ZIMMERMAN VERDICT IS IN - NOT GUILTY

Post Reply New Topic

You keep jumping and avoiding.

It was you who brought the question about Travyon being a Drug dealer. Well ,here you have more:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=nl

and more

http://theconservativetreehouse.files.w ... ling-2.jpg

You just said that Martin would likely be convicted. And you just said that he jumped Zimmerman a few posts before that. Your opinion of yourself seems a little harsh but I'll let you be the judge.



Depends on the nature of the push and / or grab. Fingers, palms or fists. Maybe he grabbed him by the coat and held him or shook him.



I filtered this for content but didnt find any.

Even if Zimmerman pushed, grabbed, or provoked Trayvon some other way it wouldn't of been okay for him to beat Zimmerman's face in. It wasn't an equal response to whatever Zimmerman was doing if anything.

Are you going to follow that up by asserting that you're made of rubber and I'm composed of glue?

Actually, I said that the case against Martin was stronger than the case against Zimmerman, and I said that the justification given for the shooting was an assault, not the wearing of a hoodie, as GGPV's image suggested. Is your memory/reading comprehension really this terrible, or are you just one of these?



Frankly I'm leaning towards the hole of ass.

Scenario A: An unidentified man chases you through the street at night, confronts you and then assaults you in some way without identifying himself. Either by grabbing you or pushing you. There is going to be a struggle. There is no law against winning in self-defense. People have legally killed others in Florida with just the "threat" of potential violence in front of them. Let alone someone laying hands on them. A jury can sort out the legal ins and outs.

A little odd to say that Zimmerman can kill over a broken nose because he fear worse. But Martin can't even beat on Zimmerman over a grab or grapple from a stranger at night? That's a very strange standard.



Have a nice day sweetpea.

Last edited by simon_says on 21 Jul 2013, 6:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Arrgh! Reverse Psychology! My only weakness.

Couldn't come up with any convincing evidence that you're neither an ass nor an idiot I take it?

Having a meltdown?

You have already been caught posting a blatant falsehood about Trayvon Martin once in this thread (him having a backpack with stolen goods at the night of the incident).
You have also based your assumptions about Trayvon Martin on a conspiracy website discredited by anyone seriously interested in facts.

As a result, you have no credibility, and I will waste no more time arguing with you.

If by "meltdown" you mean sipping a Moscow Mule on the porch while pointing out douche bag behavior on the internet, than yes, I'm having a meltdown. A very relaxing, vodka, lime and ginger beer fueled meltdown. If I get any more melted down, I might have to really lose it and switch to mint juleps and insulting lolcats, then you'll be sorry.

Well, you're right. I was wrong: he was not carrying stolen goods in a backpack the night of the accident. He was carrying stolen goods in a backpack a few months before. I mixed up both events and I accepted it. If I'm wrong with something, I don't have any problem in accepting it.

So prove me wrong now, and I won't have any problem in accepting it.

I don't avoid things.

And Zimmerman shooting Trayvon was an equal response to what Trayvon was doing?

Talk about a double standard. Zimmerman can do no wrong. Trayvon could do no right.

Was there evidence or testimony that indicated otherwise?
Something?
Anything??

You still don't get it lol. This isn't a tit-for-tat. This isn't a "fair" game. Trayvon could have said "Not sure what you want but leave me alone!" and walked away then no one would have seen Trayvon over Zimmerman and Zimmerman would have gone to jail for murder end of story. I haven't seen this thread in a few days and I see your response and it BLOWS my mind that you still haven't pieced the puzzle together. You insist that the sky is green regardless of the obvious facts.

I'm going to play devils advocate here for a second and say that MAYBE Trayvon did tell Zimmerman to go away but Zimmerman still provoked Trayvon. In fear Trayvon could have responded in violence but if you are scared of the guy you would not straddle yourself over the assailant and continuously beat him. You'd hit him knock him down and RUN. The FACT that he was beating Zimmerman says either he was under the influence of something or he is just a rage full person looking to give someone a beating.

Please if you are going to argue a point the least you could do is listen to your response, take into consideration ALL points of view and deliver a debatable point. Whether Zimmerman's response was fair or not is irrelevant. Under the circumstances Zimmerman was in he had reason to fear for his life. The same reason the jury found to create REASONABLE doubt.

So if I were to knock you to the ground and then straddle you while punching you in the face and/or slamming the back of your head into a concrete sidewalk, you'd consider that to be non-lethal force? Shall I provide you with the number of people who are murdered by unarmed assailants every years (hint, it's more than are killed with long guns), or perhaps examples of people who've died after falling or being tripped onto concrete?

yes, it's a childish standard. Martin can't respond with fists if grabbed at night by a stranger. But Zimmerman can kill over a broken nose. Zimmerman can fear worse and escalate, Martin can't.

Most "armchair quarterbacks" have no knowledge or training on what constitutes "deadly force."

ANY BLOW TO THE HEAD OR GENITALS can qualify as an attempt at deadly force because the sub-dermal injuries can be fatal. To a lesser degrees, blows to the center of the chest and to the spine are considered potentially lethal because a hard enough blow to the chest can interrupt the heart's rhythm and a good enough blow to the spine can impose irreparable spinal cord injury.