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.
zimmerman was innocent until proven guilty and he was proven not guilty by a jury of his peers. He walked into that courtroom an innocent man accused of a crime and he walked out an innocent man after being found not guilty.
I care that the entire nation got wrapped up in the death of a black guy for no other reason than the color of the skin of the guy who shot him.
I care that most of the people who got the most heavily involved in this case also willfully ignored all of the data, evidence and facts that came out during the trial.
You cannot be serious.. for no other reason? If you think that was all there has been to it, that is pretty sad.
It's funny how you think others "willfully ignored all data, evidence and facts", since there was a lot that truly WAS left out or overlooked, that would have helped in deciding a different outcome.
The trial did not answer the question of the exact nature of Zimmerman's actions during the time he was following Martin and/or looking for a street address...it didn't even nail down which of these two things Zimmerman was really up to, let alone anything else he may have been doing as well. If you watched the trial, you'd know that.
No witness testified to having seen Zimmerman's movements and/or having seen what Zimmerman was doing as he followed Martin, nor did any witness testify to precisely how the two parties came together, where they were, who approached whom, who took what physical actions to start the physical encounter. Heck, even what was said between them was disagreed upon, with two versions left standing.
You constantly fail to acknowledge that the state had the burden of proof. There never was a chance that we'd know Exactly what happened. That creates a bigger problem for the state than the defense, especially because a bunch of the state's witnesses were more helpful to Z.
You can try turning the unknown what TM did for the 4 minutes he had to vanish into a plus for TM, but it's not.
You constantly fail to acknowledge that the state had the burden of proof. There never was a chance that we'd know Exactly what happened. That creates a bigger problem for the state than the defense, especially because a bunch of the state's witnesses were more helpful to Z.
You can try turning the unknown what TM did for the 4 minutes he had to vanish into a plus for TM, but it's not.
Don't know how many times I have to repeat it. I am discussing factual guilt or lack thereof, not legal guilt or lack thereof. The two are not synonyms, and the two often are different. So, no, I'm not ignoring the state's burden of proof in the courtroom. It's irrelevant to what I'm discussing in my posts. Is there a reason why you don't want to discuss the incident itself and whether there's sufficient reason to believe factual guilt existed despite a court verdict of not guilty?
You can try turning the unknown what TM did for the 4 minutes he had to vanish into a plus for TM, but it's not.
In other words, you're unwilling to consider any possibilities for TM's actions during the time period that don't involve him a) being guilty of something nefarious and criminal or b) him not being there at all (vanished). Why not? Why are those two extremes the only possibilities you'll consider? Don't like the implications of any other options, perhaps? Not sure why you cannot wrap your mind around the idea that Martin could have remained in the area for non-criminal reasons, especially when a witness testified to this being the case, so please explain how precisely you ruled this option out and why that witness (Jeantel) should be ignored as non-credible and your ideas of TM's actions accepted as the way things really were. I'm willing to change my mind to accept something different than what the witness said, but I need a valid, well-reasoned, and evidence-supported argument for doing so. Can you offer one?
I'm disappointed. You left out the word 'males' in your 2nd sentence
Speaking of wet dreams... yours I suspect and fear are those cwm's you obsess over in every post
agreed. she seems unhealthily obsessed.
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.
