The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

@firefly,

I see it totally as "irony." You know what Barnham said about one being born every minute! Mr. Green

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

@firefly,
Quote:
I think the bidders are out of their minds.

of course, because you have never come to understand those who disagree with you on this subject, you would rather spend your time trying to beat them into submission to your will.

Wait for Holder to be finally force to released the handgun that Zimmerman used to defend himself against Tryvon and see what that item end up selling for.

If I was Zimmerman I think I might offer the gun to my former lawyers for payment in full of my debts to them.

Let me see the gun that was used to shot Oswald by Rudy had been value the last time I hear for around a million dollars.

http://photos.lasvegassun.com/media/img/photos/2008/03/10/scaled.0311_met_GUN02_t653.jpg?214bc4f9d9bd7c08c7d0f6599bb3328710e01e7b

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

of course, because you have never taken the time to understand those who disagree with you on this subject, you would rather devote your energy towards trying to beat them into submission to your will.

Because I said that I think those who have bid almost $100,000 on Zimmerman's painting are out of their minds?

Are you nuts? Laughing

Keep me out of your BDSM-themed view of things. You're the one into dominance and submission, not me. Laughing

Maybe I just know more about art than you do.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

not against regular citizens, this is normally a procedure to make sure that justice is done when the suspect might be avoiding justice through political juice. it is a remedy to power subverting justice. Zimmerman had no power, using a special prosecutor against him is highly suspect.

No, dummy, that's not generally why special prosecutors are appointed.

In this case, it was a remedy to make sure that the homicide of Trayvon Martin--you know, the real victim--received adequate justice, and investigation, and was not just being ignored. There was nothing suspect about it.

The original D.A.'s, refusual to charge Zimmerman, even though his self-defense story was "unconvincing", and the chief police investigator wanted him charged the night of the shooting, was considerably more suspect.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

Trayvon Martin--you know, the real victim--

as has been pointed out to you many times....... NO, I DO NOT KNOW THIS, AND YOU DON'T EITHER!

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Trayvon Martin--you know, the real victim--

You know, like Islam, the real victim.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

NO, I DO NOT KNOW THIS, AND YOU DON'T EITHER!

Speak for yourself.

Trayvon Martin was the victim of a needless and avoidable homicide.

That was the conclusion of the police investigation.

Quote:

"Investigative findings show that George Michael Zimmerman had at least two opportunities to speak with Trayvon Benjamin Martin in order to defuse the circumstances surrounding their encounter. On at least two occasions, George Michael Zimmerman failed to identify himself as a concerned resident or a neighborhood watch member to Trayvon Benjamin Martin....

"The encounter between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin was ultimately avoidable by Zimmerman, if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement, or conversely if he had identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and initiated dialog in an effort to dispel each party's concern. There is no indication that Trayvon Martin was involved in any criminal activity at the time of the encounter. Zimmerman, by his statements made to the call taker and recorded for review, and his statements made to investigators following the shooting death of Martin, made it clear that he had already reached a faulty conclusion as to Martin's purpose for being in the neighborhood."
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/06/26/12420630-police-say-zimmerman-had-chances-to-defuse-situation-before-shooting-martin

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

Trayvon Martin was the victim of a needless and avoidable homicide.

That was the conclusion of the police investigation

which was over ruled by the jury. I believe that martin should not have died, but I cant prove it. you need to understand the boundary between what you think and what you know, which you obviously do not.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

which was over ruled by the jury

The jury rendered no verdict regarding the fact that Zimmerman could have avoided the entire encounter.

So, in no way did the jury "over-rule" the conclusion that Trayvon Martin was the victim of a needless and avoidable homicide.

Trayvon Martin was the victim--his confrontation with Zimmerman did not occur out of the blue, or by coincidence, or because Martin initiated it, it was brought about by George Zimmerman, whose actions in following Martin brought about the encounter, and who, additionally, failed to defuse the situation he created by failing to identify himself to Martin.

Trayvon Martin was the victim of a needless and avoidable homicide.

The jury did not find he had "attacked" George Zimmerman as opposed to defending himself--they had no clear evidence of Martin's motives, and, since Zimmerman was the defendant, and not the victim, they appropriately focused only on Zimmerman's motives, and whether he acted with malice, or in self-defense.

Zimmerman was the defendant in a criminal case. The acquittal did not magically turn him into "the victim"--the victim was still Trayvon Martin--Zimmerman just wasn't held legally punishable for that homicide.

Because he might have gotten slugged, during the encounter he brought about, that doesn't make Zimmerman the "victim"--Trayvon Martin wasn't trying to mug him, Martin was reacting to Zimmerman's behavior, whether in self-defense or aggressively, but it was Zimmerman who brought the needless confrontation about--the entire confrontation could have been avoided--Martin's death and Zimmerman's "injuries" could have been avoided--by Zimmerman.

Trayvon Martin was the victim of a needless and avoidable homicide.

I'm not at all confused about that. Neither were the police.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

CI can not think that 87 percent of all whites kill other whites
and the rest killed other racial groups David.

Lord talk about a zero population problem if that would be true!!!!!!!!

The point that I 'm bringing out, Bill,
is WHAT he can and he does "think"; i.e., what he finds plausible.
It 'd be nothing, if it were just a typo that he corrected,
but his later post persisted in defending it.

The question is one of mental degradation. I hope not,
but it does not look good.

He also denied that 87% is 87 out of 1OO.
Let 's hope that he was just having a bad nite.

See here, for convenience:

cicerone imposter wrote:

I'm not sure where you attended school,
but you were cheated out of a good education.

It's not out of 100 whites, you idiot!

It's 87% of whites kill other whites. jeezuz kriste; you are dumb!

The other 13%, whites kill non-whites.

David

2 Replies

As was obvious to everybody but you, David, ci was talking about murderers, not all whites. 87% of whites who commit murder kill other whites, or whatever the original statistic was. NOT 87% OF ALL WHITES. Everybody else had no problem in figuring that out. But not you. You misinterpret the sense of a comment, or take an extremely peculiar definition of a word and use that when the poster obviously is using another commonly-used definition, and you do it so often and so regularly that it must be a conscious decision on your part to screw up the thread and distort the poster's intent. And you're doing exactly that here.

1 Reply

Quote:

Cicerone said: Stalking is illegal

Well why ain't Zim in jail?
Hey go try and make a citizens arrest on Zim and frogmarch him to the local cop station, you'll become famous if you live.. Smile

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

I think CI is referring to whites who commit murder; i.e., the percentage of white murderers who murder other whites (87 percent) and the percentage of white murderers who murder nonwhites (13 percent).

He was probably tired when he wrote the post in question.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

which was over ruled by the jury.

Not only that but both the local Prosecutor and the local chief of police did not at the time think that Zimmerman should be charge, it was only after we have Sharpton and such setting up rallies where the threat to riots was issue that the normal manner of handling such cases was thrown out the widow by the state governor did Zimmerman get arrested for this so call crime of self defense.

Then the appointed "special" prosecutor did not have the nerve to even bring the matter to a grand jury but issue the charges herself seeming to fear that a no true bill would be issue by the grand jury if they would had been allow hear the case.

0 Replies

@wmwcjr,

wmwcjr wrote:

I think CI is referring to whites who commit murder; i.e., the percentage of white murderers who murder other whites (87 percent) and the percentage of white murderers who murder nonwhites (13 percent).

I don't believe that difference represents a factor of nine.

wmwcjr wrote:

He was probably tired when he wrote the post in question.

Nah. It was because he's a retard. CI is one of the two stupidest posters on A2K.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

David, I'm going to try for the last time to explain the math.

Just for examples sake, say that whites commit 30% of all murders, and there were 100 murders in the country. * Therefore, 30% of 100 murders equals 30.

Out of the 30 murders white commited, 87% were against other whites.

It means whites killed 26 whites (87% of 30) out of all the murders whites committed, and 4 were non-whites.

Still dense? You're on your own. Too many dummies here.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

An a black young man is six times more likely to be a homicide victim then a white young man and seven times more likely to be a killer then a white young man.

3 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

An a black young man is six times more likely to be a homicide victim then a white young man and seven times more likely to be a killer then a white young man.

Only if you do not count in people like Hitler.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Only if you do not count in people like Hitler.

LOL what does a German dictator from the 1930s to mid 1940s have to do with the sad murder rate of young black males in the US in the 2010s?

2 Replies

@BillRM,

http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/31141/large/inlinecharts2.jpg?1367861042

I think we see here a part of why gun restrictions are so unpopular, almost no whites die from gun homicide, for whites the availability of guns for suicide are a public service. the majority of voters do not fear dying by a violent gun act because the fact is that they are very unlikely to die this way.

2 Replies

The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know