Zimmerman Vs MArtin

by Impedimenta Mon Jul 01, 2013 8:47 pm

race relations and gun laws drama central. whodunit? evidence seem to help and hurt both sides. The gun was held by Zimmerman, not martin. an analysis showed that scrapings from underneath the teenager's fingernails did not contain any of Zimmerman's DNA, as may rub off in a prolonged struggle. YEt, there was blood on the back of Zimmerman's head. also, this is not 1965, Mississippi.

martin would have turned 18 this year. Ahem, no african american member in the jury.

by confuzzled dude Mon Jul 01, 2013 10:59 pm

When it comes to anything pertinent to guns the great US is still living in the 1700s. Standing his ground! he had no business following Trayvon Martin even if he was a thug.

by goodcitizn Mon Jul 01, 2013 11:23 pm

Impedimenta wrote:race relations and gun laws drama central. whodunit? evidence seem to help and hurt both sides. The gun was held by Zimmerman, not martin. an analysis showed that scrapings from underneath the teenager's fingernails did not contain any of Zimmerman's DNA, as may rub off in a prolonged struggle. YEt, there was blood on the back of Zimmerman's head. also, this is not 1965, Mississippi.

martin would have turned 18 this year. Ahem, no african american member in the jury.

The Prosecution is on thin ice not only because of a non-black jury but also due to the lack of any proof that Zimmerman willfully and with malice committed manslaughter. The first witness, a black Tahitian girl, who was on the phone with Martin at the time of the altercation was not credible since she was caught in a few lies. OTOH the neighbor who saw the struggle, heard cries for help and called 911 was totally credible in saying that he noticed Martin in a black outfit sitting on top of Zimmerman who was lying down in a red jacket taking blows. Even today the witnesses for the Prosecution, the detectives, in their testimony along with audio and video tapes of interrogation only helped the Defense. Unless the Prosecution has a surprise witness or two up their sleeve I don't see Zimmerman getting a guilty verdict. Of course, the trial has a long way to go yet.

by Hellsangel Tue Jul 02, 2013 8:24 am

confuzzled dude wrote:When it comes to anything pertinent to guns the great US is still living in the 1700s. Standing his ground! he had no business following Trayvon Martin even if he was a thug.

If you travelled to other parts of VA, you are likely to see a sign in a number of stores that says "We don't call 911". Maybe it doesn't make sense to you, but it is quite a good deterrent.

by southindian Tue Jul 02, 2013 8:31 am

Impedimenta wrote:race relations and gun laws drama central. whodunit? evidence seem to help and hurt both sides. The gun was held by Zimmerman, not martin. an analysis showed that scrapings from underneath the teenager's fingernails did not contain any of Zimmerman's DNA, as may rub off in a prolonged struggle. YEt, there was blood on the back of Zimmerman's head. also, this is not 1965, Mississippi.

martin would have turned 18 this year. Ahem, no african american member in the jury.

Zimmerman acted in defense.

by confuzzled dude Tue Jul 02, 2013 9:32 am

Hellsangel wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:When it comes to anything pertinent to guns the great US is still living in the 1700s. Standing his ground! he had no business following Trayvon Martin even if he was a thug.

If you travelled to other parts of VA, you are likely to see a sign in a number of stores that says "We don't call 911". Maybe it doesn't make sense to you, but it is quite a good deterrent.

Are you suggesting that some parts Virginia is still rotting in pre-civil war days Razz

I'm very well aware of gun rack culture as well as how this part of Virginia ends up bearing the tax burden of those parts of Virginia.

by Hellsangel Tue Jul 02, 2013 9:46 am

confuzzled dude wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:When it comes to anything pertinent to guns the great US is still living in the 1700s. Standing his ground! he had no business following Trayvon Martin even if he was a thug.

If you travelled to other parts of VA, you are likely to see a sign in a number of stores that says "We don't call 911". Maybe it doesn't make sense to you, but it is quite a good deterrent.

Are you suggesting that some parts Virginia is still rotting in pre-civil war days

I'm very well aware of gun rack culture as well as how this part of Virginia ends up bearing the tax burden of those parts of Virginia.

Very predictable bringing in the Confederacy days. This has nothing to do with the tax burden. There are enough gun rights advocates in Fairfax county as well. Maybe it makes you uncomfortable. But I really don't think people are afraid that there are maniacs running loose in VA with guns.

by Propagandhi711 Tue Jul 02, 2013 9:54 am

Hellsangel wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:When it comes to anything pertinent to guns the great US is still living in the 1700s. Standing his ground! he had no business following Trayvon Martin even if he was a thug.

If you travelled to other parts of VA, you are likely to see a sign in a number of stores that says "We don't call 911". Maybe it doesn't make sense to you, but it is quite a good deterrent.

Are you suggesting that some parts Virginia is still rotting in pre-civil war days

I'm very well aware of gun rack culture as well as how this part of Virginia ends up bearing the tax burden of those parts of Virginia.

Very predictable bringing in the Confederacy days. This has nothing to do with the tax burden. There are enough gun rights advocates in Fairfax county as well. Maybe it makes you uncomfortable. But I really don't think people are afraid that there are maniacs running loose in VA with guns.

it's all abt who makes up the core constituency of the party they're supporting. CD for instance is a dyed in wool congressu man & ultra left leaning libby so he loves his islamic terrorists & thieves that make up majority of american jail population. and is threatened by those trying to protect themselves from both

by Sponsored content

Zimmerman Vs MArtin

Zimmerman Vs MArtin

Re: Zimmerman Vs MArtin

Re: Zimmerman Vs MArtin

Re: Zimmerman Vs MArtin

Re: Zimmerman Vs MArtin

Re: Zimmerman Vs MArtin

Re: Zimmerman Vs MArtin

Re: Zimmerman Vs MArtin

Re: Zimmerman Vs MArtin