Vitterd. You are becoming a loud mouth who thinks he knows it all. You really don't know much. I am a conservative but I guess I am a right wing pussy to you that carries two large guns waiting to get my ass kicked. While Zimmerman turned into an SOB, Trayvon was the aggressor and the facts of the case supported self defense. In this case, the mob mentality in Baltimore couldn't get a conviction. The police officer was severely over charged and as always, the prosecutors in these type of cases set the public up for a big fall. And by the way, if you really want to argue whether or not a hung jury favors the defense or the prosecution go right ahead. However, I don't think you have the credentials to make the argument.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Hung Jury for the 1st Baltimore police officer in the Freddie Gray case.
- Thread starter Greenbacks
- Start date
Vitterd. You are becoming a loud mouth who thinks he knows it all. You really don't know much. I am a conservative but I guess I am a right wing pussy to you that carries two large guns waiting to get my ass kicked. While Zimmerman turned into an SOB, Trayvon was the aggressor and the facts of the case supported self defense. In this case, the mob mentality in Baltimore couldn't get a conviction. The police officer was severely over charged and as always, the prosecutors in these type of cases set the public up for a big fall. And by the way, if you really want to argue whether or not a hung jury favors the defense or the prosecution go right ahead. However, I don't think you have the credentials to make the argument.
I didn't make any argument about who the hung jury helps.
Think about this. Guy is walking home...another guy follows him around....while the 911 operator tells him not to....approaches the guy to ask what he's doing......and the guy walking home is the aggressor. That sounds logical.
I didn't make any argument about who the hung jury helps.
Think about this. Guy is walking home...another guy follows him around....while the 911 operator tells him not to....approaches the guy to ask what he's doing......and the guy walking home is the aggressor. That sounds logical.
You keep mentioning the 911 operator like that matters. It has no baring in the case whatsoever.
And don't be misleading like TM was skipping along and happy as he could be. The minute he turned around and attacked GZ without provocation, he became the aggressor. There was no self defense. He physically jumped GZ and the proof showed it.
You keep mentioning the 911 operator like that matters. It has no baring in the case whatsoever.
And don't be misleading like TM was skipping along and happy as he could be. The minute he turned around and attacked GZ without provocation, he became the aggressor. There was no self defense. He physically jumped GZ and the proof showed it.
It matters because it shows he was following someone. He was following him because he was a young black kid. I guarantee he doesn't follow me if I'm walking down the street being a white male. By all accounts he was a wannabe cop and he thought he could harass this kid walking home. He deserved to get punched.
Skipping?? He was just walking. GZ profiled, confronted ....got punched and went for his gun. Total coward. But he got off....and did nothing but continue his scumbag behavior.
It matters because it shows he was following someone. He was following him because he was a young black kid. I guarantee he doesn't follow me if I'm walking down the street being a white male. By all accounts he was a wannabe cop and he thought he could harass this kid walking home. He deserved to get punched.
Skipping?? He was just walking. GZ profiled, confronted ....got punched and went for his gun. Total coward. But he got off....and did nothing but continue his scumbag behavior.
Goddamn dude, you just don't understand the laws of this country whatsoever.
It doesn't matter that GZ followed him. TM had to fear for his life in order to attack GZ and the evidence clearly showed he didn't.
GZ followed him ok. TM turned and attacked therefore making him the aggressor. It is what it is.
That's the end of the story.
Let me ask you a very simple straightforward question Vit.
You're sitting on your porch. You see a guy walking in your neighborhood you don't recognize. You get off the porch and walk down the sidewalk behind the guy and you say "hey, who are you?"
Given that scenario right as I've laid it out, is what the man did illegal in any way?
Simple easy question. Yes or no?
You're sitting on your porch. You see a guy walking in your neighborhood you don't recognize. You get off the porch and walk down the sidewalk behind the guy and you say "hey, who are you?"
Given that scenario right as I've laid it out, is what the man did illegal in any way?
Simple easy question. Yes or no?
Goddamn dude, you just don't understand the laws of this country whatsoever.
It doesn't matter that GZ followed him. TM had to fear for his life in order to attack GZ and the evidence clearly showed he didn't.
GZ followed him ok. TM turned and attacked therefore making him the aggressor. It is what it is.
That's the end of the story.
Youre not grasping this at all. The argument is about the law......and it's not the law of the country ....it's the law of that state.
We really don't know who the aggressor was......according to GZ it wasn't him....Martin being on top of him doesn't prove he was the aggressor.
The jury has spoken and we've already established they get it wrong sometimes.....and judging Zimmermans behavior since he got off....it's reasonable to assume they got this one wrong.
Let me ask you a very simple straightforward question Vit.
You're sitting on your porch. You see a guy walking in your neighborhood you don't recognize. You get off the porch and walk down the sidewalk behind the guy and you say "hey, who are you?"
Given that scenario right as I've laid it out, is what the man did illegal in any way?
Simple easy question. Yes or no?
I actually wouldn't do that. If I see a guy walking in my neighborhood I don't recognize....I wouldn't follow him at all. GZ followed him on foot and then in his vehicle. Totally ridiculous to do that imo. GZ was looking for a confrontation.
I actually wouldn't do that. If I see a guy walking in my neighborhood I don't recognize....I wouldn't follow him at all. GZ followed him on foot and then in his vehicle. Totally ridiculous to do that imo. GZ was looking for a confrontation.
Ok, I wouldn't either but that's beside the point.
Say you're a moron (which isn't against the law) and you followed the man on the sidewalk.
Are his actions illegal?
Youre not grasping this at all. The argument is about the law......and it's not the law of the country ....it's the law of that state.
We really don't know who the aggressor was......according to GZ it wasn't him....Martin being on top of him doesn't prove he was the aggressor.
The jury has spoken and we've already established they get it wrong sometimes.....and judging Zimmermans behavior since he got off....it's reasonable to assume they got this one wrong.
The right to self defense is a universal law in our county. There are variations of the self defense law but all states have a general self defense law on their books.
Ok, I wouldn't either but that's beside the point.
Say you're a moron (which isn't against the law) and you followed the man on the sidewalk.
Are his actions illegal?
No. But I'm putting myself in Martin shoes. I'm walking home and I notice some guy following me.....then he pulls up in his truck and asks me who I am. Id be like....fuck you, who are you?? There is a lot of unknown as to what happened and I don't think the word of GZ is credible.
No. But I'm putting myself in Martin shoes. I'm walking home and I notice some guy following me.....then he pulls up in his truck and asks me who I am. Id be like....fuck you, who are you?? There is a lot of unknown as to what happened and I don't think the word of GZ is credible.
Ok, now we're getting somewhere. So GZ did not do anything illegal. Moron yes, illegal no.
So, if you followed a guy down the sidewalk and asked him who he was, and he turned around and punched you in the face, would he be arrested for assault? Easy question yes or no?
Ok, now we're getting somewhere. So GZ did not do anything illegal. Moron yes, illegal no.
So, if you followed a guy down the sidewalk and asked him who he was, and he turned around and punched you in the face, would he be arrested for assault? Easy question yes or no?
Yes but I don't believe that was the circumstance here. It seems like more harassment by GZ than just " hey bud who are you". We know he followed but after that we don't really know much else.....but the word of a moron scumbag.
Well, what else happened? What evidence shows there was more?
We will never know. The only two people who know are GZ and a dead guy. The only evidence is GZ word.....which is dog shit. Based on his comments on 911 call....based on his wannabe cop mentality.....I can only make a reasonable assumption as to what actually happened. When the only witness is a piece of shit.....chances are you're not gonna get the truth.
