Trayvon Martin's Gun and Pot photos

[Budman]

Originally Posted by BossLadyThick

Name calling is childish.... Have a great day guys...

I guess leaving out pertinent info or down right representing info is perfectly OK.

[BossLadyThick]

That kid was unarmed... Thats my point... Gun should not have been used... That the bottom line... I took planty of beatings... in my days... some bigger then me some smaller... I never used a gun as a line in my defense... but now that I'm here in texas I will be rethinking that.. This thread & being robbed by 3 dudes(black).. Has me in full defense mood & my robbers used a knife to robbed me.. I guess I should have killed them..lol (seems to be the new line for defense) Kill its ok, doesn't matter what the crime

[Budman]

The "kid" was beating the shit out of him. I doubt tapping out would have worked.

[Randy4Candy]

Budman, I might have missed it, but I didn't see anywhere where BLT was calling you names and generally pissing in your Post Toasties. It may be there but I missed it. It seems to me that whether you agree with what she says or not, that her posts were measured and polite.

Now motherfucker, she doesn't need any defense because I'm sure she can fend well enough for herself, but you are an asswhole hiding behind a computer keyboard. And a stupid one at that.

[Budman]

Randy, I don't give a fuck how polite she is when she intentionally leaves out info or twist it to support her position. Apparently it is OK for you to call names but not others. You can kiss my ass.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by Budman

That is fucking stupid. Nobody has said it is OK to shoot someone because they are just walking around the neighborhood. But when that same person starts beating the shit out of you then it is OK to shoot them. You also want to place the blame on GZ because he continued to follow TM even after the 911 operator told him not to. So it's not OK for GZ to walk around the neighborhood but it is OK for TM.

The same moronic statement that has been made since this happened. The same BLIND moronic statement.

Several people have tried to point out the key issue, but there are too many here who don't want to listen because it leads them somewhere they are not comfortable.

Given: Zimmerman followed Martin after being told not to very clearly.
Given: Martin was not a choir boy.
Given: Zimmerman was not a choir boy.
Given: Martin and Zimmerman fought.
Given: During the fight, Zimmerman probably DID fear for his life/safety, and then shot Martin.

None of that is the critical issue. HOW did the fight start?

If it was something like:
Martin: "What you doing following me?"
Zimmerman: "I'm part of the neighborhood watch, what are you doing here?"
Martin: Bull rushes Zimmerman and starts beating him into the ground.
Zimmerman: Shoots him.


Or was it more like:
Zimmerman: "Hey you! What you doing in my neighborhood?"
Martin: "Who are you? I don't need to answer to you, you're not a cop."
Zimmerman: Stepping closer, "Hey, boy, quit your back talking."
Martin: Noticing a bulge and fearing this is a KKK wanna be, he remembers FL has a "stand your ground" law; foolishly he didn't read the fine print to realize the protection doesn't apply to young black kids. At least in the minds of a lot of posters here.
Zimmerman: Feels for his gun to give him courage.
Martin: Thinks this crazy guy is pulling a gun and bull rushes Zimmerman to keep him from getting the gun out. Starts beating him into the ground.
Zimmerman: Shoots him.

Makes a world of difference, and none of the people on here who are so completely convinced Zimmerman is there hero have one reason to assume either view--other than they want to believe the punk got what he deserved and Texas vigilante justice is on the rise again--a good thing in their minds.

In one case Zimmerman is only guilty of too much machoness, but not much more. In the other case, Zimmerman is guilty of a lot worse. I doubt we will ever know. Too bad we will only hear one side of what actually happened.

[Uncle Han]

Originally Posted by Old-T

The same moronic statement that has been made since this happened. The same BLIND moronic statement.

Several people have tried to point out the key issue, but there are too many here who don't want to listen because it leads them somewhere they are not comfortable.

Given: Zimmerman followed Martin after being told not to very clearly.
Given: Martin was not a choir boy.
Given: Zimmerman was not a choir boy.
Given: Martin and Zimmerman fought.
Given: During the fight, Zimmerman probably DID fear for his life/safety, and then shot Martin.

None of that is the critical issue. HOW did the fight start?

If it was something like:
Martin: "What you doing following me?"
Zimmerman: "I'm part of the neighborhood watch, what are you doing here?"
Martin: Bull rushes Zimmerman and starts beating him into the ground.
Zimmerman: Shoots him.


Or was it more like:
Zimmerman: "Hey you! What you doing in my neighborhood?"
Martin: "Who are you? I don't need to answer to you, you're not a cop."
Zimmerman: Stepping closer, "Hey, boy, quit your back talking."
Martin: Noticing a bulge and fearing this is a KKK wanna be, he remembers FL has a "stand your ground" law; foolishly he didn't read the fine print to realize the protection doesn't apply to young black kids. At least in the minds of a lot of posters here.
Zimmerman: Feels for his gun to give him courage.
Martin: Thinks this crazy guy is pulling a gun and bull rushes Zimmerman to keep him from getting the gun out. Starts beating him into the ground.
Zimmerman: Shoots him.

Makes a world of difference, and none of the people on here who are so completely convinced Zimmerman is there hero have one reason to assume either view--other than they want to believe the punk got what he deserved and Texas vigilante justice is on the rise again--a good thing in their minds.

In one case Zimmerman is only guilty of too much machoness, but not much more. In the other case, Zimmerman is guilty of a lot worse. I doubt we will ever know. Too bad we will only hear one side of what actually happened.

That's fucked analysis Low-T.

I suggest you stop issuing opinions before reading the transcript of Zimmerman's call to police. You're not embarrassed?

[Budman]

Old-T, we can all make up scenarios that support whatever we want but based on the current info we have TM was beating GZ.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by Budman

Old-T, we can all make up scenarios that support whatever we want but based on the current info we have TM was beating GZ.

Yeah, all that shit is guess-work.

As I've repeatedly stated, Zimmerman simply needed to do what 99% of the population would have done--mind his own fucking business--and we would never have heard Trayvon Martin's name. Setting that issue aside, I've seen the photos of Zimmerman. He looks like he got punched in the nose and he has a teensy cut on the back of his head. Since when is that justification for pulling out a pistol and shooting someone to death? Zimmerman seems like a big healthy boy, why not just duke it out instead of killing the kid? Shit, Zimmerman started it, I don't think there's any doubt about that in anyone's mind. And, when he starts getting his ass kicked for not minding his own business, he's justified in shooting this unarmed kid? That is bullshit.

[Uncle Han]

Originally Posted by timpage

That is bullshit.

.




If you smell bullshit, I suggest you wash your dick.








.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by Uncle Han

That's fucked analysis Low-T.

I suggest you stop issuing opinions before reading the transcript of Zimmerman's call to police. You're not embarrassed?

The transcript of Zimmerman's call--as I said, ONE side of the story. But when that one side fits what you want to be true, it's all you need. And where you stop thinking.

Other than the fact that it leads you to a possible reality that says the "punk" might have been justified, what is fucked about the analysis?

Originally Posted by Budman

Old-T, we can all make up scenarios that support whatever we want but based on the current info we have TM was beating GZ.

And yes, as I started my post with, that is a basic point of agreement. What you want to ignore is the question about what led up to that point. One more time for simple minds: no matter how long the trial lasts we will only hear one side of the event. It just happens to be the side you want to believe.

[Budman]

Tim, if TM was just walking to a friends house had just kept on walking, which is what 99% of us would have done, he would not have been shot. GZ was trying to protect his community. Maybe TM was actually just walking through the neighborhood and had no intention of any criminal activity. We will never know. The criminal activity started with physical violence. Not with GZ patrolling his neighborhood. Not with TM walking through the neighborhood. The criminal activity start with the violence. I doubt GZ initiated the violence since he was on the phone with 911 and was expecting the police to show up at any minute.

[Budman]

Old-T, I might agree with you had GZ simply killed TM and then called police to claim self defense. However, that is not the case. He called 911 to get the police involved as quickly as possible. There were witnesses who heard screams for help. The police believed GZ story based on the evidence to be credible.

As far as only hearing one side of the story. That is usually the case when one side is fucking dead. It doesn't mean that other evidence is impossible to gather.

[Uncle Han]

[QUOTE=Old-T;1053020815]The transcript of Zimmerman's call--as I said, ONE side of the story.



Um, Low-T, the 911 call is evidence, not a legal argument. LOL! It's a contemporaneous recording of events as they are happening.

It's not one side of the story, it is recording the story. George Zimmerman's actions and state of mind are the story. What GZ faced is the story.



The 911 call evidences that GZ stopped following TM and went back to his vehicle to wait for police when requested to do so. He was following TM up to the point police requested him to stop.

An inference I make would be that vigilantes don't call the police to hurry up and come right before shit goes down. Another inference I make is that people are justified to be on neighborhood watch when their neighborhood has had crime. Another inference I draw just by eye-balling TM and GZ is that TM can kick GZ's ass. I further infer that GZ and TM infer the same thing. I also infer a willingness for trouble making to TM by his drug usage, involvement in fighting and MMA training, possession of women's jewelry, etc.





.

[WTF]

Get your ass back to China you slant eye'd opportunist. This country does not need your rice paddy mentality