Author Topic: JURORS FIND ZIMMERMAN NOT GUILTY  (Read 26410 times)

how can intentionally pointing a gun at a person. and then shooting said gun, EVER be manslaughter. by definition, no lol.

even if the killing was justified. thats still not what manslaughter is lol.


Fine whatever. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion for better or worse. Glad we have one less worthless stuff living on welfare.

Fine whatever. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion for better or worse. Glad we have one less worthless stuff living on welfare.

this

No forget that, I'm not done here. A trial is conducted based off the evidence put out by either of the parties. If the evidence clearly leans to Zimmerman(said by Kaiiu himself) then there isn't anything to argue over. No further evidence has been brought forward, end of story.

Furthermore, you can't try someone based on evidence not found. while Martin didn't have DNA on his knuckles, it was clearly stated multiple times during the trial that the evidence collection by the police and forensics was incredibly sloppy and botched.

Lastly, with the police ruining evidence as such, we're forced to base it off the story of panicky witnesses, Zimmerman himself, and the few and far between pieces that lead to Martin being cast as the aggressor such as him not having much damage besides the gun shot, the scuffed hands, Zimmerman's physical state on police tapes and mug shots.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2013, 01:07:07 AM by Aripany »

Fine whatever. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion for better or worse. Glad we have one less worthless stuff living on welfare.
true colors coming out huh? we all know why you hate trayvon so much lol
No forget that, I'm not done here. A trial is conducted based off the evidence put out by either of the parties. If the evidence clearly leans to Zimmerman(said by Kaiiu himself) then there isn't anything to argue over. No further evidence has been brought forward, end of story.
i never argued that. i argued your point that it was clear cut, and how who started has a big effect on the case.

true colors coming out huh? we all know why you hate trayvon so much loli never argued that. i argued your point that it was clear cut, and how who started has a big effect on the case.
No, who started the fight isn't important. The important part is how the fight went(obviously in Martin's favor till the end) and how much it escalated.

No, who started the fight isn't important. The important part is how the fight went(obviously in Martin's favor till the end) and how much it escalated.
here we go again. who started the fight is very important.

here we go again. who started the fight is very important.
I want you to post clear proof stating that knowing the person who started the fight woud've changed the verdict.

Fine whatever. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion for better or worse. Glad we have one less worthless stuff living on welfare.

You're a loving tool, as if it wasn't obvious before.

You're glad someone died because they're on welfare? What the hell is wrong with you? Both of his parents have jobs; they aren't dependent on welfare.

You're a loving tool, as if it wasn't obvious before.

You're glad someone died because they're on welfare? What the hell is wrong with you? Both of his parents have jobs; they aren't dependent on welfare.
In that case, I'm glad some teen-something year old thug with a record is off the streets.

I want you to post clear proof stating that knowing the person who started the fight woud've changed the verdict.
i really hope you're trolling. like i really do.
the whole defense's case was that the killing was in self-defense. if zimmy started the fight it wouldn't really be self-defense.

i really hope you're trolling. like i really do.
the whole defense's case was that the killing was in self-defense. if zimmy started the fight it wouldn't really be self-defense.
Is there evidence to Zimmer starting the fight?

Is there evidence to Zimmer starting the fight?

no. That's not the point. Aripany is trying to claim that no matter who started the fight, Zimmerman's claims of self-defense would still work.

You really think if someone started a fight with another person, got beat up, then stabbed the guy, they would be able to claim self-defense?

no. That's not the point. Aripany is trying to claim that no matter who started the fight, Zimmerman's claims of self-defense would still work.

You really think if someone started a fight with another person, got beat up, then stabbed the guy, they would be able to claim self-defense?
I'm not branching off of the argument between gumby and pokey. I'm just asking if there is.