RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN

RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN (Full Version)

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

Message

Politesub53 -> RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN (7/20/2013 12:54:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Yep playing by your standards Hardly. If I persistently make a claim, then I make damned sure I can back it up.

Politesub53 -> RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN (7/20/2013 12:56:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 The claim was that : " martin's girlfriend said ". The denial of that claim, has been proven to be incorrect. Yet you cant point out where. You are either trolling or lacking comprehension skills. Probably both.

BamaD -> RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN (7/20/2013 12:57:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Yep playing by your standards Hardly. If I persistently make a claim, then I make damned sure I can back it up. Your claims are backed up by bias and bs

BamaD -> RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN (7/20/2013 12:59:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Yep playing by your standards Hardly. If I persistently make a claim, then I make damned sure I can back it up. Even when you have some facts to back you up you consistently misevaluate it.

dcnovice -> RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN (7/20/2013 1:23:32 PM)
quote: Have anything constructive to add? To what end? If you truly believe a woman's wearing a short skirt is equivalent to Zimmerman's trailing someone he deemed sufficiently troublesome to warrant a 911 call, I doubt there's anything one could say to sway you.

Raiikun -> RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN (7/20/2013 1:38:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 Actually, the analogy still holds. Zimmerman told the police that he thought Martin was "on drugs or something", and that he was "up to no good". At the time Zimmerman was in the safety of his vehicle. But he willingly chose to exit his vehicle and chase (follow if you will) this person that he though was on drugs and up to no good. So, like the groundskeeper, he willfully left the "safe" area of his vehicle to pursue someone that he claimed was on drugs and up to no good. And had he not attempted to physically detain Martin he most likely would not have gotten his nosed punched. Nope, the analogy is still bollocks. You're trying to equate getting out of a vehicle in a public area, with going into a lion's cage. The latter is obviously dangerous, where the former isn't. There's absolutely no evidence that George ever intended, planned, or even expected to run face to face with someone who was running away. And any "attempt to physically detain Trayvon" is an absolute fabrication not based on any existing evidence at all.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN (7/20/2013 2:12:49 PM)
I will say this has me confused as well. I don't have the time many have to read everything about the case, but SYG was not used so why is that trial a factor in people determining SYG is a good or bad thing? I have seen the results of many self defense trials where the person was aquitted, and everyone "thought" they should have been guilty but the fact was there was no evidence to persuade a jury. So it seems like another case that what people believe and what can be proved is two different things. I am also not sure why following TM is a factor, since it is not a crime, though I consider stupid to do. The 911 operator did not tell him to not follow, they told him they didn't need him to do that. Other than Z seems to be a piece of shit racist, looking at just what was presented in court, I do not see how the jury came to the wrong conclusion. I may feel Z likely did something that would not be considered self defense, my objective side tells me that it cannot be proved. Also, why are some considering Z's account false when there is no evidence presented that disputes it clearly or causes reasonable doubt? I admit I am confused by all the attention this has gotten, other than it being painted that a racist got off because the system of law failed. quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata ~ FR ~ In a surprise move leading up to the murder trial of George Zimmerman, defense lawyers have waived his right to a “stand your ground” hearing. ~Time The shooting demonstrates the need to re-examine stand-your-ground laws nationwide. ~Eric Holder But I don't want to go among crazy people. ~Alice K.

thompsonx -> RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN (7/20/2013 2:15:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave Are you just fucking retarded? I seem to be smart enough to pointout where you are wrong. quote: Perhaps you should read a history book dumbass. The Amistad case was in 1839. Get this through your head dipshit. 1654 was before 1839. Perhaps you should learn to read dumbass. I said 1603 was the date of the first slave in north america. I then pointed out that the armistad case proved that shipping slaves from cuba was common. quote: The rest of your purile, ignorant bullshit isn't even worth responding to, since you apparently can't read posts any better than you can read a calendar. -SD- When you are too ignorant to post facts and too stupid to recognize when you have your head so far up your ass you can't see daylight, it is rightfully time for you to to stop responding. quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave ~FR~ Black Africans were being brought to Cuba as early as the mid 1500's. The Spanish kept them as slaves, but they were only allowed to enter the American colonies as indentured servants, and were free as soon as they had fulfilled the terms of their service. That was usually just paying for the cost of bringing them to the colonies, their room and board during the time they were in service, and any other expenses they may be indebted for. Being indentured was usually a term of service that lasted between 5 - 10 years depending on a persons trade and their ability to save or earn enough money to fulfill their terms. quote: Would you have any validation for this moronic bullshit? quote: The first slave owner in America was actually a black African man named Anthony Johnson. Mr Johnson had come to the mainland as an indentured servant. Hstorically inaccurate. First slaves come to the colonies in 1603. Get a fucking history book written for someone who is not an appologist for slavery.You might also wish to brush up on the particulars of the case. It deals directly with the slave tade between cuba and the u.s. quote: After he payed off his indenture, he bought a plantation and brought in other African indentured servants from Cuba. After his plantation caught on fire, Johnson sued the state of Virginia for the right to own a man named John Casor as part of a tax relief case in 1654. He won the case in 1655, establishing the institution of slavery in America. The virginia colony was not america, it was an english colony. Please try to keep your post historically accurate. In 1661, when Virginia enacted slavery as law, any free man of any race could own slaves. And no... they don't teach these things any more. -SD- When did it become illegal to be a free black in virginia? For someone who seeks to contort facts to fit your own agenda mr. history teacher, how is it possible for a black to own slaves in virginia?

Yachtie -> RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN (7/20/2013 2:28:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf it being painted that a racist got off because the system of law failed. In the end, that is exactly what is being stated.

CarpeComa -> RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN (7/20/2013 3:22:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Have anything constructive to add? To what end? If you truly believe a woman's wearing a short skirt is equivalent to Zimmerman's trailing someone he deemed sufficiently troublesome to warrant a 911 call, I doubt there's anything one could say to sway you. What about if she was around someone that she suspected had a history of aggressive sexual behavior? Does it matter? Does she now carry some of the blame? The argument for blaming Zimmerman is saying that someone who hasn't engaged in violent or directly threatening behavior can be culpable for violence committed towards them only because they engaged in behavior that might be considered provocative or unwise.* So either both the hypothetical woman and Zimmerman share none of the blame for the violence directed towards them, or they both do. Because neither person did anything illegal. All either person did was do something that might provoke a poor reaction from a person who was not well behaved. If I go down the street spewing epithets, I'm probably an idiot (or mentally disturbed) and may get clocked. Does that mean I share the blame for getting clocked? Or did the person who took it upon themselves to start violence to resolve something the one who is at fault? In all of those cases the logic behind blaming someone for being on the receiving end of violence is the same: "You provoked it, you shouldn't have done 'x', you should have known better". [image]https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/206093_496310033754520_512714138_n.jpg[/image] She wasn't asking for it and neither was Zimmerman. Show me where the logic is wrong. Show me what is fundamentally different between these cases that alters the reasoning. Tell me why Zimmerman deserves blame and she does not. (I'm not saying either of them deserve any) *If you don't think sexuality can be provocative, we are definitely living in two different worlds, and the world of advertising would heartily disagree.

Yachtie -> RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN (7/20/2013 3:29:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CarpeComa [image]https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/206093_496310033754520_512714138_n.jpg[/image] She wasn't asking for it and neither was Zimmerman. She may just get it anyway. [:D]

igor2003 -> RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN (7/20/2013 3:30:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 Actually, the analogy still holds. Zimmerman told the police that he thought Martin was "on drugs or something", and that he was "up to no good". At the time Zimmerman was in the safety of his vehicle. But he willingly chose to exit his vehicle and chase (follow if you will) this person that he though was on drugs and up to no good. So, like the groundskeeper, he willfully left the "safe" area of his vehicle to pursue someone that he claimed was on drugs and up to no good. And had he not attempted to physically detain Martin he most likely would not have gotten his nosed punched. Nope, the analogy is still bollocks. You're trying to equate getting out of a vehicle in a public area, with going into a lion's cage. The latter is obviously dangerous, where the former isn't. There's absolutely no evidence that George ever intended, planned, or even expected to run face to face with someone who was running away. And any "attempt to physically detain Trayvon" is an absolute fabrication not based on any existing evidence at all. So you don't consider getting out of your car, at night, in the rain, to follow someone that you think is on drugs and is up to no good to be a "safe" idea? Right there is the real bullshit...or "bollocks" as you put it. It doesn't make any difference whether or what Zimmerman "expected". The fact that he did get out of his vehicle, follow Martin, chase Martin, and look for Martin when he lost sight of him shows very well that Zimmerman was the aggressor that night...NOT the guy that was running away and hiding. And, anyone with any sense what-so-ever knows that if you are going to sucker punch someone your are going to do it with your dominant hand. Martin hit Zimmerman with his left hand, which was demonstrated in Zimmerman's defense teams cartoon. And the question was asked specifically as to why they showed Martin using his left hand. The answer was because that is what the medical evidence showed. Now, why would someone that is right handed use their left hand for a sucker punch? The rather obvious answer is because Zimmerman was hanging on to Martins right arm to detain him. This is also backed up by Rachel's testimony of hearing Martin yell, "Get off! Get off!" The fact that there is evidence that you want to ignore doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

MasterCaneman -> RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN (7/20/2013 4:50:18 PM)
As if this thread didn't need anymore gasoline thrown on it, I'd like to ask a question to all those in the Treyvon Martin camp: what if it were you who were charged with a crime for defending yourself, was decreed not guilty, but then had to contend with a major government official and a large subset of the population wishing to subvert Constitutional law because they felt it was "right"? There's a reason they put the "double-jeopardy" provision in, and that's to prevent exactly what's happening here. It doesn't matter how you "feel" about it, the jury has voted, and it's done. Accept it. Because if this is allowed to continue, we'll have a legal precedent for mob rule. Is that what you want?

tazzygirl -> RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN (7/20/2013 4:59:43 PM)
~FR Wasnt SYG instructions given to the jury? The Stand Your Ground law was in the instructions given to the jury (page 12), which acquitted George Zimmerman for killing Trayvon Martin. But it was among a list of laws in the instructions. http://wlrn.org/post/role-floridas-stand-your-ground-law-zimmerman-verdict

PeonForHer -> RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN (7/20/2013 5:02:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman As if this thread didn't need anymore gasoline thrown on it, I'd like to ask a question to all those in the Treyvon Martin camp: what if it were you who were charged with a crime for defending yourself, was decreed not guilty, but then had to contend with a major government official and a large subset of the population wishing to subvert Constitutional law because they felt it was "right"? Are you asking in the sense of being Martin, or Zimmerman? I guess if the former, then I'd expect some rigorous hassle from the cops about why I felt scared enough to shoot Zimmerman. I think, though, that in the end I'd get out of a murder conviction.

tazzygirl -> RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN (7/20/2013 5:05:36 PM)
quote: There's a reason they put the "double-jeopardy" provision in, and that's to prevent exactly what's happening here. It doesn't matter how you "feel" about it, the jury has voted, and it's done. Accept it. Because if this is allowed to continue, we'll have a legal precedent for mob rule. Is that what you want? United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377 (1922). We have here two sovereignties, deriving power from different sources, capable of dealing with the same subject matter within the same territory. Each may, without interference by the other, enact laws to secure prohibition, with the limitation that no legislation can give validity to acts prohibited by the amendment. Each government, in determining what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity, is exercising its own sovereignty, not that of the other. It follows that an act denounced as a crime by both national and state sovereignties is an offense against the peace and dignity of both, and may be punished by each. The Fifth Amendment, like all the other guaranties in the first eight amendments, applies only to proceedings by the federal government, Barron v. City of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243, and the double jeopardy therein forbidden is a second prosecution under authority of the federal government after a first trial for the same offense under the same authority. Here, the same act was an offense against the state of Washington, because a violation of its law, and also an offense against the United States under the National Prohibition Act. The defendants thus committed two different offenses by the same act, and a conviction by a court of Washington of the offense against that state is not a conviction of the different offense against the United States, and so is not double jeopardy. This view of the Fifth Amendment is supported by a long line of decisions by this Court. In Fox v. Ohio, 5 How. 410, a judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio was under review. It affirmed a conviction under a state law Page 260 U. S. 383 http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/260/377/case.html What law are they subverting?

tj444 -> RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN (7/20/2013 5:14:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman As if this thread didn't need anymore gasoline thrown on it, I'd like to ask a question to all those in the Treyvon Martin camp: what if it were you who were charged with a crime for defending yourself, was decreed not guilty, but then had to contend with a major government official and a large subset of the population wishing to subvert Constitutional law because they felt it was "right"? There's a reason they put the "double-jeopardy" provision in, and that's to prevent exactly what's happening here. It doesn't matter how you "feel" about it, the jury has voted, and it's done. Accept it. Because if this is allowed to continue, we'll have a legal precedent for mob rule. Is that what you want? Its not double jeopary since its a different charge.. and.. well if he truly isnt a racist then they wont have any other evidence to support any further action, will they? But according to a Zimmy family member (cousin?) who was interviewed by the cops last year, (Zimmy molested her for 10 years from when she was 6 to 16yo) that he & his family are indeed racist.. Oh yeah, and there was that Arab-American co-worker that Zimmy harassed too.. So.. ya know.. if Zimmy has nothing to hide, he has nothing to fear.. [;)] "Witness 9 did claim that Zimmerman "only likes black people who act like white people."" http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57473051-504083/witness-9-in-trayvon-martin-case-claims-george-zimmermans-family-is-racist/ http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-bullied-colleague-complaint/story?id=16658024

MasterCaneman -> RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN (7/20/2013 5:20:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman As if this thread didn't need anymore gasoline thrown on it, I'd like to ask a question to all those in the Treyvon Martin camp: what if it were you who were charged with a crime for defending yourself, was decreed not guilty, but then had to contend with a major government official and a large subset of the population wishing to subvert Constitutional law because they felt it was "right"? There's a reason they put the "double-jeopardy" provision in, and that's to prevent exactly what's happening here. It doesn't matter how you "feel" about it, the jury has voted, and it's done. Accept it. Because if this is allowed to continue, we'll have a legal precedent for mob rule. Is that what you want? Its not double jeopary since its a different charge.. and.. well if he truly isnt a racist then they wont have any other evidence to support any further action, will they? But according to a Zimmy family member (cousin?) who was interviewed by the cops last year, (Zimmy molested her for 10 years from when she was 6 to 16yo) that he & his family are indeed racist.. Oh yeah, and there was that Arab-American co-worker that Zimmy harassed too.. So.. ya know.. if Zimmy has nothing to hide, he has nothing to fear.. [;)] "Witness 9 did claim that Zimmerman "only likes black people who act like white people."" http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57473051-504083/witness-9-in-trayvon-martin-case-claims-george-zimmermans-family-is-racist/ http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-bullied-colleague-complaint/story?id=16658024 >sighs< Okay, I'll bite. Where are the citations on him molesting his cousin? And the Arab-American coworker. And remember, only stuff that can fly in a court of law. There's a reason hearsay evidence isn't valid in our system of justice.

dcnovice -> RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN (7/20/2013 5:30:18 PM)
quote: United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377 (1922). I defer, of course, to the Supreme Court on the letter of the law. In terms of its spirit, though, the sudden "discovery" that Zimmerman may have violated federal civil rights law honestly does strike me as an instance of "If at first you don't convict, try, try again" (to borrow from Robert Matz).

tj444 -> RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN (7/20/2013 5:33:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman >sighs< Okay, I'll bite. Where are the citations on him molesting his cousin? And the Arab-American coworker. And remember, only stuff that can fly in a court of law. There's a reason hearsay evidence isn't valid in our system of justice. I dont know what the feds will come up with as evidence or not or what they will actually do or not.. just all this talk about Zimmy not being a racist is not apparently true.. I dont have any sympathy for the guy, especially given he has "gotten away" with so much shite in the past, even before Martin.. sooner or later, at some point Karma is gonna bite his ass.. he thinks its all "God's plan", after all..

Page: << < prev 109 110 [111] 112 113 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.125