DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... When getting behind ideological figures goes wrong...

Remember this ass clown?



People gave this guy hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Discuss.

Who gave him all that money? Hadn't heard that. Whatever the case I think his acquittal went to his head and now he's just stupid.

A lot of people donated to his defense fund, which he lied about in attempt to tell the government he couldn't afford an attorney.

And I don't think it was the acquittal that made him stupid. I think him being stupid led to him killing a kid and thus getting charged.

What an idiot. Practically got away with profiling, murder, and now he finds himself all locked up.

OJ and Zimmerman make me think karma is a real thing.

I remember watching Fox News and Rush Limbaugh calling this guy a hero.

For stalking a kid.


Now, not a freaking word.

He is an asshat but he wasn't guilty of murder.

...which is why this national discourse about guns and "Stand Your Ground" state laws should be an ongoing discussion.

With these state laws, we've effectively given rank-and-file citizens the rights to take Human Life into the hands... people who are not trained to know the difference between 'perceived threat' and those who have been trained to observe Human behavior- and make an informed judgement. People just like George Zimmerman.

I can't speak for you, but I'll tell you this much: I don't want anyone like George Zimmerman living in my neighborhood. As far as I'm concerned, he's a much more immediate threat than any Islamic terrorist I could ever imagine.

Why? Because his behavioral profile suggests that he's 1,000 times more threatening to me than any Muslim I've ever known.


George Zimmerman MAY have been totally justified in his self-defense case regarding Trayvon Martin... but his history of post-trial behavior suggests that he might not be the 'cleanest'' of poster children for Wayne LaPierre's cause.


Bottom line: This isn't a lib/con fight. It's a "common sense" issue.

My Pops was a Top Cop on our local police force, and a card-carrying member of the NRA. This is what he told me, when he accompanied me to the police firing range for the first time:

"When you pull that trigger, shoot to target his head or his 'center mass.' If you do it right, another person will die. Are you ready to make that choice?"

--------------------

I think that most people who 'talk much sh!t' about such things don't have the slightest idea of the ramifications of such a decision. I believe that George Zimmerman is one who has actually performed such an act, and is pathologically removed from the realities of what he did to Trayvon Martin, and the results of his actions. His subsequent actions suggest a 'break from reality'... and as such, invalidate him as a 'cause du jour.'

THIS is why I feel that an ongoing discussion about guns (and gun ownership) should be front-and-center in our ongoing national debate. I don't want our national rights to bear arms to be taken from us... but I also don't want guns to be possessed by folks like him.

Common ground MUST be found.

.02,
Clem

[quote=Clemdawg I don't want our national rights to bear arms to be taken from us... but I also don't want guns to be possessed by folks like him.

Common ground MUST be found.

.02,
Clem [/quote]

and therein is why such common ground will not be found.... who decides which folks are ok to possess guns?

Yes we can agree on the top 10 % that should have guns and the bottom 10% that should not ( or whatever % you like) but in that gray area between yes and no what is the criteria for determination?

He should have and would have been convicted of a crime less than murder if the prosecutors wouldn't have bowed to the pressure exerted on them by Holder and the media. Murder couldn't be proven beyond reasonable doubt, but an involuntary manslaughter charge would have stuck. It's just that certain interests were too greedy. Zimmerman pursued Martin while carrying a firearm and should have suffered the consequences. No responsible CHL holder would do such an idiotic thing.

In this country it's the NRA.

I will try to remember all these high and mighty speeches if I ever find myself under some 17 year old who is bashing my head into the concrete.
I will certainly use my common sense to survive.

When a man repeatedly shows himself to be a violent liar, one should consider whether or not taking their word as fact is a good idea.

Wouldn't had happened if he wasn't stalking a minor and minding his own business. He provoked Martin and got his ass whooped.

The question I'd like answered is why is it Martin's fault when someone comes at him, but in Ferguson the cop had no choice?

I think the circumstances was different.

Martin was getting stalked by some wannabe cop for absolutely no reason.

Brown is a criminal and tried to fight a cop.

So if you follow someone it is ok to beat their ass? seriously?

I don't remember him being violent in his life before the incident. What I remember about Zim is he was a Minority himself and a family man who was Captain of the Neighborhood Watch Security Program in an area that was experiencing a rash of break-ins by what witnesses described as Black youths.

Now you foolishly try to judge the man (found not guilty by a jury of his peers) from his actions after the trial.
Doesn't work that way in America.
Even an inexperienced Defense Attorney would tell you his life is completely changed today since he has survived an assault and shot and killed a young man. Completely different mental state today.

Wha are you talking about? Martin was the one gettin stalked. Not the other way around. Your boy Zimmerman was acting like a cop. Wanted to be some hero, and Martin did absolutely nothing wrong. He was black with a hoodie on.

Not sure how Zimmerman is my boy...

I guess I worded my question wrong.

If I am walking down the street, and I think you are following me, you think its ok if I turn around and beat your ass? Because thats pretty much what you said.

He had a history of violent behavior before the incident.



I'm trying to make a larger point than just pointing out Zimmerman is a loser, but I'm actually judging him based on his actions before, during, and after the trial.

And what, exactly, is foolish about it? Or is this another instance where you just say something without thinking and hope no one asks about it?

No, but I was simplifying it. Zimmerman walked up to him. Zimmerman initiated contact.

Nobody takes into account that Martin was the one defending himself.

And sorry, but I'm going to be childish. He initiated contact against a minor, and got his ass whooped by a minor. He's a punk.

hmmm, ok

Hmmmm indeed. Just spewing your usual hate or do you have evidence of his violence?

He was arrested in 2005 for pushing an alcohol control officer, and had a restraining order against him in an allegation of domestic violence.

Then the Martin incident occured.

Five other incidents have occurred since then, with violence attached to almost all.

That's what many would consider reasonably to be a history of violence.

He has also displayed a long history of lying, hence why I don't think it's foolish to consider him a violent liar.

And you didn't answer my question. What about my assertion that people shouldn't back figures embroiled in ideological debate, or that George Zimmerman is a violent liar, is foolish, exactly?

Can you cite evidence from the text to show foolishness?

Or is this like when you tried to call me a hypocrite, but didn't know what the word 'hypocrite' meant, and ended up rambling until you had to concede that you couldn't back up your nonsense?

You don't seem to be willing or able to understand the concept of having to back arguments with rational thought. You continue to just yell nonsense like a carnival barker, and them clam up when someone asks to show validity in your words.

You don't have to show that your opinion is absolute right or correct. But a sixth-grade level understanding and/or practice of thesis is generally a cornerstone of adult debate. In other words, you shouldn't just toss out made up nonsense and insults and have nothing to back up your claims. If you just say someone is a hypocrite, or foolish, it doesn't make it so.

Otherwise you run the risk of coming across as a bloviating clown.

So...foolish how?

BAWhahaha, Well now I can see your hate for such a Devil!

You have done a good job of showing the foolishness in this thread yourself.

If I've done such a good job, then it should be rather simple to make a coherent argument illustrated by evidence, yes?

This seems to be going over your head. Is it an issue of word comprehension? I know that's not your strong suit. Do you know what the words 'argument' and 'evidence' mean?

Can you cite what you feel is foolish and make a logical argument to illustrate it?

YAWN...

You would only hate it.

That's OK.

Let's hear it.

It seems that Zimmerman is/was a criminal and tried to fight a kid.

How is Martin responsible, like so many have said he was?

he isn't responsible. he never was. nobody can point to one thing he did wrong that would cause zimmerman to stalk the kid. not one.

martin defended himself. zimmerman was the one looking for any reason to play hero, and messed with the wrong person.

he got his ass whooped, and was "forced" to shoot the kid.

he should be in jail for that alone. if i was in martin's shoes, i would've did the same exact thing.

and now his string of assault incidents should tell everybody who was, and has always been, the aggressor.

JC...


Who truly started the physical confrontation?

That we don't really know. We have Zimmerman's account, and that is it. We may never know the truth, we only have what we have.

A young man lost his life, in what can only be explained as a unnecessary and pointless encounter, from both parties involved. That is sad part.

All we can hope now, if that we learn from it.

Using it as a way to create divide, regardless of who is/was right or wrong does no one any good.

what it does is points out, like PDR's original post, that these so called "heroes" organization such as the NRA and such need to think twice before blindly throwing support at anyone who uses a weapon in "self defense"

We never will. Yet some groups will definitively state one thing, while other groups will state the exact opposite. I bet the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

One thing we can be absolutely sure about is it never should have happened at all and the only one responsible for making it happen seems to have a serious problem with making appropriate choices.

This wont be popular, but they were both responsible. They both made bad decisions.

This is where it gets frustrating for some of us.

I know many guys who would swear to you if someone got in their face the way Z got in Martin's they would be totally justified to kick his ass, but in this situation people want others to accept Martin somehow got what he deserved.

To say he got what he deserved is the same as saying he has equal responsibility.

That's way to wrong to accept.

I dont recall saying he got what he deserved. I said they both were responsible for bad decisions that night.

I will tell you that if I was being followed at night I wouldnt circle around and confront my stalker, but thats just me.

Xactly!

A wise persons knows Zim should have stayed home and Tray should not beat people to death when confronted by authority. (Too much of that going on these days.)

Just to clarify-

Had Martin beaten Zimmerman to death, Zimmerman would be dead.

Also, Zimmerman had no authority in the situation. He called the authorities, and they advised him not to take any further action.

'To death' means 'until deceased'.

Authority indicates the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.



I'll just let that explain itself.

[dispatcher]: "Sir... we don't need you to do that-"

Z did it anyway.

THAT'S how all this started. He had already done his job by notifying the authorities. He was advised to remain in his truck. He disregarded that advice, and followed TM on foot. The moment he exited his vehicle, he set in motion the terrible events that followed.

February 26[edit]
February 26 Zimmerman 7:09:34 PM call to police


At an unverified time, Trayvon Martin walks from the home where he is staying to a nearby 7-Eleven.[6]
6:24:18 PM — As shown by a store CCTV, Martin purchases a bag of Skittles and an AriZona Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail (often described in media and at protests as AriZona iced tea.)[7][8][9][10][11]
6:54 – 7:12 — Martin has an 18-minute cell phone call with a girl reported to be his girlfriend. The call gets disconnected.[10][12]
7:09:34 – 7:13:41 — George Zimmerman calls the Sanford Police Department (SPD) from his truck; total time of the call is 4 minutes 7 seconds.[13]
7:11:33 — Zimmerman tells the police dispatcher that Trayvon Martin is running.
7:11:59 — In reply to the dispatcher's question, "Are you following him?" Zimmerman responds with, "Yes." Dispatcher: "OK, we don't need you to do that." Zimmerman: "OK."
7:12:00 – 7:12:59 — The girl calls Martin again at some point during this minute.[14]
7:13:10 — Zimmerman says he does not know Martin's location.
7:13:41 — The end of Zimmerman's call to Sanford police.[14]

"Shared responsibility" isn't even an issue at this point. A kid was walking home from a bodega. Period.