Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 4.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Posted (edited)

That's not only a cop out which addresses neither part of my post, but also an outright admission that you're only willing to "discuss things" in echo chambers where everyone agrees with you.

 

Respond to the !@#$ing post you coward.

 

I've explained myself numerous times now, Zimmerman is not a cop,and If he wouldn't have gotten out of his car and went looking for Trayvon Martin , Martin would still be alive today.

 

Its not that hard to understand, and you can get pissed all you want, it doesn't change my opinion

 

your post is all over the place, not sure what you even want me to respond to

 

 

retroactively? all we have is Zimmerman as a witness to a crime that wasn't commited, stop talking giberish and Ill try to respond back

Edited by dog14787
Posted

 

 

I've explained myself numerous times now, Zimmerman is not a cop,and If he wouldn't have gotten out of his car and went looking for Trayvon Martin , Martin would still be alive today.

 

Its not that hard to understand, and you can get pissed all you want, it doesn't change my opinion

 

your post is all over the place, not sure what you even want me to respond to

 

 

retroactively? all we have is Zimmerman as a witness to a crime that wasn't commited, stop talking giberish and Ill try to respond back

 

 

How many times do you have to be told, TM went out of his way to track down GZ and started a fight. GZ felt his life was in danger and after approx. 40 seconds of taking a beating he shot TM. It's a clear case of self defense. Even the lead investigator felt that GZ's story matched the evidence and eyewitness accounts and stated in open court that he believed him.

Posted (edited)

I've explained myself numerous times now, Zimmerman is not a cop,and If he wouldn't have gotten out of his car and went looking for Trayvon Martin , Martin would still be alive today.

 

Its not that hard to understand, and you can get pissed all you want, it doesn't change my opinion

 

your post is all over the place, not sure what you even want me to respond to

 

 

retroactively? all we have is Zimmerman as a witness to a crime that wasn't commited, stop talking giberish and Ill try to respond back

TM was primarily responsible for his death. Just because GZ got out of his car, it didn't mean TM's only recourse was to attack him. Even more so since he was so close to his father's house and could have gone inside to safety. He chose to escalate it. But after TM chose to attack him, GZ had every right to defend himself by whatever means necessary.

 

People make bad decisions all the time. Sometimes you get lucky and nothing happens, other times...

Edited by Doc
Posted

How many times do you have to be told, TM went out of his way to track down GZ and started a fight. GZ felt his life was in danger and after approx. 40 seconds of taking a beating he shot TM. It's a clear case of self defense. Even the lead investigator felt that GZ's story matched the evidence and eyewitness accounts and stated in open court that he believed him.

 

 

We can confirm Zimmerman was pursuing Martin we do not have confirmation on Martin attacking Zimmerman.

Posted (edited)

Dog, I want this pushed for chef- do you know the difference between negligent and criminal negligence?

:lol:

 

 

I'll bite, criminal negligence is conduct that deviates from normal, reasonable standards of an ordinary person. It generally involves a disregard for human life/ safety of people.

Edited by dog14787
Posted

 

 

 

We can confirm Zimmerman was pursuing Martin we do not have confirmation on Martin attacking Zimmerman.

 

One more time. GZ started out following TM not to confront him or interrogate him as you so falsely claimed. He was keeping an eye on him in order to inform the police re his location when they arrived. He lost sight of him and after walking around the building to get an address he returned to a spot near his truck. Little did he know that TM, who had gotten all the way back to his father's place then for some reason decided to circle around and attack GZ. This was confirmed by the prosecutors "star witness".

Posted

:lol:

 

 

I'll bite, criminal negligence is conduct that deviates from normal, reasonable standards of an ordinary person. It generally involves an indifference or disregard for human life or for the safety of people.

 

Legalmatch.com copy and paste - definitely illustrates a strong working knowledge of the concepts and how simple everyday negligence varies from criminal

Posted (edited)

dog**** is like Peter Pan saying over and over "I do believe in faries, I do, I do!"

Edited by Wacka
Posted (edited)

Legalmatch.com copy and paste - definitely illustrates a strong working knowledge of the concepts and how simple everyday negligence varies from criminal

 

so what your saying is you had to research my answer, lol, brilliant

 

 

well how about this then

 

 

Sometimes the definition for criminal negligence requires failure to recognize unjustifiable risks associated with the conduct.

 

Now it seems to me this is precisely the point I've been making...

 

 

failure to recognise unjustifiable risks with the conduct...

Edited by dog14787
Posted

:lol:

 

 

I'll bite, criminal negligence is conduct that deviates from normal, reasonable standards of an ordinary person. It generally involves an indifference or disregard for human life or for the safety of people.

 

You !@#$ing turd brain. The question wasn't "What is criminal negligence?" It was "What's the difference between 'criminal negligence' and 'negligence'?"

Posted (edited)

 

 

so what your saying is you had to research my answer, lol, brilliant

 

No, what I'm saying is it was blatantly obvious you didnt write it so i googled to see where you plagerized it from.

 

And as I referenced and tom also pointed out, it still didnt answer the question or demonstrate you have any idea the answer.

Edited by NoSaint
Posted (edited)

No, what I'm saying is it was blatantly obvious you didnt write it so i googled to see where you plagerized it from.

 

And as I referenced and tom also pointed out, it still didnt answer the question or demonstrate you have any idea the answer.

 

 

right, I've just been making up the part about why I think Zimmerman was negligent,

Edited by dog14787
Posted

TM was primarily responsible for his death. Just because GZ got out of his car, it didn't mean TM's only recourse was to attack him. Even more so since he was so close to his father's house and could have gone inside to safety. He chose to escalate it. But after TM chose to attack him, GZ had every right to defend himself by whatever means necessary.

 

People make bad decisions all the time. Sometimes you get lucky and nothing happens, other times...

Since when? Some White-Hispanic gets out of his car, you gotta give him a beatdown. It's the code, bra. Punk-ass cracka got what was comin' to him. Can't believe the B word shot the boy just for his Skittles.

Posted

I've just been making up the part about why I think Zimmerman was negligent,

 

No !@#$ing ****, bonehead. That's what everyone's been telling you.

Posted

You !@#$ing turd brain. The question wasn't "What is criminal negligence?" It was "What's the difference between 'criminal negligence' and 'negligence'?"

 

and I don't have to prove my vocabulary to anyone puppet head

Posted

 

 

and I don't have to prove my vocabulary to anyone puppet head

 

No but words have meanings and when you make assertions based on those meanings.... Well....

 

I give up. You asked for respectful debate and I tried to productively discuss the issues at hand....

 

Woof.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...