100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Stop Inulting Zimmerman Jury | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Now, show us, if you can, the court document stating Zimbob was intoxicated. MR Z entered a plea of not guilty by reason of self defense. Show us where, when he was found not guilty, the judge or jury changed the conditions of his plea. Still waiting!  show me where the jury found him not guilty 'on the grounds of ,,,' they only found him 'not guilty', no other condition stipulated, regardless of his plea,,, You don't know much about the law do you? His whole defense was "self defense." He was charged with second degree murder.... which is NOT self defense. He proved his case and they failed to prove theirs. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
willing2
on
Wed 07/24/13 01:39 PM
|
|
Cowboy look good on you, Ms Jean |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lol,, ok I just hope you are never in a situation where someone follows you,, (First in a car and then on foot) while you are walking alone at night,,,let alone has the gall to question YOu about your behavior before attempting to grab you,,,, if treyvon had killed Zimmerman, he could have gotten off with self defense too as long as z still got a shot off after all, who WOULDNT fight an armed stalker who had confronted him? then his 'being on top' would be irrelevant, and proving beyond a doubt what initiated the fight would be all about whatever treyvon claimed,,,,, which would align with the evidence of z himself admitting to following him , being heard calling him a fing punk , and being irritated that he might get away, and then having a BULLET HOLE in martin,,, Im sure the evidence could easily back up treyvon when he said he was fighting in 'self defense',,,,, He did have a functioning Cellphone after al! why didn't the grown man and watch 'captain' follow someone at night...? both against neighborhood watch policy and instructed by police not to perhaps the boy didnt think anyone would respond to someone 'following' him as illegal or an emergency,,,,apparently he was right,,,, this so called boy has a has filled with violence and drugs if he would have been charged had the police shown up in time to stop martins attack he would have been on trial as an adult if martain would no have wanted to be confrontational and just went were he was going none of his would have happened  zimmerman had more drugs in his system the trayvon... lol,,,so true,, and drugs that have side affects that could make him anxious,,,,,but they were 'legal', so I guess they don't matter,,, If he had any "mind altering" chemicals in his system, legal or not, Zimmerman's conceal carry permit becomes null and void, which would have lost him this case. What are the substances your are speaking of? (If you don't mind my asking...) glucosamine, omeprazole, temazapam read the medical report from HIS doctors office the week of the fight ,,here: http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2012/07/03/15/01/2uxIe.So.56.pdf Glucosamine is a dietary supplement given for joint health, omeprazole, off the top of my head, is a "proton pump inhibitor", meaning it reduces stomach acid. Neither of these are of any concern. Temazepam is a benzodiazepine commonly used for insomnia (similar to Valium). Benzo's are, in fact, a mind altering substance. It shouldn't cause anxiety. It would cause drowsiness though. Admittedly maybe even some disorientation. I will have to look up the half-life of this drug as i can't remember off the top of my head as this is a medication you are supposed to take right before bed. If Z had enough in his system, I believe that would discredit his concealed carry permit... Thanks for the update, i will have to read the report. It's the generic form of Restoril. It's a very HEAVY RX sleep aid. I was on it for over a year. You take it right before bedtime. It will show in your system for 30 days after taking it. There's no way he took it before he went out, even with a tolerance built up it would have snowed him. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy look good on you, Ms Jean Thanks, I'm going riding this weekend so I needed a hat. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When OJ got arrested ine of the things I hated was how every damn channel was talking about the OJ trial.
Michael Jackson get accused of molesting kids and every damn channel is talking about it. OJ does something stupid like trying to steal his trophies back or what ever and the news jumps on the bandwagon and starts yakking about it. Now this idiot shoots another guy and the damn media haprs on it. But that's not enough. It's got to make the rounds in something like 4 or 5 threads on this site. I get there are people that think it was race related and there are people that think it wasn't. I personally don't know if it was because I wasn't there just like most of the people on this site weren't there. All anyone has is a bunch of stories propagated by different media sources and probably a bunch of retards who don't know anything saying they know blah blah blah for a fact. All I want to know is can we stop talking about this. Why not talk about Mr Weiner flashing his pecker again. I am sure that everything that needs to be said about this case has been said and it's not likely to change anything. Certainly not about the case. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I bought a hat because I'm going riding this weekend.
(That's me changing the subject.) 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well dat hat looks good on ya. hahaha
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now, show us, if you can, the court document stating Zimbob was intoxicated. MR Z entered a plea of not guilty by reason of self defense. Show us where, when he was found not guilty, the judge or jury changed the conditions of his plea. Still waiting! show me where the jury found him not guilty 'on the grounds of ,,,' they only found him 'not guilty', no other condition stipulated, regardless of his plea,,, You don't know much about the law do you? His whole defense was "self defense." He was charged with second degree murder.... which is NOT self defense. He proved his case and they failed to prove theirs. I know enough to be a certified paralegal with a 4.0 average,,,lol I know how to research I am aware of the charge I am awere he was found 'not guilty' he was not found 'not guilty by reason of self defense' they didn't have enough evidence 'beyond a reasonable doubt' to prove it was not self defense that doesn't mean it WAS self defense,,, in civil court, the burden of proof is evidence that is in PREPONDERANCE< that it wasn't self defense in which case he could be found legally responsible for the death,,, one cannot be 'proven' not guilty, it is the default if one is not 'proven' guilty,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When OJ got arrested ine of the things I hated was how every damn channel was talking about the OJ trial. Michael Jackson get accused of molesting kids and every damn channel is talking about it. OJ does something stupid like trying to steal his trophies back or what ever and the news jumps on the bandwagon and starts yakking about it. Now this idiot shoots another guy and the damn media haprs on it. But that's not enough. It's got to make the rounds in something like 4 or 5 threads on this site. I get there are people that think it was race related and there are people that think it wasn't. I personally don't know if it was because I wasn't there just like most of the people on this site weren't there. All anyone has is a bunch of stories propagated by different media sources and probably a bunch of retards who don't know anything saying they know blah blah blah for a fact. All I want to know is can we stop talking about this. Why not talk about Mr Weiner flashing his pecker again. I am sure that everything that needs to be said about this case has been said and it's not likely to change anything. Certainly not about the case. aww izzy,,, I love ya and you can definitely stop or start talking about anything you want to,,, we all can,,,, there have been more than one thread or news source about any number of issues ,,,theres just no avoiding that,,, and that's the thing with freedom of expression , freedom of press,, everyone seems to love it unless its a topic they don't want to confront/talk about/hear about,,, I agree, this thread could easily die out, but its also a topic of interest to me that will be for a long time,, I come, I look at the recent posts, and I respond based upon whats there,,,,that interests me if others would like to start some threads to try to kill the Zimmerman threads,, Id be happy to participate in those too,,, 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You don't know much about the law do you? His whole defense was "self defense." He was charged with second degree murder.... which is NOT self defense. He proved his case and they failed to prove theirs. I know enough to be a certified paralegal with a 4.0 average,,,lol I know how to research I am aware of the charge I am awere he was found 'not guilty' he was not found 'not guilty by reason of self defense' they didn't have enough evidence 'beyond a reasonable doubt' to prove it was not self defense that doesn't mean it WAS self defense,,, in civil court, the burden of proof is evidence that is in PREPONDERANCE< that it wasn't self defense in which case he could be found legally responsible for the death,,, one cannot be 'proven' not guilty, it is the default if one is not 'proven' guilty,,, zimmerman claimed self defense, was tried, and was found not guilty. you say that doesn't mean it was self defense does that mean you can claim to be a certified paralegal with a 4.0 average, but not be any good as a paralegal? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Wed 07/24/13 05:55 PM
|
|
You don't know much about the law do you? His whole defense was "self defense." He was charged with second degree murder.... which is NOT self defense. He proved his case and they failed to prove theirs. I know enough to be a certified paralegal with a 4.0 average,,,lol I know how to research I am aware of the charge I am awere he was found 'not guilty' he was not found 'not guilty by reason of self defense' they didn't have enough evidence 'beyond a reasonable doubt' to prove it was not self defense that doesn't mean it WAS self defense,,, in civil court, the burden of proof is evidence that is in PREPONDERANCE< that it wasn't self defense in which case he could be found legally responsible for the death,,, one cannot be 'proven' not guilty, it is the default if one is not 'proven' guilty,,, zimmerman claimed self defense, was tried, and was found not guilty. you say that doesn't mean it was self defense does that mean you can claim to be a certified paralegal with a 4.0 average, but not be any good as a paralegal? George Zimmerman CLAIMED self defense he PLEAD 'not guilty' http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/4-24-12a.pdf the jury found him 'not guilty' no need to read anything more than that into it the prosecution didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty , so the jury were left with the default of 'not guilty' ,,its really not rocket science,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Only bigoted Hispanic and White haters will claim the trial was rigged.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lol,, did someone say that
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When OJ got arrested ine of the things I hated was how every damn channel was talking about the OJ trial. Michael Jackson get accused of molesting kids and every damn channel is talking about it. OJ does something stupid like trying to steal his trophies back or what ever and the news jumps on the bandwagon and starts yakking about it. Now this idiot shoots another guy and the damn media haprs on it. But that's not enough. It's got to make the rounds in something like 4 or 5 threads on this site. I get there are people that think it was race related and there are people that think it wasn't. I personally don't know if it was because I wasn't there just like most of the people on this site weren't there. All anyone has is a bunch of stories propagated by different media sources and probably a bunch of retards who don't know anything saying they know blah blah blah for a fact. All I want to know is can we stop talking about this. Why not talk about Mr Weiner flashing his pecker again. I am sure that everything that needs to be said about this case has been said and it's not likely to change anything. Certainly not about the case. aww izzy,,, I love ya and you can definitely stop or start talking about anything you want to,,, we all can,,,, there have been more than one thread or news source about any number of issues ,,,theres just no avoiding that,,, and that's the thing with freedom of expression , freedom of press,, everyone seems to love it unless its a topic they don't want to confront/talk about/hear about,,, I agree, this thread could easily die out, but its also a topic of interest to me that will be for a long time,, I come, I look at the recent posts, and I respond based upon whats there,,,,that interests me if others would like to start some threads to try to kill the Zimmerman threads,, Id be happy to participate in those too,,, It's not that I hate hearing about this kind of thing. But when it's every where you look and you can't seem to get away from it. When the horse has been beat so badly that it now resembles baby food. I think it's time to give it a rest. lol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Wed 07/24/13 06:23 PM
|
|
You don't know much about the law do you? His whole defense was "self defense." He was charged with second degree murder.... which is NOT self defense. He proved his case and they failed to prove theirs. I know enough to be a certified paralegal with a 4.0 average,,,lol I know how to research I am aware of the charge I am awere he was found 'not guilty' he was not found 'not guilty by reason of self defense' they didn't have enough evidence 'beyond a reasonable doubt' to prove it was not self defense that doesn't mean it WAS self defense,,, in civil court, the burden of proof is evidence that is in PREPONDERANCE< that it wasn't self defense in which case he could be found legally responsible for the death,,, one cannot be 'proven' not guilty, it is the default if one is not 'proven' guilty,,, zimmerman claimed self defense, was tried, and was found not guilty. you say that doesn't mean it was self defense does that mean you can claim to be a certified paralegal with a 4.0 average, but not be any good as a paralegal? George Zimmerman CLAIMED self defense he PLEAD 'not guilty' http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/4-24-12a.pdf the jury found him 'not guilty' no need to read anything more than that into it the prosecution didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty , so the jury were left with the default of 'not guilty' ,,its really not rocket science,,,, Well whatever make you feel righteous and indignant. The outcome is still "not guilty of second degree murder." It was not his job to prove "self defense," and he doesn't have to. He is presumed innocent until proven guilty of the charge of second degree murder. His strategy was self defense, and it obviously worked for the Jury. He could't deny that he killed the guy. But in this country you can still kill a guy in SELF DEFENSE. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You don't know much about the law do you? His whole defense was "self defense." He was charged with second degree murder.... which is NOT self defense. He proved his case and they failed to prove theirs. I know enough to be a certified paralegal with a 4.0 average,,,lol I know how to research I am aware of the charge I am awere he was found 'not guilty' he was not found 'not guilty by reason of self defense' they didn't have enough evidence 'beyond a reasonable doubt' to prove it was not self defense that doesn't mean it WAS self defense,,, in civil court, the burden of proof is evidence that is in PREPONDERANCE< that it wasn't self defense in which case he could be found legally responsible for the death,,, one cannot be 'proven' not guilty, it is the default if one is not 'proven' guilty,,, zimmerman claimed self defense, was tried, and was found not guilty. you say that doesn't mean it was self defense does that mean you can claim to be a certified paralegal with a 4.0 average, but not be any good as a paralegal? George Zimmerman CLAIMED self defense he PLEAD 'not guilty' http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/4-24-12a.pdf the jury found him 'not guilty' no need to read anything more than that into it the prosecution didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty , so the jury were left with the default of 'not guilty' ,,its really not rocket science,,,, Well whatever make you feel righteous and indignant. The outcome is still "not guilty of second degree murder." It was not his job to prove "self defense," and he doesn't have to. He is presumed innocent until proven guilty of the charge of second degree murder. His strategy was self defense, and it obviously worked for the Jury. He could't deny that he killed the guy. But in this country you can still kill a guy in SELF DEFENSE. He couldn't deny it? Really? I bet I could walk up to a famous person and shoot him or her in front of a crowd of people and still say I didn't do it. It wouldn't be the smartest thing I could do. But I could do it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You don't know much about the law do you? His whole defense was "self defense." He was charged with second degree murder.... which is NOT self defense. He proved his case and they failed to prove theirs. I know enough to be a certified paralegal with a 4.0 average,,,lol I know how to research I am aware of the charge I am awere he was found 'not guilty' he was not found 'not guilty by reason of self defense' they didn't have enough evidence 'beyond a reasonable doubt' to prove it was not self defense that doesn't mean it WAS self defense,,, in civil court, the burden of proof is evidence that is in PREPONDERANCE< that it wasn't self defense in which case he could be found legally responsible for the death,,, one cannot be 'proven' not guilty, it is the default if one is not 'proven' guilty,,, zimmerman claimed self defense, was tried, and was found not guilty. you say that doesn't mean it was self defense does that mean you can claim to be a certified paralegal with a 4.0 average, but not be any good as a paralegal? George Zimmerman CLAIMED self defense he PLEAD 'not guilty' http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/4-24-12a.pdf the jury found him 'not guilty' no need to read anything more than that into it the prosecution didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty , so the jury were left with the default of 'not guilty' ,,its really not rocket science,,,, Well whatever make you feel righteous and indignant. The outcome is still "not guilty of second degree murder." It was not his job to prove "self defense," and he doesn't have to. He is presumed innocent until proven guilty of the charge of second degree murder. His strategy was self defense, and it obviously worked for the Jury. He could't deny that he killed the guy. But in this country you can still kill a guy in SELF DEFENSE. I was actually replying to someone that was being condescending towards me,, didn't mean for anyone ELSE to take it so personal,,, but I agree, that's been my whole point the jury did not find he was 'not guilty by reason of self defense' just that the prosecution had not found him guilty 'beyond a reasonable doubt' thanx for clearing that up... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You don't know much about the law do you? His whole defense was "self defense." He was charged with second degree murder.... which is NOT self defense. He proved his case and they failed to prove theirs. I know enough to be a certified paralegal with a 4.0 average,,,lol I know how to research I am aware of the charge I am awere he was found 'not guilty' he was not found 'not guilty by reason of self defense' they didn't have enough evidence 'beyond a reasonable doubt' to prove it was not self defense that doesn't mean it WAS self defense,,, in civil court, the burden of proof is evidence that is in PREPONDERANCE< that it wasn't self defense in which case he could be found legally responsible for the death,,, one cannot be 'proven' not guilty, it is the default if one is not 'proven' guilty,,, zimmerman claimed self defense, was tried, and was found not guilty. you say that doesn't mean it was self defense does that mean you can claim to be a certified paralegal with a 4.0 average, but not be any good as a paralegal? George Zimmerman CLAIMED self defense he PLEAD 'not guilty' http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/4-24-12a.pdf the jury found him 'not guilty' no need to read anything more than that into it the prosecution didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty , so the jury were left with the default of 'not guilty' ,,its really not rocket science,,,, Well whatever make you feel righteous and indignant. The outcome is still "not guilty of second degree murder." It was not his job to prove "self defense," and he doesn't have to. He is presumed innocent until proven guilty of the charge of second degree murder. His strategy was self defense, and it obviously worked for the Jury. He could't deny that he killed the guy. But in this country you can still kill a guy in SELF DEFENSE. I was actually replying to someone that was being condescending towards me,, didn't mean for anyone ELSE to take it so personal,,, but I agree, that's been my whole point the jury did not find he was 'not guilty by reason of self defense' just that the prosecution had not found him guilty 'beyond a reasonable doubt' thanx for clearing that up... I didn't take it personal at all. and I think your conclusion is a matter of opinion. They didn't really have to say "Not guilty by reason of..." ITS NOT NECESSARY AND IT DOESN'T MATTER. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Wed 07/24/13 06:37 PM
|
|
You don't know much about the law do you? His whole defense was "self defense." He was charged with second degree murder.... which is NOT self defense. He proved his case and they failed to prove theirs. I know enough to be a certified paralegal with a 4.0 average,,,lol I know how to research I am aware of the charge I am awere he was found 'not guilty' he was not found 'not guilty by reason of self defense' they didn't have enough evidence 'beyond a reasonable doubt' to prove it was not self defense that doesn't mean it WAS self defense,,, in civil court, the burden of proof is evidence that is in PREPONDERANCE< that it wasn't self defense except in the matter of mental deficiency or illness, in which cse the reason would be explicitly stated in the verdict,,, in which case he could be found legally responsible for the death,,, one cannot be 'proven' not guilty, it is the default if one is not 'proven' guilty,,, zimmerman claimed self defense, was tried, and was found not guilty. you say that doesn't mean it was self defense does that mean you can claim to be a certified paralegal with a 4.0 average, but not be any good as a paralegal? George Zimmerman CLAIMED self defense he PLEAD 'not guilty' http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/4-24-12a.pdf the jury found him 'not guilty' no need to read anything more than that into it the prosecution didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty , so the jury were left with the default of 'not guilty' ,,its really not rocket science,,,, Well whatever make you feel righteous and indignant. The outcome is still "not guilty of second degree murder." It was not his job to prove "self defense," and he doesn't have to. He is presumed innocent until proven guilty of the charge of second degree murder. His strategy was self defense, and it obviously worked for the Jury. He could't deny that he killed the guy. But in this country you can still kill a guy in SELF DEFENSE. I was actually replying to someone that was being condescending towards me,, didn't mean for anyone ELSE to take it so personal,,, but I agree, that's been my whole point the jury did not find he was 'not guilty by reason of self defense' just that the prosecution had not found him guilty 'beyond a reasonable doubt' thanx for clearing that up... I didn't take it personal at all. and I think your conclusion is a matter of opinion. They didn't really have to say "Not guilty by reason of..." ITS NOT NECESSARY AND IT DOESN'T MATTER. I agree all that matters is 'not guilty' and that's all they found,,,,, because they did not have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of 'guilty' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You don't know much about the law do you? His whole defense was "self defense." He was charged with second degree murder.... which is NOT self defense. He proved his case and they failed to prove theirs. I know enough to be a certified paralegal with a 4.0 average,,,lol I know how to research I am aware of the charge I am awere he was found 'not guilty' he was not found 'not guilty by reason of self defense' they didn't have enough evidence 'beyond a reasonable doubt' to prove it was not self defense that doesn't mean it WAS self defense,,, in civil court, the burden of proof is evidence that is in PREPONDERANCE< that it wasn't self defense except in the matter of mental deficiency or illness, in which cse the reason would be explicitly stated in the verdict,,, in which case he could be found legally responsible for the death,,, one cannot be 'proven' not guilty, it is the default if one is not 'proven' guilty,,, zimmerman claimed self defense, was tried, and was found not guilty. you say that doesn't mean it was self defense does that mean you can claim to be a certified paralegal with a 4.0 average, but not be any good as a paralegal? George Zimmerman CLAIMED self defense he PLEAD 'not guilty' http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/4-24-12a.pdf the jury found him 'not guilty' no need to read anything more than that into it the prosecution didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty , so the jury were left with the default of 'not guilty' ,,its really not rocket science,,,, Well whatever make you feel righteous and indignant. The outcome is still "not guilty of second degree murder." It was not his job to prove "self defense," and he doesn't have to. He is presumed innocent until proven guilty of the charge of second degree murder. His strategy was self defense, and it obviously worked for the Jury. He could't deny that he killed the guy. But in this country you can still kill a guy in SELF DEFENSE. I was actually replying to someone that was being condescending towards me,, didn't mean for anyone ELSE to take it so personal,,, but I agree, that's been my whole point the jury did not find he was 'not guilty by reason of self defense' just that the prosecution had not found him guilty 'beyond a reasonable doubt' thanx for clearing that up... I didn't take it personal at all. and I think your conclusion is a matter of opinion. They didn't really have to say "Not guilty by reason of..." ITS NOT NECESSARY AND IT DOESN'T MATTER. I agree all that matters is 'not guilty' and that's all they found,,,,, because they did not have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of 'guilty' It most definitely is NOT "all they found". He was found "not guilty" of the specific charges brought by the prosecution. |
|
|
|
|
