I'm so sick of the Zimmerman/Martin story too, but this video is a must see

[Donkey4trading]

Might give you insight from a non sensationalized perspective.

Definitely made me take a step back and think. Recommend watching in its entirety (about 10 minutes)

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebu6Yvzs4Ls&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DEbu6Yvzs4Ls

[Dictator]

So Trayvon was trying to make lean? lol I guess ppl who buy sprite and jolly ranchers are also drug users also.

[ace23]

3 minutes in. None of this is new or eye-opening so far.

[HardwoodLegend]

Hearing Bill Whittle say "fire ass lean" killed me.

[ace23]

"Sexual aggression typical of hip-hop culture today"

:roll:

I don't know anyone who puts Skittles in his lean.

[MavsSuperFan]

anyone who followed the trial knows most of this.

Trayvon wasnt the perfect 12 year old defenseless angel the media portrayed him as.

He liked to fight and was a good fighter that bragged about his fighting skills.

Zim was an almost comically weak person in reality. He had taken mma classes since 2010 and was still getting beat by guys off the street. Zim wanted to be a cop but failed to pass the test multiple times, because of his softness.

I speculate that he wanted to compensate for this weakness by trying to help catch criminals. which was why he had called the cops 40+ times about various incidences and suspicions. He heard about the recent string of break ins, and went out that night to patrol the neighborhood.

He saw trayvon and for some reason (I think racial profiling) found Trayvon suspicious. Lets be clear on one point though, Zim was wrong about trayvon in this specific case. Trayvon was just going to his father's home.

Based on the physical evidence, Zim had black eyes, broken nose and cuts to the back of his head. Trayvon had a single gunshot wound and abrasion on the hand. There was no marks on trayvon's face or body indicating he got hit.

Based on that evidence I believe Zim accused trayvon of being a thief, this offended trayvon (because it was untrue) and they exchanged insults and possibly slurs. Trayvon got angry and being used to fighting punched Zim (maybe zim swung first, but there is no evidence he hit trayvon), Eventually Trayvon got on top of Zim and Zim shot him once to get him off. this is basically Zim's account except in his account he politely questioned trayvon. I feel the physical evidence supported zim's account, at least enough that it would have been unjust to convict.

[Myth]

Watched the whole thing, and the real agenda comes out in the last few seconds. :lol

[9erempiree]

"Sexual aggression typical of hip-hop culture today"

:roll:

I don't know anyone who puts Skittles in his lean.

The fact that you are around lean culture.:facepalm

[9erempiree]

It's because nobody does that. Fvcking retards dunno how to make lean....

the fact that you make that crap.:facepalm

[rezznor]

he makes some good points, but loses all credibility when he starts to raise his voice and then blame obama

[Myth]

The fact that you are around lean culture.:facepalm

I had never even heard of lean until this thread.

[rezznor]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LqiqWRrdHX4/TX9XHvYIooI/AAAAAAAABqM/a2FTabGMO5Y/s400/leaning-tower-of-pisa.jpg

lean culture?

[ace23]

I had never even heard of lean until this thread.
:biggums: :biggums: :biggums:

[Maniak]

had to sit through 4:30 of that to hear him say "fire ass lean"

pretty worth. done with the video now though.

[MavsSuperFan]

:biggums: :biggums: :biggums:

we are sheltered whities. I have never heard of lean either :lol

Is it an upper or a downer?

[ace23]

we are sheltered whities. I have never heard of lean either :lol

Is it an upper or a downer?
downer

[MastaKilla]

we are sheltered whities. I have never heard of lean either :lol

Is it an upper or a downer?

Really? Every white 15 year olds favorite rapper talks about it in every song?

Did you think lil Wayne just has a balancing problem?

[BrooklynZoo]

sizzurp

[MavsSuperFan]

Really? Every white 15 year olds favorite rapper talks about it in every song?

Did you think lil Wayne just has a balancing problem?
Dont watch much rap to be honest.

Except for the few songs that get very mainstream

Edit: also find wayne's voice irritating for some reason, I cant listen to his music.

[bluechox2]

love the how to video on making leam or lean

[L.Kizzle]

If had a bag of jolly ranchers and sprite, then I could get with him. But you don't add Arizona Tea and Skittles to lean ...

[HardwoodLegend]

If had a bag of jolly ranchers and sprite, then I could get with him. But you don't add Arizona Tea and Skittles to lean ...

It was Arizona Watermelon. Not sure if that changes anything since I have zero clue about lean varieties.

[Jackass18]

Was this a comedy video?

"Maybe the lean made him paranoid and aggressive."

LOL

[D-Rose]

I posted this video in the Trayvon thread. A guy posted this on my facebook and said everyone must watch because it's the truth,etc...I was like yes, the media did fool everyone in this case but it's SO ironic that you're getting pulled into Bill Whittle's agenda via the same methods.

[reppy]

So many of my friends would drink cough syrup with DXM to get high in highschool.

I knew online friends who would buy it in powder form direct from medical suppliers.

I don't see what the big deal is exactly.

[BrooklynZoo]

So many of my friends would drink cough syrup with DXM to get high in highschool.

I knew online friends who would buy it in powder form direct from medical suppliers.

I don't see what the big deal is exactly.

the point is martin wasn't the innocent 12 year old kid everyone wants us to believe he was

[ace23]

the point is martin wasn't the innocent 12 year old kid everyone wants us to believe he was
No one believed he was 12.

[BrooklynZoo]

No one believed he was 12.

then why use pictures of him when he was 12?

[Rasheed1]

The victims of crime are almost always treated the way Trayvon was.. The killer's picture is usually a mugshot, and the victim's picture is usually the best pic they can find... zimmerman is lucky they didnt use a pic of him hugging a dog, or holding a baby.. Kissing his mom..

The media doesnt usually try to demonize the victim..

It is very sad to see people do that in this case

[ace23]

then why use pictures of him when he was 12?
I don't know.

You think people who paid attention to the case and trial really believed he was 12?

[HardwoodLegend]

The victims of crime are almost always treated the way Trayvon was.. The killer's picture is usually a mugshot, and the victim's picture is usually the best pic they can find... zimmerman is lucky they didnt use a pic of him hugging a dog, or holding a baby.. Kissing his mom..

The media doesnt usually try to demonize the victim..

It is very sad to see people do that in this case

Both Zimmerman and Martin were victims that night.

[Rasheed1]

Both Zimmerman and Martin were victims that night.


Zimmerman was the victim of his own idiocy..

[intrinsic]

the point is martin wasn't the innocent 12 year old kid everyone wants us to believe he was


17 years old is still very young. No matter how passionately this guy delivers his used-car sales pitch about a hulking 6 foot tall MMA fighter with a thirst for blood, it doesn't change Tryavon being a kid from my perspective.

I don't care about his "innocence". Young men make stupid choices. If he was beating the shit out of people for fun as a 25 year old man, I'd probably have a different characterization of Martin.

[HardwoodLegend]

Zimmerman was the victim of his own idiocy..

True, and it is still unknown who made the first physical move to start the conflict. I think Zimmerman probably showed more aggression than most of his supporters believe. Trayvon probably had Floyd Mayweather Jr. type elusiveness against him.

[MavsSuperFan]

True, and it is still unknown who made the first physical move to start the conflict. I think Zimmerman probably showed more aggression than most of his supporters believe. Trayvon probably had Floyd Mayweather Jr. type elusiveness against him.

I don't support Zim, first I hate vigilantism, if you want to be a cop go be a cop. Zim tried and failed, guess what maybe that should give you hint its not for you. Second despite some evidence to the contrary i believe Zim racially profiled trayvon, and while I don't believe thought crimes should be prosecuted I have a lot of disdain for racists. Also there are different levels of racism, just because someone isn't a david duke lvl racist or a skinhead violent thug doesn't mean you cant harbour some preconceived notions about certain groups. Some people even have friends from that racial group that they think are the "good ones" they may even be extremely close friends.

Eg. My grandfather imo was a mild racist. But he had a black male friend that he went fishing with and hunting with and even included in his will. i guess he considered him a "good one". he was very judgemental about people with saggy pants and those that spoke in more stereotypically urban manner.

obama's grandmother according to him was sometimes scared when she was walking alone and saw a black man walking towards her. She was also the type of woman that raised a black child and loved him.

Zim was probably very verbally aggressive at least. I dont doubt that. his 911 call indicated he thought he was dealing with a criminal.

I just dont see how anyone can say that the physical evidence doesnt lead to the conclusion that zim got beat down and that trayvon wasnt hit once. Based on the physical evidence I think zim's claim that he shot trayvon to stop the beating is credible.

Also it was necessary for the defense to establish that trayvon had been accustomed to fighting and that fighting wasn't a huge deviation from his normal behaviour.

[gigantes]

Might give you insight from a non sensationalized perspective.

Definitely made me take a step back and think. Recommend watching in its entirety (about 10 minutes)

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebu6Yvzs4Ls&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DEbu6Yvzs4Ls
that guy had his head so far up his own ass, i

[reppy]

This isn't really related to the topic of this thread, but I see the word "skinhead" thrown around a lot when talking about racists.

A "skinhead" is a part of cultural movement that was popularized in Britain in the 60s. On its own it has nothing to do with politics. Many groups that call themselves skinheads started their own movements. There are far-right skinheads and far-left skinheads (SHARP, or SkinHeads Against Racial Prejudice as an example).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinhead#Racism.2C_anti-racism_and_politics

(Left-wing skinheads refer to the right-wing skinheads as "blockheads." I'm sure there's an equally charming name for left-wing skinheads that the right-wing skinheads invented.)

[Nick Young]

This isn't really related to the topic of this thread, but I see the word "skinhead" thrown around a lot when talking about racists.

A "skinhead" is a part of cultural movement that was popularized in Britain in the 60s. On its own it has nothing to do with politics. Many groups that call themselves skinheads started their own movements. There are far-right skinheads and far-left skinheads (SHARP, or SkinHeads Against Racial Prejudice as an example).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinhead#Racism.2C_anti-racism_and_politics

(Left-wing skinheads refer to the right-wing skinheads as "blockheads." I'm sure there's an equally charming name for left-wing skinheads that the right-wing skinheads invented.)
Yep, skinheads are all about anti-racism and kicking the shit out of nazis and all races partying together listening to the same musics

[bagelred]

17 years old is still very young. No matter how passionately this guy delivers his used-car sales pitch about a hulking 6 foot tall MMA fighter with a thirst for blood, it doesn't change Tryavon being a kid from my perspective.

I don't care about his "innocence". Young men make stupid choices. If he was beating the shit out of people for fun as a 25 year old man, I'd probably have a different characterization of Martin.

I suppose any of that makes a difference as Zimmerman is getting his face bashed in.

[kNicKz]

The victims of crime are almost always treated the way Trayvon was.. The killer's picture is usually a mugshot, and the victim's picture is usually the best pic they can find... zimmerman is lucky they didnt use a pic of him hugging a dog, or holding a baby.. Kissing his mom..

The media doesnt usually try to demonize the victim..

It is very sad to see people do that in this case

What media outlet has demonized Trayvon? They all use a picture of him at like 5 years old lol...

[gigantes]

I suppose any of that makes a difference as Zimmerman is getting his face bashed in.
you mean like, disregarding the reality that zimmerman stalked the teen all the way from the east side of the compound to the west and then verbally escalated things when they happened to meet?

sure, bagelred... you can choose to begin reality from right after the moments martin snapped and went after the dude. in that case you

[nathanjizzle]

Zimmerman is guilty for shooting a kid in a situation that he instigated but couldnt handle.

[kNicKz]

Zimmerman is guilty for shooting a kid in a situation that he instigated but couldnt handle.

I wish I could beat the **** out of someone who instigated me and then have them be blamed for it :roll: I would certainly have beat down some people in my day....

[nathanjizzle]

I wish I could beat the **** out of someone who instigated me and then have them be blamed for it :roll: I would certainly have beat down some people in my day....

thats cool, but the right to shoot a kid to death even though you instigated the problem?

[kNicKz]

thats cool, but the right to shoot a kid to death even though you instigated the problem?

George Zimmerman is a coward , but c'mon man....that kid was clearly a punk ass. He didn't deserve to die but it takes 2 to tangle. Trayvon has to be held somewhat accountable for his actions. 2 wrongs collided in this tragedy , there was no right

[nathanjizzle]

George Zimmerman is a coward , but c'mon man....that kid was clearly a punk ass. He didn't deserve to die but it takes 2 to tangle. Trayvon has to be held somewhat accountable for his actions. 2 wrongs collided in this tragedy , there was no right

okay, if trayvon is somewhat accountable for his actions, then why isnt zimmerman somewhat accountable for his actions?

[kNicKz]

okay, if trayvon is somewhat accountable for his actions, then why isnt zimmerman somewhat accountable for his actions?

Being put on trial for murder isn't considered being held accountable for his actions? If that isn't then what is?

[nathanjizzle]

Being put on trial for murder isn't considered being held accountable for his actions? If that isn't then what is?

i dont disagree with the verdict. he is innocent by the justice system, and so are many murderers ( oj simpson). but by your own belief as a person that lives in a civilized society, you really think Zimmerman isnt wrong for killing trayvon?

[kNicKz]

i dont disagree with the verdict. he is innocent by the justice system, and so are many murderers ( oj simpson). but by your own belief as a person that lives in a civilized society, you really think Zimmerman isnt wrong for killing trayvon?

I think he's wrong for profiling Martin and following him, not defending himself. What if Zimmerman died from getting his slammed onto the road? Would you be in the belief that he deserved to die for simply talking shit to a kid?

[Rasheed1]

What media outlet has demonized Trayvon? They all use a picture of him at like 5 years old lol...



It is very sad to see people do that in this case

...

[ace23]

I think he's wrong for profiling Martin and following him, not defending himself. What if Zimmerman died from getting his slammed onto the road? Would you be in the belief that he deserved to die for simply talking shit to a kid?
We don't know what happened. Zimmerman may have swung first or approached Trayvon with violent intentions.

[MavsSuperFan]

Yep, skinheads are all about anti-racism and kicking the shit out of nazis and all races partying together listening to the same musics

I have heard of the skinheads against racial prejudice. (SHARP). i believe chuck liddell is one of them. There are most definitely racist skinheads though.

[gigantes]

he even looks sharp, too..... just can't take a punch anymore.

[reppy]

I have heard of the skinheads against racial prejudice. (SHARP). i believe chuck liddell is one of them. There are most definitely racist skinheads though.

My point, which may not have been understood, or he was being sarcastic, or he was agreeing with me, I don't know, is that the word "skinhead" doesn't = racism. It never did. People just think it does because people only ever use it in this context.

And yes, there are certainly racist skinheads. There are racist punks, too. But saying skinhead = racist is like saying punk = racist.

But that's just me.

[intrinsic]

I suppose any of that makes a difference as Zimmerman is getting his face bashed in.

Hi. I'm on-topic in this thread. And, where are you from?

[Pointguard]

Zimmerman wasn't getting his head bashed against concrete... another one of the fantastic lies he was allowed to get away with. If you accidentally hit your against wood you will get a bump. I saw a person not see glass at a counter get a spontaneous bump from it. If I throw a good size rock at your head, you will get a bump. The harder the item the bigger bump. Its nature.

[Pointguard]

George Zimmerman is a coward , but c'mon man....that kid was clearly a punk ass. He didn't deserve to die but it takes 2 to tangle. Trayvon has to be held somewhat accountable for his actions. 2 wrongs collided in this tragedy , there was no right

People here think you are a punk azz. Do you think you deserve to die over it? Trayvon was walking in the rain being a kid, minding his own business. Trayvon ran away. Trayvon hid. He did more than most teenagers would to avoid the situation.

[L.Kizzle]

I think he's wrong for profiling Martin and following him, not defending himself. What if Zimmerman died from getting his slammed onto the road? Would you be in the belief that he deserved to die for simply talking shit to a kid?
:biggums:

What was he defending himself from? The situation he created right ... Don't create a problem, them when the goin gets tough pull out your all might gun and get to killing someone.

[MJ23forever]

It was Arizona Watermelon. Not sure if that changes anything since I have zero clue about lean varieties.

watermelon sizzurp.

[Pointguard]

I just dont see how anyone can say that the physical evidence doesnt lead to the conclusion that zim got beat down and that trayvon wasnt hit once. Based on the physical evidence I think zim's claim that he shot trayvon to stop the beating is credible.

Also it was necessary for the defense to establish that trayvon had been accustomed to fighting and that fighting wasn't a huge deviation from his normal behaviour.
For a full minute fight Zim's cuts and such were amazingly minimal - evidence of only two strikes in the fight. Smaller people will almost always strike more in a fight. The screams definitely indicate that someone was in command of the fight for at least 40 seconds. If there is not much evidence of damage done its usually evidence that the bigger guy used his weight to control the situation. Zim's ability to get the gun is also a manifestation of control.

As far as Trayvon's fighting past being brought into the case then it should have been fair to bring in Zimmerman's past discretions against the law, in the work place, domestically, and his reflective views of such matter on the internet.

[bmulls]

For a full minute fight Zim's cuts and such were amazingly minimal - evidence of only two strikes in the fight. Smaller people will almost always strike more in a fight. The screams definitely indicate that someone was in command of the fight for at least 40 seconds. If there is not much evidence of damage done its usually evidence that the bigger guy used his weight to control the situation. Zim's ability to get the gun is also a manifestation of control.

As far as Trayvon's fighting past being brought into the case then it should have been fair to bring in Zimmerman's past discretions against the law, in the work place, domestically, and his reflective views of such matter on the internet.

I haven't posted about this case in over a week because I'm sick of it, but dude you are just so fcking ridiculously delusional.

ALL of your posts are total speculation. "A smaller person will always strike more in a fight". This is not evidence dumbass. This is pure speculation. Unless you can prove some shit happened, you have no reason to believe it happened.

If you looked at the ACTUAL EVIDENCE in this case there is no other conclusion to be drawn than Zimmerman is totally innocent. Everybody who has actually paid attention knows this.

Instead you decided what you wanted to happen before you even saw the evidence. Now you're performing all sorts of mental gymnastics and wild speculation to make your version of events work. It's called cognitive dissonance, look it up.

Obviously nothing anybody can say is going to get through your incredibly thick skull so keep on living like a fcking retard.

[Pointguard]

I haven't posted about this case in over a week because I'm sick of it, but dude you are just so fcking ridiculously delusional.

ALL of your posts are total speculation. "A smaller person will always strike more in a fight". This is not evidence dumbass. This is pure speculation. Unless you can prove some shit happened, you have no reason to believe it happened.
You just aren't a bright guy. What evidence do you have that TM did anything except from a humongous liar? Prove to me that TM started the fight. You only have speculation, right?



If you looked at the ACTUAL EVIDENCE in this case there is no other conclusion to be drawn than Zimmerman is totally innocent. Everybody who has actually paid attention knows this.
He just couldn't be proven guilty.There is no ACTUAL EVIDENCE that says Zimmerman is totally innocent. What evidence do you have that he is totally innocent? Are you still this dumb at this stage in the game? You don't know this? The juror said she believes he committed murder but the law has a loop hole. BIG DIFFERENCE between having actual EVIDENCE that says you're innocent than from speculating that they can't prove it wasn't in self defense. Your mind is so full of disease that you can't distinguish very basic concepts. You are full of delusional babble and incomprehensible concepts.


Instead you decided what you wanted to happen before you even saw the evidence. Now you're performing all sorts of mental gymnastics and wild speculation to make your version of events work. It's called cognitive dissonance, look it up.

cognitive dissonance
anxiety that results from simultaneously holding contradictory or otherwise incompatible attitudes, beliefs, or the like, as when one likes a person but disapproves strongly of one of his or her habits.
And you say this:
"If you looked at the ACTUAL EVIDENCE in this case there is no other conclusion to be drawn than Zimmerman is totally innocent. Everybody who has actually paid attention knows this."

Please show me the actual evidence? There was some video tape? No other conclusion that could be drawn??? The jury was split, much less everybody else. No other conclusion??? Really? Totally innocent? With possibly two more pending cases? You really believe that everybody thinks like you do? That's one sentence by you and its totally crazy, incoherent babble with no point. You're likely drunk which is a step up from your mentally clearer days.


Obviously nothing anybody can say is going to get through your incredibly thick skull so keep on living like a fcking retard.
:lol You are dumb and dumber in your same post. And you manifest every name you try to call others.

Do you want to try again?

[kNicKz]

People here think you are a punk azz. Do you think you deserve to die over it? Trayvon was walking in the rain being a kid, minding his own business. Trayvon ran away. Trayvon hid. He did more than most teenagers would to avoid the situation.

Trayvon ran away and hid?

:biggums:

He clearly beat the shit out of George Zimmerman.

The fact is that both of these guys were clearly in the wrong. The belief that Trayvon was some innocent angel who had no part in engaging the altercation is almost as delusional as saying George Zimmerman was just serving his community. Facts are facts. The jury saw every piece of evidence and made their decision

[kNicKz]

He just couldn't be proven guilty.There is no ACTUAL EVIDENCE that says Zimmerman is totally innocent. What evidence do you have that he is totally innocent?

Are you aware that the trial took place in the United States of America?

[ace23]

Are you aware that the trial took place in the United States of America?
Are you aware that not guilty =/= "totally innocent"?

[bmulls]

blah blah blah essay blah blah blah

:rolleyes:

I'm not gonna get into it with you, case is over and I was already proven right.

Bottom line is there is no evidence which would lead someone to believe what you believe, yet you believe it anyway (because you are a racist).

[Jackass18]

True, and it is still unknown who made the first physical move to start the conflict.

That doesn't always matter, though. There's a number of cases where the person who was the initial aggressor walked free. Look up the Greyston Garcia case for an example. Sometimes, it appears that self defense only applies to the person who lives. Shouldn't Trayvon have had the right to defend himself from the creepy guy following him around in the dark? Apparently not.

[Pointguard]

Trayvon ran away and hid?

:biggums:
He clearly beat the shit out of George Zimmerman.

The fact is that both of these guys were clearly in the wrong. The belief that Trayvon was some innocent angel who had no part in engaging the altercation is almost as delusional as saying George Zimmerman was just serving his community. Facts are facts. The jury saw every piece of evidence and made their decision

Two blows or one blow on Zimmerman is not beat the hell out of him? Where do you get clearly from. Zimmerman got out of breath jogging behind TM. But he had energy after that fight! To go around mounting the guy he killed. He had energy after a minute street fight which is pretty amazing. I highly doubt you could do that.

Why would TM have to be an innocent angel. If you have a son he won't be an innocent angel either. And he too, can be at the hands of an idiot like Zimmerman.

Do you really think the jury saw every piece of evidence?

A jury didn't convict the killer of Emmitt Til. Yet he said in a interview with Life Magazine he did indeed kill Emmit Til. Was convicted some 60 years later. So you are saying that Emmitt Til's killer was innocent for 60 years. But then was guilty? Or was it that the laws loop holes made him seem innocent. Or maybe there is a difference in legal innocence and innocent?


Are you aware that the trial took place in the United States of America?

Innocent until proven guilty in law. Read the Emmitt Till statement above.

[Jackass18]

Based on the physical evidence I think zim's claim that he shot trayvon to stop the beating is credible.

There's way too many holes in his story. He even said that Trayvon could no longer bang his head on the concrete, yet they still used the concrete as a big part of their defense. The physical evidence just showed that there was an altercation, but it doesn't point to his life being in danger (not that it exactly has to). Just need a credible 'threat'. According to the law, all you have to do is claim your life was in danger and there's little they can do even if your story makes little sense or no sense at all. The defense gets the benefit of the doubt, so you walk free as long as there isn't too much evidence against you.

[Pointguard]

:rolleyes:

I'm not gonna get into it with you, case is over and I was already proven right.

Bottom line is there is no evidence which would lead someone to believe what you believe, yet you believe it anyway (because you are a racist).

There is a dead body, an idiot that lied like crazy that created the horrible situation with three horrendous mistakes. That's why 100 cities had protest. This never happened before over a murder case.

Unless you go around defending other child molesters, women abusers and social outcast, being a racist fits right in with your other low character points. I'm part Native American and that seems to be Zimmerman's more dominant blood line. Native Americans and Blacks have a long history that has some very favorable sides to it.

[MavsSuperFan]

Two blows or one blow on Zimmerman is not beat the hell out of him? Where do you get clearly from. Zimmerman got out of breath jogging behind TM. But he had energy after that fight! To go around mounting the guy he killed. He had energy after a minute street fight which is pretty amazing. I highly doubt you could do that.

Why would TM have to be an innocent angel. If you have a son he won't be an innocent angel either. And he too, can be at the hands of an idiot like Zimmerman.

Do you really think the jury saw every piece of evidence?

A jury didn't convict the killer of Emmitt Til. Yet he said in a interview with Life Magazine he did indeed kill Emmit Til. Was convicted some 60 years later. So you are saying that Emmitt Til's killer was innocent for 60 years. But then was guilty? Or was it that the laws loop holes made him seem innocent. Or maybe there is a difference in legal innocence and innocent?



Innocent until proven guilty in law. Read the Emmitt Till statement above.

Where do you get that Zim mounted Trayvon? Even the prosecution conceded that trayvon was on top. Also I am not saying that Zim injuries were anywhere close to life threatening but he had a broken nose, black eyes and cuts to the back of his head. You have claimed that Zim was in control of the fight because of his size advantage, but how do you explain that he didnt manage to punch Trayvon once if he had the advantage?

Also he stated that he believed if his head was slammed into the ground again he might lose consciousness. Trayvon had no marks indicating he got hit by even one punch.

Honestly theres a chance that Zim didn't even throw a single punch.

Also Til's case was during a different era. Its not at all the same.

[MavsSuperFan]

There's way too many holes in his story. He even said that Trayvon could no longer bang his head on the concrete, yet they still used the concrete as a big part of their defense. The physical evidence just showed that there was an altercation, but it doesn't point to his life being in danger (not that it exactly has to). Just need a credible 'threat'. According to the law, all you have to do is claim your life was in danger and there's little they can do even if your story makes little sense or no sense at all. The defense gets the benefit of the doubt, so you walk free as long as there isn't too much evidence against you.

2 points:

1. There isnt evidence that zim threw even one punch. There is the realistic chance that zim accused trayvon of being a thief (which was untrue) Trayvon in anger knocked Zim down and proceeded to mount him and continue the attack until Zim shot trayvon. The medical autopsy of trayvon's body produced no marks on the face or torso indicating he got hit. There was of course the single gunshot wound.

2. (not referring to this case in particular) Its unfair to people being assaulted to expect them to gage how much damage is being done to them before they are allowed to use self defense in court. If you are going to do that you might as well remove self defense as an option for a defense against murder charges.

[MavsSuperFan]

There is a dead body, an idiot that lied like crazy that created the horrible situation with three horrendous mistakes. That's why 100 cities had protest.

Zim's actions leading up the confrontation were terrible.

IMO he racially profiled trayvon, accused him of being a burglar, ignored a dispatcher, followed an innocent teenager.

None of that is technically illegal.

None of that in a court of law is enough of a reason to assault someone.

[gigantes]

Zim's actions leading up the confrontation were terrible.

IMO he racially profiled trayvon, accused him of being a burglar, ignored a dispatcher, followed an innocent teenager.

None of that is technically illegal.

None of that in a court of law is enough of a reason to assault someone.
you forgot the stalking aspect. dude stalked the teen all the way from one side of the community to the other in the span of what, 5min+? all the while knowing that the teen knew he was being followed.

observing that FL law is ridiculous as it applies to this case makes sense, even if it got zims off.

saying that trayvon had no justifiable cause to turn on his stalker is pretty far out from what i can tell. pretty far out, indeed.

[Jackass18]

1. There isnt evidence that zim threw even one punch.

What's your point? Zim could have grabbed him or at least attempted to. He could have punched him but no marks showed up. He could have shoved him. He could have taken out his gun and threatened him with it. A punch doesn't have to be thrown for you to fear bodily harm. If a person chases after you in the dark, then wouldn't you feel that person was a threat? Also, what if that person reached into his pockets as he's approaching you? People get shot by cops for reaching into their pockets. We don't know.


There is the realistic chance that zim accused trayvon of being a thief (which was untrue) Trayvon in anger knocked Zim down and proceeded to mount him and continue the attack until Zim shot trayvon.

That's just speculation, and I'd think Zim would have said that if that happened.


The medical autopsy of trayvon's body produced no marks on the face or torso indicating he got hit. There was of course the single gunshot wound.

You can also get hit without any marks showing up. Where are you going with this?


2. (not referring to this case in particular) Its unfair to people being assaulted to expect them to gage how much damage is being done to them before they are allowed to use self defense in court. If you are going to do that you might as well remove self defense as an option for a defense against murder charges.

The alternative is basically giving a license to shoot anyone at any time. The law talks about 'the reasonable person'. I don't think Zim was acting as 'the reasonable person' in that situation. If you put the hypothetical reasonable person into his position, then it's not something that is easy to determine especially with very little to go on. Going by Zim's words, there's 3 things to consider:
1. His head being banged on the concrete - Well, Zim said that TM could no longer bang his head on the concrete, so that threat was gone.
2. Him getting smothered - Well, TM didn't have Zim's blood on his hands, which he would have if he was smothering Zim like he said. Plus, he said TM removed his hands to go after his gun, which brings us to:
3. TM going for the gun while proclaiming, "You're going to die tonight, mother****er!" - It seems like an awfully convenient excuse given by Zim, but there's nothing to really refute it. In self defense cases, basically all you have to do is state that you were in fear of death or great bodily harm and you'll walk free as long as there's not enough evidence to state otherwise.

The line between negligence and justifiable seems to be awfully thin. I feel his negligence led to TM's death, but it seems like his actions that led up to the altercation didn't really matter at all, so basically it just boiled down to the final moments. Did he act reasonably in those final moments? I have a lot of questions about that, but I also don't like how his negligence leading up to the altercation didn't seem to factor in at all.

[MavsSuperFan]

What's your point? Zim could have grabbed him or at least attempted to. He could have punched him but no marks showed up. He could have shoved him. He could have taken out his gun and threatened him with it. A punch doesn't have to be thrown for you to fear bodily harm. If a person chases after you in the dark, then wouldn't you feel that person was a threat? Also, what if that person reached into his pockets as he's approaching you? People get shot by cops for reaching into their pockets. We don't know.


Overall my point is that not guilty was the correct verdict.

Could Zim have grabbed trayvon? It is very possible, my point is its impossible to prove in a court of law that he did.

Could Zim have punched trayvon and no marks shown up at all? Less likely, but possible. Zim could have swung and missed or not hit very hard. Once again my point was it is impossible to prove in a court of law that he threw a punch.

Could Zim have pulled out his gun at trayvon before he took the beating from trayvon? No, This isnt the movies, If someone is aiming a gun at you you cant close the distance before his finger moves. Further lets say trayvon has super human speed and managed to (while zim had a gun pointed at him), break zim's nose, give him 2 black eyes and cut up the back of his head, well than why didnt he knock the gun out of zim's Hand?

To me it is clear the gun was pulled out after zim sustained his injuries. Either that or zim hurt himself.

I would definitely feel concerned if someone was following me. But my point was in a court of law that isnt enough reason to physically attack someone. Also cops have far more leeway than the average citizen.


That's just speculation, and I'd think Zim would have said that if that happened.


Zim's defense's account at trial was basically that trayvon turned a verbal argument into a physical fight (they argued Trayvon made it physical). and that he shot trayvon to stop his head from hitting the ground, because he felt he might lose consciousness soon. Maybe thats different from what zim said earlier, but that was O'Mara's case at court.


You can also get hit without any marks showing up. Where are you going with this?

In a court of law you have to prove the accused did something. I am not saying zim is a great person, my whole point was not guilty was the correct verdict.


The alternative is basically giving a license to shoot anyone at any time. The law talks about 'the reasonable person'.

I dont think shooting someone on top of you punching you and trying to force your head into the ground is the the same as shooting anyone at anytime.

During the trial O'Mara's whole case focused on his assertion that if Zim didnt shoot trayvon he felt the next slam might have caused him to lose consciousness.

take these 2 hypothetical examples.

1. say you are leaving the gym and you cant find your wallet. You assume a guy took your wallet. You are totally wrong and he is completely innocent of this. You go and confront him and you accuse him of being a thief. he tells you to **** off and he is late for work. You demand he waits for security because you believe he has your wallet. you fight verbally and you offend him heavily. eventually he gets tired of you and punches you. The fight goes poorly for you and you wind up on the ground. he kicks you once in the head. and he moves into a position you believe where he will begin stomping on your head. You pull out your gun and shoot him.

Is whether you are a murderer or not dependant on how much damage the head kick did? If he did a lot of damage is it self defense? if it is a glancing blow is it murder?

2. Say in that same fight you get put in a blood choke hold. You have react before you black out. If you pull out your gun and shoot him, the blood choke wont do much damage. If you dont you might pass out and say he holds the choke too long and your brain is deprived of blood for too long. All of a sudden you are a vegetable. these two examples are why its unreasonable to to make people gage how much damage is being done before they can claim self defense in court. It basically removes self defense as an argument by the defense in murder trials.


I also don't like how his negligence leading up to the altercation didn't seem to factor in at all.
I think Zim's actions were horrible leading up to it. But all of that becomes trivial if someone is on top of another person slamming their head into the ground. Nothing said verbally can justify that.

Edit: we know for a fact Zim took injuries. Either you accept that he took a beating or you believe he inflicted it on himself after shooting trayvon.

[iamgine]

I think we sometimes miss the fact that Zimmerman could genuinely and reasonably feel that his life was in danger without his life being in danger at all. For example, if I was being attacked and I see the other person holding a shiny object, I could believe that he's holding a knife and was gonna kill me. Should I wait around and make sure it was a knife? That would be quite too late.

[gigantes]

I would definitely feel concerned if someone was following me. But my point was in a court of law that isnt enough reason to physically attack someone.
what about in the court of your own mind?

do you honestly believe trayvon martin had no just cause to turn on zimmerman after that series of events?




I think we sometimes miss the fact that Zimmerman could genuinely and reasonably feel that his life was in danger without his life being in danger at all. For example, if I was being attacked and I see the other person holding a shiny object, I could believe that he's holding a knife and was gonna kill me. Should I wait around and make sure it was a knife? That would be quite too late.
that's a very good point IMO, and the kind of hypotheticals we should be entertaining for both parties and for the situation as a whole.

to me, any one person's rock-solid idea of what happened can likely be tossed, right along with the idea that 'we simply don't have enough evidence to say anything for sure'.

no... there is a rational middle ground built of reasoned analysis and logical scenerio construction that didn't seem to come in to play anywhere along the line. the law had very limited interest in that, and i never saw much of anything in the media, either. it would have made for some very thought-provoking editorials at the very least.

[HardwoodLegend]

Referring to the vid in the OP, where does the "highly sexualized" bit come into play? Why was that even brought up?

[Pointguard]

Where do you get that Zim mounted Trayvon? Even the prosecution conceded that trayvon was on top.

Zimmerman said he did it himself I posted the video before... After he shot TM in the heart he said he needed help apprehending him and mounting him and inverted both his wrist in perfect Akido style.

Zimmerman has lied several times in favor of self defense laws. He knew he was on top of TM but he wanted to give eye witnesses a reason as to why he he was on top. He also felt he was being watched in the beginning of the confrontation and admits to going into his two pockets immediately upon seeing TM - this totally put TM in the SYG right to strike Zimmerman - Legally.

Zim lied to meet a story of self defense about a half of dozen times in his story.



Also I am not saying that Zim injuries were anywhere close to life threatening but he had a broken nose, black eyes and cuts to the back of his head. You have claimed that Zim was in control of the fight because of his size advantage, but how do you explain that he didnt manage to punch Trayvon once if he had the advantage?

Also he stated that he believed if his head was slammed into the ground again he might lose consciousness. Trayvon had no marks indicating he got hit by even one punch.

Honestly theres a chance that Zim didn't even throw a single punch.

So what? If I'm bigger than you and got a gun it would foolish to get into a striking match. You would go for control, wrestling, and use your weight. For a minute fight Zim had things under control. The marks show very little, for a minute fight. The evidence only accounts for two connected punches. The human head gets bumps when it gets hit on the head - its the way the skull protects itself - but not Zim's head. Nobody talks about him even breathing hard, when his life was in danger, supposedly screaming for a minute - yet he was breathing hard after jogging 10 or 12 steps minutes before.


Also Til's case was during a different era. Its not at all the same.

You missed my whole point if you looking at the era. When the killer of Emmitt Till was exonerated of the crime, lay men were saying he was innocent. Simple question to you - was he innocent? Or totally innocent as the word was coined here.

Now to the era specific.. more people marched for Trayvon than Emmitt so is the era all that different? Were they not marching for the exact same thing? Or do you know this? If they are marching for the same thing then isn't it the same legal era?

[MavsSuperFan]

You missed my whole point if you looking at the era. When the killer of Emmitt Till was exonerated of the crime, lay men were saying he was innocent. Simple question to you - was he innocent? Or totally innocent as the word was coined here.

Now to the era specific.. more people marched for Trayvon than Emmitt so is the era all that different? Were they not marching for the exact same thing? Or do you know this? If they are marching for the same thing then isn't it the same legal era?

My point was the evidence in that case was clear and they just refused to prosecute a white man for killing a black teen because people felt the black teen whistled at a white woman and people in that era were very racist. Til talked to carolyn bryant on a dare from his friends (he is accused of whistling) who was working at her restaurant, she got alarmed went to get her pistol from her car. Til and his friends left the store. Later Roy bryant (her husband) tortured and murdered til. During the trial carolyn accused Til of groping her and saying "unprintable language" (these are accusations though and I believe Til's friends have maintained that Til just tried to talk to her).

there is far more evidence in support of zim's self defense claim then there is your speculation that zim controlled trayvon the whole fight and allowed his nose to be broken and the black eyes and the cuts to the back of his head.

Also black people in that era didnt march as much for emmitt because back then white mobs might have taken shotguns out and did a bunch of stuff and the cops wouldn't have stopped them, if the blacks fought back you bet the cops would have stepped in. It wasnt because trayvon's case was more outrageous.

The til case was a huge miscarriage of justice. Everyone deep down knew the black teen was murdered, it was just at that time many white people felt he deserved it. That was why his killer went free for so long. it wasnt because they couldnt prove roy bryant killed and tortured emmett til.

[Pointguard]

My point was the evidence in that case was clear and they just refused to prosecute a white man for killing a black teen because people felt the black teen whistled at a white woman and people in that era were very racist. Til talked to carolyn bryant on a dare from his friends (he is accused of whistling) who was working at her restaurant, she got alarmed went to get her pistol from her car. Til and his friends left the store. Later Roy bryant (her husband) tortured and murdered til. During the trial carolyn accused Til of groping her and saying "unprintable language" (these are accusations though and I believe Til's friends have maintained that Til just tried to talk to her).

The question was plain. Do you believe his killer was innocent? I never heard he did anything or said anything very aggressive. Nonetheless, it is common practice of hardcore racist to justify their actions back then as it is now. Which is why the demonizing of TM is something that has to be watched. With the internet people hide behind their computers and say the exact same thing now that they say back then. While telling you this story you are quick to justify the white attitude problem as to give it legitmacy. You slyly tried to lay the responsibility on Till (groping and crazy language which is the exact same motus operandi the klan used back then). Its the same strategy you use on Trayvon. You are just clever in your disguise.


there is far more evidence in support of zim's self defense claim then there is your speculation that zim controlled trayvon the whole fight and allowed his nose to be broken and the black eyes and the cuts to the back of his head.
Two black eyes really? Nose was not broken either. Zim was definitely able to handle TM enough to get his gun with minimal consequences. There is evidence of two punches and that can take one second. That's all the evidence there is here. So who controlled the other 50 seconds? Zimmerman definitely had more than one second of control to get the gun. A real fight is not like the video games where they measure cuts and such.



Also black people in that era didnt march as much for emmitt because back then white mobs might have taken shotguns out and did a bunch of stuff and the cops wouldn't have stopped them, if the blacks fought back you bet the cops would have stepped in. It wasnt because trayvon's case was more outrageous.

The til case was a huge miscarriage of justice. Everyone deep down knew the black teen was murdered, it was just at that time many white people felt he deserved it. That was why his killer went free for so long. it wasnt because they couldnt prove roy bryant killed and tortured emmett til.

Are you not reading these boards. What has changed??? Even you yourself have this tone. Is this some out of body experience for you? A kid that ran and hid, from a stalking crazed maniac is treated like he wasn't supposed to protect himself? The laws aren't working? You can't even say Emmitt Till's killer wasn't innocent. Its that deep inside of you. Its not a different era. You saw Trayvon a certain way, as an attacker. Do attacker's run and hide? If your son ran and hid from someone who killed him would you really take this stand?

Show me once in this exchange that you looked at the real killer and didn't exonerate him in some way? You feel compelled to protect them. You portrayed Emmit's killer as a provoked man and you do the exact same thing with GZ. You are trying to say its a different era when the same laws fail to work and people still think the same way.

Look at how you yourself operates. The real challenge will be when you take this stuff personal and see yourself in it. See the movie American History X. Its all weak philosophy until it really hits home.

[Raymone]

Pointguard, you're funny.

[MavsSuperFan]

The question was plain. Do you believe his killer was innocent? I never heard he did anything or said anything very aggressive. Nonetheless, it is common practice of hardcore racist to justify their actions back then as it is now. Which is why the demonizing of TM is something that has to be watched. With the internet people hide behind their computers and say the exact same thing now that they say back then. While telling you this story you are quick to justify the white attitude problem as to give it legitmacy. You slyly tried to lay the responsibility on Till (groping and crazy language which is the exact same motus operandi the klan used back then). Its the same strategy you use on Trayvon. You are just clever in your disguise.

Two black eyes really? Nose was not broken either. Zim was definitely able to handle TM enough to get his gun with minimal consequences. There is evidence of two punches and that can take one second. That's all the evidence there is here. So who controlled the other 50 seconds? Zimmerman definitely had more than one second of control to get the gun. A real fight is not like the video games where they measure cuts and such.



Are you not reading these boards. What has changed??? Even you yourself have this tone. Is this some out of body experience for you? A kid that ran and hid, from a stalking crazed maniac is treated like he wasn't supposed to protect himself? The laws aren't working? You can't even say Emmitt Till's killer wasn't innocent. Its that deep inside of you. Its not a different era. You saw Trayvon a certain way, as an attacker. Do attacker's run and hide? If your son ran and hid from someone who killed him would you really take this stand?

Show me once in this exchange that you looked at the real killer and didn't exonerate him in some way? You feel compelled to protect them. You portrayed Emmit's killer as a provoked man and you do the exact same thing with GZ. You are trying to say its a different era when the same laws fail to work and people still think the same way.

Look at how you yourself operates. The real challenge will be when you take this stuff personal and see yourself in it. See the movie American History X. Its all weak philosophy until it really hits home.

First of all I very clearly stated that I felt the til case was a huge miscarriage of justices and that there was more than enough evidence to convict roy Bryant.

Where are you getting that I said I felt til's killer was innocent? I very clearly ended my last post with the conclusion that their was more than enough evidence that bryant tortured and killed til, but the racist views at the time allowed bryant and his brother to go free. I very clearly stated that I felt there was enough evidence to convict.

secondly, when discussing any case there is nothing wrong with stating both sides. I very clearly indicated that carolyn bryant's accusations of til that were made at trial. No where did i state my belief that is what happened. But it is what carolyn bryant accused til of. I tend to believe the version til's frds told. They went to the store, til bragged about a photo he had where he said a white girl was his girlfrd, til's frds dared him to go talk to carolyn, she freaked and ran to her car to get her gun, til and his friends left as soon as they saw her getting her gun.

The trayvon martin case is lightyears different from the til case, imo. Firstly there is zero evidence that roy bryant was in any danger from til. Zim had injuries that clearly indicated that he had been assaulted and the cuts on the back of his head were evidence that the back of his head had made contact with the ground multiple times. Zim's defence was that trayvon was attempting to slam his head into the ground. obviously zim was trying to resist, but he proved in court he was too physically weak to do so. Zim's mma trainer who has very little reason to lie for him at a murder trial testified to his weakness. He called zim the weakest male he had ever met. You dismiss zim's injuries but obviously the court did not. You even claim that zim was in control of the fight. Where you came up with the conclusion zim was in control of the fight seems ridiculous to me. trayvon had zero marks on his body indicating he got hit once. Zim had multiple signs he got hit. Evidence in the trial indicated that zim was extremely weak. Trayvon's text messages bragging about his fighting ability and record of school fights was brought up.

The whole case was about whether zim shooting trayvon was murder or self defence. Prosecution needed to prove murder. There was plenty of evidence zim shot trayvon in self defence at the very least not enough to convict zim. The not guilty verdict was the correct verdict.

There was mountains of evidence that byrant killed til. He kidnapped til from his house at gunpoint. Til's grandmother or grandaunt offered bryant money in exchange for leaving til. Bryant refused and at gunpoint took til to teach him a lesson. bryant threatened til's family not to call the cops. til's dead body was bleed on the back of bryant's pick up truck and bryant told people it was a deer, etc. The case was extremely different.

Edit: this is the internet, I am completely anonymous here, its not even facebook or twitter where you could trace it to me. If i was a racist there is zero reason to hide it here.

[MavsSuperFan]

The question was plain. Do you believe his killer was innocent? I never heard he did anything or said anything very aggressive. Nonetheless, it is common practice of hardcore racist to justify their actions back then as it is now. Which is why the demonizing of TM is something that has to be watched. With the internet people hide behind their computers and say the exact same thing now that they say back then. While telling you this story you are quick to justify the white attitude problem as to give it legitmacy. You slyly tried to lay the responsibility on Till (groping and crazy language which is the exact same motus operandi the klan used back then). Its the same strategy you use on Trayvon. You are just clever in your disguise.

Two black eyes really? Nose was not broken either. Zim was definitely able to handle TM enough to get his gun with minimal consequences. There is evidence of two punches and that can take one second. That's all the evidence there is here. So who controlled the other 50 seconds? Zimmerman definitely had more than one second of control to get the gun. A real fight is not like the video games where they measure cuts and such.



Are you not reading these boards. What has changed??? Even you yourself have this tone. Is this some out of body experience for you? A kid that ran and hid, from a stalking crazed maniac is treated like he wasn't supposed to protect himself? The laws aren't working? You can't even say Emmitt Till's killer wasn't innocent. Its that deep inside of you. Its not a different era. You saw Trayvon a certain way, as an attacker. Do attacker's run and hide? If your son ran and hid from someone who killed him would you really take this stand?

Show me once in this exchange that you looked at the real killer and didn't exonerate him in some way? You feel compelled to protect them. You portrayed Emmit's killer as a provoked man and you do the exact same thing with GZ. You are trying to say its a different era when the same laws fail to work and people still think the same way.

Look at how you yourself operates. The real challenge will be when you take this stuff personal and see yourself in it. See the movie American History X. Its all weak philosophy until it really hits home.

when have i said I agree with bryant or zim? I feel bryant is a brutal torturer and killer. I feel zim was a weak idiot that got himself into situation where he was being beaten because he wrongly accused trayvon of being a thief. Believing zim is not a murderer is not the same as "seeing myself in him":wtf: :facepalm :rolleyes:

The fact that you were unaware of what carolyn bryant accused til of is ignorance on your part. just read the wikipedia article on til its all there. Being aware and mentioning something also doesnt mean you believe it is true. Besides even if what she accused him of is true it doesnt come close to justify ending his life.


You can't even say Emmitt Till's killer wasn't innocent. Its that deep inside of you

WTF are you talking about. Read what I wrote again I called letting til's killer go a huge miscarriage of justice. I said there was more than enough evidence that bryant tortured and murdered til. Where are you getting I said bryant was innocent? are you making this up?


The question was plain. Do you believe his killer was innocent? I never heard he did anything or said anything very aggressive.

the killer bryant was let go, I called it a huge miscarriage of justice, I called bryant a torturer and killer. Do you not understand english? Secondly even if everything carolyn bryant said were true none of that is reason to kill til. I dont believe her, but even if what she said were true it changes nothing.

Self defence is one of the few defences to murder i accept. Revenge is not one of them.

[QOUTE]Show me once in this exchange that you looked at the real killer and didn't exonerate him in some way? You feel compelled to protect them.[/QUOTE]

once again i called bryant a torturer and a killer. I said that he was clearly guilty and the evidence showed it. It was only the racist attitudes of whites in Mississippi that kept him free.

[Pointguard]

First of all I very clearly stated that I felt the til case was a huge miscarriage of justices and that there was more than enough evidence to convict roy Bryant.

Where are you getting that I said I felt til's killer was innocent? I very clearly ended my last post with the conclusion that their was more than enough evidence that bryant tortured and killed til, but the racist views at the time allowed bryant and his brother to go free. I very clearly stated that I felt there was enough evidence to convict.

I brought up the innocent concept to relate TM to Till. You joined that argument. Innocent is not a concept relegated to legal terms.

You did call the case a miscarriage of justice but watch how you give some justification to the killers. You rarely give any justification to TM.


secondly, when discussing any case there is nothing wrong with stating both sides. I very clearly indicated that carolyn bryant's accusations of til that were made at trial. No where did i state my belief that is what happened. But it is what carolyn bryant accused til of. I tend to believe the version til's frds told. They went to the store, til bragged about a photo he had where he said a white girl was his girlfrd, til's frds dared him to go talk to carolyn, she freaked and ran to her car to get her gun, til and his friends left as soon as they saw her getting her gun.
I haven't seen your TM side and you have posted a lot. Once again you are not addressing the madness on the side of the killers. And you do this with GZ as well. But young men being innocent young men you give little detail to.


The trayvon martin case is lightyears different from the til case, imo. Firstly there is zero evidence that roy bryant was in any danger from til. Zim had injuries that clearly indicated that he had been assaulted and the cuts on the back of his head were evidence that the back of his head had made contact with the ground multiple times. Zim's defence was that trayvon was attempting to slam his head into the ground. obviously zim was trying to resist, but he proved in court he was too physically weak to do so. Zim's mma trainer who has very little reason to lie for him at a murder trial testified to his weakness. He called zim the weakest male he had ever met. You dismiss zim's injuries but obviously the court did not. You even claim that zim was in control of the fight. Where you came up with the conclusion zim was in control of the fight seems ridiculous to me. trayvon had zero marks on his body indicating he got hit once. Zim had multiple signs he got hit. Evidence in the trial indicated that zim was extremely weak. Trayvon's text messages bragging about his fighting ability and record of school fights was brought up.
Your attention to detail for the killers is always very elaborate. But once again you joined an argument where I made the comparison to Til based on the laws not working for black people, a public outcry, backward attitudes being prevalent on the murdered victim. You joined that conversation.


The whole case was about whether zim shooting trayvon was murder or self defence. Prosecution needed to prove murder. There was plenty of evidence zim shot trayvon in self defence at the very least not enough to convict zim. The not guilty verdict was the correct verdict.
Manslaughter was the right case. There wasn't a lot of evidence but Zimmerman was one lying guy and he wasn't pressured the way he should have been. He knew the law and lied every chance he got to make it favorable for him. Evidence was seemingly tampered with - the tape that people debated if he said coons or something else has only one inaudible part in it and its that part.


when have i said I agree with bryant or zim? I feel bryant is a brutal torturer and killer. I feel zim was a weak idiot that got himself into situation where he was being beaten because he wrongly accused trayvon of being a thief. Believing zim is not a murderer is not the same as "seeing myself in him"

I asked you four times now to just say the killers of Til wasn't innocent. You can't do it.


The fact that you were unaware of what carolyn bryant accused til of is ignorance on your part. just read the wikipedia article on til its all there. Being aware and mentioning something also doesnt mean you believe it is true. Besides even if what she accused him of is true it doesnt come close to justify ending his life.

:lol What value of knowing Bryant's claim would do me? It only serves you because you need to rationalize madness when it comes to behavior of crazy backward paranoid folks 60 years ago. What good knowing that would do anyone! They were psychotic people, very obsessed with the endowment of black males and the insecurities coupled with that. Their absolutely crazy behavior of burning body members is astonishing.

But now, this day and time, Trayvon having the right to attack Zimmerman is something your mind can't take.



WTF are you talking about. Read what I wrote again I called letting til's killer go a huge miscarriage of justice. I said there was more than enough evidence that bryant tortured and murdered til. Where are you getting I said bryant was innocent? are you making this up?

I asked you to just say if four prior times. Its obvious as day.


the killer bryant was let go, I called it a huge miscarriage of justice, I called bryant a torturer and killer. Do you not understand english? Secondly even if everything carolyn bryant said were true none of that is reason to kill til. I dont believe her, but even if what she said were true it changes nothing.

Self defence is one of the few defences to murder i accept. Revenge is not one of them.

Obviously I noticed something in you right away: That you wouldn't call him innocent or not innocent and still haven't. I really don't care about the miscarriage of justice part. Innocent has a lot of other connotations. You joined the conversation that was loaded in discussing this part (innocence) in both cases Til and Trayvon.


Show me once in this exchange that you looked at the real killer and didn't exonerate him in some way? You feel compelled to protect them.

once again i called bryant a torturer and a killer. I said that he was clearly guilty and the evidence showed it. It was only the racist attitudes of whites in Mississippi that kept him free.
You justified it by bringing up the killers side of the story that groping and some other non-sense and they were crazy people. Zimmerman was kind of crazy that night, and in general. But you can't deem in your mind that Trayvon had a right to attack the nut.

It wasn't the racist attitudes of whites that kept Till's killer free it was the legal system in general. The people who blame the victim, distort the image of the victim, did provide a ground swell that put pressure on the system. No different than today. Except they knew they were racist then.

[gigantes]

pointguard, one thing i never got a good handle on is the specific instances of zimmerman being caught in lies.

since it wasn't on the stand, the alleged lies happened during what... the police interview and the hannity interview? any help on that?

[Pointguard]

pointguard, one thing i never got a good handle on is the specific instances of zimmerman being caught in lies.

since it wasn't on the stand, the alleged lies happened during what... the police interview and the hannity interview? any help on that?
The two main ones are the interview the day after which is said to be on a lie detector for some reason by the Sanford police. The second big account of his story which had huge contradictions with the first is detective walk through. The detective doesn't stop him for any questions or inconsistencies versus the police department tapes, the 911 call, the car being parked right by his friends house and Zim not knowing his friend lived on the main road... then there is two more investigator tapes that are given in piece meal but they had inconsistencies in each of them as well.

He uses thug words earlier on and cools it totally out later on as well.

[bagelred]

My other thread didn't take, so I'll just post this here:


In an alternate universe....The Case of Skary Blackmon:

The Retreat at Twin Lakes in Sanford, Florida is a nice place to live. Except for one thing. It is being terrorized by one individual. His name? Skary Blackmon.

Skary Blackmon is a male in his late teens, African-American, skinny. Always dressed in jeans and an over-the-head hooded sweatshirt. Suspected drug use. Blackmon has been held responsible for multiple crimes at the otherwise quiet gated community. Burglaries, Break-ins, vandalism, even a couple of assault and batteries are attributed to Blackmon. Although the cops have been called many times, they simply cannot catch Skary Blackmon.

The residents are at their wits end. They have a community meeting to discuss what to do about Blackmon. They simply can't go on living in fear this way. They decide on a Neighborhood Watch Program. A young man, let's name him.....George Zimmerman......bravely and unselfishly, becomes a neighborhood watch volunteer. Residents know and like George, and are pleased he would take the initiative and help keep their community safe and secure.

Some months later, on a dark, rainy February night. Zimmerman passes by a house at the retreat. A young, African-American male in jeans and a hoodie is loitering...in the rain....peeping in windows in alleys...with suspiciously odd behavior...drug use?

Zimmerman can't believe it. "That's Skary Blackmon!!" But GZ isn't trying to be a hero. He doesn't confront Blackmon like Dirty Harry. He calls the Non-Emergency Police Number. A frustrated Zimmerman on finally seeing Blackmon knowing police might be too late. "These guys...they always get away...."

"Oh shit, Blackmon is looking right at me." Skary starts to run. Skary Blackmon is getting away!!! Police ask where he's going...."do you have eyes on him?".....so Zimmerman gets out of his car to see. He knows if he can find out which way Blackmon went, he can help police track him down and finally arrest this criminal. After a brief time watching Blackmon's movements, Zimmerman realizes he's gone....Blackmon got away. "We don't need you to follow him, sir." "Okay." Zimmerman's upset. He looks at the houses and street numbers to get an exact address for the cops. Glances around to see if Blackmon is still there. Nothing. Starts walking back to his car.

"What the f-ck in your problem???!!!"....someone yells at George in the dark....is that Skary?? "Hey, what are you doing here?" George says.....Before he knows it, the teenager cold cocks, George.. George on the ground getting punched in the face....his head pushed MMA style into the concrete...."HELP!!! HELP!!!!" George calls out. No one is coming. His head feels like its gonna explode. This guy is trying to kill me!!! HELP!! HELP!!!! F-ck, he broke my nose!!! This guy isn't stopping!!! HELP!!!! I have no choice!!! BANG!!!! One shot. Teen falls back. George grabs him, the cops arrive, takes George into custody......

Turns out, it wasn't Skary Blackmon!!!! It was a teen that looked alot like him!!! George sits in his cell...."gee, I could have sworn that was Skary. Why the f-ck did he attack me? WTF just happened?"


A case of mistaken identity. Zimmerman freed due to obvious self defense, as he was being assaulted and beaten mercilessly. A teen who attacked him for no apparent reason. If only the young man....his name is Trayvon I believe....took more rational actions, he'd be alive today.




The End.

[Rasheed1]

baglered is such a dumb ass. :lol you think he'd get the hint when nobody read that bullsh*t the first time he posted it..
but nooooo...


attention whore

[bagelred]

baglered is such a dumb ass. :lol you think he'd get the hint when nobody read that bullsh*t the first time he posted it..
but nooooo...


attention whore

Are you Skary Blackmon? :coleman:

[Rasheed1]

Are you Skary Blackmon? :coleman:

I didnt even bother to read that nonsense :oldlol: nobody even knows what you are talking about.. take the hint & give up !!

[gigantes]

The two main ones are the interview the day after which is said to be on a lie detector for some reason by the Sanford police. The second big account of his story which had huge contradictions with the first is detective walk through. The detective doesn't stop him for any questions or inconsistencies versus the police department tapes, the 911 call, the car being parked right by his friends house and Zim not knowing his friend lived on the main road... then there is two more investigator tapes that are given in piece meal but they had inconsistencies in each of them as well.

He uses thug words earlier on and cools it totally out later on as well.
okay, thank you.
so as i understand it, the primary material of relevance:

- first interview by cops
- detective walk through in situ
- findings by investigators (partially heard at trial?)


does that mean you had to be have been following the trial blow-by-blow to spot the inconsistencies, or were these things transcribed and now available to the public, say?

[Pointguard]

okay, thank you.
so as i understand it, the primary material of relevance:

- first interview by cops
- detective walk through in situ
- findings by investigators (partially heard at trial?)


does that mean you had to be have been following the trial blow-by-blow to spot the inconsistencies, or were these things transcribed and now available to the public, say?

Yes, that was where I got my 12 big lies of Zimmerman which is different than other list and videos. I got mine almost exclusively from the top two on the list above along with the 911 calls and 311 calls. I watched these only on youtube. I only recently saw the Hannity interview. I picked things to watch of the trail: Which was like 5 key days. My list would be longer but I did not add things of the interrogation I did not hear fully because context might be compromised. Other people used other investigation tapes where I shocked to hear different investigator's voices.

I might do a list of lies that were taylored to Zimmerman knowing self defense laws.

The Hannity interview made me realize that George might have came at Trayvon with his gun drawn. He says even in the 311 call that Trayvon went in his waistband. What person having a gun would risk his life getting an "azzhole" as he called it without an advantage. It wouldn't make sense to not come drawn.

[qrich]

That video provided the :oldlol:'s. Extreme opposite of what the media and sheep are yapping on about though.

Anyways, this is done. Not Guilty was the End Game. State ****ed up, the media ****ed up, hypocrisy was brought to light.

[bmulls]

okay, thank you.
so as i understand it, the primary material of relevance:

- first interview by cops
- detective walk through in situ
- findings by investigators (partially heard at trial?)


does that mean you had to be have been following the trial blow-by-blow to spot the inconsistencies, or were these things transcribed and now available to the public, say?

These "big lies" are the same minor inconsistencies that the lead detective testified were not a big deal whatsoever and did not change his opinion of Zimmerman or his account of events. Everybody has access to this stuff, it's not like Pointguard is the only person capable of watching Youtube videos. And yet not one else is blathering on and on about Zimmerman being a huge liar.

[gigantes]

@pointguard,
thanks very much. if i get another big burst of enthusiasm on this, that stuff will be the first i try to tackle.


at this point i think the only major critique i have for the TM side of the debate is that i think black america would be better served pushing this towards a consensual direction rather than trying to own it too much.

i know this is hard, of course, and that black ppl should probably be the first group offended by this slap in the face finding. but IMO teenagers, parents, floridians, and all americans have all been insulted and violated here and have equal right to be upset.


one other critique i have is towards people in general who have the idea that this case was overblown and doesn't deserve the attention. that black-on-black crime is more statistically significant, etc, therefore this case SHOULDN'T be such a big deal.

well, i'm sorry, but it BECAME a big for a multitude of reasons, small and large. and we can't go back and we don't get to pick and choose which cases enter national consciousness. no... it did, now it's here, and people are still upset about it. now you have to deal with it... or willfully ignore it... whether you like it or not. but how much do you want to let your annoyance of that reality compromise your clear thinking on the issue, i would ask some. some things have a way of finding you in the end no matter what your opinion of them is.

[Pointguard]

That video provided the :oldlol:'s.

:lol Like your Klan meetings with cavemen are enlightening.

[MavsSuperFan]

I brought up the innocent concept to relate TM to Till. You joined that argument. Innocent is not a concept relegated to legal terms.

You did call the case a miscarriage of justice but watch how you give some justification to the killers. You rarely give any justification to TM.

I haven't seen your TM side and you have posted a lot. Once again you are not addressing the madness on the side of the killers. And you do this with GZ as well. But young men being innocent young men you give little detail to.

Your attention to detail for the killers is always very elaborate. But once again you joined an argument where I made the comparison to Til based on the laws not working for black people, a public outcry, backward attitudes being prevalent on the murdered victim. You joined that conversation.

Manslaughter was the right case. There wasn't a lot of evidence but Zimmerman was one lying guy and he wasn't pressured the way he should have been. He knew the law and lied every chance he got to make it favorable for him. Evidence was seemingly tampered with - the tape that people debated if he said coons or something else has only one inaudible part in it and its that part.

I asked you four times now to just say the killers of Til wasn't innocent. You can't do it.

:lol What value of knowing Bryant's claim would do me? It only serves you because you need to rationalize madness when it comes to behavior of crazy backward paranoid folks 60 years ago. What good knowing that would do anyone! They were psychotic people, very obsessed with the endowment of black males and the insecurities coupled with that. Their absolutely crazy behavior of burning body members is astonishing.

But now, this day and time, Trayvon having the right to attack Zimmerman is something your mind can't take.



I asked you to just say if four prior times. Its obvious as day.

Obviously I noticed something in you right away: That you wouldn't call him innocent or not innocent and still haven't. I really don't care about the miscarriage of justice part. Innocent has a lot of other connotations. You joined the conversation that was loaded in discussing this part (innocence) in both cases Til and Trayvon.


You justified it by bringing up the killers side of the story that groping and some other non-sense and they were crazy people. Zimmerman was kind of crazy that night, and in general. But you can't deem in your mind that Trayvon had a right to attack the nut.

It wasn't the racist attitudes of whites that kept Till's killer free it was the legal system in general. The people who blame the victim, distort the image of the victim, did provide a ground swell that put pressure on the system. No different than today. Except they knew they were racist then.

Are you really this caught up on semantics?
I clearly indicated that I felt Bryant was guilty. Which to any person who understands english is the same as saying he is not innocent.

I thought By saying there was clear evidence of his guilt and that only racist views allowed him to go free, I was being very clear that I have never considered Bryant innocent of the til murder.

It was the racist attitudes you have the exact same case and only til being white, and bryant gets a death sentence.

The til case and the trayvon case were very different. If you cant see that we will just have to agree to disagree.


You did call the case a miscarriage of justice but watch how you give some justification to the killers
I have never in anyway indicated that til's murder was justified. You have either completely misunderstood me or are lying. go back and read my posts show me where i justified his murder? If you felt that til's murder was justified, even if carolyn bryant's accusations were 100% true, your morals are very different from mine. Because you seem to have trouble comprehending me, I dont think she was telling the truth at the trial.


I haven't seen your TM side and you have posted a lot. Once again you are not addressing the madness on the side of the killers. And you do this with GZ as well. But young men being innocent young men you give little detail to

Zim and bryant arent similar at all to me. We have gone over this back and forth, but once again It is clear that bryant killed and tortured til to death. I think it fully possible that zim shot trayvon in self defense.


I asked you four times now to just say the killers of Til wasn't innocent. You can't do it.
clear evidence that bryant is guilty = the killer of til was not innocent.
The freeing of bryant being a massive miscarriage of justices = the killer of til was not innocent.
saying that there was more than enough evidence to convict bryant = the killer of til was not innocent.
I called bryant a torturer and killer = the killer of til was not innocent.
I have on multiple occasions stated that bryant was not innocent. I question your reading comprehension.


What value of knowing Bryant's claim would do me?
because we were discussing a case that went to trial, and more information is always better then less. I have never stated i believe carolyn bryant's accusations. I very clearly labeled it as such.


That you wouldn't call him innocent or not innocent and still haven't. I really don't care about the miscarriage of justice part.
Take some english classes dude.
clear evidence that bryant is guilty = the killer of til was not innocent.
The freeing of bryant being a massive miscarriage of justices = the killer of til was not innocent.
saying that there was more than enough evidence to convict bryant = the killer of til was not innocent.
I called bryant a torturer and killer = the killer of til was not innocent.
I have on multiple occasions stated that bryant was not innocent.

[gigantes]

These "big lies" are the same minor inconsistencies that the lead detective testified were not a big deal whatsoever and did not change his opinion of Zimmerman or his account of events. Everybody has access to this stuff, it's not like Pointguard is the only person capable of watching Youtube videos. And yet not one else is blathering on and on about Zimmerman being a huge liar.
i did not ask about this stuff because point guard has a unique opinion on something.

i asked about them because of the number of times i have heard different people talk about the pattern of lies.

i have no intention of using point guard

[johndeeregreen]

It wasn't the racist attitudes of whites that kept Till's killer free it was the legal system in general.
BullllllllSHIIIIT. Bull f*cking SHIT.

BTW, it wasn't killer (singular), it was killers. JW Milam was actually the driving force behind that murder. Probably would do you some good to read up on that before saying "it wasn't racism" that lead to their acquittal.

[Jackass18]

Could Zim have grabbed trayvon? It is very possible, my point is its impossible to prove in a court of law that he did.

I'm just saying that a lack of injuries doesn't mean he didn't start the altercation, and that he wasn't a threat.


Could Zim have pulled out his gun at trayvon before he took the beating from trayvon? No, This isnt the movies, If someone is aiming a gun at you you cant close the distance before his finger moves. Further lets say trayvon has super human speed and managed to (while zim had a gun pointed at him), break zim's nose, give him 2 black eyes and cut up the back of his head, well than why didnt he knock the gun out of zim's Hand?

Meh, it was just a hypothetical. He could have pulled his gun out, boasted about it and then put it away. He could have pulled it out, but not have the nerve to use it at that time. Or, he could have simply exposed it to TM showing that he was packing. I don't really entertain that possibility, but just saying it is a possibility.


I would definitely feel concerned if someone was following me. But my point was in a court of law that isnt enough reason to physically attack someone.

If you feel someone is a threat, then you have the right to protect yourself. If someone is chasing you (especially at nighttime), are you going to wait 'til they capture you and throw you in a van before you protect yourself?


Zim's defense's account at trial was basically that trayvon turned a verbal argument into a physical fight (they argued Trayvon made it physical). and that he shot trayvon to stop his head from hitting the ground, because he felt he might lose consciousness soon. Maybe thats different from what zim said earlier, but that was O'Mara's case at court.

Zim gave different stories, so which one am I supposed to go by?


I dont think shooting someone on top of you punching you and trying to force your head into the ground is the the same as shooting anyone at anytime.

You said you can't expect a person to gauge the damage, then how can anyone ever gauge it? You don't know how much damage the next or even the first blow will do, so just shoot the other person to be safe...


During the trial O'Mara's whole case focused on his assertion that if Zim didnt shoot trayvon he felt the next slam might have caused him to lose consciousness.

The funny thing is that Zim is on record saying that TM could no longer slam his head. Also, if you look at the animation that the defense presented, then neither of them are on the sidewalk in the 3rd position in it.

"I felt him take — he had — after he couldn't hit my head on the concrete anymore, he started to try to suffocate me."


take these 2 hypothetical examples.

I'll just say that I don't always agree with the law. People who have appeared far more guilty than Zim have walked free.


obviously zim was trying to resist, but he proved in court he was too physically weak to do so.

LOL, he never proved that. He himself said that he was able to shimmy away from the sidewalk, and also him getting the gun and using it unabated shows that he was able to resist.


Zim's mma trainer who has very little reason to lie for him at a murder trial testified to his weakness.

I wouldn't say no reason. The guy he trained apparently got his ass kicked by a kid he had a weight advantage over.

[Jackass18]

pointguard, one thing i never got a good handle on is the specific instances of zimmerman being caught in lies.

since it wasn't on the stand, the alleged lies happened during what... the police interview and the hannity interview? any help on that?

Someone started this one, but I guess got tired of listing them since they didn't finish it: http://whonoze.wordpress.com/2013/07/16/lies/

[Pointguard]

Take some english classes dude.
clear evidence that bryant is guilty = the killer of til was not innocent.
The freeing of bryant being a massive miscarriage of justices = the killer of til was not innocent.
saying that there was more than enough evidence to convict bryant = the killer of til was not innocent.
I called bryant a torturer and killer = the killer of til was not innocent.
I have on multiple occasions stated that bryant was not innocent.
I asked you waaaaay too many times already. Dude we exhausted the subject. I said the word innocent was loaded and you had major problems using it. You injected yourself in a conversation that was centered around it and played this game. I really couldn't care less now. Glad you finally came around and are acting like some maniac. :lol

[Pointguard]

BullllllllSHIIIIT. Bull f*cking SHIT.

BTW, it wasn't killer (singular), it was killers. JW Milam was actually the driving force behind that murder. Probably would do you some good to read up on that before saying "it wasn't racism" that lead to their acquittal.

Surely you have been reading the back and forth and realized that I said Killers a couple of times in the exchange but because the focus on innocent vs totally innocent I sometimes used the singular because of legal terms regarding the SYSTEM.

So you are saying that JW Milam was more influential than the justice system in getting the acquittal? And that this understanding has done you good. Or are you implying he was actually racism in the persona and that got the acquittal in some way. You're not making sense.

[Pointguard]

Someone started this one, but I guess got tired of listing them since they didn't finish it: http://whonoze.wordpress.com/2013/07/16/lies/
Wow, that's a good detailed one.

[D-Rose]

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2013/07/31/george-zimmerman-stopped-for-speeding-in-north-texas/

Pulled over for speeding 3 days ago in North Texas...was armed but not an issue, said he didn't know where he was going.

[gigantes]

Someone started this one, but I guess got tired of listing them since they didn't finish it: http://whonoze.wordpress.com/2013/07/16/lies/
well, i scanned ahead a bit and looked over some of the comments, but only got part-way through. maybe half at best. that was a couple days ago, actually. mother of god, what a list. ANYWAY...... assuming its reasonably accurate, i don't know how the zimmerman supporters answer all that. better to try standing in the middle of a landslide, i'm thinking.


quick comments:


- you have to give a certain benefit of the doubt to zims in this way-- any person alive would no doubt make some mistakes and mis-rememberances across THAT many recountings of an event. we're humans, not robots. also, any other group of people could take any of those inconsistencies and blow them out of proportion and paint them in the worst possible light. that would just be normal for people on the other side of the issue.

- this suggests the questions "what would be normal human error in a situation like this?" (meaning by zims) and "which charges of lying, etc are reasonable to pin on zims, and which can be set aside as merely nit-picking?"

- personally i would only be able to vaguely guess the answers to those questions, but i suppose that some kind of experts could. all i know for sure is that IF that list is reasonably accurate, it's hard to imagine that it can all be discarded. very, very hard. meaning, maybe we don't really need experts in order to make a decent conclusion on this thing.

- if the law in florida is that the prosection couldn't call zimmerman to the stand directly, only cross-examine him, that seems pretty insane to me. so they could have picked him apart over all the lies yet weren't permitted to. damn.

- still, doesn't that mean that a small parade of some manner of experts could have been called as prosecution witnesses to dissect the lies? better than they wound up doing?

[Raymone]

if the law in florida is that the prosection couldn't call zimmerman to the stand directly, only cross-examine him, that seems pretty insane to me.

Cross-examination happens on the stand, bro.

Anyways, let this topic die already. He had the injuries. He fired in self defense, on his back, with Trayvon assaulting him on top. He was found not guilty on all counts. Move on.

[gigantes]

Cross-examination happens on the stand, bro.
that is my point on that one.

and yes, i agree... certainly looks like zims legally got away with manslaughter. now good luck making that die in the minds of millions across the country.

when a webforum topic dies, it means peoples' memories get erased, right?