Homeless George Zimmerman Can No Longer Stand His Ground >>MOD WARNING<<

No, genius. I dispute race had anything to do with this Democrat Hispanic that was attacked. So does the court. There was no hate crime. In fact, the liberal federal government agreed.

 

yes, if Martin was armed, the reverse might me true, maybe Martin would of stood his ground and Z would be dead

 

agree, it was not a hate crime, it was Z stalking a unarmed teen walking home (he assumed martin was a bad guy), and M seeing Z stalking him assumed Z was a bad guy.... they both used poor judgement, one is now dead and one is a social outcast for those bad judgements

Z said even if he could go back in time and prevent it from happening... he would not.. .he says it was God's plan for Martin to die

[video=youtube;eZxpwb0UYuk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZxpwb0UYuk[/video]

 

You have not shown me where George Zimmerman was even accused of stalking. Let alone, convicted.

 

I can say he was stalking him, and he was, not in the legal sense, in the dictionary sense

- - - Updated - - -

I never said he was guilty of the crime called "stalking", I said he was stalking him that night, which he was.... I posted a link to the dictionary definition, feel free to look it up

.

 

Since race plays a very open and profound roll in the US society -and there really is no doubt that this is the case-, I can very much pull out the race card on this. And what a joke you make this knee jerking reaction disputing this. lol

Go on.


Geez. The guy even would not turn back time and stop the execution of that black child if he good.
So zero remorse for killing a black child who was minding his own business in his own neighborhood.
A neighborhood he supposedly was protecting. What a psycho.

 

You can say it, you're just not being honest. He was charged for everything he was accused of doing. Stalking was not one of them. It's not just one person who decides that. Until the court of law make its ruling, it's just speculation. You have given your opinion. The legal way is the only way. Everything else is hearsay.

 

I am not being dishonest, I have been very clear on the matter, I think he shoudl of been charged with manslaughter....

OJ would agree with you... doesn't mean society agrees with OJ

.

 

You cannot pull the race card. A lengthy investigation went into this case regarding race and it was proven race was not the issue.

Sorry, I know you want everything to be about race and that the white man is the devil, but you lost this one.

 

That's the difference. You want to act un-American and have someone guilty before a conviction. This was also reviewed at the federal level, remember that.

I'm asking you for the last time to cite for me where he was convicted of Stalking. You keep refusing to do so.

 

this case was not about race

BUT, your wrong.. there were no winners in this case, both Zimmerman and Martin lost

 

Well of course. Some people have a hard time after they shoot someone who tried to kill them. Some get PTSD. People's emotions are all different.

 

are you even trying to see this from both (Z and M)'s point of view? try it.... you might see that both sides had bad judgement that night......

.

 

Since race plays a very profound roll in the US society: of course I can.

There are lengthy investigations in the US police and justice departments, concluding that race plays a roll in there. And the black minority is the victim of it.

 

Need you to cite your sources that this was about race.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, but you can't change time. Trayvon can't unattack Zimmerman and try to kill him. Zimmerman can't take back defending himself.

Some people get upset after killing someone in self defense. It just means Zimmerman values human life and has empathy for the dead.

- - - Updated - - -

Ok I can't in all honesty say Zman values human life. But I do think he's upset he had to use deadly force.

 

You want sources that show race plays a profound roll in the US society?

OMG
lol

It's just upsetting that executing somebody in "self defense" is alright, when an armed person goes out of his way on a rainy dark night killing the only witness who was unarmed.

What did Zimmerman do, to make you think that?

 

I want no such thing.... just like OJ, Z was found not guilty, we all have to live with that

I have told you over and over, I never said he was guilty of breaking a stalking law that goes by the same name... I said he was stalking Martin that night, two different things, I am using the dictionary definition, not the legal definition

.

 

Stood his ground against what? You're not actually arguing Zimmerman assaulted him, are you?

 

no, but for Z to say he would not even if he could makes him a bad person imo

- - - Updated - - -

against the man stalking him at night with a gun

had this been a white teen female jogger that Z was stalking in a car at night and then on foot after she noticed him, I think some would be able to see this.....


.

 

You are out of your mind. The two are not even closely related.

The murder OJ was accused of? There were about 100 theories and each one more elaborate than the next. Some even involved a Jewish hit.

Zimmerman's case was a clear cut self defense case with an easy victory.

Haha you really trying to say OJ killed Nicole to defend himself?

Wow the left wing has really hit rock bottom.

 

You aren't missing anything. That is what happened by all accounts. Some around here just want to rewrite things to fit a narrative, like George being "white" when it was useful...and now he's not...or claiming he "murdered" an unarmed kid as if the Murder definition is something we cant all pull up and see that it doesnt fit.

He killed an attacker while defending himself, and the race pimps wanted to make it more than that....like they've been trying to do with mike Brown and others since. For whatever reason keeping people divided by race seems to be someones strategy.

 

no, but for Z to say he would not even if he could makes him a bad person imo

- - - Updated - - -



against the man stalking him at night with a gun

had this been a white teen female jogger that Z was stalking in a car at night and then on foot after she noticed him, I think you would be able to see this.....


.[/QUOTE]

How many stalkers call the police while they're stalking someone, and keep the police on the line so they can describe what they see?

In the private security world, this is called observing and reporting. By your standard, every security officer in the performance of his duties is stalking. That's absurd. Your argument is absurd. Just because Martin thought a gay man was going to rape him doesn't mean there's any evidence the man was going to rape him. It could've been Martin's homophobia doing the talking. How do you forgive him for being a paranoid homophobe? Oh, because he's not a white guy. Never mind.

 

Consider the following scenario, outlined only by the court testimony of uninvolved witnesses.

• A victim of multiple burglaries follows an athletic young man walking through a neighborhood.
• When he calls the police to investigate, the follower tells the 911 operator that he does not know the race of the person he is following. When pressed by the 911 operator, the caller says he thinks the person is of a specific race, which is different than his own.
• In a conversation with a third party the young man uses a racial slur to describe the person following him.
• Moments after the young man makes the racist remark, a witness sees the young man beating the person he slurred.
• At some point during the beating, the man being beaten shoots the young man.
• The shooter does not flee the scene, and cooperates with police when they arrive.
• The police verify that the shooter has contusions on his face and the back of his head, conclude they are from the beating, and interpret them as reasonable grounds for self-defense.

The race of each participant does not change any of these known facts. The race of each participant has no value in determining the unknown actions of each person. These two individuals could have done many different things during the spaces between the known events to which third parties can attest. We have no way to know who initiated contact, or who began the violence, what the motives or intentions of either person were, nor what underlying perceptions and conditions precipitated the physical conflict.

Assuming that use of a racial slur indicates racist attitudes, and assuming that doing so immediately prior to committing violence is a realistic indication that the violence was motivated by racism, then a fair summary of this event is “a hate crime victim kills a violent racist in self-defense.”

Near as I can tell, the only reason people interpret the shooting to be motivated by Zimmerman being a racist is that Zimmerman was described as White, and Trayvon as Black.

If the races of Trayvon and Zimmerman were the converse, many of these same people would be cheering that the victim of the beating killed the racist (the person who used a racial slur prior to beating the shooter).

Don't worry, Trayvon fans, there is plenty of hypocrisy to go around.

I heard people on all sides make different unfounded assumptions, based on race, about the unknown parts of the story, and then use these assumptions to accent or ignore particular known events. Were all other events the same except that Trayvon Martin was White, and George Zimmerman was Black, the summary is still either “hate crime victim kills racist in self-defense,” or “unknown motives and behaviors result in an injured man and a corpse.” However, I think it is realistic to say that the interpretation would have been very different in the media, by Al Sharpton, and very possibly by some of the local police, all because they are following the red herring, generalizations, and group identification to unfounded conclusions. When confronted only with the known and verified facts of the interaction, the president’s statement about Trayvon Martin comes down to either “I could have had a son who was a violent racist like Trayvon,” or “My son could have been killed while beating a man up.” No one but Zimmerman knows how the interaction between Martin and Zimmerman started, nor how it progressed, but nobody seems to recognize the importance of that because of the focus on race and the irrational tendency to make assumptions based on stereotypes, and generally to vindicate people of one’s own category and blame those of another.

The saddest part of that whole incident and the fallacious thinking that still surrounds it is that, because the participants were reduced in the public discourse (by the media, the president, et cetera) to representatives of categories, real lessons were bypassed. These lessons include the importance of kind manners and respect for strangers, and the folly and inevitable results of violence. Most of all, the incident illustrates how easy it is to attribute motives, attitudes, and actions to people without any clear evidence, and what the results of that ultimately can be. Treating each other like categories can have disastrous results for everyone involved. Automatically choosing sides based on affinity to or membership in a category is the foundation of injustice, exceeding even greed and ignorance in scope and pervasiveness.

You are right, race does play a profound role in society, especially in the perception of who is racist.

 

have not heard anyone say that here, I believe it was manslaughter myself, but the da overcharged

 

Zimmerman owns his own ruin, 100%. I played no part in the downfall of that slime.