Zimmerman not guilty

[gandog56]

Inter cooler you need to get copy of the testimony then you will see it is not as the liberal media wants you to think the jury stuck to the facts.

Zimmerman had right to stop the threat he was in immediate and imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm. His responsibility was to protect himself and the evidence was certainly convincing enough for the jury of 6 women 5 of them mothers to acquit Zimmerman. Those jurors heard all the evidence we can only use conjecture and opinion neither of which app carry the weight of that jury.

All I can think here, was just how many BLACK people were on this jury? My guess is NONE! (I don't know, just guessing)

   If you actually payed attention to the case and the evidence you would know that there were no Black men on the Jury.  They were all women, all six of them.

   During the Jury selection there was one Black Male that was accepted by the DEFENSE, but was dismissed and rejected by the Prosecution.   Yes, that's right, the Prosecution rejected the Black male from the jury.

   Jessie Jackson made the same comment on one of the Left wing media outlets just the other day.  That must be were you heard it, yes.

  Something  that you and Jessie fail to realize is that according to the CONSTITUTION  the "Jury of Peers"  is selected to represent the accused, George Zimmerman and not Travon as TM was not the one on trial.

 

By "people" I meant men OR women. So are you saying black people cannot be a "peer" of Zimmerman? I say they CAN! And I am not black, so I am not biased that way.

[Steve4102]

  I'm saying the Prosecution thought it best to not have any Black Males on this Jury.  They must have been Racist. 

  I'm also saying that because you did not know the makeup of the Jury you also know absolutely nothing about the FACTS in this case.  You are totally uninformed yet you  feel you know the truth better than the Jury that sat through this entire event.

  By claiming an innocent man Guilty without any real facts to back up your claim you place yourself on the same plain as the Looters and the Liars out their trying to make this case something that it was not.

 

[gandog56]

Let's just say I found his story of the events highly suspicious. And the prosecution didn't want any black males? That sounds stupid, since they would probably be more than likely to convict. No, I haven't followed the case too much. Stupid court sessions on TV don't thrill me.

What concerns me more is I KNEW it would cause the problems in LA that DID occur. Yeah, beating white people, looting, and setting places on fire is a good response to what you consider a bad court decision? I sure don't see how it can help doing so.

[Steve4102]

Let's just say I found his story of the events highly suspicious.

Let's just have you recap his story of events that were highly suspicious.

Please, I am awaiting your recap with of what actually happened with great anticipation.  Don't forget to include where you acquired these FACTS.

[Ramjet]

Let's just say I found his story of the events highly suspicious. And the prosecution didn't want any black males? That sounds stupid, since they would probably be more than likely to convict. No, I haven't followed the case too much. Stupid court sessions on TV don't thrill me.

What concerns me more is I KNEW it would cause the problems in LA that DID occur. Yeah, beating white people, looting, and setting places on fire is a good response to what you consider a bad court decision? I sure don't see how it can help doing so.

So you admit not following but then espouse irrational opinion. Great!

[DM1906]

I consider myself better informed (not necessarily "smarter") than anyone I've discussed this with.  I watched the entire trial, mostly in real-time.  Every second of it, as painful as it was much of the time.  No other person, here, there, or anywhere, who I know or know of, watched (or read) much more than what the MSM released during newscasts or commentary shows.  What I didn't watch live were complete replays.

What I've found, discussing this with friends, acquaintances, and strangers (such as here and other discussion forums) is, it is obviously clear when someone enters the conversation who is either uninformed, or worse, misinformed.  This applies to nearly EVERY newscaster (reader), and their "experts".

The jury was chosen and accepted by both, the prosecution and the defense, from a very large pool of possible jurors.  There weren't any black men ultimately on the jury because there weren't ANY not already decided on the verdict, excessively emotionally motivated, and/or who weren't "too informed" with the case.  NONE.  Black women, the same.  The same applied to most white men.  This lead to only one reasonable result:  6 white women (one may have had an "Hispanic ethnicity appearance").  In the end, 6 women were the only reasonably "fair" jurors remaining.  Like it or not, that WAS the reality.  Insisting that the jury should have been "politically correct" would have likely ensured a hung jury.  I'm not saying, at all, there are no reasonably objective "other than mostly white women" jurors, only that there were almost none in the jury pool at that time.

To anyone who would suggest there was no justice in this trial, they are correct.  Absolutely.  But, not for the reasons most would argue.

[DenStinett]

To anyone who would suggest there was no justice in this trial, they are correct.  Absolutely.  But, not for the reasons most would argue.

I take it from your last statement, you do not fully agree with the verdict ( ? )

[DM1906]

To anyone who would suggest there was no justice in this trial, they are correct.  Absolutely.  But, not for the reasons most would argue.

I take it from your last statement, you do not fully agree with the verdict ( ? )

I do not fully agree with the verdict, in that there should have never been a verdict to agree or disagree with.  The injustice was not the result of the trial.  The injustice is the malicious prosecution, concluded with the verdict, and the injustice currently in progress by the USDOJ.

[DenStinett]

I do not fully agree with the verdict, in that there should have never been a verdict to agree or disagree with.  The injustice was not the result of the trial.  The injustice is the malicious prosecution, concluded with the verdict, and the injustice currently in progress by the USDOJ.

Copy that
Your OP just through me at first

[DM1906]

I do not fully agree with the verdict, in that there should have never been a verdict to agree or disagree with.  The injustice was not the result of the trial.  The injustice is the malicious prosecution, concluded with the verdict, and the injustice currently in progress by the USDOJ.

Copy that
Your OP just through me at first

Sorry about that, but it was my intent, afterall.  To sum it up simply, the verdict was the fruit of the poison tree.  The verdict is irrelevant.  To those who feel it should have been a guilty verdict, it's entirely irrelevant.  The state's attorney didn't seek an indictment from the Grand Jury, because they KNEW they wouldn't get one.  That, in itself, is malicious.

[Steve4102]

What I've found, discussing this with friends, acquaintances, and strangers (such as here and other discussion forums) is, it is obviously clear when someone enters the conversation who is either uninformed, or worse, misinformed.  This applies to nearly EVERY newscaster (reader), and their "experts".

I will disagree with this just a little.
These so called "News" persons were at the trial or had their People at the trial.  They saw and heard the same thing you and I did.  They are NOT Misinformed nor are they Uninformed, they are actually Well informed and totally aware of the facts in this case, they just choose to ignore them and to twist them for Political gain. 

  Hell, think about it, they twisted the facts with their Doctored 911 tape only minutes after the shooting, no way they are going to "Report" the truth in this case now, the truth serves no purpose to them.

[DM1906]

I won't disagree with that.  However, that is malicious, just the same.  Their actions had a significant affect with Constitutional justice, which in turn, caused a free American citizen's rights, as defined in The Bill of Rights, to be suppressed.  The damage caused by that first (malicious) release is irreparable.  Had they reported accurately the first time, and every time thereafter, we wouldn't be having this conversation.  The First Amendment to The Constitution protects our right to free speech, but it does not protect any right to malicious, untruthful speech.  No different than yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, when there is no fire, IMO.

[DenStinett]

+1 you guys

[gandog56]

Let's just say I found his story of the events highly suspicious. And the prosecution didn't want any black males? That sounds stupid, since they would probably be more than likely to convict. No, I haven't followed the case too much. Stupid court sessions on TV don't thrill me.

What concerns me more is I KNEW it would cause the problems in LA that DID occur. Yeah, beating white people, looting, and setting places on fire is a good response to what you consider a bad court decision? I sure don't see how it can help doing so.

So you admit not following but then espouse irrational opinion. Great!

Irrational? You want to start name calling on this board?
Irrational

Isn't that a bit strong? Are you this way with ANYBODY who disagrees with YOUR opinion?

By the way, I see the DOJ has told the state to not return the seized evidence to Zimmerman while they study filing a civil rights charge. So apparently the Government is leaning in MY direction. Are they irrational, too?

Wait, don't answer that.....because they always ARE! 

[Steve4102]

  Irrational, Uninformed, Misinformed, Brainwashed, Pick one they all fit.

BTW, Still waiting for you to recap Mr Zimmerman's story of events that were "Highly Suspicious".  Don't forget to include where you got your "Story of Events".