Trayvon Martin

[Vash02]

Originally Posted by GODMOLLY

Is there other evidence that shows otherwise thats not how it happened? Oh yeah, that is right no. As much as you THINK or have that gut feeling deep down in your stomach that he is guilty, Zimmerman's testimony is basically the only thing that really is "hard" evidence in this case. We will let the jury decide, you arguing with nothing to back you up does nothing but make you seem like a cunt.

As much as you like it or not, you have to prove Zimmerman wrong without reasonable doubt. I have no bias and it irks me how people post reply with no common sense (like your post). Murder cases are not based on opinion, this is not Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.

The man is a proven liar and has a violent criminal record. And you are taking his testimony as fact? You have the word of a liar, who has violently attacked people in the past, claiming that the person he pursued attacked him.

Just because its the only thing we have from someone who was there does not mean it's true.

I suppose you would take the word of Charles Manson saying people attacked him if there was no other witnesses...

[Warborn]

Well, you see, even though Zimmerman has a conviction for violent crime and conspired with his wife to deceive to the court, it is a proven fact that Trayvon Martin was a god damn *** -- excuse me, I mean "delinquent" -- and therefore for the crime of his blackness, his 17-year-old self is no more deserving of our trust than a proven liar and violent criminal.

Originally Posted by GODMOLLY

HEY GUYS I'M A GIRL BY THE WAY DID I TELL YOU I'M A GIRL WELL GUESS WHAT I AM

Thanks for sharing I guess.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Originally Posted by GODMOLLY

PS: I hope that person in your avatar is someone you don't know. Because they look like a straight tranny.

I hate to be the one to tell you, but you've got some bigotry on your face.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Saifoda]

Originally Posted by Vash02

Trayvon attacked Zimmerman? Where did this fact come from? Why of course! Zimmerman himself.
You've either betrayed your own bias in the first sentence or your definition of fact is very loose.

.........So I guess those marks are from Martin defending himself against Zimmerman by...cutting the back of his head with the the ice tea can?

I think it is YOUR definition of "fact" that is very loose.

[Vash02]

Originally Posted by Saifoda

.........So I guess those marks are from Martin defending himself against Zimmerman by...cutting the back of his head with the the ice tea can?

I think it is YOUR definition of "fact" that is very loose.

And the only way for someone to get an injury to the back of the head is to be attacked from behind?
I think you need to get some imagination.
Can you think of a situation where someone defending themselves can inflict an injury to the back of an assailants head?
I can, but I'd like to see your attempts first.

[Warborn]

Originally Posted by Malorn

When all else fails and you have no argument, play the race card!

You and Queen Vagina and all the rest are completely transparent. Suggesting that because Martin was a "thug" or a "delinquent" and therefore it's perfectly reasonable he'd abruptly try to kill Zimmerman with his bare hands one night is language we all understand.

[Vecha]

Originally Posted by Warborn

You and Queen Vagina and all the rest are completely transparent. Suggesting that because Martin was a "thug" or a "delinquent" and therefore it's perfectly reasonable he'd abruptly try to kill Zimmerman with his bare hands one night is language we all understand.

Is it okay if I don't trust Zimmerman because he's a Mexican? I think him being Mexican is more important than his violent past.


(Facetious comment. He isn't actually Mexican. He's a Dirty Peruvian ).

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by Warborn

You and Queen Vagina and all the rest are completely transparent. Suggesting that because Martin was a "thug" or a "delinquent" and therefore it's perfectly reasonable he'd abruptly try to kill Zimmerman with his bare hands one night is language we all understand.

A thug/delinquent doesn't have to be black, it is an attitude and social engine all races use. Trayvon may not have been a criminal, but he certainly wanted to be seen as a tough guy and was making no intention of wanting to be considered a model citizen. Bravado can get young men into trouble really quick, because they don't have the knowledge or experience to fully understand the situation they are in. There is a good chance he would have died within a few years going the road he was traveling.

But you go right ahead and insist we must be racist because we want due process justice and not vigilante knee jerk justice. Nobody reasonable is taking sides on the issue, but when you are that far up Trayvon's ass, it can be hard to tell where everyone else stands.

How is that necrophilia workin for you anyway?

Yeah, I played the necro card.

[Warborn]

Originally Posted by Baneblade

A thug/delinquent doesn't have to be black, it is an attitude and social engine all races use. Trayvon may not have been a criminal, but he certainly wanted to be seen as a tough guy and was making no intention of wanting to be considered a model citizen. Bravado can get young men into trouble really quick, because they don't have the knowledge or experience to fully understand the situation they are in. There is a good chance he would have died within a few years going the road he was traveling.

Have you never seen a teenage/early-20s male in your life? This thread is some serious Poe's Law stuff. Damn. If you think a 17-year-old posturing and posing on the Internet is indicative of him being a thug and his life having a good chance of ending within a few years, then I have some bad news for you and the human race, because we're about to lose 99% of our young male population.

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by Warborn

Have you never seen a teenage/early-20s male in your life? This thread is some serious Poe's Law stuff. Damn. If you think a 17-year-old posturing and posing on the Internet is indicative of him being a thug and his life having a good chance of ending within a few years, then I have some bad news for you and the human race, because we're about to lose 99% of our young male population.

I think you need to spend more time in the real world.

[Saifoda]

Originally Posted by Vash02

And the only way for someone to get an injury to the back of the head is to be attacked from behind?
I think you need to get some imagination.
Can you think of a situation where someone defending themselves can inflict an injury to the back of an assailants head?
I can, but I'd like to see your attempts first.

Dear lord, seriously? Did I ever assert that he was attacked from behind? No. Nobody has. Ever. He received those wounds, in accordance with his story, by having his head slammed against the ground by Martin while he was on top of him. How else could it have happened without being form behind you ask? Well let's see, again he could have used his soda can maybe to reach around and scratch his head, he could have used his nails, or maybe Zimmerman did that to himself to keep his own story straight.

I think you need to stop worrying about who has a greater imagination (try a 2 year old) and start thinking about what facts are available.

[Saifoda]

Here's the point: Zimmerman was not doing anything illegal.

I'm going to assume most of you Martin sob-story lovers out there have no knowledge of what Florida self-defense law actually is, so until you do some research and have actual knowledge, along with the facts on the ground, quit trying to pull on your own heart strings and grow up a bit.

[Saifoda]

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

School me please. I only been in the gun community all my life. Please tell me something I don't fucking know. Cause it would be refreshing.

I'm getting there hold on bud.



EDIT:
For someone who's been in the gun community all your life, apparently you don't have your carry license, because you should know (and this is true of Florida, even with their [classically] liberal gun laws) that in order for a self-defense case (that is to say that the prosecution[Martin] would say that Martin was acting in self-defense) it must be determined that the individual acting in self defense[Martin], even just battery (assuming Zimmerman's weapon was properly concealed) can only legally do so if they did not escalate force. Zimmerman, (if we are to believe his story which witnesses have corroborated) was on neighborhood watch (i.e. doing his "job") and was in all likelihood not acting in any reasonably determinable aggressive manner. Fact: Zimmerman did follow him, however for Martin to pursue his perceived attacker would, again, negate the self-defense prosecution if the threat has been removed (Zimmerman was returning to his vehicle -- again, according to his story, which is what we have to go on here). Furthermore, there is the 21 foot rule. If you are being engaged by an individual with a non-projectile weapon (firearm, bow and arrow, throwing stars, etc...) who is outside of 21 feet, you may not respond (even under Florida's stand your ground law) by escalating force. If it is within 21 feet (again assuming Zimmerman's weapon was properly concealed) you are within your rights to do so ONLY if you have (and I fucking quote): a reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death; THIS INCLUDES (quote done now, btw) the relative disposition of your attacker -- aggressiveness, attitude (acting all drugged up and what not?), stature (physical size, build, etc...) etc.... Martin was bigger and leaner than Zimmerman; the physical disposition will not hold water in a self defense case.



By the way, the whole "I've done this my whole life" argument is really quite weak, especially when you're talking with other people who have been in the gun community their whole lives.

[Saifoda]

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

Every gun owner knows the likelihood of being in front of a jury after firing your gun at a person is high. So it's best to have a story that puts you at imminent threat. Not a story that smells like you instigated shit.

All the prosecutor has to do is show the jury Zimmerman's reenactment of following that kid in his truck, then getting out of his truck and continuing down the same path the kid went.

What you don't get is Zimmerman's story screws Zimmerman. Doesnt help.

I'm not saying I believe Zimmerman is guilty or innocent -- what I was originally saying is that I see WAY too much of this "omg the kid is dead" crap, and nobody is objective about it.

What the jury will have to decide on is was Zimmerman within the capacity of his post in the neighborhood watch to follow Martin, or was he exceeding it. The prosecution will not have a self-defense case for Martin, and if the defense can pull it off I believe the may be able to make the case that Zimmerman was acting in self-defense (which is a proper legal defense for second degree murder charges) against Martin; in Florida, again with the looser gun laws, you are justified in killing for self defense if your aggressor was attempting to kill you or commit a felony against you (in this case it would be a felony level assault and battery most likely or whatever the laws are, haven't looked into it that specifically yet).