George Zimmerman Trial Thread (Found Not Guilty Jesus help us...)
Options
Comments
-
Tommy bilfiger wrote: »I don't speak geek ? you talkin bout legal policies,legislation,republicans and filibustin and all that other political geek ?
I'm talking about the streets and why aren't blaccs outraged about the violence in THEIR communities like they are about trayvon.The answer is cuz ? are impressionable clowns and the media dictates how they think,so I don't give a fucc about trayvon the same way you people don't give a fucc about inner city violence since it doesn't affect you.We'll leave it that
You're ? . -
^You're a ?There's not really any ? pics in that thread.
Yes, I checked. But I was never under the impression that there were actually gonna be any ? pics.
-
Tommy bilfiger wrote: »
Still dumb as ? and should never enter another political discussion, ever. Go back to your hood, kid. -
Tommy bilfiger wrote: »I don't speak geek ? you talkin bout legal policies,legislation,republicans and filibustin and all that other political geek ?
I'm talking about the streets and why aren't blaccs outraged about the violence in THEIR communities like they are about trayvon.The answer is cuz ? are impressionable clowns and the media dictates how they think,so I don't give a fucc about trayvon the same way you people don't give a fucc about inner city violence since it doesn't affect you.We'll leave it that
Oh, well, okay buddy.
-
-
Finally, a movement I can get behind.TheBossman wrote: »
smh -
TheBossman wrote: »
smh
Crenshaw, of course. -
so is it only Chicagoans are allowed to feel some type a way about Chicago violence or are we supposed to care about the massive cooning going on there? make up your mind Chciago posters
-
Tommy bilfiger wrote: »I don't speak geek ? you talkin bout legal policies,legislation,republicans and filibustin and all that other political geek ?
I'm talking about the streets and why aren't blaccs outraged about the violence in THEIR communities like they are about trayvon.The answer is cuz ? are impressionable clowns and the media dictates how they think,so I don't give a fucc about trayvon the same way you people don't give a fucc about inner city violence since it doesn't affect you.We'll leave it that
wack. -
Gold_Certificate wrote: »
I don't really care about things like justice.can'tyoutell wrote: »Gold_Certificate wrote: »
I think the laws were applied correctly here.can'tyoutell wrote: »Gold_Certificate wrote: »
No. I wouldn't have taken the case either.RodrigueZz wrote: »Ay fiat, if you were on the prosecution you think you could have gotten a guilty verdict?
Too weak and too polarizing.
I'm glad someone took the case, if for nothing else, to reveal to the public at large laws that need to be reevaluated. Or do you think the laws served justice in this case?
Maybe you didn't understand what I was asking. I'm not asking you if the laws were applied correctly, I'm asking if you feel that the laws served justice, or if they are flawed and need to be reevaluated? I know my opinion in the matter. I'm just trying to stir up a little debate with someone that has an entirely opposite view of the case than I. It's always good to have a challenging opinion, not to suggest we have been short on opposing views, but in this thread, all the other Zimmerman supporters are posting gifs as argument.Gold_Certificate wrote: »...I don't really have an opinion on whether laws are "good" or "bad".
Do you like the law? -
It allows humans to ? others, so yes.RodrigueZz wrote: »Gold_Certificate wrote: »
I don't really care about things like justice.can'tyoutell wrote: »Gold_Certificate wrote: »
I think the laws were applied correctly here.can'tyoutell wrote: »Gold_Certificate wrote: »
No. I wouldn't have taken the case either.RodrigueZz wrote: »Ay fiat, if you were on the prosecution you think you could have gotten a guilty verdict?
Too weak and too polarizing.
I'm glad someone took the case, if for nothing else, to reveal to the public at large laws that need to be reevaluated. Or do you think the laws served justice in this case?
Maybe you didn't understand what I was asking. I'm not asking you if the laws were applied correctly, I'm asking if you feel that the laws served justice, or if they are flawed and need to be reevaluated? I know my opinion in the matter. I'm just trying to stir up a little debate with someone that has an entirely opposite view of the case than I. It's always good to have a challenging opinion, not to suggest we have been short on opposing views, but in this thread, all the other Zimmerman supporters are posting gifs as argument.Gold_Certificate wrote: »...I don't really have an opinion on whether laws are "good" or "bad".
Do you like the law?
Besides, if I ever ? someone, it'll be in self-defense; so such a law would be convenient. -
Would it really be or would that just be your legal justification?
-
That's a moot distinction bruh.RodrigueZz wrote: »Would it really be or would that just be your legal justification? -
Offense > defense.
Defense is soft. If you intend only to ? in such an instance well you can fill in the rest -
? sounds fun, but it's not worth the hassle, money, or the time.RodrigueZz wrote: »Offense > defense.
Defense is soft. If you intend only to ? in such an instance well you can fill in the rest
They'll try to lock you up for killing just one person. -
Not if you're the leader of a country
they give you Nobel peace prizes -
Too much hassle to become the leader of a country.RodrigueZz wrote: »Not if you're the leader of a country
they give you Nobel peace prizes -
It was easy for ?
-
No it wasn't.
-
Just a few years for his party to win a majority of seats, then he named himself dictator.
Pretty easy to me. -
Yeh, but only after being rejected from Art school twice, being homeless, fighting in the army, being wounded, surviving a mutiny, staging a failed coup, being imprisoned, and then taking eight years to reach chancellor.RodrigueZz wrote: »Just a few years for his party to win a majority of seats, then he named himself dictator.
Pretty easy to me.
So after those 26 years it took for him to finally reach chancellor at 44, he only had 12 more years till his death.
I'm not even trying to live to 44.Gold_Certificate wrote: »Too much hassle to become the leader of a country.
-
Damn. When you read it all out like that his whole life was just loss after loss
-
i always imagined you were as old and looked like the guy in your avatar. just like i imagine RodrigueZz is a turtle that eats sea sponges. guess not.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Yeh, but only after being rejected from Art school twice, being homeless, fighting in the army, being wounded, surviving a mutiny, staging a failed coup, being imprisoned, and then taking eight years to reach chancellor.RodrigueZz wrote: »Just a few years for his party to win a majority of seats, then he named himself dictator.
Pretty easy to me.
So after those 26 years it took for him to finally reach chancellor at 44, he only had 12 more years till his death.
I'm not even trying to live to 44.
I'Gold_Certificate wrote: »Too much hassle to become the leader of a country. -
Cosign. Word on the street is that he killed himself--not because the Allied Forces were closing in--but because he thought about how his biography would read.RodrigueZz wrote: »Damn. When you read it all out like that his whole life was just loss after loss
-
http://youtu.be/ZimPyEThh_kThis discussion has been closed.