Simple question, do you think George Zimmerman got a fair trial?

Why or why not?

Yes.way more than fair.

Simple answer, yes.

he is one lucky SOB though ...

all that hugging and patting him on the back after they read the verdict could have killed him.

Why or why not? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Yes, even with the games played by the prosecution.

I do think he got a fair trial. As I have said repeatedly, I disagree with the outcome. I think Zimmerman acted unreasonably and recklessly in creating the situation and in responding the way he did to a situation of his own making....by killing that kid. But, that's what jury trials are for.

You know what the more interesting question is: What would all you wingers say by way of response to that inquiry if he had been convicted?

God, I can hear the wailing and gnashing of the teeth right now. Hell, Oilman is bitching about the trial even though Zimmerman walked. I shudder to think what the reaction would be if he had been convicted and sentenced to prison.

Hell, Oilman is bitching about the trial even though Zimmerman walked.


aint it great ?

clueless bastards...

I do think he got a fair trial. As I have said repeatedly, I disagree with the outcome. I think Zimmerman acted unreasonably and recklessly in creating the situation and in responding the way he did to a situation of his own making....by killing that kid. But, that's what jury trials are for.

You know what the more interesting question is: What would all you wingers say by way of response to that inquiry if he had been convicted?

God, I can hear the wailing and gnashing of the teeth right now. Hell, Oilman is bitching about the trial even though Zimmerman walked. I shudder to think what the reaction would be if he had been convicted and sentenced to prison. Originally Posted by timpage

Nope, no bitching here, TP. Just mentioning a dynamic of the trial in response to the question.

Try this on for size, in answer to the question if the verdict had gone the other way:

No. Mostly because of the efforts of the prosecution to suppress evidence. But, that's what jury trials are for....oh, wait.

Zimmerman was lucky..........he drew a good jury..................the 2nd degree murder charge should have never been sought.

Based on last night's interview of juror; I think had the jury been presented with only manslaughter they may have convicted. But I don't know.

I do think he got a fair trial. As I have said repeatedly, I disagree with the outcome. I think Zimmerman acted unreasonably and recklessly in creating the situation and in responding the way he did to a situation of his own making....by killing that kid. But, that's what jury trials are for.

You know what the more interesting question is: What would all you wingers say by way of response to that inquiry if he had been convicted?

God, I can hear the wailing and gnashing of the teeth right now. Hell, Oilman is bitching about the trial even though Zimmerman walked. I shudder to think what the reaction would be if he had been convicted and sentenced to prison. Originally Posted by timpage

If Zimmerman had been convicted, the conviction would have been overturned on appeal. The prosecutors violated law when they did not share information they had with the defense.

The prosecutors went forward with a charge of Second Degree Murder they couldn't prove.

The prosecutors prosecuted the case against Zimmerman maliciously in that they forced Zimmerman to stand trial without a grand jury having heard any evidence and returned an indictment simply on a hearsay statement from two investigators.

Further, the prosecutors continue to malign Zimmerman's character after he's been judged "not guilty" by his peers.

The lib-retard MSM and the race baiters are also continuing to malign Zimmerman's character after he's been judged "not guilty" by his peers. This whole circus has been unfair since the race baiters and the lib-retard MSM shoe-horned their way into a local matter.

Fucking IB Zimmerman can't even give a simple yes or no has to trash someone.

To answer the OP yes the jury found him not guilty.

Nope, no bitching here, TP. Just mentioning a dynamic of the trial in response to the question.

Try this on for size, in answer to the question if the verdict had gone the other way:

No. Mostly because of the efforts of the prosecution to suppress evidence. But, that's what jury trials are for....oh, wait. Originally Posted by EXTXOILMAN

Well, that's what lawyers get paid to do. Surely, you're not saying that Zimmerman's attorneys didn't argue to keep out evidence that they deemed harmful to their case? You file those motions and make those arguments, and the judge rules one way or the other. The fact that you think some texts that Martin sent back and forth about weed and guns is relevant doesn't make it so. There are legal precedents for those types of rulings and the court rules on such motions as best it can. Some they get right, some not so much. The lawyers make those arguments, the judge makes the decision on what the jury does and does not hear in evidence.

There is some very credible evidence that Zimmerman lied under oath at his bond hearing. You think that might be something a jury might be interested in? Would that make you look askance at the story the guy told about what happened that night? He, and his wife, were willing to lie, under oath, about their financial condition in order to try to keep him out of jail or get his bond lowered. But, you don't think he'd lie to the cops about what happened out there in order to avoid going to jail? Yet, the jury didn't hear a word about any of that.

Fucking IB Zimmerman can't even give a simple yes or no has to trash someone.

To answer the OP yes the jury found him not guilty. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Your illiterate ass can't read any better than it can write, Ekim the Inbred. The OP clearly stated he wanted more than a "yes" or "no" answer, you illiterate, inbred jackass.

Zimmerman was lucky..........he drew a good jury..................the 2nd degree murder charge should have never been sought.

Based on last night's interview of juror; I think had the jury been presented with only manslaughter they may have convicted. But I don't know. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

With a "good jury" being one that your slow-witted mind happens to agree with?

Manslaughter was an option that was presented to the jury. The instructions in the jury charge are the key to his acquittal along with the jury's belief that it was him screaming like a little fucking girl on that recording. They believed that he was in fear for his life because he acted like a little pussy after picking a fight he couldn't finish without pulling his gun.

Well, that's what lawyers get paid to do. Surely, you're not saying that Zimmerman's attorneys didn't argue to keep out evidence that they deemed harmful to their case? You file those motions and make those arguments, and the judge rules one way or the other. The fact that you think some texts that Martin sent back and forth about weed and guns is relevant doesn't make it so. There are legal precedents for those types of rulings and the court rules on such motions as best it can. Some they get right, some not so much. The lawyers make those arguments, the judge makes the decision on what the jury does and does not hear in evidence.

There is some very credible evidence that Zimmerman lied under oath at his bond hearing. You think that might be something a jury might be interested in? Would that make you look askance at the story the guy told about what happened that night? He, and his wife, were willing to lie, under oath, about their financial condition in order to try to keep him out of jail or get his bond lowered. But, you don't think he'd lie to the cops about what happened out there in order to avoid going to jail? Yet, the jury didn't hear a word about any of that. Originally Posted by timpage

It's funny how the evidence and the statements by the other witnesses corroborated and gave credence to Zimmerman's "lies", Little Timmy.