I defend the facts while you talk out your ass Coug.
You defend having your head in your ass dumb dumb.
Why again are the Mike Brown and Treyvon Martin cases comparable? I'm super duper curious to hear that rationalization?
Because they both caught the attention of the White House
Go back 27 pages and that's how this started
Obama picking the wrong horses to ride on his social justice kick
And @SFGbob is selling you a bag of shit. It was this comparison by Bob to which I made reference:
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.
Of course, we know that there were just a few differences, starting with the facts that Brown was dealing with police officers, had tried to wrestle away an officer's weapon, failed to obey and order to stand down, and had earlier in the day committed a robbery. Martin, by comparison, was walking and had a track record of acting tuff and smoking weed!!!!!
I wonder why Bob thinks Brown and Martin are comparable dead black boys?
Dances right on the line and begs to be called a racist, and then loses his shit when someone does.
But you Zimmerman apologists really can't see that he provoked, escalated and caused the confrontation? And you actually claim Zimmerman wasn't stalking the kid? Amazing.
So if someone was watching me and trying to follow me I would be concerned. I have a cell phone I'd probably call the police. I wouldn't beat the shit out of them and repeatedly slam their head onto the concrete without some other mitigating factor.
I could really care less about Zimmerman. But being a fat nosy neighborhood watch guy isn't reason enough.
Well, first of all, you're not 17. Second of all, it's easy to talk about it in the abstract. If you actually dig into the facts of this case, it's not as antiseptic as Bob tries to make it seem. He was tracking him in his car, and when the kid tried to shake him, he got out of his car (thus escalating the situation) and tried to give chase. The tone of his voice and the words he used, on tape, express a state of agitation and anger. Martin's conversation with his girlfriend expressed a state of concern, which is not unreasonable because he's a kid and he's being stalked by an adult he doesn't know for reasons he doesn't understand.
Other than Zimmerman not being very good at fighting and the bullet hole in Martin's chese, literally everything else is open to speculation. But if it were your kid, would you not wonder WTF happened and take Zimmerman to task for stalking and then chasing your kid? For not just letting him go? Your kid. Walking alone at night. Unarmed. Doing nothing. Grown man following in a car. Your kid runs. Adult guy gives chase. Altercation happens, and, good for him, kid handles himself. But dummy has a gun and shoots him.
You sure that situation sits well with you?
My kid would have gone in the house and gotten me. He would not call his girlfriend He would not attack that person beat him to the ground then mount him and beat his head on the concrete.
I've read the case a number of times. You also leave out the high crime rate the gated community was experiencing which was certainly cause for residents to be concerned. Or that Zimmerman had lost Trayvon and asked police to call him when a unit arrived. You also didn't mention the witness that saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman wailing away and Zimmerman screaming for help.
Yeah there's stuff we don't know. But what we do know is quite a bit and sufficient to support Zimmermans claims.
Of course. How could I forget? Your kid's a giant pussy. Trayvon wasn't.
Fuck off; You haven't read shit.
I didn't leave anything out. Those points are not relevant. We still (for the time being) live in a country without state curfews and where one has the right to generally walk in public spaces without being harassed. You know, freedom and shit.
The only thing we don't know ... at all ... is whether Zimmerman gave up the stalk and was withdrawing and was attacked by Martin ... effectively a reversal of what Zimmerman started. Zero evidence. All the evidence relates to Zimmerman the instigator. All of it. The rest of it is simply biased conjecture.
You know, it is Ok to win the struggle when you're defending yourself. Like Martin did. Doesn't make you an attacker under the law.
So Zimmerman attacked Trayvon? Trayvon on top of Zimmerman beating the shit out of him and Zimmerman screaming for help irrelevant?
Was your degree from the Close Cover Before Striking School of Law and Heavy Machinery?
The picture of Tray in this meme was used throughout the entire ordeal by the MSM.
You're such a dufus. I didn't write any of that. Try reading this part again dumb dumb:
The only thing we don't know ... at all ... is whether Zimmerman gave up the stalk and was withdrawing and was attacked by Martin ... effectively a reversal of what Zimmerman started. Zero evidence. All the evidence relates to Zimmerman the instigator. All of it. The rest of it is simply biased conjecture.
Translation: we don't know the version of this that you and Bob want to be true (Trayvon the attacker). There is evidence, however, that Zimmerman was the instigator. "Instigator" does not translate in Engrish to "Attacker". @TurdBuffer , a little help here?
Who cares about the pictures? So you're saying the left politicized the event? Like the right politicized the last time some illegal killed someone? You don't say? Pretty insightful.
You and Bob are struggling with some basic thought process here, so Creep's gonna help you out:
Person A instigates, provokes or causes a fight with person B, but nobody is around to see this stage of the altercation. (Some evidence for this version).
Person B winds up getting the better of Person A. (We all know this happened).
When people start showing up, they see Person B getting the better of Person A. (We all know this happened).
[And this is the important part!]: Person B attacked Person A. (Sled and Bob enthusiastically jump right to this conclusion).
Person B is now justified in killing Person A. (Sled and Bob really like this result because Martin was a thug, there had been robberies in the neighborhood, etc.).
That's your logic.
This case is all about what we don't know and is the only explanation one could have for acquitting Zimmerman.
Of course assholes like you and Bob were raised to angle against Martin every modicum of conjecture you can gather, and at the same time feel absolutely no obligation to consider Zimmerman's role or motives - even though we learned that Zimmerman is a bigger piece of shit than was Martin, the latter of whom at least had youth on his side as a mitigating factor. You and Bob can figure out why you do that; IDRGAF.
One of the (many) big differences between you and me is that I can question and see a thing for what it is, even if something doesn't fall the way I'd like it to, accept it, admit it, and emotionally move on with life. You, by contrast, cannot seem to do any of that and are an emotional child.
But I still love you man.
For some strange reason there is only one side to this story besides partial witness accounts that seem to corroborate Zimmerman's story. No physical eveidence of any kind including autopsy to show Zim attacked Tray. Could you convict him in court? Florida couldn't. You can insert whatever your thoughts are on the board but try and stick to allowable pertinent evidence. HTH
hardly. this has been an exercise in indulgence for me. could have stopped long ago. I just like giving the stupid more opportunity to show stupid. it's a vice.
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?
Take it up with your ass munching pal Hondo, he's the dipshit that claimed being unarmed was the relevant factor here.
Being unarmed is relevant. Are you saying it's not relevant?
Come watch such fag Bob struggle in every thread.
Are you a strawman ass fucking dipshit because you're a barely functioning moron? Trademark wasn't unarmed anymore than the Gentle Giant was unarmed.
Did Trayvon have a gun or is he trained in martial arts? No. Right sugar bear?
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.
You've said a lot of dumb shit. That one takes the Cake. The Best part is this is after you've been railing on the "rats in the media brainwashing the left". Yet here you are brainwashed.
"Takes the cake" Brutal fucking rebuttal Hondo. You fucking destroyed my claim. Btw, how brainwashed to do you have to be in order to think that the photos I posted weren't Trademark?
For the 14th fucking time. I asked for a link. I did my research. I never once said the ones you posted weren't him (sledog is another matter). I did laugh at you tho how you think his gold teeth somehow make him armed or some shit.
But you Zimmerman apologists really can't see that he provoked, escalated and caused the confrontation? And you actually claim Zimmerman wasn't stalking the kid? Amazing.
So if someone was watching me and trying to follow me I would be concerned. I have a cell phone I'd probably call the police. I wouldn't beat the shit out of them and repeatedly slam their head onto the concrete without some other mitigating factor.
I could really care less about Zimmerman. But being a fat nosy neighborhood watch guy isn't reason enough.
Well, first of all, you're not 17. Second of all, it's easy to talk about it in the abstract. If you actually dig into the facts of this case, it's not as antiseptic as Bob tries to make it seem. He was tracking him in his car, and when the kid tried to shake him, he got out of his car (thus escalating the situation) and tried to give chase. The tone of his voice and the words he used, on tape, express a state of agitation and anger. Martin's conversation with his girlfriend expressed a state of concern, which is not unreasonable because he's a kid and he's being stalked by an adult he doesn't know for reasons he doesn't understand.
Other than Zimmerman not being very good at fighting and the bullet hole in Martin's chese, literally everything else is open to speculation. But if it were your kid, would you not wonder WTF happened and take Zimmerman to task for stalking and then chasing your kid? For not just letting him go? Your kid. Walking alone at night. Unarmed. Doing nothing. Grown man following in a car. Your kid runs. Adult guy gives chase. Altercation happens, and, good for him, kid handles himself. But dummy has a gun and shoots him.
You sure that situation sits well with you?
My kid would have gone in the house and gotten me. He would not call his girlfriend He would not attack that person beat him to the ground then mount him and beat his head on the concrete.
I've read the case a number of times. You also leave out the high crime rate the gated community was experiencing which was certainly cause for residents to be concerned. Or that Zimmerman had lost Trayvon and asked police to call him when a unit arrived. You also didn't mention the witness that saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman wailing away and Zimmerman screaming for help.
Yeah there's stuff we don't know. But what we do know is quite a bit and sufficient to support Zimmermans claims.
Of course. How could I forget? Your kid's a giant pussy. Trayvon wasn't.
Fuck off; You haven't read shit.
I didn't leave anything out. Those points are not relevant. We still (for the time being) live in a country without state curfews and where one has the right to generally walk in public spaces without being harassed. You know, freedom and shit.
The only thing we don't know ... at all ... is whether Zimmerman gave up the stalk and was withdrawing and was attacked by Martin ... effectively a reversal of what Zimmerman started. Zero evidence. All the evidence relates to Zimmerman the instigator. All of it. The rest of it is simply biased conjecture.
You know, it is Ok to win the struggle when you're defending yourself. Like Martin did. Doesn't make you an attacker under the law.
So Zimmerman attacked Trayvon? Trayvon on top of Zimmerman beating the shit out of him and Zimmerman screaming for help irrelevant?
Was your degree from the Close Cover Before Striking School of Law and Heavy Machinery?
The picture of Tray in this meme was used throughout the entire ordeal by the MSM.
You're such a dufus. I didn't write any of that. Try reading this part again dumb dumb:
The only thing we don't know ... at all ... is whether Zimmerman gave up the stalk and was withdrawing and was attacked by Martin ... effectively a reversal of what Zimmerman started. Zero evidence. All the evidence relates to Zimmerman the instigator. All of it. The rest of it is simply biased conjecture.
Translation: we don't know the version of this that you and Bob want to be true (Trayvon the attacker). There is evidence, however, that Zimmerman was the instigator. "Instigator" does not translate in Engrish to "Attacker". @TurdBuffer , a little help here?
Who cares about the pictures? So you're saying the left politicized the event? Like the right politicized the last time some illegal killed someone? You don't say? Pretty insightful.
You and Bob are struggling with some basic thought process here, so Creep's gonna help you out:
Person A instigates, provokes or causes a fight with person B, but nobody is around to see this stage of the altercation. (Some evidence for this version).
Person B winds up getting the better of Person A. (We all know this happened).
When people start showing up, they see Person B getting the better of Person A. (We all know this happened).
[And this is the important part!]: Person B attacked Person A. (Sled and Bob enthusiastically jump right to this conclusion).
Person B is now justified in killing Person A. (Sled and Bob really like this result because Martin was a thug, there had been robberies in the neighborhood, etc.).
That's your logic.
This case is all about what we don't know and is the only explanation one could have for acquitting Zimmerman.
Of course assholes like you and Bob were raised to angle against Martin every modicum of conjecture you can gather, and at the same time feel absolutely no obligation to consider Zimmerman's role or motives - even though we learned that Zimmerman is a bigger piece of shit than was Martin, the latter of whom at least had youth on his side as a mitigating factor. You and Bob can figure out why you do that; IDRGAF.
One of the (many) big differences between you and me is that I can question and see a thing for what it is, even if something doesn't fall the way I'd like it to, accept it, admit it, and emotionally move on with life. You, by contrast, cannot seem to do any of that and are an emotional child.
But I still love you man.
For some strange reason there is only one side to this story besides partial witness accounts that seem to corroborate Zimmerman's story. No physical eveidence of any kind including autopsy to show Zim attacked Tray. Could you convict him in court? Florida couldn't. You can insert whatever your thoughts are on the board but try and stick to allowable pertinent evidence. HTH
- Huh? There is the side that is beyond dispute: the pursuer, instigator and escalator of the whole evening's events was Zimmeran. We know exactly that. - What kind of evidence would necessarily be on a dead person that would establish which person first physically attacked another? Nobody saw that part; we all know that. Thanks for the report on wet water. We do know that Zimmerman was a shitty fighter. Should we then be surprised to learn that Martin didn't absorb a punch? How does this establish that Zimmerman didn't swing at him and miss? Or that he didn't lunge at him and cause Martin to defend himself (well)? Or that Martin didn't reasonably defend himself when he saw this grown man running after him? Huh? - Doesn't really matter; as the a jury person, I would have had trouble with the fact that Zimmerman was doing the shit he was doing that would put any person in reasonable apprehension of harm. But the burden of proof goes the other way, and the dearth of witness testimony of who started the altercation is what saved Zimmerman. The only thing anyone saw or heard was the part of Martin getting the better of Zimmerman. - The content of the jury matters. Zimmerman was in a good place to have this happen. - Are you able to track this ok?
Injuries of some sort are often left during an assault.
I thought court was about facts not conjecture.
Obviously I've been in actual courts and you've been where?
- Doesn't really matter; as the a jury person, I would have had trouble with the fact that Zimmerman was doing the shit he was doing that would put any person in reasonable apprehension of harm. But the burden of proof goes the other way, and the dearth of witness testimony of who started the altercation is what saved Zimmerman. The only thing anyone saw or heard was the part of Martin getting the better of Zimmerman.
I defend the facts while you talk out your ass Coug.
You defend having your head in your ass dumb dumb.
Why again are the Mike Brown and Treyvon Martin cases comparable? I'm super duper curious to hear that rationalization?
Because they both caught the attention of the White House
Go back 27 pages and that's how this started
Obama picking the wrong horses to ride on his social justice kick
Exactly, thanks Race, I think we can put a fork in this thread.
Coug thought it was unfair to claim that Obama exacerbated racial tension and yet it was these two cases that the Obama White House gave the most attention to.
Nice summary.
Obama on Martin: appropriate.
Obama on Brown: mistake.
Obama responsible for racial tension the US: laffable.
Fanned the Flames: ok, sure, I guess.
Obama responsible for racial tension? No. Obama responsible for exacerbating racial tension? Fuck yes. That's what Community Organizers do. Rabble rouse. Tell people that racist white bankers aren't willing to give you a mortgage because you're black. Tell people that racist white cops have declared "open season" on young black males. Hire Al Sharpton to work in your White House.
Injuries of some sort are often left during an assault. Not always. They clearly were in a fight as people saw Martin getting the better of him. And Martin had no marks other than what was on his hand. Ostensibly, then, it can happen rather easily, depending on the matchup. Like this one.
I thought court was about facts not conjecture. Circumstantial evidence has been used to send people to the chair. Facts are established by a preponderance of evidence. Sometimes, they are established by appealing to bias. Since you have been in court, you know that everything that is alleged to have happened is rarely done so with 100%, incontrovertible, video evidence. The fact that Zimmerman was chasing Martin doesn't mean anything to you means that you would have been a great juror for Zimmerman. Maybe if the kid in question had been someone that made you less culturally uncomfortable, you might have been more objective. In any event, you misapprehend my use of the term conjecture because you don't read well.
Obviously I've been in actual courts and you've been where? As I mentioned in another post, I generally value staying out of jail, and I value my professional reputation. So I try not to break the law and wind up in court. Maybe you need to re-evaluate your priorities. Or don't. IDRGAF
- Doesn't really matter; as the a jury person, I would have had trouble with the fact that Zimmerman was doing the shit he was doing that would put any person in reasonable apprehension of harm. You didn't understand that? But the burden of proof goes the other way, and the dearth of witness testimony of who started the altercation is what saved Zimmerman. You didn't understand that either?The only thing anyone saw or heard was the part of Martin getting the better of Zimmerman. And this, too, confused you? I guess you and Bob had the same shit parents. Education matters boy. Try and do better with your kids, if there's time.
Engrish prease.
Oh and it is dangerous to be a thug. An entirely reasonable thing to say. Except Zimmerman didn't know he was a thug. Or did he? How so?
I defend the facts while you talk out your ass Coug.
You defend having your head in your ass dumb dumb.
Why again are the Mike Brown and Treyvon Martin cases comparable? I'm super duper curious to hear that rationalization?
Because they both caught the attention of the White House
Go back 27 pages and that's how this started
Obama picking the wrong horses to ride on his social justice kick
And @SFGbob is selling you a bag of shit. It was this comparison by Bob to which I made reference:
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.
Of course, we know that there were just a few differences, starting with the facts that Brown was dealing with police officers, had tried to wrestle away an officer's weapon, failed to obey and order to stand down, and had earlier in the day committed a robbery. Martin, by comparison, was walking and had a track record of acting tuff and smoking weed!!!!!
I wonder why Bob thinks Brown and Martin are comparable dead black boys?
Dances right on the line and begs to be called a racist, and then loses his shit when someone does.
I don't need to go there.
I made the comparison dumbass because Hondo thought that piece of information was important. The fact someone doesn't have a gun doesn't make them non-violent.
Call me a racist. I don't give a shit. You know nothing about me. Hell you're a liberal, it's got to be killing you that you haven't already done so.
I defend the facts while you talk out your ass Coug.
You defend having your head in your ass dumb dumb.
Why again are the Mike Brown and Treyvon Martin cases comparable? I'm super duper curious to hear that rationalization?
Because they both caught the attention of the White House
Go back 27 pages and that's how this started
Obama picking the wrong horses to ride on his social justice kick
And @SFGbob is selling you a bag of shit. It was this comparison by Bob to which I made reference:
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.
Of course, we know that there were just a few differences, starting with the facts that Brown was dealing with police officers, had tried to wrestle away an officer's weapon, failed to obey and order to stand down, and had earlier in the day committed a robbery. Martin, by comparison, was walking and had a track record of acting tuff and smoking weed!!!!!
I wonder why Bob thinks Brown and Martin are comparable dead black boys?
Dances right on the line and begs to be called a racist, and then loses his shit when someone does.
I don't need to go there.
I made the comparison dumbass because Hondo thought that piece of information was important. The fact someone doesn't have a gun doesn't make them non-violent.
Call me a racist. I don't give a shit. You know nothing about me. Hell you're a liberal, it's got to be killing you that you haven't already done so.
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.
You've said a lot of dumb shit. That one takes the Cake. The Best part is this is after you've been railing on the "rats in the media brainwashing the left". Yet here you are brainwashed.
"Takes the cake" Brutal fucking rebuttal Hondo. You fucking destroyed my claim. Btw, how brainwashed to do you have to be in order to think that the photos I posted weren't Trademark?
For the 14th fucking time. I asked for a link. I did my research. I never once said the ones you posted weren't him (sledog is another matter). I did laugh at you tho how you think his gold teeth somehow make him armed or some shit.
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.
You've said a lot of dumb shit. That one takes the Cake. The Best part is this is after you've been railing on the "rats in the media brainwashing the left". Yet here you are brainwashed.
"Takes the cake" Brutal fucking rebuttal Hondo. You fucking destroyed my claim. Btw, how brainwashed to do you have to be in order to think that the photos I posted weren't Trademark?
For the 14th fucking time. I asked for a link. I did my research. I never once said the ones you posted weren't him (sledog is another matter). I did laugh at you tho how you think his gold teeth somehow make him armed or some shit.
Injuries of some sort are often left during an assault. Not always. They clearly were in a fight as people saw Martin getting the better of him. And Martin had no marks other than what was on his hand. Ostensibly, then, it can happen rather easily, depending on the matchup. Like this one.
I thought court was about facts not conjecture. Circumstantial evidence has been used to send people to the chair. Facts are established by a preponderance of evidence. Sometimes, they are established by appealing to bias. Since you have been in court, you know that everything that is alleged to have happened is rarely done so with 100%, incontrovertible, video evidence. The fact that Zimmerman was chasing Martin doesn't mean anything to you means that you would have been a great juror for Zimmerman. Maybe if the kid in question had been someone that made you less culturally uncomfortable, you might have been more objective. In any event, you misapprehend my use of the term conjecture because you don't read well.
Obviously I've been in actual courts and you've been where? As I mentioned in another post, I generally value staying out of jail, and I value my professional reputation. So I try not to break the law and wind up in court. Maybe you need to re-evaluate your priorities. Or don't. IDRGAF
- Doesn't really matter; as the a jury person, I would have had trouble with the fact that Zimmerman was doing the shit he was doing that would put any person in reasonable apprehension of harm. You didn't understand that? But the burden of proof goes the other way, and the dearth of witness testimony of who started the altercation is what saved Zimmerman. You didn't understand that either?The only thing anyone saw or heard was the part of Martin getting the better of Zimmerman. And this, too, confused you? I guess you and Bob had the same shit parents. Education matters boy. Try and do better with your kids, if there's time.
Engrish prease.
Oh and it is dangerous to be a thug. An entirely reasonable thing to say. Except Zimmerman didn't know he was a thug. Or did he? How so?
As soon as he punched him in the nose I'm sure Zimmerman figured out that Trademark was a thug.
Trayvon's friends knew the path he was on. They warned him that he should stop picking fights before someone shot him in the chest.
Prophetic George Zimmerman's defense team is painting an unflattering picture of Trayvon Martin through his text messages, which it released yesterday—and they contain a haunting warning from a friend: "Boy don’t get one planted in ya chest," the friend writes. The text came three months before Trayvon was shot,
Injuries of some sort are often left during an assault. Not always. They clearly were in a fight as people saw Martin getting the better of him. And Martin had no marks other than what was on his hand. Ostensibly, then, it can happen rather easily, depending on the matchup. Like this one.
I thought court was about facts not conjecture. Circumstantial evidence has been used to send people to the chair. Facts are established by a preponderance of evidence. Sometimes, they are established by appealing to bias. Since you have been in court, you know that everything that is alleged to have happened is rarely done so with 100%, incontrovertible, video evidence. The fact that Zimmerman was chasing Martin doesn't mean anything to you means that you would have been a great juror for Zimmerman. Maybe if the kid in question had been someone that made you less culturally uncomfortable, you might have been more objective. In any event, you misapprehend my use of the term conjecture because you don't read well.
Obviously I've been in actual courts and you've been where? As I mentioned in another post, I generally value staying out of jail, and I value my professional reputation. So I try not to break the law and wind up in court. Maybe you need to re-evaluate your priorities. Or don't. IDRGAF
- Doesn't really matter; as the a jury person, I would have had trouble with the fact that Zimmerman was doing the shit he was doing that would put any person in reasonable apprehension of harm. You didn't understand that? But the burden of proof goes the other way, and the dearth of witness testimony of who started the altercation is what saved Zimmerman. You didn't understand that either?The only thing anyone saw or heard was the part of Martin getting the better of Zimmerman. And this, too, confused you? I guess you and Bob had the same shit parents. Education matters boy. Try and do better with your kids, if there's time.
Engrish prease.
Oh and it is dangerous to be a thug. An entirely reasonable thing to say. Except Zimmerman didn't know he was a thug. Or did he? How so?
Zimmerman had no marks on his hands. Check the evidence photos.
Injuries of some sort are often left during an assault. Not always. They clearly were in a fight as people saw Martin getting the better of him. And Martin had no marks other than what was on his hand. Ostensibly, then, it can happen rather easily, depending on the matchup. Like this one.
I thought court was about facts not conjecture. Circumstantial evidence has been used to send people to the chair. Facts are established by a preponderance of evidence. Sometimes, they are established by appealing to bias. Since you have been in court, you know that everything that is alleged to have happened is rarely done so with 100%, incontrovertible, video evidence. The fact that Zimmerman was chasing Martin doesn't mean anything to you means that you would have been a great juror for Zimmerman. Maybe if the kid in question had been someone that made you less culturally uncomfortable, you might have been more objective. In any event, you misapprehend my use of the term conjecture because you don't read well.
Obviously I've been in actual courts and you've been where? As I mentioned in another post, I generally value staying out of jail, and I value my professional reputation. So I try not to break the law and wind up in court. Maybe you need to re-evaluate your priorities. Or don't. IDRGAF
- Doesn't really matter; as the a jury person, I would have had trouble with the fact that Zimmerman was doing the shit he was doing that would put any person in reasonable apprehension of harm. You didn't understand that? But the burden of proof goes the other way, and the dearth of witness testimony of who started the altercation is what saved Zimmerman. You didn't understand that either?The only thing anyone saw or heard was the part of Martin getting the better of Zimmerman. And this, too, confused you? I guess you and Bob had the same shit parents. Education matters boy. Try and do better with your kids, if there's time.
Engrish prease.
Oh and it is dangerous to be a thug. An entirely reasonable thing to say. Except Zimmerman didn't know he was a thug. Or did he? How so?
As soon as he punched him in the nose I'm sure Zimmerman figured out that Trademark was a thug.
Trayvon's friends knew the path he was on. They warned him that he should stop picking fights before someone shot him in the chest.
Prophetic George Zimmerman's defense team is painting an unflattering picture of Trayvon Martin through his text messages, which it released yesterday—and they contain a haunting warning from a friend: "Boy don’t get one planted in ya chest," the friend writes. The text came three months before Trayvon was shot,
Maybe you and Sled are giant pussies and have never been in an altercation. Punching someone who was threatening you doesn't make you a thug whether the guy could handle himself or, like Zimmerman, could not. I'm starting to see why you two identify with Zimmerman so much.
I defend the facts while you talk out your ass Coug.
You defend having your head in your ass dumb dumb.
Why again are the Mike Brown and Treyvon Martin cases comparable? I'm super duper curious to hear that rationalization?
Because they both caught the attention of the White House
Go back 27 pages and that's how this started
Obama picking the wrong horses to ride on his social justice kick
And @SFGbob is selling you a bag of shit. It was this comparison by Bob to which I made reference:
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.
Of course, we know that there were just a few differences, starting with the facts that Brown was dealing with police officers, had tried to wrestle away an officer's weapon, failed to obey and order to stand down, and had earlier in the day committed a robbery. Martin, by comparison, was walking and had a track record of acting tuff and smoking weed!!!!!
I wonder why Bob thinks Brown and Martin are comparable dead black boys?
Dances right on the line and begs to be called a racist, and then loses his shit when someone does.
I don't need to go there.
I made the comparison dumbass because Hondo thought that piece of information was important. The fact someone doesn't have a gun doesn't make them non-violent.
Call me a racist. I don't give a shit. You know nothing about me. Hell you're a liberal, it's got to be killing you that you haven't already done so.
I defend the facts while you talk out your ass Coug.
You defend having your head in your ass dumb dumb.
Why again are the Mike Brown and Treyvon Martin cases comparable? I'm super duper curious to hear that rationalization?
Because they both caught the attention of the White House
Go back 27 pages and that's how this started
Obama picking the wrong horses to ride on his social justice kick
And @SFGbob is selling you a bag of shit. It was this comparison by Bob to which I made reference:
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.
Of course, we know that there were just a few differences, starting with the facts that Brown was dealing with police officers, had tried to wrestle away an officer's weapon, failed to obey and order to stand down, and had earlier in the day committed a robbery. Martin, by comparison, was walking and had a track record of acting tuff and smoking weed!!!!!
I wonder why Bob thinks Brown and Martin are comparable dead black boys?
Dances right on the line and begs to be called a racist, and then loses his shit when someone does.
I don't need to go there.
I made the comparison dumbass because Hondo thought that piece of information was important. The fact someone doesn't have a gun doesn't make them non-violent.
Call me a racist. I don't give a shit. You know nothing about me. Hell you're a liberal, it's got to be killing you that you haven't already done so.
Call me a liberal. I don't give a shit. You know nothing about me. Hell, you're a giant faggot, and I have a good sense from your writings about your other values too. If the label fits, wear it. IDGAF.
It was important. A grown man, at night, stalks an unarmed kid doing nothing wrong, chases him when he runs away, nobody sees what happens next, and you and your idiot buddies think all that matters is the imbecile responsible for 99.9% of the entire thing turned out to be a shitty fighter and got his ass kicked by a kid doing what most of us would might well have done in the same situation. And you both lack any intellectual flexibility to see any side of this but the one that fits your political agenda, and then whine like a bitch that the matter was politicized by the other guy. It's just too fucking rich.
You are a special kind of candy ass and would do everyone a favor by hanging yourself.
Such fag Bob outed as a liar again. I always wonder why you never post links.... Well I don't really wonder. It's cause you are a liar. And you've obviously never had friends or people you joke around with.
"So you just turning into a lil hoodlum," one friend, whose name has been withheld, texted Trayvon.
Trayvon replied: "No not at all."
At one point, Trayvon joked that the friend was "soft."
"Boy don't get one planted in ya chest," the friend joked back.
Injuries of some sort are often left during an assault. Not always. They clearly were in a fight as people saw Martin getting the better of him. And Martin had no marks other than what was on his hand. Ostensibly, then, it can happen rather easily, depending on the matchup. Like this one.
I thought court was about facts not conjecture. Circumstantial evidence has been used to send people to the chair. Facts are established by a preponderance of evidence. Sometimes, they are established by appealing to bias. Since you have been in court, you know that everything that is alleged to have happened is rarely done so with 100%, incontrovertible, video evidence. The fact that Zimmerman was chasing Martin doesn't mean anything to you means that you would have been a great juror for Zimmerman. Maybe if the kid in question had been someone that made you less culturally uncomfortable, you might have been more objective. In any event, you misapprehend my use of the term conjecture because you don't read well.
Obviously I've been in actual courts and you've been where? As I mentioned in another post, I generally value staying out of jail, and I value my professional reputation. So I try not to break the law and wind up in court. Maybe you need to re-evaluate your priorities. Or don't. IDRGAF
- Doesn't really matter; as the a jury person, I would have had trouble with the fact that Zimmerman was doing the shit he was doing that would put any person in reasonable apprehension of harm. You didn't understand that? But the burden of proof goes the other way, and the dearth of witness testimony of who started the altercation is what saved Zimmerman. You didn't understand that either?The only thing anyone saw or heard was the part of Martin getting the better of Zimmerman. And this, too, confused you? I guess you and Bob had the same shit parents. Education matters boy. Try and do better with your kids, if there's time.
Engrish prease.
Oh and it is dangerous to be a thug. An entirely reasonable thing to say. Except Zimmerman didn't know he was a thug. Or did he? How so?
As soon as he punched him in the nose I'm sure Zimmerman figured out that Trademark was a thug.
Trayvon's friends knew the path he was on. They warned him that he should stop picking fights before someone shot him in the chest.
Prophetic George Zimmerman's defense team is painting an unflattering picture of Trayvon Martin through his text messages, which it released yesterday—and they contain a haunting warning from a friend: "Boy don’t get one planted in ya chest," the friend writes. The text came three months before Trayvon was shot,
Maybe you and Sled are giant pussies and have never been in an altercation. Punching someone who was threatening you doesn't make you a thug whether the guy could handle himself or, like Zimmerman, could not. I'm starting to see why you two identify with Zimmerman so much.
Sad.
I love how Coug plays both sides of the fence. We can't really know what happened, be he "knows" Zimmerman was threatening Trademark.
Comments
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.
Of course, we know that there were just a few differences, starting with the facts that Brown was dealing with police officers, had tried to wrestle away an officer's weapon, failed to obey and order to stand down, and had earlier in the day committed a robbery. Martin, by comparison, was walking and had a track record of acting tuff and smoking weed!!!!!
I wonder why Bob thinks Brown and Martin are comparable dead black boys?
Dances right on the line and begs to be called a racist, and then loses his shit when someone does.
I don't need to go there.
Fuck it's like talking to a deaf monkey.
- What kind of evidence would necessarily be on a dead person that would establish which person first physically attacked another? Nobody saw that part; we all know that. Thanks for the report on wet water. We do know that Zimmerman was a shitty fighter. Should we then be surprised to learn that Martin didn't absorb a punch? How does this establish that Zimmerman didn't swing at him and miss? Or that he didn't lunge at him and cause Martin to defend himself (well)? Or that Martin didn't reasonably defend himself when he saw this grown man running after him? Huh?
- Doesn't really matter; as the a jury person, I would have had trouble with the fact that Zimmerman was doing the shit he was doing that would put any person in reasonable apprehension of harm. But the burden of proof goes the other way, and the dearth of witness testimony of who started the altercation is what saved Zimmerman. The only thing anyone saw or heard was the part of Martin getting the better of Zimmerman.
- The content of the jury matters. Zimmerman was in a good place to have this happen.
- Are you able to track this ok?
Injuries of some sort are often left during an assault.
I thought court was about facts not conjecture.
Obviously I've been in actual courts and you've been where?
- Doesn't really matter; as the a jury person, I would have had trouble with the fact that Zimmerman was doing the shit he was doing that would put any person in reasonable apprehension of harm. But the burden of proof goes the other way, and the dearth of witness testimony of who started the altercation is what saved Zimmerman. The only thing anyone saw or heard was the part of Martin getting the better of Zimmerman.
Engrish prease.
Oh and it is dangerous to be a thug.
Call me a racist. I don't give a shit. You know nothing about me. Hell you're a liberal, it's got to be killing you that you haven't already done so.
You’ve shown what you are.
Trayvon's friends knew the path he was on. They warned him that he should stop picking fights before someone shot him in the chest.
Prophetic
George Zimmerman's defense team is painting an unflattering picture of Trayvon Martin through his text messages, which it released yesterday—and they contain a haunting warning from a friend: "Boy don’t get one planted in ya chest," the friend writes. The text came three months before Trayvon was shot,
Sad.
It was important. A grown man, at night, stalks an unarmed kid doing nothing wrong, chases him when he runs away, nobody sees what happens next, and you and your idiot buddies think all that matters is the imbecile responsible for 99.9% of the entire thing turned out to be a shitty fighter and got his ass kicked by a kid doing what most of us would might well have done in the same situation. And you both lack any intellectual flexibility to see any side of this but the one that fits your political agenda, and then whine like a bitch that the matter was politicized by the other guy. It's just too fucking rich.
You are a special kind of candy ass and would do everyone a favor by hanging yourself.
"So you just turning into a lil hoodlum," one friend, whose name has been withheld, texted Trayvon.
Trayvon replied: "No not at all."
At one point, Trayvon joked that the friend was "soft."
"Boy don't get one planted in ya chest," the friend joked back.
https://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/in-trayvon-martins-text-messages-talk-of-marijuana-fights-and-guns/2122811
Also later on they talk about the gold teeth.