Trayvon Martin

[scenecreamer]

No, I won't. If the kid had wanted to go home he would have. He had plenty of time. But that isn't what happened. He chose to confronted Zimmerman. And there are/were witnesses to that account.

You're merely proving how myopic and dogmatic you are in your support for Zimmerman despite several of your alleged versions of events being wrong even according to Zimmerman. Possibly just a forum egomaniac who can't stand to be proven wrong.

I'd love to know how you've worked all this time stuff out by the way, especially as Zimmerman's now changed his story to say Trayvon was skipping not running. At least Zimmerman's defence team, never claimed, to my knowledge that Trayvon circled back around and jumped him. You did though, and you won't even apologise for your repeating bullshit time and time again and falsely drawn conclusions. Let me tell you, you're fooling nobody on this thread by sticking to your mantra. Refusing to change your view, and especially inflammatory statements like "not so hard now is he", is making you look like the biggest knobhead on this forum.

— "As I headed back to my vehicle, the suspect emerged from the darkness and said 'you got a problem' [?] I said 'No.' The suspect said 'you do now.' "

— As he was trying to phone 911 again, "the suspect punched me in the face."

— He was knocked to the ground, Zimmerman says, and a struggle began. At one point, he writes that the suspect said "you gonna die tonight [expletive]."

— Trayvon tried to get to Zimmerman's gun, Zimmerman writes. "In fear for my life," Zimmerman says, he "fired one shot."

Who the fuck are you arguing with? Get it straight.

The kid had time to go home, but he didn't. He chose to confront George Zimmerman, punch him in the face, and bash his head on the sidewalk.

Your version of events is only wishful thinking.

 

[Bigga]

Here's a question for prairiemoon; if GZ had confronted TM with the suspicion that he was a 'robber' and TM ran, what do you think the end conclusion would have been?

The same.

GZ would have given chase as his 'suspicions' would have been correct in his mind, an altercation probably would have happened and TM would have still wound up a corpse.

GZ had his intentions in that moment.

 

[Skashion]

— "As I headed back to my vehicle, the suspect emerged from the darkness and said 'you got a problem' [?] I said 'No.' The suspect said 'you do now.' "

— As he was trying to phone 911 again, "the suspect punched me in the face."

— He was knocked to the ground, Zimmerman says, and a struggle began. At one point, he writes that the suspect said "you gonna die tonight [expletive]."

— Trayvon tried to get to Zimmerman's gun, Zimmerman writes. "In fear for my life," Zimmerman says, he "fired one shot."

Who the fuck are you arguing with? Get it straight.

The kid had time to go home, but he didn't. He chose to confront George Zimmerman, punch him in the face, and bash his head on the sidewalk.

Your version of events is only wishful thinking.

Your version of events isn't even consistent with what Zimmerman is saying himself! He didn't claim that Trayvon circled back around and jumped him. I don't know what being jumped means in the US but here it means that someone attacked you from behind when you're unaware of their presence. That clearly did not happen. What he did say is that they were face to face and then he went for his phone and then Trayvon punched him. Even given Zimmerman's most optimistic version of events why was Trayvon in the wrong for assuming he was in danger? Someone followed him and then went to grab something in their pocket. At that point why was Trayvon not acting in self-defence? You're assuming that's an act of aggression. This of course, is IF we believe the words of a man trying to avoid imprisonment.

Again, please back up your claims of how much time he had with a map and time points - allowing for Zimmerman changing his story to say Trayvon wasn't running, but skipping - a somewhat slower speed of travelling than running. He seems to have changed from his earlier story that he ran because according to him, he found Trayvon suspicious because he wasn't running; the natural response of someone caught out in the rain.

Your claims of being objective are completely absurd. You earlier claimed a version of events that made Trayvon looked guiltier than even Zimmerman has claimed! Then made the comment "not so hard now is he". How you can even begin to claim you've been objective. All along you've assumed Trayvon is guiltier than the armed man following someone and who shot them and act like every word Zimmerman has said is to be believed blindly.

 

[scenecreamer]

— "As I headed back to my vehicle, the suspect emerged from the darkness and said 'you got a problem' [?] I said 'No.' The suspect said 'you do now.' "

— As he was trying to phone 911 again, "the suspect punched me in the face."

— He was knocked to the ground, Zimmerman says, and a struggle began. At one point, he writes that the suspect said "you gonna die tonight [expletive]."

— Trayvon tried to get to Zimmerman's gun, Zimmerman writes. "In fear for my life," Zimmerman says, he "fired one shot."

Who the fuck are you arguing with? Get it straight.

The kid had time to go home, but he didn't. He chose to confront George Zimmerman, punch him in the face, and bash his head on the sidewalk.

Your version of events is only wishful thinking.

Your version of events isn't even consistent with what Zimmerman is saying himself! He didn't claim that Trayvon circled back around and jumped him. I don't know what being jumped means in the US but here it means that someone attacked you from behind when you're unaware of their presence. That clearly did not happen. What he did say is that they were face to face and then he went for his phone and then Trayvon punched him. Even given Zimmerman's most optimistic version of events why was Trayvon in the wrong for assuming he was in danger? Someone followed him and then went to grab something in their pocket. At that point why was Trayvon not acting in self-defence? You're assuming that's an act of aggression. This of course, is IF we believe the words of a man trying to avoid imprisonment.

Again, please back up your claims of how much time he had with a map and time points - allowing for Zimmerman changing his story to say Trayvon wasn't running, but skipping - a somewhat slower speed of travelling than running. He seems to have changed from his earlier story that he ran because according to him, he found Trayvon suspicious because he wasn't running; the natural response of someone caught out in the rain.

Your claims of being objective are completely absurd. You earlier claimed a version of events that made Trayvon looked guiltier than even Zimmerman has claimed! Then made the comment "not so hard now is he". How you can even begin to claim you've been objective. All along you've assumed Trayvon is guiltier than the armed man following someone and who shot them and act like every word Zimmerman has said is to be believed blindly.

I'm not going to engage in a semantic argument with you.

A 5 minute 911 call. @ 8 minutes total. How far could you cover in that period of time? How far could a 17 year old athlete cover in that period of time?

At what point do you believe Trayvon felt threatened? When Zimmerman reached into his pocket after Trayvon alledgedly threatened him? Or when he realized he was being watched by a guy in a truck? Maybe you think he felt threatened when he noticed someone following him on foot?

I believe Zimmerman had the right to check this kid out and see what he was up to. Martin, however, did not have the right to wait for him and confront/threaten him. He could have just walked or ran home. But he didn't. I will take Zimmermans account because I believe in innocence until proven guilty in a court of law. IN A COURT OF LAW, not on television or in the newspaper, or on some Internet forum.

 

[Skashion]

I'm not going to engage in a semantic argument with you.

A 5 minute 911 call. @ 8 minutes total. How far could you cover in that period of time? How far could a 17 year old athlete cover in that period of time?

At what point do you believe Trayvon felt threatened? When Zimmerman reached into his pocket after Trayvon alledgedly threatened him? Or when he realized he was being watched by a guy in a truck? Maybe you think he felt threatened when he noticed someone following him on foot?

I believe Zimmerman had the right to check this kid out and see what he was up to. Martin, however, did not have the right to wait for him and confront/threaten him. He could have just walked or ran home. But he didn't. I will take Zimmermans account because I believe in innocence until proven guilty in a court of law. IN A COURT OF LAW, not on television or in the newspaper, or on some Internet forum.

As I said, post the timings and mapping according to what you think happened please.

How did Trayvon threaten him? By saying "what's your problem?" to someone who's following him? That's a threat in your eyes? When did he feel threatened? When Zimmerman went for his pocket, allegedly for his phone.

He definitely did walk/skip/run home. No possible version of events could find that Trayvon wasn't moving in the direction of his home.

Problem with your statement of innocent until proven guilty, is that, certainly in British law, the burden of proof falls on someone in a voluntary manslaughter case to prove the need to kill. Forget for a moment that he's on trial for second degree murder. That's not the dispute between us. The dispute is that you don't believe Zimmerman has done anything wrong at all whereas I do. I don't believe he has proved the need to kill Trayvon. Another problem is that Trayvon isn't around to contradict Zimmerman.

Cute that you talk about trial by media/newspaper/internet. Remind me, how's Zimmerman raising the money for his defence fees? I'm sure I couldn't find any public links could I? That Sean Hannity interview as well. Private interview leaked out I'm betting.

 

[KPXBLN]

I believe Zimmerman had the right to check this kid out and see what he was up to. Martin, however, did not have the right to wait for him and confront/threaten him. He could have just walked or ran home. But he didn't.

Are you for real? Zimmerman, a self-appointed plazzy copper with a hero complex [and, we might add, a documented history of pointless 911 calls about 'suspicious' black men], has a right to follow and challenge anyone he likes, but everyone else has the obligation to run home as fast as possible, otherwise they are liable to be (justifiably) shot! You must be joking.

I will take Zimmermans account because I believe in innocence until proven guilty in a court of law. IN A COURT OF LAW, not on television or in the newspaper, or on some Internet forum.

Why have you taken everything in Zimmerman's account (even, amazingly, when it is self-contradictory or illogical) to be true then? Everything that appears to incriminate Zimmerman you dismiss out of hand, everything that supports him you believe as gospel (most of which is stuff that he has said himself - since the other main witness happens to be dead.)

The only position consistent with your claimed belief in the right of the court to determine guilt is a detached reservation of judgement. But you are not detached and you are not withholding judgement.

Funny that you get so sanctimonious about the presumption of innocence and the right of Zimmerman to not be judged, when you are more than comfortable with the notion that Martin's failure to run home as fast as possible condemned him to death at Zimmerman's hands.

 

[scenecreamer]

I'm not going to engage in a semantic argument with you.

A 5 minute 911 call. @ 8 minutes total. How far could you cover in that period of time? How far could a 17 year old athlete cover in that period of time?

At what point do you believe Trayvon felt threatened? When Zimmerman reached into his pocket after Trayvon alledgedly threatened him? Or when he realized he was being watched by a guy in a truck? Maybe you think he felt threatened when he noticed someone following him on foot?

I believe Zimmerman had the right to check this kid out and see what he was up to. Martin, however, did not have the right to wait for him and confront/threaten him. He could have just walked or ran home. But he didn't. I will take Zimmermans account because I believe in innocence until proven guilty in a court of law. IN A COURT OF LAW, not on television or in the newspaper, or on some Internet forum.

As I said, post the timings and mapping according to what you think happened please.

How did Trayvon threaten him? By saying "what's your problem?" to someone who's following him? That's a threat in your eyes?

He definitely did walk/skip/run home. No possible version of events could find that Trayvon wasn't moving in the direction of his home.

Problem with your statement of innocent until proven guilty, is that, certainly in British law, the burden of proof falls on someone in a voluntary manslaughter case to prove the need to kill. Forget for a moment that he's on trial for second degree murder. That's not the dispute between us. The dispute is that you don't believe Zimmerman has done anything wrong at all whereas I do. I don't believe he has proved the need to kill Trayvon. Another problem is that Trayvon isn't around to contradict Zimmerman.

Cute that you talk about trial by media/newspaper/internet. Remind me, how's Zimmerman raising the money for his defence fees? I'm sure I couldn't find any public links could I? That Sean Hannity interview as well. Private interview leaked out I'm betting.

You're not even quoting it properly! You have such a bias invested in this it's laughable. Yes, "do you have a problem?", "you do now" is a threat!

Typically ignoring that which goes against your preference.

I do not believe Zimmerman has done nothing wrong. Of course he has, he killed someone!
However, I will not ignore Trayvons obvious complicity in this altercation.

Also, what would you have him do, given the extreme characterization the media has put forward? Is there a better avenue to address this than the very same media? Would you agree that the public has a perception of him and the events that might not be accurate?

 

[Skashion]

You're not even quoting it properly! You have such a bias invested in this it's laughable. Yes, "do you have a problem?", "you do now" is a threat!

Typically ignoring that which goes against your preference.

I do not believe Zimmerman has done nothing wrong. Of course he has, he killed someone!
However, I will not ignore Trayvons obvious complicity in this altercation.

Also, what would you have him do, given the extreme characterization the media has put forward? Is there a better avenue to address this than the very same media? Would you agree that the public has a perception of him and the events that might not be accurate?

I'm typically ignoring everything that goes against my preference? You're believing every single word this guy says verbatim! You're so biased you can't even consider your own bias. I'm not taking his word for granted, as you are, but I am mulling over what ifs. So far, I've gone over Zimmerman's version of events, along with indisputable facts, and even by his own version of events, I cannot see what Trayvon did wrong. Zimmerman reached for his pocket. If someone's following me and they go suddenly for their pocket, in the United States, I'd assume he was reaching for a gun, not a phone. That's by Zimmerman's version of events. It's very believable to imagine Zimmerman went for his gun and Trayvon didn't hang around to get shot or even that Zimmerman chased Trayvon down, initiated a fight, Trayvon got the upper hand and Zimmerman shot him despite not being scared for his life.

 

[ElanJo]

I see he is now claiming it was "God's" plan.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.theage.com.au/world/it-was-gods-plan-says-killer-of-black-teenager-20120720-22dpj.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theage.com.au/world/it-was-g ... 22dpj.html</a>

Worse than that is that he says he doesn't regret it. What the actual fuck. You now know the kid was innocent. He wasn't doing anything suspicious, it was his paranoia which caused that death, and he doesn't even regret it. What an inhuman fucker. He didn't even sound slightly believable feigning his sorrow for Trayvon's family. That interview was conducted by an emotionless robot. Not a single shred of real empathy.

Non sequitur.

Don't let your emotions do your thinking for you.

This is not an indication of guilt or anything like that. He just believes that everything is part of God's plan, like millions of other people do (even - no, especially - many parents who lose a child and those who have faced traumatic events). Being deluded about the existence of a sky daddy doesn't mean anything.

No, I won't. If the kid had wanted to go home he would have. He had plenty of time. But that isn't what happened. He chose to confronted Zimmerman. And there are/were witnesses to that account.

You're merely proving how myopic and dogmatic you are in your support for Zimmerman despite several of your alleged versions of events being wrong even according to Zimmerman. Possibly just a forum egomaniac who can't stand to be proven wrong.

I'd love to know how you've worked all this time stuff out by the way, especially as Zimmerman's now changed his story to say Trayvon was skipping not running. At least Zimmerman's defence team, never claimed, to my knowledge that Trayvon circled back around and jumped him. You did though, and you won't even apologise for your repeating bullshit time and time again and falsely drawn conclusions. Let me tell you, you're fooling nobody on this thread by sticking to your mantra. Refusing to change your view, and especially inflammatory statements like "not so hard now is he", is making you look like the biggest knobhead on this forum.

If you don't have to apologise for ignorant/misinformed comments concerning the case why should PM?

At least PM remained somewhat objective, allowing the some time to pass before making conclusions. You just parrotted that idiot from The Young Turks straight from the off.

 

[scenecreamer]

You're not even quoting it properly! You have such a bias invested in this it's laughable. Yes, "do you have a problem?", "you do now" is a threat!

Typically ignoring that which goes against your preference.

I do not believe Zimmerman has done nothing wrong. Of course he has, he killed someone!
However, I will not ignore Trayvons obvious complicity in this altercation.

Also, what would you have him do, given the extreme characterization the media has put forward? Is there a better avenue to address this than the very same media? Would you agree that the public has a perception of him and the events that might not be accurate?

I'm typically ignoring everything that goes against my preference? You're believing every single word this guy says verbatim! You're so biased you can't even consider your own bias. I'm not taking his word for granted, as you are, but I am mulling over what ifs. So far, I've gone over Zimmerman's version of events, along with indisputable facts, and even by his own version of events, I cannot see what Trayvon did wrong. Zimmerman reached for his pocket. If someone's following me and they go suddenly for their pocket, in the United States, I'd assume he was reaching for a gun, not a phone. That's by Zimmerman's version of events. It's very believable to imagine Zimmerman went for his gun and Trayvon didn't hang around to get shot or even that Zimmerman chased Trayvon down, initiated a fight, Trayvon got the upper hand and Zimmerman shot him despite not being scared for his life.

You are simply inventing shit to fit your bias.

You cannot see what Trayvon did wrong? Come to the US and step to someone with, "You got a problem? Now you do." and see if that works out for you.

 

[KPXBLN]

You're not even quoting it properly! You have such a bias invested in this it's laughable. Yes, "do you have a problem?", "you do now" is a threat!

Typically ignoring that which goes against your preference.

I do not believe Zimmerman has done nothing wrong. Of course he has, he killed someone!
However, I will not ignore Trayvons obvious complicity in this altercation.

Also, what would you have him do, given the extreme characterization the media has put forward? Is there a better avenue to address this than the very same media? Would you agree that the public has a perception of him and the events that might not be accurate?

I'm typically ignoring everything that goes against my preference? You're believing every single word this guy says verbatim! You're so biased you can't even consider your own bias. I'm not taking his word for granted, as you are, but I am mulling over what ifs. So far, I've gone over Zimmerman's version of events, along with indisputable facts, and even by his own version of events, I cannot see what Trayvon did wrong. Zimmerman reached for his pocket. If someone's following me and they go suddenly for their pocket, in the United States, I'd assume he was reaching for a gun, not a phone. That's by Zimmerman's version of events. It's very believable to imagine Zimmerman went for his gun and Trayvon didn't hang around to get shot or even that Zimmerman chased Trayvon down, initiated a fight, Trayvon got the upper hand and Zimmerman shot him despite not being scared for his life.

You are simply inventing shit to fit your bias.

You cannot see what Trayvon did wrong? Come to the US and step to someone with, "You got a problem? Now you do." and see if that works out for you.

Come to the UK and follow a guy home because you think he's acting suspicious then get out of the your car and shoot him after a struggle and see if that works out for you sonny jim.

 

[scenecreamer]

I'm typically ignoring everything that goes against my preference? You're believing every single word this guy says verbatim! You're so biased you can't even consider your own bias. I'm not taking his word for granted, as you are, but I am mulling over what ifs. So far, I've gone over Zimmerman's version of events, along with indisputable facts, and even by his own version of events, I cannot see what Trayvon did wrong. Zimmerman reached for his pocket. If someone's following me and they go suddenly for their pocket, in the United States, I'd assume he was reaching for a gun, not a phone. That's by Zimmerman's version of events. It's very believable to imagine Zimmerman went for his gun and Trayvon didn't hang around to get shot or even that Zimmerman chased Trayvon down, initiated a fight, Trayvon got the upper hand and Zimmerman shot him despite not being scared for his life.

You are simply inventing shit to fit your bias.

You cannot see what Trayvon did wrong? Come to the US and step to someone with, "You got a problem? Now you do." and see if that works out for you.

Come to the UK and follow a guy home because you think he's acting suspicious then get out of the your car and shoot him after a struggle and see if that works out for you sonny jim.

Is that what happened, old timer? You sure....?

 

[Skashion]

You are simply inventing shit to fit your bias.

You cannot see what Trayvon did wrong? Come to the US and step to someone with, "You got a problem? Now you do." and see if that works out for you.

You do know that the only evidence we have for that is what Zimmerman said don't you? This is not supported by witnesses or phone calls or anything. You're taking his version of events as gospel truth. You think that's unbiased?

Regardless, as I said, Trayvon had every right to feel threatened when he went for his pocket and that happened before he allegedly said "you do now", even according to Zimmerman's own reconstruction of events.

 

[Skashion]

Non sequitur.

Don't let your emotions do your thinking for you.

This is not an indication of guilt or anything like that. He just believes that everything is part of God's plan, like millions of other people do (even - no, especially - many parents who lose a child and those who have faced traumatic events). Being deluded about the existence of a sky daddy doesn't mean anything.

If you don't have to apologise for ignorant/misinformed comments concerning the case why should PM?

At least PM remained somewhat objective, allowing the some time to pass before making conclusions. You just parrotted that idiot from The Young Turks straight from the off.

I didn't say it indicated guilt. You've made that assumption. Don't let your emotions do your thinking for you.

I haven't made any. The only mistake I've made is saying there were no injuries. Looking at the original photos, they didn't appear to show any injuries, the enhanced ones did. Thereafter I've accepted there was a fight. See, I changed my views according to the evidence. Something your friend here has not done.

Only in bizarro world has he remained objective. He constructed a version of events that made Trayvon seem guiltier than even Zimmerman is alleging. He's more pro Zimmerman than Zimmerman. You can't see that because you're not objective either.

 

[scenecreamer]

In your opinion, what evidence should I consider that may change my views?

 

[ElanJo]

Non sequitur.

Don't let your emotions do your thinking for you.

This is not an indication of guilt or anything like that. He just believes that everything is part of God's plan, like millions of other people do (even - no, especially - many parents who lose a child and those who have faced traumatic events). Being deluded about the existence of a sky daddy doesn't mean anything.

If you don't have to apologise for ignorant/misinformed comments concerning the case why should PM?

At least PM remained somewhat objective, allowing the some time to pass before making conclusions. You just parrotted that idiot from The Young Turks straight from the off.

I didn't say it indicated guilt. You've made that assumption. Don't let your emotions do your thinking for you.

I haven't made any. The only mistake I've made is saying there were no injuries. Looking at the original photos, they didn't appear to show any injuries, the enhanced ones did. Thereafter I've accepted there was a fight. See, I changed my views according to the evidence. Something your friend here has not done.

Only in bizarro world has he remained objective. He constructed a version of events that made Trayvon seem guiltier than even Zimmerman is alleging. He's more pro Zimmerman than Zimmerman. You can't see that because you're not objective either.

"Worse than that is that he says he doesn't regret it. What the actual fuck. You now know the kid was innocent"

Yes, you did say it (Zimmerman, according to you, not regretting the incident) indicates his guilt/Martin's innocence.
If that is not what you meant by all means tell us what you meant by the above.

Don't talk shit, you passed judgement right from the off.

I didn't say that PM has remained objective throughout, I called him on his loss of objectivity when it occurred. I only said that he remained objective far, far, longer that you and select others did.

I have been objective.

 

[Skashion]

In your opinion, what evidence should I consider that may change my views?

The fact that Zimmerman said he didn't happen like you said it did, that evidence... Even he doesn't pretend that Trayvon circled back around and jumped him from behind. 100% believing Zimmerman's version of events - which I don't, Trayvon punched him when they were face to face and Zimmerman went for his pocket.<br /><br />-- Sat Jul 21, 2012 7:39 am --<br /><br />

"Worse than that is that he says he doesn't regret it. What the actual fuck. You now know the kid was innocent"

Yes, you did say it (Zimmerman, according to you, not regretting the incident) indicates his guilt/Martin's innocence.
If that is not what you meant by all means tell us what you meant by the above.

Don't talk shit, you passed judgement right from the off.

I didn't say that PM has remained objective throughout, I called him on his loss of objectivity when it occurred. I only said that he remained objective far, far, longer that you and select others did.

I have been objective.

I didn't say that at all you idiot. What I'm saying is Zimmerman now knows Trayvon had a right to be there, he'd been to the 7/11 and was going home. These are now pretty much proven. It is not in dispute that Trayvon's dad lived in the community, nor that he went to the 7/11 and bought skittles and iced tea, nor that he was heading home when ZImmerman followed him. These are all established.

Lulz at the self-appointed judge of objectivity here.

 

[scenecreamer]

In your opinion, what evidence should I consider that may change my views?

The fact that Zimmerman said he didn't happen like you said it did, that evidence... Even he doesn't pretend that Trayvon circled back around and jumped him from behind. 100% believing Zimmerman's version of events - which I don't, Trayvon punched him when they were face to face and Zimmerman went for his pocket.

.

Yes, about 80 pages back I was under that impression. Now I know Zimmerman has stated it was a face to face confrontation.

The pertinent point however remains that it was Martin who initiated this confrontation rather than simply going back to his fathers fiancées house.

 

[Skashion]

Yes, about 80 pages back I was under that impression. Now I know Zimmerman has stated it was a face to face confrontation.

The pertinent point however remains that it was Martin who initiated this confrontation rather than simply going back to his fathers fiancées house.

You have no evidence for that.

 

[ElanJo]

In your opinion, what evidence should I consider that may change my views?

The fact that Zimmerman said he didn't happen like you said it did, that evidence... Even he doesn't pretend that Trayvon circled back around and jumped him from behind. 100% believing Zimmerman's version of events - which I don't, Trayvon punched him when they were face to face and Zimmerman went for his pocket.

-- Sat Jul 21, 2012 7:39 am --

"Worse than that is that he says he doesn't regret it. What the actual fuck. You now know the kid was innocent"

Yes, you did say it (Zimmerman, according to you, not regretting the incident) indicates his guilt/Martin's innocence.
If that is not what you meant by all means tell us what you meant by the above.

Don't talk shit, you passed judgement right from the off.

I didn't say that PM has remained objective throughout, I called him on his loss of objectivity when it occurred. I only said that he remained objective far, far, longer that you and select others did.

I have been objective.

I didn't say that at all you idiot. What I'm saying is Zimmerman now knows Trayvon had a right to be there, he'd been to the 7/11 and was going home. These are now pretty much proven. It is not in dispute that Trayvon's dad lived in the community, nor that he went to the 7/11 and bought skittles and iced tea, nor that he was heading home when ZImmerman followed him. These are all established.

Lulz at the self-appointed judge of objectivity here.

Yes, I'm the idiot when you're the one who jumps from "you" to "he" when addressing the same person. I can only read what is put in front of me.

I'm not appointing myself anything. It is a fact that I have remained objective concerning this case. The evidence is in the thread. The evidence for your crazed rush to judgement is also.