RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case

RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (Full Version)

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

Message

BamaD -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (10/14/2012 8:45:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl And in the law, any available presumption is rebuttable. That means that even though one may be entitled to the benefit of a presumption as to a certain fact, the other side may try to prove that fact is not actually true. So, for example, even if you might have been entitled to a presumption that you were reasonably in fear for your life, the prosecutor could put on evidence and try to show that under the particular circumstances, a reasonable person could not have been reasonably in fear for his life. [8\|] True of course, you can rebutt the concept that the sun will come up tommorrow ar conversly that it will not. In either case you must prove the concept is untrue, merely not liking it is inseficient.

BamaD -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (10/14/2012 8:46:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle The 'reasonable doubt' is that the injury was in any way actually threatening, and that George ( once again that evening ) overreacted, but instead of just acting like a total douchebag this time, his overreaction ended up killing an innocent kid. That's the key here. GEORGES PERCEPTIONS AREN'T REASONABLE. What is the root cause of George's unreasonable beliefs? Who cares? It's GEORGE'S RESPONSIBILITY to ensure the medicine he's taking doesn't make him dangerous to the public or whatever. Maybe George isn't guilty due to insanity? FWIW, if I was O'Mara, ( given George's lack of candor with him ) I'd wonder if that's not a better strategy. Lie on your back let someone start beating on you while you are drowning in your own blood then tell us what is reasonable.

Rule -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (10/14/2012 8:54:58 PM)
But Farglebargle is always reasonable. [:-]

BamaD -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (10/14/2012 11:31:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule But Farglebargle is always reasonable. [:-] My sarcasim detector works.

tazzygirl -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (10/15/2012 1:32:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle The 'reasonable doubt' is that the injury was in any way actually threatening, and that George ( once again that evening ) overreacted, but instead of just acting like a total douchebag this time, his overreaction ended up killing an innocent kid. That's the key here. GEORGES PERCEPTIONS AREN'T REASONABLE. What is the root cause of George's unreasonable beliefs? Who cares? It's GEORGE'S RESPONSIBILITY to ensure the medicine he's taking doesn't make him dangerous to the public or whatever. Maybe George isn't guilty due to insanity? FWIW, if I was O'Mara, ( given George's lack of candor with him ) I'd wonder if that's not a better strategy. Lie on your back let someone start beating on you while you are drowning in your own blood then tell us what is reasonable. Stretching that a bit far arent you? Drowning in your own blood?

farglebargle -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (10/15/2012 2:49:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle The 'reasonable doubt' is that the injury was in any way actually threatening, and that George ( once again that evening ) overreacted, but instead of just acting like a total douchebag this time, his overreaction ended up killing an innocent kid. That's the key here. GEORGES PERCEPTIONS AREN'T REASONABLE. What is the root cause of George's unreasonable beliefs? Who cares? It's GEORGE'S RESPONSIBILITY to ensure the medicine he's taking doesn't make him dangerous to the public or whatever. Maybe George isn't guilty due to insanity? FWIW, if I was O'Mara, ( given George's lack of candor with him ) I'd wonder if that's not a better strategy. Lie on your back let someone start beating on you while you are drowning in your own blood then tell us what is reasonable. The only person who says that happened is George Zimmerman -- and he has no credibility. There may be some facts which support his story, but again, since he's so out of touch with reality that night he say that Trayvon Martin circled his car and frightened him, and then he GETS OUT OF THE CAR. Reasonable? No.

Rule -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (10/15/2012 5:26:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Rule But Farglebargle is always reasonable. [:-] My sarcasim detector works. Hm. You are right. My choice of concept was plain wrong and I was making the same mistake as Farglebargle. He is logical and not reasonable. To use logic can be a part of reasoning, but it does not equate to reasoning. The heart and facts of the case are very simple: Zimmerman was a concerned citizen who wanted to protect people from crime. His injuries showed him to be the victim of an aggressive attack by Martin. The latter ended up dead.

Raiikun -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (10/15/2012 5:31:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle The only person who says that happened is George Zimmerman -- and he has no credibility. There may be some facts which support his story, but again, since he's so out of touch with reality that night he say that Trayvon Martin circled his car and frightened him, and then he GETS OUT OF THE CAR. Reasonable? No. You left out the part where Trayvon was running away and George was asked where he was running before he got out of the car. It's not unreasonable to think that George had no expectation of running face to face with him since he was running away, and even if it was unreasonable, there's nothing illegal about his decision to get out of the car. If George had a reasonable belief that force was needed to prevent imminent severe bodily injury, then that force was justified; no matter how reasonable it was to get out of the car earlier.

Raiikun -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (10/15/2012 5:34:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle The 'reasonable doubt' is that the injury was in any way actually threatening You have "reasonable doubt" backwards again, and his injury did not have to be threatening. It's been pointed out repeatedly that Florida law does not require you to be injured IN ANY WAY to use deadly force if you reasonably believe it's needed to prevent severe bodily injury.

Raiikun -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (10/15/2012 5:40:14 AM)
And on an interesting note, the Defense has filed a motion to Compel discovery that the State has not been forthcoming on giving to the Defense yet. This includes the original photos that W13 took, and an interview with Deedee (the copy of that interview the State had given previously was so distorted as to be impossible to hear most of it. Diwataman did an analysis of it that looks like it was intentionally done and makes one wonder what is in it the State doesn't want known.)

tazzygirl -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (10/15/2012 5:55:58 AM)
~FR Ah... no wonder why O'Mata bypassed the SYG hearing... Rules for a 'stand your ground' hearing A defendant has the burden of proof and must show that: •He was in a place where he was lawfully entitled to be. •He was not violating the law. •He was attacked. •He had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.

farglebargle -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (10/15/2012 7:03:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle The only person who says that happened is George Zimmerman -- and he has no credibility. There may be some facts which support his story, but again, since he's so out of touch with reality that night he say that Trayvon Martin circled his car and frightened him, and then he GETS OUT OF THE CAR. Reasonable? No. You left out the part where Trayvon was running away and George was asked where he was running before he got out of the car. It's not unreasonable to think that George had no expectation of running face to face with him since he was running away, and even if it was unreasonable, there's nothing illegal about his decision to get out of the car. Illegal? that's a red-herring to this discussion. There's nothing ILLEGAL about getting out of your car and following after someone whom you had already expressed fear in. True. But there's nothing REASONABLE about getting out of your car and following after someone whom you had already expressed fear in. Which supports our hypothesis that Zimmerman's judgement was so compromised that his decision to shoot wasn't founded in reality EITHER. And then, there's the little fact that since George Zimmerman is part of that Neighborhood Watch thing, he's been EXPLICITLY TRAINED TO NEVER PURSUE ANYONE. Watch and Report. That's his training. So there's nothing REASONABLE about violating your explicit training, is there? Which supports our hypothesis that Zimmerman's judgement was so compromised that his decision to shoot wasn't founded in reality EITHER. quote: If George had a reasonable belief that force was needed to prevent imminent severe bodily injury, then that force was justified; no matter how reasonable it was to get out of the car earlier. Look at all the evidence showing Zimmerman's beliefs to be unreasonable.

Raiikun -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (10/15/2012 7:42:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle But there's nothing REASONABLE about getting out of your car and following after someone whom you had already expressed fear in. Which supports our hypothesis that Zimmerman's judgement was so compromised that his decision to shoot wasn't founded in reality EITHER. Non-sequiter. No, it does not support your hypothesis; you're just desperately reaching to try and prove the unproveable given the existing evidence.

Raiikun -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (10/15/2012 7:43:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl ~FR Ah... no wonder why O'Mata bypassed the SYG hearing... No, the hearing is still planned.

Raiikun -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (10/15/2012 7:59:27 AM)
"The state is simply not turning over what it should, West complained. For example, it's given defense attorneys grainy photocopies of crime scene photos instead of digital copies. Prosecutors also have failed to turn over witness sketches, have handed over recordings that are unplayable and have failed to hand over certain witness interviews, West alleged. "The state's approach to discovery has been to require the defense to figure out what the state has failed to provide and then ask for it rather than fulfill the state's legal obligation to provide complete and timely discovery," West wrote." http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-zimmerman-discovery-complaints-20121015,0,4408070.story

Raiikun -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (10/15/2012 8:14:31 AM)
"The defense was unwilling to schedule depositions of those witnesses until the defense had obtained all their statements, including the drawings they had previously made. The drawings were finally included in the 7th discovery exhibit filed on August 24, 2012 which included a drawing prepared by Witness Six that clearly shows that he saw Trayvon Martin on top of George Zimmerman on the concrete sidewalk right where George Zimmerman said he was when Trayvon Martin bashed his head into the concrete. This is powerful exculpatory evidence that was withheld from the defense (and from the Court) that the state had for five months before it was provided to the defense-- and then only after repeated requests." Excert from Defense's motion

Nosathro -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (10/15/2012 11:27:45 AM)
Well this drawing should be interesting...Witness 6 never said he say Martin bashing Zimmerman head on the concrete, said they were "wrestlng" http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/people/witnesses/witness-6-files-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-case/

Nosathro -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (10/15/2012 11:35:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Rule But Farglebargle is always reasonable. [:-] My sarcasim detector works. Hm. You are right. My choice of concept was plain wrong and I was making the same mistake as Farglebargle. He is logical and not reasonable. To use logic can be a part of reasoning, but it does not equate to reasoning. The heart and facts of the case are very simple: Zimmerman was a concerned citizen who wanted to protect people from crime. His injuries showed him to be the victim of an aggressive attack by Martin. The latter ended up dead. One more time, Zimmerman injuries were minor, no broken nose, Doctor said it was "Likely", sepa was intake not broken, no stiches required, wounds were already healing the day after, Zimmerman is oriinted x4 normal, and he claims his head was bashed on the sidewalk? No witness say Martin punch Zimmerman or that Martin started the fight. There is the talk of witness 6 and a drawing but that remains to be proven, also witness 6 has changed his story.

Raiikun -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (10/15/2012 11:44:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro One more time, Zimmerman injuries were minor, no broken nose, Doctor said it was "Likely", Just had to point out the sheer absurdity in this statement. Likely: believable or feasible; plausible; expected Possessing or displaying the qualities or characteristics that make something probable So to take that word and then claim "No broken nose" is beyond ridiculous. That said, yet again, Florida law does not require you to take any injury at all before acting in self defense. quote: No witness say Martin punch Zimmerman W6 did in fact say that it looked like Martin was punching Zimmerman. He never backed off of that; even when he said he wasn't sure he said it was still "bam, bam, bam" what it looked like.

Nosathro -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (10/15/2012 12:18:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro One more time, Zimmerman injuries were minor, no broken nose, Doctor said it was "Likely", Just had to point out the sheer absurdity in this statement. Likely: believable or feasible; plausible; expected Possessing or displaying the qualities or characteristics that make something probable The doctor then would have stated "Nose broken" you defenition does not include any words like "was" or "is" just that it was broken just "probable" with no degree of certainty. so my statement is not ridiculous and it is documents so it is fact. By the way this is from the medical report that O'Mara introduced. So to take that word and then claim "No broken nose" is beyond ridiculous. That said, yet again, Florida law does not require you to take any injury at all before acting in self defense. You keep leaving the word "reasonable" out...[;)]. also if Zimmerman wanted to be a cop, what a whoose....he can't do anything about what he claims happen with Martin...he going to get alot more beating than that and some of those WILL put him in the hospital.[8\|] quote: No witness say Martin punch Zimmerman W6 did in fact say that it looked like Martin was punching Zimmerman. He never backed off of that; even when he said he wasn't sure he said it was still "bam, bam, bam" what it looked like. Wrong witness six stated at first Martin was "throwing punches mixed martial art style" he then changed it to Marin just "pinning" Zimmerman. Witness six also changed from he thought Zimmerman was calling for help to he did not know who was calling for help. And you again you use words like "looked like" making it possible but not certain..now your claim is beyond ridiculous, way beyond it....[:)]

Page: << < prev 52 53 [54] 55 56 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.109375