The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread
- Thread starter Truthseeker420
- Start date
- Status
Rained like a ***** here. More than when the tropical storm passed through last week.
A lightning bolt hit so close to my house today that my butt hole is still puckered.
Here too... It's an H word year. Pucker and leave.
Rained like a ***** here. More than when the tropical storm passed through last week.
A lightning bolt hit so close to my house today that my butt hole is still puckered.
Here too... It's an H word year. Pucker and leave.
How does it "rain like a *****"!?
Rained like a ***** here. More than when the tropical storm passed through last week.
A lightning bolt hit so close to my house today that my butt hole is still puckered.
Here too... It's an H word year. Pucker and leave.
How does it rain like a *****!?
A gentleman never tells.
Zona
A guy in ariZONA
Rained like a ***** here. More than when the tropical storm passed through last week.
A lightning bolt hit so close to my house today that my butt hole is still puckered.
107 degree's here and zero percent humidity.
Cuyo
Training a Guineapig army
Are you people insane?
Nobody's saying he should be guilty without a trial... What I keep seeing is some people (myself included) saying the prosecution has a mighty strong case... And a bunch of others seeming to say he's innocent without a trial...
Freedombecki you want it thrown out of court?
Are you out of your mind? The guy pursued then shot dead an un-armed teenager!He's entitled to his day in court and he's getting it... What is the source of these bizarre summary-judgments in favor of the defendant? Help me understand, because as I stated, it seems the prosecution has a MIGHTY strong case!
It seems its the Free-Zimmerman crowd that wants to forego the trial process, not the other way around!
Last edited:
tinydancer
Diamond Member
Are you people insane?
Nobody's saying he should be guilty without a trial... What I keep seeing is some people (myself included) saying the prosecution has a mighty strong case... And a bunch of others seeming to say he's innocent without a trial...
Freedombecki you want it thrown out of court?
He's entitled to his day in court and he's getting it... What is the source of these bizarre summary-judgments in favor of the defendant? Help me understand, because as I stated, it seems the prosecution has a MIGHTY strong case!
It seems its the Free-Zimmerman crowd that wants to forego the trial process, not the other way around!
Well despite the Prosecution being charged with misconduct and the Prosecution's endless delays in handing over evidence to the Defence, Zimmerman is getting his day in court.
A gentleman wouldnt use the term so loosely in the presence of women...but to each their own I guess.
Are you people insane?
Nobody's saying he should be guilty without a trial... What I keep seeing is some people (myself included) saying the prosecution has a mighty strong case... And a bunch of others seeming to say he's innocent without a trial...
Freedombecki you want it thrown out of court?
He's entitled to his day in court and he's getting it... What is the source of these bizarre summary-judgments in favor of the defendant? Help me understand, because as I stated, it seems the prosecution has a MIGHTY strong case!
It seems its the Free-Zimmerman crowd that wants to forego the trial process, not the other way around!
Well he followed, then was attacked, then he fired a weapon after yelling for help...lets be fair here.
Lets turn the table a little...if it were a cop that was tailing a suspicious person and that person then doubles back and attacks the police officer and then according to GZ went for the gun...if the cop is able to grab the gun first before the other can take it away and then fires the gun...is he wrong? This would have been dropped immediately with the same evidence in favor of a cop.
Last edited:
Are you people insane?
Nobody's saying he should be guilty without a trial... What I keep seeing is some people (myself included) saying the prosecution has a mighty strong case... And a bunch of others seeming to say he's innocent without a trial...
Freedombecki you want it thrown out of court?
He's entitled to his day in court and he's getting it... What is the source of these bizarre summary-judgments in favor of the defendant? Help me understand, because as I stated, it seems the prosecution has a MIGHTY strong case!
It seems its the Free-Zimmerman crowd that wants to forego the trial process, not the other way around!
Wut?
Going back to the other thread.
I must be insane.
Are you people insane?
Nobody's saying he should be guilty without a trial... What I keep seeing is some people (myself included) saying the prosecution has a mighty strong case... And a bunch of others seeming to say he's innocent without a trial...
Freedombecki you want it thrown out of court?
He's entitled to his day in court and he's getting it... What is the source of these bizarre summary-judgments in favor of the defendant? Help me understand, because as I stated, it seems the prosecution has a MIGHTY strong case!
It seems its the Free-Zimmerman crowd that wants to forego the trial process, not the other way around!
Wut?
Going back to the other thread.
I must be insane.
We weren't even talking about the "free Zimmerman crowd". Whatever that is. We were talking about due process.
Cuyo
Training a Guineapig army
Of course not... IF that's what happened. But there is the bit about how he pursued the young man against the authorities request. All things that will be weighed by a jury. An affirmative defense (in this case, self-defense) requires Mr. Zimmerman to prove that narrative.
Are you people insane?
Nobody's saying he should be guilty without a trial... What I keep seeing is some people (myself included) saying the prosecution has a mighty strong case... And a bunch of others seeming to say he's innocent without a trial...
Freedombecki you want it thrown out of court?
He's entitled to his day in court and he's getting it... What is the source of these bizarre summary-judgments in favor of the defendant? Help me understand, because as I stated, it seems the prosecution has a MIGHTY strong case!
It seems its the Free-Zimmerman crowd that wants to forego the trial process, not the other way around!
Well he followed, then was attacked, then he fired a weapon after yelling for help...lets be fair here.
Lets turn the table a little...if it were a cop that was tailing a suspicious person and that person then doubles back and attacks the police officer and then according to GZ went for the gun...if the cop is able to grab the gun first before the other can take it away and then fires the gun...is he wrong?
You're probably right, but is that necessarily a good thing?
Personally, I've only seen evidence that he pursued a young man who he "Thought was up to no good;" no evidence that the boy even was in fact "Up to no good..." He was probably emboldened by the fact that he had a gun, a fight ensued, and he shot the boy when he began to lose.
IF he started the fight (which you might argue he did just by virtue of his pursuit!), I don't even think the narrative you've provided constitutes self-defense. Trayvon may well have went for the gun out of fear of his own well being in that scenario.
Personally I think he'll be found guilty. But nobody to my knowledge who thinks he's guilty wants to forego a trial, and yes, it irks me when the very Zimmerman supporters who seem to want to skip the trial and move directly to exoneration accuse others of the very offense that THEY THEMSELVES are guilty of.
Last edited:
Of course not... IF that's what happened. But there is the bit about how he pursued the young man against the authorities request. All things that will be weighed by a jury. An affirmative defense (in this case, self-defense) requires Mr. Zimmerman to prove that narrative.Are you people insane?
Nobody's saying he should be guilty without a trial... What I keep seeing is some people (myself included) saying the prosecution has a mighty strong case... And a bunch of others seeming to say he's innocent without a trial...
Freedombecki you want it thrown out of court?
He's entitled to his day in court and he's getting it... What is the source of these bizarre summary-judgments in favor of the defendant? Help me understand, because as I stated, it seems the prosecution has a MIGHTY strong case!
It seems its the Free-Zimmerman crowd that wants to forego the trial process, not the other way around!
Well he followed, then was attacked, then he fired a weapon after yelling for help...lets be fair here.
Lets turn the table a little...if it were a cop that was tailing a suspicious person and that person then doubles back and attacks the police officer and then according to GZ went for the gun...if the cop is able to grab the gun first before the other can take it away and then fires the gun...is he wrong?
You're probably right, but is that necessarily a good thing?
Personally, I've only seen evidence that he pursued a young man who he "Thought was up to no good;" no evidence that the boy even was in fact "Up to no good..." He was probably emboldened by the fact that he had a gun, a fight ensued, and he shot the boy when he began to lose.
IF he started the fight (which you might argue he did just by virtue of his pursuit!), I don't even think the narrative you've provided constitutes self-defense. Trayvon may well have went for the gun out of fear of his own well being in that scenario.
Personally I think he'll be found guilty. But nobody to my knowledge who thinks he's guilty wants to forego a trial, and yes, it irks me when the very Zimmerman supporters who seem to want to skip the trial and move directly to exoneration accuse others of the very offense that THEY THEMSELVES are guilty of.
Cart before the horse. He's still innocent. They are on jury selection. Innocent until proven.. what evidence we talking about? POTUS saying he could be his son?
Cuyo
Training a Guineapig army
Of course not... IF that's what happened. But there is the bit about how he pursued the young man against the authorities request. All things that will be weighed by a jury. An affirmative defense (in this case, self-defense) requires Mr. Zimmerman to prove that narrative.
You're probably right, but is that necessarily a good thing?
Personally, I've only seen evidence that he pursued a young man who he "Thought was up to no good;" no evidence that the boy even was in fact "Up to no good..." He was probably emboldened by the fact that he had a gun, a fight ensued, and he shot the boy when he began to lose.
IF he started the fight (which you might argue he did just by virtue of his pursuit!), I don't even think the narrative you've provided constitutes self-defense. Trayvon may well have went for the gun out of fear of his own well being in that scenario.
Personally I think he'll be found guilty. But nobody to my knowledge who thinks he's guilty wants to forego a trial, and yes, it irks me when the very Zimmerman supporters who seem to want to skip the trial and move directly to exoneration accuse others of the very offense that THEY THEMSELVES are guilty of.
Cart before the horse. He's still innocent. They are on jury selection. Innocent until proven.. what evidence we talking about? POTUS saying he could be his son?
Puh-leeze. More along the lines of... ya know... the dead un-armed body and the 911 transcript where he was told not to pursue...
But yes you're correct, he's innocent until proven guilty. At this point in the judicial process he's "Accused..." and there appears to be a pretty strong case against him.
I'll be pretty shocked if it's a not guilty. Hung-jury... Not so surprised.
Since we're talking about evidence, what's the evidence for his affirmative defense?? The accused's claim that "He hit me?"
- Moderator
- #1,257
They (gentlemen) still exist? If so, I guess they're all spoken for. LOL
Of course not... IF that's what happened. But there is the bit about how he pursued the young man against the authorities request. All things that will be weighed by a jury. An affirmative defense (in this case, self-defense) requires Mr. Zimmerman to prove that narrative.
You're probably right, but is that necessarily a good thing?
Personally, I've only seen evidence that he pursued a young man who he "Thought was up to no good;" no evidence that the boy even was in fact "Up to no good..." He was probably emboldened by the fact that he had a gun, a fight ensued, and he shot the boy when he began to lose.
IF he started the fight (which you might argue he did just by virtue of his pursuit!), I don't even think the narrative you've provided constitutes self-defense. Trayvon may well have went for the gun out of fear of his own well being in that scenario.
Personally I think he'll be found guilty. But nobody to my knowledge who thinks he's guilty wants to forego a trial, and yes, it irks me when the very Zimmerman supporters who seem to want to skip the trial and move directly to exoneration accuse others of the very offense that THEY THEMSELVES are guilty of.
Cart before the horse. He's still innocent. They are on jury selection. Innocent until proven.. what evidence we talking about? POTUS saying he could be his son?
Puh-leeze. More along the lines of... ya know... the dead un-armed body and the 911 transcript where he was told not to pursue...
But yes you're correct, he's innocent until proven guilty. At this point in the judicial process he's "Accused..." and there appears to be a pretty strong case against him.
I'll be pretty shocked if it's a not guilty. Hung-jury... Not so surprised.
Since we're talking about evidence, what's the evidence for his affirmative defense?? The accused's claim that "He hit me?"
Oh Lordy. I guess I'm going to do this. Disclaimer: I will not participate in race or gun debates and if it goes to "you're an idiot or F U" for an opinion, I'm out.
I don't have a particular "side", I live where the trial is, I'm waiting and going on the evidence. If Jessie Jackson, the Panthers or the Skinheads show up, I'm running for cover.
I'm going to read Mrs. Piggle Wiggle.
Be back tomorrow with evidence, wherever it may fall, ammo.
And my status is, if there is a crime, it should be manslaughter and no where near M2.
- Moderator
- #1,259
Rained like a ***** here. More than when the tropical storm passed through last week.
A lightning bolt hit so close to my house today that my butt hole is still puckered.
Here too... It's an H word year. Pucker and leave.
I've been selectively ignoring the weather channel due to that H word! We were in a drought up to the last few days. LOL My front yard rarely floods, but this morning leaving for work, I could have floated a raft in it.
Of course not... IF that's what happened. But there is the bit about how he pursued the young man against the authorities request. All things that will be weighed by a jury. An affirmative defense (in this case, self-defense) requires Mr. Zimmerman to prove that narrative.
You're probably right, but is that necessarily a good thing?
Personally, I've only seen evidence that he pursued a young man who he "Thought was up to no good;" no evidence that the boy even was in fact "Up to no good..." He was probably emboldened by the fact that he had a gun, a fight ensued, and he shot the boy when he began to lose.
IF he started the fight (which you might argue he did just by virtue of his pursuit!), I don't even think the narrative you've provided constitutes self-defense. Trayvon may well have went for the gun out of fear of his own well being in that scenario.
Personally I think he'll be found guilty. But nobody to my knowledge who thinks he's guilty wants to forego a trial, and yes, it irks me when the very Zimmerman supporters who seem to want to skip the trial and move directly to exoneration accuse others of the very offense that THEY THEMSELVES are guilty of.
Cart before the horse. He's still innocent. They are on jury selection. Innocent until proven.. what evidence we talking about? POTUS saying he could be his son?
Puh-leeze. More along the lines of... ya know... the dead un-armed body and the 911 transcript where he was told not to pursue...
But yes you're correct, he's innocent until proven guilty. At this point in the judicial process he's "Accused..." and there appears to be a pretty strong case against him.
I'll be pretty shocked if it's a not guilty. Hung-jury... Not so surprised.
Since we're talking about evidence, what's the evidence for his affirmative defense?? The accused's claim that "He hit me?"
Whats going against Trayvon is that he threw the first punch and he returned the pursuit. GZ didnt chase him down...he was following from a distance with 911 on the phone...he then was headed back to his car when Trayvon approached him. Those are the facts...Trayvon could have just kept walking to where he was going and been fine...but nope he circled back and punched the guy in the face and slammed his head into the sidewalk.
Unfortunately, Trayvon isnt alive to defend himself, but throwing the punch and getting in a fight with the neighborhood watch guy does not help him. Until the shot went off, it was GZ that was the victim. GZ followed from a distance but he didnt assault the kid...trayvon did the assaulting and lost his life because of it.
- Status
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
Orthodox Jews in New York City Burn Israeli Flag Over the War for Greater Israel Currently Focused on Iran
- Started by munkle
- Replies: 4
-
Bill Clinton Selflessly Volunteers To Help Short-Staffed TSA With Pat Downs- Started by Votto
- Replies: 1
Latest Discussions
-
Zone1 Is the Robert Marshall near death experience True, or False?- Latest: DennisPTate
-
-
