The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[dilloduck]

Only because you want it to be.

So true--this is exactly what I prayed for a couple of Christmases ago.

You think I and others defending him because he is black, bleeding heart liberal and all that.

Zimmerman needs to go to jail cuz he scared a guy into beating the shit out him.

Is this what you want to happen ? Or do you think its the legal thing that should happen ?

 

[Luissa]

"Imminent danger" isn't what the statute says, Luissa. It's "imminent death" or "great bodily harm". So which of those two would Martin have feared from someone walking away from him talking to the Police on his cell phone?

Like I said before...I don't think you understand the applicable law...and you just illustrated that I'm right.

It has nothing to do with understanding the law, it has to do with how it has been used and who has gotten off due to the law. Obviously you didn't look up any cases. So you have illustrated that you didn't read what I posted, and just assumed what I posted.
And it has nothing to do with him walking away and everything to do With him following him.
Do me a favor, before you post again that I don't know what I am talking about, look up cases that have been dropped due to stand your ground on Florida. Geez, like I said before, a bunch of geniuses.

So kindly explain to me, Luissa the time table involved in YOUR concept of how this law applies? If A follows B...you're saying that B has the right to attack A? That just the act of following someone provides the excuse to commit assault and battery on another?

And let's say A is following B but then loses B and a period of time transpires. Does B STILL have the right to commit assault and battery upon A at a later time? How long (in your bizarre interpretation of the law) does this right hold up? Five minutes? Fifteen? Half an hour?

Did you look up cases that were dropped due to the law? I see you are still having a hard time reading my posts.
When you look up cases that have been dropped get back to me.

And what are you talking about bizarre interpretation of the law? It has nothing to do with my interpretation, it has to do with how law enforcement and judges have already interpreted the law... Do what I have asked you to do... About ten times now and get back to me. FUCK!! I think I would rather bang my head against a wall, I would probably get farther.

 

[Oldstyle]

Only because you want it to be.

So true--this is exactly what I prayed for a couple of Christmases ago.

You think I and others are defending him because he is black, bleeding heart liberal and all that.

No, I think you're attacking Zimmerman because he defended himself with a firearm.

 

[Luissa]

So true--this is exactly what I prayed for a couple of Christmases ago.

You think I and others are defending him because he is black, bleeding heart liberal and all that.

No, I think you're attacking Zimmerman because he defended himself with a firearm.

Really? Why would you say that?

 

[dilloduck]

Only because you want it to be.

So true--this is exactly what I prayed for a couple of Christmases ago.

You think I and others are defending him because he is black, bleeding heart liberal and all that.

no you're defending him because you think he's a victim and not responsible for anything.

 

[Oldstyle]

It has nothing to do with understanding the law, it has to do with how it has been used and who has gotten off due to the law. Obviously you didn't look up any cases. So you have illustrated that you didn't read what I posted, and just assumed what I posted.
And it has nothing to do with him walking away and everything to do With him following him.
Do me a favor, before you post again that I don't know what I am talking about, look up cases that have been dropped due to stand your ground on Florida. Geez, like I said before, a bunch of geniuses.

So kindly explain to me, Luissa the time table involved in YOUR concept of how this law applies? If A follows B...you're saying that B has the right to attack A? That just the act of following someone provides the excuse to commit assault and battery on another?

And let's say A is following B but then loses B and a period of time transpires. Does B STILL have the right to commit assault and battery upon A at a later time? How long (in your bizarre interpretation of the law) does this right hold up? Five minutes? Fifteen? Half an hour?

Did you look up cases that were dropped due to the law? I see you are still having a hard time reading my posts.
When you look up cases that have been dropped get back to me.

And what are you talking about bizarre interpretation of the law? It has nothing to do with my interpretation, it has to do with how law enforcement and judges have already interpreted the law... Do what I have asked you to do... About ten times now and get back to me. FUCK!! I think I would rather bang my head against a wall, I would probably get farther.

There's no question that there is confusion in the legal system over the interpretation of Stand Your Ground but because that doesn't apply in this case...since it's appears to be a much simpler case of self defense...then what is your point?

 

[Oldstyle]

You think I and others are defending him because he is black, bleeding heart liberal and all that.

No, I think you're attacking Zimmerman because he defended himself with a firearm.

Really? Why would you say that?

Oh, come on...the reason that the Zimmerman case has received so much attention is that it's being used as an example by both sides of the gun control controversy to stake out a position that the other side is wrong.

Are you honestly making the point that if George Zimmerman had cracked Trayvon Martin's head against the sidewalk and killed him that this case would have received the FUROR that it did from the far left? Really? This is ultimately about gun control legislation.

 

[Luissa]

So kindly explain to me, Luissa the time table involved in YOUR concept of how this law applies? If A follows B...you're saying that B has the right to attack A? That just the act of following someone provides the excuse to commit assault and battery on another?

And let's say A is following B but then loses B and a period of time transpires. Does B STILL have the right to commit assault and battery upon A at a later time? How long (in your bizarre interpretation of the law) does this right hold up? Five minutes? Fifteen? Half an hour?

Did you look up cases that were dropped due to the law? I see you are still having a hard time reading my posts.
When you look up cases that have been dropped get back to me.

And what are you talking about bizarre interpretation of the law? It has nothing to do with my interpretation, it has to do with how law enforcement and judges have already interpreted the law... Do what I have asked you to do... About ten times now and get back to me. FUCK!! I think I would rather bang my head against a wall, I would probably get farther.

There's no question that there is confusion in the legal system over the interpretation of Stand Your Ground but because that doesn't apply in this case...since it's appears to be a much simpler case of self defense...then what is your point?

It obviously went over your head awhile ago. I am sorry.

 

[Luissa]

No, I think you're attacking Zimmerman because he defended himself with a firearm.

Really? Why would you say that?

Oh, come on...the reason that the Zimmerman case has received so much attention is that it's being used as an example by both sides of the gun control controversy to stake out a position that the other side is wrong.

Are you honestly making the point that if George Zimmerman had cracked Trayvon Martin's head against the sidewalk and killed him that this case would have received the FUROR that it did from the far left? Really?

What does that have to do with me? You posted that assuming I have a problem with guns. Now I am asking why would you assume that. I haven't brought up gun control in this thread.

 

[dilloduck]

No, I think you're attacking Zimmerman because he defended himself with a firearm.

Really? Why would you say that?

Oh, come on...the reason that the Zimmerman case has received so much attention is that it's being used as an example by both sides of the gun control controversy to stake out a position that the other side is wrong.

Are you honestly making the point that if George Zimmerman had cracked Trayvon Martin's head against the sidewalk and killed him that this case would have received the FUROR that it did from the far left? Really? This is ultimately about gun control legislation.

That's not how blacks see it.

 

[Luissa]

So true--this is exactly what I prayed for a couple of Christmases ago.

You think I and others are defending him because he is black, bleeding heart liberal and all that.

no you're defending him because you think he's a victim and not responsible for anything.

I thought it was because I hate guns?

 

[Gracie]

Should be an interesting trial.

 

[Oldstyle]

Trayvon Martin was portrayed by the main stream media as this choir boy of a teenager senselessly attacked and killed by a gun wielding conservative vigilante. That's the "narrative" that the media went with despite a lot of evidence to the contrary. George Zimmerman was given a label as was Trayvon Martin.

 

[dilloduck]

You think I and others are defending him because he is black, bleeding heart liberal and all that.

no you're defending him because you think he's a victim and not responsible for anything.

I thought it was because I hate guns?

that was the other guy--pay attention,woman.

 

[Oldstyle]

Okay, fine...

If I've misread your stand on gun control law, Luissa? Correct me with what your views are on the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Oldstyle]

What DO you think my rights should be as an American citizen when it comes to carrying a gun for self protection?

 

[dilloduck]

Should be an interesting trial.

Stay home when the verdict is announced.

 

[Luissa]

What DO you think my rights should be as an American citizen when it comes to carrying a gun for self protection?

If you legally obtain it, go right ahead.
And if you don't believe me that I don't have a problem with gun ownership then I have a cool picture of my five year old with the aid of my brother and a fence post shooting a gun. I don't mind showing you, you can't see either one's face.
Oh! And like the majority of gun owners I agree with background checks. I will give you hint, my liberal mother was once apart of NRA. I also have a brother who was shot by a kid who illegally obtained the gun. Does that clear things up?

 

[Luissa]

What DO you think my rights should be as an American citizen when it comes to carrying a gun for self protection?

Dildo should jinx you.

I just realized I haven't called him dildo once in this thread!! Awww the memories. I miss the old days at USMB.

 

[Gracie]

I don't miss those days at all.