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

I think racists think anything a black person does entitles someone to shot them...

as far as mixing watermelon juice and skittles... not sure I buy that as anything more then a rumor by the same folks

 

We know that a guy charged with murder will usually lie as to his involvement.

We know that the incident happened in Florida, a Southern racist State.

We know that the jury was composed of 6 white women.

We know that the cops did everything possible not to arrest or even to do a competent crime scene investigation.

We know that Z's daddy pulled some strings to get his crummy son released and not charged.

We know that the prosecutors put on a lousy case.

We know that countless people were glad that Z shot a black kid.

We know that there is no equal justice in America.

So we do know a lot.

 

Possession of a weapon does not indicate that you can beat someone to death, regardless of whether they have "flashed" it at you or not. The law still applies as I already explained, there is no clause regarding specifics addressing whether or not one of the involved parties has a weapon. Try again.

Mindless and unsupported supposition. Sexist insinuation as well, your post seems to assert that a woman jogger would act in a different manner than a "male jogger" or a male walking along the street. Why?

There was never enough of a case to even charge him, the evidence against Zimmerman was nothing. Legal critics and professionals from all over the country have panned this trial as the farce that it has been, having never justified an actual trial--which is why Zimmerman wasn't initially charged.

 

Racists probably believe that, yeah. Rational-minded people who entertain logic and reasoning as opposed to emotional brainwashing by the media believe that an incident in which someone who is committing felony battery is shot and all evidence present points to the shooter acting in self-defense is considered a justifiable homicide. Not necessarily that the person who was shot "deserved" it, but simply that it was a justifiable act of self-preservation by the party who was being beaten (per witness testimony and per the party's notable visible injuries in contrast with the assailant's lack of any kind of visible defensive injuries).

 

We know this? Please evidence this absurd blanket statement.

Another baseless statement as if it is fact, please present evidence to support the allegation that Florida as an entire state can be classified as a "racist" state.

This is actually a false statement. Ironically, this shows your stance's basis of inaccuracy and/or willful ignorance regarding true details of this case/trial. A very accurate portrayal of your position in general, it would seem.

There was an investigation on the scene once officers arrived, but there was not enough evidence initially to charge Zimmerman with anything. This was not an act of misconduct, it was actually an act of misconduct for the state prosecutor to revisit the case after the police found no evidentiary basis with which to charge Zimmerman and then file charges with an affidavit that was perjurious, reprehensible, not supported by the evidence needed to follow through with charges being filed and essentially criminal because of it (as pointed out by more than one nationally respected attorney or legal professional back when the "affidavit" was presented).

Please evidence this baseless assertion.

Yes, that's because they had a lousy case. They had no evidence. Their witnesses actually helped the defense more than they did the State.

Whiny statement representing the sentiment of progressives in this case and many like it: "if the verdict wasn't what I think it should have been, justice has not been upheld."

Some of us do, yes.

 

Why don't you tryout your position in the real world and see how a random lady you follow in your car and then on foot reacts!!! Or how the cops react to you if she decides to call them in your case.

 

Combined? Uh that's ridiculous. All you need is the cough syrup, specifically the DXM kind. Skittles and watermelon juice would probably just be mixer. Such a stupid notion.

 

An equally rational-mind might conclude that it's possible that a frustrated wannabe cop frightened a teenager by following him, first in an unmarked, unofficial vehicle and then on foot in street clothes. He probably tried to detain, hold or accost him for the real police but got his ass beat in the process and out of anger decided to take the victim's life and plead SYG as he got an A+ in a course he took in college.

If he wasn't packing he wouldn't have followed Trayvon. He claims something was wrong with Trayvon and that he circled his car in a threatening way, yet he got out to pursue him??? Come on man and what crime was he committing??? WALKING WHILE BLACK!!!

 

Trayvon being high and or drunk didn't mean Zman had the right to profile him and scare him either. We'll never know what psyche meds Zman was on at the time because he wasn't drug tested. Yet we know he takes drugs for mental conditions. If Trayvon was all of those things all the more reason to wait for the cops to arrive instead of going against NW policy and following him. Also if following someone isn't a crime yadda yadda yadda. Follow someone home from a bar and see how they react to it or a teenage girl home from high school and see how your day ends up.

 

he was suspended for truancies.....are you serious? truancies = death? what is wrong with you?

 

It "CAN BE" construed as innocence. . .but it is in no way the same thing. There are many reasons why a person can be found not guilty, innocence is just ONE of the possible reason, but being found "not guilty" in NO WAY proves that someone is innocent, especially NOT in cases such as OJ Simpson, Casey Anthony, AND George Zimmerman!

 

Ad hominem and ridiculous unsupported speculation. Try harder please.

 

He didn't plead SYG, SYG did not factor into this case. This comment of yours shows either an inherent lack of knowledge regarding the circumstances and details of this case or dishonesty in your stance. More unsupported and inaccurate emotional speculation, none of it supported by even a shred of evidence.

It is within a person's right to follow another person regardless of whether or not they are in direct violation of the law. It is not legal, however, to commit felony battery against someone because you suspect they may be following you. Martin committed felony battery and continued despite that Zimmerman was verbally attempting to withdraw--which is supported by witness testimony.

 

My kids weren't offed by George because they do not go out on dark rainy nights to score the supplies to make drugs. They are home doing homework and spending quality time with their parents and each other. Martin came from a broken family, which I believe is rather typical for blacks, isn't it? I have never made drugs. My kids have never made drugs. I stayed in school. My kids stayed in school. Sadly, most black families are broken apart and involve undereducated parents and children. Stop being mad at Zimmerman - be mad at the Negro culture in America for not valuing morals, leadership, and the family unit. Blacks are not forced by the White race to become welfare moms, deadbeat dads, uneducated manual laborers, or criminals. They do this of their own choosing.

 

If Martin just went home instead of hiding and pouncing on Zimmerman because he thought Zimmerman was a gay stalker he would be alive today. If Martin dialed 911 on his cell instead of hiding behind a tree yapping with that fat slut about killing a gay for fun, he would still be alive today. Zimmerman would be the first person to say he should have stayed in his truck. But that doesn't give Martin the right to sucker punch him and then jump on top of him and start slamming his head into the concrete. If Martin thought he was being stalked he had ample opportunity to flee and instead doubled back to kick the alleged stalker's a$$. Bad decision that cost him his life. Too bad, so sad, bye bye.

 

In your uninformed opinion.

 

Not so, if your stance on this argument is based on logic/intellect, and isn't illegal you shouldn't hesitate to practice what you espouse!!! Have at it and please inform us how it works out for you, if you're able.

Other than that you're just "talking out the side of your neck".

 

Conversely, if Zman just went to Target to get his douching supplies Trayvon would still be alive. Or if he'd just stayed in his car and waited for the cops as the NW policy states, Trayvon would be alive as well. A Black male walking at 6:45pm in the rain with a hoodie on wouldn't seem suspicious to someone not on psyche meds. You have no proof that Trayvon assaulted Zman first or "doubled back" at all!!! There is proof that Zman passed up plenty of addresses in the pursuit of Trayvon, that he claims he stopped. These bad decisions took away Zman's elevation into White-hood and his rapid fall into Blackness. He is now what he feared most, a Black man in America!!! GDAY!!!

 

1. Initially the SYG law is what kept Zman out of jail, hence the public outcry started by his parents stroking the fire thru social media. Also the jury was instructed on SYG if you watched the trial you'd know this!!! So your lack of knowledge or credibility regarding this case is in question!!!

2. Since it's legal to follow someone, how about you follow a teenage girl home from school or a female jogger (By car and then on foot) and see how that turns out for you.
Just because it's legal doesn't mean the person being followed isn't mentally affected by your actions.
Most will try to elude you like Trayvon did by walking between complexes where the car couldn't drive. They would also runaway if you get out on foot and give chase like Trayvon did. Most intelligent people would know these actions would scare a stranger so they'd be prepared to identify themselves as a NWatch person, unlike Zman. GDAY!!!

 

Off-topic nonsense. If you'd care to get back to the topic, please do so. I simply noted the absurdity of claiming that an entire gender of people would all react in a specific way when presented with being "followed" by someone. It isn't illegal to follow someone from a distance, if that were the case, I could go downtown right now and report probably a minimum of four dozen people for breaking the law simply by coincidence. So again, please try to bring some better material to the table. Thanks in advance.

 

Incorrect, the lack of evidence indicating Zimmerman did anything outside his legal limits was what kept Zimmerman out of jail. Your stance is now demonstrating willful ignorance of the facts despite being properly informed. That surpasses the level of ridiculousness that your position was displaying prior to this even. How droll.

This is an absurd line of "argument." By the same line of argument, I could challenge you to pick out a stranger you "perceive" is following you and attempt to commit felony battery against them and "see how that turns out for you." It goes both ways and both ways the "challenge" is stupid and non-intellectual in nature.

Just because the person being followed might be mentally affected by your actions doesn't inherently give that person the right to commit felony battery and continue to do so on someone who is pinned to the ground and calling for help--making every indication of their desire to withdraw from physical confrontation.

Arguments like "most people would do _____" and "most intelligent people would do _____" are logically fallacious in nature. They are a form of the argumentum ad populum, or appeal to the people, more commonly known as the appeal to majority. First of all, you're making a statement as if it is fact and as if you know for that fact what "most intelligent people" would do in such a situation. Therefore I am challenging you to support that nonsense claim. Show us where all people in the world or even a majority average have been evidenced as "intelligent" and then please show me polling results among that statistical group which evidences your ludicrous claim regarding what "most intelligent people" would do when faced with such a situation. I'll be patient, conducting such an empirical study would likely take years or quite possibly decades to conclusively finish.

 

Trayvon told his love cow on the cell that he was gonna thump some gay, and Zimmerman said he was attacked. If Zman was the bad guy, he wouldn't have been found not guilty by a jury. Trayvon wasn't murdered for buying drug components; but any parent would say the kid should have been home and not outside the home up to no good. And considering his mom gave him the boot for being tossed from school for being a pothead, you would think the dad would have had this kid on hardcore parental lockdown. I blame the parents for this as much as I blame anyone else.

 

a jogger is more likely to carry mace then a person walking home from buying some candy, but both when followed like z did that night may enter fight or flight mode

SYG would of allowed a man that got caught cheating on his wife to kill her if she came at him with a frying pan (all he would have to say is he thought she was gonna kill him)

 

Unsupported assertions.

More unsupported assertions. If you're going to make claims as fact, please evidence them, please show support which backs the claims you're making. Any kind of statistical data or study addressing the first claim and a similar case to your absurd example that actually happened for the second. If not, then recognize that your claims are simply baseless in nature and hold no water.

 

For someone who doesn't like speculations, your comments are full of unfounded speculations and racial prejudices.
If your children are in their late teenage years and are not allowed to go out to the convenience store around 6:30 pm on a slightly rainy evening, they are NOT usual teenagers, and may have other issues as they grow up.

Black families are by NO MEANS the only one who have experienced divorce, welfare, and deadbeat dads. If you feel the need to make such prejudicial observations, you need to, at the least, support them by factual information.

- - - Updated - - -

Absolutely NOT. I actually provided a quote (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_Difference_between_not_guilty_and_innocent)

Whether you like it or not, "not guilty" in NO WAY means "innocent!"