[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]four60 wrote:
[quote]Aggv wrote:
[quote]Mr. Walkway wrote:
you are all hitler
/thread[/quote]
only the white people. [/quote]
I thought Hitler was Jewish (no joke). Still kinda wonder, self hate to the max.[/quote]
If I remember correctly, someone in his family or bloodline was.
And he once took a beating or other abuse because he himself was thought to be Jewish. [/quote]
Yeah, he’s the Larry David of the early 1940’s.
[quote]Big Kahuna wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]four60 wrote:
[quote]Aggv wrote:
[quote]Mr. Walkway wrote:
you are all hitler
/thread[/quote]
only the white people. [/quote]
I thought Hitler was Jewish (no joke). Still kinda wonder, self hate to the max.[/quote]
If I remember correctly, someone in his family or bloodline was.
And he once took a beating or other abuse because he himself was thought to be Jewish. [/quote]
Yeah, he’s the Larry David of the early 1940’s.[/quote]
Chaplin
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
[quote]four60 wrote:
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
Two important things today.
One witness says he saw Zimmerman on his back on the grass (I believe).
The arresting officer says he saw the back of Zimmerman’s jeans wet and a darker color, as opposed to the front, implying that Zimmerman was on his back.
[/quote]
I thought the angle of the shot would be all they needed to show who was up or down. And as far as him being on his back all it means is he was losing a fight not how the fight started. But Treys lawyers are idiots and they won’t care, they have a star witness :-)[/quote]
Good point about how being on his back may be irrelevant to who started the fight initially, HOWEVER, they do know someone was yelling “help help!” and that it was either Trayvon or George. The fact (or speculation) that Zimmerman was on his back lends credence that he was indeed the one calling for help,
which certainly doesn’t help the prosecutor’s case.[/quote]
Valid point
Why couldnt the one on top be yelling for help? BJJ submissions are for a position on ones back…right?
Not saying that either of them are martial artists but the whole top and bottom question makes no sense. It doesnt matter.
If trayvon was on bottom and tried a choke wouldnt zimmerman cry for help before finally reaching his gun?
See how zimmerman couldve been on top and still not be the attacker?
No one here has ever had a fight where the ended up getting tackled but being able to wrench a neck or arm to gain an upperhand?
[quote]SickSex6 wrote:
No one here has ever had a fight where the ended up getting tackled but being able to wrench a neck or arm to gain an upperhand?[/quote]
Do you think the general population and a jury of mostly women are going to look at it that way?
Along with…
The testimony from a neighbor of a darker individual on top with arms being thrown in a downward motion…
[quote]xcintrik wrote:
[quote]SickSex6 wrote:
No one here has ever had a fight where the ended up getting tackled but being able to wrench a neck or arm to gain an upperhand?[/quote]
Do you think the general population and a jury of mostly women are going to look at it that way?
Along with…
The testimony from a neighbor of a darker individual on top with arms being thrown in a downward motion…
[/quote]
Youre right. They wont. I was mostly rambling about how the whole top and bottom thing doesnt matter.
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
The arresting officer says he saw the back of Zimmerman’s jeans wet and a darker color, as opposed to the front, implying that Zimmerman was on his back.
[/quote]
So the cop said Zimmerman was a wet back?
Racist!!!
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
The arresting officer says he saw the back of Zimmerman’s jeans wet and a darker color, as opposed to the front, implying that Zimmerman was on his back.
[/quote]
So the cop said Zimmerman was a wet back?
Racist!!![/quote]
lol pls… pls
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
The arresting officer says he saw the back of Zimmerman’s jeans wet and a darker color, as opposed to the front, implying that Zimmerman was on his back.
[/quote]
So the cop said Zimmerman was a wet back?
Racist!!![/quote]
huehuehuehue
I believe the video is from June 2012. I dont know if anyone has seen this but I watched it today and based on Zimmerman’s account, everything that has been said in court seems to add up. Now when that one girl aka “Diamond” was on the phone with Martin she testified the wording of the conversation between Zimm and Martin and it was different then what Zimm said. There really is no evidence for the prosecution. This case is already over.
Does anyone know how Martin had no markings on his knuckles or hands? At least that is what I heard.
Beans, why do you keep calling the victim “Martian” Haha, he’s black, not an alien…
they have essentially no evidence whatsoever I can’t believe there is even a trial going on here.
[quote]StevenF wrote:
they have essentially no evidence whatsoever I can’t believe there is even a trial going on here. [/quote]
For Murder, I agree. Manslaughter this trial would have went to jail time and less drama. The prosecutor needs an ass kicking
[quote]four60 wrote:
[quote]StevenF wrote:
they have essentially no evidence whatsoever I can’t believe there is even a trial going on here. [/quote]
For Murder, I agree. Manslaughter this trial would have went to jail time and less drama. The prosecutor needs an ass kicking[/quote]
I think i read that the DA is up for election and wanted a show trial to throw the book at zimmerman due the media coverage.
That star witness “diamond” reminds me of the HBO movie game change, which chronicled McCain’s selection of Palin. Basically picking a nominee (witness) based only on the fact that she’s on your side with out realized theyre complete fucking retards.
I am ignorant of the law. Can the prosecution change the charges during the trial to manslaughter?
[quote]SickSex6 wrote:
Why couldnt the one on top be yelling for help? BJJ submissions are for a position on ones back…right?
Not saying that either of them are martial artists but the whole top and bottom question makes no sense. It doesnt matter.
If trayvon was on bottom and tried a choke wouldnt zimmerman cry for help before finally reaching his gun?
See how zimmerman couldve been on top and still not be the attacker?
No one here has ever had a fight where the ended up getting tackled but being able to wrench a neck or arm to gain an upperhand?[/quote]
Ah, ok, so you’ve never been in a fight where the other guy is on top and is beating your face.
It’s not as easy as it looks on TV. MMA athletes are usually very well-trained.
Nobody who’s not well-trained is going to mount a significant choke type offense against someone who’s attacking from a very dominant position with his fists.
The most natural reaction is trying to stand up followed by holding when panic sets in.
And also :
-I know it sounds crazy-
Watching UFC does not help!
I don’t know Schwarz-ie, Zimmerman had been training MMA 3x/week …
lol
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I don’t know Schwarz-ie, Zimmerman had been training MMA 3x/week …
lol[/quote]
I hear he beat Anderson Silva in an underground bareknuckle match. Or maybe he got tackled and then promptly shot Silva in the head, I forget.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I don’t know Schwarz-ie, Zimmerman had been training MMA 3x/week …
lol[/quote]
Haha, the fact that they think that is some type of evidence is dumb. The man was and is still out of shape. Him doing MMA 3x a week is insignificant.
[quote]Big Kahuna wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I don’t know Schwarz-ie, Zimmerman had been training MMA 3x/week …
lol[/quote]
I hear he beat Anderson Silva in an underground bareknuckle match. Or maybe he got tackled and then promptly shot Silva in the head, I forget.[/quote]
silva is black and apparently zimmerman is a founding member of the kkk. totally plausible
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Both of the people involved have a past… her actions and her words are the only things that needs to be examined. [/quote]
Oh, of course. Of course! I heard you the first time. I agreed with you. Trayvon Martin’s definitely on trial.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
What violence was in Zimmerman’s past?
[/quote]
Oh, of course! Of course! I totally agree with you. Zimmerman has no history of violence. He’s a fucking angel.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
It was, reread it. It is actually laugh out loud funny.[/quote]
I aim to entertain 
Shame you didn’t choke when you laughed 
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
No, I don’t really. [/quote]
Yes you did. I wasn’t talking literally but you wanted to play the all almighty intelligent being you see yourself as.
But I’m still waiting, CB. Since you want to play on semantics, please, show me the police reports, show me evidence of under-age drinkers being arrested for posting their booze on FB and other social media. It is a CRIME after all. I guess Rachel Jeantel is going to jail soon, uh?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
This woman is a state witness in one of the more high profile cases in a long time. She is going to come under the utmost of scrutiny, and anyone that didn’t think her posts about stupid teenage shit were going to come under fire wasn’t thinking through.
Again, I wasn’t judging her on her behavior, but I understand why it has been highlighted. However you seem to think these posts she made are somehow supposed to be looked at differently because she is 19. I disagree. Stupid is stupid, age is irrelevant. [/quote]
Her FB posts nor her character, educational background, neighbourhood, etc. have absolutely nothing to do with the conversation that she and Trayvon had that evening, which is the only reason she was on the stand in the first place.
But of course, assassination of character by the media as well as the defence, will devalue her account and discredit her as a viable witness. Fuck what she heard last night. Let’s call her fucking stupid, and make fun of her looks and background.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
And yes, posting about drinking illegally and smoking illegal drugs is stupid. [/quote]
But it’s not a crime.
looks at her watch… Still waiting on evidence of arrests.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I don’t excuse poor choices because a young person made them. I expect that person to make better choices going forward like I would expect anyone. (That said, I don’t think posting stupid things makes her a bad person or even stupid. She just made bad choices.)[/quote]
Oh, well, maybe you should go in the hood and teach the youth in there how to make better choices.
You must have had a great eduction, grew up in a good environment, had fantastic parents teaching you great values and better choices.
Rachel Jeantel is from the hood. She’s a product of her environment. Do you think she should know better? Here you are, judging her for making poor choices. Yeah, we were all making great choices at 19, CB.
Maybe, you should blame the people who raised her, her environment,the teachers, and, yes, I will say it again, her age. At 19, most youth don’t give a fuck about the consequences of their actions. Have you forgotten that, CB? Oops, sorry, you must have been the picture perfect teen.
Let’s not even bother with the prosecution for not prepping her for a year prior the trial. It’s all Rachel’s fault.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I do judge her on the “wet grass” comment though. [/quote]
Oh, of course, for someone like you, who feels intelligently superior to others, that’s not surprising.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Nice conjecture, and a touch of ad hominem [/quote]
Ehehehe You asked for it. Savour those ingredients slowly.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Darkninjaa wrote:
Furthermore, since you want to take that word ‘‘crime’’ so literally, please let’s see the police reports of under-age drinkers arrested for posting their booze on FB or on Instagram. I’m so sure all those unruly, drunkards, sex-addict teens on social media, have at least a criminal record attached to their names.[/quote]
lol [/quote]
Stop laughing, CB.
Police records. Police reports. Where are they? You wanted to play smart when you counter argued on the idea of teens posting drinks on FB (since, this is he only thing you picked from my earlier statement regarding nowadays’ teens interactions on social media) is a crime.
Now Prove it.