I was sure that it would end like that since the beginning.
It was very predictable. People with wild eyes throwing their hands around in hysterical desperation making up facts just to suit them were the confused messes. They will remain that way.
I was sure that it would end like that since the beginning.
This verdict means that it's open season on young black kids/men in America
Question: Who in here was there that night, observing the events that took place?
Answer: I didn't think so.
The fact that this happens all over the place doesn't make the court's ruling any less final. They ruled that the man who got out of his car to chase down someone he thought looked suspicious (but was really just minding his own business), confronted/argued with him until it became a fistfight, and eventually shot him to death because he couldn't handle himself... Is innocent. I don't know what set off the physical fighting, but all the evidence points to Zimmerman being able to avoid it completely (don't chase him down/tell him he was armed before an altercation started/realize that the kid wasn't having any of his neighborhood watch nonsense, going back to his truck and reporting what he knew to the police again). The point is, none of this happens if a neighborhood watchman doesn't decide to play cowboy with someone who he doesn't know, and who for all intents and purposes, was minding his own business. When you took your CCW class, did they tell you all of that stuff was fine if you went around asking for it after dark?No, because this has happened MANY times before. It happens every day, somewhere, somehow, by someone. Sometimes cops do it, sometimes homeowners, sometimes civilians walking to their car in a dark parking lot. You just don't hear about it everyday, because this case was turned into a circus, by the media, and groups that screamed racism. When I took my ccw class, I was told, if you feel that your life was in eminent danger, you can use deadly force. I was also told, that doesn't mean the other person has to have a gun. I was told, I would be arrested, and I should exercise my right to remain silent, that's what lawyers are for.
I would like to know what constitutes provocation....and what does unarmed have to do with it. I know guys that have studied martial arts for years, they can disarm a man with a gun, they can kill with their bare hands. Their hands ARE weapons. How many times have you heard of a guy accidentally killing another man, because he hit him in the head enough times to cause brain damage? You know it happens.
That's obvious and a two-sided coin. You can't prove your arguments because you weren't an eye witness. Neither can I, with my disagreeing viewpoint, and neither can anyone else in this thread. OP asked for our thoughts on the verdict. We're all just expressing the opinions we've formed based on the information released by investigators and the prosecution/defense's versions of what transpired. However, as someone else stated, the only eye witness to the whole event is the defendant, who stood accused of killing someone. Lack of evidence in a case may mean a lack of a conviction, but it certainly doesn't prove innocence.
The fact that this happens all over the place doesn't make the court's ruling any less final. They ruled that the man who got out of his car to chase down someone he thought looked suspicious (but was really just minding his own business), confronted/argued with him until it became a fistfight, and eventually shot him to death because he couldn't handle himself... Is innocent. I don't know what set off the physical fighting, but all the evidence points to Zimmerman being able to avoid it completely (don't chase him down/tell him he was armed before an altercation started/realize that the kid wasn't having any of his neighborhood watch nonsense, going back to his truck and reporting what he knew to the police again). The point is, none of this happens if a neighborhood watchman doesn't decide to play cowboy with someone who he doesn't know, and who for all intents and purposes, was minding his own business. When you took your CCW class, did they tell you all of that stuff was fine if you went around asking for it after dark?
And seriously, most conservatives on the board like to preach about how they have guns to protect their civil liberties. Now you wanna live in a country where you can't walk down the street at night without some glorified Boy Scout who just decides that you need a talking to, chase you down and harass you, and if you feel the need to physically defend yourself, he can pull out a gun and kill you with no repercussions?
Ahh, once again you've added nothing to discussion because as we established earlier, you're not very smart. I've explained my opinion several times in this thread based on how the events were present by the parties involved. I've been reasonable, not going to the extreme in either direction. Instead of debating me by stating your own opinion of how it happened, who's responsible for it, and why, you simply tell me I need Prozac because I'm insane and I'm making shit up.The above post was completely fabricated by someone who needs to be overly dramatic, take the most obscure possibility and make it a fact, and who is in dire need of a rescue by Big Pharma (try Prozac, or maybe some Valium...do they still make that?).
Pathetic, but consistent.
Hey, if ya REALLY believe that convoluted fantasy is an actual reality, get your own gun. Then, shoot the attacker first, and we'll all insist that YOU go away for 15 to life...you thug!:rofl2:
Next indeed. These publicized trials turn me off faster than thinking of Margaret Thatcher naked on a cold day.I'm so tired of people saying George Zimmerman's trial is "all politics," or that it is only going to trial because of race. Yes, it's been politicized. But that does not change the fact that an unarmed teenager is dead, and the only person who witnessed the whole thing is the person who pulled the trigger. I'm not saying his guilty or innocent. I'm simply saying that as long as we live under the rule of law this case deserved to go to trial. Now it has.
Next!
This is very troubling. Granted there's always more to the circumstances...well, that's just it. There's always 'more'. You know how many times I've walked home in the middle of the night from a friend's place, through rich and dodgy neighborhoods alike? Some with regular drug-related crime. If somebody started following me who wasn't in a police uniform and wasn't letting up, you'd bet I'd defend myself.The fact that this happens all over the place doesn't make the court's ruling any less final. They ruled that the man who got out of his car to chase down someone he thought looked suspicious (but was really just minding his own business), confronted/argued with him until it became a fistfight, and eventually shot him to death because he couldn't handle himself... Is innocent. I don't know what set off the physical fighting, but all the evidence points to Zimmerman being able to avoid it completely (don't chase him down/tell him he was armed before an altercation started/realize that the kid wasn't having any of his neighborhood watch nonsense, going back to his truck and reporting what he knew to the police again). The point is, none of this happens if a neighborhood watchman doesn't decide to play cowboy with someone who he doesn't know, and who for all intents and purposes, was minding his own business. When you took your CCW class, did they tell you all of that stuff was fine if you went around asking for it after dark?
And seriously, most conservatives on the board like to preach about how they have guns to protect their civil liberties. Now you wanna live in a country where you can't walk down the street at night without some glorified Boy Scout who just decides that you need a talking to, chase you down and harass you, and if you feel the need to physically defend yourself, he can pull out a gun and kill you with no repercussions?
As right as you are, it's a wasted effort.You, like Will and a couple others, just go all Internet tough guy, or post one word smiley answers, and then act like you've just proven everyone wrong. This is why everyone knows you're not very smart, and why no one here respects you like Revidffum, Bob, BC, and SOMETIMES Sam.
it seems that for many simple racism supersedes putting a man in jail who they are far from sure is guilty.
I gave you an out. I asked you to describe how you think it happened and why he's innocent of any alleged crimes. Did you decide to have a civilized discussion? Of course not. More of the tired old bullshit I described above. You're stupid. End of story. Feel free to try and get any of the conservatives in here that I mentioned to defend you. They won't, because they value the reputation they earned as one of the people that don't talk shit without adding anything of substance.I've never tried to prove everyone wrong, that's just lame.
You, on the other hand, are no challenge. I've pointed out your silly creation of contrary and fictional realities, and here you publically admit to not understanding the most basic of truths.
You may judge me as dumb, stupid, retarded, if you need to feel better, but it's beyond sad that a grown man can look truth in the eye and come back with bullshit.
This is your style, and you are trying to show someone, I don't know who, what a reasonable guy you are.
Stupid is as stupid posts...and since I have pointedly made several things obvious to me known, such as a much longer and involved timeline than you have been able to grasp (or unwilling to, same difference), your claim I have not put out a theory of my own as to what happened is only a weak attempt to cover up your own lack of factual grasp.
Eat shit and die, fade away, I don't care...you are the village dog to my caravan that passes in the night.
Yip yip. Who cares?
Zim walked, you keep whining, nothing changes. Internet pussy...
That's obvious and a two-sided coin. You can't prove your arguments because you weren't an eye witness. Neither can I, with my disagreeing viewpoint, and neither can anyone else in this thread. OP asked for our thoughts on the verdict. We're all just expressing the opinions we've formed based on the information released by investigators and the prosecution/defense's versions of what transpired. However, as someone else stated, the only eye witness to the whole event is the defendant, who stood accused of killing someone. Lack of evidence in a case may mean a lack of a conviction, but it certainly doesn't prove innocence.
The fact that this happens all over the place doesn't make the court's ruling any less final. They ruled that the man who got out of his car to chase down someone he thought looked suspicious (but was really just minding his own business), confronted/argued with him until it became a fistfight, and eventually shot him to death because he couldn't handle himself... Is innocent. I don't know what set off the physical fighting, but all the evidence points to Zimmerman being able to avoid it completely (don't chase him down/tell him he was armed before an altercation started/realize that the kid wasn't having any of his neighborhood watch nonsense, going back to his truck and reporting what he knew to the police again). The point is, none of this happens if a neighborhood watchman doesn't decide to play cowboy with someone who he doesn't know, and who for all intents and purposes, was minding his own business. When you took your CCW class, did they tell you all of that stuff was fine if you went around asking for it after dark?
And seriously, most conservatives on the board like to preach about how they have guns to protect their civil liberties. Now you wanna live in a country where you can't walk down the street at night without some glorified Boy Scout who just decides that you need a talking to, chase you down and harass you, and if you feel the need to physically defend yourself, he can pull out a gun and kill you with no repercussions?
There were many circumstances that lead to this...I'm not glad the kid is dead, but I wouldn't hesitate to use deadly force if I had to. But let me ask you this....if you were the kid, and walking along, minding your own business, would you text your friend about the "creepy ass cracker". or would you use your phone to call the police, and voice your concerns about being followed, when you shouldn't be? Martin was clearly able to make a choice...he could have called the cops too...but he chose to start the physical altercation.
I gave you an out. I asked you to describe how you think it happened and why he's innocent of any alleged crimes. Did you decide to have a civilized discussion? Of course not. More of the tired old bullshit I described above. You're stupid. End of story. Feel free to try and get any of the conservatives in here that I mentioned to defend you. They won't, because they value the reputation they earned as one of the people that don't talk shit without adding anything of substance.
Consider this the end of my "discussion" with you. I've seen what you have to offer, and it's embarrassing.
Originally Posted by George Washington
Sam Fisher rather enjoys the feel of an erect phallus inside his bottom.