Witness: Martin attacked Zimmerman

[schaabdl]

Dershowitz take
SOURCE

[BigRed]

JTDC, as far as Zimmermans bail goes. You do not jnow jack about the bail bond industry the only people that Pay cash bonds are members of Organized crime cartel members "if they get it at all" Normal people that have Large bail amounts put up collortal
like houses or cars with the bail bond agency. Perhaps you do not realize that to any finicial trasaction paid in cash must be reported to the IRS bail bond agencies don't
like to have the IRS poking arond in thier books so they don't genera;y put up cash bonds
people that pay cash bonds skip bail thats why they pay cash. bail is so the defendant show up in court and does not have to sit in jail. Bail is a constitutional right jus like free speach.

As far as Zimmerman having 2 passports he probley had an old passport and a new pass port that has a computer chip in it. All new passports issued ]I believe in the past 5 years have computer chips for tracking of travel data] I am unsure of the exact date when the new series of passorts was issued when a new passprt is issued the old passport is invalidated by the state department and theTSA.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by Rifleman

But most of what you labelled as namecalling wasn't.

"Put-down"? I couldn't think of a generic word to cover the variety of negative labels.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

How royal of you to be willing to lower yourself to talk to the commoners.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I haven't used a racial slur at all. So you are telling a royal lie.

True. But you still make racist comments.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

That was my point! You missed that one, why wouldn't you miss many others?

I don't think I miss too many. I ignore many. But if I "missed" one, how would I know?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So ask yourself, why would he even suspect to x-ray it?

Follow the money!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

When the video at the police station was presented as Zimmemran having NO injuries, it sure was relevant!

Nothing appeared to look like Zimmerman had been beaten "within an inch of his life".

Originally Posted by Rifleman

And we know when they occured, before Zimmerman had to shoot Trayvon!

More spin! He "had to shoot"? There is no evidence to show that either man would have been dead if Zimmerman did not use the gun. Zimmerman had no life threatening injuries.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No, on the photo of Zimmerman =, it looks like there is a break in the bridge of his nose.

Even the doctor said it was a "closed break". So what could you possibly see? His eyes were not blackened yet. His nose had been bloody. But none of that shows a broken nose. So none of that supports your claim that witnesses saw he had a broken nose! It was spin!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

You have to have probable cause! The Sanford police aren;t like Eric Holder and Obama, they are held to Constitutional standards.

It would be more of a defensive move. If you refuse to give a sample when stopped for suspected DUI, You are automatically "guilty". You may save yourself from more serious charges, but you will lose you driving privileges.

In this case, that doubt remains and could work against Zimmerman.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

If someone else was there and attacked Zimmerman trying to kill him, sure!

So what had caused Martin to be there is irrelevant! That is my point!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

What you and Corey are implying is that because someone would have walke into a bank with a license and a concealed handgun, they intended to rob it! Unbelievable!

Another of those gratuitous "put-downs"! Since Zimmerman said "these guys always get away" and he's "up to no good" and that he was following the guy, he had intent. The robber who uses his legally carried gun to rob the bank, an ends up killing someone, didn't have the "intent" to shoot his gun or kill anybody. He just wanted the money. The result is the same. An innocent person is dead. So it is comparable.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I never said he was high on pot.

You said he was a heavy user, a long time user, that he had brain damage from that use that caused him to attack Zimmerman. All unsupported by the facts! Spin.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

But how is Zimmerman getting out of his vehicle germane to him being guilty of murder?

"MMO"! If he had stayed in his car he wouldn't have the opportunity. He did not get out of his car to stretch his legs. He got out for the purpose of pursuing Martin. Intent! And of course he had the method, carrying a gun. Note that in an earlier incident before he had the gun, he would not get out of the car when the Police dispatcher suggest he should.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

See? you justify it!

Because it is the truth!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

The evidence doesn't support a murder 2 charge, but here you are.

I generally agree that it should have been manslaughter. But as I also said, there is likely much more evidence and strategies that I am not aware of.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

You claimed and Corey seems to imply, that Martin had a right to try to beat Zimmerman to death becuase Zimmerman was armed.

Really? More spin. You ignore what you quoted, that Martin never had possession of a gun and spin it to speculation about Corey and me that is unsupported by fact. As Darrel Issa said to Holder, you don't answer the question.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Really? What evidence are you talking about?

The recording of his call.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

It shows a "pattern" of criminal activity, similar to the one you imply for Zimmerman.

You mean beating women?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

It would also disqualify him from even touching a gun.

It would if he had been charged and convicted of those. But because he had never been charged and convicted of those, it was not illegal for him to touch a gun! More BOGUS SPIN ABOUT A NON ISSUE!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Then why did the Prosecutor call him "Sweet"?

Because he looks like Obama's son, if he had one?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

AND, Obviously, the expulsions are on his school record, permanantly.

They are not admissible in this "criminal case"!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

But they didn't live there.

So only residents are allowed there? Not visitors?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Trayvon was visiting because he was kicked out of school. So Martin wasn't from there.

Back to your SPIN of irrelevant matters.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Of course it's relevant. Instead of being punished for getting kicked out of school for criminal activity, to which his pot use was confirmed, he runs amok in Sanford and gets in a fight where he tries to kill or seriously harm Zimmerman.

Repeat of you irrelevant mantra rant.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I didn't "blame" the cell phone.

Then why did you mention it? Because without it, there would be no potential witness to contradict what Zimmerman claimed? So the cell phone is your nemesis? To bad it wasn't recording. That Cell phone could have proved if it was Zimmerman or Martin who was yelling "Help". It could have proved who said what to who. Cell phone bad!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Because that is the only reason there is an indictment.

Actually, it is probably the reason the Sanford DA didn't charge Zimmerman in February.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Zimmemran ONLy faces a possible Federal death penalty because Martin was black.

And this isn't about the Federal law.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

An assumption NOT in evidence.

What part?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So you are giving equal "odds" to possible expol;anations, when only one is so well supprted ny evidence?

No, that you were only close to the truth one in four times.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

And if Zimmerman started the trashing, there would be some.

Not necessarily.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I can't cooment of the sincerity of the officers

But you will certainly trash others.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

If there is FODOSBI.

"the level or response to an attack is only legal when it is sufficient to match the initial attack." It doesn't say stepping up the level of attack.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

You declare the possibility of an occurence, with the assumption that Zimmerman would lie about it as evidence, yet you ignore or seek to minimize the actual physical evidence of Zimmerman's injuries. But if Zimerman pulled a gun on Trayvon, there would be no need for him to endure the injuries and make a possible mistake and lapse into unconscienceness.

Wow! You accuse me of minimizing Zimmerman's injuries, them expand them beyond what the facts support, all in the same paragraph.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Except, I don't have to discredit the validity of her testimony, if it even occurs.

Then why do you do it?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

It's relevant to your false assertions that I am racist!

Deny, deny, deny!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

But the representative of the State of Florida, used "Sweet Trayvon".

But not, apparently, as a derogative.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I called him the "Trasher" because he trashed Zimmerman's head. That isn't racist either.

Then why would you object to Zimmerman being called the "murderer", the "stalker", the "child killer", the "liar", the "woman beater"?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So, Yes, there is a "evidentiary connection".

I'm waiting to see it.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So why aren't you also accusing me of "Ageism" because I used "teenager"? That's how silly your accusation is!

Because there is a legitimate division between a child (17) and an adult (18). As you repeatedly pointed out a child cannot get a CCP. Only an adult can. But there is no such division due to race. But if it makes you happy, I'll accuse you of "Ageism" since you justify killing a teenager.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No, you said the jury was racist without even knowing.

They were white Texans!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So after being picked and identified from a lineup, to avoid a misidentifixation, you are implying that a jury convicted him for the sole purpose of killing a man because he was black.

Like that never happened, especially in Texas?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So now you notice?

Yes! Unlike you I did not live the case.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No three! The Attorney on call, the actual DA of Sanford. and the Da you aledge reduced Zimmerman's charge from a felony. There's YOUR conspiracy!

So they all agreed?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So you know persoanlly that Zimemrman knew about the paypal account?

Well no, NOT PERSONALLY!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So you know persoanlly that Zimemrman knew about the paypal account?

Well no, NOT PERSONALLY! But I'm sure the evidence will show that to be the fact.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Who said he wouldn't?

Me!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Martin wasn't a "black teenager?"

You were using a hypothetical!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

He sanitized it "ahead of time"? How did he know?

Because he knew the Officer was on to him.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Of course not, she was trying to perpetuate the Trayvon "Angel" persona the media invented.

But he is, now!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So who does, other than the government and those who sue?

Lawyers!

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by BigRed

JTDC, as far as Zimmermans bail goes. You do not jnow jack about the bail bond industry

I plead "guilty"! I've never been arrested (outside of the military). Nor have I ever bailed anybody I knew out of jail.

Originally Posted by BigRed

the only people that Pay cash bonds are members of Organized crime cartel members "if they get it at all" Normal people that have Large bail amounts put up collortal
like houses or cars with the bail bond agency.

My understanding is that the Bail Bondsman charges for that service. Therefore you lose money if you buy such bonds. If you have the cash to cover the bail, you will not have lost money when the bail is no longer needed.

Originally Posted by BigRed

Perhaps you do not realize that to any finicial trasaction paid in cash must be reported to the IRS

I hadn't pieced that together. But again, if the money is legal, why should it matter?

Originally Posted by BigRed

bail bond agencies don't like to have the IRS poking arond in thier books so they don't genera;y put up cash bonds

What does the jail get? An IOU?

Originally Posted by BigRed

people that pay cash bonds skip bail thats why they pay cash.

Right! So Zimmerman, having money that he didn't have to earn, would be less likely to hang around with Rifleman's donation to give him a get-out-of- jail card. Putting his family in jeopardy by turning over the title of their home or car to a bondsman, is more likely to compel him to show up for court.

Originally Posted by BigRed

As far as Zimmerman having 2 passports he probley had an old passport and a new pass port that has a computer chip in it.

The point is he did not turn it in.

I also have no experience with Passports. When I was in the Air Force, my ID was my Passport.

For Zimmerman, theoretically he could have fled the country. And with $150,000 dollars of Rifleman's money, he could have done it. I don't think he would have fled. I think the second Passport was an oversight. But not declaring Rifleman's money was a deliberate fraud. And that poor choice will certainly hurt his defense, if he is innocent.

[Rifleman]

Originally Posted by jtdc

"Put-down"? I couldn't think of a generic word to cover the variety of negative labels.

What's wrong with negative labels? You use them!

We are still not amused!

True. But you still make racist comments.

By whose standards? Sharpton's?

I don't think I miss too many. I ignore many. But if I "missed" one, how would I know?

You only know you missed them if I point them out!

Follow the money!

Look, i know where you are trying to go with this, His nose looks like it might be broken, and it actually was.

Nothing appeared to look like Zimmerman had been beaten "within an inch of his life".

He could have lost conscienceness any moment!

More spin! He "had to shoot"? There is no evidence to show that either man would have been dead if Zimmerman did not use the gun. Zimmerman had no life threatening injuries.

No spin! The doctor and his x-ray machine was nowhere near to confirm the nature of his injuries. And Zimmerman didn't know how serious his injuries were. If Trayvon saw the gun and went for it, then that would be additional justification.

Even the doctor said it was a "closed break". So what could you possibly see? His eyes were not blackened yet. His nose had been bloody. But none of that shows a broken nose. So none of that supports your claim that witnesses saw he had a broken nose! It was spin!

"Spin" is when someone misrepresents the truth to gain an edge. I described the basis of my suspicion that the nose was broken. No doubt, the doctor saw the same on the bridge of his nose and used an x-ray to confirm.

It would be more of a defensive move. If you refuse to give a sample when stopped for suspected DUI, You are automatically "guilty". You may save yourself from more serious charges, but you will lose you driving privileges.

This isn't a DUI. DUI's are handled by cops puting biased judges on night shift during holiday weekends to rubberstamp court orders for blood tests. That is the only reason the police get a pass on DUI's.

In this case, that doubt remains and could work against Zimmerman.

So how do you even know the police asked Zimmerman for a drug test? So if you don't know, and it didn't occur, what is the basis for "doubt" that will work against Zimmerman?

So what had caused Martin to be there is irrelevant! That is my point!

As is "Zimmerman getting out of the car" or "intent to follow"!

Another of those gratuitous "put-downs"! Since Zimmerman said "these guys always get away" and he's "up to no good" and that he was following the guy, he had intent. The robber who uses his legally carried gun to rob the bank, an ends up killing someone, didn't have the "intent" to shoot his gun or kill anybody. He just wanted the money. The result is the same. An innocent person is dead. So it is comparable.

Like I said, when you run with the libtard dogs, you're going to get fleas. Basically, that is the most politically correct and morally relative of any statement you have ever made. That is the kind of statemnt Mayor Bloomberg, Dr, Bogus, and Chuck Schumer make all the time. Besides being ludicrous, it is preposterous. Wanting the police to catch up to Martin and question him, isn't criminal intent. A bank robber robbing a bank has criminal intent, and their legally carried gun becomes illegal. What you are implying, is more comparible to a CCL holder going into a bank, having a little black teenager attack him, break his nose, blacken his eyes, lacerate his head by beating it on the marble floor, injure his back,. before the guy realizes and pulls his gun and shoots the LBT. Then right after that, jtdc and Angela Corey run up and indict him for trying to rob the bank and murder 2! Then Obama and Eric Holder run up and charge him with a federal hate crime.

You said he was a heavy user, a long time user, that he had brain damage from that use that caused him to attack Zimmerman. All unsupported by the facts! Spin.

No, that was in the speculation phaze where I was letting my imiagination run as wild as your were with yours. But no, specifically, I said, IF Martin was a long time user, and I don't believe he had been caught at school EVERY Time he "used", that would cause long term brain damage. So it was never guaranteed, and neither are the "side effects" of the legal prescription drugs Zimmemran had a prescription for. If he HAD been acting erratically, that would have been a basis of probable cause for a judge to order a drug test. Of course, that is about the fourth time I have explained it, and you are still obsessed.

"MMO"! If he had stayed in his car he wouldn't have the opportunity. He did not get out of his car to stretch his legs. He got out for the purpose of pursuing Martin. Intent! And of course he had the method, carrying a gun. Note that in an earlier incident before he had the gun, he would not get out of the car when the Police dispatcher suggest he should.

The opportunity to do what? From the police call, Zimmerman "intended" to get a better address for the police to respond to, and to respot Martin. FWIR, Martin bragged to his little teenage girlfriend, exact race unknown, that he had "lost" the guy. Yes he got the gun in case he was attacked by a wild dog. Instead, he was attacked by a different species.

Because it is the truth!

No it's not, you just define it as truth.

I generally agree that it should have been manslaughter. But as I also said, there is likely much more evidence and strategies that I am not aware of.

What evidence? You have seen the physical evidence, all that is left is the statements form the witnesses and Martin. As for strategies, we know what the strategy is, get Zimmerman convicted no matter what!

Really? More spin. You ignore what you quoted, that Martin never had possession of a gun and spin it to speculation about Corey and me that is unsupported by fact. As Darrel Issa said to Holder, you don't answer the question.

Can't you even think of a new word to accuse me of? Spin? Really. Martin, being underage and a pot user, would NEVER have a right to take Zimmerman's gun from him and use it to defend himself from Zimmerman nor was he injured at all, other than the final gunshot, and the cuts on his knuckles from the criminal assault he committed on Zimmerman. And ALL of this is a result of laws passed and promoted by your new found friends. So yours and Correy's "speculation" that Martin was justified in beating the crap out of Zimmerman is BH!

The recording of his call.

That recording is not the evidence you say it is.

You mean beating women?

Beating up Hispanic men, smoking pot, and burgulary.

It would if he had been charged and convicted of those. But because he had never been charged and convicted of those, it was not illegal for him to touch a gun! More BOGUS SPIN ABOUT A NON ISSUE!

It's YOUR Bogus issue! The federal form doesn't ask if you have been convicted of pot or illegal drug use. But Trayvon wouldn't even be elegible to "buy" a pistol for another 4 years.

Because he looks like Obama's son, if he had one?

But Trayvon doesn't look like a Kenyian Muslim!

They are not admissible in this "criminal case"!

They wouldn't be anyway. However. Corey introduced the false persona of Trayvon into the indictment.

So only residents are allowed there? Not visitors?

No, but that's why Zimmerman didn't recognize him. Are you daft?

Back to your SPIN of irrelevant matters.

Then don't bring them up!

Repeat of you irrelevant mantra rant.

Then don't bring it up!

Then why did you mention it? Because without it, there would be no potential witness to contradict what Zimmerman claimed? So the cell phone is your nemesis? To bad it wasn't recording. That Cell phone could have proved if it was Zimmerman or Martin who was yelling "Help". It could have proved who said what to who. Cell phone bad!

I don;t see your concerns. If I was kicked out of school, I wouldn't have been pawned off on another relative for what would essentially be a vacation, I would have been grounded and lost ALL priviledges. They might have "demanded" the police arrest me!

Actually, it is probably the reason the Sanford DA didn't charge Zimmerman in February.

Congratulations! You must now be a DimocRAT. You're playing the race card, every time! First it was a jury in Texas who covicted Gary Graham on the testimony of an eyewitness, and now you are trashing at least two attorneys in Sanford, accusing them of being racist. And you have already accused me of Racism for noticing that Trayvon was black. And you obviously also adopted the Dim method of having NO evidence to support racism charges, other than the race of one party involved.

And this isn't about the Federal law.

Sure it is. Unfortunately, for Witch Hunter Corey, a White middle aged Female Malicious Prosecutor, this undermines her hope for a plea bargain, based upon a threat to prosecute and send Zimmerman to a prison where he would likely get murdered by incarcerated New Black Panthers.

What part?

The part that begins with "Because" and ends with "him"

No, that you were only close to the truth one in four times.

Yes, that one was mine, the three others were yours!

Not necessarily.

Necessarily!

But you will certainly trash others.

Only if they deserve to be trashed...

"the level or response to an attack is only legal when it is sufficient to match the initial attack." It doesn't say stepping up the level of attack.

Like Martin did?

Wow! You accuse me of minimizing Zimmerman's injuries, them expand them beyond what the facts support, all in the same paragraph.

No, I'm just reminding you, you have already admitted it.

Then why do you do it?

I didn't, you claimed I did.

Deny, deny, deny!

No, you have DimocRAT standards of accusing others of racism.

But not, apparently, as a derogative.

It was still inappropriate and unprofessional.

Then why would you object to Zimmerman being called the "murderer", the "stalker", the "child killer", the "liar", the "woman beater"?

There isn't evidence that Zimmerman did that or it involves another case.

I'm waiting to see it.

You've seen it, yet you deny it.

Because there is a legitimate division between a child (17) and an adult (18). As you repeatedly pointed out a child cannot get a CCP. Only an adult can. But there is no such division due to race. But if it makes you happy, I'll accuse you of "Ageism" since you justify killing a teenager.

Yes, but they're both teenagers. And a teenager can't get a CCL, because they can't legally own a pistol until 21. So once again, you don't even know what you are talking about. And you forget, I used "he" when describing Trayvon, so I'm a sexist too! I mentioned that he had a little girlfriend, so I'm a homophobe. He has a mother and father, so I also discrimiante against orphans. I mentioned that he has a home, which he had to leave because he got expelled numerous times from school, but not criminally charged by the police, so I must hate the homeless.

They were white Texans!

So is David Gold!

Like that never happened, especially in Texas?

According to you it happens every time!

Yes! Unlike you I did not live the case.

So they all agreed?

Well no, NOT PERSONALLY!

Well no, NOT PERSONALLY! But I'm sure the evidence will show that to be the fact.

It was a hearing, it got Zimmerman;s bail revoked and giddy media types all wrote "Zimmerman lied". No one is going to be prosecuted over it.

Me!

But you're the same guy who missed the rehearing!

You were using a hypothetical!

No, I think Martin was an actaul black teenager, not a hypothetical black teenager.

Because he knew the Officer was on to him.

So he knew the Officer was onto him ahead of time too?

But he is, now!

Maybe not!

Lawyers!

And Obama bundlers!

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by Rifleman

What's wrong with negative labels? You use them!

On you. I don't disparage Zimmerman or anybody else unless it is a reaction to one of you pejoratives. I try to act royal.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

By whose standards? Sharpton's?

I didn't know I was conversing with him.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

You only know you missed them if I point them out!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Look, i know where you are trying to go with this,

Funny because I don't. I've already been where you are apparently just getting back to.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

He could have lost conscienceness any moment!

Then there would be evidence. It couldn't have been that bad as he was immediately on his feet. So it is unsupported by any of the evidence.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No spin! The doctor and his x-ray machine was nowhere near to confirm the nature of his injuries.

But he could have gone to an emergency room, yet didn't. If he was "within an inch of his life" he would have need immediate medical treatment.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

And Zimmerman didn't know how serious his injuries were.

A good reason to get checked out.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

If Trayvon saw the gun and went for it, then that would be additional justification.

Another spin around the facts. Re-read Post# 479.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

"Spin" is when someone misrepresents the truth to gain an edge.

It is twisting the facts to mean other than what it means.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I described the basis of my suspicion that the nose was broken.

Your suspicion is irrelevant. But your statement that witnesses saw his nose was broken is a lie.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

This isn't a DUI. DUI's are handled by cops puting biased judges on night shift during holiday weekends to rubberstamp court orders for blood tests. That is the only reason the police get a pass on DUI's.

So cops never arrest for DUI in the daytime?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So how do you even know the police asked Zimmerman for a drug test? So if you don't know, and it didn't occur, what is the basis for "doubt" that will work against Zimmerman?

Because he was prescribed the drugs and it is reasonable that he took them.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

As is "Zimmerman getting out of the car" or "intent to follow"!

No, they indicate that he was not just innocently standing around, and for no reason Martin attacked him. Zimmerman deliberately put himself in Martin's space.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Like I said, when you run with the libtard dogs, you're going to get fleas. Basically, that is the most politically correct and morally relative of any statement you have ever made. That is the kind of statemnt Mayor Bloomberg, Dr, Bogus, and Chuck Schumer make all the time. Besides being ludicrous, it is preposterous. Wanting the police to catch up to Martin and question him, isn't criminal intent.

All that vitriol to say what? Police can stop you just 'cause the want to? Isn't that the whole objection Libertarians had against the Arizona 1070 law? But here, just walking home from the store, you advocate police stopping you and questioning you?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

A bank robber robbing a bank has criminal intent, and their legally carried gun becomes illegal. What you are implying, is more comparible to a CCL holder going into a bank, having a little black teenager attack him, break his nose, blacken his eyes, lacerate his head by beating it on the marble floor, injure his back,. before the guy realizes and pulls his gun and shoots the LBT.

But you claim not to be racist!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No, that was in the speculation phaze where I was letting my imiagination run as wild as your were with yours.

But you keep recycling it as if it is fact.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

But no, specifically, I said, IF Martin was a long time user, and I don't believe he had been caught at school EVERY Time he "used", that would cause long term brain damage. So it was never guaranteed, and neither are the "side effects" of the legal prescription drugs Zimmemran had a prescription for. If he HAD been acting erratically, that would have been a basis of probable cause for a judge to order a drug test. Of course, that is about the fourth time I have explained it, and you are still obsessed.

Like I said, you keep recycling as if it was fact.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

The opportunity to do what? From the police call, Zimmerman "intended" to get a better address for the police to respond to, and to respot Martin.

His excuse!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

FWIR, Martin bragged to his little teenage girlfriend, exact race unknown, that he had "lost" the guy.

Really? Proof!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Yes he got the gun in case he was attacked by a wild dog. Instead, he was attacked by a different species.

So all you can do is use racism?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

What evidence?

I'm waiting for the trial that may never be.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Can't you even think of a new word to accuse me of? Spin? Really.

No!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I don;t see your concerns. If I was kicked out of school, I wouldn't have been pawned off on another relative for what would essentially be a vacation, I would have been grounded and lost ALL priviledges. They might have "demanded" the police arrest me!

You were lucky.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Like Martin did?

Correct!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

There isn't evidence that Zimmerman did that or it involves another case.

So you apply a different standard for Zimmerman than Martin!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Yes, but they're both teenagers. And a teenager can't get a CCL, because they can't legally own a pistol until 21. So once again, you don't even know what you are talking about.

I'm not a gun-worshiper. But other than the range the fact is the same.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So is David Gold!

So now you want to trash him too?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

According to you it happens every time!

It is Texas!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No one is going to be prosecuted over it.

On that you are probably right.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So he knew the Officer was onto him ahead of time too?

Of course. If he hadn't called the Police Desk, they wouldn't have known and he wouldn't have to.

[Rifleman]

Originally Posted by jtdc

On you. I don't disparage Zimmerman or anybody else unless it is a reaction to one of you pejoratives. I try to act royal.

Calling him a murderer is a pretty good example of disparaging him.

I didn't know I was conversing with him.

Merely mentioning race isn;t racist, unless Sharpton hears it.

You think this is some sort of game?

Funny because I don't. I've already been where you are apparently just getting back to.

Where, where the truth is?

Then there would be evidence. It couldn't have been that bad as he was immediately on his feet. So it is unsupported by any of the evidence.

Not true, the adrenaline was flowing, I'm sure he was quite sore in the morning.

But he could have gone to an emergency room, yet didn't. If he was "within an inch of his life" he would have need immediate medical treatment.

Also not true, Trayvon's scratched hands were inches away from the gun.

A good reason to get checked out.

Clearly he was somewhat groggy from the head smashing attack of Trayvon, wasn;t thinking straight.

Another spin around the facts. Re-read Post# 479.

No, you still misunderstand. The evidence that Trayvon went for the gun is a bit more than the evidence that you imply proves that Zimerrman attacked Martin initially.

It is twisting the facts to mean other than what it means.

But you're just "calling it that".

Your suspicion is irrelevant. But your statement that witnesses saw his nose was broken is a lie.

Then why did one of the officers ask Zimmerman if he wanted to see a doctor?

So cops never arrest for DUI in the daytime?

No, judges are in the courtroom during the day.

Because he was prescribed the drugs and it is reasonable that he took them.

Well, the judge won't allow it.

No, they indicate that he was not just innocently standing around, and for no reason Martin attacked him. Zimmerman deliberately put himself in Martin's space.

So why did Trayvon, evade Zimmerman?

All that vitriol to say what? Police can stop you just 'cause the want to? Isn't that the whole objection Libertarians had against the Arizona 1070 law? But here, just walking home from the store, you advocate police stopping you and questioning you?

Ah! Humor! 1070 involves the police asking for identification for people stopped for probable cause for other reasons, about their immigration status, 1070's stay isn't going to stop the initial stops in the least, which is why your joke is funny. And if those same people stopped provided drivers licenses, there would be no reason to question their immigration status. It's not the Libertarians who are trying to kill 1070, it is DimocRATS!

But you claim not to be racist!

That wasn't racist according to anyone's standards but yours and Sharpton's. Have you heard? Little Black Teenagers sometimes commit crimes!

But you keep recycling it as if it is fact.

If I am recycling it, I am recycling it as a hypothetical.

Like I said, you keep recycling as if it was fact.

And "like" most of what you say, you are once again wrong. With your very own fingers, you enlarged "if" on the quote. Don't you know the use of "if" is to introduce a hypothetical?

His excuse!

So he says one thing and you imply it is evidence he was stalking and intnet on doing harm to Martin, but he says something else that shows his intent was harmelss and you label it an "excuse"?

Really? Proof!

IIRC, it was on the wikipedia link for Trayvon's little girlfriend. Can I even assume she is a girl?

So all you can do is use racism?

No, even according to Sharpton, that would be "specisim".

I'm waiting for the trial that may never be.

The original quote of mine is what Dershowitz, pointed out, the evidence presented in the indictment avidavit, lacks evidence to justify a Murder 2, charge and leaves out evidence of Zimmerman's injuries. That's why Corey threatened Harvard Law and Dershowitz personally.

No!

You must be tired.

You were lucky.

Well, it's one reason I didn't do those kinds of things in the first place.

Correct!

I dunno, I must be one of those Sharpton racists, but it seem to me, breaking a nose, balckening both eyes, injuring a back and beating a head into the concrete doesn't near "match" your hypothetical tackle.

So you apply a different standard for Zimmerman than Martin!

No, there IS evidence that Trayvon "trashed" Zimmerman.

I'm not a gun-worshiper. But other than the range the fact is the same.

Well, I'm not a gun worshiper either. But you have to be 21 to own a pistol, that you bought yourself. The difference between a 17 yo, and an 18 yo, involves the overly strict gun control laws, the same people jumping on the Trayvon bandwagon advocate. AN 18 yo can buy his own rifle or shotgun. I imagine Trayvon knew this, I don't know if it was the hypothetical long term pot use or his possible belief that he was Bruce Lee, (a actor of Asian decent, who reportedly dies of a fatal reaction to his pot use) that somehow made Trayvon forget, you just can't go around and beat people causing serious injuries, YOU might get shot! And that doesn't matter what age you are!

So now you want to trash him too?

You do!

It is Texas!

If not for Texas, Obam's unemployment rates would be even higher.

On that you are probably right.

Thank you!

Of course. If he hadn't called the Police Desk, they wouldn't have known and he wouldn't have to.

So why would he, if he had known the police were on to him ahead of time?

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Calling him a murderer is a pretty good example of disparaging him.

That is the charge against him. And since there is no evidence that Martin attacked him with no provocation, it appears to be some level of murder.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Merely mentioning race isn;t racist, unless Sharpton hears it.

So you are like Sharptongue? He drops "race" in where it doesn't belong, just like you do.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Also not true, Trayvon's scratched hands were inches away from the gun.

So he couldn't have gone to the emergency room? Why?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Clearly he was somewhat groggy from the head smashing attack of Trayvon, wasn;t thinking straight.

But I thought you said he was fine because of the adrenaline.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

The evidence that Trayvon went for the gun is a bit more than the evidence that you imply proves that Zimerrman attacked Martin initially.

What evidence, ANY EVIDENCE, that Martin went for the gun?

And I haven't said there is evidence that Martin attacked first. I said it is a possibility.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Then why did one of the officers ask Zimmerman if he wanted to see a doctor?

Because he had cuts on the back of his head and a bloody nose!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So why did Trayvon, evade Zimmerman?

Did he? He was talking on the phone to the girl, not hiding, unlike Zimmerman who was whispering to the Desk Officer, and afraid of being heard giving his address.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Ah! Humor! 1070 involves the police asking for identification for people stopped for probable cause for other reasons, about their immigration status, 1070's stay isn't going to stop the initial stops in the least, which is why your joke is funny. And if those same people stopped provided drivers licenses, there would be no reason to question their immigration status. It's not the Libertarians who are trying to kill 1070, it is DimocRATS!

Nice spin away from answering the question. Part of the "slippery slope" argument was police couldn't just stop you walking down the street to ask for ID. Yet here you are saying Zimmerman and the police could do that with Martin.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

That wasn't racist according to anyone's standards but yours and Sharpton's.

But you are emulating your idol, Sharptongue, adding race into the scenario, just as Sharptongue mentions race as if that means the person isn't guilty of the crime.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Have you heard? Little Black Teenagers sometimes commit crimes!

So do Texans!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

If I am recycling it, I am recycling it as a hypothetical.

So if your hypothetical didn't work the first time, you recycle it repeatedly as if you will get a different result? What was that about "insanity is doing the same thing...."

Originally Posted by Rifleman

And "like" most of what you say, you are once again wrong. With your very own fingers, you enlarged "if" on the quote. Don't you know the use of "if" is to introduce a hypothetical?

So you knowingly recycle bogus claims.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So he says one thing and you imply it is evidence he was stalking and intnet on doing harm to Martin, but he says something else that shows his intent was harmelss and you label it an "excuse"?

Correct!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

IIRC, it was on the wikipedia link for Trayvon's little girlfriend.

So you can't find evidence to support what you say, but we are supposed to take your word for it?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Can I even assume she is a girl?

Well, these days "he" could be a "she". Can't argue with you there.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

The original quote of mine is what Dershowitz, pointed out, the evidence presented in the indictment avidavit, lacks evidence to justify a Murder 2, charge and leaves out evidence of Zimmerman's injuries. That's why Corey threatened Harvard Law and Dershowitz personally.

Your idol Dershowitz admits being a liberal. But he says that doesn't affect his judgment. Isn't that a oxymoron? Many consider liberalism to be a disease. It indicates impaired judgment. So he kind of disqualifies himself.

As for Corey, her threat certainly doesn't help my opinion of her. If she violated law, as Dershowitz claims, I would expect her to be prosecuted for it. But since I don't have the evidence and can't read her mind, I can only wait and see.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

You must be tired.

Obviously not as "creative" as you.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Well, it's one reason I didn't do those kinds of things in the first place.

Just one reason. There are many who were born of privilege who turn to crime as well.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I dunno, I must be one of those Sharpton racists,

Ah, admitting the obvious!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

but it seem to me, breaking a nose, balckening both eyes, injuring a back and beating a head into the concrete doesn't near "match" your hypothetical tackle.

They would be a defense after the tackle!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No, there IS evidence that Trayvon "trashed" Zimmerman.

Another SPIN. Zimmerman killed Martin. You will bring up allegations that Martin stole jewelery and smoked pot, even though he was never charged for either of those. But you want to ignore that Zimmerman was alleged to be a woman beater and that he was convicted of interfering with a police officer. Trayvon's past doesn't show a pattern of violence, Zimmerman's past does show a pattern of violence. As I said, you don't want to hold them to the same standards.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Well, I'm not a gun worshiper either. But you have to be 21 to own a pistol, that you bought yourself. The difference between a 17 yo, and an 18 yo, involves the overly strict gun control laws, the same people jumping on the Trayvon bandwagon advocate. AN 18 yo can buy his own rifle or shotgun. I imagine Trayvon knew this, I don't know if it was the hypothetical long term pot use or his possible belief that he was Bruce Lee, (a actor of Asian decent, who reportedly dies of a fatal reaction to his pot use) that somehow made Trayvon forget, you just can't go around and beat people causing serious injuries, YOU might get shot! And that doesn't matter what age you are!

So you agree with me.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

You do!

I'm not the one who brought his name into this.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

If not for Texas, Obam's unemployment rates would be even higher.

No proof! They didn't create jobs. The just relocated them. So it would be a draw as far as unemployment rates would go.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Thank you!

I believe in giving credit where credit is due!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So why would he, if he had known the police were on to him ahead of time?

Probably a lapse in judgment from his years of pot use (possibly 10 more than Trayvon), maybe having been beat up over the years (why he became a bully), maybe diminished capacity do to the prescription, "mind altering" drugs he was on, etc. He again demonstrated such lapses by thinking no one would discover his $150,000 stash if he just stayed quiet about it at his Bail Hearing.

[Rifleman]

[quote=jtdc;310406]That is the charge against him. And since there is no evidence that Martin attacked him with no provocation, it appears to be some level of murder.[quote]

There is also no evidence that Martin WAS provoked into an attack. which wouldn't be justified anyway.

So you are like Sharptongue? He drops "race" in where it doesn't belong, just like you do.

That's the point! He also makes accusations of racism without cause, like you have in this thread.

So he couldn't have gone to the emergency room? Why?

I guess the attack was so brutal, Zimmermn couldn't think straight.

But I thought you said he was fine because of the adrenaline.

I didn;t say "fine", adrenaline can mask injuries.

What evidence, ANY EVIDENCE, that Martin went for the gun?

Remember? When the "medium range" shot was defined as beyond 24", you claimed it as proof Zimmerman had lied, broken free, gotten up and murdered Martin. When the range was correctly defined, the distance matched Zimmerman's story, that Martin went for the gun. Now there is no evidence to contradict that.

And I haven't said there is evidence that Martin attacked first. I said it is a possibility.

Of course not! To have Martin attack first, would block any maliscious attempt by Corey to imply murder. That's why she insists that Zimmerman getting out of the truck was a hostile provocative act.

Because he had cuts on the back of his head and a bloody nose!

YES! Possible concussion and probably a broken nose! DO people suggest going to the ER for a simple bloody nose, and minor cuts?

Did he? He was talking on the phone to the girl, not hiding, unlike Zimmerman who was whispering to the Desk Officer, and afraid of being heard giving his address.

Isn't that what he told her? You can't emphasize thealedged "get off, get off", and ignore everything else she says.

Nice spin away from answering the question. Part of the "slippery slope" argument was police couldn't just stop you walking down the street to ask for ID. Yet here you are saying Zimmerman and the police could do that with Martin.

No slippery slope. The police can and still can stop you all day long and question you, and detain you if they have probable cause. The entire contraversy over 1070 is because the DIms want to use illegals to steal the election. Zimmerman couldn't require Martin to comply, of course.

But you are emulating your idol, Sharptongue, adding race into the scenario, just as Sharptongue mentions race as if that means the person isn't guilty of the crime.

No, no! Inappropriateness of bringing up race, is NOT Sharpton's crime, it's falsely or unknowingly accusing others of racism. That's what got the folks in the Jewish Cleaners murdered.

So do Texans!

Of course, there are also little black teenaged Texans that commit crimes.

So if your hypothetical didn't work the first time, you recycle it repeatedly as if you will get a different result? What was that about "insanity is doing the same thing...."

How do you know? Perhaps I'm getting the desired result every tiem!

So you knowingly recycle bogus claims.

Neither! It's not a claim, it's a hypothetical possibility. And since it's possible, it's not bogus.

Correct!

That's a double standard.

So you can't find evidence to support what you say, but we are supposed to take your word for it?

I didn't look for evidence to support it. You have already been exposed to the links I wrote earlier.

Well, these days "he" could be a "she". Can't argue with you there.

Yes, you should be careful, these days to disparage a teenaged transexual is considered homophobia, and a hate crime.

Your idol Dershowitz admits being a liberal. But he says that doesn't affect his judgment. Isn't that a oxymoron? Many consider liberalism to be a disease. It indicates impaired judgment. So he kind of disqualifies himself.

As for Corey, her threat certainly doesn't help my opinion of her. If she violated law, as Dershowitz claims, I would expect her to be prosecuted for it. But since I don't have the evidence and can't read her mind, I can only wait and see.

Dershowitz hasn't been so liberal on points of the law, so it appears, between his much less liberal bias, and his record of legal success, and his Harvard professorship, he does have some relaible opinion.

No, it shows her dishonesty. She did not accurately tell the truth, the whole truth, in her indictment avadavit regarding Zimmemran's injuries, and the existance of those injuries affect the justification regarding the indictment she made. But to have her try to get Harvard to censor Dershowitz? That's unprofessional when she is in the midst of a prosecution, and it shows either an ingorance of Freedom of Speech or a disregard for it.

Obviously not as "creative" as you.

Maybe a long nap would help?

Just one reason. There are many who were born of privilege who turn to crime as well.

No, they Don' get punished as kids, they get indulged.

Ah, admitting the obvious!

Yes!!! Accusing a "black teenager" of actually committing a crime for which there is plenty of evidence that he is guilty', is "racism" to Sharpton!

They would be a defense after the tackle!

Still wouldn't "match", even if it actually occured. And I mean the tackle, the injuries to Zimerman DID occur!

Another SPIN. Zimmerman killed Martin. You will bring up allegations that Martin stole jewelery and smoked pot, even though he was never charged for either of those. But you want to ignore that Zimmerman was alleged to be a woman beater and that he was convicted of interfering with a police officer. Trayvon's past doesn't show a pattern of violence, Zimmerman's past does show a pattern of violence. As I said, you don't want to hold them to the same standards.

But HE SMOKED pot and probably stole jewelry. That's why he was expelled from school multiple times and why his parents didn't fight it. It's like informal "parole". But Trayvon is/was not a woman and Zimmerman's "pattern" for violence is not apparant in this incident. You want to create a whole new standard in which to convict Zimmerman of murder.

So you agree with me.

On what subject, or specific issue?

I'm not the one who brought his name into this.

Right, but you're the one who slandered White Texans.

No proof! They didn't create jobs. The just relocated them. So it would be a draw as far as unemployment rates would go.

No, if those jobs didn't relocate to Texas, they would have been lost.

I believe in giving credit where credit is due!

You're welcome.

Probably a lapse in judgment from his years of pot use (possibly 10 more than Trayvon), maybe having been beat up over the years (why he became a bully), maybe diminished capacity do to the prescription, "mind altering" drugs he was on, etc. He again demonstrated such lapses by thinking no one would discover his $150,000 stash if he just stayed quiet about it at his Bail Hearing.

FWIR, his dad should be the one who's sore, didn't his Dad put up his own house for the bail?

[schaabdl]

I find the arguments interesting but jtdc seems to be on the ground that Zimmermann must prove something - it is the state's job to prove the case. The area I see that the state is weakest in all of this is the definition of 2nd degree murder means the act was intentionally committed, but not pre-meditated and not committed in a the "heat of passion." Involuntary manslaughter might have been easier because there appears to be zero evidence of intent at this time.

[Rifleman]

I admit jtdc has passion about this case, but it is misplaced. Intent to perform an act other than "the" act of non-premeditated murder, doesn't count. The physical evidence of Zimmerman's injuries, without injuries to Martin of a similarl nature, and the fact that Martin's fatal injury was the last one committed, demonstrate a justification of the use of the firearm.

Whatever the fellngs about the fairness or unfairness of the law, the law must be followed, and not changed. The only exception would be jury nullification, but that is not used to convict a defendant, only aquit him.

Similarly, politics, especially those of the worst kind, have undoubtedly influenced the proceeding of the case.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by Rifleman

There is also no evidence that Martin WAS provoked into an attack. which wouldn't be justified anyway.

Therefore he might have been defending himself.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

That's the point! He also makes accusations of racism without cause, like you have in this thread.

You did it first!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I guess the attack was so brutal, Zimmermn couldn't think straight.

Therefore none of his statements to police were reliable.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Remember? When the "medium range" shot was defined as beyond 24", you claimed it as proof Zimmerman had lied, broken free, gotten up and murdered Martin.

Yes!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

When the range was correctly defined, the distance matched Zimmerman's story, that Martin went for the gun. Now there is no evidence to contradict that.

But it is still only Zimmerman's words. An that is based on his perception that Martin intended to kill him. But no evidence that Martin actually did go for the gun, nor that Martin even saw the gun. Only Zimmerman's claims.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

YES! Possible concussion and probably a broken nose! DO people suggest going to the ER for a simple bloody nose, and minor cuts?

So no one thought his injuries appeared life-threatening and he did not feel it either.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Isn't that what he told her? You can't emphasize thealedged "get off, get off", and ignore everything else she says.

But I saw the statement "get off, get off". I did not see what you claim and you have provided no evidence to support it. Therefore, that I accept her statement and reject your recollection is not a contradiction.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No slippery slope. The police can and still can stop you all day long and question you, and detain you if they have probable cause.

Here you are back to the "if"! What "probable cause" was there to detain and question Martin?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Zimmerman couldn't require Martin to comply, of course.

Thanks for getting back to that fact". And the police would have no reason either. There was no reported robbery for them to be investigating.

Now there is a parallel in a story this week where police stopped several motorists, got them out of their cars, and handcuffed them. There was a bank robbery and they were sure the robber was among those they corralled. They did get the robber from among those they stopped, but the question was did they have the right? In that case they did have a fresh crime, but they had no description of who they were seeking.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No, no! Inappropriateness of bringing up race, is NOT Sharpton's crime, it's falsely or unknowingly accusing others of racism.

That is why he brings it up. Your similarity is you bring it up to invoke race as a factor when Zimmerman claims it was not. I know you want to bring it up in connection to what happened after that killing and outside of that case. But it is "outside that case"!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Of course, there are also little black teenaged Texans that commit crimes.

I didn't know that. But then, it's understandable since the white Texans blame them for everything wrong anyway.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

How do you know? Perhaps I'm getting the desired result every tiem!

So you welcome insanity? Wear it like a badge of honor?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Neither! It's not a claim, it's a hypothetical possibility. And since it's possible, it's not bogus.

So no hypothetical can be bogus? No matter if it is completely devoid of facts?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

That's a double standard.

No, they are both possibilities. And both are related to the same person. The double standard is what you use when accepting facts from Zimmerman and rejecting facts from Martin.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I didn't look for evidence to support it. You have already been exposed to the links I wrote earlier.

So now, again, we are supposed to re-read all the links you have put up to find words you "recall" but can't find?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Yes, you should be careful, these days to disparage a teenaged transexual is considered homophobia, and a hate crime.

Zimmerman could be in real trouble. No doubt his counsel will try to prove her (his) testimony to be flawed.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Dershowitz hasn't been so liberal on points of the law, so it appears, between his much less liberal bias, and his record of legal success, and his Harvard professorship, he does have some relaible opinion.

IIRC, Dershowitz as commentator said O.J. was definitely guilty. Then he signed on to O.J.'s defense team and proclaimed O.J. not guilty.

Another high-profile lawyer was Melvin Belli. I listened to him one day on the radio claim that our legal system is seriously flawed, but we should give it another 100 years to improve. I'm sure that was comforting to the wrongly accused sitting in jail.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No, it shows her dishonesty.

I agree. But that seems to be the qualifier to become a lawyer. The same for politicians, who are all too often lawyers.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Maybe a long nap would help?

Naw. I would need a Fountain of Youth!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No, they Don' get punished as kids, they get indulged.

Idealistic. But there have been children of clergy, judges, psychiatrists and just about every profession, where those who give advice still fail with their own offspring.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Still wouldn't "match", even if it actually occured. And I mean the tackle, the injuries to Zimerman DID occur!

Well then football players should always have life threatening injuries.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

But HE SMOKED pot and probably stole jewelry.

You continue to reach.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

But Trayvon is/was not a woman and Zimmerman's "pattern" for violence is not apparant in this incident.

Why do you think he got a gun?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

On what subject, or specific issue?

Oh, I get to pick? "AN 18 yo can buy his own rifle or shotgun."

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Right, but you're the one who slandered White Texans.

So there are no racist Texans?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No, if those jobs didn't relocate to Texas, they would have been lost.

Maybe.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

FWIR, his dad should be the one who's sore, didn't his Dad put up his own house for the bail?

So, presuming that Zimmerman being taken back into custody, the bail was returned and the Bondsman credited Zimmerman's father, less the fees, that was as profitable as a slot machine. Will they do it all over when the next Bail Hearing is scheduled? His parents will be homeless and bankrupt before he gets to trial, and there's all that money sitting in the bank waiting for his lawyer to run up at least that much in charges.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by schaabdl

I find the arguments interesting but jtdc seems to be on the ground that Zimmermann must prove something - it is the state's job to prove the case.

Then why a defense lawyer? That's fine ideally, but not practically.

Originally Posted by schaabdl

The area I see that the state is weakest in all of this is the definition of 2nd degree murder means the act was intentionally committed, but not pre-meditated and not committed in a the "heat of passion."

I agree, and have speculated on that a couple of times.

Originally Posted by schaabdl

Involuntary manslaughter might have been easier because there appears to be zero evidence of intent at this time.

"Appears" is an opinion. Opinion will decide what facts mean what.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I admit jtdc has passion about this case, but it is misplaced. Intent to perform an act other than "the" act of non-premeditated murder, doesn't count.

I have a passion to look for all possibilities, and not jump to a conclusion. That does not mean I don't make minor conclusions along the way.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Whatever the fellngs about the fairness or unfairness of the law, the law must be followed, and not changed.

Which law? What was before or what is now? The author of the SYG law said it wasn't meant to apply to this type case. So there are many different opinions. That law is a defense. It is not what he is charged under.

[Rifleman]

Originally Posted by jtdc

Therefore he might have been defending himself.

Therefore? How? There is no evidence that Martin was provoked or not provoked into an attack , so? Zimmerman's evidence is that he was injured.

You did it first!

No I didn't. I don't need to mplay the race card to bolster a lack of substance.

Therefore none of his statements to police were reliable.

Therefore? You believe he wasn;t injured!

Yes!

Yes, you wer wrong, it ended up supporting Zimerman's story.

But it is still only Zimmerman's words. An that is based on his perception that Martin intended to kill him. But no evidence that Martin actually did go for the gun, nor that Martin even saw the gun. Only Zimmerman's claims.

Unfortunately for your speculation, the perception of Zimmerman is what is in question here. FODOSBI is based upon the perception of the person using it. And you have been using a circular argument that Martin was justified in his viscious attack because Zimmerman pulled the gun on him.

So no one thought his injuries appeared life-threatening and he did not feel it either.

So? That 's the opposite. If no one thought any of his injuries appeared life threatening, then why did they suggest he go to the ER? So Zimmerman was supposed to wait until he was dead to react?

But I saw the statement "get off, get off". I did not see what you claim and you have provided no evidence to support it. Therefore, that I accept her statement and reject your recollection is not a contradiction.

I don't see the "aledged" "get off, get off' statement, guess I should have demanded your sources. But yes, Martin was trying to lose Zimmerman, and I can't see where her statement does anyting to Zmmerman. You theorizes that Zimmerman shoved Martin, because the phone is cut off. So where was the tackle? Martin's "headset" could have just as easily come off when he attacked Zimmerman from behind!

Here you are back to the "if"! What "probable cause" was there to detain and question Martin?

Not detain him question him.

Thanks for getting back to that fact". And the police would have no reason either. There was no reported robbery for them to be investigating.

Now there is a parallel in a story this week where police stopped several motorists, got them out of their cars, and handcuffed them. There was a bank robbery and they were sure the robber was among those they corralled. They did get the robber from among those they stopped, but the question was did they have the right? In that case they did have a fresh crime, but they had no description of who they were seeking.

So what's the problem? I don't condone that, the abuse of police powers are often used against gun owners. In this case, the fact that Zimmemran had a gun and a license to legally carry it in public, is going to be used to fabricate "intent to murder Martin". In fact you called for the police to have abused their power to try and find evidence against Zimmerman. Of course, your comparison once again is a bad one. The police didn't know if they had a crime or not, as opposed to a bank robbery.

That is why he brings it up. Your similarity is you bring it up to invoke race as a factor when Zimmerman claims it was not. I know you want to bring it up in connection to what happened after that killing and outside of that case. But it is "outside that case"!

But it is a factor in Zimmerman being charged. It is an excuse to have the Justice Department intervene, and threaten Federal Hate Cirmes with death penalties. It is a factor in forcing the local justice system and the State of Florida to use extraordinary measure to try and get a murder conviction on Zimmerman. So I mention race to show those very facts, and you call me racist. Let's assume for a minute that instead of the race connection, the DA had let Zimmerman off because he was a personal friend. Or if he went after Zimmerman because he hated guns and wanted to undermine the SYG law. Those are all bad reasons to take a specific action regarding the case either way. And ask yourself, why would Corey believe, ( if she even does), Zimmerman had intent to kill Martin? RACE!

I didn't know that. But then, it's understandable since the white Texans blame them for everything wrong anyway.

Slandering David Gold again?

So you welcome insanity? Wear it like a badge of honor?

What? You assumed I wanted a different result as you assumed that what I wanted didn't work. You didn;t even recognize until i told you that it was hypothetical.

So no hypothetical can be bogus? No matter if it is completely devoid of facts?

You have your definitions screwed up again. We don't know te "facts". And some of those facts may never be known. A hypothetical that is bogus would have a series of events that would be inconsistant with the facts, if known. So "IF" Martin were a long-time pot abuser, some impairment would occur and there would be "effects" even though the levels in his bloodstream were too low to affect his behavior directly. And you hypothetical wasn't bogus, it's similar in that there isn't evidence to support it.

No, they are both possibilities. And both are related to the same person. The double standard is what you use when accepting facts from Zimmerman and rejecting facts from Martin.

No, I was relating your claims that one thing Zimmemran said implied that he had intent to follow and you call it "stalking, and later Zimmemran says something else that indicated the opposite and you ignore it. Martin had noting to do with my statement that you replied "correct".

So now, again, we are supposed to re-read all the links you have put up to find words you "recall" but can't find?

No, I found the same facts that I recalled on another four website links. but I didnlt find "get off, get off".

Zimmerman could be in real trouble. No doubt his counsel will try to prove her (his) testimony to be flawed.

Ah, humor!

IIRC, Dershowitz as commentator said O.J. was definitely guilty. Then he signed on to O.J.'s defense team and proclaimed O.J. not guilty.

And he won, did he not? The man, in spite of his liberla bent is a brilliant attorney.

Another high-profile lawyer was Melvin Belli. I listened to him one day on the radio claim that our legal system is seriously flawed, but we should give it another 100 years to improve. I'm sure that was comforting to the wrongly accused sitting in jail.

And you want to put Zimmemran there too!

I agree. But that seems to be the qualifier to become a lawyer. The same for politicians, who are all too often lawyers.

So you applaude dishonesty if it's dishonest according to your agenda?

Naw. I would need a Fountain of Youth!

I think the fountain of youth is next to the place where the evidence that Zimmerman murdered Martin is stored.

Idealistic. But there have been children of clergy, judges, psychiatrists and just about every profession, where those who give advice still fail with their own offspring.

Yes, and there are people with scumbags for parents that turn out glorious! but I thought you believed in predestination!

Well then football players should always have life threatening injuries.

They sometimes do. Our High School quarterback, on the eve of the State Championship, had his brother, who was a football player elsewhere die of a bllod clot that cause a stroke after what was thought to be a minor injury. That's the thing, the one injured doesn't know the full extent of his injuries. Similarly, there was no evidence that Martin was going to stop!

You continue to reach.

That's not a reach.

Why do you think he got a gun?

For protection. Needed it didn't he?

Oh, I get to pick? "AN 18 yo can buy his own rifle or shotgun."

So waht's the significance about our agreement?

So there are no racist Texans?

Of course! But if they were actually racist, it wouldn't be a slander.

Maybe.

Or gone to another Republican run state.

So, presuming that Zimmerman being taken back into custody, the bail was returned and the Bondsman credited Zimmerman's father, less the fees, that was as profitable as a slot machine. Will they do it all over when the next Bail Hearing is scheduled? His parents will be homeless and bankrupt before he gets to trial, and there's all that money sitting in the bank waiting for his lawyer to run up at least that much in charges.

I believe the judge will simply raise his bail.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by Rifleman

There is no evidence that Martin was provoked or not provoked into an attack , so?

So why did he attack? He has no history of violence, unlike Zimmerman who does have such a history.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Zimmerman's evidence is that he was injured.

That often happens in a violent confrontation. But it does not prove that Zimmerman was not the aggressor.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Therefore? You believe he wasn;t injured!

Stupid! Therefore we don't have proof of WHY he was injured!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Yes, you wer wrong, it ended up supporting Zimerman's story.

Only that they weren't apart. That wasn't my belief up to the point that Fuhrman, apparently wrongly, claimed that they were apart. Then I began considering the ramifications of that possibility.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Unfortunately for your speculation, the perception of Zimmerman is what is in question here.

Correct!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

FODOSBI is based upon the perception of the person using it.

If it is based solely on that perception, that law is wrong and needs to be repealed. But you are wrong! The law essentially grants a presumption of innocence if the killing occurs in your "home". But it does not preclude an investigation to verify that presumption. In "any other place", that law is only a defense that might be employed.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

And you have been using a circular argument that Martin was justified in his viscious attack because Zimmerman pulled the gun on him.

No, the "circular argument" has encompassed a lot more than that. It could have been a physical attack. It could have been a verbal attack. And with the various statements attributed to Zimmerman, that isn't clear.

First it was claimed that Martin confronted Zimmerman and they had words before the fight began. Now the claim is Martin "jumped" Zimmerman from behind with no prior discussion. Yet the (girl/man) friend stated that they did have a conversation prior to the physical altercation. Will the real George Zimmerman please step forward?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

If no one thought any of his injuries appeared life threatening, then why did they suggest he go to the ER?

Because of his claim that he almost lost consciousness. Concussion cannot be observed. If such violence as he claimed occurred, it is a precaution often suggested.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So Zimmerman was supposed to wait until he was dead to react?

Well if he felt the beating was so severe that it justified him killing another human being, then I would think he would seek such medical treatment/examination to assure that he didn't have a concussion which could have killed him by the next morning.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I don't see the "aledged" "get off, get off' statement, guess I should have demanded your sources.

I'll oblige you without you having to beg: See Google!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

But yes, Martin was trying to lose Zimmerman, and I can't see where her statement does anyting to Zmmerman.

"There is none so blind as he who will not see."

Originally Posted by Rifleman

You theorizes that Zimmerman shoved Martin, because the phone is cut off.

Wrong, and wrong! I theorize that Zimmerman jumped Martin causing him the drop the phone.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So where was the tackle?

Why would Martin say "Get off, get off" if Zimmerman hadn't mounted him?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Martin's "headset" could have just as easily come off when he attacked Zimmerman from behind!

But he would have most likely, being courteous, would have told his (girl/guy) friend "Hold on a minute while I jump this "crazy and creepy’ Man" who had been "following Him".

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Not detain him question him.

Same question! Can a cop just stop you and question you when there is no cause?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So what's the problem? I don't condone that, the abuse of police powers are often used against gun owners.

Only gun owners?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

In this case, the fact that Zimmemran had a gun and a license to legally carry it in public, is going to be used to fabricate "intent to murder Martin".

The fact that he was emboldened by carrying a gun certainly is a factor.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

In fact you called for the police to have abused their power to try and find evidence against Zimmerman. Of course, your comparison once again is a bad one. The police didn't know if they had a crime or not, as opposed to a bank robbery.

There was a dead body, clearly not an accident. And since it was "any other place" they were justified in presuming a crime had been committed and investigating to find the facts.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

But it is a factor in Zimmerman being charged.

Zimmerman killed a human. Under the law it doesn't matter if it was a black man or a white man or an Hispanic-white man. The Florida law, even the Stand Your Ground law, doesn't make a distinction based on race. There, of course might be additional laws relating to race, as in the Federal laws on Hate Crimes. But that with which Zimmerman is charged have nothing about race in them.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

It is an excuse to have the Justice Department intervene, and threaten Federal Hate Cirmes with death penalties. It is a factor in forcing the local justice system and the State of Florida to use extraordinary measure to try and get a murder conviction on Zimmerman. So I mention race to show those very facts, and you call me racist.

Because you use it to instigate, just as Sharptongue and Jackass do.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Let's assume for a minute that instead of the race connection, the DA had let Zimmerman off because he was a personal friend.

That would fall under "Conflict of interest."

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Or if he went after Zimmerman because he hated guns and wanted to undermine the SYG law. Those are all bad reasons to take a specific action regarding the case either way.

Right!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

And ask yourself, why would Corey believe, ( if she even does), Zimmerman had intent to kill Martin? RACE!

It doesn't matter. If he didn't like people who walked in the rain, "intent" would be the factor.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Slandering David Gold again?

Don't blame me. You stand by David, draw fire, then jump out of the way, leaving him to be the victim.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

You didn;t even recognize until i told you that it was hypothetical.

Obviously you didn't make that clear.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

A hypothetical that is bogus would have a series of events that would be inconsistant with the facts, if known. So "IF" Martin were a long-time pot abuser, some impairment would occur and there would be "effects" even though the levels in his bloodstream were too low to affect his behavior directly.

But there are no facts to support long term pot abuse by Martin. And since Zimmerman is the one who killed Martin, Zimmerman would be the one who should be scrutinized as to the drugs and pot abuse he was influenced by.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

And you hypothetical wasn't bogus, it's similar in that there isn't evidence to support it.

Which one? The one about time travel or an alternate universe?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No, I was relating your claims that one thing Zimmemran said implied that he had intent to follow and you call it "stalking, and later Zimmemran says something else that indicated the opposite and you ignore it. Martin had noting to do with my statement that you replied "correct".

But the double standard is that you will accept either version Zimmerman puts out as fact and ignore any version, which apparently is consistent, from Martin's (girl/man) friend.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No, I found the same facts that I recalled on another four website links. but I didnlt find "get off, get off".

As mentioned above, maybe you should try a Google Search!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Ah, humor!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

And he won, did he not? The man, in spite of his liberla bent is a brilliant attorney.

It means he can be a great showman. But it doesn't mean he is right.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

And you want to put Zimmemran there too!

He's there. And of his own doing!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So you applaude dishonesty if it's dishonest according to your agenda?

No! But what's the alternative? Lawlessness?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I think the fountain of youth is next to the place where the evidence that Zimmerman murdered Martin is stored.

They both are in Florida, right?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Yes, and there are people with scumbags for parents that turn out glorious! but I thought you believed in predestination!

Well that sort of supports it.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

They sometimes do. Our High School quarterback, on the eve of the State Championship, had his brother, who was a football player elsewhere die of a bllod clot that cause a stroke after what was thought to be a minor injury. That's the thing, the one injured doesn't know the full extent of his injuries.

So Zimmerman was stupid for not getting examined after, according to him, being beaten within an inch of his life.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Similarly, there was no evidence that Martin was going to stop!

Another of you non sequiturs. It doesn't relate to the football player who thought he had minor injuries. Zimmerman either thought he had serious injuries for which he should have sought medical examination, of he lied to justify murder.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

For protection. Needed it didn't he?

Being a bully who was going to pick a fight he would lose, yeah!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So waht's the significance about our agreement?

"overly strict gun control laws". That was about the only coherent thought out of that whole rant.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Of course! But if they were actually racist, it wouldn't be a slander.

So not knowing any of them, it was a hypothetical.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I believe the judge will simply raise his bail.

So then what? Zimmerman's parents will have to get a new bond, which will cost even more? Will they have to pay a new fee for the bond in addition to what they paid the first time? And, although the lawyer now has control of that donation fund, will the judge include that in the assessment for setting bail? If he does, will Zimmerman's parents have enough assets to cover that bail?

[David]

CBC: Zimmerman acquittal could spark race riots

SOURCE

[David]

CNN Breaking News

George Zimmerman's wife, #Shellie_Zimmerman, arrested on perjury charge.

[David]

My opinion: This is self-defense. Zimmerman was not the aggressor, he did nothing to provoke Trayvon Martin’s beating him, breaking his nose and slamming his head into concrete. He had every right to respond with deadly force to stop Trayvon’s physical attack on him and to prevent Trayvon from getting control of his weapon.

SOURCE

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by David

My opinion: This is self-defense. Zimmerman was not the aggressor, he did nothing to provoke Trayvon Martin’s beating him, breaking his nose and slamming his head into concrete. He had every right to respond with deadly force to stop Trayvon’s physical attack on him and to prevent Trayvon from getting control of his weapon.

SOURCE

An opinion by a person posting on another forum who drinks the Kool-aid, and you buy into it?