Re: Confederate Flag
How did Trayvon Martin "bring destruction upon himself?" ... But Martin did nothing but defend himself.
Your absurd take on the case has already been shown to be wrong, several times.
A neighborhood watch creep who was asked not to follow Martin by the dispatcher, agreed not to do so and then did it anyway. So OJ Zimmerman had the right to stalk and murder Martin but Martin did not have the right to confront his stalker and deal with his perceived threat. Thanks for expressing the white supremacist view of the world so succinctly. Looks like in your case the sins are still being committed. BTW, have you been following the exploits of your "hero" since he murdered Martin? Now there's the behavior of a thug, all right. But I guess since he doesn't wear a hoody and he's got white skin it's all okay. Such rightwing bull****.
:doh
Just stop. You do not know what you are talking about.
1. The Call-taker
(a person with no authority) did not ask Zimmerman not to follow. He stated that they did not need him to do that.
1(a). Zimmerman stopped and did not follow from that point on.
He went in another direction.
2. There was no stalking. Following to keep eyes on a suspicious person until the police you called arrives, is not staking. It is called Observing.
3. Anyone has a right to ask someone why they are following them. They do not have a right to attack them like Trayvon did.
4. Trayvon had disappeared and only reappeared later when Zimmerman was on his way back to his vehicle.
Either he laid in wait or he made it the short distance home only to return to deliberately place himself in danger and attack him.
5. There was no murder. It was a justifiable killing of an attacker.
You even were speaking of the Brown case and displayed that you also have no idea what you were talking about in regards to that case as well.
Brown was not murdered.
And even though the Chief initially said he wasn't aware of the call about the theft it was later found out that he was.
Most folks understand that when new confirmed information counters the old unconfirmed you dismiss the old as irrelevant.
All that the trial proved is that the jury was not convinced that Zimmerman was guaranteed to not have been defending himself.
The prosecution may have simply be unable to prove Zimmerman was a crazy stalker. Notice Zimmerman's name in subsequent news reports? Seems that he's not exactly a stable person.
You know not of what you speak.
The trial showed by the evidence that Zimmerman was defending himself. The Trier of Fact (the Jury) determined that is what was proven and as such, he was found not guilty.
There was no evidence of stalking.
Following to observe someone who was acting suspiciously that he had called the Police on? Yes. But not stalking. And btw, stalkers do not call the Police.
To even suggest he was stalking is lunacy.
False accusations are not an indication of stability or instability. D'oh!
The Matthew Apperson character that fired on Zimmerman is exactly the type of unstable person that others wished call Zimmerman.
He even exemplified the idiocy of the arguments made by folks here that a person could just claim SYG and walk away.
