Question for Z supporters . . .

[joko104]

Not to worry, Pirate. If he is found innocent, I think Republican/conservatives and everyone that thinks he is innocent will take care of him. They have already sent him $200K, so they will probably make him a millionaire and he will be able to move to some remote island with his wife. His family can come and visit him at his expense, with all the money that the Republicans are going to continue sending him.

Best thing is for him to be found guilty and be punished for what he did. It was wrong and he deserves to pay for it.

The prosecutor and judge are Republican. So is Sharon.

Your sig line is a declaration that you are a partisan hack, which explains your message.

 

[ric27]

Not to worry, Pirate. If he is found innocent, I think Republican/conservatives and everyone that thinks he is innocent will take care of him. They have already sent him $200K, so they will probably make him a millionaire and he will be able to move to some remote island with his wife. His family can come and visit him at his expense, with all the money that the Republicans are going to continue sending him.

Best thing is for him to be found guilty and be punished for what he did. It was wrong and he deserves to pay for it.

Lmao....

It was wrong and he deserves to pay for it.

Being right or wrong is NOT relevant to the evidence in the criminal case.

It is about the evidence in the case...legally

 

[JackFrost]

Yes, this is the result of politicians and the media corrupting the criminal justice system and legitimate press for personal financial profit and fame. -Proof?

The head of that snake because Obama with his claiming the TM was the same race as him as what matters - which that not only was grotesque political race-baiting but also factually false as GZ is minimally as much the race of Obama as was TM. -Proof?

Once again Joko making up "facts" with no evidence to back up his claims. This is why no one takes you seriously, except other delusional individuals.

 

[joko104]

Proof of what is known?

It is known to all that Obama stated that he has empathy for Trayvon Martin specifically because he "looks like" he could be his son, injecting race into this.

Democrats raced in declaring this was a racial killing as a matter of fact - and I don't have to post recounts of what everyone on this thread heard. Two former Democratic presidential candidates openly declared this was a racially motivated murder and their Democratic media talking head joined in - including altering audio tapes and other material falsities.

If you are not familiar with what the President, Sharpston, Jackson, and the MSNBC talking heads, plus Democrats in Congress as extreme as putting on hooded sweat jackets on the floor of the Congress then you really shouldn't participate much on this TM-GZ topics board.

 

[JackFrost]

Lmao....



Being right or wrong is NOT relevant to the evidence in the criminal case.

It is about the evidence in the case...legally

Being right or wrong is ALWAYS relevant. OF COURSE Zimmerbots will disagree...but that is exactly what separates them from the rest of humanity:lol:

 

[JackFrost]

Proof of what is known?

It is known to all that Obama stated that he has empathy for Trayvon Martin specifically because he "looks like" he could be his son, injecting race into this.

Democrats raced in declaring this was a racial killing as a matter of fact - and I don't have to post recounts of what everyone on this thread heard. Two former Democratic presidential candidates openly declared this was a racially motivated murder and their Democratic media talking head joined in - including altering audio tapes and other material falsities.

If you are not familiar with what the President, Sharpston, Jackson, and the MSNBC talking heads, plus Democrats in Congress as extreme as putting on hooded sweat jackets on the floor of the Congress then you really shouldn't participate much on this TM-GZ topics board.

How about you use facts, and not conjecture?

Thought so,
Have a nice day

 

[sharon]

Proof of what is known?

It is known to all that Obama stated that he has empathy for Trayvon Martin specifically because he "looks like" he could be his son, injecting race into this.

Democrats raced in declaring this was a racial killing as a matter of fact - and I don't have to post recounts of what everyone on this thread heard. Two former Democratic presidential candidates openly declared this was a racially motivated murder and their Democratic media talking head joined in - including altering audio tapes and other material falsities.

If you are not familiar with what the President, Sharpston, Jackson, and the MSNBC talking heads, plus Democrats in Congress as extreme as putting on hooded sweat jackets on the floor of the Congress then you really shouldn't participate much on this TM-GZ topics board.

Is that your problem? Are you upset that the president expressed sympathy for the loss of a child?

 

[joko104]

Being right or wrong is ALWAYS relevant. OF COURSE Zimmerbots will disagree...but that is exactly what separates them from the rest of humanity:lol:

You are wrong.
Courts and trials are NOT about right and wrong. Judges and juries are not to be each their own King Solomons deciding what they think is right and wrong whatsoever. This isn't TV court - though the judge often acts like it is.
Trials, civil and criminal, are suppose to be:
1. The trier of fact determines what the facts are based only upon admissible evidence.
Their finding may be accurate or might not be.
2. Those facts then are applied to the law, irregardless of whether the judge or jury believes it a good law(s) and irregardless of whether they thing the resulting is fair or unfair, "right or wrong."
Judges and juries do not get to decide what is "right and wrong." Legislatures and Congress does.
From that the decision comes out.
That decision might be right. It might be "wrong." It might be fair or unfair.

Neither judges nor juries are never to be deciding what is moral or not, ie what is right and wrong. That is not their job. They are to decide what facts are upon admissible evidence and then apply that to statutes - and then the verdict or judgment comes solely from that. A person can be totally morally wrong and win in court - and visa versa - depending upon 1.) whether admissible evidence reveals the truth and 2.) whether how those fact conclusions apply to actual statutues.

For example, in Florida a conversation recorded without permission is inadmissible in nearly all instances. Thus, while a recording may 100% proof one conclusion, the admissible evidence may support the exact opposite - though the exact opposite is false. An inadmissible confession could be another example.

 

[joko104]

How about you use facts, and not conjecture?

Thought so,
Have a nice day

If you do not know it fact that Obama made his statement or that the others did you have no business being in these topics. It is that simple.

 

[JackFrost]

You are wrong.
Courts and trials are NOT about right and wrong. Judges and juries are not to be each their own King Solomons deciding what they think is right and wrong whatsoever. This isn't TV court - though the judge often acts like it is.
Trials, civil and criminal, are suppose to be:
1. The trier of fact determines what the facts are based only upon admissible evidence.
Their finding may be accurate or might not be.
2. Those facts then are applied to the law, irregardless of whether the judge or jury believes it a good law(s) and irregardless of whether they thing the resulting is fair or unfair, "right or wrong."
Judges and juries do not get to decide what is "right and wrong." Legislatures and Congress does.
From that the decision comes out.
That decision might be right. It might be "wrong." It might be fair or unfair.

Neither judges nor juries are never to be deciding what is moral or not, ie what is right and wrong. That is not their job. They are to decide what facts are upon admissible evidence and then apply that to statutes - and then the verdict or judgment comes solely from that. A person can be totally morally wrong and win in court - and visa versa - depending upon 1.) whether admissible evidence reveals the truth and 2.) whether how those fact conclusions apply to actual statutues.

For example, in Florida a conversation recorded without permission is inadmissible in nearly all instances. Thus, while a recording may 100% proof one conclusion, the admissible evidence may support the exact opposite - though the exact opposite is false. An inadmissible confession could be another example.

Right and Wrong is always relevant. There is a right way to do something, and a wrong way to do something, even in court. How do you remove this from ANYthing???

 

[sharon]

You are wrong.
Courts and trials are NOT about right and wrong. Judges and juries are not to be each their own King Solomons deciding what they think is right and wrong whatsoever. This isn't TV court - though the judge often acts like it is.
Trials, civil and criminal, are suppose to be:
1. The trier of fact determines what the facts are based only upon admissible evidence.
Their finding may be accurate or might not be.
2. Those facts then are applied to the law, irregardless of whether the judge or jury believes it a good law(s) and irregardless of whether they thing the resulting is fair or unfair, "right or wrong."
Judges and juries do not get to decide what is "right and wrong." Legislatures and Congress does.
From that the decision comes out.
That decision might be right. It might be "wrong." It might be fair or unfair.

Neither judges nor juries are never to be deciding what is moral or not, ie what is right and wrong. That is not their job. They are to decide what facts are upon admissible evidence and then apply that to statutes - and then the verdict or judgment comes solely from that. A person can be totally morally wrong and win in court - and visa versa - depending upon 1.) whether admissible evidence reveals the truth and 2.) whether how those fact conclusions apply to actual statutues.

For example, in Florida a conversation recorded without permission is inadmissible in nearly all instances. Thus, while a recording may 100% proof one conclusion, the admissible evidence may support the exact opposite - though the exact opposite is false. An inadmissible confession could be another example.

George was well aware that his jailhouse conversations would be recorded..

 

[joko104]

George was well aware that his jailhouse conversations would be recorded..

He was not aware that his protected school records would be released and it was illegal for the prosecutor to do so without his consent.

That he knew his calls in jail would be recorded was good reason for him to try to limit how much he directly referenced the money someone could extort, beat or otherwise force out of his wife if such information made public. I do not believe GZ realized that any and all conversations he had with his wife would be put on TV and the Internet.

 

[joko104]

Right and Wrong is always relevant. There is a right way to do something, and a wrong way to do something, even in court. How do you remove this from ANYthing???

This is not how courts and trials are suppose to work.

I would generally have exactly no problem with someone tracking down a man who violently raped his wife, daughter, mother or dear friend and summarily killing that person - and certainly not if it a perchance coming across that person in public. Thus, you think that would be ok for me to decide so if on a jury because that is what I think is "right?"

Then again if there is any pre-trial questioning of potential jurors it certain that either the prosecution or defense would strike me from the list and for cause - meaning not having to use up a discretionary strike.

 

[JackFrost]

This is not how courts and trials are suppose to work.

Supposed, not suppose

Human beings make up courts and trials. All human beings in these courts and trials have some sense of right and wrong. To say right and wrong are not relevant to courts and trials is naive at best JOKO:lol:

 

[sharon]

He was not aware that his protected school records would be released and it was illegal for the prosecutor to do so without his consent.

That he knew his calls in jail would be recorded was good reason for him to try to limit how much he directly referenced the money someone could extort, beat or otherwise force out of his wife if such information made public. I do not believe GZ realized that any and all conversations he had with his wife would be put on TV and the Internet.

George is just so special. perhaps he should not have lied about his education either.

 

[joko104]

Supposed, not suppose

Human beings make up courts and trials. All human beings in these courts and trials have some sense of right and wrong. To say right and wrong are not relevant to courts and trials is naive at best JOKO:lol:

I didn't say (or mean) isn't. I mean for how it is supposed to work, it shouldn't.

For a guy with exactly zero formal schooling, I think I do pretty good with grammar actually. But then who cares?

 

[joko104]

George is just so special. perhaps he should not have lied about his education either.

Yes, you often sneer at the concept of GZ having the same legal rights and protects as others.

Why can we all see TM's full school records? Why won't the prosecutor's office issue those in press releases?

 

[ric27]

Being right or wrong is ALWAYS relevant. OF COURSE Zimmerbots will disagree...but that is exactly what separates them from the rest of humanity:lol:

Typical childish/innocent view of the real world

Apparently, you don't have a clue how, the legal system works

 

[sharon]

Yes, you often sneer at the concept of GZ having the same legal rights and protects as others.

Why can we all see TM's full school records? Why won't the prosecutor's office issue those in press releases?

George has been treated very fairly... and he is living well and soliciting donations.

The issue here is do you want to support vigilantism. George profiled this boy, judged him and shot him.

George took on the roles of police officer, judge, jury and executioner.

That may not be meaningful to you, but it is to me.

 

[joko104]

ers

George has been treated very fairly... and he is living well and soliciting donations.

The issue here is do you want to support vigilantism. George profiled this boy, judged him and shot him.

George took on the roles of police officer, judge, jury and executioner.

That may not be meaningful to you, but it is to me.

Since you brought it up, the vigilantism is your messages - but worse.
It is the reason you post every possible character assassination you can imagine.
It is the reason you incessantly and massively spam this board anytime you find any blog, statement or comment against GZ.
It is the reason you will ALWAYS instantly try to derail ANY topic that is not pure hatred or accusations against GZ.
You also have often stated what is the reason why. You have OFTEN declared your self superiority over others because you were born rich and white. You often post messages of contempt of ordinary people and again boasting of yourself.

In this is what appears your intense opposition to any due process rights to George Zimmerman. "Due Process" in its pure form also is pure equality. This contradicts your belief in your own superiority you often use these GZ threads to declare.

The number of calls over time that GZ made to the police 100% contradicts that he "profiled" TM other than as a suspicious person acting odds - which you actually initially agreed with until you realized this might help GZ. Dee's recount of it being TM who first approached and challenged GZ also confirms this. Even your raging that GZ did not directly confront TM demanding to know where he was going also confirms that GZ wasn't hunting anyone.

The notion that an ordinary person like GZ who is so vastly below you should be allowed equal rights and legal rights appears to truly sicken you. But, then, as Shiek wants everyone to know, he's not a white person like you or he. He's not rich like you. He wasn't born rich like you. He is not the geneous you declare yourself to be. Instead, GZ is just a low income, slow learner Latino who shouldn't even be tolerated having a "white people's" name in his opinion - so he changes it.

Your vigilantism is as obvious in your now 7000 times the lie that TM was a 12 year old child.

 

[mertex]

The prosecutor and judge are Republican. So is Sharon.

Your sig line is a declaration that you are a partisan hack, which explains your message.

I love it when partisan hacks call others partisan hacks.

Politics shouldn't even matter in this case, but Republicans, known for racism and politically inclined, chose GZ thinking he was a Republican.

Sharon being a Rep is a good thing, it shows that there are a few Reps that are not blind to justice.

 

[mertex]

It is about the evidence in the case...legally

Golly Gee, Duh!

 

[sharon]

I love it when partisan hacks call others partisan hacks.

Politics shouldn't even matter in this case, but Republicans, known for racism and politically inclined, chose GZ thinking he was a Republican.

Sharon being a Rep is a good thing, it shows that there are a few Reps that are not blind to justice.

Thank you.. I have very strong feelings about equal justice under the law... for myself and others.

This.. I found fascinating.
.. 9 scenarios for concealed carry in Oklahoma and Florida.

Why George Zimmerman’s SYG Defense Won’t Stand « The Hinky Meter

 

[mertex]

Thank you.. I have very strong feelings about equal justice under the law... for myself and others.

This.. I found fascinating.
.. 9 scenarios for concealed carry in Oklahoma and Florida.

Why George Zimmerman’s SYG Defense Won’t Stand « The Hinky Meter

Very interesting. The article states what most of us were able to deduct by just using common sense. When GZ decided to get out of his car and didn't leave his gun in the glove compartment, he lost his opportunity to use the SYG law. That GZ's supporters insist that he was defending himself is beyond belief. If anyone, TM was the one that had the right to use SYG law.

 

[sharon]

Very interesting. The article states what most of us were able to deduct by just using common sense. When GZ decided to get out of his car and didn't leave his gun in the glove compartment, he lost his opportunity to use the SYG law. That GZ's supporters insist that he was defending himself is beyond belief. If anyone, TM was the one that had the right to use SYG law.

George was on a mission beginning about 7:04 PM..

What is called into question for me is who were these other young black men that George reported to NEN? Were they like Trayvon or were they criminals?

The only one I can think of is George's neighbor, Emmanuel Burgess.. Heck he may have committed all 7 burglaries.