George Zimmerman Arrested -- Finally!!

[Artist Formally Known As]

F-tard....Let's just face one important fact here....You just want to be right about everything.

I think F-shard is a racist against white people.

[F-Sharp]

Originally Posted by Artist Formally Known As

F-tard....Let's just face one important fact here....You just want to be right about everything.

I think F-shard is a racist against white people.

Not necessarily. I'll be the first to admit when I am wrong, and I encourage you to try. You mind doing us adults a favor and take a little break from the juvenile name calling? If you're serious about proving me wrong and that you know what you're talking about, you might start by showing everyone you're not still in grade school.

[Mike Vronsky]

The more you type the more you show how uneducated you are.

Again, Matin had an illegal substance, Zimmeran had a legal substance - PERIOD.

You can keep quoting the BS statement from the witness. You need the lies to justify your position as you REFUSE to look at the facts.

All your writings fall under a fallacy called "Argument from Ignorance". In addition you use "Begging the Question" to attempt to support your hypothesis. Fortunately the facts are against you.

The only reason you bring up paying for sex is because you CANNOT use the facts in the Zimmerman case to argue your point. You need to reach out and use fallacies to make your point.

Oh and you should read this article - its from a liberal source.

A medical report by George Zimmerman’s doctor has disclosed that Zimmerman had a fractured nose, two black eyes, two lacerations on the back of his head and a back injury on the day after the fatal shooting. If this evidence turns out to be valid, the prosecutor will have no choice but to drop the second-degree murder charge against Zimmerman — if she wants to act ethically, lawfully and professionally.


There is, of course, no assurance that the special prosecutor handling the case, State Attorney Angela Corey, will do the right thing. Because until now, her actions have been anything but ethical, lawful and professional.


She was aware when she submitted an affidavit that it did not contain the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. She deliberately withheld evidence that supported Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense. The New York Times has reported that the police had “a full face picture” of Zimmerman, before paramedics treated him, that showed “a bloodied nose.” The prosecutor also had photographic evidence of bruises to the back of his head.

But none of this was included in any affidavit.


(your not gonna like this)

Now there is much more extensive medical evidence that would tend to support Zimmerman’s version of events. This version, if true, would establish self-defense even if Zimmerman had improperly followed, harassed and provoked Martin.


A defendant, under Florida law, loses his “stand your ground” defense if he provoked the encounter — but he retains traditional self-defense if he reasonably believed his life was in danger and his only recourse was to employ deadly force.

Thus, if Zimmerman verbally provoked Martin, but Martin then got on top of Zimmerman and banged his head into the ground, broke his nose, bloodied his eyes and persisted in attacking Zimmerman — and if Zimmerman couldn’t protect himself from further attack except by shooting Martin — he would have the right to do that. (The prosecution has already admitted that it has no evidence that Zimmerman started the actual fight.)

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/d...#ixzz1vHY4vDVE

Originally Posted by F-Sharp

"I do honestly feel that he intended for this kid to die," witness 5 told investigators. "If you're in self defense, shoot him in the leg. He's a 17-year-old, scrawny little kid. You get into a physical fight with him. ... I think the kid was running for help." ~ Court Records, Witness 5

Oh, yeah. BIG difference! Pot baaaad, amphetamine goooood.

So what you're really saying is that anyone who's ever stolen anything as a teenager, used drugs, or been in the possession of drug paraphernalia, or been caught with a screwdriver in their possession means that they deserve to be shot and killed? You'd have to include me in that list. You must also think I should be shot and killed too. You know what else is illegal in most states? Paying for sex. Should people that pay for sex in states where it is illegal all be shot and killed too, or do you personally pick and choose who lives or dies based on what *you* personally feel is right or wrong? Pot's legal in California now, do they all deserve to be shot and killed too?

I never said that if you smoke pot that you should be shot dead. If you read what I wrote - I said that Martin was a drug user, probable drug dealer and was being investigated for burglary.

Pot baaaaad, paying for sex goooood.

So you're saying Zimmerman knew he was "dope smoking drug dealer" the moment he laid eyes on him, and he was able to determine this in dark even while it was raining from a few blocks away. And how did he know this? Black kid in a hoodie of course!

Ignorance here. I never said that, however, if you read you would know that the people breaking into the homes in the community were black kids.

Do you even listen to yourself? At very least, read what you typed back to yourself. Do you not have the slightest clue just how racist that statement is? You are un-freakin-believable, friend.

[Artist Formally Known As]

Originally Posted by F-Sharp

Not necessarily. I'll be the first to admit when I am wrong, and I encourage you to try. You mind doing us adults a favor and take a little break from the juvenile name calling? If you're serious about proving me wrong and that you know what you're talking about, you might start by showing everyone you're not still in grade school.

Is that from your family photo album????

F-crap you have never admitted to being wrong and you will argue with a fucking fence post.

[F-Sharp]

Originally Posted by Artist Formally Known As

F-crap you have never admitted to being wrong and you will argue with a fucking fence post.

Well I warned you about the name calling. Space/Ztonk, if you would be so kind...? I do believe this falls under the "insulting remarks" category of forum rules. I think he just needs a little time in the corner to think about what he's done wrong.

[Artist Formally Known As]

Originally Posted by F-Sharp

Well I warned you about the name calling. Space/Ztonk, if you would be so kind...? I do believe this falls under the "insulting remarks" category of forum rules. I think he just needs a little time in the corner to think about what he's done wrong.

What a cry baby.

You are an insult to the hobby period. You spend more time bitching than you do fucking.

You need a hobby for your hobby.

[Mike Vronsky]

Artist Formally Known as did not say anything insulting. What are you 5? I know you are but what am I?

No wonder you can't argue your point. Facts are against you and you get upset at people who use facts.

Originally Posted by F-Sharp

Well I warned you about the name calling. Space/Ztonk, if you would be so kind...? I do believe this falls under the "insulting remarks" category of forum rules. I think he just needs a little time in the corner to think about what he's done wrong.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by irishlad

More on topic, it will be interesting to see how this pans out. I still maintain there does not seem to be enough evidence to determine that Zimmerman did anything especially egregious and that Martin wasn't the aggressor who made a terrible error in judgement. I see people rushing to judgement based more on their personal biases and the indefensible assumptions about and characterizations of the players that result from them.

That said, if more evidence surfaces and it turns out that Zimmerman really did gun this guy down when he was fleeing in retribution for busting him up a little or in some other way without good reason to feel seriously threatened, then I will not feel a moment's remorse for Zimmerman's sentence. Carrying a gun comes with a number of responsibilities.

Irishlad, I agree with everything stated above. I agree totally that it will be VERY difficult to convince a jury of 12 citizens that Zimmerman is guilty. Even if he is guilty.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by dante0322

I was pointing out that he's a drug user and wouldn't be surprised if he was a dope dealer.

Trayvon Martin, who had previously been caught with drug residue, drug paraphernalia, burglary tools and women’s jewelry was at the time of his death was being investigated by Miami-Dade detectives for burglary.

One black neighbor of the George Zimmerman said the neighborhood’s recent history should be taken into account.

“Let’s talk about the elephant in the room. I’m black, OK?” the woman said, declining to be identified because she anticipated backlash due to her race. She leaned in to look a reporter directly in the eyes. “There were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood,” she said. “That’s why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin.”

http://the-american-journal.com/zimm...r-black-youth/

Can you say NOT GUILTY!

Trayvon Martin's background is totally irrelevant in the case. Had he been under the influence of marijuana it might have mattered. Had he been selling drugs at the time of the confrontation it might have mattered. Had he been carrying burglary tools it might have mattered. Nothing you have cited will ever be mentioned in a court of law.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by irishlad

Laws are not Rights. Many of those laws are sensible, but they are the result of a government empowered to act for the welfare of it's citizens, not mandated by your right to feel safe.

Laws give people rights. The CHL law gives us the right to carry a concealed handgun. No, it is not a Constitutional right but a right never the less.

[Grathic]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Laws give people rights. The CHL law gives us the right to carry a concealed handgun. No, it is not a Constitutional right but a right never the less.

Damn SpeedRacerXXX, I've really been trying to just watch from the sidelines here, but that has to be just about the worst liberal bit of trash so far. Laws do NOT give people rights. The Constitution does NOT give people rights. Hell, even the Bill of Rights does NOT give people rights.

People HAVE rights.

Say it with me now:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...

You can read the rest in many places if you are interested. The Bill of Rights was meant to prevent the government from taking the rights away from people, not to grant rights to people. The fact that people have allowed government to take rights away anyway is a whole other topic.

[Artist Formally Known As]

Originally Posted by Grathic

Damn SpeedRacerXXX, I've really been trying to just watch from the sidelines here, but that has to be just about the worst liberal bit of trash so far. Laws do NOT give people rights. The Constitution does NOT give people rights. Hell, even the Bill of Rights does NOT give people rights.

People HAVE rights.

Say it with me now:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...

You can read the rest in many places if you are interested. The Bill of Rights was meant to prevent the government from taking the rights away from people, not to grant rights to people. The fact that people have allowed government to take rights away anyway is a whole other topic.

Yup. When you start to define rights is when you start to limit them.

Our Government is now backwards of how the founders intended it to be run.

[Mike Vronsky]

Wow SpeedRacer. Reed Grathic's and Artist Formerly Known As comments. Hopefully you will learn something. Doubt it, but hopeful.

And to show that your having issues with comprehension it was never said that Martin's background or drug use etc was relevant in the case. It was mentioned because people like you and F-Sharp want to bring up that Zimmerman was racist, etc. So, if you want to take a look at Zimmerman's background then you need to look at Martin. In addition, because of Martin's background and the path he was going he would most likely be dead sooner than later and apparently it was sooner due to his OWN actions. The world is a much better place with one less possible drug dealer / burglar around which occurred legally as Zimmerman had EVERY RIGHT to stand his ground.

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Laws give people rights. The CHL law gives us the right to carry a concealed handgun. No, it is not a Constitutional right but a right never the less.

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Trayvon Martin's background is totally irrelevant in the case. Had he been under the influence of marijuana it might have mattered. Had he been selling drugs at the time of the confrontation it might have mattered. Had he been carrying burglary tools it might have mattered. Nothing you have cited will ever be mentioned in a court of law.

[F-Sharp]

Oh come now silly Dante. You don't need to look at Martin's background, because Martin was not doing anything wrong. You're simply grasping at straws now that it's been proven to you that there's no way Zimmerman is telling the truth about what happened that night. Martin was not a drug dealer or a burglar, and had no such criminal record of being either of those things. All you really know for a fact is he was a black kid with a very small trace of marijuana in his system, the rest is nothing but pure conjecture based on your own personal prejudices against young black males.

What if it was, oh I dunno...Aaron Paul who was shot and killed by Zimmerman? He's not a drug dealer, but he sure looks the part, and I am confident he's hit a few bongs in his day. How about Miley Cirus? No doubt she's inhaled a little cannabis in her young days. You need to just admit you're a racist and move on with your life. Your arguments and ridiculous statements will then make much more sense in that context.

[Carl]

Folks, here's what I see and don't see when I look at the evidence:

1) I see: injuries to Martin (other than the fatal gunshot wound), one abrasion on one finger. What I don't see: More abrasions and busted up knuckles which would be consistent with administering a grievous bodily harm/life-threatening beating. I don't see claw marks or scratches to his face or eyes, bruises or marks to his genitals or abdominal/solar plexus area indicating the sorts of injuries one might expect in a street fight from an opponent acting defensively, putting up a fight.


2) I see: injuries to Zimmerman, abrasions on his scalp, some blood on the back of his head. What I don't see: No significant swelling in a police photo taken a few a hours later to a nose reported (the next day) to have been broken. In the fights I've seen that resulted in an obvious broken nose (though, I guess, technically a hairline fracture is still a fracture), within a few minutes the area swells up and the recipient looks like they're almost squinting. I also don't see a lot more blood. Scalp wounds are right up there with fingertip wounds for profuse bleeding. I've bled at least as much cracking my skull on a kitchen cabinet while working on pipes under my sink. My life was not in danger. I can say that I have seen people who fell on a sidewalk from their rollerblades, bikes and just walking who looked more severely injured than Zimmerman. They did not seem to feel that their lives were endangered by their injuries, though I cannot say that in every case conclusively, because I never had the chance to ask many of them how they felt since some just cussed a little and went on their way.

3) I see reports from a witness describing Martin as being on top and doing an MMA style ground and pound and warning Martin off by telling him he's calling 911. What I don't see: a witness rushing to the aid of someone that seems to be in imminent danger of losing their life or being crippled or maimed, no swinging of a frying pan or putter or a tennis racket or a desk lamp in an effort to save a life in immediate danger.

What it looks like to me is that Zimmerman, already pursing someone that a police dispatcher told him not to follow, somehow got into a fist fight, was getting his ass handed to him and either got angry or panicked, and shot his opponent to win the fistfight. Maybe he's a pussy that didn't know how to fight. But if he's getting punched by Martin with both hands, ground and pound style, Zimmerman's hands should have been free. Martin could not be pinning Zimmerman's hands down and be still punching him simultaneously. There are no marks on Martin to indicate that Zimmerman tried to claw, bite, gouge or nutpunch/ballclaw his way out of trouble, like I would expect to see in a street fight. He went straight to the "nuclear" option, his 9mm, to end the fight.

I conclude that he may have been in fear for his life or of great bodily harm. But I also conclude that if he was, he was not reasonable in that belief. A witness did not seem to believe that, otherwise I would expect that they would have done something, anything, to immediately intervene, with whatever they might have at hand and turn the altercation into a 2 on 1. And there's no evidence to suggest that Zimmerman had even attempted to use, let alone exhausted, any non-lethal "dirty fighting" retaliatory options.

In my opinion he's guilty, at a minimum, of voluntary manslaughter.