Shot for getting skittles

Everyone but the police and grand jury. People with direct access to the facts.

Just because they possess the ability to manipulate words to sway idiots does not mean the facts are anything other than they are. Zimmerman did, in fact, shoot and kill a teenager who was doing nothing more than wandering around his neighborhood. Period. Those are the facts.

Also beating a grown man bloody.

Shouldn’t have been stalking him.

An opinion that in no way constitutes a legal obligation.

We do not know Martin ever hit Zimmerman. We only know Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. EVERYTHING else is opinion, speculation, a bit of manipulation, and some "eye witness" testimony but only testimony that fit a predetermined outcome.

We know Martin was on top of Zimmerman pounding his head into the sidewalk when he was shot. We know this because of 2 eyewitnesses, forensic evidence showing the shot was point blank range, and multiple contusions on Zimmerman's head that were treated. We know that Zimmerman had been screaming for help for 47 seconds because it can be heard on the 911 calls, that it was Zimmerman's voice screaming for help according to the eyewitnesses, and that Zimmerman was underneath Martin when he was shot and could not retreat at that time.

That's why Zimmerman was pronounced innocent of murder.

It has absolutely nothing to do with someone who picks up a gun and drives to a school in body armor intent on killing as many innocent children as he can.

We know SOMEONE was screaming for help.

We do not know why Martin was on top of Zimmerman. We do not know what transpired prior to Martin being on top of Zimmerman.

Hell, we could just go the Rittenhouse route and say Zimmerman tried molesting Martin.

Both cases, asshole put himself into a situation in which he had to kill someone to get out of. That's not innocent. That's justifiable let him fucking die.

Must we do this again? I suppose we must.

WITNESSES saw Martin pounding on Zimmerman. Zimmerman's account matches the evidence. What evidence is there that it was the other way around? NONE.

It's also contrary to logic. Are we to believe that Zimmerman--armed with a handgun--is the aggressor, and simultaneously managed to prevent the (supposedly) screaming Martin from running away while also breaking his own nose and making his own ass look like it was kicked? And did so for more than a minute before finally shooting Martin? Absurd.

I think we do.

But since you say we don't, you're admitting that there's reasonable doubt in Zimmerman's favor.

Although one of Rittenhouse's attackers was a known pedophile, I can't recall anyone claiming that there was an attempt at molestation.

Zimmerman did not put himself underneath Martin having his skull bashed into the ground. Martin put Zimmerman into that position.

And way to distract from the main reason for this thread because of a personal grudge. We are now all relitigating the Martin issue instead of the mass shooting of children.

You couldn't be more an idiot.

Correction, ONE witness saw Martin pounding on Zimmerman. and we don't know what, if any, reasons he would have to say what he said except "ooh ooh, I know "mma" and I'm gonna insert myself into the defense and become an integral part of this case.". Sorry. Doesn't cut it for me. Give me a video of Martin attacking Zimmerman without any immediate threat, and I will consider that as evidence. Otherwise, Zimmerman was stalking Martin and Martin fought back.

Would all you cocksucking fuckface assholes please take this discussion elsewhere?

Thank you in advance for your kind consideration.

Kind Regards,
We Are Borg

Look, if you want to ensure all threads stick to the OP, become a moderator. In the mean time, fuck off. This is still about assholes killing innocent kids.

Is the witness' testimony inconsistent with the evidence? No. Is there any evidence the witness is untruthful? No. So, your dismissal of the witness seems based on something other than reason.

But that's okay. There's still the physical evidence, which supports Zimmerman's account.

Such a video does not exist, but you're essentially saying unless Zimmerman can be proven innocent beyond all doubt, that he must be guilty. That isn't how the law works.

The evidence (the girlfriend's testimony about the phone call, the location of the interaction, the police call that establishes that Zimmerman was not pursuing Martin immediately prior to the altercation) firmly supports that Martin chose to engage Zimmerman.

You admit we don't know what happened prior to the brawl, but you just filled in the blanks with that statement without offering any evidence to justify it.

I dismiss everything except the fact that Zimmerman engaged, the shot and killed a teenager. Make other shit up all you want. It doesn't change the fact.

Then you don't care about evidence. You don't accept any facts that undermine your preconceived narrative.

The Zimmerman side-tangent so far if you're just walking in...

Jenee- Zimmerman!

UA/Paladin- I laaaaahhhhve heeeem!!!

I'm perfectly willing to concede that Zimmerman is a bit of a lowlife. But even lowlifes get due process and benefit of the doubt. After all, just because a women is a prostitute doesn't mean she can't be a rape victim, too.

I think @Jenee is wrong: we can determine what happened and when to a very high degree of confidence.

(Another bit of evidence that is often overlooked: during Zimmerman's interrogation, the police, trying to see if he would change his story, told him there was video of the event. Zimmerman's response? "Thank God!")

But even if you disagree, you have to show how the evidence is inconsistent with Zimmerman's account. If you can't show Zimmerman's account is untrue, you haven't overcome reasonable doubt.

What I care about is a teenager was murdered. That you do not care about that is between you and your God.

I think Zimmerman is a massive douchebag I couldn't tolerate in person for five minutes, but if you're seeking to make it a popularity contest where likability is a deciding factor, you are on the wrong side of reason.

And yet you have no basis to claim "murder." A trial did not even find manslaughter.

As for gods, I have none.

It is murder. One man took the life of another. Zimmerman stalked Martin, then got out of his car and chased him down. If Martin defended himself, and beat the fuck out of Zimmerman before Zimmerman could kill him, then fucking good for Martin.

I'm no big city moderator, but perhaps the Zimmerman/Martin discussion can happen in a dedicated thread. It still exists:

http://wordforge.net/index.php?threads/shot-for-getting-skittles.92843/page-202#post-3377536

@Jenee: I like to suck big dicks!

@Uncle Albert: No, I like to suck big dicks!

@Paladin: I can suck two dicks at once!

Thread title is still a lie.

WAB is still an inflamed cock wart.

Not all homicides are murder.

If by "stalked," you mean "saw him, thought he was suspicious, and called the cops on him."

That last part is demonstrably false.

If your premise is false, your conclusion is invalid.

You're willing to allow Martin self-defense despite evidence to the contrary, yet deny the possibility to Zimmerman despite the facts that support it.

And now you've backtracked from your earlier admission that we didn't know what happened.

Yep.

Actually, she could be. Just watch her.