[The1]

wow..... I can't believe this is still going.

I honestly feel dumber and can't believe I read all of this...

the relentlessness of this is impressive.

I'm impressed that nobody has thrown their hands up yet and exited the thread

[MDyDinanM]

Originally Posted by 48Laws

rant

To each his own. I'll end with that this isn't a simple case as you make it seem to be, regardless of your strong opinion in the matter. If it were that simple, then Zimmerman would have been judged, and would be serving time now. But it is not, hence the debate and national coverage of the event. I'm not going to sit here and have circular arguments with you. For every point you make, I'll make a counterpoint and round it round it goes. Just know that I'm not the only one on here saying the same thing towards you which is, in simple terms, innocent until proven guilty. Zimmerman will have his day in court, be tried, and that's that.

Originally Posted by Joekerr

"never argue with a fool, they will drag you down to their level, and then beat you with experience" One of them seems to have presented pretty reasoned arguments and defense, while the other seems to contradict themselves while foaming at the mouth, clearly the reasoned one may wish to refrain from going further as there's simply no value in it...

I wouldn't necessarily call 48Laws a fool. I respect his opinion, but not his rationalization on how he came to his conclusions. Where I do agree with you is that there is no value in arguing this further.

[ragingclue]

Originally Posted by 48Laws

RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE.

Please just tell me you don't vote. Just say so and I'll be happy.

BTW, it's "Trayvon". I find it telling that you don't know that.

You are either a troll or the biggest muppet on the planet.

I bet you're Nixon (who is both of the above).

[48Laws]

Originally Posted by ragingclue

Please just tell me you don't vote. Just say so and I'll be happy.

BTW, it's "Trayvon". I find it telling that you don't know that.

You are either a troll or the biggest muppet on the planet.

I bet you're Nixon (who is both of the above).

This is a case of someone who doesn't have two brain-cells to rub together but, his anonymity and keyboard is enough encouragement for him to reply anyway. I'm not offended by your silly post. wow, I made a typo. internet trolling-tactic 101.

[The1]

Originally Posted by 48Laws

This is a case of someone who doesn't have two brain-cells to rub together but, his anonymity and keyboard is enough encouragement for him to reply anyway. I'm not offended by your silly post. wow, I made a typo. internet trolling-tactic 101.

but here's the problem with what you're doing. He was acting a troll just to bug you and you fell for it hook line and sinker.

and in the process you threw more information out there for him or others to bust your balls about.

start using your head when you're having a debate online. I don't agree or dissagree with anything you're saying, honestly, I don't care what anyone is saying. But when you make dumb comments and insult people, then act surprised that people are ganging up on you.... you're not putting thought into it.

slow down, take a breather, and put something constructive down and you'll start getting more respect, even if what you say isn't necessarily what others agree with.

[The1]

and if you can't figure that out by your next post, I am going to side with people and start calling you a troll.

[48Laws]

Originally Posted by The1

but here's the problem with what you're doing. He was acting a troll just to bug you and you fell for it hook line and sinker.

and in the process you threw more information out there for him or others to bust your balls about.

start using your head when you're having a debate online. I don't agree or dissagree with anything you're saying, honestly, I don't care what anyone is saying. But when you make dumb comments and insult people, then act surprised that people are ganging up on you.... you're not putting thought into it.

slow down, take a breather, and put something constructive down and you'll start getting more respect, even if what you say isn't necessarily what others agree with.

I don't think you know how the internet works. You have some people who can articulate their opinion and agree to disagree with others. Then you have others who get upset and aim to segue into a trolling fest because the opinion they have read is so strong and so complete, they have no clue how to address it. So, they go with what they do best, trolling. And God forbid if you're an opinionated member with an unfamiliar screen-name. Some people take this stuff seriously. They even reply on behalf of other members. That's the blind loyalty and stupidity of online forums. They can't just allow two people to hash out their differences in peace.

[ragingclue]

Originally Posted by 48Laws

This is a case of someone who doesn't have two brain-cells to rub together but, his anonymity and keyboard is enough encouragement for him to reply anyway. I'm not offended by your silly post. wow, I made a typo. internet trolling-tactic 101.

At least fourteen consistent misspellings of his name on one page of this thread alone is not a typo. Look up what a typo is. It was not a mistake that the word ended up like that on the screen; you deliberately spelled it that way. This is NOT a typo. But I only have one brain cell, so....

Judging by your ability to somewhat spell and adhere to decent grammar in recent posts, I'd say it says a lot about you. What it tells me is that you haven't READ anything about the case; instead you've digested everything you know from TV. If you had read up, especially the amount that is required to sift through the bullshit out there, you'd know how to spell his name. Judging by your other statements, I'd also bet that you haven't checked up on the case in a while, and you get your news from one single TV channel. You bolster the argument that you're simply ignorant with every post of your own; it's amazing.

My goal is not to offend you. I really couldn't care less if you were offended. I honestly really do hope people like you don't vote. That is the straight up truth.

And to be blatantly honest, I'm embarrassed that a fellow veteran is behaving in the manner you are.

Also, I find it odd that your username is based on a book which was inspired by Sun Tzu. Have you ever read The Art of War? You certainly seem like you have not.

[48Laws]

Originally Posted by ragingclue

At least fourteen consistent misspellings of his name on one page of this thread alone is not a typo. Look up what a typo is. It was not a mistake that the word ended up like that on the screen; you deliberately spelled it that way. This is NOT a typo. But I only have one brain cell, so....

There are several news sources that refer to him as, Travon. For an unconventional, ethnic name, I'd say misspelling his name is pretty common but, again, you're a certified troll who wants to segue into distractions because you don't have the aptitude or ability to make a point about the actual case.

Judging by your ability to somewhat spell and adhere to decent grammar in recent posts, I'd say it says a lot about you. What it tells me is that you haven't READ anything about the case; instead you've digested everything you know from TV. If you had read up, especially the amount that is required to sift through the bullshit out there, you'd know how to spell his name. Judging by your other statements, I'd also bet that you haven't checked up on the case in a while, and you get your news from one single TV channel. You bolster the argument that you're simply ignorant with every post; it's amazing.

Here's the hilarity in your post...You give credit to written documents which is essentially the same BS that floods our television news source, for many are from the same sources. Show me the distinct difference, Judge Judy? You have no special access to information regarding this case unless you work for Zimmerman's defense team or the state of Florida's prosecutors office. You're amazing.

My goal is not to offend you. I really couldn't care less if you were offended. I honestly really do hope people like you don't vote. That is the straight up truth.

Anyone who really couldn't care less would show indifference by not clicking on the damn thread to begin with.

And to be blatantly honest, I'm embarrassed that a fellow veteran is behaving in the manner you are.

Fake outrage inspired by some non-existing relationship you assume we both have. I don't know you nor do I care. Behaving like what? Giving my opinion about a case? If my comments about this case offend you, I'm curious why anyone of your ilk would be trolling off-topic where more graphic topics are discussed regularly. But ya know, I making too much sense now....

Also, I find it odd that your username is based on a book which was inspired by Sun Tzu. Have you ever read The Art of War? You certainly seem like you have not.

For someone who just a minute ago couldn't care less, you sure contradict yourself. That's why going back and forth with you is so easy.

[ragingclue]

I said I couldn't care less if I offended you, not that I couldn't care less to participate in (what was before you) a civil discussion. Simple concept, but somehow beyond your comprehension. SHOCKER!

But by all means, keep making yourself look like an idiot. That's your prerogative.

[48Laws]

Originally Posted by ragingclue

I said I couldn't care less if I offended you, not that I couldn't care less to participate in (what was before you) a civil discussion. Simple concept, but somehow beyond your comprehension. SHOCKER!

But by all means, keep making yourself look like an idiot. That's your prerogative.

Trolling is not participating.

Not caring if you offended me or not while actually saying nothing redeemable in a serious topic exposes the level of maturity you have, rather lack.

[ragingclue]

Originally Posted by 48Laws

Trolling is not participating.

Not caring if you offended me or not while actually saying nothing redeemable in a serious topic exposes the level of maturity you have, rather lack.

Trolling? I'm usefully contributing to this thread.

Look at the posts. It's not just myself and the other posters you've quoted who think you're ill-informed and irrational (both!). I've been mature and polite throughout, but if you don't like what I've said, you're welcome to seethe until your vagina starts seeping demons; I don't care.

I've provided plenty of substance to the conversation. You, however, seem to be here just to irk others. You are the definition of a troll. And a bad troll at that.

Can you at least provide something relevant to your viewpoint, other than self-aggrandizing bullshit? I don't think you can. Nothing you say makes any sense and you contradict yourself at every turn.

Trayvon can't testify? Neither can anyone who has been killed, Einstein. Does this mean every time someone is killed, the person "most" responsible should be condemned based on the fact that there's zero testimony available from the deceased? You say judging GZ based on the law is undermining the justice system, yet you think that GZ should be condemned solely based on the fact that his actions killed a man? If you can't understand how terribly hypocritical that is, and how badly it undermines the very core of your argument, then I don't know what to say to you.

There was a time when the world was ruled by people like you. Then we became civilized. I think you need a DeLorean.

Also, you've made it clear that you wouldn't give two shits if the shooter was black and the victim was white. Therefore, your mind is made up based on the race of those involved and not the incident at hand. Nobody is taking anything you say seriously. I am, however, getting quite a kick out of you making an ass of yourself. It's quite a spectacle.

I think I do care now that you're offended. It's starting to get entertaining. Please continue.

[MDyDinanM]

Originally Posted by ragingclue

Trayvon can't testify? Neither can anyone who has been killed, Einstein. Does this mean every time someone is killed, the person "most" responsible should be condemned based on the fact that there's zero testimony available from the deceased? You say judging GZ based on the law is undermining the justice system, yet you think that GZ should be condemned solely based on the fact that his actions killed a man? If you can't understand how terribly hypocritical that is, and how badly it undermines the very core of your argument, then I don't know what to say to you.

That's actually a decent point that I didn't think of.

Also, something I just thought of, if 48Laws is bringing into question all the 911 calls GZ has made in the past and is allegedly notorious for (48Laws calls him a lunatic with a hero complex), then should we bring Travon's history in as well, such as his school suspension, drug use, and other patterns of misconduct, etc? Are we justified in calling Travon a trouble maker? I would say no in the instance that since he was simply going to the store to buy stuff, that in it of itself doesn't mean anything. However, is it right to go as far to say that because he was a trouble maker that his behavior pattern would allegedly have influenced and caused him to (according to GZ testimony) assault GZ? Or are both irrelevant? If GZ is notorious for all the 911 calls, was it for trouble they were having in the neighborhood that was once reported as the cause for neighborhood watch in the first place? Or is that speculation?

Does any of the above matter? Or should we focus on the event at hand irregardless of each person's prior history (as I alluded to in a prior post, and calling it character assassination in another post)

Once again, I don't think this case is so simple. I don't think it fair for 48Laws to bring GZ's "past" without at least considering Travon's history and seeing how that would perhaps influence his behavior as well, not for going to the store, but for whatever altercation occurred between him and GZ - if and only if GZ's testimony is true. If not, then we'll find out.

Anyways, hopefully that's it for me. Don't want to get wrapped up into writing narratives into a circular debate that won't end. Even when this trial is over, guilty or not, there will still be those that say yay or nay - as with the Casey Anthony trial.

[The1]

Originally Posted by mdyaman

That's actually a decent point that I didn't think of.

Also, something I just thought of, if 48Laws is bringing into question all the 911 calls GZ has made in the past and is allegedly notorious for (48Laws calls him a lunatic with a hero complex), then should we bring Travon's history in as well, such as his school suspension, drug use, and other patterns of misconduct, etc? Are we justified in calling Travon a trouble maker? I would say no in the instance that since he was simply going to the store to buy stuff, that in it of itself doesn't mean anything. However, is it right to go as far to say that because he was a trouble maker that his behavior pattern would allegedly have influenced and caused him to (according to GZ testimony) assault GZ? Or are both irrelevant? If GZ is notorious for all the 911 calls, was it for trouble they were having in the neighborhood that was once reported as the cause for neighborhood watch in the first place? Or is that speculation?

Does any of the above matter? Or should we focus on the event at hand irregardless of each person's prior history (as I alluded to in a prior post, and calling it character assassination in another post)

Once again, I don't think this case is so simple. I don't think it fair for 48Laws to bring GZ's "past" without at least considering Travon's history and seeing how that would perhaps influence his behavior as well, not for going to the store, but for whatever altercation occurred between him and GZ - if and only if GZ's testimony is true. If not, then we'll find out.

Anyways, hopefully that's it for me. Don't want to get wrapped up into writing narratives into a circular debate that won't end. Even when this trial is over, guilty or not, there will still be those that say yay or nay - as with the Casey Anthony trial.

*this is a joke in bad taste*

Maybe he just got back from robbing the store!!!

[Templar]

Originally Posted by 48Laws

"The fact that he was unarmed without a gun/knife is not relevant" That's quite an incredible comment. Laughable really.

But, the the fact that Zimmerman was armed and killed Travon is relevant. Which is a greater point. Again, Zimmerman was indicted without a grand jury, not Travon. A fact many of you ignore. Instead, you're using half-truths to fuel your arguments. You're making little sense actually.

Since you seem to know, care to share exactly what happened, since apparently you were there? You seem to know Zimmerman really well too, based on what you've said about him in your posts... How long have you known the accused?

[Joekerr]

This thread:

[Cdnrockies]

What I find really hypocritical about this Stand Your Ground discussion....here and in the other threads....is the failure to grasp that it is actually Martin who could have invoked the statute....but he's the one that ended up dead?

If any person was to be stalked like Zimmerman did to Trayvon....even after he tried to run away from the stalker....they would be totally justified in defending themselves against the pursuer.

So Trayvon defends himself against an armed, unknown pursuer that was clearly stalking him....with no grounds....and he ends up shot and the statute is the defense???

Makes zero sense to me. If you go out and start a fight and start losing you can invoke Stand Your Ground and you're justified?

[48Laws]

Originally Posted by ragingclue

Trolling? I'm usefully contributing to this thread.

Trolls always think they're posts are useful even when the entire spirit behind their initial post is to disrupt. You written absolutely nothing thoughtful. Nothing in depth. Nothing that would convince anyone you're out of your teenage years. Even if I don't agree with your point of view, at least freakin' write something that is recognizable on the adult level other than some corny ass typical vagina joke.

Look at the posts. It's not just myself and the other posters you've quoted who think you're ill-informed and irrational (both!). I've been mature and polite throughout, but if you don't like what I've said, you're welcome to seethe until your vagina starts seeping demons; I don't care.

Oh, yes! The internet herd-mentality of "everyone thinks you're yadda yadda" Which really isn't a fair criticism of me. As if this OT forum is a fair representation of opinions and the best venue to discus a case of this magnitude. lol You're just being a dick because it's easy to be one when anonymity is in the balance.

Even your weak, childish banter about female sex organs is corny as hell, and again proves how small-minded and intellectually limited you are. Maybe you think that's cool? Who knows...

I've provided plenty of substance to the conversation. You, however, seem to be here just to irk others. You are the definition of a troll. And a bad troll at that.

As a troll, yes. I mean, you're trollific. Again, because you lack the aptitude to stay on topic and discuss this matter in depth minus the personal insults, you want to attack me to mask your stupidity with hopes that that'll be enough to counter my points. I haven't even written anything over-the-top about the case, like calling for the beheading of Zimmerman, or other unreasonable acts of violence, for example.

Can you at least provide something relevant to your viewpoint, other than self-aggrandizing bullshit? I don't think you can. Nothing you say makes any sense and you contradict yourself at every turn.

I did yet it's takes you far too long to process it. The message is in clear view. How you process what I've written thus far is not my problem. It's yours. If you don't like it, don't read it. There's plenty of other topics to entertain you in between your sessions of Xbox live.

Trayvon can't testify? Neither can anyone who has been killed, Einstein. Does this mean every time someone is killed, the person "most" responsible should be condemned based on the fact that there's zero testimony available from the deceased? You say judging GZ based on the law is undermining the justice system, yet you think that GZ should be condemned solely based on the fact that his actions killed a man? If you can't understand how terribly hypocritical that is, and how badly it undermines the very core of your argument, then I don't know what to say to you.

We aren't talking about just anyone, We are talking specifically about martin and how he is essentially the victim, yet vilified and excused of causing his own death minus the ability to defend himself. It's Zimmerman's word against the deceased with limited eyewitness account. Moreover, I seriously doubt a thug would call his girlfriend to tell her he's being followed. How thuggish!!!! SMH There are serious character flaws in Zimmerman that will definitely come to light. Some in this thread want to lessen the severity of the murder by thinking a 17 year old with behavior issues (none of which have been stated, by the way) is enough reason to assume his death was warranted. His father lived in the gated community. But, that's the way this country operates. I wonder how many of you have sketchy backgrounds yet have managed to outgrow it and successfully rid yourself of the negativity.

There was a time when the world was ruled by people like you. Then we became civilized. I think you need a DeLorean.

Says the guy who thinks his reasoning is strengthened by vagina jokes while claiming I HAVE IT ALL WRONG.

Also, you've made it clear that you wouldn't give two shits if the shooter was black and the victim was white. Therefore, your mind is made up based on the race of those involved and not the incident at hand. Nobody is taking anything you say seriously. I am, however, getting quite a kick out of you making an ass of yourself. It's quite a spectacle.

Only fools create hypotheticals and use them as a form of reasoning. I know one thing, there is more outrage when a blond chick goes missing from a campus or falls off of the side of a carnival cruise boat . Am I wrong? So, perhaps, the race issue is in fact alive and welll, and that maybe why you have issue with my view to begin with? I think so...

I think I do care now that you're offended. It's starting to get entertaining. Please continue.

I'm whipping you around at my speed. You can't leave now. You see, now you are force to come out of troll-mode and actually think. You're compelled to save-face in this thread because so far, your replies have been so weak and absent of substance. I dare you to get back on topic then i could expose how poor your reasoning is about this case and anything remotely related to these topics.

[michaelthepsycho]

Originally Posted by Cdnrockies

What I find really hypocritical about this Stand Your Ground discussion....here and in the other threads....is the failure to grasp that it is actually Martin who could have invoked the statute....but he's the one that ended up dead?

If any person was to be stalked like Zimmerman did to Trayvon....even after he tried to run away from the stalker....they would be totally justified in defending themselves against the pursuer.

So Trayvon defends himself against an armed, unknown pursuer that was clearly stalking him....with no grounds....and he ends up shot and the statute is the defense???

Makes zero sense to me. If you go out and start a fight and start losing you can invoke Stand Your Ground and you're justified?

You don't know that. When this case broke out. I was laughing my ass off. I'm not a lawyer and I could've, with a few hours of legal reading, defended him. The supposed "witness testimony" on television was so weak... Sure, maybe GZ murdered Travvon. The justice system is what it is. The prosecution made the same mistake in Casey Anthony's case: thinking public opinion was going to make it a slam dunk. Of which, they were rightfully shat in the face.

[ragingclue]

Originally Posted by 48Laws

... yet vilified and excused of causing his own death minus the ability to defend himself. It's Zimmerman's word against the deceased with limited eyewitness account. Moreover, I seriously doubt a thug would call his girlfriend to tell her he's being followed. How thuggish!!!! SMH There are serious character flaws in Zimmerman that will definitely come to light. Some in this thread want to lessen the severity of the murder by thinking a 17 year old with behavior issues (none of which have been stated, by the way) is enough reason to assume his death was warranted...

I'm going to skip over your troll-baiting and get to this, because you've actually provided some light behind your discussion. I never questioned Trayvon's character. Not once. I don't care to get into character assassination here; both sides have some questionable content in their portfolios to the point where there could be a wide variance in the reality behind what happened; this is why we have to rely on EVIDENCE and TESTIMONY from WITNESSES WHO WERE PRESENT (besides GZ). You are aware there is eyewitness testimony involved, right? I know there are reports and rumors out there about the characters of the two, but what I base my view on is the witness testimony and the evidence that exists which has been made available. That testimony and evidence at this point in time seems to lean heavily towards the notion that GZ acted in self-defense and he could reasonably believe his life was in danger, and that TM was the aggressor in the physical altercation.

Like it, love it, hate it, take it or leave it.... If he was acting in self-defense and in fear of his life, then the he acted within the bounds of the law. It really is that simple. Do you understand this? You either don't, or you do and you choose to act against reason anyway. And of course FL overshoots in true FL fashion by trying for 2nd degree.... Rich.

I'm not glad he's dead. I'm not one who is running around yelling "YAY one less thug on the streets!" A kid died. I'm looking at it as objectively as I possibly can, and it's just glaringly obvious that you haven't even tried to do the same. You've made judgments about my viewpoint without even hearing them first.... I can't say I'm surprised by this.

I will say there could be things we don't know. Like I said earlier, maybe there's something we don't know about that doesn't check out with GZ's story. I've heard (and maybe someone can correct me on this) that they ended up a great distance from GZ's vehicle when GZ claimed he was jumped in the vicinity of the vehicle.... Maybe the witness testimony was suspected to be inaccurate. I don't know. But unless something changes, it looks to me like GZ will walk. In that case, Trayvon would just be a kid who picked a fight (again assuming based on testimony that he was the physical aggressor and put GZ's life in danger) in a state with a law where you better think twice before getting knee deep in shit with someone.

Tell me, in the eyes of the law, how can GZ be convicted of murder given what we know? What evidence or testimony can you put up that shows he's guilty of that beyond a reasonable doubt? Can you do that? Can you even make a case that's relatively close to something that resembles guilt for GZ? I don't think you can, unless you know something we don't.

[The1]

48laws,

I was giving you benefit of the doubt for a while. You had a chance to redeem yourself for a while there, but that chance came and went.

You are 100% troll, and the worst part about it is that you don't know you're being one, which makes it more entertaining. But sadly, your trolling is causing others to become trolls themselves. However their actions can be excused as they are being trolls in response to your poor actions, words, arguments, and etc.

If you had stopped arguing and just added thought provoking counter arguments instead of all the extra laced bull shit. There could have been a nice reasoned debate going on. I think the time is right for you to bow out or get back on topic. But anything else you reply to that is unrelated to the topic is only going to re-enforce how much of a troll you are being. Think about that before your next reply.

The biggest offender is that you can't let others have their opinions. And opinion is the option of the person who issued it to have as their own, it is not your responsibility to change it for them. And through many of your comments, you have been forcing your opinion on others rather then sharing it.

Many of your arguments don't even apply to the conversation at hand, which just means you are trying to distract from your weak argument. Fortunately people have been able to see through that and call you out on it. But amazingly you still haven't given up.

Long story short, "Stop fighting back with non relevant information or personal attacks, and give a proper rebuttal back and be a contributing member rather then an agrivating member and you will get much nicer replies from others."

*To anyone getting in arguments with 48laws, stop feeding him, and stay on topic, it's only causing him to take the topic further off track.*

Now Back on topic, Which wheels did the X6 have? Anyone have a picture?

[MDyDinanM]

Wow,

This thread is still going on? lol