Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (1 Viewer)

[Ballstein]

http://topconservativenews.com/2013/07/teens-with-free-zimmerman-bumper-sticker-slaughtered-in-jacksonville/

This story is quiet

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Many of them just happen to disagree with your interpretation of their rights. That doesn't make them paranoid....

Why does one need the safety of a gun if they aren't paranoid?

Uh I can answer that. I carried a gun, briefly, while I worked. I carried large sums of cash and worked by myself in the early morning pre dawn hours and occassionally into the evening. I worked in a very high crime area. As a matter of fact the manager of one of the stores in the area I worked was just murdered at 9am on a Sunday morning. I wasnt paranoid, I was just being cautious. I made deliveries and was in and out of a truck all day. Some days I would work until 9pm and I might have $2-3K in cash on my person from the days deliveries. This was the neighborhood I grew up in. I wasnt paranoid of anything. I was just aware of my surroundings and the potential that I could be a victim of crime. In the time I worked my route 4 of my stores were robbed and one of my friends in one of those stores was shot after he had cooperated with the robber. That is why I carried a gun.

Good response. And BTW, I do NOT believe it is paranoid to carry a gun around- apparently that's BFS' view, not mine.

My use of that term was in reference to the political views of many gun-owners in recent years, specifically the viewpoint that the tyrannical government is lying in wait to seize all guns, and that every gun law, no matter how reasonably sounding, is a slippery slope toward that ultimate goal.

Exception that proves the rule.

More seriously paranoid was the word I was given to work with but what is "just being cautious" a response to if not some level of fear? Maybe not "extremely fearful" of "paranoid", but...

 

[Rush Limbaugh Fan]

Imagine if i pulled up in my car in front of your house ...waited until you came out and followed you in your car .You park your car and i park next to you.You get out and go into the mall .I follow closely behind you ...i am everywhere you turn...just following you. You go into the mens room and i follow.I just stand there looking at you .I follow you into each store .You finally walk up to me and ask what my problem is and i simply say im not doing anything illegal. I continue to follow you out to your car and follow you back to your house .Again i just sit and wait until i can follow you again.

Now i ask you,would it matter to you that im not breaking any laws? Where does following turn into stalking? Whats the line that one has to cross over? Following someone behind a dark building at night or following someone all over town ? Im just curious because it seems to be very insignificant to a lot of zimmerman fans?

Is this the thread where we come up with stupid comparisons?

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Law & Justice are NOT the same thing in America.

 

[jonessed]

Sheesh. Seems like Nancy Grace may actually be the biggest racist of them all:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2366248/Watch-Nancy-Grace-complains-George-Zimmerman-Hispanic-man-bond-driving-Taco-Bell-night-having-churro-trial.html

'Give Zimmerman back his life? Hes [been] out on bond, driving through Taco Bell every night, having a churro,' she said.

I can't believe she said that. What a racist.

 

[General Malaise]

Kinda looks like he eats a churo every night.

 

[jonessed]

Many of them just happen to disagree with your interpretation of their rights. That doesn't make them paranoid.

...

Why does one need the safety of a gun if they aren't paranoid?

Uh I can answer that. I carried a gun, briefly, while I worked. I carried large sums of cash and worked by myself in the early morning pre dawn hours and occassionally into the evening. I worked in a very high crime area. As a matter of fact the manager of one of the stores in the area I worked was just murdered at 9am on a Sunday morning. I wasnt paranoid, I was just being cautious. I made deliveries and was in and out of a truck all day. Some days I would work until 9pm and I might have $2-3K in cash on my person from the days deliveries. This was the neighborhood I grew up in. I wasnt paranoid of anything. I was just aware of my surroundings and the potential that I could be a victim of crime. In the time I worked my route 4 of my stores were robbed and one of my friends in one of those stores was shot after he had cooperated with the robber. That is why I carried a gun.

Good response. And BTW, I do NOT believe it is paranoid to carry a gun around- apparently that's BFS' view, not mine.My use of that term was in reference to the political views of many gun-owners in recent years, specifically the viewpoint that the tyrannical government is lying in wait to seize all guns, and that every gun law, no matter how reasonably sounding, is a slippery slope toward that ultimate goal.

Exception that proves the rule.

More seriously paranoid was the word I was given to work with but what is "just being cautious" a response to if not some level of fear? Maybe not "extremely fearful" of "paranoid", but...

Paranoia is irrational fear. Depending on where someone lives, what they do, and what their background is their fear may or may not be irrational. It's certainly not a broad brush.

 

[Christo]

Law & Justice are NOT the same thing in America.

Neither are orange juice and motor oil!

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Zimmerman claimed he stopped following him but was continuing down the path to get the address and it was on his way back down the path that he was jumped. Whether that's true or not, no one knows with 100% certainty (except Zimmerman and Martin).

I'm positive that Zimmerman does not know much of what happened with 100% certainty. (That doesn't mean he is being dishonest.)

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Many of them just happen to disagree with your interpretation of their rights. That doesn't make them paranoid.

...

Why does one need the safety of a gun if they aren't paranoid?

Uh I can answer that. I carried a gun, briefly, while I worked. I carried large sums of cash and worked by myself in the early morning pre dawn hours and occassionally into the evening. I worked in a very high crime area. As a matter of fact the manager of one of the stores in the area I worked was just murdered at 9am on a Sunday morning. I wasnt paranoid, I was just being cautious. I made deliveries and was in and out of a truck all day. Some days I would work until 9pm and I might have $2-3K in cash on my person from the days deliveries. This was the neighborhood I grew up in. I wasnt paranoid of anything. I was just aware of my surroundings and the potential that I could be a victim of crime. In the time I worked my route 4 of my stores were robbed and one of my friends in one of those stores was shot after he had cooperated with the robber. That is why I carried a gun.

Good response. And BTW, I do NOT believe it is paranoid to carry a gun around- apparently that's BFS' view, not mine.My use of that term was in reference to the political views of many gun-owners in recent years, specifically the viewpoint that the tyrannical government is lying in wait to seize all guns, and that every gun law, no matter how reasonably sounding, is a slippery slope toward that ultimate goal.

Exception that proves the rule.

More seriously paranoid was the word I was given to work with but what is "just being cautious" a response to if not some level of fear? Maybe not "extremely fearful" of "paranoid", but...

Paranoia is irrational fear. Depending on where someone lives, what they do, and what their background is their fear may or may not be irrational. It's certainly not a broad brush.

You didn't say paranoia, you said paranoid.

 

[Joe McGee]

As a gun owner, I believe Zimmerman belongs in jail.

And I am positive he will get a seven figure book/life rights deal. He will be set for life and a sought after speaker and public figure in certain circles.

As a non-gun owner, I'm positive you're an idiot.

 

[jonessed]

Many of them just happen to disagree with your interpretation of their rights. That doesn't make them paranoid.

...

Why does one need the safety of a gun if they aren't paranoid?

Uh I can answer that. I carried a gun, briefly, while I worked. I carried large sums of cash and worked by myself in the early morning pre dawn hours and occassionally into the evening. I worked in a very high crime area. As a matter of fact the manager of one of the stores in the area I worked was just murdered at 9am on a Sunday morning. I wasnt paranoid, I was just being cautious. I made deliveries and was in and out of a truck all day. Some days I would work until 9pm and I might have $2-3K in cash on my person from the days deliveries. This was the neighborhood I grew up in. I wasnt paranoid of anything. I was just aware of my surroundings and the potential that I could be a victim of crime. In the time I worked my route 4 of my stores were robbed and one of my friends in one of those stores was shot after he had cooperated with the robber. That is why I carried a gun.

Good response. And BTW, I do NOT believe it is paranoid to carry a gun around- apparently that's BFS' view, not mine.My use of that term was in reference to the political views of many gun-owners in recent years, specifically the viewpoint that the tyrannical government is lying in wait to seize all guns, and that every gun law, no matter how reasonably sounding, is a slippery slope toward that ultimate goal.

Exception that proves the rule.

More seriously paranoid was the word I was given to work with but what is "just being cautious" a response to if not some level of fear? Maybe not "extremely fearful" of "paranoid", but...

Paranoia is irrational fear. Depending on where someone lives, what they do, and what their background is their fear may or may not be irrational. It's certainly not a broad brush.

You didn't say paranoia, you said paranoid.

Still a broad brush I don't believe fits.

 

[jon_mx]

Is this the thread that Tim calls someone a liar but can't prove any of it? Zimmerman is the smartest SOB in the world if he made up a story and it ended up not conflicting with any eye-witness, any recorded phone conversation, or any physical evidence. Good god, the guy past a lie detector test, got the lead detective to believe him, and was acquitted. I wish I could lie that well. I can't even lie about coming home late from a ball game without being caught. I need to take this Zimmerman guy out drinking.

 

[avoiding injuries]

Sheesh. Seems like Nancy Grace may actually be the biggest racist of them all:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2366248/Watch-Nancy-Grace-complains-George-Zimmerman-Hispanic-man-bond-driving-Taco-Bell-night-having-churro-trial.html

'Give Zimmerman back his life? Hes [been] out on bond, driving through Taco Bell every night, having a churro,' she said.

I can't believe she said that. What a racist.

The typical race baiters will brush this off because she is saying this in defense of a black person. Black is darker than brown so the race card is not in play.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I still find it ridiculous that so many can't even comprehend of a scenario where a kid like this wouldn't have attacked the "cracka" who had the audacity to try to follow him in the cracka's own neighborhood. It's almost obscene not to acknowledge this as a legitimate possibility given that all the evidence supports that story and NONE disputes it. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY....you don't have to believe GZs tale...you have to PROVE it false.

It's not racism, it's common %#&*$ sense...find some.

I'd say those that can't comprehend a scenario where Martin would not have attacked Zimmerman hold some form of prejudice.

I'd say those that can't comprehend a scenario where Martin would have attacked Zimmerman might hold some form of naivety.

What exactly were you trying to say?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

this reminds me of 2000 when Bush beat Al Gore. let it go.

That worked out well!

 

[Dr Oadi]

http://topconservativenews.com/2013/07/teens-with-free-zimmerman-bumper-sticker-slaughtered-in-jacksonville/

This story is quiet

There is no free Zimmerman bumper sticker!!!!

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Imagine if i pulled up in my car in front of your house ...waited until you came out and followed you in your car .You park your car and i park next to you.You get out and go into the mall .I follow closely behind you ...i am everywhere you turn...just following you. You go into the mens room and i follow.I just stand there looking at you .I follow you into each store .You finally walk up to me and ask what my problem is and i simply say im not doing anything illegal. I continue to follow you out to your car and follow you back to your house .Again i just sit and wait until i can follow you again.

Now i ask you,would it matter to you that im not breaking any laws? Where does following turn into stalking? Whats the line that one has to cross over? Following someone behind a dark building at night or following someone all over town ? Im just curious because it seems to be very insignificant to a lot of zimmerman fans?

Is this the thread where we come up with stupid comparisons?

that and SO much more

 

[RCon]

What is wrong with me telling what I think happened? How is it any different from all the people here who have parroted Zimmerman's tale as if it were Gospel?I am not on the jury. Had I been on the jury, I would have voted to acquit. But the FFA is not a legal forum, and I am not bound by a restriction of reasonable doubt, not here. I can write what I think happened, even if I can't prove it. Over and over again I have provided reasons in this thread for believing as I do. They are not emotional, they are rational based on the known facts. Based on the known facts, I believe the two points I wrote above.

Nothing is wrong with you writing what you think happened. But let's not pretend that your beliefs are based on any "known facts". At best, the known facts get us to "we have no idea what happened or who started the fight". If you want to include hearsay, thought processes, etc., then you can only reasonably get to the same "we don't know" or "Martin was more likely to have initiated the confrontation". Nothing known at this time could rationally get anyone to "Zimmerman started the confrontation".

That's just not true. I think it's reasonable to assume that Zimmerman is a liar. He lied about his reason for getting out of the car. He lied about what he did after the operator suggested he didn't need to follow Martin. He lied about Martin telling him he was going to die tonight. He lied about Martin slamming his head against the pavement 25-30 times. He lied about Martin covering his face and mouth. He lied about Martin attempting to seize the gun.

Now I can't prove any of that. But the known evidence suggests all of it is true. If it's reasonable to assume that he lied about all or most of these points, why wouldn't it be also reasonable to assume he lied about who started the confrontation?

1. What known evidence suggests any of this is true? You just said you can't prove any of your conjectures. What makes it reasonable to assume he lied about any of these things?

2. This isn't the mind bender question where one guy always tells the truth and one guy always lies. DiDi lied about "cracker" not being a racial epithet. Does this mean everything she said is automatically false? The NSA director lied about not recording calls; does this mean every word he has ever spoken is a lie? If you know that a person lied about one item, it's reasonable to conclude that their word isn't necessarily gospel. It's not reasonable to conclude that everything they say is false. In this case, even if you knew Zimmerman lied in one specific instance, at best you can only ignore his other statements rather than know that any particular one is false.

3. As I said earlier, nothing known (again, big difference between known fact and your unsupported opinion) at this time could rationally get anyone to "Zimmerman started the confrontation". One could certainly get to "we have no way of knowing who started the confrontation", but not to "Zimmerman started the confrontation".

You're just looking far too hard to find racism. You really want to see racism everywhere, but it doesn't always exist just because you want it to. Remember the Boston beer summit incident? You jumped straight to racism there, and hung tight to that conclusion long after everyone else had abandoned it based on the evidence. This is a lot like that. You want Zimmerman to be guilty, and you want to blame it on racism, so you're thinking with your heart instead of your head.

 

[timschochet]

Rich, I have to say I'm getting pretty sick and tired of these claims that I am "thinking with my heart instead of my head." Frankly it's insulting. Jon Mx and a few others have peppered me with insults in this thread, but I expected better from you.

Though I can't prove that Zimmerman lied about the things I mentioned, it is hardly a unreasonable assumption. On EVERY point that I mentioned, the known evidence appears to contradict Zimmerman's word:

Zimmerman says he stepped out of the car in order to find the address. 3 streets in the neighborhood. A neighborhood watch guy who has made 47 calls to the police. And he doesn't know the street names? You can believe him, I don't.

After the operator said, "We don't need you to follow him", Zimmerman says he returned to his car. It should have taken 30 seconds at most to return to his car. Yet 2 full minutes later, the confrontation occurred. You can believe him, I don't.

Zimmerman says Martin told him he was going to die tonight. What possible reason would Martin say something like this? It sounds straight out of a melodrama. You can believe him, I don't.

Zimmerman says Martin slammed his head on the pavement 25-30 times. If that had happened, Zimmerman wouldn't be around to talk about it. The ME said the injuries to the back of his head were extremely slight, almost minimal. You can believe him, I don't.

Zimmerman says Martin covered his face and mouth and went for the gun. How Martin did this, while throwing punches, and supposedly Zimmerman screaming at the top of his lungs, from a position of lying on his back, is beyond my comprehension. You can believe him, I don't.

These are all REASONABLE assumptions on my part. You can disagree with any and all of them, but stop telling me they're the result of some emotional need I have. They're not; they all stem from logic and common sense, IMO. And when I put them together, they tell me that Zimmerman lied several times about his narrative. And if I believe that, then it becomes much more likely than not that Zimmerman is also lying about who initiated the confrontation, especially when added to Zimmerman's statements during the 911 call. On the other hand, the ONLY evidence that Martin started the confrontation is the 4 minute timeline issue and some questionable internet stuff about his background. Neither of that is compelling at all IMO, which again makes me conclude that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation and is therefore guilty of manslaughter.

Not an emotional conclusion. Logical all the way.

 

[timschochet]

If there is any emotion in this thread, it stems almost entirely from the pro-Zimmerman side. Most of you guys don't want him to be guilty because if he is, then the anti-gun folks win, and the liberal race-baiting Sharpton types win, and Obama wins. That's why almost every conservative who has posted on this subject regards Zimmerman as innocent. It has much less to do with the facts, and much more to do with your political and cultural views.

 

[DrJ]

Wow, 479 pages? What happened here?

 

[Joe McGee]

If there is any emotion in this thread, it stems almost entirely from the pro-Zimmerman side. Most of you guys don't want him to be guilty because if he is, then the anti-gun folks win, and the liberal race-baiting Sharpton types win, and Obama wins. That's why almost every conservative who has posted on this subject regards Zimmerman as innocent. It has much less to do with the facts, and much more to do with your political and cultural views.

 

[timschochet]

If there is any emotion in this thread, it stems almost entirely from the pro-Zimmerman side. Most of you guys don't want him to be guilty because if he is, then the anti-gun folks win, and the liberal race-baiting Sharpton types win, and Obama wins. That's why almost every conservative who has posted on this subject regards Zimmerman as innocent. It has much less to do with the facts, and much more to do with your political and cultural views.

Your next thoughtful post in this thread will be your first.

 

[The Kerminator]

If there is any emotion in this thread, it stems almost entirely from the pro-Zimmerman side. Most of you guys don't want him to be guilty because if he is, then the anti-gun folks win, and the liberal race-baiting Sharpton types win, and Obama wins. That's why almost every conservative who has posted on this subject regards Zimmerman as innocent. It has much less to do with the facts, and much more to do with your political and cultural views.

You are a piece of work.

 

[carverlee]

So let's concede that Zimmerman was profiling.. is that his fault?

Does the black community bear no burden for being stereotyped in the manner that they are?

I've worked in customer service for the past 20 years which has put me face to face with 3000+ people a month from all walks of life. I'd be lying if I said I didn't have preconceived notions of each customer simply based on my life experiences. The factors include not only race but age and gender.

If my field of expertise was anything but social it would be recognized as science. But since it is social, if I apply my learned experience on the streets, I am a sexist or racist.

 

[Joe McGee]

If there is any emotion in this thread, it stems almost entirely from the pro-Zimmerman side. Most of you guys don't want him to be guilty because if he is, then the anti-gun folks win, and the liberal race-baiting Sharpton types win, and Obama wins. That's why almost every conservative who has posted on this subject regards Zimmerman as innocent. It has much less to do with the facts, and much more to do with your political and cultural views.

Your next thoughtful post in this thread will be your first.

 

[timschochet]

If there is any emotion in this thread, it stems almost entirely from the pro-Zimmerman side. Most of you guys don't want him to be guilty because if he is, then the anti-gun folks win, and the liberal race-baiting Sharpton types win, and Obama wins. That's why almost every conservative who has posted on this subject regards Zimmerman as innocent. It has much less to do with the facts, and much more to do with your political and cultural views.

You are a piece of work.

Thank you.

 

[Spanky267]

Many of them just happen to disagree with your interpretation of their rights. That doesn't make them paranoid....

Why does one need the safety of a gun if they aren't paranoid?

Uh I can answer that. I carried a gun, briefly, while I worked. I carried large sums of cash and worked by myself in the early morning pre dawn hours and occassionally into the evening. I worked in a very high crime area. As a matter of fact the manager of one of the stores in the area I worked was just murdered at 9am on a Sunday morning. I wasnt paranoid, I was just being cautious. I made deliveries and was in and out of a truck all day. Some days I would work until 9pm and I might have $2-3K in cash on my person from the days deliveries. This was the neighborhood I grew up in. I wasnt paranoid of anything. I was just aware of my surroundings and the potential that I could be a victim of crime. In the time I worked my route 4 of my stores were robbed and one of my friends in one of those stores was shot after he had cooperated with the robber. That is why I carried a gun.

Good response. And BTW, I do NOT believe it is paranoid to carry a gun around- apparently that's BFS' view, not mine.

My use of that term was in reference to the political views of many gun-owners in recent years, specifically the viewpoint that the tyrannical government is lying in wait to seize all guns, and that every gun law, no matter how reasonably sounding, is a slippery slope toward that ultimate goal.

Exception that proves the rule.

More seriously paranoid was the word I was given to work with but what is "just being cautious" a response to if not some level of fear? Maybe not "extremely fearful" of "paranoid", but...

I dont wear my seatbelt because I know I am going to get into an accident. I dont have a fire extinguisher in my house because I plan on having a fire. I dont have a hurricane kit because I hope one hits my area and I didnt carry a gun in the hopes of using it. I carried a gun to protect myself and my business interests while I worked in a high crime area in which robberies were not uncommon.

 

[Apple Juice]

If there is any emotion in this thread, it stems almost entirely from the pro-Zimmerman side. Most of you guys don't want him to be guilty because if he is, then the anti-gun folks win, and the liberal race-baiting Sharpton types win, and Obama wins. That's why almost every conservative who has posted on this subject regards Zimmerman as innocent. It has much less to do with the facts, and much more to do with your political and cultural views.

As somebody who doesn't give a #### about any of this stuff but wanders into this thread just to see how thick the sludge at the bottom of the FFA is, this is exactly right. But why post it?

This thread is the same 5-10 hyper-conservative posters with raging hard-ons, and Christo scrutinizing every word until he finds one what misinterprets the law or expresses a view outside of the law. Is this your idea of a good time? Do you believe this thread is inspiring thoughtful discourse? Walk away, man. Wait for the next dead kid or kids that appear in the news cycle and fight another day. Let this one wrap up and fade away. Please.

 

[Spanky267]

If there is any emotion in this thread, it stems almost entirely from the pro-Zimmerman side. Most of you guys don't want him to be guilty because if he is, then the anti-gun folks win, and the liberal race-baiting Sharpton types win, and Obama wins. That's why almost every conservative who has posted on this subject regards Zimmerman as innocent. It has much less to do with the facts, and much more to do with your political and cultural views.

Surprisingly I have to disagree. I dont think Zimmerman is innocent. It is true that he killed Trayvon Martin. But I dont believe he is guilty of 2nd degree murder or manslaughter. I arrive at that conclusion because there isnt enough evidence to support the charges. It also seems that the jury agrees on this point. No one wins in this case. A 17yr old boy is dead and a 30 year old man has to live with that for the rest of his life.

 

[timschochet]

If there is any emotion in this thread, it stems almost entirely from the pro-Zimmerman side. Most of you guys don't want him to be guilty because if he is, then the anti-gun folks win, and the liberal race-baiting Sharpton types win, and Obama wins. That's why almost every conservative who has posted on this subject regards Zimmerman as innocent. It has much less to do with the facts, and much more to do with your political and cultural views.

As somebody who doesn't give a #### about any of this stuff but wanders into this thread just to see how thick the sludge at the bottom of the FFA is, this is exactly right. But why post it?

This thread is the same 5-10 hyper-conservative posters with raging hard-ons, and Christo scrutinizing every word until he finds one what misinterprets the law or expresses a view outside of the law. Is this your idea of a good time? Do you believe this thread is inspiring thoughtful discourse? Walk away, man. Wait for the next dead kid or kids that appear in the news cycle and fight another day. Let this one wrap up and fade away. Please.

Probably good advice. I'm certainly getting close to it. I've tried to reason with these folks, but just like in the gun control thread, it's really getting frustrating.

 

[timschochet]

If there is any emotion in this thread, it stems almost entirely from the pro-Zimmerman side. Most of you guys don't want him to be guilty because if he is, then the anti-gun folks win, and the liberal race-baiting Sharpton types win, and Obama wins. That's why almost every conservative who has posted on this subject regards Zimmerman as innocent. It has much less to do with the facts, and much more to do with your political and cultural views.

Surprisingly I have to disagree. I dont think Zimmerman is innocent. It is true that he killed Trayvon Martin. But I dont believe he is guilty of 2nd degree murder or manslaughter. I arrive at that conclusion because there isnt enough evidence to support the charges. It also seems that the jury agrees on this point. No one wins in this case. A 17yr old boy is dead and a 30 year old man has to live with that for the rest of his life.

You're not one of the people I was referring to. I have no idea what your politics are (I would suspect, based on your discussion about guns, conservative), but that doesn't matter, because all of your posts have been reasonable and thoughtful. In fact, you have made me think deeply about several aspects of both this case and society in general, and I am grateful for that. Despite Apple Jack's cynicism (which I find myself subscribing to from time to time) there are valuable contributors to this discussion that make it extremely worthy at times. You're one of them.

 

[drummer]

If there is any emotion in this thread, it stems almost entirely from the pro-Zimmerman side. Most of you guys don't want him to be guilty because if he is, then the anti-gun folks win, and the liberal race-baiting Sharpton types win, and Obama wins. That's why almost every conservative who has posted on this subject regards Zimmerman as innocent. It has much less to do with the facts, and much more to do with your political and cultural views.

As somebody who doesn't give a #### about any of this stuff but wanders into this thread just to see how thick the sludge at the bottom of the FFA is, this is exactly right. But why post it?

This thread is the same 5-10 hyper-conservative posters with raging hard-ons, and Christo scrutinizing every word until he finds one what misinterprets the law or expresses a view outside of the law. Is this your idea of a good time? Do you believe this thread is inspiring thoughtful discourse? Walk away, man. Wait for the next dead kid or kids that appear in the news cycle and fight another day. Let this one wrap up and fade away. Please.

Probably good advice. I'm certainly getting close to it. I've tried to reason with these folks, but just like in the gun control thread, it's really getting frustrating.

 

[timschochet]

If there is any emotion in this thread, it stems almost entirely from the pro-Zimmerman side. Most of you guys don't want him to be guilty because if he is, then the anti-gun folks win, and the liberal race-baiting Sharpton types win, and Obama wins. That's why almost every conservative who has posted on this subject regards Zimmerman as innocent. It has much less to do with the facts, and much more to do with your political and cultural views.

As somebody who doesn't give a #### about any of this stuff but wanders into this thread just to see how thick the sludge at the bottom of the FFA is, this is exactly right. But why post it?

This thread is the same 5-10 hyper-conservative posters with raging hard-ons, and Christo scrutinizing every word until he finds one what misinterprets the law or expresses a view outside of the law. Is this your idea of a good time? Do you believe this thread is inspiring thoughtful discourse? Walk away, man. Wait for the next dead kid or kids that appear in the news cycle and fight another day. Let this one wrap up and fade away. Please.

Probably good advice. I'm certainly getting close to it. I've tried to reason with these folks, but just like in the gun control thread, it's really getting frustrating.

You know, you and Joe McGee ought to form a club together.

 

[Abrantes]

The thread is treading water in a sea of ######ed sexuality and bad poetry.

 

[carverlee]

Has anyone heard about this case yet? Did a search for it and found nothing. Because our horrible media could give a #### if it doesn't get ratings. Never made it past local news....

http://www.abcnews4.com/story/18829994/he-was-a

Exactly. The media chose the GZ case to be the Racial Super Bowl of the year. It would have never ever made it to court if not fueled by the media.

 

[Tibetan Sherpa]

Rachel Jeantel's whole interview was damage control for her racist, disrespectful, lying testimony. She pretty much tried to backtrack on everything she testified to.

One nugget from the juror was that 3 of the 6 believed ZImmerman was guilty entering deliberations. I wonder how long it would take for tim, Jojo, Christo, jonmx, busted knuckles, and crosseyed to come to a unanimous verdict.

CNN just will not let the race thing go. The biased judge found no evidence of racial profiling. The FBI found no evidence of racial profiling. Piers Morgan is so desperate to interject raceinto it that he asked Casey Anthony's defense attorney if there was a subliminal race component to the case. The answer was of course not.

Nice try CNN.

wouldnt happen...ever...it would be a hung jury

I don't know...look, you guys know I don't agree with Tim on most everything...but to his credit...he did come around to "Not Guilty" on all charges brought forth.

I think Tibetan Sherpa Busted Knuckles was admitting that he would refuse to see the light out of sheer stubbornness.

Look back at my posts while Rachel Jeantel was testifying.

 

[Tibetan Sherpa]

So let's concede that Zimmerman was profiling.. is that his fault?

Does the black community bear no burden for being stereotyped in the manner that they are?

I've worked in customer service for the past 20 years which has put me face to face with 3000+ people a month from all walks of life. I'd be lying if I said I didn't have preconceived notions of each customer simply based on my life experiences. The factors include not only race but age and gender.

If my field of expertise was anything but social it would be recognized as science. But since it is social, if I apply my learned experience on the streets, I am a sexist or racist.

Well, as you are serving fries with that Coke, I respectfully ask you to ####.

 

[drummer]

If there is any emotion in this thread, it stems almost entirely from the pro-Zimmerman side. Most of you guys don't want him to be guilty because if he is, then the anti-gun folks win, and the liberal race-baiting Sharpton types win, and Obama wins. That's why almost every conservative who has posted on this subject regards Zimmerman as innocent. It has much less to do with the facts, and much more to do with your political and cultural views.

As somebody who doesn't give a #### about any of this stuff but wanders into this thread just to see how thick the sludge at the bottom of the FFA is, this is exactly right. But why post it?

This thread is the same 5-10 hyper-conservative posters with raging hard-ons, and Christo scrutinizing every word until he finds one what misinterprets the law or expresses a view outside of the law. Is this your idea of a good time? Do you believe this thread is inspiring thoughtful discourse? Walk away, man. Wait for the next dead kid or kids that appear in the news cycle and fight another day. Let this one wrap up and fade away. Please.

Probably good advice. I'm certainly getting close to it. I've tried to reason with these folks, but just like in the gun control thread, it's really getting frustrating.

You know, you and Joe McGee ought to form a club together.

Dude, that was one of the most........pathetic displays..........of self martyrdom I've ever read from you, and you've posted quite a bit of it over the years. It's just a matter of what size of nails you prefer to hang on that cross you're bearing LOL.

 

[Chaos Commish]

The thread is treading water in a sea of ######ed sexuality and bad poetry.

That's just nitpicking, isn't it?

 

[timschochet]

If there is any emotion in this thread, it stems almost entirely from the pro-Zimmerman side. Most of you guys don't want him to be guilty because if he is, then the anti-gun folks win, and the liberal race-baiting Sharpton types win, and Obama wins. That's why almost every conservative who has posted on this subject regards Zimmerman as innocent. It has much less to do with the facts, and much more to do with your political and cultural views.

As somebody who doesn't give a #### about any of this stuff but wanders into this thread just to see how thick the sludge at the bottom of the FFA is, this is exactly right. But why post it?

This thread is the same 5-10 hyper-conservative posters with raging hard-ons, and Christo scrutinizing every word until he finds one what misinterprets the law or expresses a view outside of the law. Is this your idea of a good time? Do you believe this thread is inspiring thoughtful discourse? Walk away, man. Wait for the next dead kid or kids that appear in the news cycle and fight another day. Let this one wrap up and fade away. Please.

Probably good advice. I'm certainly getting close to it. I've tried to reason with these folks, but just like in the gun control thread, it's really getting frustrating.

You know, you and Joe McGee ought to form a club together.

Dude, that was one of the most........pathetic displays..........of self martyrdom I've ever read from you, and you've posted quite a bit of it over the years. It's just a matter of what size of nails you prefer to hang on that cross you're bearing LOL.

I forgive you.

 

[drummer]

If there is any emotion in this thread, it stems almost entirely from the pro-Zimmerman side. Most of you guys don't want him to be guilty because if he is, then the anti-gun folks win, and the liberal race-baiting Sharpton types win, and Obama wins. That's why almost every conservative who has posted on this subject regards Zimmerman as innocent. It has much less to do with the facts, and much more to do with your political and cultural views.

As somebody who doesn't give a #### about any of this stuff but wanders into this thread just to see how thick the sludge at the bottom of the FFA is, this is exactly right. But why post it?

This thread is the same 5-10 hyper-conservative posters with raging hard-ons, and Christo scrutinizing every word until he finds one what misinterprets the law or expresses a view outside of the law. Is this your idea of a good time? Do you believe this thread is inspiring thoughtful discourse? Walk away, man. Wait for the next dead kid or kids that appear in the news cycle and fight another day. Let this one wrap up and fade away. Please.

Probably good advice. I'm certainly getting close to it. I've tried to reason with these folks, but just like in the gun control thread, it's really getting frustrating.

You know, you and Joe McGee ought to form a club together.

Dude, that was one of the most........pathetic displays..........of self martyrdom I've ever read from you, and you've posted quite a bit of it over the years. It's just a matter of what size of nails you prefer to hang on that cross you're bearing LOL.

I forgive you.

I think where you should start is forgiving yourself. I'm not religious so your forgiveness towards me is being wasted here.

 

[tommyboy]

Tim. It doesnt matter. None of the alleged events you propose matter. All that matters is there was a fight and in that fight Zimmerman was getting pounded and thought his life was in danger. At that moment he legally had a right to use deadly force in self defense.

The state charged him with Murder 2. Florida statute reads:

The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life

The state never had a chance to prove that. This was clearly a self defense case

 

[Kevrunner]

Rachael Janteal has been offered help to graduate HS, pass SAT, and a scholarship to college. I'm happy for her that someone TIMCHOCHET is willing to help her turn her life around.

Fixed

 

[renesauz]

Imagine if i pulled up in my car in front of your house ...waited until you came out and followed you in your car .You park your car and i park next to you.You get out and go into the mall .I follow closely behind you ...i am everywhere you turn...just following you. You go into the mens room and i follow.I just stand there looking at you .I follow you into each store .You finally walk up to me and ask what my problem is and i simply say im not doing anything illegal. I continue to follow you out to your car and follow you back to your house .Again i just sit and wait until i can follow you again.

Now i ask you,would it matter to you that im not breaking any laws? Where does following turn into stalking? Whats the line that one has to cross over? Following someone behind a dark building at night or following someone all over town ? Im just curious because it seems to be very insignificant to a lot of zimmerman fans?

A lot of questions to not ask the right one.

What if he was following your son or daughter?

my son and daughter know to avoid strange men...not confront them. Neither is prone ot get or brag about their street fights

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Imagine if i pulled up in my car in front of your house ...waited until you came out and followed you in your car .You park your car and i park next to you.You get out and go into the mall .I follow closely behind you ...i am everywhere you turn...just following you. You go into the mens room and i follow.I just stand there looking at you .I follow you into each store .You finally walk up to me and ask what my problem is and i simply say im not doing anything illegal. I continue to follow you out to your car and follow you back to your house .Again i just sit and wait until i can follow you again.

Now i ask you,would it matter to you that im not breaking any laws? Where does following turn into stalking? Whats the line that one has to cross over? Following someone behind a dark building at night or following someone all over town ? Im just curious because it seems to be very insignificant to a lot of zimmerman fans?

A lot of questions to not ask the right one.

What if he was following your son or daughter?

my son and daughter know to avoid strange men...not confront them. Neither is prone ot get or brag about their street fights

He did avoid him, until he was 70 yards from his door with GZ still behind him. If he goes home he leads the strange man to his little brother as well.

 

[jon_mx]

If there is any emotion in this thread, it stems almost entirely from the pro-Zimmerman side. Most of you guys don't want him to be guilty because if he is, then the anti-gun folks win, and the liberal race-baiting Sharpton types win, and Obama wins. That's why almost every conservative who has posted on this subject regards Zimmerman as innocent. It has much less to do with the facts, and much more to do with your political and cultural views.

Surprisingly I have to disagree. I dont think Zimmerman is innocent. It is true that he killed Trayvon Martin. But I dont believe he is guilty of 2nd degree murder or manslaughter. I arrive at that conclusion because there isnt enough evidence to support the charges. It also seems that the jury agrees on this point. No one wins in this case. A 17yr old boy is dead and a 30 year old man has to live with that for the rest of his life.

Tim readily admits he has no reason why he thinks Zimmerman is guilty except he thinks he is a liar, which he also admits he can't prove. Then when confronted with all the reasons why Tim is wrong, he just ignores it. He can't explain why it was Martin screaming, he just believes it. He can't explain why Zimmerman would start a fight knowing he has a gun on him, he just believes it. He can't explain why Martin was just hanging out waiting for Zimmerman, he just believes he is innocent. ALL the emotion is on the pro-Martin side. I never really cared if Zimmerman was guilty or not. I have zero interest outside of justice being served fairly. It is just all the solid evidence and logic points to a tragic situation that both played a significant role and it was not anything close to murder or even racism.

ETA: I suppose the police investigator who tried every trick to get Zimmerman to break and is intimately familar with all the evidence, believes Zimmerman is telling the truth is all emotions. No, it is not Tim, it is the lead police investigator who is driven by emotions.

 

[avoiding injuries]

If there is any emotion in this thread, it stems almost entirely from the pro-Zimmerman side. Most of you guys don't want him to be guilty because if he is, then the anti-gun folks win, and the liberal race-baiting Sharpton types win, and Obama wins. That's why almost every conservative who has posted on this subject regards Zimmerman as innocent. It has much less to do with the facts, and much more to do with your political and cultural views.

Surprisingly I have to disagree. I dont think Zimmerman is innocent. It is true that he killed Trayvon Martin. But I dont believe he is guilty of 2nd degree murder or manslaughter. I arrive at that conclusion because there isnt enough evidence to support the charges. It also seems that the jury agrees on this point. No one wins in this case. A 17yr old boy is dead and a 30 year old man has to live with that for the rest of his life.

Tim readily admits he has no reason why he thinks Zimmerman is guilty except he thinks he is a liar, which he also admits he can't prove. Then when confronted with all the reasons why Tim is wrong, he just ignores it. He can't explain why it was Martin screaming, he just believes it. He can't explain why Zimmerman would start a fight knowing he has a gun on him, he just believes it. He can't explain why Martin was just hanging out waiting for Zimmerman, he just believes he is innocent. ALL the emotion is on the pro-Martin side. I never really cared if Zimmerman was guilty or not. I have zero interest outside of justice being served fairly. It is just all the solid evidence and logic points to a tragic situation that both played a significant role and it was not anything close to murder or even racism.

ETA: I suppose the police investigator who tried every trick to get Zimmerman to break and is intimately familar with all the evidence, believes Zimmerman is telling the truth is all emotions. No, it is not Tim, it is the lead police investigator who is driven by emotions.

Nice. Saying the emotions are coming from the GZ supporters might be the craziest thing posted in this entire thread. 6 jurors who strictly concentrated on the facts of the case and the law support GZ. John Good, who showed no emotion at all, supported GZ's story. The lead investigator, who tried to get GZ to break or trip up, supported GZ. What Tim wrote is an absolute mockery.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Imagine if i pulled up in my car in front of your house ...waited until you came out and followed you in your car .You park your car and i park next to you.You get out and go into the mall .I follow closely behind you ...i am everywhere you turn...just following you. You go into the mens room and i follow.I just stand there looking at you .I follow you into each store .You finally walk up to me and ask what my problem is and i simply say im not doing anything illegal. I continue to follow you out to your car and follow you back to your house .Again i just sit and wait until i can follow you again.

Now i ask you,would it matter to you that im not breaking any laws? Where does following turn into stalking? Whats the line that one has to cross over? Following someone behind a dark building at night or following someone all over town ? Im just curious because it seems to be very insignificant to a lot of zimmerman fans?

A lot of questions to not ask the right one.

What if he was following your son or daughter?

my son and daughter know to avoid strange men...not confront them. Neither is prone ot get or brag about their street fights

He did avoid him, until he was 70 yards from his door with GZ still behind him. If he goes home he leads the strange man to his little brother as well.

If only somebody had stepped up and taught martin some witty lines to greet Zimmerman with. He could have turned around and winked at Zimmerman and said something like "Rumor has it you sure are quite a troublemaker." This would have broken the ice in an elite neighborhood like sanford.