Why Is FOXNEWS Giving The Trayvon Martin Story Little To No Coverage?

[bigrebnc1775]

This brother has caught on to the media's BS.
Trayvon Martin's Fan Club and Media are a joke - YouTube

This man spoke my mind. I starting typing out almost the exact same thing yesterday. 100% agreement, brother.

Can I get an Amen!

That is one smart guy.... whatever his skin color just happens to be. I'm particularly keen on his solution to the fucking asshole racists from both sides. I'd pay to see that!

Amen

 

[taichiliberal]

The six "youths" told the 78 year old man they were beating it was for "Trayvon", and you want to discuss "willfully ignorant"?
The "facts" are unknown. A terrible tragedy occurred. One person is dead. One person will have to live with the taking of a human life. Now here are some questions for you.
If you see a suspicious person, is it okay to investigate (from a distance)?
If you see a person acting different, is it okay to investigate (could be a medical problem)?
Do you have a right to beat someone because they "seem" to be following you?
How long of a distance should you walk before you confront someone walking the same direction as you?
How many times should you allow yourself to be hit, if you have the means to defend yourself?
At what point do you decide someone is hurting you (after they punch you/after they put you on the ground and don't stop/after they use concrete or pavement to pound your head/after your brains are spilling out of your broken skull)?
Do you have the right to defend yourself against someone that is smaller than you (some of the most wicked fighters are fairly small)?

Everyone, EVERYONE never wants to see an incident like this again (if it was a woman that had been raped, she would be told she should have known better than to dress that way, or be walking alone in that neighborhood). Instead of calling for a public lynching (something too many black community organizers are doing), we should be discussing how this could be avoided in the future.
If you are in an area where there is crime, you do not dress or act like a burglar.
If you are part of a neighborhood watch, pair up, and have reflective clothing that identifies you as something other than a thug.
You don't beat someone for following you.
You don't shoot someone that is walking "on the sidewalk".
If you choose to speak to someone on the street, do it respectfully, and with purpose.
Understand that people are terrified; they do not want to be victims of crime and will do a lot to avoid having their families hurt. Be considerate, and do not try to intimidate others.

In short, if either of these people had acted differently, this tradgedy would not have happened. Let's use it to educate and reduce the risk of it happening again.

Notice folks, that when this neocon/teabagger gasbag was presented with DOCUMENTED FACTS that DISPROVED his assertion, he doesn't have the intellectual honesty or courage to acknowledge such. Instead, we're barraged with a multitude of suppostion and conjecture that wholly ignores the true FACTS of the case at hand, and instead just regurgitates ALREADY DISPROVEN assertions regarding the Zimmerman/Martin case.

FACT: audio documentation clearly has Zimmerman stating that Martin is RUNNING AWAY from him (after initially inspecting the car to see who was following him), and when the dispatch asks if Zimmerman is following, he replies "yes". The dispatch, after PREVIOUSLY confirming that the police are on their way, says "we don't need you to do that", to which Zimmerman confirms "okay".

Yet, Zimmerman DID CONTINUE TO PURSUE Martin, who's only "crime" was being black, wearing a hoodie IN THE RAIN, and coming under Zimmerman's warped consideration. You don't yell, "self defense" after you initiate a confrontation, that's like yelling foul after you start a fight and lose.

Later, physical evidence documented by police surveillance cameras DOES NOT SUPPORT OR CORROBORATE the tale Zimmerman's lawyer relates that Martin bloodied his nose and bashed his skull on the ground via attacking him.

The chief of detectives didn't buy Zimmerman's story based on the evidence, but was prevented from arresting him via interference by the chief of police and the State attorney, BOTH of whom suddenly recuse themselves from the case.

Naa-unnh bunky, all this hoop-la for what looks like manslaughter stinks...and what's at stake is what appears to be a petty, local cover-up that's inadvertently tied to the "Stand Your Ground" law.

I wonder if Trayvon had killed Zimmerman would dopes like YOU be railing for his defense? Anyway, do continue to blow neocon/teabagger smoke on this one.

All that (attack the questioner), and yet you didn't manage to answer one question, let alone all of them.

Calls for public lynching? You have not waited for the evidence. You have tried and convicted a man on what the press has now admitted was doctored, censored and misleading to stir up people. Yes, what we have on display here folks is a person that is not concerned about lynchings, but only that he is on the "right" side of the rope.

You're "questions" are an attempt to dodge the true FACTS involving Zimmerman and Martin..... a bunch of "what if's". Well bunky, we're dealing in WHAT DID happen with the EVIDENCE....EVIDENCE that warranted an arrest. And just who in the hell is calling for a "lynching"? YOU need to stick to the facts, and stop trying to make your speculations, suppostions and conjecture as substitutes.

 

[logical4u]

Notice folks, that when this neocon/teabagger gasbag was presented with DOCUMENTED FACTS that DISPROVED his assertion, he doesn't have the intellectual honesty or courage to acknowledge such. Instead, we're barraged with a multitude of suppostion and conjecture that wholly ignores the true FACTS of the case at hand, and instead just regurgitates ALREADY DISPROVEN assertions regarding the Zimmerman/Martin case.

FACT: audio documentation clearly has Zimmerman stating that Martin is RUNNING AWAY from him (after initially inspecting the car to see who was following him), and when the dispatch asks if Zimmerman is following, he replies "yes". The dispatch, after PREVIOUSLY confirming that the police are on their way, says "we don't need you to do that", to which Zimmerman confirms "okay".

Yet, Zimmerman DID CONTINUE TO PURSUE Martin, who's only "crime" was being black, wearing a hoodie IN THE RAIN, and coming under Zimmerman's warped consideration. You don't yell, "self defense" after you initiate a confrontation, that's like yelling foul after you start a fight and lose.

Later, physical evidence documented by police surveillance cameras DOES NOT SUPPORT OR CORROBORATE the tale Zimmerman's lawyer relates that Martin bloodied his nose and bashed his skull on the ground via attacking him.

The chief of detectives didn't buy Zimmerman's story based on the evidence, but was prevented from arresting him via interference by the chief of police and the State attorney, BOTH of whom suddenly recuse themselves from the case.

Naa-unnh bunky, all this hoop-la for what looks like manslaughter stinks...and what's at stake is what appears to be a petty, local cover-up that's inadvertently tied to the "Stand Your Ground" law.

I wonder if Trayvon had killed Zimmerman would dopes like YOU be railing for his defense? Anyway, do continue to blow neocon/teabagger smoke on this one.

All that (attack the questioner), and yet you didn't manage to answer one question, let alone all of them.

Calls for public lynching? You have not waited for the evidence. You have tried and convicted a man on what the press has now admitted was doctored, censored and misleading to stir up people. Yes, what we have on display here folks is a person that is not concerned about lynchings, but only that he is on the "right" side of the rope.

You're "questions" are an attempt to dodge the true FACTS involving Zimmerman and Martin..... a bunch of "what if's". Well bunky, we're dealing in WHAT DID happen with the EVIDENCE....EVIDENCE that warranted an arrest. And just who in the hell is calling for a "lynching"? YOU need to stick to the facts, and stop trying to make your speculations, suppostions and conjecture as substitutes.

These questions were directly related to the situation, let me make it even more simple, for you.

If you see a suspicious person, is it okay to investigate (from a distance)? (Zimmerman)

If you see a person acting different, is it okay to investigate (could be a medical problem)?(Zimmerman)

Do you have a right to beat someone because they "seem" to be following you? (Martin)

How long of a distance should you walk before you confront someone walking the same direction as you? (Martin)

How many times should you allow yourself to be hit, if you have the means to defend yourself?(Zimmerman)

At what point do you decide someone is hurting you (after they punch you/after they put you on the ground and don't stop/after they use concrete or pavement to pound your head/after your brains are spilling out of your broken skull)?(Zimmerman)

Do you have the right to defend yourself against someone that is smaller than you (some of the most wicked fighters are fairly small)? (Zimmerman)

According to the evidence, the above did happen. Now if you don't want to answer the questions, directly, feel free to answer them determined by what race the person is. Personally, I do think there is a difference, but with your anger, I will not be able to comprehend how you think. Why don't you answer the questions and make it clear.

 

[old navy]

Most "evidence" that is known by the public (us), has been put out by the media. The same media who have done a terrible if not dishonest job of covering this matter. I still look forward to word from the special prosecutor or grand jury who will hopefully help in our search for justice.

 

[taichiliberal]

Notice folks, that when this neocon/teabagger gasbag was presented with DOCUMENTED FACTS that DISPROVED his assertion, he doesn't have the intellectual honesty or courage to acknowledge such. Instead, we're barraged with a multitude of suppostion and conjecture that wholly ignores the true FACTS of the case at hand, and instead just regurgitates ALREADY DISPROVEN assertions regarding the Zimmerman/Martin case.

FACT: audio documentation clearly has Zimmerman stating that Martin is RUNNING AWAY from him (after initially inspecting the car to see who was following him), and when the dispatch asks if Zimmerman is following, he replies "yes". The dispatch, after PREVIOUSLY confirming that the police are on their way, says "we don't need you to do that", to which Zimmerman confirms "okay".

I love how every liberal takes the dispatch "we do not need you to do that" and changes it into you have to stop following him.

Police dispatch will say "we do not need you to do that" on every aspect that is going above and beyond the call of duty for an American citizen.

They would say the same thing if it would of been someone calling and saying a guy is shooting people want me to try and stop them "we do not need you to do that".

This is a response that is given to alleviate the consequences against the police if something should happen to the caller or the person they are talking to.

Example if George Zimmerman had been told to follow a drug dealer and that said drug dealer turned around and killed George then the family of George would of been able to press back against the police station for saying why did you tell a citizen to put them self in harms way. This then would lead into lawsuit against the police station for pushing a citizen to do something they normally would not have done.

Hopefully this is basic enough for a liberal mind to understand.

Hopefully, you’ll spare us all further exposure to your insufferable attempts to try and redefine EXACLTY WHAT HAPPENED AS DOCUMENTED with your absurd suppositions and conjecture.

Yet, Zimmerman DID CONTINUE TO PURSUE Martin, who's only "crime" was being black, wearing a hoodie IN THE RAIN, and coming under Zimmerman's warped consideration. You don't yell, "self defense" after you initiate a confrontation, that's like yelling foul after you start a fight and lose.

I like how it is always the liberal who takes things to the extreme just so they can yell RACIST.

You need to pay attention, bunky…because I didn’t use the word “racist”….I merely refer to the FACTS of Zimmerman’s history of 911 calls and his wild speculations about Martin based SOLELY on his visual identification. TFB for you neocon/teabagger apologists that the FACTS don’t paint things to your liking.

Zimmerman pursued a suspicious looking person. Those come in all colors not just black. Just and FYI for you because I think you believe that they only are black.

Again, Zimmerman’s history of 911 calls tells a different story. Again, Zimmerman is NO COP…Period. And if wants to claim he was working in a “Neighborhood Watch” capacity, he disobeyed police dispatch directions AFTER he did his job, and was in violation of the law being armed. No matter how you try to dance around it, you can’t avoid the FACT that Zimmerman’s actions caused the EXACT result that the police dispatch tried to avoid when they told him that the REAL cops were on the way and he didn’t have to follow Martin (after Martin “ran away”) anymore. That Zimmerman acknowledge the instruction and then acted against them is another strike against his legal defense of being the victim.

The "Stand Your Ground" law is very simple. You cannot start a fight then mid fight claim "Stand Your Ground". You can be put in a situation where you see things are going bad and state you want no part of this and retreat. At this point if attacked you are no longer an instigator of the fight you are the DEFENDER and "Stand Your Ground" can be played again. This is also where it gets very grey due to when you remove yourself from the conflict.

You just wasted space on a moot point, bunky I already stated that Zimmerman could NOT use the “Stand Your Ground” law as a defense of his actions…the EVIDENCE does not and would not support such a defense. Pay attention…it’ll save you time and effort, and me the boredom of reading and correcting your drivel.

In Zimmerman's case he was a defender never the aggressor. Zimmerman was monitoring a situation when the person being monitored turned to an aggressor against Zimmerman. Anyone ever seen the videos of people being beaten by police officers for nothing more then video taping them. We do not call those people video taping the Aggressor do we. No they are the monitors. They are there doing nothing more then gathering information.

Seem all you neocon/teabagger apologists do is just keep repeating your fantasies as if they’re the FACTS. To date: NO ONE BUT ZIMMERMAN’S LAWYER is trying to fly the story that Martin was an aggressor…which is kind of hard to do when the AUDIO AND VIDEO files don’t support that fairy tale, but point to the EXACT OPPOSITE. Which is why the chief of detectives filed an affidavit to arrest (something mysteriously prevented by the Police Chief and State Attorney, who then recuse themselves.)

Now I am sure you do not like to hear any of this because so far it takes all the RACIST bullshit the liberal media has been playing right back against them.

Actually, I don’t like hearing neocon/teabagger parrots keep squawking the same old tunneled vision opinion, speculation, supposition and conjecture while IGNORING ALL THE PERTINENT INFORMATION.

Quote: Originally Posted by taichiliberal

Later, physical evidence documented by police surveillance cameras DOES NOT SUPPORT OR CORROBORATE the tale Zimmerman's lawyer relates that Martin bloodied his nose and bashed his skull on the ground via attacking him.

Oh I love how you bring up the liberal media doctored videos. It is amazing when the actual leaked police video made it to Fox News hands they pointed out the broken nose and the bruising on the back of the head of Zimmerman.

Ahhh, so in true form of the willfully ignorant and intellectually bankrupt neocon/teabagger parrot you spew the ultimate denial that even Limbaugh and Levine would shy from. ANYTHING that doesn’t fit into your belief system is part of the “liberal media doctored videos”. What would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic is how when the righteous right wing media tries to “expose” the “doctored liberal” versions of the Zimmerman videos, it amounts to a LOT of speculation on a “part” of the video….which is subsequently kicked to the curb when the WHOLE picture/video is shown.

Lets not forget to mention the liberal media only shows pictures of Martin when he was 12 years old. Who gives a shit that he is not really 5'5 120lb but actual 6'3 closer to 200lbs and a full fledged athlete on the football team. Brings a different picture when you actual show the actions and person the deceased was before this shooting. Gold Teeth and twitter name of "No Limit Nigga". Maybe that should be the caption below and actual up to date photo of Martin.

So if you’re black and 6ft. tall and it’s raining and you’re wearing a hooded sweatshirt, don’t go visiting friends or relatives in Florida at night, because some assholes with a cop/vigilante complex is going to shadow you and then confront you with a gun, and then claim justification because……you’re black and 6ft. tall and it’s raining and you’re wearing a hooded sweatshirt? Also, I didn’t know a gold tooth and your taste in twitter screen names were grounds for a wanna-be cop to follow and then confront you with a gun….Zimmerman must be psychic.
What’s REALLY sad is that dopes like YOU don’t see how fantastically absurd it is to try an defend the bigoted bilge you just spewed.

The chief of detectives didn't buy Zimmerman's story based on the evidence, but was prevented from arresting him via interference by the chief of police and the State attorney, BOTH of whom suddenly recuse themselves from the case.

Keep trying to call this a cover up. It never was it is how the law is written is why Zimmerman was not arrested. "Stand Your Ground" makes you immune to criminal and civil prosecution. Meaning that if they believed he was defending himself then they have no ability to arrest him. Remember you are innocent until proven guilty in this country not the other way around.

Again, you state a moot point while LYING about what I wrote….YOU said “cover-up” bunky, not me. I later say that the chain of events "APPEAR" like a cover-up. TFB for you if the FACTS lead to a conclusion that you don’t like. And it seems you’re contradicting yourself, as earlier you pointed out how “Stand Your Ground” does not apply here, yet AGAIN you are invoking it as if the audio and video evidence points to Zimmerman being a “victim”. You don’t have to be guilty to be arrested, genius….just have a story that doesn’t fit the evidence, as the Chief of Detectives determined. A proper investigation proves whether you are guilty or not….something DENIED BY THE FORMER NAMED OFFICIALS.

If you notice he was put in handcuffs and taken to the police station. Which is normal even when under the "Stand Your Ground" but when the facts come out that you defended yourself from and unjustified attack you are let free. This is what they call a "good shooting" in the fact that the defender lived not that anyone has to die. This all goes back to the concealed weapon permit Zimmerman had. If Zimmerman would not have acted to DEFEND himself he could have died. When this level of violence is brought upon you then you can DEFEND yourself with deadly force, and in this situation it was a gun and it ended Martins life.

Is any killing even in self defense a good thing in life, no. Is it good that a innocent man like Zimmerman did not have to sacrifice his life due to the actions of another, YES.


You can be put in handcuffs and led away during a confrontation and then released when arrest is not warranted based on the evidence. THE CHIEF OF POLICE FILED AND AFFIDAVIT TO ARREST BASED ON THE EVIDENCE. You keep parroting the narrative that Zimmerman’s lawyer keeps laying out…but the EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT THAT STORY. No bloody nose, or gash on the back of the skull, no blood or grass stains on his clothes…..and the topper is that the very same audio engineers that did the foresnics on those tapes and phone calls determine that Zimmerman did NOT call Martin a racial slur, AND IT WAS NOT MARTIN THAT WAS SCREAMING SECONDS BEFORE THE FATAL GUNSHOT. Again, you can’t claim “Stand Your Ground” when the evidence points to YOU PURSUING A PERSON DESPITE BEING TOLD IT WASN’T NECESSARY AFTER BEING TOLD THE COPS ARE ON THEIR WAY.

Naa-unnh bunky, all this hoop-la for what looks like manslaughter stinks...and what's at stake is what appears to be a petty, local cover-up that's inadvertently tied to the "Stand Your Ground" law.

I wonder if Trayvon had killed Zimmerman would dopes like YOU be railing for his defense? Anyway, do continue to blow neocon/teabagger smoke on this one.

Now you are using what ifs to try and save a pathetic excuse of more racist bullshit. No reason to even give you an answer for this.

Given the chronology of the post shows YOUR entire response is nothing more that supposition, conjecture, speculation and opinion, my 4 sentences are a mere pittance compared to yours… and like all neocon/teabagger blowhards, you can dish it out but you can’t take it. Carry on.

 

[taichiliberal]

All that (attack the questioner), and yet you didn't manage to answer one question, let alone all of them.

Calls for public lynching? You have not waited for the evidence. You have tried and convicted a man on what the press has now admitted was doctored, censored and misleading to stir up people. Yes, what we have on display here folks is a person that is not concerned about lynchings, but only that he is on the "right" side of the rope.

You're "questions" are an attempt to dodge the true FACTS involving Zimmerman and Martin..... a bunch of "what if's". Well bunky, we're dealing in WHAT DID happen with the EVIDENCE....EVIDENCE that warranted an arrest. And just who in the hell is calling for a "lynching"? YOU need to stick to the facts, and stop trying to make your speculations, suppostions and conjecture as substitutes.

These questions were directly related to the situation, let me make it even more simple, for you.

Translation: This dimbulb is dodging ALL he pertinent facts of this case, and thus trying to insert his supposition and conjecture as FACT, and subsequently wanting to discuss said fabricated bases as if it's valid and relevent. (hint: it's not)

If you see a suspicious person, is it okay to investigate (from a distance)? (Zimmerman)

Which was done and REPORTED. THAT IS THE EXTENT A CIVILIAN OR A NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH PERSON IS SUPPOSED TO DO. After that, the cops do the rest. POLICE INSTRUCT THE LATER NOT TO DO WHAT ZIMMERMAN DID AS TO AVOID THE EXACT SITUATION THAT RESULTED.

If you see a person acting different, is it okay to investigate (could be a medical problem)?(Zimmerman)

Please spare us all your lame ass attempts to distort the facts with these silly "what if's". Zimmerman did NOT report to the 911 dispatch "a person acting different"....he reported a suspicious person that he speculated was drunk or on drugs and had something in his belt and was coming towards him. Then he reports that person is "running away"...he's told the cops are on their way, and told that he "does not have to do that" when it's established that he's still following Martin, to which Zimmerman acknowledges "OKAY", but then continues.

Do you have a right to beat someone because they "seem" to be following you? (Martin)

Remember the 911 dispatch, genius? Zimmerman establishes that he was indeed following Martin...Martin walked up to the car, than "ran away". The ONLY way Zimmerman could meet up with him later is if he was indeed following Martin. Some weirdo (no cop, no watch group captain) in a car follows you at night in the rain, and then confronts you with a gun, in person you sure as hell have the right to defend yourself. How long of a distance should you walk before you confront someone walking the same direction as you? (Martin)

How many times should you allow yourself to be hit, if you have the means to defend yourself?(Zimmerman)

Again, it has been established that ZIMMERMAN WAS THE PURSUER, NOT THE PURSUED! You can go bothering people like your a cop with authority, and then cry "foul" when people tell you to get lost or react defensively.....and the physical evidence does NOT support Zimmerman's story that he as on the defensive fighting for his life (no bloody nose, gash on the back of the head, grass stains on clothes, and audio foresnic PROVES IT WAS MARTIN THAT SCREAMED BEFORE THE SHOT SOUNDED!)

At what point do you decide someone is hurting you (after they punch you/after they put you on the ground and don't stop/after they use concrete or pavement to pound your head/after your brains are spilling out of your broken skull)?(Zimmerman)

See above responses.

Do you have the right to defend yourself against someone that is smaller than you (some of the most wicked fighters are fairly small)? (Zimmerman)

See above responses.

According to the evidence, the above did happen. Now if you don't want to answer the questions, directly, feel free to answer them determined by what race the person is. Personally, I do think there is a difference, but with your anger, I will not be able to comprehend how you think. Why don't you answer the questions and make it clear.

See above responses, then quit wasting everyone's time with your supposition and conjecture. PROVIDE THE FACTS THAT BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS EXACTLY, OR GO BLOW SMOKE SOMEWHERE ELSE.

 

[taichiliberal]

Most "evidence" that is known by the public (us), has been put out by the media. The same media who have done a terrible if not dishonest job of covering this matter. I still look forward to word from the special prosecutor or grand jury who will hopefully help in our search for justice.

RIGHT, BECAUSE FOX NEWS, CLEAR CHANNEL, NEWSBUSTERS, WND, HANNITY, LIMBAUGH, LEVINE, etc., etc. are NOT the media?

And to date, it's been Zimmerman's lawyer that's been shoveling all this malarky into the public eye....only to be shot down when ALL the facts are available.

Remember toodles, the very foresnic experts that PROVED Zimmerman DID NOT mutter a racial slur on the 911 dispatch tape ALSO PROVED that it was MARTIN and NOT Zimmerman screaming for his life before the gunshot. That put a serious crimp into Zimmerman's lawyer tale.

Deal with it.

 

[logical4u]

You're "questions" are an attempt to dodge the true FACTS involving Zimmerman and Martin..... a bunch of "what if's". Well bunky, we're dealing in WHAT DID happen with the EVIDENCE....EVIDENCE that warranted an arrest. And just who in the hell is calling for a "lynching"? YOU need to stick to the facts, and stop trying to make your speculations, suppostions and conjecture as substitutes.

These questions were directly related to the situation, let me make it even more simple, for you.

Translation: This dimbulb is dodging ALL he pertinent facts of this case, and thus trying to insert his supposition and conjecture as FACT, and subsequently wanting to discuss said fabricated bases as if it's valid and relevent. (hint: it's not)

If you see a suspicious person, is it okay to investigate (from a distance)? (Zimmerman)

Which was done and REPORTED. THAT IS THE EXTENT A CIVILIAN OR A NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH PERSON IS SUPPOSED TO DO. After that, the cops do the rest. POLICE INSTRUCT THE LATER NOT TO DO WHAT ZIMMERMAN DID AS TO AVOID THE EXACT SITUATION THAT RESULTED.

If you see a person acting different, is it okay to investigate (could be a medical problem)?(Zimmerman)

Please spare us all your lame ass attempts to distort the facts with these silly "what if's". Zimmerman did NOT report to the 911 dispatch "a person acting different"....he reported a suspicious person that he speculated was drunk or on drugs and had something in his belt and was coming towards him. Then he reports that person is "running away"...he's told the cops are on their way, and told that he "does not have to do that" when it's established that he's still following Martin, to which Zimmerman acknowledges "OKAY", but then continues.

Do you have a right to beat someone because they "seem" to be following you? (Martin)

Remember the 911 dispatch, genius? Zimmerman establishes that he was indeed following Martin...Martin walked up to the car, than "ran away". The ONLY way Zimmerman could meet up with him later is if he was indeed following Martin. Some weirdo (no cop, no watch group captain) in a car follows you at night in the rain, and then confronts you with a gun, in person you sure as hell have the right to defend yourself. How long of a distance should you walk before you confront someone walking the same direction as you? (Martin)

How many times should you allow yourself to be hit, if you have the means to defend yourself?(Zimmerman)

Again, it has been established that ZIMMERMAN WAS THE PURSUER, NOT THE PURSUED! You can go bothering people like your a cop with authority, and then cry "foul" when people tell you to get lost or react defensively.....and the physical evidence does NOT support Zimmerman's story that he as on the defensive fighting for his life (no bloody nose, gash on the back of the head, grass stains on clothes, and audio foresnic PROVES IT WAS MARTIN THAT SCREAMED BEFORE THE SHOT SOUNDED!)

At what point do you decide someone is hurting you (after they punch you/after they put you on the ground and don't stop/after they use concrete or pavement to pound your head/after your brains are spilling out of your broken skull)?(Zimmerman)

See above responses.

Do you have the right to defend yourself against someone that is smaller than you (some of the most wicked fighters are fairly small)? (Zimmerman)

See above responses.

According to the evidence, the above did happen. Now if you don't want to answer the questions, directly, feel free to answer them determined by what race the person is. Personally, I do think there is a difference, but with your anger, I will not be able to comprehend how you think. Why don't you answer the questions and make it clear.

See above responses, then quit wasting everyone's time with your supposition and conjecture. PROVIDE THE FACTS THAT BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS EXACTLY, OR GO BLOW SMOKE SOMEWHERE ELSE.

Got it. The questions are too tough for you to answer. I did not ask you what happened at the scene (none of us were there, and will never know what happened, exactly). I asked you to answer for yourself. It would tell us a lot about your state of mind. At this point there seems to be little hope that you would be honest about the questions, anyway. Let's try another situation: the man that was attacked in Baltimore, by a group. Should those people be arrested?

 

[taichiliberal]

These questions were directly related to the situation, let me make it even more simple, for you.

Translation: This dimbulb is dodging ALL he pertinent facts of this case, and thus trying to insert his supposition and conjecture as FACT, and subsequently wanting to discuss said fabricated bases as if it's valid and relevent. (hint: it's not)

If you see a suspicious person, is it okay to investigate (from a distance)? (Zimmerman)

Which was done and REPORTED. THAT IS THE EXTENT A CIVILIAN OR A NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH PERSON IS SUPPOSED TO DO. After that, the cops do the rest. POLICE INSTRUCT THE LATER NOT TO DO WHAT ZIMMERMAN DID AS TO AVOID THE EXACT SITUATION THAT RESULTED.

If you see a person acting different, is it okay to investigate (could be a medical problem)?(Zimmerman)

Please spare us all your lame ass attempts to distort the facts with these silly "what if's". Zimmerman did NOT report to the 911 dispatch "a person acting different"....he reported a suspicious person that he speculated was drunk or on drugs and had something in his belt and was coming towards him. Then he reports that person is "running away"...he's told the cops are on their way, and told that he "does not have to do that" when it's established that he's still following Martin, to which Zimmerman acknowledges "OKAY", but then continues.

Do you have a right to beat someone because they "seem" to be following you? (Martin)

Remember the 911 dispatch, genius? Zimmerman establishes that he was indeed following Martin...Martin walked up to the car, than "ran away". The ONLY way Zimmerman could meet up with him later is if he was indeed following Martin. Some weirdo (no cop, no watch group captain) in a car follows you at night in the rain, and then confronts you with a gun, in person you sure as hell have the right to defend yourself. How long of a distance should you walk before you confront someone walking the same direction as you? (Martin)

How many times should you allow yourself to be hit, if you have the means to defend yourself?(Zimmerman)

Again, it has been established that ZIMMERMAN WAS THE PURSUER, NOT THE PURSUED! You can go bothering people like your a cop with authority, and then cry "foul" when people tell you to get lost or react defensively.....and the physical evidence does NOT support Zimmerman's story that he as on the defensive fighting for his life (no bloody nose, gash on the back of the head, grass stains on clothes, and audio foresnic PROVES IT WAS MARTIN THAT SCREAMED BEFORE THE SHOT SOUNDED!)

At what point do you decide someone is hurting you (after they punch you/after they put you on the ground and don't stop/after they use concrete or pavement to pound your head/after your brains are spilling out of your broken skull)?(Zimmerman)

See above responses.

Do you have the right to defend yourself against someone that is smaller than you (some of the most wicked fighters are fairly small)? (Zimmerman)

See above responses.

According to the evidence, the above did happen. Now if you don't want to answer the questions, directly, feel free to answer them determined by what race the person is. Personally, I do think there is a difference, but with your anger, I will not be able to comprehend how you think. Why don't you answer the questions and make it clear.

See above responses, then quit wasting everyone's time with your supposition and conjecture. PROVIDE THE FACTS THAT BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS EXACTLY, OR GO BLOW SMOKE SOMEWHERE ELSE.

Got it. The questions are too tough for you to answer. I did not ask you what happened at the scene (none of us were there, and will never know what happened, exactly). I asked you to answer for yourself. It would tell us a lot about your state of mind. At this point there seems to be little hope that you would be honest about the questions, anyway. Let's try another situation: the man that was attacked in Baltimore, by a group. Should those people be arrested?

And there you have it folks......this apologist & defender of Zimmerman and the dubious actions of the Police Chief and Wolfinger desperately wants to divert from the FACTS of the case, so he pushed some inane "questions". When I answered said questions, this clown DOES NOT WANT TO DEAL WITH THE ANSWERS AS THEY PERTAIN TO THE CASE AT HAND.

This is a-typical of neocon/teabagger blowhards....when they can't defend the actions of others that fall into their political/social ideology, they want to IGNORE the FACTS of the case and instead make the discussion about the personalities of the critics.

Sorry bunky, but this isn't about you or me....it's about the FACTS of the case at hand and the ramifications it has for Zimmerman, the local police chief, State Attorney Wolfinger and the "Stand Your Ground" law as a possible defense. If YOU cannot/will not deal with that, then your "logic" is dubious at best. If you think that my not following your down your detour of this discussion is a "win" for you that inadvertently exxonerates Zimmerman, then you "logic" is circular at worst, and would no longer be worth addressing. Carry on.

 

[paulitician]

Marc's homies. Democrats just being Democrats...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue2fNik7oNk]Mob beats robs strips a Tourist on St Patricks Day, Baltimore - YouTube[/ame]

 

[starcraftzzz]

It might be because Fox NEws declared Neo-Nazi groups as civil rights groups

 

[logical4u]

See above responses, then quit wasting everyone's time with your supposition and conjecture. PROVIDE THE FACTS THAT BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS EXACTLY, OR GO BLOW SMOKE SOMEWHERE ELSE.

Got it. The questions are too tough for you to answer. I did not ask you what happened at the scene (none of us were there, and will never know what happened, exactly). I asked you to answer for yourself. It would tell us a lot about your state of mind. At this point there seems to be little hope that you would be honest about the questions, anyway. Let's try another situation: the man that was attacked in Baltimore, by a group. Should those people be arrested?

And there you have it folks......this apologist & defender of Zimmerman and the dubious actions of the Police Chief and Wolfinger desperately wants to divert from the FACTS of the case, so he pushed some inane "questions". When I answered said questions, this clown DOES NOT WANT TO DEAL WITH THE ANSWERS AS THEY PERTAIN TO THE CASE AT HAND.

This is a-typical of neocon/teabagger blowhards....when they can't defend the actions of others that fall into their political/social ideology, they want to IGNORE the FACTS of the case and instead make the discussion about the personalities of the critics.

Sorry bunky, but this isn't about you or me....it's about the FACTS of the case at hand and the ramifications it has for Zimmerman, the local police chief, State Attorney Wolfinger and the "Stand Your Ground" law as a possible defense. If YOU cannot/will not deal with that, then your "logic" is dubious at best. If you think that my not following your down your detour of this discussion is a "win" for you that inadvertently exxonerates Zimmerman, then you "logic" is circular at worst, and would no longer be worth addressing. Carry on.

Let's try again.... what is this the third time, the fourth?

Do you have the right to investigate someone that is acting suspicious in your neighborhood? In your yard? In front of your house?

If you are walking the same direction as another person, do they have the right to beat you?

Do you, after you have been attacked, have the right to defend yourself?

Don't bother answering. Obviously you think that it is okay for blacks to commit any crime they want, and they should not be punished. If a "non-black" does anything to a "black" then the rules are different. I guess you think the group in Baltimore had the "right" to attack a lone person in the street. I guess you think six boys beating an old man with a hammer is justified. I guess you think that a hate group known as the New Black Panthers should be able to put a bounty on a person't head (a virtual "hit").

Zimmerman was questioned by the police, they did not have enough "evidence" to charge him. An eye witness was questioned, and his story supported Zimmerman's story. I am tired of the lynch mob calling for a man that the police did not even have enough evidence to "arrest", let alone bring to trial, in the same manner the KKK did a century ago. You probably thought OJ was innocent, too.

 

[The Infidel]

It might be because Fox NEws declared Neo-Nazi groups as civil rights groups

 

[OpenJumper1]

to the original post. Yeah but what is it that the MSM is hiding with the Martin issue?

Always watch the "other hand" is doing. / This issue should get as much coverage as the 6 year old girl that was murdered about the same time as Martin. What a shame all those other crimes went unnoticed...but why is this getting attention?
(this country is so one sided , out of fear, it is seriously sickening)

 

[taichiliberal]

Got it. The questions are too tough for you to answer. I did not ask you what happened at the scene (none of us were there, and will never know what happened, exactly). I asked you to answer for yourself. It would tell us a lot about your state of mind. At this point there seems to be little hope that you would be honest about the questions, anyway. Let's try another situation: the man that was attacked in Baltimore, by a group. Should those people be arrested?

And there you have it folks......this apologist & defender of Zimmerman and the dubious actions of the Police Chief and Wolfinger desperately wants to divert from the FACTS of the case, so he pushed some inane "questions". When I answered said questions, this clown DOES NOT WANT TO DEAL WITH THE ANSWERS AS THEY PERTAIN TO THE CASE AT HAND.

This is a-typical of neocon/teabagger blowhards....when they can't defend the actions of others that fall into their political/social ideology, they want to IGNORE the FACTS of the case and instead make the discussion about the personalities of the critics.

Sorry bunky, but this isn't about you or me....it's about the FACTS of the case at hand and the ramifications it has for Zimmerman, the local police chief, State Attorney Wolfinger and the "Stand Your Ground" law as a possible defense. If YOU cannot/will not deal with that, then your "logic" is dubious at best. If you think that my not following your down your detour of this discussion is a "win" for you that inadvertently exxonerates Zimmerman, then you "logic" is circular at worst, and would no longer be worth addressing. Carry on.

Let's try again.... what is this the third time, the fourth?

Do you have the right to investigate someone that is acting suspicious in your neighborhood? In your yard? In front of your house?

If you are walking the same direction as another person, do they have the right to beat you?

Do you, after you have been attacked, have the right to defend yourself?

Don't bother answering. Obviously you think that it is okay for blacks to commit any crime they want, and they should not be punished. If a "non-black" does anything to a "black" then the rules are different. I guess you think the group in Baltimore had the "right" to attack a lone person in the street. I guess you think six boys beating an old man with a hammer is justified. I guess you think that a hate group known as the New Black Panthers should be able to put a bounty on a person't head (a virtual "hit").

Zimmerman was questioned by the police, they did not have enough "evidence" to charge him. An eye witness was questioned, and his story supported Zimmerman's story. I am tired of the lynch mob calling for a man that the police did not even have enough evidence to "arrest", let alone bring to trial, in the same manner the KKK did a century ago. You probably thought OJ was innocent, too.

And there you have it, folks. This "logical4U" joker did EXACTLY as I predicted he would. He won't deal with the facts or any answer that pertains to those facts....it's all about the neocon/teabagger opinion, supposition and conjecture and a desperate attempt to shift the conversation for a clown who is deluded in thinking he's "logical4U". And like all defeated neocon/teabagger parrots, all he can do is just squawk his disproven and defeated ploys ad nauseum.

Well, seems the FACTS and true "logic" have made a fool out of "logical4U"

Zimmerman Arrested On Murder Charge In Martin Case; Will Plead Not Guilty : The Two-Way : NPR

I suggest "logical4U" follow his own advice and "don't bother answering", as it makes his willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty less obvious.

 

[taichiliberal]

to the original post. Yeah but what is it that the MSM is hiding with the Martin issue?

Always watch the "other hand" is doing. / This issue should get as much coverage as the 6 year old girl that was murdered about the same time as Martin. What a shame all those other crimes went unnoticed...but why is this getting attention?
(this country is so one sided , out of fear, it is seriously sickening)

Did you check your local news papers, TV and radio for that story? I got news for ya bunky, there were multiple crimes and such that made headlines here in NYC an it's L.I. suburb, but were NOT made national. This is STANDARD....the more sensational the circumstances surrounding a crime, the more national coverage it gets.

You had a chief of police and a state attorney PREVENT a chief of detectives making an arrest, and then "recuse" themselves from further involvement. THAT put this particular case on the map. But now, you've got this

Zimmerman Arrested On Murder Charge In Martin Case; Will Plead Not Guilty : The Two-Way : NPR

Let the games begin.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

to the original post. Yeah but what is it that the MSM is hiding with the Martin issue?

Always watch the "other hand" is doing. / This issue should get as much coverage as the 6 year old girl that was murdered about the same time as Martin. What a shame all those other crimes went unnoticed...but why is this getting attention?
(this country is so one sided , out of fear, it is seriously sickening)

Did you check your local news papers, TV and radio for that story? I got news for ya bunky, there were multiple crimes and such that made headlines here in NYC an it's L.I. suburb, but were NOT made national. This is STANDARD....the more sensational the circumstances surrounding a crime, the more national coverage it gets.

You had a chief of police and a state attorney PREVENT a chief of detectives making an arrest, and then "recuse" themselves from further involvement. THAT put this particular case on the map. But now, you've got this

Zimmerman Arrested On Murder Charge In Martin Case; Will Plead Not Guilty : The Two-Way : NPR

Let the games begin.

The lynch mob members are doing a happy dance on the dead body of Justice.

 

[taichiliberal]

It might be because Fox NEws declared Neo-Nazi groups as civil rights groups

It was a Fox News affiliate, actually:

Fox Orlando Affiliate Calls Neo-Nazis 'A Civil Rights Group' | ThinkProgress

 

[logical4u]

And there you have it folks......this apologist & defender of Zimmerman and the dubious actions of the Police Chief and Wolfinger desperately wants to divert from the FACTS of the case, so he pushed some inane "questions". When I answered said questions, this clown DOES NOT WANT TO DEAL WITH THE ANSWERS AS THEY PERTAIN TO THE CASE AT HAND.

This is a-typical of neocon/teabagger blowhards....when they can't defend the actions of others that fall into their political/social ideology, they want to IGNORE the FACTS of the case and instead make the discussion about the personalities of the critics.

Sorry bunky, but this isn't about you or me....it's about the FACTS of the case at hand and the ramifications it has for Zimmerman, the local police chief, State Attorney Wolfinger and the "Stand Your Ground" law as a possible defense. If YOU cannot/will not deal with that, then your "logic" is dubious at best. If you think that my not following your down your detour of this discussion is a "win" for you that inadvertently exxonerates Zimmerman, then you "logic" is circular at worst, and would no longer be worth addressing. Carry on.

Let's try again.... what is this the third time, the fourth?

Do you have the right to investigate someone that is acting suspicious in your neighborhood? In your yard? In front of your house?

If you are walking the same direction as another person, do they have the right to beat you?

Do you, after you have been attacked, have the right to defend yourself?

Don't bother answering. Obviously you think that it is okay for blacks to commit any crime they want, and they should not be punished. If a "non-black" does anything to a "black" then the rules are different. I guess you think the group in Baltimore had the "right" to attack a lone person in the street. I guess you think six boys beating an old man with a hammer is justified. I guess you think that a hate group known as the New Black Panthers should be able to put a bounty on a person't head (a virtual "hit").

Zimmerman was questioned by the police, they did not have enough "evidence" to charge him. An eye witness was questioned, and his story supported Zimmerman's story. I am tired of the lynch mob calling for a man that the police did not even have enough evidence to "arrest", let alone bring to trial, in the same manner the KKK did a century ago. You probably thought OJ was innocent, too.

And there you have it, folks. This "logical4U" joker did EXACTLY as I predicted he would. He won't deal with the facts or any answer that pertains to those facts....it's all about the neocon/teabagger opinion, supposition and conjecture and a desperate attempt to shift the conversation for a clown who is deluded in thinking he's "logical4U". And like all defeated neocon/teabagger parrots, all he can do is just squawk his disproven and defeated ploys ad nauseum.

Well, seems the FACTS and true "logic" have made a fool out of "logical4U"

Zimmerman Arrested On Murder Charge In Martin Case; Will Plead Not Guilty : The Two-Way : NPR

I suggest "logical4U" follow his own advice and "don't bother answering", as it makes his willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty less obvious.

Exactly what questions did you ask?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It might be because Fox NEws declared Neo-Nazi groups as civil rights groups

It was a Fox News affiliate, actually:

Fox Orlando Affiliate Calls Neo-Nazis 'A Civil Rights Group' | ThinkProgress

Think progress?