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.

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It's the liberal media that made a deal about Stand your ground, because they immorally want to get it repealed as if a person doesn't have a right to defend themselves from death if reasonably attacked.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.

That will be determined in a court of law.

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.

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.

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.

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?



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.



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?

No he didn't deserve to die for it. But when fists start flying, it can be lethal, even without guns. It's funny because it takes me back to when I taught high school in Florida and a negro boy killed a hispanic boy by sucker punching him from behind. The brown died from his fall to the pavement. He never saw it coming. I bet you never heard that story. It wasn't reported much.

The Kansas eighth grader did nothing more than be white and walk home from school. You don't see the liberals taking up for him. It has nothing to do with whether these boys were arrested or what limited punishment they got if any. It's about what race the perpetrator is and what race the victim is. That's what determines if it makes mainstream news. That's what determines if there are marches, store lootings, spike lee giving out addresses, etc.

In this case the victim wasn't even completely innocent and the perpetrator wasn't even white like the news tried to portray them. Mainstream media are a bunch of liars. That's the take home from this whole story.

Manslaughter suggests "no intent". If he had a chance to avoid a confrontation, but actively pursued him for an extended period of time it might be argued there was some intent to get into an altercation. 2nd degree murder, where there is no advance planning, seems a better charge considering Zimmerman had numerous chances and time to turn away from an altercation.

The same way Fox News carried on the Natalie Holloway story for years? Tell me they'd dedicate the same amount of time to a Latino girl kidnapped into sex slavery.

Just so you know, this is the sickest thing I've ever seen on this board. Yep, even sicker than the misogyny. Sicker than blasphemy. And I mean sick in a bad way--as in total depravity. This is the most depraved thing I've read on this board.

Why? Because you are saying that a teenager (a child!) deserves death when that child has not committed a homicide. If Trayvon wasn't "an immoral punk", but just scared of Zimmerman would he still deserve to die? But wait, there's an objection coming up.


True, but having the right to defend yourself does not mean that your attacker deserves to die. We don't send people to the chair for aggravated assault. We only do it for actual murder--and even then not in all states.

I agree that if Zimmerman was attacked he had the right to defend himself. However, don't you think Trayvon was also within his rights to try to defend himself from what he thought was a suspicious guy with a gun? How was he supposed to know Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch guy instead of some kidnapper or gang member? That's why this is a tragedy. Both may have started out with seemingly reasonable or good intentions and ended up with a needless death. Zimmerman may have been within his rights to confront Trayvon, but in hindsight it was a dumb move. He would have served the neighborhood better if he shot pictures from a safe distance instead of bullets up close. Sadly hindsight won't bring back the dead.

ldsfaqs delights in murder and bloodshed. His master Satan has shown him the darkness, and ldsfaqs said, "It is good!"

1. Simple observing someone that looks suspicious, and then asking them a question is not "intent" to do harm moron. So no, it cannot be argued that there was intent to get into an altercation, other than in the minds of morons.

2. Zimmerman asked the question, and then was walking away and was cold cocked, knocked to the ground and beat upon, BOTH according to his statement AND a witness statement.

Zimmerman DID turn away, had no behavior indicating he was trying to get into a fight, etc.
Further, even if he just stood there. That doesn't give someone a right to beat on them you dumb freak!!!

abestosman..... YOu have no evidence that Trayvon knew Zimmerman had a gun. That's called lying assumption. And since that is what your argument is based on, your argument is nothing but false and a lie. Further, most people wouldn't attack someone that had a gun. Your entire argument is your liberal warped fantasy.

Further, you pervert my words. In context, I said that he's the one that did wrong, thus whatever the consequences are, he got what he deserved. People don't get to pick the consequences for their immoral actions. You beat on someone, you are either going to get beat back, someone else beat you, get shot if they are armed, or get away with it.

Trayvon played the odds, and lost. That's not Zimmermans fault, it's TRAYVON's scumbag!

ldsfaqs, is there a reason that you so delight in the murder of black youths? Do you consider his spilt blood an offering unto your unholy masters, Gol-goroth, God of the Black Stone, and Hastur, The Unspeakable?

I thought I was fairly even-handed.

I admit I don't know what Trayvon saw. I was speculating about what Trayvon might have seen or believed. I thought that was clear but perhaps I didn't. You think you know what really happened, but it's all hearsay at this point from any polarized side. I was trying to give each the benefit of the doubt.

So teenagers who fight adults deserve to die? Really? I call that sick.

I repeat:

Furthermore, we usually see a difference between adults and teenagers--although not so much for murder.

Would I attack someone who had a gun? I might if I thought he was going to use it if I didn't. Besides, even if most people wouldn't that doesn't mean Trayvon wouldn't.

But since you like to play the "most people wouldn't" game, I'll try: Most people wouldn't turn their back on someone they thought was suspicious (didn't you say he looked like a punk?) just to get "cold cocked, knocked to the ground and beat upon." Don't like that game? Neither do I.

Bottom line, a witness saw what happened, and it verify's Zimmermans statement.
Further, the Police Report also verify's Zimmerman and the Witness's statements according to the evidence, bloody nose, gash on head, grass stains on back, etc.

If Zimmerman had his gun out, Trayvon would have been SHOT well before Zimmerman got so much of the hell beat out of him.

All your "speculation" is lovely, but irrelevant. Zimmerman was attacked, and then he defended himself. It's as simple as that.

All your other conspiracy theory's and fantasy's, pre-judgments, etc. are just that.

Link?

What I've heard (and I haven't heard everything, so you could be right) is that the witness only said Trayvon was getting the upper hand, not that he attacked Zimmerman when he was leaving.


Wouldn't change my point either way. I therefore suspect you missed it. Try again.


Out as in holding it in his hand? Then maybe. I just meant visible in a holster. Anyhow, it wouldn't matter. Trayvon could have felt threatened regardless of whether or not he knew Zimmerman had a gun.


And maybe Trayvon was too. I hear that Zimmerman may have tried to detain Trayvon physically, then Trayvon started to get the upper hand while trying to defend himself. Was that actually the case? I don't know, but it is a possibility as is your pet scene where Trayvon was obviously some evil "punk" who "got exactly what he deserved." The point is we don't know for sure what happened.


And yours aren't?

I'm trying to be fair. I'm not trying to paint Zimmerman as some crazy racist. I'm also not trying to paint Trayvon as a "punk." I mean really, I find it ironic that you feel fine passing judgment on Trayvon while chastising anyone who tries to give both people the benefit of the doubt for being bigoted. I suspect, once again, you won't get my point.

I get your point, but the full facts tell a different story.

Heck, even your own statement betray's you.
Zimmerman had a gun in a holster and so Trayvon "feels threatened" and is thus justified to beat the crap out of Zimmerman??? Please....

That's not the standard for "feeling" threatened and PRE-EMPTING a believed eminent violent act, by taking action/violence yourself.

For the sake of argument, let's ignore several facts: 1- we don't know all the facts. 2- Zimmerman started it by following Trayvon, and with his gun was probably acting threatening in his own right, and 3, there is no evidence that Trayvon "beat the crap out of Zimmerman." If something like that happened, Zimmerman would have needed to go to the ER for CAT scans, stiches, and the like. So ignoring all of that...

In general, if somebody "beats the crap out of you", is the proper response to shoot them dead? Jesus said something about turning the other cheek in such instances. Would have that been a better response? Why or why not?