chipgreen wrote:Wow. I guess I don't understand how anyone can attempt to justify why it was perfectly fine to profile, follow (while ignoring the dispatcher's advice), confront and shoot (with a gun that he was prohibited from carrying as part of his watch captain duties) Trayvon Martin who was simply walking home from the store minding his own business.
Where the heck do you people come up with this horseshit?
Ignore a CSR? Not according to the only witnesses testimony.
Stop and confront? Not according to the only witnesses testimony, or any of the physical evidence.
Prohibited? No, sorry, pretty sure his permit didn't say "except when patrolling the neighborhood"
Only Zimmerman knows what happened for sure afa how they ended up face to face and who threw the first punch, but we know there was a scuffle and we know that Zimmerman shot Martin to death.
Right, and all the evidence supports his story. Doesn't mean it's true, just means its reasonably possible. If Martin jumped him (remember Georgie was on public property, not committing any wrong act at that point) and was kicking his ass, then he was in fact justified in shooting him.
Anything Martin tweeted or smoked or what terminology he used or who he hung out with at school or what TV shows he liked to watch have NOTHING to do with whether or not Zimmerman was justified in shooting him. The only thing that matters is what happened THAT NIGHT.
How he behaved is ENTIRELY relevant if you want to convince people he didn't violently attack Georgie.
Additionally, saying that Martin, a 17 year old with a 17 year old's brain, had no reason to fear being pursued by an unknown, nearly middle-aged white-ish man (who fits the description of 90% of all serial killers - how's that for profiling?) is ridiculous. And to compare being followed (with clear but unknown purpose) by a stranger down a dark street with being hassled by a Westboro Baptist protester? No words to describe.....
Hint: This is a THREAD in a FORUM, Try looking at what I typed and who I was responding to, and about what. Or was that meant as a display of intentional ignorance?