WWTBAM Bored

My faith has been restored.

However, justice still waits.

Zimmerman should be compensated by the medias, Sharpton, and the DOJ.

All the deaths from the rioting falls squarely on NBC and Obama.

Don't you mean Zimmerman get away with it?

Freakin racist vigilante turd

a1mamacat wrote:Don't you mean Zimmerman get away with it?

Freakin racist vigilante turd

That's the ignorant attitude that's going to get a lot of innocent folks killed.

BackInTex wrote:

a1mamacat wrote:Don't you mean Zimmerman get away with it?

Freakin racist vigilante turd

That's the ignorant attitude that's going to get a lot of innocent folks killed.

I hope you were being sarcastic, Saucy.

BackInTex wrote:

a1mamacat wrote:Don't you mean Zimmerman get away with it?

Freakin racist vigilante turd

That's the ignorant attitude that's going to get a lot of innocent folks killed.

Folks like Trayvon Martin? --Bob

BackInTex wrote:My faith has been restored.

However, justice still waits.

Zimmerman should be compensated by the medias, Sharpton, and the DOJ.

All the deaths from the rioting falls squarely on NBC and Obama.

Faith in what?

The media, Sharpton, DoJ and Obama all stepped over the line, but there would have been no line if GZ hadn't instigated this whole thing. His duty as neighborhood watch volunteer was to be an unarmed observer. They are only to observe and report. He was told by the police not to follow. He chased and stalked TM. When he is the initiator/aggressor, he has no right to claim self-defense, just because a kid turned the tables on him. What about TM's right to self-defense against an unknown adult male predator in the dark?

BackInTex wrote: However, justice still waits.

Zimmerman should be compensated by the medias, Sharpton, and the DOJ.

No, Treyvon Martin's family should sue Zimmerman and extract every single cent that Napoleonic piece of garbage has.

George Zimmerman was a little man with a gun and a power complex, who took it upon himself to play Dirty Harry and apprehend a "dangerous criminal" based on his skilled powers of deduction and observation that he was a following a young black man wearing a hoodie in a white neighborhood, who, because of those facts, must be guilty.

Although we'll never know what was said between the two of them since the best witness to that was unfortunately murdered, I'd be willing to bet that Zimmerman's gun entered into the conversation. Also, there's no way if Martin has Zimmerman down on his back and is on top of him beating him that he gets a gun out of a holster on his back. That gun was out long before that. If I were an unarmed teenager confronted by a deranged man with a gun babbling about "f**ing punks who always get away with it" I'd try to defend myself too.

The only thing this verdict "proves" is that if you want to kill someone and get away with it, go to central Florida. They've got the world's worst bunch of prosecutors there.

I'm far more worried about myself or a loved one being killed by a George Zimmerman than by the type of "f**ing punk" that Zimmerman imagined he was pursuing. I've been robbed at gunpoint by two of those punks. I'm still here. But the next time a George Zimmerman gets the idea in his head that because he has a gun, he can instigate a violent confrontation because he's not a "criminal" but the person he's pursuing probably is, I might not be.

I read a response to a news article that summed up much of the evidence (or lack thereof) that seems to be ignored by some:

No powder burns on Trayvon's hands although Zimmerman claims the gun went off as they both struggled to grab the gun.

No prints from Trayvon on the gun.

No blood from Zimmerman on Trayvon's hands or sleeves.

No DNA from Zimmerman under Trayvon's nails.

No injuries or bruises on Trayvon's hands.

Thus no physical evidence that Trayvon caused any injury to Zimmerman and no physical evidence that Trayvon even touched the gun.

In America any American can walk down any street without some stranger following them and asking them what they are doing in any neighborhood.

If Zimmerman in his un-American, paranoid, racist, wanna-be-cop glory had just followed Trayvon from a distance in his car (and even doing that would be ignoring what the police dispatcher told him to do...which was not to follow ) ...TRAYVON WOULD BE ALIVE and the taxpayers of Florida would not be paying millions for the trial and other expenses related to the criminal investigation and proceedings.

There will be protests and possibly destructive riots (like the LA riots) if Zimmerman is acquitted. So more millions in police and other expenses for the taxpayers of Florida and perhaps elsewhere in the USA.

And even if he is acquitted Zimmerman will pay the vast bulk of whatever money he ever makes to Trayvon's family after they win the wrongful death civil suit that they will file and easily win after the criminal trial.

Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/05/18/new ... z2Z0S3XnD4

BackInTex wrote: All the deaths from the rioting falls squarely on NBC and Obama.

Your gleeful anticipation would be charming if you were a five year old, eager to see what Santa Claus will bring. Waking up today and seeing your fantasy crushed must be like finding a lump of coal in your stocking.

TheConfessor wrote:

BackInTex wrote: All the deaths from the rioting falls squarely on NBC and Obama.

Your gleeful anticipation would be charming if you were a five year old, eager to see what Santa Claus will bring. Waking up today and seeing your fantasy crushed must be like finding a lump of coal in your stocking.

There was/is no glee. Your are reading into my comment what you want to make yourself feel and appear morally superior. Thats ok. I'd expect no less of you. That is what you do.

I assume you fall into the camp with those calling Zimmerman the racist in the situation when the only evidence presented said Martin was a racist. But that's ok because he's black, right?

BackInTex wrote: I assume you fall into the camp with those calling Zimmerman the racist in the situation when the only evidence presented said Martin was a racist. But that's ok because he's black, right?

I guess the comments about how the "f**ing punks always get away with it" don't count because he didn't throw the N-word or some similar descriptive phrases as well. He wouldn't have stalked a white kid; he probably wouldn't even have called 911. He certainly wouldn't have gotten himself worked up the way he did.

Trayvon Martin was a somewhat immature black teenager who had gangsta fantasies, as many do. George Zimmerman was a somewhat immature white/Hispanic man who had Dirty Harry fantasies, as many do. The difference was that George Zimmerman had a gun and acted out his fantasies. If Trayvon Martin had actually been the armed, dangerous criminal Zimmerman thought, he probably would have gunned Zimmerman down before George had a chance to do a thing about it.

Estonut wrote:

BackInTex wrote:My faith has been restored.

However, justice still waits.

Zimmerman should be compensated by the medias, Sharpton, and the DOJ.

All the deaths from the rioting falls squarely on NBC and Obama.

Faith in what?

The media, Sharpton, DoJ and Obama all stepped over the line, but there would have been no line if GZ hadn't instigated this whole thing. His duty as neighborhood watch volunteer was to be an unarmed observer. They are only to observe and report. He was told by the police not to follow. He chased and stalked TM. When he is the initiator/aggressor, he has no right to claim self-defense, just because a kid turned the tables on him. What about TM's right to self-defense against an unknown adult male predator in the dark?

My respect for you just went up a notch. You're now at 1.

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote: I assume you fall into the camp with those calling Zimmerman the racist in the situation when the only evidence presented said Martin was a racist. But that's ok because he's black, right?

I guess the comments about how the "f**ing punks always get away with it" don't count because he didn't throw the N-word or some similar descriptive phrases as well.

You're saying the only legitimate meaning for "f**ing punks" is referring to blacks? Really? That's a pretty racist thing to say or even assume.

silverscreenselect wrote:He wouldn't have stalked a white kid; he probably wouldn't even have called 911. He certainly wouldn't have gotten himself worked up the way he did.

You have no idea what he'd have done. I can only assume you are assuming that because it is what you would have done.

silverscreenselect wrote:Trayvon Martin was a somewhat immature black teenager who had gangsta fantasies, as many do. George Zimmerman was a somewhat immature white/Hispanic man who had Dirty Harry fantasies, as many do. The difference was that George Zimmerman had a gun and acted out his fantasies. If Trayvon Martin had actually been the armed, dangerous criminal Zimmerman thought, he probably would have gunned Zimmerman down before George had a chance to do a thing about it.

Zimmerman did not act out a fantasy. He approached someone whom he thought suspicious. Not illegal, not even immoral to do so. He was asked to keep an eye on things by the residents. At that point, I nor you, nor anyone else living, other than Zimmerman, knows what transpired.

The fact that you may be too cowardly to defend yourself, your property or family, probably subjecting others the vermin you'd allow to get away does not mean everyone should fold like a bad hand every time a criminal or "f**king punk" tries to subject you to their personal tyranny. Me? I'm glad there are George Zimmerman's out there who do want to make things better and safer for the law abiding folks; someone who is not satisfied by police showing up an hour after a crime only to take a statement and never again have anything to do with the crime.

If Treyvon Martin had been a polite and respectful young man, he'd be alive today and possibly even friends with Zimmerman as the situation would have played out that Zimmerman was also working to protect Martin's relatives property from the crime that seems to have been a regular occurrence there. Instead, his racist views about honky crackers caused him to respond inappropriately to Zimmerman and unfortunately he lost his life.

BackInTex wrote:At that point, I nor you, nor anyone else living, other than Zimmerman, knows what transpired.

BackInTex wrote:his racist views about honky crackers caused him to respond inappropriately to Zimmerman and unfortunately he lost his life.

A little bit contradictory, maybe?

smilergrogan wrote:

BackInTex wrote:At that point, I nor you, nor anyone else living, other than Zimmerman, knows what transpired.

BackInTex wrote:his racist views about honky crackers possibly caused him to respond inappropriately to Zimmerman and unfortunately he lost his life.

A little bit contradictory, maybe?

Better?

BackInTex wrote:

TheConfessor wrote:

BackInTex wrote: All the deaths from the rioting falls squarely on NBC and Obama.

Your gleeful anticipation would be charming if you were a five year old, eager to see what Santa Claus will bring. Waking up today and seeing your fantasy crushed must be like finding a lump of coal in your stocking.

There was/is no glee. Your are reading into my comment what you want to make yourself feel and appear morally superior. Thats ok. I'd expect no less of you. That is what you do.

I assume you fall into the camp with those calling Zimmerman the racist in the situation when the only evidence presented said Martin was a racist. But that's ok because he's black, right?

I watched a lot of the trial. If I were on the jury, I would have voted "not guilty."

Do you ever admit being wrong? You certainly get plenty of opportunities.

BackInTex wrote: The fact that you may be too cowardly to defend yourself, your property or family, probably subjecting others the vermin you'd allow to get away does not mean everyone should fold like a bad hand every time a criminal or "f**king punk" tries to subject you to their personal tyranny.

George Zimmerman wasn't defending his family. He was accosting a teenage boy in public.

The fact that you may be too obsessed with your macho John Wayne fantasies to care for your family's safety by keeping a loaded gun around and subjecting them to a considerably greater degree of danger doesn't mean everyone needs to do the same. If you ever were in a life or death situation, you'd probably crap in your pants and get them killed as a result.

There's a much greater chance a gun in a house is going to be used to kill or injure someone other than an armed intruder than it will to stop someone bent on grave bodily harm.

BackInTex wrote:
If Treyvon Martin had been a polite and respectful young man, he'd be alive today and possibly even friends with Zimmerman as the situation would have played out that Zimmerman was also working to protect Martin's relatives property from the crime that seems to have been a regular occurrence there.

How many "yowsa, boss"es would he have had to say to Zimmerman in order ensure that he was polite and respectful?

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote: The fact that you may be too cowardly to defend yourself, your property or family, probably subjecting others the vermin you'd allow to get away does not mean everyone should fold like a bad hand every time a criminal or "f**king punk" tries to subject you to their personal tyranny.

George Zimmerman wasn't defending his family. He was accosting a teenage boy in public.

The fact that you may be too obsessed with your macho John Wayne fantasies to care for your family's safety by keeping a loaded gun around and subjecting them to a considerably greater degree of danger doesn't mean everyone needs to do the same. If you ever were in a life or death situation, you'd probably crap in your pants and get them killed as a result.

There's a much greater chance a gun in a house is going to be used to kill or injure someone other than an armed intruder than it will to stop someone bent on grave bodily harm.

I have a gun because of people like Zimmerman.

From 2009:

http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_st ... ot-guilty/

Jury Finds Roderick Scott Not Guilty - Rochester

A black defendent is cleared of manslaughter charges after shooting a white teenager in self-defense.

Scott says he acted in self defense when he confronted Cervini and two others saying they were stealing from neighbors cars. He told them he had a gun and ordered them to freeze and wait for police.

Scott says he shot Cervini twice when the victim charged toward him yelling he was going to get Scott.

"How can this happen to a beautiful, sweet child like that?” asked Cervini’s
aunt Carol Cervini. “All he wanted to do was go home. And then for them to say, he was saying, 'Please don't kill me. I'm just a kid,' and he just kept on shooting him."

I'm sure the Reverend Al and the media were about to get around to this one. 'Innocent kid just out walking home.'

Zimmerman is found not guilty, i.e., the presumption of innocence is with the defendent. The prosecution was extremely weak on facts, but strong on allegations. Not by anything demonstrated, but Zimmerman must have been racially motivated to get his ass kicked and then shoot the one doing the head bounce on the sidewalk. Of course, he should've waited until he say just how far this 5'11" martial arts training, serial fight participating, gun buying wannabe, dope smoker was going to go. Ending a fight by shooting simply shouldn't be allowed. Fists-concrete-gun -- it won't take two out of three to guess the better choice.

But since he's a "white" Hispanic, he must be racist. And that's the only reason he shot and killed this 'kid.'

Does that make our President a "white" black?

A jury found him not guilty. Based on the evidence presented, they came to a logical conclusion.

Bad jury. Bad.

Funny how the Sandord PD weren't going to charge anything after their investigation nor was the local DA after the police investigation.

Bring in Al Sharpton and enough cameras, and the federal DOJ rolls in threatening to bring this to trial. The next level of DA then grabs the spotlight, bypassing an empaneled grand jury to consider whether this should proceed, prays with the deceased's family, then holds a press conference to announce the indictment based on her judgment.

And despite various shenigans by the prosecution, it still couldn't prove anything. Not to 2d degree murder, not even to manslaughter.

And not one word about the 8 year old black girl killed this past weekend in Chicago. But it was by a black assailant, so it's not newsworthy.

Only when it's a "white" Hispanic. Must've been the name that suckered everyone.

But never fear DOJ is now relooking at the case to see if any civil rights were violated (to the lawyers, I thought it had to be some sort of state agent in order to violate anyone's 'civil rights?').

I hope that cracker Zimmerman, never mind that he's actually Hispanic, wins a bundle from the suits against MSNBC and CNN.

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote:
If Treyvon Martin had been a polite and respectful young man, he'd be alive today and possibly even friends with Zimmerman as the situation would have played out that Zimmerman was also working to protect Martin's relatives property from the crime that seems to have been a regular occurrence there.

How many "yowsa, boss"es would he have had to say to Zimmerman in order ensure that he was polite and respectful?

None you nitwit. All he had to do is what I assume you or I would have done...turned around and asked calmly "Can I help you?" It probably wouldn't have taken much to diffuse the situation. But Martin likely was never taught to be polite, or that he should respect others by his mother. And it cost him his life. I've seen it plenty. I've experience it plenty.

silverscreenselect wrote:If you ever were in a life or death situation, you'd probably crap in your pants and get them killed as a result.

You'd like to think others are all like you, but I'm not. Most other men, at least the ones I know are not that way either. And I have been in a couple such situations. Never armed though. Pants came out fine both times. I never been robbed, by the way, just assaulted and threatened.

silverscreenselect wrote:There's a much greater chance a gun in a house is going to be used to kill or injure someone other than an armed intruder than it will to stop someone bent on grave bodily harm.

Most will never be used for either, thankfully.