RE: He was armed with skittles and ice tea...

RE: He was armed with skittles and ice tea... (Full Version)

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

Message

MrBukani -> RE: He was armed with skittles and ice tea... (3/24/2012 2:15:42 AM)
I dont really believe zimmerman is a racist. I dont see how the violence was proportionate. Its in our laws here, its a good law. About the kid, I dont even mind if he had a misdemeanor, he is innocent. I wouldnt say glow in the dark cause that sounds, you know what it sounds like to call a black man glowing in the dark. Shooting mishaps happen in Europe as well but far less on average. Imagine if we would have the same gunlaws here. Most people would be scared outta their skulls. Kinda logical if you think we live in a prozac society. Lots of nutbags.

Kirata -> RE: He was armed with skittles and ice tea... (3/24/2012 2:29:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrBukani I wouldnt say glow in the dark cause that sounds, you know what it sounds like to call a black man glowing in the dark. No, actually, I don't. I don't have a clue. And I really don't think I want to know, thanks all the same. K.

Musicmystery -> RE: He was armed with skittles and ice tea... (3/24/2012 6:17:43 AM)
quote: Once again, since you missed it the first 10 times, he needn't be scared while following, only only stupid.

Musicmystery -> RE: He was armed with skittles and ice tea... (3/24/2012 6:19:05 AM)
quote: I've not been honest? Glad you're finally getting it.

Hillwilliam -> RE: He was armed with skittles and ice tea... (3/24/2012 6:28:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarqueMirror quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel quote: Legally, 17-year-olds can and have been charged as adults. Try again. Only when they've committed felonies. Last I knew, Trayvon Martin had no record, had never been arrested. Legally, he was a minor, a child. 17 is also the legal age of consent for things like sex and joining the military, though the latter must come with parental consent. So? What has that to do with the case at hand? He wasn't fucking or joining the military.

Musicmystery -> RE: He was armed with skittles and ice tea... (3/24/2012 6:41:10 AM)
quote: He wasn't fucking or joining the military. O...oh yeah? Were you there???? Thought I'd save DM the trouble. [:D]

farglebargle -> RE: He was armed with skittles and ice tea... (3/24/2012 6:42:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: But self-defense does not require that. Does self-defense require following someone 911 told you not to follow? It's actual evidence that Zimmeman, failing to do what a reasonable and prudent person would, is at the very least guilty of negligence, which is the hard part of an indictment on manslaughter.

farglebargle -> RE: He was armed with skittles and ice tea... (3/24/2012 6:44:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarqueMirror quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: But self-defense does not require that. Does self-defense require following someone 911 told you not to follow? If you're going to keep beating this drum, at least get right what said. I'll post it again, since you missed the first 20 times: Dispatcher: "Are you following him?" Zimmerman: "Yeah." Dispatcher: "We don't need you to do that." And again...the cops have said he did not have to listen to that. BUT The Judge and Jury DO listen to it when the determine if there was any evidence to support the manslaughter charge. To wit, if Zimmerman didn't NEGLIGENTLY DISREGARD THE ADVICE GIVEN, Martin would still be alive.

Musicmystery -> RE: He was armed with skittles and ice tea... (3/24/2012 6:44:52 AM)
That's a stretch, I think. Stupid isn't negligence. His lawyer isn't claiming SYG, btw, on the grounds that's more for your home; rather, he's claiming flat out self-defense.

farglebargle -> RE: He was armed with skittles and ice tea... (3/24/2012 6:46:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarqueMirror quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Again, the point was a scared man isn't going to follow the person at this point. Again, the assertion isn't that he was scared the moment he saw Martin. It's that while on his back, bleeding from multiple injuries, he feared Martin enough to pull the trigger. Seriously, why does this distinction escape you? The fact is that he was scared enough to call 9-1-1 and say: "This guy looks like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs or something." Do you go pursuing someone YOU SAID was "on drugs or something" when the police are on their way. Well, you might. But keep in mind the standard, legally is Reasonable and Prudent Person.

farglebargle -> RE: He was armed with skittles and ice tea... (3/24/2012 6:48:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery That's a stretch, I think. Stupid isn't negligence. His lawyer isn't claiming SYG, btw, on the grounds that's more for your home; rather, he's claiming flat out self-defense. Good luck with THAT. But it's at least a valid LEGAL strategy.

farglebargle -> RE: He was armed with skittles and ice tea... (3/24/2012 6:50:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarqueMirror It's that while on his back, bleeding from multiple injuries, he feared Martin enough to pull the trigger. It's Zimmerman's own fault IF he, as he claims, ended up on his own back, bleeding from multiple injuries, so trivial as to not even require a ride to the hospital for evaluation.

farglebargle -> RE: He was armed with skittles and ice tea... (3/24/2012 6:52:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarqueMirror quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery So we've established he's not the brightest guy. So it's not bright to have concern for your neighbors? Man...glad I don't live near you. I don't stalk and murder my neighbors.

Musicmystery -> RE: He was armed with skittles and ice tea... (3/24/2012 6:52:32 AM)
I think that's the intent. Per the discussion here---it also points out the limitations of claiming SYG here, even to Zimmerman's lawyer.

farglebargle -> RE: He was armed with skittles and ice tea... (3/24/2012 6:56:22 AM)
DM keeps going on about "presumption of innocence", and I'd like to clear something up. "Presumption of Innocence" is why we have an adversarial system, and juries and all. It doesn't mean the police giving the benefit of the doubt to a suspect in a manslaughter case. To file an indictment or information for manslaughter, there needs to be PROBABLE CAUSE to believe that: 1) Trayvon Martin is dead 2) George Zimmerman did it through act or negligence. NOW, the established FACTS, bear out these two conditions. George Zimmerman ADMITS to the killing. Whether it's his act or via negligence is beside the point.

Kirata -> RE: He was armed with skittles and ice tea... (3/24/2012 7:25:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle DM keeps going on about "presumption of innocence", and I'd like to clear something up. You've cleared it up fucking repeatedly, most recently in your previous post: quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle I don't stalk and murder my neighbors. Prejudged and found guilty. Stalking and murder. Case closed. K.

MrBukani -> RE: He was armed with skittles and ice tea... (3/24/2012 7:29:13 AM)
Just a thought, Doesnt a police officer gets an investigation if he killed someone in the line of duty to justify the action?

farglebargle -> RE: He was armed with skittles and ice tea... (3/24/2012 7:29:36 AM)
You're making the naive mistake of conflating two distinct contexts: Whereas, on one hand, I'm CITING THE REQUIRMENTS FOR PROSECUTION questioning why, given the established facts, the Sanford PD chose to go off the rails to obstruct justice. On the other hand, not being in the Jury Pool, we have the luxury of making MORAL JUDGEMENTS BASED ON ALL THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE, without compromising the integrity of the adversarial judicial process. It's Zimmerman's own fault IF he, as he claims, ended up on his own back, bleeding from multiple injuries, so trivial as to not even require a ride to the hospital for evaluation.

farglebargle -> RE: He was armed with skittles and ice tea... (3/24/2012 7:36:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrBukani Just a thought, Doesnt a police officer gets an investigation if he killed someone in the line of duty to justify the action? That's the thing here. It's not about Zimmerman using the SYG law to cover up his fuck-up. It's that the Sanford PD went out of their way to avoid the ROUTINE charging of manslaughter, which would have given Zimmerman's lawyer the LEGAL opportunity to move to dismiss on self defense. In all cases, when you kill someone, you need to explain to a judge why he needed killing. And if the judge denies your motion to dismiss, you then can explain it to a jury. but At this point, given that Zimmerman's testimony in a federal conspiracy to obstruct justice/RICO prosecution case against the Sanford PD, it's better than even odds that his 'buddies' at SPD took him out to the swamp and fed him to an alligator.

MrBukani -> RE: He was armed with skittles and ice tea... (3/24/2012 7:47:19 AM)
That was kinda my thought, how can anyone kill anybody without it being judged directly. I guess this will end up in a civil case like OJ Simpson. The criminal case he was found not guilty, The civil case he was found guilty. I wonder wich case supercedes.

Page: << < prev 14 15 [16] 17 18 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875