Excusing Trayvon

"Jeantel expounded on her thoughts on what occurred when Zimmerman and Martin met face to face. "I believe Trayvon hit first," she said. She went on to describe how she believed that Trayvon throwing the first punch was likely caused by Zimmerman attempting to grab and detain Martin."

Can't have one without the other bucky.

So, do you believe Zimmerman attacked Martin or do you think she was "lying?"

Or maybe she was expressing an opinion?

Geez.

 

Obviously you need a refresher.

John Good confirmed Martin was atop Zimmerman during the crucial seconds prior to the gunshot. Good was a neighbor in the complex who saw some of the altercation and ran out during the struggle. Previously known as Witness 6, Good says he saw the fight before the gunshot with Martin was on top of Zimmerman. Other witnesses said they saw Zimmerman on top of Martin after the gunshot.

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/ge...day/-/1637132/20754334/-/rqnnciz/-/index.html

- - - Updated - - -

Still doesn't change the fact TM started the fight according to her.

And I see you ducked the eye witness testimony that TM was on top for the third time no less.

 

So Zimmerman grabs Martin, with no cause, and you still claim it was Martin who started it?

I guess that's what happens in religion. No fact can obscure the "truth."

 

There was NO witness as to who started the fight.

 

Your opinion is not fact and since there is no evidence of such, it is just your wish that it is.

 

So, when George called because of a pothole in the road, was he profiling tar?

 

Does no such thing. If anything, it confirms thief profiling. You cannot find anything racial about it.

 

Never said there was. We have a witness on the phone with TM saying she believed based on what she heard that her friend started the fight.

And an eye witness saying TM was on top beating up Z. You on the other hand have zero witnesses of any kind supporting your story.

 

To make it easy for you I cited our conversation in this thread. You did not cite, at the best I can tell, our "Excusing Trayvon" thread conversation. The OP (post #1 this thread) did state and question, among other things, something about Mr. Martins involvement in "fighting, drugs, stealing, etc."

The jury listened and saw evidence that they decided wase contrary to the charges. The verdict as it was decided and stands does not need my support, I can neither add to nor disqualify it. Nor does your issue with it change or negate its validity.

What I "see" in you is a person with an agenda who is unable to answer a question within that question's parameters. I ask where in our exchanges I stated that Mr. Martin used drugs...and you produce a statement you copied/pasted/typed (you didn't source/footnote the quote or where this quote could be found) that is diametrically opposed to your position and supports/verifies mine. Yours is truly a bizarre and misinformed response. I sense we are surrealistically reliving the trial charges as it played out...totally and utterly baseless as is your attempt at citing a statement where I declared, in our conversation, Mr. Martin used drugs.

One, overwhelmed by emotion, is primed for failure when involved in a conversation/discussion with another who is focused on objectively assessing facts and statements.

 

Yeah, sonny and Santa Claus is coming to town.

You attempt to explain the validity of the claim without acknowledging the absolute fact that there is no evidence to support the claim.

You are nothing more than a "creationist" in the TraycoonDeservedIt religion.

 

Your emotional responses cannot hide the fact that you cannot produce "the smoking quote" in our conversation.

 

He certainly was. Had he been elsewhere that night, he'd have likely ended up in prison, killed someone else, or have been killed by someone else.

Black males between the ages of 15 and 30 are 2% of the population, yet they commit over 50% of the murders in America. That's from FBI statistics - look it up if you don't believe me.

 

Oh the irony...

Mr. Zimmerman continues his pattern of being a stand up guy.

Trayvon's habit of getting into trouble - resulted in the end of his life. It is what it is.

 

Well isn't it obvious...a wannabe firefighter!!

 

I'll give you one more case, if you want others go find them yourself, there are many. You have a computer, go do some research and don't be lazy.

On May 13, 1926 a black man by the name of Henry Sweet was acquitted in a murder trial. He was defended by the famous American lawyer Clarence Darrow. The all white jury of 12 men deliberated only 4 hours to come up with their "NOT GUILTY" verdict.

 

Do you know anyone who wouldn't pull someone out of flipped vehicle?

- - - Updated - - -

Do you know anyone who wouldn't pull someone out of flipped vehicle?

 

Trayvon would have probably robbed everyone and left them, probably would have had thug daddy with him to assist. Another father son bonding moment!!

 

Speaking of emotional responses:

"Why are you taking this tact? What are you trying to prove? That a particular drug was not in use or never used...to what end?And if that drug had been used or not...what has changed for you or Mr. T. Martin? Is this simply frustration over not having the verdict you desired? Those jurors had to follow their instructions, the elements or lack thereof of the charged crime (law) and the evidence presented. You would rather a nation of men and not laws? It is very selfish of you to desire a miscarriage of justice."

My "emotional" response, once again, is you do not know and that claiming it to be true given the complete lack of evidence serves no purpose other than the defamation of a dead kid in service to your new "religion."

Oopsies.

 

This is becoming redundant, please produce the quote where I, during our conversation, state that Mr. Martin was taking drugs.

Since you posted my questions why not answer them?

 

Questions about what? Whether or not Martin took drugs?

Oopsies.

Why is it you cannot simply admit that there is no evidence Martin ever used or intended to use those drugs? In doing so you're not saying he never did, just that there's no evidence. You're not saying he never intended to, just that there's no evidence. What is so hard about that?

Unless, in related news, why is it so hard to admit there is no evidence of "God?"

Ahhhh, the religion thing.

Afraid you'll get thrown out of the Tabernacle for heresy?

 

MMA, Facebooking about making LEAN and stolen property found in his locker.

next ?

 

Wasn't "his" neighborhood, which is why he wasn't recognized.
He was followed, to keep an eye on what he might be doing.
We don't know who confronted whom, all we do know is a fight ensued, Zimmerman took a beating, before finally ending it.

It's sad the kid died.... but we don't know what he did or didn't deserve at that moment.

- - - Updated - - -

Lol..... I've noticed that.