Tax Dollars to pay for Trayvon Martin Hoodie

[Excon]

That is an absolutely not true statement.

Your's really isn't an accurate statement.

But it was not ruled "just". where does this stuff come from.

It comes from the fact that in order for Zimmerman to have been acquitted they had to find that he was of a reasonable belief of loss of life or great bodily harm.
Since they found such, his actions in shooting Trayvon were just, as found.

Z was found not guilty. He killed the other side of hte story so there was not enough evidnce for a conviction.

:naughty
This is not a case of not enough evidence to convict him, that is nothing more than an excuse because you don't like the verdict.
There was no evidence to suggest he did not act justly.

He killed a person who was assaulting him. A person who didn't give up doing so even though Zimmerman tried to get away and screamed for help. Even after another person told him to stop.

Z made a bad decision and got a kid killed and that is just?

No. The bad decision was all Trayvon's for acting out violently.

---

and you don't know if maybe he wasn't standing his ground that night. You can't see the prejudice that permeates your thinking.

Bs! The evidence does not support such an assertion.
His coming out of hiding to approach in a hasty manner, yelling his question in an angry fashion, and immediately striking Zimmerman upon arrival, is an attack, and not SYG.
Stop with the absurd bs!

 

[Sisyphus]

this is exactly how it works.

zimmerman admits to killing a person. police looked at the evidence and determined his actions were justified. everyone goes home

race baiters intervened.

his peers again ruled his actions were justified. everyone goes home.

Ask a defense attorney of they do anything in court other than this: create reasonable doubt that the charges filed against them are true.

That's it. In the court of public opinion all matter of stuff it alleged, imagined, attributed, you name it. But criminal court is a very vertical endeavor with rules of evidence that are stricter than you can imagine.

 

[ARealConservative]

Ask a defense attorney of they do anything in court other than this: create reasonable doubt that the charges filed against them are true.

That's it. In the court of public opinion all matter of stuff it alleged, imagined, attributed, you name it. But criminal court is a very vertical endeavor with rules of evidence that are stricter than you can imagine.

correct. reasonable doubt amounts to sufficient legal reason for killing someone.

justified ~ to show to have had a sufficient legal reason

thanks for proving my point.

 

[opendebate]

Bs! The evidence does not support such an assertion.
His coming out of hiding to approach in a hasty manner, yelling his question in an angry fashion, and immediately striking Zimmerman upon arrival, is an attack, and not SYG.
Stop with the absurd bs!

It is not an assertion, it is one of many "possible" things that may or may not have occurred that night.

What you are presenting as facts a really just GZ's version of what took place. Those are not facts.

 

[ReformCollege]

It's a historical artifact. The Smithsonian owns 137 million items.

This really is reaching to whine about this. This is their function. Or should the hoodie be thrown out?

View attachment 67151408

Historical in what sense?

 

[ReformCollege]

You don't know how he lived and you don't know if maybe he wasn't standing his ground that night. You can't see the prejudice that permeates your thinking.

The prejudice is yours and yours alone.

 

[opendebate]

The prejudice is yours and yours alone.

Well that is certainly a compelling argument.

 

[CalGun]

I am not commenting on just - I'm commenting on your post that said he (Zimmerman) made a bad decision.
I find it appalling the desire to live is some how a bad decision. That seems extremely racist and horrific to
suggest a man should just sit back and die because you or others think its a "bad decision" to defend yourself
with deadly force.

It was not ruled just. It is "just" that simple.

 

[CalGun]

And why do you ignore the facts? I realize you are "progressive" but that doesn't mean you have to be blind. The young man was a thug, evidence proves it, and
you have to be completely blind to ignore it.

You are completely buying into the smear campaign of the defense because you were ripe to believe it in the first place.

 

[opendebate]

And why do you ignore the facts? I realize you are "progressive" but that doesn't mean you have to be blind. The young man was a thug, evidence proves it, and
you have to be completely blind to ignore it.

First of all, what evidence proves he was a thug.
Secondly, even if he was a thug that does not prove that he did anything to deserve what he got.

 

[ARealConservative]

It is not an assertion, it is one of many "possible" things that may or may not have occurred that night.

What you are presenting as facts a really just GZ's version of what took place. Those are not facts.

GZ's version is evidence. his statements were entered into court records as evidence.

nothing you are claiming was ever entered into evidence, so what you are doing is ridiculous and pathetic.

 

[opendebate]

GZ's version is evidence. his statements were entered into court records as evidence.

nothing you are claiming was ever entered into evidence, so what you are doing is ridiculous and pathetic.

Typical, do you realize what it implies about you when you resort to name calling like this?

 

[ARealConservative]

Typical, do you realize what it implies about you when you resort to name calling like this?

I didn't call anyone names. if you think I did, a report button is available so stop trolling

 

[opendebate]

I didn't call anyone names. if you think I did, a report button is available so stop trolling

"...bias, and genuine dissent are not trolling" and I'm not a child who is going to run and tell your mommy on you. My statement regarding your comments where intended to point out that you are not representing your position very convincingly.

 

[ARealConservative]

"...bias, and genuine dissent are not trolling" and I'm not a child who is going to run and tell your mommy on you. My statement regarding your comments where intended to point out that you are not representing your position very convincingly.

yawn.


GZ's version is evidence. his statements were entered into court records as evidence.

nothing you are claiming was ever entered into evidence, so what you are doing is ridiculous and pathetic.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

I don't believe race was an issue in that unfortunate event or the trial.

Of course you dont.

The Jurors even said so.

I don't think it was unanimous, but that is beside the point. And let see if you start to try to show how non-prejudice Zim was:

Do you realize Zimmerman was raised with two black kids and is part Black himself?

The narrative crumbles: George Zimmerman is part black | Twitchy

In this case the *racism* exist in the minds of those who wish for it to be an issue.

U R Welcome for the info.

....Yep you did.

See the problem is that Zim did have a history of racist comments. Further, to say that when a person uses language describing "punks who always get away" with crimes, and decides to track someone they have profiled......and for those defenders to claim race had no part, sorry, but it stretches the truth.....a lot.

Race played a part in this, everyone has a bias, especially those wannabe cops.

 

[specklebang]

Surely you must have heard something about the Zimmerman/Martin case?

It's a recently resolved case that received a great deal of publicity. One of many symbols of the case was a hoodie, worn by Martin.

As an analogy, think of the bullet ridden car that belonged to Bonnie and Clyde, also purchased by the Smithsonian. Should it have been salvaged? After all, it was in bad condition. But it is considered to be a historical artifact.

Have I answered your question RC?

Historical in what sense?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

I guess you could call it that, because few libs pay attention in class or do their homework.

If you've paid even a lick of attention to the story then you should know Z was investigated and FBI didn't find evidence of him being racist. The finding just goes to show how the left played the race card because they didn't like the end result of the incident.

Actually, they investigated whether there was racial motivation for the shooting, that is different from whether racism was a part of the shooting.

 

[CalGun]

If you can't see the evidence suggesting he was a thug you don't want to see it. You are no different then his parents and I suspect most parents who think their little angels are just that.

First of all, what evidence proves he was a thug.
Secondly, even if he was a thug that does not prove that he did anything to deserve what he got.

 

[WCH]

Of course you dont.I don't think it was unanimous, but that is beside the point. And let see if you start to try to show how non-prejudice Zim was:

....Yep you did.

See the problem is that Zim did have a history of racist comments. Further, to say that when a person uses language describing "punks who always get away" with crimes, and decides to track someone they have profiled......and for those defenders to claim race had no part, sorry, but it stretches the truth.....a lot.

Race played a part in this, everyone has a bias, especially those wannabe cops.

Lol! forget you! :mrgreen:

 

[opendebate]

If you can't see the evidence suggesting he was a thug you don't want to see it. You are no different then his parents and I suspect most parents who think their little angels are just that.

I love they way you guys always come back with personal attacks or ridicule. Well I'm rubber and your glue. There how is that for an intelligent defense of my position.

 

[CalGun]

Its not an attack but an observation. How can you look at the evidence about TM and not call him out as a criminal, a thug, and one pathetic young man who ended up dead because of the way he was.

I love they way you guys always come back with personal attacks or ridicule. Well I'm rubber and your glue. There how is that for an intelligent defense of my position.

 

[ReformCollege]

Surely you must have heard something about the Zimmerman/Martin case?

It's a recently resolved case that received a great deal of publicity. One of many symbols of the case was a hoodie, worn by Martin.

As an analogy, think of the bullet ridden car that belonged to Bonnie and Clyde, also purchased by the Smithsonian. Should it have been salvaged? After all, it was in bad condition. But it is considered to be a historical artifact.

Have I answered your question RC?

No no. I want to know exactly how its going to be portrayed in said history lesson. That was my point.

 

[ReformCollege]

Well that is certainly a compelling argument.

I'm glad you realize that just calling someone prejudiced without any credibility is a bad argument. Just realize that you made it first.

 

[specklebang]

The same way the Bonnie & Clyde car is portrayed. The Smithsonian is non-political. What happened is historical. So, I will guess that the history of the event is what will be portrayed and its impact on society. I'm not sure why anyone feels threatened by this.

Just re-read your post. The Smithsonian does not teach history lessons. They are a museum, not a university.

No no. I want to know exactly how its going to be portrayed in said history lesson. That was my point.