George Zimmerman visits Kel-Tec gun factory

[

Being surly does not equal pounding someone's head into the pavement while on top of them. You keep leaving that part out.

NO, I just don't consider it relevent, since all he got were two little owies...

Getting your ass kicked in a fight you provoked is not "self-defense", it's murder.

He did not provoke it, or they would have convicted him.

I guess you would have taken the beating "like a man." More than likely it would have caused brain damage if it continued, which in your case, could only improve your intellect.

Ever been in a fistfight? I have, a great many of them. Very seldom does anything other than a bloody nose result from them.

It was Zimmermann stalking Martin, not the other way around. And had I been stalked by a 30 year old at night when I was 17, I would have kicked his ass, figuring that he was some sort of deviant.

This was a clear case of manslaughter, maybe even 2nd degree murder. And Zimmermann got off. And is now acting the hero.
 
OK. So a person stalks someone, without reason, and then shoots him dead after being told to stand down. And then you brand the person that was stalked as the 'attempted murderer'.

Zimmermann is a murderer. And that you wingnuts are making a hero of him just shows how far over the line your mentality has gone.

But Zimmerman was living their dream.

They live in absolute fear of scary minorities and crime... and they cling to their guns and their bibles thinking they are protecting themselves from reality.

And along come Zimmerman, living the dream by plugging a minority.

And little facts like "He was just out buying candy" and "he was unarmed" don't matter to them. They'll just find him being a scary negro on Facebook...

It must be terrible to live in that kind of fear, to the point where you actually endanger yourself and your loved ones...

because a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill someone in the home.
 
[

Considering you have to dig decades in the past, your point is as invalid as any of your others.

And again just because you can win a fight against an attacker I guess means that a 110 lb woman would just have to take it against a 230 lb rapist.

Your support for 230 lb rapists to rape without the fear of being shot is noted.

80% of women are raped by men they know, so a gun doesn't really do that much good.

It does wonders for the women who ARE able to defend themselves with a gun.

JoeB131: Rape supporter.
 
I keep hearing about "child" being ascribed to a 17 year old.:2up: This is simply more PC progressive gayness of hijacking the reality.:gay::gay:

Go on DRUDGE this am......black teens are on a rampage across the country killing white people indiscriminately. Four more cases this am.


People need to wake up and jettison this PC mindset, be hyper-alert and hyper-armed.

Oh yes. Hyper alert and hyper armed. And we have a bunch of fruitloops blowing away family members in the dark because they are so afraid and fucking stupid.

And so goddamned dumb that they leave the loaded weapons, safety off, where small children can find them. We see that on an almost weekly basis.
 
OK. So a person stalks someone, without reason, and then shoots him dead after being told to stand down. And then you brand the person that was stalked as the 'attempted murderer'.

Zimmermann is a murderer. And that you wingnuts are making a hero of him just shows how far over the line your mentality has gone.



That's right......he should have just let the kid bash his head apart on the concrete!!!:2up::eusa_dance::2up:


Political correctness has so fucked the mindset of people in the country, it defies logic. To the hyper-progressives, PCness is far more important than the law. To them, the black guy is always, always innocent and the white guy is the racist. The facts are irrelevant.


What I still find fascinating that nobody talks about is that ZMAN fired only one shot!!! Holy fuck.......I still cant believe it. It is clearly a measure of his mindset that day. But not to the k00ks.......he should have just laid on his back there and have his brains turned to sawdust.


Of course, that kind of thinking is fucked beyond words:laugh2:
 
[

Considering you have to dig decades in the past, your point is as invalid as any of your others.

And again just because you can win a fight against an attacker I guess means that a 110 lb woman would just have to take it against a 230 lb rapist.

Your support for 230 lb rapists to rape without the fear of being shot is noted.

80% of women are raped by men they know, so a gun doesn't really do that much good.

It does wonders for the women who ARE able to defend themselves with a gun.

JoeB131: Rape supporter.

Except it never happens that often...

that's the point, guy.

Only 200 cases of self-defense homicide vs. 19,000 suicides, 11,000 murders and 1000 accidents.

I mean, I know you are kind of dense, but a product that is 160 times more likely to kill you or a famly member than have the desired result of killing the bad guy.

Of course, there are a lot better ways to prevent rape than letting women have guns and firing off at anything they think is remotely threatening...
 
80% of women are raped by men they know, so a gun doesn't really do that much good.

It does wonders for the women who ARE able to defend themselves with a gun.

JoeB131: Rape supporter.

Except it never happens that often...

that's the point, guy.

Only 200 cases of self-defense homicide vs. 19,000 suicides, 11,000 murders and 1000 accidents.

I mean, I know you are kind of dense, but a product that is 160 times more likely to kill you or a famly member than have the desired result of killing the bad guy.

Of course, there are a lot better ways to prevent rape than letting women have guns and firing off at anything they think is remotely threatening...

Keep dodging the fact that you support rapists, and thier ability to rape unmolested by the fear of being shot.

JoeB likes teh rapey rape.

And keep counting only the cases that resulted in self defense homicde, not the countless cases where it prevented a crime, or the overall deterrent the fact that someone might be armed has on overall crime.

Joe B likes teh rapey rape.
 
I keep hearing about "child" being ascribed to a 17 year old.:2up: This is simply more PC progressive gayness of hijacking the reality.:gay::gay:

Go on DRUDGE this am......black teens are on a rampage across the country killing white people indiscriminately. Four more cases this am.


People need to wake up and jettison this PC mindset, be hyper-alert and hyper-armed.

Oh yes. Hyper alert and hyper armed. And we have a bunch of fruitloops blowing away family members in the dark because they are so afraid and fucking stupid.

And so goddamned dumb that they leave the loaded weapons, safety off, where small children can find them. We see that on an almost weekly basis.



Ray......I give you credit for still having this kind of level of idealism. Like most progressives, you seek a solution to ALL problems. The problem is......that world doesn't exist. Never will. You have to live with necessary tradeoffs no matter which direction you take on public policy. Its just the way it is.


The facts are......and are not even debatable........more guns = less crimes.. People with the ability to think on the margin ( non-progressives) understand that there are not perfect solutions to every problem.

Look at the recent data from Harvard University on gun ownership in Europe. If you live in a country with low gun ownership, you are far more likely to get your ass murdered.

Does Owning Guns Reduce Crime?

Yes it sucks, but its just the way it is in a civilized society. Buckle up your chinstrap and accept it.:2up:
 
I keep hearing about "child" being ascribed to a 17 year old.:2up: This is simply more PC progressive gayness of hijacking the reality.:gay::gay:

Go on DRUDGE this am......black teens are on a rampage across the country killing white people indiscriminately. Four more cases this am.


People need to wake up and jettison this PC mindset, be hyper-alert and hyper-armed.

Oh yes. Hyper alert and hyper armed. And we have a bunch of fruitloops blowing away family members in the dark because they are so afraid and fucking stupid.

And so goddamned dumb that they leave the loaded weapons, safety off, where small children can find them. We see that on an almost weekly basis.



Ray......I give you credit for still having this kind of level of idealism. Like most progressives, you seek a solution to ALL problems. The problem is......that world doesn't exist. Never will. You have to live with necessary tradeoffs no matter which direction you take on public policy. Its just the way it is.


The facts are......and are not even debatable........more guns = less crimes.. People with the ability to think on the margin ( non-progressives) understand that there are not perfect solutions to every problem.

Look at the recent data from Harvard University on gun ownership in Europe. If you live in a country with low gun ownership, you are far more likely to get your ass murdered.

Does Owning Guns Reduce Crime?

Yes it sucks, but its just the way it is in a civilized society. Buckle up your chinstrap and accept it.:2up:

Steve, you need to do some research before making such a statement.

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

US 4.8
UK 1.2
Sweden 1.0
Norway 0.6
France 1.1
Germany 0.8
 
I have been a gun owner since I was 12. And have both rifles and handguns. Safely put away, with the ammo in a seperate location. I have had to point a gun at a person, and make it clear if they did not cease and desist, they were going to die. But I knew ahead of time that I was in a vulneble position. The majority of the time, you will not have time to get at a gun in a bad situation. And having a gun at ready, easily accessable, is why they are 43 times more dangerous to the home owner and family than to a miscreant. That is simply a fact.
 
OK. So a person stalks someone, without reason, and then shoots him dead after being told to stand down. And then you brand the person that was stalked as the 'attempted murderer'.

Zimmermann is a murderer. And that you wingnuts are making a hero of him just shows how far over the line your mentality has gone.

Once again, a liberal twisting the facts to suit the liberal narrative. Let me take this apart, one lie at a time.

Lie #1 : "Stalked someone..." Factually incorrect, and use of a loaded word to imply malicious /criminal intent where there was none. Zimmerman did NOT "stalk" Martin, he simply followed him without any intent to apprehend or make contact, but merely to report his location to law enforcement. Proof-Zimmerman's conversation (recorded) with the police dispatcher with whom he was in contact.

Lie # 2 "Without reason..." Factually incorrect. Darkness had fallen, and Martin's attempts to get his bearings in a somewhat unfamiliar location would have looked to a casual observer like possibly "casing" the area for a possible break-in. Police stop and question subjects for similar activity every day. Most often, there is an innocent explanation, sometimes, there is not. The operative word is "reasonable suspicion"; it was there, and enough grounds for a citizen observer to "report and observe", which Zimmerman did.

Lie # 3 "Told to stand down" Factually incorrect, and another loaded use of words to imply defiance of lawful authority. Actual words, Dispatcher to Zimmerman, "We don't need you to do that..." Dispatcher was NOT, by his own testimony, giving an order, directive, or advice, but merely making a comment. The fact that this comment had NO legal force has been repeatedly explicated, here and elsewhere, including at trial. In any case, well before the fight occurred, Zimmerman told the dispatcher that Martin was no longer in sight and he was retuning to his vehicle; At no time did Zimmerman indicate any intent or attempt to apprehend or confront Martin; instead, he attempted merely to ascertain and report his location.

Lie # 3 The BIG LIE Martin's deliberate attack on Zimmerman conveniently overlooked. Lie by omission, factually incorrect. Proof: timeline, according to the 911 dispatch tapes, eyewitness testimony, and forensic evidence. The dispatch record provides a timeline with one inescapable fact: the time between Zimmerman telling the dispatcher he could not regain visual contact with Martin, and the time the fight occurred. We don't know where Martin went, but we do know that had he continued from where he was last seen to Brandy Green's apartment, he would have arrived well before the time of the altercation. The timeline, and location of the altercation ARE NOT consistent with any theory that Zimmerman somehow caught up to Martin and "cornered him"; but are TOTALLY consistent with the theory that Martin either waited in ambush, or doubled back to confront Zimmerman. The forensic evidence, including presence/absence of marks on hands or elsewhere, on both parties, along with eyewitness testimony, clearly indicate that it was Martin, not Zimmerman, who threw one or more punches. This is lent additional credence by the racial slur Martin used in talking with his girlfriend, (recalled by her at trial) moments before the fight started-indicates his state of mind. IT WAS MARTIN, NOT ZIMMERMAN, WHO WAS FIRST TO COMMIT A CRIMINAL ACT HERE, and that's what the evidence says, not mere supposition.

Lie # 4 "you brand the person who was stalked as an attempted murderer..." Factually incorrect, and irrelevant, in any case. We do not know with certainty, what Martin's intent was; we DO know what he did. He assaulted Zimmerman, and continued to assault him, after Zimmerman was down and not effectively fighting back. We know that much, from the testimony of available witnesses, and from the forensic evidence, and that fact,combined with Martin initiating use of physical force, meets the requirements for using lethal force in self defense. It does not matter if Martin intended to merely injure Zimmerman, or actually kill him.

Lie # 5 "Zimmerman is a murderer, and a child killer" Factually and legally incorrect, on two counts. First, Martin was NOT a child; he was 17, and by law, if he had killed or seriously injured Zimmerman, would have been tried, and if convicted, sentenced, as an adult. NOT a juvenile. He committed an adult crime (felonious assault or equivalent), and was shot in self-defense by his victim. Second, a jury in a duly constituted court of law, NOT a lynch mob in the streets or in the press, tried the case, and found Zimmerman "NOT GUILTY" of murder, or anything else. It is therefore a lie to call him a "murderer" when the law says otherwise. Then again your side is inordinately fond of that canard, and has been for over forty years; it's getting worn out from overuse, and you need to find a new schtick.

That makes FIVE lies, and one true statement: Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin. Your emotional reaction to that cannot overcome the obvious-neither the facts nor the law fit what you so desperately want to believe happened, or produce the outcome you desire, and all the lying, demagoguery, and hand-wrining in the world in the world won't change that.

You know, if I were as politically self-interested as you, I would have actually hoped that the mobs the media whipped up in the streets, and you liberals gleefully cheered on from the sidelines, succeeded in lynching Zimmerman; that would have done more damage to your cause in the long run than we ever could. I guess I'm a little too interested in justice and the rule of law to wish for that. However, while Zimmerman isn't a hero, you people have managed to make him a martyr of sorts and a symbol of your worst excesses and worst instincts, one more reason to despise a sensationalist media we distrust, a symbol of racist race pimps and PC run amok, and one more reason to distrust an increasingly racist administration. You've also set race relations in this country back about 40 years. I suppose congratulations are in order.
 
[
You're writing too much into this, Joe. If a 13-year old who weighed 300 pounds and was high on crack coming after someone after saying he was going to kill them, shooting him would likely be considered self defense if his object of punishment thought he might carry his threat out, not realizing the big tub was a kid. :dunno:

If you think someone who said they were going to kill you who was relentlessly beating your head into concrete, killing the aggressor is considered self defense. Self defense and shooting game are both acceptable forms of killing legally speaking.

You should not say you're going to kill somebody and then proceed to beat them up. They, a friend or spouse might think you meant it and stop you by shooting to kill.

Trayvon did not weigh 300 lbs. He was not on crack. No one but Zimmerman said he said he was going to kill anyone.

And Zimmerman would have never been in a confrontation if he hadn't profiled, followed, chased and cornered this kid at night without identifying himself.

In short, "I'm losing a fight I provoked" is not an out for murder.

Unless your victim happens to be a poor black kid. And you kill him in Racist Ass Florida.
I'm sorry Trayvon threatened the life of and attacked Zimmerman. The police initial report forensically supported Zimmerman's detailed questioning the night of the murder. The evidence said that he was telling the truth.

He provoked nothing. It was his turn to do neighborhood watch, and he encountered an out-of-the-ordinary and suspicious situation in which an unknown person was casing the area like a criminal does when he's looking for a house to bust into and take cash and valuables.

In fact, his cell phone had a picture of his second jewelry haul, and that was after he was kicked out of school for harboring a stash of jewelry and some drugs in his school locker.

Kicked out of school, kicked out of his house, he was forced to go stay with his natural father because his mother could not control his surly, sour attitude and propensity to get into major trouble at home and at school.

Gee Joe, are you always this dense? ;)

there is a reason we have neighborhood watches. people like trayvon are a large part of that reason. we can not roll over and allow people like trayvon to think they can hide behind some form of political correctness to put them above suspision. it is not a matter of race but more a question of who looks unfamiliar in a neighborhood.
 
I have been a gun owner since I was 12. And have both rifles and handguns. Safely put away, with the ammo in a seperate location. I have had to point a gun at a person, and make it clear if they did not cease and desist, they were going to die. But I knew ahead of time that I was in a vulneble position. The majority of the time, you will not have time to get at a gun in a bad situation. And having a gun at ready, easily accessable, is why they are 43 times more dangerous to the home owner and family than to a miscreant. That is simply a fact.

Stop quoting kellerman for the "43" number, that number is bullshit.

And if you want to make your gun into a paperweight by storing it unloaded, fine do it, but dont force me to do it as well.
 
Let us look at the defense the looney tunes here would have NBC put up:
Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to testify that Zimmerman was a racist.
One of the Jackson 5 to testify that Trayvon Martin really was in the 6th grade and looked like that photo that the media spread.
The girl friend to testify that crackers do not need butter.
Obama as a character witness for NBC.
Done deal, defense verdict.

Or more like.

You put Zimmerman on the stand.

Then you put on the nice lady whose leg he broke at a party.

you put on the cousin who says George molested her.

You put on the ex-girlfriend who got a restraining order because your boy George used to slap her around. (Because a real man slaps around his woman, right?)

All the stuff about what a scumwad Zimmerman is... getting a day in court.

Joe, are you really this dense?
The woman that allegedly had her leg broke will not be allowed to testify.
Guess why.
The cousin that allegedly he molested will never take the stand. She never pressed charges so there is nothing there.
Restraining orders are not evidence of anything and that will never make it into evidence. They are standard orders in all domestic relations cases in Florida FVA or not.
Nothing about my boy.
Sorry Joe, you know about as much civil law as you do criminal law.
NOTHING.
 
OK. So a person stalks someone, without reason, and then shoots him dead after being told to stand down. And then you brand the person that was stalked as the 'attempted murderer'.

Zimmermann is a murderer. And that you wingnuts are making a hero of him just shows how far over the line your mentality has gone.

Proven at trial Zimmerman never stalked Martin.
Never was told to "stand down". That is pure fiction and you know it because the 911 dispatcher testified he NEVER told him to stand down because they never do that as they are NOT authorized to do that. That is in evidence.
Tragedy but the facts are that Martin was attacking Zimmerman on top of him hitting him hard before he was killed.
The defendant has to prove nothing, that is the law.
Still a tragedy but the media sold the public a string of lies.
 
If anyone has any doubt about the lack of humanity manifest in callous conservatives the post above will remove it. I don't know many people as fucked up as some of those above, and I spent a career in LE and interviewed hundreds of other dirt bags.

The Regime DID confiscate the gun belonging to the ACQUITTED George Zimmerman. That should be a tip-off that the fucking Regime is engaged in some tawdry behavior.

It is not a "lack of humanity" to accurately note such a fact.

You sound like the dirt bag, here, frankly.

The Federal government has NO genuine legitimate business even "looking into" the Zimmerman case. The scumbag AG is a hack, as is the President. They are busy sucking Al not too Sharpton's ass. They are disgraceful.

But they don't welch on bets. That aside, there is a history of crimes of violence in our country, crimes committed because their victim was of a different color or creed or smiled at a women of a different race. The States cannot be trusted to enforce the laws of our nation, as history shows.

Did IKE have no business sending troops to Little Rock, Arkansas in Sept 1957?
See:
President Sends Troops to Little Rock, Federalizes Arkansas National Guard; Tells Nation He Acted to Avoid An Anarchy

I never welshed on a bet either, as you know. So, try to stick to a point when you're losing. You might come across as at least potentially a man that way.

And history does not show that the States cannot be trusted. Ancient history, perhaps. But nothing in modern times supports your churlish propaganda effort, Pinocchio. If anything, recent history tells us that it is the Federal Government which cannot be trusted these days.

No wonder you endorse this shit.
 

Forum List

Back
Top