What is unfair is that solely because of political pressure he had to spend thousands of dollars to defend himself again for what should have been (and was initially) ruled a 'good shoot.' If someone is trying to smash your brains out onto a sidewalk, do whatever you have to do. If that includes pulling a trigger, that's fine with me.
Ken_19: What is unfair is that solely because of political pressure he had to spend thousands of dollars to defend himself again for what should have been (and was initially) ruled a 'good shoot.' If someone is trying to smash your brains out onto a sidewalk, do whatever you have to do. If that includes pulling a trigger, that's fine with me.
Ken_19: What is unfair is that solely because of political pressure he had to spend thousands of dollars to defend himself again for what should have been (and was initially) ruled a 'good shoot.' If someone is trying to smash your brains out onto a sidewalk, do whatever you have to do. If that includes pulling a trigger, that's fine with me.
Did he not follow and confront this child? Was the child not just walking home after buying a soft drink and sweets? Is that what you country has become? A child goes to the shop for sweets, he is confronted by a stranger who ends up shooting him and you call it a "good shot"? Did the police not tell Zimmerman not to follow the teen? Why was he walking around with a gun in his pants anyway?
If someone confronted you on the street would you not defend yourself. The teen was confronted by some lunatic he did not know while he was just walking home. The lunatic shoots him and he walks!
I wonder if the child was white would the outcome have been the same?
If it was your child would you have called it a "good shot"?
sofarsogood74: Did he not follow and confront this child? Was the child not just walking home after buying a soft drink and sweets? Is that what you country has become? A child goes to the shop for sweets, he is confronted by a stranger who ends up shooting him and you call it a "good shot"? Did the police not tell Zimmerman not to follow the teen? Why was he walking around with a gun in his pants anyway? If someone confronted you on the street would you not defend yourself. The teen was confronted by some lunatic he did not know while he was just walking home. The lunatic shoots him and he walks!
I wonder if the child was white would the outcome have been the same?
If it was your child would you have called it a "good shot"?
The fact that Zimmerman ignored what the police told him shows that he was determined to confront Martin. How much more do people need to see that Zimmerman was looking for trouble. He's walking around the neighborhood with a gun in his hand.
Zimmerman had to know that Martin would attack him if he pointed a gun at Martin. That would give him an excuse to shoot Martin. Zimmerman wanted to be the neighborhood hero. He's not a hero. He's a bully and he may live to regret his decision to kill this kid.
sofarsogood74: Did he not follow and confront this child? Was the child not just walking home after buying a soft drink and sweets? Is that what you country has become? A child goes to the shop for sweets, he is confronted by a stranger who ends up shooting him and you call it a "good shot"? Did the police not tell Zimmerman not to follow the teen? Why was he walking around with a gun in his pants anyway? If someone confronted you on the street would you not defend yourself. The teen was confronted by some lunatic he did not know while he was just walking home. The lunatic shoots him and he walks!
I wonder if the child was white would the outcome have been the same?
If it was your child would you have called it a "good shot"?
Keep your day job. You would survive as an attorney. Only thing your verbal diarrhea might do is stir and confuse the confused more like what was done to convict him in the court of public opinion.
montemonte: The fact that Zimmerman ignored what the police told him shows that he was determined to confront Martin. How much more do people need to see that Zimmerman was looking for trouble. He's walking around the neighborhood with a gun in his hand.
Zimmerman had to know that Martin would attack him if he pointed a gun at Martin. That would give him an excuse to shoot Martin. Zimmerman wanted to be the neighborhood hero. He's not a hero. He's a bully and he may live to regret his decision to kill this kid.
I read he had a record of drunkenness and violence too. Is that correct? If so why was he allowed own a gun?
sofarsogood74: I read he had a record of drunkenness and violence too. Is that correct? If so why was he allowed own a gun?
"Zimmerman has been arrested for assaulting a police officer and for domestic violence"
"In addition, he reportedly lost his job as a bouncer because of his temper"
A onetime coworker of Zimmerman told the trial "He had a temper and he became a liability," he recalled. "One time this woman was acting a little out of control. She was drunk. George lost his cool and totally overreacted. ... It was weird, because he was such a cool guy, but he got all nuts. He picked her up and threw her. It was pure rage. She twisted her ankle. Everyone was flipping out."
If this is the case why was a man who has such a history allowed own a weapon?
sofarsogood74: "Zimmerman has been arrested for assaulting a police officer and for domestic violence"
"In addition, he reportedly lost his job as a bouncer because of his temper"
A onetime coworker of Zimmerman told the trial "He had a temper and he became a liability," he recalled. "One time this woman was acting a little out of control. She was drunk. George lost his cool and totally overreacted. ... It was weird, because he was such a cool guy, but he got all nuts. He picked her up and threw her. It was pure rage. She twisted her ankle. Everyone was flipping out."
If this is the case why was a man who has such a history allowed own a weapon?
Its notting new in all areas, from the begining to this day notting has changed, we have always been a loveing, forgiveing race. But one thing i see, because of the hate in america can we all see where we are now, and it will get worse every year. No morality and no love.
Would the outcome have been different if he were white? Or she were black? or hispanic? or asian? or whatever?
Well OJ was a very rich celebrity. Big difference.
From looking at the case from afar it is cut a dried to me.
A boy is walking home, doing no harm, minding his own business (correct if if I am wrong about any of this), he is confronted by an armed adult who was told by police to leave him alone. A fight ensues and the armed Adult shoots the boy dead. Then a jury finds it a lawful killing?
If the armed man had left this innocent boy just walk home like he should have nobody would have been shot. Am I right?
So surely that man is to blame for the killing? He pulled the trigger and started the who thing rolling when he followed and confronted an innocent child walking home?
You call the police,don't follow Police instructions,you get to a fight with the supposedly suspect,then you shoot and kill the suspect,and the jury find you not guilty. Then is what i call ""miscarriage of justish"".
sofarsogood74: Well OJ was a very rich celebrity. Big difference.
From looking at the case from afar it is cut a dried to me.
A boy is walking home, doing no harm, minding his own business (correct if if I am wrong about any of this), he is confronted by an armed adult who was told by police to leave him alone. A fight ensues and the armed Adult shoots the boy dead. Then a jury finds it a lawful killing?
If the armed man had left this innocent boy just walk home like he should have nobody would have been shot. Am I right?
So surely that man is to blame for the killing? He pulled the trigger and started the who thing rolling when he followed and confronted an innocent child walking home?
I am not debating anything you are saying.
What I find troubling is tossing in the race card.
The prosecution could not prove their case "beyond a reasonable doubt".
chris27292729: You call the police,don't follow Police instructions,you get to a fight with the supposedly suspect,then you shoot and kill the suspect,and the jury find you not guilty. Then is what i call ""miscarriage of justish"".
Its a disgusting verdict. Absolutely disgusting. I feel so sorry for the boys family.
It would be like me being armed and confronting another innocent Irish person. Then a fight starts caused by my confrontation. I shoot the guy I confronted and I walk. There is no way I would walk. I would get life here.
Ken_19: What is unfair is that solely because of political pressure he had to spend thousands of dollars to defend himself again for what should have been (and was initially) ruled a 'good shoot.' If someone is trying to smash your brains out onto a sidewalk, do whatever you have to do. If that includes pulling a trigger, that's fine with me.
did you even watch the trial? the symbol for justice is a statue of a woman wearing a blindfold and caring a double edged sword....
Ken_19: What is unfair is that solely because of political pressure he had to spend thousands of dollars to defend himself again for what should have been (and was initially) ruled a 'good shoot.' If someone is trying to smash your brains out onto a sidewalk, do whatever you have to do. If that includes pulling a trigger, that's fine with me.
And he got out of his car and following the unarmed victi for what reason? A neighbourhood watch member with a history of violence and a reported bad temper was given free rein to carry a gun and kill and get away with it,
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
George Zimmerman NOT Guilty!!!! Agree or Disagree?(Vote Below)
What do you think?
~JOHN~