Comments on: George Zimmerman’s Wife Pleads Guilty to Perjury

By: ujm

ujm — Fri, 30 Aug 2013 03:39:09 +0000

nfgo #11 — Even if you’d be correct that “we do not know”, both common law and Jewish law grant the accused the benefit of the doubt and demand any accusations be proven in court to be accepted as fact. So even accepting your premise that “we do not know”, George was correctly acquitted.

George had a legal right to follow Martin. The 911 operator *suggested* he not follow (the language being “we don’t need you to do that”) and a 911 operator has no legal authority to give orders.

By: nfgo3

nfgo3 — Fri, 30 Aug 2013 00:48:25 +0000

No. 12: My original question to Commenter No. 4 was, how does he know that Mr. Martin is a “thug?” I understand that the criminal case against Mr. Zimmerman was weak, particularly because there is no one to tell Mr. Martin’s side of the story, and the jury was not wrong to find that there was reasonable doubt about Mr. Zimmerman’s guilt. But I was not addressing the jury finding, I was addressing Commenter No. 4′s characterization of Mr. Martin as a “thug”.

No. 10: I presume that you believe that OJ Simpson did not murder his wife and her friend, as the jury found him not guilty.

By: simcha613

simcha613 — Thu, 29 Aug 2013 20:53:15 +0000

NFGO3- we know that Zimmerman was following TM, we know that TM beat up Zimmerman, and we know that Zimmerman shot TM. That’s all we know, and those facts alone leave reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was guilty. It’s very possible that while Zimmerman may have been wrong to follow TM, it did not give TM the right to beat him up, which means GZ was acting in self defense.

Is it possible that TM had no choice but to beat him up (like if he couldn’t run away)? Sure. Is it possible that GZ didn’t have to use deadly force? Sure. But in this country you need proof to convict, not to acquit. And as long as there is a reasonable possibility that he was acting in self defense, then he was properly acquitted.

By: nfgo3

nfgo3 — Thu, 29 Aug 2013 18:15:51 +0000

No. 10: The only indisputable things we know about the altercation between Mr. Martin and Mr. Zimmerman is that Mr. Martin lost and is now dead. We do not know who, if anyone, provoked a fight. We do know that Mr. Zimmerman was following Mr. Martin, and we know that a 911 operator asked him not to. Under Florida law, Mr. Martin had a right to “stand his ground” if he was being pursued by Mr. Zimmerman. We know that the dead Mr. Martin was killed by the gun of Mr. Zimmerman. We know that Mr. Zimmerman suffered some bruises and scrapes to his head, and that the coroner/medical examiner in the case testified that Mr. Zimmerman’s scrapes and bruises were minor. So, again, how do you know that Mr. Martin is a thug?

And by the way, do you realize the circularity (or perhaps it is the tautology) of your definitions of “initiating a violent attack” and “standing your ground”?

By: ujm

ujm — Thu, 29 Aug 2013 16:54:00 +0000

nfgo #8: I know because a) it is the most logical explanation based on the known facts and b) a court with 12 jurors determined and rendered a verdict as such.

“And would you please explain to me the difference between “initiating a violent attack” and “standing your ground”?”

initiating a violent attack: What Travyon Martin did to George Zimmerman when he initiated a physical altercation by pounding George’s head into the pavement.

standing your ground: What Zimmerman responded, in self-defense, to the above action by Martin.

By: y2r

y2r — Thu, 29 Aug 2013 03:05:15 +0000

#1 As many have pointed it out, U Have no reasoning skills and therefore a waste of time to have a conversation with u!!!!

By: nfgo3

nfgo3 — Thu, 29 Aug 2013 02:35:24 +0000

No. 6: How do you know that Trayvon Martin is a “thug”? And how do you know that he “initiated” a violent attack, other than from the unsworn statements of his killer, who would have appeared guilty of murder if he did not allege that he was attacked? And would you please explain to me the difference between “initiating a violent attack” and “standing your ground”?

And, No. 4: You must tell me about Al Sharpton, because I do not watch his show or believe a word he ever said.

By: nfgo3

nfgo3 — Wed, 28 Aug 2013 22:22:48 +0000

No. 2: Help me out, please. What facts did I not get straight?

No. 3: See above.

By: ujm

ujm — Wed, 28 Aug 2013 21:25:41 +0000

nfgo: What’s wrong with your picture is that you left unmentioned that the thug Travyon Martin initiated a violent attack against neighborhood volunteer watchman George Zimmmerman. Then he got what was coming to him when George self-defended himself.

Being a volunteer neighborhood watchman is a good thing. If a non-police 911 dispatcher gives voluntary advice that “we don’t need you you to follow him”, he needn’t take that advice. And Martin getting violent is a bad thing.

By: deepthinker

deepthinker — Wed, 28 Aug 2013 20:49:47 +0000

Big deal. With unbelievably large legal bills to pay, because Al Sharpton and all the race hustlers had blackmailed the State of florida into conducting a star-chamber proceeding against her husband, she tried to save as much money as possible for the huge and unbearable expenses that lay ahead.

Thank G-D she had a compassionate and understanding judge.