Can you elaborate on the bold?
I am sorry, but what the f$%^ are you talking about? what “community awareness/protocol”?
You’re right, Zimmerman is NOT A POLICEMAN.
Another question–somewhat unrelated: Are you from the US?
Even at that age, they are well aware that people only 10 years older than them are the generation whose footsteps they are following in. There’s no way TM would have described Z as an old man. It’s people in their 40’s and over who they are looking on as being over the hill, unless their name is George Foreman or Randy Couture.
Me too.
it does me they approached me. 
Dee Dee described Zimmerman’s voice as an old man’s. So it appears that a teenager within a few years of Martin’s age could describe Zimmerman as an old man.
You never get tired of being wrong, do you?
Regards,
Shodan
So, the girl who Zimmerman defenders are saying can barely get an intelligible sentence out of her mouth and has no idea what TM is seeing, has now become an authority on what old men sound like? All she likely meant is that it was someone with a deeper voice than Trayvon’s.
You claimed it couldn’t happen; I cited someone of roughly the same age who also (allegedly) heard Zimmerman’s voice who did exactly that.
Make something else up - maybe it can be shot down just as easily.
Regards,
Shodan
As I’d never made a claim for DD never saying it, I’m not sure what point you think you are making. I said TM wouldn’t have described Z as an old man(imo, him having more information to work on than DD); it was you that brought DD into it.
Over there you must have more respect for your elders. Where I grew up, anyone over 25 was and old fuck and got zero respect if they talked shit. The boys I knew who liked to throw down, certainly didn’t consider being older an advantage. But hey take it for what it is worth, that is experience from the Northern border in the middle of nowhere USA. Almost as far from Florida as you are. 
Incessant bluster. In my experience people who know how to kick ass never brag about it.
Entirely false, from both a legal and moral point of view.
Zimmerman didn’t stalk Martin, this was the first time they’d ever come across each other. You keep referring to the gun as though him carrying it is an issue. it isn’t.
No, he didn’t. He lost Martin, and Martin chose to come back and confront him. During that confrontation, he was severely injured by Martin. He didn’t have the upper hand at any point until he shot Martin - that’s why he had to do it.
None of that has even the remotest resemblance to anything that happened. But yes, if Zimmerman is being attacked, and can’t drive off Martin by sheer intimidation factor, it’s acceptable to shoot him.
He was the guy who followed Martin and asked him a question. Two things he’s perfectly entitled to do without getting punched. There was, as far as the evidence showed, no confrontation until Martin created one.
I strongly suspect you don’t actually know what “confrontation” means.
There’s no reason he should have identified himself.
Some general thoughts, as this thread has moved quickly whilst I’ve been at work. It’s incredibly revealing to see the Martin apologists revealing that they would happily attack someone for following them, seemingly not realising that following someone, with a loaded gun or otherwise, and talking to them is perfectly legal in Florida.
Dimmy’s fantasies are straight from a Guy Ritchie film, and frankly make me embarrassed that he’s a countryman of mine. I’ve figured out his real objection to this whole thing, and it’s that he thinks it’s unfair that Zimmerman was allowed to use a gun to escape from what he considers was a fair fight.
I’ve known about two people who can fight the way dimmy claims he can, and they don’t talk about it the way he does. The people who I’ve know who do talk like he does are pathetic little gobshites who’s only actual fighting is done with their mouths, and who’s larger, tougher mates have to get them out of the shit they start.
As for betenoire, I think in 20 or so posts he’s managed about half a coherent sentence. I’m just glad Hbns is here to talk some sense on the other side. The one sad thing about this discussion is that there’s always the possibility that I’ve missed something and come to the wrong conclusions, but the people arguing (for want of a better word) against me are so incapable that they could never show me that.
Apart from that, it’s been great fun to read them getting slapped down by facts and logic again and again.
I have a much better idea. Why don’t you let my nephew who is about the same weight and height as Martin get on top of you and push your head into the cement. He’s a computer geek with no sports background so it will give you a pit of an advantage.
The conclusion is already drawn by Zimmerman. The state has to contradict it with evidence.
Well lets look at what we know about Martin. He was on his 3rd suspension from school for: drugs, theft, and vandalism. Sounds like his train wasn’t on the right track to me. He might have been quite active in the street fighting scene. Doesn’t matter to me but there you go.
Zimmerman is an adult. He was expecting the police to arrive shortly so it’s unlikely he invited them to watch him commit a crime. Martin was a 17 year old troubled kid. Age 17 is a time of irrational behavior with the best of kids so there is no reason to believe Martin was less irrational than a straight A student who isn’t on suspension for various acts of stupid. Now add in the insult of being challenged in his own neighborhood and you have motive. On top of that, it appears likely he went out of his way to confront Zimmerman. He literally went looking for trouble. Now we can’t prove he swung first but the evidence shows he wailed on Zimmerman which shows an aggressive intensity to his actions.
The evidence shows the fight started where Zimmerman said it started. Dee Dee said Martin told her he was near his house. According to Zimmerman this is the direction Martin came from. The confrontation was created by Martin. He came to Zimmerman.
Nice fantasy.
Very nice and entertaining.
Only 20 posts? Gee, thought you were going to say 100.
But it has been coherent enough for you to understand and reply then, no?
Facts and logic…please. As if you haven’t been called out for your bullshit…as you were recently by someone who I haven’t actually see post here.
Again, the things I bring up will be talked about by a jury…that’s how shit works here. I have been on juries, trust me, that’s what happens. You can say my points are irrelevant or whatever nonsense you want, but it’s YOU who don’t understand how the courts work here.
You keep talking about how the evidence backs up Zimmerman–but you have an extremely narrow view of the evidence. I haven’t heard any discussion from you about Zimmerman’s interviews. Whether you like it or not, they are evidence. He gave one on Hannity. He gave a couple for the police. That’s evidence. He says some pretty damning things. I have brought this up several times over the weeks, but you haven’t responded.
You keep on talking about how Zimmerman’s credibility shouldn’t really be an issue.
The same poster who I alluded to called you out on that. It was very refreshing to see an outside poster chime in.
It doesn’t work that way here. If you are a proven liar, trust me, juries will take note, and you know what, that might affect their verdict. You might not like hearing that, but yes, that’s the way it works here. I know this for a fact.
You feel there’s not enough evidence for a conviction.
And how exactly do your really know this? How do you know that he won’t be charged with manslaughter? Hate to break this to you, but the courts aren’t this linear black and white entity.
A jury can still send his behind away for a very long time.
Also, sure someone might be charged with something, but that doesn’t mean they won’t get a lesser charge. Sometimes those lesser charges are worked in.
Often times, pleas are made–it’s about negotiation. Even** Bricker **tried pointing this out. He would certainly know.
This is a humble opinions and speculations thread.
You can take your superior analysis and shove it and go to a legal analysis thread for lawyers.
Oh, I forgot, you’re not.
Spare me.
-
The evidence shows a lot things that you refuse to see. And?
-
Define “near”…I am “near” my house when I am a 10 minute walking distance away.
-
No and no–Zimmerman created the confrontation. Zimmerman came to Martin.
Let’s try again magiver…
none of it directly conflicts with his account.
Near, as in “I’m so close to my house I don’t have to run to it” which is the context in which the statement was made. It means he can’t see Zimmerman. It means he’s not at the intersecting T.
Not according to the evidence which I just went over. Martin came to Zimmerman. Martin started the conversation according to both accounts. Martin assaulted Zimmerman according to the evidence.
Lets try what again? Why are you posting this?
I responded to your posts in kind.
I expected you to reciprocate.
I asked you a number of questions…
you posted what looks like a series of your own quotes. That is not a question.