Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2022 18:14:06 GMT
Who continues to beat a man when he's down? That's what your hero was doing. Once that scary Hispanic 'stalker' was on the ground, the 'threat' was removed. If he continued to keep beating him, he had every legal right to shoot your pothead hero, and a jury agreed. Maybe if your hero hadn't been full of pot, he would've reacted more sensibly. I forgot you were there. Sorry. I didn't know you were there either, but you didn't have to be. Your allegiance is to violent thugs...the black ones. Btw, the jury who ruled on Zimmerman's side weren't there either. They went by the evidence, including eyewitness. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2022 18:44:27 GMT
I forgot you were there. Sorry. I didn't know you were there either, but you didn't have to be. Your allegiance is to violent thugs...the black ones. Btw, the jury who ruled on Zimmerman's side weren't there either. They went by the evidence, including eyewitness. OJ was also innocent. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2022 19:56:50 GMT
I didn't know you were there either, but you didn't have to be. Your allegiance is to violent thugs...the black ones. Btw, the jury who ruled on Zimmerman's side weren't there either. They went by the evidence, including eyewitness. OJ was also innocent. 'Not guilty' doesn't mean 'innocent'. I wouldn't expect you to know the difference. I believe the full finding was no sufficient evidence, even though there was a mountain of it. Furman got caught having said the 'n' word 10 years prior, so that was enough for jury nullification. The irony is that OJ didn't want anything to do with blacks except to exploit them when he needed their support. |
|
.....Belle..............