Give me a break; if you can't read your own , you didn't write it. There's no point in trying to convince a willful troglodyte such as you. Get your together. Come back to respectability.
I don't keep links on all this . And I won't go errand boy'ing it for you now. I found all about it at the time. If you don't know it's because you don't want to know. It's a slam dunk that this is not Trayvon's gf. This chick has more holes in her than swiss cheese. Honestly, it's why I stopped caring what you think; cos you're chumpette level in that regard.
Give me a break; if you can't read your own , you didn't write it. There's no point in trying to convince a willful troglodyte such as you. Get your together. Come back to respectability.
With Skittles and a coke. In his own neighborhood.
Bad mistake, that day.
Dispatcher told Zimmerman to wait for the cops and not to engage. Zimmerman ed up.
If we are just looking at dead or alive and walking free it looks like Trayvon ed up a bit more.
I couldn't disagree more. Zimmerman didn't have to do what he did. Trayvon wasn't doing anything but being black in a nice neighborhood -- his family's neighborhood.
Who was beating up who?
Who engaged a rando person doing nothing wrong after the police dispatcher said not to with him?
Zimmerman was not vested with police powers. He overreached.
Who was terrorizing who?
He has every right as a citizen to make an inquiry of a su ious person.
what right are you referring to?
What law are you contending that George broke by engaging in dialogue?
trayvon wasn't doing anything wrong when he was walking when he was
zimmerman wasn't "wrong" in calling the cops to report what he thought was su ious. prejudiced and profiling? sure, but not wrong in a legality sense, and no harm from that act alone
zimmerman was then specifically told not to follow the kid or engage in any way. he was wrong in not following the instructions given by dispatch. that was the first "wrong"
facts after that are up in the air, as i recall there wasn't much evidence to conclusively show that zimmerman is the one who initiated the physical nature of their confrontation (hence, no conviction). we dont really know what the nature of their confrontation was.
my take on this when the trial was ongoing was basically that i think zimmerman was in the wrong but there wasn't going to be enough evidence for a conviction. i still feel that way.
i didnt contend there was a law preventing him from doing that. that's different than having a "right" to do something
we also dont know that "engaging in dialogue" is the extent of what zimmerman did before their confrontation became physical.
So, George did not break the law by engaging in dialogue.
nope. i never claimed he did
if we conclusively knew that that's all he did, i'd feel a lot better about the situation
How do you know that? Are you saying you know a hundred percent for sure that he wasn't casing the place?
Uh huh. So, who was beating up who?
yeah. he was visiting somebody who lived in that community. he went from their house to the 7-11 and was walking back to the house.
i could ask equally nonsensical questions like "do you know a hundred percent for sure that zimmerman wasn't actively plotting to murder the next person he saw before killing trayvon?"
its all about evidence, which can be direct/phyiscal or cir stantial
Oh, so you know hundred percent fore sure that he wasn't casing possible scores because he allegedly knew someone that lived in the same neighborhood. Who knew that that was a criminal deterrent to just have someone in your neighborhood know someone. ADT; just network, amirite?
asking if i know hundred percent for sure that something didnt happen is just a rephrasing of the fallacy of proving a negative. its a nonsensical way to have a discussion
are you a hundred percent sure that there ins't a flying spaghetti monster? are you a hundred percent sure that george zimmerman hadnt seen martin on a previous day, thought " that kid" and then decided to wait until that day to murder him after planning for it? its an impossible standard for the purposes of a discussion
he didn't "allegedly" know somebody there. martin and his father lived 4 hours away. they were in that city because they were visiting his father's fiance, who lived in that community, which is where they were staying during the visit
i didnt say it was a criminal deterrent to have someone in your neighborhood know someone. but if you're looking at the likelihood of somebody plotting to commit a crime, its a pretty big factor or piece of evidence that he was there for a legitimate purpose. i mean if you are walking outside your house one day and somebody called the cops thinking you were casing the area, wouldn't it be pretty ing significant that you live there? ... or should i go full derp and say "who knew that it was a criminal deterrent just to have somebody live in your neighborhood. ADT, amirite?"
Okay, he had a reason to be there; it doesn't mean he wasn't acting su iously.
By walking?
derp really arguing for the death of an innocent black kid?
The absolute worst thing he MIGHT have done was escalate the issue after being harassed by Zimmerman and/or during the actual physical altercation, iirc.
I don't know that either. But I would expect that someone would at least be able to read what they wrote themselves.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)