The FBI found no evidence of racial bias

How about the four eyeball witnesses who recanted their stories?I really liked the one lady who said"I wasn't wearing my glasses or contacts,so really couldn't see anything". Originally Posted by ekim008

Mike is a independent Liberal who wears blinders when it suites him...

Ekim the Inbred, where is your CITE to support your statement at post # 10, dumb-ass? Originally Posted by I B Hankering

There's only one eyewitness other than Trayvon and George. Its the neighbor that it happen right outside his door. He has slightly modified his story. The woman who didn't have her contacts in is a nut. The older black kid that was walking his dog probably was pressured into changing what he said (it originally favored Z's version of events).

If anyone saw the "day after" tape, Zimmerman looked beat up. Its a pity that the Z family did not hire a media consultant to push his side of the story with this during the March railroading.

Old-T, did you see this tape or are you remaining willfully ignorant?

Here's the full 7-11 tape with analysis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNEZo...eature=related

There's only one eyewitness other than Trayvon and George. Its the neighbor that it happen right outside his door. He has slightly modified his story. The woman who didn't have her contacts in is a nut. The older black kid that was walking his dog probably was pressured into changing what he said (it originally favored Z's version of events). Originally Posted by gnadfly

+1 - IKR. I knew witnesses had "changed their stories", and I admit I may be defining "recant" too narrowly -- thinking it meant only to wholly "reject" or "formally disavow" a previous statement. Technically, a witness who changes his story is probably, in the legal realm, also "recanting" the earlier version -- maybe COG or TTH might comment. Mea culpa.

Mike is a independent Liberal who wears blinders when it suites him... Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Infantrub is a right wing nut who can see liberals and conspiracies everywhere.

+1 - IKR. I knew witnesses had "changed their stories", and I admit I may be defining "recant" too narrowly -- thinking it meant only to wholly "reject" or "formally disavow" a previous statement. Technically, a witness who changes his story is probably, in the legal realm, also "recanting" the earlier version -- maybe COG or TTH might comment. Mea culpa.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I would say almost every witness does not totally recall their story verbatim. Time and in this case public pressure takes it toll. That is why the first day's interview is the important one and likely the most accurate version.

eye witness have put more innocent people in prison than any other means.

When this trial is over, it wont be about race, hoodies, skittles, or any of that horseshit. If you attack someone with a gun, and beat their head into the pavement, you might get shot.

The world is a much better place without that worthless thug. His brother is gonna end up in prison for violence or rape or something in a few years, guaranteed.

There's only one eyewitness other than Trayvon and George. Its the neighbor that it happen right outside his door. He has slightly modified his story. The woman who didn't have her contacts in is a nut. The older black kid that was walking his dog probably was pressured into changing what he said (it originally favored Z's version of events).

If anyone saw the "day after" tape, Zimmerman looked beat up. Its a pity that the Z family did not hire a media consultant to push his side of the story with this during the March railroading.

Old-T, did you see this tape or are you remaining willfully ignorant?

Here's the full 7-11 tape with analysis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNEZo...eature=related Originally Posted by gnadfly

I saw the tape. It shows a clerk who obviously was watching Martin very closely. And I am supposed to conclude exactly what from that tape? It looked very much like 1,000,000 other convenience store security tapes. Am I supposed to make a judgement based upon the clerk assuming he was going to have to fight? Or a teenager taking what seemed like 6 hours to get his $ out of his pocket? Or maybe you are referring to the fact it seemes that store had very little business at that moment.

Ignorant? which piece was I supposed to be enlightened by?

Winesses? Odd how your judgement of a good witness or a bad one depends whether they support your view or not. (Except for contact-lady--the one thing both sides seem able to agree on is she is a nut case).

When this trial is over, it wont be about race, hoodies, skittles, or any of that horseshit. If you attack someone with a gun, and beat their head into the pavement, you might get shot. No, that doesn't require a trial--Zimmerman shot Martin before any trial. What the trial will be about is can a man with a gun stalk an unarmed man and then claim self defense when the unarmed man tries to stand his ground as the misguided FL law says he can.

The world is a much better place without that worthless thug. His brother is gonna end up in prison for violence or rape or something in a few years, guaranteed. Originally Posted by Bukkake in Outer Space

And here you show your true colors--word intentionally chosen. I'm so glad your crystal ball can prdict that a person is inately a violent rapist. Tell me, what is your conclusion based upon, other than his skin color? Do you have evidence of unsolved rapes connected to him? Or is it the same Good Ol' Boy mentality that picked your avitar telling you he'll become a racist?

Let me try this prediction game, only let me try it on someone else. I know, let's try it on YOU. I'll even use your words as closely as I can: Your pappy is a worthless thug and the world would be a much better place without him. You are gonna end up in a Klan ralley in a few years burning a few crosses and looking for a few Darkies to tar & feather just to learn 'em a lesson and put 'em in their place. Guaranteed. Hey, that's pretty cool!

Nice to know some Texans still keep the Confederacy alive and well in their hearts.

Following a would be criminal is now "stalking"?

Do you think the jena 6 are sweet, misunderstood little boys, too?

I live in Texas, but I'm from up north. The...uhhhh... crime problem is just as bad there. Check out Detroit. You would love it! Plenty of sweet innocent trayvons with skittles. I'm sure liberal whites like yourself would be very well received! Chicago, philadelphia, new York.... Yeah. Go hang out with these sweet, innocent, maligned people. If you make it back alive, tell us about it.

Removed: Duplicate post

What a shock--you ARE a biot.


So now a guy with a violent history is--in your mind--a one man judge/jury/executioner of who is or is not a "would be criminal". Oh boy! We haven't seen that mentality before. Cambodia. Rhodesia. USSR. All those police states that are your kindred spirts.


Why do I think your views would be 100% different if Martin was white? Then you'd be calling for Zimmerman's head on a platter. Don't waste your breath saying you wouldn't--you don't lie well.

By the way, why do you think I am white? It has nothing to do with anything even if I was. You just created this handle this week. Clearly you flushed your brain when you created your 368th fake persona. Go back and look at things I've posted before.


By the way, I'M BACK!!! (you told me to let you know). Survive a northern city? Oh yea, I lived for decades in a "less than desierable part of town" in a big northern city. Last I looked I think I'm still alive. And I learned a lot watching the people in the city since it was on the boundary between black gangs, Columbian gangs, and old time Mafia. I learned bigots come in all genders, races, colors, and creeds. Just like you. It's also where I learned that a guy I don't know who is following me with a gun IS stalking. Regardless of his race or mine.


Just a question: do you put on blackface before you sit down and write your hate

I don't have TV so I'm not endlessly assaulted by cases like Casey Anthony and the Zimmerman. It seems to me that Zimmerman is just a violent man that was looking for a problem where there was none. On the other hand, it seems that the Martin family, along with the NAACP, is, and in the case of the NAACP always, spoiling for a racist fight. I'm with COG if the current regime in the DoJ didn't find a racial motivation, then there wasn't one.

A question for all you zimmerman bashers. Should he have allowed the wild monkey to bas his h head in

It's unreal that people think one should not be allowed to defend oneself when attacked.

A question for all you zimmerman bashers. Should he have allowed the wild monkey to bash his in? Originally Posted by Bukkake in Outer Space

To quote a policeman "If he had stayed in the car this would not have happend" go on back