COVID-19 RESOURCES
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Justice for Trayvon??

Boxlicker101 said:
There is a concept sometimes called "fighting words." Words or other communication can be so hateful that the person to whom they are directed goes righteously berserk and attacks the person who uttered them. The case you used would probably not be an example of that but, if the person had just escaped from a Cuban concentration camp, that might be. It is a tricky concept and would apply only in certain isolated cases.
Click to expand...

I have seen no evidence that Trayvon ever attacked anyone. Do think it's conceivable that Martin, who already referred to Trayvon as one of those assholes, uttered “fighting words” ?
 
extralarge.jpg
 
Joeybagadonuts said:
I have seen no evidence that Trayvon ever attacked anyone. Do think it's conceivable that Martin, who already referred to Trayvon as one of those assholes, uttered “fighting words” ?
Click to expand...

The evidence was the injuries incurred by Z and the account of the eye witness who had the best view. Anyhow, TM did not hear how Z referred to him, and Z did not know of the "creepy-ass cracka" remark that TM made, so "fighting words" would not be relevant in this case.
 
Boxlicker101 said:
The evidence was the injuries incurred by Z and the account of the eye witness who had the best view. Anyhow, TM did not hear how Z referred to him, and Z did not know of the "creepy-ass cracka" remark that TM made, so "fighting words" would not be relevant in this case.
Click to expand...

Ignoring the fact that there was no DNA evidence to support this.
 
Boxlicker101 said:
The evidence was the injuries incurred by Z and the account of the eye witness who had the best view. Anyhow, TM did not hear how Z referred to him, and Z did not know of the "creepy-ass cracka" remark that TM made, so "fighting words" would not be relevant in this case.
Click to expand...

We truly don't know who threw the first punch or who said what immediately prior to the event. Even though there is no evidence that Trayvon ever attacked anyone in his 17 years I think it's certainly possible that he attacked Zimmerman but I think it is more likely that he was provoked either by action and or word. Zimmerman, might have used the N word.

If the ethnicity is reversed and the black man with the gun calls the 17 year old Hispanic the S word, would the kid have been justified in assault?

If the black man or Hispanic man with the gun called the 17 year old white kid, white boy, would he be justified in committing assault?
 
SgtSpiderMan said:
Ignoring the fact that there was no DNA evidence to support this.
Click to expand...

What does DNA have to do with this case? The forensic evidence I mentioned was the gunpowder residue on the clothing of TM, proving he was shot from a distance of no more than a few inches, and the trajectory of the bullet in his body, because that showed where the gun was when the shot was fired.

There was no need to identify the shooter because that was known. The bullet passed through TM's clothing, so there was no DNA on the barrel, except maybe some blood spatter. Z contended TM had grabbed for the gun after saying he was going to kill him (Zimmerman). It's possible he tried to grab through Z's clothing or, perhaps, the rain washed off the traces of DNA, if there were any.
 
Boxlicker101 said:
What does DNA have to do with this case? The forensic evidence I mentioned was the gunpowder residue on the clothing of TM, proving he was shot from a distance of no more than a few inches, and the trajectory of the bullet in his body, because that showed where the gun was when the shot was fired.

There was no need to identify the shooter because that was known. The bullet passed through TM's clothing, so there was no DNA on the barrel, except maybe some blood spatter. Z contended TM had grabbed for the gun after saying he was going to kill him (Zimmerman). It's possible he tried to grab through Z's clothing or, perhaps, the rain washed off the traces of DNA, if there were any.
Click to expand...

That isn't what you originally claimed.
 
Joeybagadonuts said:
We truly don't know who threw the first punch or who said what immediately prior to the event. Even though there is no evidence that Trayvon ever attacked anyone in his 17 years I think it's certainly possible that he attacked Zimmerman but I think it is more likely that he was provoked either by action and or word. Zimmerman, might have used the N word.

If the ethnicity is reversed and the black man with the gun calls the 17 year old Hispanic the S word, would the kid have been justified in assault?

If the black man or Hispanic man with the gun called the 17 year old white kid, white boy, would he be justified in committing assault?
Click to expand...

We don't absolutely know, but we can use some logic. Would the short, fat, out of condition neighborhood watch captain with the gun have physically attacked the much taller and more athletic young man. I doubt it, almost to the point of certainty. As for whether or not TM had ever assaulted anybody, we have no way of knowing. We do know he was involved in MMA matches, which are athletic events rather than street brawls, but his prowess in these matches would have given him the confidence needed to attack the man who was tailing him.

We have no idea what might have been said between them, except for Z's statement. The idea of changing ethnicity is strictly speculation, but we do have a similar example somewhere on this thread or one of the others of a black man shooting a white hoodlum and being acquitted on the grounds of self-defense.
 
Liberals aren't embarrassed for continuing to prattle on about a Latino guy who didn't get sent to prison for a crime that he didn't commit?

What's wrong with them? :confused:
 
renard_ruse said:
Liberals aren't embarrassed for continuing to prattle on about a Latino guy who didn't get sent to prison for a crime that he didn't commit?

What's wrong with them? :confused:
Click to expand...

Wait, there's usually an ulterior political motive when they do something. My guess is to make sure black voters focus on race going into the 2014 elections rather than gay issues which the administration has been ramming up the country's ass. Black voters, in general, are less pro-gay than the overall electorate. The Dems want to make sure the focus is squarely on racial issues in 2014 to lock up 95% of the black vote again (and keep the turnout high).
 
If anyone ever needed proof that the media, the Democrat party establishment, and "activist" groups work in a coordinated conspiracy, this bizarre case has been pretty damning from the get go.

The whole thing pretty much proves you'll think about what the media / Dems want you to think about. The media decides, you care.
 
Boxlicker101 said:
The evidence was the injuries incurred by Z and the account of the eye witness who had the best view. Anyhow, TM did not hear how Z referred to him, and Z did not know of the "creepy-ass cracka" remark that TM made, so "fighting words" would not be relevant in this case.
Click to expand...

Boxlicker101 said:
What does DNA have to do with this case? The forensic evidence I mentioned was the gunpowder residue on the clothing of TM, proving he was shot from a distance of no more than a few inches, and the trajectory of the bullet in his body, because that showed where the gun was when the shot was fired.

There was no need to identify the shooter because that was known. The bullet passed through TM's clothing, so there was no DNA on the barrel, except maybe some blood spatter. Z contended TM had grabbed for the gun after saying he was going to kill him (Zimmerman). It's possible he tried to grab through Z's clothing or, perhaps, the rain washed off the traces of DNA, if there were any.
Click to expand...

Boxlicker101 said:
Show me where I claimed anything else.
Click to expand...


In your first post you were talking about the injuries Zimmerman may have suffered. The DNA evidence did not support the theory that Martin caused any injuries to Zimmerman. When called on that fact you switched to talking about where Martin was.
 
Joeybagadonuts said:
I have seen no evidence that Trayvon ever attacked anyone. Do think it's conceivable that Martin, who already referred to Trayvon as one of those assholes, uttered “fighting words” ?
Click to expand...

Yeah, there was someone on some thread that painted a timeline in which Trayvon was guilty for initiating the assault...despite no witnesses or evidence. all we really know is the phone records and the last few seconds of the killing.
 
Boxlicker101 said:
We don't absolutely know, but we can use some logic. Would the short, fat, out of condition neighborhood watch captain with the gun have physically attacked the much taller and more athletic young man. I doubt it, almost to the point of certainty. As for whether or not TM had ever assaulted anybody, we have no way of knowing. We do know he was involved in MMA matches, which are athletic events rather than street brawls, but his prowess in these matches would have given him the confidence needed to attack the man who was tailing him.

We have no idea what might have been said between them, except for Z's statement. The idea of changing ethnicity is strictly speculation, but we do have a similar example somewhere on this thread or one of the others of a black man shooting a white hoodlum and being acquitted on the grounds of self-defense.
Click to expand...

Can you imagine a situation where someone says something to you in which you would feel justified in committing an assault?
 
renard_ruse said:
If anyone ever needed proof that the media, the Democrat party establishment, and "activist" groups work in a coordinated conspiracy, this bizarre case has been pretty damning from the get go.

The whole thing pretty much proves you'll think about what the media / Dems want you to think about. The media decides, you care.
Click to expand...




please, the if you look at the family connects between obama terrorist network and ABC, NBC, CBS, and the socialist party network MSNBC
 
joelafayette said:
Some of you have to remember that in the court of law (as opposed to on the Internet), Zimmerman does not have to prove that he's innocent, but rather, the State has to prove he's guilty. The verdict was correct, and it should never have even gone to trial. Is it possible the whole trial could have turned out differently if the altercation had been videotaped? Of course. But we only have the testimony of a few people to go on, and nothing to dispute the key points of Zimmerman's defense. Move on, people. Or not. That's up to you. If you want to dwell on this, I respect your right to do that. But don't say it wasn't a fair trial, because it was.
Click to expand...

I think many people are upset that the laws allowed Zimmerman to do what he did. Some people won't move on until they feel they have done what they can to change the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Rightguide
Why You Can't Trust The Legacy Media
Replies
12
Views
209
IrezumiKiss
IrezumiKiss
TalkRadio_
Supreme Court's liberals prepare for a spring of dissent
Replies
15
Views
613
HisArpy
HisArpy
butters
who says cops are having a hard time recruiting? 18-y.o arrested for impersonating one after applying to be a cop
Replies
3
Views
166
AchtungNight
A
Rightguide
Emails Confirm Joe Obstructed Justice For Hunter
Replies
6
Views
158
Rightguide
Rightguide
rae121452
today in lgbt+ history...
Replies
1
Views
212
rae121452
rae121452
Back
Top