The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

What are your Initial Thoughts on the Guilt or Innocence of George Zimmerman?


  • Total voters
    84
Status
Not open for further replies.
You don't understand conservative logic. Zimmerman had a right to defend himself. Martin did not.

Martin had a right to beat the shit out of Zimmerman, but Zimmerman wasn't allowed to defend himself.

Liberal logic folks.

Who was stalking whom? Martin was being stalked by Zimmerman. Therefore, it was Martin who had good cause to fear for his life from an unknown and unidentified man in the dark. And why would Zimmerman fear for his life anyway when he was the one who had a gun?

No, in the conservative world where Bizzaro logic rules, a man with a gun can stalk someone in the dark, provoke a confrontation without identifying himself even though no crime had been reported in the area, and then kill someone and claim self-defense. And the conservative media hoists the killer on their shoulders as some kind of hero of 2nd Amendment rights.

Like I said, it's Bizzaro World logic.

Only one HUGE problem with your scenario, Mustang...the timeline doesn't add up. Martin runs away from the man who's watching him...running from the T area and ending up near the condo at which he was staying. We have that from Rachel Jenteal's testimony. That's when he calls Zimmerman a "creepy assed Cracker" while talking to Jenteal on the phone. At that point Zimmerman is being told by the Police dispatcher not to follow the suspect...to which he responds "OK". Zimmerman is now walking back to the SUV telling the Police where to meet him. He's not "stalking" anyone. He doesn't know where Trayvon Martin is.

So how does Martin get back to the T area...a full hundred and twenty yards from the condo? There's only one way that happens...and that's if Martin makes a conscious decision to retrace his steps. He's safe. He's at the condo and the "creepy assed Cracker" is more than a football field away. So explain to me how it's STILL George Zimmerman's fault that a physical confrontation takes place?
 
I would like one of you nutters to prove to me that Martin threw the first punch or initiated the confrontation. You keep saying it like it is fact. It is conjecture. Nobody saw it. Nobody witnessed the start of the confrontation.

Thanks.

It does not matter.

What matter is - was Z fearing for his life at the moment when he killed T.
The evidence presented states - yes, he was. Therefore, according to FLORIDA LAW his use of deadly weapon in self-defense was justified.

who started what and why is irrelevant.
 
Alan Dershowitz was an advisor to the defense team for the OJ trial so who gives a shit what he says.

Riiiight...We can't use past success as a measure of one's one credibility. Why what would be crazy...

:cuckoo:

Besides you're drawing from some interview on Newsmax. Strike two.

But it would okay if the interview took place on MSNBC???

Again, :cuckoo:
 
I would like one of you nutters to prove to me that Martin threw the first punch or initiated the confrontation. You keep saying it like it is fact. It is conjecture. Nobody saw it. Nobody witnessed the start of the confrontation.

Thanks.

Martin walked back to Zimmerman.

Martin approached him suddenly out of the pitch dark

Martin's words are confrontational. "You got a problem?"

Martin has Zero damage to his body other than the gun shot wound

Zimmerman's nose was struck.

Hard to see how that ISN'T Trayvon Martin's fault.
 
Regarding abstract thinking: I went to a seminar once where one of the presenters, an PhD, said that he is naturally a concrete thinker, but that through the use of multiple tools has helped himself be able to think more abstractly. I have noticed in my practice it is people who have gone to Sunday school who are the abstract thinkers. They have been taught the Christian 'parables' and what they mean. So they can apply that skill in other area.

I don't know about that as I have found conservatives in general are good at concrete, abstract, objective, and subjective thinking; however it is well known that many conservatives are also Christians so maybe Sunday school does have a bearing on it. However, I know many Christians who are passionate liberals and, though they grew up in Sunday School, still don't do well with abstract analysis and won't consider anything concrete or objective apart from how they feel about it including what is and is not politiically correct.

Example: We aren't supposed to consider any downside or long term ramifications to illegal immigration but a true Christian attitude is to understand that the people coming across the border are simply wanting a better life for themselves and their families and they are God's children too and we should accept and love them and make room for them. Discussion of the downside for the illegals is not acceptable and must be shouted down, yadda yadda.

I know many conservatives, however, who are agnostic or Atheist and didn't grow up in Bible class who are able to avoid the fuzzy feeling syndrone and see the whole big picture. For that reason I don't know if we can give Bible stories the credit. :) (But then I think I can reason abstract principles, lol.)

Anyhow, extrapolating that to this incredible Zimmerman trial, we should have known what was coming when the initial leftist media reports defined Zimmerman as a "white Hispanic." Have you EVER seen such a designation used on anybody before? Ever? That told you from the get go that he would be branded guilty and Trayvon Martin as the innocent victim of racism. There didn't have to be a shred of proof about that. In the liberal world that is the scenario that 'feels' right and therefore it must be made true.
 
Last edited:
Alan Dershowitz was an advisor to the defense team for the OJ trial so who gives a shit what he says.

Riiiight...We can't use past success as a measure of one's one credibility. Why what would be crazy...

:cuckoo:

Besides you're drawing from some interview on Newsmax. Strike two.

But it would okay if the interview took place on MSNBC???

Again, :cuckoo:

Sarass is just like a worm in hot ashes. She won't rest until she has a front row seat at Zimmerman's execution so she can smell the burning flesh.
 
In case you haven't been paying attention during this trial, Lone...it's quite obvious that George Zimmerman isn't a physical person. He's been taking a martial arts class for a year and he's so unskilled that the instructor won't let him get in the ring to spar. But you think THAT guy is out looking to start a fight in the middle of the night? My belief is that if George Zimmerman had seen Trayvon Martin coming towards him...he would have turned and run for his truck. I don't see any evidence at all that he ever wanted to confront the man he was following. I see evidence that he wanted to keep him in view until the Police arrived. If you think I'm wrong then show me all of the OTHER instances where Zimmerman called the Police as part of his Neighborhood Watch duties...and then physically confronted the person or persons he suspected!
 
You can't because it never happened! But NOW...you want me to believe that suddenly George Zimmerman transforms into a guy with brass balls. It doesn't make sense!
 
I would like one of you nutters to prove to me that Martin threw the first punch or initiated the confrontation. You keep saying it like it is fact. It is conjecture. Nobody saw it. Nobody witnessed the start of the confrontation.

Thanks.
It's proven I guess in the fight, and who was getting the worst end of the fight afterwards, in which ultimately determined who had or did get the immediate upper hand in the fight first, where as the outcome of the fight as determined by the man who felt his life was endangered all because of ended with a gun shot wound next right ? Also the condition of each individual after the fight, where as one could draw conclusions of who was the aggressor and who was the defender by the battle scars upon the bodies right? Then it is also possibly concluded in testimony by whom was winning and who was losing by the eyewitness account right? If Zimmerman would have thrown the first punch, then Martin would have had physical marks showing this upon his face, but he had none of this did he, so Zimmerman I guess according to you just beat himself up as so to implicate Martin as the aggressor in the situation ? No time for all that now was there ?
 
in your lifetime, have u ever known of an incident where two guys are in battle and the one who is the superior,{pretty much kicking the other's butt} is screaming for help?
Everyone who claimed that the person on top was screaming for help has ulterior motive; they do not seek justice!
 
in your lifetime, have u ever known of an incident where two guys are in battle and the one who is the superior,{pretty much kicking the other's butt} is screaming for help?

Not typically. :eusa_hand: Unless they're a cop and arresting the person. :eusa_shhh:

A typical fighter with honor would just focus on winning the damn thing. Trayvons mistake is he had little honor as he had to jump the Hispanic. Still it is very unlikely he was screaming.
 
I would like one of you nutters to prove to me that Martin threw the first punch or initiated the confrontation. You keep saying it like it is fact. It is conjecture. Nobody saw it. Nobody witnessed the start of the confrontation.

Thanks.

Martin walked back to Zimmerman.

Martin approached him suddenly out of the pitch dark

Martin's words are confrontational. "You got a problem?"

Martin has Zero damage to his body other than the gun shot wound

Zimmerman's nose was struck.

Hard to see how that ISN'T Trayvon Martin's fault.

Very typical for a thug like Trayvon...Zimmerman could of never reasoned with it. :eek: These thugs think that they have a right to beat on people for just walking down the street.
 
I just saw a clip of O'Mara slamming that dummy's head on the floor like 3 times really hard. I missed that one before.

The jury probably thinks he was pretty damn stupid for that one.

Osteen's grampy..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top