Comment: There are few here that are defending Zimmerman...

(See in situ)

There are few here that are defending Zimmerman...

Most are instead supportive of the upholding of self defense rights without worrying about using deadly force when it is justifiable. He was not stalked as we know he had a phone and did not report a "stalker" to police or anyone else. But you do get a couple of things right, Martin was innocent until he assaulted Zimmerman, he was unarmed until the concrete met the back of Zimmerman's head (intentionally, or unintentionally), and he was a young man. Where you lose your argument is that he was initially tasked by the 9-11 operator to "see where he went" before being told that "we don't need you to do that" in reference to his running toward the building that Martin escaped behind. These are not orders, they are not from "police", and from the 9-11 tape when they told him that he did stop looking for Martin.

So while you are correct that Zimmerman followed Martin's path while on the phone with 9-11, there is no evidence that he had his gun drawn, ever confronted Martin, nor acted in a violent manner towards him. The violence in fact occurred when he was struck in the nose, fell to the ground, and was mounted and beaten.

If I were Martin and some strange man was following me I would have gone straight home, which is not what Martin did. He was ahead of Zimmerman and 30 seconds from his fathers home when Zimmerman told the 9-11 dispatch that he had lost him. He would not give 9-11 his home address for fear the youth would hear him as he did not know where he was, so the question is why did Martin not simply go home?

I would have a right to defend myself from Zimmerman if he assaulted me. Were he to become violent and I felt I was in threat of bodily harm including up to death. The same reasoning behind Zimmerman's testimony, and finding of "not guilty" by a jury of 6 mothers.

Had this been a black resident that was part of the neighborhood watch and the story played out in reverse and Zimmerman beat Martins head against the concrete, then I would side with the pro Martin folks, or pro self defense people in the majority.

Making a narrative about that which you simply do not know is not really a case worthy of arguing. Martin was a lovely hard working and loving individual that had never done wrong, Zimmerman a vigilante rapist child abuser who hunted Martin down like a dog, only one problem, vigilantes do not call 9-11 and give their name. So while you you try to claim he was "stalking" Martin is incorrect by the very definition, as well as the "vigilante" meme while talking to 9-11 non emergency is debunked, what ground have you to stand on? You cant make up a new story to fit your narrative that Zimmerman was this or that, I cant prove Martin was a thug that attacked Zimmerman, what we do know is Martin did not go home to get away from Zimmerman, Zimmerman did not drag Martin from his fathers home to fight and shoot him, so how did Martin get from being 30 seconds from his fathers home, to fighting Zimmerman at a location clearly headed back to his car?

Bottom line both made vital mistakes, the decision Martin made to go back to Zimmerman's location proved fatal due to Zimmerman's head hitting the concrete. No one will ever know if the blows caused Zimmerman's head to meet the concrete, or if Martin was intentionally beating his head against it, but the fact that it happened as it did, the concrete was seen as Martin's weapon, and the evidence agree's with that synopsis, as did the jury. Time to move on, as playing make believe doesn't cut it in a court of law.

Always remember:
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." ~ Samuel Adams
If they hate us for our freedom, they must LOVE us now....

Stay IRATE, remain TIRELESS, an