George Zimmerman Is In Legal Trouble Again

As see you are another supporter of lynching people before they go to trial. Thanks for the revelation (not that I'm surprised)

 

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that an end to all racial conflict in America would be the end of your Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons. They have an incentive to promote racial conflicts because they make their living peddling the idea that if you're not white, then whites are responsible for any hardship you're facing, and you're not getting what whitey owes you.

 

You left out a few things.
1. Zimmerman left his truck and followid TM. He was asked by NEH was he following him and he said no even though you hear him huffing and puffing.
2. There as a conferontation. Who started the confrontation is still up in the air and was never selttled in court.
3. Both TM and Zimmerman had a right to be there.
4. Zimmerman won on both the way self defense laws are written in Florida and the fact that there was no eye witness to the whole event. There were many eye witnesses who saw parts of the even The way the trial was done, Zimmeran won on expert testimony by the defense and that is all.
5. both Zimmerman and TM had a right to be there. Zimmerman believed that based on the clothes TM was wearing, he was a hoodlum, confronted him, and eventually a fight ensued. If someone was following you and confronted you directly, you wouuld have done the same thing.

 

Do you even know the definition of "lynching" or is that just drama queen rhetoric?

 

You left out the "threatening someone with imminent serious bodily harm or death"

Why did you do that?

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, Billy, but I think the point he was trying to make was that Zimmerman has not been convicted of any crime, and therefore should not be penalized just because accusations were made against him. Just because you find him disagreeable doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to be innocent until proven guilty.

 

If George had been following me, I would have been fearful.. George seems oblivious to the crap he brings to the party.

 

Uh...I believe this thread is about justice, not your liberal opinion

 

So what being fearful doesn't give license to cause serious injury or death and the person left that out of the description. You lost the Zimmerman issue on this board and in court, give it up.

And still waiting for you to take the challenge and back up your fallacious claims that Zimmerman committed a stalking and an assault on Martin. Post the laws in their entirety and explain how he violated those laws. Or will you run away again as you have done repeatedly?

 

Easy Bill, this whole site is all about liberal and conservative opinions.

There are plenty of those, but not always so much justice

 

Yes, you practice your narrative with the rest of the liberal loons before there is even an arrest or trial.

Why should we have a justice system Margot, just let you and the rest of your lynch mob mentality make those judgments?

- - - Updated - - -

An opinion of politics is one thing, convicting a person before the investigation, arrest, or trial is another thing entirely

 

Did Treybon Maritn also have a right to self defense?

 

He was acquitted because the State's case was weak.. They couldn't prove it..

IMO he was directly responsible for the boy's death.. negligent and stupid in his failure to speak and diffuse a situation that he created in his own mind.. He reacted to a threat that he imagined and created. Is he innocent? No.. not by a long shot.

And, I don't care ... he is free to live his life as he chooses.. However, it appears that he continues to have mental problems AND carry a gun.. That ultimately will not turn out well for George.

 

Answer the question or are you afraid of the answer?

 

Absolutely.

 

Not after he assaulted a person. No, he didn't. He got exactly what he was looking for.

 

If you have some information that the jury didn't, and you think that if they had this information the verdict would have been different, you're welcome to provide it. I don't see information freely available on the internet getting past the jury, though.

Otherwise, you don't know anything that the jury didn't, and it's a court of law, not a court of your opinion.

 

His affirmative defense was affirmed in court.

And your opinions were proven fallacious over and over here on this board and in court, just as your fallacious assertions about the the stalking and the assault you claimed he committed. This failure to prove your points has led to this obsession with him.

 

A good point, but not what she asked. You are right, of course; assaulting a person is not "self-defense".

 

Same as everyone else if you are faced with IMMINENT serious bodily harm or death NOT due to you assaulting some first and engaged in an imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death to that person. Was Martin engaged in an act of self defense? No.

Now did Zimmerman have a right to self defense and was engaged is an act of self defense?

 

George Zimmerman is mostly guilty of not being smart. He got out of that Florida mess now he needs to keep a very low profile and avoid situations. George seems to be obsessed with law and order and a cop-detective-guard profile and the Left Wingnuts are obsessed with George. I exercise the Grayman Concept at all times and stay out of trouble. George needs to learn that. The Left Wingnuts need to exercise the MYOB Concept.

 

1. What was illegal about leaving his truck ?
2. ?????
3. Yes

>>>MOD EDIT Off Topic Removed<<<

 

late to this thread... don't want to read....


but his road rage incident does not mean he was guilty of murdering Trayvon Martin.... despite the left's wishes it did.


at this point, Zimmerman is just another typical democratic voter, to me. I'm sure he will have no issue getting himself in trouble again, but it still doesn't mean he was wrong when he shot a kid in a full mount position, beating him.

 

Once you advance on someone in an aggressive manner, you right to self defense is over.

 

What? Are you comparing the conviction of trial by media of accused racism and media to political opinion? I wouldn't think that would deserve an answer, but you do