http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57593459-504083/george-zimmerman-verdict-former-neighborhood-watch-leader-not-guilty-in-death-of-fla-teen-trayvon-martin/

 

I feel the riots coming~

How? If you listen to what he says he makes good points

Apparently a random pelibian with no law education or experiance with crime/courts is more qualified than those that are.

 

I like how all of his points were countered by the defense during the actual trial.

 

If you're going to argue against the trial, actually firetrucking watch it.

That wasn't random though.He explained why Zimmerman's story was bs. He used logic and reasoning that is kind of hard to ignore. Like what he said about there being no blood on the gun.

It's a gun, not a knife.

 

Even at close range blood won't get on the gun. You would have to press the gun directly against someone for blood to get on it.

 

Blood doesn't explode out of peoples bodies like you see in movies, especially with only a 9mm.

Edited July 19, 201312 yr by darkchaser

pelibian

Haha. Oh wow.

Apparently a random pelibian with no law education or experiance with crime/courts is more qualified than those that are.I like how all of his points were countered by the defense during the actual trial.If you're going to argue against the trial, actually firetrucking watch it.

I did watch it. No one's saying he's more qualified. And I can't find any of his points that were countered. The only thing remotely close to that would be the testimony that Martin would have been alive for 10-15 seconds after being shot, and could have moved his arms in that time.

 

And you know what isn't fair? There's  only one person alive to tell the story

It's a gun, not a knife.Even at close range blood won't get on the gun. You would have to press the gun directly against someone for blood to get on it.Blood doesn't explode out of peoples bodies like you see in movies, especially with only a 9mm.

The kid was right on top of him.

Haha. Oh wow.

Pardon?

I did watch it. No one's saying he's more qualified. And I can't find any of his points that were countered. The only thing remotely close to that would be the testimony that Martin would have been alive for 10-15 seconds after being shot, and could have moved his arms in that time.

His first point is horribly flawed. Zimmerman isn't the homicidal puppy eater that the media made him out to be. It's clear from the evidence at hand and the testomonies that Zimmerman used his gun as a last resort. Simply put, he didn't want to use the gun until his life was threatened.

And you know what isn't fair? There's only one person alive to tell the story

Our justice revolves around the idea that all are Innocent until proven guilty. Sadly it seems some people want to go back 400 years to where the opposite was the case.

The kid was right on top of him.

Again, it's a gun, not a knife. Even just a few inches from the body and it's possible for the gun to be clean.

His first point is horribly flawed. Zimmerman isn't the homicidal puppy eater that the media made him out to be. It's clear from the evidence at hand and the testomonies that Zimmerman used his gun as a last resort. Simply put, he didn't want to use the gun until his life was threatened. 

Also the part where he says they were fighting and the kid scratched the back of Zimmerman's head is very special. I've been in fights and seen fights and I have never seen someone scratch the back of someones head. 

His first point is horribly flawed. Zimmerman isn't the homicidal puppy eater that the media made him out to be. It's clear from the evidence at hand and the testomonies that Zimmerman used his gun as a last resort. Simply put, he didn't want to use the gun until his life was threatened. Our justice revolves around the idea that all are Innocent until proven guilty. Sadly it seems some people want to go back 400 years to where the opposite was the case. Again, it's a gun, not a knife. Even just a few inches from the body and it's possible for the gun to be clean.

First point he's saying he has a gun for self defense. It was established he thought Trayvon was some kind of criminal because of the previous incidents. He thought he needed to be the big guy and take care of things. And evidence does show that fact that he targeted him. He followed him and more than likely confronted him first. He has a gun, he has nothing to worry about, and if he thought this kid was dangerous, he wouldn't have waited for him to act first. I said there's one person to tell the story. Don't twist my words and make it seem like the justice system is soo bad. And one person to tell the story means the other side is unheard. We don't know what was said or done before Martin "sucker punched" him, and that could've made all the difference. If I were in Zimmerman's position I would do everything in my power to make it seem like I was the victim too. Also, Zimmerman said Martin tried to grab for the gun, yet no DNA was found on it or the holster. There's also no DNA on Martins hoodie, when there should be if he was over top Zimmerman and beating up up. It's possible for it to be clean, but highly unlikely. It would've been a high velocity, causing a mist like spray of blood to come out. These tiny, tiny droplets are what counts, and like I said, they move very fast.

First point he's saying he has a gun for self defense. It was established he thought Trayvon was some kind of criminal because of the previous incidents. He thought he needed to be the big guy and take care of things. And evidence does show that fact that he targeted him. He followed him and more than likely confronted him first. He has a gun, he has nothing to worry about, and if he thought this kid was dangerous, he wouldn't have waited for him to act first.

Having a gun doesn't instantly make you feel secure. Zimmerman had no way to know if Martin also had a gun or other weapon on him.Who confronted who is honestly rather irrelevant. Either way it would of ended with Zimmerman getting his ass handed to him and being forced to take somebodies life in order to save his own.

I said there's one person to tell the story. Don't twist my words and make it seem like the justice system is soo bad. And one person to tell the story means the other side is unheard. We don't know what was said or done before Martin "sucker punched" him, and that could've made all the difference. If I were in Zimmerman's position I would do everything in my power to make it seem like I was the victim too.

I'm not twisting your words. You, and many other people don't seem to know how the Anerican Justice system works. In a criminal case, the verdict has to be placed beyond all reasonable doubt. This means that we have to be pretty much 100% sure that the crime was committed in order to convict someone of it. In this case there was doubt.

Also, Zimmerman said Martin tried to grab for the gun, yet no DNA was found on it or the holster. There's also no DNA on Martins hoodie, when there should be if he was over top Zimmerman and beating up up.

TRIED to grab the gun. Meaning that Martin failed to do so for one reason or another so none of his DNA would be on it. As for the hoodie, I'm not too sure.

It's possible for it to be clean, but highly unlikely. It would've been a high velocity, causing a mist like spray of blood to come out. These tiny, tiny droplets are what counts, and like I said, they move very fast.

First off, a 9mm isn't going to cause a mist of blood, trust me.Look over the testimony of the Defense's expert witness Dr. Vincet Di Maio. Even if blood shot out in the mannee you describe, Martin's clothing would have easily stopped blood from getting on the gun.

Having a gun doesn't instantly make you feel secure. Zimmerman had no way to know if Martin also had a gun or other weapon on him.Who confronted who is honestly rather irrelevant. Either way it would of ended with Zimmerman getting his ass handed to him and being forced to take somebodies life in order to save his own. I'm not twisting your words. You, and many other people don't seem to know how the Anerican Justice system works. In a criminal case, the verdict has to be placed beyond all reasonable doubt. This means that we have to be pretty much 100% sure that the crime was committed in order to convict someone of it. In this case there was doubt. TRIED to grab the gun. Meaning that Martin failed to do so for one reason or another so none of his DNA would be on it. As for the hoodie, I'm not too sure. First off, a 9mm isn't going to cause a mist of blood, trust me.Look over the testimony of the Defense's expert witness Dr. Vincet Di Maio. Even if blood shot out in the mannee you describe, Martin's clothing would have easily stopped blood from getting on the gun.

Ok so who's to say Martin wasn't standing his own ground?There's no need to be condescending either. I, as well as many other people, understand how it works. Two sides to a story. That's it. Exactly. He tried to grab the gun, which either means 1.) he didn't try at all and Zimmerman used this to justify his self defense claim, or 2.) he couldn't grab it. But how could he reach a gun when he was busy smashing Zimmerman's head into the concrete "25 times"?And you know that the blood is less than 1 milimeter in diameter? When I said mist of blood that didnt mean it was like when you take your hose and spray it on that setting.

Blood actually couldn't have sprayed on Zimmerman or the gun. It's ballistic science. If the bullet goes through the front and out the back, then the blood would have sprayed out the back, and if anything, he could have fallen to the side because he took the time to put his hands on his chest before he went down.