Trayvon Martin's Gun and Pot photos

Lets tread lightly and not veer out of the racial lane

er, CC, please direct that statement to the boyZ in the HoodZ!

That is directed at everyone. But at WTF in particular.

JL this is for you man:
...................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'.. .../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\. .. Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

I wasn't talking to you, faggot.

Let me pose a hypothesis; at what point would Trayvon had committed a crime if he was the one that was armed and Martin was not.

An armed Martin is walking around in a neighborhood that he does not live in and has bought a drink and candy. No crime committed.
Zimmerman is following a young man who he thinks is acting suspicious. No crime committed.
Zimmerman decides to call the police operator and tells her about the suspicious person in his neighborhood. The operator tells him (with the force of an suggestion) not to follow that person any more and a car will be dispatched. No crime has been committed.
Zimmerman follows Trayvon on foot. Trayvon notices that he is being followed by someone. No crime committed.
Trayvon turns around and approaches Martin demanding to know why he (Zimmerman) is following him. Zimmerman announces he is part of the neighborhood watch (open to debate whether he was or wasn't but essentially what happened) and would like to know what Trayvon is up to and where does he live. No crimes have been committed.
Trayvon now has a choice as does Zimmerman. Trayvon could say none of your business, turn around, and goes home. Trayvon could be respectful of the "nieghborhood watch" and answer the questions and tell Martin that he is going home. Trayvon could become hostile at either the prospect of being approached or of getting caught. He could attack Martin with either his fists or his voice. A crime has now been committed Trayvon.
Before Trayvon answers, Martin could try to "apprehend" Trayvon by laying hands on him. This is not within the perview of the neighborhood watch and Martin has committed a crime.

The point made is this; no crime was committed by either party until someone either laid hands on someone else or issued a realistic threat. The gun has no bearing at this point. From the evidence that we have been privvy to Trayvon first put his hands on George Zimmerman. Trayvon is the offender and Zimmerman is the defender. It would be expected, but not known, that Trayvon offered a threat of physical force which is also a crime. Zimmerman following is not a crime, Zimmerman saying he was part of the neighborhood watch is not a crime, Zimmerman not following the suggestions of the police operator is not a crime, and Zimmerman approaching Trayvon (other than making a threat) is not a crime.

Unless someone can prove that Zimmerman made a verbal threat or brandished the gun he is in the clear. Using the gun is a matter of degree. If Zimmerman had killed Trayvon with a bottle, a knife, a rock, his bare hands, or the gun against an attack by Trayvon makes no difference to the outcome.

Let me pose a hypothesis; .... Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

JDB ... your point is well taken .. and without any "race" being injected into it ...

The fact of life is ... just about everywhere we go to in public .. we get "followed" or "watched" ... either by a camera or a person.... whether we are in a vehicle or not.

In the last 10 to 15 years or so it has increased and the use of civilians (as opposed to police or other law enforcement personnel) has increased ... some armed .. some not. It is not about "race" ... it's about safety and protection of those officing, living, and visiting the area and/or structures being "patrolled" or "watched" ...

This was made racial ... when it was not at all ... there is no evidence that it was.

Like I said before had Martin been snow-white there would be on thread on it ... and no headlines in the media from the get-go. Unfortunately, that's the "new world" in which we live .... it's a simplistic and inciteful excuse for blaming unfortunate events.

It diverts the discussion from the real issues involved .. and the underlying causes so that responsibility doesn't fall where it ought to fall .. and corrections made to avoid the bad results.

You really need to educate yourself to the facts of the case.
Originally Posted by gnadfly

I'd be willing to bet that I've followed the case more closely than you have. Exactly what "facts", in your opinion, do I have incorrect?

Let me pose a hypothesis; at what point would Trayvon had committed a crime if he was the one that was armed and Martin was not.

. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Very well written and I personally agree with your statements.

. From the evidence that we have been privvy to Trayvon first put his hands on George Zimmerman. . Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

What Zimmerman's POV? That evidence How about this 'evidence' one was carrying a gun, the other a pack of skittles. I'm no rocket scientist but is does appear one was looking for more trouble than the other. Was that you weapon in the Navy JD, a pack of skittles. Is that what they give the Marines to go fight with?

JDB ... your point is well taken .. and without any "race" being injected into it ...

. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Race is a part of life...it affects how one see's things. To not know this is beyond naivety. I have correctly pointed out that the defense of Zimmerman is partially race based. (Just as the defense of Martin is) People like to think that they are race neutral in these things. Facts speak otherwise.

That is directed at everyone. But at WTF in particular. Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

What Klannner got pissed at me for pulling off his hood? JewishLawyer? Poor bastard, sounds like a son of his married a black gay guy and he can't get over either prejudice!

Old boy can cry about the 'faggots' destroying this country but get offended when I make fun of his racist ass by using the word darkie.

I'd be willing to bet that I've followed the case more closely than you have. Exactly what "facts", in your opinion, do I have incorrect? Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

SRXXX-Turdfly's distorted version of the "facts" and the actual "facts" of the case, more often than not are on opposite ends.

Turdy never lets the "facts" stand in the way of the story he wants to tell. And that's a "fact!"

Unless someone can prove that Zimmerman made a verbal threat or brandished the gun he is in the clear. . Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Unless the jury thinks Zimmerman is a liar and was the aggressor. That is wtf you nitwits don't get.

That is why the 911 tape is so important to the prosecution.
"These asshole's always get away" is damaging, I do not care how you paint it. That is why Zimmerman's defense team is playing up Martin as a bad actor. Because a pack of Skittles vs. a gun totting vigilante don't look good for old Georgie boy.

It will come do to wtf the jury believes.

Not wtf you or I believe.

The case will be won or lost in jury selection.

Unless the jury thinks Zimmerman is a liar and was the aggressor. That is wtf you nitwits don't get. No, we get that, jerkoff. That's true in any trial. But if Zimmerman does not take the stand, how are they going to determine if he is a liar? His lawyer can make a good case just based on the interview that the cops made and the pictures of Zimmerman's bloody head.

That is why the 911 tape is so important to the prosecution.
"These asshole's always get away" is damaging, I do not care how you paint it. That is why Zimmerman's defense team is playing up Martin as a bad actor. Because a pack of Skittles vs. a gun totting vigilante don't look good for old Georgie boy. But a bloody head and Zimmerman's statements to the police do look good for old Georgie boy.

It will come do to wtf the jury believes.

Not wtf you or I believe.

The case will be won or lost in jury selection. That's about the only part you got right. Originally Posted by WTF

It looks like the photos and texts won't be admissible unless the prosecution presents its case in such as way that it makes them relevant. But I stated that above regarding rebuttal evidence:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/28/justic...ial/index.html

Why so angry SSOB? You wanted to try to put race into this case and you have repeatedly. When will you notice that is YOUR POV? Mine words were not really about POV as you put it but what little we know so far and the law. The prosecutor will try to make a case (like SSOB) that Zimmerman INTENDED to do harm when he started following Trayvon. It is very hard to determine intent unless you are a mind reader. I didn't know you had that capability SSOB. You have to go by words which being absent then you may consider past actions. There seems to be nothing in Zimmerman's past to show this considering his family and his political affiliations. Being a democrat he probably considers himself enlightened and just. Now, pay attention SSOB. Is it possible that a good liberal democrats such as Zimmerman or SSOB could in reality be racist or bad? SSOB things so.

Race is a part of life... Originally Posted by WTF

Of course, race is a part of life. But race does not play a roll in every decision in life, nor does race play a part in each of life's events.

In typical WTF fashion you make a statement that is sufficiently general enough to prevent credible dispute and pretend (or proffer) your statement in a lame-ass effort to prove your point ... like you know what the fuck you are talking about.

Here's another example:

"The case will be won or lost in jury selection." WTF on Trials

And how many jury's have you selected? And I mean YOU ... WTF ... not your "buddy"!

WTF if you examined yourself with the same microscopic clarity as you attempt to examine others ...

.. you would be compelled to conclude that you are a racist....of the worst kind.

One who tries to label others in order to mask his own fatal flaws or divert attention from your own prejudices.

If Zimmerman had raped and killed a hooker....you would be defending him by saying hookers can't be raped. Originally Posted by WTF

Here is more of your trite tripe.