Yes. The evidence showed that. You choose not believe that evidence. That is your problem.
The Trayvon Martin The Media Didnt Want You To Know! By BILL WHITTLE Pt 1
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
No, the defence raised reasonable doubt as to who started the fight. Big difference.Yes. The evidence showed that. You choose not believe that evidence. That is your problem.
And how many different brands of pop and candy are there?He was 17 years old, I think that is reasonable to assume that most 17 year olds enjoy some candy and a pop without thinking that they are going to make lean.
What are the odds that a 17 year old marijuana user who has expressed interest in making lean and asking for access to Robitussin just happened to have those brands on him?
Is that what your common sense and life experience tells you?
Of course, none of us knows for sure... so we are left with the task of trying to decide what, in all the circumstances, is the most likely.
How much are you offering for the bridge?
Perry
He was 17 years old, I think that is reasonable to assume that most 17 year olds enjoy some candy and a pop without thinking that they are going to make lean. I don't smoke but ever heard of rolling your own tobacco?
So 17 year olds don't drink pop and eat candy?
Why do you and Fuji say 'pop'? Wasn't it Arizona watermelon drink. Based on the screen shots of admissions on twitter and both of the ingredients, I would say that it's more likely than not that it was for 'lean' but honestly, even if it can be shown that his liver was damaged from 'lean' which could've made him more aggressive than not, I don't think you can make a determination without all of the other evidence in this case.
actually his social media account said " make some MORE lean" indicating that he had made it before. Others have tried to connect this lean inquiry and the pictures where he was flashing lots of money, implying he was dealing. I haven't made that connection ...And how many different brands of pop and candy are there?
What are the odds that a 17 year old marijuana user who has expressed interest in making lean and asking for access to Robitussin just happened to have those brands on him?
How much are you offering for the bridge?
Perry
Did he have Robitussin on him? Did he have codeine in his system? Maybe he just likes to brag and enjoys Skittles and Arizona Watermelon drink? Keep shiitting on a dead kid and keep worshipping your hero, Zimmerman.And how many different brands of pop and candy are there?
What are the odds that a 17 year old marijuana user who has expressed interest in making lean and asking for access to Robitussin just happened to have those brands on him?
How much are you offering for the bridge?
Perry
Trayvon Martin sure doesn't drink pop or eat candy. That thieving thug is dead!!So 17 year olds don't drink pop and eat candy?
So he was dealing lean? I'm pretty sure you can buy Robitussin anywhere and legally as well.actually his social media account said " make some MORE lean" indicating that he had made it before. Others have tried to connect this lean inquiry and the pictures where he was flashing lots of money, implying he was dealing. I haven't made that connection ...
No there is evidence. There is the placement of the keys, the testimony, the pictures of the attack, etc etc. There is evidence. It was collected and entered into the court. That is the way it goes. It was entered by both sides. Some is just plain fact, some it science, some is human but it is all evidence. As Perry said, taking ALL of it and putting it together paints the picture pretty clear.No, the defence raised reasonable doubt as to who started the fight. Big difference.
Sorry you are wrong in this. Verdict is in a long time ago now.
None of which proves for certain who started the fight. Like I said before, GZ was acquitted, doesn't make him innocent, though.No there is evidence. There is the placement if the keys, the testimony, the pictures of the attack, etc etc. There is evidence. It was collected and entered into the court. That is the way it goes. It was entered by both sides. Some is just plain fact, some it science, some is human but it is all evidence. As Perry said, taking ALL of it and putting it together paints the picture pretty clear.
Sorry you are wrong in this. Verdict is in a long time ago now.
Don't tell me, tell all the people who self-identify as Latino. I realize that "White Hispanic" is the term used by the US census bureau, but as someone who lived in the South, I assure you that most of them and most of everyone else considers them a race. It's all about the context, and the context here is Florida.Latino is not a race
They proved he was not guilty of murder based on self defence because TM was beating him up.None of which proves for certain who started the fight. Like I said before, GZ was acquitted, doesn't make him innocent, though.
So again would be self defence if it was a woman who TM was beating on in your opinion?
Everything about the case. Just change the sex. Keep all the questions and assumptions you have. If it was a woman you would have been singing a different turn and you know it.
Probably the only intelligent post on the matterI see the double standard is in full effect. Trayvon's interest in hip hop, MMA, etc, make him an obviously guilty gangster.
George Zimmerman actually fighting with the police, history of domestic violence, identification as a racist by his own family, etc, is irrelevant hearsay that should be ignored.
Either this historical information, essentially equal in weight and meaning, is equally relevant or it is equally irrelevant.
The people who want it to be relevant for the black guy but irrelevant for the white guy are racist and bigoted people. Very clearly that is a double standard.
My view:
We don't know who the aggressor was, that are good reasons to think it was Zimmerman and there are good reasons to think it was Martin.
That doubt cuts both ways and acquits them both equally.
You may be versatile, but you are blind and deaf... you only want to consider what you please and leave out what does not fit your theory.Did he have Robitussin on him? Did he have codeine in his system? Maybe he just likes to brag and enjoys Skittles and Arizona Watermelon drink? Keep shiitting on a dead kid and keep worshipping your hero, Zimmerman.
Show me where I have shit on TM. I am not shitting on anyone except those here (and elsewhere), such as yourself, who refuse to use common sense and reason to link the dots...
And least of all, show me where I have been defending GZ or anyone else...
Perry
Not a nice thing to say.Trayvon Martin sure doesn't drink pop or eat candy. That thieving thug is dead!!
Well said +1These attempts to demonize Martin are equally as stupid as the attempts to deify him
Bottom line, nothing in that video, or in his Twitter feed had anything to do with why Zimmerman followed him. I agree with the innocent verdict but any attempts showing these images or assuming that he was on his way to make 'lean' (which while illegal, isn't exactly cooking crystal meth) as justification for why Zimmerman began to follow a kid who at that point in time was simply walking home is asinine.
Just like the accusations of Zimmerman being a racist are
He followed Martin for a reason, while might have been well-intentioned, was flat wrong, and then Martin attacked him for a reason that was flat wrong
It not the defence's job to prove anything, it's to raise reasonable doubt. It's up to the prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, their case.They proved he was not guilty of murder based on self defence because TM was beating him up.
So again would be self defence if it was a woman who TM was beating on?
Not surprising coming from an angry, hateful person.Not a nice thing to say.
I asked if it would still be self defence. Not what the defences job it but you are still avoiding. It is okay. I get it.It not the defence's job to prove anything, it's to raise reasonable doubt. It's up to the prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, their case.
You're avoiding my question, what if GZ was an ET? Or how about what difference does it make? Or how about he wasn't, so who cares?I asked if it would still be self defence. Not what the defences job it but you are still avoiding. It is okay. I get it.
