I Wonder?

[_ldsfaqs]

And I'm beginning to think your reading comprehension is as problematic as ldsfaqs.

No one has asserted that GZ did not have a right to defend himself.

Which makes you a liar because that is EXACTLY what you people have been saying.
You've been saying Zimmerman was in the wrong, NOT TRAYVON.
You've been saying all kinds of things about Zimmerman and ZERO about Trayvon.
You disagree with the verdict, saying Zimmerman didn't have the right to defend himself, that he SHOULD HAVE BEEN convicted.

Try again liar. We see your words.

Please, ldsfaqs, consider not using the words "lie" and "liar". It just makes you sound stupid.

People that disagree with you are not lying. They just have a different opinion. If you want to experience less insulting comments towards yourself, stop insulting other people.

Lying is not a "different opinion". Lying is lying.
A different opinion is someone likes the color Green and another likes Blue.
That's called an actual OPINION.... Blue is actually Green, Green is actually Blue, THAT is called a LIE.

Can your brain understand that simple FACT, a thing that's NOT an "opinion"?

I insult the insulting. When you lie, you insult, you have no honor, no character. You are the lowest of the low.

Let me give you another example. I believe the Catholic Church is false, is in apostasy.
THAT is an "opinion". Now, if I said as Muslims do that the Catholic Church is Polytheistic because of the Trinity, that is called a LIE. Reason being is because while there is three "persons", there is only ONE "being, essence, substance, or whatever they want to claim, thus that is still Monotheistic". It is the SAME EXACT THING you people do to Mormonism. You have no character. I don't LIE about anything or anyone. I have my opinions of things, but I don't LIE about them if I ever feel the need to be critical. You people on the other hand lie about others and yourselves, just as beastie did.

In other words, if the person I responded to (beastie) claims he (and the rest of you) has never said Zimmerman didn't have the right to defend himself, all the while he/they HAVE been saying for months now that he DID NOT have that right, and he SHOULD be convicted for it, THAT IS A LIE..... Comprende???

[_ldsfaqs]

Since some of our posters need things spelled out very slowly, I'll be more explicit.

I would have had zero problems with GZ defending himself with his fists. This was a fistfight. The problem I have is when GZ decided to defend himself by killing TM.

And who are YOU to make that determination?

From all accounts, Zimmerman was struggling and having the crap beat out of him.
It was not a "simple" fist fight. And if you've ever been in a fight with a young energetic black man, you would know there is nothing "simple" about it.

More so, a fist fight CAN and often results in DEATH. Again, so who are YOU to determine when someone feels helpless enough that they need to use deadly force to protect themselves?

Further, this WAS NOT a "fist fight".... It was a violent assault. Fist fights are equally agreed upon events. You are entirely mental if you think this was a "fist fight".

Even more, what if Zimmerman was a woman? Do you think it was a "fist fight" then?

Has our society reached the point where some people are so filled with hubris and bravado that they really feel justified in shooting someone for a punch in the nose? That type of bravado usually is a cloak for cowardice.

And you are an utter fool to not realize that a punch in the nose can result in DEATH!!!!
And yet you still think someone doesn't have the right to defend themselves with deadly force.
Utterly lacking of character and common sense you are.

Another thing.... A human being desiring to be FREE of being assaulted is not "cowardice" or bravado, it's a HUMAN RIGHT!!!!

[_ldsfaqs]

What kind of insecure coward needs to chase someone down and shoot them because they were unhappy with the way another driver was handling their vehicle? Im guessing LDSfaqs thinks that the shooter was justified because he felt "threatened". Live by the improper merge, die by the handgun....

Screw you ass wipe with your lying of us strawmen..... I believe no such thing.
That case was obviously not "self defense". Utter stupid fool!

[_Quasimodo]

What kind of insecure coward needs to chase someone down and shoot them because they were unhappy with the way another driver was handling their vehicle? Im guessing LDSfaqs thinks that the shooter was justified because he felt "threatened". Live by the improper merge, die by the handgun....

Screw you ass wipe with your lying of us strawmen..... I believe no such thing.
That case was obviously not "self defense". Utter stupid fool!

Nice sentence structure!

[_krose]

Even the Anti-Defaimation League has condemed various anti-mormon works as bigotry...

Anybody have any details about this? What's he talking about?

I didn't go on a mission, but people who have known me have always thought I have given my character.

Your character certainly gave me that impression.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

And I'm beginning to think your reading comprehension is as problematic as ldsfaqs.

No one has asserted that GZ did not have a right to defend himself.

Oh, no you di'in't.

No, you've simply re-written the entire factual narrative to suit your agenda.

Beastie, this is one of the problems people have with Liberals. They'll lie, re-write history, and basically just be craps to everyone to advance their agenda.

It's exhausting.

GZ had ever right to do what he did, how he did it, and to defend himself from a brutal attack. You and your ilk have created this fantasy narrative that is simply not true.

But you and your ilk just don't give a crap about facts. It's infuriating.

I would expect better from a Progressive Ex-Mormon.

- Doc

[Guest]

What kind of insecure coward needs to chase someone down and shoot them because they were unhappy with the way another driver was handling their vehicle? Im guessing LDSfaqs thinks that the shooter was justified because he felt "threatened". Live by the improper merge, die by the handgun....

Screw you ass wipe with your lying of us strawmen..... I believe no such thing.
That case was obviously not "self defense". Utter stupid fool!

I can barely understand what you are saying as I don't know who "us" is and I don't understand why you are threatening to screw me considering your massive homophobia...

So, do you believe that the shooter in the case above should have been denied a handgun? or are you saying that, even though he is an unstable, murderous, individual, he should have the right to own a firearm? Based on your idiotic rants about firearm ownership, I can tell you never worked in law enforcement. Maybe you should actually reach out to someone in your area that understands and enforces the law before parroting the am radio talking points you have been fed.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Oh, and by the way, I doubt that any conservative on this board would be comfortable with someone obviously following them the way GZ followed TM. I dare to guess that a few of them would feel justified in punching the stalker in the nose, as well.

I absolutely wish I had neighbors like GZ. I have no issues with him or how he tried to be a watch volunteer.

How could you not like GZ? If your neighborhood had a series of break-ins, wouldn't you want someone like him keeping an eye on your house?

You gonna pay for a security guard?

You gonna be around when that robber breaks into your house? What are you gonna do? Shoot him? You gonna fight him?

Man, you are so hateful.

- Doc

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Since some of our posters need things spelled out very slowly, I'll be more explicit.

I would have had zero problems with GZ defending himself with his fists. This was a fistfight. The problem I have is when GZ decided to defend himself by killing TM.

Has our society reached the point where some people are so filled with hubris and bravado that they really feel justified in shooting someone for a punch in the nose? That type of bravado usually is a cloak for cowardice.

Have you ever been punched in the face, Beastie? By a male?

- Doc

[_Quasimodo]

Since some of our posters need things spelled out very slowly, I'll be more explicit.

I would have had zero problems with GZ defending himself with his fists. This was a fistfight. The problem I have is when GZ decided to defend himself by killing TM.

Has our society reached the point where some people are so filled with hubris and bravado that they really feel justified in shooting someone for a punch in the nose? That type of bravado usually is a cloak for cowardice.

Have you ever been punched in the face, Beastie? By a male?

- Doc

I hope not! That would be beyond the bounds. Only a jerk would do (or think of) such a thing.

My dad was a boxer in his youth. He taught me to box and I competed a little when I was a teenager. I have been punched in the nose. It hurt.

If someone is punched in the nose while off balance, they end up on their ass. I never thought about pulling a gun. Only a coward would do that.