Zimmerman Trial

#3,205
#3,205
alwaysvol said:
I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm on Zimmermans side, the only thing I had a problem with. Was your first post. you said Martin should of went over, and talked to him. because that is what civilized people do. If you feel like your being followed then hell no you don't. now go back to my first post where I quoted you.

Like i said martin didn't really do anything wrong, until he attacked Zimmerman.

I have a nice truck, people look in my truck all the time

I'm a contractor that use to flip houses, I looked in alot of windows. even at night.
Click to expand...

I am not really trying to argue with you either. I'm just saying that if I were visiting in another neighborhood and responding to someone watching me, I would be polite about it. If the other person was hostile, I would walk away because there is no point in trying to talk to somebody like that.
 
#3,210
#3,210
null-45.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3,211
#3,211
allvol123 said:
You missed a post, Einstein.

Where have I said anything about taking a cops word.
Click to expand...

No trial would mean you were fully on board with investigation.

An investigation with no eyewitnesses who actually saw anything and the shooting of an unarmed person.

Fortunately a trial occurred and when facts were presented the jury decided correctly.
 
#3,213
#3,213
Vols520 said:
It should have gone to trial. The verdict was correct.

Just because they also thought it should have gone to trial doesn't mean they were wrong. Sure there motives were horrible but a trial was necessary.
Click to expand...

So a case with no evidence should go to Trial? it cost Zimmerman around 460k to defend himself, how much did it cost the tax payers? I don't know about you, but I don't have 460k, and I can't take a year off from working. I wasn't even on trial, and was scared for Zimmerman because a manslauter conviction could send him to prison for 30 years. to you that is necessary?
 
#3,214
#3,214
Vols520 said:
No trial would mean you were fully on board with investigation.

An investigation with no eyewitnesses who actually saw anything and the shooting of an unarmed person.

Fortunately a trial occurred and when facts were presented the jury decided correctly.
Click to expand...

Unarmed means nothing to me.

A person does not need to go to trial because he defended his life. Happens plent of times that way. This was a race baited sham.
 
#3,215
#3,215
alwaysvol said:
So a case with no evidence should go to Trial? it cost Zimmerman around 460k to defend himself, how much did it cost the tax payers? I don't know about you, but I don't have 460k, and I can't take a year off from working. I wasn't even on trial, and was scared for Zimmerman because a manslauter conviction could send him to prison for 30 years. to you that is necessary?
Click to expand...

100%. Because the system worked.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top