Zimmerman friend--'In my heart I believe he targeted Martin for his race'

If that's the case, the RW had excellent teachers. I can link many links here, how many would you like? Once you read and comment on this one, will link some more. Not going to waste time doing that now because I doubt you will either read or comment on the following:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/908cxoqy.asp#!

 

These posters are saying that they themselves would be targets if the liberals of this board knew where they lived. Your article has a guy who said something in a public forum being criticized from afar by talk show hosts. Not even remotely the same thing.

I do love this line though from your article.

So Conservatives who I have been told are supposed to be this moral high ground group of people who are tough and thick skinned doubled down on the whining and general nastiness against Obama. Must be very proud of themselves to be better at those things that the liberal loons they love to fight daily.

 

From Raw Story:

"But he decided to tell the FBI about the call earlier this year after both of his sons died recently, which allowed him to identify more strongly with Martin’s family."

So he decided to tell the FBI his story 'EARLIER this YEAR after both of his boys died RECENTLY' Whut? That statement doesn't make any sense!! At first I tho[t they meant the 'racist call' from the stranger, but Taaffe said that call happened 2 yrs ago....


This story is sloppily written.....

 

George Zimmerman was found Not Guilty, he was not found Innocent and until you can prove otherwise, stop wasting my time. If DNA evidence is presented that completely exonerates a person from a crime they are accused of or even from being at the scene of the crime, the they can be called "Innocent". This was not the case with GZ.

 

I don't think anyone can take what this guy says seriously. I didn't think so back then, nor do I now.

 

Really? Give me some examples of conservatives trying to shut up liberals? Give me some examples of death threats against OJ? Every college across America tries to shut up conservative speech, and I am saying that with a straight face. Liberals are violent when they don't get their way or the courts rule against their agenda

 

Yup, that's true.........

 

I'm talking about death threats, what are you talking about?

 

Yeah, he "lost" two sons? As in they were shot doing something they shouldn't have been doing???? And this doesn't taint his testimony to your eyes?

Once blind always blind. Typical racist.

 

When Holder sent his civil rights army to Ferguson, I said if they found out Wilson once said the 'N' word, he's cooked. People laughed or called it a straw man. Now, the FBI has someone who can testify that George Zimmerman once made "racial comments." Wilson is next. You could be next.

 

Take your pick when it comes to abortion, illegal immigration, muslims, etc., etc.

- - - Updated - - -

Yea because if he did use the Nword during this altercation its really no big deal.

 

You have the topics, but where are the death threats? My son is a high school principle and gets death threats, but this thread is about an American being found not guilty and the threats continue. Zimmerman's parents had to move in fear of death threats because Spike Lee tweeted their address. This is not the way Americans are suppose to act

 

As a matter of indisputable legal fact that we all enjoy the benefit of in the US (see previously cited case), George Zimmerman was proven innocent when a not guilty verdict was returned. Ironically, the very wording of our verdicts in the US that you are attempting to distort demonstrates your error and simultaneously the strong presumption of innocence we enjoy . No judge or jury is ever asked to find someone innocent because we are ALL innocent as a matter of law until proven guilty of some crime. You asked for documented LEGAL proof, not epistemological (which is no more possible in the Zimmerman case than in the premise "the sun will come up tomorrow"), and were given it. Sorry if you don't like that, but that doesn't change the truth of it. If you feel that learning basic civics and the basic legal foundations of our country are a waste of your time, it's no wonder you hold the generally uninformed political positions you do.

 

You are incorrect and you are bending into a pretzel to change that fact. Provide public records or any official statement that legally deemed GZ innocent. A person is presumed innocent until the facts or trial can prove otherwise.. The trial did not prove his innocence.....

^^^^^^and that is why no public records that you can retrieve on this case will state that GZ was found innocent.

 

Try to follow along, and try to stop distorting my point that a child could grasp. The MSM and this forum are chock full of illusory dangers of the "violent" nonleft, "violent Tea Party thugs," "RW extremist militia" drawing down at the Bundy Ranch, yet somehow two posts from RW posters advising anonymity in expressing antileftist beliefs ruffles your feathers? In a world where MSM literally leaps on any hint of RW violence, yet ignores:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2653895/posts

http://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2010/08/28/death-threats-against-conservatives/

http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-co...ts-made-by-liberals-and-democrats-353592.html

Here's how ovens get heated up, by dehumanizing the target group, rabble rousing ignorant proles.

http://ww2today.com/28th-november-1940-nazi-film-the-eternal-jew-is-released

So how is that one bit different from the current resentment politics of the left?

The ___________ are oppressing women, blacks, immigrants, gays, poor.

Insert one of the following into the blank, doesn't matter which: rich, Poles, GOP, Jews, red states, gypsies, capitalists, Serbs, Croats, men, Shiites, infidels, etc.

That's how it begins, we all know how it ends. But sure, there's no need to be concerned about that kind of mob politics. Those 100,000,000 tombstones must simply be wrong and history never repeats itself. Concern by the targets of resentment politics is just overblown.

 

I hate to break it to you dear but if a person isn't guilty of something they are innocent. Just like our justice system is based on "INNOCENT until proven guilty". George was never proven guilty in a court of law so he is innocent.

 

Innocent until proven guilty. Not Guilty = Innocent, Guilty = Not Innocent seems simple enough. Easier than determining what the definition of IS is.

 

Really? So if a trial did not show George was guilty then what is left....innocent.....LOL! I have to chuckle at how some folks are so upset at the verdict they need to resort to such delusion for comfort.

 

+1 Some folks need to "twist" reality to make it tolerable. Sad. I guess thinking George is unguilty is more tolerable than thinking he is innocent.

 

If you backtrack to my previous posts, the very concise explanation is posted. The difference between the two terms, Not Guilty and Innocent from a legal standpoint is very clear and this is not just about this case, it goes for all cases.


What is VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY?

a verdict declaring the case is not proven against the defendant. It does not mean he is innocent

http://thelawdictionary.org/verdict-of-not-guilty/

 

Give me a break, death threats are as American as apple pie. Death threats have nothing to do with politics, everyday people are given death threats. The president receives death threats everyday, members of Congress receive death threats, actors, actresses, athletes, doctors, lawyers, etc.

 

Already did, the highest court in the land found him innocent when they affirmed the foundational principle, "innocent until proven guilty" in the 1895 case cited. In essence, every person, including George Zimmerman is legally innocent to start with, and if a person is found not guilty, they return to that preexisting innocent state The structure is simple, If ~A, then B, If not guilty, then innocent... with the full force of our law behind that.

A not guilty verdict is the equivalent of proving legal innocence. You are welcome to your opinion about this or that person's innocence, but rest assured that in the eyes of the law, George Zimmerman was proven innocent legally when the not guilty verdict was returned.

You and Coombs are both confusing the jury's duty as fact finders and the parameters of that duty with legal proof. No, the jury did not find him innocent, but as a matter of law, he IS innocent to a point of absolute legal certainty, or "proof," once a not guilty verdict is returned. It is not necessary for the jury to find a defendant innocent, that's not their job. In fact, Coombs misleading statement proves MY point. Juries do not find innocence precisely because defendants already ARE LEGALLY INNOCENT until proven otherwise.

 

Even the very definition of innocent is not guilty:

www.i.word.com/idictionary/innocent

When people need to deny the very definition of a word they have a dire need to deny reality. I guess for those people reality must suck.

 

"but now he suspects the call may have come from his neighbor and friend, Zimmerman."

Withe liberals it's never whether it's true or not, it's the seriousness of the allegation that's the most important.

 

Sorry, Doom - usually agree w/you, but can't here......

A person is under the presumption of innocence involving a crime. If the state can't prove he's guilty due to lack of evidence, then he's found 'not guilty' - but that doesn't mean he's innocent. It's simply that the state couldn't prove their case against him........

There's a lot of criminals out there walking around free b/c of the lack of evidence to prove they're guilty.......

That's why Casey Anthony, that baby killing psycho(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) walked. The state didn't have enuf evidence against her, but then they screwed up big time by going for the DP and not enuf evidence to convict her, so the jury had no choice but to set her free.......is she 'innocent'? HELL, NO! No normal, loving mother goes dancing right after her toddler disappears.......