Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
If Zimmerman was murdering you, you'd fight back, too.
-
Features
Zimmerman in the news, part infinity
- Thread starter Don2 (Don1 Revised)
- Start date
If Zimmerman was murdering you, you'd fight back, too.
Hopefully before he ends up killing someone...oops.
coloradoatheist
Veteran Member
Martin started fighting back after he was shot?
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
No, while Zimmerman was trying to kill him and/or posed a threat to his life.
coloradoatheist
Veteran Member
Because Zimmerman looks hispanic and our President elect may have said that all hispanics are rapists or murderers?
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,487
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Given a heart transplant... that should be 'given a heart transplant from a living healthy person'.
coloradoatheist
Veteran Member
Yes but I was just using at as an expression of giving someone a new life. The jury could have gone either way and he needs to realize how close he did come to life in prison.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,487
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Not likely, I heard last year he shot at the Ghost of Christmas Past.
coloradoatheist
Veteran Member
Is that A Christmas Carol Florida style?
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
No because Zimmerman was an aggressive, maniac, racist with a gun running after him and Martin therefore concluded he was fighting for his life which it turns out he was.
coloradoatheist
Veteran Member
Nah. Anyone who jumps out of their car, chases you around, and won't explain himself, is an extremely aggressive maniac at the very least, and very much a threat. "Gun" was quite possible, and may have been known - I wouldn't be shot if this wannabe cop idiot pulled it out quickly. Rachel Jeantel was telling the truth, the jurors fucked up the prosecutors fucked up. And I'm not saying "abolish juries", but it does happen, and it happened here.
coloradoatheist
Veteran Member
The question that Jeantel said Zimmerman asked, "Why are you here?" is an identification. And even Jeantel admitted with explaining Martin's creepy ass cracker comment that they knew what Zimmerman was doing. And there no indication that Martin ever saw the gun.
Toni
Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2011
- Messages
- 22,692
- Basic Beliefs
- Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Aggressive and maniac are listed as separate. Racist with a gun is kind of a compound. I'm pretty certain Martin could deduce the racist part without knowing Zimmerman's history. The only characteristic not known easily was the gun. So, three out of four.
coloradoatheist
Veteran Member
So he could tell Z was racist because he looked hispanic?
- - - Updated - - -
Someone watching you in a neighborhood that you don't live is not an aggressive or maniacally behavior. You can't assault someone because you are worried they are going to report you to police for illegal behavior you had performed earlier or thought about doing later.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
He wasn't just "watching" him. He was chasing him down with a gun after Trayvon ran away after his perception that Trayvon was one of those criminals who will get away. Don't leave out details.
coloradoatheist said:
Not what happened but make sure you insult the dead black kid instead of the guy making himself known in the op.
I repeat "known in the op." This is new evidence in our understanding of Zimmerman. It confirms he's a racist with high-anger anxiety, ready to call the police on a black guy for no good reason and use the n-bomb.
coloradoatheist
Veteran Member
So if I am in my neighborhood and I see somebody looking at me funny I can wait until they get out of the car/truck and beat the shit out of them because I thought they looked at me funny?
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
I just wrote to you in the last post "Don't leave out details," after writing:
Yet, there you are once again leaving out details. I will also add that you're now just making stuff up in addition to leaving out the details.
coloradoatheist
Veteran Member
Except for several things we are speculating.
M sees Z sitting in a car watching him and decides to run and is gone by the time Z gets out of the car. We are then speculating on how they actually met, with some people saying they went through the whole neighborhood b ack and forth and Z just saying they met at the T. They evidence is the T with one witness who only stated at trial she heard something the other direction and no neighbors further down hearing the struggle or running first. So the T was within visual site of the car and only about 200 or so feet, not far to say that that was being chased very far.
M sees Z sitting in a car watching him and decides to run and is gone by the time Z gets out of the car. We are then speculating on how they actually met, with some people saying they went through the whole neighborhood b ack and forth and Z just saying they met at the T. They evidence is the T with one witness who only stated at trial she heard something the other direction and no neighbors further down hearing the struggle or running first. So the T was within visual site of the car and only about 200 or so feet, not far to say that that was being chased very far.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
"M sees Z sitting in a car watching him and decides to run":
This part is pretty reliable. It comes from both Zimmerman's testimony and Jenteal's testimony.
"...and is gone by the time Z gets out of the car."
This part is unreliable as it only comes from 1 witness and that witness is a known liar and racist.
"We are then speculating on how they actually met, ":
Granted, they met as to how is questionable.
"...with some people saying they went through the whole neighborhood b ack and forth and Z just saying they met at the T."
I really don't care about the whole bringing up past threads to argue over points not relevant to points in the op. But because you've brought it up, Z is a racist and a liar. His testimony is untrustworthy.
"They [sic] evidence is the T with one witness who only stated at trial she heard something the other direction and no neighbors further down hearing the struggle or running first."
Some things you think you know, such as the location of the car, is verified by anything other than Zimmerman's testimony which is suspect since he is a racist and a liar. And virtually nothing you are saying is relevant to the op. Besides that, there is no reason for the one witness to be lying and the phone location is physical evidence in support of that scenario. The only thing to counter it is Zimmerman's testimony which is unreliable now. Of course, none of this remains relevant to much.
"So the T was within visual site of the car and only about 200 or so feet, not far [sic] to say that that was being chased very far."
First, who said he was being chased very far? Second, it doesn't matter how far Zimmerman chased after him with a gun after he ran away. Even chasing someone without a gun who is running away is an aggressive action. These points aren't very relevant to the issues the op brings up either about Zimmerman's honesty and his racism.
I suggest instead of trying to resurrect old irrelevant arguments, you look at the misbehaviors in the op and try to imagine how they apply to the old situation. There simply isn't a need to re-discuss EVERY old point, only the ones made relevant by these new data shown by the op.
This part is pretty reliable. It comes from both Zimmerman's testimony and Jenteal's testimony.
"...and is gone by the time Z gets out of the car."
This part is unreliable as it only comes from 1 witness and that witness is a known liar and racist.
"We are then speculating on how they actually met, ":
Granted, they met as to how is questionable.
"...with some people saying they went through the whole neighborhood b ack and forth and Z just saying they met at the T."
I really don't care about the whole bringing up past threads to argue over points not relevant to points in the op. But because you've brought it up, Z is a racist and a liar. His testimony is untrustworthy.
"They [sic] evidence is the T with one witness who only stated at trial she heard something the other direction and no neighbors further down hearing the struggle or running first."
Some things you think you know, such as the location of the car, is verified by anything other than Zimmerman's testimony which is suspect since he is a racist and a liar. And virtually nothing you are saying is relevant to the op. Besides that, there is no reason for the one witness to be lying and the phone location is physical evidence in support of that scenario. The only thing to counter it is Zimmerman's testimony which is unreliable now. Of course, none of this remains relevant to much.
"So the T was within visual site of the car and only about 200 or so feet, not far [sic] to say that that was being chased very far."
First, who said he was being chased very far? Second, it doesn't matter how far Zimmerman chased after him with a gun after he ran away. Even chasing someone without a gun who is running away is an aggressive action. These points aren't very relevant to the issues the op brings up either about Zimmerman's honesty and his racism.
I suggest instead of trying to resurrect old irrelevant arguments, you look at the misbehaviors in the op and try to imagine how they apply to the old situation. There simply isn't a need to re-discuss EVERY old point, only the ones made relevant by these new data shown by the op.