Justice Department To Review George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin Case

[Harsh_77 718]

Zimmerman made it about race when he profiled the kid, Then the gun nutters tried to save one of their own, by stereotyping the kid as a thug, and they continue to do so. Justice was lacking in this case, but that is the system we have, so everybody has to live with what happened, well, except for the dead youth. He lost. Zimmerman won. Something is wrong with that.

Kid that was portrayed to you by media as saint, you believe that. Same way media portrayed Zimmerman as racist, in fact when all the ppl who knew him and gave testimony said the other way.

Based on evidence GZ was acquitted and now all these ppl are crying sour grapes.

So a black kid can call a white guy as “Creepy Cracker” its not racist – that’s how they talk but when a white guy calls a black kid n… its racist.

[Harsh_77 718]

We do not know that TM attacked first. And we never will.

Either way we do not know and prob would not know who attacked first but it was proven in the court it was self defense.

You see few days back I said same thing ppl against GZ just want his head and all of those guys went on defensive, today those same ppl are calling for DOJ to file the case.

At the end what does that mean we could not get GZ this way so we will try to get him other way.

[JohnR! 5,495]

Either way we do not know and prob would not know who attacked first but it was proven in the court it was self defense.

In fact, nothing was proven in that court of law and that is why GZ got to walk, and certainly it was not proven GZ acted in self defense. All the defense managed was to introduce a 'shadow of a doubt' in the prosecution's case of murder and manslaughter.

That GZ was declared not guilty does not prove him innocent. That is how our judicial system works.

GZ is as innocent as OJ.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Gegel

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Either way we do not know and prob would not know who attacked first but it was proven in the court it was self defense.

You see few days back I said same thing ppl against GZ just want his head and all of those guys went on defensive, today those same ppl are calling for DOJ to file the case.

At the end what does that mean we could not get GZ this way so we will try to get him other way.

Okay.

All I said was that "TM attacked GZ" is not fact.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Zimmerman made it about race when he profiled the kid, Then the gun nutters tried to save one of their own, by stereotyping the kid as a thug, and they continue to do so. Justice was lacking in this case, but that is the system we have, so everybody has to live with what happened, well, except for the dead youth. He lost. Zimmerman won. Something is wrong with that.

Kid that was portrayed to you by media as saint, you believe that. Same way media portrayed Zimmerman as racist, in fact when all the ppl who knew him and gave testimony said the other way.

Based on evidence GZ was acquitted and now all these ppl are crying sour grapes.

So a black kid can call a white guy as “Creepy Cracker” its not racist – that’s how they talk but when a white guy calls a black kid n… its racist.

"Build it and they will come."

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

In fact, nothing was proven in that court of law and that is why GZ got to walk, and certainly it was not proven GZ acted in self defense. All the defense managed was to introduce a 'shadow of a doubt' in the prosecution's case of murder and manslaughter.

That GZ was declared not guilty does not prove him innocent. That is how our judicial system works.

GZ is as innocent as OJ.

Even more pathetic, Florida requires the jury to presume self-defense, once that has been brought forward by the defense, as I posted earlier. Think of it as a license to kill.

[DaveE 178]

In fact, nothing was proven in that court of law and that is why GZ got to walk, and certainly it was not proven GZ acted in self defense. All the defense managed was to introduce a 'shadow of a doubt' in the prosecution's case of murder and manslaughter.

That GZ was declared not guilty does not prove him innocent. That is how our judicial system works.

GZ is as innocent as OJ.

Shadow of a doubt? Not exactly the legal standard per the jury instructions: In fact the jury instruction specifically warn about using possible doubt, or speculative doubt as a grounds for a not guilty verdict.

A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt. Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt. On the other hand if, after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or, if having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but one which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and you must find George Zimmerman not guilty because the doubt is reasonable.

Jury instructions are here: http://abcnews.go.com/US/page/judges-instructions-zimmerman-jury-19647230

[Harsh_77 718]

In fact, nothing was proven in that court of law and that is why GZ got to walk, and certainly it was not proven GZ acted in self defense. All the defense managed was to introduce a 'shadow of a doubt' in the prosecution's case of murder and manslaughter.

That GZ was declared not guilty does not prove him innocent. That is how our judicial system works.

GZ is as innocent as OJ.

Self defense was proven...... thats exactly how he walked away. Not guilty... mean he is innocent in court of law.

OJ... I was not following the case so would not comment.

In first place as I was saying there was no case at all.... this was all made into a case for political purpose.

Even more pathetic, Florida requires the jury to presume self-defense, once that has been brought forward by the defense, as I posted earlier. Think of it as a license to kill.

You just wanted the jury to declare GZ guilty.

Okay.

All I said was that "TM attacked GZ" is not fact.

How do you know that is not a fact?

[Penny Lane 8,159]

How do you know that is not a fact?

Are... are you serious?

There's no proof. There's no proof either way.

TM either attacked GZ, or GZ attacked TM. There's no evidence that proves which one is correct.

Nobody except GZ knows who actually started the physical altercation.

So saying "the FACT is that TM attacked GZ" is not true. It's not a fact.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Penny Lane

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Self defense was proven...... thats exactly how he walked away. Not guilty... mean he is innocent in court of law.

Comprehension fail. There is no box on the jury form that says, "Innocent of all charges."

[JohnR! 5,495]

Even more pathetic, Florida requires the jury to presume self-defense, once that has been brought forward by the defense, as I posted earlier. Think of it as a license to kill.

It is a license to kill and the only way you can get away with it is doing so, thus ensuring the other party can't press charges.

[JohnR! 5,495]

Self defense was proven...... thats exactly how he walked away. Not guilty... mean he is innocent in court of law.

You are incorrect again. Not guilty does not mean innocent. If he were innocent he would not be on trial to begin with. How can anyone kill an unarmed 17-yo kid and be innocent? GZ would have been innocent had he called the police and allowed them time to investigate the situation.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Gegel

[Karee 4,190]

It is a license to kill and the only way you can get away with it is doing so, thus ensuring the other party can't press charges.

Do you still think if someone pulls a gun on you that it's a good idea to kick their a$$?

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Do you still think if someone pulls a gun on you that it's a good idea to kick their a$$?

Really no better of an idea than to follow someone you think is suspicious and worthy of calling the cops on..

[SMOKE 1,426]

You are incorrect again. Not guilty does not mean innocent. If he were innocent he would not be on trial to begin with.

yes it does. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innocent