9beers: Besides, all the evidence we have so far indicates that Zimmerman is telling the truth and that Martin attacked him.

The evidence, such as it is, seems to show that Martin was on top during part of the scuffle. Maybe all of it, until he got shot.
It does not show who was winning the fight, or who attacked whom first.

Dr. Mojo PhD: Nope. You just said it unbidden because you're a sack of shiat. Now you're trying to excuse and justify it.

fark youself, asshole.

9beers: Dr. Mojo PhD: Nope. You just said it unbidden because you're a sack of shiat. Now you're trying to excuse and justify it.

fark youself, asshole.

Yeah, that's about the ragey response I was expecting from a freak like you.

Dr. Mojo PhD: Yeah, that's about the ragey response I was expecting from a freak like you.

Jim_Callahan: ThrobblefootSpectre: TheJoe03: Mexicans are mixed (Spanish and Indian)

And Zimmerman is......Nope, no spanish or indians in Peru. lol.


Wait. I bet you had a point. I'll wait for you to make it............................ ..................... ................... ........................... ............. ............

Plus, "indians" in the sense of the people that were in the Americas before the Europeans arrived are considered white anyhow. The three "races" from back when the term actually had a non self-identification meaning were white, black, and yellow (or Shemites, Hamites, and Jacobites after the three sons of Noah if you're more religiously inclined). Sure, everyone was still immediately suspicious of basically anyone that didn't look like the people from their hometown in any way, but the majority of that's always been cultural or entirely geography-based.

A lot of the weirder and culty-er branches of Christian thought actually bent themselves into their strange shapes because they were trying to explain why the new world was populated by racially "white" people, but it also had the side effect of no one feeling particularly bad about marrying into the native families or vice-versa, whereas you didn't see quite as much when white colonies were set up in places regarded as black or yellow.

Um... Noah's sons were Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Jacob and Esau were the sons of Isaac.

Noah was about 12 generations before Jacob, if I recall correctly.

Aigoo: Jim_Callahan: ThrobblefootSpectre: TheJoe03: Mexicans are mixed (Spanish and Indian)

And Zimmerman is......Nope, no spanish or indians in Peru. lol.


Wait. I bet you had a point. I'll wait for you to make it............................ ..................... ................... ........................... ............. ............

Plus, "indians" in the sense of the people that were in the Americas before the Europeans arrived are considered white anyhow. The three "races" from back when the term actually had a non self-identification meaning were white, black, and yellow (or Shemites, Hamites, and Jacobites after the three sons of Noah if you're more religiously inclined). Sure, everyone was still immediately suspicious of basically anyone that didn't look like the people from their hometown in any way, but the majority of that's always been cultural or entirely geography-based.

A lot of the weirder and culty-er branches of Christian thought actually bent themselves into their strange shapes because they were trying to explain why the new world was populated by racially "white" people, but it also had the side effect of no one feeling particularly bad about marrying into the native families or vice-versa, whereas you didn't see quite as much when white colonies were set up in places regarded as black or yellow.

Um... Noah's sons were Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Jacob and Esau were the sons of Isaac.

Noah was about 12 generations before Jacob, if I recall correctly.

Yes, yes. You're very smart. Now shut up.

browntimmy: HBK: OMG! We're All Gonna Die!: 9beers: JuggleGeek: Posting pics that aren't him and lying about what happened makes you look like you're going for the "9beers troll of the thread" award.

Yep, keep throwing out the T word because you can't make one valid argument to support what you think happened that night.

It's funny how beers is a troll for using fact based logic. It's sad that's the direction our country is headed.

/I'll buy you a six pack dude.

Dumb people on fark resort to calling people who don't agree with them trolls when they realize their own positions are weakly supported or wholly unsupported.

Looks like someone needs to post that screencap of 9beers saying Zimmerman deserving a medal for keeping that thug off the streets. Because clearly that's a rational opinion supported by facts.

LOL you dick.

9beers: Dr. Mojo PhD: Yeah, that's about the ragey response I was expecting from a freak like you.

i39.tinypic.com

So ragey.

Bontesla: I'm not saying this didn't happen - merely that you're a disingenuous troll - and would like a credible and verifiable source

From the guy who lied about maria saying she heard a struggle? Who refused to name his source for over 50+ posts?

From the guy who believe Maria and her friend can be trusted to say who yelled for help wihtout seeing it (and without hearing a fight, wrestling, punching, etc) and don;t believe the guy who saw it can say who yelled?

Ok.


Bontesla: And yes - if Martin says he did x and John didn't acknowledge seeing x then yes - John's story is inconsistent with Zimmerman's. This is how inconsistency works

And once again, you stupid dishonest piece of shiat, it is only an inconsistency if John was in a position to see Zimmerman at that time. As he has stated he went into the house to call 911 and could no longer see. If he didn't see something that could have happened while he was in the house that isn't an inconsistency.

9beers: BeesNuts: I'm not sure I understand supporting the killing of an unarmed teenager. In self defense or otherwise.

So you're fine with the lynch mob mentality surrounding this case?

Well that was something I didn't say. Deep breaths, beers.

In fact, I've repeated on several occasions that the press circus that surrounds these cases before they even get to court seems completely fabricated. The controversy, the outrage... none of it is real, and this kind of activity by our press is extremely irresponsible.

But a "support zimmerman" rally? Give me a farking break. Just as bad as the lynch mobs, if you ask me. A bunch of ignorant farking people getting led around by the nose while the press cackles at every new viewer who is keeping tabs on this ridiculous story. Guy shot and killed an unarmed kid. And apparently our reaction as a country is twofold. Crucify him! And Overreact to this Crucifixion!

It's like rallies for Mumia. Only instead of attracting counter-culture angst factories a Zimmerman march is likely to attract bigoted farkwits who want to celebrate his murder, rather than protect his right to a fair trial.

So really, it's worse. But it's about on par in the sheer dumbness category.

doglover: but nothing has come to light that points at Zimmerman as anything but honest

In George Zimmerman's "apology" to Trayvon's parents (at his arraignment) he stated he had thought "Trayvon was just a few years younger" than him - implying that if he'd known how old Trayvon was it would have made a difference.

In Zimmerman's 911 call he STATED "late teens" for how old he thought Trayvon was.

This provides proof that Zimmerman will alter what he says to portray himself in a better light..

WorthNoting: This provides proof that Zimmerman will alter what he says to portray himself in a better light..

Yeah, that's what it proves.