In Trayvon Martin's text messages, talk of marijuana, fights and guns

[J]

It seems the closer people look at Travon Martin, they can see he
wasn't the 'good kid' the media made him appear to be.








http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/in-trayvon-martins-text-messages-talk-of-marijuana-fights-and-guns/2122811







In the months and days before his shooting death, Trayvon Martin was
getting into fights, getting high on marijuana, getting suspended from
school and talking with friends about getting a gun, according to
cellphone text messages that defense lawyers for shooter George
Zimmerman released Thursday.

Trayvon's chronically misspelled, slang-filled messages � as well as
pictures of a semi-automatic pistol, marijuana plants and Trayvon
flipping his middle fingers � are all part of Zimmerman's defense plan
to put the Miami Gardens 17-year-old posthumously on trial.

"So you just turning into a lil hoodlum," one friend, whose name has
been withheld, texted Trayvon.

Trayvon replied: "No not at all."

At one point, Trayvon joked that the friend was "soft."

"Boy don't get one planted in ya chest," the friend joked back.

The message, a likely reference to being shot, eerily foreshadowed
Trayvon's fate three months later.

On the rainy evening of Feb. 26, 2012, Zimmerman fatally shot Trayvon
at an apartment complex in Sanford, near Orlando, where the Miami
Gardens teen was sent to live with his dad to get back on track.

That night, Trayvon was returning from a convenience store where he
had just bought a pack of Skittles and some iced tea. Zimmerman said
he believed the young man in the hoodie sweatshirt was up to no good.

No one witnessed who threw the first punch at whom or why.

But soon Trayvon was dead from a Sig Sauer gunshot wound, Zimmerman
was in police custody and the nation began debating Florida's deadly
force law known as "stand your ground."

The law offers protections for some shooters in public places, but
Zimmerman was still charged with second-degree murder by a special
prosecutor appointed by Gov. Rick Scott. Zimmerman is pleading
self-defense, and said Trayvon attacked him.

His trial is scheduled for June 10.











J Young
jdyo...@ymail.com

Honesty. Decency. Integrity

[Ashton Crusher]

The only people who talk about the "stand your ground" law are those
who don't understand the law. This was not a stand your ground case.
Trayvon was attacking Zimmerman and he did what ANYONE who is being
attacked may legally do, he shot the asshole attacking him. The stand
your ground law deals with whether or not you have a duty to retreat
if you can do so rather then shoot someone. Stand your ground laws
say you do not have a duty to retreat when you are attacked. Have you
ever heard anyone say the police have a duty to retreat if they are
attacked? yet for years the public was expected to do just that until
some states finally passed stand your ground laws.

>The law offers protections for some shooters in public places, but
>Zimmerman was still charged with second-degree murder by a special
>prosecutor appointed by Gov. Rick Scott. Zimmerman is pleading
>self-defense, and said Trayvon attacked him.
>
>His trial is scheduled for June 10.
>
>

The regular prosecutor knew there was no justification to charge
Zimmerman so they brought in a ringer to do the dirty work.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <poo2q8971lihgjsjf...@4ax.com>,

J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:

> It seems the closer people look at Travon Martin, they can see he
> wasn't the 'good kid' the media made him appear to be.

Which of those messages were capital offenses?

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[GOP_Decline_and_Fall]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 18:34:38 -0700, J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:

>Trayvon's chronically misspelled, slang-filled messages

I guess that makes his murder acceptable then ...right J?

[Ariel Castro : A Mormon and typical GOP follower]

On Saturday, May 25, 2013 8:34:38 PM UTC-5, J wrote:
> It seems the closer people look at Travon Martin, they can see he
>
> wasn't the 'good kid' the media made him appear to be.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/in-trayvon-martins-text-messages-talk-of-marijuana-fights-and-guns/2122811
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In the months and days before his shooting death, Trayvon Martin was
>
> getting into fights, getting high on marijuana, getting suspended from
>
> school and talking with friends about getting a gun, according to
>
> cellphone text messages that defense lawyers for shooter George
>
> Zimmerman released Thursday.
>
>
>

> Trayvon's chronically misspelled, slang-filled messages � as well as

>
> pictures of a semi-automatic pistol, marijuana plants and Trayvon
>

> flipping his middle fingers � are all part of Zimmerman's defense plan

Pointless point.

Means nothing and can't be submitted in court.

Zm will be convicted of 2nd degree and will end up being ass fucked by animals like him in a Fl prison for the rest of his life.

[deep]

It's trying to justify racial profiling and the murder of a young
black kid because he might have smoked a little weed a few times.

It doesn't get any more pathetic than that.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

Well, yeah, it does.

"House nigger isn't racist. It refers to the slaves who were willing
to kiss their master's white asses in order to get a job in the house
rather than out in the fields. It refers to ass kissing slaves. It
accurately points out a pattern of behavior. Has nothing to do with
race."
-Deep Dudu
House Negro (also House Nigger) is a pejorative term for a black
person, used to compare someone to a house slave of a slave owner from
the historic period of legal slavery in the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Nigger

[Syd M.]

On May 25, 9:34 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> It seems the closer people look at Travon Martin, they can see he
> wasn't the 'good kid' the media made him appear to be.
>
>

But IBen is still the bad guy bigot that he always was...

PDW

[Scout]

"Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:hlwdjsd2-94E341...@news.giganews.com...

> In article <poo2q8971lihgjsjf...@4ax.com>,
> J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
>> It seems the closer people look at Travon Martin, they can see he
>> wasn't the 'good kid' the media made him appear to be.
>
>
> Which of those messages were capital offenses?

Possibly attacking an armed stranger putting him in fear of life and limb.

[Syd M.]

On May 26, 11:22 am, "Scout"
<me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
> "Jeanne Douglas" <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hlwdjsd2-94E341...@news.giganews.com...
>
> > In article <poo2q8971lihgjsjfm2fjrb3vk2mhoj...@4ax.com>,

> > J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> >> It seems the closer people look at Travon Martin, they can see he
> >> wasn't the 'good kid' the media made him appear to be.
>
> > Which of those messages were capital offenses?
>
> Possibly attacking an armed stranger putting him in fear of life and limb.

Or being attacked by that armed stranger did it, too.
Esp since he wasn't armed...

PDW

[Scout]

"Syd M." <pauldav...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f1ad89d3-0574-45e0...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...

Except that isn't an offense committed by Travon and thus doesn't fulfill
the conditions set by Jeanne.

[bigdog]

If it was a justifiable homicide, it wasn't murder. Rather than given Zimmerman the presumption of innocence, you assume he is guilty, in absence of a trial. You pretend to know what happened that night even though you have no idea how it went down.

[bigdog]

Another libtard who doesn't want to give the accused the presumption of innocence.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

That's Dudu for you. If you don't think EXACTLY like he does, he wants
you dead.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Psychopath_vs_Sociopath

PSYCHOPATH:

Predisposition to Violence: High
Impulsivity: High
Criminal behavior: Tendency to leave clues and
act on impulse
Criminal Predispositions: Tendency for impulsive
or opportunistic criminal
behavior, excessive risk
taking, impulsive or
opportunistic violence
Social relationships: Unable to maintain normal
relationships. Values
relationships that benefit
themselves.

[deep]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 09:31:45 -0700 (PDT), bigdog
<jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

What do you give the victim? No consideration at all because he's
black? There's no doubt Zimmerman gunned him down in cold blood. He's
been given the benefit of he doubt and he was clearly in the wrong.

[deep]

The facts are clear. Zimmerman was pursuing Martin. Zimmerman didn't
have to be out there with a gun. He should have stayed home.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 10:50:43 -0600, deep wrote:

>On Sun, 26 May 2013 09:31:45 -0700 (PDT), bigdog
><jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sunday, May 26, 2013 9:19:58 AM UTC-4, deep wrote:
>>> On Sun, 26 May 2013 03:55:11 -0700, GOP_Decline_and_Fall
>>>
>>> <D...@null.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >On Sat, 25 May 2013 18:34:38 -0700, J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> >>Trayvon's chronically misspelled, slang-filled messages
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> >I guess that makes his murder acceptable then ...right J?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's trying to justify racial profiling and the murder of a young
>>>
>>> black kid because he might have smoked a little weed a few times.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It doesn't get any more pathetic than that.
>>
>>Another libtard who doesn't want to give the accused the presumption of innocence.
>
>What do you give the victim? No consideration at all because he's
>black?

You assume that how?

What has Big Dog written or posted that leads you to believe he's made
ANY determination?

Unlike you, who IMMEDIATELY assumed guilt?

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

Irrelevant.

[Ivan Bodley]

"Klaus Schadenfreude" wrote in message
news:0me4q8dro36n5fjbe...@4ax.com...

#####

Look what happened to "Lookout"!

[SaPeIsMa]

"Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:hlwdjsd2-94E341...@news.giganews.com...

> In article <poo2q8971lihgjsjf...@4ax.com>,
> J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
>> It seems the closer people look at Travon Martin, they can see he
>> wasn't the 'good kid' the media made him appear to be.
>
>
> Which of those messages were capital offenses?
>

No one claimed they were, dummy
Just another (really dumb) attempt at redirection

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 12:43:40 -0500, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@gmail.com>
wrote:

It's a lie when somebody invents motivations like that which aren't
there, dummy..

[JohnJohnsn]

On Sunday, May 26, 2013 6:49:14 AM UTC-5, a schitzophrenic VLILLLDM posting under one of his many personalities; this time as "Ariel Castro : A Mormon and typical GOP follower", wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, May 25, 2013 8:34:38 PM UTC-5, J wrote:
>
>> It seems the closer people look at Travon Martin, they can
>> see he wasn't the 'good kid' the media made him appear to be.
>>

>> Tampa Bay Times
>> In Trayvon Martin's Text Messages, Talk of Marijuana, Fights and Guns
>> By Marc Caputo, Miami Herald
>> Friday, May 24, 2013 12:06pm
>
>>http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/in-trayvon-martins-text-messages-talk-of-marijuana-fights-and-guns/2122811
>
[SNIP!]

>
> Pointless point. Means nothing and can't be submitted in court.
>

Prove it.

Quote the provision of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedures which bars the defense from introducing evidence of the "victim's" prior bad acts as evidence of his predilection for initiating violent confrontations.

[GOP_Decline_and_Fall]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 09:31:45 -0700 (PDT), bigdog
<jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Actually, racists trying to foul the memory of dead victims are trying
to prevent a fair trial by contaminating the jury pool.

[GOP_Decline_and_Fall]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 09:53:59 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
<klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 26 May 2013 10:52:01 -0600, deep wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 26 May 2013 09:30:50 -0700 (PDT), bigdog
>><jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sunday, May 26, 2013 6:55:11 AM UTC-4, GOP_Decline_and_Fall wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 25 May 2013 18:34:38 -0700, J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >Trayvon's chronically misspelled, slang-filled messages
>>>>
>>>> I guess that makes his murder acceptable then ...right J?
>>>
>>>If it was a justifiable homicide, it wasn't murder. Rather than given Zimmerman the presumption of innocence, you assume he is guilty, in absence of a trial. You pretend to know what happened that night even though you have no idea how it went down.
>>
>>The facts are clear.

>Irrelevant.

That just about sums you up.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 12:23:09 -0700, GOP_Decline_and_Fall
<D...@null.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 26 May 2013 09:53:59 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>On Sun, 26 May 2013 10:52:01 -0600, deep wrote:

>>>>The facts are clear. Zimmerman was pursuing Martin. Zimmerman didn't
>>>>have to be out there with a gun. He should have stayed home.
>

>>Irrelevant.
>
>That just about sums you up.

My utter destruction of Dudu's logic? Yeah, you're probably right.

Thanks for joining in. It's always a pleasure to bitch slap you and
your impotent responses.

[Tom McDonald]

The answer to Jeanne's question is "Walking While Black". It's been good
enough reason to kill black folks for centuries.

[Cubano Rubio : Another anchor baby whose parents swam to FLorida]

On 5/26/2013 12:56 PM, JohnJohnsn wrote:

>>
>> Pointless point. Means nothing and can't be submitted in court.
>>
> Prove it.
>
> Quote the provision of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedures which bars the defense from introducing evidence of the "victim's" prior bad acts as evidence of his predilection for initiating violent confrontations.
>

There is no evidence.

The kid has never been arrested of any of those msgs. Thoughts are not
criminal acts.

try again


---

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_NUZ_fM-TQKQ/Sf9PJCiSbLI/AAAAAAAANYI/wzO53XgcCrM/s400/cry_baby.jpg

SAVE AMERICA!!

Spay or neuter
your Republican!!
--
--> Slow thinkers --> Stay Right

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <AXtot.45792$KM4....@newsfe25.iad>,

Precisely.

[JohnJohnsn]

On Sunday, May 26, 2013 3:17:14 PM UTC-5, Cubano Rubio : Another anchor baby ...@poasd.com wrote:
>
>
> On 5/26/2013 12:56 PM, JohnJohnsn wrote:
>>
>>> Pointless point. Means nothing and can't be submitted in court.
>
>> Prove it.
>
>> Quote the provision of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedures which
>> bars the defense from introducing evidence of the "victim's" prior bad
>> acts as evidence of his predilection for initiating violent confrontations.
>
> There is no evidence.
>

Text messages _are_ evidence.

Or did you miss your messiah Obozo's current scandals about _his_ admin's text messages and emails?

Then there's his school suspension for drug violations; his criminal destruction of school pproperty; his violent Facebook postings; his possession of stolen jewelry; ....

It's _all_ admissable as evidence of his criminal tendencies and overall lack of character.

If he'd been white he'd have been jailed numerous times for such conduct.

But they couldn't charge a young black man named Trayvon Benjamin Martin with those things: it would have been "racist." :[

Get back to us after _you_ have twenty+ years in the criminal justice business (and I don't mean as a defendant <g>).

>
> The kid has never been arrested of any of those msgs.
> Thoughts are not criminal acts.
> try again ---
>

Try looking up "mens rea;" it's a legal term, you know.
>
SAVE AMERICA!! Spay or neuter your VLILLLDM!!
--
--> Slow Left-wing thinkers ahead --> Stay on the _Right_ path!

[bigdog]

On Sunday, May 26, 2013 12:50:43 PM UTC-4, deep wrote:
>
> What do you give the victim? No consideration at all because he's
> black? There's no doubt Zimmerman gunned him down in cold blood.

No doubt? How do you know what happened that night? Were you there? Or did you just jump on the libtard bandwagon because that was the cause de jour?

> He's
> been given the benefit of he doubt and he was clearly in the wrong.

You haven't given him the benefit of anything nor have any of those screaming bloody murder, including Obozo. Nothing is clear in this case because the only person who KNOWS what happened that night is the accused. I don't know if he was legitimately acting in self defense or was the aggressor. I do know the burden is on the state of Florida to prove beyond a reasonable doubt it was the latter. Apparently the original prosecutor didn't feel there was enough evidence to do that because he declined to prosecute the case.

[bigdog]

On Sunday, May 26, 2013 12:52:01 PM UTC-4, deep wrote:
> On Sun, 26 May 2013 09:30:50 -0700 (PDT), bigdog

> >If it was a justifiable homicide, it wasn't murder. Rather than given Zimmerman the presumption of innocence, you assume he is guilty, in absence of a trial. You pretend to know what happened that night even though you have no idea how it went down.
>
> The facts are clear. Zimmerman was pursuing Martin. Zimmerman didn't
> have to be out there with a gun. He should have stayed home.

Again I ask you. How do you know the facts? You weren't there. Zimmerman was part of a neighborhood watch group. A perfectly legitimate activity. He was authorized by the state of Florida to carry a gun. Again, perfectly legitimate. He called the police before the confrontation occurred. If he intended to kill Martin, why would he do that? But you and your libtard buddies just want to assume that Martin was just an innocent kid who did nothing wrong and was hunted down my Zimmerman because he was black. I guess if you can imagine the facts, you get to imagine the conclusion.

[bigdog]

On Sunday, May 26, 2013 3:21:11 PM UTC-4, GOP_Decline_and_Fall wrote:
>
> Actually, racists trying to foul the memory of dead victims are trying
> to prevent a fair trial by contaminating the jury pool.

Fair trial my ass. You've already reached a verdict. Reminds me of a line from an old "B" western. "Let's give him a fair trial and then hang him."

[bigdog]

You deceitful piece of shit. You clipped the following sentences "Zimmerman was pursuing Martin. Zimmerman didn't have to be out there with a gun. He should have stayed home." This completely changes the meaning of Klaus's reply. But libtards have never valued honest discourse. Like when Martin Bashir clipped a portion of a video to make it appear pro-gun supporters were heckling the father of a Sandy Hook victim when the full tape clearly shows that they were doing nothing more than responding to a question which he pressed them for an answer. Have you thought of applying for a job at that cesspool known as MSNBC. You would fit right in.

[deep]

The police told him stay in his truck, he didn't. He got out and
pursued Martin. Martin was the one who reacted defensively because
Zimmerman would not stop following him. That is a fact. Zimmerman
did, in fact, profile Martin as a criminal because he was black.

[GOP_Decline_and_Fall]

Perhaps you should look it up.

It's a legal term that applies to the mental state of those committing
crimes not their victims.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mens_rea

IOW it's the crux of the issue for Zimmerman not the child he shot.

[deep]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:09:04 -0700 (PDT), bigdog

<jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, May 26, 2013 3:23:09 PM UTC-4, GOP_Decline_and_Fall wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 May 2013 09:53:59 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
>>
>> <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Sun, 26 May 2013 10:52:01 -0600, deep wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> >>On Sun, 26 May 2013 09:30:50 -0700 (PDT), bigdog
>>
>> >><jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>>On Sunday, May 26, 2013 6:55:11 AM UTC-4, GOP_Decline_and_Fall wrote:
>>
>> >>>> On Sat, 25 May 2013 18:34:38 -0700, J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>
>>
>> >>>> >Trayvon's chronically misspelled, slang-filled messages
>>
>> >>>>
>>
>> >>>> I guess that makes his murder acceptable then ...right J?
>>
>> >>>
>>
>> >>>If it was a justifiable homicide, it wasn't murder. Rather than given Zimmerman the presumption of innocence, you assume he is guilty, in absence of a trial. You pretend to know what happened that night even though you have no idea how it went down.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>The facts are clear.
>>
>> >Irrelevant.
>>
>> That just about sums you up.
>
>You deceitful piece of shit. You clipped the following sentences "Zimmerman was pursuing Martin. Zimmerman didn't have to be out there with a gun. He should have stayed home." This completely changes the meaning of Klaus's reply. But libtards have never valued honest discourse. Like when Martin Bashir clipped a portion of a video to make it appear pro-gun supporters were heckling the father of a Sandy Hook victim when the full tape clearly shows that they were doing nothing more than responding to a question which he pressed them for an answer. Have you thought of applying for a job at that cesspool known as MSNBC. You would fit right in.

You're the one who has your mind made up in advance. You presume
Zimmerman is innocent because the black kid he shot must have been a
criminal because all black kids are. That's your only reason and you
don't even want Zimmerman to go to trial. You assume he is innocent
and want all charges thrown out. If table were turned, however, and
Zimmerman was black and Martin was white you would want Zimmerman to
get the death sentence.

[deep]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:26:50 -0700, GOP_Decline_and_Fall
<D...@null.net> wrote:


>>Then there's his school suspension for drug violations; his criminal destruction of school pproperty; his violent Facebook postings; his possession of stolen jewelry; ....
>>
>>It's _all_ admissable as evidence of his criminal tendencies and overall lack of character.
>>
>>If he'd been white he'd have been jailed numerous times for such conduct.
>>
>>But they couldn't charge a young black man named Trayvon Benjamin Martin with those things: it would have been "racist." :[
>>
>>Get back to us after _you_ have twenty+ years in the criminal justice business (and I don't mean as a defendant <g>).
>>>
>>> The kid has never been arrested of any of those msgs.
>>> Thoughts are not criminal acts.
>>> try again ---
>>>
>>Try looking up "mens rea;" it's a legal term, you know.
>
>Perhaps you should look it up.
>
>It's a legal term that applies to the mental state of those committing
>crimes not their victims.
>
>http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mens_rea
>
>IOW it's the crux of the issue for Zimmerman not the child he shot.

This is going to be interesting to watch: the conservatives are going
to try to justify profiling and shooting someone because they talked
about guns. By their own standards we could shoot any of the
conservative posters here.

[Cubano Rubio : Another anchor baby whose parents swam to FLorida]

On 5/26/2013 4:32 PM, JohnJohnsn wrote:
> On Sunday, May 26, 2013 3:17:14 PM UTC-5, Cubano Rubio : Another anchor baby ...@poasd.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 5/26/2013 12:56 PM, JohnJohnsn wrote:
>>>
>>>> Pointless point. Means nothing and can't be submitted in court.
>>
>>> Prove it.
>>
>>> Quote the provision of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedures which
>>> bars the defense from introducing evidence of the "victim's" prior bad
>>> acts as evidence of his predilection for initiating violent confrontations.
>>
>> There is no evidence.
>>
> Text messages _are_ evidence.
>

> Then there's his school suspension for drug violations; his criminal destruction of school pproperty; his violent Facebook postings; his possession of stolen jewelry; ....
>
> It's _all_ admissable as evidence of his criminal tendencies and overall lack of character.

You really aren't very good at this ... are you ?

Have you considered keeping your day job as toilet cleaner ?

As a juvenile, his records (if any) can't be opened at all, and he
is not on trial facing 2nd degree murder, so none of this character
assassination will ever be presented to a jury.

Thoughts are not a crime .. although we all know ko0oks would like
to do that too.




try again.





---

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_NUZ_fM-TQKQ/Sf9PJCiSbLI/AAAAAAAANYI/wzO53XgcCrM/s400/cry_baby.jpg

SAVE AMERICA!!

Spay or neuter

[bigdog]

So you think a person is justified in beating someone's head into the ground because they were following him. Interesting.

> That is a fact.

Again I ask how you know what the facts are? And again I know you will refuse to answer. You don't know what the facts are so you let your imagination fill in the blanks which is mostly what we have here.

> Zimmerman
> did, in fact, profile Martin as a criminal because he was black.

A perfect example of what I just said. You have no idea whether Zimmerman profiled Martin or not so you just let your imagination fill in the blanks to create the "facts" you want.

In dudu's world, it isn't necessary to prove somebody is guilt. Just imagine a set a facts and imagine a conclusion based on the imaginary facts.

I can play that game too. You are profiling Zimmerman as a trigger happy racist because he is licensed to carry a concealed weapon. Hey, you're right. That is fun.

[Cubano Rubio : Another anchor baby whose parents swam to FLorida]

On 5/26/2013 5:00 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Sunday, May 26, 2013 12:52:01 PM UTC-4, deep wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 May 2013 09:30:50 -0700 (PDT), bigdog
>
>>> If it was a justifiable homicide, it wasn't murder. Rather than given Zimmerman the presumption of innocence, you assume he is guilty, in absence of a trial. You pretend to know what happened that night even though you have no idea how it went down.
>>
>> The facts are clear. Zimmerman was pursuing Martin. Zimmerman didn't
>> have to be out there with a gun. He should have stayed home.
>
> Again I ask you. How do you know the facts? You weren't there. Zimmerman was part of a neighborhood watch group. A perfectly legitimate activity. He was authorized by the state of Florida to carry a gun. Again, perfectly legitimate. He called the police before the confrontation occurred. If he intended to kill Martin, why would he do that?

ZM violated every rule of a "watch group" and CHL.

1. do not confront anyone ,
2. call authorities.


But instead he stalked him , then murdered him .

[Severe Conservative Syndrome]

yeap.

that's the plan.

That is what Real Americans do to murders who kill children, then make
up lies he was attacked by them.

[JohnJohnsn]

On Sunday, May 26, 2013 5:26:50 PM UTC-5, GOP_Decline_and_Fall wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 26 May 2013 14:32:05 -0700 (PDT), JohnJohnsn <topco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, May 26, 2013 3:17:14 PM UTC-5, Cubano Rubio :
>> Another anchor baby ...@poasd.com wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/26/2013 12:56 PM, JohnJohnsn wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Pointless point. Means nothing and can't be submitted in court.
>>
>>>> Prove it.
>>
>>>> Quote the provision of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedures which
>>>> bars the defense from introducing evidence of the "victim's" prior bad
>>>> acts as evidence of his predilection for initiating violent confrontations.
>>
>>> There is no evidence.
>>
>> Text messages _are_ evidence.
>
>> Or did you miss your messiah Obozo's current scandals about _his_ admin's
>> text messages and emails?
>

No comments here, Slippy? Cubumbo?

>
>> Then there's his school suspension for drug violations; his criminal destruction

>> of school property; his violent Facebook postings; his possession of stolen jewelry; ....

>
>> It's _all_ admissable as evidence of his criminal tendencies and overall lack of character.
>
>> If he'd been white he'd have been jailed numerous times for such conduct.
>
>> But they couldn't charge a young black man named Trayvon Benjamin Martin
>> with those things: it would have been "racist." :[
>
>> Get back to us after _you_ have twenty+ years in the criminal justice business
>> (and I don't mean as a defendant <g>).
>>
>>> The kid has never been arrested of any of those msgs.
>>> Thoughts are not criminal acts.
>>> try again ---
>>
>> Try looking up "mens rea;" it's a legal term, you know.
>
> Perhaps you should look it up. It's a legal term that applies to the mental
> state of those committing crimes not their victims.
>

We are discussing the crimes that Trayvon Benjamin Martin committed: crimes the local cops were too scared to pursue because it would appear thay were persecuting the "black gang banger wannabe."

His text messages are prima facie evidence of his "criminal mind," Slippy.
>
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mens_rea
>
I know what it means, Slippy: and it applies before, during and after the crime's commission.

Trayvon Benjamin Martin _was_ a criminal; just never prosecuted.

Are you saying that Alphone "Scarface" Capone wasn't a "criminal" until the feds got him on tax evasion?

Or did you forget TRayvon's vandalizing his own school's property? His possession of "burglar tools"? His possession of stolen jewelry? How about his possession of drug paraphenalia?

And those are just the ones we _know_ about!

Your memory is rather selective here, Slippy.

>
> IOW it's the crux of the issue for Zimmerman not the child he shot.
>

Still trying to portray this gang-banger wannabe as a "child," we note.

He was old enough to be prosecuted as an ADULT under Florida criminal law.

[bigdog]

On Sunday, May 26, 2013 6:34:45 PM UTC-4, deep wrote:
> On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:09:04 -0700 (PDT), bigdog
>
> <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Sunday, May 26, 2013 3:23:09 PM UTC-4, GOP_Decline_and_Fall wrote:
>
> >> On Sun, 26 May 2013 09:53:59 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
>
> >>
>
> >> <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >On Sun, 26 May 2013 10:52:01 -0600, deep wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >>On Sun, 26 May 2013 09:30:50 -0700 (PDT), bigdog
>
> >>
>
> >> >><jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>>On Sunday, May 26, 2013 6:55:11 AM UTC-4, GOP_Decline_and_Fall wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >>>> On Sat, 25 May 2013 18:34:38 -0700, J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>>> >Trayvon's chronically misspelled, slang-filled messages
>
> >>
>
> >> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>>> I guess that makes his murder acceptable then ...right J?
>
> >>
>
> >> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>>If it was a justifiable homicide, it wasn't murder. Rather than given Zimmerman the presumption of innocence, you assume he is guilty, in absence of a trial. You pretend to know what happened that night even though you have no idea how it went down.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>The facts are clear.
>
> >>
>
> >> >Irrelevant.
>
> >>
>
> >> That just about sums you up.
>
> >
>
> >You deceitful piece of shit. You clipped the following sentences "Zimmerman was pursuing Martin. Zimmerman didn't have to be out there with a gun. He should have stayed home." This completely changes the meaning of Klaus's reply. But libtards have never valued honest discourse. Like when Martin Bashir clipped a portion of a video to make it appear pro-gun supporters were heckling the father of a Sandy Hook victim when the full tape clearly shows that they were doing nothing more than responding to a question which he pressed them for an answer. Have you thought of applying for a job at that cesspool known as MSNBC. You would fit right in.
>
>
>
> You're the one who has your mind made up in advance. You presume
> Zimmerman is innocent

Uh, yeah. That is one of the cornerstones of our criminal justice system.

> because the black kid he shot must have been a
> criminal because all black kids are.

I don't need a reason to presume Zimmerman is innocent. Every person accused of a crime is entitled to that. If I did need a reason, I could certainly come up with a better one than the silly one you dreamed up.

> That's your only reason and you
> don't even want Zimmerman to go to trial.

I don't remember writing that. I don't remember thinking that. Please point to where I said that. Or are YOU the one doing the assuming.

> You assume he is innocent

I presume he is innocent. There is a difference.

> and want all charges thrown out.

Again, please point to where I said that.

> If table were turned, however, and
> Zimmerman was black and Martin was white you would want Zimmerman to
> get the death sentence.

He's one for you to ponder, dudu. How do you know what race I belong to?

[bigdog]

On Sunday, May 26, 2013 6:45:10 PM UTC-4, deep wrote:
>
> This is going to be interesting to watch: the conservatives are going
> to try to justify profiling and shooting someone because they talked
> about guns. By their own standards we could shoot any of the
> conservative posters here.

So now you think Zimmerman knew what Martin had texted and that's the reason he shot him?

[GOP_Decline_and_Fall]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:09:04 -0700 (PDT), bigdog

<jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, May 26, 2013 3:23:09 PM UTC-4, GOP_Decline_and_Fall wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 May 2013 09:53:59 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
>>
>> <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Sun, 26 May 2013 10:52:01 -0600, deep wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> >>On Sun, 26 May 2013 09:30:50 -0700 (PDT), bigdog
>>
>> >><jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>>On Sunday, May 26, 2013 6:55:11 AM UTC-4, GOP_Decline_and_Fall wrote:
>>
>> >>>> On Sat, 25 May 2013 18:34:38 -0700, J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>
>>
>> >>>> >Trayvon's chronically misspelled, slang-filled messages
>>
>> >>>>
>>
>> >>>> I guess that makes his murder acceptable then ...right J?
>>
>> >>>
>>
>> >>>If it was a justifiable homicide, it wasn't murder. Rather than given Zimmerman the presumption of innocence, you assume he is guilty, in absence of a trial. You pretend to know what happened that night even though you have no idea how it went down.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>The facts are clear.
>>
>> >Irrelevant.
>>
>> That just about sums you up.
>
>You deceitful piece of shit. You clipped the following sentences "Zimmerman was pursuing Martin. Zimmerman didn't have to be out there with a gun. He should have stayed home." This completely changes the meaning of Klaus's reply. But libtards have never valued honest discourse. Like when Martin Bashir clipped a portion of a video to make it appear pro-gun supporters were heckling the father of a Sandy Hook victim when the full tape clearly shows that they were doing nothing more than responding to a question which he pressed them for an answer. Have you thought of applying for a job at that cesspool known as MSNBC. You would fit right in.

Talking of deceit have you sent more money to the Zimmermans yet?

New Zimmerman motions: Defense wants anonymous jury; state wants to
question Shellie

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-george-zimmerman-trial-jury-20130509,0,3638854.story

Meanwhile, the state asked Nelson to order Shellie Zimmerman to answer
their questions. During their first attempt to depose her, prosecutors
say, she asked for a break and, after talking to her lawyer, refused
to answer further questions.

She invoked her right against self-incrimination under the Fifth
Amendment, citing her pending perjury case. Prosecutors say they
weren't going to ask about that.

Zimmerman is the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who shot Trayvon Martin,
an unarmed black 17-year-old, Feb. 26, 2012, in Sanford after calling
police and describing him as suspicious.

[Ayatollah Santorum]

On 5/26/2013 5:57 PM, JohnJohnsn wrote:
>
>>
> We are discussing the crimes that Trayvon Benjamin Martin committed: crimes the local cops were too scared to pursue

There weren't any convictions ... so in you twisted world,
there weren't any crimes.

Cops were "scared" of a kid ... a black one yet.

rigghtttttt.

Is that the best you can come up with ?


--
---

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_NUZ_fM-TQKQ/Sf9PJCiSbLI/AAAAAAAANYI/wzO53XgcCrM/s400/cry_baby.jpg

SAVE AMERICA!!

Spay or neuter

your Republican!!
--
--> Slow thinkers --> Stay Right

--

The methodology of the Right has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

--> Slow thinkers --> Stay Right

Loon Party leader:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Neanderthaler_Fund.png

[Gray Guest]

Tom McDonald <kil...@gmail.com> wrote in news:AXtot.45792$KM4.18318
@newsfe25.iad:

> The answer to Jeanne's question is "Walking While Black". It's been good
> enough reason to kill black folks for centuries.
>

Man what a bigot you are. Are you a member of the Klan?

--
Refusenik #1

Libs suffer from Eleutherophobia. And there is no cure.

Obama called the SEALs and THEY got bin Laden. When the SEALs called Obama,
THEY GOT DENIED. Fuck Obama

[Gray Guest]

deep wrote in news:29f4q8h9g46d7ork4...@4ax.com:

> There's no doubt Zimmerman gunned him down in cold blood.

Really? Were you there fuckwit?

[deep]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:49:41 -0700 (PDT), bigdog

<jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, May 26, 2013 6:23:29 PM UTC-4, deep wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:00:33 -0700 (PDT), bigdog
>>
>> <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Sunday, May 26, 2013 12:52:01 PM UTC-4, deep wrote:
>>
>> >> On Sun, 26 May 2013 09:30:50 -0700 (PDT), bigdog
>>
>> >
>>
>> >> >If it was a justifiable homicide, it wasn't murder. Rather than given Zimmerman the presumption of innocence, you assume he is guilty, in absence of a trial. You pretend to know what happened that night even though you have no idea how it went down.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> The facts are clear. Zimmerman was pursuing Martin. Zimmerman didn't
>>
>> >> have to be out there with a gun. He should have stayed home.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Again I ask you. How do you know the facts? You weren't there. Zimmerman was part of a neighborhood watch group. A perfectly legitimate activity. He was authorized by the state of Florida to carry a gun. Again, perfectly legitimate. He called the police before the confrontation occurred. If he intended to kill Martin, why would he do that? But you and your libtard buddies just want to assume that Martin was just an innocent kid who did nothing wrong and was hunted down my Zimmerman because he was black. I guess if you can imagine the facts, you get to imagine the conclusion.
>>
>>
>>
>> The police told him stay in his truck, he didn't. He got out and
>> pursued Martin. Martin was the one who reacted defensively because
>> Zimmerman would not stop following him.
>
>So you think a person is justified in beating someone's head into the ground because they were following him. Interesting.
>

Florida has a stand your ground law. Interesting how you think that
only applies to Zimmerman.

>> That is a fact.
>
>Again I ask how you know what the facts are? And again I know you will refuse to answer. You don't know what the facts are so you let your imagination fill in the blanks which is mostly what we have here.
>

It's a fact that Zimmerman shot and killed Martin after pursuing him.
Those facts are not at all in question by anyone.

Zimmerman's only defense is he correctly profiled Martin as a criminal
because he was a black kid in a hoodie.

>> Zimmerman
>> did, in fact, profile Martin as a criminal because he was black.
>
>A perfect example of what I just said. You have no idea whether Zimmerman profiled Martin or not so you just let your imagination fill in the blanks to create the "facts" you want.
>

Yes of course he did. He followed Martin because he thought he was a
criminal.

>In dudu's world, it isn't necessary to prove somebody is guilt. Just imagine a set a facts and imagine a conclusion based on the imaginary facts.
>
>I can play that game too. You are profiling Zimmerman as a trigger happy racist because he is licensed to carry a concealed weapon. Hey, you're right. That is fun.

Zimmerman did, in fact, shoot and kill and unarmed teenager after
following him through the neighborhood. Those facts are not in
question.

[deep]

That's the way the Zimmerman defense is going right now. They are
attacking Martin saying he talked about guns in his texts, smoked a
little weed, talked like a tough teenager. All trying to make him
out to be a gangster, as if that somehow justified Zimmerman profiling
then killing him. They have no defense that Zimmerman was acting in
legitimate self defense because he had no choice and feared for his
life.

[Syd M.]

On May 26, 5:23 pm, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> In article <AXtot.45792$KM4.18...@newsfe25.iad>,

>  Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5/26/2013 11:06 AM, Scout wrote:
>

> > > "Syd M." <pauldavidwri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> > >news:f1ad89d3-0574-45e0...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> > >> On May 26, 11:22 am, "Scout"
> > >> <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
> > >>> "Jeanne Douglas" <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >>>news:hlwdjsd2-94E341...@news.giganews.com...
>
> > >>> > In article <poo2q8971lihgjsjfm2fjrb3vk2mhoj...@4ax.com>,
> > >>> > J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> >> It seems the closer people look at Travon Martin, they can see he
> > >>> >> wasn't the 'good kid' the media made him appear to be.
>
> > >>> > Which of those messages were capital offenses?
>
> > >>> Possibly attacking an armed stranger putting him in fear of life and
> > >>> limb.
>
> > >> Or being attacked by that armed stranger did it, too.
> > >> Esp since he wasn't armed...
>
> > > Except that isn't an offense committed by Travon and thus doesn't
> > > fulfill the conditions set by Jeanne.
>
> > The answer to Jeanne's question is "Walking While Black". It's been good
> > enough reason to kill black folks for centuries.
>
> Precisely.
>
>

The bigots here sure do think that it's applicable.

PDW

[GOP_Decline_and_Fall]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:57:27 -0700 (PDT), JohnJohnsn

Verbose but meaningless nevertheless.
Character assassination of murder victims by the their murderer's
attorney is the only thing it's evidence of.

The Judge is deciding as to admissibility not you.

>>
>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mens_rea
>>
>I know what it means, Slippy:

Clearly you do not.

>and it applies before, during and after the crime's commission.

Without an actus reus there is no applicability to the murdered
child whatsoever.

>Trayvon Benjamin Martin _was_ a criminal; just never prosecuted.

By your idiosyncratic denunciation?

99% of the planet's population probably are including yourself.

>Are you saying that Alphone "Scarface" Capone wasn't a "criminal" until the feds got him on tax evasion?

Capone?

You really that desperate?

>Or did you forget TRayvon's vandalizing his own school's property? His possession of "burglar tools"? His possession of stolen jewelry? How about his possession of drug paraphenalia?
>
>And those are just the ones we _know_ about!

Yet despite your hysteria Trayvon had no criminal record whatsoever
did he?

>Your memory is rather selective here, Slippy.
>>
>> IOW it's the crux of the issue for Zimmerman not the child he shot.
>>
>Still trying to portray this gang-banger wannabe as a "child," we note.

He was seventeen when murdered.

>He was old enough to be prosecuted as an ADULT under Florida criminal law.

The only people being prosecuted for murder and perjury here are the
Zimmerman's.

[bigdog]

On Sunday, May 26, 2013 6:54:34 PM UTC-4, Cubano Rubio : Another anchor baby ...@poasd.com wrote:
> On 5/26/2013 5:00 PM, bigdog wrote:
>
> > Again I ask you. How do you know the facts? You weren't there. Zimmerman was part of a neighborhood watch group. A perfectly legitimate activity. He was authorized by the state of Florida to carry a gun. Again, perfectly legitimate. He called the police before the confrontation occurred. If he intended to kill Martin, why would he do that?
>
> ZM violated every rule of a "watch group" and CHL.

>
> 1. do not confront anyone ,
>
> 2. call authorities.
>

He did call the authorities. So you lied when you said he violated EVERY rule of a watch group. He only violated one of the two rules you posted. I guess that counts as every rule in the libtard world.

>
> But instead he stalked him , then murdered him .
>

So we have another libtard who wasn't there but presumes to know how it happened rather than give Zimmerman the presumption of innocence our criminal justice system says he is entitled to.

[GOP_Decline_and_Fall]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:57:27 -0700 (PDT), JohnJohnsn

<topco...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, May 26, 2013 5:26:50 PM UTC-5, GOP_Decline_and_Fall wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 26 May 2013 14:32:05 -0700 (PDT), JohnJohnsn <topco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, May 26, 2013 3:17:14 PM UTC-5, Cubano Rubio :
>>> Another anchor baby ...@poasd.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/26/2013 12:56 PM, JohnJohnsn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Pointless point. Means nothing and can't be submitted in court.
>>>
>>>>> Prove it.
>>>
>>>>> Quote the provision of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedures which
>>>>> bars the defense from introducing evidence of the "victim's" prior bad
>>>>> acts as evidence of his predilection for initiating violent confrontations.
>>>
>>>> There is no evidence.
>>>
>>> Text messages _are_ evidence.
>>
>>> Or did you miss your messiah Obozo's current scandals about _his_ admin's
>>> text messages and emails?
>>
>No comments here, Slippy? Cubumbo?

Having been caught red handed that's not something conservatives wish
to discuss anymore.

I guess you missed the memo.

Dem Congressman slams GOP for “doctored” Benghazi emails

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/19/dem_congressman_slams_gop_for_doctored_benghazi_emails/

[Cubano Rubio : Another anchor baby whose parents swam to FLorida]

On 5/26/2013 6:55 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Sunday, May 26, 2013 6:54:34 PM UTC-4, Cubano Rubio : Another anchor baby ...@poasd.com wrote:
>> On 5/26/2013 5:00 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>
>>> Again I ask you. How do you know the facts? You weren't there. Zimmerman was part of a neighborhood watch group. A perfectly legitimate activity. He was authorized by the state of Florida to carry a gun. Again, perfectly legitimate. He called the police before the confrontation occurred. If he intended to kill Martin, why would he do that?
>>
>> ZM violated every rule of a "watch group" and CHL.
>
>>
>> 1. do not confront anyone ,
>>
>> 2. call authorities.
>>
> He did call the authorities. So you lied when you said he violated EVERY rule of a watch group. He only violated one of the two rules you posted
>
>

He didn't listen to them when they told him to wait for
the police. He had no right or reason to pursue or confront
him ... meaning he initiated the attack ..
the kid wasn't doing anything illegal.

[Scout]

"GOP_Decline_and_Fall" <D...@null.net> wrote in message
news:ktn4q81cdh3sq1a84...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 26 May 2013 09:31:45 -0700 (PDT), bigdog
> <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sunday, May 26, 2013 9:19:58 AM UTC-4, deep wrote:
>>> On Sun, 26 May 2013 03:55:11 -0700, GOP_Decline_and_Fall

>>>
>>> <D...@null.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >On Sat, 25 May 2013 18:34:38 -0700, J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> >>Trayvon's chronically misspelled, slang-filled messages
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> >I guess that makes his murder acceptable then ...right J?
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>> It's trying to justify racial profiling and the murder of a young
>>>
>>> black kid because he might have smoked a little weed a few times.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It doesn't get any more pathetic than that.
>>
>>Another libtard who doesn't want to give the accused the presumption of
>>innocence.

>
> Actually, racists trying to foul the memory of dead victims are trying
> to prevent a fair trial by contaminating the jury pool.

How exactly does the truth of his text messages foul his memory?

Are you suggesting that people should be content with the illusions of what
some claim he was instead of the reality of what he was?

[Scout]

"Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:hlwdjsd2-E2A677...@news.giganews.com...
> In article <AXtot.45792$KM4....@newsfe25.iad>,

> Tom McDonald <kil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/26/2013 11:06 AM, Scout wrote:
>> >
>> >

>> > "Syd M." <pauldav...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>> > news:f1ad89d3-0574-45e0...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>> >> On May 26, 11:22 am, "Scout"
>> >> <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>> >>> "Jeanne Douglas" <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>>
>> >>> news:hlwdjsd2-94E341...@news.giganews.com...
>> >>>
>> >>> > In article <poo2q8971lihgjsjfm2fjrb3vk2mhoj...@4ax.com>,
>> >>> > J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> >> It seems the closer people look at Travon Martin, they can see he
>> >>> >> wasn't the 'good kid' the media made him appear to be.
>> >>>
>> >>> > Which of those messages were capital offenses?
>> >>>
>> >>> Possibly attacking an armed stranger putting him in fear of life and
>> >>> limb.
>> >>
>> >> Or being attacked by that armed stranger did it, too.
>> >> Esp since he wasn't armed...
>> >
>> > Except that isn't an offense committed by Travon and thus doesn't
>> > fulfill the conditions set by Jeanne.
>> >
>> >
>> The answer to Jeanne's question is "Walking While Black". It's been good
>> enough reason to kill black folks for centuries.
>
> Precisely.

So you're a racist.....

[Tom McDonald]

On 5/26/2013 5:59 PM, Gray Guest wrote:
> Tom McDonald <kil...@gmail.com> wrote in news:AXtot.45792$KM4.18318
> @newsfe25.iad:
>
>> The answer to Jeanne's question is "Walking While Black". It's been good
>> enough reason to kill black folks for centuries.
>>
>
> Man what a bigot you are. Are you a member of the Klan?
>

Thought you were dead. Well, hope springs.

[Scout]

"GOP_Decline_and_Fall" <D...@null.net> wrote in message

news:jl55q8pc2n9gdmvjc...@4ax.com...

Excuse me but how can the truth of his character assassinate it, unless his
'character' is illusionary?

[Scout]

"Cubano Rubio : Another anchor baby whose parents swam to FLorida"
<sw...@poasd.com> wrote in message
news:51a292af$0$12779$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...

> On 5/26/2013 5:00 PM, bigdog wrote:
>> On Sunday, May 26, 2013 12:52:01 PM UTC-4, deep wrote:
>>> On Sun, 26 May 2013 09:30:50 -0700 (PDT), bigdog
>>
>>>> If it was a justifiable homicide, it wasn't murder. Rather than given
>>>> Zimmerman the presumption of innocence, you assume he is guilty, in
>>>> absence of a trial. You pretend to know what happened that night even
>>>> though you have no idea how it went down.
>>>
>>> The facts are clear. Zimmerman was pursuing Martin. Zimmerman didn't
>>> have to be out there with a gun. He should have stayed home.
>>
>> Again I ask you. How do you know the facts? You weren't there. Zimmerman
>> was part of a neighborhood watch group. A perfectly legitimate activity.
>> He was authorized by the state of Florida to carry a gun. Again,
>> perfectly legitimate. He called the police before the confrontation
>> occurred. If he intended to kill Martin, why would he do that?
>
> ZM violated every rule of a "watch group" and CHL.
>
> 1. do not confront anyone ,
> 2. call authorities.

Hmmm.. There is no evidence that he voluntarily confronted anyone, and I
believe the record is quite clear that he did call the authorities.

So please by all means back up your claim that he violated every rule of his
watch group.

Oh, and do you happen to have a list of these rules because I would like to
see them.

If you can't produce them, then how do you know he violated those rules, or
even if such rules existed?

[Scout]

"Cubano Rubio : Another anchor baby whose parents swam to FLorida"
<sw...@poasd.com> wrote in message

news:51a2a654$0$12773$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...

> On 5/26/2013 6:55 PM, bigdog wrote:
>> On Sunday, May 26, 2013 6:54:34 PM UTC-4, Cubano Rubio : Another anchor
>> baby ...@poasd.com wrote:
>>> On 5/26/2013 5:00 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>>
>>>> Again I ask you. How do you know the facts? You weren't there.
>>>> Zimmerman was part of a neighborhood watch group. A perfectly
>>>> legitimate activity. He was authorized by the state of Florida to carry
>>>> a gun. Again, perfectly legitimate. He called the police before the
>>>> confrontation occurred. If he intended to kill Martin, why would he do
>>>> that?
>>>
>>> ZM violated every rule of a "watch group" and CHL.
>>
>>>
>>> 1. do not confront anyone ,
>>>
>>> 2. call authorities.
>>>
>> He did call the authorities. So you lied when you said he violated EVERY
>> rule of a watch group. He only violated one of the two rules you posted
> >
>>
>
>
> He didn't listen to them when they told him to wait for
> the police. He had no right or reason to pursue or confront
> him ... meaning he initiated the attack ..
> the kid wasn't doing anything illegal.

Please present your evidence that he pursued or confronted Travon.

[Tom McDonald]

Horseshit. Merely pointing out the racism that led to Trayvon's death.

[deep]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 16:55:55 -0700 (PDT), bigdog
<jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, May 26, 2013 6:54:34 PM UTC-4, Cubano Rubio : Another anchor baby ...@poasd.com wrote:
>> On 5/26/2013 5:00 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>
>> > Again I ask you. How do you know the facts? You weren't there. Zimmerman was part of a neighborhood watch group. A perfectly legitimate activity. He was authorized by the state of Florida to carry a gun. Again, perfectly legitimate. He called the police before the confrontation occurred. If he intended to kill Martin, why would he do that?
>>
>> ZM violated every rule of a "watch group" and CHL.
>
>>
>> 1. do not confront anyone ,
>>
>> 2. call authorities.
>>
>He did call the authorities. So you lied when you said he violated EVERY rule of a watch group. He only violated one of the two rules you posted. I guess that counts as every rule in the libtard world.

The authorities told him to stay in his vehicle. He violate their
lawful order and instead pursued the suspect against watch group
policy.

>>
>> But instead he stalked him , then murdered him .
>>
>So we have another libtard who wasn't there but presumes to know how it happened rather than give Zimmerman the presumption of innocence our criminal justice system says he is entitled to.

You're confused. There is no presumption of innocence here, because
there is no doublt Zimmerman killed Martin. You're thinking of
presumption of innocence when it's not definite the person committed
the crime. Your idea of presumption of innocence in this case would
set the precident that anybody could go out and shoot whoever they
wanted and claim self defense with the understanding he had to believe
the murderer and let him go because he must be innocent because he
says.

It doesn't work that way you moron. What you suggest is anarchy. A
license to gun down anyone you want because we have to presume you're
innocent.

and that's bullshit so quit your crying freak.

[deep]

The police timeline proves it. Zimmerman got out of his truck and
followed Martin around the neighborhood houses. Those are facts in
evidence.

[Scout]

"Tom McDonald" <kil...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:RRyot.9541$EM6....@newsfe04.iad...

What racism? The only racism I see is your assertion that it was about
racism.

[deep]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 21:20:42 -0400, "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>
>
>"Cubano Rubio : Another anchor baby whose parents swam to FLorida"
><sw...@poasd.com> wrote in message
>news:51a292af$0$12779$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
>> On 5/26/2013 5:00 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>> On Sunday, May 26, 2013 12:52:01 PM UTC-4, deep wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 26 May 2013 09:30:50 -0700 (PDT), bigdog
>>>
>>>>> If it was a justifiable homicide, it wasn't murder. Rather than given
>>>>> Zimmerman the presumption of innocence, you assume he is guilty, in
>>>>> absence of a trial. You pretend to know what happened that night even
>>>>> though you have no idea how it went down.
>>>>
>>>> The facts are clear. Zimmerman was pursuing Martin. Zimmerman didn't
>>>> have to be out there with a gun. He should have stayed home.
>>>
>>> Again I ask you. How do you know the facts? You weren't there. Zimmerman
>>> was part of a neighborhood watch group. A perfectly legitimate activity.
>>> He was authorized by the state of Florida to carry a gun. Again,
>>> perfectly legitimate. He called the police before the confrontation
>>> occurred. If he intended to kill Martin, why would he do that?
>>
>> ZM violated every rule of a "watch group" and CHL.
>>
>> 1. do not confront anyone ,
>> 2. call authorities.
>
>Hmmm.. There is no evidence that he voluntarily confronted anyone, and I
>believe the record is quite clear that he did call the authorities.

He violated a lawful order from said authorities to stand down and
stay in his truck. He violated the instructions from authorities so
that totally blows your claim he obeyed #2.

>
>So please by all means back up your claim that he violated every rule of his
>watch group.
>
>Oh, and do you happen to have a list of these rules because I would like to
>see them.
>
>If you can't produce them, then how do you know he violated those rules, or
>even if such rules existed?
>

That's already been presented here too many times to count and yet all
you can do is lie again.

[Cubano Rubio : Another anchor baby whose parents swam to FLorida]

On 5/26/2013 8:20 PM, Scout wrote:
>
> So please by all means back up your claim that he violated every rule of
> his watch group.
>
> Oh, and do you happen to have a list of these rules because I would like
> to see them.
>
> If you can't produce them, then how do you know he violated those rules,
> or even if such rules existed?
>
>

I have attended neighborhood watch training by local
police in two different communities - both of them
stressed you never question or confront anyone -
"Watchers" have no authority to question anyone for
anything , let alone stalk and murder them.

[deep]

What was he? A city kid trying to act tough? He'd never been
arrested for anything. The only thing he did wrong was being black
around a racist with a gun.

Just think: if you rednecks got your way, then any of you can gun
down anyone you want and all you have to do is claim self defense then
the police have to let you walk. You would be giving racists a
license to kill anyone they want and we just have to believe anything
you say. That's what you are claiming and that's insane.

[RD Sandman]

Ashton Crusher <de...@moore.net> wrote in
news:jbu2q8h3d2ni5so5t...@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 25 May 2013 18:34:38 -0700, J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>

>>It seems the closer people look at Travon Martin, they can see he
>>wasn't the 'good kid' the media made him appear to be.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>>http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/in-trayvon-martins-text
>>-messages-talk-of-marijuana-fights-and-guns/2122811
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>In the months and days before his shooting death, Trayvon Martin was
>>getting into fights, getting high on marijuana, getting suspended from
>>school and talking with friends about getting a gun, according to
>>cellphone text messages that defense lawyers for shooter George
>>Zimmerman released Thursday.
>>
>>Trayvon's chronically misspelled, slang-filled messages — as well as
>>pictures of a semi-automatic pistol, marijuana plants and Trayvon
>>flipping his middle fingers — are all part of Zimmerman's defense plan
>>to put the Miami Gardens 17-year-old posthumously on trial.
>>
>>"So you just turning into a lil hoodlum," one friend, whose name has
>>been withheld, texted Trayvon.
>>
>>Trayvon replied: "No not at all."
>>
>>At one point, Trayvon joked that the friend was "soft."
>>
>>"Boy don't get one planted in ya chest," the friend joked back.
>>
>>The message, a likely reference to being shot, eerily foreshadowed
>>Trayvon's fate three months later.
>>
>>On the rainy evening of Feb. 26, 2012, Zimmerman fatally shot Trayvon
>>at an apartment complex in Sanford, near Orlando, where the Miami
>>Gardens teen was sent to live with his dad to get back on track.
>>
>>That night, Trayvon was returning from a convenience store where he
>>had just bought a pack of Skittles and some iced tea. Zimmerman said
>>he believed the young man in the hoodie sweatshirt was up to no good.
>>
>>No one witnessed who threw the first punch at whom or why.
>>
>>But soon Trayvon was dead from a Sig Sauer gunshot wound, Zimmerman
>>was in police custody and the nation began debating Florida's deadly
>>force law known as "stand your ground."
>>
>
> The only people who talk about the "stand your ground" law are those
> who don't understand the law. This was not a stand your ground case.
> Trayvon was attacking Zimmerman and he did what ANYONE who is being
> attacked may legally do, he shot the asshole attacking him.

Oooops. No one knows for sure (other than Zimmerman) who started the
physical portion of the confrontation.

The stand
> your ground law deals with whether or not you have a duty to retreat
> if you can do so rather then shoot someone. Stand your ground laws
> say you do not have a duty to retreat when you are attacked.

SYG in Florida is handled by statute 776.012 (or 776.013 if it is in your
home and is Castle Doctrine). It consists of eight words. Here it is:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in
using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent
that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to
defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of
unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force
and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to
prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or
another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

776.013 as noted covers Castle Doctrine. SYG is in the eight words,
"...and does not have a duty to retreat..."

Have you
> ever heard anyone say the police have a duty to retreat if they are
> attacked? yet for years the public was expected to do just that until
> some states finally passed stand your ground laws.
>
>
>>The law offers protections for some shooters in public places, but
>>Zimmerman was still charged with second-degree murder by a special
>>prosecutor appointed by Gov. Rick Scott. Zimmerman is pleading
>>self-defense, and said Trayvon attacked him.
>>
>>His trial is scheduled for June 10.
>>
>>
>
> The regular prosecutor knew there was no justification to charge
> Zimmerman so they brought in a ringer to do the dirty work.

We shall see when testimony comes in under oath.

Zimmerman and his attornies turned down a SYG hearing to resolve the
issue. If he had been held by the judge as to being covered by SYG then
he would have been immune to both civil and criminal charges ensuing out
of the encounter.

Here is the statute 776.032 for that:

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for
justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s.
776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal
prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person
against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in
s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official
duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with
any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should
have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this
subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining
in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for
investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the
agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines
that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs,
compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the
defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the
court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in
subsection (1).
History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27.






--
Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman

You can be young without money, but you
can't be old without it.

[RD Sandman]

"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:knt93t$hdd$1...@dont-email.me:

>
>
> "Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message

> news:hlwdjsd2-94E341...@news.giganews.com...
>> In article <poo2q8971lihgjsjf...@4ax.com>,

>> J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It seems the closer people look at Travon Martin, they can see he
>>> wasn't the 'good kid' the media made him appear to be.
>>
>>

>> Which of those messages were capital offenses?
>
> Possibly attacking an armed stranger putting him in fear of life and
> limb.

Ended up that way, anyway.

[Gray Guest]

Tom McDonald <kil...@gmail.com> wrote in news:0uyot.11729$rW2.131
@newsfe05.iad:

There are a lot of people that need to be dead before me.

And at the rate things are going it's likely I'll get my wish.

[RD Sandman]

"Syd M." <pauldav...@yahoo.com> wrote in

news:f1ad89d3-0574-45e0...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:

> On May 26, 11:22�am, "Scout"
> <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>> "Jeanne Douglas" <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:hlwdjsd2-94E341...@news.giganews.com...
>>
>> > In article <poo2q8971lihgjsjfm2fjrb3vk2mhoj...@4ax.com>,

>> > J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> It seems the closer people look at Travon Martin, they can see he
>> >> wasn't the 'good kid' the media made him appear to be.
>>
>> > Which of those messages were capital offenses?
>>
>> Possibly attacking an armed stranger putting him in fear of life and
>> limb
> .
>

> Or being attacked by that armed stranger did it, too.
> Esp since he wasn't armed...

What makes you think Zimmerman knew that? Currently it is unknown who
started the physical portion of the encounter. The trial should bring
that out.

[deep]

Zimmerman profiled Martin as trouble solely because he was black. He
was doing nothing wrong. He was coming back from the store with
candy. His father lived in the neighborhood and he was heading for
his father's house. He was just an innocent kid walking through the
neighborhood until Zimmerman started following him for no reason other
than racism.

[RD Sandman]

Tom McDonald <kil...@gmail.com> wrote in news:AXtot.45792$KM4.18318
@newsfe25.iad:

> On 5/26/2013 11:06 AM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Syd M." <pauldav...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>> news:f1ad89d3-0574-45e0-bf0e-8347cc21b382

@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>>> On May 26, 11:22 am, "Scout"
>>> <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>> "Jeanne Douglas" <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> news:hlwdjsd2-94E341...@news.giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>> > In article <poo2q8971lihgjsjfm2fjrb3vk2mhoj...@4ax.com>,
>>>> > J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> It seems the closer people look at Travon Martin, they can see he
>>>> >> wasn't the 'good kid' the media made him appear to be.
>>>>
>>>> > Which of those messages were capital offenses?
>>>>
>>>> Possibly attacking an armed stranger putting him in fear of life and
>>>> limb.
>>>
>>> Or being attacked by that armed stranger did it, too.
>>> Esp since he wasn't armed...
>>
>> Except that isn't an offense committed by Travon and thus doesn't
>> fulfill the conditions set by Jeanne.
>>
>>
> The answer to Jeanne's question is "Walking While Black". It's been
good
> enough reason to kill black folks for centuries.
>

Perhaps. Zimmerman, however, was also a minority. He was half hispanic.

[Tom McDonald]

Did you follow the story?

[RD Sandman]

Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in
news:1hi4q85k9giu2nphl...@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 26 May 2013 12:43:40 -0500, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
>>"Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message

>>news:hlwdjsd2-94E341...@news.giganews.com...
>>> In article <poo2q8971lihgjsjf...@4ax.com>,

>>> J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It seems the closer people look at Travon Martin, they can see he
>>>> wasn't the 'good kid' the media made him appear to be.
>>>
>>>
>>> Which of those messages were capital offenses?
>>>
>>
>>

>>No one claimed they were, dummy
>> Just another (really dumb) attempt at redirection
>
> It's a lie when somebody invents motivations like that which aren't
> there, dummy..
>

Then, perhaps, both sides should carefully watch what they say.

[RD Sandman]

deep wrote in news:au24q8pt4ur0d0s78...@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 26 May 2013 03:55:11 -0700, GOP_Decline_and_Fall
> <D...@null.net> wrote:
>

>>On Sat, 25 May 2013 18:34:38 -0700, J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Trayvon's chronically misspelled, slang-filled messages
>>

>>I guess that makes his murder acceptable then ...right J?
>
> It's trying to justify racial profiling and the murder of a young
> black kid because he might have smoked a little weed a few times.
>
> It doesn't get any more pathetic than that.
>

Well, at least until you popped in.

[RD Sandman]

deep wrote in news:29f4q8h9g46d7ork4...@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 26 May 2013 09:31:45 -0700 (PDT), bigdog
> <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sunday, May 26, 2013 9:19:58 AM UTC-4, deep wrote:

>>> On Sun, 26 May 2013 03:55:11 -0700, GOP_Decline_and_Fall
>>>
>>> <D...@null.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >On Sat, 25 May 2013 18:34:38 -0700, J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> >>Trayvon's chronically misspelled, slang-filled messages
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> >I guess that makes his murder acceptable then ...right J?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's trying to justify racial profiling and the murder of a young
>>>
>>> black kid because he might have smoked a little weed a few times.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It doesn't get any more pathetic than that.
>>

>>Another libtard who doesn't want to give the accused the presumption
>>of innocence.
>

> What do you give the victim? No consideration at all because he's
> black? There's no doubt Zimmerman gunned him down in cold blood. He's
> been given the benefit of he doubt and he was clearly in the wrong.
>

When did all that occur? When did you give him benefit of doubt? When
did you ever think that he was not in the wrong? You decided Zimmerman
was guilty the moment you found out the kid was black. That is racism,
just like carried by Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan.

[RD Sandman]

deep wrote in news:qbf4q8hdt4qhi3gk6...@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 26 May 2013 09:30:50 -0700 (PDT), bigdog
> <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>>On Sunday, May 26, 2013 6:55:11 AM UTC-4, GOP_Decline_and_Fall wrote:
>>> On Sat, 25 May 2013 18:34:38 -0700, J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Trayvon's chronically misspelled, slang-filled messages
>>>
>>> I guess that makes his murder acceptable then ...right J?
>>

>>If it was a justifiable homicide, it wasn't murder. Rather than given
>>Zimmerman the presumption of innocence, you assume he is guilty, in
>>absence of a trial. You pretend to know what happened that night even
>>though you have no idea how it went down.
>
> The facts are clear. Zimmerman was pursuing Martin. Zimmerman didn't
> have to be out there with a gun. He should have stayed home.
>

He was on his way to Target or KMart.

[deep]

Doesn't mean he wasn't a racist who hated black kids. You think you
have to be white to be a racist? How bizarre.

[RD Sandman]

deep wrote in news:ka35q8dkcspli0skn...@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:09:04 -0700 (PDT), bigdog
> <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sunday, May 26, 2013 3:23:09 PM UTC-4, GOP_Decline_and_Fall wrote:
>>> On Sun, 26 May 2013 09:53:59 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
>>>
>>> <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >On Sun, 26 May 2013 10:52:01 -0600, deep wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> >>On Sun, 26 May 2013 09:30:50 -0700 (PDT), bigdog
>>>
>>> >><jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >>>On Sunday, May 26, 2013 6:55:11 AM UTC-4, GOP_Decline_and_Fall
>>> >>>wrote:
>>>
>>> >>>> On Sat, 25 May 2013 18:34:38 -0700, J <jdyo...@ymail.com>
>>> >>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >>>>
>>>
>>> >>>> >Trayvon's chronically misspelled, slang-filled messages
>>>
>>> >>>>
>>>
>>> >>>> I guess that makes his murder acceptable then ...right J?
>>>
>>> >>>
>>>
>>> >>>If it was a justifiable homicide, it wasn't murder. Rather than
>>> >>>given Zimmerman the presumption of innocence, you assume he is
>>> >>>guilty, in absence of a trial. You pretend to know what happened
>>> >>>that night even though you have no idea how it went down.
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >>The facts are clear.
>>>

>>> >Irrelevant.
>>>
>>> That just about sums you up.
>>
>>You deceitful piece of shit. You clipped the following sentences

>>"Zimmerman was pursuing Martin. Zimmerman didn't have to be out there

>>with a gun. He should have stayed home." This completely changes the
>>meaning of Klaus's reply. But libtards have never valued honest
>>discourse. Like when Martin Bashir clipped a portion of a video to
>>make it appear pro-gun supporters were heckling the father of a Sandy
>>Hook victim when the full tape clearly shows that they were doing
>>nothing more than responding to a question which he pressed them for
>>an answer. Have you thought of applying for a job at that cesspool
>>known as MSNBC. You would fit right in.
>
> You're the one who has your mind made up in advance. You presume
> Zimmerman is innocent because the black kid he shot must have been a
> criminal because all black kids are.

Interesting, I have yet to hear an opinion from Bigdog as to who is
guilty. We have heard a lot from you, however, and you have no more
information that Bigdog does. 'Pears to me that YOU are the one who has
made up their mind.

That's your only reason and you
> don't even want Zimmerman to go to trial. You assume he is innocent
> and want all charges thrown out. If table were turned, however, and
> Zimmerman was black and Martin was white you would want Zimmerman to
> get the death sentence.


I rest my case....

[RD Sandman]

deep wrote in news:lm25q81g3flvpf2po...@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:00:33 -0700 (PDT), bigdog
> <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>>On Sunday, May 26, 2013 12:52:01 PM UTC-4, deep wrote:
>>> On Sun, 26 May 2013 09:30:50 -0700 (PDT), bigdog
>>

>>> >If it was a justifiable homicide, it wasn't murder. Rather than
>>> >given Zimmerman the presumption of innocence, you assume he is
>>> >guilty, in absence of a trial. You pretend to know what happened
>>> >that night even though you have no idea how it went down.
>>>

>>> The facts are clear. Zimmerman was pursuing Martin. Zimmerman

>>> didn't have to be out there with a gun. He should have stayed home.
>>

>>Again I ask you. How do you know the facts? You weren't there.
>>Zimmerman was part of a neighborhood watch group. A perfectly
>>legitimate activity. He was authorized by the state of Florida to
>>carry a gun. Again, perfectly legitimate. He called the police before
>>the confrontation occurred. If he intended to kill Martin, why would

>>he do that? But you and your libtard buddies just want to assume that
>>Martin was just an innocent kid who did nothing wrong and was hunted
>>down my Zimmerman because he was black. I guess if you can imagine the
>>facts, you get to imagine the conclusion.
>
> The police told him stay in his truck, he didn't.

No, they didn't. They asked if he was following Martin. Zimmerman said,
yes he was. The dispatcher said we don't need you to do that. Zimmerman
replied, "OK".

He got out and
> pursued Martin. Martin was the one who reacted defensively because
> Zimmerman would not stop following him. That is a fact.

You wouldn't know a fact if it walked up to on the street and introduced
itself. You are known liar who has already decided guilt or innocence
without hearing the facts. Why do you do that?


Zimmerman
> did, in fact, profile Martin as a criminal because he was black.

No, he profiled him as a possible criminal because he didn't know him and
there had been break=ins in the neighborhood.

Now, I not a mind reader like you are so I have no idea if I am correct,
but unlike you I am not claiming what I said as fact.

[deep]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 21:17:47 -0500, RD Sandman
<rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:

>deep wrote in news:29f4q8h9g46d7ork4...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sun, 26 May 2013 09:31:45 -0700 (PDT), bigdog
>> <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sunday, May 26, 2013 9:19:58 AM UTC-4, deep wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 26 May 2013 03:55:11 -0700, GOP_Decline_and_Fall
>>>>
>>>> <D...@null.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >On Sat, 25 May 2013 18:34:38 -0700, J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> >>Trayvon's chronically misspelled, slang-filled messages
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> >I guess that makes his murder acceptable then ...right J?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's trying to justify racial profiling and the murder of a young
>>>>
>>>> black kid because he might have smoked a little weed a few times.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't get any more pathetic than that.
>>>
>>>Another libtard who doesn't want to give the accused the presumption
>>>of innocence.
>>
>> What do you give the victim? No consideration at all because he's
>> black? There's no doubt Zimmerman gunned him down in cold blood. He's
>> been given the benefit of he doubt and he was clearly in the wrong.
>>
>
>When did all that occur? When did you give him benefit of doubt? When
>did you ever think that he was not in the wrong?

After I heard that Zimmerman got out of his truck contrary to police
dispatch orders and started following Martin. It was Zimmerman who
precipitated the confrontation. If he stayed in his truck this never
would have happened.

>You decided Zimmerman
>was guilty the moment you found out the kid was black. That is racism,
>just like carried by Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan.

Martin was not armed. Zimmerman was. Zimmerman intentionally pursued
Martin against police orders. Martin was doing nothing wrong. He was
walking home from the store. The confrontation was Zimmerman's fault,
now he claims self defense in an attempt to get away with murder.
Literally.

[RD Sandman]

deep wrote in news:6255q8te606smct1s...@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:49:41 -0700 (PDT), bigdog
> <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sunday, May 26, 2013 6:23:29 PM UTC-4, deep wrote:
>>> On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:00:33 -0700 (PDT), bigdog

>>>
>>> <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >On Sunday, May 26, 2013 12:52:01 PM UTC-4, deep wrote:
>>>
>>> >> On Sun, 26 May 2013 09:30:50 -0700 (PDT), bigdog
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> >> >If it was a justifiable homicide, it wasn't murder. Rather than
>>> >> >given Zimmerman the presumption of innocence, you assume he is
>>> >> >guilty, in absence of a trial. You pretend to know what happened
>>> >> >that night even though you have no idea how it went down.
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> The facts are clear. Zimmerman was pursuing Martin. Zimmerman
>>> >> didn't
>>>
>>> >> have to be out there with a gun. He should have stayed home.
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> >Again I ask you. How do you know the facts? You weren't there.
>>> >Zimmerman was part of a neighborhood watch group. A perfectly
>>> >legitimate activity. He was authorized by the state of Florida to
>>> >carry a gun. Again, perfectly legitimate. He called the police
>>> >before the confrontation occurred. If he intended to kill Martin,
>>> >why would he do that? But you and your libtard buddies just want to
>>> >assume that Martin was just an innocent kid who did nothing wrong
>>> >and was hunted down my Zimmerman because he was black. I guess if
>>> >you can imagine the facts, you get to imagine the conclusion.
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>> The police told him stay in his truck, he didn't. He got out and

>>> pursued Martin. Martin was the one who reacted defensively because
>>> Zimmerman would not stop following him.
>>

>>So you think a person is justified in beating someone's head into the
>>ground because they were following him. Interesting.
>>
> Florida has a stand your ground law. Interesting how you think that
> only applies to Zimmerman.

That law applies to anyone who can show it applies to them by a
preponderance of the evidence.


>>> That is a fact.
>>
>>Again I ask how you know what the facts are? And again I know you will
>>refuse to answer. You don't know what the facts are so you let your
>>imagination fill in the blanks which is mostly what we have here.
>>
> It's a fact that Zimmerman shot and killed Martin after pursuing him.
> Those facts are not at all in question by anyone.

You don't know who initiated the physical portion of the encounter.

> Zimmerman's only defense is he correctly profiled Martin as a criminal
> because he was a black kid in a hoodie.

>
>>> Zimmerman
>>> did, in fact, profile Martin as a criminal because he was black.
>>

>>A perfect example of what I just said. You have no idea whether
>>Zimmerman profiled Martin or not so you just let your imagination fill
>>in the blanks to create the "facts" you want.
>>
> Yes of course he did. He followed Martin because he thought he was a
> criminal.

He seemed to think that was a possibility and there had been recent
break-ins in the area. I can't read his mind...and neither can you.

>>In dudu's world, it isn't necessary to prove somebody is guilt. Just
>>imagine a set a facts and imagine a conclusion based on the imaginary
>>facts.
>>
>>I can play that game too. You are profiling Zimmerman as a trigger
>>happy racist because he is licensed to carry a concealed weapon. Hey,
>>you're right. That is fun.
>
> Zimmerman did, in fact, shoot and kill and unarmed teenager after
> following him through the neighborhood.

Until he lost him. That 'fact' is on the audio tape. It seemed to be on
his return to his vehicle that they had an encounter.

Those facts are not in
> question.

Not if you leave enough out.

[RD Sandman]

Cubano Rubio : Another anchor baby whose parents swam to FLorida
<sw...@poasd.com> wrote in

news:51a292af$0$12779$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net:

> On 5/26/2013 5:00 PM, bigdog wrote:
>> On Sunday, May 26, 2013 12:52:01 PM UTC-4, deep wrote:
>>> On Sun, 26 May 2013 09:30:50 -0700 (PDT), bigdog
>>
>>>> If it was a justifiable homicide, it wasn't murder. Rather than
>>>> given Zimmerman the presumption of innocence, you assume he is
>>>> guilty, in absence of a trial. You pretend to know what happened
>>>> that night even though you have no idea how it went down.
>>>
>>> The facts are clear. Zimmerman was pursuing Martin. Zimmerman
>>> didn't have to be out there with a gun. He should have stayed home.
>>
>> Again I ask you. How do you know the facts? You weren't there.
>> Zimmerman was part of a neighborhood watch group. A perfectly
>> legitimate activity. He was authorized by the state of Florida to
>> carry a gun. Again, perfectly legitimate. He called the police before
>> the confrontation occurred. If he intended to kill Martin, why would
>> he do that?
>

> ZM violated every rule of a "watch group" and CHL.
>
> 1. do not confront anyone ,
> 2. call authorities.
>
>

> But instead he stalked him , then murdered him .

Dudu.....you found a compatriot!!!!!

[RD Sandman]

Cubano Rubio : Another anchor baby whose parents swam to FLorida
<sw...@poasd.com> wrote in

news:51a2a654$0$12773$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net:

> On 5/26/2013 6:55 PM, bigdog wrote:

>> On Sunday, May 26, 2013 6:54:34 PM UTC-4, Cubano Rubio : Another

>> anchor baby ...@poasd.com wrote:
>>> On 5/26/2013 5:00 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>>
>>>> Again I ask you. How do you know the facts? You weren't there.
>>>> Zimmerman was part of a neighborhood watch group. A perfectly
>>>> legitimate activity. He was authorized by the state of Florida to
>>>> carry a gun. Again, perfectly legitimate. He called the police
>>>> before the confrontation occurred. If he intended to kill Martin,
>>>> why would he do that?
>>>
>>> ZM violated every rule of a "watch group" and CHL.
>>
>>>
>>> 1. do not confront anyone ,
>>>
>>> 2. call authorities.
>>>

>> He did call the authorities. So you lied when you said he violated
>> EVERY rule of a watch group. He only violated one of the two rules
>> you posted
> >
>>
>
>
> He didn't listen to them when they told him to wait for
> the police.

They didn't tell him that but you can feel free to produce the audio that
they did.

He had no right or reason to pursue or confront
> him ... meaning he initiated the attack ..

> the kid wasn't doing anything illegal.

[RD Sandman]

GOP_Decline_and_Fall <D...@null.net> wrote in
news:nm25q8t6te0nfnpu2...@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 26 May 2013 14:32:05 -0700 (PDT), JohnJohnsn
> <topco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sunday, May 26, 2013 3:17:14 PM UTC-5, Cubano Rubio : Another
>>anchor baby ...@poasd.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/26/2013 12:56 PM, JohnJohnsn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Pointless point. Means nothing and can't be submitted in court.
>>>
>>>> Prove it.
>>>
>>>> Quote the provision of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedures
>>>> which bars the defense from introducing evidence of the "victim's"
>>>> prior bad acts as evidence of his predilection for initiating
>>>> violent confrontations.
>>>
>>> There is no evidence.
>>>
>>Text messages _are_ evidence.
>>
>>Or did you miss your messiah Obozo's current scandals about _his_
>>admin's text messages and emails?
>>
>>Then there's his school suspension for drug violations; his criminal
>>destruction of school pproperty; his violent Facebook postings; his
>>possession of stolen jewelry; ....
>>
>>It's _all_ admissable as evidence of his criminal tendencies and
>>overall lack of character.
>>
>>If he'd been white he'd have been jailed numerous times for such
>>conduct.
>>
>>But they couldn't charge a young black man named Trayvon Benjamin
>>Martin with those things: it would have been "racist." :[
>>
>>Get back to us after _you_ have twenty+ years in the criminal justice
>>business (and I don't mean as a defendant <g>).
>>>
>>> The kid has never been arrested of any of those msgs.
>>> Thoughts are not criminal acts.
>>> try again ---
>>>
>>Try looking up "mens rea;" it's a legal term, you know.
>
> Perhaps you should look it up.
>
> It's a legal term that applies to the mental state of those committing
> crimes not their victims.
>
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mens_rea
>
> IOW it's the crux of the issue for Zimmerman not the child he shot.
>

Ahhhhh, now in your mind, a six foot one person who weighs 170 pounds is
a child. Zimmerman then must have been a young adolescent since he was
only five foot nine and about 185.

[RD Sandman]

deep wrote in news:ip35q8lv9kbih92ri...@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:26:50 -0700, GOP_Decline_and_Fall
> <D...@null.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>Then there's his school suspension for drug violations; his criminal
>>>destruction of school pproperty; his violent Facebook postings; his
>>>possession of stolen jewelry; ....
>>>
>>>It's _all_ admissable as evidence of his criminal tendencies and
>>>overall lack of character.
>>>
>>>If he'd been white he'd have been jailed numerous times for such
>>>conduct.
>>>
>>>But they couldn't charge a young black man named Trayvon Benjamin
>>>Martin with those things: it would have been "racist." :[
>>>
>>>Get back to us after _you_ have twenty+ years in the criminal justice
>>>business (and I don't mean as a defendant <g>).
>>>>
>>>> The kid has never been arrested of any of those msgs.
>>>> Thoughts are not criminal acts.
>>>> try again ---
>>>>
>>>Try looking up "mens rea;" it's a legal term, you know.
>>
>>Perhaps you should look it up.
>>
>>It's a legal term that applies to the mental state of those committing
>>crimes not their victims.
>>
>>http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mens_rea
>>
>>IOW it's the crux of the issue for Zimmerman not the child he shot.
>

> This is going to be interesting to watch: the conservatives are going
> to try to justify profiling and shooting someone because they talked
> about guns. By their own standards we could shoot any of the
> conservative posters here.
>

I have asked you twice if you wished to try.

[deep]

By your reasoning, if I saw you on the street, all I had to do is
shoot you and claim self defense and YOU would expect me to get off
just because I say. (ymmv depending on state)

What universe does that make any sense?

Or is the law different because you're white? That's the only
difference here.

I could even pursue you through your own neighborhood and gun you down
at will at any time and get off scott free just by claiming self
defense. (???)

[deep]

If Zimmerman is a cowardly pussy who can't take a 17 year old that he
outweighs he should have stayed home playing video games.

[RD Sandman]

Tom McDonald <kil...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:RRyot.9541$EM6....@newsfe04.iad:

> On 5/26/2013 8:16 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message

>> news:hlwdjsd2-E2A677...@news.giganews.com...
>>> In article <AXtot.45792$KM4....@newsfe25.iad>,
>>> Tom McDonald <kil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>

>>>> On 5/26/2013 11:06 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > "Syd M." <pauldav...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> >

>>>> news:f1ad89d3-0574-45e0...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.co

>>>> m...
>>>> >> On May 26, 11:22 am, "Scout"
>>>> >> <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>> >>> "Jeanne Douglas" <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> news:hlwdjsd2-94E341...@news.giganews.com...
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> > In article <poo2q8971lihgjsjfm2fjrb3vk2mhoj...@4ax.com>,
>>>> >>> > J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> >> It seems the closer people look at Travon Martin, they can
>>>> >>> >> see he wasn't the 'good kid' the media made him appear to
>>>> >>> >> be.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> > Which of those messages were capital offenses?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Possibly attacking an armed stranger putting him in fear of
>>>> >>> life and limb.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Or being attacked by that armed stranger did it, too.
>>>> >> Esp since he wasn't armed...
>>>> >
>>>> > Except that isn't an offense committed by Travon and thus doesn't
>>>> > fulfill the conditions set by Jeanne.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> The answer to Jeanne's question is "Walking While Black". It's been
>>>> good enough reason to kill black folks for centuries.
>>>

>>> Precisely.
>>
>> So you're a racist.....
>>
> Horseshit. Merely pointing out the racism that led to Trayvon's death.
>
>
>

Let me reword that for you so it is more correct.

"Horseshit. Merely pointing out the unsaid racism that led to Trayvon's
death. I can't find it so I will just make comment that it is there."

[RD Sandman]

deep wrote in news:t5g5q8ljv5llehptq...@4ax.com:

Hmmmm, just where is that in the transcripts? He did mention that Martin
was black but that was because the dispatcher asked him.

He
> was doing nothing wrong. He was coming back from the store with
> candy. His father lived in the neighborhood and he was heading for
> his father's house. He was just an innocent kid walking through the
> neighborhood until Zimmerman started following him

You were doing so good until you got here. From this point on, it is
pure conjecture on your part.

for no reason other
> than racism.

[RD Sandman]

Tom McDonald <kil...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:7jzot.29432$JB5....@newsfe26.iad:

Yes. Did you?

[RD Sandman]

deep wrote in news:tme5q85dupal0ubfp...@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 26 May 2013 16:55:55 -0700 (PDT), bigdog
> <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sunday, May 26, 2013 6:54:34 PM UTC-4, Cubano Rubio : Another

>>anchor baby ...@poasd.com wrote:
>>> On 5/26/2013 5:00 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>>
>>> > Again I ask you. How do you know the facts? You weren't there.
>>> > Zimmerman was part of a neighborhood watch group. A perfectly
>>> > legitimate activity. He was authorized by the state of Florida to
>>> > carry a gun. Again, perfectly legitimate. He called the police
>>> > before the confrontation occurred. If he intended to kill Martin,
>>> > why would he do that?
>>>
>>> ZM violated every rule of a "watch group" and CHL.
>>
>>>
>>> 1. do not confront anyone ,
>>>
>>> 2. call authorities.
>>>
>>He did call the authorities. So you lied when you said he violated
>>EVERY rule of a watch group. He only violated one of the two rules you

>>posted. I guess that counts as every rule in the libtard world.
>
> The authorities told him to stay in his vehicle.

No, they didn't. Martin apparently took off and Zimmerman took out after
him. The dispatcher asked Zimmerman a bit later if he was following
Martin. Zimmerman replied that yes, he was. Dispatch said "We don't
need you to do that." Zimmerman replied "OK". Nothing there about
staying in his vehicle and he had apparently already left it.

He violate their
> lawful order and instead pursued the suspect against watch group
> policy.

They gave him no order and he was not on duty that night nor was that
neighborhood watch part of any watch group. It was the homeowners
association.

>>>
>>> But instead he stalked him , then murdered him .
>>>

>>So we have another libtard who wasn't there but presumes to know how
>>it happened rather than give Zimmerman the presumption of innocence
>>our criminal justice system says he is entitled to.
>
> You're confused. There is no presumption of innocence here, because
> there is no doublt Zimmerman killed Martin.

Whoa....are you saying that if someone kills someone else in an act of
self defense that they are not innocent. Of exactly what crime would
they be guilty of?

You're thinking of
> presumption of innocence when it's not definite the person committed
> the crime.

It is currently unknown if a crime was committed. If the jury finds
Zimmerman acted in self defense, none was.

Your idea of presumption of innocence in this case would
> set the precident that anybody could go out and shoot whoever they
> wanted and claim self defense with the understanding he had to believe
> the murderer and let him go because he must be innocent because he
> says.

You sure like to run your mouth even when you have no idea what you are
talking about, don't you.

> It doesn't work that way you moron. What you suggest is anarchy. A
> license to gun down anyone you want because we have to presume you're
> innocent.
>
> and that's bullshit so quit your crying freak.

[RD Sandman]

deep wrote in news:20f5q8tn8fns6d1qu...@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 26 May 2013 21:21:31 -0400, "Scout"
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Cubano Rubio : Another anchor baby whose parents swam to FLorida"

>><sw...@poasd.com> wrote in message
>>news:51a2a654$0$12773$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...

>>> On 5/26/2013 6:55 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, May 26, 2013 6:54:34 PM UTC-4, Cubano Rubio : Another
>>>> anchor baby ...@poasd.com wrote:
>>>>> On 5/26/2013 5:00 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Again I ask you. How do you know the facts? You weren't there.
>>>>>> Zimmerman was part of a neighborhood watch group. A perfectly
>>>>>> legitimate activity. He was authorized by the state of Florida to
>>>>>> carry a gun. Again, perfectly legitimate. He called the police
>>>>>> before the confrontation occurred. If he intended to kill Martin,
>>>>>> why would he do that?
>>>>>
>>>>> ZM violated every rule of a "watch group" and CHL.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. do not confront anyone ,
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. call authorities.
>>>>>
>>>> He did call the authorities. So you lied when you said he violated
>>>> EVERY rule of a watch group. He only violated one of the two rules

>>>> you posted
>>> >
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> He didn't listen to them when they told him to wait for

>>> the police. He had no right or reason to pursue or confront

>>> him ... meaning he initiated the attack ..

>>> the kid wasn't doing anything illegal.
>>
>>Please present your evidence that he pursued or confronted Travon.
>>
> The police timeline proves it. Zimmerman got out of his truck and
> followed Martin around the neighborhood houses. Those are facts in
> evidence.
>

The timeline does not show when Zimmerman left his vehicle.

[deep]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 21:11:57 -0500, RD Sandman
<rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:

>"Syd M." <pauldav...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:f1ad89d3-0574-45e0...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On May 26, 11:22 am, "Scout"
>> <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>> "Jeanne Douglas" <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:hlwdjsd2-94E341...@news.giganews.com...
>>>
>>> > In article <poo2q8971lihgjsjfm2fjrb3vk2mhoj...@4ax.com>,
>>> > J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> It seems the closer people look at Travon Martin, they can see he
>>> >> wasn't the 'good kid' the media made him appear to be.
>>>
>>> > Which of those messages were capital offenses?
>>>
>>> Possibly attacking an armed stranger putting him in fear of life and
>>> limb
>> .
>>
>> Or being attacked by that armed stranger did it, too.
>> Esp since he wasn't armed...
>
>What makes you think Zimmerman knew that? Currently it is unknown who
>started the physical portion of the encounter. The trial should bring
>that out.

Unfortunately they may never know for sure and it will just be
Zimmerman's word against a dead kid. It's absolutely insane, and is
nothing but a condonement of anarchy, to think that we have to let a
shooter go just because he claims he was defending himself with no
proof or witnesses. What you are suggesting is a license for any
racist to gun down a black kid and claim he was assaulted. That's
insane. It can't be allowed to happen. If Martin was carrying a gun
it would be completely different, but he wasn't. He was an unarmed 17
year old kid.

[RD Sandman]

deep wrote in news:68f5q8l3s5dao6jbn...@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 26 May 2013 21:20:42 -0400, "Scout"

> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Cubano Rubio : Another anchor baby whose parents swam to FLorida"
>><sw...@poasd.com> wrote in message

>>news:51a292af$0$12779$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...

>>> On 5/26/2013 5:00 PM, bigdog wrote:

>>>> On Sunday, May 26, 2013 12:52:01 PM UTC-4, deep wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 26 May 2013 09:30:50 -0700 (PDT), bigdog
>>>>
>>>>>> If it was a justifiable homicide, it wasn't murder. Rather than
>>>>>> given Zimmerman the presumption of innocence, you assume he is
>>>>>> guilty, in absence of a trial. You pretend to know what happened
>>>>>> that night even though you have no idea how it went down.
>>>>>
>>>>> The facts are clear. Zimmerman was pursuing Martin. Zimmerman
>>>>> didn't have to be out there with a gun. He should have stayed
>>>>> home.
>>>>

>>>> Again I ask you. How do you know the facts? You weren't there.
>>>> Zimmerman was part of a neighborhood watch group. A perfectly
>>>> legitimate activity. He was authorized by the state of Florida to
>>>> carry a gun. Again, perfectly legitimate. He called the police
>>>> before the confrontation occurred. If he intended to kill Martin,
>>>> why would he do that?
>>>
>>> ZM violated every rule of a "watch group" and CHL.
>>>
>>> 1. do not confront anyone ,
>>> 2. call authorities.
>>

>>Hmmm.. There is no evidence that he voluntarily confronted anyone, and
>>I believe the record is quite clear that he did call the authorities.
>
> He violated a lawful order from said authorities to stand down and
> stay in his truck. He violated the instructions from authorities so
> that totally blows your claim he obeyed #2.

Goddamn you are full of shit. Produce from the audio where Zimmerman was
*ordered* to stand down and remain in his truck.

>>So please by all means back up your claim that he violated every rule
>>of his watch group.
>>
>>Oh, and do you happen to have a list of these rules because I would
>>like to see them.
>>
>>If you can't produce them, then how do you know he violated those
>>rules, or even if such rules existed?
>>
> That's already been presented here too many times to count and yet all
> you can do is lie again.

Then you should have no problem producing it.

[RD Sandman]

Cubano Rubio : Another anchor baby whose parents swam to FLorida
<sw...@poasd.com> wrote in

news:51a2bf34$0$12760$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net:

> On 5/26/2013 8:20 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>> So please by all means back up your claim that he violated every rule
>> of his watch group.
>>
>> Oh, and do you happen to have a list of these rules because I would
>> like to see them.
>>
>> If you can't produce them, then how do you know he violated those
>> rules, or even if such rules existed?
>>
>>
>

> I have attended neighborhood watch training by local
> police in two different communities - both of them
> stressed you never question or confront anyone -
> "Watchers" have no authority to question anyone for
> anything , let alone stalk and murder them.

Then don't do it. See how easy that is.

[RD Sandman]

deep wrote in news:qmg5q85gncvr0uvu2...@4ax.com:

It also doesn't mean that is a racist who hated black kids. He tutored
them. I don't know the truth of the Zimmerman case, but then neither do
you. The difference between us is that I am not declaring anyone guilty
without hearing the facts under oath. You operate on prejudice.

[deep]

It's clear to most people what someone means when they say " we don't
need you to do that". It means, "don't do that". That one won't
pass the reasonable person test to claim that it wasn't clear what
they meant.

> He violate their
>> lawful order and instead pursued the suspect against watch group
>> policy.
>
>They gave him no order and he was not on duty that night nor was that
>neighborhood watch part of any watch group. It was the homeowners
>association.
>
>>>>
>>>> But instead he stalked him , then murdered him .
>>>>
>>>So we have another libtard who wasn't there but presumes to know how
>>>it happened rather than give Zimmerman the presumption of innocence
>>>our criminal justice system says he is entitled to.
>>
>> You're confused. There is no presumption of innocence here, because
>> there is no doublt Zimmerman killed Martin.
>
>Whoa....are you saying that if someone kills someone else in an act of
>self defense that they are not innocent. Of exactly what crime would
>they be guilty of?
>

This illustrates the problem of claiming self defense that you can't
prove. You're going to kill an unarmed person and claim self defense
you better be able to prove it.

> You're thinking of
>> presumption of innocence when it's not definite the person committed
>> the crime.
>
>It is currently unknown if a crime was committed. If the jury finds
>Zimmerman acted in self defense, none was.
>

They won't let Zimmerman off scott free. They can't. It would be a
license to murder.

> Your idea of presumption of innocence in this case would
>> set the precident that anybody could go out and shoot whoever they
>> wanted and claim self defense with the understanding he had to believe
>> the murderer and let him go because he must be innocent because he
>> says.
>
>You sure like to run your mouth even when you have no idea what you are
>talking about, don't you.
>

You don't even understand what it is you are suggesting and what it
could mean in the future of setting a legal precident like this.
You're legalizing murder.