http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/tray...story.html

Somebody else is gonna die.

lol, if folks would just ignore the idiot he'd go away.

He must have been in fear for his life.

(01-10-2015 10:36 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  He must have been in fear for his life.

He's just an idiot.

A fool and idiot can still be justified in some actions in his life.

(01-10-2015 10:36 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  He must have been in fear for his life.

Comments like that always make me thankful that the jury cut him loose on that bullsh*t "murder" charge a couple of years ago.

He should have been guilty of something.

Yeah, he had no business being outside of his own freaking house.

(01-10-2015 11:44 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  He should have been guilty of something.

What?

What crime did he commit? What are the elements of that crime? What proof of each of them exists and was introduced at trial?

We get that you don't like what he did. What you need to realize is that doesn't make it a crime.

The case "seemed" like manslaughter to me from the first time I heard about it. I will always believe that -- regardless of the law -- a jury probably would've convicted Z of that offense if the prosecution had sought that result from the beginning. But the over-charging spoiled the chance.

(01-10-2015 11:44 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  He should have been guilty of something.

The only thing he was guilty of is stupidity. Fortunately for the vast majority of society, that won't get you locked up.

The issues he's had since that trial are evidence of his immaturity and stupidity, and quite possibly an attempt by others to use him as a way to gain notoriety. That possibility can't be ruled out.

He is a dumb*** though.

(01-10-2015 12:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-10-2015 11:44 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  He should have been guilty of something.

What?

What crime did he commit? What are the elements of that crime? What proof of each of them exists and was introduced at trial?

We get that you don't like what he did. What you need to realize is that doesn't make it a crime.

Menacing by stalking.

(01-10-2015 12:28 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  The case "seemed" like manslaughter to me from the first time I heard about it. I will always believe that -- regardless of the law -- a jury probably would've convicted Z of that offense if the prosecution had sought that result from the beginning. But the over-charging spoiled the chance.

You are right. An immediately charge and the media wouldn't have picked up on it. There wouldn't be the pressure to charge him with 2nd degree murder. He should have been charged with Manslaughter and menacing by stalking.

(01-10-2015 12:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-10-2015 11:44 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  He should have been guilty of something.

What?

What crime did he commit? What are the elements of that crime? What proof of each of them exists and was introduced at trial?

We get that you don't like what he did. What you need to realize is that doesn't make it a crime.

people die

people talk

talk is pointless

(01-10-2015 12:48 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(01-10-2015 12:28 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  The case "seemed" like manslaughter to me from the first time I heard about it. I will always believe that -- regardless of the law -- a jury probably would've convicted Z of that offense if the prosecution had sought that result from the beginning. But the over-charging spoiled the chance.

You are right. An immediately charge and the media wouldn't have picked up on it. There wouldn't be the pressure to charge him with 2nd degree murder. He should have been charged with Manslaughter and menacing by stalking.

They were "handcuffed" per say into the murder charges due to the public opinion and people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. If the DA had only gone with manslaughter there would have been riots based on the opinion that he should have been charged with murder.

It was a no win situation for the DA.

(01-10-2015 11:44 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  He should have been guilty of something.

That's what we said about OJ Simpson and Michael Jackson and you do recall seeing all those racist white people rioting when neither one was convicted of anything, right?

(01-10-2015 12:46 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(01-10-2015 12:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-10-2015 11:44 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  He should have been guilty of something.

What?

What crime did he commit? What are the elements of that crime? What proof of each of them exists and was introduced at trial?

We get that you don't like what he did. What you need to realize is that doesn't make it a crime.

Menacing by stalking.

So Trayvon Martin is dead and you're going to file STALKING charges? Seriously?

Plus, how are you going to prove them? I was out of the country during the trial and got only highlights, but I didn't see anything that would support a stalking conviction.

are we really going to do this Z vs T pissing match again guys?

Libs: Look clearly the case wasn't rock solid and getting a conviction was dubious at best considering the evidence.

Cons: A "Not Guilty" verdict in our legal system does not mean the alleged is innocent. It sometimes (and clearly in this case) means there wasn't enough evidence to convict. This happened in large part beacuse the only witness that could of told us exactly what happened is dead. Clearly there was some fault on Z, clearly he isn't the saint the conservative media tried to make him out to be.

It's really time for both sides to walk away from this. I am sick of this thread coming up with the same talking points, with the same stupidity, again, and again, and again.

Then don't click. Zimmerman was clearly in the title.

(01-10-2015 04:35 PM)john01992 Wrote:  This happened in large part beacuse the only witness that could of told us exactly what happened is dead.

So the kids word would have been gospel and Zmans word should be completely disregarded.