Ive carried for a decade without incident.

i still have yet to why this kid was shot. was he breaking into someones home/car/doghouse? it sounded to me that zimmerman thought he looked "something". so, a kid is dead because
A: zimmerman was suspicious of this kid.
B: said he " 'could' be on drugs"
C: The boy was unarmed.
D: Zimmerman says "these a$$holes always get away"
E: confronts the kid after being warned not to. (by the police)


if this same guy confronted any one of you a 12:30 at night, would you not be a little concerned?

At 12:30 at night if someone was following me I would call 911.

excuse me? there were about 7 witnesses, what exactly constitutes which one is the 'main' witness?

a) Not a crime
b) The kid was suspended for drugs, so that's very possible.
c) So?
d) So?
e) Zimmerman says that didn't happen. He was on his way back to his truck after he lost sight of Trayvon. The 911 tape shows that he was concerned for his own safety at that point. He wasn't looking for a confrontation, he was following Trayvon so that the police could find him for questioning.

The fight took place immediately behind his house. He saw the whole thing and was describing it to the police real time.

i never called 911 in my life... even when someone was chasing me... that is not an option for most youths of today, because of the gangster mentality. and it clearly is not a usable defence in this situation. as you know, he was talking with his girl when everything went down.

uhuh, but you havent heard the tape?

interesting


.. well, we will see what surfaces,,,

any DA would show him to be on a mission, to kill that kid. the jury would eat that up, because it shows a pattern of thought of him stalking the boy. and thats just basic information, not the real info the the lawyers will have.

Sounds like a TV show I used to watch.

could be soon.... on lifetime or TBS

So you are saying that Zimmerman should be put on trial, because a believable story can be told that implicates him, despite the fact that it's not supported by the evidence?

There is some evidence that I'm interested in hearing, namely, wounds on Trayvon. If Trayvon is uninjured other than one gunshot wound, then that would indicate that he was the aggressor, wouldn't it?

I've heard the pieces that have been released, same as everyone else.

it is supported by Zimmermans own words that he was following the boy supported by his words that he viewed Trayvon as an AHOLE who was going to GET AWAY

that makes it a very REASONABLE possibility that he was the aggressor

couple that with his PAST incidences of DOCUMENTED aggression,,,and it makes a VERY good case for him as the aggressor


and , if he is the aggressor, whether he left bruises or not, he is in the wrong

just because an aggressor gets whooped doesnt make him any less the aggressor/initiator/ responsible party

previously it was written that this witness was walking his dog and going to go inside to call 911,,,(turns out THAT witness was actually a young boy who only said he saw someone laying on the ground BEFORE the gunshot, not that he saw TWO people fighting)

now he was inside watching the whole time,,,,interesting,,,

And you are not a 17 year old. Sing followed by someone.
How do you know he had a "gangster mentality"?
If he did have that mentality then it's possible Martin was the aggressor and initiated the fight. Isn't that what gangsters do?

gangsters dont usually 'run' away though,,,just saying,,,

Nope mixing up witnesses. The "John" witness is a grown man, not a child.