nocamo replied to you
Because NOT identifying himself after pursuing the kid with agun at night created fear of imminent harm in Trayvon. Fear that would have been allayed had Zimmerman answered Trayvon with, no I don’t have a problem, I AM NHW, and concerned you are out of place, do you know someone here. Your premise that Tray “chimped”is baseless. As Serino asked, “what do you think you did to cause a non-violent kid to act that way”?
you replied to nocamo
Why does Zimmerman have a duty to identify himself, but Trayvon doesn’t have the duty to NOT CHIMP OUT ON SOMEONE WHO HAS DONE NOTHING VIOLENT OR ILLEGAL?
Following someone is LEGAL.
Getting out of your car is LEGAL.
Talking to someone, or NOT talking to someone is LEGAL.
Chimping out on a man who has done nothing illegal or violent IS ILLEGAL.
You morons just don’t seem to get it:
YOU CANNOT JUSTIFY USING VIOLENCE AGAINST SOMEONE WHO IS DOING NOTHING VIOLENT OR ILLEGAL.
Thanos769 tried this similar argument out, and I “ditto” my response to you:
[Thanos769]”If a man, woman, or child follows anyone around in the dark while they’re walking home minding their own business and then confronts them; they should be considered a threat.”
Fine. Consider them a threat. Of course, since they’ve done nothing illegal or violent, you have no justification to instigate violence on your part.
No comprehendo the above paragraph? Allow me to make it clearer for you:
YOU DO NOT GET TO CHIMP OUT ON SOMEONE WHO HAS DONE NOTHING WRONG. IF YOU DO, EXPECT TO GET SHOT.
You know the authority and responsibility that’s placed upon a Neighborhood watch captain, versus an ordinary citizen? NONE, MORON. You know the badge and ID they carry? NONE, MORON. You know the duty that someone has to identify themselves to a fellow citizen on the street? NONE, MORON.
How do we know that one random person on the street isn’t a violent criminal, just waiting for the least opportunity to pounce upon us? WE DO NOT KNOW.
WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO ABIDE BY THE LAW. THAT MEANS THAT WE CANNOT INITIATE THE USE OF FORCE WITHOUT JUST PROVOCATION.
The fact you think that someone who had broken no laws and committed no acts of violence had some duty to bend over backwards and reassure a suspicious stranger BUT a juvenile delinquent pothead thug has no duty to restrain his violent impulse to beat down on someone who’s “dissed” him, is PROOF YOU ARE A THUG.
We know that Trayvon wasn’t “running scared”, because if he’d been running away, he’d have GOT AWAY.
Zimmerman didn’t break any laws by not identifying himself, nor did he have any obligation to do so.
Trayvon broke the law when he chimped out on Zimmerman, and he certainly had an obligation not to attack a man who had done nothing violent or illegal.