Zimmerman Threatens Man's Life

[RetiredGySgt]

Under the Constitution and US Law a person is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. That you don't know that is telling. And yes we put people in jail if accused of certain crimes.

Ijit, all that means is that the government has the burden to prove you guilty and can't compel you to help their case against you. It's nothing but legal theory and doesn't mean a charged person is actually "innocent." That's why the government can lock up people waiting for trial (because we don't actually lock up innocent folks); and why a jury finds a defendant "not guilty" and not "innocent;" and most notably, why a defendant is "presumed" innocent and not actually innocent.

Presumption of Innocence

The presumption of innocence, an ancient tenet of CRIMINAL LAW, is actually a misnomer. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the presumption of the innocence of a criminal defendant is best described as an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence (Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 98 S. Ct. 1930, 56 L. Ed. 2d 468 [1978]). It is not considered evidence of the defendant's innocence, and it does not require that a mandatory inference favorable to the defendant be drawn from any facts in evidence.

[...]

The presumption of innocence principle supports the practice of releasing criminal defendants from jail prior to trial. However, the government may detain some criminal defendants without bail through the end of trial. The EIGHTH AMENDMENT to the U.S. Constitution states that excessive bail shall not be required, but it is widely accepted that governments have the right to detain through trial a defendant of a serious crime who is a flight risk or poses a danger to the public. In such cases the presumption of innocence is largely theoretical.[/URL]​

So you are one of those idiots that thinks because someone was charged with a crime they are guilty. Remind me what Country you are from cause you can not possibly be an American with that belief.

You'd have to be a complete ******* retard to translate my post into that conclusion. I never said a person is guilty because they're charged. I said they are not innocent. Unless the case against a defendant is dismissed, it's up to a court to find them either "guilty" or "not guilty." No court finds them "innocent." Until the court reaches a verdict, they are "presumed" innocent. "Presumed" innocent is not the same as "actually" innocent.

To drive this point home ... according to your idiocy, OJ was innocent of murdering his wife and Ron Goldman.

As a matter of fact he was. I watched that trial and the prosecution was so inept it was criminal. The defense p;roved over and over that OJ was probably set up by Furman and the police.

???

OJ's blood was found at the crime scene. How did Furman and/or the police get OJ's blood??

If you had watched the trial you would know why that was not telling. For one the supposed drop of blood found on the back gate was found only after all their other evidence was called into question weeks after the crime scene had been checked. Further Furman's partner an 18 year veteran detective spent an entire day with a vial of OJ's blood in his pocket , against all policy and procedure, and to add insult to injury he spent the day going to the crime scene and the OJ mansion.

 

[Faun]

Ijit, all that means is that the government has the burden to prove you guilty and can't compel you to help their case against you. It's nothing but legal theory and doesn't mean a charged person is actually "innocent." That's why the government can lock up people waiting for trial (because we don't actually lock up innocent folks); and why a jury finds a defendant "not guilty" and not "innocent;" and most notably, why a defendant is "presumed" innocent and not actually innocent.

Presumption of Innocence

The presumption of innocence, an ancient tenet of CRIMINAL LAW, is actually a misnomer. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the presumption of the innocence of a criminal defendant is best described as an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence (Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 98 S. Ct. 1930, 56 L. Ed. 2d 468 [1978]). It is not considered evidence of the defendant's innocence, and it does not require that a mandatory inference favorable to the defendant be drawn from any facts in evidence.

[...]

The presumption of innocence principle supports the practice of releasing criminal defendants from jail prior to trial. However, the government may detain some criminal defendants without bail through the end of trial. The EIGHTH AMENDMENT to the U.S. Constitution states that excessive bail shall not be required, but it is widely accepted that governments have the right to detain through trial a defendant of a serious crime who is a flight risk or poses a danger to the public. In such cases the presumption of innocence is largely theoretical.[/URL]​

So you are one of those idiots that thinks because someone was charged with a crime they are guilty. Remind me what Country you are from cause you can not possibly be an American with that belief.

You'd have to be a complete ******* retard to translate my post into that conclusion. I never said a person is guilty because they're charged. I said they are not innocent. Unless the case against a defendant is dismissed, it's up to a court to find them either "guilty" or "not guilty." No court finds them "innocent." Until the court reaches a verdict, they are "presumed" innocent. "Presumed" innocent is not the same as "actually" innocent.

To drive this point home ... according to your idiocy, OJ was innocent of murdering his wife and Ron Goldman.

As a matter of fact he was. I watched that trial and the prosecution was so inept it was criminal. The defense p;roved over and over that OJ was probably set up by Furman and the police.

???

OJ's blood was found at the crime scene. How did Furman and/or the police get OJ's blood??

If you had watched the trial you would know why that was not telling. For one the supposed drop of blood found on the back gate was found only after all their other evidence was called into question weeks after the crime scene had been checked. Further Furman's partner an 18 year veteran detective spent an entire day with a vial of OJ's blood in his pocket , against all policy and procedure, and to add insult to injury he spent the day going to the crime scene and the OJ mansion.

There were other splatters of OJ's blood found which were collected right away. How did they get OJ's blood? Those splatters were collected before Andrea Mazzola collected a sample of OJ's blood.

 

[Politico]

People can't hate it when a likely murderer has a gun.

And yet you have no evidence he is a likely murderer. He has in fact not murdered anyone at all. Once again your hatred and obsession are wrong. He was found NOT GUILTY by a JURY of his peers as required by law. In the eyes of the law he is in fact INNOCENT since one is innocent till proven guilty. He killed Martin in self defense. That by definition is not murder. Further he still LEGALLY has a carry permit which allows him to carry concealed. So finding him outside his doctors office with a concealed firearm is also NO CRIME.

No! In the eyds of the law he was found not guilty. HE WAS NOT FOUND INNOCENT. And oftentimes the law makes mistakes. They made a mistake this time. He is a murderer. He's a complete wacko, as are those who blindly support him. Like you.

Presumed innocence means one found not guilty you are innocent dear.

That's the way it works.

Leftytoons don't care about the law lol.

People who call others 'leftytoons' are childish morons who have no place in an adult conversation.

People who react based on feelings rather than facts have no right in a voting booth or jury room. Nor do they deserve respect.

 

[Esmeralda]

No! In the eyds of the law he was found not guilty. HE WAS NOT FOUND INNOCENT. And oftentimes the law makes mistakes. They made a mistake this time. He is a murderer. He's a complete wacko, as are those who blindly support him. Like you.

Actually retard, in the eyes of the LAW one is INNOCENT till proven GUILTY. He was not proven guilty thus according to the LAW he is innocent.

If he was "innocent," then why was he locked up? Are you saying we put innocent people in jail?

Under the Constitution and US Law a person is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. That you don't know that is telling. And yes we put people in jail if accused of certain crimes.

Ijit, all that means is that the government has the burden to prove you guilty and can't compel you to help their case against you. It's nothing but legal theory and doesn't mean a charged person is actually "innocent." That's why the government can lock up people waiting for trial (because we don't actually lock up innocent folks); and why a jury finds a defendant "not guilty" and not "innocent;" and most notably, why a defendant is "presumed" innocent and not actually innocent.

Presumption of Innocence

The presumption of innocence, an ancient tenet of CRIMINAL LAW, is actually a misnomer. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the presumption of the innocence of a criminal defendant is best described as an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence (Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 98 S. Ct. 1930, 56 L. Ed. 2d 468 [1978]). It is not considered evidence of the defendant's innocence, and it does not require that a mandatory inference favorable to the defendant be drawn from any facts in evidence.

[...]

The presumption of innocence principle supports the practice of releasing criminal defendants from jail prior to trial. However, the government may detain some criminal defendants without bail through the end of trial. The EIGHTH AMENDMENT to the U.S. Constitution states that excessive bail shall not be required, but it is widely accepted that governments have the right to detain through trial a defendant of a serious crime who is a flight risk or poses a danger to the public. In such cases the presumption of innocence is largely theoretical.[/URL]​

So you are one of those idiots that thinks because someone was charged with a crime they are guilty. Remind me what Country you are from cause you can not possibly be an American with that belief.

You are really into name calling, sarg. This is really indicative of the level of your thinking and your discourse: bottom of the barrel.

 

[Meathead]

Actually retard, in the eyes of the LAW one is INNOCENT till proven GUILTY. He was not proven guilty thus according to the LAW he is innocent.

If he was "innocent," then why was he locked up? Are you saying we put innocent people in jail?

Under the Constitution and US Law a person is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. That you don't know that is telling. And yes we put people in jail if accused of certain crimes.

Ijit, all that means is that the government has the burden to prove you guilty and can't compel you to help their case against you. It's nothing but legal theory and doesn't mean a charged person is actually "innocent." That's why the government can lock up people waiting for trial (because we don't actually lock up innocent folks); and why a jury finds a defendant "not guilty" and not "innocent;" and most notably, why a defendant is "presumed" innocent and not actually innocent.

Presumption of Innocence

The presumption of innocence, an ancient tenet of CRIMINAL LAW, is actually a misnomer. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the presumption of the innocence of a criminal defendant is best described as an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence (Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 98 S. Ct. 1930, 56 L. Ed. 2d 468 [1978]). It is not considered evidence of the defendant's innocence, and it does not require that a mandatory inference favorable to the defendant be drawn from any facts in evidence.

[...]

The presumption of innocence principle supports the practice of releasing criminal defendants from jail prior to trial. However, the government may detain some criminal defendants without bail through the end of trial. The EIGHTH AMENDMENT to the U.S. Constitution states that excessive bail shall not be required, but it is widely accepted that governments have the right to detain through trial a defendant of a serious crime who is a flight risk or poses a danger to the public. In such cases the presumption of innocence is largely theoretical.[/URL]​

So you are one of those idiots that thinks because someone was charged with a crime they are guilty. Remind me what Country you are from cause you can not possibly be an American with that belief.

You are really into name calling, sarg. This is really indicative of the level of your thinking and your discourse: bottom of the barrel.

My term for low-brow is Dingbat!

 

[Esmeralda]

And yet you have no evidence he is a likely murderer. He has in fact not murdered anyone at all. Once again your hatred and obsession are wrong. He was found NOT GUILTY by a JURY of his peers as required by law. In the eyes of the law he is in fact INNOCENT since one is innocent till proven guilty. He killed Martin in self defense. That by definition is not murder. Further he still LEGALLY has a carry permit which allows him to carry concealed. So finding him outside his doctors office with a concealed firearm is also NO CRIME.

No! In the eyds of the law he was found not guilty. HE WAS NOT FOUND INNOCENT. And oftentimes the law makes mistakes. They made a mistake this time. He is a murderer. He's a complete wacko, as are those who blindly support him. Like you.

Presumed innocence means one found not guilty you are innocent dear.

That's the way it works.

Leftytoons don't care about the law lol.

People who call others 'leftytoons' are childish morons who have no place in an adult conversation.

People who react based on feelings rather than facts have no right in a voting booth or jury room. Nor do they deserve respect.

That is exactly what was wrong with the verdict: it was based on feelings rather than logic. And my saying people who use name calling is based on feelings? Really? You obviously know nothing about logic: ever heard of ad hominem? When someone in a debate calls names, that's an ad hominem. Your pals frequently use terms such as libtards and leftytoons in debate: shows they have no logical argument.

 

[Politico]

I know exactly what I meant. Calling someone a thug, racist, murderer and and whacko because they 'feel' it is true is idiotic. Calling them idiots is the level of respect they deserve.

 

[JoeB131]

So your contention is that the jury, the police, and the prosecution were all in a conspiracy to make sure Zimmerman got away with murder? That doesn't seem likely.

No, my contention was that they were grossly incompetent.

Prove that Zimmerman wasn't defending himself.

He got out of the car after being told to stay in the car.

 

[Faun]

So your contention is that the jury, the police, and the prosecution were all in a conspiracy to make sure Zimmerman got away with murder? That doesn't seem likely.

No, my contention was that they were grossly incompetent.

Prove that Zimmerman wasn't defending himself.

He got out of the car after being told to stay in the car.

Well except that it didn't happen that way ... ok.

 

[Inevitable]

So your contention is that the jury, the police, and the prosecution were all in a conspiracy to make sure Zimmerman got away with murder? That doesn't seem likely.

No, my contention was that they were grossly incompetent.

Prove that Zimmerman wasn't defending himself.

He got out of the car after being told to stay in the car.

So what. This is what you need to prove, the car and whether somebody with no authority told hom this or that isn't relevant.

Prove when Martin was on top of him he didn't reasonably fear death or serious bodily injury.

Getting out of your car and even saying stupid things to a person doesn't give that person the right to jump on somebody and beat them up.

 

[JoeB131]

So your contention is that the jury, the police, and the prosecution were all in a conspiracy to make sure Zimmerman got away with murder? That doesn't seem likely.

No, my contention was that they were grossly incompetent.

Prove that Zimmerman wasn't defending himself.

He got out of the car after being told to stay in the car.

So what. This is what you need to prove, the car and whether somebody with no authority told hom this or that isn't relevant.

Prove when Martin was on top of him he didn't reasonably fear death or serious bodily injury.

Getting out of your car and even saying stupid things to a person doesn't give that person the right to jump on somebody and beat them up.

Again, all the exonerating claims come from Zimmerman himself. which can't be proven or disproven because the cops didn't do things like check him for drugs at the time. (He was currently on two prescriptions for adult attention deficit disorder.)

I'm kind of curious how he could be struggling with Trayvon at point blank range and yet Travyon had no gun shot residue on him. Or how one witness said that the fight was over when the gun shot rang out.

But, nah, we should totally believe George. He's been such an upstanding citizen since his release.

 

[Inevitable]

So your contention is that the jury, the police, and the prosecution were all in a conspiracy to make sure Zimmerman got away with murder? That doesn't seem likely.

No, my contention was that they were grossly incompetent.

Prove that Zimmerman wasn't defending himself.

He got out of the car after being told to stay in the car.

So what. This is what you need to prove, the car and whether somebody with no authority told hom this or that isn't relevant.

Prove when Martin was on top of him he didn't reasonably fear death or serious bodily injury.

Getting out of your car and even saying stupid things to a person doesn't give that person the right to jump on somebody and beat them up.

Again, all the exonerating claims come from Zimmerman himself. which can't be proven or disproven because the cops didn't do things like check him for drugs at the time. (He was currently on two prescriptions for adult attention deficit disorder.)

I'm kind of curious how he could be struggling with Trayvon at point blank range and yet Travyon had no gun shot residue on him. Or how one witness said that the fight was over when the gun shot rang out.

But, nah, we should totally believe George. He's been such an upstanding citizen since his release.

Well it seems like you don't agree with our justice system. People are considered not guilty until proven guilty.

Is it fishy, yeah, could Zimmerman have killed Martin and not had a legitimate reason? Yes, but the evidence doesn't prove guilt. The only two people that know aren't talking.

The burden of proof is on the state.

 

[JoeB131]

[]
Well it seems like you don't agree with our justice system. People are considered not guilty until proven guilty.

Is it fishy, yeah, could Zimmerman have killed Martin and not had a legitimate reason? Yes, but the evidence doesn't prove guilt. The only two people that know aren't talking.

The burden of proof is on the state.

Uh, yeah, it is.

And the state fucked up. The cops didn't investigate, the prosecutors didn't persue the case until people complained, and the jury was made up of some really ******* stupid people.

Seriously, did you see the juror interviews after the trial? Man, talk about some stupid people, who were absolutely shocked that folks were upset they let a murderer walk out.

And when this asshole kills someone else- and it's only a matter of time before he does - you'll be back here trying to excuse them some more.

 

[Meathead]

[]
Well it seems like you don't agree with our justice system. People are considered not guilty until proven guilty.

Is it fishy, yeah, could Zimmerman have killed Martin and not had a legitimate reason? Yes, but the evidence doesn't prove guilt. The only two people that know aren't talking.

The burden of proof is on the state.

Uh, yeah, it is.

And the state fucked up. The cops didn't investigate, the prosecutors didn't persue the case until people complained, and the jury was made up of some really ******* stupid people.

Seriously, did you see the juror interviews after the trial? Man, talk about some stupid people, who were absolutely shocked that folks were upset they let a murderer walk out.

And when this asshole kills someone else- and it's only a matter of time before he does - you'll be back here trying to excuse them some more.

Yeah, that black Puerto Rican woman with 8 kids thought he was guilty and had to have the brighter ones explain the law to her. She didn't seem very bright.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

No, my contention was that they were grossly incompetent.

Prove that Zimmerman wasn't defending himself.

He got out of the car after being told to stay in the car.

So what. This is what you need to prove, the car and whether somebody with no authority told hom this or that isn't relevant.

Prove when Martin was on top of him he didn't reasonably fear death or serious bodily injury.

Getting out of your car and even saying stupid things to a person doesn't give that person the right to jump on somebody and beat them up.

Again, all the exonerating claims come from Zimmerman himself. which can't be proven or disproven because the cops didn't do things like check him for drugs at the time. (He was currently on two prescriptions for adult attention deficit disorder.)

I'm kind of curious how he could be struggling with Trayvon at point blank range and yet Travyon had no gun shot residue on him. Or how one witness said that the fight was over when the gun shot rang out.

But, nah, we should totally believe George. He's been such an upstanding citizen since his release.

Well it seems like you don't agree with our justice system. People are considered not guilty until proven guilty.

Is it fishy, yeah, could Zimmerman have killed Martin and not had a legitimate reason? Yes, but the evidence doesn't prove guilt. The only two people that know aren't talking.

The burden of proof is on the state.

The justice system works sometimes and sometimes it doesn't.

The police and prosecutors gave Zimmerman a pass and are giving him a pass now with the new stalking incident.

 

[Nosmo King]

George Zimmerman threatened to kill man in road rage incident Florida police say News - Home

The guy is another shooting waiting to happen...just a matter of time.

Look at how liberals tortured the poor guy. Everyone always expresses sympathy to women who've been raped but after the rape liberals inflicted on Zimmerman, they're still persecuting the guy. That takes a toll on good people.

He's out protecting his neighborhood, a hood rat tries to kill him, and liberals make him into the Devil, they cost him his job, his house, his wife, threaten to imprison him, libel him, make up false stories about him, and essentially make him a pariah. All propaganda.

Too bad there wasn't a way that we could imprison liberals. Now that would make society better.

yeah. poor Zimmerman. He got away with murder and now has to face the consequences. Perhaps if he had not killed someone, folks could find some empathy for him. Zimmerman/O.J. Simpson. Both victims of THEIR OWN MAKING.

 

[JoeB131]

[Yeah, that black Puerto Rican woman with 8 kids thought he was guilty and had to have the brighter ones explain the law to her. She didn't seem very bright.

Oh, Captain EuroTrash, you are sooo cute when you try to feel superior to anyone.

 

[MrDVS1]

A 17 year old kid buying candy and a soda. No wonder Republicans are terrified.

The only thing Republicans aren't afraid of is the most frightening thing of all, their mindless rhetoric.

 

[MaxGrit]

[]
Well it seems like you don't agree with our justice system. People are considered not guilty until proven guilty.

Is it fishy, yeah, could Zimmerman have killed Martin and not had a legitimate reason? Yes, but the evidence doesn't prove guilt. The only two people that know aren't talking.

The burden of proof is on the state.

Uh, yeah, it is.

And the state fucked up. The cops didn't investigate, the prosecutors didn't persue the case until people complained, and the jury was made up of some really ******* stupid people.

Seriously, did you see the juror interviews after the trial? Man, talk about some stupid people, who were absolutely shocked that folks were upset they let a murderer walk out.

And when this asshole kills someone else- and it's only a matter of time before he does - you'll be back here trying to excuse them some more.

Actually they are all smarter than you.

 

[JoeB131]

[
Actually they are all smarter than you.

No, they really weren't. The fact that Zimmerman has been in nothing but trouble since they let him walk is proof these folks didn't do their jobs.