Witness testifies Trayvon was a racist

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

I have to agree with Budman. TM decided to teach the ole white cracker a lesson for "bumping him". TM was probably even gong to take pictures with his phone of a bloody Zimmerman laying on the concrete to share with his buddies. Amagine how that would enhance his "street cred".

Some "talking heads" have suggested that Martin was under the influence and became paranoid. If Martin actually had contraband on his person, before he turned to engage Zimmerman, that paranoia would be heightened.

[Yssup Rider]

Expert testimony. Was it good SHIT Corpy?

[Old-T]

I agree. Which would have made MARTIN more afraid for his wellbeing and safety when he saw a guy with a gun stalking him. Which brings us right back to the central issue: what was each man thinking. EACH one, not just Z. I understand the wild rush of posters here to shout that Z had every right to Stand His Ground and defend himself, but why do those same people disallow Martin--especially if he was predisposed to distrust white guys with guns--to defend himself if he felt threatened.

Personally I would feel more threatened by a man with a gun following me than I would be by a man with a hoodie who was not following me.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

I love how folks are quite willing to assume all sorts of evil thoughts running around one person's head that night, but assume great purity of thought for the other one.

Sadly the one guy is dead so we can't ask him, and the other guy contradicts himself so much that we can't believe him.

The "facts" are ambiguous and each side only sees the ones they want.

Z is clearly some combination of forgetful/confused/lying. Only he will ever know which.

The "assumptions" are based on "common sense". Zimmerman could have exited his vehicle and engaged Martin at several points prior to the incident now being tried. The fact remains, Zimmerman didn't get out of his truck until Martin disappeared: Zimmerman was not looking for a physical confrontation. If he was, he could have initiated that confrontation earlier; he didn't. On the other hand, Martin turned around twice to confront Zimmerman. The first time, Martin turned around and walked around Zimmerman as he sat in his truck. The second time is documented by Rachel Jeantel and Zimmerman: Martin confronted Zimmerman. Martin had time to get home safely, but Martin didn't do that. It was Martin who turned about and confronted Zimmerman. Zimmerman broke no laws.

[Budman]

Originally Posted by Old-T

I agree. Which would have made MARTIN more afraid for his wellbeing and safety when he saw a guy with a gun stalking him. Which brings us right back to the central issue: what was each man thinking. EACH one, not just Z. I understand the wild rush of posters here to shout that Z had every right to Stand His Ground and defend himself, but why do those same people disallow Martin--especially if he was predisposed to distrust white guys with guns--to defend himself if he felt threatened.

Personally I would feel more threatened by a man with a gun following me than I would be by a man with a hoodie who was not following me.

He did not know GZ had a gun. He saw a much smaller guy checking him out and decided to teach him a lesson. You act like GZ was walking around like Doc Holiday with six guns strapped on his hips. He had a concealed weapon. What part of "concealed" do you not understand?

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by Budman

He did not know GZ had a gun. He saw a much smaller guy checking him out and decided to teach him a lesson. You act like GZ was walking around like Doc Holiday with six guns strapped on his hips. He had a concealed weapon. What part of "concealed" do you not understand?

Another assumption about how long it was concealed. I see plenty of people with "concealed" weapons that the bulge is quite obvious. And at some point it became unconcealed--when? How do we know that?

And again, you postulate as face what was going on inside the dead guy's mind, "He saw a much smaller guy checking him out and decided to teach him a lesson." Too bad we can't ask him and see if his story holds together better or worse than Z's. Your post is exactly what I am saying: most people here attribute totally evil intent to one person, and pure if foolish intent to the other. You don't have any idea what Martin's intent was. And the only idea you have about Zimmerman's is what he say. The "facts" are far from conclusive either way, no matter how hard you want to see a clear message in them.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

I agree. Which would have made MARTIN more afraid for his wellbeing and safety when he saw a guy with a gun stalking him. Which brings us right back to the central issue: what was each man thinking. EACH one, not just Z. I understand the wild rush of posters here to shout that Z had every right to Stand His Ground and defend himself, but why do those same people disallow Martin--especially if he was predisposed to distrust white guys with guns--to defend himself if he felt threatened.

Personally I would feel more threatened by a man with a gun following me than I would be by a man with a hoodie who was not following me.

Martin had plenty of time to reach his destination, but he chose to turn around and assault Zimmerman. It was Martin that picked the point of attack. Not Zimmerman. Martin had a serious lead on Zimmerman while Zimmerman was still sitting in his truck on the street, and Martin was younger and physically able to maintain the lead he already had on Zimmerman without running.

And as Budman pointed out, Martin didn't know Zimmerman had a weapon.

[Budman]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Another assumption about how long it was concealed. I see plenty of people with "concealed" weapons that the bulge is quite obvious. And at some point it became unconcealed--when? How do we know that?

And again, you postulate as face what was going on inside the dead guy's mind, "He saw a much smaller guy checking him out and decided to teach him a lesson." Too bad we can't ask him and see if his story holds together better or worse than Z's. Your post is exactly what I am saying: most people here attribute totally evil intent to one person, and pure if foolish intent to the other. You don't have any idea what Martin's intent was. And the only idea you have about Zimmerman's is what he say. The "facts" are far from conclusive either way, no matter how hard you want to see a clear message in them.

My opinions are only assumptions but yours are not? The evidence supports my assumptions much more than yours. The gun was concealed. It was dark so the chance of TM seeing "the bulge" is slim. If he did know GZ had a gun then it would be pretty damn stupid to confront him armed with his bag of skittles. Chances are if he had any idea that he would not be the victor in the confrontation he would have hauled ass the other direction. I see people quite often that are such bad asses when the prospect of them losing a fight is zero. They never seem to have the same attitude when the other person appears quite capable of kicking their ass.

[Whirlaway]

Judge Nelson: life long Democrat who was appointed to the bench by Jeb Bush (a RHINO of the highest order).

[nwarounder]

Originally Posted by Budman

You fucking baby. You reported me to the MODS for talking about your medical condition. You are on the verge of a meltdown.

OMG! Are you kidding?

[Whirlaway]

No. He isn't kidding. AssUp the Troll acts tough in the forum; then when it's returned, he runs to the Mods for shelter.................

He is a whinny princess..........

12,500 posts by ECCIE's biggest troll !

A troll with an unhealthy fixation on human feces ...check out his posts and see for yourselves.

Originally Posted by nwarounder

OMG! Are you kidding?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by nwarounder

OMG! Are you kidding?

Not suprising. The dumb golem fuck always needs assistive help, whether here . . . or in a psych ward.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by Budman

My opinions are only assumptions but yours are not?

No, I readily admit mine are assumptions.

I find it part humorous and part disturbing that most the others on here--on both sides of the issue--refuse to acknowledge that their "firmly held beliefs" are really just assumptions. It's all about the state of mind of the two people, and that is inherently speculative. I'll just point to the Zimmerman injury photos: those who say, "Look! he was beaten within an inch of his life, no wonder he was fearful." are speculating. Those who say "There's nothing more than a scratch there." are speculating. The same with whether Martin thought Zimmerman had a gun, and certainly your assumption that Martin would have fled if he thought there was a gun. In one moment you want Martin to be a dumb testosterone filled punk, but a few seconds later you want him to be a cold, calculating, cowardly bully. Tell me, what do you make of all the contradictions in Z's words? Scared, frightened man? Why not dumb but lying vigilante? As I said, you see the evidence only from how it supports your predetermined verdict. So does almost everyone else.

[Budman]

Originally Posted by Old-T

No, I readily admit mine are assumptions.

I find it part humorous and part disturbing that most the others on here--on both sides of the issue--refuse to acknowledge that their "firmly held beliefs" are really just assumptions. It's all about the state of mind of the two people, and that is inherently speculative. I'll just point to the Zimmerman injury photos: those who say, "Look! he was beaten within an inch of his life, no wonder he was fearful." are speculating. Those who say "There's nothing more than a scratch there." are speculating. The same with whether Martin thought Zimmerman had a gun, and certainly your assumption that Martin would have fled if he thought there was a gun. In one moment you want Martin to be a dumb testosterone filled punk, but a few seconds later you want him to be a cold, calculating, cowardly bully. Tell me, what do you make of all the contradictions in Z's words? Scared, frightened man? Why not dumb but lying vigilante? As I said, you see the evidence only from how it supports your predetermined verdict. So does almost everyone else.

The same thing.

As for GZ contradictions, even the detective said they were minor and in his opinion GZ was telling the truth. In case you have never been deposed, lawyers and investigators will ask the same question numerous times in slightly different ways and pounce on any little discrepancy. Under extremely stressful situations you will not always have the exact answer each and every time.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by Budman

Not really. When you are in a struggle things are not stagnant. He would be twisting, turning, pushing etc to try and get free. It is not unreasonable to see how he would have been able to get the gun.

Try this if I am sitting on you beating the shit out of you and your CC is under my leg where I can feel it and you try to get it what chance do you think you have???