Zimmerman tweets picture of kid he murdered.

[ogibillm]

so if he's legally standing his ground why is it legal for zimmerman to shoot him?

Sigh.
Beg a question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

just answer the question. why is it assumed that martin was not standing his ground in any conflict between him and zimmerman, a man who admits stalking him?

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?

 

[hadit]

This question does not make sense, especially in that SYG was not an issue in this case.

Why do you hate the fact that, under a limited set of circumstances, it it legal for a white man with a gun to kill a black?

the question absolutely makes sense. why was martin not allowed to stand his ground against zimmerman?

Because Zimmerman wasn't attacking him. Zimmerman called 911, Martin did not. See the difference?

no. there's no way for martin to have known what zimmerman did or did not do. all he knew was that he was being stalked by a guy at night. how safe would you feel?

In that circumstance, I have choices.

1. If I'm close to my home, move faster and get inside.
2. If I have a cell phone (Martin did), call 911 and report the stalker.
3. If I'm far from my home, knock on a neighbor's door and ask to stay with them until the police arrive.
4. Hide behind a bush and jump the guy who is following me, not knowing if he's armed or what his intentions are.

Which one seems like a smart course of action?

1. stand your ground.
2. stand your ground.
3. stand your ground.
4. stand your ground.

he did have options. he was not required to do any of those things. but if he did hide behind a bush and jump zimmerman, he was still standing his ground

As was noted before, "Stand your ground" wasn't part of this case. There is no evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin at all.

 

[JakeStarkey]

so if he's legally standing his ground why is it legal for zimmerman to shoot him?

Sigh.
Beg a question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

just answer the question. why is it assumed that martin was not standing his ground in any conflict between him and zimmerman, a man who admits stalking him?

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 are the Light of Truth with a comment like that?

 

[ogibillm]

the question absolutely makes sense. why was martin not allowed to stand his ground against zimmerman?

Because Zimmerman wasn't attacking him. Zimmerman called 911, Martin did not. See the difference?

no. there's no way for martin to have known what zimmerman did or did not do. all he knew was that he was being stalked by a guy at night. how safe would you feel?

In that circumstance, I have choices.

1. If I'm close to my home, move faster and get inside.
2. If I have a cell phone (Martin did), call 911 and report the stalker.
3. If I'm far from my home, knock on a neighbor's door and ask to stay with them until the police arrive.
4. Hide behind a bush and jump the guy who is following me, not knowing if he's armed or what his intentions are.

Which one seems like a smart course of action?

1. stand your ground.
2. stand your ground.
3. stand your ground.
4. stand your ground.

he did have options. he was not required to do any of those things. but if he did hide behind a bush and jump zimmerman, he was still standing his ground

As SYG was never part of this case, why do you think any of this matters?

it wasn't part of the case only because martin was dead. that's why it matters. this case just goes to show if you're going to get in a fight with someone you're better off killing the other guy.

 

[blastoff]

He's no hero of mine, in fact he's not someone I would hang with, but there simply wasn't enough evidence to convict him of murder.

sadly true. i think the prosecutor way overshot on the charges.

Doesn't matter.

Florida's laws concerning this are confusing and pretty terrible.

It's entirely dependent on the killer. If they "reasonably" think their life is being threatened they can use deadly force. That's nuts.

exactly. how you can stalk someone and then claim to be a victim is beyond me.

If you knew the facts of the case it wouldn't be beyond you, and as a bonus you wouldn't come across sounding like an idiot.

For starters, stand your ground law was not an issue in the trial.

 

[Auld Phart]

Zimmerman started the fight?

there was no confrontation without zimmerman chasing him down. sound like starting a fight to me.

As posted earlier, by several posters, Treyvon was in the clear, and came back to confront George.

The fight, and his death, is on Treyvon .

this is not true.

actually, it is.

submit your proof.
it's one of those things people say happened, but that's all.

submit your proof.

George Zimmerman trial over fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin to begin with jury selection in Florida


Do you have any, perhaps eye witnesses to back up YOUR claim?

Or are you suppositioning, because it fits your narrative?

 

[ogibillm]

the question absolutely makes sense. why was martin not allowed to stand his ground against zimmerman?

Because Zimmerman wasn't attacking him. Zimmerman called 911, Martin did not. See the difference?

no. there's no way for martin to have known what zimmerman did or did not do. all he knew was that he was being stalked by a guy at night. how safe would you feel?

In that circumstance, I have choices.

1. If I'm close to my home, move faster and get inside.
2. If I have a cell phone (Martin did), call 911 and report the stalker.
3. If I'm far from my home, knock on a neighbor's door and ask to stay with them until the police arrive.
4. Hide behind a bush and jump the guy who is following me, not knowing if he's armed or what his intentions are.

Which one seems like a smart course of action?

1. stand your ground.
2. stand your ground.
3. stand your ground.
4. stand your ground.

he did have options. he was not required to do any of those things. but if he did hide behind a bush and jump zimmerman, he was still standing his ground

As was noted before, "Stand your ground" wasn't part of this case. There is no evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin at all.

outside of stalking him. you mean - something a reasonable person would find threatening.
and there's no evidence that martin attacked zimmerman either.

 

[ogibillm]

He's no hero of mine, in fact he's not someone I would hang with, but there simply wasn't enough evidence to convict him of murder.

sadly true. i think the prosecutor way overshot on the charges.

Doesn't matter.

Florida's laws concerning this are confusing and pretty terrible.

It's entirely dependent on the killer. If they "reasonably" think their life is being threatened they can use deadly force. That's nuts.

exactly. how you can stalk someone and then claim to be a victim is beyond me.

If you knew the facts of the case it wouldn't be beyond you, and as a bonus you wouldn't come across sounding like an idiot.

For starters, stand your ground law was not an issue in the trial.

right. because zimmerman was stalking martin. but that's not what i'm asking. i'm asking why martin wasn't allowed to stand his ground. why was it okay for zimmerman to kill a guy standing his ground?

 

[hadit]

Sigh.
Beg a question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

just answer the question. why is it assumed that martin was not standing his ground in any conflict between him and zimmerman, a man who admits stalking him?

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. knowing everything you know about the case, including things you just think you know, why was martin not allowed to stand his ground? why, even if he managed to get the upper hand on zimmerman after being stalked, was zimmerman able to shoot a guy acting in self defense and get away with it?

the only answer can be because martin ended up dead

The only way Martin could have been acting in self defense is if Zimmerman attacked him. The evidence does not support that scenario.

the evidence doesn't tell us who attacked who. we do know that zimmerman acted aggressively, stalking martin, and that alone would make a reasonable person fear for their safety.

Let's examine that thought for a moment. Is it reasonable to hide behind a bush and jump a person who has done you no harm? I don't think so. Had he really feared for his safety, there were several courses of action he could have taken that would have resulted in him surviving the incident. Clearly, attacking an armed man was not one of them.

 

[Auld Phart]

This question does not make sense, especially in that SYG was not an issue in this case.

Why do you hate the fact that, under a limited set of circumstances, it it legal for a white man with a gun to kill a black?

the question absolutely makes sense. why was martin not allowed to stand his ground against zimmerman?

Because Zimmerman wasn't attacking him. Zimmerman called 911, Martin did not. See the difference?

no. there's no way for martin to have known what zimmerman did or did not do. all he knew was that he was being stalked by a guy at night. how safe would you feel?

In that circumstance, I have choices.

1. If I'm close to my home, move faster and get inside.
2. If I have a cell phone (Martin did), call 911 and report the stalker.
3. If I'm far from my home, knock on a neighbor's door and ask to stay with them until the police arrive.
4. Hide behind a bush and jump the guy who is following me, not knowing if he's armed or what his intentions are.

Which one seems like a smart course of action?

1. stand your ground.
2. stand your ground.
3. stand your ground.
4. stand your ground.

he did have options. he was not required to do any of those things. but if he did hide behind a bush and jump zimmerman, he was still standing his ground

No, he would have been attacking.

 

[JakeStarkey]

TM made it home then went back out.

He killed himself.

that isn't true.

Yes, it is. He made it home, and when he went back out he shed the right to defense.

again, it's not true.

Yes, it is. The testimony was quite clear that he made it home then went out again. Why do you deny?

 

[ogibillm]

there was no confrontation without zimmerman chasing him down. sound like starting a fight to me.

As posted earlier, by several posters, Treyvon was in the clear, and came back to confront George.

The fight, and his death, is on Treyvon .

this is not true.

actually, it is.

submit your proof.
it's one of those things people say happened, but that's all.

submit your proof.

George Zimmerman trial over fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin to begin with jury selection in Florida


Do you have any, perhaps eye witnesses to back up YOUR claim?

Or are you suppositioning, because it fits your narrative?

there was no confrontation without zimmerman chasing him down. sound like starting a fight to me.

As posted earlier, by several posters, Treyvon was in the clear, and came back to confront George.

The fight, and his death, is on Treyvon .

this is not true.

actually, it is.

submit your proof.
it's one of those things people say happened, but that's all.

submit your proof.

George Zimmerman trial over fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin to begin with jury selection in Florida


Do you have any, perhaps eye witnesses to back up YOUR claim?

Or are you suppositioning, because it fits your narrative?

there's no evidence in your link.

 

[ogibillm]

TM made it home then went back out.

He killed himself.

that isn't true.

Yes, it is. He made it home, and when he went back out he shed the right to defense.

again, it's not true.

Yes, it is. The testimony was quite clear that he made it home then went out again. Why do you deny?

what testimony? can you quote it?

 

[ogibillm]

the question absolutely makes sense. why was martin not allowed to stand his ground against zimmerman?

Because Zimmerman wasn't attacking him. Zimmerman called 911, Martin did not. See the difference?

no. there's no way for martin to have known what zimmerman did or did not do. all he knew was that he was being stalked by a guy at night. how safe would you feel?

In that circumstance, I have choices.

1. If I'm close to my home, move faster and get inside.
2. If I have a cell phone (Martin did), call 911 and report the stalker.
3. If I'm far from my home, knock on a neighbor's door and ask to stay with them until the police arrive.
4. Hide behind a bush and jump the guy who is following me, not knowing if he's armed or what his intentions are.

Which one seems like a smart course of action?

1. stand your ground.
2. stand your ground.
3. stand your ground.
4. stand your ground.

he did have options. he was not required to do any of those things. but if he did hide behind a bush and jump zimmerman, he was still standing his ground

No, he would have been attacking.

in what scenario is he attacking? in all scenarios you gave zimmerman was the aggressor.

 

[hadit]

Because Zimmerman wasn't attacking him. Zimmerman called 911, Martin did not. See the difference?

no. there's no way for martin to have known what zimmerman did or did not do. all he knew was that he was being stalked by a guy at night. how safe would you feel?

In that circumstance, I have choices.

1. If I'm close to my home, move faster and get inside.
2. If I have a cell phone (Martin did), call 911 and report the stalker.
3. If I'm far from my home, knock on a neighbor's door and ask to stay with them until the police arrive.
4. Hide behind a bush and jump the guy who is following me, not knowing if he's armed or what his intentions are.

Which one seems like a smart course of action?

1. stand your ground.
2. stand your ground.
3. stand your ground.
4. stand your ground.

he did have options. he was not required to do any of those things. but if he did hide behind a bush and jump zimmerman, he was still standing his ground

As was noted before, "Stand your ground" wasn't part of this case. There is no evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin at all.

outside of stalking him. you mean - something a reasonable person would find threatening.
and there's no evidence that martin attacked zimmerman either.

You mean, aside from the injuries Zimmerman was suffering when he pulled the trigger. Let's face reality for a moment here. Why would Zimmerman voluntarily attack Martin when he already had the police on the way? That doesn't make sense.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

TM went inside the condo, then came out again to confront GZ.

One piece of trash confroned another piece of trash. We are just waiting for the end of the story when the second piece of trash gets thrown away for good.

No.

A scared kid couldn't get away from a conservative gun nut playing cop. He fought for his life and lost.

Yes, he was a thug who would could not retreat in his own mind, and GZ was a thug with a gun playing cop.

Um, no.

Martin ran away. Zimmerman pursued him. It's on the police tape and Zimmerman, himself, admitted to it.

In most rational states Zimmerman would be cooling his heels in the clink.

But thanks to a Koch Brothers/ALEC manufactured law, signed by Jeb! Bush.

This kid got murdered and a real piece of shit got away with it.

They didn't use SYG as a defense.

Idiot.

 

[Auld Phart]

As posted earlier, by several posters, Treyvon was in the clear, and came back to confront George.

The fight, and his death, is on Treyvon .

this is not true.

actually, it is.

submit your proof.
it's one of those things people say happened, but that's all.

submit your proof.

George Zimmerman trial over fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin to begin with jury selection in Florida


Do you have any, perhaps eye witnesses to back up YOUR claim?

Or are you suppositioning, because it fits your narrative?

As posted earlier, by several posters, Treyvon was in the clear, and came back to confront George.

The fight, and his death, is on Treyvon .

this is not true.

actually, it is.

submit your proof.
it's one of those things people say happened, but that's all.

submit your proof.

George Zimmerman trial over fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin to begin with jury selection in Florida


Do you have any, perhaps eye witnesses to back up YOUR claim?

Or are you suppositioning, because it fits your narrative?

there's no evidence in your link.

" Zimmerman told police he had lost sight of Martin, and that Martin circled back and attacked him as he walked back to his truck."

 

[JakeStarkey]

TM made it home then went back out.

He killed himself.

that isn't true.

Yes, it is. He made it home, and when he went back out he shed the right to defense.

again, it's not true.

Yes, it is. The testimony was quite clear that he made it home then went out again. Why do you deny?

what testimony? can you quote it?

That testimony was quite clear and common knowledge. I don't have to prove it here. TM went inside, and when he came out he shed the right of self defense.

 

[ogibillm]

this is not true.

actually, it is.

submit your proof.
it's one of those things people say happened, but that's all.

submit your proof.

George Zimmerman trial over fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin to begin with jury selection in Florida


Do you have any, perhaps eye witnesses to back up YOUR claim?

Or are you suppositioning, because it fits your narrative?

this is not true.

actually, it is.

submit your proof.
it's one of those things people say happened, but that's all.

submit your proof.

George Zimmerman trial over fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin to begin with jury selection in Florida


Do you have any, perhaps eye witnesses to back up YOUR claim?

Or are you suppositioning, because it fits your narrative?

there's no evidence in your link.

" Zimmerman told police he had lost sight of Martin, and that Martin circled back and attacked him as he walked back to his truck."

typically i find the testimony of someone with a vested interest to be less than reliable.

it also isn't evidence.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Because Zimmerman wasn't attacking him. Zimmerman called 911, Martin did not. See the difference?

no. there's no way for martin to have known what zimmerman did or did not do. all he knew was that he was being stalked by a guy at night. how safe would you feel?

In that circumstance, I have choices.

1. If I'm close to my home, move faster and get inside.
2. If I have a cell phone (Martin did), call 911 and report the stalker.
3. If I'm far from my home, knock on a neighbor's door and ask to stay with them until the police arrive.
4. Hide behind a bush and jump the guy who is following me, not knowing if he's armed or what his intentions are.

Which one seems like a smart course of action?

1. stand your ground.
2. stand your ground.
3. stand your ground.
4. stand your ground.

he did have options. he was not required to do any of those things. but if he did hide behind a bush and jump zimmerman, he was still standing his ground

As SYG was never part of this case, why do you think any of this matters?

it wasn't part of the case only because martin was dead. that's why it matters.

Wow. Do you ever listen to yourself?
You clearly have an emotional attachment to this event that has reduced you past the point of reason.

Zimmerman: Not Guilty
SYG: Not related to the case.