Okay, I jerked off alone. :1orglaugh

As for "Romney and the Republicans"...so that is the measuring stick for Obama?

He did "better" than Romney?

So I guess that you shoot Asian girls naked better than some guy with a Kodak instamatic?
:1orglaugh

Comparing Obama to someone else isn't the way to measure the man. And justifying his bullshit based on you thinking it's "less bullshitt-y" Romney is...well...BULLSHIT. :1orglaugh

I don't give a fuck what Romney or McCain...or even the Great Satan: Bush, would have done.

I only care what the current man in the office is doing. And it's a piss poor job and he has been as deceitful and secretive as any President I can remember since Nixon.

You really should use Google. GZ is not 29 and was not 29

And if you think the difference between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman was "staggering" you are correct.

Trayvon was athletic, strong, lean and had a lot of experience apparently from his text messages of kicking people's asses. Zimmerman was a soft guy who didn't know how to fight and was not close to TM in physical strength.

As for "stalking", you've already proven that you love to exaggerate. You already know the circumstances and yet you keep parroting the same thing over and over.
Newsflash: Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it true.

Yes, Martin did have choices. But he was a teenager, he was being followed, and he decided to act defensely.

He didn't beat Zimmerman. He punched him. He had fat lip and two cuts on his head. This was not life threatening.

Zimmerman had lots of choices too. He didn't need to defend himself by shooting and killing Martin. He could have laid there and done nothing and witnesses would have come to his rescue - he would have been a local hero instead of this being a national case that destroyed his life.

Richard, you have no fucking sense of reality. You need to get out in the real world a bit more.

Please enlighten me.


http://www.wctv.tv/news/headlines/215759571.html

I agree completely. Let's start with this guy

http://media.salon.com/2012/12/wayne_lapierre.jpg

I think i'd like to go ahead and just sign up to your newsletter :)
Save myself time and just agree with your points on most matters....keep it coming man.

I 100% agree with that analogy. That kid no matter what his race would be alive if that man had not followed him around at night.

You're again assuming that merely being followed by someone is akin to being assaulted. This is, in the eyes of the law, wrong. As I stated before, you can only use force to defend yourself if there's a REAL, PALPABLE threat. Imaginary scenarios do not count in the eyes of the law. Martin acted OFFENSIVELY.

I can easily argued that was simply because Zimmerman shot him before the beating could go on. It only takes one good blow to the head to kill somebody.

You really, truly believe that? That somebody is going to lay there while a taller, more muscular person lays on top of them throwing punches saying to themselves "well, I did act like an asshole by following this guy so I'm just going to laid here and do nothing and somebody hopefully will come to my rescue and I'll be the local hero because if I shoot him the media will blow this case out of proportion, distort facts and even after I'm found innocent by a court of law they'll still demand my head on a platter because of political agendas."

Seriously?

Yes, you are right. Running away from someone following you is clearly acting offensively.

If Zimmerman did NOTHING at all, Zimmerman would have had a fat lip and Martin would still alive.

Hey, I'm fine with the way it is. Zimmerman destroyed his own life. He'll never be able to work again, and for the rest of his life he'll always be watching his back.

Or shoot and kill. It was his choice.

He could have been a hero, and Martin would have been arrested. Instead, now he's a national villain who will never be able to live a normal life again.

The reality is that a teenager ran away form danger, and Zimmerman chased him.

In about 20 years, all of the angry white people complaining about this speech will be dead...some of them are probably in this thread now. Hopefully we can start progressing once these fuckers are out of the way and in the ground --and out of our government making decisions that no one asks them to.

There is no emotion in this what so ever for me.

So an armed man following a teenager around in the dark isn't a threat?

The kid RAN AWAY from a man ARMED WITH A GUN. Zimmerman chased him.

Zimmerman, a grown man, failed to identify himself in any way, shape, or form.

Martin was chased in the dark by a man with a gun. A man armed with a gun chased him and confronted him. What else could Martin do? Run some more?

He didn't "beat Zimmerman up". Zimmerman got punched in the face.

Martin was acting in self defense - He fled, he ran, but was still confronted by a man who had been following him.

The Jury didn't have access to more facts than we did. A lot was kept from the jury, while we saw it all.

Oh really?

Martin did not know that Zimmerman was armed. If he had known, do you really think he would have assaulted Zimmerman? Or are you going to assume that Zimmerman ran after Martin pointing his gun at him? Because none of the evidence points to that.

I already addressed the fact that it can be argued that the only reason Zimmerman wasn't beaten more badly was because he was armed and used his gun in self-defence.

And again, self-defence is about real threats, when you have no other alternatives and you're not committing a crime. But don't take my word for it, google it yourself.

Okay, answer me this.

If Zimmerman had been unarmed and Martin had beaten him to death, do you think that Martin could have been found innocent?

That a jury would have considered being followed a tangible, life or death threat, and that Martin had no other choice but to beat Zimmerman to death?

Oh now you're just being silly.

:2 cents: Thanks

Im pretty sure from reading this the op and 95% of posters didnt listen to the whole speech just simply heard the words "Martin" or "Zimmerman" saw that a black person was speaking and went to click the "new thread" button.

I don't know why you guys keep trying. This illustrates why I don't believe there will ever be reconciliation :

Black & White : Will be the same in 100 years as it is today

Dems vs Repubs : Will be the same in 100 years as it is today

Jews & Muslims : Will be the same in 100 years as it is today

They can't change your ( correct ) position & you can't change theirs.

That really burns you up doesnt it? I contend that Zimmerman put his family through this with his actions. He was the only adult in the situation i feel no sympathy for him.

Nice that Obama took time out from the extrajudicial bombing of Pakistani wedding parties and American teens with drones to comment inappropriately on the results of a trial by jury.

and 100% the kid would have been alive had he not been in that neighborhood, "if wishes were horses beggars would ride..." so what's your point?

that's pretty interesting actually... the situation, no matter what the impetus, is now blacks, liberals and the media falsifying and manipulating those actions.. are there no adults there as well?

maybe 95% of posters are tired of a black man, that grew up in Hawaii, went to private schools, continued on to what? 3 Ivy league schools, who then became a lawyer... who then became Senator,... who then became the first black President in the history of the USA and who was then re-elected talking about how how he understands what its like to have a tough life and how he understands how horribly everyone has it.... while telling everyone how shitty everything is?

Imagine if he just used his position and his story to become one of the greatest inspirations and most positive and moving leaders of our time, instead...

nice misrepresentation of the facts - it was a police dispatcher, do you know what a police dispatcher is? No you don't so here's your answer.

Dispatchers are special trained civilians with no powers of arrest.

Zimmerman wasn't ordered to do or not do anything because a police dispatcher doesn't have that power and additionally didn't order him not to - she said 'we don't need you to do that sir'

I think Zimmerman had his firearm out shortly after he left his truck. According to Zimmerman's statement presented at the trial, Zimmerman said Martin was on top of him hitting him when Zimmerman was magically able to pull out a firearm from underneath him that was in a holster tucked in his waistband?

Let me rephrase that. Zimmerman had his firearm in a holster in his waistband under his jacket behind him, and he was able to pull his firearm out while Martin was on top of him hitting him?

You betcha.

Zimmerman already had his gun out.

Zimmerman wasn't beaten badly at all. He had a fat lip and two cuts. He never even needed to see a doctor.

Again, I believe Zimmerman was not only following him, but had his firearm out. Martin was acting in self defense.

Nope. I believe Martin would have gone to jail.

I'm not saying Martin is innocent here. But there was no reason to kill him. Zimmerman was the agrressive one, and pursued the kid for no reason, threatening him. Don't give me any shit he feared for his life. He wasn't even hurt.

You are correct. A police dispatcher has no authority to do jack shit. Yet clearly a 911 operator is much better trained than some neighborhood watch jack ass who had no training at all.

Pretty simple - Zimmerman failed to listen to the 911 operator, and look what happened. An innocent kid died, and Zimmerman's life is FUCKED.

Fuck the Pakistanis.

You're not very consistent in your position on the deaths of innocent children.

You totally ignored Zimmerman's version of events he gave to the cops, forget about how the altercation started, it was almost irrelevant to the case, only a looney tune thinks Zimmerman went out that night to hunt down and kill a black kid. Zimmerman said the kid saw his gun while on top of him, went for it and told him he was a dead man. Zimmerman feared for his life and shot him

There were no eyewitnesses to the shooting - if Martin had been shot and lived he would have given his side of the story and the jury would have had two versions to consider and it's still possible there'd be reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed attempted murder or manslaughter. Martin would have had to have taken the witness stand and been cross examined. If the kid didn't fuck up bad under cross examination I'm pretty sure Zimmerman would have been convicted. But as they say 'if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle'

I think he's on meds and in fact most of the Obama/trayvon proponents are long term drug addicts :2 cents:

uncle mom :thumbsup

See what I mean.... I don't know why you guys keep trying. He will never come around. He's faulty.

obviously gfy is racist and intolerant as fuck. nothing to do with zimmerman trial

bring back conspiracy theories and bitcoins, I preferred that much more then this

I'm not ignoring anything, and you need to keep in mind that Zimmerman had just shot and killed a kid - anything he says is suspect.

How could Martin have seen the gun if it was in a holster behind Zimmerman under a jacket? How could Martin have been going for the gun if he beating Zimmerman?

Do you really mean to tell me that while Martin was on top of him beating him, Zimmerman was able to wiggle out his arm, reach behind him, grab a firearm that was in a holster under his jacket, pull it out, and aim it?

Zimmerman wasn't beat at all. He was punched - once. Maybe twice.

None of this adds up.

And how exactly do YOU prove that? Because the prosecution, you know those guys whose job it is to prove that to a jury, couldn't. There's a reason why gut feelings and personal biases don't have a place in the judicial system you know.




And there you have it. If Martin's actions aren't excusable (and they aren't) because his life was NOT in any REAL danger, then he was COMMITTING A FELONY when he ASSAULTED Zimmerman.

Which is WHY the prosecution couldn't use the self-defence/stand your ground angle for Martin.

Because, and try to follow the logic here, you can't claim self-defence if YOU'RE COMMITTING A CRIME. It's why if a bank robber shoots a cop while robbing a bank he can't claim self-defence because the cop was shooting at him first.

See how that works? :thumbsup

Oh you're a delight.

You just agreed that a possible deadly attack on the part of Martin couldn't be excused, yet here you are, "assuming" that Zimmerman ran out of the car with his gun cocked, with no evidence to back this up because even YOU realize that the only way to excuse Martin's actions is to demonize Zimmerman.

Now stop and think about this for a minute. If Zimmerman had his gun out, how was Martin able to get on top of him and start beating him?

??...The same quote has been posted here under my name and the people who have the opposite opinion as me. Just scroll bro. What she said isn't up for debate.

If I understand correctly the argument is zimmerman had his gun out prior to the following, the beating, and the shooting.

I didn't follow the trial at all but was there evidence that trayvon had bruises on his fists?

If so, no way could the gun have been in the open. Having a side arm is not that hard to get to, even on your back.

And THIS is what it boils down to.

Many in the black community and kids identify with Martin and feel the anger one feels when being followed by security at a store, and even I understand the gut feeling of wanting to beat the living fuck out of the person who is following them.

And as satisfying as that fantasy might be, guess what? It's not legal. You beat somebody, you're committing a felony. Grow the fuck up.

Exactly.

And if it's so easy to assume Zimmerman ran out of his car with his gun cocked and loaded as some have so hilariously proposed, is it that hard to assume that Martin was pissed off at Zimmerman for having followed him, went back to confront him and started to beat him up in a fit of anger?

Which is why in criminal trials there's this little thing called EVIDENCE and FACTS which weighs much more than whatever assumption and gut feelings you may wish to bring to the table.

And the facts are:
Following somebody isn't illegal. None of Zimmerman's actions that night were illegal.

Assaulting somebody is illegal. Using force in self-defence is only excusable if your life is in real danger, there are no other avenues of escape available and you're not committing a crime.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HgnGkrKtOJ...lante-meme.jpg

I would have no problem with Trayvon Martin going to jail for assaulting George Zimmerman, if things occurred as GZ said that they did, but there are some glaring problems with Zimmerman's self-serving description of events, and it is a moot point, since Martin was murdered and will never be able to tell his version of events.

The problem many people are concerned about is trigger happy vigilante types operating under the guise of self-defense.

What also concerns some people is that more young people will feel that they have to arm themselves to defend themselves from would-be Zimmerman's, and the vicious cycle or racism will rise to another level of violence.

:stoned

ADG

Ok, I don't know how old your daughter is...but let's pretend she's 17.
And now you are imagining that it's your daughter coming back and jumping on a Hispanic guy who followed her and she began beating the shit out of the guy and got shot dead.

Nope, your daughter (or most rational people) wouldn't do that. Only young men full of piss and fire will do something that goddamn dumb.

But now...imagine your daughter is 10 years older than 17. She's 27/28 years old (or as you call it "30"). And SHE is on the neighborhood watch and is armed because there have been robberies in the neighborhood.

SHE gets out of her car after calling 911 to report a suspicious person on a rainy night in the neighborhood that has been getting robbed. Nobody else is walking that neighborhood but this one guy wearing a hoodie and walking up in people's yards checking out their houses.

She follows him because she doesn't want to lose sight of him. (or as you call it "stalking")

Now the guy gets pissed off at being followed, comes back and punches YOUR DAUGHTER right in the nose. She goes down. He mounts her and starts beating her (or as you call it "a fist fight").

Now Rochard...do you want YOUR daughter to lay there and let this guy beat her until he gets tired of beating her? Or do you want her to put a fucking hole in him with that gun?

What's the cop saying: "Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6" (because the cops would have shot Trayvon Martin dead without him ever getting close enough to punch them)

See, for all your posturing you aren't thinking about the flip side of the coin. You only see what you want to see.

That's the problem in this country? "vigilante types operating under the guise of self-defense"???

Really? That's what is killing so many people?

Do you hear yourself? Can't you see how ridiculous that is? Google up some real numbers and tell me the percentage of "vigilante types" out killing people.

Then show the numbers of actual criminals killing people during a crime.

And then break that down to how many young blacks are being killed by other young blacks.

Look up the numbers. Hell, look up how many young white kids are being killed by young white gang members doing "drive bys". Oh, that's practically non-existant? Yep, and so is a case of a neighborhood watch guy getting beat up by a black teen and shooting him dead.
It just don't happen very often. That's the part of this that is so goddamn ridiculous.

You need to face up to facts and stop being such a pollyanna politically correct person all the time.
Young blacks are more violent than most people. They were when I was a teenager too. And they still are. Thankfully they seem to grow out of it as they get into their 20's. But they are very, very violent when they are teenagers (not everyone of course...but a LOT)

Inserts you're from some country, you're an idiot.

Inserts some slurs.

Inserts Obama insult.

Inserts other insults because I disagree with you.

Did I miss any?