This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="lostrib"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] What do you mean?AdamPA1006
a woman's baby was shot in the head by two thugs who robbed her, that were black
and the white red headed guy that was attacked and left to die in the middle of a highway by a group of 4 black men. One might say a modern day "lynching" of a white man. No one notices or cares gets no attention. No one even cares about everyday attrociies of black on black crime. thats sad too. Are you Adam from TDH?
[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]
[QUOTE="gamerguru100"] LOL, Zimmerman is half-Peruvian and half-German. Racist. :PKingKinect
This thread is now about Hitler and Nazis.
I just realised. If Hilter had a son with a Peruvian woman he would be just like George Zimmerman. Where did the nazis hide after WW2? South America! OMG mind blown Zimmerman is basically Hitler's son. Prove me wrong or else I'm going to start talking about Bob Dole again.Â
Hitler was Austrian.
Ok this is getting out of hand, and these bringing up black crimes just to show that blacks attack white is not helping. Violence is violence regardless of colour.
Zimmerman is as white as Obama is. So why does everybody say that this is a white on black crime?
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]
[QUOTE="DevilMightCry"] I'm not. People have vested too much emotion into looking everything from a lense of race, while ignoring uncomfortable truths and facts. DevilMightCry
You're the one that doesn't look at people as individuals and puts an extraordinary amount of effort and energy into trying to make a case against black people, often without evidence, so that's rather hypocritical.
This again? Do you see such evidence here? Do you not see I am in agreement with the President? Yeah, I am so racist I am praising Obama, who I think is a lousy President. Yeah, totally... So when I cite FBI statistics, I am racist for implying... what exactly? You're the one that's interpreting it that way because you don't want to talk about the uncomfortable truth, which is that there is a rampant problem in the black community with crime, which the President himself cited, which creates a perception that all blacks are like that, which is bogus. It doesn't matter though, because Statistically, you would be more likely to get robbed, shot, burglarized etc by an African American, hence most "white" people's reaction. But the reality is, when someone brings this up (and when I did, I specifically said it is a problem with culture, not race) you crucify them, instead engage in the conversation. You're not posting anything that most folks don't know already. It's a well known fact that crime violent crime (murder primarily) is mostly prevalent in Black communities (all over the world, not just the US). It's also true that scholars and academic studies have illustrated that violent crime has a direct link to poverty and institutional discrimination. People know this. Now you're suggesting something different; something inherently cultural. Nothing wrong with that, except you haven't bothered to back up such a theory. You have also proven yourself to be dishonest with your culture reference, stating that in other countries, Blacks get on fine and that this is something specific to the US. But then you list the crime activity committed by Blacks.....in London. So what are you really saying?
The media is largely to blame. I think history will look back on the whole thing as a shameful media hype story, they reported it as a white on black killing of an innocent young boy. It was in fact a hispanic killing of an innocent young boy in dubious circumstances. Had Florida's ridiculous laws not allowed Zimmerman to walk off scot free at first without so much as a trial I don't think this ever would have been a big deal.Zimmerman is as white as Obama is. So why does everybody say that this is a white on black crime?
sonicare
[QUOTE="sonicare"]The media is largely to blame. I think history will look back on the whole thing as a shameful media hype story, they reported it as a white on black killing of an innocent young boy. It was in fact a hispanic killing of an innocent young boy in dubious circumstances. Had Florida's ridiculous laws not allowed Zimmerman to walk off scot free at first without so much as a trial I don't think this ever would have been a big deal.Innocent? On what do you base the comment he was innocent? How can one be considered innocent under dubious circumstances? If proof existed that he was innocent then the trial would have had a different outcome. As is....there is no evidence Martin was innocent. As for your comments about Florida.....the case was NOT stand your ground. It was self defense.....I'd imagine most...if not all....states have self defense statutes. For someone that said they were going into law....you sure seem confused by it.Zimmerman is as white as Obama is. So why does everybody say that this is a white on black crime?
Ninja-Hippo
[QUOTE="sonicare"]The media is largely to blame. I think history will look back on the whole thing as a shameful media hype story, they reported it as a white on black killing of an innocent young boy. It was in fact a hispanic killing of an innocent young boy in dubious circumstances. Had Florida's ridiculous laws not allowed Zimmerman to walk off scot free at first without so much as a trial I don't think this ever would have been a big deal. The court has declared Treyvon was not in fact innocent, hence why Zimmerman was declared innocent of murder on account of self-defense. I hate how racist people keep declaring him innocent simply because he is black and was killed by a non-black man. Not everyone black person killed by a non-black person is a hate crime.Zimmerman is as white as Obama is. So why does everybody say that this is a white on black crime?
Ninja-Hippo
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="sonicare"]The media is largely to blame. I think history will look back on the whole thing as a shameful media hype story, they reported it as a white on black killing of an innocent young boy. It was in fact a hispanic killing of an innocent young boy in dubious circumstances. Had Florida's ridiculous laws not allowed Zimmerman to walk off scot free at first without so much as a trial I don't think this ever would have been a big deal.Innocent? On what do you base the comment he was innocent? How can one be considered innocent under dubious circumstances? If proof existed that he was innocent then the trial would have had a different outcome. As is....there is no evidence Martin was innocent. As for your comments about Florida.....the case was NOT stand your ground. It was self defense.....I'd imagine most...if not all....states have self defense statutes. For someone that said they were going into law....you sure seem confused by it. I'm not going into law, I am in law. Please try and go through one thread without ridiculous levels of anal devastation. He was an innocent young kid because he was just walking, was not on drugs and did not have something suspicious in his hands as Zimmerman believed. He was not a burglar and had nothing to do with any burglaries in the area. He was just walking. The whole chain of events transpired because a kid doing nothing wrong was believed to be doing something wrong. In this respect, he was innocent. Had he just been left alone, none of this would have happened. The dubious circumstances I refer to are how the two individuals came to blows. We do not know. The media has painted the situation more black and white, but in truth, nobody knows how the two ended up fighting and nobody witnessed the shooting. Innocence is presumed. There is no evidence at all that Treyvon was doing anything at all that day other than walking along and eating some skittles. Had evidence come to light that he was a burglar or a career criminal I'd be less sympathetic, but that is not the case. He was a young kid just walking along doing nothing of danger or irritation to anybody. Finally as for Florida; Zimmerman was originally let off without charge or trial. It was only after the giant backlash that he was charged and had to face a jury. Had that backlash not happened, he would have been able to shoot and kill a kid and just walk away from it. In other words; exactly what I just said.Zimmerman is as white as Obama is. So why does everybody say that this is a white on black crime?
LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="sonicare"]The media is largely to blame. I think history will look back on the whole thing as a shameful media hype story, they reported it as a white on black killing of an innocent young boy. It was in fact a hispanic killing of an innocent young boy in dubious circumstances. Had Florida's ridiculous laws not allowed Zimmerman to walk off scot free at first without so much as a trial I don't think this ever would have been a big deal. The court has declared Treyvon was not in fact innocent, hence why Zimmerman was declared innocent of murder on account of self-defense. I hate how racist people keep declaring him innocent simply because he is black and was killed by a non-black man. Not everyone black person killed by a non-black person is a hate crime. He was innocent prior to the chain of events which began with Zimmerman following him. After that things became dubious, as I just said. Had Zimmerman just left him alone, none of this would have happened. This is what I mean by innocent. He was doing nothing wrong. He was not on drugs. He was not up to no good. He was just walking along eating some skittles. Once the two got fighting, nobody knows what happened. Maybe Trayvon did brutally attack him. Maybe Zimmerman confronted him. We don't know. Hence - dubious. You've also just completely pulled the rest of your post out of your ass, so I wont even bother addressing it.Zimmerman is as white as Obama is. So why does everybody say that this is a white on black crime?
ferrari2001
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] The media is largely to blame. I think history will look back on the whole thing as a shameful media hype story, they reported it as a white on black killing of an innocent young boy. It was in fact a hispanic killing of an innocent young boy in dubious circumstances. Had Florida's ridiculous laws not allowed Zimmerman to walk off scot free at first without so much as a trial I don't think this ever would have been a big deal.Ninja-HippoInnocent? On what do you base the comment he was innocent? How can one be considered innocent under dubious circumstances? If proof existed that he was innocent then the trial would have had a different outcome. As is....there is no evidence Martin was innocent. As for your comments about Florida.....the case was NOT stand your ground. It was self defense.....I'd imagine most...if not all....states have self defense statutes. For someone that said they were going into law....you sure seem confused by it. I'm not going into law, I am in law. Please try and go through one thread without ridiculous levels of anal devastation. He was an innocent young kid because he was just walking, was not on drugs and did not have something suspicious in his hands as Zimmerman believed. He was not a burglar and had nothing to do with any burglaries in the area. He was just walking. The whole chain of events transpired because a kid doing nothing wrong was believed to be doing something wrong. In this respect, he was innocent. Had he just been left alone, none of this would have happened. The dubious circumstances I refer to are how the two individuals came to blows. We do not know. The media has painted the situation more black and white, but in truth, nobody knows how the two ended up fighting and nobody witnessed the shooting. Innocence is presumed. There is no evidence at all that Treyvon was doing anything at all that day other than walking along and eating some skittles. Had evidence come to light that he was a burglar or a career criminal I'd be less sympathetic, but that is not the case. He was a young kid just walking along doing nothing of danger or irritation to anybody. Finally as for Florida; Zimmerman was originally let off without charge or trial. It was only after the giant backlash that he was charged and had to face a jury. Had that backlash not happened, he would have been able to shoot and kill a kid and just walk away from it. In other words; exactly what I just said. Actually marijuana was in his system....and really neither of those two things have anything to do with whether he was innocent in this case or not. The courts decided, in fact, he was not an innocent here.
Â
Also if we're going to be honest about the kid....we cannot say he was not a burglar. He was found with burglarly tools in his mother's town. Whether or not he did so here.....we don't know. Though walking on lawns and looking in windows is not the way most people go home. They tend to walk....you know on the sidewalk.
Â
Zimmerman wasn't arrested because there was no evidence that he committed a crime. And after special interests groups whined and cried out....the city had to pay for a trial...which backed up why the cops didn't arrest him.\\
Â
Can you go through one thread without personal attacks on people you disagree with? Because everytime I see you in a discussion...you're insulting the other person. As for being "in law"...study up. It can only help.
Actually no, marijuana was not in his system and we've already been over this in other threads so you're very much already aware that the levels of THC in his blood were only 1.5 nanograms, compared to 14 nanograms which is the level typically found in a sober individual who frequently smoked weed. So 14 is sober. And he was 1.5; ie completely and utterly negligible and consistent with a person who smoked a joint *weeks ago*. So no, conclusively and actually, he was not on drugs. I only invoke personal attacks with yourself because you're an asshole, you should know this by now. As for him walking up to houses and looking in the windows, this is not a fact at all but just one side of testimony. We do not know what happened that day. Hence why it was dubious circumstances. None of this pointless argument (as per usual) has changed my belief that had Zimmerman left him alone none of this would have happened and he would have simply gone about his business as he already was. Hence, in my view, he was an innocent kid who ended up dead for no good reason.Actually marijuana was in his system....and really neither of those two things have anything to do with whether he was innocent in this case or not. The courts decided, in fact, he was not an innocent here.
Â
Also if we're going to be honest about the kid....we cannot say he was not a burglar. He was found with burglarly tools in his mother's town. Whether or not he did so here.....we don't know. Though walking on lawns and looking in windows is not the way most people go home. They tend to walk....you know on the sidewalk.
Â
Zimmerman wasn't arrested because there was no evidence that he committed a crime. And after special interests groups whined and cried out....the city had to pay for a trial...which backed up why the cops didn't arrest him.\\
Â
Can you go through one thread without personal attacks on people you disagree with? Because everytime I see you in a discussion...you're insulting the other person. As for being "in law"...study up. It can only help.
LJS9502_basic
35 years ago Obama would have attacked George Zimmerman for following him?
In that case 35 years ago he would have deserved to eat a slug.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Actually no, marijuana was not in his system and we've already been over this in other threads so you're very much already aware that the levels of THC in his blood were only 1.5 nanograms, compared to 14 nanograms which is the level typically found in a sober individual who frequently smoked weed. So 14 is sober. And he was 1.5; ie completely and utterly negligible and consistent with a person who smoked a joint *weeks ago*. So no, conclusively and actually, he was not on drugs. I only invoke personal attacks with yourself because you're an asshole, you should know this by now. As for him walking up to houses and looking in the windows, this is not a fact at all but just one side of testimony. We do not know what happened that day. Hence why it was dubious circumstances. None of this pointless argument (as per usual) has changed my belief that had Zimmerman left him alone none of this would have happened and he would have simply gone about his business as he already was. Hence, in my view, he was an innocent kid who ended up dead for no good reason. That's in his system dude. Hence...he used drugs. Which you seem to equate to being innocent when not done. Thus...your sentence was wrong. In your view...to hell with the facts......you associate yourself with Martin and thus he was an angel on earth. Doesn't matter if he tried to kill someone...he was innocent I tell you....innocent.Actually marijuana was in his system....and really neither of those two things have anything to do with whether he was innocent in this case or not. The courts decided, in fact, he was not an innocent here.
Â
Also if we're going to be honest about the kid....we cannot say he was not a burglar. He was found with burglarly tools in his mother's town. Whether or not he did so here.....we don't know. Though walking on lawns and looking in windows is not the way most people go home. They tend to walk....you know on the sidewalk.
Â
Zimmerman wasn't arrested because there was no evidence that he committed a crime. And after special interests groups whined and cried out....the city had to pay for a trial...which backed up why the cops didn't arrest him.\\
Â
Can you go through one thread without personal attacks on people you disagree with? Because everytime I see you in a discussion...you're insulting the other person. As for being "in law"...study up. It can only help.
Ninja-Hippo
That's in his system dude. Hence...he used drugs. Which you seem to equate to being innocent when not done. Thus...your sentence was wrong. In your view...to hell with the facts......you associate yourself with Martin and thus he was an angel on earth. Doesn't matter if he tried to kill someone...he was innocent I tell you....innocent. LJS9502_basicHe was not on drugs at the time. He had levels of THC in his system consistent with a person who had smoked weed some weeks ago. It was 1.5, nearly ten times smaller than the amount in a completely sober person.
Â
I say again, in plain simple english, Trayvon Martin was not on drugs. Trayvon Martin was not on drugs. Trayvon Martin was not on drugs.Â
Â
I've been very clear that he was innocent prior to the chain of events that unfolded after Zimmerman decided to take action. After that things are dubious. I have even chastised the media for failing to highlight the dubious nature of events and for instead painting it as a white on black killing. Again, I have said this in plain simple English, but as we've already established - you're a ****ing idiot.
None of this pointless argument (as per usual) has changed my belief that had Zimmerman left him alone none of this would have happened and he would have simply gone about his business as he already was. Hence, in my view, he was an innocent kid who ended up dead for no good reason. Ninja-Hippo
You're blaming the victim.
Is there something wrong with following someone you deem suspicious or possibly a burglar?
And if the suspicious person then takes offense to being followed and attacks you, YOU are in the wrong?
That whole line of thinking is wrong.
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]None of this pointless argument (as per usual) has changed my belief that had Zimmerman left him alone none of this would have happened and he would have simply gone about his business as he already was. Hence, in my view, he was an innocent kid who ended up dead for no good reason. LazySloth718
You're blaming the victim.
Is there something wrong with following someone you deem suspicious or possibly a burglar?
And if the suspicious person then takes offense to being followed and attacks you, YOU are in the wrong?
That whole line of thinking is wrong.
We do not know that he took offense and attacked him. We do not know what happened, because the other side of the story is dead. I do not think any random idiot should be able to patrol the streets and follow a kid he deems to be suspicious with a handgun in his possession. Personally I just dont buy Zimmerman's account that he followed him then Trayvon just attacked him out of nowhere. I believe there was much more of a confrontation there, but it's just my personal bias. We will never know what actually happened. I think people should be careful about just blindly accepting Zimmerman's account as factual and calling him the 'victim'. That doesn't mean you need to jump over to accepting the other side of the tale as fact either, by any means - and that's what the media has certainly done - but Zimmerman's word should not be allowed to be asserted as the factual account of what happened that day. If the media did it's job it would be pointing out that nobody knows what happened and the race-baiting side of things is purely conjecture and assumption.Despite it being a political speech, it does seem heartfelt. And even if you don't believe he's being sincere, the message itself is a good one.
He was not on drugs at the time. He had levels of THC in his system consistent with a person who had smoked weed some weeks ago. It was 1.5, nearly ten times smaller than the amount in a completely sober person.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] That's in his system dude. Hence...he used drugs. Which you seem to equate to being innocent when not done. Thus...your sentence was wrong. In your view...to hell with the facts......you associate yourself with Martin and thus he was an angel on earth. Doesn't matter if he tried to kill someone...he was innocent I tell you....innocent. Ninja-Hippo
Â
I say again, in plain simple english, Trayvon Martin was not on drugs. Trayvon Martin was not on drugs. Trayvon Martin was not on drugs.Â
Â
I've been very clear that he was innocent prior to the chain of events that unfolded after Zimmerman decided to take action. After that things are dubious. I have even chastised the media for failing to highlight the dubious nature of events and for instead painting it as a white on black killing. Again, I have said this in plain simple English, but as we've already established - you're a ****ing idiot.
From the autopsy.... Toxicology tests found elements of the drug in the teenager's chest blood -- 1.5 nanograms per milliliter of one type (THC), as well as 7.3 nanograms of another type (THC-COOH) -- according to the medical examiner's report. There also was a presumed positive test of cannabinoids in Martin's urine, according to the medical examiner's report. It was not immediately clear how significant these amounts were. You seem to play fast and loose with facts. Following someone is not illegal. Keeping an eye on someone acting suspicious is not illegal. So we have two individuals doing nothing illegal until one choose to start a physical confrontation. Evidence points to that individual as Martin. Hence...he was NOT innocent. No the f*cking idiot is the moron that refuses to accept evidence of fact. Do your country a favor...and don't go into law. It's way over your head. Your emotions rule...not your head.The only problem I see here is that speech didn't unite...it divided. The president should unite.Despite it being a political speech, it does seem heartfelt. And even if you don't believe he's being sincere, the message itself is a good one.
jimkabrhel
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]He was not on drugs at the time. He had levels of THC in his system consistent with a person who had smoked weed some weeks ago. It was 1.5, nearly ten times smaller than the amount in a completely sober person.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] That's in his system dude. Hence...he used drugs. Which you seem to equate to being innocent when not done. Thus...your sentence was wrong. In your view...to hell with the facts......you associate yourself with Martin and thus he was an angel on earth. Doesn't matter if he tried to kill someone...he was innocent I tell you....innocent. LJS9502_basic
Â
I say again, in plain simple english, Trayvon Martin was not on drugs. Trayvon Martin was not on drugs. Trayvon Martin was not on drugs.Â
Â
I've been very clear that he was innocent prior to the chain of events that unfolded after Zimmerman decided to take action. After that things are dubious. I have even chastised the media for failing to highlight the dubious nature of events and for instead painting it as a white on black killing. Again, I have said this in plain simple English, but as we've already established - you're a ****ing idiot.
From the autopsy.... Toxicology tests found elements of the drug in the teenager's chest blood -- 1.5 nanograms per milliliter of one type (THC), as well as 7.3 nanograms of another type (THC-COOH) -- according to the medical examiner's report. There also was a presumed positive test of cannabinoids in Martin's urine, according to the medical examiner's report. It was not immediately clear how significant these amounts were. You seem to play fast and loose with facts. Following someone is not illegal. Keeping an eye on someone acting suspicious is not illegal. So we have two individuals doing nothing illegal until one choose to start a physical confrontation. Evidence points to that individual as Martin. Hence...he was NOT innocent. No the f*cking idiot is the moron that refuses to accept evidence of fact. Do your country a favor...and don't go into law. It's way over your head. Your emotions rule...not your head. Even the 7.3 is still less than 50% of the levels found in a COMPLETELY SOBER PERSON. And the individual who performed that autopsy said what about the implications of those levels? Let's quote him shall we? "They mean almost absolutely nothing." Thanks, Dr Drew. So let's say now for the third time: Trayvon Martin was not on drugs. Trayvon Maritn was not on drugs. Trayvon Martin was not on drugs. Trayvon Martin. Was not. On. Drugs.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] He was not on drugs at the time. He had levels of THC in his system consistent with a person who had smoked weed some weeks ago. It was 1.5, nearly ten times smaller than the amount in a completely sober person.From the autopsy.... Toxicology tests found elements of the drug in the teenager's chest blood -- 1.5 nanograms per milliliter of one type (THC), as well as 7.3 nanograms of another type (THC-COOH) -- according to the medical examiner's report. There also was a presumed positive test of cannabinoids in Martin's urine, according to the medical examiner's report. It was not immediately clear how significant these amounts were. You seem to play fast and loose with facts. Following someone is not illegal. Keeping an eye on someone acting suspicious is not illegal. So we have two individuals doing nothing illegal until one choose to start a physical confrontation. Evidence points to that individual as Martin. Hence...he was NOT innocent. No the f*cking idiot is the moron that refuses to accept evidence of fact. Do your country a favor...and don't go into law. It's way over your head. Your emotions rule...not your head. Even the 7.3 is still less than 50% of the levels found in a COMPLETELY SOBER PERSON. And the individual who performed that autopsy said what about the implications of those levels? Let's quote him shall we? "They mean almost absolutely nothing." Thanks, Dr Drew. So let's say now for the third time: Trayvon Martin was not on drugs. Trayvon Maritn was not on drugs. Trayvon Martin was not on drugs. Trayvon Martin. Was not. On. Drugs. Yet the evidence says otherwise....no matter how many times little ninja stamps his feet, covers his ears, and shouts.Â
I say again, in plain simple english, Trayvon Martin was not on drugs. Trayvon Martin was not on drugs. Trayvon Martin was not on drugs.Â
Â
I've been very clear that he was innocent prior to the chain of events that unfolded after Zimmerman decided to take action. After that things are dubious. I have even chastised the media for failing to highlight the dubious nature of events and for instead painting it as a white on black killing. Again, I have said this in plain simple English, but as we've already established - you're a ****ing idiot.
Ninja-Hippo
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Wrong. I'm not reverting to anything. You used the lack of drugs to denote innocence. If one uses that as a springboard...then Martin could not have been innocent since he was a drug user. You brought up drugs....not me. I just stated your pronouncement was wrong.Ninja-HippoHe was not on drugs that day, as Zimmerman claimed/believed that he was. I used that in explaining his innocence. He was not on drugs. He was not holding anything suspicious in his hands. He was eating skittles. He. Was. Not. On. Drugs. It has never been my contention that he may have smoked weed at various points throughout his life. Maybe he did it regularly. Maybe he loved to blaze it up ever chance he got. I don't know. I don't care. All I refer to are his actions that day; he was not on drugs. He. Was. Not. On. Drugs. And yet my post still confuses you.....I think you will lose your law cases easily dude. I bolded the important part of the sentence that your reading comprehension cannot decipher.Â
I can't say for certain how innocent Martin wasdave123321The jury after examining facts did not find him to the be the innocent here....
[QUOTE="dave123321"]I can't say for certain how innocent Martin wasLJS9502_basicThe jury after examining facts did not find him to the be the innocent here.... I don't pay much attention to this case.
He was not on drugs that day, as Zimmerman claimed/believed that he was. I used that in explaining his innocence. He was not on drugs. He was not holding anything suspicious in his hands. He was eating skittles. He. Was. Not. On. Drugs. It has never been my contention that he may have smoked weed at various points throughout his life. Maybe he did it regularly. Maybe he loved to blaze it up ever chance he got. I don't know. I don't care. All I refer to are his actions that day; he was not on drugs. He. Was. Not. On. Drugs. And yet my post still confuses you.....I think you will lose your law cases easily dude. I bolded the important part of the sentence that your reading comprehension cannot decipher. I have never once contested that he was a drug user. My only contention has been that he was not on drugs. He may have used drugs in the past. Plenty of times. In fact, didn't my last post clearly just say this in plain simple english? He might have smoked weed all the damn time. But was he completely clean and sober on that particular day? Yes, yes he was - as the science clearly says. So for what I think is now the seventh time: Trayvon Martin was not on drugs. Travyon Martin was not on drugs. Travyon Martin was not on drugs. Trayvon Martin was not on drugs. Trayvon Martin. Was not. On drugs. Was. Not. On. Drugs. Any response other than "yes, I accept that he was indeed not on drugs" and you are literally the most pathetic and worthless presence on this forum.[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Wrong. I'm not reverting to anything. You used the lack of drugs to denote innocence. If one uses that as a springboard...then Martin could not have been innocent since he was a drug user. You brought up drugs....not me. I just stated your pronouncement was wrong.LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]And yet my post still confuses you.....I think you will lose your law cases easily dude. I bolded the important part of the sentence that your reading comprehension cannot decipher. I have never once contested that he was a drug user. My only contention has been that he was not on drugs. He may have used drugs in the past. Plenty of times. In fact, didn't my last post clearly just say this in plain simple english? He might have smoked weed all the damn time. But was he completely clean and sober on that particular day? Yes, yes he was - as the science clearly says. So for what I think is now the seventh time: Trayvon Martin was not on drugs. Travyon Martin was not on drugs. Travyon Martin was not on drugs. Trayvon Martin was not on drugs. Trayvon Martin. Was not. On drugs. Was. Not. On. Drugs. Any response other than "yes, I accept that he was indeed not on drugs" and you are literally the most pathetic and worthless presence on this forum. Still stamping your feet and having a tantrum? In regard to the autopsy...they did not state whether he would be affected or not. Hence....you cannot state categorically he was not. But my statements in regard to this go to your equating innocent with no drug use. Since Martin was a user...that contradicts your earlier statement vis a vis innocence. Nothing more...nothing less. I don't want to delve into what effect they had that night....or lack of. My initial reaction was to YOUR use of drugs and innocence. Seems you contradicted yourself and don't even know it.[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] He was not on drugs that day, as Zimmerman claimed/believed that he was. I used that in explaining his innocence. He was not on drugs. He was not holding anything suspicious in his hands. He was eating skittles. He. Was. Not. On. Drugs. It has never been my contention that he may have smoked weed at various points throughout his life. Maybe he did it regularly. Maybe he loved to blaze it up ever chance he got. I don't know. I don't care. All I refer to are his actions that day; he was not on drugs. He. Was. Not. On. Drugs. Ninja-Hippo
Although doesn't the presumption of innocence make a not guilty verdict different from say like proven innocent dave123321Indeed, just because the jury found Zimmerman not guilty doesn't mean they are saying Trayvon was guilty.
Although doesn't the presumption of innocence make a not guilty verdict different from say like proven innocent dave123321The case has been tried....if the jury found Martin to be innocent then Zimmerman would have been convicted. They could not find that Martin was innocent in the altercation so vis a vis this trial....he was not deemed to have clean hands so to speak. I think we can safely say the case has been adjudicated.
Still stamping your feet and having a tantrum? In regard to the autopsy...they did not state whether he would be affected or not. Hence....you cannot state categorically he was not. But my statements in regard to this go to your equating innocent with no drug use. Since Martin has a user...that contradicts your earlier statement vis a vis innocence. Nothing more...nothing less. I don't want to delve into what effect they had that night....or lack of. My initial reaction was to YOUR use of drugs and innocence. Seems you contradicted yourself and don't even know it.LJS9502_basicYou're talking complete and utter ****. Zimmerman described him as a suspicious looking dude who looks like he's on drugs up to no good with something suspicious in his hands. He had nothing suspicious in his hands and he was not on drugs. That was my only contention. That is where I derive his innocence. There is no evidence there at all to show that he was doing anything to harm anyone or anything.
Â
He was not on drugs. He was a fraction of the residual trace amounts of a COMPLETELY SOBER INDIVIDUAL. Had he indeed been wandering around high as a kite Zimmerman's actions may not have seemed so controversial, but he wasn't, he was totally and entirely sober. Martin being a drug user does in no way whatsoever contradict that on that particular day he was not on drugs and not doing anything wrong.Â
[QUOTE="dave123321"]Although doesn't the presumption of innocence make a not guilty verdict different from say like proven innocent LJS9502_basicThe case has been tried....if the jury found Martin to be innocent then Zimmerman would have been convicted. They could not find that Martin was innocent in the altercation so vis a vis this trial....he was not deemed to have clean hands so to speak. I think we can safely say the case has been adjudicated. Martin was not on trial and the jury did not consider in any way whatsoever whether he was guilty or innocent, their one and only task was to establish whether Zimmerman was guilty beyond all reasonable doubt of murder. Reasonable doubt does not mean the other party was guilty. Please stop talking ****.
You're talking complete and utter ****. Zimmerman described him as a suspicious looking dude who looks like he's on drugs up to no good with something suspicious in his hands. He had nothing suspicious in his hands and he was not on drugs. That was my only contention. That is where I derive his innocence. There is no evidence there at all to show that he was doing anything to harm anyone or anything.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Still stamping your feet and having a tantrum? In regard to the autopsy...they did not state whether he would be affected or not. Hence....you cannot state categorically he was not. But my statements in regard to this go to your equating innocent with no drug use. Since Martin has a user...that contradicts your earlier statement vis a vis innocence. Nothing more...nothing less. I don't want to delve into what effect they had that night....or lack of. My initial reaction was to YOUR use of drugs and innocence. Seems you contradicted yourself and don't even know it.Ninja-Hippo
Â
He was not on drugs. He was a fraction of the residual trace amounts of a COMPLETELY SOBER INDIVIDUAL. Had he indeed been wandering around high as a kite Zimmerman's actions may not have seemed so controversial, but he wasn't, he was totally and entirely sober. Martin being a drug user does in no way whatsoever contradict that on that particular day he was not on drugs and not doing anything wrong.Â
Oh now you delving into thinking you saw what was going on. You were a witness and did not come forward? There are people that can appear to be on drugs...it tends to be a common expression...in other words...not doing what normal people do. Damn why did the prosecution not call you? The case would have been blown wide open....:roll:
LJS getting pounded by ninja-hippo once again :lol:heeweesRusNot at all. But I expect the simple minded to think that....
[QUOTE="heeweesRus"]LJS getting pounded by ninja-hippo once again :lol:LJS9502_basicNot at all. But I expect the simple minded to think that.... The only person pounding you is yourself for being such a pathetic and obstinate human being and having to be dragged kicking and screaming over the same basic point over and over and over and over again rather than just admit 'actually yeah, fair enough, he wasn't on drugs.'
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Oh now you delving into thinking you saw what was going on. You were a witness and did not come forward? There are people that can appear to be on drugs...it tends to be a common expression...in other words...not doing what normal people do. Damn why did the prosecution not call you? The case would have been blown wide open....:roll:Ninja-HippoI did not give any comment at all as to how he appeared; only what he actually was. Which was not on drugs. Thank you for accepting that Treyvon Martin was entirely sober at the time. It took us three pages or so, but we got there. I never said otherwise. You sure have problems reading posts. I explained your initial statement was what I disagreed with vis a vis a determinant for innocence. One cannot be an innocent if the standard is no use of drugs. If one is a user....then one cannot be an innocent. It is a simple logic problem. The most it is.
A If one is innocent they do not use drugs
B x used drugs
Therefore, X is not innocent.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="heeweesRus"]LJS getting pounded by ninja-hippo once again :lol:Ninja-HippoNot at all. But I expect the simple minded to think that.... The only person pounding you is yourself for being such a pathetic and obstinate human being and having to be dragged kicking and screaming over the same basic point over and over and over and over again rather than just admit 'actually yeah, fair enough, he wasn't on drugs.' Your opinion of your "debating' technique is way over rated. And I say this not only due to discussions I've had with but reading what you think you accomplish with others.
I did not give any comment at all as to how he appeared; only what he actually was. Which was not on drugs. Thank you for accepting that Treyvon Martin was entirely sober at the time. It took us three pages or so, but we got there. I never said otherwise. You sure have problems reading posts. I explained your initial statement was what I disagreed with vis a vis a determinant for innocence. One cannot be an innocent if the standard is no use of drugs. If one is a user....then one cannot be an innocent. It is a simple logic problem. The most it is.[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Oh now you delving into thinking you saw what was going on. You were a witness and did not come forward? There are people that can appear to be on drugs...it tends to be a common expression...in other words...not doing what normal people do. Damn why did the prosecution not call you? The case would have been blown wide open....:roll:LJS9502_basic
A If one is innocent they do not use drugs
B x used drugs
Therefore, X is not innocent.
Â
You're a f*cking idiot. I never said he was innocent because he never uses drugs. I said he was innocent because he was not on drugs. He was not doing any of the things Zimmerman suspected him of doing; being on drugs with something suspicious in his hands. He was holding skittles and completely sober.Â
I at no point ever said that being a drug user makes a person inherently guilty in general, and he had never used drugs. You are pulling things out of your ass out of sheer desperation to make this look like anything other than a nearly four page clusterf*ck of you pathetically trying to insist that this kid was on drugs when he clearly, blatantly, obviously wasn't.
"Oh... I didn't mean on THAT day, I meant in general at some point in the PAST."
Pathetic. Utterly pathetic. Â
I never said otherwise. You sure have problems reading posts. I explained your initial statement was what I disagreed with vis a vis a determinant for innocence. One cannot be an innocent if the standard is no use of drugs. If one is a user....then one cannot be an innocent. It is a simple logic problem. The most it is.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] I did not give any comment at all as to how he appeared; only what he actually was. Which was not on drugs. Thank you for accepting that Treyvon Martin was entirely sober at the time. It took us three pages or so, but we got there. Ninja-Hippo
A If one is innocent they do not use drugs
B x used drugs
Therefore, X is not innocent.
Â
You're a f*cking idiot. I never said he was innocent because he never uses drugs. I said he was innocent because he was not on drugs. He was not doing any of the things Zimmerman suspected him of doing; being on drugs with something suspicious in his hands. He was holding skittles and completely sober.Â
I at no point ever said that being a drug user makes a person inherently guilty in general, and he had never used drugs. You are pulling things out of your ass out of sheer desperation to make this look like anything other than a nearly four page clusterf*ck of you pathetically trying to insist that this kid was on drugs when he clearly, blatantly, obviously wasn't.
"Oh... I didn't mean on THAT day, I meant in general at some point in the PAST."
Pathetic. Utterly pathetic. Â
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment