George Zimmerman Verdict

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    You got a thing about Canada?  Still gets your goat, doesn't it, that you had to come up here and play because you weren't good enough to play down there?

     



    Well, you can't blame him. Getting sentenced to the tundra is definitely hard time. LMAO

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     



    They were so severe, Zimmerman declined to go to the hospital. 

    His choice. Maybe he was a tough hombre. Doesn't change the fact that a broken nose, damaged eyes and lacerations are serious injuries.

     

    Your misguided ravings are completely impotent . . .

    To political hos, yes.

     

    but George Zimmerman's irresponsible carrying of a weapon and his baseless suspicions directly led to a killing.

    Wrong. TM attacking GZ led to a killing. You keep trying to excuse a physical attack in response to being followed and questioned and I'm not going to let you get away with that.

     

     Of course, you don't think a killing is all that problematic.  You didn't think the Newtown shootings were all that big deal either.

    Of course I think any killing is a big deal. I'm just not ready to lay blame where it doesn't belong like you so eagerly do.

     

     Much rather protect the "right" of crazy people and incompetents to carry weapons around . . . 

    Yep, yep . . . you really are the voice of reason . . . 

     

    The voice of reason says if TM didn't attack somebody physically first, he would be alive today.

    The voice of insanity says a person can physically attack someone who simply followed them and asked questions.

     

     



    The voice of reason understands that letting unqualified people like George Zimmerman carry a loaded gun and play cop leads to unnecessary deaths and should be stopped.  

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:


    Carrying a gun when not competent to do so, for one . . . not illegal maybe, but definitely a mistake.

    Now you're just making things up like Rusty does. He was competent enough with the gun to shoot in the heart an assailant that had seriously injured him, right?

    That only proves he was incompetent to be be carrying a gun and playing cop.  A competent individual (like a well trained police officer) would never have let the situation deteriorate to the point where he shot an unarmed teenager who was, when initially approached, doing nothing more than walking home. 

    He was competent enough to put his assailant in his grave.

     

     

     

     

    Next was jumping to incorrect conclusions about someone and then acting on those incorrect conclusions in a way that created the possibility of a violent conflict with that person that resulted in your killing him.  Big mistakes in judgment which, in a saner country, would have made him culpable for what followed. 

    Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. His actions were what they were because he had not yet come to a conclusion.

    "These assh*les always get away"   That statement is just full of all sorts of incorrect assumptions and, yes, conclusions, the most obvious of which is Zimmerman's conclusion that Martin was an "assh*le."  

    So? No crime in concluding somebody is an assh*le.

     

     

     

     

    Serious question: no offense intended: Have you been drinking the last couple of days?

     

    Have you ever thought outside your little box?  How's your family doing, by the way?  Wife and kids come by much anymore?


    My box is reason and integrity. Why would I think outside that box like you do?

    Family is doing pretty well. Talked with my sister and my neice earlier. I'm divorced for many years. Saw my son earlier today. Will be enjoying time with my sweetheart when she gets home soon. Thanks for asking.

     



     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    The voice of reason understands that letting unqualified people like George Zimmerman carry a loaded gun and play cop leads to unnecessary deaths and should be stopped.  

     



    No, that isn't the voice of reason. That's the voice of a political ho with an agenda.

    The voice of reason says if TM just told GZ he was walking home and kept doing that instead of attacking GZ physically he would still be alive.

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    Serious question: no offense intended: Have you been drinking the last couple of days?

     

    Have you ever thought outside your little box?  How's your family doing, by the way?  Wife and kids come by much anymore?





    Looks like I touched a nerve.

    I'll take this response as a yes. You're almost always on the wrong side of any political argument, but usually you support your empty agenda more adroitly. LMAO

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:


    Carrying a gun when not competent to do so, for one . . . not illegal maybe, but definitely a mistake.

    Now you're just making things up like Rusty does. He was competent enough with the gun to shoot in the heart an assailant that had seriously injured him, right?

    That only proves he was incompetent to be be carrying a gun and playing cop.  A competent individual (like a well trained police officer) would never have let the situation deteriorate to the point where he shot an unarmed teenager who was, when initially approached, doing nothing more than walking home. 

    He was competent enough to put his assailant in his grave.

     

    That's not competence in my book.  Competence would not be getting himself in a situation where he killed someone unnecessarily.  This really sums up our differences completely.  No need to discuss this anymore.  You're impressed with his ability to kill.  I would be impressed with his ability to avoid killing.  Now it's up to our readers to decide which kind of society they want to live in--yours or mine. 

     

     

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from RallyC. Show RallyC's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

     

    The voice of reason understands that letting unqualified people like George Zimmerman carry a loaded gun and play cop leads to unnecessary deaths and should be stopped.  

     

     

     



    No, that isn't the voice of reason. That's the voice of a political ho with an agenda.

     

     

    The voice of reason says if TM just told GZ he was walking home and kept doing that instead of attacking GZ physically he would still be alive.

     

     


    Come on Babe, that would mean that TM was afraid and a girly man. He had to show that "creepy azz cracker" GZ that he was the MAN! Yeah, I know, the court and jury was wrong.....what am I thinking??? Plus TM only got hungry when he smoked weed too. 

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    Roughly 19,000 children die every day in this world, mostly from starvation and war.

    The real tragedy is that these two humans couldn't talk it out.

    Reading this board, it's no wonder why...

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

     

    Oh yeah and I almost forgot, turn off your f-ing televisions.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

    The voice of reason understands that letting unqualified people like George Zimmerman carry a loaded gun and play cop leads to unnecessary deaths and should be stopped.  

     

     

     



    No, that isn't the voice of reason. That's the voice of a political ho with an agenda.

     

     

    The voice of reason says if TM just told GZ he was walking home and kept doing that instead of attacking GZ physically he would still be alive.

     

     



    So, you are in favor of anyone living in a neighborhood just approaching anyone they think doesn't belong, with a firearm, and taking it upon themselves to handle a potential illegal situation with how they see fit?

     

    What century do you live in here?   The 19th?  Somewhere in Kansas?

     




    I believe these neighborhood watch groups are a good thing in high crime areas. I believe the cops don't even want to be in these areas much less police them. I believe asking strangers in these areas what is up is a good thing. I believe if persons are carrying heat legally, that is their right.

    I'm stuck in the century of sanity where liberals like you didn't exist. The same one where people don't try to justify a physical attack just for following somebody and asking questions because they have a f'd up political agenda they have to constantly ball wash.

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    Roughly 19,000 children die every day in this world, mostly from starvation and war.

    The real tragedy is that these two humans couldn't talk it out.

    Reading this board, it's no wonder why...




    Well yeah. We already had prolate admit if somebody followed him and asked him questions he would probably attack them physically.

    There isn't apt to be peace in the valley if people are so easily ready to answer words with fists.

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to wozzy's comment:

     

    Oh yeah and I almost forgot, turn off your f-ing televisions.




    I haven't even had cable for years.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from RallyC. Show RallyC's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment: 

     

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    Again, quite simply, if Zimmerman hadn't been carrying a weapon and playing cop, this death would have never happened.

     

      

    Again, quite simply, if TM had not physically attacked GZ this death would not have happened.

     

    Whatever mistakes Martin may have made, Zimmerman made the first. 

     

    Not true. If GZ hadn't been legally carrying a gun, then TM may have beaten GZ and left him for dead. TM beat GZ, THEN GZ shot TM IN SELF DEFENSE. I see where you are coming from though! You, like your Canadian bretheren, think that GZ should've minded his own business and turned the other way when he saw a suspicious person in his neighborhood where crime is outta control. YUP, lets not get involved. Like you did! You didn't believe in fighting for your own freedom, so instead moved to Canada so that you didn't have to and let us AMERICANS make sure you get to be free. You didn't want to get involved, huh? Sorry dude, GZ was "NOT GUILTY" of ANYTHING WRONG. And you can't change that. Are you really as ignorant as you are trying to be?

     

     

    You really are deadset on proving the stereotype that football players are dumb, aren't you?  

     

     

    Damn man! I didnt realize that YOU played football too! That would explain it, because you, Sir, are a genuine idiot with zero grasp of reality. Now, dont you have some peace signs to be drawing.....EH? 

     


    Ooohhh . .  big trash talker, aren't you?  Try growing up sometime.  You're not sixteen anymore.  

     



    Hide Canadian, hide.  

     

     

    You got a thing about Canada?  Still gets your goat, doesn't it, that you had to come up here and play because you weren't good enough to play down there?

     

     

    Yeah, I really did hate it up there. A bunch of runners (from having to serve in the US military) like you, that goofey azz style of 12 on twelve with movement before the snap, and did I mention defectors like you who ran from the service of their country? And the weather really sucked most of the time too....Oh and the weasles who want freedom but aren't willing to earn it bothered me too. How do you like it up there? Must be nice having the USA as your protector so close.......EH?

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

     

    Yeah, I really did hate it up there. A bunch of runners (from having to serve in the US military) like you, that goofey azz style of 12 on twelve with movement before the snap, and did I mention defectors like you who ran from the service of their country? And the weather really sucked most of the time too....Oh and the weasles who want freedom but aren't willing to earn it bothered me too. How do you like it up there?

     

     




     

    Absolutely love it, thank you.  But I actually wanted the job I came up here for . . . 

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsLifer. Show PatsLifer's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to jimmytantric's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

    What I find troubling is that you can apparently pursue an unarmed person with a gun in Florida and if they fight back when you approach them with your gun, you can shoot them and claim self-defense.  From what I've read, based on Florida law and the lack of proof that Zimmerman hadn't acted in "self-defense", they had to acquit this guy, but the law is absurd in my opinion.  Basically, if I want to kill you in Florida, I just have to threaten you and if you react to my threat with physical force, I can shoot you and claim I was defending myself.  It's just absurd.

     

    Martin was unarmed and was clearly approached by an armed man.  The fact that Martin may have fought back to defend himself makes the other guy able to claim self-defense after shooting Martin through the heart?  Wow.  

     




    You make a good point --it is absurd the way the law reads. Thats why I live in Idaho. Besides Florida there are other states I would nevr live in Like Texas and Calif. In Idaho a lot of people have weapons so people pretty much don't start stupid sh-t or do a lot of home break-ins because they know what's behind those doors!!!!

     



    What's wrong with Texas? like idaho, lots of people own guns. nothing wrong with that, it is our right as citizens. Take what prolate said in context. He is Canadian or lives in Canada. They don't have a 2nd amendment, we do. Zimmerman didn't know Martin was unarmed when he pursued him. Martin initiated the conflict per the evidence, hence the right to defend oneself. What don't you understand prolate? 

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsLifer. Show PatsLifer's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    The voice of reason understands that letting unqualified people like George Zimmerman carry a loaded gun and play cop leads to unnecessary deaths and should be stopped.  

     

     

     

     



    No, that isn't the voice of reason. That's the voice of a political ho with an agenda.

     

     

     

    The voice of reason says if TM just told GZ he was walking home and kept doing that instead of attacking GZ physically he would still be alive.

     

     

     



    So, you are in favor of anyone living in a neighborhood just approaching anyone they think doesn't belong, with a firearm, and taking it upon themselves to handle a potential illegal situation with how they see fit?

     

     

    What century do you live in here?   The 19th?  Somewhere in Kansas?

     

     




    I believe these neighborhood watch groups are a good thing in high crime areas. I believe the cops don't even want to be in these areas much less police them. I believe asking strangers in these areas what is up is a good thing. I believe if persons are carrying heat legally, that is their right.

     

    I'm stuck in the century of sanity where liberals like you didn't exist. The same one where people don't try to justify a physical attack just for following somebody and asking questions because they have a f'd up political agenda they have to constantly ball wash.

     



    Absolutely correct. Neighborhood watch is another form of militia, which again is noted in the bill of rights, and our right to form under the constitution. Where said militia has the right to bear arms to fend off those enemies either foreign or domestic. Lots have changed since 1776, but the forefathers were wise to call out rights. 

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Inokea4coolaid. Show Inokea4coolaid's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    The jury found him not guilty.  Plus, he gets to keep his firearm and CWP.  This is fine by me.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from fatsam72. Show fatsam72's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    There's are some inescapable conclusions any rational individual must draw from all this:

    •  Young black men should avoid young hispanic men 
    •  Young black man living in a SYG state, you've now been incentivized like a mother%&^#$! to be packing the minute you head out your front door.  
    • If you'e in a heated argument with someone in a SYG state and there are no witnesses -  then you really probably should just draw and fire, because you know he's just realized the same thing.
    • From the police chief last March: "In this case Mr. Zimmerman has made the statement of self-defense, Until we can establish probable cause to dispute that, we don't have the grounds to arrest him."  Just. wow.
    • My buddy said it best: "And that's the country we live in - It would be sad if it weren't so funny...."
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from RallyC. Show RallyC's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

     

     

     

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    The voice of reason understands that letting unqualified people like George Zimmerman carry a loaded gun and play cop leads to unnecessary deaths and should be stopped.  

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    No, that isn't the voice of reason. That's the voice of a political ho with an agenda.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    The voice of reason says if TM just told GZ he was walking home and kept doing that instead of attacking GZ physically he would still be alive.

     

     

     

     

     

     



    So, you are in favor of anyone living in a neighborhood just approaching anyone they think doesn't belong, with a firearm, and taking it upon themselves to handle a potential illegal situation with how they see fit?

     

     

     

     

     

    What century do you live in here?   The 19th?  Somewhere in Kansas?

     

     

     

     

     




    I believe these neighborhood watch groups are a good thing in high crime areas. I believe the cops don't even want to be in these areas much less police them. I believe asking strangers in these areas what is up is a good thing. I believe if persons are carrying heat legally, that is their right.

     

     

     

     

    I'm stuck in the century of sanity where liberals like you didn't exist. The same one where people don't try to justify a physical attack just for following somebody and asking questions because they have a f'd up political agenda they have to constantly ball wash.

     

     

     

     



    Absolutely correct. Neighborhood watch is another form of militia, which again is noted in the bill of rights, and our right to form under the constitution. Where said militia has the right to bear arms to fend off those enemies either foreign or domestic. Lots have changed since 1776, but the forefathers were wise to call out rights. 

     

     

     

     

     




    You have some issues comparing 1776 life to 2013. No one is claiming we want guns taken away from you.  So, enough with that pathetic argument.

     

     

    What I want you and your bible thumping ilk to answer is why you think it's normal for a 2013 society to put law enforcement into the hands of some random individual who has had no law enforcement training. Explain why that should be allowed and why it makes sense. Do you leave your house waving your gun and asking people what they're doing? Do ya? Why? You bored? Have no life? Angry?

    You're in favor of vigitlante justice?  No offense, but you, sorry, MORONS, are the same morons who think the mentally ill, felons and whoever, should have the right to buy guns.  Guess what? They don't and shouldn't.

    Somewhere George Washington and company roll over in their graves.

     


    Russ, nothing you say here pertains to what was determined to have happened in the GZ and TM event. The associated evidence was adjudicated by our legal system and fair, unbiased jurors. GZ did not break the law and was found Not Guilty. You need to accept the facts and move on from your declarations that those who are trying to explain to you that there was no other option based on what the prosecution presented in court are all morons. All evidence pointed towards TM assaulting GZ. What are you looking for man? SPECULATION is guessing and thats all. Its not like you can prove what you think happened is true. The truth has already been determined. GZ DID NOTHING LEGALLY WRONG. EOS. Just chill and move on, man. We all need to move on with this one. 

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from RallyC. Show RallyC's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

     

    Yeah, I really did hate it up there. A bunch of runners (from having to serve in the US military) like you, that goofey azz style of 12 on twelve with movement before the snap, and did I mention defectors like you who ran from the service of their country? And the weather really sucked most of the time too....Oh and the weasles who want freedom but aren't willing to earn it bothered me too. How do you like it up there?

     

     




     

    Absolutely love it, thank you.  But I actually wanted the job I came up here for . . . 

     


    YO. we dont agree on this topic and never will. Lets move on and leave the back and forth behind. Peace!

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

     

    What so many people seem to ignore or overlook is that an "initial aggressor", the person who caused the confrontation, is significantly limited in their ability to claim self defense. 

     

    "Initial aggressor" is NOT who threw the first punch. Zimmerman followed the teen. He forced the situation by continuiing to dog the teen until the teen was forced to choose between flight or fight. Apparently, even according to Zimmerman the teen initially chose flight (Zimmerman says in phone that he ran away from him). Zimmerman continued the chase (notice I am not being critical of Zimmerman's stated purpose of being neighborhood watch) until Martin is again made to choose between flight or fight. This time he may have chosen fight (we do nto know for sure exactly how the physical part of the confrontation started) but IT WAS ZIMMERMAN who FORCED THE ISSUE, making Martin choose flight or fight. Zimmerman is in this legal aspect the "inital aggressor" and so should have had morally and legally limited recourse to claims of self defense.

    If it had been a black adult male following doggedly a young white girl would the girl at least have the right to defend herself with whatever she has available inclduing her hands and feet? And if so how could the adult black male later claim self defense?

     

     



    you are missing the point that unless you are actually confronted with physical damage you can't hit someone. I can follow you all I want until you enter private property. Zimmerman saw Martin as a suspecious person and when confronted Martin fleed, which is something most criminals do. You can't tell me that a high school kid in good shape can't out run a obese short guy. What if Zimmerman said "Neighborhood watch what are you doing here?" and Martin took off running, you wouldn't call that suspecious behavior? No one is saying Martin didn't have the right to defend himself but that just as long as Zimmerman identified himself Martin then becomes the aggressor for throwing the first physical attack. Think of it like the Dennard case in a way. The cop Dennard punched was undercover. He followed Dennard, identified himself and told Dennard to turn around. Dennard can't just throw a punch and claim self defense. It doesn't work that way. Unless you are actually being assualted or the person is using a weapon in the threatening manner you can't physically attack someone. You can yell and scream all you want and say whatever you want but you can't touch the person unless you have just cause that your life is in danger. So, unless Zimmerman had his gun drawn when he confronted Martin, Martin couldn't punch him. Once Martin was pounding Zimmermans head into the ground causing a fractured nose, lacerations, and bruised eyeballs while reaching for Zimmermans weapon this now gives Zimmerman reason for self defense. If Martin pushed Zimmerman and ran and Zimmerman shot him than that's not self defense but there is little question given the injures and evidence that Martin was still on top of Zimmerman when he was shot that Zimmerman honestly feared for his life at that moment which gives him self defense rights. 

     



    That is wrong. I am sorry but absolutely wrong: You do not need to be hurt before you defend yourself. Do you have to wait till you are hurt... or shot... in order to pull out a gun? No. If you pull out a gun in self defense it is to avoid being shot. Similarly, and by the way much less deadly, you can defend yourself if you believe you are in danger.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    The voice of reason understands that letting unqualified people like George Zimmerman carry a loaded gun and play cop leads to unnecessary deaths and should be stopped.  

     

     

     

     

     



    No, that isn't the voice of reason. That's the voice of a political ho with an agenda.

     

     

     

     

    The voice of reason says if TM just told GZ he was walking home and kept doing that instead of attacking GZ physically he would still be alive.

     

     

     

     



    So, you are in favor of anyone living in a neighborhood just approaching anyone they think doesn't belong, with a firearm, and taking it upon themselves to handle a potential illegal situation with how they see fit?

     

     

     

    What century do you live in here?   The 19th?  Somewhere in Kansas?

     

     

     




    I believe these neighborhood watch groups are a good thing in high crime areas. I believe the cops don't even want to be in these areas much less police them. I believe asking strangers in these areas what is up is a good thing. I believe if persons are carrying heat legally, that is their right.

     

     

    I'm stuck in the century of sanity where liberals like you didn't exist. The same one where people don't try to justify a physical attack just for following somebody and asking questions because they have a f'd up political agenda they have to constantly ball wash.

     

     



    Absolutely correct. Neighborhood watch is another form of militia, which again is noted in the bill of rights, and our right to form under the constitution. Where said militia has the right to bear arms to fend off those enemies either foreign or domestic. Lots have changed since 1776, but the forefathers were wise to call out rights. 

     



    I had to read this more than once. I am stunned that anyone would make such a claim. AMAZING. Sorry but just amazing.

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

     

    What so many people seem to ignore or overlook is that an "initial aggressor", the person who caused the confrontation, is significantly limited in their ability to claim self defense. 

     

    "Initial aggressor" is NOT who threw the first punch. Zimmerman followed the teen. He forced the situation by continuiing to dog the teen until the teen was forced to choose between flight or fight. Apparently, even according to Zimmerman the teen initially chose flight (Zimmerman says in phone that he ran away from him). Zimmerman continued the chase (notice I am not being critical of Zimmerman's stated purpose of being neighborhood watch) until Martin is again made to choose between flight or fight. This time he may have chosen fight (we do nto know for sure exactly how the physical part of the confrontation started) but IT WAS ZIMMERMAN who FORCED THE ISSUE, making Martin choose flight or fight. Zimmerman is in this legal aspect the "inital aggressor" and so should have had morally and legally limited recourse to claims of self defense.

    If it had been a black adult male following doggedly a young white girl would the girl at least have the right to defend herself with whatever she has available inclduing her hands and feet? And if so how could the adult black male later claim self defense?

     

     




    What is this mumbo jumbo you are spewing here?

     

    You don't have the right to "fight" someone for "following" you!

    Physically attacking someone for following or even threatening you is breaking the law.

    There is no "self defense" for being followed or threatened. Following or threatening is not a physical attack. The law requires a person to reply with "equal force" when attacked. There was no attack by GZ.

     



    WOW! 

    First - you can of course defend yourself if you are threatened. All those folks who want to play wild west are preaching JUST THAT when they talk about pullng out a gun before they have been shot. That is quite a claim.... SO - does a young girl who is followed insesantly by a large adult male have to wait till she is being attacked in order to use at least her hands to defend herself? Really? REALLY? No. sorry. NO.

    Second - your own words of "equal force" are interesting. How does a very skinny kid's hands equal the force of a gun? ANd there were ZERO life threatening injuries to Zimmerman. ANd in fact there were ZERO significant injuries to Zimmerman. The fact that Zimmerman was both a woos and a baby does not allow him to use deadly force where others like Babe or someone else could not. Equal force.... interesting.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:

    In response to jimmytantric's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

     

    What I find troubling is that you can apparently pursue an unarmed person with a gun in Florida and if they fight back when you approach them with your gun, you can shoot them and claim self-defense.  From what I've read, based on Florida law and the lack of proof that Zimmerman hadn't acted in "self-defense", they had to acquit this guy, but the law is absurd in my opinion.  Basically, if I want to kill you in Florida, I just have to threaten you and if you react to my threat with physical force, I can shoot you and claim I was defending myself.  It's just absurd.

     

    Martin was unarmed and was clearly approached by an armed man.  The fact that Martin may have fought back to defend himself makes the other guy able to claim self-defense after shooting Martin through the heart?  Wow.  

     

     




    You make a good point --it is absurd the way the law reads. Thats why I live in Idaho. Besides Florida there are other states I would nevr live in Like Texas and Calif. In Idaho a lot of people have weapons so people pretty much don't start stupid sh-t or do a lot of home break-ins because they know what's behind those doors!!!!

     

     

     



    What's wrong with Texas? like idaho, lots of people own guns. nothing wrong with that, it is our right as citizens. Take what prolate said in context. He is Canadian or lives in Canada. They don't have a 2nd amendment, we do. Zimmerman didn't know Martin was unarmed when he pursued him. Martin initiated the conflict per the evidence, hence the right to defend oneself. What don't you understand prolate? 

     

     



    I guess he does not understand the fact that Zimmerman initiated the conflict. The guy who forced a scrawny teen (look at his photos, the kid was a stick) to either flight or fight. And it appears the kid tried flight first but when Zimmerman continued to pretend to be Dirty Harry the kid thuoght fight was his last chance.

    Zimmerman caused the conflict. At the very least it was negligent homicide. I think more than that but at least negligent homicide.

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share