In the hands of the jury

Vigilante implies that a crime was committed by Martin. Too good a word for GZ. Originally Posted by JohnnyCap

was told by 911 " you do not have to do that"

this is still going on?

you guys getting this all figured out?

as far as I can tell its a fight between a bunch of people that werent even there

fighting over who started a fight

so the first bunch to tap out will win

and at least we will know who started the fight

even though no one was there Originally Posted by JONBALLS

you would think folks worried about nailing Zimmerman would be more upset at the high rate of Black on Black killing. But seems not the case

already observed that, years ago

i think its white hate
or self loathing ....? i dont get it..

its how we ended up with obummer... people wanted the black guy

nothing else mattered but a well crafted line of bs from someone black

hopey and change

by no sense of measure was that guy qualified

but oh well,, here we are

yup

Ummmm, no.

He says he lost track of Martin, but nothing about him heading back to his car. In fact, he told the dispatcher to have the cops call him so he could tell them where he was when they got there - indicating his intention was not to be sitting around waiting at his car.

Nice try though.

Correction: Prior to his stating he lost track of Martin, he talked of meeting the police at the mailboxes by his truck. But after his stating he lost track of Martin, this is when he told the dispatcher to simply have the police call him and he'll tell them where he is. Nevertheless, i stand by my point that it indicates he had no intention of then waiting by his truck. Originally Posted by Doove

Ummmmm, no.

Lots of supposition on your part. He said he would meet the police at the mailboxes at the SUGGESTION of the 911 operator. You must have stayed at Holiday Inn too, became expert at mind reading. I'll use my mind reading skills recently acquired to say he was planning on using the phone to indicate where he was when the police were coming since it was dark and there was uncertainty as to where he was. He didn't want to miss them when they got there. You have no proof to support he went back to find Martin.

Nice try though.

speaking of putting people in jail for killing dogs

wouldnt you rather be the dog on Romneys car that survived the trip

or the one that made it to Oblunders dinner table?

Ummmmm, no.

Lots of supposition on your part. He said he would meet the police at the mailboxes at the SUGGESTION of the 911 operator. Originally Posted by roscoe14850

Oh?

911 dispatcher:

Alright, where are you going to meet with them at?

George Zimmerman:

Um, if they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the clubhouse and, uh, straight past the clubhouse and make a left and then go past the mailboxes you’ll see my truck. [3:10]

You must have stayed at Holiday Inn too, became expert at mind reading.

It doesn't take any mind reading to know that when someone tells you exactly where he'll meet you, only to change his mind and decide he wants you to call him when you get in the area and he'll then tell you where he is, that he doesn't plan on being where he initially told you he'd be. And it doesn't take any mind reading to know why he won't know where he'll be. Particularly when he chased after the kid once already.

Keep sticking your head in the sand, i don't mind.

You have no proof to support he went back to find Martin.

Nice try though.

I might not have the "proof", but i have the common sense required. You, apparently, lack even that.

Oh?

911 dispatcher:

Alright, where are you going to meet with them at?

George Zimmerman:

Um, if they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the clubhouse and, uh, straight past the clubhouse and make a left and then go past the mailboxes you’ll see my truck. [3:10]




It doesn't take any mind reading to know that when someone tells you exactly where he'll meet you, only to change his mind and decide he wants you to call him when you get in the area and he'll then tell you where he is, that he doesn't plan on being where he initially told you he'd be. And it doesn't take any mind reading to know why he won't know where he'll be. Particularly when he chased after the kid once already.

Keep sticking your head in the sand, i don't mind.



I might not have the "proof", but i have the common sense required. You, apparently, lack even that. Originally Posted by Doove

OK, do you just want to meet with them at the mailboxes then? [3:42]

George Zimmerman:

Yeah, that’s fine. [3:43]

If mine is in the sand, where is yours? I have an idea. This was a trial, not some round robin discussion. Your opinion or what you think is common sense is irrelevant. Prosecution didn't prove what they set out to as is apparent by the not guilty verdict by a jury of peers, selected by both the prosecution and defense. Deal with it.

Oh?

I might not have the "proof", but i have the common sense required. You, apparently, lack even that. Originally Posted by Doove

Stanford FL PD, investigators, Chief of PD and the local DA have no common sense then?

That is what you are sayin doove. Zimmerman gave himself up to a police force that did not want to arrest him. As there was no case to begin with. But the order came down from the FL state Attorneys office that is now being investigated for its wrong underhanded way of handling evidence. Trying to railroad Zimmerman.

edit: I will give you that is still in Grand Jury. That by FL law Zimmerman should have gotten that the FL state attorney skipped thinking no Grand Jury would send the case to trial.

Thinking of the times LE came after me. When they gave up at times as they had no case. But they where right. Then when they believed my story and my side, they where right again.

See they normally do get it right. If you/we like it or not.

OK, do you just want to meet with them at the mailboxes then? [3:42]

George Zimmerman:

Yeah, that’s fine. [3:43] Originally Posted by roscoe14850

Perfect example of taking a comment out of context. Well done.

If mine is in the sand, where is yours?

You're the one who's resorted to taking comments out of context (to the point of your butchering them) in an attempt to defend a point you made. It's tantamount to lying. When you need to resort to those tactics, the rest is pretty easy to figure out.

I have an idea. This was a trial, not some round robin discussion. Your opinion or what you think is common sense is irrelevant. Prosecution didn't prove what they set out to as is apparent by the not guilty verdict by a jury of peers, selected by both the prosecution and defense. Deal with it.

On this we can agree. But this forum isn't bound by the guidelines of "beyond a reasonable doubt" any more than it's bound by the results of the last election when it comes to bitching about the results.

Speaking of "beyond a reasonable doubt", the essential reasoning behind it is the philosophy that “better 10 guilty killers go free than one innocent person go to jail.” No better example of that than what we have here.

Nevertheless, given everything on both sides, i'm not 100% convinced that if i were sitting on the jury, that i could have convicted him "beyond a reasonable doubt". But as to what most likely occurred here, i think that's pretty evident. At least to anyone who doesn't choose to think the way FOX News, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage tell them to think.

Savage thinks Zimmerman is guilty.
Fox new I'm not sure
Rush "Media Invested In A Guilty Verdict For Zimmerman ..."

Michael Savage on George Zimmerman: 'You have to find this man guilty' .... ...

At least Savage, being the proud pseudo intellectual that he is, makes up his own wack-a-doo mind.

Perfect example of taking a comment out of context. Well done.



You're the one who's resorted to taking comments out of context (to the point of your butchering them) in an attempt to defend a point you made. It's tantamount to lying. When you need to resort to those tactics, the rest is pretty easy to figure out.



On this we can agree. But this forum isn't bound by the guidelines of "beyond a reasonable doubt" any more than it's bound by the results of the last election when it comes to bitching about the results.

Speaking of "beyond a reasonable doubt", the essential reasoning behind it is the philosophy that “better 10 guilty killers go free than one innocent person go to jail.” No better example of that than what we have here.

Nevertheless, given everything on both sides, i'm not 100% convinced that if i were sitting on the jury, that i could have convicted him "beyond a reasonable doubt". But as to what most likely occurred here, i think that's pretty evident. At least to anyone who doesn't choose to think the way FOX News, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage tell them to think. Originally Posted by Doove

Out of context? Tantamount to lying? I paraphrased the comments, same as you did so don't get on your soapbox. Anybody with basic reading comprehension can see meeting at the mailboxes was the suggestion of the 911 operator. You're really stretching & reaching here. Your all butt hurt cuz you don't like the outcome. I couldn't care for your opinion the same way you don't like mine, I was discussing the the trial & outcome and you wanna discuss the court of public opinion. Doesn't matter, trial is over. Move on.

well I heard a small part of that show, I did not buy Savage's reason.

So we all have are own opinion.