George Zimmerman arrested for aggravated assault with a weapon

Lawandorder said:
Seriously, I couldn't care less about your outrage at Zimmerman's behaviour and your own morally deficient moral judgements.
Click to expand...

Then why do you keep contesting the fact? Curious George did something he shouldn't have. He created the situation, he is solely to blame for the incident. And I still stand by saying he should have followed the commands over the phone. Why even call in the first place? He had made up his mind before hand, so why even bother calling? And why are my morals deficient? Do what you're told? Is that deficient? Zimmerman didn't do what he was told and looked what happened.

Just because you disagree with me on one thing doesn't make my morals deficient. Zimmerman is a crook and a liar and he perjured himself on the stand. That's all anyone needs to know. Perjury is a felony and they should have roasted him for that charge but the ADA seemed to have dropped the ball on that one.

And if we're going by the book of law here, Martin did nothing more than walk down the sidewalk *shrug* Why argue the fact that Zimmerman continues to prove himself a jackass by attacking someone else with a weapon? Would you not agree that he could have attacked Martin and not the other way around?
 
What do you hope to acomplish by ignoring what I'm saying? You have no argument other than "but I don't carne about the law, I believe that he should have done this and that", fact remains he wasn't legally bound by what the 911 dispatcher said to him; and go ahead, play dumb again, your morals are deficient because you go out of your way to condemn him and diminish him as "a crook, les than a citizen" because he's a violent man while expressing violent views ("he should be shot"), that's the peak of hipocresy and the fact that your continúe to argue that your own views take precedence over the law it's why I continúe to respond.
So either you acept the fact that Zimmerman wasn't legally bound by the 911 dispatcher suggestion and that legally he's not guilty of the charges he was imputed with, or your could continué to judge him and ignoring muy arguments for the sake of being stubborn, either way I don't dissagree that Zimmerman is a scumbag and partially responsible of the whole fiasco, I'm merely defending that the veredict on the first case was the correct one, and calling out the hipocrisy of being outraged at violence and then calling for someone to be shot.
 
I wouldn't exactly call it a hypocrisy to call for someone who breaks the law to be shot while we all obey said laws. Violent, maybe, but hypocritically? No. The hypocrisy would come if I also broke the laws. It's more of the ultimate form of order: remove the broken piece in the machine to keep it all working smoothly; Zimmerman is that broken piece. See: Dredd; Drokk!

And no, Zimmerman is wholly responsible for his actions and should be held accountable. And what do you mean he's not legally responsible for the crimes he was imputed with? He was arrested for assault with a deadly weapon, which also causes his past actions to be thrown into question. Which also would harm his testimony in this current case, considering he perjured himself. I have no clue where you're from but over here once you've been found out to be a liar, it's very difficult to win back the trust of the courts if it's even possible. The courts will also feel the heat and pressure from all sides to see to it he's sentenced for this, not to mention it'd be virtually impossible to find an impartial jury. They'd probably have to fly in some mid western hicks to sit in the jury box.

Legally he cannot be tried for those past crimes due to the double jeopardy of it. I didn't say I disregard the laws, and I'm not 'playing dumb'. Zimmerman is a liar, Zimmerman is an aggressor, Zimmerman is a danger to himself and others (mostly others). What else is there to interpret? What hidden meaning am I missing here? He's guiltier than the definition of the word. Whatever support he had before will surely dry up when people learn he's been attacking people. And no, it's too much of a stretch to say it's just a coincidence.

Zimmerman placed himself in the situation that wound up with someone dead and no witnesses. Were it an officer, or anyone else I'd like to have had it investigated further than it was but that wasn't possible because he was let go initially, and that's due to the CF that is Florida and the responding officers. If someone with experience tells you not to run into a situation that can get you killed, and you ignore that instruction: it's your fault. That's where I stand, and will always stand. Zimmerman isn't fit to carry a weapon. Zimmerman isn't fit to be on his own recognizance. This new charge will see to it he's put where he belongs. Unfortunately, that's all the time I have and I'm afraid the bleeding hearts are getting my boots sullied.

Edit: I believe I've dominated the thread enough, the forum is now open to others with differing opinions, as I'd very much like to see them.
 
Zimmerman's post-trial antics hare turning him into a huge laughing stock. I supported his argument of self-defense all throughout the Martin trial, but what he's done with himself since has been nothing short of disappointing.

One has to wonder if media branding and subsequent widespread prejudice against him is the cause of (as opposed to the effect of) his self-destructive tirade. If so, I sincerely hope he gets the appropriate psychological help. A troubled person deserves to be helped up rather than cast out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top