Excusing Trayvon

I'd like to know how people can justify defending Trayvon in spite of the facts that he was into fighting, drugs, stealing, etc, and in spite of the evidence he was the aggressor; almost killing Mr. Zimmerman?

It's perplexing in light of the overwhelming truth that GZ was the victim of an attack and was acquitted by a jury, in spite of all the attempts by race hustlers (like Al Sharpton), and the media, to get him convicted.

Is it just an emotional thing? Is it partisan? Is it racism against Hispanics? What's the deal?

I'd like to see some serious, logical case being made in defense of Trayvon because I think it cannot be done.

 

I cant help that think if he was a few years older, he'd be alive today and we would be debating the MLB All Star game and not the racial attitudes of Americans

 

Maybe he'd have shaped up and become a responsible contributing member of society. Could happen; ya never know.

 

if he had been a few years older, he would have called 911. he had the phone in his hand ffs.

 

Well one thing I have seen, when young people become scared they puff themselves up and try and dominate the situation. Of course we will never know but I suspect both men where equally afraid of the encounter as it unfolded. An older wiser Martin might have called the police himself and report some freak following home in a truck

- - - Updated - - -

LOL great minds think a like

 

IT is all the above. People have asked why was this case such a big deal as they were tired of hearing about it over a year. The politics and greed behind it is more interesting than the case itself. IT really is just a self defense case, as the jury found, but if you notice many don't accept that verdict. THere is a reason or reasons as to why this garbage continues.

 

When you start defending your premise with an outright lie there is little to do but point out your ignorance and dishonesty and move on.

 

What evidence do you have that he was into fighting, drugs and stealing?

Or that he was the aggressor outside of the shooter/killers own self serving statements?

 

have you been asleep for the last 17 months?

 

Your post is a prime example of what I'm talking about. Defending the indefensible. Denying the facts and the evidence and getting emo about it to boot. Amazing, just friggin amazing.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh please. I'm not gonna debate the facts of the case with you. That's not what this thread is about. It's about people defending the indefensible like your post just illustrated by denying the truth.

 

I'm not going to defend your ignorance nor do I feel compelled to respond to what is an obvious and intentional misstatement of the facts.

When you get around to separating what you know from what you don't now and what you just claim to know let me know and we can discuss. Till then I shall remain amazing.

 

I'm asking for evidence, not rumor, innuendo or articles from World Nut Daily.

 

Please by all means tell me how it's justified to defend Trayvon in spite of the evidence that he beat the carp outta Mr. Zimmerman? And tell me how all the pics he made on his cell phone of him doing bad things is okay. Tell me his drug use wasn't the reason he was out that night buying ingredients. Tell me he wasn't suspended for pot...go ahead, tell me why he was a victim. I'm all ears.

 

What is the purpose of this article other then flaming, baiting and trolling?

 

Forget race for a minute, as it is irrelevant,

An unarmed minor is walking in his neighborhood, coming back from the store. He is followed and confronted by an adult with a gun, then shot and killed.

Regardless of any other details, he did not deserve to die.....period.

 

The evidence is posted all over the internet, in the court system, and in the school records. Please don't deflect.

 

You misrepresent the facts... ((( SHAKES HEAD)))

 

So the excuse presented in your post is to misrepresent and minimize what happened by leaving out the pertinent details of what actually happened. Got it.

- - - Updated - - -

Me: did not
Margot: did too
Me: did not
Margot: did too

Oh Margo, maybe you'd better sit this one out.

 

his school records and youtube videos speak for themsleves. the state's star witness blabbing on national TV is just gravy.

 

Don't bother trolling me. It's a waste of your time. Keep up with the topic or find somewhere else to be.

 

....uh....that is EXACTLY what happened, unless you can in some way explain my error.

Trayvon was a minor...correct?
Zimmerman was an adult....correct?
Trayvon was unarmed...correct?
Zimmerman was armed...correct?
Zimmerman followed Trayvon...correct?
Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon...correct?

What have I in any way misrepresented?

And....I admit I minimized the massive amount of details involved because...well....they are massive, and you did not request them, you asked for a defense. I submitted one to you, and you obviously did not actually want it.

 

Ask yourself the question, 'Would Zimmerman have followed Martin if the former had not been armed and acted in the way that he did'?

If you feel that he would not, then Zimmerman was afraid he would be attacked and could not defend himself, in which event he (Z) should not have been there in the first place.

If you feel that he would, then Zimmerman was not afraid to use a gun, and did.

Either way, you are condemning a person who neither you, or anyone else can prove was doing anything other than walking in a public area, prior to the altercation.

 

<I have to take my son to work, and finish cutting the grass. I'll be back later>

I wanna see some really good reasons to excuse TM's culpability in the matter when I return.

 

First thing you don't know:
Martin went to the 7/11 to buy skittles and tea. Neither of which are ingredients for drank.
Second thing of which you are ignorant:
Martin had lots of pictures on his phone. A few were "questionable." Makes him 17. Not bad.
Third thing that demonstrates your complete foolishness:
Lots of people smoke pot. Pot causes people to become calm, to lose aggressive tendencies. So, this piece of "evidence" flies in the face of your "attack" theory.

That's just in this post.

Go back to the first and your claim that Martin attacked Zimmerman.
That's the first thing you don't know and the remainder of your ignorance flows from there.

As stated.

When you successfully separate what you know, from what you don't know, and stuff you just make up, we can have a discussion. Unfortunately for you you will, at that point, have little to offer.

 

I guess you prefer the lies the innuendo from MSNBC. Of course you should know that the the trolls there are dedicated to dividing America so they can transform it into a third world (*)(*)(*)(*) hole for whatever perverse reason so beware of fools like shaprton and madcow