Buckeye Firearms Association Seeking Donations To Buy George Zimmerman A New Gun

reply to post by SilentKillah


what does stand your ground have to do with this case?

reply to post by SilentKillah

Yes. He killed someone whether he was convicted or murder or not.

So, by that same logic, If someone was driving down the road and hit a patch of ice and their car went out of control killing a pedestrian, you are saying that the should have their rights violated and taken away and lose any privilege of owning a weapon?

How does that make sense?

I never said he should be tried again. I'm arguing the fact that he should not be permitted to own a gun.

So you say that he should not be tried again, which in essence means you agree that he was found Not guilty. So why, should a man who has been found Not Guilty have his rights violated?

If you're talking about Florida's "Stand your Ground" law which is not applied equally in the first place, then yes.

The stand your ground law is applied as equally as is your right to bare arms, or say even your right to free speech. Really you are saying that because you do not agree with the verdict that those laws should be changed to benefit your idea of how self defense should be construed.

how are your or anyone else's rights being diminshed? Because it is thought that Zimmerman should not own a gun affects you how?

Because those same laws that affect him are also the Exact same laws that both you and I.

In Officer Training School, I was taught to meet force with equal force.

Well I spent nearly 2 decades in the military myself. You know what they taught me? KILL by whatever means necessary. I want to know who taught you that so their asses can be reprimanded and court martialed. Have you ever seen how our military operates? Equal Force is NON existent. If we were on a level playing field the US would have had their asses handed to them on Many occasions.

There's only one that applies...

That is wrong as well. The 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments all apply to this case.

I believe this ammendment needs to seriously be looked over and modernized.

They have modernized this amendment. Do you watch the news at all? Have you seen how they have molested OUR 2nd amendment over "Columbine, Sandy Hook, and many other gun crimes involving children."?

I'll bet if there were talks about re-writing or abolishing the sixteenth ammendment you wouldn't be complaining one bit.

I am not even going to mention how stupid it would be to abolish taxes. After all who do you think pays for the military? Private Funding?

Originally posted by TDawgRex

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by SilentKillah

 

On the fundraising, I will agree with your point in one very key way. They are raising money to buy *A* gun. I don't think these well meaning but somewhat simple minded folks appreciated what that call might DO in this polarized nation at this moment in time for response.

They'll end up with far more than ever needed for 1 gun, to be sure. So what will happen to the rest? I'm as curious as you are. I'm just certain it won't be criminal or fraudulent. Not on this one and not when it's THIS high profile. After all, the friend of my enemy is my enemy too. Isn't that how the rest of the thinking goes on that enemy of my enemy nonsense our Government seems to function with these days?

So standing up to support Mr. Z will put them in the jackpot as much as he is for Government attention. I'm guessing they have more than one attorney and are following things to the precise letter. If not already, then they will be very very soon. They won't have any choice, I imagine.

I guess that they are taking a page from the book of those that oppose them.

From their own website.

Buckeye Firearms Association seeks to maximize your rights by endorsing and electing pro-gun candidates on the city, county, and state level, including mayors, sheriffs, legislators, and governor. We also work to defeat anti-gun legislation, pass pro-gun bills, and reform existing laws to benefit all Ohio citizens.

Unlike many anti-gun groups, we do not get our funding or support from wealthy activists or big corporations. We are a non-partisan, all-volunteer organization. Officers and supporters donate their time and skills to the pro-gun cause. Not a single dime from donors is spent on salaries or wasteful overhead. In fact, every penny is used to support political campaigns, influence public opinion, and advance gun rights around Ohio.

It all sounds good but I won't be giving any money to this particular campaign, and am thinking about giving up my membership because of it. It's a money grab. Nothing more, nothing less. Other organizations are doing the same.

edit on 22-7-2013 by TDawgRex because: No opposing thumbs

Between your post and Wrabbit2000 on the fundraising issue, I now do believe that they will not pocket the extra in donations. That part is definitely clarified and I now agree.

Originally posted by xEphon

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by SilentKillah

 

Before you continue to insult my education and intelligence, please obtain two Masters and at least be working on a PhD. Secondly add 10 years of management both as a commissioned officer and as a civilian in DoD and Department of Treasury. Lastly, learn avionics and fly a fighter, coordinate with Tactical Air Control Party and Joint Terminal Air Controllers and successfully conduct air strikes on hostile locations providing air support for our ground troops. Once you have accomplished all of these tasks, you can criticize my education and intelligence all you want

Pictures or it didn't happen.

I honestly do not believe that at all. If that was really the case then you would not allow your ignorance to precede you. Zimmerman was found Not guilty. ANY educated man knows that.

While I may not agree with everything that Silent has said, everything he has presented was clear and did not "smack of retardation" as you so eloquently put it.
So, instead of constantly trying to put other peoples opinions down by calling them ignorant or trying to insult their intelligence, perhaps you should take a page from Silent's book and debate your points in a more mature manner.

Believe me, insulting others does nothing for your arguments.

edit on 22-7-2013 by xEphon because: (no reason given)

Very much appreciated! I wish we'd see more efforts like this to prevent bashing the mind of the person and instead focusing on understanding the person. Different views can expand our knowledge and understanding of what's different. If we focus on our view and deny any others as being stupid so to speak, what do we really leave with other than what we already knew from he beginning? Thanks again.

reply to post by SilentKillah

Between your post and Wrabbit2000 on the fundraising issue, I now do believe that they will not pocket the extra in donations. That part is definitely clarified and I now agree.

So when I said .. .

It is illegal to solicit donations and then Not use those donation for the purpose intended.

What part of that didn't you understand?

Zimmerman's gun have been returned to him.
They do Not need to buy him a new one.

Originally posted by riffraff
reply to post by SilentKillah

 

what does stand your ground have to do with this case?

Nothing. I was just kind of unclear as to which way ShadellacZumbrum was addressing his question. I attempted to provide an answer from the two perspectives that I thought s/he may have been questioning.

Why don't they just give him a gun? Why all the "donations" crap?

Personally, I don't care if they give him 20 guns. I just don't want him living in or patrolling my neighborhood. I'd be scared to invite anyone to the house for fear of ole' trigger happy George interrogating them in the street!

Originally posted by Visitor2012

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by n3mesis

 

I think you missed the point.

It is Not about the dollar.

It is about those Freedoms that WE as U.S. Citizens are guaranteed based on the doctrines set forth by Our Forefathers.

How noble. So if somebody guns down someone you love and gets away with it using a bogus law, we'll be sure to use that as a platform to express our Right to bare arms and restock the murderer with a new gun and bullets.

edit on 21-7-2013 by Visitor2012 because: (no reason given)

Considering that people I love don't go around beating other people's heads into the concrete, I really don't have to worry about it.

What is a more realistic concern is that someone I love will be victimized because leftists will do their utmost to disarm them, leave them vulnerable, and will release as many violent people back out onto the street as they can.

he appreciates it

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by SilentKillah

 

So, by that same logic, If someone was driving down the road and hit a patch of ice and their car went out of control killing a pedestrian, you are saying that the should have their rights violated and taken away and lose any privilege of owning a weapon?

Good point. Let me clarify further. He purposely put a gun to the boy and pulled the trigger. There was no accident about it. He could have fought back, but instead made a spur of the moment mental decision that this boy must die.

So you say that he should not be tried again, which in essence means you agree that he was found Not guilty. So why, should a man who has been found Not Guilty have his rights violated?

As I stated... he may face PTSD symptoms in the future. He may not seek help about them. He may commit kill someone innocent again. Yes I said someone innocent, because regardless of what Zimmerman said, or anyone thinks of the issue, the boy had done nothing wrong that night. He defended himself from what he thought was a life threatening situation. It turned out that he was right and he lost his life.

The stand your ground law is applied as equally as is your right to bare arms, or say even your right to free speech. Really you are saying that because you do not agree with the verdict that those laws should be changed to benefit your idea of how self defense should be construed.

I don't agree that Ms. Alexander should spen 20 year in prison for standing her ground against an abusive husband whom she didn't kill, when Zimmerman gets to walk. Stand Your Ground was not applied equally because it was ruled that she should have retreated. For some reason Zimmerman shouldn't have.

Because those same laws that affect him are also the Exact same laws that both you and I.

And if I thought there were any chance of instability upon myself or anyone, I would not want myself or anyone that's possbily unstable to have a gun. Hence the reason I got rid of mine. Children in the house = risk of them getting a hold of it and an accident occuring.

Well I spent nearly 2 decades in the military myself. You know what they taught me? KILL by whatever means necessary. I want to know who taught you that so their asses can be reprimanded and court martialed. Have you ever seen how our military operates? Equal Force is NON existent. If we were on a level playing field the US would have had their asses handed to them on Many occasions.

Yes... lets run guns blazing into 70 homes of an apartment... wives and children huddled into a corner of a bed matress while I raid their house looking for the one militant with a gun that may have shot from this building. Better yet, just send me in to strike the building with only a single shooter and no intelligence of bombs being made. That's the way to do it... violate Geneva Conventions.

That is wrong as well. The 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments all apply to this case.

Ohoohhhhhh... you're saying that the government has no right to hold his weapon and seek a new trial. I wasn't clear as to what you were referring to initially. I disagree... they're attempting to get him on difference charges. Double Jeopardy is not a concern. If you rob a bank and kill someone, you can be tried in two separate cases, one for murder and another for holding the hostages. It's not very uncommon.

They have modernized this amendment. Do you watch the news at all? Have you seen how they have molested OUR 2nd amendment over "Columbine, Sandy Hook, and many other gun crimes involving children."?

Not much honestly. The modifications can't be that bad... people are still making and buying guns legally.

I am not even going to mention how stupid it would be to abolish taxes. After all who do you think pays for the military? Private Funding?

Well... many people argue for no taxes. You may not be one of them and I apologize for lumping you into that group.

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by SilentKillah

 

Between your post and Wrabbit2000 on the fundraising issue, I now do believe that they will not pocket the extra in donations. That part is definitely clarified and I now agree.

So when I said .. .

It is illegal to solicit donations and then Not use those donation for the purpose intended.

What part of that didn't you understand?

It is not illegal to take money to pay salaries as long as you fulfill the agreement of the donation. I dontate to the Combined Federal Campaign organizations every year. In the description they tell you the percentage of your donation that is actually going to that charity. The other money can be used to pay salaries, building funds, etc. As long as they fulfill their requirement, there are no worries.

Additionally, it doesn't mean that corruption does not occur. Wrabbit2000 highlighted the face that this is a huge case and they may be looked at with their received donations. FurthermoreTDawgRex quoted their non-profit paragraph. These two items together (neither of which you provided) are the key reasons I now agree.

reply to post by n3mesis


Say that to T.Martins's mother, not to mention the rest of the money hungry scum.
This is "Donations To Buy George Zimmerman A New Gun" not donations to make over a million, like the above mentioned.

reply to post by SilentKillah

but instead made a spur of the moment mental decision that this boy must die.

He wasn't shooting to kill. He was shooting to stop the attack. BIG GIANT DIFFERENCE.

He may commit kill someone innocent again.

You keep throwing out the "Innocence" Card. have you done any research on Trayvon what so ever? It appears as though you have not. Because if you had you would know that he was Not innocent at all. In fact a witness places Trayvon on top of the victim giving him a Royal @$$ pounding. How is that innocent?

the boy had done nothing wrong that night. He defended himself from what he thought was a life threatening situation. It turned out that he was right and he lost his life.

If he did nothing wrong, then why did he come back to the seen to attack Zimmerman? And How in the Hell do you know what he thought was life threatening? From my understanding the little hoodlum fought everyone on a regular basis. His girlfriend even said so.

Stand Your Ground was not applied equally because it was ruled that she should have retreated.

Stand Your Ground does NOT even apply in this case.

I would not want myself or anyone that's possbily unstable to have a gun. Hence the reason I got rid of mine. Children in the house = risk of them getting a hold of it and an accident occuring.

What the hell is that all about. So, by that statement you are saying that you got rid of your gun because you are afraid that your child is going to become Unstable and have an accident?

Yes... lets run guns blazing into 70 homes of an apartment... wives and children huddled into a corner of a bed matress while I raid their house looking for the one militant with a gun that may have shot from this building. Better yet, just send me in to strike the building with only a single shooter and no intelligence of bombs being made. That's the way to do it... violate Geneva Conventions.

What is that all about? That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Are you saying that since those women and children are unarmed that you should go in the armed with nothing as well and beat them to death with your bare hands?

I wasn't clear as to what you were referring to initially. I disagree...

About Double Jeopardy? how about the other 4 amendments?

The modifications can't be that bad... people are still making and buying guns legally.

And you saying that with the Modifications you have in mind that you would completely Stop all of that?

reply to post by SilentKillah

it doesn't mean that corruption does not occur. Wrabbit2000 highlighted the face that this is a huge case and they may be looked at with their received donations. FurthermoreTDawgRex quoted their non-profit paragraph. These two items together (neither of which you provided) are the key reasons I now agree.

Now you are just grasping for straws.
I thought you were a little smarter than that. Do you not have the sense to know that this is a High Profile Case without someone telling you? And also need someone to show you a "Non Profit Paragraph" to know that Donations can't be squandered?

Come on. .. Really?

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by SilentKillah

 

]He wasn't shooting to kill. He was shooting to stop the attack. BIG GIANT DIFFERENCE.

Says who? Oh... Zimmerman? The guy that killed an unarmed teenager? Riiiigggghhhhtttt...

You keep throwing out the "Innocence" Card. have you done any research on Trayvon what so ever? It appears as though you have not. Because if you had you would know that he was Not innocent at all. In fact a witness places Trayvon on top of the victim giving him a Royal @$$ pounding. How is that innocent?

Do I really have to go over this again? For the one hundred teenth time... would you not fight someone that attacked you? Pulled your shirt not allowing you to leave or anything (as I placed you in the scenario with me earlier)? I agree that Martin probably pounded him. Wouldn't you be proud of your son fighting off a creepy man that was following him home? WOuldn't you be proud of his logical thinking skills to NOT lead the man home where your other 12 year old son sat alone playing video games? martin didn't know Zimmerman was neighborhood watch. We didn't know Zimmerman called the cops and they were on the way. He knew nothing other than "I better not show this creep where I live and let him attack and possibly ass rape my future brother in law too".

If he did nothing wrong, then why did he come back to the seen to attack Zimmerman? And How in the Hell do you know what he thought was life threatening? From my understanding the little hoodlum fought everyone on a regular basis. His girlfriend even said so.

You're going by who'se story... the only man still alive that can tell what lead to the fight. The only man that can speak on what led Martin to attack. I think he changed the story. Martin attacked him... yes after he yanked at Martins shirt when he tried to walk away. Or after Zimmerman lifted his shirt and flashed his gun to the boy to tell him who's in charge here. Zimmerman did not tell the whole truth, but many of you believe him.

Do you believe everything someone says? No... you've already said you don't believe that I was a Commissioned Officer in the USAF, I don't have 2 Masters, I never worked for DoD and I don't currently work for Treasury, and I am not pursuing a PhD.

Stand Your Ground does NOT even apply in this case.

You're right... disregard.

What the hell is that all about. So, by that statement you are saying that you got rid of your gun because you are afraid that your child is going to become Unstable and have an accident?

No... because kids play with things they are curious about. Because kids like to brag and show off what their daddy has. Because accidents with guns are REAL. Having kids created a unstable environment. That's why we put plastic covers over electrical outlets. That's why we get rid of thin glass coffee tables. That's why I got rid of my guns.

What is that all about? That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Are you saying that since those women and children are unarmed that you should go in the armed with nothing as well and beat them to death with your bare hands?

I said I was taught to meet force with equal force. You said you were taught to kill and only kill. It 100% reflects what you said. If I'm raiding a house and someone's father pushes me yelling GET OUT, I don't shoot them. I push them back grab them, throw them into the corner with their family get another guy over to watch them and proceed checking the premises. You emply "kill the father, he used harmless force".

About Double Jeopardy? how about the other 4 amendments?

2nd - He should not be able to have a gun. He has killed someone and although there's not enough evidence to say he did it on purpose, there's not evidence indicating that it was an accident. Shot was point blank right through the heart.

4th - Keep Zimmerman's gun and get him over to a psychologist. Until he is cleared medically, his gun should remain seized. Until this new trial is over, it should remain seized.

5th - Double Jeopary - Does not apply to his new trial.

6th - I can't find anything indicating any wrong doing here.

14th - I'm not even sure what you're saying applies from there toward anything.

And you saying that with the Modifications you have in mind that you would completely Stop all of that?

I don't have any modification in mind. I'm not a legal expert. I can simply say that a boy was killed, I don't know what Zimmerman said/did to cause the boy to go off on him, Zimmerman most likely provoked the attack (other than just by following), and Zimmerman should not have shot him. Those were minor scratches on his year. Martin was likely weak.

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by SilentKillah

 

it doesn't mean that corruption does not occur. Wrabbit2000 highlighted the face that this is a huge case and they may be looked at with their received donations. FurthermoreTDawgRex quoted their non-profit paragraph. These two items together (neither of which you provided) are the key reasons I now agree.

Now you are just grasping for straws.
I thought you were a little smarter than that. Do you not have the sense to know that this is a High Profile Case without someone telling you? And also need someone to show you a "Non Profit Paragraph" to know that Donations can't be squandered?

Come on. .. Really?

I'm saying I didn't think about that being a cause for the organization not using the funds for personal gain in addition to providing their gun to Zimmerman. Don't be upset that these two ladies and/or gentlemen were able to enlighten and calify this for me.

Yes I need someone to point out that they specifically state non-profit. You do realize there are for profit organizations that you can donate to right?

Squandering is wasting... not paying board members a salary. Squandering would be them taking the rest of the money and putting gold toilets in the bathrooms of the building. Squandering would not be fixing plumbing problems, buying new toilets, or fixing a broken mirror. Squandering would not be adding on to the building when they notice more members coming to meetings and too many people standing along the wall. If Buckeye Firearms had to specifically state that they do not pay a salary to anyone, then it must be legal. Same way churches are supposed to be non-profit yet the Pastor and Deacons are paid.

reply to post by SilentKillah

Says who? Oh... Zimmerman? The guy that killed an unarmed teenager? Riiiigggghhhhtttt...

As far as I was aware Zimmerman never said anything about. It is obvious. Someone in the heat of battle does not have time to aim. Especially if they have to struggle to reach for their gun.

Do I really have to go over this again?

Yes because you have never one time acknowledged that Trayvon was NOT Innocent. Though you keep asserting that he was an innocent child. Besides, why are you throwing rape in there? You are just making a cheap shot because your argument has failed.

Or after Zimmerman lifted his shirt and flashed his gun to the boy to tell him who's in charge here

Where did that information come from. That is a complete Lie. His weapon was in a holster. Post a link to that as I would be interested in seeing it as I am certain others would too. The weapon never came out until he was being beaten on. Even the witness says so. Why don't you believe the witness?

Do you believe everything someone says?

When there are facts to back it up I do. On the internet anyone can say anything or be anything they want. That is why I asked for pictures and credentials. Even after stating that you Might have a degree in Psychology you then retracted it when I called you on it. That could still be easily construed as a lie. Once you lie it is hard to believe anything you say after that. Unfortunately.

I said I was taught to meet force with equal force. You said you were taught to kill and only kill.

I never said any such thing. I said "KILL by whatever means necessary." That doesn't mean kill everything in your path. I also thought you said you were in the Air Force Flying aircraft. Then what are you doing ground pounding raiding houses? Someone with that aptitude would Not be used to clear buildings. The military spends way to much on training to waste it like that.

2nd - He should not be able to have a gun. He has killed someone and although there's not enough evidence to say he did it on purpose, there's not evidence indicating that it was an accident. Shot was point blank right through the heart.

So here again the guy slides on the ice and kills someone so they should have their right to bare arms taken away. Your logic makes no sense.

4th - Keep Zimmerman's gun and get him over to a psychologist. Until he is cleared medically, his gun should remain seized. Until this new trial is over, it should remain seized.

If you say that you were in the military did you go through a psychological evaluation before you were released OR before you purchased your gun?
Just because someone experiences a traumatizing event doesn't mean that they contract a mental issue.

6th - I can't find anything indicating any wrong doing here.

You Can't? Well, If the prosecutor hadn't falsified the arrest warrant he would have never gone to court. That the judge allowed it interfered with his rights to a fair trial. How don't you see that?

14th - I'm not even sure what you're saying applies from there toward anything.

Zimmerman was a properly accredited Neighborhood Watch Patrolman, patrolling his neighborhood, and the guy sees him and starts beating up on him 'cause he thinks he's gay, or a rapist, which you have indicated a few times. That is a civil rights violation. How do you Not see that?

Zimmerman most likely provoked the attack

By doing his job and asking him what he was up to? Now you are trying to justify what Trayvon attacked Zimmerman. AND while you are admitting now that Trayvon attacked him, why don't just come the rest of the way and agree that this was clearly Justifiable Homicide?

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by SilentKillah

 

As far as I was aware Zimmerman never said anything about. It is obvious. Someone in the heat of battle does not have time to aim. Especially if they have to struggle to reach for their gun.

The only think obvious is a teenager is dead. An innocent one.

Yes because you have never one time acknowledged that Trayvon was NOT Innocent. Though you keep asserting that he was an innocent child. Besides, why are you throwing rape in there? You are just making a cheap shot because your argument has failed.

Definitely not a cheap shot. It's an attempt to show you that your good ole' boy Zimmerman could have been a rapist. Kids that are followed by adults automatically think "rapist".

Where did that information come from. That is a complete Lie. His weapon was in a holster. Post a link to that as I would be interested in seeing it as I am certain others would too. The weapon never came out until he was being beaten on. Even the witness says so. Why don't you believe the witness?

Again... a hypothetical situation that could have happened. We don't know if it did or not because the only other person that knows is an innocent teenager who's is dead. The dead can't tell their side of the story. You sound like the parent that believes their child can never do any wrong. The same kid is the bully around the schoold, but you believe every word the child says. ATS slogan... Deny Ignorance. You Zimmerman story believers forget that his story may be a lie.

Facts say that the only other party that can tell the other side of the story is dead. Facts state that the phrase "you got me" is something that a kids says before they are shot, not afterwards. I've heard it plenty of times... none of those people are dead now.

The witnesses only saw AFTER the fight had begun. Nobody saw Martin behind any bushes. Nobody saw Martin chargin toward Zimmerman. They only saw the fight in action. They saw Zimmerman on the ground. 2 minutes of talking beforehand could have occured. Zimmerman could have slapped the kid. Nobody knows but Zimmerman and the dead boy. Is that hard to understand?

When there are facts to back it up I do. On the internet anyone can say anything or be anything they want. That is why I asked for pictures and credentials. Even after stating that you Might have a degree in Psychology you then retracted it when I called you on it. That could still be easily construed as a lie. Once you lie it is hard to believe anything you say after that. Unfortunately.

You don't know who I am. I could have a degree in Psychology and you wouldn't know it. I never said I did have this degree so there was nothing to retract. I simply stated that you are right... I was not a Psychology student. You seem to enjoy twisting what I say to fit your agenda.

I never said any such thing. I said "KILL by whatever means necessary." That doesn't mean kill everything in your path. I also thought you said you were in the Air Force Flying aircraft. Then what are you doing ground pounding raiding houses? Someone with that aptitude would Not be used to clear buildings. The military spends way to much on training to waste it like that.
Zimmerman was a properly accredited Neighborhood Watch Patrolman, patrolling his neighborhood, and the guy sees him and starts beating up on him 'cause he thinks he's gay, or a rapist, which you have indicated a few times. That is a civil rights violation. How do you Not see that?

OMG... do you really not understand a hypothetical situation????? I made that story up HYPOTHETICALLY for goodness sake. I've never secured an apartment building... that wasn't my job. IT WAS A HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION!

HYPOTHETICALLY SPEAKING HERE... You wouldn't be worried if your daughter said some creepy old man was following her home one night? You'd be just fine that this creepy guy could be trying to rape her? Better yet... KILL her?

By doing his job and asking him what he was up to? Now you are trying to justify what Trayvon attacked Zimmerman. AND while you are admitting now that Trayvon attacked him, why don't just come the rest of the way and agree that this was clearly Justifiable Homicide?

edit on 22-7-2013 by ShadellacZumbrum because: (no reason given)

I've been trying to justify why Martin attacked him! That's been my ENTIRE POINT. That you guys refuse to Deny Ignorance (the ignorance of not knowing Martin's side of the story) and believe a child killer! Zimmerman's story makes very little since to those that can open their minds and think a bit.

To say that Zimmerman couldn't have been a rapist without knowing him is complete BS. His niece claims he molested her!

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by SilentKillah

 

2nd - He should not be able to have a gun. He has killed someone and although there's not enough evidence to say he did it on purpose, there's not evidence indicating that it was an accident. Shot was point blank right through the heart.

So here again the guy slides on the ice and kills someone so they should have their right to bare arms taken away.

Your logic makes no sense.

Sliding on ice and a gun going off is not even close to pulling your gun out and squeezing the trigger. He purposely shot the boy. Someone sliding on ice isn't purposely shooting anyone...

4th - Keep Zimmerman's gun and get him over to a psychologist. Until he is cleared medically, his gun should remain seized. Until this new trial is over, it should remain seized.

If you say that you were in the military did you go through a psychological evaluation before you were released OR before you purchased your gun?
Just because someone experiences a traumatizing event doesn't mean that they contract a mental issue.

Yes... I had a psych eval before I was medically discharged. They found one of my statements to a questionaire to be of worry and extended my commission 1 month while I was evaluated.

I sold my guns before I was discharged.

6th - I can't find anything indicating any wrong doing here.

You Can't? Well, If the prosecutor hadn't falsified the arrest warrant he would have never gone to court. That the judge allowed it interfered with his rights to a fair trial. How don't you see that?

What? I've never heard such...

14th - I'm not even sure what you're saying applies from there toward anything.

Zimmerman was a properly accredited Neighborhood Watch Patrolman, patrolling his neighborhood, and the guy sees him and starts beating up on him 'cause he thinks he's gay, or a rapist, which you have indicated a few times. That is a civil rights violation. How do you Not see that?

No... they guy beat him up HYPOTHETICALLY SPEAKING FROM THE DEAD BOY because he yanked at his shirt, threatened the boy, and wouldn't let him leave like a rapist would do. You don't know what Zimmerman did to Martin first.

Zimmerman most likely provoked the attack

By doing his job and asking him what he was up to? Now you are trying to justify what Trayvon attacked Zimmerman. AND while you are admitting now that Trayvon attacked him, why don't just come the rest of the way and agree that this was clearly Justifiable Homicide?

edit on 22-7-2013 by ShadellacZumbrum because: (no reason given)

His job ended when he called the cops. Anything else, he was provoking the boy to be scared and defend his life. Unfortunately that didn't turn out so well. What a shame...