No, you haven't (based on the few posts of yours I've cared to read). But as I skim through this thread, it's very apparent to me that's the perception you give of TM (and notice how every time you refer to him his initials are in superscript) isn't that of some innocent by-stander while you continually come to Zimmerman's defense. You may not have characterized either of the primary characters in this case as "sinner or saint...thug or concerned, law abiding citizen, but your every post from those I've read makes no doubt as to which side you're really on. And it's not the that of the kid who died quite possibly at that hand of the man who was carrying the gun. Instead, it's on the side of the man who allegedly was protecting a neighborhood from some punk kid looking into houses but quite possibly was admiring things while on his way home.
Again, I'm in no way saying that Trayvon Martin was innocent. It's quite possible he was scouting homes for his next hit, but it's also possible that a kid from the wrong side of the tracks who was sent to live with his father temporarily was admiring the niceties of homes the likes he'd never seen before, but because of his appearance was immediately labeled as "a home invader on the prowl".
I'll offer myself up as an example. My wife and I will occasionally take walks around our neighborhood when time permits. And on every walk I look into the windows of the homes I pass by - not being nosy as in being a "peeping Tom"...just curious as to what other residents have inside and how they decorate their interior. I may sound odd, but my wife and I get home décor tips that way by simply observing. Now, I'm not naïve enough to believe that the kid was innocent. But I'm neither foolish enough to automatically convict either. Would Martin's actions arouse my curiosity? Sure, especially if I saw him looking into homes while off the sidewalk or the street. (And by the way, I never leave the sidewalk when I "observe".) So, as has already stated my "Spidy Senses" would have gone off, too. But I wouldn't have taken matters into my own hands after having phoned 911 and was told the local law enforcement was on the way especially after being told NOT to pursue. That was Zimmerman's biggest mistake. He should have left well enough alone.
1.) I find it strange that you do not have the evidence correct?
He was not "told" not to pursue. A NEN call-taker suggested he not follow. It was a suggestion. "We don't need you to do that" is a suggestion. A suggestion that the official have already told us that he was under no obligation to follow, yet apparently did. And he made it clear he wanted no contact with the suspicious person.
2.) I have not called
™ a scumbag because I do not believe he was.
He has acted as a thug at times and wanted to be seen as a thug, I am more than willing to say that. But it is not something that I normally call him.
I am also more than willing to say he is responsible for his death as he is the one who acted inappropriately and illegally in attacking Zimmerman and causing Zimmerman to justly use deadly force to protect himself. But no, I do not go around willy nilly calling him a thug or scumbag for ****s and grins.
3.) I agree with what you say he may have been doing. But that matters not to what Zimmerman believed he saw which caused his suspicion. AS suspicions are subjective, his suspicions were valid. The problem starts and extends from when
™ confronted Zimmerman. (which
is the evidence)
4.) While
™ are his initials, it is also the symbol for Trademark. Or have you forgotten that Sybrina Fulton attempted to trademark two phrases that contained his name? So I find it appropriate as his initials and novel in it's usage.
5.) The side I am on? Of course there is no mistake as to the side I am on. The side of the truth.
I have no need to lie, distort, misrepresent or be dishonest in regards to this case like those on the other side of the coin are doing.
The evidence is pretty much straight forward. Zimmerman acted in self-defense.
6.) I do find it odd that you focus on me instead on the likes of those who lie, distort, misrepresent, and are generally dishonest in there arguments.
If you are a seeker of the truth, it is those you should be questioning about their untruthfulness and motivations.
Or the likes of a person who deliberately goes out of their way to purposely be denigrating towards Zimmerman or anybody else involved from that side. It is disgusting.
But your not knowing the evidence, and your use of language suggests to me that you are not interested in the truth and are not being objective.
