quote:No where in that scripture it said that such events was unforseen by God.
Which mean your reply was pointless. The argument here is waht god wanted, his plan, his will, wish etc etc.
quote:It was never God's plan from the start.lol
Then he is not all powerful.
quote:If it was God's plan every choice we make in life, then why would God make his intelligent creatures "accountable for their acts"
Because he is irrational like those that made him up. If he is all powerful, how can all tragedy not be part of his plan???? If he did not want tragedy in the world there would be none. Simple no brainer.
quote:No where in the Bible does it says that God creates Evil.lol
Isaiah 45, God says "I make peace, and create evil".
I've already explain to you that it was NOT God's will/plan for Zimmerman to kill Martin. Unless you or Zimmerman can prove which you can not. According to Zimmerman's logic and yours, it was God's plan my cell phone was stolen, It was God's plan I trip and fell, It was God's plan my house was burglarized, It was God's plan for the 2011 Japan tsunami etc.
(2)The Bible clearly states: “The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.” This world reflects the personality of the invisible spirit creature who is “misleading the entire inhabited earth.” Satan is hateful, deceptive, and cruel. So the world, under his influence, is full of hatred, deceit, and cruelty. That is one reason why there is so much suffering and tragedy. A second reason why there is so much tragedy is that, mankind has been imperfect and sinful ever since the rebellion in the garden of Eden. Sinful humans tend to struggle for dominance, and this results in wars, oppression, and suffering. third reason for suffering is “time and unforeseen occurrence.” like I said earlier. People may suffer because they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time like Trayvon Martin case.
The tradegy and suffering you see in the world today was NOT God's plans in the beginning for mankind.
The context of Isaiah 45:7 makes it clear that something other than “bringing moral evil into existence” is in mind. The context of Isaiah 45:7 is God rewarding Israel for obedience and punishing Israel for disobedience. God pours out salvation and blessings on those whom He favors. God brings judgment on those who continue to rebel against Him. “Woe to him who quarrels with his Master” (Isaiah 45:9). That is the person to whom God brings “evil” and “disaster.” So, rather than saying that God created “moral evil,” Isaiah 45:7 is presenting a common theme of Scripture – that God brings disaster on those who continue in hard-hearted rebellion against Him. Do you understand?
The problem here is you do not know how to properly interpret the various types of literature found in the Bible.
Posts: 98 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:You dont prove a negative "sweetie" so learn about logical fallacies and shut that sh!t up.
What a jackass you are. Its not proving a negative, it you backing up your claim, "and had no intent to break in any homes"
Now how do you know this? Explain.
With an absence of evidence of criminal intent innocence is assumed. Just as, in the absence of evidence for a pink whale its non existence is assumed. Yknow what? Im not even playin your game anymore. You just focus on this cause it makes you look like youve got much to say about the big picture when this point aint important in getting it.
quote:
quote:He's inconsistent.
Because religious people are suppose to be rational and consistent right?
I covered this so Im not gettin into your horesh!t again.
quote:I wonder if you are as ticked off about the twelve blacks that died yesterday as you are about one thug wanna be?
Actually I learned about that after posting what your responding to and didnt know any black people died until you said it. Nice try, but the spotlight is still on you.
quote:
quote:He then says he'd have changed nothing even with control.
Because he believes he did nothing wrong stupid.
Which is why he apologized saying he didnt know Trayvon was so young, stupid.
quote: His claim is self-defense so what is there to regret other than a fool that had to die for his own stupidity?
According to Zimmerman he said he was sorry cause he didnt know how young Trayvon really was as if, had he known hed have came to the understanding Trayvon wasnt worth profiling. He presents his basis to regret his actions on this bit of info and later retracts it. What the fvck does this have to do with "self defense"? Nothing cause he was saying he had no regrets for even profiling and even in retrospect would follow Trayvon. HE WAS IN NO DANGER OF HARM when choosing to follow him. Why are you still talking about self defense? Even if YOU think there is room to assume with no evidence Trayvon was out to cause trouble, Zimmerman told the Martins HE did not know Martin was so young. This means from HIS PERSPECTIVE knowing this was enough to suggest his innocence and wouldve acted differently. HE THEN takes back what he said to the family. Hes a liar.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:The only reason why you're entertaining this scenario (that Trayvon was scouting the area), is because Zimmerman put that idea in your feeble mind, LOL
Ahhmm, no, not really. Given the fact that he is a thug wanna be who was caught with 12 pieces of women's jewelry he couldn't account for I wouldn't state (unlike Oshun) that he had no intention to break in houses. I think its safer to say I don't know.
quote:The problem here is you do not know how to properly interpret the various types of literature found in the Bible.
Hey religious nut, if evil has a source other than god then he is not all powerful, the source of everything, blah blah blah. Isiah solved that problem by stating simply that he created evil. Nuff said. Get over it.
quote: With an absence of evidence of criminal intent innocence is assumed.
I'm not asking you for the principle that western jurisprudence is built on. I am asking you how do you know his intentions that night? You didn't simply assume, you stated he had no intention. Of course your dumbass don't know this. Thats my point.
quote:According to Zimmerman he said he was sorry cause he didnt know how young Trayvon really was as if, had he known hed have came to the understanding Trayvon wasnt worth profiling. He presents his basis to regret his actions on this bit of info and later retracts it. What the fvck does this have to do with "self defense"? Nothing cause he was saying he had no regrets for even profiling and even in retrospect would follow Trayvon. HE WAS IN NO DANGER OF HARM when choosing to follow him. Why are you still talking about self defense? Even if YOU think there is room to assume with no evidence Trayvon was out to cause trouble, Zimmerman told the Martins HE did not know Martin was so young. This means from HIS PERSPECTIVE knowing this was enough to suggest his innocence and wouldve acted differently. HE THEN takes back what he said to the family. Hes a liar.
So youre saying all this shyt to say you don't think he regrets killing a black kid. Ok fine. So fuking what?
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:According to Zimmerman he said he was sorry cause he didnt know how young Trayvon really was as if, had he known hed have came to the understanding Trayvon wasnt worth profiling. He presents his basis to regret his actions on this bit of info and later retracts it. What the fvck does this have to do with "self defense"? Nothing cause he was saying he had no regrets for even profiling and even in retrospect would follow Trayvon. HE WAS IN NO DANGER OF HARM when choosing to follow him. Why are you still talking about self defense? Even if YOU think there is room to assume with no evidence Trayvon was out to cause trouble, Zimmerman told the Martins HE did not know Martin was so young. This means from HIS PERSPECTIVE knowing this was enough to suggest his innocence and wouldve acted differently. HE THEN takes back what he said to the family. Hes a liar.
So youre saying all this shyt to say you don't think he regrets killing a black kid. Ok fine. So fuking what?
No its not just that he doesnt regret it. Hes a liar. and has lied constantly throughout this thing. I dont think he gives a fig for religion in this instance either. So I'm not gonna waste time arguing the bible. Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing: Given the fact that he is a thug wanna be who was caught with 12 pieces of women's jewelry he couldn't account for I wouldn't state (unlike Oshun) that he had no intention to break in houses. I think its safer to say I don't know.
You can say that about anything Trayvon did, that got him into trouble, but you focus on breaking in, why?
For instance, he allegedly also swung at a bus driver, and he was caught with weed, yet you never said 'he might have been in the neighborhood to buy weed, we don't know', lol.
You know Zimmerman put that burglary seed in your impressionable mind. If he hadn't brought it up, you wouldn't even be associating the found jewels to him being in his father's neighborhood, just like you're not trying to associate his other offenses to him being in his father's neighborhood.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:What does that have anything to do with what I'm talking about?
Why so defensive junior?
quote: but you focus on breaking in, why?
Breakin--->thief---->twelve pieces of women's Jewelry---->maybe he was there to breakin.
Sweetie, if I didn't know about the 12 pieces of jewelry and his retarded tweeter page I would have concluded Zimmerman was indeed paranoid. But the guy seems to know how to spot the delinquents. It would've been much easier for you fools if Trayvon was like his brother: someone who seems to actually want to make something of himself and contribute meaningfully to society and his community. Trayvon was on his way to be liability to the blk comm.
You know the "paranoid-Zimmerman" "he-had-no-reason-to suspect" lines are uncomfortable knowing Trayvon was an up an coming gangsta. Like I said months ago, you all are just saving face now. You need to give all those Tshirts and signs stocked up in your garage meaning. lol
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:What does that have anything to do with what I'm talking about?
Why so defensive junior?
Not defensive, just dont see what its got to do with what im talkin bout.
quote:Sweetie, if I didn't know about the 12 pieces of jewelry and his retarded tweeter page I would have concluded Zimmerman was indeed paranoid. But the guy seems to know how to spot the delinquents.
So because Zimmerman has proven himself a lying snake to the family, and even the law, has power issues taking his patrol too seriously, lets all just assume he really molested and tried to rape the accuser. He'd be in no position to spot delinquency showing degenerate behavior himself. In fact, his pathological lying, and deceptiveness is degenerate. I would never have the gall to get up to a grieving family and lie out my ass like he did or risk sanctions lying at a bail hearing, while speaking to my wife in code. To hell with even mentioning the attempted rape and molestation accusations. Zimmerman didnt see any legitimate basis to ASSUME delinquency. He saw a black kid in a hoodie and assumed he was one. Thats not good enough.
quote: It would've been much easier for you fools if Trayvon was like his brother: someone who seems to actually want to make something of himself and contribute meaningfully to society and his community. Trayvon was on his way to be liability to the blk comm.
You always miss the big picture over small details. Zimmerman had no probable cause to follow him and knew nothing of Trayvon's history. He would've profiled any black boy walking down that street in a hoodie. Stop b!tching about history Zimmerman didnt know about and realize this is what the black community is saying. That is why they're holding up signs like:
You tell these people what Zimmerman visually saw that would separate Trayvon from their kids. A gang symbol? Zimmerman didnt know anything but that Trayvon was black, and a teen.
quote:You know the "paranoid-Zimmerman" "he-had-no-reason-to suspect" lines are uncomfortable knowing Trayvon was an up an coming gangsta.
"Gangsta" rap is targeted to white boys. But theres no major initiative to tail them. It Doesnt matter whether Trayvon was a "gangsta" in the making or wasnt. ZIMMERMAN HAD NO PROBABLE CAUSE to assume it. How would you like your government and community following you everywhere you go and taking from you all your freedoms with no probable cause? There are plenty of good black boys who can dare to walk around at night and have a right to like white boys can.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Breakin--->thief---->twelve pieces of women's Jewelry---->maybe he was there to breakin.
Look at this sequence of non-sequitors posing as a stream of logically coherent thoughts. Lets see how capable you are at holding yourself to the same standards you expect of others: prove Trayvon stole those items.
quote:You know the "paranoid-Zimmerman" "he-had-no-reason-to suspect" lines are uncomfortable knowing Trayvon was an up an coming gangsta.
Prejudiced blurts like this one betray your supposed neutral stance and fake, false pretense posture to wait for more evidence to surface.
Lets keep it real here; you already had your mind made up from the get go. That's why you never adjust your views about Zimmerman when incriminating material surfaces, but you always use negative news about Trayvon as confirmation that he was up to no good.
Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty, Trayvon is already guilty of your charges, despite the fact that Zimmerman clearly has a way more sinister past.
You have issues, Angelina.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Zimmerman didnt see any legitimate basis to ASSUME delinquency.
In his subjective mind he saw reason to call 911. Was it profiling yes. Racial profiling? Maybe. So fuking what? One less parasite on the race.
quote:prove Trayvon stole those items.
lol Dumbo, I ever said I could prove anything: whether he stole, sold drugs, wanted to break in etc. I believe they were stolen yes; I then from this think its not at all far fetched (or "racist") to think Zimmerman might have been on to something that night. In other words Martin might have been scouting the area. I don't know. Sorry to disappoint you again by not making definitive statements on it unlike some people.
quote:Lets keep it real here; you already had your mind made up from the get go.
Not true. When you do this you look desperate. Initially I was unsympathetic to Zimmerman go back and read the threads. I didn't buy his story about Martin attacking him. Until his gangster tweeter page and "negative news" about him made me cautious. Now with the forensics, its almost beyond doubt.
quote:That's why you never adjust your views about Zimmerman when incriminating material surfaces,
What do you mean incriminating? And how does this "material" affect his story given forensic appear to back him up?
quote:but you always use negative news about Trayvon as confirmation that he was up to no good.
The negative views did color ( ) my judgement yes. And I think even you are inclined to believe Zimmerman's side but its too late for you now to admit it. HAHAHHA
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
When you explain it's relevance. This entire time you've done nothing but distract from the big picture by focusing on minor details that wouldn't change the big picture even if you were correct. So explain the relevance of your question or I'll assume it's not.
quote:
quote:Zimmerman didnt see any legitimate basis to ASSUME delinquency.
In his subjective mind he saw reason to call 911. Was it profiling yes. Racial profiling? Maybe. So fuking what? One less parasite on the race.
You are arguing potential with Trayvon meanwhile the killer is a confirmed parasite to the black community in his lack of probable cause. Even if Trayvon would've been a delinquent, the greater parasite to our race is Zimmerman who stands for the removal of a black man's ability to mind his own business without being profiled with no cause. Your critical thinking skills... wtf where are they? Profiling based on race means GOOD people have to deal with being stalked with no probable cause. Stop thinking about what it means for Trayvon individually and conceptualize that profiling means black males have to live without freedoms WHITE PEOPLE HAVE regardless of whether they are criminals or not. Zimmerman had nothing to go on but race which means ALL BLACK MALES are at risk.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:I ever said I could prove anything: whether he stole, sold drugs, wanted to break in etc. I believe they were stolen yes; I then from this think its not at all far fetched (or "racist") to think Zimmerman might have been on to something that night.
Ha ha ha. You phuckin’ slippery slime ball, now you’re framing your accusations as merely constituting hunches, when they were strong enough for you to say ''breakin, thief'', whatever the phuck that meant. Zimmerman was not onto something that night. All his assumptions were wrong:
-Trayvon was not entering a gated community; he was staying there -When it’s raining, you put on your hoodie, that’s what they are for. -Trayvon was not aimlessly walking around, as evinced by the convenient store footage and the fact that he was heading back to watch the basketball game
Zimmerman never cited any behavior from which it is reasonable to adjudge someone’s behavior as suspicious, other than what has been confirmed elsewhere to not constitute suspicious behavior at all.
In fact, days before the incident occurred, Zimmerman was already on the lookout for suspicious (young black) men, even to the point of knocking on doors to alarm people about their safety, and calling the cops on ‘suspicious looking’ people.
You’re retarded if you think Zimmerman’s pre-existing paranoia about suspicious looking (black) men in the area qualify him to be in a position to be judging suspicious from non-suspicious, let alone if you attempt to connect Zimmerman's paranoid statements to something which you have yet to prove (that Trayvon stole the jewelry).
quote:What do you mean incriminating? And how does this "material" affect his story given forensic appear to back him up?
Inconsistencies in his accounts of what happened after being told to not pursue, his history of calling the cops on people, self-incriminating statements he made in court, etc. etc.
What forensics? What the evidence shows, is that Trayvon ran away from Zimmerman, was chased down by Zimmerman, and that Trayvon then subsequently phucked up the person who, from his point of view, appeared to be stalking him during nighttime, without identifying himself as a ‘neighborhood watch’ rambo.
quote:The negative views did color ( ) my judgement yes.
Thanks for stating the obvious.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Obviously you dispute Zimmermans account so what you do think happened?
quote:-Trayvon was not aimlessly walking around, as evinced by the convenient store footage
Zimmerman thought from his point of view he was aimlessly walking around because of his behavior to him in the neighborhood. Trayvon could have been coming from the fuking bible study, doesn't matter in the context of the reason Zimmerman thought he was suspicious.
And of course your dumbass don't know if he was in fact "heading back to watch the basketball game". This is your assumption. As said he could've been scouting the neighborhood to comeback.
quote: Zimmerman’s pre-existing paranoia about suspicious looking (black) men in the area
And this "pre-existing paranoia" had nothing to do with recent breakins done by black men, according to some who live in the neighborhood, right?
quote:Inconsistencies in his accounts of what happened after being told to not pursue, his history of calling the cops on people, self-incriminating statements he made in court, etc. etc.
LOL What a dumbo you are. All this has nothing to do with whether he killed the thug in self-defense. Not against the law to follow someone, or even profile. Although I think the liberal thought police may one day bring that in.
quote:something which you have yet to prove (that Trayvon stole the jewelry).
hehehe Oh please, you know that little hoodlum stole it or was keeping it for one of his other hoodlum buddies. But yeh, like your he-was-heading-right-back-home-after-the-store line, I admit its only an assumption.
quote:that Trayvon then subsequently phucked up the person who, from his point of view, appeared to be stalking him
LOL bingo dumbass! **his point of view, his point of view** Zimmerman had his and Trayvon had his. What we don't have is evidence Trayovn was physically attacked while we have that Zimmerman was. What forensics? That one you cunt.
Not against the law to have a point of view (even if racist); not against the law to follow someone you think looks suspicious; not against the law to think hoodies make you look suspicious. All this is liberal PC BS, signs of desperate case.
quote:Trayvon ran away from Zimmerman
We don't know if he ran because he was caught scouting and decided to "phuk up" as you say Zimmerman for it. Or he thought Zimmerman was going to kill him. Again, assumptions, asumptions. So even if you want to argue he was "standing his ground from Zimmerman's...following?" (LOL!) Zimmerman had cause to respond to Trayvon's "phuking up" as you call it. Case closed, sell those T-Shirts before its too late.
quote: Thanks for stating the obvious.
Oh STFU on this one you self-righteous prick. As if your views arent colored by other character news too. lol
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
Obviously you dispute Zimmermans account so what you do think happened?
You're not following this. I was sayin I don't like Zimmerman's character right now. he's showing himself to be a pathological liar. It's not the issue for me right now the accuracy of Zimmerman's account what happened or what the verdict will be. I'm speaking about his character. He said to the Martins he wouldn't have followed Trayvon if he knew then how old he was, and then goes on Hannity and says the exact opposite. Alone it cant prove guilt or innocence prolly but it says to me, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Even if we could take bein an adult as probable cause to follow Trayvon, hed from what said on Hannity have followed Trayvon anyway knowin he was a kid. So he would've gone in and followed him with no cause EVEN FROM THE PERSPECTIVE ON WHAT WAS PROBABLE CAUSE THAT HE WAS ABLE TO GIVE TO THE MARTIN FAMILY. Oh and speaking of that "didnt know he was so young excuse," someone verify this for me if yall can, but didn't he say on the tapes that Martin was a teen? Neways, his constant lyings a poor display of character. He lied to the court, and was very crafty bout tryin to get away with it. Im not gonna respond to other parts of what you say cept its not probable cause and blacks deserve to feel free to go where they want without having to be stopped everywhere in America like white people. We want the same rights. You aint got probable cause back the fvck up off.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing: Zimmerman thought from his point of view he was aimlessly walking around because of his behavior to him in the neighborhood. Trayvon could have been coming from the fuking bible study, doesn't matter in the context of the reason Zimmerman thought he was suspicious.
learn how to debate, dufus. The point you're raising is totally irrelevant to what I said.
You said Zimmerman might have been onto something, when making a connection between the jewelry and his walking to the grocery store. In response, I'm telling you that he wasn't onto something, and that Calling the cops on so called ''suspicious looking'' people was daily routine for Zimmerman.
He was literally scoping the neighborhood for (black) men, and if Trayvon hadn't been there, he would have called the cops on some other 'suspicious looking' (black) man, as he did several times prior to setting eyes on Trayvon.
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
quote: Zimmerman’s pre-existing paranoia about suspicious looking (black) men in the area
What does this have to do with the fact that the majority of Zimmerman's 911 calls about 'suspicious people' weren't predicated on actual suspicious behavior?
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
quote:Inconsistencies in his accounts of what happened after being told to not pursue, his history of calling the cops on people, self-incriminating statements he made in court, etc. etc.
LOL What a dumbo you are. All this has nothing to do with whether he killed the thug in self-defense. Not against the law to follow someone, or even profile. Although I think the liberal thought police may one day bring that in.
Again, you asked me what incriminating evidence there was in regards to Zimmerman, and I gave you examples. You know someone is silently aware of his defeat when he starts bringing up irrelevant bullsh!t for the second time in a row.
quote:But yeh, like your he-was-heading-right-back-home-after-the-store line, I admit its only an assumption.
Dumbass, this is not disputed by anyone. It is corroborated by his brother, and the fact that he slipped out the house during half time. You know what the implications are right? LOL. Another blow to your cooked up ''possibility'' that he was ''scouting the area''.
Your case is dwindling, and its going down the drain fast.
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
quote:that Trayvon then subsequently phucked up the person who, from his point of view, appeared to be stalking him
LOL bingo dumbass! **his point of view, his point of view** Zimmerman had his and Trayvon had his. What we don't have is evidence Trayovn was physically attacked while we have that Zimmerman was. What forensics? That one you cunt.
Not against the law to have a point of view (even if racist); not against the law to follow someone you think looks suspicious; not against the law to think hoodies make you look suspicious. All this is liberal PC BS, signs of desperate case.
Its not against the law? Man, what the phuck are you talking about? You don't know sh!t. When Zimmerman assigned for the neighborhood watch thing, instructing police officers explicitly told the attendants that they weren't allowed to pursue, let alone bring a gun out. The police dispatcher said the same goddamn thing to Zimmerman. Do you think that absence of a specific law that prohibits the above is material to the fact that Zimmerman overstepped his boundaries, and is illegible for being persecuted for what he did?
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
quote:Trayvon ran away from Zimmerman
We don't know if he ran because
Of course we know Trayvon ran. Zimmerman told the dispatcher that Trayvon ran, and his girlfriend said the same thing. You just keep phucking up, don't you, Angelina?
quote:So even if you want to argue he was "standing his ground from Zimmerman's...following?" (LOL!) Zimmerman had cause to respond to Trayvon's "phuking up" as you call it.
Dufus, Zimmerman wasn't even supposed to be in the porch area behind the houses after he called 911 from inside his car (which was in front of the houses) and told the dispatcher 'oh sh!t, he's running', and the dispatcher told him 'we don't need you to follow him'. He got out of his car anyway, entered the porch area with his gun, cornered Trayvon, and whatever happened from that point is his responsibility.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Do you think that absence of a specific law that prohibits the above is material to the fact that Zimmerman overstepped his boundaries, and is illegible for being persecuted for what he did?
If the boundaries you are talking about are not bound by law then he cannot be held accountable for over stepping them in a court of law. Yes prosecutions are about specific laws that are broken. You are allowed by law to follow someone. Zimmerman claims not to have his gun out until after he claims he was attacked by Martin
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Trayvon Martin confronted George Zimmerman and asked him what his problem was (After George Zimmerman had been following him in his car) George Zimmerman than reached into his pocket (To grab his phone as he has claimed) and Trayvon punched him in the nose.
Trayvon was probably under the impression that George was going to pull a gun out of his pocket so his reaction was to punch him in the nose to defend himself after George Zimmerman had been following him in his car
Posts: 1064 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
His brother? lol Early on in an interview, before the bloody pics etc, his brother said when asked about Zimmerman's story about Trayvon attacking him that that doesn't sound like Trayvon. So his bother statement means shyt. He obviously don't know his little thug brother or was lying.
You and brother don't know what was in Trayvon's mind his intentions when leaving the house that night only that he went to the store. He could go to the store get the skilttles, so as evidence he went to the store, then scout the neigbourhood while coming back. Killing two birds with one stone. Corroborate that Trayon had no intention to scout that night my ass. lol
Site the law that say you can't following someone you think looks suspicious while calling 9/11 or STFU. Even lyness can apply basic logic here over your dumbass LOL!!!
I'm not disputing whether or not he ran, jackass, you one slow MF. lol I am saying we don't know why he ran. Read my post again doofus.
In the end you and the other mind-reader still don't know what were his intentions that night.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing: His brother? lol Early on in an interview, before the bloody pics etc, his brother said when asked about Zimmerman's story about Trayvon attacking him that that doesn't sound like Trayvon. So his bother statement means shyt. He obviously don't know his little thug brother or was lying.
You and brother don't know what was in Trayvon's mind his intentions when leaving the house that night only that he went to the store. He could go to the store get the skilttles, so as evidence he went to the store, then scout the neigbourhood while coming back. Killing two birds with one stone. Corroborate that Trayon had no intention to scout that night my ass. lol
Site the law that say you can't following someone you think looks suspicious while calling 9/11 or STFU. Even lyness can apply basic logic here over your dumbass LOL!!!
I'm not disputing whether or not he ran, jackass, you one slow MF. lol I am saying we don't know why he ran. Read my post again doofus.
In the end you and the other mind-reader still don't know what were his intentions that night.
And neither do youPosts: 3446 | From: U.S. by way of JA by way of Africa | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly. Thank you. Please explain this to the two dumbos above. lol
Sweetie, while you come back beating the same dead horse again could you also please explain what is an "actual suspicious behavior"? Is this something objective where we can all see it an agree on it when we see it? Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, your unbalanced attitudes towards Trayvon and Zimmerman indicates you've taken sides, so clearly, you did make up your mind; you're just not man enough to stop hiding behind your false pretense of 'not knowing'.
Everyone knows you're a b!tch Angelina. You know it was time to exit gracefully, hence, your short reply aka copout.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
What is this "actual suspicious behavior"? Obviously Zimmerman was only justified in your view if there was this "actual suspicious behavior". What is it?
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Well, your unbalanced attitudes towards Trayvon and Zimmerman indicates you've taken sides, so clearly, you did make up your mind; you're just not man enough to stop hiding behind your false pretense of 'not knowing'.
Everyone knows you're a b!tch Angelina. You know it was time to exit gracefully, hence, your short reply aka copout.
True, he knows his wrong but he is too embarrassed to admit so
Posts: 1064 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by asante-Korton: Trayvon Martin confronted George Zimmerman and asked him what his problem was (After George Zimmerman had been following him in his car) George Zimmerman than reached into his pocket (To grab his phone as he has claimed) and Trayvon punched him in the nose.
Trayvon was probably under the impression that George was going to pull a gun out of his pocket so his reaction was to punch him in the nose to defend himself after George Zimmerman had been following him in his car
According to Zimmerman the punch broke his nose and knocked him down, Trayvon said "you're going to die tonight" and he began beating him on the ground and banging his head into the concrete sidewalk. He said Trayvon straddled and tried to suffocate him, causing excruciating pain. Zimmerman said he “shimmied” on the ground to get off the concrete, causing his shirt to go up and gun to be exposed. George was probably under the impression that Trayvon might get to the gun and kill him and thought he might lose consciousness so he shot him. Understand that the the claim by Zimmerman that Trayvon said "you're going to die tonight" might be true and Trayvon is not around to say he didn't say that.
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by asante-Korton: Trayvon Martin confronted George Zimmerman and asked him what his problem was (After George Zimmerman had been following him in his car) George Zimmerman than reached into his pocket (To grab his phone as he has claimed) and Trayvon punched him in the nose.
Trayvon was probably under the impression that George was going to pull a gun out of his pocket so his reaction was to punch him in the nose to defend himself after George Zimmerman had been following him in his car
According to Zimmerman the punch broke his nose and knocked him down, Trayvon said "you're going to die tonight" and he began beating him on the ground and banging his head into the concrete sidewalk. He said Trayvon straddled and tried to suffocate him, causing excruciating pain. Zimmerman said he “shimmied” on the ground to get off the concrete, causing his shirt to go up and gun to be exposed. George was probably under the impression that Trayvon might get to the gun and kill him and thought he might lose consciousness so he shot him. Understand that the the claim by Zimmerman that Trayvon said "you're going to die tonight" might be true and Trayvon is not around to say he didn't say that.
Trayvon asked george what his problem was and the first thing George does is reach into his pocket, (remember that trayvon has no idea who this guys was and why he was following him) So when he reached into his pocket trayvon must of thought that he was going to pull a gun out and shoot him so his reaction was to hit george.
Posts: 1064 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
What is this "actual suspicious behavior"? Obviously Zimmerman was only justified in your view if there was this "actual suspicious behavior". What is it?
I don't believe Zimmerman had much suspicious behavior to go on. He said that "this guy is up to no good, he must be on drugs or somethin'. It's raining and he's looking about."
...WTF. Looking about in the rain is probable cause for a drugged theif? No its not. He knows people have the right to look about. Thats why he was tellin the Martin family he didnt know Trayvon was so young. Well on the tape he guesses Trayvons age correctly bein in his somewhere in his late teens:
He is a pathological liar. Why change your story, about what made the guy "suspicious" like, twice? And then why say you would change NOTHING even in retrospect. Cause the thing that sealed Trayvons fate hadn't sh!t to do with anything he did but what he came out as when was born. Black and male. Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by asante-Korton: Trayvon Martin confronted George Zimmerman and asked him what his problem was (After George Zimmerman had been following him in his car) George Zimmerman than reached into his pocket (To grab his phone as he has claimed) and Trayvon punched him in the nose.
Trayvon was probably under the impression that George was going to pull a gun out of his pocket so his reaction was to punch him in the nose to defend himself after George Zimmerman had been following him in his car
According to Zimmerman the punch broke his nose and knocked him down, Trayvon said "you're going to die tonight" and he began beating him on the ground and banging his head into the concrete sidewalk. He said Trayvon straddled and tried to suffocate him, causing excruciating pain. Zimmerman said he “shimmied” on the ground to get off the concrete, causing his shirt to go up and gun to be exposed. George was probably under the impression that Trayvon might get to the gun and kill him and thought he might lose consciousness so he shot him. Understand that the the claim by Zimmerman that Trayvon said "you're going to die tonight" might be true and Trayvon is not around to say he didn't say that.
Trayvon asked george what his problem was and the first thing George does is reach into his pocket, (remember that trayvon has no idea who this guys was and why he was following him) So when he reached into his pocket trayvon must of thought that he was going to pull a gun out and shoot him so his reaction was to hit george.
It doesn't matter is Trayvon was justified in punching Zimmerman and then getting on top of him hand slamming his head into concrete. It doesn't matter if Trayvon thought he had to do this to defend himself from a gun. -because even if Zimmerman believed Trayvon's attack was an attempt to defend himself in doing in so Trayvon then reversed the situtation and was in the position to kill Zimmerman while defending himself. -but further, Zimmerman claims Trayvon was not just trying to defend himself , that he threatened to kill Zimmerman not just stop him, not just take his gun away but kill him. Trayvon had taken control of the situation. It is possible he could have killed Zimmerman. You can say it would be justifed. But if the other person kills you back first that is also self defense
Anyway too many people carry in Florida -and also Colorado
Maybe there should be a law, that while you can carry a gun, you can't do it while doing a neighborhood watch because that is asking for problems.
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by asante-Korton: Trayvon Martin confronted George Zimmerman and asked him what his problem was (After George Zimmerman had been following him in his car) George Zimmerman than reached into his pocket (To grab his phone as he has claimed) and Trayvon punched him in the nose.
Trayvon was probably under the impression that George was going to pull a gun out of his pocket so his reaction was to punch him in the nose to defend himself after George Zimmerman had been following him in his car
According to Zimmerman the punch broke his nose and knocked him down, Trayvon said "you're going to die tonight" and he began beating him on the ground and banging his head into the concrete sidewalk. He said Trayvon straddled and tried to suffocate him, causing excruciating pain. Zimmerman said he “shimmied” on the ground to get off the concrete, causing his shirt to go up and gun to be exposed. George was probably under the impression that Trayvon might get to the gun and kill him and thought he might lose consciousness so he shot him. Understand that the the claim by Zimmerman that Trayvon said "you're going to die tonight" might be true and Trayvon is not around to say he didn't say that.
Trayvon asked george what his problem was and the first thing George does is reach into his pocket, (remember that trayvon has no idea who this guys was and why he was following him) So when he reached into his pocket trayvon must of thought that he was going to pull a gun out and shoot him so his reaction was to hit george.
It doesn't matter is Trayvon was justified in punching Zimmerman and then getting on top of him hand slamming his head into concrete. It doesn't matter if Trayvon thought he had to do this to defend himself from a gun. -because even if Zimmerman believed Trayvon's attack was an attempt to defend himself in doing in so Trayvon then reversed the situtation and was in the position to kill Zimmerman while defending himself. -but further, Zimmerman claims Trayvon was not just trying to defend himself , that he threatened to kill Zimmerman not just stop him, not just take his gun away but kill him. Trayvon had taken control of the situation. It is possible he could have killed Zimmerman. You can say it would be justifed. But if the other person kills you back first that is also self defense
Its ironic that Lyness of all people would have to break down the, if complicated to some, concept of self-defense to the dumbos. lol
Oshun, I'm done try9ng to understand your ramblings. As for asante, well she's obviously twelve, next year.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I wouldnt be surprised if you simply had no response to what I'm saying. Its really aint that hard to get he constantly changed his basis for probable cause to follow Trayvon.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by asante-Korton: Trayvon Martin confronted George Zimmerman and asked him what his problem was (After George Zimmerman had been following him in his car) George Zimmerman than reached into his pocket (To grab his phone as he has claimed) and Trayvon punched him in the nose.
Trayvon was probably under the impression that George was going to pull a gun out of his pocket so his reaction was to punch him in the nose to defend himself after George Zimmerman had been following him in his car
According to Zimmerman the punch broke his nose and knocked him down, Trayvon said "you're going to die tonight" and he began beating him on the ground and banging his head into the concrete sidewalk. He said Trayvon straddled and tried to suffocate him, causing excruciating pain. Zimmerman said he “shimmied” on the ground to get off the concrete, causing his shirt to go up and gun to be exposed. George was probably under the impression that Trayvon might get to the gun and kill him and thought he might lose consciousness so he shot him. Understand that the the claim by Zimmerman that Trayvon said "you're going to die tonight" might be true and Trayvon is not around to say he didn't say that.
Trayvon asked george what his problem was and the first thing George does is reach into his pocket, (remember that trayvon has no idea who this guys was and why he was following him) So when he reached into his pocket trayvon must of thought that he was going to pull a gun out and shoot him so his reaction was to hit george.
It doesn't matter is Trayvon was justified in punching Zimmerman and then getting on top of him hand slamming his head into concrete. It doesn't matter if Trayvon thought he had to do this to defend himself from a gun. -because even if Zimmerman believed Trayvon's attack was an attempt to defend himself in doing in so Trayvon then reversed the situtation and was in the position to kill Zimmerman while defending himself. -but further, Zimmerman claims Trayvon was not just trying to defend himself , that he threatened to kill Zimmerman not just stop him, not just take his gun away but kill him. Trayvon had taken control of the situation. It is possible he could have killed Zimmerman. You can say it would be justifed. But if the other person kills you back first that is also self defense
Anyway too many people carry in Florida -and also Colorado
Maybe there should be a law, that while you can carry a gun, you can't do it while doing a neighborhood watch because that is asking for problems.
Lioness do you believe that George Zimmerman is innocent or guilty?
Do you believe that if Zimmerman would of simply said that he was the neighbor hood watch that none of this would of ever happened?
If the police went up to trayvon and asked him what he was doing and trayvon reached into his pocket what do you think the police would have done?
Posts: 1064 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by asante-Korton: Trayvon Martin confronted George Zimmerman and asked him what his problem was (After George Zimmerman had been following him in his car) George Zimmerman than reached into his pocket (To grab his phone as he has claimed) and Trayvon punched him in the nose.
Trayvon was probably under the impression that George was going to pull a gun out of his pocket so his reaction was to punch him in the nose to defend himself after George Zimmerman had been following him in his car
According to Zimmerman the punch broke his nose and knocked him down, Trayvon said "you're going to die tonight" and he began beating him on the ground and banging his head into the concrete sidewalk. He said Trayvon straddled and tried to suffocate him, causing excruciating pain. Zimmerman said he “shimmied” on the ground to get off the concrete, causing his shirt to go up and gun to be exposed. George was probably under the impression that Trayvon might get to the gun and kill him and thought he might lose consciousness so he shot him. Understand that the the claim by Zimmerman that Trayvon said "you're going to die tonight" might be true and Trayvon is not around to say he didn't say that.
Trayvon asked george what his problem was and the first thing George does is reach into his pocket, (remember that trayvon has no idea who this guys was and why he was following him) So when he reached into his pocket trayvon must of thought that he was going to pull a gun out and shoot him so his reaction was to hit george.
It doesn't matter is Trayvon was justified in punching Zimmerman and then getting on top of him hand slamming his head into concrete. It doesn't matter if Trayvon thought he had to do this to defend himself from a gun. -because even if Zimmerman believed Trayvon's attack was an attempt to defend himself in doing in so Trayvon then reversed the situtation and was in the position to kill Zimmerman while defending himself. -but further, Zimmerman claims Trayvon was not just trying to defend himself , that he threatened to kill Zimmerman not just stop him, not just take his gun away but kill him. Trayvon had taken control of the situation. It is possible he could have killed Zimmerman. You can say it would be justifed. But if the other person kills you back first that is also self defense
Its ironic that Lyness of all people would have to break down the, if complicated to some, concept of self-defense to the dumbos. lol
Oshun, I'm done try9ng to understand your ramblings. As for asante, well she's obviously twelve, next year.
Durrrrrrrrrr asante is going to be tweleve next year duuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrr i think im funny durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
quote:orginally posted by anguishofbeingabitch: I'm not disputing whether or not he ran, jackass, you one slow MF. lol I am saying we don't know why he ran. Read my post again doofus.
he was not running he was skipping.. He wasn't running
Anyone one can tell by watching the zimmerman interview that he is not all there in the head which is probably why anguishofbeingabitch supports and understands him so well
Posts: 1064 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by asante-Korton: Trayvon Martin confronted George Zimmerman and asked him what his problem was (After George Zimmerman had been following him in his car) George Zimmerman than reached into his pocket (To grab his phone as he has claimed) and Trayvon punched him in the nose.
Trayvon was probably under the impression that George was going to pull a gun out of his pocket so his reaction was to punch him in the nose to defend himself after George Zimmerman had been following him in his car
According to Zimmerman the punch broke his nose and knocked him down, Trayvon said "you're going to die tonight" and he began beating him on the ground and banging his head into the concrete sidewalk. He said Trayvon straddled and tried to suffocate him, causing excruciating pain. Zimmerman said he “shimmied” on the ground to get off the concrete, causing his shirt to go up and gun to be exposed. George was probably under the impression that Trayvon might get to the gun and kill him and thought he might lose consciousness so he shot him. Understand that the the claim by Zimmerman that Trayvon said "you're going to die tonight" might be true and Trayvon is not around to say he didn't say that.
Trayvon asked george what his problem was and the first thing George does is reach into his pocket, (remember that trayvon has no idea who this guys was and why he was following him) So when he reached into his pocket trayvon must of thought that he was going to pull a gun out and shoot him so his reaction was to hit george.
It doesn't matter is Trayvon was justified in punching Zimmerman and then getting on top of him hand slamming his head into concrete. It doesn't matter if Trayvon thought he had to do this to defend himself from a gun. -because even if Zimmerman believed Trayvon's attack was an attempt to defend himself in doing in so Trayvon then reversed the situtation and was in the position to kill Zimmerman while defending himself. -but further, Zimmerman claims Trayvon was not just trying to defend himself , that he threatened to kill Zimmerman not just stop him, not just take his gun away but kill him. Trayvon had taken control of the situation. It is possible he could have killed Zimmerman. You can say it would be justifed. But if the other person kills you back first that is also self defense
Its ironic that Lyness of all people would have to break down the, if complicated to some, concept of self-defense to the dumbos. lol
Oshun, I'm done try9ng to understand your ramblings. As for asante, well she's obviously twelve, next year.
Durrrrrrrrrr asante is going to be tweleve next year duuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrr i think im funny durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
quote:orginally posted by anguishofbeingabitch: I'm not disputing whether or not he ran, jackass, you one slow MF. lol I am saying we don't know why he ran. Read my post again doofus.
he was not running he was skipping.. He wasn't running
Anyone one can tell by watching the zimmerman interview that he is not all there in the head which is probably why anguishofbeingabitch supports and understands him so well
SOMEONE is lying their phucking ass off, particularly in the area of who confronted the other party.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by asante-Korton: Lioness do you believe that George Zimmerman is innocent or guilty
Explain how events could have happened that would make him guilty of murder.
.
Lioness do you believe that George Zimmerman is innocent or guilty?
LOL Notice a trend with these guys. They claim Zimemrman's is lying his pants off [yet shy away from explaining what they think went down that day.
"I hear some like ‘bump.’ You could hear someone had bumped Trayvon."
Oh Jesus, hearing a bump doesn't necessarily mean "someone bumped Trayvon". Your logic is as basic as that semi-literate girl. Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Swenet, give us a possible sequence of events that would make Zimmerman guilty
If you prove he's a liar you still have to come up with a step by step scenario in which he is guilty
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by asante-Korton: Lioness do you believe that George Zimmerman is innocent or guilty
Explain how events could have happened that would make him guilty of murder.
.
Lioness do you believe that George Zimmerman is innocent or guilty?
LOL Notice a trend with these guys. They claim Zimemrman's is lying his pants off [yet shy away from explaining what they think went down that day.
Depends on what it is you argue. If you sayin he's had a big habit of lying or changing his story about things, that can be proven without knowing.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ice-T Defends Gun Rights: "The Last Form Of Defense Against Tyranny"
Ice-T: Well, I'll give up my gun when everybody does. Doesn't that make sense? If there were guns here, would you want to be the only person without one?
Krishnan Guru-Murthy, anchor, Channel 4 News: So do you carry guns routinely at home?
Ice-T: Yeah, it's legal in the United States. It's part of our Constitution. You know, the right to bear arms is because that's the last form of defense against tyranny. Not to hunt. It's to protect yourself from the police.
Anchor: And do you see any link between that and these sorts of incidents (Aurora)?
Ice-T: No. Nah. Not really really. You know what I'm saying, if somebody wants to kill people, you know, they don't need a gun to do it.
Anchor: It makes it easier though, doesn't it?
Ice-T: Not really. You can strap explosives on your body, they do that all the time.
On anti-gun laws: "That's not going to change anything. The United States is based on guns, you know."
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
What is this "actual suspicious behavior"? Obviously Zimmerman was only justified in your view if there was this "actual suspicious behavior". What is it?
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
) my judgement yes. And I think even you are inclined to believe Zimmerman's side but its too late for you now to admit it. HAHAHHA
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic