George Zimmerman Verdict

  1. 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 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 Juroros 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

     



    God, you have no idea what you are talking about.  All they have to agree on is that there's not enough evidence to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  They may have vastly different opinions about whether he really was attacked or not.  But as long as they all agree there is at least reasonable doubt they let the guy walk.

    I know it's a really subtle concept for someone with your abilities, but they are unanimous about the verdict which is not necessarily the same thing as being unanimous about what they think George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin did or didn't too. 

     

     

     
  2. 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:

     

     

     

    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 Juroros 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

     

     

     



    God, you have no idea what you are talking about.  All they have to agree on is that there's not enough evidence to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  They may have vastly different opinions about whether he really was attacked or not.  But as long as they all agree there is at least reasonable doubt they let the guy walk.

     

     

    I know it's a really subtle concept for someone with your abilities, but they are unanimous about the verdict which is not necessarily the same thing as being unanimous about what they think George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin did or didn't too. 

     

     

     


    When are you gonna explain this from your post earlier today, liar:

    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.

    Oh, and don't forget: 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 

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    so, since there is no evidence as to who started the fight....which is relevant.  If TM started the fight and GZ feared for his life and shot TM in self-defense - what is the problem?

     
  4. 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]

     

    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.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Okay, we'll delete "arrest" because it was probably technically a bit strong, though conservatives certainly argue for profiling all the time and they love those stop and frisk laws and think detention without charge for "suspicious" people is okay too.  

    Just try flying while Muslim sometime.  

    Now that you've won your itty bitty little point about "arrest" acknowledge that there's an interesting observation there about groupism vs individualism. 

    Of course, you won't find that observation interesting, will you? Because you like your buddy RallyC are averse to any subtly of thought.  The more black and white the world is, the more your simple minds can be at ease. 

     

     

     

     
  5. 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 BabeParilli's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    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. 

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     




    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.

     

     

     



    Okay, we'll delete "arrest" because it was probably technically a bit strong, though conservatives certainly argue for profiling all the time and they love those stop and frisk laws and think detention without charge for "suspicious" people is okay too.  

     

     

    Just try flying while Muslim sometime.  

    Now that you've won your itty bitty little point about "arrest" acknowledge that there's an interesting observation there about groupism vs individualism. 

    Of course, you won't find that observation interesting, will you? Because you like your buddy RallyC are averse to any subtly of thought.  The more black and white the world is, the more your simple minds can be at ease. 

     

     


    You seem to forget, YOU/Rusty are the ones who screamed RACISM here. You are the ones drawing some sort of imaginary line between the two in this case. Neither of us feel it fits the situation. And, 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 

     

     
  6. 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 prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to RallyC'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. 

     

     

     


    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 Juroros 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

     

     

     



    God, you have no idea what you are talking about.  All they have to agree on is that there's not enough evidence to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  They may have vastly different opinions about whether he really was attacked or not.  But as long as they all agree there is at least reasonable doubt they let the guy walk.

     

     

    I know it's a really subtle concept for someone with your abilities, but they are unanimous about the verdict which is not necessarily the same thing as being unanimous about what they think George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin did or didn't too. 

     

     

     


    When are you gonna explain this from your post earlier today, liar:

    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.



    One juror said one thing and four others said they disagreed with what she said.  But it actually doesn't matter, because the trial doesn't prove that Zimmerman actually acted in self-defense.  It just states that there's enough doubt about the claim Zimmerman didn't act in self-defense.  Again, this is going to be hard for you to understand, but please try because I am tired of having to explain the same thing over and over to you. 

    If you want to persist in ignorance, be my guest.  

     

     
  7. 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.

     


    Hey Prolate, Still waiting..........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. 

     

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    bottom line is u can't prove that GZ did or didn't act in self defense. So, you may be wrong to say GZ  didn't act in self defense.

     
  9. 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:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to RallyC'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. 

     

     

     


    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 Juroros 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

     

     

     



    God, you have no idea what you are talking about.  All they have to agree on is that there's not enough evidence to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  They may have vastly different opinions about whether he really was attacked or not.  But as long as they all agree there is at least reasonable doubt they let the guy walk.

     

     

    I know it's a really subtle concept for someone with your abilities, but they are unanimous about the verdict which is not necessarily the same thing as being unanimous about what they think George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin did or didn't too. 

     

     

     


    When are you gonna explain this from your post earlier today, liar:

    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.

     



    One juror said one thing and four others said they disagreed with what she said.  But it actually doesn't matter, because the trial doesn't prove that Zimmerman actually acted in self-defense.  It just states that there's enough doubt about the claim Zimmerman didn't act in self-defense.  Again, this is going to be hard for you to understand, but please try because I am tired of having to explain the same thing over and over to you. 

     

    If you want to persist in ignorance, be my guest.  

     

    [/QUOTE]
    But the fact that you made this all up certainly does matter. Speak to  where you came up with:

    You clearly and misleadingly stated, "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?

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    Now that you've won your itty bitty little point about "arrest"

     



    Itty bitty little point?

    You're showing a disturbing tendency to do as Rusty does and just make things up and claim them as fact. After all, you portray persons as racist here who haven't said a single word that could even be construed as racist. And you further display these tendencies when caught red handed in attempts to deny or downplay the "gotcha".

    I'm sure if I painted liberals as wanting to "arrest" persons because they were in the "Tea Party" for example you would be howling from the rooftops frothing at the mouth about how evil I was to make such an unfounded accusation! It is part and parcel of your MO. LMFAO

    But in this specific case it might have been a "Freudian Slip" which clearly exposes the depth of your bias and loathing for objectivity because of your political whoreism, rather than an outright lie concocted to deceive.

     

     

     

     

     

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to RallyC's comment:

    But the fact that you made this all up certainly does matter. Speak to  where you came up with:

     

    You clearly and misleadingly stated, "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?

    [/QUOTE]

    Of course the jury didn't have enough evidence to decide who started the fight.  There is no evidence of who started it other than Zimmerman's testimony. 

    But even so, no one has to "prove" Martin started the fight.  The trial isn't about Martin's actions.  It's about Zimmerman's actions. To acquit Zimmerman, the jury simply has to have reasonable doubt about what happened.  They don't have to be convinced that Martin was doing anything wrong. 

     

     
  12. 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]

     

     

    Now that you've won your itty bitty little point about "arrest"

     

     



    Itty bitty little point?

     

    You're showing a disturbing tendency to do as Rusty does and just make things up and claim them as fact. After all, you portray persons as racist here who haven't said a single word that could even be construed as racist. And you further display these tendencies when caught red handed in attempts to deny or downplay the "gotcha".

    I'm sure if I painted liberals as wanting to "arrest" persons because they were in the "Tea Party" for example you would be howling from the rooftops frothing at the mouth about how evil I was to make such an unfounded accusation! It is part and parcel of your MO. LMFAO

    But in this specific case it might have been a "Freudian Slip" which clearly exposes the depth of your bias and loathing for objectivity because of your political whoreism, rather than an outright lie concocted to deceive.

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    See, I knew all along you wouldn't really think about the broader point and instead would end up calling names.  

    Gotta keep that brain locked up nice and tight . . . 

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from bostatewarrior. Show bostatewarrior's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to RallyC's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    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.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm a card carrying liberal. "Don't blame me I voted for McGovern".  But prolate, don't paint with such a broad brush.  Affirmative Action is institutionalized racism.  It deprives some Americans of their individual rights based on race.  BTW, both Zimmerman and Martin belong to "protected" classes.

     
  14. 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:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    But the fact that you made this all up certainly does matter. Speak to  where you came up with:

     

    You clearly and misleadingly stated, "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?

    [/QUOTE]

    Of course the jury didn't have enough evidence to decide who started the fight.  There is no evidence of who started it other than Zimmerman's testimony. 

    But even so, no one has to "prove" Martin started the fight.  The trial isn't about Martin's actions.  It's about Zimmerman's actions. To acquit Zimmerman, the jury simply has to have reasonable doubt about what happened.  They don't have to be convinced that Martin was doing anything wrong. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You just said, "The trial isn't about Martin's actions.  It's about Zimmerman's actions. To acquit Zimmerman, the jury simply has to have reasonable doubt about what happened.  They don't have to be convinced that Martin was doing anything wrong. "

    But earlier you also said, "the jury also did not have enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin initiated the scuffle."

    I am asking you: Who told you this? When did they try TM to determine this?  Or just admit you are lying and made it up to try to gain leverage in your nonsensical argument........Well?

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to bostatewarrior's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

    [QUOTE

     

    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.  

     

     

     

     

     



    I'm a card carrying liberal. "Don't blame me I voted for McGovern".  But prolate, don't paint with such a broad brush.  Affirmative Action is institutionalized racism.  It deprives some Americans of their individual rights based on race.  BTW, both Zimmerman and Martin belong to "protected" classes.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    AMEN, Bostate, AMEN!

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    Again, this is going to be hard for you to understand, but please try because I am tired of having to explain the same thing over and over to you. 

     



    Just stifle the "I'm smarter, better" BS line Rusty, errr I mean prolate.

    Obviously if you were actually smart you wouldn't be a political ho and would be capable of objectivity.

    You can spin this and mince words all you like, but the bottom line is that the jury unanimously agreed it was justifiable that Z shot M dead.

     

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to bostatewarrior's comment:

     



    I'm a card carrying liberal. "Don't blame me I voted for McGovern".  But prolate, don't paint with such a broad brush.  Affirmative Action is institutionalized racism.  It deprives some Americans of their individual rights based on race.  BTW, both Zimmerman and Martin belong to "protected" classes.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I disagree with you.  I think if a group of people has suffered from institutionalized racism (i.e., slavery, lack of voting rights, legal discrimination in access to education and employment, etc.) it is fine to provide special support to help them overcome the disadvantages they have because of past discrimination as well as to look for instances of past discrimination continuing.  

    In my opinion, a race-based policy can be justified if it is designed to help people who have been disadvantaged by past policies that were based on race (i.e., slavery, lack of voting rights, systematic discrimination in access to education and employment, etc.) overcome those disadvantages and get on a more equal footing with those who were not disadvantaged (or who were even advantaged) by those policies.  Race-based policies that are designed to keep a race disadvantaged or that are designed purely to help an advantaged race maintain an advantage are, of course, intolerable.  However, conservatives continually conflate the first type of policy with the last two.  Don't fall for that trap.  The purpose of the policy matters. 

     

     
  18. 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]

     

     

    Again, this is going to be hard for you to understand, but please try because I am tired of having to explain the same thing over and over to you. 

     

     



    Just stifle the "I'm smarter, better" BS line Rusty, errr I mean prolate.

     

    Obviously if you were actually smart you wouldn't be a political ho and would be capable of objectivity.

    You can spin this and mince words all you like, but the bottom line is that the jury unanimously agreed it was justifiable that Z shot M dead.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You and Rally must be rooming together as you were talking about yesterday.  It's clear you both have the same STD--subtle thought deficiency.

    Probably not fatal, though.   Just crawl into a dark hole and wait it out . . . 

     
  19. 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]

     

     

    Again, this is going to be hard for you to understand, but please try because I am tired of having to explain the same thing over and over to you. 

     

     



    Just stifle the "I'm smarter, better" BS line Rusty, errr I mean prolate.

     

    Obviously if you were actually smart you wouldn't be a political ho and would be capable of objectivity.

    You can spin this and mince words all you like, but the bottom line is that the jury unanimously agreed it was justifiable that Z shot M dead.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    No they didn't.  God, you do share the exact same logical deficiencies as Rally.  I've already explained what they are. 

    Hopeless.  Absolutely hopeless. 

     
  20. 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]

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    Now that you've won your itty bitty little point about "arrest"

     

     

     



    Itty bitty little point?

     

     

    You're showing a disturbing tendency to do as Rusty does and just make things up and claim them as fact. After all, you portray persons as racist here who haven't said a single word that could even be construed as racist. And you further display these tendencies when caught red handed in attempts to deny or downplay the "gotcha".

    I'm sure if I painted liberals as wanting to "arrest" persons because they were in the "Tea Party" for example you would be howling from the rooftops frothing at the mouth about how evil I was to make such an unfounded accusation! It is part and parcel of your MO. LMFAO

    But in this specific case it might have been a "Freudian Slip" which clearly exposes the depth of your bias and loathing for objectivity because of your political whoreism, rather than an outright lie concocted to deceive.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    See, I knew all along you wouldn't really think about the broader point and instead would end up calling names.  

     

    Gotta keep that brain locked up nice and tight . . . 

    [/QUOTE]


    See, I knew all along you would try and deflect from my point. I'm right again.

    We can discuss affirmative action and racial profiling another time perhaps.

    You're the one with the brain locked up tight in Obama & Co.'s azz. Mine is locked up in objectivity.

     

     
  21. 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]

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    Again, this is going to be hard for you to understand, but please try because I am tired of having to explain the same thing over and over to you. 

     

     

     



    Just stifle the "I'm smarter, better" BS line Rusty, errr I mean prolate.

     

     

    Obviously if you were actually smart you wouldn't be a political ho and would be capable of objectivity.

    You can spin this and mince words all you like, but the bottom line is that the jury unanimously agreed it was justifiable that Z shot M dead.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    No they didn't.  God, you do share the exact same logical deficiencies as Rally.  I've already explained what they are. 

     

    Hopeless.  Absolutely hopeless. 

    [/QUOTE]


    You are the hopeless one. The facts are....

     

    1. Z shot M dead.

    2. The jury found Z not guilty of either murder or manslaughter.

    3. Obviously the jury saw the killing as justified or they would have convicted him of a crime.

    DUH

    You're just playing word games. If the killing was unjust Z would have been convicted.

     

     

     

     

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to bostatewarrior's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     



    I'm a card carrying liberal. "Don't blame me I voted for McGovern".  But prolate, don't paint with such a broad brush.  Affirmative Action is institutionalized racism. It deprives some Americans of their individual rights based on race.  BTW, both Zimmerman and Martin belong to "protected" classes.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I disagree with you.  I think if a group of people has suffered from institutionalized racism (i.e., slavery, lack of voting rights, legal discrimination in access to education and employment, etc.) it is fine to provide special support to help them overcome the disadvantages they have because of past discrimination as well as to look for instances of past discrimination continuing.  

    In my opinion, a race-based policy can be justified if it is designed to help people who have been disadvantaged by past policies that were based on race (i.e., slavery, lack of voting rights, systematic discrimination in access to education and employment, etc.) overcome those disadvantages and get on a more equal footing with those who were not disadvantaged (or who were even advantaged) by those policies.  Race-based policies that are designed to keep a race disadvantaged or that are designed purely to help an advantaged race maintain an advantage are, of course, intolerable.  However, conservatives continually conflate the first type of policy with the last two.  Don't fall for that trap.  The purpose of the policy matters. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't want to take this thread off in some other direction Prolate.  But, I'm a victim of affirmative action.  I grew up with nothing.  Then I'm told by Judge Authur Garity that I can't be hired because I am white.  What happened to my inalienable rights?  I did'nt commit the crime but I had to do the time!   BTW, it's been 45 years.  If that program hasn't worked by now, it's time too get rid of it.

     
  23. 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]

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

    Again, this is going to be hard for you to understand, but please try because I am tired of having to explain the same thing over and over to you. 

     

     

     

     



    Just stifle the "I'm smarter, better" BS line Rusty, errr I mean prolate.

     

     

     

    Obviously if you were actually smart you wouldn't be a political ho and would be capable of objectivity.

    You can spin this and mince words all you like, but the bottom line is that the jury unanimously agreed it was justifiable that Z shot M dead.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    No they didn't.  God, you do share the exact same logical deficiencies as Rally.  I've already explained what they are. 

     

     

    Hopeless.  Absolutely hopeless. 

     

    [/QUOTE]


    You are the hopeless one. The facts are....

     

     

    1. Z shot M dead.

    2. The jury found Z not guilty of either murder or manslaughter.

    3. Obviously the jury saw the killing as justified or they would have convicted him of a crime.

    DUH

    You're just playing word games. If the killing was unjust Z would have been convicted.

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    No they didn't rule it was "justified."  All they found was that Zimmerman's argument was plausible that he acted in self defense.  Courts and juries aren't in the business of "justifying" the accused's actions.  In a self defense case, all they decide is whether the accused's argument for self defense is plausible and therefore that there is reasonable doubt whether murder or manslaughter actually occurred. 

     

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:



    No they didn't rule it was "justified."  All they found was that Zimmerman's argument was plausible that he acted in self defense.  Courts and juries aren't in the business of "justifying" the accused's actions.  In a self defense case, all they decide is whether the accused's argument for self defense is plausible and therefore that there is reasonable doubt whether murder or manslaughter actually occurred. 

     

     


    Play all the word games you like, but if Z shooting M dead was proven unjust he would have been convicted.

     

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

    Lol!  Prolate on a roll just bludgeoning babe who sits at magnolia manor.  I am still shocked rallyc has hitched his wagon to our board cuckoo, babe.

     

     

    Big mistake by rallyc.



    Sorry dumbkoff, but prolate is getting his azz handed to him just like you do on a daily basis. No shock you see it differently since everybody who reads this board knows you haven't the first clue about reality.

     

    What's troublesome for prolate is that his mindless political whoreism has been so adamantly displayed and his pure denseness has been so severe as to rival your own, that he has now perhaps damaged his reputation permanently on this board.

    There is no single thing I can think of that would damage a poster's credibility here than acting like you. LMAO@U

     

Share