Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lloyd said she had just one question for attorney Mark O'Mara.
"I asked him is George a racist. And he said no. I wouldn't work for him if he was," Lloyd said. "Being African American, even if he was a client in need of representation I don't know that I would have been able to divorce that, and you to have to have proper representation and people who can do that
Apparently one of the drugs he was on makes it easier to pass a lie detector test. Just passing on what I read here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavaturaccioli
I would think that would be routine, but I don't honestly know.
Are you freaking kidding me? This has been brought up, over and over again, probably hundreds of times! FYI-NO, George was NOT tested for any drugs at the police station the day he KILLED Trayvon, even though he admitted to killing him. He also refused transport to a hospital, and went to the dr. the next day (saw a PA), to get an excuse from work, so I have read.
Yet you don't seem to believe any of her other testimony. Why is that?
Oh, and BTW, she said Trayvon was NEAR or CLOSE to the house, not that he was THERE.
Might want to fix that...
Near or close to the house is nowhere near the top of the T where it all happened. This was big, that's why they sat in four minutes of silence, to show that TM became the aggressor at that point when he made the decision to go find GZ
In that case, the robber was committing a crime. What crime was Zimmerman committing if you are trying to claim Martin was justified in attacking Zimmerman? Following someone is not illegal even if it was indeed creepy.
Sure it is...its called "stalking". There are anti-stalking laws in several states including CA.
You lost me when you say Trayvon attacked Zimmerman. I think it's safe to say that only two people know the truth about this. To claim otherwise is foolish.
Deny that it was the actual verdict? Think that facts of the case should have led to a different verdict? Go down a vigilante path for retribution b/c the verdict should have different?
go away troll you dont understand what your commenting on.
Sure it is...its called "stalking". There are anti-stalking laws in several states including CA.
As has been detailed many times over the trial (on this thread), stalking is repeated following (as in more than one incident). Zimmerman's actions in no way could be classified as stalking.
Last edited by southbel; 07-14-2013 at 04:46 PM..
Reason: edited for clarity
Sorry, if that was your case, I wouldn't have anything to complain about. Burden of proof is BoP. Unfortunately, that hasn't been your position or anyone on this boards. It's been that Trayvon was this narrative that you created in your mind and you wholeheartedly believed Zimmerman's account, despite the things that should have made you skeptical of his story.
I have flip-flopped on my opinions on EXACTLY what happened between the the moment Zimmerman parked his truck and the gunshot. But, is there anything wrong with that? I don't know any better than you....or any 6 of those jurors.
Even if I explicitly said "Trayvon hit him first!" it doesn't change the bottom line here. But to clarify, I don't know who threw that first punch. All I know is TM one upped him...Whether Zimmerman panicked and was scared to death...only he knows.
Do I have reason to believe otherwise? No, I don't.
Quote:
I'm still waiting for someone to step up and defend this total acceptance to GZ story.
I don't see what is to come out of it.
Quote:
Maybe. That's neither here nor there.
Fair enough
Quote:
So me calling a guy who described me as a hung-up Black who blames Whitey a racist... is pulling the race card... Let me guess... anything that's not the n-word is not racist? How enlightened.
The word racist itself does a whole lot of conflating...
I'm not intolerant of black people....and given the option to live separate from them, I wouldn't. I'd have to divorce my wife. It's up to you to use the word. But it would be much more honest to simply focus on exactly what you mean when you say it.
Quote:
None. And? It's still a direction that he ignored.
A direction he wasn't obligated to adhere to! Was it a stupid decision? Perhaps. It got his a** beat. But for somebody to say "Hey, he shouldn't have followed him....that will learn him"
How is that logic any different than saying Trayvon Martin should have kept his hands to himself?
If you want to argue "We don't know if Zimmerman didn't hit him first"
Well, we also don't know if Zimmerman stalked him, do we? We do know Martin could have went home and he didn't....so who hangs around WAITING to see if somebody is going to hit them?
Quote:
Explaining what someone said is "begging the question..." Really? Rethink that.
The whole case is a whole question beg. Well, actually only the ones wanting to lock GZ up are begging the question. Because the law itself erases any doubt as to what the right call was.
Quote:
Seeing someone suspicious?
You see where this is going? So, do you agree that it is plausible that Martin wasn't racially profiled? Or do you want to be dishonest and say that Neighborhood Watches are just double speak for "Black Watch"??
Quote:
What would warrant stepping outside your duties as a neighborhood watchmen and ignoring police direction?
Concern, albeit, stupidity?
Quote:
Yes it is a very straightforward case. Which is why it's surprising that shooting an innocent kid that you stalked doesn't even get you manslaughter.
Only innocent in the sense that he is dead and doesn't have to support this claim.. The evidence points to this being highly untrue.
We're in Florida.....read the law for yourself... See the words reasonably believes?
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
No mistakes can be made in Florida like happended in MN?
Quote:
Rochester pastor who shot granddaughter thought she was intruder
I agree. It seems as if GZ already had an issue of not being able to control his anger and an inability to resolve issues without violence. Within the next 5-10 years he will be sitting in a jail cell in Sometown, USA.
short temper + paranoia and fear + stress (which he is undoubtedly experiencing) + a gun = George will end up in jail for something else just like OJ
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let me guess... anything that's not the n-word is not racist? How enlightened.
