George Zimmerman sues Trayvon Martin’s family, prosecutors for $100 million

  • Thread starter Thread starter ThinkingSapien
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So it is OK if you have none.
And that is an assumption.

I do not answer to you.
I have sufficient justification.
You claim you do not know why he would be considered a suspicious character.
Your ignorance of the justification is not evidence that there is none, it is evidence that you do not know.
 
Trayvon wasn’t a ‘child’, he was a muscular 17 yr old. He would appear as an adult.
How can you say that, you work for the system, you work with young people like this, shouldn’t an 18 year old kicked out of Foster Care still be considered a child? How can you say something like that, you who work with young people in the system?! My other issue with the case was how they dragged his name, a dead young person through the mud, maybe he had some silly Facebook posts and some conflicts as school but who doesn’t?

This isn’t soming from a good place, but why should he be the one who sued when he dragged a dead boy’s name through the mud?

Also, wasn’t Mr. Martin being followed and while beating up people is wrong, what if he was trying to stand up for himself, one of my issues with Mr. Zimmerman was how the person he called told him not to pursue, if anything, shouldn’t he be reprimanded for going outside of conduct there especially since someone died?

And I get how it become racially charged by why not give President Obama a break, what if he was opening his heart to the nation and expressing what he and many blacks genuinely feel in society? Would like to hear answers from you.
 
Last edited:
No, just no, (do want to hear your answers though) he ended up dragging a dead boy’s name through the mud, a boy he ended up following despite not being told too, and he’s the one suing, why?
 
And that is an assumption.

I do not answer to you.
I have sufficient justification.
You claim you do not know why he would be considered a suspicious character.
Your ignorance of the justification is not evidence that there is none, it is evidence that you do not know.
What’s your justification in thinking Martin was suspicious?
 
Pounding a guy’s head against the pavement isn’t a crime?
That was self-defense and long after Zimmerman decided to leave his car and follow him through the dark raising Martin’s concern that an armed man that was following him.
 
That was self-defense and long after Zimmerman decided to leave his car and follow him through the dark raising Martin’s concern that an armed man that was following him.
If Martin pounding Zimmerman’s head against concrete was self defense, what is Zimmerman shooting him to stop it?
 
If Martin pounding Zimmerman’s head against concrete was self defense, what is Zimmerman shooting him to stop it?
Zimmerman was a danger to Martin and Martin knew it and defended himself. It’s a shame that Martin didn’t exercise his Second Amendment rights.
 
Zimmerman was a danger to Martin and Martin knew it and defended himself.
You do not have sufficient information to form this conclusion and have it taken seriously.

Are you a mind reader?
Did you ask Martin and get a response?
 
So you where there? Why didn’t you warn Martin? It’s because he was black, right?
He was being followed through the back of townhouses by an unknown armed man that ended up killing him. Yeah, Zimmerman was a danger to Martin and Martin knew it.
That is a conclusion with no evidence.
He was being followed through the dark by an armed man. Of course, he had the right to defend himself from a dangerous man.

Now, I am waiting for you to tell me why you think Martin was suspicious.
 
He was being followed through the dark by an armed man. Of course, he had the right to defend himself from a dangerous man.
He was being followed, did NOT know if the other party was armed, and had no right to attack.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top