Zimmerman not guilty

[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".

[DAVIDF]

DM1906,

Did Zimmerman's neighbor who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman testify? And if so, could he actually identify who was on top?

[Steve4102]

DM1906,

Did Zimmerman's neighbor who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman testify? And if so, could he actually identify who was on top?

http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/28/eyewitness-describes-martin-zimmerman-struggle/

Video.
http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/28/key-eyewitness-testifies-in-george-zimmerman-trial/

[DAVIDF]

Steve4102,

Thanks. That is what I was looking for.

[pacapcop]

Ill say it once and ill say it again.We will have another ammo crises like the one were trying to get out of.This administration is full speed ahead.Im accumalating as much as my funds can withstand bursting away.Im not drinking the kool aid.

[DenStinett]

Ill say it once and ill say it again.We will have another ammo crises like the one were trying to get out of.This administration is full speed ahead.Im accumalating as much as my funds can withstand bursting away.Im not drinking the kool aid.

Sadly you are not far off the mark
The Administration will be using this Case to Ramp-Up their Anti-Gun Bu[[$#!+ again

[REDLINE]

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! 

Alrighty then.  I was away for a while but just read all the responses in the thread.

The first thing I want to say is that it was good to see Zimmerman acquitted.  My feeling based on evidence.

The second thing I want to say is actually a question;  Since when is Irrational a term recognized as a personal name?!?  Regardless, irrational or not, you clearly have no opinion that agrees with any evidence in the case.

As far as not returning Zimmerman's gun back to him, this is in no way abnormal, acquittal or not.  Some people not found guilty of an appropriate crime never get their gun back from what I understand.  Besides that, even that is irrelevant as I see no reason why Zimmerman can not go buy a replacement immediately.  If I'm wrong on any of this based on FACTS, please clue me in.

You asked if the government is irrational and clearly suggested they aren't based on agreement between your thoughts and theirs.  Two things;  The idea of two different parties agreeing doesn't necessarily prove either correct in their assessment of anything.  And, evidently much of government, including the individuals who make it up, IS/ARE IRRATIONAL regarding many aspects of way of life in a free society.  Disagreeing with that no doubt shows elements of socialism, fascism, communism, and more.

Earlier you said;

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.

Some have touched on this already.  In regard to suggesting the prosecution didn't want a black male on the jury;  WHAT?  Where did you get any understanding whatsoever that the prosecution did not want a black male on the jury???  NOBODY that knows any fact ever suggested such a thing, let alone the prosecution themselves.  It is as you mentioned evidently clear that you have not followed the case too much.  And court sessions on TV were far from the only place facts of the case were available to anyone who reads a newspaper or has internet available.  My question is;  How is it you ever felt you had justification to intelligently comment toward the overall outcome of the case, in amongst a group that were clearly following the FACTS of the case, admitting yourself you had little clue what was or wasn't actual fact/evidence to support what a reasonable outcome of the case should or shouldn't be?

As for concern about riots and other mayhem;  What about it?  I think that concerns any person not choosing to riot or create whatever mayhem.  At the same time there's nothing anyone can do about it, other than law enforcement doing their best to control it.  Are you suggesting there wouldn't have been some kind of outcry regardless which way the jury decided this case?  It really makes no sense you brought it up in context of everything else you said.

Here are some facts of the case to help you understand the jury's ultimate decision to acquit G. Zimmerman:
TM chose to engage physical conflict to the extent of actual fighting on GZ.
TM probably did break GZ's nose and was on top of GZ bashing GZ's head into a concrete sidewalk.
GZ was scared for his life and repeatedly called out for help.
When no help showed up GZ was able to get his gun and shoot TM.
TM was on top of, over the top of, GZ when GZ fired the shot that killed TM.
GZ was not racist.
GZ was generally a standup guy toward his neighborhood and others in general.
The 911 call made by GZ agrees with GZ's recollection of what happened to the extent the 911 call could.
The phone call TM had been engaged in does not go against anything GZ said happened.

And of course there is plenty of other supporting evidence that GZ was justified in ultimately shooting TM.

What would be awesome is if the incident never escalated to a death.
What would be awesome is if TM would have just continued home.
BUT, hindsight is 20/20, and what happened did happen.
Such is life, just not always resulting in an untimely death that in this case never needed to happen in the 1st place had a few simple scenarios been ever so slightly different.  And then of course there exist all the wrongful deaths that happen daily in this country and almost nobody says a peep.  I for one see something wrong with that picture, especially for those that individually or collectively have the power to make serious dents in the chaos, but either choose not to or even worse add to the chaos.

[DM1906]

DM1906,

Did Zimmerman's neighbor who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman testify? And if so, could he actually identify who was on top?

Yes, and yes.

[gandog56]

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! 

Alrighty then.  I was away for a while but just read all the responses in the thread.

The first thing I want to say is that it was good to see Zimmerman acquitted.  My feeling based on evidence.

The second thing I want to say is actually a question;  Since when is Irrational a term recognized as a personal name?!?  Regardless, irrational or not, you clearly have no opinion that agrees with any evidence in the case.

As far as not returning Zimmerman's gun back to him, this is in no way abnormal, acquittal or not.  Some people not found guilty of an appropriate crime never get their gun back from what I understand.  Besides that, even that is irrelevant as I see no reason why Zimmerman can not go buy a replacement immediately.  If I'm wrong on any of this based on FACTS, please clue me in.

You asked if the government is irrational and clearly suggested they aren't based on agreement between your thoughts and theirs.  Two things;  The idea of two different parties agreeing doesn't necessarily prove either correct in their assessment of anything.  And, evidently much of government, including the individuals who make it up, IS/ARE IRRATIONAL regarding many aspects of way of life in a free society.  Disagreeing with that no doubt shows elements of socialism, fascism, communism, and more.

Earlier you said;

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.

Some have touched on this already.  In regard to suggesting the prosecution didn't want a black male on the jury;  WHAT?  Where did you get any understanding whatsoever that the prosecution did not want a black male on the jury???  NOBODY that knows any fact ever suggested such a thing, let alone the prosecution themselves.  It is as you mentioned evidently clear that you have not followed the case too much.  And court sessions on TV were far from the only place facts of the case were available to anyone who reads a newspaper or has internet available.  My question is;  How is it you ever felt you had justification to intelligently comment toward the overall outcome of the case, in amongst a group that were clearly following the FACTS of the case, admitting yourself you had little clue what was or wasn't actual fact/evidence to support what a reasonable outcome of the case should or shouldn't be?

As for concern about riots and other mayhem;  What about it?  I think that concerns any person not choosing to riot or create whatever mayhem.  At the same time there's nothing anyone can do about it, other than law enforcement doing their best to control it.  Are you suggesting there wouldn't have been some kind of outcry regardless which way the jury decided this case?  It really makes no sense you brought it up in context of everything else you said.

Here are some facts of the case to help you understand the jury's ultimate decision to acquit G. Zimmerman:
TM chose to engage physical conflict to the extent of actual fighting on GZ.
TM probably did break GZ's nose and was on top of GZ bashing GZ's head into a concrete sidewalk.
GZ was scared for his life and repeatedly called out for help.
When no help showed up GZ was able to get his gun and shoot TM.
TM was on top of, over the top of, GZ when GZ fired the shot that killed TM.
GZ was not racist.
GZ was generally a standup guy toward his neighborhood and others in general.
The 911 call made by GZ agrees with GZ's recollection of what happened to the extent the 911 call could.
The phone call TM had been engaged in does not go against anything GZ said happened.

And of course there is plenty of other supporting evidence that GZ was justified in ultimately shooting TM.

What would be awesome is if the incident never escalated to a death.
What would be awesome is if TM would have just continued home.
BUT, hindsight is 20/20, and what happened did happen.
Such is life, just not always resulting in an untimely death that in this case never needed to happen in the 1st place had a few simple scenarios been ever so slightly different.  And then of course there exist all the wrongful deaths that happen daily in this country and almost nobody says a peep.  I for one see something wrong with that picture, especially for those that individually or collectively have the power to make serious dents in the chaos, but either choose not to or even worse add to the chaos.

So what's your point? You called MY opinion irrational....I didn't do anything to deserve that except disagree with you. I still think he may have been guilty as hell. You obviously strongly disagree, but I'm not irrational. At least I hope not, since I got my CCW not too long ago. 

[REDLINE]

That was the first I posted in this thread.  Therefore you couldn't have disagreed with me before.  Why maybe guilty (George Zimmerman) as hell?

[DeltaSteve]

The real pandering thug ..

[DenStinett]

I still think he may have been guilty as hell

Why maybe guilty (George Zimmerman) as hell?

Yeah, I too would have to ask;
"Facts, Evidence, Proof....Anything ? ? ?"
And opinions don't count ! ! !

"This could be me thirty (some odd) years ago"
Too late ! ! !

[gandog56]

That was the first I posted in this thread.  Therefore you couldn't have disagreed with me before.  Why maybe guilty (George Zimmerman) as hell?

I already said...his version doesn't ring true to me. I mean what I think doesn't mean you have to agree, but irrational? Let's just say I am VERY offended by that.

[REDLINE]

That was the first I posted in this thread.  Therefore you couldn't have disagreed with me before.  Why maybe guilty (George Zimmerman) as hell?

I already said...his version doesn't ring true to me. I mean what I think doesn't mean you have to agree, but irrational? Let's just say I am VERY offended by that.

When you make a comment that is evidently incorrect, how is that not irrational?  It's not even opinion at that point.  If I say I'm of the opinion my 10mm gun shoots 9mm ammo without any modification, yet it is not true as evidence shows, but I still say I believe it, would I not be considered irrational in that line of thought?  That's akin to what you've suggested earlier in this thread.

What part of Zimmerman's claim to what happened feels hokey to you?

[Steve4102]

Yeah, I too would have to ask;
"Facts, Evidence, Proof....Anything ? ? ?" 

What part of Zimmerman's claim to what happened feels hokey to you? 

Why maybe guilty (George Zimmerman) as hell?

  I have asked him this twice, you guys three more times, he has still not even attempted to answer.  Why, because he has no answer or fact to back up his "opinion".   I gotta think he got his "opinion" from CNN, Twitter or Facebook, cuz he sure as hell has NO real facts in this case.  No Facts, only and Opinion, scary stuff right there.

I'm not irrational. At least I hope not, since I got my CCW not too long ago.

  Now that some funny sh%$& Right there.  You with a Carry Permit?  What the hell do you indent to do with it, act tuff and scare people with your carry piece.  You sure as hell better not use it.

   Better yet you better not even load it, that way when a 17 year Black Male is pounding knots on your head you will resist the urge to Defend Yourself with your firearm knowing  you would be guilty of Murder.