trevon martin

Calling him a child is disingenuous at best, misleading and agenda driven at worst. 17 year olds have served in wars, and in the state of Texas, they are considered adults for criminal prosecution. In other words, a 17 year old in Texas can get the death penalty. 17 year olds, especially those who are 6'3" tall and want to be gangstas, can inflict serious bodily injury and or death. When I was 17, I thought I could kick anyone's ass out there and wouldn't have taken any shit from some fat asshole, and neither did Trayvon. I'm just lucky I never got shot, though no one except my mother would have cared, sadly. Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

Technically the definition of a child is someone that has not reached full growth. What is actually disingenuous is stating that 17 year olds have fought in wars, but won't acknowledge that they are also not able to engage in any ADULT activity. Why?

What's also disingenuous and agenda driven is the fact that you exaggerated his actual height in order to sensationalize your slanderous post. The case facts had him listed as 5'11. Why did you find it necessary to ADD 4 inches ( no pun intended)?

And can you please show us what gave you the impression that TM was not going to "take any shit" as opposed to following the very common rule that says directing someone that is following you to your home is a NO NO? This is the impression you gave with this post...........Detective=You.

Checkout youtube video "reckless tortuga racism detective".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7EobvoGHPI

Technically the definition of a child is someone that has not reached full growth. What is actually disingenuous is stating that 17 year olds have fought in wars, but won't acknowledge that they are also not able to engage in any ADULT activity. Why?

What's also disingenuous and agenda driven is the fact that you exaggerated his actual height in order to sensationalize your slanderous post. The case facts had him listed as 5'11. Why did you find it necessary to ADD 4 inches ( no pun intended)?

And can you please show us what gave you the impression that TM was not going to "take any shit" as opposed to following the very common rule that says directing someone that is following you to your home is a NO NO? This is the impression you gave with this post...........Detective=You.
Originally Posted by Mgm84

Rachel Jeantel testified that Trayvon had reached his dad's girlfriend's townhouse. Zimmerman stated and Rachel Jeantel also testified that Trayvon turned and engaged Zimmerman. This confrontation, according to the physical evidence, all of the "ear witnesses" and Zimmerman's statement, occured at the "T" some seventy yards from where Martin was staying (not living).

The timeline constructed by investigators from all of the phone calls, i.e., Zimmerman/dispatcher, Martin/Jeantel and "ear witnesses"/911, confirms that Martin had two to four minutes to get away from Zimmerman and secure himself safely indoors. Hence, the testimony and the evidence shows Martin reached his destination safely, and then shows that Martin backtracked seventy yards to physically confront Zimmerman. Martin had reached his dad's girlfriend's townhouse without Zimmerman knowing where he was; yet, Martin turned around and went seventy yards backward to physically confront Zimmerman. That's what the evidence and the witnesses say.

BTW, Trayvon was 6'2" in hoody and boots, and "teenagers" have served and are serving in this nation's armed forces. Boys as young as 10 and 11 have served in this nation's army (see John Clem).

Legally Zimmerman a Hispanic Male was found not guilty.

Zimmerman did stand his ground

Zimmerman did feel threatened

Zimmerman followed a suspicious person in "his neighborhood"

Zimmerman did choose to bring a gun to engage the suspicious character (no foul there)

Zimmerman did confront and engage with suspicious character

Zimmerman was or did get his ass kicked by a kid (under 18 still a kid)



and Zimmerman did shoot a downed opponent


Trevvon Martin also was not doing anything wrong

Martin was walking from store to his girl friends house

in a neighborhood he lived in

Martin did get into a confrontation with a guy who he knew was following him

Martin and Zimmerman were fighting in the grass not the cement.

Martin appearantly was winning the hand to hand part of the fight but lost at end


Past meaning nothing at time of engagement

Martin was not doing anything wrong or illegal when he died

Both Zimmerman and Martin were defending themselves

Zimmerman shot Martin while he was on ground and martin was shot twice (double tap to make sure, valid reason)

Fact is: Zimmerman is only guilty of one thing taking a life of some one who was innocent at the time, thats all.

Black people kill people all the time of every race

so do white people, asians, and purple people eaters... people kill people

but something people keep forgetting

90% OF THOSE BLACK PEOPLE ARE IN JAIL

for that fact Zimmerman being Hispanic had just as much of a chance in going to jail

but he did everything by law, he had a CHL, he was part of neighborhood watch etc.

It's not about race people, even tho Zimmerman clearly stated in call to dispatcher "I won't let these people get away with it anymore" because clearly he knew who TM was in the middle of the night by look out of his window lol

Rachel Jeantel testified that Trayvon had reached his dad's girlfriend's townhouse. Zimmerman stated and Rachel Jeantel also testified that Trayvon turned and engaged Zimmerman. This confrontation, according to the physical evidence, all of the "ear witnesses" and Zimmerman's statement, occured at the "T" some seventy yards from where Martin was staying (not living).

The timeline constructed by investigators from all of the phone calls, i.e., Zimmerman/dispatcher, Martin/Jeantel and "ear witnesses"/911, confirms that Martin had two to four minutes to get away from Zimmerman and secure himself safely indoors. Hence, the testimony and the evidence shows Martin reached his destination safely, and then shows that Martin backtracked seventy yards to physically confront Zimmerman. Martin had reached his dad's girlfriend's townhouse without Zimmerman knowing where he was; yet, Martin turned around and went seventy yards backward to physically confront Zimmerman. That's what the evidence and the witnesses say.

BTW, Trayvon was 6'2" in hoody and boots, and "teenagers" have served and are serving in this nation's armed forces. Boys as young as 10 and 11 have served in this nation's army (see John Clem). Originally Posted by I B Hankering

research the autopsy information, i don't think you have all the information correct

also there is no way to know what really happened between Martin and Zimmerman because we only have one (to our knowledge true) side of story

Legally Zimmerman a Hispanic Male was found not guilty.

Zimmerman did stand his ground

Zimmerman did feel threatened

Zimmerman followed a suspicious person in "his neighborhood"

Zimmerman did choose to bring a gun to engage the suspicious character (no foul there)

Zimmerman did confront and engage with suspicious character

Zimmerman was or did get his ass kicked by a kid (under 18 still a kid)



and Zimmerman did shoot a downed opponent


Trevvon Martin also was not doing anything wrong

Martin was walking from store to his girl friends house

in a neighborhood he lived in

Martin did get into a confrontation with a guy who he knew was following him

Martin and Zimmerman were fighting in the grass not the cement.

Martin appearantly was winning the hand to hand part of the fight but lost at end


Past meaning nothing at time of engagement

Martin was not doing anything wrong or illegal when he died

Both Zimmerman and Martin were defending themselves

Zimmerman shot Martin while he was on ground and martin was shot twice (double tap to make sure, valid reason)

Fact is: Zimmerman is only guilty of one thing taking a life of some one who was innocent at the time, thats all. Originally Posted by jjkageab12

Wrong. TM was beating the shit out of GZ when he died.

This is the first time I've heard about TM being shot twice. You may be correct but I have not heard that until your post.

research the autopsy information, i don't think you have all the information correct

also there is no way to know what really happened between Martin and Zimmerman because we only have one (to our knowledge true) side of story Originally Posted by jjkageab12

The reconstructed timeline shows that Martin had more than ample time to reach his dad's girlfriend's townhouse. Jeantel testified that Martin told her that he HAD in fact reached that townhouse. If she testified truthfully, that means Martin backtracked seventy yards to the "T" intersection in order to physically confront Zimmerman.

All of the witnesses, statements and evidence affirm that the fight started at the "T". Jeantel and Zimmerman both maintain that it was Martin who confronted Zimmerman; not vice versa. The witnesses and forensic evidence affirms that it was Zimmerman who was on the bottom having his head slammed against concrete.

BTW, Martin was NOT shot twice. Perhaps you need to revisit that portion of the trial transcript that details the autopsy report.

The autopsy evidence showed Martin had THC in his system. The autopsy on Martin's liver substantiates Martin's proclivity (expressed on his Facebook account) for enjoying an illicit drink made with Skittles and Arizona Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail. It is known, Martin had acquired a cigar that morning, and, circumstantially, it is suspected that another individual fronted for him and bought a cigar for him that evening at the 7-11 while he waited outside. Everyone knows what w33d heads do with cigars.

Smoking an illicit substance is "illegal". The fear of getting caught by LE smoking an illicit substance causes paranoia. That paranoia can lead to violent behavior, especially in someone who enjoyed being violent: e.g., Trayvon Martin.

That's what the evidence shows, and that's what we know.

Rachel Jeantel testified that Trayvon had reached his dad's girlfriend's townhouse. Zimmerman stated and Rachel Jeantel also testified that Trayvon turned and engaged Zimmerman. This confrontation, according to the physical evidence, all of the "ear witnesses" and Zimmerman's statement, occured at the "T" some seventy yards from where Martin was staying (not living). Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Sometimes people will never know your true intentions until you talk. In this post you showed serious bias and willful ignorance of the evidence in order to reach a convenient conclusion. Its called SELF SERVING.

1) Jeantel's testimony NEVER suggested that Trayvon engaged GZ. She stated that she heard Trayvon tell GZ "GET OFF ME", which implied GZ being the initial aggressor.

2) The testimony of GZ's video also showed that it only took George Zimmerman 12 seconds to get from the far end of the T to where the confrontation happened. But according to the phone call 2 minutes was not accounted for. Where was GZ in those 2 minutes? His story does not add up.

3) It is common knowledge to not lead someone who is following to your home.

According to juror B37, the reason they had to discredit Jeantel's testimony was her inability to appease the jurors articulately. That is NOT a reason to deem her testimony a lie or disregard it. But of course she believed the "creepy cracker" part. That is the self serving convenience I spoke about earlier.

The timeline constructed by investigators from all of the phone calls, i.e., Zimmerman/dispatcher, Martin/Jeantel and "ear witnesses"/911, confirms that Martin had two to four minutes to get away from Zimmerman and secure himself safely indoors. Hence, the testimony and the evidence shows Martin reached his destination safely, and then shows that Martin backtracked seventy yards to physically confront Zimmerman. Martin had reached his dad's girlfriend's townhouse without Zimmerman knowing where he was; yet, Martin turned around and went seventy yards backward to physically confront Zimmerman. That's what the evidence and the witnesses say. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Again this is the by-product of self serving. Did you ever question GZ's account? Did you ask yourself why would someone run from a person, then come back in 4 minutes WITHOUT ANY WEAPONS to do something that he could have done before? Did Trayvon forget that he did not like being followed then remembered when he arrived at home and said "wait a minute I don't like being followed, let me go kick his ass"? WOW the illogical conclusions are infinite.

Any thinking person would question that. And also, how could Trayvon have known whether or not GZ got out of the car if he could not see him being that the buildings were blocking his view? GZ's pursuit showed his determination to not allow those "fucking assholes to get away" AGAIN. And he did exactly that. But I guess we will ignore that. Right? Using simple context clues show that he had ill will. The only person to prove that the aggressor was anyone was Jeantel. And we understand that according to B37 Jeantel was not credible because English was maybe her 3rd language. WTF?

BTW, Trayvon was 6'2" in hoody and boots, and "teenagers" have served and are serving in this nation's armed forces. Boys as young as 10 and 11 have served in this nation's army (see John Clem). Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Is this really logical to you? Ok, Shaq was 5'10 at the age of 13, was he a man too? With this logic, if a man is 5'2 at the age of 40 he can be considered a kid? YOUR HEIGHT HAS NO BEARING ON YOUR MATURITY. And if "joining the armed forces" is the proper measuring stick for gaging whether or not a person is an adult, then ask any high ranked individual in the armed forces can they get into sexual intercourses with a 17 year old despite their size, without facing criminal charges. What would they tell you?

Since you are firm in your convictions, would you agree to seeing a provider at the age of 17 "because she has an adult build"? ROTFLMAO at your reaching to save face and serve yourself or your agenda

The autopsy evidence showed Martin had THC in his system. The autopsy on Martin's liver substantiates Martin's proclivity (expressed on his Facebook account) for enjoying an illicit drink made with Skittles and Arizona Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail. It is known, Martin had acquired a cigar that morning, and, circumstantially, it is suspected that another individual fronted for him and bought a cigar for him that evening at the 7-11 while he waited outside. Everyone knows what w33d heads do with cigars. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Really dude? This is speculation at best. But for the sake of argument, we will assume that he was on his way to drank sizzurp. Did that give him clearance to to do anything but call the cops? I mean don't you hobby? Would that give GZ clearance to confront you and end up killing you?

"Yes officer he was suspicious! He seemed like he was on his way home to get on eccie and set a date with a provider because he had condoms and cash on him".

Out of all of your reaching this one took the cake. Just be honest and tell us what's really your issue with Martin.

Sometimes people will never know your true intentions until you talk. In this post you showed serious bias and willful ignorance of the evidence in order to reach a convenient conclusion. Its called SELF SERVING.

1) Jeantel's testimony NEVER suggested that Trayvon engaged GZ. She stated that she heard Trayvon tell GZ "GET OFF ME", which implied GZ being the initial aggressor.
QUOTE: "Trayvon turned around and said, ‘Why are you following me?’" Rachel Jeantel, 27 June 2013. And that occurred at the "T" -- not at Martin's dad's girlfriend's townhouse! Jeantel testified that Martin had told her that he had reached his destination, but then magically Martin is back at the "T" a few moments later????

2) The testimony of GZ's video also showed that it only took George Zimmerman 12 seconds to get from the far end of the T to where the confrontation happened. But according to the phone call 2 minutes was not accounted for. Where was GZ in those 2 minutes? His story does not add up.
Martin had that same amount of time to reach his destination and go inside! Why did that not happen?

3) It is common knowledge to not lead someone who is following to your home. Really? Poor lil Trayvon was "supposedly" scared, why didn't he run inside and lock the door? What you call "common knowledge" doesn't pass for "common sense".

According to juror B37, the reason they had to discredit Jeantel's testimony was her inability to appease the jurors articulately. That is NOT a reason to deem her testimony a lie or disregard it. But of course she believed the "creepy cracker" part. That is the self serving convenience I spoke about earlier. During her interview with Piers Morgan, Rachel Jeantel claimed Trayvon Martin initially thought Zimmerman was LE. Why didn't she say that in court?

Again this is the by-product of self serving. Did you ever question GZ's account? Did you ask yourself why would someone run from a person, then come back in 4 minutes WITHOUT ANY WEAPONS to do something that he could have done before? Did Trayvon forget that he did not like being followed then remembered when he arrived at home and said "wait a minute I don't like being followed, let me go kick his ass"? WOW the illogical conclusions are infinite. Again, Martin had that same amount of time to reach his destination and go inside! Why did that not happen? Here's some "logic" you're ignoring. Martin had THC in his system, and he was very likely enjoying his recreational drug habit when he first saw Zimmerman -- who Martin, per Jeantel, thought was LE. Martin used that unaccounted for time to ditch or stash what he was carrying before he returned to the "T" to confront Zimmerman.

Any thinking person would question that. And also, how could Trayvon have known whether or not GZ got out of the car if he could not see him being that the buildings were blocking his view? GZ's pursuit showed his determination to not allow those "fucking assholes to get away" AGAIN. And he did exactly that. But I guess we will ignore that. Right? Using simple context clues show that he had ill will. The only person to prove that the aggressor was anyone was Jeantel. And we understand that according to B37 Jeantel was not credible because English was maybe her 3rd language. WTF? Any "thinking person" can see that the sidewalk connecting the two streets was illuminated by street lamps on both ends. The sidewalk running between the townhouses was in shadows and dark. Martin could see Zimmerman walking on the sidewalk at the "T", but Zimmerman couldn't see Martin in the shadows.

Is this really logical to you? Ok, Shaq was 5'10 at the age of 13, was he a man too? With this logic, if a man is 5'2 at the age of 40 he can be considered a kid? YOUR HEIGHT HAS NO BEARING ON YOUR MATURITY. And if "joining the armed forces" is the proper measuring stick for gaging whether or not a person is an adult, then ask any high ranked individual in the armed forces can they get into sexual intercourses with a 17 year old despite their size, without facing criminal charges. What would they tell you? You were the one who made Martin's height an issue. Point of fact, Martin's garb made him look larger than he was, and that was a factor in the witness accounts. No, height has nothing to do with maturity, but age is nearly as arbitrary. Some young men are mature beyond their years when they are fifteen, while many 25 year olds are still quite immature. Martin was a 17 year old football player who submitted to strength training with weights and endurance workouts: running, jumping and hitting, to be on the team. Martin was in better physical shape than Zimmerman. Martin liked fighting, and Martin liked to watch people bleed.

Since you are firm in your convictions, would you agree to seeing a provider at the age of 17 "because she has an adult build"? ROTFLMAO at your reaching to save face and serve yourself or your agenda
FYI, that's a forbidden subject on this board.
Originally Posted by Mgm84

.

Really dude? This is speculation at best. But for the sake of argument, we will assume that he was on his way to drank sizzurp. Did that give him clearance to to do anything but call the cops? Trayvon Martin is the one who posted that he liked "the Dr@nk"; that's not speculation. The items Martin bought, Skittles and Arizona Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail, are just two of the three ingredients needed to make that drink. You're forgetting, Zimmerman DID call the cops; that's what makes your POV so illogical. Why would a "murderer" call the police before he murdered his victim?

I mean don't you hobby? Would that give GZ clearance to confront you and end up killing you? "Yes officer he was suspicious! He seemed like he was on his way home to get on eccie and set a date with a provider because he had condoms and cash on him". What say you imagine a scenario that places you in a parked car with a john on a public street, and a neighbor calls and reports your "suspicious" behavior to the cops. You have the condoms and the john has the cash -- just no ECCIE. That skittish neighbor -- with a gun -- might choose to investigate before the police arrive. Who knows what might happen if you overreact and scare the man with the gun!?!

Out of all of your reaching this one took the cake. Just be honest and tell us what's really your issue with Martin. You're wrong. My issue is with the liberal MSM and the race baiters that exacerbated the race issue in this country to serve their financial and political agendas.

Watch the video below, but pay especially close attention to what Juror E54 says at 5:15:


Originally Posted by Mgm84

.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

QUOTE: "Trayvon turned around and said, ‘Why are you following me?’" Rachel Jeantel, 27 June 2013. And that occurred at the "T" -- not at Martin's dad's girlfriend's townhouse! Jeantel testified that Martin had told her that he had reached his destination, but then magically Martin is back at the "T" a few moments later???? Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Wrong! Not until you give GZ the benefit of the doubt can you come to this gross conclusion. Being "close" to somewhere is subjective. You basically translated "close" to "AT". Why cant "close" to his dads house be at the "T"? This is further evidence of you shuffling facts to your convenience.

Martin had that same amount of time to reach his destination and go inside! Why did that not happen?
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Ask yourself why did Trayvon ever have to run if he is not breaking the law? Why does Trayvon not going inside raise suspicion in your mind yet you justify George for not staying in his car as instructed by hiding behind the law saying "Its not against the law to follow someone" and it never triggered suspicion in your mind? Was it against the law for Trayvon to run? You can justifiy someone running from a complete stranger, but can you justify a "scared guy that cannot defend himself" running after a complete stranger?

This is just a testimony to your alternate agenda.

Really? Poor lil Trayvon was "supposedly" scared, why didn't he run inside and lock the door? What you call "common knowledge" doesn't pass for "common sense". Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Why was he put in position to be scared by this stranger? Why would you lead that stranger to your home? Common sense.

During her interview with Piers Morgan, Rachel Jeantel claimed Trayvon Martin initially thought Zimmerman was LE. Why didn't she say that in court? Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It must be a religion for you to take comments out of context? She said he ACTED LIKE a cop. And further stated how she knew he was not a cop. Listening is paramount.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CP5opBDpRFo At 2:20

Again, Martin had that same amount of time to reach his destination and go inside! Why did that not happen? Here's some "logic" you're ignoring. Martin had THC in his system, and he was very likely enjoying his recreational drug habit when he first saw Zimmerman -- who Martin, per Jeantel, thought was LE. Martin used that unaccounted for time to ditch or stash what he was carrying before he returned to the "T" to confront Zimmerman. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

"As a neuropsychopharmacologist who has spent 15 years studying the neurophysiological, psychological and behavioral effects of marijuana, I find this line of reasoning laughable. The toxicology exam, which was conducted the morning after Mr. Martin was killed, found a mere 1.5 nanograms per milliliter of blood of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, in his body. This strongly suggests he had not ingested marijuana for at least 24 hours. This is also far below the THC levels that I have found necessary, in my experimental research on dozens of subjects, to induce intoxication: between 40 and 400 nanograms per milliliter. In fact, his THC levels were significantly lower than the sober, baseline levels of about 14 nanograms per milliliter of many of my patients, who are daily users. Mr. Martin could not have been intoxicated with marijuana at the time of the shooting; the amount of THC found in his system was too low for it to have had any meaningful effect on him.


Dr. Hart continues:

There is a broader point to be made, though. Regardless of how intoxicated Mr. Martin was, the research tells us that aggression and violence are highly unlikely outcomes of marijuana use. Based on my own work, during which I have administered thousands of doses of marijuana, I can say that its main effects are contentment, relaxation, sedation, euphoria and increased hunger, all peaking within 5 to 10 minutes after smoking and lasting for about two hours. It is true that very high THC concentrations — far beyond Mr. Martin’s levels — can cause mild hallucinations and paranoia, but even these effects are rare and usually seen only in very inexperienced users.

BANG! You once again showed a lack of research and understanding of what you are talking about.

Any "thinking person" can see that the sidewalk connecting the two streets was illuminated by street lamps on both ends. The sidewalk running between the townhouses was in shadows and dark. Martin could see Zimmerman walking on the sidewalk at the "T", but Zimmerman couldn't see Martin in the shadows. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Ok, So Martin ran and Zimmerman followed then Trayvon managed to run 140 yards (70 to his fathers house and 70 back), and meet Zimmerman at the "T"? Not only that, but manage to "beat the shit out of" a man that weight 40 lbs more, and has a 11 year old advantage? ROTFLMAO!! An NFL player could not pull that off. This is pathetic at best.

You were the one who made Martin's height an issue. Point of fact, Martin's garb made him look larger than he was, and that was a factor in the witness accounts. No, height has nothing to do with maturity, but age is nearly as arbitrary. Some young men are mature beyond their years when they are fifteen, while many 25 year olds are still quite immature. Martin was a 17 year old football player who submitted to strength training with weights and endurance workouts: running, jumping and hitting, to be on the team. Martin was in better physical shape than Zimmerman. Martin liked fighting, and Martin liked to watch people bleed. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

More lies? Check the conversation dude. Jewish lawyer mentioned it, I responded, then you re-affirmed his claim in a response to me.

Martin was a 17 year old football player who submitted to strength training with weights and endurance workouts: running, jumping and hitting, to be on the team. Martin was in better physical shape than Zimmerman. Martin liked fighting, and Martin liked to watch people bleed. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You cant possibility have any dignity man. Trayvon played YOUTH FOTTBALL man! No higher than middle school. Meaning that was 5 years ago. But you wanna know what Zimmerman did for 18 months straight prior to the murder? TAKE MMA CLASSES. You have no leg to stand on.

Trayvon Martin is the one who posted that he liked "the Dr@nk"; that's not speculation. The items Martin bought, Skittles and Arizona Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail, are just two of the three ingredients needed to make that drink. You're forgetting, Zimmerman DID call the cops; that's what makes your POV so illogical. Why would a "murderer" call the police before he murdered his victim? Originally Posted by I B Hankering

That was also said to be a false photo. I also frequent those items, yet I have never did a drug in my life. Hell I have those as we speak. But for the sake of argument lets say it was his intent. Did it give Zimmerman the clearance to give him a death sentence? He said he looked "suspicious", but his blood did not contain enough THC to be under the influence, neither could he have been on "lean" because he had the ingredients in his hand un mixed. So was he really "suspicious" due to his actions, or his skin?


OR are you now advocating that he was more guilty of his own death because he was a POTENTIAL lean drinker? If that is your logic then what do we do with women who dress revealing? Men with condoms in their pocket? People with sharp objects? Bullets? What about those who have a credit card but you are not sure if the credit card is their card?


Its sad that you cannot realize that ALL of your conclusions begin with HUGE leaps of foolishness.

What say you imagine a scenario that places you in a parked car with a john on a public street, and a neighbor calls and reports your "suspicious" behavior to the cops. You have the condoms and the john has the cash -- just no ECCIE. That skittish neighbor -- with a gun -- might choose to investigate before the police arrive. Who knows what might happen if you overreact and scare the man with the gun!?! Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Horrible analogy. Why? Nobody scared Zimmerman with a gun. Address the analogy I gave you.

You're wrong. My issue is with the liberal MSM and the race baiters that exacerbated the race issue in this country to serve their financial and political agendas. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Dude, we don't need the media to know that racism is alive and well. Unless you are in white America where racism does not hinder the community. Regardless to their agendas, racism STILL plagues minorities. Just as the media had agendas in the Iraq war, but did that take away from the fact that people were really dying? The way that Trayvon was painted and put on trial, using your same logic can I not say that anyone subscribing to the going white American view that you are pushing are "black men are beasts and monsters" baiting? Or what about ignoring the fact that it is alive and well? Can I call that racism denial baiting? Oh wait I have one...."black men are thieving, drug using and dealing, violent for reason scumbags baiting? Or what about "blacks lives are so worthless, you can start a fight, start loosing then kill them baiting"? Would that suffice?

,

Wrong! Not until you give GZ the benefit of the doubt can you come to this gross conclusion. Being "close" to somewhere is subjective. You basically translated "close" to "AT". Why cant "close" to his dads house be at the "T"? This is further evidence of you shuffling facts to your convenience. Because, that means Trayvon had to stand at the "T", in the dark, for over two minutes to fit your scenario. Martin could have walked that distance, between the "T" and his dad's girlfriend's townhouse two or three times in that period. To fit your scenario, Martin would have confronted Zimmerman two or three minutes earlier while Zimmerman was still on the phone with the police dispatcher. That didn't happen!


Ask yourself why did Trayvon ever have to run if he is not breaking the law?
Rollin' and smokin' is against the law.
Why does Trayvon not going inside raise suspicion in your mind yet you justify Because, the liberal MSM and the race baiters insist Trayvon Martin was "scared". However, Martin chose to stay outside, backtrack, and confront Zimmerman. That is not what a "scared" person with an avenue for escape does. George for not staying in his car as instructed You are wrong! Zimmerman was NEVER told to stay in his truck. by hiding behind the law saying "Its not against the law to follow someone" and it never triggered suspicion in your mind? Was it against the law for Trayvon to run? You can justifiy someone running from a complete stranger, but can you justify a "scared guy that cannot defend himself" running after a complete stranger? Martin chose to stay outside, backtrack, and confront Zimmerman. That is not what a "scared" person with an avenue for escape does. George Zimmerman had a right to be there and to observe the suspicious activities of a stranger in his neighborhood: he belonged to the Neighborhood WATCH program.

This is just a testimony to your alternate agenda. He was an alternate juror who made his decision based on the evidence.

Why was he put in position to be scared by this stranger? Why would you lead that stranger to your home? Common sense. Actually, "common sense" would dictate that a "scared" person would have gone inside, locked the door behind him and then called the police. That didn't happen. Instead, Martin, having reached his destination, turned around, backtracked, confronted and assaulted Zimmerman.


It must be a religion for you to take comments out of context? She said he ACTED LIKE a cop. And further stated how she knew he was not a cop. Listening is paramount.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CP5opBDpRFo At 2:20

There's no misunderstanding and nothing is taken out of context. Piers Morgan pointedly asked Jeantel if Martin thought Zimmerman was a policeman. Jeantel replied, "Yeah." According to Jeantel, Martin thought Zimmerman could be a policeman or a security guard. Either way, that would mean Martin thought Zimmerman was an authority figure; nevertheless, Martin attacked him.


"As a neuropsychopharmacologist who has spent 15 years studying the neurophysiological, psychological and behavioral effects of marijuana, I find this line of reasoning laughable. The toxicology exam, which was conducted the morning after Mr. Martin was killed, found a mere 1.5 nanograms per milliliter of blood of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, in his body. This strongly suggests he had not ingested marijuana for at least 24 hours. This is also far below the THC levels that I have found necessary, in my experimental research on dozens of subjects, to induce intoxication: between 40 and 400 nanograms per milliliter. In fact, his THC levels were significantly lower than the sober, baseline levels of about 14 nanograms per milliliter of many of my patients, who are daily users. Mr. Martin could not have been intoxicated with marijuana at the time of the shooting; the amount of THC found in his system was too low for it to have had any meaningful effect on him.
Rollin' and smokin' is still an illegal activity. The fear of getting caught by LE would still make Martin paranoid.

Dr. Hart continues:

There is a broader point to be made, though. Regardless of how intoxicated Mr. Martin was, the research tells us that aggression and violence are highly unlikely outcomes of marijuana use. Based on my own work, during which I have administered thousands of doses of marijuana, I can say that its main effects are contentment, relaxation, sedation, euphoria and increased hunger, all peaking within 5 to 10 minutes after smoking and lasting for about two hours. It is true that very high THC concentrations — far beyond Mr. Martin’s levels — can cause mild hallucinations and paranoia, but even these effects are rare and usually seen only in very inexperienced users. The Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Bao, testified that 'a' -- singular -- blood sample was taken from the chest cavity: not multiple samples (the norm) from the heart and the femoral vein in the leg; hence, the true THC level is not known. Again, rollin' and smokin' is still an illegal activity. The fear of getting caught by LE would still make Martin paranoid.

BANG! You once again showed a lack of research and understanding of what you are talking about. No misunderstanding here. Rollin' and smokin' is still an illegal activity. The fear of getting caught by LE would still make Martin paranoid.


Ok, So Martin ran and Zimmerman followed then Trayvon managed to run 140 yards (70 to his fathers house and 70 back), and meet Zimmerman at the "T"? Not only that, but manage to "beat the shit out of" a man that weight 40 lbs more, and has a 11 year old advantage? ROTFLMAO!! An NFL player could not pull that off. This is pathetic at best.

Martin didn't need to run. At 5'11", he could have easily have covered 70 yards in 45 seconds walking. Martin had some 2 to 3 minutes; hence, he could have covered that distance three or four times walking. Your analysis shows you know nothing about the mechanics of fighting. Athleticism is more important than weight, and arm length -- reach -- is also an important factor: both of those factors -- combined with a surprise sucker punch -- gave Martin an advantage.

More lies? Check the conversation dude. Jewish lawyer mentioned it, I responded, then you re-affirmed his claim in a response to me.
There was no lie.


You cant possibility have any dignity man. Trayvon played YOUTH FOTTBALL man! No higher than middle school. Meaning that was 5 years ago. Point taken, but there's only three years and four months between December 2008 and February 2012: not five years.


But you wanna know what Zimmerman did for 18 months straight prior to the murder? TAKE MMA CLASSES. You have no leg to stand on.
Meanwhile, Trayvon Martin was honing his skills as a street fighter in real fights, against real adversaries -- not an inert punching bag.
Originally Posted by Mgm84

That was also said to be a false photo. I also frequent those items, yet I have never did a drug in my life. Hell I have those as we speak. But for the sake of argument lets say it was his intent. Did it give Zimmerman the clearance to give him a death sentence? No. Martin's pounding Zimmerman's head off concrete is what led to his death. He said he looked "suspicious", but his blood did not contain enough THC to be under the influence, neither could he have been on "lean" because he had the ingredients in his hand un mixed. So was he really "suspicious" due to his actions, or his skin? Rollin' and smokin' in and of itself is an illegal activity. The fear of getting caught by LE would make Martin paranoid. Just like you're paranoid every time you open your door to a new client.

OR are you now advocating that he was more guilty of his own death because he was a POTENTIAL lean drinker? Martin posted that he DID drink le@n. Drinking le@n underscores how Martin consistently made poor choices in life.

If that is your logic then what do we do with women who dress revealing? Men with condoms in their pocket? People with sharp objects? Bullets? What about those who have a credit card but you are not sure if the credit card is their card? None of those enumerated activities are illegal. Rollin' and smokin' is an illegal activity. Drinkig le@n made with prescription medication is illegal.

Its sad that you cannot realize that ALL of your conclusions begin with HUGE leaps of foolishness.
Funny, my sentiments match those of the six jurors and the one alternate (who has spoken). They examined the evidence, deliberated and ruled that Zimmerman was "Not Guilty" of murder or manslaughter; that's my opinion exactly! Like me, those jurors determined that Zimmerman had a right to shoot Martin in "self-defense".

Horrible analogy. Why? Nobody scared Zimmerman with a gun. Address the analogy I gave you. Zimmerman was having his head bounced off concrete. Zimmerman was pretty damned scared; that's why he pulled his gun and shot Trayvon Martin to keep Martin from killing him.


Dude, we don't need the media to know that racism is alive and well. Unless you are in white America where racism does not hinder the community. Regardless to their agendas, racism STILL plagues minorities. So you condone how the liberal MSM and the race baiters misrepresented this case from the beginning and throughout? Just as the media had agendas in the Iraq war, but did that take away from the fact that people were really dying? The way that Trayvon was painted and put on trial, It was Martin's choice to turn, confront and assault Zimmerman. Martin MADE that choice. using your same logic can I not say that anyone subscribing to the going white American view that you are pushing are "black men are beasts and monsters" baiting? Or what about ignoring the fact that it is alive and well? Can I call that racism denial baiting? Oh wait I have one...."black men are thieving, drug using and dealing, violent for reason scumbags baiting? Or what about "blacks lives are so worthless, you can start a fight, start loosing then kill them baiting"? Would that suffice? Nothing in your petty little rant justifies how the liberal MSM and race baiters lied about, distorted and misrepresented the facts in this case from the beginning and throughout. Originally Posted by Mgm84

Legally Zimmerman a Hispanic Male was found not guilty.

Zimmerman did stand his ground

Zimmerman did feel threatened

Zimmerman followed a suspicious person in "his neighborhood"

Zimmerman did choose to bring a gun to engage the suspicious character (no foul there)

Zimmerman did confront and engage with suspicious character

Zimmerman was or did get his ass kicked by a kid (under 18 still a kid)



and Zimmerman did shoot a downed opponent


Trevvon Martin also was not doing anything wrong

Martin was walking from store to his girl friends house

in a neighborhood he lived in

Martin did get into a confrontation with a guy who he knew was following him

Martin and Zimmerman were fighting in the grass not the cement.

Martin appearantly was winning the hand to hand part of the fight but lost at end


Past meaning nothing at time of engagement

Martin was not doing anything wrong or illegal when he died

Both Zimmerman and Martin were defending themselves

Zimmerman shot Martin while he was on ground and martin was shot twice (double tap to make sure, valid reason)

Fact is: Zimmerman is only guilty of one thing taking a life of some one who was innocent at the time, thats all. Originally Posted by jjkageab12

I agree...

Because, that means Trayvon had to stand at the "T", in the dark, for over two minutes to fit your scenario. Martin could have walked that distance, between the "T" and his dad's girlfriend's townhouse two or three times in that period. To fit your scenario, Martin would have confronted Zimmerman two or three minutes earlier while Zimmerman was still on the phone with the police dispatcher. That didn't happen!
, Originally Posted by I B Hankering

This shows that you didn't have 1 objective intention when reviewing this case. If Zimmerman ran after Trayvon to "know where he went in order to tell the cops", that would mean that he could not have waited more than a few seconds to run behind Trayvon. And furthermore, if Trayvon walked to his fathers house, then that would mean that Zimmerman actually lied AGAIN doesn't it? If he made it to his father's house, then backtracked, Zimmermans story is not plausible because running would require animal attributes, and walking would not allow him to "meet" Zimmerman at the "T" UNLESS Geogre waited for him.


What you are ignoring is the proof that the prosecution showed. It was a 4 minute time span from hanging up with the cops and the next call with the neighbor. In Zimmerman's testimony, it took him 12 seconds to get to the "T", the reporter counted almost 1 minute. Trayvon had to go 220 yards to pull off Zimmerman's scenario.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PQ0SQcQmOQ

Face it. HIS STORY IS NOT PLAUSIBLE.


[/QUOTE]Rollin' and smokin' is against the law[/QUOTE]

So is hobbying. But should that equal a death sentence for yourself? Everyone has broken a law in their lives, but it does not give clearance to issue harassment with a death sentence topping. Your logic once again suggest that you deserve Trayvon's fate also. SMH

Because, the liberal MSM and the race baiters insist Trayvon Martin was "scared". However, Martin chose to stay outside, backtrack, and confront Zimmerman. That is not what a "scared" person with an avenue for escape does. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Again, this scenario is not logical unless you GIVE Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt. So i'll kill your logic the same way I have been killing it from the start. By using your own logic, then shouldn't George Zimmerman have stayed in his car if he knew he could not defend himself as the defense painted him? After a year and 6 months of MMA training, "he still cant throw a punch"? BANG!! If you were objective at all your own logic would suggest to yourself that George Zimmerman's actions were not conducive to his claims nor the defenses claims. BANG!!!


But of course you will inject scenarios and possibilities only where they are beneficial to painting Trayvon as the bad guy and Zimmerman as the hero. Do you have an agenda you want to share with us?

You are wrong! Zimmerman was NEVER told to stay in his truck. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

He was told to NOT follow him, and he told the dispatcher that he was returning to his car at 7:12. How can the fight happen at 7:16 - 7:17 if Zimmerman was returning to his truck (by the mailboxes) to meet police? Because he NEVER had any intent on meeting the police. His story changed from, meeting the police, to them meeting him where he is. Why is that Hankering? If he "didn't know where the KID is", isn't the next step to progress straight to the mailboxes?. At 3:39 he specifically called him a KID!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQXNKE18VKA

No getting away from this one

Martin chose to stay outside, backtrack, and confront Zimmerman. That is not what a "scared" person with an avenue for escape does. George Zimmerman had a right to be there and to observe the suspicious activities of a stranger in his neighborhood: he belonged to the Neighborhood WATCH program Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Ok so your conclusion is that Trayvon Martin did not have a right to be there? Are you aware that Trayvon had a right to not go inside when Zimmerman or Hankering are ready to clear the roads? Do you know the difference between observing, "WATCHING", and detaining and or following and approaching? Do you know that it is common neighborhood watch rule to not follow suspicious people?


""There is no reason in the world to carry a gun for Neighborhood Watch," said Chris Tutko, a retired police chief who now directs Neighborhood Watch for the sheriffs' association. "It gets people more into trouble than out of it."
A manual published by the association for its "USAonWatch" program makes that very clear.
"It should be emphasized to members that they do not possess police powers and they shall not carry weapons or pursue vehicles," the manual states. "Members should never confront suspicious persons who could be armed and dangerous."
Zimmerman is reportedly the self-appointed leader for the group at his complex of town homes. A sign at the gated entrance warns it is surveilled by Neighborhood Watch, and says, "We report all suspicious persons and activities to the Sanford Police Department."


http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...ains-Zimmerman


If anyone broke rules it was George Zimmerman. BANG!

Actually, "common sense" would dictate that a "scared" person would have gone inside, locked the door behind him and then called the police. That didn't happen. Instead, Martin, having reached his destination, turned around, backtracked, confronted and assaulted Zimmerman. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Like I said before, and someone who is interested in being the neighborhood watch would follow those rules. And not the rules of law enforcement. So your own logic contests your conclusion. You are in a war with yourself.

There's no misunderstanding and nothing is taken out of context. Piers Morgan pointedly asked Jeantel if Martin thought Zimmerman was a policeman. Jeantel replied, "Yeah." According to Jeantel, Martin thought Zimmerman could be a policeman or a security guard. Either way, that would mean Martin thought Zimmerman was an authority figure; nevertheless, Martin attacked him. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Its futile to again point out to you how you are serving yourself via tunnel vision. She stated how his presentation, and approach PROVED that they knew he was not an officer. "IF he was a security guard or police officer he would have..............". Besides, he had no uniform on, showed no badge, and most of all, Trayvon identified him as a "creepy cracker". Not a cop, police, pig etc. You are trying to make connections that are not there. And please tell us where is your "evidence" that Martin attacked first?

Rollin' and smokin' is still an illegal activity. The fear of getting caught by LE would still make Martin paranoid Originally Posted by I B Hankering

LMAO!!! This is pathetic. He had nothing on him so why would he be paranoid? So he safely stashed his drug paraphernalia, then came back to show the "cops" not to try and catch him? ROTFLMAO!!!! Its funny seeing you reach for dear life. I guess that's the cost of being black ha? Guilty until proven innocent.

The Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Bao, testified that 'a' -- singular -- blood sample was taken from the chest cavity: not multiple samples (the norm) from the heart and the femoral vein in the leg; hence, the true THC level is not known. Again, rollin' and smokin' is still an illegal activity. The fear of getting caught by LE would still make Martin paranoid. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

And this still does not help you because you CHOOSE to ignore the what the evidence suggest to put faith in total speculation. Where is your evidence to show that his THC levels were higher"? You are basically saying not to trust any scientific test unless you get multiple tests? This is foolish and self serving. What's interesting is the fact that you did not hesitate to point out the fact that he had THC in his blood based on the findings of that same examiner, yet as soon as I point out that it was not enough to effect him or be considered "under the influence", you disclaim that same evidence as inaccurate?
BANG!! I don't think I need anymore proof to show that you are without a doubt as racist as it gets. Your racism wont allow you to be objective on any of these issues. If you need cherries, why not take the whole tree?

Martin didn't need to run. At 5'11", he could have easily have covered 70 yards in 45 seconds walking. Martin had some 2 to 3 minutes; hence, he could have covered that distance three or four times walking. Your analysis shows you know nothing about the mechanics of fighting. Athleticism is more important than weight, and arm length -- reach -- is also an important factor: both of those factors -- combined with a surprise sucker punch -- gave Martin an advantage.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You just proved my point. You did take it out of context being that you only accounted for 70 yards, when in actuality it would be 140 yards because it is 70 yards going, and 70 yards back= 140!!! BTW, it was 110 yards to his father's house, therefore he had to go a whopping 220 yards!! And you wanna talk about the mechanics of fighting? HA HA HA!! You just contradicted your own statement again. In any level of fighting there are LEVELS GOVERNED BY WEIGHT AND NOT ATHELTICISM!! Why? According to your logic what's MOST important (weight according to fighting disciplines) does not take precedence? There are no professions of fighting that separate levels by arm length or athleticism. You are embarrassing yourself. And where is your proof of this "sucker punch"? Oh I forgot, your proof is because George said so.

Meanwhile, Trayvon Martin was honing his skills as a street fighter in real fights, against real adversaries -- not an inert punching bag. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Where is your proof for this? He was suspended for non-violent reasons. You really sat down and painted these pictures about him in your mind ha?