JeanKimberley: did you even watch the trial? the symbol for justice is a statue of a woman wearing a blindfold and caring a double edged sword....
The blindfold represents objectivity, in that justice is or should be meted out objectively, without fear or favour, regardless of identity, money, power, or weakness; blind justice and impartiality.
Its all good because when Zimmerman dies he will have too explain too GOD why he did this.And good luck with that so in the end Zimmerman will get his.
JeanKimberley: did you even watch the trial? the symbol for justice is a statue of a woman wearing a blindfold and caring a double edged sword....
The blindfold represents objectivity, in that justice is or should be meted out objectively, without fear or favour, regardless of identity, money, power, or weakness; blind justice and impartiality.
myhome: Its all good because when Zimmerman dies he will have too explain too GOD why he did this.And good luck with that so in the end Zimmerman will get his.
Dag gone. do you really believe zimmerman is going to hell because he defended himself? He didn't break any of Moses' delivered ten commandments.
galrads: Dag gone. do you really believe zimmerman is going to hell because he defended himself? He didn't break any of Moses' delivered ten commandments.
How are you defending yourself when it was you who started the confrontation and fight?
So with you thinking I can go around starting fights by confronting innocent people. If they start to get the better of me in the fight I can shoot them dead and it is a lawful killing?
myhome: Its all good because when Zimmerman dies he will have too explain too GOD why he did this.And good luck with that so in the end Zimmerman will get his.
sofarsogood74: How are you defending yourself when it was you who started the confrontation and fight?
So with you thinking I can go around starting fights by confronting innocent people. If they start to get the better of me in the fight I can shoot them dead and it is a lawful killing?
Oh, now you're telling us you were there ? You are nothing but a pot stirrer, a slimy pot stirrer.
galrads: Oh, now you're telling us you were there ? You are nothing but a pot stirrer, a slimy pot stirrer.
No I wasn't there. But I listed to the tapes. Did you?
He told the police he was following this guy. The police told him to stop. He then told the police to hurry up as "he was getting away" or words of that description. What was he getting away with?
Then he carried on following the child and a fight ensued. Who would you say was at fault for that fight starting?
Kaybee50: I am not debating the verdict. I don't agree with the verdict.
"white versus black" is not so cut and dry in this case. A crazy, angry man who should be behind bars? Yes. Would he have confronted any boy that night, regardless of color? Yes, I believe so. He is obviously a crazy SOB that belongs off of the streets and behind bars for the rest of his life.
Kaybee50: I am not debating the verdict. I don't agree with the verdict.
"white versus black" is not so cut and dry in this case. A crazy, angry man who should be behind bars? Yes. Would he have confronted any boy that night, regardless of color? Yes, I believe so. He is obviously a crazy SOB that belongs off of the streets and behind bars for the rest of his life.
I am not saying Zimmerman confronted the guy cause he was black. I am saying would the jury have found it so easy to find him innocent if a white child had been killed while walking home? Did the stereotype of a black kid with a hood up being a member of a gang or the like influence the juries decision?
It is the only reason I can think they would acquit in such a case.
sofarsogood74: No I wasn't there. But I listed to the tapes. Did you?
He told the police he was following this guy. The police told him to stop. He then told the police to hurry up as "he was getting away" or words of that description. What was he getting away with?
Then he carried on following the child and a fight ensued. Who would you say was at fault for that fight starting?
do you realize Zimmerman was not lawyered-up when he was openly discussing the tragedy incident with local LEOs and it was before he was charged?
Now, you showing your true colors by adding "child" to "race" stirring.
galrads: Dag gone. do you really believe zimmerman is going to hell because he defended himself? He didn't break any of Moses' delivered ten commandments.
sofarsogood74: I am not saying Zimmerman confronted the guy cause he was black. I am saying would the jury have found it so easy find him innocent if a white child had been killed while walking home? Did the stereotype of a black kid with a hood up being a member of a gang or the like influence the juries decision?
It is the only reason I can think they would acquit in such a case.
Or another reason, as the reason in the Simpson case, is the prosecution could not present solid evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Perhaps members of the jury believe he is guilty, but placed their decision to the letter of the law.
galrads: do you realize Zimmerman was not lawyered-up when he was openly discussing the tragedy incident with local LEOs and it was before he was charged?
Now, you showing your true colors by adding "child" to "race" stirring.
Was he not a child? Please correct me if I am wrong. At what age do you become an adult in the US? Was the boy not a 17 year old teenager?
And was he not black?
You see you showed us all your true colours when you were adding lauging emoticons earlier in the thread while we were talking about an innocent teenager death.
You call me a pot stirrer but other people with the same opinion you think are debating.
And I am finished with you for good now because when you asked "Were Muslims members of the Church of England" you showed me you intellectual level. You are not worth debating with. You are of very low intelligence and I am done wasting my time on you.
sofarsogood74: How are you defending yourself when it was you who started the confrontation and fight?
So with you thinking I can go around starting fights by confronting innocent people. If they start to get the better of me in the fight I can shoot them dead and it is a lawful killing?
actually Martin attacked Zimmermann,not vice versa!
Kaybee50: Or another reason, as the reason in the Simpson case, is the prosecution could not present solid evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Perhaps members of the jury believe he is guilty, but placed their decision to the letter of the law.
But as I said. With the evidence we all know as it is all in the public domain it is clearly a wrong decision. So why would a jury come to such a decision with all the evidence pointing the other way?
sofarsogood74: Was he not a child? Please correct me if I am wrong. At what age do you become an adult in the US? Was the boy not a 17 year old teenager?
And was he not black?
You see you showed us all your true colours when you were adding lauging emoticons earlier in the thread while we were talking about an innocent teenager death.
You call me a pot stirrer but other people with the same opinion you think are debating.
And I am finished with you for good now because when you asked "Were Muslims members of the Church of England" you showed me you intellectual level. You are not worth debating with. You are of very low intelligence and I am done wasting my time on you.
If I'm low intelligence, by your measure, you're a pseudo want to be ameba
Conrad73: actually Martin attacked Zimmermann,not vice versa!
Actually there is CONFLICTING evidence on that. Some say Zimmerman attacked Martin and some say Visa Versa. But my point is there would not have been any attack from one or the other if Zimmerman had not followed and confronted the Kid. He was an innocent Kid.
I can only read whats on here,so have i got it right? A 17yr old (race irrelevant),is walking along,and an adult "bouncer",who is armed,follows him. For whatever reason,an altrication takes place,and the unarmed 17yr old is shot dead. The "bouncer" claims he was brutally attacked,but showed no signs of injuries. Forgetting gun laws,race and anything else that can be thrown in just to insult and evade the question,i am baffled with these facts as to how he could be found guilty. Even allowing for the 17yr old being the aggressor,Zimmerman was a "bouncer",not a frail old man,who should have been able to deal with the situation without killing him. I doubt a police officer would have shot him in the same circumstances. Niether had injuries that would suggest a fight? I think for the sake of maintaining a just legal system,the powers that be need to looking at this very seriously.
sofarsogood74: But as I said. With the evidence we all know as it is all in the public domain it is clearly a wrong decision. So why would a jury come to such a decision with all the evidence pointing the other way?
If we had all been standing there that night, then we would know the answer to that question. Who first took physical action; was concrete considered a weapon; Trayvon was probably so frightened by the situation that he may have reacted instead of walking away from the situation - but who among could've thought logically with such a frightening scenario unfolding. Again. If we and the jury were present, on the scene, we would have our clear cut answers.
myhome: Its all good because when Zimmerman dies he will have too explain too GOD why he did this.And good luck with that so in the end Zimmerman will get his.
Not only that,, for the rest of his miserable life he will have to live with his conscience. My guess is that this psychopath won't be bothered much by that. But that is it's own hell to live in. He'll be looking over his shoulders the rest of his life.
Dadude62: Not only that,, for the rest of his miserable life he will have to live with his conscience. My guess is that this psychopath won't be bothered much by that. But that is it's own hell to live in. He'll be looking over his shoulders the rest of his life.
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
The blindfold represents objectivity, in that justice is or should be meted out objectively, without fear or favour, regardless of identity, money, power, or weakness; blind justice and impartiality.