DC Tom Posted May 24, 2013 Posted May 24, 2013 He's on a horse, evil people don't ride horses, do they? Maybe he's doing a Lee van Cleef imitation.
BringBackFergy Posted May 24, 2013 Posted May 24, 2013 (edited) No, but neither is he a "little boy" in the picture either........................ . How'd he get them dope gold teef?? Edited May 24, 2013 by BringBackFergy
KD in CA Posted May 24, 2013 Posted May 24, 2013 Your argument would make sense if I tried to delete those posts. However, I didn't. My position still has not changed much. Other than the part about this being a cold blooded racial killing I still stand by what I said. Edit: Your mistake count just went up to 9193 Other than everything I wrote, I still stand by what I wrote! Soooo.....it all comes full circle. Thug attacks neighborhood watch guy and gets shot for it. Just like the locals assumed on day 1 before it became the Facebook cause du jour for bored whiners who need to direct their 'outrage' at someone to distract from their unfulfilling lives. All that's left now is to see how hard the current Administration wants to continue to exert its influence on this one cherry-picked non-crime.
3rdnlng Posted May 24, 2013 Posted May 24, 2013 I don't think what happened was murder. I did at first but as more information about the case came out I think GZ should be charge with manslaughter not murder. He didn't get out of the car intending to kill TM, but following TM after being asked not to escalated the situation. Specifically, from what is confirmed public knowledge of the facts of the case, why should George Zimmerman be guilty of manslaughter? I like how people on either side act like this is either total murder cut and dry or in the alternative completely justified. it was clearly a nasty and tragic event where George made a number of retarded moves that ended up producing a dead kid...whether ot not and to what extent hr should be resoonsible is now at trial. passionate defenders of george and passionate lynchers are both retarded Specifically, from public knowledge of the facts of this case, what were the number of retarded moves that George Zimmerman made?
DC Tom Posted May 24, 2013 Posted May 24, 2013 Specifically, from what is confirmed public knowledge of the facts of the case, why should George Zimmerman be guilty of manslaughter? Consensus. It's not just causation, it's also justice.
4merper4mer Posted May 24, 2013 Posted May 24, 2013 Consensus. It's not just causation, it's also justice. But what about common sense? It tells you that a group will be very unhappy if Zimmerman goes away forever and another group will be very unhappy if he walks. You can't win. Unless............. How about we send him away for a while that is longer than the typical manslaughter and less than the typical murder? They could simply agree to the sentence and not even the name of a specific crime. It could be a fixed time. No getting out early on parole but a reasonable sentence to start. I think about three and a half years would make sense. Anything much longer or shorter seems like an error that could tick people off.
B-Man Posted May 24, 2013 Posted May 24, 2013 George Zimmerman trial — the facts or character on trial? George Zimmerman’s lawyers released photos from Trayvon Martin’s cell phone, including the two below. Zimmerman’s team says they will seek to introduce the photos and others to show that he was not as portrayed in the media and by the family’s attorneys: The evidence that George Zimmerman’s attorneys have uncovered on Trayvon Martin’s cellphone paints a troubling picture of the Miami Gardens teenager: He sent text messages about being a fighter, smoking marijuana and being ordered to move out of his home by his mother. And photos from that phone offer more of the same: healthy green plants — what appear to be marijuana — growing in pots and a .40-caliber Smith & Wesson handgun. Defense attorneys on Thursday gave formal notice to prosecutors that they intend to use those and other reputation-damaging pieces of evidence about Trayvon once Zimmerman’s second-degree-murder trial begins June 10. I think the trial should focus on the facts of what happened, not personality traits of the two people involved. The prosecution, however, has sought to put Zimmerman’s background on trial in the media, including claims he was racist (which he denies) and other problems he had in his life. If the prosecution is allowed to go there at trial, to get away from the facts of what happened or to put the character of either person in issue, it does seem that what’s good for the prosecution should be good for the defense.
3rdnlng Posted May 24, 2013 Posted May 24, 2013 Zimmerman is going to claim that he was attacked by Martin. The publicly known facts bear that out. The prosecution will claim that the cherubic Trayvon would never do such a thing. Is it not right that the jury gets a glimpse of the real Martin in order to judge Zimmerman's culpability?
Bigfatbillsfan Posted May 27, 2013 Posted May 27, 2013 Other than everything I wrote, I still stand by what I wrote! Soooo.....it all comes full circle. Thug attacks neighborhood watch guy and gets shot for it. Just like the locals assumed on day 1 before it became the Facebook cause du jour for bored whiners who need to direct their 'outrage' at someone to distract from their unfulfilling lives. All that's left now is to see how hard the current Administration wants to continue to exert its influence on this one cherry-picked non-crime. You may want to go back and read what I said again. That wasn't all I had to say. The case is not over. Let's let the trial play out. From what I have read over the past year, most eyewitnesses claim that Martin struck first, but why? The number one thing I called for was further investigation of the case when it looked like the local police force dropped the ball. (and they did) Now we've had further investigation. That doesn't mean GZ is guilty of murder.
3rdnlng Posted May 27, 2013 Posted May 27, 2013 You may want to go back and read what I said again. That wasn't all I had to say. The case is not over. Let's let the trial play out. From what I have read over the past year, most eyewitnesses claim that Martin struck first, but why? The number one thing I called for was further investigation of the case when it looked like the local police force dropped the ball. (and they did) Now we've had further investigation. That doesn't mean GZ is guilty of murder. Well, you did say this below and I asked you a question in response: Bigfatbillsfan, on 16 May 2013 - 08:05 PM, said: I don't think what happened was murder. I did at first but as more information about the case came out I think GZ should be charge with manslaughter not murder. He didn't get out of the car intending to kill TM, but following TM after being asked not to escalated the situation. My question: Specifically, from what is confirmed public knowledge of the facts of the case, why should George Zimmerman be guilty of manslaughter?
DC Tom Posted May 27, 2013 Posted May 27, 2013 Well, you did say this below and I asked you a question in response: Bigfatbillsfan, on 16 May 2013 - 08:05 PM, said: I don't think what happened was murder. I did at first but as more information about the case came out I think GZ should be charge with manslaughter not murder. He didn't get out of the car intending to kill TM, but following TM after being asked not to escalated the situation. My question: Specifically, from what is confirmed public knowledge of the facts of the case, why should George Zimmerman be guilty of manslaughter? Someday we're going to have to let him pretend he's right about something, just to keep his spirits up.
Bigfatbillsfan Posted May 27, 2013 Posted May 27, 2013 Zimmerman is going to claim that he was attacked by Martin. The publicly known facts bear that out. The prosecution will claim that the cherubic Trayvon would never do such a thing. Is it not right that the jury gets a glimpse of the real Martin in order to judge Zimmerman's culpability? Zimmerman is being accused of a crime. Martin is not. Well, you did say this below and I asked you a question in response: Bigfatbillsfan, on 16 May 2013 - 08:05 PM, said: I don't think what happened was murder. I did at first but as more information about the case came out I think GZ should be charge with manslaughter not murder. He didn't get out of the car intending to kill TM, but following TM after being asked not to escalated the situation. My question: Specifically, from what is confirmed public knowledge of the facts of the case, why should George Zimmerman be guilty of manslaughter? Do you need someone to draw you a picture? An unarmed teenager laying dead in a side yard, shot by a guy that got out of his car to follow him because he looked suspicious. Getting your ass kicked in a fight isn't an excuse for killing someone.
3rdnlng Posted May 27, 2013 Posted May 27, 2013 Zimmerman is being accused of a crime. Martin is not. Do you need someone to draw you a picture? An unarmed teenager laying dead in a side yard, shot by a guy that got out of his car to follow him because he looked suspicious. Getting your ass kicked in a fight isn't an excuse for killing someone. Well, they could always charge Martin with attempted murder in absentia. When GZ turned around and headed for his vehicle Martin then became the agressor and followed GZ, got him to the ground (most likely with the punch that broke his nose) and started smashing the back of his head to the concrete. To me that's attempted murder. The physical evidence that has been released to the public backs this story up. If someone is trying to kill you don't you have the right to kill them?
DC Tom Posted May 27, 2013 Posted May 27, 2013 Getting your ass kicked in a fight isn't an excuse for killing someone. Depends on the fight, really.
Rob's House Posted May 27, 2013 Posted May 27, 2013 Zimmerman is being accused of a crime. Martin is not. Do you need someone to draw you a picture? An unarmed teenager laying dead in a side yard, shot by a guy that got out of his car to follow him because he looked suspicious. Getting your ass kicked in a fight isn't an excuse for killing someone. No offense bub, but your analysis of criminal law is kind of like my mom's analysis of a football game; and my mom doesn't know what first and ten means.
DC Tom Posted May 27, 2013 Posted May 27, 2013 No offense bub, but your analysis of criminal law is kind of like my mom's analysis of a football game; and my mom doesn't know what first and ten means. No, by all means, offend! His analysis of everything is like your mom's analysis of football. Again, there's a reason he's BFBF - he's twice the retard BF in Indiana every was.
Bigfatbillsfan Posted May 27, 2013 Posted May 27, 2013 No, by all means, offend! His analysis of everything is like your mom's analysis of football. Again, there's a reason he's BFBF - he's twice the retard BF in Indiana every was. Is this one of the people that like to correct my spelling and grammar?
DC Tom Posted May 27, 2013 Posted May 27, 2013 Is this one of the people that like to correct my spelling and grammar? You're not special. I correct everyone's grammar.
Bigfatbillsfan Posted May 27, 2013 Posted May 27, 2013 No offense bub, but your analysis of criminal law is kind of like my mom's analysis of a football game; and my mom doesn't know what first and ten means. None taken. I'm not an DA prosecuting the case. I though we needed more investigation into the matter and we got it. The DA thinks they have a case. Let's see if they can make their case. Well, they could always charge Martin with attempted murder in absentia. When GZ turned around and headed for his vehicle Martin then became the agressor and followed GZ, got him to the ground (most likely with the punch that broke his nose) and started smashing the back of his head to the concrete. To me that's attempted murder. The physical evidence that has been released to the public backs this story up. If someone is trying to kill you don't you have the right to kill them? Besides spelling aggressor wrong... Doesn't Martin have the right to stand his ground? That's the problem I see with the law here.
3rdnlng Posted May 27, 2013 Posted May 27, 2013 None taken. I'm not an DA prosecuting the case. I though we needed more investigation into the matter and we got it. The DA thinks they have a case. Let's see if they can make their case. Besides spelling aggressor wrong... Doesn't Martin have the right to stand his ground? That's the problem I see with the law here. So, Martin was "standing his ground" when he followed GZ back to his vehicle? Or was he "standing his ground" when he punched GZ in the nose, breaking it? Maybe Martin was "standing his ground" when he was smashing the back of GZ's head into the concrete? From what info has been made public, it would appear that the prosecution has no case. I didn't come to this conclusion overnight. I was one of the several posters urging caution, believing that the facts needed to come out before figuratively lynching GZ. You were one of the hissy fitters claiming "cold blooded killing", "hunting poor Trayvon down with his Skittles and ice tea", "GZ outweighed poor Trayvon by 100#s", "coon", blah, blah, blah. Now you're all over the board stating that GZ should be charged with manslaughter and then claiming that we have to wait for the facts.
Recommended Posts