He's in Thailand. He wants the crime re-enacted.

i have strong doubts that any 14year old girl is interested to grope me.

He's in Thailand. He wants the crime re-enacted.

i have strong doubts that any 14year old girl is interested to grope me.

If she does, check for your wallet afterwards.

He's in Thailand. He wants the crime re-enacted.

i have strong doubts that any 14year old girl is interested to grope me.

I wouldn't say that too loud when Jingthing's around...words may get twisted to destroy your innocence.

A great day for JUSTICE!

Second-degree murder suspect

George Zimmerman

gets a new judge.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal in Daytona Beach on Wednesday ruled that Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester Jr. in Sanford went too far when, among other things, he described Zimmerman as a manipulator.

http://articles.orla...tin-mark-o-mara

Too bad. I rather liked that judge.

A nonsense OP and a trollish spin on what any normal, red-blooded boy has either fantasized about or actually done.

Jingthing, you mean to say that during the entirety of your pre-pubescence and adolescent years you never once fantasized about groping? Not once? Not ever?

Can't you feel the irony closing in around you right about now?

Or how about any school yard fights you may have had with any boy who may have been Jewish, Gentile, Hispanic, African American, or the like. Do you mean to say that I cannot use your same narrow point of view and accuse you of being racist, whilst omitting all other more admissible and more plausible reasons (simply being bullied or pushed into a corner)?

Can't you feel the irony closing in around you right about now?

A lot of what you say is a good read. I simply cannot understand why you put your foot in it this time. I thought that only I did that.

Zimmerman is winning. It will be a real surprise if he is convicted of anything.

Zimmerman is winning. It will be a real surprise if he is convicted of anything.

He'll be convicted of manslaughter and go down BIG TIME. Yes, the prosecution overcharged but there was still no reason to murder the unarmed boy.

The "unarmed boy" attacked him, broke his nose, bashed his head and threatened to kill him. Zimmerman will walk.

I should have added, Zimmerman will walk, if the jury follows the law.

The "unarmed boy" attacked him, broke his nose, bashed his head and threatened to kill him. Zimmerman will walk.

He was provoked.

He chased his murder victim even though the police told him to BACK OFF.

There was a fight.

You don't kill someone for losing a fight especially a boy armed with skittles.

The "story" that Mr. Z had his life threatened is not to be believed as we don't get to hear the dead boy's account of the incident.

He'll get manslaughter and given the fact that he murdered a CHILD, that means MANY YEARS in prison. He well deserves it.

The "unarmed boy" attacked him, broke his nose, bashed his head and threatened to kill him. Zimmerman will walk.

He was provoked.

He chased his murder victim even though the police told him to BACK OFF.

There was a fight.

You don't kill someone for losing a fight especially a boy armed with skittles.

The "story" that Mr. Z had his life threatened is not to be believed as we don't get to hear the dead boy's account of the incident.

He'll get manslaughter and given the fact that he murdered a CHILD, that means MANY YEARS in prison. He well deserves it.

Oh well, Zimmerman isn't anything but a "creepy-ass kill my neighbors cracker".

So saith the victim, according to the prosecutions star witness, the educationally challenged Rachel Jeantel.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/witness-trayvon-called-george-zimmerman-a-creepy-ass-white-kill-my-neighbors-cracker/

The actual case has no legs but still might result in a reduced conviction in order to forestall Obama, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton et al from visiting the case yet again.

Irrelevant. The victim may have been racist against white people but there is still no good evidence that he threatened the life of the man who murdered him, only the murderers word. The education level of the girl he called before being murdered is also irrelevant. It's not a capital crime to have friends who lack good educations.

You'll be surprised how strong the legs turn out to be in this case.

Irrelevant. The victim may have been racist against white people but there is still no good evidence that he threatened the life of the man who murdered him, only the murderers word. The education level of the girl he called before being murdered is also irrelevant. It's not a capital crime to have friends who lack good educations.

You'll be surprised how strong the legs turn out to be in this case.

You must have missed the photos of Zimmerman's face and head after the victim "did not" threaten his (Zimmerman's) life.

Or the Prosecution witness that said he saw one of the two involved persons on top of the other raining blows to the head and face of the one on the bottom. The one on the bottom was wearing a red jacket, according to the witness. What color was Trayvon's hoodie, again?

The case will be decided by six able jurors, all women, and then we will know.

You must have missed the medical evidence yesterday the the wounds were very, very trivial.

As far as who was on top of whom, that doesn't mean as much as you think.

It's clear they were fighting.

It's not clear how provoked who to START the fight.

It is known Mr. Z was warned to not follow and harass the murder victim, but he did.

People FIGHT all the time. That's no justification for the person LOSING the fight to murder the unarmed winner in cold blood.

The jury will do justice. The killing of this young man was totally unjustified. Zimmerman will pay. You'll see.

You must have missed the medical evidence yesterday the the wounds were very, very trivial.

As far as who was on top of whom, that doesn't mean as much as you think.

It's clear they were fighting.

It's not clear how provoked who to START the fight.

It is known Mr. Z was warned to not follow and harass the murder victim, but he did.

People FIGHT all the time. That's no justification for the person LOSING the fight to murder the unarmed winner in cold blood.

The jury will do justice. The killing of this young man was totally unjustified. Zimmerman will pay. You'll see.

Frankly, I'm afraid Zimmerman will pay in the end, and that in itself will be a travesty of justice.

The "unarmed boy" attacked him, broke his nose, bashed his head and threatened to kill him. Zimmerman will walk.

He was provoked.

He chased his murder victim even though the police told him to BACK OFF.

There was a fight.

Watching someone is not "provoking" them and it is not illegal. Attacking someone IS illegal and Trayvon had no wounds other than the one that stopped him from beating on Zimmerman and abrasions on his hands from breaking Zimmerman's nose.

Zimmerman will be found not guilty and make a bunch of money from books and movies and it will all be justified.

He followed him. To the murder victim, he was being harassed by a stranger. The killer didn't even explain who/what he was. He was armed with a murder weapon which was against the rules of his HOA. Yes he is going down for many years for manslaughter. A boy is dead for no good reason and the killer is on trial. Justice will be done. I have faith in that. We can act like this isn't racial but it is racial. If the dead boy was a white boy, the Zimmerman crazed vigilante apologists would be singing a different tune, I reckon.

BTW, not faulting Zimmerman for being suspicious of this guy or calling the cops. Faulting him for following him when being told not to follow him, for carrying a gun, for provoking a fight, and for shooting an innocent boy armed with skittles dead.

Perhaps some of you actually believe Zimmerman was going to killed that night if he didn't shoot the unarmed victim dead. I don't believe it and I don't believe the jury will believe it either.

As far as the reasonable doubt question, yes there is reasonable doubt about what actually happened during the fight which Mr. Z provoked by following the victim, but there is no reasonable doubt that an unarmed boy has been shot dead by an armed man who had no business following him. Not nearly enough for a first degree murder conviction. More than enough for a manslaughter conviction. Happily that means several years of prison for Mr. Z because he killed a minor.

It's hard to tell who's the most racist. The accused or his victim; or those that leap to such strong defenses of either one of them.

It's hard to tell who's the most racist. The accused or his victim; or those that leap to such strong defenses of either one of them.

It doesn't really matter. A boy has been shot dead. A boy just walking home with some skittles. In a just society, the killer pays.

As far as race issues in the USA, they still exist.

But people still must pay for murder, race issues or no race issues.

What is already known about this case is enough for a manslaughter conviction, even without a trial.

It is simple. The USA is a nation of laws and the law says that the prosecution has the burder of proof and there is too much reasonable doubt on Zimmerman's side. If the jury does its job, he will be found not guilty. If they are swayed by distortions of what actually is known to have happened or emotion and do not do their job he will be found not guilty on appeal. He should have never been charged in the first place due to a lack of substantiated evidence.

Sounds like you think he is guilty too but should walk on a technicality.

For manslaughter, they have a corpse and they have a gun. I think enough proof.

I think that he kiled Trayvon in self defense and the evidence supports it. The eyewitness that saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman punching him, Trayvon's lack of wounds other than the gunshot that killed him and the abrasions on his hands from striking Zimmerman.

I was a teenager once and plenty of older people that I thought I was up to no good followed me to see what I was doing, but I never even considered attacking them for their curiosity.

This case is about this dead boy. Here he is pictured SIX MONTHS before being shot in cold blood by a wanna be cop. For some bizarre reason the Zimmerman apologists spread the LIE that this photo of the victim years earlier. No. The FACTS are it was a RECENT picture before his death. Big threat huh? With the skittles against a trained gunman:

You don't know who attacked who and you don't know the timeline of the conflict. We do know Zimmerman was following Martin when he clearly shouldn't have. I can imagine Martin giving Zimmerman some lip, he bloody deserved it as he was way out of line, and I can also imagine a fight starting. Other than that, without Martin's side of the story we really don't know what happened. The fact that one of the two may have been on top for part of the time without knowing the entire timeline of the conflict, means basically NOTHING. There was no grounds for murdering the boy and I'm sure the jury will find that same way, though the case is only strong enough for manslaughter.

The DNA does not support the theory of Martin beating Zimmerman. The jury knows that too. Good luck with the hopes of seeing this admitted killer of an unarmed boy walk free:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/09/1214336/-DNA-Report-does-NOT-support-Zimmerman-s-claim-that-Trayvon-Martin-caused-his-injuries

DNA results and Autopsy results would have to "prove" that Trayvon Martin actually "caused" Zimmerman's injuries in order for for anyone, including a jury, to conclude Zimmerman acted in self defense when he killed an unarmed Trayvon Martin. However, the DNA results and the Autopsy results do not support Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon Martin "caused" injuries to his face or head. Meaning, DNA results and the Autopsy suggest Trayvon Martin is not the "cause" of Zimmerman's injuries. So Zimmerman's alleged self defense claim might not fly with the jury since none of the forensic results suggest Trayvon Martin touched Zimmerman in any way, shape or form.

The Jury will see the DNA report shows that none of Zimmerman's DNA was under Martin's fingernails.

My guess is if trevon had committed a crime he would have been judged an adult man so why is he referred to as an unarmed boy? It was night it was dark and he looked and behaved like a criminal there was no way anyone could have known that he was a minor or unarmed

The DNA does not support the theory of Martin beating Zimmerman.

Are you even watching the trail or just reading silly left wing blogs? There was no DNA evidence that substantively contributed to any issue in the case, and what DNA evidence was found was largely tainted the manner in which it was collected, transported, and stored

My guess is if trevon had committed a crime he would have been judged an adult man so why is he referred to as an unarmed boy? It was night it was dark and he looked and behaved like a criminal there was no way anyone could have known that he was a minor or unarmed

Oh please, Zimmerman knew he was a teen boy all along.

He was walking home.

Is it criminal for a boy to walk home? Geez!

Are you even watching the trail or just reading opinionated silly wing blogs? There was no DNA evidence that substantively contributed to any issue in the case, and what DNA evidence was found was largely tainted the manner in which it was collected, transported, and stored

You're just parroting the weak defense argument on that damning detail about no DNA.

I find it quite curious that the usual "law and order" crowd thinks it was OK for a neighborhood watch dude carrying a gun against the rules of his HOA killed an unarmed boy just walking home. How can people who believe in justice think its at all OK for the confessed killer to just walk free? I can understand break ins and defending your home, but its clear from the 911 calls that Zimmerman was following when it was really a police matter to follow if there really were good grounds for suspicion. What if that murdered boy was your brother, son, nephew, etc.? Do you think it would be OK for the shooter to just walk with no consequences?

An unarmed boy who was peacefully walking home is dead. They've got the smoking gun of the shooter who was irrationally following him. Normally, that means JAIL TIME for the shooter. Do the crime, do the time, yes? Why the overflow of sympathy for THIS killer?

My guess is if trevon had committed a crime he would have been judged an adult man so why is he referred to as an unarmed boy? It was night it was dark and he looked and behaved like a criminal there was no way anyone could have known that he was a minor or unarmed

Oh please, Zimmerman knew he was a teen boy all along.

He was walking home.

Is it criminal for a boy to walk home? Geez!

It is criminal for a six foot, 17 year old to attack a watch captain for keeping an eye on him.

Even the far-left liberals at MSNBC concede that the Zimmerman prosecution is failing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWhdf3ytiQI