zimmerman history, media must have forgot this part

[Shockwave]

think so?   grownup following kid 2 blocks in the dark with a gun.  all while calling him an asshole.

Fortunatley for Zimmerman none of those things are illegal. And fortunate for him he called the cops. Cause to any normal person, him calling the cops is showing that he DOESNT have intent to kill someone (which they have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt). Only you, 240, would see his phone call to the police about a suspicious person somehow meaning he had intent to kill 

Usually when someone calls the cops on a suspicious person, they arent intending to murder said person.

Good luck getting a court to convict a man on "Well he had a gun (even though he has a CWP and was simply driving home) and he followed him! (even though he told the 911 dispatcher he gave up and was heading back to his truck) That means he had intent to kill!"

And your comments on TM's age are equally ludicrous. How the hell was he supposed to know how old a 6'3" black man is when he's wearing a hoodie in the dark? Oh, and the epic gem about him describing whats in TM's hands, and what he's wearing (at the dispatchers request, no less) to somehow mean he was setting it up so he could kill the kid legally.

Seriously 240, do you EVER stop and think before you post shit? Do you actually hear yourself? Because its fucking sad.

[240 is Back]

Fortunatley for Zimmerman none of those things are illegal. And fortunate for him he called the cops. Cause to any normal person, him calling the cops is showing that he DOESNT have intent to kill someone (which they have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt). Only you, 240, would see his phone call to the police about a suspicious person somehow meaning he had intent to kill 

I can play 911 calls of people who called the police and INFORMED THEM they were gonna go outside and start shooting.  We've all heard them.  Remember the old man with a shotgun who shot two burglars in the back, and walked?

I don't believe he went in saying I'm gonna kill this burglar.  But I do think he went in with that Rambo attitude of "if he makes a move, I'm dropping him, cause I'm the law in this park!" 

I dunno what else to say.  He pursued a kid, carrying a gun, calling him an asshole burglar.  The kid did nothing but walk home from the store.  The shoot was probably technically legal but he'll probably go to jail because, well,, he was fudgy about the truth and he caused the whole shitstorm by playing detective badass.  Sucks for everyone involved.  He does NOT deserve 20 years, but I think he'll get them. 

[Shockwave]

I can play 911 calls of people who called the police and INFORMED THEM they were gonna go outside and start shooting.  We've all heard them.  Remember the old man with a shotgun who shot two burglars in the back, and walked?

I don't believe he went in saying I'm gonna kill this burglar.  But I do think he went in with that Rambo attitude of "if he makes a move, I'm dropping him, cause I'm the law in this park!"  

I dunno what else to say.  He pursued a kid, carrying a gun, calling him an asshole burglar.  The kid did nothing but walk home from the store.  The shoot was probably technically legal but he'll probably go to jail because, well,, he was fudgy about the truth and he caused the whole shitstorm by playing detective badass.  Sucks for everyone involved.  He does NOT deserve 20 years, but I think he'll get them.  

You dont have anything else to say because your wrong.
You dont have anything else to say because your evidence is all speculation and has no evidence and would never hold up in a coutroom.

And fudgy about the truth? Everything that can be checked has been 100% the truth. Quit with your lies. Its bullshit. What "truth" was he fudgy about? Telling them he's just standing their looking around (in the rain), that he looks like hes on drugs? Or the truth about him describing him as having something in his hands and waistband? (Which was skittles and juice) Because in both cases, he told the fucking truth. He wasnt fudgy about shit. Where do you come up with this shit?

[240 is Back]

You dont have anything else to say because your wrong.
You dont have anything else to say because your evidence is all speculation and has no evidence and would never hold up in a coutroom.

i've said the shoot was legal.  So I'm with zimm on that.  I do think he's a complete dubmshit fckstick who should never be trusted with a butterknife again, because he is the epitome of what is wrong with permit holders. 

that being said, i think the jury will wrongly convict him based upon his actions which led to the circumstances where a no-witness, dark street confrontation was inevitable.  Then his weak ass half-lies "I think he's on drugs"... dude did everything he could to tell the jurors he will exaggerate shit to get attention.

[Shockwave]

i've said the shoot was legal.  So I'm with zimm on that.  I do think he's a complete dubmshit fckstick who should never be trusted with a butterknife again, because he is the epitome of what is wrong with permit holders. 

that being said, i think the jury will wrongly convict him based upon his actions which led to the circumstances where a no-witness, dark street confrontation was inevitable.  Then his weak ass half-lies "I think he's on drugs"... dude did everything he could to tell the jurors he will exaggerate shit to get attention.

I like how now youre saying he's going to be "wrongly" convicted. lulz
How is that a lie? Telling the dispatcher someone is just standing in the rain looking around, and saying he looks like he might be on drugs, is not a lie. Whats he supposed to do, stop the kid and drug test him? I mean wtf dude? He didnt exaggerate shit - the dispatcher asked him to describe him, and he did. Black male, hoodie, something in his hands and waistband (skittles and juice), and something on his shirt. Doesnt sound like a lie or an exaggeration to me, or anything with any sort of normal cognitive reasoning.

[240 is Back]

i've said for a month now that it was probably a legal shoot. 

If I was a juror, I'd listen to "I think he's on drugs or something" and my bullshit detector would go off.  That wouldn't happen for you?  You'll take that to mean he honestly believed that?  To me, it sounded like bullshit.  Then again, I was the one calling bullshit on cain after 1 woman, and there were getbiggers who still said "I really believe he hasn't done anything inappropriate in 43 years" even after all the 4 am test messages came out

So its' pointless to argue.  I believe zimmerman is a man with poor credibility who showed poor judgment - who created a fcking street fight which he lost, at which point he used the law "I feared for my life" and shot someone.  It sucks that people can initiate situations then bail themselves out with a gun.  It really does. 

but if you don't think he's a sneaky little truth-stretching snake, that's cool.  I do.

[Shockwave]

i've said for a month now that it was probably a legal shoot. 

If I was a juror, I'd listen to "I think he's on drugs or something" and my bullshit detector would go off.  That wouldn't happen for you?  You'll take that to mean he honestly believed that?  To me, it sounded like bullshit.  Then again, I was the one calling bullshit on cain after 1 woman, and there were getbiggers who still said "I really believe he hasn't done anything inappropriate in 43 years" even after all the 4 am test messages came out

So its' pointless to argue.  I believe zimmerman is a man with poor credibility who showed poor judgment - who created a fcking street fight which he lost, at which point he used the law "I feared for my life" and shot someone.  It sucks that people can initiate situations then bail themselves out with a gun.  It really does. 

but if you don't think he's a sneaky little truth-stretching snake, that's cool.  I do.

Everything isnt a conspicacy theory 240, some things happen just the way they happen you know. Someone calling the Police because he see's some dude standing and staring around in the rain may raise some flags in his head. You simply go after him assuming he was out to be bad - you cant take off you blinders and actually LOOK at what happened. You have the pre-concieved notion of who Zimmerman was and what he intended to do and you grasp on any possible angle to try and prove yourself right. You chose your side as soon as MSNBC told you so - and youve spent the last 2 weeks seizing upon any possible little thing to try and justify it.

You simply cant accept that MAYBE, just MAYBE things went down as he said they did, that this isnt some big lie in order for Zimmerman to cap some kid and get away with it -
That he actually thought the kid was possibly under the influence, that he may have been up to no good, and that he just wanted to keep an eye on him until the cops arrived, but gave up after the kid took off.

And your only evidence?

"Well I think he's lying cause he said some dude looked like he was on drugs and he followed him with a gun, that means he was lying to the cops to me!" No evidence, no proof of lies, no way to justify any of what you say. As a matter of fact, not only can you NOT prove he was lying about anything at all, but there are plenty of people that can prove he's telling the truth about MOST of what happened. Making your claim that much more absurd.

Nope, no evidence. Just "well my BS meter went of cause I think he was exaggerating to get the cops their faster (which I noticed you changed from lying in order to justify shooting him), and my BS meter going off is enough to convict this man of MURDER with no actual evidence that anything he said was a lie"

[240 is Back]

Bottom line - and if i'm wrong, please provide evidence....

There is no evidence either man actually started the fight - only zimmerman's word.

Withnesses saw him losing a fight, but NOBODY saw the initial attack, who attacked who.  CORRECT?

[240 is Back]

Witness testimony + the smashed head pic only show that zimmerman can't fight.  Period.   He was losing a fight to a 17 year old.

But who started the fight?  Did zimmerman grab trayvon and try to pin him down until the police arrived?  Did Trayvon swing on zimm first?  We have equal evidence of both scenarios - NONE.

[polychronopolous]

Everything isnt a conspicacy theory 240, some things happen just the way they happen you know. Someone calling the Police because he see's some dude standing and staring around in the rain may raise some flags in his head. You simply go after him assuming he was out to be bad - you cant take off you blinders and actually LOOK at what happened. You have the pre-concieved notion of who Zimmerman was and what he intended to do and you grasp on any possible angle to try and prove yourself right. You chose your side as soon as MSNBC told you so - and youve spent the last 2 weeks seizing upon any possible little thing to try and justify it.

You simply cant accept that MAYBE, just MAYBE things went down as he said they did, that this isnt some big lie in order for Zimmerman to cap some kid and get away with it -
That he actually thought the kid was possibly under the influence, that he may have been up to no good, and that he just wanted to keep an eye on him until the cops arrived, but gave up after the kid took off.

And your only evidence?

"Well I think he's lying cause he said some dude looked like he was on drugs and he followed him with a gun, that means he was lying to the cops to me!" No evidence, no proof of lies, no way to justify any of what you say. As a matter of fact, not only can you NOT prove he was lying about anything at all, but there are plenty of people that can prove he's telling the truth about MOST of what happened. Making your claim that much more absurd.

Nope, no evidence. Just "well my BS meter went of cause I think he was exaggerating to get the cops their faster (which I noticed you changed from lying in order to justify shooting him), and my BS meter going off is enough to convict this man of MURDER with no actual evidence that anything he said was a lie"

There is also a very high probability that Trayvon began acting noticeably strange when he noticed he was bring watched. That is a very normal reaction, especially for a young man of his age. Zimmerman could easily read that as him "possibly" being on drugs...as he stated in the conversation when he said "I think"

I just don't see the criticism of zimmermans statement as holding very much water. It's actually pretty irrelevant when you put what was transpiring in the proper context.

[Shockwave]

Bottom line - and if i'm wrong, please provide evidence....

There is no evidence either man actually started the fight - only zimmerman's word.

Withnesses saw him losing a fight, but NOBODY saw the initial attack, who attacked who.  CORRECT?

You werent arguing who started the fight you stupid fuck, you were arguing that he was lying cause your "BS meter" went off based on his observations in response to the dispatchers questions.
For fucks sake, he has eyewitness' and wounds backing up most of his story, what do you have to prove he was lying? Hmm? You keep asking me for evidence, but you have ZERO to support your claim he was fudging the truth.
Your whole argument is that he was lying about an OBSERVATION he made! An OBSERVATION! Youre saying his whole story is called into question because of an OBSERVATION HE MADE at the behest of the dispatcher!

Evidence. Show it. Cause even though no one can prove he started the fight, he sure as hell can prove a helluva lot more of his story than you can disprove it. And thats the whole fucking point.

The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that he's lying, just as its on the prosecution. Its not on him to prove he's telling the truth. You have NOTHING besides your BS'o'meter.
He has people to back up parts of his story. He has evidence to back up parts of his story. And you have NOTHING to prove ANY part of it wrong.

[polychronopolous]

Witness testimony + the smashed head pic only show that zimmerman can't fight.  Period.   He was losing a fight to a 17 year old.

But who started the fight?  Did zimmerman grab trayvon and try to pin him down until the police arrived?  Did Trayvon swing on zimm first?  We have equal evidence of both scenarios - NONE.

240, if you get blindsided like this very well could have it doesn't mean you can't fight. There is some little 130 pound guy who could walk up behind you and drop you like a sack of potatoes while you are rolling up your instrumental gear at a nightclub and you couldn't do shit about it. Doesn't mean you can't fight, just means you got assaulted.

[grab an umbrella]

Bottom line - and if i'm wrong, please provide evidence....

There is no evidence either man actually started the fight - only zimmerman's word.

Withnesses saw him losing a fight, but NOBODY saw the initial attack, who attacked who. 

Thing is dude, we don't have to provide evidence zimmerman is right, YOU have to provide evidence zimmerman was wrong.

[Shockwave]

240, if you get blindsided like this very well could have it doesn't mean you can't fight. There is some little 130 pound guy who could walk up behind you and drop you like a sack of potatoes while you are rolling up your instrumental gear at a nightclub and you couldn't do shit about it. Doesn't mean you can't fight, just means you got assaulted.

LOL, a 6'3" 200+ lb 17 year old. Lol. But no, in lala land, the aggressor is the guy on his back crying for help right after the fight begins.

[240 is Back]

put them together.  anytime there's a fight and you have zero witnesses, you have to look at the CIRCUMSTANCES and EVIDENCE.

No witness saw trayvon nor zimm start the fight.
The only physical and eyewitness evidence is "Zimm was losing the fight".

So you look at circumstances.  If X pursued Y, and I"m a juror, I'd say there's a greater chance X was the aggressor.
if X lived on other side of park, and Y lived here on this street, I'd wonder what the hell X is doing on this street and assign greater probability to X being aggressor.
if X was packing a 9mm and Y was unarmed, I'd guess X felt way more cocky and aggressive and confident of a win.

What was trayvon doing to 'act like' the aggressor, besides winning the fucking fight once they were on the ground?

he was walking home, unarmed, with the destination on that street.  If you think the signs point to zimm being an innocent bystander, I dunno what to tell you.  I think jurors will disagree.

again, please prove me wrong - NO EYEWITNESSES SAW WHO STARTED THE FIGHT.

[240 is Back]

240, if you get blindsided like this very well could have it doesn't mean you can't fight. There is some little 130 pound guy who could walk up behind you and drop you like a sack of potatoes while you are rolling up your instrumental gear at a nightclub and you couldn't do shit about it. Doesn't mean you can't fight, just means you got assaulted.

But if I was chasing the 130 pound dude for blocks... i'm carrying a gun... i'm calling him an asshole...

and i end up shooting him, i'm feelin like a damn fool for putting myself into that spot.

[grab an umbrella]

put them together.  anytime there's a fight and you have zero witnesses, you have to look at the CIRCUMSTANCES and EVIDENCE.

No witness saw trayvon nor zimm start the fight.
The only physical and eyewitness evidence is "Zimm was losing the fight".

So you look at circumstances.  If X pursued Y, and I"m a juror, I'd say there's a greater chance X was the aggressor.
if X lived on other side of park, and Y lived here on this street, I'd wonder what the hell X is doing on this street and assign greater probability to X being aggressor.
if X was packing a 9mm and Y was unarmed, I'd guess X felt way more cocky and aggressive and confident of a win.

What was trayvon doing to 'act like' the aggressor, besides winning the fucking fight once they were on the ground?

he was walking home, unarmed, with the destination on that street.  If you think the signs point to zimm being an innocent bystander, I dunno what to tell you.  I think jurors will disagree.

again, please prove me wrong - NO EYEWITNESSES SAW WHO STARTED THE FIGHT.

Again, the burden of proof is on people proving zimmerman wrong. You nor anyone else seems to be able to do that so case closed.

[240 is Back]

Thing is dude, we don't have to provide evidence zimmerman is right, YOU have to provide evidence zimmerman was wrong.

the 911 call did that

He called trayvon a fcking asshole, followed him 2 blocks with a gun.   yes, zimm was 2 blocks from his truck when the shooting happened.

TO me, that is evidence that zimm was indeed the aggressor in the fight.  Or, he's playing that little cocklust game of "i'm gonna follow you for 2 blocks in the dark with a gun then get in your face and say "where do you live".

Dude, zimm was running KEY CHECKS on people he met in the street.   fucking key checks - did you see that 911 transcript, 47 pages?  Dude was a cock, plaing and simple.  caused the whole mess and was certainly the aggressor.

[240 is Back]

Again, the burden of proof is on people proving zimmerman wrong. You nor anyone else seems to be able to do that so case closed.

if that's case closed, why did the republican prosecutor indict him?

and please dont say "to avoid riots", as that woudl be a CT and we know there weren't riots for the 5 or 6 weeks he wasn't arrested.

[garebear]

But if I was chasing the 130 pound dude for blocks... i'm carrying a gun... i'm calling him an asshole...

and i end up shooting him, i'm feelin like a damn fool for putting myself into that spot.

There's really no point in arguing with them. They're the super tough internet racists. Somehow, the narrative will always be brought around to where it's the black guy's fault.

If the races were reversed, they would be arguing the exact opposite, such as black guys shouldn't go around with a gun trying to act like a gangster, etc., etc.

[240 is Back]

imagine if trayvon shot zimmerman on zimm's street.

with no witnesses.

after calling zimm an asshole burglar on tape.

after following zimm for two blocks.

after trayvon felony assaulted a cop and had a domestic violence charge...

Yeah, I bet getbig would be saying "trayvon innocent, he said so, winning!"

[polychronopolous]

But if I was chasing the 130 pound dude for blocks... i'm carrying a gun... i'm calling him an asshole...

and i end up shooting him, i'm feelin like a damn fool for putting myself into that spot.

I'm sure at this point he does feel somewhat like a fool. His life as he knew it is over. I'll agree with this statement.

[Soul Crusher]

(CNN) -- The lawyer for the neighborhood watch leader who fatally shot unarmed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida, said Thursday that his client has received about $200,000 from supporters. Orlando lawyer Mark O'Mara told CNN's "AC360" that George Zimmerman told him Wednesday of the donations as they were trying to shut down his Internet presence to avoid concerns about possible impersonators.

"He asked me what to do with his PayPal accounts and I asked him what he was talking about," O'Mara told Anderson Cooper. "And he said those were the accounts that had the money from the website he had. And there was about 200, $204,000 that had come in to date."

(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...

[Shockwave]

put them together.  anytime there's a fight and you have zero witnesses, you have to look at the CIRCUMSTANCES and EVIDENCE.

No witness saw trayvon nor zimm start the fight.
The only physical and eyewitness evidence is "Zimm was losing the fight".

So you look at circumstances.  If X pursued Y, and I"m a juror, I'd say there's a greater chance X was the aggressor. - (Except X called the cops and was trying to keep tabs on him until they arrived, then told 911 HE GAVE UP and was headed back to his truck. Wheres your evidence that wasnt EXACTLY what he did?)

if X lived on other side of park, and Y lived here on this street, I'd wonder what the hell X is doing on this street and assign greater probability to X being aggressor. - (Dude was neighborhood watch, not like he was a stranger in the neighborhood you fucking idiot, why do you think he called TM in? Cause he was in some random neighborhood and saw a black dude so he needed to save a completely different neighborhood? Moron)

if X was packing a 9mm and Y was unarmed, I'd guess X felt way more cocky and aggressive and confident of a win. - (supposition, no way to prove HOW he was feeling, wheres your proof thats how he was feeling?)

What was trayvon doing to 'act like' the aggressor, besides winning the fucking fight once they were on the ground? - (Again, supposition, no way to prove Trayvon wasnt the aggressor, no way for you to prove that he wasnt attacked, no way to disprove that he was on the ground because Trayvon jumped him. Waiting for your evidence to show he WASNT attacked. Cause thats what the court is going to want.)

he was walking home, unarmed, with the destination on that street. (He was. And then, according to the guy that has to be proven wrong, he turned around and confronted Zimmerman and attacked him. Prove this wrong. Ill wait.)   If you think the signs point to zimm being an innocent bystander, I dunno what to tell you.  I think jurors will disagree.

again, please prove me wrong - NO EYEWITNESSES SAW WHO STARTED THE FIGHT. - (Its not on us to prove you wrong you fucking dunce, its on you to prove Zimmerman wrong. Why do you keep ignoring that and acting like your suppositions based on absolutley no evidence is somehow the defenses job to prove wrong. I could claim that because you talked about being aggressive with people in the past that you are always aggressive and always ready to attack people in your neighborhood, but it doesnt make it true, does it? Its the same as your claims, we both have the same amount of evidence. Youre argument is literally "This man clearly felt this way because of these 3 things I cherry picked out, and there is no other possibilities. It makes you sound like a fucking idiot.)

Except that X told 911 he had given up and was heading back to his truck, and X has parts of his story that CAN be proven true, and you have ZERO evidence to prove him false.
And since X's story has to be proven FALSE to be guilty, and you cant prove ANYTHING, let alone provide evidence of anything you claim (because its all supposition, you have nothing to back any of it up)

So, there we go. He has evidence supporting parts of his story, and you have ZERO evidence to disprove his story. Good job.

Or, heres another one, since you keep saying that he pursued him, provide me with evidence that he didnt turn around and head back to his truck, since thats what he told 911 he was doing. Ill wait. Oh, you cant? Good job.

Oh, heres the kicker, waiting for you to provide evidence that he WASNT attacked by Zimmerman. Like I said above, your obviously taking the side of the prosecution, so wheres the evidence he's lying? Wheres your evidence that he attacked Travyon? Oh, wait, you cant prove him wrong? Oh, really? Good job. Innocent until proven guilty, bitch.

Zimmerman can prove parts of his story. He can prove he was in a scuffle. He can PROVE his head was being smashed into the concrete. He can PROVE he had reasonable fear of his life to use deadly force. He can PROVE that Travyon was on top of him. He can PROVE most of his 911 call. He can PROVE where he parked his truck. He can PROVE his description of Trayvon was accurate.

Waiting for ANYTHING that you can disprove of his story. No more "Well I think he was thinking this and thats why he's lying". I want actual PROOF things didnt go down exactly as he said they did, cause thats what the judge and jury is going to want. The court cannot convict ANYONE because the prosecution "thinks" he's lying.

[240 is Back]

Waiting for ANYTHING that you can disprove of his story. No more "Well I think he was thinking this and thats why he's lying". I want actual PROOF things didnt go down exactly as he said they did.

this doesn't work.  why?  cause zimm could have said aliens did it.  or a dozen penguins came out of the sewer and shot trayon.  I can't prove things didn't go down exactly as he would claim - but i'd damn sure doubt his words.

Juries use a whole lot of supposition to convict the shit out of people.