(07-22-2013 01:25 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 01:19 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 01:08 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 01:02 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Creating reasonable doubt is easy.

Especially when, you know, the evidence supports the defendant. Hell it was so bad that they tried to charge him with multiple lower offenses *at the end of the trial* just to find something to stick.

Quote:Is there a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman acted in self defense?? Of course.

There is a lot more evidence of Martin jumping Z and getting on top than there is of any other scenario.

Could Z have murdered him in cold blood? Sure we don't 100% know that but where is the evidence of it?

Quote:That does not mean however that the event took place 100% the way Zimmerman said it did.

It also does mean *it did not happen 100% that way*...

Quote:Zimmerman himself had three different versions of what happened.

Actually his stories are remarkably consistent from someone who (1) did not memorize a story and (2) had been through a traumatic event.

The story he gave police, right after, was very consistent with the fact at trial.

Quote:Which one do you believe?

I believe he followed Trayvon after the 911 operator said "Whats he doing" (or words to that effect). I believe he stopped when the 911 operator said "we don't need you to do that" as evidenced by the fact he said ok and stopped breathing heavily.

I believe Martin had ample opportunity to get away from the "creepy ass cracka" following him but decided to confront him. I believe Martin sucker punched him in the nose knocking Z back and then ended up on top throwing punches.

I believe that at that point Z believed Martin was going for his Gun and he shot him.

I believe everything you believe except for the part about Martin throwing punches and reaching for his gun. There is no evidence to support that.

I believe that Martin probably did hit him. He was standing his ground against the thug Zimmerman.

(07-22-2013 01:26 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 01:19 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I believe everything you believe except for the part about Martin throwing punches and reaching for his gun. There is no evidence to support that.

There is a witness who say the taller man in the dar sweater on top throwing punches... What the hell else do you need? DO the cuts *plural* on his hands five any indication?

So if Z was not underneath martin while he throw punched what do you think happened?

I think that Martin was standing his ground against the thug Zimmerman. Zimmerman needed a good ass kicking. He got one. Unfortunately, the thug had a gun and not a pack of Skittles and an Iced Tea.

(07-22-2013 01:32 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 01:25 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 01:19 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 01:08 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 01:02 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Creating reasonable doubt is easy.

Especially when, you know, the evidence supports the defendant. Hell it was so bad that they tried to charge him with multiple lower offenses *at the end of the trial* just to find something to stick.

Quote:Is there a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman acted in self defense?? Of course.

There is a lot more evidence of Martin jumping Z and getting on top than there is of any other scenario.

Could Z have murdered him in cold blood? Sure we don't 100% know that but where is the evidence of it?

Quote:That does not mean however that the event took place 100% the way Zimmerman said it did.

It also does mean *it did not happen 100% that way*...

Quote:Zimmerman himself had three different versions of what happened.

Actually his stories are remarkably consistent from someone who (1) did not memorize a story and (2) had been through a traumatic event.

The story he gave police, right after, was very consistent with the fact at trial.

Quote:Which one do you believe?

I believe he followed Trayvon after the 911 operator said "Whats he doing" (or words to that effect). I believe he stopped when the 911 operator said "we don't need you to do that" as evidenced by the fact he said ok and stopped breathing heavily.

I believe Martin had ample opportunity to get away from the "creepy ass cracka" following him but decided to confront him. I believe Martin sucker punched him in the nose knocking Z back and then ended up on top throwing punches.

I believe that at that point Z believed Martin was going for his Gun and he shot him.

I believe everything you believe except for the part about Martin throwing punches and reaching for his gun. There is no evidence to support that.

I believe that Martin probably did hit him. He was standing his ground against the thug Zimmerman.

Not real bright are you?

(07-22-2013 01:33 PM)RobertN Wrote:  I think.

I've identified the problem.

(07-22-2013 01:29 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 01:26 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 01:19 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I believe everything you believe except for the part about Martin throwing punches and reaching for his gun. There is no evidence to support that.

There is a witness who say the taller man in the dar sweater on top throwing punches... What the hell else do you need? DO the cuts *plural* on his hands five any indication?

So if Z was not underneath martin while he throw punched what do you think happened?

Wrong again

http://www.newshounds.us/fox_news_wrongl...n_06292013

Sorry... He was swinging his arms toweds the guy on the bottom... The lighter skinned guy, and had multiple abrasions on his knuckles...

You know what that means..

(07-22-2013 01:35 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 01:33 PM)RobertN Wrote:  I think.

I've identified the problem.

So you are saying theat there is no way that Martin was standing his ground against the thug Zimmerman? Seems to me that YOU are the one with problem with thinking.

(07-22-2013 01:40 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 01:35 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 01:33 PM)RobertN Wrote:  I think.

I've identified the problem.

So you are saying theat there is no way that Martin was standing his ground against the thug Zimmerman? Seems to me that YOU are the one with problem with thinking.

Circle the part where I said any such thing.

I don't know what the hell happened, Robs. Neither does anybody else. That's why the jury acquitted.

Oh, and the "thug" pulled a family out of an overturned vehicle last night, Robs.

(07-22-2013 01:33 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 01:26 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 01:19 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I believe everything you believe except for the part about Martin throwing punches and reaching for his gun. There is no evidence to support that.

There is a witness who say the taller man in the dar sweater on top throwing punches... What the hell else do you need? DO the cuts *plural* on his hands five any indication?

So if Z was not underneath martin while he throw punched what do you think happened?

I think that Martin was standing his ground against the thug Zimmerman. Zimmerman needed a good ass kicking. He got one. Unfortunately, the thug had a gun and not a pack of Skittles and an Iced Tea.

Lol, you ask if I'm very bright, yet you, Mr. Knows Everything, call Zimmerman a thug.

"In early April 2010, an anonymous letter to the NAACP, which was signed "A Concerned Zimmerman Family Member," said Zimmerman had been one of the few to take any action to protest the 2010 beating of Sherman Ware, a black homeless man, by the son of a Sanford police officer. Zimmerman distributed fliers in the black community trying to get others involved too, and helped organize a January 8, 2011, Sanford City Hall community forum to protest the incident."


And Martin was just a boy with Skittles and Iced Tea (it was actually fruit juice).

"Martin had been suspended from school at the time of his death. He had been suspended twice before. One suspension was for tardiness and truancy. Another suspension in October 2011 was for graffiti, when Martin was observed by a security camera in a restricted area of the school marking up a door. When he was later searched by a Miami-Dade School Police Department officer, looking for the graffiti marker, the officer found a dozen pieces of women's jewelry and a watch in his backpack, which Martin said a friend had given to him. A screwdriver was also found, which was described by the school police investigator as a burglary tool. The jewelry was impounded and given to the police.[29] Martin's third suspension involved a marijuana pipe and an empty bag containing marijuana residue."

Apparently, "Stand your ground" only applies to Zimmerman.

Probably because he is the one who is alive and not dead like Trayvon.

(07-22-2013 01:56 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Apparently, "Stand your ground" only applies to Zimmerman.

Probably because he is the one who is alive and not dead like Trayvon.

Yeah probably.........................

Had Zimmerman not had a gun, we wouldn't know who either of these two guys are, and Zimmerman stood a real good chance of losing his life. Is that ok with you? Should he have let Martin continue beating him? They were both wrong, they both made a mistake, and one guy lost his life because of it. You can twist, spin, alter, and edit as much as you want, but Zimmerman acted in self defense and there's not a damn thing that the liberals can do about it except to piss and moan, and it's not getting yall anywhere.

(07-22-2013 01:56 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Apparently, "Stand your ground" only applies to Zimmerman.

You realize "stand your ground" was not argued by anyone on either side, right?

(07-22-2013 02:02 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 01:56 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Apparently, "Stand your ground" only applies to Zimmerman.

You realize "stand your ground" was not argued by anyone on either side, right?

Yep, it was self defense and a jury of his peers, agreed upon by the Prosecution, plainly said "We find the defendant Not Guilty".

End of story.

(07-22-2013 01:56 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Apparently, "Stand your ground" only applies to Zimmerman.

Probably because he is the one who is alive and not dead like Trayvon.

Did I miss a stand your ground case?

(07-22-2013 12:08 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 12:06 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 12:04 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 12:00 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Even if that is the case now, there once was a time when white people could kill black people and suffer no consequences.

Oh wait. That is still happening today.

So what was your point again?

That you, Reverend Al?

The only people who've declared open season on young black men are other young black men.

Are you suggesting that this is somehow connected to the fact that they are black?

I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

Why don't you do some research yourself. You might not make such ill-informed opinions known.

From 1980 through 2008, the white on white murder rate was 84% and is pretty damned close to the black on black murder rate of 93%. Murders happen locally...mostly within neighborhoods. And most neighborhoods are fairly segregated.

In addition, during that time period the incidents of murders by strangers were actually more white vs. white than black vs. black!

Perhaps you shouldn't watch so much fox news?

See page 13 here.

(07-22-2013 03:43 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 12:08 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 12:06 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 12:04 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 12:00 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Even if that is the case now, there once was a time when white people could kill black people and suffer no consequences.

Oh wait. That is still happening today.

So what was your point again?

That you, Reverend Al?

The only people who've declared open season on young black men are other young black men.

Are you suggesting that this is somehow connected to the fact that they are black?

I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

Why don't you do some research yourself. You might not make such ill-informed opinions known.

From 1980 through 2008, the white on white murder rate was 84% and is pretty damned close to the black on black murder rate of 93%. Murders happen locally...mostly within neighborhoods. And most neighborhoods are fairly segregated.

In addition, during that time period the incidents of murders by strangers were actually more white vs. white than black vs. black!

Perhaps you shouldn't watch so much fox news?

See page 13 here.

1. I don't watch fox news.

2. I'm aware the most murders are committed by someone the victim knew, thus a high likelihood of both assailant and victim being the same race.

What I'm arguing against is the ridiculous assertion that the Zimmerman verdict sends some message that it's okay for white people (or white-Hispanics, if you prefer) to kill black people. Like I said, there is only one demographic killing young black men in large numbers: other young black men.

Is the same true of young white men? Probably, but nobody's arguing otherwise.

(07-22-2013 03:43 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 12:08 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 12:06 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 12:04 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 12:00 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Even if that is the case now, there once was a time when white people could kill black people and suffer no consequences.

Oh wait. That is still happening today.

So what was your point again?

That you, Reverend Al?

The only people who've declared open season on young black men are other young black men.

Are you suggesting that this is somehow connected to the fact that they are black?

I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

Why don't you do some research yourself. You might not make such ill-informed opinions known.

From 1980 through 2008, the white on white murder rate was 84% and is pretty damned close to the black on black murder rate of 93%. Murders happen locally...mostly within neighborhoods. And most neighborhoods are fairly segregated.

In addition, during that time period the incidents of murders by strangers were actually more white vs. white than black vs. black!

Perhaps you shouldn't watch so much fox news?

See page 13 here.

Are you dizzy from spinning this so hard?

Whites constitute what? 65% of the US population? If you include the elusive "White hispanic" (haha), then around 75% or so. While Blacks are around 13% and you want to celebrate that Black on Black numbers were somewhere slightly south of 50% of ALL murders?

C'mon. It's a friggin crisis in the black community and the race hustlers either won't or don't want to even acknowledge that fact. All the while the white libs go along and enable the slaughter to continue. Just give them something more, another handout, another program. No future, no optimism just a sick, cynical "enough" for them to make a sandwich, or put s li'l something in their gas tank.

Why? Because it exposes them as the fraudulent failures that they are.