New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Trayvon Martin hoax is about to be exposed!!

Nostra

Governor
He beat the guy up because he was walking alone at night and some creep was following him, turning when he turned, speeding up when he sped up.... I would have hit the guy too.

If Trayvon had had a gun and shot Zimmerman it would have been a stand your ground case. That is what the law says, if somone is chasing you you can stand your ground.

Oh and lots of young people use the term gangsta, it's part of rap culture. The vast majority of them aren't actually gangstas ....just teenagers.

You should probably get up to speed I the issue. I don't have much interest in educating morons

So if someone is following you that is grounds to physically assault them? Can you cite the statute outlining that please.
 

FakeName

Governor
So if someone is following you that is grounds to physically assault them? Can you cite the statute outlining that please.
Ok


A stand-your-ground law (sometimes called "line in the sand" or "no duty to retreat" law) establishes a right by which a person may defend one's self or others (right of self-defense) against threats or perceived threats, even to the point of applying lethal force, regardless of whether safely retreating from the situation might have been possible. Such a law typically states that an individual has no duty to retreat from any place where they have a lawful right to be[1]
 

Nostra

Governor
Ok


A stand-your-ground law (sometimes called "line in the sand" or "no duty to retreat" law) establishes a right by which a person may defend one's self or others (right of self-defense) against threats or perceived threats, even to the point of applying lethal force, regardless of whether safely retreating from the situation might have been possible. Such a law typically states that an individual has no duty to retreat from any place where they have a lawful right to be[1]
Funny how you brought a law the jury used to acquit Zimmerman.

You didn't see how I painted you into that corner, didya?:D
 

FakeName

Governor
Funny how you brought a law the jury used to acquit Zimmerman.

You didn't see how I painted you into that corner, didya?:D
They were wrong.

Trayvon was the one being pursued. Just a fact. Zimmerman was the one doing the pursuing. Also an undeniable fact.

Zimmerman, a guy with a record, was armed, pursuing a guy who was simply walking back to his dad's house from the 7/11.

Trayvon was just walking home and noticed a guy following him, turning when he turned, speeding up when he sped up. Trayvon was the one who stood his ground not Zimmerman.

Think about it, use logic.
 

Nostra

Governor
They were wrong.

Trayvon was the one being pursued. Just a fact. Zimmerman was the one doing the pursuing. Also an undeniable fact.

Zimmerman, a guy with a record, was armed, pursuing a guy who was simply walking back to his dad's house from the 7/11.

Trayvon was just walking home and noticed a guy following him, turning when he turned, speeding up when he sped up. Trayvon was the one who stood his ground not Zimmerman.

Think about it, use logic.
The facts and evidence at the trial says your lefty opinion is wrong.
 

FakeName

Governor
The facts and evidence at the trial says your lefty opinion is wrong.
No. Actually it doesn't.

Facts and evidence showed that Treyvon was minding his own business, walking home when a stranger started following him, turning when he turned, speeding up when he sped up.

The facts and evidence show that it was perfectly reasonable for Treyvon to have perceived a threat.

Therefore facts and evidence show that it was Treyvon, not Zimmerman, that had a right to stand his ground.

The jury got it wrong.
 

Nostra

Governor
No. Actually it doesn't.

Facts and evidence showed that Treyvon was minding his own business, walking home when a stranger started following him, turning when he turned, speeding up when he sped up.

The facts and evidence show that it was perfectly reasonable for Treyvon to have perceived a threat.

Therefore facts and evidence show that it was Treyvon, not Zimmerman, that had a right to stand his ground.

The jury got it wrong.
I'll take the decision of 12 individuals who looked at all the evidence over you any day of the week.

Your opinion means nothing. The evidence proves you wrong.
 

FakeName

Governor
I'll take the decision of 12 individuals who looked at all the evidence over you any day of the week.

Your opinion means nothing. The evidence proves you wrong.
Go ahead.

Or you could use your brain. Apply logic.

When I was in college, my friend Lori was walking home at night and a guy she didn't know was walking behind her, she crossed the street, he crossed the street, she sped up, he sped up. Exactly like Zimmerman was doing to Treyvon. She turned a corner and when the guy came around the corner she sprayed him in the face with pepper spray, then kicked him the face several times with steel toed doc Martin's (boots) when he hit the ground, breaking his nose and his jaw in the process. Just then a cop drove by.

Guess who the cops arrested, the guy that was perusing or the person defending herself?

That is right, they arrested the guy who was perusing, not the person defending herself.

But she was a white girl not a black guy.

Think!
 

Nostra

Governor
Go ahead.

Or you could use your brain. Apply logic.

When I was in college, my friend Lori was walking home at night and a guy she didn't know was walking behind her, she crossed the street, he crossed the street, she sped up, he sped up. Exactly like Zimmerman was doing to Treyvon. She turned a corner and when the guy came around the corner she sprayed him in the face with pepper spray, then kicked him the face several times with steel toed doc Martin's (boots) when he hit the ground, breaking his nose and his jaw in the process. Just then a cop drove by.

Guess who the cops arrested, the guy that was perusing or the person defending herself?

That is right, they arrested the guy who was perusing, not the person defending herself.

But she was a white girl not a black guy.

Think!

A completely unrelated anecdotal incident has nothing to do with the facts of this case.
 

Dino

Russian Asset
Go ahead.

Or you could use your brain. Apply logic.

When I was in college, my friend Lori was walking home at night and a guy she didn't know was walking behind her, she crossed the street, he crossed the street, she sped up, he sped up. Exactly like Zimmerman was doing to Treyvon. She turned a corner and when the guy came around the corner she sprayed him in the face with pepper spray, then kicked him the face several times with steel toed doc Martin's (boots) when he hit the ground, breaking his nose and his jaw in the process. Just then a cop drove by.

Guess who the cops arrested, the guy that was perusing or the person defending herself?

That is right, they arrested the guy who was perusing, not the person defending herself.

But she was a white girl not a black guy.

Think!
I think both your anecdotes need a lot of work to pass the smell test. You must be a witness who never came forward in the Zimmerman case to know exactly how he was pursuing and badgering Trayvon. Your testimony would have been crucial to the proper adjudication of this case.

Not one but two Fakestories from Fakename.
 

FakeName

Governor
I think both your anecdotes need a lot of work to pass the smell test. You must be a witness who never came forward in the Zimmerman case to know exactly how he was pursuing and badgering Trayvon. Your testimony would have been crucial to the proper adjudication of this case.

Not one but two Fakestories from Fakename.
The fact that he was perusing Treyvon is not in doubt.

It was stipulated.

What are you talking about?
 

Dino

Russian Asset
The fact that he was perusing Treyvon is not in doubt.

It was stipulated.

What are you talking about?
He tried to keep his eyes on someone he called in as suspicious. He had done this dozens of times. He tells the police dispatcher that he lost sight of the subject. There’s no pursuit prior to their confrontation.
If you don’t know any of that why pretend you know the exact tactic Zimmerman was using to stalk Trayvon?
You sound ridiculous.
 

FakeName

Governor
He tried to keep his eyes on someone he called in as suspicious. He had done this dozens of times. He tells the police dispatcher that he lost sight of the subject. There’s no pursuit prior to their confrontation.
If you don’t know any of that why pretend you know the exact tactic Zimmerman was using to stalk Trayvon?
You sound ridiculous.
Of course there was pursuit prior to their confrontation.....Zimmerman admitted it, it is not in doubt. That is WHY Treyvon punched out Zimmerman. He perceived a threat and stood his ground.
 

Nostra

Governor
The evidence showed, and the jury agreed, that Zimmerman employed self defense after being attacked by Trayvon.

Your spin about what preceded Trayvon attacking Zimmerman and slamming his head on the sidewalk means nothing. Zip. Zero. Nada.
 

Dino

Russian Asset
Of course there was pursuit prior to their confrontation.....Zimmerman admitted it, it is not in doubt. That is WHY Treyvon punched out Zimmerman. He perceived a threat and stood his ground.
Seems you’re skipping some steps in the timeline.
Highly dishonest of you.
 

FakeName

Governor
The evidence showed, and the jury agreed, that Zimmerman employed self defense after being attacked by Trayvon.

Your spin about what preceded Trayvon attacking Zimmerman and slamming his head on the sidewalk means nothing. Zip. Zero. Nada.
Zimmerman was the one perusing Treyvon.

You know that. It isn't in doubt.

Apply logic to that and it is clear that it was Treyvon that was employing self defense.

I realize it would be more obvious to you if he had been a white girl instead of a black teenager but try to think logically rather than emotionally.
 
Top