Watermelon Juice and Skittles Used To Make Intoxicant For Aggressive Behavior?

We know why he was shot , you just refuse to accept it .

 

Your right, because he was walking while black.

 

Your stance is one of blind ignorance and is completely disingenuous. Martin was shot because he was in the process of injuring Zimmerman, this has already been evidenced concretely. Zimmerman felt like he needed to employ the use of deadly force to prevent further bodily harm to himself because Martin was not letting up, wasn't ceasing to rain down "MMA style" blows while straddling Zimmerman, pinning him to the ground.

 

As compared to yours.

Well folks usually get injured in a fight, ie. busted lip, bloody nose, black eye. Common traits that come with a fight.

Spare me the MMA style BS. If you are a grown man and you can't handle a kid you outweigh by 50lbs in a fight you started you are a straight B. Now folks like you can sugarcoat it all you want.

 

You're

 

1. The kid should not be compounding drugs, irrespective of being negro or white. Or do you believe that being negro should preclude compounding drugs from being illegal. Like 2 separate sets of laws. One for whites, one for negroes? Because they had those laws pre 1960, where stores, buses, and water fountains said "no negroes allowed". Personally I think laws should be equal for all races, religions, etc. This kid was a sleazy thief that robbed people, made illegal drugs, smoked pot, did LEAN (and whatever other drugs he thought were fun), was tossed from school, and acted like a thug with gold teeth, talking in ebonics, etc. Blame bad parenting on his behavior. Blame the school for not smacking him down harder when they found all that swag and theft equipment in his locker and suppressed it so they didn't get dinged for black crime. Blame the tax system for spending so much money on blacks asking for entitlements that they cannot afford to put enough cops on the street so that people like Zimmerman don't have to do those neighborhood watches. I don't care where you put the blame since clearly you are being a black apologist about this incident, but Trayvon's stupid decisions got him dead.

2. Of course I think white kids compound drugs. And they too should end up just like Martin did. Toe tagged and out of the human gene pool. I want crime to diminish in USA. Blacks commit more of the murders and assaults than whites by percentage of population, so they need to clean up their act. Being a liar and saying blacks do not commit crimes but that the white court system busts them even though they are innocent is the most laughable position a person can take. It's just idiotic.

3. Bottom line - I am glad the kid is dead. I wish every thug was dead. I wish every murderer or person who commits a rape or assault was dead. I don't care if they are negro, white, or some green alien from mars. When crime goes away, the innocent and honest people live more enjoyable lives. Blacks are surprised that whites don't want them in their neighborhoods, in their workplaces, in their stores, on their buses. That's not racism - that's blacks being so criminal that whites are afraid of them. Only blacks can fix that.

 

If you are a grown man and are getting your a$$ kicked by someone irrespective of race, sex, weight, or height - you are well within your rights to defend yourself with a firearm.

 

Argue all you want. If you were suspended for your third time and your parents let you run the town, and you attack someone and get shot, its their fault and not one damn thing you will say is changing my mind. So there.

 

Again if you are a grown man and you get your ass whooped by a teenager, be man enough to take it and live to fight another day. Only a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) of a man would pull out a gun and kill an unarmed teenager if he is getting the best of you in a fight you started.

 

Zimmerman didn't start it, Trayvon did. But that be as it may, anyone can die from a skull being bashed into the concrete. We aren't talking about two people duking it out and then when one goes down the other one says to stay down and the guy on the ground grabs a weapon and finishes the fight. No - we are talking about someone having his cranium slammed against concrete and him putting one in the guy's chest while the attacker is on top of him. And candidly, anyone else would do the same damned thing. If someone was on top of me slamming my head in the ground, I would take absolute pleasure in exploding his heart with a few rounds to center chest and I wouldn't feel one iota of remorse in doing that. Now you can suspect he enjoyed it because the guy was black, and maybe he did. But the fact remains that the jury said he could walk and the idiot that attacked him is dead. And I am quite happy with the results of the case. I don't like thugs and Martin was only going to go from bad to worse.

 

Irrelevant comparison. You cannot compare a stance or argument based on logic to one based on everything but.

Yes, and when the person who committed battery is on top of the victim, and continuing to beat them despite the person on the ground crying for help in an obvious desire to end the conflict, the person on the bottom receiving the beating is within their legal grounds to use lethal force. That is why this was a justifiable homicide, that is also why Zimmerman was found "not guilty."

You have made many irrational emotional hyperbole-laden comments here, for once I would like to see some support or evidence for any one of the multitude of claims you have been making as if they're fact. Especially since the many "facts" you continue to claim have actually already been addressed, debunked and thoroughly put down as untruths a multitude of times before--which is another reason why Zimmerman was found "not guilty."

 

If that is the way you plan to go through life (being paranoid that every white wants to whack you just for the fun of it), then you are going to live a miserable life. Whites don't typically whack blacks just for being black. That's something blacks do to Whites. And maybe it's poetic justice for all the KKK hangings in the South back before the 1960s; but I never hanged anyone and I have no intent of feeling it was reasonable racial payback if someone tries to kill me. My feeling is if someone is going to kill me, I better kill them first. Zimmerman did the right thing.

 

I take it you think yours is based on fact. LOL.

First of all you don't know who was crying for help and what grown man in a struggle with a teenager would be crying for help with a gun. What would make more sense is the grown man pulling the gun on a teenager and he would be the one crying for help.

No, Zimmerman was found not guilty because in the eyes of many whites black males are criminals, so Trayvon had to be the one that was in the wrong.

You keep whining about support, what freakin support have you shown that Trayvon started this fight, that Zimmerman was the one screaming for help, etc.

Please tell us what facts have been proven in this case.

 

No, I go through life being aware of what is happening around me and I make sure I inform my children of the same.

Your right, not since the 70s.

No they don't.

Make that the 70s.

I know you think he did the right thing its typical of your type.

 

If by "your type" you mean typical of a white guy who never committed a crime, then yeah - "my type" is glad Trayvon Martin is dead. Now I know when you say "your type" you mean "honky cracker", but I will ignore that error in judgement on your part of making it a personal attack.

 

Actually I meant those of the mindset of the sheetwearers. Wow who is surprised of that.

See above.

Its business B, never personal.

 

Based on evidence and accurate details regarding this case, and that evidence and those accurate details strongly support a basis more aligned with what is factual versus the fantasy your stance has been stuck in.

When the prosecution's own witness said he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman and Zimmerman crying for help, this lends more than just slight credibility to that argument. The prosecution's own witness was also the one who vocalized agreement with what he saw as "ground and pound" "MMA-style" blows being rained on Zimmerman. This is the prosecution's witness, this was not a witness the defense had called. Considering that the prosecution wanted him on the stand for accuracy to lend credence to their argument, and he said Martin was the one who was clearly beating down Zimmerman, who else but Zimmerman do you think was crying for help? You think Martin was hitting him and saying "no! Please no!" as he did it? Now which argument here doesn't make sense? That was a rhetorical question, the answer is yours.

Oh I see, so you know that the jury all felt this way and that was the reason that they came to their decision? Source please. Evidence that statement. Oh that's right, you can't. Silly me, here I was forgetting that I was debating against an emotional irrational stance--one which has never been supported factually by the individual arguing in favor of it.

I'm not whining, I'm emphasizing importance. Your stance is the whiny one here, complaining about how "blacks are oppressed," "blacks are looked down upon," "when a 'white' (Hispanic) man kills a black teenager in self defense, it's automatically racist and we should all care more about it than the genocide of black-on-black crime occurring in suburban population centers like Chicago."

All those ridiculous "arguments" are whiny. I'm simply pointing out that none of the things you say have been even slightly supported and your stance is bordering on--if not already crossed into the realm of--lunacy or "conspiracy/" No solid evidence. You claim Martin was killed for being black. The FBI has ruled this to not have been the case, in fact they said there was no evidence for any racial motivation in the killing and were not going to look any further because not only is there no evidence that Zimmerman is racist, there is actually a lot of evidence indicating the exact opposite.

Then you claim that the verdict was based on racism as if it's a known fact, yet you offer no support, no juror interview, no background information to even slightly suggest that the "not-guilty" verdict had anything to do with race whatsoever. This is so ridiculous, I cringe every time I read a post of yours here about this particular topic, because the stance your arguments favor is one of sheer blind racially bigoted stereotypical knee-jerk progressive emotional asinine absurdity.

 

That's a broad and disingenuous assertion. To say that teens make mistakes is accurate, but to associate that with the crime of aggravated battery is simply absurd and dishonest. "Teens" don't commit aggravated battery by "mistake." Making a conscious decision to do wrong and making a mistake are two different things. Committing felony battery against someone is not a "mistake," it is simply an illegal and immoral choice. And with every choice comes a consequence, some good, some bad. This particular choice turned out to have a negative consequence for Martin. There is no evidence to suggest Zimmerman did anything slightly illegal or immoral that evening, we've been over all this before, he was being watchful and vigilant and was wary for the sake of his community, but following someone from a distance is not illegal and it is not "stalking," despite what many emotional hyperbole-laden arguments made here by progressives would have you believe.

 

Yes we do no what happened, we don't know how it started, but that doesn't mean we don't know what happened. Even in the unsupported hypothetical that Martin was provoked, no amount of provocation justifies battery. What was happening based on witness testimony was not justified in any kind of hypothetical. Even in the absurd and unsupported hypothetical that Martin were using self-defense (completely unlikely by logical analysis), witnesses place Zimmerman on the ground with Martin straddling him--supporting Zimmerman's story--with Martin raining "MMA style" blows down on him while Zimmerman was crying for help. Crying for help is no different than any other verbally attempt to withdraw from a physical altercation. Even if someone attacked you, got in a good punch or two, you started defending yourself and doing it well, but then the person who initiated things stopped all physically aggressive contact and made it verbally and physically clear that he wished to withdraw, the kind of attack Martin was employing would not be covered by any self-defense statute.

The hyperbole in this case is used by progressives and those without a shred of evidence to support their assertions. It is also used--your post is a prime example of it--to justify a choice such as felony batter as something such as a "teen mistake" as if it's something to be brushed off or something that your average ordinary "teen" (blanket statement classification) does. That's ridiculous and denotes a lack of intellectual honesty in the argument your position has brought forth. That is hyperbole. And honestly, I wouldn't even really call it an "argument," actually.

 

Another straw man misrepresentation of the argument being addressed, congratulations. Nowhere within my post can that be accurately portrayed as the point I was making. Your employment of the straw man logical fallacy to dress up a fabricated argument to pass off as if I made it when I did not and then your response to it as if I made it when I did not denotes, to a further degree, the lack of intellectual honesty in that post and also reflects poorly regarding your overall stance for this case.

The factors I addressed are all within Florida law, I can provide a link right to the statute and it is also very easy to find in general. It states that one has a right to employ deadly force in self-defense against an individual who has threatened (either physically or verbally) the safety or well-being of another individual's health or possessions and the person can employ deadly force UNLESS the other person makes a clear attempt to withdraw from physical confrontation (witness testimony by even the prosecution's witness concretely evidence that Zimmerman was doing whatever he could to withdraw--calling for help, etc.) and no one said anything about seeing Zimmerman actually striking back or being physically aggressive himself.

If Zimmerman provoked Martin by the grounds of the statute, Martin would have been within his legal right to fight back UNTIL Zimmerman was on the ground, no longer a threat and clearly indicating a wish/desire to withdraw from the physical confrontation. But Martin didn't stop hitting Zimmerman, "ground and pound" "MMA style blows" to someone's face who is already on the ground yelling for help is a clear violation of that particular clause of the self-defense statute even in the absurdly unlikely hypothetical that Zimmerman started the conflict. And really, the hypothetical itself holds no water.

And had Martin stopped hitting Zimmerman, had a witness said that they saw Martin get off Zimmerman and back away or at least stop the full out attack and call the police, etc., then there would be clear evidence that Zimmerman's use of lethal force would have violated that same clause I was discussing. But there is no evidence of that, the witness testimony was quite clear in that the "ground and pound" "MMA style" blows were going on while the cries for help were being made.

Your post's employment of the straw-man logical fallacy followed by your quite hasty withdrawal from this particular angle of the debate are both duly noted.

You as well.

 

if Zimmerman flashed his gun, then it would be self defense even if on the ground as the gun is still in Z's possesion

had z of done this to a women jogger, she probably would of maced him and then ran off and called the cops

we do not know beyond a doubt what happened that night.. thus the juries not guilty verdict

.

 

Can we just agree that the racists believe that drinking Lean while black means you deserve to get shot?