Dunn trial begins in Florida

It was not a "supposed" lie; it was an all out-full blown fabrication, on our part.

"on our part"?

speak for yourself. We all KNOW you're a lying sack of shit, but We - you and I - have never fabricated anything together, let alone a lie.

Now... if you have a lie that I personally supposedly said, present it or stfu....
 
"on our part"?

speak for yourself. We all KNOW you're a lying sack of shit, but We - you and I - have never fabricated anything together, let alone a lie.

Now... if you have a lie that I personally supposedly said, present it or stfu....

I accidently dropped a "y" and that should have been your; but watching you have a conniption fit, was well worth the typo.

Almost forgot.
YES, you are a liar.
 
::yawn::

no. I am not.

If I were, you could point to one. you can't.

stfu.

amf.

:grin:

Yes you are.

Already shown your lies, in the past. The fact that you've forgotten them, is your problem, not mine.

Die soon, so your "wife" can find someone she's truly in love with.

dal
 
Well I think that the intent of this post has born out what I thought would happen. In the Trayvon Martin killing by George Zimmerman there is not a lot to go by in the way of fact. We do know that Mr. Zimmerman was on community watch. We do know that he profiled Mr. Martin. We do know that he followed Mr. Martin against police instructions. We also know that a confrontation occurred in which Mr. Zimmerman was injured and Mr. Martin was killed. Those are the facts of the case. The main fact we do not know is who initiated the physical confrontation and why.

Now Club Zimmerman supporters are adamant that Mr. Zimmerman had a right to self defense under these set of facts. Conversely they also believe that under the exact same set of facts that had Mr. Martin killed Mr. Zimmerman that Mr. Martin did not have a right to self defense. Obviously a double standard.

So that leads to this question. What is the motivation of Club Zimmerman supporters to have a double standard for the exact same set of facts? Why are they inconsistent about the objective application of self defense rights? Why do they have one standard for Mr. Zimmerman and another for Mr. Martin?

I think the answer is pretty much provided by Occam's Razor.
 
Well I think that the intent of this post has born out what I thought would happen. In the Trayvon Martin killing by George Zimmerman there is not a lot to go by in the way of fact. We do know that Mr. Zimmerman was on community watch. We do know that he profiled Mr. Martin. We do know that he followed Mr. Martin against police instructions. We also know that a confrontation occurred in which Mr. Zimmerman was injured and Mr. Martin was killed. Those are the facts of the case. The main fact we do not know is who initiated the physical confrontation and why.

Now Club Zimmerman supporters are adamant that Mr. Zimmerman had a right to self defense under these set of facts. Conversely they also believe that under the exact same set of facts that had Mr. Martin killed Mr. Zimmerman that Mr. Martin did not have a right to self defense. Obviously a double standard.

So that leads to this question. What is the motivation of Club Zimmerman supporters to have a double standard for the exact same set of facts? Why are they inconsistent about the objective application of self defense rights? Why do they have one standard for Mr. Zimmerman and another for Mr. Martin?

I think the answer is pretty much provided by Occam's Razor.

There is no proof that Zimmerman "profiled" Trayvon.
There is no proof that Zimmerman followed Trayvon, "against police instructions"; but your attempt at this just means that you're a dishonest-cock sucking-lying-dumb ass-liberal.

There is no double standard.

You should use that "razor" to slit your throat.
 
Well I think that the intent of this post has born out what I thought would happen. In the Trayvon Martin killing by George Zimmerman there is not a lot to go by in the way of fact. We do know that Mr. Zimmerman was on community watch. We do know that he profiled Mr. Martin. We do know that he followed Mr. Martin against police instructions. We also know that a confrontation occurred in which Mr. Zimmerman was injured and Mr. Martin was killed. Those are the facts of the case. The main fact we do not know is who initiated the physical confrontation and why.

Now Club Zimmerman supporters are adamant that Mr. Zimmerman had a right to self defense under these set of facts. Conversely they also believe that under the exact same set of facts that had Mr. Martin killed Mr. Zimmerman that Mr. Martin did not have a right to self defense. Obviously a double standard.

So that leads to this question. What is the motivation of Club Zimmerman supporters to have a double standard for the exact same set of facts? Why are they inconsistent about the objective application of self defense rights? Why do they have one standard for Mr. Zimmerman and another for Mr. Martin?

I think the answer is pretty much provided by Occam's Razor.

I didn't know Occam knew Zimmerman and I didn't know he had the answers on his razor. But I sometimes wondered how he got such good grades on all those tests! Now I understand!
 
deep down he is probably a good person. please speak to him lovingly and compassionately, and gently/patiently explain to him why he is wrong. thank you.

ironic or not, as a victim of his 2 weeks of his near around the clock rape fantasies about me I can attest to the fact that this is not likely.
 
Well I think that the intent of this post has born out what I thought would happen. In the Trayvon Martin killing by George Zimmerman there is not a lot to go by in the way of fact. We do know that Mr. Zimmerman was on community watch. We do know that he profiled Mr. Martin. We do know that he followed Mr. Martin against police instructions. We also know that a confrontation occurred in which Mr. Zimmerman was injured and Mr. Martin was killed. Those are the facts of the case. The main fact we do not know is who initiated the physical confrontation and why.

Now Club Zimmerman supporters are adamant that Mr. Zimmerman had a right to self defense under these set of facts. Conversely they also believe that under the exact same set of facts that had Mr. Martin killed Mr. Zimmerman that Mr. Martin did not have a right to self defense. Obviously a double standard.

So that leads to this question. What is the motivation of Club Zimmerman supporters to have a double standard for the exact same set of facts? Why are they inconsistent about the objective application of self defense rights? Why do they have one standard for Mr. Zimmerman and another for Mr. Martin?

I think the answer is pretty much provided by Occam's Razor.

And let's not forget that GZ was NEVER OFFICIALLY A MEMBER OF THE LOCAL NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH....if he was, then he should have been arrested for carrying a weapon, which members are forbidden by law to do. And as I pointed out earlier, Zimmerman initiated the chain of events that led to the confrontation.

And the band played on.
 
And let's not forget that GZ was NEVER OFFICIALLY A MEMBER OF THE LOCAL NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH....

LMAO; so how does one become an “official” neighborhood watch person?

if he was, then he should have been arrested for carrying a weapon, which members are forbidden by law to do.

Really; can you produce the law the prosecutor OBVIOUSLY missed?

And as I pointed out earlier, Zimmerman initiated the chain of events that led to the confrontation.

I am amused that following someone acting suspicious in your neighborhood is justification to get jumped and beat MMA style.

And the band played on.

Wrong; and your stupidity plays on.
 
There is no proof that Zimmerman "profiled" Trayvon.
There is no proof that Zimmerman followed Trayvon, "against police instructions"; but your attempt at this just means that you're a dishonest-cock sucking-lying-dumb ass-liberal.

There is no double standard.

You should use that "razor" to slit your throat.
Well if being objective makes me a liberal than so be it. Please tell me how you can apply the same set of facts to two different people and come up with two different standards of appropriate behavior? How could that not be a double standard?

As for Mr. Zimmerman profiling Mr. Martin. There is hard cold fact that he did so. You must not know what the applicable definition of a profile is:

Profile - Noun, a short biograpical sketch of a person or subject.

You are confusinig profiling with racial profiling. We know for a fact Mr. Zimmerman profiled Mr. Martin. We have his recorded words as evidence to that fact. What we don't know for a fact is if he racially profiled Mr. Martin. It is probably a safe assumption that he did so, but not a demonstrable fact.

Same applies to the Police Instructions. Mr. Zimmerman was clearly told not to follow Mr. Martin but did so anyways.

We also know he was armed with a gun and that a confrontation occurred.
 
Back
Top