Every day I'm more amazed...

[DanG 1]

Quote

So Dan, what's your theory on what happened next?

You mean on the night in question? I don't know. I've said as much about twenty times.

My point has always been that no one (except Zimmerman) knows what happened in those four minutes.

And to reiterate (again) for the knee-jerkers, I think Zimmerman should have been acquitted.

- Dan G

[DanG 1]

Quote

I know. It's tough for liberals to agree, as most of the time they beat around the truth just to disagree.

I wouldn't know about that, I'm not a liberal. Apparently, however, you are, since disagree is all you do here.Well, to be fair, sometimes you make up facts out of thin air, too.

Quote

Now, who broke the law first?

I don't know, and neither does anyone else except George Zimmerman.

Quote

And was the response justified under law?

Again, I don't know, and neither does anyone else. I do know that there was not enough evidence to show that Zimmerman's fatal shot was not justified, which is all that matters in a court of law.

- Dan G

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

All of this talk of TM having a thuggish character is only relevant if he was in the process of engaging in thuggery when GZ spotted him and decided to confront him.

Pure speculation on your part. GZ's story is he lost sight and TM confronted him. The police tapes show GZ saying he lost sight of TM and heading back to his truck to meet police.

From the tape:

"It's a home it's [house number removed], (knocking sound) oh crap I don't want to give it all out, I don't know where this kid is."

Now that your speculation has been pointed out.... According to that same tape GZ said that the person was walking around looking at houses, and appeared to be on drugs.

"Hey we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy, uh, it's Retreat View Circle, um, the best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about."

Add that behavior and the neighborhoods history with break ins... And GZ's thought that this person might be "engaging in thuggery"

Quote

Even today, if you think a black male walking alone, in a residential neighborhood in the US that isn't predominantly black, does not raise suspicions in other people's eyes that he's up to no good, then you are naive indeed.

“There is nothing more painful to me … than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.” - Jessie Jackson.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/960318/archive_010008.htm#sthash.TK45DhX8.dpuf

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

First, he approached a stranger he suspected of wrongdoing.

According to the transcripts... He did not.
"It’s a home. It’s 1950 – oh, crap, I don’t want to give it out – I don’t know where this kid is [inaudible]" [3:40]

[OHCHUTE 0]

DanG

Quote

I know. It's tough for liberals to agree, as most of the time they beat around the truth just to disagree.

I wouldn't know about that, I'm not a liberal. Apparently, however, you are, since disagree is all you do here.Well, to be fair, sometimes you make up facts out of thin air, too.

Quote

Now, who broke the law first?

I don't know, and neither does anyone else except George Zimmerman.

Quote

And was the response justified under law?

Again, I don't know, and neither does anyone else. I do know that there was not enough evidence to show that Zimmerman's fatal shot was not justified, which is all that matters in a court of law.

The first law that was violated was assault. TM broke Z's nose. Additionally, according the cororner report TM had fresh cuts on his hands. As Z was getting beat to death, he had the right to defend himself. He legally carried a handgun and took action.

Jury found Z NOT GUILTY of murder. Z never set out to murder
TM.

Any questions?

[DanG 1]

Quote

The first law that was violated was assault

I realize that you are here to post BS and get a response, but I'll reply because others are reading. This will be my last response to you.

No one, except Zimmerman, knows who threw the first punch, therefore, no one, except Zimmerman, knows what the first law violation was.

- Dan G

[OHCHUTE 0]

DanG

Quote

The first law that was violated was assault

I realize that you are here to post BS and get a response, but I'll reply because others are reading. This will be my last response to you.

No one, except Zimmerman, knows who threw the first punch, therefore, no one, except Zimmerman, knows what the first law violation was.

I agree with you. Zimmerman reported, and it's on video, how he was attacked first.

It is highly unlikely that a person, wanting to be cop, was on the phone with a cop, was carrying a gun, would risk punching someone who was "acting weird." People who legally carry guns typically aren't out looking for confrontations. Fresh cuts were noted on TM hands via autopsy indicating he was doing the assaulting.

Yes I do realize that the truth, or reasonable ideas about how events happened, would get responses, but I have no control over peoples beliefs that are far fetched and are opposing to reality.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Do you ever just feel like you are hopelessly talking to retarded children, sometimes?

[davjohns 1]

"Never theorize before you have data. Invariably, you end up twisting facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." - Sherlock Holmes

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.