Zimmerman

[Excon]

Zimmerman: Again.

The new Zimmerman thread (of course) has devolved into a discussion of the actual case between him and Trayvon.

So as to not further take it off topic I will respond to those issues here where it is not off-topic.

---

And if Zimmerman had actually done that and stayed in his truck after he said "Ok" then no one's head would have been slammed against the concrete would it? But that's not what happened because Zimmerman didn't stop following Trayvon.

I see you also do not know the evidence of this case.
He was already out of his vehicle when the call taker made the suggestion. And he did follow the call-takers suggestion and went in a different direction (East) from the one Trayvon had gone (South).
And as can be heard on that call, Trayvon was no-longer in sight. It was Trayvon who returned to the area and attacked Zimmerman.

Getting out of his vehicle is not and was not the catalyst. Trayvon chose to act violently on own when he simply could have remained out of sight like he was.

We don't know who layed hands on who first,

Stop. We have evidence that it was Trayvon.
If you want to refute that evidence you need evidence to do so. You have none.

but Zimmerman's aggressive behavior implies that it was he who attacked Trayvon.

Wrong. There is no aggressive behavior on Zimmerman's part that implies any such thing.

I think he tried to detain Trayvon and found himself getting his ass beat instead so he shot him.

What you think is not supported by the known evidence.

What is absolutely certain is that the situation was entirely of Zimmermam's own making ....

Wrong. Following to keep under observation until the Police arrive is not the making of any situation.
Someone attacking you because they do not like that, is, and makes them entirely responsible for the making of the situation.

and noted that I believe it was Zimmerman who was the aggressor because that is his history and that is how he was behaving prior to the physical altercation.

What you note is your made up bs and is irrelevant to the actual evidence of this case.

---

So if Zimmerman was allowed to claim that he was standing his ground, why was Trayvon not allowed that right?

Because the available evidence does not support that.
Do you really not know the evidence?

If he had survived he could have claimed that the felt threatened by Zimmerman and was just defending himself from a possibly armed stalker.

Wrong. Trayvon was nowhere in sight. Trayvon returned from his place of safety to confront Zimmerman. That means he is the aggressor.

And maybe Trayvon had a right to jump the adult that was following him around the neighborhood (after being told by the police to let them handle it).

1. No. Trayvon had no right to jump anyone .
2. You are deliberately being dishonest by saying that is what the Police said, especially as you know they did not say that. A suggestion by a call taker was made to the effect that they did not need him to follow. Zimmerman not only acknowledged this suggestion but he followed it as well, as he went off to the East when Trayvon had gone to the South.

---

Giving this guy attention after everything he has done just blows me away.

I'm surprised all he got was a punch in the face.

Sure, he should get punched in the face because he legitimately had to defend himself from an aggressor.
Oy Vey!

 

[Excon]

Rn, you're so close to the truth. Lets see if we can get you the rest of the way home. Yes Z said Ok. And then 5 minutes later he shot Martin. Just like the people here who think Z may not have heard the dispatcher tell him not to follow, your version needs to account for the fact that Z ignored the dispatcher.

No Vern.
1. He was not any obligation to follow the suggestions of a call-taker.
2. Wrong. He did not ignore that suggestion. He actually acknowledged what the call-taker said and then went in a different direction (East) than the one Trayvon had gone (South). That is called "not following".

 

[Mason66]

Watching :blink:

 

[Skeptic Bob]

I am fascinated by people's obsession with this case.

 

[Excon]

This guy punched the same guy in the face and didn't get a bullet to his heart. Why didn't Zimmerman shot this thug and punk?

These post deal with the Zimmerman/Trayvon incident.
See post #153 and then #200 from the thread you were quoted from.

The two incidents are not the same.
Equating one with the other is irrational.

There is no evidence that Zimmerman's story you're reciting is even factual.

Wtf?
I am not sure you understand how this works.

His claims were evidence.

His claims were investigated.

Besides some of his claims matching up exactly with other evidence, his claims in toto fit the rest of the known information.

As Maggie always said, Trayvon said he was being followed. Its reasonable he felt threatened and in danger.

1. Yes it could make someone feel uncomfortable. Especially someone who had been engaged in casing. No one denied he could have felt uncomfortable.


Yet his behavior of returning to an area he was no longer in to confront and attack Zimmerman doesn't suggest fear. Continuing on home would have. It suggests anger.

His physical aggression towards Zimmerman could have reasonably been a defensive response to being followed.

No it is not.
No reasonable person would believe that.
Nowhere in the law does it say you can attack another person for being kept under observation or for being followed.
Do you hear many stories of people getting away with attacking process servers, or private detectives? I pretty sure you do not.

People calling Trayvon a thug, punk, etc. are really going out of the way to demonize him. Those people are nothing more than Zimmerman supporters, and only have empathy for Zimmerman. They don't see the situation from Trayvon's perspective, and they have no emathy for his death.

That was not a prevalent behavior on this forum.
Nor does a person need to see it from Trayvon's perspective to know the behavior he engaged in was that of a thug.
You simply do not attack another person regardless if you do not like the fact that he had followed you. You call the Police if you do not like it.

As for empathy?
Wtf?
Empathy because he engaged in criminally violent behavior that got his ass killed? That is not deserving of empathy.

 

[TheGoverness]

opcorn2:

 

[Excon]

Watching :blink:

iLOL
Yeah, folks like making false arguments but do not like backing them up that much. It is always the same exhibited behavior.

---

I am fascinated by people's obsession with this case.

I am fascinated with the false arguments people make even though they have been corrected before.

 

[Excon]

How would you feel if someone you didn't know was following you? Would you shrug it off because you would just know he is only checking on things?

(See post #153 of the thread your above quote was taken from.)

I would suggest you do not attack anyone who is following you simply because you do not like it.
Call the police.
I understand that may not be something he was inclined to do, but that does not excuse his behavior or make it any less reasonable for Zimmerman to respond to it the way he did.

 

[Excon]

Zimmerman had no business stalking that kid.

(See post #153 of the thread your quotes was taken from.)
There was no stalking.
It was following to keep tabs on a suspicious individual until such time as the police he called arrived.
This was a one time event of following, not stalking.
There is a difference.
And that following had stopped before Trayvon returned and attacked Zimmerman.

Travon was trying to run him off.

Wtf? iLOL That is a new one.
No, there is no evidence to suggest that at all.
Only evidence that he attacked.

Better to confront than be taken from behind.

Doh!
And yet Trayvon is the one who came form Zimmerman's rear.
Stop with the absurd and false narrative.

Zimmerman's current social position and the things he does tells us all exactly why he acted the way he did that night. He got off on a technicality - full stop.

iLOL Than you do not know what a technicality is.
He was found not guilty because his action of self defense is allowed and within the bounds of the law.

 

[Excon]

I teenager who by all accounts was on his way home (it's never been proven that he was casing homes) and then defends himself against a grown man who was following him and looked just as suspicious deserved to die?

(See post #153 of the thread your above quote was taken from.)
Stop with the spun narrative.

The evidence we have is that he was looking into windows of the homes.
That is suspicious activity and generated the call to police.
It does not have to be proven in any way shape or form.
Nor is there any evidence or rational reason to disbelieve that account, especially as Zimmerman remained on line with the call-taker reporting Trayvon's continued suspicious movements.

(although in my opinion, as well as, some members of the jury, I believe he was guilty as sin!).

Not a damn thing shows him to be guilty of anything criminal, let alone "as sin".
You even misstate Juror beliefs.

(Mind you, if Zimmerman was any kind of man, he'd have taken his ass whipping like a man.)

Holy ****. This wasn't an ass whipping or an ass whipping that was deserved. This was an attack in which the person went for Zimmerman's gun with the stated intent of killing him.

Based on Zimmerman's post-trial foolishness, the day is coming when justice will be rightly served.

Blah, blah, blah, bs!
Post trial foolishness?
Wut?
You mean the false claims people wanted to make.
He is the blame for that?
Oy Vey! Talk about biased bs.

Justice was served in the first case, and as each case is different, maybe you should be judging each on it's own merits not on your made up beliefs.

Because nobody likes the idea that a grown ass man killed a kid (teenaged boy) who for all practical purposes was walking home and then goes on and on and on flaunting how he killed him at every turn. (That is, unless you're a bigoted, racist scumbag just like Zimmerman.)

You state a false narrative and then go on to make things up? Flaunting? At every turn?

Biased bigoted racist bs is apparently all you have.

 

[Excon]

You got that backwards.

(See post #153 of the thread your quotes was taken from.)
Backwards? No. That you be your position as usual.

Zimmerman was the one looking for trouble.

Backwards as usual.
Zimmerman called the police on a suspicious person. That is not looking for trouble.
He then followed that individual to keep him under surveillance until the Police he called arrived. That also is not looking for trouble.
He stopped following after the suggestion was given and went in another direction than the one Trayvon had disappeared. That also is not looking for trouble.


Trayvon came from Zimmerman's left rear and attacked him. That is looking for trouble.

The little hothead Zimmerman we see now is the same one that Martin saw that night. Nothing has changed.

You clearly are making things up to imagine, from both the night of the shooting and in regards to his getting punched because he was a "nigger lover" who wouldn't leave the restaurant when told to.

 

[Excon]

Um...no. Zimmerman was told not to leave his vehicle but he did anyway and followed Martin. Zimmerman was definitely the aggressor.

(See post #153 of the thread your quotes was taken from.)[/SIZE]

No Moot.
You have been involved in Zimmerman discussion long enough to know that isn't true.
So that just means you are deliberately posting dishonest bs.


Fact: Zimmerman was never told not to leave his vehicle.

Facts: He left his vehicle to follow Trayvon on foot, but the call-taker suggested they didn't need him to do that.
Facts: He acknowledge the call takers suggestion and went in a different direction (East) from the one Trayvon had gone (South).


Fact: There was no initial aggression on the part of Zimmerman.
Following to keep under observation a suspicious person until the police arrive is not an act of aggression.

There's no proof that Martin attacked Zimmerman...FIRST.

You speak to "proof" yet there exists evidence that is what happened.
Evidence is what we have to go on.
Evidence that is inline with the other evidence and has not been refuted by any other evidence.

But there's plenty of evidence that Zimmerman was the aggressor.

There is no evidence of initial aggression on Zimmerman's part.
None.
Following to keep a suspicious person is not an act of aggression.

The same self important arrogance that stalked a teenager and killed him....is the same self important arrogance that bragged about it in the diner.

You again show you have no idea of what you are speaking about.
There was no stalking. A single act of following, especially for legal purposes, is not stalking.
And there doesn't appear to be any bragging in the dinner case.

 

[Moot]

(See post #153 of the thread your quotes was taken from.)[/SIZE]

No Moot.
You have been involved in Zimmerman discussion long enough to know that isn't true. So that just means you are deliberately posting dishonest bs.

That's just a bald face lie, Excon. Now there's no doubt about your dishonesty.

Fact: Zimmerman was never told not to leave his vehicle.

Facts: He left his vehicle to follow Trayvon on foot, but the call-taker suggested they didn't need him to do that.

That's a lie. In Zimmerman's own words...

"The dispatcher told me not to follow the suspect and that an officer was in route.."​

Facts: He acknowledge the call takers suggestion and went in a different direction (East) from the one Trayvon had gone (South).

That's a lie. Zimmerman told the police that Trayvon confronted him as he was going back to his truck...

"As I headed back to my vehicle, the suspect emerged from the darkness and said 'you got a problem?'"​

Fact: There was no initial aggression on the part of Zimmerman. Following to keep under observation a suspicious person until the police arrive is not an act of aggression. ...Following to keep a suspicious person is not an act of aggression.

That's a lie. Zimmerman told the dispatcher..."these assholes, they always get away"....and then he chased after Trayvon after being told not to....

Dispatcher: Yeah we've got someone on the way, just let me know if this guy does
anything else.

Zimmerman: Okay. These assholes they always get away. When you come to the
clubhouse you come straight in and make a left. Actually you would go past the
clubhouse.

Dispatcher: So it's on the lefthand side from the clubhouse?

Zimmerman: No you go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left…uh
you go straight in, don't turn, and make a left. **** he's running.

Dispatcher: He's running? Which way is he running?

Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.

Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?

Zimmerman: The back entrance…****ing [unintelligible]

Dispatcher: Are you following him?

Zimmerman: Yeah

Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.

Zimmerman: Ok

Dispatcher: Alright sir what is your name?

Zimmerman: George…He ran.

Dispatcher: Alright George what's your last name?

Zimmerman: Zimmerman...

Dispatcher: Alright George we do have them on the way, do you want to meet with the
officer when they get out there?...

Zimmerman: If they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the
club house, and uh, straight past the club house and make a left, and then they
go past the mailboxes, that’s my truck...[unintelligible]

Dispatcher: What’s your apartment number?

Zimmerman: It’s a home it’s 1950, oh crap I don’t want to give it all out, I don’t
know where this kid is.

Dispatcher: Okay do you want to just meet with them right near the mailboxes
then?
Zimmerman: Actually, could you have them call me and I’ll tell them where I’m at?

Dispatcher: Okay, yeah that’s no problem.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/326700/full-transcript-zimmerman.pdf

So there you have Zimmerman, first telling the police to meet him at his truck and then after being told not follow Trayvon...he tells dispatch that he'll let the police know where he is....as he heads away from his truck towards the back gate to chase after Trayvon....because "these assholes they always get away" and he was going to make sure this one didn't. And that made him the aggressor.

You again show you have no idea of what you are speaking about.
There was no stalking. A single act of following, especially for legal purposes, is not stalking.
And there doesn't appear to be any bragging in the dinner case.

That's a lie. I got a 91% on the Zimmerman/Martin test...so apparently I do know what I'm talking about....and you don't. :2razz:

How much do you know about the Trayvon Martin case? Take our quiz. - Million-hoodie march - CSMonitor.com


After a pulling a gun during a road rage incident and threatening his wife with a gun....Zimmerman finally had his gun rights taken away. It's just too bad that didn't happen before he murdered someone.


As for bragging at the diner....three witnesses said he did...and his statement to the police didn't match his friends. It's really odd that anyone who recognized Zimmerman would call him a "n-word lover"....don't you think? Yet that's what Zimmerman told the police that "Eddy" said to him after punching him in the face.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

That's just a bald face lie, Excon. Now there's no doubt about your dishonesty.


That's a lie. In Zimmerman's own words...

"The dispatcher told me not to follow the suspect and that an officer was in route.."​

That's a lie. Zimmerman told the police that Trayvon confronted him as he was going back to his truck...

"As I headed back to my vehicle, the suspect emerged from the darkness and said 'you got a problem?'"​

That's a lie. Zimmerman told the dispatcher..."these assholes, they always get away"....and then he chased after Trayvon after being told not to....



https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/326700/full-transcript-zimmerman.pdf

So there you have Zimmerman, first telling the police to meet him at his truck and then after being told not follow Trayvon...he tells dispatch that he'll let the police know where he is....as he heads away from his truck towards the back gate to chase after Trayvon....because "these assholes they always get away" and he was going to make sure this one didn't. And that made him the aggressor.



That's a lie. I got a 91% on the Zimmerman/Martin test...so apparently I do know what I'm talking about....and you don't. :2razz:

How much do you know about the Trayvon Martin case? Take our quiz. - Million-hoodie march - CSMonitor.com



As for bragging at the diner....three witnesses said he did...and his statement to the police didn't match his friends. It's really odd that anyone who recognized Zimmerman would call him a "n-word lover"....don't you think? Yet that's what Zimmerman told the police that "Eddy" said to him after punching him in the face.

After a road rage incident involving a gun and threatening his wife with a gun....Zimmerman had his gun rights taken away. It's just too bad it didn't happen before he killed someone.

the physical evidence and timeline does not agree with your conjecture, assuming Zimmermans words to the police dispatcher during the 911 call regarding his location was truthful (and there's no reason to believe they were not) overlapped with a timeline of the call, it is impossible for zimmerman to have been assaulted where he was unless Trayvon doubled back. it simply is impossible.

we know that Martin was not shot until after Zimmerman's head was struck while he was grounded. again 100% impossible that the gun shot occured before the assault. hence it is reasonable to conclude Martin was the primary aggressor.

We know that following someone in public is 100% legal, end of story. whether or not Martin liked it is irrelevant.

the nature of George Zimmerman's character is a different thread, the shooting of Martin was 100% self defense.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

That's just a bald face lie, Excon. Now there's no doubt about your dishonesty.


That's a lie. In Zimmerman's own words...

"The dispatcher told me not to follow the suspect and that an officer was in route.."​

That's a lie. Zimmerman told the police that Trayvon confronted him as he was going back to his truck...

"As I headed back to my vehicle, the suspect emerged from the darkness and said 'you got a problem?'"​

That's a lie. Zimmerman told the dispatcher..."these assholes, they always get away"....and then he chased after Trayvon after being told not to....



https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/326700/full-transcript-zimmerman.pdf

So there you have Zimmerman, first telling the police to meet him at his truck and then after being told not follow Trayvon...he tells dispatch that he'll let the police know where he is....as he heads away from his truck towards the back gate to chase after Trayvon....because "these assholes they always get away" and he was going to make sure this one didn't. And that made him the aggressor.



That's a lie. I got a 91% on the Zimmerman/Martin test...so apparently I do know what I'm talking about....and you don't. :2razz:

How much do you know about the Trayvon Martin case? Take our quiz. - Million-hoodie march - CSMonitor.com


After a pulling a gun during a road rage incident and threatening his wife with a gun....Zimmerman finally had his gun rights taken away. It's just too bad that didn't happen before he murdered someone.


As for bragging at the diner....three witnesses said he did...and his statement to the police didn't match his friends. It's really odd that anyone who recognized Zimmerman would call him a "n-word lover"....don't you think? Yet that's what Zimmerman told the police that "Eddy" said to him after punching him in the face.

your quiz results are irrelevant, none of the questions actually touch on the factual basis of the events.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Zimmerman is a bad guy. At this point, that's painfully evident.

 

[Moot]

the physical evidence and timeline does not agree with your conjecture, assuming Zimmermans words to the police dispatcher during the 911 call regarding his location was truthful (and there's no reason to believe they were not) overlapped with a timeline of the call, it is impossible for zimmerman to have been assaulted where he was unless Trayvon doubled back. it simply is impossible.

Not neccesarily... Zimmerman was following Trayvon while he was still talking to dispatch and he continued to follow him after he was told not to and after he hung up. Trayvon probably saw Zimmerman still following him and stopped to stand his ground...as was his right under the Florida 'stand your ground' law. That seems to be largely ignored in your false narrative.

we know that Martin was not shot until after Zimmerman's head was struck while he was grounded. again 100% impossible that the gun shot occured before the assault. hence it is reasonable to conclude Martin was the primary aggressor.

Umm...no. No one knows what happened before Zimmerman shot Martin. No one...except Zimmerman that is. But since the trial...now we know what kind of person he is and that he often used a gun to intimidate people that he got into squabbles with (IE: a truck driver, his wife, etc.)...and finally had his gun rights taken away. That lends credence to the fact that Zimmerman was the aggressor when he shot Martin.

We know that following someone in public is 100% legal, end of story. whether or not Martin liked it is irrelevant.

the nature of George Zimmerman's character is a different thread, the shooting of Martin was 100% self defense.

Zimmerman's character is relevant to his motive for killing Martin and doesn't require another thread. Nor does following a suspect after being told not to by the police, qualify as self defense. End of story, yourself.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Not neccesarily... Zimmerman was following Trayvon while he was still talking to dispatch and he continued to follow him after he was told not to and after he hung up. Trayvon probably saw Zimmerman still following him and stopped to stand his ground...as was his right under the Florida 'stand your ground' law. That seems to be largely ignored in your false narrative.

nope, because if you compare the times on Zimmermans 911 call versus the later call from the neighbors, Trayvon had more then enough time to get to the residence he was staying at. you cannot "stop and strand your ground" by launching an assault on another individual, if this is your idea of self defense law I recommend you seek legal counsel immediately

Umm...no. No one knows what happened before Zimmerman shot Martin. No one...except Zimmerman that is. But since the trial...now we know what kind of person he is and that he often used a gun to intimidate people that he got into squabbles with (IE: a truck driver, his wife, etc.)...and finally had his gun rights taken away. That lends credence to the fact that Zimmerman was the aggressor when he shot Martin.

it is impossible the gun shot occured before the beating. even the prosecutions hired witness stipulated to this. there is no physical way it could have occured.

Zimmerman's character is relevant to his motive for killing Martin and doesn't require another thread. Nor does following a suspect after being told not to by the police, qualify as self defense. End of story, yourself.

any time you are assaulted while performing a legal act in a place you have a legal right to be you may defend yourself.

 

[Excon]

You have been involved in Zimmerman discussion long enough to know that isn't true. So that just means you are deliberately posting dishonest bs.

That's just a bald face lie, Excon. Now there's no doubt about your dishonesty.

No Moot. Your reply is so there is no doubt about it.
Are you honestly going to tell everyone that you haven't been here long enough and involved in Zimmerman discussions to not know the facts by now?
I hope not.

Fact: Zimmerman was never told not to leave his vehicle.

Facts: He left his vehicle to follow Trayvon on foot, but the call-taker suggested they didn't need him to do that.

That's a lie. In Zimmerman's own words...

"The dispatcher told me not to follow the suspect and that an officer was in route.."​

No Moot. Your reply is the lie.
Zimmerman's own words do not count as the call -takers own words. Funny that you think they can substitute as such.

You proved your self to be lying when you provided the transcript later on.

Zimmerman: No you go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left…uh
you go straight in, don't turn, and make a left. **** he's running.
*
Dispatcher: He's running? Which way is he running?

Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.

Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?

Zimmerman: The back entrance…****ing [unintelligible]

Dispatcher: Are you following him?

Zimmerman: Yeah

Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.

Zimmerman: Ok

1. As anyone can see, the call-taker did not tell Zimmerman to stay in his vehicle or even not to leave it.
He asked if he was following him (after he got out of his vehicle) and then told him they didn't need him to do that after he answered that he was.
2. * If you listen to the audio of the call, you can hear Zimmerman's vehicle door open up and then shut as he begins to follow him. This happens at the 02:18 mark, just after Zimmerman says he is running. This is of course before the call-taker asks him if he is following him.
Begin @ the 02:10 mark to here it start from "**** he is running."

​

Facts: He acknowledge the call takers suggestion and went in a different direction (East) from the one Trayvon had gone (South).

That's a lie. Zimmerman told the police that Trayvon confronted him as he was going back to his truck...

"As I headed back to my vehicle, the suspect emerged from the darkness and said 'you got a problem?'"​

No Moot.
You calling it a lie is the lie.

Trayvon went South between the two buildings. Towards the back entrance. This is why Zimmerman got out to follow.
He got up to just before the T in the walkway and confirmed to the call-taker. "He ran", as can be heard in the above audio @ the 02:41 mark.
This is also confirmed in his the following walk-through video at the 08:04 mark.

​

As you can see in the walk-through video Zimmerman confirms he continued East which is a different direction from Trayvon. That is not following at that point. Duh!

Everything I said was true.

The point you are now trying to ridiculously argue is that Trayvon following Zimmerman (comming from his left rear to attack him) is somehow relevant to the fact that Zimmerman stopped following Trayvon.
It isn't at all relevant to what I said.

Matter of fact, Zimmerman returning to his vehicle is him heading West, which is still a different direction than the one Trayvon had gone (South).


Recap: Trayvon ran South between the buildings towards the back gate.
Zimmerman got out to follow, was told they didn't need him to do that so he stopped following and went East instead. Traveling in a different direction is a clear sigh he is not following anymore. Duh!

As Zimmerman was walking back (West) to his vehicle. Trayvon came out from nowhere (as he wasn't in view there before) and approached Zimmerman from his rear left.

Nothing I said there was untrue. Your response was though.

 

[Excon]

Fact: There was no initial aggression on the part of Zimmerman.
Following to keep under observation a suspicious person until the police arrive is not an act of aggression.

That's a lie. Zimmerman told the dispatcher..."these assholes, they always get away"....and then he chased after Trayvon after being told not to....

No Moot. That is not a lie. Your response is.

Following to keep a suspicious person under surveillance until the police you have called on them arrive, is not an act of aggression.
No matter how much you want it to be, it simply isn't. Period.

Your response is ridiculous as it doesn't refute what I said.
Saying these assholes always get away is an expression of frustration/exasperation, and has nothing to do with any aggression.
You can here the exasperation in his voice when he says it starting @ the 01:41 mark in the first video. Or has no one ever explained to you about inflection in a persons voice?

So there you have Zimmerman, first telling the police to meet him at his truck and then after being told not follow Trayvon...he tells dispatch that he'll let the police know where he is....as he heads away from his truck towards the back gate to chase after Trayvon....because "these assholes they always get away" and he was going to make sure this one didn't. And that made him the aggressor.

Wrong, as well as a mischaracterization of the events as they happened.
Relaying his frustration/exasperation to the call-taker has nothing to do with any aggression. Your thinking it does is as absurdly silly as it is wrong. Just as your supposition that he was going to make sure this one didn't. That is clearly the manifestation of convoluted thoughts.

Nor did he give chase. He initially followed and then stopped when told they didn't need him to do that and then went in a different direction.
Again. Going in a different direction is not following. Duh!

You again show you have no idea of what you are speaking about.
There was no stalking. A single act of following, especially for legal purposes, is not stalking.
And there doesn't appear to be any bragging in the dinner case.

That's a lie. I got a 91% on the Zimmerman/Martin test...so apparently I do know what I'm talking about....and you don't.

1. What you think you got on that test is irrelevant to what I said.
2. If you think that Trayvon got some skittles and an Icetea at the store like the test thinks he did, you are as wrong as the test is.
He got skittles and an Arizona Watermelon Drink. That is a Fruit Juice Cocktail, not Icedtea.
3. What he said. ↓

your quiz results are irrelevant, none of the questions actually touch on the factual basis of the events.

 

[Excon]

After a pulling a gun during a road rage incident and threatening his wife with a gun....Zimmerman finally had his gun rights taken away. It's just too bad that didn't happen before he murdered someone.

Thank you for demonstrating that you still do not know what you are talking about.
These claims against him that you mention turned out not to be true.
He did not have his rights taken away and he did not murder anyone.

As for bragging at the diner....three witnesses said he did...

Wrong
One witness, a friend of the person who assaulted Zimmerman, said he bragged about killing Trayvon.
Another witness said he bragged by ID'ing himself. (This claim is absurd given the other information available from both sides, as he did it to ID himself, not to brag.)
That is only two, of which one has absolutely no substance. And these types of supposed bragging are dissimilar in form and substance from each other.
So no.

and his statement to the police didn't match his friends.

This comment is absurdly ignorant.
1. That is a summation by the Officer of their sworn statements. Not their full statements.
2. The summation of his friends account is not significantly different in any way that makes any difference.

It's really odd that anyone who recognized Zimmerman would call him a "n-word lover"....don't you think? Yet that's what Zimmerman told the police that "Eddy" said to him after punching him in the face.

Odd? Not at all.
You seem to have forgotten, as most Zimmerman haters have, Zimmerman's advocation for the homeless black man who was beaten by the son of a white police lieutenant (that is not something racists do). And that Zimmerman's black neighbors spoke favorably of him.

Racists would not like him for being on a black person's side regardless of his justly taking a black persons life. He would still be a "nigger lover" to them.
Trying to deflect their blame by saying he was bragging (as well as initially running when the police were called) is just what a racist would do.

 

[Excon]

(See post #153 & #200 of the thread your quotes was taken from.)

I don't know how anybody can believe Zimmerman's account of the night Trayvon died anymore.

Your comment is full of ignorance and bias.
The evidence was on his side.

As the lead Detective put it -

"The best evidence we have is the testimony of George Zimmerman, and he says the decedent was the primary aggressor in the whole event," Serino told the Sentinel March 16. "Everything I have is adding up to what he says."​

Ever since he was acquitted, he has been getting into trouble and routinely distorts the facts of the situation. He did it with his wife Shelly, he did it with girlfriend in the domestic violence situation, etc. Zimmerman's pattern is to call the police, play victim, and say he feels threatened or misunderstood.

Your take on that is just wrong.
Every one of those incidences turned out that he was falsely accused. Yet here you are saying it shows some pattern of nefarious behavior when it doesn't.
That only speaks to your own bias and an irrational thought process.

 

[Moot]

your quiz results are irrelevant, none of the questions actually touch on the factual basis of the events.

So what was your score? That low, huh?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

So what was your score? That low, huh?

It doesn't matter what anyone's score is. The only score that mattered was 6-0 in favor of acquittal

 

[Moot]

It doesn't matter what anyone's score is.

Come on, don't be shy....tell us what your score was? If you don't....I'll just assume it was 'below average'.

The only score that mattered was 6-0 in favor of acquittal

How did that work out for OJ?