RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option

RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (Full Version)

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

Message

Hillwilliam -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/8/2013 9:36:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam I'm leglly walking through a public greenway. You decide you don't like me there. You park your car, get out and walk several hundred feet away to confront me. I start stomping a mudhole in your ass and you pull a weapon. Who is the aggressor? You are. K. I disagree. I'm in a public place and an armed person pursues me. They're the aggressor. I have a right to self defense.

Kirata -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/8/2013 9:50:41 PM)
Another person approaches you in a public place, so you plaster him and call it "self-defense"? Bullshit. Nobody attacked you. You were the attacker. K.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/8/2013 9:54:33 PM)
Not unless you can prove in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt, that you have X-ray vision superpowers that enabled you to see a half sized gun in an inside the waistband holster, under a heavy jacket. Otherwise, you may have simply been committing a hate crime of assaulting a brown skinned man for daring to look at you in an uppity manner. Hypothetically speaking, of course. quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam I'm leglly walking through a public greenway. You decide you don't like me there. You park your car, get out and walk several hundred feet away to confront me. I start stomping a mudhole in your ass and you pull a weapon. Who is the aggressor? You are. K. I disagree. I'm in a public place and an armed person pursues me. They're the aggressor. I have a right to self defense.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/8/2013 10:06:48 PM)
The assumption is that Zimmerman got those documented injuries between the time he was heard speaking clearly to the dispatcher, and the time a few minutes later when the police lit him up moments after the trigger was pulled. (Those seconds can be counted off on the neighbor's call, from the sound of the gunshot, to 'there are men out there with lights now'. Prove otherwise. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: RacerJim quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl It hasnt been proven he took "multiple head injuries" Photos prove he took multiple head injuries. No, you need to read the post I replied too.... quote: The question will boil down to...would a man pinned to the ground taking multiple head injuries reasonably fear imminent death or great bodily injury. Again, there is no proof he had multiple head injuries under that condition.... if there is, please point to it. You fellas are assuming he got the bloody nose and the head wounds while T had him "pinned" to the ground. Now, prove it.

BamaD -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/8/2013 10:14:33 PM)
Prove otherwise. Right That is the prosecutions job. And they have failed spectacularly.

TheHeretic -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/8/2013 10:56:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Another person approaches you in a public place, so you plaster him and call it "self-defense"? Bullshit. Nobody attacked you. You were the attacker. K. And what led up to that moment, K? Zimmerman wasn't just a random stranger passing by, assaulted out of the blue by some stoned little street thug. A situation was created, escalated into violence, and wound up with the person who initiated the situation killing the other. Put it on Zimmercan carrying out his volunteer duties, it's back to neighborhood watch not being supposed to carry guns. Either way, it's case that deserves a jury to look at it, and with a criminal charge appropriate to the circumstances.

tazzygirl -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/8/2013 11:02:03 PM)
quote: The assumption is that Zimmerman got those documented injuries between the time he was heard speaking clearly to the dispatcher, and the time a few minutes later when the police lit him up moments after the trigger was pulled. (Those seconds can be counted off on the neighbor's call, from the sound of the gunshot, to 'there are men out there with lights now'. Prove otherwise. Just as soon as you can prove they were all obtained while he was on the ground pinned beneath Zimmerman.. as was claimed as being factual. Because... if they were all obtained while on the ground, beneath T, pinned by T.... just how did he get Z to the ground, did he trip him?

Powergamz1 -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/8/2013 11:06:38 PM)
As has been explained to you over, and over and over again, since I've never made any such claim, I don't have to prove jack shit, when I present the verifiable facts. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: The assumption is that Zimmerman got those documented injuries between the time he was heard speaking clearly to the dispatcher, and the time a few minutes later when the police lit him up moments after the trigger was pulled. (Those seconds can be counted off on the neighbor's call, from the sound of the gunshot, to 'there are men out there with lights now'. Prove otherwise. Just as soon as you can prove they were all obtained while he was on the ground pinned beneath Zimmerman.. as was claimed as being factual.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/8/2013 11:14:22 PM)
Zimmerman wasn't on Neighborhood Watch that night, and they have neither policy, nor control of what people do legally when they aren't acting as NW patrol. Those myths have been debunked for months now, what is the point in repeating them? After the prosecution witnesses, what has come out is that the precursor to the confrontation was Zimmerman having brown skin, and looking at Martin the wrong way. I'm still waiting for any of the legal experts here to provide a single shred of current law that upholds that as a criminal act triggering the self defense standard. quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Another person approaches you in a public place, so you plaster him and call it "self-defense"? Bullshit. Nobody attacked you. You were the attacker. K. And what led up to that moment, K? Zimmerman wasn't just a random stranger passing by, assaulted out of the blue by some stoned little street thug. A situation was created, escalated into violence, and wound up with the person who initiated the situation killing the other. Put it on Zimmercan carrying out his volunteer duties, it's back to neighborhood watch not being supposed to carry guns. Either way, it's case that deserves a jury to look at it, and with a criminal charge appropriate to the circumstances.

tazzygirl -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/8/2013 11:15:03 PM)
quote: As has been explained to you over, and over and over again, since I've never made any such claim, I don't have to prove jack shit, when I present the verifiable facts. Maybe if you actually followed a thread you would realize where this all originated from. http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4491116 quote: The question will boil down to...would a man pinned to the ground taking multiple head injuries reasonably fear imminent death or great bodily injury. This requires a supposition that T had Z pinned to the ground before the three injuries to his head occurred... something no one can prove either way, except to say, if T didnt punch Z in the face, knocking him to the ground, where he obtained at least one other head injury before T straddled him, how the hell did T get him on the ground? Read carefully, its being claimed all head injuries were obtained while pinned beneath T. [;)] Dont demand proof without knowing the full story behind the discussion. [;)]

Powergamz1 -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/8/2013 11:17:35 PM)
I never posted that, someone else did, nice try though, I'm sure someone here will fall for it. It also has nothing to do with the post of yours that I honestly quoted. Now, since I have no burden of proof for something I didn't say, how about addressing what I did say about the timeline of the head injuries? The facts entered into evidence in court suggest they happened sometime between the first call to the police, and the arrival of the first officer. When do you claim they happened? . quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: As has been explained to you over, and over and over again, since I've never made any such claim, I don't have to prove jack shit, when I present the verifiable facts. Maybe if you actually followed a thread you would realize where this all originated from. http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4491116 quote: The question will boil down to...would a man pinned to the ground taking multiple head injuries reasonably fear imminent death or great bodily injury. This requires a supposition that T had Z pinned to the ground before the three injuries to his head occurred... something no one can prove either way, except to say, if T didnt punch Z in the face, knocking him to the ground, where he obtained at least one other head injury before T straddled him, how the hell did T get him on the ground? Read carefully, its being claimed all head injuries were obtained while pinned beneath T. [;)] Dont demand proof without knowing the full story behind the discussion. [;)]

tazzygirl -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/8/2013 11:24:01 PM)
Wow... you really need to read. Why butt into a conversation that you have no clue about? That was someone else who claimed that. You butted into a conversation between Raiikun, RacerJim and myself... demanding I prove something without even knowing what the hell I needed to prove. And now you wanna moan about being called out on your lack of knowledge concerning the discussion? Just incredible.

tazzygirl -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/8/2013 11:27:17 PM)
quote: Now, since I have no burden of proof for something I didn't say, how about addressing what I did say about the timeline of the head injuries? The facts entered into evidence in court suggest they happened sometime between the first call to the police, and the arrival of the first officer. When do you claim they happened? Pst... I didnt claim when they happened.. I made no mention when they happened.. I called someone out on the stupidity of their post. All caught up yet?

BamaD -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/8/2013 11:27:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: The assumption is that Zimmerman got those documented injuries between the time he was heard speaking clearly to the dispatcher, and the time a few minutes later when the police lit him up moments after the trigger was pulled. (Those seconds can be counted off on the neighbor's call, from the sound of the gunshot, to 'there are men out there with lights now'. Prove otherwise. Just as soon as you can prove they were all obtained while he was on the ground pinned beneath Zimmerman.. as was claimed as being factual. Because... if they were all obtained while on the ground, beneath T, pinned by T.... just how did he get Z to the ground, did he trip him? Wrong it is the prosecutions job to prove it didn't. Remember it is innocent until proven guilty not guilty until proven innocent.

tazzygirl -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/8/2013 11:28:52 PM)
Wow... If someone claims something as fact, then provide the facts. Dont tell me the case hinges on a set of facts that are NOT in evidence.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/8/2013 11:29:38 PM)
A conversation? ROTFLMAO!!! Just answer the question. When did the head injuries occur? quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Wow... you really need to read. Why butt into a conversation that you have no clue about? That was someone else who claimed that. You butted into a conversation between Raiikun, RacerJim and myself... demanding I prove something without even knowing what the hell I needed to prove. And now you wanna moan about being called out on your lack of knowledge concerning the discussion? Just incredible.

tazzygirl -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/8/2013 11:30:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 A conversation? ROTFLMAO!!! Just answer the question. When did the head injuries occur? quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Wow... you really need to read. Why butt into a conversation that you have no clue about? That was someone else who claimed that. You butted into a conversation between Raiikun, RacerJim and myself... demanding I prove something without even knowing what the hell I needed to prove. And now you wanna moan about being called out on your lack of knowledge concerning the discussion? Just incredible. Why? Was that what I asked? I dont think so. I have my belief, which is why I dont state my belief, because its my belief. I dont claim bullshit theories as facts.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/8/2013 11:33:22 PM)
Read the trial transcript, review the video... everything I described is verifiably taken straight from the admitted evidence. We can all hear Zimmerman on the tape, we can all hear the neighbor and the gunshot on the tape, and we can all read the official time line. Now answer the simple question, when do you claim the head injuries occurred? quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Wow... If someone claims something as fact, then provide the facts. Dont tell me the case hinges on a set of facts that are NOT in evidence.

BamaD -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/8/2013 11:34:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 Zimmerman wasn't on Neighborhood Watch that night, and they have neither policy, nor control of what people do legally when they aren't acting as NW patrol. Those myths have been debunked for months now, what is the point in repeating them? After the prosecution witnesses, what has come out is that the precursor to the confrontation was Zimmerman having brown skin, and looking at Martin the wrong way. I'm still waiting for any of the legal experts here to provide a single shred of current law that upholds that as a criminal act triggering the self defense standard. quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Another person approaches you in a public place, so you plaster him and call it "self-defense"? Bullshit. Nobody attacked you. You were the attacker. K. And what led up to that moment, K? Zimmerman wasn't just a random stranger passing by, assaulted out of the blue by some stoned little street thug. A situation was created, escalated into violence, and wound up with the person who initiated the situation killing the other. Put it on Zimmercan carrying out his volunteer duties, it's back to neighborhood watch not being supposed to carry guns. Either way, it's case that deserves a jury to look at it, and with a criminal charge appropriate to the circumstances. The only argument for self defense by Martin is that he MISTAKENLY took Zimmerman reaching for a cell phone as reaching for a weapon. While this could be a sound argument IF MARTIN WERE ON TRIAL it does not negate Zimmerman's right to defend himself since he was not going for a weapon. The prosecution has not presented one shred of evidence to the contrary. In fact they avoided that can of worms all together knowing it killed any chance of conviction.

BamaD -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/8/2013 11:35:59 PM)
I disagree. I'm in a public place and an armed person pursues me. They're the aggressor. I have a right to self defense. Martin had no way of knowing Zimmerman was armed till he got shot.

Page: << < prev 12 13 [14] 15 16 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625