Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I don't think it matters who threw the fist blow. I think the important part is that Zimmerman was getting his head pounded into the cement, which can cause anywhere from brain damage to death. Makes it self defense in my book. Whatever happened to not hitting a person when they're down?
It does matter as that is the law, especially if the one killed is not armed.
If Zimmerman threw the first punch then Martin has every right to defend himself and pound heads into cement because Zimmerman HAD A LOADED GUN.
"Not hitting a person when they're down" He had a gun!
Unless he was aiming the gun at Trayvon, it didn't matter that he had one. You don't hit someone when they are down.
Please provide some details on what this "strong" evidence is that Martin was the attacker excluding Zimmerman's statements as the survivor of the confrontation.
<<SNIP>>
1) The timeline that show Trayvon doubled back to find Zimmerman, rather than leaving the area.
2) Zimmerman's injuries shows that he was no match for Trayvon, meaning he (a chubby hispanic) wouldn't have started a fight with Trayvon (a bigger man, in prime condition).
3) Only Trayvon had motive to start a fight, to punish Zimmerman for following him.
4) Trayvon is a f-ing cold. What more evidence do you need?
5) The burden of proof is on you, not me, you f-ing piece of shit.
Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty. What evidence do you have that Zimmerman started the fight?
You got nothing, so fuck off and die.
Trayvon was trying to stand his ground, was murdered anyway
anybody see the hypocrisy in the racists position here
fuck, how sick can you garbage get
WW, you worthless piece of racist roach shit:
1) The timeline that show Trayvon doubled back to find Zimmerman, rather than leaving the area.
2) Zimmerman's injuries shows that he was no match for Trayvon, meaning he (a chubby hispanic) wouldn't have started a fight with Trayvon (a bigger man, in prime condition).
3) Only Trayvon had motive to start a fight, to punish Zimmerman for following him.
4) Trayvon is a f-ing cold. What more evidence do you need?
5) The burden of proof is on you, not me, you f-ing piece of shit. Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty. What evidence do you have that Zimmerman started the fight? You got nothing, so fuck off and die.
1. Probably and good point but the last part is speculation. But time does not lie and the timeline favors Z.
2. Maybe and there is evidence that Martin did cause injuries but who laid the first blow? Speculation again.
3. All speculation and no evidence.
4. You are leaning over the deep end.
5. That is the law without the hyperbole.
I don't think it matters who threw the fist blow. I think the important part is that Zimmerman was getting his head pounded into the cement, which can cause anywhere from brain damage to death. Makes it self defense in my book. Whatever happened to not hitting a person when they're down?
The defendant never has to prove anything "beyond a reasonable doubt" in his theory of defense and proof.
The entire burden of the prosecution is to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.
Unless he was aiming the gun at Trayvon, it didn't matter that he had one.
You don't hit someone when they are down.
LOL, oh the internet drama! It's all over this thread, the media and every other piece of information out there about the case and you know it.
Thanks in advance.
So you have no actual evidence as to who initiated hostilities?
Your opinion is that Martin was the attacker and Zimmerman the defender. The evidence equally supports that Zimmerman initiated hostilities and Martin the defender.
Personally? I don't know, but I'm honest enough to admit it and not make assumptions.
>>>>
The evidence to this point supports Zimmerman's story and you know it.
If it holds up in court remains to be seen or if more evidence is presented.
In my opinion you are far from being honest, you are being overly dramatic.
It does matter as that is the law, especially if the one killed is not armed.
If Zimmerman threw the first punch then Martin has every right to defend himself and pound heads into cement because Zimmerman HAD A LOADED GUN.
"Not hitting a person when they're down" He had a gun!
Unless he was aiming the gun at Trayvon, it didn't matter that he had one. You don't hit someone when they are down.
You do not know or understand THE LAW. If you are "down" with a gun that is NOT retreating under the law.
How can one retreat when they are down?
Throwing the first puch IS ALWAYS the criteria in ALL self defense cases.
And honey, THIS IS a self defense case.
So you have no actual evidence as to who initiated hostilities?
Your opinion is that Martin was the attacker and Zimmerman the defender. The evidence equally supports that Zimmerman initiated hostilities and Martin the defender.
Personally? I don't know, but I'm honest enough to admit it and not make assumptions.
>>>>
The evidence to this point supports Zimmerman's story and you know it.
No the evidence is inconclusive. You may want Zimmerman to be innocent, therefore you view the evidence through that lens and confuse your opinion with fact.
I recognize that the evidence at this point is not conclusive as to who started hostilities. I want justice served, that is all.
If it holds up in court remains to be seen or if more evidence is presented.
That is true.
In my opinion you are far from being honest, you are being overly dramatic.
Where was I being "overly dramatic". You made an absolute statement that Martin was the attacker, I asked for what evidence you have seen that supports such a statement. That is not "overly dramatic".
I notice though that you have not presented any conclusive evidence that Martin was the attacker (and as I said Zimmerman's story is not conclusive since he is the one charged he as motivation to lie and his head injuries do not indicate who initiate hostilities).
>>>>
The defendant never has to prove anything "beyond a reasonable doubt" in his theory of defense and proof.
The entire burden of the prosecution is to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think when attempting to show self-defense then the standard is "by a preponderance of the evidence" (a lower standard). If someone can show self-defense "by a preponderance of the evidence" then that shows that the "reasonable doubt" standard has not been met.
>>>>
The evidence to this point supports Zimmerman's story and you know it.
No the evidence is inconclusive. You may want Zimmerman to be innocent, therefore you view the evidence through that lens and confuse your opinion with fact.
I recognize that the evidence at this point is not conclusive as to who started hostilities. I want justice served, that is all.
That is true.
In my opinion you are far from being honest, you are being overly dramatic.
Where was I being "overly dramatic". You made an absolute statement that Martin was the attacker, I asked for what evidence you have seen that supports such a statement. That is not "overly dramatic".
I notice though that you have not presented any conclusive evidence that Martin was the attacker (and as I said Zimmerman's story is not conclusive since he is the one charged he as motivation to lie and his head injuries do not indicate who initiate hostilities).
>>>>
I've noticed that you have been in this thread reading all of the same posted evidence that I have for the past few months. You have also read the same information that I have that has been plastered all over the Internet. Just because you refuse to use that information and insist that I repost it again and again doesn't mean thAT YOU HAVE NOT READ IT. So you are either being overly dramatic or you are just being a cantankerous old fart that is looking for some kind of jollies thru a contrived (dishonestly) argument. Either way I have no interest in playing your little game with you. The evidence speaks for itself AND YOU KNOW IT as well as anyone who has participated in this thread does. All of the available evidence at this time supports Zimmerman's claim of being attacked by Martin. The fact that you enjoy denying that means nothing.
No the evidence is inconclusive. You may want Zimmerman to be innocent, therefore you view the evidence through that lens and confuse your opinion with fact.
I recognize that the evidence at this point is not conclusive as to who started hostilities. I want justice served, that is all.
That is true.
Where was I being "overly dramatic". You made an absolute statement that Martin was the attacker, I asked for what evidence you have seen that supports such a statement. That is not "overly dramatic".
I notice though that you have not presented any conclusive evidence that Martin was the attacker (and as I said Zimmerman's story is not conclusive since he is the one charged he as motivation to lie and his head injuries do not indicate who initiate hostilities).
>>>>
I've noticed that you have been in this thread reading all of the same posted evidence that I have for the past few months. You have also read the same information that I have that has been plastered all over the Internet. Just because you refuse to use that information and insist that I repost it again and again doesn't mean thAT YOU HAVE NOT READ IT. So you are either being overly dramatic or you are just being a cantankerous old fart that is looking for some kind of jollies thru a contrived (dishonestly) argument. Either way I have no interest in playing your little game with you. The evidence speaks for itself AND YOU KNOW IT as well as anyone who has participated in this thread does. All of the available evidence at this time supports Zimmerman's claim of being attacked by Martin. The fact that you enjoy denying that means nothing.
Your inability to point to one shred of evidence (not based on Zimmerman's recounting of the events) prove my point exactly.
There is no evidence that details what happened when Zimmerman and Martin came into contact. The evidence equally supports either Zimmerman or Martin as the aggressor.
And you are right, I've watched the evidence unfold for months. Reviewed the actual evidence released by the prosecution and the defense, I've watched each of the court appearances to date.
There is nothing that shows whether it was Zimmerman or Martin as the initial aggressor except for Zimmerman claims about what happened.
You claim as an absolute fact that Martin was the attacker, yet can't point to one thing that proves that. Could Martin have been the initial aggressor? Yep. Could Zimmerman? Yep. Do we know at this point what the Jury will decide? Nope.
>>>>
I've noticed that you have been in this thread reading all of the same posted evidence that I have for the past few months. You have also read the same information that I have that has been plastered all over the Internet. Just because you refuse to use that information and insist that I repost it again and again doesn't mean thAT YOU HAVE NOT READ IT. So you are either being overly dramatic or you are just being a cantankerous old fart that is looking for some kind of jollies thru a contrived (dishonestly) argument. Either way I have no interest in playing your little game with you. The evidence speaks for itself AND YOU KNOW IT as well as anyone who has participated in this thread does. All of the available evidence at this time supports Zimmerman's claim of being attacked by Martin. The fact that you enjoy denying that means nothing.
Your inability to point to one shred of evidence (not based on Zimmerman's recounting of the events) prove my point exactly.
There is no evidence that details what happened when Zimmerman and Martin came into contact. The evidence equally supports either Zimmerman or Martin as the aggressor.
And you are right, I've watched the evidence unfold for months. Reviewed the actual evidence released by the prosecution and the defense, I've watched each of the court appearances to date.
There is nothing that shows whether it was Zimmerman or Martin as the initial aggressor except for Zimmerman claims about what happened.
You claim as an absolute fact that Martin was the attacker, yet can't point to one thing that proves that. Could Martin have been the initial aggressor? Yep. Could Zimmerman? Yep. Do we know at this point what the Jury will decide? Nope.
>>>>
Bullshit. I've pointed to everything, twice! So far the evidence favors Zimmerman's story. Just because you are acting like a black guy with his fingers in his ears and wagging his tongue doesn't change the evidence in the case.
Your inability to point to one shred of evidence (not based on Zimmerman's recounting of the events) prove my point exactly.
There is no evidence that details what happened when Zimmerman and Martin came into contact. The evidence equally supports either Zimmerman or Martin as the aggressor.
And you are right, I've watched the evidence unfold for months. Reviewed the actual evidence released by the prosecution and the defense, I've watched each of the court appearances to date.
There is nothing that shows whether it was Zimmerman or Martin as the initial aggressor except for Zimmerman claims about what happened.
You claim as an absolute fact that Martin was the attacker, yet can't point to one thing that proves that. Could Martin have been the initial aggressor? Yep. Could Zimmerman? Yep. Do we know at this point what the Jury will decide? Nope.
>>>>
Bullshit. I've pointed to everything, twice! So far the evidence favors Zimmerman's story. Just because you are acting like a black guy with his fingers in his ears and wagging his tongue doesn't change the evidence in the case.
The thread had pretty much died out with the lack of new evidence being released and as we reached a lull in the legal proceedings.
You have posted nothing and made no reference to anything since it cropped back up and you made your declaratory statement about Martin being the attacker which resulted in my question that you have refused (or are unable) to answer.
Seems pretty simple. You claim Martin was the attacker, OK. Not saying it is impossible he wasn't. But what piece of evidence (outside of Zimmerman's claims as the sole survivor of the encounter) prove that Martin was the only one that could have initiated hostilities?
Step up. Let's see it. There has been nothing in the evidence released so far that can definitively proves one way or the other who the attacker was since there were no witnesses to those crucial moments. But ya never know, I may have missed something. So floor is yours.
>>>>
Your inability to point to one shred of evidence (not based on Zimmerman's recounting of the events) prove my point exactly.
There is no evidence that details what happened when Zimmerman and Martin came into contact. The evidence equally supports either Zimmerman or Martin as the aggressor.
And you are right, I've watched the evidence unfold for months. Reviewed the actual evidence released by the prosecution and the defense, I've watched each of the court appearances to date.
There is nothing that shows whether it was Zimmerman or Martin as the initial aggressor except for Zimmerman claims about what happened.
You claim as an absolute fact that Martin was the attacker, yet can't point to one thing that proves that. Could Martin have been the initial aggressor? Yep. Could Zimmerman? Yep. Do we know at this point what the Jury will decide? Nope.
>>>>
Bullshit. I've pointed to everything, twice! So far the evidence favors Zimmerman's story. Just because you are acting like a black guy with his fingers in his ears and wagging his tongue doesn't change the evidence in the case.
The thread had pretty much died out with the lack of new evidence being released and as we reached a lull in the legal proceedings.
You have posted nothing and made no reference to anything since it cropped back up and you made your declaratory statement about Martin being the attacker which resulted in my question that you have refused (or are unable) to answer.
Seems pretty simple. You claim Martin was the attacker, OK. Not saying it is impossible he wasn't. But what piece of evidence (outside of Zimmerman's claims as the sole survivor of the encounter) prove that Martin was the only one that could have initiated hostilities?
Step up. Let's see it. There has been nothing in the evidence released so far that can definitively proves one way or the other who the attacker was since there were no witnesses to those crucial moments. But ya never know, I may have missed something. So floor is yours.
>>>>
Never said a damn thing to minimize the importance of slavery in the south dumb ass.
I stated MOST southerners did not own slaves.
You are about as dumb as a box of rocks as the "facts" you go by were census data where the northern states wanted less representation in Congress and low balled 2 census figures in a row.
The funny thing is my family IS FROM NEW YORK you dumb fuck. Out of 4 kids I am the only one that was born in the south. All of my relatives fought for the Union Army you fool.
Get your head out of your ass and quit prejudging others.
I grew up during integration and played on some of the first integrated teams.
I read you loud and clear. To you ANYONE that wants a fair trial for Zimmerman is a racist.
You are the one that is prejudiced and ignorant.
I was supporting equal rights for everyone before your punk ass was born.
The chronololgy of the posts shows what was said regarding slavery (minimizing the actual numbers of slave owners and such)...you were given information that proved your initial statements wrong, and now you try to BS over the FACT that you were proven WRONG.
The chronlogy of the posts show you making slanderous assertions about the Martin family, that I ponted out were prejudiced in their formation.
I'm dealing with what you post here, toodles...I don't give a rat's ass about your alleged family history or personal friends. The chronology of the post nails yhou for an intellectually dishonest Zimmerman Zombie, with a little racial prejudice on the side. You can deny and lie all you want but the chronology of the post will always be your undoing to the objective, rational reader.
Now, run-a-long and repeat your BS ad nauseum for the cretins that you think you're above. Gaddawg you're delusional! Carry on.
"intellectually dishonest Zimmerman Zombie with a little prejudice on the side"
You are the one prejudging. I was playing with black kids in the 60s and 70s on teams where we all got along fine.
Oh wow, I'm supposed to be impressed because you played with the black folk? That absolves you of the shit you posted here regarding the Martin family? Hint: it doesn't. We know people like you, the old school term was "jive turkey".
Not a bigoted or prejudiced bone in my body. You will not find anyone on USMB that supports equal rights for everyone MORE than me.
So long as it's not in your intellectual backyard. As the chronology of the posts shows, your previous words counter your pontifications here....and you can't escape that.
You are the anti Zimmerman Zombie. I want a fair trial and have stated from the start that he IS guilty of involuntary manslaughter, the family WILL win also in the civil caseasTHEY SHOULD WIN that case.
All you have to do is provide the post where I state, allude to, insinuate, allege or advocate such and you may have a case. Otherwise, you're just another intellectually bankrupt Zimmerman Zombie blowing smoke out of his ass.
But if THE LAW, which you could care less about, is interpreted he stood his ground then the LAW sets him free.
Well toodles, then the LAW should look into the actions of the local PC and the Attn. office who went out of their way to override proper procedure when the Det. in charge filed an affidavit against Zimmerman. When ALL the information is examined, and we have a fair trial, then the chips fall where they may. Dopes like you don't like the FACTS that point to Georgie boy's biased and unnecessary actions. TFB, them's the facts, jack.
We are a nation OF LAWS, not people like you with their narrow and ignorant BELIEFS.
What if some of your best friends are black? Does that make you a racist? What if you're dating someone who's black? Do you stop being racist then? If you're not really "dating" her, you just hook up for casual sex, and then ignore her calls for days, do you become a born-again racist? What if you're Hispanic? Does that trump all the other things? If you're a black woman whose having sex with a white Hispanic, are you now tri-racial?
FYI: the phrase "some of my best friends are black" became popular in the 1960's during the Civil Rights movement...whites who only interacted with black folk on the most basic level (i.e., the job) and claimed to be "liberals" would suddenly come unglued if black folk moved into their neighborhood, or utilizing public facilities and such in their neighborhoods where narry a black person could be found, or if black folk supported causes that upset the status quo and becoame too "radical" (i.e., the March on Washington in 1968).
Hope this clarifies things for you, and prevents any future grade school attempts at sarcasm and mocking on your part.
Wow, it's pathetic that you're all bent out of shape over some light humor. Stop taking yourself so seriously and people won't have to school you with their biting sarcasm anymore.
Zimmerman Zombie.[/COLOR]
Zimmerman Zombie.[/COLOR]
I guess that makes the shitheads who support the piece of shit Trayvon, Trayvon Turds.
