So that's your opinion of blacks ? Retaliation ? Interesting. I give black people way more credit. More than I give many white people.
Conservatives love people who are able to beat down the lynch mob media and find actual true justice. It is a shame that lefties hate true justice and worship the dishonest media. - - - Updated - - - You think this law is brand new? The truth is that it never even came into play in the Zimmerman case. He had been ASSAULTED AND WAS PINNED DOWN BY HIS ATTACKER! - - - Updated - - - You think this law is brand new? The truth is that it never even came into play in the Zimmerman case. He had been ASSAULTED AND WAS PINNED DOWN BY HIS ATTACKER!
Didn't you read what I posted? The official language of the charges won't include racism, nor is racism what they wanted to charge him with, but the people who were prosecuting Zimmerman definitely believed he acted on racial prejudices. You're post is idiotic. I didn't say Zimmerman was guilty of anything, including racism, I'm talking about the motivations behind charging Zimmerman. You are making up your argument.
I wonder if the demogogues are telling blacks to continue these tirades about Zimmerman in order to cover up Obama's failures?
So there is something you can't imagine? Anyway, she'll be fine. She trademarked his name. The NO_LIMIT_N***** fans are likely paying royalties out the @$$.
Yes, I read what you posted. Lots of speculation and opinion about what you think the real basis of the charges were. I'm sticking to the actual charges. You're the one that claimed he was being tried for a hate crime, and you're also the one that then turned that into "well, they aren't SAYING that... they just are".
and they still do. there is a thick line between believing and proving. Some people believe the earth is flat. He was charged according to what laws applied in this instance. I don't believe he is or was a cold blooded murderer. I believe as the jury did in that he was left with no choice. I would have done the same I the identical position. Yep, it is a sorrowful event, but what's happen since is even sorrier......... kind of a sad statement of humanity.............
Well, I have my doubts about Zimmerman, but I didn't say he was racist or he did murder Martin. I was only stating the underlying beliefs in the trial. But, you are right. It was kind of disgusting to see people cheering this man and the trial. I believe the celebration, in itself, points to a different motivation for interest in the trial other than opinions about self-defense. Seems that way because they were not fixated on Zimmerman at all. They were concentrated on emphasizing Martin as a thug and dehumanizing Trayvon Martin at every point and it wasn't long before excerpts about Blacks in general pepered the threads. (not the actual Defense, I mean the forum commenters) To me, it wasn't about vindicating Zimmerman for them, but condemning Martin and validating their general view of the entire race in the process.
Nope... Here's how it actually played out...cuz I know you have some problems with facts.... Freshy, you posted this first: Then I posted this reply to you... Then you posted: Then I repled with: So quit the whining and own it. You tried to make GZ's traffice stop sound like it was a big deal--just like the left did with their attempted railroading of GZ in to a trial that had no legitimate reason for taking place and was just a waste of the FL taxpayer's money. This is just another case of much ado about NOTHING.
there is more doubt about M being such an angel. Zimmerman had his day in court. If there is a civil trial, then Martin will go on trial. There is a chance that any evidence that is brought up in a trial may damage M's perfect angel image. IN a civil trial, everything is admitted as evidence, including M's cell phone records, even those deleted can be recovered, and any social media that is out there. Everyone should just let this thing go. and I mean everyone............
Are you freaking kidding me??? ROTFLMFAO I can't imagine the Martin's cell meta will be available in a civil trial any more than George's hard drive data would be available.
I see nothing wrong with that, but to be clear, the GZ v TM case was purely about self-defense and SYG did not enter into the case at all. SYG only works if you are being attcked-- not the attacker. There is no evidence to support that TM was being attacked and in fact, the evidence showed that TM was the likely attacker.
Sure Dude. Anyone can see that you hold black people in great esteem just by clicking on your screen name and "view forum posts"
little do you know about civil trials............the FBI had already gone through Z's hard drive and found nothing. That's why it wasn't introduced into court. laugh the other way...........
FBI???? WTF does any of the ^^^ have to do with a civil suit?? Civil suit is not a Civil Rights action filed by the government. And you're laughing?? Wow!!
talk about wow...the FBI had been investigating Z for civil rights violations for a year and came up empty. I thought you knew every detail about the Zimmerman case. http://www.politisite.com/2013/07/14/fbi-no-zimmerman-civil-rights-violations/ and this from a Liberal rag http://www.politicususa.com/2013/07...il-rights-investigation-george-zimmerman.html or http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/investigation/cop-told-fbi-zimmerman-not-a-racist-765093 or http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/little_document_pursues_zimmerman_uAQjdqGhtH6RVcBFemuPyK or http://www.theseatonpost.com/2013/0...erman-fbi-documents-show-no-evidence-of-bias/ are you deliberately playing uninformed? and here I thought you were claiming to know something important...guess not
You are mistaken. The instructions given to the jury specifically referenced the stand your ground law. (*) The law allows you to apply deadly force if you reasonably believe you are in danger. Zimmerman relied on this instruction to excuse putting himself in a dangerous situation for which he was not prepared and his subsequent use of deadly force. Had Trayvon survived instead of Zimmerman, Trayvon could have used the same argument to defend his right to attack someone threatening him with a gun.
Sadly, yes. The last refuge where people can defend themselves without being required to run away. The last refuge where an acquittal means he should be left alone so that he can go back to his life. Indeed, the last place in the country that has not lost its mind. God bless Texas.
People can defend themselves without being required to run away anywhere. And if you resolve the situation with only necessary use of force you won't have a problem. It's when folks make the choice to respond with excessive or lethal force in a situation that could have been avoided that the controversy exists. There are states that won't hold folks accountable for their choice to kill. Texas is hardly the last of them. There are 31 states that have Castle doctrine laws.
The 'he'd kill me...' was in jest, genius. Sarcasm. If you took it to mean that I accepted your premise, well, your elevator is stuck between floors.
