Zimmerman’s chief defender: a racist and criminal!

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


I'm sure you are, but the fact of the matter is, Zimmerman has only spoken to the media once since he killed a teenager and that was before his trial, when he was hardly likely to bring undue attention to the unfriendly neighbourhood racist, Frank Taafe.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


That's nice.

But, it wasn't done. I mean, the old man got the crap kicked out of him.

In the same scenario here, more than likely the criminals would have been shot and the victim would have little to no injuries.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


41, 31, 21 or 11. If they are a threat, I shoot. Plain and simple.

But again, I don't ever expect you to get it. You would rather bring your fists to a gun fight.
Your just mad because in the scenarios here in America, you would loose every time.

Your pride is your downfall.

reply to post by macman

But, it wasn't done. I mean, the old man got the crap kicked out of him.

So, you accept that a 92 yr old man can survive getting the crap kicked out of him by a 19 yr old, and manage to leave his mark, but you want to believe that 27yr old Zimmerman was on the verge of death at the hands of a 17 yr old and could only make a mark on his attacker by using a gun? How can you even continue to support a guy who is put to shame by a man nearly 70 yrs older than him?

reply to post by IvanAstikov


Look, if you enjoy getting stomped on, go right ahead.
I won't let that happen.

Again, you enjoy your pride and fist fighting.

I have no problem with defending myself how I see fit.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


Its absolutelt absurs and I dare s o trolling (If not just ignorant) to make arguments like this. In either scenario anything could happen. The old man could survive or he could die, same as a younger man. The simple concept you have proven incapable of understanding is that they aren't psychics and likely fear for their lives. If they fear for their lives they woould both be justified in using deadly force. That doesn't apply to Martin because he escaped the alleged danger but then returned. I guess you are such a tough brave guy that you would just cross your fingers and hope your attacker doesn't have murder in mind if they got the best od you. Maybe one day that attitude of yours will earn you a darwin award.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Can't you discuss a topic without having to refer to the T word every time you disagree with someone? All I'm pointing out with my example is that it ain't the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog, and that old dog had a lot more fight in him than Zimmerman. Or are you going to disagree with that, too?

As to this

That doesn't apply to Martin because he escaped the alleged danger but then returned.

it is just your assertion, with nothing but a girl who was listening in on a phone - who you believe when it suits you - to back it up.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


Its funny I only use that word with you. The reason is because whether intentional or not you are trolling. You make annoying and absurd comparisons that are pointless but invoke a response.. that is the definition of trolling. You can't compare the two fights because the old man didn't have the option to shoot or ge likely would have and maybe it wasn't more fight in an old man but rather less fight in thw criminal attacker *the old man's attacker not attacking with the same ferocity as Zimmermans attacker. It's just an ignorant, unneccesary, and agitating argument on your part.

It usnt just the girl its her story, zimmermans story, evidence and timeline that suppirts what I say. Also that girl is the key prosecution witness.. she was the only person on earth that went against Zimmmermans story and tgen she backed it up and supported his story. There is zero reason for you not to believe it happened and you disagreeing with her further cements you are trolling as it cements that you just want to argue with no basis in the reality of this case. Do you really think she lied and Martin didn't go to his house after losing Z and wait as she claimed? The only witness other than Z with a stake in hurting his case? Yeah that's what I thought, troll on

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

He did do time you know. It makes me wonder if he doesnt have a character similar to Martin that makes him sympathize.

Thats the sole point. From his perspective, it is perfectly fine to beat the heck out of someone for perceived disrespect. That, in his warped and immature brain, is being "manly." real men, OTOH, seek no I insult and go about peaceably but will defend themselves and their from thugs NBC any means available.

reply to post by NavyDoc

From his perspective, it is perfectly fine to beat the heck out of someone for perceived disrespect.

Why would you believe that? I've been attacked by people with weapons and have not wanted to "beat the heck" out of them, but merely to prevent any further attack and to deter them from trying their luck again. Thus far, my tactics have worked perfectly, in that nobody who has ever attacked me has come looking for me for more, and all without ever needing to carry a firearm. I guess our tea and crumpet eating thugs mustn't be as tough as your pillow-fisted, "takes over 40 seconds to beat someone's ass and then gets shot" ghetto thugs?

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Give me one good reason why I should continue discussing this topic with someone who equates "right by" with "directly outside" and believes that someone on a phone 100 miles away would know exactly where Trayvon was at a given time, without clear definition from the person she is talking to?

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
My crime at 17 was after I'd been stabbed weeks before at the same club. I decided I wasn't going to take my fists to a knife fight again, and ended up using it, inevitably. The person I kicked in the face had his hand on an empty beer bottle. Should I have waited until he stood up and tried to disarm him fairly?

That's what you are implying...that a citizen should be forced to "fight fair" with a criminal. Criminal assault is criminal assault and a citizen should be able to use any and all tools to defend themselves from thugs and criminals.

reply to post by NavyDoc


Not "fight fair." Respond proportionately. Which means not resorting to lethal means when less than lethal action is sufficient.

If you're a storeowner who has grabbed hold of a teenage shoplifter, and he's swinging at you furiously but ineffectively while you are holding him at arms length, you shouldn't be allowed to take out your gun and shoot him because you think one of those punches might strike you and kill you. That would be the belief of an unreasonable person, hence, killing the shoplifter in self-defence should not fly before any competent jury.

If, however, during the struggle you both fell to the floor and the teenage shoplifter began slamming your head against the floor, and it was captured on cctv, THEN you'd have a great defence if you shot him dead.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


AH, the lack of knowledge of US laws is truly the biggest issue here.

The scenario you offered does not apply to lethal force used by the store owner.
Nice try though.

Care to offer any further "what ifs" in some uneducated attempt to go against US law?

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Not "fight fair." Respond proportionately. Which means not resorting to lethal means when less than lethal action is sufficient.

If you're a storeowner who has grabbed hold of a teenage shoplifter, and he's swinging at you furiously but ineffectively while you are holding him at arms length, you shouldn't be allowed to take out your gun and shoot him because you think one of those punches might strike you and kill you. That would be the belief of an unreasonable person, hence, killing the shoplifter in self-defence should not fly before any competent jury.

If, however, during the struggle you both fell to the floor and the teenage shoplifter began slamming your head against the floor, and it was captured on cctv, THEN you'd have a great defence if you shot him dead.

edit on 12-8-2013 by IvanAstikov because: (no reason given)

The latter portion of your post is exactly what GZ claimed and the jury found credible based on the available evidence--that he was attacked and was having his head based into the concrete. The available evidence was consistent with that scenario and the jury had no choice but to acquit.

reply to post by NavyDoc


The first police were on scene within 2-3 minutes of the gunshot being fired and simple professionalism would have led to the area of the alleged fight being protected from the elements and scene contamination. Instead, we had a scenario where the first cop on scene is familiar with Zimmerman and instantly treats him as a victim, rather than suspecting he may have been a murderer. Follow that by less than 20 minutes speaking with the 4 witnesses that claimed to have actually seen or heard parts of what happened, and a 5 minute chat with the killer by a homicide detective, and you have a recipe for a miscarriage of justice.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


Geez, and to think that it took that amount of time to determine he wasn't guilty, as opposed to a length trial that gave us....drum roll please....THE EXACT SAME OUTCOME.

reply to post by Willtell


The jury knew that kid wasn't nothing but a thug toting a pistol. He was most likely going to try and jump Zimmerman in which Zimmerman was prepared to protect himself. It was not an innocent child killed with murderous intent.

It was self defense from a criminal. If this is not true then why would a jury of women had found him innocent. Some people just can't see past the b/s. This all got blown out of proportion because Jesse Jackson and his NAACP needed a good catalyst so to speak.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


Play ignorant all you want (you've already been type cast) , but she said Trayvon was right by his house after running. Considering he was never further than half a mile from his house and that he died a few yards from his house after approaching Zimmerman. That proves he was close enough, if not in hs front yard, to go in rather than deciding to attack.

Use your brain.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


This is a nonsense version by you. If you watched the trial you saw the crime scene was done proper.

If you want to talk miscarriage of justice, blame the police and school in Miami, or Trayvons mom. If they had put him in jail or a reform school his crime spree would have ended and he'd be alive. Instead his mom threw him away for a secobd time to live with his sleazy dad. Of course yhe uncaring mom came together to make a phoney family photo to cash in.