Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So you're telling us that if some stranger was following you and calling you out, you would thank him amd roll over on your back and ask not to be cuffed? What in the world are you babbling about? Trayvon Martin stood his ground...but that law is mostly for neo confederate types...LOl now Zimmerman’s the one being stalked, and he’s butthurt about it. Let’s hope it ends for him the way it ended for the kid that he stalked.
You don't have a clue as to what “stalking” is. I do, so let me 'splain it to you.
Zimmerman did not stalk Martin, he merely followed him for a brief time. Stalking is a crime, whereas following someone is not. Those who use the word “stalking” do not know the legal definition of the word. Here is the Florida Statute pertaining to stalking:
Florida Statute 784.084
(2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of the person, or the person’s child, sibling, spouse, parent, or dependent, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(NOTE: Emphasis my own.)
Chapter 784 Section 048 - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate
Stalking involves “repeatedly” following an individual and since Martin and Zimmerman had no interactions prior to that fatal night the anti-stalking statute is not applicable. Further, to be guilty of stalking one must not only follow another person repeatedly but must do so “maliciously.” The word “maliciously” means “having or showing a desire to cause harm to someone.” Therefore, in order for Zimmerman to be convicted of stalking, it must be shown that he repeatedly followed Martin with the intent to harm him and there is no evidence to support such a charge. Stalking someone is illegal but briefly following someone as Zimmerman did is legal.
There is no evidence that Zimmerman followed Martin for any reason other than his concern for the safety of his neighborhood. If Zimmerman followed Martin with the intent to kill him - as some Zimmerman haters have suggested - I question why he didn't fire his weapon until after he had been knocked to the ground and pummeled. The allegation that Zimmerman followed Martin for the purpose of killing him is contrary to all the evidence of record and is totally inconsistent with Zimmerman's entire history which shows he went out of his way to help Black men, women and children.
Zimmerman did nothing which could possibly be construed as stalking as that term is defined by law. Following someone is not stalking him. In this country, if you deck someone just because he is following you (as Zimmerman was following Martin) you can expect to go to jail. You don't get to pummel someone just because you don't like what they're doing.
PS: For an analysis of “stalking” as it pertains to Zimmerman's conduct go to the following site and check out permalink #26.
No problem with Stalking
Based on the law and the evidence the only crime committed that night was by Trayvon Martin. The evidence shows that Martin cold-cocked Zimmerman then straddled him while he pummeled his head against the concrete. Zimmerman was no physical match for the younger, stronger Martin and was apparently unable to defend himself. It was only after Zimmerman had already received injuries and had called for help that he used deadly force against Martin. A jury who admitted they tried to find something – anything – to convict Zimmerman could find no evidence of wrongdoing.
I want to remind you and others that in order to find George Zimmerman not guilty, the jury had to make two specific determinations: (1) That a reasonably prudent person in the same situation would have believed the use of deadly force was necessary to avoid death or serious bodily injury; and (2) Zimmerman did nothing which would have justified Martin's attack upon him. In other words, to find Zimmerman not guilty they had to conclude that Martin was guilty of a crime. In the final analysis, it is a very good thing that Zimmerman (the victim) was armed and Martin (the criminal aggressor) was not.
Question: just what did George Zimmerman do to Martin that would have given Martin just cause to shoot him?
Please don't say “he followed him” because following someone is not a crime, and the words “I shot him because he was following me” is not a legal defense; rather it is a complete and irrefutable confession to the crime of murder. And please don't use the word “stalking.” Following someone for a brief period EXACTLY as Zimmerman followed Martin that night is not “stalking” as that crime is defined by Florida Statute.
He's a right wing hero. They love him. They want to do what he did.
...and the filthy ass thug that he shot in self defense is a hero of the Moon Bats. You know, Obama's son.
So you're telling us that if some stranger was following you and calling you out, you would thank him amd roll over on your back and ask not to be cuffed? What in the world are you babbling about? Trayvon Martin stood his ground...but that law is mostly for neo confederate types...LOl now Zimmerman’s the one being stalked, and he’s butthurt about it. Let’s hope it ends for him the way it ended for the kid that he stalked.
You don't have a clue as to what “stalking” is. I do, so let me 'splain it to you.
Zimmerman did not stalk Martin, he merely followed him for a brief time. Stalking is a crime, whereas following someone is not. Those who use the word “stalking” do not know the legal definition of the word. Here is the Florida Statute pertaining to stalking:
Florida Statute 784.084
(2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of the person, or the person’s child, sibling, spouse, parent, or dependent, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(NOTE: Emphasis my own.)
Chapter 784 Section 048 - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate
Stalking involves “repeatedly” following an individual and since Martin and Zimmerman had no interactions prior to that fatal night the anti-stalking statute is not applicable. Further, to be guilty of stalking one must not only follow another person repeatedly but must do so “maliciously.” The word “maliciously” means “having or showing a desire to cause harm to someone.” Therefore, in order for Zimmerman to be convicted of stalking, it must be shown that he repeatedly followed Martin with the intent to harm him and there is no evidence to support such a charge. Stalking someone is illegal but briefly following someone as Zimmerman did is legal.
There is no evidence that Zimmerman followed Martin for any reason other than his concern for the safety of his neighborhood. If Zimmerman followed Martin with the intent to kill him - as some Zimmerman haters have suggested - I question why he didn't fire his weapon until after he had been knocked to the ground and pummeled. The allegation that Zimmerman followed Martin for the purpose of killing him is contrary to all the evidence of record and is totally inconsistent with Zimmerman's entire history which shows he went out of his way to help Black men, women and children.
Zimmerman did nothing which could possibly be construed as stalking as that term is defined by law. Following someone is not stalking him. In this country, if you deck someone just because he is following you (as Zimmerman was following Martin) you can expect to go to jail. You don't get to pummel someone just because you don't like what they're doing.
PS: For an analysis of “stalking” as it pertains to Zimmerman's conduct go to the following site and check out permalink #26.
No problem with Stalking
Based on the law and the evidence the only crime committed that night was by Trayvon Martin. The evidence shows that Martin cold-cocked Zimmerman then straddled him while he pummeled his head against the concrete. Zimmerman was no physical match for the younger, stronger Martin and was apparently unable to defend himself. It was only after Zimmerman had already received injuries and had called for help that he used deadly force against Martin. A jury who admitted they tried to find something – anything – to convict Zimmerman could find no evidence of wrongdoing.
I want to remind you and others that in order to find George Zimmerman not guilty, the jury had to make two specific determinations: (1) That a reasonably prudent person in the same situation would have believed the use of deadly force was necessary to avoid death or serious bodily injury; and (2) Zimmerman did nothing which would have justified Martin's attack upon him. In other words, to find Zimmerman not guilty they had to conclude that Martin was guilty of a crime. In the final analysis, it is a very good thing that Zimmerman (the victim) was armed and Martin (the criminal aggressor) was not.
Question: just what did George Zimmerman do to Martin that would have given Martin just cause to shoot him?
Please don't say “he followed him” because following someone is not a crime, and the words “I shot him because he was following me” is not a legal defense; rather it is a complete and irrefutable confession to the crime of murder. And please don't use the word “stalking.” Following someone for a brief period EXACTLY as Zimmerman followed Martin that night is not “stalking” as that crime is defined by Florida Statute.
Which is why I phrased it as a question...You have serious reading comprehensions problems. I said nothing of the sort.
If someone were following me, I would not sneak up on him, knock him to the ground and proceed to beat the crap out of him.
There is no evidence of any kind that Zimmerman “called him out” as you claim.
So you're telling us that if some stranger was following you and calling you out, you would thank him amd roll over on your back and ask not to be cuffed? What in the world are you babbling about? Trayvon Martin stood his ground...but that law is mostly for neo confederate types...LOl now Zimmerman’s the one being stalked, and he’s butthurt about it. Let’s hope it ends for him the way it ended for the kid that he stalked.
You don't have a clue as to what “stalking” is. I do, so let me 'splain it to you.
Zimmerman did not stalk Martin, he merely followed him for a brief time. Stalking is a crime, whereas following someone is not. Those who use the word “stalking” do not know the legal definition of the word. Here is the Florida Statute pertaining to stalking:
Florida Statute 784.084
(2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of the person, or the person’s child, sibling, spouse, parent, or dependent, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(NOTE: Emphasis my own.)
Chapter 784 Section 048 - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate
Stalking involves “repeatedly” following an individual and since Martin and Zimmerman had no interactions prior to that fatal night the anti-stalking statute is not applicable. Further, to be guilty of stalking one must not only follow another person repeatedly but must do so “maliciously.” The word “maliciously” means “having or showing a desire to cause harm to someone.” Therefore, in order for Zimmerman to be convicted of stalking, it must be shown that he repeatedly followed Martin with the intent to harm him and there is no evidence to support such a charge. Stalking someone is illegal but briefly following someone as Zimmerman did is legal.
There is no evidence that Zimmerman followed Martin for any reason other than his concern for the safety of his neighborhood. If Zimmerman followed Martin with the intent to kill him - as some Zimmerman haters have suggested - I question why he didn't fire his weapon until after he had been knocked to the ground and pummeled. The allegation that Zimmerman followed Martin for the purpose of killing him is contrary to all the evidence of record and is totally inconsistent with Zimmerman's entire history which shows he went out of his way to help Black men, women and children.
Zimmerman did nothing which could possibly be construed as stalking as that term is defined by law. Following someone is not stalking him. In this country, if you deck someone just because he is following you (as Zimmerman was following Martin) you can expect to go to jail. You don't get to pummel someone just because you don't like what they're doing.
PS: For an analysis of “stalking” as it pertains to Zimmerman's conduct go to the following site and check out permalink #26.
No problem with Stalking
Based on the law and the evidence the only crime committed that night was by Trayvon Martin. The evidence shows that Martin cold-cocked Zimmerman then straddled him while he pummeled his head against the concrete. Zimmerman was no physical match for the younger, stronger Martin and was apparently unable to defend himself. It was only after Zimmerman had already received injuries and had called for help that he used deadly force against Martin. A jury who admitted they tried to find something – anything – to convict Zimmerman could find no evidence of wrongdoing.
I want to remind you and others that in order to find George Zimmerman not guilty, the jury had to make two specific determinations: (1) That a reasonably prudent person in the same situation would have believed the use of deadly force was necessary to avoid death or serious bodily injury; and (2) Zimmerman did nothing which would have justified Martin's attack upon him. In other words, to find Zimmerman not guilty they had to conclude that Martin was guilty of a crime. In the final analysis, it is a very good thing that Zimmerman (the victim) was armed and Martin (the criminal aggressor) was not.
Question: just what did George Zimmerman do to Martin that would have given Martin just cause to shoot him?
Please don't say “he followed him” because following someone is not a crime, and the words “I shot him because he was following me” is not a legal defense; rather it is a complete and irrefutable confession to the crime of murder. And please don't use the word “stalking.” Following someone for a brief period EXACTLY as Zimmerman followed Martin that night is not “stalking” as that crime is defined by Florida Statute.
He didn’t stalk anyone. He saw a little thug and kept an eye on him for a few minutes. Little thug attacked him, and Zimmerman shot him in self defense.LOl now Zimmerman’s the one being stalked, and he’s butthurt about it. Let’s hope it ends for him the way it ended for the kid that he stalked.
Which we know is true, because Zimmerman said so. we all know such a stand up guy would never lie.He didn’t stalk anyone. He saw a little thug and kept an eye on him for a few minutes. Little thug attacked him, and Zimmerman shot him in self defense.LOl now Zimmerman’s the one being stalked, and he’s butthurt about it. Let’s hope it ends for him the way it ended for the kid that he stalked.
Which we know is true, because Zimmerman said so. we all know such a stand up guy would never lie.He didn’t stalk anyone. He saw a little thug and kept an eye on him for a few minutes. Little thug attacked him, and Zimmerman shot him in self defense.LOl now Zimmerman’s the one being stalked, and he’s butthurt about it. Let’s hope it ends for him the way it ended for the kid that he stalked.
Only a portion of his story, though. You seem to have blocked that nugget out.Which we know is true, because Zimmerman said so. we all know such a stand up guy would never lie.He didn’t stalk anyone. He saw a little thug and kept an eye on him for a few minutes. Little thug attacked him, and Zimmerman shot him in self defense.LOl now Zimmerman’s the one being stalked, and he’s butthurt about it. Let’s hope it ends for him the way it ended for the kid that he stalked.
You seem to have blocked out the eye witness testimony that confirmed Zimmerman’s.
Only a portion of his story, though. You seem to have blocked that nugget out.Which we know is true, because Zimmerman said so. we all know such a stand up guy would never lie.He didn’t stalk anyone. He saw a little thug and kept an eye on him for a few minutes. Little thug attacked him, and Zimmerman shot him in self defense.LOl now Zimmerman’s the one being stalked, and he’s butthurt about it. Let’s hope it ends for him the way it ended for the kid that he stalked.
You seem to have blocked out the eye witness testimony that confirmed Zimmerman’s.
Funny, right here on this page you asserted as fact things that were not part of the eyewitness account and were gleaned only from Zimmerman's account. Apparently, you found them relevant then, but now you do not.It was the only relevant portion
Must be very difficult for you to type through your v@g-sore snowflake tears.BSZimmerman is another former Obama supporter who learned the truth first hand what scum Democrats and their pet media and govt. employees are. Their core base here peddling fake news is of course happy to be known as vermin, too.
It's a fact; your heroes failed at trying to railroad an innocent man, and your ilk still harass him same as your stupid' Resistance' rubbish against Trump beating your crooked sociopathic hag of a traitor in 2016; you scum just can't stand not getting your way on anything, you're nothing but a bunch of psycho amoral brats.
Which we know is true, because Zimmerman said so. we all know such a stand up guy would never lie.He didn’t stalk anyone. He saw a little thug and kept an eye on him for a few minutes. Little thug attacked him, and Zimmerman shot him in self defense.LOl now Zimmerman’s the one being stalked, and he’s butthurt about it. Let’s hope it ends for him the way it ended for the kid that he stalked.
You seem to have blocked out the eye witness testimony that confirmed Zimmerman’s.
Must be very difficult for you to type through your v@g-sore snowflake tears.BSZimmerman is another former Obama supporter who learned the truth first hand what scum Democrats and their pet media and govt. employees are. Their core base here peddling fake news is of course happy to be known as vermin, too.
It's a fact; your heroes failed at trying to railroad an innocent man, and your ilk still harass him same as your stupid' Resistance' rubbish against Trump beating your crooked sociopathic hag of a traitor in 2016; you scum just can't stand not getting your way on anything, you're nothing but a bunch of psycho amoral brats.
Because Zimmerman was still following him. And he only ostensibly tried to murder him, once he saw the gun.and then came back to try and murder Zimmerman
He's a right wing hero. They love him. They want to do what he did.
Zimmerman is no cracker.So you're telling us that if some stranger was following you and calling you out, you would thank him amd roll over on your back and ask not to be cuffed? What in the world are you babbling about? Trayvon Martin stood his ground...but that law is mostly for neo confederate types...LOl now Zimmerman’s the one being stalked, and he’s butthurt about it. Let’s hope it ends for him the way it ended for the kid that he stalked.
You don't have a clue as to what “stalking” is. I do, so let me 'splain it to you.
Zimmerman did not stalk Martin, he merely followed him for a brief time. Stalking is a crime, whereas following someone is not. Those who use the word “stalking” do not know the legal definition of the word. Here is the Florida Statute pertaining to stalking:
Florida Statute 784.084
(2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of the person, or the person’s child, sibling, spouse, parent, or dependent, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(NOTE: Emphasis my own.)
Chapter 784 Section 048 - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate
Stalking involves “repeatedly” following an individual and since Martin and Zimmerman had no interactions prior to that fatal night the anti-stalking statute is not applicable. Further, to be guilty of stalking one must not only follow another person repeatedly but must do so “maliciously.” The word “maliciously” means “having or showing a desire to cause harm to someone.” Therefore, in order for Zimmerman to be convicted of stalking, it must be shown that he repeatedly followed Martin with the intent to harm him and there is no evidence to support such a charge. Stalking someone is illegal but briefly following someone as Zimmerman did is legal.
There is no evidence that Zimmerman followed Martin for any reason other than his concern for the safety of his neighborhood. If Zimmerman followed Martin with the intent to kill him - as some Zimmerman haters have suggested - I question why he didn't fire his weapon until after he had been knocked to the ground and pummeled. The allegation that Zimmerman followed Martin for the purpose of killing him is contrary to all the evidence of record and is totally inconsistent with Zimmerman's entire history which shows he went out of his way to help Black men, women and children.
Zimmerman did nothing which could possibly be construed as stalking as that term is defined by law. Following someone is not stalking him. In this country, if you deck someone just because he is following you (as Zimmerman was following Martin) you can expect to go to jail. You don't get to pummel someone just because you don't like what they're doing.
PS: For an analysis of “stalking” as it pertains to Zimmerman's conduct go to the following site and check out permalink #26.
No problem with Stalking
Based on the law and the evidence the only crime committed that night was by Trayvon Martin. The evidence shows that Martin cold-cocked Zimmerman then straddled him while he pummeled his head against the concrete. Zimmerman was no physical match for the younger, stronger Martin and was apparently unable to defend himself. It was only after Zimmerman had already received injuries and had called for help that he used deadly force against Martin. A jury who admitted they tried to find something – anything – to convict Zimmerman could find no evidence of wrongdoing.
I want to remind you and others that in order to find George Zimmerman not guilty, the jury had to make two specific determinations: (1) That a reasonably prudent person in the same situation would have believed the use of deadly force was necessary to avoid death or serious bodily injury; and (2) Zimmerman did nothing which would have justified Martin's attack upon him. In other words, to find Zimmerman not guilty they had to conclude that Martin was guilty of a crime. In the final analysis, it is a very good thing that Zimmerman (the victim) was armed and Martin (the criminal aggressor) was not.
Question: just what did George Zimmerman do to Martin that would have given Martin just cause to shoot him?
Please don't say “he followed him” because following someone is not a crime, and the words “I shot him because he was following me” is not a legal defense; rather it is a complete and irrefutable confession to the crime of murder. And please don't use the word “stalking.” Following someone for a brief period EXACTLY as Zimmerman followed Martin that night is not “stalking” as that crime is defined by Florida Statute.
Trayvon Martin stood his ground...
He showed that creepy cracka!
Part white, part latino, part black.... and ALL crazy.Zimmerman is no cracker.So you're telling us that if some stranger was following you and calling you out, you would thank him amd roll over on your back and ask not to be cuffed? What in the world are you babbling about? Trayvon Martin stood his ground...but that law is mostly for neo confederate types...LOl now Zimmerman’s the one being stalked, and he’s butthurt about it. Let’s hope it ends for him the way it ended for the kid that he stalked.
You don't have a clue as to what “stalking” is. I do, so let me 'splain it to you.
Zimmerman did not stalk Martin, he merely followed him for a brief time. Stalking is a crime, whereas following someone is not. Those who use the word “stalking” do not know the legal definition of the word. Here is the Florida Statute pertaining to stalking:
Florida Statute 784.084
(2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of the person, or the person’s child, sibling, spouse, parent, or dependent, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(NOTE: Emphasis my own.)
Chapter 784 Section 048 - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate
Stalking involves “repeatedly” following an individual and since Martin and Zimmerman had no interactions prior to that fatal night the anti-stalking statute is not applicable. Further, to be guilty of stalking one must not only follow another person repeatedly but must do so “maliciously.” The word “maliciously” means “having or showing a desire to cause harm to someone.” Therefore, in order for Zimmerman to be convicted of stalking, it must be shown that he repeatedly followed Martin with the intent to harm him and there is no evidence to support such a charge. Stalking someone is illegal but briefly following someone as Zimmerman did is legal.
There is no evidence that Zimmerman followed Martin for any reason other than his concern for the safety of his neighborhood. If Zimmerman followed Martin with the intent to kill him - as some Zimmerman haters have suggested - I question why he didn't fire his weapon until after he had been knocked to the ground and pummeled. The allegation that Zimmerman followed Martin for the purpose of killing him is contrary to all the evidence of record and is totally inconsistent with Zimmerman's entire history which shows he went out of his way to help Black men, women and children.
Zimmerman did nothing which could possibly be construed as stalking as that term is defined by law. Following someone is not stalking him. In this country, if you deck someone just because he is following you (as Zimmerman was following Martin) you can expect to go to jail. You don't get to pummel someone just because you don't like what they're doing.
PS: For an analysis of “stalking” as it pertains to Zimmerman's conduct go to the following site and check out permalink #26.
No problem with Stalking
Based on the law and the evidence the only crime committed that night was by Trayvon Martin. The evidence shows that Martin cold-cocked Zimmerman then straddled him while he pummeled his head against the concrete. Zimmerman was no physical match for the younger, stronger Martin and was apparently unable to defend himself. It was only after Zimmerman had already received injuries and had called for help that he used deadly force against Martin. A jury who admitted they tried to find something – anything – to convict Zimmerman could find no evidence of wrongdoing.
I want to remind you and others that in order to find George Zimmerman not guilty, the jury had to make two specific determinations: (1) That a reasonably prudent person in the same situation would have believed the use of deadly force was necessary to avoid death or serious bodily injury; and (2) Zimmerman did nothing which would have justified Martin's attack upon him. In other words, to find Zimmerman not guilty they had to conclude that Martin was guilty of a crime. In the final analysis, it is a very good thing that Zimmerman (the victim) was armed and Martin (the criminal aggressor) was not.
Question: just what did George Zimmerman do to Martin that would have given Martin just cause to shoot him?
Please don't say “he followed him” because following someone is not a crime, and the words “I shot him because he was following me” is not a legal defense; rather it is a complete and irrefutable confession to the crime of murder. And please don't use the word “stalking.” Following someone for a brief period EXACTLY as Zimmerman followed Martin that night is not “stalking” as that crime is defined by Florida Statute.
Trayvon Martin stood his ground...
He showed that creepy cracka!
Who is George Zimmerman?
His father is white, neighbors say. His mother is Latina. And his family is eager to point out that some of his relatives are black.
Which we know is true, because Zimmerman said so. we all know such a stand up guy would never lie.He didn’t stalk anyone. He saw a little thug and kept an eye on him for a few minutes. Little thug attacked him, and Zimmerman shot him in self defense.LOl now Zimmerman’s the one being stalked, and he’s butthurt about it. Let’s hope it ends for him the way it ended for the kid that he stalked.
You seem to have blocked out the eye witness testimony that confirmed Zimmerman’s.
Saint Trayvon lost Zimmerman when he ran off, obviously to ditch something he didn't want to get caught on him, and then came back to try and murder Zimmerman. These scum always pretend that didn't happen. Nobody ever tried to look for what Saint Trayvon ditched.
Because Zimmerman was still following him. And he only ostensibly tried to murder him, once he saw the gun.and then came back to try and murder Zimmerman
