Free george zimmerman

[Snookie]

The arrogance of the Zimmerman posters is astounding.

There is a thing such as over confidence,

They all live in la la land; they really do. Remember, these are the people who believe in Rush Limbaugh and his ilk. These are the people who believe if you say something often enough, it becomes truth. They say over and over again how Obama needs to be impeached, how he is a complete failure and they believe if they say it often enough, it becomes truth. They say over and over again how the liberals control and ruin public education, and they believe if it is said often enough, that becomes truth. Now they are telling themselves over and over that Zimmerman is going to go free. If they say it often enough, in their minds, it will become truth. It's funny. None of the shit they say over and over again ever does become truth, and most likely this won't either.

the latest fad among right wingers is to act like they are not racist and call their opponents racist.

They are sophists.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The arrogance of the Zimmerman posters is astounding.

There is a thing such as over confidence,

They all live in la la land; they really do. Remember, these are the people who believe in Rush Limbaugh and his ilk. These are the people who believe if you say something often enough, it becomes truth. They say over and over again how Obama needs to be impeached, how he is a complete failure and they believe if they say it often enough, it becomes truth. They say over and over again how the liberals control and ruin public education, and they believe if it is said often enough, that becomes truth. Now they are telling themselves over and over that Zimmerman is going to go free. If they say it often enough, in their minds, it will become truth. It's funny. None of the shit they say over and over again ever does become truth, and most likely this won't either.

the latest fad among right wingers is to act like they are not racist and call their opponents racist.

They are sophists.

lol, yeah, right like libtards that use presumptions of negative black stereotypes to denounce law and order politicians as anti-black (implying most criminals are black) and other condescending views of blacks is not proof enough of who the racists are (same as the old racists).

Libtards are a bunch of bleeding hypocrits, liars and frauds.

I am not a Rush fan and I disagree with him on most economic issues, for example.

The GZ trial has NOTHING TO DO WITH RACE except for a bunch of race-baiting bigoted libtards like you.

 

[Snookie]

Denier is denying,^

 

[Zona]

What?

Zimmerman is as "white" as I am.

We are both ethically diverse. As in my father was Hispanic and my mother had a Euro background.

Same with Zimmerman. Except that his father had a Euro background and his mother was Hispanic.

Doesn't make him..or me any less "white".

s0n....nobody cares what you think. There is a reason for the phrase, "reality is 95% perception!"

A majority of the black community THINK Zimmerman is white.


Like I said s0n......your level of naïve can get your ass capped, especially living in the city. When this verdict goes down, proceed with extreme caution because we will see war zones.

sOn you ain't in the same class as me..at all.

You should proceed with caution when dealing with your betters.

sOn.

[MENTION=20360]skookerasbil[/MENTION], just stop. You really look like a fool here. S0n

 

[Gadawg73]

The arrogance of the Zimmerman posters is astounding.

There is a thing such as over confidence,

Let me appeal to your reason and common sense.
There is a false belief here that a criminal trial is about the prosecution calling their witnesses and everyone of their witnesses is called because they believe George Zimmerman is guilty of the charge and they are there in support of the prosecution.
As indicated by most all of the prosecution's witnesses that assumption is false.
For example: the DNA forensic examiner.
This witness ONLY testifies as to what he finds on things. Nothing more, nothing less. He is NOT on the side of anyone as his work is SCIENCE, not guilt or innocence. So you are on the jury in this trial. You KNOW that this is NOT a who done it murder case like the OJ case where DNA ALSO was introduced as evidence, one of the first big trials where it was, so what is your take on what the jury will give weight to DNA evidence where IT IS NOT IN QUESTION who killed who? Accordingly, the interest level and relevance associated with it is lowered by the fact that the killer is not unknown and DNA evidence is going to prove who did it is not a factor. Knowing that the defense correctly probes into the DNA of the fingernails of Martin. Why would they do that when THEY ALREADY KNOW that Zimmerman's DNA IS NOT THERE? The lay person, and respectfully as I mean in no way to demean you in any way, would believe that lack of DNA under the fingernail would make the defense counsel to avoid any questioning on that as that potentially hurts his client.
That is the furthest thing from the truth and in fact the defense runs with that. Here's how:
The fact that there was no DNA of Zimmerman under Martin's fingernails will be argued that is because possibly Martin had a closed fist and the only contact he had with Zimmerman was with a closed fist. Remember, that ALSO can be argued as circumstantial evidence. Trayvon Martin had no DNA under his fingernails is proof that his fists were closed when he attacked Zimmerman. I am not claiming that is what happened but keep in mind ALL OF THE PROSECUTION'S claims are of the same nature. All circumstantial and the lack of DNA from Zimmerman on Martin's fingernails is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE also.
So guess who always wins out in a draw like that? The defense as that is the jury charge from the Judge.
Additionally, How long was that guy up? How far did the defense take him away from the what ifs of the prosecution's claims to the what ifs of the defense's claims and how does a jury differentiate between the what ifs of those 2 when they have a forensic DNA examiner that is as personable as a sheet rock wall?
Nothing about over confidence involved in this. It is what it is.
And this is not and has never been a murder case evidenced by all of the witnesses called so far. Again, nothing about being "overconfident" as THIS IS NOT A GAME.
Nothing the prosecution has offered so far has any evidence of murder. Nothing.
I would not be surprised if the Judge gave a directed verdict of acquittal when the defense asks for one.

 

[Unkotare]

sOn you ain't in the same class as me..at all.

You should proceed with caution when dealing with your betters.

sOn.

Swallow trying to play tough! Too funny.

 

[Gadawg73]

The arrogance of the Zimmerman posters is astounding.

There is a thing such as over confidence,

They all live in la la land; they really do. Remember, these are the people who believe in Rush Limbaugh and his ilk. These are the people who believe if you say something often enough, it becomes truth. They say over and over again how Obama needs to be impeached, how he is a complete failure and they believe if they say it often enough, it becomes truth. They say over and over again how the liberals control and ruin public education, and they believe if it is said often enough, that becomes truth. Now they are telling themselves over and over that Zimmerman is going to go free. If they say it often enough, in their minds, it will become truth. It's funny. None of the shit they say over and over again ever does become truth, and most likely this won't either.

This has nothing to do with Limbaugh or Obama.
Nothing you state has any relevance to the trial going on now.
Watch it and get back to us.

 

[Snookie]

The arrogance of the Zimmerman posters is astounding.

There is a thing such as over confidence,

Let me appeal to your reason and common sense.
There is a false belief here that a criminal trial is about the prosecution calling their witnesses and everyone of their witnesses is called because they believe George Zimmerman is guilty of the charge and they are there in support of the prosecution.
As indicated by most all of the prosecution's witnesses that assumption is false.
For example: the DNA forensic examiner.
This witness ONLY testifies as to what he finds on things. Nothing more, nothing less. He is NOT on the side of anyone as his work is SCIENCE, not guilt or innocence. So you are on the jury in this trial. You KNOW that this is NOT a who done it murder case like the OJ case where DNA ALSO was introduced as evidence, one of the first big trials where it was, so what is your take on what the jury will give weight to DNA evidence where IT IS NOT IN QUESTION who killed who? Accordingly, the interest level and relevance associated with it is lowered by the fact that the killer is not unknown and DNA evidence is going to prove who did it is not a factor. Knowing that the defense correctly probes into the DNA of the fingernails of Martin. Why would they do that when THEY ALREADY KNOW that Zimmerman's DNA IS NOT THERE? The lay person, and respectfully as I mean in no way to demean you in any way, would believe that lack of DNA under the fingernail would make the defense counsel to avoid any questioning on that as that potentially hurts his client.
That is the furthest thing from the truth and in fact the defense runs with that. Here's how:
The fact that there was no DNA of Zimmerman under Martin's fingernails will be argued that is because possibly Martin had a closed fist and the only contact he had with Zimmerman was with a closed fist. Remember, that ALSO can be argued as circumstantial evidence. Trayvon Martin had no DNA under his fingernails is proof that his fists were closed when he attacked Zimmerman. I am not claiming that is what happened but keep in mind ALL OF THE PROSECUTION'S claims are of the same nature. All circumstantial and the lack of DNA from Zimmerman on Martin's fingernails is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE also.
So guess who always wins out in a draw like that? The defense as that is the jury charge from the Judge.
Additionally, How long was that guy up? How far did the defense take him away from the what ifs of the prosecution's claims to the what ifs of the defense's claims and how does a jury differentiate between the what ifs of those 2 when they have a forensic DNA examiner that is as personable as a sheet rock wall?
Nothing about over confidence involved in this. It is what it is.
And this is not and has never been a murder case evidenced by all of the witnesses called so far. Again, nothing about being "overconfident" as THIS IS NOT A GAME.
Nothing the prosecution has offered so far has any evidence of murder. Nothing.
I would not be surprised if the Judge gave a directed verdict of acquittal when the defense asks for one.

In your dreams.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The arrogance of the Zimmerman posters is astounding.

There is a thing such as over confidence,

Let me appeal to your reason and common sense.
There is a false belief here that a criminal trial is about the prosecution calling their witnesses and everyone of their witnesses is called because they believe George Zimmerman is guilty of the charge and they are there in support of the prosecution.
As indicated by most all of the prosecution's witnesses that assumption is false.
For example: the DNA forensic examiner.
This witness ONLY testifies as to what he finds on things. Nothing more, nothing less. He is NOT on the side of anyone as his work is SCIENCE, not guilt or innocence. So you are on the jury in this trial. You KNOW that this is NOT a who done it murder case like the OJ case where DNA ALSO was introduced as evidence, one of the first big trials where it was, so what is your take on what the jury will give weight to DNA evidence where IT IS NOT IN QUESTION who killed who? Accordingly, the interest level and relevance associated with it is lowered by the fact that the killer is not unknown and DNA evidence is going to prove who did it is not a factor. Knowing that the defense correctly probes into the DNA of the fingernails of Martin. Why would they do that when THEY ALREADY KNOW that Zimmerman's DNA IS NOT THERE? The lay person, and respectfully as I mean in no way to demean you in any way, would believe that lack of DNA under the fingernail would make the defense counsel to avoid any questioning on that as that potentially hurts his client.
That is the furthest thing from the truth and in fact the defense runs with that. Here's how:
The fact that there was no DNA of Zimmerman under Martin's fingernails will be argued that is because possibly Martin had a closed fist and the only contact he had with Zimmerman was with a closed fist. Remember, that ALSO can be argued as circumstantial evidence. Trayvon Martin had no DNA under his fingernails is proof that his fists were closed when he attacked Zimmerman. I am not claiming that is what happened but keep in mind ALL OF THE PROSECUTION'S claims are of the same nature. All circumstantial and the lack of DNA from Zimmerman on Martin's fingernails is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE also.
So guess who always wins out in a draw like that? The defense as that is the jury charge from the Judge.
Additionally, How long was that guy up? How far did the defense take him away from the what ifs of the prosecution's claims to the what ifs of the defense's claims and how does a jury differentiate between the what ifs of those 2 when they have a forensic DNA examiner that is as personable as a sheet rock wall?
Nothing about over confidence involved in this. It is what it is.
And this is not and has never been a murder case evidenced by all of the witnesses called so far. Again, nothing about being "overconfident" as THIS IS NOT A GAME.
Nothing the prosecution has offered so far has any evidence of murder. Nothing.
I would not be surprised if the Judge gave a directed verdict of acquittal when the defense asks for one.

In your dreams.

Again, you are a fucking idiot. The evidence presented in this trial is so lacking some libtard commentators are urging the prosecution to introduce new lesser charges for the jury to consider.

But facts don't matter to closed minded white-hating racists like you, so go fuck yourself.

 

[Gadawg73]

The arrogance of the Zimmerman posters is astounding.

There is a thing such as over confidence,

Let me appeal to your reason and common sense.
There is a false belief here that a criminal trial is about the prosecution calling their witnesses and everyone of their witnesses is called because they believe George Zimmerman is guilty of the charge and they are there in support of the prosecution.
As indicated by most all of the prosecution's witnesses that assumption is false.
For example: the DNA forensic examiner.
This witness ONLY testifies as to what he finds on things. Nothing more, nothing less. He is NOT on the side of anyone as his work is SCIENCE, not guilt or innocence. So you are on the jury in this trial. You KNOW that this is NOT a who done it murder case like the OJ case where DNA ALSO was introduced as evidence, one of the first big trials where it was, so what is your take on what the jury will give weight to DNA evidence where IT IS NOT IN QUESTION who killed who? Accordingly, the interest level and relevance associated with it is lowered by the fact that the killer is not unknown and DNA evidence is going to prove who did it is not a factor. Knowing that the defense correctly probes into the DNA of the fingernails of Martin. Why would they do that when THEY ALREADY KNOW that Zimmerman's DNA IS NOT THERE? The lay person, and respectfully as I mean in no way to demean you in any way, would believe that lack of DNA under the fingernail would make the defense counsel to avoid any questioning on that as that potentially hurts his client.
That is the furthest thing from the truth and in fact the defense runs with that. Here's how:
The fact that there was no DNA of Zimmerman under Martin's fingernails will be argued that is because possibly Martin had a closed fist and the only contact he had with Zimmerman was with a closed fist. Remember, that ALSO can be argued as circumstantial evidence. Trayvon Martin had no DNA under his fingernails is proof that his fists were closed when he attacked Zimmerman. I am not claiming that is what happened but keep in mind ALL OF THE PROSECUTION'S claims are of the same nature. All circumstantial and the lack of DNA from Zimmerman on Martin's fingernails is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE also.
So guess who always wins out in a draw like that? The defense as that is the jury charge from the Judge.
Additionally, How long was that guy up? How far did the defense take him away from the what ifs of the prosecution's claims to the what ifs of the defense's claims and how does a jury differentiate between the what ifs of those 2 when they have a forensic DNA examiner that is as personable as a sheet rock wall?
Nothing about over confidence involved in this. It is what it is.
And this is not and has never been a murder case evidenced by all of the witnesses called so far. Again, nothing about being "overconfident" as THIS IS NOT A GAME.
Nothing the prosecution has offered so far has any evidence of murder. Nothing.
I would not be surprised if the Judge gave a directed verdict of acquittal when the defense asks for one.

In your dreams.

You are the one that dreams for a conviction.
I support the jury verdict no matter what it is.
All I do is school you on the facts.

 

[Snookie]

Let me appeal to your reason and common sense.
There is a false belief here that a criminal trial is about the prosecution calling their witnesses and everyone of their witnesses is called because they believe George Zimmerman is guilty of the charge and they are there in support of the prosecution.
As indicated by most all of the prosecution's witnesses that assumption is false.
For example: the DNA forensic examiner.
This witness ONLY testifies as to what he finds on things. Nothing more, nothing less. He is NOT on the side of anyone as his work is SCIENCE, not guilt or innocence. So you are on the jury in this trial. You KNOW that this is NOT a who done it murder case like the OJ case where DNA ALSO was introduced as evidence, one of the first big trials where it was, so what is your take on what the jury will give weight to DNA evidence where IT IS NOT IN QUESTION who killed who? Accordingly, the interest level and relevance associated with it is lowered by the fact that the killer is not unknown and DNA evidence is going to prove who did it is not a factor. Knowing that the defense correctly probes into the DNA of the fingernails of Martin. Why would they do that when THEY ALREADY KNOW that Zimmerman's DNA IS NOT THERE? The lay person, and respectfully as I mean in no way to demean you in any way, would believe that lack of DNA under the fingernail would make the defense counsel to avoid any questioning on that as that potentially hurts his client.
That is the furthest thing from the truth and in fact the defense runs with that. Here's how:
The fact that there was no DNA of Zimmerman under Martin's fingernails will be argued that is because possibly Martin had a closed fist and the only contact he had with Zimmerman was with a closed fist. Remember, that ALSO can be argued as circumstantial evidence. Trayvon Martin had no DNA under his fingernails is proof that his fists were closed when he attacked Zimmerman. I am not claiming that is what happened but keep in mind ALL OF THE PROSECUTION'S claims are of the same nature. All circumstantial and the lack of DNA from Zimmerman on Martin's fingernails is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE also.
So guess who always wins out in a draw like that? The defense as that is the jury charge from the Judge.
Additionally, How long was that guy up? How far did the defense take him away from the what ifs of the prosecution's claims to the what ifs of the defense's claims and how does a jury differentiate between the what ifs of those 2 when they have a forensic DNA examiner that is as personable as a sheet rock wall?
Nothing about over confidence involved in this. It is what it is.
And this is not and has never been a murder case evidenced by all of the witnesses called so far. Again, nothing about being "overconfident" as THIS IS NOT A GAME.
Nothing the prosecution has offered so far has any evidence of murder. Nothing.
I would not be surprised if the Judge gave a directed verdict of acquittal when the defense asks for one.

In your dreams.

Again, you are a fucking idiot. The evidence presented in this trial is so lacking some libtard commentators are urging the prosecution to introduce new lesser charges for the jury to consider.

But facts don't matter to closed minded white-hating racists like you, so go fuck yourself.

Look at yourself. Look at the insults.

It's what I expect from a reactionary right winger.

Is your gun loaded when you masturbate?

 

[skookerasbil]

Don't worry....he'll be free sooner or later. At absolute worst, he'll be a free man in a handful of years, but more likely, he walks.

Watching the PC whores roll out their fantasy theories is hysterical.

 

[Snookie]

Don't worry....he'll be free sooner or later. At absolute worst, he'll be a free man in a handful of years, but more likely, he walks.

Watching the PC whores roll out their fantasy theories is hysterical.

Whatever. This will be Georgie no matter what.

 

[Gadawg73]

So if Zimmerman is found guilty of murder how many years should he get?
For manslaughter how many?
And for you sadists that believed Zimmerman was guilty when they told you he was in the 6th grade, 130 lbs, was chased down by Zimmerman and shot when Zimmerman was ordered and commanded to stand down, should Zimmerman hang, get lethal injection or buried in ground with concrete and honey poured over his head near a fire ant mound?

 

[Gadawg73]

Don't worry....he'll be free sooner or later. At absolute worst, he'll be a free man in a handful of years, but more likely, he walks.

Watching the PC whores roll out their fantasy theories is hysterical.

Whatever. This will be Georgie no matter what.

You are sick and need mental health counseling.

 

[Snookie]

Don't worry....he'll be free sooner or later. At absolute worst, he'll be a free man in a handful of years, but more likely, he walks.

Watching the PC whores roll out their fantasy theories is hysterical.

Whatever. This will be Georgie no matter what.

You are sick and need mental health counseling.

It's reality.

This trial has stirred up so much hate that there are probably dying to ice the Z man.

Don't shoot me cause I am only the prophet.

 

[Noomi]

Even if George is found innocent, it will be witness protection for him, for the rest of his pathetic life. If he wants to risk it, his days will be numbered. Don't take that to mean that I will personally take care of the guy, but others might well get that idea.
For his own protection, he will have to either enter the WPP, or leave the country and change his name.

 

[skookerasbil]

sOn you ain't in the same class as me..at all.

You should proceed with caution when dealing with your betters.

sOn.

Swallow trying to play tough! Too funny.

 

[skookerasbil]

The PC whores and racist assholes are going to see plenty of these guys when that verdict comes down........

 

[Indofred]

Trayvon Martin made the choice to go back and teach the "Crazy Cracker Ass" a lesson for following him..That's where he made his fatal mistake. Am I the only one who seen the big gash on the back of this man's head? He sure did not do that to himself. Why is everybody trying this case in the media in an attempt to get this man locked up or even worse without a trial? Sounds like Trayvon was just being cockey and showing off because he had his Crazy, fresh mouthed, wise assed, girlfriend on his cell phone. We all have the right to defend ourselves and this is clearly a case about that.
George Zimmerman was clearly defending himself. It's my feeling that Trayvon pursued George and George had no choice. Trayvon was not the pure and the little "13 year old" angel his family and their mouthpieces want to lead us to believe!!

I have to be honest.
I think the kid was probably a right little bastard but that doesn't excuse a big guy shooting him dead.
The trial and verdict should be respected; not spouted on about on internet forums in some stupid attempt to justify gun owners killing kids.