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.
Insufficient evidence to convict =/= Martin guilty of a crime.
You liberals should know all about insufficient evidence, it didn't stop ignorant brain dead liberals from convicting Zimmerman before he was even arrested, or keep the morons from continuing to cry for "justice" after he was acquitted. Of course that doesn't stop them, everyone knows the only standard liberals have is a double standard.
If George Zimmerman did not have a gun that night he wouldn't have gotten out of his car. And Trayvon Martin would have made it to the house and enjoyed his bag of Skittles.
George Zimmerman didn't KNOW he had his gun that night.
He TOLD the police he FORGOT he had it.
The evidence was that he didn't know he had his gun.
That evidence was provided to the jury.
The jury decided on that evidence.
The State failed to prove that Zimmerman KNEW he had his gun.
Yeah, I hate guns, nothing good ever happens when a gun is drawn. Unfortunately, George was well within his rights in this country to own and carry a gun.
I hate that Trayvon is dead. It is a real tragedy. He probably was a good kid who just made a really bad choice that night.
But George did nothing illegal. If there is a suspicious person in your neighbor, you are well within your rights to follow him with the intent of identifying his location to the police. The evidence supports that is what George was doing.
Once the confrontation started George had just as much right to defend himself as Trayvon did. The legal concept of reasonable fear of death is not really a high hurdle. All George, or for that matter, Trayvon, had to do was have a reasonable fear their life was in danger. Then they could use deadly force. Had the tables been turned and Trayvon had killed George, he could have argued self defense. That would have been a no brainer (George had a gun). In that case, if he (Trayvon) had been convicted, then I would argue it was because of race given the same facts.
People are having a hard time because Trayvon was "unarmed." If George had shot him outright without any confrontation and ensuing fight, then he would have been arrested and convicted right off without any questions. In this day and age, a white man cannot shoot a black man outright and get away with it (PS I know George identifies as Hispanic). The fact that they fought changed everything. It gave George the opportunity to argue self defense.
For the sake of argument, what if Trayvon had actually been a criminal and was looking for a victim. What if George had stayed in his truck and drove onto Target instead of calling the police and keeping track of Trayvon? What if Trayvon then found a victim and robbed or killed them?
BTW, all you right wingers, I am as liberal as they come, but I am not blinded by my ideology like many of you are.
Yeah, I hate guns, nothing good ever happens when a gun is drawn. Unfortunately, George was well within his rights in this country to own and carry a gun.
I hate that Trayvon is dead. It is a real tragedy. He probably was a good kid who just made a really bad choice that night.
But George did nothing illegal. If there is a suspicious person in your neighbor, you are well within your rights to follow him with the intent of identifying his location to the police. The evidence supports that is what George was doing.
Once the confrontation started George had just as much right to defend himself as Trayvon did. The legal concept of reasonable fear of death is not really a high hurdle. All George, or for that matter, Trayvon, had to do was have a reasonable fear their life was in danger. Then they could use deadly force. Had the tables been turned and Trayvon had killed George, he could have argued self defense. That would have been a no brainer (George had a gun). In that case, if he (Trayvon) had been convicted, then I would argue it was because of race given the same facts.
People are having a hard time because Trayvon was "unarmed." If George had shot him outright without any confrontation and ensuing fight, then he would have been arrested and convicted right off without any questions. In this day and age, a white man cannot shoot a black man outright and get away with it (PS I know George identifies as Hispanic). The fact that they fought changed everything. It gave George the opportunity to argue self defense.
For the sake of argument, what if Trayvon had actually been a criminal and was looking for a victim. What if George had stayed in his truck and drove onto Target instead of calling the police and keeping track of Trayvon? What if Trayvon then found a victim and robbed or killed them?
George had a domestic violence restraining order against him and had attacked a cop, he shouldn't have the right to carry a gun.
Same as yours, it's irrelevant. That is why neither were allowed in court,
I'm not talking about the court, I'm saying that it's messed up that people who attack cops and girlfriends are legally allowed to carry guns in public.
Zimmerman is a lousy fighter, probably why he carries a piece.
So if a person is not good at fighting they should not be able to defend themsevles?
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.
