Trayvon Martin

[mindmyp's_n_q's]

Mac posed a very interesting question towards the end of her post and during this and subsequent posts you have failed to answer her question. It was a legitimate question.

Why not answer it...?

I know not directed at me but what is the question?

is it "He would not have died had he been white"?

 

[hilts]

I think you post shit. You really want this guy to be seen as a victim of circumstance or the race card and that pisses me off.
The trial and acquittal now gives a momentum for your desire to see that.

A 17 year old lad died and yet nobody is to blame??

Sorry but you are a complete idiot, you make shit up, you lie, you don't have the decency to read peoples posts properly or understand what they are trying to say or you decide to just ignore it, you don't have a clue what the fuck i think but as per usual you make assumptions, you're obsessed by race on this case not me.

You have made your mind up on Zimmerman, you have made your mind up on me, in both cases you have fuck all to back it up with, surprise surprise

That is why you are an idiot, can i back it up? one just has to read your posts on here

And you have a very right wing mindset that I find abhorrent.
You seek to find an excuse for Zimmerman or, at the very least, stick by what the Court said. Because it is comfortable for your preconceptions.
You won't change my opinion because I stand by what I said; that lad would not have died if he had been white.

You're doing it again fool, read your post again maybe two or three times, see the stupidity of it, if you're capable that is

 

[Bigga]

Mac posed a very interesting question towards the end of her post and during this and subsequent posts you have failed to answer her question. It was a legitimate question.

Why not answer it...?

I know not directed at me but what is the question?

is it "He would not have died had he been white"?

Um...

Within the specific quoted section is Mac's question, right at the end.

Alright then...

 

[mindmyp's_n_q's]

Mac posed a very interesting question towards the end of her post and during this and subsequent posts you have failed to answer her question. It was a legitimate question.

Why not answer it...?

I know not directed at me but what is the question?

is it "He would not have died had he been white"?

Um...

Within the specific quoted section is Mac's question, right at the end.

Alright then...

I completely missed that to be honest. I see why my post got the "are you mental" response.

 

[hilts]

The other poster said that his previous calls were predominantly concerned with black lads. Not 'all' I admit but certainly more than would be the norm according to that same poster.

Anyway, what's your problem with this case? He was acquitted wasn't he? Is it that you feel the 'race' card was called and so you need to defend?

Genuine question.

So by saying ALL you were being dishonest then nice one, i am not defending anyone as i have said many times, from memory you have said Zimmerman got enjoyment from his actions, that he racially stereotyped Martin, He has a bee in his bonnet about blacks, and all his phone calls were about blacks.

I keep questioning you about how you have come to this conclusion and what facts you have

so far you have managed - he followed a black kid(later admitting he may have done the same with a white kid) and the only other was a downright lie

my interest in this thread is how people seem to make up their minds one way or the other without any reasonable info

all you have done is type stuff you can't back up, eventually admit you can't back it up, and then post more shit and and away we go again

Mac posed a very interesting question towards the end of her post and during this and subsequent posts you have failed to answer her question. It was a legitimate question.

Why not answer it...?

Tell me which one fella and i will, i have gone past the point of getting into specifics with her because she is sadly lacking in any sort of logical thought

 

[Skashion]

Juror B37 speaks out and pretty much makes her and the rest of the jury look like idiots.

Firstly, it's clear from her that she was willing to take George Zimmerman (or "Georgie" as she lovingly referred to him - fook me, "boy of colour" for Trayvon) at his word. For God sake, he killed someone. Don't assume he's telling the truth because the other guy isn't around to speak for himself and he's going down for twenty years if you find him guilty. This is exactly why burden of proof should be flipped in these cases. An adversarial justice system doesn't work when the other person cannot speak for themselves.

Secondly, she reveals the jury never discussed race as a factor. How could you not even discuss it when it was wholly relevant to the charges being brought?

I really don't understand how anyone could talk about George Zimmerman with affection. He shot someone dead for looking suspicious, quite likely because they were black, and then said it was "God's plan". He hasn't showed a hint of remorse for his monumental fuck up in assuming there was something wrong with Trayvon, he genuinely believes his behaviour bears no responsibility for what happened despite now knowing Trayvon was out getting skittles and iced tea for his younger brother and was visiting his father who lived in the community for many years, and is now carrying around the same weapon he used to kill Trayvon Martin. The guy is sickeningly cold, and this woman has a loving caress in her voice for this guy? What a stupid fucker, who'll probably end up a very rich woman as well, for being a dimwitted fool.

 

[mackenzie]

Sorry but you are a complete idiot, you make shit up, you lie, you don't have the decency to read peoples posts properly or understand what they are trying to say or you decide to just ignore it, you don't have a clue what the fuck i think but as per usual you make assumptions, you're obsessed by race on this case not me.

You have made your mind up on Zimmerman, you have made your mind up on me, in both cases you have fuck all to back it up with, surprise surprise

That is why you are an idiot, can i back it up? one just has to read your posts on here

And you have a very right wing mindset that I find abhorrent.
You seek to find an excuse for Zimmerman or, at the very least, stick by what the Court said. Because it is comfortable for your preconceptions.
You won't change my opinion because I stand by what I said; that lad would not have died if he had been white.

You're doing it again fool, read your post again maybe two or three times, see the stupidity of it, if you're capable that is

I'm perfectly capable of reading thank you.

Most of what you post on BM smacks of a right winger who will take the stance that best suits that.
I don't, and that's the difference.

 

[hilts]

And you have a very right wing mindset that I find abhorrent.
You seek to find an excuse for Zimmerman or, at the very least, stick by what the Court said. Because it is comfortable for your preconceptions.
You won't change my opinion because I stand by what I said; that lad would not have died if he had been white.

You're doing it again fool, read your post again maybe two or three times, see the stupidity of it, if you're capable that is

I'm perfectly capable of reading thank you.

Most of what you post on BM smacks of a right winger who will take the stance that best suits that.
I don't, and that's the difference.

You got me bang to rights, by me saying we don't have enough facts in this case to make a judgement that suits my evil far right agenda of not jumping to conclusions

in order

communism,socialism,right wing, fascists, not jumping to conclusions

 

[mackenzie]

You're doing it again fool, read your post again maybe two or three times, see the stupidity of it, if you're capable that is

I'm perfectly capable of reading thank you.

Most of what you post on BM smacks of a right winger who will take the stance that best suits that.
I don't, and that's the difference.

You got me bang to rights, by me saying we don't have enough facts in this case to make a judgement that suits my evil far right agenda of not jumping to conclusions

in order

communism,socialism,right wing, fascists, not jumping to conclusions

I agree there aren't enough facts for a jury to convict, I've never disputed that.
However, your replies on other topics have led me to believe that you sought to defend Zimmerman with a particular zeal.

Why I don't know.

The only conclusion I can come to, from your posts generally on this forum, is that you sought to find an excuse for him because that fitted your mindset.
You defended him well, based on the nicieties of the legalities.

I think you look at things in a different way than I do, that's all. A very dry and accepting way.

 

[hilts]

I'm perfectly capable of reading thank you.

Most of what you post on BM smacks of a right winger who will take the stance that best suits that.
I don't, and that's the difference.

You got me bang to rights, by me saying we don't have enough facts in this case to make a judgement that suits my evil far right agenda of not jumping to conclusions

in order

communism,socialism,right wing, fascists, not jumping to conclusions

I agree there aren't enough facts for a jury to convict, I've never disputed that.
However, your replies on other topics have led me to believe that you sought to defend Zimmerman with a particular zeal.

Why I don't know.

The only conclusion I can come to, from your posts generally on this forum, is that you sought to find an excuse for him because that fitted your mindset.
You defended him well, based on the nicieties of the legalities.

I think you look at things in a different way than I do, that's all. A very dry and accepting way.

I haven't defended him though have i(i never get bored of repeating this honest), i don''t accept things without facts that's the whole point, you have, you can't see it, i have really tried with you, i could have just ignored you ages ago and saved the hassle

read your posts again and read mine, see what i am trying to say, you have made some pretty silly leaps on this thread, ran out of things to argue about because you can't back it up and are now trying to use other threads and politics as a sidestep

you are either desperate to get out of it or are just plain stupid, i don't which, i could guess but as you know i don't do that

 

[johnmc]

Juror B37 speaks out and pretty much makes her and the rest of the jury look like idiots.

Firstly, it's clear from her that she was willing to take George Zimmerman (or "Georgie" as she lovingly referred to him - fook me, "boy of colour" for Trayvon) at his word. For God sake, he killed someone. Don't assume he's telling the truth because the other guy isn't around to speak for himself and he's going down for twenty years if you find him guilty. This is exactly why burden of proof should be flipped in these cases. An adversarial justice system doesn't work when the other person cannot speak for themselves.

Secondly, she reveals the jury never discussed race as a factor. How could you not even discuss it when it was wholly relevant to the charges being brought?

I really don't understand how anyone could talk about George Zimmerman with affection. He shot someone dead for looking suspicious, quite likely because they were black, and then said it was "God's plan". He hasn't showed a hint of remorse for his monumental fuck up in assuming there was something wrong with Trayvon, he genuinely believes his behaviour bears no responsibility for what happened despite now knowing Trayvon was out getting skittles and iced tea for his younger brother and was visiting his father who lived in the community for many years, and is now carrying around the same weapon he used to kill Trayvon Martin. The guy is sickeningly cold, and this woman has a loving caress in her voice for this guy? What a stupid fucker, who'll probably end up a very rich woman as well, for being a dimwitted fool.

Is this true? Especially the Georgie and boy of colour elements?? Thats seriously fucked up if so.

 

[Skashion]

Is this true? Especially the Georgie and boy of colour elements?? Thats seriously fucked up if so.

Yes, it's true. If you want to confirm it, simply Google it.

 

[hilts]

Juror B37 speaks out and pretty much makes her and the rest of the jury look like idiots.

Firstly, it's clear from her that she was willing to take George Zimmerman (or "Georgie" as she lovingly referred to him - fook me, "boy of colour" for Trayvon) at his word. For God sake, he killed someone. Don't assume he's telling the truth because the other guy isn't around to speak for himself and he's going down for twenty years if you find him guilty. This is exactly why burden of proof should be flipped in these cases. An adversarial justice system doesn't work when the other person cannot speak for themselves.

Secondly, she reveals the jury never discussed race as a factor. How could you not even discuss it when it was wholly relevant to the charges being brought?

I really don't understand how anyone could talk about George Zimmerman with affection. He shot someone dead for looking suspicious, quite likely because they were black, and then said it was "God's plan". He hasn't showed a hint of remorse for his monumental fuck up in assuming there was something wrong with Trayvon, he genuinely believes his behaviour bears no responsibility for what happened despite now knowing Trayvon was out getting skittles and iced tea for his younger brother and was visiting his father who lived in the community for many years, and is now carrying around the same weapon he used to kill Trayvon Martin. The guy is sickeningly cold, and this woman has a loving caress in her voice for this guy? What a stupid fucker, who'll probably end up a very rich woman as well, for being a dimwitted fool.

Is this true? Especially the Georgie and boy of colour elements?? Thats seriously fucked up if so.

I haven't managed to get round to this part of the case yet, does anyone know how this jury was picked? is six the usual number? if she was calling him georgie and said boy of colour how did she get on the jury? what was the prosecution doing?

 

[mackenzie]

You got me bang to rights, by me saying we don't have enough facts in this case to make a judgement that suits my evil far right agenda of not jumping to conclusions

in order

communism,socialism,right wing, fascists, not jumping to conclusions

I agree there aren't enough facts for a jury to convict, I've never disputed that.
However, your replies on other topics have led me to believe that you sought to defend Zimmerman with a particular zeal.

Why I don't know.

The only conclusion I can come to, from your posts generally on this forum, is that you sought to find an excuse for him because that fitted your mindset.
You defended him well, based on the nicieties of the legalities.

I think you look at things in a different way than I do, that's all. A very dry and accepting way.

I haven't defended him though have i(i never get bored of repeating this honest), i don''t accept things without facts that's the whole point, you have, you can't see it, i have really tried with you, i could have just ignored you ages ago and saved the hassle

read your posts again and read mine, see what i am trying to say, you have made some pretty silly leaps on this thread, ran out of things to argue about because you can't back it up and are now trying to use other threads and politics as a sidestep

you are either desperate to get out of it or are just plain stupid, i don't which, i could guess but as you know i don't do that

I think we just approach things from different angles, that's all.

I understand you dissecting the limited evidence that was there and I do understand that was all the jury could base their opinion on too.

However (draw a deep breath here), I can't help but feel that this lad died completely unnecessarily. And that makes me angry.

Some have suggested it was his own fault. WTF?

 

[SWP's back]

Is this true? Especially the Georgie and boy of colour elements?? Thats seriously fucked up if so.

Yes, it's true. If you want to confirm it, simply Google it.

God bless the jury system eh.

 

[Skashion]

It's important to note that four of the jurors have distanced themselves from Juror B37 and her Anderson Cooper interview.

 

[Phil Meup]

Is this true? Especially the Georgie and boy of colour elements?? Thats seriously fucked up if so.

Yes, it's true. If you want to confirm it, simply Google it.

God bless the jury system eh.

I've been on a jury twice (though thankfully not terrible cases like this) & it's amazing how the barristers etc can twist things.
This really is a tragic case. Seems to me like someone got shot in cold blood. Shows how racist the American south is.

 

[johnmc]

Is this true? Especially the Georgie and boy of colour elements?? Thats seriously fucked up if so.

Yes, it's true. If you want to confirm it, simply Google it.

Googled it. Can't see any reference to what you say to be honest from the first 5 articles regarding juror b37.

I don't doubt you. You are a respected poster. I just disbelieved that could reasonably be the case and I can't see it is.

 

[hilts]

I agree there aren't enough facts for a jury to convict, I've never disputed that.
However, your replies on other topics have led me to believe that you sought to defend Zimmerman with a particular zeal.

Why I don't know.

The only conclusion I can come to, from your posts generally on this forum, is that you sought to find an excuse for him because that fitted your mindset.
You defended him well, based on the nicieties of the legalities.

I think you look at things in a different way than I do, that's all. A very dry and accepting way.

I haven't defended him though have i(i never get bored of repeating this honest), i don''t accept things without facts that's the whole point, you have, you can't see it, i have really tried with you, i could have just ignored you ages ago and saved the hassle

read your posts again and read mine, see what i am trying to say, you have made some pretty silly leaps on this thread, ran out of things to argue about because you can't back it up and are now trying to use other threads and politics as a sidestep

you are either desperate to get out of it or are just plain stupid, i don't which, i could guess but as you know i don't do that

I think we just approach things from different angles, that's all.

I understand you dissecting the limited evidence that was there and I do understand that was all the jury could base their opinion on too.

However (draw a deep breath here), I can't help but feel that this lad died completely unnecessarily. And that makes me angry.

Some have suggested it was his own fault. WTF?

And as i haven't said it was his fault and you are pretty much agreeing with me for my reasons for being more open minded than some, after much posts we have got there

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

The kid was killed because of the colour of his skin.

There's not really any other way of putting it.

White America's perverse revenge for the Rodney King trials and the riots that followed back in 92 .

From day one there was a horrible 'playing the race card' accusation that reeked of 'oh here they go, playing the victims as usual, well not this time...'