Tea? Who went to the 7-11 for TEA? Since you say you don’t have any problem expressing yourself and it’s a fact that TM bought watermelon drink that day, maybe you’re talking about a different incident?
Was the fake ever offered into evidence?
I have no idea, but I had more success than Terr finding it on the wayback machine:
LOL. It says that GZ is another Florida resident who has passed all of the hurdles set by the State of Florida and the federal government to own and carry a firearm. Even when he’s driving to the store. Whether you like it or not.
The voters in Florida elected representatives who passed the laws that allows some Florida residents to carry firearms. And I’m pretty sure that those Florida residents don’t care what you think of their character or their mind set.
TM chose the wrong victim and that is the last wrong choice he’ll ever make.
So if they are used about someone you both don’t know and like it is definitively racist? That’s a pretty wide net, considering how often they are thrown around today, in casual convos and on social media. Something to consider the next time you accuse liberals of exaggerating racism. 
I’m not even going to get into the false equivalence between the two terms, the shades of meaning in different contexts, and the special circumstance of Martin using it to describe someone following him for unknown reasons, and the contextual meaning of cracker in that circumstance.
Yes.
You don’t have to. I know you would work hard to find a way to excuse Martin’s racism.
Terr, how do you cast that wide net on one hand, and claim exaggerated racism claims on the other?
LOL. No, you don’t know that GZ went out with a “grudge”. Neither do you know that GZ was in a “foul mood”. Those are your “inventions”.
Why did TM attack GZ? You’ll have to ask Rachel Jeantel. Jeantel says TM was by his daddy house which was over 300 feet from the “T”. TM would have had to return to the “T” to confront GZ. Unfortunately for TM, TM chose an armed victim.
It’s not that wide. I have not once called anyone a “nigga” (or a “cracka”). YMMV.
Good. Now we won’t have to work hard to excuse you from accusations of racism.
Sick, sick, sick.
Where has Terr claimed exaggerated racism? Is there perhaps some context to his claims that would erase the seeming contradiction? I’d be interested in seeing the source.
I was thinking of the theme of the Oberlin College hoax thread, but I believe there have been other threads where it has come up. It’s more of a general meme: Conservatives think liberals exaggerate how much racism is still prevalent in society.
If I am exaggerating his views about liberal exaggeration, he is welcome to come back and correct me. He didn’t take issue with it when I first mentioned it, and he didn’t care to explain it, either. I’m not sure how strongly he believes half the things he says in some of these threads. He likes arguing with liberals, like so many other conservatives here. 
So present that evidence. It’s not been done here yet, and it was not done at the trial. Show with evidence, not speculation, that Zimmerman continued following Martin after he claimed to have stopped, that Zimmerman was the first to use or threaten violence, and that Martin did not, in fact, go home then return to Zimmerman.
Of course, you can’t. No-one has been able to, including the prosecution lawyers.
Really, everyone claiming that this evidence exists should probably show it, and perhaps explain why they didn’t make the prosecution aware of it before the trial.
Carrying a gun and using it in self defence is the opposite of reckless, it is one of the few legitimate uses of it, and probably the only legitimate use by a civilian in a residential area. Your comparison is ridiculous, and you have proved my point by saying you have a problem with him carrying it. Why don’t you want him to be able to defend himself?
Nothing, I’m fine. Again, you are simply claiming I’m wrong without actually correcting me. It’s your schtick, I get that, and I’m sure the less intelligent readers might fall for it (hi Stoid), but until you can explain to me how Zimmerman was supposed to defend himself with the gun he owned but didn’t carry - the scenario you support - I’ll continue to interpret that as believing he should not have defended himself with it, under any circumstances.
That’s not what you said, buckaroo. You took what I actually said and twisted it into something different. Making shit up. If you have to lie to win, you shouldn’t win.
Win: Steophan.
And, again, you fail to actually say what I was wrong about, just making an unsupported claim. Your refusal to clarify your position or argue in good faith means that you can’t win, either.
I said you were twisting my words to fit your agenda. There’s nothing to “clarify”, the facts are right there in print. I said “tomato”, you said "Aha! You are saying ‘elephant!’ ".
No. I wasn’t. Anybody who can read can see that. Or refuse to see it, as the case may be.
That’s not how you felt back when we had this exchange.
Your response to that illustration of your lie was, in total:
I pointed out that you were dodging giving explanations about your lie, and here’s how the conversation unfolded:
Where was this vaunted fealty to truth back then?
Why should I do that again when you ignored or denied it the first couple dozen times it was shown to you? Because you are going to react differently now? Can’t imagine why, nothing else has changed.
Since you don’t know the difference, again, what would be the point?
You are claiming that the wind die down is evidence that Zimmerman stopped. I agree with you.
But your **(HUGE) error is in thinking and claiming that this is evidence that he remained stopped, that he never resumed pursuing Martin!
And that would be…wait for it… speculation!
So perhaps you will abandon that and turn to where the fight took place. What evidence do you have about where it began? We have irrefutable proof about where it ended, but what do you have about where it began?
Assuming your evidence for where it began is reasonable, what evidence do you have for what occurred in between the end of the Zimmerman call and the beginning of the fight, in terms of Zimmerman’s movements, evidence that would prove or allow for a reasonable inference that his movements in that time had zero to do with pursuing Martin?
I’m pretty sure you got nuthin’, kiddo, but I’m very open to hearing about it. Hearing something other than speculation.
So given that you think your speculation is evidence of facts, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about and presenting you evidence and reasonable inferences based on evidence is a total waste of time. You have to comprehend it before you can assess it.