Facts about the Trayvon Martin Case

[I'm Billy FUCO!!]

He WAS following him. That kid had every right to react the way he did. You mean to tell me that if you KNOW your being followed by someone in the dark on the way home, you don't have the right to defend yourself?

Defend yourself from WHAT? The nefarious, illegal act of driving/walking behind somebody from a distance?

That shyt is a reason to be scared/concerned, not a reason to ATTACK...you nikkas got it twisted. You run away, or you turn around and ask the person wtf their problem is and wait to see what they do from there, but you don't fukkin' attack them....not unless you see them try to DIRECTLY approach you while you're running/talking to them

Yes, a person who APPEARS to be following you from a distance may be preparing to rob/rape/attack/kill you....or they could just be going the same way you're going

Who the fukk are you to decide what THEIR intent was, and then act as a result of that by beating them up? Walking/driving behind someone is NOT a threatening act that's worthy of self-defense. Running up on/approaching someone directly is. So is pulling out a weapon, or making a threatening remark.

You nikkas out here basically telling women it's okay to attack/mace a strange nikka, just because they both happen to be walking the same way in the same area

 

[NZA]

This video is better than OP....way better:

The Truth About George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin - YouTube

he focused on trayvon's background and not zimmerman's

introduced wild speculation about trayvon smoking weed with some unkown youths

assumes trayvon threw an unprovoked punch

this video is no better than the OP

 

[Why-Fi]

What does his age have to do with this? facts are: Shooterman profiled, stalked, fought and killed Trayvon in that order by his own admission. Shooterman pulled out the burner because Trayvon pulled out a sidewalk. Jurors accepted it as self defense.

he did not admit to stalking him. his story was that he turned around when told to do so, and trayvon jumped out the bushes on him

whatever we want to believe or assume, there was absolutely no proof to refute that. so "what if he's telling the truth? <---reasonable doubt

 

[Master Teacher]

he did not admit to stalking him. his story was that he turned around when told to do so, and trayvon jumped out the bushes on him

whatever we want to believe or assume, there was absolutely no proof to refute that. so "what if he's telling the truth? <---reasonable doubt

key word is reasonable

Zimmerman story is not reasonable

Everything fits perfectly in his favor and things never play out with
especially in a confrontation with two people, because it takes two too tango.

Zimmerman is clearly not a follower of rules
the neighorhood watch are instructed not to have fire arms
instructed not to follow people

He's the only who displayed a willingness for confrontation

He followed that boy and tried to restrain him

you really believe Trayvon is going to turn around with pop and candy in his hands, and run down Zimmerman in order to beat him down for the sake of doing so

when he is already afraid of the unknown, because some strange man is on his ass.

In order for Zimmerman's story to make sense you have to make too many excuses for his actions

Not to mention the Medical Examiner BLEW HOLES IN HIS STORY
a mack truck could drive through
and testified that his injuries could not have been caused from somebody bashing his head in the concrete.

none of the facts mattered in this only what people wanted to believe

 

[Why-Fi]

key word is reasonable

Zimmerman story is not reasonable

his story doesnt have to be reasonable. the term is reasonable doubt, which refers to whether the jury believes he is guilty or not. not his story

 

[Master Teacher]

his story doesnt have to be reasonable. the term is reasonable doubt, which refers to whether the jury believes he is guilty or not. not his story

IT HAS TO BE REASONABLE WHICH IS WHY THE WORD IS IN THE fukkING TERM TO BEGIN WITH YOUR fukkING MORON

Look at the opinions of the jury on twitter, its clearly she only acknowledge the things she wanted to be true not the totality of the testimonies

 

[Why-Fi]

IT HAS TO BE REASONABLE WHICH IS WHY THE WORD IS IN THE fukkING TERM TO BEGIN WITH YOUR fukkING MORON

Look at the opinions of the jury on twitter, its clearly she only acknowledge the things she wanted to be true not the totality of the testimonies

its "reasonable doubt", not "reasonable story"...you being emotional doesnt change that

to make it easy for you to understand ill explain to you like a 2 year old...like youre behaving

GZ was accused of something. he said he didnt do it. it came down to whether he followed the boy and initiated the fight or if he didnt.

he said he didnt. there was no proof or witness to say that he did. his story being unreasonable doesnt constitute proof. rachel jeantel's hearing wasnt enough proof. she could have been hearing anything

as a juror, how can you say he definitely followed trayvon with intent to kill him. there is no proof. nobody knows for sure who was screaming. nobody knows for sure if he turned around or if he didnt.

as a juror you havent seen proof. so you cant be sure, beyond reasonable doubt, that he is guilty. that has nothing to do with how reasonable his story sounds because the burden of proof is not on him. it was on the state...who had no proof

no i dont believe zimmermans story, but since i didnt see it, and no proof that its false, i dont know if hes lying or not. he could be telling the truth. thats reasonable doubt as to whether he is guilty

you cats really need to make more of an effort to understand what these terms mean and how the shyt works before you go at people with these weird statements. especially if youre going be acting like a little girl about it

 

[Master Teacher]

its "reasonable doubt", not "reasonable story"...you being emotional doesnt change that

to make it easy for you to understand ill explain to you like a 2 year old...like youre behaving

GZ was accused of something. he said he didnt do it. it came down to whether he followed the boy and initiated the fight or if he didnt.

he said he didnt. there was no proof or witness to say that he did. his story being unreasonable doesnt constitute proof. rachel jeantel's hearing wasnt enough proof. she could have been hearing anything

as a juror, how can you say he definitely followed trayvon with intent to kill him. there is no proof. nobody knows for sure who was screaming. nobody knows for sure if he turned around or if he didnt.

as a juror you havent seen proof. so you cant be sure, beyond reasonable doubt, that he is guilty. that has nothing to do with how reasonable his story sounds because the burden of proof is not on him. it was on the state...who had no proof

you cats really need to make more of an effort to understand what these terms mean and how the shyt works before you go at people with these weird statements. especially if youre going be acting like a little girl about it

You ignore the fact that
the witness never saw punches thrown
one of the eye witnesses testified zimmerman was on top of trayvon

the medical examiner testified Zimmerman's injuries were insignificant and could not have come from what he said happened

This isn't my opinion this is what they said

My point is these things had not been argued in the court
and just swept away like they were never said

You cannot pick and choose which testimonies you want to take in consideration and which ones you don't

you can't prove how the fight started

people established as fact Trayvon attacked first based on an OPINION
thats it, because thats what they want to believe.

We don't know how the fight started

But we do know, Zimmerman was told not pursue, he was armed, when as neighborhood watch they are told not to bring weapons
and he was the cause of all this. This is a fact.
He could have sat his ass in that truck and none of this would have happened.

also I'm not being emotional, stop putting stuff on me thats not true, that is exactly whats wrong with people to begin with

I use caps to put EMPHASIS on what I'm saying because I want you to pay attention to it and really think about what I'm saying

 

[Why-Fi]

You ignore the fact that
the witness never saw punches thrown
one of the eye witnesses testified zimmerman was on top of trayvon

the medical examiner testified Zimmerman's injuries were insignificant and could not have come from what he said happened

This isn't my opinion this is what they said

My point is these things had not been argued in the court
and just swept away like they were never said

You cannot pick and choose which testimonies you want to take in consideration and which ones you don't

well none of that is proof because for that one witness that said zimmerman on top, there were at least 2 i saw that said trayvon was. including a former chief medical examiner

dr bao made it clear that he was giving his opinion on the matter, plus he had selective memory

thats why they were swept away

 

[NvrCMyNut]

This video is better than OP....way better:

The Truth About George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin - YouTube

BULLshyt video

He WAS following him. That kid had every right to react the way he did. You mean to tell me that if you KNOW your being followed by someone in the dark on the way home, you don't have the right to defend yourself?

&#8595;&#8595;&#8595;&#8595;&#8595;&#8595;&#8595;&#8595;&#8595;&#8595;&#8595;&#8595;&#8595;&#8595;&#8595;&#8595;&#8595;&#8595;&#8595;&#8595;&#8595;&#8595;&#8595;&#8595;&#8595;&#8595;&#8595;&#8595;&#8595;

Defend yourself from WHAT? The nefarious, illegal act of driving/walking behind somebody from a distance?

That shyt is a reason to be scared/concerned, not a reason to ATTACK...you nikkas got it twisted. You run away, or you turn around and ask the person wtf their problem is and wait to see what they do from there, but you don't fukkin' attack them....not unless you see them try to DIRECTLY approach you while you're running/talking to them

Yes, a person who APPEARS to be following you from a distance may be preparing to rob/rape/attack/kill you....or they could just be going the same way you're going

Who the fukk are you to decide what THEIR intent was, and then act as a result of that by beating them up? Walking/driving behind someone is NOT a threatening act that's worthy of self-defense. Running up on/approaching someone directly is. So is pulling out a weapon, or making a threatening remark.

You nikkas out here basically telling women it's okay to attack/mace a strange nikka, just because they both happen to be walking the same way in the same area

 

[Master Teacher]

well none of that is proof because for that one witness that said zimmerman on top, there were at least 2 i saw that said trayvon was. including a former chief medical examiner

dr bao made it clear that he was giving his opinion on the matter, plus he had selective memory

thats why they were swept away

if you check the timeline, the asian lady was out there first because she saw when the other number came out

Zimmerman had the top position first, by the time goodman came out, Zimmerman was at the bottom

but it doesn't matter

nobody saw punches and nobody saw anybody's head being bashed in

and these are moments before the gun shoot was heard

But all thats is irrelevant

you have to look at intent

Who disobeyed all the rules and who was minded their own business

who is more inclined to start a confrontation, someone looking for something and assuming the worst, or somebody oblivious to any threat

but Trayvon doesn't get the benefit of the doubt, it is general accepted that he attacked first, even though there's nothing to support that he did

Zimmerman, aggressive towards black people in that complex over a period of time, FACT
Has done these baseless calls in repeatedly

His armed for no reason, they are instructed not to bring their weapons by the neighborhood watch coordinator

Zimmerman clearly is not good at following rules, clearly does not care about rules.

Why do you think they have these rules?
Why do you think the dispatcher told me him not to follow?

These rules are in place to prevent this exact sort of thing from happening in the first place.

Zimmerman is the cause of this confrontation

 

[Why-Fi]

Zimmerman is the cause of this confrontation

thats a safe assumption imo also...even half of the jurors, but there was no proof. thats why when the prosecution rested i tuned out

if the justice dept actually brings about a civil rights case, thats when youre going to see all the things you said come into play. why are you calling every time you see a black man. why did you use those words c00n, punks.

even a liability case. why did you have a gun when thats against regulation. why did you get out of the truck

but the criminal case? none of that was enough..."beyond reasonable doubt" is a really tough extreme to reach

 

[I'm Billy FUCO!!]

why did you use those words c00n, punks.

Zimmerman called someone a c00n? Didn't know this...

Proof?

 

[DEAD7]

He wasnt a boy, he was young man, and there wasnt enough evidence to find Zimmerman guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... those are the facts.


What people are most upset about are things that are either a) not illegal or b) require some knowledge of the inner workings of Zimmerman's mind.

Spoiler

We gotta stop letting emotion override logic.

 

[Prado210]

Defend yourself from WHAT? The nefarious, illegal act of driving/walking behind somebody from a distance?

That shyt is a reason to be scared/concerned, not a reason to ATTACK...you nikkas got it twisted. You run away, or you turn around and ask the person wtf their problem is and wait to see what they do from there, but you don't fukkin' attack them....not unless you see them try to DIRECTLY approach you while you're running/talking to them

Yes, a person who APPEARS to be following you from a distance may be preparing to rob/rape/attack/kill you....or they could just be going the same way you're going

Who the fukk are you to decide what THEIR intent was, and then act as a result of that by beating them up? Walking/driving behind someone is NOT a threatening act that's worthy of self-defense. Running up on/approaching someone directly is. So is pulling out a weapon, or making a threatening remark.

You nikkas out here basically telling women it's okay to attack/mace a strange nikka, just because they both happen to be walking the same way in the same area

You are right. It is not illegal to walk the same direction as someone else. I get that.

But the fact remains that you had a teenage kid walking home (unarmed)through the rain minding his own business. You also have a man who took it upon himself to make believe he is Cop and follow this kid who was, once again, minding his own business. Then you have this same guy INITIATE a confrontation with this kid. Kid gets scarred and throws hands with the guy who started all of this. The kid supposedly starts getting the better of him, and that gives him the right to pull out heat and shoot him? If GZ would have did what dispatch told him to do and stop following him and wait for the real police to show up and handle the situation, none of this would have happened.

I guess what I am saying is maybe he was following at a distance or whatever, but fact is GZ initiated this whole confrontation that left TM dead. To me, GZ should be held accountable for that. That's negligence.

Who the fukk are you to decide what THEIR intent was

That question applies to GZ before it applies to TM

Yes, a person who APPEARS to be following you from a distance may be preparing to rob/rape/attack/kill you....or they could just be going the same way you're going

In this instance, he was NOT going the same way TM was going. He was stalking him. and at bolded. Ironic.