trevon martin

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. Originally Posted by Mgm84

I don't but apparently you do.

As far as the Hispanic being railroaded that is quite a stretch. If she was so certain that a conviction was warranted then she should have stood by her belief. Coming out afterward and acting like a victim is foolish. She had just as much say in the outcome of this trial as any other juror. She voted based on what the law says. She may feel that he should not have shot TM but based on the law GZ was justified.

You have to admit that the prosecution did a horrible job presenting their case and in almost every instance helped the defense. That could be because they are totally inept or because they did not have a case.

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.
. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

And again, you refuse to face facts. You ignore the fact that his levels were lower than "sober" and levels were too low to be high when he was killed.

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.
Some observers of the case note that the toxicology test also found 7.3 nanograms per milliliter of THC-COOH, one of the main metabolic byproducts formed as the liver breaks down THC. But these metabolites of marijuana have no psychoactive properties, and they have no effect on behavior. They can also remain in the body, like THC itself, for up to four weeks. This is why their presence does not reveal when — or exactly how much of — the drug was used.

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 are fighting the evidence. Let me further dismantle your perception with another read.


http://healthland.time.com/2012/05/1...s-it-matter-2/

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. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I don't but apparently you do.

As far as the Hispanic being railroaded that is quite a stretch. If she was so certain that a conviction was warranted then she should have stood by her belief. Coming out afterward and acting like a victim is foolish. She had just as much say in the outcome of this trial as any other juror. She voted based on what the law says. She may feel that he should not have shot TM but based on the law GZ was justified.

You have to admit that the prosecution did a horrible job presenting their case and in almost every instance helped the defense. That could be because they are totally inept or because they did not have a case. Originally Posted by Budman

She was railroaded into submitting into the going perception of what actually happened. For instance, there was no proof of ill will.

ill-will noun acerbity, acute dissatisfaction, alienation, animosity, animus, antagonism, antipathy, aversion, bad intent, belligerency, bitter feelings, chagrin, conflict, contrariety, coolness, deliberate mallce, detestation, disaffection, discontent, dislike, disquiet, dissatisfaction, enmity, hard feelings, hostility, ill disposiiion, incompatibility, inimicality, malevolence, malevolentia, malice, maliciousness, malignance, malignancy, odium, opposition, rancor, spite, spitefulness, strain, tension, unfriendliness, unfriendly feeling, unkindness, unpopularity, wrath

Zimmerman's call showed bitterness, unfriendliness, enmity, hostility, opposition, tension, and animosity. "Fucking punks", And "these assholes always get away", is crucial when considering the fact that this "assumed asshole" didn't get away by the hands of George. This could even be premeditated.


We can even consider the fact that he got out of his car premeditated. Now of course some will say "following is not against the law".

"that argument makes about as much sense as arguing that the purchase of a gun with intent to kill someone cannot be considered as evidence of premeditation because the person had a right to purchase the gun. Both arguments fail because a lawful act can be committed to achieve an unlawful result. Yes, indeed. A would-be bank robber can purchase a clunker to use as a getaway vehicle after robbing a bank.

As any lawyer familiar with the law of conspiracy well knows, conspiracy indictments typically allege the commission of lawful acts by co-conspirators in furtherance of objectives of a conspiracy. Thus, simple events like using a cell phone to confirm a scheduled meeting with a co-conspirator are often charged as overt acts in furtherance of a conspiracy.
Therefore, the issue is not whether the act itself was lawful. The issue is what was the actor’s intent when he committed the act."


http://frederickleatherman.com/2013/...-self-defense/


And on a side note Zimmerman willfully ignored two rules that are specifically given to the neighborhood watch. While that does not break a law, it can prove an ill will due to neglect can prove ill will.

. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

"Zimmerman: And, I was leaving my neighborhood when I saw this guy, walking slowly in front of a house, looking towards the house. And I knew he didn't live there, so that made me a little suspicious. And then he kept staring around him, at me, and behind. And it arose my suspicion. And then he was, it was raining. And, he didn't look like he was in a rush to get out the rain....."

And again, you refuse to face facts. You ignore the fact that his levels were lower than "sober" and levels were too low to be high when he was killed. Meanwhile, Medical examiner Shiping Bao testified that it could have "some effect.” Bao also testified that the sample taken was a degraded sample, and that it did not reflect the true amount of THC in Martin's system. And you continue to willfully ignore that use of this substance is illegal and it's the illegality of Martin's activity that would have made him paranoid regardless of the drug.

BANG! You are fighting the evidence. Let me further dismantle your perception with another read. You've refuted nothing.

http://healthland.time.com/2012/05/1...s-it-matter-2/

And again, you need to explain how or why does the person that could be defending himself be "rightfully" killed because he has gained the upper hand? So I guess the object is 'If you start to win the fight, hurry up and somehow start to lose'? Zimmerman's story was challenged by the medical examiner as "superficial wounds". George said his head was continuously banged against the concrete.

All the evidence indicates that Martin started the fight, not vice versa. BTW, you've just argued that Zimmerman had a right to defend and shoot Martin.

Now since you are giving scenarios, Zimmerman's head is also consistent with SLIPPING and hitting his head, Or falling and hitting his head when Trayvon connected with a jab ONCE OR MAYBE TWICE. Zimmerman having no wounds on his hands is also consistent with just that! Not having wounds on his hands. You act as if when you get into a fight, there must be wounds on your hands. Having had my share of fights, I can say that wounds on either fighters hands are not as common as you assume.

Now you are willfully ignoring eyewitness testimony that placed Martin on top of Zimmerman and Martin making downward thrusts at Zimmerman's head.

The evidence is not against Trayvon until you build ARBITRARY scenarios in your mind.

There's nothing "arbitrary" about the eyewitness testimony and physical evidence.

Sorry, deflecting is YOUR tactic. I'm only pointing out the double standard. Whites drug crimes and uses more than double that of blacks, yet the stigma is given to blacks. Trayvon's use translated in the minds of white America as "lead to his death", but George Bush's use along with a huge number of white teens is considered "just a phase."

Evidently you do not know the definition of "deflecting", because YOU deflected when you reached out and included George W. Bush in the Martin-Zimmerman case. BTW, you failed to cite where George Bush assaulted anyone and caused anyone to fear for his/her life.

And again! Your double standards are astounding. For the sake of argument, lets say Trayvon did come back and meet him. If you are going to consider George Zimmerman not guilty due to "not having an obligation to retreat", then how can you blame Trayvon for not retreating? Why does Trayvon have to go in his house, but Zimmerman does not have to stay in his car? It was a rule specifically placed for the neighborhood watch. I will expound on this later. Remember, Zimmerman pushed the first domino.

It's your contention that Trayvon Martin was a "scared little child". However, "scared little children" DO NOT confront and ASSAULT other individuals when escape is a viable option. If you assert that Martin "stood his ground" when he assaulted Zimmerman, then you've abandoned your "scared little child" scenario. Further, you've bolstered Zimmerman's argument that he had a right to shoot his assailant.

You went in red herring mode here. I guess you could not conjure up some justification for being the neighborhood watch for 4 years and not know where to find an address. But he magically went in the direction of Trayvon to find one? This is disingenuous. And talk about staging alibi's, he lied several times. Which gives reason to question the entire story. He claimed to not have the education to stage such events and get away with it, He claimed to not know where the address was when there was one IN HIS FACE. He claimed to not be able to fight but had 18 months of MMA training. He said that he shot Trayvon at the top of the "T", but his body was found 40+ ft away from that spot.

The evidence -- the transcript of the non-emergency call -- speaks for itself. Zimmerman could not give the dispatcher an address. Likewise, you continue to deny that Martin was a practiced street fighter who had actually beat on people -- not a punching bag in a health club. You can continue to foolishly deny the facts, but the facts are the facts.

No, but a lack of substance sure does prove a lack of knowledge. Laughing only implies that your response was a joke.

Incorrect! The "laughing" was and still is directed at you witless response.

Who were all carefully chosen to not relate to the actual victim. splended

So now you want to pretend that the prosecution did not play a role in selecting those jurors: the jurors who ruled "NOT GUILTY"??? Originally Posted by Mgm84

he was railroaded into submitting into the going perception of what actually happened. For instance, there was no proof of ill will.

Zimmerman's call showed bitterness, unfriendliness, enmity, hostility, opposition, tension, and animosity. "Fucking punks", And "these assholes always get away", is crucial when considering the fact that this "assumed asshole" didn't get away by the hands of George. This could even be premeditated.

We can even consider the fact that he got out of his car premeditated. Now of course some will say "following is not against the law".

"that argument makes about as much sense as arguing that the purchase of a gun with intent to kill someone cannot be considered as evidence of premeditation because the person had a right to purchase the gun. Both arguments fail because a lawful act can be committed to achieve an unlawful result. Yes, indeed. A would-be bank robber can purchase a clunker to use as a getaway vehicle after robbing a bank.

As any lawyer familiar with the law of conspiracy well knows, conspiracy indictments typically allege the commission of lawful acts by co-conspirators in furtherance of objectives of a conspiracy. Thus, simple events like using a cell phone to confirm a scheduled meeting with a co-conspirator are often charged as overt acts in furtherance of a conspiracy.
Therefore, the issue is not whether the act itself was lawful. The issue is what was the actor’s intent when he committed the act."

And on a side note Zimmerman willfully ignored two rules that are specifically given to the neighborhood watch. While that does not break a law, it can prove an ill will due to neglect can prove ill will. 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, wasn't "railroaded" into any decision. She said: "I stand by the decision because of the law."

BTW, regarding that ABC interview: The media are reporting that a juror says Zimmerman is guilty of murder. That’s not true. By William Saletan

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...ng_framed.html

She was railroaded into submitting into the going perception of what actually happened. For instance, there was no proof of ill will.

She was not railroaded into anything. She had just as much say so as any other juror. Because she was convinced by the other jurors does not mean she was railroaded. She either could not or did not try to convince the others of her belief or she actually believed as all the others but now wants to play this victim bullshit.





Zimmerman's call showed bitterness, unfriendliness, enmity, hostility, opposition, tension, and animosity. "Fucking punks", And "these assholes always get away", is crucial when considering the fact that this "assumed asshole" didn't get away by the hands of George. This could even be premeditated.


We can even consider the fact that he got out of his car premeditated. Now of course some will say "following is not against the law".

You are really reaching now. Good luck convincing anybody with this bullshit.

"that argument makes about as much sense as arguing that the purchase of a gun with intent to kill someone cannot be considered as evidence of premeditation because the person had a right to purchase the gun. Both arguments fail because a lawful act can be committed to achieve an unlawful result. Yes, indeed. A would-be bank robber can purchase a clunker to use as a getaway vehicle after robbing a bank.

As any lawyer familiar with the law of conspiracy well knows, conspiracy indictments typically allege the commission of lawful acts by co-conspirators in furtherance of objectives of a conspiracy. Thus, simple events like using a cell phone to confirm a scheduled meeting with a co-conspirator are often charged as overt acts in furtherance of a conspiracy.
Therefore, the issue is not whether the act itself was lawful. The issue is what was the actor’s intent when he committed the act."




http://frederickleatherman.com/2013/...-self-defense/


And on a side note Zimmerman willfully ignored two rules that are specifically given to the neighborhood watch. While that does not break a law, it can prove an ill will due to neglect can prove ill will. Originally Posted by Mgm84

GZ was not on watch patrol. He was returning from running errands. Not that it matters. TM caused his own death by making this a physical confrontation. Bitch and whine all you want the ultimate cause was TM beating GZ.

All this deliberation isn't going to change the fact that this case was about black on anything but black rqcism. Period. The end. We could go at this for literally another hundred pages and that fact isn't going to change.

GZ was not on watch patrol. He was returning from running errands. Not that it matters. TM caused his own death by making this a physical confrontation. Bitch and whine all you want the ultimate cause was TM beating GZ. Originally Posted by Budman

Correction. He was supposedly on his way to target. I notice you provided no support for your stance. You also subscribed to the typical "lets play dumb" tactic that white America has subscribed to. If you admit that she was convinced, and by her own testimony said that "I wanted a conviction", you can only conclude that she was RAILROADED.


As I already tried to show you that she had plenty of room and right to conclude ill will, but was bullied (mentally) that she had no other choice based on misinterpretations, lies, and a manufacture perception of what was the truth by the group.

Meanwhile, Medical examiner Shiping Bao testified that it could have "some effect.” Bao also testified that the sample taken was a degraded sample, and that it did not reflect the true amount of THC in Martin's system. And you continue to willfully ignore that use of this substance is illegal and it's the illegality of Martin's activity that would have made him paranoid regardless of the drug. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Ok this is my last reply to you are your "play dumb" tactics that you continue to use.
This statement in bold is full of uncertainties and speculation that is not plausible UNTIL you make that convenient jump. "Some effect", and "a degraded sample" does not constitute "THC level must have been higher than expected therefore it must have been enough to be considered under the influence." This what you are doing is self serving and far from objective.

He's only paranoid because YOU convicted him of being under the influence despite the evidence not supporting your assumption. Nothing you say is based on clear facts.

All the evidence indicates that Martin started the fight, not vice versa. BTW, you've just argued that Zimmerman had a right to defend and shoot Martin.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Please show this "evidence"? Remember, Trayvon had no obligation to retreat or "go inside like a good old boy", just as Zimmerman didn't. And a Broken nose and scrapes on the head only proves casualties of a fight and not the initiation of a fight.

It's your contention that Trayvon Martin was a "scared little child". However, "scared little children" DO NOT confront and ASSAULT other individuals when escape is a viable option. If you assert that Martin "stood his ground" when he assaulted Zimmerman, then you've abandoned your "scared little child" scenario. Further, you've bolstered Zimmerman's argument that he had a right to shoot his assailant. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Correction:

“Are you following him?” the operator for the Sanford police’s non-emergency line asks Zimmerman. “Yeah,” he says. The dispatcher on the phone tells him: “We don’t need you to do that.”

Zimmerman CONFRONTED, Trayvon was in the defense. So basically in your mind, a child cannot defend himself? Who called Trayvon a "scared little child"? In your white lens what constitutes scared? Being in the fetal position? Shivering like a cartoon character? His fear was shown when he ran. Bravery and common sense was shown when he decided not to lead a stranger to his home.

Now you are willfully ignoring eyewitness testimony that placed Martin on top of Zimmerman and Martin making downward thrusts at Zimmerman's head Originally Posted by I B Hankering

If Trayvon continuously punched George, where are the other broken facial bones? I mean since Trayvon is Mike Tyson. And talk about ignoring witnesses, didn't Jantel testify that Trayvon told Zimmerman to "Get off me"? Selective selective.

http://politicalblindspot.org/martia...immerman-lied/


Bang!!

Evidently you do not know the definition of "deflecting", because YOU deflected when you reached out and included George W. Bush in the Martin-Zimmerman case. BTW, you failed to cite where George Bush assaulted anyone and caused anyone to fear for his/her life. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Neither can you site where Trayvon "assaulted" anyone. And I can show you where George Bush caused MILLIONS to fear for their lives, and succeeded at finishing the job. Don't go there buddy.

What I did was a COMPARISON. The difference is that the George Bush answer was not an answer or rebuttal to your comment, but an example of a double standard. The fact that Tryvon's SUSPECTED uses earned him a death sentence in your mind. But Bush's uses, AND alcoholism, granted him presidency. I rebuttaled that logic with to many different reasons to use a deflection. It has already been debunked.

The evidence -- the transcript of the non-emergency call -- speaks for itself. Zimmerman could not give the dispatcher an address. Likewise, you continue to deny that Martin was a practiced street fighter who had actually beat on people -- not a punching bag in a health club. You can continue to foolishly deny the facts, but the facts are the facts. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Practice=
1
a : carry out, apply <practice what you preach>
b : to do or perform often, customarily, or habitually <practice politeness>
c : to be professionally engaged in <practice medicine>
2
a : to perform or work at repeatedly so as to become proficient <practice the act>
b : to train by repeated exercises <practice pupils in penmanship>



To use terms such as "practice", is disingenuous and shows that you are not into clarity, but self serving. You found a few reports of fighting, and translated that in "practicing". You have no dignity dude.

You know who admitted to practice PROFFESSIONAL FIGHTING? George Zimmerman!! Who would you put your money on? The best street fighter or the best heavy weight boxer, UFC fighter, Martial artist, or MMA fighter? Go on and continue with your disingenuous and face saving answer.

Incorrect! The "laughing" was and still is directed at you witless response Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Here is a fact Mr Dullard.


Dude it is not hard to find a video of someone smaller getting the best of a larger person because vice versa is nothing surprising or special which tells us what? THAT IT IS COMMON FOR THE LARGER PERSON TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVANTAGE IN A FIGHT. Posting videos of big people beating smaller people will impress who? Answer this Who would you put your money on?


Mike Tyson or Manny Paquiao?


Benson Henderson or Cain Velasquez – UFC (Champion


Brock Lesnar or Rey Mysterio Jr?


And I can go on and on. Now what is the Greatest Common Factor of all of those matches? So you go on and continue using the "play dumb card" as if you are not aware of the inhumane, and white supremacy actions of George Zimmerman in order to allow yourself to feel comfortable by pretending that something that does not affect you in the least doesn't exist and cannot possibly happen.


As long as both you and I know that had the roles been reversed, your view would have been totally different. Even Nancy Grace agree to that.


http://www.hlntv.com/video/2013/07/1...shot-white-boy

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, wasn't "railroaded" into any decision. She said: "I stand by the decision because of the law."

BTW, regarding that ABC interview: The media are reporting that a juror says Zimmerman is guilty of murder. That’s not true. By William Saletan

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...ng_framed.html


Originally Posted by I B Hankering

http://politicalblindspot.org/anothe...headline-news/

Where is the "race baiting"? Where is the media attention? The only ones who are being baited into believing anything are a large number of white Americans, and some blacks that have a need to be accepted by the dominant society to believe the racism no longer exist and open avenues for them to play dumb on the many examples of racism.

Ok this is my last reply to you are your "play dumb" tactics that you continue to use.
This statement in bold is full of uncertainties and speculation that is not plausible UNTIL you make that convenient jump. "Some effect", and "a degraded sample" does not constitute "THC level must have been higher than expected therefore it must have been enough to be considered under the influence." The amount detected is enough to have some effect on Martin's behavior, and "degraded" means "degraded". This what you are doing is self serving and far from objective. The jurors were being "objective"; you're not!

He's only paranoid because YOU convicted him of being under the influence despite the evidence not supporting your assumption. Nothing you say is based on clear facts. Using an illegal substance is illegal, no matter how you deflect.

Please show this "evidence"? Remember, Trayvon had no obligation to retreat or "go inside like a good old boy", just as Zimmerman didn't. Martin forfeited a two to three minute lead when he returned to the "T" to assault Zimmerman. And a Broken nose and scrapes on the head only proves casualties of a fight and not the initiation of a fight. Martin has no such injuries which affirms that Zimmerman did not hit him.

Correction:

Zimmerman CONFRONTED, Trayvon was in the defense. It wasn't self-defense when Martin -- having successfully eluded Zimmerman with a two to three minute lead -- backtracked, confronted and assaulted Zimmerman at the "T". So basically in your mind, a child cannot defend himself? Initiating a physical confrontation is not "self-defense". Who called Trayvon a "scared little child"? The liberal MSM and the race baiters! In your white lens what constitutes scared? You're equivocating! Being in the fetal position? You're equivocating! Shivering like a cartoon character? You're equivocating! His fear was shown when he ran. Bravery and common sense was shown when he decided not to lead a stranger to his home. Your conjecture is ridiculous. FACT: Martin had a two or three minute lead on Zimmerman, and Martin could have gone safely indoors and Zimmerman would never have known where he went.


If Trayvon continuously punched George, where are the other broken facial bones? I mean since Trayvon is Mike Tyson. You're equivocating! No one ever equated Martin to Tyson. And talk about ignoring witnesses, didn't Jantel testify that Trayvon told Zimmerman to "Get off me"? Selective selective. Jeantel also testified that she heard the sound of "wet grass". Jeantel testified that Martin confronted Zimmerman. Jeantel testified that Martin recognized that Zimmerman was acting in some manner as a "security guard"; yet, Martin turned, backtracked, confronted and assaulted Zimmerman. Jeantel testified that Martin had reached his dad's girlfriend's townhouse; yet, Martin turned, backtracked, confronted and assaulted Zimmerman.

http://politicalblindspot.org/martia...immerman-lied/

Bang!!

Neither can you site where Trayvon "assaulted" anyone. Check the court transcript. The evidence and witness testimony affirms that Martin assaulted Zimmerman. And I can show you where George Bush caused MILLIONS to fear for their lives, and succeeded at finishing the job. Deflection! Don't go there buddy. Deflection!

What I did was a COMPARISON. The difference is that the George Bush answer was not an answer or rebuttal to your comment, but an example of a double standard. Deflection! The fact that Tryvon's SUSPECTED uses earned him a death sentence in your mind. It was Martin's assault on Zimmerman that bought him a death sentence. But Bush's uses, AND alcoholism, granted him presidency.Deflection! I rebuttaled that logic with to many different reasons to use a deflection. It has already been debunked.Deflection!

Practice=
1
a : carry out, apply <practice what you preach>
b : to do or perform often, customarily, or habitually <practice politeness>
c : to be professionally engaged in <practice medicine>
2
a : to perform or work at repeatedly so as to become proficient <practice the act>
b : to train by repeated exercises <practice pupils in penmanship>

To use terms such as "practice", is disingenuous and shows that you are not into clarity, but self serving. You found a few reports of fighting, and translated that in "practicing". If Martin had no "skills", why were others asking him to teach them how to fight? You have no dignity dude.

You know who admitted to practice PROFFESSIONAL FIGHTING? George Zimmerman!! Zimmerman went to a health club to lose weight. Billy Blank's 'Tae Bo' videos teach MMA techniques; so, it's your fantasy contention that everyone who ever watched and exercised to a Billy Blank's video is a 'professional MMA fighter'??? Really???? Who would you put your money on? The best street fighter or the best heavy weight boxer, UFC fighter, Martial artist, or MMA fighter? So you imagine that "gangsta-wanna-be's" don't watch MMA and incorporate MMA techniques into their street fighting? Dream on, fantasy child! Go on and continue with your disingenuous and face saving answer.

Here is a fact Mr Dullard.

Dude it is not hard to find a video of someone smaller getting the best of a larger person because vice versa is nothing surprising or special which tells us what? THAT IT IS COMMON FOR THE LARGER PERSON TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVANTAGE IN A FIGHT. Posting videos of big people beating smaller people will impress who? Answer this Who would you put your money on? What say you put aside your ignorance and listen to the wisdom of a professional fighter: Larry Holmes said, "[S]ize don’t matter it’s what you can do in the ring, just look at Ali. Ernie Terrell was a big guy and Ali did what we usually do with them we wear them down. Skill and talent always beats size, the guys taking over today are doing so because of training."

Mike Tyson or Manny Paquiao? Read Larry Holmes' remark again.

Benson Henderson or Cain Velasquez – UFC (Champion Read Larry Holmes' remark again.

Brock Lesnar or Rey Mysterio Jr? Read Larry Holmes' remark again.

And I can go on and on. Read Larry Holmes' remark again. Now what is the Greatest Common Factor of all of those matches? Read Larry Holmes' remark again. So you go on and continue using the "play dumb card" as if you are not aware of the inhumane, and white supremacy actions of George Zimmerman in order to allow yourself to feel comfortable by pretending that something that does not affect you in the least doesn't exist and cannot possibly happen. Read Larry Holmes' remark again: he's the 'professional', not you.

As long as both you and I know that had the roles been reversed, your view would have been totally different. Even Nancy Grace agree to that. Nancy Grace is part of the liberal MSM that's been lying and distorting the facts of this case since it started!

http://www.hlntv.com/video/2013/07/1...shot-white-boy Originally Posted by Mgm84

http://politicalblindspot.org/anothe...headline-news/

Where is the "race baiting"? Where is the media attention? The only ones who are being baited into believing anything are a large number of white Americans, and some blacks that have a need to be accepted by the dominant society to believe the racism no longer exist and open avenues for them to play dumb on the many examples of racism. Originally Posted by Mgm84

You are being facetious -- again!!! You need no guidance to find the "race baiters", you've already admitted your watching and listening to the "race baiters", e.g., Nancy Grace.

Correction. He was supposedly on his way to target. I notice you provided no support for your stance. You also subscribed to the typical "lets play dumb" tactic that white America has subscribed to. If you admit that she was convinced, and by her own testimony said that "I wanted a conviction", you can only conclude that she was RAILROADED.

As I already tried to show you that she had plenty of room and right to conclude ill will, but was bullied (mentally) that she had no other choice based on misinterpretations, lies, and a manufacture perception of what was the truth by the group. Originally Posted by Mgm84

Once again you are equivocating. 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, wasn't "railroaded" into any decision. She said: "I stand by the decision because of the law."

BTW, regarding that ABC interview: The media are reporting that a juror says Zimmerman is guilty of murder. That’s not true. By William Saletan

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...ng_framed.html

Correction. He was supposedly on his way to target. I notice you provided no support for your stance. You also subscribed to the typical "lets play dumb" tactic that white America has subscribed to. If you admit that she was convinced, and by her own testimony said that "I wanted a conviction", you can only conclude that she was RAILROADED.


As I already tried to show you that she had plenty of room and right to conclude ill will, but was bullied (mentally) that she had no other choice based on misinterpretations, lies, and a manufacture perception of what was the truth by the group. Originally Posted by Mgm84

You can't be serious. Because she was convinced to vote not guilty does not translate to being railroaded. You are so caught up in the race aspect of this that no matter what facts were presented at trial you believe someone had to be bullied. If she was so sure that a conviction was warranted then she should have held to her belief even if it meant a hung jury. Don't come out after the fact and whine like a little bitch.

Thank you for pointing out that he was on his way to Target and not returning. That makes so much difference in this matter. I'm curious as to why you previously stated that he was on patrol when you knew he was on his way to Target. Were you trying to convince others (translation: RAILROAD) on what a horrible person GZ is?

The amount detected is enough to have some effect on Martin's behavior, and "degraded" means "degraded". Originally Posted by I B Hankering

And again, you are so focus on protecting your gun and conservative paranoia, that you keep forgetting 1 important fact.

"That’s a mistake that only serves to distort an already contentious case. The levels of THC detected don’t reflect Martin’s character or even his state of mind the night he was shot. For one, they are so low as to almost certainly not be connected to recent intoxication: 1.5 nanograms of THC were found as well as 7.3 nanograms of THC-COOH, a metabolite of THC that can stay in the system for weeks after cannabis has been smoked. Immediately after inhaling, THC levels typically rise to 100 to 200 nanograms per milliter of blood, although there can be a great deal of variation.

“THC in blood or urine tells us nothing about the level of intoxication,” says Carl Hart, associate professor of psychology at Columbia University and author of the leading college textbook on drug use and behavior. “That would be like someone going to have a beer some evening, and when he goes to work the next day, you can find alcohol metabolites in his bodily fluids. That says nothing about his functioning.”


And he goes on to further say that even if he was under the influence, THC will not predispose him to violence. And that is a scientific fact.



[/QUOTE=I B Hankering;1053526978]behavior, and "degraded" means "degraded". [/QUOTE]


And traces mean just that........TRACES. If a degraded sample means inaccurate, insufficient, or ruined sample, that can NEVER translate to "THC levels must have been higher" because that is based on complete speculation. If speculation holds weight based on other speculative parts of the story, cant I conclude that George was under the influence but they never tested him? You cant have it both ways.

Using an illegal substance is illegal, no matter how you deflect. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Ok, well since we KNOW from statistical fact that white teens use drugs 2 to 3 times more that black teens, by your own logic that would demand we see more violent cases of whites teens when they consume drugs and more George Zimmerman like cases. Or it would mean that the idea is BS. Unless you are suggesting that drugs make blacks violent and whites peaceful? It seems that THC becomes a violent drug only when it can be used to mold white America into believing the "Thug Black Man" myth. SMH!!!

And the only deflection in this case and many different discussions on this case is the answer to "Why did he follow him" being......."It isn't illegal to follow him". As if following isn't a legal action that leads to MANY illegal actions and rightfully causes someone to become suspicious of the person following them. Keep playing dumb.

You tend to apply your conclusions in ways that only benefit your white lens, but every time you do, you dismantle your previous claim and makes it more obvious that you are playing dumb to save face.

Martin forfeited a two to three minute lead when he returned to the "T" to assault Zimmerman. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

WRONG! When Martin ran, Zimmerman "followed him". How can Zimmerman know where Trayvon went if he had a 2 to 3 minute lead? Trayvon could not see Zimmerman's car so how would he know to "meet him"? Remember, the only person who could see was George being that he had a flash light. Using logic would go a long way.

Check the court transcript. The evidence and witness testimony affirms that Martin assaulted Zimmerman Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Assault= Make a physical attack on


How can they get from the altercation being started at the Top of the "T" and the body of the guy who was winning the fight is found up to 50+ ft away from where Zimmerman began getting "assaulted" without some sort of tussle? A tussle implies what? A FIGHT!! Meaning that they had to have made physical attacks on each other. Zimmerman NEVER said to have run or avoid Martin. So how did he get from point A to point B? And were was the phantom bushes?

But never mind. Continue to play dumb.

Your conjecture is ridiculous. FACT: Martin had a two or three minute lead on Zimmerman, and Martin could have gone safely indoors and Zimmerman would never have known where he went. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

And again, you have yet to answer my question on what constitutes fear more than running? And is it not commonly known to not lead strangers to your house?


Your continuous insinuating that "he should have gone inside" is derived from a "SUNDOWN TOWN" mentality. Please tell us, why was the burden of avoidance and retreating on the man minding his own business, but the guy initiating the conflict is not held responsible to do so?

But keep playing dumb.

Jeantel also testified that she heard the sound of "wet grass". Jeantel testified that Martin confronted Zimmerman. Jeantel testified that Martin recognized that Zimmerman was acting in some manner as a "security guard"; yet, Martin turned, backtracked, confronted and assaulted Zimmerman. Jeantel testified that Martin had reached his dad's girlfriend's townhouse; yet, Martin turned, backtracked, confronted and assaulted Zimmerman. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

ROTFLMAO!! So hearing wet grass when two people are fighting means that "the black man must have been up to no good"? How do you know that the wet grass was not Zimmerman? Or both people? This is epic! Jeantel testified that had Trayvon thought Zimmerman was a security guard he would have announced himself. But since Zimmerman chose not to present himself accordingly, he had no obligation to translate whether or not Zimmerman was a some sort of authority.


That's why security normally wear SECURITY attire. Cops wear cop attire and drive in cop cars. Zimmerman had an obligation to present himself in the proper manner.

But keep playing dumb

So you imagine that "gangsta-wanna-be's" don't watch MMA and incorporate MMA techniques into their street fighting? Dream on, fantasy child! Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Ok, this is SPECUALTION. And please tell us what Trayvon did that night to make himself a "gangsta-wanna be" that I cannot show you an example of "pure white teens" doing? You said weed, although white teens do the most. You said photos of guns (despite more whites being owners and having infatuations with guns). You said fighting (despite whites also committing more violent crimes than blacks). Yet none of those white kids get the "thug" stigma. This is not a case of race baiting, this is a case of racial denial.

Zimmerman went to a health club to lose weight. Billy Blank's 'Tae Bo' videos teach MMA techniques; so, it's your fantasy contention that everyone who ever watched and exercised to a Billy Blank's video is a 'professional MMA fighter'??? Originally Posted by I B Hankering

This is disingenuous. Zimmerman went to a GYM that specifically teaches MMA fighting and techniques. Billy Blanks videos cannot and does not teach you what you can learn in the gym Zimmerman went to. Its like comparing and equating a very good Madden player to an NFL player in football knowledge. One is the real deal and the other is EXTREMELY WATERED DOWN. Huge fail.

What say you put aside your ignorance and listen to the wisdom of a professional fighter: Larry Holmes said, "[S]ize don’t matter it’s what you can do in the ring, just look at Ali. Ernie Terrell was a big guy and Ali did what we usually do with them we wear them down. Skill and talent always beats size, the guys taking over today are doing so because of training." Originally Posted by I B Hankering

What is the common factor in that fight? THEY WERE BOTH HEAVYWEIGHTS!


While you post comments from flabby Larry, I'll show you evidence that cannot lie or give an opinion.


http://fightnomics.com/featured/size-matters/


http://ringtalk.com/does-size-really...tter-in-boxing


Stop subscribing to clichés


Keep playing dumb.

You can't be serious. Because she was convinced to vote not guilty does not translate to being railroaded. You are so caught up in the race aspect of this that no matter what facts were presented at trial you believe someone had to be bullied. If she was so sure that a conviction was warranted then she should have held to her belief even if it meant a hung jury. Don't come out after the fact and whine like a little bitch.

Thank you for pointing out that he was on his way to Target and not returning. That makes so much difference in this matter. I'm curious as to why you previously stated that he was on patrol when you knew he was on his way to Target. Were you trying to convince others (translation: RAILROAD) on what a horrible person GZ is? Originally Posted by Budman

This is just pure stupidity. Where do I start? Have you ever heard of being pressured and lead to make a big mistake?

And it would support your belief if he was returning. If he is on his way to target, then wouldn't that further warrant staying in his car? Getting out of his car showed a hero tendency when it was not necessary. If he was not "on patrol" why was his foundation based on his "community watch" title? So using your own logic he should have reacted as if he was "off duty" and not seeked out Trayvon? BANG!!


But keep playing dumb.

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pw4utMiNido

This video puts what happened that night into perspective that is actually plausible.


1) It can account for the unaddressed 40-60ft difference between Zimmerman's claim that the fight started at "the top of the T".


2) It straightens the "Trayvon backtracked and assaulted Zimmerman to straighten him out" deduction that is made by closet klansmen.

3) It gives placement to the 2 minute gap between Zimmerman's disconnect with the dispatcher, and the 911 call.

4) It shows how the walk from the end of the T and Zimmerman's truck only takes 20 seconds. That leaves

5) At 7:13:37 Zimmerman claimed that he hung up with the dispatcher and headed toward his truck when Trayvon hoped out of the bushes and attacked him a the top of the "T". Problem is that this was still 2 minutes away from the 911 call. Meaning he has been caught in yet another inconsistency.


At this point the only thing the Zimmerman apologists can do is continue to play the "play dumb card". This is more than enough to rest my argument.