NBC is in hot water and likely to lose millions:

That's a nice spin, but not-guilty doesn't mean innocent. Our judicial system isn't designed to find people innocent.

 

Really?

He was labeled a RACIST, and had his LIFE THREATENED, and STILL has to live with the stigma af that initial LIE.

- - - Updated - - -

Not necessarily. IN addition, it is not likely that this will EVER go to trial. Zimmerman , OBVIOUSLY, has grounds.

All that remains to be determined is if NBC's OFFER is enough to suit George and the Mrs.

 

WTF??!! SERIOUSLY??!!

It COMPLETELY CHANGED the NEN CALL, and led to the FALSE ACCUSATIONS of "RACISM" towards Zimmerman,which depsite being COMPLETELY DEBUNKED, continue to this day.

Astoundingly obtuse...

- - - Updated - - -

It is NBC who will SEEK A SETTLEMENT, I assure you.

 

Maybe we can break from such seriousness and make some fun wagers (not monitary of course)...what $$ amount do you think NBC will offer to keep this out of court...and just how sure are you??

 

It's not a "spin." Have you not heard of "innocent until proven guilty?" That means the innocence of the accused is presumed legally until their guilt can be proven. If they are found to be "not guilty," then proof of their guilt has not been established and they are still innocent as guilt was never proven. Why are you even arguing this point? Is your position one of blatant ignoring of the way the law and criminal justice system works? Or is it just that your position has already convicted Zimmerman despite the "not guilty" verdict, therefore you find it difficult to acknowledge that--since his guilt of the crime for which he was charged was not proven--he is still presumed to be innocent of legal wrongdoing?

 

When a (*)(*)(*)(*)'n coon/goon/punk (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) never saw you but is getting away and you jump out of your car, hunt 'em down and shoot 'em to death in self of defense of his soda & candy ... well, it may be ok in criminal court for lack of witnesses ... but I'd be hard-pressed to believe it will in a wrongful death civil-action ...


http://www.politicalforum.com/zimmerman/312646-alec-nra-weigh.html

 

I don't spend too much time with Zimmies who can't even understand their own question let alone their own logic .. LOL.

 

Pure BS: You engaged me right up to the point where you realized you could not best my argument. Now, you have stooped to assailing my character--indicating that you know you have already lost this one. You are digging a very nice hole for yourself. Now I will give you one more chance to salvage your dignity and answer my question: What am I allegedly "making excuses" for? And here's my olive branch: There is no shame in admitting you made a mistake; in fact I would commend you for it as it shows your character.

I'm all ears...

 

Zimmy is a white-hispanic ... now that he's been found not guilty you want to change his ethnicity/identity from white to hispanic .... this does not fool anyone in trying to extricate your subliminal conscience of white guilt.

 

Do you have any evidence to support your fallacious claim?

 

That would be like trying to find one hispanic who backs Zimmy.

 

If you would care to check any of the threads that have been going on for a very long time--long prior to the verdict, our side of this debate has always maintained that Zimmerman is not "white," and that the term "white-hispanic" is ridiculous and used only by those attempting to justify and excuse the initial blatantly incorrect reporting by the media that Zimmerman was a "white male." Calling someone who looks like Zimmerman--tan or light brown at the lightest--a "white-hispanic" due to a portion of his cultural heritage is as ridiculous as calling a black person with heritage from northern Europe a "black-Anglo." Why is it that I have never heard the second term used? Oh that's right, because it's a ridiculous term that has only really come into prevalent use for this case because people are still bent on justifying the media's dishonest initial reporting of Zimmerman being "white."

 

Oh NBC didn't doctor the tape and fire two employees over it...............gotcha.

- - - Updated - - -

Why would he need to take the stand? What would he be testifying too and what do you think would be different from the other interrogations he submitted to voluntarily?

 

Slander, liable, reputation, threats to his life and to his family, cost of having to hire private protection, inability to seek gainful employment due to safety concerns, a host of ways.

Perhaps he could sue you for claiming he committed an assault and had stalked Martin?

 

Why? His attorney's would state how in their filing and present any evidence. And if he did take the stand the testimony would only be towards that harm not as to the events that night other than the part where NBC doctored the tape.

What did you think would come out of his testifying even if he did? What is this new evidence you think would be brought out?

- - - Updated - - -

You hyperbole is quite telling in how lacking a reasoned argument you have. You think slamming people around here will made Zimmerman guilty?

 

Perhaps you should explain why you left out the parts of the story passed the point where Martin returned to the TLR property? Then you can show us the evidence that Zimmerman shot him only because he had purchased candy and soda and was on his way home.

 

Hand-picked selected sheep, paid to say what the network wants. Do You honestly think the pundit controlled Media is just gonna let some some average joe's come on the panel? Those panels are always rigged. understand that and....

Go back to sleeep.

 

Geraldo Rivera called Trayvon Martin a hoodie wearing thug from jumpstreet, GENIUS!!!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/20/geraldo-rivera-trayvon-martin-thug-wear_n_1530811.html

Then he apologizies after the fact....hmmm

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...martin-comment-act-thug-die-article-1.1051527


Now Go back to sleep.

 

Not if he is the plaintiff filing the lawsuit. What would he be testifying too? The evidence of the defamation are on the two tapes, the original and the doctored. His lawyers will state in their filings what the harm and damage has been and present evidence of it for instance the death threats, the protest with signs calling him a racist, the statements of others that he is a racist based on the doctored tape. Beyond that he would not testify as the shooting or any part of it as that is not an issue in his lawsuit against NBC.

As badly as you misrepresented the law claiming Zimmerman committed an assault and a stalking I would think you would not venture into giving legal opinions again.

 

Yes, and I find it amusing that the same person who calls him 'Zimmy' is the same one who says Zimmerman has to prove he was defamed. LOL

 

Actually that Hannity group had heated exchanges between M supporters and Z supporters. If they were 'hand picked' it was to ensure a balanced group. Did you even watch it?

 

Rivera said M LOOKED like a thug because of his garb. He didn't CALL M a thug or even refer to him as a thug.

 

"hoodie wearing thug" =/= "drug dealer"

You know this. Therefore you are being intentionally dishonest.

 

And how many of youd troll posts have been deleted in the past week?

 

The guy with the AR-15 was black.

Racially stereotype much?

Nope. You racially stereotyped him as white because of his last name.