of Trademark. Do you agree with Hondo that the images I posted of Trademark could be fake?
I just asked for a link. Which you haven't provided. (And I've already done my research. But keep coming to conclusions about shit I didn't say).
The second investigation was political. The fact that it resulted in a bad charge doesn't bother leftards who favor political charges. Zimmerman instigated nothing.
That's because the left believes in political prosecutions. It's what they are trying to do to Kavanaugh right now. The right will use the death of someone who is killed by an illegal in order to push their agenda against illegal immigration. The left will happily prosecute an innocent person in order to advance their political objectives.
Suffice it to say the Right is mightily forgetful. And hypocritical.
The second investigation was political. The fact that it resulted in a bad charge doesn't bother leftards who favor political charges. Zimmerman instigated nothing.
That's because the left believes in political prosecutions. It's what they are trying to do to Kavanaugh right now. The right will use the death of someone who is killed by an illegal in order to push their agenda against illegal immigration. The left will happily prosecute an innocent person in order to advance their political objectives.
Suffice it to say the Right is mightily forgetful. And hypocritical.
Who is the innocent person that was being prosecuted in that case?
Comments
Zimmerman was acquitted.
Politically-motivated people politicize (you know, not all immigrants, illegal or otherwise, are rapey).
What is the obsession with showing Treyvon is the most thug light as possible? Why do you so desperately cling to this point? No matter what, George didn't see any of that on the night in question.
Rather, he saw a black kid he didn't know walking around after dark. That. Is. It. He didn't see suspicious behavior. He didn't see a gun. He didn't behavior suggestive of an intent to rob or vandalize. He saw a walker.
So, let's get you on record for why any of that matters?
Zimmerman is a loser and Trademark was a punk thug.
Are you really this dumb or just trolling? I know the answer but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.
I didn't say I "knew" Zimmerman did anything. I said, a lot, that (1) we had no evidence that Martin started the fight, (2) the fact that he was winning the fight did not mean, ergo, that he started it, and (3) that the evidence we did have was that Zimmerman (a) was following/tracking/stalking (pick your word) him with a purpose expressed in the taped call, (b) was in an agitated state (taped call) and had already concluded (taped call) the kid had done something wrong with no evidence to support the conclusion other than profile, and (c) left his vehicle and gave chase, thereby clearly escalating the situation and increasing his own agitation and likely Trayvon's.
For normal, rational and well-adjusted people, the same act done in varying contexts produces varying results. Understanding those differences is one of the ways we separate smart people from stupid people. If when I go out to lunch in a moment some guy is walking behind me, it won't be a big deal. If I wind up walking quite a bit and he is behind me after every turn, then I might think he's following me and, if so, I'll be aware of it and on some level bothered by it and perhaps feel threatened. If I run to get away from him and he starts chasing me, then I'll definitely know I have a problem. From that point on, anything can happen.
Some guy, who as @TurdBuffer noted, could be a perv or some other person who means him harm, is following a black kid in Seminole County, at night, in a car and then GETS OUT OF THE CAR and starts chasing him.
If you think that is the same as the first stage of my hypothetical experience, you are as dumb as Sledog. But I think you know they are very different. Mysteriously (or not), you try and equate them as if you can't appreciate the difference.
This isn't a commentary on the police or the jury who bought Z's version. Those are separate discussions. As I said elsewhere, Z was in the right place for this to happen. The problem with this case has always been with the lack of witnesses at the key moment. Legally, if there had been evidence that Zimmerman started the altercation (an entirely plausible scenario in these facts), the fact that he was getting his ass kicked would not have justified his use of lethal force. In other words, if you commit felony assault, you can't claim self-defense later, any more than you can claim self-defense by shooting a homeowner during a break-in to prevent them from shooting you. Felony murder rule.
If on some level Zimmerman's actions don't bother you, then you cannot have a civil libertarian bone in your body. You get to walk around and mind your own business free of assault or threat. If the left's subsequent politicization of it is all you can mentally absorb, then you are a one-track minded sheep.
First are you sure those are Authentic.
Suffice it to say the Right is mightily forgetful. And hypocritical.