SmarterthanYou
rebel
within 5 or 10 feet, maybe even 15 I can see possible aggression, but how far away would you like to see 'aggression' become just plain following?
police video does not show zimmerman with injuries
- Thread starter Don Quixote
- Start date
within 5 or 10 feet, maybe even 15 I can see possible aggression, but how far away would you like to see 'aggression' become just plain following?
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
And since you can't discuss this, without bouncing around, I have no confidence in you.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
By your definition:
When a parent follows their child to school, the first time they walk alone; the parent is stalking their child and being aggressive towards the child.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Can you prove that applying your intelligence to ALL the facts available? Oh wait, when it comes to intelligence, YOU have "none". Carry on.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Nope, I mean EXACTLY what I stated above. You're bizarre interpretation means you either don't comprehend what you read or you're purposely ignoring what doesn't fit into your view as how things should work. STY was dumb enough to let slip his true feelings and opinions....and that is contrary as to how proper police procedure is to work in our justice system. But if you prefer one that is wholly dependent upon political expediency, then this may not be the country for you.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Sorry Dix, but you just don't throw out probable cause and laws just because they don't suit your fancy. Like it our not, lawyer, judges and juries are pretty adamant as to discerning whether there was probable cause for a fatal shooting....let alone whether the shooter was violating any laws that play a major role when defining his stature in the situation (cop, citizen, security person, fireman, etc.). Stuff like that usual plays in determining guilty/not guilty verdicts and subsequent sentencing if need be.
This case is NOT about Zimmerman being "stupid", but about whether or not Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter, and to what degree. The evidence presented (and being presented) contradicts Zimmerman's version of the events that led up to (and after). As I said before, if Zimmerman was acting as a Neighborhood Watch, then he was in violation of the law for carrying that weapon, and should have been arrested....especially since it was involved in a fatal shooting. As a private citizen, he was told that the police was on the way and it was not necessary to continue following Martin AFTER he had stated that Martin was "running away". That revelation puts a serious crimp in the "Stand Your Ground" law, because it shows Zimmerman pursued and provoked a confrontation, NOT that he was a victim from the start.'
Got that now, bunky?
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
CYNIC responses:FACT: it's not against the law to follow somebody, or even ask "hey, what are you doing here?"
Taichiliberal: No one said it was ….. the problem here is that you had a citizen call 911 regarding a suspected criminal (one of which he alluded to might be carrying a weapon). When he was told that the cops were on the way and that it was not necessary to continue to follow the suspect, Zimmerman said “Okay”, and then continued to act to the contrary. THAT runs into a legal question as to whether Zimmerman was in violation of the Neighborhood Watch rules (carrying a gun), or as to whether his going against the directions of the police dispatch (directions meant to AVOID the very incident that occurred). might have led to the deadly encounter (possible manslaughter).
BRAVO STATES: There is no legal questions...we don't even know IF he was acting in his capacity of neighborhood watch and he has a valid permit to carry.
neighborhood watch rules don't amount to a hill of beans legally....
The police dispatch did not DIRECT or ORDER him to anything, and thats an undeniable fact.
Taichiliberal: Actually, there is a legal question…they tend to come up when police properly investigate a fatal shooting (which would have happened had not Wolfinger interfered). Neighborhood Watch groups are NOT to carry guns (you should have read the link I provided), as instructed by police departments. And he was TOLD by the dispatch that the cops were on the way, and it was not necessary to continue following Martin. Zimmerman agrees and acknowledges by saying “Okay”. That Zimmerman ELECTED to continue following Martin leads to establishing INTENT (another one of those pesky legal questions), which puts the kibosh on using the “Stand Your Ground” as a defense if Zimmerman goes with that he was just a “concerned citizen” with a CWP (which he does….DO YOUR HOMEWORK, BRAVO… a simple google will confirm this).
Cynic: FACT: even if we are to assume your stipulation that he continued to follow martin is true, that does not negate the claim of self defense.
Taichiliberal: Don’t try to distort/rewrite what I said or the chronology of the events. The police dispatch exchange was not “my stipulaltion”, but a bonafide FACT. Zimmerman CONTINUED to follow Martin AFTER he reported that Martin was “running away”…phone records show Martin talking to his girl friend, saying how he was walking away “fast”, instead of running…right up to when Zimmerman confronts him. When you initiate a confrontation, you can’t suddenly yell foul when losing said confrontation.
Bravo: Walking away fast or running away? Pretty subjective ...and that may be the very reason GZ did follow the kid
There is no proof that GZ initated any confrontation....his version of events state exactly the opposite....
Taichiliberal: Once again, you try to replace fact with supposition and conjecture. The bottom line is that BOTH phone records CONFIRM that Martin was MOVING AWAY from Zimmerman. After which Zimmerman had be informed that the cops were on the way and that it was not necessary to continue to follow him. I don’t know what you have listened to, Bravo, but the unedited version of the 911 call confirms what I say here, and the timeline coincides with the phone calls by the girlfriend. IF YOU ARE FOLLOWING SOMEONE, THEN IT STANDS TO REASON THAT EITHER THAT PERSON WILL FLEE OR STOP AND ASK WHY YOU ARE FOLLOWING THEM. Either way, Zimmerman’s action initiates that confrontation, and no amount of ass backwards spin is going to change that logic derived from the FACTS
.
Cynic: FACT: not everyone just hangs around with blood all over their face. it's pretty standard to wipe it off.
FACT: blood wont neccesarily show on DARK CLOTHES from 6-10 feet away as the camera was
Taichiliberal: FACT: a busted, bloody nose does NOT miraculously disappear no matter how good the EMT crew is. Gauze, stitches, dried blood around the wound, bruises around the nose and eyes, would be a result…..NONE of which was evident on the pics that CLEARLY show Zimmerman’s face. The time line does NOT allow for this miraculous clean up even if it did occur, and there has been NO subsequent filing of such damages with the local hospital.
Bravo: Its reported that Zimmerman went to the hospital the next day...and we don't know the outcome, treatment or diagnosis .... that means you should stfu until you do know the facts ....what a video DOES NOT show is irrelevant....it doesn't show the moon shining either. Are we to deduce it was daytime?...Pretty stupid to draw conclusions from something you don't see other than it wasn't shown....
Taichiliberal: Again, you just don’t throw out facts because they don’t support your preconceived notions. the FACT is that Zimmerman had made claims (as did his lawyer) that he had received said injuries THAT NIGHT. YET, the VIDEO TAPES FROM THE POLICE DEPT. FROM THAT NIGHT CLEARLY DOES NOT SUPPORT THOSE CLAIMS. SAME NIGHT, BRAVO. The timeline and recorded evidence does not support Zimmerman’s claims, period. All the BS you are throwing out is just that, BS. Now it’s going to be REAL interesting if the “next day” hospital report confirms all the claimed injuries, and then explains how they miraculously healed up in a few hours THAT NIGHT.
Cynic: FACT: zimmermen was not officially part of the neighborhood watch
Taichiliberal: Then he had NO RIGHT to be patrolling around the neighborhood with a loaded gun acting like a cop or a security agent. That is why the police work WITH neighborhhood watch organizations and set up RULES…so they avoid incidences like this one! The CCWP is for protection, NOT an automatic deputization. Back to square one regarding the 911 dispatch call (s).
FACT: Zimmerman was arrested for a confrontation with a cop (non-violent) and did community service time to expunge that record. He also was instructed by a judge to stay away from his ex-girlfriend (and visa versa) after an altercation that landed them before the court. Why was this man issued a CCWP?
Bravo: He had as much right to be where he was as the kid did....with or without his gun....Zimmermans earlier confrontation with cops is as irrelevant as the kids suspendion from school for suspected drug possession....
Taichiliberal: There is no question of Zimmerman’s “right” to walk around his neighborhood….the questions pertain to his actions, reasons and INTENT that lead to the fatal outcome of the forementioned. And being a suspected of possessing marijuana is a hell of a difference from having a RECORD OF ARREST regarding bad temperment … one that resulted in being warned to stay away from an ex-girlfriend…..especially when that same person is given a gun permit to walk around, and especially when a fatal shooting occurs regarding this person who is recorded making Martin a criminal even before the cops arrive, and who PURSUES Martin based on that assumption when he acknowledged it was not necessary. More evidence has come out about Zimmerman’s bad temper and acting on his preconceived notions….deal with it. There is NO police record showing Martin to have a history of B & E, assault, drug dealing, theft, etc., etc. Trying to justify Zimmerman’s stated and recorded suspicions falls flat…but don’t expect Bravo and his fellow bumpkins to stop repeating this in hopes it will magically come true.
Cynic: FACT: you have some bizarre logic in your head if you think people should not be allowed to have a CCWP for unspecified NON-VIOLENT encounters.
Taichiliberal: YOU obviously have some sort of reading comprehension problem, because Zimmerman’s court appearances were of quite a SPECIFIC nature……one was to AVOID VIOLENCE OF AN ESCALATING DOMESTIC SQUABBLE….the other was his interefering with a police officer in the performance of his duty….which got him community service to expunge the arrest record. Hell, people are denied JOBS because they got caught smoking ONE joint in college, but a clown with temperment problems gets a CCWP? And that makes sense to you?
Bravo: Again...all irrelevant to this matter as is Martins problems with authorities...his getting a permit to carry is a different issue, fact is....he did have it.
Taichiliberal: Newsflash: Bravo saying something is “irrelevent” means nothing. Any court case that requires to establish intent regarding a fatal shooting will examine any and all police records of those involved to determine character, etc. TFB if Bravo doesn’t like the implications of said facts.
Cynic: FACT: the "lead detective" is merely one person in the cog of the machine, many other "high up officials" have reservations about charging him. Do they get any credit from you as well? Or do you only give credit to those that agree with you?
This wasn't even hard.
Taichiliberal: Nothing is hard for you if you leave out or dismiss or downplay ALL the FACTS. Bottom line: the “cog” you refer to was the chief detective….HE wasn’t buying Zimmerman’s tale based on the evidence, and filed an affidavit. Yet the State Attorney and Chief of Police who ran interference/denial of Zimmerman’s arrest have BOTH removed/recused themselves AFTER they got Zimmerman off the hook. So one “cog” does his job, then the “high-up” officials do a hit & run against him. Why? VERY suspicious, given the EVIDENCE..which warrants an official arrest and investigation, whether you like it or not.
Bravo: When you eliminate the chaff and highlight the accusations, its fairly easy to see the lies and who is the liar....TCL, the liar.
Taichiliberal: Bravo once again displays his intellectual impotency. I made no “accusations”, I merely question the actions of those involved given the FACTS of the case. That those questions support the contentions of the chief of Detectives’ affidavit just doesn’t sit well with Bravo and his ilk. TFB.
Taichiliberal: No one said it was ….. the problem here is that you had a citizen call 911 regarding a suspected criminal (one of which he alluded to might be carrying a weapon). When he was told that the cops were on the way and that it was not necessary to continue to follow the suspect, Zimmerman said “Okay”, and then continued to act to the contrary. THAT runs into a legal question as to whether Zimmerman was in violation of the Neighborhood Watch rules (carrying a gun), or as to whether his going against the directions of the police dispatch (directions meant to AVOID the very incident that occurred). might have led to the deadly encounter (possible manslaughter).
BRAVO STATES: There is no legal questions...we don't even know IF he was acting in his capacity of neighborhood watch and he has a valid permit to carry.
neighborhood watch rules don't amount to a hill of beans legally....
The police dispatch did not DIRECT or ORDER him to anything, and thats an undeniable fact.
Taichiliberal: Actually, there is a legal question…they tend to come up when police properly investigate a fatal shooting (which would have happened had not Wolfinger interfered). Neighborhood Watch groups are NOT to carry guns (you should have read the link I provided), as instructed by police departments. And he was TOLD by the dispatch that the cops were on the way, and it was not necessary to continue following Martin. Zimmerman agrees and acknowledges by saying “Okay”. That Zimmerman ELECTED to continue following Martin leads to establishing INTENT (another one of those pesky legal questions), which puts the kibosh on using the “Stand Your Ground” as a defense if Zimmerman goes with that he was just a “concerned citizen” with a CWP (which he does….DO YOUR HOMEWORK, BRAVO… a simple google will confirm this).
Cynic: FACT: even if we are to assume your stipulation that he continued to follow martin is true, that does not negate the claim of self defense.
Taichiliberal: Don’t try to distort/rewrite what I said or the chronology of the events. The police dispatch exchange was not “my stipulaltion”, but a bonafide FACT. Zimmerman CONTINUED to follow Martin AFTER he reported that Martin was “running away”…phone records show Martin talking to his girl friend, saying how he was walking away “fast”, instead of running…right up to when Zimmerman confronts him. When you initiate a confrontation, you can’t suddenly yell foul when losing said confrontation.
Bravo: Walking away fast or running away? Pretty subjective ...and that may be the very reason GZ did follow the kid
There is no proof that GZ initated any confrontation....his version of events state exactly the opposite....
Taichiliberal: Once again, you try to replace fact with supposition and conjecture. The bottom line is that BOTH phone records CONFIRM that Martin was MOVING AWAY from Zimmerman. After which Zimmerman had be informed that the cops were on the way and that it was not necessary to continue to follow him. I don’t know what you have listened to, Bravo, but the unedited version of the 911 call confirms what I say here, and the timeline coincides with the phone calls by the girlfriend. IF YOU ARE FOLLOWING SOMEONE, THEN IT STANDS TO REASON THAT EITHER THAT PERSON WILL FLEE OR STOP AND ASK WHY YOU ARE FOLLOWING THEM. Either way, Zimmerman’s action initiates that confrontation, and no amount of ass backwards spin is going to change that logic derived from the FACTS
.
Cynic: FACT: not everyone just hangs around with blood all over their face. it's pretty standard to wipe it off.
FACT: blood wont neccesarily show on DARK CLOTHES from 6-10 feet away as the camera was
Taichiliberal: FACT: a busted, bloody nose does NOT miraculously disappear no matter how good the EMT crew is. Gauze, stitches, dried blood around the wound, bruises around the nose and eyes, would be a result…..NONE of which was evident on the pics that CLEARLY show Zimmerman’s face. The time line does NOT allow for this miraculous clean up even if it did occur, and there has been NO subsequent filing of such damages with the local hospital.
Bravo: Its reported that Zimmerman went to the hospital the next day...and we don't know the outcome, treatment or diagnosis .... that means you should stfu until you do know the facts ....what a video DOES NOT show is irrelevant....it doesn't show the moon shining either. Are we to deduce it was daytime?...Pretty stupid to draw conclusions from something you don't see other than it wasn't shown....
Taichiliberal: Again, you just don’t throw out facts because they don’t support your preconceived notions. the FACT is that Zimmerman had made claims (as did his lawyer) that he had received said injuries THAT NIGHT. YET, the VIDEO TAPES FROM THE POLICE DEPT. FROM THAT NIGHT CLEARLY DOES NOT SUPPORT THOSE CLAIMS. SAME NIGHT, BRAVO. The timeline and recorded evidence does not support Zimmerman’s claims, period. All the BS you are throwing out is just that, BS. Now it’s going to be REAL interesting if the “next day” hospital report confirms all the claimed injuries, and then explains how they miraculously healed up in a few hours THAT NIGHT.
Cynic: FACT: zimmermen was not officially part of the neighborhood watch
Taichiliberal: Then he had NO RIGHT to be patrolling around the neighborhood with a loaded gun acting like a cop or a security agent. That is why the police work WITH neighborhhood watch organizations and set up RULES…so they avoid incidences like this one! The CCWP is for protection, NOT an automatic deputization. Back to square one regarding the 911 dispatch call (s).
FACT: Zimmerman was arrested for a confrontation with a cop (non-violent) and did community service time to expunge that record. He also was instructed by a judge to stay away from his ex-girlfriend (and visa versa) after an altercation that landed them before the court. Why was this man issued a CCWP?
Bravo: He had as much right to be where he was as the kid did....with or without his gun....Zimmermans earlier confrontation with cops is as irrelevant as the kids suspendion from school for suspected drug possession....
Taichiliberal: There is no question of Zimmerman’s “right” to walk around his neighborhood….the questions pertain to his actions, reasons and INTENT that lead to the fatal outcome of the forementioned. And being a suspected of possessing marijuana is a hell of a difference from having a RECORD OF ARREST regarding bad temperment … one that resulted in being warned to stay away from an ex-girlfriend…..especially when that same person is given a gun permit to walk around, and especially when a fatal shooting occurs regarding this person who is recorded making Martin a criminal even before the cops arrive, and who PURSUES Martin based on that assumption when he acknowledged it was not necessary. More evidence has come out about Zimmerman’s bad temper and acting on his preconceived notions….deal with it. There is NO police record showing Martin to have a history of B & E, assault, drug dealing, theft, etc., etc. Trying to justify Zimmerman’s stated and recorded suspicions falls flat…but don’t expect Bravo and his fellow bumpkins to stop repeating this in hopes it will magically come true.
Cynic: FACT: you have some bizarre logic in your head if you think people should not be allowed to have a CCWP for unspecified NON-VIOLENT encounters.
Taichiliberal: YOU obviously have some sort of reading comprehension problem, because Zimmerman’s court appearances were of quite a SPECIFIC nature……one was to AVOID VIOLENCE OF AN ESCALATING DOMESTIC SQUABBLE….the other was his interefering with a police officer in the performance of his duty….which got him community service to expunge the arrest record. Hell, people are denied JOBS because they got caught smoking ONE joint in college, but a clown with temperment problems gets a CCWP? And that makes sense to you?
Bravo: Again...all irrelevant to this matter as is Martins problems with authorities...his getting a permit to carry is a different issue, fact is....he did have it.
Taichiliberal: Newsflash: Bravo saying something is “irrelevent” means nothing. Any court case that requires to establish intent regarding a fatal shooting will examine any and all police records of those involved to determine character, etc. TFB if Bravo doesn’t like the implications of said facts.
Cynic: FACT: the "lead detective" is merely one person in the cog of the machine, many other "high up officials" have reservations about charging him. Do they get any credit from you as well? Or do you only give credit to those that agree with you?
This wasn't even hard.
Taichiliberal: Nothing is hard for you if you leave out or dismiss or downplay ALL the FACTS. Bottom line: the “cog” you refer to was the chief detective….HE wasn’t buying Zimmerman’s tale based on the evidence, and filed an affidavit. Yet the State Attorney and Chief of Police who ran interference/denial of Zimmerman’s arrest have BOTH removed/recused themselves AFTER they got Zimmerman off the hook. So one “cog” does his job, then the “high-up” officials do a hit & run against him. Why? VERY suspicious, given the EVIDENCE..which warrants an official arrest and investigation, whether you like it or not.
Bravo: When you eliminate the chaff and highlight the accusations, its fairly easy to see the lies and who is the liar....TCL, the liar.
Taichiliberal: Bravo once again displays his intellectual impotency. I made no “accusations”, I merely question the actions of those involved given the FACTS of the case. That those questions support the contentions of the chief of Detectives’ affidavit just doesn’t sit well with Bravo and his ilk. TFB.
dixon76710
New member
STY is irrelevant to my point. No doubt, thats why you run there.
dixon76710
New member
Probable cause is irrelevant to a determination of Zimmermans guilt or innocence.
I havent seen a single contradiction of facts
There is no such law. You just made it up because you cant formulate a rational argument.
"Provoked a confrontation"???? Also irrelevant. The question is whether he provoked the use of physical force, and whether he provoked a confrontation is irrelevant.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Stop babbling, Dix. Either logically and factually disprove what I say, or spare us all your bizarre interpretations based solely on your personal opinions, supposition and conjecture, and the subsequent smoke blowing.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Posted by Taichiliberal
Sorry Dix, but you just don't throw out probable cause and laws just because they don't suit your fancy. Like it our not, lawyer, judges and juries are pretty adamant as to discerning whether there was probable cause for a fatal shooting....let alone whether the shooter was violating any laws that play a major role when defining his stature in the situation (cop, citizen, security person, fireman, etc.). Stuff like that usual plays in determining guilty/not guilty verdicts and subsequent sentencing if need be.
Dixon says: Probable cause is irrelevant to a determination of Zimmermans guilt or innocence.
Taichiliberal responds: Dix, knock off the insipid stubborness….or if you’re REALLY this ignorant as to how things work, do some honest reseach with relation to “probable cause” in a crime and copy and paste the results here if they support your assertion. Mind you, I’m not interested in YOUR opinion, supposition and/or conjecture, I want FACTS that back up your bizarre statement.
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
This case is NOT about Zimmerman being "stupid", but about whether or not Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter, and to what degree. The evidence presented (and being presented) contradicts Zimmerman's version of the events that led up to (and after).
Dixon responds: I havent seen a single contradiction of facts
Taichiliberal responds: Translation: Dixon being either insipidly stubborn or willfully ignorant.
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
As I said before, if Zimmerman was acting as a Neighborhood Watch, then he was in violation of the law for carrying that weapon,
Dixon responds: There is no such law. You just made it up because you cant formulate a rational argument.
Taichiliberal responds: Once again, I have to do the homework for intellectually dishonest/bankrupt neocon parrots like Dixon. Here bunky, learn something:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...borhood-watch-20120321,0,5554619.story?page=1
http://bostonherald.com/news/nation...an_was_not_following_neighborhood_watch_rules
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
and should have been arrested....especially since it was involved in a fatal shooting. As a private citizen, he was told that the police was on the way and it was not necessary to continue following Martin AFTER he had stated that Martin was "running away". That revelation puts a serious crimp in the "Stand Your Ground" law, because it shows Zimmerman pursued and provoked a confrontation, NOT that he was a victim from the start.'
Got that now, bunky?
Dixon responds: "Provoked a confrontation"???? Also irrelevant. The question is whether he provoked the use of physical force, and whether he provoked a confrontation is irrelevant.
Taichiliberal responds: So according to Dix, EVERYTHING is irrelevent…. Gee, a dead kid, the joker who killed him, the phone records, the history the shooter has with 911, cops and lawyers preventing a Det. from arresting the shooter, then recusing themselves from the case…..Nope, according to Dix nothing to see here. Move along. Thank God Dix is nowhere near law enforcement or the legal profession.
Sorry Dix, but you just don't throw out probable cause and laws just because they don't suit your fancy. Like it our not, lawyer, judges and juries are pretty adamant as to discerning whether there was probable cause for a fatal shooting....let alone whether the shooter was violating any laws that play a major role when defining his stature in the situation (cop, citizen, security person, fireman, etc.). Stuff like that usual plays in determining guilty/not guilty verdicts and subsequent sentencing if need be.
Dixon says: Probable cause is irrelevant to a determination of Zimmermans guilt or innocence.
Taichiliberal responds: Dix, knock off the insipid stubborness….or if you’re REALLY this ignorant as to how things work, do some honest reseach with relation to “probable cause” in a crime and copy and paste the results here if they support your assertion. Mind you, I’m not interested in YOUR opinion, supposition and/or conjecture, I want FACTS that back up your bizarre statement.
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
This case is NOT about Zimmerman being "stupid", but about whether or not Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter, and to what degree. The evidence presented (and being presented) contradicts Zimmerman's version of the events that led up to (and after).
Dixon responds: I havent seen a single contradiction of facts
Taichiliberal responds: Translation: Dixon being either insipidly stubborn or willfully ignorant.
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
As I said before, if Zimmerman was acting as a Neighborhood Watch, then he was in violation of the law for carrying that weapon,
Dixon responds: There is no such law. You just made it up because you cant formulate a rational argument.
Taichiliberal responds: Once again, I have to do the homework for intellectually dishonest/bankrupt neocon parrots like Dixon. Here bunky, learn something:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...borhood-watch-20120321,0,5554619.story?page=1
http://bostonherald.com/news/nation...an_was_not_following_neighborhood_watch_rules
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
and should have been arrested....especially since it was involved in a fatal shooting. As a private citizen, he was told that the police was on the way and it was not necessary to continue following Martin AFTER he had stated that Martin was "running away". That revelation puts a serious crimp in the "Stand Your Ground" law, because it shows Zimmerman pursued and provoked a confrontation, NOT that he was a victim from the start.'
Got that now, bunky?
Dixon responds: "Provoked a confrontation"???? Also irrelevant. The question is whether he provoked the use of physical force, and whether he provoked a confrontation is irrelevant.
Taichiliberal responds: So according to Dix, EVERYTHING is irrelevent…. Gee, a dead kid, the joker who killed him, the phone records, the history the shooter has with 911, cops and lawyers preventing a Det. from arresting the shooter, then recusing themselves from the case…..Nope, according to Dix nothing to see here. Move along. Thank God Dix is nowhere near law enforcement or the legal profession.
Ahhhh, more fun.....
Pretty much as irrelevant as the kids suspension from school for suspected drug possession....
Pretty much as irrelevant as the kids suspension from school for suspected drug possession....
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Once again, our intellectually impotent Bravo lurches off his barstool to dazzle us all with his intoxicated intellect. Let's just look a the highlights' of Bravo's BS:
Posted by Taichiliberal
Sorry Dix, but you just don't throw out probable cause and laws just because they don't suit your fancy. Like it our not, lawyer, judges and juries are pretty adamant as to discerning whether there was probable cause for a fatal shooting....let alone whether the shooter was violating any laws that play a major role when defining his stature in the situation (cop, citizen, security person, fireman, etc.). Stuff like that usual plays in determining guilty/not guilty verdicts and subsequent sentencing if need be.
I guess the butcher, baker, and the candlestick maker don't stand a chance......
As usual, Bravo's inebriated brain thinks his response is clever, as opposed to the reality of displaying his mental inability to logically or factually disprove or refute what I put forth.
Taichiliberal responds: Dix, knock off the insipid stubborness….or if you’re REALLY this ignorant as to how things work, do some honest reseach with relation to “probable cause” in a crime and copy and paste the results here if they support your assertion. Mind you, I’m not interested in YOUR opinion, supposition and/or conjecture, I want FACTS that back up your bizarre statement.
You don't present facts, why should Dix....
Obviously, Bravo's eye's obviously cannot focus...either that or Bravo just can't comprehend what he reads, as I CLEARLY provided links to documented FACTS in the previous post to Dix....not to mention as I did the same on other posts on this thread. Or maybe Bravo's just a beligerant liar?
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
This case is NOT about Zimmerman being "stupid", but about whether or not Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter, and to what degree. The evidence presented (and being presented) contradicts Zimmerman's version of the events that led up to (and after).
Dixon responds: I havent seen a single contradiction of facts
Taichiliberal responds: Translation: Dixon being either insipidly stubborn or willfully ignorant.
Not even one contradiction....
Bravo thinks repeating Dixon's stupidity makes it valid. Obviously, both these jokers don't understand the word "contradiction"....but the chief Detective recognize such from the evidence when compared to Zimmerman's statement's, hence his filing the affidavit. (the magic healing of the "busted nose" is a gem!)
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
As I said before, if Zimmerman was acting as a Neighborhood Watch, then he was in violation of the law for carrying that weapon,
Dixon responds: There is no such law. You just made it up because you cant formulate a rational argument.
Taichiliberal responds: Once again, I have to do the homework for intellectually dishonest/bankrupt neocon parrots like Dixon. Here bunky, learn something:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...9.story?page=1
http://bostonherald.com/news/nationa...od_watch_rules
I stopped at the word IF in your post.....after IF, the rest is irrelevant
And once again, Bravo displays the proud stupidity that has endeared him to all. Seems that Dix made a statement that was factually proved wrong....and neither dolt can admit such. And since it was Zimmerman's camp that initially threw out the "neighborhood watch" status, it becomes part of the investigation to come. That's how it works in the real world, and Bravo will see that when he sobers up.
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
and should have been arrested....especially since it was involved in a fatal shooting. As a private citizen, he was told that the police was on the way and it was not necessary to continue following Martin AFTER he had stated that Martin was "running away". That revelation puts a serious crimp in the "Stand Your Ground" law, because it shows Zimmerman pursued and provoked a confrontation, NOT that he was a victim from the start.'
Got that now, bunky?
The 'Stand your ground law" may not be relevant.....so what ? Doesn't mean a thing when you're on your back with an attacker on top of you....
If the Stand Your Ground Law" is not relevent, then that means that Zimmerman was NOT being threatened, as the SYGL has been SPECIFCALLY drafted to empower people who feel threatened NOT to run, but to confront with deadly force. And since the phone record CLEARLY establishes that Zimmerman decides to pursue Martin after he's "running away", the evidence points to an altercation that SHOULD NOT HAVE HAPPEN HAD ZIMMERMAN DID NOT FOLLOW MARTIN AFTER HE'S TOLD THE POLICE ARE ON THE WAY AND IT'S NOT NECESSARY TO PURSUE (to which he agreed). In short, my Bravo bumpkin, you have inadvertently removed a major part of Zimmerman's defense. Again, you can't initiate a fight and then complain that your victim fights back.
Dixon responds: "Provoked a confrontation"???? Also irrelevant. The question is whether he provoked the use of physical force, and whether he provoked a confrontation is irrelevant.
If Zimmerman was the attacker, the Kid would have been dead before he could break Zimmermans nose.....logically....
Taichiliberal responds: So according to Dix, EVERYTHING is irrelevent…. Gee, a dead kid, the joker who killed him, the phone records, the history the shooter has with 911, cops and lawyers preventing a Det. from arresting the shooter, then recusing themselves from the case…..Nope, according to Dix nothing to see here. Move along. Thank God Dix is nowhere near law enforcement or the legal profession.
Pretty much as irrelevant as the kids suspension from school for suspected drug possession....
So we see Bravo parrot the insipid stubborness and absurdity of his buddy Dix, which is not surprising and equally worthless. What cracks me up is how Bravo says if Zimmerman was the aggressor, he would have killed Martin before he got attacked....which AGAIN raises the issue as to WHY did Zimmerman pursue Martin after being told the cops were coming and he didn't have to follow? Bravo forgets that Zimmerman was initally following Martin who (according to Zimmeran) came up to his car to look at the person shadowing him, and then runs away. So a stranger that's tailing you shows up AGAIN in the dark and in the rain to confront you. If a fight ensued, and the shooting occured, Zimmerman is at best guilty of manslaughter. And then there's the documented cell phone contact with the girlfriend. But hey, Bravo's tuned out by now, and in need of buffalo wings to fuel his brain.
Back to the barstool with ya, Bravo!
Posted by Taichiliberal
Sorry Dix, but you just don't throw out probable cause and laws just because they don't suit your fancy. Like it our not, lawyer, judges and juries are pretty adamant as to discerning whether there was probable cause for a fatal shooting....let alone whether the shooter was violating any laws that play a major role when defining his stature in the situation (cop, citizen, security person, fireman, etc.). Stuff like that usual plays in determining guilty/not guilty verdicts and subsequent sentencing if need be.
I guess the butcher, baker, and the candlestick maker don't stand a chance......
As usual, Bravo's inebriated brain thinks his response is clever, as opposed to the reality of displaying his mental inability to logically or factually disprove or refute what I put forth.
Taichiliberal responds: Dix, knock off the insipid stubborness….or if you’re REALLY this ignorant as to how things work, do some honest reseach with relation to “probable cause” in a crime and copy and paste the results here if they support your assertion. Mind you, I’m not interested in YOUR opinion, supposition and/or conjecture, I want FACTS that back up your bizarre statement.
You don't present facts, why should Dix....
Obviously, Bravo's eye's obviously cannot focus...either that or Bravo just can't comprehend what he reads, as I CLEARLY provided links to documented FACTS in the previous post to Dix....not to mention as I did the same on other posts on this thread. Or maybe Bravo's just a beligerant liar?
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
This case is NOT about Zimmerman being "stupid", but about whether or not Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter, and to what degree. The evidence presented (and being presented) contradicts Zimmerman's version of the events that led up to (and after).
Dixon responds: I havent seen a single contradiction of facts
Taichiliberal responds: Translation: Dixon being either insipidly stubborn or willfully ignorant.
Not even one contradiction....
Bravo thinks repeating Dixon's stupidity makes it valid. Obviously, both these jokers don't understand the word "contradiction"....but the chief Detective recognize such from the evidence when compared to Zimmerman's statement's, hence his filing the affidavit. (the magic healing of the "busted nose" is a gem!)
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
As I said before, if Zimmerman was acting as a Neighborhood Watch, then he was in violation of the law for carrying that weapon,
Dixon responds: There is no such law. You just made it up because you cant formulate a rational argument.
Taichiliberal responds: Once again, I have to do the homework for intellectually dishonest/bankrupt neocon parrots like Dixon. Here bunky, learn something:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...9.story?page=1
http://bostonherald.com/news/nationa...od_watch_rules
I stopped at the word IF in your post.....after IF, the rest is irrelevant
And once again, Bravo displays the proud stupidity that has endeared him to all. Seems that Dix made a statement that was factually proved wrong....and neither dolt can admit such. And since it was Zimmerman's camp that initially threw out the "neighborhood watch" status, it becomes part of the investigation to come. That's how it works in the real world, and Bravo will see that when he sobers up.
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
and should have been arrested....especially since it was involved in a fatal shooting. As a private citizen, he was told that the police was on the way and it was not necessary to continue following Martin AFTER he had stated that Martin was "running away". That revelation puts a serious crimp in the "Stand Your Ground" law, because it shows Zimmerman pursued and provoked a confrontation, NOT that he was a victim from the start.'
Got that now, bunky?
The 'Stand your ground law" may not be relevant.....so what ? Doesn't mean a thing when you're on your back with an attacker on top of you....
If the Stand Your Ground Law" is not relevent, then that means that Zimmerman was NOT being threatened, as the SYGL has been SPECIFCALLY drafted to empower people who feel threatened NOT to run, but to confront with deadly force. And since the phone record CLEARLY establishes that Zimmerman decides to pursue Martin after he's "running away", the evidence points to an altercation that SHOULD NOT HAVE HAPPEN HAD ZIMMERMAN DID NOT FOLLOW MARTIN AFTER HE'S TOLD THE POLICE ARE ON THE WAY AND IT'S NOT NECESSARY TO PURSUE (to which he agreed). In short, my Bravo bumpkin, you have inadvertently removed a major part of Zimmerman's defense. Again, you can't initiate a fight and then complain that your victim fights back.
Dixon responds: "Provoked a confrontation"???? Also irrelevant. The question is whether he provoked the use of physical force, and whether he provoked a confrontation is irrelevant.
If Zimmerman was the attacker, the Kid would have been dead before he could break Zimmermans nose.....logically....
Taichiliberal responds: So according to Dix, EVERYTHING is irrelevent…. Gee, a dead kid, the joker who killed him, the phone records, the history the shooter has with 911, cops and lawyers preventing a Det. from arresting the shooter, then recusing themselves from the case…..Nope, according to Dix nothing to see here. Move along. Thank God Dix is nowhere near law enforcement or the legal profession.
Pretty much as irrelevant as the kids suspension from school for suspected drug possession....
So we see Bravo parrot the insipid stubborness and absurdity of his buddy Dix, which is not surprising and equally worthless. What cracks me up is how Bravo says if Zimmerman was the aggressor, he would have killed Martin before he got attacked....which AGAIN raises the issue as to WHY did Zimmerman pursue Martin after being told the cops were coming and he didn't have to follow? Bravo forgets that Zimmerman was initally following Martin who (according to Zimmeran) came up to his car to look at the person shadowing him, and then runs away. So a stranger that's tailing you shows up AGAIN in the dark and in the rain to confront you. If a fight ensued, and the shooting occured, Zimmerman is at best guilty of manslaughter. And then there's the documented cell phone contact with the girlfriend. But hey, Bravo's tuned out by now, and in need of buffalo wings to fuel his brain.
Back to the barstool with ya, Bravo!
Apparently the video does show injuries...
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...d-wound-trayvon-scuffle-abc-article-1.1054625
“There was no obvious sign of any injury to Zimmerman's head or face on the video until it was enhanced,” the network said.
The new CSI-style improved video shows a “gash or mark,” ABC said.
The enhanced video does not show any injury to Zimmerman's nose, nor any blood on his shirt.
More at link...
Now is it enough to prove self defense? I have no idea. But the video certainly doesn't show him without injury, it's just so crappy that you can't see it until they clean up the video.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...d-wound-trayvon-scuffle-abc-article-1.1054625
“There was no obvious sign of any injury to Zimmerman's head or face on the video until it was enhanced,” the network said.
The new CSI-style improved video shows a “gash or mark,” ABC said.
The enhanced video does not show any injury to Zimmerman's nose, nor any blood on his shirt.
More at link...
Now is it enough to prove self defense? I have no idea. But the video certainly doesn't show him without injury, it's just so crappy that you can't see it until they clean up the video.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
i was going to make a thread about that...but figured there are so many trayvon threads...
i'm with you, it does blow away the claims of no injuries that so many on the left on this board quickly pounced on as fact. but it doesn't prove anything, other than he was injured.
i'm with you, it does blow away the claims of no injuries that so many on the left on this board quickly pounced on as fact. but it doesn't prove anything, other than he was injured.
It doesn't prove that he was injured. It proves that there is a mark on his head that could be an injury. It doesn't "blow away" anything and your criticisms of the "so many on the left on this board" is particularly ironic given the speed at which you pounced on this NY Daily News story (I'll venture a guess without looking that Drudge has this up).
Here's the original ABC report on which the NY Daily News piece relies:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-ma...rge-zimmermans/story?id=16055412#.T32hQfCaAfU
Southern Chicken
Verified User
As far as the condition of Zimmerman in the video goes, hmmm, how long was it between the shooting and the video? Here is another interesting development-
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_...e-zimmerman-canceled-dispatch-recordings-say/
"A spokesman for the lawyers working for the Martin family said that if Zimmerman really had his head repeatedly smashed into the sidewalk during a life and death struggle with Martin, there's "not a chance" the ambulance would have been cancelled."
I found an interesting read on the Florida Law.
http://volokh.com/2012/03/27/floridas-self-defense-laws/#more-57774
Also, There are too many conflicting stories out about this-
http://news.yahoo.com/prosecutor-denies-interfering-florida-shooting-case-000740733.html
"Lynne Bumpus-Hooper, a spokesman for Wolfinger, said the state attorney never spoke with Lee on the night of the shooting. Instead Sanford police consulted that night with Kelly Jo Hines, the prosecutor on call, Bumpus-Hooper said. She declined to say what was discussed.
"Police officers can make an arrest at virtually any dadgum point they feel they have enough probable cause to make an arrest," Bumpus-Hooper said. "They do not need our permission and they do not seek our permission."
Last edited:
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
lmao. it is clearly an injury. it blows away the claim that there was "no injury".
NY post wasn't the only outlet to claim this...you're such a hack dungpile. let us see the part of the article from ABC that you did not highlight:
you're so obsessed with attacking the source you didn't even realize YOUR source said the same thing.
tff
No, it doesn't. It shows a mark that is consistent with an injury.
A mark isn't evidence of an injury. It's a mark. Do you have a shot of the back of Zimmerman's head before the incident as compared to after the incident? Because without that you don't have evidence of anything other than a mark on his head. It's consistent with an injury but not evidence of one.
I will note for the record that all of this is extremely silly. It does not matter if Zimmerman was injured. Under Florida law, you don't have the right to self defense only if someone is actually causing you harm. You have the right to self defense if you reasonably believe it is necessary to protect you from imminent great bodily harm. Under the law, if Martin was the aggressor, I don't see how Zimmerman can be prosecuted even if Zimmerman doesn't have a scratch on him.
Of course, lack of injury would undermine Zimmerman's credibility, but in and of itself evidence of injury is meaningless.
Of course, lack of injury would undermine Zimmerman's credibility, but in and of itself evidence of injury is meaningless.