Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
fact is most people don't give two shits about Trayvon or Zimmerman. Some of us are interested in issues of law and society. Others like you attach yourselves to the tragedy of others."a former Jersey City police commander who now owns a police management consulting company in Central Florida,...said it’s implausible that Zimmerman would not know where he was in a tiny gated community that he patrolled regularly," declaring, "That's a lie right there."
Yup
fact is most people don't give two shits about Trayvon or Zimmerman. Some of us are interested in issues of law and society. Others like you attach yourselves to the tragedy of others."a former Jersey City police commander who now owns a police management consulting company in Central Florida,...said it’s implausible that Zimmerman would not know where he was in a tiny gated community that he patrolled regularly," declaring, "That's a lie right there."
Yup
truly, you need to get a life -- one of your own making
anarchy in what streets?fact is most people don't give two shits about Trayvon or Zimmerman. Some of us are interested in issues of law and society. Others like you attach yourselves to the tragedy of others."a former Jersey City police commander who now owns a police management consulting company in Central Florida,...said it’s implausible that Zimmerman would not know where he was in a tiny gated community that he patrolled regularly," declaring, "That's a lie right there."
Yup
truly, you need to get a life -- one of your own making
In what parallel universe is anarchy in the streets not an issue of law and society?
he's dead, what does he care?PLEASE LET THIS POOR CHILD REST IN PEACE, ALLOW ALL THESE USELESS DEATHS AT THE HANDS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT REST QUIETLY IN PEACE.
How can you go home when some one is holding on to you and not letting go.
The evidence shows beyond any reasonable doubt that Zimmerman acted in self defense and Martin was simply a typical idiot "no limit nigga" thug.We know he was found not guilty. oj simpson was found not guilty.No. We also know that he is not guilty of a crime.That's because the only thing we know is that zimmerman pursued.
Doesn't make either of them innocent
Another idiotic attempt at a Saint Skittles Law?
Tee-hee.
Again, it is not known how the two came to be struggling.
we do know that if zimmerman had not chosen to pursue marrin based on nothing there would have been no incident
If i rob your house but am not convicted, that doesn't change that a crime was committed, or that i committed it. A jury's verdict does not change what happened.
Do you see? Zimmerman was not convicted. That does not mean that there was no crime - or that there was one.
Logic is difficult for you, isn't it? Do you believe that no innocent people are ever convicted?
you would feel differently if it was your child who was followed and shot down.
What does stalking have to do with this thread?True... but what's that have to do with anything?An aggressor cannot be said to act in self defense.In the act of self-defense, no one is judge, no one is jury and no one is a vigilante.Seems like common sense to me. How could anyone disagree unless they want Nazi-style vigilantism?
"no man having a natural right to be the judge between himself and another, it is his natural duty to submit to the umpirage of an impartial third."
-- Thomas Jefferson; from letter to Francis Gilmer (June 7, 1816)
If one person stalks another person, that is always an aggressive act. If someone tries to thwart a stalker that is self defense. The person who starts a confrontation is the aggressor.
Who was that? No evidence was presented in trial that there was another person involved. Are you making it up that someone else was there?Tryavon was stalking Zimmerman in order to gay bash him? Isn't that a hate crimeTrue... but what's that have to do with anything?An aggressor cannot be said to act in self defense.In the act of self-defense, no one is judge, no one is jury and no one is a vigilante.
If one person stalks another person, that is always an aggressive act. If someone tries to thwart a stalker that is self defense. The person who starts a confrontation is the aggressor.
Trayvon was just walking with skittles and ice tea. The guy following him through the neighborhood for no apparent reason was the stalker
What does stalking have to do with this thread?True... but what's that have to do with anything?An aggressor cannot be said to act in self defense.In the act of self-defense, no one is judge, no one is jury and no one is a vigilante.Seems like common sense to me. How could anyone disagree unless they want Nazi-style vigilantism?
"no man having a natural right to be the judge between himself and another, it is his natural duty to submit to the umpirage of an impartial third."
-- Thomas Jefferson; from letter to Francis Gilmer (June 7, 1816)
If one person stalks another person, that is always an aggressive act. If someone tries to thwart a stalker that is self defense. The person who starts a confrontation is the aggressor.
What part of the trial was this revealed in? I must have missed that.What does stalking have to do with this thread?True... but what's that have to do with anything?An aggressor cannot be said to act in self defense.In the act of self-defense, no one is judge, no one is jury and no one is a vigilante.
If one person stalks another person, that is always an aggressive act. If someone tries to thwart a stalker that is self defense. The person who starts a confrontation is the aggressor.
Because Zimmerman was brought up, and he has stalked or antagonized numerous people, including the one he killed in cold blood.
"Could it be because the facts show that Martin was the aggressor?"The facts absolutely never showed that.My child when he was younger would've came home if some man was following him. He wouldn't of attacked him.you would feel differently if it was your child who was followed and shot down.
How can you go home when some one is holding on to you and not letting go.
Didn't happen. Why do you have to CREATE a narrative to justify your view? Could it be because the facts show that Martin was the aggressor? Nah, couldn't be that.
IF you look back, I said that testimony said. I never claimed that "facts showed anything".
not disagreeing, but you don't know who assaulted who.Again, it is not known how the two came to be struggling.
we do know that if zimmerman had not chosen to pursue marrin based on nothing there would have been no incident
It's not illegal to follow someone on a public sidewalk. You may not like it, but it isn't the least bit illegal. It IS illegal to physically assault someone on a public sidewalk.
zimmerman was acquitted and is innocent in the eyes of the law.If i rob your house but am not convicted, that doesn't change that a crime was committed, or that i committed it. A jury's verdict does not change what happened.
Do you see? Zimmerman was not convicted. That does not mean that there was no crime - or that there was one.
Logic is difficult for you, isn't it? Do you believe that no innocent people are ever convicted?
A person is innocent until proven guilty. Zimmerman not guilty of all charges. Fact...Zimmerman innocent.
You`d shoot your own child for eating Skittles? Cool!you would feel differently if it was your child who was followed and shot down.
If any child of mine put themselves in the position Martin was in I'd shoot him myself.
You`d shoot your own child for eating Skittles? Cool!
