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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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?
Its a disgusting verdict. Absolutely disgusting. I feel so sorry for the boys family.
It would be like me being armed and confronting another innocent Irish person. Then a fight starts caused by my confrontation. I shoot the guy I confronted and I walk. There is no way I would walk. I would get life here.
Well OJ was a very rich celebrity. Big difference.
From looking at the case from afar it is cut a dried to me.
A boy is walking home, doing no harm, minding his own business (correct if if I am wrong about any of this), he is confronted by an armed adult who was told by police to leave him alone. A fight ensues and the armed Adult shoots the boy dead. Then a jury finds it a lawful killing?
If the armed man had left this innocent boy just walk home like he should have nobody would have been shot. Am I right?
So surely that man is to blame for the killing? He pulled the trigger and started the who thing rolling when he followed and confronted an innocent child walking home?
"Zimmerman has been arrested for assaulting a police officer and for domestic violence"
"In addition, he reportedly lost his job as a bouncer because of his temper"
A onetime coworker of Zimmerman told the trial "He had a temper and he became a liability," he recalled. "One time this woman was acting a little out of control. She was drunk. George lost his cool and totally overreacted. ... It was weird, because he was such a cool guy, but he got all nuts. He picked her up and threw her. It was pure rage. She twisted her ankle. Everyone was flipping out."
If this is the case why was a man who has such a history allowed own a weapon?
Did he not follow and confront this child? Was the child not just walking home after buying a soft drink and sweets? Is that what you country has become? A child goes to the shop for sweets, he is confronted by a stranger who ends up shooting him and you call it a "good shot"? Did the police not tell Zimmerman not to follow the teen? Why was he walking around with a gun in his pants anyway?
If someone confronted you on the street would you not defend yourself. The teen was confronted by some lunatic he did not know while he was just walking home. The lunatic shoots him and he walks!
I wonder if the child was white would the outcome have been the same?
If it was your child would you have called it a "good shot"?
Politics is a very ugly business and I am glad you realise that. But what amazes me is you seem to have a very blinkered view and you don't realise it.
When the US forces a diplomats plane to land so it can be searched you call it "politics" but when another country gives Snowden some protection you scream from the roof tops. Is that not just "POLITICS" too? Or is the US the only one allowed play the game dirty?
Not really the same is it as you get a lot of that back in farmer and fishermen subsidies as well as other payments. And businesses in the UK have free trade with other countries in the EU so you have to factor in all those exports and how they contribute to the economy.
It is up to the UK if it is worth their while staying in the EU but to claim it is 50 million a day into a black hole would be misleading.
Yea. I see those people all the time. They tend to start threads that slag off half the countries or world population and lie and use propaganda to try and raise peoples hackles so they can have a good argument.
I didn't say two wrongs make a right. I am simply pointing out that other Presidents did it too. And it seems to me certain people have no problem with a President doing it if they voted for them, but if they did not vote for them, then doing such a thing makes them a dictator.
Well I agree they are the biggest threat to freedom. People in power will take whatever power the people give them and use every excuse and propaganda to to increase that power if they are allowed. It has happened time and time again in history. But for some reason people keep falling for it.
True. I have said it before and I'll say it again. He is a sad bitter twisted man angry with women for some reason. I am guessing Mammy didn't give him enough love and his heart was shattered in the past.
But instead of moving on and getting over it and getting revenge by living a happy and full life, he chooses to wallow in his sadness, bitterness and tries to spread that feeling.
Anytime an Irish person poses a question to you that you can't answer you start to talk about pubs, Irish Yoga and terrorists. Shows you for the idiot you are.
But you actually make the stereotype of a fat, lazy, uneducated, insular, opinionated American look true.
Ah dont go. Please tell me how we dont have our guns anymore when nobody alive in Ireland would be old enough to remember when they were carried. Its been 100 years.
And tell me how the Brits have the Republics guns And how the Republic has the Republics guns too
sofarsogood74 Forum Posts (2,711)
RE: George Zimmerman NOT Guilty!!!! Agree or Disagree?
Sure didn't you only invent democracy.I think our friend from the US sees himself as a Spartan. He loves the war and weapons.