Trayvon Martin still dead.

DRINK!

edmo: Trayvon Martin still dead.

Totally different with him, he didn't have the right to defend himself. Plus he had Skittles and once tweeted about Marijuana

Must be that time of the month . . .

I will need more than 8 and less than 10 beers to deal with this thread.

quick, somebody call 9beers

borg: quick, somebody call 9beers

I'm sure his Zimmeradar will alert him quickly enough

Peter von Nostrand: edmo: Trayvon Martin still dead.

Totally different with him, he didn't have the right to defend himself. Plus he had Skittles and once tweeted about Marijuana

Moe importantly, he was a negro.

FTFA: "Trayvon Martin was defending himself. He had every right to stand his ground to defend himself," Crump said.

So, Trayvon was allowed to defend himself, but Zimmerman was not? Is that the logic here?

MaudlinMutantMollusk: DRINK!

OH THANK GOD!

I've been so thirsty these many months!

Shostie: MaudlinMutantMollusk: DRINK!

OH THANK GOD!

I've been so thirsty these many months!

I don't know about you, but after the debate, campaign and election drinking games, I seriously needed to dry out for a day or two

/thankfully THAT little nightmare is over now

Fark Me To Tears: FTFA: "Trayvon Martin was defending himself. He had every right to stand his ground to defend himself," Crump said.

So, Trayvon was allowed to defend himself, but Zimmerman was not? Is that the logic here?

Zimmerman was the aggressor. Martin was walking down the street minding his own business.

ZIMMERMAN THREAD!!!

jmadisonbiii: [i780.photobucket.com image 397x247]

ZIMMERMAN THREAD!!!

A bloody nose?

That's a killin'

In the name of parity, I feel the family of Trayvon Martin should release a few bloody photos from that fateful night. Seriously, if a stranger jump out of a car, confronts me, and follows a course of actions that results in him gunning me down in the middle of the street, the least I could do is break his nose. It's still a question of who threw the first punch, as well as who committed the first truly threatening action. Contrary to what many backing Zimmerman believe, a person walking down your street does not present a threat. But given those initial conditions and considering that Zimmerman presented himself in a way that would make ME feel threatened while minding my business on residential street, only to shoot someone later, I can only conclude he should've had some injuries. Trayvon Martin became the aggressor? Injuries. Zimmerman follows through on the earlier known confrontational behavior to the point that Martin felt threatened and took action? Injuries. Zimmerman threw the first punch, and Martin punched back? More injuries.

I'm having a hard time figuring out what they hope to prove unless the argument is, no matter what Zimmerman might have contributed to a bad situation (even as the initiator of the conflict and the only adult in the situation), if Martin laid a finger on him, he deserved it. Martin apparently didn't have a right to stand his own ground. Then, considering that Zimmerman is the one that's still breathing, I'm even getting visuals from the 1950s. After brutally murdering Emmett Till, Roy Bryant and his accomplices present pictures of their bloody knuckles, bruised forearms, and scratched facing, saying, "That little boy was asking for it!" That's if they hadn't blamed Till for the theft of the cotton gin fan used to weigh his body down. Seriously, after beating and murdering a kid, the only thing they were worried about was being arrested for stealing a piece of machinery.

Wow. Police Photoshop editors sure work slow.

Maybe they forgot to update the tutorials on Storm Front.

A rebuttal to the picture can be found here - Link

Of note - But today's bloody photo doesn't solve the mystery of Trayvon's hands. There were "No DNA results foreign to Trayvon Benjamin Martin" found on them.

To repeat what has been said a million times, and should be obvious to anyone who has payed any attention to the case, Trayvon stood his ground.

I still remember when the first grainy photo of Zimmerman at the police station was released and the internet mob was up in arms saying that it proved that Martin hadn't assaulted him.

Ahh yes, the media is once feasting on the story of the death of a teenager like maggots feeding on his corpse.

Fark Me To Tears: FTFA: "Trayvon Martin was defending himself. He had every right to stand his ground to defend himself," Crump said.

So, Trayvon was allowed to defend himself, but Zimmerman was not? Is that the logic here?

There was no need to murder the kid. Period. Had he attacked me, I would've beaten him to death. I would've made no mistake.

Martin DIDN'T assault him. He defended himself from a stalker.

MaudlinMutantMollusk: borg: quick, somebody call 9beers

I'm sure his Zimmeradar will alert him quickly enough

QUICK, DEAD BOY! TO THE ZIMMERMOBILE!

If two people are standing there ground and no one else is there to see it, does the tree make a sound?

Fark Me To Tears: So, Trayvon was allowed to defend himself, but Zimmerman was not? Is that the logic here?

If you have to get out of your car to "defend yourself" from a guy who is several feet away and unarmed, you're doing it wrong.

borg: Zimmerman was the aggressor. Martin was walking down the street minding his own business.

I shouldn't let myself get sucked into this, but since you seem to have some sort of oracular knowledge here, what exactly was Zimmerman's aggressive act that caused Martin to defend himself?

I'm having a hard time figuring out what they hope to prove unless the argument is, no matter what Zimmerman might have contributed to a bad situation (even as the initiator of the conflict and the only adult in the situation)

He was black, Zimmerman shot him, and the gun recoiled hitting him in the face, causing a slight nosebleed. The important thing was Zimmerman shot a black man in cold blood. Once you realize that, all the internet tough guy excuses all start to make sense.

Generation_D: I'm having a hard time figuring out what they hope to prove unless the argument is, no matter what Zimmerman might have contributed to a bad situation (even as the initiator of the conflict and the only adult in the situation)

He was black, Zimmerman shot him, and the gun recoiled hitting him in the face, causing a slight nosebleed. The important thing was Zimmerman shot a black man in cold blood. Once you realize that, all the internet tough guy excuses all start to make sense.

I can count up to around 4 [citation needed]s in your post.

Can you find them all?

Popcorn Johnny: I still remember when the first grainy photo of Zimmerman at the police station was released and the internet mob was up in arms saying that it proved that Martin hadn't assaulted him.

Martin didn't assault him. Zimmerman shot an unarmed guy who was minding his own business on a public street, probably injured himself in the process, and is now continuing to attempt to lawyer the case in the media.

Putzes, racists and asswits are helping him.

pixels

/experience

Why didn't he have that bloody and swollen nose in the police station video taken the same night?

Fark Me To Tears: FTFA: "Trayvon Martin was defending himself. He had every right to stand his ground to defend himself," Crump said.

So, Trayvon was allowed to defend himself, but Zimmerman was not? Is that the logic here?

So, Zimmerman's "right to defend himself" includes stalking a black kid, losing him, searching for him, finding him again, confronting him, and then once he starts getting his ass kicked, murdering him?

Is that the logic there?

Probably the only other pile of feathers on the Internet that can give the GOP's treatment of Obama's birth certificate a run for its money.

super_grass: Ahh yes, the media is once feasting on the story of the death of a teenager like maggots feeding on his corpse.

Absolutely. When unjust laws mean that children can be killed in the street for no reason, the responsible thing for the media to do is to avoid drawing any attention to it.

super_grass: Generation_D: I'm having a hard time figuring out what they hope to prove unless the argument is, no matter what Zimmerman might have contributed to a bad situation (even as the initiator of the conflict and the only adult in the situation)

He was black, Zimmerman shot him, and the gun recoiled hitting him in the face, causing a slight nosebleed. The important thing was Zimmerman shot a black man in cold blood. Once you realize that, all the internet tough guy excuses all start to make sense.

I can count up to around 4 [citation needed]s in your post.

Can you find them all?

1) An unarmed man was shot by an armed man for walking on a city street. Had Zimmerman remained in his vehicle there would have been no incident, or police could have arrived to make a professional determination.

What else do you need here, except the fact there is an internet tough guy on the loose white knighting against the victim of a murder?

Clearly self-inflicted.

Mr. Eugenides: borg: Zimmerman was the aggressor. Martin was walking down the street minding his own business.

I shouldn't let myself get sucked into this, but since you seem to have some sort of oracular knowledge here, what exactly was Zimmerman's aggressive act that caused Martin to defend himself?

Following Mister Martin for several blocks and getting out of his car and confronting Martin with a gun.

Peter von Nostrand: edmo: Trayvon Martin still dead.

Totally different with him, he didn't have the right to defend himself. Plus he had Skittles and once tweeted about Marijuana

Pick a fist fight with a guy carrying a gun and you run the risk of winning a casket and an all expense paid trip to six feet under.

The kid probably didn't deserve to die, but the neighborhood watch cop wanna be didn't deserve to get his ass kicked either, whether he was stalking Martin through his neighborhood or not.

borg: Fark Me To Tears: FTFA: "Trayvon Martin was defending himself. He had every right to stand his ground to defend himself," Crump said.

So, Trayvon was allowed to defend himself, but Zimmerman was not? Is that the logic here?

Zimmerman was the aggressor. Martin was walking down the street minding his own business.

We don't know that Martin was doing that at that point. There's lots of holes here and depending upon how you fill in the blanks, you end up with two completely different answers.

A normal jury would find enough reasonable doubt based on what we know so far that Zimmerman should walk. I doubt that things will be left that way even if a jury declines to find him guilty. I can already hear Eric Holder's people warming up in the bullpen.

Communist_Manifesto: If two people are standing there ground and no one else is there to see it, does the tree make a sound?

Does the Pope shiat in the woods?

I've looked worse than that after pick-up basketball games. What a friggin pussy.

Popcorn Johnny: I still remember when the first grainy photo of Zimmerman at the police station was released and the internet mob was up in arms saying that it proved that Martin hadn't assaulted him.

Actually, all this proves is that he had a broken nose. And that he hadn't washed his face like he had in the shot the police took for evidence the night he shot Martin.

For your comparison:



All this means is that Zimmerman had a broken nose, the above picture shows that was clearly not as bad as this picture portrays it as, since they were both taken the same night. It also doesn't mean anything in terms of explaining what happened, or why Treyvon Martin is dead. Since what happened that night is pretty much dependent on what Zimmerman is claiming it was, all this is is an emotional appeal using a face with blood on it.

Tryfan: Martin DIDN'T assault him. He defended himself from a stalker.

Zimmerman has a different story in which he was the one attacked. Without seeing all the evidence unfiltered by the press, there's no way to make an assessment right now. That's the purpose the trial will serve.

Tryfan: Martin DIDN'T assault him. He defended himself from a stalker.

Do they call people stalkers for trying to lose people that are stalking them?

Fark Me To Tears: FTFA: "Trayvon Martin was defending himself. He had every right to stand his ground to defend himself," Crump said.

So, Trayvon was allowed to defend himself, but Zimmerman was not? Is that the logic here?

No, the only logic needed here is knowing that a boy was KILLED for walking though a neighborhood. Does a bloody nose change that? You sir have a twisted sense of "logic".

So he shot the guy. What a murdering puss.

fusillade762: Clearly self-inflicted.

[www.vh1.com image 550x325]

Gun recoil. Or the kid hit him in the face, after he confronted him for no reason for minding his own business on a city public street.

Nothing changes the fact the idiot in the SUV gets out of his vehicle to confront the minor who is minding his own business on a public street.

The rest of this is internet tough guy noise and bullsh*t the right wing keeps fanning the flames with.

skandalus: In the name of parity, I feel the family of Trayvon Martin should release a few bloody photos from that fateful night. Seriously, if a stranger jump out of a car, confronts me, and follows a course of actions that results in him gunning me down in the middle of the street, the least I could do is break his nose. It's still a question of who threw the first punch, as well as who committed the first truly threatening action. Contrary to what many backing Zimmerman believe, a person walking down your street does not present a threat. But given those initial conditions and considering that Zimmerman presented himself in a way that would make ME feel threatened while minding my business on residential street, only to shoot someone later, I can only conclude he should've had some injuries. Trayvon Martin became the aggressor? Injuries. Zimmerman follows through on the earlier known confrontational behavior to the point that Martin felt threatened and took action? Injuries. Zimmerman threw the first punch, and Martin punched back? More injuries.

I'm having a hard time figuring out what they hope to prove unless the argument is, no matter what Zimmerman might have contributed to a bad situation (even as the initiator of the conflict and the only adult in the situation), if Martin laid a finger on him, he deserved it. Martin apparently didn't have a right to stand his own ground. Then, considering that Zimmerman is the one that's still breathing, I'm even getting visuals from the 1950s. After brutally murdering Emmett Till, Roy Bryant and his accomplices present pictures of their bloody knuckles, bruised forearms, and scratched facing, saying, "That little boy was asking for it!" That's if they hadn't blamed Till for the theft of the cotton gin fan used to weigh his body down. Seriously, after beating and murdering a kid, the only thing they were worried about was being arrested for stealing a piece of machinery.

Martin ran from Zimmerman, Zimmerman told the 911 operator he lost him, the operator asks if he's going to be waiting where he currently is for the officer, he says, "no have him call me when he gets here." The next thing that happens is that Martin is dead. If you're still trying to figure out who the aggressor is, you're an idiot. Sorry, that's the only explanation. You aren't defending yourself of standing your ground when you're actively searching for and confronting someone by your own recorded admission.

Surely there's been a more interesting potentially-racial murder or other serious crime since then?
I'll tell you who the real murderers are, the "journalists" trying to kill me of boredom with this crap.

borg: Fark Me To Tears: FTFA: "Trayvon Martin was defending himself. He had every right to stand his ground to defend himself," Crump said.

So, Trayvon was allowed to defend himself, but Zimmerman was not? Is that the logic here?

Zimmerman was the aggressor. Martin was walking down the street minding his own business.

The Traybots appear to be deploying their talking points more quickly than the Zimmerbots at this stage. Be interesting to check back later.