Juror says Zimmerman got away with murder

You can't be that naïve, bigger is not always better. This video pretty much proves that.


http://youtu.be/Y5MdeI-nUGM Originally Posted by acp5762

That video doesn't prove what you think it does.

In fact, about the only thing it proves is what a real ass whipping looks like to the guy getting whipped. Watching that video, you can only really come to one conclusion....the so called fight between Martin and Zimmerman was about the equivalent of two 12 year olds going at it.

Now i'm even more convinced that Zimmerman is a murderer. Unless, of course, you wanna argue that the 12 year old who's losing a fight should be able to shoot and kill the 12 year old who's winning the fight. Go ahead, make the argument.

Beyond that, I never said it wasn't possible to overcome the size difference. But if you're going to overcome the size difference, it's going to be by laying down a whipping like the guy in the video got. You don't overcome the size difference by simply inflicting a bloody nose and a couple bumps on the head. This ain't the WWE.

That video doesn't prove what you think it does.

In fact, about the only thing it proves is what a real ass whipping looks like to the guy getting whipped. Watching that video, you can only really come to one conclusion....the so called fight between Martin and Zimmerman was about the equivalent of two 12 year olds going at it.

Now i'm even more convinced that Zimmerman is a murderer. Unless, of course, you wanna argue that the 12 year old who's losing a fight should be able to shoot and kill the 12 year old who's winning the fight. Go ahead, make the argument.

Beyond that, I never said it wasn't possible to overcome the size difference. But if you're going to overcome the size difference, it's going to be by laying down a whipping like the guy in the video got. You don't overcome the size difference by simply inflicting a bloody nose and a couple bumps on the head. This ain't the WWE. Originally Posted by Doove

The only thing that video proves is that it is possible for a big guy can get his ass kicked by a smaller guy. Stop reading into everything just to try and convince everyone Zimmerman is a cold blooded murderer. You're only making statements based on you're opinion. Zimmerman's case was based on Self Defense. In a rather unique way Zimmerman's Lawyer armed Trayvon Martin by showing the court that the Concrete sidewalk became Martin's weapon. That's how the case was ultimately won weather anyone realizes it or not.

The only thing that video proves is that it is possible for a big guy can get his ass kicked by a smaller guy. Stop reading into everything just to try and convince everyone Zimmerman is a cold blooded murderer. You're only making statements based on you're opinion. Zimmerman's case was based on Self Defense. In a rather unique way Zimmerman's Lawyer armed Trayvon Martin by showing the court that the Concrete sidewalk became Martin's weapon. That's how the case was ultimately won weather anyone realizes it or not. Originally Posted by acp5762

Wasn't it neat how the prosecution tried to unconvinced the jury that getting your head pounded into a sidewalk until it bleeds was really no big deal.

They should have went to the scene, let the prosecutor have the shit knocked out of him, and as he lay on the sidewalk, have that person repeatedly pound his head into the concrete until it bled.

No big deal? Go try it for yourself.

Wasn't it neat how the prosecution tried to unconvinced the jury that getting your head pounded into a sidewalk until it bleeds was really no big deal. Originally Posted by Jackie S

When the prosecution climbed on top and straddled the Zimmerman dummy, it pretty much "unconvinced" any part of the rational world paying attention to the evidence that the state's original theory of the "dummy" being on top of Martin was bullshit the state couldn't prove, which is typical of overzealous selling of the government's case in the opening remarks ...

comes back to bite them in the ass when their "star" witnesses disprove their theory!

When sides in litigation have to switch horses mid stream to make their case it creates a justifiable "reasonable doubt" for the jury to accept and stick back up their ass in the end.

Actually the outrage over this incident still being expressed it absolutely ridiculous and the amount of time expended in trying to rewrite the evidence to fit opinions of what "ought to have been" is even more ridiculous.

Where has the "outrage" gone over the "not guilty" verdict rendered in San Antonio a few months (weeks?) back over the shooting death of a female provider by a "hobbyist" justified the shooting on getting is $200 back when she ran with his money? I don't think "NOW" even made a peep about it, and I didn't hear Michelle say a damn thing?

Was that because she was a "whore"? Or was it because she was "White"? Or both?

There was no "attack" ... there was no "self-defense" ... there was "protection of property" ... $200 ...

........and she was shot leaving in her pimp's car.

17 year old Michigan kid sentenced to life (which means considerably less in Michigan for a juvenile) for killing two women when he was 15 years old. They were his second and third kills. His first was his own brother. 17 years old is "proof" of innocences?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...o-for-fake-$10

That video doesn't prove what you think it does. Oh, but it does, Doofus.

In fact, about the only thing it proves is what a real ass whipping looks like to the guy getting whipped. Watching that video, you can only really come to one conclusion....the so called fight between Martin and Zimmerman was about the equivalent of two 12 year olds going at it. You've already admitted you have no experience in that arena, Doofus, hence your POV is void of credibility.

Now i'm even more convinced that Zimmerman is a murderer. Unless, of course, you wanna argue that the 12 year old who's losing a fight should be able to shoot and kill the 12 year old who's winning the fight. Go ahead, make the argument. The defense made precisely that argument, and the jury ruled, Doofus: "Not Guilty."

Beyond that, I never said it wasn't possible to overcome the size difference. You've conceded this point, Doofus. Move on to your next straw man argument. But if you're going to overcome the size difference, it's going to be by laying down a whipping like the guy in the video got. You don't overcome the size difference by simply inflicting a bloody nose and a couple bumps on the head. You've already admitted you have no credibility in this arena, Doofus. Next! This ain't the WWE. Originally Posted by Doove

.

17 year old Michigan kid sentenced to life (which means considerably less in Michigan for a juvenile) for killing two women when he was 15 years old. They were his second and third kills. His first was his own brother. 17 years old is "proof" of innocences?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...o-for-fake-$10 Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

.... and a situation in which, at age 2, he had shot his younger brother to death after he was left in a room with a loaded gun.

The only thing that video proves is that it is possible for a big guy can get his ass kicked by a smaller guy. Originally Posted by acp5762

Sorry, no. Smaller guy wins fight. Hardly earth shattering. But as i already pointed out, it proves a heck of a lot more than just that.

Stop reading into everything just to try and convince everyone Zimmerman is a cold blooded murderer.

Don't you know? This is the ECCIE Obama Is A Radical Muslim Extremist Socialist Marxist And Racist forum. Reading into everything is what we do here.

You're only making statements based on you're opinion.

Which makes me like.......you.

Wasn't it neat how the prosecution tried to unconvinced the jury that getting your head pounded into a sidewalk until it bleeds was really no big deal. Originally Posted by Jackie S

And from watching that video, the prosecution was right. At least as it relates to this case, and the extent of the injuries suffered by Zimmerman. You can win a fight and come away with a bloody nose and a few bumps on the head from a sidewalk. So yeah, what Zimmerman suffered, for someone who had supposedly been in a "life threatening encounter", was no big deal.

They should have went to the scene, let the prosecutor have the shit knocked out of him, and as he lay on the sidewalk, have that person repeatedly pound his head into the concrete until it bled.

No big deal? Go try it for yourself.

No, what the prosecution should have done was shown that video. Let the jury realize that getting the shit kicked out of you in real life is not what you see in the WWE, where you can get beat 6 inches from your life and get up and walk around like nothing happened.

So what the prosecution should have done was shown that video to the jury, and pointed out that "This is what the theory of the defense would really look like...and this is what George Zimmerman would have looked like if we believe what the defense wants you to believe".

As for Hankerin', he seems to believe that a 12 year old should be able to shoot and kill another 12 year old if they get in a fight. Anyone else want to agree with him? Anyone? Anyone?

Sorry, no. Smaller guy wins fight. Hardly earth shattering. But as i already pointed out, it proves a heck of a lot more than just that.

Don't you know? This is the ECCIE Obama Is A Radical Muslim Extremist Socialist Marxist And Racist forum. Reading into everything is what we do here.

Which makes me like.......you.



And from watching that video, the prosecution was right. At least as it relates to this case, and the extent of the injuries suffered by Zimmerman. You can win a fight and come away with a bloody nose and a few bumps on the head from a sidewalk. So yeah, what Zimmerman suffered, for someone who had supposedly been in a "life threatening encounter", was no big deal.

No, what the prosecution should have done was shown that video. Let the jury realize that getting the shit kicked out of you in real life is not what you see in the WWE, where you can get beat 6 inches from your life and get up and walk around like nothing happened.

So what the prosecution should have done was shown that video to the jury, and pointed out that "This is what the theory of the defense would really look like...and this is what George Zimmerman would have looked like if we believe what the defense wants you to believe".

As for Hankerin', he seems to believe that a 12 year old should be able to shoot and kill another 12 year old if they get in a fight. Anyone else want to agree with him? Anyone? Anyone? Originally Posted by Doove

Look you're just beating a Dead Horse here. Nothing you've posted makes any real sense and you've failed to make a viable point in this case.

Look you're just beating a Dead Horse here. Nothing you've posted makes any real sense and you've failed to make a viable point in this case. Originally Posted by acp5762

Sorry your video didn't turn out the way you had hoped.

I can understand your frustration.

Where has the "outrage" gone over the "not guilty" verdict rendered in San Antonio a few months (weeks?) back over the shooting death of a female provider by a "hobbyist" justified the shooting on getting is $200 back when she ran with his money? I don't think "NOW" even made a peep about it, and I didn't hear Michelle say a damn thing?

Was that because she was a "whore"? Or was it because she was "White"? Or both?

There was no "attack" ... there was no "self-defense" ... there was "protection of property" ... $200 ...

........and she was shot leaving in her pimp's car. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Martin didn't steal them Skittles!

Here is the SA case.

http://nation.time.com/2013/06/13/wh...kill-in-texas/

Martin didn't steal them Skittles! Originally Posted by WTF

So, in your mind, if he had, shooting him would be justified?

So where is the "outrage"? Like I asked? If she were Black it would be an "outrage"?

And it was only $150 she took, rather than the $250 I thought. ("Craig List" provider rate of $150!).

"While the expansion of self-defense laws has slowed in the wake of recent high-profile cases such as Trayvon Martin, there have been no concerted efforts to roll back these laws or establish stricter standards.”

Read more: http://nation.time.com/2013/06/13/wh...#ixzz2aHd3Cua4

Thanks for the insight.

Actually Martin's "mother" is advocating more "liberal" standards that would allow a "fairness" test to prevail. Was it "fair" to shoot Martin?

Won't that be fun? Now if we can just modify the rules to allow a "majority" vote on the jury rather than a unanimous vote?

Then the questions will be:
#1: Do these new rules only apply to African-Americans (who are "Black") who die from an incident? or
#2: Will these rules apply to those dying at the hands of African-Americans (who are "Black") who are not African-Americans (not "Black")?
#3: And will either one of those "new standards" survive "equal protection" or "due process" challenges?

Sorry your video didn't turn out the way you had hoped.

I can understand your frustration. Originally Posted by Doove

I am also sorry that the George Zimmerman Trial didn't turn out the way you wanted it to. But in case you don't realize it, it's not about you and what you want or think something should be. I understand your frustration.

I am sick of all the fking drama everywhere from this shooting.. not even a tragic one at that. I spent 8 years in the marine corps mostly in Afghanistan, I can name 20 guys off the top of my head who died tragically... and aside from being marines, they were some of the greatest, selfless, highest quality people anyone would ever know.. we are less of a nation without them... real Americans are still getting killed, but unless you read the last page of the paper or some random blog you wouldn't know.. so much attention and protesting for a pot head who got himself shot? anyone who has been in the shit will tell you it is a disgrace to see the value America has given a sole victim of random violence when the ones who actually matter don't even get acknowledged.