Posted on 07/19/2013 11:59:51 PM PDT by NaturalBornConservative
Awesome. Thank you.
Many people think that Martin was justified in his assault on Zimmerman simply because Zimmerman dissed him in some way.
What sort of screwed up thinking is that!?
No good can come from such an attitude....
Pray for our country.
I have no doubt T had bad intention browsing for prospect house to break in, fiancée’s house nearby was just alibi.
That was indeed Trayvon’s fatal mistake.
If you don’t like the guy who’s following you, don’t wait around for him with the idea you’re going to get blood out of him.
In other news, George Zimmerman has changed his name to Ben Ghazi so that the press, the DNC, and the President of the United States will finally leave him alone. Whether Mr. Ghazi will choose to sue the president for harassment is another matter.
Who the heck is “Your Uncle”?
Story is spot on.
Who is Trayvon ?
No one has any way of knowing what T’s motive was. It was dark and raining and he had arrived at his destination,and should have gone inside. Z wasn’t the vigilante in this situation - it was T. We can all speculate, but we have no way of knowing what T was really up to other than doing a pound and ground on someone he called a crazy ass cracka. I also have my doubts as to the real conversation between T and the lovely Rachel. Could be that she encouraged T to take Z out, however, we have no proof of that either.
T made a horrible decision and it cost him his life. Teenagers don’t have fully developed cognitive thinking skills, but they doesn’t excuse him for the assault. However, even if he had been arrested, he probably would have gotten a slap on the wrist from a judge with probation and maybe an ankle bracelet and be free to roam and menace again. I am speculating as well,but the evidence is what it is and was clearly an act of self-defense on Z’s part.
I suppose it makes sense to those who defend the convoluted slang oriented speech they claim is a distinct dialect.
I concur. The persecution (no typo) in this farce trial tried to raise a fog of mocking innuendo about what Mr. Z must have done to deserve the attack from Mr. M, including a possibility (but never asserted as a positive theory and sounding wildly extravagant given the available evidence and testimony, even Ms. Jeantel’s version) that Mr. Z. first assaulted Mr. M. The ever liberally-PC persecution even muffed what its best chance was to “get” Mr. Z. by not outright positing some kind of sexually molesting come-on by Mr. Z to which Mr. T. responded in “understandable” hot temper, which come-on from other evidence seems very out of character for Mr. Z. God turned the persecution’s wisdom to foolishness that day which is what I and probably hundreds of others earnestly prayed. Occam’s Razor suggests powerfully that yes, Mr. T. was just a young punk trying to enforce his own version of street law, a mirror image of what the hyenas are howling at Mr. Z. for allegedly doing. And why can’t the hyenas at least respect Mr. Z. for winning if that was the rules of the battle? This thing is fueled from hell, at least as far as the hyenas are concerned.
agh. Mr. T. => Mr. M.
This watch type person wasn't the nicest guy, but that was no reason for the three of us to take him out. He may have been afraid, too.
Ms. Jeantel would probably be in the best position to have heard input as to what was about to go down, but what she claimed as a persecution witness melted on cross examination. And what was Mr. Z.’s crime even through that perspective? “Being a creepy ass cracker”? As far as I know, there’s no crime of being a creepy ass cracker on the books. No “Augh! This creepy ass cracker just slugged me!” to report to the Loyal Girlfriend either, which if true would have made a difference. Only wet grass, and wet grass is too dumb to tell tales.
Traydown
We do not know what happened that night for sure. You are basing everything you say on what GZ said. That is just his story. We do not know with 100% surety what really happen. TM hadwalk home in the rain. He nocar. He was staying with someone there, so he had a right to be there. GZ did not even know what street he was on. He surely would not everyone who lived there.
What sort of screwed up thinking is that!?
See "Epic Beard Man" for an illustration.
Young punk exchanges words with older dude. Older dude physically separates himself. Female friend eggs on young punk. Young punk, feeling "dissed," goes up to old dude and lands the first blow.
Old dude creams young punk.
and....?
Traydown attacked Z. Period. It is all that is really needed.
Whup Assss
“I am speculating as well, but the evidence is what it is and was clearly an act of self-defense on Z’s part.”
How can there be any speculation? The wounds on TM are the gunshot wound. The wounds on GZ are a smashed nose and cuts & scraps on his head. Could GZ’s wounds have happened after TM suffered his gun shot wound? Extremely unlikely. If TM had other than the gunshot wound (or scraped knuckles) then there would be room for speculation, but there are no such wounds. TM assaulted GZ. The physical evidence, the eye witness, all support this conclusion. There is no evidence otherwise.
The take away (the moral of the story) is NEVER assault someone. There is NO telling how it will end.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.