Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
IlarMeily said:And of course I do know who initiated the physical altercation.
Beyond ANY doubt it WAS TM, you idiot.
Physical evidence confirms it.
The non gun shot wound injuries were entirely on the VICTIM of the assault, Mr. Zimmerman.
The physical evidence does not confirm anything.
I would not expect an imbecile like you to understand.
Your foul mouth is the only weapon you have so any attempt at serious debate is useless. THE IGNORE
feature is a blessing...have fun!
Sarah, it doesn't matter if he voted or not.
To you, Zimmerman, a registered 'D', is a murderer and in the same breath you claim that 'R's are murderers also.
WTF Sarah?? Seriously????
Rs are the ones most interested in guns and vigilantism so actions speak louder than words.
Can't prove it by this case.
So by this case actions DO speak louder than words.
Zimmerman, the Democrat, is a murderer by your standards, yet you justify his political affiliation with "Doubt he even voted."
Rs are the ones most interested in guns and vigilantism so actions speak louder than words.
According to your post...who put the $10k bounty on Zimmerman's head, "Wanted Dead or Alive"?
Who tweeted Zimmerman's address and called for vigilante 'justice'?
Who tweeted Zimmerman's parent's address?
Fox News--Frank Taafe?
it is 5 to 1--in favor of acquittal. The 1 is reviewing the manslaughter instructions.
Just heard Zimmerman's neighbor say 5 of the jurists have agreed on an acquittal and the one holdout wants to consider manslaughter.
Yes, I would be.
That doesn't constitute self defense, though.
If he shot the kid in anger, that's manslaughter.
Well then, we all know how you would react if someone killed you with one punch. You would be dead.
Fairly unlikely, I have a pretty hard head. I can take a punch pretty well.
But that isn't the point here.
The point here is, if Zimmerman shot Trayvon because he was angry, that's manslaughter.
And that kind of sounds like where the jury is leaning.
It's looking more like they are leaning towards Manslaughter as a comprimise verdict.
BASED ON WHAT? How would you feel if someone started slamming your head against the ground???
Matt, not going to rehash the evidence for the 500th time, it's tiresome.
Just saying that the Jury asking for this clarification does not look good for Zimmerman.
Well then, we all know how you would react if someone killed you with one punch. You would be dead.
Fairly unlikely, I have a pretty hard head. I can take a punch pretty well.
But that isn't the point here.
The point here is, if Zimmerman shot Trayvon because he was angry, that's manslaughter.
And that kind of sounds like where the jury is leaning.
it's not your bone which will kill you. it is something INSIDE your head. the bone might still be OK
Z shot T in self-defense and he was not angry, he was terrified
political pressure--still surprised that the POTUS said what he said.
It's known as free speech.
WHAT!
He is Zimmerman's president too.
He has a responsibility as POTUS to all citizens.
He had ZERO brains or right to jump in on a witch hunt especially prior to any facts or investigation been done (and closed as BULLSHIT and unfounded) even still without that, he had zero right to lay sides to something like that. I hold him accountable for helping incite what went down last year. He was dead. wrong.
If I distasted him before that, I despised him after that.
It's known as free speech.
WHAT!
He is Zimmerman's president too.
He has a responsibility as POTUS to all citizens.
He had ZERO brains or right to jump in on a witch hunt especially prior to any facts or investigation been done (and closed as BULLSHIT and unfounded) even still without that, he had zero right to lay sides to something like that. I hold him accountable for helping incite what went down last year. He was dead. wrong.
If I distasted him before that, I despised him after that.
Obama is living proof that Harvard sells mail order degrees.
Ok I feel real stupid. I need some translation please. I can't read what is written in the last few posts.
Fox News--Frank Taafe?
it is 5 to 1--in favor of acquittal. The 1 is reviewing the manslaughter instructions.
I have no idea where he gets his "news."
Bu if his "sources" are accurate, good.
Full acquittal.
It's what's for JUSTICE!
Fox News--Frank Taafe?
it is 5 to 1--in favor of acquittal. The 1 is reviewing the manslaughter instructions.
Well then, we all know how you would react if someone killed you with one punch. You would be dead.
Fairly unlikely, I have a pretty hard head. I can take a punch pretty well.
But that isn't the point here.
The point here is, if Zimmerman shot Trayvon because he was angry, that's manslaughter.
And that kind of sounds like where the jury is leaning.
That's exactly what I am thinking.
Fox News--Frank Taafe?
it is 5 to 1--in favor of acquittal. The 1 is reviewing the manslaughter instructions.
And you believe this? How would Frank Taffe know, he isn't even a lawyer but obviously racist. His opinion is that the Black woman is against allowing Georgie to walk free.
Did you think he was serious?
Well then, we all know how you would react if someone killed you with one punch. You would be dead.
Fairly unlikely, I have a pretty hard head. I can take a punch pretty well.
But that isn't the point here.
The point here is, if Zimmerman shot Trayvon because he was angry, that's manslaughter.
And that kind of sounds like where the jury is leaning.
First of all, I know you lack a proper knowledge in human anatomy. You have two areas on the side of your skull, called the temple. The term is derived for the muscle and the bone underneath, the temporal bone and the temporalis muscle. One of two things can occur, if something sharp hits that area, it can penetrate the skin, muscle and bone to cause fatal brain damage. If something blunt hits you, like a human fist, you can cause bone to fracture into and lodge itself in the brain. You can literally drive that area of the skull into the person's brain just by punching. I know, because I have studied comparative anatomy since 2008.
[
That's where your wrong firstly.
Secondly, Zimmerman never exhibited anger during the fight. And instead of anger, it was frustration over a rash of burglaries which drove him to say "fucking punks" or "these assholes always get away." He shot him out of fear. You generalize too much.
Fairly unlikely, I have a pretty hard head. I can take a punch pretty well.
But that isn't the point here.
The point here is, if Zimmerman shot Trayvon because he was angry, that's manslaughter.
And that kind of sounds like where the jury is leaning.
it's not your bone which will kill you. it is something INSIDE your head. the bone might still be OK
Z shot T in self-defense and he was not angry, he was terrified
If Zimmerman was terrified, he would have never gotten out of the truck.
Did anyone catch what A$$ and Stamina worked out for jury question?
After some back-and-forth, and shortly before the judge announced that the jury had ordered dinner, prosecutors and defense lawyers agreed to a response to the jury's question -- basically asking for more detail. "The court cannot engage in general discussions but may be able to address a specific question regarding clarification of the instructions regarding manslaughter," their joint response to the jury says. "If you have a specific question, please submit it."
BASED ON WHAT? How would you feel if someone started slamming your head against the ground???
Matt, not going to rehash the evidence for the 500th time, it's tiresome.
Just saying that the Jury asking for this clarification does not look good for Zimmerman.
The jury is instructed to go in the order of the charges. By asking for clarification on manslaughter it shows that they have ruled out murder 2. The self-defense claim is being applied to that as well. I think if you can read the jury that well you are in the wrong career. My belief is that they are asking what the charge means by causing the events to occur. Once they are told that following is not against the law, then self-defense applies to the altercation.
