Child killed by Neighborhood Watch captain while walking home

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:10:41 - Agree.

No one has mentioned how odd Zimmerman sounds?!?! No emotion, flat affect, as if he knew what he was going to do all along. If he lived in a gated community, WHY would he need to carry a gun? In case a kid with skittles walks through? WTH?

im not supporting zimmerman but am more answering your question.

the neighborhood was supposedly plagues with robberies and this is partly why zimmerman may have been carrying a gun and calling himself a neighborhood watch person.
im not excusing what he did im explaining why he had a gun only.

and i agree with you that he sounded like he was going to do something from the jump and nobody was going to convince him to do otherwise.

You think it's reasonable to carry around a gun to try to deter PROPERTY CRIME? There's been a rash of car break-ins in my neighborhood. So it would be perfectly reasonable for me to walk the neighborhood with a gun and pop a cap into anyone who was breaking in to a car?

Perspective, people.

you need to stop getting emotional and actually read what i said. i said im EXPLAINING why zimmerman had a gun. it doesnt mean i support it. it am simply answering her question to the rason why he felt the need to have a gun. ithe decision to have a gun wasnt rooted off because he thoughts it was a cool thing to do. he thought he needed to protect himself.

again emotions need to be tempered. i tried clear as day to explain that im not supporting what he did with my response but it still got read the wrong way...

[Anonymous]

People who think they need to arm themselves are simply not dealing with a full deck. I understand gun rights, but I will never understand why these individuals are not subject to the scrutiny they so deserve - at the very least, a psych exam.

[Anonymous]

Wait, now I'm starting to get a picture of this guy. According to this article, he "aspired to be a law-enforcement officer". In other words, he was trying to be mr. tough guy.

He also had a girlfriend file an injunction against him for domestic violence, and he got arrested for a bar incident with a cop.



http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/os-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-20120320,0,5897151.story

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:10:41 - Agree.

No one has mentioned how odd Zimmerman sounds?!?! No emotion, flat affect, as if he knew what he was going to do all along. If he lived in a gated community, WHY would he need to carry a gun? In case a kid with skittles walks through? WTH?

im not supporting zimmerman but am more answering your question.

the neighborhood was supposedly plagues with [b]robberies and this is partly why zimmerman may have been carrying a gun and calling himself a neighborhood watch person. [/b]
im not excusing what he did im explaining why he had a gun only.

and i agree with you that he sounded like he was going to do something from the jump and nobody was going to convince him to do otherwise.

You think it's reasonable to carry around a gun to try to deter PROPERTY CRIME? There's been a rash of car break-ins in my neighborhood. So it would be perfectly reasonable for me to walk the neighborhood with a gun and pop a cap into anyone who was breaking in to a car?

Perspective, people.

you need to stop getting emotional and actually read what i said. i said im EXPLAINING why zimmerman had a gun. it doesnt mean i support it. it am simply answering her question to the rason why he felt the need to have a gun. ithe decision to have a gun wasnt rooted off because he thoughts it was a cool thing to do. he thought he needed to protect himself.

again emotions need to be tempered. i tried clear as day to explain that im not supporting what he did with my response but it still got read the wrong way...

Not robberies. The neighborhood had a series of break-ins, burglaries. Those are the crimes where the victim is not present. Robberies are a different thing entirely.

[Anonymous]

tomato. tomatoe. robbery. burglaries.

doesnt change my explanation. part of what got zimmerman to have a gun was crime in the area.

again, doesnt mean he had the free reign to start shotting everyone. it just means he had a gun for protection. period. nothing more nothing less

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sanford police chief temporarily steps down

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57402661/sanford-police-chief-temporarily-steps-down/

Big whoop. He is probably on a paid, administrative leave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wait, now I'm starting to get a picture of this guy. According to this article, he "aspired to be a law-enforcement officer". In other words, he was trying to be mr. tough guy.

He also had a girlfriend file an injunction against him for domestic violence, and he got arrested for a bar incident with a cop.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/os-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-20120320,0,5897151.story

Yeah, sounds like a wannabe cop and because he was a volunteer he thought he would just act like one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:10:41 - Agree.

No one has mentioned how odd Zimmerman sounds?!?! No emotion, flat affect, as if he knew what he was going to do all along. If he lived in a gated community, WHY would he need to carry a gun? In case a kid with skittles walks through? WTH?

im not supporting zimmerman but am more answering your question.

the neighborhood was supposedly plagues with robberies and this is partly why zimmerman may have been carrying a gun and calling himself a neighborhood watch person.
im not excusing what he did im explaining why he had a gun only.

and i agree with you that he sounded like he was going to do something from the jump and nobody was going to convince him to do otherwise.

You think it's reasonable to carry around a gun to try to deter PROPERTY CRIME? There's been a rash of car break-ins in my neighborhood. So it would be perfectly reasonable for me to walk the neighborhood with a gun and pop a cap into anyone who was breaking in to a car?

Perspective, people.

you need to stop getting emotional and actually read what i said. i said im EXPLAINING why zimmerman had a gun. it doesnt mean i support it. it am simply answering her question to the rason why he felt the need to have a gun. ithe decision to have a gun wasnt rooted off because he thoughts it was a cool thing to do. he thought he needed to protect himself.

again emotions need to be tempered. i tried clear as day to explain that im not supporting what he did with my response but it still got read the wrong way...

I read what you wrote just fine. Whether you "support" him or not is irrelevant. I'm saying that because there was property crime in his neighborhood, that is not justification enough to walk around carrying a gun in order to deter it. Why is that hard to understand? It doesn't "explain" anything. If anything, it explains that he's a paranoid whackjob.

And excuse me, but why do my "emotions need to be tempered"? A child is dead for no reason and his killer is walking around free. If that doesn't make you angry, then you're not paying attention.

[Anonymous]

I think it ok to carry a gun to deter property crime. You think stealing cars and computers is no big deal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it ok to carry a gun to deter property crime. You think stealing cars and computers is no big deal?

If I see someone stealing property, I'm calling the police. I do not condone theft, but no, I am not going to shoot someone for stealing a computer or a car. A person's life is not equal to a replaceable object.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:10:41 - Agree.

No one has mentioned how odd Zimmerman sounds?!?! No emotion, flat affect, as if he knew what he was going to do all along. If he lived in a gated community, WHY would he need to carry a gun? In case a kid with skittles walks through? WTH?

im not supporting zimmerman but am more answering your question.

the neighborhood was supposedly plagues with robberies and this is partly why zimmerman may have been carrying a gun and calling himself a neighborhood watch person.
im not excusing what he did im explaining why he had a gun only.

and i agree with you that he sounded like he was going to do something from the jump and nobody was going to convince him to do otherwise.

You think it's reasonable to carry around a gun to try to deter PROPERTY CRIME? There's been a rash of car break-ins in my neighborhood. So it would be perfectly reasonable for me to walk the neighborhood with a gun and pop a cap into anyone who was breaking in to a car?

Perspective, people.

you need to stop getting emotional and actually read what i said. i said im EXPLAINING why zimmerman had a gun. it doesnt mean i support it. it am simply answering her question to the rason why he felt the need to have a gun. ithe decision to have a gun wasnt rooted off because he thoughts it was a cool thing to do. he thought he needed to protect himself.

again emotions need to be tempered. i tried clear as day to explain that im not supporting what he did with my response but it still got read the wrong way...

I read what you wrote just fine. Whether you "support" him or not is irrelevant. I'm saying that because there was property crime in his neighborhood, that is not justification enough to walk around carrying a gun in order to deter it. Why is that hard to understand? It doesn't "explain" anything. If anything, it explains that he's a paranoid whackjob.

And excuse me, but why do my "emotions need to be tempered"? A child is dead for no reason and his killer is walking around free. If that doesn't make you angry, then you're not paying attention.

NP here. Pp, I believe the other pp responded the way she did because she felt you were attacking her as if she were trying to justify what Zimmerman did. Obviously she wasn't. And it appears from this statement that you weren't trying to attack her but your earlier post did sound like you thought she was defending him. A simple misunderstanding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:tomato. tomatoe. robbery. burglaries.

doesnt change my explanation. part of what got zimmerman to have a gun was crime in the area.

again, doesnt mean he had the free reign to start shotting everyone. it just means he had a gun for protection. period. nothing more nothing less

No, it is incredibly different. In once case you carry a gun to defend yourself because someone might stick a gun in your chest. In the other, you are carrying a gun because you might see someone stealing a car. Clearly the nature of the crime matters. You wouldn't tell someone to carry a gun because of rampant jaywalking.

[Anonymous]

I sure would like to know who was screaming "Help" in the background on the 911 call. On NPR, I heard that a council member of the town thinks it was Zimmerman. This reminds me that I ought to keep an open mind until more evidence is in. Zimmerman looks really suspicious but we should wait to hear all the facts. If he is found guilty based on actual facts, he won't be any less guilty for it having been delayed.

The problem of course is that so much of the evidence may not have been collected at a crucial moment. There is no question that the police department failed to investigate properly. They took Zimmerman's word for it and didn't do many of the things that a homicide investigation demands. Among them, they sent a narcotics investigator to the scene rather than a homicide investigator. And they didn't check Trayvon's cell phone for calls. They really should be ashamed of themselves for having conducted such a shoddy investigation. So unprofessional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I sure would like to know who was screaming "Help" in the background on the 911 call. On NPR, I heard that a council member of the town thinks it was Zimmerman. This reminds me that I ought to keep an open mind until more evidence is in. Zimmerman looks really suspicious but we should wait to hear all the facts. If he is found guilty based on actual facts, he won't be any less guilty for it having been delayed.

The problem of course is that so much of the evidence may not have been collected at a crucial moment. There is no question that the police department failed to investigate properly. They took Zimmerman's word for it and didn't do many of the things that a homicide investigation demands. Among them, they sent a narcotics investigator to the scene rather than a homicide investigator. And they didn't check Trayvon's cell phone for calls. They really should be ashamed of themselves for having conducted such a shoddy investigation. So unprofessional.

I think Z will never be convicted bc of police mishandling. They collected no evidence. We've heard reports that Z had blood on his face when police arrive on the scene. Was it his blood, or Trayvon's? Now we will never know. IMO, that is what is the worst about this situation. Even if Z killed him in cold blood, a conviction would be tough without forensic evidence.

[Anonymous]

16:03 - you are confusing your posters, FYI.

Zimmerman is clearly not stable. Whether he "wanted to be a cop" or whatever, his motivations for being on neighborhood watch were all wrong. He may have wanted to know what was going on in the neighborhood for his own reasons, but he certainly was NOT looking out for the greater good.

If the police trusted him at his word, they had it ALL wrong. He was NOT someone to be trusted. Never mind the fact that he was not someone who should have a gun in their possession.