jclalor

And what about GZ? who had been arrested in the past for domestic violence and assault on a police officer? What had TM ever been arrested for? Of which those charges were dropped immediately. So referring to them is skewed. TM didn't make it to the age that Zimmerman was when he was arrested for assault. Just because he hadn't been arrested doesn't imply he's a goody boy. Marijuana is illegal in florida and he would have been facing hard time if he was caught. Same goes for his street fights. I can't count the times I have been arrested for assaulting a police officer and domestic abuse, only to then have the charges dropped, I thought it was a common occurrence for everybody. I find your logic interesting that you can hold the actions of TM as a child against him that never resulted in an arrest, yet actions by GZ as an adult, that resulted in an arrest, are dismissed, that's interesting, very interesting. And we all know how violently aggressive smoking pot can make you, it's a terrible terrible drug. Funny how GZ never had a drug screen.

*** I agree, at the moment the extremist Muslims are out of control, Iraq last week had the worst violence in years, lucky for us they are killing each other 99% of the time. I just have issues with people that can point out all the evils of Islam and yet at the same time can't admit that the killing and the raping of children, on the orders of a Judeo-Christian God, are wrong 100% of the time. When people say there may be a reason why it's proper to rape a 10 year old girl or the smashing of the head of a baby against a rock, I know why my decision not to be a believer was not a difficult one to make.

And what about GZ? who had been arrested in the past for domestic violence and assault on a police officer? What had TM ever been arrested for?

I thought GZ stated when TM confronted him, that GZ reached into jacket to grab his cell phone and that is when TM punched him and the fight began. Is it not plausible to think TM thought he was reaching for a weapon after being followed by GZ no apparent reason?

I don't know why you think I'm defending Islamic extremist, I despise them, I always have and always will and everything they do. The killing of innocents is always wrong, in particular, the killing of children. Nothing makes me happier than watching them get blown to kingdom come by drones.

You must mean the same stuff that the good guys did for God 3000 years ago, although I have not seen babies being killed or young girls being raped in Egypt like they did on God's directions in the OT. You don't have issues with that? or is it just when the Muslims do it? Why are you trying to live three thousand years ago? the childish. "You did it FIRST" defense doesn't work. It is akin to still be blaming Bush for Obama's shortcomings. Why not Blame Washington? The point is that Christians today still believe that a 3000 year old book is the most important thing in their life, they claim this is where their values come from, A book that condoned the killing of innocent babies and the raping of 10 year old girls, amongst many other atrocities . They do not denounce they, they claim God has his reasons and that our minds are not capable of understand his ways. Do you think the actions of militant Muslims are worst than the actions of God's chosen ones from the OT? Do you believe that the slaughter of babies and raping of young girls is ever justified and that a religion should be based upon a God capable of doing these things?

That rioting sure is rampant, just like voter fraud.

You must mean the same stuff that the good guys did for God 3000 years ago, although I have not seen babies being killed or young girls being raped in Egypt like they did on God's directions in the OT. You don't have issues with that? or is it just when the Muslims do it?

Then I'd like to see the estate tax ended. Then mom and pop farms can be passed down to kids without having to be sold to corporations to avoid paying a tax bill. Can't mom and pop farms be passed down to their children with just a little estate planning, such as a living trust?

Yes. After listening to one to the jurors tonight state that the first vote was 3 for not guilty, 2 for manslaughter, and one for 2nd degree murder, it was not the slam dunk that everyone here seems to think it was. Yes, you've had quite the track record predicting this case. In about a day, that 3-2-1 went to 6-0 not guilty. Sounds like the 2-1 for some sort of guilt weren't terribly convinced of their own standing. I don't believe I had made any predictions on the outcome of the criminal case. I have predicted there will be no federal charges, but I do predict there will be a civil case with damages awarded. As I have stated earlier, the bar is much lower in a civil case, with a more competent lawyer, these same jurors could have just as easy have gone the other way, and it only requires a majority, not a unanimous decision. PS. you mat want to use the quotation option on this site a little better and preview your post. Your last one, gave the appearance of you making a post that I had made. The last thing I know you want to do, is to be (dis)credited with something I stated.

What's even more ironic? Is that it even encourages some farmers not to work.

Yes. After listening to one to the jurors tonight state that the first vote was 3 for not guilty, 2 for manslaughter, and one for 2nd degree murder, it was not the slam dunk that everyone here seems to think it was.

Who knows what the jury thought? they very well may have thought that he was most likely guilty, but not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and that equals an innocent verdict. In a civil suit, that same conclusion would be a win for the plaintiff. It's nice when the primary witness against you is dead, but it will be a different ballgame in a civil case, ask Orenthal James.

What a dumb ASS statement, with all the black men that are killing one another in Chicago by the dozens last week and not so much of a peep from you. Obviously meant as a sarcastic comment, and while the violence in Chicago is insane, can you cite a source showing over 24 murders in a one week period or are you just exaggerating with a dumb ASS claim.

"I know this case has elicited strong passions. And in the wake of the verdict, I know those passions may be running even higher. But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken" -President Barack Obama- Sounds just like the words of a liberal President about to set loose his federal goons to get Zimmerman any way he can.

Miami disagrees. So do those affected by the Rodney King riots. I hope your safe and secure in your home during these times of tumultuous Negro civil unrest.

If it had been a 27 year old black man that had shot and killed a white 17 year old kid who had just walked to the store, rest assured they would have found him dead after his first night in his jail cell after committing suicide by blunt force trauma.

Why? Because you have mountains of evidence saying GZ is guilty that the jury didn't have? The burden of liability is much less in civil court, a jury need only find a person more likely than not to have acted negligent. it's also going to be nice to see all usual suspects that claim the system work, applaud the civil verdict.

It must be of great comfort to you to know that if your Lord Jesus were here today, that he would be in the Zimmerman camp offering comfort to the transgressed.

Well hopefully the obligatory civil suit that is sure to follow will succeed.

And that's exactly why I'm giving odds, in all honesty, I would say it's less than a 10% chance of federal charges being filed. Obama and Holder are too busy setting up FEMA camps and instituting socialism through out our land to be bothered with this.

... I would be willing to put my $100 against your $50 (payable to a charity of the winners choosing) that zero federal charges will be filed against Zimmerman if he is acquitted. But you and I both know that there will be no federal charges coming from Obama and Holder.

He's a fucking sleaze, he should fit right in.

The few times that I Have driven drunk was only because I was too drunk too walk.

] Be my guest. You're welcome to try. As for, "Jesus violates the law by forgiving the adulteress" nowhere in the story did He violate the law. In fact, that was a chief contention among the Pharisees and Sadducees that only God could forgive sins. And if Christ was who He said He was, then He wasn't violating anything. The whole point of this passage was to put Jesus on the spot; Would he follow the Jewish law, as he claimed and condemn the woman to death? Or would he practice what he now preaches, forgiveness? They thought they had him cold, but he was clever enough to pull out the old "He who is without sin" line. The different authors of the NT had very different ideas on the Importance of following the old law. The fact that we only have copies of copies of copies of copies, and no original manuscripts, and major variations of the ones we do have, we have no idea what changes could have been made in the first 400 years after Christ's death.