So Zimmerman is charged with 2nd degree murder.

[Jimbo]

Rather than going from a conclusion and working backwards look at what happened, be objective, and think of the possibilities.

I can see the prosecution saying, "he followed the kid in his truck, told the kid he wasn't following him, then followed the kid on foot after he ran off, he went to confront the boy, he was the aggressor, when he reached into his pocket (for a weapon?) then he was attacked." I can see them saying that going after a kid and reaching for something in his pocket was the reason the kid struck him and didn't give him the right to use deadly force. Had he not chased the boy who did no wrong the boy would be alive.

I can see the defense saying "he wasn't chasing Trayvon, he didn't go to confront Trayvon, he only wanted to keep him in sight for police." Maybe Trayvon was hiding and if Zimmerman was following him he was going to confront him. Trayvon sees Zimmerman still following and boom attacks Zimmerman. When he put a hand in is pocket he probably had his other hand down too. The kid could have popped him 2-3 times before he even got his hands up or knocked him down with those first couple blows. Zimmerman was simply trying to keep eyes on him now he's in a fight for his life.

If either way is beyond the realm of possibility to you or anyone else it seems your mind is already made up.

I'm not working from a conclusion, those statements are only facts. They have no names attached, they are simply the legality of that action. I said nothing about your fantasy scenarios that are filled with, "could have's, maybes and if's", being impossible. You are assigning your own bias to my comments.
As for the, "if he hadnt chased the boy who did no wrong" argument, it doesn't matter. You can go back to blaming Zimmermans's grandmother for having that third cosmo and concieving his ancestor, without that this tragedy would never has happened. All that matters is who commited the unlawful act. Who attacked who and was deadly force in Zimmermans defense warranted. I believe this is the point of the trial.

[347Mike]

I'm not working from a conclusion, those statements are only facts. They have no names attached, they are simply the legality of that action. I said nothing about your fantasy scenarios that are filled with, "could have's, maybes and if's", being impossible. You are assigning your own bias to my comments.
As for the, "if he hadnt chased the boy who did no wrong" argument, it doesn't matter. You can go back to blaming Zimmermans's grandmother for having that third cosmo and concieving his ancestor, without that this tragedy would never has happened. All that matters is who commited the unlawful act. Who attacked who and was deadly force in Zimmermans defense warranted. I believe this is the point of the trial.

Hey now, no fantasy scenarios allowed in here...

[Jimbo]

I'm not following you

As you repeated, there is no one to tell Trayvons side. So the arguments you present for the prosecution are pure speculation. You are not "seeing" that side, you are entertaining flights of fancy and arguing them as facts.

[Jimbo]

It certainly supports Zimmerman's side of the story as they said. How can you deny that?

Or are you saying it's slanted against Zimmerman since they also presented the prosecution's point?

I'm not denying that. And no, I'm not saying that. I watched the first few videos that come up with that link. If the bias from the "reporters" is not obvious to you, then you mights share the same bias.

[Jimbo]

Hey now, no fantasy scenarios allowed in here...

Solid trolling. :thumbsup:

[SMEGMA STENCH]

This whole case is circus to make the black community feel better. It's a joke.

/thread

[CexMashean]

I'm on my phone, gonna be short, based on Zimmerman's version of events and the gf's statement where Martin said something to the effect of "the man is back and he's going to do something to me" after mistakenly thinking he had lost him when he ran off.

Why didn't traythug run home, instead of going back to confront the guy? Based off the defense's logic, traythug is the aggressor.

[stinginstang]

I don't believe he owes their family an apology, but I'm a heartless bastard.

this is the response of T's parents (via their lawyer)

Ben Crump, a lawyer for Martin's parents, said the family was furious that Zimmerman could "give this self serving apology so he could get a bond." One of the lawyers for the family called the apology "disingenuous and insincere

[Forever_frost]

this is the response of T's parents (via their lawyer)

Ben Crump, a lawyer for Martin's parents, said the family was furious that Zimmerman could "give this self serving apology so he could get a bond." One of the lawyers for the family called the apology "disingenuous and insincere

Most apologies are.

[Downs]

Fuck them they don't have anything to keep him in fucking jail on he was getting the bond no matter what he said.

[WildBill]

this is the response of T's parents (via their lawyer)

Ben Crump, a lawyer for Martin's parents, said the family was furious that Zimmerman could "give this self serving apology so he could get a bond." One of the lawyers for the family called the apology "disingenuous and insincere

Coming from the parents that didn't ground their son for being expelled nor were concerned enough to call him on his cell phone when he failed to return from going to "da sto" 2.5 miles away.

[stevo]

Stop going out of your way to be an ass. My reply would be the same as the post you just quoted.

Stop going out of your way to be an idiot. Your reply is for the prosecuting attorney to base some chain of maybes and ifs around two things that are not legal.

Stevo

[03trubluGT]

Rather than going from a conclusion and working backwards look at what happened, be objective, and think of the possibilities.

I can see the prosecution saying, "he followed the kid in his truck, told the kid he wasn't following him, then followed the kid on foot after he ran off, he went to confront the boy, he was the aggressor, when he reached into his pocket (for a weapon?) then he was attacked." I can see them saying that going after a kid and reaching for something in his pocket was the reason the kid struck him and didn't give him the right to use deadly force. Had he not chased the boy who did no wrong the boy would be alive.

I can see the defense saying "he wasn't chasing Trayvon, he didn't go to confront Trayvon, he only wanted to keep him in sight for police." Maybe Trayvon was hiding and if Zimmerman was following him he was going to confront him. Trayvon sees Zimmerman still following and boom attacks Zimmerman. When he put a hand in is pocket he probably had his other hand down too. The kid could have popped him 2-3 times before he even got his hands up or knocked him down with those first couple blows. Zimmerman was simply trying to keep eyes on him now he's in a fight for his life.

If either way is beyond the realm of possibility to you or anyone else it seems your mind is already made up.

Nothing Zimmerman did was illegal or gave Martin a legal reason to attack Zimmerman. Putting your hand in your pocket is not against the law.

[ThreeFingerPete]

Nothing Zimmerman did was illegal or gave Martin a legal reason to attack Zimmerman. Putting your hand in your pocket is not against the law.

This isn't about the law. This is about minorities crying Wolf and stupid people letting their emotions solidify uninformed opinions that will not and can not be changed with all of the facts in the world.

[Machx2]

Nothing Zimmerman did was illegal or gave Martin a legal reason to attack Zimmerman. Putting your hand in your pocket is not against the law.

When I put my hand in my pocket, it isn't to grab a weapon.