Comment: Never said that you said

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: First, I never said it was (see in situ)

Never said that you said

Never said that you said that. I stated that you spoke it like it was fact. You are coming from the angle that he was not the initiator and I have no issue with that. I am coming from the angle that the only thing that is proven is, according to the 911 call, he pursued Martin. That's nothing that I got from MSM (because I don't look at it) or from anyone. I sat and listened to the 911 call and the dispatcher told him not to pursue Martin. So he called 911 on suspicion and then went to pursue him and I'm supposed to ignore that fact. Again, I never once said that he acted in self defense, but then again, I can't understand how an instigator (again, who went after who?) can claim self defense in something that he seemingly started.

The example that I gave is similar considering the preliminary situation. A stranger followed someone at night in pursuit. It's funny how people are responding to this, but if they were being followed by a stranger at night, they would have one hand on the holster. lol. I'm just saying.

But in none of this have I ever said he was guilty of anything but being an idiot. What I specific state is that if he would have stayed to himself, a kid wouldn't be dead and he wouldn't be in court regarding this.