The Zimmerman / Martin Case

by Ben Reilly Thu May 12, 2016 6:56 pm

First topic message reminder :

(Reuters) - The Florida man who shot and killed black teenager Trayvon Martin - triggering nationwide civil rights protests - planned to sell the gun he used in an auction on Thursday and to spend some of the proceeds to challenge gun control policies, the auction website said.

The one-day auction was to begin at 11 a.m. EST (1500 GMT), with bids to start at $5,000. But the listing disappeared from the site soon after its scheduled start.

Representatives for the website offering the handgun for sale, Gunbroker.com, did not immediately respond to questions about why the listing came down and whether the gun had been sold.

The shooter, George Zimmerman, had described the gun as "a piece of American history," according to the website.

U.S. Department of Justice recently returned to Zimmerman the Kel Tec 9mm pistol that he had used to kill the unarmed Martin on Feb. 26, 2012.

Daryl Parks, a lawyer for Martin's family, called the potential gun sale offensive in a phone interview but said the family remain focused on their work advocating against gun violence.

"It's a distraction, and it shouldn't be a distraction to what we're doing," said Parks, who also serves as chairman of the Trayvon Martin Foundation.

Zimmerman was acquitted of second-degree murder and manslaughter charges in the incident, which sparked civil rights rallies and brought scrutiny of Florida's controversial "stand your ground" law.

The law allows a potential crime victim who is "in fear of great bodily injury" to use deadly force in public places.

Zimmerman, who was a neighborhood watch volunteer at the time, has maintained that the shooting was in self-defense. Martin's family said the teenager was simply passing through the residential area on his way home from a convenience store.

President Barack Obama said after Zimmerman's acquittal that Martin "could have been me, 35 years ago" and urged Americans to understand the pain African Americans felt over the case.

'SOCIOPATH'

"George Zimmerman" quickly became the top trending term on Twitter in the United States on Thursday, with many users on the social media site expressing shock and revulsion.

"The only people worse than George Zimmerman are the people who bid on that gun," tweeted journalist and columnist Lyz Lenz.

National Review columnist Charles C. W. Cooke said Zimmerman "may have acted legally, but the man is a sociopath."

On the auction website, Zimmerman had said he planned to use part of the proceeds to fight Black Lives Matter, a movement that grew out of the incident, as well as to counter "violence against law enforcement officers."

Proceeds would also go towards fighting Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton's "anti-firearm rhetoric," he said.

"I am honored and humbled to announce the sale of an American firearm icon. The firearm for sale is the firearm that was used to defend my life and end the brutal attack from Trayvon Martin," he said on the site.

The number from the Martin case is written on the pistol in silver permanent marker. The auction listing included a photo of the gun being held up in court by a law enforcement officer during Zimmerman's murder trial.

Zimmerman said in the description that "many have expressed interest in owning and displaying the firearm, including The Smithsonian Museum in Washington D.C."

The Smithsonian replied on Twitter that it had never expressed interest in the gun, and had "no plans to ever collect or display it in any museums."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-killed-black-teenager-florida-auction-off-gun-103622143.html?nhp=1

by Guest Mon May 16, 2016 3:51 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Zimmerman was never declared "innocent"...
He was found "not guilty"..
Not the same thing at all.
Zimmerman had criminal convictions/records for violent acts, before and after murdering Trayvon Martin.
Zimmerman should never have been given a gun license !
Let alone, being allowed to carry a handgun on his person.
Zimmerman followed Martin.
Martin wasn't following Zimmerman.
Zimmerman attacked Martin.
Martin didn't attack Zimmerman.
Those who support Zimmerman's right to attack people simply on the basis of what he looked like, are basically following the principle, apparently widely held in Florida, that anyone carrying a gun has the 'God given right' to shoot anyone that they don't like, and then can claim "self defence" because you're scared of certain ethnicities !

LOL...there you go again; clouding up this diatribe with more factual data...funny man.

Zimmerman walked and Trayvon is D E A D from Zimmerman's own gun!
But because the edited court TV show was allowed to televise the EDITED version and it wasn't a LIVE STREAM / factual feed paid for viewing --- the audience {once again} believe that THEY are the 13th juror and unequivocally KNOW THE TRUTH. Rolling Eyes

But for a select few; rehashing this sainted Zimmerman smudged image might make him out to be a better human then he really is --- The Zimmerman / Martin Case - Page 3 2023022481

The Zimmerman / Martin Case - Page 3 2023022481

by Original Quill Mon May 16, 2016 3:54 pm

Miffs2 wrote:For a man that is supposed to have broken the law so many times why hasn't he been in court every other week? Regarding the assaults on partners, it must have been "he said she said" surely? If there was evidence the police would have gone ahead and prosecuted - wouldn't they?
As for Zimmerman he has been found not guilty, but to even think of trying to profit from Martin's death just about sums up the man.

Zimmerman has become a cause célèbre in racist, RW circles. When that happens, a lot of money can be collected--just as happens with a sad news story about a bird with a broken wing, or a child with a rare brain tumor. The money pours in. The RW racial enthusiasts run to contribute and pretty soon $-millions are collected and deposited in a bank account. Or, sometimes a single angel steps forward and offers the cash. Often both happen. This is what has happened to Zimmerman since he killed Trayvon Martin--we know because he almost had his bail revoked during pretrial proceedings, because it turned out he had already collected piles of money and lied about it on forms.

With all that money, many, many accusers can be made happier. Stories change. Maybe he was talking about a broken headlight, not 'breaking my head'. Witnesses can be persuaded that the light wasn't green, or that the porch light was not on...as a former prosecutor I saw it happen all the time.

Having experienced it, it's plain to me what is going on around Zimmerman. Ex-wives accuse on one day, and the next day they are posing with selfies with him. Policed are called and he's out in the street waving a gun, and the next day it didn't happen. Former girlfriends say he was physically abusive, and the next day they say the fell down. How do you think rich schoolboys avoid rape charges? Same with a psychopath who has money to spare.

The classic case is the Duke University lacrosse team rape case, occurring in 2007. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case In April, 2007, suddenly all charges were dropped. The accusers, who were black women, of limited means, suddenly changed their stories. We'll never know what actually happened--you never learn the details--but I know what I believe happened.

This sort of thing goes on all the time in high profile cases. You think money can corrupt politics? Wait until you see what it can buy on the courthouse steps.

by Raggamuffin Mon May 16, 2016 4:53 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Zimmerman was never declared "innocent"...

He was found "not guilty"..

Not the same thing at all.

Zimmerman had criminal convictions/records for violent acts, before and after murdering Trayvon Martin.
Zimmerman should never have been given a gun license !
Let alone, being allowed to carry a handgun on his person.

Zimmerman followed Martin.
Martin wasn't following Zimmerman.

Zimmerman attacked Martin.
Martin didn't attack Zimmerman.

Those who support Zimmerman's right to attack people simply on the basis of what he looked like, are basically following the principle, apparently widely held in Florida, that anyone carrying a gun has the 'God given right' to shoot anyone that they don't like, and then can claim "self defence" because you're scared of certain ethnicities !

Not guilty is not guilty. I know you people were desperate for him to be found guilty, but the evidence just wasn't there.

He's had no convictions since the death of Trayvon Martin, so you just made that up. I don't think he had any convictions prior to it either.

I don't believe that Zimmerman attacked Martin, and you have no evidence that he did. Martin was beating Zimmerman's head on the ground according to a credible witness.

by Original Quill Mon May 16, 2016 5:08 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't believe that Zimmerman attacked Martin, and you have no evidence that he did. Martin was beating Zimmerman's head on the ground according to a credible witness.

Zimmerman was stalking Trayvon. In Florida, stalking can be as much as a felony of the 3d degree, with prison time as well as fines. Fla. # Code 784.048. If one is being stalked, one may reasonably respond with measures of self-defense.

Zimmerman's stalking was the provocation that started the confrontation. This was conveniently ignored by the Florida jury.

You keep saying that a white woman would never attack the likes of Zimmerman. But many women are, today, quite proficient in martial arts. Their response is not to cower, but to confront. Many of them would have responded in precisely the same way as Trayvon, and matters would have been treated quite differently (unless, of course, they were black).

by Raggamuffin Mon May 16, 2016 5:13 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:I don't believe that Zimmerman attacked Martin, and you have no evidence that he did. Martin was beating Zimmerman's head on the ground according to a credible witness.

Zimmerman was stalking Trayvon. In Florida, stalking can be as much as a felony of the 3d degree, with prison time as well as fines. Fla. # Code 784.048. If one is being stalked, one may reasonably respond with measures of self-defense.

Zimmerman's stalking was the provocation that started the confrontation. This was conveniently ignored by the Florida jury.

You keep saying that a white woman would never attack the likes of Zimmerman. But many women are, today, quite proficient in martial arts. Their response is not to cower, but to confront. Many of them would have responded in precisely the same way as Trayvon, and matters would have been treated quite differently (unless, of course, they were black).

Zimmerman got out of his car and followed Martin to see where he went. I wouldn't call that stalking. I don't think the jury did ignore it, and I agree that he should have stayed in his vehicle, but the fact is that what Zimmerman did doesn't justify someone beating his head on the ground.

I doubt very much that your average woman would have had the strength to overpower a grown man, but carrying on trying to justify your race baiting.

by Original Quill Mon May 16, 2016 5:29 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Zimmerman got out of his car and followed Martin to see where he went. I wouldn't call that stalking. I don't think the jury did ignore it, and I agree that he should have stayed in his vehicle, but the fact is that what Zimmerman did doesn't justify someone beating his head on the ground.

I doubt very much that your average woman would have had the strength to overpower a grown man, but carrying on trying to justify your race baiting.

Everything in your justification has to do with the situation, not the rules. "Zimmerman got out of his car and followed Martin to see where he went"?? Zimmerman can lie all he want's about what he thought he was doing. The fact is that he was stalking, by any objective standard, and his own state of mind doesn't change the fact.

Of course the racist, southern jury ignored all facts of the murder. That is my point. You can't agree, agree, agree with the facts showing guilt, and then say, oh well..."he should have stayed in his vehicle." The facts add up to stalking, which provoked the confrontation, in which he murdered a human being. The fight could reasonably have been anticipated by Zimmerman...if he didn't actually plan it that way.

Whether the average woman would have had the strength (to overpower Zimmerman) is just a way of side-stepping the issue. My challenge is: if a white woman had been in the same situation of Trayvon, the jury would have convicted Zimmerman of both stalking and murdering the victim. Everyone knows it.

by Raggamuffin Mon May 16, 2016 5:36 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Zimmerman got out of his car and followed Martin to see where he went. I wouldn't call that stalking. I don't think the jury did ignore it, and I agree that he should have stayed in his vehicle, but the fact is that what Zimmerman did doesn't justify someone beating his head on the ground.

I doubt very much that your average woman would have had the strength to overpower a grown man, but carrying on trying to justify your race baiting.

Everything in your justification has to do with the situation, not the rules. "Zimmerman got out of his car and followed Martin to see where he went"?? Zimmerman can lie all he want's about what he thought he was doing. The fact is that he was stalking, by any objective standard, and his own state of mind doesn't change the fact.

Of course the racist, southern jury ignored all facts of the murder. That is my point. You can't agree, agree, agree with the facts showing guilt, and then say, oh well..."he should have stayed in his vehicle." The facts add up to stalking, which provoked the confrontation, in which he murdered a human being. The fight could reasonably have been anticipated by Zimmerman...if he didn't actually plan it that way.

Whether the average woman would have had the strength (to overpower Zimmerman) is just a way of side-stepping the issue. My challenge is: if a white woman had been in the same situation of Trayvon, the jury would have convicted Zimmerman of both stalking and murdering the victim. Everyone knows it.

It's all on the tape of the phone call with the police. He got out of the car to see where Martin went so he could tell the police when they got there.

What is your justification for calling it murder? Martin was on top of Zimmerman - do you acknowledge that?

Of course he should have stayed in his vehicle, that's just obvious, but getting out and going up a path to see where someone went is not a criminal act.

You have no idea how a jury would have reacted if it had been a white woman, but they may well have concluded that a woman would not have been able to overpower a grown man and therefore reached a different conclusion. It depends on the build of the woman I guess.

by Guest Mon May 16, 2016 5:57 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Zimmerman got out of his car and followed Martin to see where he went. I wouldn't call that stalking. I don't think the jury did ignore it, and I agree that he should have stayed in his vehicle, but the fact is that what Zimmerman did doesn't justify someone beating his head on the ground.

I doubt very much that your average woman would have had the strength to overpower a grown man, but carrying on trying to justify your race baiting.
Everything in your justification has to do with the situation, not the rules. "Zimmerman got out of his car and followed Martin to see where he went"?? Zimmerman can lie all he want's about what he thought he was doing. The fact is that he was stalking, by any objective standard, and his own state of mind doesn't change the fact. Zimmerman was TOLD TO REMAIN IN HIS VEHICLE, he had no authority...but facts and that dog gone TV show, just seem to have fortified the misnomer that the TV trumps the LAW!

Of course the racist, southern jury ignored all facts of the murder. That is my point. You can't agree, agree, agree with the facts showing guilt, and then say, oh well..."he should have stayed in his vehicle." The facts add up to stalking, which provoked the confrontation, in which he murdered a human being. The fight could reasonably have been anticipated by Zimmerman...if he didn't actually plan it that way.

Whether the average woman would have had the strength (to overpower Zimmerman) is just a way of side-stepping the issue. My challenge is: if a white woman had been in the same situation of Trayvon, the jury would have convicted Zimmerman of both stalking and murdering the victim. Everyone knows it.

aaaannnnnd folks here we are back at 'RING SIDE' for
The Zimmerman / Martin Case - Page 3 Th?id=OIP.M4844a810c9f5d5445afdeb26fbbcfbc2o0&pid=15

by Raggamuffin Mon May 16, 2016 6:05 pm

Actually, Zimmerman was not told to stay in his vehicle. He was told that he didn't need to follow Martin when he was already out of the vehicle, and there's no evidence that he carried on.

by Original Quill Mon May 16, 2016 6:06 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:It's all on the tape of the phone call with the police. He got out of the car to see where Martin went so he could tell the police when they got there.

It’s all over the world, by now. But it’s still just Zimmerman excusing himself, even as he’s being ordered to do otherwise and cease and desist his stalking activities.

Raggamuffin wrote:What is your justification for calling it murder? Martin was on top of Zimmerman - do you acknowledge that?

Um…a man stalked his victim, pulled a gun, fired it off, into the victim’s heart, and the victim bled out and died. It’s one of simplest crimes to make out, until the apologists come up with all this hocus-pocus.

Raggamuffin wrote:Of course he should have stayed in his vehicle, that's just obvious, but getting out and going up a path to see where someone went is not a criminal act.

It is, if you intend to murder someone. Clearly Zimmerman’s intent was not to give Trayvon a warm puppy. He was looking for trouble. He was looking for a confrontation. He was anticipating it. When he got it, he killed a child. The rest is all jingle.

Now, in between intending a confrontation and killing someone, how you can find it was not a murder of some degree, is astounding. The fact that Zimmerman was stalking shows focus in on the victim (who was incidentally, black). The fact there was a confrontation shows that the stalking was with antagonistic intent. The fact that Zimmerman had a gun shows that he was prepared to do grave, if not deadly bodily injury. And the fact that he killed Trayvon shows that all of Zimmerman’s plans were fulfilled.

Raggamuffin wrote:You have no idea how a jury would have reacted if it had been a white woman, but they may well have concluded that a woman would not have been able to overpower a grown man and therefore reached a different conclusion. It depends on the build of the woman I guess.

Nonsense. Under any and all conditions, had Trayvon Martin been a white woman who was stalked, confronted and shot by Zimmerman, he (Zimmerman) would be on Florida’s death row today.

by Guest Mon May 16, 2016 6:10 pm

Awwww, Quill...is it any use arguing with TV facts; I mean it is 'TV REALITY'...what trumps TV REALITY --- it's always about the TRUTH. Rolling Eyes

by Raggamuffin Mon May 16, 2016 6:15 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:It's all on the tape of the phone call with the police. He got out of the car to see where Martin went so he could tell the police when they got there.

It’s all over the world, by now. But it’s still just Zimmerman excusing himself, even as he’s being ordered to do otherwise and cease and desist his stalking activities.

Raggamuffin wrote:What is your justification for calling it murder? Martin was on top of Zimmerman - do you acknowledge that?

Um…a man stalked his victim, pulled a gun, fired it off, into the victim’s heart, and the victim bled out and died. It’s one of simplest crimes to make out, until the apologists come up with all this hocus-pocus.

Raggamuffin wrote:Of course he should have stayed in his vehicle, that's just obvious, but getting out and going up a path to see where someone went is not a criminal act.

It is, if you intend to murder someone. Clearly Zimmerman’s intent was not to give Trayvon a warm puppy. He was looking for trouble. He was looking for a confrontation. He was anticipating it. When he got it, he killed a child. The rest is all jingle.

Now, in between intending a confrontation and killing someone, how you can find it was not a murder of some degree, is astounding. The fact that Zimmerman was stalking shows focus in on the victim (who was incidentally, black). The fact there was a confrontation shows that the stalking was with antagonistic intent. The fact that Zimmerman had a gun shows that he was prepared to do grave, if not deadly bodily injury. And the fact that he killed Trayvon shows that all of Zimmerman’s plans were fulfilled.

Raggamuffin wrote:You have no idea how a jury would have reacted if it had been a white woman, but they may well have concluded that a woman would not have been able to overpower a grown man and therefore reached a different conclusion. It depends on the build of the woman I guess.

Nonsense. Under any and all conditions, had Trayvon Martin been a white woman who was stalked, confronted and shot by Zimmerman, he (Zimmerman) would be on Florida’s death row today.

He was told he didn't "need" to follow Martin. I suspect he was told that for his own safety. He wasn't ordered to do anything.

So you completely ignored the bit in between when Martin was on top of Zimmerman banging his head on the floor then. How convenient.

There's no evidence that Zimmerman intended to shoot Martin when he saw him. In fact, I would say that the phone call precludes that possibility. Martin might have been under 18 but he was hardly a child - he was not a feeble little kid, and he was perfectly capable of getting Zimmerman on the ground.

You have completely ignored the fact that Martin could have got home way before Zimmerman could have caught up with him. Can you explain why he did not do so? Can you explain why he waited around for Zimmerman?

You have no idea what the situation would have been had it been a white woman - you're just speculating - badly.

by Raggamuffin Mon May 16, 2016 6:17 pm

4EVER2 wrote:Awwww, Quill...is it any use arguing with TV facts; I mean it is 'TV REALITY'...what trumps TV REALITY --- it's always about the TRUTH.

You mean the facts of the trial. You seem to be the one who was taken in by media reports, race baiters, and blatantly biased speculation.

Didn't you just complain on another thread about "sideline participation"?

by Original Quill Mon May 16, 2016 6:19 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:He was told he didn't "need" to follow Martin. I suspect he was told that for his own safety. He wasn't ordered to do anything.

That was clearly an order. Police officers are instructed to put things in polite terms when dealing with the public. The dispatcher was telling Zimmerman it wasn't necessary to stalk Trayvon. So...why did he do it? His intent was to kill.

by Raggamuffin Mon May 16, 2016 6:22 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:He was told he didn't "need" to follow Martin. I suspect he was told that for his own safety. He wasn't ordered to do anything.

That was clearly an order. Police officers are instructed to put things in polite terms when dealing with the public. The dispatcher was telling Zimmerman it wasn't necessary to stalk Trayvon. So...why did he do it? His intent was to kill.

It was advice, and he said "OK". There's no evidence that he continued after that. In fact, there's evidence that he did not - he was on the phone to the dispatcher for some time afterwards, and he was clearly not following Martin during the rest of the call. Martin could of course have got home ages before the phone call ended.

You really need to look at the evidence rather than put your own spin on the facts.

by eddie Mon May 16, 2016 6:23 pm

Right for what it's worth I'm going to add my own tuppence worth:

If someone follows someone else - and it's not for a friendly "surprise! I'm going to hug you!" - and they're doing it with anger in their system then they're generally only following that person for one reason: a fight or a confrontation.

by Original Quill Mon May 16, 2016 6:24 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:There's no evidence that Zimmerman intended to shoot Martin when he saw him.

Let's start with the fact is that Zimmerman did kill Trayvon.

Now, where is the evidence that he did not intend it? It all comes out of his own mouth. One has a motive to lie when on trial for murder. All of Zimmerman's defense is self-concocted, and a racist jury wanted to believe him. Say what you want...everybody knows.

by Raggamuffin Mon May 16, 2016 6:25 pm

eddie wrote:Right for what it's worth I'm going to add my own tuppence worth:

If someone follows someone else - and it's not for a friendly "surprise! I'm going to hug you!" - and they're doing it with anger in their system then they're generally only following that person for one reason: a fight or a confrontation.

He wasn't angry though. He followed him so he could tell the police where he went.

by Raggamuffin Mon May 16, 2016 6:27 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:There's no evidence that Zimmerman intended to shoot Martin when he saw him.

Let's start with the fact is that Zimmerman did kill Trayvon.

Now, where is the evidence that he did not intend it? It all comes out of his own mouth. One has a motive to lie when on trial for murder. All of Zimmerman's defense is self-concocted, and a racist jury wanted to believe him. Say what you want...everybody knows.

The phone call, the fact that Martin didn't go home as he could have, the fact that Martin was on top of Zimmerman. Where is your evidence that the shooting was premeditated?

He didn't give evidence at the trial - don't you know that?

I think you're as inept as the prosecution at the trial. Saying that "everybody knows" is hardly evidence is it?

by eddie Mon May 16, 2016 6:28 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
eddie wrote:Right for what it's worth I'm going to add my own tuppence worth:

If someone follows someone else - and it's not for a friendly "surprise! I'm going to hug you!" - and they're doing it with anger in their system then they're generally only following that person for one reason: a fight or a confrontation.

He wasn't angry though. He followed him so he could tell the police where he went.

Hmmmm. Righto. So he wasn't scared of him, or worried about his own safety.
It's never a good idea to follow someone....hmmmm I dont buy that story!

by Original Quill Mon May 16, 2016 6:29 pm

eddie wrote:Right for what it's worth I'm going to add my own tuppence worth:

If someone follows someone else - and it's not for a friendly "surprise! I'm going to hug you!" - and they're doing it with anger in their system then they're generally only following that person for one reason: a fight or a confrontation.

Add to that the fact there Zimmerman has already had a fight with his wife earlier. So the adrenaline was already there that evening.

by Raggamuffin Mon May 16, 2016 6:29 pm

eddie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

He wasn't angry though. He followed him so he could tell the police where he went.

Hmmmm. Righto. So he wasn't scared of him, or worried about his own safety.
It's never a good idea to follow someone....hmmmm I dont buy that story!

Why on earth would he phone the police if he intended to follow someone and shoot them? Don't you think that would draw attention to himself somewhat and place him at the scene?

Do you also disregard the evidence of Jonathan Good?

by Raggamuffin Mon May 16, 2016 6:29 pm

Original Quill wrote:
eddie wrote:Right for what it's worth I'm going to add my own tuppence worth:

If someone follows someone else - and it's not for a friendly "surprise! I'm going to hug you!" - and they're doing it with anger in their system then they're generally only following that person for one reason: a fight or a confrontation.

Add to that the fact there Zimmerman has already had a fight with his wife earlier. So the adrenaline was already there that evening.

Is that supposed to be evidence of cold-blooded murder?

by eddie Mon May 16, 2016 6:30 pm

Original Quill wrote:
eddie wrote:Right for what it's worth I'm going to add my own tuppence worth:

If someone follows someone else - and it's not for a friendly "surprise! I'm going to hug you!" - and they're doing it with anger in their system then they're generally only following that person for one reason: a fight or a confrontation.

Add to that the fact there Zimmerman has already had a fight with his wife earlier. So the adrenaline was already there that evening.

You don't follow someone unless you have adrenaline pumping,whichever way you look at it.

by Raggamuffin Mon May 16, 2016 6:33 pm

eddie wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Add to that the fact there Zimmerman has already had a fight with his wife earlier. So the adrenaline was already there that evening.

You don't follow someone unless you have adrenaline pumping,whichever way you look at it.

You might if you thought they were up to no good. People keep on saying that Zimmerman followed Martin. He went in the same direction for a little way - he didn't chase him up and down the bloody road.

by Guest Mon May 16, 2016 6:33 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
4EVER2 wrote:Awwww, Quill...is it any use arguing with TV facts; I mean it is 'TV REALITY'...what trumps TV REALITY --- it's always about the TRUTH.
You mean the facts of the trial. You seem to be the one who was taken in by media reports, race baiters, and blatantly biased speculation.

Didn't you just complain on another thread about "sideline participation"?

I know how it irritates you to be proven wrong...but over on Page#1 - I'm in there for 8 posts prior to your arrival;
Yipper 8, posts just on that first page...but who's counting?
LMAO, Oh, that's right you do! Rolling Eyes

But your continued squawking about 'PROOF' and your confusion about AMERICAN LAW does not EQUATE...but continue to The Zimmerman / Martin Case - Page 3 2023022481

you've built up quite a rhythm to your killing the topic. The Zimmerman / Martin Case - Page 3 3239900740

by Raggamuffin Mon May 16, 2016 6:36 pm

4EVER2 wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:
You mean the facts of the trial. You seem to be the one who was taken in by media reports, race baiters, and blatantly biased speculation.

Didn't you just complain on another thread about "sideline participation"?
I know how it irritates you to be proven wrong...but over on Page#1 - I'm in there for 8 posts prior to your arrival;
Yipper 8, posts just on that firs page...but who's counting?
LMAO, Oh, that's right you do!

But your continued squawking about 'PROOF' and your confusion about AMERICAN LAW does not EQUATE...but continue to you've built up quite a rhythm to your killing the topic.

You're just trolling now though aren't you? I know you don't approve of that kind of thing ...

You're the one who has produced no proof that Martin was murdered. In fact, you were proved wrong about that when he was acquitted. You're the one who's confused about the law - you appear to think that the fact a black teenager was shot proves that it was murder.

by Original Quill Mon May 16, 2016 6:38 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Let's start with the fact is that Zimmerman did kill Trayvon.

Now, where is the evidence that he did not intend it? It all comes out of his own mouth. One has a motive to lie when on trial for murder. All of Zimmerman's defense is self-concocted, and a racist jury wanted to believe him. Say what you want...everybody knows.

The phone call, the fact that Martin didn't go home as he could have, the fact that Martin was on top of Zimmerman. Where is your evidence that the shooting was premeditated?

He didn't give evidence at the trial - don't you know that?

I think you're as inept as the prosecution at the trial. Saying that "everybody knows" is hardly evidence is it?

You're upset. Never get upset...it screws up your mind.

Martin was being stalked and he knew it, so his actions were as expected. He was the responder, not the initiator. Any person, fearful of his safety, not to mention his life, would do as Martin did: he tried to stand up to his stalker.

Zimmerman had a gun; why was that if not to kill or seriously injure someone?? Most private cops do not carry guns (for fear of liability), so why would a mere self-appointed neighborhood watcher even think to have a gun if he was not intending to use it?

Add to that that he had just had a fight with his wife, and he was looking for some sort of trouble by all expectations.

by Raggamuffin Mon May 16, 2016 6:41 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

The phone call, the fact that Martin didn't go home as he could have, the fact that Martin was on top of Zimmerman. Where is your evidence that the shooting was premeditated?

He didn't give evidence at the trial - don't you know that?

I think you're as inept as the prosecution at the trial. Saying that "everybody knows" is hardly evidence is it?

You're upset. Never get upset...it screws up your mind.

Martin was being stalked and he knew it, so his actions were as expected. He was the responder, not the initiator. Any person, fearful of his safety, not to mention his life, would do as Martin did: he tried to stand up to his stalker.

Zimmerman had a gun; why was that if not to kill or seriously injure someone?? Most private cops do not carry guns (for fear of liability), so why would a mere self-appointed neighborhood watcher even think to have a gun if he was not intending to use it?

Add to that that he had just had a fight with his wife, and he was looking for some sort of trouble by all expectations.

I'm not upset. You're upset because you can't counter what I'm saying, and you can't convince me that you're right. I'm surprised you haven't started screaming that I must be "racist" because I'm defending the facts of the case.

So are you now saying that Martin did indeed hang around and wait for Zimmerman in order to confront him?

Why does anyone in the US carry a gun?

The last line is pure speculation which would completely fail in a court of law.

by eddie Mon May 16, 2016 6:42 pm

Rags I know you watched it, I didn't, so Imcant argue the facts, and I'm not clued up about law as quill is so I can't argue the law....but, from a completey logical standpoint, one man (already pumped with adrenaline) followed another man, and then the man being followed, ended up dead.

It seems quite clear cut to me.

by Raggamuffin Mon May 16, 2016 6:43 pm

eddie wrote:Rags I know you watched it, I didn't, so Imcant argue the facts, and I'm not clued up about law as quill is so I can't argue the law....but, from a completey logical standpoint, one man (already pumped with adrenaline) followed another man, and then the man being followed, ended up dead.

It seems quite clear cut to me.

That's because you didn't follow the trial, as others also clearly did not. Had you done so, you would have understood what happened. If you don't know the facts of the case, perhaps you should check them before you say it's "clear cut".

by eddie Mon May 16, 2016 6:45 pm

Fair enough.

by Original Quill Mon May 16, 2016 6:46 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
eddie wrote:

Hmmmm. Righto. So he wasn't scared of him, or worried about his own safety.
It's never a good idea to follow someone....hmmmm I dont buy that story!

Why on earth would he phone the police if he intended to follow someone and shoot them? Don't you think that would draw attention to himself somewhat and place him at the scene?

Do you also disregard the evidence of Jonathan Good?

To make it look legitimate. He was a copper wanna-be. The evidence was that he always played these passive-aggressive games. He wanted to draw attention to himself...he was feeling down, and a (passive-aggressive) killing would be just the ticket.

It wasn't a robbery. It wasn't a love triangle. Follow the ball...he was motivated because he had low self-esteem, and killing a black child and assuming the mantle of authority would be just the pick-me-up.

by eddie Mon May 16, 2016 6:53 pm

Tbh that does sound plausible and probable, to me.

by Original Quill Mon May 16, 2016 6:54 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

You're upset. Never get upset...it screws up your mind.

Martin was being stalked and he knew it, so his actions were as expected. He was the responder, not the initiator. Any person, fearful of his safety, not to mention his life, would do as Martin did: he tried to stand up to his stalker.

Zimmerman had a gun; why was that if not to kill or seriously injure someone?? Most private cops do not carry guns (for fear of liability), so why would a mere self-appointed neighborhood watcher even think to have a gun if he was not intending to use it?

Add to that that he had just had a fight with his wife, and he was looking for some sort of trouble by all expectations.

I'm not upset. You're upset because you can't counter what I'm saying, and you can't convince me that you're right. I'm surprised you haven't started screaming that I must be "racist" because I'm defending the facts of the case.

Just trying to help you out. I would never assume to convince you; I'm writing for others who have a fairer view.

Raggamuffin wrote:So are you now saying that Martin did indeed hang around and wait for Zimmerman in order to confront him?

Frankly, looking at the map, I don't think there was the space or time for the two to avoid each other. Zimmerman was intent on zoning in on Trayvon, and that is consistent with his purpose of stalking him.

Raggamuffin wrote:Why does anyone in the US carry a gun?

Most don't. Those that do are generally of low self-esteem, as Zimmerman clearly was. Chasing his girlfriend down the street with a loaded gun, as happened subsequently, is a clear indication of not only a domestically violent, emotional person, but one who is not in control of himself.

by Raggamuffin Mon May 16, 2016 7:01 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Why on earth would he phone the police if he intended to follow someone and shoot them? Don't you think that would draw attention to himself somewhat and place him at the scene?

Do you also disregard the evidence of Jonathan Good?

To make it look legitimate. He was a copper wanna-be. The evidence was that he always played these passive-aggressive games. He wanted to draw attention to himself...he was feeling down, and a (passive-aggressive) killing would be just the ticket.

It wasn't a robbery. It wasn't a love triangle. Follow the ball...he was motivated because he had low self-esteem, and killing a black child and assuming the mantle of authority would be just the pick-me-up.

It was a legitimate call. What on earth makes you say it wasn't? Are you seriously suggesting that the call to the police was a ploy to hide a planned murder? Get real.

Sure he wanted to draw attention to himself, but that doesn't mean he murdered anyone in order to do so. He wanted to be the one who pointed the police in the direction of a suspicious person. Of course Trayvon was there legitimately, but Zimmerman didn't think so at the time.

Once again, you have completely ignored the evidence of one of the the main witnesses - Jonathan Good. In fact, you've sidestepped that issue all the way through this discussion. Why is that Quill?

by Raggamuffin Mon May 16, 2016 7:03 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm not upset. You're upset because you can't counter what I'm saying, and you can't convince me that you're right. I'm surprised you haven't started screaming that I must be "racist" because I'm defending the facts of the case.

Just trying to help you out. I would never assume to convince you; I'm writing for others who have a fairer view.

Raggamuffin wrote:So are you now saying that Martin did indeed hang around and wait for Zimmerman in order to confront him?

Frankly, looking at the map, I don't think there was the space or time for the two to avoid each other. Zimmerman was intent on zoning in on Trayvon, and that is consistent with his purpose of stalking him.

Raggamuffin wrote:Why does anyone in the US carry a gun?

Most don't. Those that do are generally of low self-esteem, as Zimmerman clearly was. Chasing his girlfriend down the street with a loaded gun, as happened subsequently, is a clear indication of not only a domestically violent, emotional person, but one who is not in control of himself.

You're writing for those who have a biased view, a view largely based on trial by media. I thought better of you than that Quill, but hey ...

You see where Zimmerman parked? Martin went up that path behind the houses, and Zimmerman went the same way for a little way, all the time talking to the police. Now you tell me how they could have crossed paths unless Martin waited for Zimmerman or came back?

by Original Quill Mon May 16, 2016 7:04 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
eddie wrote:Rags I know you watched it, I didn't, so Imcant argue the facts, and I'm not clued up about law as quill is so I can't argue the law....but, from a completey logical standpoint, one man (already pumped with adrenaline) followed another man, and then the man being followed, ended up dead.

It seems quite clear cut to me.

That's because you didn't follow the trial, as others also clearly did not. Had you done so, you would have understood what happened. If you don't know the facts of the case, perhaps you should check them before you say it's "clear cut".

The issue between us is neither the law or the facts. It's the interpretation one places on the facts. Raggs, you are doing exactly what the Florida jury did...cherry-pick among the facts, conveniently ignoring some, recoloring some, shortening distances, recasting conversations...all in an attempt to avoid the simplest fact of all: Zimmerman was stalking a boy, and ended up holding a smoking gun, with the boy dead.

It should have all ended there. But the defense put on this dance-a-thon, which in any other jurisdiction would be laughed out of court. But in a Florida jury, wanting to blame the black guy, Zimmerman gets of. What a surprise.

by Raggamuffin Mon May 16, 2016 7:09 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

That's because you didn't follow the trial, as others also clearly did not. Had you done so, you would have understood what happened. If you don't know the facts of the case, perhaps you should check them before you say it's "clear cut".

The issue between us is neither the law or the facts. It's the interpretation one places on the facts. Raggs, you are doing exactly what the Florida jury did...cherry-pick among the facts, conveniently ignoring some, recoloring some, shortening distances, recasting conversations...all in an attempt to avoid the simplest fact of all: Zimmerman was stalking a boy, and ended up holding a smoking gun, with the boy dead.

It should have all ended there. But the defense put on this dance-a-thon, which in any other jurisdiction would be laughed out of court. But in a Florida jury, wanting to blame the black guy, Zimmerman gets of. What a surprise.

I can't believe you said that. You have completely ignored the vast majority of the evidence and you say I'm cherry picking. Really Quill - you just have to be trolling.

I haven't shortened any distances. I've looked at the distances involved, whereas you clearly have not. You claimed that they couldn't have avoided each other, which is completely false.

The jury had no option based on the evidence other than to acquit. The prosecution didn't have a leg to stand on.

by Original Quill Mon May 16, 2016 7:12 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:It was a legitimate call. What on earth makes you say it wasn't? Are you seriously suggesting that the call to the police was a ploy to hide a planned murder? Get real.

Zimmerman had something in mind. Why stalk? Why, when the cops said not to? Why do you have a gun, fcs? You are virtually looking for trouble.

You may say: Yes, but he didn't intend to murder. But how do you know? Are you going to play psychotherapist too? Once one sets out for trouble, isn't he or she responsible for all he does? If I rob a liquor store, and the gun goes off and kills the clerk...can I honestly say it was the clerk's fault?

by Raggamuffin Mon May 16, 2016 7:14 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:It was a legitimate call. What on earth makes you say it wasn't? Are you seriously suggesting that the call to the police was a ploy to hide a planned murder? Get real.

Zimmerman had something in mind. Why stalk? Why, when the cops said not to? Why do you have a gun, fcs? You are virtually looking for trouble.

You may say: Yes, but he didn't intend to murder. But how do you know? Are you going to play psychotherapist too? Once one sets out for trouble, isn't he or she responsible for all he does? If I rob a liquor store, and the gun goes off and kills the clerk...can I honestly say it was the clerk's fault?

The point is that he didn't after the dispatcher said he didn't need to. He had lost sight of Trayvon, and it's hard to stalk someone you can't actually see, right?

How do you know that he did intend to murder?

Let's face it Quill, if it had been a black man shooting a non-black person, you'd have been defending the black man.

Once again, you have ignored the testimony of Jonathan Good. Are you ever going to address it?

by Original Quill Mon May 16, 2016 7:27 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Zimmerman had something in mind. Why stalk? Why, when the cops said not to? Why do you have a gun, fcs? You are virtually looking for trouble.

You may say: Yes, but he didn't intend to murder. But how do you know? Are you going to play psychotherapist too? Once one sets out for trouble, isn't he or she responsible for all he does? If I rob a liquor store, and the gun goes off and kills the clerk...can I honestly say it was the clerk's fault?

The point is that he didn't after the dispatcher said he didn't need to. He had lost sight of Trayvon, and it's hard to stalk someone you can't actually see, right?

That's what he says. But he's the one with the biggest motive to lie.

Raggamuffin wrote:How do you know that he did intend to murder?

Simple, cause and effect. He did murder him. Now it's incumbent upon the murderer to excuse his actions...and not by his own self-serving lies. Anyone can lie; it's expected. In order to get off, he should have strong independent evidence that shows his excuse, clearly.

Raggamuffin wrote:Let's face it Quill, if it had been a black man shooting a non-black person, you'd have been defending the black man. ?

And, of course, the black man would have been convicted. Rolling Eyes

You and I both know that.

Perhaps I'm always playing devil's advocate, but that's because its an adversarial game. I"m wanting to see a fair assessment of the evidence and a judicious outcome. That didn't happened in this case. I think this jury thought like you...pick and choose carefully among the evidence, so that the white man ends up blameless and the black guy gets the shaft.

It's the way the game is played in the south.

by Raggamuffin Mon May 16, 2016 7:30 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

The point is that he didn't after the dispatcher said he didn't need to. He had lost sight of Trayvon, and it's hard to stalk someone you can't actually see, right?

That's what he says. But he's the one with the biggest motive to lie.

Raggamuffin wrote:How do you know that he did intend to murder?

Simple, cause and effect. He did murder him. Now it's incumbent upon the murderer to excuse his actions...and not by his own self-serving lies. Anyone can lie; it's expected. In order to get off, he should have strong independent evidence that shows his excuse, clearly.

Raggamuffin wrote:Let's face it Quill, if it had been a black man shooting a non-black person, you'd have been defending the black man. ?

And, of course, the black man would have been convicted. You and I both know that.

Perhaps I'm always playing devil's advocate, but that's because its an adversarial game. I"m wanting to see a fair assessment of the evidence and a judicious outcome. That didn't happened in this case. I think this jury thought like you...pick and choose carefully among the evidence, so that the white man is blameless and the black guy gets the shaft.

It's the way the game is played in the south.

No Quill, he didn't murder TM, he shot him - big difference. He did explain what happened, and he was backed up by a prosecution witness. The onus is on you to show evidence that he murdered Martin.

As I said, you're the one picking and choosing what you want to see. All you've said really is that a guy shot a black guy, so it must have been murder.

Oh, and Zimmerman isn't white.

by Guest Mon May 16, 2016 7:55 pm

A member of the jury that acquitted George Zimmerman said Thursday she thinks Zimmerman "got away with murder" but that jurors had no choice in finding him not guilty under the law.
In an interview Thursday with ABC News, the woman identified as Juror B29 during the trial discussed the deliberations that led to the acquittal of Zimmerman on second-degree murder and manslaughter charges on July 13 in the shooting death last year of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman said he shot Martin in self defense.
The juror, whom the network identified as Puerto Rican, was the only minority member on the six-woman jury.
The jurors' names remain sealed, but the woman allowed ABC to show her face and identify her by the name Maddy. She is a nursing assistant and the mother of eight children.
The woman said the evidence didn't prove murder, "Even though in our hearts we felt he was guilty."
"We had to grab our hearts and put it aside and look at the evidence," she said.
Juror B29 said she initially held out for convicting Zimmerman of second-degree murder, but after nine hours of deliberations, she came to the conclusion that wasn't enough proof under Florida law.
"I was the juror that was going to give them the hung jury. I fought to the end," she said.
"George Zimmerman got away with murder, but you can't get away from God. And at the end of the day, he's going to have a lot of questions and answers he has to deal with," she said. But "the law couldn't prove it."
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/juror-zimmerman-got-away-murder-had-be-acquitted-f6C10755747

Not Guilty Under The Legal Description of the LAW; but "guilty to those that sat there day in day out and HEARD every finite detail of the testimony" {not edited out for commercial breaks for the TV view audience}...for those 12 Jurors - One and only one minority out of all those other 11 chosen!
Point and match set - Game to Quill. Razz

And not that I hold much value in 'POLLS' per say but Ragg's your continued pushing your POV about that #13 view you had seated there in front of your TV is not shared by the vast majority of Americans that do comprehend our LAWS and what the charges could have/should have been against Zimmerman >

A nationwide poll conducted for the Washington Post and ABC News found sharp divisions along racial and political lines over the shooting and over the jury's verdict. Nearly 90% of African Americans called the shooting unjustified, compared to 33% of whites; and some 62% of Democrats disapproved of the verdict, compared to 20% of Republicans.
Gallup reported that the reaction was "almost exactly the opposite" of that following the O. J. Simpson murder case, when 89% of African Americans agreed with the jury decision, compared to 36% of whites.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin

So you have a opinion here but your opinion wouldn't carry much weight out in America where Zimmerman is viewed as a Leper and rightfully so.

Testimony doesn't always make the case/nor will it guarantee the murderer go to jail...hence the reason that many prosecution cases do not go to court because the state appointed attorneys know the case {no matter how horrible} just can't be won and the state that they represent can't afford another loss and an election period might be close at hand and that will spell doom for a re-election bid.

by eddie Mon May 16, 2016 7:56 pm

Nobody follows someone unless they want to catch up to them.
If you're in an agitated state, and you follow someone, what is your intention?

by Original Quill Mon May 16, 2016 7:57 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:No Quill, he didn't murder TM, he shot him - big difference.

A difference without a distinction, in this case.

Raggamuffin wrote:He did explain what happened, and he was backed up by a prosecution witness. The onus is on you to show evidence that he murdered Martin.

He explained. And the witness was only peripheral; he did not witness the murder. Everyone has an excuse.

Again, you don't answer, but avoid. The fact is that Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin. Now, that's one hellava outstanding question, doncha think? The onus is on the shooter to justify the shot, wouldn't you say? And I don't mean he should concoct a bunch of self-serving lies. I mean he should bring forth independent evidence. Zimmerman has none...all he has are his own excuses and explanations.

Raggamuffin wrote:As I said, you're the one picking and choosing what you want to see. All you've said really is that a guy shot a black guy, so it must have been murder.

Well I see, first and foremost, that someone stalked someone, while carrying a loaded gun, and he ended up pulling that gun, and he ended up causing it to fire, and he ended up killing someone. There are some pretty obvious inferences to be made; and the necessity is for the guy who did this is to refute those inferences. That's before anyone legally recognizes that one of them is black.

Now, when a jury comes up with an extraordinary conclusion that, on the basis of self-serving testimony, they believe the killer, and blame the victim, you begin to look elsewhere for the answer. That's when the black/white factor comes into the picture.

Add to that this is the south after all, and no one appears concerned that someone is dead--least of all, the black child--and you find that widening the inquiry to include the black/white factor yields some pretty good answers.

Raggamuffin wrote:Oh, and Zimmerman isn't white.

But in the south, when compared to someone of the negroid race, he is.

by Raggamuffin Mon May 16, 2016 8:05 pm

4EVER2 wrote:
A member of the jury that acquitted George Zimmerman said Thursday she thinks Zimmerman "got away with murder" but that jurors had no choice in finding him not guilty under the law.
In an interview Thursday with ABC News, the woman identified as Juror B29 during the trial discussed the deliberations that led to the acquittal of Zimmerman on second-degree murder and manslaughter charges on July 13 in the shooting death last year of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman said he shot Martin in self defense.
The juror, whom the network identified as Puerto Rican, was the only minority member on the six-woman jury.
The jurors' names remain sealed, but the woman allowed ABC to show her face and identify her by the name Maddy. She is a nursing assistant and the mother of eight children.
The woman said the evidence didn't prove murder, "Even though in our hearts we felt he was guilty."
"We had to grab our hearts and put it aside and look at the evidence," she said.
Juror B29 said she initially held out for convicting Zimmerman of second-degree murder, but after nine hours of deliberations, she came to the conclusion that wasn't enough proof under Florida law.
"I was the juror that was going to give them the hung jury. I fought to the end," she said.
"George Zimmerman got away with murder, but you can't get away from God. And at the end of the day, he's going to have a lot of questions and answers he has to deal with," she said. But "the law couldn't prove it."
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/juror-zimmerman-got-away-murder-had-be-acquitted-f6C10755747
Not Guilty Under The Legal Description of the LAW; but "guilty to those that sat there day in day out and HEARD every finite detail of the testimony" {not edited out for commercial breaks for the TV view audience}...for those 12 Jurors - One and only one minority out of all those other 11 chosen!
Point and match set - Game to Quill.
And not that I hold much value in 'POLLS' per say but Ragg's your continued pushing your POV about that #13 view you had seated there in front of you TV is not shared by the vast majority of Americans that do comprehend out LAWS and what the charges could have/should have been against Zimmerman>

A nationwide poll conducted for the Washington Post and ABC News found sharp divisions along racial and political lines over the shooting and over the jury's verdict. Nearly 90% of African Americans called the shooting unjustified, compared to 33% of whites; and some 62% of Democrats disapproved of the verdict, compared to 20% of Republicans.
Gallup reported that the reaction was "almost exactly the opposite" of that following the O. J. Simpson murder case, when 89% of African Americans agreed with the jury decision, compared to 36% of whites.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin
So you have a opinion here but your opinion wouldn't carry much weight out in America where Zimmerman is viewed as a Leper and rightfully so.

Testimony doesn't always make the case/nor will it guarantee the murderer go to jail...hence the reason that many prosecution cases do not go to court because the state appointed attorneys know the case {no matter how horrible} just can't be won and the state that they represent can't afford another loss and an election period might be close at hand and that will spell doom for a re-election bid.

There were six jurors, not twelve. Do you think you could get your facts right before you start spouting off?

I'm very aware of what that juror said thanks. She can only speak for herself of course. She says she fought until the end, but she knew there was no evidence to suggest it was murder.

Anyway, there wasn't evidence to support a guilty verdict, which is exactly the point. Which bit of that are you confused about?

Of course the vast majority of black people in the US will say it was murder - I would have thought it was obvious that they're going to be completely biased. Of course they're going to agree with the O J Simpson murder verdict. Have you not yet worked out that most black people in the US will side with another black person, regardless of the evidence, especially if they can have a pop at a white person whilst doing so?

Why would you think I care about polls, or what other people think? I'm not swayed by that - I'm a free thinker, unlike you and Quill.

by Raggamuffin Mon May 16, 2016 8:14 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:No Quill, he didn't murder TM, he shot him - big difference.

A difference without a distinction, in this case.

Raggamuffin wrote:He did explain what happened, and he was backed up by a prosecution witness. The onus is on you to show evidence that he murdered Martin.

He explained. And the witness was only peripheral; he did not witness the murder. Everyone has an excuse.

Again, you don't answer, but avoid. The fact is that Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin. Now, that's one hellava outstanding question, doncha think? The onus is on the shooter to justify the shot, wouldn't you say? And I don't mean he should concoct a bunch of self-serving lies. I mean he should bring forth independent evidence. Zimmerman has none...all he has are his own excuses and explanations.

Raggamuffin wrote:As I said, you're the one picking and choosing what you want to see. All you've said really is that a guy shot a black guy, so it must have been murder.

Well I see, first and foremost, that someone stalked someone, while carrying a loaded gun, and he ended up pulling that gun, and he ended up causing it to fire, and he ended up killing someone. There are some pretty obvious inferences to be made; and the necessity is for the guy who did this is to refute those inferences. That's before anyone legally recognizes that one of them is black.

Now, when a jury comes up with an extraordinary conclusion that, on the basis of self-serving testimony, they believe the killer, and blame the victim, you begin to look elsewhere for the answer. That's when the black/white factor comes into the picture.

Add to that this is the south after all, and no one appears concerned that someone is dead--least of all, the black child--and you find that widening the inquiry to include the black/white factor yields some pretty good answers.

Raggamuffin wrote:Oh, and Zimmerman isn't white.

But in the south, when compared to someone of the negroid race, he is.

Jonathan Good didn't witness a murder because there was no murder. He witnessed Trayvon Martin on top of Zimmerman straddling him, and he was very careful to say what he saw - he described it as "ground and pound".

Zimmerman did justify the shooting, backed up by evidence. It's you who can't justify your accusation that it was murder.

There's no need to look for racial issues - the evidence was there for all to see - Martin was on top of Zimmerman, and Zimmerman shot him in self defence.

Give it up Quill, you can't win this one. Cool

by Original Quill Mon May 16, 2016 8:15 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Of course the vast majority of black people in the US will say it was murder - I would have thought it was obvious that they're going to be completely biased. Of course they're going to agree with the O J Simpson murder verdict. Have you not yet worked out that most black people in the US will side with another black person, regardless of the evidence, especially if they can have a pop at a white person whilst doing so?

Reminds me of a racist joke. A white feller in a pickup truck runs into the sheriff's office and tells him there's been an terrible car accident with some n---ers 'up the road, yonder'.

'Well, how are the people?' the sheriff asks.

'I buried 'em,' the guy said.

'Well, are you sure they's all dead?'

'Yep. Some 'o 'em protested. But sheriff, you know how they lie'.

Raggs, you are falling into the same trap that the jury did. Believe the white man, no matter how outlandish his facts.

by Raggamuffin Mon May 16, 2016 8:18 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Of course the vast majority of black people in the US will say it was murder - I would have thought it was obvious that they're going to be completely biased. Of course they're going to agree with the O J Simpson murder verdict. Have you not yet worked out that most black people in the US will side with another black person, regardless of the evidence, especially if they can have a pop at a white person whilst doing so?

Reminds me of a racist joke. A white feller in a pickup truck runs into the sheriff's office and tells him there's been an terrible car accident with some n---ers 'up the road, yonder'.

'Well, how are the people?' the sheriff asks.

'I buried 'em,' the guy said.

'Well, are you sure they's all dead?'

'Yep. Some 'o 'em protested. But sheriff, you know how they lie'.

Raggs, you are falling into the same trap that the jury did. Believe the white man, no matter how outlandish his facts.

No Quill, it's you who's falling in the trap created by the race baiters. You believe that Martin was murdered, and that's because you will automatically side with a black person - it's part of your white guilt.

by Sponsored content