Black people are getting smarter!

Taichiliberal said:
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.
Click to expand...

Now see, there you go lying again; all in an attempt to try to make your comments seem intelligent.

How is "standing your ground", returning to a specific area, confronting someone, and then physically assaulting them?

I'll await your unbiased and fact based response.
 
cawacko said:
You're free to stop the communication but you've shown zero evidence of him being at the scene. Who besides you has claimed he was at the scene? I don't fancy myself an expert but having followed and read on the trial I'm pretty well versed on it. Other than those who claimed he committed the murder no one I've seen has claimed he was at the scene.

I'm just trying to understand how you came up with that information.
Click to expand...

You understand it, you just reject the possibility. So be it.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Now see, there you go lying again; all in an attempt to try to make your comments seem intelligent.

How is "standing your ground", returning to a specific area, confronting someone, and then physically assaulting them?

I'll await your unbiased and fact based response.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Taichiliberal said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
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.
Click to expand...

So that justifies Martin smashing Zims head into the cement?
 
cawacko said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Irish said:
So that justifies Martin smashing Zims head into the cement?
Click to expand...

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? :doh:
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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. :doh:
 
Taichiliberal said:
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. :doh:
Click to expand...

The court that heard the case said otherwise to all your bullshit speculation.
 
Taichiliberal said:
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? :doh:
Click to expand...

ftfy
 
Taichiliberal said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
ftfy
Click to expand...

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.
 
cawacko said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Taichiliberal said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Taichiliberal said:
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.
Click to expand...

But that would mean you have to have posted some facts and logic, which you didn't; because you lied. :D
 
Taichiliberal said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well said, liberal. What's most important is that in the case of Nicole and the Goldmans, justice has been served!

Oh, wait....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top