Zimmerman tweets picture of kid he murdered.

[M14 Shooter]

you said it's a defense. so people have the ability to assert their right to stand their ground only in the court room.

The only time you can claim a legal defense is when you are on trial.
Zimmerman was on trial. This explains why martin was unable to claim a SYG defense of his actions.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

From reading along all I can assume is he's fuckin' stupid.

that's it. i'm fucking stupid.
now help a stupid guy out. how is it that martin was not acting in self defense?

Why do you refuse to understand that you're begging the question?
Beg a question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

because that's not what i'm doing.

It is.
Your question assumes Martin was acting in self defense and you want to us to show otherwise.
That is, you beg the question; you refuse to understand this.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

 

[blastoff]

did martin act legally? was he within his rights to confront zimmerman - if that's what happened - a man that admits to stalking him in the rain at night?

I answered your question about SYG.
You do not like the answer, you refuse to understand it, or both.
Either way, it is the answer.

you said it's a defense. so people have the ability to assert their right to stand their ground only in the court room.

The only time you can claim a legal defense is when you are on trial.
Zimmerman was on trial. This explains why martin was unable to claim a SYG defense of his actions.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

From reading along all I can assume is he's fuckin' stupid.

that's it. i'm fucking stupid.
now help a stupid guy out. how is it that martin was not acting in self defense?

1. Thanks for admitting what's obvious to most of us.

2. Others have tried to, stupid, but you're too stupid to get it. And I'm no where near stupid enough to waste my time with your mental deficiency.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

They didn't use SYG as a defense.

Idiot.

Stand Your Ground most definitely factored into the trial. The Jurors, themselves, were confused about the law and said so.


Juror: We talked Stand Your Ground before not-guilty Zimmerman verdict

I don't care what the jury discussed, it wasn't used as a defense. Are you really this stupid?

It was a factor in the case.

Part of the jury screening should have eliminated people confused by the law.

It didn't.

Then blame the fucking Pros. office numb nuts.
It's hilarious you want to blame everyone involved except for the one person who carries 100% of the blame. T Boner.

Someone talking to you bitch?

I thought not.

Sit down and shut up.

Or what? You'll say it again?

 

[M14 Shooter]

They didn't use SYG as a defense.

Idiot.

Stand Your Ground most definitely factored into the trial. The Jurors, themselves, were confused about the law and said so.


Juror: We talked Stand Your Ground before not-guilty Zimmerman verdict

I don't care what the jury discussed, it wasn't used as a defense. Are you really this stupid?

It was a factor in the case.

Part of the jury screening should have eliminated people confused by the law.

It didn't.

Then blame the fucking Pros. office numb nuts.
It's hilarious you want to blame everyone involved except for the one person who carries 100% of the blame. T Boner.

Someone talking to you bitch?
I thought not.
Sit down and shut up.

Must have been a tough recess -- did the cool kids use you as a dodgeball again?

 

[ogibillm]

I answered your question about SYG.
You do not like the answer, you refuse to understand it, or both.
Either way, it is the answer.

you said it's a defense. so people have the ability to assert their right to stand their ground only in the court room.

The only time you can claim a legal defense is when you are on trial.
Zimmerman was on trial. This explains why martin was unable to claim a SYG defense of his actions.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

From reading along all I can assume is he's fuckin' stupid.

that's it. i'm fucking stupid.
now help a stupid guy out. how is it that martin was not acting in self defense?

1. Thanks for admitting what's obvious to most of us.

2. Others have tried to, stupid, but you're too stupid to get it. And I'm no where near stupid enough to waste my time with your mental deficiency.

nobody has tried to tell me why martin's actions were not or are not considered self-defense

 

[dannyboys]

Your question is fallacious as it assumes things that haven't been proven.
Thus, begging the question. Please read the link I posted.

i'm asking you.

And I am telling you, for the reasons I provided, your question is fallacious.
Have you stopped having sex with your mom yet?

you haven't provided any reasons.
i'm asking you to tell me how martin was not acting in self defense. that's what i want you to explain. how was a guy being stalked by another not acting in self defense if they ended up in a fight?

One last time asshole!
Dee Dee T Boners 'blue balls' phone sex partener TESTIFIED UNDER FUCKING OATH!!!!!!!!!!! that T Bone told her he was basically safe near his home and TOLD her he was going BACK to beat the shit out of the "cracker".

i'm sure you can link to that.
[quote\]
It's in the court documents for Christ sake!
T Bone then walked up to Z and sucker punched him.

according to whom?

And that's when T Boner basically committed suicide. The President sent EH to try to dig anything up about Z. The 'mixed' jury after seeing/hearing ALL the evidence ruled Z clear of ALL charges.
You really ought to get a fucking life pal.

they did not clear him of anything, they acquitted him.
it's important to know the difference.[/QUOTE]
Obviously you did not watch Dee Dee's testimony on the witness stand.
It's on fucking Youtube asshole!

 

[M14 Shooter]

you said it's a defense. so people have the ability to assert their right to stand their ground only in the court room.

The only time you can claim a legal defense is when you are on trial.
Zimmerman was on trial. This explains why martin was unable to claim a SYG defense of his actions.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

From reading along all I can assume is he's fuckin' stupid.

that's it. i'm fucking stupid.
now help a stupid guy out. how is it that martin was not acting in self defense?

1. Thanks for admitting what's obvious to most of us.
2. Others have tried to, stupid, but you're too stupid to get it. And I'm no where near stupid enough to waste my time with your mental deficiency.

nobody has tried to tell me why martin's actions were not or are not considered self-defense

Because everyone understanding that you beg the question - a logical fallacy.
Everyone except you, that is.

 

[ogibillm]

The only time you can claim a legal defense is when you are on trial.
Zimmerman was on trial. This explains why martin was unable to claim a SYG defense of his actions.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

From reading along all I can assume is he's fuckin' stupid.

that's it. i'm fucking stupid.
now help a stupid guy out. how is it that martin was not acting in self defense?

Why do you refuse to understand that you're begging the question?
Beg a question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

because that's not what i'm doing.

It is.
Your question assumes Martin was acting in self defense and you want to us to show otherwise.
That is, you beg the question; you refuse to understand this.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

i guess i'm asking you to explain why or how martin's actions were not self defense. can you do that? we know for certain that zimmerman was stalking him at night in the rain - something i believe most people would find threatening. so can you tell me how or if martin was not acting in self defense?

 

[ogibillm]

The only time you can claim a legal defense is when you are on trial.
Zimmerman was on trial. This explains why martin was unable to claim a SYG defense of his actions.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

From reading along all I can assume is he's fuckin' stupid.

that's it. i'm fucking stupid.
now help a stupid guy out. how is it that martin was not acting in self defense?

1. Thanks for admitting what's obvious to most of us.
2. Others have tried to, stupid, but you're too stupid to get it. And I'm no where near stupid enough to waste my time with your mental deficiency.

nobody has tried to tell me why martin's actions were not or are not considered self-defense

Because everyone understanding that you beg the question - a logical fallacy.
Everyone except you, that is.

i'm not doing that. you know that. i'm asking you to explain how martin's actions were not self-defense. it should be easy to do if you believe he was not acting within his rights

 

[M14 Shooter]

From reading along all I can assume is he's fuckin' stupid.

that's it. i'm fucking stupid.
now help a stupid guy out. how is it that martin was not acting in self defense?

Why do you refuse to understand that you're begging the question?
Beg a question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

because that's not what i'm doing.

It is.
Your question assumes Martin was acting in self defense and you want to us to show otherwise.
That is, you beg the question; you refuse to understand this.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

i guess i'm asking you to explain why or how martin's actions were not self defense. can you do that?

It does not matter how many times you beg the question, you still beg the question.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

 

[M14 Shooter]

From reading along all I can assume is he's fuckin' stupid.

that's it. i'm fucking stupid.
now help a stupid guy out. how is it that martin was not acting in self defense?

1. Thanks for admitting what's obvious to most of us.
2. Others have tried to, stupid, but you're too stupid to get it. And I'm no where near stupid enough to waste my time with your mental deficiency.

nobody has tried to tell me why martin's actions were not or are not considered self-defense

Because everyone understanding that you beg the question - a logical fallacy.
Everyone except you, that is.

i'm not doing that. you know that

You are.
I explained how.
I will explain again.
Your question assumes Martin was acting in self defense and you want to us to show otherwise.
That is, you beg the question.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

 

[ogibillm]

that's it. i'm fucking stupid.
now help a stupid guy out. how is it that martin was not acting in self defense?

Why do you refuse to understand that you're begging the question?
Beg a question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

because that's not what i'm doing.

It is.
Your question assumes Martin was acting in self defense and you want to us to show otherwise.
That is, you beg the question; you refuse to understand this.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

i guess i'm asking you to explain why or how martin's actions were not self defense. can you do that?

It does not matter how many times you beg the question, you still beg the question.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

good god. it's a simple question. was martin acting within his rights or wasn't he?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why do you refuse to understand that you're begging the question?
Beg a question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

because that's not what i'm doing.

It is.
Your question assumes Martin was acting in self defense and you want to us to show otherwise.
That is, you beg the question; you refuse to understand this.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

i guess i'm asking you to explain why or how martin's actions were not self defense. can you do that?

It does not matter how many times you beg the question, you still beg the question.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

good god. it's a simple question. was martin acting within his rights or wasn't he?

Your question assumes Martin was acting in self defense and you want to us to show otherwise.
That is, you beg the question.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

 

[dannyboys]

They didn't use SYG as a defense.

Idiot.

Stand Your Ground most definitely factored into the trial. The Jurors, themselves, were confused about the law and said so.


Juror: We talked Stand Your Ground before not-guilty Zimmerman verdict

I don't care what the jury discussed, it wasn't used as a defense. Are you really this stupid?

It was a factor in the case.

Part of the jury screening should have eliminated people confused by the law.

It didn't.

Then blame the fucking Pros. office numb nuts.
It's hilarious you want to blame everyone involved except for the one person who carries 100% of the blame. T Boner.

Someone talking to you bitch?

I thought not.

Sit down and shut up.

That's it? All you got?
I really do hope you spend the rest of your empty life screaming about a case long ago closed.
We have a neighbor like you. She spends every waking moment yelling at passersby about how corrupt the JFK inquiry was.
Go join her club pal. Twenty years hence forum members will be reading your dumb ass thoughts.
But it's important for you to 'get the day in' I guess.

 

[ogibillm]

that's it. i'm fucking stupid.
now help a stupid guy out. how is it that martin was not acting in self defense?

1. Thanks for admitting what's obvious to most of us.
2. Others have tried to, stupid, but you're too stupid to get it. And I'm no where near stupid enough to waste my time with your mental deficiency.

nobody has tried to tell me why martin's actions were not or are not considered self-defense

Because everyone understanding that you beg the question - a logical fallacy.
Everyone except you, that is.

i'm not doing that. you know that

You are.
I explained how.
I will explain again.
Your question assumes Martin was acting in self defense and you want to us to show otherwise.
That is, you beg the question.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

it's called a hypothesis. mine is that martin was acting in self defense. you should be able to disprove that hypothesis, or at least offer a counter one, if you do not agree.
it's like if i said "tell me how joe montana isn't the best quarterback ever." i may believe that he is, and i'm asking you to show otherwise. but it's still not 'begging the question.' you can give me whatever answer you like.

i am not asking a circular question. i'm asking if martin was acting within his rights. i believe he was, regardless of who threw the first punch. do you believe otherwise?

 

[dannyboys]

Why do you refuse to understand that you're begging the question?
Beg a question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

because that's not what i'm doing.

It is.
Your question assumes Martin was acting in self defense and you want to us to show otherwise.
That is, you beg the question; you refuse to understand this.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

i guess i'm asking you to explain why or how martin's actions were not self defense. can you do that?

It does not matter how many times you beg the question, you still beg the question.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

good god. it's a simple question. was martin acting within his rights or wasn't he?

Simple answer: Not after he sucker punched George. The jury understood this simple fact. Why you can't is your problem.

 

[M14 Shooter]

it's called a hypothesis. mine is that martin was acting in self defense

Fine. Prove it.

 

[ogibillm]

because that's not what i'm doing.

It is.
Your question assumes Martin was acting in self defense and you want to us to show otherwise.
That is, you beg the question; you refuse to understand this.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

i guess i'm asking you to explain why or how martin's actions were not self defense. can you do that?

It does not matter how many times you beg the question, you still beg the question.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

good god. it's a simple question. was martin acting within his rights or wasn't he?

Simple answer: Not after he sucker punched George. The jury understood this simple fact. Why you can't is your problem.

how is that not self defense? is he not allowed to stand his ground? is a man stalking him not a threat?

 

[M14 Shooter]

It is.
Your question assumes Martin was acting in self defense and you want to us to show otherwise.
That is, you beg the question; you refuse to understand this.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

i guess i'm asking you to explain why or how martin's actions were not self defense. can you do that?

It does not matter how many times you beg the question, you still beg the question.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

good god. it's a simple question. was martin acting within his rights or wasn't he?

Simple answer: Not after he sucker punched George. The jury understood this simple fact. Why you can't is your problem.

how is that not self defense? is he not allowed to stand his ground? is a man stalking him not a threat?

More begging the question.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

 

[ogibillm]

it's called a hypothesis. mine is that martin was acting in self defense

Fine. Prove it.

zimmerman was stalking him at night in the rain. i believe most people would find someone stalking them in those conditions threatening.
even if martin hid and attacked zimmerman, he was standing his ground, as was his legal right, and if he did not hide and attack zimmerman he was still standing his ground and within his legal rights regardless of who threw the first punch.

now, is there a part of that you disagree with?