Comments by "CynicalBroadcast" (@CynicalBastard) on "George Zimmerman Charged With Felony Assault - Surprised?" video.
-
Zimmerman supporters can't admit that he gamed the event. he saw he could "follow" a kid whom was black, so he profiled as criminal in action, so he had "reason" to "follow" him and to confront him, even though, he wouldn't...and then he could say, if was confronted with an attack, more or less, that look he attacked me, i had to shoot him, conveniently with the pistol he had...which he shouldn't, Watchmen in his state are prohibited from carrying guns on patrol, that is IF he was on patrol, which, people seem to assume he was (he wasn't), but that just further serves to justify his actions legally, WHILST at the same time making the actions he took to look like he was entirely profiling Trayvon with no evidence, or reasonable suspicion.
people who support him support vigilantism whilst doubling down on that support by saying that Trayvon Martin couldn't feel threatened enough by someone "following" him with gun, watching his every move, until he arrives at home (which then this gunmen can know where you live; possibly rob you, or worse break in and kill you), to try and defend HIS SELF, all while Zimmerman has been doing is essentially going on a illegitimate and unreasonable suspicion, that only ended in disaster, for anyone who values sense and reason and rationality. so hence, it's a win for the constitutionalist liberal conservative ie republican.
2
-
2
-
nice parroting of a narrative. 10 gold stars.
yeah, he was proven wrong in hindsight, and hindsight is always 20/20. he as wrong. he wasn't a suspect (Trayvon) because he wasn't suspicious, because he didn't do anything wrong, hence NO REASON. you can't just assume there was a reason, because even if there was the instance of crime occurring in the neighborhood, there was none that TRAYVON HAD DONE. also, he was a night watchman, but he was off-duty. and if he WAS on duty, he'd have been required to leave his gun at home, as per the watchmen laws in the state (look it up). and that lovely narrative, oh Trayvon lost, but he came back...like i said, Trayvon was fearing for his life, he didn't want some psycho following to his house, so he went back to make sure he wasn't followed and saw that he (Zimmerman) was still covering his (Trayvon's) tracks, in the park adjacent to the street he resides on, which was a stones throw away from his home, which was making sure psycho didn't know the location of; then he made sure that he confronted Zimmerman because in the admittedly unfortunate culture of diss that surrounds black culture and black youth especially, and he felt the need to fend off who he thought was a potential threat - street rules - rules of which i don't approve of, but i don't spin the narrative to make Zimmerman totally innocent when it's clear from his intent and his lack of foresight that he shouldn't have tried to attempt what he did, because it was fervently stupid. and only stupid people support it.
2
-
you are still just spouting the mimicry of the case, i am telling you, however, that if you have brain enough, you could see that Trayvon was provoked and even though he acted outside of the law, Zimmerman pushed him to do so, because Trayvon literally was being followed all the way to his house, by this psychopath. sorry that sense and logic does not sit well with you, but dude, i know what you're gonna do...you're gonna come back and parrot the same dumb shit, right? i already know Zimmerman was found innocent dumbass, which is fine, Trayvon fucked up himself, but that doesn't end the conversation, unless you're i dunno, are you a Trumptarded constitutionalist lib? Zimmerman didn'tNEED to follow Martin, to come close to confronting him, because he THOUGHT Trayvon was breaking the law somewhere, but HE WASN'T, so his REASONING (you know what that is right?) his REASONING was faulty. meaning his REASON for getting involved with Martin was faulty. meaning that him going up to Martin provoking Martin (legally, nonetheless) whilst carrying a gun, whilst proposing that Martin was breaking the law, while he wasn't, and following to his home, which would scare anyone, well, it wasn't justified. no matter what crazed insane way you wanna make believe it happened, it's still a matter of ZIMMERMAN WAS WRONG. MISTAKEN.
if the tables were turned and Trayvon had a gun, while Zimmerman attacked HIM first, even just a brush with battery, and Trayvon shot HIM...it'd BE EVEN MORE JUSTIFIED because ZIMMERDICK ACCOSTED TRAYVON by FOLLOWING HIM WITH A GUN HE PLANNED ON USING ON HIM with no JUST CAUSE FOR DOING SO.
if the tables were turned, Trayvon would be the "true" mascot for gun carry and stand your ground self-defence laws.
the fact that so many idiots that shouldn't be yapping so much, though they're the loudest of course, they ALSO shouldn't be praising a dick hole for making what mistakes he made, but since he stands for gun laws, idiots everywhere who don't understand nuance think that they've made a huge leap...yeah a huge leap in logic, by being idiots. support for Zimmerman is like the blind leading the blind. it's just pure unadulterated stupidity. he's the man because he goaded on an attack?
the real proponent here for gun laws would be "TRAYVON - IF ONLY HE A GUN" - yeah, if only he had been attacked by the guy doing the accosting, instead of jumped first, like in any order of natural selection, a value the self-defence supporters should be a proponent for, as that's what it's all about, defending yourself from would be attackers, and Zim was ready to attack, he sure wasn't gonna ARREST anyone, so what else could he do? he was told by police to stop following Martin, but he didn't...and Trayvon should have been the one to have been brushed, and even slightly, and then just loaded in on him, cause then AT LEAST, we'd be having a real debate, and not a pissing battle over how Zimmerman is a hero for "standing his ground". Trayvon ALSO "stood his ground"...only without the same legal precedent. but where is the LEGAL precedent for following someone mistaking them for a criminal and then bringing your gun with you to shoot whom is presumed innocent until proven guilty? if he had already profiled him as guilty, then that sets the precedent that he was 100% wrong, until he chose to act like he was correct, which meant essentially that he was stalking Martin (but we aren't talking those laws, because it's not your platform), and for no reason OTHER THAN to possibly shoot him, which was the intent if things got out of control, WHICH IS WHAT HE PLANNED FOR ERRONEOUSLY.
see laws are made by man...they are dictated, in their construction, by logic. it's too bad so many idiots that want simple black and white results, that don't actually make any logical sense, have such a precedent of idiocy to stand firm by - you know - so they can feel better about if they ever are stalking a kid whom they think is gonna burgle someone's home, and then ends up shooting them in an incident involving them confronting you and asking you to stop stalking them; see people like yourself would love the excuse to say
"i'm not stalking, not by any legal definition, so i'll just keep menacing you, until you get home to call the cops, don't worry i'm not a burglar or arsonist or anything; even though i'm hypocritically assuming that everyone else can possibly be and that i should go hassle them for that potential possibility - but please continue on to your residence so you can call the cops on me, and legally stop me from following you - oop wait you brushed my shoulder? boom legal man, totally legal, you saw him, he assaulted me!"
that is what people like yourself think is logical. it's astounding.
you think Zimmerman had reason to shoot, but i'm telling you he had no reason to follow. he no reason to be there, and to basically stalk Martin. he initiated EVENTS THAT TRANSPIRED, NOT MARTIN. Martin was innocent until confronted with Zimmerman whom was there , following him to his home (which no sane person would want anyone doing in the middle of the night, to their home).
point is, you're glad that what happened happened because it fulfils your agenda, not because it's righteous. otherwise, you'd be able to see that Zimmerman was wrong to begin with, in his actions, meaning in hindsight, he was the one in the wrong and NOT Martin.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Martin was a thug...yeah when an idiot says that, i tend to laugh. he's a "thug"...and he wasn't going to do anything if idiot Zimmerman didn't "follow" him for NO REASON, making Trayvon reasonably fear for his safety...he only didn't reasonably defend himself, because the story was twisted, and he (Zimmerman) had "legal" precedence to say that he shot him in defence, defence to something that HE initiated himself.
legally he walks. logically America is set back a decade, idiots win by a landslide of idiot legal defence against logic, rationality, intelligence ect ect... another OJ.
and only because idiots misread the chronology, and the intent, and focus solely on eliminating the instance of the constitution failing to have any logical leg to be feasible to stand on. but who needs logic in a society?
gotta love constitutionalist liberal conservatives wanting to revise the constitution (and hold back it's amendment) based on their wish for an 18th century purview of American life.
1