Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Maybe not first degree, but he is guilty of murder. He followed the boy and it sounds like he instigated the fight and shot the boy when it went bad for him. Proving premeditation is impossible but the guy was looking for trouble. The race pimps are desperate for money and will wallow in the stink of this dead kids notoriety for every cent they can wring out of it. They are true scum. I only hope that there greed doesn't start a riot.
There is no way you can know that. Following someone is not a crime, nor is it an excuse for the followed to get violent. Looking for trouble, as you say, is not a crime either. Zimmerman thought that martin was looking for trouble when he decided to follow him. If he was guilty of murder, he probably would have been arrested already.
So, the one being followed has no right to know who is following them and why ? Travon Martin had no right to "stand his ground" against a large, strange unidentified man following him ? Intent means nothing here at all. Irresponsible actions got the boy killed. Those actions were Zimmermans. Irresponsible actions are not against the law, but many times the consequences result in an illegal action being taken . Zimmerman had no business following the kid. He had no business or authority to try and detain the boy. He was acting on authority he did not have. This boy is not dead as a result of any action of his own doing.
Here's what I don't understand:
If this was my son, Zimmerman would be dead by now.
It's obvious that the police aren't going to carry out justice, and the evidence is clear that he chased down and shot the boy, as far as I can see.
There is no doubt in my mind that I would have shot down that son-of-a-bitch without a second thought.
So, my question is this: Why isn't this asshole dead?
Yep. Vigilante "justice" is often very misguided. And criminal. Good to know that you are still just a fraud, VLWC.
I don't recall Bush inserting himself into the Schiavo case. Obama had to placate the left, again interjecting where he need not.
really? that's funny because it was the only time bush left crawford to come sign a bill into law in the middle of the night.
i'd say that was "inserting himself", wouldn't you?
As I understand it, he followed a teenager because he was in a hoodie and black, it was raining, he told 911 what he saw and suspected, they informed him to stop following the boy, his subsequent comments were assumptive and condemining, he left his car and approached the teenager after being told not to, he got into an altercation of some sort and shot and killed a fellow human being, he is an asshole, racist, and wacho at best, and from what is known a murderer. Assholes with guns kill people. Judge jury and executioner all in one, how lovely.
There is no way you can know that. Following someone is not a crime, nor is it an excuse for the followed to get violent. Looking for trouble, as you say, is not a crime either. Zimmerman thought that martin was looking for trouble when he decided to follow him. If he was guilty of murder, he probably would have been arrested already.
So, the one being followed has no right to know who is following them and why ? Travon Martin had no right to "stand his ground" against a large, strange unidentified man following him ? Intent means nothing here at all. Irresponsible actions got the boy killed. Those actions were Zimmermans. Irresponsible actions are not against the law, but many times the consequences result in an illegal action being taken . Zimmerman had no business following the kid. He had no business or authority to try and detain the boy. He was acting on authority he did not have. This boy is not dead as a result of any action of his own doing.
Standing your ground is not you initiating the violence. Standing your ground is defensive. Zimmerman claims that he was attacked by Martin, that is not standing your ground. Zimmerman's claim is supported by what little evidence that WE know. There is no evidence that WE know about that Zimmerman initiated the fight, and following is not an excuse for the followed to get violent.
I don't recall Bush inserting himself into the Schiavo case. Obama had to placate the left, again interjecting where he need not.
really? that's funny because it was the only time bush left crawford to come sign a bill into law in the middle of the night.
i'd say that was "inserting himself", wouldn't you?
Signing a bill is his duty.
Terri Schiavo case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaOn October 15, 2003, Schiavo's feeding tube was removed. Within a week, when the Schindlers' final appeal was exhausted, State Rep. Frank Attkisson and the Florida Legislature hastily passed "Terri's Law," giving Governor Jeb Bush the authority to intervene in the case.
Governor Bush immediately ordered the feeding tube reinserted.
Governor Bush sent the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) to remove Schiavo from the hospice.
She was taken to Morton Plant Rehabilitation Hospital in Clearwater, where her feeding tube was surgically reinserted.[39] She was then returned to the hospice. Part of the legislation required the appointment of a guardian ad litem (GAL), Dr. Jay Wolfson, to "deduce and represent the best wishes and best interests" of Schiavo, and report them to Governor Bush. Wolfson's report did not change Michael's role as her legal guardian and did not otherwise obstruct him legally.[6]
The Florida Supreme Court then overturned the law as unconstitutional.[45]
Following Greer's order on March 18, 2005 to remove the feeding tube, Republicans in the United States Congress subpoenaed both Michael and Terri Schiavo to testify at a congressional hearing.[53] Greer told congressional attorneys, "I have had no cogent reason why the (congressional) committee should intervene." He also stated that last-minute action by Congress does not invalidate years of court rulings
I don't recall Bush inserting himself into the Schiavo case. Obama had to placate the left, again interjecting where he need not.
really? that's funny because it was the only time bush left crawford to come sign a bill into law in the middle of the night.
i'd say that was "inserting himself", wouldn't you?
Signing a bill is his duty.
Santorum On Zimmerman: Malicious Intent
Santorum on Face The Nation: Calls shooting Heinous and says Zimmerman had malicious intent.
Obama said he had a message mainly to the parents of Treyvan, and it was the he'd look like...comment.
Who weighed in with politically before all the facts were known, the Democrat of the Christian Conservative Republican who weighed in on a man wanting to pull the chord on his comatose wife?
Look who's on the side of your arguments -- radical extremist wingnuts/moonbats, or pragmatic realists like Obama.
Conservative Christians Unfit for Office | American Taliban | Rick Santorum
So, the one being followed has no right to know who is following them and why ? Travon Martin had no right to "stand his ground" against a large, strange unidentified man following him ? Intent means nothing here at all. Irresponsible actions got the boy killed. Those actions were Zimmermans. Irresponsible actions are not against the law, but many times the consequences result in an illegal action being taken . Zimmerman had no business following the kid. He had no business or authority to try and detain the boy. He was acting on authority he did not have. This boy is not dead as a result of any action of his own doing.
Standing your ground is not you initiating the violence. Standing your ground is defensive. Zimmerman claims that he was attacked by Martin, that is not standing your ground. Zimmerman's claim is supported by what little evidence that WE know. There is no evidence that WE know about that Zimmerman initiated the fight, and following is not an excuse for the followed to get violent.
I guess it all depends on where you stand. If a guy who has 100 pounds on me has been following for any length of time gabbing on a cell phone at the very least he will get asked why. If it were me, I would be preparing my self for a confrontation. This is covered in the basic CCW class. I have taken two in two separate states and it has been the same. I assume Zimmerman took a class to carry concealed. If he had, then he broke the first rule, DO NOT PURSUE. That is covered in the legal aspect, at least it was in the two classes I have taken. There is plenty of evidence Zimmerman escalated the situation. He could have waited by the mail box for the cops. He followed the boy with the intent to confront him. There is no evidence to support that he did not.
President Obama may be the only candidate for President who has been asked to comment, who made a rational and fair remark. Obama addressed his would look like my son/child comment to the parents of Treyvan Martin.
this has got to bother lunatics on both ends of the political spectrum.
President Obama may be the only candidate for President who has been asked to comment, who made a rational and fair remark. Obama addressed his would look like my son/child comment to the parents of Treyvan Martin.
this has got to bother lunatics on both ends of the political spectrum.
It was an inappropriate comment, focusing people on Treyvan's race. The Presidential response would be to explain that he does not have enough facts to form a credible opinion... but, apparently, the 'smart law professor' doesn't seem to value knowing all the facts before wading into the fray. Not the first time he's proved that race matters more than facts.
Rick Santorum went after Zimmerman and Obama made a comment directed 'mainly to the parents' of Martin, and you keep trying to make people believe Obama entered into the fray without knowing all the facts?
Obama never commented on Zimmerman, Santorum must have spoken to god because he went to Zimmerman's intent
It was an inappropriate comment, focusing people on Treyvan's race. The Presidential response would be to explain that he does not have enough facts to form a credible opinion... but, apparently, the 'smart law professor' doesn't seem to value knowing all the facts before wading into the fray. Not the first time he's proved that race matters more than facts.
Rick Santorum went after Zimmerman and Obama made a comment directed 'mainly to the parents' of Martin, and you keep trying to make people believe Obama entered into the fray without knowing all the facts?
Obama never commented on Zimmerman, Santorum must have spoken to god because he went to Zimmerman's intent
He was more circumspect than Santorum. None of them should be saying anything other than supporting due process. Due process has already found no evidence of guilt once. Now, the Feds are re-investigating - that's fine... but railroading an innocent man for the sake of political point scoring is as bad as allowing a guilty man to get away with murder.
It's not rocket science.
State Rep. Frank Attkisson and the Florida Legislature hastily passed "Terri's Law," giving Governor Jeb Bush the authority to intervene in the case. Governor Bush immediately ordered the feeding tube reinserted. Governor Bush sent the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) to remove Schiavo from the hospice.
Following Greer's order on March 18, 2005 to remove the feeding tube, Republicans in the United States Congress subpoenaed both Michael and Terri Schiavo to testify at a congressional hearing.[53] Greer told congressional attorneys, "I have had no cogent reason why the (congressional) committee should intervene." He also stated that last-minute action by Congress does not invalidate years of court rulings
some things need repeatingthat's because you're an obama deranged idiot.
and if he said what santorum did, you'd be criticizing that.
now run along.
Jilian, she does have a point. Obama injecting himself into the story had no basis and was inappropriate in any context.
Obama did not inject himself into the case. He made no comment about charges or Zimmerman and Obama did not stoop to the low level a conservative christian feels comfortable with -- judging an innocent man guilty of malicious intent, before any facts supporting that view are in
Now ofcourse this is just speculation, but my guess is Martin sought shelter from the rain and in doing this caught Zimmerman's attention. Zimmerman, upset about all the recent break-ins, in which all the suspects appear to be young black men, he decides to confront the kid as he fits the description.I guess it all depends on where you stand. If a guy who has 100 pounds on mehas been following for any length of time gabbing on a cell phone at the very least he will get asked why. If it were me, I would be preparing my self for a confrontation. This is covered in the basic CCW class. I have taken two in two separate states and it has been the same. I assume Zimmerman took a class to carry concealed. If he had, then he broke the first rule, DO NOT PURSUE. That is covered in the legal aspect, at least it was in the two classes I have taken. There is plenty of evidence Zimmerman escalated the situation. He could have waited by the mail box for the cops. He followed the boy with the intent to confront him. There is no evidence to support that he did not.So, the one being followed has no right to know who is following them and why ? Travon Martin had no right to "stand his ground" against a large, strange unidentified man following him ? Intent means nothing here at all. Irresponsible actions got the boy killed. Those actions were Zimmermans. Irresponsible actions are not against the law, but many times the consequences result in an illegal action being taken . Zimmerman had no business following the kid. He had no business or authority to try and detain the boy. He was acting on authority he did not have. This boy is not dead as a result of any action of his own doing.
Standing your ground is not you initiating the violence. Standing your ground is defensive. Zimmerman claims that he was attacked by Martin, that is not standing your ground. Zimmerman's claim is supported by what little evidence that WE know. There is no evidence that WE know about that Zimmerman initiated the fight, and following is not an excuse for the followed to get violent.
Santorum should drop out of the race and join a monastery where he can repent while beating himself raw wearing a hair shirtSantorum just can't catch a break. It sounds like he gave a good answer to a loaded question but y'all lefties still hate him.
Santorum should just stfu and drop out. He has shown he is unfit for the office of the Presidency.
This man Santorum put Michael Schiavo through hell and like Al Sharpton, Christian man Santorum never apologized to a man who's life he helped to destroy
I don't recall Bush inserting himself into the Schiavo case. Obama had to placate the left, again interjecting where he need not.
really? that's funny because it was the only time bush left crawford to come sign a bill into law in the middle of the night.
i'd say that was "inserting himself", wouldn't you?
Signing a bill is his duty.
I thought Obama's remark was typical narcissism. "me me me me me my son me me me me."
There was only ONE correct answer to the question obama was asked "I cannot comment on an ongoing case currently under investigation."
obama failed that one. Surprising since he has a law degree and should know better.
Did Obama comment on Zimmerman or the federal investigation? No.
Did Republican candidates for President comment? Yes on not only the actions of the man who says he used self defense, but the Reagan conservative called self defense, a heinous crime, and commented on the man's intent, calling it malicious.
no comparison
I'm glad people in my neighborhood dont feel like they have to be armed and packing heat. I would like to know more of zimmermans background and the actual facts. Was he following someone he though suspicious? If so, WHY? What business is this of his? On the other hand, was he being attacked? Is there somewhere we can get the facts?
