G. Zimmerman

zopperman said:
Definitely the insane costs of decent defense, also the inability of the common person to defend him/herself because of a bunch of technical BS. Justice shouldn't depend on money. Think about bail (which we don't have in DC) which entirely depends on income and assets. Rich people can stay out of jail and pay for a bougie lawyer while poor people are often stuck with whoever the court gives them and have to sit in jail because they can't post bond? :shrug:

the adversarial nature of it wherein no one is concerned with justice but both sides are concerned with proving something specific instead of finding truth - often, like you said, putting innocent people in jail and as I often see at the PD, putting guilty people back on the street. How so much of trials are based on twisting and manipulating the truth into a lie

the stagnation of our laws in relationship to the advancement and progression of society, times change so should laws.

just my thoughts
Click to expand...

Purchased legal inequity is a sad fact and problem among all walks of life.

I've benefited from it, but not proudly.
 
ndcent said:
Purchased legal inequity is a sad fact and problem among all walks of life.

I've benefited from it, but not proudly.
Click to expand...

Yeah, working at the public defender has really opened my eyes to that - a lack of funding shouldn't preclude a person from quality legal help, especially considering that the poor are generally those in the most need of it. Here, the PD offers very good services, but only take on some of the case load while the rest go to privately contracted state appointed attorneys..
 
ndcent said:
For sure. And every time I get my ass kicked by a skinny little teenager I make sure to shoot and kill them, self defense and all no biggie!
Click to expand...

Maybe "skinny little teenagers" shouldn't jump out of the bushes on dark rainy nights and commence to whipping a pudgy guys ass. Maybe "skinny little teenagers" will think twice about doing so in the future.
 
BrianSD_42 said:
So I take it none of you have seen the movie I mentioned "12 Angry Men"

I know it isn't recent but there are plenty of older folks on this thread. It is definitely one of top all time dramas. I saw it for first time a few months ago and was blown away by performances. IMDB gives it a 8.9/10 out of 250,000 votes.
Click to expand...

I saw it 2 decades ago and maybe during late night fall asleep to the TV episodes a couple times since. I vaguely remember the premise - not really enough to enter into conversation.
 
ndcent said:
Guilty of what?

I hope no one is debating "if" he shot and killed an unarmed minor, because he's certainly guilty of that.
Click to expand...

I also don't believe anybody is debating that an "unarmed minor" was on top of the defendant beating him like a runaway slave because Trayvon was certainly guilty of that.



ndcent said:
I just am hesitant to believe a small framed unarmed teenager punching you in the face should be responded to with a gun and the precedent that would set for self defense moving forward.

Dude is a wackjob pansy and he's very much guilty of manslaughter at the very least whether or not it was racially motivated.

My opinion is no more valid than yours or anyone else, so yeah. I mean I understand people want to legitimize their inner fantasy of killing someone in "self defense" from their keyboard castle but I don't share it.
Click to expand...

You say that GZ is "very much guilty of manslaughter at the very least" and I am wondering what evidence you have seen that supports that argument. So far you have just said that its an opinion and you have a hard time believing things. You claim that you don't like "Martin supporters with their blind idealism and bleeding hearts" but those people that you claim not to have any use for feel the same way you do and have nothing to back it up either. You are what you claim to dislike unless you can provide something other than a biased opinion to substantiate your viewpoint.
 
huntsonora said:
I also don't believe anybody is debating that an "unarmed minor" was on top of the defendant beating him like a runaway slave because Trayvon was certainly guilty of that.





You say that GZ is "very much guilty of manslaughter at the very least" and I am wondering what evidence you have seen that supports that argument. So far you have just said that its an opinion and you have a hard time believing things. You claim that you don't like "Martin supporters with their blind idealism and bleeding hearts" but those people that you claim not to have any use for feel the same way you do and have nothing to back it up either. You are what you claim to dislike unless you can provide something other than a biased opinion to substantiate your viewpoint.
Click to expand...

:shrug:

No one can be certain of what happened since we weren't there.
 
Dude is a wackjob pansy
Click to expand...

Whether someone is a "pansy" or not is irrelevant. If you feel like your life is being threatened, you can certainly use deadly force. And every person's definition of "threatened" is different.

As far as predictions go...

My prediction is that Zimmerman is done. Not for murder; I don't think murder will fly because I fail to see any proof that is beyond a reasonable doubt. Too many holes - i.e. doubts - in the prosecution's case. And you'd better believe that if this jury pays attention to the judge's instructions and takes their job seriously (which they should in a murder case), any 'reasonable doubt' is going to get Zimmerman out of the murder charge.

However, I think they'll convict him on the aggravated assault charges and - to throw a bone to everyone screaming for the guy's head - they'll end up giving him the maximum sentence - or close to it.

And that's BEFORE the family, backed by Sharpton and his cronies, sue the living crap out of him and destroy his life.
 
zopperman said:
:shrug:

No one can be certain of what happened since we weren't there.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly my point. You can have strong opinions either way but as it pertains to the charges the prosecution has to prove that Zimmerman is GUILTY and I have yet to see anything that says he is guilty of anything other than being a fat dude that looks like a chipmunk.

This is the reason I was wanting ndcent to share what he had seen that I hadn't because I admittedly have not been glued to the television watching the trial. It appears there is nothing that he can provide other than an opinion of what he thinks happened which is irrelevant in the outcome of the trial
 
huntsonora said:
I also don't believe anybody is debating that an "unarmed minor" was on top of the defendant beating him like a runaway slave because Trayvon was certainly guilty of that.
Click to expand...

:shrug:

I don't think that is necessarily true. All there is to illustrate that is the one witness and we all know how reliable eye witness testimony is.

We'll never know who the aggressor was.
 
I'm just amazed at how many claim to want justice yet they want to waste no time on the judicial process. I have already heard murmurs of people contemplating riots and what they will do. :doh:


BTW, did Zimmerman's mom ever trademark "Free the Z"?
 
bofa said:
I'm just amazed at how many claim to want justice yet they want to waste no time on the judicial process. I have already heard murmurs of people contemplating riots and what they will do. :doh:


BTW, did Zimmerman's mom ever trademark "Free the Z"?
Click to expand...

No, I heard TMs mom beat her to it. Seems she's a money-hungry enterprising little skamp and wanted to play both sides of the game.
 
However, I think they'll convict him on the aggravated assault charges and - to throw a bone to everyone screaming for the guy's head - they'll end up giving him the maximum sentence -
Click to expand...

Are you sure he was even charged with aggravated assault? Also doesn't reasonable doubt still apply for manslaughter?
 
Yes, I believe reasonable doubt still affects the uh... downgraded consideration. Maybe he'll double park tomorrow so they can knock it down to a ticket so people feel better.
 
zopperman said:
:shrug:

I don't think that is necessarily true. All there is to illustrate that is the one witness and we all know how reliable eye witness testimony is.

We'll never know who the aggressor was.
Click to expand...

There was a forensic pathologist who testified that the forensics evidence supports Zimmerman's account of what happened as well as an eyewitness to the scuffle. The wounds that Zimmerman sustained as well as the trajectory of the gunshot all point to things going down the way Zimmerman said they did. You are correct that we will never really know as we were not there BUT at least there is evidence to back what Zimmerman says happened.

I am merely asking those that think Z is guilty what they have seen in order to come up with an educated decision that he is guilty. Its really not a difficult question unless you are basing that decision on an emotional feeling rather than facts that have been presented
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 1,571 (members: 3, guests: 1,568)

Forum statistics

Threads
278,312
Messages
3,554,085
Members
248,016
Latest member
Advally Service

Share this page

Trending content

Back
Top