Justice for Zimmerman

chaos · Jul 21, 2013

tad10_sl said:
Yes "thousands" in the largest metro area in the United States. Unimpressive.

And why? Because blacks in urban areas are well aware that the majority of black on black crime is caused by black men 18-24 and they know deep down that the "a-few-weeks-from-his-18th-birthday" Trayvon was a thug and if he hadn't been killed by Zimmerman would probably had ended up killing someone in a few months or years.

It's only the family, the media and the black establishment that want to protray him as some 14 year old innocent.

That's the real fucking tragedy here. Black youths who are trying to escape urban violence being killed by "gangsta" thugs like Trayvon while everyone turns a blind eye.

Nah man, every black person I know except one thinks this was a travesty of justice and that Zimmerman straight up murdered baby Trayvon. They're putting on the blinders for this one.

Famm · Jul 21, 2013

Tanoomba_sl said:
I really don't get why so many of you are hyper-sensitive about this, I don't. I'm not saying anything even remotely controversial. I've made my point several times, but since you asked I'll say it again: It's foolish to say that Zimmerman's gun saved his life, especially when the actual evidence suggests otherwise. That's it, man. Zimmerman was justified doing what he did, but that doesn't mean his actions saved his life.

Its not your point its YOU saying the same shit that everyone has shot you down on repeatedly for fucking weeks now. You are literally the last stubborn fuckshit in this thread dragging this conversation on in the face of every answer you've been given three times already. Its not your point, its YOU that people hate.

Chukzombi · Jul 21, 2013

Tanoomba_sl said:
OK, this was mentioned before but it may be worth repeating:
If Martin had survived his gunshot wound, he could have been charged with a crime, right? What do you think he would have been charged with: Attempted murder or aggravated assault?

ifs dont enter into this. we are talking about what happened in reality. you punch someone , they go down. fight over yes? you can put on your sunglasses and cue the CSI miami theme music. thats not what happened here. dude punches the other dude. dude goes down and dude continues to beat the incapacitated individual until other dude pulls a gun and shoots man once to stop. how you get all these what if scenarios from this is just making excuses to paint zim as some kind of bully.

fanaskin · Jul 21, 2013

Tanoomba_sl said:
I really don't get why so many of you are hyper-sensitive about this, I don't. I'm not saying anything even remotely controversial. I've made my point several times, but since you asked I'll say it again: It's foolish to say that Zimmerman's gun saved his life, especially when the actual evidence suggests otherwise. That's it, man. Zimmerman was justified doing what he did, but that doesn't automatically mean his actions saved his life.

all you have to do is say the gun may not have saved his life which is true but pedantic, the factual nature of your statement rustles everyones jimmies because it violates logic and that's very important in the whole "self defense" nature of the case. There's very logical reasons why only the threat of death or injury is enough for lethal force to be ok to use in defending yourself. your implying that zimmerman should have acted differently and your motivated by trying to save everyone life but what you are actually doing in reality is arguing individuals should risk their lives more because it may result in a better outcome and there's a reason why many people don't agree with that, because you are arguing to increase the personal risk of the victim who is being assaulted and that's literally INSANE.

If zimmerman acts differently you are arguing for him to increase his chances of dying or being permantly damaged, when he clearly did nothing legally wrong.

Tanoomba_sl said:
It's OK, man, you don't have to assume you're on the opposite side of whatever I say just because I said it.

there's been many things you've said in other threads I agree with actually, and you are a lot better about how you construct your views since you first started commenting on this case.

Tanoomba · Jul 21, 2013

Famm_sl said:
Its not your point its YOU saying the same shit that everyone has shot you down on repeatedly for fucking weeks now. You are literally the last stubborn fuckshit in this thread dragging this conversation on in the face of every answer you've been given three times already. Its not your point, its YOU that people hate.

Dude, you guys wanna keep arguing it, I'll keep arguing it. If you don't, that's fine too. But my point has yet to be "shot down" in any way, shape, or form. The grand majority of the points made to weaken my argument are actually points I agree with that have nothing to do with the point I'm making. I'm being more than civil and I've demonstrated an exceptional patience with people who either misinterpret my point as an attack on Zimmerman (it's not) or who simply choose to respond to some other point I'm not making. I'm not trolling, I'm not race-baiting, I'm not disturbing the shit. I made a non-controversial, extremely simple and irrefutably logical point that somehow got everyone's collective panties in a bunch. I figure if I'm patient and willing to go step-by-step through everyone's doubts, I can get you to see that what I'm saying isn't crazy nonsense. That's my deal right now. What's yours?

Famm · Jul 21, 2013

Tanoomba_sl said:
Dude, you guys wanna keep arguing it, I'll keep arguing it. If you don't, that's fine too. But my point has yet to be "shot down" in any way, shape, or form. The grand majority of the points made to weaken my argument are actually points I agree with that have nothing to do with the point I'm making. I'm being more than civil and I've demonstrated an exceptional patience with people who either misinterpret my point as an attack on Zimmerman (it's not) or who simply choose to respond to some other point I'm not making. I'm not trolling, I'm not race-baiting, I'm not disturbing the shit. I made a non-controversial, extremely simple and irrefutably logical point that somehow got everyone's collective panties in a bunch. I figure if I'm patient and willing to go step-by-step through everyone's doubts, I can get you to see that what I'm saying isn't crazy nonsense. That's my deal right now. What's yours?

You have no point. State your so-called point right now. Simply. Succinctly. In one sentence. No emotion. No tangents. No examples or anecdotes. One basic point that no one apparently gets.

Tanoomba · Jul 21, 2013

Maester Chuk_sl said:
ifs dont enter into this. we are talking about what happened in reality. you punch someone , they go down. fight over yes? you can put on your sunglasses and cue the CSI miami theme music. thats not what happened here. dude punches the other dude. dude goes down and dude continues to beat the incapacitated individual until other dude pulls a gun and shoots man once to stop. how you get all these what if scenarios from this is just making excuses to paint zim as some kind of bully.

Actually, my point of view requiresless"what ifs", not more, because it's actually somewhat supported by the evidence. It takes a greater stretch of the imagination to end up with Martin killing Zimmerman in cold blood with his bare hands than it does to end up with Zimmerman getting a few bruises and cuts and Martin either running away or getting caught by the cops.

fanaskin · Jul 21, 2013

Alright but what does that change? what does that influence even if we take that as being true, it changes nothing. it doesn't excuse trayvon"s behavoir and it doesn't block zimmermans justification from defending himself with lethal force.

Arbitrary · Jul 21, 2013

I don't find it to be a great stretch of the imagination for a single additional blow to the head to have caused serious injury or death.

Tanoomba · Jul 21, 2013

fanaskin_sl said:
all you have to do is say the gun may not have saved his life which is true but pedantic, the factual nature of your statement rustles everyones jimmies because it violates logic and that's very important in the whole "self defense" nature of the case. There's very logical reasons why only the threat of death or injury is enough for lethal force to be ok to use in defending yourself. your implying that zimmerman should have acted differently and your motivated by trying to save everyone life but what you are actually doing in reality is arguing individuals should risk their lives more because it may result in a better outcome and there's a reason why many people don't agree with that, because you are arguing to increase the personal risk of the victim who is being assaulted and that's literally INSANE.

If zimmerman acts differently you are arguing for him to increase his chances of dying or being permantly damaged, when he clearly did nothing legally wrong.

Nothing I've said has "violated logic". Nothing. In fact, like I keep saying, this point of view isMORE LOGICALas it is, you know, somewhat supported by evidence.
And stop telling me what I'm implying. I am not implying that at all. You're inferring that, but it doesn't mean I'm implying that. I've said many, many times that Zimmerman was justified in his actions. I'm not being sarcastic. It's not a ruse designed to hide my true intentions, so stop implying that it is.

fanaskin · Jul 21, 2013

well tanoomba is saying that both parties "probably" would have lived, so he's saying zimmerman should have just sat there and took it because then nobody would have died and no angels would have wept.

I get what your saying the most likely outcome in your mind is bother parties walk off with no permanent damage, but are you honestly arguing people shouldn't defend themselves? what does it change even if that fact is true. You should just stand there and hope the bull doesn't gore you?

You are looking at the world through the eyes of trayvon, try looking at the world through the eye's of zimmerman.

hodj · Jul 21, 2013

Tanoomba_sl said:
Dude, you guys wanna keep arguing it, I'll keep arguing it.

Ad naseum fallacy. Just because you're willing to vomit more than anyone else won't make you less wrong

But my point has yet to be "shot down" in any way, shape, or form.

Its been shot down so many times they're looking for the body next to Bin Laden.

The grand majority of the points made to weaken my argument are actually points I agree with

Just because you agree with facts that show your argument to be retarded horseshit does not mean that that argument is less retarded horseshit. In fact its just the opposite.

that have nothing to do with the point I'm making.

What point are you making? That Zimmerman didn't die from his wounds? We realize that. Because he shot Martin.

I'm being more than civil

You have at least 20 of the past 25 posts in this thread, and every single one is an example of you not being civil in any way shape or form

and I've demonstrated an exceptional patience

No, WE demonstrate extreme patience, by continuing to give you any credence in this argument whatsoever

with people who either misinterpret

If everyone in the thread thinks you're a retard with a stupid point, except you, it may just be that you're a retard with a stupid point.

my point as an attack on Zimmerman

Bullshit its not. You've been trying to wheedle in some skeezy reason to make it "Really" all Zimmerman's fault for two straight threads now

I'm not trolling

Yes, you are.

, I'm not race-baiting

Not anymore you aren't, but you have

I'm not disturbing the shit.

Rapid fire shit spamming and derailing the thread back into an argument you already lost half a week ago because you're extremely buttmad that you lost that argument is, in fact, disturbing the shit

I made a non-controversial,

It is controversial

extremely simple

So simple you're written the equivalent of a university level Thesis in this thread trying to dig your way out of the hole you found yourself in

and irrefutably logical point

Except its been refuted. Several hundreds of times

that somehow got everyone's collective panties in a bunch.

No, its your shit posting spamming the thread with inconsequential crybaby nonsense that has everyone sick of your shit

I figure if I'm patient and willing to go step-by-step through everyone's doubts, I can get you to see that what I'm saying isn't crazy nonsense. That's my deal right now. What's yours?

Ours is you need to shut up and get to sucking on the business end of a rifle. For humanities' sake, if not our own.

Tanoomba · Jul 21, 2013

Famm_sl said:
You have no point. State your so-called point right now. Simply. Succinctly. In one sentence. No emotion. No tangents. No examples or anecdotes. One basic point that no one apparently gets.

Again? OK:

It's foolish to say Zimmerman would have died/suffered serious injuries if he hadn't shot Martin.

hodj · Jul 21, 2013

Tanoomba_sl said:
Again? OK:

It's foolish to say Zimmerman would have died/suffered serious injuries if he hadn't shot Martin.

Except not, and the jury found differently.

It must suck to be so wrong and know it, yet be incapable of admitting it.

Jais · Jul 21, 2013

What about grievous bodily harm?

Chukzombi · Jul 21, 2013

Tanoomba_sl said:
Actually, my point of view requiresless"what ifs", not more, because it's actually somewhat supported by the evidence. It takes a greater stretch of the imagination to end up with Martin killing Zimmerman in cold blood with his bare hands than it does to end up with Zimmerman getting a few bruises and cuts and Martin either running away or getting caught by the cops.

oh you mean the running away he already did? yeah he did that. then he ran back to fight zim. then he beat him to the ground, then he pinned him to the ground with his legs and started beating him some more. at what point was he going to run away?

W4RH34D_sl · Jul 21, 2013

I'll just post this every 6 pages or so, people seem to forget the severity of his beating.

Tanoomba · Jul 21, 2013

Maester Chuk_sl said:
oh you mean the running away he already did? yeah he did that. then he ran back to fight zim. then he beat him to the ground, then he pinned him to the ground with his legs and started beating him some more. at what point was he going to run away?

In all likelihood, when he heard police sirens or other people approaching.

fanaskin · Jul 21, 2013

are you sure his nose was broken are you sure he just doesn't have big nostrils?

hodj · Jul 21, 2013

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...ot-guilty?lite

The defense told jurors that Zimmerman was just doing his civic duty when he was ambushed by Martin, punched in the face and slammed repeatedly into concrete before he fired a single shot that pierced the teen's heart.
"That's cement. That is a sidewalk. And that is not an unarmed teenager with nothing but Skittles trying to get home," O'Mara said.
"The suggestion by the state that that's not a weapon, that that can't hurt somebody, that that can't cause great bodily injury . is disgusting."

So reading this, and knowing this, when Tanoomba says that he has "no intent to make Zimmerman out to be the bad guy here" what he is literally doing is touting the Prosecution's main argument, an argument intensely predicated on trying to blame Zimmerman for the altercation, and then claiming he's not doing exactly what he's saying he's doing.

The idea that the concrete wasn't a threat to Zimmerman's life was part and parcel of the Prosecution's case that Zimmerman had no reasonable expectation of death or serious injury.

Tanoomba is a dishonest cretin who can't help but double down when he's been proven wrong time and time again.

Justice for Zimmerman

Buzzfeed Editor

Ahn'Qiraj Raider

Millie's Staff Member

Well known agitator

ジョーディーすれいやー

Ahn'Qiraj Raider

ジョーディーすれいやー

Well known agitator

Tranny Chaser

ジョーディーすれいやー

Well known agitator

Vox Populi Jihadi

ジョーディーすれいやー

Vox Populi Jihadi

Trakanon Raider

Millie's Staff Member

shitlord

ジョーディーすれいやー

Well known agitator

Vox Populi Jihadi