Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here is the post you responded to. This post says nothing about race; in fact, I believe CA is white, is she not? The bolded below is your response to Raymond's post. You state that the DOJ '...found no charges..', implying that they were investigating the guilt or innocence of Zimmerman. That is a lie. They investigated whether or not the act by Zimmerman was racially motivated.
I'm sure you see the distinction, right? If you say no, you are being deliberately obtuse; in other words, you are stating falsehoods.
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives View Post
I love how infallible the Florida justice system becomes whenever right-wingers argue for St. George's innocence. The same justice system that sent Casey Anthony home without so much as a slap on the wrist.
The USA Department of Justice also found absolutely no reason to bring charges. Furthermore there were no grounds for appeal.
I do see the distinction that you are trying to make. But what is YOUR point aside from dissecting what I posted word by word and making assumptions about intent? I can't see where you added anything relevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bellflower
Helen Keller could see the distinction. From space.
It is very weird, this protective cult that has sprung up around a violent, abusive and deadly 30-year old man, holding him accountable for absolutely nothing, while condemning Trayvon Martin to death on the basis of a sociopath's forensics-defying tale, an internet smear campaign and a bloody nose.
You added nothing except to call everyone you disagree with a cult member. i.e. Nothing but petty insult. It only means you have no real argument. Both of these responses prove it.
I do see the distinction that you are trying to make. But what is YOUR point aside from dissecting what I posted word by word and making assumptions about intent?
My point is to refute the lies you insist on posting here, and it seems you are doing it deliberately since you admit to understanding the distinction between the DOJ investigating, not the guilt or innocence of Zimmerman, but the racial aspect. What is your point in continuing to do that?
When lies are posted they will be called out. You are knowingly posting lies. What do you think YOU are contributing to the thread? I am responding to your posts, so maybe you should take a good close look at what you are posting.
I don't know that wackodoodle Zimmerman needs an apology. Sure he was unjustly vilified in the Martin shooting, but he seems to have a few screws loose.
"After conducting numerous interviews throughout the week, detectives determined that Mr. Apperson did intentionally fire his weapon into the vehicle occupied by George Zimmerman without provocation," Gillett said in a statement"
Like Zimmerman, Apperson is just another gun goober behaving as such. He is a reckless idiot just like George. Just like you don't stalk a teenager who is doing nothing wrong, you don't shoot into another vehicle even if the dumbass did wave a gun at you (allegedly).
Zimmerman is a thug. A dumb-ass and doesn't know how to avoid problems. I don't care if he drops dead tomorrow from some horrible disease.
Call him all the names you want, I don't support him. What I do support, however, is the truth.
TM made it all the way to his Dad's girlfriends house. Then went back and confronted GZ who was heading back to his truck to meet the police. Those are the facts. TM was not a thug, he was a young man who bit off more than he could chew. He did not deserve to die. Truth is, he was home. On the property of his Dad's girlfriends house. The "threat" of GZ was removed and leaving.
No emotion, no lies, facts. No name calling no taking sides.
It was all in the trial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowne
Because he wanted to confront the cracker for following him?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suncc49
Remember miss Jeantel's testimony? She said a creepy a## cracka was following him.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrafficCory
It's not a narrative, it's what actually happened. And, why would he go back, that is a great question. Why, when he got to his Dad's girlfriends house did he not go in the house? Why did he go back and confront a man who was leaving and meeting the police?
This all came out at trial.
According to whom??
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Arrest made in Zimmerman shooting case
