The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[beagle9]

If it walks like a duck, profile it.

Profiling works.

NSA profiles all of us

-Geaux

It worked for George.

No proof of that..

 

[jon_berzerk]

got a link?

the socialist brain of a liberal democrat - picture

my iq dropped 50 points after visiting that website.

--lol

 

[Ravi]

Martin should of done what GZ did. Use the 'following' experience as justification for obtaining a Concealed Carry Permit.

Then in the future, after 4 minutes of waiting, and then was attacked, he could of legally used his firearm to stop it.

-Geaux

He wasn't old enough to do so.

Good point.

Then he should of at least brought a knife to the fight instead of attacking with his fist.

You must be attacked first, not only followed, to use fist and or a sidewalk as a weapon.

The 4 minute wait clearly shows TM was not in imminent danger, he re-engaged and became the aggressor

-Geaux

Wrong:

However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

One need not be attacked to attack in Florida.

 

[Ravi]

Plus- The neighborhood had multiple burglaries committed by Blacks.

If it walks like a duck...

-Geaux

That's stupid thinking, akin to saying that since most rapes are committed by men then all men are fair game as targets.

 

[Geaux4it]

He wasn't old enough to do so.

Good point.

Then he should of at least brought a knife to the fight instead of attacking with his fist.

You must be attacked first, not only followed, to use fist and or a sidewalk as a weapon.

The 4 minute wait clearly shows TM was not in imminent danger, he re-engaged and became the aggressor

-Geaux

Wrong:

However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

One need not be attacked to attack in Florida.

Will not fly in a court of law. Let's say all circumstances stay the same EXCEPT, TM lived...

TM would of been arrested for aggravated assault

-Geaux

 

[Ravi]

Plus- The neighborhood had multiple burglaries committed by Blacks.

If it walks like a duck...

-Geaux

I wouldn't go that far necessarily, but some window jimmying devices were found beneath a window that GZ saw Martin snooping into.

The vast majority of blacks are not criminals.

If you are so convinced that you are correct, why do you have to lie?

 

[dilloduck]

He wasn't old enough to do so.

Good point.

Then he should of at least brought a knife to the fight instead of attacking with his fist.

You must be attacked first, not only followed, to use fist and or a sidewalk as a weapon.

The 4 minute wait clearly shows TM was not in imminent danger, he re-engaged and became the aggressor

-Geaux

Wrong:

However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

One need not be attacked to attack in Florida.

If you have the barrel of a gun pointed at you by an attacker are actually allowed to shoot first. Thoughtful of them to allow you this freedom.

 

[Ravi]

Good point.

Then he should of at least brought a knife to the fight instead of attacking with his fist.

You must be attacked first, not only followed, to use fist and or a sidewalk as a weapon.

The 4 minute wait clearly shows TM was not in imminent danger, he re-engaged and became the aggressor

-Geaux

Wrong:

However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

One need not be attacked to attack in Florida.

Will not fly in a court of law. Let's say all circumstances stay the same EXCEPT, TM lived...

TM would of been arrested for aggravated assault

-Geaux

Why would a law not fly in a court of law?

 

[dilloduck]

Plus- The neighborhood had multiple burglaries committed by Blacks.

If it walks like a duck...

-Geaux

That's stupid thinking, akin to saying that since most rapes are committed by men then all men are fair game as targets.

We are. Do women avoid other women when faced with one on one encounters say maybe late at night in a parking lot ?

 

[Ravi]

Good point.

Then he should of at least brought a knife to the fight instead of attacking with his fist.

You must be attacked first, not only followed, to use fist and or a sidewalk as a weapon.

The 4 minute wait clearly shows TM was not in imminent danger, he re-engaged and became the aggressor

-Geaux

Wrong:

However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

One need not be attacked to attack in Florida.

If you have the barrel of a gun pointed at you by an attacker are actually allowed to shoot first. Thoughtful of them to allow you this freedom.

That's not what the law says, dillo. Don't tell me that you are another one that believes this law only covers people with guns.

 

[Geaux4it]

Wrong:



One need not be attacked to attack in Florida.

Will not fly in a court of law. Let's say all circumstances stay the same EXCEPT, TM lived...

TM would of been arrested for aggravated assault

-Geaux

Why would a law not fly in a court of law?

It's because you don't obviously understand the law

-Geaux

 

[Gadawg73]

Wrong:



One need not be attacked to attack in Florida.

Will not fly in a court of law. Let's say all circumstances stay the same EXCEPT, TM lived...

TM would of been arrested for aggravated assault

-Geaux

Why would a law not fly in a court of law?

Hey Ravi, what happened to your claim that Zimmerman was commanded and ordered by police to stand down, that Zimmerman stalked Martin, that the DNA evidence was conclusive as to guilty of the state's charges and that Zimmerman made racist comments to the 911 dispatcher about Martin?
Turns out NONE of them were true like we told you they were not true.
How many napkins did it take to get the egg off of your face?

 

[Gadawg73]

If TM lived HE WOULD HAVE BEEN ARRESTED FOR AGGRAVATED ASSAULT.

 

[dilloduck]

Wrong:



One need not be attacked to attack in Florida.

If you have the barrel of a gun pointed at you by an attacker are actually allowed to shoot first. Thoughtful of them to allow you this freedom.

That's not what the law says, dillo. Don't tell me that you are another one that believes this law only covers people with guns.

Are you claiming the law says that you can't shoot a person who is fixing to shoot you ?

 

[Ravi]

Will not fly in a court of law. Let's say all circumstances stay the same EXCEPT, TM lived...

TM would of been arrested for aggravated assault

-Geaux

Why would a law not fly in a court of law?

Hey Ravi, what happened to your claim that Zimmerman was commanded and ordered by police to stand down, that Zimmerman stalked Martin, that the DNA evidence was conclusive as to guilty of the state's charges and that Zimmerman made racist comments to the 911 dispatcher about Martin?
Turns out NONE of them were true like we told you they were not true.
How many napkins did it take to get the egg off of your face?

I didn't make any of those claims. Nice try at deflection.

 

[Gadawg73]

Why would a law not fly in a court of law?

Hey Ravi, what happened to your claim that Zimmerman was commanded and ordered by police to stand down, that Zimmerman stalked Martin, that the DNA evidence was conclusive as to guilty of the state's charges and that Zimmerman made racist comments to the 911 dispatcher about Martin?
Turns out NONE of them were true like we told you they were not true.
How many napkins did it take to get the egg off of your face?

I didn't make any of those claims. Nice try at deflection.

Yes you did.

 

[Ravi]

If TM lived HE WOULD HAVE BEEN ARRESTED FOR AGGRAVATED ASSAULT.

Absolutely, he was black after all and a teen wearing a hoodie. But he should have gotten off under SYG.

 

[Ravi]

If you have the barrel of a gun pointed at you by an attacker are actually allowed to shoot first. Thoughtful of them to allow you this freedom.

That's not what the law says, dillo. Don't tell me that you are another one that believes this law only covers people with guns.

Are you claiming the law says that you can't shoot a person who is fixing to shoot you ?

Nope. Why are you deflecting?

 

[Geaux4it]

If TM lived HE WOULD HAVE BEEN ARRESTED FOR AGGRAVATED ASSAULT.

Absolutely, he was black after all and a teen wearing a hoodie. But he should have gotten off under SYG.

Explain why he should of got off under SYG, which is not what this case was about.

But i'm interested anyway

-Geaux

 

[dilloduck]

That's not what the law says, dillo. Don't tell me that you are another one that believes this law only covers people with guns.

Are you claiming the law says that you can't shoot a person who is fixing to shoot you ?

Nope. Why are you deflecting?

oy vay----what are you claiming here? The law says that you don't have to be attacked or be injured to defend yourself correct ?