Black people are getting smarter!

[Irish]

No stupid, Zimmerman testified that he did shoot Martin...his bogus "self defense" excuse and the absurd "stand your ground" laws is the point of contention considering that HE PURSUED MARTIN DESPITE BEING TOLD THAT THE POLICE WERE ON THE WAY AND HIS CONTINUED PURSUIT WAS NOT NECESSARY.

Martin was being chased by a stranger...he chose to stand HIS ground and was KILLED. That's manslaughter to anyone outside of that area and without connections to the local legal system.

The prosecution in the OJ trial could NOT prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Deal with it, or in your case say something useless in response.

So that justifies Martin smashing Zims head into the cement?

[CFM]

You ever see a thread started by your homey Alice in Liberaland?

You'll die of thirst working your way through the preemptive banned list.....

You mean like the ban list so many lefties have me on?

[cawacko]

You understand it, you just reject the possibility. So be it.

You know froggie/rana

she groaned my OJ should be paroled posts

she thinks OJ is guilty

are your fellow liberals willfully ignorant if they think OJ is guilty?

[Taichiliberal]

You know froggie/rana

she groaned my OJ should be paroled posts

she thinks OJ is guilty

are your fellow liberals willfully ignorant if they think OJ is guilty?

They're wrong, just like you are. You can't say "he did it, he was there", not know the exact time he was there, then reject any and all possibilities.

That this imbecile who authored the OP is just another sheet wearing clod looking for any excuse to expose his hatred for black folk by giving a back handed compliment.

Let's just agree to disagree.

[Taichiliberal]

So that justifies Martin smashing Zims head into the cement?

You do understand that Martin was BEING PURSUED BY A STRANGER IN A CAR...A STRANGER THAT GOT OUT OF HIS CAR, ARMED, LOOKING FOR A KID WHO WAS JUST GOING HOME, RIGHT?

Zimmerman was caught in several lies leading up to that confrontation...now clods like you blame the victim for fighting for his life (fight or flight- he first fled, then turned to fight).
But hey, it's a black kid, so Zimmerman is justified in your mind, right bunky?

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
The same way PURSUING SOMEONE WITH NO AUTHORITY OR REASON TO SUSPECT OF A CRIME TO THE POINT WHERE THEY TURN TO CONFRONT YOU IS CONSIDERED "STANDING YOUR GROUND" WHEN YOU GUN THEM DOWN, YOU SIMPLETON.

You can't have it both ways.

Now see, you still haven't been able to respond in a fact based and unbiased manner; because Trayvon did not TURN to confront Zimmerman, he RETURNED to confront and then assault Zimmerman.
Doesn't meet the Stand Your Ground perception.

Would you care to try again?

Who says he "returned"? Zimmerman? Wasn't he the one who said Martin was hiding behind a bush before he was assaulted? You know the "shrub" that news men exposed which couldn't hid a small child, much less a teenager? That makes Zimmerman a LIAR, and Martin can't say otherwise as dead men tell no tales.

Zimmerman pursued in a car, and when he couldn't see Martin GOT OUT OF HIS CAR, ARMED, LOOKING FOR HIM. Martin was in fight or flight mode...he fled, then chose to fight.

Stand your ground laws work when the defendant fears for his life. Being chased by a "creepy cracka" when all you are doing is walking home constitutes fear in a black man whether you accept/ believe/acknowledge that or not.
but hey, far as you are concerned the blacks and liberals lost, so it's all good.

[CFM]

Who says he "returned"? Zimmerman? Wasn't he the one who said Martin was hiding behind a bush before he was assaulted? You know the "shrub" that news men exposed which couldn't hid a small child, much less a teenager? That makes Zimmerman a LIAR, and Martin can't say otherwise as dead men tell no tales.

Zimmerman pursued in a car, and when he couldn't see Martin GOT OUT OF HIS CAR, ARMED, LOOKING FOR HIM. Martin was in fight or flight mode...he fled, then chose to fight.

Stand your ground laws work when the defendant fears for his life. Being chased by a "creepy cracka" when all you are doing is walking home constitutes fear in a black man whether you accept/ believe/acknowledge that or not.
but hey, far as you are concerned the blacks and liberals lost, so it's all good.

The court that heard the case said otherwise to all your bullshit speculation.

[USFREEDOM911]

You do understand that Martin was BEING PURSUED BY A STRANGER IN A CAR...A STRANGER THAT GOT OUT OF HIS CAR, ARMED, LOOKING FOR A KID WHO WAS JUST GOING HOME, RIGHT?

Zimmerman was caught in several lies leading up to that confrontation...now clods like you blame the victim for fighting for his life (fight or flight- he first fled, then walked back and returned to assault a stranger).
But hey, it's a black kid, so Zimmerman is justified in your mind, right bunky?

ftfy

[cawacko]

They're wrong, just like you are. You can't say "he did it, he was there", not know the exact time he was there, then reject any and all possibilities.

That this imbecile who authored the OP is just another sheet wearing clod looking for any excuse to expose his hatred for black folk by giving a back handed compliment.

Let's just agree to disagree.

OJ is innocent. But your facts about why are wrong/lies. You are making shit up about what happened. You can't be mad at others when you are lying about what happened

[Taichiliberal]

ftfy

And as usual, when confronted with facts and logic that he can neither dispute or refute, Freedumb does his usual intellectually impotent/dishonest move of babbling and lying about what others write. All one has to do is follow the chronology of the posts to see the true exchanges. So Freedumb goes back on IA for another few months, watching him climb my leg for attention.

[Taichiliberal]

OJ is innocent. But your facts about why are wrong/lies. You are making shit up about what happened. You can't be mad at others when you are lying about what happened

you can't say "he did it, he was there", not know the exact time he was there, then reject any and all possibilities.

Not "lying" son, just doing logical hypothesis based on the evidence at hand. And what I'm proposing DOES NOT point towards guilt.

We're done on this issue.

[cawacko]

you can't say "he did it, he was there", not know the exact time he was there, then reject any and all possibilities.

Not "lying" son, just doing logical hypothesis based on the evidence at hand. And what I'm proposing DOES NOT point towards guilt.

We're done on this issue.

the 30 for 30 was on A&E again this week. I watched it all over again. There is no way your scenario plays out.

[USFREEDOM911]

And as usual, when confronted with facts and logic that he can neither dispute or refute, Freedumb does his usual intellectually impotent/dishonest move of babbling and lying about what others write. All one has to do is follow the chronology of the posts to see the true exchanges. So Freedumb goes back on IA for another few months, watching him climb my leg for attention.

But that would mean you have to have posted some facts and logic, which you didn't; because you lied.

[Granule]

Really? OJ? Are we going to get an opinion on the Lorena Bobbitt trial next?

I believe there could be. Just shut your stupid fat face and make a thread about it.

[Granule]

you can't say "he did it, he was there", not know the exact time he was there, then reject any and all possibilities.

Not "lying" son, just doing logical hypothesis based on the evidence at hand. And what I'm proposing DOES NOT point towards guilt.

We're done on this issue.

Well said, liberal. What's most important is that in the case of Nicole and the Goldmans, justice has been served!

Oh, wait....