All Things, Trayvon Martin / George Zimmerman

[BleedingPurple]

Couldn't read through the entire thread, it started to get stupid.. Based on what I know and maybe my opinion will change once more info is released,

A. Zimmerman is a fucking asshole with a big EGO and was the reason for Trayvon Martin's death. If he listens and doesn't confront the kid because he is "the MAN" then the kid is still alive.
but
B. Just because Zimmerman is a fucking asshole with a big EGO, he is not a murderer. Just because you confront somebody, that somebody has no right to physically assault you and cause injuries to your head, once injuries start happening to the back of your head then shooting him was fair game IMO.

C. Yes it is sad, yes it was profiling, but Trayvon could of acted in a different matter.

D. The marijuana should be of no issue and probably will not be beneficial to the defense cause it was just a trace..

 

[wabashwonders]

Couldn't read through the entire thread, it started to get stupid.. Based on what I know and maybe my opinion will change once more info is released,

A. Zimmerman is a fucking asshole with a big EGO and was the reason for Trayvon Martin's death. If he listens and doesn't confront the kid because he is "the MAN" then the kid is still alive.
but
B. Just because Zimmerman is a fucking asshole with a big EGO, he is not a murderer. Just because you confront somebody, that somebody has no right to physically assault you and cause injuries to your head, once injuries start happening to the back of your head then shooting him was fair game IMO.

C. Yes it is sad, yes it was profiling, but Trayvon could of acted in a different matter.

D. The marijuana should be of no issue and probably will not be beneficial to the defense cause it was just a trace..

1 question to you concerning what is in bold. Do you know for a fact that Martin assaulted Zimmerman first? Or could he have been retaliating from Zimmerman possibly punching him first?

 

[Vico_dan]

Couldn't read through the entire thread, it started to get stupid.. Based on what I know and maybe my opinion will change once more info is released,

A. Zimmerman is a fucking asshole with a big EGO and was the reason for Trayvon Martin's death. If he listens and doesn't confront the kid because he is "the MAN" then the kid is still alive.
but
B. Just because Zimmerman is a fucking asshole with a big EGO, he is not a murderer. Just because you confront somebody, that somebody has no right to physically assault you and cause injuries to your head, once injuries start happening to the back of your head then shooting him was fair game IMO.

C. Yes it is sad, yes it was profiling, but Trayvon could of acted in a different matter.

D. The marijuana should be of no issue and probably will not be beneficial to the defense cause it was just a trace..

Well put, couldn't have said it any better. He skates on the Murder 2, but the feds will hit him with a civil rights violation(s) to keep the peace

 

[wabashwonders]

Ballwash, we know what happened. You and the three stooges are the only ones that don't know what took place. May Martin not rest in piece.

I thought we didn't know what happened? Oh wait, you know what happened. That's right you were there apparently

 

[wabashwonders]

Be prepared to be called a liar and possibly accused that your factual documents have been altered.

LOL, I have Billhill on ignore but saw his post when you quoted him. If he honestly thinks they can prove Martin was on angel dust that night he is crazier than I thought, LOL. First off, the report said there were very small traces of THC in his system which means chances are it was not from that night but from days if not weeks earlier since marijuana can stay in your system for weeks. Secondly, THC is in marijuana, not angel dust,lol. Bill isnt a liar in this case, just misinformed. He probably has THC mixed up with PCP, which is what angel dust is. So that blows his theory that Martin was on some superdrug that night right out the window. Nice try though, lol.

 

[BleedingPurple]

1 question to you concerning what is in bold. Do you know for a fact that Martin assaulted Zimmerman first? Or could he have been retaliating from Zimmerman possibly punching him first?

Definitely and my opinion could change if this were the case, but I doubt we will ever know that, What we do know is that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman and assaulting him and I have not heard of an eye witness who says otherwise.

 

[Enfuego]

1)You answered next to nothing: you show 9 or 10 articles, but your "proof" was an article almost 2 months old. If you don't see the inconsistency there, well, there's no hope for you-but we already knew that, didn't we? - I guess the age of an article means it's not credible?

2) Did it escape your razor sharp powers of perception that the ineptness of the 2 main locals "heading" the case is the reason WHY she was brought in? I haven't said a word about the trial, I'm pointing out that statements like "the facts have not changed despite the article's age" and stating that Martin was the aggressor because the police, who weren't there, were told that by Martin himself are absolutely ludicrous. But you keep thinking, lol, that's obviously what you're good ad. - She was brought in because of how high profile the case became and the resources needed to handle a case this prolific.

3) Yes, we know you posted 10 articles, but you hung your hat on one from March 26, Brainiac. Re: your final sentence, even YOU aren't quite THAT stupid. - In fact, I'd say an article published immediately after the incident with everyone having sole focus on the situation would be more credible.

Answered.

 

[Enfuego]

Definitely and my opinion could change if this were the case, but I doubt we will ever know that, What we do know is that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman and assaulting him and I have not heard of an eye witness who says otherwise.

Agree with all except one thing. I believe the situation could've been avoided had both Zimmerman not approached Martin and had Martin not escalated the situation by physically assaulting Zimmerman.

 

[Dafinch]

Answered.

1) Who said anything about an article's age determining its credibility? The POINT is that what is known now, in this particular case, is clearly very different from what was known on March 26-indeed, the articles coming out now are adding to that gap. So, for you to claim that you "know" who assaulted whom first, based on the March 26th article, is incredibly, irretrievably, unbelievably stupid. It would be stupid if it were based on an article written yesterday, based on the fact that the source of your quote is the police, and the source of THEIR statement is Zimmerman, but it's even dumber on statements made March 26th. Are we clear?

2) You have an AMAZING grasp of the obvious, well done! Sadly, your statement does not address the fact that stating the "facts have not changed despite the articles age" is hilariously stupid and you have no way of knowing at this time who assaulted whom first.

3) Yes, I'm sure you WOULD say that it would be more credible, but there's a perfectly reasonable explanation for that: you're a nitwit who ignores holes in your argument that one could drive a tank through.

 

[wabashwonders]

I am just totally lost here. I have said numerous times that I don't know what happened. Enfuego and now BleedingPurple among others agree that we don't know what happened. Yet these guys continue to say that they know for a fact that Martin hit Zimmerman first. How do you know this for a fact if you say in other posts that none of knows what happened? Am I fucking missing something here? I am not defending anyone at all. I just can't understand how you can say in one post that we don't know what happened and in the next say you know for a fact that Martin started the fight. How do you know Zimmermn did not throw a punch first and then Martin retaliated? The first time any eye witness saw anything they were already on the ground so no one else saw how it all started. Its been said in the evidence there was about 80 seconds when communication stopped from Zimmerman until the 911 calls started. A lot can happen in a minute. If you want to give an opinion and say thats how you think it happened, fine. But stop telling me I am the one making things up when you keep insisting you know something for a fact when you dont!!!!

 

[Enfuego]

I am just totally lost here. I have said numerous times that I don't know what happened. Enfuego and now BleedingPurple among others agree that we don't know what happened. Yet these guys continue to say that they know for a fact that Martin hit Zimmerman first. How do you know this for a fact if you say in other posts that none of knows what happened? Am I fucking missing something here? I am not defending anyone at all. I just can't understand how you can say in one post that we don't know what happened and in the next say you know for a fact that Martin started the fight. How do you know Zimmermn did not throw a punch first and then Martin retaliated? The first time any eye witness saw anything they were already on the ground so no one else saw how it all started. Its been said in the evidence there was about 80 seconds when communication stopped from Zimmerman until the 911 calls started. A lot can happen in a minute. If you want to give an opinion and say thats how you think it happened, fine. But stop telling me I am the one making things up when you keep insisting you know something for a fact when you dont!!!!

I've been consistent from the moment I started in this thread. From the moment GZ got out of his vehicle until the moment Martin struck him in the face, I don't know what happened. Everything before him getting out of the vehicle and after him being struck is clear to me. That's it.

 

[BleedingPurple]

I am just totally lost here. I have said numerous times that I don't know what happened. Enfuego and now BleedingPurple among others agree that we don't know what happened. Yet these guys continue to say that they know for a fact that Martin hit Zimmerman first. How do you know this for a fact if you say in other posts that none of knows what happened? Am I fucking missing something here? I am not defending anyone at all. I just can't understand how you can say in one post that we don't know what happened and in the next say you know for a fact that Martin started the fight. How do you know Zimmermn did not throw a punch first and then Martin retaliated? The first time any eye witness saw anything they were already on the ground so no one else saw how it all started. Its been said in the evidence there was about 80 seconds when communication stopped from Zimmerman until the 911 calls started. A lot can happen in a minute. If you want to give an opinion and say thats how you think it happened, fine. But stop telling me I am the one making things up when you keep insisting you know something for a fact when you dont!!!!

I NEVER SAID FOR SURE THAT MARTIN HIT HIM FIRST. We just know for a fact that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, how they got there we don't know, unless an eyewitness says that he/she saw Zimmerman throw the punch then the only fact we can go by is Martin on top of Zimmerman.

Hypothetical, lets say I am caring a gun, I hit you in the face, you retaliate and continually stomp at me and put me into a life / death situation, do I have the right to shoot you in self defense or am I screwed cause I threw the first punch. I don't know. Seems to me that if I could prove you were using unecessary force by showing all my wounds then I would be in the right. Like I said I don't know the legalities of that

 

[Enfuego]

1) Who said anything about an article's age determining its credibility? The POINT is that what is known now, in this particular case, is clearly very different from what was known on March 26-indeed, the articles coming out now are adding to that gap. So, for you to claim that you "know" who assaulted whom first, based on the March 26th article, is incredibly, irretrievably, unbelievably stupid. It would be stupid if it were based on an article written yesterday, based on the fact that the source of your quote is the police, and the source of THEIR statement is Zimmerman, but it's even dumber on statements made March 26th. Are we clear?

2) You have an AMAZING grasp of the obvious, well done! Sadly, your statement does not address the fact that stating the "facts have not changed despite the articles age" is hilariously stupid and you have no way of knowing at this time who assaulted whom first.

3) Yes, I'm sure you WOULD say that it would be more credible, but there's a perfectly reasonable explanation for that: you're a nitwit who ignores holes in your argument that one could drive a tank through.

1) You did. The moment you keep highlighting that an article I post is two months old is the moment you are questioning it's credibility. I know whom assaulted whom first because the cops said so. Case closed.

2) I do because the cops said so. Case closed.

3) Typical. Call me names when you have nothing else to say. Awesome.

 

[Enfuego]

I NEVER SAID FOR SURE THAT MARTIN HIT HIM FIRST. We just know for a fact that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, how they got there we don't know, unless an eyewitness says that he/she saw Zimmerman throw the punch then the only fact we can go by is Martin on top of Zimmerman.

Hypothetical, lets say I am caring a gun, I hit you in the face, you retaliate and continually stomp at me and put me into a life / death situation, do I have the right to shoot you in self defense or am I screwed cause I threw the first punch. I don't know. Seems to me that if I could prove you were using unecessary force by showing all my wounds then I would be in the right. Like I said I don't know the legalities of that

Of course you have the right to protect yourself. That is the crux of this case. GZ's side say of course you can protect yourself while TM's side so now way. That's it.

 

[Dafinch]

1) You did. The moment you keep highlighting that an article I post is two months old is the moment you are questioning it's credibility. I know whom assaulted whom first because the cops said so. Case closed. <<Why is it closed? Because YOU say so???? Are you stupid enough to claim in public that more is known that than was known on March 26th? C'mon, you can do it, lol!>>

2) I do because the cops said so. Case closed.<<See above. You still haven't answered how the cops could know who started things when they weren't there and have no video. Lie much?>>

3) Typical. Call me names when you have nothing else to say. Awesome.

<<If the muthafucking shoe fits, wear it, Slick. You don't address glaring holes, and I'm merely pointing that out.>>

 

[Enfuego]

<<If the muthafucking shoe fits, wear it, Slick. You don't address glaring holes, and I'm merely pointing that out.>>

You do realize right that sometimes people get convicted of murder and they don't even find a body? Sometimes people are convicted and nobody witnessed the crime? Happens each day in America. It's called investigating the incident, questioning witnesses, examining evidence and coming to a conclusion based on years of experience in law enforcement.

How do the cops know? Because all of Zimmerman's wounds are defensive wounds and all of Martin's wounds are offensive wounds and witnesses say they saw him on top of him.

Just keep calling me names when you get flustered. You show your true colors. When you get angry, call a guy names and stupid. It's so predictable.

 

[wabashwonders]

I NEVER SAID FOR SURE THAT MARTIN HIT HIM FIRST. We just know for a fact that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, how they got there we don't know, unless an eyewitness says that he/she saw Zimmerman throw the punch then the only fact we can go by is Martin on top of Zimmerman.

Hypothetical, lets say I am caring a gun, I hit you in the face, you retaliate and continually stomp at me and put me into a life / death situation, do I have the right to shoot you in self defense or am I screwed cause I threw the first punch. I don't know. Seems to me that if I could prove you were using unecessary force by showing all my wounds then I would be in the right. Like I said I don't know the legalities of that

Sorry, I misunderstood your answer then. First thing in your reply was definitely and I thought that was your answer to my first question of do you know for a fact Martin hit Zimmerman first. I just went back and reread it and understand what you meant now. And I totally agree with your hypothetical situation. I don't know if a self defense claim is valid if that person started the altercation. And for me, if I was a juror and not knowing exactly what happened, that would concern me as to what actually happened to start the altercation. Zimmerman is the only one who knows for sure now and even if he did start it it will be difficult to prove because I doubt he would admit it. I cetainly would not just assume Martin started just because an eye witness saw him on top of Zimmerman. There could have been a number of other things that could have happened other than Martin simply attacking Zimmerman before it got to that point is all I am saying.

 

[wabashwonders]

I've been consistent from the moment I started in this thread. From the moment GZ got out of his vehicle until the moment Martin struck him in the face, I don't know what happened. Everything before him getting out of the vehicle and after him being struck is clear to me. That's it.

Whatever dude

 

[BleedingPurple]

Sorry, I misunderstood your answer then. First thing in your reply was definitely and I thought that was your answer to my first question of do you know for a fact Martin hit Zimmerman first. I just went back and reread it and understand what you meant now. And I totally agree with your hypothetical situation. I don't know if a self defense claim is valid if that person started the altercation. And for me, if I was a juror and not knowing exactly what happened, that would concern me as to what actually happened to start the altercation. Zimmerman is the only one who knows for sure now and even if he did start it it will be difficult to prove because I doubt he would admit it. I cetainly would not just assume Martin started just because an eye witness saw him on top of Zimmerman. There could have been a number of other things that could have happened other than Martin simply attacking Zimmerman before it got to that point is all I am saying.

Yes he certainly could of, but nobody is coming forward with that yet that we know of. It's going to get interesting. Zimmerman may have to be in hiding for the rest of his life, IDK, I think the guy will get taken out eventually, not that I am hoping for that, but when you hear people like Tyson and Barkley promoting violence towards the guy, then I think someone will take care of him. I just don't understand what Z was thinking that night, he was looking for trouble, that's a lot of balls, dumb choice

 

[wabashwonders]

By the way, here is another story different from the one I posted yesterday that also tells about the bruised eye Martin had. Enfuego did not seem to think the one I posted yesterday was valid since he had never seen this evidence in any other story before. Again, I am not suggesting that this bruise could not have happened when they were on the ground, but it just as easily could have happened if Zimmerman hit Martin first. Again, I don't know, but if I was a juror I would wonder about this and how this bruise happened. Especially since most seem to think Martin simply punched Zimmerman, got on top of him and started beating the hell out of him.


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_1...in-tells-story-of-struggle-before-fatal-shot/