Witness: Martin attacked Zimmerman

[For Oklahoma]

Who in the world do you think you are?

You don't know me.

So who are you?

Yeah, this.

[CaDan]

Who in the world do you think you are?

You don't know me.

You, this persona at least, do not exist, I don't need to know you troll.

Of course convincing yourself of this makes you feel better about yourself, and you think it justifies your ad hominem attacks.

Never mind that it isn't true.

[For Oklahoma]

Who in the world do you think you are?

You don't know me.

You, this persona at least, do not exist, I don't need to know you troll.

Of course convincing yourself of this makes you feel better about yourself, and you think it justifies your ad hominem attacks.

Never mind that it isn't true.

I'm far too tempted to call you an asshole.

[Nagas]

Oh look, more false accusations and lying by CaDan.

Surprise?

Nope.

[CaDan]

Oh look, more false accusations and lying by CaDan.

Surprise?

Nope.

Once again, you are projecting.

You don't know me.

You are angry because I pointed out that it is wrong to try people in the media and that the media is driving a very specific narrative.

I wasn't the one who jumped on anyone with bigoted "racist" labels. That was done by the "tolerant" "progressives" here.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Are we sure that CaDan isn't from Bakersfield?

[Governor Scott]

CaDan, how many death points do you have?  Just out of curiosity.

And some helpful advice: Stormfront's message board is just a Google search away.

[I'm JewCon in name only.]

CaDan you are not an election, we aren't "projecting" ANYTHING

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

Ok CaDan, assuming for a moment you aren't just a troll let's actually analyze what the witness says in this article:

But one man's testimony could be key for the police.

"The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: 'help, help…and I told him to stop and I was calling 911," he said.

Trayvon Martin was in a hoodie; Zimmerman was in red.

And that's pretty much it. It doesn't say who actually started the altercation, nor does it say whether the witness saw that much.

So what we know about this case is that Zimmerman reported Martin as a suspicious person to the police, was told that they were sending someone and to not pursue Martin himself, and yet he did so anyways. Martin didn't know why Zimmerman was following him, he just knew some strange guy was following him for unknown reasons. Zimmerman gets out of his vehicle at some point and the altercation and shooting happens. None of this is in question.

So we have two possibilities:

1. Zimmerman started the altercation in an attempt to restrain Martin until the police arrived, and then got his ass handed to him by a boy much smaller than him. Given that Zimmerman has an apparent history of being a wannabe cop this isn't unlikely.

2. Martin attacked Zimmerman. Why would he? Probably to defend himself, as the same law that Zimmerman is using to try to defend himself would allow him to do. If some strange man is pursuing you with apparently hostile intent, he would have reasonable cause for self-defense.

Either way, Zimmerman put himself into this situation through his own recklessness. He was instructed not to pursue, but not only did he do so anyways he left the safety of his vehicle to confront Martin. He is CLEARLY at fault.

[CaDan]

CaDan you are not an election, we aren't "projecting" ANYTHING

Wow... just wow...

Take a look into Psychological projection.

[CaDan]

Ok CaDan, assuming for a moment you aren't just a troll let's actually analyze what the witness says in this article:

But one man's testimony could be key for the police.

"The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: 'help, help…and I told him to stop and I was calling 911," he said.

Trayvon Martin was in a hoodie; Zimmerman was in red.

And that's pretty much it. It doesn't say who actually started the altercation, nor does it say whether the witness saw that much.

So what we know about this case is that Zimmerman reported Martin as a suspicious person to the police, was told that they were sending someone and to not pursue Martin himself, and yet he did so anyways. Martin didn't know why Zimmerman was following him, he just knew some strange guy was following him for unknown reasons. Zimmerman gets out of his vehicle at some point and the altercation and shooting happens. None of this is in question.

So we have two possibilities:

1. Zimmerman started the altercation in an attempt to restrain Martin until the police arrived, and then got his ass handed to him by a boy much smaller than him. Given that Zimmerman has an apparent history of being a wannabe cop this isn't unlikely.

2. Martin attacked Zimmerman. Why would he? Probably to defend himself, as the same law that Zimmerman is using to try to defend himself would allow him to do. If some strange man is pursuing you with apparently hostile intent, he would have reasonable cause for self-defense.

Either way, Zimmerman put himself into this situation through his own recklessness. He was instructed not to pursue, but not only did he do so anyways he left the safety of his vehicle to confront Martin. He is CLEARLY at fault.

You don't have all the facts. Neither do I. You can't say anyone is "clearly" at fault without all the facts.

Notice, I never said that its a cut & dry case of self defense. I never said that Zimmerman wasn't wrong. I said that the media is wrong by trying to push a very specific narrative and they are selectively deciding the ingredients in that picture to get the result that they want.

Trying people in the media is wrong.

The reasoned rational approach is to wait for the investigation and all the facts to come out, and then let the people who have all the facts decide.

People on the internet have no business deciding cases like this without the facts.

[For Oklahoma]

Dan, if you're a legitimate human being, please post proof. If you have nothing to hide, don't hide. Otherwise, admit you're a troll so we can ban you already.

[CaDan]

Dan, if you're a legitimate human being, please post proof. If you have nothing to hide, don't hide. Otherwise, admit you're a troll so we can ban you already.

Who is this "we" Carl?

You are a 15 year old kid. You don't get to demand anything of me. I find it strange that some people here think that you can apply a certain standard to me (for having dissenting views) and then a different standard for everyone else.

[For Oklahoma]

Dan, if you're a legitimate human being, please post proof. If you have nothing to hide, don't hide. Otherwise, admit you're a troll so we can ban you already.

Who is this "we" Carl?

You are a 17 year old kid. You don't get to demand anything of me. I find it strange that some people here think that you can apply a certain standard to me (for having dissenting views) and then a different standard for everyone else.

I'm 15, first off, second off, I don't know how you know my name, as I haven't had extensive contact with you.

It's a little eerie considering I am friends with a certain Bakersfield resident on Facebook.

I'm not demanding anything out of you, I'm just simply asking that you provide reasonable proof that you're not a sock/troll. Why can't you do that? You're kinda like the Barack Obama of this forum...where's your proverbial birth certificate?

[Governor Scott]

Ok CaDan, assuming for a moment you aren't just a troll let's actually analyze what the witness says in this article:

But one man's testimony could be key for the police.

"The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: 'help, help…and I told him to stop and I was calling 911," he said.

Trayvon Martin was in a hoodie; Zimmerman was in red.

And that's pretty much it. It doesn't say who actually started the altercation, nor does it say whether the witness saw that much.

So what we know about this case is that Zimmerman reported Martin as a suspicious person to the police, was told that they were sending someone and to not pursue Martin himself, and yet he did so anyways. Martin didn't know why Zimmerman was following him, he just knew some strange guy was following him for unknown reasons. Zimmerman gets out of his vehicle at some point and the altercation and shooting happens. None of this is in question.

So we have two possibilities:

1. Zimmerman started the altercation in an attempt to restrain Martin until the police arrived, and then got his ass handed to him by a boy much smaller than him. Given that Zimmerman has an apparent history of being a wannabe cop this isn't unlikely.

2. Martin attacked Zimmerman. Why would he? Probably to defend himself, as the same law that Zimmerman is using to try to defend himself would allow him to do. If some strange man is pursuing you with apparently hostile intent, he would have reasonable cause for self-defense.

Either way, Zimmerman put himself into this situation through his own recklessness. He was instructed not to pursue, but not only did he do so anyways he left the safety of his vehicle to confront Martin. He is CLEARLY at fault.

Notice, I never said that its a cut & dry case of self defense. I never said that Zimmerman wasn't wrong. I said that the media is wrong by trying to push a very specific narrative and they are selectively deciding the ingredients in that picture to get the result that they want.

And what "result" is that, exactly?  "White people are bad"?

It's astounding how when something like this is reported, the very first thought that comes to your head is "The media is trying to start something up!".

[Frodo]

Dan, if you're a legitimate human being, please post proof. If you have nothing to hide, don't hide. Otherwise, admit you're a troll so we can ban you already.

Who is this "we" Carl?

You are a 17 year old kid. You don't get to demand anything of me. I find it strange that some people here think that you can apply a certain standard to me (for having dissenting views) and then a different standard for everyone else.

I'm 15, first off, second off, I don't know how you know my name, as I haven't had extensive contact with you.

It's a little eerie considering I am friends with a certain Bakersfield resident on Facebook.

I'm not demanding anything out of you, I'm just simply asking that you provide reasonable proof that you're not a sock/troll. Why can't you do that? You're kinda like the Barack Obama of this forum...where's your proverbial birth certificate?

Please, do not under any circumstances compare the President of the United States to a racist troll. 

Thank you. 

[CaDan]

Dan, if you're a legitimate human being, please post proof. If you have nothing to hide, don't hide. Otherwise, admit you're a troll so we can ban you already.

Who is this "we" Carl?

You are a 17 year old kid. You don't get to demand anything of me. I find it strange that some people here think that you can apply a certain standard to me (for having dissenting views) and then a different standard for everyone else.

I'm 15, first off, second off, I don't know how you know my name, as I haven't had extensive contact with you.

It's a little eerie considering I am friends with a certain Bakersfield resident on Facebook.

I'm not demanding anything out of you, I'm just simply asking that you provide reasonable proof that you're not a sock/troll. Why can't you do that? You're kinda like the Barack Obama of this forum...where's your proverbial birth certificate?

Uh, you posted your name?

How is that eerie that I know what you posted?

[CaDan]

Ok CaDan, assuming for a moment you aren't just a troll let's actually analyze what the witness says in this article:

But one man's testimony could be key for the police.

"The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: 'help, help…and I told him to stop and I was calling 911," he said.

Trayvon Martin was in a hoodie; Zimmerman was in red.

And that's pretty much it. It doesn't say who actually started the altercation, nor does it say whether the witness saw that much.

So what we know about this case is that Zimmerman reported Martin as a suspicious person to the police, was told that they were sending someone and to not pursue Martin himself, and yet he did so anyways. Martin didn't know why Zimmerman was following him, he just knew some strange guy was following him for unknown reasons. Zimmerman gets out of his vehicle at some point and the altercation and shooting happens. None of this is in question.

So we have two possibilities:

1. Zimmerman started the altercation in an attempt to restrain Martin until the police arrived, and then got his ass handed to him by a boy much smaller than him. Given that Zimmerman has an apparent history of being a wannabe cop this isn't unlikely.

2. Martin attacked Zimmerman. Why would he? Probably to defend himself, as the same law that Zimmerman is using to try to defend himself would allow him to do. If some strange man is pursuing you with apparently hostile intent, he would have reasonable cause for self-defense.

Either way, Zimmerman put himself into this situation through his own recklessness. He was instructed not to pursue, but not only did he do so anyways he left the safety of his vehicle to confront Martin. He is CLEARLY at fault.

Notice, I never said that its a cut & dry case of self defense. I never said that Zimmerman wasn't wrong. I said that the media is wrong by trying to push a very specific narrative and they are selectively deciding the ingredients in that picture to get the result that they want.

And what "result" is that, exactly?  "White people are bad"?

It's astounding how when something like this is reported, the very first thought that comes to your head is "The media is trying to start something up!".

Uh yeah. The media has done this thing before. And it has real life consequences.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/30/us/30jewell.html?_r=1

[I'm JewCon in name only.]

CaDan, please for the sake of the deceased, just stop, just stop. I'll even give you a hug.

[Senator Clarence]

Alright time to invite another salvo- I do not know CaDan or his history. I take your word for it that he has posted racist and offensive material in the past- but in this thread he is presenting an alternate version of events and I  did not notice any racial language- I did not read his posts with a fine tooth comb I admit.  However- aside from one poster who has responded to his points- most people have decided to call CaDan names and use ad hominem attacks. This MAY very well be justified given his history... but I do not know his history.

I think analysis of alternate events here is nto at errible idea...I remember some very far-left people such as Kucinich speaking in 02 how there had become a sort of mass hysteria where it was taboo or unpatriotic to oppose attacking Iraq. You know what- Dennis Kucinich was right! I won't say that often...

In this case CaDan is saying something unpopular and maybe doing it in a confrontational way. I don't know his history- but neithr this topic or any other topic should be given a free pass from analysis or investigation. And for the record- nothing said in this thread has made me think Zimmerman was innocent and Martin was guilty...I believe Zimmerman deserves to be arrested from what I know about the case and I believe it is a tragedy that Martin is dead.

[patrick1]

Clarence, people get emotional over certain news stories and everyone has buttons that can get pushed that promote an angry response. CaDan has been quite successful at doing the button pushing itt. The initial post was one thing but the follow-up with the "thuggish" dead kid facebook pours gas on a fire.

[Senator Clarence]

Patrick1- I see your point

[Senator Snowstalker]

Ok CaDan, assuming for a moment you aren't just a troll let's actually analyze what the witness says in this article:

But one man's testimony could be key for the police.

"The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: 'help, help…and I told him to stop and I was calling 911," he said.

Trayvon Martin was in a hoodie; Zimmerman was in red.

And that's pretty much it. It doesn't say who actually started the altercation, nor does it say whether the witness saw that much.

So what we know about this case is that Zimmerman reported Martin as a suspicious person to the police, was told that they were sending someone and to not pursue Martin himself, and yet he did so anyways. Martin didn't know why Zimmerman was following him, he just knew some strange guy was following him for unknown reasons. Zimmerman gets out of his vehicle at some point and the altercation and shooting happens. None of this is in question.

So we have two possibilities:

1. Zimmerman started the altercation in an attempt to restrain Martin until the police arrived, and then got his ass handed to him by a boy much smaller than him. Given that Zimmerman has an apparent history of being a wannabe cop this isn't unlikely.

2. Martin attacked Zimmerman. Why would he? Probably to defend himself, as the same law that Zimmerman is using to try to defend himself would allow him to do. If some strange man is pursuing you with apparently hostile intent, he would have reasonable cause for self-defense.

Either way, Zimmerman put himself into this situation through his own recklessness. He was instructed not to pursue, but not only did he do so anyways he left the safety of his vehicle to confront Martin. He is CLEARLY at fault.

Notice, I never said that its a cut & dry case of self defense. I never said that Zimmerman wasn't wrong. I said that the media is wrong by trying to push a very specific narrative and they are selectively deciding the ingredients in that picture to get the result that they want.

And what "result" is that, exactly?  "White people are bad"?

It's astounding how when something like this is reported, the very first thought that comes to your head is "The media is trying to start something up!".

Uh yeah. The media has done this thing before. And it has real life consequences.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/30/us/30jewell.html?_r=1

And the real terrorist was a far-right Christian.

[For Oklahoma]

You're kinda like the Barack Obama of this forum...where's your proverbial birth certificate?

Please, do not under any circumstances compare the President of the United States to a racist troll. 

Thank you. 

True...

[Zioneer]

Who in the world do you think you are?

You don't know me.

If you were actually biracial you wouldn't be using so many racist code words ("thuggin", really?) and if you were reasonable, you wouldn't be using Fox News as a legitimate source.

EDIT: Also, if you've got McNaughton as signature art, you are not politically reasonable.