LOL so in your mind the fact that he was on the phone means that he didn't attack Zimmerman? That certainly is solid evidence that should be taken into consideration over the attack wounds that Zimmerman had and the complete and total lack of non gunshot attack wounds Martin had.....LOL "He wouldn't do that, he was on the phone" That's awesome. Not true. Something that you have absolutely no evidence of whatsoever. Basically since the evidence points to Martin attacking Zimmerman, you had to dream up a scenario where that might be okay. Maybe aliens landed and forced them to fight via mind control....that's about the level you are operating on right now. Literally none of that supports your dreamed up scenario. In fact, there is only evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman, and due to that you dreamed up a scenario where it would be sort of okay for Martin to just attack Zimmerman. Of course there's no evidence supporting that scenario whatsoever, but it's either that or your pre-conceived narrative is shot to hell and we wouldn't want that to happen. The only thing we know are the actual facts that have been determined, and those point to Martin attacking Zimmerman. Anyone suggesting otherwise is selling something.
I've quoted facts, listed evidence, all of which was part of the trial. You've just chosen to ignore the facts and evidence that goes against what you believed happened. You did it in the very post quoted. I accept the evidence that supports the idea of Martin attacking GZ. I also accept evidence that is contrary to that. And that's the whole problem. Nobody who looks at all the evidence can know for sure. Only people who dismiss certain pieces of the evidence will believe they know for sure. If you are presenting that Martin is guilty of a crime there only has to be reasonable doubt that he wasn't. There is evidence to support the exact scenario I presented. That's enough for reasonable doubt. But I have no idea what happened and you don't either. You can pretend you do.
The problem here is that the "facts" that you are pointing to don't suggest the narrative you are going with. It's like saying "There's no way he beat his wife, it was snowing outside. Those are the facts". It's really hard arguing with a non sequitur like that because it just doesn't make any sense. "He couldn't have attacked Zimmerman, he was on the phone", that just doesn't follow.
I don't say that he being on the phone means he couldn't have. I said that's not something somebody normally does when going to assault another person. If you have to twist what I'm actually saying in order to dismiss it, then your case isn't as strong as you like to make it.
The point is that it doesn't make any sense. Being on the phone doesn't mean that person can't get mad that someone else is looking at them and then decide to attack them. You tried to use that as "evidence" and it simply doesn't point in the direction you want it to. Him being on the phone says nothing at all really. The evidence shows that Trayvon was a kid that liked to fight based on his text message history, he picked the wrong person to beat up and got shot as a result.
I tell my students that like to act like loud, obnoxious a-holes that one day, they are going to act "tough" with the wrong person. To me, this whole situation seemed like two aholes that get into it. Too bad they both didn't go away. Nobody will be able to convince me that Martin was just an innocent kid getting candy and tea, and that GM is not warped. Karma claimed one...i think it's just a little slow in claiming he second one...yet.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/GeorgeZimmerman?src=hash">#GeorgeZimmerman</a> gun appears to have been removed from <a href="https://twitter.com/GunBroker">@GunBroker</a> auction website. Awaiting comment. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/news6?src=hash">#news6</a> <a href="https://t.co/XEZkGSO6va">https://t.co/XEZkGSO6va</a></p>— Mike DeForest (@DeForestNews6) <a href="https://twitter.com/DeForestNews6/status/730776589500358657">May 12, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
I'd bet it's one of two things, either it got too hot of an issue and the auction company pulled it or there was someone who wanted to buy it but didn't want that to be public knowledge so they made him an offer under the table and got him to pull it.
Gunbroker is a very tiny company when comparing net revenue to employee ratio. I work with a couple guys that used to run around with the guy who started it before Gunbroker took off (Which coincided with the election of Obama). Hearing about some of the stories, its safe to say he wants no part of these shenanigans. He's not about to jeopardize the tens of thousands of daily revenue over a controversy like this.
Makes sense, I'd imagine they'd be getting a lot of negative publicity over this.....probably not from people in their target demographic, but still. Makes sense to just make it go away. Now that this has been so public, anyone interested in wasting a ton of money for that gun already knows he wants to sell it and he's likely to get offers just as if it was still listed.
Well there's no question that Zimmerman is a scumbag due to other things he's done in his life, but it's just weird those who wish ill on the man simply because he defended himself. To each their own I guess. The world is not poorer for Trayvon Martin not being part of it anymore, if anything it's a better place given that Martin won't be continuing his growth as a criminal. At the same time, it wouldn't be poorer if George Zimmerman wasn't a part of the world anymore either. His history shows he's a pretty crappy person, not the least of which being that he defended himself against a douchebag 17 year old who attacked him for the crime of looking his way.
Obama was the greatest thing that ever happened to gun sales. People were paranoid that he'd start banning them so they bought up everything on the market. Obama is to gun sales as Donald Trump is to the Democratic Party.
