Trayvon Martin Case

[IDBillzFan]

And you're retarded.

 

And when he uses the word 'retarded,' he uses it in a Rachel Jeantel kinda way.

[boyst]

The issue is that you and fatty just don't understand. A civialized debate isn't based on ignorant, non educated opinions. You've already admitted that your prejudice is more important to the conversation than facts. After that, why would I want to discuss anything with you?

the irony is when you give the idiots sarcasm, ignorant responses, nonsense and other fodder like my post above - it goes ignored. The idiots are just idiots

[Donald Duck]

the irony is when you give the idiots sarcasm, ignorant responses, nonsense and other fodder like my post above - it goes ignored. The idiots are just idiots

 

go milk a cow

 

yes...yes...eat each other...yes...yes

 

still number one

[NoSaint]

Just a few hours til new material.... The weekend was unkind to this thread

[TakeYouToTasker]

Today I learned that because I have a degree in both economics and philosophy and my MBA, that I am a hopeless paranoid stuck living in the 1950's.

 

Interesting.

[boyst]

Today I learned that because I have a degree in both economics and philosophy and my MBA, that I am a hopeless paranoid stuck living in the 1950's.

 

Interesting.

I bet you can't even plow a field or milk a cow.

And since I have nothing else to add to this thread other then irrational and illogical spews of head goo then I will just mention stuff like that in my insecurity and hope to hide my stupidity.

[Donald Duck]

Today I learned that because I have a degree in both economics and philosophy and my MBA, that I am a hopeless paranoid stuck living in the 1950's.

 

Interesting.

 

You try real hard Tasker to impress people with your intellect, but talking down to people doesn't impress me in the least.

 

You also asked me to join the thread and express my opinions which I did in hopes of a healthy debate.

 

All I've goitten so far are insults with very little intelligent conversation.

Edited July 1, 2013 by dog14787

[NoSaint]

 

 

You try real hard Tasker to impress people with your intellect, but talking down to people doesn't impress me in the least.

 

You asked me to join the thread and express my opinions which I did in hopes of a healthy debate, and all I've goitten is insults so far with very little intelligent conversation.

 

have you yet taken the opportunity to read any substantial amount of the thread?

[TakeYouToTasker]

You try real hard Tasker to impress people with your intellect, but talking down to people doesn't impress me in the least.

 

You asked me to join the thread and express my opinions which I did in hopes of a healthy debate, and all I've goitten is insults so far with very little intelligent conversation.

Actually, I don't need to try at all. What you see is the end result of a life lived valuing actual fact finding and critical thinking. The fact those things have become so rare that anyone would be impressed with them is a sad commentary on our society.

 

As to your second paragraph: if you won't read back over the entire thread, why not read back over my comments directed to you, specifically, in this thread.

 

After that, if you continue those accusations, I'll have to assume you don't know what the words you're using mean.

[B-Man]

You try real hard Tasker to impress people with your intellect, but talking down to people doesn't impress me in the least.

 

You also asked me to join the thread and express my opinions which I did in hopes of a healthy debate.

 

All I've goitten so far are insults with very little intelligent conversation.

 

 

[Donald Duck]

have you yet taken the opportunity to read any substantial amount of the thread?

 

Often times I like to express my opinion without it being tainted by what has been offered up in the past.(with all due respect NoSaint)

 

I mean no disrespect to the folks who have already posted a meaningful dialogue or who may have already kicked around my observations.

 

Yes tasker , you are one of the few who may have tried to have a meaningful dialogue without insulting me , but I still felt more like you were trying to talk down to me, then really listen to where I was coming from.

 

I feel while Zimmerman may have been in danger of being badly hurt or killed by Martin during the confrontation, Zimmerman is still responsible for setting forth the chain of events that caused the death of Trayvon Martin.

 

The reason my belief has held firm is because there was never a law broken to begin with up until the fatal confrontation occured. The confrontation Zimmerman brought on himself, and Zimmermans actions/negligence in part helped bring about the death of Martin. G Zimmermans a neghborhood watch person, something practically anyone can become, not a cop and we can't have neghborhood watch killing our kids because they look suspicious, it sets a bad example. Trayvon Martin's not here in the flesh to tell his side of the story, one which may cast doubt over a G Zimmermans account of what really happened that cold dark night the young teen met his tragic ending.

Edited July 1, 2013 by dog14787

[TakeYouToTasker]

Often times I like to express my opinion without it being tainted by what has been offered up in the past.

 

I mean no disrespect to the folks who have already posted a meaningful dialogue or who may have already kicked around my observations.

Wait...

 

You do realize that you've just stated that you like to offer up uninformed opinions, yet at the same time believe that others should give consideration to your opinions, even though they are often times intentionally mal or uninformed, simply because you've offered them?

 

Really?

 

Yes tasker , you are one of the few who tried to have a meaningful dialogue , but I still felt more like you were trying to talk down to me then really listen to where I was coming from.

So let me get this straight...

 

I have an availed myself of the facts of the case, understand the law in the State of Florida, utilize critical thinking, and write well; and therefore am talking down to you?

 

Un-!@#$ing-believable.

Edited July 1, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[B-Man]

"How Much Injury Is Required Before Self-Defense is Justified?"

 

 

Andrew Branca analyzes the law and the evidence in the Zimmerman trial.

 

 

The very idea that the State is seeking to establish

– that self-defense is conditional upon actually suffering serious injury – is, of course, ridiculous on its face. The purpose of the law of self-defense, particularly in the context of the use deadly defensive force, is to be able to protect yourself from an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm before that harm occurs, not to require that you actually experience death or grave bodily harm before you may act to protect yourself.

 

 

 

 

 

.

[3rdnlng]

Often times I like to express my opinion without it being tainted by what has been offered up in the past.(with all due respect NoSaint)

 

I mean no disrespect to the folks who have already posted a meaningful dialogue or who may have already kicked around my observations.

 

Yes tasker , you are one of the few who may have tried to have a meaningful dialogue without insulting me , but I still felt more like you were trying to talk down to me, then really listen to where I was coming from.

 

.

 

The problem here dog, is that you were coming from nowhere. You must have been spouting out comments that you heard from someone else who was completely uninformed. You didn't educate yourself but you had a strong opinion. You were like a little puppy trying to compete with the big dogs. I gave you a re-enactment video and a source for substantial discussion of the issues. You didn't care to learn anything, all you wanted was to ignorantly express your uninformed opinion. With that said, any insults hurled your way were justly deserved.

[DC Tom]

You try real hard Tasker to impress people with your intellect, but talking down to people doesn't impress me in the least.

 

You also asked me to join the thread and express my opinions which I did in hopes of a healthy debate.

 

All I've goitten so far are insults with very little intelligent conversation.

 

Ever stop to think it's because you don't provide any yourself?

 

Often times I like to express my opinion without it being tainted by what has been offered up in the past.(with all due respect NoSaint)

 

 

I mean no disrespect to the folks who have already posted a meaningful dialogue or who may have already kicked around my observations.

 

Yes, you d

[Bigfatbillsfan]

The problem here dog, is that you were coming from nowhere. You must have been spouting out comments that you heard from someone else who was completely uninformed. You didn't educate yourself but you had a strong opinion. You were like a little puppy trying to compete with the big dogs. I gave you a re-enactment video and a source for substantial discussion of the issues. You didn't care to learn anything, all you wanted was to ignorantly express your uninformed opinion. With that said, any insults hurled your way were justly deserved.

 

By reenactment video you mean GZ explaining his side of what happened that evening. Unfortunately we can never get TM's side of the story now will we?

[TakeYouToTasker]

By reenactment video you mean GZ explaining his side of what happened that evening. Unfortunately we can never get TM's side of the story now will we?

Funny thing about court proceedings: they are suppose to report to what we think we know, not that which is unknowable. How the hell do you propose to introduce the unknowable as evidence?

Edited July 1, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[Rob's House]

You try real hard Tasker to impress people with your intellect, but talking down to people doesn't impress me in the least.

 

You also asked me to join the thread and express my opinions which I did in hopes of a healthy debate.

 

All I've goitten so far are insults with very little intelligent conversation.

 

It's funny how those who dodge substantive argument cry the loudest about no one engaging them in substantive argument. I've addressed several salient points to you, none of which have you addressed substantively. I realize you're not a legal scholar and I don't expect you to be, but to anyone remotely familiar with criminal law and this case, your analsysis sounds like the infantile musings of simpleton. And that would be fine if you approached with a little more humility, but despite your ignorance of the facts of the case as well as the applicable law, you come in with a sense of arrogance expecting others to respect your uniformed opinions as though they had merit, and then you become offended when people accurately call you out on it.

 

By reenactment video you mean GZ explaining his side of what happened that evening. Unfortunately we can never get TM's side of the story now will we?

 

We should probably assume TM would have said something both credible and incriminating and proceed accordingly.

[Bigfatbillsfan]

Funny thing about court proceedings: they are suppose to eport to what we think we know, not that which is unknowable. How the hell do you propose to introduce the unknowable as evidence?

 

I'm not proposing that we try to introduce the unknowable as evidence. My post had to do with 3rd grade's statement that it was a reenactment video. It's not. It's GZ explaining his side of events.

[3rdnlng]

By reenactment video you mean GZ explaining his side of what happened that evening. Unfortunately we can never get TM's side of the story now will we?

 

Well, TM's side of the story is being told by the prosecution and it just so happens that it generally coincides with GZ's re-enactment the day after the shooting, and prior to GZ lawyering up.