Breaking News! George Zimmerman found not guilty.

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker


He was on top of him raining blows to the guys head...you ever been in that position? I have and I woulda done anything to get that guy off me.
Anyhow our opinions will not change the fact a jury of six women found him not guilty of all charges.
Help all sides heal and help them all get through this chapter in their lives.

reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf


No offence, but in this generation how can any adult know nothing about how to fight? I'm baffled by this. With all the violence going on you mean to tell me that the parents are doing nothing to teach their kids how defends themselves? Have we come so far that we only teach them how to tweet and facebook? If so, then I feel sorry for the up coming generations.

reply to post by bruteforce13


That's why we have evidence. And the evidence was on Zimmerman's side.

You do realize that this is how most court cases are decided, via evidence and reconstruction? Because it is not like the accused is going to lay out the whole story. Its why we have cases in the first place. To examine the objective evidence to determine the guilt or innocence if the accused.

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
Martin started the fight. Martin has no fight injuries. All the evidence backs Zimmerman. DNA on Martin's knuckles, from what I have read, of Zimmerman's. Stop trying to make this out to be something it isn't. Every single person alive has a right to self defense. Do you think that is a bad thing?

I'd ask you to point to any evidence for the bolded part. Which is kind of the whole point. But since the only evidence is a statement from a stalker who shot a teen I won't even bother.

I already provided all that. I stated martin had NO fight injuries. NONE. Zimmerman had plenty. Witnesses saw Martin on top. Martin's friend on the phone even states Martin spoke first. Martin spoke, when before he was practically back to where he was staying. He had to leave that safe location and go back to confront Zimmerman, to speak first.

Now, how about an answer? Do you believe people should have a right to self defense or not?

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker

 

He was on top of him raining blows to the guys head...

Once agin this has ZERO bearing on who threw the first punch or touched who first. Only Georgie knows that and dead men dont talk.

I agree with the verdict, unfortunately the only other true witness to the entire event was killed. SO we cant hear from them as to whether or not he or Zimmerman attacked first.

reply to post by Shimri


Good quote. I can't believe how the prosecution tried using his words as some sort of justification for what they did. What an insult to his work.

Most welcome!

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker
reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

 

No offence, but in this generation how can any adult know nothing about how to fight? I'm baffled by this. With all the violence going on you mean to tell me that the parents are doing nothing to teach their kids how defends themselves? Have we come so far that we only teach them how to tweet and facebook? If so, then I feel sorry for the up coming generations.

A LOT of people don't know how to fight. I didn't know squat until I got my ass beat and learned.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
reply to post by bruteforce13

 

That's why we have evidence. And the evidence was on Zimmerman's side.

You do realize that this is how most court cases are decided, via evidence and reconstruction? Because it is not like the accused is going to lay out the whole story. Its why we have cases in the first place. To examine the objective evidence to determine the guilt or innocence if the accused.

Sure but im not saying Geroge attacking first is not in the realm of possiblity like his supporters seem to think.

Conspiracy Hypothesis (probably a theory or even fact):

FOX sways towards Z's defense.
CNN and the like, sways towards M's vindication and fanning flames of animosity.

All purposely devised. Which implies FOX is in on it. Who here want's to claim R Murdoch is a nice guy with no ulterior motives (hidden Anti-US anti-human rights agenda possibly)??

That's like tricking someone into saying "I believe what the TV says", it's a joke, once they realize what they said they feel silly because everyone knows it's mostly sensationalist fluff slanted towards manipulation and advertisements in general.

The reason I believe that this system works so well is because take for instance the post saying "I commend Geraldo for so and so". Some heroic action or whatnot. Sure....Geraldo? He is such a traitor to the Constitution when his script says to be, and then he becomes a great hero to it when he is scripted that way? Like when Geraldo questioned 911 official story? Or was it when Geraldo insulted anyone who questioned the OS? Both happened. Therefore the hypothesis that he is just a 'script reading actor', rather than a genuine 'news reporter / journalist'.

A basic attempt to explain the unexplained by interjecting possible circumstance that would motivate or compel such utter lack of principle yet cunning use of rhetoric in this particular individual's sordid history.

Main proposition of Hypothesis:

When someone from the 'CNN side' looks at the "FOX side" of the "contrived issue", they feel REINFORCED into their own point of view because they see KNOWN LIARS taking X or Y position on said "contrived issue".

This works for the 'FOX people' looking at MSNBC or CBS or CNN. They see KNOWN LIAR HACKS taking the exact other side of the "contrived issue'.

This fake system of opposites in our media further divide us because we think the other side are being sheep led to the slaughter.

I propose BOTH SIDES are being associated with and perceived to be led by WOLVES.

People are talking about riots and retribution aren't they?
I know this one, it's all over history books.
It's a scam "Divide and Conquer".
"Problem - Reaction - Solution".

Originally posted by bruteforce13

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker

 

He was on top of him raining blows to the guys head...

Once agin this has ZERO bearing on who threw the first punch or touched who first. Only Georgie knows that and dead men dont talk.

I agree with the verdict, unfortunately the only other true witness to the entire event was killed. SO we cant hear from them as to whether or not he or Zimmerman attacked first.

so the evidence supports zimmerman but you want to follow the hypothetical because that fits your emotional beliefs better.

gotcha.

we should base our justice system around emotions, gut feelings and bias... we should completely throw out evidence, and witnesses out the window.

reply to post by bruteforce13


Even if he did, it doesn't matter. 45 seconds of getting pounded and screaming for help, is enough to let any reasonable person know, hey the fight is over, I won. That is if it was a fight, and not just a beatdown.

reply to post by votan


Nope i said t he jury got it right,. BUT CAN YOU NOT ADMIT ITS POSSIBLE GEORGE ATTACKED FIRST? Thats all im asking.

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker


If everyone knew how to fight, there would be no more crime, right, because we could use our fighting skills to fight off evildoers! Um, no.

The majority of parents, teachers, and authorities DISCOURAGE kids from fighting, for good reason, and the vast majority of people in this country have no interest or need in learning melee fighting. Not to mention that, no matter how bad ass a fighter you think you are, or how many self defense courses you take, when in a crisis situation, as happens OFTEN, people forget these things, freeze up, so to speak.

And knowing anything about fighting ain't going to be much help if you are physically mismatched and overwhelmed.

reply to post by NotAnAspie


Actually, it can still be prejudice if your attitude towards people you know is applied to people you don't know because they happen to be white and male - which seems to be exactly what you are doing. Therefore, the other member claiming you are letting prejudice cloud your judgement is not far off the mark.

If I were as narrow-minded as you, I could let prejudice guide my thoughts when I consider statistics, news reports and real-life experiences about non-white populations. How would you feel about that?

reply to post by muzzleflash


By jove old chum I think you have got it

reply to post by TKDRL


NO bro we go by gut feelings emotions and bias you keep letting evidence and facts about how things happen get in the way

Well this thread turned as expected... I for one and the rest of my family and probably most of my comunity applaud this unbiased, interracial, fact finding jury. I give them my depest gratitude for their service and for upholding law. This case was so much larger than most really gave it credit for, not due to racial sentiments but due to the simple fact that Americans right to defend themselves was on trial itself. Our right to defend ourselves was upheld when put to the test.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Conspiracy Hypothesis (probably a theory or even fact):

FOX sways towards Z's defense.
CNN and the like, sways towards M's vindication and fanning flames of animosity.

All purposely devised. Which implies FOX is in on it. Who here want's to claim R Murdoch is a nice guy with no ulterior motives (hidden Anti-US anti-human rights agenda possibly)??

*snip*

Very valid point, and their coverage tonight reinforces it. They showed a LOT of people, including Judge Jeanine, who were fanning the flames of anger. People making the same claims they have been making, that were all dis-proven during the trial and before. They really aren't as conservative as a lot of people think, either. I trust maybe two people on there. Most, no further than I could throw them!

Originally posted by bruteforce13
reply to post by votan

 

Nope i said t he jury got it right,. BUT CAN YOU NOT ADMIT ITS POSSIBLE GEORGE ATTACKED FIRST? Thats all im asking.

edit on 14-7-2013 by bruteforce13 because: (no reason given)

the evidence does not support that.... DID TRE SHOW THAT HE WAS ATTACKED OTHER THAN BY THE GUN

I can admit it was possible that tre was the man who attacked him and that it was a different man he was following.. that is possible too but the evidence doesn't support that

BUT IT IS POSSIBLE

reply to post by votan


Yeah, your right. Whatever the jury comes back with is always right huh. Off topic, but did O.J commit murder? Or was it a free pass. Don't be so blind to the system. Shady things happen all the time in the court system. The guilty get let go all the time.