Trayvon Martin Case

[Jauronimo]

Hey, uhhh, he's intentionally saying ridiculous stuff to see how many people like will take the bait,

No, he's really this dumb. Anyone who frequents the shoutbox has seen this routine countless times. It really doesn't go anywhere. Theres no grand reveal, no gotcha moments, just more of the same.

[Donald Duck]

Hey, uhhh, he's intentionally saying ridiculous stuff to see how many people like will take the bait,

 

No Im not, and If you take time to read my posts you'll see I'm just trying to carry on a cival conversation without all the insults.

 

Tasker made a statement as fact, which it is not, and I'm simply pointing it out.

[TakeYouToTasker]

No Im not, and If you take time to read my posts you'll see I'm just trying to carry on a cival conversation without all the insults.

 

Tasker made a statement as fact, which it is not, and I'm simply pointing it out.

So you're saying that it is not, in fact, illegal to assault someone who is following you?

[Joe Miner]

No Im not, and If you take time to read my posts you'll see I'm just trying to carry on a cival conversation without all the insults.

 

Tasker made a statement as fact, which it is not, and I'm simply pointing it out.

 

 

Congrats.

 

 

You are the Racheal Jenteal of this thread.

[DC Tom]

not sure why this narrative was brought about to begin with puppet head, Tasker made a comment that hasn't been proven like it was fact which it is not.

 

Because your entire stupid-ass opinion is predicated on the prosecution's story being absolute truth, and the burden of disproof being on the defense to disprove the prosecution's theory of the crime.

[Rob's House]

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.

Let's take these one at a time:

 

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.

You've here assumed a fact not in evidence - that Zimmerman was negligent. Thus far there has been no evidence of any illegal activity on the part of Zimmerman. Until you can establish that Zimmerman did something illegal he has not availed himself of a beating or foreclosed his right to self-defense. Saying that if he hadn't put himself in that situation this wouldn't have happened may be true, but it's not all that relevant if he didn't break any laws.

 

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.

You ought to be slapped for this comment. First, whether GZ is a cop, neighborhood watch, or unafiliated citizen, he has an absolute right to report suspicious activity and follow a person to report their location. That person does not have a right to physically retaliate until their life or safety is put in imminent threat of grievous harm, and you've no evidence of that. And your characterization that he killed TM because he looked suspicious conveniently leaves out the part where the suspicious kid was pumping his face with his fist.

 

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.

So because TM isn't here to tell his side we should assume facts not in evidence as long as we can conceive of them? And your rhetorical prose is lame. Really lame.

 

 

So basically you said that despite the fact that there is no evidence that GZ did anything wrong, he should be convicted because you can imagine a scenario where this played out in a certain way, and we should assume the version you've imagined is reality until proven otherwise. That's brilliant. Thanks for sharing.

 

You've also confirmed my earlier post, the one you chose only to address with an emoticon. According to you, if you suspect someone of a crime and follow that person you've availed yourself of a beating and foreclosed your right to self-defense regardless of how the confrontation occurs. If this isn't what you think please explain how your position differs.

[IDBillzFan]

Congrats.

 

 

You are the Racheal Jenteal of this thread.

 

That's retarded, sir.

[Donald Duck]

Let's take these one at a time:

 

 

You've here assumed a fact not in evidence - that Zimmerman was negligent. Thus far there has been no evidence of any illegal activity on the part of Zimmerman. Until you can establish that Zimmerman did something illegal he has not availed himself of a beating or foreclosed his right to self-defense. Saying that if he hadn't put himself in that situation this wouldn't have happened may be true, but it's not all that relevant if he didn't break any laws.

 

 

You ought to be slapped for this comment. First, whether GZ is a cop, neighborhood watch, or unafiliated citizen, he has an absolute right to report suspicious activity and follow a person to report their location. That person does not have a right to physically retaliate until their life or safety is put in imminent threat of grievous harm, and you've no evidence of that. And your characterization that he killed TM because he looked suspicious conveniently leaves out the part where the suspicious kid was pumping his face with his fist.

 

 

So because TM isn't here to tell his side we should assume facts not in evidence as long as we can conceive of them? And your rhetorical prose is lame. Really lame.

 

 

So basically you said that despite the fact that there is no evidence that GZ did anything wrong, he should be convicted because you can imagine a scenario where this played out in a certain way, and we should assume the version you've imagined is reality until proven otherwise. That's brilliant. Thanks for sharing.

 

You've also confirmed my earlier post, the one you chose only to address with an emoticon. According to you, if you suspect someone of a crime and follow that person you've availed yourself of a beating and foreclosed your right to self-defense regardless of how the confrontation occurs. If this isn't what you think please explain how your position differs.

 

 

Rob I appreciate the time you've taken to object to my line of reasoning, but I stand behind my beliefs and up to this point believe Zimmerman should be convicted of the lessor charge of manslaughter.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Rob I appreciate the time you've taken to object to my line of reasoning, but I stand behind my beliefs and up to this point believe Zimmerman should be convicted of the lessor charge of manslaughter.

Based on what, exactly?

[Rob's House]

Rob I appreciate the time you've taken to object to my line of reasoning, but I stand behind my beliefs and up to this point believe Zimmerman should be convicted of the lessor charge of manslaughter.

You're welcome to your beliefs. The problem is you've not laid out any argument that even remotely supports a finding of manslaughter.

[Donald Duck]

You're welcome to your beliefs. The problem is you've not laid out any argument that even remotely supports a finding of manslaughter.

 

 

we have the aggressor, and we have a dead body, its a good start,

 

You do realize Zimmerman would probably do very little if any jail time If hes convicted of manslaughter, right?

Edited July 1, 2013 by dog14787

[TakeYouToTasker]

You do realize Zimmerman would probably do very little if any jail time If hes convicted of manslaughter, right?

That's...

 

That's not an argument that supports a conviction for manslaughter.

 

It's a non-sequitor.

[Rob's House]

we have the aggressor, and we have a dead body, its a good start,

 

You do realize Zimmerman would probably do very little if any jail time If hes convicted of manslaughter, right?

 

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

[Donald Duck]

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

 

Testimony from both the dispatcher and Martins girlfriend

[Rob's House]

Testimony from both the dispatcher and Martins girlfriend

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?

[Nanker]

Did the Persecution play the taped reenactment and walk-through that Zimmerman conducted the day after he shot Travon Obama?

I'm not near a TV and there's precious little new news about the case on the INtarwebs today. It's almost like there's a white-out going on. I can't believe CNN would give up on this juicy story so quickly.

[DC Tom]

Rob I appreciate the time you've taken to object to my line of reasoning, but I stand behind my beliefs and up to this point believe Zimmerman should be convicted of the lessor charge of manslaughter.

 

This is why discussing it with you is a complete waste of time. You don't have a "line of reasoning", you have beliefs.

[Donald Duck]

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?

 

Zimerman was persuing Martin and it appears may have tried to subdue him without proper provication, now had Martin actually broken a law my argument would be mute.

[Jauronimo]

Zimerman was persuing Martin and it appears may have tried to subdue him without proper provication, now had Martin actually broken a law my argument would be mute.

What evidence suggests he tried to "subdue" Martin?

[Rob's House]

Zimerman was persuing Martin and it appears may have tried to subdue him without proper provication, now had Martin actually broken a law my argument would be mute.

 

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?