Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
The Sandbox - NationalThe Sandbox is a collection of off-topic discussions. Humorous threads, Sports talk, and a wide variety of other topics can be found here.
And again, you are so focus on protecting your gun and conservative paranoia, that you keep forgetting 1 important fact.
"That’s a mistake that only serves to distort an already contentious case. The levels of THC detected don’t reflect Martin’s character or even his state of mind the night he was shot. For one, they are so low as to almost certainly not be connected to recent intoxication: 1.5 nanograms of THC were found as well as 7.3 nanograms of THC-COOH, a metabolite of THC that can stay in the system for weeks after cannabis has been smoked. Immediately after inhaling, THC levels typically rise to 100 to 200 nanograms per milliter of blood, although there can be a great deal of variation.
“THC in blood or urine tells us nothing about the level of intoxication,” says Carl Hart, associate professor of psychology at Columbia University and author of the leading college textbook on drug use and behavior. “That would be like someone going to have a beer some evening, and when he goes to work the next day, you can find alcohol metabolites in his bodily fluids. That says nothing about his functioning.”
And he goes on to further say that even if he was under the influence, THC will not predispose him to violence. And that is a scientific fact.
And traces mean just that........TRACES. If a degraded sample means inaccurate, insufficient, or ruined sample, that can NEVER translate to "THC levels must have been higher" because that is based on complete speculation. If speculation holds weight based on other speculative parts of the story, cant I conclude that George was under the influence but they never tested him? You cant have it both ways.
"In the short term, m@rijuan@ use impairs perception, judgment, thinking, memory, and learning; memory defects may persist six weeks after last use."
Ok, well since we KNOW from statistical fact that white teens use drugs 2 to 3 times more that black teens, by your own logic that would demand we see more violent cases of whites teens when they consume drugs and more George Zimmerman like cases. Or it would mean that the idea is BS. Unless you are suggesting that drugs make blacks violent and whites peaceful? It seems that THC becomes a violent drug only when it can be used to mold white America into believing the "Thug Black Man" myth. SMH!!!
More deflection! Just an FYI, fantasy child, THC was unequivocally found IN Martin's system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mgm84
And the only deflection in this case and many different discussions on this case is the answer to "Why did he follow him" being......."It isn't illegal to follow him". As if following isn't a legal action that leads to MANY illegal actions and rightfully causes someone to become suspicious of the person following them. Keep playing dumb.
Jeantel testified that Martin suspected that Zimmerman was a security guard. Nothing illegal occured until Martin punched Zimmerman in the nose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mgm84
You tend to apply your conclusions in ways that only benefit your white lens, but every time you do, you dismantle your previous claim and makes it more obvious that you are playing dumb to save face.
Another of your ignorant fantasies!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mgm84
WRONG! When Martin ran, Zimmerman "followed him". How can Zimmerman know where Trayvon went if he had a 2 to 3 minute lead? Trayvon could not see Zimmerman's car so how would he know to "meet him"? Remember, the only person who could see was George being that he had a flash light. Using logic would go a long way.
Zimmerman didn't know where Martin went; that's why he walked through to the other street, checked for an address and then turned back to go to his truck. Zimmerman's flashlight didn't work, but Martin, in the dark, could see Zimmerman illuminated by the street lights at each end of the crosswalk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mgm84
Assault= Make a physical attack on
How can they get from the altercation being started at the Top of the "T" and the body of the guy who was winning the fight is found up to 50+ ft away from where Zimmerman began getting "assaulted" without some sort of tussle? A tussle implies what? A FIGHT!! Meaning that they had to have made physical attacks on each other. Zimmerman NEVER said to have run or avoid Martin. So how did he get from point A to point B? And were was the phantom bushes?
But never mind. Continue to play dumb.
You're the one being willfully dumb, fantasy child. The distance from the "T" was closer to 25 feet than 50, and your argument still puts Martin over 100 yards from where he supposedly told Jeantel he was! Martin is the one who forfeited a two to three minute lead, turned around, backtracked, confronted and assaulted Zimmerman. Zimmerman's key chain flashlight was found at the "T" evidencing that that was where the fight started. Zimmerman reported that after he was struck in the nose, he stumbled blindly about and ended up on his back with Martin pummeling him from above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mgm84
And again, you have yet to answer my question on what constitutes fear more than running? And is it not commonly known to not lead strangers to your house?
No. "Home" -- behind locked doors -- is equated with "refuge"! Your assertion otherwise has been and remains ridiculous, especially since Martin believed that Zimmerman was acting as a security guard. "Home" is equated with "refuge" by the great majority of people! It IS the place you go if you feel you are in danger. You are being disingenuous when you claim otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mgm84
Your continuous insinuating that "he should have gone inside" is derived from a "SUNDOWN TOWN" mentality. Please tell us, why was the burden of avoidance and retreating on the man minding his own business, but the guy initiating the conflict is not held responsible to do so?
But keep playing dumb.
The "guy initiating the conflict" was Martin!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mgm84
ROTFLMAO!! So hearing wet grass when two people are fighting means that "the black man must have been up to no good"? How do you know that the wet grass was not Zimmerman? Or both people? This is epic! Jeantel testified that had Trayvon thought Zimmerman was a security guard he would have announced himself. But since Zimmerman chose not to present himself accordingly, he had no obligation to translate whether or not Zimmerman was a some sort of authority.
It was Jeantel who explained that Martin's use of "cracka" only applied to "security guards".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mgm84
That's why security normally wear SECURITY attire. Cops wear cop attire and drive in cop cars. Zimmerman had an obligation to present himself in the proper manner.
But keep playing dumb
Security guards don't always wear uniforms, and a jacket, such as the one worn by Zimmerman, would have obscured a uniform shirt anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mgm84
Ok, this is SPECUALTION. And please tell us what Trayvon did that night to make himself a "gangsta-wanna be" that I cannot show you an example of "pure white teens" doing?
Deflection!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mgm84
You said weed,
Wrong. The autopsy affirmed that Martin had THC in his system and suffered liver damage consistent with abusing the "Purple Dr@nk".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mgm84
although white teens do the most.
Deflection!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mgm84
You said photos of guns
The evidence is in Martin's texts and pictures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mgm84
(despite more whites being owners and having infatuations with guns).
Deflection!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mgm84
You said fighting
The evidence is in Martin's texts and pictures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mgm84
(despite whites also committing more violent crimes than blacks).
You're still deflecting, but now you are also lying. Per capita, blacks commit more violent crimes than any other ethnic group in the U.S.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mgm84
Yet none of those white kids get the "thug" stigma.
Deflection!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mgm84
This is not a case of race baiting, this is a case of racial denial.
Deflection!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mgm84
This is disingenuous. Zimmerman went to a GYM that specifically teaches MMA fighting and techniques. Billy Blanks videos cannot and does not teach you what you can learn in the gym Zimmerman went to. Its like comparing and equating a very good Madden player to an NFL player in football knowledge. One is the real deal and the other is EXTREMELY WATERED DOWN. Huge fail.
Zimmerman never progressed beyond "shadow boxing'; hence, his skill level was exactly on par with what is taught in a Billy Blanks' Tae Bo video.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mgm84
What is the common factor in that fight? THEY WERE BOTH HEAVYWEIGHTS!
While you post comments from flabby Larry, I'll show you evidence that cannot lie or give an opinion.
In your haste to deflect (or was it your reading skills?), perhaps you didn't notice that "flabby" Holmes was using Muhammad Ali as an example of how the smaller man beats the larger man. Or, do you now mean to denigrate Muhammad Ali's skill as a fighter?
BTW, did you actually READ the articles you cited? They don't support your POV, fantasy child.
"James Toney weighed a career high of 235 lbs. . . . [and] he did beat John Ruiz (41-5-1, 28 KOs) a 241 lb. heavyweight on that occasion. . . . It could be argued that a middleweight Toney . . . did everything the heavyweight Ruiz did . . . [and Toney] beat the much larger man.
"Between the two boxers, there is obviously a big difference in weight, but is that the biggest disparity, or does the reach or height offer up a larger advantage? A weight advantage doesn't necessarily give more punching power. Even if it did, is more than enough power to knock out an opponent an advantage? For the man with more power, even a glancing blow might be enough to knock out an opponent, but that isn't necessarily the heavier man."
"Some guys have it, and some don’t – but lot of that has to do with how much muscle mass [athleticism] is available to drive the key strike. Shane Carwin once contemplated his powerful striking, saying that when his hands touch people, “they go to sleep.” More accurately, he’s loaded with muscle mass all over his body, making his heavy hands that much more powerful. Muscles are like engines; they burn energy and convert chemical potential energy into mechanical kinetic energy. The more muscle you have, the more work you can do. The men currently populating the upper echelons of the UFC heavyweight division have a lot of muscle mass, and their fists can do some serious work.
". . . long arms also have a longer runway to accelerate, before they run out room, quickly decelerate, then finally stop at their maximum reach distance."
Do you have some photographs of a muscle bound George Zimmerman that you intend to share with the forum, fantasy child? BTW, weren't you the one who denied that height and arm length were factors in a fight?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mgm84
5) At 7:13:37 Zimmerman claimed that he hung up with the dispatcher and headed toward his truck when Trayvon hoped out of the bushes and attacked him a the top of the "T". Problem is that this was still 2 minutes away from the 911 call. Meaning he has been caught in yet another inconsistency.
At this point the only thing the Zimmerman apologists can do is continue to play the "play dumb card". This is more than enough to rest my argument.
WRONG! What that shows is there is at least a TWO MINUTE HOLE in your explanation, and that's YOUR inconsistency and not Zimmerman's!
This is just pure stupidity. Where do I start? Have you ever heard of being pressured and lead to make a big mistake?
And it would support your belief if he was returning. If he is on his way to target, then wouldn't that further warrant staying in his car? Getting out of his car showed a hero tendency when it was not necessary. If he was not "on patrol" why was his foundation based on his "community watch" title? So using your own logic he should have reacted as if he was "off duty" and not seeked out Trayvon? BANG!!
But keep playing dumb.
You are a fool and no different than the race baiting POS Al Sharpton.
Where he was going and regardless whether he was on his way or returning makes no difference. He saw someone he considered suspicious and stopped to investigate and notify the police. You tried to insinuate that he was actually out on patrol. What's your agenda in twisting those facts? Are you trying to railroad someone?
Have you ever had an opinion that you realized was wrong when someone pointed out the facts. Someone was able to show you that based on the facts your opinion did not hold up and you agreed that they were correct. I guess claiming she was "Railroaded" better fits your agenda.
And this still does not address anything relevant to the point at hand. You are grasping for straws here.
"There is a broader point to be made, though. Regardless of how intoxicated Mr. Martin was, the research tells us that aggression and violence are highly unlikely outcomes of marijuana use. Based on my own work, during which I have administered thousands of doses of marijuana, I can say that its main effects are contentment, relaxation, sedation, euphoria and increased hunger, all peaking within 5 to 10 minutes after smoking and lasting for about two hours. "
You are being disingenuous to the fact that the sample that were obtained read 1.5 nanograms of THC which is less than sober. Only to dismiss that sample to say that it was a "degraded sample". Then that only means that the "THC in his blood", is null and void therefore irrelevant. But instead you could not abandon your self serving ways and take that same "degraded, insignificant sample" to conclude something that is not the norm by far even if the sample said that he was under the influence at the time.
You are not credible
Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
Jeantel testified that Martin suspected that Zimmerman was a security guard. Nothing illegal occured until Martin punched Zimmerman in the nose
She actually said "acted like". She also said that TM thought that he was a "creepy cracka", and she said that he could have been a "rapist". So why would he not act according to those suggestions? Oh that's right, BECAUSE IT DOES NOT BENEFIT YOUR NARRATIVE.
BANG!
Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
Zimmerman didn't know where Martin went; that's why he walked through to the other street, checked for an address and then turned back to go to his truck. Zimmerman's flashlight didn't work, but Martin, in the dark, could see Zimmerman illuminated by the street lights at each end of the crosswalk.
First off, it was clearly proven that his "looking for an address" story was a complete lie because the prosecutor showed that the addresses stood in the FRONT where they always are in American communities. And furthermore, he had been living in that community for 4 years and is the neighborhood watch. How dense do you have to be to believe that Zimmerman cared about finding an address with these facts already known? His sole purpose was to seek out Trayvon.
And what evidence do you have that says he could not see Trayvon other than "because GZ said so"? He had TWO flashlights. And if both didn't work, that's suspect in itself. What evidence do you have that says Trayvon could see him? Did you retrieve some recent opthamologist exams? Your entire view is founded upon speculation and deductions that were not carefully thought out and given the benefit of the doubt (To GZ).
Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
You're the one being willfully dumb, fantasy child. The distance from the "T" was closer to 25 feet than 50, and your argument still puts Martin over 100 yards from where he supposedly told Jeantel he was! Martin is the one who forfeited a two to three minute lead, turned around, backtracked, confronted and assaulted Zimmerman. Zimmerman's key chain flashlight was found at the "T" evidencing that that was where the fight started. Zimmerman reported that after he was struck in the nose, he stumbled blindly about and ended up on his back with Martin pummeling him from above.
Martin didn't forfeit a 2 minute lead. Actually every moment until the moment the fight started was accounted for by Jantel AND phone records. So we have an idea of his whereabouts. The question is WHERE WAS GEORGE BETWEEN HIS DISCONNECT WITH THE DISPATCHER AND THE 911 CALL? Lets see if we can make sense of this.
George initially agreed to meet the officer "by the mailboxes near his truck" then before the 911 representative hung up, he changed it to "Tell him to call me and i'll meet him where I am". Did you care to ask yourself, why is this necessary if he never left the top of the "T"? Trayvon first mentioned to Rachel that "he thinks he lost him (GZ)". Implying what? That he is hiding. Jantel said that when Trayvon got close to his home he said "he is following me again" and later said "he's behind me" then "he's getting closer". Implying that he (George Zimmerman) had made the block and met him before he could ever reach his fathers house.
Now if Trayvon retreats "near his father's house", where is the only way he can go? BACK TOWARDS THE "T" intersection. How can Trayvon get followed "again", and GZ end up "behind him" and "getting closer", if Zimmerman never left the top of the "T"?
BANG!
This gives problems to your "backtracked" fallacy that has no plausible motive to support it. You can continue to play dumb, but I will just expose your stupidity and make you live up to your dumb act.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
No. "Home" -- behind locked doors -- is equated with "refuge"! Your assertion otherwise has been and remains ridiculous, especially since Martin believed that Zimmerman was acting as a security guard. "Home" is equated with "refuge" by the great majority of people! It IS the place you go if you feel you are in danger. You are being disingenuous when you claim otherwise.
GOTCHA!!!!!! Its interesting that you hold fast to the concept that Trayvon should have gone home and been more reactive if he was so scared, yet when people say that George Zimmerman should have been proactive and never left his car and not followed TM, you answer is "following someone is not illegal" and "he was defending himself". By your own logic that would also suggest that walking in that neighborhood is not illegal, and not continuing to run and go inside when George the boogey man/ Hero suggest that you do so is not illegal either.
Its a double standard to say that Trayvons reaction incites "his fault that he was killed", "suspicion", "started the fight", and "backtracked to assault Zimmerman". And not say that Zimmerman's actions incited "ill will", "murder 2", "assaulted Trayvon", hunted "Trayvon down".
BANG!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
It was Jeantel who explained that Martin's use of "cracka" only applied to "security guards".
What about rapist? Of course this is the "I forgot and are playing the play dumb card" again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
Security guards don't always wear uniforms, and a jacket, such as the one worn by Zimmerman, would have obscured a uniform shirt anyway.
They most certainly always present themselves in the proper manner. BTW, those that are not in uniform are undercover, and they MUST present who they are by the BS law before they detain anyone. Are you saying that Zimmerman was LE officer? I thought he was not on watch at the moment and on his way to target? Your story has "degraded" drastically. And I'll play your game. Was it illegal for Trayvon to adhere to Zimmerman? NO!
BANG!!!
Cant you see that everytime you respond like Kelly Bundy you open another door? You should get the point already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
Wrong. The autopsy affirmed that Martin had THC in his system and suffered liver damage consistent with abusing the "Purple Dr@nk".
And where is the evidence that says that he was WITHOUT A DOUBT influenced by either of these the night that he was killed?
You equivocate on each response. Nothing you say has legitimate base. Everything you conclude is a by-product of some other speculation which leads to another silly deduction that has no conclusive evidence or motive on the night of the incident. Show me one teenager that would not be guilty that night if we used the same measuring tools you use to come to conclusions? THC and lean that he had not consumed or had enough in his blood to fail a drug screening = to his fault he was shot in your eyes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
You're still deflecting, but now you are also lying. Per capita, blacks commit more violent crimes than any other ethnic group in the U.S.
You may have not received the memo but, crying "deflection" does not "degrade" the facts and excuse the fact that you have no answer for the statement or question.
You have not done your homework!! This is common knowledge. ROTFLMAO!!!! You are a dense individual
Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
Zimmerman never progressed beyond "shadow boxing'; hence, his skill level was exactly on par with what is taught in a Billy Blanks' Tae Bo video.
Says who? Its clear at this point you are only parroting what you hear on Fox news and all conservative dicks that are grappling their guns and are paranoid that "Obama is trying to take your guns".
What evidence is there that he never progressed beyond shadow boxing? If that is the case, then what was the benefit of offering a "George Zimmerman Training Program".? If he trained for 18 month's and still have yet to be able to defend himself, then what is the benefit of this training? Or advertising it? Any business owner would tell you that no business would advertise in the name of a failed project. That's like BP advertising in the name of the oil spill. Or the NY stock exchange advertising in the name of Enron. You are not questioning Zimmerman's side at all. So you are guilty of what I thought you were from the jump. And alternate agenda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
BTW, did you actually READ the articles you cited? They don't support your POV, fantasy child.
"FREE THINKER LEO MAKES YOU THINK ONCE AGAIN!"
You proved my point yet again. You ignored the bigger picture to focus on your own deduction. Common fact suggest that weight is obviously THE difference, and that "the free thinker" is giving a different perspective that says that smaller fighters are not necessarily inferior to larger fighters and here are example as to why.......... But of course you will take it and apply it in a completely different way.
Besides, you have yet to show me the controlled fighting discipline that does not match fights up ACCORDING to reach as opposed to weight.
And how does this dumb ass quote support your silly logic in any way?
Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
". . . long arms also have a longer runway to accelerate, before they run out room, quickly decelerate, then finally stop at their maximum reach distance."
Now you ignored the entire link and found this 'ineffective to your point statement'? This is laughable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
Do you have some photographs of a muscle bound George Zimmerman that you intend to share with the forum, fantasy child? BTW, weren't you the one who denied that height and arm length were factors in a fight?
So Zimmerman has to be muscular in order to be able to fight, but Trayvon can be 30-40 lbs underweight to break a nose and slam heads? Your ignorance never fails.
BANG!
Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
WRONG! What that shows is there is at least a TWO MINUTE HOLE in your explanation, and that's YOUR inconsistency and not Zimmerman's!
PROVE IT? This is about the 20th time you have dismissed my claim yet never support your dismissal Now this is a deflection! When I make comparisons, I always make sure I debunk that same claim and show a connection. This is a FACT that you, Zimmerman's defense, nor any paranoid gun owner has addressed. Give us an account of where Zimmerman was after he hung up with the 911 dispatcher and was "supposedly on his way to his car"?
Its grossly Obvious that you have not done your homework. Like I have been saying, Had Trayvon attacked him right after he disconnected with the dispatcher the attack would have happened as he was "almost to his father's house".
YOUR ENTIRE ARGUEMENT HAS DIED. EACH AND EVERY BS STATEMENT YOU HAVE MADE HAS BEEN DESTROYED.
And this still does not address anything relevant to the point at hand. You are grasping for straws here. Not at all.
"There is a broader point to be made, though. Regardless of how intoxicated Mr. Martin was, You've admitted that Martin was using an illegal substance: paranoia goes hand in glove with criminal activity. the research tells us that aggression and violence are highly unlikely outcomes of marijuana use. Based on my own work, during which I have administered thousands of doses of marijuana, I can say that its main effects are contentment, relaxation, sedation, euphoria and increased hunger, all peaking within 5 to 10 minutes after smoking and lasting for about two hours." Please describe how you felt when you lit up in front of someone you thought was LE? The feeling of getting caught by LE in an illegal activity is the only "feeling" that matters here, fantasy child.
You are being disingenuous to the fact that the sample that were obtained read 1.5 nanograms of THC which is less than sober. That sample was an inaccurate, degraded sample. Only to dismiss that sample to say that it was a "degraded sample". Then that only means that the "THC in his blood", is null and void therefore irrelevant. That's your fantasy, fantasy child. But instead you could not abandon your self serving ways and take that same "degraded, insignificant sample" to conclude something that is not the norm by far even if the sample said that he was under the influence at the time.
You are not credible. Six jurors disagree.
She actually said "acted like". Jeantel answered "Yeah" to Morgan's pointed question. She also said that TM thought that he was a "creepy cracka", and she said that he could have been a "rapist". Jeantel, not Martin, made the "rapist" conjecture. So why would he not act according to those suggestions? Oh that's right, BECAUSE IT DOES NOT BENEFIT YOUR NARRATIVE. Jeantel answered "Yeah" to Morgan's pointed question, but you're fantasizing that others cannot hear the words Jeantel actually said.
BANG! Your "bang" is actually a full-blown "fizzle", fantasy child.
First off, it was clearly proven that his "looking for an address" story was a complete lie because the prosecutor showed that the addresses stood in the FRONT where they always are in American communities. More fantasy from the fantasy child. There's a "number" on the house -- not a street name. And furthermore, he had been living in that community for 4 years and is the neighborhood watch. How dense do you have to be to believe that Zimmerman cared about finding an address with these facts already known? His sole purpose was to seek out Trayvon. More fantasy from the fantasy child. It's obvious in the non-emergency call that Zimmerman did not know what street he was on: unless you are arguing that Zimmerman was ingeniously preparing an alibi before Martin decided not to go in doors.
And what evidence do you have that says he could not see Trayvon other than "because GZ said so"? He had TWO flashlights. And if both didn't work, that's suspect in itself. The keychain flashlight worked; the other one didn't. What evidence do you have that says Trayvon could see him? More fantasy from the fantasy child. You yourself said that Jeantel said Martin could see Zimmerman! Did you retrieve some recent opthamologist exams? Is fantasy child now denying her previous posts???? Your entire view is founded upon speculation and deductions that were not carefully thought out and given the benefit of the doubt (To GZ). No, fantasy child, that's your modus operandi.
Really 25ft? That is as ignorant as it gets. No, fantasy child, that's your specialty: the distance is between 25' and 30' -- not 50'!
Martin didn't forfeit a 2 minute lead. Martin DID forfeit a 2 to 3 minute lead. Actually every moment until the moment the fight started was accounted for by Jantel AND phone records. Yes, that time is accounted for: Martin walked to his dad's girlfriend's townhouse and then he backtracked, confronted and ambushed Zimmerman out of the darkness. So we have an idea of his whereabouts. The question is WHERE WAS GEORGE BETWEEN HIS DISCONNECT WITH THE DISPATCHER AND THE 911 CALL? Lets see if we can make sense of this. Zimmerman walked on the cross walk from one street to the other and halfway back where Martin ambushed him out of the darkness.
George initially agreed to meet the officer "by the mailboxes near his truck" then before the 911 representative hung up, he changed it to "Tell him to call me and i'll meet him where I am". Did you care to ask yourself, why is this necessary if he never left the top of the "T"? Trayvon first mentioned to Rachel that "he thinks he lost him (GZ)". Implying what? That he is hiding. Jantel said that when Trayvon got close to his home he said "he is following me again" and later said "he's behind me" then "he's getting closer". Implying that he (George Zimmerman) had made the block and met him before he could ever reach his fathers house. Your quite delusional, fantasy child, if you believe Zimmerman could overcome Martin's 2 to 3 minute lead and catch Martin before Martin had the opportunity to go safely indoors and lock the door behind him.
Now if Trayvon retreats "near his father's house", where is the only way he can go? BACK TOWARDS THE "T" intersection. How can Trayvon get followed "again", and GZ end up "behind him" and "getting closer", if Zimmerman never left the top of the "T"? Zimmerman was never stationary at the "T", fntasy child. As Zimmerman walked on the cross walk from one street to the other he passed the "T" once, and it was when he reached the "T" as he was returning to his truck that Martin ambushed him out of the darkness.
BANG! Your "bang" is a "fizzle", fantasy child.
This gives problems to your "backtracked" fallacy that has no plausible motive to support it. You can continue to play dumb, but I will just expose your stupidity and make you live up to your dumb act. Ockham's Razor: the evidence affirms that Martin backtracked, confronted and assaulted Zimmerman.
GOTCHA!!!!!! Its interesting that you hold fast to the concept that Trayvon should have gone home and been more reactive if he was so scared, yet when people say that George Zimmerman should have been proactive and never left his car and not followed TM, you answer is "following someone is not illegal" and "he was defending himself". You're ignoring the obvious, fantasy child. It's in the transcript and on the audio: the police dispatcher was coaching Zimmerman to report Martin's every move.
By your own logic that would also suggest that walking in that neighborhood is not illegal, and not continuing to run and go inside when George the boogey man/ Hero suggest that you do so is not illegal either. Martin committed two crimes that night, fantasy child. He smoked w33d, and he assaulted Zimmerman. Had Martin not assaulted Zimmerman, nothing else he did would have mattered; hence, the only thing that does matter is that Martin assaulted Zimmerman.
Its a double standard to say that Trayvons reaction incites "his fault that he was killed", "suspicion", "started the fight", and "backtracked to assault Zimmerman". And not say that Zimmerman's actions incited "ill will", "murder 2", "assaulted Trayvon", hunted "Trayvon down". The only thing that mattered is that Martin crossed the line when he assaulted Zimmerman.
BANG!! Your "bang" is a "fizzle", fantasy child.
What about rapist? Of course this is the "I forgot and are playing the play dumb card" again. That was Jeantel's conjecture, not Martin's; hence, Martin did not once consider Zimmerman a rapist until Jeantel mentioned it.
They most certainly always present themselves in the proper manner. BTW, those that are not in uniform are undercover, and they MUST present who they are by the BS law before they detain anyone. Are you saying that Zimmerman was LE officer? I thought he was not on watch at the moment and on his way to target? Your story has "degraded" drastically. And I'll play your game. Was it illegal for Trayvon to adhere to Zimmerman? NO! Point of fact, you've just argued that Zimmerman was trying to avoid contact until the police arrived: and he was!
BANG!!! Your "bang" is a "fizzle", fantasy child.
Cant you see that everytime you respond like Kelly Bundy you open another door? You should get the point already. This is an exorcism ritual, fantasy child. Your every fantasy point has been refuted, but you continue to post your delusional notions. Your entitled to continue until your thoroughly exorcised.
And where is the evidence that says that he was WITHOUT A DOUBT influenced by either of these the night that he was killed?
You equivocate on each response. Nothing you say has legitimate base. Everything you conclude is a by-product of some other speculation which leads to another silly deduction that has no conclusive evidence or motive on the night of the incident. Show me one teenager that would not be guilty that night if we used the same measuring tools you use to come to conclusions? THC and lean that he had not consumed or had enough in his blood to fail a drug screening = to his fault he was shot in your eyes? Testing "positive" for "THC" IS, in fact, failing a drug screening test.
You may have not received the memo but, crying "deflection" does not "degrade" the facts and excuse the fact that you have no answer for the statement or question.
Here is the link to THE FBI ARTICLE ITSELF!!!
You're equivocating, fantasy child. African Americans only constitute 13% of the population. Yet, those FBI statistics you cite evidence the following: 1) Nearly 30% of the violent crime in this country is perpetrated by 13% of its population: African Americans. 2) There are 14.82 murders per 100K committed by blacks whereas there are just 2.17 murders per 100K committed by whites. 3) Per capita, there are seven times more murders committed by blacks than whites. 4) Plus, 90% of blacks are murdered by blacks. That's what your FBI statistics evidences, fantasy child.
You have not done your homework!! This is common knowledge. ROTFLMAO!!!! You are a dense individual Did the homework and factually proved that you are liar with the numbers you cited, fantasy child.
Says who? Its clear at this point you are only parroting what you hear on Fox news and all conservative dicks that are grappling their guns and are paranoid that "Obama is trying to take your guns". The evidence is in the trial transcript, fantasy child. BTW, the trial was televised on HLN, CNN and the Internet; not FOX, fantasy child.
What evidence is there that he never progressed beyond shadow boxing? The evidence is in the trial transcript, fantasy child. BTW, the trial was televised on HLN, CNN and the Internet; not FOX, fantasy child. If that is the case, then what was the benefit of offering a "George Zimmerman Training Program".? "Weight loss," fantasy child. If he trained for 18 month's and still have yet to be able to defend himself, then what is the benefit of this training? "Weight loss," fantasy child. Or advertising it? "Weight loss," fantasy child. Any business owner would tell you that no business would advertise in the name of a failed project. Zimmerman lost a lot of weight, fantasy child. That's like BP advertising in the name of the oil spill. You're fantasizing, fantasy child. Or the NY stock exchange advertising in the name of Enron. You're fantasizing, fantasy child. You are not questioning Zimmerman's side at all. No, fantasy child. Questioning your rationality is almost a full-time burden unto itself, fantasy child. So you are guilty of what I thought you were from the jump. And alternate agenda. You're fantasizing to deflect from your agenda, fantasy child.
"FREE THINKER LEO MAKES YOU THINK ONCE AGAIN!"
You proved my point yet again. You ignored the bigger picture to focus on your own deduction. Common fact suggest that weight is obviously THE difference, and that "the free thinker" is giving a different perspective that says that smaller fighters are not necessarily inferior to larger fighters and here are example as to why.......... But of course you will take it and apply it in a completely different way. You're the one who fantasized that your cited article said something different than it did, fantasy child.
Besides, you have yet to show me the controlled fighting discipline that does not match fights up ACCORDING to reach as opposed to weight. You did that, fantasy child. It was in the examples YOU cited.
And how does this dumb ass quote support your silly logic in any way? Holmes is a fight expert, fantasy child; you're not!
Now you ignored the entire link and found this 'ineffective to your point statement'? This is laughable. No, fantasy child. What is laughable, fantasy child, is that you "imagined" that the articles you cited supported your lame, fantasy-driven POV, when they don't!
So Zimmerman has to be muscular in order to be able to fight, but Trayvon can be 30-40 lbs underweight to break a nose and slam heads? It was your article, fantasy child. It was in the examples YOU cited. Your ignorance never fails. You're fantasizing, fantasy child.
BANG! Your "bang" is a "fizzle", fantasy child.
PROVE IT? This is about the 20th time you have dismissed my claim yet never support your dismissal Now this is a deflection! When I make comparisons, I always make sure I debunk that same claim and show a connection. This is a FACT that you, Zimmerman's defense, nor any paranoid gun owner has addressed. Give us an account of where Zimmerman was after he hung up with the 911 dispatcher and was "supposedly on his way to his car"? The evidence was presented in court, fantasy child, and the jurors ruled.
Its grossly Obvious that you have not done your homework. Like I have been saying, Had Trayvon attacked him right after he disconnected with the dispatcher the attack would have happened as he was "almost to his father's house". Martin ambushed Zimmerman at the "T" as Zimmerman was returning to his truck, fantasy child. Martin walked to his dad's girlfriend's house, turned around, backtracked, confronted and assaulted Zimmerman. That's what occurred, per the evidence: "Ockham's Razor", in those 2 to 3 minutes before Martin sucker punched Zimmerman in the face.
YOUR ENTIRE ARGUEMENT HAS DIED. EACH AND EVERY BS STATEMENT YOU HAVE MADE HAS BEEN DESTROYED. No, fantasy child, it's your "fantasy" that has been tested and found wanting.
You've admitted that Martin was using an illegal substance: paranoia goes hand in glove with criminal activity.
The typical sly trap/disingenuous tactics of a snake. Him being intoxicated at all was YOUR assumption based off your lack of supportive evidence. I just made that point for the sake of argument that shows that your theory does not work whether he was intoxicated or not. You still have not supported your theory that he WAS intoxicated. BTW, the point of testing him was not due to some drug past or failure test that could get him in trouble with probation, but whether or not his decision making was hindered by intoxication. And that is subject to what? THC LEVELS!!! NOT TRACES, BUT LEVELS!!
That was a desperate failure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
." Please describe how you felt when you lit up in front of someone you thought was LE? The feeling of getting caught by LE in an illegal activity is the only "feeling" that matters here, fantasy child.
Why do you assume I ever "lit up"? Just be honest already and say that you hate N****S! And if your klansman theory was fractionally rational, wouldn't that propel him to continue to run? Honestly, who asks the cops "why are you following me"?
But that's ok, keep playing the dumb game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
That sample was an inaccurate, degraded sample
Well how can your arbitrary RESULT conclude "he was intoxicated" if the sample is inaccurate and degraded without a highly speculative conclusion?
BANG!!! You're making this too easy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
Six jurors disagree
Well since these six jurors are the divine holders of all truth and logic, shouldn't we also conclude that you would also agree with them if they decided that you should get a blood transplant from a person that is HIV positive? Those jurors could have been wrong just like any other MAN is subject to.
That was just another desperate reply that stems from your inability to address my statement intelligibly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
Jeantel, not Martin, made the "rapist" conjecture
Why did you not address "creepy cracka"? It is synonymous with rapist, kidnapper, someone who is sadistic, white man with malicious intent etc. This is just another testimony to your channel surfing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
More fantasy from the fantasy child. There's a "number" on the house -- not a street name. It's obvious in the non-emergency call that Zimmerman did not know what street he was on: unless you are arguing that Zimmerman was ingeniously preparing an alibi before Martin decided not to go in doors.
THANK YOU!! There are only two streets to remember in that gated community. And George called one out by name. So a 4 year resident, and neighborhood watch does not know the name of one street that he had swept for most likely hundreds of hours? Also add that it was the street his good old Klansman Taafe lived on. By claiming to not know the street name, he thought it gave him justification for following him without seeming malicious. How does this take so much planning and complexity to think up this idea in your mind? What honest man can consistently take dubious logic like this and appoint them as "obvious"? Its sad actually.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
You're ignoring the obvious, fantasy child. It's in the transcript and on the audio: the police dispatcher was coaching Zimmerman to report Martin's every move
ROTFLMAO!!!!! White supremacy and white denial at its finest!! The dispatcher asked him which way he (TM) was running, and where at about 7:05. By 7:12 he specifically asked him (GZ) "Are you following him"? George: "Yes". Answer: "Ok we don't need you to do that". If there is no ill will or malicious intention, why would George apply one command out of context, and completely disregard the command when it is put in proper context?
That is called playing dumb and cherry picking which in general stem from dishonesty, disingenuous, channel surfing. This tactic normally appears when someone is desperate to defend themselves and or when they are trying to hide something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
Martin committed two crimes that night, fantasy child. He smoked w33d, and he assaulted Zimmerman. Had Martin not assaulted Zimmerman, nothing else he did would have mattered; hence, the only thing that does matter is that Martin assaulted Zimmerman.
Evidence that says he was under the influence? No? Just speculation? Ok. Evidence that it was a mutual assault (fight)? Evidence that Zimmerman did not grab Martin or intiate the contact (Jeantel "get off me")? Again you did not do your homework. George's cartoon simulation suggest that Martin came from toward the bottom of the "T" to the top of the "T" and hit him with a left hook. Momentum says that George would have either stumbled toward his left, or backward. This would have brought the momentum of the fight the OPPOSITE way of where Martin's body was found. Basic physics buddy.
You have now been minimized to a preschool level. BANG!
Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
More fantasy from the fantasy child. You yourself said that Jeantel said Martin could see Zimmerman!
He could not see Zimmerman until he was almost to his fathers house and began to be followed "AGAIN". Saying: "This n***a is following me again". This does not corroborate with Zimmerman's "top of the T" story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
Yes, that time is accounted for: Martin walked to his dad's girlfriend's townhouse and then he backtracked, confronted and ambushed Zimmerman out of the darkness.
Ok, now where is ZIMMERMAN at this time?
BANG!!!! You refuse to account for Georgie at this time. Because white denial does not want to address what it cannot string together. So it freezes George Zimmerman in time while Trayvon is remembering to "backtrack" and attack the police or security without motive as the "black man is an animal concept" has been being endoctrinated into the perception of white America for centuries. Play dumb is the name of the game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
Your quite delusional, fantasy child, if you believe Zimmerman could overcome Martin's 2 to 3 minute lead and catch Martin before Martin had the opportunity to go safely indoors and lock the door behind him.
WOW! So in your storyline, Trayvon ran then George waited for about 2-3 minutes before he decided to run after him?
ROTFLMAO!!!!! This is means for cutting you off from intellectual dialect. If he had waited for 2-3 minutes to approach Trayvon, how could George have "followed him again"? This is epic! Your belief is that George Zimmerman's 2 minutes of not being accounted for after he hung up with the dispatcher was spent in the car? OMG!!!
You know what, this is my cue to follow previous instructions and not waist time with you and white supremacy and denial as a whole. I will entertain one last short bus comment you made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
You're equivocating, fantasy child. African Americans only constitute 13% of the population. Yet, those FBI statistics you cite evidence the following: 1) Nearly 30% of the violent crime in this country is perpetrated by 13% of its population: African Americans. 2) There are 14.82 murders per 100K committed by blacks whereas there are just 2.17 murders per 100K committed by whites. 3) Per capita, there are seven times more murders committed by blacks than whites. 4) Plus, 90% of blacks are murdered by blacks. That's what your FBI statistics evidences, fantasy child.
No No No! Your percentage tactics wont save you either.
"the mere fact that the term “black-on-black crime” is used (while “white-on-white crime” is never used the same way), suggests that the phrase is more about reinforcing stereotypes of black people as inherently dangerous, than actually addressing the phenomenon of intra-group violence. The term is not benign or merely descriptive, for if it were intended as such, we would use “white-on-white” crime to describe the crime that mostly affects white people, but we don’t. And not because it’s a minor occurrence. According to the most recent comprehensive data from the Justice Department (in that it tallies crime estimates by race, for offenders and victims, and not merely for crimes reported to police, but also those that are not reported): In 2008:
There were 2,788,600 white victims of violent crime involving a single offender. In 67.4 percent of these cases, the offender was known to be white.
So, in 2008 there were at least 1.9 million white-on-white single offender violent crimes. This, compared to roughly 369,000 black-on-black single offender violent crimes.
So, in 2008 there were more than five times as many white-on-white violent crimes involving a single offender as there were black-on-black violent crimes involving a single offender."
Playing the percentage game is as deceptive as it gets. Because the minority census is significantly lower, using percentages gives a very misleading perception. If your community consisted of 100 residents and mine consisted of 10, 1 murder would give a completely different (perception percentage wise) of my community if 1 person is murdered in your neighborhood despite having the same murder rate.
Fact still stands that there are more violent crimes by raw numbers committed by whites (more crime in general) than blacks, yet the stigma is given to blacks. You can pin nothing that Trayvon or any black man has done that white men are not or have not done at the rate of x6.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
The evidence is in the trial transcript, fantasy child. BTW, the trial was televised on HLN, CNN and the Internet; not FOX, fantasy child.
Cherry picking! Did Fox not spend days and days of airtime showing footage and discussion on that case?
Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
"Weight loss," fantasy child
All jokes aside, you aren't very bright are you? What benefit would it give the GYM to advertise a no name Zimmerman if he was a frail, feeble, no name with little progress after 18 months prior to the incident? And afterwards he was the size of the Astro Dome.
You have to be ingenuous on at least one your responses if you want to be taken seriously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
That was Jeantel's conjecture, not Martin's; hence, Martin did not once consider Zimmerman a rapist until Jeantel mentioned it.
Its synonymous with "creepy cracka".
Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
Holmes is a fight expert, fantasy child; you're not!
No, im not a fight expert, but those who make the rules are. And last I checked, they did not refer to Larry Holmes when constituting mandatory weight classes.
BANG!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
Martin ambushed Zimmerman at the "T" as Zimmerman was returning to his truck, fantasy child. Martin walked to his dad's girlfriend's house, turned around, backtracked, confronted and assaulted Zimmerman. That's what occurred, per the evidence: "Ockham's Razor", in those 2 to 3 minutes before Martin sucker punched Zimmerman in the face.
LOL!! You really are Kelly Bundy? Zimmerman was "supposedly" on his way to his truck. Zimmerman got off of the phone with the dispatcher, and did not began fighting with Trayvon Martin until a full 2 minutes later. Again, that does not add up if his truck was a 12 second walk away. You have no reasonable motive to assume Trayvon "backtracked" to do something he could have done when he first realized he was being watched.. And can you tell us how can Trayvon's 220 yard walk, lead him to meet Zimmerman at the middle of the "T"?
How can your story tie in "this n***a is following me again" and "he's right behind me"!!
The typical sly trap/disingenuous tactics of a snake. Him being intoxicated at all was YOUR assumption based off your lack of supportive evidence. I just made that point for the sake of argument that shows that your theory does not work whether he was intoxicated or not. You still have not supported your theory that he WAS intoxicated. BTW, the point of testing him was not due to some drug past or failure test that could get him in trouble with probation, but whether or not his decision making was hindered by intoxication. And that is subject to what? THC LEVELS!!! NOT TRACES, BUT LEVELS!!
You lie when you deny, fantasy child: "In the short term, m@rijuan@ use impairs perception, judgment, thinking, memory, and learning; memory defects may persist six weeks after last use."
That was a desperate failure. You're fantasizing, fantasy child.
Why do you assume I ever "lit up"? You claimed to have personal expertise, fantasy child. Just be honest already and say that you hate N****S! And if your klansman theory was fractionally rational, wouldn't that propel him to continue to run? Honestly, who asks the cops "why are you following me"? You've never watched "Cops", have you, fantasy child?
But that's ok, keep playing the dumb game. That's your forte, fantasy child.
Well how can your arbitrary RESULT conclude "he was intoxicated" if the sample is inaccurate and degraded without a highly speculative conclusion? "In the short term, m@rijuan@ use impairs perception, judgment, thinking, memory, and learning; memory defects may persist six weeks after last use."
BANG!!! You're making this too easy. Your "bang" is actually a full-blown "fizzle", fantasy child.
Well since these six jurors are the divine holders of all truth and logic, shouldn't we also conclude that you would also agree with them if they decided that you should get a blood transplant from a person that is HIV positive? Those jurors could have been wrong just like any other MAN is subject to. Six jurors heard the evidence, read the laws and then ruled "Not Guilty", fantasy child. You're fantasizing when you imagine they were wrong.
That was just another desperate reply that stems from your inability to address my statement intelligibly. You're fantasizing, fantasy child.
Why did you not address "creepy cracka"? Jeantel said it meant "security guard", fantasy child. It is synonymous with rapist, kidnapper, someone who is sadistic, white man with malicious intent etc. Jeantel said it meant "security guard", fantasy child. This is just another testimony to your channel surfing. You're fantasizing, fantasy child.
THANK YOU!! There are only two streets to remember in that gated community. Your ignorantly ignoring the audio evidence, fantasy child. And George called one out by name. So a 4 year resident, and neighborhood watch does not know the name of one street that he had swept for most likely hundreds of hours? That's exactly what happened, fantasy child. Also add that it was the street his good old Klansman Taafe lived on. By claiming to not know the street name, he thought it gave him justification for following him without seeming malicious. How does this take so much planning and complexity to think up this idea in your mind? What honest man can consistently take dubious logic like this and appoint them as "obvious"? Its sad actually. You're fantasizing, fantasy child.
ROTFLMAO!!!!! White supremacy and white denial at its finest!! You're fantasizing, fantasy child. The dispatcher asked him which way he (TM) was running, and where at about 7:05. By 7:12 he specifically asked him (GZ) "Are you following him"? George: "Yes". Answer: "Ok we don't need you to do that". If there is no ill will or malicious intention, why would George apply one command out of context, and completely disregard the command when it is put in proper context? You're fantasizing that he did so, fantasy child.
That is called playing dumb and cherry picking which in general stem from dishonesty, disingenuous, channel surfing. This tactic normally appears when someone is desperate to defend themselves and or when they are trying to hide something. You're fantasizing, fantasy child.
Evidence that says he was under the influence? No? Just speculation? "In the short term, m@rijuan@ use impairs perception, judgment, thinking, memory, and learning; memory defects may persist six weeks after last use."
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidenc.../Health_1.html
Ok. Evidence that it was a mutual assault (fight)? Evidence that Zimmerman did not grab Martin or intiate the contact (Jeantel "get off me")? Jeantel also testified that she heard "wet grass", fantasy child. Again you did not do your homework. George's cartoon simulation suggest that Martin came from toward the bottom of the "T" to the top of the "T" and hit him with a left hook. Momentum says that George would have either stumbled toward his left, or backward. This would have brought the momentum of the fight the OPPOSITE way of where Martin's body was found. Basic physics buddy. You're fantasizing, fantasy child.
You have now been minimized to a preschool level. BANG! Your "bang" is actually a full-blown "fizzle", fantasy child.
He could not see Zimmerman until he was almost to his fathers house and began to be followed "AGAIN". Saying: "This n***a is following me again". This does not corroborate with Zimmerman's "top of the T" story. All of the evidence and all of the witnesses affirm that it started at the top of the "T", fantasy child.
Ok, now where is ZIMMERMAN at this time? Zimmerman walked through to the other street, looked for an address and then turned and walked toward his truck.
BANG!!!! Your "bang" is actually a full-blown "fizzle", fantasy child. You refuse to account for Georgie at this time. Because white denial does not want to address what it cannot string together. So it freezes George Zimmerman in time while Trayvon is remembering to "backtrack" and attack the police or security without motive as the "black man is an animal concept" has been being endoctrinated into the perception of white America for centuries. Zimmerman walked through to the other street, looked for an address and then turned and walked toward his truck.
Play dumb is the name of the game. That's your forte, fantasy chiled.
WOW! So in your storyline, Trayvon ran then George waited for about 2-3 minutes before he decided to run after him? Zimmerman walked through to the other street, looked for an address and then turned and walked toward his truck.
ROTFLMAO!!!!! This is means for cutting you off from intellectual dialect. If he had waited for 2-3 minutes to approach Trayvon, how could George have "followed him again"? This is epic! Your belief is that George Zimmerman's 2 minutes of not being accounted for after he hung up with the dispatcher was spent in the car? OMG!!! You purposefully ignoring that he walked through to the other street, looked for an address and then turned and walked toward his truck. Martin told Jeantel he was near is dad's girlfriend's townhouse, and all of the evidence affirms the fight started at the "T". Thus, Martin backtracked, confronted and assaulted Zimmerman: Ockham's Razor.
You know what, this is my cue to follow previous instructions and not waist time with you and white supremacy and denial as a whole. I will entertain one last short bus comment you made.
No No No! Your percentage tactics wont save you either. The statistics don't support you POV, fantasy child.
"the mere fact that the term “black-on-black crime” is used (while “white-on-white crime” is never used the same way), suggests that the phrase is more about reinforcing stereotypes of black people as inherently dangerous, than actually addressing the phenomenon of intra-group violence. The term is not benign or merely descriptive, for if it were intended as such, we would use “white-on-white” crime to describe the crime that mostly affects white people, but we don’t. And not because it’s a minor occurrence. According to the most recent comprehensive data from the Justice Department (in that it tallies crime estimates by race, for offenders and victims, and not merely for crimes reported to police, but also those that are not reported): In 2008:
The statistics don't support you POV, fantasy child.
There were 2,788,600 white victims of violent crime involving a single offender. In 67.4 percent of these cases, the offender was known to be white.
So, in 2008 there were at least 1.9 million white-on-white single offender violent crimes. This, compared to roughly 369,000 black-on-black single offender violent crimes.
So, in 2008 there were more than five times as many white-on-white violent crimes involving a single offender as there were black-on-black violent crimes involving a single offender."
BANG!!! Your "bang" is actually a full-blown "fizzle", fantasy child.
African Americans only constitute 13% of the population. Yet, those FBI statistics you cite evidence the following: 1) Nearly 30% of the violent crime in this country is perpetrated by 13% of its population: African Americans. 2) There are 14.82 murders per 100K committed by blacks whereas there are just 2.17 murders per 100K committed by whites. 3) Per capita, there are seven times more murders committed by blacks than whites. 4) Plus, 90% of blacks are murdered by blacks. That's what your FBI statistics evidences, fantasy child.
Playing the percentage game is as deceptive as it gets. Only in you twisted little mind, fantasy child. Because the minority census is significantly lower, using percentages gives a very misleading perception. If your community consisted of 100 residents and mine consisted of 10, 1 murder would give a completely different (perception percentage wise) of my community if 1 person is murdered in your neighborhood despite having the same murder rate.
Fact still stands that there are more violent crimes by raw numbers committed by whites (more crime in general) than blacks, yet the stigma is given to blacks. You can pin nothing that Trayvon or any black man has done that white men are not or have not done at the rate of x6. African Americans only constitute 13% of the population. Yet, those FBI statistics you cite evidence the following: 1) Nearly 30% of the violent crime in this country is perpetrated by 13% of its population: African Americans. 2) There are 14.82 murders per 100K committed by blacks whereas there are just 2.17 murders per 100K committed by whites. 3) Per capita, there are seven times more murders committed by blacks than whites. 4) Plus, 90% of blacks are murdered by blacks. That's what your FBI statistics evidences, fantasy child.
Cherry picking! Did Fox not spend days and days of airtime showing footage and discussion on that case? Wouldn't know. Watched HLN.
All jokes aside, you aren't very bright are you? Weight loss is a multi-billion dollar business, fantasy child. What benefit would it give the GYM to advertise a no name Zimmerman if he was a frail, feeble, no name with little progress after 18 months prior to the incident? Money! And afterwards he was the size of the Astro Dome. You're ignorantly wrong, fantasy child. Zimmerman gained the weight after he quit going to the gym.
You have to be ingenuous on at least one your responses if you want to be taken seriously.You're the one in full fail mode, fantasy child.
Its synonymous with "creepy cracka". Jeantel said it meant "security guard", fantasy child.
No, im not a fight expert, but those who make the rules are. And last I checked, they did not refer to Larry Holmes when constituting mandatory weight classes. Larry Holmes never argued that Championship Boxing Rules apply in street fights, fantasy child. What Holmes said was: "[S]ize don’t matter it’s what you can do in the ring, just look at Ali. Ernie Terrell was a big guy and Ali did what we usually do with them we wear them down. Skill and talent always beats size, the guys taking over today are doing so because of training."
BANG!!!! Your "bang" is actually a full-blown "fizzle", fantasy child.
LOL!! You really are Kelly Bundy? Zimmerman was "supposedly" on his way to his truck. Zimmerman got off of the phone with the dispatcher, and did not began fighting with Trayvon Martin until a full 2 minutes later. Again, that does not add up if his truck was a 12 second walk away. You have no reasonable motive to assume Trayvon "backtracked" to do something he could have done when he first realized he was being watched.. And can you tell us how can Trayvon's 220 yard walk, lead him to meet Zimmerman at the middle of the "T"? You purposefully ignoring that he walked through to the other street, looked for an address and then turned and walked toward his truck. Martin told Jeantel he was near is dad's girlfriend's townhouse, and all of the evidence affirms the fight started at the "T". Thus, Martin backtracked, confronted and assaulted Zimmerman: Ockham's Razor.
How can your story tie in "this n***a is following me again" and "he's right behind me"!! Martin backtracked, confronted and assaulted Zimmerman: Ockham's Razor.
You can continue to play dumb. That's your forte, fantasy child.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyramider
Thanck Tebow football is back ... bunch of Monday morning quarterbacks.
You lie when you deny, fantasy child: "In the short term, m@rijuan@ use impairs perception, judgment, thinking, memory, and learning; memory defects may persist six weeks after last use."
Being that I have deflated your repetitive points I wont address most of the garbage, but rather put THE TRUE FACTS in perspective.
"memory defects may persist six weeks after last use"
You are so desperate for a rebuttal you must have "forgotten" that memory is not the so called "negative" effect that would have any true bearing on what happed that night.
BANG!!!! ROTFL AT YOUR GRASPING FOR STRAWS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
You claimed to have personal expertise, fantasy child
O REALLY? Prove this claim or you automatically admit to being a compulsive liar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
Jeantel said it meant "security guard", fantasy child
She also said RAPIST. Why keep cherry picking?
Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
That's exactly what happened, fantasy child
So George Zimmerman can't remember the names of two streets at one time? Who has the memory issues now? Has Georgie been smoking?
Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
Zimmerman walked through to the other street, looked for an address and then turned and walked toward his truck.
That walk took 12 seconds. Unless you freeze Zimmerman in time, account for Trayvon saying "this nigga is following me AGAIN", " getting close to me" after being close to his fathers house, you are accountable by logic to conclude that Zimmerman is lying and the story is not being told accurately. You are willfully playing dumb. At this point it is clear that they could not have "met at the T" and at the same time Martin be the sole aggressor all while momentum of the fight goes in the direction opposite of him.
African Americans only constitute 13% of the population. Yet, those FBI statistics you cite evidence the following: 1) Nearly 30% of the violent crime in this country is perpetrated by 13% of its population: African Americans. 2) There are 14.82 murders per 100K committed by blacks whereas there are just 2.17 murders per 100K committed by whites. 3) Per capita, there are seven times more murders committed by blacks than whites. 4) Plus, 90% of blacks are murdered by blacks. That's what your FBI statistics evidences, fantasy child.
Lets put this thing back in perspective. According to statistics The number of murders BY RAW numbers suggest that white offenders of homicide that are white and black are about the same. therefore
If blacks hold a murder stigma for committing a similar number of murders as whites, then that stigma should also hold for whites as well. What you are doing is willfull distortion of the facts.
If blacks should be worried about intraracial murders because it is more prominent, then are you aware that the number for white on white murder is 84% in the white community? So it is close meaning what? THE ISSUE IS ABOUT PROXIMITY, AND NOT BLACK PEOPLE YOU DOLT!
Why don't conservatives apply their points and principles evenly? For instance, why have 19 Arabs labeled the entire Middle East as terrorist while over 120 white terrorist didn't give whites in America the same or worst stigma?
If black men are the true thugs and "gangstas", why are whites responsible for 53.3% of gang related homicide while blacks account for 42.2?
If blacks have the food stamp stigma, why are 13.4 million whites receiving food stamps as opposed to 8.9 blacks that blacks receive?
If blacks black's hold the Section 8 stigma, why do whites have a 76.3 success rate opposed to a 63.3% rate for blacks?
If affirmative action is discrimination against whites, why have white women benefitted from it more than anyone?
You're ignorantly wrong, fantasy child. Zimmerman gained the weight after he quit going to the gym
Exactly!!! He gained that weight AFTER the Martin murder. So out of the thousands of people that were not "frail, feeble, no name with little progress after 18 months prior to the incident", they just so happened to choose George Zimmerman? Once again you failed to provide logic, but rather "just so" illogical arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
Larry Holmes never argued that Championship Boxing Rules apply in street fights, fantasy child. What Holmes said was: "[S]ize don’t matter it’s what you can do in the ring, just look at Ali. Ernie Terrell was a big guy and Ali did what we usually do with them we wear them down. Skill and talent always beats size, the guys taking over today are doing so because of training."
If this was true, wouldn't the fighting professionals take heed and "revolutionize" fighting? You are being disingenuous in an attempt to save face.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
You purposefully ignoring that he walked through to the other street, looked for an address and then turned and walked toward his truck.
According to evidence or because George said so? The evidence have not shown this as I have proven several times. Playing dumb cannot get you out of it.
Address some of my questions or I will take it as your forfeit of your past illogical arguments.
Being that I have deflated your repetitive points I wont address most of the garbage, but rather put THE TRUE FACTS in perspective.
"memory defects may persist six weeks after last use"
You are so desperate for a rebuttal you must have "forgotten" that memory is not the so called "negative" effect that would have any true bearing on what happed that night. It was your contention that there was no impairment. You've just conceded that point, fantasy child.
BANG!!!! ROTFL AT YOUR GRASPING FOR STRAWS. Your "bang" is actually a full-blown "fizzle", fantasy child.
O REALLY? Prove this claim or you automatically admit to being a compulsive liar. You made Dr. Hall's remarks your own, fantasy child.
She also said RAPIST. Why keep cherry picking? Jeantel did say "rapist," fantasy child. But she also explained that that precept was wholly hers, not Martin's. Jeantel said Martin believed Zimmerman was a "cr@ck@" meaning "security guard", fantasy child.
So George Zimmerman can't remember the names of two streets at one time? The facts are the facts, fantasy child. Who has the memory issues now? He admitted as much, fantasy child. Has Georgie been smoking? Another of your flights of fancy, fantasy child.
That walk took 12 seconds. Unless you freeze Zimmerman in time, account for Trayvon saying "this nigga is following me AGAIN", " getting close to me" after being close to his fathers house, you are accountable by logic to conclude that Zimmerman is lying and the story is not being told accurately. You are willfully playing dumb. At this point it is clear that they could not have "met at the T" and at the same time Martin be the sole aggressor all while momentum of the fight goes in the direction opposite of him. Your flight of fancy isn't supported by the evidence, fantasy child. All of the "ear witnesses" affirm the fight started at the "T". The evidence trail begins at the "T". YOU have nothing but your distorting conjectures to support your POV, fantasy child.
Lets put this thing back in perspective. According to statistics The number of murders BY RAW numbers suggest that white offenders of homicide that are white and black are about the same. therefore
If blacks hold a murder stigma for committing a similar number of murders as whites, then that stigma should also hold for whites as well. What you are doing is willfull distortion of the facts.
If blacks should be worried about intraracial murders because it is more prominent, then are you aware that the number for white on white murder is 84% in the white community? So it is close meaning what? THE ISSUE IS ABOUT PROXIMITY, AND NOT BLACK PEOPLE YOU DOLT!
Why don't conservatives apply their points and principles evenly? For instance, why have 19 Arabs labeled the entire Middle East as terrorist while over 120 white terrorist didn't give whites in America the same or worst stigma?
If black men are the true thugs and "gangstas", why are whites responsible for 53.3% of gang related homicide while blacks account for 42.2?
If blacks have the food stamp stigma, why are 13.4 million whites receiving food stamps as opposed to 8.9 blacks that blacks receive?
If blacks black's hold the Section 8 stigma, why do whites have a 76.3 success rate opposed to a 63.3% rate for blacks?
If affirmative action is discrimination against whites, why have white women benefitted from it more than anyone?
All of those facts and statictics are reflected in this following graph, fantasy child.
Exactly!!! He gained that weight AFTER the Martin murder. So out of the thousands of people that were not "frail, feeble, no name with little progress after 18 months prior to the incident", they just so happened to choose George Zimmerman? Once again you failed to provide logic, but rather "just so" illogical arguments. Zimmerman lost weight when he worked out at the club, and he gained weight when he quit working out at the club. That's marketable information for the club owner, fantasy child. If you fail to understand the "logic" behind the owner using Zimmerman's loss of weight to promote his business, that's your intellectual failure, fantasy child, no one else's.
If this was true, wouldn't the fighting professionals take heed and "revolutionize" fighting? Deflect as you may, fantasy child, but Larry Holmes never argued that Championship Boxing Rules apply in street fights. What Holmes did say was: "[S]ize don’t matter it’s what you can do in the ring, just look at Ali. Ernie Terrell was a big guy and Ali did what we usually do with them we wear them down. Skill and talent always beats size, the guys taking over today are doing so because of training." You are being disingenuous in an attempt to save face. Another flight of fancy, fantasy child.
According to evidence or because George said so? Zimmerman's story fits the timeline, fantasy child; your POV doesn't: "Ockham's Razor." The evidence have not shown this as I have proven several times. You have no evidence that he didn't, fantasy child. Playing dumb cannot get you out of it. That's your forte, fantasy child.
Address some of my questions or I will take it as your forfeit of your past illogical arguments. Everyone of your equivocating conjectures was refuted, fantasy child.
It was your contention that there was no impairment. You've just conceded that point, fantasy child..
There was no impairment according to the evidence. My point was to show you that even if his memory was affected, it does not prove or help your claim. Your claim is that THC would have influenced his actions when we know that memory issues would not have saved Trayvon's life that night. Your reply was a colossal fail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
Jeantel did say "rapist," fantasy child. But she also explained that that precept was wholly hers, not Martin's. Jeantel said Martin believed Zimmerman was a "cr@ck@" meaning "security guard", fantasy child.
Correction! "Security guard" was also Jeantel's interpretation. Its funny how you consistently apply one interpretation and attempt to disclaim the other. All Martin said was "creepy cracka". Why did you find it important to keep one definition and toss the other when they both were translated by Jeantel? Was it because it puts the true narrative in perspective and proves your conjured up narrative to be false?
BTW, "Creepy Cracka" does not mean "security guard" in urban terminology. "Creepy" insinuates pedophile, pervert, something distasteful, or unappetizing etc. "Cracka" simply means White person. Most of the time it implies a "racist" white person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
Your flight of fancy isn't supported by the evidence, fantasy child. All of the "ear witnesses" affirm the fight started at the "T". The evidence trail begins at the "T". YOU have nothing but your distorting conjectures to support your POV, fantasy child.
Talk about deflection! Please show the evidence of any witness proving or saying where the fight began? The going fact is "Nobody knows how the fight actually started". Therefore the evidence that we do have should confirm whether or not the story Zimmerman told is plausible. And when the evidence are properly assessed, we find that it does not add up. "He 's following me again", "He's right behind me", physics and momentum, a 12 second walk turning into a 2 minute walk, the direction of his feet when he was found, and his cell phone suggest that they both were SOUTH of the "T"
You still have not accounted for Zimmerman's whereabouts in the 2 min he was not accounted for. If it took him 12 seconds to walk to the end of the "T" on his video testimony, why would it take him 2 min in real time?
BANG!
Keep playing dumb and showing anyone silently observing this conversation how disingenuous and or delusional you are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
All of those facts and statictics are reflected in this following graph, fantasy child.
UMMMM NO!
It does not show that 50.3% of all homicides from 1980-2008 are committed by whites.
Its does not show that 53.3% of gang related homicides are committed by whites.
It does not show that 84% of white homicides are committed by OTHER WHITES.
And last but not least, it does not show that in 2008 alone whites where responsible for 2.8 million crimes of violence, compared to the 570 thousand by blacks.
So the point of me showing that the stigmas are being perpetrated on the black community despite these crimes being more prevalent in the white community.
BANG!
Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
Zimmerman lost weight when he worked out at the club, and he gained weight when he quit working out at the club. That's marketable information for the club owner, fantasy child. If you fail to understand the "logic" behind the owner using Zimmerman's loss of weight to promote his business, that's your intellectual failure, fantasy child, no one else's.
ROTFLMAO!!! Golden!! And again, oh senile one. WHAT IS THE BENEFIT OF MARKETING SOMEONE WITH SO MANY NEGATIVE RESULTS TO HIS TIME AT THE GYM WHEN THERE ARE PEOPLE WITH TONS MORE PROGRESSION TO MARKET?
If you were honest in any way you would concede that the implications of a man training at an MMA GYM for 18 months and cannot throw a punch after 18 months of training is that that particular gym is HORRIBLE AT BEST. The only way you can continue to believe your entire story is to buy into narratives that fail miserably in every aspect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
Deflect as you may, fantasy child, but Larry Holmes never argued that Championship Boxing Rules apply in street fights. What Holmes did say was: "[S]ize don’t matter it’s what you can do in the ring, just look at Ali. Ernie Terrell was a big guy and Ali did what we usually do with them we wear them down. Skill and talent always beats size, the guys taking over today are doing so because of training."
On a side note, Zimmerman trained in a professional style of fighting for 18 months and he supposedly got "his ass whipped"? Isn't that playing both sides of the fence? GOTCHA AGAIN!!!
You are not fooling anyone. It is obvious that you apply concepts and principles when they help or strengthen your narrative.
N.E way, you cannot use any reference made by Larry Holmes because any professional boxing match is governed by what? WEIGHT CLASSES!! Which are governed by what? SIZE!!!!
There was no impairment according to the evidence. My point was to show you that even if his memory was affected, it does not prove or help your claim. Your claim is that THC would have influenced his actions when we know that memory issues would not have saved Trayvon's life that night. Your reply was a colossal fail. There is impairment with minimal use, fantasy child. That's a scientific fact. And here's an example of violent w33d head teenagers, fantasy child. They are not violent because the drug made them violent, fantasy child, they are violent because they were caught with the drug:
Correction! "Security guard" was also Jeantel's interpretation. Its funny how you consistently apply one interpretation and attempt to disclaim the other. All Martin said was "creepy cracka". Why did you find it important to keep one definition and toss the other when they both were translated by Jeantel? Was it because it puts the true narrative in perspective and proves your conjured up narrative to be false? You're the one distorting and misinterpreting what Jeantel said, fantasy child.
BTW, "Creepy Cracka" does not mean "security guard" in urban terminology. "Creepy" insinuates pedophile, pervert, something distasteful, or unappetizing etc. "Cracka" simply means White person. Most of the time it implies a "racist" white person. That's not what Jeantel said when she testified. Jeantel testified that "cr@cka" isn't a racist term, and she later said on Morgan's show Martin used "cr@cka" to signify a "security guard."
Talk about deflection! Please show the evidence of any witness proving or saying where the fight began? It's in the trial transcript, fantasy child. Every witness identified the fight as moving from the "T" to where Martin was shot, and Zimmerman's keychain flashlight was dropped near the "T". The going fact is "Nobody knows how the fight actually started". It's in the trial transcript, fantasy child. Therefore the evidence that we do have should confirm whether or not the story Zimmerman told is plausible. And when the evidence are properly assessed, we find that it does not add up. "He 's following me again", "He's right behind me", physics and momentum, a 12 second walk turning into a 2 minute walk, the direction of his feet when he was found, and his cell phone suggest that they both were SOUTH of the "T" Zimmerman walked past the "T", looked for an address, and then turned and walked back towards his truck, and Martin assaulted Zimmerman at the "T" on his way back to his truck, fantasy child. That's what took two minutes, fantasy child.
You still have not accounted for Zimmerman's whereabouts in the 2 min he was not accounted for. Yes, fantasy child, that time is accounted for. Zimmerman walked past the "T", looked for an address, and then turned and walked back towards his truck, and Martin assaulted Zimmerman at the "T" on his way back to his truck, fantasy child. That's what took two minutes, fantasy child. If it took him 12 seconds to walk to the end of the "T" on his video testimony, why would it take him 2 min in real time? Zimmerman walked past the "T", looked for an address, and then turned and walked back towards his truck, and Martin assaulted Zimmerman at the "T" on his way back to his truck, fantasy child. That's what took two minutes, fantasy child.
BANG! Your "bang" is actually a full-blown "fizzle", fantasy child.
Keep playing dumb and showing anyone silently observing this conversation how disingenuous and or delusional you are. That's your forte, fantasy child.
UMMMM NO!
It does not show that 50.3% of all homicides from 1980-2008 are committed by whites.
Its does not show that 53.3% of gang related homicides are committed by whites.
It does not show that 84% of white homicides are committed by OTHER WHITES.
And last but not least, it does not show that in 2008 alone whites where responsible for 2.8 million crimes of violence, compared to the 570 thousand by blacks.
Everything you're arguing is summed up in this graph, fantasy child.
So the point of me showing that the stigmas are being perpetrated on the black community despite these crimes being more prevalent in the white community. The "stigma" is based on raw data, fantasy child.
BANG! Your "bang" is actually a full-blown "fizzle", fantasy child.
ROTFLMAO!!! Golden!! And again, oh senile one. WHAT IS THE BENEFIT OF MARKETING SOMEONE WITH SO MANY NEGATIVE RESULTS TO HIS TIME AT THE GYM WHEN THERE ARE PEOPLE WITH TONS MORE PROGRESSION TO MARKET? Because only in your twisted mind were the results negative. Again to the trial testimony: "Zimmerman successfully lost between 50 and 80 pounds, Pollock [the owner] explained that Zimmerman's fighting skills remained extremely basic and rated his boxing ability as a 'point five' out of ten," fantasy child.
If you were honest in any way you would concede that the implications of a man training at an MMA GYM for 18 months and cannot throw a punch after 18 months of training is that that particular gym is HORRIBLE AT BEST. The only way you can continue to believe your entire story is to buy into narratives that fail miserably in every aspect. It's your argument that is failing miserably, fantasy child.
On a side note, Zimmerman trained in a professional style of fighting for 18 months and he supposedly got "his ass whipped"? Isn't that playing both sides of the fence? GOTCHA AGAIN!!! Zimmerman never trained by punching a living adversary -- Martin DID, fantasy child!
You are not fooling anyone. It is obvious that you apply concepts and principles when they help or strengthen your narrative. What's obvious, fantasy child, is that you are twisting or ignoring evidence to create your misbegotten theory of events.
N.E way, you cannot use any reference made by Larry Holmes because any professional boxing match is governed by what? WEIGHT CLASSES!! Street fights aren't governed by "weight classes", fantasy child. Which are governed by what? SIZE!!!! And Larry Holmes -- the professional fighter -- which you ARE NOT, fantasy child -- said: "[S]ize don’t matter it’s what you can do in the ring, just look at Ali. Ernie Terrell was a big guy and Ali did what we usually do with them we wear them down. Skill and talent always beats size, the guys taking over today are doing so because of training." fantasy child, is that you twist evidence to fit your misbegotten theory of events.
After reading the above from the Admin I do understand the rules of this forum a little better. Let me rephrase my messages earlier to the issue at hand. I believe the entire situation was over hyped by media. I do believe Zimmerman was wrong but I don't think it was racially motivated. Like eddielewis stated before he wasn't white he was Hispanic.Maybe Zimmerman was or wasn't a racist but it doesn't matter. The facts are he shot and killed an unarmed seventeen year old kid. Being from Florida I understand the "Stand your Ground Law" and I believe that's the reason he was found not guilty, he was within the law because he is the only one alive to tell his story. Just MHO.
I read about all I could gather on that story. I believe he was found not guilty because he was also defenging himself. What I see as a problem is, how do you handle a weapon involved? I bet all involved were hystrionic and the Travon Martin Guy might have overreacted in defending himself or even fighting the guy and then this happened in self defense.
The thing I find creepy is that the other guy - Zimmermann - followed the guy and held him obviously. Or the other guy attacked him first. These are things that can`t be resolved anymore. I find this a tricky case, because I think a) it was a bad case of self defense in a fight and b) it was probably justified that Travon Martin attacked the guy, because seriously, I mean if some stranger follows you, eventuall grabs you, what the hell should you do?
So I do agree that he is not guilty of killing the boy voluntarily, although the self defense only makes sense when he is a creepy stalker. What for is police there? Or insurances? Break in happen.
So its a strange case, although I don`t see why he should be found guilty, simple because the other guy beat Zimmerman obviously. and not lightly.
What I do find the problem here is the presence of the gun. This might have lead to overreaction. I mean tell me that a guy like Zimmermann can`t fight a little boy .
.
