that makes no sense, and there is no evidence of this assertion


he left his home getting snacks during a pro ball intermission,, he didn't even know Zimmerman before that time


on his way home ZIMMERMAN,, not wanting him to 'get away'( as recorded on call to police) followed him as he crossed a street, as he ran past the other way, and as he went behind the buildings where zimmermans truck could not go



lesson learned,, don't 'stand your ground' if you 'fit a description',,,even if approached by someone not in any uniform

Which means you know nothing about the workings of the BLM organization other then what you read. You write like you do, but you don't.


I GUESS THAT MAKES US EQUAL THEN


since social media is HUGE And literally anyone can 'follow' anything on the internet,,, READING official statements and websites is the best way to know what a MOVEMENT is about



BLM does not promote, hate,or advocate anywhere for killing or violence

using individuals who travel freely to public places where BLM events are to try to claim the movement itself is advocating this behavior is beyond ridiculous


speaking of 'slant'


and no,, ORGANIZERS cannot remove people,,


private citizens have no RIGHT to put their hands on anyone in a public space

there can be security or police who have the authority, but not individual citizens who are merely organizing

You trust the justice system when it comes to proving Hillary's innocence,

But you don't trust the justice system when it comes to proving Zimmerman's innocence. .

if you can't see your own double standards and prejudices, no one will be able too, because you yourself are blind to them

Except, as the evidence proves Zimmerman's innocence, Trayvon left his father's home and sought out Zimmerman so he could assault him as he had told his friend by cellphone.

Lesson learned? Don't assault an armed person.



that makes no sense, and there is no evidence of this assertion


he left his home getting snacks during a pro ball intermission,, he didn't even know Zimmerman before that time


on his way home ZIMMERMAN,, not wanting him to 'get away'( as recorded on call to police) followed him as he crossed a street, as he ran past the other way, and as he went behind the buildings where zimmermans truck could not go



lesson learned,, don't 'stand your ground' if you 'fit a description',,,even if approached by someone not in any uniform





That is a completely false interpretation of the evidence presented during the trial.

Go read about the trial. The court records are open to the public.

I don't have a double standard

and I don't trust the justice system to be infallible,, it is also a system made of human beings


people are never truly 'proven' innocent,
they are only not proven 'guilty'

that makes no sense, and there is no evidence of this assertion


he left his home getting snacks during a pro ball intermission,, he didn't even know Zimmerman before that time


on his way home ZIMMERMAN,, not wanting him to 'get away'( as recorded on call to police) followed him as he crossed a street, as he ran past the other way, and as he went behind the buildings where zimmermans truck could not go



lesson learned,, don't 'stand your ground' if you 'fit a description',,,even if approached by someone not in any uniform





That is a completely false interpretation of the evidence presented during the trial.

Go read about the trial. The court records are open to the public.




where did you read about it 'the onion'??

I didn't have to read about it, I was working at the cable station at the time and we watched it EVERYDAY

no such 'evidence' was ever presented, that he 'left his house seeking zimmerman'


the two had not met before that night

WHAT??? Please MS, this kind of semantics is really far fetched.
If there is not enough evidence to convict someone they are INNOCENT in the eyes of "justice".
The opposite of guilty is innocent.
Under our justice system the whole point is that you don't have to "prove" your innocence, they have to "prove" your guilt.

I take it that if you are picked up for a crime you didn't commit and the court finds you not guilty that somehow even though you are Not guilty, your not really innocent either.

So Hillary is not innocent of her alleged crimes? That means she should be in prison......

You have the a very bug double standard, everyone around you sees it, but you....

its not semantics

that is why the jury finds 'not guilty' and not 'innocent',,because the burden of proving the guilt was never met

there is no burden to prove 'innocence'



no, take it that if I am found not guilty, the prosecutor couldn't PROVE my guilt

that alone will not be proof that I am therefore 'innocent'


I may be or may not be,, but that has nothing to do with what a prosecutor had proof of

only those who do not read

or know how courts work


I do not know if Hillary is innocent or guilty of the allegations

I know that no one has PROVEN her guilt


,,its not that difficult really

Our whole system is based on these words "everyone is innocent until proven guilty"
So if they can't PROVE you are guilty, you are INNOCENT!
There is no way or means in our system to "Prove" you are innocent because everyone is already innocent unless proven guilty.
The jury can't even find someone "INNOCENT" there is only NOT GUILTY.
Can't be any plainer then that.

lol

that's what I said,, no one is proven 'innocent', they are only not proven guilty,,,,,,meaning a guilty verdict cant be declared and all that's left therefore is 'not guilty',,, as in not PROVEN guilty,,







logical and realistic,,,

Again all you doing is using semantics.
A person can not prove their innocence in our system, period.
You imply that just because they can't prove someone guilty doesn't mean they are innocent which is totally wrong.
They are PROVEN INNOCENT because there is no GUILTY verdict!

WOW

whatever dude


being proven 'not guilty' does not mean someone didn't do something,, just that no one could prove they did it



,,,,,,let it go

I agree maybe you should start reading and learn how the courts work....

"innocent until proven guilty" is the saying...

the sayings isn't "not guilty, until peiven guilty"

Maybe read a law book and learn the system that you don't trust

LMAO


talk about arguing just to argue'


we have said the same thing,, in different ways

when I use the term 'innocent' I mean the person didn't do it,


clear enough?


a jury doesn't know or decide if a person has done something, only if there is enough to PROVE they did it

Okay,

Agreed, Hilary and Zimmerman are both Innocent, the courts said so.

really stuck there aren't you?


the courts never find anyone 'innocent'

the court cant declare whether a person did something or not


the court only declares whether there is enough to 'prove' they did do it


so,courts, presided over by humans, are fallible,,

sometimes someone who has done something may be found not guilty

sometimes someone who hasn't done something may be found guilty


no one said courts are always right, or always wrong


,,,get past it already,, its not even the thread topic


geesh

Okay back to the topic then. When it comes to inciting violence BLM isn't innocent, they just haven't been proven guilty(yet). But they definitely can't be innocent(at least not in a legal precedence, according to your own logic).

So they are a non-innocent violent inciting organization, that enough evidence hasn't presented itself to prove they are anything different.

That is a completely false interpretation of the evidence presented during the trial.

Go read about the trial. The court records are open to the public.




where did you read about it 'the onion'??

I didn't have to read about it, I was working at the cable station at the time and we watched it EVERYDAY

no such 'evidence' was ever presented, that he 'left his house seeking zimmerman'


the two had not met before that night


It is amazing to me how so many people choose to remain ignorant of the facts of this trial when one merely can go to the Florida State records and read the testimony recorded during the proceedings...