"Fair enough, but the dispatcher wasn't. This is the same guy the local police invited to wear a uniform and patrol the neighborhood in a patrol car (strangely ZImmerman the vigilante declined). Talk about mixed messages. But the whole premise is silly, when i was a teenager, older folks were always seeing what i was up to, following me in a store, etc. The idea that you cant follow a guy you claim you saw peeking into windows in the rain in a neighborhood with a lot of thefts is absurd." - markbuehnerI didn't say you can't... I said it was foolish to do so. That suspicious individual--if he thinks you're some kinda creep looking to do HIM harm (and if you don't think that some unknown creepy adult following him, first in his car and then on foot, likely appeared just as suspicious and up to no good to Trayvon as Travon appeared to George--and really MORE suspicious, because Trayvon thought George was targeting him, not intimate objects in a townhouse where no one was home--you're willfully deluding yourself), or if he actually IS up to no good--may well react violently. The risk isn't worth the reward. Unless someone is in imminent danger of being harmed, approaching--or worse, actually confronting an unknown individual that you believe may be up to no good is just stupid.
I agree with the ultimate legal verdict--though I did want there to be a trial--but when it comes to common-sense blame, George substantially contributed to the altercation that occurred and set the events in motion that lead him to fire his weapon and kill that kid.
From the time they first saw each other, Trayvon spent most of his time moving away from the suspicious individual he saw. George spent most of that same time moving toward the suspicious individual he saw. Were it not for the actions George took--following Trayvon in his car and on foot (legal, but stupid)--neither of them would've been hit or shot, and we'd likely never've heard either of their names.
Posted Thursday, February 20, 2014, 1:31 PM