He wasn’t murdered. There was a trial, remember? Oh yeah, you didn’t bother following it cos you magically know all the answers without needing to refer to the facts.
A legal killing is, by definition, not murder. Unless you have reason to think someone other than Zimmerman killed him, he was not murdered.
This is a false statement. The facts are all accessible directly, and I have been accessing them directly since last year. I refer to the facts constantly, and always have.
And he was murdered, but his murderer was acquitted. That does not change the fact that he was murdered.
I wonder…does anyone really feel wounded when someone talks to them this way? Doe the speaker hope to wound, or merely to vent?
I’ve never thought he was racist, just a raging asshole.
The system, however, IS racist.
You’re absolutely right, liar. You can’t make some asshole idiot who misrepresented you tell the truth, apologize or act like a decent human being when they should step up and do the right thing. And if anyone should know that, it’d be you. Right, liar?
It means that he wasn’t murdered by Zimmerman. He was found not guilty of murder, remember? By the finders of fact, the jury?
So, if he was murdered, who murdered him? Because the fact is that he was lawfully killed by Zimmerman.
Ugh. So much ignorance.
In addition to Steophan’s astute comments, note that whether or not a murder occurred is always a matter of opinion. It’s not a fact. And the only opinion that matters is that of the jury.
Nicole Simpson’s family can now rest easy knowing she wasn’t murdered either, I suppose.
Here is the documentation: Trayvon Martin MDSPD Reports - Tagle Attachment Pgs 90-102 | PDF
And yes, they blacked out Trayvon Martin’s name, but you can tell in several places they are talking about him, and they missed his initials 
in a couple of places as well.
Because you aren’t dumb enough to believe your own bullshit, I expect.
Wow. “Save your blood pressure. The only person you can control is you.”
The voice of reason apparently doesn’t like it when it’s his ox being gored.
It’s perfectly reasonable for a person to still hold the opinion Zimmerman murdered him despite the fact that it could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt the murder occurred. Not all murderers are convicted. (You also remain strangely confused between the concept of a “Not guilty” verdict and the affirmative claim that a homicide is definitely legal.)
I’m going to go out on a limb and say O.J. Simpson murdered his wife. A jury acquitted him, and so the legal system goes, but you know what? In my opinion he’s a murderer. What do you think of that?
Are you kidding? This is Bricker. From years of observing his particular dysfunction, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if he asserted that Hermann Göring was unjustly convicted because he was not convicted in Germany by a jury of his peers.
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Analogy fail. :smack:
Wrong. You make shit up and pretend it’s a fact. There’s a big difference.
I think that, due to Simpson having written a book where he effectively confesses to murder, I’ll accept that as evidence that he murdered his wife. For me, it would take that level of evidence to decide that the court, and specifically the jury, were wrong. For a similar reason I believe, as was discussed earlier, that Emmett Till was murdered by at least some of the defendants at that abhorrent trial, whilst still believing that the jury made the correct decision based on the evidence presented (although probably for the wrong reasons).
If that sort of evidence that Martin was murdered (by Zimmerman or someone else), I’ll change my view. As it is, it seems that the opposite is true, and the evidence points towards Martin being responsible for his own death. I originally thought that Zimmerman would struggle in an immunity or civil hearing where he had to prove his innocence, but seeing how much weaker the prosecution’s evidence was that I suspected, I think it’s likely he would win that case.
Short version - preponderance of evidence that Martin was murdered, or that Zimmerman is a murderer, would be enough that I’d not strongly complain about the terminology.
ETA This is something of a weakening of my position that only a criminal verdict would suffice. Thanks for making me think it through more clearly.
You’re joking, right?
No. Have you ever looked at the trial? The prosecution didn’t even manage to prove that Till was dead.
The prosecution were racist scum that utterly failed to do their job, and their duty to Emmett Till. I have no doubt that the jury were similarly racist, based on interviews with them after the trial, but I do not believe that the evidence actually produced at the trial supported a conviction.
(I assume that’s the bit you asked about, not my view that he was, in fact, murdered by at least some of the defendants).
Um… huh?
Here was my response to Rand Rover:
What did I say, there or in any other place in this thread, that you find incorrect?
[Jimmy McNulty]
what the fuck did I do?
[/Jimmy McNulty]
I have a suspicion he confused me with you.