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

If "if's" and "buts" were candy and nuts we would all have a Merry Christmas.

Why do some people still cling to hypotheticals and fantasy instead of facts? Trayvon still got capped. It is called justifiable homicide hence the jury verdict of not guilty on murder charges.

 

Nope! We all know that the ONLY reason the jury didn't find him guilty of at least aggravated manslaughter was because the prosecutor didn't present the case in an order to remove the last "reasonable doubt" from their mind. . .

But. . .whatever you say. . .your opinion is a moot point for me, as usual!

 

^This is not a credible news source. You do realize that, right? If you seek propaganda, you will find propaganda.

Raw Story is digital toilet paper. It is designed to titillate the emotions of angry liberals with an axe to grind. Not inform anyone about the events of the world around them in a neutral and balanced fashion. Using sources like this for your information is akin to feeding a drug addiction. Because you are perpetuating a chemical dependency in your brain- the feeling of self-righteous,angry victimhood.

They're selling you emotional crack, basically.

 

So would that be equal to Conservative Treehouse.

 

LOL! What a lame excuse blaming the prosecution but the facts were not on their side. This trial was just to cater to the race baiters. SPD had it correct from the beginning. Once I looked at the evidence and the law I could see the verdict coming. I tried to explain what was going to happen to those so emotionally invested in a guilty verdict but they chose to ignore my wisdom......their folly!

 

I don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about the Zimmerman saga so why are you trying so hard to convince yourself that ANY of my posts on this thread are directly about him. What don't you understand about my telling you several times that I am addressing the NOT GUILTY vs. INNOCENT issue as it relates to ANY case. Why are you so determined to spin this? So damn silly and a total waste of time to attempt to seriously engage with you for an intelligent debate. You are dead on wrong about what NOT GUILTY means in many criminal cases...

A verdict of "not guilty" can mean two entirely different things. It can, of course, mean that you believe the defendant is innocent. However, it can mean something entirely different. A verdict of "not guilty" can mean a verdict of "not proven." Even if you are very sure the defendant is guilty, but the state has not proven it "beyond a reasonable doubt," then it is your sworn duty to return a verdict of "not guilty."

http://www.oregoncriminalattorney.com/Criminal-Defense-Overview/Innocent-V-Not-Guilty.shtml

Acquittal A decision by the trier-of-fact (the judge if a non-jury trial, otherwise the jury) that there was not enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to decide that the defendant committed the crime(s) with which he or she was charged. It is not a finding of “innocence” although it could mean that the jury thinks the defendant did not commit the crime. On the other hand, an acquittal could mean the jury had some belief that defendant committed the crime, but it also had some doubts.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/enforce/GuideforOfficers/pages/Glossary.html

So like it or not...there it is.as plain as day. Living in an information denial of fact bubble must be tedious.

 

That is just it the not guilty vs innocent issue will relate differently to different cases. In this case the jury looked at the facts and rejected the murder charge. The killing of Martin remains justifiable homicide, like it or not.

I am not "spinning" anything. It isn't rocket science yet you are turning yourself into a pretzel to try and explain your misguided opinion.

Not this criminal case. Not guilty can mean innocent even by legal standards.

Thanks for proving my point. As some falsely claim that not guilty does not mean innocent your source claims IT CAN mean innocent. It does depend on the case. Given the facts of the Zimmerman case George is innocent.

I hope the jury took the charge of murder seriously. I also hope they took the loss of Martin's life serious. I have been on a jury where someone was charged with murder and it is not to be taken lightly. Whether I thought someone committed a crime was based on the facts of the case as it is with the Zimmerman case. Looking at the facts I would say George is innocent of murder as defined by the law.

It is good you admit to living is a denial of fact bubble. You obviously think George is guilty of something. What do you think he is guilty of? If you can't answer that then George is innocent.

 

You are confusing your opinion of a verdict with how one is innocent .

 

If you are going to tie yourself into knots to make my comments case specific, allow me to accommodate you...

George Zimmerman Juror Says 'In Our Hearts, We Felt He Was Guilty
http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-juror-murder/story?id=19770659

George Zimmerman juror to ABC: He 'got away with murder
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/25/justice/zimmerman-juror-b29-interview/

So, although I was generalizing about any murder trial, it does seem as If the innocence factor did not necessarily play a role in the jury's decision regarding the case you are so emotionally tied up with. Seems that the NOT GUILTY verdict was based upon exactly what some/many other not guilty verdicts are based upon...and it doesn't always mean innocent in the hearts and minds of the jury.

 

Sure, sure the media did a top notch job telling the truth in this case. LOL! Quoting biased stories does not prove anything other than how biased the liberal media is. Do you still think Trayvon was 12 years old when he died?

 

My yes...you knew what was in the hearts of the jurors better than they did themselves...I'm the one that is having a laugh...on your silliness. I'm outta here.

 

Not during the altercation, but sometime in his past.

 

Where did I claim to know what is in anyone's heart? Now you are just pulling such accusation out of thin air. Desperate much? How about answering my question: What is George guilty of exactly?

 

Just caught this little ditty...

You said....

The very definition of innocent is not guilty
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=383005&p=1064460008#post1064460008

and then you said...

That is just it the not guilty vs innocent issue will relate differently to different cases.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=383005&p=1064460183#post1064460183

Okay, I made my point and you learned something today about the law and the duty of jurors regardless of their emotions and that a verdict of not guilty does not necessarily equate to innocence in their hearts and minds...good for you!

 

Who knows what he said during the altercation, if he has used it before surely he will use it again.

 

LOL! So you admit it is possible that George was found innocent. As you stated via your source that not guilty can mean innocent. In the Zimmerman case the jury found not guilty regardless of how the media wants to spin it. There was a tremendous amount of pressure from nut cases to find George guilty. It is understandable that one juror would want to protect theirself by making phony claims of saying they felt he was guilty. Funny how they didn't find him guilty.

Still can't answer my question? If you feel George is guilty of something then tell us what he is guilty of?

 

Is Obama white or black????

- - - Updated - - -

Ask ZIMMERMAN if he thinks he isn't Latino or part African American.

 

This appears to be a grand jury for the DOJ and Holder on the civil rights violation charge. Why he went to a grand jury with it is beyond me other than to save his own arse for even starting the investigation before the criminal investigation. If there is a no bill it excuses him from using his prosecutorial discretion to not bring a charge after the FBI told him Zimmerman's has no history of racism.

 

Are you asserting Zimmerman committed a crime that night? If so what crime and what evidence supports your assertion versus the overwhelming evidence at trial that exonerated him, remember his put on an affirmative defense here.

 

You do realize Zimmerman is just as not guilty of an unlawful killing of Martin as you are?

 

And when a person asserts an affirmative defense and the evidence supports that and cannot be refuted they are deemed innocent of a crime is the killing they committed. DNA is just one of many types of evidence and is not some Ace of Spades trump card.

 

too bad he didn't come forward sooner with his speculation....


sorry, the court system did it's job with the evidence it had. Not that speculation from a former friend who is pissed over something or another is "proof" but for race-baiters everywhere... it's the straw to grasp at.


I realize, noone will ever convince you that Martin's actions led to Martin's demise.... so I will just quit tyrying to convince you, and laugh at another win for my side. Pretty soon, you will forget about Zimmerman when the grand jury fails to giv you the verdict you seek for Wilson.

 

It's called jurour remorse and reacting to the public response. But look at what she said

"The only minority on the all-female jury that voted to acquit George Zimmerman said today that Zimmerman "got away with murder" for killing Trayvon Martin and feels she owes an apology Martin's parents.

"You can't put the man in jail even though in our hearts we felt he was guilty," said the woman who was identified only as Juror B29 during the trial. "But we had to grab our hearts and put it aside and look at the evidence."

She said the jury was following Florida law and the evidence, she said, did not prove murder."

He ADMITTED he shot and killed Martin, the evidence proved it was in self defense. This was an affirmative defense and the evidence CONFIRMED he acted in self defense. She doesn't like the law that says you can defend yourself. In her heart IN SPITE of the evidence she admits proved it was in self defense she STILL wanted him punished. She should never be on a jury again.

 

The Martin Family has cashed on Trayvon,

The Brown Family same for their thug.

George Zimmerman's friend in now available for "interviews".

If there were no cash prize, the above would be more believable. ​

It is that simple.
News is not bought.


Moi

r > g

No ​

 

It seems that some cannot get over the fact that George was well within his right to defend himself. They want him to pay for some reason. Perhaps they are so consumed with social engineering they have lost all sense of justice.

Libs seem to want to persecute any white person that caps a black person. Facts and evidence do not matter. Look at Ferguson. Same thing: facts do not matter. The only facts they are interested in are skin color. I call bull(*)(*)(*)(*). If blacks were so persecuted you would see better examples than some criminal thugs who get killed when assaulting someone. Push back on these liberals and call them out on their crap.