Zimmerman posts nude photos of ex gf "she cheated on me with a dirty muslim"

The only thing that matters is what occurred that night during those brief moments when Martin confronted Zimmerman, was on top of him and beating him. And they would not have met had Martin not been there and had he simply gone into the apartment and not gone back to the T junction and confronted Zimmerman.

If was a justified case of self-defense, get over it.

 

The "news" person didn't just report the story, she called the subject "lowlife scum". That tells us all it's just more liberal propaganda crapola. if you can dredge up something from a "real" news source get back to us. Zimmerman's shooting of a young thug who attacked him was justified as the Florida Courts exonerated him. Get over it.

 

Posting nudes of his ex is not evidence that he is capable of murder. Cases prior to and following the Martin case have shown a pattern of behavior that is rife with confrontation. He brandished a weapon (something he says he didn't do with Martin). He stalked a man after an incident on the road (something he says he didn't do with Martin). He has escalated situations (something he says he didn't do with Martin). In all of these situations Zimmerman has been fingered as being at least a contributor, if not the primary contributor.

But I'm supposed to believe that Zimmerman stopped behaving like Zimmerman during the most violent confrontation he has been a part of. No. I think George behaved like George that night and we just don't get to hear the other side of the story, whatever that may be. If you believe that his pattern of behavior inexplicably changed during those hours leading up to Martin's death, you must think OJ's own violent patterns have no implications in the accusations against him.

According to a guy who has been named an aggressive offender by every other person he has had a confrontation with EXCEPT for the guy he killed. Right, his pattern of violent aggression suddenly stopped for a few hours and he found himself victimized by a person he could have put as much distance as he so desired. Sure. That's believable.

 

Your suppositions and conjecture do not refute the facts and the evidence.

 

The one part of the trial that GZ haters refuse to acknowledge is when TM's g/f, whom he was talking to that night, testified he told her he was close to home, but obviously he decided not to go there......

As I had said b/f, BOTH were stupid that night......and there was a very stupid father who continued to give his troubled teen all the freedom he wanted. There's a lesson that should be learned here.

 

Ironic choice of words since you will never have Martin's own testimony to consider.

 

Don't need it, we have the statement of what he said and what he was doing from the girl friend. We also have the recording and timeline from the NEN call between Zimmerman and the dispatcher to match up with the timeline on the phone calls.

You didn't watch the trial did you else you would know these facts.

 

but I have already said, I do not think he is guilty of the stalking law, only that he was stalking the teen that night, in a non-legal sense

 

Not by any sense, there was no stalking going on. Like in our abortion debates, you are not the determiner of the meaning of words and are free to make them up to suit your fancy.

 

No, I did not watch the trials. I read all the information and looked over the layout of the condo complex and autopsy report (etc etc) from the countless threads on this site and the sources linked. I've read argument after argument from both sides. I don't agree that Zimmerman isn't culpable. Obviously under the law he was proven innocent and I am okay with that because I don't think it was murder. I think he is reckless and dangerous and he is partly to blame. I don't believe him when he says he didn't behave like himself and that it was Martin that solely caused the confrontation (because you know, black thugs). The prosecutor went too big with a murder charge because it wasn't murder.

It was turned into a race issue and that is too bad because it's an issue is about a guy with a pattern of violence and aggression appointing himself as some sort of protector of his community. It's a huge coincidence that a guy who coordinates a Neighborhood Watch for his community (and carries a gun against the organization's advice, showing his penchant for operating according to his own agenda) and just happens to come in contact with the only person in the area and ends up killing said person. He was proactive in every step leading up to the confrontation itself, where suddenly he is merely reacting to a threat. He made everything happen up until that moment where Martin took things over.

I'm not convinced.



There is a lot of irresponsibility surrounding the entire case. Someone should have reigned in George's good intentions before they came to this.

 

so basically, you use whatever definition of a word you want that fits your agenda.....

Following =/= stalking. both parties had the exact same right to be there that night. Martin chose to escalate a legal encounter, into an illegal encounter. That escalation allowed Zim to defend himself with deadly force.

Had Zim escalated that incident... Martin would have been allowed to defend himself.

 

it's still on the state to prove that Zim's version was not true.... and they couldn't, despite what all the perry masons on the forum think happened.

- - - Updated - - -

agreed, but that lesson will be overlooked in favor of pushing an agenda....

- - - Updated - - -

Crimestoppers should be thanking Zim.... Martin has been crime free for over 3 years now.

 

The state messed up by pushing for a murder charge. It wasn't murder.

 

That wasn't the state's fault.... that was what the race-baiters DEMANDED. The state realized there wasn't enough evidence to charge Zim with anything, much less murder... and when they didn't, that's when media spin got involved and political pressure to charge him, despite not having a grand jury indictment.


So you and the other race-baiters, made your own bed on that one. You demanded he should be charged with murder, despite not having enough evidence, and then got mad when jurors acquitted him due to lack of evidence.

 

Well then you know very little about it and have demonstrated that including your colossal misinformation about the conversation and timeline between Zimmerman and the dispatcher.

There was nothing presented in the evidence that Zimmerman did "wrong" that would hold him culpable for anything.

Yes because the fact that the evidence clearly demonstrated it. If I go out and sit on my front porch this evening and see someone I don't know and looking suspicious walk by my house, and the police have asked me to watch out for unknown suspcious people because houses have been being broken into, and I walk out to the edge of my yard and watch which way that person turns and that person then comes back and assaults me and threatens me with serious bodily harm and I pull a gun I have out and kill him am I "culpable" in that person death? Have I committed a crime? Of course not.

Blame for what?

I think there were two instances of his using physical force, one was to defend a friend he believed was being assaulted and the other a questionable claim by an ex-girl friend. To make this judgement and then accuse him of a crime because you mistakenly believe he has some huge history of violent behavior is absurd.

His actions that night were perfectly reasonable and in line with his NW duties.

There was no such pattern.

He didn't appoint himself. There had been a marked increase in crime in the neighborhood and a neighborhood watch had been established and he was selected to be the coordinator.

Being a member of a neighborhood watch does not negate your right to arm yourself and he normally had his weapon with him as he lived in a dangerous high crime area. Fortunately he was wearing it that night and was able to save himself from serious injury and likely death.

Completely bogus assertion.

His actions were perfectly reasonable to the situation and request made of him by the NEN dispatcher. Martin made everything happen by his own actions and died as a result of them.

If the facts and the evidence do not then it can only be due to your own baseless bias.

And that is simply not true and just an attempt to shift the blame off of Martin for causing his own demise as was proven in court.

 

It wasn't anything but a case of justified self-defense. The jury could have found on the lessor charge of manslaughter.

 

Do not put words in my mouth. You cannot quote me as saying it is a racial issue and I never supported a murder charge. I never treat your words like they are anything other than your own, Javis, on the occasion we happen to exchange. I don't lump you in with "liberals" or "conservatives" or "teachers". Show me the same respect.

 

that's a lot of words to say "got me"

 

......Touche

- - - Updated - - -

No. I own up when I get schooled. Bluesguy got me. You just....whatever.

 

Yawn...another GZ obsessive post...nothing to see here, move along....

 

not sure what your bring up abortion debates for, you were wrong then too

.

 

I use the words when they fit the definition of what I am trying to describe

http://www.yourdictionary.com/stalking

"Stalking is hunting for prey, or physically following someone, or contacting them excessively."

 

None of which describe what Zimmerman did and why did you take that out of the context in which it was stated?

Note the "prey" meaning to capture and kill and excessively as in other definitions along with obsessively.

verb
Stalking is hunting for prey, or physically following someone, or contacting them excessively.
An example of stalking is quietly approaching an animal you're hunting.
An example of stalking is a fan following a celebrity as they go through their day.

And BTW your link gives no authoritative source for the definition it posted other than the website itself.

Here is one. The American Heritage Dictionary

stalk 2 (stôk)
Share:
v. stalked, stalk·ing, stalks
v.tr.
1. To pursue or track (prey) stealthily: The lions stalked the zebra from the tall grass.
2. To follow or observe (a person) persistently, especially out of obsession or derangement.
3. To go through (an area) in pursuit of prey or quarry.

Websters

2stalk
verb
: to follow (an animal or person that you are hunting or trying to capture) by moving slowly and quietly

: to go through (a place or area) while hunting

: to follow, watch, and bother (someone) constantly in a way that is frightening, dangerous, etc.

None of which describe Zimmerman's actions that night.

So If I am in my yard and you walk by and I observe you am I stalking you? Even if I walk out to the corner to see which way you turn am I stalking you? You are attempting to imply some nefarious intent on Zimmerman's part by using the term yet even using it in the loose fashion you are attempting does not imply a nefarious intent does it. Merely trying to paint it as something it wasn't.

 

he's using a definition that doesn't apply to FL law because the FL law definition doesn't meet his agenda. There's a reason FL law doesn't go by "yourdictionary.com"

That pesky word "REPEATED" destroys all liberal excuses for Trayvon's behavior so they pretend it's not in there. That pesky word "REPEATED" is a major reason Zim is a free man posting nudes of his ex, today.

That pesky word "repeated" is what allows both Trayvon and Zim to be at the same place that night
That pesky word "repeated" is why Travon escalating the situation makes him in the wrong, not Zim.

 

Also pursue, which means with the intent to capture prey, the word obsession, the word persistently.

They lost their case in court with all the evidence yet they still are so desperate to make it see Zimmerman was at fault and engage here, as this poster does concerning abortion, in trying to redefine and or deny the meaning of words.