100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Sharpton to lead 'Justice for Trayvon' rallies | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
There's plenty of low-lifers they can peddle their sheit to and they eat it up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, Mr Z did not approach dead thug.
Zimmerman deliberately got out of his vehicle and followed Martin, contrary to what the 911 police operator told Zimmerman to do. If Zimmerman had not been armed with a loaded gun, I seriously doubt that he would have followed Martin. Even if he did kill Martin in self-defense, Zimmerman set up the situation by prejudging Martin as being a criminal, which is why Zimmerman called 911. What a crock of horse hockey that statement is! So a person does not have a right to leave their car and walk the street now? When was that law passed? Neighborhood watches are supposed to patrol how? From the couch in their living rooms? If they don't follow, watch/film, interview and report what is their job? Chewing bubble gum? A 911 dispatcher is NOT the police, and he was NOT ordered not to follow, he was told "we don't need you to do that", then asked "can you still see him?" Both had the option to walk away, neither did. T could have called 911, instead he called a girl spouting racial names in reference to Z. T then turned and attacked Z, at that moment he changed the scenario, a bad move it ends up being when his "victim" was armed. both didn't have the option to walk away, one USED Their option to walk away, change directions and RUN, but still wasn't able to get rid of a strange man who CHOSE to follow him through all of those attempts why would one call 911, if what another person was doing wasn't 'illegal',, the logic here is ambiguous on the one hand Z wasn't doing anything illegal,, but on the other hand this boy should have thought to call an emergency number about a non crime,,,, whatever,,lol as I have said, having arms is not being armed unless you are prejudged as a 'banger' who obviously is fatal just by being able to fight with his hands,,,lol karma,, karma, karma,, that's all that's left to say,, Z aint gonna enjoy 'freedom' for very long,,,,,its ineveitable,,, Sad....you tell yourself lies contrary to evidence and convince yourself they are truths! Nothing you stated comes anywhere close to truth! A jury said T didn't run, he turned and attacked. If he felt threatened, most would call 911, not a g/f! Both made choices, attacking another person is not a smart choice by any standard, simply aggressive behavior, for which a price was paid. That is the sad truth in a nut shell. Both made the wrong choice! Self defense is not a crime, walking a street is not a crime, possessing a lisenced firearm is not a crime, attacking another is a crime, and one that T chose as response to the situation. His own poor judgement was to blame, the justice system made up of a trial, evidence, witnesses, and a jury of peers, has made that a fact.... Deal with it! nothing I Believe is contrary to evidence,,,just because jurors believed that Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman doesnt mean he didnt actually defend himself against an aggressive stalker ,,none of us were there , including the jurors,, but the witnesses acount doesnt back up any version where zimmerman was sucker punched and fell down,,, ,,,deal with that...! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
criminal activity is neither up nor down as a result of this verdict people have the right to demonstrate in support or protest,,,just as zimmerman had the right to hunt down that boy,,,,,, aint america grand that way? So True...... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Wed 07/17/13 02:13 PM
|
|
criminal activity is neither up nor down as a result of this verdict people have the right to demonstrate in support or protest,,,just as zimmerman had the right to hunt down that boy,,,,,, aint america grand that way? So True......
Protest is a right, I will not argue that. Blatant disregard for authority or law however, the authority which a NOT GUILTY verdict by a jury of your peers is/was, is idiocy. If a law or its authority are corrupt that is one thing, but in this case some are protesting the very judicial system (not the verdict) which is their only saving grace in most cases. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
criminal activity is neither up nor down as a result of this verdict people have the right to demonstrate in support or protest,,,just as zimmerman had the right to hunt down that boy,,,,,, aint america grand that way? So True......
Protest is a right, I will not argue that. Blatant disregard for authority or law however, the authority which a NOT GUILTY verdict by a jury of your peers is/was, is idiocy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
criminal activity is neither up nor down as a result of this verdict people have the right to demonstrate in support or protest,,,just as zimmerman had the right to hunt down that boy,,,,,, aint america grand that way? So True......
Protest is a right, I will not argue that. Blatant disregard for authority or law however, the authority which a NOT GUILTY verdict by a jury of your peers is/was, is idiocy. Now that I can agree with!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, Mr Z did not approach dead thug.
Zimmerman deliberately got out of his vehicle and followed Martin, contrary to what the 911 police operator told Zimmerman to do. If Zimmerman had not been armed with a loaded gun, I seriously doubt that he would have followed Martin. Even if he did kill Martin in self-defense, Zimmerman set up the situation by prejudging Martin as being a criminal, which is why Zimmerman called 911. What a crock of horse hockey that statement is! So a person does not have a right to leave their car and walk the street now? When was that law passed? Neighborhood watches are supposed to patrol how? From the couch in their living rooms? If they don't follow, watch/film, interview and report what is their job? Chewing bubble gum? A 911 dispatcher is NOT the police, and he was NOT ordered not to follow, he was told "we don't need you to do that", then asked "can you still see him?" Both had the option to walk away, neither did. T could have called 911, instead he called a girl spouting racial names in reference to Z. T then turned and attacked Z, at that moment he changed the scenario, a bad move it ends up being when his "victim" was armed. both didn't have the option to walk away, one USED Their option to walk away, change directions and RUN, but still wasn't able to get rid of a strange man who CHOSE to follow him through all of those attempts why would one call 911, if what another person was doing wasn't 'illegal',, the logic here is ambiguous on the one hand Z wasn't doing anything illegal,, but on the other hand this boy should have thought to call an emergency number about a non crime,,,, whatever,,lol as I have said, having arms is not being armed unless you are prejudged as a 'banger' who obviously is fatal just by being able to fight with his hands,,,lol karma,, karma, karma,, that's all that's left to say,, Z aint gonna enjoy 'freedom' for very long,,,,,its ineveitable,,, Sad....you tell yourself lies contrary to evidence and convince yourself they are truths! Nothing you stated comes anywhere close to truth! A jury said T didn't run, he turned and attacked. If he felt threatened, most would call 911, not a g/f! Both made choices, attacking another person is not a smart choice by any standard, simply aggressive behavior, for which a price was paid. That is the sad truth in a nut shell. Both made the wrong choice! Self defense is not a crime, walking a street is not a crime, possessing a lisenced firearm is not a crime, attacking another is a crime, and one that T chose as response to the situation. His own poor judgement was to blame, the justice system made up of a trial, evidence, witnesses, and a jury of peers, has made that a fact.... Deal with it! nothing I Believe is contrary to evidence,,,just because jurors believed that Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman doesnt mean he didnt actually defend himself against an aggressive stalker ,,none of us were there , including the jurors,, but the witnesses acount doesnt back up any version where zimmerman was sucker punched and fell down,,, ,,,deal with that...! the evidence showed that martin caused zimmerman a broken nose,, it didnt prove/show who was assaulting whom,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
criminal activity is neither up nor down as a result of this verdict people have the right to demonstrate in support or protest,,,just as zimmerman had the right to hunt down that boy,,,,,, aint america grand that way? So True......
Protest is a right, I will not argue that. Blatant disregard for authority or law however, the authority which a NOT GUILTY verdict by a jury of your peers is/was, is idiocy. If a law or its authority are corrupt that is one thing, but in this case some are protesting the very judicial system (not the verdict) which is their only saving grace in most cases. so, you can believe the government is corrupt,but you cannot believe a judicial system is FLAWED? the problem with the verdict is it is built on a combination of trial presentation, 'expert' testimonies (my expert is smarter than your expert confusion) , and witness testimonies,, and can only be tied to gether with SOME bit of personal interjection from the jurors own experiences and personal beliefs the jurors verdict should stand,, although I still believe they didnt understand the manslaughter option,,,,which there was enough evidence for but what shouldnt stans is for a grown man armed with a gun to be able to shoot an unarmed minor dead without some legal culpability ask bernard goetz, in the end,, that adult should be held accountable, even if a criminal court wont do it,, and eventually many like me hope that will also be the case for this power hungry bully,,,, interesting,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what shouldnt stans is for a grown man armed with a gun to be able to shoot an unarmed minor dead without some legal culpability
This something that a state legislature needs to deal with. You can't prosecute Zimmerman for violating a non-existing law. However, as I said in another thread, it seems to me that Zimmerman should be held legally accountable for calling 911 and making a false report, because at the time that Zimmerman called 911, Martin was doing nothing wrong. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what shouldnt stans is for a grown man armed with a gun to be able to shoot an unarmed minor dead without some legal culpability
This something that a state legislature needs to deal with. You can't prosecute Zimmerman for violating a non-existing law. However, as I said in another thread, it seems to me that Zimmerman should be held legally accountable for calling 911 and making a false report, because at the time that Zimmerman called 911, Martin was doing nothing wrong. Judgement noted and dismissed as biased. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what shouldnt stans is for a grown man armed with a gun to be able to shoot an unarmed minor dead without some legal culpability
This something that a state legislature needs to deal with. You can't prosecute Zimmerman for violating a non-existing law. However, as I said in another thread, it seems to me that Zimmerman should be held legally accountable for calling 911 and making a false report, because at the time that Zimmerman called 911, Martin was doing nothing wrong. Judgement noted and dismissed as biased. Let the one who is without bias throw the first stone. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No crimes were committed until T attacked Z, who the court ruled acted in self defense to end the attack |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No crimes were committed until T attacked Z, who the court ruled acted in self defense to end the attack It is true that Martin was not committing a crime when Zimmerman called 911 to report Martin to the police. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what shouldnt stans is for a grown man armed with a gun to be able to shoot an unarmed minor dead without some legal culpability
This something that a state legislature needs to deal with. You can't prosecute Zimmerman for violating a non-existing law. However, as I said in another thread, it seems to me that Zimmerman should be held legally accountable for calling 911 and making a false report, because at the time that Zimmerman called 911, Martin was doing nothing wrong. Judgement noted and dismissed as biased. Let the one who is without bias throw the first stone.
That would be you old unbiased one... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No crimes were committed until T attacked Z, who the court ruled acted in self defense to end the attack or until Z tried to detain T,,,,,which the 'winning' side apparently just refuse to believe possible and true,,,, |
|
|
|
|
