• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is Zimmerman brave, subborn or stupid? [W: 218] (1 Viewer)

Furiounova said:
I didn't get it before but now I do. This poster is against GZ but only pretending to be a GZ supporter to make GZ supporters look silly. Nobody would sincerely repeatedly make the most laughable claims.
Click to expand...

Trayvon Martin stalked GZ and for violent intenses.

He deliberately approached GZ angily and reaching into his pocket - then turning and running to hide to find an attack point seeing GZ on the phone.

He then came around on GZ a second time, for the purpose of and actually doing violent felony assault on George Zimmerman.

TM not only was a stalker, but a violent stalker who was stalking for the purpose of doing violence. Whether he also planned to rob GZ and/or steal his truck we can't know because TM was killed during the commission of the crime.
 
joko104 said:
Trayvon Martin stalked GZ and for violent intenses.

He deliberately approached GZ angily and reaching into his pocket - then turning and running to hide to find an attack point seeing GZ on the phone.

He then came around on GZ a second time, for the purpose of and actually doing violent felony assault on George Zimmerman.

TM not only was a stalker, but a violent stalker who was stalking for the purpose of doing violence. Whether he also planned to rob GZ and/or steal his truck we can't know because TM was killed during the commission of the crime.
Click to expand...

lol....GZ supporters have their own Creationism Division.
 
Excon said:
:lamo
And pray tell, what context are you referring to that I didn't pay attention to?
LOL
You fabricating evidence to fit a preconceived and biased narrative?
:doh

Or was it it in context of Thunder's false claim of "angry pursuit"?
:doh

Or was it whysoserious's claim of "stalking", "stealthily" or not, when there was no stalking.
:doh

Is that the context you are referring to? iLOL
Click to expand...

It was Omara who said they need a year to prepare the defense. When you need a whole year you are admitting you need time to fabricate a story.
 
Furiounova said:
It was Omara who said they need a year to prepare the defense. When you need a whole year you are admitting you need time to fabricate a story.
Click to expand...
LOL
What a ridiculous thing to think.
The only thing it admits is that they need time to go through all of the evidence and come to a complete understanding while doing the same thing for the other cases they have.

Far be it from you to understand that.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
angrily pursuing someone in a car and on foot, is stalking.
Click to expand...

I see no elements of the crime mentioned.

I'll take your concession of the point now.
 
Tucker Case said:
No, staying in the car would have avoided making a stupid decision. Regardless of what happened after he got out of the car, Z got out of the car believing that he was potentially putting himself in danger by doing so. That's just plain ****ing stupid.
Click to expand...

Your view does not seem to be the law in Florida nor is ****ting on your breakfast

That fact is .....Z broke no law and that what the court system is about *legal or not legal*

Right and wrong are just words.....
 
Tucker Case said:
No, staying in the car would have avoided making a stupid decision. Regardless of what happened after he got out of the car, Z got out of the car believing that he was potentially putting himself in danger by doing so. That's just plain ****ing stupid.
Click to expand...


I disagree that staying in his trunk meant he would have meant he is safer. A person is much safer outside than inside their vehicle if an agressor is approaching. But that's not the issue.

I've only been in "civil" genteel white middle class society a few years. There are many good sides to it. But I also be struck by how little loyally, how narcisstic, apathetic and cowardly many if not most people are.

There was nothing wrong in GZ getting out of his truck. It does means he isn't totally crippled by fear. I think most people are, that fear overwhelming will make all decisions of their lives.

If I posted "it was stupid for TM to go out at night alone in the rain" and therefore he was largely to blame for it would you accept that? Yet it definitely is dangerous for a person to go out alone at night and walk around in a high crime neighborhood.

And I could go on to blame TM for approaching GZ rather than going home or staying away, after TM told that girl on the phone that he was afraid of GZ. So, once again, it is TM's fault under your reasoning.
 
ric27 said:
Your view does not seem to be the law in Florida nor is ****ting on your breakfast

That fact is .....Z broke no law and that what the court system is about *legal or not legal*

Right and wrong are just words.....
Click to expand...

If I was talking abou tthe law or right and wrong, you'd have a point.

I'm talking about stupid. And it's clear that Z did something incredibly stupid. That's the one thing in this case that's not even debatable.
 
joko104 said:
I disagree that staying in his trunk meant he would have meant he is safer.
Click to expand...

Good for you.

A person is much safer outside than inside their vehicle if an agressor is approaching.
Click to expand...

Which obviously wasn't the case here. So we return to the painfully obvious fact that Z getting out of th ecar was a stupoid decision.
 
Caine said:
Prove the elements of the crime stalking please......

Or, you can just shutup accusing him of a crime he didn't commit.
Click to expand...

I didn't say he committed a crime. I wasn't accusing him of a crime. There is the crime stalking, and then there is the verb.

Use a dictionary, Caine.
 
joko104 said:
The line "college of the galatically retarded" comes to mind as the Zimmerman haters again resort to using "stalking."
Click to expand...

You can call me retarded, but I am not the one who doesn't know the difference between a verb and a crime. If Michael Bourne steals second, are you going to try to charge him with theft? Words have different meanings, and you can "stalk" someone without it being a crime. Here is a good for instance:

You see someone walking and you think they are suspicious. They get out of view so you drive past them and park. Then, you watch them walk by again, so you drive past them again. Then, they walk past and go out of view for a third time, so you get out of your car and go looking for them.

That's a ****ing great example.
 
whysoserious said:
You can call me retarded, but I am not the one who doesn't know the difference between a verb and a crime. If Michael Bourne steals second, are you going to try to charge him with theft? Words have different meanings, and you can "stalk" someone without it being a crime. Here is a good for instance:

You see someone walking and you think they are suspicious. They get out of view so you drive past them and park. Then, you watch them walk by again, so you drive past them again. Then, they walk past and go out of view for a third time, so you get out of your car and go looking for them.

That's a ****ing great example.
Click to expand...

You are only fooling yourself...

The prosecution has stated repeatedly that Z profiled M as a criminal and followed M....followed M... NOT Z stalking M
 
ric27 said:
You are only fooling yourself...

The prosecution has stated repeatedly that Z profiled M as a criminal and followed M....followed M... NOT Z stalking M
Click to expand...

To pursue quarry stealthily. That's the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition that I am using.

If you don't like it, take it up with them. I didn't define the word. I just speak ****ing English.
 
Thinking there was a poll, I dropped in. I will admit to not having read the thread, but I would say that Zimmerman is unquestionably stupid. He's screwed himself over again and again after he screwed himself by confronting Martin. I'm not arguing whether he should or should not have challenged Martin. Zimmerman's actions since that night have been nothing if not stupid. He is not a bright person.
 
First is you never plead to anything. (unless your are mobster etc)

2: Zimmerman is a great guy standing up for all our rights to defend our self and not be railroaded by the media and militant niggers.

3: In the end this will be example case of self defence. When you attack someone and smash their head on cement, your going to die.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Thinking there was a poll, I dropped in. I will admit to not having read the thread, but I would say that Zimmerman is unquestionably stupid. He's screwed himself over again and again after he screwed himself by confronting Martin. I'm not arguing whether he should or should not have challenged Martin. Zimmerman's actions since that night have been nothing if not stupid. He is not a bright person.
Click to expand...

So its stupid to confrnt criminals?
We just all going to lay down and die? Be easy victims........????
 
274ina said:
First is you never plead to anything. (unless your are mobster etc)

2: Zimmerman is a great guy standing up for all our rights to defend our self and not be railroaded by the media and militant niggers.

3: In the end this will be example case of self defence. When you attack someone and smash their head on cement, your going to die.
Click to expand...

Whoa! Let me just venture out here and ask if you are racially unbiased.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Zimmerman confronted Martin because Martin was a criminal?
Click to expand...

yes, he was acting suspicious. he also ran from a guy watching him. Classic criminal behavior.
of course he was not a true criminal untill he broke Z's nose...........

and he did not confront him (a legal action). He followed him, lost him, he was going to make a call, then he got his face smashed in.........
 
Last edited:
Risky Thicket said:
Zimmerman confronted Martin because Martin was a criminal?
Click to expand...


Z did not confront M

M confronted Z both verbally and physically *aggravated assault*
 
whysoserious said:
To pursue quarry stealthily. That's the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition that I am using.

If you don't like it, take it up with them. I didn't define the word. I just speak ****ing English.
Click to expand...
And you are using it wrongly.

There was no "stealthily" anything being done by Zimmerman!
 
Excon said:
And you are using it wrongly.

There was no "stealthily" anything being done by Zimmerman!
Click to expand...



They just make up words. There was nothing "stealthy" about Zimmerman's conduct at all. But someone somewhere posted that and it sounds good so they'll all repeat it like chanting the edicts of their political master gurus.
 
274ina said:
yes, he was acting suspicious. he also ran from a guy watching him. Classic criminal behavior.
of course he was not a true criminal untill he broke Z's nose...........

and he did not confront him (a legal action). He followed him, lost him, he was going to make a call, then he got his face smashed in.........
Click to expand...

Actually Parents teach their children about Stranger Danger ... always run away from a creepy stranger.

George had no authority to confront anyone.. He wasn't a cop .. George wasn't even a rent-a-cop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom