Happy Trayvon Martin Day

[Cancel 2016.11]

But you did mention plundering didn't you drama queen?

And let's be clear about your race baiting bullshit. It was alleged (by who, idk) that black males had broken into houses in the neighborhood. As far as the press reports have shown only one had been arrested. That is NOT sufficient for some armed adult with a history of violence to pursue every black male child around the neighborhood. If you are incapable of understanding why the parents of black, minority or any children would feel that is not a good idea then it's because you are stubbornly refusing any sense of empathy or engaging in some sort of racist knee jerk reaction.

The link is nothing but conjecture based ONLY on the claims of Zimmerman. It does not blow up anything or show that Martin initiated the confrontation. They are doing nothing but guessing and you're clearly showing bias in pretending it does anything more. Maybe Trayvon did not continue to run, but instead thought it best to hide until Zimmerman came upon him? I don't know and neither do you or the author's of your link.

Besides that, why is Trayvon required to flee? The guy that is supposedly acting in self defense and standing his ground is allowed to REPEATEDLY pursue Martin with a gun after leaving the safety of his vehicle, while unarmed and on foot Martin is supposed to just keep running and never fight back or else he is a criminal and a thug? Apparently, the logic of racist pieces of shit, is that a black male must accept that he is at all times under suspiscion and that he has no right to defend himself against those pursuing him, but if fat asses with a hero complex get in over their heads they can always shoot?

Your posts on this have been the best I've seen and reading this thread and your posts vs Grinds and Superfreak's it is actually stupefying how anyone can believe theirs is the better argument.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

No relevance. Was Trayvon engaged in a break in? Was there any reasonable suspicion of it? He was black and that is enough for you. I am not stating this based on any news report. That is your argument.

LMAO... so the recent string of burglaries by young black men is irrelevant to suspecting a young black man who was not known to be from the neighborhood?

He was a young black male who was not recognized as being from the area. Yes, that is reason to suspect given the number of incidents they had been experiencing. It absolutely has relevance. If you had 60 burglaries and 55 were done by white guys approximately 20-30 years old... would you not suspect unknown white guys in your neighborhood and follow them if you were looking out for your neighbors? If not, then you are an idiot who cares more about being PC than about protecting the public.

Apparently you are one of those PC idiots who takes things to the extreme to show how PC you are. Let me guess, you think it is fine if grandma and four year olds get frisked by TSA too? Wouldn't want to upset your delicate feelings by using logic on who to suspect.

His being black is a part of it, absolutely... given the recent history in the area it is fucking reasonable to do so.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

So I bought the media bullshit by believing this was racially motivated, but then again, zimmerman's actions were reasonable because Martin was black?

Contradicting yourself again.

again, for the insanely slow witted people on the board... if you have a string of break ins that are reportedly by young black men, you seriously don't think it is reasonable to be suspicious of an unknown young black man in the neighborhood?

Let me guess, you think we should start suspecting 12 year old white girls when that happens? All in the name of PC?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Your posts on this have been the best I've seen and reading this thread and your posts vs Grinds and Superfreak's it is actually stupefying how anyone can believe theirs is the better argument.

LMAO... so typical of you... he says crap like "It was alleged (by who, idk) that black males had broken into houses in the neighborhood", then when I show him the police reports he says they are irrelevant. Then you chime in with 'ur posts are the best'. That just goes to show you care more about ideology than facts.

 

[Timshel]

It's my opinion that the prosecuter is persuing this, to save face. Of course he's going to present the best possible "chain of events", in order to win.
What was the name of the prosecuter in the Duke's Lacrooss fiascal?
You know, the one that was disbarred for hiding evidence.
Following a suspicious character, is not persuing and you're only using that phrase, to make it appear that you have more credibility.

Was he convicted of that charge; because if being charged with something automatically equates guilt from then on, then we have a whole bunch of people walking around who shouldn't be. Probably some on this forum.
And it seems that you want to make up a version different from the person who was there and that's because you have an agenda of "he has to be guilty."

Then what is the basis for AUTOMATICALLY assuming that Zimmerman is a murderer? Martin had already fled, according to testimony and the dispatch recording, so who's he defending himself from?

Continuing to use the phrase "armed pursuit" is nothing more then a desperate attempt to justify your own preconceived opinion.
I wasn't aware that you were a lawyer who had taken the job of being a judge.

What evidence to you have to show this conclusion?

I have not made up anything. The basis for my assumption is that Zimmerman says he shot Trayvon who then died from the gunshot wound. I know, it's craaaaAAAAzzzy to then claim that the killing was unlawful (murder), seeing as superfreak has pointed out that Trayvon was black and taller than Zimmerman.

Trayvon was supposed to keep running and could not have possibly been acting in self defense even with Zimmerman continuing to follow him because he should have been able to successfully flee? But Zimmerman can leave the safety of his vehicle to FOLLOW Trayvon, with a gun, shoot and kill him and claim to have been acting in defense of his life? How does that make any sense to you?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I have not made up anything.

Yet you do ignore the facts that go against what you want to believe.

The basis for my assumption is that Zimmerman says he shot Trayvon who then died from the gunshot wound. I know, it's craaaaAAAAzzzy to then claim that the killing was unlawful (murder), seeing as superfreak has pointed out that Trayvon was black and taller than Zimmerman.

1) No one said it was crazy to claim it was unlawful... I myself said I thought he should have been charged with manslaughter (assuming that there isn't evidence that Martin went for his gun).

2) I did not say that it was crazy because Martin was taller, I stated that your pretending Martin was a weak little boy was nothing more than bullshit. You keep saying that Zimmerman should have been able to defend himself against a little boy. My point was that Martin wasn't little.

Trayvon was supposed to keep running and could not have possibly been acting in self defense even with Zimmerman continuing to follow him because he should have been able to successfully flee?

Which again goes to show you will ignore all evidence that contradicts your conviction of Zimmerman. How far was Martin from the townhome he was staying at? Zimmerman, while on the phone for TWO minutes with the cops said he lost Martin. Yet you ignore that as well because it goes against your 'martin was defending himself' mantra.

But Zimmerman can leave the safety of his vehicle to FOLLOW Trayvon, with a gun, shoot and kill him and claim to have been acting in defense of his life? How does that make any sense to you?

That makes no sense, but then again that isn't what actually happened either. Which again goes to show that you have already convicted Zimmerman in your mind and refuse to see any evidence that contradicts your views. Let me guess... it is because Zimmerman is Hispanic? You don't like Hispanics?

 

[The Dude]

Boy the klan members here will be upset when the NRAZI gets convicted.

 

[Timshel]

LMAO... so the recent string of burglaries by young black men is irrelevant to suspecting a young black man who was not known to be from the neighborhood?

YES. Being black is not reasonable cause to suspect someone of a crime. I am sure there were reports of crimes in the area committed by whites and hispanics too. It does not give police, much less some jackoff neighborhood watch clown, cause to hassle every person in the area.

Not that it matters, but again, there is no proof that all of the break ins were committed by young black males.

He was a young black male who was not recognized as being from the area. Yes, that is reason to suspect given the number of incidents they had been experiencing. It absolutely has relevance. If you had 60 burglaries and 55 were done by white guys approximately 20-30 years old... would you not suspect unknown white guys in your neighborhood and follow them if you were looking out for your neighbors? If not, then you are an idiot who cares more about being PC than about protecting the public.

Apparently you are one of those PC idiots who takes things to the extreme to show how PC you are. Let me guess, you think it is fine if grandma and four year olds get frisked by TSA too? Wouldn't want to upset your delicate feelings by using logic on who to suspect.

His being black is a part of it, absolutely... given the recent history in the area it is fucking reasonable to do so.

You are claiming that Zimmerman had cause to follow him because the cops were not catching the burglars. The burglaries in the area have no relevance because Zimmerman had no just cause to suspect a crime had taken place and so there was no reason for him to act before the police arrived. Being black is not probable cause to suspect someone of a crime.

Your argument is racist and I am still not making that conclusion based on press reports but because your only rationale is race.

 

[Timshel]

Yet you do ignore the facts that go against what you want to believe.

1) No one said it was crazy to claim it was unlawful... I myself said I thought he should have been charged with manslaughter (assuming that there isn't evidence that Martin went for his gun).

2) I did not say that it was crazy because Martin was taller, I stated that your pretending Martin was a weak little boy was nothing more than bullshit. You keep saying that Zimmerman should have been able to defend himself against a little boy. My point was that Martin wasn't little.

Which again goes to show you will ignore all evidence that contradicts your conviction of Zimmerman. How far was Martin from the townhome he was staying at? Zimmerman, while on the phone for TWO minutes with the cops said he lost Martin. Yet you ignore that as well because it goes against your 'martin was defending himself' mantra.

That makes no sense, but then again that isn't what actually happened either. Which again goes to show that you have already convicted Zimmerman in your mind and refuse to see any evidence that contradicts your views. Let me guess... it is because Zimmerman is Hispanic? You don't like Hispanics?

What facts have I ignored?

You dropped the context again. USF was asking me what basis I had for belief that it was murder as if it was some wild accusation and I was jumping to dangerous conclusions. We know Zimmerman killed Martin. The only question then is whether it was lawful. The basis for the accusation is pretty strong. If you are not going to respond in context then stay out of it.

Again, why is it impossible to believe Martin acted in self defense because he did not continue to flee but Zimmerman who repeatedly followed Martin was clearly acting only to save his own life? I never said that it was definite that Martin was defending himself. I only stated that it was possible he was acting in self defense in answer to your assertion that he was a proven criminal for striking Zimmerman. Zimmerman acted in a manner that any reasonable person would have found threatening and continued to throughout the incident. Meanwhile, Trayvon did nothing that any reasonable person would find threatening to person or property.

But hey, Trayvon was black, which is reason enough to suspect him and Zimmerman's skin was not black so why would Trayvon entertain the idea that he had ill intentions? Is that how your logic goes, our little racist drama queen?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

What facts have I ignored?

You dropped the context again. USF was asking me what basis I had for belief that it was murder as if it was some wild accusation and I was jumping to dangerous conclusions. We know Zimmerman killed Martin. The only question then is whether it was lawful. The basis for the accusation is pretty strong. If you are not going to respond in context then stay out of it.

LOL... you are the one who ignores context. You only care about the portions of the details that you think fit your media fed idea of what occurred. Too funny how you continue to proclaim others take things out of context.

Again, why is it impossible to believe Martin acted in self defense because he did not continue to flee but Zimmerman who repeatedly followed Martin was clearly acting only to save his own life?

1) Because Martin initiated the physical confrontation, not Zimmerman
2) Because Martin had gotten away, Zimmerman had stated on the phone that he lost him.
3) Zimmerman did not 'repeatedly' follow him... which just goes to show again that you will make shit up to fit your preconceived ideas of what happened
4) It is not clear at all that Zimmerman was only acting to save his life. That part is unclear and I have stated numerous times that based on the evidence we know thus far, I would have thought Zimmerman would be found guilty of manslaughter. I do not think there is evidence to support 2nd degree murder (again based on what we know)

Your panties are so bunched up over this that you won't even pay attention to what has been said.

I never said that it was definite that Martin was defending himself. I only stated that it was possible he was acting in self defense in answer to your assertion that he was a proven criminal for striking Zimmerman.

All the evidence points to Martin being the one that initiated the physical confrontation. But please show me where I stated he was a proven criminal.

Zimmerman acted in a manner that any reasonable person would have found threatening and continued to throughout the incident.

That is pure conjecture on your part and I disagree completely. What actions did he do that were threatening? Simply following him? You are again making shit up to support your fantasy of what you want to have happened.

Meanwhile, Trayvon did nothing that any reasonable person would find threatening to person or property.

So now you were there and know exactly what Trayvon was doing? LMAO... again, you simply make things up and try to present them as fact. You have nothing to support the above.

But hey, Trayvon was black, which is reason enough to suspect him and Zimmerman's skin was not black so why would Trayvon entertain the idea that he had ill intentions? Is that how your logic goes, our little racist drama queen?

Again, any logical person who knew that there were numerous break ins involving young black men would be suspicious of an unknown black male in the neighborhood. It absolutely is reason enough to suspect. You are the racist for suggesting that Martin would be suspicious of a non-black man. Why is that? Oh yeah, because you continually feel the need to make shit up to support your bullshit.

You continue to ignore what had been happening in the neighborhood prior to the night of the shooting. You pretend that it is completely irrelevant. That shows you simply want to convict Zimmerman for being Hispanic or that you are too much of an idiot to actually listen to the facts of the case.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

The little fantasy you parrot here does not jibe with the original statements made by Zimmerman and the audio tape of his 911 call. by GZ's own account, Martin caught him tailing in the car, came up to the car, peered in the window and then ran away. Zimmerman was told it was NOT necessary to follow him further.

So why would Martin circle back to confront Zimmerman, who continued to travel in his car and then suddenly have to get out of his car to check street signs for directions.....weird that, given Zimmerman had been a self appointed neighborhood watcher with a history of reports to the 911.

Yes, there were marks on Martin that indicated a struggle...go back and check the evidence.

Bottom line, Zimmerman's story is dubious at best....enough for the local cop in charge to proceed to arrest and charge him before being countermanded by higher ups (who took an out-of-the-ordinary effort to do so on this particular case).

You're going to have supply factual documentation supporting the assertion, in your first paragraph, or else be viewed as nothing more then a self serving ass.

You would have to ask Martin why he would do that. OOPS forgot, you can't; but we can speculate that Martin thought he was enough of a bad ass to handle this.

Again, you need to provide some factual documentation.

People get arrested for numerous things and then are released.
Well, maybe not you.

 

[Timshel]

LOL... you are the one who ignores context. You only care about the portions of the details that you think fit your media fed idea of what occurred. Too funny how you continue to proclaim others take things out of context.

1) Because Martin initiated the physical confrontation, not Zimmerman
2) Because Martin had gotten away, Zimmerman had stated on the phone that he lost him.
3) Zimmerman did not 'repeatedly' follow him... which just goes to show again that you will make shit up to fit your preconceived ideas of what happened
4) It is not clear at all that Zimmerman was only acting to save his life. That part is unclear and I have stated numerous times that based on the evidence we know thus far, I would have thought Zimmerman would be found guilty of manslaughter. I do not think there is evidence to support 2nd degree murder (again based on what we know)

Your panties are so bunched up over this that you won't even pay attention to what has been said.

All the evidence points to Martin being the one that initiated the physical confrontation. But please show me where I stated he was a proven criminal.

That is pure conjecture on your part and I disagree completely. What actions did he do that were threatening? Simply following him? You are again making shit up to support your fantasy of what you want to have happened.

So now you were there and know exactly what Trayvon was doing? LMAO... again, you simply make things up and try to present them as fact. You have nothing to support the above.

Again, any logical person who knew that there were numerous break ins involving young black men would be suspicious of an unknown black male in the neighborhood. It absolutely is reason enough to suspect. You are the racist for suggesting that Martin would be suspicious of a non-black man. Why is that? Oh yeah, because you continually feel the need to make shit up to support your bullshit.

You continue to ignore what had been happening in the neighborhood prior to the night of the shooting. You pretend that it is completely irrelevant. That shows you simply want to convict Zimmerman for being Hispanic or that you are too much of an idiot to actually listen to the facts of the case.

There is absolutely no conjecture in anything I stated. Zimmerman followed Trayvon over a considerable distance in his vehicle and then on foot. That is based solely on his own statements and is supported by the physical evidence.

You are the one who is using conjecture to make the claim that Trayvon confronted Zimmerman.

Trayvon fled while Zimmerman was inside his vehicle establishing the fact that he was not acting in a threatening manner. But Zimmerman left the safety of his vehicle to follow Trayvon establishing his state of mind that he perceived no threat.

Zimmerman did repeatedly folllow by his own statements and the physical evidence. That is a threatening act. We teach our children to fear such behavior.

I am not making anything up. Zimmerman reported no suspicious or threatening behavior from Trayvon. I know you think walking while black is sufficient but it is not.

Trayvon did not decide to be followed by Zimmerman because Zimmerman was Hispanic and I have not argued that his race had any bearing on what happened. You are claiming that Trayvon's race was relevant. Your attempts to shift focus here are laughable and just more of your typical dishonest and desperate debate tactics. You do not need to pull such bullshit if you just focus on truth.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

He did not know Zimmerman, if I think someone is following me, I don't lead them to my house.

But do you also hide and then confront them?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I have not made up anything. The basis for my assumption is that Zimmerman says he shot Trayvon who then died from the gunshot wound. I know, it's craaaaAAAAzzzy to then claim that the killing was unlawful (murder), seeing as superfreak has pointed out that Trayvon was black and taller than Zimmerman.

Trayvon was supposed to keep running and could not have possibly been acting in self defense even with Zimmerman continuing to follow him because he should have been able to successfully flee? But Zimmerman can leave the safety of his vehicle to FOLLOW Trayvon, with a gun, shoot and kill him and claim to have been acting in defense of his life? How does that make any sense to you?

Why your response was evidently made, in an attempt to bolster your earlier unsupported assertions; there was northing in it, that would refute my response.
Would you care to try again?

 

[The Dude]

There is prob a ten percent chance your NRAZI brother gets off.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

There is absolutely no conjecture in anything I stated. Zimmerman followed Trayvon over a considerable distance in his vehicle and then on foot. That is based solely on his own statements and is supported by the physical evidence.

LOL... what exactly is 'considerable distance' to you? Again, look at the map of the location... it is posted for you to see there.

You are the one who is using conjecture to make the claim that Trayvon confronted Zimmerman.

I stated that Martin initiated the physical confrontation and all the evidence suggests that is indeed the case.

Trayvon fled while Zimmerman was inside his vehicle establishing the fact that he was not acting in a threatening manner. But Zimmerman left the safety of his vehicle to follow Trayvon establishing his state of mind that he perceived no threat.

1) Again, Martin could easily have kept running to the townhome, he was not far from it
2) Again, Zimmerman lost Martin, which again goes to show that it was Martin who returned and confronted Zimmerman
3) Zimmerman leaving his vehicle does not establish anything of the sort. You are simply once again making shit up to fit your little narrative. A narrative that began when the media spoon fed you bullshit from day one.

Zimmerman did repeatedly folllow by his own statements and the physical evidence. That is a threatening act. We teach our children to fear such behavior.

LOL... what exactly is your definition of repeatedly? He began following him and then lost him... did he suddenly start following him a second and third and fourth time that only you are aware of?

Again, you are spewing forth bullshit to fit your preconceived idea of Zimmermans guilt. Again, is it because you don't like Hispanics?

I am not making anything up. Zimmerman reported no suspicious or threatening behavior from Trayvon. I know you think walking while black is sufficient but it is not.

Trayvon did not decide to be followed by Zimmerman because Zimmerman was Hispanic and I have not argued that his race had any bearing on what happened.

LOL

You are claiming that Trayvon's race was relevant. Your attempts to shift focus here are laughable and just more of your typical dishonest and desperate debate tactics. You do not need to pull such bullshit if you just focus on truth.

Which of us is not focusing on the truth?

1) you ignore the recent burglaries because it lends credence to what I have stated
2) You ignore the fact that Zimmerman lost Martin, yet then pretend it could have been Zimmerman that initiated the confrontation
3) You ignore the fact that Martin beat the crap out of Zimmerman
4) You continually tried to project Martin as a little boy (probably that inner racist in you)
5) You continually try to pretend that charges several years prior against Zimmerman have ANY bearing on this case
6) you pretend that Zimmerman was 'repeatedly' following Martin... ie... more than once. You then suggest there is evidence to back up this nonsense. You should certainly provide that to us.

 

[Timshel]

Why your response was evidently made, in an attempt to bolster your earlier unsupported assertions; there was northing in it, that would refute my response.
Would you care to try again?

Refute what? You asked why I would assume Zimmerman is a murderer and what evidence there was for the conclusion. Zimmerman shot and killed Martin after following him in and out of his vehicle and acting in a way that any reasonable person should assume might create a confrontation. The claim that he was acting in defense of his life is sort of absurd as Trayvon was walking away from him and even ran away at one point. If Zimmerman had not continued to follow him no confrontation would have occurred. Zimmerman acted in a way that instigated the confrontation, was incapable of defending himself with commensurate force and then killed an unarmed boy. You don't get to do that just because the boy is black and you've had trouble with black people in the area.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Refute what? You asked why I would assume Zimmerman is a murderer and what evidence there was for the conclusion. Zimmerman shot and killed Martin after following him in and out of his vehicle and acting in a way that any reasonable person should assume might create a confrontation. The claim that he was acting in defense of his life is sort of absurd as Trayvon was walking away from him and even ran away at one point. If Zimmerman had not continued to follow him no confrontation would have occurred. Zimmerman acted in a way that instigated the confrontation, was incapable of defending himself with commensurate force and then killed an unarmed boy. You don't get to do that just because the boy is black and you've had trouble with black people in the area.

So basically; after all this time, you intend to stick with the imginary assertions that you've madeup, for yourself, and intend to just ignore the facts of what truly occured and are documented.

Do you lie to everyone; or just yourself and posters on this forum?

 

[Timshel]

LOL... what exactly is 'considerable distance' to you? Again, look at the map of the location... it is posted for you to see there.

I stated that Martin initiated the physical confrontation and all the evidence suggests that is indeed the case.

1) Again, Martin could easily have kept running to the townhome, he was not far from it
2) Again, Zimmerman lost Martin, which again goes to show that it was Martin who returned and confronted Zimmerman
3) Zimmerman leaving his vehicle does not establish anything of the sort. You are simply once again making shit up to fit your little narrative. A narrative that began when the media spoon fed you bullshit from day one.

LOL... what exactly is your definition of repeatedly? He began following him and then lost him... did he suddenly start following him a second and third and fourth time that only you are aware of?

Again, you are spewing forth bullshit to fit your preconceived idea of Zimmermans guilt. Again, is it because you don't like Hispanics?

I am not making anything up. Zimmerman reported no suspicious or threatening behavior from Trayvon. I know you think walking while black is sufficient but it is not.

LOL

Which of us is not focusing on the truth?

1) you ignore the recent burglaries because it lends credence to what I have stated
2) You ignore the fact that Zimmerman lost Martin, yet then pretend it could have been Zimmerman that initiated the confrontation
3) You ignore the fact that Martin beat the crap out of Zimmerman
4) You continually tried to project Martin as a little boy (probably that inner racist in you)
5) You continually try to pretend that charges several years prior against Zimmerman have ANY bearing on this case
6) you pretend that Zimmerman was 'repeatedly' following Martin... ie... more than once. You then suggest there is evidence to back up this nonsense. You should certainly provide that to us.

Why do you have to constantly split everything up and try to split hairs? Answer, because you are despeartely spinning bullshit.

You are repeating yourself and failing to offer anything new. I have already been over all of this. I will play along with your other annoying tactic of numbering everything in the hopes of getting you to move it forward.

A considerable distance, idk, around several corners and extending in duration for several minutes. Are you now going to argue the point and claim he only followed for a short distance/time and not enough to cause alarm?

There is no evidence to support the idea that Martin initiated the confrontation other than Zimmerman's claims. But he also supplies evidence to contradict it. Martin ran away by Zimmerman's own claims and Zimmerman, at the very least, initially, continued to pursue him.

1. We don't know that Martin did not continue to run to the townhome and even if he did not that does not mean Zimmerman was not the one responsible for the confrontation.
2. The fact that he lost Martin does not supply any proof that Martin returned to confront Zimmerman. You are just imagining things.
3. A man who feels threatened by another would not leave his vehicle and move towards the threat. That's just absurd.

Repeatedly, would be after he lost him, in and out of his vehicle. But if you want to split hairs, douchebag, how about we go with continuously. Really, the semantic bullshit games you play are not doing anything for you.

The fact that Zimmerman is hispanic has nothing to do with any part of my argument. I have not mentioned it at all. You have clearly stated that Trayvon's race is relevant and continue to assert it. Sorry, you stepped in that but you need to quit trying to shift blame to me or the evil media and take ownership of it.

1. I have not ignored the burglaries. I addressed it. They don't lend any credence to your argument because there was no reasonable cause to suspect that Trayvon had anything to do with them. Being black is not reasonable cause, you racist piece of shit. Lots of people are black. Reports are that Zimmerman had called in five times before about suspicious black people in the area that lead to nothing. Your argument does not help his case. It hurts it.
2. Already answered, the fact that he lost him does NOT preclude him from intiating the confrontation.
3. No, I have not ignored it.
4. He was a skinny male below the age of majority. That is a boy. What's racist about that???
5. They establish that he has a history of violence. But the point there was mostly about the attempt to label Trayvon as a criminal. The label fits Zimmerman more readily.
6. Already answered. He continued to follow him even after Trayvon had ran away and in and out of his car. The evidence is his own claims, the dispatch call and the physical evidence.

 

[Timshel]

So basically; after all this time, you intend to stick with the imginary assertions that you've madeup, for yourself, and intend to just ignore the facts of what truly occured and are documented.

Do you lie to everyone; or just yourself and posters on this forum?

What is imaginary? What is "documented" that contradicts anything I stated? Do you have an argument to offer?