RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict

RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (Full Version)

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

Message

BamaD -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/17/2014 8:24:27 AM)
You are being very bold calling someone stupid dumbass when you clearly didn't understand that there was no case for manslaughter here at all. I even explained that to you in detail at the time and you dismissed it because you so wanted to mitigate the guys with the guns criminal mischief. The fact is this was always at least 2nd degree murder. The murderer's own statement said so. As to the Zimmerman case, you do need to keep in mind that all reasonable legal scholars,non gun nuts, view the case as a complete travesty. The prosecutor blew the case. Zimmerman's own statement proved he did not act in self defense and you have acknowledged that fact your self. First We have just learned that this happened a good thirty yards off of his property that makes a big difference. Second The only way that all reasonable legal scholars agree with you is if agreeing with you is what makes them reasonable. The state had no case. Clearly, in your mind the juries word is final and sacred, unless you disagree with them. You have not, and will not, hear me complain about this verdict, I said all along he should go to jail for the rest of his life, that could only be interpreted as justifying his actions by a moron.

BamaD -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/17/2014 10:11:52 AM)
As to the Zimmerman case, you do need to keep in mind that all reasonable legal scholars,non gun nuts, view the case as a complete travesty. The prosecutor blew the case. Zimmerman's own statement proved he did not act in self defense and you have acknowledged that fact your self. You have, which is par for the course, forgotten that half way through the prosecution case the experts were calling for a directed verdict of innocent because all off their witnesses had helped the defense. They simply had no case and were only trying him because of political pressure.

DomKen -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/17/2014 1:09:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD As to the Zimmerman case, you do need to keep in mind that all reasonable legal scholars,non gun nuts, view the case as a complete travesty. The prosecutor blew the case. Zimmerman's own statement proved he did not act in self defense and you have acknowledged that fact your self. You have, which is par for the course, forgotten that half way through the prosecution case the experts were calling for a directed verdict of innocent because all off their witnesses had helped the defense. They simply had no case and were only trying him because of political pressure. No. That was only the gun nuts. The facts is the real legal experts were openly wondering why the prosecutor was so obviously tanking her own case.

BamaD -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/17/2014 1:20:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD As to the Zimmerman case, you do need to keep in mind that all reasonable legal scholars,non gun nuts, view the case as a complete travesty. The prosecutor blew the case. Zimmerman's own statement proved he did not act in self defense and you have acknowledged that fact your self. You have, which is par for the course, forgotten that half way through the prosecution case the experts were calling for a directed verdict of innocent because all off their witnesses had helped the defense. They simply had no case and were only trying him because of political pressure. No. That was only the gun nuts. The facts is the real legal experts were openly wondering why the prosecutor was so obviously tanking her own case. Wrong again some of them were convinced of his guilt till they heard the prosecution case. They "tanked" the case because they didn't have one. The lead prosecutor, like you, refused to accept reality and thought the jury should have convicted in spite of both the law and the facts. Again you automatically label anyone who disagrees with you as a gun nut.

DomKen -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/17/2014 1:33:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD As to the Zimmerman case, you do need to keep in mind that all reasonable legal scholars,non gun nuts, view the case as a complete travesty. The prosecutor blew the case. Zimmerman's own statement proved he did not act in self defense and you have acknowledged that fact your self. You have, which is par for the course, forgotten that half way through the prosecution case the experts were calling for a directed verdict of innocent because all off their witnesses had helped the defense. They simply had no case and were only trying him because of political pressure. No. That was only the gun nuts. The facts is the real legal experts were openly wondering why the prosecutor was so obviously tanking her own case. Wrong again some of them were convinced of his guilt till they heard the prosecution case. They "tanked" the case because they didn't have one. The lead prosecutor, like you, refused to accept reality and thought the jury should have convicted in spite of both the law and the facts. Again you automatically label anyone who disagrees with you as a gun nut. You've long since acknowledged that Zimmerman lied about the details of how he murdered Martin so why you maintain that it isn't so baffles me.

BamaD -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/17/2014 1:38:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD As to the Zimmerman case, you do need to keep in mind that all reasonable legal scholars,non gun nuts, view the case as a complete travesty. The prosecutor blew the case. Zimmerman's own statement proved he did not act in self defense and you have acknowledged that fact your self. You have, which is par for the course, forgotten that half way through the prosecution case the experts were calling for a directed verdict of innocent because all off their witnesses had helped the defense. They simply had no case and were only trying him because of political pressure. No. That was only the gun nuts. The facts is the real legal experts were openly wondering why the prosecutor was so obviously tanking her own case. Wrong again some of them were convinced of his guilt till they heard the prosecution case. They "tanked" the case because they didn't have one. The lead prosecutor, like you, refused to accept reality and thought the jury should have convicted in spite of both the law and the facts. Again you automatically label anyone who disagrees with you as a gun nut. You've long since acknowledged that Zimmerman lied about the details of how he murdered Martin so why you maintain that it isn't so baffles me. No I didn't and your shoe strings no doubt baffle you.

BamaD -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/17/2014 3:48:03 PM)
A I admitted there were inconsistencies in his story B I pointed out that the investigating officer said that such inconsistencies are normal after a life and death trauma C Shooting someone who is trying to beat your head into the ground is only murder in your book. D The investigating officer who you insisted thought he was guilty said he believed Zimmerman during the trial, under oath.

DomKen -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/17/2014 4:47:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD A I admitted there were inconsistencies in his story B I pointed out that the investigating officer said that such inconsistencies are normal after a life and death trauma C Shooting someone who is trying to beat your head into the ground is only murder in your book. D The investigating officer who you insisted thought he was guilty said he believed Zimmerman during the trial, under oath. You admitted Zimmerman said his weapon was underneath his body where neither he nor Martin could have seen nor reached it according to his lie. You further admitted Zimmerman claimed that Martin tried to grab the gun out of the waistband and a struggle ensued in which Zimmerman somehow shot Martin in the chest despite the physical impossibility of the attempt. You simply refuse to accept reality.

BamaD -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/17/2014 5:29:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD A I admitted there were inconsistencies in his story B I pointed out that the investigating officer said that such inconsistencies are normal after a life and death trauma C Shooting someone who is trying to beat your head into the ground is only murder in your book. D The investigating officer who you insisted thought he was guilty said he believed Zimmerman during the trial, under oath. You admitted Zimmerman said his weapon was underneath his body where neither he nor Martin could have seen nor reached it according to his lie. You further admitted Zimmerman claimed that Martin tried to grab the gun out of the waistband and a struggle ensued in which Zimmerman somehow shot Martin in the chest despite the physical impossibility of the attempt. You simply refuse to accept reality. I also said that none of that mattered if in the heat of the moment Zimmerman believed that Martin was going for the gun. This is one of those inconsistencies the investigating officer was referring to, incredible as it may seem I value his evaluation over yours. Remember that the same officer you are basing his "lies" on said under oath that he believed Zimmerman. Clearly Zimmerman was able to get to the gun and it is not unreasonable to think that the guy trying to pound your head into the ground might be trying to get your gun. Of course not being there you can evaluate Zimmerman's story much better than the interrogating officer because, in your mind what you want to be true is true.

BamaD -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/17/2014 5:35:59 PM)
FR I am sorry for my participation in this derailment and will no longer take part in it.

DomKen -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/17/2014 6:37:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD A I admitted there were inconsistencies in his story B I pointed out that the investigating officer said that such inconsistencies are normal after a life and death trauma C Shooting someone who is trying to beat your head into the ground is only murder in your book. D The investigating officer who you insisted thought he was guilty said he believed Zimmerman during the trial, under oath. You admitted Zimmerman said his weapon was underneath his body where neither he nor Martin could have seen nor reached it according to his lie. You further admitted Zimmerman claimed that Martin tried to grab the gun out of the waistband and a struggle ensued in which Zimmerman somehow shot Martin in the chest despite the physical impossibility of the attempt. You simply refuse to accept reality. I also said that none of that mattered if in the heat of the moment Zimmerman believed that Martin was going for the gun. This is one of those inconsistencies the investigating officer was referring to, incredible as it may seem I value his evaluation over yours. Remember that the same officer you are basing his "lies" on said under oath that he believed Zimmerman. Clearly Zimmerman was able to get to the gun and it is not unreasonable to think that the guy trying to pound your head into the ground might be trying to get your gun. Of course not being there you can evaluate Zimmerman's story much better than the interrogating officer because, in your mind what you want to be true is true. I simply accept the fact that Zimmerman lied like any decent cop would have. My brother the cop laughed his ass off over the statement Zimmerman gave. He said he'd have put him on death row with it, he's a retired Georgia cop. The fact is the cops went out of their way to accept Zimmerman's story which is not the way cops work in normal criminal investigations. He confessed to murder and his statement did not match the actual facts which would have meant he would never have gotten to claim self defense in court and his statement would have been treated as a confession. Go find a cop and discuss the case without naming names and see what they say.

BamaD -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/17/2014 7:35:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD A I admitted there were inconsistencies in his story B I pointed out that the investigating officer said that such inconsistencies are normal after a life and death trauma C Shooting someone who is trying to beat your head into the ground is only murder in your book. D The investigating officer who you insisted thought he was guilty said he believed Zimmerman during the trial, under oath. You admitted Zimmerman said his weapon was underneath his body where neither he nor Martin could have seen nor reached it according to his lie. You further admitted Zimmerman claimed that Martin tried to grab the gun out of the waistband and a struggle ensued in which Zimmerman somehow shot Martin in the chest despite the physical impossibility of the attempt. You simply refuse to accept reality. I also said that none of that mattered if in the heat of the moment Zimmerman believed that Martin was going for the gun. This is one of those inconsistencies the investigating officer was referring to, incredible as it may seem I value his evaluation over yours. Remember that the same officer you are basing his "lies" on said under oath that he believed Zimmerman. Clearly Zimmerman was able to get to the gun and it is not unreasonable to think that the guy trying to pound your head into the ground might be trying to get your gun. Of course not being there you can evaluate Zimmerman's story much better than the interrogating officer because, in your mind what you want to be true is true. I simply accept the fact that Zimmerman lied like any decent cop would have. My brother the cop laughed his ass off over the statement Zimmerman gave. He said he'd have put him on death row with it, he's a retired Georgia cop. The fact is the cops went out of their way to accept Zimmerman's story which is not the way cops work in normal criminal investigations. He confessed to murder and his statement did not match the actual facts which would have meant he would never have gotten to claim self defense in court and his statement would have been treated as a confession. Go find a cop and discuss the case without naming names and see what they say. Read my last post If you want to discuss Zimmerman go to the Zimmerman thread and I will cheerfully kick your ass there.

DomKen -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/18/2014 8:50:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD A I admitted there were inconsistencies in his story B I pointed out that the investigating officer said that such inconsistencies are normal after a life and death trauma C Shooting someone who is trying to beat your head into the ground is only murder in your book. D The investigating officer who you insisted thought he was guilty said he believed Zimmerman during the trial, under oath. You admitted Zimmerman said his weapon was underneath his body where neither he nor Martin could have seen nor reached it according to his lie. You further admitted Zimmerman claimed that Martin tried to grab the gun out of the waistband and a struggle ensued in which Zimmerman somehow shot Martin in the chest despite the physical impossibility of the attempt. You simply refuse to accept reality. I also said that none of that mattered if in the heat of the moment Zimmerman believed that Martin was going for the gun. This is one of those inconsistencies the investigating officer was referring to, incredible as it may seem I value his evaluation over yours. Remember that the same officer you are basing his "lies" on said under oath that he believed Zimmerman. Clearly Zimmerman was able to get to the gun and it is not unreasonable to think that the guy trying to pound your head into the ground might be trying to get your gun. Of course not being there you can evaluate Zimmerman's story much better than the interrogating officer because, in your mind what you want to be true is true. I simply accept the fact that Zimmerman lied like any decent cop would have. My brother the cop laughed his ass off over the statement Zimmerman gave. He said he'd have put him on death row with it, he's a retired Georgia cop. The fact is the cops went out of their way to accept Zimmerman's story which is not the way cops work in normal criminal investigations. He confessed to murder and his statement did not match the actual facts which would have meant he would never have gotten to claim self defense in court and his statement would have been treated as a confession. Go find a cop and discuss the case without naming names and see what they say. Read my last post If you want to discuss Zimmerman go to the Zimmerman thread and I will cheerfully kick your ass there. IOW you declared Brave Sir Robin. I got it the first time.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/18/2014 11:21:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen IOW you declared Brave Sir Robin. I got it the first time. Maybe if you'd stay the fuck on topic, people would answer you but instead you sense you're having your ass kicked and try to change the topic./

thompsonx -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/18/2014 1:02:09 PM)
We have just learned that this happened a good thirty yards off of his property that makes a big difference. According to the op it was closer to 130 yards. "After a land surveyor testified Wednesday that Crocker’s property boundary was 381 feet from the crime scene, more than the length of a football field, there was more focus on self-defense."

DomKen -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/18/2014 3:46:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen IOW you declared Brave Sir Robin. I got it the first time. Maybe if you'd stay the fuck on topic, people would answer you but instead you sense you're having your ass kicked and try to change the topic./ Never changed topic. I long back proved Bama lied about his posts on the old thread. He couldn't defend those old posts so he trotted out a bunch of nonsense about Zimmerman.

BamaD -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/18/2014 3:54:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen IOW you declared Brave Sir Robin. I got it the first time. Maybe if you'd stay the fuck on topic, people would answer you but instead you sense you're having your ass kicked and try to change the topic./ Never changed topic. I long back proved Bama lied about his posts on the old thread. He couldn't defend those old posts so he trotted out a bunch of nonsense about Zimmerman. The other thing you do when getting your ass kicked is declare anything you don't like to be a lie, which , ironically, a lie.

DomKen -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/18/2014 3:56:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen IOW you declared Brave Sir Robin. I got it the first time. Maybe if you'd stay the fuck on topic, people would answer you but instead you sense you're having your ass kicked and try to change the topic./ Never changed topic. I long back proved Bama lied about his posts on the old thread. He couldn't defend those old posts so he trotted out a bunch of nonsense about Zimmerman. The other thing you do is declare anything you don't like to be a lie, which , ironically, a lie. Was the murderer convicted of manslaughter? Was he even offered manslaughter as an option at trial? Did the jury even deliberate long enough to need a meal break?

BamaD -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/18/2014 4:05:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen IOW you declared Brave Sir Robin. I got it the first time. Maybe if you'd stay the fuck on topic, people would answer you but instead you sense you're having your ass kicked and try to change the topic./ Never changed topic. I long back proved Bama lied about his posts on the old thread. He couldn't defend those old posts so he trotted out a bunch of nonsense about Zimmerman. The other thing you do is declare anything you don't like to be a lie, which , ironically, a lie. Was the murderer convicted of manslaughter? Was he even offered manslaughter as an option at trial? Did the jury even deliberate long enough to need a meal break? A There were facts, particularly location, not available early. B I have not in any way described this as a miscarriage of justice. C I never said he was innocent D the only place you can be seen as winning a victory here is in that vast wasteland known as your mind.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/18/2014 6:34:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen IOW you declared Brave Sir Robin. I got it the first time. Maybe if you'd stay the fuck on topic, people would answer you but instead you sense you're having your ass kicked and try to change the topic./ Never changed topic. I long back proved Bama lied about his posts on the old thread. He couldn't defend those old posts so he trotted out a bunch of nonsense about Zimmerman. You have posted ad nausaeum on this topic about Zimmy. Is that not changing topic? I'm still waiting for something to back up your asswipe that the guy was getting support from those here on CM. So far, the best you can come up with is someone who said that the idiot's best hope was to try to plead out to manslaughter. That's hardly support. You posted asswipe and you got called on it.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625