http://news.yahoo.com/florida-city-bans-guns-neighborhood-watch-volunteers-170449357--finance.html (http://news.yahoo.com/florida-city-bans-guns-neighborhood-watch-volunteers-170449357--finance.html)

Bad decision.  Now those residents will have to defend themselves.  One more line of defense removed.

Kind of like closing the gates after the horses get out... 

anchoragedan --- Criminals, many of whom have NEVER received as many federal entitlements as they need to survive, often require guns to defend themselves from wealthy homeowners trying to defend themselves during burglaries!  If those wealthy home-owners were denied the right to own guns then perhaps the criminals wouldn't need them, either!  That's what I believe that 1965hawks is trying to say here!
 
http://www.dailykos.com (http://www.dailykos.com) .................. http://www.MoveOn.org (http://www.MoveOn.org)

Are the local authorities going to step up their presence to compensate?  If they don't can we sue the local authorities fro not being there?

I agree, Jigsaw-II. But like I said: better late than never. And did you notice how anchoragedan and byteryder7 posted opinionated arguments rather than discussing the actual content of the article?

1965hawks --- I was seriously disgusted when the voters of Colorado earlier this autumn re-called those two Democrat Party state legislators who had signed new anti-gun-legislation into law!  I hope that President Obama has offered them both jobs within his administration!
 
http://www.dailykos.com (http://www.dailykos.com/) .................. http://www.MoveOn.org (http://www.moveon.org/)

Now THAT should make the african ghetto thug happy now they can rob rape and murder and not worry about getting shot, by a neighborhood watch person in Florida.

Why is it the negro that's whining about the law.

As much as I am pro-gun, I don't think this restriction is a bad idea. I don't like the idea of some Barney Fife, mall cop running around murdering children like Zimmerman did. It's too bad that happened, but happen it did. Observe and report is the duty of neighborhood watch. Not pursue and confront. I think everyone should have a right to carry concealed firearms, but when a bad egg like GZ goes off the farm it makes it bad for the non-crazies.

(( And did you notice how anchoragedan and byteryder7 posted opinionated arguments rather than discussing the actual content of the article? ))


YUP ! I noticed.  But with them, it's so common, I don't pay that much attention to them and rarely will reply...   

don't-blameme --- What are you implying?  Trayvon Martin was a SAINT!  And he looked like he could have been our president's own SON!
 
wmbn-bs & JigSaw-II --- There's only so much we can each do to change the minds of these right-wingers who frequent this forum!  I believe that it's probably best to ignore them!
 
http://www.dailykos.com (http://www.dailykos.com/) .................. http://www.MoveOn.org (http://www.moveon.org/)

What are you implying?  Trayvon Martin was a SAINT\
 
yep saint skittles in a hoodie that thought he was one bad motherjammer, so bad he was known as the no limits nicca.
 
But that was before he was introduced to bad.

More like OPENING the gates after the horses have been kept in.  Law abiding gun owning citizens protecting their community has kept the horses at bay.  Now they are opening the gates to let the horses out.

The content of the article is not in dispute, is it?  I am comment on the content of the article.  There's no need for me to repeat it when it has already been presented.

For every crime that is committed, in an area were neighborhood watch has been disarmed lets charge 10 negro's as accessories, after the fact, after all they pushed for the change.

How about this 1965hawks wasn't the law changed based on opinionated arguments by a few african americans?

Tardmex, I don't think the minds of your average rightwinger needs to be changed regarding responsible gun ownership, or the right to carry. Apparently some don't quite grasp the concept of responsible gun ownership. GZ got away with murder as much as OJ and Casey Anthony. I have a feeling they are aware of that, but their bigotry disallows reasonable thoughts to be posted.

SO NOW ALL THE HOME OWNERS WILL NEED TO BE ARMED RATHER THAN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH. AND YOU THINK THAT'S A GOOD THING?

wmdn-bs --- Do you know who calls me names like "Tardmex?"  It's the right-wingers & their racist Tea Party allies!  Are you a right-wingers?  Are you a racist?  Are you a Tea Party member?

No?  Then get my name right!

http://www.dailykos.com (http://www.dailykos.com/) .................. http://www.MoveOn.org (http://www.moveon.org/)

A victory for criminals everywhere and the end of neighborhood watches or at least any person claiming to operate as under that name!

The question is, does that city have the authority under Florida State law to pass such a gun ban?

I bet they don't!

So what you're saying bs is if a african thug was pounding your head in the concrete and you was armed you would just scream like a pussy, and beg him to stop.

It's called commentary.  That's what we're supposed to do on this forum.  If we don't give our opinions, what is the point of being here?


You don't pay attention to anyone then, because all that interests you is raw news.  You can get that from the AP wire.  So why are you here?

DBM, what I am saying is I would have observed and reported, not confronted and shooted. You may be too obstinate to admit it, but I am sure you are smart enough to know that GZ did not do as he was instructed.

He was "instructed" to give his location.  He was "advised" that he didn't NEED to follow Martin, to which Zimmerman replied "Okay."
 
So where is the evidence that Zimmerman did not do as he was "instructed?"  What instruction did he not follow?

But we know saint skittles in the hoodie done what he was accused of and it cost him his life.
 
And I still say you would lay there and scream like a pussy bs in appears to be in your make up and attitude of cant we all just along.

Observe and report, not confont and shoot. I don't expect the police to come to my workplace and do my job. Except in the case of self defense, I won't do theirs. I wouldn't have put myself in the position of finding it necessary to shoot an unarmed child.

I find it strange you would want a person to be beaten to death instead of defending himself!

You have no evidence Zimmerman perused Martin!

I didn't say he perused him, I said he pursued him. I find you strange if you believe TM pursued GZ and confronted him. After all, didn't he say GZ was a "creepy ass cracka" or some such thing as that. Answer this: If you were walking home in the dark, in the rain, AND found yourself being followed by somebody you thought was creepy, AND possible trouble, AND you were armed with nothing more than a bag of skittles, AND you were a youth, would you keep moving, perhaps at a little more hurried pace, or would you turn around pursue the creep ass cracka and confront him. I'll wait for your answer before I determine if I think you are honest or a liar.

By confront you mean assault despite there being no provocation?

By what right did Martin assault Zimmerman?

That's what I thought. You are being dishonest by evading the question. Deflect and spin is the typical modus operandi of people that have trouble being dishonest.

How is asking questions for clarification "evading the question"?

By confront you mean assault despite there being no provocation?

By what right did Martin assault Zimmerman?

Because GZ pursued and confronted him after he was told he didn't need to do that by the dispatcher. Fight or flight. Right? He tried to keep going, but he was pursued by a creepy dude until he feared for his life and turned around. Unfortunately, GZ wasn't as tough as he thought he was and decided to shoot a youth armed with a bag of skittles and an iced tea. Now answer the question. You answered mine with a question. That is unacceptable.

Again, you have no evidence of that!

All the evidence points to Martin as the aggressor who was shot while attempting to murder a helpless man lying on the ground!

Just as I thought. you are not man enough to answer the question directly.

Answer what?

You've evaded the question so long you forgot what it was. Do you know what year this is? Who's playing in the World Series? Your name? I am tired of your childishness. Good day to you.

So you have no idea?

Or is it you are ashamed of the "question" you asked?

I said good day to you. If you are too lazy to go back and read it, then you aren't worthy of a response. You nare almost as stupid as Luke, and at least as dishonest. Your one quality that sets you apart from him is that you generally type in complete sentences. You can go back under the bridge with the rest of the trolls now. I'm through with you. You've shown what low standards of honesty you have.

So you have no idea?

Or is it you are ashamed of the "question" you asked?

That's what Zimmerman did.
 

Zimmerman didn't confront.
 

Volunteering to help your community fight crime is not for everyone.  Obviously you are not one of them.

I would keep walking.  But then again, I'm not a drugged up wannabe gangsta hoodlum trying to impress my girlfriend by beating someone up.  But instead of speculating, why don't we just look at what the evidence shows.

Wrong!  There is no evidence that Zimmerman confronted Martin.
 

Zimmermand didn't confront Martin before OR after the dispatcher ADVISED him he didn't NEED to FOLLOW.
 

He doubled back and confronted Zimmerman.
 

That's not what his girlfriend said.
 

Don't forget about his two fists, which he used to ground and pound Zimmerman with.
 
With the facts so easily available, how is it possible that you can be so wrong about the basic facts of this case, wmd?  Good Lord, try doing some research.

To: anchoragedan, byteryder7, don't-blameme, upyrwazoo, and D2D
 
http://news.yahoo.com/florida-city-bans-guns-neighborhood-watch-volunteers-170449357--finance.html (http://news.yahoo.com/florida-city-bans-guns-neighborhood-watch-volunteers-170449357--finance.html)
 
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-zimmerman-neighborhood-watch-gun-20131030,0,5910685.story (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-zimmerman-neighborhood-watch-gun-20131030,0,5910685.story)

Chris Tutko, director of Neighborhood Watch for the National Sheriffs' Association, previously told the Orlando Sentinel that Zimmerman broke some cardinal rules.
First, he approached a stranger he suspected of wrongdoing.
"If you see something suspicious, you report it, you step aside and you let law enforcement do their job," Tutko said. "This guy went way beyond the call of duty. At the least, he's overzealous."
Second, Zimmerman carried a handgun. Police departments and sheriff's offices that train volunteers advise them never to carry weapons — though Zimmerman broke no laws by doing so because he has a concealed-weapons permit.
"The police can't do it all," said Tutko, who has spent four decades in law enforcement. "They need the people to be involved. As tragic as this situation is, I still think Neighborhood Watch is the best way for citizens to get involved in their communities."
The killing raised widespread misunderstanding about the program's purpose.

 Actually you have no proof of that!
He is assuming facts not in evidence!  When you report a suspicious person it is necessary to keep him in view in order to direct police to him!  That is what Zimmerman was supposed to do!
Advising a person observing a crime in progress to be wholly defenseless is asinine!  I will when the police go unarmed too!
Who will get involved if they are required to be wholly defenseless?

You are still retarded. I am a strong supporter of the second amendment, and believe every responsible citizen should be allowed to carry. The key word here is responsible. You can try to fool yourself all you like, but GZ was irresponsible. He is no more than a mall cop. His responsibility as a neighborhood watch volunteer was to observe and report. It is ignorant people like him that causes the anti-gun nuts to make gains. If you are too stupid to see that, then you can't be helped. I can explain it TO you, but I can't understand it FOR you.

How was Zimmerman irresponsible?

Don't continue making up your own facts!

Because he did not follow the rules of Neighborhood Watch. He interpreted it as condoned runaway vigilantism. Neighborhood Watch is not law enforcement. Do you take medication that makes you so stupid?

What rule did he violate?

Again, you have no proof of "vigilantism"!

Clearly,, you cannot back up your claims!

I don't need to prove anything to you. GZ got away with manslaughter at the least, and more likely second degree murder.

Nope, the moment Martin had him helpless, on the ground and continued to attack him despite being told the police were called shooting him became wholly justified under law!

Good day to you sir. You are too stupid to be worthy of my time beating this dead horse.

Faced with the facts you hurl insults and run away!

Typical liberal!

I'm not running from anything. Why would I be afraid of an anonymous internet thug? It is obvious you don't understand anything you are talking about so I will bid you a good day and allow you to go impress the rest of the retirees down at McDonalds while you slurp down free refills all day.

Faced with the facts you hurl insults and run away!

Typical liberal!

Alright child, come back once more and I will let you have the last word. I promise.

You quit the moment you engaged in childish name calling!

You still haven't proven me wrong!

opinionated: firmly or unduly adhering to one's own opinions or to preconceived notions.
____ Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged (1993)
 
opinionated: Holding stubbornly and often unreasonably to one's own opinions or to preconceived notions.
___ The American Heritage Dictionary of the American Language, Fifth Edition (2011)
 
D2D: "When you report a suspicious person it is necessary to keep him in view in order to direct police to him. That's what Zimmerman was supposed to do."
 
D2D's argument ignores the fact that, when Zimmerman called to report what he assumed to be someone "high" and "upto no good," the police dispatcher specifically told him that it was not necessary to follow the suspect. So the argument that Zimmerman had to keep Trayvon in view, so as to aid police officers, is obviously false. When Zimmerman called the police dispatcher to report a suspicious person, that was all he was supposed to do.
 
D2D: "Advising a person observing a crime in progress to be wholly defenseless is asinine."
 
D2D's illogical statement is based on the false premiss that one must be armed to observe a crime. And since neighbourhood watchpersons aren't sworn law enforcement officers, they are neither required (or expected) to confront suspects nor attempt to apprehend them. So, again, the argument is fallacious.
 
 
 
 

Yet, you still cannot point to anything Zimmerman did that was illegal!

He murdered Trayvon Martin.

As you have no facts to back up that claim your claim is spurious!

in re: Reply #12
 
anchoragedan,
 
Communities don't need  self-appointed vigilantes like Zimmerman "protecting" them.

And as you did not present any evidence to refute my claim, that Zimmerman stalked and murdered Trayvon after assuming he was "high" and "up to no good," then your unsupported rebuttal is dismissed.

All lies!

You have no proof Zimmerman stalked anyone!

All the evidence points to Martin as the aggressor!

Why can't you make your case with facts and not imagination!

To: don't-blameme
 
in re: Replies # 7, # 14, # 15, and #20
 
Your race-baiting doesn't provide evidence to support your opposition to Sanford, Florida's, revamping its rules for civilians acting as neighbourhood watchpersons.

D2D,
 
Sanford, Florida, revamped guideline for residents acting under the authority of neighbourhood watchmen comes in the wake of Zimmerman's actions that led to the murder of Trayvon. The guideline reiterates that neighbourhood watchmen must not carry firearms and have no authority to pursue someone they deem suspicious. If Zimmerman had not been armed with a pistol that night, it's doubtful if he would had even pursued and confronted Trayvon in the first place. Sanford's new rules lessens the probability of another community watchman committing Zimmerman's vigilantism by explicitly banning firearms from neighbourhood watchmen and prohibiting pursuit of suspects.
 
http://www.businessinsider.com/zimmerman-sanford-banning-guns-neighborhood-watch-2013-10 (http://www.businessinsider.com/zimmerman-sanford-banning-guns-neighborhood-watch-2013-10)
 
 
 
 

What is the legal penalty for carrying a legally licensed firearm while participating in the Neighborhood watch?

Getting kicked out of the neighborhood watch!

Nothing more and nothing less!

No law says you cannot report suspicious people or watch them without being in the Neighborhood watch!

D2D,
 
The issue here isn't whether residents in Sanford, Florida, can report suspicious activity in their neighbourhood to local police. The issue here is whether neighbourhood watchpersons should be authorised  to carry firearms, and pursue people they deem suspicious. After Zimmerman's unauthorized and reckless behaviour resulted in the murder of an unarmed minor, authorities in Sanford revamped its rules for neighbourhood watch participants to lessen the probability of that ever happening again. Now carrying guns is explicitly banned while on community watch duty and so is pursuing suspects. What you babbled above is another example of your ludicrous red herrings.
 
http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/sanford-neighborhood-watch-program-bans-guns (http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/sanford-neighborhood-watch-program-bans-guns)

Child, there is no proof Zimmerman pursued anyone!

All the available evidence shows Martin was the aggressor and used deadly force against Zimmerman!

 
D2D,

Today (5 Nov.) Sanford, Florida, is scheduled to officially announce that civilians acting under authority of neighbourhood watch in that city will be banned from carrying firearms and prohibited from pursuing people they believe to be acting  suspiciously. These rules come in the wake of Zimmerman's reckless actions on the night he murdered Trayvon--namely his armed pursuit of someone he simply assumed to be engaged in criminal activity. Your argument is based on opinion and not on fact, child.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/31/sanford-neighborhood-watch-no-guns-trayvon-martin_n_4181190.html

Again, you have no proof of pursuit!

All the evidence points to Martin as the aggressor and murderous intent on his part!

The issue here is whether neighbourhood watchpersons should be authorised  to carry firearms, and pursue people they deem suspicious.

Question. Was Zimmerman performing the role of neighborhood watch, or just going to the store, when the incident took place?

If he is performing the duties of a neighborhood watch volunteer, he is bound by those rules. He, through his irresponsibility, got the law changed. It doesn't matter if he was on his way to the store or was on his watch.

Wmdn, what is the penalty for concealed carry while participating in Neighborhood Watch?

Do you know?

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/30/21252509-zimmerman-aftermath-sanford-fla-wont-let-neighborhood-watch-volunteers-carry-guns (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/30/21252509-zimmerman-aftermath-sanford-fla-wont-let-neighborhood-watch-volunteers-carry-guns)
 
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/06/the-ghost-of-george-zimmerman-haunts-a-gun-debate-in-sanford-florida.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/06/the-ghost-of-george-zimmerman-haunts-a-gun-debate-in-sanford-florida.html)
 
There is no penaly... Until the next murderer de3cides to be another GZ and murder a child armed with nothing more than a bag of Skittles. When that happens, law abiding gun owners will pay the price for the stupidity of one individual. None of us wants that to happen except perhaps you, and a few others that refuse to abide by the laws of common sense.

So there is no effect in the change!

No penalty until the next murder decides to be law enforcement officer, judge, jury, and executioner. Why dom you want to see stricter gun laws? Are you anti-gun like HD, and some others? Common sense would shut many of them up. How old are you, 12?

That was no child, that was a 6 foot something 17 yr old self-professed thug

armed with MMA style fists who backed around, physically pummeled then smashed GZ's head into the cement while on top of him as the coroner testified --TM's shirt clothes were hanging away from the body chest as happens when you're on top of someone

I see you're as delusional as D2D Pacifica.

No, court testimony evidence

If he is performing the duties of a neighborhood watch volunteer, he is bound by those rules. He, through his irresponsibility, got the law changed. It doesn't matter if he was on his way to the store or was on his watch.

Calling in a suspicious person is not the exclusive act of a neighborhood watch volunteer. And it does matter. If the neighborhood watch ran scheduled patrols and he was off duty, his actions had nothing to do with neighborhood watch.

Zimmerman called the police as any normal person should have and was waiting for them to arrive when he was attacked. Had his intent been to take justice in his own hands he wouldn't of made that call.

When you encourage people to become vigilantes, you at the same time encourage the anti-gun nuts to go spastic and call for tighter restrictions. You don't want that, I don't want that, so stop acting like GZ should be canonized as Saint Gearge, patron saint of sub-divisions. He is a thug.

 That hasn't happened!

Martin was the only aggressor in this affair!

You, my oblivious friend, are certifiably insane. You should seriously seek psychiatric help for your delusions.

Facts are facts and Martin was the aggressor!

Then you agree OJ Simpson is innocent? "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit" right? After all, the jury couldn't have got it wrong, could they?

You can point to nothing Zimmerman did that justified Martin's premeditated assault upon his person!

Local5th,
 
No one said you have be a neighbourhood watchperson to alert suspicious people to the authorities, and, of course, that's not the issue. What's at issue here is George Zimmerman's unathorised and armed pursuit of an unarmed minor--a reckless action that resulted murder. Yes. Zimmerman  called the police dispatcher, but he disregarded the dispatcher's orders and began pursuing Trayvon. Does the fact that he was "off-duty" justify his disergard of a clear order not to follow Trayvon? Does the fact that Zimmerman was "off-duty" justify his pursuit of Trayvon for several minutes for several feet without identifying himself? Does his being "off-duty" justify Zimmerman's armed pursuit of Trayvon? Your argument is flawed, Local5th. George Zimmerman did indeed take the law into his own hands. On the night he murdered Trayvon, he was acting as a self-appointed citizen, not the "normal" person you're trying to make him out to be. Zimmerman knew all the rules, and Zimmerman broke them.
 
 
 
 

Again, you have no proof Zimmerman pursued Martin!

All evidence points to Martin as the aggressor!

D2D,

Trayvon was walking home from the store, minding his own business, and doing absolutely nothing illegal when George Zimmerman spotted him and, based on nothing more than the fact that he was a young black male, presumed that Trayvon was "high" and "up to no good."

Based on Zimmerman's report, a police dispatcher determined that there was no need to follow Trayvon. But Zimmerman ignored the dispatcher and began stalking Trayvon, for quite some time and over a considerable distance. In addition to that, there is no record of Zimmerman ever identifying himself to Trayvon during the pursuit. In fact, Trayvon even told a friend over the phone, shortly before Zimmerman murdered him, that he was being followed by "a creepy cracker." Your continued argument that Zimmerman wasn't the aggressor that night defies all logic.

Again, you have no evidence Zimmerman did anything to justify Martin's assault upon his person!

Quit trying to distract and provide evidence!

And you seem unable to answer the questions below.
 

Again, you have no evidence Zimmerman did anything to justify Martin's assault upon his person!

Quit trying to distract and provide evidence!
                                                                                                                                       

D2D,
 
Um, where's your evidence that Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman?

So you didn't watch the trial?

Yet, you insist you know better?

Bizarre!

D2D,
 
Does my watching the trial prove Trayvon the aggressor?
 
Moronic.
 
LOL
 
 

The trial proved Martin was the aggressor!

The trial proved no such thing, D2D. In fact, it "proved" nothing.
 
 
 
 
 
 

Says the person who couldn't be bothered to watch the trial!

D2D,
 
Evidently your watching the trial doesn't help you defend your claim(s) and argument(s)--whatever they are.
 
HAHA

Again, you have no evidence Zimmerman did anything to justify Martin's assault upon his person!

Quit trying to distract and provide evidence!



Again, you fail to answer the question below.

Then you agree OJ Simpson is innocent? "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit" right? After all, the jury couldn't have got it wrong, could they?

I have no intention of validating your asinine desire to link OJ to Zimmerman!

That is because your argument carries zero validity. As I thought, you are just another asinine moron. Probably a teenager or younger playing on mommy's computer. I don't blame you for running away from a relevant question when your premise is so flawed.

Child, Martin was the aggressor!

Martin was the one trying to kill Zimmerman!

Facts are facts no matter what liberal propaganda says to the contrary!

If you believe the jury couldn't have gotten it wrong, then you must agree OJ is innocent as well. After all, a jury acquitted him. OJ will be happy to hear he has another one that believes in his innocence based on the evidence the jury heard.

Child, Martin was the aggressor!

Martin was the one trying to kill Zimmerman!

Facts are facts no matter what liberal propaganda says to the contrary!

D2D,
 
I've already debunked that argument. Got another one?
 
LOL

Child, childish name calling is not refutation!

You have done nothing more than that!

You are to be pitied!

What name calling? D2D  is childish name calling? I suppose id D2D is a childish person, the you could consider it name calling.
 
Thank you for admitting by your refusal to answer a simple question that:
 
A.) You believe O.J. Simpson to be innocent by reason of jury acquittal. We all know how immune from error jury trials are.
 
or
 
B.) Your foolish stubborness is a sign that you are not 100% convinced of your own conviction.

Child it is asinine to claim any link between Zimmerman and OJ!

Child, Martin was the aggressor!

Martin was the one trying to kill Zimmerman!

Facts are facts no matter what liberal propaganda says to the contrary!

Child, when will you post some facts child? Child, all you've posted so far, are childish opinions, child. Child, The facts in the OJ trial proved his innocence every bit as much as the facts in the GZ trial proved his, child.

Child it is asinine to claim any link between Zimmerman and OJ!

Child, Martin was the aggressor!

Martin was the one trying to kill Zimmerman!

Facts are facts no matter what liberal propaganda says to the contrary!

Then you won't mind posting evidence of those so called "facts", will you child. Not the opinions of some retarded right wing blogger, or right wing hate talk radio host getting rich inciting the unintelligent, but real hardcore facts, child. Aside from GZ having bitten off more than he could chew, and had to resort to gunfire to get a seventeen year old boy off him, I have seen no facts from any of you. Your repeating the same lame argument does nothing to strengthen your argument. The truth is Sandford made a decision to ban guns from neighborhood watch personnel. Maybe the law has no teeth. That will be for another jury to decide when another imbecile goes rogue and shoots an unarmed person, child. I'll bet now that there is a clear directive the results will be considerably different, child. When you grow up, maybe you'll be able to hold an adult conversation. I hope so.

Child it is asinine to claim any link between Zimmerman and OJ!

Child, Martin was the aggressor!

Martin was the one trying to kill Zimmerman!

Facts are facts no matter what liberal propaganda says to the contrary!

Then you won't mind posting evidence of those so called "facts", will you child. Not the opinions of some retarded right wing blogger, or right wing hate talk radio host getting rich inciting the unintelligent, but real hardcore facts, child. Aside from GZ having bitten off more than he could chew, and had to resort to gunfire to get a seventeen year old boy off him, I have seen no facts from any of you. Your repeating the same lame argument does nothing to strengthen your argument. The truth is Sandford made a decision to ban guns from neighborhood watch personnel. Maybe the law has no teeth. That will be for another jury to decide when another imbecile goes rogue and shoots an unarmed person, child. I'll bet now that there is a clear directive the results will be considerably different, child. When you grow up, maybe you'll be able to hold an adult conversation. I hope so.

To a leftie, intelligent conversation means you agree with them.

Duke_John, do you agree with D2D that OJ is innocent because a jury said so?
 
If not, then you must agree that a jury can get it wrong. Correct?
 
Do you also agree that if GZ had applied common sense Sanford would not have found it necessary to create an additional law?

wmd_bs,
 
Notice how D2D continuously ignores your demand that she provide evidence to support her claims and arguments. That's because her argument is opinionative, based only on her personal feelings and beliefs, not on any real facts. And don't bother asking duke_john anything that requires even a modicum of sound reasoning. To do so, you're only wasting your time.
 
 

Juries never find someone innocent.  It is guilty or not guilty.  OJ was found not guilty of the original criminal charges.

Move on, hawkshit, you fool.

duke_john,
 
I'm not arguing whether OJ was guilty or not. That's your and wmbn_bs's debate--a debate you're losing, needless to say.
 
HAHA
 
 

Don't reference me, fool.

OK, if you want to split hairs... The juries found GZ and OJ NOT GUILTY. When you're tired of playing with semantics, do you want to answer the questions?

Wmdn and 1965hawks say that bashing a person's head into concrete is not an attempt to kill!

It was an attempt to defend ones self. The Martin child stood his ground against a lunatic wannabe self appointed law enforcement officer, judge, jury, and executioner. And you still avoid the simplest of questions. Why? Don't you like the logical answers?

 
I accept the decisions of a jury and a fair trial.

And what I stated was not a game but law.  Learn some law.  You'll be surprised what you find out.

What is the opposite of guilty, (one word please)?

What is the opposite of guilty, (one word please)?

Guiltless.

guiltless
 
adjective
 
1.) free from guilt; innocent.
2.) having no knowledge or experience; innocent (usually followed by of ).
3.) destitute or devoid (usually followed by of ); a house guiltless of any charm.
 
Synonyms
1.) innocent
 
I rest my case. (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/cool.gif)

A fair trial finds the defendant guilty or not guilty.

Revel all you want in your indignation about the American justice system.

Not guilty would indicate lack of guilt, thus guiltless, thus innocent. I maintain George Zimmerman is as guiltless as OJ Simpson.

As you please.

 From what?

From a crazy man who fancied him self a policeman, judge, jury, and executioner. I thought we covered that. Maybe you should get an adult to explain it to you. Sadly they can't understand it FOR you.

So if I judge you to be crazy it is my right to sucker punch you and pound your head into the cement?

D2D,
 
Zimmerman would had never got his ass kicked that night if he had simply followed the dispatcher's instructions and allowed the police to do their job. The dispatcher clearly told Zimmerman that it was not necessary for him to follow Trayvon. So if Trayvon kicked his ass it was because he had no business following Trayvon in the first place. And, by the way, we know for a fact that the dispatcher told Zimmerman it wasn't necessary for him to follow Trayvon. Your allegation that Trayvon "sucker-punched" Zimmerman is based solely on Zimmerman's version of what happened that night. But since we now know that Zimmerman is a habitual liar, there's no logical reason to believe anything he says.
 
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/09/26/2684121/shellie-zimmerman-doubts-innocence/ (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/09/26/2684121/shellie-zimmerman-doubts-innocence/)
 
And, as is usually the case, you've completely ignored Trayvon's right to defend himself pursuant to Florida's Stand Your Ground law.
http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/08/letter_what_about_trayvon_mart.html (http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/08/letter_what_about_trayvon_mart.html)

 
You'd be correct to judge hawkiepoo crazy. 

D2D, it wouldn't be right to hurt the mentally handicapped.

There you have it folks: more asinine hooey from duke_john. He always trots out gibberish like that when all his claims and arguments have been refuted and debunked.
 
HAHAHAHA
 
 

Nah, hawkshit.  You've been bested yet again.  Move on, dipshit.

duke_john,

You're having another wet dream. Roll over and go back to sleep.

HAHA

Neither of these two gentlemen have a valid argument. Duke John resorts to name calling and profanity if you disagree with him. He is turning into a regular old Hoosier Daddy. D2D is, well, I really think he is a junior high kid. His arguments always turn out to be the schoolyard type of retorts. They have no substance, and they make less sense.

Fuckin' "A" and Roger that, wmdn_bs. I couldn't agree with you more.
 
HAHA

wmd is a blazing leftist asshole, unable to admit the truth about himself and his leftist asshole friends.

Like hawkshit, he's full of shit.

duke_john,
 
Your logical fallacy: name-calling (argumentum ad hominem).
 
Your  post is a personal attack against me and wmd_bs that detracts from both the topic of debate and the veracity of the argument. Your illogical ad hominem attack misdirects debate, turning attention away from the argument and towards the character of those making it. Evidently you still don't get it, duke_john. Insulting the arguer doesn't refute the argument.
 
 
 
 
 
 

Duke John is partially correct. I am left leaning politically. Beyond that, he is rarely correct about anything.

I am correct that you and hawkshit are assholes, wmd_bullshit.

And I'm correct when I say you're the dumbest, most stupidest and most ignorant right-wingnut in our forum, dopie_john. You prove that for us every day.
 
HAHA

You're not just an asshole, hawkshit, you're a lying asshole.

So if I judge you to be crazy it is my right to sucker punch you and pound your head into the cement?

Answer the question coward!

Now that is real funny coming from the coward that refuses to answer a simple set of questions. What an imbecile.
 
 
 
And you seem unable to answer the questions below.


Quote from: wmdn_bs on 11 06, 13, 06:35:00:PM (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/index.php?topic=169117.msg1313824#msg1313824)
Then you agree OJ Simpson is innocent? "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit" right? After all, the jury couldn't have got it wrong, could they?

So if I judge you to be crazy it is my right to sucker punch you and pound your head into the cement?

Answer the question coward!

If I approach you in a threatening manner, as GZ did to the unarmed youth, then yes.
 
Now you answer the questions I asked you, unless you are ashamed of your position.
 
If you don't answer, that's alright. It just proves you realize that your argument is baseless.
 

 You have absolutely no proof that ever happened!

You have no right to make up such nonsense!

Are you really too ashamed to answer the simple questions? You are obviously as convinced as I  am that your position is completely devoid of validity. I'm not surprised. You strike me as being at least semi-literate, thus aware that you have been bested... Again.

Quote from: wmdn_bs on 11 13, 13, 04:22:42:PM (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/index.php?topic=169117.msg1318458#msg1318458)
You have absolutely no proof that ever happened!

You have no right to make up such nonsense!                                                                                                                                       

IMHO, there is plenty of proof. I have every right to make an accusation, and I do not believe it to be nonsense.
 
Are you really too ashamed to answer the simple questions? You are obviously as convinced as I am that your position is completely devoid of validity. I'm not surprised. You strike me as being at least semi-literate, thus aware that you have been bested... Again.
 
I'll post it again, for your obviously short memory.
 
Quote from: wmdn_bs on 11 06, 13, 06:35:00:PM (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/index.php?topic=169117.msg1313824#msg1313824)
Then you agree OJ Simpson is innocent? "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit" right? After all, the jury couldn't have got it wrong, could they?
 
If you think I'm going away, think again.

Quote from: wmdn_bs on 11 13, 13, 04:22:42:PM (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/index.php?topic=169117.msg1318458#msg1318458)

[/SIZE]
You have absolutely no proof that ever happened!

You have no right to make up such nonsense!                                       

IMHO, there is plenty of proof. I have every right to make an accusation, and I do not believe it to be nonsense.

Are you really too ashamed to answer the simple questions? You are obviously as convinced as I am that your position is completely devoid of validity. I'm not surprised. You strike me as being at least semi-literate, thus aware that you have been bested... Again.

I'll post the questions again, for your obviously short memory.


Quote from: wmdn_bs on 11 06, 13, 06:35:00:PM (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/index.php?topic=169117.msg1313824#msg1313824)
Then you agree OJ Simpson is innocent? "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit" right? After all, the jury couldn't have got it wrong, could they?

If you think I'm going away, think again.
 
Enlarging and bolding the font doesn't make your point any more valid. You are still wrong.

Quote from: wmdn_bs on 11 13, 13, 04:22:42:PM (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/index.php?topic=169117.msg1318458#msg1318458)


You have absolutely no proof that ever happened!

You have no right to make up such nonsense!

Enlarging and bolding the font doesn't make your point any more valid. You are still wrong. And you are still as cowardly as scared little girl for not answering a few simple questions.
 
I'll post them again, for your obviously short memory.

Quote from: wmdn_bs on 11 06, 13, 06:35:00:PM (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/index.php?topic=169117.msg1313824#msg1313824)
Then you agree OJ Simpson is innocent? "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit" right? After all, the jury couldn't have got it wrong, could they?

I could claim you engage in necrophilia and it would be just as factual as your claims about Zimmerman!

You could claim that, and you would be guilty of slander and the burden of proof would be on you tom prove your libelous claim.
 
IMHO, GZ is guilty of at a minimum, manslaughter, and more likely, second degree murder.
 
You are still so sure you are wrong in your assertions that you can't answer a few simple questions. I get it. You are ashamed to admit you are wrong. That's alright, I understand your dillema. You've been gulping the Kool-Ade so long it is difficult for you to admit your error. Maybe when you grow up you will make better judgements.
 
I'll post the simple questions again for your obviously short memory.

Quote from: wmdn_bs on 11 06, 13, 06:35:00:PM (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/index.php?topic=169117.msg1313824#msg1313824)
Then you agree OJ Simpson is innocent? "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit" right? After all, the jury couldn't have got it wrong, could they?
 
 

D2D,
 
Since you keep blabbering about proof: Where's your proof that Trayvon "sucker-punched" Zimmerman? Where's your proof that Zimmerman was justified in leaving his vehicle and pursuing Trayon--with a locked and loaded firearm, no less!--for a considerable distance and time without ever identifying himself? Where's your proof that Zimmerman was authorised to confront and attempt to apprehend Trayvon?  And where's your proof that Florida's Stand Your Ground law prevented Trayvon from using deadly force to defend himself against what he believed to be a "crazy cracker" who was following him on a dark and rainy night?

Wow your ignorance of the law is stunning!

Following at distance is not pursuing!

There is no proof Zimmerman followed Martin let alone engaged in actual pursuit!

The proof is in the forensics as Zimmerman was the only person damaged in the confrontation with no bruising on his knuckles!

The only way that could possibly have happened is if Martin sucker punched Zimmerman and continued the attack on Zimmerman's supine person!

The moment that attack continued it became an assault with intent to kill!

Seems 1965hawks has been silenced by the truth!

I doubt that D2D. Hawks is more likely in awe that you could be so wrong about everything you post. I've known short bus riding window lickers that have higher morals, far more common sense, and an obviously higher IQ than you. And they aren't ashamed when you ask them simple questions. They are happy to answer. You apparently are either ashamed of being so wrong and don't want to lie, or are too cowardly to answer honestly so you just ignore the questions. Pull up your big girl panties and answer. Your refusal proves me right.

D2D,

Pursue: to follow somebody, sometimes for a long time, in an effort to overtake or capture them.

After taking for granted that Trayvon Martin was "high" and "up to no good," self-appointed vigilante George Zimmerman pursued Trayvon, for a considerable distance and time, on a dark rainy night, without ever identifying himself. in other words, Zimmerman stalked Trayvon.

Stalk: to follow (an animal or person that you are hunting or trying to capture) by moving quietly or slowly; to follow, watch, and bother someone constantly in a way that is frightening, dangerous, etc.; to pursue quarry or prey stealthily.

Your argument that Zimmerman didn't follow Trayvon is obviously a lie, given the fact that Zimmerman ignored the dispatcher's telling him that it wasn't necessary to follow the "suspicious" person (Trayvon) he had reported. And your arguing that only Zimmerman sustained significant injuries only confirms what we already know--that he and Trayvon fought that night. Zimmerman's injuries don't prove the he didn't instigate their confrontation (Your sucker-punch argument is without basis). And arguing that Trayvon's fight was an assault with intent to kill ignores the fact that Trayvon was unarmed, while Zimmerman was armed with a locked and loaded handgun. An unarmed Trayvon was fighting in defense of his life and using any means necessary to protect himself against what he believed to be a "crazy cracker." And pursuant to Florida's stand Your ground law, he was within his legal right to do so. It was Zimmerman acting outside the law, not Trayvon. Your argument is weak (and laughable), to say the least.

Zimmerman's injuries don't prove the he didn't instigate their confrontation

It's equally true it doesn't prove that he did.

hat's the whole problem with this case. There are many things we don't know for a fact. And based on the facts of what we do know, a jury found Zimmerman not guilt as charged.

Give it a rest. The case has already been decided.

A jury found ON Simpson not guilty too. I contend that GZ is as not guilty as OJ.

A jury found ON Simpson not guilty too. I contend that GZ is as not guilty as OJ.
                                                                                                                                       
That's fine with me. You are welcome to your opinion.

Wow your ignorance of the law is stunning!

Following at distance is not pursuing!

There is no proof Zimmerman followed Martin let alone engaged in actual pursuit!

The proof is in the forensics as Zimmerman was the only person damaged in the confrontation with no bruising on his knuckles!

The only way that could possibly have happened is if Martin sucker punched Zimmerman and continued the attack on Zimmerman's supine person!

The moment that attack continued it became an assault with intent to kill!

Still admitting your lack of honesty, eh D2D?

Prove me wrong!

You cannot because what I stated above is true!

You know you're wrong. That's why you still refuse to answer simple questions. You prove yourself wrong. I don't have to help you do that. GZ is as not guilty as OJ Simpson.

Wow your ignorance of the law is stunning!

Following at distance is not pursuing!

There is no proof Zimmerman followed Martin let alone engaged in actual pursuit!

The proof is in the forensics as Zimmerman was the only person damaged in the confrontation with no bruising on his knuckles!

The only way that could possibly have happened is if Martin sucker punched Zimmerman and continued the attack on Zimmerman's supine person!

The moment that attack continued it became an assault with intent to kill!
                                                                                                                                       

The only thing that the lack of knuckle bruises on GZ proves is that he bit off more than he could chew. He should have stayed away as he was directed. Your complete lack of common sense amazes me. You can't be more than 12 years old. An adult would know better. Stop getting all your knowledge from CSI tv shows and get a life in the real world.

You have no proof Zimmerman didn't stop following Martin!

The proof is in the forensics as Zimmerman was the only person damaged in the confrontation with no bruising on his knuckles!

The only way that could possibly have happened is if Martin sucker punched Zimmerman and continued the attack on Zimmerman's supine person!

The moment that attack continued it became an assault with intent to kill!

Thank you for providing more evidence of your lack of maturity, honesty, and of your incredible lack of knowledge. When climbing on the short bus today, be sure to cinch up your helmet, don't pick your nose, and don't lick the windows.
 
Still waiting for your answers.

D2D did answer you.  Asking over and over to try and get the answer you want isn't very intelligent of you.

Show me. He answered by saying he wouldn't answer.

Sure he answered you.  Read D2D's posts.

D2D,

You're confused again. It's your illogical argument, an argument that denies all evidence, logic, and sound reasoning that's been debunked...child.

HAHA

I did.

These are the questions:
 
 
Then you agree OJ Simpson is innocent? "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit" right? After all, the jury couldn't have got it wrong, could they?

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Here is his lame response, (After several attempts to get answers): I have no intention of validating your asinine desire to link OJ to Zimmerman!

Local5th,

Your argument ignores the fact that Zimmerman's confronting Trayvon and the altercation that ensued was the direct result of Zimmerman's instigation--his unauthorised armed pursuit of Trayvon Martin. While it's true there might be many things we don't know for a fact, we do know for a fact, however, that Zimmerman had no business following Trayvon in the first place.

And I'm not surprised by your trotting out the tired argument that the case has already been decided or that a jury found Zimmerman not guilty. That's always the rote excuse parroted by Zimmerman's supporters when they can't provide evidence to support his bogus claim of "self-defense." The fact that a jury found Zimmerman "not guilty" is not proof that he didn't murder Trayvon.

The "whole problem with this case" is the inability of Zimmerman's claim of self-defense to withstand evidence, logic and sound reasoning. As a result, it's easily debunked.

duke_john,
 
I did. Then I had no difficulty at all debunking every claim she made in them. Wanna try your hand?
 
LOL
 
 

Run along, fool.

You have to understand liberals have made up their minds that Zimmerman got away with murder and no actual facts will ever be capable of changing their very narrow minds!

They are to be pitied after all their ancestors insisted the world was flat and the sun revolved around the Earth!

Shut the fuck up, ass hat.[
 
quote author=D2D link=topic=169117.msg1321222#msg1321222 date=1384799934]
You have to understand liberals blah blah blah blah....
[/quote]
 
The same goes for you, D2D.
 
HAHAHA

You have to understand liberals have made up their minds that Zimmerman got away with murder and no actual facts will ever be capable of changing their very narrow minds!

They are to be pitied after all their ancestors insisted the world was flat and the sun revolved around the Earth!

Here's what you don't understand, D2D: The proof you demanded debunks your claims and arguments. Shut the fuck up and sit down.

What's with all the ad-hominems from you, hawkshit? 

You can shut the fuck up now, fool.

Prove to me that George Zimmerman did not instigate the ass whoopin he took, then answer the simple questions I asked and I will be happy to go on my merry way. There was opinions presented at the trial, and IMHO the jury got it wrong. Perhaps you hold the proof that nobody else got to see. What I see is that GZ followed the unarmed child, and got too close. Martin may have sucker punched him after GZ confronted him. I have been in many fights in school, and several since then. The best option to win an inevitable fight is to punch hard and punch first, using the element of surprise in your favor. That is what the frightened child did to fend off a much older, much scarier, more agressive GZ. It is what I would have done if I were followed by a lunatic like GZ.

duke_john,
 
WTF! How can you  call me "hawkshit" while asking me about ad hominems? Just as is always the case, you really don't know WTF you're talking about. Do you, john?
 
LOL

Sure I do.  Liberals taught me to hit first and ask questions later.  Liberals showed me there are no rules.

Now, shut the fuck up.

Don't try to blame your stupidity and ignorance on "liberals," duke_john. You and your loony-tune pals in our forum's right-wingnut peanut gallery don't know jack because you watch Fox "news."
 
LOL
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/23/fox-news-less-informed-new-study_n_1538914.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/23/fox-news-less-informed-new-study_n_1538914.html)
 
 

Stupidity and ignorance is the pervue of liberals, hawkshit.

Almost 200 posts here, fool.  Keep showing us what you're all about.

Almost 200 posts, most of which are an attempt to educate a few righties. A task that seems insurmountable, but we'll keep trying until something finally sinks in those thick skulls.

DNC talking points don't count as intelligent posts.

Neither do RNC talking points. What's YOUR point?

What RNC talking points?

Keep on adding up those posts.

You have to understand liberals have made up their minds that Zimmerman got away with murder and no actual facts will ever be capable of changing their very narrow minds!

They are to be pitied after all their ancestors insisted the world was flat and the sun revolved around the Earth!

What DNC talking points? I see you aren't exactly subtracting any posts yourself, and exactly what is YOUR point?
 
What are my alleged DNC talking points?
 
 
D2D, are you ever going to answer my questions?
 
I'll post it again, for your obviously short memory.

Quote from: wmdn_bs on 11 06, 13, 06:35:00:PM (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/index.php?topic=169117.msg1313824#msg1313824)
Then you agree OJ Simpson is innocent? "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit" right? After all, the jury couldn't have got it wrong, could they?

OJ has nothing to do with the Zimmerman/Martin case!

Why do you insist on pushing that asinine red herring?

You have to understand liberals have made up their minds that Zimmerman got away with murder and no actual facts will ever be capable of changing their very narrow minds!

They are to be pitied after all their ancestors insisted the world was flat and the sun revolved around the Earth!

They were both acquited. Do you, or don't you believe OJ is innocent? After all, a jury was presented with the evidence in both trials, right? It isn't possible that a jury could get it wrong after hearing the evidence, right? "The glove don't fit."

They both were acquitted is your link?

That is asinine!

duke_john,
 
Who taught you to make an ass of yourself by speaking first without thinking?
 
LOL

You, among others, hawkiepoo.

So you finally admit that you make an ass of yourself by speaking before you think about what you're about to say. Well, at least you're an honest idiot, dopie_john.
 
ROTFLMAO

I'm honest, and it is true you make an ass out of yourself constantly.

You are honest to admit you're a stupid and ignorant idiot. So why aren't you honest enough to accept the fact that you'll never win this argument? You'll only continue to make a fool of yourself, just like you always do.
 
 

He's not alone hawks. D2D either isn't honest enough to admit he is wrong, or he's too stupid to realize it. I would rather say he's ignorant, but after being presented with all information over these past few weeks, it still hasn't sunk in. Ignorance can be fixed with education. Stupid is forever.

That means wmd and hawkiepoo will remain stupid forever.

Who would volunteer to be a Neighborhood Watch Person under these restrictions?
 
NOBODY!     DUH!!!!!!!
 
Might as well cancel the Program and just let the Old Ladies peek out their windows like they normally do.
 
I'd never volunteer to walk around as a NW Person with all the punks lurking around looking for places to break into or victims to jump and not be armed!!!
 
......and by "punks", I mean ALL colors!!!  Lots of addicts of all types out there these days desperate for cash!!!!!!
 
NO SIR, NOT ME!!!!!!

 Still you can point to no actual evidence proving Zimmerman murdered Martin!

And you can point to no actual proof, or valid evidence he didn't, so we have to abide by the jury's decision and let karma take care of GZ. It appears to be having it's effect.

The jury made the right decision in the George Zimmerman murder trial, former President Jimmy Carter said.
 
Carter told Atlanta news channel WXIA, “It’s not a moral question, it’s a legal question and the American law requires that the jury listens to the evidence presented.”


Surprising isn't it?

Carter is old. He can be forgiven for his senility. As I said, karma will do to GZ what the jury failed to do.

 it’s a legal question and the American law requires that the jury listens to the evidence presented
 
Carter may be old but he was right for a change... 

Then you agree with D2D that OJ is innocent as well, because the jury system is infallible.
 
Karma's a bitch that even GZ can't intimidate or murder.

Two different cases and juries as well as evidence.   The jurors based on the evidence could not convict OJ.   Does that make Zimmerman guilty after he was attacked?   OJ was never attacked nor was it an issue in the trial.

IMHO GZ wan't attacked either. I believe he confronted the unarmed child and got his ass handed to him instead. That happens when you underestimate your victim. Unfortunately for young Trayvon, Zimmerman carried a gun to a skittles fight. The jury decided. That case is over. The civil right case may not be over yet, and since GZ's unfortunate life decisions Karma has not been treating him well. I pity him not.

The evidence doesn't back up your belief, Wmdn!

The "Z" man was and is a Democrat.  The best way to keep down gun violence is to take guns away from Democrats.


Not only that, he isn't white but a mulatto which the race baiters ignore.   How hard they tried to paint him as being white and that he committed a racist crime which was debunked over and over again.   So we have a part black/Hispanic mulatto that defended himself against a thug known for his violent outbursts and crime who assaulted another minority who was legally armed.   Nothing new here...It happens everyday.
 
 
http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/index.php?topic=170827.msg1322415#msg1322415 (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/index.php?topic=170827.msg1322415#msg1322415)

I don't care what his ethnicity is. That has no bearing on the case. The cilvil rights violation case may still make it to trial. Stay tuned. I don't think the actions of the "Z-Man" since his acquittal will play well in his next trial.

The cilvil rights violation case may still make it to trial.
 
 
Why? 

Travon had the right to walk home that dark and rainy night. Young Trayvon had the right to defend himself. A bullet from GZ violated both those rights.

 
sweetwater5s9,

Why shouldn't Zimmerman stand trial for violatingTtrayvon's civil rights?

 
Where's the  evidence to support your belief , D2D?

 
But you still haven't provided any actual evidence to support your claim that Zimmerman didn't murder Trayvon. Have you, D2D?

 
sweetwater5s9,

Zimmerman's political affiliation and race is irrelevant. He shot dead an unarmed minor for no justifiable reason. That's something you and his other supporters continually ignore.

http://melcall.hubpages.com/hub/Why-The-Shooting-And-Killing-Of-Trayvon-Martin-Was-Unjustified

a gun will always increase a right wingers hate quotient

 He shot dead an unarmed minor for no justifiable reason.

Apparently a jury disagrees with you hawk. Zimmerman was found not guilty.

A jury found OJ not guilty also. Sometimes a jury gets it wrong.

Sometimes a jury gets it wrong.

Especially if they are all women. Right? (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/grin.gif)

Did OJ benefit from an all woman jury? I don't know that gender had anything to do with their decision.

Zimmerman's political affiliation and race is irrelevant.
 
Sharpton, NBPP and other idiots did not think so with their threats, etc even if they were wrong about Zimmerman being white...

The jury made the right decision in the George Zimmerman murder trial, former President Jimmy Carter said.
 
Carter told Atlanta news channel WXIA, “It’s not a moral question, it’s a legal question and the American law requires that the jury listens to the evidence presented.”

 
 

A jury found OJ not guilty also. Sometimes a jury gets it wrong. Sometimes senile old coots get it wrong as well. Do you fit into that classification too Sweetwater?

Local5th,
 
Your argument ignores the fact that juries aren't infallible. There are innocent people languishing behind bars--some even on death row--because a jury found the guilty. And there are people deserving punishment--George Zimmerman is the prime example-- who are living free in our society today because a jury found them not guilty.

sweetwater5s9,
 
It's always easy to refute and debunk your arguments, claims, positions, assertions, etc., because they are always based on fallacies of logic, argumentation, and debate. As such, they pose no problem to critical readers and thinkers, who have no difficulty at all spotting the fallacies upon which they are based and easily disproving them.
 
Your logical fallacy: Argument from Authority (argumentum ab autoritate), also authitative argument, appeal to authority, false authority.
 
You're using an authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument.
 
Jimmy Carter received degrees in nuclear physics, not in criminal law.
 
 

If you are relying on paper merits such as Carter received then Obama is in serious trouble with his interference with the Martin case before a decision from the court...  Most knew that anyway. 

Anyway, Carter was correct as the Court pointed out.   You lose again.

sweetwater5s9,
 
Who is more qualified to discuss a point at law, a lawyer or a nuclear physicist? Whose opinion about the jury's verdict in the Zimmerman trial would be more credible, a lawyer's or that of a nuclear physicist? Sit down and shut the fuck up, you bombastic buffoon. You've allowed your flawed logic and shallow reasoning to expose your stupidity and ignorance again, causing you to--you know--lose again.
 
LOL

Carter was correct as the Court pointed out.   You lose again.

Your argument ignores the fact that juries aren't infallible.

Never said they weren't. However, they made their ruling and it's a done deal. Live with it.

sweetwater5s9,
 
Your argument is still fallacious. Your still citing President Carter's opinion as evidence as an appeal to authority. You're banking on the audience accepting your argument based on the their respect for a famous person and ignoring the evidence that undermines Zimmerman's bogus claim of self-defense.
 

Well, that's certainly what you're implying, Local5th. And, by the way, the jury's verdict in the criminal case is a done deal. But that verdict doesn't prevent charges being brought against Zimmerman in a civil trial. 

Well, that's certainly what you're implying, Local5th. And, by the way, the jury's verdict in the criminal case is a done deal. But that verdict doesn't prevent charges being brought against Zimmerman in a civil trial. 

Yup. But if he successfully claims stand your ground he will win.

(http://media.townhall.com/townhall/car/b/81_13485320130719070712.jpg)

But GZ never claimed Stand Your Ground as a defense. His argument was self defense, NOT Stand Your Ground. He will likely, and hopefully lose. He did a disservice to Neighborhood Watch programs all over the country.

Given a liability verdict requires a preponderance of the evidence he will never be convicted as there is no evidence against Zimmerman!

I could put the value of all you know about law D2D, add $4.50 to it and buy a cup of coffee at StarBucks.
 
CSI ain't real life dude, and Judge Judy isn't going to hear the case.

Given a liability verdict requires a preponderance of the evidence he will never be convicted as there is no evidence against Zimmerman!

CSI has nothing to do with it!

Evidence is required even in civil suits!

How Trayvon's Knockout Game Went Bad (http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/11/how_trayvons_knockout_game_went_bad.html)

D2D arguments have been determined to be invalid, and your post Sweetwater is nothing more than the opinions of someone other than yourself. If a civil rights trial takes place, GZ better wish for the same jury. It's doubtful a different group of people would acquit him. The odds of hitting the big money in the lottery twice in a row carries the roughly same odds.

D2D,
 
What's the difference between a criminal trial and a civil trial?
 
 
 

Now you're going to confuse poor D2D. He doesn't realize there's a difference between a civil lawsuit trial and a civil rights trial.
 
He apparently watches too much TV, he thinks he's a CSI attorney.

Given a liability verdict requires a preponderance of the evidence he will never be convicted as there is no evidence against Zimmerman!

CSI has nothing to do with it!

Evidence is required even in civil suits!
                                                                                                                                       

I would bet a bullet from zimmermans gun lodged in martin's body might

be some pretty good proof of who killed who

and the 911 tapes that instructed him to back off could establish intent

 
Self-defense is not a crime as the jury ruled.

Given a liability verdict requires a preponderance of the evidence he will never be convicted as there is no evidence against Zimmerman!

CSI has nothing to do with it!

Evidence is required even in civil suits!

There is no proof Zimmerman didn't follow the dispatcher's instructions!

In fact the tapes indicate Zimmerman did follow them!

If shooting a criminal who is assaulting you is murder all cops who shot a suspect would be in prison!

You are correct. Self defense is not a crime as the jury ruled. A civil rights trial could end differently. A wrongful death civil suit may also end badly for GZ as it did in the OJ case. GZ will never know another day of peace. He will always be looking over his shoulder. Especially now that he is prohibited from possessing firearms. He doesn't have a gun to use against another child. Now he may end up being beaten to death with a bag of Skiitles by an otherwise unarmed youth.

Karma's a bitch.

(http://www.mochalrx.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/5e8.jpg)

John, why do you continue returning to a topic that is obviously distasteful to you?

It's like watching a car wreck.

A car wreck is a good analogy. Call the insurance adjuster, D2D has been totaled.

D2D,
 
I asked you to explain the difference between a criminal trial and a civil trial. Just as I expected, you don't know.
 
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/the-differences-between-a-criminal-case-and-a-civil-case.html (http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/the-differences-between-a-criminal-case-and-a-civil-case.html)
 
http://litigation.findlaw.com/filing-a-lawsuit/civil-cases-vs-criminal-cases-key-differences.html (http://litigation.findlaw.com/filing-a-lawsuit/civil-cases-vs-criminal-cases-key-differences.html)
 
There is a preponderance of evidence against George Zimmerman (his vigilantism and reckless behaviour, for example) that would be used to easily find him liable in a civil trial. The transcript of his conversation with the police dispatcher quashes any argument that he followed instructions. And contrary to the ludicrous premiss to your argument, Trayon wasn't a "criminal" assaulting Zimmerman, Trayvon died defending himself against a "creepy cracker" who was stalking him--with a locked and loaded pistol, no less!--based on an erroneous assumption. Sit down and shut the fuck up, D2D. Zimmerman's bogus claim of self-defense won't hold up in a civil trial.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

So you are saying no evidence is needed in a civil trial?

(http://delapruch.writersresidence.com/system/attachments/files/12281/display/27842-beating_dead_horse_what.png?1304582064)

Nope. I'm saying the preponderance of evidence against Zimmerman would result of his being judged liable for the wrongful death of Trayvon in a civil trial. The same would hold true if he were tried for violating Trayvon's civil rights. Zimmerman got away with murder in his criminal trial. He wouldn't be as lucky in a civil trial.
 
 

Wrong, there is no where near a preponderance of evidence against Zimmerman!

All the evidence available points to Martin as being the aggressor!

I agree, duke_john. The wheels fell off your pseudo-argument a long time ago.

LOL

D2D,
 
You keep insisting that there's no preponderance of evidence against George Zimmerman. What is the basis of your claim? And what evidence are you citing to make your persistent claim that Trayvon was the aggressor when Zimmerman murdered him?

those are contingency lawsuits and lawyers don't bring them unless there's a

better than average chance of winning

especially since reasonable doubt ain't in play

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-72660nAkSBo/T77IugqAK5I/AAAAAAAACz0/tYYIL6SM38w/s1600/fuck-off.jpg)

That's a valid argument Duke. If you can't win based on logic, just give the single finger salute. (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)

It wasn't pointed at you, wmd.  But, you can think it is if you wish.

And it is just as valid as the crap hawkshit posts.

wmdn_bs,
 
That's not a salute. That's  what duke_john uses to wipe his ass. And then that dumb-fuck idiot immediately uses it to pick his nose.
 
Bwaaaaaahahahahaha

If you were an American, you'd recognize it for what it is, fool.

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-95dFeWUc894/Ty6qYa7CnzI/AAAAAAAABlw/ZZCYgzlyT0M/s320/fuck_off%2B%25281%2529.jpg)

duke_john,
 
If you weren't such an ignorant imbecile, you would had realised a long time ago that you're making a damn fool of yourself.
 
You really need to shut the fuck up, you imbecilic ass hat.
 
Guffaaaaaw HAHAHA

279 posts on a moronic topic defended by an ignorant fuck like hawkshit proves, simply, hawkshit is an ignorant fuck.

I'm not sure why you think it's a moronic topic Duke. It is quite controversial, which is the main reason a forum such as this one survives. I agree we should be able to discuss the subject matter without resorting to insults and name calling. Something I am guilty of myself from time to time, and a habit I'm not proud of. I try to refrain until I am the victim of such immature actions. I tend to reply in kind, rather than taking the high road. That is a weakness of mine.
 
Back to the subject at hand. I believe if young Martin's family were to file a wrongful death lawsuit, George Zimmerman would never earn another dollar that didn't belong to the Martin family.

The criminal trial is long over.  Zim was acquitted, period.

duke ain't smart enough for a cogent response

cusserio doesn't know anything

and loves to prove it

see?

The criminal trial is long over.


For most anyway, lol...   There are still a few racist holdouts confused and want a retrial with public opinion they already lost long ago...

That's what I mean, sweet.  Their overt racism sickening.

There's nothing racial about it Sweetwater. I was just as angry and disappointed over the OJ verdict. I was much happier with the outcome of the wrongful death suit, as I believe I will be if the Martins choose to pursue it.How is that racist?

The fact you assume the "white/hispanic" is guilty of murder simply because the dead person is black makes you a racist!

When did I ever make that claim? I will wait while you pursue that little exercise in futility.

Every time you post on the subject!

There is no evidence against Zimmerman and a great deal of evidence against Martin!

When have I mentioned race as a factor? You are either a blatant liar, or completely ignorant. Which is it?

Given there is NO evidence to base your opinions on, race is all that is left!

So you are a liar. Thank you for the admission.

duke_john,

I've told you this before: I'm not holding you hostage here. You can leave this discussion at any time you desire.

Truth be told, your dumb ass should had quit posting to this thread a long time ago. All you've done for the past several weeks is posted inanity after inanity. You have nothing to say. You're just  arguing for the sake of arguing, and all that's done is proven your stupidity and ignorance.  You really need to sit your dumb ass down, shut the fuck up, and stop making an even bigger fool of yourself, you Jersey Jerk-off.

LOL

Sorry you are unable to face the fact you are a bigoted racist!

D2D, your lack of evidence and the fact that you have so easily and often been proved wrong on nearly every point you make in addition to you constantly trying to make claims and accusations you can't back with a shred of proof shows how pathetic your arguments are. Maybe when you grow up you will learn to come to the argument better armed.

After you rule out the possible, what ever remains must be the truth!

You can just as easily ignore me, hawkshit, you British biggie.

D2D,

Every time we discuss Trayvon's murder you ignore the preponderance of evidence against George Zimmerman, his psychotic murderer. You ignore the fact that Trayvon was walking home from the store when the paranoid Zimmerman simply took for granted that he was "high" and "up to no good." You conveniently ignore that Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher's instruction not to follow Trayvon, took the law into his own hands, began an armed pursuit of Trayvon, instigated an altercation with Trayvon, shot Trayvon dead, then concocted a bogus self-defense claim. All evidence points to Zimmerman as the aggressor and, pursuant to Florida's Stand Your ground law, Trayvon was well within his legal right to defend himself against someone he believed to be a "creepy cracker" and sexual pervert. You really need to shut the fuck up, D2D. Your argument against Trayvon gets more absurd every time you pull it out your ass.

 
The criminal trial is long over.


For most anyway...   There are still a few racist holdouts confused and want a retrial with public opinion they already lost long ago...


Unfortunately for the racists, Zimmerman is a black/Hispanic mulatto...   They would be better off complaining about black on black crime and trying to solve it than trying to make this non-crime a racist issue.   But they will not.

D2D,

Your playing the race card won't support your position. Zimmerman is guilty of murder. He stalked and shot dead Trayvon Martin (an unarmed minor who was simply walking home from the store and minding his business) based on the erroneous assumption that, just because he was a young black male, he was a criminal suspect. Yes, George Zimmerman's racism resulted in Trayvon's murder. And you're evidently a racist for defending his racism.

The evidence doesn't back up your claims!

Your racist wishful thinking doesn't alter the fact that Martin was the aggressor and got what he so richly deserved!

If anyone is at fault it is the school system which tolerated his long history of thuggish behavior and his parents who couldn't be bothered to properly raise him!

sweetwater5s9,

Your playing the race card doesn't support your position either. Zimmerman's racial ancestry is irrelevant. What's relevant is his murder of Trayvon. Your desperate attempt to substitute the original issue (Zimmerman's murder of Trayvon) with a red herring (black-on-black crime) only shows your inability to defend Zimmerman's vigilantism.  Yes, Zimmerman's criminal trial is long over and the Constitution's protection against double jeopardy prevents retrying him in a criminal court again. But that doesn't prevent Zimmerman being tried in a civil court, where his liability for the wrongful death of Trayvon (or his violation of Trayvon's civil rights) would be proven easily, your racist argument notwithstanding.

Liar, through out the trial and prior to it!

All news reports and protests were based primarily on the race of those involved!

D2D,

Where's the evidence to support your claims? All you do is blabber the same unsupported bullshit over and ever again.

Wishful thinking? I don't think so. I've provided evidence to support my claims in several previous threads. But I'll say again: All you ever do is blabber the same unsupported bullshit over and over again.

Finally, neither Trayvon Martin's parents, his school, nor his personal history is relevant. George Zimmerman knew absolutely nothing about any of those things when he spotted Trayvon Martin, who was walking home from the store, minding his business, and engaged in no criminal activity whatsoever. But  evidence shows that Zimmerman decided to become a self-appointed vigilante, and take the law into his own hands, based on his erroneous (and racist) assumption that all young black males are criminal suspects. How dare you try blame Trayon's  death on parents, his school, and his personal problems. Place the blame where it's due: Blame the racist and psycho murderer George Zimmerman.

D2D,
 
Provide the evidence to support your claim that Trayvon Martin was the aggressor on the night George Zimmerman murdered him.

The criminal trial is long over.






Yup, for most anyway...   There are still a few racist holdouts confused and want a retrial with public opinion instead of law they already lost long ago...


Unfortunately for the racists, Zimmerman is a black/Hispanic mulatto...   They would be better off complaining about black on black crime and trying to solve it than trying to make this non-crime a racist issue.   But they will not.
 
Hawky lost long ago but hasn't figured that out yet...
 

 
 

Watch the trial!

sweetwater5s9,
 
Yes. The criminal trial is over and constitutional protection against double jeopardy prevents his being tried again in a criminal court. He got away with murder...that time. But Zimmerman can be tried again, in a civil trial, where he could either be tried for the wrongful death of Trayvon, or for violating his civil rights--perhaps on both charges together. It wouldn't be a trial based on "public opinion." Zimmerman would be forced to defend himself against evidence that should had been used against him in the criminal trial. Evidence that would had easily convicted an obviously guilty Zimmerman. That same evidence would easily find him liable in a civil trial.
 
And, not surprisingly, you didn't provide any evidence to support Zimmerman's acquittal. You played the race card, a red herring trotted out to distract attention away from the fact of your obvious inability to refute the argument that your idol, the mentally disturbed killer George Zimmerman, got away with murder. Your blabbering about "Hawky" doesn't change that fact.
 

No. Here's what you do, D2D: Support your claim that Trayvon was the aggressor on the night Zimmerman murdered him. That's what you're supposed to be doing. Remember?

Unfortunately for the racists, Zimmerman is a black/Hispanic mulatto...   

Don't you think it odd that in nearly every thread regarding the murder of the unarmed youth, if race is interjected it is almost 100% of the time by those defending G. Zimmerman indefensible act. It is an indication of the weakness of their position that they use race to deflect and spin the discussion.

It would be odd if it were true!

Race was interjected into the discussion 100% of the time by liberals!

Don't forget Zimmerman was described by the media as a "White/Hispanic" from the get go!

Show me the posts where race is interjected by a liberal in this thread and I'll show ten for every one of them where race is interjected by you or another right winger.

So, you never saw a news story on the Martin assault?

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it?
 


Read them slowly ten times so that it sinks in. Your answer is to a non-question. Your silly attempt to deflect and spin isn't going to impress anyone but the dumbest of the dumb.

So, you never saw a news story on the Martin assault?

I guess you really are afraid to honestly respond to any post. I don't blame you. If my stance on an issue was as contrary to common sense as yours I would avoid the topic and try to spin it in another direction too.

You sound like the racist to me, sweetwater5s9. It's always you who plays the race card. It's always you who  harps on Zimmerman's being a "black/Hispanic mulatto," as if that's suppose to justify his murdering Trayvon.
 
 

Nope. And evidently you didn't either, since you are unable to present it as evidence to support your claim that Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman.

(http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451eb0069e2011570ea5170970c-pi)

DUMMY_john,
 
See if you can find one that says duke_john needs to shut the fuck up and stop making a fool of himself.
 
HAHAHA

(http://www.troll.me/images/the-most-interesting-man-in-the-world/hey-you-yeah-you-fuck-off.jpg)

He's talking to you, fool.

So none of the defenders of Zimmerman can come up with an argument that doesn't defy logic, yet they continue to defend him and his crime.  They continue to attempt to spin the facts by dragging race into it. Not one of them were there, yet they claim to know all the facts, even though the alleged "facts" aren't supported by common sense or reality.

The good news is that karma is catching up with Zimmerman. He will spend the rest of his life looking over his shoulder, wondering when he will get his due.

yet they continue to defend him and his crime.


Which crime that he has been convicted of are you talking about?   Or have you made up one?

He is making things up again!

He has no facts on his side just as the prosecution had no facts on his side!

The civil rights violation trial, and the wrongful death trial is not over yet. Then there is the trial for his latest indiscretion he still has to contend with. He will be dealt with yet.

 Yet, no one has asked for either trial and none is scheduled!

What would a lawsuit achieve as Zimmerman has no assets?

And yet the terrorist Bill Ayers is free on a technicality...

William Ayers--"Guilty as Sin, Free as a Bird, It's a Great Country"

No complaints?

Ayers is an unrepentant  domestic terrorist. And he is married to another unrepentant terrorist, Bernardine Dohrn.

Don't believe me? I'll let the Obama-Supporting Terrorist speak for himself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP15wJl9YPo&feature=player_embedded&list=PL17C081DF46872533 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP15wJl9YPo&feature=player_embedded&list=PL17C081DF46872533)

Neither trial has been scheduled..... YET!

A wrongful death trial could ensure every asset he ever attains would be the property of the Martin Family.

This threadis about Zimmerman's guilt. You must be lost.

Zimmerman is about as guilty as Bill Ayers...

Again, this thread is about Zimmerman's guilt. Ayers did not murder someone, then claim self defense.

wmdn_bs,
 
Notice how sweetwater5s9 can't provide even a shred of evidence to support Zimmerman's bogus claim of self-defense? Also notice that D2D keeps babbling that there's no evidence of Zimmerman's guilt while continually ignoring evidence to the contrary. And now notice that sweetwater5s9 is tossing out a red herring--an irrelevant distraction that he hopes will divert the discussion away from the original issue (Zimmerman's murder of Trayvon) to Bill Ayers, someone who has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. But, of course, D2D and sweetwater5s9 believe they are presenting logical arguments when, in actuality, all they're doing is what they always do: post logical fallacies. What they really need to do is sit their dumb asses down and shut the fuck up.
 
 

Same ol' same ol' day after day.

 
Yep.

(http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2010/117/f/d/Beating_a_dead_horse_by_pjperez.jpg)

To: DUMB_john, the ass hat
 
You can end this discussion at any time you like. In fact, you should had ended it a long time ago: Your argument was long-since debunked and all you've been doing since is post puerile insults that serve only to further confirm your stupidity and ignorance. But as long as you want to demonstrate what a dumb-fuck ass hat you are, I'll be happy to help you do it.
 
LOL

Bullshit, fool.  You hate the American judicial system, hawkshit.

DUMB_john,
 
You're still confused. The issue here isn't my hatred of American jurisprudence (your logical fallacy:straw man fallacy). It's your inability to undermine my arguments and--more important--your inability to support your own arguments.
 
 

Bullshit from hawkshit again.

Learn to read, fool.

Here's what you need to learn, DUMBO_john: You need to learn to sit down, shut the fuck up and stop making an even bigger ass of yourself when you can neither refute your opponents claims nor support your own.

Fuck off, bitch.  Shut the fuck up, fool.

Ayers did not murder someone, then claim self defense.


Yes, Ayers murdered and got of on a technicality.   Zimmerman was judged innocent by a court of law.   Big difference.   Even Ayers admits he was guilty.

William Ayers--"Guilty as Sin, Free as a Bird, It's a Great Country"

George Zimmerman, guilty as sin, free as a bird. It's a hell of a system.

Guilty?  Fuck no. 

Zim was declared NOT GUILTY beyond a reasonable doubt of all charges.

Get a life.

"Guilty as sin, free as a bird, it's a great country" was one of the Ayers quotes accompanying the picture in the magazine.

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/August-2001/No-Regrets/ (http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/August-2001/No-Regrets/)

 
duke_john,

Are you trying to make the absurd argument that juries are infallible, that they don't find guilty defendants innocent and innocent defendants guilty? Are you trying to make the absurd argument that everybody executed is guilty and that innocent people are never executed? Your argument is based on the false premiss that, just because a misinformed jury found Zimmerman not guilty, we're supposed to simply ignore the preponderance of evidence to the contrary.

Zim was declared NOT GUILTY beyond a reasonable doubt of all charges.

Period.

Case closed.

Move on, fool.

 
 DUMB_john,

Although Zimmerman got away with murder in a criminal trial, the case isn't closed. He could still be tried in a civil court and, based on the preponderance of evidence against him, he would easily be found liable for the wrongful death (read murder) of Trayvon. 

Zimmerman is broke!

No lawyer is going to waste his own money on such a suit!

"Guilty as sin, free as a bird, it's a great country" was one of the Ayers quotes accompanying the picture in the magazine.

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/August-2001/No-Regrets/ (http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/August-2001/No-Regrets/)


Obama's buddy gets away with murder and terrorism on a technicality...

Trayvon was a victim of a knockout attack gone bad.

Beat your meat instead of a dead horse, hawkshit.  Maybe you'll be less frustrated in life.

what works for you doesn't work for normal people

Unfortunately you are not normal so what are you trying to say, Cas?

cusserio is a pervert

case closed

like you would know the difference

Beat up again I see, Cas...  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/grin.gif)

A wronful death lawsuit could ensure he stays broke the rest of his miserable life. A civil rights trial could ensure he spends some time at the cross-bar hotel.
 

How do you figure? Are you saying that when someone calls another some derogatory name, or otherwise insults them instead of addressing the topic, that it constitutes a beating? HMMMmmmm... Strange viewpoint.

What lawyer is going to spend his own money on a lawsuit that will pay him nothing?

Why hasn't such a suit been filed?

I am sure that if the Martin family desired to file a wrongful death lawsuit, lawyers would line up to take the high profile case just for the publicity.
 
The reasonable question is why haven't they filed.? That I couldn't tell you. There is time, and maybe they are weighing their options while they are still dealing with the grieving process.
 
You really should think before you click on the "Post" button.

I can tell you why they haven't filed!

It is because there is no money in it!

Additionally, such a suit would bring in their parenting or lack there of and Martin's school records including his history of violence!

They essentially abandoned that kid to his own desires!

You're kidding, right? You couldn't tell me if your ass is reamed, punched, or bored but you can read the minds of others. Are you so socially retarded that you equate everything to money? Some folks think justice for the child is more important than money.

The "child" got justice the night he decided to attack the wrong person!

The bully got a surprise!

To: DaBoz and D2D
 
Trayvon was the victim of a paranoid racist named George Zimmerman, who assumed that all young black males are criminal suspects. So he became a self-appointed vigilante and began an unauthorized pursuit of Trayvon , stalking him with a locked an loaded firearm, no less. And evidently it was Zimmerman who bit off more than he could chew. Trayvon gave him a good ole fashioned ass kicking. Trayvon Martin died defending himself in an altercation instigated by the racist psycho George Zimmerman, who had no business following Trayvon in the first place.
 
No, DaBoz. It was Zimmerman who was the victim of his own attack that went bad. No, D2D. It was Zimmerman who decided to attack the wrong person. ZImmerman shot dead an unarmed minor he erroneously assumed to be "high" and "up to no good" and concocted a bogus claim of self-defense. A misinformed jury allowed him to get away with murder. And even now you have yet to provide evidence to  refute that claim. Your only rebuttal so far is the same old lame argument--a jury found Zimmerman not guilty. But the preponderance of evidence against the maniac Zimmerman suggests that the not guilty verdict does not necessarily mean he's innocent.
 
 

Prove it 1965hawks!

Just because you imagine it doesn't make it so!

You are miles away from providing any evidence to the contrary D2D. Just because a jury declared him not guilty dos nothing to prove your argument.

Yet you can point to no evidence that proves Zimmerman's guilt but Martin's violent history backs up the defense version of events as does all the evidence!

D2D,
 
If you want to introduce Trayvon Martin's "violent history" as evidence, be prepared to defend your idol George Zimmerman's violent history. And although you constantly deny the fact that I've provided quite a bit of evidence to support my claim that Zimmerman should had been convicted for the murder of Trayvon, you've never produced a single shred of credible evidence to the contrary. In fact, you've never produced any evidence at all to support your arguments and claims. All you've done so far is just talk out your ass and expect us to accept that opinionated BULLSHIT without question. And, needless to say, you've never even come close to either refuting or debunking my argument that Zimmerman got away with murder.
 
 
 
 

Prove what, D2D, that Zimmerman's claim of self-defense is bogus? That's no problem at all. I'll even let him do it himself.
 
LOL
 
http://viewfromll2.com/2013/07/08/zimmermans-statements-are-the-defenses-own-worst-enemy/ (http://viewfromll2.com/2013/07/08/zimmermans-statements-are-the-defenses-own-worst-enemy/)
 
 

Right, all the evidence points to Martin as the aggressor!

Some biased leftist commentator desperately twisting Zimmerman's statements is not proof!

In order to prove any case in court there are different burdens of proof.  For example in a civil case the plaintiff must prove their case by a "Preponderance of the Evidence". This means evidence that has more convincing force than that opposed to it. If the evidence is so evenly balanced such that neither side "preponderates" on an issue, the party who had the burden of proving it loses.

However these standards do not apply to a murder or manslaughter case, as in the Zimmerman prosecution, here the state has the burden "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt".

In all criminal cases, the state has the burden of proving every essential element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. This burden is constitutionally required by the 14th Amendment "Due Process" clause. Beyond a Reasonable Doubt  defined as not a mere "possible doubt," but an abiding conviction of the truth of the charge after considering the entire case.

The overall burden to prove the defendant's guilt remains on the prosecution throughout the trial.

Jury deliberations are secret and we will never know what was said in that jury room. What we do know is the jury determined that the State failed to prove their case of Manslaughter or Second Degree Murder beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt.

The burden remained on the state during the entire trial and never shifts to the defendant. The State must prove each and every element of the crime, and if the jury had any reasonable doubts about whether the state proved every element of the crime they have to acquit. The public and the media may want to believe that race played a part in this case, but that is simply speculation.

We will never know what went on in that jury room, all we do know is that those jurors made a decision based upon the evidence presented at trial. The jury decided that the State had not proven their case. The State introduced a great deal of evidence that was probably not relevant, meaning that it did not tend to prove or disprove the elements of the crime charged.  To the general public it may have appeared that the state had a strong case, however the only real question was whether the state introduced evidence that actually proved the elements of second degree murder or manslaughter.

According to the jury they did not.  There was justice in this case, the justice is part of the American Justice system where an accused is entitled to face their accusers and require the state to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This system of justice is there for all people, regardless of race, and we should not condemn the American Justice System, simply because we disagree with the verdict.

The case against George Zimmerman, a 29 year old Hispanic male who shot Trayvon Martin, a 17 year old African American Male, did not produce a guilty verdict.

http://www.florida-lawblog.com/2013/07/why-george-zimmerman-was-not-guilty.html (http://www.florida-lawblog.com/2013/07/why-george-zimmerman-was-not-guilty.html)

sweetwater5s9,
 
Again you show your penchant for posting irrelevant distractions. We already know that that a jury acquitted Zimmerman in a criminal trial, but that doesn't mean he can't be tried and found liable in a civil trial. And, unlike in his criminal trial, Zimmerman could be forced to take the stand and testify. And if that should ever happen, his bogus claim of self-defense would be quickly exposed as the fraud that it really is. The preponderance of evidence against Zimmerman would find him liable for the wrongful death of Trayvon Martin, and justice for Trayvon would be served.
 
 http://www.ehow.com/list_6533163_differences-civil-court-criminal-court.html (http://www.ehow.com/list_6533163_differences-civil-court-criminal-court.html)
 
http://www.ehow.com/list_6560246_differences-civil-criminal-court-proceedings.html (http://www.ehow.com/list_6560246_differences-civil-criminal-court-proceedings.html)
 
http://www.ehow.com/info_8788677_difference-probable-cause-preponderance-evidence.html (http://www.ehow.com/info_8788677_difference-probable-cause-preponderance-evidence.html)

We will never know what went on in that jury room, all we do know is that those jurors made a decision based upon the evidence presented at trial. The jury decided that the State had not proven their case.

There was justice in this case, the justice is part of the American Justice system where an accused is entitled to face their accusers and require the state to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This system of justice is there for all people, regardless of race, and we should not condemn the American Justice System, simply because we disagree with the verdict.

The case against George Zimmerman, a 29 year old Hispanic male who shot Trayvon Martin, a 17 year old African American Male, did not produce a guilty verdict.

http://www.florida-lawblog.com/2013/07/why-george-zimmerman-was-not-guilty.html (http://www.florida-lawblog.com/2013/07/why-george-zimmerman-was-not-guilty.html)

Juries often get it wrong. It's not a perfect system, it is however the system we have. That's why civil trials often have a different outcome than criminal trials.

No the reason civil trials have different results is because money is on the line not lives making it easier for juries to side with the injured no matter how scummy they may be!

Blah! Blah! Blah!... Come back when you are coherent and have a realistic view of the judicial system.

According to your hypothesis, the jury in the OJ Simpson trial got it right, and the wrongful death trial was just Nicole's family gold digging. Does that sum it up pretty well in your small mind?

Simpson had deep pockets and jurors were sympathetic toward the Goldmans!

Zimmerman has no deep pockets, no assets, no future prospects!

You cannot get blood out of a turnip!

In order to prove any case in court there are different burdens of proof.  For example in a civil case the plaintiff must prove their case by a "Preponderance of the Evidence". This means evidence that has more convincing force than that opposed to it. If the evidence is so evenly balanced such that neither side "preponderates" on an issue, the party who had the burden of proving it loses.

However these standards do not apply to a murder or manslaughter case, as in the Zimmerman prosecution, here the state has the burden "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt".

http://www.florida-lawblog.com/2013/07/why-george-zimmerman-was-not-guilty.html

D2D "Simpson had deep pockets and jurors were sympathetic toward the Goldmans!

Zimmerman has no deep pockets, no assets, no future prospects!

You cannot get blood out of a turnip!"

It's been explained to you many times D2D. I'm sorry that your skull is so thick nothing gets through there. Try to find a nearby adult to explain it to you with pictures. Or continue to sit in the corner playing with your coloring crayons and eating paste. It makes no difference to me.

There was justice in this case, the justice is part of the American Justice system where an accused is entitled to face their accusers and require the state to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This system of justice is there for all people, regardless of race, and we should not condemn the American Justice System, simply because we disagree with the verdict.   We do know that those jurors made a decision based upon the evidence presented at trial.

We also know that juries do not always get it right regardless of the strength or weakness of the evidence. Agreed?

But it's obvious, sweetwater5s9, that the jury didn't hear the preponderance of evidence that would had easily convicted Zimmerman. The inconsistencies in his own version of what transpired on the night he murdered Trayvon debunk his bogus self-defense claim and leads no doubt of his guilt.
 
http://viewfromll2.com/2013/07/08/zimmermans-statements-are-the-defenses-own-worst-enemy/ (http://viewfromll2.com/2013/07/08/zimmermans-statements-are-the-defenses-own-worst-enemy/)
 
 
 
 

A Preponderance?

Think 1965hawks!

That is what is required in a civil suit not a criminal trial!

No wonder you think as you do!

 Jurors made a decision based upon the evidence presented at trial. The jury decided that the State had not proven their case. The State introduced a great deal of evidence that was probably not relevant, meaning that it did not tend to prove or disprove the elements of the crime charged.  To the general public it may have appeared that the state had a strong case, however the only real question was whether the state introduced evidence that actually proved the elements of second degree murder or manslaughter.

According to the jury they did not.

The burden remained on the state during the entire trial and never shifts to the defendant.

This system of justice is there for all people, regardless of race, and we should not condemn the American Justice System, simply because we disagree with the verdict.

We also know that juries do not always get it right regardless of the strength or weakness of the evidence. Agreed?

"A Preponderance?"
 
D2D,
 
You're confused again. I used the term preponderance as it's generally used and understood in informal conversation.
 
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/preponderance (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/preponderance)
 
The following essay includes a preponderance (a great amount) of evidence that would had easily convicted George Zimmerman, beyond doubt, if it had been used against him in a criminal trial.
 
http://viewfromll2.com/2013/07/08/zimmermans-statements-are-the-defenses-own-worst-enemy/ (http://viewfromll2.com/2013/07/08/zimmermans-statements-are-the-defenses-own-worst-enemy/)
 
And, in a civil trial, that same preponderance (great amount) of evidence could be the preponderance of evidence  used to find Zimmerman liable for either the Trayvon's wrongful death or the violation of his civil rights.
 
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/preponderance+of+the+evidence (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/preponderance+of+the+evidence)
 
But since you have only a modicum understanding of the English language, and almost nonexistent reading comprehension skills, it's no wonder that you always think (LOL)  as you do, and that you always get it wrong.
 
 
 
 

1965hawks, I sometimes almost feel embarrassed for D2D, and his total lack of debating skills and general knowledge of any topic he addresses... Almost.

If ignorance is bliss, he must be one of the happiest persons on this forum.

If he had any sense, he would leave this board and take a debating class at the local community college. It's sad that he can be so wrong and not realize it.

wmdn_bs,

Don't be embarrassed. Let her simple-minded pals in the Aesops Retreat far-reichwing, lunatic-fringe peanut gallery be embarrassed.

wmdn_bs,
 
D2D is too fucking stupid to attend a community college.

here's a suggestion:

how about making discussing courtroom procedures off limits on this site?


I never saw so much misinformation

But isn't D2D a self taught prison lawyer? He sounds like he learned all he knows about law from television and the prison library.

No, that's hawks.

Posted by: wmdn_bs 

We also know that juries do not always get it right regardless of the strength or weakness of the evidence. Agreed?

You and hawk sound demented with your constant harping on this.  The Zim trial is OVER.  LIVE WITH IT, loon.

Or, start your armed insurrection NOW, wmd. 

Or what? I think it's been said before that you don't have to come back to this thread if you don't agree it is relevant, so why do you?

You're an ass, wmd.  Those that perseverate like you are, most assuredly, nuts.

Yet you keep coming back. I guess that makes us equally nuts. I really think you are far more nuts than I am, but then I guess I would.

I am amazed at the hate you have for the American justice system and for Hispanics.

You go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.

Get it, psycho?

No hatred for either one Duke. I am however a realist and realize that jurists often get it wrong. That's why so many people eventually get their convictions overturned. I don't know if race played a part in the murder of the unarmed child, do you?

Who was murdered?  No one was declared a murderer.

But keep beating that dead horse.

he wasn't murdered he was killed

that should make his mother feel better

heartless bastard

His mother failed him!

His father failed him!

The educational system failed him!

He failed himself by choosing the thug life!

Jimmy Carter: Jury got it right in Zimmerman case « Hot Air (http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7uBA7qVS4w8AGppXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzNjc0Z3NuBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA1ZJUDMyM18x/SIG=13bh71d0m/EXP=1386634944/**http%3a//hotair.com/archives/2013/07/17/jimmy-carter-jury-got-it-right-in-zimmerman-case/)
This should have a few heads exploding on the Left, and possibly the Right as well — but former President Jimmy Carter gets it correct in this interview

then by all means

punish the mother a little more

she deserves it

and you, from the position of your superiority, are the punisher

Facts are facts!

Martin was raised with no discipline, no limits on his activities, he essentially ruled the roost!

Only when the schools took action against him long after it was due was he barely held to account for this actions!

What was a suspended student doing walking the streets?

Any responsible parent would have grounded him, taken away all his money, taken away his phone, taken away all his toys and left him only with school books for entertainment!

Martin's parents were anything but responsible!

And you, D2D are anything but human. Martin had as much right to the sidewalks and streets as any other person, until Zimmerman chose to take away his right to the streets in Sanford or any other streets.

Zimmerman did nothing to stop him walking the streets!

There wasn't a problem until Martin decided to ambush, sucker punch Zimmerman and then attack his supine and helpless person as he lay on the ground!

Zimmerman chose to take away his right to the streets in Sanford or any other streets.


That is biased speculation that has nothing to do with the evidence or law.   Just a biased opinion.

losing a child is not bad enough punishment for the judgers

the mother must also be harrassed

Unfortunately, his mother lost control of his violent acts in Miami which is why he was sent to Sanford.   Too bad he had to f*ck up so many lives.

I agree. Yours and D2D's biased opinions are mere speculation that has nothing to do with eevidence nor desire to seek the truth.

zimmerman was stalking martin

martin reacted the way any stand your ground* adherent would
 
*florida law endorses it

zimmerman was looking for trouble................period

 A lie, Period!

the truth

period

Prove it!

why would the 9-11 dispatcher tell him to back off if he wasn't stalking?

you back off from stalking or you keep on stalking

So if a person is going in the same general direction as you he is a stalker?

Are you serious?

ok now try to think

"back off" is the key phrase here

"just walking" my ass

he was stalking...............period

he would never have done it if he didn't have a gun

a gun made him brave

the gun is the key to the whole incident

To: caserio1

You made an excellent suggestion: Courtroom procedures have no business being discussed in this thread--it's a red herring. The vast majority of us here aren't law students and it's apparent that most of the discussants here don't even have a modicum of understanding of the basic principles of argumentation and debate. And to call the Aesops Retreat forum a moot court would be ludicrous, given the fact that it's nothing more than a sounding board for far-right extremists, where fallacious and illogical claims, allegations, and arguments abound and run rampant. You're absolutely correct:Discussants here should be able to defend their claims, positions and arguments using only the evidence itself--the evidence at hand--without the need to employ logical fallacies to prop up their fallacious, pseudo-arguments. But that's exactly what has happened.  And the reason is obvious.

Zimmerman's supporters in this forum--and over in the eXite forum--have yet to produce evidence to counter the mountain of evidence to refute or debunk the mountain of evidence that more than proves Zimmerman lied to cover up his murder of Trayvon. They've been unable to provide any evidence to counter the preponderance of evidence that easily debunks Zimmerman's bogus claim of self-defense. When subjected to close scrutiny, critical reading, critical thinking, and sound reasoning, the inconsistencies in his dubious self-defense claim his become immediately apparent and his concocted tale crumbles and collapses in a pile of lies.

So his defenders here continually "defend" Zimmerman with the weak argument that, since a jury acquitted him, then he must be innocent. And evidently, based on that false premiss, and in their illogical way of thinking, the preponderance of evidence that easily proves Zimmerman's guilt beyond doubt magically disappears.

D2D, Why don't you get serious and accept the fact that you haven't refuted a single claim in this article, an argument that debunks all the silly bullshit and smoke you've blown out your ass--like you're doing now--since I cut and pasted it.
 
http://viewfromll2.com/2013/07/08/zimmermans-statements-are-the-defenses-own-worst-enemy/ (http://viewfromll2.com/2013/07/08/zimmermans-statements-are-the-defenses-own-worst-enemy/)
 
 

D2D,
 
Zimmerman's "ambush-sucker punch" lie is thoroughly and effectively debunked in the article you've conveniently chosen to ignore.
 
 http://viewfromll2.com/2013/07/08/zimmermans-statements-are-the-defenses-own-worst-enemy/ (http://viewfromll2.com/2013/07/08/zimmermans-statements-are-the-defenses-own-worst-enemy/)
 

D2D,
 
The article cited above proves that all you're doing is stinking up the place with your usual bullshit and smokescreen you're blowing out your ass. Why don't you prove that crapoala you're spewing. If you can't, then you need to take a seat and shut the fuck up.
 
 

Jurors made a decision based upon the evidence presented at trial. The jury decided that the State had not proven their case. The State introduced a great deal of evidence that was probably not relevant, meaning that it did not tend to prove or disprove the elements of the crime charged.  To the general public it may have appeared that the state had a strong case, however the only real question was whether the state introduced evidence that actually proved the elements of second degree murder or manslaughter.

According to the jury they did not.

This system of justice is there for all people, regardless of race, and we should not condemn the American Justice System, simply because we disagree with the verdict.

Even former President Jimmy Carter agrees with the verdict.    Get over it.   

in re: Reply # 406 (D2D), reply #407 (D2D), and reply #414 (sweetwater5s9)

To: D2D and sweetwater5s9,

What a pair of assholes you are!You can't refute the preponderance of evidence that quashes Zimmerman's easily debunked  claim of self-defense, so you attempt to blame Trayvon's parents for his murder. Evidently you're conveniently ignoring the sociopath Zimmerman's well-documented record of deviant behavior. Compare their records and you'll find that George Zimmerman was--and still is--more of a menace to society than Trayvon ever was.

Jurors made a decision based upon the evidence presented at trial. The jury decided that the State had not proven their case. The State introduced a great deal of evidence that was probably not relevant, meaning that it did not tend to prove or disprove the elements of the crime charged.  To the general public it may have appeared that the state had a strong case, however the only real question was whether the state introduced evidence that actually proved the elements of second degree murder or manslaughter.

According to the jury they did not.


Get over being wrong, Hawky...


Even former President Jimmy Carter agrees with the verdict.

The racists like you never will...

sweetwater5s9,

Remember the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority? As I told you in an earlier post: The fact that former president agrees with the jury's acquittal of Zimmerman doesn't validate it. And that verdict certainly doesn't invalidate the weight of evidence that easily proves Zimmerman lied to cover his guilt. And your continued harping on the fact that a misinformed jury acquitted Zimmerman is pointless. Do you believe that repeated assertion will make the evidence of Zimmerman's guilt magically disappear?

http://viewfromll2.com/2013/07/08/zimmermans-statements-are-the-defenses-own-worst-enemy/ (http://viewfromll2.com/2013/07/08/zimmermans-statements-are-the-defenses-own-worst-enemy/)

reasonable doubt is a very low threshold

and it worked in this case

if zimmerman has obeyed his instructions this would not have happened

being stupid AND boneheaded is not a crime else the jails would be fuller

(it's a requirement to vote republican)

Truer words were never spoken.

I agree, wmdn_bs. Truer words were never spoken. And unfortunately this country has too many stupid and boneheaded people like sweetwater5s9 and D2D. And I'm sure you'll agree to that.

Yes sir!

 Again, you have no proof he didn't follow the advise given him by the dispatcher!

It's advice not advise, and if he had followed that advice he would not have had the opportunity to murder the unarmed youth.

Again, the spelling police appears!

Did you have to buy your own plastic badge and whistle?

The evidence shows Martin doubled back and ambushed Zimmerman!

Zimmerman was and remains a fat out of shape guy who on the call was winded within seconds after starting to follow Martin!

His winded state ceased immediately after the dispatcher told him "you don't need to do that"!

That is a huge pile of hot steaming male bovine fecal matter.

Listen to the 9/11 call!

I have. You are either a liar, retarded, or really really stupid. I'm guessing the latter.

Obviously, you haven't listened to the call or you are deaf!

It looks like you're happy to prove me right. It's the latter.

The trial is over...The verdict is in.   Retrying the case on social media will not change anything.

the gun made zimmerman brave

it's the gun every time

Nope, it was Martin's belief his victim was unarmed, fat and out of shape, essentially an easy target for an angry child in a man's body!

The firearm saved Zimmerman's life.   The jury has already ruled in this case.

Yes, the jury in  the criminal trial ruled. That doesn't necessarily mean it's the end of it.

D2D,
 
Obviously you're denying this:
 
http://viewfromll2.com/2013/07/08/zimmermans-statements-are-the-defenses-own-worst-enemy/ (http://viewfromll2.com/2013/07/08/zimmermans-statements-are-the-defenses-own-worst-enemy/)
 
It debunks everything you and all the other Zimmerman defenders here are trying to argue.
 
 

No, sweetwater5s9. Zimmerman used his firearm to murder an unarmed minor who was doing absolutely nothing to deserve his being stalked and shot dead. And the reason you keep harping on the jury's acquittal in the criminal trial is because you can't refute the evidence that debunks Zimmerman's bogus claim of self-defense.
 
http://viewfromll2.com/2013/07/08/zimmermans-statements-are-the-defenses-own-worst-enemy/ (http://viewfromll2.com/2013/07/08/zimmermans-statements-are-the-defenses-own-worst-enemy/)
 
 
 

Nope, it was Martin's belief his victim was unarmed, fat and out of shape, essentially an easy target for an angry child in a man's body!

You have no idea what was going through martin's head as he was accosted by Zimmerman. Who are you, the Long Island Medium? You can read the minds of the dead? If Zimmerman was so fat and out of shape, he should not have pursued and murdered the unarmed child.

you can't refute the evidence that debunks Zimmerman's bogus claim of self-defense.


I do not have to debunk your crap.   The jury did so unanimously as required by law...

Yep, the jury got it wrong just as they did in the OJ Simpson trial. It happens.

That is a matter of opinion not evidence.   Had Martin murdered Zimmerman by bashing his skull into concrete no one would even be discussing Martin's murder trial.   Yet Hispanic and black homicides occur frequently in the U.S. and many young blacks are prosecuted as an adult.   It works both ways with these two minority groups.

 Child, his violent actions indicate his thinking!

Violent cowards like Martin always pick those they perceive as weak to target!

The 9/11 recording indicates Zimmerman did NOT pursue Martin!

yeah

that's why the operator told him to back off

The dispatcher told Zimmerman to report what Martin was doing next, not once but twice.   It is in the record of the call that went to the jury.

Martin died trying to bash someone he thought was gay. Isn't that a hate crime?

Young Martin died standing his ground against a much older thug.

Since when is "standing your ground" pounding a helpless victim into the ground?

Since Stand Your Ground laws were enacted, making it legal to stand and confront rather than fleeing when being accosted byn a larger heavier thug. Are you really that stupid?

 Prove it!  Show me the law that says you can pound a helpless person into the ground!

Had Martin murdered Zimmerman by bashing his skull into concrete no one would even be discussing Martin's murder trial.   Yet Hispanic and black homicides occur frequently in the U.S. and many young blacks are prosecuted as an adult.   It works both ways with these two minority groups.

The dispatcher told Zimmerman to report what Martin was doing next, not once but twice.   It is in the record of the call that went to the jury.

The legally owned firearm saved Zimmerman's life when he was pinned to the ground and had his head bashed against concrete from Martin's life threatening assault.  The Sanford police were right in the beginning.   The jury has already ruled on all of the evidence in this case.   Everything else is biased speculation.

D2D,
 
Explain why George Zimmerman ( 29-years-old, 5ft. 7 in., 210 lb.), involved  with mixed martial arts, couldn't subdue Trayvon Martin (17-years-old, 5 ft. 11 in., 158 lb.) without shooting him.
 
 
 

sweetwater5s9,
 
Before you trot out the tired old "head-bashing" argument. You need to carefully explain why Zimmerman was even stalking Trayvon in the first place. At no time did the dispatcher tell Zimmerman to follow Trayvon. In fact, he specifically told Zimmerman that he did not need to do that. At no time did the dispatcher ever countermand that order.
 
And your attempt to  use race to rationalise Trayvon's murder is disingenuous race-baiting, to say the least. If you want to interject race into the discussion, then try to defend Zimmerman's documented obsession with young black males and his belief that they all should be considered criminal suspects.
 
The Sanford PD was "right" only in the sense that, under Florida's poorly written Stand Your Ground law, it had no choice but to accept Zimmerman's claim of self-defense, despite the obvious discrepancies in his story. And it's those same discrepancies that you can't refute. So, , as you've always done in the past, you simply ignore and  dismiss the evidence that debunks Zimmerman's bogus claim of self-defense as "biased speculation." And then, because you have no real evidence to prove Zimmerman's innocence, you run and hide behind the smoke screen of the jury's acquittal. Take a seat and shut the fuck up, sweetwater5s9.
 
 

Don't expect a rational answer 1965Hawks. There is none that makes sense to anyone with at least a double digit IQ.

Explain why George Zimmerman ( 29-years-old, 5ft. 7 in., 210 lb.), involved  with mixed martial arts, couldn't subdue Trayvon Martin (17-years-old, 5 ft. 11 in., 158 lb.) without shooting him.

The answer is in your comment Hawk. George's height & weight gives him a bmi rate of 32.5 which puts him in the obese category. He was in no shape to fight.

When that "helpless victim" has stalked you for a considerable distance and time, on a dark rainy night, without ever identifying himself. And when you have reason to believe that "helpless victim" plans to do you bodily harm or, worse, take your life. Under Florida's Stand Your Ground law, Trayvon Martin was well within his legal right to use any means necessary --including slamming a head into a concrete sidewalk--to defend himself against the relentless pursuit of the "creepy cracker" following him in the dark. But, of course, you don't believe Trayvon had that right. Do you, D2D? If not, why not? What about Trayvon's right of self-defense?

http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/what-about-trayvons-right-self-defense (http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/what-about-trayvons-right-self-defense)

Both felt threatened, both stood their ground, both defended themselves, and Martian lost.

Local5th,

George Zimmerman weighed 210 lbs. and was involved in mixed martial arts several times a week. But yet he was unable to subdue a 158lb. teenager. If he were that much out of shape, then how did he expect to perform the duties of a law enforcement officer, someone who could be called on to subdue someone with considerably more physical prowess and strength. And how did Zimmerman, who you're trying to have us believe is nothing more than a weakling and a fat slob, accomplish his super-human feat of single-handedly pulling several trapped family members from a burning motor vehicle. Take a seat, Local5th. Your flawed reasoning and faulty logic has failed you again.

George Zimmerman weighed 210 lbs. and was involved in mixed martial arts several times a week. But yet he was unable to subdue a 158lb. teenager. If he were that much out of shape, then how did he expect to perform the duties of a law enforcement officer, someone who could be called on to subdue someone with considerably more physical prowess and strength. And how did Zimmerman, who you're trying to have us believe is nothing more than a weakling and a fat slob, accomplish his super-human feat of single-handedly pulling several trapped family members from a burning motor vehicle. Take a seat, Local5th. Your flawed reasoning and faulty logic has failed you again.

Nothing flawed in my reasoning fool. By medical standards George was obese and Martin was in his prime.

Local5th,

Your argument conveniently omits the fact that Zimmerman would had never been threatened by Martin had he not been pursuing Martin in the first place. Yes. Trayvon lost. But your argument also omits the fact that, since the loser always ends up dead and can't defend himself, Stand Your Ground laws permit the winner to concoct a bogus claim of self-defense--just like Zimmerman did when he murdered Trayvon.

Local5th,
 
When Zimmerman murdered Trayvon, much was made of the fact that he was an aspiring law enforcement officer. How could Zimmerman be an aspiring law enforcement officer (a "wannabe cop") if he was the fat slob you would have us believe? And even if he were the weakling you're trying to paint him as being, presumably even the fat slob Zimmerman, with a modicum of Mixed Martial Arts training, could had easily been able to subdue an untrained Trayvon, or at least dislodged him and regained his footing. But since he was an obese slob, he was unable to do that. Right?

When Zimmerman murdered Trayvon, much was made of the fact that he was an aspiring law enforcement officer. How could Zimmerman be an aspiring law enforcement officer (a "wannabe cop") if he was the fat slob you would have us believe? And even if he were the weakling you're trying to paint him as being, presumably even the fat slob Zimmerman, with a modicum of Mixed Martial Arts training, could had easily been able to subdue an untrained Trayvon, or at least dislodged him and regained his footing. But since he was an obese slob, he was unable to do that. Right?

Zimmerman was out classed in this case. Cop or not, you will not always be the best.

Both had choices Hawk. Both made the wrong ones and someone died because of it.

The dispatcher told Zimmerman to report what Martin was doing next, not once but twice.   It is in the record of the call that went to the jury.

The legally owned firearm saved Zimmerman's life when he was pinned to the ground and had his head bashed against concrete from Martin's life threatening assault.  The Sanford police were right in the beginning.   The jury has already ruled on all of the evidence in this case.   Everything else is biased speculation.

]

Local5th,

I went back and did some checking. The autopsy report for Trayvon Benjamin Martin lists his weight as 5 ft. 11 in. (1.80 m) and weight as 158 lb. (72 kg).

When Zimmerman was arrested on 11 April 2012 his inmate booking information lists his weight as 5 ft 7 in (170 m) and weight as 185 lb (84 kg).

Zimmerman was not obese.
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/obesity/BMI/bmicalc.htm

Furthermore, Zimmerman had a definite weight advantage and, of course, his Mixed Martial Arts training can't be ignored. One could safely presume that Zimmerman should had been more than capable to push Trayvon off and subdue him with physical prowess.

Local5th,

I went back and did some checking. The autopsy report for Trayvon Benjamin Martin lists his weight as 5 ft. 11 in. (1.80 m) and weight as 158 lb. (72 kg).

When Zimmerman was arrested on 11 April 2012 his inmate booking information lists his weight as 5 ft 7 in (170 m) and weight as 185 lb (84 kg).

You went back and found out you were wrong?

So he was on the high end of the overweight category and out of shape..

No matter how many times your arguments are proven to be flawed, no matter how often your hero is shown to be free due to incompetent prosecution, you keep coming back with the same flawed reasoning. Why do you, D2D, Sweetwater, and local5th keep coming back to be exposed as misinformed at best and stubbornly stupid or defiant liars at worst?

Gluttonous for punishment I suppose.

The Sanford police were right in the beginning.   The jury has already ruled on all of the evidence in this case.   Everything else is biased speculation.

Local5th,
 
I would have had no reason to go back and check had you not introduced body mass index (bmi) as evidence. My learning the correct weights and heights for Zimmerman and Trayvon, and calculating their body mass indexes, debunks your claim that Zimmerman was obese when he murdered. Was Zimmerman overweight when he was finally arrested and booked, 118 days(!) after he murdered Trayvon? Yes he was, but he certainly wasn't "obese." And my going back and checking established the fact that Trayvon was 5 ft. 11 in. tall and weighed 158 when he was murdered. That's a far cry from the 5 ft. 10 in. 210 lb. or  6ft. 3 in. 190 lb. Trayvon you see bandied about here on the internet. When you said Zimmerman was obese, you were parroting the words of Adam Pollock, owner of the kickboxing gym where Zimmerman trained  prior to the homicide. Pollock testified on the witness stand that Zimmerman was "grossly obese" and not athletic at all. But now we know Zimmerman wasn't obese after all. Don't we, Local5th?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

But now we know Zimmerman wasn't obese after all. Don't we, Local5th?

After you provided the right numbers, yes we know zimmerman wasn't obese. According to the BMI he was just fat and out of shape.

Unfortunately for hawky, his opinion doesn't mean squat with anyone.    The trial is over.

sweetwater5s9: "The dispatcher told Zimmerman to report what Martin was doing next, not once but  twice."
____ Replies #455, #461, #473, and #475

sweetwater5s9: "The legally owned firearm saved Zimmerman's life...."
____ Replies #461, #473, and #475

sweetwater5s9,

Your logical fallacy: the Repeated Assertion--The author or speaker commits this fallacy whenever he or she relies on repetition to provide support for an unwarranted claim.

The unwarranted (groundless) claims you made in your claims are the obvious and serious defects in your argument:

The dispatcher specifically told Zimmerman that it was unnecessary for him to follow Trayvon. Furthermore, and more important, Zimmerman (and presumably the police dispatcher) was aware of the fact that members of neighbourhood watch groups are "not supposed to follow suspicious people" and "told to stand aside and allow the police to do their jobs." Your fallacious argument is debunked.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/25/nation/la-na-nn-george-zimmerman-neighborhood-watch-20130625 (http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/25/nation/la-na-nn-george-zimmerman-neighborhood-watch-20130625)


And your harping on the fact that Zimmerman used a legally owned firearm to kill Trayvon conveniently ignores the fact that Zimmerman had no business following anybody in the first place, especially if he was armed. Another of your fallacious arguments has been debunked, sweetwater5s9.

http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/state/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-case-experts-say-neighborhood-watch-groups-shouldnt-be-armed

You've done it again, sweetwater5s9: Whenever I provide evidence to support my claim that Zimmerman got away with the murder of Trayvon, you're unable to present any rebuttal to either refute or debunk my arguments and claims, or undermine my position. Your standard response is always the same wimpy excuse: "The trial is over."
 
So it remains the same--Zimmerman's most vociferous defenders in this forum can only whimper a lame excuse when confronted with evidence that supports my claim of his guilt: "The trial is over." Yeah. The trial's over; and so should your ludicrous attempt to defend a paranoid, wannabe cop who got away with murder.
 
 

Bullshit.

 
Uh-uh, duke_john. You're confused again: That's GOP elephant shit covering your head.
 
(http://mariopiperni.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Republican_Head-Up-Ass-2.jpg) (http://<a)

You're such a lying fool.

(http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p98/IronDioPriest/donkey.jpg)

Local5th,

I debunked your lie that Zimmerman was obese. Can you support your claim that he was also "out of shape?"

Unfortunately for hawky, his opinion doesn't mean squat with anyone.    The trial is over.   Move on...

duke_john,

Your calling me a lying fool is nothing new. You always do that whenever I provide evidence to support my position and undermine yours. So your childish "bullshit" reply came as no surprise to me, or to anybody else familiar with your monkeyshines in this forum. And, by the way, we're all familiar with your propensity to evade the issue by posting puerile images you down-load from right-wingnut websites. But I'm not going to waste my time trading insults with you moron ass today. If you believe I'm a lying fool, then post the evidence to prove it, not some photo-shopped bullshit that reveals your fascination with the homosexual life-style.

Keep beating that dead horse, Hawky, ROFL...(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/police.gif)

Hawkshit, I call you a lying fool because you are a lying fool.

 
 

sweetwater5s9,

You're confused again: I'm not citing opinion, I'm citing evidence. And, unfortunately for you, the facts I provide to support my arguments can never be disproven by your...umm...oh, yeah..."biased speculation." And there it is again: You can't provide evidence to refute my arguments, so you do as you always do: trot out the wimpy excuse that that the trial is over. You can run behind that smokescreen you keep blowing out your ass, but your dumb ass can't hide. I will always be waiting here to debunk your fallacious arguments and toss them in the dust bin where they belong. "The trial is over, move on." Yeah. Right. You really need to shut the fuck up, sweetnitwit.

HAHA
 

To: (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/police.gif) (Zimmerman, the wannabe cop?)
 
You're still confused, sweetnut. I'm not beating a dead horse; I'm kicking your dumb ass all over this website, just like I always do. I'm giving your dumb ass a worse whuppin' than Trayvon gave Zimmerman.
 
HAHAHA
 
 

A jury refuted your argument Hawk. And yes you are beating a dead horse.

Local5th,
 
But you and Zimmerman's supporters in this forum have shown that YOU can't refute my argument. Every time you trot out some preposterous, race-baiting, gun-loon nonsense in defense of the paranoid murderer George Zimmerman, I'm waiting and prepared to throw those fallacious arguments right back in your faces. And then ROTLFMAO after I read the same excuse every time I hand you your asses: "A jury found Zimmerman not guilty; the trial is over. You're beating a dead horse." (LOL)
 
Yes it's true. Zimmerman got away with murder and I've provided the evidence to support that claim. Needless to say, neither you nor the other vociferous and bombastic fools in this forum have presented any evidence to debunk that claim. Sit down and shut up, Local5th.
 
HAHA

A jury refuted your argument Hawk. And yes you are beating a dead horse.

 duke_john,
 
Yes. A misinformed jury allowed George Zimmerman to get away with murder. But, after given several opportunities, neither YOU nor your fellow Zimmerman defenders in this forum can provide evidence to defend that miscarriage of justice. Have you?  Nope.
 
And no, duke_john. Truth be told; I'm not beating a dead horse. I'll remind you again thay I'm kicking your ass (along with the asses of your stupid and ignorant supporters) all over this website, just like I do every time I debate you and your wacko pals in this den of right-wingnut imbeciles. But, as is always the case, your weak rebuttal is that a jury acquitted the murderer. And then you run behind the smokescreen you blow out of your ass. A repeated assertion is a fallacy of logic and of argumentation and debate. It's not evidence that refutes evidence9 real facts).
 
Shut the fuck up, duke_john. Come back when you have evidence to present to support your position.

Hawky lost again...  Oh the horror...   (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/grin.gif)

sweetnitwit,
 
You proved a long time ago that what's been lost in this forum is your mind, because there's obviously an empty space between your ears. Sit down and shut the fuck up, airhead.
 
ROTFLMAO

 
 
 
 
To: DUMB_john,
 
Your logical fallacy: the repeated assertion--reposting the same debunked bullshit over and over again.
 
The same applies to you in reply #496 that applied to Lunatic5th in reply #493.
 
Damn, john! That was too fucking easy.
 
ROTFLMAO
 
 
 
 

To: hawkSHIT
 
Your logical fallacy: the repeated assertion--reposting the same debunked bullshit over and over again.
 
You claim you know more than the jury and the jury decision was all wrong.
 
Damn, hawkshit! That was too fucking easy.
 
ROTFLMAO

Hawky lost again...  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)

And again, and again, and again, and......

But he will try an beat a dead horse back to life...   (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/evil.gif)

"Hawky lost again...."
___sweetnutjob5s9, reply #501.
 
"[Hawk lost again] and again and again."
___dunderhead_john, reply #502.
 
"But [1965hawks] will try an [HAHA] beat a dead horse back to life."
___sweetnutjob5s9, reply #503.
 
Ah, yes. Two self-deluded (and refuted) ass clowns, who still won't accept the fact that the ad hominem logical fallacy will not miraculously substantiate their ludicrous claims, ridiculous allegations, illogical beliefs, and preposterous arguments. Evidently those boneheads still believe that attacking the arguer equates to refuting the auger's argument. It's way past time for ass hats sweetnutjob5s9 and dunderhead_john to take a seat and shut the fuck up.
 
 

I'm amazed that they keep coming back, stutter posting, even though their assertions have been proven wrong so many times. They are proof that you can fix ignorant but stupid is forever. We've been trying to educate them, but all the teaching in the world can't sink through those concrete noggins. (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)

wmdn_bs,
 
I'm not amazed, not at all. That's what sweetnut and DUMB_john do whenever they get their asses handed to them--and that's all the time, by the way--and they resort to posting ad hominems, red herrings, straw men, and other logical fallacies (and fallacies of argumentation and debate) in a laughable attempt to save face and hide their humiliation of having their absurd claims and illogical arguments thrown back in their faces and having their dumb asses kick all over this website. I don't know about you, but I really enjoy spotting the fallacies in their arguments, and I especially like showing all the readers what stupid and ignorant losers they really are. Yeah. I really enjoy making fools of them and making fools of their numskull supporters in this forum.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Two fools, too funny.

Move on.  The jury's decision is in, and it doesn't agree with you.

But the issue here isn'tthe jury's verdict. It's your inability--and the inability of your supporters--to defend the jury's verdict. Neither you nor your fellow Zimmerman defenders have yet to refute the mountain of evidence that exposes the lies in George Zimmerman's concocted tale of self-defense. It's obvious he lied to cover up his murder of Trayvon. Why do you and your supporters continue to support him, deluded_john?
 
 

You and your supporters want to overrule the verdict of the jury: not guilty beyong a reasonabale doubt of all charges.

You cannot, racist scum.

 Show us that "mountain of evidence"!

Actual verifiable evidence not what you pull out of your rectum!

duke-john,
 
Your calling me a racist doesn't hide the fact that you have yet to refute the argument that George Zimmerman stalked and murdered an unarmed Trayvon Martin, based on his racial profiling of Trayvon. And the issue here isn't the jury's verdict; it's the inability of you and your fellow defenders of Zimmerman to defend the jury's verdict. And, furthermore, Zimmerman acquittal was not beyond reasonable doubt: He didn't testify in his trial, and, therefore, was never cross-examined.
 
 
 

D2D,
 
Why not start by your refuting this evidence you ignored way back in reply #370. And please don't try to avoid the issue by doing what you've done so far: hiding behind a smokescreen you blow out your ass.
 
http://viewfromll2.com/2013/07/08/zimmermans-statements-are-the-defenses-own-worst-enemy/ (http://viewfromll2.com/2013/07/08/zimmermans-statements-are-the-defenses-own-worst-enemy/)
 
 

That is not evidence but rumor and innuendo!

Why don't you know the difference?

Yer fulla shit, hawkshit.

Shut the fuck up, fool.

Trayvon F'd up more than once and his final one got him killed.   And yes, it is all about justice.  The same is happening with the "knock out" crowd as they are being shot as well.  Justice.

The parents of Martin are most to blame for his death.   Time for more parents to wake up and stop ignoring their children when they are headed down the wrong path.   No one else to blame.

sweetwater5s9,
 
What crime was Trayvon committing when the violent psycho George Zimmerman spotted him walking home from the store? And tell me why you didn't bother to mention Zimmerman's numerous run-ins with the law--restraining orders and assault on a police officer, for example--in your put-down of Trayvon Martin. Trayvon didn't fuck up, the racist paranoid George Zimmerman did. He murdered an unarmed minor, base on his erroneous--and well documented--assumption that all young black males should be treated as criminal suspects.
 
Happy Holidays and shut the fuck up, you racist moron. And save your silly response until after your celebration tomorrow of Natalis Solis Invicti and the birthday of Mithras. See ya, sweetnut. It's been fun.
r
 

What crime was Trayvon committing


Felony assault and battery...

Assault and battery often bring up images of the typical fight or brawl, and some states combine the two offenses. However, the terms are actually two separate legal concepts with distinct elements. In short, an assault is an attempt or threat to injure another person, while a battery would be actually contacting another person in a harmful or offensive manner.

sweetwater5s9,
 
"Felony assault and battery?"
 
Evidently you're confused again. I asked what crime was Trayvon Martin committing when George Zimmerman spotted him walking home from the store?

Shut the fuck up, hawkshit.

The trial is over, fool.

What crime was Trayvon committing


Felony assault and battery...

Assault and battery often bring up images of the typical fight or brawl, and some states combine the two offenses. However, the terms are actually two separate legal concepts with distinct elements. In short, an assault is an attempt or threat to injure another person, while a battery would be actually contacting another person in a harmful or offensive manner.

There was no assault and battery committed by the unarmed youth. There was nothing but a child armed with no more than a bag of Skittles standing his ground against a larger stronger Zimmerman. You can spend the rest of your life denying that, but it doesn't make it less true. You may fool yourself, and some other Special Olympians, but most of us recognize the truth. Sadly, you don't.

You're wrong in so many ways.  The jury disagreed with you, too.

(http://www.mochalrx.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/5e8.jpg)

There were actually two verdicts in the courtroom - 1 direct, and 1 implicitly implied.

#1 - George Zimmerman not guilty.

#2 - Trayvon Martin guilty of aggravated assault & battery with intent to kill or maim.


When the jury found George Zimmerman not guilty of second degree murder and manslaughter, they simultaneously found Trayvon Martin guilty of aggravated assault. CNN's Headline News stated that not only was the not guilty verdict read, but Trayvon was also convicted of aggravated assault due to Zimmerman proving his "self defense" case.

Zimmerman's acquittal indicates that he was justified in fearing for his life and using deadly force, and the obvious implication is that Trayvon Martin gave George Zimmerman reason to fear for his life.



Trayvon was convicted of aggravated assault and if he had survived he would have been sentenced for that. 

 For George Zimmerman to be "not guilty"—for his "self defense" to be valid, he had to be defending himself from an assault/attack that is most assuredly defined under the law as "assault & battery with intent to maim or kill."Otherwise, there is no self defense. Trayvon Martin was most certainly guilty of this attack, thus allowing George Zimmerman to use "self defense" as a legal excuse to killing, and the jury proved it by returning the proper verdict.

I really hope the Martin family pushes forward with a civil trial and that karma deals as harshly with GZ as it has with OJ.

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Fp5_e5aPqUY/SVkWA1zJUbI/AAAAAAAAG-4/mKu3y1vyEbY/s400/deadhorse2.jpg)

DJ, if this topic mis too much for your sensitivities, I suggest you stop visiting it. Especially since you cannot effectively defend your claims.

WMD, this topic is dead.  Stick a fork in it.

Especially since we have to read your nonsensical comments.

(http://static.squarespace.com/static/4f34530ecb12e336a9dfe29c/t/51e61173e4b04c7d0f338e30/1374032244062/george-injuries.jpg?format=1500w)

Yep, that's the result of underestimating who you are going to pounce on.

Saint Trayvon punced on Zim, dipshit.

(http://sagebrushcoalition.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/deadhorse.jpg)

For George Zimmerman to be "not guilty"—for his "self defense" to be valid, he had to be defending himself from an assault/attack that is most assuredly defined under the law as "assault & battery with intent to maim or kill."Otherwise, there is no self defense. Trayvon Martin was most certainly guilty of this attack, thus allowing George Zimmerman to use "self defense" as a legal excuse to killing, and the jury proved it by returning the proper verdict.

Orenthal James Simpson was deemed "NOT GUILTY" of killing Nicole Brown Simpson and Lyle Goldman too, yet he lost the wrongful death civil trial.
 

You will find the dipshit when you look in the mirror. Only a dipshit, or a dimwit would continue coming back to a thread he believes to have run it's course demanding others stop coming back. What a joke.

Fuck you, psycho.

Only a psycho would perseverate like you on this issue.

I guess that makes qualifies you as a psycho. You don't seem to be able to walk away, my psychotic friend.

OJ did not admit to killing anyone in self-defense nor was he assaulted.    Apples and oranges with the juries and trials...

(http://static.squarespace.com/static/4f34530ecb12e336a9dfe29c/t/51e61173e4b04c7d0f338e30/1374032244062/george-injuries.jpg?format=1500w)

OJ was declared "NOT GUILTY just as GZ was, but lost the civil trial when he was found guilty of wrongful death.
 
Nice photos of someone that let his alligator ego overpower his chickadee ass.

Tell us the results of the civil trial, wmd.  You claim to know everything about Saint Trayvon. 

 OJ was rich, Zimmerman has 4 million dollars in trial debt!

He has nothing to sue for!

No lawyer is going to sue someone who has no assets and only debt!

For George Zimmerman to be "not guilty"—for his "self defense" to be valid, he had to be defending himself from an assault/attack that is most assuredly defined under the law as "assault & battery with intent to maim or kill."   Otherwise, there is no self defense.   The Sanford cops got it right in the beginning as did the district attorney.   

The show trial was for political purposes only to shut up racists who thought Zimmerman was white instead of the mulatto he is not to mention a registered Democrat.  Too many race baiters lied on the left including Obama and Holder with this case.


Self-defense had nothing to do with OJ.

Wrongful death does. Just like GZ and the unarmed youth.

Self-defense had nothing to do with OJ.

The OJ wrongful death suit was heard in civil court. The standards of proof are almost non-existent there.   In a criminal trial, it must be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the defendant is guilty.

The civil cases are not proving guilt of the defendant only a chance for the possiblilty of guilt.

I'm glad that you finally agree that GZ would likely have his ass handed to him in a civil trial. Aside from that, you are wrong about nonexistent burden of proof.

I'm glad that you finally agree that GZ would likely have his ass handed to him in a civil trial.

Yeah. But Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'

Yeah but everything from future earnings is something.

sweetwater5s9,
 
You're still confused. I keep asking you what crime was Trayvon Martin committing when George Zimmerman spotted him returning home from the store. And you keep answering: Felony assault and battery. But that's obviously a lie. According to George Zimmerman's version of what happened on the night he murdered Trayvon, Zimmerman was running an errand when he spotted Trayvon walking home from a local convenience store. And according to Zimmerman's own words Trayvon wasn't committing any crimes whatsoever. So where did your lying ass get the notion that Trayvon was committing felony assault and battery when the paranoid murderer Zimmerman spotted him returning home from the store?
 
In actuality, Zimmerman had no authority at all to follow Trayvon and, in fact, his armed pursuit of Trayvon was especially unauthorised. Once Zimmerman reported what he erroneously assumed to be a person "on drugs" and "up to no good," his job was over. The fact that he ignored the dispatcher, assumed the role of self-appointed vigilante, and took the law into his own hands, makes him the aggressor and instigator. Trayvon had every legal right to use whatever means necessary to defend himself against the "creepy cracker" who relentlessly pusued him on a dark rainy night without ever identifying himself. Yes. Trayvon had every legal right to beat the living daylights out of the violent pyschopath  and liar George Zimmerman. Why do you right-wingnuts continue to defend that murderer?
 
 

sweetwater5s9,
 
Zimmerman would've never sustained those injuries had he not followed Trayvon, something he knew he had no authority to do in the first place.

Suppositions do not count, hawky.   Only the facts... 

Trayvon should have run his little ass home and he would still be alive.   Fact.

Trayvon should not have assaulted his school bus driver and he would not have been forced to leave Miami by his parents to Sanford and would still be alive.   Fact.

(http://www.mochalrx.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/5e8.jpg)

Does posting silly bullshit like this refute my argument?

Uh-uh. It doesn't disprove the fact that George Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin, concocted a bogus tale of self-defense, and got away with murder.

Trayvon should have run his little ass home while Zimmerman was on the phone with the police instead of assaulting an armed man and he would still be alive.   Fact.

sweetwater5s9,

You're still confused. Your claim that Trayvon was committing felony assault and battery when Zimmerman spotted him returning home from the store was obviously a supposition on your part. it certainly wasn't a fact. Truth be told, it was a bald-face lie. And speaking of facts, where are yours? I've provided evidence to support my position, my claims, and my arguments. But you and your supporters have yet to present credible evidence to either refute or debunk anything I've argued and the evidence on which is the grounds of my argument. All you and your pals have done is hide behind the smokescreen you continue to blow out your collective asses. You can't defend Zimmerman's acquittal. George Zimmerman got away with murder and you know it.

(http://www.mochalrx.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/5e8.jpg)

What argument?

You're confused again, sweetwater5s9. Trayvon Martin was walking home from the store, minding his business, and not engaged in any criminal activity whatsoever. He had every legal right to be where he was and didn't have to "run his little ass" anywhere.

Fact: Zimmerman had no business taking the law in his hands and pursuing Trayvon while armed with a locked and loaded firearm.

(http://www.mochalrx.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/5e8.jpg)

What bullshit.

Yeah. What argument? That's good question to ask yourself, duke_john. All you're doing now is posting silly pictures. In other words, you're doing now what you always do in this forum: making a damn fool of yourself and showing us (again) what a stupid and ignorant buffoon you really are.

I am not confused, Hawky.  You appear to be or are playing the racist bs as so many racist did?

Your suppositions do not count.   Only the facts... 

Trayvon should not have assaulted his school bus driver and he would not have been forced to leave Miami by his parents to Sanford and would still be alive.   Fact.

Had Trayvon known Zimmerman was legally armed he would have run home instead of what he did, if he was intelligent?   Even the jury saw that fact.

Trayvon should have run his little ass home while Zimmerman was on the phone talking with the police for quite some time and he would still be alive.   Fact.

What bullshit?

The BULLSHIT you continue to post because you can't present evidence to support Zimmerman's bogus claim of self-defense or defend his acquittal that allowed his lying ass to get away with murder. That bullshit, duke_john.

Uh-uh, sweetwater5s9. Your playing the race card won't help you here. And neither will your desperate attempt to introduce a red herring. When George Zimmerman spotted Trayvon Martin returning home from the local convenience store, he was minding his business, doing absolutely nothing wrong. He was not engaged in any criminal activity whatsoever. He was not, as you alleged, committing "felony assault and battery." There was absolutely no reason (or authorization) at all for Zimmerman to pursue Trayvon in the first place--especially while armed with a locked and loaded pistol. And don't ignore the fact that the dispatcher specifically told Zimmerman that he didn't need to follow the suspicious person he had reported to the Sanford PD.
 
The fact that Zimmerman was legally armed is irrelevant. He had no business pursuing Trayvon while armed in the first place, especially with a chambered round in his firearm. It's Zimmerman who should had taken his paranoid ass home instead of playing the role of self-appointed vigilante.

Your playing the race card


ROFL, what race card?   They were both minorities and black or mixed with blacks as in Zimmerman's case.   Try again.  Stop the lies, though.   It makes you look pathetic when you resort to lies about race.

(http://www.mochalrx.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/5e8.jpg)

You're nuts, hawkshit.  The case is over.  Now get over it, fool.

dickhead_john,
 
Your posting the same dumb picture over and over again proves nothing. It's a waste of time. You're committing the logical fallacy called the repeated assertion. If you still can't defend the murderer George Zimmerman's acquittal--a miscarriage of justice to say the least--after all this time,Then you should do what you should've done a long time ago.
 
You know....Take a seat and....
 
HAHAHA

Your playing the race card


ROFL, what race card, Hawky?  The one only in your mind?   They were both minorities and black or mixed with blacks as in Zimmerman's case.   Try again.  Stop the lies, though.   It makes you look pathetic when you resort to lies about race.

(http://www.mochalrx.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/5e8.jpg)

What murderer, hawkshit?  No one mentioned in this thread was convicted of murder.

Shut the fuck up, fool.

What murderer? We're discussing George Zimmerman, the lying psychopath who murdered Trayvon Martin and got away with murder. I've provided evidence to support my argument that Zimmerman's claim of self-defense is based on lies. You have yet to provide evidence that refutes that claim. All you can do is repeat the fact of Zimmerman's acquittal, but you've yet to provide any evidence to support that acquittal or, more important, to refute my claim that Zimmerman's acquittal was a mockery, travesty, and miscarriage of justice. No. YOU shut the fuck up, you blithering fool.

sweetwater5s9,
 
You've proven time and time again that you're unable to defend Zimmerman's acquittal. So a favourite tactic of yours is to toss out a red herring and use it as a straw man.
 
Race card? Yes. You played it in reply #540 when you argued that Zimmerman's murder trial was a "show trial," to "shut up racists who thought Zimmerman was white." You used the same argument in reply #559. The racial ancestry of Zimmerman and Trayvon is of no relevance in this discussion. But if you want to discuss race here, then you can begin by explaining Zimmerman's use of racial profiling of Trayvon Martin. Based on Zimmerman's past actions, it's safe to presume that Zimmerman probably would had never paid any attention to Trayvon at all had Trayvon been white.
 
 
 

(http://www.mochalrx.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/5e8.jpg)


No, he is not a murderer.  A jury of his peers declared after a trial he is not a murderer.

You, however, are a lying idiot.  Shut the fuck up, fool.

Orenthal James Simpson was deemed "NOT GUILTY" of killing Nicole Brown Simpson and Lyle Goldman too, yet he lost the wrongful death civil trial.

(http://www.mochalrx.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/5e8.jpg)

Apples and oranges.

Did OJ claim self defense after being felony assaulted and admit to having to kill anyone to save his own life? Apples and oranges...

Apples and apples in a civil trial. The criminal trial carries no weight.

(http://www.mochalrx.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/5e8.jpg)

What civil trial?  There has been no civil trial.

The criminal trial carries no weight.


Except when it comes to the truth based on facts beyond any reasonable doubt.

Yet.
 

Exactly my point. In a civil trial, GZ would more than likely lose.

Not if the civil trial was based on facts instead of emotion.

If your girlieman emotions are left at the curb, GZ will be working for the Martin family the rest of his life.

Not if the civil trial was based on facts instead of emotion by the jury...(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)

Only if the civil trial was based on a preponderance of the evidence and emotions were set aside.

there is no way to set emotions aside , or prejudices

that's why lawyers spend so much money on jury selection

duke_john,
 
George Zimmerman is indeed a murderer. The evidence that he murdered Trayvon Martin is overwhelming, and  I've provided several items of evidence to support my claim that Zimmerman murdered trayvon. You, however, have not provided a shred of credible evidence to defend the verdict you keep harping. All you've succeeded in doing, so far, name-calling. But, truth be told, duke_john, you proved a long time ago that you're the lying fool in our discussion. And everybody following our discussion will agree with me when I say that you should've shut the fuck up a long time ago, you blithering idiot.
 
HAHA

(http://www.mochalrx.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/5e8.jpg)

You claim he is a murderer.  A jury said you are wrong.

Hell, I claim YOU are a murderer, fool.  It's just as valid.

nice work hawks

you really nailed that moron

cusserio is a fucking dope

and a liar

case closed

No, duke_john. The proven fucking dope and liar in this marathon discussion is your dumb ass, a fact you established with your first post in this thread. What really needs to be closed is that big lying mouth of yours. You still don't get it: You need to SHUT THE FUCK UP. All you've doing for the past several weeks is showing everybody what a dumb-fuck, stupid and ignorant MORON you are.

Nearly 600 posts saying nothing rational and hawks celebrates cusserio's support.  Talk about desperation.

And

(http://www.mochalrx.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/5e8.jpg)

Shut the fuck up, hawkshit.

poor duke

trying to be witty

first try to understand what you read

duke_john,
 
No. That's not a valid argument. You can't claim I'm a murderer, because you have no evidence to make that claim. But I've made the claim that George Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin and I've provided evidence to support that claim. You, however, have yet to provide any evidence to refute my claim or the evidence I've provided to support that claim. All you've done is harped on the fact that a jury acquitted Zimmerman. But the fact that a jury acquitted Zimmerman cannot be argued as proof that Zimmerman is innocent, especially when considering the evidence that pokes holes in his bogus claim of self-defense. I've provided evidence to support my claim. But, in actuality, your argument is based on the logical fallacy of circular reasoning: You're arguing that Zimmerman is innocent because he's innocent. That's a very weak argument. Wouldn't you agree, duke_john?
 
 

The criminal trial carries no weight.


Except when it comes to the truth based on facts.

what else is the truth based on?

Nice work, caserio1. You really nailed that moron. Evidently you know and I know, but sweetwater5s9 still  doesn't  know that truth is something factual, the thing that corresponds to fact and reality.
 
And that's the reason duke_john can't  provide evidence--something that gives a sign of existence or truth of something-- to defend Zimmerman's acquittal or refute the claim that he murdered Trayvon.
 
Keep up the good work with your moron. I'll do the same with mine.
 
 

what else is the truth based on?


That a criminal punk was shot and killed in the commission of a violent felony against another human being.

Case closed.  It's over.  Get used to the verdict.   Your racism will not change it.  Sharpton, Holder, Obama, the NBPP and other racists have already tried...

sweetwater5s9,
 
Criminal punk?
 
You're confused again: Trayvon Martin didn't have a criminal record. George Zimmerman had a criminal record. In fact, Zimmerman's criminal activity has continued since the jury allowed him to get away with murder. remember?
 
Committing a violent felony?
 
Explain how defending yourself against an unknown stalker (armed with a loaded pistol, no less) who has no authority to pursue you in the first place is committing a "violent felony?"
 
Racist? Racism?
 
Explain how demanding justice for Trayvon Martin--an unarmed minor shot dead based on an erroneous assumption--is racism and why you're calling the people or groups doing so racists?
 
 

Wait a minute 1965hawks... Trayvon was armed... with a bag of Skittles. Not a very good choice of weapon to bring to a gun fight against a murderous thug.

(http://www.mochalrx.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/5e8.jpg)
Shut the fuck up, cusserio.  I have no intention of tolerating a pervert like you.

Your position is totally insane, hawkshit.  You're making it up as you go.

you will show respect for you betters by tolerating caserio

tolerating cusserio

means tolerating shit

Insults and name calling is all you can use when you have no valid argument Duke_John. Anonymous bullying doesn't work so well for you, does it? No one is intimidated, and you can't chase us away, so take your ball and go home if you don't like the fact that you are losing. Caserio's position is the same as every other sane person posting in this thread.

You're as full of shit as cusserio, asshole. 

Make a comment or two on cusserio's anonymous bullying, then you'll have some semblance of credibility.

When I see some, I will comment, much as I have several times about Hoosier_Daddy's use of profanity and insults. You have a nice day now, y'hear?

You're fucking kidding?  You've never read a single trolling insult from cusserio?

What planet are you on?

I'm on Earth, in the USA, living in the state of Michigan. You?

Here's a typical cusserio reply:

Yer fulla shit.

Or would you prefer

Yer an idiot.

maybe you'd like

(and this is a quote from cusserio)

blow me.

poor duke

has to misquote caserio

has no ideas of his own

tell you what, duke, maybe you can call your old boss for ideas

(he would know how dull you are)

Yer an idiot.

That seems to be your modus operandi Duke_John. If someone disagrees with you, you automatically fall back on insults. I've seen it in more posts than not. If you know your argument is invalid, why not just back out rather than put your insecurity on display?

I've found intellectual arguments are wasted on you and your kind. 

Please do observe your asshole brethren here and provide a comment or two on them. 

Now, feel free to shove it up your ass, moron.

intellectual and duke are two words that are never to be used together
 
unless modified by the word anti

And, on cue, dumbfuck cusserio shows up when the word "moron" is mentioned.

the word "moron" is in your imagination where it grows and prospers
 
in such a friendly environment

cusserio is a moron

without any scruples or honesty

That is pretty much your standard response to anyone who disagrees with you Duke, whether they are respectful to you or not. Why are you so bitter and full of hate? I truly feel sorry for you, but even more for those around you who have to endure all the hatred and bitterness.

My goodness, is it that time of the month for you, bullshitter?  Does it make you all warm and fuzzy to watch your dumbfuck brethren make all kinds of fucking weird comments?

Fuck you and yours, bullshitter.  And I call you for being the duplicitous asshole you are.  You take your liberal side, no matter how fucking foolish that makes you look, and you look really fucking foolish coming to defend cusserio.

you got him good wm
 
intelligent discourse is not in him

http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/index.php?topic=169117.msg1309037#msg1309037 (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/index.php?topic=169117.msg1309037#msg1309037)

Zimmerman, who is Hispanic, was acquitted.

Martin's family in April settled their wrongful death claim for Trayvon's death against The Retreat at Twin Lakes subdivision for what was reportedly at least $1 million.

Neighborhood watch was formally organized in 1972 under the National Sheriffs' Association.

see?

cusserio is a dumbfuck troll

dumbfuckery such as dukes sure kills any dialogue

there is no dialogue

with cusserio the lying troll

Duke John, have you been taking debate lessons from DaBoz or Hoosier Daddy?

duke is self taught
 
all his ex teachers say so

No, from lefties.  Why?

And why have you never, and I don't mean strictly as a response to hoosey, ever talked like this to a leftie?

There's your chance there, wmd.  Address cusserio and his trolling.  Go ahead, and I don't mean with an "attaboy."

poor duke
 
can't think of a reply so he goes with a threat
 
poor poor duke

What threat, fuckface troll?

Your Italian brethren do not like hearing you lie like that.

trying to sic wmd on to cas is a threat

Yer an idiot, troll.

sweetwater5s9,
 
Why do you keep harping on Zimmerman's Hispanic ancestry? Is that your justification for his murdering Trayvon and his acquittal, the miscarriage of justice that allowed him to get away with murder?
 
Yes, Trayvon's  family settled a wrongful death suit against the subdivision where Zimmerman lived and where he murdered Trayvon. And your point is...?
 
And, furthermore, your pointless blithering about neighbourhood watch programmes being organised by the National Sheriffs' Association is irrelevant, since George Zimmerman was not a member of any recognised Neighbouhood Watch organisation.
 
http://thegrio.com/2012/03/21/zimmerman-not-a-member-of-recognized-neighborhood-watch-organization/ (http://thegrio.com/2012/03/21/zimmerman-not-a-member-of-recognized-neighborhood-watch-organization/)

caserio1 and wmbn_bs,
 
Isn't it amusing to refute the preposterous claims and inane arguments that sweetwater5s9 and  duke_john post on this message board? I don't know about you, but I especially enjoy watching them continue to post the same fallacious (and idiotic) arguments, oer and over again, even after they've been thoroughly and effectively debunked numerous times before--thus, proving again just how stupid and ignorant they really are.
 
Keep up the good work: Stamp out right-wingnut idiocy in this forum, whenever and where ever it rears its ugly (and empty) head. And, of course, I intend to do the same.
 
 

That's a lot of stamping out but I'm up for it.

wmdn_bs,
 
You seem to be holding your own against our forum's right-wingnut loonies. But always remember that I'm always here if you and caserio1 ever need any help. I especially enjoy debunking loud-mouthed, know-nothing windbags like sweetwater5s9. And I like kicking duke_john all over this forum, because he's too stupid to realise when he's been debunked. So he continues to bend over and let me bury my foot in his ass. And, truth be told, I really enjoy doing it.
 
 

It does require a lot of stamping, but fortunately it isn't a difficult task. (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/wink.gif)

wmdn_bs,
 
You're absolutely correct. Evidently you learned a long time ago that the air-head, big-mouth, know-nothing, dumbed-down, windbag far-right, lunatics here at Jivin' Jim's  Aesop's Right-wingnutz R Us pose no difficulty at all to anyone whose arguments, positions, and claims are based on facts, rational thought, and sound reasoning.

Is the meeting of the mutual whack-off society over yet?

You ridiculous conversation is so hilarious, although the extent of your delusions gets a tad frightening.

go back to your gang of hate mongers and leave people alone

Now the pivot man of the circle jerk, cusserio, shows up.