Comments by "CynicalBroadcast" (@CynicalBastard) on "Trayvon Martin Case: New Evidence" video.

a lesson in ethics and being an intelligent thinking human being with no qualms telling idiots what's right: from cynicalbastard. we all collectively have 20/20 hindsight. a: Zimmerman should not have been following Trayvon Martin, as Zimmerman could not have been aware of any crimes, nor was there any for him to be concerned about b: Zimmerman, even as a neighborhood watchman, should not have had his gun due to the provisions of the charter in his city & state regarding attire and protocol of Neighborhood watch; which is a fact, you're not allowed to have a gun, even in an open carry environment, as that does not project a safe environment, and is in fact dangerous to do, and so Neighborhood Watch has these provisions. c: he was not on duty that night. in conclusion Zimmerman was 100% totally wrong. he was legal in shooting Trayvon but wrong in every other account. as is most of this comment line, from the top down. you are all wrong, and you actually have no idea about the facts about why Zimmerman was 100% in the wrong for having followed Trayvon to his home, which most would argue is stalking. if you argue against that, then i'd have to prove to you, by following you home, that you obviously wouldn't like it. but i can't so to you i say, you're a moron. congrats hypocrites though, you guys won that round.
1
appeal to legalism is a shameful idiotic fallacy of logic and reason. if it was legal to kill your neighbors dog, would you think it was right?
1
no, it doesn't nullify anything. he wasn't supposed to be doing ANYTHING he did. he wasn't supposed to have a gun IF on duty, and HE WASN'T ON DUTY, hence he shouldn't have been tracking down a innocent individual, he should have called the cops and left it at that. he was not on duty that night. it was not his responsibility. it was the responsibility of the watch duty THAT NIGHT (not including his fat ass) and/or the cops. so even IF he WAS ON DUTY, he still shouldn't have had the gun...but he shouldn't have been tracking Trayvon in the first place, being that he was not on duty to begin with.
1
no one said it did, you idiot. no one is saying what Trayvon did was right or lawful, MORON.
1
"As a legal citizen, he could do ANYTHING he wanted to, providing he wasn't in violation of the law." the cops told him to back off, he didn't that's what caused the incident, because Trayvon thought he was in danger from some psycho following him to his home, trying to find out where he lives to try and kill him, or rob him. fact is: Zimmerman was within his rights, but that doesn't mean what he did was right. even you've got enough brains to figure that out. was Trayvon a criminal? no. so hence Zimmerman was wrong. end of story.
1
"EXACTLY! He WASN'T "on duty! So, it DOESN'T matter if he had a gun. No rules, and more importantly, no LAWS were broken." hey idiot. if he wasn't on duty, then why was he following Trayvon under the GUISE of protecting his neighborhood as a WATCHMAN WHILST HAVING A GUN. that's a DIRECT contradiction of terms and agreements in what the due diligence and regulations, AS A WATCHMAN, that he should be adhering to. so he shouldn't have HAD THE GUN IF HE WAS ACTING AS WATCHMAN -- and he shouldn't have been ACTING as a watchman because a: he was not actively on duty and b: most importantly, Zimmerman was wrong in his assessment of Trayvon hence there was no rationale to follow him; inevitably causing the incident.
1
you're an idiot. puerile stupidity at it's finest. the cops told Zimmerman not to follow Trayvon, which he should have done by sticking to the street sign that he traversed to in order to get the street name to tell the cops when he called them...so after he called them and they told him (on the record) to not follow him -- he of course still did. that's fact. not made up bullshit. it's actually on the record, you shitheel.
1
yes, they did.
1
*"PRECISELY End of story."* end of what story? Zimmerman's story does not end there...just look at all his "supporters" giving him carte blanche for his idiocy to run rampant without an eyelash being batted. he was within his rights...yet none of what Zimmerman did was righteous, nor correct. Trayvon has not committing any burglaries, and Zimmerman had no cause to follow him. END OF STORY.
1
the right thing would have been not to have followed him, for lacking evidence and rationale, assuming he (Zimmerman) wasn't going to confront the person (Trayvon), after essentially stalking them...not by law, but enough to obviously make someone (Trayvon) feel threatened or menaced by a perpetrator. since Zimmerman was essentially following Trayvon through the backyards of a PARK connected to a bunch of semi's that kids probably use all the time to go in and out of their respective houses, from their backdoors, and he had no way to know Trayvon was doing anything wrong, and Trayvon WASN'T, and was actually going back to his dad's home; hence every action up that point by Zimmerman = WRONG --and wrong headed. like i said, his actions involving his defending himself are not what is being questioned here...it's your tacit approval (and other's) of his actions leading UP TO THAT POINT.
1
that is a red herring to the argument. i said "NOTHING WAS WRONG WITH ZIMMERMAN DEFENDING HIMSELF" already. so no need to couch the debate's conclusion for yourself in those terms.
1
"See, it's a win-win!" what is wrong is your perception of his actions being noble. he's entirely ignoble, but idiots like you think he's righteous, AFTER BEING WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING. i'm sorry, but only idiots do that kind of thing. that's why you're called idiots. because you enjoy your stupidity and stand behind it as a righteous truth. a freedom to be an idiot should be written into the constitution, for the right-wingers.
1