Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (2 Viewers)

[eurotrashman]

Colbert is just a liberal Rush Limbaugh wanna be. Jon Stewart is much funnier.

talk about out of touch....

 

[Rayderr]

Colbert is just a liberal Rush Limbaugh wanna be. Jon Stewart is much funnier.

talk about out of touch....

I do agree with his second sentence however.

 

[The Commish]

About as I expected. And people wonder why our society is so screwed up. If only there were no irresponsible MSM

Fixed. You can laugh all you want, but how did you find out about it? MSM. Sure you say y ou heard about it on your local news, but you're in SC and the shooting took place in Florida. So why was it on the SC local news? Where did they pick up the story from? They got it from their network, which is part of the MSM. Really no different than everytime a pretty white girl goes missing, it becomes national news. People go missing everyday. Why do they choose which ones to make national news? Because they think they can present it in a way that will get them ratings. The news industry has become very unethical. I say this as a person who used to work in the TV news industry.

I got the story initially from my mother-in-law....about 45 minutes later it was on our local news. That story was (at best) a blurb about a "local Sanford boy who was shot on his way home from a convenience store" At this point you're just screwing around with the semantics of MSM. I didn't consider the blurb or the two paragraph blurb on Orlando Sentinal's page "irresponsible". It was short and to the point. Whether you like or dislike the MSM makes no difference to me. I don't like them and I tend to agree with just about everything you said about MSM. So, when someone gets "outraged" at their reporting, I can't help but laugh because I find it very comical that people will paint them as this brain washing beast to be reckoned with just after saying how terrible they are at what they do. I rank that thought right up there with the people that thought GWB was a complete moron yet was smart enough to pull off the 9/11 attack on his own country and no one was the wiser. Can't compete with that kind of brain power.

Do you think journalists should have been fired for how they portrayed the story to the public?

Which journalists are you referring to? Some do their jobs just fine, then you have people like Nancy Grace who barely qualify as "journalists".

 

[Politician Spock]

About as I expected. And people wonder why our society is so screwed up. If only there were no irresponsible MSM

Fixed. You can laugh all you want, but how did you find out about it? MSM. Sure you say y ou heard about it on your local news, but you're in SC and the shooting took place in Florida. So why was it on the SC local news? Where did they pick up the story from? They got it from their network, which is part of the MSM. Really no different than everytime a pretty white girl goes missing, it becomes national news. People go missing everyday. Why do they choose which ones to make national news? Because they think they can present it in a way that will get them ratings. The news industry has become very unethical. I say this as a person who used to work in the TV news industry.

I got the story initially from my mother-in-law....about 45 minutes later it was on our local news. That story was (at best) a blurb about a "local Sanford boy who was shot on his way home from a convenience store" At this point you're just screwing around with the semantics of MSM. I didn't consider the blurb or the two paragraph blurb on Orlando Sentinal's page "irresponsible". It was short and to the point. Whether you like or dislike the MSM makes no difference to me. I don't like them and I tend to agree with just about everything you said about MSM. So, when someone gets "outraged" at their reporting, I can't help but laugh because I find it very comical that people will paint them as this brain washing beast to be reckoned with just after saying how terrible they are at what they do. I rank that thought right up there with the people that thought GWB was a complete moron yet was smart enough to pull off the 9/11 attack on his own country and no one was the wiser. Can't compete with that kind of brain power.

Do you think journalists should have been fired for how they portrayed the story to the public?

Which journalists are you referring to? Some do their jobs just fine, then you have people like Nancy Grace who barely qualify as "journalists".

Let's start with the three that NBC fired because of how they reported on the Martin case.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

So, question to those that are happy with them finding him not guilty. Would you feel the same way if this were a child molestation case?

Definitely. There was no evidence of child molestation at all.

 

[The Commish]

About as I expected. And people wonder why our society is so screwed up. If only there were no irresponsible MSM

Fixed. You can laugh all you want, but how did you find out about it? MSM. Sure you say y ou heard about it on your local news, but you're in SC and the shooting took place in Florida. So why was it on the SC local news? Where did they pick up the story from? They got it from their network, which is part of the MSM. Really no different than everytime a pretty white girl goes missing, it becomes national news. People go missing everyday. Why do they choose which ones to make national news? Because they think they can present it in a way that will get them ratings. The news industry has become very unethical. I say this as a person who used to work in the TV news industry.

I got the story initially from my mother-in-law....about 45 minutes later it was on our local news. That story was (at best) a blurb about a "local Sanford boy who was shot on his way home from a convenience store" At this point you're just screwing around with the semantics of MSM. I didn't consider the blurb or the two paragraph blurb on Orlando Sentinal's page "irresponsible". It was short and to the point. Whether you like or dislike the MSM makes no difference to me. I don't like them and I tend to agree with just about everything you said about MSM. So, when someone gets "outraged" at their reporting, I can't help but laugh because I find it very comical that people will paint them as this brain washing beast to be reckoned with just after saying how terrible they are at what they do. I rank that thought right up there with the people that thought GWB was a complete moron yet was smart enough to pull off the 9/11 attack on his own country and no one was the wiser. Can't compete with that kind of brain power.

Do you think journalists should have been fired for how they portrayed the story to the public?

Which journalists are you referring to? Some do their jobs just fine, then you have people like Nancy Grace who barely qualify as "journalists".

Let's start with the three that NBC fired because of how they reported on the Martin case.

Didn't watch them, so I don't know what they said/did. If NBC fired them, I'm fine with that It must have been pretty egregious to get fired from a MSM outlet.

 

[Politician Spock]

About as I expected. And people wonder why our society is so screwed up. If only there were no irresponsible MSM

Fixed. You can laugh all you want, but how did you find out about it? MSM. Sure you say y ou heard about it on your local news, but you're in SC and the shooting took place in Florida. So why was it on the SC local news? Where did they pick up the story from? They got it from their network, which is part of the MSM. Really no different than everytime a pretty white girl goes missing, it becomes national news. People go missing everyday. Why do they choose which ones to make national news? Because they think they can present it in a way that will get them ratings. The news industry has become very unethical. I say this as a person who used to work in the TV news industry.

I got the story initially from my mother-in-law....about 45 minutes later it was on our local news. That story was (at best) a blurb about a "local Sanford boy who was shot on his way home from a convenience store" At this point you're just screwing around with the semantics of MSM. I didn't consider the blurb or the two paragraph blurb on Orlando Sentinal's page "irresponsible". It was short and to the point. Whether you like or dislike the MSM makes no difference to me. I don't like them and I tend to agree with just about everything you said about MSM. So, when someone gets "outraged" at their reporting, I can't help but laugh because I find it very comical that people will paint them as this brain washing beast to be reckoned with just after saying how terrible they are at what they do. I rank that thought right up there with the people that thought GWB was a complete moron yet was smart enough to pull off the 9/11 attack on his own country and no one was the wiser. Can't compete with that kind of brain power.

Do you think journalists should have been fired for how they portrayed the story to the public?

Which journalists are you referring to? Some do their jobs just fine, then you have people like Nancy Grace who barely qualify as "journalists".

Let's start with the three that NBC fired because of how they reported on the Martin case.

Didn't watch them, so I don't know what they said/did. If NBC fired them, I'm fine with that It must have been pretty egregious to get fired from a MSM outlet.

Do you think people across the country formed their initial opinions on the case given NBC broadcasted their reports being they were three of the chief journalists on the case reporting from Miami?

 

[tdoss]

Parked at work today and a white man got out of the car next to mine...I had to fight the urge to go over and bust him in his creepy cracka @zz face.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

It's a good thing we have so many board certified doctors checking in letting us know GZ's injuries were not life threatening but just regular 'ole fist fight injuries

See, I'm actually going by the evidence. His head injuries were minor. I'm sorry if you dont understand that.

How many blows to the back of your head would you like someone to hit against a concrete pathway before you'd be concerned about receiving great bodily harm, being knocked unconscious, or being killed?It's idiots like you that think the end justifies the means and if GZ didn't die, then hey what do you know, he must have been wrong fearing for his life or great bodily harm since he survived the battery.

Im not going to get into a message board fight with you. He couldnt fight back? Then he should have stayed in his car and waited for the cops.

Why do you hate the constitution?

If you are suggesting that I am against the 2nd ammendment you would be wrong. I will point out, just in case you don't know, that thing was written like 250 years ago. It needs some updating.

Bold above = my emphasis.

Not to simplify things, but are you arguing that George Zimmerman shooting Trayvon Martin is not an act of fighting back?

You claim to support the 2nd amendment but everything you have posted in this thread directly contradicts that assertion.

If you truly were pro-2nd Amendment as you claim to be above, if you were in George Zimmerman's shoes that night AND were unable to defend yourself against a more experienced fighter that got an early advantage by breaking your nose and then tackling you to the ground - a series of events he has bragged about in past text messages to girls, then I have a hard time understanding why you would ask the question bolded above, "He couldnt fight back?". What issue do you take with someone licensed to conceal carry a firearm to use deadly force when the situation arises? This is clearly a right George Zimmerman had at his disposal given the law and the circumstances that transpired that night.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Not to simplify things, but are you arguing that George Zimmerman shooting Trayvon Martin is not an act of fighting back?

Thats not fighting. Thats killing.

Its the same reason so many laws are greatly affected on whether you used a gun during the infraction or you did not.

 

[jon_mx]

Not to simplify things, but are you arguing that George Zimmerman shooting Trayvon Martin is not an act of fighting back?

Thats not fighting. Thats killing.

Its the same reason so many laws are greatly affected on whether you used a gun during the infraction or you did not.

Are there laws against beating people up too?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Parked at work today and a white man got out of the car next to mine...I had to fight the urge to go over and bust him in his creepy cracka @zz face.

Last night I came out of a restaurant just in time to see 3 black teens jump on and beat the piss out of a white guy in his late 20's. I have no clue what happened. Maybe he was following them to his car in the parking lot.. After they ran off with his wallet, he asked why no one helped.. I said. "because Dude, I'm not prejudice"..

 

[The Commish]

About as I expected. And people wonder why our society is so screwed up. If only there were no irresponsible MSM

Fixed. You can laugh all you want, but how did you find out about it? MSM. Sure you say y ou heard about it on your local news, but you're in SC and the shooting took place in Florida. So why was it on the SC local news? Where did they pick up the story from? They got it from their network, which is part of the MSM. Really no different than everytime a pretty white girl goes missing, it becomes national news. People go missing everyday. Why do they choose which ones to make national news? Because they think they can present it in a way that will get them ratings. The news industry has become very unethical. I say this as a person who used to work in the TV news industry.

I got the story initially from my mother-in-law....about 45 minutes later it was on our local news. That story was (at best) a blurb about a "local Sanford boy who was shot on his way home from a convenience store" At this point you're just screwing around with the semantics of MSM. I didn't consider the blurb or the two paragraph blurb on Orlando Sentinal's page "irresponsible". It was short and to the point. Whether you like or dislike the MSM makes no difference to me. I don't like them and I tend to agree with just about everything you said about MSM. So, when someone gets "outraged" at their reporting, I can't help but laugh because I find it very comical that people will paint them as this brain washing beast to be reckoned with just after saying how terrible they are at what they do. I rank that thought right up there with the people that thought GWB was a complete moron yet was smart enough to pull off the 9/11 attack on his own country and no one was the wiser. Can't compete with that kind of brain power.

Do you think journalists should have been fired for how they portrayed the story to the public?

Which journalists are you referring to? Some do their jobs just fine, then you have people like Nancy Grace who barely qualify as "journalists".

Let's start with the three that NBC fired because of how they reported on the Martin case.

Didn't watch them, so I don't know what they said/did. If NBC fired them, I'm fine with that It must have been pretty egregious to get fired from a MSM outlet.

Do you think people across the country formed their initial opinions on the case given NBC broadcasted their reports being they were three of the chief journalists on the case reporting from Miami?

I'm not sure the local Miami new outlet, which is what this was if you're talking about the firings, was broadcast nationally. I know I didn't see their broadcasts. I know I didn't know about any firings until you brought them up. I had to look it up. I had heard rumblings of a lawsuit or some sort against a news outlet, but I didn't know the details. I was too wrapped up in the Jo Jo display at that point.

To your specific question, I'm sure some did and some didn't, but I've said that 10 times already.

 

[jon_mx]

The edited tape was originally broadcasted nationally on the Today show and was picked up by other prominent outlets.

 

[greenroom]

Not to simplify things, but are you arguing that George Zimmerman shooting Trayvon Martin is not an act of fighting back?

Thats not fighting. Thats killing.

Its the same reason so many laws are greatly affected on whether you used a gun during the infraction or you did not.

Are there laws against beating people up too?

depends on who started the fight? Which there is no proof either way on who started the fight. You think it was Martin, yet you have no proof only the word of the guy who lived. Dead guys cannot tell their side of the story.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Not to simplify things, but are you arguing that George Zimmerman shooting Trayvon Martin is not an act of fighting back?

Thats not fighting. Thats killing.

Its the same reason so many laws are greatly affected on whether you used a gun during the infraction or you did not.

Are there laws against beating people up too?

depends on who started the fight? Which there is no proof either way on who started the fight. You think it was Martin, yet you have no proof only the word of the guy who lived. Dead guys cannot tell their side of the story.

There's plenty of evidence to suggest TM started the fight, proof outside of GZ's unchallenged account of the events that transpired that night, the lack of any wounds on TM suggesting GZ struck him at all, statements from witnesses that corroborated his story, the 4 minutes that elapsed, TM's text messages, TM's rage reported by an eyewitness showing he was unwilling to stop the battery, his GF's account of TM being near Brandy Green's house many yards away from where the altercation took place as well as her account of TM approaching GZ and verbally confronting him minutes after reportedly being in the back of Brandy Green's house. There is zero evidence that shows that GZ started the fight.Zero, Zilch, Nada

 

[avoiding injuries]

Not to simplify things, but are you arguing that George Zimmerman shooting Trayvon Martin is not an act of fighting back?

Thats not fighting. Thats killing.

Its the same reason so many laws are greatly affected on whether you used a gun during the infraction or you did not.

Are there laws against beating people up too?

depends on who started the fight? Which there is no proof either way on who started the fight. You think it was Martin, yet you have no proof only the word of the guy who lived. Dead guys cannot tell their side of the story.

But forensics and eye witnesses can piece it together.

 

[avoiding injuries]

The trial is over, folks. There wasn't a crime committed. All of the facts and evidence have been laid out, and despite people wanting him to be guilty (including at least one juror), he wasn't.

It's time to use this incident to promote some other underlying agenda, but let's stop trying to retry the case.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Not to simplify things, but are you arguing that George Zimmerman shooting Trayvon Martin is not an act of fighting back?

Thats not fighting. Thats killing.

Its the same reason so many laws are greatly affected on whether you used a gun during the infraction or you did not.

Are there laws against beating people up too?

depends on who started the fight? Which there is no proof either way on who started the fight. You think it was Martin, yet you have no proof only the word of the guy who lived. Dead guys cannot tell their side of the story.

There's plenty of evidence to suggest TM started the fight, proof outside of GZ's unchallenged account of the events that transpired that night, the lack of any wounds on TM suggesting GZ struck him at all, statements from witnesses that corroborated his story, the 4 minutes that elapsed, TM's text messages, TM's rage reported by an eyewitness showing he was unwilling to stop the battery, his GF's account of TM being near Brandy Green's house many yards away from where the altercation took place as well as her account of TM approaching GZ and verbally confronting him minutes after reportedly being in the back of Brandy Green's house. There is zero evidence that shows that GZ started the fight.Zero, Zilch, Nada

Zimmerman started the confrontation the second he determined Treyvon was a suspicious threat and the proceeded to look for him in the dark. (and yes he thought trey was a threat ,at least thats how he made it sound when he told police he was scared after treyvon ''allegedly'' circled his car).He had his alibi all set.

 

[otello]

The trial is over, folks. There wasn't a crime committed. All of the facts and evidence have been laid out, and despite people wanting him to be guilty (including at least one juror), he wasn't.

It's time to use this incident to promote some other underlying agenda, but let's stop trying to retry the case.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Im off with my gun to stalk and harass some minority kids and then kill them when they kick my ###!

Wish me luck!!

 

[jon_mx]

Not to simplify things, but are you arguing that George Zimmerman shooting Trayvon Martin is not an act of fighting back?

Thats not fighting. Thats killing.

Its the same reason so many laws are greatly affected on whether you used a gun during the infraction or you did not.

Are there laws against beating people up too?

depends on who started the fight? Which there is no proof either way on who started the fight. You think it was Martin, yet you have no proof only the word of the guy who lived. Dead guys cannot tell their side of the story.

There's plenty of evidence to suggest TM started the fight, proof outside of GZ's unchallenged account of the events that transpired that night, the lack of any wounds on TM suggesting GZ struck him at all, statements from witnesses that corroborated his story, the 4 minutes that elapsed, TM's text messages, TM's rage reported by an eyewitness showing he was unwilling to stop the battery, his GF's account of TM being near Brandy Green's house many yards away from where the altercation took place as well as her account of TM approaching GZ and verbally confronting him minutes after reportedly being in the back of Brandy Green's house. There is zero evidence that shows that GZ started the fight.Zero, Zilch, Nada

Zimmerman started the confrontation the second he determined Treyvon was a suspicious threat and the proceeded to look for him in the dark. (and yes he thought trey was a threat ,at least thats how he made it sound when he told police he was scared after treyvon ''allegedly'' circled his car).He had his alibi all set.

There's plenty of evidence to suggest TM started the fight, proof outside of GZ's unchallenged account of the events that transpired that night, the lack of any wounds on TM suggesting GZ struck him at all, statements from witnesses that corroborated his story, the 4 minutes that elapsed, TM's text messages, TM's rage reported by an eyewitness showing he was unwilling to stop the battery, his GF's account of TM being near Brandy Green's house many yards away from where the altercation took place as well as her account of TM approaching GZ and verbally confronting him minutes after reportedly being in the back of Brandy Green's house. There is zero evidence that shows that GZ started the fight.Zero, Zilch, Nada

Zimmerman started the confrontation the second he determined Treyvon was a suspicious threat and the proceeded to look for him in the dark. (and yes he thought trey was a threat ,at least thats how he made it sound when he told police he was scared after treyvon ''allegedly'' circled his car).He had his alibi all set.

Following someone is not considered legal provocation to starting a fight. It may be douchish, but it is not illegal. Hitting someone is. And to suggest that Zimmerman was setting up his alibi before the incident even happened just shows how kooky your viewpoint is.

 

[jon_mx]

Im off with my gun to stalk and harass some minority kids and then kill them when they kick my ###!

Wish me luck!!

Are you ever going to bother to even attempt to make an argument even remotely related to the actual events? Just a rhetorical question btw, because I know you aren't.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Im off with my gun to stalk and harass some minority kids and then kill them when they kick my ###!

Wish me luck!!

Are you ever going to bother to even attempt to make an argument even remotely related to the actual events? Just a rhetorical question btw, because I know you aren't.

Once I plant those black kids I chased in the ground, Im going to get my cop buddies to set me up with an accident where I can help out!!

Win-win!!

 

[avoiding injuries]

Im off with my gun to stalk and harass some minority kids and then kill them when they kick my ###!

Wish me luck!!

Are you ever going to bother to even attempt to make an argument even remotely related to the actual events? Just a rhetorical question btw, because I know you aren't.

Once I plant those black kids I chased in the ground, Im going to get my cop buddies to set me up with an accident where I can help out!!

Win-win!!

Good luck!!If you save four lives for every one you take, I can't see how anyone would be upset by that.

Keep us posted.

 

[jon_mx]

Im off with my gun to stalk and harass some minority kids and then kill them when they kick my ###!

Wish me luck!!

Are you ever going to bother to even attempt to make an argument even remotely related to the actual events? Just a rhetorical question btw, because I know you aren't.

Once I plant those black kids I chased in the ground, Im going to get my cop buddies to set me up with an accident where I can help out!!

Win-win!!

Good luck!!If you save four lives for every one you take, I can't see how anyone would be upset by that.

Keep us posted.

Fat, drunk and kooky is no way to go through life son.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Im off with my gun to stalk and harass some minority kids and then kill them when they kick my ###!

Wish me luck!!

Are you ever going to bother to even attempt to make an argument even remotely related to the actual events? Just a rhetorical question btw, because I know you aren't.

Once I plant those black kids I chased in the ground, Im going to get my cop buddies to set me up with an accident where I can help out!!

Win-win!!

Good luck!!If you save four lives for every one you take, I can't see how anyone would be upset by that.

Keep us posted.

Win win win win lose!

Win win win win lose!

 

[greenroom]

Not to simplify things, but are you arguing that George Zimmerman shooting Trayvon Martin is not an act of fighting back?

Thats not fighting. Thats killing.

Its the same reason so many laws are greatly affected on whether you used a gun during the infraction or you did not.

Are there laws against beating people up too?

depends on who started the fight? Which there is no proof either way on who started the fight. You think it was Martin, yet you have no proof only the word of the guy who lived. Dead guys cannot tell their side of the story.

But forensics and eye witnesses can piece it together.

[SIZE=10.5pt]What eye witnesses have there been to see who started the fight? There were people who saw after the fight was started, but nobody actually saw what led up to the fight. No one disputes TM hit GZ and no one disputes GZ killed TM. But how did it start? We only have theories. Dead man cannot talk to put his side of the story out!! We have missing pieces of the story, and yes both could have made different choices. But as a gun owner you know you have extra responsibility. For me all GZ had to do was ask what TM was doing and then we would not be wasting time on this subject.[/SIZE]

 

[jon_mx]

Not to simplify things, but are you arguing that George Zimmerman shooting Trayvon Martin is not an act of fighting back?

Thats not fighting. Thats killing.

Its the same reason so many laws are greatly affected on whether you used a gun during the infraction or you did not.

Are there laws against beating people up too?

depends on who started the fight? Which there is no proof either way on who started the fight. You think it was Martin, yet you have no proof only the word of the guy who lived. Dead guys cannot tell their side of the story.

But forensics and eye witnesses can piece it together.

[SIZE=10.5pt]What eye witnesses have there been to see who started the fight? There were people who saw after the fight was started, but nobody actually saw what led up to the fight. No one disputes TM hit GZ and no one disputes GZ killed TM. But how did it start? We only have theories. Dead man cannot talk to put his side of the story out!! We have missing pieces of the story, and yes both could have made different choices. But as a gun owner you know you have extra responsibility. For me all GZ had to do was ask what TM was doing and then we would not be wasting time on this subject.[/SIZE]

1. Zimmerman's story

2. Martin's GF was on the phone at the time. Confirms Martin was the one who spoke to Zimmerman first.

3. Injuries. Martins fist, Zimmerman's face

4. Logic. Why would a person packing engage in a fist fight?

5. Martin's past of numerous fights.

6. Martin's use of racial slurs against Zimmerman indicating an attitude

7. Zimmerman allowed police to question him multiple times, and his story stood up to scrutiny of interrogations and lie detectors.

Pretty solid evidence.

 

[Johnnymac]

It's a good thing we have so many board certified doctors checking in letting us know GZ's injuries were not life threatening but just regular 'ole fist fight injuries

See, I'm actually going by the evidence. His head injuries were minor. I'm sorry if you dont understand that.

How many blows to the back of your head would you like someone to hit against a concrete pathway before you'd be concerned about receiving great bodily harm, being knocked unconscious, or being killed?It's idiots like you that think the end justifies the means and if GZ didn't die, then hey what do you know, he must have been wrong fearing for his life or great bodily harm since he survived the battery.

Im not going to get into a message board fight with you. He couldnt fight back? Then he should have stayed in his car and waited for the cops.

Why do you hate the constitution?

If you are suggesting that I am against the 2nd ammendment you would be wrong. I will point out, just in case you don't know, that thing was written like 250 years ago. It needs some updating.

Bold above = my emphasis.

Not to simplify things, but are you arguing that George Zimmerman shooting Trayvon Martin is not an act of fighting back?

You claim to support the 2nd amendment but everything you have posted in this thread directly contradicts that assertion.

If you truly were pro-2nd Amendment as you claim to be above, if you were in George Zimmerman's shoes that night AND were unable to defend yourself against a more experienced fighter that got an early advantage by breaking your nose and then tackling you to the ground - a series of events he has bragged about in past text messages to girls, then I have a hard time understanding why you would ask the question bolded above, "He couldnt fight back?". What issue do you take with someone licensed to conceal carry a firearm to use deadly force when the situation arises? This is clearly a right George Zimmerman had at his disposal given the law and the circumstances that transpired that night.

So much LOL incredible!!

 

[avoiding injuries]

Not to simplify things, but are you arguing that George Zimmerman shooting Trayvon Martin is not an act of fighting back?

Thats not fighting. Thats killing.

Its the same reason so many laws are greatly affected on whether you used a gun during the infraction or you did not.

Are there laws against beating people up too?

depends on who started the fight? Which there is no proof either way on who started the fight. You think it was Martin, yet you have no proof only the word of the guy who lived. Dead guys cannot tell their side of the story.

But forensics and eye witnesses can piece it together.

What eye witnesses have there been to see who started the fight? There were people who saw after the fight was started, but nobody actually saw what led up to the fight. No one disputes TM hit GZ and no one disputes GZ killed TM. But how did it start? We only have theories. Dead man cannot talk to put his side of the story out!! We have missing pieces of the story, and yes both could have made different choices. But as a gun owner you know you have extra responsibility. For me all GZ had to do was ask what TM was doing and then we would not be wasting time on this subject.

1. Zimmerman's story

2. Martin's GF was on the phone at the time. Confirms Martin was the one who spoke to Zimmerman first.

3. Injuries. Martins fist, Zimmerman's face

4. Logic. Why would a person packing engage in a fist fight?

5. Martin's past of numerous fights.

6. Martin's use of racial slurs against Zimmerman indicating an attitude

7. Zimmerman allowed police to question him multiple times, and his story stood up to scrutiny of interrogations and lie detectors.

Pretty solid evidence.

Also, where the interaction occoured. Based on where TM told Didi he was, where GZ told the dispatcher he was and where the fight took place, TM had to have moved toward GZ. You can argue he was lost or confused, but that's what happened.

Again, the trial is over and there isn't any evidence the prosecutors forgot to present.

 

[Johnnymac]

Not to simplify things, but are you arguing that George Zimmerman shooting Trayvon Martin is not an act of fighting back?

Thats not fighting. Thats killing.

Its the same reason so many laws are greatly affected on whether you used a gun during the infraction or you did not.

Are there laws against beating people up too?

depends on who started the fight? Which there is no proof either way on who started the fight. You think it was Martin, yet you have no proof only the word of the guy who lived. Dead guys cannot tell their side of the story.

But forensics and eye witnesses can piece it together.

[SIZE=10.5pt]What eye witnesses have there been to see who started the fight? There were people who saw after the fight was started, but nobody actually saw what led up to the fight. No one disputes TM hit GZ and no one disputes GZ killed TM. But how did it start? We only have theories. Dead man cannot talk to put his side of the story out!! We have missing pieces of the story, and yes both could have made different choices. But as a gun owner you know you have extra responsibility. For me all GZ had to do was ask what TM was doing and then we would not be wasting time on this subject.[/SIZE]

1. Zimmerman's story

2. Martin's GF was on the phone at the time. Confirms Martin was the one who spoke to Zimmerman first.

3. Injuries. Martins fist, Zimmerman's face

4. Logic. Why would a person packing engage in a fist fight?

5. Martin's past of numerous fights.

6. Martin's use of racial slurs against Zimmerman indicating an attitude

7. Zimmerman allowed police to question him multiple times, and his story stood up to scrutiny of interrogations and lie detectors.

Pretty solid evidence.

This is so LOL

 

[cstu]

Not to simplify things, but are you arguing that George Zimmerman shooting Trayvon Martin is not an act of fighting back?

Thats not fighting. Thats killing.

Its the same reason so many laws are greatly affected on whether you used a gun during the infraction or you did not.

Are there laws against beating people up too?

depends on who started the fight? Which there is no proof either way on who started the fight. You think it was Martin, yet you have no proof only the word of the guy who lived. Dead guys cannot tell their side of the story.

But forensics and eye witnesses can piece it together.

[SIZE=10.5pt]What eye witnesses have there been to see who started the fight? There were people who saw after the fight was started, but nobody actually saw what led up to the fight. No one disputes TM hit GZ and no one disputes GZ killed TM. But how did it start? We only have theories. Dead man cannot talk to put his side of the story out!! We have missing pieces of the story, and yes both could have made different choices. But as a gun owner you know you have extra responsibility. For me all GZ had to do was ask what TM was doing and then we would not be wasting time on this subject.[/SIZE]

1. Zimmerman's story

2. Martin's GF was on the phone at the time. Confirms Martin was the one who spoke to Zimmerman first.

3. Injuries. Martins fist, Zimmerman's face

4. Logic. Why would a person packing engage in a fist fight?

5. Martin's past of numerous fights.

6. Martin's use of racial slurs against Zimmerman indicating an attitude

7. Zimmerman allowed police to question him multiple times, and his story stood up to scrutiny of interrogations and lie detectors.

Pretty solid evidence.

This is so LOL

Why?

 

[avoiding injuries]

Not to simplify things, but are you arguing that George Zimmerman shooting Trayvon Martin is not an act of fighting back?

Thats not fighting. Thats killing.

Its the same reason so many laws are greatly affected on whether you used a gun during the infraction or you did not.

Are there laws against beating people up too?

depends on who started the fight? Which there is no proof either way on who started the fight. You think it was Martin, yet you have no proof only the word of the guy who lived. Dead guys cannot tell their side of the story.

But forensics and eye witnesses can piece it together.

What eye witnesses have there been to see who started the fight? There were people who saw after the fight was started, but nobody actually saw what led up to the fight. No one disputes TM hit GZ and no one disputes GZ killed TM. But how did it start? We only have theories. Dead man cannot talk to put his side of the story out!! We have missing pieces of the story, and yes both could have made different choices. But as a gun owner you know you have extra responsibility. For me all GZ had to do was ask what TM was doing and then we would not be wasting time on this subject.

1. Zimmerman's story

2. Martin's GF was on the phone at the time. Confirms Martin was the one who spoke to Zimmerman first.

3. Injuries. Martins fist, Zimmerman's face

4. Logic. Why would a person packing engage in a fist fight?

5. Martin's past of numerous fights.

6. Martin's use of racial slurs against Zimmerman indicating an attitude

7. Zimmerman allowed police to question him multiple times, and his story stood up to scrutiny of interrogations and lie detectors.

Pretty solid evidence.

This is so LOL

Why?

LOL = not what I want to believe

 

[cstu]

Not to simplify things, but are you arguing that George Zimmerman shooting Trayvon Martin is not an act of fighting back?

Thats not fighting. Thats killing.

Its the same reason so many laws are greatly affected on whether you used a gun during the infraction or you did not.

Are there laws against beating people up too?

depends on who started the fight? Which there is no proof either way on who started the fight. You think it was Martin, yet you have no proof only the word of the guy who lived. Dead guys cannot tell their side of the story.

But forensics and eye witnesses can piece it together.

[SIZE=10.5pt]What eye witnesses have there been to see who started the fight? There were people who saw after the fight was started, but nobody actually saw what led up to the fight. No one disputes TM hit GZ and no one disputes GZ killed TM. But how did it start? We only have theories. Dead man cannot talk to put his side of the story out!! We have missing pieces of the story, and yes both could have made different choices. But as a gun owner you know you have extra responsibility. For me all GZ had to do was ask what TM was doing and then we would not be wasting time on this subject.[/SIZE]

What's an acceptable reason for Trayvon to throw the first punch? Outside of GZ saying "What are you doing in my neighborhood, ?" I don't think Trayvon was justified.

 

[Johnnymac]

Not to simplify things, but are you arguing that George Zimmerman shooting Trayvon Martin is not an act of fighting back?

Thats not fighting. Thats killing.

Its the same reason so many laws are greatly affected on whether you used a gun during the infraction or you did not.

Are there laws against beating people up too?

depends on who started the fight? Which there is no proof either way on who started the fight. You think it was Martin, yet you have no proof only the word of the guy who lived. Dead guys cannot tell their side of the story.

But forensics and eye witnesses can piece it together.

[SIZE=10.5pt]What eye witnesses have there been to see who started the fight? There were people who saw after the fight was started, but nobody actually saw what led up to the fight. No one disputes TM hit GZ and no one disputes GZ killed TM. But how did it start? We only have theories. Dead man cannot talk to put his side of the story out!! We have missing pieces of the story, and yes both could have made different choices. But as a gun owner you know you have extra responsibility. For me all GZ had to do was ask what TM was doing and then we would not be wasting time on this subject.[/SIZE]

1. Zimmerman's story

2. Martin's GF was on the phone at the time. Confirms Martin was the one who spoke to Zimmerman first.

3. Injuries. Martins fist, Zimmerman's face

4. Logic. Why would a person packing engage in a fist fight?

5. Martin's past of numerous fights.

6. Martin's use of racial slurs against Zimmerman indicating an attitude

7. Zimmerman allowed police to question him multiple times, and his story stood up to scrutiny of interrogations and lie detectors.

Pretty solid evidence.

This is so LOL

Why?

1 GZ story, of course he is going to make it look good for him. The other guy is dead so he cant talk.

2 Yes, he says "what are you following me for" seems like a good question to me

3 Yup, GZ cant fight even though he confronted TM says "what are you doing around here", according to testimony

4 You're kidding right? Why would he? Cuz he knows he is packing

5 Martin was a 17 year old kid. I think I had at least 10-15 fistfights by that age, never got shot.

6 GZ's racial slurs on audio. These #######s always get away. ####### punks.

7 Yes he did, and the lead investigator had some serious questions for him. "That's following him" etc.

Pretty shaky evidence especially when you consider the other guy is dead. Which GZ wanted to happen. He wanted to shoot this kid. You will not convince me that is what he wanted to happen. I dont believe his story. Too bad the other party cant talk anymore.

 

[Doubtingthomas]

Im off with my gun to stalk and harass some minority kids and then kill them when they kick my ###!

Wish me luck!!

O

 

[avoiding injuries]

Not to simplify things, but are you arguing that George Zimmerman shooting Trayvon Martin is not an act of fighting back?

Thats not fighting. Thats killing.

Its the same reason so many laws are greatly affected on whether you used a gun during the infraction or you did not.

Are there laws against beating people up too?

depends on who started the fight? Which there is no proof either way on who started the fight. You think it was Martin, yet you have no proof only the word of the guy who lived. Dead guys cannot tell their side of the story.

But forensics and eye witnesses can piece it together.

What eye witnesses have there been to see who started the fight? There were people who saw after the fight was started, but nobody actually saw what led up to the fight. No one disputes TM hit GZ and no one disputes GZ killed TM. But how did it start? We only have theories. Dead man cannot talk to put his side of the story out!! We have missing pieces of the story, and yes both could have made different choices. But as a gun owner you know you have extra responsibility. For me all GZ had to do was ask what TM was doing and then we would not be wasting time on this subject.

1. Zimmerman's story

2. Martin's GF was on the phone at the time. Confirms Martin was the one who spoke to Zimmerman first.

3. Injuries. Martins fist, Zimmerman's face

4. Logic. Why would a person packing engage in a fist fight?

5. Martin's past of numerous fights.

6. Martin's use of racial slurs against Zimmerman indicating an attitude

7. Zimmerman allowed police to question him multiple times, and his story stood up to scrutiny of interrogations and lie detectors.

Pretty solid evidence.

This is so LOL

Why?

1 GZ story, of course he is going to make it look good for him. The other guy is dead so he cant talk.2 Yes, he says "what are you following me for" seems like a good question to me

3 Yup, GZ cant fight even though he confronted TM says "what are you doing around here", according to testimony

4 You're kidding right? Why would he? Cuz he knows he is packing

5 Martin was a 17 year old kid. I think I had at least 10-15 fistfights by that age, never got shot.

6 GZ's racial slurs on audio. These #######s always get away. ####### punks.

7 Yes he did, and the lead investigator had some serious questions for him. "That's following him" etc.

Pretty shaky evidence especially when you consider the other guy is dead. Which GZ wanted to happen. He wanted to shoot this kid. You will not convince me that is what he wanted to happen. I dont believe his story. Too bad the other party cant talk anymore.

Not guilty. Move on.

 

[cstu]

Not to simplify things, but are you arguing that George Zimmerman shooting Trayvon Martin is not an act of fighting back?

Thats not fighting. Thats killing.

Its the same reason so many laws are greatly affected on whether you used a gun during the infraction or you did not.

Are there laws against beating people up too?

depends on who started the fight? Which there is no proof either way on who started the fight. You think it was Martin, yet you have no proof only the word of the guy who lived. Dead guys cannot tell their side of the story.

But forensics and eye witnesses can piece it together.

[SIZE=10.5pt]What eye witnesses have there been to see who started the fight? There were people who saw after the fight was started, but nobody actually saw what led up to the fight. No one disputes TM hit GZ and no one disputes GZ killed TM. But how did it start? We only have theories. Dead man cannot talk to put his side of the story out!! We have missing pieces of the story, and yes both could have made different choices. But as a gun owner you know you have extra responsibility. For me all GZ had to do was ask what TM was doing and then we would not be wasting time on this subject.[/SIZE]

1. Zimmerman's story

2. Martin's GF was on the phone at the time. Confirms Martin was the one who spoke to Zimmerman first.

3. Injuries. Martins fist, Zimmerman's face

4. Logic. Why would a person packing engage in a fist fight?

5. Martin's past of numerous fights.

6. Martin's use of racial slurs against Zimmerman indicating an attitude

7. Zimmerman allowed police to question him multiple times, and his story stood up to scrutiny of interrogations and lie detectors.

Pretty solid evidence.

This is so LOL

Why?

1 GZ story, of course he is going to make it look good for him. The other guy is dead so he cant talk.

2 Yes, he says "what are you following me for" seems like a good question to me

3 Yup, GZ cant fight even though he confronted TM says "what are you doing around here", according to testimony

4 You're kidding right? Why would he? Cuz he knows he is packing

5 Martin was a 17 year old kid. I think I had at least 10-15 fistfights by that age, never got shot.

6 GZ's racial slurs on audio. These #######s always get away. ####### punks.

7 Yes he did, and the lead investigator had some serious questions for him. "That's following him" etc.

Pretty shaky evidence especially when you consider the other guy is dead. Which GZ wanted to happen. He wanted to shoot this kid. You will not convince me that is what he wanted to happen. I dont believe his story. Too bad the other party cant talk anymore.

1. Any reasonable person is going to put themselves in the best light in that situation.

2. That reply indicates that he came back to confront GZ rather than to avoid a fight by walking home.

3. Trayvon asked him why GZ was following him and GZ implied that he was following him because he didn't know why Trayvon was in the neighborhood. I don't think asking "What are you doing around here?" is just cause for attacking someone.

4. A person with a gun has less incentive to get close to someone since it reduces their ability to use the weapon and can result in a fight over the gun.

5. Not all 17 yo kids are into fighting. You're lucky you never fought someone with a gun who felt threatened you would cause him serious bodily harm.

6. "####ing", "###holes" and punks are not racial slurs.

7. Following is not illegal. Back to #1, he's going to frame his actions that night to prevent him from spending his life in prison.

 

[jon_mx]

1 GZ story, of course he is going to make it look good for him. The other guy is dead so he cant talk.


2 Yes, he says "what are you following me for" seems like a good question to me

3 Yup, GZ cant fight even though he confronted TM says "what are you doing around here", according to testimony

4 You're kidding right? Why would he? Cuz he knows he is packing

5 Martin was a 17 year old kid. I think I had at least 10-15 fistfights by that age, never got shot.

6 GZ's racial slurs on audio. These #######s always get away. ####### punks.

7 Yes he did, and the lead investigator had some serious questions for him. "That's following him" etc.

Pretty shaky evidence especially when you consider the other guy is dead. Which GZ wanted to happen. He wanted to shoot this kid. You will not convince me that is what he wanted to happen. I dont believe his story. Too bad the other party cant talk anymore.

1. If Zimmerman lied he was the luckiest guy in the world not to get tripped up by other evidence.

2. Depends on the tone. Even so, that was his GF's version.

3. GF's testimony. She was less consistant than Zimmerman.

4. Are you ####### kidding. You would engage in a fight when you are packing. That is ####### stupid

5. That explains a lot.

6. Reported, but not true.

7. Lead investigator believed Zimmerman's story and could not trip him up.

 

[jon_mx]

He was innocent and it was not even close. There was/is never was a case against him. Politically bs driven by the race-bating media.

 

[Ghost Rider]

6 GZ's racial slurs on audio. These #######s always get away. ####### punks.

at even the slightest notion that a-holes and f'ing punks are racial slurs.

 

[Politician Spock]

About as I expected. And people wonder why our society is so screwed up. If only there were no irresponsible MSM

Fixed. You can laugh all you want, but how did you find out about it? MSM. Sure you say y ou heard about it on your local news, but you're in SC and the shooting took place in Florida. So why was it on the SC local news? Where did they pick up the story from? They got it from their network, which is part of the MSM. Really no different than everytime a pretty white girl goes missing, it becomes national news. People go missing everyday. Why do they choose which ones to make national news? Because they think they can present it in a way that will get them ratings. The news industry has become very unethical. I say this as a person who used to work in the TV news industry.

I got the story initially from my mother-in-law....about 45 minutes later it was on our local news. That story was (at best) a blurb about a "local Sanford boy who was shot on his way home from a convenience store" At this point you're just screwing around with the semantics of MSM. I didn't consider the blurb or the two paragraph blurb on Orlando Sentinal's page "irresponsible". It was short and to the point. Whether you like or dislike the MSM makes no difference to me. I don't like them and I tend to agree with just about everything you said about MSM. So, when someone gets "outraged" at their reporting, I can't help but laugh because I find it very comical that people will paint them as this brain washing beast to be reckoned with just after saying how terrible they are at what they do. I rank that thought right up there with the people that thought GWB was a complete moron yet was smart enough to pull off the 9/11 attack on his own country and no one was the wiser. Can't compete with that kind of brain power.

Do you think journalists should have been fired for how they portrayed the story to the public?

Which journalists are you referring to? Some do their jobs just fine, then you have people like Nancy Grace who barely qualify as "journalists".

Let's start with the three that NBC fired because of how they reported on the Martin case.

Didn't watch them, so I don't know what they said/did. If NBC fired them, I'm fine with that It must have been pretty egregious to get fired from a MSM outlet.

Do you think people across the country formed their initial opinions on the case given NBC broadcasted their reports being they were three of the chief journalists on the case reporting from Miami?

I'm not sure the local Miami new outlet, which is what this was if you're talking about the firings, was broadcast nationally. I know I didn't see their broadcasts. I know I didn't know about any firings until you brought them up. I had to look it up. I had heard rumblings of a lawsuit or some sort against a news outlet, but I didn't know the details. I was too wrapped up in the Jo Jo display at that point. To your specific question, I'm sure some did and some didn't, but I've said that 10 times already.

As part of the affiliate agreement that allows local stations to broadcast a network like NBC, is network's right to air local news reports nationally. When they do, the local journalist just says "this is (insert name) reporting for NBC news" even though the journalist works for the local affiliate. Pretty much any local news that gets national attention is done this way, as was the Martin/Zimmerman story. So my previous question still stands unanswered. Would you like to answer it with the knowledge that their story was aired nationally?

 

[Johnnymac]

6 GZ's racial slurs on audio. These #######s always get away. ####### punks.

at even the slightest notion that a-holes and f'ing punks are racial slurs.

Yeah, you are correct. But they are slurs none the less.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

So much LOL incredible!!

Let me fix that for you.

SO MUCH IGNORANCE, LOL.

Obviously you would never had been at the disadvantage that night since you had been in over a dozen fist-fights at that point in your life, and that is the ######ed logic you are using to make the decision that someone acted correctly or not. Meaning no matter the age or sex, had GZ been a woman walking home in her twenties if she was unable to fend off the battery from a raged filled Martin intent on inflicting great bodily harm or worse, you would expect her to fend off Martin's battery with her fists instead of utilizing her 2nd amendment rights.

 

[Johnnymac]

So much LOL incredible!!

Let me fix that for you.

SO MUCH IGNORANCE, LOL.

Obviously you would never had been at the disadvantage that night since you had been in over a dozen fist-fights at that point in your life, and that is the ######ed logic you are using to make the decision that someone acted correctly or not. Meaning no matter the age or sex, had GZ been a woman walking home in her twenties if she was unable to fend off the battery from a raged filled Martin intent on inflicting great bodily harm or worse, you would expect her to fend off Martin's battery with her fists instead of utilizing her 2nd amendment rights.

You call me ignorant? LMAO

 

[5 digit know nothing]

So much LOL incredible!!

Let me fix that for you.

SO MUCH IGNORANCE, LOL.

Obviously you would never had been at the disadvantage that night since you had been in over a dozen fist-fights at that point in your life, and that is the ######ed logic you are using to make the decision that someone acted correctly or not. Meaning no matter the age or sex, had GZ been a woman walking home in her twenties if she was unable to fend off the battery from a raged filled Martin intent on inflicting great bodily harm or worse, you would expect her to fend off Martin's battery with her fists instead of utilizing her 2nd amendment rights.

You call me ignorant? LMAO

Yes when someone shows such a complete lack of knowledge about the facts of the case, I will call you ignorant.

 

[tdoss]

Someone check the ip of JohnnyMac...it's gotta be another Tim alias...

 

[Todd Andrews]

He was innocent and it was not even close. There was/is never was a case against him. Politically bs driven by the race-bating media.

B to the I to the G to the O....

T...t...t....t....wicky wicky wack!!

 

[jon_mx]

As part of the affiliate agreement that allows local stations to broadcast a network like NBC, is network's right to air local news reports nationally. When they do, the local journalist just says "this is (insert name) reporting for NBC news" even though the journalist works for the local affiliate. Pretty much any local news that gets national attention is done this way, as was the Martin/Zimmerman story.So my previous question still stands unanswered. Would you like to answer it with the knowledge that their story was aired nationally?

I answered the question....It was aired on the Today show. And other national media ran with it also.