Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Actually, I do believe on the census you can identify yourself as hispanic white or hispanic non-white.Hispanics aren't white?
In a reasonable demographic sense they are not white.
Of course reasonableness only suits you when it suits you.
And he didn't even call 911 this time, he called the non-emergency number. This whole thing stinks.Records show Zimmerman, 28, called the cops 46 times between January 2011 and Feb. 26.
George Zimmerman 911 calls: George Zimmerman, the man who shot Trayvon Martin, called 911 dozens of times - Orlando Sentinel
He's a Nut Case. If given the opportunity, He will Kill Again.
In your stupid fucktrard opinion.
In a sane world, people would not be second guessing the local investigators in a case where the shot person had very likely initiated the altercation by attacking the soon-to-be shooter by hitting them from behind to the back of the head.
You dont know jack shit, you just WANT Zimmerman to be a racist for shooting a black man.
Period.
You are free to insist that Zimmerman qualifies as a white man and I'll continue to insist that by any reasonable person standard, he does not.
And if that's the case we're at an impasse and we'll have to agree to disagree. But just know that I think less of you intellectually if that's the case.
And, that's why there is opposing counsel to object.Still, if you have twelve jurors who think the defendant is "a freak," it doesn't make that defendant's chances a whole lot better. There's a lot of things that go on subconsciously with juries that, unfortunately, have little to do with the facts of the case.Zimmerman does sound a bit of a freak, but being a freak is not against the law nor is it dispositive of much of anything here.
He was walking in a place he had every right to be.None. But his behavior was suspicious and Zimmerman had every right to watch the guy wandering around in the rain snooping into homes, from his perspective.
What proof do you have Martin was "snooping into people's homes" ?
I didn't hear zimmerman say Martin was "snooping into homes".Zimmermans report. Do you think Zimmerman called 911 to alert them to a situation where he was about to kill a man in cold blood?
Well, that says it all right there.I do not think Trayvon was involved in committing a crime, but it would not surprise me. Tow fo the most common situations I have read of where criminals case places for robbery is to visit on some legal pretext like being a customer or going to a party at the place targetted, or to walk around in inclimate weather because no one typically will bother to stay out in the rain and watch people doing things.
So did Trayvon.But in any case, Zimmerman had the right to walk anywhere he damend well wanted
Then the attack you claim happened would have been justified.Trayvon could have thought that Zimmerman was about to rob him, who knows?
No, I've already addressed this. Keep up.But you WANT this to be about white-on-black racism because libtrards revel in that shit.
Objecting to subconscious influences?And, that's why there is opposing counsel to object.Still, if you have twelve jurors who think the defendant is "a freak," it doesn't make that defendant's chances a whole lot better. There's a lot of things that go on subconsciously with juries that, unfortunately, have little to do with the facts of the case.Zimmerman does sound a bit of a freak, but being a freak is not against the law nor is it dispositive of much of anything here.
Funny how that works.
And, I would sustain the objections because in MY country, we don't convict folks because we don't like them.
I want the truth to come out. And it certainly should in the case of the killing of an unarmed minor.
Sad that you don't care about the truth.
Objecting to subconscious influences?And, that's why there is opposing counsel to object.Still, if you have twelve jurors who think the defendant is "a freak," it doesn't make that defendant's chances a whole lot better. There's a lot of things that go on subconsciously with juries that, unfortunately, have little to do with the facts of the case.
Funny how that works.
And, I would sustain the objections because in MY country, we don't convict folks because we don't like them.
Good luck with that.
I was defending your boy Zimmerman, shithead.Objecting to subconscious influences?And, that's why there is opposing counsel to object.
Funny how that works.
And, I would sustain the objections because in MY country, we don't convict folks because we don't like them.
Good luck with that.
How in the hell is one supposed to defend oneself against accusations of having subconscious influences?
Dear Lord, save us from the libtards.
He was walking in a place he had every right to be.None. But his behavior was suspicious and Zimmerman had every right to watch the guy wandering around in the rain snooping into homes, from his perspective.
What proof do you have Martin was "snooping into people's homes" ?
I didn't hear zimmerman say Martin was "snooping into homes".
Well, that says it all right there.
Then the attack you claim happened would have been justified.Trayvon could have thought that Zimmerman was about to rob him, who knows?
No, I've already addressed this. Keep up.But you WANT this to be about white-on-black racism because libtrards revel in that shit.
Why do you presume that criminal's have the right to deny law abiding citizens the right to go wherever the fuck they want to?
Where did I say I object or would object to that?Objecting to subconscious influences?And, that's why there is opposing counsel to object.Still, if you have twelve jurors who think the defendant is "a freak," it doesn't make that defendant's chances a whole lot better. There's a lot of things that go on subconsciously with juries that, unfortunately, have little to do with the facts of the case.
Funny how that works.
And, I would sustain the objections because in MY country, we don't convict folks because we don't like them.
Good luck with that.
I was defending your boy Zimmerman, shithead.Objecting to subconscious influences?
Good luck with that.
How in the hell is one supposed to defend oneself against accusations of having subconscious influences?
Dear Lord, save us from the libtards.
Damn, you're stupid.
Objecting to subconscious influences?And, that's why there is opposing counsel to object.
Funny how that works.
And, I would sustain the objections because in MY country, we don't convict folks because we don't like them.
Good luck with that.
How in the hell is one supposed to defend oneself against accusations of having subconscious influences?
Dear Lord, save us from the libtards.
So to what would you object, opposing counsel?Where did I say I object or would object to that?Objecting to subconscious influences?And, that's why there is opposing counsel to object.
Funny how that works.
And, I would sustain the objections because in MY country, we don't convict folks because we don't like them.
Good luck with that.
I would object to evidence that he is or was a freak.
Let's see if you can figure out the difference.
Because in MY country, it is not against the law to be unlikeable.
The irony is that you think it is against the law to follow someone.Like zimmerman deciding he had the right to deny this law-abiding young man the right to go where he wanted to?True, but it will make it that much more difficult to raise the self-defense argument if the follower ends up shooting the followed.I'm pretty sure it is completely legal to get out of one's car and follow someone anywhere in the US, regardless of what a 9/11 dispatcher advises.
Why?
Why do you presume that criminal's have the right to deny law abiding citizens the right to go wherever the fuck they want to?
The irony, it burns ....
I won't even try to explain what I was talking about, as it's clear the derp is too strong for me to pierce with you.I dont care who you were talking about. Subconscience influences are not provable in a court of law, and it is nothing more than modern voodoo to try.
Libtard?Yeah, because anyone that disagrees with a libtard must be stupid, lol.
So to what would you object, opposing counsel?Where did I say I object or would object to that?Objecting to subconscious influences?
Good luck with that.
I would object to evidence that he is or was a freak.
Let's see if you can figure out the difference.
Because in MY country, it is not against the law to be unlikeable.
No, you are a loon. Zimmerman had been knocked to the ground from behind by that 17 year old 'child', was bleeding from the back of the head and his face.
How bad does a person have to beat another before deadly force is justifiable?
I doubt you will answer, but for the record....
Why do you presume that criminal's have the right to deny law abiding citizens the right to go wherever the fuck they want to?
Like zimmerman deciding he had the right to deny this law-abiding young man the right to go where he wanted to?
The irony, it burns ....
