George Zimmerman Verdict

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from RallyC. Show RallyC's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to RallyC's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

     

     

     

    Embarrassed enough yet at his point?

     

     

     



    You want embarrassed? Rally's characterization of you looks to be pretty spot on. Now, that's embarrassing.

     

     

     

    "I can tell by the way you talk to EVERYBODY today that you were a weasley, spindly litte weirdo, or just a fat lethargic little insecure punk who got picked on as a kid all of the time and now its time for you to pretend that you know everything and everybody only because you can hide behind your keyboard."

    But this one is even better.

    "You are a fraud, and an immature little bytch."

    He's got you pegged. LMAO@U

     

     


    I gotta admit, I am embarrassed. I am embarrassed that people like Rusty and Prolate apparently don't understand the basic principles of the US Constitution or how they are the building blocks to our legal system. For Rusty to insist this verdict is "racism" shows that he has no interest in improving race relations. He is simply fanning the flames to increase the divide between white and black America. He is taking advantage of those who can be emotionally riled up by pushing their most sensative buttons. Those who want improved race relations do their best to quell emotional responses. Rusty does all he can to do the opposite. He has a warped desire to try to control others' emotions with no real concern for right or wrong. So Babe, i am embarrassed that I didn't see Rusty for who he is sooner, and for the fact that it took me so long to admit it. 

     

     




    In the case of prolate you have two warped agendas going on. He is a political ho liberal and he suffers from "canuk syndrome". Without setting these aside he is incapable of objectivity. That's why his football talk is relatively objective. He suffers from no such maladies in discussions of that nature.

     

    Unlike Rusty, prolate is a good guy. He just has a problem politically and forms opinions regarding which he is oblivious to his prostitution tainting.

    Rusty on the other hand suffers from the political ho liberal problem and a penchant to believe if he "thinks" something is so that it is actually proven fact. His second issue contaminates both discussions and is probably the more repugnant of the two conditions because it smacks of downright dishonesty, which most decent folks automatically detest.

    You are not apt to convince persons who suffer from these afflictions of anything no matter how much reason or how many facts you present to them. So it's simply futile to argue with them. But it should be done anyway in a venue like this. That's because many times over more people read these pages than post on them. And letting these types dominate the discussion without objective opposition could allow some empty yet still deviously persuasive claims to cause an undesirable and dishonest influence.

    I don't know that you should be contrite about not realizing what Rusty actually is sooner. I retrospect think you were coming from high ground in that endeavor, merely giving the guy a chance. I have no doubt whatsoever that every single decent person here will eventually revile most of Rusty's contributions because his afflictions will always elicit such contempt eventually.

    Perhaps now you can better understand why your not only going easy on him, but seeming to actually support his agenda, could prompt somebody to suspect you were one of his fake accounts.

     

    [/QUOTE]
    Copy. 

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

     

    To P-Mike and all the others who claim the "evidence" shows Marin initiated the scuffle that was ended by Zimmerman's fatal shot to Martin's heart:

     

    There is no evidence at all about who started the scuffle, other than Zimmerman's story of the events, which cannot be independently verified. It's quite possible, of course, that everything transpired exactly as Zimmerman described: i.e., basically Zimmerman was wandering around near his car and Martin "jumped him."  But there are many other plausible scenarios.  We simply don't know what happened and can't know, and anyone who says the evidence gives us an answer is biased, gullible, or not a very careful thinker.

     

    To convict Zimmerman under current law, the jury would have had to have had evidence that showed beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's claim that Martin initiated the conflict was untrue.  They didn't have that evidence, which is why an acquittal was the right decision given the law and the available evidence. However, the jury also did not have enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin initiated the scuffle.  A lack of evidence that Zimmerman didn't initiate the scuffle does not translate into sufficient evidence that Martin did initiate it.  P-Mike, RallyC, Babe, and basically every one of our conservative posters continue to base their arguments on this logical flaw that reasonable doubt about one version of events means a lack of reasonable doubt about another version.  Both versions can be unproven and therefore both subject to reasonable doubt.  Because of this an acquittal of Zimmerman does not translate into a conviction of Martin.  And as I said before, you can't be convicted at someone else's trial.  

     

    It would be nice as well if you couldn't be summarily executed without trial for an alleged crime that normally isn't considered a capital offense . . . but hey, who cares about those little details.  It's only some black kid dead.  He probably would have ended up in jail or dead anyway.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from soxrockursox. Show soxrockursox's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    To P-Mike and all the others who claim the "evidence" shows Marin initiated the scuffle that was ended by Zimmerman's fatal shot to Martin's heart:

     

    There is no evidence at all about who started the scuffle, other than Zimmerman's story of the events, which cannot be independently verified. It's quite possible, of course, that everything transpired exactly as Zimmerman described: i.e., basically Zimmerman was wandering around near his car and Martin "jumped him."  But there are many other plausible scenarios.  We simply don't know what happened and can't know, and anyone who says the evidence gives us an answer is biased, gullible, or not a very careful thinker.

     

    To convict Zimmerman under current law, the jury would have had to have had evidence that showed beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's claim that Martin initiated the conflict was untrue.  They didn't have that evidence, which is why an acquittal was the right decision given the law and the available evidence. However, the jury also did not have enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin initiated the scuffle.  A lack of evidence that Zimmerman didn't initiate the scuffle does not translate into sufficient evidence that Martin did initiate it.  P-Mike, RallyC, Babe, and basically every one of our conservative posters continue to base their arguments on this logical flaw that reasonable doubt about one version of events means a lack of reasonable doubt about another version.  Both versions can be unproven and therefore both subject to reasonable doubt.  Because of this an acquittal of Zimmerman does not translate into a conviction of Martin.  And as I said before, you can't be convicted at someone else's trial.  

     

    It would be nice as well if you couldn't be summarily executed without trial for an alleged crime that normally isn't considered a capital offense . . . but hey, who cares about those little details.  It's only some black kid dead.  He probably would have ended up in jail or dead anyway and this was much more efficient. 

     

    Yoiur point is well thought out till the end .When you say its only a black kid blah blah blah stuff like this brings up it was about race and GZ was a racist and other on here cause they agree with the verdict.Why not just say a young kid is dead and so on?Leave out what race he is or was.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to RallyC's comment:

    In response to soxrockursox's comment:

     


    Another thing Iam getting sick of the race bating !Its been going on in this thread and the dennard thread ,theres no edvindence in ethier case ,This is becoming  a big problem in this country.When in doubt play the race card please.

     


    Yup, the "race card" perpetuates the hate. Instead of acknowledging that the suspects of multiple, recent break-ins in that same condo complex were described as being "young, black males" and that TM fit that description, some would rather say, "HEY, just because TM was black doesn't mean he is a suspect." REALLY? If it were a handicapped black man with one arm who had been described as the suspect for all of the break-ins, and TM had one arm, you can pretty much bet that it still would have been: "Hey, just because TM has one arm doesn't mean anything. You are only accusing him because he is black!" SO DAMNED WEAK. Its getting so old. THE USA still has race issues, but until EVERYBODY takes responsibility for their part in it, it will ALWAYS be a HUGE problem. It really is a two way street.

     



    It's funny, isn't it, how conservatives hate affirmative action and other social programs that address injustices done to groups rather than to individuals, but at the same time are willing to profile, arrest, stop and frisk individuals based solely on the group to which they belong.  

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    Embarrassed enough yet at his point?

     

     

     



    You want embarrassed? Rally's characterization of you looks to be pretty spot on. Now, that's embarrassing.

     

     

     

    "I can tell by the way you talk to EVERYBODY today that you were a weasley, spindly litte weirdo, or just a fat lethargic little insecure punk who got picked on as a kid all of the time and now its time for you to pretend that you know everything and everybody only because you can hide behind your keyboard."

    But this one is even better.

    "You are a fraud, and an immature little bytch."

    He's got you pegged. LMAO@U

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Umm, I was a jock in high school, so that description is not even close. A jock who plays guitar is a "spindly little weirdo".

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Why in the world would anybody here believe a word you say dumbkoff? Really. Why? You have proven yourself over and over and over to be dishonest. People confront you with cold hard provable facts daily to rufute the things you just make up and you either try to squirm your way out of it with BS or run away and never acknowledge having been dead nuts proven wrong.

    But as always, trying to talk reason with you is a waste of time. You have made yourself a pariah here with your dishonest antics and precious few believe a word you say.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from RallyC. Show RallyC's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    bumped

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to soxrockursox's comment:

     

    Yoiur point is well thought out till the end .When you say its only a black kid blah blah blah stuff like this brings up it was about race and GZ was a racist and other on here cause they agree with the verdict.Why not just say a young kid is dead and so on?Leave out what race he is or was.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    It would be nice to leave race out, but I think race was a factor. I doubt if Martin were white he would ever have fallen under Zimmerman's suspicion.  I also think if Martin were white and Zimmerman were black, the police would never have let Zimmerman walk away the night of the shooting or failed to do a complete investigation of the crime scene.  I don't think there's as much  conscious, overt racism as there used to be, but I do think that even people who don't intend to be racist and find racism abhorrent aren't completely free of stereotypes and assumptions based on race.  It's just human nature.  Someday race may not be a factor at all . . . much like blonde or brown hair isn't a factor.  But I don't think we're there yet, and not acknowledging that racial stereotypes and assumptions are still at work doesn't make them go away.  Also, just a point of clarification, making judgments based on assumptions and stereotypes about races isn't necessarily "racist." For instance, I know of black cab drivers who avoid picking up other black people.  Those cab drivers certainly aren't "racist" in the sense of hating black people.  But they are acting on race-based assumptions.  The innocent black person who can't get a cab in the rain because he's black suffers from the assumptions made about black people, regardless of whether the cab driver making those assumptions was "racist" or not.  

    Also, I'll just add that I think it's odd that so many people are willing to give all the benefit of the doubt to the shooter, Zimmerman, and none to the person who was shot and killed, Martin.  I do tend to suspect that there are some race-based assumptions underlying that tendency.  

    Also, when people object so vehemently to any suggestion that racism may be involved, I can't help hearing Shakespeare's words: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    To P-Mike and all the others who claim the "evidence" shows Marin initiated the scuffle that was ended by Zimmerman's fatal shot to Martin's heart:

     

    There is no evidence at all about who started the scuffle, other than Zimmerman's story of the events, which cannot be independently verified. It's quite possible, of course, that everything transpired exactly as Zimmerman described: i.e., basically Zimmerman was wandering around near his car and Martin "jumped him."  But there are many other plausible scenarios.  We simply don't know what happened and can't know, and anyone who says the evidence gives us an answer is biased, gullible, or not a very careful thinker.

     

    To convict Zimmerman under current law, the jury would have had to have had evidence that showed beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's claim that Martin initiated the conflict was untrue.  They didn't have that evidence, which is why an acquittal was the right decision given the law and the available evidence. However, the jury also did not have enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin initiated the scuffle.  A lack of evidence that Zimmerman didn't initiate the scuffle does not translate into sufficient evidence that Martin did initiate it.  P-Mike, RallyC, Babe, and basically every one of our conservative posters continue to base their arguments on this logical flaw that reasonable doubt about one version of events means a lack of reasonable doubt about another version.  Both versions can be unproven and therefore both subject to reasonable doubt.  Because of this an acquittal of Zimmerman does not translate into a conviction of Martin.  And as I said before, you can't be convicted at someone else's trial.  

     

    It would be nice as well if you couldn't be summarily executed without trial for an alleged crime that normally isn't considered a capital offense . . . but hey, who cares about those little details.  It's only some black kid dead.  He probably would have ended up in jail or dead anyway.




    I don't know why you mention me in this. I never claimed Martin in fact initiated a physical attack.

    What we do know from testimony is the M was attacking Z and Z defended himself against the attack. What we don't know is moot to the conclusion. Because the known facts show Z was being attacked by M a reasonable man could only conclude M initiated the attack, not Z. I certainly never said that was proven.

    Understand this, I don't care what race Z or M were in this discussion. That's just something your political whoreism is conjuring up. Accusing an innocent person of racism is as repugnant as actual racism.

     

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from RallyC. Show RallyC's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    To P-Mike and all the others who claim the "evidence" shows Marin initiated the scuffle that was ended by Zimmerman's fatal shot to Martin's heart:

     

    There is no evidence at all about who started the scuffle, other than Zimmerman's story of the events, which cannot be independently verified. It's quite possible, of course, that everything transpired exactly as Zimmerman described: i.e., basically Zimmerman was wandering around near his car and Martin "jumped him."  But there are many other plausible scenarios.  We simply don't know what happened and can't know, and anyone who says the evidence gives us an answer is biased, gullible, or not a very careful thinker.

     

    To convict Zimmerman under current law, the jury would have had to have had evidence that showed beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's claim that Martin initiated the conflict was untrue.  They didn't have that evidence, which is why an acquittal was the right decision given the law and the available evidence. However, the jury also did not have enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin initiated the scuffle.  A lack of evidence that Zimmerman didn't initiate the scuffle does not translate into sufficient evidence that Martin did initiate it.  P-Mike, RallyC, Babe, and basically every one of our conservative posters continue to base their arguments on this logical flaw that reasonable doubt about one version of events means a lack of reasonable doubt about another version.  Both versions can be unproven and therefore both subject to reasonable doubt.  Because of this an acquittal of Zimmerman does not translate into a conviction of Martin.  And as I said before, you can't be convicted at someone else's trial.  

     

    It would be nice as well if you couldn't be summarily executed without trial for an alleged crime that normally isn't considered a capital offense . . . but hey, who cares about those little details.  It's only some black kid dead.  He probably would have ended up in jail or dead anyway.

     

     


    Prolate, I only read the first 3-4 lines in your post above and that was more than enough to NAIL YOU.. You are wrong. Above you clearly and misleadingly state, "the jury also did not have enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin initiated the scuffle." Who told you this? Did the rest of us miss something that you were privy to? Did they actually try TM? How can you speculate that this would be the outcome of something that they never sent to trial because he is dead? This speaks volumes as to what you are doing..........LYING! The fact that GZ is NOT GUILTY as charged implies that GZ was exercising Self Defense, period. The Jurors are publicly stating that they absolutely have concluded that TM attacked GZ and that was the basis for their NOT GUILTY verdict. I heard this several times during the interviews. HERE ya go, straight from JUROR B37s MOUTH:

    The juror said Martin played a "huge role in his death, " because he could have walked away from the confrontation with Zimmerman. "He didn't have to do whatever he did and come back and be in a fight."
    Juror B37 told Anderson that she thought Zimmerman's actions were in self-defense. "I think the roles changed, I think George got in a little bit too deep, which he shouldn't have been there. But Trayvon decided that he wasn't gonna let him scare him ... and I think Trayvon got mad and attacked him." 

    Prolate, you don't just have the internet in Canada! We have it down here in the US too. Damn, man, that was pretty easy! Your statement, "the jury also did not have enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin initiated the scuffle." is a poor attempt at trying to imply that you know what you are talking about when in fact you are speculating, assuming, and making things up....AKA LYING.  Prolante goes back into hiding in 3-2-1.....

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:


    It would be nice to leave race out, but I think race was a factor. I doubt if Martin were white he would ever have fallen under Zimmerman's suspicion.  I also think if Martin were white and Zimmerman were black, the police would never have let Zimmerman walk away the night of the shooting or failed to do a complete investigation of the crime scene.



    It's nice to know what you "think". (Not really.) But you have no choice but to think that because you are a political ho. Cure yourself of that malady and you might become a reasonable man.

    Ironically, in the light of your liberal spin doctoring, if there is any evidence on record of racism in this, it would be that TM was the racist.

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:


    It's funny, isn't it, how conservatives hate affirmative action and other social programs that address injustices done to groups rather than to individuals, but at the same time are willing to profile, arrest, stop and frisk individuals based solely on the group to which they belong.  

     




    Your warped agenda is showing again.

    Let's be clear. You are claiming "conservatives" want people "arrested" based on them belonging to a group.

     

    You have been repeatedly exposed as a dishonest political ho that will stoop to any level to push that liberal agenda.

     

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     P-Mike, RallyC, Babe, and basically every one of our conservative posters continue



    Again, you are disingenuous and flat out lie. I have pointed out a number of issues where I clearly fail to meet the litmus test of a conservative, yet you ignore that and lump me in that category because I don't march in lock step as you do with your political prostitution to liberalism.

    Your credibility is suffering severely in these discussions.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Inokea4coolaid. Show Inokea4coolaid's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    Zimmerman is my hero.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to Inokea4coolaid's comment:

    Zimmerman is my hero.




    Why?

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Inokea4coolaid. Show Inokea4coolaid's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to Inokea4coolaid's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Zimmerman is my hero.

     




    Why?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    why not?

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from RallyC. Show RallyC's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    No opinion, just a look into the Jury's thinking:

    JUROR B37:

    The juror said Martin played a "huge role in his death, " because he could have walked away from the confrontation with Zimmerman. "He didn't have to do whatever he did and come back and be in a fight."
    Juror B37 told Anderson that she thought Zimmerman's actions were in self-defense. "I think the roles changed, I think George got in a little bit too deep, which he shouldn't have been there. But Trayvon decided that he wasn't gonna let him scare him ... and I think Trayvon got mad and attacked him." 


    Go ahead Prolate, Rusty, argue with the facts and thoughts that the 6-jurors came to a unanimous conclusion on in deciding that GZ was not guilty. Go ahead and call her/them racists and tell them that they don't know what they are talking about. This should be fun to watch both of you dancing around this..........or you will both just hide from it like cowards...........looks like this thread is about to end guys....See y'all on the next one!

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to RallyC's comment:

    No opinion, just a look into the Jury's thinking:

    JUROR B37:

    The juror said Martin played a "huge role in his death, " because he could have walked away from the confrontation with Zimmerman. "He didn't have to do whatever he did and come back and be in a fight."
    Juror B37 told Anderson that she thought Zimmerman's actions were in self-defense. "I think the roles changed, I think George got in a little bit too deep, which he shouldn't have been there. But Trayvon decided that he wasn't gonna let him scare him ... and I think Trayvon got mad and attacked him." 


    Go ahead Prolate, Rusty, argue with the facts and thoughts that the 6-jurors came to a unanimous conclusion on in deciding that GZ was not guilty. Go ahead and call her/them racists and tell them that they don't know what they are talking about. This should be fun to watch both of you dancing around this..........or you will both just hide from it like cowards...........looks like this thread is about to end guys....See y'all on the next one!



    Four jurors actually came out publically and said they didn't agree with the way the "I want a book deal" juror described their opinions. 

    Again, Zimmerman was on trial, not Martin.  I suggest a six grade civics course sometime. 

     

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    Your warped agenda is showing again.

    Let's be clear. You are claiming "conservatives" want people "arrested" based on them belonging to a group.

     

    You have been repeatedly exposed as a dishonest political ho that will stoop to any level to push that liberal agenda.

     

     



    Your entire argument boils down to "liberal, liberal, liberal."  You should become a FOX news host. 

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    To P-Mike and all the others who claim the "evidence" shows Marin initiated the scuffle that was ended by Zimmerman's fatal shot to Martin's heart:

     

    There is no evidence at all about who started the scuffle, other than Zimmerman's story of the events, which cannot be independently verified. It's quite possible, of course, that everything transpired exactly as Zimmerman described: i.e., basically Zimmerman was wandering around near his car and Martin "jumped him."  But there are many other plausible scenarios.  We simply don't know what happened and can't know, and anyone who says the evidence gives us an answer is biased, gullible, or not a very careful thinker.

     

    To convict Zimmerman under current law, the jury would have had to have had evidence that showed beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's claim that Martin initiated the conflict was untrue.  They didn't have that evidence, which is why an acquittal was the right decision given the law and the available evidence. However, the jury also did not have enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin initiated the scuffle.  A lack of evidence that Zimmerman didn't initiate the scuffle does not translate into sufficient evidence that Martin did initiate it.  P-Mike, RallyC, Babe, and basically every one of our conservative posters continue to base their arguments on this logical flaw that reasonable doubt about one version of events means a lack of reasonable doubt about another version.  Both versions can be unproven and therefore both subject to reasonable doubt.  Because of this an acquittal of Zimmerman does not translate into a conviction of Martin.  And as I said before, you can't be convicted at someone else's trial.  

     

    It would be nice as well if you couldn't be summarily executed without trial for an alleged crime that normally isn't considered a capital offense . . . but hey, who cares about those little details.  It's only some black kid dead.  He probably would have ended up in jail or dead anyway.

     




    I don't know why you mention me in this. I never claimed Martin in factinitiated a physical attack.

     

    What we do know from testimony is the M was attacking Z and Z defended himself against the attack. What we don't know is moot to the conclusion. Because the known facts show Z was being attacked by M a reasonable man could only conclude M initiated the attack, not Z. I certainly never said that was proven.

    Understand this, I don't care what race Z or M were in this discussion. That's just something your political whoreism is conjuring up. Accusing an innocent person of racism is as repugnant as actual racism.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    The fact that there was a fight (undeniable) says nothing about who started the fight.  You say a "reasonable man could only conclude that M initiated the attack."  This simply proves that you really don't understand reason (something fairly clear actually from most of your posts).  In fact, a reasonable man would recognize the fact that there is no evidence at all that comes close to proving which of the two men started the fight.  A reasonable man understands that the fact that two people are fighting says nothing at all about who started the fight.

    Who started the fight, if known, would be very relevant of course, because if Martin had started it then Zimmerman's claim of self defense would be helped.  If Zimmerman had started it, however, his claim of self defense would likely fail.  Remember, though, in our justice system you don't have to prove who started the fight--all you need to do is show that there is reasonable doubt about who started it.  Finding reasonable doubt does not and should not lead a reasonable man to conclude that Martin must have started the fight. The question of who started the fight remains an open one.  That justifies an acquittal of Zimmerman but it should not be taken in any way as evidence that Martin must have started the fight.  This is RallyC's logical error too. 

     

     

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from RallyC. Show RallyC's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

     

    No opinion, just a look into the Jury's thinking:

    JUROR B37:

    The juror said Martin played a "huge role in his death, " because he could have walked away from the confrontation with Zimmerman. "He didn't have to do whatever he did and come back and be in a fight."
    Juror B37 told Anderson that she thought Zimmerman's actions were in self-defense. "I think the roles changed, I think George got in a little bit too deep, which he shouldn't have been there. But Trayvon decided that he wasn't gonna let him scare him ... and I think Trayvon got mad and attacked him." 


    Go ahead Prolate, Rusty, argue with the facts and thoughts that the 6-jurors came to a unanimous conclusion on in deciding that GZ was not guilty. Go ahead and call her/them racists and tell them that they don't know what they are talking about. This should be fun to watch both of you dancing around this..........or you will both just hide from it like cowards...........looks like this thread is about to end guys....See y'all on the next one!

     

     

     



    Four jurors actually came out publically and said they didn't agree with the way the "I want a book deal" juror described their opinions. 

     

     

     

    Again, Zimmerman was on trial, not Martin.  I suggest a six grade civics course sometime. 

     

     

     

     



    Six grade!  Tears!

     

    Hey Prolate, Rusty, remember this...... "BUT, BUT , the other Jurors said that she is a liar!" "AND, AND GZ SHOULDA STAYED IN HIS CAR!" "And I'm right because I want to be damn it!" LMFAO@U2 

     




     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from RallyC. Show RallyC's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

     

     

    No opinion, just a look into the Jury's thinking:

    JUROR B37:

    The juror said Martin played a "huge role in his death, " because he could have walked away from the confrontation with Zimmerman. "He didn't have to do whatever he did and come back and be in a fight."
    Juror B37 told Anderson that she thought Zimmerman's actions were in self-defense. "I think the roles changed, I think George got in a little bit too deep, which he shouldn't have been there. But Trayvon decided that he wasn't gonna let him scare him ... and I think Trayvon got mad and attacked him." 


    Go ahead Prolate, Rusty, argue with the facts and thoughts that the 6-jurors came to a unanimous conclusion on in deciding that GZ was not guilty. Go ahead and call her/them racists and tell them that they don't know what they are talking about. This should be fun to watch both of you dancing around this..........or you will both just hide from it like cowards...........looks like this thread is about to end guys....See y'all on the next one!

     

     



    Four jurors actually came out publically and said they didn't agree with the way the "I want a book deal" juror described their opinions. 

     

     

    Again, Zimmerman was on trial, not Martin.  I suggest a six grade civics course sometime. 

     

     

     


    OH! but MAGICALLY they all 6 were unanimous in the verdict???  Of course they said that you dope. It is a strategy to throw off the CIVIL RIGHTS NUTS LIKE YOU AND RUSTY AND AL AND JESSE, etc. to maintain their own personal safety...... LMFAO. You really are a strategically challenged mental midget. WOW! I'm actually happy that you defected to Canada because you would've been a liability to US national security if in our miliatry with your poor cognitive skills. "BUT, BUT , the other Jurors said that she is a liar!" "AND, AND GZ SHOULDA STAYED IN HIS CAR!" "And I'm right because I want to be damn it!" LMFAO@U2

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

    Again, Zimmerman was on trial, not Martin.  I suggest a six grade civics course sometime. 

     


    Sixth grade!  Tears!

     



    Yeah, I now admit that the one thing I was definitely wrong about on this thread was what I said yesterday when I suggested RallyC take a law course.  We need to start with the very basics . . . For instance, when the name of a case is "State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman"  there's a pretty big hint about who's on trial.  

    Let's see if RallyC can get the answer right. 

    In a case called "State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman," who could be convicted of a crime:

    A. The State of Florida

    B. George Zimmerman

    C. Trayvon Martin

    D. Your grandmother

     

    We'll see who passes the quiz. 

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Your warped agenda is showing again.

    Let's be clear. You are claiming "conservatives" want people "arrested" based on them belonging to a group.

     

    You have been repeatedly exposed as a dishonest political ho that will stoop to any level to push that liberal agenda.

     

     

     



    Your entire argument boils down to "liberal, liberal, liberal."  You should become a FOX news host. 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Your dishonesty is becoming egregious. I pointed out that you stated conservatives wanted to arrest people because of groups they are in. That is a dastardly lie.

    And your only defense for being a liar is to cry that my only point was that you are a liberal. More dishonesty.

    At this point you have the same credibility in political discussion as Rusty has in football discussion. NONE.

     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from RallyC. Show RallyC's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

    [QUOTE] 

     

    Again, Zimmerman was on trial, not Martin.  I suggest a six grade civics course sometime. 

     


    Sixth grade!  Tears!

     

     



    Yeah, I now admit that the one thing I was definitely wrong about on this thread was what I said yesterday when I suggested RallyC take a law course.  We need to start with the very basics . . . For instance, when the name of a case is "State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman"  there's a pretty big hint about who's on trial.  

     

    Let's see if RallyC can get the answer right. 

    In a case called "State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman," who could be convicted of a crime:

    A. The State of Florida

    B. George Zimmerman

    C. Trayvon Martin

    D. Your grandmother

     

    We'll see who passes the quiz. 

     

    [/QUOTE]
    Hey Prolate, Rusty, remember this...... "BUT, BUT , the other Jurors said that she is a liar!" "AND, AND GZ SHOULDA STAYED IN HIS CAR!" "And I'm right because I want to be damn it!" LMFAO@U2 

     

Share