Given Zimmerman’s past documented history, it would be very reasonable to assume that ONCE AGAIN, he was the aggressor, the instigator. Each and every time, it was also documented that he himself played the “victim card”.
I look forward to the day when I read in the news that someone finally finished him off. And got away with it. He’s the thug. He needs to be removed.
You bloody wanker, he fucking called 911. They told him to stay in the car. He was too fucking stupid and arrogant like you, so he didn’t do it.
Too bad he didn’t go to prison and have someone Dahmer him.
… I completely disagree with this. I don’t like “stand your ground.” I don’t like Zimmerman. I’m sick to the stomach over what he did. But he doesn’t need to “be removed.” Let him lead his rotten life, keep in his own lane, hope he doesn’t kill anybody else. I just can’t bear your sentiment, and I wish that you hadn’t have quoted me to express it.
It’s clear you don’t actually understand what it means for evidence to support a position. You can hold whatever opinion you like, but in this case it is, quite literally, unsupported. Your only reason for believing that Martin was defending himself is that he must have had some reason to use violence, not because any physical evidence or testimony suggests that he was.
I truly don’t get what is so hard to understand about this, I can only imagine it’s some form of blind faith. All you have done is claimed that Martin was defending himself, then produced evidence that doesn’t show that. There is, quite simply, no chain of reasoning that goes from the evidence we have to Martin defending himself without unsupported inferences.
Not all opinions are worth listening to, and ones like yours in this case that can’t be supported are in that group.
But you know what, if I’m wrong, show it. Show how you get from the evidence we have to Martin defending himself without stacking inferences. I guarantee you can’t do it.
His past documented history of not being charged with any crimes except speeding tickets? Nice to know you approve of murder, though.
Grow up, you silly little man. People can read my posts and make their own minds up without you squawking in the background.
They didn’t tell him to do anything. He was certainly stupid not to follow their advice though, had he done so he would probably have avoided the unprovoked attack and injury, as well as the trauma of having to kill his attacker, go through an unnecessary trial, and be labelled a murderer by ignoramuses.
…I’m not allowed to hold an opinion based on evidence: but you are?
Fuck that shit.
Are you a mind reader? Are you incapable of reading? I’ve cited the witness testimony that helped me form my opinion. It was the witness testimony you pointed me too.
What the fuck have you supported your opinion with?
Where the fuck are your cites?
And what is it you are relying on? You keep spouting dribble. But you keep failing to cite.
What evidence have you produced? Put up or shut the fuck up.
Except the chain of reasoning that I’ve put forward. Your rebuttal to my chain of reasoning was “you are factually wrong” which was rebutted with a simple "you don’t understand what “factually” means.
And yet you keep on replying. Feel free to keep it up: I can keep going as long as you like.
Go read my fucking position again you dope. Learn to fucking read you moron. Stop challenging me to defend a position I haven’t taken. You aren’t going to get the chance to declare victory over me you pillock. You aren’t smart enough to do that. Stop trying.
Wow, you can’t really believe your fucking drivel. If he stays in his car Martin lives. Plain and fucking simple. Advice/tell who fucking cares. You are the fucking d-bag who has been spouting off about following what the cops say exactly, yet when this fucktard ignores 911 you use it as validation for killing another person.
So, still no actual explanation of how the evidence supports your claim. Obviously not, because it doesn’t. That’s why no one, not on this thread, not in the courtroom, nowhere, has been able to show it. There is no evidence Martin was acting in self defence. You disagree? The burden is on you to show it.
You are completely missing the point. Zimmerman wasn’t advised to stay in the car for Martin’s safety, it was for his own. They were shown to be right about that, as well, as Zimmerman was injured, which us unlikely to have happened had he stayed there.
It’s true that Martin would have lived if Zimmerman hd stayed in his car, but so fucking what? He’d have lived had he stayed in his dad’s house, but that’s equally irrelevant to what happened.
Well done on trying to conflate the suggestion of a phone operator with the lawful orders of a police officer, though. Sadly for you, other people have already tried that, and it was bullshit then just as it is now.
There’s on person, and one person alone responsible for Martin’s death, and that’s Trayvon Martin himself.
…post #12217 #12245 #12251 #12258 #12270
You are a fucking liar. I’ve laid out exactly what evidence, in my humble opinion, supports my claim.
Now its your turn. Put up or shut up.
Obviously I have: you just happen to be a fucking liar.
Still fucking lying.
You don’t understand what “evidence” means.
I’ve met my burden.
Your turn.
Prove that “I’m the reason people in many areas are scared to leave their houses.”
Prove that “I’m the reason people can get away with repeated sexual assaults because “they deserve it” based on their previous actions.”
Prove that “Martin had no reason to fear a man with a gun that was stalking him at night.”
These are all claims you’ve made in this thread. You’ve made a fuck-ton more and I’m going to hold you to every single one. The burden is on you to show it so start backing up your assertions.
Fair enough, but my position won’t change.
He can not stay in his own lane. He has something going on in his head, that he has to start shit, he always says he was the victim, and he has already killed once - a killing that was completely avoidable. Does he have to kill again before something finally happens to him?
Why not just admit you made a mistake about me? You said something about me without a cite, and attacked me when I challenged you on it.
Martin was already right by his father’s house, according to Jeantel’s testimony, and he and Zimmerman had lost sight of each other, according to Zimmerman’s and Jeantel’s testimony. And Martin did not know that Zimmerman was armed.
Because he doubled back and attacked Zimmerman. If you are a few steps from safety, do you go back and look for the danger, or do you walk into your own house?
If Martin was after Skittles and safety, he had both. If he was looking for a fight, he had to go looking. He went looking. Do the math.
Regards,
Shodan
We have read your posts. Nobody here agrees with you, in case you have not noticed.
There isn’t any evidence produced at trial that establishes a probability that Martin was defending himself against Zimmerman.
Martin’s actions show that he probably did not know that Zimmerman had a gun. Martin had no injuries apart from scraped knuckles probably produced by his punching Zimmerman. Zimmerman had a broken nose, gashes on his head, facial contusions, and a sprained back. Thus there is no evidence of an assault on Martin, and considerable evidence of an assault on Zimmerman. The only significant injury to Martin was the gunshot that killed him, and that must necessarily have happened after he inflicted the injuries on Zimmerman, and thus are evidence of self-defense on Zimmerman’s part, not Martin’s.
If you want to hold an opinion based on nothing, you can, but you cannot credibly claim that it is based on evidence that doesn’t exist, and is contradicted by evidence that does.
Regards,
Shodan
No, you are, as usual, completely missing the point. At the time, many of us felt that Zimmerman acted like a fucked-up gun-toting wannabe. He’d probably be too cowardly to provoke a fight unarmed, but with his surrogate penis concealed on his person he went hunting nigger. The fact that he disobeyed a directive from the 911 operator confirms this assumption. And of course, subsequent events in the life of this asshole wannabe have also confirmed it.
The prosecutor applied the wrong charges and the wrong view of the case. Given that, it’s no surprise the jury acquitted. I’d probably vote for acquittal the way the case was presented, if I were on the jury. But the verdict does not refute Zimmerman’s guilt.
Your stupidity is breath-taking. We might find you amusing if your opinions weren’t so disgusting and inhumane.
Says the opinion of Shodan, and the opinion of Shodan is final! Only Shodan’s opinion (or those who agree with him) on what the evidence suggests is legitimate; any other opinions on what the evidence suggests are wrong.
All hail Shodan!