Trayvon had drugs in his system and all injuries show signs of a struggle.

[#1 pick]

^ its bigot bait

Word, if them racist crakkkaz find out his girlfriend was white, they'll probably get mad as fuck.

well well who is this

I think it's Treyvon's female friend:

http://i.imgur.com/yQ1My.png[/quote]

Look at my nigga Trayvon. Well Damn.

Edit: The g/f on the tape sounds Black. Idk.

 

[Chef_Taylor]

Niggas in here going off...i love to see this.Its been made pretty clear that over the years the law has been AGAINST black people.Dont get me wrong you have your share who do dirt but granted we neeeeeeeever get the benefit of the doubt like others and we are always ALWAYS!! guilty until proven innocent,and thats not how it should be.You white people who dont have to worry about any of this talkin about jumping the gun and crying...you hypocritical muthafuckas would do the same if not worse if black cops or some random black guy murdered your kid for no particular reason time after time after time...so i dont wanna hear shit you have to say.And the things is we talkin about facts,when this here case was pretty clear and simple.

Man sees a kid he thinks look suspect,calls 911...tells them what he see 911 then ask him is he following said person or is he in his home,he then tell them he's in his home...911 POLICE DISPACTHER THEN TELLS THE MAN DO NOT I REPEAT!!! DO NOT FOLLOW SAID PERSON.And what does zimmerman do? go grab his gun and we all know what was on his mind.

 

[Chef_Taylor]

@Bookworm

Zimmerman ain't white. Even tho He's half, dude couldn't even pass for White cuz he looks straight up Mexican

He is not mexican, he is Peruvian. Peruvians do not like black americans nor be mistaken for one.

My co-worker told me the same they hate black people for what ever reason.

 

[cobbland]

@Bookworm

Zimmerman ain't white. Even tho He's half, dude couldn't even pass for White cuz he looks straight up Mexican

He is not mexican, he is Peruvian. Peruvians do not like black americans nor be mistaken for one.

My co-worker told me the same they hate black people for what ever reason.

Don't all the groups that have a rich Black/African history hate themselves?

=channel&list=UL

From the 1:50 mark, it also applies to the people in Latin America.

 

[Chef_Taylor]

Yeah cobbland and you know what that's from a lack of knowledge on there behalf.Shit is just pityful.

 

[fiat_money]

@fiat, that aggressor clause 776.041 is not available to anyone attempting to commit, or in the act of committing a felony, which could be argued by the prosecution that Zimmerman committed aggravated battery on trayvon 1st. so if is unknown who confronted who, or who landed the first punch, you could also say the law does not apply here.

true, the writer of the law is not about refutation, I would still consider his opinion to be valid. I would think he has more information on the case then the rest of the public.

im out tho, have to continue this on another day.

.

They could argue that; just like how they're arguing it was not self-defense. They'd still have to show not only that Zimmerman was the aggressor, but that he was a physical aggressor. Of course, the defense could easily argue the opposite, or that there is a lack of supporting evidence for the prosecution's claim.

So, since the mere ability to argue something does not make it true; the fact that the prosecution could argue that Zimmerman was the physical aggressor would not be enough invalidate the usage of 776.041.

 

[Ms.Scorp]

@apocalyptica why is every last white boy on allhiphop pro zimmerman? Makes no sense

why dont u post on FoxNews?

Just like with the OJ case, these types of incidents bring out the TRUE colors of those who are enamored by our culture.

they're "hood" and "down for the cause" until the shit gets real, then they revert right back to their own just like we do...lol.

 

[ATTS]

^ its bigot bait

Word, if them racist crakkkaz find out his girlfriend was white, they'll probably get mad as fuck.

well well who is this

I think it's Treyvon's female friend:

http://i.imgur.com/yQ1My.png[/quote]

Look at my nigga Trayvon. Well Damn.

Edit: The g/f on the tape sounds Black. Idk.

[/quote]

damn....

 

[Hyde Parke]

@fiat, that aggressor clause 776.041 is not available to anyone attempting to commit, or in the act of committing a felony, which could be argued by the prosecution that Zimmerman committed aggravated battery on trayvon 1st. so if is unknown who confronted who, or who landed the first punch, you could also say the law does not apply here.

true, the writer of the law is not about refutation, I would still consider his opinion to be valid. I would think he has more information on the case then the rest of the public.

im out tho, have to continue this on another day.

.

They could argue that; just like how they're arguing it was not self-defense. They'd still have to show not only that Zimmerman was the aggressor, but that he was a physical aggressor. Of course, the defense could easily argue the opposite, or that there is a lack of supporting evidence for the prosecution's claim.

So, since the mere ability to argue something does not make it true; the fact that the prosecution could argue that Zimmerman was the physical aggressor would not be enough invalidate the usage of 776.041.

the thing is both sides could make the same claim. so if you say the law can apply to Zimmerman, as you have been doing, you would have to extend the same rule to Trayvon to be fair. No, the mere ability to argue something doesn't make it fact, the fact as it stands right now is, the moment of confrontation was not witnessed, so you have to take what was witnessed by ear, at that moment and use that to make the best determination you can. Fact is, trayvon was on the phone with his girlfriend and by her account, she heard someone asking him what was he doing there, she then says she heard what appeared to be someone falling to the ground hitting what sounded like grass, and at that point she no longer could make contact with trayvon on the phone. take it for what its worth and you also have to take into account all of the documented events leading up to the incident . Ive served jury duty before, and its not ever open and shut.

 

[Purr]

Fiat doesnt have a law degree, so take his opinion as an opinion.

 

[fiat_money]

@fiat, that aggressor clause 776.041 is not available to anyone attempting to commit, or in the act of committing a felony, which could be argued by the prosecution that Zimmerman committed aggravated battery on trayvon 1st. so if is unknown who confronted who, or who landed the first punch, you could also say the law does not apply here.

true, the writer of the law is not about refutation, I would still consider his opinion to be valid. I would think he has more information on the case then the rest of the public.

im out tho, have to continue this on another day.

.

They could argue that; just like how they're arguing it was not self-defense. They'd still have to show not only that Zimmerman was the aggressor, but that he was a physical aggressor. Of course, the defense could easily argue the opposite, or that there is a lack of supporting evidence for the prosecution's claim.

So, since the mere ability to argue something does not make it true; the fact that the prosecution could argue that Zimmerman was the physical aggressor would not be enough invalidate the usage of 776.041.

the thing is both sides could make the same claim. so if you say the law can apply to Zimmerman, as you have been doing, you would have to extend the same rule to Trayvon to be fair. No, the mere ability to argue something doesn't make it fact, the fact as it stands right now is, the moment of confrontation was not witnessed, so you have to take what was witnessed by ear, at that moment and use that to make the best determination you can. Fact is, trayvon was on the phone with his girlfriend and by her account, she heard someone asking him what was he doing there, she then says she heard what appeared to be someone falling to the ground hitting what sounded like grass, and at that point she no longer could make contact with trayvon on the phone. take it for what its worth and you also have to take into account all of the documented events leading up to the incident . Ive served jury duty before, and its not ever open and shut.

I covered the bolded on page 4 of this thread:

...And it's not publicly known who confronted who yet. However, had Treyvon been able to kill Zimmerman instead, he could also claim self-defense.

Treyvon's girlfriend's account and Zimmerman's account both say that Treyvon asked Zimmerman why he was following him

and Zimmerman responded; so the two are in agreement there. Zimmerman's account, however, claims that Treyvon approached him from behind before asking him that; of which there is no proof at the moment. Zimmerman also claims Treyvon punched him--knocking him down--after they talked (which also lacks proof at the moment); so if she heard "what appeared to be someone falling to the ground hitting what sounded like grass", then that could apply to either Treyvon or Zimmerman being hit.

 

[fiat_money]

Fiat doesnt have a law degree, so take his opinion as an opinion.

Real niggas don't have use appeals to authority or appeals to ignorance to make arguments bruh.

Step your "formulating logically in-fallacious arguments based on available information" game up yo.

 

[Purr]

Fiat doesnt have a law degree, so take his opinion as an opinion.

Real niggas don't have use appeals to authority or appeals to ignorance to make arguments bruh.

Step your "formulating logically in-fallacious arguments based on available information" game up yo.

post your law degree or your law school schedule... i'll wait.

Keyword: expert.

 

[Hyde Parke]

Fiat doesnt have a law degree, so take his opinion as an opinion.

Real niggas don't have use appeals to authority or appeals to ignorance to make arguments bruh.

Step your "formulating logically in-fallacious arguments based on available information" game up yo.

im gonna have to click feelings for this post, its not that serious, its just a discussion, gaining understanding of others point(s) of views.

 

[Hyde Parke]

@fiat, that aggressor clause 776.041 is not available to anyone attempting to commit, or in the act of committing a felony, which could be argued by the prosecution that Zimmerman committed aggravated battery on trayvon 1st. so if is unknown who confronted who, or who landed the first punch, you could also say the law does not apply here.

true, the writer of the law is not about refutation, I would still consider his opinion to be valid. I would think he has more information on the case then the rest of the public.

im out tho, have to continue this on another day.

.

They could argue that; just like how they're arguing it was not self-defense. They'd still have to show not only that Zimmerman was the aggressor, but that he was a physical aggressor. Of course, the defense could easily argue the opposite, or that there is a lack of supporting evidence for the prosecution's claim.

So, since the mere ability to argue something does not make it true; the fact that the prosecution could argue that Zimmerman was the physical aggressor would not be enough invalidate the usage of 776.041.

the thing is both sides could make the same claim. so if you say the law can apply to Zimmerman, as you have been doing, you would have to extend the same rule to Trayvon to be fair. No, the mere ability to argue something doesn't make it fact, the fact as it stands right now is, the moment of confrontation was not witnessed, so you have to take what was witnessed by ear, at that moment and use that to make the best determination you can. Fact is, trayvon was on the phone with his girlfriend and by her account, she heard someone asking him what was he doing there, she then says she heard what appeared to be someone falling to the ground hitting what sounded like grass, and at that point she no longer could make contact with trayvon on the phone. take it for what its worth and you also have to take into account all of the documented events leading up to the incident . Ive served jury duty before, and its not ever open and shut.

I covered the bolded on page 4 of this thread:

...And it's not publicly known who confronted who yet. However, had Treyvon been able to kill Zimmerman instead, he could also claim self-defense.

Treyvon's girlfriend's account and Zimmerman's account both say that Treyvon asked Zimmerman why he was following him

and Zimmerman responded; so the two are in agreement there. Zimmerman's account, however, claims that Treyvon approached him from behind before asking him that; of which there is no proof at the moment. Zimmerman also claims Treyvon punched him--knocking him down--after they talked (which also lacks proof at the moment); so if she heard "what appeared to be someone falling to the ground hitting what sounded like grass", then that could apply to either Treyvon or Zimmerman being hit.

that's kool, so long as you recognize the duality of how the law can apply based on your interpretation of it

 

[fiat_money]

Fiat doesnt have a law degree, so take his opinion as an opinion.

Real niggas don't have use appeals to authority or appeals to ignorance to make arguments bruh.

Step your "formulating logically in-fallacious arguments based on available information" game up yo.

post your law degree or your law school schedule... i'll wait.

Keyword: expert.

 

[Chef_Taylor]

All trayvon wanted to do was play football, fuck with bad chicks, and smoke a lil weed. My lil homie wasnt bothering anybody before zimmerman brought that dumb shit into his life smh. The more i think about it the more it really pisses me off.Zimmerman has to die....smoking weed shidd thats damn near the life of a teen in america so who the fuck are these people to criticize that?I bet half the people who got some slick shit to say who have kids,there kids have smoked weed before or is doing it now.

 

[fiat_money]

Fiat doesnt have a law degree, so take his opinion as an opinion.

Real niggas don't have use appeals to authority or appeals to ignorance to make arguments bruh.

Step your "formulating logically in-fallacious arguments based on available information" game up yo.

im gonna have to click feelings for this post, its not that serious, its just a discussion, gaining understanding of others point(s) of views.

Cosign.

I'm not sure if you noticed, but the bolded cosigns the post of mine you quoted.

 

[desertrain10]

@fiat, that aggressor clause 776.041 is not available to anyone attempting to commit, or in the act of committing a felony, which could be argued by the prosecution that Zimmerman committed aggravated battery on trayvon 1st. so if is unknown who confronted who, or who landed the first punch, you could also say the law does not apply here.

true, the writer of the law is not about refutation, I would still consider his opinion to be valid. I would think he has more information on the case then the rest of the public.

im out tho, have to continue this on another day.

.

They could argue that; just like how they're arguing it was not self-defense. They'd still have to show not only that Zimmerman was the aggressor, but that he was a physical aggressor. Of course, the defense could easily argue the opposite, or that there is a lack of supporting evidence for the prosecution's claim.

So, since the mere ability to argue something does not make it true; the fact that the prosecution could argue that Zimmerman was the physical aggressor would not be enough invalidate the usage of 776.041.

the thing is both sides could make the same claim. so if you say the law can apply to Zimmerman, as you have been doing, you would have to extend the same rule to Trayvon to be fair. No, the mere ability to argue something doesn't make it fact, the fact as it stands right now is, the moment of confrontation was not witnessed, so you have to take what was witnessed by ear, at that moment and use that to make the best determination you can. Fact is, trayvon was on the phone with his girlfriend and by her account, she heard someone asking him what was he doing there, she then says she heard what appeared to be someone falling to the ground hitting what sounded like grass, and at that point she no longer could make contact with trayvon on the phone. take it for what its worth and you also have to take into account all of the documented events leading up to the incident . Ive served jury duty before, and its not ever open and shut.

I covered the bolded on page 4 of this thread:

...And it's not publicly known who confronted who yet. However, had Treyvon been able to kill Zimmerman instead, he could also claim self-defense.

Treyvon's girlfriend's account and Zimmerman's account both say that Treyvon asked Zimmerman why he was following him

and Zimmerman responded; so the two are in agreement there. Zimmerman's account, however, claims that Treyvon approached him from behind before asking him that; of which there is no proof at the moment. Zimmerman also claims Treyvon punched him--knocking him down--after they talked (which also lacks proof at the moment); so if she heard "what appeared to be someone falling to the ground hitting what sounded like grass", then that could apply to either Treyvon or Zimmerman being hit.

ok, but she also said that trayvon had told her that he ran. she also heard trayvon breathing heavily. and than trayvon told her he "lost him".... after all that why on earth would trayvon purposely turn back around only to attack zimmerman from behide? make no sense...

and it seems unlikely gz after losing sight of trayvon after following him for a good 5-10 minutes would just give up casually turn his back to walk back to his car if he indeed believed trayvon was a suspicious character, he was already conerned with whether or not trayvon was armed which he expressed to the dispatcher, especially if trayvon was indeed circling his car....just doesn't sound right....

she also said she could faintly hear trayvon yelling "get off of me" shortly after she heard the phone drop or w/e .... which also conflicts w/ gz account

 

[fiat_money]

@fiat, that aggressor clause 776.041 is not available to anyone attempting to commit, or in the act of committing a felony, which could be argued by the prosecution that Zimmerman committed aggravated battery on trayvon 1st. so if is unknown who confronted who, or who landed the first punch, you could also say the law does not apply here.

true, the writer of the law is not about refutation, I would still consider his opinion to be valid. I would think he has more information on the case then the rest of the public.

im out tho, have to continue this on another day.

.

They could argue that; just like how they're arguing it was not self-defense. They'd still have to show not only that Zimmerman was the aggressor, but that he was a physical aggressor. Of course, the defense could easily argue the opposite, or that there is a lack of supporting evidence for the prosecution's claim.

So, since the mere ability to argue something does not make it true; the fact that the prosecution could argue that Zimmerman was the physical aggressor would not be enough invalidate the usage of 776.041.

the thing is both sides could make the same claim. so if you say the law can apply to Zimmerman, as you have been doing, you would have to extend the same rule to Trayvon to be fair. No, the mere ability to argue something doesn't make it fact, the fact as it stands right now is, the moment of confrontation was not witnessed, so you have to take what was witnessed by ear, at that moment and use that to make the best determination you can. Fact is, trayvon was on the phone with his girlfriend and by her account, she heard someone asking him what was he doing there, she then says she heard what appeared to be someone falling to the ground hitting what sounded like grass, and at that point she no longer could make contact with trayvon on the phone. take it for what its worth and you also have to take into account all of the documented events leading up to the incident . Ive served jury duty before, and its not ever open and shut.

I covered the bolded on page 4 of this thread:

...And it's not publicly known who confronted who yet. However, had Treyvon been able to kill Zimmerman instead, he could also claim self-defense.

Treyvon's girlfriend's account and Zimmerman's account both say that Treyvon asked Zimmerman why he was following him

and Zimmerman responded; so the two are in agreement there. Zimmerman's account, however, claims that Treyvon approached him from behind before asking him that; of which there is no proof at the moment. Zimmerman also claims Treyvon punched him--knocking him down--after they talked (which also lacks proof at the moment); so if she heard "what appeared to be someone falling to the ground hitting what sounded like grass", then that could apply to either Treyvon or Zimmerman being hit.

ok, but she also said that trayvon had told her that he ran. she also heard trayvon breathing heavily. and than trayvon told her he "lost him".... after all that why on earth would trayvon purposely turn back around only to attack zimmerman from behide? make no sense...

and it seems unlikely gz after losing sight of trayvon after following him for a good 5-10 minutes would just give up casually turn his back to walk back to his car if he indeed believed trayvon was a suspicious character, especially if trayvon was indeed circling his car....just doesn't sound right....

she also said she could faintly hear trayvon yelling "get off of me" shortly after she heard the phone drop or w/e .... which also conflicts w/ gz account

The girlfriend's account of Treyvon losing Zimmerman is in agreement with Zimmerman's account that he lost Treyvon, and the 911 call. The underlined is conjecture.

First, she says she heard something hit the grass.

Followed by saying she heard no screaming like "help me".

She says she got no answer when calling back after the phone shut off.

Then she says the last thing she heard was some kind of noise like something hitting somebody.

Next, she says she could hear a "little bit like a little get off some stuff".

Finally she says she could've heard Treyvon, before affirmatively saying she could hear a little bit that it was Treyvon.

^^Disregarding the strength/weakness of this testimony; Treyvon saying "get off me" doesn't dispute Zimmerman's claim that Treyvon punched him and they fought, nor does it dispute witness statements about seeing the two of them scuffling and/or rolling around on the ground.