Anita Hill

christiefan915 said:
Effin' hilarious that you completely discounted the phone call. Why did TM say on the phone "what are you following me for?"
Click to expand...

Nope. Did not discount it at all. Following someone is not starting a confrontation. It is not against the law to follow someone.

"Martin had been talking to his girlfriend all the way to the store where he bought Skittles and a tea. The phone was in his pocket and the earphone in his ear, Crump said.
"He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man," Martin's friend said. "I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run, but he said he was not going to run."
Click to expand...

So, again, he lost Zimmerman. He was less than a minute away from where he was staying. Yet he chose to confront Zimmerman instead. Then he chose to violently attack Zimmerman. He is dead as a result of his own actions.

Eventually, he would run, said the girl, thinking that he'd managed to escape. But suddenly the strange man was back, cornering Martin.
Click to expand...

This is the part that makes no sense. At the point he had lost Zimmerman, he wasn't that far from his home. 'Cornering Martin'? ROFLMAO... yeah... exactly how did Zimmerman manage that? Martin didn't try to run. If he had he would have been home long before Zimmerman 'found' him again.

"Trayvon said, 'What are you following me for,' and the man said, 'What are you doing here.' Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again, and he didn't answer the phone."
Click to expand...

So according to the girlfriend, it was Martin that initiated the confrontation. He had every right to ask that question. Zimmerman had every right to ask his return question. All evidence shows that Zimmerman had defensive wounds, none on Martin.

The 'someone pushed Trayvon, because his headset fell' is pure speculation. It also could have fallen out because Martin attacked Zimmerman. Thus, her speculation is just that. All evidence shows that her speculation is unlikely.
 
Taichiliberal said:
First off, lie detector results are NOT admissible evidence in a court of law. Secondly, I put it to this idiot and his like minded compadres like this: The transcript of the event has Zimmerman telling the dispatch that while he was in his car, Martin came up to the window, checked him out then RAN AWAY. During the description, Zimmerman stated that he wasn't sure if Martin was armed. AFTER that, he's telling cops that he "lost" Martin...to wit the infamous question "Are you still following him" and statement "we don't need you to do that.
Click to expand...

First off... Christie is the one that brought up lie detectors amounting to evidence of innocence. Which is why grind brought up Zimmermans test.

Second... we have answered your absurdity 1000 times. But thanks for once again proving that Zimmerman as well as Martins girlfriend BOTH said that Zimmerman lost Martin and vice versa.

Third... saying over and over again that the cops told Zimmerman they didn't need him to follow Martin proves nothing. He was following him, they told him to stop... and what did he say? Why do you always leave that part of the conversation with the cops out? Oh yeah, because he said 'OK'.

Now if Zimmerman was NOT looking for a confrontation, why the hell would he get OUT of his car to PURSUE a suspected armed criminal at night AFTER he was told the cops were on the way? Zimmerman was NOT a cop and NOT legally a part of the OFFICIAL neighborhood watch. Maybe he thought his gun gave him that right?
Click to expand...

So, getting out of your car means you are looking for a confrontation? Not knowing if someone was armed or not does not equate to thinking they are armed. He said he didn't know. You do not have to be a cop or a neighborhood watch to follow someone you are not familiar with in your neighborhood. Especially after a string of burglaries in your neighborhood.

But knee jerk bigots like Superfreak will time and again IGNORE the rational, logical conclusion in favor of Zimmerman's tales.
Click to expand...

Freudian slip? Good to see you finally admit the rational, logical conclusion is indeed in favor of Zimmerman's story.
 
Superfreak said:
Freudian slip? Good to see you finally admit the rational, logical conclusion is indeed in favor of Zimmerman's story.
Click to expand...

hardly a Freudian slip... more like your inability to comprehend the English language.

The construct involved here is the idea of ignoring one thing in favor of another thing. See?
 
maineman said:
hardly a Freudian slip... more like your inability to comprehend the English language.

The construct involved here is the idea of ignoring one thing in favor of another thing. See?
Click to expand...

You are correct... I did indeed misread that. Still the logical and rational explanation is Zimmerman's story. Both the Martin girlfriend and the transcript of the 9/11 call agree with what Zimmerman stated.
 
Superfreak said:
OJ did not kill in self defense. He brutally murdered his wife and Ron Goldman. Zimmerman was attacked by Martin and defended himself. But I know... you all are so caught up in your preconceived notion of a guilty verdict that you refuse to actually look at the evidence that was presented. I suppose next you will compare Zimmerman to Bundy or Dahmer?
Click to expand...

And they were both aquited of murder for the same reason. There was substantial reasonable doubt in both cases. So what's your point? Same thing with Mainemans point what does Karma have to do with reasonable doubt? As in the Zimmerman and OJ case he cannot know beyond reasonable doubt that a murder occured.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
And they were both aquited of murder for the same reason. There was substantial reasonable doubt in both cases. So what's your point? Same thing with Mainemans point what does Karma have to do with reasonable doubt? As in the Zimmerman and OJ case he cannot know beyond reasonable doubt that a murder occured.
Click to expand...

absolutely correct. I wasn't on the jury... I wasn't present for either of the killings involved... I just happen to believe that, if the justice system gets it wrong, karma will still get it right....
 
maineman said:
absolutely correct. I wasn't on the jury... I wasn't present for either of the killings involved... I just happen to believe that, if the justice system gets it wrong, karma will still get it right....
Click to expand...

LMAO... yeah, the two are so very similar. The majority of the evidence suggested OJ brutally murdered Nicole and Ron. But Johnny raised enough reasonable doubt to acquit.

The majority of evidence in the Zimmerman case suggested that MARTIN attacked Zimmerman. That Zimmerman killed in self defense. There was no evidence of second degree murder, which the prosecutor went for. They may have been able to make a case for manslaughter, but even then the there was reasonable doubt.

Just like left wing nuts to prosecute Zimmerman in the court of public opinion rather than actually looking at the facts of the case. Instead you want to pretend his case is similar to OJ. yeah... real honest on your part. By Mutts and Maines reasoning everyone acquitted of crimes are the same as OJ.
 
they all have one thing in common, do they not?

And... as I said, I happen to believe that, if the jury gets it wrong, karma will end up getting it right.

and, wtf... do you have some pathological fucking aversion to answering questions????
 
Superfreak said:
Nope. Did not discount it at all. Following someone is not starting a confrontation. It is not against the law to follow someone.
Click to expand...
Nor is it against the law to ask someone why they're following you.

So, again, he lost Zimmerman. He was less than a minute away from where he was staying. Yet he chose to confront Zimmerman instead. Then he chose to violently attack Zimmerman. He is dead as a result of his own actions. This is the part that makes no sense. At the point he had lost Zimmerman, he wasn't that far from his home...
Click to expand...

I agree this is the part where it all gets fuzzy but for different reasons than you. It's not against the law to ask someone why they're following you. "Trayvon said, 'What are you following me for,' and the man said, 'What are you doing here.'" If GZ was actually heading back to his vehicle why didn't he keep going and wait for the cops instead of asking TM what he was doing there? By this comment GZ played a part in accelerating the events.

At the point he had lost Zimmerman, he wasn't that far from his home. 'Cornering Martin'? ROFLMAO... yeah... exactly how did Zimmerman manage that? Martin didn't try to run. If he had he would have been home long before Zimmerman 'found' him again.
Click to expand...

We have only GZ's word that he didn't "corner" TM and excuse me for not believing the person who had a vested interest in protecting his life from a murder verdict.

So according to the girlfriend, it was Martin that initiated the confrontation. He had every right to ask that question. Zimmerman had every right to ask his return question. All evidence shows that Zimmerman had defensive wounds, none on Martin.
Click to expand...

Explain to me how cuts on the head are defensive wounds. What was the sharp object GZ was defending himself against by using his head to deflect?

The 'someone pushed Trayvon, because his headset fell' is pure speculation. It also could have fallen out because Martin attacked Zimmerman. Thus, her speculation is just that. All evidence shows that her speculation is unlikely.
Click to expand...

We don't know if it was speculation. It could be 100% true. It seems you're way more invested in exonerating GZ than to look at every available detail impartially.
 
evince said:
nope

That was Zimmys testimony liar.

that does not make it fact.

The one ear witness said she heard a boom on Trayvons chest.


BTW Zimmy was caught in lies
Click to expand...

roflmao... you and your 'ear witness'. Tell me desh... how does an 'ear witness' know what the thump she heard was?
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO... yeah, the two are so very similar. The majority of the evidence suggested OJ brutally murdered Nicole and Ron. But Johnny raised enough reasonable doubt to acquit.

The majority of evidence in the Zimmerman case suggested that MARTIN attacked Zimmerman. That Zimmerman killed in self defense. There was no evidence of second degree murder, which the prosecutor went for. They may have been able to make a case for manslaughter, but even then the there was reasonable doubt.

Just like left wing nuts to prosecute Zimmerman in the court of public opinion rather than actually looking at the facts of the case. Instead you want to pretend his case is similar to OJ. yeah... real honest on your part. By Mutts and Maines reasoning everyone acquitted of crimes are the same as OJ.
Click to expand...

Agree that the actual murders aren't similar. I'd compare the Martin case with the Oscar Pistorius case myself. And I hope OP doesn't benefit from the kind of justice OJ and GZ got.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top