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.
I think you meant to say he can't find a job b/c everywhere the son of a bitch goes someone ends up dead or threatened and no employer wants to deal with that.
Liar.
Who else has died?
Fuck off liar.
LOL , this place is like debating with third graders. Care to quote where I said anyone but Trayvon died?
What's the matter idiot? Can't read?
I can read just fine, you CLEARLY implied that I was claiming someone else had died, when I did no such thing. You are a dishonest person, are you sure you aren't a liberal?
Apparently you cannot. It's right there in your own post. Come back to talk when you have found it.
zimmerman had the right to act aggressively toward martin but martin didn't have the right to act aggressively toward zimmerman?how could you spend all day with yourself then?see, i knew there would be an idiot out there that would believe the acquittal meant the jury found martin to have started the confrontation.Incorrect. Please educate yourself before commenting further.
The jury had SEVERAL choices, they could have found George guilty of 2nd degree murder, they could have found him guilty of manslaughter. They found him NOT GUILTY of all charges. Ipso facto , they found that George did NOT precipitate the events that led to the shooting, which obviously means they found that Trayvon did, meaning that obviously Trayvon was not exercising his right to self defense in the eyes of the jury.
George Zimmerman found not guilty of murder in Trayvon Martin's death - CNN.com
What you believe, think, feel, or imagine is completely irrelevant to the subject. A jury decided that Trayvon was NOT defending himself when shot by Zimmerman.
what they found was that the state couldn't make the case, that is all.
I don't waste time with mental midgets, have a good day.
see, you're proving that you don't understand logic.For the rest of the class. Its quite clear that jury didn't think the state made the case because they didn't prove that Zimmerman started the altercation, so of course that means the jury believed Martin must have started the altercation b/c it sure didn't just spontaneously happen.
if i don't prove 'A' that doesn't mean that 'not A' is true, it just means that 'not A' is possible.
it's possible that martin started the altercation. it's possible that zimmerman did. the state failed to prove that zimmerman was the aggressor, but that doesn't mean that anyone proved the aggressor one way or another.
i will say though that we know without a doubt that zimmerman acted aggressively by following martin.
Zimmerman had the right to do so, Martin had no right to assault him.
again, we don't know who assaulted whom.
Zimmerman...the man who said that his head was getting bashed in and pics from that night show a few cuts but no bruising or swelling? The man who swore he was in the fight of his life but looked like someone's kitten got a little rough with him with their little kitten claws?Which brought doubt.....which is all that is needed to find someone not guilty.And the only person's word we have that that is what happened is cashing in as we speak.....the other one is dead.how could you spend all day with yourself then?
see, you're proving that you don't understand logic.
if i don't prove 'A' that doesn't mean that 'not A' is true, it just means that 'not A' is possible.
it's possible that martin started the altercation. it's possible that zimmerman did. the state failed to prove that zimmerman was the aggressor, but that doesn't mean that anyone proved the aggressor one way or another.
i will say though that we know without a doubt that zimmerman acted aggressively by following martin.
Zimmerman had the right to do so, Martin had no right to assault him.
His word plus the forensic evidence, plus the witnesses, but aside from that you are right.
You fucking idiot.
Are you going to assert that all who are found not guilty by juries are INDEED innocent of the charges against them in reality?
No moron, it all corroborated Zimmermans account of the events.
You idiot lefties have trouble reading and remembering even the things YOU said. Let me help you this one time. You said that "all we have is the word of Zimmerman" and I proved you wrong. Now you want to take that in a different direction. Forget it. You are way too stupid for me to spend any more effort on.
Trayvon Martin was even more unlucky.No, but it does mean people with a life accept the verdict and move on with said life.
That being said, I'll say this, I believe George should have been culpable at some level and wasn't for one reason. Juries are getting tired of what they see to be overzealous prosecutions and are using the only tool they have to reject such. Acquittals. Sometimes even in cases where there is SOME level of culpability, juries are saying "fuck this, these prosecutors need to start going after REAL criminals"
GZ reasonably could have been charged with second degree manslaughter or excessive use of force, but the jury was not givne those options, were they?
Personally, I dont see GZ as guilty of a god damned thing other than being an unlucky bastard.
Liar.
Who else has died?
Fuck off liar.
LOL , this place is like debating with third graders. Care to quote where I said anyone but Trayvon died?
What's the matter idiot? Can't read?
I can read just fine, you CLEARLY implied that I was claiming someone else had died, when I did no such thing. You are a dishonest person, are you sure you aren't a liberal?
Apparently you cannot. It's right there in your own post. Come back to talk when you have found it.
If me saying "someone besides Trayvon has died when George was around" was right in my own post, you could quote it. Simple as that. you can't , because it isn't there.
This forum should start a Hello Kttty sub forum and relegate you children to it.
There is more evidence than that. Either you don't know the facts or you're ignoring them.there is proof that at one point martin had the upper hand, that is all.Where is your proof that he had to defend himself again Zimmerman? There is plenty of physical evidence that points to the opposite, hence the "not guilty" verdict.weird that you somehow think martin was the 'murderous thug' and yet he was the one that ended up dead.Excellent! An innocent man who defended himself from a murderous thug had his life destroyed because of it, now he gets some justice. He deserves it.
let me ask you, why is martin a thug when he was just defending himself from the creepy stalker?
put another way, how would you feel if martin had killed zimmerman instead?
Sorry, but you are either misinformed or are lying there. And what witnesses are you talking about?zimmerman had the right to act aggressively toward martin but martin didn't have the right to act aggressively toward zimmerman?how could you spend all day with yourself then?see, i knew there would be an idiot out there that would believe the acquittal meant the jury found martin to have started the confrontation.
what they found was that the state couldn't make the case, that is all.
I don't waste time with mental midgets, have a good day.
see, you're proving that you don't understand logic.For the rest of the class. Its quite clear that jury didn't think the state made the case because they didn't prove that Zimmerman started the altercation, so of course that means the jury believed Martin must have started the altercation b/c it sure didn't just spontaneously happen.
if i don't prove 'A' that doesn't mean that 'not A' is true, it just means that 'not A' is possible.
it's possible that martin started the altercation. it's possible that zimmerman did. the state failed to prove that zimmerman was the aggressor, but that doesn't mean that anyone proved the aggressor one way or another.
i will say though that we know without a doubt that zimmerman acted aggressively by following martin.
Zimmerman had the right to do so, Martin had no right to assault him.
again, we don't know who assaulted whom.
Yes we do. There is no doubt that Martin assaulted GZ. That is what the witnesses and the forensic evidence shows. End of story. This has all been settled in court by professionals and those who know more of the facts than you do. All your bull shit changes nothing. But you are a leftist and you will lie cheat and steal rather than admit that you are wrong.
You have lost and I will waste no more time with your stupidity. Dismissed.
Zimmerman...the man who said that his head was getting bashed in and pics from that night show a few cuts but no bruising or swelling? The man who swore he was in the fight of his life but looked like someone's kitten got a little rough with him with their little kitten claws?Which brought doubt.....which is all that is needed to find someone not guilty.And the only person's word we have that that is what happened is cashing in as we speak.....the other one is dead.Zimmerman had the right to do so, Martin had no right to assault him.
His word plus the forensic evidence, plus the witnesses, but aside from that you are right.
You fucking idiot.
Are you going to assert that all who are found not guilty by juries are INDEED innocent of the charges against them in reality?
No moron, it all corroborated Zimmermans account of the events.
You idiot lefties have trouble reading and remembering even the things YOU said. Let me help you this one time. You said that "all we have is the word of Zimmerman" and I proved you wrong. Now you want to take that in a different direction. Forget it. You are way too stupid for me to spend any more effort on.
His "account of events"?
you just keep lying. what is it about the truth that scares you so much?zimmerman had the right to act aggressively toward martin but martin didn't have the right to act aggressively toward zimmerman?how could you spend all day with yourself then?see, i knew there would be an idiot out there that would believe the acquittal meant the jury found martin to have started the confrontation.
what they found was that the state couldn't make the case, that is all.
I don't waste time with mental midgets, have a good day.
see, you're proving that you don't understand logic.For the rest of the class. Its quite clear that jury didn't think the state made the case because they didn't prove that Zimmerman started the altercation, so of course that means the jury believed Martin must have started the altercation b/c it sure didn't just spontaneously happen.
if i don't prove 'A' that doesn't mean that 'not A' is true, it just means that 'not A' is possible.
it's possible that martin started the altercation. it's possible that zimmerman did. the state failed to prove that zimmerman was the aggressor, but that doesn't mean that anyone proved the aggressor one way or another.
i will say though that we know without a doubt that zimmerman acted aggressively by following martin.
Zimmerman had the right to do so, Martin had no right to assault him.
again, we don't know who assaulted whom.
Yes we do. There is no doubt that Martin assaulted GZ. That is what the witnesses and the forensic evidence shows.
No, but it does mean people with a life accept the verdict and move on with said life.
That being said, I'll say this, I believe George should have been culpable at some level and wasn't for one reason. Juries are getting tired of what they see to be overzealous prosecutions and are using the only tool they have to reject such. Acquittals. Sometimes even in cases where there is SOME level of culpability, juries are saying "fuck this, these prosecutors need to start going after REAL criminals"
GZ reasonably could have been charged with second degree manslaughter or excessive use of force, but the jury was not givne those options, were they?
Personally, I dont see GZ as guilty of a god damned thing other than being an unlucky bastard.
there is no evidence that shows martin attacked zimmerman. no witnesses, no evidence. none.There is more evidence than that. Either you don't know the facts or you're ignoring them.there is proof that at one point martin had the upper hand, that is all.Where is your proof that he had to defend himself again Zimmerman? There is plenty of physical evidence that points to the opposite, hence the "not guilty" verdict.weird that you somehow think martin was the 'murderous thug' and yet he was the one that ended up dead.Excellent! An innocent man who defended himself from a murderous thug had his life destroyed because of it, now he gets some justice. He deserves it.
let me ask you, why is martin a thug when he was just defending himself from the creepy stalker?
put another way, how would you feel if martin had killed zimmerman instead?
which he absolutely did. aggravated stalking might not be out of line either.No, but it does mean people with a life accept the verdict and move on with said life.
That being said, I'll say this, I believe George should have been culpable at some level and wasn't for one reason. Juries are getting tired of what they see to be overzealous prosecutions and are using the only tool they have to reject such. Acquittals. Sometimes even in cases where there is SOME level of culpability, juries are saying "fuck this, these prosecutors need to start going after REAL criminals"
GZ reasonably could have been charged with second degree manslaughter or excessive use of force, but the jury was not givne those options, were they?
Personally, I dont see GZ as guilty of a god damned thing other than being an unlucky bastard.
Oh, of the options presented to the jury, you're damned right he wasn't guilty. If I were the prosecutor, I would have charged him with stalking. A first degree misdemeanor under Florida law.
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
Six months in jail would not have been out of line for George's part in causing an incident that need not to have happened.
There is more evidence than that. Either you don't know the facts or you're ignoring them.there is proof that at one point martin had the upper hand, that is all.Where is your proof that he had to defend himself again Zimmerman? There is plenty of physical evidence that points to the opposite, hence the "not guilty" verdict.weird that you somehow think martin was the 'murderous thug' and yet he was the one that ended up dead.Excellent! An innocent man who defended himself from a murderous thug had his life destroyed because of it, now he gets some justice. He deserves it.
let me ask you, why is martin a thug when he was just defending himself from the creepy stalker?
put another way, how would you feel if martin had killed zimmerman instead?
and you think that proves what?
which he absolutely did. aggravated stalking might not be out of line either.No, but it does mean people with a life accept the verdict and move on with said life.
That being said, I'll say this, I believe George should have been culpable at some level and wasn't for one reason. Juries are getting tired of what they see to be overzealous prosecutions and are using the only tool they have to reject such. Acquittals. Sometimes even in cases where there is SOME level of culpability, juries are saying "fuck this, these prosecutors need to start going after REAL criminals"
GZ reasonably could have been charged with second degree manslaughter or excessive use of force, but the jury was not givne those options, were they?
Personally, I dont see GZ as guilty of a god damned thing other than being an unlucky bastard.
Oh, of the options presented to the jury, you're damned right he wasn't guilty. If I were the prosecutor, I would have charged him with stalking. A first degree misdemeanor under Florida law.
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
Six months in jail would not have been out of line for George's part in causing an incident that need not to have happened.
Follow along and you would know dumbassand you think that proves what?
but but libs said that didnt happen....
That's evidence that he got his ass kicked. Doesn't show who started anything.
