UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
how dare that interrogator interrogate!
he should be fired for asking questions during an interrogation! chill out with the butthurt just because reality doesn't jive with your preconceived notions.
Zimmerman sues NBC
- Thread starter desert dude
- Start date
he should be fired for asking questions during an interrogation! chill out with the butthurt just because reality doesn't jive with your preconceived notions.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
Nobody disputes that Zimmerman shot Martin dead. The whole discussion is whether it was a legal homicide.
The prosecutor damn well better have a lot more evidence than we have seen or this whole thing is a waste of time and tax payer money. Let me point you to the affidavit of probable cause filed by the prosecutor. Have you read it, CN?
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/12/us/13shooter-document.html
Are you aware of what Alan Dershowitz said about the affidavit filed by the state of Florida?
desert dude
Well-Known Member
What he should be fired for is answering the questions himself.how dare that interrogator interrogate!
chill out with the butthurt just because reality doesn't jive with your preconceived notions.
skunky33
Active Member
It seems like everyone that defends Zimmerman uses the "stand your ground" policy in Florida law. Well, that same stand your ground policy is going to put Zimmerman in jail for awhile since it seems like Martin was trying to "stand his ground" Plus, it looks as if Zimmerman never announced who he was. Z stating "I live in this neighborhood and I'm the head of neighborhood watch" would have probably went a long way, instead he says "what are you doing here" and attempts to tackle him. Zimmerman definitely fucked up in his first statements.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
At the same time ... while some of the circumstantial evidence against Z looks pretty bad to me, it's still circumstantial. It can be reasonably argued that Trayvon's champions are doing the same thing., based on race and on a different set of authoritarian principles. I for one refuse to harbor racist sentiment in either direction. cn
Saying I am racist doesn't make me one. I am not racist, I don't treat people differently. However, I respect others rights to do whatever they want. Racism is wrong, but there are lots of things I see as wrong and I don't think it is my place(or the governments) to change them if people aren't being hurt. Hurting and not helping isn't the same thing. If I have a hammer and my neighbor needs it and I tell him to fuck off then I am not hurting him, I am just not helping him. If I use my hammer to hit the neighbor, build a shed for myself on his property, or break his property then I am hurting him.
People who have totally different beliefs and a lack of respect for each other tend to polarize themselves further when together than they would go individually.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
people who say racist things (not in jest or sardonically) are racist.
you tried to apply this concept to segregation, but segregation demonstrably hurt many. you're simple, you have no grasp of history, and you reinvent history to fit your warped, moronic mindset and worldview.
and you have clawfoot.
Seems legit.
Seriously, Zimmerman had as much right to walk around in the middle of the night as Martin. The simple fact is that if Martin violently confronted Zimmerman then Zimmerman was justified in his shooting. Given that the evidence in either direction isn't compelling about who hit who then I don't see why you are calling for blood except because you hate conservatives or because you are race baiting.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
when you're scared of someone and really in fear, do you get out of your car and follow them and look for them?
yeah, seems legit.
No, but if someone is beating you to the point of a broken noise and busted head and isn't stopping then the law allows you to use whatever force necessary to stop this. So it isn't a rebuttal, just a point. I concur, but it doesn't change point 3.
Martin was in front of Zimmerman, Martin was an athletic 17 year old in good shape. If he wanted to be home, he would of been home in 10 or 20 seconds given the distance that he was from home. He had no intention of going home. Zimmerman lost him for a minute or two and as far as we can tell Zimmerman wasn't exactly running after him.
Interrogating and asking people "how long have you been gay?" are different situations.how dare that interrogator interrogate!
chill out with the butthurt just because reality doesn't jive with your preconceived notions.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
busted head? he had little tiny scratches. please join us in reality, clawfoot the magic racist.
and since he was clearly the aggressor, he had to exhaust every reasonable means of escape. considering he affirmed he had wrist control, that wasn't satisfied.
martin had no need to go home. he was allowed to talk on the phone without harassment from mentally unstable vigilantes. zimmerman was told that he did not need to follow, yet he did anyway, then he went on to search for martin.
who chases someone out of fear? who searches for someone in self defense?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
there was no false presupposition though.
he asked if he had wrist control of martin and was able to liberate both hands. he affirmed. go cry in your cornflakes, clawfoot the magic racist.
Neither of those things have anything to do with SYG. This case isn't even a SYG case since it is simple self defense if Martin attacked Zimmerman and started beating his ass. Since the only witness I heard that actually saw any of it said Martin was on top and Zimmerman was beat up then the conclusion is that Zimmerman acted in self defense without some pretty compelling evidence to the contrary. The law never states that SYG can't apply to both people in a fight to be honest.
Who said Zimmerman tried to tackle him? Where did you get that? UB?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
"that was when i got out of my car and chased him in self defense. after that, i continued to search for him in self defense" - said no one ever.
The people defending Martin are in the same boat.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Aside from my belief that a barely-broken nose, black eyes and a pair of small scalp wounds don't really make it as a "busted head" ...
why not extend Trayvon the same courtesy you extended Zimmerman? Trayvon was under no compulsion to go home. He was under no requirement to give Z the time of day. He was just as free as Zimmerman ... rather freer, since he did not assume the higher standard of care that is a package deal with a carried gun. The onus of adult behavior was a) in pursuit and b) packing a weapon.
And we do not know that, running or walking, Z wasn't hunting T. I certainly cannot excuse Z of that at this time. And I cannot blame T for <cough!> standing his ground, if Z was indeed after a confrontation. cn
Please quote the times I said racist things that weren't in jest or sardonic.
I apply it to private segregation. Public segregation hurt people. Just because you don't understand simple concepts doesn't make me racist.