No, you indicated you followed the trial closely enough. That is not the same thing to me. Considering your idea of plausible and my idea of plausible vastly differ, I would like firm clarification. Did you actually watch the trial or read the trial transcripts?I just answered this.
Please tell me you’re not practicing for becoming an attorney!No, you indicated you followed the trial closely enough. That is not the same thing. Did you actually watch the trial or read the trial transcripts?
Oh? This is why Zimmerman went into an Alcohol Program? Because he did over this.When police drop a felony charge, it means they don’t have squat on you. And there’s just as much character evidence stating GZ stuck his neck out for neighbors, friends, and other strangers even. Would the armchairing keyboard commandos in this thread be half as charitable, I would consider us all blessed.
Will you answer the question? It goes to whether you availed yourself of the evidence, facts and the law before coming up with your “alternative perspectives.”Please tell me you’re not practicing for becoming an attorney!
tru dat !!There is no free speech on a private forum. CAF makes the rules here, constitutional free speech doesn’t even apply.
He was never convicted of a felony and the charges were dropped. I find it hard to believe that if he actually assaulted a cop he would have gotten off so easily on a felony charge. Regardless, it was never explained to the judge’s satisfaction what relevance those charges (in what, 2005?) had to the present case anyway, and they were not allowed in the case. If Florida’s top prosecutors can’t make the link, pardon me if I doubt we can either.Oh? This is why Zimmerman went into an Alcohol Program? Because he did over this.
And do you know what the case was where Zimmerman was accused of these felonies??
By being in a bar and trying to prevent a friend from being arrested. This is basic Law Enforcement 101, you keep a police officer from doing his duty, you interfere with that duty, you can be in for heavy charges. It’s available to read online.
As opposed to what you say, these were 2 felonies, they hardly sound like squat.
And basically, since the police themselves are eye-witnesses, more like a deal was made with the system to get out of this.
Honestly and sincerely, I’m not interested in your perspective. It is irrelevant. You have no basis for claiming that it is TV’s perspective.And yet again, it has to do with honest and sincere perspective taking.
your slander and calumny is tiresome .To condone violence is a sin! And that’s what I see happening on this thread.
And his father was a low level judge, just like in this case, the father could advise the son how to treat a legal matter.He was never convicted of a felony and the charges were dropped. I find it hard to believe that if he actually assaulted a cop he would have gotten off so easily on a felony charge. Regardless, it was never explained to the judge’s satisfaction what relevance those charges (in what, 2005?) had to the present case anyway, and they were not allowed in the case. If Florida’s top prosecutors can’t make the link, pardon me if I doubt we can either.
[SIGN] thank you[/SIGN]The post modern propagandized mind is not allowed to make value judgements based on common sense and experience. Instead of acknowledging that outer appearance is indicative of inner disposition you must view such things as mere disembodied spirits traveling around seeking peace and justice.
There is no reason to have suspicion ever. You must have only empty thoughts in your head at all times and view reality only as your overlords instruct.
I love how legal training and the desire to be a law enforcement officer became all signs of something sinister in this case. You know what else GZ did in this case? HIRED LAWYERS! How dastardly. I’m not really following the rest of the post. Either he did or did not actually assault a law enforcement officer, and the dropping of charges sure sounds like it was a nothingburger to me.And his father was a low level judge, just like in this case, the father could advise the son how to treat a legal matter.
This is similar to one hearing about an erratic driver who could be hauled for driving without a license but instead, the police allow the driver to go home, then, the driver ends up in a serious accident.
I’m not sure where this came from. The incident in the bar didn’t involve a gun?So, if one is trying to say George Zimmerman is a responsible gun owner, that is not proven.
Sounds like a nothingburger to me too, I’m sure a lot of people on this forum have had two felonies dismissed against themselves. Rather common. I’m sure it does happen ever so often.I love how legal training and the desire to be a law enforcement officer became all signs of something sinister in this case. You know what else GZ did in this case? HIRED LAWYERS! How dastardly. I’m not really following the rest of the post. Either he did or did not actually assault a law enforcement officer, and the dropping of charges sure sounds like it was a nothingburger to me…
I’m not sure where this came from. The incident in the bar didn’t involve a gun?
By all accounts he was a responsible gun owner? Not to the satisfaction of people like Bob (because in his mind such people can’t possibly exist), mind you, but by most objective measures.
Great, Sabrina Fulton has asked Obama “at the least … investigate what happened.” And, so it continues.
Trayvon Martin’s parents speak out: “Stunned” at verdict
(CBS News) The parents of slain Florida teen Trayvon Martin, Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton, spoke out for the first time since a not guilty verdict was handed down Saturday night in the trial of George Zimmerman. Zimmerman was acquitted of second degree murder and manslaughter in the 2012 shooting death of the unarmed Martin in Sanford, Fla. …
…Fulton called on President Obama to “at the least … investigate what happened.” …
Blue excerpts from:
Trayvon Martin’s parents speak out: “Stunned” at verdict
cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57594295/trayvon-martins-parents-speak-out-stunned-at-verdict/
“We’ll look at all legal options. Right now, we’ll ask the Department of Justice to answer … ‘Can a private citizen with a gun profile and follow our children home?’”
How about you tell them not to pound peoples heads into concrete? I love how they conveniently leave off the fact that Martin had no defensive wounds except for the gun shot and was the only one that had offensive wounds.“We need to know because we’ve got to know what to tell our children,” Crump said.
The mod posted he would let it stay open longer.I thought the mods were going to close this thread after a thousand posts. The jury gave their verdict. It’s now officially become the beating of a dead horse. It’s over. We should all put this in the past, and get on with our lives.
again, slander and calumnyAgain, to condone violence is a sin! And that’s what I see happening on this thread.
Hmmm, In my opinion most of the comments about Ms Jeantel in this thread seems to show the complete disconnection to the cultural life of Miss Jeantel. It was shameful the way the defense lawyer badgered her and now we have discovered the defense interviewed her and knew her well before she came before the court.Well thank you. I watched Piers interviewing her, but I soon lost track of understanding her. She was so incoherent, that she could easily be misunderstood.