George Zimmerman's Twitter Account Was Suspended

[HereWeGoAgain]

George Zimmerman was acquitted by a jury of his peers. And yet, you and your liberal friends hold to their hatred of the man.

And Hillary was cleared of any wrong doing in the Benghazi tragedy by several investigations, including several right wing controlled investigations. And yet, you and your right wing friends hold to their hatred of the woman.

Pure Bullshit BULLDOG, Hillary Clinton wasn't "cleared" of any of her dozens of crimes. People kept conveniently dying to make sure of that.

Yes, all those other investigations found no wrong doing in the Benghazi tragedy. Of course there were things found that could possibly help prevent a repeat incident, and they were implemented
.
Really? Are you claiming she killed or had someone kill anybody?

So what about those guns poodle?
Your continued bullshit doesnt help you...and i'll never let it rest.

Oh, You're still whining about the guns used in San Bernardo. When the people investigating say they were illegal, I will believe it. I personally believe credible sources over crazy right wingers with a history of spouting shit.

Thanks poodle...you're playing right into my hands.

Tell us more about how those guns are legal....

 

[BULLDOG]

And Hillary was cleared of any wrong doing in the Benghazi tragedy by several investigations, including several right wing controlled investigations. And yet, you and your right wing friends hold to their hatred of the woman.

Pure Bullshit BULLDOG, Hillary Clinton wasn't "cleared" of any of her dozens of crimes. People kept conveniently dying to make sure of that.

Yes, all those other investigations found no wrong doing in the Benghazi tragedy. Of course there were things found that could possibly help prevent a repeat incident, and they were implemented
.
Really? Are you claiming she killed or had someone kill anybody?

So what about those guns poodle?
Your continued bullshit doesnt help you...and i'll never let it rest.

Oh, You're still whining about the guns used in San Bernardo. When the people investigating say they were illegal, I will believe it. I personally believe credible sources over crazy right wingers with a history of spouting shit.

Thanks poodle...you're playing right into my hands.

Tell us more about how those guns are legal....

You're an idiot. If they were illegal, it will be reported. So far I have only seen the opposite. I have no desire to argue the point with a RWNJ

 

[tigerred59]

The gun nutz hero is at it again


George Zimmerman Says He's Homeless And Suffers From PTSD The Tweets, which along with Zimmerman's entire account, have since been removed from the social media site, accused the ex of "sleeping with a dirty Muslim" and stealing from him.

George Zimmerman's Twitter Account Was Suspended After Allegedly Exploiting His Ex-Girlfriend

Zimmy has what I call the OJ effect....murderers who get off scot free, thank God never seem to be able to move forward in life....Zimmy if I were you...I'd arrest my self and spend a few decades behind bars for murdering a kid....trust me you'll feel better, just ask OJ

 

[The Professor]

Let's give this a little more thought.
We can all stipulate Zimmerman is/was some sort of whack-job. He certainly fancied himself to be some sort of fucking Lone Ranger. Fine.
This is an honest appraisal of the man right?
Now can we be just as honest about Martin? Whatever he was or wasn't up to that night the fact is he had eluded/run away from/was hiding from Zimmerman. Martin was home and safe. His friend testified to this. He could have simply opened the fucking door and walked inside to safety. But Martin chose to seek out Zimmerman and then sucker punch him then climb on top of Zimmerman attempting to do whatever one is attempting to do when you on top of someone and banging their head onto the concrete.
Remember an eyewitness saw this happening.
Zimmerman had a gun and he defended himself by shooting Martin.
Martin made a number of bad decisions that night. One was assuming the person he attacked was unarmed.

So you think it's OK to stalk and intimidate a person who was obviously aware of being stalked and when that person confronts you for that,you can claim you are fear of actions that you caused? Useless to try to re-litigate the case here, but the man obviously deserved to be confronted. His constant disgusting behavior since he was let off is proof that he is scum.

Zimmerman did not stalk Martin, he merely followed him for a brief time. Stalking is a crime, whereas following someone is not. Those who use the word “stalking” do not know the legal definition of the word. Here is the Florida Statute pertaining to stalking:

Florida Statute 784.084


(2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of the person, or the person’s child, sibling, spouse, parent, or dependent, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(NOTE: Emphasis my own.)

Chapter 784 Section 048 - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate

Stalking involves “repeatedly” following an individual and since Martin and Zimmerman had no interactions prior to that fatal night the anti-stalking statute is not applicable. Further, to be guilty of stalking one must not only follow another person repeatedly but must do so “maliciously.” The word “maliciously” means “having or showing a desire to cause harm to someone.” Therefore, in order for Zimmerman to be convicted of stalking, it must be shown that he repeatedly followed Martin with the intent to harm him and there is no evidence to support such a charge. Stalking someone is illegal but briefly following someone as Zimmerman did is legal. There is no evidence that Zimmerman followed Martin for any reason other than his concern for the safety of his neighborhood. If Zimmerman followed Martin with the intent to kill him - as some Zimmerman haters have suggested - I question why he didn't fire his weapon until after he had been knocked to the ground and pummeled. The allegation that Zimmerman followed Martin for the purpose of killing him is contrary to all the evidence of record and is totally inconsistent with Zimmerman's entire history which shows he went out of his way to help Black men, women and children.

Zimmerman did nothing which could possibly be construed as stalking as that term is defined by law. Following someone is not stalking him. In this country, if you deck someone just because he is following you (as Zimmerman was following Martin) you can expect to go to jail. You don't get to pummel someone just because you don't like what they're doing.

PS: For an analysis of “stalking” as it pertains to Zimmerman's conduct go to the following site and check out permalink #26.

No problem with Stalking | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Based on the law and the evidence the only crime committed that night was by Trayvon Martin and the crime was either attempted murder or aggravated battery. The evidence shows that Martin cold-cocked Zimmerman then straddled him while he pummeled his head against the concrete. Zimmerman was no physical match for the younger, stronger Martin and was apparently unable to defend himself. It was only after Zimmerman had already received injuries and had called for help that he used deadly force against Martin. A jury who admitted they tried to find something – anything – to convict Zimmerman could find no evidence of wrongdoing.

I want to remind you and others that in order to find George Zimmerman not guilty, the jury had to make two specific determinations: (1) That a reasonably prudent person in the same situation would have believed the use of deadly force was necessary to avoid death or serious bodily injury; and (2) Zimmerman did nothing which would have justified Martin's attack upon him. In other words, to find Zimmerman not guilty they had to conclude that Martin was guilty of a crime.

 

[BULLDOG]

Bullshit.He stalked the boy, and killed him, then he got off.

 

[tigerred59]

The gun nutz hero is at it again


George Zimmerman Says He's Homeless And Suffers From PTSD The Tweets, which along with Zimmerman's entire account, have since been removed from the social media site, accused the ex of "sleeping with a dirty Muslim" and stealing from him.

George Zimmerman's Twitter Account Was Suspended After Allegedly Exploiting His Ex-Girlfriend

Gun nutz hero???? and you're the one posting about it. Hilarious.

So the right doesn't embrace the zimmer any more? You might want to double check that.

So was The Zims gun legal poodle?

I hope he has a sore neck for the rest of his miserable life from constantly looking over his shoulder.

Sadly, that's the price one must pay for getting away with murder....however, my harshness lies with juries that allow the OJ's and the Zimmerman's and murderous cops their freedom. They're the ones who should have sleepless nights in my opinion

 

[tigerred59]

Let's give this a little more thought.
We can all stipulate Zimmerman is/was some sort of whack-job. He certainly fancied himself to be some sort of fucking Lone Ranger. Fine.
This is an honest appraisal of the man right?
Now can we be just as honest about Martin? Whatever he was or wasn't up to that night the fact is he had eluded/run away from/was hiding from Zimmerman. Martin was home and safe. His friend testified to this. He could have simply opened the fucking door and walked inside to safety. But Martin chose to seek out Zimmerman and then sucker punch him then climb on top of Zimmerman attempting to do whatever one is attempting to do when you on top of someone and banging their head onto the concrete.
Remember an eyewitness saw this happening.
Zimmerman had a gun and he defended himself by shooting Martin.
Martin made a number of bad decisions that night. One was assuming the person he attacked was unarmed.

So you think it's OK to stalk and intimidate a person who was obviously aware of being stalked and when that person confronts you for that,you can claim you are fear of actions that you caused? Useless to try to re-litigate the case here, but the man obviously deserved to be confronted. His constant disgusting behavior since he was let off is proof that he is scum.

Zimmerman did not stalk Martin, he merely followed him for a brief time. Stalking is a crime, whereas following someone is not. Those who use the word “stalking” do not know the legal definition of the word. Here is the Florida Statute pertaining to stalking:

Florida Statute 784.084


(2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of the person, or the person’s child, sibling, spouse, parent, or dependent, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(NOTE: Emphasis my own.)

Chapter 784 Section 048 - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate

Stalking involves “repeatedly” following an individual and since Martin and Zimmerman had no interactions prior to that fatal night the anti-stalking statute is not applicable. Further, to be guilty of stalking one must not only follow another person repeatedly but must do so “maliciously.” The word “maliciously” means “having or showing a desire to cause harm to someone.” Therefore, in order for Zimmerman to be convicted of stalking, it must be shown that he repeatedly followed Martin with the intent to harm him and there is no evidence to support such a charge. Stalking someone is illegal but briefly following someone as Zimmerman did is legal. There is no evidence that Zimmerman followed Martin for any reason other than his concern for the safety of his neighborhood. If Zimmerman followed Martin with the intent to kill him - as some Zimmerman haters have suggested - I question why he didn't fire his weapon until after he had been knocked to the ground and pummeled. The allegation that Zimmerman followed Martin for the purpose of killing him is contrary to all the evidence of record and is totally inconsistent with Zimmerman's entire history which shows he went out of his way to help Black men, women and children.

Zimmerman did nothing which could possibly be construed as stalking as that term is defined by law. Following someone is not stalking him. In this country, if you deck someone just because he is following you (as Zimmerman was following Martin) you can expect to go to jail. You don't get to pummel someone just because you don't like what they're doing.

PS: For an analysis of “stalking” as it pertains to Zimmerman's conduct go to the following site and check out permalink #26.

No problem with Stalking | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Based on the law and the evidence the only crime committed that night was by Trayvon Martin and the crime was either attempted murder or aggravated battery. The evidence shows that Martin cold-cocked Zimmerman then straddled him while he pummeled his head against the concrete. Zimmerman was no physical match for the younger, stronger Martin and was apparently unable to defend himself. It was only after Zimmerman had already received injuries and had called for help that he used deadly force against Martin. A jury who admitted they tried to find something – anything – to convict Zimmerman could find no evidence of wrongdoing.

I want to remind you and others that in order to find George Zimmerman not guilty, the jury had to make two specific determinations: (1) That a reasonably prudent person in the same situation would have believed the use of deadly force was necessary to avoid death or serious bodily injury; and (2) Zimmerman did nothing which would have justified Martin's attack upon him. In other words, to find Zimmerman not guilty they had to conclude that Martin was guilty of a crime.

We are not, I repeat are not going to revisit this case again..however, Zimmerman has shown time and time again, he's not this law abiding community corrected peace officer wanna be that just wanted to protect his community. He's turned out to be a coward that killed an innocent child because he lost a battle that he created and he just happen to have a gun handy....end of fuckin story.

 

[tigerred59]

Bullshit.He stalked the boy, and killed him, then he got off.

Trying to revisit the facts with these morons here is a complete waste of time. Clearly Zimmerman knows the truth as well, otherwise this fat nasty murderous coward would move on with his life...which apparently he can't. Ya see a conscious won't let you move on, when guilt keeps blocking your path.

 

[The Professor]

Let's give this a little more thought.
We can all stipulate Zimmerman is/was some sort of whack-job. He certainly fancied himself to be some sort of fucking Lone Ranger. Fine.
This is an honest appraisal of the man right?
Now can we be just as honest about Martin? Whatever he was or wasn't up to that night the fact is he had eluded/run away from/was hiding from Zimmerman. Martin was home and safe. His friend testified to this. He could have simply opened the fucking door and walked inside to safety. But Martin chose to seek out Zimmerman and then sucker punch him then climb on top of Zimmerman attempting to do whatever one is attempting to do when you on top of someone and banging their head onto the concrete.
Remember an eyewitness saw this happening.
Zimmerman had a gun and he defended himself by shooting Martin.
Martin made a number of bad decisions that night. One was assuming the person he attacked was unarmed.

So you think it's OK to stalk and intimidate a person who was obviously aware of being stalked and when that person confronts you for that,you can claim you are fear of actions that you caused? Useless to try to re-litigate the case here, but the man obviously deserved to be confronted. His constant disgusting behavior since he was let off is proof that he is scum.

Zimmerman did not stalk Martin, he merely followed him for a brief time. Stalking is a crime, whereas following someone is not. Those who use the word “stalking” do not know the legal definition of the word. Here is the Florida Statute pertaining to stalking:

Florida Statute 784.084


(2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of the person, or the person’s child, sibling, spouse, parent, or dependent, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(NOTE: Emphasis my own.)

Chapter 784 Section 048 - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate

Stalking involves “repeatedly” following an individual and since Martin and Zimmerman had no interactions prior to that fatal night the anti-stalking statute is not applicable. Further, to be guilty of stalking one must not only follow another person repeatedly but must do so “maliciously.” The word “maliciously” means “having or showing a desire to cause harm to someone.” Therefore, in order for Zimmerman to be convicted of stalking, it must be shown that he repeatedly followed Martin with the intent to harm him and there is no evidence to support such a charge. Stalking someone is illegal but briefly following someone as Zimmerman did is legal. There is no evidence that Zimmerman followed Martin for any reason other than his concern for the safety of his neighborhood. If Zimmerman followed Martin with the intent to kill him - as some Zimmerman haters have suggested - I question why he didn't fire his weapon until after he had been knocked to the ground and pummeled. The allegation that Zimmerman followed Martin for the purpose of killing him is contrary to all the evidence of record and is totally inconsistent with Zimmerman's entire history which shows he went out of his way to help Black men, women and children.

Zimmerman did nothing which could possibly be construed as stalking as that term is defined by law. Following someone is not stalking him. In this country, if you deck someone just because he is following you (as Zimmerman was following Martin) you can expect to go to jail. You don't get to pummel someone just because you don't like what they're doing.

PS: For an analysis of “stalking” as it pertains to Zimmerman's conduct go to the following site and check out permalink #26.

No problem with Stalking | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Based on the law and the evidence the only crime committed that night was by Trayvon Martin and the crime was either attempted murder or aggravated battery. The evidence shows that Martin cold-cocked Zimmerman then straddled him while he pummeled his head against the concrete. Zimmerman was no physical match for the younger, stronger Martin and was apparently unable to defend himself. It was only after Zimmerman had already received injuries and had called for help that he used deadly force against Martin. A jury who admitted they tried to find something – anything – to convict Zimmerman could find no evidence of wrongdoing.

I want to remind you and others that in order to find George Zimmerman not guilty, the jury had to make two specific determinations: (1) That a reasonably prudent person in the same situation would have believed the use of deadly force was necessary to avoid death or serious bodily injury; and (2) Zimmerman did nothing which would have justified Martin's attack upon him. In other words, to find Zimmerman not guilty they had to conclude that Martin was guilty of a crime.

We are not, I repeat are not going to revisit this case again..however, Zimmerman has shown time and time again, he's not this law abiding community corrected peace officer wanna be that just wanted to protect his community. He's turned out to be a coward that killed an innocent child because he lost a battle that he created and he just happen to have a gun handy....end of fuckin story.

The jury determined that Zimmerman did nothing wrong. The jury determined that Trayvon Martin criminally attacked Zimmerman and Zimmerman had the right to use deadly force against the thug. Martin had a history of violence. He bragged about "nosing" people (giving them bloody noses). He also bragged about using drugs and He was found with a woman's stolen jewelry in his possession. His own mother kicked him out of the house. If Trayvon Martin is innocent then I'm the Queen of England.

You can have the thug as your hero and poster boy. Oh, and please stop this "child" bullshit. When I was a few weeks younger than Martin I was doing push ups at Parris Island. The cowardly thug Martin thought that out-of-shape Zimmerman would be an easy mark. He snuck up on Zimmerman and cold-cocked him. Then he proceeded to pummel the defenseless Zimmerman as he was on the ground. Sweet kid, right?

Trayvon Martin is dead because he was not satisfied with knocking Zimmerman to the ground. The thug had to straddle him and continue beating him putting him in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury. The law give Zimmerman the right to use deadly force to stop the criminal attack. Zimmerman did nothing wrong that night. That is what the jury concluded and that is the end of the fucking story.

Now I am done with this thread.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Let's give this a little more thought.
We can all stipulate Zimmerman is/was some sort of whack-job. He certainly fancied himself to be some sort of fucking Lone Ranger. Fine.
This is an honest appraisal of the man right?
Now can we be just as honest about Martin? Whatever he was or wasn't up to that night the fact is he had eluded/run away from/was hiding from Zimmerman. Martin was home and safe. His friend testified to this. He could have simply opened the fucking door and walked inside to safety. But Martin chose to seek out Zimmerman and then sucker punch him then climb on top of Zimmerman attempting to do whatever one is attempting to do when you on top of someone and banging their head onto the concrete.
Remember an eyewitness saw this happening.
Zimmerman had a gun and he defended himself by shooting Martin.
Martin made a number of bad decisions that night. One was assuming the person he attacked was unarmed.

So you think it's OK to stalk and intimidate a person who was obviously aware of being stalked and when that person confronts you for that,you can claim you are fear of actions that you caused? Useless to try to re-litigate the case here, but the man obviously deserved to be confronted. His constant disgusting behavior since he was let off is proof that he is scum.

Zimmerman did not stalk Martin, he merely followed him for a brief time. Stalking is a crime, whereas following someone is not. Those who use the word “stalking” do not know the legal definition of the word. Here is the Florida Statute pertaining to stalking:

Florida Statute 784.084


(2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of the person, or the person’s child, sibling, spouse, parent, or dependent, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(NOTE: Emphasis my own.)

Chapter 784 Section 048 - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate

Stalking involves “repeatedly” following an individual and since Martin and Zimmerman had no interactions prior to that fatal night the anti-stalking statute is not applicable. Further, to be guilty of stalking one must not only follow another person repeatedly but must do so “maliciously.” The word “maliciously” means “having or showing a desire to cause harm to someone.” Therefore, in order for Zimmerman to be convicted of stalking, it must be shown that he repeatedly followed Martin with the intent to harm him and there is no evidence to support such a charge. Stalking someone is illegal but briefly following someone as Zimmerman did is legal. There is no evidence that Zimmerman followed Martin for any reason other than his concern for the safety of his neighborhood. If Zimmerman followed Martin with the intent to kill him - as some Zimmerman haters have suggested - I question why he didn't fire his weapon until after he had been knocked to the ground and pummeled. The allegation that Zimmerman followed Martin for the purpose of killing him is contrary to all the evidence of record and is totally inconsistent with Zimmerman's entire history which shows he went out of his way to help Black men, women and children.

Zimmerman did nothing which could possibly be construed as stalking as that term is defined by law. Following someone is not stalking him. In this country, if you deck someone just because he is following you (as Zimmerman was following Martin) you can expect to go to jail. You don't get to pummel someone just because you don't like what they're doing.

PS: For an analysis of “stalking” as it pertains to Zimmerman's conduct go to the following site and check out permalink #26.

No problem with Stalking | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Based on the law and the evidence the only crime committed that night was by Trayvon Martin and the crime was either attempted murder or aggravated battery. The evidence shows that Martin cold-cocked Zimmerman then straddled him while he pummeled his head against the concrete. Zimmerman was no physical match for the younger, stronger Martin and was apparently unable to defend himself. It was only after Zimmerman had already received injuries and had called for help that he used deadly force against Martin. A jury who admitted they tried to find something – anything – to convict Zimmerman could find no evidence of wrongdoing.

I want to remind you and others that in order to find George Zimmerman not guilty, the jury had to make two specific determinations: (1) That a reasonably prudent person in the same situation would have believed the use of deadly force was necessary to avoid death or serious bodily injury; and (2) Zimmerman did nothing which would have justified Martin's attack upon him. In other words, to find Zimmerman not guilty they had to conclude that Martin was guilty of a crime.

We are not, I repeat are not going to revisit this case again..however, Zimmerman has shown time and time again, he's not this law abiding community corrected peace officer wanna be that just wanted to protect his community. He's turned out to be a coward that killed an innocent child because he lost a battle that he created and he just happen to have a gun handy....end of fuckin story.

The jury determined that Zimmerman did nothing wrong. The jury determined that Trayvon Martin criminally attacked Zimmerman and Zimmerman had the right to use deadly force against the thug. Martin had a history of violence. He bragged about "nosing" people (giving them bloody noses). He also bragged about using drugs and He was found with a woman's stolen jewelry in his possession. His own mother kicked him out of the house. If Trayvon Martin is innocent then I'm the Queen of England.

You can have the thug as your hero and poster boy. Oh, and please stop this "child" bullshit. When I was a few weeks younger than Martin I was doing push ups at Parris Island. The cowardly thug Martin thought that out-of-shape Zimmerman would be an easy mark. He snuck up on Zimmerman and cold-cocked him. Then he proceeded to pummel the defenseless Zimmerman as he was on the ground. Sweet kid, right?

Trayvon Martin is dead because he was not satisfied with knocking Zimmerman to the ground. The thug had to straddle him and continue beating him putting him in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury. The law give Zimmerman the right to use deadly force to stop the criminal attack. Zimmerman did nothing wrong that night. That is what the jury concluded and that is the end of the fucking story.

Now I am done with this thread.

Promise?

 

[Weatherman2020]

The gun nutz hero is at it again


George Zimmerman Says He's Homeless And Suffers From PTSD The Tweets, which along with Zimmerman's entire account, have since been removed from the social media site, accused the ex of "sleeping with a dirty Muslim" and stealing from him.

George Zimmerman's Twitter Account Was Suspended After Allegedly Exploiting His Ex-Girlfriend

Yet ISIS Tweets daily.

 

[guno]

The gun nutz hero is at it again


George Zimmerman Says He's Homeless And Suffers From PTSD The Tweets, which along with Zimmerman's entire account, have since been removed from the social media site, accused the ex of "sleeping with a dirty Muslim" and stealing from him.

George Zimmerman's Twitter Account Was Suspended After Allegedly Exploiting His Ex-Girlfriend

Yet ISIS Tweets daily.

How's the crypt coming along ?

will you be tweeting from there about the baby jesus?

go with the flo, stan