George Zimmerman is innocent...

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by evangelist6589, Jul 17, 2013.

  1. evangelist6589

    evangelist6589
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2010
    Messages:
    8,364
    Likes Received:
    105
    Despite the lack of hard evidence the liberal media will do all that they can to "demonize" George Zimmerman, and those that disagree with them. The man fought in self-defense, and tragically took a life, but none the less protected himself. There is no hard evidence to the contrary and those that disagree have an agenda, and do not care about facts, but only about progressing that agenda. I heard a Tea-Party African American advocate on the radio whom even said that Zimmerman is innocent.

    African Americans and others that continue to whine, clearly are AFRAID, and not interested in the facts. They want a REASON to progress their ideologies. I cant remember the name of the term used, but I have a theory as to what they are promoting. But none the less its called SIN!!
     
  2. Zaac

    Zaac
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    13,757
    Likes Received:
    220
    There's plenty of hard evidence that could have been put forth to show that Zimmerman was a violent person possibly looking for a confrontation. It wasn't put forth.

    Everybody jumped on self-defense because that's his out. But the prosecutors could have easily shown Zimmerman to be a violent person with a penchant for confrontation and shown that to be consistent with him getting out of his truck and pursuing Martin. Kinda takes away self defense when you're instigating a confrontation.

    A jury found him not guilty of second degree murder and I'm assuming manslaughter since the judge put that into consideration.

    That's not a declaration that he was innocent, but that they didn't believe the prosecution proved that he was guilty of those charges.


    Because he, like Trayvon Martin, was definitely guilty of some stuff that night.
     
  3. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,204
    Likes Received:
    611
    Mods please move this to News/Current Events.
     
  4. evangelist6589

    evangelist6589
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2010
    Messages:
    8,364
    Likes Received:
    105
    Can you cite specifics or will you just be vague? Please cite your sources. I will cite my source and that is Sean Hannity.

     
  5. Zaac

    Zaac
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    13,757
    Likes Received:
    220
    I know the source. I listen to and watch him too. That's why I know all the talking points and where folks on here get them from. :laugh:
     
  6. Allan

    Allan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    0
    Speculation is NOT hard evidence and that is what you are practically stating when you seek to try to prove a 'possibly'.

    They allowed almost everything the prosecution desired to bring in. The reason for the 'self defense' issue is because there IS 'hard evidence' proving it WAS self defense. It was the very reason the Prosecutor didn't go after him to begin with as there was not enough evidence. The ONLY reason they tried was to Politically Correct when the 'race card' was played, and the ONLY reason they are STILL trying to go after him is due to the 'race card' others are trying to build upon.

    He was found not guilty of breaking any laws, not just second degree murder

    If you are not found guilty of breaking those laws, it reflects that the subject is found innocent. Remember the AMERICAN motto - Innocent until PROVED guilty?!

    Agreed. Both did things that could have completely avoided the horrible incident that took place and killed one and ruined the another.
     
  7. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    If such evidence existed, the prosecution would have not hesitated to use it. There is no such evidence.

    They tried. They introduced evidence of other 9-1-1 calls that allegedly showed him to be "racist" but in the calls, Zimmerman did not use racial slurs nor act in anyway inconsistent with his true persona as a concerned citizen anxious to help reduce crime in his neighborhood.

    Not at all. In fact, it reinforces the concept.

    Which, essentially, is all any "not guilty" verdict is, and while there are times that such verdicts release guilty persons, this was not one of them.

    I really don't understand your obsession with finding Zimmerman guilty of something, Zaac. There is no evidence, except apparently in your own mind, that he did anything illegal or immoral. He simply wanted to help police stop someone he regarded as "suspicious" from committing a crime. It is apparent from Martin's thuggery, both in the recent past and that night, that he had a propensity for crime, and while it may not have been his intent that night to commit one, the fact is, he did so anyway, in confronting a law-abiding citizen who simply wanted to protect his neighbor's life and property. Trayvon's parents may want to remember him as a sweet, innocent kid, but they knew better, as his rap sheet indicates.

    If Martin didn't want to be a suspect, he could have simply said, "Hey, man, I'm visiting my dad's girlfriend up the street. Come with me and you can check it out for yourself." Instead, Trayvon chose not to identify himself, he chose to get confrontational, he chose to attack Zimmerman for no reason -- Zimmerman, as Neighborhood Watch Coordinator, had every right to know who was in his neighborhood -- and Trayvon chose to knock George to the ground and Trayvon chose to begin beating George and Trayvon chose to start slamming George's head into the pavement. You want to talk about "innocent"? These are not the actions of anyone who is "innocent"!

    Now, Zaac, you can accept or reject those as the facts of the case, and obviously you have rejected them. You may claim he was not unjustified in confronting Zimmerman, but the truth is, he was the stranger in the area and he owned the neighborhood watch -- just as he would have been required to tell a police officer inquiring of him -- why he was there. You have rejected these facts in defiance of the evidence, which means it is you (among millions), not Zimmerman, who was biased in that case.
     
    #7 thisnumbersdisconnected, Jul 20, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 20, 2013
  8. Alive in Christ

    Alive in Christ
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2008
    Messages:
    3,822
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why is this so difficult for some people?

    1) Theire was an altercation. (Fight, tussle. etc)

    2) Zimmerman feared bodily harm, or death.

    3) He protected himself


    Its not all that complicated
     

Share This Page

Loading...