[quote]stefan128 wrote:
Okay, so I watched everything today, for the most part. As others have stated, the prosecution still has nothing and are helping the defense.
When Zimm is found not guilty, do people really think that people will riot, loot, etc.?
I read on another news website that there are already death threats on Twitter and that people were posting his address saying “you know what to do.” Also, did anyone see that CNN aired his SSN and other personal information today? They are going to be giving Zimm a lot of money. [/quote]
I really don’t get why some people think there’s going to be riots.
Those people who talk about riotting are bunch of idiots and fucking opportunists. They don’t give a fuck about justice. They just want free stuff and cause trouble.
I do believe Zim’s life will be in danger. He will, of course, flee the country once he’s acquitted.
SickSex6, what did that post of yours that I quoted mean?
If you in fact aren’t “RockNinja”, as some people have tagged a supposed poster(posters?), what did that mean?
Cheers[/quote]
Yeah these get bad fast, for rather obvious reasons. People go crazy speculating about all sorts of info before they have any way of knowing all or even close to all the facts, and most everybody ends up looking foolish when the whole thing is played out. Not really worth participating in with the attitudes of most parties involved. [/quote]
Bro, isn’t your wife black? FYI, if she is I am jealous. I am looking to marry a black or mixed girl in the future! [/quote]
she is[/quote]
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
If the prosecutor tries to paint Martin as an innocent all around good kid, then they open the door for the evidence of him being a thug being presented. The Prosecutor knows this, so they will walk and extremely fine line of how they describe Martin.
[/quote]
Correct. Except the Prosecutor is a moron who will inevitably overstep.[/quote]
That is exactly what will happen. All this evidence that was excluded will become included I think pretty quickly.[/quote]
Either this -
Or -
Defense knows this is a kangaroo court, and is going to spend their time listing the DA’s mistakes, noting the judge’s bias, and get the entire case thrown out on appeal.
This case should have never seen the light of day, and I will continue to donate whatever I can to Zimmerman’s defense fund.
[/quote]
Thank you, and I truly hope you encourage others to donate as well. That last line is all the proof I will ever need that Happiness & Laughter is not a Finite
thing.[/quote]
Explain something to us, if you would. Why would you donate money to a man who tried to steal other money donated to him and flee the country with a second passport that he did not inform authorities he had?
Oh wait…
See guys, the thing is, aside from all of the other problems with the defenses of George – he’s a proven liar, and as such, his credibility is seriously in question. How come you aren’t considering that?
We know that he attempted to flee the country with 130,000 dollars of other’s people’s money (donated through PayPal), with a second passport that he lied to authorities about not having, and yet you’re willing to take him at his word when he tells his story of what happened?
I mentioned your name because you are a racist, and need to be called out for precisely that. I think my post served its purpose. But it was a discussion question, and partially rhetorical given you answer it with just about every post. [/quote]
Awwww. Boo boo boooo.
Did you call out other white posters in this thread, racists? Nope. You were enjoying their denigrating posts, weren’t you?
But here you are jumping at me, bitch. LOL! Lovin’ it!!
FYI, I don’t consider myself superior to whites. I don’t see them as beneath me. I’d be a racist if I did so.
Time to pick up a dictionary, bitch, and learn the meaning of the word!!!
Bitch.
[/quote]
I’m not the keeper of the caucasians. Most of the "denigrating’ posts have been called out already. Well, except for yours. Being that you have no clue as to my ethnicity, your assumption that I am white is yet another insight to your racism.
I could give a shit if you think you are superior to whites, or not - that would make you a bigot. Perhaps you should take your own advice and pick up a Webster’s.
It is obvious in this thread you don’t like whites - especially the those of the jewish persuasion. I have to wonder if a jew stiffed you on a $5 blowjob one rainy night, and you feel all whites must pay for it now.
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
It is obvious in this thread you don’t like whites - especially the those of the jewish persuasion. I have to wonder if a jew stiffed you on a $5 blowjob one rainy night, and you feel all whites must pay for it now.
[/quote]
I lol’ed. Mainly cause it just sounds like something we would do.
[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:
Coolio. [/quote]
What does he have anything to do with this trial?
[quote]So you said… ‘‘If Martin was repping a set, it shows a pattern of behavior typical of people who do such things, and strongly backs up Zimmerman’s account of the situation, strongly suggests Martin’s intent was to kill Zimmerman, and clears Zimmerman’s use of deadly force, all while justifying Zimmerman confronting him in the first place.’’
‘‘clears, Zimms’s use of deadly force, all while justifying Zimmerman confronting in the first place’’?? But Zimmerman didn’t know Trayvon was ‘‘gangbanger’’! [/quote]
Of course Zimmerman didn’t now Martin was a gangbanger, which stands to reason, mainly because by all accounts Martin wasn’t banging.
Secondly, I have no idea why you are so caught up on this hypothetical. I truly don’t understand why you are having such a hard time accepting the fact that yes, society perceives you how you ask them to if you dress & act in a particular manor. If you want society to think you are a professional, dress like a banker. If you want society to think you are an athlete dress in under armor and those adidas sandals, while carrying a water bottle. This is common sense.
From what I understand, he followed him because he matched the description of people who had broken into homes in the area prior.
No idea. Depends on the situation and the people involved I guess.
I don’t believe MArtin was a gangbanger. Why are you trying to turn my obvious hypothetical into reality?
lol, you don’t know many law abiding owners of fire arms do you?
This is not only pure conjecture, but more likely than not wildly inaccurate to the point of irresponsible.
Assumptive conjecture that isn’t backed up by any testimony, evidence or account of the situation. But feel free to pretend that is the case.
[quote]Come on, CB… you said this…‘‘If Martin was repping a set, it shows a pattern of behavior typical of people who do such things, and strongly backs up Zimmerman’s account of the situation, strongly suggests Martin’s intent was to kill Zimmerman, and clears Zimmerman’s use of deadly force, all while justifying Zimmerman confronting him in the first place.’’
‘‘Justtifying Zimmerman confronting him in the first place’’. According to this earlier statement of yours, and based on the description of patterns you gave above, Zimmerman saw a ‘‘gangbanger’’, so he was justified in confronting him. No?[/quote]
Again, you are hung up on a hypothetical used to illustrate the point that who Martin was as a person, the content of his character, gives us enough information to narrow down what happened that night into reasonable scenarios. If he had been an Eagle Scout enrolled at Yale, it would make the likely scenario of what happened different than if he had been a banger from Training Day.
I’m not sure if Zimmerman said he thought Martin was a gangbanger or not. Nor does justification for confrontation matter as far as legal right to confront someone in a verbal manor. He, you and I have every right to speak anyone we want, justified or not, in a public space.
You can think that all you want. That isn’t want I said, nor was it implied.
Your statement would be accurate written like this:
dressing in a certain way, with certain colours etc = you are inviting people to think you are a thug/gangbanger
ie: don’t get all indignant if people treat you/look at you a certain way based on how you present yourself to the world. Don’t leave the house without showering for 3 days, wearing stained and smelly cloths if you don’t want to world to think you live like swine.
[quote]it what you insinuated the first time by saying Zimmerman was justified in confronting Trayvon due to a set of behaviour, patterns etc… that the kid may have displayed? NO?
Am I putting words in your mouth again?[/quote]
Yes, you are. Well, more accurately you are taking a clear hypothetical and trying to make it a reality. Why? I have no idea.
[quote]
Oh… so Trayvon was committing a B&E when Zimmerman was on the phone with the dispatcher…[/quote]
By all accounts, no it doesn’t appear that MArtin was in process of committing that crime. Not sure how on Earth you gathered that from my statement.
Maybe, I don’t know what he assumed. What we do know is Zimmerman thought Martin was suspicious.
If that is what you think a “typical gangbanger” looks like, you need to get out more. I don’t think it is any surprise that gangs often draw lines based on ethic background and/or race. For example, there is an Irish Mafia, and an Italian. Jews can’t be made in either. Where I live, a black gang is the exception. In other areas, gangs may be predominantly Black Americans, but where I live it is predominantly Asian sets, followed by Hispanics and Whites. Lol, shit, I’ve seen enough biker gangs in my life, I’m more likely to be on alert around a beer bellied white guy in leathers than I am anyone else.
okay?
I mean:
In the hypothetical situation that Martin was a General, it would make Zimmerman’s account of the situation more reasonable than say if Martin was an Eagle Scout who was applying to Brown. Had Martin been the latter, I would be inclined to not believe Zimmerman’s account, based on the fact, in this hypothetical, it would make little sense for Martin to behave in that manor. However, if Martin had ended up being the former, that would establish a pattern of behavior, in this hypothetical, congruent with Zimmerman’s account, making said account much more reasonable.
[quote]
This how I read this : If Martin showed the behaviour, patterns of a gangbanger, (most gangbangers love to wear hoods, jeans down their asses etc…) then Zimmerman was justified in confronting him in the first place. If Martin was a gangbanger, then this strongly backs up Zim’s account, which states that he was beaten to a pulp by Martin, who was a violent, bloodthirsty thug willing to kill Zimmerman.‘’
You’re telling me that’s not what you meant?[/quote]
No, that isn’t what I meant. Jesus, you have a vivid imagination and ridiculous bias.
[quote]
Oh… just as Zims’ lies are proven on statements that had been changed several times!!![/quote]
Such as?
[quote]Err yeah, someone who’s got his skull repeatedly bashed on the concrete, didn’t actually pass out right then, and was proudly standing over his victim like Superman over Zod.
Dizziness my ass.
Skull bashing, my fucking ass.[/quote]
Well, it is amazing that you can medically diagnose someone a year later, after not knowing what happened, not seeing it and having mixed testimony from witness. What medical training do you have? Because for you to use such vivid imagery of “proudly standing over” I have to assume you have some factual basis for that statement.
Or is it simply biased conjecture you contrived to fit your narrative?
[quote]
Fucking relevant. He LIED.[/quote]
Who lied about what? And how do you know?
She told the jury that Martin called Zimmerman a cracker. It shows that Martin was judging Zimmerman based on the color of his skin.
His choice of words tends to lend itself to giving us an idea of Martin’s mindset.
Nope. In fact it is a very important part of her testimony.
Her? No, not necessarily, she was recanting what Martin said. It does give a fairly decent case if you wanted to make the argument that Martin was a racist though. Do I think MArtin was a racist? Yup, because he calls white people cracker, a pejorative racists slur.
I brought up that fact that she testified that Martin called Zimmerman a cracker, yeah, and?
Good thing I didn’t, nor did I intend to, lol.
Deal with what? Irrelevant ramblings about the hardships of Black American’s? Okay. But I will continue to point out how irrelevant those ramblings are to anything we are discussing.
[quote]Please brush on your knowledge of what a racist is and, what a bigot/prejucided person is.
As far as I’m concerned, I was not aware, Trayvon and his gang were considering themselves superior to whites, nor distributing epithets about black supremacy.[/quote]
lol, coming from someone who abuses the word “cunt” as much as you do, I’m not even going to entertain the thought of you taking the connotation/denotation train down the tracks.
Every other word you type is an obscenity, lets not nit pick dictionary definitions to defend something that isn’t defendable, shall we?
See guys, the thing is, aside from all of the other problems with the defenses of George – he’s a proven liar, and as such, his credibility is seriously in question. How come you aren’t considering that?
We know that he attempted to flee the country with 130,000 dollars of other’s people’s money (donated through PayPal), with a second passport that he lied to authorities about not having, and yet you’re willing to take him at his word when he tells his story of what happened?[/quote]
lol, this is utter bullshit. Do you work for a major news network?
[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:
Coolio. [/quote]
What does he have anything to do with this trial?
[quote]So you said… ‘‘If Martin was repping a set, it shows a pattern of behavior typical of people who do such things, and strongly backs up Zimmerman’s account of the situation, strongly suggests Martin’s intent was to kill Zimmerman, and clears Zimmerman’s use of deadly force, all while justifying Zimmerman confronting him in the first place.’’
‘‘clears, Zimms’s use of deadly force, all while justifying Zimmerman confronting in the first place’’?? But Zimmerman didn’t know Trayvon was ‘‘gangbanger’’! [/quote]
Of course Zimmerman didn’t now Martin was a gangbanger, which stands to reason, mainly because by all accounts Martin wasn’t banging.
Secondly, I have no idea why you are so caught up on this hypothetical. I truly don’t understand why you are having such a hard time accepting the fact that yes, society perceives you how you ask them to if you dress & act in a particular manor. If you want society to think you are a professional, dress like a banker. If you want society to think you are an athlete dress in under armor and those adidas sandals, while carrying a water bottle. This is common sense.
From what I understand, he followed him because he matched the description of people who had broken into homes in the area prior.
No idea. Depends on the situation and the people involved I guess.
I don’t believe MArtin was a gangbanger. Why are you trying to turn my obvious hypothetical into reality?
lol, you don’t know many law abiding owners of fire arms do you?
This is not only pure conjecture, but more likely than not wildly inaccurate to the point of irresponsible.
Assumptive conjecture that isn’t backed up by any testimony, evidence or account of the situation. But feel free to pretend that is the case.
[quote]Come on, CB… you said this…‘‘If Martin was repping a set, it shows a pattern of behavior typical of people who do such things, and strongly backs up Zimmerman’s account of the situation, strongly suggests Martin’s intent was to kill Zimmerman, and clears Zimmerman’s use of deadly force, all while justifying Zimmerman confronting him in the first place.’’
‘‘Justtifying Zimmerman confronting him in the first place’’. According to this earlier statement of yours, and based on the description of patterns you gave above, Zimmerman saw a ‘‘gangbanger’’, so he was justified in confronting him. No?[/quote]
Again, you are hung up on a hypothetical used to illustrate the point that who Martin was as a person, the content of his character, gives us enough information to narrow down what happened that night into reasonable scenarios. If he had been an Eagle Scout enrolled at Yale, it would make the likely scenario of what happened different than if he had been a banger from Training Day.
I’m not sure if Zimmerman said he thought Martin was a gangbanger or not. Nor does justification for confrontation matter as far as legal right to confront someone in a verbal manor. He, you and I have every right to speak anyone we want, justified or not, in a public space.
You can think that all you want. That isn’t want I said, nor was it implied.
Your statement would be accurate written like this:
dressing in a certain way, with certain colours etc = you are inviting people to think you are a thug/gangbanger
ie: don’t get all indignant if people treat you/look at you a certain way based on how you present yourself to the world. Don’t leave the house without showering for 3 days, wearing stained and smelly cloths if you don’t want to world to think you live like swine.
[quote]it what you insinuated the first time by saying Zimmerman was justified in confronting Trayvon due to a set of behaviour, patterns etc… that the kid may have displayed? NO?
Am I putting words in your mouth again?[/quote]
Yes, you are. Well, more accurately you are taking a clear hypothetical and trying to make it a reality. Why? I have no idea.
[quote]
Oh… so Trayvon was committing a B&E when Zimmerman was on the phone with the dispatcher…[/quote]
By all accounts, no it doesn’t appear that MArtin was in process of committing that crime. Not sure how on Earth you gathered that from my statement.
Maybe, I don’t know what he assumed. What we do know is Zimmerman thought Martin was suspicious.
If that is what you think a “typical gangbanger” looks like, you need to get out more. I don’t think it is any surprise that gangs often draw lines based on ethic background and/or race. For example, there is an Irish Mafia, and an Italian. Jews can’t be made in either. Where I live, a black gang is the exception. In other areas, gangs may be predominantly Black Americans, but where I live it is predominantly Asian sets, followed by Hispanics and Whites. Lol, shit, I’ve seen enough biker gangs in my life, I’m more likely to be on alert around a beer bellied white guy in leathers than I am anyone else.
okay?
I mean:
In the hypothetical situation that Martin was a General, it would make Zimmerman’s account of the situation more reasonable than say if Martin was an Eagle Scout who was applying to Brown. Had Martin been the latter, I would be inclined to not believe Zimmerman’s account, based on the fact, in this hypothetical, it would make little sense for Martin to behave in that manor. However, if Martin had ended up being the former, that would establish a pattern of behavior, in this hypothetical, congruent with Zimmerman’s account, making said account much more reasonable.
[quote]
This how I read this : If Martin showed the behaviour, patterns of a gangbanger, (most gangbangers love to wear hoods, jeans down their asses etc…) then Zimmerman was justified in confronting him in the first place. If Martin was a gangbanger, then this strongly backs up Zim’s account, which states that he was beaten to a pulp by Martin, who was a violent, bloodthirsty thug willing to kill Zimmerman.‘’
You’re telling me that’s not what you meant?[/quote]
No, that isn’t what I meant. Jesus, you have a vivid imagination and ridiculous bias.
[quote]
Oh… just as Zims’ lies are proven on statements that had been changed several times!!![/quote]
Such as?
[quote]Err yeah, someone who’s got his skull repeatedly bashed on the concrete, didn’t actually pass out right then, and was proudly standing over his victim like Superman over Zod.
Dizziness my ass.
Skull bashing, my fucking ass.[/quote]
Well, it is amazing that you can medically diagnose someone a year later, after not knowing what happened, not seeing it and having mixed testimony from witness. What medical training do you have? Because for you to use such vivid imagery of “proudly standing over” I have to assume you have some factual basis for that statement.
Or is it simply biased conjecture you contrived to fit your narrative?
hahaha wow, this is progably the best argument I’ve seen in this thread so far
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
I’m not the keeper of the caucasians. [/quote]
I couldn’t give a fuck if you wiped their asses either.
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
Most of the "denigrating’ posts have been called out already.[/quote]
Were you among the peeps calling the miscreants out? Nope. I guess you didn’t feel the need to jump in because you agreed with everything that was posted.
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
Well, except for yours. [/quote]
Mine? Where? Go on, please quote the posts, in which I denigrate white people.
I’ve been focusing on the the trial, that fat pig Zimmercunt and, corrected a few stuff regarding races. I have made a few comments about Conservativepeen but nah… everything I said is only ‘‘racist’’ because it fucking makes you uncomfortable. You can’t stand the fact that I’m speaking up against the racists here. You’d rather see me tap dancing, because that’d make you happy, right? This is the Interesting idiosyncrasy I’ve noticed around this place.
I’m actually aware of that defence mechanism used to shut me down. But I will not shut down. And I’m glad its making your head bursting with rage, 'cos here you are, still addressing me, ‘‘calling me out’’ lol.
Brush the sand out of your vagina, bitch. If I can deal and ignore the racist posters that have posted in this place, then so can you when it comes to my posts. Put me on ignore if my posts offend you sooooo much, you fragile little bee.
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
Being that you have no clue as to my ethnicity, your assumption that I am white is yet another insight to your racism. [/quote]
I couldn’t give ten millions fuck over what your ethnicity is. You could be the colour of diarrhea, the fuck I care. What I’ve told you is, if you want to play fair game, call out all racists, not only one. You only had an issue with me because everything I said here irks you.
I’m here to stay. DEAL WITH IT.
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
I could give a shit if you think you are superior to whites, or not - that would make you a bigot. Perhaps you should take your own advice and pick up a Webster’s. [/quote]
Nope. Nope. Bitch, a biggot doesn’t feel superior to other races. I’ve already told you, dumbass, go bury your head in a fucking dictionary and educate yourself.
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
It is obvious in this thread you don’t like whites [/quote]
Oh, just as it’s been obvious that you don’t like blacks, based on your posts in this thread. Based on you, joining the witch-hunt mentality.
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
especially the those of the jewish persuasion. I have to wonder if a jew stiffed you on a $5 blowjob one rainy night, and you feel all whites must pay for it now.
[/quote]
Meh, HE was the ONE giving me a blow job actually. But my cock was too big for him. So he used his teeth. Something I will never forgive. NEVER.
And on that note, this is the last time I’d be addressing you, motherfucker, especially if your dumbass has nothing substantial to say about the trial.
This thread is not about me, but about the trial. I will stick to the subject at hand.
[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
Love how when you have you an objective approach/opinion regarding the trial you are a racist lol[/quote]
did you know? it’s always a race thing, no matter what it is[/quote]
With certain posters it seems to be[/quote]
yup, starting to seem like race is more important in this trial, than whether he’s guilty of any wrongdoing or not[/quote]
Of course, I remember when the original thread regarding the shooting was created and HoustonGuy was trolling by simply being objective and it turned out a lot of his points were correct lol
[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
Love how when you have you an objective approach/opinion regarding the trial you are a racist lol[/quote]
did you know? it’s always a race thing, no matter what it is[/quote]
With certain posters it seems to be[/quote]
yup, starting to seem like race is more important in this trial, than whether he’s guilty of any wrongdoing or not[/quote]
Of course, I remember when the original thread regarding the shooting was created and HoustonGuy was trolling by simply being objective and it turned out a lot of his points were correct lol[/quote]