What are your thoughts about OJ? He’s totally not a killer, right?
(Hey, it’s not me who keeps distracting attention from St. George’s latest allegations…)
The evidence shows OJ is a murderer. The evidence shows Zimmerman is not. I’ll base my opinions, in each case, on the evidence.
Dunno if you mean against violence, or against accusations. But in each case, the answer is “as often as necessary”.
Interesting that you still have provided any reason for thinking he wasn’t defending himself against Martin, just more rantings… Keep it up, anyone with any sense will be able to tell you’re full of shit.
So it doesn’t matter what the jury says? It’s all in how Steophan interprets the evidence?
You’re genuinely mentally handicapped, aren’t you?
There are people in this thread who are attempting to make the case that Zimmerman has a history of criminal violence. Traffic violations are neither violent nor criminal offenses. Pointing to them, or articles that list them, might be meaningful if the topic under discussion was whether Zimmerman is a shitty driver. Or is there some connection between his driving record and the tragedy with Trayvon that I am not seeing?
No, it matters how the jury interprets the evidence. Occasionally, such as in the OJ case, or the Emmett Till case referenced earlier, the jury was mislead or had pertinent evidence hidden from it.
That does not appear to have happened in the Zimmerman case. The jury found him not guilty, the evidence provided at the trial makes it clear that he was attacked by Martin, and there’s no evidence that’s surfaced to contradict that.
That murderers such as OJ go free is part of the price that must be paid for robust protection of innocent people who are accused of crimes. Such as Zimmerman.
However, ultimately, I will make up my own mind. I’ll attempt to do so after hearing as much evidence as possible. So, if anyone would like to provide evidence that Zimmerman was not the victim of an assault by Martin, please do. And preferably explain why you didn’t make it available to the prosecution.
This applies to the Dunn case, right? It’s reasonable that the jury heard the testimony of the accused and the witnesses (including the later shootings in which Dunn was clearly lying), in addition to the physical evidence, and decided beyond a reasonable doubt that Dunn was lying about his claim of self-defense, right?
Deciding that he was lying would not suffice to find him guilty, so if that’s what the jury based their decision on, they were legally wrong to do so.
You’ll notice he insists the jury in the OJ Simpson case did not interpret the evidence correctly and their decision should be disregarded.
If the jury decides that the defense witness(es) are lying, whose evidence should they believe?
Steophan’s, apparently.
You can’t “disregard” their decision, but I have no problem whatsoever saying they were absolutely wrong.
What is this truly bizarre affectation of spelling “fuck” with a “v”? 
I have no problem whatsoever saying that the only reason the jury was wrong was due to the incompetence and idiocy of the prosecution. From Garcetti on down, the prosecution mishandled, bungled, and fucked up every single aspect of the case. Read that book by that fucking asshole Bugliosi, who, despite being completely egocentric, validly rips the prosecution up one side and down the other.
The fact that you continue, after all these years, to lay the fault on the jury, rather than on the useless, unknowledgeable, and cowardly prosecutors says more about you than it does about the jury.
His great-grandfather was a mulatto, his grandmother was a quadroon, his mother an octoroon, so that makes George a what?
(researching)
Got it! He’s a mustefino. Racists: They have a word for everything. And by the One Drop Rule he’s as black as the ace of spades. Don’t you just hate all this black-on-black violence today?
The evidence of independent witnesses, physical and forensic evidence, recordings and so forth. I’d have a problem basing any conviction on uncorroborated witness evidence, and especially when the witness isn’t neutral.
If there’s any doubt, the benefit of it must go to the defendant.
Deciding that he was lying and the witnesses were telling the truth, in addition to the physical evidence, would suffice to find him guilty. Why wouldn’t it?
What if there’s no reasonable doubt that he was lying and the witnesses were telling the truth, based on the jury’s interpretation? Why isn’t it conceivable that the jury heard all the testimony, and decided that Dunn was definitely lying and the witnesses were definitely telling the truth, especially considering that you’ve freely admitted Dunn is a liar when it comes to claims about self-defense?
Why do you keep asking me questions I’ve already answered?
Your later statements conflict with your earlier answers. You said “it matters how the jury interprets the evidence”. That conflicts with your assertion that the jury can’t interpret the evidence of the Dunn case and determine the shooting was not in self-defense.