Zimmerman

[Meathead]

"Also on Monday, authorities confirmed to the Associated Press that Martin did not have a juvenile offender record"
http://m.cbsnews.com/storysynopsis....4732&feed_id=999&videofeed=999&nb_splitPage=0

You've got to be kidding. This link from March proves that a thug has no criminal record?!

I don't think he has developed a criminal record since then.... You know Since he died in February.
I am kind of confused as to why the link being from March disproves that the authorities said he had no criminal record.

Sorry, the below proves that Martin had no criminal record or did not attack Zimmerman?! Regardless, beyond reasonable doubt cannot be assumed unless there is a jury of hacks like yourself or one that found Simpson not guilty. The impartiality and intellect is practically the same.

Marc Booker, of Sanford, leads a prayer during the candlelight vigil at the memorial site outside the gates of the Retreat at Twin Lakes, where Trayvon Martin was shot by neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman, in Sanford, Fla., March 25, 2012.
/ AP Photo/Julie Fletcher
(CBS/AP) SANFORD, Fla. - The family of Trayvon Martin said Monday that their 17-year-old son had been suspended for possessing traces of marijuana before he was shot to death by neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman.
Photos: Trayvon Martin
Also on Monday, authorities confirmed to the Associated Press that Martin did not have a juvenile offender.

 

[Ravi]

"Witnesses say Martin attacked Zimmerman,"

Uh, yeah - it does.

"Witnesses say Zimmerman killed Martin"

With your logic, that means Zimmerman is guilty of first degree murder.

Dummier and dummier you are.

You have to be more than dum, or the dummiet (?) to think that killing someone is necessarily murder.

The point sailed right over your head. No worries.

 

[Luissa]

You've got to be kidding. This link from March proves that a thug has no criminal record?!

I don't think he has developed a criminal record since then.... You know Since he died in February.
I am kind of confused as to why the link being from March disproves that the authorities said he had no criminal record.

Sorry, the below proves that Martin had no criminal record or did not attack Zimmerman?! Regardless, beyond reasonable doubt cannot be assumed unless there is a jury of hacks like yourself or one that found Simpson not guilty. The impartiality and intellect is practically the same.

Marc Booker, of Sanford, leads a prayer during the candlelight vigil at the memorial site outside the gates of the Retreat at Twin Lakes, where Trayvon Martin was shot by neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman, in Sanford, Fla., March 25, 2012.
/ AP Photo/Julie Fletcher
(CBS/AP) SANFORD, Fla. - The family of Trayvon Martin said Monday that their 17-year-old son had been suspended for possessing traces of marijuana before he was shot to death by neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman.
Photos: Trayvon Martin
Also on Monday, authorities confirmed to the Associated Press that Martin did not have a juvenile offender.

"Also on Monday, authoritiesconfirmed to the Associated Press that Martin did not have a juvenile offender record."


Made it easy for you to understand..........And if you don't like my link try google, there is about 20 other links that state he didn't have a juvenile criminal record.

 

[Luissa]

"Witnesses say Zimmerman killed Martin"

With your logic, that means Zimmerman is guilty of first degree murder.

Dummier and dummier you are.

You have to be more than dum, or the dummiet (?) to think that killing someone is necessarily murder.

The point sailed right over your head. No worries.

Yeah, he isn't smart.
He thinks a link from March disproves that Martin didn't have a criminal record, like his criminal record could have changed since then.

 

[Ravi]

"Also on Monday, authorities confirmed to the Associated Press that Martin did not have a juvenile offender record"
http://m.cbsnews.com/storysynopsis....4732&feed_id=999&videofeed=999&nb_splitPage=0

You've got to be kidding. This link from March proves that a thug has no criminal record?!

My goodness you are stupid.

 

[Meathead]

"Also on Monday, authorities confirmed to the Associated Press that Martin did not have a juvenile offender record"
http://m.cbsnews.com/storysynopsis....4732&feed_id=999&videofeed=999&nb_splitPage=0

You've got to be kidding. This link from March proves that a thug has no criminal record?!

My goodness you are stupid.

It is exactly because I would need a better link than that provided to conclude that Martin had no criminal record. Show me where a judge decided that his criminal record could be unsealed. Better yet, show me why Martin was not a punk who got himself killed.

 

[Luissa]

You've got to be kidding. This link from March proves that a thug has no criminal record?!

My goodness you are stupid.

It is exactly because I would need a better link than that provided to conclude that Martin had no criminal record. Show me where a judge decided that his criminal record could be unsealed. Better yet, show me why Martin was not a punk who got himself killed.

The fact he had not committed a crime to warrant being followed by Zimmerman. Proof enough for me.

 

[Luissa]

Why do you need a better link?

 

[Ravi]

You've got to be kidding. This link from March proves that a thug has no criminal record?!

My goodness you are stupid.

It is exactly because I would need a better link than that provided to conclude that Martin had no criminal record. Show me where a judge decided that his criminal record could be unsealed. Better yet, show me why Martin was not a punk who got himself killed.

You can't unseal something that doesn't exist, dummy.

 

[Meathead]

Why do you need a better link?

Because you are a ditz and your link is ditzy. Regardless, the doctrine of reasonable doubt is a given in cases like this. The shot of Marin looking like a thug with gold teeth and his school record if not his criminal, is a lot more damning than the innocent picture of an eleven year-old boy that the media fed us.

Get used to it - Zimmerman walks and Martin is dead. In this case that is justice whether you self-righteous twits like it or not.

 

[jtpr312]

Right, whine about "communism" when all other arguments fail.

Think it's bad that a racist bully shoots an unarmed child in the middle of the street?

you must be a "communist"!

I thought this was abaut Zimmerman and taryvon? Trayvon wasn't any "child" slick. You don't still think those pics the media showed of that sweet little twelve year old, where of the 6'+ grown man that attacked Zimmerman do you?

He was 17 years old, which legally still makes him a child.

But I'm glad to see you aren't disputing that he was unarmed and that Zimmerman shot him in the middle of the street.

At 17 you are not a child, you are a young man I don't give a crap about "legally", and furthermore, who gives a crap if he was unarmed? He was beating the crap out of a fatter, older, out of shape dude who thank God had a firearm to defend himself with, otherwise Zimmerman would be just one more black on white murder statistic. I can beat a person to death while"unarmed" does that mean if you have a gun and I'm beating your head into the sidewalk you should just let me because I'm "unarmed". trayvon was a gang banging, dope smoking scumbag thug who got what he deserved.

 

[jtpr312]

It's amazing to me this is still a topic. Can't wait to read about Zimmerman being bashed to death in a prison shower room. Anyone defending this pig makes me seriously question their character.

I would think that anyone who would advocate for a prison gang beating a man to death in the shower has little or no room to talk about anyone else's "character". Zimmerman was attacked by a bigger, stronger, younger and healthier man who was attempting to beat him and he used his God given right to defend himself against that attack, and you, while disparaging other's character, say you would like to see a gang of convicted scum beat this man to death. You sir, lack character, brains and decency.

Well, it will discourage the next racist asshole who wants to use his gun as a penis substitute...Is that what you use yours for? I actually have a penis so I don't need to use a sidearm for one, and I'm pretty sure Zimmerman had a penis also. By the way, Zimmerman putting a round through this scumbag's chest didn't discourage other rascist n*&#*&s from assaulting other innocent white people, so what make you think Zimmerman getting shanked in prison will discourage other whites from protecting themselves against rascist, gang banging, n*&*&r thugs?

So, yeah, Zimmerman's inevitable shanking in a prison will be a good thing. I would be willing to bet a thousand dollars that Zimmerman doesn't get convicted.

.

 

[Gadawg73]

My goodness you are stupid.

It is exactly because I would need a better link than that provided to conclude that Martin had no criminal record. Show me where a judge decided that his criminal record could be unsealed. Better yet, show me why Martin was not a punk who got himself killed.

The fact he had not committed a crime to warrant being followed by Zimmerman. Proof enough for me.

"I believe Zimmerman is guilty but he is presumed innocent"

Reminds me of a case I had a few years ago where the jury came back and stated: "Guilty but with reasonable doubt"
Doesn't surprise me at all though, the low information citizens we have these days. They come to jury duty in flip flops, baseball caps and T shirts with "Born to Party" on it. They day dream in court, stick their chewing gum under the jury seats, twitch and squirm waiting for their nicotine drug fix and act like someone has disturbed their Jerry Springer routine for a few days.
Free country, anyone can follow anyone anytime they want, even with a gun on them as Zimmerman had a legal gun permit.
Your mind is made up. Low information uninformed body that has no clue about The Constitution, the jury system and the presumption innocence.

 

[jtpr312]

View attachment 22890

New ball game.

I always ask morons who support Zimmerman why Trayvon didn't have the right to defend himself? He was the one who was followed for no reason by a guy with a gun.

What are you brain dead? Following a person is not assaulting a person, so what exactly would you be defending yourself from? If trayvon's wish was to not be followed, he was in 100% better shape than Zimmerman, who was a fat ass, and he could have easily out ran Zimmerman end of problem with being followed, which is NOT AGAINST THE LAW, anyway. You can follow anyone you want on a public street, what you cannot do is assault someone like trayvon did. The thug got what he asked for.

 

[thereisnospoon]

world doesnt care anymore

Of course not...Zimmerman will be found not guilty and the media will continue to bury the story and circle the wagons.

 

[jtpr312]

One less negro thug sucking off the D.O.C. teat.

 

[Gadawg73]

One less negro thug sucking off the D.O.C. teat.

Not how the Martin family sees it and from what I have seen of them they are good folk.
Ever lost a family member? Judged them for their mistakes and the things they did wrong when they were dead?

George Zimmerman is not exactly Georgetown society folk either. And as for smarts go, any defendant that gives national interviews to media is a pea brain at best. Zimmerman has dug his hole all by his self in many instances in this case. Does not take away from the fact that the media has rail roaded him and most of the public also but the Martin family has a loved one in the ground.

 

[Zoom]

If Martin was armed could he have shot zimmerman because of that law in Florida? He was stalked, correct?

 

[Gadawg73]

If Martin was armed could he have shot zimmerman because of that law in Florida? He was stalked, correct?

Has Zimmerman been convicted of stalking?
As in every and any claim you have to be convicted of it for it to be "stalking" under the law.

 

[Zoom]

If Zimmerman hadn't been armed, he wouldn't have felt "brave" enough to stalk Trayvon. Therefore, nothing would have happened and Trayvon would still be alive.

So basically, we should take away his right to bear arms?

And you are saying everyone who is armed should be able to start a fight, lose and shoot someone?