The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[flacaltenn]

You advocate following around people armed with a gun.

If both actions are legal separately, why wouldn't they be legal together?

Why do you need a gun to follow someone? Could it be you expect (to make) trouble?

Do you know the circumstances? He did not strap on a gun to go patrolling the neighborhood that night. He was off to go shopping.. For you to suggest that his agenda was to follow someone and shoot them isn't even a starter. Some folks carry weapons. The REAL bad guys know that. Especially in Florida. That's why crime is a riskier business there...

Please don't suggest that the only reason a gun was present is that Zimmerman was out HUNTING the neighborhood for kicks...

 

[testarosa]

I am not sure you are following the discussion. I have stated repeatedly that they might go around the Constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. That does not mean that I support them doing that. Both Rodney King and OJ Simpson are prime examples of what an out of control government will do and because of those examples we should be doing everything we can to put a stop to it... if we value our freedoms that is.

Why didn't they apply in the case of Rodney King? Well, as stated before we have an out of control legal system that believes (much like you, it seems) that the Constitution only applies when and how they want it to apply. In the case of OJ Simpson, we had a government that did not like being beaten at their own game, much the same as what is transpiring with Zimmerman.

Just because the legal system screwed some defendants does not mean that we should cheer them on when they are considering doing so again.

Immie

Harassment is illegal you know but rarely enforced. Maybe it's time for the slightest of change there.

Harassment Law & Legal Definition

Harassment is governed by state laws, which vary by state, but is generally defined as a course of conduct which annoys, threatens, intimidates, alarms, or puts a person in fear of their safety. Harassment is unwanted, unwelcomed and uninvited behavior that demeans, threatens or offends the victim and results in a hostile environment for the victim. Harassing behavior may include, but is not limited to, epithets, derogatory comments or slurs and lewd propositions, assault, impeding or blocking movement

In case you are unfamiliar with politics, the Constitution has and will be amended from time to time. Just exactly how much can people be followed around in ambiguous circumstances? Where does harassment begin?

There is an alternative, The Trayvon Protection Act:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...ration-create-trayvon-protection-act/PLK3PkCS

No offense. But this is calling for segregation again. It also seems to be a slap in the face to the civil rights movement and all who faught to eradicate it. I do not think this is the solution to the problem.

Wow.

I thought nothing left about this could shock me.

<<shocked>>

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Just means to me that you should probably not have a gun.. The GUN is there for self-defense --- not to enforce your petty views of "tyranny"..

Are you the spokesman for this vigilante force you want? Do you know what motivations they'll truly have? Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Now you're being silly.. The object of neighbors monitoring their neighborhoods is NOT to assert force.. It's to observe and report and INQUIRE if safely possible. Use of a gun outside your property is ALWAYS an iffy proposition. Even for a police officer. The use of gun is reserved for situations that have ALREADY turned deadly.

Trayvon rules --- skip over all the obvious "non-violent" options. Like calling 911 who could have told him exactly who was "following him".

Vigilante force is the mode of operation in the Miami hood where Trayvon was raised. The rules he operated by that night WILL get you killed much quicker and more certainly in his Miami neighborhood than in Zimmerman's turf in Sanford.

There is nothing silly about wanting to stop vigilantes with guns.

We know Zimmerman's agenda that night when he said, "These assholes always get away." On the other hand, there is no credible evidence about Trayvon other than he went to the store.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

If both actions are legal separately, why wouldn't they be legal together?

Why do you need a gun to follow someone? Could it be you expect (to make) trouble?

Do you know the circumstances? He did not strap on a gun to go patrolling the neighborhood that night. He was off to go shopping.. For you to suggest that his agenda was to follow someone and shoot them isn't even a starter. Some folks carry weapons. The REAL bad guys know that. Especially in Florida. That's why crime is a riskier business there...

Please don't suggest that the only reason a gun was present is that Zimmerman was out HUNTING the neighborhood for kicks...

What I meant to say is why does anyone need a gun to follow someone? To add trouble to the mix, amirite?

 

[testarosa]

Is this petition for real or a joke? This is segregation. This is stoopid.

It's a joke petition, right?

we petition the obama administration to:

We, the American people, petition the Obama administration to create the "Trayvon Protection Act".

We, the American people, petition the Obama administration to create the "Trayvon Protection Act".

This act will protect black persons from white violence by making it illegal for black persons to live in or travel to non-black neighborhoods, and will prohibit blacks from entering white owned businesses, white schools, white owned stores, etc. In essence, this act will require blacks to live separate lives away from non-blacks. This is the best way to ensure their safety from violent, racist people like George Zimmerman.

Let's finally give Trayvon justice by making it impossible for another black child to die from the bullets of non-blacks. Please create the "Trayvon Protection Act" to keep America safe.

Created: Jul 16, 2013

Issues: Civil Rights and Liberties, Criminal Justice and Law Enforcement, Firearms

 

[Foxfyre]

Why do you need a gun to follow someone? Could it be you expect (to make) trouble?

Do you know the circumstances? He did not strap on a gun to go patrolling the neighborhood that night. He was off to go shopping.. For you to suggest that his agenda was to follow someone and shoot them isn't even a starter. Some folks carry weapons. The REAL bad guys know that. Especially in Florida. That's why crime is a riskier business there...

Please don't suggest that the only reason a gun was present is that Zimmerman was out HUNTING the neighborhood for kicks...

What I meant to say is why does anyone need a gun to follow someone? To add trouble to the mix, amirite?

Nobody needs a gun to follow somebody. But somebody who is already carrying something on his person, whether it be a camera or cell phone or legal gun/knife or purse or backpack or whatever should not be expected to take it off or put it down in order to use a public sidewalk in their own neighborhood either.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Do you know the circumstances? He did not strap on a gun to go patrolling the neighborhood that night. He was off to go shopping.. For you to suggest that his agenda was to follow someone and shoot them isn't even a starter. Some folks carry weapons. The REAL bad guys know that. Especially in Florida. That's why crime is a riskier business there...

Please don't suggest that the only reason a gun was present is that Zimmerman was out HUNTING the neighborhood for kicks...

What I meant to say is why does anyone need a gun to follow someone? To add trouble to the mix, amirite?

Nobody needs a gun to follow somebody. But somebody who is already carrying something on his person, whether it be a camera or cell phone or legal gun/knife or purse or backpack or whatever should not be expected to take it off or put it down in order to use a public sidewalk in their own neighborhood either.

There's always some excuse. If you don't have the common sense or intelligence to know you're armed and need to act accordingly, then you are a menace to society.

 

[Foxfyre]

What I meant to say is why does anyone need a gun to follow someone? To add trouble to the mix, amirite?

Nobody needs a gun to follow somebody. But somebody who is already carrying something on his person, whether it be a camera or cell phone or legal gun/knife or purse or backpack or whatever should not be expected to take it off or put it down in order to use a public sidewalk in their own neighborhood either.

There's always some excuse. If you don't have the common sense or intelligence to know you're armed and need to act accordingly, then you are a menace to society.

There is zero evidence that George Zimmerman behaved in any way other than any citizen would normally behave. There is zero evidence that he was aggressive, threatening, or invited any kind of contact or altercation. There is zero evidence that he behaved in any way that he would not have behaved had he not had his legally licensed concealed weapon on his person.

There is plenty of evidence that Trayvon Martin physically assaulted George Zimmerman.

Perhaps you would have a point had you suggested that Trayvon Martin should have had the common sense not to assault somebody who could possibly be carrying a weapon.

 

[Snookie]

George Zimmerman is fit enough to save four people from an over turned vehicle. but not fit enough to get a skinny teenager off of him?

The difference being...none of those four people sucker punched him in the face. Duh?

If you believe he is telling the truth. Of course. You believed all his lies. Happy hunting.

 

[Snookie]

Nobody needs a gun to follow somebody. But somebody who is already carrying something on his person, whether it be a camera or cell phone or legal gun/knife or purse or backpack or whatever should not be expected to take it off or put it down in order to use a public sidewalk in their own neighborhood either.

There's always some excuse. If you don't have the common sense or intelligence to know you're armed and need to act accordingly, then you are a menace to society.

There is zero evidence that George Zimmerman behaved in any way other than any citizen would normally behave. There is zero evidence that he was aggressive, threatening, or invited any kind of contact or altercation. There is zero evidence that he behaved in any way that he would not have behaved had he not had his legally licensed concealed weapon on his person.

There is plenty of evidence that Trayvon Martin physically assaulted George Zimmerman.

Perhaps you would have a point had you suggested that Trayvon Martin should have had the common sense not to assault somebody who could possibly be carrying a weapon.

There is zero evidence because Zimmerman brutally murdered Martin, imo. Dead men tell no tales. Aaargg.

 

[Esmeralda]

What I meant to say is why does anyone need a gun to follow someone? To add trouble to the mix, amirite?

Nobody needs a gun to follow somebody. But somebody who is already carrying something on his person, whether it be a camera or cell phone or legal gun/knife or purse or backpack or whatever should not be expected to take it off or put it down in order to use a public sidewalk in their own neighborhood either.

There's always some excuse. If you don't have the common sense or intelligence to know you're armed and need to act accordingly, then you are a menace to society.

George Zimmerman is fit enough to save four people from an over turned vehicle. but not fit enough to get a skinny teenager off of him?

The difference being...none of those four people sucker punched him in the face. Duh?

If you believe he is telling the truth. Of course. You believed all his lies. Happy hunting.

LOL He didn't "save" or "rescue" anyone. He did what amounts to a roadside assistance. Nothing noble or heroic. Jesus, how pathetic and desperate people are to try to turn this nimno into a heroic figure. You know, it's not always wise to pull over and do a roadside assistance. Depending on the situation of the road, the traffic, etc., suddenly pulling over to assist someone on the roadside could endanger others, other cars following behind you. I wonder how many people's safety he may have endangered in his zeal to play the hero, yet again. That's his specialty though: endangering lives so he can play the hero.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Nobody needs a gun to follow somebody. But somebody who is already carrying something on his person, whether it be a camera or cell phone or legal gun/knife or purse or backpack or whatever should not be expected to take it off or put it down in order to use a public sidewalk in their own neighborhood either.

There's always some excuse. If you don't have the common sense or intelligence to know you're armed and need to act accordingly, then you are a menace to society.

There is zero evidence that George Zimmerman behaved in any way other than any citizen would normally behave. There is zero evidence that he was aggressive, threatening, or invited any kind of contact or altercation. There is zero evidence that he behaved in any way that he would not have behaved had he not had his legally licensed concealed weapon on his person.

There is plenty of evidence that Trayvon Martin physically assaulted George Zimmerman.

Perhaps you would have a point had you suggested that Trayvon Martin should have had the common sense not to assault somebody who could possibly be carrying a weapon.

An acquittal doesn't mean "zero evidence" no matter how much Zimmerman lovers would like that to be the case. No, there is zero evidence against Trayvon for having done anything wrong. See how you turned the argument on it's head.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

There's always some excuse. If you don't have the common sense or intelligence to know you're armed and need to act accordingly, then you are a menace to society.

There is zero evidence that George Zimmerman behaved in any way other than any citizen would normally behave. There is zero evidence that he was aggressive, threatening, or invited any kind of contact or altercation. There is zero evidence that he behaved in any way that he would not have behaved had he not had his legally licensed concealed weapon on his person.

There is plenty of evidence that Trayvon Martin physically assaulted George Zimmerman.

Perhaps you would have a point had you suggested that Trayvon Martin should have had the common sense not to assault somebody who could possibly be carrying a weapon.

There is zero evidence because Zimmerman brutally murdered Martin, imo. Dead men tell no tales. Aaargg.

Can you imagine how many murderers could operate freely and how many innocent people would take the rap if the victim were put on trial instead like in the Zimmerman case? It's sickening.

 

[Oldstyle]

Even the police don't follow people around.

When the Police observe suspicious people they confront them...all George Zimmerman did was try to keep a suspicious person in view...something he may have been prompted to do by the Police dispatcher's request to know which direction the fleeing suspect had gone. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with what Zimmerman did. Even the request by the dispatcher to NOT follow wasn't given because it was an illegal act...it was a request that Police give as a matter of course because they are concerned for the safety of the person making the 9/11 call.

 

[flacaltenn]

Why do you need a gun to follow someone? Could it be you expect (to make) trouble?

Do you know the circumstances? He did not strap on a gun to go patrolling the neighborhood that night. He was off to go shopping.. For you to suggest that his agenda was to follow someone and shoot them isn't even a starter. Some folks carry weapons. The REAL bad guys know that. Especially in Florida. That's why crime is a riskier business there...

Please don't suggest that the only reason a gun was present is that Zimmerman was out HUNTING the neighborhood for kicks...

What I meant to say is why does anyone need a gun to follow someone? To add trouble to the mix, amirite?

What part of "he was going shopping" didn't you understand?

Curious that all of this comes from a guy living in one of the AFFLUENT hoods in the country.. Where the residents talk about the "quality of life" because the crime is extremely low, their little hovels are all worth a million bucks and their kids don't have to attend the same schools with black kids from severely segregated East Palo Alto.. Folks who have so few REAL PROBLEMS that they keep voting for morons like Feinstein and Boxer..

Why don't you go live on top of Daly City for a couple months and tell me about how YOUR life changes when it comes to self-defensive and the tyranny of crime??

Is Colonel Lee's Mongolian BBQ still surviving downtown yuppification?

 

[Oldstyle]

What I meant to say is why does anyone need a gun to follow someone? To add trouble to the mix, amirite?

Nobody needs a gun to follow somebody. But somebody who is already carrying something on his person, whether it be a camera or cell phone or legal gun/knife or purse or backpack or whatever should not be expected to take it off or put it down in order to use a public sidewalk in their own neighborhood either.

There's always some excuse. If you don't have the common sense or intelligence to know you're armed and need to act accordingly, then you are a menace to society.

How did George Zimmerman "menace" society? He was a "menace" to the teen who sucker punched him in the face then sat on him and beat the crap out of him. He was a "menace" to the portion of society that thinks the response to someone following you at a distance is to confront them violently. To the REST of society, George Zimmerman is the neighbor who's there for you when your house get broken into...when your car flips on the highway...or when some racist son of a cop beats you because you're black! To THAT part of society, George Zimmerman isn't a "menace"...he's an "asset".

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You advocate following around people armed with a gun.

If both actions are legal separately, why wouldn't they be legal together?

Why do you need a gun to follow someone? Could it be you expect (to make) trouble?

When you're following a trouble maker, sometimes it's exactly what you need.
Case in point.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Following around people with a gun sounds like tyranny to me.

Sounds like you need a new dictionary.

Tyranny is as tyranny does.

Stupid is as stupid does.

But enough about you.

 

[flacaltenn]

Nobody needs a gun to follow somebody. But somebody who is already carrying something on his person, whether it be a camera or cell phone or legal gun/knife or purse or backpack or whatever should not be expected to take it off or put it down in order to use a public sidewalk in their own neighborhood either.

There's always some excuse. If you don't have the common sense or intelligence to know you're armed and need to act accordingly, then you are a menace to society.

The difference being...none of those four people sucker punched him in the face. Duh?

If you believe he is telling the truth. Of course. You believed all his lies. Happy hunting.

LOL He didn't "save" or "rescue" anyone. He did what amounts to a roadside assistance. Nothing noble or heroic. Jesus, how pathetic and desperate people are to try to turn this nimno into a heroic figure. You know, it's not always wise to pull over and do a roadside assistance. Depending on the situation of the road, the traffic, etc., suddenly pulling over to assist someone on the roadside could endanger others, other cars following behind you. I wonder how many people's safety he may have endangered in his zeal to play the hero, yet again. That's his specialty though: endangering lives so he can play the hero.

I addressed this to you back at http://www.usmessageboard.com/7588205-post29064.html

Esmeralda needs to understand the dangers involved in TRYING to be a good citizen. Even nurses and doctors are worried about being sued for their good deeds. A spinal injury or just an "imagined" injury from the rescue could empty their bank accounts. Not only that, but being at ANY roll-over is a dangerous deal.. There could be an explosion at any time. Particularly if the ignition is still on. To not understand the risks Zimmerman was taking means that YOU should never attempt to be a hero...

**********************************
Now you're advocating simply turning your head when you see folks in trouble.. Says a BUNCH about your principles and view of "community"..

 

[Immanuel]

Harassment is illegal you know but rarely enforced. Maybe it's time for the slightest of change there.

Harassment Law & Legal Definition



In case you are unfamiliar with politics, the Constitution has and will be amended from time to time. Just exactly how much can people be followed around in ambiguous circumstances? Where does harassment begin?

There is an alternative, The Trayvon Protection Act:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...ration-create-trayvon-protection-act/PLK3PkCS

Sure it can be amended, but not at your whim. Nor can it be ignored at your whim.

You seem to think that if you do not like the outcome of a trial that the government should have a do-over. I Wonder how you would feel if it were you that was found not guilty and 20%, if that much, of the population screamed for you to be tried again. Somehow, I am convinced you would be singing a different tune.

Immie

Why are you so afraid that our government should take any interest in civil rights?

Civil rights? The only interest these goons have regarding civil rights is denying George Zimmerman his civil rights. He was fairly tried in a court of law and found not guilty. Now, because the government and a few race baiters do not like the outcome of that trial, they (I think I should include you in that) want to move the goal posts and try again. In my book, that is frigging un-American.

That is why I am opposed to this ploy.

It is frigging anti-American and I happen to love the country of my birth and quite frankly, I do not want you guys changing it into the hell hole you are striving for, where we cannot trust our own government to play by the rules.

Immie