Coming from a guy who called the victim "The Black", you have absolutely no credibility nor stance to attempt to try to twist my words and call me out. His back was wet, that was it. Unlike your "The Black". Please try again sir, you're still losing.
Again, this is a big case. If the police could have easily proved that Zimmerman wasn't guilty it would have been out by now. The fact that they turned it over to State shows that it's not that black and white and there's obviously something wrong.
Bigtexx, just stop - seriously. You're making a fool out of yourself. You say think critically then you provide nothing to think critically about. There is no evidence supporting your view. There's just the statement of self-defense the murderer made. That's literally the only proof the police have provided: he had a bloody nose, blood on the back of his head, and his claim. You want to know why I refer to Martin as a child? Because he was. Why did I emphasize the fact that he was walking home with a bag of skittles? Because he was. You ask if I have a vested interest in seeing Zimmerman burn: I do. Not because of race or because of problems with authority figures. I do because in this instance it's clear that there was a miscarriage of justice. Witness accounts point to it. The 911 tape will point to it when it's released. The chain of events provided confirm it. What more do you want? What evidence have the police provided of self defense? A statement that Zimmerman claimed it was self-defense? I can't believe you expect people to take you seriously when you keep regurgitating posts which basically say nothing.
Not sure which is worse, a) you are self-aware of your douchiness or b) you are oblivious to your douchiness.
Applause for you for elevating your game to have a post free of insults. Oh wait, sorry, your first sentence contained an insult to me. Zimmerman claims self defense. You do not have evidence to refute that, as you do not know what happened between the confrontation and the shot. Therefore you can carry on about how this is a clear cut case, because you simply don't have enough information. None of us do. The police claim they have information that suggests Zimmerman acted in self defense. They are not obligated to release that information to the media. Therefore you swing and miss yet again.
We need to balance that vs. the police's evidence. Additional witness accounts are good, but we need to know the full story of what happened, as well as understand any potential motives or biases of the witnesses.
Go back and read my earlier post. This is a perfect example of ignoring evidence which doesn't support your claim. Again, you're regurgitating nothing. The only person who knows exactly what happened is Zimmerman (Martin is dead - remember?). I've already how all evidence that has been released to the media (Witness testimony, partial leak of 911 transcript, and Zimmerman's prior record) points to Zimmerman being the aggressor. What you're doing right now is tantamount to covering your ears and screaming "lalalalalala". Damn straight I'm assaulting your character. You're garbage. That much was made apparent a long time ago in the D&D.
The full story of what happened. Yeah - I'm sure Zimmerman would be glad to provide an unbiased account of what happened. It's up to you to piece together what happened based on circumstantial evidence and the chain of events. You won't get that from Zimmerman, and the other party - the boy - is dead.
The transcript has been released? Please post a link, because I haven't read it. Zimmerman has no prior record! The charges against him were expunged! How could you have missed that? You cannot use that against him to assassinate his character. Your mind is not thinking clearly -- you're creating facts out of thin air, where they don't exist.
You are doing fine at providing evidence. The problem is that liltexxx doesn't care about any of it. He only wants to get a reaction from you and anyone else that will take the bait. He'll do everything he can to argue against what he probably firmly believes to be a miscarriage of justice. It's a mental exercise for him to see if he can somehow argue against things he knows are wrong, and he gets a giggle out of see it rile people up. That's all he wants to do.
Nope The police had multiple witness accounts. You have only heard (perhaps only a part) of one of them. So we need more facts. You are really struggling here, friend.
Considering you've posted in this thread more frequently than the next three posters combined, you'll have to excuse me if I find your comment about time demands a little facetious...or maybe you're just not interested in engaging me in intellectual discourse because I don't get all riled up. But hey, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. The letter of the law is exactly what bothers me. Although our judicial system is supposed to uphold the letter of the law, there are times when upholding the spirit of the law is more appropriate. If that's "compromising" the law, then so be it. It has nothing to do with racial scrutiny and everything to do with a teen's unnecessary death. All Zimmerman needs to do is convince a jury that he "reasonably" thought Martin was going to commit a "forcible felony," and he'll be exonerated. Any lawyer could easily paint him as a concerned citizen who saw a hooded figure walking slowly through the neighborhood but tragically misjudged the situation. It's far too easy to abuse a law like this, and it would set a dangerous precedent for future cases. Zimmerman willfully ignored the police dispatcher's instructions and killed an innocent teenager. A citizen should be culpable if he makes a bone-headed decision that causes another's death. I fully expect Martin's family to file a civil suit regardless of the criminal investigation's outcome. Zimmerman may convince a jury he's not criminally liable, but there's no way he'll convince anyone he not tortiously liabile.
Don't worry, most of us noticed the witness defending the child was a black. btw, your arm-band is showing.
Zimmerman still assaulted a police officer, what's your point? http://www.thefloridanewsjournal.co...-did-have-previous-arrest-record-2005-battery
