LOL They don't know what they heard. But anyway, it's not evidence of an attack. It's irrelevant. The lefties here are just lost. I thought it was telling that they didn't reply to my explanation of WHY the conclusion has to be that it was self-defense barring any new evidence or witnesses.
When you aggressively stalk someone by car and foot after police tell you not to to start a confrontation it is not self defense...It's that simple. Really
Just minutes ago you admitted you have no proof of this, yet here you are stating it as fact - again.
Zimmerman's past arrests In 2005, George Zimmerman was twice accused of either criminal misconduct or violence. That July, Zimmerman â 21 at the time â was at a bar near the University of Central Florida when a friend was arrested by state alcohol agents on suspicion of serving underage drinkers, according to an arrest report. Zimmerman was talking with his friend, became profane and pushed an agent who tried to escort him away, the report said. Authorities said he was arrested after a short struggle. Charged with resisting arrest without violence, he avoided conviction by entering a pretrial-diversion program, something common for first-time offenders. A month later, court records show, a woman filed a petition for an injunction against Zimmerman, citing domestic violence.
In the exact way you are stating the opposite as fact regularly when you have no proof of your assertions. And your claims defy the record of previous behavior by Zimmerman.
So he should be charged with a felony just to let a jury decide if he's guilty? Are you fucking drunk? He should only be charged if there is sufficient evidence he committed a crime. So far the only thing the you bleeding hearts have demonstrated is that the dead kid had dark skin. That's not a reason to charge someone. Now if you actually have EVIDENCE that the shooter initiated the confrontation, show us.
Ok lets change the variables in the situation and see what you think. Lets say I'm driving my car and some woman thinks I cut her off, so she follows me(but since I'm innocent we will say it was a similar car that cut her off and she just followed the wrong car). I notice a car following me so I pull over, she gets out of the car and I get out of the car. I punch her in the face breaking her nose and get on top of her and start hitting her. She screams for help and for someone to call the police. Nobody helps her. She then pulls out a gun and shoots me. Was it self defense? If you said yes, you are on Zimmermans side. If you said no, you are an idiot.
No, now you're just making stuff up. Again, if he has a previous record how did he get a carry permit? Maybe I'm wrong but I understood he had a carry permit. They don't generally give those to felons.
Now you're just making up stuff. There is no evidence to indicate that happened. As I said before - there appears to be only one witness to the start of the fight and that is Zimmerman. Everything else he has said has been corroborated by witnesses and the 911 call. There is NOTHING to indicate he wasn't acting is self-defense. So, unless you "murder theorists" can come up with some PROOF - and I don't mean some lawmaker, politician or newspaper saying he should be arrested, I mean proof - then it is an open and shut case of self-defense.