Zimmerman family member speaks out [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Zimmerman family member speaks out


TBO
04-02-2012, 21:38
http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/02/zimmerman-family-member-calls-naacp-racists-says-there-will-be-blood-on-your-hands-if-george-is-hurt/#ixzz1qvA0vsM4

G17Jake
04-02-2012, 21:56
Time for cooler heads to prevail.... if only there were a leader that benefited from cooler heads prevailing....

DOC44
04-02-2012, 21:59
They are what they are.

Doc44

G17Jake
04-02-2012, 22:00
They are what they are.

Doc44

Democrats?

LASTRESORT20
04-02-2012, 22:11
They are what they are.

Doc44


Yup... racist Democrates...part of the 97%

plainsman
04-02-2012, 22:52
His trial will outdue O.J.s, and he being without the money. Even with O.J., no special prosecutor was brought in, no FBI, or threat of civil rights investigations, etc.

This is bigger then Mr. Zimmerman, this is a attack on both gun rights, and CCW, which many are talking about "revisiting", even though there is nothing to suggest anything is wrong with the law.

Big Mad Dawg
04-03-2012, 00:35
His trial will outdue O.J.s, and he being without the money. Even with O.J., no special prosecutor was brought in, no FBI, or threat of civil rights investigations, etc.

This is bigger then Mr. Zimmerman, this is a attack on both gun rights, and CCW, which many are talking about "revisiting", even though there is nothing to suggest anything is wrong with the law.

Plainsman is correct this is the time to stand in defense of our right to bare arms.

aircarver
04-03-2012, 06:54
So what's he charged with ?


Enraging commie-crats ?

.

Cavalry Doc
04-03-2012, 08:46
They just don't like Hispanics.

Brucev
04-03-2012, 09:49
His trial will outdue O.J.s, and he being without the money. Even with O.J., no special prosecutor was brought in, no FBI, or threat of civil rights investigations, etc.

This is bigger then Mr. Zimmerman, this is a attack on both gun rights, and CCW, which many are talking about "revisiting", even though there is nothing to suggest anything is wrong with the law.

Bull. This matter is about a man who killed another man, period. Now the killer wants to blame the dead man. No surprise.

Will this bring scrutiny to bear on cc and the 2nd Amendment? Yes. There are aspects of cc that need to be examined. If this killer is ultimately able to use the law to shield himself from punishment, then the law has been bastardized and needed to be changed immediately. If that rubs someone the wrong way, to bad.

As to the 2nd Amendment, cc is without any basis as propounded by those who want to run around playing Doc Holiday... helping the local sheriff deal with the boys.

Brucev
04-03-2012, 09:50
Plainsman is correct this is the time to stand in defense of our right to bare arms.

Find another poster boy. This one ain't gonna go anywhere but down. And he'll drag anyone who supports him down with him.

eracer
04-03-2012, 09:53
What parts of CC laws need to be examined?

If Zimmerman did not pursue, and he was attacked, then he was within his rights to defend himself. Would you argue that point? Amend the CC laws to go back to the time when you had to retreat as far as possible before neutralizing a deadly threat?

If Zimmerman did pursue, then no part of the statute supports him.

wjv
04-03-2012, 09:53
What trial?

He hasn't been charged with anything.

W420Hunter
04-03-2012, 10:14
Phone did a 2xpost trash this one.

W420Hunter
04-03-2012, 10:15
Bull. This matter is about a man who killed another man, period. Now the killer wants to blame the dead man. No surprise.

Will this bring scrutiny to bear on cc and the 2nd Amendment? Yes. There are aspects of cc that need to be examined. If this killer is ultimately able to use the law to shield himself from punishment, then the law has been bastardized and needed to be changed immediately. If that rubs someone the wrong way, to bad.

As to the 2nd Amendment, cc is without any basis as propounded by those who want to run around playing Doc Holiday... helping the local sheriff deal with the boys.

would you like to share this information you seem to have that no one else does? I mean you seem to have some kind of information proves he is guilty even of the police report not been released. So what is evidence to prove this was anything but self defense?

samurairabbi
04-03-2012, 10:31
Bull. This matter is about a man who killed another man, period.

The subject of killing a human is FAR more complex than your statement makes it. In most states, a killing can end up as:

First Dgree Murder
Second Degree Murder
Voluntary Manslaughter
Involuntary Manslaughter
Justifiable Homicide

The brackets cannot be lumped into one level.

Brucev
04-03-2012, 10:31
would you like to share this information you seem to have that no one else does? I mean you seem to have some kind of information proves he is guilty even of the police report not been released. So what is evidence to prove this was anything but self defense?

What's the old saying... "If it walks like a duck... and quacks like a duck... etc., then it must be a duck."

I do not consider that one must be clairvoyant to see that a man walking down the sidewalk is just a man walking down the sidewalk. And... a man following that man in a car is a just a man following that man own the street in a car... until he gets out of that car... accost the man walking on the sidewalk... and then pulls a gun and shoots the other man all because he says he was being attacked. Color the man on the ground white. Color the killer African-American and try to say that the same exact grasping at straws now being played out by cc advocates would be being followed. In any other reality, the killer would have been arrested and jailed. He would only be out and about if he made bail, etc., etc. These are the simple facts that any reasonable person can see. The only ones who seem to have problems seeing it are those who don't want to see the proverbial forest for the trees.

Brucev
04-03-2012, 10:34
What parts of CC laws need to be examined?

If Zimmerman did not pursue, and he was attacked, then he was within his rights to defend himself. Would you argue that point? Amend the CC laws to go back to the time when you had to retreat as far as possible before neutralizing a deadly threat?

If Zimmerman did pursue, then no part of the statute supports him.

If... sounds like a refrain from Kipling. There is no doubt that the killer stalked Martin. He said he did. There is no doubt the killer accosted Martin. He said he did. There is no doubt that the killer "killed" Martin. He said he did. He sought out and initiated the incident that led to the death of a innocent man... innocent because it is not against the law for any man to go to a convenience store and buy some candy and a drink and walk back to the house and expect to be left alone to go about his own private business. If someone is so concerned about their particular understanding of cc that they can't see that, then they are blind.

kirgi08
04-03-2012, 10:37
Bull. This matter is about a man who killed another man, period. Now the killer wants to blame the dead man. No surprise.

Will this bring scrutiny to bear on cc and the 2nd Amendment? Yes. There are aspects of cc that need to be examined. If this killer is ultimately able to use the law to shield himself from punishment, then the law has been bastardized and needed to be changed immediately. If that rubs someone the wrong way, to bad.

As to the 2nd Amendment, cc is without any basis as propounded by those who want to run around playing Doc Holiday... helping the local sheriff deal with the boys.

Find another poster boy. This one ain't gonna go anywhere but down. And he'll drag anyone who supports him down with him.

What a compilation of bravo sierra Bruce..'08. :upeyes:

Ruble Noon
04-03-2012, 10:46
If... sounds like a refrain from Kipling. There is no doubt that the killer stalked Martin. He said he did. There is no doubt the killer accosted Martin. He said he did. There is no doubt that the killer "killed" Martin. He said he did. He sought out and initiated the incident that led to the death of a innocent man... innocent because it is not against the law for any man to go to a convenience store and buy some candy and a drink and walk back to the house and expect to be left alone to go about his own private business. If someone is so concerned about their particular understanding of cc that they can't see that, then they are blind.

Pure speculation at this juncture.

W420Hunter
04-03-2012, 10:46
If... sounds like a refrain from Kipling. There is no doubt that the killer stalked Martin. He said he did. There is no doubt the killer accosted Martin. He said he did. There is no doubt that the killer "killed" Martin. He said he did. He sought out and initiated the incident that led to the death of a innocent man... innocent because it is not against the law for any man to go to a convenience store and buy some candy and a drink and walk back to the house and expect to be left alone to go about his own private business. If someone is so concerned about their particular understanding of cc that they can't see that, then they are blind.

Your right Zimmerman broke his own nose right?

Goaltender66
04-03-2012, 10:50
There is no doubt that the killer stalked Martin. He said he did. There is no doubt the killer accosted Martin. He said he did.
For the benefit of those who haven't been following this from Day One or, in fact, were not there....

Can you post cites for those? Where and when did Zimmerman say he stalked Martin? Where and when did Zimmerman say he accosted Martin?

eracer
04-03-2012, 10:50
If... sounds like a refrain from Kipling. There is no doubt that the killer stalked Martin. He said he did. There is no doubt the killer accosted Martin. He said he did. There is no doubt that the killer "killed" Martin. He said he did. He sought out and initiated the incident that led to the death of a innocent man... innocent because it is not against the law for any man to go to a convenience store and buy some candy and a drink and walk back to the house and expect to be left alone to go about his own private business. If someone is so concerned about their particular understanding of cc that they can't see that, then they are blind.No doubt, eh?

I hope to never have you on a Grand Jury investigating me. You 'know' the facts before the facts have become known. And you weren't even there.

samurairabbi
04-03-2012, 13:59
If... sounds like a refrain from Kipling. There is no doubt that the killer stalked Martin. He said he did. There is no doubt the killer accosted Martin. He said he did. There is no doubt that the killer "killed" Martin. He said he did. He sought out and initiated the incident that led to the death of a innocent man...

You might pay more attention to what has been released in the past 5 days. The 911 tapes show:

- Zimmerman DID break off surveillance when the dispatcher suggested he do so.

- He was returning to his vehicle while continuing to talk with the dispatcher.

- He continued talking to the dispatcher for at least 90 seconds after discontinuing visual contact with Martin. He was relaying situational information about his current location and identity.

- He was out of visual contact with Martin when phone contact with the dispatcher was ended.

The initial publicity on which your conclusions are based is simply without foundation. It is possible that Zimmerman INTENTIONALLY regained contact with Martin after the recorded 911 call; the timing of the other recorded 911 calls, and witness testimony, make this theory a long shot.

Lethaltxn
04-03-2012, 14:13
You might pay more attention to what has been released in the past 5 days. The 911 tapes show:

- Zimmerman DID break off surveillance when the dispatcher suggested he do so.

- He was returning to his vehicle while continuing to talk with the dispatcher.

- He continued talking to the dispatcher for at least 90 seconds after discontinuing visual contact with Martin. He was relaying situational information about his current location and identity.

- He was out of visual contact with Martin when phone contact with the dispatcher was ended.

The initial publicity on which your conclusions are based is simply without foundation. It is possible that Zimmerman INTENTIONALLY regained contact with Martin after the recorded 911 call; the timing of the other recorded 911 calls, and witness testimony, make this theory a long shot.

Well where's the fun in that? :tongueout:

samurairabbi
04-03-2012, 16:01
Well where's the fun in that? :tongueout:

Point well taken ... but then, perhaps because of the pleasure obtained because I shoot 10mm, I do not need to post merely because it is fun!

Cavalry Doc
04-04-2012, 07:54
Bull. This matter is about a man who killed another man, period. Now the killer wants to blame the dead man. No surprise.

Will this bring scrutiny to bear on cc and the 2nd Amendment? Yes. There are aspects of cc that need to be examined. If this killer is ultimately able to use the law to shield himself from punishment, then the law has been bastardized and needed to be changed immediately. If that rubs someone the wrong way, to bad.

As to the 2nd Amendment, cc is without any basis as propounded by those who want to run around playing Doc Holiday... helping the local sheriff deal with the boys.

The truth is not known yet. It is possible that one or both are responsible. Why assume anything?