The Zimmerman thread!

[Dread_Lord]

Originally Posted by Rust

Again, I know you didn't bring up the law; your whole argument depends on ignoring the law and focusing on your meaningless opinion on "behavioral issues" ( ). You don't want the law brought up because it doesn't help your case. You want to bring it up whenever someone mentions that Zimmerman didn't have to follow Martin, but you want to ignore it whenever you say Martin should have run if he was scared.

Let me see if I can highlight the important details for your dumb ass.

SOMEONE MADE THE CLAIM THAT IT WAS ILLEGAL FOR ZIMMERMAN TO FOLLOW TRAYVON

Are you with me you slow fucking idiot?

THIS IS THE ONLY REASON I SAID IT WAS LEGAL FOR ZIMMERMAN TO FOLLOW TRAYVON

Not to mention that we now know the Operator requested that Zimmerman follow Trayvon to see where he went.

It has absolutely jack shit to do with your straw man argument about the legality of Trayvons destination. Your argument, once again, makes no fucking sense whatsoever. It doesn't relate to my argument in any fucking way imaginable. All further comments on this matter are ignored.

No it doesn't. There is only one piece of evidence so far that attests to who started the fight, and that's the testimony of the defendant. That's not proof of anything. You don't know it for a fact. You're exaggerating as much as IIIII.

That's good enough, unless you have evidence he is lying. You don't, do you? Of course you don't.

[Tachosomoza]

Lol at dread lord thinking people give a shit that he ignores them.

[IIIII]

Originally Posted by mizled

Then you shouldn't have asked.

It was a rhetorical question

[Dread_Lord]

Here is the corridor that Trayvon ran down. He had 2:30 minutes to get to the end. Could he have done it?

I could do that in 2:30 with using only my boner doing penis flexes to push myself backwards down the sidewalk.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Dread_Lord

Let me see if I can highlight the important details for your dumb ass.

SOMEONE MADE THE CLAIM THAT IT WAS ILLEGAL FOR ZIMMERMAN TO FOLLOW TRAYVON

Are you with me you slow fucking idiot?

THIS IS THE ONLY REASON I SAID IT WAS LEGAL FOR ZIMMERMAN TO FOLLOW TRAYVON

Not quite true. Some people did claim that he broke the law then, yes, but others simply pointed out that he didn't follow directions (whether it was illegal or not). The same response "It's not illegal to follow the person" was given both times. That's the point. The excuse "It's not illegal for Zimmerman to follow Martin" was used, and you accepted that gladly, whenever someone mentioned he followed Martin, but when it comes time to answer whether Martin should have run if he was scared, you automatically refuse to bring the law into it. You want to discuss your meaningless opinion on behavioral issues because that's the only place your argument survives: your opinion.

Not to mention that we now know the Operator requested that Zimmerman follow Trayvon to see where he went.

Really? Where? Was that before or after the operator told him not follow?

It has absolutely jack shit to do with your straw man argument about the legality of Trayvons destination. Your argument, once again, makes no fucking sense whatsoever. It doesn't relate to my argument in any fucking way imaginable. All further comments on this matter are ignored.

It absolutely relates. You insist that he should have run home if he was scared. He doesn't have to run home. He can confront Zimmerman verbally as much as he wants, and still be within the law. That's the relevant point. You may say it's stupid to do so, sure, (just like others would say Zimmerman was stupid for following him) but not against the law, and not proof that he assaulted Zimmerman first.

That's good enough, unless you have evidence he is lying. You don't, do you? Of course you don't.

No, the testimony of the accused isn't good enough. According to your retarded logic, there wouldn't be any trials trials where the accused pleads not-guilty since their testimony would be enough to prove their innocence. You're a moron,.

[mizled]

Originally Posted by IIIII

It was a rhetorical question

Too rhetorical;didn't read.

[Dread_Lord]

Originally Posted by Rust

Not quite true. Some people did claim that he broke the law then, yes,

Which automatically makes it true, you fucking idiot. Not "note quite true". It's either true or it is not.

but others simply pointed out that he didn't follow directions (whether it was illegal or not). The same response "It's not illegal to follow the person" was given both times.

Quote me. You sound either out of context or wrong. I would not have used that reply for that response and I doubt I did.

That's the point. The excuse "It's not illegal for Zimmerman to follow Martin" was used, and you accepted that gladly, whenever someone mentioned he followed Martin, but when it comes time to answer whether Martin should have run if he was scared, you automatically refuse to bring the law into it. You want to discuss your meaningless opinion on behavioral issues because that's the only place your argument survives: your opinion.

Because it's not a question of legality, you simpleton. Conversation over.

In my replies they were
Really? Where? Was that before or after the operator told him not follow?

Way before. It was the reason he was following Trayvon in the first place. Why don't you actually try watching the video I posted.

It absolutely relates. You insist that he should have run home if he was scared. He doesn't have to run home. He can confront Zimmerman verbally as much as he wants, and still be within the law. That's the relevant point. You may say it's stupid to do so, sure, (just like others would say Zimmerman was stupid for following him) but not against the law, and not proof that he assaulted Zimmerman first.

Yes, but he didn't do that, he assaulted Zimmerman and tried to murder him by banging his head into the ground and going for Zimmermans gun.
Zimmerman was instructed to follow him.

No, the testimony of the accused isn't good enough. According to your retarded logic, there wouldn't be any trials trials where the accused pleads not-guilty since their testimony would be enough to prove their innocence. You're a moron,.

If there was no evidence to prove them guilty then that is good enough. In this case, there is no evidence to prove Zimmerman guilty, so it's good enough. The testimony of the accused is considered evidence, by the way.
Deal with it.

[Iehovah]

Originally Posted by Dread_Lord

He pushed an ATF agent while drunk and they dropped the charges.

Still attests to behavioral issues. Do you make it a habit of getting drunk and pushing people around?

In fact there is no evidence that he was asked by the non emergency operator to follow Trayvon...so IN YOUR FACE! haha, fucking idiots.

Of course he wasn't asked to, you dumb cunt. He was already doing it ON HIS OWN INITIATIVE. Then he called the operator and they told him to fuck off stalking the kid. Or do you deny that Zimmerman had been following him up to that point and need a copy/pasted transcript of that 911 call with all the details Zimmerman gave them?

He bought, and carried, the firearm for protection. Originally against a rogue pit bull, but turns out it came in useful against a feral nigger.

... in 2009.

While it may have been entirely within his rights as an American citizen, it seems that carrying is against the neighborhood watch guidelines, something Zimmerman probably got away with because he was the ONLY MEMBER.

Totally separate issue.

Lying your ass off about your assets in a court of law is a totally separate issue? I'd agree that it shouldn't have any bearing on his conviction or acquittal, it does say a fuck load about his integrity, and stacked with the fact that he carries a gun in defiance of the rules of the neighborhood that he claims to want to protect...

... yeah, not a totally separate issue.

[IIIII]

So some people think that if a person wants to walk around at night in the rain - a person who has committed no wrong or broken any laws at all - then some people think that that person should arm himself in case someone like Zimmerman is armed and sees them not committing a crime

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Dread_Lord

Which automatically makes it true, you fucking idiot. Not "note quite true". It's either true or it is not.

Only if you're a moron who doesn't understand that "Not quite true" could mean you ignored a crucial detail. Now you've resorted to attacking my word choice?

Quote me. You sound either out of context or wrong. I would not have used that reply for that response and I doubt I did.

I don't have to quote you, I have to quote other people who said that Zimmerman didn't follow directions.

Because it's not a question of legality, you simpleton. Conversation over.

Of course it is. Your opinion of what his actions should have been is irrelevant. Nobody cares.

Way before. It was the reason he was following Trayvon in the first place. Why don't you actually try watching the video I posted.

Really? Where? Where in this call does he tell him to follow Martin "way before" he told him not to follow?

Trayvon Martin News [SHOCKING FULL] Murder Caught on Tape | Killed By George Zimmerman 911 Call # 1 - YouTube

Trayvon Martin News [SHOCKING FULL] Murder Caught on Tape | Killed By George Zimmerman 911 Call # 1 - YouTube
Video: click to display

Yes, but he didn't do that, he assaulted Zimmerman and tried to murder him by banging his head into the ground and going for Zimmermans gun.
Zimmerman was instructed to follow him.

And he didn't need to do that. So your point is what? That he didn't act as you think scared people should? Who gives a fuck what you think?

And no, you don't know he assaulted Zimmerman. You're doing exactly what IIIII: talking out of your ass and exaggerating.

If there was no evidence to prove them guilty then that is good enough. In this case, there is no evidence to prove Zimmerman guilty, so it's good enough.
Deal with it.

Except you don't decide that, do you? The court does. You have no say on whether there is enough evidence to contradict Zimmerman's testimony, which is questionable to begin with as he's the accused.

[Pee Vee Proots, M.D.]

Originally Posted by IIIII

So some people think that if a person wants to walk around at night in the rain - a person who has committed no wrong or broken any laws at all - then some people think that that person should arm himself in case someone like Zimmerman is armed and sees them not committing a crime

It's worth mentioning this happened in Florida. Being "outside in the rain" is pretty much synonymous with being outside in the afternoon/evening. Hardly suspicious behavior.

[( )]

Originally Posted by Rust

Not quite true. Some people did claim that he broke the law then, yes, but others simply pointed out that he didn't follow directions

A dispatcher pointing out to somebody that they don't have to do something is not a command.

[Dread_Lord]

Originally Posted by Rust

Only if you're a moron who doesn't understand that "Not quite true" could mean you ignored a crucial detail. Now you've resorted to attacking my word choice?

True is an absolute. Deal with it. What I said was true, so I was attacking your statement that it was not true, not your word choice.

I don't have to quote you, I have to quote other people who said that Zimmerman didn't follow directions.

Then what you said I said didn't happen. Fuck you. Quote me or forget about talking about it with me.

Of course it is. Your opinion of what his actions should have been is irrelevant. Nobody cares.

I said conversation over.

Really? Where? Where in this call does he tell him to follow Martin "way before" he told him not to follow?

Trayvon Martin News [SHOCKING FULL] Murder Caught on Tape | Killed By George Zimmerman 911 Call # 1 - YouTube

No clue.

And he didn't need to do that. So your point is what? That he didn't act as you think scared people should? Who gives a fuck what you think?

And no, you don't know he assaulted Zimmerman. You're doing exactly what IIIII: talking out of your ass and exaggerating.

I'm not guessing how people act it's a fucking fact. When fleeing in fear you head towards safety. It's a human reaction, not a guess.
Safety is not towards the person you're fleeing from.

Except you don't decide that, do you? The court does. You have no say on whether there is enough evidence to contradict Zimmerman's testimony, which is questionable to begin with as he's the accused.

What the court decides is not what is fact. Stop trying to make an appeal to authority. Just because the court is authority does not make what they say a fact. Learn 2 logic you pathetic fucktard.

[Pee Vee Proots, M.D.]

It's weird seeing Rust fuck up in an argument. He's getting... rusty from dealing with nothing but religious folks.

[Rust]

Hah, i'm just fucking with DL. It's fun to see him angry.

[Dread_Lord]

Originally Posted by Rust

Hah, i'm just fucking with DL. It's fun to see him angry.

Sounds like you're fucking with drugs cause you sound like a crack addict.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Dread_Lord

True is an absolute. Deal with it. What I said was true, so I was attacking your statement that it was not true, not your word choice.

Who said otherwise? The point, which you missed, is that my statement not only said that your statement was true question but also points out how it missed a crucial detail.

Instead of realizing that (i.e. realizing that "not quite true" means you missed a crucial detail), you decided to attack my word choice like an idiot.

Then what you said I said didn't happen. Fuck you. Quote me or forget about talking about it with me.

I said that others had not claimed it was illegal, but instead that they had pointed out he had ignored the officer. Pay attention.

I said conversation over.

Who cares what you said? I don't stop posting when you say so.
Not to mention that you're asking me to continue the conversation by insisting I provide evidence. Make up your mind.

No clue.

So then your claim that he was asked to follow Martin was wrong? Or is it that you don't want to provide the evidence?

I'm not guessing how people act it's a fucking fact. When fleeing in fear you head towards safety. It's a human reaction, not a guess.
Safety is not towards the person you're fleeing from.

Actually, that's not a fact. It's a commonly accepted reaction. Another commonly accepted reaction when you're followed is to hide - especially when you don't want to give the location of your home or bring trouble to your family. So is it a fact that people also hide when scared? If so, have you not dealt with that "fact"?

Stop pretending you care about facts or about behavior. You care about painting Martin in the worse light imaginable, even if it means exaggerating the facts. See below:

What the court decides is not what is fact. Stop trying to make an appeal to authority. Just because the court is authority does not make what they say a fact. Learn 2 logic you pathetic fucktard.

I didn't say it decided it was a fact. Learn to read. I said you don't decide whether Zimmerman's testimony is enough to prove that he's innocent. A court/jury does, since they are the ones deciding innocence or guilt.

Your claim that it's a fact that Zimmerman is innocent, is just you talking out of your ass.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Dread_Lord

Sounds like you're fucking with drugs cause you sound like a crack addict.

You're hurting my feelings.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by ( )

A dispatcher pointing out to somebody that they don't have to do something is not a command.

I know, I didn't say otherwise. Ironically, you just proved my point.

[( )]

Originally Posted by Rust

I know, I didn't say otherwise. Ironically, you just proved my point.

Well, whatever ever your point was I hope it was a good one. I don't know why I opened this thread again, from skimming it seems like people are still just repeating the same things they were 2 months ago towards each other.

[Rust]

You're right. The more intelligent of us are just laying back and poking retards with a stick.

[Pee Vee Proots, M.D.]

Originally Posted by Rust

You're right. The more intelligent of us are just laying back and poking retards with a stick.

>get proven wrong
>I WAS TROLLING LOL

That's pretty low, Rust. You let being a nigger get the better of you and fucked up as a result. Admit it and deal with it instead of being a typical nigger: dishonest.

[Dread_Lord]

Originally Posted by Rust

Who said otherwise? The point, which you missed, is that my statement not only said that your statement was true question but also points out how it missed a crucial detail.

Instead of realizing that (i.e. realizing that "not quite true" means you missed a crucial detail), you decided to attack my word choice like an idiot.

Not quite true means not true, and it is true, therefore you're wrong.

I said that others had not claimed it was illegal, but instead that they had pointed out he had ignored the officer. Pay attention.

Boring. Quote me or gtfo.

Who cares what you said? I don't stop posting when you say so.
Not to mention that you're asking me to continue the conversation by insisting I provide evidence. Make up your mind.

Yeah but what I said was conversation over. So unless you want to continue the conversation with yourself you have no choice but to deal with it.

So then your claim that he was asked to follow Martin was wrong? Or is it that you don't want to provide the evidence?

How many times do you have to be told to watch the video I provided on the last page? I don't know if that's the full 911 call or maybe a second 911 call, but the testimony of Zimmerman is pretty fucking clear that he says he was instructed to go find where Trayvon went.

Actually, that's not a fact. It's a commonly accepted reaction. Another commonly accepted reaction when you're followed is to hide - especially when you don't want to give the location of your home or bring trouble to your family. So is it a fact that people also hide when scared? If so, have you not dealt with that "fact"?

Yeah, he apparently tried to hide inside of Zimmermans skull and was breaking his way in right?

Stop pretending you care about facts or about behavior. You care about painting Martin in the worse light imaginable, even if it means exaggerating the facts. See below:

He painted himself in the worst light imaginable.

I didn't say it decided it was a fact. Learn to read. I said you don't decide whether Zimmerman's testimony is enough to prove that he's innocent. A court/jury does, since they are the ones deciding innocence or guilt.

Your claim that it's a fact that Zimmerman is innocent, is just you talking out of your ass.

It is a fact. All the evidence prove it as fact. Deal with it.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Pee Vee Proots, M.D.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Dread_Lord

Not quite true means not true, and it is true, therefore you're wrong.

No, actually, I'm pretty sure it means what I meant it, not what you meant it. Unless of course now you're dictating meaning from across the web?

That said, since it's clear that you really want this amazing victory, here: I used the wrong word choice. I apologize. However, my point that your statement ignored a crucial detail still stands.

Boring. Quote me or gtfo.

Not you, them. Pay attention.

Yeah but what I said was conversation over. So unless you want to continue the conversation with yourself you have no choice but to deal with it.

Might be more convincing if you didn't continue the conversation.

How many times do you have to be told to watch the video I provided on the last page? I don't know if that's the full 911 call or maybe a second 911 call, but the testimony of Zimmerman is pretty fucking clear that he says he was instructed to go find where Trayvon went.

Who says I didn't? The video amounts to nothing. If what he was saying were true, the evidence of it would be found in the call, not Zimmerman's allegation.

So can you not find the evidence in the call or not? That's the full call by the way, so you can't use that excuse; though you're welcome to find it from another source.

Yeah, he apparently tried to hide inside of Zimmermans skull and was breaking his way in right?

Herp Derp. So you can't refute the fact that hiding is another commonly accepted reaction/behavior when being followed?

It is a fact. All the evidence prove it as fact. Deal with it.

No, it's not. It's an allegation made by the accuse. It's not fact, and you don't determine whether it's proves his innocence or not.

[The Pat-Man]

holy ballsack its STILL going

[Tachosomoza]

Yeah, this is a madhouse. Round and round and round to no end.

[Dread_Lord]

Originally Posted by Rust

No, actually, I'm pretty sure it means what I meant it, not what you meant it. Unless of course now you're dictating meaning from across the web?

That said, since it's clear that you really want this amazing victory, here: I used the wrong word choice. I apologize. However, my point that your statement ignored a crucial detail still stands.

You're trying to change the fact that it's more than wording. Yes, your wording was wrong, but so was the statement itself. You were wrong about both, stop trying to hide one wrong behind the other.

Not you, them. Pay attention.

Quote someone.

Might be more convincing if you didn't continue the conversation.

This is a conversation about not continuing the conversation. Totally different.

Who says I didn't? The video amounts to nothing. If what he was saying were true, the evidence of it would be found in the call, not Zimmerman's allegation.

So can you not find the evidence in the call or not? That's the full call by the way, so you can't use that excuse; though you're welcome to find it from another source.

I have no reason to believe Zimmerman is making it up. He has no reason to. The evidence is in his testimony and the call. The call you posted may not be complete. I don't know.

Herp Derp. So you can't refute the fact that hiding is another commonly accepted reaction/behavior when being followed?

He didn't hide, he assaulted Zimmerman, you stupid fuck. Even if there was no assault it's without question that he was in the middle of the sidewalk where the assault occurred so it is also without question that he wasn't fucking hiding, dipshit.

No, it's not. It's an allegation made by the accuse. It's not fact, and you don't determine whether it's proves his innocence or not.

It's first hand account testimony. The only reason he is even accused is to appease niggers, the prosecution doesn't have a case and therefore his status as "the accused" is invalid.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Dread_Lord

You're trying to change the fact that it's more than wording. Yes, your wording was wrong, but so was the statement itself. You were wrong about both, stop trying to hide one wrong behind the other.

What do you think my statement is if not wording? My intent was to point out that your statement missed a crucial detail; the statement I made made it look as if I were saying something I didn't intend to, because of the wrong wording.

Quote someone.

Do you want the conversation to continue or not?

I have no reason to believe Zimmerman is making it up. He has no reason to. The evidence is in his testimony and the call. The call you posted may not be complete. I don't know.

It doesn't matter if you have any reason to believe Zimmerman is making it up. Zimmerman doesn't determine what other people say; those people do (or the evidence of their conversation does). So unless you manage to provide evidence that the officer in question actually said that, your claim remains unsubstantiated nonsense.

He didn't hide, he assaulted Zimmerman, you stupid fuck. Even if there was no assault it's without question that he was in the middle of the sidewalk where the assault occurred so it is also without question that he wasn't fucking hiding, dipshit.

The two are not mutually exclusive. You could hide and then come out of hiding to assault someone. You could also hide and then come out of hiding and be assaulted.

The fact remains that all this time you've been whining about the fact that he didn't reach his home, when in reality running isn't the only reaction to being followed. One has just as much reason to hide.

It's first hand account testimony. The only reason he is even accused is to appease niggers, the prosecution doesn't have a case and therefore his status as "the accused" is invalid.

First hand account testimony from the accused, which doesn't equal proof of innocence because if not there wouldn't be trials for people who plead not-guilty. What I said stands: You were talking out of your ass when you claimed you knew for a fact he was innocent.

[mizled]

Originally Posted by IIIII

So some people think that if a person wants to walk around at night in the rain - a person who has committed no wrong or broken any laws at all - then some people think that that person should arm himself in case someone like Zimmerman is armed and sees them not committing a crime

Some people somehow sometimes say something that someone else thinks something's wrong with someone else saying some other thing that somehow makes some sense to somebody.

[Dread_Lord]

Originally Posted by Rust

The statement was the wording. My intent was to point out that your statement missed a crucial detail; the statement I made made it look as if I were saying something I didn't intend to, because of the wrong wording.

Blah blah blah, point is you're wrong.

Do you want the conversation to continue or not?

Why did you ask me? If I respond you'll just be like "then why did you respond"...Shut up.


[quote]
It doesn't matter if you have any reason to believe Zimmerman is making it up. Zimmerman doesn't determine what other people say; those people do (or the evidence of their conversation does). So unless you manage to provide evidence that the officer in question actually said that, your claim remains unsubstantiated nonsense.[quote]

Zimmerman's testimony is evidence. That's what that part int he Miranda rights is all about.

The two are not mutually exclusive. You could hide and then come out of hiding to assault someone. You could also hide and then come out of hiding and be assaulted.

You're scared so you hide then you decide to come out of hiding to assault the person you're hiding from? Okay, I beleive it, derp.

The fact remains that all this time you've been whining about the fact that he didn't reach his home, when in reality running isn't the only reaction to being followed. One has just as much reason to hide.

The fact remains that EVERYONE is saying Trayvon was trying to get home and he COULD have gotten home but instead he assaulted Zimmerman.

First hand account testimony from the accused, which doesn't equal proof of innocence because if not there wouldn't be trials for people who plead not-guilty. What I said stands: You were talking out of your ass when you claimed you knew for a fact he was innocent.

So you're saying if someone admits to a murder, it's evidence, but if they tell you how they defended their life it's not? You're fucking retarded. You don't have any idea what you're talking about.
We do know for a fact he's innocent. You don't, because you deny every piece of evidence is evidence, but everyone who uses logic understands that all the evidence adds up to not guilty + self defense.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Dread_Lord

Blah blah blah, point is you're wrong.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I already said that my wording was wrong.

Zimmerman's testimony is evidence. That's what that part int he Miranda rights is all about.

No, it's not. It's an allegation. His testimony is evidence of his side of the story, not evidence of whether or not someone told him something. He doesn't decide what someone else says. The person does that, or the material evidence.

The fact that your refusing to find the evidence that proves me wrong is quite indicative that you were full of shit, realized it, and now don't want to admit it.

You're scared so you hide then you decide to come out of hiding to assault the person you're hiding from? Okay, I beleive it, derp.

Or, you're scared so you hide and the other person spots you. Or you're scared but decide to verbally confront the man once you find the courage to do so. The fact remains that all this time you've been whining about the fact that he didn't reach his home, when in reality running isn't the only reaction to being followed. One has just as much reason to hide.

The fact remains that EVERYONE is saying Trayvon was trying to get home and he COULD have gotten home but instead he assaulted Zimmerman.

No, that's not a fact. That's Zimmernan's allegation. Pay attention.

So you're saying if someone admits to a murder, it's evidence, but if they tell you how they defended their life it's not? You're fucking retarded. You don't have any idea what you're talking about.
We do know for a fact he's innocent. You don't, because you deny every piece of evidence is evidence, but everyone who uses logic understands that all the evidence adds up to not guilty + self defense.

Yeah, I didn't say it wasn't evidence. Learn to read. I said it didn't prove his innocence. Their testimony can be used as evidence, yes, that doesn't make it proof of their innocence. You claimed it has been proven that he was innocent; that you knew for a fact that he was innocent. You don't. That's a lie.

[Dread_Lord]

No, it's not. It's an allegation. His testimony is evidence of his side of the story, not evidence of whether or not someone told him something. He doesn't decide what someone else says. The person does that, or the material evidence.

The fact that your refusing to find the evidence that proves me wrong is quite indicative that you were full of shit, realized it, and now don't want to admit it.

I posted the video in the last page, go look. His testimony is evidence and no, I don't have the dispatchers evidence to go along with it, but I'm sure it's there. You have no reason to suspect it not being there.

Or, you're scared so you hide and the other person spots you. Or you're scared but decide to verbally confront the man once you find the courage to do so. The fact remains that all this time you've been whining about the fact that he didn't reach his home, when in reality running isn't the only reaction to being followed. One has just as much reason to hide.

Was he in fear when he circled Zimmermans truck and was dogging him? Or when he assaulted Zimmerman as Zimmerman was walking away from his location?
Nothing you are saying adds up. This conversation is over. You're stupid.

No, that's not a fact. That's Zimmernan's allegation. Pay attention.

It's a fact. It's Zimmermans eye witness victim status statement and all the evidence backs him up. Deal with it.

Yeah, I didn't say it wasn't evidence. Learn to read. I said it didn't prove his innocence. Their testimony can be used as evidence, yes, that doesn't make it proof of their innocence. You claimed it has been proven that he was innocent; that you knew for a fact that he was innocent. You don't. That's a lie.

His testimony adds up with all the other evidence. You're in denial and I'm not talking to you anymore.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Dread_Lord

I posted the video in the last page, go look. His testimony is evidence and no, I don't have the dispatchers evidence to go along with it, but I'm sure it's there. You have no reason to suspect it not being there.

No, it's not evidence, it's an allegation not supported by the call where he talked to the police dispatcher.

Was he in fear when he circled Zimmermans truck and was dogging him? Or when he assaulted Zimmerman as Zimmerman was walking away from his location?
Nothing you are saying adds up. This conversation is over. You're stupid.

You mean when Zimmerman alleges that? An allegation which he failed to say to the dispatcher? Again, that's Zimmerman's baseless allegation. I don't need to take Zimmerman's word for anything. The fact remains that all this time you've been whining about the fact that he didn't reach his home, when in reality running isn't the only reaction to being followed. One has just as much reason to hide.

It's a fact. It's Zimmermans eye witness victim status statement and all the evidence backs him up. Deal with it.

No, it's not a fact; it's an allegation. Apparently you don't know the difference. Moreover, you've provided no evidence to support it.

His testimony adds up with all the other evidence. You're in denial and I'm not talking to you anymore.

That's not up to you to determine. The court and jury decides that, not you. Like IIII, you like to exaggerate, make shit up, and decide the outcome of things you have no buisness deciding.

This isn't up to debate. You claimed it has been proven that he was innocent; that you knew for a fact that he was innocent. You don't. That's a lie.

[Iehovah]

Originally Posted by Dread_Lord

It's a fact. It's Zimmermans eye witness victim status statement and all the evidence backs him up. Deal with it.

"all" of a bare minimum of evidence.

But that's cool, according to your reasoning, I can find you alone somewhere, shoot you in the face, invent a half-way plausible story, and because my word is "evidence", it must automatically be true, because all that evidence, all my say-so, proves it.

Except, not really, because that's stupid.

You're stupid.

Stupid! (stupid)

[Dread_Lord]

Originally Posted by Iehovah

"all" of a bare minimum of evidence.

But that's cool, according to your reasoning, I can find you alone somewhere, shoot you in the face, invent a half-way plausible story, and because my word is "evidence", it must automatically be true, because all that evidence, all my say-so, proves it.

Except, not really, because that's stupid.

You're stupid.

Stupid! (stupid)

If the evidence backed you up you could get away with it, but it doesn't make it a fact. Unless there was a witness.
There was a witness who saw Zimmerman being assaulted. He has wounds that match his claim. Trayvons character matches the assault profile.
All the minute evidence adds up as well verifying Zimmerman's claims.

[Dread_Lord]

Originally Posted by Rust

No, it's not evidence, it's an allegation not supported by the call where he talked to the police dispatcher.



You mean when Zimmerman alleges that? An allegation which he failed to say to the dispatcher? Again, that's Zimmerman's baseless allegation. I don't need to take Zimmerman's word for anything. The fact remains that all this time you've been whining about the fact that he didn't reach his home, when in reality running isn't the only reaction to being followed. One has just as much reason to hide.



No, it's not a fact; it's an allegation. Apparently you don't know the difference. Moreover, you've provided no evidence to support it.



That's not up to you to determine. The court and jury decides that, not you. Like IIII, you like to exaggerate, make shit up, and decide the outcome of things you have no buisness deciding.

This isn't up to debate. You claimed it has been proven that he was innocent; that you knew for a fact that he was innocent. You don't. That's a lie.

You're in denial. The court and Jury are no different than us. They don't magically become logical just because they are affixed with the title of jury member.
You're a fucking idiot and this is a waste of my time.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Dread_Lord

You're in denial. The court and Jury are no different than us. They don't magically become logical just because they are affixed with the title of jury member.
You're a fucking idiot and this is a waste of my time.

You claimed to know for a fact Zimmerman is innocent - when you haven't even met the guy, don't know all the facts, haven't been officially investigating him and have gotten all your information second/third hand - and you don't think you're in denial?


The jury doesn't have to magically become logical, nobody said they would; don't let that stop you from misrepresenting my position though. They are just the ones who decide the innocence or guilt of a person. You don't. They do. They have all the facts the prosecution has presented. You don't. Whenever you're in that position (or hell, even if you're not in that position in an official capacity but are privy to all the evidence) then your opinion might matter. It doesn't.

[Iehovah]

Originally Posted by Dread_Lord

If the evidence backed you up you could get away with it, but it doesn't make it a fact. Unless there was a witness.
There was a witness who saw Zimmerman being assaulted. He has wounds that match his claim. Trayvons character matches the assault profile.
All the minute evidence adds up as well verifying Zimmerman's claims.

You talking about the woman who changed her account, not just once, but twice?

This one, here?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1539077.html

If so, your threshold for credible witness accounts seems awfully low. Hell, that's barely useful information there, and certainly doesn't go very far to confirm what Zimmerman was saying.

Especially the part where she didn't have her contact lenses in and couldn't tell which one was which. Lol, srsly mang.

[IIIII]

I have been watching a guy in the neighbor hood walking around at night, staring at buildings and acting weird. He looks out of it, like he is on drugs.

I think he is just another ass-hole that is up to no good.

I am going to arm myself and follow him around the next time I see the goon. I may have to kill him if he does not conform to the way I think he should act.

Someone told me he is a neighborhood watch captain. That would make the situation more dangerous for me if that is true.

Hopefully he will submit to me and my pre-conceived opinion of him.

Snork