All Forums | Penalty Box

Trayvon the innocent do goody colored boy --- BS

...
Participants:
Search model icon
Views: 6457
Posts: 158
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2004
Posts: 9818
Posted: #76
Quote Originally Posted by tiasman:


oh it's definitely a canadian thing.  not that your gov would allow you yoo anyway.  

Care to explain that or are you as uneducated as your statement?

 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2007
Posts: 8158
Posted: #77
wwwwhhhhhhaaaaaaaaa
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Aug, 2005
Posts: 9261
Posted: #78
Quote Originally Posted by Ktrain:


I have to agree with people who say that you seem to have no experience with marijuana. If Martin was stoned at the time then he would be a lot less likely to instigate any type of altercation with Zimmerman. However, if Zimmerman had instigated the issue then I could see Martin taking exception to it. 
 

What I find funny is that as soon as I read that Martin had marijuana in his system, I knew the true believers would start saying that Martin wouldn't have thrown a punch because he was high.

Anyway, you seem to be inferring that I'm suggested that because Martin was stoned he attacked Zimmerman. That is not what I'm saying.

This information is important because:

1. The narrative pushed by the left - he was an innocent teen - is false. Remember when the media was showing that 3+ year old picture of Martin to pretend he was a little kid?

2. It demonstrates Martin is willing to break the law

3. And most importantly, it is another piece of evidence validating Zimmerman's account of what happened. Specifically, this fact proves Zimmerman was nor arbitrarily 'profiling'.

Zimmerman clearly stated one of main reasons for his suspicion of Trayvon.

"This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around looking about. [00:25]"

Not because he was black or wearing a hoodie.

Because his behavior was consistent with someone on drugs.

AND ZIMMERMAN WAS RIGHT.

 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Aug, 2005
Posts: 9261
Posted: #79

 “the lead investigator on the case, Officer Christopher Serino, wrote that Zimmerman could be heard ‘yelling for help as he was being battered by Trayvon Martin.’”

 

 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2004
Posts: 38704
Posted: #80
Quote Originally Posted by coldsnap55:

If I ever feel that paranoid that I need a gun to leave my house I'll buy one.

Must be a Canadian thing.


One person's paranoia is another person's peace of mind.  If you asked a person which was more paranoid or crazy?  1. Carrying a gun for self defense, or 2. Thinking that a plane never crashed into the the Pentagon or that the government masterminded 9/11.  I'm pretty comfortable with my approach on both subjects.  

You already came after me for consistently bringing up the concealed carry subject and the fact that I believe in it.  And I've already explained why that was and said it's your choice if you decide not to carry a gun.....and did so might I add without attacking or making fun of you.  You are starting to get close to breaking our pact of staying out of each other's shit.  

"When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act."
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2004
Posts: 38704
Posted: #81
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:

What I find funny is that as soon as I read that Martin had marijuana in his system, I knew the true believers would start saying that Martin wouldn't have thrown a punch because he was high.

Anyway, you seem to be inferring that I'm suggested that because Martin was stoned he attacked Zimmerman. That is not what I'm saying.

This information is important because:

1. The narrative pushed by the left - he was an innocent teen - is false. Remember when the media was showing that 3+ year old picture of Martin to pretend he was a little kid?

2. It demonstrates Martin is willing to break the law

3. And most importantly, it is another piece of evidence validating Zimmerman's account of what happened. Specifically, this fact proves Zimmerman was nor arbitrarily 'profiling'.

Zimmerman clearly stated one of main reasons for his suspicion of Trayvon.

"This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around looking about. [00:25]"

Not because he was black or wearing a hoodie.

Because his behavior was consistent with someone on drugs.

AND ZIMMERMAN WAS RIGHT.


He may have been right about him being on drugs, but he still (in my opinion) made a huge error in judgment.  He could have easily just taken a DEFENSIVE position where he could observe Martin and wait for the cops to arrive.  He had his phone and he could have called 911 again if need be.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Aug, 2005
Posts: 9261
Posted: #82
Quote Originally Posted by HutchEmAll:


He may have been right about him being on drugs, but he still (in my opinion) made a huge error in judgment.  He could have easily just taken a DEFENSIVE position where he could observe Martin and wait for the cops to arrive.  He had his phone and he could have called 911 again if need be.

I agree in principle hutch.

The real ? is why did Zimmerman get out of the vehicle? He claims it was to find an address and I would assume to observe Martin.

We probably will never know for sure.

But, note that Martin was walking between townhomes that connected two streets. So he would not have been able to observe him from his vehicle.

Check out this map.

 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2009
Posts: 6580
Posted: #83
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:

What I find funny is that as soon as I read that Martin had marijuana in his system, I knew the true believers would start saying that Martin wouldn't have thrown a punch because he was high.

Anyway, you seem to be inferring that I'm suggested that because Martin was stoned he attacked Zimmerman. That is not what I'm saying.

This information is important because:

1. The narrative pushed by the left - he was an innocent teen - is false. Remember when the media was showing that 3+ year old picture of Martin to pretend he was a little kid?

2. It demonstrates Martin is willing to break the law

3. And most importantly, it is another piece of evidence validating Zimmerman's account of what happened. Specifically, this fact proves Zimmerman was nor arbitrarily 'profiling'.

Zimmerman clearly stated one of main reasons for his suspicion of Trayvon.

"This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around looking about. [00:25]"

Not because he was black or wearing a hoodie.

Because his behavior was consistent with someone on drugs.

AND ZIMMERMAN WAS RIGHT.


2. Having weed in his system and correlating that as him willing to break the law is a pretty generalized statement. I think we all break the law on an almost weekly, if not daily basis. Roll through a stop sign lately? Guess what, you just broke the law. Let your dog crap on someone's lawn and pick it up? You just trespassed. It seems pretty petty to me to correlate Martin having weed in his system to his potential for committing future crimes, or even worse, being able to put the thought into Zimmerman's head that his life might be in danger. 

Now if you wanted to argue that Martin had vandalized his school, that would seem more appropriate for that argument. 

I would also love to see the source of your statement that weed produces paranoia in a significant amount of users. 

3. I'm not sure of Zimmerman's background so I am not sure of his education level's or his experience around people that use drugs. But is he qualified to determine if someone looks like they are on drugs? Also, wouldn't the racial slurs that Zimmerman uttered under his breathe while on the phone show some bias in determining whether or not his "judgement" of Martin's behavior was correct or not? I'm willing to bet that when Zimmerman uttered something to the extent of "person" or "fucking person" his mind was already made up as to whether Martin was under the influence of anything, regardless of it being true or not. 

I happen to walk around and look about all the time. Sometimes it happens to be raining when I am doing it. Shit, sometimes I walk in the snow. It doesn't mean that I am on drugs or trying to break into someone's house. I sure as hope someone wouldn't try and have me arrested for it or even better potentially start a fight with my over it. 

Like I said before, I don't believe either party is innocent in this matter. I do think Martin probably took exception to Zimmerman confronting him about his presence in the neighborhood that day. Both parties probably could have avoided the confrontation all together. I'm not sure Zimmerman should be charged with second degree murder. And if he is, he probably won't be convicted for lack of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. 

But he sure as shit isn't innocent in this whole matter. He should pay some kind of price for this. Otherwise the state of Florida is basically saying that if you are losing a fight, it's cool to shoot the other guy. Even if you potentially started the fight. Zimmerman has to pay some kind of price for this. I'm no legal expert so I'm not sure as to what it should be. And please don't lump me in with the Scalabrine's of the world. I'm a white guy that normally doesn't buy into the race hype. But this just seems like common sense. Neither party is innocent, and Martin essentially got the death penalty for his part in this. 
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2004
Posts: 9818
Posted: #84
Quote Originally Posted by HutchEmAll:


One person's paranoia is another person's peace of mind.  If you asked a person which was more paranoid or crazy?  1. Carrying a gun for self defense, or 2. Thinking that a plane never crashed into the the Pentagon or that the government masterminded 9/11.  I'm pretty comfortable with my approach on both subjects.  

You already came after me for consistently bringing up the concealed carry subject and the fact that I believe in it.  And I've already explained why that was and said it's your choice if you decide not to carry a gun.....and did so might I add without attacking or making fun of you.  You are starting to get close to breaking our pact of staying out of each other's shit.  

"When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act."

And once again you try to put words in my mouth.

Just because I want ONE question answered reasonably......"Why won't they show a clip or picture other than the nose of something close to the pentagon?"..........You try to make it sound like I believe every single questionable thing about that day. 

 

I'm not going to turn this thread into that subject the way you felt the need to.......I would expect that kind of thing from BMA.

I understand more now why you feel the need to carry a gun wherever you go.

 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Aug, 2005
Posts: 9261
Posted: #85
'm willing to bet that when Zimmerman uttered something to the extent of "person" or "fucking person"

Zimmerman said no such thing.
The DA admitted this and has it as "fucking punks"
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2006
Posts: 28221
Posted: #86
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:

What I find funny is that as soon as I read that Martin had marijuana in his system, I knew the true believers would start saying that Martin wouldn't have thrown a punch because he was high.

Anyway, you seem to be inferring that I'm suggested that because Martin was stoned he attacked Zimmerman. That is not what I'm saying.

This information is important because:

1. The narrative pushed by the left - he was an innocent teen - is false. Remember when the media was showing that 3+ year old picture of Martin to pretend he was a little kid?

2. It demonstrates Martin is willing to break the law

3. And most importantly, it is another piece of evidence validating Zimmerman's account of what happened. Specifically, this fact proves Zimmerman was nor arbitrarily 'profiling'.

Zimmerman clearly stated one of main reasons for his suspicion of Trayvon.

"This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around looking about. [00:25]"

Not because he was black or wearing a hoodie.

Because his behavior was consistent with someone on drugs.

AND ZIMMERMAN WAS RIGHT.


This fucking featherweight floats into this thread from the political forum where he is in a perpetual 'Obama-bashing' mode, only to come here and support a man who stands over a dead black teen with a smoking gun after he stalked and narrated the pursuit for all hear. What a surprise...

So woefully uneducated are his arguments, he attempted to pin 40 years of economic data which eventually lead to the current downturn on the "Obama economy" in this thread. Then when he was chastised for taking a stance only an simpleton would embrace, he doubled down on it in on the second page. 



Which leaves me none too surprised his current 'argumentation' (if you can even call it such) is in favor of Zimmerman. The quote above is more laughable and I question that I should even waste my time with it.

Now drag your ass out of this thread like a doberman drags its ass across a carpet leaving nothing but a shit stain in its wake (with you, not a metaphor for the doberman, but the shit stain). 
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Aug, 2005
Posts: 9261
Posted: #87
only to come here and support a man who stands over a dead black teen with a smoking gun after he stalked and narrated the pursuit for all hear.

========================


Yeah, that's like totally what happened!@!!!!

So woefully uneducated are his arguments, he attempted to pin 40 years of economic data which eventually lead to the current downturn on the "Obama economy" in this thread.

=========================

Yeah, that's like totally what happened!!!! Seriously, you can't read, which is a you problem.

Which leaves me none too surprised his current 'argumentation' (if you can even call it such) is in favor of Zimmerman. The quote above is more laughable and I question that I should even waste my time with it.

=========================

You aren't intelligent or informed enough to know what an argument actually is. Note that your silly, dipstick "response" is a bunch of name calling, non sequitur's and irrelevancy. But you can't "waste your time" to respond to the topic at hand.

I'm shocked by this development.

Now drag your ass out of this thread

============================

No, that's ok, run away, bozo. You've beclowned yourself enough and as usual.


 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Aug, 2005
Posts: 9261
Posted: #88
What a surprise...

===================

You know what isn't a surprise? You don't even have basic reading comprehension skills and aren't even passingly familiar with the facts in the Zimmerman incident.

But go ahead and make another "funny metaphor" !!!!

Like everyone is laughing because you are so funny.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Aug, 2005
Posts: 9261
Posted: #89
Which leaves me none too surprised his current 'argumentation' (if you can even call it such) is in favor of Zimmerman.

==========================

Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz:

New evidence suggests Trayvon Martin's killer acted in self-defense


But what does he know!? He's not as smart as silly, ignorant, Internet commenter Scalabrine, dammit!!!


 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2010
Posts: 8161
Posted: #90
After reading some of these comments I find it disturbing that common sense has left America for good. I also see Hutch is doing his usual nothing is ever proven BS. The same BS he espouses as an atheist. But I won't go there. Oops I guess I did. At any rate. People want to make this situation very complicated it's not. 
I was one of the leaders of the LA Guardian Angels. If you don't know about them. Google Guardian Angels or Curtis Sliwa I'm not going to get into that now. My point is I lived in that world for 7 years. I knew guys like GZ up close and personal. I have been involved in many citizens arrest situations, went to court and got mutants convicted of their crime. 
Here is the rule #1 fellas. Property or people have to be in danger in order for you to engage plain and simple no gray area. Unless you witness a crime being committed or come upon a scene of a crime that has been committed there is nothing you can do. This is why the 911 operator told GZ to not follow the kid. THERE WAS NO CRIME BEING COMMITTED. Being Black and walking in your own neighborhood with a bag of skittles and a bottle of ice tea isn't a crime. If you confront, inhibit, or otherwise initiate any type of confrontation you will be held accountable for the end result. Now that was the California law back in the 80's and 90's when there were more people being killed in LA than in Beirut on a daily basis. I'm not an expert on Florida law but I can assure you from what I read Fact #1 Stand your ground law doesn't apply to this situation. Fact #2 GZ had no probable cause to approach Martin for any reason. It doesn't matter what he "thought" was happening. Your "thoughts" don't apply when it comes to the law. The bottom line is, was Martin committing a crime when GZ approached him? The answer is NO. Did Martin commit a crime before GZ approached him. The answer is NO. Using those facts the only conclusion to this case is that GZ is guilty of Manslaughter at the very least or 2nd Degree murder if the prosecution can prove their case that that was his intention by approaching Martin when there was no reason to do so and after being told not to do that. 
The ignorant racist can hide behind the "well we don't know" crap but I have outlined the circumstances for a citizen to approach another citizen because I did this for over 7 years many times and was trained on what conditions needed to be met in order to execute a legal arrest or even to question a private citizen. In conclusion since GZ wasn't a hired security officer but a neighborhood watchmen he had no legal authority whatsoever to approach Martin under this circumstance. 
Let me also address those who keep talking saying  "Martin was the aggressor". You can go to any urban city in America and I guarantee you if you approach some young teenager be they black, white, asian, or hispanic and they fear for their life. They're going to fight like their life is on the line. That's the way our kids in America are raised now so don't act like just because Martin is black suddenly he's supposed to say "yes sir" you can kick my ass and I will just accept it. It doesn't work like that in reality especially with urban kids. Martin had a right to defend himself when an unknown adult male is following him for no reason and accosted him illegally. GZ is guilty under the law and it would be a travesty in this country to say it's ok for adult males to chase kids down in our streets and shoot them because they "thought" he was doing something illegal. I hope this brings some clarity to the conversation pertaining to what the pre-conditions are to approach a private citizen in this country as a non peace officer. GZ didn't meet that standard and is guilty of the result of his actions for not heeding this basic tenet. 
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Aug, 2005
Posts: 9261
Posted: #91
Fact #2 GZ had no probable cause to approach Martin for any reason. It doesn't matter what he "thought" was happening. Your "thoughts" don't apply when it comes to the law. The bottom line is, was Martin committing a crime when GZ approached him? The answer is NO. Did Martin commit a crime before GZ approached him. The answer is NO. Using those facts the only conclusion to this case is that GZ is guilty of Manslaughter at the very least or 2nd Degree murder 

===============================

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong & wrong.

As a matter of law, it is wholly irrelevant whether or not Martin was committing a crime.

Getting out of the car, in itself, is not provoking the use of force. The prosecution would have to show Zimmerman started the fight, not merely that he was in a place he has a right to be.

Even so, Zimmerman would have had legal protection even if he initiated contact if the counter-force were deadly or threatened serious bodily harm and there was no way to escape. There would be a fact issue if, as some reports say, Zimmerman were on the ground being beaten.


Further, your post assumes Zimmerman "approached" Martin which is an assertion which has no evidence what so ever.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Aug, 2005
Posts: 9261
Posted: #92
GZ is guilty under the law and it would be a travesty in this country to say it's ok for adult males to chase kids down in our streets and shoot them because they "thought" he was doing something illegal. 

=========================

There is no piece of evidence, anywhere, that Zimmerman "chased" Martin down.


 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2006
Posts: 28221
Posted: #93
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:

Which leaves me none too surprised his current 'argumentation' (if you can even call it such) is in favor of Zimmerman.

==========================

Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz:

New evidence suggests Trayvon Martin's killer acted in self-defense


But what does he know!? He's not as smart as silly, ignorant, Internet commenter Scalabrine, dammit!!!



Oh child. Don't make me publicly embarrass you more than you already have been in the political forums. It would be like putting a 
Number 2. pencil in an industrial sized wood chipper. When all was said and done, a gentle wind would blow you as sawdust into the nearest sewer grate. 

Now that Alan Dershowitz has said that the charges against Zimmerman should be dropped, we all should agree shouldn't 
we. He is an almighty, omniscient Harvard law professor as you said. Maybe you should put some chapstick on your lips while he takes his argyle socks off so you could pucker up and kiss them. I'll pass.  

He is also a man of great scruples and most certainly couldn't be a racist...when the price is right. He, of course, was part of OJ's legal team at one time. It was the "Trial of the Century" alright...in lawyer's fees. 

Poor Alan has highlighted the sensational aspects of the case everyone already knew mimicking what the media already was in the process of (the very same 'left-wing' networks you claim have a narrative for Trayvon who now, surprise, are rallying around Zimmerman). We knew these facts so well, they were in the amended police report (to anyone smart enough to actually read it) before any of this gained national attention. As you can see his article shows a 'bruised and battered' Zimmerman. I guess 'bruised and battered' is scratches on one's head and face to Alan, since he likely has never been in the remotest form of physical confrontation in his life. Then he shows a big in-your-face close-up of the back of Zim's head without the wounds cleaned so the dried blood looks all the more gruesome and repulsive to the reader. TRAYVON MUST HAVE STARTED THIS RIGHT? On this very site, a trauma surgeon has explained that wounds to the scalp bleed extensively with even a slight cut. God forbid a kid fight for his life, and get a lick in on the nose, against an armed adult who stalked him on a rainy night!

None of this matters though because this isn't about how Zimmerman looked. I have never denied there was a physical confrontation in which poor Alan conveniently overlooks it could have been Trayvon fighting for his life against an armed pursuer.

What the article overlooks is one key piece of evidence that the trial will hinge on after the 911 call which Zimmerman narrated his stalking and eventual pursuit with. That is the testimony of the one witness who heard it all, Trayvon's girlfriend (the Sanford police not surprisingly did NOT interview her before they released Zimmerman). It clearly explains the most vital part of the story that refutes Zimmerman under which he loses his "stand your ground" exemption, the one in which he allegedly asserts he was ambushed by Trayvon (or simply that Trayvon started the fight). It is clear this testimony says it was the other way around which makes perfect sense, since of course, Zim narrated his stalking for the world to hear before the 911 call ended. 

The case will hinge on her testimony.

Of course, Dershowtiz is right on one thing. The trumped up second-degree murder charge will never proven since even I believe Zimmerman didn't act with outright malice in the shooting, the legal requirement to prove it. It should be a manslaughter charge. No matter, it would be Zimmerman's word against Trayvon's girlfriend's word and we all know how that would end. Zimmerman's eternal silencing the other main witness will serve him well.

So mark my words today. Zimmerman will get off. And the extensive civil unrest and protest, that everyone is acting like they are a psychic in predicting when even a child could see it, will occur. 

Run along before it gets worse kid.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2008
Posts: 9021
Posted: #94
Scabies is such a bitter young boy, must suck to be him.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Aug, 2005
Posts: 9261
Posted: #95
What the article overlooks is one key piece of evidence that the trial will hinge on after the 911 call which Zimmerman narrated his stalking 


Yeah, that's like totally what happened!@!!!!

God forbid a kid fight for his life, and get a lick in on the nose, against an armed adult who stalked him on a rainy night!

God forbid you become remotely familiar with the idea there is no evidence what so ever that what you are asserting happened, actually happened.

Trayvon's girlfriend (the Sanford police not surprisingly did NOT interview her before they released Zimmerman).

Er, the Stanford police asked for the pin to Martin's cellphone and guess what his dad did? Referred the request to the attorney's. Guess what they did? Did nothing for a few weeks.

By the way goofball, how do the police "interview" a girl in another state that even Martin's dad did not know existed before releasing Zimmerman?

Duh.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Aug, 2005
Posts: 9261
Posted: #96
The case will hinge on her testimony.


I bet it will!!!

Oh child. Don't make me publicly embarrass you more than you already have been in the political forums.

I'm not the one typing made up BS on the Internet, clown.

You are.

explains the most vital part of the story that refutes Zimmerman under which he loses his "stand your ground" exemption

This case has nothing to do with "stand your ground"

Your ignorance serves you well. 

 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2010
Posts: 8161
Posted: #97
14daroad-

Are you as stupid as you sound or do you just have your head up your ass. 
 
"As a matter of law, it is wholly irrelevant whether or not Martin was committing a crime"

It's incredulous that you can even make a statement like that. Perhaps as you wish you think we're in Nazi Germany in the 1930's where private citizens could accost people simply based on the suspicion on whether they were Jewish or not. But in this country 2012 most states if not all have specific laws pertaining to what you as a private citizen can and can't do in situations like this. 


"Further, your post assumes Zimmerman "approached" Martin which is an assertion which has no evidence what so ever."

Again this post stretches the bounds of believe. What do you think? GZ approached him to talk about the upcoming NCAA basketball tournament. GZ was following Martin and now according to you he just getting out of his car to go home or there is no evidence to show that GZ approached Martin. Yeah that's right the kid just died by some mysterious means. You sir are losing all credibility with each post.   

"Even so, Zimmerman would have had legal protection even if he initiated contact if the counter-force were deadly or threatened serious bodily harm and there was no way to escape. There would be a fact issue if, as some reports say, Zimmerman were on the ground being beaten".
  
You were born 60 years too late. Your calling would have been in Propaganda department for the Nazis. I'm not sure what law youthink you're going by here. If anyone can claim Stand Your Ground it would have been Martin. You seem to forget that we're talking about a Juvenile here. Despite reports from people like you, Martin was much smaller than GZ as it appears that GZ out weighed Martin by at least 50 pounds. Also most experts, not all have said and I agree because I have listened to the tapes that it was Martin screaming for help. If you listen you know who that it is. Most of the witnesses have said it was Martin. Naturally we have people like you saying we don't know or you can't tell. I'm sorry this is an epic fail. Ray Charles could tell who was crying for help but apparently like I said earlier common sense has left this country long ago. Your entire argument is based on very thin speculation and an even thinner legal ground.
I explained my background concerning these matters. I know the law because we had to know the law in order to perform the function that we did in the Guardian Angels. We met with the police, we organized neighborhood watch groups. I have been down this road many times. Have you? I seriously doubt it. So with that said I'm telling you that GZ is guilty of at the very least Manslaughter and with a little help 2nd degree murder. A child died that night. A child that was simply going home from the store with a bag of skittles and ice tea. No matter what you or others say. To paint this kid as some criminal thug just because he was black, smoked pot or any other dispersion you want to throw on him doesn't have anything  to do with what happened that night. GZ was responsible for whatever took place once he started stalking an unarmed child who was committing a crime. What part of this don't you get? Oh i get it we don't have the proof and evidence. You sound like one of those damn atheists! 
Except one thing you choose to ignore we have an unarmed child who was killed for no reason at all by a man with a checkered past who was known to be overzealous.

 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Aug, 2005
Posts: 9261
Posted: #98
It is clear this testimony says it was the other way around which makes perfect sense, since of course, Zim narrated his stalking for the world to hear before the 911 call ended. 

========================

To believe your idiotic version of events, you must believe that:

1. Zimmerman decided to call 9-11 before (or while) "stalking" Martin and picking a fight with him.

2. Martin, despite running away from Zimmerman out of fear (Remember the 9-11 call shows Z lost sight of him), never heads toward the town home where he was saying.

3. Martin, despite being "stalked by an armed man" never once mentions a gun, never once yells "he has a gun" never decides to call 9-11 himself, never once decides to try and defuse the situation.

Note: there is no evidence anywhere, at all, Martin knew Zimmerman was armed.




 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Aug, 2005
Posts: 9261
Posted: #99
It's incredulous that you can even make a statement like that.


Um, really? then why don't you point me to any statute in any state in America demonstrating what you said is true.

Just one. I anxiously await the results.

 
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Aug, 2005
Posts: 9261
Posted: #100
Despite reports from people like you, Martin was much smaller than GZ as it appears that GZ out weighed Martin by at least 50 pounds



Oh really?

Care to explain this then?

, witnesses described to the 911 dispatcher what resulted: the neighborhood watch coordinator, 5 foot 9 and 170 pounds, and the visitor, 6 foot 1 and 150, wrestling on the ground.

============
Everything you "know" about this case is a lie.
All Forums | Penalty Box
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Our Team
Brand
Testimonials
Betting Guides
Sportsbook Reviews
Betting News
Podcasts
Responsible Gambling
Betting Sites
US Betting Sites
Canada Betting Sites
Canada Casinos
Best Betting Apps
Contests
Streak Survivor
King of Covers
Ultimate Race
Office Pools
The Covers community has
810,221
lifetime members worldwide
Covers 30 Years Logo Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
21+
Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER
Help Privacy Terms of Service Cookies Sitemap Forum
Covers is verified safe by:
Evalon Logo Logo GPWA Logo GDPR logo Logo GeoTrust logo Logo PCI DSS logo Logo
Copyright © 1995 - 2026 CS Media Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.