Donald Duck Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 (edited) Why does it matter if he wanted to be a cop? I want to be the left fielder for the Boston Red Sox. Does that mean it's more likely that I'll jump onto the field during the game and try to throw out a runner at home? Because they're trying to demonstrate he was negligent in taking the law into his own hands. And they're failing. Badly. yup, and also has a full understanding of the law Knowledge, in this case could be a bad thing for G Zimmerman Edited July 3, 2013 by dog14787 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Also, the state plans to rest their case today, per judge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 something we can agree on DC... The irony is thick with you. Tom at least acquired a functional understanding of the law. You're here arguing that that legally permissible action that could potentially lead to altercation is criminally negligent behavior that precludes the right to self-defense. And you are so ignorant on the subject that you haven't the foggiest idea why everyone who's at least minimally informed on the matter thinks you're a blithering idiot. But I'm sure you could study for a few weeks and blow the test out of the water. Good luck on the multi-state, bright boy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Also, the state plans to rest their case today, per judge. Curious to see how the defense proceeds. Sounds like its a tiny step past asking for straight dismissal but wouldn't be crazy to simply give it to the jury. Sends a confident message, couldn't see them adding too much more and if I understand correctly prevents the prosecution from calling anyone back up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Also, the state plans to rest their case today, per judge. Will the defense call any witnesses? Do they have to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Duck Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 The irony is thick with you. Tom at least acquired a functional understanding of the law. You're here arguing that that legally permissible action that could potentially lead to altercation is criminally negligent behavior that precludes the right to self-defense. And you are so ignorant on the subject that you haven't the foggiest idea why everyone who's at least minimally informed on the matter thinks you're a blithering idiot. But I'm sure you could study for a few weeks and blow the test out of the water. Good luck on the multi-state, bright boy. nothing better to say, insult the poster, seems to be the way it goes in here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 nothing better to say, insult the poster, seems to be the way it goes in here I was addressing your assertion substantively while simultaneously ridiculing you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Duck Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 I was addressing your assertion substantively while simultaneously ridiculing you. that legally permissable action can become a mitaging factor to a crime when a death occurs, If your not bright enough to figure that out Rob , thats your problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 A crime being broken was never observed...(I do however understand where your coming from) I believe the prosecutuion is trying to use the wanna be cop angle to help prove culpability. Proving Zimmerman had the wear with all to know he could be putting someones life in danger is going to be a tough nut to crack. Like a nice pair of black shoes?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 that legally permissable action can become a mitaging factor to a crime when a death occurs, If your not bright enough to figure that out Rob , thats your problem This from the guy who can't differentiate "you're" from "your". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Duck Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 This from the guy who can't differentiate "you're" from "your". Guilty as charged, bad habit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 where Keep trying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Baseballs are scarce. You can't just take one from someone like that. But the roster limit of 23 is artificial scarcity and should be abolished. Everyone who wants to play outfield should be allowed. I see... So in addition to trolling unsucessfully by engaging in ad absurdium fallacies, you're admitting to not knowing the difference between things that are tangible and things that are intangible, the difference between things and people, and the difference between private corporate policy and overarching federal law. You, sir, are a complete !@#$ing moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Duck Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Keep trying. oh, I will... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 that legally permissable action can become a mitaging factor to a crime when a death occurs, If your not bright enough to figure that out Rob , thats your problem You mean aggravating factor. And it still doesn't make any sense the way you're applying it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 oh, I will... And maybe by sometime next week you'll get it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 I see... So in addition to trolling unsucessfully by engaging in ad absurdium fallacies, you're admitting to not knowing the difference between things that are tangible and things that are intangible, the difference between things and people, and the difference between private corporate policy and overarching federal law. You, sir, are a complete !@#$ing moron. In order to prove that a roster spot is tangible, please show me a picture of one. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Curious to see how the defense proceeds. Sounds like its a tiny step past asking for straight dismissal but wouldn't be crazy to simply give it to the jury. Sends a confident message, couldn't see them adding too much more and if I understand correctly prevents the prosecution from calling anyone back up. Could they bring in all the same witnesses and have them take a bow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Coming up: The defense will be introducing this: https://twitter.com/DukeButt/status/352471945587093504/photo/1 Could they bring in all the same witnesses and have them take a bow? Jeantell is still under subpeona.... we can only hope. I have to think this is why they want to talk to the Martin's family attorney's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Duck Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 (edited) You mean aggravating factor. And it still doesn't make any sense the way you're applying it. Depending on who's side your on, but good correction, in my case aggravating Edited July 3, 2013 by dog14787 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts