George Zimmerman Is In Legal Trouble Again

Defend, not initiate an attack. And following is not illegal.

 

Just keep parroting the defense's case...and throwing in the Rush Limbaugh is a bonus

 

the term "cracker" like most other words, depends on context in determing whether or not the word is deragatory/racist or not. Bear in mind that GZ, in his phone call to NEH also may have used a deragory ter. However, that does not make either person a racist IMO.

I simply said that GZ beleived that TM was a hoodlum based on the clothers he wore. GZ made the statement to NEH that these punks always get away with it. Not much conjecture there based on what GZ stated.

 

No, I am basing it on the laws of the United States. I would someone that appears as bright as you are would know that

 

Aside from Ritz or Nabisco, please cite some examples where calling a white person a "cracker" isn't racist.

 

The opinion of what happened doesn't matter, it only matters to the jury, and they found him innocent of those charges

 

There it is. Proof positive that you have zero understanding of the Fl. law.

You are absolutely and demonstrably wrong.

 

But hold it thar a minute.You are on to something.How easy we can forget.
When the story broke,the first entire month,Trayvon supporters said Nothing
about anything other than the Little Trayvon was just walking home with his
skittles and iced tea.Then when real details emerged that indeed a confrontation
DID occur,would the Trayvon supporters start making new allegations and changing
their rock solid claim that " Little Trayvon was just walking home with his
skittles and Iced tea ".
Breaking claims of a Confrontation changed the entire approach the Lying
Trayvon supporters were engaged in.Now they had to deal with the real
viable possibility that there WAS a Confrontation.
Up till that point,the first few weeks,Trayvon Defenders refused to even
casually admit that the Little Trayvon was even Capable of a Confrontation.
The first few weeks { probably 5 weeks } Trayvon supporters were selling Big Time
the Notion that it was Virtually Impossible That the kind-natured Little Trayvon could
ever have been involed in any Confrontation.
Don't forget That Jessie Jackson went so far at a Rally as to say Trayvon was
Shot in the Back.
Black Caucus Congresswoman Frederica Wilson {D-Florida} said somewhere
within the walls of Congress ... " I want America to see this sweet young boy who
was shot down like a dog,shot in the street,and his killer is still at large. "

 

Negative. You are another one who doesn't understand the law.

Since thew law so clearly states the opposite of what you say it makes me wonder if you have ever taken the time to actually read the entire law. I don't think you have. If you have, then it's clear for all to see that you have some comprehension deficiencies.

 

Exactly. just because he was legally justified in the Trayvon Martin case, doesn't mean that Zimmerman isn't a world class loser and misfit. But then again, he was a registered Democrat.

http://www.ibtimes.com/voting-form-...mocrat-confounding-message-pushed-left-430738

 

Please cite the law you claim to know so much about.

 

If you look at self defense laws, including SYG laws, you are in the wrong unless you want to add "duty to retreat" into that equation. And if you truly beleive in that, then you cannot defend what GZ did from beginning to end, can you?

Can't have it both ways.

 

1. Zimmerman had no way to retreat when being fully mounted.

2. You cant attack people because you think they are following you. Or else cops, mailmen, boyfriends, potential dates, court summoners, delivery drivers, etc... could all be assaulted legally.

 

Look up and watch on youtube the video of Jeff Dunham and his puppet Sweet Dayyd D and get back to me.

 

They were looked at when this was an issue and over and over your interpretation was proven false. Someone following you, and recall Martin told the girlfriend he had lost the guy so he did not believe he was still being followed, is not proof of imminent danger of serious bodily harm or death. Martin never had such a fear, Zimmerman did.

 

and Chris Rock says the n-word all the time in his act......


please find us a time a black person calling someone a cracker isn't racist

 

He wasn't and Martin did go home without incident.

You lost that argument here and in court.

Now when are you going to bone up to the challenge and support your assertions about Zimmerman having violated the stalking and assault laws of Florida or are you finally going to do the right thing and admit you didn't know what you were talking about when you claimed your superior knowledge?

 

It's still racist even if a comedian says it. If Christ Rock says "(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)", does that mean it's okay for you and me to use it in reference to blacks on our cell phone?

 

yeah, because Martin's past indicates he was not casing the joint at all....


more likely than not.... Zimmerman interrupted Martin during a robbery about to happen, and left wing race baiters refuse to entertain that idea.

 

Based on what? Or did you just ignore everything that did not agree with your political agenda?

 

776.041 Use or threatened use of force by aggressor.

 

and yet.... couldn't be proven in court.... lol


you've lost again and again concerning Zimmerman..... it's laughable watching the race-baiters continue to race-bait over the issue. You need a new martyr..... one that preferably, doesn't have a history of burglary, drugs, and troubled youth in his history.


Maybe Mike Brown...... llol.... no, wait, nevermind

 

And Morgan Friendma in the Movie Glory. Or in the book entitled Tom Saywer written by Mark Twain./

Context is everything in determining whether or not the word iis deragatory.

 

Based on the Florida statute.

You are wrong (and provably so) when you claim, "GZ lost his right to self defense..."

I've cited the law above.