Dubstepforum.com

yo fuck zimmerman

iPar

kidshuffle wrote:http://www.clickorlando.com/news/george ... um=twitter

orangeluva56 wrote:yall are still on about this? just let it go. man was found not guilty. he's free to do what he wants now. if he wants to buy a shotgun, punch his inlaws, threaten his wife with a gun and then goad her into stepping close enough to him to invoke Stand Your Ground that's his right, that's the beauty of being an american.

You forgot slashing up a mans ipad

zimmerman apologists lol. apparently we're not allowed to be outraged at blatant injustice. Should we have let the people that killed Stephen Lawrence go too?

magma wrote:

kidshuffle wrote:http://www.clickorlando.com/news/george ... um=twitter

orangeluva56 wrote:yall are still on about this? just let it go. man was found not guilty. he's free to do what he wants now. if he wants to buy a shotgun, punch his inlaws, threaten his wife with a gun and then goad her into stepping close enough to him to invoke Stand Your Ground that's his right, that's the beauty of being an american.

orangeluva ur sarcasm is 2 much sometime hahaah

on a serious note i cant believe ppl r still trying to defend this wanker, especially since he had a history of vioelnce against womena nd the popo even before the t martin case.

a dn evidence was clearlyyyyy manipulated in tbha trayvon martin case. its as if ppl think that defence lawyers ARENT payed to lie through their teeth. eugh morons. racist morons.

More like money-grabbing pricks. If there was nothing in it for defending him, they wouldn't have done it.

His wife's gonna get a hell of a book deal.

test recordings wrote:More like money-grabbing pricks. If there was nothing in it for defending him, they wouldn't have done it.

arent all lawyers money grabbing pricks though?

Is he not entitled to the best defence he can get? What would people do differently, not have him defended?

scspkr99 wrote:Is he not entitled to the best defence he can get? What would people do differently, not have him defended?

Judging from most of the reactions on here, a tall tree and a sturdy rope would probably factor in.

scspkr99 wrote:Is he not entitled to the best defence he can get? What would people do differently, not have him defended?

I think the original comments were about people defending him online/in conversation rather than defending in the courtroom.

wub wrote: Judging from most of the reactions on here, a tall tree and a sturdy rope would probably factor in.

Which would be almost ironic. But yeah I agree.

magma wrote: I think the original comments were about people defending him online/in conversation rather than defending in the courtroom.

I think this is likely correct but I think the rush to blame lawyers tends to happen whenever there's a verdict people disagree with. Given that the ethics of a particular situation are in focus it seems weird when people advocate immoral solutions to moral failures.

I haven't seen much criticising of the lawyers, to be fair... well, apart from the prosecution for not preparing their witnesses well enough. But I agree, the lawyers all did their jobs properly and as you'd hope they would in a free country - people should direct their anger at America's justice system, not its executors.

My opinion is I don't care. There are plenty of worse things in this world and this case is down there with what miley cirus is wearing to the mtv music awards. There has always been bad people in this world, and this is just one more.
I'm more interested in when they will start increasing the red baloon count in lucky charms again.

No Problem!

also

not blaming lawyers. theyre paid to lie/bend the truth, its their job

im talkin boot zimmerman defenders/apologists elsewhere in the media and just in gnernearl


dont really care aobut this case but the trayvon case was a big thing for black peoples in america because it coudlve been somewhat of a turning point in them getting constantly shat on by the US justice system

but no