Zimmerman
-
This was all about race.
It's sad that from beginning most blacks, including politicians, and white libs declared Z guilty before day 1 of the trial.
It's also sad that since day 1 of the trial, most blacks and many white libs wanted so bad for Z to be found guilty.
Shouldn't it be that everyone...black, white libtards, and Hispanics would hope and pray that Z is innocent? To hope racism is being defeated, and this killing was indeed an act of self defense? After all, that is what we've been fighting for. But nooooo...those deranged members of society WANT the ugly face of racism, unjustified or not to continue to surface for their own self serving interests even at the expense of an innocent man.
-
I can hear that railroad train right now.
Don't worry folks the judge will find something you can charge him with!
WSS
-
Well, the judge ruled against the child abuse charge. It was a technicality to try to validate murder 3 or something....
I don't see any evidence of wrongdoing by Zimmerman. There never was enough evidence to bring charges.
That's why the prosecution is scrambling desperately to try to pin SOMETHING on him.
Not Guilty. Bet on it.
-
I wouldn't bet on an acquittal. I think he state failed miserably to prove their case so the judge threw them a bone. that way the tree can feel like they've done something.
WSS
-
I wouldn't bet on an acquittal. I think he state failed miserably to prove their case so the judge threw them a bone. that way the tree can feel like they've done something.
WSS
I wouldn't bet on an acquittal. I think he stayed field miserably to prove their case so the judge threw them a bone. that way the tree can feel like they've done something.
WSS
You think "the state failed miserably" perhaps?
You failed miserably on that one LOL!
-
Sad, If you take race out of the equation it probably never goes to trial and certainly doesn't make the sunday morning shows.
WSS
Just a quick off topic comment for WSS, you look a lot like the musician warren Haynes. That's all.Sad, If you take race out of the equation it probably never goes to trial and certainly doesn't make the sunday morning shows.
WSS
-
I wouldn't bet on an acquittal. I think he stayed field miserably to prove their case so the judge threw them a bone. that way the tree can feel like they've done something.
WSS
You think "the state failed miserably" perhaps?
You failed miserably on that one LOL!
-
I see the Judge allowed the manslaughter option.
"JUST CONVICT HIM OF SOMETHING!!!!"
-
Personally I feel he is guilty of involuntary manslaughter(no idea if Florida has that level of manslaughter or what the punishment would be). But then again I don't agree with the idea that Martin just flat out ambushed/attacked Zimmerman and that it was more of an argument/confrontation that escalated out of control.
-
Yeah, I don't see why Martin would just ambush Zimmerman after he "got away"
-
Because he was high? perhaps he planned to rob him? why speculate on things we really don't know.
It seems like some people are ready to hang Zimmerman regardless of what happened.
WSS
-
All I have to say is that I honestly don't care which way this trial goes. It's been a sham, and I know that whoever loses, I win. Unless, of course, I get shot if there's a riot.
-
And it seems like some people are jumping to calling Martin a whacked out gang member...
We see so many posts on here about "Everyone is unfairly assuming Zimmerman's guilty" "The media isny fair" "Martin did this, this and this" "Martin was (insert negative character trait)". We see speculation on speculation from this side that jump to conclusions in most every post.
But when something anti-Zimmerman or pro-Martin is said its "You liberals just go off of emotions" "You can't prove that!""The judge is on the take!" Etc etc.
Its like no one here understands their own hypocrisy.
-
No justuce, no peas.
-
no dipshit. some people are saying that martin attack the guy and was getting the better of him. and that Zimmerman rightfully feared for his life or at least extreme bodily harm.
it is not against the law to follow someone nor is it a reason to attack and beat them.
I don't suppose Martin knew Zimmerman had a concealed carry license when he jumped him.
bad mistake.
if you decide you don't believe its self defense then why in the world would you be happy with manslaughter? throw out the self defense and it looks more like murder one.
WSS
-
no dipshit. some people are saying that martin attack the guy and was getting the better of him. and that Zimmerman rightfully feared for his life or at least extreme bodily harm.
it is not against the law to follow someone nor is it a reason to attack and beat them.
I don't suppose Martin knew Zimmerman had a concealed carry license when he jumped him.
bad mistake.
if you decide you don't believe its self defense then why in the world would you be happy with manslaughter? throw out the self defense and it looks more like murder one.
WSS
some people are saying that martin attack the guy and was getting the better of him. and that Zimmerman rightfully feared for his life or at least extreme bodily harm...
WSS
This is what I don't understand, there is no proof outside of Zimmerman's testimony that Martin just straight out attacked him even the location of the altercation would disprove this easily. Yes Zimmerman got beat up(like cal said earlier Martin was a fighter Zimmerman wasn't), but that wouldn't mean that he didn't at the very least approach Martin and was losing a fight before he shot him.
-
so you believe that Zimmerman attacked martin?
if so again why would you settle for manslaughter?
WSS
-
I don't believe Zimmerman "attacked martin" , I believe it was an altercation that got out of hand, yelling->pushing->shoving->to punches thrown->to Zimmerman ending up on the ground with Martin on top. Where do you draw the line at self defence and getting yourself into that situation. I went and googled the definitions for murder vs manslaughter and honestly if the jury believes that Zimmerman wasn't acting in self defence he would fit the definition of voluntary manslaughter.
"In most jurisdictions, voluntary manslaughter consists of an intentional killing that is accompanied by additional circumstances that mitigate, but do not excuse, the killing. The most common type of voluntary manslaughter occurs when a defendant is provoked to commit the Homicide. It is sometimes described as a heat of passion killing. In most cases, the provocation must induce rage or anger in the defendant, although some cases have held that fright, terror, or desperation will suffice."
"The definition of murder has evolved over several centuries. Under most modern statutes in the United States, murder comes in four varieties: (1) intentional murder; (2) a killing that resulted from the intent to do serious bodily injury; (3) a killing that resulted from a depraved heart or extreme recklessness; and (4) murder committed by an Accomplice during the commission of, attempt of, or flight from certain felonies." http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/murder
-
Acquittal is my strong appraisal.
But then, most of us? never thought O.J. Simpson would be "innocent".
If the scene was unlit, you must acquit....
for lack of evidence of wrongdoing by Zimmerman in the shooting,
there isn't any crime that can be proven. This case should fail for lack of any merit whatsoever.
-
And it seems like some people are jumping to calling Martin a whacked out gang member...
We see so many posts on here about "Everyone is unfairly assuming Zimmerman's guilty" "The media isny fair" "Martin did this, this and this" "Martin was (insert negative character trait)". We see speculation on speculation from this side that jump to conclusions in most every post.
But when something anti-Zimmerman or pro-Martin is said its "You liberals just go off of emotions" "You can't prove that!""The judge is on the take!" Etc etc.
Its like no one here understands their own hypocrisy.
And it seems like some people are jumping to calling Martin a whacked out gang member...
We see so many posts on here about "Everyone is unfairly assuming Zimmerman's guilty" "The media isny fair" "Martin did this, this and this" "Martin was (insert negative character trait)". We see speculation on speculation from this side that jump to conclusions in most every post.
But when something anti-Zimmerman or pro-Martin is said its "You liberals just go off of emotions" "You can't prove that!""The judge is on the take!" Etc etc.
Its like no one here understands their own hypocrisy.
That was weak. The media was not fair from the very beginning dipshit...do we really need to rehash that again?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login