Prejudice, assumptions, preconceptions, and an overdeveloped sense that you know everything about other people. Not common sense.
I believe that “common sense” is, by definition, realizing that there’s a world outside of your personal experience.
Zimmerman mentioned in the 911 call that there had been a lot of break-ins, and he saw a suspicious person. Obviously I can’t know what Zimmerman thought deep down, but I know that he wanted the 911 operator to think that Trayvon was a thief, a potential thief, or capable of thieving.
The burden of proof is not on me to show that Martin was not in the community for illegal purposes.
A just result would be Zimmerman losing a civil suit to the Martin family and being ruined financially, assuming Zimmerman’s story is correct.
Because I already live in a world where people like Zimmerman tote guns around and assume the worst about people. If Zimmerman’s story is correct, it means I still live in that world, but I also live in a world where otherwise normal teenagers try to murder people without provocation. I hope Zimmerman is lying because it means there was only 1 raging asshole in that neighborhood, and not two.
I would think everyone would want that to be true.
Yes, even if Zimmerman is telling the truth, he’s the kind of person I wouldn’t want walking around free and armed anywhere near me.
As Bricker pointed out before, theybetter be very sure of winning, because if they sue and lose, they will be liable for Zimmerman’s attorney fees, court fees and all kinds of other charges.
First please show me where I stated or implied that such evidence exists.
Thank you.
Lol, a stunning rebuttal. By the way, I am still waiting for answers to my questions from before. Why do you ignore them?
Because I’m not arguing with you anymore, you’re not worthy of the effort and there’s just no reason, since you’ve demonstrated to everyone here that you’re full of shit. I’m just mocking you now, because it’s effortless and fun.
And that’s your proof that Zimmerman decided that Martin was probably a burglar?
The burden of proof is absolutely on you. Unless I misread your post, your position is that it is “beyond dispute” that (1) Zimmerman decided that Martin was probably a burglar; and (2) that Zimmerman was “horribly wrong.” Did I misunderstand your post?
And what exactly is the tort Zimmerman committed (assuming his story his correct)?
Regardless of the outcome of this case, we both live in a world where teenagers (and others) attempt to murder others without legitimate provocation.
You seem to be assuming that Trayvon Martin is “normal,” but of course that is an unknown at this point.
So you stated that “my basic point stands about … evidence of theft”
Again, where is this “evidence of theft” that you clearly stated was “your basic point”.
Lol, you don’t even know what my position is. You are just arguing against (or mocking) what you imagine or wish my position to be.
Your position is that your head is up your ass.
I did NOT say that my “basic point” was “evidence of theft,” and if I had, that would not have made any sense.
Please respond to the points I actually make – as opposed to the points you imagine or wish I had made.
Lol, another stunning rebuttal.
To borrow a word you have used, you are just as vile as the folks on Stormfront.
Perhaps, but she’s smarter than you.
That, if I may say so, is a perfect characterization of the anti-Zimmerman posters in this thread.
The **Randroverian **“I’m not touching you!” school of debate was dismissed a long time ago. Building fell in, in fact. Goddamn walls just collapsed, with nothing to support them but a hint of flatulence. You need a new shtick. Oops, I mean method.
Why did you use the words “evidence of theft” then? What theft? Where in all the bullshit floating around was there any “theft” involved in this story?
And to follow on to that… If anyone did mention theft, what evidence do they posess?
Again, why did you use the words “evidence of theft”? What were these words (that you used) supposed to add to the debate?
Clearly, I understood that you were saying that there was evidence that the victim had stolen something. If I am wrong about what you meant, then what exactly did you mean? Enlighten us.
Sheesh, go back and read my earlier posts in the thread. There is a rumor that Martin was caught with a large amount of ladies’ jewelry and a large screwdriver suitable for engaging in burglary. If a young man is in possession of such items, it’s evidence of theft. Duh.
Lol, I have no idea what your point is here.