• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Facts of the Case Against George Zimmerman [W:716]

Status
Not open for further replies.
nice quibble. and since trayvon is not on trial and he was caught by school staff with drugs in his possession, he is/was a criminal...

so even though he wasn't charged or convicted of a crime, he's still a criminal in your eyes?

looks like you're vindicating all the folks who say GZ is a murderer....pre-trial.
 
so even though he wasn't charged or convicted of a crime, he's still a criminal in your eyes?



he was caught with drugs in his possession. that FACT is not in dispute. possession of drugs is a crime, therefore trayvon was, by definition, a criminal.

he just wasn't a "convicted" criminal

looks like you're vindicating all the folks who say GZ is a murderer....pre-trial.

no, I am vindicating all the folks who say GZ is a killer, since the fact that GZ killed TM is not in dispute.
 
Last edited:
he was caught with drugs in his possession. that FACT is not in dispute. possession of drugs is a crime, therefore trayvon was, by definition, a criminal.

he just wasn't a "convicted" criminal

so GZ should be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, but not TM?

what so special about TM that he doesn't get the rights afforded to GZ?

how are they soo different?
 
so GZ should be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, but not TM?

what so special about TM that he doesn't get the rights afforded to GZ?

how are they soo different?

poor dear sweet confused thunder. still not getting it are you? that GZ is guilty of a crime is still in dispute. the FACT that TM was in possession of drugs is not in dispute.

that is how they are soooooooooooooooooo different.
 
poor dear sweet confused thunder. still not getting it are you? that GZ is guilty of a crime is still in dispute. the FACT that TM was in possession of drugs is not in dispute.

that is how they are soooooooooooooooooo different.

so the concept of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, only works for GZ and not TM?

please explain why.

why should they be treated differently?

how are they soo different?
 
Moderator's Warning:
As this thread is approaching the 2,000 post mark, I'm going to close it. Feel free to pick up this discussion in one of the other dozen active threads.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom