Zimmerman arrested again

[♪alt13]

This is where I diverge. The cases are not connected, and therefore the judgements are not either. It is possible for a scumbag to not be guilty, just like it is possible for an otherwise nice guy to be guilty. Each case must be tried on the merits of that case. The fact that the guy is a scumbag is circumstantial to any case, and not hard evidence.

I really wasn't trying to connect them(others already had so my snarky post would not have made any sense without the last line)I was just trying to show that a "pattern" already existed. I thought the pattern thing was funny, because I really thought the martin case was obvious. I don't know if he is racists, but I do know he followed and eventually shot a minor. I don't understand how anyone could see that case any other way.

I have no reasonable doubt that he murdered Trayvon Martin.

PS Way too many people confuse Reasonable doubt and shadow of a doubt

 

[LogGrad98]

I really wasn't trying to connect them(others already had so my snarky post would not have made any sense without the last line)I was just trying to show that a "pattern" already existed. I thought the pattern thing was funny, because I really thought the martin case was obvious. I don't know if he is racists, but I do know he followed and eventually shot a minor. I don't understand how anyone could see that case any other way.

I have no reasonable doubt that he murdered Trayvon Martin.

PS Way too many people confuse Reasonable doubt and shadow of a doubt

A) The victim being a minor had nothing to do with it. That is thrown out there as an inflammatory statement.

B) Lots can happen between the "follow" and "shot". And apparently the jury thought that enough did happen that it left them doubting whether it was murder or not.

C) I try to consider that maybe the jury saw more of the case than we did, and still found the way they did, no matter how confident we are that the bits of the case the media chose to spin our way painted the complete and total picture.

 

[Stoked]

I really wasn't trying to connect them(others already had so my snarky post would not have made any sense without the last line)I was just trying to show that a "pattern" already existed. I thought the pattern thing was funny, because I really thought the martin case was obvious. I don't know if he is racists, but I do know he followed and eventually shot a minor. I don't understand how anyone could see that case any other way.

I have no reasonable doubt that he murdered Trayvon Martin.

PS Way too many people confuse Reasonable doubt and shadow of a doubt

Obviously you were wrong.

 

[♪alt13]

A) The victim being a minor had nothing to do with it. That is thrown out there as an inflammatory statement.
BS The victim was not legally allowed the same protection of carrying a gun.


B) Lots can happen between the "follow" and "shot". And apparently the jury thought that enough did happen that it left them doubting whether it was murder or not.
Sure, but is it reasonable to think that a man who out weighed the victim by quite a bit that had a cell phone, a car, and a gun was acting in self defense. He had options and he chose to kill.

C) I try to consider that maybe the jury saw more of the case than we did, and still found the way they did, no matter how confident we are that the bits of the case the media chose to spin our way painted the complete and total picture.

Given the circumstances nothing short of Trayvon having brandished a knife or gun would have introduced reasonable doubt into my mind.

Do I really seem like a brain washed by the media pc douche bag?

.

 

[Gameface]

.

I'm really really hesitant to get on this again, but following someone is not illegal.

Following someone does not give them the right to hide and ambush you.

If you were following someone and they ran ahead, hid, jumped out and attacked you beating your head into the sidewalk you at no point forfeited your right to self defense.

If that's not what happened then the jury got it wrong. But that was the claim and it caused enough doubt to gain Zimmerman an acquittal in a court of law.

 

[Deleted member 365]

I wish she would have kicked his butt and claimed that it was all in "self defense."

 

[NUMBERICA]

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm surprised tbh

 

[♪alt13]

I'm really really hesitant to get on this again, but following someone is not illegal.

Following someone does not give them the right to hide and ambush you.

If you were following someone and they ran ahead, hid, jumped out and attacked you beating your head into the sidewalk you at no point forfeited your right to self defense.

If that's not what happened then the jury got it wrong. But that was the claim and it caused enough doubt to gain Zimmerman an acquittal in a court of law.

To accept this story you have to accept zimmerman as an unbiased witness. Seeing that Trayvon could not tell his side of the story...
you know what nevermind. I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the silenced 17 year old kid, and you can give it to the uppity neighborhood watchmen.

Depressing

 

[Gameface]

To accept this story you have to accept zimmerman as an unbiased witness. Seeing that Trayvon could not tell his side of the story...
you know what nevermind. I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the silenced 17 year old kid, and you can give it to the uppity neighborhood watchmen.

Depressing

Yeah, I get it, but you can't convict without the evidence. There was physical evidence that supported Zimmerman's side of the story. You're making assumptions (however reasonable they may be) and wanting a murder conviction based on them. You weren't around for the Zimmerman trial mega-thread where I probably wrote a small books worth of crap. No offense to you but I don't really want to rehash it all over again. I have respect for your opinion, so don't take this as me brushing you off. I've just done this thing to death already.

 

[♪alt13]

Yeah, I get it, but you can't convict without the evidence. There was physical evidence that supported Zimmerman's side of the story. You're making assumptions (however reasonable they may be) and wanting a murder conviction based on them. You weren't around for the Zimmerman trial mega-thread where I probably wrote a small books worth of crap. No offense to you but I don't really want to rehash it all over again. I have respect for your opinion, so don't take this as me brushing you off. I've just done this thing to death already.

No you don't ****ing get it.
The evidence was there. he followed got into a confrontation and shot and killed a minor, but since Trayvon was black it is ok to put the victim on trial. Any one that buys any of this bull **** as constituting reasonable doubt Is puposefully putting blinders on.

**** you if you don't want to get into then ****ing don't!

 

[Gameface]

No you don't ****ing get it.
The evidence was there. he followed got into a confrontation and shot and killed a minor, but since Trayvon was black it is ok to put the victim on trial. Any one that buys any of this bull **** as constituting reasonable doubt Is puposefully putting blinders on.

**** you if you don't want to get into then ****ing don't!

Okay.

I used to value your opinion...

Go open the thread and read what I've written.

Then go **** yourself.

 

[♪alt13]

ps If you follow me at night I will turn around and beat your ***. If you pull out a gun, you will be the one eating a bullet. Go searching for confrontation and you will find it.