Almost No Evidence Trayvon Touched Zimmerman... (concealed carry, concealed, constitution, attorney)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You don't know if Mr. Martin was attacking Mr. Zimmerman, and based on their actions it is strange that you would think that.
Mr. Martin left the house to go get pop and candy. He left the store after he bought pop and candy. He was talking on the phone to a girl. He was doing nothing.
Mr. Zimmerman first wrongly identified Mr. Martin as being up to no good and a criminal. Then Mr. Zimmerman compounded that mistake by following Mr. Martin in his car. The Mr. Zimmerman further compounded that mistake by following Mr. Martin on foot with a loaded gun.
If Mr. Zimmerman at any point makes the less aggressive choice nothing happens that night.
Now for some reason you seem to believe after Mr. Zimmerman made aggressive choice after aggressive choice to ensure contact with Mr. Martin would likely to happen that Mr. Zimmerman was not aggressive when that contact finally occurred.
Of course I don't, regardless of cost I simply can't pay you enough to provide me with something you aren't capable of providing. I can't afford to pay you enough to fly my space shuttle either.
But you can get the same *expertise* from Wikipedia since that's what FF5000 uses as her resource.
You're one of the people who are absolutely, positively certain that gz did Not stop following tm. A few people aren't sure of that and remain open to the possibility that tm did choose to initiate the face-to-face. Anyone who doesn't understand That is just stupid.
I guess you haven't being paying attention to this case. Go read up on it and then we can discuss it.
You don't know if Mr. Martin was attacking Mr. Zimmerman, and based on their actions it is strange that you would think that.
Mr. Martin left the house to go get pop and candy. He left the store after he bought pop and candy. He was talking on the phone to a girl. He was doing nothing.
Mr. Zimmerman first wrongly identified Mr. Martin as being up to no good and a criminal. Then Mr. Zimmerman compounded that mistake by following Mr. Martin in his car. The Mr. Zimmerman further compounded that mistake by following Mr. Martin on foot with a loaded gun.
If Mr. Zimmerman at any point makes the less aggressive choice nothing happens that night.
Now for some reason you seem to believe after Mr. Zimmerman made aggressive choice after aggressive choice to ensure contact with Mr. Martin would likely to happen that Mr. Zimmerman was not aggressive when that contact finally occurred.
You managed to pack three 'aggressives' into one sentence.
For some Zimmerman defenders, I think it really has very little to do about Zimmerman himself and more to do with.......guns. And their fear that the outcome of this trial might affect their own rights to carry everywhere and any time they want.
I doubt their "outrage" has much to do with justice for Zimmerman at all.
This what I don't get. I can somewhat get the whole Mr. Zimmerman deserves a fair trail fake concern, but this defense of Mr. Zimmerman, why?
He shot an unarmed teenager who wasn't doing anything at all on the night in question. What is there to defend about Mr. Zimmerman's actions?
These Mr. Zimmerman defenders even sink to the level of attacking Mr. Martin. Why, he is dead and his actions on that night prior to getting shot don't point to him doing anything wrong at all, and he was unarmed.
Other than a person being a racist or prejudice or someone who is so afraid of black people and wishing more would just get shot and killed, I don't understand what would cause someone to be a Mr. Zimmerman defender.
What is so appealing about what Mr. Zimmerman did that someone is compelled to say hey that guy needs a defender?
This case has nothing to do with gun laws. Although I personally think it should.
This case has everything to do with gun laws and a person's constitutional right to own a firearm for self defense purposes. As long as the TM fanclub continues to push this as a case of "gun violence" then this case is about guns.
He saved his own life by shooting his attacker, that's somewhat appealing to anyone who takes personal safety and defense seriously.
If he took his personal safety seriously, he would have never gotten out of his car. Oh yeah....he had a gun! I guess he did take his personal safety seriously.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.