“Dying 4 ur sins-so tell me”

Since: Jan 09

Fort Worth

#157 Jul 20, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>Here's what you should have wrote: "Since he was armed it gave him the offensive to be put in a position that he had to defend himself" Had he been without a gun, I doubt he would have acted so brave.
That would be ridiculous . Did he shoot the ATTACKER before or after his head was pounded into the pavement?
I do have to agree with you on one thing here though . Since he had the gun it did put him in the position to defend himself...
But defending oneself means someone else is being on the offense.
Doctor REALITY

Little Rock, AR

#158 Jul 20, 2013
crucifiedguy wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be ridiculous . Did he shoot the ATTACKER before or after his head was pounded into the pavement?
I do have to agree with you on one thing here though . Since he had the gun it did put him in the position to defend himself...
But defending oneself means someone else is being on the offense.
Did ORENTHAL Zimmerman try to talk to the ATTTACKER and tell him that he was just the neighborhood watchman, or did he just STALK and follow Martin because he ASSUMED he was a criminal?? In Martin's mind, ORENTHAL Zimmerman could have been another JEFFERY DAHMER.
Hans Dellbrook

Richmond, CA

#159 Jul 20, 2013
^ too much conjecture. stick with the facts, and the truth shall set you free!

Since: Nov 12

Sacramento, CA

#161 Jul 20, 2013
Doctor REALITY wrote:
<quoted text>Did ORENTHAL Zimmerman try to talk to the ATTTACKER and tell him that he was just the neighborhood watchman, or did he just STALK and follow Martin because he ASSUMED he was a criminal?? In Martin's mind, ORENTHAL Zimmerman could have been another JEFFERY DAHMER.
or uncle jerry sandusky.

Since: Nov 12

Sacramento, CA

#162 Jul 20, 2013
crucifiedguy wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be ridiculous . Did he shoot the ATTACKER before or after his head was pounded into the pavement?
I do have to agree with you on one thing here though . Since he had the gun it did put him in the position to defend himself...
But defending oneself means someone else is being on the offense.
or let's ask the question: Did he shoot the Attacker before or after he got out of his vehicle, not identifying himself and pursued the young man? Would it be self defense if Martin smashed his head to the point of death since he was the one being followed? And if the witness to the whole story of what took place was martin?

Since: Nov 12

Sacramento, CA

#163 Jul 20, 2013
antisocial wrote:
If Zimmerman had been a knee ger and that knee ger had been white,they would be praising Zimmerman.YOU FN knee grows are a minority with mojarity rights,you can call us casper,cracker,honkey,whitey,g host,redneck,hillbille and anything you want and nothing is said but oh boy say knee ger or knee grow and its racist even though you knee gers use it yourself!
It all comes down to race,if Zimmerman had shot a white kid it wouldnt even made the news.
maybe not, but most likely the great hero would be sitting in jail.

“Dying 4 ur sins-so tell me”

Since: Jan 09

Fort Worth

#166 Jul 20, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>or let's ask the question: Did he shoot the Attacker before or after he got out of his vehicle, not identifying himself and pursued the young man? Would it be self defense if Martin smashed his head to the point of death since he was the one being followed? And if the witness to the whole story of what took place was martin?
Last I checked it's not against the law to get out of your car. Upon exiting your own vehicle in your own neighborhood identifying who you are is not required nor is it illegal. Following a suspicious person is what neighbor hood watch does and the last I checked following some one is well within the law.

How ever physically attacking anyone and bashing their head IS AGAINST THE LAW and doing it because you are being followed is not a valid lawful reason to become the aggressor.How do you justify that bashing someones head is legal or civil or even acceptable ?
Martin was a participant and witnessed first hand that people are getting tired of being bullied by gangs/thugs and will now stand their ground .Let this be a lesson to other thugs to not attack law abiding citizens as they may be packing and defend themselves with deadly force , which by the way IS WITHIN THE LAW!

Since: Nov 12

Sacramento, CA

#167 Jul 20, 2013
crucifiedguy wrote:
<quoted text>
Last I checked it's not against the law to get out of your car. Upon exiting your own vehicle in your own neighborhood identifying who you are is not required nor is it illegal. Following a suspicious person is what neighbor hood watch does and the last I checked following some one is well within the law.
How ever physically attacking anyone and bashing their head IS AGAINST THE LAW and doing it because you are being followed is not a valid lawful reason to become the aggressor.How do you justify that bashing someones head is legal or civil or even acceptable ?
Martin was a participant and witnessed first hand that people are getting tired of being bullied by gangs/thugs and will now stand their ground .Let this be a lesson to other thugs to not attack law abiding citizens as they may be packing and defend themselves with deadly force , which by the way IS WITHIN THE LAW!
You need to check the rules of any Neighborhood Watch!

“Dying 4 ur sins-so tell me”

Since: Jan 09

Fort Worth

#168 Jul 20, 2013
Sage wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think Zimmerman would have gotten out of his vehicle if he wasn't armed? Would he have been attacked if he hadn't left his vehicle? The honest, logical answer is NO. Many cowards hide behind loaded weapons, and Zimmerman was a coward and no hero. Don't forget that Martin's family are also tax-paying property owners if they lived in the same area that Zimmerman was.
Zimmerman's past history was just as sketchy as Martin's, but Martin will never have a chance to grow up and become a man. To actually be glad a human is dead because of something he MIGHT have done shows an absence of compassion and points to sociopathy. This country certainly doesn't need more sociopaths with loaded weapons.
Many thugs don't think their victims are armed and will shoot them . If being a civilized human being is what you consider a coward then you are insinuating martin was an uncouth neanderthal lacking the ability and the civility to communicate rationally
to solve a problem . Resorting to violence is not legal , productive , nor does it show intelligence. How ever any intelligent person (or coward as you put it ) would understand how to protect themselves from the bully.

Martin was not shot for something he could have done , HE IS DEAD FOR SOMETHING HE DID DO!!!

Is that a problem?

Do you condone the beating of another human for following someone?

Wake up.

Since: Nov 12

Sacramento, CA

#169 Jul 20, 2013
crucifiedguy wrote:
<quoted text>
Martin was not shot for something he could have done , HE IS DEAD FOR SOMETHING HE DID DO!!!
Maybe Martin watches the news and reads about creepy old light skinned fat dudes like the guy that kept the 3 girls locked up for years, or dahlmer or sandusky and when one was approaching him walking home he didn't want to be the next victim. Now if he killed Zimmerman, would it be self defense?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#170 Jul 20, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>Here's what you should have wrote: "Since he was armed it gave him the offensive to be put in a position that he had to defend himself" Had he been without a gun, I doubt he would have acted so brave.
Lol a clear case of projection if ever I saw one.

“Dying 4 ur sins-so tell me”

Since: Jan 09

Fort Worth

#171 Jul 20, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>Maybe Martin watches the news and reads about creepy old light skinned fat dudes like the guy that kept the 3 girls locked up for years, or dahlmer or sandusky and when one was approaching him walking home he didn't want to be the next victim. Now if he killed Zimmerman, would it be self defense?
but none of what you just said is true so the shooter was justified in killing a thug that attacked him. You can what if , and maybe this and whatever else you wanna make up but the fact is a man attacked another man and the man that was attacked LEGALLY shot and killed the attacker.

Whats the message here? If you are a thug and attack a another person there is a possibility you will avoid jail, but this is because you are dead because your victim may have a gun and shoot you dead !
Lesson for law abiding citizens , get you chl , carry your weapon and if a thug ever puts his hand on you or you feel your life is threatened be sure to kill and shoot the thug dead!

Since: Nov 12

Sacramento, CA

#172 Jul 20, 2013
crucifiedguy wrote:
<quoted text>
but none of what you just said is true so the shooter was justified in killing a thug that attacked him. You can what if , and maybe this and whatever else you wanna make up but the fact is a man attacked another man and the man that was attacked LEGALLY shot and killed the attacker.
Whats the message here? If you are a thug and attack a another person there is a possibility you will avoid jail, but this is because you are dead because your victim may have a gun and shoot you dead !
Lesson for law abiding citizens , get you chl , carry your weapon and if a thug ever puts his hand on you or you feel your life is threatened be sure to kill and shoot the thug dead!
In Florida, if Martin had won the fight and killed the fat cop wannabe, then Martin could have screamed self defense. Then would you be standing up for Martin for fighting off this guy that could be the Cleveland kidnapper or uncle Sandusky?

“Dying 4 ur sins-so tell me”

Since: Jan 09

Fort Worth

#173 Jul 20, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>In Florida, if Martin had won the fight and killed the fat cop wannabe, then Martin could have screamed self defense. Then would you be standing up for Martin for fighting off this guy that could be the Cleveland kidnapper or uncle Sandusky?
If my aunt had balls she would be my uncle but she doesn't.
Do you understand?
He didn't win his attack, zimmerman lived , martin died therefore he couldn't scream anything.
And zimmerman isn't any of the people you are speculating . So for condemning a man for something he is not is a very stupid thing for you to suggest .
Remember you said yourself to kill a man for something he could have done is wrong. Well the fuck are you trying to do here?
Admit it this trial was conducted by the corporate media under the direction of the military industrial complex and the idiots in power to support gun control and sway the entertained , dumbed down conformist into thinking our constitution should be ignored . As far as I can see you are trying to do the same thing .
If not what is the purpose of your ideology you are promoting here?,besides the hate of zimmerman.

“B. Hussein Obama---”

Since: Nov 09

---CHINA'S BEST FRIEND

#174 Jul 20, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>In Florida, if Martin had won the fight and killed the fat cop wannabe,
But he didn't, so rather than speculating with "what ifs" how about you stick with the facts at hand? Are the facts too distasteful for you? Is that why you choose to ignore them? You're no different from a born-again fundie christian who lies for his religion while condemning everyone else for their disbelief.

George Zimmerman was found not guilty by a jury of his peers, yet the Black Liberal Establishment, led by sphincters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and the New Black Panters, are attempting to rewrite the history of what actually happened by declaring Trayvon Martin a victim of white on black violence, and declaring that Martin's civil rights had been violated somehow while he was in the act of basically blindsiding Zimmerman and punching him in the face, and then slamming Zimmerman's head against a sidewalk. This is how you believe Martin was a "victim."

By the way; can you, as a member of the Liberal Establishment, explain to me how "n***er" (a word that Topix will not allow me to use in *any* context) is a racist term, but "creepy-assed cracker" is not? Care to enlighten us?

I'd sure like to know what the hell is happening to my country. On top of the Zimmerman case, now the one surviving Boston Bomber is being treated like a rock star and a poor innocent victim by Rolling Stone magazine, while they attempt to ignore that he planted bombs in a terrorist attack that killed two and injured and maimed hundreds. The liberal fucktards at Rolling Stone don't want us thinking about that.

If the Liberal Establishment hates this country so much, why don't they leave? Go live in Canada or Cuba, or Venezuela.

Since: Nov 12

Sacramento, CA

#175 Jul 20, 2013
crucifiedguy wrote:
<quoted text>
If my aunt had balls she would be my uncle but she doesn't.
Do you understand?
He didn't win his attack, zimmerman lived , martin died therefore he couldn't scream anything.
And zimmerman isn't any of the people you are speculating . So for condemning a man for something he is not is a very stupid thing for you to suggest .
Remember you said yourself to kill a man for something he could have done is wrong. Well the fuck are you trying to do here?
Admit it this trial was conducted by the corporate media under the direction of the military industrial complex and the idiots in power to support gun control and sway the entertained , dumbed down conformist into thinking our constitution should be ignored . As far as I can see you are trying to do the same thing .
If not what is the purpose of your ideology you are promoting here?,besides the hate of zimmerman.
What did I speculate about the great Zimmerman? Martin used the stand your ground law, had he killed the wannabe cop, self defense. No witness saw who started it, the living person wins.

Since: Nov 12

Sacramento, CA

#176 Jul 20, 2013
Brand New Libertarian wrote:
<quoted text>
But he didn't, so rather than speculating with "what ifs" how about you stick with the facts at hand?
The facts are in Zimmerman's hand, the only witness never saw who started the fight. So my speculation comes into play saying had it been reversed, then we could say the facts are in Martin's hand. Would you stand up for Martin like you are for the fat cop wannabe?

Since: Nov 12

Sacramento, CA

#177 Jul 20, 2013
Brand New Libertarian wrote:
<quoted text>
George Zimmerman was found not guilty by a jury of his peers
and OJ was found innocent. What the courts decide are the so called evidence and how that relates to the law. Doesn't mean you are guilty or not guilty, just means by the law. There have been people found guilty that were on death row before finding they were innocent. It's not a perfect system. In this case, the prosecution messed up with higher charges, when it should have been manslaughter from the start.

Since: Nov 12

Sacramento, CA

#178 Jul 20, 2013
Brand New Libertarian wrote:
<quoted text>
George Zimmerman was found not guilty by a jury of his peers, yet the Black Liberal Establishment, led by sphincters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and the New Black Panters, are attempting to rewrite the history of what actually happened by declaring Trayvon Martin a victim of white on black violence, and declaring that Martin's civil rights had been violated somehow while he was in the act of basically blindsiding Zimmerman and punching him in the face, and then slamming Zimmerman's head against a sidewalk. This is how you believe Martin was a "victim."
Most people of any race don't buy into what not so sharpton or jackson says. It's sad this case is so national. I believe both Martin and Georgie could have prevented this. We do know Zimmerman got out of his vehicle....would he do the same after this trial? That was a mistake, a bad decision. Would he do that if he wasn't packing? If you were a Black kid walking home, and some fat white dude gets out of his truck starts walking towards you, what would you do? Could this be uncle Jerry coming? Martin had ever right to crack the head, he was defending himself.

Since: Nov 12

Sacramento, CA

#179 Jul 20, 2013
Brand New Libertarian wrote:
<quoted text>
By the way; can you, as a member of the Liberal Establishment, explain to me how "n***er" (a word that Topix will not allow me to use in *any* context) is a racist term, but "creepy-assed cracker" is not? Care to enlighten us?
I'd sure like to know what the hell is happening to my country. On top of the Zimmerman case, now the one surviving Boston Bomber is being treated like a rock star and a poor innocent victim by Rolling Stone magazine, while they attempt to ignore that he planted bombs in a terrorist attack that killed two and injured and maimed hundreds. The liberal fucktards at Rolling Stone don't want us thinking about that.
If the Liberal Establishment hates this country so much, why don't they leave? Go live in Canada or Cuba, or Venezuela.
I can't, because I'm not a member of the Liberal or tea party establishment. I'm Independent. Take each case separately. I think outside the box. I would guess we eat crackers, but the N word is only used in that manner. What does a magazine have to do with your country? Do you want censorship? Most of us don't buy that rag or a magazine no matter who is on the cover, I say stop buying it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Das Leitbild der Aztec Group 7 min frankgory 1
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 8 min Jac 99,309
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 10 min Catcher1 830,710
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 11 min Just Think 585,969
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 41 min RiccardoFire 3,671
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 57 min uIDIOTRACEMAKEWOR... 176,578
Play "end of the word" (Jan '11) 1 hr Al Capone 5,823
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 3 hr Remnant of 144000 611,950
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 7 hr lovewithin 40,230
More from around the web