RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case

RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (Full Version)

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

Message

Nosathro -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (9/24/2012 7:14:55 AM)
With the fact now that none of Martin DNA was found on gun and holster, it makes it more believeable that Zimmerman had the gun already in his hands before he ever made contact with Martin. As I have said before all of the injuries Zimmerman claims to have were minor, it is hard to believe he was being hit at all rather, more self inflected, consider further Zimmerman history of fabricating stories and telling lies, and violence, it makes it hard to believe anything he says.

vincentML -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (9/24/2012 11:31:37 AM)
quote: With the fact now that none of Martin DNA was found on gun and holster, it makes it more believeable that Zimmerman had the gun already in his hands before he ever made contact with Martin. Your direct line from A to B, from no Martin DNA to Zim had the gun already in his hand, is a fantastical leap totally devoid of even the rudiments of logic.

mnottertail -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (9/24/2012 11:43:09 AM)
Logic doesn't really have to enter into it, it places it in the realm of introducing another reasonable doubt. Just saying.

vincentML -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (9/24/2012 1:42:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Logic doesn't really have to enter into it, it places it in the realm of introducing another reasonable doubt. Just saying. Reasonable would be that Martin reached for the gun but was unable to grab it. Beyond that the rest is fantastical. Like maybe Zim got his injuries when he fell off his horse. [8\|]

mnottertail -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (9/24/2012 1:51:18 PM)
That's what you are saying but that is not the definition of reasonable doubt.

vincentML -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (9/24/2012 2:07:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail That's what you are saying but that is not the definition of reasonable doubt. Well, maybe I misunderstand reasonable doubt. I thought reasonable doubt was an argument in favor of the Defendent. Can you explain to me how the unfounded speculation that Zim already had his gun out when he confronted Martin is an argument for the Defense? If the State wishes to raise that as part of their case don't you think they would need to prove it beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt?

mnottertail -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (9/24/2012 2:14:57 PM)
no, against the defendant.

vincentML -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (9/24/2012 2:29:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail no, against the defendant. Generally the prosecution bears the burden of proof and is required to prove their version of events to this standard. This means that the proposition being presented by the prosecution must be proven to the extent that there could be no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a "reasonable person" that the defendant is guilty.

mnottertail -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (9/24/2012 3:06:27 PM)
That is correct.

vincentML -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (9/24/2012 3:53:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail That is correct. Ah, good. [:)]

BamaD -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (9/24/2012 5:52:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail That is correct. Ah, good. [:)] The claim that the point here is that blacks were lynched a some point in our history is absurd. Not unlike those who justified anti semetism because Jews ran the crusifixtion. A though true has no bering on B.

vincentML -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (9/24/2012 7:34:48 PM)
quote: The claim that the point here is that blacks were lynched a some point in our history is absurd. Not unlike those who justified anti semetism because Jews ran the crusifixtion. A though true has no bering on B. Whoa, big dog. Not sure what your point is but you may have misread what I said. Have a look at my post #70 and then tell me what your complaint is. I'm sure we can sort it.

BamaD -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (9/24/2012 8:34:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: The claim that the point here is that blacks were lynched a some point in our history is absurd. Not unlike those who justified anti semetism because Jews ran the crusifixtion. A though true has no bering on B. Whoa, big dog. Not sure what your point is but you may have misread what I said. Have a look at my post #70 and then tell me what your complaint is. I'm sure we can sort it. We have nothing to sort out, the post was not intented to be a reply to you but the system labled it that way. Farglebargle had stated in effect that the point of this case was that blacks had been lynched so Zimmerman was guilty. This is what I was responding to, I have noproblem with you. Sorry about the mixup.

farglebargle -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (9/25/2012 2:36:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail no, against the defendant. Generally the prosecution bears the burden of proof and is required to prove their version of events to this standard. This means that the proposition being presented by the prosecution must be proven to the extent that there could be no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a "reasonable person" that the defendant is guilty. The evidence shows, beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense. If Zimmerman didn't cause the entire incident, maybe things would be different. If Zimmerman had some credibility, and all of his claims weren't discarded as lies, maybe things would be different. If the witnesses who supposedly support some of Zimmerman's conflicting claims didn't change their stories, maybe things would be different.

vincentML -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (9/25/2012 8:19:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: The claim that the point here is that blacks were lynched a some point in our history is absurd. Not unlike those who justified anti semetism because Jews ran the crusifixtion. A though true has no bering on B. Whoa, big dog. Not sure what your point is but you may have misread what I said. Have a look at my post #70 and then tell me what your complaint is. I'm sure we can sort it. We have nothing to sort out, the post was not intented to be a reply to you but the system labled it that way. Farglebargle had stated in effect that the point of this case was that blacks had been lynched so Zimmerman was guilty. This is what I was responding to, I have noproblem with you. Sorry about the mixup. Thank you. May I suggest you employ the FR designation at the beginning, which is a signal you are not responding to the person whose name appears in the "in reply to" [:)]

vincentML -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (9/25/2012 8:56:32 AM)
quote: The evidence shows, beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense. If Zimmerman didn't cause the entire incident, maybe things would be different. Reasonable doubt is a decision made by a jury after defense counsel has made his case and after the judge has charged the jury with regards to the law; it is not a decision that bears much value on a message board. It is only your opinion. You may judge yourself as to the degree of your reasonableness as I don't know you, except that you have been steadfastly passionate about this story from day one. As for Zimmer's causing the entire incident, I wonder why no one in these discussions ever acknowledges that the community suffered several break-ins by young black males, giving Zimmer cause as neighborhood watch to take the action he did: calling the police and seeking after the activities of Martin. Profiling? Yes. But, in this instance perhaps justifable.

mnottertail -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (9/25/2012 9:11:50 AM)
quote: As for Zimmer's causing the entire incident, I wonder why no one in these discussions ever acknowledges that the community suffered several break-ins by young black males, giving Zimmer cause as neighborhood watch to take the action he did: calling the police and seeking after the activities of Martin. Profiling? Yes. But, in this instance perhaps justifable. Uh,. many of the discussions did vince, and this is disingenous. the action he did? calling the police, seeking after the activities of Martin? nobody has avoided that or said he shouldn't have, but to kill the guy is a little outside the purview of many of your neigborhood watch wannabe cops, is the praxis of the issue here.

farglebargle -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (9/25/2012 10:07:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML As for Zimmer's causing the entire incident, I wonder why no one in these discussions ever acknowledges that the community suffered several break-ins by young black males No-one is mentioning it because since Trayvon Martin was completely innocent of any wrongdoing, it is irrelevant. Also, see my response below... quote: , giving Zimmer cause as neighborhood watch to take the action he did: BUT... Isn't everyone saying that Zimmerman was NOT acting in the capacity of the Neighborhood Watch, since he was supposedly going to the store on a personal errand. Can't have it both ways. Either he was Neighborhood watch AND VIOLATING THE RULES BY BEING ARMED, or he wasn't. Pick one and stick with it, please. quote: calling the police and seeking after the activities of Martin. Profiling? Yes. But, in this instance perhaps justifable. A witness who hasn't recanted her testimony claims that Zimmerman approached Martin. Which isn't what you said there...

Nosathro -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (9/25/2012 10:23:01 AM)
If only Zimmerman DNA is on the gun and holster, his claim and those of others that Martin attempted to take the gun seem to be far fetched. So the question only Zimmerman held the weapon. In Zimmerman own account he claims he attempted to get his cell phone when first confronting Martin, was it the cell phone or the gun. Zimmerman a great teller of fairy tales...[8\|]

vincentML -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (9/25/2012 10:47:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: As for Zimmer's causing the entire incident, I wonder why no one in these discussions ever acknowledges that the community suffered several break-ins by young black males, giving Zimmer cause as neighborhood watch to take the action he did: calling the police and seeking after the activities of Martin. Profiling? Yes. But, in this instance perhaps justifable. Uh,. many of the discussions did vince, and this is disingenous. the action he did? calling the police, seeking after the activities of Martin? nobody has avoided that or said he shouldn't have, but to kill the guy is a little outside the purview of many of your neigborhood watch wannabe cops, is the praxis of the issue here. I am happy to be corrected on the first, Ron. I listed the Reuters article in the long thread and couldn't get any response to it. Glad that changed while i was away walking on the moon. Definately agree that killing is not something with which the neighborhood watch is tasked. That is not the issue for a Florida court; it is whether he thought he was in serious danger. Folks here are suggesting on no evidence that he had his gun drawn before the altercation. I don't see that based on the absence of Martin's DNA.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.1220703