I stated that TM is dead when he shouldn't be and GZ shot and killed him and should be held responsible. I admitted up front that there are details of the case that we don't know and that the hardest part might be deciding what charge to put on GZ. I'm thinking it would probably more likely be manslaughter than 2nd degree murder based on what I do know, but concede that it's possible I might think differently if I had all the facts that the jury had. Again, I never blamed the jury, I blame the idiotic Florida laws, but I do not think GZ should be able to kill an unarmed innocent kid and not have any legal consequences.<quoted text>
You stated he got away with murder as though had you been on the jury he would have been charged WITH murder.
False. What GZ did was vigilantism. I'm just a person with opinions about the case. Opinions are not vigilantism. Pursuing and shooting a kid who you ASSUME is up to no good instead of staying in your vehicle and letting the police handle it is vigilantism. Millions of people have expressed opinions about this case, including you, they are not vigilantes for doing so.You became the judge and jury on the case without knowing what was said in the court-room. That's the stuff of vigilantism.
False. Mentioning that a juror spoke out is not siding with her. AGAIN, I brought this up to show that the jury wasn't exactly unanimous about this. My main point in bringing this up was that she said she felt GZ was guilty, but felt the law did not allow for her to find him guilty. I have no idea what other jurors might have done that was unfair to her. I was interpreting what SHE said, I was not siding with anyone. AGAIN, my opinions about this case are about a dead kid and the defendant, not the jury.You sided with the one juror who claimed that she was "pressured" to come to her conclusion as though the other juror members were not fair with her.
AGAIN, are you deliberately distorting what I said, or do you have severe reading comprehension problems? Since believe it or not I don't think you're stupid, I'm guessing deliberately dishonest. I never once said that 'Trayvon being black had a part in Zimmerman's intentions.' What I said was...Your terminology of suggesting that Trayvon being black had a part in Zimmerman's intentions ...
"As far as anything racial goes, I'm not convinced that Zimmerman is necessarily a racist, but I do still think race played a part in how everything happened and how it was handled and how people perceive it."
This is a very general statement about "how everything happened and how it was handled and how people perceive it." It is not saying anything about "Zimmerman's intentions."
Learn to read, or learn to stop lying.
Actually, all it does is express my opinion that Governor Rick Scott is a sleazebag and that you are batsh!t crazy, which are two unrelated opinions. It is not a "tactic" and it is not bullying. It is my opinion. I'm pretty sure the governor wouldn't feel bullied by my opinion.referring to the governor as a sleazebag and me as batshit crazy indicate your tactics of bullying if you don't get YOUR way.
False. I challenge you to find anything in any post of mine that even remotely suggests this. Learn to read and learn to stop lying.Actually Zimmerman might have been referring to all young trouble-makers, white or black, but you took the idea that Trayvon was black as Zimmerman's intention to harass and maybe kill.