Moderator: Community Team
Exactly...they probably would have just thrown him in prison.Phatscotty wrote:I will speculate a little bit. Zimmerman is a neighborhood watchman. He saw a stranger (Trayvon did not live there) walking through the closed community. The watchman asked Trayvon if he lived there and maybe where he was going. Trayvon told him to go f*ck himself. Zimmerman got out of the car and told Trayvon to show him how someone fucks themselves. They got into a fight, Trayvon was getting the best of Zimmerman, and Zimm pulled out the gun and shot him.
If a grand jury finds there is enough evidence to try Zimm in front of his peers and he is found guilty, fine, lock his ass up. The police files will be opened in a couple weeks. But to me this isn't about Zimm or Tray, it's about the media severely misrepresenting the facts and intentionally misleading people. I call it the Loughner/Fluke strategy.
The saddest thing is, if Zimmerman were a black person, nobody would be talking about it.
Which ones? I have been trying to make sure to point out when I'm speculating or when we don't know, but I have caught myself miswording things a few times.AAFitz wrote:Exactly...they probably would have just thrown him in prison.Phatscotty wrote:I will speculate a little bit. Zimmerman is a neighborhood watchman. He saw a stranger (Trayvon did not live there) walking through the closed community. The watchman asked Trayvon if he lived there and maybe where he was going. Trayvon told him to go f*ck himself. Zimmerman got out of the car and told Trayvon to show him how someone fucks themselves. They got into a fight, Trayvon was getting the best of Zimmerman, and Zimm pulled out the gun and shot him.
If a grand jury finds there is enough evidence to try Zimm in front of his peers and he is found guilty, fine, lock his ass up. The police files will be opened in a couple weeks. But to me this isn't about Zimm or Tray, it's about the media severely misrepresenting the facts and intentionally misleading people. I call it the Loughner/Fluke strategy.
The saddest thing is, if Zimmerman were a black person, nobody would be talking about it.
Statistically speaking of course.
I would also point out that you were trying to very much do some misleading yourself with your facts, and were very much using the facts to suggest something they didnt.
Was he on drugs, or up to no good? What was in his hands?Phatscotty wrote:911 callAradhus wrote:Phatscotty wrote:How did Zimmerman get a broken nose? How did he get a cut on the back of his head?
Just wondering if anyone knows.
Assuming that is true, could it be that he attacked the kid he was fucking stalking, and the kid defended himself?
You guys are clowns.
“This guy looks like he’s up to no good or on drugs or something,” Mr. Zimmerman told dispatch, in his initial call. “It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.” Mr. Zimmerman continued: “He’s here now just looking at all the houses. Now he’s just staring at me.” Then he added a second later: “He’s coming to check me out. He’s got something in his hands. I don’t know what his deal is. Can you get an officer over here?”
Dude, I was just quoting the 911 phone tapes. I have no ideaAAFitz wrote:Was he on drugs, or up to no good?Phatscotty wrote:911 callAradhus wrote:Phatscotty wrote:How did Zimmerman get a broken nose? How did he get a cut on the back of his head?
Just wondering if anyone knows.
Assuming that is true, could it be that he attacked the kid he was fucking stalking, and the kid defended himself?
You guys are clowns.
“This guy looks like he’s up to no good or on drugs or something,” Mr. Zimmerman told dispatch, in his initial call. “It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.” Mr. Zimmerman continued: “He’s here now just looking at all the houses. Now he’s just staring at me.” Then he added a second later: “He’s coming to check me out. He’s got something in his hands. I don’t know what his deal is. Can you get an officer over here?”
Dude, I was just pointing out that the 911 call doesnt at all mean anything out of context.Phatscotty wrote:Dude, I was just quoting the 911 phone tapes. I have no ideaAAFitz wrote:Was he on drugs, or up to no good?Phatscotty wrote:911 callAradhus wrote:Phatscotty wrote:How did Zimmerman get a broken nose? How did he get a cut on the back of his head?
Just wondering if anyone knows.
Assuming that is true, could it be that he attacked the kid he was fucking stalking, and the kid defended himself?
You guys are clowns.
“This guy looks like he’s up to no good or on drugs or something,” Mr. Zimmerman told dispatch, in his initial call. “It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.” Mr. Zimmerman continued: “He’s here now just looking at all the houses. Now he’s just staring at me.” Then he added a second later: “He’s coming to check me out. He’s got something in his hands. I don’t know what his deal is. Can you get an officer over here?”

jay_a2j wrote:hey if any1 would like me to make them a signature or like an avator just let me no, my sig below i did, and i also did "panther 88" so i can do something like that for u if ud like...
It wouldnt be funny if it wasnt true.pimpdave wrote:
Carrying a gun means he was out for blood? He's been carrying a gun for over 10 years....just wondering what took him so long...AAFitz wrote:Dude, I was just pointing out that the 911 call doesnt at all mean anything out of context.Phatscotty wrote:Dude, I was just quoting the 911 phone tapes. I have no ideaAAFitz wrote:Was he on drugs, or up to no good?Phatscotty wrote:911 callAradhus wrote:
Assuming that is true, could it be that he attacked the kid he was fucking stalking, and the kid defended himself?
You guys are clowns.
“This guy looks like he’s up to no good or on drugs or something,” Mr. Zimmerman told dispatch, in his initial call. “It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.” Mr. Zimmerman continued: “He’s here now just looking at all the houses. Now he’s just staring at me.” Then he added a second later: “He’s coming to check me out. He’s got something in his hands. I don’t know what his deal is. Can you get an officer over here?”
If the guy Zimmerman was out for blood, as perhaps the gun suggested....the 911 call especially if the facts are untrue, is actually evidence against him.
If the kid wasnt on drugs, didnt have anything in his hand, and wasnt up to no good.... he had absolutely no reason to be going near him and possibly confronting him causing the entire situation.Phatscotty wrote:
Carrying a gun means he was out for blood? He's been carrying a gun for over 10 years....just wondering what took him so long...
and I don't follow you on the 911 call. I think you mean Zimmerman may have just been covering his own ass? Yes I think that is possible. What do you mean that it's evidence against him?
I think you're the one in the circus act here, and I for one, am fully entertained.Phatscotty wrote:You guys are clowns.
you misquoted. #1 Aradhaus said that #2 you should know I do not call people here names.AAFitz wrote:I think you're the one in the circus act here, and I for one, am fully entertained.Phatscotty wrote:You guys are clowns.
but gotta work dammit...Ill try to resume later
Even in your speculative fantasy, Zimmerman is obviously at fault.Phatscotty wrote:I will speculate a little bit. Zimmerman is a neighborhood watchman. He saw a stranger (Trayvon did not live there) walking through the closed community. The watchman asked Trayvon if he lived there and maybe where he was going. Trayvon told him to go f*ck himself. Zimmerman got out of the car and told Trayvon to show him how someone fucks themselves. They got into a fight, Trayvon was getting the best of Zimmerman, and Zimm pulled out the gun and shot him.
The point he's making is that when it's politically beneficial for him, he will address violent crimes directly.Aradhus wrote:are you smoking crack tgd? A - Obama looks like a black man. What the f*ck are you talking about? Is he not speaking out enough about white kids being gunned down and the murder not investigated properly?
B - the point he is making is that wether you're the son of the president, or some random schmo on the street, your death deserves to be treated with the same level of investigation. Without bias. Without prejudice. With justice.
thegreekdog wrote:The point he's making is that when it's politically beneficial for him, he will address violent crimes directly.Aradhus wrote:are you smoking crack tgd? A - Obama looks like a black man. What the f*ck are you talking about? Is he not speaking out enough about white kids being gunned down and the murder not investigated properly?
B - the point he is making is that wether you're the son of the president, or some random schmo on the street, your death deserves to be treated with the same level of investigation. Without bias. Without prejudice. With justice.
Do you know how many violent crimes happen in the United States to young black people? How many times has the president directly addressed these? Zero? Why is he addressing it now? The answer is because it's politically beneficial for him to do so.
From what I've read, this is a crime and a violent crime and a violent crime against a young black man, and it's horrible and it shouldn't happen and we should all be outraged. But we should all be outraged any time this happens. And we're not. And the president certainly is not. So, again, why is he outraged now?
The media repeatedly asks him about a lot of things, like Syria or Iran or his manufacturing plan, and he chooses not to answer those questions. Please don't mistake my criticism of the president for my support of the crime. I don't support the crime. If the president wants to address violence against black men, he should spend some time coming up with some solutions and less time giving soundbites so that racists like Jesse Jackson can use those soundbites.Aradhus wrote:thegreekdog wrote:The point he's making is that when it's politically beneficial for him, he will address violent crimes directly.Aradhus wrote:are you smoking crack tgd? A - Obama looks like a black man. What the f*ck are you talking about? Is he not speaking out enough about white kids being gunned down and the murder not investigated properly?
B - the point he is making is that wether you're the son of the president, or some random schmo on the street, your death deserves to be treated with the same level of investigation. Without bias. Without prejudice. With justice.
Do you know how many violent crimes happen in the United States to young black people? How many times has the president directly addressed these? Zero? Why is he addressing it now? The answer is because it's politically beneficial for him to do so.
From what I've read, this is a crime and a violent crime and a violent crime against a young black man, and it's horrible and it shouldn't happen and we should all be outraged. But we should all be outraged any time this happens. And we're not. And the president certainly is not. So, again, why is he outraged now?
Or.... He's answering, because the media repeatedly ask him about it... And his point was almost exactly what your last paragraph is.
A neighborhood watch is supposed to watch, it's right there in the name. Watch doesn't include investigate or interrogate. If someone with no uniform or badge approached me on the street and started demanding I answer questions about my travel plans I'd probably tell them to go f*ck themselves also.Phatscotty wrote:I will speculate a little bit. Zimmerman is a neighborhood watchman. He saw a stranger (Trayvon did not live there) walking through the closed community. The watchman asked Trayvon if he lived there and maybe where he was going. Trayvon told him to go f*ck himself. Zimmerman got out of the car and told Trayvon to show him how someone fucks themselves. They got into a fight, Trayvon was getting the best of Zimmerman, and Zimm pulled out the gun and shot him.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 0#p5349880
lmaoTimminz wrote:Even in your speculative fantasy, Zimmerman is obviously at fault.Phatscotty wrote:I will speculate a little bit. Zimmerman is a neighborhood watchman. He saw a stranger (Trayvon did not live there) walking through the closed community. The watchman asked Trayvon if he lived there and maybe where he was going. Trayvon told him to go f*ck himself. Zimmerman got out of the car and told Trayvon to show him how someone fucks themselves. They got into a fight, Trayvon was getting the best of Zimmerman, and Zimm pulled out the gun and shot him.
"He told me to go f*ck myself", is not a valid reason to confront someone physically. Also, losing a fight to and unarmed person half your size (a fight that you initiated), is not a valid reason to shoot someone to death.
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.
Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
Not many people think Zimmerman isn't at fault. But what is he at fault for? What kind of legal case is there against him? Murder? Probably not, assuming the witness accounts are correct. Man Slaughter? Probably not, assuming that the witness accounts are correct. Some sort of lesser deadly negligence charge? That's possibly where his legal fault lays. That's still a serious charge. I don't think anybody feels especially great about defending George Zimmerman. He's either a nimrod or he had a serious lapse in judgment. But many of us object to the media's myriad of irresponsible reporting and social engineering in the wake of the tragedy. I also am annoyed that blacks aren't held to account. They just get to scream racism any time they want and we're not supposed to challenge them. F that. They know the facts. They just want attention and to be victims of the man. PS said it best__ they murder more people than anyone. They need to take responsibility for their own actions instead of looking for scapegoats.Timminz wrote:Even in your speculative fantasy, Zimmerman is obviously at fault.Phatscotty wrote:I will speculate a little bit. Zimmerman is a neighborhood watchman. He saw a stranger (Trayvon did not live there) walking through the closed community. The watchman asked Trayvon if he lived there and maybe where he was going. Trayvon told him to go f*ck himself. Zimmerman got out of the car and told Trayvon to show him how someone fucks themselves. They got into a fight, Trayvon was getting the best of Zimmerman, and Zimm pulled out the gun and shot him.
"He told me to go f*ck myself", is not a valid reason to confront someone physically. Also, losing a fight to and unarmed person half your size (a fight that you initiated), is not a valid reason to shoot someone to death.
Why wasn't he supposed to have a gun? Every law abiding citizen is allowed to have a gun if they choose to. That's why we have the 2nd Amendment.spurgistan wrote:"Speculate" =/ "invent a scenario that would fit your worldview when we already possess most of the relevant information."
Zimmerman wasn't supposed to have a gun. The dispatcher Zimmerman spoke with was adamant that he not pursue Trayvon, because he wasn't supposed to do that. Zimmerman sounded angry that "they always get away."
ViperOverLord wrote:I also am annoyed that blacks aren't held to account. They just get to scream racism any time they want and we're not supposed to challenge them.
There are more blacks in the US than just those who are African-Americans. There are also African-Americans who are not black. And yes, people like Al Sharpton do get to cry racism without any challenge to their irrational grudges against white people.Symmetry wrote:ViperOverLord wrote:I also am annoyed that blacks aren't held to account. They just get to scream racism any time they want and we're not supposed to challenge them.![]()
I'm gonna go ahead and offer you the chance to rephrase that. Perhaps, I would gently suggest, in a way that doesn't suggest you hold an irrational grudge against African-Americans.
I'm a little baffled, I must say, how precisely is Al Sharpton not challenged? Presumably you're looking at different sources than me, as he seems to be challenged fairly often. I'm also a little unclear on your irrational grudges against white people line that you feel black people have.Night Strike wrote:There are more blacks in the US than just those who are African-Americans. There are also African-Americans who are not black. And yes, people like Al Sharpton do get to cry racism without any challenge to their irrational grudges against white people.Symmetry wrote:ViperOverLord wrote:I also am annoyed that blacks aren't held to account. They just get to scream racism any time they want and we're not supposed to challenge them.![]()
I'm gonna go ahead and offer you the chance to rephrase that. Perhaps, I would gently suggest, in a way that doesn't suggest you hold an irrational grudge against African-Americans.
I'm not going to pander to your liberal condescension. I said what I meant. You choose to see an irrational grudge that does not exist.Symmetry wrote:ViperOverLord wrote:I also am annoyed that blacks aren't held to account. They just get to scream racism any time they want and we're not supposed to challenge them.![]()
I'm gonna go ahead and offer you the chance to rephrase that. Perhaps, I would gently suggest, in a way that doesn't suggest you hold an irrational grudge against African-Americans.
I know you'd rather reduce it to a sensational come on instead of realizing the fullness of the logic.I also am annoyed that blacks aren't held to account. They just get to scream racism any time they want and we're not supposed to challenge them. F that. They know the facts. They just want attention and to be victims of the man. PS said it best__ they murder more people than anyone. They need to take responsibility for their own actions instead of looking for scapegoats.
Then you're kind of racist dude. Sorry, but the idea that "blacks" aren't held to account is ridiculous. I'm guessing, from the tone of your post, that this isn't the first time you've been called racist over something you've said, and that you're annoyed that so many people call you racist.ViperOverLord wrote:I'm not going to pander to your liberal condescension. I said what I meant. You choose to see an irrational grudge that does not exist.Symmetry wrote:ViperOverLord wrote:I also am annoyed that blacks aren't held to account. They just get to scream racism any time they want and we're not supposed to challenge them.![]()
I'm gonna go ahead and offer you the chance to rephrase that. Perhaps, I would gently suggest, in a way that doesn't suggest you hold an irrational grudge against African-Americans.