George Zimmerman Wants You To Pay His Legal Fees

reply to post by packoftwenty


Refute you? What is there to refute? Your racism? That will do no good, it won't make you less racist.

The link you provide is nothing more than the stoking of racial hatred.

I don't think I will reply any more to you. When you hose dog poo off the porch, sometimes some gets splashed back on you, and I want to avoid that.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by packoftwenty

LOL. Who "stalked" a stranger? Oh, you mean walking down a street which Saint Skittles happens to be walking along. What a joke. So nobody is allowed to go out at night when Saint Skittles is out, right? What EXACTLY do you mean by "stalk a stranger"?

I mean following a person you don't know for no real reason. That is what George Zimmerman did. Martin was doing nothing illegal; Zimmerman just suspected he was up to no good.

"provoke a confrontation". Yet again - walking down the same street as Saint Skittles is apparently an excuse for Saint Skittles to ATTACK you. Please elaborate.

Zimmerman had been following Martin in his car. Zimmerman did not have to get out of his car. Zimmerman, an older man, approached Martin. He was not a uniformed police officer, so Martin would be justified in being alarmed. If Zimmerman had followed proper neighborhood watch procedure, the incident would never have happened.

"literally looking for trouble". Oh, so you're a mind reader now, and you have a time machine. Please cite your PROOF that Zimmerman was "looking for trouble". Saint Skittles was the one looking for trouble, wasn't he.

Zimmerman was on "neighborhood watch." That is what neighborhood watch is: looking for trouble. The problem is, the neighborhood watch is supposed to report the trouble to the police, who are trained to deal with potentially dangerous situations, and understand that they cannot arrest a suspect until a crime has actually been committed. Zimmerman did not do this. We do not know the exact nature of the encounter, but it would never have happened if Zimmerman followed the rules. As far as anyone knows, Martin was looking for Skittles.

What does race have to do with the situation? Are you serious? Let me see... the Jew-owned media ran with this story and attempted to use it to disarm white Americans (more of whom, per capita, are LAW ABIDING, than blacks), so that the Jews' pets could continue to murder us and rape us, and generally ruin our lives. Is that simple enough for you? THAT is what race has to do with it.

Why am I not surprised that you hate Jews as well as blacks? Most of the Jews I know have cats for pets. Are you saying that you have been raped and murdered by a cat?

That sums it up - any rebuttal? Thought not.

What is there to rebut? All you are doing is spewing ignorant 88 jive. None of it is relevant to the actual case.

Originally posted by packoftwenty


LOL. Blacks are FAR more likely to carry guns illegally, as you well know

Source for this fact please?

Originally posted by packoftwenty

Therefore, a plan to disarm the law abiding population is a plan to make sure that more whites are murdered by blacks.

Why is it?

Originally posted by packoftwenty

Just to make it more simple for you, khimbar - criminal blacks are currently carrying guns on a daily basis, and killing whites, on a DAILY basis.

What do the criminal whites, Asians and Hispanics carry?

Originally posted by packoftwenty

So you're suggesting that the law abiding whites, in the United States (never heard of the Second Amendment?) should be disarmed, and all so that scum like Trayvon Martin can carry on ruining our lives.

Where have I suggested that?

reply to post by packoftwenty

Hilarious. "the stoking of racial hatred".
Which means "any white person who simply wants to live with their own kind, isn't allowed to".

No-one is forcing you to do anything. You are welcome to surround your home with a tall fence and never speak to anyone on the outside.

Can you tell me WHY? Thought not. You're an embarrassment, you don't even understand WHY you believe what you believe, and you know that you can't back any of it up with FACTS. What does that make you?

All I know is that I enjoy living in a country where a night out begins with deciding between Indian or Thai food, then choosing between a Jazz club where a great African-American saxophonist is playing or a comedy club where an hilarious Jewish comedian is headlining. Afterwards, maybe a drink at an Irish pub or a walk through Chinatown. Of course, if you'd prefer to sit behind your fence, I won't try to stop you.

I'm bringing facts to the table, you can't even address them. Well boo hoo for you.

Your "facts" have nothing to do with "stand your ground" laws versus vigilantism, so there is no point in addressing them.

reply to post by packoftwenty


Here is why: because you can't control where other people decide to live.

So, go live where you want. But don't complain when other people decide to do the same, and end up living next to you. At that point, your own bigotry is your problem, not theirs.

Originally posted by acmpnsfal
I guaruntee you if Zimmerman was black and Martin was white, Zimmerman would have never walked that night.

Zimmerman isn't white. Zimmerman is black/hispanic/white. He is mixed.

Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
Why do people defend George Zimmerman, a sad sack of horse manure?

Why do people continue to ignore the fact that Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty?

Even if you think the guy's innocent, he's clearly a pathological liar that should be locked up.

:shk: Again with the throwing around the words 'pathological liar' ...
Do you people even know what that means?
None of you have given even one bit of evidence to support a 'pathological' status ...
So that means ya'll are just bloviating ...

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Why do people continue to ignore the fact that Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty?

What? You mean his trial didn't occur on CNN? Wasn't it Nancy Grace or someone who presided over the case that was presented by Anderson Cooper on behalf of The People?

Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
I demand to know ...

You 'demand'??


Also being ignored .. like I said ... OJs trial many years ago cost $6 million dollars in defense. I'm sure that today it is even more expensive. I have no doubt that the $250,000 Zimmerman got in donations is already gone. And the law entitles him to a defense paid for by tax payers. EVERYONE gets it.

This is a non-issue.

reply to post by FlyersFan

Why do people continue to ignore the fact that Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty?

Because, strictly speaking, that is not true. Under traditional English, and thus, American law, Zimmerman is to be presumed innocent in a court of law. The fact of the matter is, Zimmerman admits he shot and killed Martin. There is no doubt he is guilty of manslaughter. It is now up to him to prove that it was justified. The prosecution can decide whether or not they have enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was premeditated, making it murder in the first degree, or motivated by hatred, making it a hate crime. Even if they choose not to do this, Zimmerman, again, by his own admission, is guilty of manslaughter.

Originally posted by DJW001
The fact of the matter is, Zimmerman admits he shot and killed Martin. There is no doubt he is guilty of manslaughter.

Um .. no. All he did was say he shot someone in self defense. that doesn't make him automatically guilty of manslaughter (I happen to think that is what he will eventually be found guilty of). At this point he is an innocent man and the courts have to prove that he is guilty of something. They say they will prove he's guilty of murder. But right now, he is an innocent man. Even though he says he shot someone, he isn't 'guilty' of anything.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

Why do people continue to ignore the fact that Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty?

Because, strictly speaking, that is not true. Under traditional English, and thus, American law, Zimmerman is to be presumed innocent in a court of law. The fact of the matter is, Zimmerman admits he shot and killed Martin. There is no doubt he is guilty of manslaughter. It is now up to him to prove that it was justified. The prosecution can decide whether or not they have enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was premeditated, making it murder in the first degree, or motivated by hatred, making it a hate crime. Even if they choose not to do this, Zimmerman, again, by his own admission, is guilty of manslaughter.

We may have a difference of terminology by state or something here. And I normally wouldn't bring this up. But, since you are wanting to make an argument that hinges on the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law (and the spirit of American values), I would like to point out that manslaughter is an offiense where negligence is proven. If he killed Martin in self defense, it would not be manslaughter, and he has not admitted to any such thing.

What he has admitted to his killing in self defense. And the fact that he is known to have had multiple facial injuries consistent with him getting his butt kicked would tend to support that defense. It is up to a trial to flesh out the facts, like if Martin had facial contusions that would indicate that while Zimmerman was beat up, he wasn't getting the worst of it.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Briefly, the prosecution will certainly claim that Zimmerman's disregard for rules was negligent at best, deliberate at worst. Rather than having a large, divisive trial, both sides will probably agree to a plea bargain. The prosecution can't prove malice aforethought but the defense would have a hard time proving self defense.

reply to post by DJW001

You are anticipating how things will happen. (and I think they may go that way)
But that doesn't mean he's guilty of 'manslaughter' at this time.
Right now .. he's innocent.

reply to post by FlyersFan

But that doesn't mean he's guilty of 'manslaughter' at this time.
Right now .. he's innocent.

No, he is guilty of shooting and killing a man. He is certainly not "innocent." The question is whether or not he is guilty of something beyond manslaughter. You are right, though, politics may lead to an outcome other than the reasonable course I have suggested.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

Briefly, the prosecution will certainly claim that Zimmerman's disregard for rules was negligent at best, deliberate at worst. Rather than having a large, divisive trial, both sides will probably agree to a plea bargain. The prosecution can't prove malice aforethought but the defense would have a hard time proving self defense.

You are probably right.

But I am unsure how any of that is relevant to my post. Particularly, about the use of the term "manslaughter"?

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

But I am unsure how any of that is relevant to my post. Particularly, about the use of the term "manslaughter"?

I must admit I am not sure what the exact definition of "manslaughter" in the State of Florida is. I am using it in the general sense of killing another human being without malice aforethought, ie; killing without intent.

reply to post by DJW001


yeah, i don't know their definition either. I presume it is similar to Texas, meaning that the killing had negligence, but was without malice. Drunk driving would be an example of manslaughter.

If what Zimmerman said happened is what happened, it isn't manslaughter. It is justifiable homocide. We don't know if martin had a chip on his shoulder, or the interactions they had.

My only real hard feelings up to this point is with the 911 dispatch and latency of police response. But even that isn't completely founded as I am unsure of what actions were taken by them, and the timeline of events from their perspective.

Originally posted by DJW001
No, he is guilty of shooting and killing a man.

Again .. he is innocent until proven guilty.
Simply shooting someone doesn't make you 'guilty' of manslaughter. Otherwise, there would be no need for a trial.

He is certainly not "innocent."

Sorry .. but yes he is innocent.

Presumption of innocence

The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof lies with who declares, not who denies), is the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty. Application of this principle is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, recognised in many nations. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who is restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused is to be acquitted.