Zimmermann at it again

Grayson wrote: »

It was self defence. Those skittles has preservatives that could have really hurt Zimmerman if he'd been forced to eat them. Hell, he could have lost a filling.


Let me get this straight, you're saying that if I start a fight, then if I kill the guy it's self defence? Wanna meet somewhere in florida and we'll sort this out with good old fashioned fisticuffs? . No firearms of course. I swear I won't bring one.

There is no proof that George Zimmerman started the physical end of things. Zimmerman challenged Martin, fair enough (no law against that). Martin ran away. Zimmerman followed from a distance and then lost sight of him.

Here is where things go hazy. If Martin ran away, why didn't he keep running and head to where he was going? If he had done this, he would probably be alive today.

Zimmerman claims that he lost sight of Martin and then Martin pretty much jumped him and that was what started the physical fight.

Witnesses saw the fight and seemed to back up Zimmerman's claims.

Unfortunately there are no witnesses to who started it, so we are left with no option but to believe Zimmerman's recount of events.

end of the road wrote: »

who said he was somewhere he shouldn't have been? even if he was somewhere he supposibly should have been and he came into contact with zimmerman he would have been shot

he was murdered because of the colour of his skin by a piece of vermin who was involved in domestic violence and other violent crimes so i think a bit of hand ringing is fine

He most certainly was not murdered cause of his skin colour. He had a black friend as well as working with disadvantaged black kids. Also Zimmerman was Hispanic.

Arawn wrote: »

stalking?? did he follow him for weeks?? because that is what stalking is. you make it sound like he is a predator with the sole purpose to kill

Stalking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking

Stalking is unwanted or obsessive attention by an individual or group toward another person. Stalking behaviors are related to harassment and intimidation and may include following the victim in person or monitoring them. The word stalking is used, with some differing meanings, in psychology and psychiatry and also in some legal jurisdictions as a term for a criminal offense.
According to a 2002 report by the National Center for Victims of Crime, "Virtually any unwanted contact between two people [that intends] to directly or indirectly communicates a threat or places the victim in fear can be considered stalking"[1] although in practice the legal standard is usually somewhat stricter.

And at least one the the five I placed in bold below is relevant.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/stalking

stalk 2 (stôk)
v. stalked, stalk·ing, stalks
v.intr.
1. To walk with a stiff, haughty, or angry gait: stalked off in a huff.
2. To move threateningly or menacingly.
3. To track prey or quarry.
v.tr.
1. To pursue by tracking stealthily.
2. To follow or observe (a person) persistently, especially out of obsession or derangement.
3. To go through (an area) in pursuit of prey or quarry.

This is the same cousin, I take it, who make sexual allegations against him but so far has failed to come forward and actually lodge a complaint or provide any evidence of sexual abuse?

That cousin?

Grayson wrote: »

I love the Daily Show

So do I. I wonder when it coming back instead of this pale imitation.

John Oliver isn't funny, and he has been bleating an unfunny anti-gun agenda for some time now.

jill_valentine wrote: »

Then, just to really ice it all, the good people of Florida will pay $300,000 of your legal costs for inconveniencing you.

Do you suppose that people found not guilty should have to pay their legal costs?

Seriously, is that what you propose?

end of the road wrote: »

a piece of vermin who was involved in domestic violence and other violent crimes so i think a bit of hand ringing is fine

What domestic violence? What violent crimes?

The ones you made up?

jill_valentine wrote: »

Nope.

Then, respectfully, get over it.

It just rubs salt in the wounds,

You think that even though he was found not guilty, he should be punished in some way?

The guy created a confrontation out of thin air

Were you there?

and then shot a teenager to death;

In self-defence. When the 17 year old was on top of him.

and the state is not only absolutely fine with him doing that, they're cool with absorbing a giant financial cost associated with it.

You realise the consequences of being found guilty. This isn't a game. Defending yourself on murder charges isn't cheap.

I know that's a necessary function of the legal system, it just makes for a fittingly stinky garnish on this almighty crap sandwich of a story.

There are far more odious cases of legal costs being awarded, this is not stinky in any measure.

Still though, it's true to say that he is indeed as Not Guilty as OJ Simpson - an interesting thing for his supporters to keeping noting so vocally in the same breaths as they'll cite things Trayvon Martin was never convicted of.

What has OJ to do with this case? As for things people have never been convicted of domestic violence and violent crime are two things being thrown around in this thread as things Zimmerman is supposed to have done but was never convicted of.

Grayson wrote: »

You can go to florida

You can get a gun.

You start following an unarmed kid who's doing nothing.

You call the police. The police tell you not to follow the kid.

You follow anyway.

You start a confrontation with said kid.

If at any point you feel threatened you shoot the kid.

And according to Florida you did your best.

1. When did the police say that?
2. When did GZ start a confrontation? By walking in his own neighbourhood?

Mardy Bum wrote: »

He managed to start one with his father in law and his wife and managed to threaten them with a gun despite the fact she lied in court to help him. He didnt even have the decency to attend her trial even though she was at his everyday. He also visited a gun factory just to provoke a reaction and he still never even attempted to sympathise with TM family even after he got off.

It doesn't take Inspector Clouseau to figure out that this guy is not to be trusted.

So deflection of the questions. I take it you cannot/will not answer them.

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Is GZ violent. Yes GZ is violent. His recent actions are an example of this. I am just talking about the man's character. He is a scumbag. Have you heard his wife's 911 call? The guy is a gun nut who has seemingly provoked a group of gun wielding cheerleaders who want to live vicariously through him as he goes from place to place threatening people with guns.

Utter nonsense.

The wife has just filed for divorce. She then manages to expose his new location to the press by dialling 911.

He has received several death threats. Could be a reason he carries a gun ya think?

She then fails to press charges.

Hmmm....

Now - two questions above. Any answers?

MadsL wrote: »

Utter nonsense.

The wife has just filed for divorce. She then manages to expose his new location to the press by dialling 911.

He has received several death threats. Could be a reason he carries a gun ya think?

She then fails to press charges.

Hmmm....

Now - two questions above. Any answers?

He arrived at her house with a gun and proceeded to threaten her father so yes I suppose she "exposed" his location. So going to a gun factory and taking pictures is something a normal decent person does after killing someone?
She lied for him in court so she obviously likes/liked the guy somewhat.

You took everything that GZ said to the dispatcher as the truth but you don't believe Shellie when she said

“He’s in his car and he continually has his hand on his gun and he keeps saying, ‘Step closer.’ He’s just threatening all of us with his firearm.”

Mardy Bum wrote: »

He arrived at her house with a gun and proceeded to threaten her father so yes I suppose she "exposed" his location. So going to a gun factory and taking pictures is something a normal decent person does after killing someone?
She lied for him in court so she obviously likes/liked the guy somewhat.

You took everything that GZ said to the dispatcher as the truth but you don't believe Shellie when she said

So it turns out I was right not to believe her. I seem to have the better instincts.

I expect we will find Zimmerman paid for the iPad and she decided to keep it after the separation.

I tend not to take anything either partner in a divorce says as the truth.

Now - care to answer the questions I asked?

MadsL wrote: »

So it turns out I was right not to believe her. I seem to have the better instincts.

I expect we will find Zimmerman paid for the iPad and she decided to keep it after the separation.

I tend not to take anything either partner in a divorce says as the truth.

Now - care to answer the questions I asked?

Although CBS affiliate WKMG reports that Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O'Mara, said Zimmerman had a gun holstered to his body.

Fairly conflicting reports. GZ's dad probably gave them a nice pay off.