- 2,125
- 108
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2006
You could have slipped in the rain running away after you shot a defenseless teen. Who knows. Zimmerman has proven to be a liar.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
This is more proofThis is an example of you know not knowing what words mean and on top of that it's you making assumptions due to limited knowledge on the subject, that subject simply being the definition of certain words. Until you learn more as I've already said there is no argument here. Just me correcting you.
So when you say "you're wrong and he is still innocent" it just reaffirms what I've already said.
I know exactly what the words mean. If he isn't 'innocent' in your book, then what is he guilty of?
So TM beat up zimmerman and then ran? Ok.
I don't know why this is even up for debate. It's not like no one saw TM over GZ.
It's clear he was over him with his knees to either side, which is why they're dirty.
On one side, people are presenting evidence. On the other, people are presenting speculations and laughing emoticons.
The only pictures which were taken of the jacket was 45 minutes after the incident. The stains on the knees occurred by exerting a great amount of force, which will cause the pants to smear and stain.
The officer stated that he saw GZ with grass on his backside. Assuming the Officer, the witnesses and GZ were lying, I guess you'll be right.
Everybody else is wrong, but you.
I admitted that no one saw what was for sure a 'beating.'Here you go back saying this nonsense after you already admitted no one said that, come on man you serious?
The only pictures which were taken of the jacket was 45 minutes after the incident. The stains on the knees occurred by exerting a great amount of force, which will cause the pants to smear and stain.
The officer stated that he saw GZ with grass on his backside. Assuming the Officer, the witnesses and GZ were lying, I guess you'll be right.
Everybody else is wrong, but you.
Aka you don't have any proof of grass on Zimmerman's back just words and no medical examiner tested those pants that were submitted for the judge to put into evidence but never made it in. Like I said assumptions and no factual evidence. Let's talk facts when you finally have some instead of this "assuming they were lying" nonsense.
I'm going off of the evidence presented as well as the testimonies of witnesses and those involved.
All this talk of evidence, what exactly is the evidence proving he's guilty of 2nd degree murder? What's your "case"?
Did I say the pants were part of the case?
I simply posted the picture, then gave you my take on it.
Sorry about that. Let me stop "insinuating" factual evidence
Always with the, "I have no stance on the situation," but being another NTer who will always give the benefit of the doubt to the person with the darker skin color, it's obvious you disagree with the not guilty outcome. You not man enough to come out and say it or...
I already I admitted I misspoke and this is the third time I'm saying that.
But you seem to disagree with all the evidence apparently. What makes him guilty?
I'm not focusing on color or unfounded racism claims, just facts, unlike you.
One of my points was that 'John' still said he saw TM over GZ, and you argued that. Are you saying he lied?Again, I disagree with people posting things that aren't evidence. I don't care if you agree or disagree with a verdict. Just stop posting false information to prove your point.
What was part of the case was the officer testifying that GZ's backside was wet and had grass on it.
So, what's the evidence to prove him guilty of 2nd degree murder? (If you're arguing back-to-back that he isn't innocent, then you're assuming he's guilty.)
It wasn't evidence. Yet you say you're only referencing factual evidence. Yeah I know, I didn't get what you said eitherI don't get it, you don't think those pants belonged to TM?
This guy is all over the place.
One of my points was that 'John' still said he saw TM over GZ, and you argued that. Are you saying he lied?
http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/peo...6-files-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-case/That's definitely not what he said though. He did not say he saw Trayvon Martin over George Zimmerman. He didn't even know who from who to make that type of testimony. He stated he couldn't see. This is what I'm talking about you posting false information.
[h3]Witness Summary:[/h3]
When he first walked outside, the Black guy was on top while they were wrestling. He could tell this because the guy on the bottom was a lighter color. The witness was looking out the window and yelling out the window telling them to stop. After the incident, he saw other people out there with flashlights. The guy who had been previously on top was lying face down in the grass. The one who had been on the bottom had his hands in the air. The guy who did the shooting said, “I shot the other guy in self defense. My gun is on the ground.”
He didn’t have his patio door open. He could only hear the helps with all doors and windows closed. He says he couldn’t tell who was yelling for help. He thought it was the person on the ground at first because his logic says that the person on the bottom would be the one yelling for help. He says he truly couldn’t tell who was yelling help. It was too dark. He didn’t see how it started or how it ended. He only saw when they were in an altercation on the ground.
And he's still not answering why he feels GZ is guilty of 2nd degree murder?
Dude you just quoted a random webpage who summarized the trial by their interpretations with no direct quoteshttp://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/peo...6-files-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-case/
[h3] [/h3]
[h3]Witness Summary:[/h3]
When he first walked outside, the Black guy was on top while they were wrestling. He could tell this because the guy on the bottom was a lighter color. The witness was looking out the window and yelling out the window telling them to stop. After the incident, he saw other people out there with flashlights. The guy who had been previously on top was lying face down in the grass. The one who had been on the bottom had his hands in the air. The guy who did the shooting said, “I shot the other guy in self defense. My gun is on the ground.”
He didn’t have his patio door open. He could only hear the helps with all doors and windows closed. He says he couldn’t tell who was yelling for help. He thought it was the person on the ground at first because his logic says that the person on the bottom would be the one yelling for help. He says he truly couldn’t tell who was yelling help. It was too dark. He didn’t see how it started or how it ended. He only saw when they were in an altercation on the ground.
Dude you just quoted a random webpage who summarized the trial by their interpretations with no direct quotes
What exactly am I assuming?
You're arguing for pages and pages that you disagree with the verdict. What verdict would you have agreed with?
You're running out of corners to hide in.
Ignorance isn't necessarily a bad thing in certain situations. Stupidity is what's harmful.
Dude you just quoted a random webpage who summarized the trial by their interpretations with no direct quotes
View media item 1348843
Incredible.
So, what's the evidence to prove him guilty of 2nd degree murder? (If you're arguing back-to-back that he isn't innocent, then you're assuming he's guilty.)
And he's still not answering why he feels GZ is guilty of 2nd degree murder?
How would I quote you if I'm asking you?
Bruh..
So where did he identify Trayvon Martin?
da audacity of "stay in school" lol