George Zimmerman found Not Guilty.

Cause and effect: Zimmerman could have stayed in his car, there would have been no fight.

If you chase after someone random in the middle of the night and even if they punch you first, the cause of that 'fight' was you, not them.

I think it is clear that everyone opinion on this is set, and that we have argued the same points over and over again now with no progress, so why this thread is still open?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

@ Trippy,

Wow! Another person that needs the case explained step by step yet has argued it profusely.

Treyvon suspected he was being WATCHED not followed while at the mail shelter.

Quotes taken from Testimony in court. He was at Mailbox at this point in timeline.

NOTE: There are other versions of her testimony as she spoke on television etc, but always GZ was in his car parked where videos have shown.


@ Tiassa the racist Moderator,

Tiassa. I honestly hope you are arrested for your violent history if what you claimed is true. I posted a photo of a Molotov Cocktail because some here might not realize that it is a bomb you threw in those race riots (according to you).

You know I wrote off most of your last post as "Gibber Gabber", however I did catch a familiar phrase you use,

Yes.. You make no mistake that this is all about race and nothing to do with actual Justice.

Then again, you have called me "Whitey" and called me a Canadian version of some notorious murdering KKK Clan member in this thread already because you picked a really bad Martyr.

The facts speak for themselves for those intelligent enough to look and understand. A jury felt the same way. I guess you losers just don't know when to quit beating a dead dog.

now as for your own crimes...

Dear Federal Bureau of Investigations,
Tiassa admits to being in a Race Riot in 1991 at a Jesuit school and claims to have thrown Molotov Cocktails and used a weapon on someone (does this mean stabbed or shot?). This moderator has also set more buildings (plural) on fire. I think the Moderator needs to be reported to the FBI. The ban was ridiculous, but this Tiassa guy might be guilty of serious offences.

(A MOLOTOV COCKTAIL IS A HOME MADE BOMB!!!) you psycho.

Maybe we can help them put a name to a face. Jesuit School in 1991 I believe you suggested? That should help them narrow it down.

Did you intentionally write buildings as plural. WTF! Who sets more than one building on fire? I think one is a lifetime limit although most sane people try to set ZERO buildings on fire.

Yes. Fine example for us all apparently.

So. Tell us about your childhood. EEK!

Maybe they can track you through your IP address and solve some sort of cold case against you. Anybody that throws a bomb must have a few screws loose. Maybe more than a few based on your off topic rants here.

YOUR A FRIGGIN (ALTHOUGH YOU'VE SAID FUCKIN IN THIS THREAD) MODERATOR. WAS YOUR LAST POST EVEN REMOTELY ON TOPIC, and now I'm off topic to respond to your horse crap post.


Your obvious prejudice sort of prejudices your arguments about this case (IF YOU EVER ACTUALLY TALKED ABOUT THE CASE INSTEAD OF BRAGGING ABOUT BOMBING PEOPLE AND USING WEAPONS AGAINST PEOPLE). Every post you make you go off on some lunatic tangent the latest being some place in North Dakota. I've actually been to North Dakota driving a motorhome to the Rocky Mountains, and the people are nicer than you describe. North Dakota looks like some eerie moonscape, but the people treated my family with much kindness. Maybe you are looking at the road through racist coloured glasses.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We Now Return You To Our Regularly-Scheduled Discussion

And I sincerely hope you find the necessary help to overcome your learning disability. I mean, after all, we must necessarily presume some sort of cognitive inhibition unless we are to conclude that for whatever reason—perhaps demanding psychiatric treatment?—you have made some sort of specific point of misrepresenting things to the point of slapstick.

To turn that last into a direct question, since it will probably save you a lot of typing to just cut through the chase: What exactly is the point of your hardcore trolling performance that people only pretend to take seriously at this point because it is otherwise indecent to call you out for your embarrassing behavior for the possibility that you genuinely cannot help yourself?

No, seriously. People are entertaining you because it is inappropriate to describe your behavior by the potentially denigrating terminology that would be most accurate.

And, furthermore, this thread really isn't about you, no matter how hard you try to make it. Thus, to return the discussion to its proper subject:

Ladies and gentlemen, this digression has been brought to us by an example of the sort of intellect required to support the proposition that George Zimmerman is "innocent".​

 

@ Kwihlbomb,

Have you ever believed in anything so much that you were willing to break the laws of the land? Have you ever smoked pot? Have you ever done anything illegal in your life ? What you find as sensational behavior in this thread leads me to conclude your life and you are milquetoast. Beige suits you!

 

I usually do not break any laws except occasionally riding in cars without my seat belt. But that is a gray area.

No, I DO NOT believe that at all. 12 laws? no way. Every day? NO. That is impossible. LOL, where do people get this stuff from?

Stanley shakes head.

 

@ Quinnsong,

No. I have never felt the need to hurl a burning bomb at someone. Tiassa can make lihght of it all he likes, but he seemed serious and that is good enough for many to believe he is wacko including the authorities.

@ Fraggle Rocker,

Dang! Another person who knows very little about this case chiming in. I will not even respond to your entire post. Let's look at the first few points though.

a)George Zimmerman was suspicious of a child for the sole reason that he was dressed and walking like a typical Afro-American teenager.

George Zimmerman was suspicious of everyone as he had made over 50 prior calls to police reporting parties and even white suspects. Neighborhood watch people are supposed to be suspicious of strangers. This was only a half white community, and even GZ was not white. Treyvon was also using a hands free telephone which I think can make anybody look crazy talking to themselves while looking around.

b) George Zimmerman reported this to the police and was told to leave the child alone.

Despite what you learned from the media, Zimmerman did not follow Treyvon A SINGLE INCH after he was told to "We don't need you to do that" (regarding him following on foot). Let me refer you to the video I linked above. I will post it here again. You can hear the door slam and the officer say "We don't need you to do that", and he stopped. He later continued to next road along path, but it was not the southern route that Treyvon had taken.

c) Nonetheless, he went out to his car and began stalking the child, who was alone.

He was already in his car when he first noticed Treyvon. What's with this child crap anyways. Treyvon was big enough to sell illegal guns to kids (see transcripts below video). If you're big enough to sell guns to kids, are 17 years old, are 6'2" and liked to beat up snitches and see more blood, then you are at very least a delinquent teen. Child my ass. Also Treyvon was not alone. He made it as far as his back porch and even talked to his brother, why he went back for GZ we do not know.

Those are just your first three points. The media made sure to show 12 year old pictures of Treyvon, and creepy looking pictures of GZ. If I took enough pics of you I could find a creepy one.

[video=youtube;hj3_krn5mAQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj3_krn5mAQ[/video]


Back to Trayvons Phone Extractions.. READ YOURSELF
1.DEALING FOR ILLEGAL GUNS,
Taken From Extraction Report #1

From Extraction report # 5

NOTE: SOME IDIOTS ON THIS THREAD HAVE SUGGESTED MAYBE THESE WERE LEGAL GUN TRANSACTIONS. It is not legal for people to SHARE OWNERSHIP of a .38 handgun as Trayvon suggests above. (Smacks Morons in Face.)

@ FRAGGLE ROCKER,
This is the gun dealing CHILD you are defending. Maybe one of the guns he sold will shoot someone you know?
2.VIOLENT ASSAULTS (PLURAL),

Taken From Extraction report # 1

Taken from Extraction report # 3

(NOTE: Somebody is seeking Trayvon for fight training. This shows Trayvon is respected a bit as fighter by at least someone).
Taken From Extraction Report # 6

(NOTE: Notice Trayvon was not satisfied with a little blood. He wanted more blood).
@ Fraggle Rocker,

Your "CHILD" is upset because he ONLY MADE THE SNITCHES NOSE BLEED. Not enough blood for poor little Trayvon.. BOO HOO. I'd bet that "snitch" is glad Treyvon is not coming back to finish him off.

3. DRUG ABUSE, on his own phone texts.

Taken From extraction Report # 1

and also:
Was he kicked out of his own moms home?

Taken from Extraction Record # 1

NOTE: Some may think all the Smoke talk is about cigarettes. He had THC in his system when he died as well. He does say weed in sms messages.

I could care less if Trayvon was on trial. These phone records are of illegal activities and I believe what I see. When most people read these they comment "so what if he smoked pot?", and completely ignore Treyvon liked to beat on people and sold guns to kids.

If you want to see profiling, watch the store clerk profile Treyvon while he bought his skittles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNEZo6eG4N8

 

That is exactly my point! What Kwihlborn finds as sensational and criminal behavior is commonplace in America. We know that many of our laws are laughable, we know that our system of justice is not blind to race or class, so it is more than a little upsetting to me when Kwihlborn sitting in his Beige Tower continues to vilify Trayvon by portraying him as a monster. Using sinister sensationalism to make his point just shows his lack of respect for other posters intellect.

 

Which laws?

 

Also, someone explain to me, as i already asked, how can every person break 12 laws every day? What laws? Is he referring to throwing a chewing gum wrapper on the ground or what?

 

Well, essentially, yes

Depends on the person and the place. But yes, essentially.

Take Oregon, circa the 1990s when I lived there.

A Day in the Life: (Offenses against law are in italics.)

Wake. Bake. Eat. Shower.

Bake. Drive. Speed. Insufficient notice of lane change. "California" stop. Ash/cigarette out the window or on the ground.

(By the time you get to work, that's at least six separate offenses, although I should note that showering is not in and of itself offensive; rather, many people I knew at the time were, quite literally, using illegal shower heads because they so resented the compliance rules. No, seriously, it was epidemic disobedience.)​

I don't know. It really depends on each person. Bartenders routinely serve people they know qualify for cutoff under state law. Mailroom clerks routinely dispose of junk mail instead of delivering it to the staff who use the company address to get the free baseball or t-shirt or whatever the hell someone is giving away in exchange for contact information. I remember one occasion on which I, personally, violated the laws of multiple states and the federal government simply by following the instructions the company put in front of me. (Automation within a bureaucracy sometimes results in obsolete operations manuals.) We can call that occasion exceptional, to be certain. Or, at least, I would hope. But, you know ...?


And it's not just Americans. One of my favorite news stories from around the world last year came from Canada, and in truth I never did hear the end. But essentially a woman was facing jail time for trimming a hedge. The first valence of detail is that she illegally trimmed a protected species. The second valence of detail is that she had no idea that particular hedge at the local lawn bowling club was a protected species. The third valence of detail is that she trimmed the hedge for a very specific, and very good reason: On an occasion that the Club required emergency medical assistance for one of its members or guests, the ambulance had difficulty finding them; while it is lucky that the delay did not cost further medical consequence, the problem was that the hedge had overgrown the address marker and Club sign. There might, further, have been some property boundary issues complicating things, but by the time this made CBC's As it Happens and thus filtered onto my airwaves in Seattle, there really was no way it wasn't embarrassing for the local jurisdiction.

Yeah, it's astounding what one can do to break the law. For instance, it used to be illegal to get married to the same woman for the fourth time in ... I don't know, I think it was like Kentucky or West Virginia. But to get married to the same woman for the fifth time was just fine and dandy. I guess the point with that one is that we write some pretty stupid laws in our society. Once upon a time there was a law in Alaska that was so badly written that if you looked out the window of an airplane you were riding in and happened to see a moose, you had broken the law. Well, at least I hope they finally fixed the syntax. And who would have known that it was illegal to ride a camel in the desert in Arizona? Honestly, I'm trying to guess what inspired that legendary law. There was a town called Josephine, Oregon, in which it was illegal to talk dirty to your wife during sexual congress. I'm uncertain whether that law applied to talking dirty to your wife while banging someone who isn't your wife, but I think the two better points to make are that it seems odd compared to the filth one could speak to his wife when not amid marital privilege, and yes, it's true, I said there was a town called Josephine, Oregon, in which it was illegal to talk dirty to your wife during sexual congress. There is no evidence that the law contributed to the town's decline and eventual extinction, but it's very nearly cute, as irony goes.

 

@ Quinnsong,

It is you arguing a losing side. American Justice has already said there was not enough proof to determine guilt except in the mind of all you posting based on some sort of Dementia. All there needs to be is reasonable doubt.

Ignore Presumption of innocence or call me racist because I believe in Justice. This Trial was not about Treyvon, and had roles been reversed I would argue that he be presumed innocent as well.

Your combined mob mentality, vigilante tirades bore me. At least I'm on the side of justice which has prevailed.

@ Tiassa,

Can you get on topic for even a percentage of a post. Honestly ... Wheres a moderator when you need one. Let me guess. Another racism tirade about somewhere or someone else in America (I'm editing this and have not read it yet). Let me check...

Ok I was wrong (First Time for everything), It was actually an interesting piece about antiquated laws. Still not on topic, but at least he made it through a post without cussing, whining, or name calling.

Selling guns and beating up "snitches" are actually real bonifed crimes.

 

Tiassa, breaking 12 laws every day is someone going out of their way to break laws. I estimate 3 minor offenses is fairly normal. Then there are people who break no laws every day. Think about it, a person breaking 12 laws every day is like an arch criminal.

 

Although there are numerous silly and laughable laws in most if not all states in America, I really was not addressing those. I should have worded my statement this way, our criminal justice system is laughable in the way it metes out justice in relation to drug laws(have not worked) and non violent crimes. I think you know the statistics Stanley for race and class discrimination in our justice system, if not I will be glad to provide info if you want. I know of these statistics off the top of my head, African Americans are 4 times more likely to be arrested for mere pot possession and they will also serve sentences 20 % longer than their white counterparts for drug charges.

 

But the facts don’t imply Martin started the fight, only that he landed a single punch to Zimmerman’s face. It’s reasonable to assume that some proximate action on Zimmerman’s part prompted the punch.

A person subjected to the head trauma described by Zimmerman would likely experience the kind of neurological impairment commonly associated with such injury, reduced sensory and expressive abilities would be expected. The various degrees of knockout exhibited in boxing would be appropriate examples. As for his beating, the medical evidence of Zimmerman’s injuries don’t support his claim of severe head trauma or bodily injury, leaving the most likely perceived threat to his safety being the loss of control of the weapon he introduced to the fight.

And a more competent prosecution team could have met that burden.

The prosecution didn’t have to objectively prove Zimmerman a liar, only convince the jury that his account was not reasonable given the circumstances.

Being attacked with a knife without sustaining injury does not negate a claim of self defense. My neighbor’s problem arose from the fact that he panicked and tried unsuccessfully to cover up the entire incident. Zimmerman’s injuries are not reliable indicators of the initiating factors of the fight, they only imply he was in a fight.

Martin as the instigator didn’t have to be avoided, only less preferred than the alternative.

 

So, I was reading about the possibility of Treyvon Martin's family filing a civil suit against GZ. In most cases, would you say that a criminal acquittal (almost certainly) guarantees civil immunity? An exception would be OJ Simpson.

What are your thoughts to this? Is it still worthwhile for Treyvon Martin's family to pursue a civil suit?

 

?

Nobody's fooled. Or, to put it as blatantly simply as you need in order to understand: Anyone capable of following our part of the discussion is going to laugh at your complaint of off-topic posting in response to your off-topic post.

Look, I don't mind the fact that you can't support your libel. Your chronic, dysfunctional dishonesty is something of an amusing spectacle.

But let us take two effective portions of your argument in order to make the point:

• Trayvon Martin acting like a teenager is his own threatening fault because ... er ... um ... well, apparently it isn't so much a black kid acting like a teenager, though you've clearly made the point for us.

• At the same time, you object to the "racism" of a black father giving his son "The Talk" in which the younger generation is taught why it cannot behave the way Trayvon Martin did, at stake of their lives.​

To the one, a black kid must be black, and cannot be a kid.

To the other, if that black kid's father is taught exactly that, you complain about the racism.

In the end, the only thing we can conclude from these points is that in any situation, regardless of the circumstance, you hold the black person to be wrong.

After all, he can't act like anyone else, simply because he's black. But explaining that he cannot act like aynone else simply because he is black is racist againt the white people who are afraid of a black male acting like anyone else.

Anybody but you can be expected to comprehend the basic problem with the concurrent efficacy of those points. Can we include you, and get rid of that exception?

Please tell me we can. And please behave in a manner such that we can believe it.

 

No. We know for sure that Martin threw and landed at least one punch. We have no evidence that Zimmerman threw any punches. There is no basis for an assumption that Zimmerman did something to start the fight. You're only assuming it because you want it to be true; you believe Zimmerman to be a murderer, therefore you assume he must have started the fight. That's working the logic backwards from your conclusion.

What?!? Do you want to read that back to yourself? You're saying that sustaining broken nose and an open head wound, with the person who did it on top of you wouldn't cause you to perceive a threat?!? Once injury happens, you're way past the threat of safety. A threat is an intent to inflict injury: the injuries were already in progress. Jeez, again with people not knowing the definitions of basic words!: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/threat

Zimmerman didn't "perceive a threat" of harm from Martin: harm was being inflicted.

You mean with better lies and misconduct than they already committed? Sure. But not based on the facts of the case.

Sure, but whether you call it a lie or just a mistake, the burden of proof is the same. Being a lie would provide a reason for it being wrong that would speak to the prosecution's case. Either way, you again have the shoe on the wrong foot. Zimmerman is not required to prove his story is reasonable; the prosecution is required to prove it is unreasonable. In between those is a wide swath of "could be" of reasonable doubt.

Ahh, ok. So he took steps to cover up his actions, which made it look like a crime when it wouldn't necessarily have been if he had been completely honest. Yes, honesty is a key to a self defense claim. Lying reduces one's credibility.

Agreed. But they don't have to be "reliable", they only have to be reasonable. I believe that more than half the time, the winner is the one who takes the initiative and gains surprise, but it isn't really essential to prove that: If you look at 100 fights, does the loser of the fight throw the first punch 95% of the time? That's what would be required for beyond a reasonable doubt.

Oy. Imply: To express or indicate indirectly. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/imply
Clearly, a broken nose is not an indirect indication that one was in a fight, it is a direct indication that Zimmerman was in a fight.

You're trying to argue a 51% burden of proof. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is more like 95%. Martin as the instigator did not merely have to be "avoided", it had to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.