Witness testifies Trayvon was a racist

[Hero Zimmerman]

I hope the rioters burn and loot nbc.

[nwarounder]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

MSNBC took Sharpton off the screen fast. Liability issues?

Happy now Old-T?

11 o'clock on Saturday night, he was drunker than cooter brown...They had to take him off.

Meanwhile CNN is driving the point home that the jury did not find him innocent, just not guilty. As pathetic as pathetic can get.

[Yssup Rider]

Liability?

Maybe you need to research your terms, Gonad.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by nwarounder

11 o'clock on Saturday night, he was drunker than cooter brown...They had to take him off.

Meanwhile CNN is driving the point home that the jury did not find him innocent, just not guilty. As pathetic as pathetic can get.

CNN commentators are ignorant.

The jury doesn't find him "innocent." He IS STILL INNOCENT of HOMICIDE.

YR, and company, it's time you all started concentrating on the Hernandez case for "racial justice"!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I'm talking about the officer's TESTIMONY at the TRIAL .. AS HIS WORDS WERE SPOKEN.

If one is lying on one's back with one's head on concrete and another is hitting one in the face, one's head goes back into the concrete and stops abruptly, which causes the brain to bounce off the back of the inside of one's skull and then recoil to the front of one's skull each time a blow is struck ... which results in damage to the brain, which is serious bodily injury and can result in death .... for the defense of which the use of "deadly force" is justified .. if a "reasonable" person would be believe that they were in danger of being caused serious bodily injury or death.

There is the Florida statute, which is similar to most through out the United States:

"A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

.. so you heard all of the testimony of "Good" ... who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman hitting Zimmerman in the face ... and you saw the photographs that "Good" took of the back of Zimmerman's head .... ?

Fortunately, in trials the totality of the evidence is examined to determine the factual issues the judge or jury must decide ... as opposed to the cherry-picked slices of information that media hounds want to focus upon to fit the scenario the prefer to portray for their "agenda."

.. the law doesn't specifically say "beat the crap" ... but it does say: "great bodily harm" ...

and one can "reasonably" believe that having one's head pounded into a side walk could cause "great bodily harm" (if not "death") if not prevented by using deadly force!

Those are the facts from the State's witnesses!

If those six women, and it doesn't matter what color they are WTF, decide that having someone sit on them and pound their heads into the sidewalk doesn't justify shooting their attacker ... then they and the rest of the potential assault victims in the State of Florida are in deep shit! And it doesn't matter what color the attacker is WTF!

So, WTF, you are the racist. Latent and patent.

They didn't think that ... according their question on manslaughter to the Judge.

That's because .......

The Political Forum: Trayon Martin’s Gun and Pot photos:
Post # 176 by WTF:

“The case will be won or lost in jury selection.”

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by nwarounder

11 o'clock on Saturday night, he was drunker than cooter brown...They had to take him off.

Meanwhile CNN is driving the point home that the jury did not find him innocent, just not guilty. As pathetic as pathetic can get.

Watching CNN, MSNBC and HLN last night and they were still feeding the "Trayvon was an unarmed black child" narrative. They had many black women panelists bemoaning what did it mean for their black teenagers simply walking down the street. Nobody on the panel had the guts to say:

1. DON'T JUMP PEOPLE!
2. Walk home if somebody suspicious is following you.
3. Get off the phone with your gf and call the police.
4. If you are a stranger in a gated community, you may need to identify yourself to residents living in that community.

No, just feed the paranoia that everybody walking down the street is a target simply by being black, police be damned. The other thing that threw me was the panelists insistence on calling Trayvon a "boy."

So where's WTF and Old-T?

[Yssup Rider]

At what age does a boy legally become a man, gonad?

Until that time, I guess "boy" is the proper word to use.

[nwarounder]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Watching CNN, MSNBC and HLN last night and they were still feeding the "Trayvon was an unarmed black child" narrative. They had many black women panelists bemoaning what did it mean for their black teenagers simply walking down the street. Nobody on the panel had the guts to say:

1. DON'T JUMP PEOPLE!
2. Walk home if somebody suspicious is following you.
3. Get off the phone with your gf and call the police.
4. If you are a stranger in a gated community, you may need to identify yourself to residents living in that community.

No, just feed the paranoia that everybody walking down the street is a target simply by being black, police be damned. The other thing that threw me was the panelists insistence on calling Trayvon a "boy."

So where's WTF and Old-T?

It's definitely a scary world we live in, as evidence here in mass abundance, the parenting skills, and what we are teaching them as right and wrong are doomed, for they have very little. The one thing that has been proven with testimony is that Trayvon was a racist.

The absolute hilarious aspect is that no one forgot to check what race Zimmerman was before they started all the race wars. Now we have this massive racial war with the Peruvians vs. blacks. Too damn funny.

[dreamvacationdates]

Really if you think about it in depth, it's like Mutually Assured Destruction
according to the law it does matter who instigates the confrontation
if either party has a reasonable belief the other person is going to caused them bodily harm or death then you are justify to use deadly force for self defense. so in essences two men enter one man leave, you can be the person taking the pounding and the other person can still kill you and use this as a defense, since it's up to what that person preceives at the time. and since you don't even have to have the other person touch you to use this as a affirmative defense the person doing the pounding doesn't even have to show any injuries, it very easy to see, that the best way to play this game is not to play at all.

BTW I must be a racist caused I used much harsher words before, just like most people have including you, but I'm a equal opportunity racist,

[nwarounder]

Originally Posted by dreamvacationdates

Really if you think about it in depth, it's like Mutually Assured Destruction
according to the law it does matter who instigates the confrontation
if either party has a reasonable belief the other person is going to caused them bodily harm or death then you are justify to use deadly force for self defense. so in essences two men enter one man leave, you can be the person taking the pounding and the other person can still kill you and use this as a defense, since it's up to what that person preceives at the time. and since you don't even have to have the other person touch you to use this as a affirmative defense the person doing the pounding doesn't even have to show any injuries, it very easy to see, that the best way to play this game is not to play at all.

BTW I must be a racist caused I used much harsher words before, just like most people have including you, but I'm a equal opportunity racist,

Not a lawyer, but what I heard lawyers say is, it does not matter who instigates the fight.
I agree with you though that avoidance is the safest course of action. Zimmerman shouldn't have followed him, or Trayvon should not have broken into a gated community in the first place.

[texasjohn1965]

No laws were broken until a physical assault occurred. They both were fully within the law until the physical altercation.

There are no winners in this case.

If there are any lessons to be learned.... just because you think you can beat someone's ass, they may shoot you for your efforts.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by nwarounder

Not a lawyer, but what I heard lawyers say is, it does not matter who instigates the fight.
I agree with you though that avoidance is the safest course of action. Zimmerman shouldn't have followed him, or Trayvon should not have broken into a gated community in the first place.

Broken into a gated community? AAAAH his father who he was visiting lives there.

[nwarounder]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Broken into a gated community? AAAAH his father who he was visiting lives there.

Seriously? I thought he was just cutting through as they put it. Definitely went looking for a fight then, and found one.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

At what age does a boy legally become a man,

For what purpose?

"Legally" the correct term is "minor" vs. "adult"!

But for propaganda purposes "boy" does sound better doesn't it?

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Broken into a gated community? AAAAH his father who he was visiting lives there.

Yes. It is possible to break into a gated community. Criminals do it all the time to commit burglary, robbery, rape and murder.

I don't know if his father was "living" there or not. The place was Trayvon's father's girlfriend's condo. Supposedly Trayvon's father and his gf are no longer together. It was not Trayvon's "home" as many in the media try to portray.

But Trayvon's parents settled with the HOA and supposedly received a million dollars from their insurance

Still watching the clusterfuck on the Demomedia news channels. Nobody's brought up self-defense. They are clamoring that "beyond a reasonable doubt" be re-written. Seriously. The group think is incredible. At least on on Fox they trot out Juan Williams, Allen Combs or some Democratic strategist every show.

Yes, everyone wants to take out "beyond a reasonable doubt" from murder and manslaughter laws. Incredible. Oh, and day to day "profiling" is illegal by private citizens.

:shakehe ad::shak ehead: