Skip to comments.Gingrich says Fla. shooter found "dangerous" hobby
Posted on 03/23/2012 12:41:21 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
WASHINGTON (AP) - Republican presidential contender Newt Gingrich calls the shooting death of a black Florida teen "a tragedy" and describes the man responsible as "a guy who'd found a hobby that's very dangerous."
George Zimmerman was part of a neighborhood watch group.
(Excerpt) Read more at njherald.com ...
Stay classy TJ!
Et tu, Noot?
Stay classy, chris.
I dont know what happened at the end, but if Zimmerman had done what he was told to do by the police - that is, stopped following Martin - none of this would have happened. His only job was to report it to the police and let them take it from there.”
I don’t know exactly what happened either, and it’s very hard to make sense of reading the Zimmerman/Martin threads. So much emotion and speculation.
“Have any of them been active military besides Ron Paul?”
Palin - no
Jindal - no
DeMint - no
Daniels - no (lawyer)
Barbour - no (lawyer)
Pawlenty - no (lawyer)
Trump - no
Giuliani - no (lawyer)
Bachmann - no (lawyer)
Cain - no
Perry - yes
Huntsman - no
Gingrich - no
Santorum - no (lawyer)
Romney - no (lawyer)
Paul - yes
If you require/want military then just two to pick from; Perry and Paul
Say No to Lawyers!
Yes, dangerous for criminals. The more I learn about Trayvon the more I’m convinced that he was a bad actor.
I don't know how Newt meant the appellation, "dangerous hobby." It is not supposed to be dangerous or a hobby.
>> if you decide to check out post 15, you might get some truth
I read the link you referenced. Actually I had already read it before my last reply. Smelled like a big plop of agenda-driven bovine excrement to me.
Vigilantism as a hobby? Really?
I'm getting tired of this Trayvon case. Based on the evidence, this WAS self-defense. The MSM is leaving out some VERY convenient facts!
Trying, can’t. Living in a country full of fools is taking its toll.
FR in November 2011
>> Vigilantism as a hobby? Really?
Not in the hobby lobby sense; I took it as tongue-in-cheek. But then I *understood* immediately what he *meant*, because I don’t have a hair trigger cocked to find some evil malignant intent in every word that rolls from his lips. Know what I mean?
Old news. Nearly TWO DECADES old news. You’ll have to do better.
So who’s better for gun rights?
Nanny pansy Santorum? ROFL
Get real, dude.
I personally didn’t take his intent as such. My mind immediately went to gun ownership.
The record on this incident is pretty clear: the guy was on a personal errand, was carrying his firearm, contacted the police about a suspicious person. At some point he got out of his car, but he was attacked. The guy was bloodied up and had obviously been on the ground. His shirt was stained from the grass, and he was wet. It really does sound like he was attacked.
Regardless of what actually happened, this is the story he gave the cops and the story that’s on record. Zimmerman did one thing right: dead men tell no tales.
>> I personally didnt take his intent as such. My mind immediately went to gun ownership.
Depends on how you’re primed, I guess.
>> At some point he got out of his car, but he was attacked.
You’re leaving out the part where he hassled the guy in the hoodie. Also the several calls between him and 911 dispatch. Why?
>> It really does sound like he was attacked.
Huh? He was in his car, the other guy was walking. Explain to me just how that “attack” happened.
It sounds to me like Zimmermann was in an altercation that he provoked. The other guy had no weapon, no drugs, wasn’t drunk, no stolen goods, and a plausible reason for exercising his own personal freedom walking to the store. He was CARRYING stuff he BOUGHT at the store, for goodness’ sake — just like his witness said. (not my opinion, but FACTS as I have heard them).
I’m 100% in favor of gun rights, carry (open, concealed, constitutional, whatever we can get) but you CANNOT defend indefensible uses of firearms to harm someone and expect no backlash. I’m treading carefully on this one.
You’re obviously a victim of the MSM’s convenient omission of facts.
Zimmerman’s only crime was getting out of his truck to confront the kid. It’s been in the upper 60s with near 70% humidity in the overnight hours here in FL. There’s NO reason for someone to have on a hoodie. I sweat just wearing a tee-shirt.
When the police arrived, Zimmerman had several wounds to his face and was wet from rolling in the grass with the perp. Regardless of the verity of his claims, the police filed it as a case of self-defense.
Listen, I’m not defending this guy, I’m simply pointing out that the MSM is only giving you the parts of the story they want you to hear.
RESEARCH THE WHOLE STORY BEFORE DRAWING CONCLUSIONS!
An instructor of mine in the past gave me some advice on carrying concealed:
“Shooting someone in self-defense means that your life is on the line 3 times: the initial confrontation, under investigation by the police, and at a trial, if applicable.”
His advice to the class: shoot to kill, not to wound. Dead men tell no tales.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.