Media Manipulation Of The News At Its Finest

[Freemason9]

Uh, NO. This was not a justified killing. Zimmerman was NOT the victim. He initiated the entire event, and a fellow human being is now dead because of Zimmerman's poor judgement. You should not be defending his actions.

He "initiated the event?" So if I said "your mother wears army boots," that would give you the right to bash my head against the ground?

I never heard that "initiating an event" gives you the right to beat someone.

I would say I can't believe the way liberals will lower themselves to convict an innocent man, but it's impossible to get lower than a liberal.

The courts will decide on Zimmerman's innocence. From what I know, Zimmerman killed a man--and he is entirely culpable.

 

[Freemason9]

Well, you may enjoy being a victim, others like myself do not. And you still didnt answer my previous statement. If Zimmerman was seeking a fatal confrontation, why didnt he just shoot right away? And please dont give me that "he had to make it look like he was getting attacked story" The amount of guessing you have to do to reach that conlcusion is astounding.

What makes you say that? I'm no victim of anything. I'm fine without a gun; in fact, I believe I am far better off without one. No "fool's courage" to contend with, and I am a very fit individual. Besides, I happen to believe that most folks that carry concealed weapons are the very ones that SHOULD NOT ever carry a gun.

I've already answered (at least twice) the comment regarding why he didn't fire away at the beginning. He would have been clearly labeled as a murderer. He needed provocation first, and he sought it.

Zimmerman mad a conscious choice to not be a victim of crime, crimes the police were unable to stop. He broke no law following martin. Once martin decided to istead of just confronting zimmerman verbally to confronting him physically, the onerous of the confrontation went to martin.

Nope, wrong. You can defend yourself without using deadly force; I've done that many, many times. Zimmerman's use of a handgun puts his response in a totally different category.

And none of that changes the fact that he chose to kill another human being.

So you believe in rule by the strongest? I thought you didnt like feudalism, which was run by said strongest (the military knight class). Get your ideas straight.

Once you are attacked physically, and you think your life is in danger, you are allowed to use deadly force if you posses it. If maritn was beating on a prone zimmerman, then the criteria is met.

"Rule by the strongest?" I never mentioned that, and I don't know where you pulled that from.

Again, allow me to remind you that any "danger" that Zimmerman experienced was the direct result of his own actions. Responsibility matters.

 

[GuyPinestra]

What makes you say that? I'm no victim of anything. I'm fine without a gun; in fact, I believe I am far better off without one. No "fool's courage" to contend with, and I am a very fit individual. Besides, I happen to believe that most folks that carry concealed weapons are the very ones that SHOULD NOT ever carry a gun.

I've already answered (at least twice) the comment regarding why he didn't fire away at the beginning. He would have been clearly labeled as a murderer. He needed provocation first, and he sought it.


Nope, wrong. You can defend yourself without using deadly force; I've done that many, many times. Zimmerman's use of a handgun puts his response in a totally different category.

And none of that changes the fact that he chose to kill another human being.

So you believe in rule by the strongest? I thought you didnt like feudalism, which was run by said strongest (the military knight class). Get your ideas straight.

Once you are attacked physically, and you think your life is in danger, you are allowed to use deadly force if you posses it. If maritn was beating on a prone zimmerman, then the criteria is met.

"Rule by the strongest?" I never mentioned that, and I don't know where you pulled that from.

Again, allow me to remind you that any "danger" that Zimmerman experienced was the direct result of his own actions. Responsibility matters.

Let me get this straight...

A man running a Neighborhood Watch program follows another man who is not recognized as someone from the neighborhood, gets confronted and attacked by the suspect individual and somehow he is to 'blame' for shooting his attacker in self defense?

Give me a break!

And your on-the-fly 'psychological profile' of a person exercising his 2nd Amendment RIGHT is fucking ludicrous!

 

[Freemason9]

So you believe in rule by the strongest? I thought you didnt like feudalism, which was run by said strongest (the military knight class). Get your ideas straight.

Once you are attacked physically, and you think your life is in danger, you are allowed to use deadly force if you posses it. If maritn was beating on a prone zimmerman, then the criteria is met.

"Rule by the strongest?" I never mentioned that, and I don't know where you pulled that from.

Again, allow me to remind you that any "danger" that Zimmerman experienced was the direct result of his own actions. Responsibility matters.

Let me get this straight...

A man running a Neighborhood Watch program follows another man who is not recognized as someone from the neighborhood, gets confronted and attacked by the suspect individual and somehow he is to 'blame' for shooting his attacker in self defense?

Give me a break!

And your on-the-fly 'psychological profile' of a person exercising his 2nd Amendment RIGHT is fucking ludicrous!

He acted well beyond the role of a mere Neighborhood Watch participant. He called in his observation and was told to stop stalking the pedestrian. He decided to be a vigilante, and continued to pursue that person; the person that was being stalked became alarmed and confronted Zimmerman (I would have done the same); Zimmerman killed the man.

And why in the world do you feel compelled to defend a slug like Zimmerman? He killed an innocent man. He did so intentionally, and was prepared to do so.

He is fully culpable; he made the worst decision possible. I would not want someone like Zimmerman walking around my community--he endangers everyone.

 

[martybegan]

"Rule by the strongest?" I never mentioned that, and I don't know where you pulled that from.

Again, allow me to remind you that any "danger" that Zimmerman experienced was the direct result of his own actions. Responsibility matters.

Let me get this straight...

A man running a Neighborhood Watch program follows another man who is not recognized as someone from the neighborhood, gets confronted and attacked by the suspect individual and somehow he is to 'blame' for shooting his attacker in self defense?

Give me a break!

And your on-the-fly 'psychological profile' of a person exercising his 2nd Amendment RIGHT is fucking ludicrous!

He acted well beyond the role of a mere Neighborhood Watch participant. He called in his observation and was told to stop stalking the pedestrian. He decided to be a vigilante, and continued to pursue that person; the person that was being stalked became alarmed and confronted Zimmerman (I would have done the same); Zimmerman killed the man.

And why in the world do you feel compelled to defend a slug like Zimmerman? He killed an innocent man. He did so intentionally, and was prepared to do so.

He is fully culpable; he made the worst decision possible. I would not want someone like Zimmerman walking around my community--he endangers everyone.

The last time he listened to 911 the people got away. All He did was follow someone. If the other person decided to attack him for this, they become the agressor, and any response in defense of said agression is justified.

Once Martin attacked Zimmerman just for following him (if that is what happened) martin lost claim to innocence.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Let me get this straight...

A man running a Neighborhood Watch program follows another man who is not recognized as someone from the neighborhood, gets confronted and attacked by the suspect individual and somehow he is to 'blame' for shooting his attacker in self defense?

Give me a break!

And your on-the-fly 'psychological profile' of a person exercising his 2nd Amendment RIGHT is fucking ludicrous!

He acted well beyond the role of a mere Neighborhood Watch participant. He called in his observation and was told to stop stalking the pedestrian. He decided to be a vigilante, and continued to pursue that person; the person that was being stalked became alarmed and confronted Zimmerman (I would have done the same); Zimmerman killed the man.

And why in the world do you feel compelled to defend a slug like Zimmerman? He killed an innocent man. He did so intentionally, and was prepared to do so.

He is fully culpable; he made the worst decision possible. I would not want someone like Zimmerman walking around my community--he endangers everyone.

The last time he listened to 911 the people got away. All He did was follow someone. If the other person decided to attack him for this, they become the agressor, and any response in defense of said agression is justified.

Once Martin attacked Zimmerman just for following him (if that is what happened) martin lost claim to innocence.

^^^ This...^^^

 

[Meathead]

If the defense can't tag reasonable doubt on whatever happened, they should be disbarred. Only an "inner city" jury would find Zimmerman guilty, and even then the verdict would be overturned on appeal - Zimmerman walks.

 

[Freemason9]

Let me get this straight...

A man running a Neighborhood Watch program follows another man who is not recognized as someone from the neighborhood, gets confronted and attacked by the suspect individual and somehow he is to 'blame' for shooting his attacker in self defense?

Give me a break!

And your on-the-fly 'psychological profile' of a person exercising his 2nd Amendment RIGHT is fucking ludicrous!

He acted well beyond the role of a mere Neighborhood Watch participant. He called in his observation and was told to stop stalking the pedestrian. He decided to be a vigilante, and continued to pursue that person; the person that was being stalked became alarmed and confronted Zimmerman (I would have done the same); Zimmerman killed the man.

And why in the world do you feel compelled to defend a slug like Zimmerman? He killed an innocent man. He did so intentionally, and was prepared to do so.

He is fully culpable; he made the worst decision possible. I would not want someone like Zimmerman walking around my community--he endangers everyone.

The last time he listened to 911 the people got away. All He did was follow someone. If the other person decided to attack him for this, they become the agressor, and any response in defense of said agression is justified.

Once Martin attacked Zimmerman just for following him (if that is what happened) martin lost claim to innocence.

Do you even know what you just said?

"Once Martin attacked Zimmerman just for following him (if that is what happened) martin lost claim to innocence."

And yet, Zimmerman stalked Martin for just walking by. Therefore, Zimmerman 'lost claim to innocence."

You have lost track of the big picture. Zimmerman shot and killed an INNOCENT PERSON. Every action Zimmerman took led up to this event. Zimmerman is solely responsible.

Oh, you can argue that this was a "legal" killing, but that doesn't make it right. Zimmerman is still a killer.

 

[Freemason9]

If the defense can't tag reasonable doubt on whatever happened, they should be disbarred. Only an "inner city" jury would find Zimmerman guilty, and even then the verdict would be overturned on appeal - Zimmerman walks.

Are you actually trying to excuse a man for intentionally killing an innocent soul? What kind of a person ARE you, anyway?

 

[Meathead]

If the defense can't tag reasonable doubt on whatever happened, they should be disbarred. Only an "inner city" jury would find Zimmerman guilty, and even then the verdict would be overturned on appeal - Zimmerman walks.

Are you actually trying to excuse a man for intentionally killing an innocent soul? What kind of a person ARE you, anyway?

Spare us your bleeding heart bit. Trayvon was hardly an "innocent soul" who was intentionally killed. He was a budding thug who died like one. Three suspensions in half a school year. This may shock you, but no one calls the police on their way to premeditated murder.

What kind of idiot ARE you, anyway?

 

[Freemason9]

If the defense can't tag reasonable doubt on whatever happened, they should be disbarred. Only an "inner city" jury would find Zimmerman guilty, and even then the verdict would be overturned on appeal - Zimmerman walks.

Are you actually trying to excuse a man for intentionally killing an innocent soul? What kind of a person ARE you, anyway?

Spare us your bleeding heart bit. Trayvon was hardly an "innocent soul" who was intentionally killed. He was a budding thug who died like one. Three suspensions in half a school year. This may shock you, but no one calls the police on their way to premeditated murder.

What kind of idiot ARE you, anyway?

Holy crap, think about what you're saying. Three classroom suspensions = death penalty?

I urge you as a concerned friend to consider your ways.

 

[Meathead]

Are you actually trying to excuse a man for intentionally killing an innocent soul? What kind of a person ARE you, anyway?

Spare us your bleeding heart bit. Trayvon was hardly an "innocent soul" who was intentionally killed. He was a budding thug who died like one. Three suspensions in half a school year. This may shock you, but no one calls the police on their way to premeditated murder.

What kind of idiot ARE you, anyway?

Holy crap, think about what you're saying. Three classroom suspensions = death penalty?

I urge you as a concerned friend to consider your ways.

You are neither concerned nor a friend. My ways are my own, and I don't need a self-righteous whiner to show me the "way". I feel exactly the same about hell fire and brimstone preachers, which is essentially what political correctness and those who espouse it have become.

The defense only has to give the jury reasonable doubt. Martin's history provide grounds for exactly that. As I said, only an inner-city jury would vote to convict, and if that were to happen it would be promptly overturned on appeal.

 

[asaratis]

Wait a minute. This guy with a gun stalks another guy that is innocent of any wrong doing. When the stalker is confronted, a fight ensues . . . and the stalker shoots the fellow to death in "self defense."

Do you understand how wrong this whole scenario is?

Had Zimmerman not been armed, this would not have happened. The gun gave him fool's courage.

Zimmerman did not use his gun until after he was being beat about the head and face by a thug with a fuckin' attitude. Trayvon Martin was a belligerent thug. The fact that Zimmerman was lawfully carrying a gun is a blessing. The thug died.

As much as the media would love to milk a story about racial strife and mistreatment of blacks by whites, the media HAD to do something with the pictures to make Trayvon look black and innocent and to make Zimmerman look white and aggressive. The photos of Trayvon spread over the country were years old and taken during happy times. The exception to that was the photo in which the thug Trayvon gives the finger to the camera.

Liberal media hounds really do try hard to skew the truth to match their idiotic beliefs.

 

[Freemason9]

Spare us your bleeding heart bit. Trayvon was hardly an "innocent soul" who was intentionally killed. He was a budding thug who died like one. Three suspensions in half a school year. This may shock you, but no one calls the police on their way to premeditated murder.

What kind of idiot ARE you, anyway?

Holy crap, think about what you're saying. Three classroom suspensions = death penalty?

I urge you as a concerned friend to consider your ways.

You are neither concerned nor a friend. My ways are my own, and I don't need a self-righteous whiner to show me the "way". I feel exactly the same about hell fire and brimstone preachers, which is essentially what political correctness and those who espouse it have become.

The defense only has to give the jury reasonable doubt. Martin's history provide grounds for exactly that. As I said, only an inner-city jury would vote to convict, and if that were to happen it would be promptly overturned on appeal.

Sorry to hear that.

 

[Freemason9]

Wait a minute. This guy with a gun stalks another guy that is innocent of any wrong doing. When the stalker is confronted, a fight ensues . . . and the stalker shoots the fellow to death in "self defense."

Do you understand how wrong this whole scenario is?

Had Zimmerman not been armed, this would not have happened. The gun gave him fool's courage.

Zimmerman did not use his gun until after he was being beat about the head and face by a thug with a fuckin' attitude. Trayvon Martin was a belligerent thug. The fact that Zimmerman was lawfully carrying a gun is a blessing. The thug died.

As much as the media would love to milk a story about racial strife and mistreatment of blacks by whites, the media HAD to do something with the pictures to make Trayvon look black and innocent and to make Zimmerman look white and aggressive. The photos of Trayvon spread over the country were years old and taken during happy times. The exception to that was the photo in which the thug Trayvon gives the finger to the camera.

Liberal media hounds really do try hard to skew the truth to match their idiotic beliefs.

You see this as a liberal vs. conservative issue, a black vs. white issue. I see this as a killing. There are profound differences.

Be careful with political allegience--it is a devil's game.

 

[bripat9643]

The courts will decide on Zimmerman's innocence. From what I know, Zimmerman killed a man--and he is entirely culpable.

That's because you only know what you want to know.