Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman Revisited

[sear]

edit:

"I don't care what you believe." V #269

Then why are you replying to my post?

"Yes, your question was an argument........a slur against Zimmerman (who did no wrong.)" V

argument
[ahr-gyuh-muh nt]

Synonyms
Examples
Word Origin

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun

This is a strong argument in favor of her theory.
5.
an address or composition intended to convince or persuade

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

slur
[slur]

Synonyms
Examples
Word Origin

8.
a disparaging remark or a slight:

Slur | Define Slur at Dictionary.com

"Zimmerman (who did no wrong.)" V

OK
Let's count the wrongs.

1) Z wanted to be a heroic hot-shot, so he got a gun and started prowling neighborhoods, without adequate police training or instinct. That's not wrong?

2) Z fixated on a dark-skinned school boy, and shot him dead within only a few minutes after Zimmerman first saw him. TM had done nothing wrong that evening, until Z forced an armed confrontation, if even then. That's not wrong?

3) Z disregarded both Sanford police dispatch guidance, and Neighborhood Watch.org published standards. Had Zimmerman adhered to either one or the other, Trayvon Martin would still be alive today. And you claim: "Zimmerman (who did no wrong.)"?

4) Z did all this based upon clearly racist distinctions DESPITE confessing to police Z didn't know what his deal is. And you don't have a problem with Z doing that?

Do you actually know what the definition of the word "wrong" is?

"Zimmerman (who did no wrong.)" V

Astounding!

"None of your business where he works." V

Is it any more business of yours about the Trayvon Martin homicide?
I didn't open this topic. I joined in late.
So why is your participation more valid, more legitimate than mine?

"He has to stay in hiding because of racist groups that would harm him if they could." V

Savor the irony! The racist Zimmerman cowering from his fellow racists!

"You sound like you're on that side." V

To you perhaps.

"Not really pretty, your strange attitude." V

Guilty as charged! I defend the weak and innocent from the strong and oppressive. AND OH MY GOD AM I ASHAMED OF MYSELF FOR IT !!

Please pardon my format error.

 

[Vox]

1) Z wanted to be a heroic hot-shot, so he got a gun and started prowling neighborhoods, without adequate police training or instinct. That's not wrong?
2) Z fixated on a dark-skinned school boy, and shot him dead within only a few minutes after Zimmerman first saw him. TM had done nothing wrong that evening, until Z forced an armed confrontation, if even then. That's not wrong?
3) Z disregarded both Sanford police dispatch guidance, and Neighborhood Watch.org published standards. Had Zimmerman adhered to either one or the other, Trayvon Martin would still be alive today. And you claim: "Zimmerman (who did no wrong.)"?
4) Z did all this based upon clearly racist distinctions DESPITE confessing to police Z didn't know what his deal is. And you don't have a problem with Z doing that?

1. False. He was a Neighborhood Watch Captain in his own gated complex.

2. False. He saw a thug casing his neighborhood and tried to keep him in sight for the cops.....but had to shoot him in self-defense when the thug tried to kill him.

3. False. He was obeying the warning not to follow. All he did was try to keep the thug in sight. He did that without following and had lost track of Martin when Martin suddenly attacked.

4. False. No racism was involved. "I don't know what his deal is" merely means Zimmerman regarded the apparent casing of homes as suspicious. Nothing racist about it. Martin fit the description of thugs who had repeatedly hit that housing complex.

Zimmerman did an excellent job........his courage, his determination and his survival should be an inspiration to citizens everywhere who are threatened and harassed by the criminal element.

Subsequent police and school reports of Martin showed him to be a violent thief. He was actually suspended from school for assaulting a bus driver when he was killed.......staying with his father because his mother couldn't handle him.

One less thug makes the world a better place.

Every one of your claims is false.

:ind:

 

[Vox]

I defend the weak and innocent from the strong and oppressive.

LOL!

A regular Dudley Doo-rite.

If it were true you'd be defending Zimmerman.

:ind:

 

[sear]

"1. False. He was a Neighborhood Watch Captain in his own gated complex." V #277

That's a title, not an imprimatur or license.

Zimmerman violated multiple published Neighborhood Watch.org operational standards. Don't take my word for it. Download the guidelines and read them.

"Patrol members should be trained by law enforcement. It should be emphasized to members that they do not possess police powers and they shall not carry weapons or pursue vehicles. They should also be cautioned to alert police or deputies when encountering strange activity. Members should never confront suspicious persons ... "

Page #17 Neighborhood Watch Manual / http://www.usaonwatch.org/

"Every one of your claims is false." V

I'm not sure if you're ignorant, or dishonest.
But I can't rule out that you're both.

 

[Excon]

Excon parroting talking points from conservative treehouse again.

I see you still haven't learned to stop being personal and to stop making dishonest comments.
Figures.

---

Zimmerman was in his truck acting as night watch. Stupidly. But he was.

No.
Zimmerman was on his way to the store (Target) when he observed a suspicious person. He then pulled over and called that suspicious person into the police.

That is not "acting" anything.

It is a reasonable and prudent thing to do for the safety of his community that I would hope everyone would do.

He was 100% morally in the wrong. And in incompetent dumbass.

Wrong.
Objectively there is nothing immoral, incompetent, or dumb about his reasonable and prudent actions.

Your position on that is simply not objective.

 

[Excon]

So.. in other words.. HE HAS NO EVIDENCE that he was not the aggressor. Which ACCORDING TO THE LAW.. I DON"T HAVE TO DISPROVE HIS STORY.. HE HAS TO PROVE HIS STORY. HE HAS TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE...

Wrong.
You clearly do not understand what you are talking about.
In an affirmative defense the accused only has to provide the reason they used lethal force to generate the jury instruction for self defense. If this is not done they will not get to use said defense.
In this case that was done by the prosecutor providing his statements and walk-through.

That's the LAW.. its been given to you.

:lamo
You clearly do not understand.

You refuse to acknowledge the fact that he has to provide evidence that he was not the aggressor.

No. He only had to articulate the reason why he resorted to self defense. That was accomplished.

... we actually have evidence that suggests to the contrary. Zimmerman got out of his car. Zimmerman told the dispatcher that he was pursuing martin. Zimmerman also gave evidence of his state of mind toward Martin in that

"these a-holes. They always get away.

Dispatch.. "are you following him"

Zimmerman "yeah".

iLOL
That is not evidence that he is the aggressor. That is an irrational argument.
And no, there was no pursuit on Zimmerman's part. Saying so is deliberate dishonesty.

Sorry.. the idea that Zimmerman was attacked is simply not supported by the evidence.

Wrong as usual.

You need to relax..

No. That would be you.

You made claims as to what happened to Zimmerman..

That is right. I spoke of the actual evidence.

 

[Excon]

And I pointed out that a medical examiner disagrees with your opinion.

Again, you do not get to make this personal.
It was a separate post about me. That is making it about the person. So stop with the bs.

If you would like to present what the ME said as rebuttal to an actual quote, go right on ahead. I have already destroyed her testimony on this forum by rebutting it with the forensics expert testimony provided by Forensic Pathologist Dr. Vincent DiMaio, I can do so again if needed.

and the actual injury sustains matters a lot to the credibility of what Zimmerman said happened.

No.
The outcome severity is irrelevant to the fact that he indeed experience the act getting his head repeatably slammed into the ground.
That is an act that can cause great bodily injury or loss of life.

Actually it doesn't prove that his head was "being pounded on that concrete and that makes it a life threatening situation.

This is stupid argumentation.
It is the act itself. Not the actual injury received.

Let me guess though. Someone you knew somewhere sometime in the past was able to adequately review, the injuries they were still sustaining to their head to determine they were not life threatening, so they then chose no to use lethal force. Is that sarcasm about right? Or do you get the absurdity or your argument now?

His injuries were insignificant according to the medical examiner. Which means that he was not sustaining forces EVEN APPROACHING a life threatening situation.

1. Irrelevant as she was shown to not be truthful by the rebuttal witness. She destroyed her own credibility by the way she testified on cross and then was destroyed by rebuttal.

2. Again doesn't matter to the actual act he was enduring. The law inst predicated on actual injury.

3. Irrelevant as he did not use self defense in response to the head slamming though he would have been justified had he.

You seem not to know of the case of the individual who chased down a person who stole his car radio.
That person swung a bag of car radios at him, it didn't strike him and he stabbed the guy once killing him because of it.
The Judge in that case ruled it was self defense and dismissed the charges under SYG.
You do not have to have actual injury for the act to be recognized as one that a person can be fearful of great bodily injury or loss of life.
The actual injury sustained matters not one bit.

If you are getting struck repeatedly and hard.. you are going to have broken teeth, facial edema, broken zygomatic arch, facial bruising, cut lips, lacerated cheekbones. NOW.. NONE of those injuries are life threatening.. and they are certainly NOT going to cause "brains oozing out of your head"... but.. THEY ARE indicative that you are getting hit with force.. and for an untrained person.. they MIGHT believe that they are in actual danger of death or grave injury.

Wrong as usual.
These things are possible, not necessary.

Except all the evidence indicates that he had no right to shoot.

All the evidence indicates that MARTIN was the one that had the right to use deadly force.

Wrong on both counts.
Someone who confronts you angrily, attacks you and knocks you to the ground, mount you and then repeatable slams you head into the ground is the aggressor.
When they then see your firearm and go for it with the stated intent to murder you, that is a life threatening situation. Zimmerman's actions were justified. So much so that even a jury found them to be so by acquitting him.
No evidence says Trayvon had any such right. That is make believe bs.

 

[Excon]

Being wrong is one thing.
Being wrong deliberately and knowingly is another.
You're accusing me of both.

Yes, you are obviously engaged in both.

If there's ANY factual error:
1) Quote my posted words.
2) Expose the error, and correct it.

It's been done repeatably.
You just ignore and then don't provided correct quotation in return.

e.g.
You claim Zimmerman pursued or was in pursuit and then you are told you are wrong as it does not fit the definition, it is then incumbent on you to support your claim, but you can't because it does not fit that definition.
Same with stalking vs following.


Pursue is following to overtake, catch, attack or kill. Zimmerman was not involved in any of those.
By the evidence, he followed a short distance (eventually stopping) for the sole purpose of pointing out the suspicious person to the police when they arrived. End of argument.

Trayvon on the other hand did engage in pursuit. He turned around, proceeded to the area he had already left, caught and attacked Zimmerman who was not following at that time but was instead heading back to his vehicle.


But noooooooooooooooo! You want to absurdly and irrationally argue otherwise.
Doh!

You assert Z said so. You are factually WRONG!!

I've reviewed the entire Sanford police transcript from start to finish. I've posted it in this thread.

Dishonesty by omission.
You know that the call isn't the only thing he provided to the police.

And you want to claim you aren't being dishonest? iLOL :doh
That bs isn't going to fly here.

You have disagreed. You have not refuted.

Wrong as usual.

And your squabble about the verb doesn't even rise to the level of laughable. It's just sad.

iLOL
You are engaged in very sad and dishonest behavior.
Words have meanings.
You should endeavor to learn them.

I quoted his words.

Yes you did, and then you applied a definition that does not fit.
That was already pointed out to you yet you ignored it and still do.

Take it up with Sanford police.

More irrelevant dishonest irrational nonsense.
They are not the issue.
You are the one that has a issue with knowing what the words you use mean.

To qualify for the label "school boy" one must meet two independent tests. Fail either test, and he's not a school boy.

More irrelevant dishonest irrational nonsense.
This is a debate and you are trying to create a false sympathetic narrative by calling him a school boy. That is why what you are engaged in here is wrong.
He was a young adult old enough to be emancipated and serve in the Military. That is factual without any false narrative created.

"Thug"?
Ironic!
You're defending ZIMMERMAN ?!?!

Zimmerman's rap sheet is longer than Martin's!!!

1. Ironic? No. Reality.
Trayvon's actions define him as a thug. Period. Zimmerman's do not.

2. Defending? If you call pointing out how your arguments are wrong, defending, okay.

3. Rap sheet? No. A Rap Sheet is a criminal record.
Trayvon's is longer and far more serious than Zimmerman's.

Arrests over false allegations do not count as they are not actual criminal records.
Getting caught with stolen jewelry does.
Attempting to murder someone who you attack, knock to the ground, mount and then repeatedly slam their head into the ground does.

And the one crime Zimmerman was convicted of was because he came to the defense of his friend who was being attacked by another person. That is actually noble behavior.
It just turned out it was an undercover Officer doing his job. So noble behavior greatly reduces the severity of that misdemeanor.

You got any noble behavior like that in Trayvon's rap sheet? I didn't think so.

You're making yourself look ridiculous!!

No that would be you and all your absurd arguments.

I'm vastly too mature ...

While that clearly isn't the case, I would advise you to not make this personal.
Even if about yourself, it only opens the door.

to fall for your bait; to squabble over the verb.

Dishonesty.
There is no bait and words have meanings.
You clearly understand that and is is why you are being dismissive, as it's meaning proves you wrong.
Not accepting that reality doesn't jibe with the word mature.

 

[Excon]

But for clarity of record, the only time TM ran was to put distance between himself and Zimmerman. Once the line of sight was broken, TM resumed his former stride.

This is you making things up.
He took off in a skipping like fashion.
The only thing we know he did after he got out of sight was that he got close to home (Rachel's testimony) which was out of Zimmerman's view (Zimmerman's testimony) when he passed by the area.

In vivid contrast it was Z that ran to close on TM; to force the armed confrontation that resulted in the homicide.

This is again you making things up.
By the evidence, he did not run. It was wind which was repeated in the walk-through.
By the evidence he did not try to force any confrontation. That was Trayvon and Trayvon alone who did that. He was the one who turned around (Rachel's testimony) to return to where he was long gone. Trayvon is again, the one then confronted (both Rachel's and Zimmerman's testimony) then attacked and knocked Zimmerman down.
All you have is irrational dishonest make believe bs.

Z exhibited the locomotive conduct necessary to force an armed confrontation of the school boy.

More made up bs.
That is called dishonesty.

We know Z locomoted to TM, because Z confessed to that as well.

Wrong as usual.
Trayvon is the one who did to Zimmerman. Learn the damn evidence and stop making things up.

I couldn't possibly care less what verb meets your comfort level.

Thou does protest too much.
Yeah, I am sure everyone knows.

We KNOW TM ran, because Z reported it to Sanford police.

What we know is that Zimmerman provided further detail about this.
He took off in a skipping like fashion.

We KNOW Z forced a confrontation, because of the injuries Z suffered when TM tried to defend himself from the adult, armed, night-stalker that forced the confrontation.

More made up dishonest irrational bs.

"Night-stalker"? iLOL
Made up bs as usual.
:2rofll:

They met.
Call it any direction you like.

Because Trayvon returned to the area to confront and attack.
Do you really not understand his returning shows he is the one who sought out Zimmerman who was returning to his vehicle?

I've already posted the graphic of their likely paths. You're welcome to review it.

No you didn't.
You posted dishonest made up bs inconsistent with the known evidence.
As already pointed out to you, the place you have them meeting is also absurd as Zimmerman was attacked at the T where he lost the things in his hand when he was knocked down.

I was fully aware of it years ago. And I have never asserted ANYthing to the contrary. You are persuasively refuting a falsehood I never asserted. Please prove me wrong. QUOTE MY EXACT POSTED WORDS !! Good luck with that.

Already did.
You are just continuing to spew dishonest bs.
If you know Zimmerman stopped following you would not be making the absurd arguments you have been making.
You even went on in this specific post of yours to argue contrary to Zimmerman stopping.
You don't even know what you are arguing. iLOL

Oh! You mean like Zimmerman?

Another nonsensical reply.
No, not like Zimmerman.
Trayvon was doing so while looking into homes. (Suspicious behavior.)
Zimmerman was trying to keep an eye on that suspicious person to point them out to the police when they arrived.
No, not like Zimmerman at all. :doh

If you want to look in a window WHILE WALKING, it might be mildly unethical.
But even if guilty, not worthy of summary execution.

Dishonest bs.
No one said it worthy of summary execution.

Prove it.

Zimmerman provided said testimony in the walk-through.
Avail yourself of it.

 

[Excon]

I've never heard of any official claim criminal trespass was involved. Whether it was an apartment complex, or co-ops, I've been lead to believe the path TM was on was a public access walkway.

No.
You were not lead to believe anything of the sort.
Not knowing this bit of information just means you have not paid attention, didn't bother to review all evidence, or just don't retain information as readily as others.
As for criminal trespass, such behavior can indeed be called such.

And Z was acting even more suspicious than TM.

More made up bs.

a) Z reportedly had applied for police work, and been rejected.

Irrelevant.

b) So Z gets his gun, and just night-stalks the first Black school boy he finds?

Irrational and dishonest.
1. There is no such thing as "night-stalked".
2. Zimmerman's following was not stalking, by definition and law.
3. This had nothing to do with Trayvon being black.

U.S. federal law doesn't apply in Florida ?!

:lamo
It is your interpretation of what is says that does not apply. Anywhere.

Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah
Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.
Zimmerman: Ok

Z was trying to close & confront.
The Sanford police operator figured that out, and tried to stop it.

Wrong as usual.
Those words indicate that Zimmerman was trying to keep the suspicious person in sight, not confront as you dishonestly make up to believe.
And no, the call-taker was looking out for Zimmerman's safety by telling him that. Maybe you should actually listen to his testimony before you go spouting off more made up bs about what occurred.

Z fed the police dispatch operator a message indicating his compliance. That's what "OK" means in that context.

But Z continued as he'd intended, forced a confrontation, ...

Stop making things up.
Zimmerman went in a different direction with a different purpose.
That is the evidence.

If Z had said:
"$#@! you! I'm going to continue to night-stalk this little nigger anyways! And there isn't a god damned thing you can do about it !!!"
Then I would concede that Z may not have lied.

That is an irrational bias.

TM knew he was being night-stalked.

Trayvon was likely smart enough not to create such nonsensical wording. :lamo
Then again, maybe he wasn't.

Zimmerman violated multiple published Neighborhood Watch.org operational standards. Don't take my word for it. Download the guidelines and read them.

"Patrol members should be trained by law enforcement. It should be emphasized to members that they do not possess police powers and they shall not carry weapons or pursue vehicles. They should also be cautioned to alert police or deputies when encountering strange activity. Members should never confront suspicious persons ... "

Page #17 Neighborhood Watch Manual / http://www.usaonwatch.org/

Irrelevant.
He is not beholden to such standards, only to the law, which he clearly did not violate.

 

[Excon]

Because some folks have a problem with reality it has become apparent that the words "stalking" and "pursue" need to be defined.
I did this two months shy of five years ago. I have no problem doing it again.



Using pursued is purposely using an inaccurate description, when all he did was follow.
As in the word "stalking", pursue is also purposely being used because of it's implicit negative connotations to create a false narrative.
To use either is deliberate dishonesty.

---

In regards to Pursue.

Pursue

verb (used with object), pursued, pursuing.

1. to follow in order to overtake, capture, kill, etc.; chase.
2. to follow close upon; go with; attend:

Bad luck pursued him.​

3. to strive to gain; seek to attain or accomplish (an end, object, purpose, etc.).
4. to proceed in accordance with (a method, plan, etc.).
5. to carry on or continue (a course of action, a train of thought, an inquiry, studies, etc.).
6. to continue to annoy, afflict, or trouble.
7. to practice (an occupation, pastime, etc.).
8. to continue to discuss (a subject, topic, etc.).
9. to follow:

They pursued the river to its source. I felt their eyes pursuing me.​

10. to continue; go on with (one's course, a journey, etc.).​

verb (used without object), pursued, pursuing.

11. to chase after someone or something; to follow in pursuit :

They spotted the suspect but decided not to pursue.​

12. to continue.​

The word pursue being used can only refer to definition #1 as the others, by definement and examples, do not apply to the word "follow" in this matter.

So #1 is what will be addressed.

By this definition pursue entails following with the purpose to overtake, capture, kill, etc. In other words, how chase entails overtaking, capturing or killing, etc.

None of those are the case here.
He did not follow to overtake.
He did not follow to capture.
He did not follow to kill.
His purpose was to observe the suspicious person to point them out to the police.
What he engaged in is simple following. He did not pursue.

And he only did that for a short distance before he stopped by request after Trayvon had disappeared down the walkway.

Trayvon would not even have known he got out of his vehicle until he saw him in the area of the T, the same area in which Zimmerman confirmed to the call-taker that Trayvon had ran because he could not see him.


Continued in following post.

 

[Excon]

In regards to Stalking.

Federal

blackjack50 already pointed out to sear in post #185 the main reason why the Federal Statute of Stalking does not apply.
Even if that requirement was not there it still would not apply as the Statute requires an "intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person" which we do not have with Zimmerman actions.
Zimmerman's only intent in following was a legitimate reason, to keep under observation so as to point out the suspicious person to the police when they arrive.
But as we all know he stopped following when it was suggested.



State

The State Statute 784.048 for Stalking has the following requirements.

(a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
(b) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose. The term does not include constitutionally protected activity such as picketing or other organized protests.

[...]

(2) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(3) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person and makes a credible threat to that person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.​

There was no malicious anything or harassment about Zimmerman's following.
He followed for a legitimate purposes to point out the suspicious person to the police when they arrive.

The law simply does not apply and is why it was not charged.


General definition.

If anyone wants to absurdly argue the general non-legal definition of Stalking fits, they are wrong and should view the following quote in it's entirety as the general definition simply does fit the act of following that Zimmerman engaged in.

[...]

So now we have to go through each specific definition to show that he is wrong, even thought he will not admit he was wrong.

And notice how he conveniently left the source out of his post.
I believe it is the following link.
definition of stalk by the Free Online Dictionary
But, it doesn't matter.

---

There is nothing to indicate that Zimmerman was trying to follow Trayvon in a stealthy manner.
Nor was Trayvon prey or quarry.
And pursue means to "Follow (someone or something) to catch or attack them.", and we all know that Zimmerman's intent was not to catch Trayvon or attack him.
So any definitions with such can be disregarded at the get, because they just are not applicable.

[...]

 

[Vox]

That's a title, not an imprimatur or license.

Zimmerman violated multiple published Neighborhood Watch.org operational standards. Don't take my word for it. Download the guidelines and read them.

"Patrol members should be trained by law enforcement. It should be emphasized to members that they do not possess police powers and they shall not carry weapons or pursue vehicles. They should also be cautioned to alert police or deputies when encountering strange activity. Members should never confront suspicious persons ... "

Page #17 Neighborhood Watch Manual / http://www.usaonwatch.org/

I'm not sure if you're ignorant, or dishonest.
But I can't rule out that you're both.

That silly manual has no authority whatsoever.

Nobody pays any attention to it.

Try again.......and bring something substantial.

:ind:

 

[sear]

Quote Originally Posted by sear

I've never heard of any official claim criminal trespass was involved. Whether it was an apartment complex, or co-ops, I've been lead to believe the path TM was on was a public access walkway.

"No.
You were not lead to believe anything of the sort." E #285

"1. False. He was a Neighborhood Watch Captain in his own gated complex." V #277 - copied from post #279

There you go E #285. A "gated complex". Therefore it would by law have had to have common walkways. You and V #277 can squabble among yourselves about it.

""stalking" and "pursue" need to be defined.
... all he did was follow." E #286

Correction:
What he did was provide accusatory, disparaging description to Sanford police dispatch, including calling the subject an @$$hole. BASED ON WHAT !?!
Then Zimmerman closed on the school boy, forced a confrontation, and Zimmerman shot the school boy dead.

BUT!!

No doubt you prefer your own version:

"... all he did was follow." E #286

More convenient for you if you leave out the little detail of the homicide.

BUT !!

If it was as simple, as clear-cut as you present it to be, then why was there a prosecution at all?
If it was as simple as you claim?

"That silly manual has no authority whatsoever." V #288

Whatever you say.

I never asserted the Neighborhood Watch.org published guidelines had "authority" (your word).
Instead, I observed that Z did not follow them.
That refutes the absurd claims that:

"Zimmerman (who did no wrong.)" V #269

"1. False. He was a Neighborhood Watch Captain in his own gated complex." V #277 - copied from post #279

To my knowledge Zimmerman was never charged with violating Neighborhood Watch published standards.

BUT !!

That doesn't matter in this case. For I was merely refuting the fiction that:

"1. False. He was a Neighborhood Watch Captain in his own gated complex." V #277 - copied from post #279

It's not Neighborhood Watch if Neighborhood Watch protocols are not followed, any more than it's not the NFL if they use a hoola hoop instead of a football.
And the only "captain" Zimmerman might have been that night was Captain Morgan.

"Nobody pays any attention to it.
Try again.......and bring something substantial."

Even if true, immaterial. I have refuted, disproved the lie.

"Every one of your claims is false." V #277

Actually rather amusing.
I'd refute more of your lies. But I've learned to keep my interaction with trolls to a minimum. Have a great day.

 

[Thoreau72]

And, WELL DONE, George.

One less dangerous thug made the world a better place.

:ind:

By all means sir, wrap yourself up in that flag! Stand up for torture and murder, and be proud--your government approves of that.

 

[Vox]

By all means sir, wrap yourself up in that flag! Stand up for torture and murder, and be proud--your government approves of that.

That's really funny.

I'm defending a maligned, slandered and totally innocent man (a man PROVEN innocent by a trial that never should have occurred) who never should have been arrested and you call that standing up for torture and murder.

:ind:

 

[Thoreau72]

That's really funny.

I'm defending a maligned, slandered and totally innocent man (a man PROVEN innocent by a trial that never should have occurred) who never should have been arrested and you call that standing up for torture and murder.

:ind:

It appears you do not pay close attention to, or care about at all, the differences between "innocent" and "not guilty". Somehow, I am not surprised.

George literally got away with murder. Vigilante justice you approve of, as did the jury.

 

[Vox]

Even if true, immaterial. I have refuted, disproved the lie.

So, even if what I said was true.......you have--somehow--disproved a lie (that was true).

And you call others trolls?

:mrgreen:

Really, you have good reason to avoid engaging with others.......so many others are so much better prepared to engage.

:ind:

 

[Vox]

It appears you do not pay close attention to, or care about at all, the differences between "innocent" and "not guilty". Somehow, I am not surprised.

George literally got away with murder. Vigilante justice you approve of, as did the jury.

Sure, me and the jury and the entire legal system were wrong and you're right.

:mrgreen:

And we all should believe that because?

:ind:

 

[Thoreau72]

Sure, me and the jury and the entire legal system were wrong and you're right.

:mrgreen:

And we all should believe that because?

:ind:

No, you should, and will, continue to believe in your cause. Vigilante justice has always been appealing to some.

 

[Vox]

No, you should, and will, continue to believe in your cause. Vigilante justice has always been appealing to some.

And you and your thug racist friends should remember that if you try to kill a vigilante you just may get killed yourself.

RESPECTING the legal system and obeying the law is honorable and right.......if you keep that in mind you will do better.

:ind:

 

[Thoreau72]

And you and your thug racist friends should remember that if you try to kill a vigilante you just may get killed yourself.

RESPECTING the legal system and obeying the law is honorable and right.......if you keep that in mind you will do better.

:ind:

In this land where Habeas Corpus was ended by legislative fiat, wave that flag a little harder. Start singing the praises of liberty and justice for all here in the land with the highest per capita rate of imprisonment for 20 years plus. Respecting the legal system...:lamo

 

[Vox]

In this land where Habeas Corpus was ended by legislative fiat, wave that flag a little harder. Start singing the praises of liberty and justice for all here in the land with the highest per capita rate of imprisonment for 20 years plus.

And strangely enough........DESPITE all that.......still far too many thugs like Trayvon Martin walking the streets and doing crime.

Clearly there may be a need for harsher punishment for those who continue to disrespect our ways and our laws.

:ind:

 

[sear]

"If you want to look in a window WHILE WALKING, it might be mildly unethical.
But even if guilty, not worthy of summary execution." s

"Dishonest bs.
No one said it worthy of summary execution." E #284

Zimmerman had shot TM dead within a few minutes of that.

So you're making a distinction between being shot dead, and summary execution?

 

[Thoreau72]

And strangely enough........DESPITE all that.......still far too many thugs like Trayvon Martin walking the streets and doing crime.

Clearly there may be a need for harsher punishment for those who continue to disrespect our ways and our laws.

:ind:

Only the ordinary citizen is punished for disrespecting our ways and our laws.

For those in government that disrespect our ways and our laws, nothing except a possible commendation or medal is done. When George Bush admitted he had violated the letter and spirit of the FISA Act 15 years ago, congress responded not with censure or punishment, but by changing the law and giving immunity to those corporations who had done the actual dirty work. Yessir, wave your flag a little harder, and wrap yourself in that flag so that your eyes are protected from seeing government crimes.