Zimmerman tweets picture of kid he murdered.

[Muhammed]

Pretty clear who the real Thug is.

The dead guy.

It's great when thugs get what they deserve.

 

[dannyboys]

the trial and evidence did not show that martin attacked zimmerman.

You can't be serious... .

As the evidence demonstrated precisely that and in terms WELL BEYOND any potential for any doubt, let alone a reasonable variety of such.

Actually, no it did not.

The jurors cited the Stand Your Ground law even though it wasn't introduced by the prosecution or the defense.

Additionally, Florida's normal "Self Defense" laws have a very low requirement in terms of the use of deadly force.

A "reasonable person" has to "feel" their life is threatened.

That's right. A reasonable person in fact did feel his life was being threatened and took whatever measures he had to to not get his head beaten to a pulp by a fucking negro thug.
The jury saw all the evidence and ruled Zimmerman was innocent of the charge.
For Christ sake pal go dig up another fucking losing cause to spend your empty day on.
Here's one: 'Hand's Up'! Still wearing your T in public? HAAAA HAAAA!

 

[Meathead]

As they say, if you've got the law, pound the law. If you've got nothing, pound the table.

All I hear is table-pounding and a high-pitched whine.

 

[ogibillm]

[
are you contending that zimmerman was not following martin at night in the rain? this is an established fact.

Then prove it.

it's called the reasonable man doctrine and it's used in self defense cases

Yes.. but here, you presume to speak for others, which is not related in any way.
Your presumption of what others think does not even qualify as evidence of what others think - and thus, you support your position with nothing.

Florida's stand your ground law means he has no obligation to retreat and can meet the threat with appropriate force

It has has certain other provisions, none of which you even try to meet here; especially given your concession that Martin attacked Zimmerman.
Thus, you have proven nothing.

again, this is just the stand your ground law. he had no obligation to retreat.

See above, You have proven nothing.
Given your inability this far to prove your hypothesis, its no wonder you tried to get others to disprove it by begging the question.

so, it's my belief that martin could only have been acting within his rights and in self defense. do you have a reason to disagree?

Yawn.
Not guilty.

That doesn't address the question. How was martin not acting in self defense?

 

[ogibillm]

the trial and evidence did not show that martin attacked zimmerman.

You can't be serious... .

As the evidence demonstrated precisely that and in terms WELL BEYOND any potential for any doubt, let alone a reasonable variety of such.

Actually, no it did not.

The jurors cited the Stand Your Ground law even though it wasn't introduced by the prosecution or the defense.

Additionally, Florida's normal "Self Defense" laws have a very low requirement in terms of the use of deadly force.

A "reasonable person" has to "feel" their life is threatened.

That's right. A reasonable person in fact did feel his life was being threatened and took whatever measures he had to to not get his head beaten to a pulp by a fucking negro thug.
The jury saw all the evidence and ruled Zimmerman was innocent of the charge.

no, they didn't.

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
are you contending that zimmerman was not following martin at night in the rain? this is an established fact.

Then prove it.

it's called the reasonable man doctrine and it's used in self defense cases

Yes.. but here, you presume to speak for others, which is not related in any way.
Your presumption of what others think does not even qualify as evidence of what others think - and thus, you support your position with nothing.

Florida's stand your ground law means he has no obligation to retreat and can meet the threat with appropriate force

It has has certain other provisions, none of which you even try to meet here; especially given your concession that Martin attacked Zimmerman.
Thus, you have proven nothing.

again, this is just the stand your ground law. he had no obligation to retreat.

See above, You have proven nothing.
Given your inability this far to prove your hypothesis, its no wonder you tried to get others to disprove it by begging the question.

so, it's my belief that martin could only have been acting within his rights and in self defense. do you have a reason to disagree?

Yawn.
Not guilty.

That doesn't address the question. How was martin not acting in self defense?

I do not really care.
Zimmerman - not guilty.
Nothing you say or do here will ever change that in any way.

 

[ogibillm]

[
are you contending that zimmerman was not following martin at night in the rain? this is an established fact.

Then prove it.

it's called the reasonable man doctrine and it's used in self defense cases

Yes.. but here, you presume to speak for others, which is not related in any way.
Your presumption of what others think does not even qualify as evidence of what others think - and thus, you support your position with nothing.

Florida's stand your ground law means he has no obligation to retreat and can meet the threat with appropriate force

It has has certain other provisions, none of which you even try to meet here; especially given your concession that Martin attacked Zimmerman.
Thus, you have proven nothing.

again, this is just the stand your ground law. he had no obligation to retreat.

See above, You have proven nothing.
Given your inability this far to prove your hypothesis, its no wonder you tried to get others to disprove it by begging the question.

so, it's my belief that martin could only have been acting within his rights and in self defense. do you have a reason to disagree?

Yawn.
Not guilty.

That doesn't address the question. How was martin not acting in self defense?

I do not really care.
Zimmerman - not guilty.
Nothing you say or do here will ever change that in any way.

Agreed. You do mot care about the rights of the black teen, and you're right that nothing i argue will put zimmerman behind bars.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Then prove it.
Yes.. but here, you presume to speak for others, which is not related in any way.
Your presumption of what others think does not even qualify as evidence of what others think - and thus, you support your position with nothing.
It has has certain other provisions, none of which you even try to meet here; especially given your concession that Martin attacked Zimmerman.
Thus, you have proven nothing.
See above, You have proven nothing.
Given your inability this far to prove your hypothesis, its no wonder you tried to get others to disprove it by begging the question.

so, it's my belief that martin could only have been acting within his rights and in self defense. do you have a reason to disagree?

Yawn.
Not guilty.

That doesn't address the question. How was martin not acting in self defense?

I do not really care.
Zimmerman - not guilty.
Nothing you say or do here will ever change that in any way.

Agreed. You do mot care about the rights of the black teen, and you're right that nothing i argue will put zimmerman behind bars.

I do not care about your desire to argue around the fact that Zimmerman was acquitted.
The fact that you do not like the fact he was acquitted is only meaningful to you.

 

[Meathead]

That doesn't address the question. How was martin not acting in self defense?

In order to establish self defense, you have to prove that Zimmerman attacked Martin and not the other way around. Didn't happen.

 

[ogibillm]

That doesn't address the question. How was martin not acting in self defense?

In order to establish self defense, you have to prove that Zimmerman attacked Martin and not the other way around. Didn't happen.

no, you don't. you have to show that a reasonable person would find zimmerman's actions threatening.
and you should know that you don't have to show who initially attacked who - zimmerman never showed that martin initially attacked him.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Threads like this remind us the only place racists can congregate is when they hide behind false names and pictures, because if they said that kind of shit IRL, they'd get looked at like they just dropped a turd in a punch bowl.

This is what being on the wrong side of history looks like.

I would defer to you here. You've been on the wrong side of history pretty much across-the-board. I mean you're still lamenting the fall of the Soviet Union.

Threads like this remind us the only place racists can congregate is when they hide behind false names and pictures, because if they said that kind of shit IRL, they'd get looked at like they just dropped a turd in a punch bowl.

This is what being on the wrong side of history looks like.

Basically, yeah.

And I posted this thread as a reminder of a truly bad decision on the part of the Florida Judicial System.

George Zimmerman should be in prison.

He's been in trouble multiple times with the law, has committed violent acts against his girlfriends and friends, basically has said that "god" willed him to commit murder and now is taunting people with his trophy kill.

It's pretty clear this guy is a menace.

It's only a matter of time before he does something serious.

Yeah, Stalinists like you are well known for their 'verdict first' approach to law enforcement.

Too bad you missed your chance to kill thousands of innocent people while tied to a chair when Uncle Joe died.

 

[JimBowie1958]

That doesn't address the question. How was martin not acting in self defense?

In order to establish self defense, you have to prove that Zimmerman attacked Martin and not the other way around. Didn't happen.

no, you don't. you have to show that a reasonable person would find zimmerman's actions threatening.
and you should know that you don't have to show who initially attacked who - zimmerman never showed that martin initially attacked him.

There were witnesses that corroborated GZ's account of events.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Threads like this remind us the only place racists can congregate is when they hide behind false names and pictures, because if they said that kind of shit IRL, they'd get looked at like they just dropped a turd in a punch bowl.

This is what being on the wrong side of history looks like.

Basically, yeah.

And I posted this thread as a reminder of a truly bad decision on the part of the Florida Judicial System.

George Zimmerman should be in prison.

He's been in trouble multiple times with the law, has committed violent acts against his girlfriends and friends, basically has said that "god" willed him to commit murder and now is taunting people with his trophy kill.

It's pretty clear this guy is a menace.

It's only a matter of time before he does something serious.

The retweet is a fake. It did NOT come from George.
It was put up by some seriously mentally ill assholes at the 'NoTeaParty' website.

Here's a link from a Murdoch owned paper.


Zimmerman allegedly retweeted photo of Trayvon Martin's body


It's "semi news" in my book.

You have anything remotely close to this?

Do you understand what the word "allegedly" means.
You're an idiot pal.

The 'Murdock' paper wisely used the word "allegedly". The paper used 'Raw Story' as their source.
By the time it got to you you claim that what 'allegedly happened actually happened.
Do you have any idea how dumb this makes you appear?
No? REALLY FUCKING DUMB PAL!

Swallow is well known for his fact defying assertions that make his stupidity plain as day.

 

[JimBowie1958]

the trial and evidence did not show that martin attacked zimmerman.

You can't be serious... .

As the evidence demonstrated precisely that and in terms WELL BEYOND any potential for any doubt, let alone a reasonable variety of such.

Actually, no it did not.

The jurors cited the Stand Your Ground law even though it wasn't introduced by the prosecution or the defense.

Additionally, Florida's normal "Self Defense" laws have a very low requirement in terms of the use of deadly force.

A "reasonable person" has to "feel" their life is threatened.

I once read the verdict and don't recall them mentioning the Floriduh stand your ground law. Do you have a link?

Juries are not supposed to consider ANY evidence or law not spoon fed to them by the judge or the DA or defense legal beagles.

 

[JimBowie1958]

[
are you contending that zimmerman was not following martin at night in the rain? this is an established fact.

Then prove it.

it's called the reasonable man doctrine and it's used in self defense cases

Yes.. but here, you presume to speak for others, which is not related in any way.
Your presumption of what others think does not even qualify as evidence of what others think - and thus, you support your position with nothing.

Florida's stand your ground law means he has no obligation to retreat and can meet the threat with appropriate force

It has has certain other provisions, none of which you even try to meet here; especially given your concession that Martin attacked Zimmerman.
Thus, you have proven nothing.

again, this is just the stand your ground law. he had no obligation to retreat.

See above, You have proven nothing.
Given your inability this far to prove your hypothesis, its no wonder you tried to get others to disprove it by begging the question.

so, it's my belief that martin could only have been acting within his rights and in self defense. do you have a reason to disagree?

Yawn.
Not guilty.

That doesn't address the question. How was martin not acting in self defense?

Because Martin was the AGGRESSOR, he cannot by definition be acting in self DEFENSE, dude.

 

[Meathead]

That doesn't address the question. How was martin not acting in self defense?

In order to establish self defense, you have to prove that Zimmerman attacked Martin and not the other way around. Didn't happen.

no, you don't. you have to show that a reasonable person would find zimmerman's actions threatening.
and you should know that you don't have to show who initially attacked who - zimmerman never showed that martin initially attacked him.

You're being silly. You cannot defy reason to come to the conclusion that Zimmerman initiated the attack. Martin should have been free and clear, or at least called the cops instead of backtracking to to attack Zimmerman.

It was an open and shut case from the get-go.

 

[JimBowie1958]

That doesn't address the question. How was martin not acting in self defense?

In order to establish self defense, you have to prove that Zimmerman attacked Martin and not the other way around. Didn't happen.

no, you don't. you have to show that a reasonable person would find zimmerman's actions threatening.
and you should know that you don't have to show who initially attacked who - zimmerman never showed that martin initially attacked him.

You're being silly. You cannot defy reason to come to the conclusion that Zimmerman initiated the attack. Martin should have been free and clear, or at least called the cops instead of backtracking to to attack Zimmerman.

It was an open and shut case from the get-go.

"It was an open and shut case from the get-go."

Yes, it was, but the libtard left is using this and similar cases to weed out the 'not indoctrinated enough' among them for something that is coming our way and I am quite concerned about what it may be.

They are not really trying to argue that TM was innocent, they always use cases like this for ideological purposes and those uses vary considerably from one context to the next.

But as for Truth or Justice? They consider those things bourgeois, and for the soft minded.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That doesn't address the question. How was martin not acting in self defense?

In order to establish self defense, you have to prove that Zimmerman attacked Martin and not the other way around. Didn't happen.

no, you don't. you have to show that a reasonable person would find zimmerman's actions threatening.
and you should know that you don't have to show who initially attacked who - zimmerman never showed that martin initially attacked him.

You're being silly. You cannot defy reason to come to the conclusion that Zimmerman initiated the attack. Martin should have been free and clear, or at least called the cops instead of backtracking to to attack Zimmerman.

It was an open and shut case from the get-go.

"It was an open and shut case from the get-go."

Yes, it was, but the libtard left is using this and similar cases to weed out the 'not indoctrinated enough' among them for something that is coming our way and I am quite concerned about what it may be.

They are not really trying to argue that TM was innocent, they always use cases like this for ideological purposes and those uses vary considerably from one context to the next.

But as for Truth or Justice? They consider those things bourgeois, and for the soft minded.

More truth?
It Martin has been white, the liberals would not have cared at all.
if Zimmerman had been black, they'd be on his side.

 

[JimBowie1958]

That doesn't address the question. How was martin not acting in self defense?

In order to establish self defense, you have to prove that Zimmerman attacked Martin and not the other way around. Didn't happen.

no, you don't. you have to show that a reasonable person would find zimmerman's actions threatening.
and you should know that you don't have to show who initially attacked who - zimmerman never showed that martin initially attacked him.

You're being silly. You cannot defy reason to come to the conclusion that Zimmerman initiated the attack. Martin should have been free and clear, or at least called the cops instead of backtracking to to attack Zimmerman.

It was an open and shut case from the get-go.

"It was an open and shut case from the get-go."

Yes, it was, but the libtard left is using this and similar cases to weed out the 'not indoctrinated enough' among them for something that is coming our way and I am quite concerned about what it may be.

They are not really trying to argue that TM was innocent, they always use cases like this for ideological purposes and those uses vary considerably from one context to the next.

But as for Truth or Justice? They consider those things bourgeois, and for the soft minded.

More truth?
It Martin has been white, the liberals would not have cared at all.
if Zimmerman had been black, they'd be on his side.

True, in short, libtards today are the only remaining racists left with any kind of power at all.

We are being ruled by the 21st century version of Nazis, only these fascists hate white people and use antiracism as code for anti-white racism.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

We'll never know if Martin was doing anything more than getting skittles because, conveniently enough, the story was told by the person who killed him. It isn't Zimmerman's conduct after being attacked that I question, it's his conduct that set the stage for it.

Just maybe if he let the cops do their job, Martin might have had a chance to mend his ways and become a responsible adult. But now he can't because he's dead. And the guy who killed him doesn't deserve a fucking medal.

Yes... and IF Trayvon had just kept walking and not attacked an innocent man, he MIGHT have had a chance to mend his ways.

And IF LBJ hadn't scuttled the Black Culture, Trayvon might have had a father who, along with his mother, would not have allowed his ass to be tramping through other people's property and his ways would not have needed changin'.

The List of "IFs" is a long one and otherwise irrelevant. 'Cause Trayvon's ass be Dayeahd.

The problem with killing people is the removal for all chance to seek redemption. It's why I loath capital punishment. Martin is dead because he caused a man to believe his life was in danger. We'll never know if he was actually trying to kill him or not, but the shooting was justified.

I guess I'm just cursed with the ability to see both sides with equal clarity.

So because you don't like killing, GZ is white trash and a scumbag? TMs fists apparently were very persuasive pieces of evidence to GZ that his life was in danger.

He may have been in danger of nothing more than a good ass whoopin. We'll never know because Rambo didn't stay in his car.

The shooting was justified. We don't have to agree on all the other nuances.

'You call someone sitting on your chest beating your head into the concrete, just a 'good old ass whoopin'?

lol, dude, where are you from?

From the 1950s.