Quote :

"But hey, looking back, why would we believe this guy when he only has timestamps in his favor? And we have no indication that Trayvon was ever involved with burglary. It's not like an officer at his school ever found him with a screwdriver and 12 pieces of women's jewelry or anything. "

Ok? So.

Was Zimmerman his guidance counselor? How would he have known this and why is it even being mentioned. Is Trayvon on trial for B&E or burglary?

The gun and violent texts I can at least understand wanting to be used by the defense but this nonsense?

6/5/2013 11:10:58 AM

^ so you'll let the prosecution argue that Zimmerman had no reason to follow Trayvon. You'll allow them to repeat the 911 call over and over again, where they said they don't need him to follow Trayvon. Repeated, over, and over.

Then you'll bar hard evidence about what Trayvon was doing there.

I'm starting to catch on.

6/5/2013 11:43:04 AM

those things aren't refuted by a picture of him with a gun, it has no probative value.

6/5/2013 11:44:47 AM

Quote :

"mrfrog: I forget, was Zimmerman drunk at the time? His actions would make a lot more sense that way."

Seriously though, was this ever established either way? Like, did they have a reason to blood test/breathalyze him at the hospital?

Cause I've always been pretty sure he was drunk, and he sounded drunk to me on the 911 call. And it's the best/most obvious explanation for his behavior.

6/5/2013 4:22:43 PM

^^ if the prosecution isn't challenging the defense's account that Trayvon reached for the gun then I totally agree with you.

6/6/2013 8:12:45 AM

IANAL

BIPOOTWW

6/6/2013 10:49:17 AM

Quote :

"But if someone was implying that it's obvious that Zimmerman was the aggressor, then it's clear they got that conclusion without consulting the evidence."

I don't know how in the hell you define "being the aggressor," but I'd say that following a guy in a car with a loaded gun for a few minutes and then getting out on foot and chasing him down is "being the aggressor." Few people consider "being stalked" as equivalent to "being the aggressor." Seriously, dude.

Quote :

"Then you'll bar hard evidence about what Trayvon was doing there."

What in the hell are you considering "hard evidence" here? That Trayvon doesn't walk as fast and efficiently as possible to get from point A to point B? Seriously? That's "hard evidence" to you? Oh, Zimmerman said he was "looking at houses." God forbid a kid walk around and look around. Shit, hang him from a tree! I guess when you walk down the street you keep your eyes totally on the street; you never look around or anything. God help you if you come to a T-intersection, because then you're a convicted burglar! Maybe if you walk backwards into the intersection and close your eyes, you'll be safe!

Quote :

"Lots of break-ins in the previous year (by people matching Trayvons description)"

Read: damned niggers, right?

6/7/2013 1:31:54 AM

Quote :

"I don't know how in the hell you define "being the aggressor," but I'd say that following a guy in a car with a loaded gun for a few minutes and then getting out on foot and chasing him down is "being the aggressor.""

If the prosecution doesn't rely on Zimmerman throwing the first punch then what you said works. If what you wrote here is considered sufficient for their argument of "aggressor" then he'll walk out of the trial not guilty. No race stuff will come in, and he'll go a free man.

I don't think that's what you want.

6/7/2013 9:10:22 AM

Quote :

"to hide from him and then sneak up on him, which is apparently what happened"

So when he ran away from the truck, it was a ruse to lure Zimmerman out so he could attack him, and hopefully get home in time for the game?

Quote :

"unless you believe he had the gun drawn, walked up to trayvon, somehow started bleeding, then laid on his back and shot him"

I don't think it's implausible that he approached Trayvon with gun drawn, Trayvon feared for his life, and attacked Zimmerman at a moment when the gun wasn't pointed at him as a matter of self-preservation. Maybe I'm some kind of self-defense/castle-law wingnut, but I think people have a right to defend themselves and not lay down when chased down by someone with a lethal weapon.

I mean...isn't this the entire justification for Zimmerman's claimed actions? That he was fearing for his life and so did whatever he could to incapacitate, however bad a decision it might have been to chase and shoot an unarmed teenager? Why is that so plausible to you when Zimmerman claims it, but a similar narrative from Trayvon's perspective seems absurd? Are black teenagers immune to both fearing for their life and making poor decisions about engaging someone?

Quote :

""I don't know how in the hell you define "being the aggressor," but I'd say that following a guy in a car with a loaded gun for a few minutes and then getting out on foot and chasing him down is "being the aggressor."""

Now just try to imagine if Zimmerman had been on foot (let's say, in the hood), and a black teenager had done exactly this to him (pursued him with a loaded gun in a vehicle then exited to chase him down on foot), I somehow doubt many of the folks jumping to Zimmerman's defense would have any problem with Zimmerman feeling threatened in this situation and acting in self-defense to incapacitate his armed stalker if he felt he couldn't escape.

As much as some folks want to pretend race isn't an issue here, I seriously can't imagine any other explanation for the unarmed teenager being assumed the aggressor after being stalked and chased down by an armed man both older, larger, who's doing so on the pretense of "defending" his hood.


[Edited on June 7, 2013 at 12:12 PM. Reason : .]

6/7/2013 12:04:22 PM

^^ so what you are saying is that, in your mind, one can do aggressive act after aggressive act after aggressive act and still not be the aggressor. Makes sense to me...

6/7/2013 8:53:45 PM

Quote :

"I don't think it's implausible that he approached Trayvon with gun drawn, Trayvon feared for his life, and attacked Zimmerman at a moment when the gun wasn't pointed at him as a matter of self-preservation."

Where has this been established?

Having a gun doesn't automatically make him the aggressor. How many of you carry pocket knives with you? Had Zimmerman stabbed Trayvon in self-defense, would this be any different than a CC shooting someone in self-defense?

^ Unless Zimmerman had his CC in plain view and drawn, how is him having a loaded gun making him an "aggressor." Is a man not allowed to investigate potential criminal activity now? The only "aggressive" thing that you can definitively say that Zimmerman did was follow Trayvon. The rest beyond that point is pure conjecture at that point. What we do know is that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman when he was shot and Trayvon was inflicting quite a bit of damage to Zimmerman's head. Surely had that loaded gun of his been used in an "aggressive" manner, it would have never gotten to that point... But don't let me stop you from making good use of your jump to conclusion mat...

6/8/2013 1:25:59 AM

What part of STALKING SOMEONE makes you think that person is NOT not the aggressor? And you accuse ME of jumping to conclusions? THe ONLY reason you are defending Zimmerman is because Martin is a "god damned dirty nigger" in your eyes, so he must have been doing something wrong.

6/8/2013 6:24:03 PM

^Do you live in a city that is safer than 4% of US cities?http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/fl/sanford/crime/

Has your neighborhood had police show up to it 400 times in the past year?

Zimmerman was not stalking. It is well within Zimmerman's rights to call the police, keep an eye on the suspicious person, follow him enough to give police a good location, etc.

6/10/2013 5:28:51 PM

Quote :

" And you accuse ME of jumping to conclusions?"

If the shoe fits.

Quote :

"What part of STALKING SOMEONE makes you think that person is NOT not the aggressor?"

Stalking/following/investigating =/ violent/aggressive.

Provide the evidence that shows Zimmerman threw the first punch and that Trayvon didn't go past the point of using too much force.

Quote :

"THe ONLY reason you are defending Zimmerman is because Martin is a "god damned dirty nigger" in your eyes, so he must have been doing something wrong."

OOOH. Another jump to conclusion. I'm sure it's a logical fallacy too, but I don't care to look it up as I'm sure everyone else knows just how god damned stupid you look for even saying that.

Don't mistake me not throwing Zimmerman under the bus as me defending him. I don't know all the facts. I don't know what happened. But I can see you don't like being called out for making shit up.

6/10/2013 7:07:25 PM

Quote :

"keep an eye on the suspicious person"

black pedestrian = suspicious person now. okay.

6/10/2013 7:17:58 PM

Quote :

"black pedestrian = suspicious person now. okay."

He didn't call in a black pedestrian.

This 'black pedestrian' was a 10-minute walk from the gas station more than 30 minutes after he left. Zimmerman said, in his written statement on that very night, that this 'black pedestrian' was looking into homes while wandering around in the rain. Later, we learn that this 'black pedestrian' had gotten in trouble for possession of burglary tools and women's jewelry, and loved fighting, guns, pot, and thug life.

Zimmerman doesn't recognize this 'black pedestrian' in a neighborhood that isn't all that big, and Zimmerman has become acquainted with most legitimate people there. This neighborhood has had 400 police visits in the last year, and has suffered crime after crime by people matching exactly Trayvon's description.

Now is it even remotely possible that keeping track of him and calling the police was justified?

6/10/2013 7:36:54 PM

Quote :

"Zimmerman was not stalking."

You and I have VERY different definitions of stalking then. Following a person in a car, for no reason, and then getting out and following him on foot, for no reason, follows my exact definition of stalking.

Quote :

"Has your neighborhood had police show up to it 400 times in the past year?"

No, but I also haven't had a guy in my neighborhood calling them off the hook reporting evil darkies walking around every night, either.

Quote :

"Stalking/following/investigating =/ violent/aggressive."

Sure, as long as it's a white guy doing the stalking, right?

Quote :

"This 'black pedestrian' was a 10-minute walk from the gas station more than 30 minutes after he left. "

Ahhh, so because this guy doesn't walk as fast as you would like him to, that must mean he's up to no good. I'm glad that Zimmerman also knew exactly how long Martin had been out and how long it should take him to get back to his home when he started stalking Martin. That really sheds new light on things!

Quote :

"Zimmerman said, in his written statement on that very night, that this 'black pedestrian' was looking into homes while wandering around in the rain."

Allow me to quote myself:

Quote :

"Oh, Zimmerman said he was "looking at houses." God forbid a kid walk around and look around. Shit, hang him from a tree! I guess when you walk down the street you keep your eyes totally on the street; you never look around or anything. God help you if you come to a T-intersection, because then you're a convicted burglar! Maybe if you walk backwards into the intersection and close your eyes, you'll be safe!"

Quote :

"This neighborhood has had 400 police visits in the last year, ..."

Again, because Zimmerman is ringing their phone off the hook...

Quote :

"and has suffered crime after crime by people matching exactly Trayvon's description."

(read: dirty niggers)

6/10/2013 8:33:14 PM

You are out of your mind.

6/10/2013 9:17:58 PM

Quote :

"You and I have VERY different definitions of stalking then. Following a person in a car, for no reason, and then getting out and following him on foot, for no reason, follows my exact definition of stalking."

So he called the police for "no reason?" Zimmerman had a reason. The same reason neighborhood watches exist, of which he was actively a part of. To say "no reason" is just disingenuous.

Quote :

" No, but I also haven't had a guy in my neighborhood calling them off the hook reporting evil darkies walking around every night, either."

And how do you know this? And how do you know Zimmerman was discriminating?

Quote :

"Sure, as long as it's a white guy doing the stalking, right?"

Where did I say this?

And since when is Zimmerman "white?"

6/10/2013 9:25:38 PM

Quote :

"So he called the police for "no reason?" Zimmerman had a reason."

Yeah, his reason is that he's a racist fuck who thinks that a black kid walking around warrants calling the police.

Quote :

"And how do you know this? "

Ummmm... Because the cops specifically said that Zimmerman was annoying the piss out of them with false alarm calls?

Quote :

"Where did I say this?"

It's dripping from your every statement, dude. I'm sorry that you can't see that.

6/10/2013 9:38:05 PM

I like how your entire reasoning is racism... Nope, your reasoning can't go beyond racism, because doing so would require you to not be obtuse. People like you are the reason why affirmative action exists.

6/10/2013 9:48:48 PM

I don;t have to go beyond racism, because that's the only defense you have. You can't, for the life of you, imagine that a kid could simply be walking to the fucking store and back, and you can't, for the life of you, imagine that following someone in a car and then on foot is an aggressive action. There's no reason for such the illogical thinking that you are displaying except for an assumption that Martin must have been up to no good because he was black. Seriously. "He took more time than I would like to walk home." "He wasn't looking dead straight down the street".

6/10/2013 10:04:08 PM

Quote :

"You can't, for the life of you, imagine that a kid could simply be walking to the fucking store and back, and you can't"

And you can't imagine someone doing something illegal and being seen by another person. It works both ways. I'm not persecuting Trayvon. I'm not saying he did anything wrong.

Quote :

"for the life of you, imagine that following someone in a car and then on foot is an aggressive action."

Following someone in a car who you feel may do something illegal is not "aggressive." Following someone on foot is also not "aggressive." Citizen arrests exist and happen. Neighborhood watch groups exist all across the country. Apparently asking someone is "what are you doing?" is now an aggressive act that deserves condemnation.

I'm not saying Zimmerman is right, nor am I saying he is wrong. But to call it an act of aggression is just foolishness.

Quote :

"There's no reason for such the illogical thinking that you are displaying except for an assumption that Martin must have been up to no good because he was black."

Illogical? Coming from you, who has put words in my mouth at every moment possible, that carries little weight. If Trayvon was white, would we even have this conversation? Do you think the event would have even taken place, or could have taken place? To me, race is immaterial unless you can show me that it matters in this instance. You have not. You have not shown that Trayvon was pursued because he was black, or that Zimmerman singled him out because of his race. All you have shown is your white guilt.

6/10/2013 10:37:34 PM

Quote :

"And you can't imagine someone doing something illegal and being seen by another person. It works both ways."

I absolutely can imagine someone doing something illegal. It's funny that you say "it goes both ways" when you refuse to see the obvious. That Martin was minding his own damned business.

Quote :

"Following someone in a car who you feel may do something illegal is not "aggressive.""

The hell it's not, especially when you have zero reason to think he's doing anything illegal in the first place. Stalking someone is ALWAYS aggressive, end of story.

Quote :

"To me, race is immaterial unless you can show me that it matters in this instance. "

Right. A kid wearing a hoodie didn't make Zimmerman think at all about race. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. Seriously. He sees a kid in a hoodie and automatically thinks he's up to no good. What logical reason is there for that, other than a prejudice against blacks. The notion that he's "looking around" is so preposterous as to show than anyone who doesn't see the foolishness in it must be willfully ignorant or projecting their own prejudices onto the situation.

Quote :

" If Trayvon was white, would we even have this conversation? Do you think the event would have even taken place, or could have taken place?"

No, because Zimmerman wouldn't have followed the kid if he were white.

6/10/2013 10:44:14 PM

Quote :

"That Martin was minding his own damned business."

But it's irrelevant when talking about Zimmerman's point of view, just like it's irrelevant that Trayvon took like 30 minutes longer to walk home when talking about what Zimmerman was thinking...

Quote :

"The hell it's not, especially when you have zero reason to think he's doing anything illegal in the first place. Stalking someone is ALWAYS aggressive, end of story."

How do you know that Zimmerman had no reason to think Trayvon was acting suspiciously?

And uhoh, you said end of story so end of story!

Quote :

"Right. A kid wearing a hoodie didn't make Zimmerman think at all about race. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. Seriously. He sees a kid in a hoodie and automatically thinks he's up to no good. What logical reason is there for that, other than a prejudice against blacks. The notion that he's "looking around" is so preposterous as to show than anyone who doesn't see the foolishness in it must be willfully ignorant or projecting their own prejudices onto the situation."

It sounds to me like you're projecting your prejudices onto the situation. Perhaps that's what you would think in Zimmerman's situation?

Quote :

"No, because Zimmerman wouldn't have followed the kid if he were white."

So white people can't act suspicious? Got it.

[Edited on June 10, 2013 at 10:51 PM. Reason : .]

6/10/2013 10:48:18 PM

Quote :

"But it's irrelevant when talking about Zimmerman's point of view"

BULL FUCKING SHIT. That Zimmerman was out of his god damned mind to see a black kid walking and assume he was up to no good is the whole point. That Martin really was doing nothing wrong is the proof of that, dude.

Quote :

"How do you know that Zimmerman had no reason to think Trayvon was acting suspiciously?"

Because he hasn't given us ANYTHING to believe so, other than Martin was walking around, looking black. Tell me, what is suspicious about a kid walking home with some skittles and a bottle of tea. WHAT is fucking "suspicious" about that? Oh, right, he didn't look straight ahead like a zombie. Better lynch him for not knowing Zimmerman's rules, right? Maybe George should put up some ropes and shit and tell people not to look on the other side of the ropes. That will prevent these kind of "misunderstandings" in the future, right?

Quote :

"And uhoh, you said end of story so end of story!"

Unless you can come up with a way that stalking someone in a car and then chasing him on foot is NOT aggressive, then, yeah. It's really that simple. Chasing someone you don't know at night is the definition of an aggressive act. But, since it's a white-ish guy chasing a dirty black kid, that's a different story to you.

6/10/2013 11:06:11 PM

well this thread certainly went to dumpster fire in a hurry

6/10/2013 11:24:22 PM

Quote :

"That Zimmerman was out of his god damned mind to see a black kid walking and assume he was up to no good is the whole point."

Him being black is irrelevant. He saw a person who he assumed was up to no good.

Quote :

"That Martin really was doing nothing wrong is the proof of that, dude."

I guess we'll never know now that Zimmerman interrupted...

Quote :

"Tell me, what is suspicious about a kid walking home with some skittles and a bottle of tea. WHAT is fucking "suspicious" about that?"

There was a rash of break ins and he saw a person who was looking into homes at night. What makes you think Zimmerman could see the tea or skittles, and what the hell difference does tea and skittles make to anything? It's about as relevant to this as Trayvon's cell phone gun pictures and text messages. What is not suspicious about someone looking into homes at night? I swear, you're intentionally being inept.

Quote :

"Unless you can come up with a way that stalking someone in a car and then chasing him on foot is NOT aggressive, then, yeah. It's really that simple."

Police do it all the time based on suspicion.

Quote :

"But, since it's a white-ish guy chasing a dirty black kid, that's a different story to you."

hahaha. "white-ish." Continue with the ad hominem...

The fact that you can't even conceive of this same incident happening if it was two white people just shows how much of a racist you really are... I can't say that I'm surprised. You're one of the biggest closet racists on here.

I'll continue this with you when you can actual provide some evidence that this was motivated by race, instead of shoving your wild speculation as fact and devolving this discussion into "I'm not racist and you're racist for not agreeing with me, you racist!" Nigga, please.

[Edited on June 11, 2013 at 12:24 AM. Reason : .]

6/11/2013 12:23:00 AM

Quote :

"Unless you can come up with a way that stalking someone in a car and then chasing him on foot is NOT aggressive, then, yeah. It's really that simple."

You're not even bothering to argue how this invalidates the self-defense defense. There are two ways you could do this (although like I said, you've not found it worth your time yet):

1. the aggressiveness of simply going into the backyards after Trayvon invalidates any claims of self-defense
2. his displayed aggressiveness in that act strong suggests that he was the aggressor in the altercation as well

If you're going by #1 then you might as well call for dropping of the charges because that's not the intention of the law, and you're wasting everyone's time. If you're going by #2 then you've got a helluva hill to climb.

6/11/2013 8:10:42 AM

^ completely false. Legally, confronting someone has no bearing on use of force laws.

6/11/2013 8:40:52 AM

Is burro bipolar or are multiple people posting on that name.

6/11/2013 9:03:43 AM

^^ completely false, and then agree with what I just said? what?

6/11/2013 9:06:10 AM

^reading on my phone, and missed the last part of your statements.

Your 1 and 2 are false, as that isn't how the law works.

So I guess I'm agreeing with you.

6/11/2013 1:03:51 PM

I think burro is just trolling... just read this thread and 99% of what he says is complete hyperbole and has little bearing on anything...

6/11/2013 1:52:33 PM

I also believe that one party is 100% to blame and the other party is 100% innocent.

6/11/2013 3:36:48 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/11/george-zimmerman-trial-scary-black-man/print

this.

6/12/2013 1:04:35 PM

Quote :

"Later, we learn that this 'black pedestrian' had gotten in trouble for possession of burglary tools and women's jewelry, and loved fighting, guns, pot, and thug life."

I still don't understand why you mention this.

Trayvon breaking the law in the past should have nothing to do with this case unless Zimmerman knew of him. Actually even then it doesn't really matter because this case is about one thing and one thing only. Was Trayvon Martin the aggressor and did Zimmerman have reasonable justification to fear for his life.

6/12/2013 2:16:20 PM

^ thank you, seriously people bringing up all this dirt on both sides is just ridiculous. You can make 80% of teenagers look like criminals if you try, and I am sure the same shit stirring is happening on the other side as well.

it comes down to who initiated physical contact and whether or not Zimmerman was justified in pulling out his firearm and using it. I will admit, to me, Zimmerman stalking him in the car looks pretty bad, but that doesn't prove anything at all.

[Edited on June 12, 2013 at 2:58 PM. Reason : .]

6/12/2013 2:57:57 PM

Quote :

"seriously people bringing up all this dirt on both sides is just ridiculous"

I'm strongly inclined to agree with this. But if you accept this, what is there left for the trial? Basically it's all about one eye-witness testimony and who's voice was yelling in the calls. Possibly the girlfriend on the phone too.

You have 3 things. They contradict. So you can't say one way or the other.

6/12/2013 3:36:27 PM

I don't have a legal mind, but this whole case feels like a clusterfuck, and I seriously don't believe there will be any decent outcome. Not that there could be I guess, a kid is still dead for uncertain reasons.

6/12/2013 4:29:28 PM

Quote :

"I still don't understand why you mention this. Trayvon breaking the law in the past should have nothing to do with this case unless Zimmerman knew of him. Actually even then it doesn't really matter because this case is about one thing and one thing only. Was Trayvon Martin the aggressor and did Zimmerman have reasonable justification to fear for his life."

A person's character and history of behavior are relevant in finding who the aggressor was, and whether Zimmerman had justification to fear for his life.

Trayvon taking more than half an hour to be ten minutes away from the gas station could be evidence of loitering or other suspicious behavior, like peering into homes as Zimmerman wrote in his statement that night. His history with drugs, guns, and burglary add weight to that suspicion.

Of course Zimmerman didn't know all this - but these facts do bolster the case that Zimmerman saw what he said he saw, namely someone who needed to be observed.

Zimmerman's past is relevant. Martin's past is relevant. The court is willing to hear about one but not the other, and that's wrong.

6/12/2013 6:59:13 PM

one person is on trial, the other isn't. seems pretty simple to me.

6/12/2013 7:22:22 PM

^

6/12/2013 7:45:34 PM

Quote :

"one person is on trial, the other isn't. seems pretty simple to me."

a) self-defense is being argued, where the killing is not disputed
b) you (as in the prosecution) intend to argue that the defendant attacked unprovoked and thus did not act in self-defense
c) you find the hard evidence alone is insufficient to argue that proposition
d) as such, you are demanding that circumstantial evidence about Zimmerman's past be entered - NOT to prove the shooting, but to...
e) ask the jury to make a determination of who the attacker was

I am very interested to know what the standard of evidence for the determination will be. I don't know if it will be beyond-a-reasonable-doubt or simple >51% likely. I believe that's specific to FL stand your ground laws.

"one person is on trial, the other isn't" is the correct argument when what's being disputed is whether the killing happened or not. It's the fault of the prosecution's argument that Trayvon's past is relevant.

6/12/2013 8:27:15 PM

Quote :

"Zimmerman's past is relevant. Martin's past is relevant. The court is willing to hear about one but not the other, and that's wrong."

shut the fuck up, you moron. The judge also said the jurors would not hear evidence related to Zimmermans criminal and domestic violence past.

6/13/2013 7:35:39 AM

Quote :

"Trayvon taking more than half an hour to be ten minutes away from the gas station could be evidence of loitering or other suspicious behavior, like peering into homes as Zimmerman wrote in his statement that night. His history with drugs, guns, and burglary add weight to that suspicion. Of course Zimmerman didn't know all this - but these facts do bolster the case that Zimmerman saw what he said he saw, namely someone who needed to be observed."

Again, this case isn't about Zimmerman's watch job. The "need to observe" is meaningless. It's already established he was a wannabe cop douche. Has nothing to do with the escalation and/or eventual confrontation.

Your point is better received only when you consider if Trayvon is more prone to violence because of one of the above. Smoking weed and potential petty larceny isn't doing that. Those are irrelevant ad hominems.

For the record I don't care if he gets acquitted and I think he probably will. He is still a douche who was long overdue for an ass beating.

6/13/2013 9:40:32 AM

Quote :

"Again, this case isn't about Zimmerman's watch job. The "need to observe" is meaningless. It's already established he was a wannabe cop douche. Has nothing to do with the escalation and/or eventual confrontation. Your point is better received only when you consider if Trayvon is more prone to violence because of one of the above. Smoking weed and potential petty larceny isn't doing that. Those are irrelevant ad hominems."

Are you seriously suggesting that Trayvon wasn't significantly more prone to violence than the average teenager?

[shawshank]How can you be so obtuse? Is it deliberate?[/shawshank]

He was just an average, everyday No_Limit_Nigga. Normal people tweet things like "2 glock 40s....bitch u got 80 problems," and "hahaha Hoe u got USED fa yo loose ass pussy! Tighten up! #Literally" all the time.

Suspensions, guns, drugs, tweets like that, likely burglary, filming a fight between homeless men....nah, those don't suggest anyone who might be more aggressive than the average bear.

Other relevant information:

http://tampa.cbslocal.com/2012/05/23/zimmerman-sanford-police-covered-up-beating-of-black-homeless-man-by-white-officer/

Another: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/trayvon-martin-shooting-george-zimmerman-protested-treatment-homeless-black-man-police-father-article-1.1057162

Quote :

"George Zimmerman accused the Sanford police department of corruption more than a year before he shot Trayvon Martin, saying at a public forum the agency covered up the beating of a black homeless man by the son of a white officer. “I would just like to state that the law is written in black and white,” Zimmerman said during a 90-second statement to city commissioners at a community forum. “It should not and cannot be enforced in the gray for those who are in the thin blue line.”"

6/13/2013 4:24:02 PM

man, people with your worldview make me furious

6/13/2013 5:12:10 PM

Please enlighten us with your equally retarded yet polar opposite equivalent.

6/13/2013 5:14:37 PM

nah, I'm good

6/13/2013 5:26:51 PM