I didnt jump on any wagon. I saw a young man unarmed shot by a grown man with a gun. I heard the tapes of this grown man assuming the boy was up to 'no good', an 'ahole' and possibly 'getting away'

I heard a dispatcher tell this man not to pursue the boy and to ask the man (neighborhood watch for how long now?) where he was at to wh ich he replied that the police should check with him when they arrived to 'see' where he was at,,,

all this implies to me a strange man with a gun pursued a young man with an unfounded belief in that young mans criminality and a desperate desire to make sure he didnt get away


all of that makes me think of a young man, on that night, walking in the dark and noticing some strange man following him

trying to 'lose him' by retreating between some buildings only to be confronted again by this same persistent man (with a past of pushing people )

who most likely doesnt identify himself in any way (he didnt bother to identify his watch status on the dispatcher tape) and just feels ENTITLED to question this young man based upon the previously mentioned assumptions

so what does this boy do now? he has tried to lose this man, he has run somewhere there would be no reason for the man to follow him to,, and YET,, there the man is

asking 'what are you doing here' and possessing a gun,,,

(possibly pushing or grabbing him to furhter assert authority?) and so the boy fights for his life

when would the boy have an opportunity to do anything else once it is clear there is a gun? he cant outrun a gun or a bullet? and in the mind of the man who pursued him there is then a fear that his own weapon will end up in the boys hand and be used against him. So even if the boy grabs for the gun so that he can finally retreat,,,,the man can again claim self defense because the boy grabbed for the gun that very MAN introduced into the situation that night





where was HIS right to defend h imself against a very REASONABLE fear initiated by being stalked and approached by someone carrying a gun?

he didnt have that right, it was trumped by the mans right to further damage this boy by not just intimidating him but finally killing him?

no, mr zimmermans reckless actions set in motion what happend that night and he should be accountable,,,,

It is all over the internet, spider, you do your own homework. I already did mine.

I agree. The possession of a gun by a wanna be cop, real life coward, is responsible for that boy dying.

Im not mad because of racism, Im mad that a grown man took a young mans life with a gun after tha man PURSUED the boy (not vice versa)

and everyone just wants to believe the boy must have been a punk who jumped him

Agreed.

Sadly, dead men tell no tales. So this will not get the right attention.

I can't even tell you how shocking it was for me in the south when I heard a white person tell me that a black person being in their neighborhood at night was punishable by death at their hands.

It repeats in mind each time I hear the 911 tape and hear the man hunting him down.

If that is what the evidence shows, then what is wrong with believing that?

I have seen no evidence, nor have you, to make that claim.

and the CLAIMS and REPORTS dont even have evidence he was 'jumped'

its just evidence that he fought and wasnt WINNING the fight

Transcript of George Zimmerman's Call to the Police

I can't find the transcript of the other 911 call, but I have found this quote all over the place: "The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: 'help, help…and I told him to stop and I was calling 911,"

Zimmerman was in red. The "bone chilling" (as the media puts it) screams for help...that was the shooter as he was being beaten.

It's already been established that you are convinced he's guilty and no evidence will sway you otherwise.

Where did Trayvon's drug money come from? Why did a series of local breakins start when Trayvon came to stay in the neighborhood? What I'm getting at is, how do you know it was a "unfounded belief in that young mans criminality"?

he IS guilty,, he had a weapon, the child didnt, the child is dead

he is GUILTY of killing someones kid

whether it was 'justified' would be hard to prove to me because of the knowledge that he first 'pursued' the kid,,,


whether it was malicious, reckless, or any other group of conditions the system allows is what they need to show

if there is inconsistency or 'lies', like how he said he was squeaky clean although he has four seperate charges in his past,,,,,

in his version of what happened, would be further evidence of deception,, something that would not be needed if he were truly 'innocent'


his version MAKES NO SENSE, as judge judy would say,,,,

No, it's not odd. The witness saw a man being brutally beaten, why would he volunteer to be the next one beaten?



They haven't released the full transcript, because the witness wants to remain anonymous. The call was made.

Exactly. If the races were reversed, your position would also be reversed.



Charges are not convictions. He is squeaky clean if he hasn't had any convictions.



Zimmerman's statement matches his 911 call, the secret witnesses 911 call and the physical evidence. In other words, it makes perfect sense.

now who is speculating?

Trayvon was VISITING the neighborhood, he hadnt come to stay there,,,


split parents often share custody,,,


up to this point there is no evidence and no RECRORD of Treyvon being a t hief,,,

but again, turnabout is fair play, I knew that when they started revealing the 'squeaky clean' record of Zimmerman (all having to do with physical ocntact, btw)

the DIG would begin for any POTENTIAL connection Trayvon might have to anything illegal,,,,


still doesnt stop that he had the right to be there,
had the right to feel intimidated and uncooperative with a stranger who had been following him, every right not to feel an obligation to answer the stranger who had pursued him,

and every right to fight for his life under those initimidating circumstances if the man did so much as Grab him,,,,,let alone happen to expose that he was carrying a WEAPON

all of that is more likely and reasonable than thinking this young man came BACK after trying to loose his stalker and hauled off in a physical confrontation

NOTHING so far in Treyvons past indicates that as his character, several things in Zimmermans past indicate that confrontation and PUSHING are in his character though,,,

even if that is true, if zimmerman had stayed in his car, none of this would be an issue right now. you seem to be forgetting that zimmerman is not a police. that was not his job to pursue/attack the kid. that is the police concerns, not his. his job is to inform the police, not to act like police. overzealous jackass that took a kids life.

LOL.. wow,,,ok


so, they dont have ways to EDIT tapes now,,,? funny, they did it on other calls (zimmermans )

. . and if he had not been born then this wouldn't have occurred either, unfortunately neither of those two things are illegal.

I can follow you almost constantly in a public place without regard to your actions. If you stop and confront me neither of us has any right to touch the other.

What matters is where the illegal touching started, who started it, and if the shooter reasonably felt his life was in danger.

THATS IT. You guys want other things to matter, but they dont.

Martin had a cell phone correct? Why did he not call 911 if he was being followed by a stranger?

BOOM. Nailed it.