Witness testifies Trayvon was a racist

Has anybody seen the self-avowed racist WTF recently? Did he lose a bet?

Is he still 'trending manslaughter?' Originally Posted by gnadfly

He has pretty much disappeared. Originally Posted by ExNYer

LOL..Disappeared my ass! I been playing golf at Pebble Beach. I left before the verdict, I sure as hell ain't hiding. I owe JewishLawyer 200 bucks and a boat load of white sheets for him and all his Zimmerman friends. I hear y'all are wanting to burn you some crosses!

I ran into Zimmerman's brother out there and he said ole Georgie boy is looking for a Jewish boy with Skittles next, that is if he can find one that'll fight back.

prolly could have lived without that diet tribe...

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the racists,
and they got me. Originally Posted by WTF

DEAD.

Yes, thought you were still arguing the case against Zimmerman on that very precedent? Obviously I misunderstood, carry on. Originally Posted by nwarounder

I was never arguing the case againist zimmerman on that precedent, you may want to reread what I posted, I was saying it didn't matter who started what, either man were equally justify to kill the other during the struggle, if martin would of killed zimmerman instead, self defense would of been a affirmative defense for him also. which means martin could bashed in GZ skull and killed him and he would of been justify to do so using self defense.
it was a situation in my opinion that zimmerman had several points where he could of stop the chain of events. remember he is the one that escalated the events,he had the educational background from the classes he had taken, he knew the rules for being in neighborhood watch,and used very poor judgement in handling the situation. if this would of been a civil case he wouldn't of had a leg to stand on. but since it was not it far easier to do thing you otherwise wouldn't,
Now a lot of people are going to say every thing he did was legal, but you know what, grabing a 4160 volt line is legal too, putting your head inside a lion mouth is legal, but not too smart, punching a twenty foot great white shark in the nose is legal, but totally stupid thing to do, it not illegal to do stupid things in this country

...I was saying it didn't matter who started what, either man were equally justify to kill the other, if martin would of killed zimmerman instead, self defense would of been a affirmative defense for him also. Originally Posted by dreamvacationdates

And what you are "saying" is wrong. Wrong on the facts. Wrong on the law.

It does matter in self-defense who initiates the violence. One cannot put another in fear of death or serious bodily injury and then kill them when that person who is in fear of death or serious bodily injury responds with deadly force to defend themselves.

I appreciate the "OK Corral" mentality, but that is simply not the law, and like a lot of bullshit on the internet and in posts in threads on Eccie ... some knuckleheads take them as "true" and may act upon them ... just because someone has a lot of reviews or runs an agency. Get it?

I hear y'all are wanting to burn you some crosses!
Originally Posted by WTF

That was an erroneous news report ... like the names of the Asisana flight crew!

Actually, you and your friends want to burn you some ....

..... cars, stores, U.S. flags, and white folks.*


The Justice System at its finest!


*Job creation program. Clean up work.

And what you are "saying" is wrong. Wrong on the facts. Wrong on the law.

It does matter in self-defense who initiates the violence. One cannot put another in fear of death or serious bodily injury and then kill them when that person who is in fear of death or serious bodily injury responds with deadly force to defend themselves.

I appreciate the "OK Corral" mentality, but that is simply not the law, and like a lot of bullshit on the internet and in posts in threads on Eccie ... some knuckleheads take them as "true" and may act upon them ... just because someone has a lot of reviews or runs an agency. Get it? Originally Posted by LexusLover

only works like that if you have a witness to who initiates the violence, if not you don't have a clue who did. but yeah in Florida you can,
Like GZ you just assumed something that is totally wrong, Get it

I was never arguing the case againist zimmerman on that precedent, you may want to reread what I posted, I was saying it didn't matter who started what, either man were equally justify to kill the other during the struggle, if martin would of killed zimmerman instead, self defense would of been a affirmative defense for him also. which means martin could bashed in GZ skull and killed him and he would of been justify to do so using self defense.
it was a situation in my opinion that zimmerman had several points where he could of stop the chain of events. remember he is the one that escalated the events,he had the educational background from the classes he had taken, he knew the rules for being in neighborhood watch,and used very poor judgement in handling the situation. if this would of been a civil case he wouldn't of had a leg to stand on. but since it was not it far easier to do thing you otherwise wouldn't,
Now a lot of people are going to say every thing he did was legal, but you know what, grabing a 4160 volt line is legal too, putting your head inside a lion mouth is legal, but not too smart, punching a twenty foot great white shark in the nose is legal, but totally stupid thing to do, it not illegal to do stupid things in this country Originally Posted by dreamvacationdates

Martin could have stopped the chain of events by going directly home and not lying in wait to confront Zimmerman in the dark. Zimmerman had already demonstrated that he was unwilling to "confront" Martin when he sat in his truck and waited for the police to arrive as Martin circled his truck. Zimmerman broke no laws by observing Martin's actions: whether from his truck or standing on a sidewalk. After all, the police dispatcher asked Zimmerman to observe: "let me know if he does anything", "just let me know if he does anything else", and "which way is he running?"

IB libatard will defend anything.

IB libatard will defend anything. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

He has a good leader for that:

only works like that if you have a witness to who initiates the violence, if not you don't have a clue who did. but yeah in Florida you can,
Like GZ you just assumed something that is totally wrong, Get it Originally Posted by dreamvacationdates

I didn't (and don't) "assume" anything ... I generally leave that up to the amateur pundits who are trying to create a slanted fact scenario to fit their agenda ... e.g. you.

Since I didn't see and hear all of the evidence the jury saw I don't have an opinion on whether the prosecution met its burden, but the jury did, and that is good enough for me.

I would prefer to put my faith in a jury rather than blogs, twitters, pundits, and talk show hosts.

There rarely is direct reliable witness testimony in a murder case, and generally only one side gets to "speak." As a consequence the prosecution is left with witnesses who had a partial view of the events, science, and forensics based on the physical evidence gathered at the scene, and perhaps elsewhere to establish a circumstantial case of the mental state of those involved, the relative position and presence of the accused and victim, the interaction between the two (or more), and the cause of death of the deceased.

In this instance the circumstantial evidence supported Zimmerman's side.

On another day and another case, the circumstantial evidence might favor the government.

Unfortunately there are some lessons to be learned from this incident, but any value will be lost or overlooked by the "noise" that apparently is going to continue for an extended period.

I would prefer to put my faith in a jury rather than blogs, twitters, pundits, and talk show hosts.

. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Look, OJ, Casey Anthony and Zimmerman put their faith in the jury system, I have no problem with that. That is the system we have...hell I had no problem with Bush v Gore. It is what it is.

I also had no problem with saying out loud wtf I think will happen. I thought the 49'ers would destroy the Ravens. I thought the Spurs would beat the Heat....I thought the Zim man would go down. In fact some in the jury wanted to convict him of manslaughter.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...-that-car?lite

A member of the jury in George Zimmerman’s second-degree murder trial spoke publicly for the first time Monday night, saying that only three of six jurors thought Zimmerman should be acquitted when deliberations began - and they all cried when it was over.
Two members of the all-female jury believed Zimmerman was guilty of manslaughter, while one felt he was guilty of second-degree murder, the woman said on CNN.
The jury ultimately found Zimmerman not guilty.

...In fact some in the jury wanted to convict him of manslaughter.

The jury ultimately found Zimmerman not guilty. Originally Posted by WTF

The devil is in the details. They followed the Judge's instructions and definitions. Good.

There are a lot of things in live people "want" .. but can't have.

They made the correct decision based on the law and the facts.