3rdnlng Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 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. I'm sorry for you that you aren't bright enough to understand the purpose of what was a re-enactment video. The police had GZ walk through what had transpired the night before and then checked that walk-through with the non-emergency call tape to look for any discrepancies. That re-enactment video was a major reason that GZ was not initially charged with anything. Now, you can continue to follow me around and attempt to dispute everything I post and make yourself look foolish, or you can stfu and try to rehabilitate yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Duck Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 (edited) 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. Anybody want to address my comments on the case? (why I believe G Zimmerman should be convicted of manslaughter) Edited July 1, 2013 by dog14787 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 Anybody want to address my comments on the case? (why I believe G Zimmerman should be convicted of manslaughter) What was the first illegal act that took place that night? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 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. Anybody want to address my comments on the case? (why I believe G Zimmerman should be convicted of manslaughter) Point 1: Following someone is not illegal. Point 2: If I try killing you, are you supposed to sit back and just let it happen? Or are you allowed to fight back? If you fight back, should you be charged with a crime, even though I tried killing you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Duck Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 What was the first illegal act that took place that night? that you can prove? manslaughter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 Anybody want to address my comments on the case? The idea that doing something legally should be used to convict someone of a crime on the basis that it "initiated a chain of events" is not only ridiculous, but should end any doubt that your opinion on the subject should be ignored from this point on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 Manslaughter is what they should have tried to convict him of, but unfortunately they were too overzealous and I don't see how they could possibly convict him of murder. To me it appears he walks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 that you can prove? manslaughter You are as obtuse as they come. There is a reason you are being "lamb basted" here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Duck Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 Point 1: Following someone is not illegal. Point 2: If I try killing you, are you supposed to sit back and just let it happen? Or are you allowed to fight back? If you fight back, should you be charged with a crime, even though I tried killing you? The problem with this argument Fezmid with all due respect, it depends on who instigated/ started the altercation and because Martins not here to tell his side of the story we are only getting Zimmermans account. Naturally we can't have folks going out picking fights because of the color of someones skin. If you do, you may run into someone who is experienced in martial arts that might kill you for confronting/ trying to subdue them without probable cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 The problem with this argument Fezmid with all due respect, it depends on who instigated/ started the altercation and because Martins not here to tell his side of the story we are only getting Zimmermans account. Naturally we can't have folks going out picking fights because of the color of someones skin. If you do, you may run into someone who is experienced in martial arts that might kill you for confronting/ trying to subdue them without probable cause. Following someone is not illegal. Attacking someone because they are following you is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Duck Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 Following someone is not illegal. Attacking someone because they are following you is. can you prove that? because all we have is Zimmermans words, a man trying to keep himself out of prison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 (edited) can you prove that? because all we have is Zimmermans words, a man trying to keep himself out of prison He doesn't have to prove it. Zimmerman is the defendant. He doesn't even have to prove he's telling the truth. It's the prosecution job to show what happened, NOT what a dozen other scenarios could also have occurred that night. Edited July 1, 2013 by unbillievable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 The problem with this argument Fezmid with all due respect, it depends on who instigated/ started the altercation and because Martins not here to tell his side of the story we are only getting Zimmermans account. Naturally we can't have folks going out picking fights because of the color of someones skin. If you do, you may run into someone who is experienced in martial arts that might kill you for confronting/ trying to subdue them without probable cause. From what I've read, the fact is that Martin had no injuries to indicate that GZ attacked him, aside from the fatal gunshot wound which was clearly done after the beatdown GZ was receiving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Duck Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 Manslaughter is what they should have tried to convict him of, but unfortunately they were too overzealous and I don't see how they could possibly convict him of murder. To me it appears he walks Until some of the facts were brought out, I originally thought the state had a better case, but after hearing 1st hand eye witness accounts its clear Zimmermans life was in danger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 can you prove that? because all we have is Zimmermans words, a man trying to keep himself out of prison Per the prosecutions star witness TM was a few feet from his fathers girlfiend's townhouse and safety. The altercation took place far from it. TM had to willingly follow GZ back towards his truck where the altercation took place. Do your homework. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 can you prove that? because all we have is Zimmermans words, a man trying to keep himself out of prison That's... that's not how a court of law works... It's the prosecution's job to prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that George Zimmerman's story is untrue. It is the job of the defense to cast doubt on the case of the prosecution. You can't tell me that you've really entered into this conversation not only willfully ignorant of any facts, and unwilling to do any critical thinking, but also completely ignorant of the fundamental workings of the American legal system? Seriously... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Duck Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 (edited) From what I've read, the fact is that Martin had no injuries to indicate that GZ attacked him, aside from the fatal gunshot wound which was clearly done after the beatdown GZ was receiving. true, but someone just grabbing you , trying to subdue you would not really leave actual attack marks, but a person could still feel in danger for their life if someone (stranger) was trying to subdue them. Edited July 1, 2013 by dog14787 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 Per the prosecutions star witness TM was a few feet from his fathers girlfiend's townhouse and safety. The altercation took place far from it. TM had to willingly follow GZ back towards his truck where the altercation took place. Do your homework. Seeing as how we know for a fact that Zimmerman lost sight of Martin, can we now say that Trayvon is probably the one who went back to confront George and in reality is actually the person who "stalked" him looking for a confrontation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 true, but someone just grabbing you , trying to subdue you would not really leave actual attack marks, but a person could still feel in danger for their life if someone (stranger) was trying to subdue them. From last page, post #2253 "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. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 true, but someone just grabbing you , trying to subdue you would not really leave actual attack marks, but a person could still feel in danger for their life if someone (stranger) was trying to subdue them. Why would you think GZ would try to subdue TM when GZ was the one being followed? Now you are just making up schit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts