Rob's House

You guys need to take this spat back to the Snowden thread.

You mean aggravating factor. And it still doesn't make any sense the way you're applying it.

I was addressing your assertion substantively while simultaneously ridiculing you.

The irony is thick with you. Tom at least acquired a functional understanding of the law. You're here arguing that that legally permissible action that could potentially lead to altercation is criminally negligent behavior that precludes the right to self-defense. And you are so ignorant on the subject that you haven't the foggiest idea why everyone who's at least minimally informed on the matter thinks you're a blithering idiot. But I'm sure you could study for a few weeks and blow the test out of the water. Good luck on the multi-state, bright boy.

So you're the head janitor at the power plant?

That's a really poor analogy. Again, you've merely stated that you don't understand what manslaughter is, what negligence is, and how negligence applies in the context of manslaughter. It's like you're arguing that in your opinion a receiver scores a TD if PI is called in the end zone. And your drunk driving analogy is like supporting that theory on the grounds that holding penalties can result in a loss of yards..

And I explained why it is that simple. Do you have an explanation for your erroneous assertion?

I don't know if you realize it or not, but you just admitted there is no evidence to support the conviction of GZ. You lose.

You still haven't told me what law GZ broke prior to pulling the trigger.

It's only a fight when you have two willing participants.

Actually, in this case it is. We know TM was beating GZ when he was shot. The only way in which he would have foreclosed his right to use deadly force in self defense in that situation would be if he was the initial aggressor. To be the initial aggressor he must have done something he didn't have a legal right to do. So I'll ask you again. What law did GZ break before pulling the trigger?

I'll make this really easy. Before pulling the trigger, what law did GZ break?

Yeah, but you forgot that exceeding the minimum required of you by a dispatch operator is negligence per se.

Why didn't you just say "because I don't know what manslaughter or negligence is". That would have at least been accurate. Dude, you're a !@#$ing idiot.

You keep saying this but you've never said why. Why?

I agree, which is why I'm not fanatically jumping to one side of this equation, but I'm surprised how many people who are generally skeptical of central government power are taking a "nothing to see here" approach. The power that could be derived from that much info is staggering.

I used to take comfort in this, and if all they're doing is tracking phone traffic I'm not as concerned, but it appears that's not really the case. Also, I don't trust that they're not recording more than we know about. Where this gets scary is if they are recording all of this info in a massive database. If that's done then the process of picking that conversation, email, etc. out of the haystack is no longer so far-fetch. A targeted key word search could be quite effective for navigating that vast database just as Google conveniently takes you to the needle that is your chosen website in the haystack that is the internet. This doesn't concern you at all?

I'm guessing you've never been in a fight. Not sure what skinny has to do with anything. I'm pretty skinny and I've taken a 6'6" 325 lb. man to the ground with ease and had a 5'8" 140 lb dude take me down (in fairness he was an all state wrestler). I know a guy who doesn't look that physically imposing, but he's a pro MMA fighter. So your size analysis means little. More to the point, once you've got a guy dazed, on his back, and you're slamming his head against the concrete, the size advantage has been neutralized. Further, if you're the one having your head smashed repeatedly against the concrete there's reason to believe he may not stop while you're still breathing. If we set the standard of self defense where you want it no one would be able to defend themselves until after the coroner's report was filed...or does this standard only apply to GZ?

That's quite irrelevant. The issue is whether he physically attacked Trayvon Martin first (not angered or scared by following him) or whether Trayvon Martin attacked him first. If Martin threw the first punch then it's self defense, period. Do you have any evidence that suggests that GZ threw the first punch?

It probably just seems that way because the poor dumb son of a B word was tried, convicted, and sentenced in the court of public opinion before the facts came to light, by a bunch of opportunistic race baiters and political hacks who used this as a political football to achieve their own ends. When that happens people tend to speak up for the accused. It's really not a matter of whether this guy's a saint, a dick, or a jerk off. The question is whether he's guilty of murder 2 or manslaughter, and thus far, after 118 pages of discussion, the best argument the pro-prosecution crowd can muster is that he got out of the car when the dispatcher said he didn't need him to, as if that by itself means much at all. We've already gone step by step with dog48579 and discovered that his position is based on faith. What is your position based on?

But you forget he was stalking him like a lion stalks his prey. It's funny how loyally you cling to your previously held belief despite the erosion of the basis for its formation.

That's clearly speculative, and frankly it's quite a stretch, especially since we already know that his stated goal was not to apprehend Martin but to learn of his location to report to the cops. In fact, given the timeline, it's quite unlikely that it unfolded the way you describe. When GZ lost sight of Martin, who apparently noticed Zimmerman and had ample opportunity to get away, yet the confrontation happened right next to Zimmerman's car, it seems much more likely that Martin went back to confront Zimmerman. Do you have anything that suggests otherwise?

You've just made two separate assertions. We know Zimmerman got out to pursue Martin, which he was absolutely within his right to do, but then lost sight of him. What evidence is there to suggest that he tried to subdue him?

I'm quite familiar with the testimony from the dispatcher, and sorry, you've got nothing there. So you're basing your theory of the case on the word of a witness we know has committed perjury, changed her story, and can't read? But I'll bite, what did you get from either of those sources that indicates GZ was the aggressor?

You're assuming Zimmerman is the aggressor? That's quite an assumption. What evidence is your theory based on?