Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case Page: <<   < prev  47 48 [49] 50 51   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case - 10/12/2012 4:09:05 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

Strawman.



Irony.

(in reply to Raiikun)
Profile   Post #: 961
RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case - 10/13/2012 5:29:43 AM   
Raiikun


Posts: 2650
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Two family members.... both going to social media... both saying whatever they wish without regards to how it looks upon those in their family.

One you excused.

One you did not.

You figure it out.


Strawman again. I did neither, you're making that up. I did nothing more than point out the existence of each, in two separate contexts, in response to two separate inquiries/statements. That's all.

Any excusing or not excusing is entirely your invention and nothing more.


< Message edited by Raiikun -- 10/13/2012 5:32:33 AM >

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 962
RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case - 10/13/2012 6:25:48 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		But I dont understand.  Why all the subpoena duces tecum when its all irrelevant, and there is nothing to defend prior to the point and click of the gun?  You have repeatedly assured us this is the only truth.  Prior violence and comments by either party are irrelevant, and there is no need to mount any defense.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Raiikun)
Profile   Post #: 963
RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case - 10/13/2012 6:29:34 AM   
Raiikun


Posts: 2650
Status: offline 		Why would the Defense do that?

It's called defending his client. Ya know, his job and stuff.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 964
RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case - 10/13/2012 6:40:52 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		Nothing to defend according to you however, the burden of the proof and all that.  We can safely ignore any testimony that is not directly at the moment of  point and click, according to you.  That isn't a strawman, an invented position and it is sort of unraveling here for you. 

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Raiikun)
Profile   Post #: 965
RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case - 10/13/2012 7:00:37 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Two family members.... both going to social media... both saying whatever they wish without regards to how it looks upon those in their family.

One you excused.

One you did not.

You figure it out.


Strawman again. I did neither, you're making that up. I did nothing more than point out the existence of each, in two separate contexts, in response to two separate inquiries/statements. That's all.

Any excusing or not excusing is entirely your invention and nothing more.



So you didnt make those posts I showed?

quote:

But what could be relevant is anything that shows a reputation for violence on Trayvon's part (swinging on a bus driver for instance, according to his cousin), or certain tweets from Deedee that put a major kink in her story (her tweets on the day of Trayvon's funeral in which she was supposedly in the hospital are interesting reading).


You did not post that?

quote:

"Regarding Robert Zimmerman Jr.'s media campaign and Twitter comments, Robert is acting on behalf of his family, and he is not acting with the approval or the input of the defense team. We're naturally concerned about anyone associated with the case speaking publicly, because there is always a risk that their comments could complicate our defense efforts. The Zimmerman family has been through a lot, and they have been frequently misrepresented in the media, so we do not begrudge Robert for wanting to speak out and set the record straight."

http://gzlegalcase.com/


You did not post that?

Its amusing how you merely accepted the position from the Z family that Robert was not posting on behalf of Z... a rouge poster.

Yet you accuse Trayvon of being violent based upon his cousin's posting.

There is no strawman here.

Just pointing out the hypocrisy.


_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Raiikun)
Profile   Post #: 966
RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case - 10/13/2012 7:00:41 AM   
Raiikun


Posts: 2650
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
 We can safely ignore any testimony that is not directly at the moment of  point and click, according to you.  


Strawman, I've never claimed such. It's George's belief at that moment that's important. The State will try their hardest to use stuff from before that moment to claim that George didn't have that belief; the Defense therefore needs to be prepared to answer such.

quote:

Nothing to defend according to you however, the burden of the proof and all that.


Also a strawman. My belief is the evidence known to the public is overwhelmingly in support of there not being a crime. The fact that he's on trial by definition means there are charges to defend against.

This is basic logic.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 967
RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case - 10/13/2012 7:02:06 AM   
Raiikun


Posts: 2650
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Yet you accuse Trayvon of being violent based upon his cousin's posting.



Wrong. As I've pointed out repeatedly, that was entirely an answer to a question about what the Defense is looking for. I've made no accusations based on his cousin's posting. That is a lie.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 968
RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case - 10/13/2012 7:02:53 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		lol

Just because you claim something is wrong, doesnt make it wrong.

You outed yourself.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Raiikun)
Profile   Post #: 969
RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case - 10/13/2012 7:03:43 AM   
Raiikun


Posts: 2650
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

lol

Just because you claim something is wrong, doesnt make it wrong.

You outed yourself.



It's wrong because you're lying. Nothing more.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 970
RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case - 10/13/2012 7:09:02 AM   
Raiikun


Posts: 2650
Status: offline 		To put it simply again, I was asked what relevance there would be in Trayvon's social media. I answered as above:

"But what could be relevant is anything that shows a reputation for violence on Trayvon's part (swinging on a bus driver for instance, according to his cousin), or certain tweets from Deedee that put a major kink in her story (her tweets on the day of Trayvon's funeral in which she was supposedly in the hospital are interesting reading)."

There is no assertion as to the truth of Trayvon's cousin's tweet. No accusation of violence, nothing. There is simply a mention that a statement from Trayvon's cousin exists; nothing more. I have no idea if Trayvon swung on a bus driver or not; but thanks to that tweet, you can be damned sure O'Mara will look into seeing if that bus driver exists to use as a witness if that event happened.

So this:

quote:

Original: tazzy

Yet you accuse Trayvon of being violent based upon his cousin's posting.


Is absolutely false. I was answering a question about what the Defense is looking for in social media; that's all.

< Message edited by Raiikun -- 10/13/2012 7:10:14 AM >

(in reply to Raiikun)
Profile   Post #: 971
RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case - 10/13/2012 7:23:52 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
We can safely ignore any testimony that is not directly at the moment of  point and click, according to you.  


Strawman, I've never claimed such. It's George's belief at that moment that's important. The State will try their hardest to use stuff from before that moment to claim that George didn't have that belief; the Defense therefore needs to be prepared to answer such.

quote:

Nothing to defend according to you however, the burden of the proof and all that.


Also a strawman. My belief is the evidence known to the public is overwhelmingly in support of there not being a crime. The fact that he's on trial by definition means there are charges to defend against.

This is basic logic.




LOL, I call asswipe.


But unless they nullify self defense, proving anything else will be irrelevant.

Trayvon isn't on trial, thus not relevant.

The only issue where "reasonable" comes up is at the moment the gun was fired. Was there a reasonable belief that force was needed to prevent serious bodily injury at that moment? If the State cannot prove beyond and to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt that there wasn't, George has to be acquitted.
What *is* legally relevant is: Did George reasonably believe force was needed to prevent great bodily harm at the moment he pulled the trigger? If so, he has to be acquitted. If the State cannot prove that he didn't, he has to be acquitted.
How bad the existing injuries are is absolutely irrelevant, as the test for self defense is not a reasonable fear of existing injuries, but a belief force is needed to prevent serious bodily harm.
That question is not what's at issue. The question is: Did George have a reasonable belief that the bullet was needed to prevent serious bodily injury.
****************
At the moment George claims he pulled the gun, he wasn't getting "thrashed" at that point, he was stopping Martin from reaching the gun, and taking maybe 2 seconds to pull and fire it.
*********************
George was not even required to have fear for his life. Just a reasonable belief that at the moment the shot was fired, that he needed to do so to prevent serious bodily injury.
**************************

You said all that, repeatedly and on threads that are long gone.

*NB:  By your own exact words (check out the two paragraphs within the stars) You have cooked the shit out of your client, Perry Mason.



< Message edited by mnottertail -- 10/13/2012 7:25:29 AM >

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Raiikun)
Profile   Post #: 972
RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case - 10/13/2012 7:25:31 AM   
Raiikun


Posts: 2650
Status: offline 		Those statements of mine are all true, and entirely consistent with my answer to your invented claim.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 973
RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case - 10/13/2012 7:54:54 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

That question is not what's at issue. The question is: Did George have a reasonable belief that the bullet was needed to prevent serious bodily injury.

Not sure George had to have a reaonable belief as you state.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. declared in Brown v. United States (256 U.S. 335, 343 (16 May 1921)), a case that upheld the "no duty to retreat" maxim, that "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife".[4]

Before you argue that Martin did not have an uplifted knife I will propose that Justice Holmes was applying a metaphor.

Furthermore AFAIK Florida's Law does not specify gun or bullet but force.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 974
RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case - 10/13/2012 8:01:53 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		Uh, that was Raiikuns quote, and you can argue metaphor, but to exchange the situation in that Zimmerman actually had an uplifted gun, and try to run around the barn with it, seems sort of .............idiotic.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 975
RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case - 10/13/2012 8:02:42 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		lol

dont you love how when shown his own words, we are lying and making things up?



_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 976
RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case - 10/13/2012 8:15:59 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		He has been consistent in that little slice of it.

I remember that SYG was the winner, I remember that prior violence on the part of Zimmerman was not going to be relevant, and now they are hunting down tweets and facebooks and all this most assuredly irrelevant (as we have been lectured) crap that could not have any direct relevance to the case (since Zimmerman couldn't know this stuff about Martin) and both sides developing narratives and wishful scenarios Zimmerman's having the largest number of varied accounts (all of which we have been assured is irrelevant) , sort of just like I said, instead of dry and misceived interpretations of statutes, and will all be judged by a gjury of 12 men tried and true, not knowing or giving a fuck about the finer points of these legal self flaggellations, and what you are going to get down there at the courthouse is Monty Hall, who's got a coathanger, $200 lets make a deal.

EXACTLY as I have said, and EXACTLY NOT what someone else has said here.

You can sort  of tell who has experience in the Justice System in America, from that. 

It is very much a toss up and a clusterfuck.

< Message edited by mnottertail -- 10/13/2012 8:16:30 AM >

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 977
RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case - 10/13/2012 8:37:48 AM   
Raiikun


Posts: 2650
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

lol

dont you love how when shown his own words, we are lying and making things up?




I've not denied saying the words, I'm pointing out your falsehood in making up a meaning behind those words that came as a result of your invention; not mine.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 978
RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case - 10/13/2012 8:48:35 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		But your inventing meaning in law interpretation, in Zimmermans acts, in Martins acts is consistent, but not credible.


_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Raiikun)
Profile   Post #: 979
RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case - 10/13/2012 8:54:16 AM   
Raiikun


Posts: 2650
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

and now they are hunting down tweets and facebooks and all this most assuredly irrelevant (as we have been lectured) crap that could not have any direct relevance to the case (since Zimmerman couldn't know this stuff about Martin)


Zimmerman didn't need to know this stuff about Martin to be relevant.

Smith v. State:

Florida permits a defendant in a criminal case to introduce evidence of the violent reputation or character of a victim providing there is a showing of self defense on the part of the defendant. Hodge v. State, 315 So.2d 507 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). One legitimate basis for the admission of such evidence is for the purpose of showing that the victim was the first aggressor. Fine v. State, 70 Fla. 412, 70 So. 379 (1915). When a defendant offers evidence for this purpose, it is unnecessary for him to show that he had prior knowledge of the victim's propensities. Banks v. State, 351 So.2d 1071 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Pino v. Koelber, 389 So. 2d 1191, 1194 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1980)

Dwyer v. State, 743 So. 2d 46, 48 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1999)

Generally, evidence of a victim's character is inadmissible, but a defendant who alleges self-defense can show, through the testimony of another witness, that the alleged victim had a propensity for violence, thereby inferring that the alleged victim was the aggressor. Smith v. State, 606 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); see also Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 404.6 (1999 ed.); Graham, Handbook of Florida Evidence § 404.1 (1987).

A defendant's prior knowledge of the victim's reputation for violence is irrelevant, because the evidence is offered to show the conduct of the victim, rather than the defendant's state of mind. Ehrhardt. Accordingly, evidence of one of the victim's reputation for violence was not prohibited by Dwyer's lack of prior knowledge of that victim's character traits.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 980
Page:   <<   < prev  47 48 [49] 50 51   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case Page: <<   < prev  47 48 [49] 50 51   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




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

0.109