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.
#1 He certainly has a character that can be question in regards to the tragedy. So does Martin. That is my point - we don't know what happened. Yes he called a lot, but wasn't it working out to something like once a month or so...and for being a night watchman in an area with many break ins.....he could certainly argue that it wasn't unwarranted.
#2 "Well he was looking about" and acting suspicious. Zimmerman could elaborate in the courtroom and tell the truth or lie -- no one alive knows the truth.
#3 The first part of your sentence is true, the second is not necessarily true it is you coming to a conclusion without the evidence for it. The expert that I saw said he definitely had traces of drugs in his body, but it is not definitive as to when he last took them. I'll go with the expert over you for now.
Significant point: Trayvon Martin will NOT be on trial. The defendant is George Zimmerman. And, no, Zimmerman cannot get on the witness stand and "elaborate" unless given permission by the judge, and only in response to a question by an attorney. I would also think that if Zimmerman started "elaborating" on the witness stand, his attorney, Mr. O'Mara might have a heart attack! I'm thinking that maybe you've never observed a complete trial, start to finish, in person.
Also, your TV experts are making money opining about this case. They know they don't have all the evidence at this point.
If you think I attacked you or any specific person, it's because I made my point and it hit home. I didn't cite you or any specific person in my post.
Exploding heads are fun.
Nah, but I can't see how a tongue-in-cheek remark like mine could be called a personal attack either. People have called me a moron and said I'm too stupid to live. Now those are personal attacks!
Last edited by justNancy; 05-27-2012 at 10:22 PM..
Reason: remove animation
I watched a 48 Hours mystery tonight called Hard Evidence. The suspect admitted to killing 8 women in detail and was sentenced to life w/o parole in Illinois. Some of those murders were committed in CA and the DA there wants to hold another trial just to bring closure to those victimized families.
Too much money is spent on retrying convicted murderers while innocent people are starving because of all the money spent on minorities crimes. Let them kill each other and don't be concerned about it.
Why do people keep repeating the totally false and slanderous statement that Trayvon Martin was shot because he was black? Is it stupidity, dishonesty or both?
Martin was shot because he was violently assaulting Zimmerman. Do you think if Martin was white Zimmerman would have just laid on the ground and taken the beating?
If a black person were to chase down a white person in a black neighbourhood, and then end his life when the white person resisted being pummelled ? Would you then be so willing to believe that the black person was violently assaulted by Zimmerman ?
Never mind that Martin was in the community with his father, visiting friends.
Never mind that Martin was armed only with Skittles and iced tea, while Zimmerman carried a loaded weapon.
Never mind that Zimmerman, has a history of aggressive behaving.
Never mind that Zimmerman accosted Martin and asked him what he was doing in the neighborhood, that, according to witnesses, it was Zimmerman who pinned Martin down.
We are supposed to feel sorry for the Zimmerman because Martin might have actually fought back! Imagine that, fighting back against a total stranger who attacks you.
Zimmerman chased Martin down.
Zimmerman tackled Martin after Martin demanded to know why Zimmerman was following him.
Martin screamed for help.
Zimmerman shot him.
Even if Martin fought back, how could such a thing — a quite reasonable response, it should be noted, to being attacked by a total stranger — justify pulling a gun, pulling the trigger and shooting the person who was acting in self-defence against you?
If I chase you and jump you, and you resist my assault, and in response to your resistance I kill you, I am the bad guy. Period. End of story. No exceptions, no ifs ands or buts. It’s me. Trayvon Martin is the innocent one here. Zimmerman isn’t even a police man. He’s “neighborhood watch captain” He’s not a even security guard.
So I’m to believe that Trayvon Martin an unarmed 17 year kid who was weighing no more than 9 stone can easily over power fully grown 29 year man weighing 17 stone ?
But to you this makes perfect sense in a nation where blackness and danger have long been considered synonymous, such that any black male over the age of 10 can be assumed a predator
If Trayvon Martin had been, Todd Martin, a 17-year old white male, in the same neighborhood on the same evening, he would not have been killed.
I’d give you more respect if you just said “So what ? He’s a N***R. F**K him”
Guess you "can't believe" it because it's not true. This guy got arrested because a special prosecutor investigated the incident and decided, as is her job to do, that indeed your so-called "innocent man" was not innocent at all and charged him with 2nd degree murder. Btw, where did you get your law degree?
The dead teenager's backpack, his locker at school, had absolutely NOTHING to do with why Zimmerman shot and killed him.
Seems that critical thinking is not your strong point. Actually, being objective is not either. When you get a law degree, and you've been elected as a State Attorney, then please give us your legal perspective on this case. Otherwise, just seems like you're ranting about a lot of things which are beyond your ability to really understand or judge.
Sure, like prosecutors aren't affected by social pressure, politics. Or that overcharging isn't a routine tactic.
Unless you're a State Attorney, you could take your own advice and stop ranting. Superior much ?
Sure, like prosecutors aren't affected by social pressure, politics. Or that overcharging isn't a routine tactic.
Unless you're a State Attorney, you could take your own advice and stop ranting. Superior much ?
Okay. Give me proof that overcharging is a "routine tactic"by State Attorneys. Give me proof that SAs routinely overcharge because of social/political pressure. This is something you've been saying over and over again. Now prove it.
Didn't you make the statement that you can't board a plane or walk in a federal bldg. with a hoodie up? I asked when was the last time you boarded a plane or entered a fed. bldg.
Your response doesn't make sense. But then a lot of your posts don't make sense. Should people take your posts seriously or ignore them?
Do me a favor walk into a bank with a hoodie over your head and see if that draws attention to you.
He might come up to you. If your reaction was to start beating the hell out of him he just might.
The question was: if I walked into a bank wearing a hoodie up, would the guard shoot and kill me?
Again, do you think Zimmerman had the right to shoot and kill Martin because he was wearing a hoodie up that night in the cold (for Florida) and raining weather? Is that the point of the focus on hoodies?
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.
