A Civil Right?

[TemplarKormac]

Trayvon Martin also had the right not to go home, and he also had the right to stand HIS ground,

against the threat of George Zimmerman.

You are trolling now. So standing your ground means beating the daylights out of someone? In what universe? So Martin had the right to beat Zimmerman to a pulp?

 

[Gardener]

"Trayvon Martin had the civil right to go home" Al Sharpton said in front of the Department of Justice today.

If that were true, why didn't he take the last four minutes of his life to go home? What does this have to do with civil rights?

That's EXACTLY what he was trying to do, until a wannabe cop with a gun and an agenda, chased him down and shot him.

you mean KILLED HIM.

 

[DiamondDave]

Trayvon Martin also had the right not to go home, and he also had the right to stand HIS ground,

against the threat of George Zimmerman.

He would have a right to 'stand his ground' if he were attacked... he was the one who started the attack.. he had no 'stand his ground'

And he could have done differently... HE attacked GZ...

 

[DiamondDave]

"Trayvon Martin had the civil right to go home" Al Sharpton said in front of the Department of Justice today.

If that were true, why didn't he take the last four minutes of his life to go home? What does this have to do with civil rights?

That's EXACTLY what he was trying to do, until a wannabe cop with a gun and an agenda, chased him down and shot him.

you mean KILLED HIM.

In self defense

 

[DiamondDave]

Trayvon Martin also had the right not to go home, and he also had the right to stand HIS ground,

against the threat of George Zimmerman.

being followed in a car and then on foot by a strange man at night and in the rain, can be intimidating and scary.

so yes, Martin did have the right to Stand His Ground against this strange man who was following him.

No.. he did not.. he had 4 minutes to just walk away.. yet HE came back and STARTED the altercation.. HE HAD NO RIGHT TO STAND HIS GROUND

 

[DiamondDave]

"Trayvon Martin had the civil right to go home" Al Sharpton said in front of the Department of Justice today.

If that were true, why didn't he take the last four minutes of his life to go home? What does this have to do with civil rights?

That's EXACTLY what he was trying to do, until a wannabe cop with a gun and an agenda, chased him down and shot him.

Except evidence shows nothing like that.. you and your motherfucking ilk love to repeat this 'chased down' or 'hunted' story.. that is as much of a goddamn fairy tale as Hansel and Gretel

 

[TemplarKormac]

"Trayvon Martin had the civil right to go home" Al Sharpton said in front of the Department of Justice today.

If that were true, why didn't he take the last four minutes of his life to go home? What does this have to do with civil rights?

That's EXACTLY what he was trying to do, until a wannabe cop with a gun and an agenda, chased him down and shot him.

What part of "he didn't chase anybody" don't you understand? What part of "he broke no law" don't you understand? What part of "evidence does not say he was a cop wannabe" don't you understand?

 

[DiamondDave]

"Trayvon Martin had the civil right to go home" Al Sharpton said in front of the Department of Justice today.

If that were true, why didn't he take the last four minutes of his life to go home? What does this have to do with civil rights?

That's EXACTLY what he was trying to do, until a wannabe cop with a gun and an agenda, chased him down and shot him.

What part of "he didn't chase anybody" don't you understand?

The part right after the whole made up 'agenda' part

 

[Antares]

"Trayvon Martin had the civil right to go home" Al Sharpton said in front of the Department of Justice today.

If that were true, why didn't he take the last four minutes of his life to go home? What does this have to do with civil rights?

That's EXACTLY what he was trying to do, until a wannabe cop with a gun and an agenda, chased him down and shot him.

You an angry black man swallow?

 

[Intense]

Moved To Race Relations/Racism

 

[LoneLaugher]

There is no proof that Martin attacked Zimmerman.

There is not enough evidence to dispute that Zimmerman was losing the fight when he shot Martin. That is it. There is no evidence either way regarding who started the fight.

Stop saying that you know who started the fight.

 

[TemplarKormac]

There is no proof that Martin attacked Zimmerman.

There is not enough evidence to dispute that Zimmerman was losing the fight when he shot Martin. That is it. There is no evidence either way regarding who started the fight.

Stop saying that you know who started the fight.

Him being on top is proof enough to me.

Stop saying you know anything about the trial, since you think Zimmerman to be a racist anyway. Your view is biased.

 

[Norman]

Martin started the physical confrontation?

you can't prove that.

The jury did.

The jury didn't prove anything.

They also didn't say who they think started the fight.

you fail.

One of the jurors were interviewed.

She thought Trayvon started it. Like any reasonable person would.

Of course you can't say anything with 100% certainty. But who is more likely to start a fight? A self admitted gangster on drugs and on a trip to get some more, admired for his fighting skills by his older brother or a "wanna be cop", trying to protect his neighbourhood, who called 911?

 

[Antares]

There is no proof that Martin attacked Zimmerman.

There is not enough evidence to dispute that Zimmerman was losing the fight when he shot Martin. That is it. There is no evidence either way regarding who started the fight.

Stop saying that you know who started the fight.

Stop saying Zimmerman did anything to warrant murder charges.

 

[Defiant1]

There is no proof that Martin attacked Zimmerman.

There is not enough evidence to dispute that Zimmerman was losing the fight when he shot Martin. That is it. There is no evidence either way regarding who started the fight.

Stop saying that you know who started the fight.

Other than the Coup de Grace, what evidence is there that Zimmerman threw the first punch?

 

[DiamondDave]

There is no proof that Martin attacked Zimmerman.

There is not enough evidence to dispute that Zimmerman was losing the fight when he shot Martin. That is it. There is no evidence either way regarding who started the fight.

Stop saying that you know who started the fight.

Person A person has injuries from receiving a physical attack
Person B has marks as a result of inflicting damage in a physical attack
Person A has no marks showing resulting from giving out physical abuse in an attack
Person B has no marks or injuries resulting from receiving any physical attack

Who the FUCK do you think started the physical altercation??

 

[LoneLaugher]

There is no proof that Martin attacked Zimmerman.

There is not enough evidence to dispute that Zimmerman was losing the fight when he shot Martin. That is it. There is no evidence either way regarding who started the fight.

Stop saying that you know who started the fight.

Him being on top is proof enough to me.

Stop saying you know anything about the trial, since you think Zimmerman to be a racist anyway. Your view is biased.

I don't think Zimmerman is racist.

I think you are racist though.

No proof who started the fight.

 

[LoneLaugher]

There is no proof that Martin attacked Zimmerman.

There is not enough evidence to dispute that Zimmerman was losing the fight when he shot Martin. That is it. There is no evidence either way regarding who started the fight.

Stop saying that you know who started the fight.

Person A person has injuries from receiving a physical attack
Person B has marks as a result of inflicting damage in a physical attack
Person A has no marks showing resulting from giving out physical abuse in an attack
Person B has no marks or injuries resulting from receiving any physical attack

Who the FUCK do you think started the physical altercation??

I don't know. And neither do you. Period.

 

[LoneLaugher]

There is no proof that Martin attacked Zimmerman.

There is not enough evidence to dispute that Zimmerman was losing the fight when he shot Martin. That is it. There is no evidence either way regarding who started the fight.

Stop saying that you know who started the fight.

Other than the Coup de Grace, what evidence is there that Zimmerman threw the first punch?

There is none. As the is none that Martin did. We don't know.

And....starting a fight does not always mean throwing a punch. Reality.....not TV.

 

[Defiant1]

There is no proof that Martin attacked Zimmerman.

There is not enough evidence to dispute that Zimmerman was losing the fight when he shot Martin. That is it. There is no evidence either way regarding who started the fight.

Stop saying that you know who started the fight.

Other than the Coup de Grace, what evidence is there that Zimmerman threw the first punch?

There is none. As the is none that Martin did. We don't know.

And....starting a fight does not always mean throwing a punch. Reality.....not TV.

Slap, push, poke, shove????