100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Stop Inulting Zimmerman Jury | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
That's the tickets. Turn the zoo over to the animals. 
and feed them Skittles. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
when they were in deliberations, they asked the judge to clarify the charge,,which she didn't because the question wasn't specific enough
 And you know this how?
I watched the trial,,,,, Then you would also know that both lawyers wrote explaining to the jurers that they needs to be more specific and the judge gave that letter to the jurors. that is what I said, the judge didn't answer because the question wasn't specific enough None of this proves that the jury ruled incorrectly. As I see it, the claim that the jury gave an incorrect decision is a claim based on pretrial prejudice. Plenty of people decided before the trial that Zimmerman was guilty of either murder or manslaughter. So, those same people are claiming that the jury reached the wrong decision. Zimmerman hasn't gone without punishment. As a result of what he did, he is now a social pariah, and it is unlikely that he will ever get to be the law officer that he wants to be. His life has been changed for the worse. In Zimmerman's case, justice doesn't require that he be incarcerated. Meanwhile, I see nothing wrong with wanting Florida's criminal statutes to be changed so that the overzealous behavior displayed by Zimmerman will be a legally-punishable offense. I don't think his was being overzealous. He was being beaten up by a thug, screaming for help, and he shot the guy. End of story. So, change the statute so that a person can't use deadly force to defend himself. Would whacking someone in the temple with my attack rock be considered deadly force?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My X husband had deadly force. He could hit a guy in the right spot and it would be sudden death, or he could hit the guy three times in three spots and in six months the guy would die of a heart attack.
When someone would start giving him trouble he would ask them, "Do you want six months or sudden death?" He was serious. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
when they were in deliberations, they asked the judge to clarify the charge,,which she didn't because the question wasn't specific enough
And you know this how?
I watched the trial,,,,, Then you would also know that both lawyers wrote explaining to the jurers that they needs to be more specific and the judge gave that letter to the jurors. that is what I said, the judge didn't answer because the question wasn't specific enough Well then Did the jurors give a more specific question that was answered? I'm sure they knew what the definition of manslaughter was before they made their decision. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Precious was busted lying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder where he is buried, cause I really gotta take a leak!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I knew it was a shoe-in when prosecution put up their star witness Precious. I could hear em mumble something like, 'We could have had a V8. Wanna blame some group? I'd be ablamin' the team Hispanic haters who fumbled.
The prosecutor looked like he needed some serious valium when she testified and when the cops testified and when the EYEWITNESS testified. I have never seen that look of terror on a prosecutors face and I have been on the stand and have been the State and City's witness on a regular basis. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
when they were in deliberations, they asked the judge to clarify the charge,,which she didn't because the question wasn't specific enough
And you know this how?
I watched the trial,,,,, Then you would also know that both lawyers wrote explaining to the jurers that they needs to be more specific and the judge gave that letter to the jurors. that is what I said, the judge didn't answer because the question wasn't specific enough None of this proves that the jury ruled incorrectly. As I see it, the claim that the jury gave an incorrect decision is a claim based on pretrial prejudice. Plenty of people decided before the trial that Zimmerman was guilty of either murder or manslaughter. So, those same people are claiming that the jury reached the wrong decision. Zimmerman hasn't gone without punishment. As a result of what he did, he is now a social pariah, and it is unlikely that he will ever get to be the law officer that he wants to be. His life has been changed for the worse. In Zimmerman's case, justice doesn't require that he be incarcerated. Meanwhile, I see nothing wrong with wanting Florida's criminal statutes to be changed so that the overzealous behavior displayed by Zimmerman will be a legally-punishable offense. Not to mention that there is a price and a target on his head. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
when they were in deliberations, they asked the judge to clarify the charge,,which she didn't because the question wasn't specific enough
And you know this how?
I watched the trial,,,,, Then you would also know that both lawyers wrote explaining to the jurers that they needs to be more specific and the judge gave that letter to the jurors. that is what I said, the judge didn't answer because the question wasn't specific enough None of this proves that the jury ruled incorrectly. As I see it, the claim that the jury gave an incorrect decision is a claim based on pretrial prejudice. Plenty of people decided before the trial that Zimmerman was guilty of either murder or manslaughter. So, those same people are claiming that the jury reached the wrong decision. Zimmerman hasn't gone without punishment. As a result of what he did, he is now a social pariah, and it is unlikely that he will ever get to be the law officer that he wants to be. His life has been changed for the worse. In Zimmerman's case, justice doesn't require that he be incarcerated. Meanwhile, I see nothing wrong with wanting Florida's criminal statutes to be changed so that the overzealous behavior displayed by Zimmerman will be a legally-punishable offense. I don't think his was being overzealous. He was being beaten up by a thug, screaming for help, and he shot the guy. End of story. According to the eye witness it was an MMA style ground and pound, which honestly if your defending yourself and your are in fear you don't do and I have been in those type of situations and I have also ghad quite a few HIGH teenagers put up one hell of a fight when I was trying to get cuffs on them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Any Hispanic is in danger.
To the Hispanic hater they all look like Mr Z. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Any Hispanic is in danger. To the Hispanic hater they all look like Mr Z. I doubt that............. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
when they were in deliberations, they asked the judge to clarify the charge,,which she didn't because the question wasn't specific enough
And you know this how?
I watched the trial,,,,, Then you would also know that both lawyers wrote explaining to the jurers that they needs to be more specific and the judge gave that letter to the jurors. that is what I said, the judge didn't answer because the question wasn't specific enough Well then Did the jurors give a more specific question that was answered? I'm sure they knew what the definition of manslaughter was before they made their decision. no, they didn't,,,, my gut is that after sequestration , the desire to get home, and at least three others wanting to vote not guilty,, those not guilty people explained it to the guiltys,,,,,even though none of them may have understood it,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
when they were in deliberations, they asked the judge to clarify the charge,,which she didn't because the question wasn't specific enough
And you know this how?
I watched the trial,,,,, Then you would also know that both lawyers wrote explaining to the jurers that they needs to be more specific and the judge gave that letter to the jurors. that is what I said, the judge didn't answer because the question wasn't specific enough None of this proves that the jury ruled incorrectly. As I see it, the claim that the jury gave an incorrect decision is a claim based on pretrial prejudice. Plenty of people decided before the trial that Zimmerman was guilty of either murder or manslaughter. So, those same people are claiming that the jury reached the wrong decision. Zimmerman hasn't gone without punishment. As a result of what he did, he is now a social pariah, and it is unlikely that he will ever get to be the law officer that he wants to be. His life has been changed for the worse. In Zimmerman's case, justice doesn't require that he be incarcerated. Meanwhile, I see nothing wrong with wanting Florida's criminal statutes to be changed so that the overzealous behavior displayed by Zimmerman will be a legally-punishable offense. I don't think his was being overzealous. He was being beaten up by a thug, screaming for help, and he shot the guy. End of story. According to the eye witness it was an MMA style ground and pound, which honestly if your defending yourself and your are in fear you don't do and I have been in those type of situations and I have also ghad quite a few HIGH teenagers put up one hell of a fight when I was trying to get cuffs on them. if you are defending yourself and in fear ,, you don't do WHAT? you shoot dead with a gun, but you don't FIGHT,,,? really? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
willing2
on
Wed 07/31/13 06:33 AM
|
|
So, you say, if you had a gun, some dead thug, Trayvon, had you down, beating on you, telling you your was going to die, you wouldn't have used it to save your life?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, you say, if you had a gun, some dead thug, Trayvon, had you down, beating on you, telling you your was going to die, you wouldn't have used it to save your life? if I had a gun? I wouldn't be following a kid in the dark at night acting like some badass in the first place and no, I wouldn't shoot a minor dead because they were fighting me,, even if they broke my nose,,,, now, if I saw an actual WEAPON on them, if the assault happened with a knife or gun in their hands,, that's different but just hands? no,,, certainly, if I had the ability to get in my side to grab and point and shoot, I would have the ability to use some other option to get out of the situation,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
but, its moot, I wasn't on that jury
and as Jeannie says,, the 'law of vibration' will handle it one way or another either through courts or through z's continued 'oversealous' behavior,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MoonsDragonLionWolf
on
Wed 07/31/13 07:20 AM
|
|
So, you say, if you had a gun, some dead thug, Trayvon, had you down, beating on you, telling you your was going to die, you wouldn't have used it to save your life? if I had a gun? I wouldn't be following a kid in the dark at night acting like some badass in the first place and no, I wouldn't shoot a minor dead because they were fighting me,, even if they broke my nose,,,, now, if I saw an actual WEAPON on them, if the assault happened with a knife or gun in their hands,, that's different but just hands? no,,, certainly, if I had the ability to get in my side to grab and point and shoot, I would have the ability to use some other option to get out of the situation,,,, How would you know he was a minor? How would you know he was underage? You wouldn't. 17 isn't a minor. 17 is a young adult. You're assuming that you would have had other options available to you to defend yourself. The problem is you weren't there that night so how are you so certain that there was another way? You can't be. Once again you are assuming you would. A foolish notion. The law was on George Zimmerman's side. He had a right to defend his life with deadly force, meeting deadly force, if he felt it was in reasonable danger and he did. Just because you would just lay there and get beat to death doesn't necessarily mean someone else would. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, you'd let a dead thug beat you to death.
How about if it was Mr Z beating you and telling you you was going to die? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, you say, if you had a gun, some dead thug, Trayvon, had you down, beating on you, telling you your was going to die, you wouldn't have used it to save your life? if I had a gun? I wouldn't be following a kid in the dark at night acting like some badass in the first place and no, I wouldn't shoot a minor dead because they were fighting me,, even if they broke my nose,,,, now, if I saw an actual WEAPON on them, if the assault happened with a knife or gun in their hands,, that's different but just hands? no,,, certainly, if I had the ability to get in my side to grab and point and shoot, I would have the ability to use some other option to get out of the situation,,,, How would you know he was a minor? however Zimmerman knew when he said 'late teens', he pretty much LOOKED like a teenager apparently and from his build in autopsy How would you know he was underage? SEE ANSWER ABOVE,,lol You wouldn't. 17 isn't a minor. 17 is a young adult. not quite,,,legally speaking 17 is STILL a minor,,,, A minor is a person who does not have the legal rights of an adult. A minor is usually defined as someone who has not yet reached the age of majority. In most states, a person reaches majority and acquires all of the rights and responsibilities of an adult when he or she turns 18 http://definitions.uslegal.com/m/minors-law/ You're assuming that you would have had other options available to you to defend yourself.
The problem is you weren't there that night so how are you so certain that there was another way? You can't be. Once again you are assuming you would. A foolish notion. The law was on George Zimmerman's side. He had a right to defend his life with deadly force, meeting deadly force, if he felt it was in reasonable danger and he did. Just because you would just lay there and get beat to death doesn't necessarily mean someone else would. that's Assuming a lot too,, I have had a GROWN MAN at least five inches taller than treyvon and forty pounds heavier attack me,, and I fought,, that was my FIRST option outside of yelling that was far from 'laying there and getting beaten' that was also an option this grown man who had been attending an MMA gym had, but chose not to utilize,,, and because Z is a ***** who cant fight shouldn't have absolved him or justified him shooting a minor dead instead, ESPECIALLY When he starts the fight with the minor we have statuatory rape laws, because we hold ADULTS to greater accountability and reasonability than we do minors |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, you say, if you had a gun, some dead thug, Trayvon, had you down, beating on you, telling you your was going to die, you wouldn't have used it to save your life? if I had a gun? I wouldn't be following a kid in the dark at night acting like some badass in the first place and no, I wouldn't shoot a minor dead because they were fighting me,, even if they broke my nose,,,, now, if I saw an actual WEAPON on them, if the assault happened with a knife or gun in their hands,, that's different but just hands? no,,, certainly, if I had the ability to get in my side to grab and point and shoot, I would have the ability to use some other option to get out of the situation,,,, How would you know he was a minor? however Zimmerman knew when he said 'late teens', he pretty much LOOKED like a teenager apparently and from his build in autopsy SEE ANSWER ABOVE,,lol You wouldn't. 17 isn't a minor. 17 is a young adult. not quite,,,legally speaking 17 is STILL a minor,,,, A minor is a person who does not have the legal rights of an adult. A minor is usually defined as someone who has not yet reached the age of majority. In most states, a person reaches majority and acquires all of the rights and responsibilities of an adult when he or she turns 18 http://definitions.uslegal.com/m/minors-law/ You're assuming that you would have had other options available to you to defend yourself.
The problem is you weren't there that night so how are you so certain that there was another way? You can't be. Once again you are assuming you would. A foolish notion. The law was on George Zimmerman's side. He had a right to defend his life with deadly force, meeting deadly force, if he felt it was in reasonable danger and he did. Just because you would just lay there and get beat to death doesn't necessarily mean someone else would. that's Assuming a lot too,, I have had a GROWN MAN at least five inches taller than treyvon and forty pounds heavier attack me,, and I fought,, that was my FIRST option outside of yelling that was far from 'laying there and getting beaten' that was also an option this grown man who had been attending an MMA gym had, but chose not to utilize,,, and because Z is a ***** who cant fight shouldn't have absolved him or justified him shooting a minor dead instead, ESPECIALLY When he starts the fight with the minor we have statuatory rape laws, because we hold ADULTS to greater accountability and reasonability than we do minors Yes quite. 17 is only a minor in terms of legal rights that an adult would have. However 17 is considered a young adult in the legal system. A lot of 17 year olds are sentenced in court no differently than adults. You want to know why? It's because they are considered young adults who are responsible for their actions. Okay. So you claim to have fought someone who attacked you. It was okay for you to defend yourself but it's not okay for George Zimmerman to defend himself? When deadly force is used against you you have the right to use deadly force to defend yourself as George Zimmerman did. Hold on. How do you know that George Zimmerman started the fight? You don't. Another assumption. Just because George Zimmerman started getting into MMA doesn't mean he had skill or talent to fight off anyone. A lot of guys get into MMA but couldn't fight a fly. Self defense is not based on whether or not you know how to fight. Once again you are trying to claim Treyvon Martin was a minor. He was a young adult who was responsible for his actions. Such as his actions to confront and assault George Zimmerman. Your statutory rape argument is flawed. If a 17 year old goes out and rapes someone they'd be charged as an adult. No differently than an 18+ year old who goes out and rapes someone. |
|
|
|
|
