trevon martin

No. Martin's pounding Zimmerman's head off concrete is what led to his death, Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The medical examiner said that his wounds were superficial. And not consistent with the description Zimmerman gave.

Martin posted that he DID drink le@n. Drinking le@n underscores how Martin consistently made poor choices in life. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

And again, those posts were not verifiable. Just like there are reports that Zimmerman had domestic abuse charges, and sexual abuse charges on his niece but I did not mention that. Why? BECAUSE IT COULD NOT BE CONFIRMED!! Its called being ingenuous, objective and having dignity

None of those enumerated activities are illegal. Rollin' and smokin' is an illegal activity. Drinkig le@n made with prescription medication is illegal. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Those activities are just as illegal as your logic as to what made Trayvon "illegal". I simply did what you did. I gave you INGREDIENTS that can lead to crimes and surmised that those people are suspicious based on having the ingredients that can potentially lead to a crime. Dude you really are consistently challenging your own logic. And none of what you called illegal was Trayvon guilty of. He had nothing to roll or smoke, and he did not have prescription medication with him. So I guess being black after dark with a hoodie in a white neighborhood is his crime in your opinion?

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". Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Six jurors of what race? I thought it was supposed to be a jury of your peers or an impartial jury? Its interesting that the defense dismissed the two potential jurors that were or color? I wonder why? Your sentiments is also in unity with Zimmerman's friend Taffy who calls black people monkeys, slaves, etc on a regular. That was supposed to be a hung jury but the last latin lady was railroaded in to "not guilty".

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. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

How do you know Zimmerman was scared? Because he shot someone? That does not constitute fear, it constitutes wanting to kill someone. See you have to buy into Zimmerman's story to be this firm about something you or I really have no way to gauge.

So you condone how the liberal MSM and the race baiters misrepresented this case from the beginning and throughout? Originally Posted by I B Hankering

WRONG!! The defense presented race when they specifically brought they're witness to the stand to testify that black men had burglarized her home. The prosecution stuck to their "it was not race game". You would have appoint if race was not evident in this case but.....well...it just is. HUGE FAIL ON YOUR BEHALF.

It was Martin's choice to turn, confront and assault Zimmerman. Martin MADE that choice Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Have you been viewing the facts? Zimmerman's account does not add up. And you cannot support this beyond Zimmerman's testimony so it is meaningless.

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 I B Hankering

Are you talking about the NBC trash? That has been hashed out. We all watched the case, we all have the exact evidence that the so called "non race baiters" have. You can stand behind that race baiter BS till the cows come home like the typical white American, that would rather ignore the problem rather than take accountability, but it does not change the truth and facts behind racism and the huge role it played in Trayvon Martin not receiving justice.

Check it out!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA9jV9BFiqg

This is a simple case. Zimmerman was guilty from the get go. But under Florida law, as i am told by the very "truthful" media, you have to prove intent to kill. I still wonder what it means when i shoot someone and claim in court that i did not intend to kill him by applying lethal force. The facts are he killed Trayvon, and in court, got away with it. The death is a tragedy, but my goodness, that he got away with it, speaks volumes about how our laws are biased against the black crowd.

.

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. Au contraire! You are the one who is willfully ignoring the facts in the case in order to believe as you do. Seven jurors are on record for interpreting the "facts" as I have.

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. Zimmerman's version of events is quite plausible; a 5'11" physically fit teenager can cover 100 yards and more in a minute at an average walking gait.

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

Face it. HIS STORY IS NOT PLAUSIBLE. Zimmerman's version of events is quite plausible.

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 Again you willfully ignore the facts to support your fantasy version of events. Zimmerman shot Martin because he believed Martin's violent physical assault endangered his life.


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!!! Multiple times the dispatcher asked Zimmerman to keep him informed as to where Martin was and what Martin was doing. Or do you intend to willfully ignore that fact as well? Zimmerman could not do that sitting in his truck on the street where he was.

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? Another fantasy? No one is claiming Zimmerman is a "hero". Rather, the contention is, and has been, that Zimmerman committed a homicide in defense of his own life; that Zimmerman is not -- and was judged by a jury to be -- "Not Guilty" of murder and manslaughter; and that the liberal MSM and the race baiters exacerbated the incident with their intentional lies and misrepresentation of the facts.

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? Zimmerman stated he walked to the other street seeking an address. His version fits the timeline, your fantasy doesn't: Ockham's razor.

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!! Zimmerman identified Martin as someone in his "late teens" -- not the twelve year old that you, the liberal MSM and the race baiters misrepresent him to be.

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

No getting away from this one

Ok so your conclusion is that Trayvon Martin did not have a right to be there? Zimmerman also had a right to be there doing what he was doing. Are you aware that Trayvon had a right to not go inside when Zimmerman or Hankering are ready to clear the roads? You've finally admitted that Martin could have gone safely inside, but didn't! Furthermore, Martin did not have the right to assault Zimmerman. Do you know the difference between observing, "WATCHING", and detaining and or following and approaching? Simple fact, "watching" requires a clear field of vison; not one obstructed by buildings. It's already been established, per Jeantel, that it was Martin who confronted Zimmerman, and the physical evidence supports Zimmerman's claim that it was Martin who initiated the fight. Do you know that it is common neighborhood watch rule to not follow suspicious people? You won't find that "fantasy" in the book: http://www.usaonwatch.org/assets/pub...anual_1210.pdf

""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 is not "law", and it doesn't trump Zimmerman's Second Amendment rights.

Zimmerman had a state issued CHL, and Ms. Wendy Dorival, who is employed by Sanford Police Department and played a major role in coordinating with George Zimmerman to establish the Neighborhood Watch Program (NWP) in Zimmerman's community testified that it was her role to instruct the residents on how the NWP works, and provide guide lines on its operation:

Wendy Dorival testified: "Not my place legally to tell a Neighborhood Watch volunteer to not carry a firearm: they have a Constitutional right to bear arms."

http://crimeandcourtsnews.blogspot.c...l#.UehzW42ThRJ

the manual states. "Members should never confront suspicious persons who could be armed and dangerous." So now you are admitting Martin was a "suspicious person" and that he was "dangerous". Per Jeantel, it was Martin who confronted Zimmerman.

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." Zimmerman called in his report of a suspicious person to the police per USAonWatch:

Some common examples of suspicious activities can include:

• A stranger loitering in your neighborhood . . .

• Someone peering into cars or windows.

http://www.usaonwatch.org/assets/pub...anual_1210.pdf

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

If anyone broke rules it was George Zimmerman. BANG! Again, you are distorting the relevant facts to fit your fantasy. It was Martin who confronted and assaulted Zimmerman, not vice versa. Assault and battery -- attempted murder -- are against the law; not merely an infraction of a passage in some guidance book.

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.
Zimmerman called the police and reported a "suspicious person" -- just like the book said to do.

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. Jeantel answered, "Yeah!" to Morgan's question. "IF he was a security guard or police officer he would have..............". Jeantel stated that Martin's use of "cracka" only applies to security guards and not "white people in general". So that indicates, per Jeantel, Martin recognized that Zimmerman was acting in some capacity as a securtity guard; nevertheless, Martin chose to assault Zimmerman. 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. The Neighborhood Watch guidance book recommends that watch members not engage of confront the suspicious persons. But of course, when it served your argument, you pointed that out before. You are trying to make connections that are not there. And please tell us where is your "evidence" that Martin attacked first? The evidence: Zimmerman's broken nose and head injuries; lack of same on Martin.

LMAO!!! This is pathetic. He had nothing on him so why would he be paranoid? Martin's personal effects included a cigarette lighter on his person. He was smoking or had plans to smoke something!?! 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. Martin WAS guilty of assault and battery and possibly attempted murder.

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"? No further proof is need. FACT: THC was in Martin's system. FACT: The samples taken by the medical examiner were degraded by other body fluids and air in chest cavity. FACT: the true level of THC present could not be ascertained. You are basically saying not to trust any scientific test unless you get multiple tests? FACT: Multiple, non-degraded samples are required for an actual measurement. 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? Rollin' and smokin' is, in and of itself, an illegal activity. The fear of getting caught by LE would still make Martin paranoid.
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. Another of your fantasies? If you need cherries, why not take the whole tree?

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!! There was still more than ample time for Martin to cover that distance -- and more. You've refuted absolutely nothing. 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. Perhaps you didn't notice, but neither Martin nor Zimmerman were/are "professional" fighters. "Skill" -- which reflects athleticism -- is more important than weight. You are embarrassing yourself. And where is your proof of this "sucker punch"? Oh I forgot, your proof is because George said so. The physical evidence supports Zimmerman's version of events; not your fantasy.

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? Martin had also been suspended for fighting: read Martin's text messages. BTW, the "pictures" are on Martin's cell phone and in his text of his phone messages. Originally Posted by Mgm84

I read all the post in this thread and agree and disagree about many.
But what we all can agree on was that Traveon was a victim of profiling or judging. The fact that he was black had nothing to do with what he was wearing (dark hoodie, possibly sagging) He was profiled. Their are many white black and Hispanics that deal with this on a daily.

To answer the big question, No TM didn't deserve to die, especially over some coward judgement.
Was their a crime committed initially? No. TM had just as much as a right to be in that neighborhood as Zimmerman. Plus their was no issue until TM started being followed.

Now my question is to you? Would it have been wrong if TM shot Zimmerman for following, stalking, harassing, chasing, profiling him.

TM would have been rotting in jail with the KKK sending him death threats in his jail cell.

Would it have been wrong if TM shot Zimmerman for following, stalking, harassing, chasing, profiling him. Originally Posted by TonyaofAustin

Yes. None of those attributes justifies homicide. Further, there's no factual evidence indicating Zimmerman "stalked, harrassed or chased" Martin. And if by "profiling" you are insinuating that Zimmerman thought that Martin looked like the last five to ten burglars that victimized his neighborhood, then you might be correct.

BTW, you're overlooking the fact that Martin was physically and violently assaulting Zimmerman when Zimmerman pulled his gun and shot Martin in SELF DEFENSE!

THAT'S justifiable homicide!

Jury of his peers.

Ok, so what they have to do is round up 6 pot smoking, house casing thieves who think doing a beat down on "crackas" is acceptable behavior.

We have a lot of those in Houston, especially in Shiela Jackson Lee's Congressional District.
(Oops, sorry, that was political).

MGM84,
Jury of his peers is exactly what he got. You seem to think that TM was the one on trial and that there should have been blacks on the jury. GZ was the one on trial. The media continually told us he was white or a white-Hispanic, whatever the fuck that is, so a jury of white and Hispanic is a jury of his peers.

I B Hankering, MY beliefs are , what your father is, YOU are. His father is white, his surname is white, HE IS WHITE I don't care how much Spanish he speaks (I've never heard him speak it) I don't care how many relatives in Peru he has or how he identifies himself, to me he is white and I don't care who thinks that this is ignorant thinking.

Same with Obama (to answer your question) his father is Black, ( Kenyan ) so Obama is black and most people would agree, which is why he is also called the first "African American president".

Jessica Beals of Flasdance fame is the daughter of an AA father and Irish mother. I never hear of her being described as black.
Thing is... the media and public frenzy has applied titles to suit their needs.

I'm surprised the media hasn't used the 'cocoanut' word.

. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I can continue to rebut the lies, red herring, fact ignoring, white lens views, deflection tactics, and obvious willful denial of your posts. But instead I'll leave you with good reads and maybe a vid. Of course you will stay on your David Duke line of thinking, but maybe it will enlighten someone objective.


http://www.timwise.org/2013/07/chann...wer-of-denial/


http://www.timwise.org/2013/07/to-th...-lays-you-out/


http://www.timwise.org/2013/07/tim-w...mmerman-trial/

. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

MGM84,
Jury of his peers is exactly what he got. You seem to think that TM was the one on trial and that there should have been blacks on the jury. GZ was the one on trial. The media continually told us he was white or a white-Hispanic, whatever the fuck that is, so a jury of white and Hispanic is a jury of his peers. Originally Posted by Budman

Now ask yourself why would one think that Trayvon was on trial here? At least two blacks should have been on the stand because this was not only Zimmerman on trial, but we found Trayvon being examined also. This also determined whether or not his family received justice.

The objective of finding a jury is not to necessarily benefit either or, but a balance. This jury was not selected as if objectivity was the goal. It's like hiring Houstonians to referee a Texans game. Would you be surprised if they favored the Texans for some strange reason? You can't be serious with your line of thinking. Now if you want to be technical, why was there only one Hispanic out of 6 jurors since we want to speak about his peers and claim that he is hispanic when race is mentioned. Not suspicious?

And guess what.............THAT ONE HISPANIC WANTED A CONVICTION BUT WAS RAILROADED.

Jury of his peers.

Ok, so what they have to do is round up 6 pot smoking, house casing thieves who think doing a beat down on "crackas" is acceptable behavior.

We have a lot of those in Houston, especially in Shiela Jackson Lee's Congressional District.
(Oops, sorry, that was political). Originally Posted by Jackie S

He did not have pot, his THC levels were not even enough to be considered under the influence, there is no evidence of him "house casing", stealing, or targeting "crackas". That "cracka" profiled and followed "him".

If we are going to subscribe to non confirmed precaution, I guess the jury should have been black men hating (which seems true already), domestic a users, child sexual abusing, law breaking people? It can go both ways. White America is comedy by the minute.

So other than his blackness what do you have?

This is a simple case. Zimmerman was guilty from the get go. But under Florida law, as i am told by the very "truthful" media, you have to prove intent to kill. I still wonder what it means when i shoot someone and claim in court that i did not intend to kill him by applying lethal force. The facts are he killed Trayvon, and in court, got away with it. The death is a tragedy, but my goodness, that he got away with it, speaks volumes about how our laws are biased against the black crowd. Originally Posted by chess9718cb

And to re-affirm this truth.............

"This is why it matters that George Zimmerman justified his following of Martin because as he put it, “these fucking punks” always get away. In other words, Zimmerman saw Martin as just another “fucking punk” up to no good, similar to those who had committed previous break-ins in the community. But why? What behavior did Martin display that would have suggested he was criminally inclined? Zimmerman’s team could produce nothing to indicate anything particularly suspicious about Martin’s actions that night. According to Zimmerman, Martin was walking in the rain, “looking around,” or “looking around at the houses.” But not looking in windows, or jiggling doorknobs or porch screens, or anything that might have suggested a possible burglar. At no point was any evidence presented by the defense to justify their client’s suspicions. All we know is that Zimmerman saw Martin and concluded that he was just like those other criminals. And to the extent there was nothing in Martin’s actions — talking on the telephone and walking slowly home from the store — that would have indicated he was another of those “fucking punks,” the only possible explanation as to why George Zimmerman would have seen him that way is because Martin, as a young to be a likely criminal, and for no other reason, ultimately, but color."


Period.

I can continue to rebut the lies, red herring, fact ignoring, white lens views, deflection tactics, and obvious willful denial of your posts. But instead I'll leave you with good reads and maybe a vid. Of course you will stay on your David Duke line of thinking, but maybe it will enlighten someone objective.


http://www.timwise.org/2013/07/chann...wer-of-denial/


http://www.timwise.org/2013/07/to-th...-lays-you-out/


http://www.timwise.org/2013/07/tim-w...mmerman-trial/ Originally Posted by Mgm84

You're quite delusional if you imagine yourself to be objective. For over a year, you've submerged and comforted yourself in the mantra of the lying liberal MSM and the race baiters. Your bias allowed you to believe what they were telling you. So now, in the wake of the trial, you are stunned to find that the evidence never did support the story that was presented by the lying, liberal MSM and the race baiters. Hence, your bias leads you to blindly reject the evidence and the verdict rendered by a jury.

FACT: Trayvon Martin's violent actions led to his own death. Martin suspected that Zimmerman was a security guard; nevertheless, per Jeantel, Martin made the conscious -- admittedly substance impaired -- decision to backtrack, confront and assault Zimmerman. Even Charles Barkley has stated that the evidence affirms that it was Martin's actions that led to the shooting.





You'll always be biased in your beliefs if you keep listening to race baiters like Sharpton.

And guess what.............THAT ONE HISPANIC WANTED A CONVICTION BUT WAS RAILROADED. Originally Posted by Mgm84

The juror said the six-member, all-female jury followed Florida law and found the evidence did not warrant a murder conviction.

The Hispanic juror, Juror B29, said: "I stand by the decision because of the law."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2...t-awa/2587533/

You're quite delusional if you imagine yourself to be objective. For over a year, you've submerged and comforted yourself in the mantra of the lying liberal MSM and the race baiters. Your bias allowed you to believe what they were telling you. So now, in the wake of the trial, you are stunned to find that the evidence never did support the story that was presented by the lying, liberal MSM and the race baiters. Hence, your bias leads you to blindly reject the evidence and the verdict rendered by a jury.

FACT: Trayvon Martin's violent actions led to his own death. Martin suspected that Zimmerman was a security guard; nevertheless, per Jeantel, Martin made the conscious -- admittedly substance impaired -- decision to backtrack, confront and assault Zimmerman. Even Charles Barkley has stated that the evidence affirms that it was Martin's actions that led to the shooting.






You'll always be biased in your beliefs if you keep listening to race baiters like Sharpton.




The juror said the six-member, all-female jury followed Florida law and found the evidence did not warrant a murder conviction.

The Hispanic juror, Juror B29, said: "I stand by the decision because of the law."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2...t-awa/2587533/ Originally Posted by I B Hankering

ROTFLMAO!!

You presented the "THC" claim, but once you found out that I was educated on the fact that it wasn't enough in his system, you then disclaimed it. Then because the amount didn't fit your claim, you took a leap of saying that multiple test were required therefore he was under the influence. If the evidence does not show high levels despite a shortage of tests, then it's only fair to conclude that the levels were not high enough, OR that none could be found because of a lack of evidence to support otherwise. Unless black men are guilty until otherwise in your book?

You claim "race baiting" is the issue, but subscribe to Fox News in assumption that this is a right or left wing issue.

You never considered Martin to have the right to protect himself from an unaddressed man.

You scrutinize Trayvon for potential, smoking drinking. And being a thug, yet your very own George Bush was elected president TWICE despite being arrested twice for it.


You think that a human can run 220 yards by the time a person trailing them can go half that distance and meet them half way.

You think that a neighborhood watchman doesn't know where to find an address in a neighborhood that he has lived in for 4 years.

You believe that atheleticism and reach takes precedence over weight in fighting, despite any fighting discipline and or sport clearly suggesting different. You even went as far as suggesting that its just applies to professional fighting. LMAO!


I presented writings and videos by Tim Wise a well educated person in the field of topic, yet you thought that an interview with Charles Barkley would be sufficient? ROTFLMAO!

These are testimonies to your white lens viewing and your enability to see pass your political view and or disdain for blacks.

Every time you post it gets funny. A lighter, watermelon Arizona, or a hoodie, is illegal. So again what was the suspicion that let to the assault that ONLY Rachal Jeantel can testify to?

.

ROTFLMAO!!

You presented the "THC" claim, but once you found out that I was educated on the fact that it wasn't enough in his system, you then disclaimed it. No, you're making an untrue statement. Martin had THC in his system indicating he had recently been rollin' and smokin'. So you're making things up when you say otherwise.


You claim "race baiting" is the issue, but subscribe to Fox News in assumption that this is a right or left wing issue. Your quite mistaken. The trial was televised on HLN.


You never considered Martin to have the right to protect himself from an unaddressed man. The evidence fully substantiates Zimmerman's story; not your fantasy. Martin had ZERO head and face injuries but did have injuries on his hand. It was exactly the opposite with Zimmerman. He had no wounds on his hands, but had several injuries to his face and head.


You scrutinize Trayvon for potential, smoking drinking. And being a thug, yet your very own George Bush was elected president TWICE despite being arrested twice for it. Similarly, Clinton and Obama are self admitted users; so, take your deflecting elsewhere! Jeez!



You think that a human can run 220 yards by the time a person trailing them can go half that distance and meet them half way. Martin could have walked -- not run -- over three hundred yards in the time in question. There is no "meet them halfway" in that scenario. The only way that confrontation took place at that "T" is because Martin backtracked, confronted and assaulted Zimmerman at that "T".


You think that a neighborhood watchman doesn't know where to find an address in a neighborhood that he has lived in for 4 years. It's obvious he didn't. He couldn't tell the dispatcher where he was in the non-emergency call! Of course, you might be correct if you want to argue that Zimmerman is such an evil genius that he, with great prescience, staged this alibi before Martin disappeared into the darkness, before Zimmerman got out of his truck, before the fight started and before the shooting -- but AFTER he had CALLED the police. Is that what you are really arguing: that Zimmerman is a genius?


You believe that atheleticism and reach takes precedence over weight in fighting, despite any fighting discipline and or sport clearly suggesting different. You even went as far as suggesting that its just applies to professional fighting. LMAO! Keep laughing, it only illustrates your ignorance in the matter.


I presented writings and videos by Tim Wise a well educated person in the field of topic, to thought that an interview with Charles Barkley was sufficient. ROTFLMAO!
. . . and seven jurors! ROTFLMAO!!!!

Originally Posted by Mgm84