George Zimmerman is a piece of crap

[_33]

33 seems to struggle with discussing controversial issues. It's ok to have an opinion and defend it, 33. We'll still like your videos.

The phrase "agree to disagree" is very underutilized in our society.

Solid counterpunch, 33! I think this argument is really about to get heated!

 

[Dr Rick Daris]

33 seems to struggle with discussing controversial issues. It's ok to have an opinion and defend it, 33. We'll still like your videos.

The phrase "agree to disagree" is very underutilized in our society.

Solid counterpunch, 33! I think this argument is really about to get heated!

 

no way this thing gets heated. you must be some kind of idiot!

[kim carnes]

They are following the law no matter how they vote. The law allows for a jury system to interpret the law in any way they see fit.

No and no. They must follow the law as presented to them. In this case, they only needed to decide whether the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ did not have a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm unless he acted in self defense. Now, of course the jury has room to decide whether GZ's fear was "reasonable." But to use an extreme example, if a juror were to vote not guilty just because they don't like black people, that's not following the law. If a juror were to say "I just don't think GZ proved he was acting in self defense," that's not following the law. If a juror were to say "I don't know if he acted in self defense or not, but I feel terrible for Trayvon's parents, so I'm voting guilty," that's not following the law. If a juror were to say "I think GZ profiled Trayvon so there's no way I'm even going to consider self defense," that's not following the law.

GZ was the aggressor, so he couldn't act in self defense as he was on the offensive.   He started a fight, began to get his ass kicked and then shot TM.  I mean this isn't hard.

[michigancat]

33 seems to struggle with discussing controversial issues. It's ok to have an opinion and defend it, 33. We'll still like your videos.

The phrase "agree to disagree" is very underutilized in our society.

Maybe, but I don't think goEMAW.com is a place where it needs to be used. I think peoples' inability to have a rational debate is more of a concern than a lack of "agreeing to disagree".

[sys]

pc idiots

people that distort language for Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) reasons annoy me.  be not niggardly with your vocabulary.

[michigancat]

pc idiots

people that distort language for Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) reasons annoy me.  be not niggardly with your vocabulary.

that's offensive

[pissclams]

33 seems to struggle with discussing controversial issues. It's ok to have an opinion and defend it, 33. We'll still like your videos.

The phrase "agree to disagree" is very underutilized in our society.

Maybe, but I don't think goEMAW.com is a place where it needs to be used. I think peoples' inability to have a rational debate is more of a concern than a lack of "agreeing to disagree".

the last 40 pages of this thread could be condensed into two posts, one from Side A, and one from Side B. 

let the debate rage on!

[michigancat]

33 seems to struggle with discussing controversial issues. It's ok to have an opinion and defend it, 33. We'll still like your videos.

The phrase "agree to disagree" is very underutilized in our society.

Maybe, but I don't think goEMAW.com is a place where it needs to be used. I think peoples' inability to have a rational debate is more of a concern than a lack of "agreeing to disagree".

the last 40 pages of this thread could be condensed into two posts, one from Side A, and one from Side B. 

I vehemently disagree

[Dr Rick Daris]

there was a third side where i posted semi funny stories about following people around my neighborhood for a page and a half. did you not see those? 

[sys]

pc idiots

people that distort language for Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) reasons annoy me.  be not niggardly with your vocabulary.

that's offensive

exactly.

[sys]

there was a third side where i posted semi funny stories about following people around my neighborhood for a page and a half. did you not see those? 

those were really funny, actually.

[_33]

33 seems to struggle with discussing controversial issues. It's ok to have an opinion and defend it, 33. We'll still like your videos.

The phrase "agree to disagree" is very underutilized in our society.

Maybe, but I don't think goEMAW.com is a place where it needs to be used. I think peoples' inability to have a rational debate is more of a concern than a lack of "agreeing to disagree".

Agree to disagree.  I respect your opinion on the matter and I want you to know that I consider your points to be rational and well thought out. I will mull them over some more in the coming days and if I change my mind or move closer to your position I will let you know.  Please do not try and convince me further.

[michigancat]

33 seems to struggle with discussing controversial issues. It's ok to have an opinion and defend it, 33. We'll still like your videos.

The phrase "agree to disagree" is very underutilized in our society.

Maybe, but I don't think goEMAW.com is a place where it needs to be used. I think peoples' inability to have a rational debate is more of a concern than a lack of "agreeing to disagree".

Agree to disagree.  I respect your opinion on the matter and I want you to know that I consider your points to be rational and well thought out. I will mull them over some more in the coming days and if I change my mind or move closer to your position I will let you know.  Please do not try and convince me further.

Great, just make sure to chime in and let us know if it's OK to talk about things. Thanks!

[_33]

33 seems to struggle with discussing controversial issues. It's ok to have an opinion and defend it, 33. We'll still like your videos.

The phrase "agree to disagree" is very underutilized in our society.

Maybe, but I don't think goEMAW.com is a place where it needs to be used. I think peoples' inability to have a rational debate is more of a concern than a lack of "agreeing to disagree".

Agree to disagree.  I respect your opinion on the matter and I want you to know that I consider your points to be rational and well thought out. I will mull them over some more in the coming days and if I change my mind or move closer to your position I will let you know.  Please do not try and convince me further.

Great, just make sure to chime in and let us know if it's OK to talk about things. Thanks!

ok

[Cire]

They are following the law no matter how they vote. The law allows for a jury system to interpret the law in any way they see fit.

No and no. They must follow the law as presented to them. In this case, they only needed to decide whether the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ did not have a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm unless he acted in self defense. Now, of course the jury has room to decide whether GZ's fear was "reasonable." But to use an extreme example, if a juror were to vote not guilty just because they don't like black people, that's not following the law. If a juror were to say "I just don't think GZ proved he was acting in self defense," that's not following the law. If a juror were to say "I don't know if he acted in self defense or not, but I feel terrible for Trayvon's parents, so I'm voting guilty," that's not following the law. If a juror were to say "I think GZ profiled Trayvon so there's no way I'm even going to consider self defense," that's not following the law.

GZ was the aggressor, so he couldn't act in self defense as he was on the offensive.   He started a fight, began to get his ass kicked and then shot TM.  I mean this isn't hard.

following someone to ask them what they are doing isn't against the law or an act of violence IMO. 

[Rage Against the McKee]

They are following the law no matter how they vote. The law allows for a jury system to interpret the law in any way they see fit.

No and no. They must follow the law as presented to them. In this case, they only needed to decide whether the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ did not have a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm unless he acted in self defense. Now, of course the jury has room to decide whether GZ's fear was "reasonable." But to use an extreme example, if a juror were to vote not guilty just because they don't like black people, that's not following the law. If a juror were to say "I just don't think GZ proved he was acting in self defense," that's not following the law. If a juror were to say "I don't know if he acted in self defense or not, but I feel terrible for Trayvon's parents, so I'm voting guilty," that's not following the law. If a juror were to say "I think GZ profiled Trayvon so there's no way I'm even going to consider self defense," that's not following the law.

GZ was the aggressor, so he couldn't act in self defense as he was on the offensive.   He started a fight, began to get his ass kicked and then shot TM.  I mean this isn't hard.

following someone to ask them what they are doing isn't against the law or an act of violence IMO.

I would consider it an act of violence when you are armed and they are running away from you.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

They are following the law no matter how they vote. The law allows for a jury system to interpret the law in any way they see fit.

No and no. They must follow the law as presented to them. In this case, they only needed to decide whether the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ did not have a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm unless he acted in self defense. Now, of course the jury has room to decide whether GZ's fear was "reasonable." But to use an extreme example, if a juror were to vote not guilty just because they don't like black people, that's not following the law. If a juror were to say "I just don't think GZ proved he was acting in self defense," that's not following the law. If a juror were to say "I don't know if he acted in self defense or not, but I feel terrible for Trayvon's parents, so I'm voting guilty," that's not following the law. If a juror were to say "I think GZ profiled Trayvon so there's no way I'm even going to consider self defense," that's not following the law.

GZ was the aggressor, so he couldn't act in self defense as he was on the offensive.   He started a fight, began to get his ass kicked and then shot TM.  I mean this isn't hard.

following someone to ask them what they are doing isn't against the law or an act of violence IMO.

I would consider it an act of violence when you are armed and they are running away from you.

Wouldn't Trayvon have been at home if he was scared and running away?

[Rage Against the McKee]

They are following the law no matter how they vote. The law allows for a jury system to interpret the law in any way they see fit.

No and no. They must follow the law as presented to them. In this case, they only needed to decide whether the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ did not have a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm unless he acted in self defense. Now, of course the jury has room to decide whether GZ's fear was "reasonable." But to use an extreme example, if a juror were to vote not guilty just because they don't like black people, that's not following the law. If a juror were to say "I just don't think GZ proved he was acting in self defense," that's not following the law. If a juror were to say "I don't know if he acted in self defense or not, but I feel terrible for Trayvon's parents, so I'm voting guilty," that's not following the law. If a juror were to say "I think GZ profiled Trayvon so there's no way I'm even going to consider self defense," that's not following the law.

GZ was the aggressor, so he couldn't act in self defense as he was on the offensive.   He started a fight, began to get his ass kicked and then shot TM.  I mean this isn't hard.

following someone to ask them what they are doing isn't against the law or an act of violence IMO.

I would consider it an act of violence when you are armed and they are running away from you.

Wouldn't Trayvon have been at home if he was scared and running away?

I'm just going off of the account that Zimmerman gave during the 911 call.

[Emo EMAW]

They are following the law no matter how they vote. The law allows for a jury system to interpret the law in any way they see fit.

No and no. They must follow the law as presented to them. In this case, they only needed to decide whether the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ did not have a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm unless he acted in self defense. Now, of course the jury has room to decide whether GZ's fear was "reasonable." But to use an extreme example, if a juror were to vote not guilty just because they don't like black people, that's not following the law. If a juror were to say "I just don't think GZ proved he was acting in self defense," that's not following the law. If a juror were to say "I don't know if he acted in self defense or not, but I feel terrible for Trayvon's parents, so I'm voting guilty," that's not following the law. If a juror were to say "I think GZ profiled Trayvon so there's no way I'm even going to consider self defense," that's not following the law.

GZ was the aggressor, so he couldn't act in self defense as he was on the offensive.   He started a fight, began to get his ass kicked and then shot TM.  I mean this isn't hard.

following someone to ask them what they are doing isn't against the law or an act of violence IMO.

I would consider it an act of violence when you are armed and they are running away from you.

Even if the gun was concealed at the time?

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

They are following the law no matter how they vote. The law allows for a jury system to interpret the law in any way they see fit.

No and no. They must follow the law as presented to them. In this case, they only needed to decide whether the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ did not have a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm unless he acted in self defense. Now, of course the jury has room to decide whether GZ's fear was "reasonable." But to use an extreme example, if a juror were to vote not guilty just because they don't like black people, that's not following the law. If a juror were to say "I just don't think GZ proved he was acting in self defense," that's not following the law. If a juror were to say "I don't know if he acted in self defense or not, but I feel terrible for Trayvon's parents, so I'm voting guilty," that's not following the law. If a juror were to say "I think GZ profiled Trayvon so there's no way I'm even going to consider self defense," that's not following the law.

GZ was the aggressor, so he couldn't act in self defense as he was on the offensive.   He started a fight, began to get his ass kicked and then shot TM.  I mean this isn't hard.

following someone to ask them what they are doing isn't against the law or an act of violence IMO.

I would consider it an act of violence when you are armed and they are running away from you.

Wouldn't Trayvon have been at home if he was scared and running away?

I'm just going off of the account that Zimmerman gave during the 911 call.

Pretty sure he said he was getting away and lost site of him during the 911 call. Not certain though.

[Rage Against the McKee]

They are following the law no matter how they vote. The law allows for a jury system to interpret the law in any way they see fit.

No and no. They must follow the law as presented to them. In this case, they only needed to decide whether the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ did not have a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm unless he acted in self defense. Now, of course the jury has room to decide whether GZ's fear was "reasonable." But to use an extreme example, if a juror were to vote not guilty just because they don't like black people, that's not following the law. If a juror were to say "I just don't think GZ proved he was acting in self defense," that's not following the law. If a juror were to say "I don't know if he acted in self defense or not, but I feel terrible for Trayvon's parents, so I'm voting guilty," that's not following the law. If a juror were to say "I think GZ profiled Trayvon so there's no way I'm even going to consider self defense," that's not following the law.

GZ was the aggressor, so he couldn't act in self defense as he was on the offensive.   He started a fight, began to get his ass kicked and then shot TM.  I mean this isn't hard.

following someone to ask them what they are doing isn't against the law or an act of violence IMO.

I would consider it an act of violence when you are armed and they are running away from you.

Even if the gun was concealed at the time?

Yeah. I mean, you know you have the gun, it's dark, raining, and apparently you are scaring the crap out of this kid you are following because he just takes off running away from you when you are on the phone with 911. Unless you actually see him in the act of some crime that you feel compelled to try and stop, you should just let him go.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

They are following the law no matter how they vote. The law allows for a jury system to interpret the law in any way they see fit.

No and no. They must follow the law as presented to them. In this case, they only needed to decide whether the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ did not have a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm unless he acted in self defense. Now, of course the jury has room to decide whether GZ's fear was "reasonable." But to use an extreme example, if a juror were to vote not guilty just because they don't like black people, that's not following the law. If a juror were to say "I just don't think GZ proved he was acting in self defense," that's not following the law. If a juror were to say "I don't know if he acted in self defense or not, but I feel terrible for Trayvon's parents, so I'm voting guilty," that's not following the law. If a juror were to say "I think GZ profiled Trayvon so there's no way I'm even going to consider self defense," that's not following the law.

GZ was the aggressor, so he couldn't act in self defense as he was on the offensive.   He started a fight, began to get his ass kicked and then shot TM.  I mean this isn't hard.

following someone to ask them what they are doing isn't against the law or an act of violence IMO.

I would consider it an act of violence when you are armed and they are running away from you.

Wouldn't Trayvon have been at home if he was scared and running away?

I'm just going off of the account that Zimmerman gave during the 911 call.

Pretty sure he said he was getting away and lost site of him during the 911 call. Not certain though.

Dispatcher: He's running? Which way is he running?
Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.
Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?
Zimmerman: The back entrance...rough ridin' [disputed/unintelligible]
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah.
Dispatcher: Okay, we don't need you to do that.
Zimmerman: Okay.
Dispatcher: All right, sir, what is your name?
Zimmerman: George...He ran.
Dispatcher: All right, George, what's your last name?
Zimmerman: Zimmerman.
Dispatcher: And George, what's the phone number you're calling from?

[Cire]

so trayvon is running away but fatass catches up to him? a 17 year old can't escape GZ in the dark when it's rainy?

[Rage Against the McKee]

I'm just going off of the account that Zimmerman gave during the 911 call.

Pretty sure he said he was getting away and lost site of him during the 911 call. Not certain though.

Dispatcher: He's running? Which way is he running?
Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.
Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?
Zimmerman: The back entrance...rough ridin' [disputed/unintelligible]
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah.
Dispatcher: Okay, we don't need you to do that.
Zimmerman: Okay.
Dispatcher: All right, sir, what is your name?
Zimmerman: George...He ran.
Dispatcher: All right, George, what's your last name?
Zimmerman: Zimmerman.
Dispatcher: And George, what's the phone number you're calling from?

Yeah, he never said that Martin was getting away or that he lost sight of him. He did say "These assholes always get away" and that he was following him.

[Trim]

following someone to ask them what they are doing isn't against the law or an act of violence IMO. 

When you go outside today, think if weirdo George Zimmerman was following you around asking what you were doing there. 

Would you let him do it indefinitely, or would you expect that at some point, under the law, that the lunatic should have to get away from you?