Zimmerman Arrested

[_ldsfaqs]

Good heavens..... Clearly you have never been involved in environments or individuals that are dangerous and thus have no clue what you are talking about.

Further, checking someone out that's suspicious in one moment doesn't equate to "stalking".
He had every legal and moral right to do what he did.
Trayvon however had no legal and moral right to assault Zimmerman simply because Zimmerman asked him a question and was suspicious of him.

The way you liberals bend a twist showing your own lack of morality is amazing to me.

Shouldn't you be at church?

Ate too much bread last night, and it created a blockage, serious pain, was up all night, and only now the pain is starting to go away. Man, getting old.

And, actually, no. You cannot follow a kid and shoot him after the po-po told you to back off and stop stalking him. That is what we like to call, here in America, illegal.

Again, not what happened..... He shot in self defense, and everything he did previously was entirely legal and reasonable. Zimmerman could have citizen arrested him if he saw a crime, it wouldn't matter what a "dispatcher" said. There is not a single "illegal" thing in Zimmermans actions. Going against "advice" is not illegal. Seeing someone suspicious and coming over too them is not illegal. Asking them a question is not illegal.

The only person who did anything illegal was Trayvon, and that was assaulting Zimmerman.

[_ldsfaqs]

And, actually, no. You cannot follow a kid and shoot him after the po-po told you to back off and stop stalking him. That is what we like to call, here in America, illegal.

I am fairly certain that failing to heed the instruction of a police dispatcher, which in this case took the form of "We don't need you to do that" when George Zimmerman answered in the affirmative that he was following Trayvon Martin, is distinct from failing to heed a lawful order of a police officer on the scene. Fighting ignorance with ignorance is not a winning strategy.

A citizen is not legally nor morally required to follow the "advice" of a Dispatcher, nor even a Police Officer.
There is no "force of law" behind such advice and instructions.

A cop telling you to go into your house and lock your doors if you have an intruder, and then you don't do that doesn't make you in the wrong if you have to kill the guy in self defense. You have every right to go and do what you want within the law.

[Guest]

FYI, if most of you talking to us LDS like you do here in real life, many of us especially me would punch you out.

So a young black kid deserves to die for allegedly punching a grown man, yet "most of you talking" (including, presumably, the young and female posters) deserve to have an angry fat adult male punch them out.

If that isn't ironic I don't know what is.

I wonder how many other Mormons would agree with Mr. Latter-day Saint Frequently Asked QuestionS and resort to physical violence, if possible.

[_ldsfaqs]

Zimmerman claimed that what he did fell under the "Stand your ground" law. Based on what actually took place, what he did does not fall under that. ldsfaqs is claiming that Zimmerman was well within his rights to follow this boy, get into an altercation with him and shoot him dead. There is no law that I am aware of that allows that. Therefore, it was illegal.

Again, stop listening to the liberal brainwashing media.

Zimmerman from the beginning claimed simple "Self Defense".
It's the liberal media that made a deal about Stand your ground, because they immorally want to get it repealed as if a person doesn't have a right to defend themselves from death if reasonably attacked. Liberals falsely represent it, thinking that it means only if you "feel" you are in danger. That is not the standard. Just more liberal lies.

There is no law stating that you can't observe someone and then asking them a question.
The shooting was simple self defense. Zimmerman did everything legal.

[_just me]

The shooting was simple self defense. Zimmerman did everything legal.

That will be determined in a court of law.

[_ldsfaqs]

FYI, if most of you talking to us LDS like you do here in real life, many of us especially me would punch you out.

So a young black kid deserves to die for allegedly punching a grown man, yet "most of you talking" (including, presumably, the young and female posters) deserve to have an angry fat adult male punch them out.

If that isn't ironic I don't know what is.

I wonder how many other Mormons would agree with Mr. Latter-day Saint Frequently Asked QuestionS and resort to physical violence, if possible.

I'm emphasising the immorality of your all's words and actions, that it wouldn't be tolerated if you all did it in public, and that such would merit any number of responses, and the punching out idea is to simply show the "seriousness" of your alls immorality and actions.

But what's new with liberals, they can't understand simple logic, and instead cherry pick the obvious.... ooo aahhh "violence", the big ugly Mormon is going be beat innocent little me for my innocent little words.... oooo ahhh.... Please.

[_ldsfaqs]

The shooting was simple self defense. Zimmerman did everything legal.

That will be determined in a court of law.

It didn't have to be, the facts where clear.

It's only the liberal media who has misrepresent the truth, omitted the truth, called it racism, etc., creating one big lie.

There is a reason Zimmerman was released, because all the facts and evidence supported his testimony and that of witnesses. Why arrest someone when it was clearly self defense, just to satisfy liberal liars and bigots who want to make it a race war??? Just because someone died??? People die all the time, and those involved don't get arrested for it, when something was clearly a non-negligent accident or clear self defense.

Oh, and it's classic how the liberals called Zimmerman WHITE for a good long time, and then call him white/hispanic, when he's clearly all Hispanic. No one calls Obama white/black. They call him black, even though he is half black.

Liberals and your racism, sickening.

[_Paul Kemp]

I'm emphasising the immorality of your all's words and actions, that it wouldn't be tolerated if you all did it in public, and that such would merit any number of responses, and the punching out idea is to simply show the "seriousness" of your alls immorality and actions.

But what's new with liberals, they can't understand simple logic, and instead cherry pick the obvious.... ooo aahhh "violence", the big ugly Mormon is going be beat innocent little me for my innocent little words.... oooo ahhh.... Please.

Are you saying that free speech isn't tolerated in public, and criticizing someone is normally met with violence?

Or are you saying violence is acceptable as long as the victim is "immoral" (i.e disagrees with you ideologically)?

[_ldsfaqs]

I'm emphasising the immorality of your all's words and actions, that it wouldn't be tolerated if you all did it in public, and that such would merit any number of responses, and the punching out idea is to simply show the "seriousness" of your alls immorality and actions.

But what's new with liberals, they can't understand simple logic, and instead cherry pick the obvious.... ooo aahhh "violence", the big ugly Mormon is going be beat innocent little me for my innocent little words.... oooo ahhh.... Please.

Are you saying that free speech isn't tolerated in public, and criticizing someone is normally met with violence?

Or are you saying violence is acceptable as long as the victim is "immoral" (i.e disagrees with you ideologically)?

I'm saying that in the real world and life, unadulterated bigotry like that displayed here by anti-mormons wouldn't go off very well, and wouldn't be tolerated. Most of you wouldn't be doing what you do here in public, because you know you would be well hated for it by non-Mormons also.

There is a reason the Anti-Defamation League condemns anti-mormonism.
It's because you people are utter bigots, and you are clueless of it. Thus, I educate you.

[_Paul Kemp]

I'm saying that in the real world and life, unadulterated bigotry like that displayed here by anti-mormons wouldn't go off very well, and wouldn't be tolerated.

So you think it's okay to punch people in the face if they express, in your opinion, "unadulterated bigotry"? But not if you're a black kid with a bag of candy being stalked by a strange, armed man?

Do you have experience with using violence in the real world?

What if you punched an anti-mormon liberal in the face for being so bigoted, and then he shot and killed you? Who is the righteous super hero in that circumstance?

There is a reason the Anti-Defamation League condemns anti-mormonism.

The Anti-Defamation League condemns Mormons who baptize dead Jews, but I don't think I've seen them say anything about posting on message boards like this. Or using violence against others.

It's because you people are utter bigots, and you are clueless of it. Thus, I educate you.

How do you know you're not the bigot? You sure say a lot of nasty things about people, including complete segments of society. Isn't it a little bigoted to say that politically Liberal members of the Mormon Church deserve to be condemned?