Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Now, if the victim would have been Morman, Jake would acquit without a problem.
I used to teach with a prof who said that we ALL have prejudices. He had devised a tool that would root yours out. I don't think a research tool is even needed on forums. It glares.
I had another prof who asserted that women are less corruptible than men. It was a guy.
I can agree with that statement, we are all influenced by our environment, on these forums, I think people tend not to be to reserved, so it is usually, what you see is what you get.
I tend to also believe that women are more loyal to their values then men. And I agree less corruptible.
Obviously, Martin was not afraid of Zimmerman or he would not have attacked him, he would have run from him. Martin was clearly the aggressor.
Good point!
Missourian, all of that matters not a bit.
The women will take upon themselves the character as present of Z, will consider the circumstance, and then ask themselves why he murdered another woman's son.
Stop the masculine-type logic. That is not going to determine this case.
Masculine-type logic? Are you serious? Logic is not the special province of men. Far from it. In fact, the simple act of thinking so make is clear you are unable to think logically. Women are no less logical than men, though men like to think so, which is a perfect example of how illogical men are. Wanting to believe women are inherently less logical than men is an emotional process, not a process of reasoning.
Esmeralda - oh wait! I guess you already used yours up on me today. Good one!
You don't have the right to stand your ground with the police. And merely walking behind someone is not stalking, nor is it a physical assault.
Zimmerman was not the police, nor was he acting for the police, nor was he wearing a badge or uniform of a security guard, ...
I believe there was a lot of running involved as well, not just walking. Maybe I'm wrong about the term stalking, but I thought tracking someone, following them, is what stalking is. Again I'm saying stalking from the perspective of Trayvon... even the dispatcher appears to tell Zimmerman to stop following/stalking that the police are on their way.
Stand your ground applies not just to Zim, but also to Tray. If Tray felt threatened by Zim following him, chasing him, then he had the right to defend himself.
Jake likes to start shit with people, then go crying to the mods when they respond. He's a little bitch.irony here ^ is delicious
why don't you tell the story of how you called me a cracker and I retaliated in kind.
You went crying to the mods. boo hoo
You then posted a thread saying how I was going to be in for a big surprise.
and what happened.
you got egg all over you tranny face.
I used to teach with a prof who said that we ALL have prejudices. He had devised a tool that would root yours out. I don't think a research tool is even needed on forums. It glares.
I had another prof who asserted that women are less corruptible than men. It was a guy.
I can agree with that statement, we are all influenced by our environment, on these forums, I think people tend not to be to reserved, so it is usually, what you see is what you get.
I tend to also believe that women are more loyal to their values then men. And I agree less corruptible.
And none of that, pap, makes you any wiser. I am not Mormon, now or ever. I live in Salt Lake City, which has a strong non-Mormon center.
If Z were LDS or not is immaterial at all.
You need to deal with your inadequacies.
Zimmerman should get the Nobel Piece Prize...for effective concealed carry.
Can you point out how it was proper CCW ?
Conservatives here are fine people.
Reactionaries, however, are the scum of America, and I have no trouble sweeping them into the gutter.
Any one who says that men and women are the same defines being Simple.
Once again, as I have said before, the judge and the jury will evaluate the testimony. The women are going to make the right decision, as I said above.
Conservatives here are fine people.
Reactionaries, however, are the scum of America, and I have no trouble sweeping them into the gutter.
Any one who says that men and women are the same defines being Simple.
Once again, as I have said before, the judge and the jury will evaluate the testimony. The women are going to make the right decision, as I said above.
I'm sure you would have no problem with an all male jury.
Conservatives here are fine people.
Reactionaries, however, are the scum of America, and I have no trouble sweeping them into the gutter.
Any one who says that men and women are the same defines being Simple.
Once again, as I have said before, the judge and the jury will evaluate the testimony. The women are going to make the right decision, as I said above.
Masculine-type logic? Are you serious? Logic is not the special province of men. Far from it. In fact, the simple act of thinking so make is clear you are unable to think logically. Women are no less logical than men, though men like to think so, which is a perfect example of how illogical men are. Wanting to believe women are inherently less logical than men is an emotional process, not a process of reasoning.
Esmeralda - oh wait! I guess you already used yours up on me today. Good one!
Esmeralda was being emotional and not objective.
It's all over but the riots.
The idea is to convict him so we don't have riots.
Man, do I ever owe you a neg! That is NOT the purpose of the courts!
And here is a scratch pad for people as narrow minded as you!
Very well stated.
And for these reasons if no further facts came up, I would not lean to convicting on 2nd degree. IMO from the evidence shown the only reasonable case the prosecution might have is manslaughter. Let's see what the evidence is... Would I have made the same decision? I've been in a similar fight on the ground with my head being bashed, I did not have a CC carry pistol on me. I remember the feeling of "self" preservation coming on.In hindsight I'm glad I didn't have a pistol on me, otherwise I might have had to make the wrong decision.Turned out afterwards that the guy in question was a victim of child abuse by his father. IOW he did not need to be killed he needed to be taught a lesson. I was able to teach the guy a lesson without dying or killing the guy. I suppose I'm just lamenting that Zimmerman did not just force the guy to back off. It's a sad story of two guys who probably both thought they were in the right, fighting each other for absolutely no reason other than they both though ill of the other. sad story...
In a strange way, one has to ask why Zim appears to not have defended himself. In the back of my head.. I can't shake this really bad feeling that Zim is not the angel he's trying to project. Why would a grown man, not defend himself? Why would he just lay there crying again and again for help? Then I remember he's got a gun.. then I start thinking maybe.. just maybe Zim was staging a show, playing rope a dope... maybe... but alas I have no proof, only supposition.
[
Again, that is not the purpose of the courts, you stupid fuck. If you think it is, I hope it gets turned on you one day.
[Are you working yet? I hope so, because I relish the thought that your SS taxes go almost directly into my bank account.
What a bunch of folks talking about things they really have no idea bout.
The judge and jury will do their duty, and we will abide it.
If there are riots (which we all know won't happen), LEO will trundle out the water cannons and cameras.
[
I believe him...the local police believed...the first prosecutor believed him...and the jury will believe him.
Where is the evidence that refutes his account?
Missorian and others who seem just beyond convinced of Zimmerman's innocence seem to continue claiming that Zimmerman can just give any cockamamie story and the burden of proof is on the prosecution to disprove.
NOT the case.
THEIR burden is in proving that he shot the kid - A claim which is not refuted.
If it was self-defense, it's HIS burden to demonstrate such.
As I said many pages ago in this thread, by those standards, ANYONE who shot anyone could simply state "He was going to hit me!" and leave the State with a dead witness and an unprovable standard.
You know this stuff Ilar, don't you? Aren't you in the legal field? What makes this case different exactly, or is it just wishful thinking by gun nuts?
You are not listening.
Zimmerman will present his case for self defense.
It will sound something like this:
"I saw suspicious activity, a person unknown to me...the neighborhood watch captain...walking in the dark, in the rain...who seemed to be casing the nearby houses and backyards.
I phoned the police while I kept an eye on this person to make sure he engaged in no criminal activity before the police arrived.
When the person noticed that I was watching their activities, they fled and I lost contact with them.
At that time the police dispatcher, concerned for my safety, informed me that they did not need for me to continue following the person, and that I should move to meet the officers when they arrived.
They asked my address, but as I didn't know the whereabouts of the person I had been following, I didn't want to give that information where it was possible the person I was following could hear my conversation, so I told the dispatcher I would meet the officers near the mailboxes.
On my way to the mailboxes, I walked a circuitous route, inspecting windows and doors of the houses nearby for evidence of damage.
Suddenly a man stepped out of an alley and began shouting at me.
He was angry, questioning why I was following him.
I tried to explain that I was a member of the neighborhood watch when the man sucker punched me in the face.
I fell backwards trying to escape the man, but he was on top of me punching my face and body, he grabbed my head and was slamming the back of my head into something hard...I could feel blood...
At this point, I was afraid he was going to kill me. I felt like I was going to lose consciousness and he was going to keep bashing my head and there was going to be nothing I could do...I was absolutely in fear for my life. I was screaming for help but no one came...
So I took the only course of action available...it was him or me.
I never wanted to kill him, I'm truly sorry that he is dead, but like I said, it was my last resort, I honestly believe he was going to kill me."
And the evidence backs him up.
He called the police...who calls the police first when they intend to kill someone?
Zimmerman had blunt force injuries, Martin did not.
Two witnesses place Zimmerman on the ground, one places Martin on top of him "raining down blows like MMA"
Zimmerman cooperated with the police, and was not arrested until the story became political and racial.
I believe him...the local police believed...the first prosecutor believed him...and the jury will believe him.
Where is the evidence that refutes his account?
[MENTION=42969]jon_berzerk[/MENTION] made a really good point about this yesterday. The dispatcher actually "asked Z for assistance" so to speak in the call - where is he? do you see him now? etc. His post is a few pages back on it. I hadn't even thought of it that way.
Incidentally the judge just ruled "no" on voice experts.
Do not misplay what the dispatcher said.
He said "keep your ass in the car, podjo" and Z disobeyed the order.
