RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE

RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (Full Version)

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

Message

Edwynn -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (7/2/2013 3:00:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarqueMirror quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn Good to know that you side with the perverts and muggers on this issue. No mystery in why the country is diving the way it is, based on this. It's sad that you see perverts and muggers everywhere you look. Are you seeking help for your delusions? I see a lot more people defending muggers and pervs than I do of the actual perpetrators themselves. You being a case in point. Looking out for your own, are you?

Powergamz1 -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (7/2/2013 3:04:05 AM)
You are seriously coming onto a web site set up to discuss things like tying people up and sticking objects up their ass, and pontificating about the evils of 'perverts'? quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn quote: ORIGINAL: DarqueMirror quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn Good to know that you side with the perverts and muggers on this issue. No mystery in why the country is diving the way it is, based on this. It's sad that you see perverts and muggers everywhere you look. Are you seeking help for your delusions? I see a lot more people defending muggers and pervs than I do of the actual perpetrators themselves. You being a case in point. Looking out for your own, are you?

Edwynn -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (7/2/2013 3:09:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn quote: ORIGINAL: DarqueMirror quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn I would beat that MF for all I was worth. And you'd be guilty of a crime. Millions of people walk behind or "follow" millions of other people daily on the streets of New York. Someone walking behind you is not sufficient grounds on which to beat them up. Good to know that you side with the perverts and muggers on this issue. No mystery in why the country is diving the way it is, based on this. Based on what? Comparing walking alone at night in a suburban neighborhood to walking down the street in a busy city or are you referring to the way you tried to twist the meaning of the statement into something else entirely. Maybe if you are really concerned some comprehension lessons are in order. Maybe you could work on grasping the gist of the whole post. But congrats for comprehending the selective bit that you did for the purpose.

Politesub53 -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (7/2/2013 3:46:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice It was a classic literary allusion. Oh? To what book title? The Book of Rules silly. AKA Nonsense, by Gene E Arse. [;)]

Just0Us0Two -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (7/2/2013 4:06:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I'd go further and say the 9mm short and most of weapons made to fire it should only be carried by people who want to get killed. They may not be as bad as the old .20 caliber Saturday night specials but they're pretty awful. I'm a bit confused. You're always arguing that people shouldn't carry weapons, but here you're arguing that the weapons they are carrying aren't powerful enough? Is a .380 the best gun for self-defense? Nope, not even close, but it's better then nothing. I have a little .380 SIG, it's what I carry when it's too hot and I'm not wearing enough clothes to carry a full sized gun. It's a relatively anemic round, and definitely not my first choice, but again it's better then nothing. And at 7 yards I can put 3-4 rounds out of the 7 in the mag in the 10 ring, rapid fire. That's not going to make anyone's day better.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (7/2/2013 4:08:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin Give it up. It's like talking to an empty room. This discussion really boils down to pro gun vs anti gun. It's the usual culprits saying the same stupid shit. These guys are making up silly absurd shit to reinforce their, (most of who have) anti gun opinions. So far we've heard (not all but a sampling of the most ridiculous); I have to admit; I'm taking a certain sadistic pleasure in watching the usual suspects get more and more frantic, the worse the case goes for the prosecution. It's kind of fun to watch a melt-down (I even took some off hide for this thread). Peace and comfort, Michael

Just0Us0Two -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (7/2/2013 4:22:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Z had a scratch to his nose and a bloody nose. A smart street fighter would have kicked if he had knocked his opponent to the ground, dont ya think? Actually, no. If you have someone down, and you want to make sure they stay down, your best option is to drop onto them, straddling the chest, with your knees as close to the armpits as you can get them. By controlling your center of balance, it makes you very hard to throw off, and you can slam fists, fore-arms, and elbows down onto their face with almost your entire upper body strength behind them. It's a pretty basic technique, but it's also a pretty good one.

tazzygirl -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (7/2/2013 4:23:28 AM)
Never seen a guy stomped in the face? Come on!

Just0Us0Two -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (7/2/2013 4:38:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle In order to get a conviction, all they have to do is prove that Zimmerman provoked the fight, and that he had an opportunity to run away and didn't take it. John Good testified that he saw Zimmerman and Martin vertical before they ended up on the ground with Trayvon on top. Selma Mora testified she saw Zimmerman on top earlier. So, if Good and Mora are credible witnesses, then that proves Zimmerman had an opportunity to run away when he was on top or when they were both standing, and didn't take it. Because of that, and because he provoked the confrontation, he can't claim self defense. O'Mara while on cross established John Good misused 'vertical'. What he meant was they were both on the ground, with Trayvon perpendicular to George, on top. Selma didn't see George on top until after the shot. O'Mara had her demonstrate the run outside when she heard the shot. And just because you're "on top" doesn't mean you can run away, it doesn't necessarily mean that you're winning either. There's at least one technique it's known as the guard position in Brazilian Ju-Jitsu and the MMA) I can think of that puts one fighter flat on their back, with their opponent above them, but maintains control of the upper-most opponent. Zimmerman would have known this position, but then again so would anyone who's watched a few UFC fights and has a supposed history as a street fighter. Even if you're not locked up in a guard position, it depends on how close you are, which way both fighters are facing, if you're standing or still on your knees, etc. The last thing you want to do is to try to turn and run and risk getting tripped to the ground. Close range, grappling fights are fast, dynamic affairs. You don't have time to make real decisions. You react, and react quickly, or you get hurt.

Rule -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (7/2/2013 4:43:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice It was a classic literary allusion. Oh? To what book title? The Book of Rules silly. AKA Nonsense, by Gene E Arse. [;)] It was A Christmass carol.

Just0Us0Two -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (7/2/2013 5:01:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave quote: Too bad for Zimmerman he had a neurological evaluation immediately following the killing, proving that there were no worries about any damage. Zimmerman had a neurological evaluation immediately following the assault, proving to his vast relief he had taken action before any permanent damage had occurred. Fixed it for you. I really don't understand why some people can't grasp the simple fact that you aren't required to actually be hurt before you can react. Well, other then that it doesn't fit their agenda of course. It's if you believe grievous bodily harm will be inflicted, not has been inflicted. Regardless of what many folks seem to believe, you're not required to wait till your brains are spread out on the pavement or the other guy shots first before you can defend yourself.

PeonForHer -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (7/2/2013 5:12:04 AM)
quote: He was a minor but anyone old enough to join the military can hardly be considered a child. The term was a misleading description bringing forth images of a 6 year old on his tricycle I must say, that's not the image that got evoked in my mind - at a distance from the whole affair here in the UK. What I pictured was the standard 17 year old boy - gobby, awkward, loud, clumsy, inept, nowhere near as cool as he thinks he is, frequently a pain in the arse . . . just like I was at his age. Yes, certainly a kid - though a big kid. But society should really try to suffer big children as well as little children.

farglebargle -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (7/2/2013 5:24:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn Some might say; not merely 'looking for trouble,' but actually desperate for it. Remember that time Zimmerman assaulted a cop?

farglebargle -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (7/2/2013 5:26:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: He was a minor but anyone old enough to join the military can hardly be considered a child. The term was a misleading description bringing forth images of a 6 year old on his tricycle I must say, that's not the image that got evoked in my mind - at a distance from the whole affair here in the UK. What I pictured was the standard 17 year old boy - gobby, awkward, loud, clumsy, inept, nowhere near as cool as he thinks he is, frequently a pain in the arse . . . just like I was at his age. Yes, certainly a kid - though a big kid. But society should really try to suffer big children as well as little children. The only thing that really matters in the context of the trial is the mandatory sentencing since the victim was under 18. 25 to life, even if they Jury says "Involuntary Manslaughter" That's ONE of the reasons they charged Murder-2. The sentence is identical either way, and this way, if Zimmerman wants 776 protection, HE is going to have to assert a positive defense. And given the timeline, and Zimmermans clear failure to satisfy those requirements, it's actually a pretty good charging strategy.

farglebargle -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (7/2/2013 5:30:06 AM)
And let's be clear, even if Trayvon Martin was 'on top', that's not enough reason to kill him under Florida Law. Since we have a witness who says Zimmerman was on top, and two who say Martin was on top. And Zimmerman is all, "Martin was covering my mouth and nose, and smashing my head against the ground, and with his THIRD PAIR OF HANDS REACHED FOR MY GUN... before killing him, and while ON TOP OF HIM SPREAD OUT HIS LIFELESS HANDS. Then Zimmerman gets up and holsters his weapon.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (7/2/2013 5:30:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: He was a minor but anyone old enough to join the military can hardly be considered a child. The term was a misleading description bringing forth images of a 6 year old on his tricycle Just because you had images of a 6 year old doesnt mean I did, or the person using it did. Scrawny kid is based on those pics of him when he was 12-14 that were originally printed, the more recent ones (like when he was 17 was anything but a scrawny kid. But believe what you want, you have a right to your opinion. As I also pointed out when someone is on top of you beating you to a pulp you don't card them. Scrawny is based on 5'11 158., I called him scrawny, I oughta know what the FUCK I meant ETA. If you don't like dictionary definitions, change the dictionary. Those of us who are literate will use words as they are defined in Webster.

Just0Us0Two -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (7/2/2013 5:32:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave quote: I'd call in the dark, on neutral ground or your property suspecting one or more criminals in the immediate vicinity is a reasonable threat. "Neutral ground" equals, say, a public park? You hear...? Running footsteps? Rustling in the bushes? You "suspect" "one or more criminals in the immediate vicinity" You draw. Children run from the bushes playing tag. Guilty of wanton endangerment. There has to be a reasonable and credible threat. "I suspect" does not necessarily meet that standard. Children come running from the bushes, at 3am? In the pitch black and raining? I've been with you on most of this, but that kind of stretched credulity.

leonine -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (7/2/2013 5:32:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Just0Us0Two quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave quote: Too bad for Zimmerman he had a neurological evaluation immediately following the killing, proving that there were no worries about any damage. Zimmerman had a neurological evaluation immediately following the assault, proving to his vast relief he had taken action before any permanent damage had occurred. Fixed it for you. I really don't understand why some people can't grasp the simple fact that you aren't required to actually be hurt before you can react. Well, other then that it doesn't fit their agenda of course. It's if you believe grievous bodily harm will be inflicted, not has been inflicted. Regardless of what many folks seem to believe, you're not required to wait till your brains are spread out on the pavement or the other guy shots first before you can defend yourself. Well, that's cool. I've been in a lot of situations where I thought someone might be going to thump me. Too bad I didn't live in a country where it was legal for me to kill them because I felt that way. (Then again, none of them were black, so I probably wouldn't have got away with it.)

Rule -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (7/2/2013 5:34:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer What I pictured was the standard 17 year old boy - gobby, awkward, loud, clumsy, inept, nowhere near as cool as he thinks he is, frequently a pain in the arse . . . just like I was at his age. You are a slave, I surmise. Martin was a savage or a warrior. One cannot compare a slave with either savage or warrior. Martin was nothing like you. It is good that he is dead.

farglebargle -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (7/2/2013 5:34:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle "Zimmerman's Claims" is not evidence in a trial. There's a difference, and if someone doesn't know what it is, perhaps they're not qualified to participate in a meaningful way in this discussion. Actually they were put into evidence yesterday. Yeah, and again, NO ONE NEEDS TO BELIEVE ANY OF IT UNLESS OTHER EVIDENCE CONFIRMS IS. And there is NO EVIDENCE THAT MARTIN ASSAULTED ZIMMERMAN. Just in case people are on their first cup of coffee. And there is NO EVIDENCE THAT MARTIN ASSAULTED ZIMMERMAN. There's Zimmerman's claims. And perhaps your assumptions. BUT NO ONE IN THE JURY HAS EVER BEEN TOLD THAT ZIMMERMAN IS NOT LYING AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT MARTIN ASSAULTED ZIMMERMAN.

Page: << < prev 57 58 [59] 60 61 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.2719727