South Carolina church shooting: Nine killed in Charleston

by Guest Thu Jun 18, 2015 6:32 am

First topic message reminder :

Nine people have died in a shooting at a historic African-American church in Charleston in the US state of South Carolina, officials say.
City police chief Gregory Mullen said eight of the victims were killed inside the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church on Thursday evening, while another person died shortly afterwards.
Police are now searching for a white male suspect in his 20s.
"I do believe it was a hate crime," Mr Mullen said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33179019

by Raggamuffin Mon Jun 22, 2015 12:26 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:I can't find anything about Zimmerman going around townhouses or going through gaps in the article you linked to.

Can you post it again?

No because you are just being lazy now.

So the statement does not exist then.

So he didn't go around a house at all, and he didn't go through any gaps. Let's then concentrate on the cut-through and the path down to Trayvon's father's house where the shooting took place.

by Guest Mon Jun 22, 2015 12:27 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

He states he went around a house himself to the Police as I posted this evidence for you, which you certainly were not aware of.
Its not vital to understand the area, what is vital is to understand the intent of Zimmerman, which is why your argument is flagging badly.

I can't find Zimmerman's statement that he went around a house. Could you post it again?

Of course it's vital to understand the area. Without understanding the area, you can't understand what happened and how.

The only thing vital here is to understand Zimmerman, which you fail to grasp.
At every turn you have ignored the important factor his anger issues and clearly trying your best to avoid this
My points still stand on his character as I stated from the beginning and why clearly Zimmerman had intent.

Clearly you do not wish to address this and are arguing off irrelevant points to the Character of Zimmerman which as seen he did go after TM.

Getting bored now with your refusal to address these points.

by Guest Mon Jun 22, 2015 12:28 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

No because you are just being lazy now.

So the statement does not exist then.

So he didn't go around a house at all, and he didn't go through any gaps. Let's then concentrate on the cut-through and the path down to Trayvon's father's house where the shooting took place.

Wrong:

The Daily Beast quotes an unidentified individual with the Sanford Police Department who is not involved in the case but apparently had some exposure to the investigation. According to him, Zimmerman’s statement to police was that after losing track of Trayvon, Zimmerman “went around a townhouse to see where he was.” This supports two things: first, that Zimmerman was actively hunting for Trayvon at the time of the altercation, and second, that Zimmerman was not following the sidewalk routes, but ducking through gaps in houses. This is possible support for the theory that Zimmerman unexpectedly cut off Trayvon, who was on the sidewalk routes. It also puts the “Trayvon was in hiding waiting to attack Zimmerman” theory in doubt, because it’s not clear how Trayvon’s could have anticipated Zimmerman’s unusual path.

by Guest Mon Jun 22, 2015 12:29 pm

The officer who states the above this supports Zimmerman by the way.

by Raggamuffin Mon Jun 22, 2015 12:29 pm

George Zimmerman said that he continued across the cut-through and went to the Retreat View Circle to get an address for the police. Is that the "gap" you're referring to?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VakGZgJxTi4

by Raggamuffin Mon Jun 22, 2015 12:31 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

So the statement does not exist then.

So he didn't go around a house at all, and he didn't go through any gaps. Let's then concentrate on the cut-through and the path down to Trayvon's father's house where the shooting took place.

Wrong:

The Daily Beast quotes an unidentified individual with the Sanford Police Department who is not involved in the case but apparently had some exposure to the investigation. According to him, Zimmerman’s statement to police was that after losing track of Trayvon, Zimmerman “went around a townhouse to see where he was.” This supports two things: first, that Zimmerman was actively hunting for Trayvon at the time of the altercation, and second, that Zimmerman was not following the sidewalk routes, but ducking through gaps in houses. This is possible support for the theory that Zimmerman unexpectedly cut off Trayvon, who was on the sidewalk routes. It also puts the “Trayvon was in hiding waiting to attack Zimmerman” theory in doubt, because it’s not clear how Trayvon’s could have anticipated Zimmerman’s unusual path.

I cannot find that in the link.

by Guest Mon Jun 22, 2015 12:31 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:George Zimmerman said that he continued across the cut-through and went to the Retreat View Circle to get an address for the police. Is that the "gap" you're referring to?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VakGZgJxTi4

Yes he changed his story, clearly.

Not concerned what gap.
Again you are missing the whole point here.
How many more times, all that is being pointed out here is clear intent by Zimmerman to following and confronting TM.

by Guest Mon Jun 22, 2015 12:32 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Wrong:

The Daily Beast quotes an unidentified individual with the Sanford Police Department who is not involved in the case but apparently had some exposure to the investigation. According to him, Zimmerman’s statement to police was that after losing track of Trayvon, Zimmerman “went around a townhouse to see where he was.” This supports two things: first, that Zimmerman was actively hunting for Trayvon at the time of the altercation, and second, that Zimmerman was not following the sidewalk routes, but ducking through gaps in houses. This is possible support for the theory that Zimmerman unexpectedly cut off Trayvon, who was on the sidewalk routes. It also puts the “Trayvon was in hiding waiting to attack Zimmerman” theory in doubt, because it’s not clear how Trayvon’s could have anticipated Zimmerman’s unusual path.

I cannot find that in the link.

I can, the part that says daily beast and again the officer stating the above is a backer of Zimmerman

by Raggamuffin Mon Jun 22, 2015 12:32 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I can't find Zimmerman's statement that he went around a house. Could you post it again?

Of course it's vital to understand the area. Without understanding the area, you can't understand what happened and how.

The only thing vital here is to understand Zimmerman, which you fail to grasp.
At every turn you have ignored the important factor his anger issues and clearly trying your best to avoid this
My points still stand on his character as I stated from the beginning and why clearly Zimmerman had intent.

Clearly you do not wish to address this and are arguing off irrelevant points to the Character of Zimmerman which as seen he did go after TM.

Getting bored now with your refusal to address these points.

Your refusal to actually address the route is getting boring.

The only thing which is vital is to understand the evidence, not your opinion of Zimmerman.

The evidence is not irrelevant, and the route both of them took is evidence.

by Raggamuffin Mon Jun 22, 2015 12:33 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I cannot find that in the link.

I can, the part that says daily beast and again the officer stating the above is a backer of Zimmerman

It is not there. Can you link directly to that text?

by Guest Mon Jun 22, 2015 12:34 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

The only thing vital here is to understand Zimmerman, which you fail to grasp.
At every turn you have ignored the important factor his anger issues and clearly trying your best to avoid this
My points still stand on his character as I stated from the beginning and why clearly Zimmerman had intent.

Clearly you do not wish to address this and are arguing off irrelevant points to the Character of Zimmerman which as seen he did go after TM.

Getting bored now with your refusal to address these points.

Your refusal to actually address the route is getting boring.

The only thing which is vital is to understand the evidence, not your opinion of Zimmerman.

The evidence is not irrelevant, and the route both of them took is evidence.

No my evidence points to many factors about Zimmerman which has been my points all along and of which at no point have you addressed and tried poorly to dance around them.
He clearly lost control of his anger, went after TM and confronted him, which led to the boys death.

by Guest Mon Jun 22, 2015 12:35 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

I can, the part that says daily beast and again the officer stating the above is a backer of Zimmerman

It is not there. Can you link directly to that text?

All that is relevant is the part confirming by the officer of Zimmerman going around a house.
That is all you need to know.
That is in the link I have given you.

by Guest Mon Jun 22, 2015 12:37 pm

I am going to lunch, but its worthless anyway because you clearly are just ignoring the character of Zimmerman which is the most important aspect to the case, which you clearly are too scared to address.

I will leave my points to stand

by Raggamuffin Mon Jun 22, 2015 12:39 pm

This is what happened. Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and went the same way Trayvon had gone - up the cut-through. He had seen Trayvon turn right at the T-junction, but he could not see him by the time he got to the T-junction. That is because Trayvon had either reached his father's house or because he was hiding around the side of a house in one of the gaps between the houses. Zimmerman continued along the cut-through, and then turned round and came back. It's possible that he went a few yards down the path to see if he could see Trayvon, but he didn't get very far.

Trayvon had come back towards the T-junction in order to confront Zimmerman, and that's exactly what he did. He wanted to know why Zimmerman was watching him. There was a scuffle, some pushing and shoving. Zimmerman was hit in the face at some point, and Trayvon got him on the floor and was trying to bash his head on the ground, which he succeeded in doing a few times. Zimmerman was shouting for help, but no help came, and he ended up shooting Trayvon in self defence.

by Guest Mon Jun 22, 2015 12:44 pm

What is vital here is his anger and violent actions:

In July 2005, when he was 21, Zimmerman was arrested after shoving an undercover alcohol-control agent while a friend of Zimmerman's was being arrested for underage drinking. The officer alleged that Zimmerman had said, "I don't care who you are," followed by a profanity, and had refused to leave the area after the officer had shown their badge. The charges were subsequently dropped when Zimmerman entered a pre-trial diversion program that included anger-management classes. Also in 2005, Zimmerman's ex-fiancée filed a restraining order against him, alleging domestic violence. Zimmerman requested a reciprocal restraining order. Both orders were granted.These incidents were raised by prosecutors at Zimmerman's initial bond hearing. The judge described them as "run of the mill."

On September 9, 2013, in Lake Mary, police responded to a 911 call by Zimmerman's estranged wife, who reported that Zimmerman had threatened her and her father with a gun and had punched her father in the face. Zimmerman was briefly detained and questioned by police. No gun was found at the scene. Police took a broken iPad from the scene for examination of a video recording of the incident to determine whether to press charges against either Zimmerman or his wife. His wife declined to press charges, later expressing regret about her decision. After determining that the iPad video could not be recovered, the Lake Mary police department announced they would not be pressing charges against Zimmerman, his wife, or her father.

On November 18, 2013, Zimmerman's girlfriend called the police alleging that after she had asked Zimmerman to leave her home, he had pointed a shotgun at her and begun breaking her belongings. The police reported that Zimmerman had barricaded himself inside the apartment before they had made their way inside and arrested him. He was charged with aggravated assault with a weapon – a felony – as well as domestic violence battery and criminal mischief. On December 6, Zimmerman's girlfriend asked that the charges against Zimmerman be dropped and that the restraining order barring him from seeing her be lifted, after which prosecutors said that they would no longer be pursuing a case against him.

On January 9, 2015, Zimmerman was arrested by Lake Mary police and charged with aggravated assault with a weapon after allegedly throwing a wine bottle at his ex-girlfriend. He was released on bond the following day. The charges were later dropped after the complainant recanted her story

by Raggamuffin Mon Jun 22, 2015 12:52 pm

George Zimmerman was a serial reporter of crimes and what he saw as social problems. He had rung the police on many occasions to report such crimes. This was just another report he was making - nothing unsual in that. Unfortunately, the person he was reporting only knew that a man was watching him, and he wanted to know why.

It could be said that Zimmerman was over-zealous, that he should have minded his own business, and that he should have stayed in his vehicle, and those are fair points. However, at the time of the shooting he acted in self defence because the person he thought was up to no good confronted him, unlike the other people he had reported.

by Guest Mon Jun 22, 2015 12:54 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:George Zimmerman was a serial reporter of crimes and what he saw as social problems. He had rung the police on many occasions to report such crimes. This was just another report he was making - nothing unsual in that. Unfortunately, the person he was reporting only knew that a man was watching him, and he wanted to know why.

It could be said that Zimmerman was over-zealous, that he should have minded his own business, and that he should have stayed in his vehicle, and those are fair points. However, at the time of the shooting he acted in self defence because the person he thought was up to no good confronted him, unlike the other people he had reported.

He clearly has anger issues.
He wrongly sterotyped TM
He thus had issues with blacks, this is backed by how he viewed them.
He stalked and followed TM because he lost control due to his anger.
He confronted TM due to his anger.
He thus created the situation that led to the boys death.

by Raggamuffin Mon Jun 22, 2015 12:55 pm

Interestingly, a man called Matthew Apperson has been charged with the attempted murder of George Zimmerman. I'll be following that story closely.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/18/us/apperson-charged-with-attempted-murder-of-george-zimmerman/

by Raggamuffin Mon Jun 22, 2015 1:14 pm

I think that any incidents after the trial which involve allegations that Zimmerman is violent or angry should be treated with caution. He may well have anger issues now. Who would not have such issues after they have hauled through the court and maligned in the press so much? Who would not be angry that they had been accused of deliberately gunning someone down, and had their family threatened by random people who merely believe what they read about him?

As for Shellie Zimmerman, well I have some sympathy for her. She stood by George Z to the extent that she landed herself in trouble too re the issue of funds. Anyone watching the verdict of the court will have noticed that George did not even glance at her, let alone hug her or thank you. It seems that their relationship was over at that point.

by Guest Mon Jun 22, 2015 5:38 pm

He could have been groomed online lots of young people are these days aren't they ?

by Ben Reilly Mon Jun 22, 2015 6:03 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:I think that any incidents after the trial which involve allegations that Zimmerman is violent or angry should be treated with caution. He may well have anger issues now. Who would not have such issues after they have hauled through the court and maligned in the press so much? Who would not be angry that they had been accused of deliberately gunning someone down, and had their family threatened by random people who merely believe what they read about him?

As for Shellie Zimmerman, well I have some sympathy for her. She stood by George Z to the extent that she landed herself in trouble too re the issue of funds. Anyone watching the verdict of the court will have noticed that George did not even glance at her, let alone hug her or thank you. It seems that their relationship was over at that point.

He definitely had anger issues well before he took Trayvon Martin's life.

by Raggamuffin Mon Jun 22, 2015 6:07 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:I think that any incidents after the trial which involve allegations that Zimmerman is violent or angry should be treated with caution. He may well have anger issues now. Who would not have such issues after they have hauled through the court and maligned in the press so much? Who would not be angry that they had been accused of deliberately gunning someone down, and had their family threatened by random people who merely believe what they read about him?

As for Shellie Zimmerman, well I have some sympathy for her. She stood by George Z to the extent that she landed herself in trouble too re the issue of funds. Anyone watching the verdict of the court will have noticed that George did not even glance at her, let alone hug her or thank you. It seems that their relationship was over at that point.

He definitely had anger issues well before he took Trayvon Martin's life.

Possibly, but he didn't kill Trayvon out of anger, and he didn't kill him because he was black. He killed Trayvon because he was on top of him banging his head on the ground. He claimed that Trayvon spotted his gun and tried to reach for it, which is possible, but even without that, he was acting in self defence.

by Ben Reilly Mon Jun 22, 2015 6:11 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:I think that any incidents after the trial which involve allegations that Zimmerman is violent or angry should be treated with caution. He may well have anger issues now. Who would not have such issues after they have hauled through the court and maligned in the press so much? Who would not be angry that they had been accused of deliberately gunning someone down, and had their family threatened by random people who merely believe what they read about him?

As for Shellie Zimmerman, well I have some sympathy for her. She stood by George Z to the extent that she landed herself in trouble too re the issue of funds. Anyone watching the verdict of the court will have noticed that George did not even glance at her, let alone hug her or thank you. It seems that their relationship was over at that point.

He definitely had anger issues well before he took Trayvon Martin's life.

Possibly, but he didn't kill Trayvon out of anger, and he didn't kill him because he was black. He killed Trayvon because he was on top of him banging his head on the ground. He claimed that Trayvon spotted his gun and tried to reach for it, which is possible, but even without that, he was acting in self defence.

He most definitely had anger issues years before meeting Martin. He assaulted a police officer, took anger-management classes and had a restraining order filed against him for domestic violence.

George Zimmerman is not a good person. I know people like him, and they look for conflict and opportunities for violence.

by Raggamuffin Mon Jun 22, 2015 6:12 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Possibly, but he didn't kill Trayvon out of anger, and he didn't kill him because he was black. He killed Trayvon because he was on top of him banging his head on the ground. He claimed that Trayvon spotted his gun and tried to reach for it, which is possible, but even without that, he was acting in self defence.

He most definitely had anger issues years before meeting Martin. He assaulted a police officer, took anger-management classes and had a restraining order filed against him for domestic violence.

George Zimmerman is not a good person. I know people like him, and they look for conflict and opportunities for violence.

It's not a crime to not be a good person. It was still self defence, unless you can prove it wasn't.

by Ben Reilly Mon Jun 22, 2015 6:16 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Possibly, but he didn't kill Trayvon out of anger, and he didn't kill him because he was black. He killed Trayvon because he was on top of him banging his head on the ground. He claimed that Trayvon spotted his gun and tried to reach for it, which is possible, but even without that, he was acting in self defence.

He most definitely had anger issues years before meeting Martin. He assaulted a police officer, took anger-management classes and had a restraining order filed against him for domestic violence.

George Zimmerman is not a good person. I know people like him, and they look for conflict and opportunities for violence.

It's not a crime to not be a good person. It was still self defence, unless you can prove it wasn't.

It's not good to not be a good person, either. Smile

Zimmerman is a violent thug who is going to kill again or be murdered unless he changes his life.

by Raggamuffin Mon Jun 22, 2015 6:17 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

It's not a crime to not be a good person. It was still self defence, unless you can prove it wasn't.

It's not good to not be a good person, either. Zimmerman is a violent thug who is going to kill again or be murdered unless he changes his life.

I daresay some people will try to kill him because of the witch hunt against him. If he needs protection, he should get it.

by Ben Reilly Mon Jun 22, 2015 6:59 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

It's not a crime to not be a good person. It was still self defence, unless you can prove it wasn't.

It's not good to not be a good person, either. Zimmerman is a violent thug who is going to kill again or be murdered unless he changes his life.

I daresay some people will try to kill him because of the witch hunt against him. If he needs protection, he should get it.

Oh, he's had his run-ins since the shooting of Martin, but none of them have been "Justice for Trayvon" incidents.

by Tommy Monk Mon Jun 22, 2015 8:04 pm

He was jumped on and attacked and shot his legal firearm in self defence... end of story...

If Martin wasn't a thug and didn't attack him then he would not have been shot.

by Original Quill Tue Jun 23, 2015 6:38 am

Nikki Haley, Republican South Carolina Governor, has called for the removal of Confederate Battle flag.

NY Times wrote: Gov. Nikki R. Haley called on Monday for South Carolina to do what just a week ago seemed politically impossible — remove the Confederate battle flag from its perch in front of the State House building here. She argued that a symbol long revered by many Southerners was for some, after the church massacre in Charleston, a “deeply offensive symbol of a brutally offensive past.”

“The events of this week call upon us to look at this in a different way,” said Ms. Haley, an Indian-American, who is the first member of an ethnic minority to serve as governor of the state as well as the first woman.

She spoke at an afternoon news conference, surrounded by Democratic and Republican lawmakers including both of the state’s United States senators, Lindsey Graham and Tim Scott, an African-American. “Today we are here in a moment of unity in our state, without ill will, to say it’s time to move the flag from the capitol grounds,” she said.

It was a dramatic turnabout for Ms. Haley, a second-term Republican governor who over her five years in the job has displayed little interest in addressing the intensely divisive issue of the flag. But her new position demonstrated the powerful shock that last Wednesday’s killings at Emanuel A.M.E. Church have delivered to the political status quo, mobilizing leaders at the highest levels.

Major stores, like Walmart, are boycotting, refusing to sell the flag or anything reflecting it.

However, the governor cannot effect the removal of the flag on her own. It will apparently require a two-thirds majority of both houses of the South Carolina legislature. Many have argued the frivolous claim that the flag represents a significant historical symbol...symbol of what?

NY Times wrote:“There are those of us who have ancestors that fought and spilled blood on the side of the South when they were fighting for states’ rights, and we don’t want our ancestors relegated to the ash heaps of history,” he said. “Through the years, the heroes of the South have been slandered, maligned and misrepresented, and this is a further activity in that.”

The issue of states rights was originally asserted in the Civil War, and is code for slavery. States rights during the Civil War took the shape of committing treason against the federal government, for the privilege of continuing on with slavery.

The Confederate flag was put up on the South Carolina Capitol grounds only in 1962, while the Civil War ended in 1865. However, in 1962 the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was pending before Congress.

by Guest Tue Jun 23, 2015 6:44 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

It's not a crime to not be a good person. It was still self defence, unless you can prove it wasn't.

It's not good to not be a good person, either. Zimmerman is a violent thug who is going to kill again or be murdered unless he changes his life.

Exactly. Many are ignoring the fundamental fact the man has anger issue's. Where it is blatantly obvious he has problems controlling them. This raises serious questions about hist testimony on the night in question, because a person who is controlled by anger, loses any reasoning. He clearly held stereotyped views of blacks as criminals as explained earlier. There is no doubt that Zimmerman caused the child's death by his actions.

by veya_victaous Wed Jun 24, 2015 1:57 am

by Ben Reilly Wed Jun 24, 2015 3:38 am

Original Quill wrote:Nikki Haley, Republican South Carolina Governor, has called for the removal of Confederate Battle flag.

NY Times wrote: Gov. Nikki R. Haley called on Monday for South Carolina to do what just a week ago seemed politically impossible — remove the Confederate battle flag from its perch in front of the State House building here. She argued that a symbol long revered by many Southerners was for some, after the church massacre in Charleston, a “deeply offensive symbol of a brutally offensive past.”

“The events of this week call upon us to look at this in a different way,” said Ms. Haley, an Indian-American, who is the first member of an ethnic minority to serve as governor of the state as well as the first woman.

She spoke at an afternoon news conference, surrounded by Democratic and Republican lawmakers including both of the state’s United States senators, Lindsey Graham and Tim Scott, an African-American. “Today we are here in a moment of unity in our state, without ill will, to say it’s time to move the flag from the capitol grounds,” she said.

It was a dramatic turnabout for Ms. Haley, a second-term Republican governor who over her five years in the job has displayed little interest in addressing the intensely divisive issue of the flag. But her new position demonstrated the powerful shock that last Wednesday’s killings at Emanuel A.M.E. Church have delivered to the political status quo, mobilizing leaders at the highest levels.

Major stores, like Walmart, are boycotting, refusing to sell the flag or anything reflecting it.

However, the governor cannot effect the removal of the flag on her own. It will apparently require a two-thirds majority of both houses of the South Carolina legislature. Many have argued the frivolous claim that the flag represents a significant historical symbol...symbol of what?

NY Times wrote:“There are those of us who have ancestors that fought and spilled blood on the side of the South when they were fighting for states’ rights, and we don’t want our ancestors relegated to the ash heaps of history,” he said. “Through the years, the heroes of the South have been slandered, maligned and misrepresented, and this is a further activity in that.”

The issue of states rights was originally asserted in the Civil War, and is code for slavery. States rights during the Civil War took the shape of committing treason against the federal government, for the privilege of continuing on with slavery.

The Confederate flag was put up on the South Carolina Capitol grounds only in 1962, while the Civil War ended in 1865. However, in 1962 the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was pending before Congress.

I always like to quote the Confederates' constitution to those who say the South seceded over "states' rights."

No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

In other words, if the South had won its independence and become a new country, it intended to prohibit states from banning slavery. Seems to me that's an awfully big right to take away from a state.

by Original Quill Wed Jun 24, 2015 5:35 am

Cuchulain wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:

It's not good to not be a good person, either. Zimmerman is a violent thug who is going to kill again or be murdered unless he changes his life.

Exactly. Many are ignoring the fundamental fact the man has anger issue's. Where it is blatantly obvious he has problems controlling them. This raises serious questions about hist testimony on the night in question, because a person who is controlled by anger, loses any reasoning. He clearly held stereotyped views of blacks as criminals as explained earlier. There is no doubt that Zimmerman caused the child's death by his actions.

To compound it, didge...Zimmerman's ex-girlfriend said in an interview that he was a passive aggressive, and I found that to be poignant. When reading about it, I found one symptom stands out: deception. The passive-aggressive would rather engineer situations than confront directly:

The Boomerang Relationship wrote:The man with this type of pattern shows little consideration of the time, feelings, standards or needs of others. He obstructs and block progress to others getting what they want and then ignores or minimalizes their dissatisfactions and anger. He is silent when confronted as he has never learned to compromise. He may be a workaholic, a womanizer, hooked on TV, caught in addictions or self-involved hobbies.

It appears that Zimmerman sought refuge in his pseudo-police role, and created appearances both to the police, and to his victim, TM. To the police he appeared to pose as a good-acting samaritan, however internally he had no problem with disobeying the directions of police not to stalk. On the other hand, he posed TM as an object on which he could take out his aggressions.

The Boomerang Relationship wrote:The man with passive aggressive behavior needs someone to be the object of his hidden hostility.

In trying to understand passive-aggresive behavior the phrase 'appearing to be what he is not' keeps cropping up. Zimmerman was continually playing games, appearing to be the steady, consistent, cool hand, but inside he was playing out sublimated aggressions. The policeman role. The watcher. The vindicator ("...they always get away"). But, always it ends up with a victim who, contrary-wise, is cast as in the wrong: his ex-wife, his ex-girlfriend, and finally, Trayvon Martin.

That's the game his girlfriend said he was playing with her.

by Tommy Monk Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:48 pm

Zimmerman was attacked and in self defence he fired his legally held firearm.

Martin was not an innocent young child.

by Guest Wed Jun 24, 2015 3:10 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Exactly. Many are ignoring the fundamental fact the man has anger issue's. Where it is blatantly obvious he has problems controlling them. This raises serious questions about hist testimony on the night in question, because a person who is controlled by anger, loses any reasoning. He clearly held stereotyped views of blacks as criminals as explained earlier. There is no doubt that Zimmerman caused the child's death by his actions.

To compound it, didge...Zimmerman's ex-girlfriend said in an interview that he was a passive aggressive, and I found that to be poignant. When reading about it, I found one symptom stands out: deception. The passive-aggressive would rather engineer situations than confront directly:

The Boomerang Relationship wrote:The man with this type of pattern shows little consideration of the time, feelings, standards or needs of others. He obstructs and block progress to others getting what they want and then ignores or minimalizes their dissatisfactions and anger. He is silent when confronted as he has never learned to compromise. He may be a workaholic, a womanizer, hooked on TV, caught in addictions or self-involved hobbies.

It appears that Zimmerman sought refuge in his pseudo-police role, and created appearances both to the police, and to his victim, TM. To the police he appeared to pose as a good-acting samaritan, however internally he had no problem with disobeying the directions of police not to stalk. On the other hand, he posed TM as an object on which he could take out his aggressions.

The Boomerang Relationship wrote:The man with passive aggressive behavior needs someone to be the object of his hidden hostility.

In trying to understand passive-aggresive behavior the phrase 'appearing to be what he is not' keeps cropping up. Zimmerman was continually playing games, appearing to be the steady, consistent, cool hand, but inside he was playing out sublimated aggressions. The policeman role. The watcher. The vindicator ("...they always get away"). But, always it ends up with a victim who, contrary-wise, is cast as in the wrong: his ex-wife, his ex-girlfriend, and finally, Trayvon Martin.

That's the game his girlfriend said he was playing with her.

I would love to see if anyone can counter your points.
Excellent post

by Tommy Monk Wed Jun 24, 2015 3:14 pm

More speculation and waffle...

by Guest Wed Jun 24, 2015 3:26 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:More speculation and waffle...

So Tommy has no answers as per usual and wastes everyone's time with his infantile games.

by Tommy Monk Wed Jun 24, 2015 3:30 pm

There is no real answer to speculation and waffle other than to point out that it is speculation and waffle and therefore irrelevant!!!

lol!

by Raggamuffin Wed Jun 24, 2015 3:39 pm

Nobody has managed to answer any of my questions about the route which Trayvon and Zimmerman took whilst Zimmerman was on the phone to the police dispatcher. Nobody has managed to explain why Trayvon did not go home during the one minute 54 seconds after Zimmerman got out of his vehicle.

by Guest Wed Jun 24, 2015 3:43 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Nobody has managed to answer any of my questions about the route which Trayvon and Zimmerman took whilst Zimmerman was on the phone to the police dispatcher. Nobody has managed to explain why Trayvon did not go home during the one minute 54 seconds after Zimmerman got out of his vehicle.

I thought he was talking to his girlfriend which the records show.
What matters is that Zimmerman as proven went after TM.
This led to a confrontation, which the boy was shot.

by Raggamuffin Wed Jun 24, 2015 3:51 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Nobody has managed to answer any of my questions about the route which Trayvon and Zimmerman took whilst Zimmerman was on the phone to the police dispatcher. Nobody has managed to explain why Trayvon did not go home during the one minute 54 seconds after Zimmerman got out of his vehicle.

I thought he was talking to his girlfriend which the records show.
What matters is that Zimmerman as proven went after TM.
This led to a confrontation, which the boy was shot.

Zimmerman couldn't see him, so he couldn't have gone after him.

by Guest Wed Jun 24, 2015 3:52 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

I thought he was talking to his girlfriend which the records show.
What matters is that Zimmerman as proven went after TM.
This led to a confrontation, which the boy was shot.

Zimmerman couldn't see him, so he couldn't have gone after him.

I think many of us conclusively proved he did.
So lets ask a simple question.

If Zimmerman had remained as instructed by the Police, would TM have lived that night?

by Tommy Monk Wed Jun 24, 2015 3:53 pm

He was talking to his girlfriend and was annoyed by zimmerman who he described in a hostile and racistt way as a 'cracker'... then he jumped out and attacked zimmerman who used self defence.

Case closed.

by Guest Wed Jun 24, 2015 3:57 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:He was talking to his girlfriend and was annoyed by zimmerman who he described in a hostile and racistt way as a 'cracker'... then he jumped out and attacked zimmerman who used self defence.

Case closed.

Utter nonsense.
You are just making things up.
As seen Zimmerman clearly lost his temper and went chasing after TM.
Zimmerman is completely responsible for the boys death

by Tommy Monk Wed Jun 24, 2015 4:07 pm

Wrong... Martin was a racist who was heard to be using hostile racist language to his girl friend.

He was complaining about zimmerman and then decided to beat him up.

Unfortunately for him... zimmerman had a legally held firearm and used it in self defence.

Martin was not a small young boy child.

by Guest Wed Jun 24, 2015 4:13 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Wrong... Martin was a racist who was heard to be using hostile racist language to his girl friend.
No evidence, invented by Tommy Blooper

He was complaining about zimmerman and then decided to beat him up.
He was rightly concerned about Zimmerman, so much so he he died that night

Unfortunately for him... zimmerman had a legally held firearm and used it in self defence.
Zimmerman by his own actions was responsible for the death of TM

Martin was not a small young boy child.
He was legally a child

by Tommy Monk Wed Jun 24, 2015 4:26 pm

It is known facts that he was on The phone to his girlfriend and that he was using racist language against zimmerman.

He was old enough to attack zimmerman then he was old enough to be on The receiving end of The following self defence.

Case closed.

by Raggamuffin Wed Jun 24, 2015 4:27 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Zimmerman couldn't see him, so he couldn't have gone after him.

I think many of us conclusively proved he did.
So lets ask a simple question.

If Zimmerman had remained as instructed by the Police, would TM have lived that night?

You never proved he did at all - quite the opposite actually. Zimmerman lost sight of Trayvon whilst he was on the phone to the police.

by Guest Wed Jun 24, 2015 4:28 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

I think many of us conclusively proved he did.
So lets ask a simple question.

If Zimmerman had remained as instructed by the Police, would TM have lived that night?

You never proved he did at all - quite the opposite actually. Zimmerman lost sight of Trayvon whilst he was on the phone to the police.

Yes I did.
Anyway answer the question.

by Raggamuffin Wed Jun 24, 2015 4:28 pm

Why do people think that someone who is "legally a child" is not capable of beating someone up?

by Sponsored content