Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 124,962
- 86,230
Repeating your idiocy doesn't lend it credibility. Just thought you'd like to know that.Asshole, I I don't use that term loosely, If Zimmerman was found not guilty, Martin was implicitly committing a felony.What is obvious is your ignorance of our justice system. The court never reached any such conclusion. They couldn't since Martin wasn't on trial. Zimmerman ws found not guilty because the state couldn't prove his claim of self defense wasn't justified.Don't be an ass. The court obviously concluded that Martin was a criminal, otherwise Zimmerman wouldn't have walked.No matter how much you shake your fist at the sky, Martin was not a criminal. And again, the only criminal was Zimmerman.You stated it as fact in that being with whom the president sided. Changing your position now to it being nothing more than ypur opinion affirms my observation that you were indeed hallucinating.
There was no need to respond to the lack of evidence since the same also applies to who started the physical altercation. And again, the only one with a criminal record was Zimmerman. You can keep repeating Martin was a criminal, but that will never make it so.
Bullshit.
Referencing that I had an opinion based on evidence and eyewitness accounts, does not equate to admitting that I was hallucinating.
Why are you such a liar?
Criminal records do not define who is a criminal. Many criminals do not have criminal records. They have simply not yet been caught and convicted.
Trayvon Martin was witnessed sitting on the chest of a man and beating him while he screamed for help.
Admitting that there is a scenario where that could possibly have NOT a crime is not the same as admitting that that is very likely.
THe far more likely scenario is that is WAS a crime being committed and that is the scenario I base my judgement of Trayvon Martin on.
This has been clear. It is not confusing.
Why are you playing stupid?
Because you, on some level, know that the Truth is not on your side.
And yet you hew to your position.
Obama identified with Trayvon Martin, the criminal based on race.
You supported it when he did.
Now that a conservative is identifying Obama with a criminal based on race, you are outraged.
This is you being a hypocrite.
YOur refusal to deal with my point on this honestly?
THat is you being a troll.
And the fact that your scenario has no evidence to support it is something you have to deal with. It makes your unlikely scenario even more unlikely.
How many ways can you lose the same fucking argument?
Stop being an asshole. Everyone knows what happened.
The state could not prove who initiated the physical confrontation and could not prove Zimmerman's claim of self defense was not justified. Based upon that, the jury followed the courts instructions and found Zimmerman not guilty. Martin was not on trial and lack of evidence is not evidence. Martin was not implicitly guilty of committing a felony.