[Mike1306]

Originally Posted by mjtinmemphis

Keep in mind Zimmerman brought this on himself when he left home to run errands and decided to carry a loaded weapon.

Have you ever lived in Sanford?

[mjtinmemphis]

Originally Posted by Mike1306

Have you ever lived in Sanford?

No

[Vinny Vuckovich]

i have inside connections , word has it zimmerman will be under arrest and in the poky by monday 10am , tried for murder .

[Mike1306]

Originally Posted by mjtinmemphis

No

Then how can you make a judgment on whether or not he should be carrying his weapon, which he was legally within his right to do, to go run errands.
What is the sense in having a CCL if you do not intend to carry?
There are parts of Sanford I would certainly feel more comfortable going to if I was carrying.

[Dale Cooper]

Originally Posted by mjtinmemphis

That doesn't give him the right for irresistible behavior. There is going to be a consequence for this.

Try as I might, I can't for the life of me figure out what 'irresistible' behavior is. Unless you're on a hot date or sumthin'.

[mjtinmemphis]

Originally Posted by Dale Cooper

Try as I might, I can't for the life of me figure out what 'irresistible' behavior is. Unless you're on a hot date or sumthin'.

Iresponsible. Sorry auto correction doesnt work. Lol.

[TXRyan23]

Originally Posted by Vinny Vuckovich

i have inside connections , word has it zimmerman will be under arrest and in the poky by monday 10am , tried for murder .

Your inside connections have failed you.

[jambo101]

Should it not be incumbent on some one who kills another to prove in a trial they had sufficient motivation to use deadly force? they may have been totally within their rights to shoot to kill, but i think the seriousness of the situation should be held up in a court of law or you'll have all manner of people going around shooting people they dont like and then saying it was a stand your ground situation and the police saying nothing more than oh in that case have a nice day.

[goldengrain]

Originally Posted by Mike1306

You go ahead and believe that multiple people interviewed had the same exact statement, word for word, if you like.
I personally have a problem believing that multiple people said, "Zimmerman went door-to-door asking residents to be on the lookout, specifically referring to young black men who appeared to be outsiders", in those exact words.
The writer saying multiple neighbors made the same exact statement makes me question the integrity of the entire article. The press has not exactly been on the up and up through out this whole ordeal.

As far as relating it to a traveling salesman, to make that jump you would then have to go door to door and ask each neighbor what the traveling salesman said. What do you think are the chances of each neighbor relating what the traveling salesman said In exactly the same words?

Edit: It was early and I didn't look too closely at first but this is not a writer who wrote this. It is just another forum such as this where anyone can write what they like, truth or not. The person who posted that is a student studying International Relations. Not that I give the paid writers and newscasters much more credence but If I go somewhere and write an article and then post it here it would have as much value as evidence of something as what you linked to.

You know, when I put quotes around something, referring to an article, I am quoting THE ARTICLE itself.

If many neighbors got together and said Zimmerman was targeting black people, THAT is the gist of the furthering of our conversation. That is the point that is being made here.

This situation upsets you so much because you are grasping at straws to poke holes and for some God-only-knows reason, support the case of the killer.

[goldengrain]

Originally Posted by Mike1306

More media manipulation. What his attorney said was, "“Many people remember the case of Liam Neeson’s wife — fell on a little ski slope, hit her head one time on the ground, and died. We’re familiar with the shaken baby syndrome: You shake a baby the brain shakes around inside the skull, you can die.”
He was just making comparisons to what can happen when ones head is slammed around and why it was valid for Zimmerman to feel his life was in danger.
He never stated he was going to invoke a shaken baby syndrome defense and in fact there is no such thing as a shaken baby syndrome defense. That was the media just making cra p up again.

The lawyer was just trying to sew doubt. Poison the pool.

The thing is, Zimmerman had one hundred pounds on the kid. I cannot imagine that the kid was on top pounding his head.

Most men do not have a hundred pounds on their wives. Are we to believe that such a wife could sit on top of her husband and beat his head against cement? Of course not, the man would quickly reverse the situation.

This lawyer is SO full of it.