Florida choirboy in custody

[turtlespeed 220]

Bignugget

******
He knew he couldn't deny following and pursuing Martin. So he said he 'stopped' before they had a confrontation. Nicely done.

Especially the part where he got the 911 operator in on the coverup, eh?

Quote

He knew he couldn't deny killing Martin, so he said he was in fear for his life at the moment he shot him. Nicely done.

and then he quickly threw himself backwards onto the concrete and into a tree to get the injuries, along with paying that neighbor a Benjamin to testify about the ground and pound TM.

Your ramblings are so laughably easy to dismiss...even more than a year later. GZ made up his cover story in mere minutes. And he's a fucking moron.


Wait....the 911 operator saw Zimmerman stop following Martin?

I don't claim there was no fight.

I claim there were no witnesses to how the fight started.

And your supposition is for tm?Why?
Are you racist?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[rhaig 0]

turtlespeed

Are you racist?

he has a thing against latinos apparently

--
Rob

[Bignugget 0]

you guys just listened to the winner of the fight, and went on your way.

I think there is more to the story than what the winner says.

I am still waiting for the video of how the fight started showing Zimmerman walking back to his truck thinking about flowers when Martin springs from cover.

I know you cant provide it, but hey Zimmerman said it went down that way....so I am sure it did..

..after all what does Zimmerman have to gain by lying?

...oh yea....his freedom.

[rushmc 23]

Bignugget

you guys just listened to the winner of the fight, and went on your way.

I think there is more to the story than what the winner says.

I am still waiting for the video of how the fight started showing Zimmerman walking back to his truck thinking about flowers when Martin springs from cover.

I know you cant provide it, but hey Zimmerman said it went down that way....so I am sure it did..

..after all what does Zimmerman have to gain by lying?

...oh yea....his freedom.

there sure is more to the story
you just dont care to hear it
You want the villain to be Zimmerman
but the real world info (that is known) does not support your fantasy

Wake up

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[BartsDaddy 7]

Well it looks like George's wife is in jail for domestic battery now.

Handguns are only used to fight your way to a good rifle

[Bignugget 0]

Where is that link to a video showing Martin starting the fight?

Where is the link to a witness statement they saw Martin approach and attack Zimmerman and not the other way around?

I know you have 0 ability to provide links in general due to being you....and that no such links exist....so of course the questions are rhetorical.

State v. Zimmerman just joins the long line of cases decided incorrectly by a jury.

[rushmc 23]

Bignugget

Where is that link to a video showing Martin starting the fight?evidence suggests he did

Where is the link to a witness statement they saw Martin approach and attack Zimmerman and not the other way around?a jury was presented with what there was. You loose

I know you have 0 ability to provide links in general due to being you....and that no such links exist....so of course the questions are rhetorical.You are right here. you have 0

State v. Zimmerman just joins the long line of cases decided incorrectly by a jury.

there was no case until the race baiters and those like you got involves. Sad at best

And it it sad you think YOU know more than the jury that was presented with the lie that was this case

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[ryoder 1,590]

BartsDaddy

Well it looks like George's wife is in jail for domestic battery now.

If you believe satire news sites.

http://blogs.orlandoweekly.com/index.php/2013/09/shellie-zimmerman-arrested-internet-hoax/

The satire site: http://nationalreport.net/shellie-zimmerman-arrested-charged-battery-george-zimmerman/

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[BartsDaddy 7]

ryoder

***Well it looks like George's wife is in jail for domestic battery now.

If you believe satire news sites.

http://blogs.orlandoweekly.com/index.php/2013/09/shellie-zimmerman-arrested-internet-hoax/

The satire site: http://nationalreport.net/shellie-zimmerman-arrested-charged-battery-george-zimmerman/
Okay I just saw it on another site and posted it here without reading what news agency it was. I'll chalk that up as another one I missed.

Handguns are only used to fight your way to a good rifle

[kelpdiver 2]

Bignugget

I know you have 0 ability to provide links in general due to being you....and that no such links exist....so of course the questions are rhetorical.

State v. Zimmerman just joins the long line of cases decided incorrectly by a jury.

Uh, you acknowledge no evidence exists to support your notion of what happened, yet you insist the jury got it wrong. Did you study the criminal justice system in Mexico? Iran?

[normiss 800]

Nah, he simply ignores the letter of the law as well as judge's jury instructions on the letter of the law.

[Bignugget 0]

kelpdiver

***
I know you have 0 ability to provide links in general due to being you....and that no such links exist....so of course the questions are rhetorical.

State v. Zimmerman just joins the long line of cases decided incorrectly by a jury.

Uh, you acknowledge no evidence exists to support your notion of what happened, yet you insist the jury got it wrong. Did you study the criminal justice system in Mexico? Iran?

I acknowledge no evidence exists of how the fight started. unless you consider self-serving statements of an accused killer evidence....

I also believe the jury got it wrong. Correct.

Normiss is the closest to articulating my position,

I don't care if the letter of the law said it was OK for Zimmerman to chase a kid down and kill him.

I don't.

[kelpdiver 2]

Bignugget

I acknowledge no evidence exists of how the fight started. unless you consider self-serving statements of an accused killer evidence....

I also believe the jury got it wrong. Correct.

Normiss is the closest to articulating my position,

I don't care if the letter of the law said it was OK for Zimmerman to chase a kid down and kill him.

I don't.

The letter of the law in Mexico allows you to presume him guilty despite not having any proof. But in the US, that shit doesn't fly. It's unamerican to declare that the jury got it wrong in presuming innocence when you can't present anything to support a guilty verdict. Not unamerican in Bush's "either you're with us or agin us." No, unamerican in the "I can't read the Constitution."

[rhaig 0]

Bignugget

I also believe the jury got it wrong. Correct.

I don't care if the letter of the law said it was OK for Zimmerman to chase a kid down and kill him.

So you acknowledge that the law says it was OK for Zimmerman to defend himself. You just think the jury should have ignored the law (their only job was to pay attention to the law and presented facts) and found him guilty anyway?


wow... that's pretty fucked up. But reading your comments up-thread, you ceased surprising me with fucked-upness a long time ago.

--
Rob

[turtlespeed 220]

rhaig

***
I also believe the jury got it wrong. Correct.

I don't care if the letter of the law said it was OK for Zimmerman to chase a kid down and kill him.

So you acknowledge that the law says it was OK for Zimmerman to defend himself. You just think the jury should have ignored the law (their only job was to pay attention to the law and presented facts) and found him guilty anyway?


wow... that's pretty fucked up. But reading your comments up-thread, you ceased surprising me with fucked-upness a long time ago.

I'd be willing to guess that if the case were of a drug dealer with a couple of kilos of heroin, the jury should find him innocent no matter what, as well.

Charles manson was just misunderstood too.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[linebckr83 3]

Bignugget

I acknowledge no evidence exists of how the fight started. unless you consider self-serving statements of an accused killer evidence....

I also believe the jury got it wrong. Correct.

Normiss is the closest to articulating my position,

I don't care if the letter of the law said it was OK for Zimmerman to chase a kid down and kill him.

I don't.

Ok I'll ask. You are so set on finding someone to provide evidence that Zimmerman's story is true. How about you provide some evidence that his story isn't true? By the way, "maybe he lied" is not actually evidence. There's no hurry, we'll wait...
He told his side of the story almost immediately, and guess how much of it was disproven by witnesses? That's right, absolutely none. Every detail he told was supported by witnesses that he didn't even know existed.

We all know you don't give a fuck about the law, which is why no one can take you seriously. Good thing this is America and some random 29 yr old single financial grad dude doesn't decide what is legal or not.

"Are you coming to the party?
Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!"
Flying Hellfish #828
Dudist #52

[Bignugget 0]

linebckr83

***
I acknowledge no evidence exists of how the fight started. unless you consider self-serving statements of an accused killer evidence....

I also believe the jury got it wrong. Correct.

Normiss is the closest to articulating my position,

I don't care if the letter of the law said it was OK for Zimmerman to chase a kid down and kill him.

I don't.

Ok I'll ask. You are so set on finding someone to provide evidence that Zimmerman's story is true. How about you provide some evidence that his story isn't true? By the way, "maybe he lied" is not actually evidence. There's no hurry, we'll wait...
He told his side of the story almost immediately, and guess how much of it was disproven by witnesses? That's right, absolutely none. Every detail he told was supported by witnesses that he didn't even know existed.

We all know you don't give a fuck about the law, which is why no one can take you seriously. Good thing this is America and some random 29 yr old single financial grad dude doesn't decide what is legal or not.

Umm...sure we do....what do you think a jury is made up of....random assholes like me....that's sort of the whole idea.

My whole point is there is no evidence showing either way.

The only evidence was witnessed after the fight started, or are self-serving statements of a defendant.

Presumed innocent doesn't apply when you admit to the killing.

So he admits to the killing, and no evidence either way to show that he was the guy who got attacked instead of the one doing the initial attacking.

In reality it might boil down to what someone said in another thread. At one point the attacker can become the victim in the legal sense. So at the split second Zimmerman started losing the fight, EVEN IF he started the confrontation after chasing the kid down intending to capture and detain him, he is still justified in killing the kid once he starts getting beat up due to underestimating his adversary.

That's pretty fucked up, but hey maybe that's how the law works. Not when they finally make me do jury duty though.

[linebckr83 3]

Bignugget

My whole point is there is no evidence showing either way.

No evidence showing what? What happened during the few minutes between the phone call and the fight starting? You're right there isn't. But when the entire rest of his story is proven true by the evidence collected (witness testimony, phone calls, crime scene pictures) and only 5% is left unproven, I'd say the odds are his story is pretty accurate. Maybe, maybe not. But he doesn't even need "odds" he needs proven guilty which wasn't possible. Sorry you hate the law but that's what it is.

Quote

Presumed innocent doesn't apply when you admit to the killing.

Ahh I get it now, you think anyone who kills anyone is guilty of murder no matter the circumstances. That's why you hold your opinion so strongly, and ultimately why you'll never understand the reality. Like I said earlier, if someone puts you in the position where you have to fend for your own life, we'll see how your opinion changes.

Quote

That's pretty fucked up, but hey maybe that's how the law works. Not when they finally make me do jury duty though.

We all get it, you're a rogue citizen hell-bent on defying the law and creating your own. Weren't you just calling Zimmerman a wannabe LEO? I wouldn't put you too far from that tree either then.

Say you were on the jury...even if it makes you feel like a hero to say he's guilty despite the law, the rest of the jury knows the law and follows it...hung jury and Zimmerman walks anyways. Nice try though.

"Are you coming to the party?
Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!"
Flying Hellfish #828
Dudist #52

[kelpdiver 2]

Bignugget

Umm...sure we do....what do you think a jury is made up of....random assholes like me....that's sort of the whole idea.

don't forget there is a judge in charge of that jury of assholes - if they refuse to follow legal instructions in their deliberation, he made have to overrule them for this incompetence.

Quote

Presumed innocent doesn't apply when you admit to the killing.

the charge was 2nd degree murder, not killing.

Quote

That's pretty fucked up, but hey maybe that's how the law works. Not when they finally make me do jury duty though.

to repeat, try that in court. You might find yourself in jail for contempt. Jur nullification doesn't go as far as you might like.

[kelpdiver 2]

linebckr83

Say you were on the jury...even if it makes you feel like a hero to say he's guilty despite the law, the rest of the jury knows the law and follows it...hung jury and Zimmerman walks anyways. Nice try though.

Pretty good chance the special DA would retry the case. When you consider how badly they fucked up in presenting their flimsy case, I think they would have loved to have gotten a hung jury so they could get a do over.

[Bignugget 0]

So you are claiming the judge would have thrown out a guilty verdict?

[kelpdiver 2]

Bignugget

So you are claiming the judge would have thrown out a guilty verdict?

if it stemmed from people like you ignoring the law because you don't like it or understand it, yes.

[airdvr 210]

Bignugget

So you are claiming the judge would have thrown out a guilty verdict?

Who did you vote for in the last presidential election?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Bignugget 0]

kelpdiver

***So you are claiming the judge would have thrown out a guilty verdict?

if it stemmed from people like you ignoring the law because you don't like it or understand it, yes.

Correct me if I am wrong please.

But I don't believe I have to give a list of reasons why I vote a certain way on a jury.

Does the judge ask jurors to explain why they voted the way they did?

[Bignugget 0]

airdvr

***So you are claiming the judge would have thrown out a guilty verdict?

Who did you vote for in the last presidential election?

No one, I don't vote.

What bearing does that have on my question?