Let’s examine the undisputed evidence:

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from AlleyCatBruin. Show AlleyCatBruin's posts

    Let’s examine the undisputed evidence:

     
    1. The man thought the teen looked suspicious.

    2. The man called the police to report his suspicions about the teen.

    3. The man was told by the police not to chase and pursue the teen.

    4. The man decided to chase and pursue the teen anyway.

    5 . The man was carrying a loaded gun.

    6. The teen was not carrying a gun.

    7. The teen was not carrying any weapon.

    8. The teen was carrying candy.

    9. The teen was not committing any crime.

    10. The teen was not trespassing, as he was walking toward his father’s condo.

    11. The man and the teen met in a physical confrontation.

    12. The man and the teen fought, wrestled to the ground, and punches were exchanged.

    13. The man shot the teen with his gun.

    14. The man shot the teen while both were on the ground.

    15. The shot from the man’s gun killed the teen.

    16. There is no evidence that the teen was committing a crime or about to commit any crime.

    17. But for the man chasing and pursuing the teen, there would have been no physical confrontation.

    18. But for the physical confrontation, there would have been no fight.

    19. But for the fight, the man would not have shot the teen.

    20. But for the shot, the teen would be alive.


    The Republicans had a great weekend.

    Their hero was found Not Guiilty of killing a black child.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from GregoryFromMeffa. Show GregoryFromMeffa's posts

    Re: Let’s examine the undisputed evidence:

    The Republicans had a great weekend.

    Their hero was found Not Guiilty of killing a black child.

    -----------------------------------------------------------

    Didn't effect my weekend at all, but reading stupid sht like this is a gas.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Let’s examine the undisputed evidence:

    17. But for the man chasing and pursuing the teen, there would have been no physical confrontation.

     

    Following someone does not automatically mean there has to be physical confrontation. Up till point of one putting hands on another, physical confrontation is easily avoidable. IF Zimmerman really was following, Trayvon could have just taken off and went home. He didn't have to stop. Which isn't to say he deserved to die for having stopped. On the contrary. It's a shame this kid is dead. 

    On Zimmerman's part it was wrong for him to have followed Trayvon. However, on Trayvon's part he didn't have to stop and do HIS part with the confrontation. There is a reason for the saying..."It takes two to tango". Never more true than in this case.

     

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Let’s examine the undisputed evidence:

    Undisputed?

    That's a laugh.

    In most places assault is a crime.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from macnh1. Show macnh1's posts

    Re: Let’s examine the undisputed evidence:

    1B....Teen sucker punched man in face and when man fell to ground teen jumped on him, sat on his chest and repeatedly smashed man's head into cement in attempt to permanently injure or kill man.

    It's funny everybody leaves out the fact listed above....it's the one that gave Zimmerman the legal right to use deadly force to stop the attack by Trayvon Martin.

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Let’s examine the undisputed evidence:

    The Republicans had a great weekend. Their hero was found Not Guiilty of killing a black child.

    I think the sad thing is that you actually believe this.

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Let’s examine the undisputed evidence:

    Yes Chief, but whose truth is more truthier?

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Let’s examine the undisputed evidence:

    In response to macnh1's comment:

    1B....Teen sucker punched man in face and when man fell to ground teen jumped on him, sat on his chest and repeatedly smashed man's head into cement in attempt to permanently injure or kill man.

    It's funny everybody leaves out the fact listed above....it's the one that gave Zimmerman the legal right to use deadly force to stop the attack by Trayvon Martin.

     



    If that's where the story began, I'd agree with you, but Martin attacked Zimmerman because he was being chased.  If Zimmerman had the right to kill Martin because he was in fear for his life, then Martin had the right to kill Zimmerman when Zimmerman started chasing him (armed) through the alley on a rainy night.  Can both men really have the legal right to kill one another?  

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Let’s examine the undisputed evidence:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to macnh1's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    1B....Teen sucker punched man in face and when man fell to ground teen jumped on him, sat on his chest and repeatedly smashed man's head into cement in attempt to permanently injure or kill man.

    It's funny everybody leaves out the fact listed above....it's the one that gave Zimmerman the legal right to use deadly force to stop the attack by Trayvon Martin.

     

     



    If that's where the story began, I'd agree with you, but Martin attacked Zimmerman because he was being chased.  If Zimmerman had the right to kill Martin because he was in fear for his life, then Martin had the right to kill Zimmerman when Zimmerman started chasing him (armed) through the alley on a rainy night.  Can both men really have the legal right to kill one another?  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Really? Zimmerman chased Martin for four minutes?

    zimmerman couldn't chase an old person in a walker for four minutes.

    but, even if you are correct, it does not give martin the right to assault Zimmerman.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from AlleyCatBruin. Show AlleyCatBruin's posts

    Re: Let’s examine the undisputed evidence:

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    Undisputed?

    That's a laugh.

    In most places assault is a crime.



    In most places, its a crime for an armed man to chase and kill a teenager.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Let’s examine the undisputed evidence:

    In response to AlleyCatBruin's comment:

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Undisputed?

    That's a laugh.

    In most places assault is a crime.

     



    In most places, its a crime for an armed man to chase and kill a teenager.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Is that what happened? I didn't know that was the official story. 

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Let’s examine the undisputed evidence:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to AlleyCatBruin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Undisputed?

    That's a laugh.

    In most places assault is a crime.

     

     



    In most places, its a crime for an armed man to chase and kill a teenager.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Is that what happened? I didn't know that was the official story. 

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Remember that people who beleive that also beleive that Obamacare will bend the cost curve down, the planet has a fever, and that Ed Markey lives in Malden. 

    In other words, low information voters.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Let’s examine the undisputed evidence:

    In response to AlleyCatBruin's comment:

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Undisputed?

    That's a laugh.

    In most places assault is a crime.

     



    In most places, its a crime for an armed man to chase and kill a teenager.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I did not realize it is a crime to run after someone.  

    Is being chased enough of a threat to justify using deadly force on the person chasing you? I don't think so. You would have to see more of a threat than being chased to justify self-defense.

    If you ran down the street trying to catch up with someone walking, are you saying they can just turn around and svkker punch you, then smash your head against the pavement with impunity because it is "self-defense"?

    That is ridiculous. But that is what you are implying.

    So your characterization of Zimmerman chasing Martin and then killing him is totally bogus. You conveniently leave out a few details.

    Maybe Aaron Hernandez could use you as a lawyer. That black guy threatened him reaching out for him too quickly so he had the right to shoot him, drag him out of the car and then put a couple of more bullets in his chest.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from ppannos. Show ppannos's posts

    Re: Let’s examine the undisputed evidence:

    Instant replay of the trial and it's details serve little purpose. The impact on America has yet developed because it opens new and dangerous doors for yet higher big brother controls, taxes, debates, drama and costs.

     

    For what? Does end justify means?

    Is there more or less racial divide than when this constitutional scholar ascended?

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Let’s examine the undisputed evidence:

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    In response to AlleyCatBruin's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Undisputed?

    That's a laugh.

    In most places assault is a crime.

     

     



    In most places, its a crime for an armed man to chase and kill a teenager.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I did not realize it is a crime to run after someone.  

     

    Is being chased enough of a threat to justify using deadly force on the person chasing you? I don't think so. You would have to see more of a threat than being chased to justify self-defense.

    If you ran down the street trying to catch up with someone walking, are you saying they can just turn around and svkker punch you, then smash your head against the pavement with impunity because it is "self-defense"?

    That is ridiculous. But that is what you are implying.

    So your characterization of Zimmerman chasing Martin and then killing him is totally bogus. You conveniently leave out a few details.

    Maybe Aaron Hernandez could use you as a lawyer. That black guy threatened him reaching out for him too quickly so he had the right to shoot him, drag him out of the car and then put a couple of more bullets in his chest.

    [/QUOTE]

    In Florida, if you feel unlawfully threatened you have the right to refuse to retreat, even if it means using deadly force.  You are not subject to criminal or civil procedings - that is what the stand your ground law is all about.

    In your scenario, it wouldn't apply, but in this scenario we know from Martin's phone call, and the 911 recordings that he felt threatened, and tried to flee from Zimmerman.  And we know that Zimmerman did not identify himself as security, and proceeded to chase Martin.  That's enough for stand your ground to apply, so if everything happened exactly as Zimmerman says, Martin's "assault" was lawful.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Let’s examine the undisputed evidence:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to macnh1's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    1B....Teen sucker punched man in face and when man fell to ground teen jumped on him, sat on his chest and repeatedly smashed man's head into cement in attempt to permanently injure or kill man.

    It's funny everybody leaves out the fact listed above....it's the one that gave Zimmerman the legal right to use deadly force to stop the attack by Trayvon Martin.

     

     

     



    If that's where the story began, I'd agree with you, but Martin attacked Zimmerman because he was being chased.  If Zimmerman had the right to kill Martin because he was in fear for his life, then Martin had the right to kill Zimmerman when Zimmerman started chasing him (armed) through the alley on a rainy night.  Can both men really have the legal right to kill one another?  

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Really? Zimmerman chased Martin for four minutes?

     

    zimmerman couldn't chase an old person in a walker for four minutes.

    but, even if you are correct, it does not give martin the right to assault Zimmerman.

    [/QUOTE]

    Are you ever going to listen to that tape, or are you just going to continue to comment on it as if you had?  The moment Zimmerman says [expletive] he's running, he starts to chase Martin.  It doesn't last long, but it's enough to allow Martin to defend himself by any means necessary, under "stand your ground".

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Let’s examine the undisputed evidence:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to macnh1's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    1B....Teen sucker punched man in face and when man fell to ground teen jumped on him, sat on his chest and repeatedly smashed man's head into cement in attempt to permanently injure or kill man.

    It's funny everybody leaves out the fact listed above....it's the one that gave Zimmerman the legal right to use deadly force to stop the attack by Trayvon Martin.

     

     

     

     

     



    If that's where the story began, I'd agree with you, but Martin attacked Zimmerman because he was being chased.  If Zimmerman had the right to kill Martin because he was in fear for his life, then Martin had the right to kill Zimmerman when Zimmerman started chasing him (armed) through the alley on a rainy night.  Can both men really have the legal right to kill one another?  

     

     

     

     

     

     



    Really? Zimmerman chased Martin for four minutes?

     

     

     

    zimmerman couldn't chase an old person in a walker for four minutes.

    but, even if you are correct, it does not give martin the right to assault Zimmerman.

     



    Are you ever going to listen to that tape, or are you just going to continue to comment on it as if you had?  The moment Zimmerman says [expletive] he's running, he starts to chase Martin.  It doesn't last long, but it's enough to allow Martin to defend himself by any means necessary, under "stand your ground".

     

     

     




    Are you ever going to admit that the court found that there was reasonable doubt, or are you  going to continue with this mob rule mentality?

     

    All this posturing by the left is why they cannot be trusted running our government.

    We have a president that weighed in with the famous " if I had a son, he would look like Trayvon"

    We have the Attorney General looking at pursuing civil rights charges, and his own FBI says there is no evidence to support that.

    We have an MSNBC commentator and professional race-baiter, Al Sharpton, egging on the crowds.

    Leaders in our government are taking to the bully pulpit to divide us along race, stir the pot.    A government that behaves like this has little regard for the rule of law.

    Disgusting.

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Let’s examine the undisputed evidence:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to macnh1's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    1B....Teen sucker punched man in face and when man fell to ground teen jumped on him, sat on his chest and repeatedly smashed man's head into cement in attempt to permanently injure or kill man.

    It's funny everybody leaves out the fact listed above....it's the one that gave Zimmerman the legal right to use deadly force to stop the attack by Trayvon Martin.

     

     

     

     

     



    If that's where the story began, I'd agree with you, but Martin attacked Zimmerman because he was being chased.  If Zimmerman had the right to kill Martin because he was in fear for his life, then Martin had the right to kill Zimmerman when Zimmerman started chasing him (armed) through the alley on a rainy night.  Can both men really have the legal right to kill one another?  

     

     

     

     

     

     



    Really? Zimmerman chased Martin for four minutes?

     

     

     

    zimmerman couldn't chase an old person in a walker for four minutes.

    but, even if you are correct, it does not give martin the right to assault Zimmerman.

     



    Are you ever going to listen to that tape, or are you just going to continue to comment on it as if you had?  The moment Zimmerman says [expletive] he's running, he starts to chase Martin.  It doesn't last long, but it's enough to allow Martin to defend himself by any means necessary, under "stand your ground".

     

     

     




    Are you ever going to admit that the court found that there was reasonable doubt, or are you  going to continue with this mob rule mentality?

     

    All this posturing by the left is why they cannot be trusted running our government.

    We have a president that weighed in with the famous " if I had a son, he would look like Trayvon"

    We have the Attorney General looking at pursuing civil rights charges, and his own FBI says there is no evidence to support that.

    We have an MSNBC commentator and professional race-baiter, Al Sharpton, egging on the crowds.

    Leaders in our government are taking to the bully pulpit to divide us along race, stir the pot.    A government that behaves like this has little regard for the rule of law.

    Disgusting.

     




    I've said many times Zimmerman was not guilty of murder 2.  But being charged with the wrong crime doesn't make you innocent.  If the jurors understood manslaughter better, they would have convicted him on that charge.  I can tell by your rant that you agree with me - you just can't bring yourself to say it for some reason.

     

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share