That is journalism my friend and the very reason why you can't accept the truth. All you did was sweep it away like the media.
Funk Thank you for posting this most informative ten minute video.
IT IS JOURNALISM
And it is truthful.
The liberals will continue to reject the real truth and voice their unrealistic BS in response.
Thats not news at all. For every no name tabloid gossip of material you can surf on the world wide web, I can find one that will refute what you found.
It's Tabloid news Funk. I say this and I will ut again. The one thing I can accept is truth. What you have is theory. I have a plenty of theories. I can give a great one if you want to know.
You dont even know what you are watching. It could sitting right next to you and you wont even have a clue what is going on. You are disconnected and out of touch.
What part of not guilty by reasons of self-defense do you not understand? The only reason this case went to trial is because of President Obama, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, New Black Panthers and the media race baiting which put political pressure on Special Prosecutor Angela Corey to charge George Zimmerman on April 11, 2012 which was 45 days after the tragic incident. So as I've said before if this were white/white, black/black, or black/any other ethnicity it wouldn’t have went to trial. See evidence below.
SF3, you are amazing at researching and presenting sports and you also conducted a thorough job in research of Bradwell too. Can you research these facts in the video as you have done with your favorite topic sir? Who is responsible for the civil rights act passage?
Funky: There is a portion of the population who will never be satisfied with the verdict because it just FEELS wrong. The argument is that nobody should get away "scott free" for killing another human being unless it was "totally justified." The problem with this case is that if Zimmerman stays home, there's no killing. If Zimmerman stays in his car, there's (probably) no killing. If Zimmerman has no gun, there no killing (unless - maybe - Martin beats Zimmerman to death).
This case was promoted by the media and by the race-opportunists as a "hate crime." There was no evidence the prosecution (including the investigative elements such as the FBI) could find to enable a jury to consider any hate crime elements. The two jury members who have gone public since the trial have confirmed this.
On the one hand, based on the evidence this case should never have been prosecuted. On the other hand - forgetting about the legal aspects - the case screams for somebody to serve some jail time (on a purely "what's fair" emotional level). The problem is that when you try a case you can't forget the legal aspects. Our system of justice is founded upon the "innocent until PROVEN guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" concept.
One thing I am 100% certain about: if Martin had been white and Zimmerman had been black - and given the same facts (Martin shoots Zimmerman) - the race-opportunists (i.e., the Al Sharptons) would be arguing the OTHER SIDE. They would be saying MARTIN IS INNOCENT because it was self-defense and there are no "hate crime" elements.
It is that hypocrisy which is also fueling the national debate.
Watch: Juror says Zimmerman 'got away with murder'
"That is journalism my friend and the very reason why you can't accept the truth. All you did was sweep it away like the media."
I can do what they did. I can imput my theory on You Tube, and people will interpet it as fact, and spew it all across the blogs.
I dont know right off hand, i nay need to di research. I think SenatorMansfield, and Difksen who had intriduced the Bill, and got it passed. But President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Bill into Law in 1965. I maybe wrong, but let me research and come back with a more definitive answer.
By the way, where is the nexus of this subject and the Trayvon Martin's topic that is your heading for discussion?
Are we now discussing U.S. History instead of your subject matter? Or are we discussing The Truth About Trayvon Martin?
I'm a little baffled.
Thank God juror B29 followed the law and is now speaking out for the mighty of $$$$$$. Greed brings out the worst in all!
look at what she said
She said both Martin and Zimmerman could have walked away from their tragic encounter.
"I think all of us thought race did not play a role.
three jurors favored convicting Zimmerman but changed their minds after repeated scrutiny of the evidence presented at the trial
she said evidence, not opinion.
she also said she felt the trial was nothing more then a publicity stunt.
SF3, the point is my question can be answered by research we don't have to know it all just how to find it. Additionally I can only recall Bill Whittle admitting to 1-2 theories, and the rest of it is facts. Look the facts up I dare you because I know they can't be refuted.
B29 is a hypocrite and racist. You can't have it both ways if the evidence didn't support a guilty verdict then Zimmerman didn't get away with murder either.
For The Love of Money. The things people will do for it, shame on you B29!
Juror also said Zimmerman got away with murder.
It's just that according to the statue, she could nit convict based on the law and evidence presented. It doesnt mean that Zimmernan is innocent at all.
Thats why Eric Holder is now advocating and trying to repeal this Stand Your Ground Law.
If Juror B-29 is a hypocrite, then what is Juror B-37? Juror B-37 was on television the very next day giving her own opinion on behalf of the remaining jurors. The remaining had write a statement to tell the american people that her opinion is not the opinion of the renaining jurors. In addition, B-37 made it known that she was signing with an agent to write a book about the trial. Talking about the almighty dollar? That was woman was diabolical from the very beginning.
As far as Whittle concerns, 95 percent of his comments of the case were theory and not at all facts. The only part I agree with him on hs that Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by George Zimmerman. It
I did some research to your question. I was nit too far off on my answer. Senator Mike Mansfield (Democrat) and Senator Everette Dirkesen (Republican) was instrumental in getting the the Bill Passed on March 18, 1965. Yhe US Senate passed the Bill on May 26, 1985. US Congress passed the Bill on July 9, 1965 President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed the Bill into Law on August 6, 1965.
Great research SF3, and don't worry about the typos Murrelet is gone and I understand you perfectly sir!
I'm not aware of juror B-37; however I believe in your research therefore B37 is the worst of the worst in hypocrisy.
My typo are a result of me using my mobile phone that has auto correct. It changes my words automatically into what it thinks is the correct spelling. Other times I hit the wrong neighboring key, and not noticing the mistake until after submission.
Here we go again. Read this article and tell me your thoughts.
This is another reason why SYG needs to be repealed
i need to know more of what happened. was he entering the house? or just in the yard? one difference i do see right off is that martin attacked zimmerman. according to the write up this kid did not attack him. that makes it a big difference.
SF3, because there didn't seem to be any evident danger or an attack from the victim he was charged for the shooting. I don't comprehend why the victim was shot in the head and I won't rush to judgement. The situation is different than GZ and TM and I really don't think SYG needs repealing because it's benefitted blacks more in the state of Florida. See my new post. However Obamacare needs to be repealed, especially with the unions and the IRS bailing on it, after spending billions to support and pass it. See my new blog.
That kid was only standing in the yard unarmed from what I read. That suspect derserve to be behind bars.