Zimmerman says Trayvon circled his SUV, frightened him...

VIBE

SuperstarCole wrote: »

Cause anytime we mention our condition, our history or existence
They callin it reverse racism
-nas

eat a dick vibe

Don't act like blacks "can't be racist", like Fiat said that's racism in itself.

Law Trafalgar

VIBE wrote: »

SuperstarCole wrote: »

Cause anytime we mention our condition, our history or existence
They callin it reverse racism
-nas

eat a dick vibe

Don't act like blacks "can't be racist", like Fiat said that's racism in itself.

Never said blacks couldn't be racist.

fiat_money

PublicEnemigo1 wrote: »

fiat_money wrote: »

PublicEnemigo1 wrote: »

@ Fiat

I understand the legal terra firma which basically guarantees a not guilty verdict for GZ. However if Tm was one of your boys or fam, and he got done in this way would you be lookin for the payback, or would you still rest your decision with the legal grounds of matter?...

I wouldn't look for "payback" or "justice" because I don't care about such things and I don't become attached to people to begin with.

I understand that. However you do not appear to be unattached. Things affect you enough to spur a comment. If someone were to destroy something precious to you, your dinosaur collection, some project where some experiments could not be reproduced, you'd feel a certain way about the person responsible. I know you would.

You remind me of Dark Beast. It can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on the situation.

I comment because the subject is amusing and I enjoy picking apart weak arguments. Plus, I'll debate nearly anything.

I'd be more concerned about someone destroying my personal property, since that has some monetary value. So, I'd try to prevent it from happening in the future, but I wouldn't do anything that would be a detriment to me in the long run.

VIBE

Then don't be mad that I said what is complained about is racist.

You talking about your history isn't but to blame all white people and be upset and call names is, plus you're ignorant and immature when you do that. So stop with the silliness. This case had nothing to do with racism yet it quickly flips into it because of racists.

pralims

VIBE wrote: »

SuperstarCole wrote: »

Cause anytime we mention our condition, our history or existence
They callin it reverse racism
-nas

eat a dick vibe

Don't act like blacks "can't be racist", like Fiat said that's racism in itself.

why are blacks racist?...
and why whites are racists?

one has a legit reason and one has a bullshit reason...but which one is which?

one tells the truth about reality and has evidence. the other makes creates evidence and claims their reality is the truth.

one has a reason to be mad and the other wants to be mad.

which one is which?

VIBE

1. Because they're both ignorant and hate each other

2. Both have bullshit reasons

3. None have a reason during this day and age

FieldTripsToTheHood

ghost tho wrote: »

FieldTripsToTheHood wrote: »

Fiat shat on all you. It was pleasant to watch.

not on me nigga...u cheerleading now

LOL @ agreeing with someone being cheerleading. You just mad he shat on you.

cobbland

heyslick wrote: »

VIBE wrote: »

LOL @ OJ, I think everyone and their mama, fuck a color, thought he was guilty.

Jury nullification at it's finest - & Johnny Cochran played-it like a pro. "if it don't fit you can't convict"

And where do you think he learned it from?

It couldn't have been from those "all white" juries that acquitted guilty men of a variety of crimes in the deep south, could it?

fiat_money

ghost tho wrote: »

FieldTripsToTheHood wrote: »

ghost tho wrote: »

FieldTripsToTheHood wrote: »

Fiat shat on all you. It was pleasant to watch.

not on me nigga...u cheerleading now

LOL @ agreeing with someone being cheerleading. You just mad he shat on you.

i left Fiat and Heyslick with questions they couldnt answer and tap-danced around yet u say u read this thread? GTFOH

Where?

fiat_money

ghost tho wrote: »

fiat_money wrote: »

ghost tho wrote: »

I totally dont understand how any1 from the hip hop community can defend GZ.. he woulda SHOT U TOO. And his fellow bigots online would be calling U a thug instead of Trayvon.

SMH @ caping for a racist murderer will a history of violence and anger issues.

Well, some of my favorite(nh) rappers say they would shoot me.

It's nothing to get too stressed over.

thats tap dancin, an indirect answer

ghost tho wrote: »

All shtick aside, verdict aside, do u THINK Zimmerman is guilty of murder?

fiat_money wrote: »

"Murder" is subjective, so I don't view anyone as "guilty of murder".

more of the same..i know thats how u are fam, but u left me guessin and i wanted to know who u THINK is in the wrong.

I'll listen to an artist who says they'll kill me without giving a fuck; therefore I don't give a fuck about someone I don't listen to wanting to kill me.

So basically, I don't give more of a fuck about someone's opinion than I do about someone elses simply because they are a racist.


And I don't think of people as morally "right" or "wrong" to begin with.

Classic fiat statements about "morality", "right", and "wrong":

fiat_money wrote: »

To say something is "unethical" is to say it is "morally wrong/evil". The nonexistence of god/gods means no objective morality or definitive set of morals can be imposed upon humanity from outside of humanity. And without some form of objective morality, morals must then be subjective. If morals are subjective, then nothing is truly "wrong" and nothing is truly "right", as it all becomes a matter of opinion. For this reason, without objective morality--which can't be created by humans as that would make it subjective morality--abortion can neither be definitively "right" nor "wrong".

This is why "I don't see how you can argue something is 'wrong'/'evil' without a belief in objective morality.".

"fiat_money wrote: »

Nothing is truly "wrong" morally, it's just a label given by people based on how they feel about something.

fiat_money wrote: »

allreasoned_out wrote: »

Why do you seem so evil sometimes?

Odd question, as I'd need some form of "morality" to consider something "evil" in the first place. I may say it often, but morals are completely subjective; this means they have no objective existence. They are unnecessary for individuals, and only limit a person's thinking/actions.

I can't respect any human with such mental shackling.

A quote linking "moral certainty" to "inferiority" comes to mind.

fiat_money wrote: »

InLightinShit wrote: »

Empathy and sympathy are not moral issues, they are subjective emotions.
A person who cannot differentiate between right and wrong, at a fundamental level, is not of sound mind.

Subjective - What I feel is morally wrong - That is an emotion.
Objective - What is factually wrong based on the collective morals of a nation - That is Law
EG I feel Paedophiles should be used for product testing instead of animals but that would be morally inhumane(apparently)
Objective morals are normally afforded legal standing. It being a communal objective.

The person who cannot see murder is wrong is a fool.
Objective - Homicidal tendencies are wrong
Subjective - Homosexuality is wrong

The red portions of what you wrote are false. There are no such things as "objective morals", because all morals are based on how people "feel". For example: If morals were truly objective, then all things considered "wrong" by a group of old women in Texas would be considered "wrong" by a group of teen males in the Kabardino-Balkar Republic, without difference. However, even if groups collectively have similar sets of morals, this doesn't make them objective. For example: If the "collective morals of a nation" are "Law", then they can't be objective because laws differ throughout a nation and between nations. Even using the same law, there are different "degrees" of criminal acts; which shows that within a judicial system the same acts may be treated/perceived differently. Differing treatment/perception of the same act proves that the law is subjective.

The brown portions are merely your opinion. Perhaps you should read up on amoralism or moral nihilism, as there are plenty of people who have realized morals are completely subjective products of the human mind.

I never stated that empathy or sympathy were "moral issues", however the black portions are correct.

"Moral certainty is always a sign of cultural inferiority. The more uncivilized the man, the surer he is that he knows precisely what is right and what is wrong..." -H.L. Mencken

That should answer everything.

High Revolutionary

VIBE wrote: »

SuperstarCole wrote: »

Cause anytime we mention our condition, our history or existence
They callin it reverse racism
-nas

eat a dick vibe

Don't act like blacks "can't be racist", like Fiat said that's racism in itself.

VIBE

LOL

fiat_money

ghost tho wrote: »

fiat_money wrote: »

ghost tho wrote: »

fiat_money wrote: »

ghost tho wrote: »

I totally dont understand how any1 from the hip hop community can defend GZ.. he woulda SHOT U TOO. And his fellow bigots online would be calling U a thug instead of Trayvon.

SMH @ caping for a racist murderer will a history of violence and anger issues.

Well, some of my favorite(nh) rappers say they would shoot me.

It's nothing to get too stressed over.

thats tap dancin, an indirect answer

ghost tho wrote: »

All shtick aside, verdict aside, do u THINK Zimmerman is guilty of murder?

fiat_money wrote: »

"Murder" is subjective, so I don't view anyone as "guilty of murder".

more of the same..i know thats how u are fam, but u left me guessin and i wanted to know who u THINK is in the wrong.

I'll listen to an artist who says they'll kill me without giving a fuck; therefore I don't give a fuck about someone I don't listen to wanting to kill me.

So basically, I don't give more of a fuck about someone's opinion than I do about someone elses simply because they are a racist.


And I don't think of people as morally "right" or "wrong" to begin with.

Classic fiat statements about "morality", "right", and "wrong":

fiat_money wrote: »

To say something is "unethical" is to say it is "morally wrong/evil". The nonexistence of god/gods means no objective morality or definitive set of morals can be imposed upon humanity from outside of humanity. And without some form of objective morality, morals must then be subjective. If morals are subjective, then nothing is truly "wrong" and nothing is truly "right", as it all becomes a matter of opinion. For this reason, without objective morality--which can't be created by humans as that would make it subjective morality--abortion can neither be definitively "right" nor "wrong".

This is why "I don't see how you can argue something is 'wrong'/'evil' without a belief in objective morality.".

"fiat_money wrote: »

Nothing is truly "wrong" morally, it's just a label given by people based on how they feel about something.

fiat_money wrote: »

allreasoned_out wrote: »

Why do you seem so evil sometimes?

Odd question, as I'd need some form of "morality" to consider something "evil" in the first place. I may say it often, but morals are completely subjective; this means they have no objective existence. They are unnecessary for individuals, and only limit a person's thinking/actions.

I can't respect any human with such mental shackling.

A quote linking "moral certainty" to "inferiority" comes to mind.

fiat_money wrote: »

InLightinShit wrote: »

Empathy and sympathy are not moral issues, they are subjective emotions.
A person who cannot differentiate between right and wrong, at a fundamental level, is not of sound mind.

Subjective - What I feel is morally wrong - That is an emotion.
Objective - What is factually wrong based on the collective morals of a nation - That is Law
EG I feel Paedophiles should be used for product testing instead of animals but that would be morally inhumane(apparently)
Objective morals are normally afforded legal standing. It being a communal objective.

The person who cannot see murder is wrong is a fool.
Objective - Homicidal tendencies are wrong
Subjective - Homosexuality is wrong

The red portions of what you wrote are false. There are no such things as "objective morals", because all morals are based on how people "feel". For example: If morals were truly objective, then all things considered "wrong" by a group of old women in Texas would be considered "wrong" by a group of teen males in the Kabardino-Balkar Republic, without difference. However, even if groups collectively have similar sets of morals, this doesn't make them objective. For example: If the "collective morals of a nation" are "Law", then they can't be objective because laws differ throughout a nation and between nations. Even using the same law, there are different "degrees" of criminal acts; which shows that within a judicial system the same acts may be treated/perceived differently. Differing treatment/perception of the same act proves that the law is subjective.

The brown portions are merely your opinion. Perhaps you should read up on amoralism or moral nihilism, as there are plenty of people who have realized morals are completely subjective products of the human mind.

I never stated that empathy or sympathy were "moral issues", however the black portions are correct.

"Moral certainty is always a sign of cultural inferiority. The more uncivilized the man, the surer he is that he knows precisely what is right and what is wrong..." -H.L. Mencken

That should answer everything.

I get it, good, bad, right, wrong, its all subjective and POV based but Im trying to comb through the philosophy here...let me rephrase.

Why do u objectively believe the shooters account of what happened, given his history and the history of the South in general? Based on what you've heard/read why do u give the man with everything to lose and great reason to lie the benefit of the doubt?

Where have I said the bolded?

Throughout this thread and others; I've used phrases like "Zimmerman's claim", "according to X person", "Y person's account", or "released evidence". I even called the picture that ABC dropped "alleged".

I've yet to assume any of these claims are true.

pralims

VIBE wrote: »

1. Because they're both ignorant and hate each other

2. Both have bullshit reasons

3. None have a reason during this day and age

so your saying my reality of walking into a store and ppl following me is bullshit....are you saying that even when in a parking lot of giant and i have a handful of bags....and white people still lock they car door when you pass is bullshit...

so zimmerman gave no reason as to why he thought that kid looked suspicious? or he had no reason...which makes it even worse

FieldTripsToTheHood

No he's stating facts and presenting information. Something very few people in this thread have done.

fiat_money

ghost tho wrote: »

fiat_money wrote: »

ghost tho wrote: »

fiat_money wrote: »

ghost tho wrote: »

fiat_money wrote: »

ghost tho wrote: »

I totally dont understand how any1 from the hip hop community can defend GZ.. he woulda SHOT U TOO. And his fellow bigots online would be calling U a thug instead of Trayvon.

SMH @ caping for a racist murderer will a history of violence and anger issues.

Well, some of my favorite(nh) rappers say they would shoot me.

It's nothing to get too stressed over.

thats tap dancin, an indirect answer

ghost tho wrote: »

All shtick aside, verdict aside, do u THINK Zimmerman is guilty of murder?

fiat_money wrote: »

"Murder" is subjective, so I don't view anyone as "guilty of murder".

more of the same..i know thats how u are fam, but u left me guessin and i wanted to know who u THINK is in the wrong.

I'll listen to an artist who says they'll kill me without giving a fuck; therefore I don't give a fuck about someone I don't listen to wanting to kill me.

So basically, I don't give more of a fuck about someone's opinion than I do about someone elses simply because they are a racist.


And I don't think of people as morally "right" or "wrong" to begin with.

Classic fiat statements about "morality", "right", and "wrong":

fiat_money wrote: »

To say something is "unethical" is to say it is "morally wrong/evil". The nonexistence of god/gods means no objective morality or definitive set of morals can be imposed upon humanity from outside of humanity. And without some form of objective morality, morals must then be subjective. If morals are subjective, then nothing is truly "wrong" and nothing is truly "right", as it all becomes a matter of opinion. For this reason, without objective morality--which can't be created by humans as that would make it subjective morality--abortion can neither be definitively "right" nor "wrong".

This is why "I don't see how you can argue something is 'wrong'/'evil' without a belief in objective morality.".

"fiat_money wrote: »

Nothing is truly "wrong" morally, it's just a label given by people based on how they feel about something.

fiat_money wrote: »

allreasoned_out wrote: »

Why do you seem so evil sometimes?

Odd question, as I'd need some form of "morality" to consider something "evil" in the first place. I may say it often, but morals are completely subjective; this means they have no objective existence. They are unnecessary for individuals, and only limit a person's thinking/actions.

I can't respect any human with such mental shackling.

A quote linking "moral certainty" to "inferiority" comes to mind.

fiat_money wrote: »

InLightinShit wrote: »

Empathy and sympathy are not moral issues, they are subjective emotions.
A person who cannot differentiate between right and wrong, at a fundamental level, is not of sound mind.

Subjective - What I feel is morally wrong - That is an emotion.
Objective - What is factually wrong based on the collective morals of a nation - That is Law
EG I feel Paedophiles should be used for product testing instead of animals but that would be morally inhumane(apparently)
Objective morals are normally afforded legal standing. It being a communal objective.

The person who cannot see murder is wrong is a fool.
Objective - Homicidal tendencies are wrong
Subjective - Homosexuality is wrong

The red portions of what you wrote are false. There are no such things as "objective morals", because all morals are based on how people "feel". For example: If morals were truly objective, then all things considered "wrong" by a group of old women in Texas would be considered "wrong" by a group of teen males in the Kabardino-Balkar Republic, without difference. However, even if groups collectively have similar sets of morals, this doesn't make them objective. For example: If the "collective morals of a nation" are "Law", then they can't be objective because laws differ throughout a nation and between nations. Even using the same law, there are different "degrees" of criminal acts; which shows that within a judicial system the same acts may be treated/perceived differently. Differing treatment/perception of the same act proves that the law is subjective.

The brown portions are merely your opinion. Perhaps you should read up on amoralism or moral nihilism, as there are plenty of people who have realized morals are completely subjective products of the human mind.

I never stated that empathy or sympathy were "moral issues", however the black portions are correct.

"Moral certainty is always a sign of cultural inferiority. The more uncivilized the man, the surer he is that he knows precisely what is right and what is wrong..." -H.L. Mencken

That should answer everything.

I get it, good, bad, right, wrong, its all subjective and POV based but Im trying to comb through the philosophy here...let me rephrase.

Why do u objectively believe the shooters account of what happened, given his history and the history of the South in general? Based on what you've heard/read why do u give the man with everything to lose and great reason to lie the benefit of the doubt?

Where have I said the bolded?

Throughout this thread and others; I've used phrases like "Zimmerman's claim", "according to X person", "Y person's account", or "released evidence". I even called the picture that ABC dropped "alleged".

I've yet to assume any of these claims are true.

like i said earlier...if u dont assume GZ claims are true, but ur restating them ur just playing devils advocate, correct?

I state his claims since his claims are what this entire thing is and will continue to be based around.

He claims he acted in self-defense, so the prosecution will first have show that there is evidence that shows his claim doesn't make him immune from being prosecuted. Then, using the evidence they have, they'll work to disprove his claim of self-defense if this goes past the immunity hearing.

ScumbagSwag

lighthearted26

Lol at this new story. Circling the suv? He probably sits in his cell all day wit his lawyer brainstorming new stories. Oh that's right he isn't in a cell is he.

desertrain10

ghost tho wrote: »

Fiat & Vibe have beliefs, i hope they're not being disingenuous or trolling. Its fuckin sad that they wanna be right so bad, yet it comes at the expense of more injustice against minority people. This case is unprecedented as far as the SYG law so if Zimfuck walks WE ALL LOSE...

but Fiat and Vibe were right...and they "shat on all of us". YAY!! Nevermind the fact that they could be next if dude's gets acquitted. The next bigot can put a slug in ur hip hop lovin ass and go free, they wouldnt co-sign the shooter then.

this... theres more at stake than zimmerman's freedom. smdh. but its the IC so *shrugs*

And we can speculate who attacked whom all day; but there is no factual evidence to back either claim up. Speculation that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman; is simply that. We can only go on the facts present; and the denunciation of Trayvon for possibly defending himself, shows the Sanford pd's, possibly the court's and some of the IC's unwillingness to apply the 'Stand Your Ground' law equally


FACT: Trayvon is dead.

FACT: Trayvon's girlfriend and a 911 operator are the only immediate witnesses; and testimony by both support the idea that Zimmerman followed him with both Trayvon and Zimmerman admitting it separately, respectively; but neither provided proof that Trayvon was engaged in anything besides walking down the street.

FACT: Following someone is not illegal in most circumstances; but it is reasonable cause to attack someone in Florida under FS 776.013 which "justifies the use of deadly force" when one posses a "reasonable presumption of fear"

FACT: Zimmerman left the comfort of his SUV strapped with a gun, only to proceed to follow Trayvon on foot. Trayvon't body was found 200 feet from Zimmerman's truck, make of that what you will

FACT: The same "Stand Your Ground Law" (aka 776.013) that Zimmerman's defenders are citing as a defense; applies equally to Trayvon; meaning Trayvon was justified in attacking someone who both Zimmerman himself (on the 911 call) and the two witnesses all collaborate was following Trayvon.

And if wouldn't be a reach to assume that Trayvon felt or seen Zimmerman had a gun, which he holstered on a waistband, during or before the confrontation


Everything else beyond that is conjecture....












More than likely Zimmerman will get the benefit of the doubt though and walk free because he's alive....and Trayvon was a scary, blk man... not to mention his case was handled by a police department with a history of violating basic processing procedures seemed to treat his death as little more than a lost dog...

Hopefully the 'Stand Your Ground' law will eventually be eliminated from the books though

fiat_money

ghost tho wrote: »

fiat_money wrote: »

ghost tho wrote: »

fiat_money wrote: »

ghost tho wrote: »

fiat_money wrote: »

ghost tho wrote: »

fiat_money wrote: »

ghost tho wrote: »

I totally dont understand how any1 from the hip hop community can defend GZ.. he woulda SHOT U TOO. And his fellow bigots online would be calling U a thug instead of Trayvon.

SMH @ caping for a racist murderer will a history of violence and anger issues.

Well, some of my favorite(nh) rappers say they would shoot me.

It's nothing to get too stressed over.

thats tap dancin, an indirect answer

ghost tho wrote: »

All shtick aside, verdict aside, do u THINK Zimmerman is guilty of murder?

fiat_money wrote: »

"Murder" is subjective, so I don't view anyone as "guilty of murder".

more of the same..i know thats how u are fam, but u left me guessin and i wanted to know who u THINK is in the wrong.

I'll listen to an artist who says they'll kill me without giving a fuck; therefore I don't give a fuck about someone I don't listen to wanting to kill me.

So basically, I don't give more of a fuck about someone's opinion than I do about someone elses simply because they are a racist.


And I don't think of people as morally "right" or "wrong" to begin with.

Classic fiat statements about "morality", "right", and "wrong":

fiat_money wrote: »

To say something is "unethical" is to say it is "morally wrong/evil". The nonexistence of god/gods means no objective morality or definitive set of morals can be imposed upon humanity from outside of humanity. And without some form of objective morality, morals must then be subjective. If morals are subjective, then nothing is truly "wrong" and nothing is truly "right", as it all becomes a matter of opinion. For this reason, without objective morality--which can't be created by humans as that would make it subjective morality--abortion can neither be definitively "right" nor "wrong".

This is why "I don't see how you can argue something is 'wrong'/'evil' without a belief in objective morality.".

"fiat_money wrote: »

Nothing is truly "wrong" morally, it's just a label given by people based on how they feel about something.

fiat_money wrote: »

allreasoned_out wrote: »

Why do you seem so evil sometimes?

Odd question, as I'd need some form of "morality" to consider something "evil" in the first place. I may say it often, but morals are completely subjective; this means they have no objective existence. They are unnecessary for individuals, and only limit a person's thinking/actions.

I can't respect any human with such mental shackling.

A quote linking "moral certainty" to "inferiority" comes to mind.

fiat_money wrote: »

InLightinShit wrote: »

Empathy and sympathy are not moral issues, they are subjective emotions.
A person who cannot differentiate between right and wrong, at a fundamental level, is not of sound mind.

Subjective - What I feel is morally wrong - That is an emotion.
Objective - What is factually wrong based on the collective morals of a nation - That is Law
EG I feel Paedophiles should be used for product testing instead of animals but that would be morally inhumane(apparently)
Objective morals are normally afforded legal standing. It being a communal objective.

The person who cannot see murder is wrong is a fool.
Objective - Homicidal tendencies are wrong
Subjective - Homosexuality is wrong

The red portions of what you wrote are false. There are no such things as "objective morals", because all morals are based on how people "feel". For example: If morals were truly objective, then all things considered "wrong" by a group of old women in Texas would be considered "wrong" by a group of teen males in the Kabardino-Balkar Republic, without difference. However, even if groups collectively have similar sets of morals, this doesn't make them objective. For example: If the "collective morals of a nation" are "Law", then they can't be objective because laws differ throughout a nation and between nations. Even using the same law, there are different "degrees" of criminal acts; which shows that within a judicial system the same acts may be treated/perceived differently. Differing treatment/perception of the same act proves that the law is subjective.

The brown portions are merely your opinion. Perhaps you should read up on amoralism or moral nihilism, as there are plenty of people who have realized morals are completely subjective products of the human mind.

I never stated that empathy or sympathy were "moral issues", however the black portions are correct.

"Moral certainty is always a sign of cultural inferiority. The more uncivilized the man, the surer he is that he knows precisely what is right and what is wrong..." -H.L. Mencken

That should answer everything.

I get it, good, bad, right, wrong, its all subjective and POV based but Im trying to comb through the philosophy here...let me rephrase.

Why do u objectively believe the shooters account of what happened, given his history and the history of the South in general? Based on what you've heard/read why do u give the man with everything to lose and great reason to lie the benefit of the doubt?

Where have I said the bolded?

Throughout this thread and others; I've used phrases like "Zimmerman's claim", "according to X person", "Y person's account", or "released evidence". I even called the picture that ABC dropped "alleged".

I've yet to assume any of these claims are true.

like i said earlier...if u dont assume GZ claims are true, but ur restating them ur just playing devils advocate, correct?

I state his claims since his claims are what this entire thing is and will continue to be based around.

my thing is his claims keep changing, or they're being spoonfed to us. U just seem bias towards GZ when if nothing else u should relate to the victim cuz ur a black male and/or a member of the hip hop community and u know there's an ongoing war in this country against both of those things

I'm merely making statements/arguments based on available information at this moment; which is completely irrelevant to who I "should relate to". The fact that I'm refuting other's arguments doesn't make me biased, it just means that others have weak arguments.

You say Zimmerman's "claims keeps changing". What do you have to support that? Are you referring to the subject of this thread? Because according to the investigator who signed the affidavit, Dale Gilbreath, Zimmerman claimed this to police from the beginning. Even the article on the first page of this thread says that's what Zimmerman has "consistently" claimed. People in this thread are acting as though this just came out, but it was clearly stated at the bond hearing two weeks ago.

FieldTripsToTheHood

people need to see past their personal emotions.

riddlerap

majority of blacks cant do that

VIBE

Is it that it keeps changing (GZ story) or is it that you're not following the case and only know what you hear here and there?

Jamaica

at what point was it revealed that trayvon circled the car? not saying zimmerman is lying, but wouldn't you put all this information out there to clear your name? it went from "he walked away and trayvon attacked him from behind" yet trayvon is found dead miles away from zimmerman's car. now they are saying trayvon circled the vehicle.

fiat_money

Jamaica wrote: »

at what point was it revealed that trayvon circled the car? not saying zimmerman is lying, but wouldn't you put all this information out there to clear your name? it went from "he walked away and trayvon attacked him from behind" yet trayvon is found dead miles away from zimmerman's car. now they are saying trayvon circled the vehicle.

At the bond hearing. No. Zimmerman's claim is that Treyvon approached him from behind, not that he attacked him from behind; and a person can be walking away towards their car, while being far from reaching it, and still be approached from behind. Treyvon was not "found dead miles away from zimmerman's car". Zimmerman is the one and he has been the one saying Treyvon circled his car.