Witness: Trayvon Called George Zimmerman A ‘Creepy-A**,’ ‘White, Kill-My-Neighbors Cracker’

Is that the best you can do cott? Look. You're an illiterate moron that can barely scratch out a coherent sentence. Stop mucking up threads with your unintelligent rants, horrid spelling and general rudeness towards all the fine FReepers on this forum.

But if you prefer to continually make an ass of yourself then keep ‘em coming. I'm here daily and won't mind schooling your pedantic ass.

You are incorrect, imo.
Under FL law, GZ could have actually started the fight and still legally shoot TM after trying to disengage from TM’s attempts to kill him by bashing his head on the cement.

It isn't often someone starts a fight by slamming his nose into someone's fist, causing it to be broken. The nose, not the sweet young boy's hand.

I find it ironically interesting that Trayvon several times refers to Zimmerman using the "n" word, while in fact Zimmerman has some black blood in him going back a few generations.

The only crucial question in this trial, the question that answers everything is: Was Trayvon justified in beating on Zimmerman? If the answer is, "Yes," then Zimmerman is indeed guilty of homicide.---Mustangman

That is absolutely absurd. Coldcocking someone is akin to the urban sport known as "wilding." If Trayvon has 6 or 8 of his buddies with him Zimmerman would have most likely been beaten to death.

As facts show, TM was attempting to kill GZ by beating his head against the concrete.

Bob Beckel thinks Z should have manned up and let the kid kill him.

Thanks God Zimmerman was able to legally defend his life.

This trial is the mirror image of the OJ trial.

Letting a killer go free because of racism vs convicting an innocent man because of racism.

The outcome seems to be an attempt to convict Zimmerman to prevent riots.

[[Bob Beckel thinks Z should have manned up and let the kid kill him.]]

Brave talk from a coward- Bob woudl have doen the same damn thing (only because he’s a flaming liberal no charges woudl have been fikled agaisnt him

[[The outcome seems to be an attempt to convict Zimmerman to prevent riots.
]]

exactly- we’ve goen from ‘innocent until proven guilty’ to ‘guilty so that epople won’t riot’ this isn’t a trail, this is a lynching by vigilante activist judges and prosecution

You have freepmail.

Sayonara

When did Trayvon Martin ever accude Z of using the N word?

Also, the law is really hazy about the use of deadly force. It’s universally agreed to that a person can use deadly force to protect his life. Still, it is also universally agreed to that a person can’t start beating on someone mercilessly, sence they are losing the fight at some point, and then kill in so-called ‘self-defense.’

These matters are sorted out by a jury because who was the ‘bad-guy’ (instigator of the deadly violence) is not always black and white.

I agree that Zimmerman was probably the true victim...that Martin cme after him and took it to a serioulsy violent level. The DA originally thought so, too. Still, it isn’t a 100% certain in my mind...to be fair about it. The jury gets to decide. We’ll let them and then move on.

When did Trayvon Martin ever accude (sic) Z of using the N word?

You will have to find out yourself, I never heard of that or said that.

Now I'm committed to answering the rest of your convoluted post...

...the law is really hazy about the use of deadly force. It’s universally agreed to that a person can use deadly force to protect his life.

First statement, no it's not.

Universally agreed doesn't matter, it's the law.

If someone is in the process of killing you, you can kill them to stop them from killing you. Pretty clear.

Still, it is also universally agreed to that a person can’t start beating on someone mercilessly, sence (sic) they are losing the fight at some point, and then kill in so-called 'self-defense.'

There you again, with your "universally agreed."

So your statement infers that Zimmerman started "beating on" Trayvon "mercilessly" when I made it clear (and the facts agree) that the fight started when Z slammed his face into Trayvon's fist. Was that Z "beating on someone (Trayvon) mercilessly?" (Just so you don't misunderstand, my statement means the Trayvon started the fight by hitting Z and breaking his nose. No on really starts a fight by hitting their fist with their face, get my drift?)

These matters are sorted out by a jury because who was the 'bad-guy' (instigator of the deadly violence) is not always black and white.

Yea, the jury did a great job with OJ after he cut his victim's throats.

And I didn't miss the irony (you probably did though) in your use of the words "black and white" when in fact Zimmerman is black, white, and Peruvian.

It's a fact that Trayvon started the physical fight. And he probably has some white blood in him (otherwise he would be a lot darker), therefore a headline could read "White thug killed by black man in self defense."

"I agree that Zimmerman was probably the true victim...that Martin cme (sic) after him and took it to a seriously (sic) violent level. The DA originally thought so, too. Still, it isn’t a 100% certain in my mind...to be fair about it. The jury gets to decide. We’ll let them and then move on."

The official that got the warrant for Zimmerman's arrest is being sued for only supplying information to the judge that would make Z look guilty. Didn't submit the photos of his injuries; therefore there is really no reason for their even to be a trial for murder against Zimmerman.

In the beginning there was no reason to arrest Z (and they didn't until false info was submitted for the warrant much later) and he was set free because it was a clear cut case of self defense.

So you agree with the OJ verdict?

You do know that he was proved guilty of murder in a civil trial later, right?

One more question, do you agree with Obama that Trayvon could be your son?

This is a political trial, brought for "political correctness" reasons to make it look like a white guy killed a sweet little innocent kid.

Guaranteed riots will ensue what ever the verdict, either destructive hateful ones if found not guilty (with the obligatory looting), and celebratory ones as an excuse to loot if found guilty.

You strike me as a person who really doesn’t get out too much for a walk. We pretty much agree on everything and you still have to come after me like OJ came after Nicole. I bet most people consider you to be a ‘know-it-all.’

Yes, the OJ jury rendered a political (racist) verdict....as did many all white juries back in the early nineteen hundreds when they found Sheriff Jim-Bob and his two cousins innocent of killing a black man when they clearly were guilty. It happens and its BS!!!

Now, back to the Zimmerman. We both agree that you can defend yourself with deadly force when your life is in danger. From what I see in the Z case, he was justified in killing Trayvon Martin because Trayvon totally over-reacted to being watched/followed. Agaiin, we agree.

Here’s where I think we depart. What we see and hear and in the media is filtered. It’s the nature of the beast. When you tll your wife a story, you certainly leave stuff out. It’s just reality...nothing vicious. My point is that the jury may be seeing and hearing and interpreting facts that we are not even aware of...which is fair enough. Those six women have all the power in this case and I, for one, will trust them with their decsion...whatever it is. They are the ones in the court room. Not me.

Also, I strongly believe that if someone willfully starts a violent confrontation with you but, then starts losing the fight, and then kills you in so called self defense......then that person is guilty of murdering you. Sorry if you don’t agree.....but, like I said, we agree on most things...just not this.

Now, turn off the cable news channel and try to get some sun.

You strike me as a person who really doesn’t get out too much for a walk. We pretty much agree on everything and you still have to come after me like OJ came after Nicole. I bet most people consider you to be a 'know-it-all.'

Oh you certainly are a piece of work!

OJ came after Nicole and slit her throat. You want to prove that that is my intention towards you? Of course if you coldcock me and try to kill me by banging my head against cement, I would consider taking some action to save my life. (Don't be surprised by my words, as you pretty much started the violent accusations towards me.)

You are so misinformed and slanted in your twisting of facts in the situation between Zimmermann and Martin it's hardly worth replying to you.

Oh and BTW, I don't go out for walks much, my knees don't work so well anymore.

Yes, the OJ jury rendered a political (racist) verdict....as did many all white (creepy ass crackers) juries back in the early nineteen hundreds when they found Sheriff Jim-Bob and his two cousins innocent of killing a black man when they clearly were guilty.

Got some documentation, starting with Sheriff Jim-Bob's last name and links to the trial information? (you type like a racist and are justifying OJ's killing of his wife and boyfriend. Were you on the jury?)

Now, back to the Zimmerman. We both agree that you can defend yourself with deadly force when your life is in danger. From what I see in the Z case, he was justified in killing Trayvon Martin because Trayvon totally over-reacted to being watched/followed. Agaiin, we agree.

Very good, we do agree there. Then you go off the reservation. (Don't misinterpret that, I'm not saying you are an Indian, it's a figure of speech.)

What we see and hear and in the media is filtered.

Very good again! That's why FreeRepublic.com and Drudge are so important.

When you tll your wife a story, you certainly leave stuff out. It’s just reality...nothing vicious.

Maybe for you but your wife will find out the whole story...unless you married a gullible airhead. I was always very honest with my wife, I see it as a prerequisite to marriage.

Those six women have all the power in this case and I, for one, will trust them with their decsion...whatever it is. They are the ones in the court room. Not me.

If you were there, you wouldn't be filled with so much faux conjecture. There are many people in the courtroom, and I have seem statements from several of them (not filtered by the MSM) explaining in detail what is happening in the courtroom.

Just like you trusted the OJ jury huh? It seems earlier you thought they were wrong, but this jury can't be? Strange contradiction M-man.

I strongly believe that if someone willfully starts a violent confrontation with you but, then starts losing the fight, and then kills you in so called self defense......then that person is guilty of murdering you.

First of all, Zimmerman did not start the violence, Trayvon did. That is an established fact.

Second, "stand your ground" and other laws make it legal to use deadly force if someone is causing you great bodily harm or is in the process of killing you.

Both of which happened. "So called" self defense?

If you were in Zimmerman's situation you would most likely be dead.

You must be watching CNN where they portray Trayvon as an innocent sweet boy and Zimmerman as a racist killer.

Yes, I watch enemy news a bit to stay informed

They didn't happen to mention anything about skittles and Arizona ice tea, except to show what a sweet little boy Trayvon was, going to his relatives house to eat skittles and drink ice tea.

The fact is, it is very likely that Trayvon Martin was on his way to make some more LEAN ...called LEAN or PURPLE LEAN or PURPLE DRANK.

You know what the other ingredient is? The most powerful marijuana out there, the kind that is grown to turn purple.

Right back atcha with "Now, turn off the ~~cable~~ MSM/CNN news channel(s) and try to get some ~~sun~~ facts."

I've driven over 150,000 miles in the last 8 years across this country attending rallies, townhalls, and way over 200 tea parties.

Out of the tens of thousands of people (conservative number, actually over a million) I have communicated with, you are the FIRST one to call me a know it all. Good call, I'll wear your statement as a badge of honor.

: > )

The dispatcher asked him to not do that.

No. The dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that". There was no language from the dispatcher setting limits on Zimmerman...and no authority to do so on the part of a dispatcher.