George Zimmerman's bloody head

[Gadawg73]

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.

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.

 

[Gadawg73]

Amazing NOT ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE has been tendered in court yet and we have these wannabe Perry Masons telling us what the evidence "supports".

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

The timeline and Zimmerman's own description showed that Martin had already run from an area of possible conflict.

Under Florida law Martin was in an area that he was legally allowed to be in. Under the provisions of Stand Your Ground, Martin had no requirement to flee the area (which he did the first time, but may not have done the second time when Zimmerman pursued him behind the houses.

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).

Zimmerman's injuries are not indicative of who started the hostilities, they only show that at some point he was losing. That's not really in dispute.

3) Only Trayvon had motive to start a fight, to punish Zimmerman for following him.

Actually Zimmerman had plenty of motive to initiate hostilities. One, he has public said he was looking for a career in law enforcement and during taped interviews said he wanted to be a cop. Secondly, his focus on recent break-ins and the one that got away because the police didn't respond fast enough. So here he is in the same situation, unknown youth who he calls for police response police haven't arrived yet. His motivation was to prevent, as he said during the dispatcher call "These assholes. They always get away." from happening again.

4) Trayvon is a f-ing cold. What more evidence do you need?

Wanna try again in English?

5) The burden of proof is on you, not me, you f-ing piece of shit.

Actually the burden of proof to influence the Jury is up to the prosecution, not me.

Personally I don't think Zimmerman is guilty of the charge of Murder 2.

Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty. What evidence do you have that Zimmerman started the fight?

I don't have any at this point. Therefore I (if I was on the jury) could not vote to convict on Murder 2 because I don't think he departed his truck with the intent to kill Martin (i.e. a depraved disregard for human live) which is the standard under the law. I think the death resulted from a more "heat of the moment" encounter. Manslaughter? Neglegant Homicide? Possibly.

You got nothing, so **** off and die.

Does such language make you feel like an all powerful keyboard commando?


>>>>

 

[Gadawg73]

Trayvon was trying to stand his ground, was murdered anyway

anybody see the hypocrisy in the racists position here

****, how sick can you garbage get

On this subject you have no clue.
Find another thread.
No offense.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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 **** 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?

You are wrong (as it pertains to the law). Who through the first punch (actually who initiate hostilities) will be crucial to the case as it determines Zimmerman's eligibility to be immune under Florida self-defense laws. The basic principal is that if you initiate hostilities, you may surrender self-defense immunity.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Unless he was aiming the gun at Trayvon, it didn't matter that he had one.

False, brandishing a weapon (not saying Zimmerman did) is felony assault under Florida law - and no you don't have to actually aim it at someone.

You don't hit someone when they are down.

My guess would be you've never been in an actual street fight, I have. You damn well to hit someone when they are down to prevent them from getting back up.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

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).

>>>>

 

[Againsheila]

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.

You're right, I don't know the law. I do know right and wrong.

 

[Bigfoot]

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).

>>>>

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.

 

[Gadawg73]

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.



>>>>

Preponderance of the evidence is ONLY in civil court, never in criminal court.
The burden is never on the accused to prove anything.
Now there is a difference in the Stand Your Ground hearings.
"A reasonable belief of a threat" is the threshold.
There is NO obligation to retreat first.
Now Florida distinguishes between force AND deadly force. "imminent death or "great" bodily harm death is justified. 776.012
So what determines "great bodily harm"?
I believe that is a jury question and no way Z has a ruling in his favor from any Judge on that vague interpretation of the law as it relates TO THIS CASE specifically.
And the Castle doctrine does not apply as this was not in his home so that stretches the defense's burden.
776.041 does address the use of force by the aggressor ONLY IF THEY ARE ATTEMPTING TO ESCAPE and desires to determinate the use of force. This does not apply here as I have stated numerous times because Z pulled his gun and killed M.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

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.


>>>>

 

[Bigfoot]

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.


>>>>

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.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

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.


>>>>

 

[Againsheila]

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.


>>>>

Doesn't the burden of proof lie with the prosecution?

 

[Bigfoot]

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.


>>>>

You have already seen it..you are in denial. Don't let that get in the way of trying to create some message board drama by refusing to read what has already been posted many, many times which of course you have also read many times (roll-eyes). There I stepped up again, all of the information can be found right on this message board and is also a quick search away for anyone who wants to read it, which of course being black you seem to be allergic to it. You would rather pretend that it doesn't exist or play that game saying that I won't post it. It's already been posted many, many times! What prejudice keeps you from acknowledging that?

 

[taichiliberal]

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 ****. 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.

Again, if you can't provide a post from me that supports what you accuse me of in no uncertain terms, that makes YOU a lying Zimmerman Zombie.

See toodles, YOU were the one who posted that the Martin family are disingenuous because they hired a lawyer. Did it ever occur to that pea brain of yours that they did so because THEIR SON WAS KILLED, AND THE MAJOR SUSPECT WAS GIVEN A WHITE WASH BY THE CHIEF OF POLICE AND A D.A. REP?

Why is the family suspect and Georgie boy's deteriorating tales are not? But that is another question you can't/won't deal with. Carry on, my Zimmerman Zombie.

 

[taichiliberal]

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.

wow, it's truly amazing how you fail to realize that your poor taste in "humor" may not sit well with others. Newsflash for ya, sweetpea....if you post, you may get criticized. If you mean one thing but are unable to transfer that thought into a form that others may readily understand, that's YOUR fault, not the readers.

In other words, you're not sarcastic...just a crashing boor.

 

[Ariux]

Zimmerman Zombie.[/COLOR]

I guess that makes the shitheads who support the piece of shit Trayvon, Trayvon Turds.

 

[taichiliberal]

Zimmerman Zombie.[/COLOR]

I guess that makes the shitheads who support the piece of shit Trayvon, Trayvon Turds.

don't you realize that David Duke is NEVER going to like you no matter how many times you perform intellectual fellatio? Back into the dumpster with you, my pointy hooded friend.