George Zimmerman Verdict

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from csylvia79. Show csylvia79's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    I'm sorry I'm late to the party but I've been reading this thread over the last three days at work.

    Can all these people who say that GZ wasn't defending himself" and murdered TM, explain how in any fight when you mount someone and have them defenseless at that point it is just a fight?

     

    The person on the bottom life is in danger, there is a reason once fights gets here most are ended by refs and these are two highly trained fighters in a controlled environment. 

     

    There is a point in any fight when things go too far. I have a best friend who has a felony assualt charges on his record for defending himself because he did take it too far and was lucky the guy lived.

     

    Would all this outraGe be happening if TM had killed GZ? It such a media made crisis.

     

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    I wish people would read the transcripts of the trial before making an "educated" opinion

    1) Please read the Transcript of the first GZ 911 exchange

    a) No where did the 911 Op tell GZ not to leave his car - he was out of the car

    b) GZ was doing nothing criminal and had every right to be out of his car and to walk in "HIS" neighborhood

    c) During that conversation TM and GZ had a stare down and then TM left

    d) the 911 OP asked where the suspect?? was

    e) GZ did not know then where he was

    f) the 911 op then said to GZ that GZ shouldn't follow - or words to that effect

    g) GZ said OK

    h) the rest of the conversation was how GZ should meet up with the cops

    2) RJ transcript  - basically her testimony didn't do much of anything except

    a) help with the time line

    b) Tm called GZ a CAC - by that we now find out TM meant cop type person

    c)  She filled TM's head that the man who foillwed TM (at the beginning only) might be a rapist -

    d) she confirms the the first verbal solvos between the 2

    3) John Goode Testamony

    a) GZ by color of his clothes was on the bottom

    b) the top guy was beating MMA style the bottom guy

    c) the man on the bottom was the one yelling for help

    Points

    1) There was a 4 minute gap between that no one knew where TM was and the fight

    2) TM had last been seen going between the townhouses

    3) TM's father lived a 45 second "walk" or so from the T where the fight started

    4) TM had was not doing anything criminal - he had a right to be there

    5) If TM was scared he could have gotten away with out any problem

    6) TM's  Choice was  "Flight or Flee"  from a cop? or a rapist?

    7) TM chose to stay and fight - so he wasn't really scared - And He "Stood his Ground" and more

    8) Did TM decided to stay and "Whoop Ass" (RJ description) GZ for being a gay rapist?

    9) GZ - did not know if suspect was armed or not, called 911 and was waiting for cops who would be there at anytime

    10) There is NO proof that GZ was "Hunting" TM - but maybe the other way around then

    11) You don't plan to kill someone while waiting for the cops

    12) You don't start a fight when you are waiting for the cops

    13) You don't start a fight with some one that you don't know has a weapon

    14) The shot was fired but he didn't shove the gun up into TM's body - so the shot was really aimed at the body but not definitively at the heart to kill

    15) None of what I said comes from GZ's version of what happenned

    In the end I find this to be a tragic comedy of human error but certainly nothing criminal 

    Listen to the alternate juror - all he cared about were the details - the proscection had none and the defensive had them all

    If I had a clear choice of fleeing or fighting - I would flee - but If i were on my back getting pummeled I would defend myself and shoot the gun as soon as i could in direction of the person beating me

    14) There is No Proof that this was racial

    a) As stated by TM's family and Lawyers                                                                                b) As stated by the Prosecution                                                                                               c) AS stated by the FBI 16 mos ago

          and to me Obama and Holder are doing all of this stuff now for the 2014 election

    btw - and if as purported in the papers, AHernandez should get the death penalty for shooting the black boyfriend of his sister's fiance?


    Pat's Fan lost in Jet Land

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from csylvia79. Show csylvia79's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Totally agree, while I think this was a totally tragic event, the need to make GZ the monster is totally irrational.

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to Inokea4coolaid's comment:

    The silly drama.  The state MUST PROVE that GZ is guilty.  Jurors decided that, based on the evidence presented in the court of law, GZ is NOT GUILTY.

    It's as simple as that. End of story. GZ gets too keep his firearm.



    Some folks just don't wanna hear the truth, or are upset because Jesse and Al told them what happened is a Civil Rights violation. Nice to see there are still a few sane, rational people on here.........

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to csylvia79's comment:

     

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Totally agree, while I think this was a totally tragic event, the need to make GZ the monster is totally irrational.

     



    You are so right! Irrational is what has been propelling the growth of this thread. GZ was always just an innocent, contientious citizen, who may not have made great decisions, but in the end was legal with everything he did. So many here, Prolate, Russ, etc. have been trying to promote that GZ was wrong and should be punished.......No evidence to support it, they just feel strongly about it, BECAUSE. I just don't get it.........

     

     
  6. 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:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     The evidence in the case was quite weak, which is why Zimmerman had to be acquitted, but the very weakness of the evidence also means we really don't what happened.  I can't argue with the jury's decision, but I also think anyone who tries to argue that Zimmerman's version of events was close to proven is either biased or feeble-minded.

     

    The verdict, however, isn't what I care about.  What I care about are laws that lower the barriers to using deadly force against another person.

     

     

     

     

     




    Of course that's what you really care about. It drips from your every word. I think you have made your political ho agenda very clear.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    So have you.  MIne's just smarter and better. 

     

     

     

     

     

     

     




    No I don't. My views on issues vary so I don't conform to any political ho template such as yourself. And yours is the dumbest of the dumb, but granted, not by a lot.

     

     

     

     

     



    You're such a child.  I have a very consistent world view, which has nothing to do with any political party, though much of it would be labeled by those who prefer labels to actual thought, "liberal."  You have your own world view, which actually is very consistent (and quite predictable) too.  It leans pretty heavily toward libertarianism (and skepticism).  I bet if you were to vote (and I know you don't), you'd probably lean toward candidates like Ron Paul.  Of course, your general skepticism means you tend to actually withdraw from politics.  There is, of course, no party that exactly mirrors your views.  Why would there be?  People with your views tend not to vote.  Having a political party to represent people who don't vote would be an exercise in futility, wouldn't it?

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     


    Your view is your view. Please don't infer that you have a "world view". You have already proven here that your view is limited to what you want to believe. Your view is one sided and objects to reality based decision making. That is not a "world view". You are limited in your ability to think outside of your own thick skull. Peace, my Canadian neighbor. Be safe and rest well, for WE (Aericans), your stupid, childish neighbors to the South are watching over you and gurantee you freedom, liberty, and the ability to pursuit your fictitious "world view"!

     

     
  7. 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]

     

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

     

     The evidence in the case was quite weak, which is why Zimmerman had to be acquitted, but the very weakness of the evidence also means we really don't what happened.  I can't argue with the jury's decision, but I also think anyone who tries to argue that Zimmerman's version of events was close to proven is either biased or feeble-minded.

     

    The verdict, however, isn't what I care about.  What I care about are laws that lower the barriers to using deadly force against another person.

     

     

     

     




    Of course that's what you really care about. It drips from your every word. I think you have made your political ho agenda very clear.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    So have you.  MIne's just smarter and better. 

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    No I don't. My views on issues vary so I don't conform to any political ho template such as yourself. And yours is the dumbest of the dumb, but granted, not by a lot.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You're such a child.  I have a very consistent world view, which has nothing to do with any political party, though much of it would be labeled by those who prefer labels to actual thought, "liberal."  You have your own world view, which actually is very consistent (and quite predictable) too.  It leans pretty heavily toward libertarianism (and skepticism).  I bet if you were to vote (and I know you don't), you'd probably lean toward candidates like Ron Paul.  Of course, your general skepticism means you tend to actually withdraw from politics.  There is, of course, no party that exactly mirrors your views.  Why would there be?  People with your views tend not to vote.  Having a political party to represent people who don't vote would be an exercise in futility, wouldn't it?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Nah, I'm a man who makes his choices based on the merits of the issue. Of course no party exactly reflects my political views because I am no party ho, yet you on the other hand are political ho who toes the party line virtually 100% of the time. This has been shown over and over again. Don't even try to blow smoke up our azzz with this "world view" BS word game you liberals love so well. You're a liberal. Wear the badge that fits you perfectly and don't try to hide from what you are however repugnant that blind allegiance may be.

    You are just as dense with politics as Rusty is on football. And your suppositions about me are equally stupid. I'm no Libertarian. I've never voted for Ron Paul but I will say he's about the only guy I would consider reasonably honest among the candidates for Prez in recent times. I've never voted for any Libertarian candidate at any level. I support a national health care (not Obamacare). I support social welfare programs. I see a need for foreign aid. I see a need for some bases abroad. These are hardly Libertarian views. 

    I have voted in nearly every election since 1976. I voted for George McGovern in my first Presidential election. You say I don't vote but I was invited to and attended the inauguration of a President all expenses paid. Amazing how a non-voter could accomplish that, hunh Einstein? Your suppositions about me are clueless. I have voted for, worked for the campaigns of, and posted bumper stickers for both Republicans and Democrats. 

    I suppose if one had to find a sub category I would fit into I might be called a "liberal Republican" or a "Red Dog Democrat" or simply a "moderate", but I certainly wouldn't pass the litmus test of the Libertarians. So, as is with your zombie political approach, you are dead wrong about me as well.

    You are rapidly becoming the political VI of this forum because of your complete lack of capacity to be objective and your mindless adherence to a specific political agenda.

     

     

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to RallyC's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     The evidence in the case was quite weak, which is why Zimmerman had to be acquitted, but the very weakness of the evidence also means we really don't what happened.  I can't argue with the jury's decision, but I also think anyone who tries to argue that Zimmerman's version of events was close to proven is either biased or feeble-minded.

     

    The verdict, however, isn't what I care about.  What I care about are laws that lower the barriers to using deadly force against another person.

     

     

     

     

     




    Of course that's what you really care about. It drips from your every word. I think you have made your political ho agenda very clear.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    So have you.  MIne's just smarter and better. 

     

     

     

     

     

     

     




    No I don't. My views on issues vary so I don't conform to any political ho template such as yourself. And yours is the dumbest of the dumb, but granted, not by a lot.

     

     

     

     

     



    You're such a child.  I have a very consistent world view, which has nothing to do with any political party, though much of it would be labeled by those who prefer labels to actual thought, "liberal."  You have your own world view, which actually is very consistent (and quite predictable) too.  It leans pretty heavily toward libertarianism (and skepticism).  I bet if you were to vote (and I know you don't), you'd probably lean toward candidates like Ron Paul.  Of course, your general skepticism means you tend to actually withdraw from politics.  There is, of course, no party that exactly mirrors your views.  Why would there be?  People with your views tend not to vote.  Having a political party to represent people who don't vote would be an exercise in futility, wouldn't it?

     

     

     

     

     

     


    Your view is your view. Please don't infer that you have a "world view". 



    That's just phoney liberal psychobabble lingo to try and deflect from the reality. They love to play word games to try and influence the debate. It's like "gay bashing". Simply a conjured term to spin something a certain way that they use over and over and over until it starts to sway opinion. Not that other political persuasions are above such tactics, but the practice absolutely permeates the liberal agenda.

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

    "Initial aggressor" is NOT who threw the first punch. Zimmerman followed the teen. He forced the situation by continuiing to dog the teen until the teen was forced to choose between flight or fight. Apparently, even according to Zimmerman the teen initially chose flight (Zimmerman says in phone that he ran away from him). Zimmerman continued the chase (notice I am not being critical of Zimmerman's stated purpose of being neighborhood watch) until Martin is again made to choose between flight or fight. This time he may have chosen fight (we do nto know for sure exactly how the physical part of the confrontation started) but IT WAS ZIMMERMAN who FORCED THE ISSUE, making Martin choose flight or fight. Zimmerman is in this legal aspect the "inital aggressor" and so should have had morally and legally limited recourse to claims of self defense.




    Here you go again with incorrect facts. TM ran away & was at his dad's house. While he was on the cell with Rachael Genteel they discussed GZ being a gay rapist. Rachael told him to go inside. He didn't listen & doubled back to find GZ. GZ has no idea where he is. This is now a seperate incident. He jumps GZ. The Jury saw it as a question of why did he go back? Then the attack is seen as a seperate incident, as it should be. The bottom line is that TM shouldn't have gone back & hunted down GZ to jump him. Even RG said on a talk show in the last couple of days he went back to "whoop his as*". Notice the statement, went back to whoop his as*? That's premeditated. The only question now is did he go back to beat him to teach him a lesson, to teach him a lesson because he wasn't black, or to teach him a lesson becsue they believed he was gay?




     
  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 have been easy for Zimmerman to retreat when Martin was running away or to have simply stayed in his car.

     

     

    [QUOTE]

    Ahh, there was nothing to retreat from at those junctures. Duh.

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

    [QUOTE]

    Man, you are dense.  Under current Florida law he has no duty to retreat anyway.  As I keep saying I'm talking about what I think the law shouldbe, not what it is.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm dense? What don't you get about the concept that there NEVER will be some law that you can't get out of your car and approach somebody to ask a question? THAT is dense. Wait, maybe in the police state which people like you desire that could happen, but it won't happen in any place one could call a free country.

     

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to xxxcrwn's comment:

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

     

    "Initial aggressor" is NOT who threw the first punch. Zimmerman followed the teen. He forced the situation by continuiing to dog the teen until the teen was forced to choose between flight or fight. Apparently, even according to Zimmerman the teen initially chose flight (Zimmerman says in phone that he ran away from him). Zimmerman continued the chase (notice I am not being critical of Zimmerman's stated purpose of being neighborhood watch) until Martin is again made to choose between flight or fight. This time he may have chosen fight (we do nto know for sure exactly how the physical part of the confrontation started) but IT WAS ZIMMERMAN who FORCED THE ISSUE, making Martin choose flight or fight. Zimmerman is in this legal aspect the "inital aggressor" and so should have had morally and legally limited recourse to claims of self defense.

     



     


    Here you go again with incorrect facts. TM ran away & was at his dad's house. While he was on the cell with Rachael Genteel they discussed GZ being a gay rapist. Rachael told him to go inside. He didn't listen & doubled back to find GZ. GZ has no idea where he is. This is now a seperate incident. He jumps GZ. The Jury saw it as a question of why did he go back? Then the attack is seen as a seperate incident, as it should be. The bottom line is that TM shouldn't have gone back & hunted down GZ to jump him. Even RG said on a talk show in the last couple of days he went back to "whoop his as*". Notice the statement, went back to whoop his as*? That's premeditated. The only question now is did he go back to beat him to teach him a lesson, to teach him a lesson because he wasn't black, or to teach him a lesson becsue they believed he was gay?


    Yes




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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to RallyC's comment:

    In response to Inokea4coolaid's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    The silly drama.  The state MUST PROVE that GZ is guilty.  Jurors decided that, based on the evidence presented in the court of law, GZ is NOT GUILTY.

    It's as simple as that. End of story. GZ gets too keep his firearm.

     



    Some folks just don't wanna hear the truth, or are upset because Jesse and Al told them what happened is a Civil Rights violation. Nice to see there are still a few sane, rational people on here.........

     

    [/QUOTE]

    it really doesn't get more complicated than that; especially since none of us were serving on the jury.  I think there are people who are using the situation to further their own "agenda" as opposed to truly caring one way or the other about GZ or TM. Give it another several weeks and GZ and TM will be a dot in the rear view mirror.

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to Inokea4coolaid's comment:

    In response to RallyC's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    This would be a better country and world without the likes of Jesse Jackson; his son; and Al Sharpton. They are racists by definition!

    In response to Inokea4coolaid's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    The silly drama.  The state MUST PROVE that GZ is guilty.  Jurors decided that, based on the evidence presented in the court of law, GZ is NOT GUILTY.

    It's as simple as that. End of story. GZ gets too keep his firearm.

     

     



    Some folks just don't wanna hear the truth, or are upset because Jesse and Al told them what happened is a Civil Rights violation. Nice to see there are still a few sane, rational people on here.........

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    it really doesn't get more complicated than that; especially since none of us were serving on the jury.  I think there are people who are using the situation to further their own "agenda" as opposed to truly caring one way or the other about GZ or TM. Give it another several weeks and GZ and TM will be a dot in the rear view mirror.

     

    [/QUOTE]


     
  14. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to CommyContrarianOnTwitter's comment:

    In response to Brady2Welker47's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Brady2Welker47

    I'm in law enforcement and I completely agree with Prolate...No one can argue the fact that if Zimmerman would have heeded to the words of the REAL Police to not engage ..that someone's 17 year old son would be alive today...Now there is a person DEAD and no reprocussions for Zimmerman...although trial was handled well the outcome does not seem just...

     




    +10.. can u imagine if a blak man was theone confronting an innocent 17 yo white kid walkin in his gated community? the law gets interpreted with bias from the top down. society only exist as a biased construct by MEN. i have a feelin 6 blaks would have found this jabro guilty. keep yappin about how zim was scared for his life, how about the innocent 17 yo his lard azzzz was pursuing. could b a sex offender or a vigilante supremacist. who the helll knows whats up with that. mo i think about it, he should b in jail for about 3 years for initiating the confrontation and for doing so with a deadly weapon. if i bring a gun somewhere and go lookin for a fight, stand ur ground should not hold.. period! heck with the law, i would say guilty of manslaughter or something like that

     

    [/QUOTE]


    You rave like a madman as usual. Basically from any evidence we have GZ asked TM what he was doing there and the kid went medieval on him and was pounding him on the ground and GZ shot him dead for his trouble.

    People like you trying to twist this is sickening, but not surprising in the least.

     
  16. 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]

     

     

    It would have been easy for Zimmerman to retreat when Martin was running away or to have simply stayed in his car.

     

     

     

     

     

    [QUOTE]

    Ahh, there was nothing to retreat from at those junctures. Duh.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

     

     

    [QUOTE]

    Man, you are dense.  Under current Florida law he has no duty to retreat anyway.  As I keep saying I'm talking about what I think the law shouldbe, not what it is.  

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm dense? What don't you get about the concept that there NEVER will be some law that you can't get out of your car and approach somebody to ask a question? THAT is dense. Wait, maybe in the police state which people like you desire that could happen, but it won't happen in any place one could call a free country.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You, like Rally, continue to demonstrate that you either don't listen to or don't comprehend what I say and therefore continue to argue with silly, simplistic straw men you create yourself and have nothing to do with anything I've said. Then, when all else fails you resort to childish name calling. 

    I never said, for instance, that any law like what you describe above should be passed.  When you have no real arguments against what I've actually said, I guess you just make up ridiculous things that your feeble mind can actually grapple with and argue with those. Same with Rally who keeps babbling on about juries and innocent until proven guilty when I'm not even talking about those things.  

    Oh well, there's a reason the US is in the mess it is.  I was hoping the idiots didn't vote, but the one thing I'll admit you've proved me wrong about is that. 

     
  17. 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]

     

     

     

    It would have been easy for Zimmerman to retreat when Martin was running away or to have simply stayed in his car.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    [QUOTE]

    Ahh, there was nothing to retreat from at those junctures. Duh.

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

     

    [QUOTE]

    Man, you are dense.  Under current Florida law he has no duty to retreat anyway.  As I keep saying I'm talking about what I think the law shouldbe, not what it is.  

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm dense? What don't you get about the concept that there NEVER will be some law that you can't get out of your car and approach somebody to ask a question? THAT is dense. Wait, maybe in the police state which people like you desire that could happen, but it won't happen in any place one could call a free country.

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You, like Rally, continue to demonstrate that you either don't listen to or don't comprehend what I say and therefore continue to argue with silly, simplistic straw men you create yourself and have nothing to do with anything I've said. Then, when all else fails you resort to childish name calling. 

     

    I never said, for instance, that any law like what you describe above should be passed.  When you have no real arguments against what I've actually said, I guess you just make up ridiculous things that your feeble mind can actually grapple with and argue with those. Same with Rally who keeps babbling on about juries and innocent until proven guilty when I'm not even talking about those things.  

    Oh well, there's a reason the US is in the mess it is.  I was hoping the idiots didn't vote, but the one thing I'll admit you've proved me wrong about is that. 

    [/QUOTE]


    And the liberal gets his azz handed to him so he calls everybody childish. LMAO

    Yeah, the US is in a big mess. If so, because people just like you have dragged it down with their stupid failed policies.

    The fact that the US ranks among the best in the world in every measurable category that indicates quality of life simply shows how clueless and completely FOS you and your grandiose claims of a superior Canada are.

    Canada is basically a blood sucking little parasite that feeds off the scraps of the US without having to pay their share of the freight. You really do belong in Canada, because you are just as clueless as they are. Canada is a f'n joke.

     

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    Can we talk football, now?  Other than agreeing to disagree, we'll never change the results of this case.  GO PATS!!!!!

    AGCSBill, just a fan havin' fun!!

     
  19. 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:

     

     

     

     

     

     

    It would have been easy for Zimmerman to retreat when Martin was running away or to have simply stayed in his car.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    Ahh, there was nothing to retreat from at those junctures. Duh.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    Man, you are dense.  Under current Florida law he has no duty to retreat anyway.  As I keep saying I'm talking about what I think the law shouldbe, not what it is.  

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    I'm dense? What don't you get about the concept that there NEVER will be some law that you can't get out of your car and approach somebody to ask a question? THAT is dense. Wait, maybe in the police state which people like you desire that could happen, but it won't happen in any place one could call a free country.

     

     

     

     

     

     



    You, like Rally, continue to demonstrate that you either don't listen to or don't comprehend what I say and therefore continue to argue with silly, simplistic straw men you create yourself and have nothing to do with anything I've said. Then, when all else fails you resort to childish name calling. 

     

     

    I never said, for instance, that any law like what you describe above should be passed.  When you have no real arguments against what I've actually said, I guess you just make up ridiculous things that your feeble mind can actually grapple with and argue with those. Same with Rally who keeps babbling on about juries and innocent until proven guilty when I'm not even talking about those things.  

    Oh well, there's a reason the US is in the mess it is.  I was hoping the idiots didn't vote, but the one thing I'll admit you've proved me wrong about is that. 

     



    I dont read what you right anymore because you are only defending a mute point. GZ IS INNOCENT OF THE CHARGES levied by the State and you are trying say it isnt fair. The only thing not fair is that GZ was forced to go to court When there was never enough evidence to support the charges.  You were proven wrong before you even started your first post Here yet you are still at it.  ow you resort to criticizing the Country that protects you from your police state mentality. Go away canadian, you bother all of us, EH!

     

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to agcsbill's comment:

    Can we talk football, now?  Other than agreeing to disagree, we'll never change the results of this case.  GO PATS!!!!!

    AGCSBill, just a fan havin' fun!!




    No Bill, not until this canuk cries uncle!!!  LMAO

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    (-;  ^

    AGCSBill, just a fan havin' fun!!

     
  22. 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 agcsbill's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Can we talk football, now?  Other than agreeing to disagree, we'll never change the results of this case.  GO PATS!!!!!

    AGCSBill, just a fan havin' fun!!

     




    No Bill, not until this canuk cries uncle!!!  LMAO

     

    [/QUOTE]

    And cries UNCLE SAM at that!

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    cries "uncle sam"

     
  24. 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:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

    It would have been easy for Zimmerman to retreat when Martin was running away or to have simply stayed in his car.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    [QUOTE]

    Ahh, there was nothing to retreat from at those junctures. Duh.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    [QUOTE]

    Man, you are dense.  Under current Florida law he has no duty to retreat anyway.  As I keep saying I'm talking about what I think the law shouldbe, not what it is.  

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm dense? What don't you get about the concept that there NEVER will be some law that you can't get out of your car and approach somebody to ask a question? THAT is dense. Wait, maybe in the police state which people like you desire that could happen, but it won't happen in any place one could call a free country.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You, like Rally, continue to demonstrate that you either don't listen to or don't comprehend what I say and therefore continue to argue with silly, simplistic straw men you create yourself and have nothing to do with anything I've said. Then, when all else fails you resort to childish name calling. 

     

     

    I never said, for instance, that any law like what you describe above should be passed.  When you have no real arguments against what I've actually said, I guess you just make up ridiculous things that your feeble mind can actually grapple with and argue with those. Same with Rally who keeps babbling on about juries and innocent until proven guilty when I'm not even talking about those things.  

    Oh well, there's a reason the US is in the mess it is.  I was hoping the idiots didn't vote, but the one thing I'll admit you've proved me wrong about is that. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I dont read what you right anymore because you are only defending a mute point. GZ IS INNOCENT OF THE CHARGES levied by the State and you are trying say it isnt fair. the only thing not fair is that GZ was forced to go to court. You were proven wrong before you started your first post. go away canadian, you bother all of us, EH!

     

    [/QUOTE]

    It's "moot" not "mute" by the way. 

     

     
  25. 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 BabeParilli's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to agcsbill's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    Can we talk football, now?  Other than agreeing to disagree, we'll never change the results of this case.  GO PATS!!!!!

    AGCSBill, just a fan havin' fun!!

     

     

     




    No Bill, not until this canuk cries uncle!!!  LMAO

     

     

     

     

     



    And cries UNCLE SAM at that!

     

     

     



    Well that at least was funny. Babe, however, can't seem to get past childish . . .

     

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share