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 (7/9/2013 7:50:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

You made the claim that the police officer committed perjury when she testified that it only applies on patrol, now back your bizzare assertions up with some proof. Prove that the NW prohibits residents from having legally owned guns at all times.




Show where I made that claim.
the only claim I have made is that the standards of practice for neighborhood watch say you should "observe and report" and not get out of your vehicle.

Reading comprehension isn't much of a strong point is it?

Cops don't like vigilantes. Are you going to say yes or no to that?



Hillwilliam -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/9/2013 7:56:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

The laws of physics say that it was invisible. Trayvon Martin said the N word.

Lot of denial there... why?



Here is the statement to which we are referring.

"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. "

Show where Martin is mentioned.
Show how the laws of physics make a weapon invisible,
Show where the N word is mentioned.

Anyone with third grade reading comprehension can spot that strawman miles away.



thompsonx -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/9/2013 8:03:38 AM)

quote:

Ahhhh, so anytime anyone walks close to you, you assault them?


There is a legal definition of the word assault.
There is a legal definition for battery.
I will assault anyone who invades my personal space and and I will batter those who fail to head my assault, this is legal. That is not the same as assaulting someone who walks close to me.



Raiikun -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/9/2013 8:17:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

A look at a map shows it is quite possible that Trayvon (black arrow) was simply trying to get away from Zimmerman (yellow arrow) and get home (green box). Have all the witnesses been accurate and honest in their testimonies? Well, like I said, I don't know anyone involved... so I am unable to form a judgment on the matter.



What I do know is this: George Zimmerman saw a young black man walking down the street and apparently assumed that such an individual simply must be up to no good... and thereby set in motion the events that led to Trayvon's death.

[image]local://upfiles/314707/867BDD0C6FD242A4A91A397A68E91D61.jpg[/image]


That map is inaccurate. George did not get out of the vehicle there, the yellow path is wrong, and the fight started where the sidewalk forms the T intersection.


You keep saying that but you show no evidence that what you say isn't made up bullshit.



The location of George's truck is in evidence. The conversation with Noffke on leaving the truck is in evidence. Where Layer and Surdyka heard the confrontation begin is in evidence.



Raiikun -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/9/2013 8:18:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

The laws of physics say that it was invisible. Trayvon Martin said the N word.

Lot of denial there... why?



Here is the statement to which we are referring.

"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. "

Show where Martin is mentioned.
Show how the laws of physics make a weapon invisible,
Show where the N word is mentioned.

Anyone with third grade reading comprehension can spot that strawman miles away.



Your fabricated scenario does not apply to this case.



Hillwilliam -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/9/2013 8:19:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun


The location of George's truck is in evidence. The conversation with Noffke on leaving the truck is in evidence. Where Layer and Surdyka heard the confrontation begin is in evidence.


Then show it for Pete's sakes.



Hillwilliam -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/9/2013 8:20:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

The laws of physics say that it was invisible. Trayvon Martin said the N word.

Lot of denial there... why?



Here is the statement to which we are referring.

"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. "

Show where Martin is mentioned.
Show how the laws of physics make a weapon invisible,
Show where the N word is mentioned.

Anyone with third grade reading comprehension can spot that strawman miles away.



Your fabricated scenario does not apply to this case.

According to Powergamz, it does because he added all sorts of parts of the actual case to it.



Raiikun -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/9/2013 8:25:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun


The location of George's truck is in evidence. The conversation with Noffke on leaving the truck is in evidence. Where Layer and Surdyka heard the confrontation begin is in evidence.


Then show it for Pete's sakes.



Or maybe actually watch the trial. Jenna Lauer's testimony is easily found now, or her statements as w11 for instance.



Powergamz1 -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/9/2013 8:28:17 AM)

That's simply moving the goal posts, this thread is about the legal facts in evidence during the trial of George Zimmerman for the death of Trayvon Martin, and you made that statement in direct reference to the circumstances of that case.

You literally put yourself in Martin's shoes and claimed that you too would have attacked.

Pointing out that your doing so would be a criminal act isn't straw, it is calling BS.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

The laws of physics say that it was invisible. Trayvon Martin said the N word.

Lot of denial there... why?



Here is the statement to which we are referring.

"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. "

Show where Martin is mentioned.
Show how the laws of physics make a weapon invisible,
Show where the N word is mentioned.

Anyone with third grade reading comprehension can spot that strawman miles away.





Powergamz1 -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/9/2013 8:30:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

According to Powergamz, it does because he added all sorts of parts of the actual case to it.



That's babbling irrational nonsense. I've added nothing to any map.

Do you have any proof of all the wild assertions you've made?



Kana -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/9/2013 9:48:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

Ahhhh, so anytime anyone walks close to you, you assault them?


There is a legal definition of the word assault.
There is a legal definition for battery.
I will assault anyone who invades my personal space and and I will batter those who fail to head my assault, this is legal. That is not the same as assaulting someone who walks close to me.

And you would have committed multiple crimes in doing so.
You can't assault people for walking close. You can't assault them for being in the vicinity. and you most certainly can't physically attack them unless you have some reason to believe that harm is imminent.




farglebargle -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/9/2013 9:51:30 AM)

quote:

You most certainly can't physically attack them unless you have some reason to believe that harm is imminent.


If Zimmerman wasn't acting out of 'ill-will', why didn't he ever try to identify himself?




Hillwilliam -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/9/2013 9:52:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

According to Powergamz, it does because he added all sorts of parts of the actual case to it.



That's babbling irrational nonsense. I've added nothing to any map.

Do you have any proof of all the wild assertions you've made?

For fucks sakes, we weren't talking about the map. Can you read?

As for the "Wild assertions" I've supposedly made, I didn't make those ASSERTIONS. You fucking dreamed them up.
PLEASE tell me you're being deliberately obtuse because I don't think anyone can be that utterly lacking in the ability to read the English language.



Hillwilliam -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/9/2013 9:53:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

You most certainly can't physically attack them unless you have some reason to believe that harm is imminent.


If Zimmerman wasn't acting out of 'ill-will', why didn't he ever try to identify himself?



Who says he didn't?



Kana -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/9/2013 9:58:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

You most certainly can't physically attack them unless you have some reason to believe that harm is imminent.


If Zimmerman wasn't acting out of 'ill-will', why didn't he ever try to identify himself?



Maybe, just maybe, he didn't instigate the attack.

Doood, you should see the forensic pathologist the defense has on the stand, he's just smoking the prosecution right now. Even CNN is falling over themselves drooling over how good he was.

Personally, I don't care which side wins the case. What I hate to see is a whole bunch of ill informed idiots, usually with ulterior external motives, axes to grins, old feuds and political viewpoints, form lynch mobs of judgement based on insufficient evidence and little to no proof. You know, kinda the exact opposite of the blind judgement ideals that arfe supposed to occur in a court.



vincentML -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/9/2013 10:00:34 AM)

quote:

What I hate to see is a whole bunch of ill informed idiots, usually with ulterior external motives, axes to grins, old feuds and political viewpoints, form lynch mobs of judgement based on insufficient evidence and little to no proof.

Well shite! You might just as well close down this Forum. [:D]



Kana -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/9/2013 10:03:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

What I hate to see is a whole bunch of ill informed idiots, usually with ulterior external motives, axes to grins, old feuds and political viewpoints, form lynch mobs of judgement based on insufficient evidence and little to no proof.

Well shite! You might just as well close down this Forum. [:D]

Forum, Hell, try the internet!



RacerJim -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/9/2013 10:14:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle


quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle


quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

Particularly since burden of proof is on the State.

Witness testimony to George's multiple head injuries are in evidence. Witness testimony of George screaming for help while Trayvon was on top of him raining down blows is in evidence. If the state wants to argue otherwise, the burden is theirs.


Witness George Zimmerman CHANGING HIS TESTIMONY about whether or not the screams are his. BEFORE reviewing the 911 tapes with the cops.... ZIMMERMAN CLAIMS that Martin had his mouth covered and COULD NOT SCREAM. But after hearing the tape, where Martin stops screaming IMMEDIATELY after Zimmerman shoots him Zimmerman's story changes.




This is such a misrepresentation of the evidence as to be an outright work of fiction.



Please provide evidence which disproves Zimmerman changing his testimony -- exactly as I've stated. Osterman's book confirms. Initial report is that Martin prevented Zimmerman from screaming. Changes after review of 911 tape with police.

Please provide evidence which proves Zimmerman's initial report said that Martin preventing him from screaming during the entire physical altercation - which is what you are implying.



Powergamz1 -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/9/2013 12:07:05 PM)

Just as a note, that quoted distinction between 'assault' (an offer to commit a harmful or offensive touching), and 'battery' (completing the offer), went out in the last century.

Assault is the overarching term in use today. And what is being discussed relevant to Martin's purported actions is deliberately attacking another person when they walk up within a certain distance of you. Grabbing, punching, tackling, whatever, it's assault.

Absent other factors, it would be a crime. Doing it hard enough to leave blood, marks, and so forth could be a more severe crime.

And none of the things brought into evidence so far, would remove it from the category of a crime.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kana


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

Ahhhh, so anytime anyone walks close to you, you assault them?


There is a legal definition of the word assault.
There is a legal definition for battery.
I will assault anyone who invades my personal space and and I will batter those who fail to head my assault, this is legal. That is not the same as assaulting someone who walks close to me.

And you would have committed multiple crimes in doing so.
You can't assault people for walking close. You can't assault them for being in the vicinity. and you most certainly can't physically attack them unless you have some reason to believe that harm is imminent.






Powergamz1 -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/9/2013 12:08:28 PM)

Lynch mobs it is.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kana

<SNIP> Personally, I don't care which side wins the case. What I hate to see is a whole bunch of ill informed idiots, usually with ulterior external motives, axes to grins, old feuds and political viewpoints, form lynch mobs of judgement based on insufficient evidence and little to no proof. You know, kinda the exact opposite of the blind judgement ideals that arfe supposed to occur in a court.




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

Valid CSS!




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