George Zimmerman sues Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren over tweets honouring Trayvon Martin

[Excon]

Zimmerman didn't do anything wrong up until the point he got out of his truck and gave chase.

There was no chase.

The rest of your opinion is just nonsense.

 

[Excon]

But the thing is..........you don’t know if any of that actually happened.

No, none of us were there, but your statement is absurd given the evidence we have .

What we do know is that Zimmerman was following him after he was told by the police not to and he had a gun locked and loaded

The police did not tell him not to follow. No one told him that, and the gun was concealed in it's holster.

Yes, but what everyone is overlooking is the fact that if this kid were white, none of this would have happened.

Bs.
Had a white person been looking into other homes windows, Zimmerman is likely to have done the same.

Again, you are basing your conclusions on Zimmerman’s testimony.

That is called evidence and is supported by other evidence.

In addition, do you not realize that a jury has to rely on actual evidence and not on speculative nonsense?

There is no proof that he was a wannabe gangster.

Besides irrelevant - wrong.

He had no gun.

Besides irrelevant - not on him, which is obviously why he was going for Zimmerman's with the stated intent to kill him.

He was minding his business.

Wrong. Looking into the other homes as he was observed doing. is not minding his own business.

The only reason Zimmerman followed him was because he was a black kid walking in a white neighborhood.

Wrong on all accounts.


If he were a white kid, Zimmerman would not have looked twice. What made Zimmerman suspicious was his race, not that he was walking through the neighborhood.[/QUOTE]Wrong as usual. Looking into the homes windows is the reason, not race as you make believe.

Who attacked who?

We know from the evidence that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman. He came out of hiding to do so.
That is called laying in wait.

But the thing is.....He should have followed that advice

Should have?
There is no "should have" about it as nothing requires such.
But you have again shown you do not know enough about this case to even be discussing it, becasue the fact is that Zimmerman did follow the request and traveled in a different direction than the one Trayvon had gone.

So who did Martin bully or assault? There is no record of him ever bullying or assaulting anyone. Zimmerman on the other hand has a record of bullying and assaulting both before and after he murdered Martin. But I guess since he is white, you will give him the white privileged pass

Your observations are as silly as your racist garbage is stupid.

Being on top of him does not mean that Trayvon caused the injuries. It does not mean that Trayvon jumped Zimmerman. It does not mean that Trayvon was a thug looking for trouble as you claim. All it means is that Trayvon was on top of him when Zimmerman shot him. You have no clue what happened. But give Zimmerman the white privileged card if you must

What Zimmerman reports is evidence.

So was the resident witness who saw Trayvon on top of him.

 

[Excon]

and called the police regarding the weirdo following him.

The problem with that is that he was mostly observing him, not following.

just escalated things, and enabled the tragedy just as much as anything Zimmerman did.

Wrong.

Of course, Martin was just an unarmed kid romping through his new neighborhood,

No. He was visiting his father's where he was staying and upon returning to that residence he was seen looking into other homes.

I think Zimmerman's "correct" move would have been to introduce himself to Trayvon as part of the neighborhood watch, and explained he was concerned about some recent robberies, and had Martin seen anything, and did he live around here?

Lame. You do not go up to a person involved in suspicious activity and just introduce yourself. Which would be in accord with standards which he was familiar with.

but Zimmerman created the situation and escalated at every opportunity. He accepted (thrust upon himself, more like) a responsibility he was not competent to perform. In his efforts to "protect" his neighborhood, he killed a kid from that same neighborhood.

Wrong.
At no time was any decision Zimmerman made wrong or a mistake, let alone purposeful escalation.

He had no actual reason to be following Martin in the first place.

Incorrect.

He saw no crimes committed, or anything more suspicious than a kid he didn't know.

As already pointed out, wrong.

 

[Excon]

Was Trayvon in Zimmerman's car? Because that is where Zimmerman was told by the the police to remain.

Wrong.
The police did not tell Zimmerman to remain in his car.

Actually one witness reported that there was a whimpering sound that stopped with the sound of a gun shot. She thought it was Martin.
The evidence did not contradict Zimmerman (being in Florida and all) it did not confirm his account.

Zimmerman was told to get in his car by the police.

Wrong on all accounts.
Zimmerman was not told to get into his car by the police.
You clearly do not know enough about this case to even be discussing it.

That is not an incorrect statement.

Yes it was incorrect.

Zimmerman was asked if he was following Martin. He said yes. He was told not to do so, and to get in his car.

Wrong. After answering yes to the question of following, the non-emergency line "call-taker" suggested that they do not need him to do that. At no point was Zimmerman told not to follow, or to get into his vehicle.

But not only that, after acknowledging the suggestion, he followed it and went in another direction than the one he saw Trayvon go.

I'm claiming that Zimmerman panicked while playing superhero and shot Trayvon.

Yes, you are claiming nonsense.

Glad to see you agree he was playing superhero. If he had followed that simple advice there would be no dead bodies, and no ridiculous threads about Zimmerman's victimhood.

Still showing you do not know enough about the case to be discussing it.
He did follow the suggestion and trying to keep a suspicious person under observation is not playing superhero.

 

[Excon]

I live near where that incident happened.

Irrelevant.

Zimmerman called the cops and told them he was following martin.

Wrong.
He called the cops on a suspicious person he had seen looking into homes.

The cops told him to stop following him,

Wrong. No police told him not to follow. A non-emergency number call-taker suggested that they did not need him to follow the suspicious person.

he didn't and martin ended up dead and yet you support zimmerman?

Wrong. Zimmerman acknowledge the suggestion and stopped following and went in a different direction than the one Trayvon had gone.

He stalked the kid

Wrong. There was no stalking.

and killed him.

Yes, in self defense.

Is the right so lost you folks now support this and and call the two politicians jackasses for remembering that sad day.

:doh :lamo Says you, the one lost and get the facts correct.
The shoot was good.

If martin had been armed and shot zimmerman, martin would be sitting in jail for some degree of murder or manslaughter. Who disagrees?

That would be becasue of the already known facts.
Or did you forget that Zimmerman had already been on the phone to call patrol out to look into the suspicious person looking into other people's homes.

There were no eyewitnesses.

Wrong. You forget the residents who saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman.

I live nearby,

Irrelevant.

Correct. There were no eyewitnesses. I live nearby, zimmerman stalked and killed the kid, period. All we have is zimmerman's account but his own words actually convict him of at least stalking. The cops told him to stop following martin, he didn't and martin ended up killed. What's not to understand?

Absolutely no police told Zimmerman to stop following. A suggestion was given by a call-taker and that suggestion was followed.
Following to keep a suspicious person under observation until the police he called arrived, is not stalking and no court of law would agree with such a stupid claim.

You remember incorrectly.

Wrong. That is you who actually is making things up to remember.

And let me remind you it was also after he told her this guy has been following him. Unlike many on the right who would have tried to solve the situation with a gun, martin confronted him without one.

The guy killed him in cold blood and walked. Stupid flori-duh strikes again.

Wrong as usual.

In my mind, when you stalk someone

Stop making things up. There was no stalking.

Oh, and we all know how fair trials can be depending on the person. One white guy with a gun and one dead black guy and of course it was the black guy's fault he got killed by the guy stalking him.

I understand the difference between follow and stalk and when the cops told zimmerman to stop following martin and he didn't, it turned into stalking and one dead black kid.

Clearly you do not know the difference or the actual evidence in this case.
There was no stalking, and Zimmerman stop following when it was suggested.

 

[Excon]

Neither did Martin.

Laying in wait and then attacking another person is a crime.

I meant while he was being stalked. What crime had he committed, walking around a neighbourhood? Walking while black?

He wasn't being stalked.
After being seen up on the grass looking into homes he was kept under observation while Zimmerman was reporting him to the police.
After Trayvon approached Zimmerman's vehicle and circled it he then ran off and disappeared, from which Zimmerman initially followed for a very short distance before he stopped (by suggestion) and went in a another direction.

 

[Excon]

The fact is that he was told by the police not to do anything and he did it anyway.

Wrong.

I think it was a bad shoot and he should have gone to jail as he was the one that instigated
the situation to begin with.

An opinion clearly based on false information.

the 911 operator works for the police force. I know a friend of ours is one.

1. It was a non-emergency number call-taker. Not 911.
2. You knowing a 911 operator is irrelevant.

when someone says you don't have to do that. the answer is ok.

NOt always, but funny enough tha tis exactly what Zimmerman said.

zimmerman then got out of his car and started chasing the kid.

Wrong on all counts.

he started the confrontation.

Wrong on all counts.

he should have been charged and gone to jail. it was a bad shoot.

Wrong on all counts.

martin was defending himself from a stranger that he didn't know following him for no reason.

Wrong. Laying in wait and attacking is not defending.

zimmerman never identified himself or said who he was or anything else.

Irrelevant nonsense as he did not have to nor would it be wise to go up to a person acting suspiciously and do so.

no he didn't. he got out of his car and was chasing martin.
martin was defending himself against an unknown person following him at night.

it was a bad shoot.
you can't claim self defense when you are the one that starts the confrontation.

Wrong. There was no chase. Zimmerman did not start anything.
And Zimmerman was not following him when Trayvon came out of hiding and attacked him form Zimmerman's left rear.

Yes there is you just said it. zimmerman was stalking travyon. that is a threat.
Travyon has no idea who is chasing him or anything else. Zimmerman fails to identify himself
in any instance.

there was plenty of evidence and both you and zimmerman testified to it.
travyon was being chased by an unidentified man. he has every right to defend himself
again such a threat.

Wrong.
There was no chasing.
There was observing, and after Trayvon ran off, traveling in the same direction for a very short period of time after he had already disappeared. That is not chasing.
There was no defending.
He came out of hiding and attacked.

 

[Excon]

Your logic is that because Zimmerman was not specifically told not to follow Martin, the 911 dispatcher should have been ignored?

Not a 911 dispatcher. Not a police officer.
And the person was not ignored.

And even if the person had been a police officer they would have had no authority to give any orders to be followed. It is a liability issue. An officer has to be present to to give orders.

Wrong. You have it backwards.

Wrong.

The dispatcher asked Zimmerman to let them know what Martin was doing before telling Zimmerman not to follow Martin.

Read the transcript: Transcript of George Zimmerman's Call to the Police

You clearly need to read the transcript as the non-emergency number call-taker did nto tell Zimmerman any such thing. The call-taker made a suggestion that they did not need him to do that.
Zimmerman acknowledged the suggestion and followed it.

Zimmerman was dead wrong. He played vigilante and killed an innocent kid.

Wrong.

Where’d you come up with that idea? Zimmerman stayed on Martin’s heels all the way to the point when Martin turned on him and said “why are you following me?”.

You are involved in make believe.
Trayvon was gone when Zimmerman got to the intersecting T of the sidewalks, of which Zimmerman relayed to the call-taker.

You misunderstand my position. I didn’t assert that the dispatcher ordered Zimmerman to do anything. Only that she told him not to follow Martin and he ignored the advice.

Besides being wrong you again show you do not know enough about the case to be discussing it. It was not a she.
Nor was he told not to follow.

I’m well aware that dispatchers aren’t police officers (usually) and don’t have police powers. That doesn’t mean that they should be ignored. They are trained specifically for the various situations people find themselves in and generally provide sound advice/direction. Advice that Zimmerman should’ve followed.

Again show you do not know enough about the case to be discussing it.
It was a non-emergency number call-taker and Zimmerman followed the suggestion given.

Where’d you get the wrong idea that Zimmerman was walking away from Martin, headed to his truck?

He is not wrong.
That is the known evidence.
Trayvon then came out of hiding and attacked Zimmerman from his left rear as Zimmerman was walking back to his vehicle.
.
You simply do not know enough about the case to be discussing it.

Innocent people, minding their own business in their parent’s neighborhood, should not be followed/harassed by a gun toting wannabe vigilante.

That is not what happened,

You again show you do not know enough about the case to even be discussing it.

Martin was a kid being followed by a grown man.

You again show you do not know enough about the case to even be discussing it.Trayvon was old enough to be emancipated and was a young adult and in this case he was a suspicious person being kept under observation until the police arrived.
Not a kid being followed ...

He had every right and reason to confront Zimmerman, verbally.

Sure, yet he didn't, he instead attacked.

Bottom line, irrefutable fact, had Zimmerman backed off when advised to do so, Martin would still be alive today.

You again show you do not know enough about the case to even be discussing it.
Zimmerman had only followed for a very short distance before the suggestion, and then when the suggestion was made he followed it and went in another direction.

As for the dispatcher’s comment to Zimmerman, it was clear that she was advising him not to follow Martin. She’d already told Martin that officers were on the way and was trying to diffuse any potential confrontation. Anyone who reads the entire 911 phone call transcript should understand that.

You again show you do not know enough about the case to even be discussing it.

It was a suggestion by a male call -taker. Not a she.
And that suggestion was followed.

Only an overly sensitive right wing weenie would view my comments as “emotionally out of control” and “screaming false accusations”. My comments were clear, succinct, and unemotional.

Wrong.
When the majority of you comments are not even based in fact or evidence as yours clearly are not, and only represent a shallow understanding at most, there is something very wrong going on on your end.

 

[americanwoman]

Sandman sued and got millions. Now Zimmerman is suing. Its nice to see democrats get a taste of their own bitter medicine once in a while.

Provide direct evidence Sandman got sued and got millions or admit you are lying.

Now keep defending a man like Zimmerman, who abuses people. Unlike you, I can provide a source.

George Zimmerman briefly held after threatening wife Shellie with gun | US news | The Guardian

In the call, Shellie Zimmerman, who was convicted of perjury last month for lying about the couple's finances at her husband's bail hearing last year, said he was waving a gun at her and her father, David Dean, and also assaulted him.

"He's in his car and he continually has his hand on his gun, and he keeps saying 'step closer' and he's just threatening all of us," she said on the recording. "He punched my dad in the nose; my dad has a mark on the nose. I saw his glasses were on the floor."

She said that Zimmerman also snatched an iPad from her and smashed it before cutting it with a knife. "Dad, get inside the house – George might start shooting at us," she is heard to say on the tape.

 

[americanwoman]

Wrong.
It is why he called the police on the person, becasue he was up on the lawns looking into the windows.

That's all we have is Zimmerman's word on why he called the police and what he think he saw.

You can believe a guy like him but I hold my doubts. :shrug:

 

[Citizen]

No, none of us were there, but your statement is absurd given the evidence we have .



The police did not tell him not to follow. No one told him that, and the gun was concealed in it's holster.


Bs.
Had a white person been looking into other homes windows, Zimmerman is likely to have done the same.


That is called evidence and is supported by other evidence.

In addition, do you not realize that a jury has to rely on actual evidence and not on speculative nonsense?


Besides irrelevant - wrong.

Besides irrelevant - not on him, which is obviously why he was going for Zimmerman's with the stated intent to kill him.

Wrong. Looking into the other homes as he was observed doing. is not minding his own business.


Wrong on all accounts.


If he were a white kid, Zimmerman would not have looked twice. What made Zimmerman suspicious was his race, not that he was walking through the neighborhood. Wrong as usual. Looking into the homes windows is the reason, not race as you make believe.


We know from the evidence that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman. He came out of hiding to do so.
That is called laying in wait.


Should have?
There is no "should have" about it as nothing requires such.
But you have again shown you do not know enough about this case to even be discussing it, becasue the fact is that Zimmerman did follow the request and traveled in a different direction than the one Trayvon had gone.


Your observations are as silly as your racist garbage is stupid.

What Zimmerman reports is evidence.

So was the resident witness who saw Trayvon on top of him.

All of your comments are just your opinion. Zimmerman is free based on circumstantial evidence. Zimmerman says that his gun was in his back pocket. Wired how someone can be on top of you with you ass on the ground and you can somehow grab that gun, unlock it and shoot.

 

[marke]

Provide direct evidence Sandman got sued and got millions or admit you are lying.

Now keep defending a man like Zimmerman, who abuses people. Unlike you, I can provide a source.

George Zimmerman briefly held after threatening wife Shellie with gun | US news | The Guardian

Sandman sued CNN and won a big settlement.

CNN Settles Defamation Lawsuit With Covington Student Nicholas Sandmann

Trayvon Martin did not attempt to beat Zimmerman to death because Zimmerman may have committed crimes not involving him.

 

[bongsaway]

Thanks for the race cards. Of course, if it was one of the Trump's who shot Zimmerman, no doubt you'd keep playing those cards with Eric or Junior being "the white guy" and Zimmerman being the po' person of color, "the brown guy". Sad.

....and you still don't know what stalking means. You also have your facts wrong about Zimmerman's actions, but I suspect you're doing that on purpose.

You live in texas, I live thirty miles from where it happened. I think my local news covered it waaaaay more than you heard.

 

[bongsaway]

You said the jury got it wrong using this as your rationalization.

One white guy with a gun and one dead black guy and of course it was the black guy's fault he got killed by the guy stalking him.

I don't see the word racist in there, do you? I also said the jury didn't have all the information since martin was dead and couldn't tell his side of the story. Somehow you got racist from that?

 

[bongsaway]

Irrelevant.

Wrong.
He called the cops on a suspicious person he had seen looking into homes.


Wrong. No police told him not to follow. A non-emergency number call-taker suggested that they did not need him to follow the suspicious person.


Wrong. Zimmerman acknowledge the suggestion and stopped following and went in a different direction than the one Trayvon had gone.


Wrong. There was no stalking.


Yes, in self defense.


:doh :lamo Says you, the one lost and get the facts correct.
The shoot was good.



That would be becasue of the already known facts.
Or did you forget that Zimmerman had already been on the phone to call patrol out to look into the suspicious person looking into other people's homes.


Wrong. You forget the residents who saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman.


Irrelevant.



Absolutely no police told Zimmerman to stop following. A suggestion was given by a call-taker and that suggestion was followed.
Following to keep a suspicious person under observation until the police he called arrived, is not stalking and no court of law would agree with such a stupid claim.



Wrong. That is you who actually is making things up to remember.



Wrong as usual.

Stop making things up. There was no stalking.



Clearly you do not know the difference or the actual evidence in this case.
There was no stalking, and Zimmerman stop following when it was suggested.

Man am I glad you're not my neighbor.

 

[americanwoman]

Sandman sued CNN and won a big settlement.

CNN Settles Defamation Lawsuit With Covington Student Nicholas Sandmann

Trayvon Martin did not attempt to beat Zimmerman to death because Zimmerman may have committed crimes not involving him.

Your link does NOT prove your claim Sandman got millions.

Again PROVE Sandman got millions or admit you are a liar.

 

[marke]

Oh, and we all know how fair trials can be depending on the person. One white guy with a gun and one dead black guy and of course it was the black guy's fault he got killed by the guy stalking him.

I understand the difference between follow and stalk and when the cops told zimmerman to stop following martin and he didn't, it turned into stalking and one dead black kid.

Poor Trayvon. All he was doing was peeking into windows in a new neighborhood which had had a crime problem recently and was therefore being watched by a guy who was supposed to be on the lookout for suspicious activities. How was Trayvon supposed to know Zimmerman was going to defend himself while he beat him mercilessly for following him?

 

[marke]

Your link does NOT prove your claim Sandman got millions.

Again PROVE Sandman got millions or admit you are a liar.

No. I don't know the amount of the settlement even though I do know the amount Sandman was suing for.

 

[americanwoman]

No. I don't know the amount of the settlement even though I do know the amount Sandman was suing for.

Then why did you make up the lie that "Sandman got millions" when you in fact did not know that for sure?

 

[ludin]

So where is Martin's 911 call that he is being stalked?

does he need a 911 call? nope.

 

[ludin]

So can 17 year olds who decide to attack an armed person for *gasp* following them.

how dare a 17 year old defend himself against and armed person following him.
wow.

 

[bongsaway]

Poor Trayvon. All he was doing was peeking into windows in a new neighborhood which had had a crime problem recently and was therefore being watched by a guy who was supposed to be on the lookout for suspicious activities. How was Trayvon supposed to know Zimmerman was going to defend himself while he beat him mercilessly for following him?

How do we know he was peeking into windows? Oh right, zimmerman said so.

 

[marke]

how dare a 17 year old defend himself against and armed person following him.
wow.

Brutally attacking a stranger without realizing he had a gun was really stupid on Martin's part.

 

[WillyPete]

WTF are you talking about?
Zimmerman tried to disengage but Trayvon would not let him.

Fair enough. He had given up the chase right before the final encounter.

 

[marke]

How do we know he was peeking into windows? Oh right, zimmerman said so.

And there you have it. Plenty of eyewitness records to go around.