And while I generally appreciate a lot of what you post, @SFGbob, your repeatedly unfunny and unclever use of Trademark in place of Trayvon proves that, at the end of the day, you're just a dick who isn't worth the time or effort.
Btw, lets get you on the record in order to establish just how stupid and ignorant you are Hondo. Are you claiming the photos I posted aren't Trademark?
Let's get you on record with a precise and readable reason why a 17-year old kid from Miami Gardens acting like a thug - in this case, meaning smoking weed, vandalism, a few altercations at school and acting the part on social media - is somehow germane to this case?
Zimmerman was acquitted.
Politically-motivated people politicize (you know, not all immigrants, illegal or otherwise, are rapey).
What is the obsession with showing Treyvon is the most thug light as possible? Why do you so desperately cling to this point? No matter what, George didn't see any of that on the night in question.
Rather, he saw a black kid he didn't know walking around after dark. That. Is. It. He didn't see suspicious behavior. He didn't see a gun. He didn't behavior suggestive of an intent to rob or vandalize. He saw a walker.
So, let's get you on record for why any of that matters?
The issue was about the images the media chose in order show pictures of Zimmerman and pictures of Trademark. Do you agree with Hondo that the images I posted of Trademark could be fake?
Btw, lets get you on the record in order to establish just how stupid and ignorant you are Hondo. Are you claiming the photos I posted aren't Trademark?
Let's get you on record with a precise and readable reason why a 17-year old kid from Miami Gardens acting like a thug - in this case, meaning smoking weed, vandalism, a few altercations at school and acting the part on social media - is somehow germane to this case?
Zimmerman was acquitted.
Politically-motivated people politicize (you know, not all immigrants, illegal or otherwise, are rapey).
What is the obsession with showing Treyvon is the most thug light as possible? Why do you so desperately cling to this point? No matter what, George didn't see any of that on the night in question.
Rather, he saw a black kid he didn't know walking around after dark. That. Is. It. He didn't see suspicious behavior. He didn't see a gun. He didn't behavior suggestive of an intent to rob or vandalize. He saw a walker.
So, let's get you on record for why any of that matters?
The issue was about the images the media chose in order show pictures of Zimmerman and pictures of Trademark. Do you agree with Hondo that the images I posted of Trademark could be fake?
No. And for reasons I've explained 100x, I don't care.
When Sledog does this, I know it's the expression of intellectual limitations. What's your drive here?
I didn't say I "knew" Zimmerman did anything. I said, a lot, that (1) we had no evidence that Martin started the fight, (2) the fact that he was winning the fight did not mean, ergo, that he started it, and (3) that the evidence we did have was that Zimmerman (a) was following/tracking/stalking (pick your word) him with a purpose expressed in the taped call, (b) was in an agitated state (taped call) and had already concluded (taped call) the kid had done something wrong with no evidence to support the conclusion other than profile, and (c) left his vehicle and gave chase, thereby clearly escalating the situation and increasing his own agitation and likely Trayvon's.
For normal, rational and well-adjusted people, the same act done in varying contexts produces varying results. Understanding those differences is one of the ways we separate smart people from stupid people. If when I go out to lunch in a moment some guy is walking behind me, it won't be a big deal. If I wind up walking quite a bit and he is behind me after every turn, then I might think he's following me and, if so, I'll be aware of it and on some level bothered by it and perhaps feel threatened. If I run to get away from him and he starts chasing me, then I'll definitely know I have a problem. From that point on, anything can happen.
Some guy, who as @TurdBuffer noted, could be a perv or some other person who means him harm, is following a black kid in Seminole County, at night, in a car and then GETS OUT OF THE CAR and starts chasing him.
If you think that is the same as the first stage of my hypothetical experience, you are as dumb as Sledog. But I think you know they are very different. Mysteriously (or not), you try and equate them as if you can't appreciate the difference.
This isn't a commentary on the police or the jury who bought Z's version. Those are separate discussions. As I said elsewhere, Z was in the right place for this to happen. The problem with this case has always been with the lack of witnesses at the key moment. Legally, if there had been evidence that Zimmerman started the altercation (an entirely plausible scenario in these facts), the fact that he was getting his ass kicked would not have justified his use of lethal force. In other words, if you commit felony assault, you can't claim self-defense later, any more than you can claim self-defense by shooting a homeowner during a break-in to prevent them from shooting you. Felony murder rule.
If on some level Zimmerman's actions don't bother you, then you cannot have a civil libertarian bone in your body. You get to walk around and mind your own business free of assault or threat. If the left's subsequent politicization of it is all you can mentally absorb, then you are a one-track minded sheep.
Hey Coug detail for us your evidence that Zimmerman started the fight. I don't want your conjecture, I want solid evidence that points to Zimmerman being the person who started the fight. And no, following someone in public isn't grounds for the person being followed to attack the other person.
Apparently your reading and comprehension and analytical reasoning skills are, in fact, on sledging level. You have my sincere apologies. I honestly didn't believe there was more than one.
Sweet fucking Geezus Coug you've repeatedly claimed that Zimmerman could have been responsible for starting the fight and held out the possibility that he was the aggressor who initiated their confrontation you've also said that Zimmerman may have "grabbed" and or detained Trademark. What do you base this on other than your opinion?
Meanwhile what evidence that does exist all points to Trademark as the aggressor and the only person who ever threw a punch.
What are the actions by Zimmerman that are supposed to bother me?
And while I generally appreciate a lot of what you post, @SFGbob, your repeatedly unfunny and unclever use of Trademark in place of Trayvon proves that, at the end of the day, you're just a dick who isn't worth the time or effort.
Bye, dick.
Take it up with his mother, she's the one who trademarked her own son's name.
When Sledog does this, I know it's the expression of intellectual limitations. What's your drive here?
I didn't say I "knew" Zimmerman did anything. I said, a lot, that (1) we had no evidence that Martin started the fight, (2) the fact that he was winning the fight did not mean, ergo, that he started it, and (3) that the evidence we did have was that Zimmerman (a) was following/tracking/stalking (pick your word) him with a purpose expressed in the taped call, (b) was in an agitated state (taped call) and had already concluded (taped call) the kid had done something wrong with no evidence to support the conclusion other than profile, and (c) left his vehicle and gave chase, thereby clearly escalating the situation and increasing his own agitation and likely Trayvon's.
For normal, rational and well-adjusted people, the same act done in varying contexts produces varying results. Understanding those differences is one of the ways we separate smart people from stupid people. If when I go out to lunch in a moment some guy is walking behind me, it won't be a big deal. If I wind up walking quite a bit and he is behind me after every turn, then I might think he's following me and, if so, I'll be aware of it and on some level bothered by it and perhaps feel threatened. If I run to get away from him and he starts chasing me, then I'll definitely know I have a problem. From that point on, anything can happen.
Some guy, who as @TurdBuffer noted, could be a perv or some other person who means him harm, is following a black kid in Seminole County, at night, in a car and then GETS OUT OF THE CAR and starts chasing him.
If you think that is the same as the first stage of my hypothetical experience, you are as dumb as Sledog. But I think you know they are very different. Mysteriously (or not), you try and equate them as if you can't appreciate the difference.
This isn't a commentary on the police or the jury who bought Z's version. Those are separate discussions. As I said elsewhere, Z was in the right place for this to happen. The problem with this case has always been with the lack of witnesses at the key moment. Legally, if there had been evidence that Zimmerman started the altercation (an entirely plausible scenario in these facts), the fact that he was getting his ass kicked would not have justified his use of lethal force. In other words, if you commit felony assault, you can't claim self-defense later, any more than you can claim self-defense by shooting a homeowner during a break-in to prevent them from shooting you. Felony murder rule.
If on some level Zimmerman's actions don't bother you, then you cannot have a civil libertarian bone in your body. You get to walk around and mind your own business free of assault or threat. If the left's subsequent politicization of it is all you can mentally absorb, then you are a one-track minded sheep.
Hey Coug detail for us your evidence that Zimmerman started the fight. I don't want your conjecture, I want solid evidence that points to Zimmerman being the person who started the fight. And no, following someone in public isn't grounds for the person being followed to attack the other person.
Apparently your reading and comprehension and analytical reasoning skills are, in fact, on sledging level. You have my sincere apologies. I honestly didn't believe there was more than one.
Sweet fucking Geezus Coug you've repeatedly claimed that Zimmerman could have been responsible for starting the fight and held out the possibility that he was the aggressor who initiated their confrontation you've also said that Zimmerman may have "grabbed" and or detained Trademark. What do you base this on other than your opinion?
Meanwhile what evidence that does exist all points to Trademark as the aggressor and the only person who ever threw a punch.
What are the actions by Zimmerman that are supposed to bother me?
When Sledog does this, I know it's the expression of intellectual limitations. What's your drive here?
I didn't say I "knew" Zimmerman did anything. I said, a lot, that (1) we had no evidence that Martin started the fight, (2) the fact that he was winning the fight did not mean, ergo, that he started it, and (3) that the evidence we did have was that Zimmerman (a) was following/tracking/stalking (pick your word) him with a purpose expressed in the taped call, (b) was in an agitated state (taped call) and had already concluded (taped call) the kid had done something wrong with no evidence to support the conclusion other than profile, and (c) left his vehicle and gave chase, thereby clearly escalating the situation and increasing his own agitation and likely Trayvon's.
For normal, rational and well-adjusted people, the same act done in varying contexts produces varying results. Understanding those differences is one of the ways we separate smart people from stupid people. If when I go out to lunch in a moment some guy is walking behind me, it won't be a big deal. If I wind up walking quite a bit and he is behind me after every turn, then I might think he's following me and, if so, I'll be aware of it and on some level bothered by it and perhaps feel threatened. If I run to get away from him and he starts chasing me, then I'll definitely know I have a problem. From that point on, anything can happen.
Some guy, who as @TurdBuffer noted, could be a perv or some other person who means him harm, is following a black kid in Seminole County, at night, in a car and then GETS OUT OF THE CAR and starts chasing him.
If you think that is the same as the first stage of my hypothetical experience, you are as dumb as Sledog. But I think you know they are very different. Mysteriously (or not), you try and equate them as if you can't appreciate the difference.
This isn't a commentary on the police or the jury who bought Z's version. Those are separate discussions. As I said elsewhere, Z was in the right place for this to happen. The problem with this case has always been with the lack of witnesses at the key moment. Legally, if there had been evidence that Zimmerman started the altercation (an entirely plausible scenario in these facts), the fact that he was getting his ass kicked would not have justified his use of lethal force. In other words, if you commit felony assault, you can't claim self-defense later, any more than you can claim self-defense by shooting a homeowner during a break-in to prevent them from shooting you. Felony murder rule.
If on some level Zimmerman's actions don't bother you, then you cannot have a civil libertarian bone in your body. You get to walk around and mind your own business free of assault or threat. If the left's subsequent politicization of it is all you can mentally absorb, then you are a one-track minded sheep.
Hey Coug detail for us your evidence that Zimmerman started the fight. I don't want your conjecture, I want solid evidence that points to Zimmerman being the person who started the fight. And no, following someone in public isn't grounds for the person being followed to attack the other person.
Apparently your reading and comprehension and analytical reasoning skills are, in fact, on sledging level. You have my sincere apologies. I honestly didn't believe there was more than one.
Sweet fucking Geezus Coug you've repeatedly claimed that Zimmerman could have been responsible for starting the fight and held out the possibility that he was the aggressor who initiated their confrontation you've also said that Zimmerman may have "grabbed" and or detained Trademark. What do you base this on other than your opinion?
Meanwhile what evidence that does exist all points to Trademark as the aggressor and the only person who ever threw a punch.
What are the actions by Zimmerman that are supposed to bother me?
I'd start with the unarmed dead 17 year old.
He armed himself with the sidewalk that he smashed Zimmerman's head into. I guess Mike Brown couldn't have been the aggressor either since he too was unarmed.
All the evidence relates to Zimmerman the instigator. All of it. The rest of it is simply biased conjecture.
Yeah but Coug never said he "started" the fight. Btw, your claim isn't accurate. Plenty of evidence that shows Zimmerman never threw a punch and that Trademark was the aggressor.
All the evidence relates to Zimmerman the instigator. All of it. The rest of it is simply biased conjecture.
Yeah but Coug never said he "started" the fight. Btw, your claim isn't accurate. Plenty of evidence that shows Zimmerman never threw a punch and that Trademark was the aggressor.
From the account of the only person who lived. And was clearly a pussy.
All the evidence relates to Zimmerman the instigator. All of it. The rest of it is simply biased conjecture.
Yeah but Coug never said he "started" the fight. Btw, your claim isn't accurate. Plenty of evidence that shows Zimmerman never threw a punch and that Trademark was the aggressor.
From the account of the only person who lived. And was clearly a pussy.
No, from the physical evidence that was collected and presented at trial. Let me guess, you're trolling me again with your stupidity.
Was this because the liberal media used sanitized pictures of Thug Treyvon? I don't know. I think it had more impact than that.
George has played his role. First, let's not forget he's the 'but for' cause of all this, and let's not forget he has tried hard to stay in the news. Can't blame him for wanting to stay relevant. There's $$ to be made, and being a famous fuck up is all he's ever been good at.
All the evidence relates to Zimmerman the instigator. All of it. The rest of it is simply biased conjecture.
Yeah but Coug never said he "started" the fight. Btw, your claim isn't accurate. Plenty of evidence that shows Zimmerman never threw a punch and that Trademark was the aggressor.
Was this because the liberal media used sanitized pictures of Thug Treyvon? I don't know. I think it had more impact than that.
George has played his role. First, let's not forget he's the 'but for' cause of all this, and let's not forget he has tried hard to stay in the news. Can't blame him for wanting to stay relevant. There's $$ to be made, and being a famous fuck up is all he's ever been good at.
When Sledog does this, I know it's the expression of intellectual limitations. What's your drive here?
I didn't say I "knew" Zimmerman did anything. I said, a lot, that (1) we had no evidence that Martin started the fight, (2) the fact that he was winning the fight did not mean, ergo, that he started it, and (3) that the evidence we did have was that Zimmerman (a) was following/tracking/stalking (pick your word) him with a purpose expressed in the taped call, (b) was in an agitated state (taped call) and had already concluded (taped call) the kid had done something wrong with no evidence to support the conclusion other than profile, and (c) left his vehicle and gave chase, thereby clearly escalating the situation and increasing his own agitation and likely Trayvon's.
For normal, rational and well-adjusted people, the same act done in varying contexts produces varying results. Understanding those differences is one of the ways we separate smart people from stupid people. If when I go out to lunch in a moment some guy is walking behind me, it won't be a big deal. If I wind up walking quite a bit and he is behind me after every turn, then I might think he's following me and, if so, I'll be aware of it and on some level bothered by it and perhaps feel threatened. If I run to get away from him and he starts chasing me, then I'll definitely know I have a problem. From that point on, anything can happen.
Some guy, who as @TurdBuffer noted, could be a perv or some other person who means him harm, is following a black kid in Seminole County, at night, in a car and then GETS OUT OF THE CAR and starts chasing him.
If you think that is the same as the first stage of my hypothetical experience, you are as dumb as Sledog. But I think you know they are very different. Mysteriously (or not), you try and equate them as if you can't appreciate the difference.
This isn't a commentary on the police or the jury who bought Z's version. Those are separate discussions. As I said elsewhere, Z was in the right place for this to happen. The problem with this case has always been with the lack of witnesses at the key moment. Legally, if there had been evidence that Zimmerman started the altercation (an entirely plausible scenario in these facts), the fact that he was getting his ass kicked would not have justified his use of lethal force. In other words, if you commit felony assault, you can't claim self-defense later, any more than you can claim self-defense by shooting a homeowner during a break-in to prevent them from shooting you. Felony murder rule.
If on some level Zimmerman's actions don't bother you, then you cannot have a civil libertarian bone in your body. You get to walk around and mind your own business free of assault or threat. If the left's subsequent politicization of it is all you can mentally absorb, then you are a one-track minded sheep.
Hey Coug detail for us your evidence that Zimmerman started the fight. I don't want your conjecture, I want solid evidence that points to Zimmerman being the person who started the fight. And no, following someone in public isn't grounds for the person being followed to attack the other person.
Apparently your reading and comprehension and analytical reasoning skills are, in fact, on sledging level. You have my sincere apologies. I honestly didn't believe there was more than one.
Sweet fucking Geezus Coug you've repeatedly claimed that Zimmerman could have been responsible for starting the fight and held out the possibility that he was the aggressor who initiated their confrontation you've also said that Zimmerman may have "grabbed" and or detained Trademark. What do you base this on other than your opinion?
Meanwhile what evidence that does exist all points to Trademark as the aggressor and the only person who ever threw a punch.
What are the actions by Zimmerman that are supposed to bother me?
Yes. Do you have something new that takes it off the table? Not only did I say he could have, I also said it was plausible. And. It. Is. Tell me why it isn't other than the fact that once the fight started he lost it, because that's irrelevant to the genesis of the altercation, which is what matters.
Meanwhile the evidence that does exist only points to Zimmerman as the pursuer (not the one being pursued), the agitator and the instigator. The one who followed him like a weirdo creep stalking a victim, the one who disobeyed actual directive to disengage, and the one who got out of his car and gave chase when the kid tried to run away from him - the opposite of disengaging. That guy. Is he the one who you can't imagine starting something with Martin? That guy?
Does this mean he did start it? No.
Does anything point to Martin starting it? Not really, though one could easily imagine being chased by someone who has made you fear for your safety and abandoning flight and turning to fight.
Does the fact that Zimmerman can't fight point to Martin starting it? No, and it is with this point you and dumb dumb seem to be struggling the most.
Not only is it false that all the evidence "points to Trademark as the aggressor", but it's more accurate to say none of it does. As I've pointed out several times, and which your bozo friend and you have failed to refute, the fact that he was winning the fight is indicative of absolutely nothing other than Zimmerman being a shitty fighter.
What actions? How about stalking someone and chasing them when they tried to get away, all for doing nothing wrong.
At this point I'm confident my Lab understands this.
And while I generally appreciate a lot of what you post, @SFGbob, your repeatedly unfunny and unclever use of Trademark in place of Trayvon proves that, at the end of the day, you're just a dick who isn't worth the time or effort.
Bye, dick.
Take it up with his mother, she's the one who trademarked her own son's name.
Maybe his mom is a shit like Zimmerman. You didn't take him to task for trying to capitalize on the tragedy by selling the famous murder weapon. Why take Trayvon to task by being unoriginal and using the term in lieu of his name ad nauseam? He didn't do it. In fact, maybe now you should quit listing the fact that his mom kicked him out as evidence he's was a bad kid. Maybe she was a bad mom.
Was this because the liberal media used sanitized pictures of Thug Treyvon? I don't know. I think it had more impact than that.
George has played his role. First, let's not forget he's the 'but for' cause of all this, and let's not forget he has tried hard to stay in the news. Can't blame him for wanting to stay relevant. There's $$ to be made, and being a famous fuck up is all he's ever been good at.
When Sledog does this, I know it's the expression of intellectual limitations. What's your drive here?
I didn't say I "knew" Zimmerman did anything. I said, a lot, that (1) we had no evidence that Martin started the fight, (2) the fact that he was winning the fight did not mean, ergo, that he started it, and (3) that the evidence we did have was that Zimmerman (a) was following/tracking/stalking (pick your word) him with a purpose expressed in the taped call, (b) was in an agitated state (taped call) and had already concluded (taped call) the kid had done something wrong with no evidence to support the conclusion other than profile, and (c) left his vehicle and gave chase, thereby clearly escalating the situation and increasing his own agitation and likely Trayvon's.
For normal, rational and well-adjusted people, the same act done in varying contexts produces varying results. Understanding those differences is one of the ways we separate smart people from stupid people. If when I go out to lunch in a moment some guy is walking behind me, it won't be a big deal. If I wind up walking quite a bit and he is behind me after every turn, then I might think he's following me and, if so, I'll be aware of it and on some level bothered by it and perhaps feel threatened. If I run to get away from him and he starts chasing me, then I'll definitely know I have a problem. From that point on, anything can happen.
Some guy, who as @TurdBuffer noted, could be a perv or some other person who means him harm, is following a black kid in Seminole County, at night, in a car and then GETS OUT OF THE CAR and starts chasing him.
If you think that is the same as the first stage of my hypothetical experience, you are as dumb as Sledog. But I think you know they are very different. Mysteriously (or not), you try and equate them as if you can't appreciate the difference.
This isn't a commentary on the police or the jury who bought Z's version. Those are separate discussions. As I said elsewhere, Z was in the right place for this to happen. The problem with this case has always been with the lack of witnesses at the key moment. Legally, if there had been evidence that Zimmerman started the altercation (an entirely plausible scenario in these facts), the fact that he was getting his ass kicked would not have justified his use of lethal force. In other words, if you commit felony assault, you can't claim self-defense later, any more than you can claim self-defense by shooting a homeowner during a break-in to prevent them from shooting you. Felony murder rule.
If on some level Zimmerman's actions don't bother you, then you cannot have a civil libertarian bone in your body. You get to walk around and mind your own business free of assault or threat. If the left's subsequent politicization of it is all you can mentally absorb, then you are a one-track minded sheep.
Hey Coug detail for us your evidence that Zimmerman started the fight. I don't want your conjecture, I want solid evidence that points to Zimmerman being the person who started the fight. And no, following someone in public isn't grounds for the person being followed to attack the other person.
Apparently your reading and comprehension and analytical reasoning skills are, in fact, on sledging level. You have my sincere apologies. I honestly didn't believe there was more than one.
Sweet fucking Geezus Coug you've repeatedly claimed that Zimmerman could have been responsible for starting the fight and held out the possibility that he was the aggressor who initiated their confrontation you've also said that Zimmerman may have "grabbed" and or detained Trademark. What do you base this on other than your opinion?
Meanwhile what evidence that does exist all points to Trademark as the aggressor and the only person who ever threw a punch.
What are the actions by Zimmerman that are supposed to bother me?
I'd start with the unarmed dead 17 year old.
He armed himself with the sidewalk that he smashed Zimmerman's head into. I guess Mike Brown couldn't have been the aggressor either since he too was unarmed.
The comparison to the Mike Brown situation is entirely inapposite. Totally different facts and circumstances. The only common fact is the kid was black in both cases. Is that how you think they're the same?
Was this because the liberal media used sanitized pictures of Thug Treyvon? I don't know. I think it had more impact than that.
George has played his role. First, let's not forget he's the 'but for' cause of all this, and let's not forget he has tried hard to stay in the news. Can't blame him for wanting to stay relevant. There's $$ to be made, and being a famous fuck up is all he's ever been good at.
Why are you talking about George?
Thought you were taking the day off.
Why not?
He has nothing to do with the current Tryvon TV show
Was this because the liberal media used sanitized pictures of Thug Treyvon? I don't know. I think it had more impact than that.
George has played his role. First, let's not forget he's the 'but for' cause of all this, and let's not forget he has tried hard to stay in the news. Can't blame him for wanting to stay relevant. There's $$ to be made, and being a famous fuck up is all he's ever been good at.
Pathetic. No one claimed that this remained in the news because the media used sanitized pictures of Trademark. But the narrative that the media happily created, innocent, poor young black child who wanted to be an astronaut, coming home with candy he had purchased for his sick brother who was at home watching the All-Star game, murdered by a big fat white guy who racially profiled the innocent teen and then called him a "coon" before shooting him dead, definitely played a role in all of this still being in the collective mind of the left.
Change Zimmerman name to Jorge Gonzalez and this case would have never gone to trial and Tayvon's mother would have never felt the need to trademark his name.
Comments
Bye, dick.
Meanwhile what evidence that does exist all points to Trademark as the aggressor and the only person who ever threw a punch.
What are the actions by Zimmerman that are supposed to bother me?
Now showing
Yeah but Coug never said he "started" the fight. Btw, your claim isn't accurate. Plenty of evidence that shows Zimmerman never threw a punch and that Trademark was the aggressor.
Was this because the liberal media used sanitized pictures of Thug Treyvon? I don't know. I think it had more impact than that.
George has played his role. First, let's not forget he's the 'but for' cause of all this, and let's not forget he has tried hard to stay in the news. Can't blame him for wanting to stay relevant. There's $$ to be made, and being a famous fuck up is all he's ever been good at.
Yes, it is.
Not, it does not.
Meanwhile the evidence that does exist only points to Zimmerman as the pursuer (not the one being pursued), the agitator and the instigator. The one who followed him like a weirdo creep stalking a victim, the one who disobeyed actual directive to disengage, and the one who got out of his car and gave chase when the kid tried to run away from him - the opposite of disengaging. That guy. Is he the one who you can't imagine starting something with Martin? That guy?
Does this mean he did start it? No.
Does anything point to Martin starting it? Not really, though one could easily imagine being chased by someone who has made you fear for your safety and abandoning flight and turning to fight.
Does the fact that Zimmerman can't fight point to Martin starting it? No, and it is with this point you and dumb dumb seem to be struggling the most.
Not only is it false that all the evidence "points to Trademark as the aggressor", but it's more accurate to say none of it does. As I've pointed out several times, and which your bozo friend and you have failed to refute, the fact that he was winning the fight is indicative of absolutely nothing other than Zimmerman being a shitty fighter.
What actions? How about stalking someone and chasing them when they tried to get away, all for doing nothing wrong.
At this point I'm confident my Lab understands this.
Why not?
The left is still making money off the dead kid.
Change Zimmerman name to Jorge Gonzalez and this case would have never gone to trial and Tayvon's mother would have never felt the need to trademark his name.