The police told Zimmerman to stay in the car. Why did he get out?

The dispatcher never asked "where is he going" "can you see him" or "now where did he go." Will you be able to figure out the proper use of quotes sometime today or ever?

Zimmerman was asked to report what Trayvon was doing during the moments that Zimmerman indicated he was approaching him and had something in his hands. Obviously, the dispatcher was concerned for Zimmerman's immediate safety during those moments. After Zimmerman reported he had fled those concerns vanished. The dispatcher asked in which direction Trayvon ran. The dispatcher made it clear that he was not asking Zimmerman to follow and George continued to do what he was doing. He did not stop and return to his vehicle. The only change was to his story about why he left his car.


Grammar Nazi ?....asked zimmerman questions to the effect of "where is he going, what is he doing now", "Can you see him?", "Now where did he go?" The only way you can answer these questions is by following someone. It's essentially implied.

Does the omission of the quote marks make a difference ?...the caveat is there "to the effect of".....

Obviously, the dispatcher was concerned for Zimmerman's immediate safety ?.....thats not obvious at all and you can't know that...
The dispatcher made it clear that he was not asking Zimmerman to follow ?....That too is not obvious nor is it even implied

The dispatcher asked in which direction Trayvon ran....GZ went in search of house numbers and street names(it was dark)a perfectly understandable action to take.


Your spin might help you live with your version of events and your preconceived guilt of Zimmermann.....its the ostrich syndrome....
 
Grammar Nazi ?....asked zimmerman questions to the effect of "where is he going, what is he doing now", "Can you see him?", "Now where did he go?" The only way you can answer these questions is by following someone. It's essentially implied.

Does the omission of the quote marks make a difference ?...the caveat is there "to the effect of".....

That's a settled point.

Obviously, the dispatcher was concerned for Zimmerman's immediate safety ?.....thats not obvious at all and you can't know that...

It is obvious.

The dispatcher made it clear that he was not asking Zimmerman to follow ?....That too is not obvious nor is it even implied

It was stated explicitly. The dispatcher asked "Are you following him." Zimmerman said, "yes." The dispatcher said, "okay, we don't need you to do that."

The dispatcher asked in which direction Trayvon ran....GZ went in search of house numbers and street names(it was dark)a perfectly understandable action to take.

Except he said that he was following him and only changed his story after the fact to this nonsense about looking for a mailbox. He also told dispatch to have the officer's call him because he was not going back to his vehicle, which was only about 25 seconds away according to his claims on the walk through. Two minutes later after getting off the phone with dispatch the confrontation begins.

Your spin might help you live with your version of events and your preconceived guilt of Zimmermann.....its the ostrich syndrome....

I never had a preconceived notion of Zimmerman's guilt. It was not until much of the evidence came out and especially the comparison of the walk through with the dispatcher's tapes, the other neighbor's 911 calls and the crime scene that I became certain his story was fabricated.
 
They should have had a picture of George when he was 12 yrs. old, just to be fair....


your glee at this boy never being able to reach manhood is re reflected in your attempts to pretend he was never a child
 
That's not true. The evidence of the dispatcher's call disputed that as well as the Hannity interview and the walk through. Zimmerman changed his story.

It was stated explicitly. The dispatcher asked "Are you following him." Zimmerman said, "yes." The dispatcher said, "okay, we don't need you to do that."

Except he said that he was following him and only changed his story after the fact to this nonsense about looking for a mailbox.

How does the fact that he said he was following him make saying he got out of his vehicle to find an address to determine where he actually was at a “change in his story?” You best rethink that absurdity. The former does not exclude or disprove the latter.

Why don’t you simply admit that you’re a fucking biased racist searching for straw-men to promote your fucking racism???? What color are the people that are hell bent on making a civil rights racism case out of this? Why couldn’t the FBI find any reason to believe racism had anything to do with the issue? Why are blacks and leftist white bastards crying bloody murder about Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, when it wasn’t even a part of the case, never implied by the prosecution or mentioned by the prosecution or the defense? Why is Jesse Jackson running around like the fucking idiot he is saying Trayvon Martin didn’t have a jury of HIS peers when the Constitution only guarantees the accused i. e. ZIMMERMAN the right to an impartial jury?
 
How does the fact that he said he was following him make saying he got out of his vehicle to find an address to determine where he actually was at a “change in his story?” You best rethink that absurdity. The former does not exclude or disprove the latter.

Ummm, because they are not the same. When asked if he was following Trayvon, Zimmerman answered yes. He did not answer "I am going to find a street sign," which he never gave the dispatcher. That only became part of his story after he needed to explain away following Trayvon.

Why don’t you simply admit that you’re a fucking biased racist searching for straw-men to promote your fucking racism???? What color are the people that are hell bent on making a civil rights racism case out of this? Why couldn’t the FBI find any reason to believe racism had anything to do with the issue? Why are blacks and leftist white bastards crying bloody murder about Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, when it wasn’t even a part of the case, never implied by the prosecution or mentioned by the prosecution or the defense? Why is Jesse Jackson running around like the fucking idiot he is saying Trayvon Martin didn’t have a jury of HIS peers when the Constitution only guarantees the accused i. e. ZIMMERMAN the right to an impartial jury?

Your ranting and raving are going to be ignored. Only one of those questions interests me or is really relevant.

I don't necessarily believe it was fully motivated by race. It may have had some part in it (i.e., the profiling), but the FBI will choose to act based on what they think they can prove not on what they believe.
 
Ummm, because they are not the same. When asked if he was following Trayvon, Zimmerman answered yes. He did not answer "I am going to find a street sign," which he never gave the dispatcher. That only became part of his story after he needed to explain away following Trayvon.

Actually following somebody and looking for a street identification can be and often are two different actions that can be accomplished at the same fucking time. One does not necessarily prevent the other. The only folks I know that can’t multitask are idiot racist leftist morons. There was absolutely no testimony by a single soul that contradicted anything that Zimmerman said.
 
Your ranting and raving are going to be ignored. Only one of those questions interests me or is really relevant.

Of course! The questions aren’t relevant to you because the honest answers to them show the racism from the black community and their absolute ignorance of and disregard for constitutional rule of law and the judicial system except when an all-black jury allowed O. J. Simpson to walk after slashing to death two white people. Blacks and racist leftist whites rejoiced at that decision.

I don't necessarily believe it was fully motivated by race.

There was never any evidence that the incident was motivated by any consideration of race.

It may have had some part in it (i.e., the profiling), but the FBI will choose to act based on what they think they can prove not on what they believe.

The “profiling” horseshit is exactly that, horseshit. All humans profile all the time. Jesse Jackson said he was “afraid to meet blacks in a dark alley,” (paraphrase). We profile the mates we marry. We profile the people we associate with. We profile our friends. We profile the folks we dislike and refuse to associate with. We profile the politicians we vote for and the politicians we wouldn’t vote fore on a fucking bet. Profiling is as natural as any human behavior. If blacks didn’t commit the vast majority of the crimes, maybe blacks wouldn’t be profiled as much as being criminals, huh?
 
yeah why is the NRA not pointing out that black teens should be packing

Maybe because the NRA doesn’t point out that anybody “should” be packing. The NRA simply defends everybody’s right to pack if they want to Goober.
 
Actually following somebody and looking for a street identification can be and often are two different actions that can be accomplished at the same fucking time. One does not necessarily prevent the other. The only folks I know that can’t multitask are idiot racist leftist morons. There was absolutely no testimony by a single soul that contradicted anything that Zimmerman said.

According to Zimmerman, Trayvon did not run towards the street sign. So if he intended to follow Trayvon he could not have been intending to walk to the street sign.

Sorry, there was evidence that contradicted what he said. His own statements. There were plenty of other things he said that were disputed by evidence introduced in court. For instance, in other statements he claimed Trayvon emerged from some bush and there was no bush. His claims about who said what, were disputed by Jeantel. His claims about how the final moments of the grab for the gun in the walk through contradict what he, apparently, told Osterman. His claims on the time frame between when he got off the phone with dispatch and when the altercation began were proven false. These are just some examples. You might not find these inconsistencies and contradictions compelling but you cannot just wish them away based on your bias.
 
It is always difficult debating with someone who starts off with a faulty premise, but I will try.

First Zimmerman was not speaking with the Police. He was speaking with a dispatcher. That is not the same thing. Dispatchers have no authority of law. You are not legally bound to do what they tell you.

Second, he was asked by the dispatcher where Trayvon was going. That is when he got out of his truck.

Third, the dispatcher said "You don't need to do that"

Fourth, after the dispatcher said "You don't need to do that", Zimmerman said "OK"

Fifth, when questioned on the stand, the dispatcher said it was reasonable for Zimmerman to do what he did based on the questions Zimmerman was asked.

Sixth, Zimmerman is an hispanic

Seventh, Zimmerman is a registered democrat

Eighth, Zimmerman voted for Obama

Have a blessed day

6, 7, and 8 have nothing to do with anything....
 
According to Zimmerman, Trayvon did not run towards the street sign. So if he intended to follow Trayvon he could not have been intending to walk to the street sign.

Question, “are you following him?” Answer “yes.” Exit from vehicle, look for street identity. Intent to follow temporally postponed. Timeline shown at trial. Jury determined there was no discrepancy in Zimmerman’s statements.

Sorry, there was evidence that contradicted what he said. His own statements. There were plenty of other things he said that were disputed by evidence introduced in court. For instance, in other statements he claimed Trayvon emerged from some bush and there was no bush. His claims about who said what, were disputed by Jeantel. His claims about how the final moments of the grab for the gun in the walk through contradict what he, apparently, told Osterman. His claims on the time frame between when he got off the phone with dispatch and when the altercation began were proven false. These are just some examples. You might not find these inconsistencies and contradictions compelling but you cannot just wish them away based on your bias.

Nobody tells the exact same story twice unless they were coached and coached and memorized every word. The jury determined there were no compelling inconsistencies in Zimmerman’s story he told police. The cops believed him, determined there was no contradictions by any witness. The FBI determined there was no racial element to the event. 44 days Zimmerman was determined to have acted in SELF-DEFENSE by all of law enforcement until Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton stirred the black pot of racism and created a national outrage by duped blacks and idiot whites exacerbated and promoted by a fucking leftwing national media.
 
Question, “are you following him?” Answer “yes.” Exit from vehicle, look for street identity. Intent to follow temporally postponed. Timeline shown at trial. Jury determined there was no discrepancy in Zimmerman’s statements.



Nobody tells the exact same story twice unless they were coached and coached and memorized every word. The jury determined there were no compelling inconsistencies in Zimmerman’s story he told police. The cops believed him, determined there was no contradictions by any witness. The FBI determined there was no racial element to the event. 44 days Zimmerman was determined to have acted in SELF-DEFENSE by all of law enforcement until Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton stirred the black pot of racism and created a national outrage by duped blacks and idiot whites exacerbated and promoted by a fucking leftwing national media.

He exited the vehicle before the question was asked.

I never heard the defense explain the two minute gap. Can you tell us when that happened?

They should have arrested him much sooner and questioned him to see if he could fill the gaps in his story. They should have known about Jeantel and questioned her.

Serino wanted to charge him and juries are not always right.
 
It might come election time if enough Hispanics realize the fucking Democrats tried to railroad one of their own.

Boy....you Rethuglicans are really desperate...oh yeah...you're a libertarian....yep....all those Hispanics will flock to your party....and you'll still come in 3rd.
 
He exited the vehicle before the question was asked.

Exit vehicle. Question, “are you following him?” Answer, yes! Also looking for street identification. Not illegal to follow someone. Not illegal to look for street identification afoot.

I never heard the defense explain the two minute gap. Can you tell us when that happened?

Not necessity to explain any gaps. The burden of proof is on the prosecution not the defense. It’s called The American Justice System.

They should have arrested him much sooner and questioned him to see if he could fill the gaps in his story. They should have known about Jeantel and questioned her.

Serino wanted to charge him and juries are not always right.

He was questioned extensively by the police and they determined no criminal charges were necessary. In America folks have the right to protect themselves even with deadly force. Even the prosecution’s case supported the verdict of self-defense. They presented nothing to show otherwise. Their witnesses even supported the defense.

The jury was absolutely correct and their verdict was a great promotion of gun rights and self-defense!!!!!
 
Boy....you Rethuglicans are really desperate...oh yeah...you're a libertarian....yep....all those Hispanics will flock to your party....and you'll still come in 3rd.

What "party?" I don't do parties that shit is for y'all party animals and brain-dead fucks that can't think for yourself!!!!!
 
Back
Top