• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

George Zimmerman punched in face for bragging about killing Trayvon Martin [W:153]

A teenager that was attacking him. It's funny how you use the unarmed bit like somehow you can't attack someone without a weapon.

From the beginning of time hands have been weapons.

That is how the human race survived before any other weapons were invented.

Now they are not.

I don't understand some people.
 
No one is claiming anything about an alien. Spare me the nonsense, please.

I didn't. Perhaps you noticed that I used the could 'could' and not 'did.

Nothing indicates who started it, only the stage in the fight people saw when they happened to look.

On that we agree.

Curious....

Did you watch the trial? All of it?

If you were on the jury, what would you have done?
 
Oh and yes, I would brag about killing Martin too.

Whether it was a clean shoot or not, bragging about being involved in a controversial shooting is extremely stupid and puts a target on your head.
 
The court records and testimony.

You mean the testimony that states that Zimmerman had lost Martin and he was on hi way back to his vehicle when he was jumped?

You mean that evidence?
 
Does it have to be explained to you again?

How many times has it been explained to you what happened that night?

No, it doesn't have to be explained to me: I know what the court testimony says and what it doesn't.

Why don't you?
 
Whether it was a clean shoot or not, bragging about being involved in a controversial shooting is extremely stupid and puts a target on your head.

I wouldn't be surprised if someone takes Zimmerman out.
 
No, it doesn't have to be explained to me: I know what the court testimony says and what it doesn't.

Why don't you?

I do, that is why I asked.

What trial did you watch?
 
No, you're asking them. You can pretend it's a confrontation, but that won't make it so. To say nothing of the fact that in the sequence of events, contact was lost between them after he asked and had to be reinitiated by one of the parties later, and we don't know who that was.

Yes, we do. It was Martin.

There is absolutely zero evidence, whatsoever, about who initiated any violence. None. Go ahead and cite the where in the court records there is. I'll wait.

Ummm...yes, there is. The evidence was also cited for you. lol.
 
LOL! You mean Zimmerman's testimony? Too funny.

If you don't accept the facts of the case, then what are you doing here.

You can't make stuff up and expect people to take you seriously.

The physical evidence backed up his story.

Now if you don't agree with that I am sure we would love to hear why. Please use the evidence we know, and not a made up scenario.
 
I have a feeling someones going to show up here very butthurt, very soon. Saying Zimmerman more than three times in one post summons them.

No, we need to make public ass whipping legal.
 
Curious....

Did you watch the trial? All of it?

If you were on the jury, what would you have done?

Yes, I watched almost all of it.

I can't say for 100% what I would have done on the jury, but I know there was possibly some shenanigans going on after juror B37s statements.
 
Yes, I watched almost all of it.

I can't say for 100% what I would have done on the jury, but I know there was possibly some shenanigans going on after juror B37s statements.

Why can't you?
 
If you don't accept the facts of the case, then what are you doing here.

Apparently what I"m doing here is exposing your ignorance of the facts in this case. I consider it a civic duty, so please don't thank me.
You can't make stuff up and expect people to take you seriously.

I haven't made anything up.
The physical evidence backed up his story.

No evidence backed up who initiated the violence.
Now if you don't agree with that I am sure we would love to hear why. Please use the evidence we know, and not a made up scenario.

I've already explained this: Witnesses only saw the fight in progress, not who started it. You not knowing that tells me all I need to know about how little you know the details of this case.
 
I've never disputed what the verdict was.

Please learn to follow along in threads better.

Well, then his testimony was not as funny as you think.
 
Apparently what I"m doing here is exposing your ignorance of the facts in this case. I consider it a civic duty, so please don't thank me.

I haven't made anything up.

No evidence backed up who initiated the violence.

I've already explained this: Witnesses only saw the fight in progress, not who started it. You not knowing that tells me all I need to know about how little you know the details of this case.

All you have done is make it clear that you're ignorant of the case.
 
Because I think he was over-charged. Should have been manslaughter.

Then the answer to my question --- if you were on the jury, what would you have done? is that you would've acquitted him too.
 
Back
Top Bottom