RE: George Zimmerman Update... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

BamaD -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/11/2012 1:28:35 PM)

I notice that you have changed this. For about 20 times you said he moved toward what might have been a dangerous weapon. Appearantly it has sunk in even to you that since what he "admitted" to was reachung toward his phone that didn't make him guilty so now you are pretending he admitted to reaching for a weapon. In your defense you most likely believe it since that would make your contention almost rational.
quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

I think Zimmerman's admission of making threatening motions as if towards a weapon is all the evidence needed to eliminate self-defense.

Once Zimmerman appeared to reach for his gun, TRAYVON MARTIN'S RIGHT TO USE LETHAL FORCE IN SELF-DEFENSE BEGAN AND ZIMMERMAN'S ENDED.

I guess Zimmerman's dad failed to coach him to omit the admission of appearing to go for his gun. Which just goes to show that maybe the retarded apple didn't fall too far from the tree...

Wanna know how not to be hit by your victim as they fight for their life? Don't appear to go for your gun.





farglebargle -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/11/2012 3:56:51 PM)

Learn to fucking read. I'm saying that ZIMMERMAN MADE A MOVE AS IF TOWARDS A WEAPON. Of course, Zimmerman HAD A FIREARM, so it's not like there's no possibility of him reaching for a gun, is there?

And Amadou Diallo wasn't armed. He thought he was being mugged and was handing over his wallet. And the four cops got off after citing Diallo's threatening movement as the reason they shot him.

AND that was ruled proper police procedure. When someone makes a move as towards a weapon, you're right to assume that's what they're doing, and your responses predicated on that belief are wholly legitimate.

Thus, once George Zimmerman made the threatening motion as if towards a weapon, Trayvon Martin's right to use lethal force in his defense was enabled. So discussion of the trivial injuries Zimmerman sustained as Martin fought for his life are pointless.



BamaD -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/11/2012 4:12:59 PM)

You learn to write read your own post you said that Zimmerman reached, not as if for a weapon but for a weapon. What you clearly do not understand is that reaching for a cell phone does not negate your right of self defense no matter how another person interpits this. If all your assumptions are correct then Martin was acting in self defense but so was Zimmerman because by your own words he was reaching for a phone, not a weapon.
quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Learn to fucking read. I'm saying that ZIMMERMAN MADE A MOVE AS IF TOWARDS A WEAPON. Of course, Zimmerman HAD A FIREARM, so it's not like there's no possibility of him reaching for a gun, is there?

And Amadou Diallo wasn't armed. He thought he was being mugged and was handing over his wallet. And the four cops got off after citing Diallo's threatening movement as the reason they shot him.

AND that was ruled proper police procedure. When someone makes a move as towards a weapon, you're right to assume that's what they're doing, and your responses predicated on that belief are wholly legitimate.

Thus, once George Zimmerman made the threatening motion as if towards a weapon, Trayvon Martin's right to use lethal force in his defense was enabled. So discussion of the trivial injuries Zimmerman sustained as Martin fought for his life are pointless.




farglebargle -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/11/2012 5:16:29 PM)

"What you clearly do not understand is that reaching for a cell phone does not negate your right of self defense no matter how another person interpits this."

That's not what precedent in Diallo says.



BamaD -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/11/2012 5:36:26 PM)

Once again you take a fact and run off into lala land the verdict did not address Diallo's right to defend himself. By your interpitation if you are walking down the street, your phone is on vibrate and you get a call. If someone nearby takes this as a threat and pulls a knife on you, you have no right to defend yourself. ABSURD
quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

"What you clearly do not understand is that reaching for a cell phone does not negate your right of self defense no matter how another person interpits this."

That's not what precedent in Diallo says..




Raiikun -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/11/2012 5:52:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

"What you clearly do not understand is that reaching for a cell phone does not negate your right of self defense no matter how another person interpits this."

That's not what precedent in Diallo says.


1) No it's not.
2) Diallo wasn't in Florida.

Look at 776.041 again, 776.041b makes the presumption that it's physical contact that provokes the use of force. Looking for a cell phone to call the police out of fear is not provoking the use of force according to 776.041.




BamaD -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/11/2012 5:53:15 PM)

That too



farglebargle -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/11/2012 7:00:09 PM)


776.041b says no such thing. This PRESUMPTION you speak of does not exist. It is an ASSUMPTION of yours.

quote:


(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.


The legislature deliberated the EXACT WORDING of the statute quite thoroughly. Laws specifically state every condition appropriate, so since the legislature did not speak to the sequence of events being relevant, then the sequence of events -- which you're grasping SO HARD to promote as relevant, is not relevant.

But hey, if you're right then Zimmerman's got nothing to be afraid of, does he? Makes you wonder why if he's so clean-cut he was making arrangements to have a lot of cash on hand and a spare passport UNTIL he got bail with conditions which prevented his flight....



BamaD -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/11/2012 7:05:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle


776.041b says no such thing. This PRESUMPTION you speak of does not exist. It is an ASSUMPTION of yours.

quote:


(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.


The legislature deliberated the EXACT WORDING of the statute quite thoroughly. Laws specifically state every condition appropriate, so since the legislature did not speak to the sequence of events being relevant, then the sequence of events -- which you're grasping SO HARD to promote as relevant, is not relevant.

But hey, if you're right then Zimmerman's got nothing to be afraid of, does he? Makes you wonder why if he's so clean-cut he was making arrangements to have a lot of cash on hand and a spare passport UNTIL he got bail with conditions which prevented his flight....

Your post was addressed to me but was answering something someone else said. However your passport claim would mean he has been planning this for years ....... get real.



farglebargle -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/11/2012 7:42:35 PM)

I suspect someone who is sophisticated enough at fraud to attempt to conceal assets from the court would have spent their whole life concocting all sorts of 'plans, just in case...'.

FWIW, I'm still kind of questioning the TIMING of Zimmerman's ending his phone call with the police dispatcher. It seems very, very convenient for Zimmerman to have denied the court that evidence of his true actions, and given his anger management issues, possible drug impairment, poor judgement -- who knows what was going through his mind that night when he disregarded all of his training, and the good and proper advice given to him by someone in authority, that your suggestion of pre-meditation might not be too far off the mark. But me, I think Zimmerman's more of a 'mad dog', who already killed once, and can't really be trusted anymore to not do it again. The Judge thinks the potential is negligible, and given Zimmerman's bail conditions, I'd tend to agree.

Of course, now that you remind me, there was that testimony of Robert Zimmerman,

George Zimmerman’s father testified that the male voice heard on a 911 tape was Zimmerman’s. “It was absolutely George,” said Robert Zimmerman after hearing a brief segment of the 911 call.

The prosecution asked him if he ever heard Zimmerman screaming before. “Oh, lots of times, he said. Robert Zimmerman also said he heard Zimmerman screaming “in a similar manner” at their home in Virginia.

So, can you imagine living with George if you heard him screaming -- as if fighting for his life supposedly -- 'lots of times'?

Anger management issues, indeed.






erieangel -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/11/2012 7:42:44 PM)

quote:

However your passport claim would mean he has been planning this for years ....... get real.


No it doesn't. It means that when Zimmerman was arrested and realized he was facing charges, he also realized that he had that second passport on hand and decided not to turn it in. He only turned it in after he got on bail because the conditions of his bail precluded his chances of running. He was tethered so to speak.



BamaD -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/11/2012 7:50:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel

quote:

However your passport claim would mean he has been planning this for years ....... get real.


No it doesn't. It means that when Zimmerman was arrested and realized he was facing charges, he also realized that he had that second passport on hand and decided not to turn it in. He only turned it in after he got on bail because the conditions of his bail precluded his chances of running. He was tethered so to speak.


You forget that a key element to farglebargles fantasy scenerio is that he had put away a second passport for his escape. To have done this he would have had to have been planning this for a long time, I don't thinkanyone but farglebargle would accept that line.
Remember FB wants us to believe that Zimmerman had the second passport for this situation.



farglebargle -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/11/2012 9:41:31 PM)

Not THIS situation. But *A* situation, certainly.

I understand your suggestion that Zimmerman had planned on going out and actually hunting down someone for his own pleasure, and that he had prepared extensively.

And I grant that your hypothesis might have some validity. Zimmerman's terminating of the phone call which would have proven his claims authoritatively at the time he chose to end it *is* somewhat shady. BUT....

I'm not sure I agree. Anyway, since your hypothesis about Murder-1 isn't really relevant, your assertion that my statement is predicated is likewise irrelevant.




farglebargle -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/11/2012 9:56:21 PM)


April 17 -

quote:

Defendant: Do you know what? I think my passport is in that bag.

Shelly Zimmerman: I have one for you in safety deposit box...

Defendant: Ok, you hold on to that.


April 20 - Bond Hearing. Shellie testilies that they're indigent. Zimmerman turns in expired passport. Zimmerman's lies to O'Mara cause O'Mara to tell the court, and I quote, "this is my client's current passport and only passport that he has."

June 1, Bond Revoked.



BamaD -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/11/2012 11:11:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle


April 17 -

quote:

Defendant: Do you know what? I think my passport is in that bag.

Shelly Zimmerman: I have one for you in safety deposit box...

Defendant: Ok, you hold on to that.


April 20 - Bond Hearing. Shellie testilies that they're indigent. Zimmerman turns in expired passport. Zimmerman's lies to O'Mara cause O'Mara to tell the court, and I quote, "this is my client's current passport and only passport that he has."

June 1, Bond Revoked.

July 7 Bond granted



BamaD -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/11/2012 11:14:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Not THIS situation. But *A* situation, certainly.

I understand your suggestion that Zimmerman had planned on going out and actually hunting down someone for his own pleasure, and that he had prepared extensively.

And I grant that your hypothesis might have some validity. Zimmerman's terminating of the phone call which would have proven his claims authoritatively at the time he chose to end it *is* somewhat shady. BUT....

I'm not sure I agree. Anyway, since your hypothesis about Murder-1 isn't really relevant, your assertion that my statement is predicated is likewise irrelevant.



Not my hypothesis merely pointing out what you would have to believe to think he could get away from this using an expired passport.



BamaD -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/11/2012 11:17:31 PM)

Being told I am wrong by you is almost as good as being told I'm right by clarence Darrow.



tj444 -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/12/2012 12:01:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Not my hypothesis merely pointing out what you would have to believe to think he could get away from this using an expired passport.

The first passport he turned in was the one he said he lost and it was the one that was about to expire (I believe in May of this year).. the passport he kept was the new replacement that was still valid & good until 2014... and cuz it was still good the Prosecutor reported it to the Feds so if he tried to use it they would catch him..



DeviantlyD -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/12/2012 2:21:31 AM)

The one item the prosecution will have no trouble proving is that Zimmerman profiled Martin.



Sepultura -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/12/2012 2:25:44 AM)

Insufficient evidence for the charge. Typical. Overcharge to scare from trial. Call them out? If state prosecution, they do lose from time to time.



Page: <<   < prev  15 16 [17] 18 19   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625