George Zimmerman banned from Tinder dating app

[Faun]

No, that’s not a reasonable fear. People don’t often die from being punched in in the face.

People who are repeatedly beaten and have their heads banged against the ground do...

It's not a one-punch scenario, dumb ass.

.

You said punched in the head. That apparently failed you as you now switched to having their heads banged against the ground.

 

[Faun]

Let it be know.

We can all beat Faun's face and head into the concrete, and he will do nothing about it. Because we are justified.

.

Try it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

This is Florida. Having an avenue to escape is not a factor in using deadly force against an assailant. But I like how you fool yourself into thinking you’re winning an argument.

Bitch, do I need to re-post the article from a Florida Lawyer explaining my position?

Here:

Florida Law on Self-Defense | Use of Deadly and Non Deadly Force

Educate your dumb ass.

God, you suck.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Try it.

I wouldn't. I'm not a thug.



.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You said punched in the head. That apparently failed you as you now switched to having their heads banged against the ground.

Oh, I am dreadfully sorry that I did not say all the thuggish bad things Martin did to Zimmerman's head.

So, we can simply go with punched.

How does that help your retarded argument, dumb shit?



Dude....just quit.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Kind of like thinking you’ve proven Martin stole jewelry by posting an article that didn’t state he stole jewelry.

The lawn is wet. The forecast said clear skies.

Did it rain or did the sprinklers run?

Please tell me you understand deductive reasoning.


.

 

[Faun]

My claim is that he was never accused of stealing jewelry, as you falsely claimed he was.

And that somehow means that he DIDN'T do it?

O.J. didn't do it either, right?

It means you’re making shit up since you can’t prove your claim. Did someone give him the jewelry? Maybe. You have no idea. And none of the jewelry was ever tied to any reported thefts. Maybe it was stolen, maybe it wasn’t. But you utterly failed to prove it was.

 

[Faun]

Kind of like thinking you’ve proven Martin stole jewelry by posting an article that didn’t state he stole jewelry.

The lawn is wet. The forecast said clear skies.

Did it rain or did the sprinklers run?

Please tell me you understand deductive reasoning.


.

Someone washed their car by your lawn... it’s from morning dew... a pipe under the ground burst... it was a sun shower... your neighbor pissed on your yard ... kids had a water balloon fight...

You’re literally reaching conclusions without all the facts and filling in the gaps with your imagination just so you can justify, in your mind, calling a dead teenager, a “thug.”

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It means you’re making shit up since you can’t prove your claim.

Did I make shit up by quoting the article where the resource officer STATED that Martin was found with women's jewelry and a tool commonly used for burglary?

Just because you refuse to consider proper inferences does not mean the rest of us are required to be equally retarded.

Did someone give him the jewelry? Maybe.

It's also a proper inference that HE (a dude) who identified as very manly, was not in possession of his OWN property.

You have no idea. And none of the jewelry was ever tied to any reported thefts. Maybe it was stolen, maybe it wasn’t. But you utterly failed to prove it was.

"Proof" means facts that tends to make ultimate issues more likely.

The FACT that Martin was in possession of women's jewelry makes it more likely than not that he stole that shit.

He may have a reasonable explanation, but that inference IS proper.

But, keep acting like that means nothing. That will win the day for you.



.

 

[Faun]

Try it.

I wouldn't. I'm not a thug.



.

So? There’s no proof Martin was either. Again, reviewing that night, his actions were to walk to a nearby convenience store to buy himself a soft drink and a bag of candy for a friend for them to watch an NBA game; to be followed for no good reason as far as he could tell; and to get into a fight, of which, we don’t know who started it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Someone washed their car by your lawn... it’s from morning dew... a pipe under the ground burst... it was a sun shower... your neighbor pissed on your yard ... kids had a water balloon fight...

BUT, we know it wasn't rain, right?

So, that is evidence that the sprinklers ran....RIGHT?

There may be some other explanation...but it would NOT be an improper inference that the sprinklers ran, right?

So, the FACT that Martin was in possession of women's jewelry AND had a tool commonly used in burglary WOULD support a PROPER inference that he stole that shit, RIGHT???

Please say no. Let everyone see how retarded you are.


.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So? There’s no proof Martin was either.

Except the part where Martin was pinning Zimmerman down and beating on his face for an extended period of time.



Give it up.

Again, reviewing that night, his actions were to walk to a nearby convenience store to buy himself a soft drink and a bag of candy for a friend for them to watch an NBA game; to be followed for no good reason as far as he could tell; and to get into a fight, of which, we don’t know who started it.

Again, back to the irrelevant "who started it" nonsense BULLSHIT.

We get it. You don't know fucking shit about the legal application of self defense and unreasonable force. Quit making your ignorance even MORE obvious.

.

 

[Faun]

It means you’re making shit up since you can’t prove your claim.

Did I make shit up by quoting the article where the resource officer STATED that Martin was found with women's jewelry and a tool commonly used for burglary?

Just because you refuse to consider proper inferences does not mean the rest of us are required to be equally retarded.

Did someone give him the jewelry? Maybe.

It's also a proper inference that HE (a dude) who identified as very manly, was not in possession of his OWN property.

You have no idea. And none of the jewelry was ever tied to any reported thefts. Maybe it was stolen, maybe it wasn’t. But you utterly failed to prove it was.

"Proof" means facts that tends to make ultimate issues more likely.

The FACT that Martin was in possession of women's jewelry makes it more likely than not that he stole that shit.

He may have a reasonable explanation, but that inference IS proper.

But, keep acting like that means nothing. That will win the day for you.



.

”Did I make shit up by quoting the article where the resource officer STATED that Martin was found with women's jewelry and a tool commonly used for burglary?”

No, you made up the shit that he stole it; and as we’ve seen, you can’t actually prove that claim. He was never accused of stealing it. He was never charged with stealing it. The police couldn’t match any of it up to reported stolen jewelry.

He said someone gave it to him. Which if true, also renders your point useless that it was mainly women’s jewelry.

But g’head, keep living off your imagination. Seems that’s all you have.

 

[Faun]

So? There’s no proof Martin was either.

Except the part where Martin was pinning Zimmerman down and beating on his face for an extended period of time.



Give it up.

Again, reviewing that night, his actions were to walk to a nearby convenience store to buy himself a soft drink and a bag of candy for a friend for them to watch an NBA game; to be followed for no good reason as far as he could tell; and to get into a fight, of which, we don’t know who started it.

Again, back to the irrelevant "who started it" nonsense BULLSHIT.

We get it. You don't know fucking shit about the legal application of self defense and unreasonable force. Quit making your ignorance even MORE obvious.

.

I don’t, huh? So when I said Zimmerman was justified in shooting him, I was wrong because I don’t know fucking shit about the legal application of self defense and unreasonable force, huh?

Do you ever stop saying stupid shit?

Ever???

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If it were me I sure as hell would not lead a creepy person following me back to my house.

He could have called 911.

Thug life ain't easy. Or long.

That sure isn't a biased opinion. lol

You got me. I'm biased against thugs.

Martin wasn't breaking the law at that moment. He is protected by the law just as you and I are. Just because you deem him a "thug" doesn't mean Zimmerman is allowed to pursue, confront and create a situation while being armed.

Martin wasn't breaking the law at that moment.

Not until he started beating on GZ.

doesn't mean Zimmerman is allowed to pursue, confront and create a situation

Baloney. He can pursue, confront and create all he wants.
TM, stupidly, and fatally, escalated instead of going home or calling 911.

You can’t prove Martin started beating on Zimmerman.

Stop making shit up.

Martin didn't beat on GZ?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If it were me I sure as hell would not lead a creepy person following me back to my house.

He could have called 911.

Thug life ain't easy. Or long.

LOLOL

To the brain-dead, an unarmed teen carrying candy back to his friend is “thug life.”

Yup. Dead thugs are dead.

^^^ Doubling down on stupid.

TM ain't doubling down any more.

No, but you are, on stupid.

I'm not doubling down on Trayon's fatal stupidity.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yup. Dead thugs are dead.

^^^ Doubling down on stupid.

yes you did,,,

LOLOL

Great, what’s thuggery about carrying candy back to a friend...?

Thuggery was beating on a creepy cracka instead of walking home.

Let’s see your proof Trayvon started the fight....

LOL!

Maybe Trayvon started beating on GZ after he was shot?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No, you made up the shit that he stole it;

Making a PROPER inference from facts presented is MAKING SHIT UP???



Every jury in the world makes shit up then, right?



Jesus this is getting pathetic.

and as we’ve seen, you can’t actually prove that claim.

That IS proof. What the fuck are you talking about? Do you know what proof is?

He was never accused of stealing it.

Well, that means it didn't happen then, right?

He was never charged with stealing it.

Well, that means it didn't happen then, right?

The police couldn’t match any of it up to reported stolen jewelry.

Well, that means it was perfectly legit, right?

He said someone gave it to him.

No thief has EVER used that line before, right?

Which if true, also renders your point useless that it was mainly women’s jewelry.

How so? (this should be good)

But g’head, keep living off your imagination.

AKA proper inferences.

Seems that’s all you have.

That's all juries have too.

It's like arguing with a child.

.

 

[Faun]

That sure isn't a biased opinion. lol

You got me. I'm biased against thugs.

Martin wasn't breaking the law at that moment. He is protected by the law just as you and I are. Just because you deem him a "thug" doesn't mean Zimmerman is allowed to pursue, confront and create a situation while being armed.

Martin wasn't breaking the law at that moment.

Not until he started beating on GZ.

doesn't mean Zimmerman is allowed to pursue, confront and create a situation

Baloney. He can pursue, confront and create all he wants.
TM, stupidly, and fatally, escalated instead of going home or calling 911.

You can’t prove Martin started beating on Zimmerman.

Stop making shit up.

Martin didn't beat on GZ?

What a pity you don’t understand English, huh?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

...

doesn't mean Zimmerman is allowed to pursue, confront and create a situation

Baloney. He can pursue, confront and create all he wants.
....

Why?

What right does he have to do that?

Why?

In America, we have the freedom to do those things.
And Trayvon had the freedom to run home and the freedom to call 911