• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

George Zimmerman Arrested Again In Central Florida [W:351]

The image is owned by shutterstock. Watch that loser get sued now for plagiarizing it. :lamo
hd-american-flag-1.jpg
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
The image is owned by shutterstock. Watch that loser get sued now for plagiarizing it. :lamohttp://www.free-wallpapers-free.com/wallpapers/preview/hd/hd-american-flag-1.jpg/img][/QUOTE]:doh

Wrong thread.
:lamo

Besides that, the art is different enough.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Sheik Yerbuti said:
The image is owned by shutterstock. Watch that loser get sued now for plagiarizing it.
http://www.free-wallpapers-free.com/wallpapers/preview/hd/hd-american-flag-1.jpg/img][/QUOTE]Poor Leatherman and his followers have their panties in a wad over this.
I am surprised he still has followers with as wrong as he was about the Zimmerman case.

:doh
iLOL

[INDENT][INDENT]
[SIZE=1][COLOR="#330000"][B]Did George Zimmerman steal Hoch Sollst Du Leben’s photo?[/B]

Tuesday, December 17, 2013

Good morning:

Did George Zimmerman steal Hoch Sollst Du Leben’s photo?

I have to link to and cannot display the photograph because it’s copyrighted with all rights reserved, but you can see it by clicking on the link.
Here’s a link to George Zimmerman’s “original” artwork
I recommend opening 2 browser pages and display the two images side by side.
The current bid on his “original painting” is $100,000.
I posted a comment on Hoch Sollst Du Leben’s flickr page notifying him.

Fred[/COLOR]
[url=http://frederickleatherman.com/2013/12/17/did-george-zimmerman-steal-hoch-sollst-du-lebens-photo/]Did George Zimmerman steal Hoch Sollst Du Leben’s photo? | Frederick Leatherman Law Blog[/url][/SIZE][/INDENT][/INDENT]

Leatherman points to this online image by the photographer.
[url]http://farm1.staticflickr.com/104/306008086_22995cd80f_z.jpg[/url]

Which a follower then points out it is the same flag he use on his original donation site.

[url]http://wayback.archive.org/web/20120411205816im_/http://www.therealgeorgezimmerman.com/images/49096193.jpg[/url]


One of his followers has reported it to ebay. :doh iLOL


Leatherman has cross posted his announcement/discovery elsewhere and is getting torn to shreds by someone more knowledgeable than he is.
It is hilarious.
[url=http://my.firedoglake.com/mason/2013/12/17/did-george-zimmerman-steal-hoch-sollst-du-lebens-photo/]Did George Zimmerman steal Hoch Sollst Du Leben's photo? | MyFDL[/url]



One comment form a user on his blog.

[INDENT][INDENT][COLOR="#000033"][FONT=Comic Sans MS]Trent Sawyer revealed on his Twitter that he’s been bidding it up. Wouldn’t be surprised if others have as well.[/FONT][/COLOR][/INDENT][/INDENT]

You all remember Trent don't you.
What a bunch of asses.



More info.


[INDENT][INDENT][COLOR="#800000"][FONT=Comic Sans MS]Lol, George Zimmerman's artwork looks familiar

Last edited Tue Dec 17, 2013, 02:11 PM - Edit history (1)
Over a decade ago we purchased this image from PhotoDisc (now Getty Images) for about $20...

And used it on the T-shirts we gave to DU donors...

But if you zoom in a bit...

And give it a little photoshop magic...

Apparently it's now worth around $100,000!

EDITED TO ADD: just noticed that this seems to be getting a lot of attention so I wanted to add that it was Skinner who spotted the similarity between the images in the office this morning, I then put the post together. Credit where credit's due![/FONT][/COLOR]
[SIZE=1][url=http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024188920]Lol, George Zimmerman's artwork looks familiar - Democratic Underground[/url][/SIZE][/INDENT][/INDENT]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
mak2 said:
My statement is completely true without question. Your's is one witness's story, the other one is dead. Very questionalbe. Remember Z was not proven innocent, there was not enough evidence to convict him, that is all.
Click to expand...

No such thing in US law. We start here with the presumption of innocence.
 
This is a very simple concept, a trial does not prove innocence. Even Zimmerman. I imagine this is about 4th or 5th grade level stuff...so I will just take the first link I come to. It is amazing how bat**** crazy you guys have gone over the Z man. He killed an unarmed kid and if he had used his head he could have avioded it. Not a great person for a RW hero.


"Juries never find defendants innocent. They cannot. Not only is it not their job, it is not within their power. They can only find them "not guilty."

Innocent v. Not Guilty Article | Duvall Law Office, P.C. | Eugene Oregon | Criminal Defense

j-mac said:
No such thing in US law. We start here with the presumption of innocence.
Click to expand...
 
mak2 said:
This is a very simple concept, a trial does not prove innocence. Even Zimmerman. I imagine this is about 4th or 5th grade level stuff...so I will just take the first link I come to. It is amazing how bat**** crazy you guys have gone over the Z man. He killed an unarmed kid and if he had used his head he could have avioded it. Not a great person for a RW hero.


"Juries never find defendants innocent. They cannot. Not only is it not their job, it is not within their power. They can only find them "not guilty."

Innocent v. Not Guilty Article | Duvall Law Office, P.C. | Eugene Oregon | Criminal Defense
Click to expand...

At the end of the day only George and Trayvon knew what happened - arguing positions is useless. I wasn't there and you weren't so speculating on intent from either party is useless.
 
True. But he was not found innocent.
Mr.Nick said:
At the end of the day only George and Trayvon knew what happened - arguing positions is useless. I wasn't there and you weren't so speculating on intent from either party is useless.
Click to expand...
 
mak2 said:
This is a very simple concept, a trial does not prove innocence. Even Zimmerman. I imagine this is about 4th or 5th grade level stuff...so I will just take the first link I come to. It is amazing how bat**** crazy you guys have gone over the Z man. He killed an unarmed kid and if he had used his head he could have avioded it. Not a great person for a RW hero.


"Juries never find defendants innocent. They cannot. Not only is it not their job, it is not within their power. They can only find them "not guilty."

Innocent v. Not Guilty Article | Duvall Law Office, P.C. | Eugene Oregon | Criminal Defense
Click to expand...

While I understand your point, and it is a valid one when considering the role of a juror, I think you are overlooking an important facet of the Zimmerman case. Consider the following from the link you provided:

"In order for an indictment (the piece of paper actually accusing a defendant) to be handed down, either a grand jury (seven citizens selected from the jury pool) must "believe the person is guilty" or a judge after a preliminary hearing must make a finding that "probable cause" exists to charge the defendant — that is, a finding that the defendant is "probably" guilty.

Accused persons, therefore, go to trial with a finding having already been made, albeit in some cases haphazardly, that they are more than likely guilty of the crime alleged. A terrible stain is cast upon them. Even if the jury concludes that reasonable doubt exists as to guilt, it is a stain that will remain forever."​

This is where people believe the state of Florida failed GZ. First of all, the Grand Jury step (which is the generally accepted method of bringing these charges against someone in cases such as these) was purposefully not utilized for political reasons. Secondly, there is reason to believe that the only reason GZ was indicted was because of purposeful deceit and the omission of exculpatory evidence in the information provided to the judge. In essence, the attorneys seeking an indictment misled the judge to garner an indictment. Thus, GZ was wrongfully indicted due to him being denied the protection of a grand jury and the professional misconduct of the attorneys in their filings to the judge. This was highlighted in the trial itself by the generally weak case brought against him by the prosecution. That is the reason many believe GZ does not deserve the "terrible stain" that has been cast upon him; he should never have been charged with murder in the first place. So, yes, while the jury couldn't technically find him "innocent," that original determination of innocence (by a grand jury or judge) was tainted and it is an injustice to not acknowledge that when considering how he now has to live with "a stain that will remain forever."
 
Last edited:
mak2 said:
This is a very simple concept, a trial does not prove innocence. Even Zimmerman. I imagine this is about 4th or 5th grade level stuff...so I will just take the first link I come to. It is amazing how bat**** crazy you guys have gone over the Z man. He killed an unarmed kid and if he had used his head he could have avioded it. Not a great person for a RW hero.


"Juries never find defendants innocent. They cannot. Not only is it not their job, it is not within their power. They can only find them "not guilty."

Innocent v. Not Guilty Article | Duvall Law Office, P.C. | Eugene Oregon | Criminal Defense
Click to expand...

OMG! That is what I just told you! You seemed to be hung up on Z having a problem because he hadn't been found "innocent"... Then you come back and confirm that can not happen in our system. You think you're being clever by double speaking, and insulting me, but I assure you you're not.

As for your descriptors of Z "killing" an "unarmed" kid, and calling him a RW hero. It is hopelessly slanted, biased, and dishonorable to label people, and events in such a dishonest way. Good day.
 
mak2 said:
He killed an unarmed kid
Click to expand...
Still being dishonest I see.

He killed a young adult who was using his body as a weapon.
That is not being unarmed.
 
mak2 said:
True. But he was not found innocent.
Click to expand...

are we part of the same country? There is no such thing as "being found innocent". You are innocent until proven guilty. So, he's innocent.
 
mak2 said:
True. But he was not found innocent.
Click to expand...

True enough, because since we are all presumed innocent in this country, the failure to convict means that he never lost that presumption...He remains innocent, I suspect that is about 4th or 5th grade stuff.
 
mak2 said:
True. But he was not found innocent.
Click to expand...
No one is ever found innocent, in US courts. They can only be found guilty, or not - innocence is presumed until proven otherwise.
 
He did have a gun and threaten me - he didn't..

It's so insane.

This is the second time something did or didn't happen...
 
That's what I been trying to tell them. I dont think they get it.
The Mark said:
No one is ever found innocent, in US courts. They can only be found guilty, or not - innocence is presumed until proven otherwise.
Click to expand...
 
The Mark said:
No one is ever found innocent, in US courts. They can only be found guilty, or not - innocence is presumed until proven otherwise.
Click to expand...

innocence is presumed until proven otherwise. if it is not proven otherwise, you are innocent....
 
Ok, this is where you are not getting it, if not proven otherwise you are found not guilty. It does not mean you are really not guilty, just that there is not enough evidence to convict the person. YOu cannot make the statement because someone is found not guilty they really did not do it (innocent).
OscarB63 said:
innocence is presumed until proven otherwise. if it is not proven otherwise, you are innocent....
Click to expand...
 
What we have here, with Zimmerman, is a gun fetishist who sees the point of a gun as the solution to every conflict he encounters.
It is just a matter of time before he is killed, or locked up for a very long time.
 
mak2 said:
Ok, this is where you are not getting it, if not proven otherwise you are found not guilty. It does not mean you are really not guilty, just that there is not enough evidence to convict the person. YOu cannot make the statement because someone is found not guilty they really did not do it (innocent).
Click to expand...
Yet, legally, if not found guilty, the accused is by default innocent.

Personal opinions are another matter entirely.
 
Buck Ewer said:
What we have here, with Zimmerman, is a gun fetishist who sees the point of a gun as the solution to every conflict he encounters.
It is just a matter of time before he is killed, or locked up for a very long time.
Click to expand...

No. That is ridiculous. A "gun fetishist?" Where the hell did that term even come from?

He is a hot head and stupid. End of story.
 
Oh, so if you apply this line or reasoning to OJ Simpson...You can be guilty and it not be proven so you are found not guilty, no one knows if you are innocent. Z was not proven innocent, just like OJ was not proven innocent.
The Mark said:
Yet, legally, if not found guilty, the accused is by default innocent.

Personal opinions are another matter entirely.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom