"If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon." - Obama. What the MSM isn't telling you.

Originally posted by Chalupas
WHAT THE MSM ISNT TELLING YOU
OBAMA - "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon."

What the protestors and MSM are saying:

-- "Trayvon Martin was a helpless child."--
Don't be fooled by the pictures from his 7th grade graduation. Trayvon Martin was 6'3, 170 pounds, and a football player. Far from helpless against a 5'8, overweight, Zimmerman.

--"Trayvon was a child of high moral standing."--

imageshack.us...
Actually, from his facebook posts we can assume he was a known drug dealer.

--"Zimmerman was told by police not to follow Martin."--
Wrong. Zimmerman was told that by a 911 dispatcher who has no authority.

--"Zimmerman shot at Trayvon without reason."---
Wrong. According to the POLICE REPORT, Zimmerman was bleeding and had wet, grass stains on the back of his shirt.

--"You can hear Trayvon yelling for help in the 911 audio files."
According to EYE WITNESS accounts, Zimmerman was underneath Trayvon Martin yelling for help.

--"Trayvon lived in the nieghborhood."--
False again. Trayvon was serving an 8 day school suspension at the time and staying with his father.

More to come as the investigation continues.

This is more race mind control.

No Mr. Obama we are not falling for it this time. We know your a marxist leninist prince for wall street.
So your using this tragedy like a tool to get people on your side or to divide and conquer.
Trick no good you will never have your new world order.

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by Drew99GT

 

First: That witness clearly saw the middle of the fight, after it already started. It tells us NOTHING about who initiated the fight.

Second: That other news story is unrelated.

Irrelevant. If the witness did indeed see Trayvon on top of and beating Zimmerman, then he saw what precipitated the shooting. Zimmerman could've shot him any time during the entire ordeal, yet he waited (assuming the eye witness report is reliable) until he was on the ground being beaten by another person to shoot. Deadly force in that case is justified.

/TOA

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by Drew99GT

 

First: That witness clearly saw the middle of the fight, after it already started. It tells us NOTHING about who initiated the fight.

Second: That other news story is unrelated.

Irrelevant. If the witness did indeed see Trayvon on top of and beating Zimmerman, then he saw what precipitated the shooting. Zimmerman could've shot him any time during the entire ordeal, yet he waited (assuming the eye witness report is reliable) until he was on the ground being beaten by another person to shoot. Deadly force in that case is justified.

/TOA

In what universe do you live in where losing a fight you started constitutes shooting someone? Totally does not hold water.

Originally posted by notquiteright
What makes this case special? There has not yet been an arrest. That's it. Many people are killed every day of all colors and ages. The lack of arrest is the problem here. I can think of several reasons for this (there could be more).

1. Zimmerman is being given special treatment (friends on the force?)
2. There are details not yet disclosed to the public
3. The police are trying to build a strong enough case for a sure conviction
4. It is being done intentionally to incite racial tension

Stop with the mini race war and realize that this is the anomaly of this case.

Bingo!

We are falling for the ol' race instigation tactics again. TPTB are going back to the same psyop playbook.

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
Why is everyone talking about Obama as if he made a big press conference about it? He was asked about it and did not take either side. In fact, the title of the OP refers to Obama drawing parallel between the death of Martin and how he would feel if his child died. Thats it, as far as I am aware.

People have used this thread to bash Obama for answering a question.

That's the only thing, at this time, worth talking about. He made the statement for no other reason to send a message...if you don't get, I can't help you...sorry! At least it wouldn't be 34+ pages of assumptions and speculation emotionally twisted in every possible direction.

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by poet1b



If this was white on white, black on black, or latino and latino, we wouldn't be reading have this thread.

We are getting played with this story people.

Agree.

Sad that our President is supplying the sound bites.

Sad but typical that Obama's attempt to defuse the situation is interpreted as being anything but positive.

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman

This is more race mind control. No Mr. Obama we are not falling for it this time. We know your a marxist leninist prince for wall street. So your using this tragedy like a tool to get people on your side or to divide and conquer. Trick no good you will never have your new world order.

No, seriously, what kind of ideal is Obama pushing here? What exactly is he trying to get us to fall for?

reply to post by HereAgainGoneTomorrow

That's the only thing, at this time, worth talking about. He made the statement for no other reason to send a message...if you don't get, I can't help you...sorry! At least it wouldn't be 34+ pages of assumptions and speculation emotionally twisted in every possible direction.

Again, what statement are you talking about that he is using to twist it?

Originally posted by HereAgainGoneTomorrow
reply to post by MrWendal

 

I've been reading your rantings since yesterday and you've been on your own lil soapbox spewing nonsense regard this poor young kid. You have absolutely no idea who, what or where this kids mind set was at this time. Yet you've chosen to color him as a pure innocent boy and Zimmerman as a monster on the prowl.

Only pointing out the obvious....and since you don't understand terms such as what I've used, I'll try not to use those in the future...OMG?

Also, what part of my statement didn't you get...the innocent or guilty part??????

I've been following along as well and I completely agree with Wendel.
It's more than obvious that Zimmerman, neighborhood watch or not, was the aggressor in this confrontation.
And his aggression, despite being told to back down, caused the death of a person.

Sounds like manslaughter to me, but let's see what a jury says.

I don't quite understand the people saying Martin acted out of "self defense".

Can someone please answer, self defense from WHAT? Zimmerman did not physically attack Martin as far as ANY evidence whatsoever is concerned, so what is the self defense? From following him? So let me get this straight, proponents of this theory are saying the following:

In America, our law dictates that if you are being followed, you are allowed to violently and aggressively assault the party following you. This is "self defense" and is correct by law? Are you people serious with this? Under no circumstance should Martin have been allowed to assault Zimmerman even if Zimmerman was illegally following him (which he wasn't.)

I have no horses in this race, but to me it sounds very clearly that Martin had unjustifiably assaulted Zimmerman (yes, being followed does NOT by any law in the United States of America serve as justification to assault someone) and thus DID in fact gave full justification to Zimmerman to shoot him dead which is allowed in Florida Stand Your Ground law.

reply to post by BrokenCircles

I already know what I posted.

That may be. I am not convinced of it.

You first. Your point contains no actual relevance, in regards to the subject of this thread, and not worth discussing. I have already given you more replies than I should have.

You made claims that another member stated something that he didn't actually say. I called you on it. You have had a chance to show me where he wrote what you said that he did.
You failed to do that. There is a reason for that.

Nah. It's not that I didn't understand. I just don't care

It's not that you don't care, it is that you are wrong, and not big enough to admit it.

I have a better idea.......

After this, I'll ask you to go back under your bridge.

Originally posted by TsukiLunar

Originally posted by sjorges2002
And the skittles on him could have been used to announce that he was skittling.- Know one but Trayvon knows and he's been shot dead for attacking zimmerman.

reply to post by TsukiLunar

 

Or he was eating the skittles and where is your proof that Martin attacked Zimmerman first?

edit on 24-3-2012 by TsukiLunar because: (no reason given)

The obvious answer to your question is another question. Where is your proof that things didn't occur as Mr. Zimmerman described it? He is innocent until proven guilty.

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by Drew99GT

 

First: That witness clearly saw the middle of the fight, after it already started. It tells us NOTHING about who initiated the fight.

Second: That other news story is unrelated.

Irrelevant. If the witness did indeed see Trayvon on top of and beating Zimmerman, then he saw what precipitated the shooting. Zimmerman could've shot him any time during the entire ordeal, yet he waited (assuming the eye witness report is reliable) until he was on the ground being beaten by another person to shoot. Deadly force in that case is justified.

/TOA

Getting your butt handed to you after you incite a confrontation is not a reason to use deadly force.
Its manslaughter.

Until we get the facts, people really need to stop blabbing off their mouths like they have it all figured out. Do you realize how immature some of you look? Get a grip!

Originally posted by TsukiLunar

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by Drew99GT

 

First: That witness clearly saw the middle of the fight, after it already started. It tells us NOTHING about who initiated the fight.

Second: That other news story is unrelated.

Irrelevant. If the witness did indeed see Trayvon on top of and beating Zimmerman, then he saw what precipitated the shooting. Zimmerman could've shot him any time during the entire ordeal, yet he waited (assuming the eye witness report is reliable) until he was on the ground being beaten by another person to shoot. Deadly force in that case is justified.

/TOA

In what universe do you live in where losing a fight you started constitutes shooting someone? Totally does not hold water.

In what universe do you live in where assault is justified on someone following you? Doesn't hold any water either.

reply to post by TsukiLunar

In what universe do you live in where losing a fight you started constitutes shooting someone? Totally does not hold water.

Maybe the universe where one is in fear for their life?

That has been used in court before.

reply to post by stanats

The obvious answer to your question is another question. Where is your proof that things didn't occur as Mr. Zimmerman described it? He is innocent until proven guilty.

Right... Zimmerman however is guilty of chasing down someone he did not know for walking in a way he did not like and confronting him when he was told not to all FOR NO REASON WHAT SO EVER. THAT, in my opinion, is not the actions of someone who only wanted to defended himself.

Originally posted by xEphon

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by Drew99GT

 

First: That witness clearly saw the middle of the fight, after it already started. It tells us NOTHING about who initiated the fight.

Second: That other news story is unrelated.

Irrelevant. If the witness did indeed see Trayvon on top of and beating Zimmerman, then he saw what precipitated the shooting. Zimmerman could've shot him any time during the entire ordeal, yet he waited (assuming the eye witness report is reliable) until he was on the ground being beaten by another person to shoot. Deadly force in that case is justified.

/TOA

Getting your butt handed to you after you incite a confrontation is not a reason to use deadly force.
Its manslaughter.

There is no such thing as "inciting a confrontation". By law any verbal incitement will never justify being assaulted. Zimmerman could have said anything to Martin and that still does not give Martin justification to assault Zimmerman.

If you believe Zimmerman ASSASULTED Martin first, well then I ask: where is your proof/evidence? You have zero. In America we have something called: Innocent until proven guilty.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by TsukiLunar

 

In what universe do you live in where losing a fight you started constitutes shooting someone? Totally does not hold water.

Maybe the universe where one is in fear for their life?

That has been used in court before.

Yah, and it has been thrown out in court before. And if Zimmerman feared for his life, why did he follow Martin?

reply to post by xEphon
Where are the actual witness(es) to Zimmerman inciting the fight? It just as well may have been the other way around.