Zimmerman Trial Part 5 The Jury Decides (agent, legal, lawyer, CNN)
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.
The more people use Emmet Till as the reason for today's racial divide, the less credible they become.
Here's a clue: Idiots like 0bama, Frederica, Hank, Al, etc, are largely responsible for current racial division.
Didn't watch the trial or see any evidence, did you! The reason you aren't getting answers is because your theory is just plain wrong, as in inaccurate wrong. Everything you say is wrong.
But keep on believing. Makes no difference to me.
I agree that Obama is responsible, through no fault of his though. You and your racist bigot cohorts went absolutely nuts when he was elected in 2008.
Insignificant to one of them doctor peoples. Any claims that Z was in danger for his life are instantly debunked with that statement.
VERY INSIGNIFICANT INJURIES.
While taking a beating you don't know what his belief was....if he thought he may suffer great bodily harm with the next smashing of head to cement...that's all it takes and lethal force is justified. I know you read that law. You don't have to prove the actual injuries after the fact.
No, all we know is that GZwas following TM and then the two of them had some sort of confrontation and TM was apparently better at fighting ... till GZ pulled out his gun. We don't really know, because there are no witnesses, who attacked who initially. And THAT is crucial to the case.
Which is why, I suspect, the jury had to find GZ "not guilty." By the way, "not guilty" doesn't actually mean "innocent." It simply means that the prosecution didn't prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that GZ was guilty of murder or manslaughter.
Thank you for stating what should be obvious...
Great post
It's the prosecutions' job to prove that the action was murder and not legitimate self defense. At issue is a state of mind (a "mens rea"), which is a core element of the crimes of murder and manslaughter. The prosecution has to prove that state of mind, which includes proving that no reasonable person would have a reason to act in self defense.
If that was your argument, I wouldn't have anything to complain about. You're the one pushing GZ story as fact, and that's absurd. Taking the word of someone w/ a motive to frame the narrative a certain way and has no one corroborating the encounter says something about a narrative you already have in your head.
Oh and then your personal attack on me as a Black man who blames "Whitey" for something, just confirms it.
No.
According to the evidence and the courts decision.
The only crime was TM assaulting GZ.
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.