I Don't Think Many Of You Know What "Confronted" Means

Your two statements cancel each other out.

You ask someone else, how do they know, due to the fact that they don't know all the facts.
And your last statement talks about how you're entitled to your own opinion.

You see how you people like to mess things up just to swing them your way?

We don't know facts. We won't until the trial.

What we have are police statements and media reports.

I haven't heard anything that would, to me, indicate the police didn't handel the investigation correctly.

With all the information we've recieved on the incident, people we're free to form an oppion on wether or not the trial should happen. Having said that. The trial is now going to happen, and that decision could have been made based on information we don't know about, so it's important to trust the process.
 
Last edited:
Oh, and if you state "innocent until proven guilty" then you are a racist who *loves* zimmerman.

i have no problem with a presumption of innocence. i have a problem with the improper investigation and people who don't think this guy should be tried.

how do you know it was an improper investigation?

Why do you have a problem with some people feeling there wasn't enough evidence for a trial? Surely everyone is entitled to an opinion, right?

The only people I've heard say there has been an improper investigation has been the lynch mob here.

The special prosecutor said they were right on track when she picked it up.
 
i have no problem with a presumption of innocence. I have a problem with the improper investigation and people who don't think this guy should be tried.

how do you know it was an improper investigation?

Why do you have a problem with some people feeling there wasn't enough evidence for a trial? Surely everyone is entitled to an opinion, right?

the only people i've heard say there has been an improper investigation has been the lynch mob here.

The special prosecutor said they were right on track when she picked it up.
+1
 
Your two statements cancel each other out.

You ask someone else, how do they know, due to the fact that they don't know all the facts.
And your last statement talks about how you're entitled to your own opinion.

You see how you people like to mess things up just to swing them your way?


You people eh ? Classic racist seperatist speak, as is accused of the white man by the black man everytime it is spoken by a white man in the same way, otherwise if and when (a white man) speaks in this way, and in the same context, then the black man says to him, whats this "you people" stuff, and then assumes instantly that (the white man) is a racist and seperatist by such speak as is used or is spoken by a white man in this way.. Ohhhh the double standards that just keep going on and on and on and on, and round and round and round and round and round.. B )
 
Last edited:

Trayvon was 17, it's an age where there's gong to be little evidence that a thug is a thug. Police records are sealed. School records are private. At that age, a thug hasn't been a thug for long. And, at that age, and the years leading up to it, kids are often not arrested in the same situation that an adult would be arrested.

Yet, from the past school year alone, we know that Trayvon has been caught with stolen goods, a burglary tool, and possession of illegal drugs. We know he committed vandalism at school. There are stories related to him being involved with fighting, maybe even a swing at a buss driver. Then there's the non-criminal evidence of his poor character, from his gangsta fetish to the lack of any white character witnesses. He was chronically late to classes, enough to earn a suspension. No one has praised him for being a good student, or having good grades.

In short, even with Trayvon's short history, we know he was a thug who was already developing into a hardened criminal... the kind who would case a neighborhood and then brutally assault someone who caught him in that act of casing.
 
If it goes to a jury as I doubt it will, we have a 150K bond for a murder charge, the jury will have to weigh the charge of murder with these undisputed facts:

1. Zimmerman did call police about seeing Martin.
2. Zimmerman was going to meet with the police as advised in the call.

So my argument to the jury if Zimmerman was going to hunt down and murder Martin WHY DOES HE CALL POLICE AND TELL HIM HE IS THERE?

It makes no sense. Jury verdict on the 2nd degree murder is not guilty or possibly a hung jury.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top