The Zimmerman thread!

[roasted]

This will be the official Zimmerman thread. Post all Zimmerman and zimmerman-related shit here.

That is all.



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






Watch this Video

As more facts of this case come out, the more ridiculous it will become. Zimmerman will easily beat a murder 2 charge, and this will be a fiasco.

Civilized society=1, Feral Niggers=0

inb4 "I'm sick of hearing about this" etc etc. If you dont want to hear about this news, then dont watch it or post in this thread

[Malice]

Damn, the first thing I thought of was that he had been beheaded.

[Sir Cornwell]

I don't know.

If I (I doubt you'll give a decent and well thought out answer: you have your hidden agenda) if you're walking along rainy streets one night while I follow you in my car. I get out of the car and come up to you: how nice will you be? Offer me some of your skittles? Ask if I'd like a massage or a BJ?

Not just stopping my ride, rolling down the window and asking directions: getting out and coming right up to you.

Can I get some of those skittles and a BJ now? That is how well you'll give it up isn't it?

[Tachosomoza]

Originally Posted by roasted

Watch this Video

As more facts of this case come out, the more ridiculous it will become. Zimmerman will easily beat a murder 2 charge, and this will be a fiasco.

Civilized society=1, Feral Niggers=0

inb4 "I'm sick of hearing about this" etc etc. If you dont want to hear about this news, then dont watch it or post in this thread

Murder 2, probably. Manslaughter's a different story.

It's funny he waited until he's got the whole country at his throat and he's sitting in a courtroom with shackles around his legs before he apologizes.

[sepht]

i have no hidden agenda and i would offer some skittles it he wasnt being an asshole

[-SpectraL]

The kid had the right to defend himself. Some fucking crazy-looking lunatic was following him home and he turned around confronted the guy. That's "stand your ground"... when you turn around and defend yourself from a likely attacker such as Zimmerman. Zimmerman was the stalker in this scenario, not the kid. Zimmerman was ordered by police not to harass, and he did so anyways, and that gave the kid the right of self defense. The kid didn't deserve to be shot for jumping on a man who was, contrary to police orders, stalking, harassing and likely intending to harm him.

[Sir Cornwell]

Originally Posted by sepht

i have no hidden agenda and i would offer some skittles it he wasnt being an asshole

Why (sounds like that BJ isn't out of the question, Doggie) would you be so nice to someone scoping you out at night? You turn tricks?

Do you charge much?

[Tachosomoza]

Originally Posted by -SpectraL

The kid had the right to defend himself. Some fucking crazy-looking lunatic was following him home and he turned around confronted the guy. That's "stand your ground"... when you turn around and defend yourself from a likely attacker such as Zimmerman. Zimmerman was the stalker in this scenario, not the kid. Zimmerman was ordered by police not to harass, and he did so anyways, and that gave the kid the right of self defense. The kid didn't deserve to be shot for jumping on a man who was, contrary to police orders, stalking, harassing and likely intending to harm him.

Apparently, you're supposed to let an armed three hundred pound thug follow you around and harass you, as if you've been transported back to the era where there were Colored and White signs on restrooms. Sick.

[roasted]

Originally Posted by -SpectraL

The kid had the right to defend himself. Some fucking crazy-looking lunatic was following him home and he turned around confronted the guy. That's "stand your ground"... when you turn around and defend yourself from a likely attacker such as Zimmerman. Zimmerman was the stalker in this scenario, not the kid. Zimmerman was ordered by police not to harass, and he did so anyways, and that gave the kid the right of self defense. The kid didn't deserve to be shot for jumping on a man who was, contrary to police orders, stalking, harassing and likely intending to harm him.

Do you mean Zimmerman had the right to defend himself? Because I havent heard a single inkling that Martin was physically assaulted before he was shot. All the physical evidence supports that Zimmerman was the true victim. It just happens that the perpetrator got shot (that doesnt qualify him as a victim, it makes him stupid and dead).

Also, a police dispatcher isnt a LEO. They arent deputized, therefore they cannot issue a lawful order. Often, a dispatcher is some housewife making $15/hr with little more than a high school diploma

[sepht]

Originally Posted by Sir Cornwell

Why (sounds like that BJ isn't out of the question, Doggie) would you be so nice to someone scoping you out at night? You turn tricks?

Do you charge much?

the enemy of my enemy is my friend

http://woolooloo.ytmnd.com/

[roasted]

Originally Posted by Tachosomoza

Apparently, you're supposed to let an armed three hundred pound thug follow you around and harass you, as if you've been transported back to the era where there were Colored and White signs on restrooms. Sick.

Even if was harassed (which Martin wasnt), that doesnt justify smashing a guys head into the sidewalk

[Tachosomoza]

Originally Posted by roasted

Even if was harassed (which Martin wasnt), that doesnt justify smashing a guys head into the sidewalk

So, someone can go out and harass a guy (the facts seem to be that Zimmerman initiated contact with Martin and followed him when he was advised not to), get pissed when the guy you're fucking with defends himself, and then shoot him when he objects to you harassing him, and go on to claim that you were in fear for your life when you're the one that started shit in the first place? That's new.

[is all mememememe with me]

Originally Posted by roasted

wtf are they man? ..fucking scratches. i've done worse than that to myself by fucking accident before now.

[( )]

Originally Posted by Sir Cornwell

I don't know.

If I (I doubt you'll give a decent and well thought out answer: you have your hidden agenda) if you're walking along rainy streets one night while I follow you in my car. I get out of the car and come up to you: how nice will you be? Offer me some of your skittles? Ask if I'd like a massage or a BJ?

Not just stopping my ride, rolling down the window and asking directions: getting out and coming right up to you.

Can I get some of those skittles and a BJ now? That is how well you'll give it up isn't it?

I'd viscously attack you without warning. Oh, wait, I'm not some degenerate black kid who takes himself for a thug. Never mind.

[roasted]

Originally Posted by Tachosomoza

So, someone can go out and harass a guy (the facts seem to be that Zimmerman initiated contact with Martin and followed him when he was advised not to), get pissed when the guy you're fucking with defends himself, and then shoot him when he objects to you harassing him, and go on to claim that you were in fear for your life when you're the one that started shit in the first place? That's new.

Like I just said, even if he was harassed (which he wasnt), that doesnt justify attacking someone.

How is smashing a guys head into the concrete considered "defending yourself" from a non-violent interaction?

[Ghost Buster]

Originally Posted by -SpectraL

The kid had the right to defend himself. Some fucking crazy-looking lunatic was following him home and he turned around confronted the guy. That's "stand your ground"... when you turn around and defend yourself from a likely attacker such as Zimmerman. Zimmerman was the stalker in this scenario, not the kid. Zimmerman was ordered by police not to harass, and he did so anyways, and that gave the kid the right of self defense. The kid didn't deserve to be shot for jumping on a man who was, contrary to police orders, stalking, harassing and likely intending to harm him.

Originally Posted by Tachosomoza

Apparently, you're supposed to let an armed three hundred pound thug follow you around and harass you, as if you've been transported back to the era where there were Colored and White signs on restrooms. Sick.

*sigh*

I agree zimmerman is retarded, but following someone down the street is not a crime. He had every right to do that. Martin had every right to stop walking, and ask him if there was a problem. Whoever made the first physical contact is the guilty party. End of story. Race is irrelevant, and only stupid people believe otherwise. The negro uproar does nothing but display the fact that the average negro is stupid.

Here are the possibilities as to what happened:

Either Martin attacked him because he didn't like being followed. I wouldn't like being followed home by someone either, but that isn't grounds to attack them.

Or Zimmerman tried to put him under citizens arrest and made the first physical contact by tackling him or trying to physically restrain him.

That is when the only crime was committed, when one of those two things happened. Once the fight starts, pulling a gun isn't unreasonable, either of them could have claimed genuine self defense at that point. The crime was committed by whoever made the first physical contact.

But of course the blacks see something about injustice on tv and start marching and buying skittles like a bunch of retards. On the plus side, this incident will hopefully raise awareness about how vigilante action can backfire (even if zimmerman didn't make the first contact). In the future people should just call the police and leave it at that. Thanks to this incident they probably will.

Con: Millions of tax payer money will/has been wasted on this retardation.

[Ghost Buster]

Originally Posted by roasted

Like I just said, even if he was harassed (which he wasnt), that doesnt justify attacking someone.

How is smashing a guys head into the concrete considered "defending yourself" from a non-violent interaction?

He was black you see, so therefore he was being oppressed by a white man (really a mexican) and every black in the country therefore has a constitutional obligation to start marching, yelling shit, buying skittles, claiming "we are all martin", and generally trying to fuck over whitey because the world is super racist oh lordy.

[is all mememememe with me]

read this post from some south florida cop in an LEO forum

Just to get back to OP's question. The Police are unique, and are endowed with extra powers the avarage civilian dont have. As far as following someone I believe it depends on the state. The law that I'm familiar with makes it illegal to follow someone about without good cause or reason. Following an individual may, and probably will cause him/her fear for their safety. Following someone is a form of harrassment.

Private detectives, store detectives, and non police investigators walk a thin line, and may sometime be subject to arrest, or restraining orders.

Unless you have a good reason that you can articulate... Your probably better off not following people.

http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/...ml#post2229040

[Ghost Buster]

Originally Posted by is all mememememe with me

read this post from some south florida cop in an LEO forum

"makes it illegal to follow someone about without good cause or reason."

Ya, because following a stranger in a gated community walking around in the rain isn't a good reason.

As it turned out, he was a stranger to the area. Zimmerman knew everyone around there. He saw this guy, and thought he wasn't a local, and guess what, turns out he wasn't.

Totally legally justified to follow him in that situation. Not many people in fancy gated community's walk around in the rain either. They have cars. It looked out of place for sure.

[reject]

I'd support Trayvon if it wasn't for the niggers who beat an old white man claiming "this is for Trayvon".

Attack the right race or GTFO. Ignorant fucks.

[crazzyass]

Originally Posted by roasted

Even if was harassed (which Martin wasnt), that doesnt justify smashing a guys head into the sidewalk

Zimmerman was following and yelling at Martin. We know this from 911 tapes and eyewitnesses. He was yelling at Martin, asking him what he was doing in the neighborhood. At some point, Martin started running and Zimmerman kept following. After this point, we don't know what happened. All we know is that Zimmerman was hit, and Martin was shot.

If some fatass Hispanic guy with a gun was chasing me in his car, screaming at me and being racist, I'd probably try to slam his head in the ground too. Martin had every reason to believe Zimmerman was going to hurt him, and guess what? He fucking killed him. Good on Martin for going down fighting.

[Ghost Buster]

Originally Posted by crazzyass

Zimmerman was following and yelling at Martin. We know this from 911 tapes and eyewitnesses. He was yelling at Martin, asking him what he was doing in the neighborhood. At some point, Martin started running and Zimmerman kept following. After this point, we don't know what happened. All we know is that Zimmerman was hit, and Martin was shot.

If some fatass Hispanic guy with a gun was chasing me in his car, screaming at me and being racist, I'd probably try to slam his head in the ground too. Martin had every reason to believe Zimmerman was going to hurt him, and guess what? He fucking killed him. Good on Martin for going down fighting.

I admit I very well may have attacked zimmerman in that situation as well. Guess what. I'd be in the wrong. At least I have the balls to admit that. Everything else you said was retarded. If Martin was the one who threw first, he sealed his own fate, whereas if he had acted civil for a few minutes, the police would have come, and he would have made zimmerman look like a fucking idiot. (Assuming it was martin who threw first, which I am not claiming).

[Tachosomoza]

Originally Posted by reject

I'd support Trayvon if it wasn't for the niggers who beat an old white man claiming "this is for Trayvon".

Attack the right race or GTFO. Ignorant fucks.

How about you don't punish an entire group of people for the actions of one imbecile. Its a bunch of childish shit.

[is all mememememe with me]

i'm not getting into this same argument again. so i'm out.

[reject]

Originally Posted by Tachosomoza

How about you don't punish an entire group of people for the actions of one imbecile. Its a bunch of childish shit.

But they're allowed to punish an innocent old man cos they're black so that makes it ok?

[Ghost Buster]

Originally Posted by is all mememememe with me

i'm not getting into this same argument again. so i'm out.

Seems like you already tried and failed. A bit late for a cop out IMO.

[is all mememememe with me]

Originally Posted by Ghost Buster

"makes it illegal to follow someone about without good cause or reason."

Ya, because following a stranger in a gated community walking around in the rain isn't a good reason.

As it turned out, he was a stranger to the area. Zimmerman knew everyone around there. He saw this guy, and thought he wasn't a local, and guess what, turns out he wasn't.

Totally legally justified to follow him in that situation. Not many people in fancy gated community's walk around in the rain either. They have cars. It looked out of place for sure.

i will just say this tho

would he be legally justified to follow this person around, who wasn't a local and was probly just taking a short cut thru the estate to save a couple of extra minutes so as to not get quite so wet from the rain?



cause we're getting back along this thinking where treyvon 'had no right to be there'. do you only walk around your own neighborhood and absolutely no where else in the world.

was the neighborhood private property with high fences and no admittance signs posted around it?

[Tachosomoza]

Originally Posted by reject

But they're allowed to punish an innocent old man cos they're black so that makes it ok?

I didnt say that. I said the people that attacked the old man were childish, and you shouldn't engage in random acts of emotionally charged mob violence on random folks because of a case of what may be racially motivated manslaughter.

[IIIII]

Zimmerman straight up lied in the court room when he gave his "apology" to the Martin family today. What a loser he is and his lawyer too.


His so called "apology":

“I wanted to say I am sorry for the loss of your son. I did not know how old he was,” Mr. Zimmerman, 28, said, speaking publicly for the first time about the Feb. 26 shooting. “I thought he was a little bit younger than I am. I did not know if he was armed or not.”

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimm...9#.T5GkB6vOz18

He tells the 911 operator exactly how old he thinks TM is:

911 dispatcher:

How old would you say he is?

Zimmerman:

He’s got something on his shirt. About like his late teens.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...cuse-Years-Ago

George Zimmerman liar and sociopath.

[is all mememememe with me]

darn, out of thanx

[Ghost Buster]

Originally Posted by is all mememememe with me

i will just say this tho

would he be legally justified to follow this person around, who wasn't a local and was probly just taking a short cut thru the estate to save a couple of extra minutes so as to not get quite so wet from the rain?



cause we're getting back along this thinking where treyvon 'had no right to be there'. do you only walk around your own neighborhood and absolutely no where else in the world.

was the neighborhood private property with high fences and no admittance signs posted around it?

How the fuck did you come up with that? Not at all. When you walk around a gated community as a stranger those people have a right to be like ummm who is this guy. It doesn't mean the stranger doesn't have a right to be there.

Locals being concerned/curious about a stranger =/= strangers don't have a right to go there.

Honestly I don't know how you guys manage to put socks on in the morning.

[Psych]

That's not a lie, idiot.

He had an idea of how old he might be judging by his clothing, but he did not know for sure.

[is all mememememe with me]

because its either private property with no entry signs, or its public right of way. it can't be both. if its public right of way then people are going to go thru there, get used to it.

[crazzyass]

Originally Posted by Ghost Buster

I admit I very well may have attacked zimmerman in that situation as well. Guess what. I'd be in the wrong. At least I have the balls to admit that. Everything else you said was retarded. If Martin was the one who threw first, he sealed his own fate, whereas if he had acted civil for a few minutes, the police would have come, and he would have made zimmerman look like a fucking idiot. (Assuming it was martin who threw first, which I am not claiming).

The Stand Your Ground law that, ironically enough, was used by police as justification for letting Zimmerman go is the same one that vindicates Martin.

You're allowed to use deadly force if you feel you are being threatened with death or serious injury.

Fatass with a gun stalking, harassing, and screaming at you? You could easily argue that Martin had every right to feel that his life was in danger and by striking Zimmerman was simply defending himself.

[is all mememememe with me]

Originally Posted by Psych

That's not a lie, idiot.

He had an idea of how old he might be judging by his clothing, but he did not know for sure.

i get the impression that from the way he said that it was him describing treyvon by his clothing when the operator asked how old he looked, like while he was still saying it. so zim immediately carried on with the age. either way late teens is a far cry from I thought he was a little bit younger than I am. how old is zim again?

[-SpectraL]

Originally Posted by Ghost Buster

I admit I very well may have attacked zimmerman in that situation as well. Guess what. I'd be in the wrong. At least I have the balls to admit that. Everything else you said was retarded. If Martin was the one who threw first, he sealed his own fate, whereas if he had acted civil for a few minutes, the police would have come, and he would have made Zimmerman look like a fucking idiot. (Assuming it was martin who threw first, which I am not claiming).

Let's say Martin confronted Zimmerman and ambushed him from behind while he walking back to his car. Let's say Martin did this because he was afraid he was being followed/stalked by some mysterious person lurking his trail in the dark, possibly thinking that he would be leading this weirdo right to his home and family. Zimmerman then lost Martin in the shadows and started to return to his vehicle. Martin then double-backed and jumped out of nowhere right in Zimmerman's face as he neared his car. A heated verbal argument ensued with Martin demanding to know who Zimmerman was and why he was following him home. After a few more minutes of heated exchange, Zimmerman tried to make a citizen's arrest and made physical contact (most probably holding his weapon out and pointed at Martin at this point). Martin lunged for the weapon and fought back, fearing for his life from this crazed gunman in the dark. Martin was winning and on top of Zimmerman on the ground. Zimmerman twisted free for a moment and shot Martin point-blank in the stomach and crawled away. After a minute or two Zimmerman, in a daze, walked back and stood over the kid with his gun still drawn. Martin was screaming at the top of his lungs for help at this point. Zimmerman shot him again as he lay there on the ground, thus silencing his cries forever. Who would you say was in the wrong in the scenario I have provided?

[crazzyass]

Zimmerman is 28, I think.

[Ghost Buster]

Originally Posted by crazzyass

Fatass with a gun stalking, harassing, and screaming at you? You could easily argue that Martin had every right to feel that his life was in danger and by striking Zimmerman was simply defending himself.

No, you couldn't. First off he didn't have his gun out you idiot. Martin didn't even know he had it until he ate one to the chest. The gun is irrelevant in factoring in what lead to the fight. Also if you see someone with a pistol and you try to punch them you deserve to get shot for reasons of darwinism.

Zimmerman wasn't yelling shit at him, again you are misinformed. There is no proof that ever happened, I have no idea what leads you to believe that.

Someone stalking you is not grounds to assault them. That isn't standing your ground, its invading theirs. God damn you people are retarded.

Is all of america like this? No wonder millions took to the streets. Your entire country has intelligence of a cabbage patch.

[Ghost Buster]

Originally Posted by -SpectraL

Let's say Martin confronted Zimmerman and ambushed him from behind while he walking back to his car. Let's say Martin did this because he was afraid he was being followed/stalked by some mysterious person lurking his trail in the dark, possibly thinking that he would be leading this weirdo right to his home and family. Zimmerman then lost Martin in the shadows and started to return to his vehicle. Martin then double-backed and jumped out of nowhere right in Zimmerman's face as he neared his car. A heated verbal argument ensued with Martin demanding to know who Zimmerman was and why he was following him home. After a few more minutes of heated exchange, Zimmerman tried to make a citizen's arrest and made physical contact (most probably holding his weapon out and pointed at Martin at this point). Martin lunged for the weapon and fought back, fearing for his life from this crazed gunman in the dark. Martin was winning and on top of Zimmerman on the ground. Zimmerman twisted free for a moment and shot Martin point-blank in the stomach and crawled away. After a minute or two Zimmerman, in a daze, walked back and stood over the kid with his gun still drawn. Martin was screaming at the top of his lungs for help at this point. Zimmerman shot him again as he lay there on the ground, thus silencing his cries forever. Who would you say was in the wrong in the scenario I have provided?

If someone stalks you, you can't legally just attack them. End of story in that aspect. I actually do suspect zimmerman tried to make a citizens arrest which lead to the conflict, but that makes this purely an issue of vigilante justice, like I initially said. Race has nothing to do with it.

Whoever made first contact was in the wrong. Its that simple.

E: So in that scenario, zimmerman is guilty. I actually believe he is guilty of manslaughter, but I also have the sense to realize there is no way to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt at this point. If I were on the jury I would vote not guilty, despite actually believing him to be guilty, because the evidence simply isn't there.

2nde: lol I didn't read the last part of your post first time around. If he shot him twice (which he didn't in reality) he would be guilty of 2nd, maybe even first degree murder in that case. In reality he may only be guilty of manslaughter, I dunno why they charged him with 2nd degree murder.

[IIIII]

Originally Posted by Psych

That's not a lie, idiot.

He had an idea of how old he might be judging by his clothing, but he did not know for sure.

So what? Zimmerman is saying that he would not have targetted Treyvon if he had known his age.

He is saying that he would have felt justified in shooting an older Treyvon.