[rob666]

Originally Posted by rapeWhistle ↗

Zimmerman is possessed by the ghost of Trayvon Martin.

Now that would be an interesting defense.

[HelloNurse!]

Is he white? I didn't think he was...

It was reported on the news last night that these two have had 3 PREVIOUS run-ins with each other since Sept. Now I'm not a betting woman but those odds are near impossible in this area... WAY too many people! So someone is following someone...

[niknik]

Originally Posted by rob666 ↗

Zimmerman has been involved in a whole string of gun incidents, threats, domestic violence since he was acquitted.

To be fair. His entire life was ruined by the media. I'm not surprised he's having a tough time moving on.

[niknik]

Originally Posted by Metal Mike ↗

Who he is as a person overall was irrelevant to that case and that trial. The jury found that Zimmerman was committing no crime and was acting well within his legal rights when he shot Trayvon Martin.

Just because someone is an aggressive asshole doesn't mean they're going to be the guilty party every single time.

I agree. And like I said above, he may be crumbling under the pressure of being George Zimmerman.

[niknik]

Originally Posted by rob666 ↗

Being an aggressive asshole ( and one that apparently likes to threaten people, beat up women and point guns at people ) lends itself to violent situations.

The trial where he was acquitted largely came down to the credibility of Zimmerman, because the other witness was dead.
Who he was as a person was fundamental to that case, and the portrayal of Zimmerman being on the defensive.

Knowing what we know now about Zimmerman, do you still think that Trevon was the aggressor?

Absolutely I think Trayvon was the aggressor. All the evidence says so.
I remember you being one of those who didn't think who Trayvon was, was relevant.

The facts suggest Trayvon was also an aggressive asshole. And Trayvon hid between two houses and ambushed Zimmerman. All the facts prove Zimmerman did nothing but follow Trayvon, and Trayvon was the one who turned to violence.

That case is closed.

[rapeWhistle]

Originally Posted by HelloNurse! ↗

Is he white? I didn't think he was...

It was reported on the news last night that these two have had 3 PREVIOUS run-ins with each other since Sept. Now I'm not a betting woman but those odds are near impossible in this area... WAY too many people! So someone is following someone...

Only to those who want to race bait to get clicks, views, and ratings.

'Latino kills Black during scuffle at Apartment' doesn't make the front page.

[OhJstFkOffAlrdy]

Originally Posted by Top Gear ↗

In a word...rubbish.

Hey, don't blame me: it's your country that got the ball rolling with that whole Magna Carta thing.

Don't like it? Then move to North Korea, and after they put you in charge, you can start executing people for falling asleep when you're in the room.

[OhJstFkOffAlrdy]

Originally Posted by rob666 ↗

Being an aggressive asshole ( and one that apparently likes to threaten people, beat up women and point guns at people ) lends itself to violent situations.

The trial where he was acquitted largely came down to the credibility of Zimmerman, because the other witness was dead.
Who he was as a person was fundamental to that case, and the portrayal of Zimmerman being on the defensive.

Knowing what we know now about Zimmerman, do you still think that Trevon was the aggressor?

I've taken the liberty of highlighting the wrongest parts of your post.

The law does not concern itself with appearances. Juries may, but that's because juries are stupid. When it comes to the facts of a matter, what is apparent is not always what is true. Why else would the prosecution seek to establish motive for a murder, if the most apparent motive of one person wanting another one dead were sufficient enough?

The credibility of a witness is established -- or refuted -- by a variety of factors aside from how the accused is portrayed to the jury. In fact, attempting to undermine a defendant's credibility as a witness or presumed innocence as a defendant by using evidence and/or information unrelated to the crime of which he or she is accused for the purposes of character assassination can result in an undue predjudicing of the defendant's case, which can then result in messy little legal faux-pa's such as mistrials and the overturning of guilty verdicts on appeal.

So basically, any trial prosecutor that argues a case as if the defendant's character is fundamental to that case is going to find themselves up against a number of sustained defense objections.

And really, what do any of us really know? We're not eyewitnesses, we're not the responding officers, and we're hundreds of miles removed from the incidents and the investigative and judicial entities that are handling them. If any of us in the public were by some miracle charged with either the prosecution or the defense of Mr. Zimmermann, then whatever side we were on would lose spectacularly regardless of the man's character or his actual guilt or innocence.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Metal Mike ↗

Hey, don't blame me: it's your country that got the ball rolling with that whole Magna Carta thing.

Don't like it? Then move to North Korea, and after they put you in charge, you can start executing people for falling asleep when you're in the room.

If you make an idiotic comment expect disdain, it's how debate works. Don't like it? Tough.

[OhJstFkOffAlrdy]

Originally Posted by Top Gear ↗

If you make an idiotic comment expect disdain, it's how debate works. Don't like it? Tough.

And if you use phrases like "idiotic comment" and "expect disdain," then don't expect anyone to ever seriously consider any conversation with you to be an "actual debate."