And now we all wait, with all our opinions and such.
I know, absolutely different facts, but I'm just trying to see where your limits are?
Why me? Why not.
Man, can you imagine being an alternate this entire time? That would suck.
Trust me, I'd never want to be on a jury where a persons life was in my hands, but in all reality, you have to go what's "there".
well, now it's time to head over to FARK for all the memes, videos, shoops and other humor that can't be posted here.
Looking forward to returning to this thread and reading the back pedaling or boasting, depending on the verdict.
There does not need to be another side to the story. All the surrounding evidence may, or may not, be enough.
(aside: I don't think enough in Zimmerman's case, I'm just testing how far you want to go with your line of thought).
Why me? Why not.
I mean by your example, there would be some type of evidence of break in and not you guys *geeking around* with a gun.
Paladin-Sorcerer at your service! My Youtube Channel https://www.youtube.com/user/Aeluron
That is always the hope. However, sad history proves that sometimes they do not. In any case, it is telling a specific demographic of people to stop thinking the way that they normally do, and think the way MEN do. Some have the capacity to do this. Others do not. Only time will tell what happens in this particular case.but when women have the duty to put emotion aside like in this instance i have enough faith in them that they will
However, one thing is undeniably clear... In the trial of George Zimmerman, the prosecution's case was entirely void of facts, logic, and evidence - and their argument/appeal to the jury was entirely based on emotional manipulation. The defense's case was based on facts, logic, and evidence, and had very little in the way of emotional appeals - and their closing argument was almost entirely fact-driven and logic based.
If GZ is found guilty even of manslaughter, it will be because the jury decided the issue based on their emotions. If they find him not guilty, it will be because they made their decision based on the law and the facts. That's really the only way to look at it.
If there was no evidence suggesting he murdered you, and almost all evidence backing up his claims (more than refuting his claims), using an extremely simple example, it would be almost impossible to give a "what i'd vote" answer, but it definitely doesn't sound like he murdered you.
- - - Updated - - -
if zimmerman walks scott free, i'll be very surprised, because i honestly believe the jury's verdict will be manslaughter.
at any rate, i hope ya'll are ready for the riots.
- - - Updated - - -
So is this saying if I'm in my home, vehicle, work-place or anywhere I have the "right" to be I can defend myself with deadly force as long as they brandish a lethal weapon? So if I'm in a bar and someone pulls a knife or gun I can kill them or are they using the word "right" as in personal property type "right"?
Oh shit a black guy on CNN isn't towing the party line! He is using the legal standard of injuries to point out that Zimmermans injuries are considered great bodily injuries that give him the right to shoot under Florida law.
When you see someone in a thread making the same canned responses over and over, click their name, click view forum posts, and see if they are a troll. Then don't feed them."Gamer" is not a bad word. I identify as a gamer. When calling out those who persecute and harass, the word you're looking for is "asshole." @_DonAdams