George Zimmerman: Homeless, Jobless, Has PTSD. But no regrets!

[Asclepias]

Why would a guy heading back to his car start a confrontation?

It seems more likely a guy who was ALREADY HOME and had to go out seeking the guy following him would be the one to start the confrontation.

The only persons word we have on that is Z's. I dont believe shit he says, especially that he was suddenly heading back to his car. TM may have already been home but wanted to safe guard that home against some retard stalking him.

That is so much of a stretch its comical. The location of the altercation, as well as the time of zimmerman's call to the police and the statements of zimmerman's girlfriend give the timeline.

But just keep making crap up. its comical and sad at the same time.

What is a stretch is that you actually believe that Z was heading back to his car suddenly. You really think the guy did an about face after going against what the dispatcher said? You cant be that naive and dumb at the same time. Do keep developing the story the way it makes you feel good. Why not? Z did it.

 

[Faun]

Why would a guy heading back to his car start a confrontation?

It seems more likely a guy who was ALREADY HOME and had to go out seeking the guy following him would be the one to start the confrontation.

For all anyone knows, Zimmerman attempted to apprehend Martin until police arrived. For all anyone knows, Zimmerman brandished his firearm to intimidate Martin. The point is, no one knows except for Zimmerman, so we actually don't know if Martin's actions were justified or not, just like we don't know if Zimmerman's actions were justified or not.

And if thats all you got, then basically you are hoping and praying that some of this may be true, when ALL of the other evidence, even without zimmerman's testimony points to Martin going back toward zimmerman AFTER zimmerman had lost him, and AFTER he was safely home, and starting a confrontation that ended with martin pummelling zimmerman, and zimmerman shooting martin in self defense.

There is nothing to hope or pray for ... it's over. Try as hard as you might, there is no proof as to who initiated the confrontation, so there is no lucid claim as to what was or was not justifiable.

 

[martybegan]

For all anyone knows, Zimmerman attempted to apprehend Martin until police arrived. For all anyone knows, Zimmerman brandished his firearm to intimidate Martin. The point is, no one knows except for Zimmerman, so we actually don't know if Martin's actions were justified or not, just like we don't know if Zimmerman's actions were justified or not.

And if thats all you got, then basically you are hoping and praying that some of this may be true, when ALL of the other evidence, even without zimmerman's testimony points to Martin going back toward zimmerman AFTER zimmerman had lost him, and AFTER he was safely home, and starting a confrontation that ended with martin pummelling zimmerman, and zimmerman shooting martin in self defense.

There is nothing to hope or pray for ... it's over. Try as hard as you might, there is no proof as to who initiated the confrontation, so there is no lucid claim as to what was or was not justifiable.

There is the ruling of the court, and the evidence presented. Your claims have far less backing, and are thus relegated to the dustbin of crackpot theories worthy of the best troofer, birther, and moongate conspiracy wackjobs.

 

[dannyboys]

Since we don't know who actually initiated the physical confrontation nor do we know if Martin was provoked, we'll never know if that's true or not.

Why would a guy heading back to his car start a confrontation?

It seems more likely a guy who was ALREADY HOME and had to go out seeking the guy following him would be the one to start the confrontation.

The only persons word we have on that is Z's. I dont believe shit he says, especially that he was suddenly heading back to his car. TM may have already been home but wanted to safe guard that home against some retard stalking him.

So you are agreeing that 'T' was basically safe but you think if 'T' had gone inside and locked the door that the "retard" would kick the door in and attack 'T' and the kid in the house ? Pull your head out of your ass fool. Not even you are that stupid.
And no one else is stupid enough to contemplate such a dumb grasping at any straw you can invent.
'T' had been around long enough to know why George was checking to see where 'T' was going. He had seen George and figured he could beat the shit out of the fat little Hispanic and that's what he attempted to do. 'T' was too stupid to 'axe' himself first whether the little fat Hispanic might have a gun.

 

[Asclepias]

And if thats all you got, then basically you are hoping and praying that some of this may be true, when ALL of the other evidence, even without zimmerman's testimony points to Martin going back toward zimmerman AFTER zimmerman had lost him, and AFTER he was safely home, and starting a confrontation that ended with martin pummelling zimmerman, and zimmerman shooting martin in self defense.

There is nothing to hope or pray for ... it's over. Try as hard as you might, there is no proof as to who initiated the confrontation, so there is no lucid claim as to what was or was not justifiable.

There is the ruling of the court, and the evidence presented. Your claims have far less backing, and are thus relegated to the dustbin of crackpot theories worthy of the best troofer, birther, and moongate conspiracy wackjobs.

We already know how biased the court was so my claims actually have far more backing. I know you wish they were crackpot though. You cant relegate anything but your own washed out theories that dont make sense.

 

[Asclepias]

Why would a guy heading back to his car start a confrontation?

It seems more likely a guy who was ALREADY HOME and had to go out seeking the guy following him would be the one to start the confrontation.

The only persons word we have on that is Z's. I dont believe shit he says, especially that he was suddenly heading back to his car. TM may have already been home but wanted to safe guard that home against some retard stalking him.

So you are agreeing that 'T' was basically safe but you think if 'T' had gone inside and locked the door that the "retard" would kick the door in and attack 'T' and the kid in the house ? Pull your head out of your ass fool. Not even you are that stupid.
And no one else is stupid enough to contemplate such a dumb grasping at any straw you can invent.
'T' had been around long enough to know why George was checking to see where 'T' was going. He had seen George and figured he could beat the shit out of the fat little Hispanic and that's what he attempted to do. 'T' was too stupid to 'axe' himself first whether the little fat Hispanic might have a gun.

You seem to be a little slow but that is a side affect of being a cave ape. How is having a potential nut case stalking you and in the vicinity of your home safe? TM went to make sure the nut case was not in the area and was attacked by Z. Z, luckily for him, was able to convince a jury that mostly was eager to free him. Anyone with any sense understands you dont let people hang around your home stalking you.

 

[Faun]

And if thats all you got, then basically you are hoping and praying that some of this may be true, when ALL of the other evidence, even without zimmerman's testimony points to Martin going back toward zimmerman AFTER zimmerman had lost him, and AFTER he was safely home, and starting a confrontation that ended with martin pummelling zimmerman, and zimmerman shooting martin in self defense.

There is nothing to hope or pray for ... it's over. Try as hard as you might, there is no proof as to who initiated the confrontation, so there is no lucid claim as to what was or was not justifiable.

There is the ruling of the court, and the evidence presented. Your claims have far less backing, and are thus relegated to the dustbin of crackpot theories worthy of the best troofer, birther, and moongate conspiracy wackjobs.

Don't be ridiculous. The court ruling bears no evidence whatsoever as to who initiated the physical confrontation. You have no proof to back your claim that Martin's assault wasn't justified.

 

[PredFan]

.....and the left wing butthurt rages on!

 

[martybegan]

There is nothing to hope or pray for ... it's over. Try as hard as you might, there is no proof as to who initiated the confrontation, so there is no lucid claim as to what was or was not justifiable.

There is the ruling of the court, and the evidence presented. Your claims have far less backing, and are thus relegated to the dustbin of crackpot theories worthy of the best troofer, birther, and moongate conspiracy wackjobs.

Don't be ridiculous. The court ruling bears no evidence whatsoever as to who initiated the physical confrontation. You have no proof to back your claim that Martin's assault wasn't justified.

The ruling of the court is the best thing we have. It found the confrontation was started by Martin. If Zimmerman would have started it self defense would not apply.

You Lose.

 

[Asclepias]

There is the ruling of the court, and the evidence presented. Your claims have far less backing, and are thus relegated to the dustbin of crackpot theories worthy of the best troofer, birther, and moongate conspiracy wackjobs.

Don't be ridiculous. The court ruling bears no evidence whatsoever as to who initiated the physical confrontation. You have no proof to back your claim that Martin's assault wasn't justified.

The ruling of the court is the best thing we have. It found the confrontation was started by Martin. If Zimmerman would have started it self defense would not apply.

You Lose.

Funny but I don't remember hearing TM's side of the story. All we have to go on is Z's rendition. Thats how the ruling of the court came to believe TM started it. He has proven he is full of shite so the question is why would anyone believe him?

 

[Faun]

There is the ruling of the court, and the evidence presented. Your claims have far less backing, and are thus relegated to the dustbin of crackpot theories worthy of the best troofer, birther, and moongate conspiracy wackjobs.

Don't be ridiculous. The court ruling bears no evidence whatsoever as to who initiated the physical confrontation. You have no proof to back your claim that Martin's assault wasn't justified.

The ruling of the court is the best thing we have. It found the confrontation was started by Martin. If Zimmerman would have started it self defense would not apply.

You Lose.

Oh, what did I lose? Show me where the court found the confrontation was started by Martin?

This should be good ...

 

[martybegan]

Don't be ridiculous. The court ruling bears no evidence whatsoever as to who initiated the physical confrontation. You have no proof to back your claim that Martin's assault wasn't justified.

The ruling of the court is the best thing we have. It found the confrontation was started by Martin. If Zimmerman would have started it self defense would not apply.

You Lose.

Oh, what did I lose? Show me where the court found the confrontation was started by Martin?

This should be good ...

They had to. If Zimmerman had started the confrontation self defense would not have applied. He would have been using deadly force in furtherance of an Assault HE started.

 

[Katzndogz]

Oh goody retry the case with imaginary evidence!

 

[PredFan]

Don't be ridiculous. The court ruling bears no evidence whatsoever as to who initiated the physical confrontation. You have no proof to back your claim that Martin's assault wasn't justified.

The ruling of the court is the best thing we have. It found the confrontation was started by Martin. If Zimmerman would have started it self defense would not apply.

You Lose.

Funny but I don't remember hearing TM's side of the story. All we have to go on is Z's rendition. Thats how the ruling of the court came to believe TM started it. He has proven he is full of shite so the question is why would anyone believe him?

Well the evidence and the witness testimony also supported GZ. And so far it appears he told the truth about everything. Don't know what planet you are living on but here on earth, he's innocent.

 

[Faun]

The ruling of the court is the best thing we have. It found the confrontation was started by Martin. If Zimmerman would have started it self defense would not apply.

You Lose.

Oh, what did I lose? Show me where the court found the confrontation was started by Martin?

This should be good ...

They had to. If Zimmerman had started the confrontation self defense would not have applied. He would have been using deadly force in furtherance of an Assault HE started.

Of course they had to and of course they didn't. That doesn't mean it Zimmerman didn't start the altercation. It only means the state couldn't prove it, which speaks to what I said when I pointed out there is no proof who started it.

But you're taking it one step beyond that by claiming the court ruling found the confrontation was started by Martin. So I'm still waiting for you to show that ......

 

[martybegan]

Oh, what did I lose? Show me where the court found the confrontation was started by Martin?

This should be good ...

They had to. If Zimmerman had started the confrontation self defense would not have applied. He would have been using deadly force in furtherance of an Assault HE started.

Of course they had to and of course they didn't. That doesn't mean it Zimmerman didn't start the altercation. It only means the state couldn't prove it, which speaks to what I said when I pointed out there is no proof who started it.

But you're taking it one step beyond that by claiming the court ruling found the confrontation was started by Martin. So I'm still waiting for you to show that ......

The jury ruled it by finding him not guilty. Self defense is an affirmative defense, if they had evidence that he started the altercation, they should have convicted him, and would have convicted him.

All the evidence points to Martin starting the physical confrontation. Again, you lose.

 

[Faun]

The ruling of the court is the best thing we have. It found the confrontation was started by Martin. If Zimmerman would have started it self defense would not apply.

You Lose.

Funny but I don't remember hearing TM's side of the story. All we have to go on is Z's rendition. Thats how the ruling of the court came to believe TM started it. He has proven he is full of shite so the question is why would anyone believe him?

Well the evidence and the witness testimony also supported GZ. And so far it appears he told the truth about everything. Don't know what planet you are living on but here on earth, he's innocent.

If Zimmerman told the truth about everything, then how do we have Zimmerman claiming Martin never touched the gun but we have his friend testifying that Zimmerman told him he had to pry the gun from Martin?

 

[Faun]

They had to. If Zimmerman had started the confrontation self defense would not have applied. He would have been using deadly force in furtherance of an Assault HE started.

Of course they had to and of course they didn't. That doesn't mean it Zimmerman didn't start the altercation. It only means the state couldn't prove it, which speaks to what I said when I pointed out there is no proof who started it.

But you're taking it one step beyond that by claiming the court ruling found the confrontation was started by Martin. So I'm still waiting for you to show that ......

The jury ruled it by finding him not guilty. Self defense is an affirmative defense, if they had evidence that he started the altercation, they should have convicted him, and would have convicted him.

All the evidence points to Martin starting the physical confrontation. Again, you lose.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I still don't lose since you're making that up out of whole cloth. The jury would have ruled exactly as they did had it not been proven who started the altercation, which is in fact, is what actually happened.

As you pointed out, the jury needed evidence that Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation to convict him and that didn't exist. That doesn't mean it didn't happen that way. All that means is that the only living witness to that event was the defendant. So to claim Zimmerman's actions were or were not justifiable is based on your imagination.

 

[martybegan]

Of course they had to and of course they didn't. That doesn't mean it Zimmerman didn't start the altercation. It only means the state couldn't prove it, which speaks to what I said when I pointed out there is no proof who started it.

But you're taking it one step beyond that by claiming the court ruling found the confrontation was started by Martin. So I'm still waiting for you to show that ......

The jury ruled it by finding him not guilty. Self defense is an affirmative defense, if they had evidence that he started the altercation, they should have convicted him, and would have convicted him.

All the evidence points to Martin starting the physical confrontation. Again, you lose.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I still don't lose since you're making that up out of whole cloth. The jury would have ruled exactly as they did had it not been proven who started the altercation, which is in fact, is what actually happened.

As you pointed out, the jury needed evidence that Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation to convict him and that didn't exist. That doesn't mean it didn't happen that way. All that means is that the only living witness to that event was the defendant. So to claim Zimmerman's actions were or were not justifiable is based on your imagination.

All the other evidence backed up Zimmerman's statements, none of it makes sense in your scenario.

Keep losing.

 

[Faun]

They had to. If Zimmerman had started the confrontation self defense would not have applied. He would have been using deadly force in furtherance of an Assault HE started.

Of course they had to and of course they didn't. That doesn't mean it Zimmerman didn't start the altercation. It only means the state couldn't prove it, which speaks to what I said when I pointed out there is no proof who started it.

But you're taking it one step beyond that by claiming the court ruling found the confrontation was started by Martin. So I'm still waiting for you to show that ......

The jury ruled it by finding him not guilty. Self defense is an affirmative defense, if they had evidence that he started the altercation, they should have convicted him, and would have convicted him.

All the evidence points to Martin starting the physical confrontation. Again, you lose.

By the way, what's "all the evidence" showing Martin started the physical confrontation? Here's I'll even spot you one piece of evidence ...

1. ___Zimmerman says so____

2. _______________________