1 I dont think there are more people in the US that Want to kill us.

2 We are a republic of states, the 14th notwithstanding.

3 I never said you get to shoot suspicious people. You do get to defend your neighberhood. The reason crime is rampant is we forgot that. So you should be able to question a stanger of any race about what they might be doing. If their response is to attack youm you should have the right to defend yourself.

You are a myopic, naive, bleeding heart liberal.

Posted by jclarkbaker on 5/23/2012 3:40:00 PM (view original):
Liberals obsession about this comes down to one thing: skin color.  White guilt is the Holy Church of liberalism.

This is only obvious to normal people.   Liberals will kill (not themselves, unfortunately) to keep their most sacred belief in the forefront.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/26/2012 10:41:00 PM (view original):
1 I dont think there are more people in the US that Want to kill us.

2 We are a republic of states, the 14th notwithstanding.

3 I never said you get to shoot suspicious people. You do get to defend your neighberhood. The reason crime is rampant is we forgot that. So you should be able to question a stanger of any race about what they might be doing. If their response is to attack youm you should have the right to defend yourself.

You are a myopic, naive, bleeding heart liberal.

What if Zimmerman put his hands on Trayvon first and Trayvon considered that his neighborhood because his dad lived there so he defended himself?

Posted by stillsleepin on 5/23/2012 1:39:00 PM (view original):
Custer wrote a text book on attacking Indian tribes. He stuck to his method during Little Big Horn and was killed as he deserved to be. His method was based on attacking smaller eastern tribes. He advocated attacking the encampment full of women, children and elderly. He knew that if he focused his attention on the warriors, the women, children and elderly would naturally make their escape (who wouldn't?) Sherman said "the only good Indian is a dead Indian". These were men of their times with attitudes that probably weren't exceptional.

If the US was never entirely responsible for the extinction of a tribe, that's a technicality. I doubt it was from a lack of effort or a grand plan that said "don't kill 'em all".

The "they couldn't stop us" attitude strikes me as an attitude of the 80's. The 1880's.

If your neighbors are unarmed and you have an AK-47, is it ok for you to kill them? I mean, they can't stop you, right?

For the record, Custer was killed mainly because he was outnumbered and outgunned. The Indians had repeaters and Custer did not. A deadly combination.

Posted by The Taint on 5/27/2012 9:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/26/2012 10:41:00 PM (view original):
1 I dont think there are more people in the US that Want to kill us.

2 We are a republic of states, the 14th notwithstanding.

3 I never said you get to shoot suspicious people. You do get to defend your neighberhood. The reason crime is rampant is we forgot that. So you should be able to question a stanger of any race about what they might be doing. If their response is to attack youm you should have the right to defend yourself.

You are a myopic, naive, bleeding heart liberal.

What if Zimmerman put his hands on Trayvon first and Trayvon considered that his neighborhood because his dad lived there so he defended himself?

It is possible. If Zimmerman acted first, wouldnt Treyvon be beat up more? Would an older man with a gun get close to a younger man?

The only way your scenario seems to work is if Zimmerman planned to murder Treyvon. Is tha what you are saying?

No. what i'm saying is say Trayvon is walking to his dads, Zimmerman accosts him and asks him what he's doing there, Trayvon tells him to **** off(which is what I would do), and then Zimmerman puts his hands on Trayvon. Trayvon then proceeds to start beating his *** and then Zimmerman pulls the gun and shoots and kills him. Who's at fault? The kids who's just minding his business walking home, or the aggressor that ignored instruction s from the authorities and decided to play vigilante?

Just to keep it clear Zimmerman was never told by the police not to follow Martin.

And I am not trying to sell a specific scenario, but yours seems odd. Would you really tell someone from the neighberhood watch to "**** off"?

Martins demeanor seems jumpy. His call to his girlfriend shows a jittery person. Why was he in the area for so long? Why didint he go home or to his fathers. Either way the timebetween the store and the inciednt is a long time for just a walk.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/27/2012 5:11:00 PM (view original):
Just to keep it clear Zimmerman was never told by the police not to follow Martin.

And I am not trying to sell a specific scenario, but yours seems odd. Would you really tell someone from the neighberhood watch to "**** off"?

Martins demeanor seems jumpy. His call to his girlfriend shows a jittery person. Why was he in the area for so long? Why didint he go home or to his fathers. Either way the timebetween the store and the inciednt is a long time for just a walk.

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...******* [unintelligible]
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah
Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.

Seems clear to me that the police told him not to follow.

Posted by jiml60 on 5/27/2012 9:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/27/2012 5:11:00 PM (view original):
Just to keep it clear Zimmerman was never told by the police not to follow Martin.

And I am not trying to sell a specific scenario, but yours seems odd. Would you really tell someone from the neighberhood watch to "**** off"?

Martins demeanor seems jumpy. His call to his girlfriend shows a jittery person. Why was he in the area for so long? Why didint he go home or to his fathers. Either way the timebetween the store and the inciednt is a long time for just a walk.

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...******* [unintelligible]
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah
Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.

Seems clear to me that the police told him not to follow.

c'mon Jim...they did not explicitly say "DON"T do that." And besides, he was just trying to be helpful because I know the innermost thoughts of everyone.

I am just being a good citizen  and trying to save Swamp some time so he can try and justify some other stupid point he failed to make or understand.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/27/2012 5:11:00 PM (view original):
Just to keep it clear Zimmerman was never told by the police not to follow Martin.

And I am not trying to sell a specific scenario, but yours seems odd. Would you really tell someone from the neighberhood watch to "**** off"?

Martins demeanor seems jumpy. His call to his girlfriend shows a jittery person. Why was he in the area for so long? Why didint he go home or to his fathers. Either way the timebetween the store and the inciednt is a long time for just a walk.

For a guy that prattles on about our freedom's being taken away and LIBERTY, and all, where the f*** do you get off suggesting how long anyone can be anywhere that they are legally allowed to be or how long of a walk they are allowed to take? Can't wait to hear Cap'n Freedom explain what the "right length for a walk is." You can wait though, Swamp, until Rmoney weighs in. He has already established that trees have a "right height", so a policy on the "right length for a walk" can't be far behind.

Posted by jiml60 on 5/27/2012 9:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/27/2012 5:11:00 PM (view original):
Just to keep it clear Zimmerman was never told by the police not to follow Martin.

And I am not trying to sell a specific scenario, but yours seems odd. Would you really tell someone from the neighberhood watch to "**** off"?

Martins demeanor seems jumpy. His call to his girlfriend shows a jittery person. Why was he in the area for so long? Why didint he go home or to his fathers. Either way the timebetween the store and the inciednt is a long time for just a walk.

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...******* [unintelligible]
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah
Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.

Seems clear to me that the police told him not to follow.

You dont see a difference between...

Dont do that or we dont want you to do that

And

You dont need to do that?

Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/26/2012 10:41:00 PM (view original):
1 I dont think there are more people in the US that Want to kill us.

2 We are a republic of states, the 14th notwithstanding.

3 I never said you get to shoot suspicious people. You do get to defend your neighberhood. The reason crime is rampant is we forgot that. So you should be able to question a stanger of any race about what they might be doing. If their response is to attack youm you should have the right to defend yourself.

You are a myopic, naive, bleeding heart liberal.

1. Your chances of being randomly killed in the US when you pick up a package of pork rinds at the local convenience store or some other random act of violence in the US far exceed the likelihood that any non-white person would want to kill you in some other part of the world, should you ever travel anywhere. Until you spoke, anyway.

2. Okay, you want to toss out the 14th? I'll toss out the 2nd. You don't get to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution you like, nimrod.

3. You get to defend your neighborhood? Define neighborhood for me, and show me a law anywhere that explicitly states the right to use deadly force to defend my "neighborhood.' And no, you cannot cite "Independence Day" or "Attack the Block."

4. Nice job resorting to the ad hominem attack there Tin Man (although you are equally Scarecrow).
Naive? If five years living in the Middle East and five years living in Asia, plus extensive travel throughout Europe (and 44 states) makes me naive, then so be it. How many kids do you have? How long have you been married? Newsflash, having a non-Swampian worldview does not inherntly make one naive. It might make them compassionate and rational, but not naive.

Posted by seamar_116 on 5/28/2012 1:21:00 AM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/27/2012 5:11:00 PM (view original):
Just to keep it clear Zimmerman was never told by the police not to follow Martin.

And I am not trying to sell a specific scenario, but yours seems odd. Would you really tell someone from the neighberhood watch to "**** off"?

Martins demeanor seems jumpy. His call to his girlfriend shows a jittery person. Why was he in the area for so long? Why didint he go home or to his fathers. Either way the timebetween the store and the inciednt is a long time for just a walk.

For a guy that prattles on about our freedom's being taken away and LIBERTY, and all, where the f*** do you get off suggesting how long anyone can be anywhere that they are legally allowed to be or how long of a walk they are allowed to take? Can't wait to hear Cap'n Freedom explain what the "right length for a walk is." You can wait though, Swamp, until Rmoney weighs in. He has already established that trees have a "right height", so a policy on the "right length for a walk" can't be far behind.

I have asked someone to explain what happened that night. What do you think Zimmerman was thinking?

The scenario that seems most logical was Zommerman thought the kid was bad. He followed. Martin confronted him and a fight started and at some point Zimmerman was losing and pulled out his gun and shot Martin.

I am not sure but that doesnt seem like 2nd degree murder.