@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:He was not a thug. You are profiling.
Is there something
RONG with that, Jack??
I don't think there is.
MontereyJack wrote:You're absolutely blind to the volunimous evidence that shows Zimmerman went in with a totally mistaken
idea of what he was seeing and what Trayvon was in fact doing,
1. Lemme get this straight: u allege that there is "volunimous evidence" [sic]
that shows that travon was
NOT casing houses for burglary
when Zimmy saw him (before he ran away) ??
What "volunimous evidence" is
THAT ?
2. Even if we assume, for the nonce,
that travon was not casing houses in preparation for
future burglary, is there anything rong with Zimmy 's calling
the police to inquire into suspicious conduct?? I don't think there is.
Is there anything either legally rong or morally rong
with following travon
WATCHING his movements,
from the perspective of defense from burglary ?
If u allege that there was a legal infraction, then please cite
to applicable statutory or judicial authority in support of your opinion.
If u allege that it was morally rong to watch and follow a suspected burglar,
then please cite to any respected moral philosopher
who reasons that it is rong to follow anyone
OR to
look at him. I look forward to your answer.
MontereyJack wrote:and he killed Trayvon as a result of his preconceptions.
He killed that thug as a result of
his beating
his head on the street, as he had an absolute right to
DO.
I suspect that in the final moments of his life,
travon learned the
folly of
incivility.
Politeness wud have saved his life.
MontereyJack wrote:Your mind has never been open, David. It is not now.
Well, I
understood the reasons that the police released Zimmy.
I was always aware that Zimmy was not going to commit murder
IN FRONT OF THE APPROACHING POLICE, whom he called.
U post foolishness.
Next u will tell me that
Ruby did not shoot Oswald.
U shud be ashamed of posting such drivel.
David
