George Zimmerman Arrested. . .Again. . .

  • 73 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#51 Posted by LostProphetFLCL (16940 posts) -

Like I have been saying since the Treyvon case, the man is a sack of shit who has no business owning a fucking weapon, yet he keeps slipping through the damn system. Really one of the luckiest S.O.B's out there....

#52 Posted by BranKetra (47354 posts) -

This guy reminds me of O.J. Simpson.

#53 Posted by MrGeezer (55909 posts) -

But come on, a guy with such a violent history could have never provoked the confrontation with Trayvon Martin that left the youth dead.

Nope. Never.

It's not that he didn't provoke the confrontation, it's that that hasn't been sufficiently proven. Absent proof, the jury was right to acquit him.

#54 Edited by m0zart (11562 posts) -

He seems determined to go to jail. There's probably an easier way. He should just go up to a cop and ask to buy some drugs or something.

#55 Posted by DrKillByDeath84 (361 posts) -

@DrKillByDeath84 said:

Who the fvck cares.....again.

the family of the innocent black kid he killed.

obviously something is wrong with zimmerman who keeps committing crimes vs. Trayvon who never commited a crime.

You're right man.

#56 Posted by Capitan_Kid (6509 posts) -

They need to lock this fucker up and throw away the key

#57 Posted by lostrib (30942 posts) -

They need to lock this fucker up and throw away the key

why?

#58 Edited by Jimn_tonic (819 posts) -

They need to lock this fucker up and throw away the key

i'd be content with him having a firearm restriction. the man is harmless without a gun.

#59 Edited by GreySeal9 (23844 posts) -

Seems pretty obvious that Zimmerman has a bit of a screw loose.

#60 Posted by Serraph105 (27538 posts) -

He's the proverbial good guy with a gun that the NRA guy was talking about.

#61 Posted by Serraph105 (27538 posts) -

Seems pretty obvious that Zimmerman has a bit of screw loose.

crazy people have just as much right to a gun as you or I dude.

#62 Edited by airshocker (28024 posts) -

Well it's quite apparent that this schmuck doesn't deserve the right two own firearms. The judge should do something about that.

#63 Posted by Serraph105 (27538 posts) -

Well it's quite apparent that this schmuck doesn't deserve the right two own firearms. The judge should do something about that.


As jimn_tonic pointed out he would be harmless without a gun. In my opinion this means he needs a gun far more than you or I require one.

#64 Edited by LostProphetFLCL (16940 posts) -

@airshocker said:

Well it's quite apparent that this schmuck doesn't deserve the right two own firearms. The judge should do something about that.

As jimn_tonic pointed out he would be harmless without a gun. In my opinion this means he needs a gun far more than you or I require one.

No one who has a history of assaulting police and REPEATED domestic violence incidents involving firearms needs to be owning a gun...

#65 Posted by Braun_Roid_Rage (701 posts) -

@airshocker said:

Well it's quite apparent that this schmuck doesn't deserve the right two own firearms. The judge should do something about that.

As jimn_tonic pointed out he would be harmless without a gun. In my opinion this means he needs a gun far more than you or I require one.

Agreed. He would be a sitting duck without them.

#66 Posted by Ace6301 (21388 posts) -

Someone like him doesn't have any business owning a gun.

#67 Posted by airshocker (28024 posts) -

@airshocker said:

Well it's quite apparent that this schmuck doesn't deserve the right two own firearms. The judge should do something about that.

As jimn_tonic pointed out he would be harmless without a gun. In my opinion this means he needs a gun far more than you or I require one.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

#68 Posted by jimkabrhel (15416 posts) -

I don't think Zimmerman would be harmless without a gun. If he really does have a violent streak, he'll cause damage in other way. He allegedly choked his girlfriend, no gun there.

#69 Posted by leviathan91 (7763 posts) -

Well it's quite apparent that this schmuck doesn't deserve the right two own firearms. The judge should do something about that.

It's domestic violence. If convicted, he'll lose his right to bear arms for life even if it is a misdemeanor.

#70 Posted by leviathan91 (7763 posts) -

No no no innocent till proven guilty

What are you a liberal commie? In 'murica, it's guilty until proven guilty.

#71 Posted by Nuck81 (5727 posts) -

@airshocker said:

Well it's quite apparent that this schmuck doesn't deserve the right two own firearms. The judge should do something about that.

It's domestic violence. If convicted, he'll lose his right to bear arms for life even if it is a misdemeanor.

He's already lost his guns.

NRA hero loses guns

#72 Posted by airshocker (28024 posts) -

@airshocker said:

Well it's quite apparent that this schmuck doesn't deserve the right two own firearms. The judge should do something about that.

It's domestic violence. If convicted, he'll lose his right to bear arms for life even if it is a misdemeanor.

That doesn't change the fact that the judge can do something about it right now. He can order the police to confiscate all of his weapons, etc. That, in my opinion, needs to happen ASAP.

#73 Posted by leviathan91 (7763 posts) -

@airshocker:

If charged, he loses his gun. If found innocent he gets his guns back. If found guilty he loses it for life and the right to bear arms.

It's federal law thanks to the lautenburg amendment which restricts those convicted with a dv misdemeanor.

Of course there are plea deals so it depends how the state defines the conviction. I'm surprised you don't know the Lautenberg amendment. Then again is it stereotypical to think cops know all the laws?

#74 Posted by airshocker (28024 posts) -

@airshocker:

If charged, he loses his gun. If found innocent he gets his guns back. If found guilty he loses it for life and the right to bear arms.

It's federal law thanks to the lautenburg amendment which restricts those convicted with a dv misdemeanor.

Of course there are plea deals so it depends how the state defines the conviction. I'm surprised you don't know the Lautenberg amendment. Then again is it stereotypical to think cops know all the laws?

You're missing the point. I know what the Lautenberg amendment is and it doesn't change the fact that Zimmerman needs to be disarmed immediately. Not until he goes through the trial process. Many judges have ordered police to seize the weapons of somebody who has shown themselves to be irresponsible around firearms.