THIS JUST IN on the Zimmerman case....

[Liability]

I'm of the opinion that Trayvon Martin was within the law if he in fact did attack George Zimmerman. Zimmerman chased after Martin and presented a threat to him. Martin was NOT committing any criminal act when Zimmerman began his pursuit, though as I've explained before I understand based on the evidence why Zimmerman found Martin suspiscious.

there is NO credible evidence that Zimmerman "chased" Martin. There is no credible evidence that he ever represented a "threat" to Trayvon. We don't know for sure what the fuck Trayvon was up to before Zimmerman FOLLOWED (not chased) him.

Thus there is no valid basis to speculate that something done by Trayvon to Zimmerman (if he did do anything to Zimmerman) was "within the law."

Aside from the fact that he killed Martin....

Which means only that Zimmerman may have pulled his gun after he got pounded by Trayvon.

YOU just don't know. I don't claim to know. But I'm not suggesting that we have enough information to "make the call" at present.

 

[Peach]

there is NO credible evidence that Zimmerman "chased" Martin. There is no credible evidence that he ever represented a "threat" to Trayvon. We don't know for sure what the fuck Trayvon was up to before Zimmerman FOLLOWED (not chased) him.

Thus there is no valid basis to speculate that something done by Trayvon to Zimmerman (if he did do anything to Zimmerman) was "within the law."

Aside from the fact that he killed Martin....

Which means only that Zimmerman may have pulled his gun after he got pounded by Trayvon.

YOU just don't know. I don't claim to know. But I'm not suggesting that we have enough information to "make the call" at present.

So we wait for the SA. Where the body was found may matter; it wasn't near Zimmerman's vehicle.

 

[California Girl]

Whoever started the initial fight, forfeits their stand their ground protections, under Florida law.

Even if it's the dead guy?

I'm of the opinion that Trayvon Martin was within the law if he in fact did attack George Zimmerman. Zimmerman chased after Martin and presented a threat to him. That gave Martin Stand Your Ground Protection.

That's what's so nuts about this whole thing.

If those supporting Zimmerman because of Stand Your Ground were REALLY defending Stand Your Ground, then they would also support Martin.

Your opinion and a dime is worth exactly 10 cents. Opinions are meaningless... facts and evidence are the only basis to determine guilt or innocence.

I'm not supporting either individual.... I'm supporting due process over trial by media. It appears, from your 'opinions' that you prefer trial by media.

 

[KissMy]

Martin is from a broken home. Children from broken homes 'nine times more likely to commit crimes'

 

[eots]

Martin is from a broken home. Children from broken homes 'nine times more likely to commit crimes'

One in four children in the U.S. is being raised by a single parent - a percentage that has been on the rise and is higher than other developed countries, according to a report released today

.'We have not built in the kind of national support systems for families and children that other countries have,' he said.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...n-U-S-raised-single-parent.html#ixzz1repSLFWJ

Read more: One in FOUR children in the U.S. are raised by a single parent | Mail Online

 

[Vidi]

Even if it's the dead guy?

I'm of the opinion that Trayvon Martin was within the law if he in fact did attack George Zimmerman. Zimmerman chased after Martin and presented a threat to him. Martin was NOT committing any criminal act when Zimmerman began his pursuit, though as I've explained before I understand based on the evidence why Zimmerman found Martin suspiscious.

there is NO credible evidence that Zimmerman "chased" Martin. There is no credible evidence that he ever represented a "threat" to Trayvon. We don't know for sure what the fuck Trayvon was up to before Zimmerman FOLLOWED (not chased) him.

Thus there is no valid basis to speculate that something done by Trayvon to Zimmerman (if he did do anything to Zimmerman) was "within the law."

The evidence is George Zimmermans own admission in his 911 call. You can deny it all you want but that admission was the ( false ) basis for the claims that Zimmerman was told to end pursuit but didn't, which he clearly did.

You're making the same leaps they made when they claimed he ignored the 911 operator.

 

[Vidi]

Martin is from a broken home. Children from broken homes 'nine times more likely to commit crimes'

So we should shoot every child from a broken home and avoid the whole issue, right?

 

[Katzndogz]

Nothing matters except whether or not Trayvon Martin followed Zimmerman after Zimmerman abandoned his pursuit and attacked him from behind. That is all that matters.

 

[Liability]

I'm of the opinion that Trayvon Martin was within the law if he in fact did attack George Zimmerman. Zimmerman chased after Martin and presented a threat to him. Martin was NOT committing any criminal act when Zimmerman began his pursuit, though as I've explained before I understand based on the evidence why Zimmerman found Martin suspiscious.

there is NO credible evidence that Zimmerman "chased" Martin. There is no credible evidence that he ever represented a "threat" to Trayvon. We don't know for sure what the fuck Trayvon was up to before Zimmerman FOLLOWED (not chased) him.

Thus there is no valid basis to speculate that something done by Trayvon to Zimmerman (if he did do anything to Zimmerman) was "within the law."

The evidence is George Zimmermans own admission in his 911 call. You can deny it all you want but that admission was the ( false ) basis for the claims that Zimmerman was told to end pursuit but didn't, which he clearly did.

You're making the same leaps they made when they claimed he ignored the 911 operator.

It is your recounting that is false.

When he mentioned that he was FOLLOWING the suspicious guy, the 9-1-1 dispatcher (correctly) informed Zimmerman that he did not HAVE to do that. He did not direct him to do or not do anything.

You have managed to point to exactly nothing said by Zimmerman that suggests that Trayvon Martin was "within the law" if he attacked Zimmerman. There was NOTHING said by Zimmerman that supports your hair-brained speculation.

 

[Peach]

there is NO credible evidence that Zimmerman "chased" Martin. There is no credible evidence that he ever represented a "threat" to Trayvon. We don't know for sure what the fuck Trayvon was up to before Zimmerman FOLLOWED (not chased) him.

Thus there is no valid basis to speculate that something done by Trayvon to Zimmerman (if he did do anything to Zimmerman) was "within the law."

The evidence is George Zimmermans own admission in his 911 call. You can deny it all you want but that admission was the ( false ) basis for the claims that Zimmerman was told to end pursuit but didn't, which he clearly did.

You're making the same leaps they made when they claimed he ignored the 911 operator.

It is your recounting that is false.

When he mentioned that he was FOLLOWING the suspicious guy, the 9-1-1 dispatcher (correctly) informed Zimmerman that he did not HAVE to do that. He did not direct him to do or not do anything.

You have managed to point to exactly nothing said by Zimmerman that suggests that Trayvon Martin was "within the law" if he attacked Zimmerman. There was NOTHING said by Zimmerman that supports your hair-brained speculation.

"we don't need to you to do that" actually, a police car was on the way. The distance between the two when Martin was shot may be helpful.

 

[eots]

there is NO credible evidence that Zimmerman "chased" Martin. There is no credible evidence that he ever represented a "threat" to Trayvon. We don't know for sure what the fuck Trayvon was up to before Zimmerman FOLLOWED (not chased) him.

Thus there is no valid basis to speculate that something done by Trayvon to Zimmerman (if he did do anything to Zimmerman) was "within the law."

The evidence is George Zimmermans own admission in his 911 call. You can deny it all you want but that admission was the ( false ) basis for the claims that Zimmerman was told to end pursuit but didn't, which he clearly did.

You're making the same leaps they made when they claimed he ignored the 911 operator.

It is your recounting that is false.

When he mentioned that he was FOLLOWING the suspicious guy, the 9-1-1 dispatcher (correctly) informed Zimmerman that he did not HAVE to do that. He did not direct him to do or not do anything.

You have managed to point to exactly nothing said by Zimmerman that suggests that Trayvon Martin was "within the law" if he attacked Zimmerman. There was NOTHING said by Zimmerman that supports your hair-brained speculation.

It is your recounting that is false.

911 dispatcher:

Are you following him? [2:24]

Zimmerman:

Yeah. [2:25]

911 dispatcher:

OK.

We don’t need you to do that. [2:26]

Zimmerman:

OK. [2:28]

http://phoebe53.wordpress.com/2012/03/26/zimmerman-911-call-transcript-trayvon-martin/

 

[Liability]

The evidence is George Zimmermans own admission in his 911 call. You can deny it all you want but that admission was the ( false ) basis for the claims that Zimmerman was told to end pursuit but didn't, which he clearly did.

You're making the same leaps they made when they claimed he ignored the 911 operator.

It is your recounting that is false.

When he mentioned that he was FOLLOWING the suspicious guy, the 9-1-1 dispatcher (correctly) informed Zimmerman that he did not HAVE to do that. He did not direct him to do or not do anything.

You have managed to point to exactly nothing said by Zimmerman that suggests that Trayvon Martin was "within the law" if he attacked Zimmerman. There was NOTHING said by Zimmerman that supports your hair-brained speculation.

It is your recounting that is false.

911 dispatcher:

Are you following him? [2:24]

Zimmerman:

Yeah. [2:25]

911 dispatcher:

OK.

We don’t need you to do that. [2:26]

Zimmerman:

OK. [2:28]

Zimmerman 911 Call Transcript – Trayvon Martin « Phoebe's Detention Room

You are flatly wrong -- as always. My recounting is established to be 100% accurate. You do not NEED to do that is not a directive to refrain, you fucking asshat.

Or is it your petty mindless bullshit (twoofer-like) quibble that there is a difference between saying you don't "need to" and saying you don't "have to" ??

Dayum, you are one fucking dopey twoofer id-eot.

 

[Si modo]

I'm of the opinion that Trayvon Martin was within the law if he in fact did attack George Zimmerman. Zimmerman chased after Martin and presented a threat to him. Martin was NOT committing any criminal act when Zimmerman began his pursuit, though as I've explained before I understand based on the evidence why Zimmerman found Martin suspiscious.

there is NO credible evidence that Zimmerman "chased" Martin. There is no credible evidence that he ever represented a "threat" to Trayvon. We don't know for sure what the fuck Trayvon was up to before Zimmerman FOLLOWED (not chased) him.

Thus there is no valid basis to speculate that something done by Trayvon to Zimmerman (if he did do anything to Zimmerman) was "within the law."

The evidence is George Zimmermans own admission in his 911 call. You can deny it all you want but that admission was the ( false ) basis for the claims that Zimmerman was told to end pursuit but didn't, which he clearly did.

You're making the same leaps they made when they claimed he ignored the 911 operator.

Even if the 911 operator said, "Do not follow", so what?

 

[eots]

It is your recounting that is false.

When he mentioned that he was FOLLOWING the suspicious guy, the 9-1-1 dispatcher (correctly) informed Zimmerman that he did not HAVE to do that. He did not direct him to do or not do anything.

You have managed to point to exactly nothing said by Zimmerman that suggests that Trayvon Martin was "within the law" if he attacked Zimmerman. There was NOTHING said by Zimmerman that supports your hair-brained speculation.

It is your recounting that is false.

911 dispatcher:

Are you following him? [2:24]

Zimmerman:

Yeah. [2:25]

911 dispatcher:

OK.

We don’t need you to do that. [2:26]

Zimmerman:

OK. [2:28]

Zimmerman 911 Call Transcript – Trayvon Martin « Phoebe's Detention Room

You are flatly wrong -- as always. My recounting is established to be 100% accurate. You do not NEED to do that is not a directive to refrain, you fucking asshat.

Or is it your petty mindless bullshit (twoofer-like) quibble that there is a difference between saying you don't "need to" and saying you don't "have to" ??

Dayum, you are one fucking dopey twoofer id-eot.

indeed.. why do we direct quotes when we have liarability to re-word them for us

 

[Liability]

It is your recounting that is false.

911 dispatcher:

Are you following him? [2:24]

Zimmerman:

Yeah. [2:25]

911 dispatcher:

OK.

We don’t need you to do that. [2:26]

Zimmerman:

OK. [2:28]

Zimmerman 911 Call Transcript – Trayvon Martin « Phoebe's Detention Room

You are flatly wrong -- as always. My recounting is established to be 100% accurate. You do not NEED to do that is not a directive to refrain, you fucking asshat.

Or is it your petty mindless bullshit (twoofer-like) quibble that there is a difference between saying you don't "need to" and saying you don't "have to" ??

Dayum, you are one fucking dopey twoofer id-eot.

indeed.. why do we direct quotes when we have liarability to re-word them for us

Your quote, you fucking idiot, proved only what I had said.

But you probably can't see that because you are blindly hackish.

Twoofers are so used to lying, they can't even imagine accuracy or honesty.

Id-eots, like all twoofers, you should be closely monitored at all times.

 

[eots]

You are flatly wrong -- as always. My recounting is established to be 100% accurate. You do not NEED to do that is not a directive to refrain, you fucking asshat.

Or is it your petty mindless bullshit (twoofer-like) quibble that there is a difference between saying you don't "need to" and saying you don't "have to" ??

Dayum, you are one fucking dopey twoofer id-eot.

indeed.. why do we direct quotes when we have liarability to re-word them for us

Your quote, you fucking idiot, proved only what I had said.

But you probably can't see that because you are blindly hackish.

Twoofers are so used to lying, they can't even imagine accuracy or honesty.

Id-eots, like all twoofers, you should be closely monitored at all times.

blah blah blah blah ?...you misquoted stfu and get over it

 

[koshergrl]

Zimmerman lynch mob meanderings about the alleged events of that night really belong in the conspiracies forum.

 

[eots]

so what does zimmys response of ..OK ...mean in liarability speak ?...this should be intresting

 

[Liability]

indeed.. why do we direct quotes when we have liarability to re-word them for us

Your quote, you fucking idiot, proved only what I had said.

But you probably can't see that because you are blindly hackish.

Twoofers are so used to lying, they can't even imagine accuracy or honesty.

Id-eots, like all twoofers, you should be closely monitored at all times.

blah blah blah blah ?...you misquoted stfu and get over it

If you are referencing the word "have" versus the word "need" you are only underscoring the pettiness of your typically dishonest quibble.

So, by all means, continue to dwell on it.

You'll show me!

 

[eots]

Zimmerman lynch mob meanderings about the alleged events of that night really belong in the conspiracies forum.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exdK7Lirngg]The "Red Herring" Fallacy - YouTube[/ame]