RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (Full Version)

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



Message

Raiikun -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (7/1/2013 10:11:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail


quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

The judges outright made a point to say that his knees buckled and he wobbled, and so didn't have an avenue of retreat before the next attack.



There is a vast difference in obiter dicta and ratio decidendi. You should learn it.

It was pointed out at the outset that he did not have any need to retreat, let alone exhaustively.

It is meaningless in this case at present. It indicates nothing.




Except that an appellate court judge wrote that buckled knees was sufficient to have no avenue of reasonable retreat.

Which is all I originally asserted. Everything else is desperate deflection.



RacerJim -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (7/1/2013 10:12:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
Now before we go on and on... show me a law where it says you cannot follow someone... then show me another law where you can't ask someone what are you doing here... then show me another law that says you have to run before you can defend yourself if attacked.

In the sane parts of the country, where the NRA isn't allowed to write laws, there is always a duty to retreat except when attacked in your own home.

In the insane parts of the country, where the liberals are allowed enact unconstitutional laws, there is a significantly higher possibility of being attacked in your own home.



truckinslave -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (7/1/2013 10:14:26 AM)

Keeping it LIVE

The CNN babe on from 11 AM to 1 PM today- Ashleigh Banfield?- just said that if you watched the trial last week and this morning you probably thought you were watching the defense.
She raised the possibility that this was some rope-a-dope strategy from the prosecution; that, having made the case for the defense they were now going to tear it apart by going after the timeline, but it sounded like wishful thinking and/or a desperate attempt to keep viewers.



mnottertail -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (7/1/2013 10:15:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail


quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

The judges outright made a point to say that his knees buckled and he wobbled, and so didn't have an avenue of retreat before the next attack.



There is a vast difference in obiter dicta and ratio decidendi. You should learn it.

It was pointed out at the outset that he did not have any need to retreat, let alone exhaustively.

It is meaningless in this case at present. It indicates nothing.




Except that an appellate court judge wrote that buckled knees was sufficient to have no avenue of reasonable retreat.

Which is all I originally asserted. Everything else is desperate deflection.



except that it was obiter dicta, and it means nothing. The entire posting of the case is desperate asswipe. We have first of all, proof in those cases, and there is no proof of buckling of knees in the Zimmerman case.

Research the ones where there was an aggravated stalking that held (they are there as well in that case)



farglebargle -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (7/1/2013 10:23:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

Too bad for Zimmerman he had a neurological evaluation immediately following the killing, proving that there were no worries about any damage.


Zimmerman had a neurological evaluation immediately following the assault, proving to his vast relief he had taken action before any permanent damage had occurred.

Fixed it for you.


2.0cm and 0.5 cm scratches -- not even requiring a band-aid, does not GBH make. It's not what Zimmerman ( who was on drugs ) thought, but what the ladies on the jury would have thought while Zimmerman was chasing them.



RacerJim -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (7/1/2013 10:26:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Totally aside, but thanks, BitYakin, for the modification in your posts. They're much easier on the eye.

We now return to the regularly scheduled soap opera

Anybody think we'll get a federal civil rights prosecution, if the Florida jury comes back, "not guilty?"

Yup.



RacerJim -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (7/1/2013 10:29:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

Keeping it LIVE

The CNN babe on from 11 AM to 1 PM today- Ashleigh Banfield?- just said that if you watched the trial last week and this morning you probably thought you were watching the defense.
She raised the possibility that this was some rope-a-dope strategy from the prosecution; that, having made the case for the defense they were now going to tear it apart by going after the timeline, but it sounded like wishful thinking and/or a desperate attempt to keep viewers.

It's almost as though the prosecution is intentionally losing its own case in order to incite racist riots.



DaddySatyr -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (7/1/2013 10:30:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Anybody think we'll get a federal civil rights prosecution, if the Florida jury comes back, "not guilty?"



Yup.



Absolutely. While trying to deprive Zimmerman of his civil right to life, Martin was prevented from his civil right to violence (which some might call self-expression) and racism which ... ummm ... well, it is his right as long as he's hating on "creepy-ass, white, kill-my-neighbor, crackers".



Peace and comfort,



Michael



farglebargle -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (7/1/2013 10:34:46 AM)

I love the way that there's this 'blame the victim' thing going on.

FOR THE RECORD, and to shut the nitwits up. TRAYVON MARTIN HAS NEVER BEEN ACCUSED OF ANY CRIME.

Period.

The historical context of young black men being abducted, tortured and murdered need to be considered. This isn't just two people having an argument. This is one person put in fear of his life BEFORE the confrontation even started. Zimmerman's pursuit **was** the provocation. How was Martin to know that Zimmerman wasn't in the Aryan Brotherhood, or Latin Kings? ZIMMERMAN NEVER IDENTIFIED HIMSELF. Even cops wear uniforms.



truckinslave -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (7/1/2013 10:39:14 AM)

quote:

aggravated stalking


ROFLMAO

Definition of stalking, under Fl law:

willful, malicious, and repeated following or harassing of another person.

Aggravated stalking:
1. willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of the person, or the person's child, sibling, spouse, parent, or dependent; or
2 .commits the offense of stalking after an injunction for protection against repeat violence, sexual violence, or dating violence, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence has been issued, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person or that person's property; or
3. willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks a minor under 16 years of age; or
4. commits the offense stalking after having been sentenced for sexual battery, or
5. commits the offense of stalking after having been sentenced for lewd or lascivious offenses committed upon or in the presence of persons less than 16 years of age; or
6. commits the offense of stalking after having been sentenced for certain computer pornography offenses when the accused was prohibited from contacting the victim of that earlier offense.

As stupidly over zealous as the prosecution has been they have not been sufficiently stupid as to mention stalking, far less aggravated stalking.




Wendel27 -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (7/1/2013 10:40:38 AM)

 The argument that because Mr. Zimmerman walked after Mr. Martin and asked him who he was and what he was doing this constitutes provocation is pretty far fetched. I don't know if Mr. Zimmerman is guilty but if he is it's not because of that.



Hillwilliam -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (7/1/2013 10:41:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

I was told that if you suspect you are going to have a problem, get the damn gun out.


I don't know who the fuck taught your class- or, more importantly, where; but in WV you just committed the crime of brandishing.

I thought we agreed that every state is different
As for brandishing, pre stand your ground, on your own property? Every state has their own definition.

What are you going to do when you suspect someone is in your house? Carry it in a holster?

It's a judged by 12 (or 6)/carried by 6 decision.



mnottertail -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (7/1/2013 10:41:22 AM)

Aggravated stalking:
1. willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of the person, or the person's child, sibling, spouse, parent, or dependent; or


Exactly as it happened.



truckinslave -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (7/1/2013 10:43:10 AM)

quote:

2.0cm and 0.5 cm scratches -- not even requiring a band-aid, does not GBH make. It's not what Zimmerman ( who was on drugs ) thought, but what the ladies on the jury would have thought while Zimmerman was chasing them.


Well, that's half right, which is far better than average.

Zimmerman in fact stopped the dangerous assault upon his body before GBH occurred.
But it's what the ladies on the jury would have thought had they been assaulted by Martin, been put in a "ground and pound" and seen him try to take their weapon. And they would have killed him too.



Raiikun -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (7/1/2013 10:53:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Aggravated stalking:
1. willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of the person, or the person's child, sibling, spouse, parent, or dependent; or


Exactly as it happened.


Only one instance, and no malice yet in evidence.

Nor has the state alleged stalking.



mnottertail -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (7/1/2013 11:00:36 AM)

Read the specifications in the statute, in the charge, they arent charging him with aggravated stalking, they are charging him with murder in the second, one of the specs saying...............cmon, you can cogitate at a rather low level.



farglebargle -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (7/1/2013 11:00:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Wendel27

 The argument that because Mr. Zimmerman walked after Mr. Martin and asked him who he was and what he was doing this constitutes provocation is pretty far fetched. I don't know if Mr. Zimmerman is guilty but if he is it's not because of that.


Who told you that Zimmerman identified himself and asked Martin anything?



Wendel27 -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (7/1/2013 11:05:09 AM)

 ''Who told you that Zimmerman identified himself and asked Martin anything?'' Just read it in the myriad reports. I don't know if it's accurate or not like so much in this case. If it's not then it becomes Zimmerman walked after person. Again scarcely grounds to run at and deck him. Though again I must say I don't know if that's what happened. I'm seeing alot of people though saying that if it is how events played out Zimmerman was somehow culpable. In my opion that's more than a mild stretch.



mnottertail -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (7/1/2013 11:06:56 AM)

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.04.html

Murder in the second degree, how many letters in the sub can they hang on him? How many do they need to hang on him for a successful prosecution?



Wendel27 -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (7/1/2013 11:12:41 AM)

 Unless stalking [affravated or otherwise] is very different to our definition of it I wouldn't think Zimmerman was culpable. The only one I can see is murder of a human being. But if it in self defence then it becomes a justifiable homicide. I don't know if what Zimmerman is saying is true. He may have got his gun out told Martin he was about to die and Martin had no choice but a desperate attempt to disarm him...I just have no idea. But it seems to me the argument that he followed Martin and that makes him culpable or an attack on hum justified simply isn't  right Mnottertail.



Page: <<   < prev  42 43 [44] 45 46   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




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