Shellie Zimmerman ~ *Doubtful of his Innocence*

In spite of your melodramatic description of "saint George," I do not agree with you, and there is no rules that obliges me to do so.

I believe Zimmerman is trash and it is not a "not guilty" verdict (especially one as controversial and surrounded with so much doubt re: the performance of the prosecution and the instructions given to the jury. . . doubts expressed EVEN by the jury) that will change my mind.

You may not have noticed, but it is quite common in this forum (and in others) to call much more impressive people than "saint George" names. . . Saint George has chosen to become a public figure when he created his own website to beg for money, and when his attorneys decided to run with it in the hope (apparently unfulfilled to this day, since O'Mara's only with for his former client is that he should pay him for his work!) that he would eventually get paid!

By the way. . .sarcasm (as in "respectfully" when one doesn't mean it) is not the best way for a Christian to show respect to a fellow Christian!

 

What "created false statement" are you referring to? My statement about some people stating that Trayvon Martin DESERVED to die? Or that Trayvon Martin got his justice when he was killed by Zimmerman?

Here is the exact quote:

AND:

You answer a comment I made without bothering to consider the context of my comment, and the posts that triggered my comments. You got lost in your desire to come to "Saint George's" defense again. . .

 

You do understand my name is not bow to the robots ?

 

You do understand that I was responding to bow to the robots and doombug's comments. . .and you got involved in something you didn't fully understand in context.
Since this is an open forum, you are obviously allowed to answer any posts. . .but I would recommend that, before jumping in, you look a little further than the last post, just in case there is something you may be taking out of context!

 

It would be nice if you showed a bit more tolerance to different opinions . Have a nice night .

 

If you have gained the upper hand on me and you reach for my weapon while stating "you're gonna die tonight mother(*)(*)(*)(*)er," I am justified in shooting you dead to defend myself. In other words: you deserved to die. Had Zimmerman gotten on top of his father-in-law, and reached for his weapon while stating "you're gonna die tonight mother(*)(*)(*)(*)er," then the father-in-law would be perfectly justified in shooting Zimmerman dead. Zimmerman would deserve to die in that instance just like Tray, yes.

- - - Updated - - -

I made quite a few points in that post--with which do you disagree?

 

I stand by my statement. Trayvon was committing a crime when he was shot. George fired that shot to stop him from further committing assault and battery. Trayvon died as a result. It wasn't George's intention to kill Trayvon, hence the 2nd degree charge. George only shot to stop Trayvon's attack, hence the not guilty verdict.

Trayvon did get justice when he was shot. These violent teens don't have a right to go around attacking people for looking at them.

 

I would say that my tolerance of different opinions stop when people are rejoicing at the death of an unarmed teenager! But I do agree that ALL of us could demonstrate a little more tolerance toward others' opinions. . .and not ONLY re: the Zimmerman's case!

I will have a nice night, thank you.

 

NOT GUILTY! LOL! Stupidity was defeated!

 

So, where is the legal precedent that demonstrate that "justice is done" when an unarmed teenager who dare to hit the stranger who follows him in the dark is given a death sentence?

I suggest that, if you continue to insist that "justice was done when George shot Trayvon to death," you qualify your statement as a "PERSONAL OPINION ONLY" or you provide the legal precedent that shows that a court of justice would (and has in the past) given the death penalty to a teenager "guilty" of fighting the man who followed him in the dark!

 

Who is rejoicing here?

- - - Updated - - -

Make that "hit, reach for his weapon, and threaten to murder him."

A court of justice is held to a different legal standard than is a private citizen. I think if you knock someone down, pound their head into the pavement, reach for their gun and tell them they are about to die... you deserve what you get in return. YMMV. And of course these are opinions--that is the whole point of this forum: taking positions based on our opinions and discussing them.

 

So, you will have no problem finding a precedent that demonstrate that a court of justice would have found Trayvon guilty of a crime severe enough to deserve the death penalty?

Otherwise, please qualify your statement as being a mere PERSONAL OPINION. . .

And. . .once again, that personal opinion is base uniquely on MANY assumptions that EVERY WORD Zimmerman said were true. . .and this has in NO WAY being proven!

Please, also note that I would NEVER condemn a man (be it Zimmerman or Martin) to death for hitting another man. . .and I maintain that the COURT OF JUSTICE AGREES WITH ME on this.

 

No he cannot be retried.

 

Yes, thank you for the information. He could, however, face another trial on another charge, including a civil trial (as was the case with OJ).

- - - Updated - - -

Based on so many of your comments. . .unfortunately it wasn't! Stupidity is alive and well!

 

Have you read Doombug's flame baiting comments? Talk about rejoicing at the death of someone! Or, I grant you, he/she may just be enjoying his trolling tremendously!

Again, we ONLY have Saint George's words for this. . .NO EYE WITNESS, and NO DNA evidence showed that Martin reached for the gun or verbally threatened Zimmerman.

You may believe he did. . .I believe he didn't. And no one will ever know (although I would think that Shellie knows!)

 

You will recall I began our exchange by saying "If..." as you pointed out. Nobody here was "condemned to death" as you fallaciously claim: One citizen exercised his right to self-preservation against another citizen who placed the former in imminent fear for his life..if the account of the events of that evening is accurate. I am assuming nothing. And, like you and everyone else posting on this board, of course I am "merely stating my opinion."

 

Which is why I qualified my remarks with "If..." But you did not qualify yours. Your comments were made based on your assumptions.

I have not stated any such thing. But you have... based on your assumptions. I am in no position to believe or disbelieve any of it because I--like you--wasn't there. Yet you see fit to assume the guilt of one of the parties involved? And you have the nerve to accuse other posters of making assumptions? Wow. Just wow.

Another assumption.

 

Based on the evidence I have seen martin did not deserve to die.

Whilst Martin acted in a fashion whereby Great Bodily harm was a distinct possibility he only inflicted 'Substantial bodily harm'
This makes his offence Battery ,a class 1 Misdemeanor.

This is mitigated by his being a Juvenile and no previous convictions

It is aggravated by the injuries being Substantial criminal harm ( a bone was broken but there was no permanent damage) and it being a hate crime (Martins use of ''Cracke''r demonstrates racial hatred)

It would therefore be appropriate for him to serve a sentence of 6 months in a Juvenile detention facility and probably paroled in 3 months.

 

She is smelling book deals baby!!!

 

What evidence, specifically?

 

The not guilty verdict is good enough to show justice was done. It also "qualifies" my statement as fact. Sorry if you have trouble with that concept but that is reality and you need to accept it.

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks to Trayvonites who cling to the false narrative stupidity is alive but it is dwindling.

 

You need to look closer at the evidence because your opinion is out of sync with reality. There is a reason George was found not guilty, he was defending himself like anyone has a right to. These violent punk teens need to be dealt with and if some get killed in the process then so be it. Parents need to wake up.

 

It seems these liberals got committed to the false narrative because it is their sworn duty to defend minorities no matter what. It is sad the disconnect from reality shows thru in this case and only makes them look ridiculous. They must keep the focus on George and defend Thugvon at every turn. Pathetic.

 

There is no doubt that Martin caused injuries on Zimmerman that amounted to a 1st degree misdemeanor. DO not believe that Martin actually intended to kill Zimmerman but fully intended to commit a Battery upon him in a manner typical of a schoolyard fight and ended up inflicting substantial but not great injury.

I can see no evidence that Suggests that Martin was acting in self defence and everything pointing to Martin initiating an attack on someone he perceived as following him.

 

If you read the law one doesn't have to wait until they sustain great bodily injury before they can defend their self. I wonder why that just goes over some folk's head?