More like, "no white man can challenge my status amoung my people." Your warped group think mind has no right to physically assault anyone just because someone hurt your feelings. If you were wronged that badly, convince Al Sharpton to bring forward hate crime charges against the wrong doer, the HOA.
that is an apt manner of describing the myth that zimmerman had his head slammed against the concrete 25-30 times, as he claimed.
was it in his system?Yea, because its not even possible that there was cough syrup at the house.
Nice logic there little girl.
it's not assault if some stranger follows you home in the dark without identifying himself and you are in fear for your life and bodily harm from it. in that case, you are allowed to kill the person if you fear for your life because he followed you in the dark without identifying himself or his intentions.
the have to repeat sharpton X number of times to earn their $0.07 per post.
Ok, lets make you look like an idiot again.
It's fun making you look like an idiot. Here I'll do it again. I never said that he was on it. I said add one more thing to it and that is what you have. Hell, he probably has done it so much he was in a constant state of fucked up hoodlum, and he needed his fix so he went and got the other two ingredients to teach his little soon to be step brother how to be on that purple drank just like him.
Why should we take anything you say seriously? You have said you were leaving like 5 times already.
Zimmerman testified he identified himself. The jury rejected your claim Martin was justified in his attemted murder with not guilty of manslaughter. The judge didn't press perjury charges. Therefore what we observe by means of the jury verdict make us reject your hypothesis. We must, instead accept the null hypothesis. "Martin was a thug who let his pride make him attack the wrong man with a gun." I suggest you read a book on statistics and logic so you don't make these kind of conjecture mistakes in the future.
He is just going to respond with, but how do you explain that he said he walked up to him, blah blah. And, changed his story over 10 times, blah blah. He should have stayed in his car, blah blah.
zimmerman did not testify, and he admitted that he never identified himself.
He had no need to testify, the prosecution made the self defense case for him.
since martin was a kid walking home with candy and not a criminal, your post only illustrates that zimmerman is culpable of making a wrong assumption and acting upon it in a negligent fashion.
yet you 'liked' a post in which an uninformed idiot said he did testify.