Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Are you sure that's what you meant? You don't sound too confident.
Zimmerman sues NBC
- Thread starter desert dude
- Start date
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
See, you're one racist fuck. But it'll be ok, Buck'll come to your rescue, my homeboy.
Racist!!!!!
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Nuh uh. That's called reparations. But only against whites. Any other color, you get a hate crime.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
My agenda is twofold:
1) i will not presume guilt.
2) Nobody knows how it went down. However there is evidence that Z was looking for a fight and none* that T was.
And you are quite right when you note that i don't have half a brain. I have 7/8ths, I'll have you know.
*made public
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Pork chops, steaks, chicken wings, chicken legs, pork belly, grill steaks, hot dogs, bacon, liver, lamb chops, ribs, shoulder of lamb, venison steaks, roast chicken, chicken nuggets, chicken fingers.
And a favourite in Chesus' house...roast dog.
You need more?
desert dude
Well-Known Member
Ummmm, chocolate roaches!
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
The victor tells the history? When the loser doesn't exist and a lack of archeological evidence, we have to take the bard's word?
What I want to know is who thinks a 17 year old has a child's voice? By 16 I had a nice gravely deep voice that BOOMS. I call to my brother's house and his 16 year old son answers and I swear its my brother answering. Hell I remember answering the phone at 15 and people thought I was my dad, happened very very very frequently.
Yet we have "witnesses" who swears they heard a child crying out. Do you suppose they looked at the 8yr old picture of Trayvon that the media blitzed the screen with and took the hook, sinker and all?
As if on your 18th birthday your voice goes from little child to man.
Yet we have "witnesses" who swears they heard a child crying out. Do you suppose they looked at the 8yr old picture of Trayvon that the media blitzed the screen with and took the hook, sinker and all?
As if on your 18th birthday your voice goes from little child to man.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
What evidence do you have? I am interested to see it.
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Well, to be fair, it's fairly common for people who are about to illegally commit violent acts to call the police and try to make sure they will arrive at the moment of the crime or quite possibly before it's commission. I know if I was gonna rob a liquor store, I would certainly alert the authorities prior to doing so, that way I could ensure my arrest and incarceration. Cmon dude, this is common sense shit, get with the mob and prejudge and convict this fucker. We don't need no stinkin' trial.
And remember, changing your position to maintain OBSERVATION is now defined as "stalking." Not simply "continued observation", that doesn't strike the necessary and ominous chord. For future reference, if you need to "observe" someone and they move, it's over Johnny.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
so suppose you notice someone giving you the stink eye and following you (this happened, check the interrogations).
suppose you run away and lose the creep who's following you (common knowledge, zimm's call to dispatch).
now suppose the creep continues to go hunting for you after you lost him (this happened, check the interrogations).
that's not maintaining or continuing observation, that's stalking to the letter and spirit of the law.
Suppose you get away from the person, he has no idea where you are.(We know this 100% fact from the 911 call.)
You can easily go home in about 20 or 30 seconds since you play football and are used to running.(We know this is 100% fact.)
Instead, you hide and wait for him. (We know this is 100% fact. This isn't a defensive move, this is an aggressive move. This shows you are not afraid and that you want a confrontation.)
This is the defense that Zimmerman will have. These are facts that cannot be disputed. The defense is going to present Martin as a out of control thieving 17 year old drug dealer who was high at the time of the confrontation that was wandering around unsupervised in the neighborhood. There is no hard evidence that proves anything one way or another, and there is no way you are going to convince an entire jury that Zimmerman, without a doubt, started the violent confrontation that began the illegal part of the story. There will likely be a mistrial, and the number of people who vote guilty/not guilty will be the decision of whether to keep trying him. A innocent verdict is possible, however.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
pretty much the way I see it as well.
we don't know that's a fact. that is an assumption your mind has convinced itself is a fact.
video of him pretty much right before this went down says he was very much in control, walking home quietly.
what we do know is that zimmerman has a history, we know he was following martin, and we know martin is dead. only in a closed ass mind would you think that the followee is guilty...
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Ok, I'll bite. Without all the scary and melodramatic embellishments, please explain how a different individual in a different neighborhood in a completely separate instance could "maintain observation" of a subject moving through homes with similar geography, without it being "stalking" in your mind? Remember you MUST maintain or reestablish sight of the individual AND they are actively trying to thwart your efforts by relocating, possibly at a high rate of speed.
I already know the answer, it's ALWAYS stalking.
The problem with your conclusion, is that it's all based on the outcome of the Zimmerman/Martin incident. If everything happened the way it did, but they never had a physical confrontation and Zimmerman simply directed the police to Martin's location, then he's just a concerned citizen who "kept an eye" on an individual he found suspicious until the police arrived.
For it to be "stalking" you would have to prove malicious intent. In the absence of that proof, it's just nosiness.
Its not stalking, stalking requires repeated attempts at different times. This constitutes following because it is only a single incident. If it were stalking he would have been charged with it. Buck just likes to distort the the truth because he knows that if you repeat a lie enough times, eventually people start to believe you.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
all we know for a fact is that he was talking on his phone until a minute before the murder.
do you like to carry on phone conversations when you're lying in wait?
fucking idiot.
except there is no evidence that he was a thief or a drug dealer and they have already concluded that the THC present in his system was not enough for him to be "high".
you really need to get up to speed on the facts of the case, you racist fuck.