can you enlighten me on the testimony or video tape that shows martin started the fight? from a source independent from zimmermans account?

Again, you are distorting the facts. "Standing your ground" does not mean going on offense. You are not arguing the law, you are arguing your delicate feelings and emotions on the matter.

Don't you know everything the lying killer says is a fact?

No one has to. The prosecution has to prove Zimmerman started the fight. The prosecution has not even come remotely close to that.

You are saying Martin was defending himself. You know thats a losing argument not rooted in fact, so you then switch tactics and try to produce another argument which is irrelevant to your assertion that Martin was "defending himself" - which evidence does not support.

i am simply asking what martins rights were. you are saying that a guy following you is not instigating a confrontation. i beg to differ. none of this happened if zim did not follow martin or do you disagree.

Zimmerman wasn't chasing him. He was following him. I can follow people in a public place all day long and it doesn't mean that you can turn around and start beating me up.

In what way does walking behind someone call for the guy in front to "stand up for himself"?

If that was the case, then Las Vegas Blvd and any other crowded city sidewalk would be nothing but a giant UFC cage with everybody fighting because someone was walking behind them.

Also...the "stand your ground" thing keeps flying off people's fingers while they are typing.
As I understand it, that part of the law has not been used in GZ's defense.

Instead he's simply claiming that he shot TM in self defense.

Everybody in every state has the right to defend themselves. So I don't think there's any need to pepper your argument with the phrase "stand your ground" to make it more controversial sounding.

Here's the thing...If a guy were to jump on me and start beating me senseless, and I had a gun: I'm gonna shoot that motherfucker. So would you. So would anybody.

No, we wouldn't want to shoot and kill anybody sitting here calm and cool. But in a fight you aren't calm and cool. You're every instinct is to destroy that other person. You're angry, scared, and in full fight mode.

I've seen it more than a few times in bar parking lots as I traveled and played in bands.

And many times saw people shot before the first punch got thrown. Just from threatening it. It happens every day.

When you physically attack somebody, you never know what the consequences may be.

You can disagree all day long. The law is what counts. What can be proven is what counts. You are talking about your feelings and opinion. Not the law.

what fucking facts demonstrate martin started the fight? how do you claim martin was not defending himself? he was being followed & that is indisputable. you think its justified martin is dead because someone followed him & he decided to stand up for himself.

how is it possible the pursuer who was a gun is defending himself from the guy with skittles who is being chased.

mind boggling.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

now he's going to tell you about his idiot exgirlfriend

For the record; cursive hasn't been taught in many years. :2 cents: I have no problem believing a 19 year doesn't know how to read or write cursive.

What are you missing? Apparently the facts of the case. You keep throwing your opinion in there.

Zimmerman never chased Martin and was in fact on his way back to his truck when Martin approached him. Martin was less than 400 feet from his destination, but he decided he was going to fuck up a cracker.

I never stated otherwise. all my comments were not what the law proves, just that i think martin committed a manslaughter & that his actions were not justified.

manslaughter is officially in play, so a jury will make the decision, exactly how the process works. I will accept whatever they decide. will you?

Man, if a bunch of us pornographers on a message board are getting so worked up about this case...IF GZ goes free there is going to be some violence in Sanford and Orlando.

Hell, we're all ready to fight right here on this message board! lol
I'm gonna make sure I'm carrying my gun when I follow joshgirls...he will turn around and beat the crap out of me! heh-heh

Just fucking with you joshgirls

It is pretty crazy how we are all getting worked up over this case. It's a good example of how the media can manipulate all of us and make us focus on whatever they want.

Yeah, NO. I am not worked up over this. All of us have different opinions that's all.

I still want to get to know you better Robbie. You sound like a great guy and everyone talks highly about you. Just because you and I disagree on a message board about a number of things doesn't mean anything at all.

so the 911 call with Zim saying he was following martin. & 911 saying dont do that. that did not happen.

& your comment that martin decided he was going to fuck up a cracker. please point me to martin testifying as to his actions & mindset.

the operator took the stand and said they can't 'give orders' due to legal reasons

means to all the zimmerfreaks here that he was allowed to do whatever he wants.

i just remain puzzled that the guy with a gun, chasing down another guy without a gun, & the guy without a gun continues to be called the aggressor. i just dont get it. sorry.

all in good fun. but in truth, an unarmed kid going home is really dead. & people keep speaking up for the chasers rights.

come on zim sluts. where is your answer...

how is it possible the pursuer who has a gun is defending himself from the guy with skittles who is being chased.

:helpme

If you listened to the tape or the trial you would know that is precisely not what happened.

Because Zimmerman wasn't "chasing down" anybody. You are intentionally misrepresenting that.

Zimmerman called the police. He was on Neighborhood Watch Patrol in an area that had been burglarized repeatedly. You know that already.

GZ got out and followed him. My GUESS is that he didn't want the guy walking up in people's yards at night wearing a hoodie to get out of his site while the cops were on the way.

Stupid to do in HINDSIGHT. For all GZ knew...TM could have had a gun and turned and killed him. Instead TM told his girlfriend on the phone about a "crazy ass cracker" (he was profiling GZ erroneously) and his girlfriend told him to hurry home and get away from him.

TM decided to man up and confront the guy following him. But he did it aggressively.

You keep typing that TM was "chased down" over and over. But that still doesn't make it true.

First of all, if TM wanted to...he could have started doing a light jog and fat fuck GZ would have collapsed from exhaustion.
But he didn't.

At that point, TM was pissed and wanted to fight. And that's what happened. A fight. And he got shot.

No, the fat, short, hispanic guy didn't "chase down" the tall, lean, athletic black guy.
Even if he tried to he couldn't.
Hell, he looks like he's out of breath just walking into the courtroom. :1orglaugh

Damn man. What's up with personal insults to people?

I can tell you right now that not one person on GFY has any vested interest in GZ or Trayvon Martin.

None of us know them or give a fuck about either one of them.

It's just a discussion about the trial. For all I care they can take Zimmerman out back and execute him. I'm still gonna get in the hot tub, pack my gear, and go shoot a scene today.

Calm down Josh. You're not the type to act like the surfer/trolls of GFY with personal insults to people.

Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?

Zimmerman

The back entrance?(expletive)(unclear)

Dispatcher

Are you following him?

Zimmerman

Yeah.

Dispatcher

Ok, we don't need you to do that.

Zimmerman

Ok.

i'm still pretty upset i didn;t get in on this thread. grrr.

why is 'follow' and 'chase' so distinctively different for you?

yeah. i am carried away at the moment. sorry. i know i am not helping my business by flaming. spending time here & not on my site is why i struggle.

zimsluts.com is available.

Where does it say they told him not to? They did not, they can not. "You do not have to do that" is not the same as "Do not do that."

Huh? It's been well reported he was following him not just walking behind him. He was told repeatedly by 911 to back off and let the police deal with it.

i surrender. i cannot compete with the logic of "we dont need you to do that" is not the same as "dont do that"

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

still waiting for your reply on this. where is the testimony from martin as to his actions & intents.

Show once where that fact has been admitted into evidence.

Are you ESL? You don't see the difference between "do not do that" and "we do not need you to do that"? Really?

Is there a difference between prohibited and suggested?

I still wish Jesus H Christ were around to comment on this. :)

I've lived in central Iowa now for over 3 years and when I first moved here they had a program to help out poor blacks, in essense a flood of Chicago refugees came over here. Ever since then petty crime has more than doubled.
My neighbor cop that lives next door had some of his lawn furniture stolen, neighbors across the street have had multiple instances of petty theft (bike that was bolted to the roof of a car taken off and stolen).
...and just today early morning, while it was still dark, one of them spit all over the seat of my scooter while I was in the 24/7 gym (caught him walking off in the distance).

I say this, as it gives me right to profile specific individuals if I see them floating around my neighborhood.

The jury should acquit if they think Zimmerman is innocent (which it sounds like everything he did is justifiable).
I looked at the judge and could tell she had shame when the defense was staring at her and asking about the new charges being stemmed from the basis Zimmerman performed child abuse on Martin when he was being beat by him; she is scared, which she should be.

If there are riots and uproar because of Zimmerman's acquittal, the blacks as a collective will be doing themselves a major disservice.

I say this as someone who has was been brought up completely non biased and thought very negatively of anyone who was a bigot but from a series of many events from my early to mid 20's I've learned that it is very difficult to get along with blacks in relative comparison to other races I deal with on a regular basis.
The unfortunate thing is I have to have longer evaluation periods of select individuals before I can treat them equally; this all stems from stereotypes (which are generally true) and the poison of black culture.

Mild bigotry has been induced in me from firsthand experience over the course of several years.
Funny how my sister thought my dad and I were unfairly judging until she started working as a Registered Nurse in Pittsburgh (black or African population 25+%), then got to see how entitled they all acted toward her in the ER.

Usually if someone doesn't hold a strong opinion of certain kinds of blacks (gangster/hoodie) it's because they do not have any firsthand experience with them.

Getting defense about it doesn't do a damn thing.

It unfortunate as some blacks are wonderful people, but getting to forsake some parts of their culture they hold near and dear just isn't going to happen.

People with more self control than myself resolve the issue passive aggressively, by doing what they can to avoid having any blacks in their dealing, and not saying a damn thing about it. :2 cents:

I think it's important for people to know.

As far as I know there had been multiple breakins in that neighborhood, he was profiling him.

Yeah, it pretty much is.

When someone in authority says "You do not have to do that" it pretty much means "Don't fucking do it".

Baddog is right. I needed to listen to the evidience more. And watch the trial more.

I always thought Martin "jumped up from the bushes and punched Zimmerman for no reason" (I mean, no reason other than an armed man was following him around for seventeen minutes).

I was just watching the closing arguments. They played a tape of Zimmerman making a statement to the police and Zimmerman said "I walked up towards him as I was reaching for my cell phone"... So not only did Zimmerman follow the kid for seventeen minutes, he walked up to him and confronted him.

You fabricated that.

He hears what he wants to hear

He wasnt fat when it happened. He was training mma for over a year. "Under cross-examination, Pollock admitted that Zimmerman could have lost as much as 80 pounds and had a body mass index as low as 16 percent at the time that he shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin."
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/07/0...ysically-soft/

That's a personal interpretation and inaccurate. Not a legal interpretation.... which is that it means nothing and carries no weight whatsoever.

con·front
/kənˈfrənt/
Verb
Meet (someone) face to face with hostile or argumentative intent.
Face up to and deal with (a problem or difficult situation).

given the operator testified as they cannot give out directions for legal reasons, they make suggestions. as a practical matter, its one & the same. obviously not to you. seems parsing such words is critical to maintaining your point of view.

still waiting for your source that martin decided to rough up a cracker. :)

Actually GZ had a few versions it seems from closing arguments.

was this made an issue in the trial?

And there is zero fact, testimony or even circumstantial evidence that suggests Zimmerman went right up to Treyvon Martin, face to face.

As i've said repeatedly "following" is not "confronting" by any stretch of the imagination. Certainly does not fit into any legal definition.

In fact, the whole point as illustrated by Zimmermans calls which covered the vast majority of the incident was that Zimmerman was guiding police to Martin and police were basically right around the corner. Martin was trying to dodge Martin. Certainly both parties grossly misinterpreted the intent of the other, however, that does not change the facts and evidence. There is nothing to evidence the fact that Zimmerman approached and directly confronted Martin. There is evidence that Zimmerman got his ass handed to him. Who started that and why, who threw the first punch and why, has very little to do legally with the moment Zimmerman pulled out a gun and pulled the trigger. All that matters legally is what was going on in his mind at that exact moment.

OK. so when a guy is in cardiac arrest & 911 says we suggest you give CPR, what that really means is they are directing you to do nothing at all. got it.

:upsidedow

No. The operator testified and was very clear that they have no authority to issue commands, they only "advise".

Its an argument which an emotional bunch, devoid of any real legal fact keep trying to make... that is irrelevant to the 2nd Degree Murder charge. All that matters is what Zimmerman was thinking (reasonable fear of...) at the moment he pulled out a gun and fired it. The fact that Zimmerman followed Martin (well within his legal rights to do so), its not a relevant fact.

If this was a wrongful death civil suit or different charge, then it might be an important fact.

Again, you are just making circular, irrelevant, irrational and emotional arguments. Not citing the law or making a legal argument. And you just said it yourself... "we suggest....". Not "you absolutely must do..." - two very different meanings.

done and done. the place to sort out semantics is in court, looks like they did that here. nothing to argue about rly then.

definition is there for everyone.

is there something in that definition that you'd like to dispute?

actually it is a critical fact, so critical that zim declined to invoke the stand your ground statute as his defense. Stand your ground requires that the person defending himself did not initiate the conflict. Hence Zim stayed off that law, which wouldve applied directly to this case had martin actually caused the confrontation.

I'm leaving this thread now & not coming back. congrats to the winners.

:)

1) "Confrontation" is not "following". As its repeatedly argued.
2) There is zero evidence that supports the hypothesis that Zimmerman got face to face with Martin.

Is there actually an argument you'd like to make that is consistent with the law or facts, you snide fuck? Or you gonna stick to your safe tactic of copying and pasting, posting smileys and asking short/safe rhetorical questions for fear of getting owned if you actually try to articulate a thought?