Bloody new photo of Trayvon Martin's killer

page: 50
36
<< 47  48  49    51  52 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   
I dont give a # what any of these loath sayers have to say.


A young man is dead. Zimmerman suspected he was up to no good simply because the man was BLACK. Zimmerman approached and fought him, only reason the young man was approached was because he was of african heritage. He confronted the young man, and zimmerman had his ass whipped. He than took his gun and killed A 17 year old.

No. That is not okay. At all.






If that had been me, I come from a well known family in the midwest (beer), Zimmerman would be on trial and facing the death penalty. but since this was a black kid named Trayvon, Zimmerman should just walk?







This is ludicrous.






Lynch that dirty murder. YEEE HAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Eye for an Eye, THE WHOLE WORLD IS ALREADY BLIND.- Me
edit on 12/13/2012 by truthinfact because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by BenReclused
 


Yawn....if I must...you say your 60 or something yet..still have the mental capabilities of a child. I mean..really..calling me a racist because I called Zimmerman a racist...that is school ground stuff..





You started something that you are not equipped to deal with!


Am I missing something..what exactly did I start?




You ALWAYS take the coward's way out, by NEVER answering questions!


What questions?




You sound like an idiot!


Me?...I'm not the one using school ground insults..ie..Zimmerman is a racist...uh uh..your a racist..





Horse crap! GEORGE, TRAYVON, and a WITNESS were there! Checkmate!


Which witness? Because four of them have since changed their original story. One especially is of interest.

Newspaper: 4 witnesses change stories in Trayvon Martin shooting


Witness 12: A young mother in the townhome community first said she saw two men on the ground but wasn’t sure who was on top; she later said Zimmerman was on top because she recognized his size based on news reports.






Note: Because I doubt your ability to comprehend complex sentences, the above post was simplified, and enhanced, in an effort to suit your special needs. We aim, to please!


Actually from your past posts..it pretty much is on par with your writing style...


Your anger shows...just because you are unable to defend yourself and relate to a coward like Zimmerman does not make you less of a man...maybe a little bit..
Your wife or husband(hard to tell with girly men) still loves you , she knew she married a coward. The first step to acceptance is first recognizing your a coward..then you can move on.

I still stand by my original statement...America is a Nation of Cowards. Looking to blame something..blame your dependance on guns. THE WORLD WOULD AGREE WITH ME..
edit on 13-12-2012 by kerazeesicko because: I CAN



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


That statement is an accurate account of your biased opinion.

I won't argue with that comment. When the choices are speculation, irrelevant nonsense, or pertinent physical evidence, I AM ALWAYS BIASED in the direction that pertinent evidence leads me. I reckon that's just the troll (skeptic) in me.

You, on the other hand, only choose to support your preconceived notions with nothing more than speculation, and irrelevant nonsense. Hell, you and your buddies actually "go the extra mile" by IGNORING, and DENYING, ALL EVIDENCE THAT IS CONTRARY TO THOSE NOTIONS.

Thank you for admitting, "That statement is an accurate account", even though it was, indeed, a "biased opinion" based on ONLY the evidence. If you were on a jury, your affirmation of that statement would require, by law, that you vote "not guilty". If the jury's verdict were "not guilty", George would, indeed, be "INNOCENT" of his current charge of second degree murder.


Zimmerman claims that he shot Martin in self defense.

Yes he does. Unfortunately, you and your buddies have either refused to produce evidence that contradicts his claim, or it, quite simply, DOESN'T EXIST.


There are no actual witnesses to the events.

Though I disagree, that would make all of the physical evidence regarding the altercation even MORE IMPORTANT.


Recently, a photograph has been released to the media which allegedly was taken on the night of the incident which apparently shows Zimmerman injured.

Because we already knew Zimmerman had injuries, the photo isn't really that important.


I find comparing yourself to a worm is insulting to invertebrates. Any further personal attacks will be reported to the Mods.

Nice try, but I'm sure that most of us know that your "interpretation" is a bit distorted. I especially liked:

Any further personal attacks will be reported to the Mods.

If we went "retro" with that, this thread would, almost entirely, be in support of Zimmerman.

Anyway:
Though you were still squirming, I will accept your answer as having met my requirement, so I am ready to indulge in your previous attempt at deflection.

Which definition of "innocent" would you like for me to apply to those statements?

See ya,
Milt

PS:
I'm having trouble seeing right now, so I most likely won't be back until tomorrow.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by BenReclused
 



Which definition of "innocent" would you like for me to apply to those statements?


Your definition, of course. Assuming that you would consider the jury finding Zimmerman "not guilty" to mean that he is "innocent." Incidentally, if you want to go nuclear, you will find that my posts are probably the only ones on this entire thread that would remain standing. Just saying.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThaEnigma
reply to post by FuZe7
 


When u sit back and think about it, this situation iz really about 'Gun Control' and how imperfect we are az Human Being's...



Once again, 20 Children & 6 Adults deserved a better response from their Government regarding gun-control..! America will keep seeing senseless deaths until they get this issue under control... Like I've stated numerous times b4, a loaded gun in the wrong hands can only end in tragedy..!



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 01:18 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by DZAG Wright
Though his race has very little to do with it...

I say what race did Zimmerman subscribe too? Taking a wild guess, I would bet money he always passed himself as white. Same as I presume Obama passed himself as being black.

Though again, I don't believe it was so much an race issue.

Yeah he was a cop wannabe, a neighborhood watch would have played their role and called the police without following someone with a loaded weapon.

If Trayvon wanted to beat someone up just because he felt like it, or was looking for trouble he would have stopped and pulled George out his truck. George wouldn't have needed to walk all behind the houses and interrupt him talking on the phone to his girl...which is what happened.

Someone looking to start trouble doesn't ask someone "Do you have a problem". That is typically the question from someone who believes they are being harrassed.


Well, since all his friends and family describe him as Hispanic, and it's been said that's what he states he is, how much did you want to lose on that bet? His race should not have been an issue, but it was made into an issue when some decided to assume he was white, and try to blame the entire incident on race. As far as I am concerned, they could both be the same race, and I would still state what I have about the case, because what I state is based on all of the evidence and witness reports that we have available to us so far.

He was a neighborhood watch guy, and he did call the cops. he was not ON neighborhood watch duty that night, though, and had every right to carry his weapon. Nor was he "following" outside his vehicle. He watched from the vehicle, and when Martin was out of sight, he attempted to see which way he went, because the dispatcher asked if he could tell. This has been gone over time and time again.

Plus, Martin could not have gotten to him inside the vehicle. He ducked out of sight, and from all evidence, it seems he waited to see if anyone was coming that way. When he saw Zimmerman walking, he decided to take action. He waited till Zimmerman was off the phone with the 911 dispatcher, and then confronted him. "Do you have a problem?" "No." "Well, now you do." That is what someone dos that wants to start trouble. Even Martin's girlfriend stated that Martin, NOT Zimmerman, spoke first. Even if Martin had felt harassed, he could have called the police, once he was out of sight. He didn't call, because he didn't feel threatened. His girlfriend didn't call, even though she claims to have heard the start of the confrontation, because she didn't think he was in trouble. I can't imagine any teen girl that would not call the police, if they thought their boyfriend had been jumped.

If you look at all of the data, the logical conclusion is that Martin attacked Zimmerman, and Zimmerman shot him, after several minutes of being attacked. Note, please, Zimmerman did NOT immediately shoot. The eyewitness can confirm that, because he saw Martin pinning Zimmerman to the ground and attacking him. No,Zimmerman called for help, repeatedly (as can be heard in the various 911 calls), and when help didn't come, he finally shot. I think he would rather have done anything else, but felt he had no choice, if he wanted to live. I have watched him speak about it, in the reenactment video, and the man doesn't look like he's lying.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic911
 


What has made people legally an adult in America for the last 50 years doesn't matter, in my opinion. He was a full grown man, and I doubt his mental state was going to change in 12 months so to me if he is an adult when he's 18 he's an adult when he's 17. Also, you have to be 21 to buy, own, or possess a handgun in the US (well at least where I am from and we are considered the most lax on gun laws).



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThaEnigma

Originally posted by ThaEnigma
reply to post by FuZe7
 


When u sit back and think about it, this situation iz really about 'Gun Control' and how imperfect we are az Human Being's...



Once again, 20 Children & 6 Adults deserved a better response from their Government regarding gun-control..! America will keep seeing senseless deaths until they get this issue under control... Like I've stated numerous times b4, a loaded gun in the wrong hands can only end in tragedy..!


Gun, knife, bomb, ball bat, sword.....if someone is determined to go out and kill a lot of people, they WILL find a way to do it. You can pass all the bans you want, and that won't change a thing but the methods. We live in a messed up world, and there are crazy people, and flat out evil people, that commit crimes like this. They have for all time, LONG before there were guns. Banning guns would only mean that decent people could not defend themselves as well, and would thus be easier targets. Remember the Russian school incident? That wasn't all guns. How about the recent attacks in China, with a knife?

This isn't about guns; it's about crazy and/or evil people that do crazy and evil things.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

You made some good points there, however I believe body-counts are far worse with guns than other weapons.. I guess u have to weigh up what's most important to u >> Protection by arming individuals, or protection by disarming everyone... I am a father of 2, and I know which I would prefer...



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ThaEnigma
 


You can't protect anyone by disarming everyone. I think history has shown that on repeat since the dawn of man. If you disarm everyone then you are just asking for trouble. Doubt it all you want, but just pray you never witness.

Say.. just the other day was the anniversary of nanking. Ever read about that?



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThaEnigma
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

You made some good points there, however I believe body-counts are far worse with guns than other weapons.. I guess u have to weigh up what's most important to u >> Protection by arming individuals, or protection by disarming everyone... I am a father of 2, and I know which I would prefer...


Body counts from bombs are just as bad. Plus, 22 injured in the Chinese knife attacks. Had the guy wielding it been more proficient, he could have killed all of those. Plus, if you take guns from people legally, there will still be guns. The criminals using them won't stop; they don't get them legally now. The mention of the guns with that school shooting claim they were "legally obtained", and they were, by the shooter's mother, NOT by the shooter. He stole her guns, after shooting her.

I have five (four still at home), and my choice is to be armed. My kids know all about gun safety, and don't bother them. They also know that if anyone came into this house uninvited, I would take action. If the teachers in those two classrooms had guns, what would have happened differently this morning? Now, I don't know if I like the idea of armed teachers, but the fact remains that armed people can defend against a shooter, and unarmed people cannot. Just as an armed Zimmerman lived, while he might not have otherwise. People's lives are saved all the time because they are armed. I have an old school friend that posts weekly stories about those cases. Weekly.

I would hope, if someone came after your kids, that you could protect them. By deadly means, if necessary. We can't stop all crime, of course, but we can deter quite a lot. Look how few of these things happen where people are commonly armed, as compared to where they are not. Shooters choose places they know there aren't likely to be armed people - schools, shopping malls, theaters. Criminals choose victims they think are unarmed, and such crimes are far more common in places most people are not armed.

Even is we eliminated, by some magic, every single gun in the world, all at once, people would still commit these crimes. We have a sin nature, and with some, that nature means killing for no reason. Change the hearts of people, and we can change their actions. Gun bans would only make things worse.

Finally, we do not have the 2'nd Amendment only for self defense. We also have it to defend against a government that becomes out of control. The founding fathers wanted us to be able, should there become a need, to act as they did in securing and holding onto our freedoms against a rogue government. Do you think any gun ban would apply to them? Think about it.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


"The right to bear arms is not as important as the right to live"

I keep hearing how "human nature" is imperfect (which I agree on), however it seems fine to give anyone and everyone a gun, if they so wish.. ?
All I hav iz my opinion, shaped by my experiences, I assume ur viewpoint comes with a lot of thought, based on whatever u hav experienced in ur life.. I am not one to begrudge u ur view on the subject...
I will let the cards fall where they may..



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by BenReclused
 



To DJW001:
Was that better? Hell, in an effort to meet your apparent double standard, I even linked to the sources of my claims. Ho, ho, ho... This old troll aims, to please!


Please stop trying to derail this thread with personal abuse and respond to this request:


So, Milt, answer me this. If "innocent" is exactly the same thing as "not guilty," how do you feel about the following statements:

"OJ Simpson is innocent because he was found "not guilty" in a court of law.

"Adolf Hitler is innocent because he was never formally charged with anything."

"Richard Nixon is innocent because he was never impeached."

Choose at least one. Discuss.


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by BenReclused
 



To DJW001:
Was that better? Hell, in an effort to meet your apparent double standard, I even linked to the sources of my claims. Ho, ho, ho... This old troll aims, to please!


Please stop trying to derail this thread with personal abuse and respond to this request:


So, Milt, answer me this. If "innocent" is exactly the same thing as "not guilty," how do you feel about the following statements:

"OJ Simpson is innocent because he was found "not guilty" in a court of law.

"Adolf Hitler is innocent because he was never formally charged with anything."

"Richard Nixon is innocent because he was never impeached."

Choose at least one. Discuss.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

My goodness! You're getting a bit snarky(
)!

Due to the pettiness of a certain individual, I can no longer respond, in a suitable manner, to:
1) Insults

2) Personal Attacks

3) False Accusations

4) Braggarts

5) Threats

Because I have no doubt as to who that individual is, I hereby rescind my previous offer of indulging you in your, above quoted, attempt to "derail this thread". This thread was intended to be about the "Bloody new photo of Trayvon Martin's killer", and not about the word "innocent", or any of your other nonsense. None of your posts concern the topic at hand, so I reckon we have nothing further to discuss.

See ya,
Milt
edit on 15-12-2012 by BenReclused because: Typo



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThaEnigma
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


"The right to bear arms is not as important as the right to live"

I keep hearing how "human nature" is imperfect (which I agree on), however it seems fine to give anyone and everyone a gun, if they so wish.. ?
All I hav iz my opinion, shaped by my experiences, I assume ur viewpoint comes with a lot of thought, based on whatever u hav experienced in ur life.. I am not one to begrudge u ur view on the subject...
I will let the cards fall where they may..


Whose quote is that supposed to be? It's not realistic, in any case. The right to bear arms means a right to stay alive. Rather necessary for living, don't you think?

The fact that people are not perfect is why we need to be able to arm and defend ourselves. That includes guns. It's a proven fact that, in places where more people legally carry guns, the crime rates are lower.

Look at how this applies to the Zimmerman/Martin case; we have someone attacking without a gun, and doing some real harm. That harm could have been a LOT worse, had his intended victim not been armed. For the sake of this point, assume Zimmerman is telling the truth, and this was self defense. If that is true, then his gun saved his life. There are many cases where someone's life is saved, or multiple lives are saved, because someone has a gun for defense.

I can understand your concerns. I have kids, and I certainly would not want them being hurt with a gun. nor will that happen in my house, with any guns we own. My kids know the rules, the safety measures. They listen, too. I know some people that won't have a gun, because they have a learning disabled child, who, in that case, can pretty much get into anything. There, a gun, even locked up, could be a real danger, so they don't have any. In the rare cases where a child is killed in a home, by accident, with a gun, that's not a secured gun, and the children haven't been told about gun safety. If they aren't old enough to learn that, the guns should not be accessible. They make locking cases and gun locks for a reason. Yes, that can slow down the use in a case of needed defense, but it can also keep a child alive.

I want illegal guns controlled as much as the next person. If the people pushing for gun control demanded more action against the illegal dealings, we might not have so many issues. Instead, we have a federal government that actually sells guns illegally, that end up killing people. That, right there, is part of the gun problem.

Never a problem debating civilly, though! I want to be aware of all sides of any given issue. That's the only way to be logical in one's conclusions.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by BenReclused
 



I hereby rescind my previous offer of indulging you in your, above quoted, attempt to "derail this thread". This thread was intended to be about the "Bloody new photo of Trayvon Martin's killer", and not about the word "innocent", or any of your other nonsense. None of your posts concern the topic at hand, so I reckon we have nothing further to discuss.


In other words, you simply refuse to admit that the word "innocent" has connotations that make it inappropriate to use in this case. As I have been trying to point out, even if Zimmerman did kill Martin in self defense, it does not make him "innocent." It is my assertion that those who use that expression are either ill informed or trying to manipulate the emotions of the ill informed.

To return more narrowly to the topic of the thread: What reason does anyone have to believe that the photographs which have only now been released are genuine? And if they are genuine, do they necessarily support Zimmerman's claim? Is it not possible that rather than beating Zimmerman's head against the ground "like a thug," he simply got in a lucky sucker punch "like a frightened High School kid?"



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:23 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 





As I have been trying to point out, even if Zimmerman did kill Martin in self defense, it does not make him "innocent."


Yes, it does. We can argue whether this can be proven or not and thus if calling him innocent is strictly correct. But assuming he really did it in self-defense, he is innocent, end of discussion.
edit on 16/12/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 



Yes, it does. We can argue whether this can be proven or not and thus if calling him innocent is strictly correct. But assuming he really did it in self-defense, he is innocent, end of discussion.


So if someone picks a fight with you, and you defend yourself, but he ends up killing you, he is innocent because he killed you in self defense?





new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 47  48  49    51  52 >>

log in

join