Is this a problem

Steelplate said:
I'm starting to think you're. Just a gun goon who refuses to see things from any.point of view other than the guy with the gun....and that's with two p's again.
Click to expand...

OOOOOOOOO.."gun goon".
That's a new one.
Did you cut and paste it off the "how to be obtuse" site?

But I'm glad that you're still seeing this from both sides. :palm:

Why are you pping on yourself.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
OOOOOOOOO.."gun goon".
That's a new one.
Did you cut and paste it off the "how to be obtuse" site?

But I'm glad that you're still seeing this from both sides. :palm:

Why are you pping on yourself.
Click to expand...

No...made it up....I think. Here, I'll define it...ahem....

Gun Goon- a person who thinks that the person with the gun can do no wrong....unless they're criminals....preferably black ones...then not only can they do wrong....they already did.
 
Steelplate said:
No...made it up....I think. Here, I'll define it...ahem....

Gun Goon- a person who thinks that the person with the gun can do no wrong....unless they're criminals....preferably black ones...then not only can they do wrong....they already did.
Click to expand...

Now that you've decided to define it, it's safe to say that you're cognitive ability is sorely lacking.
 
I think we can be 100% sure the state didn't prove 2nd Degree. One wonders why they even went for it. They always had a better shot at involuntary manslaughter. Maybe the pressure from the DOJ and the threats of riots?

Who knows, but it is clear that they didn't even come close to proving 2nd Degree murder. Even the most diehard anti Zimmerman crowd on this board started singing a different tune after the second day of testimony.
 
Steelplate said:
After Zimmerman got out of his car....Blowing his chance for claiming self defense
Click to expand...

this does not negate self defense.

Here is the law and jury instructions pertaining to justifiable homicide:

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity

and was attacked in any
place where he had a right to be,

he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his
ground and meet force with force, including deadly force

if he reasonably believed that it was
necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent
the commission of a forcible felony.
Click to expand...

Getting out of your car is not an unlawful activity or illegal.

Standing on a sidewalk, is not an unlawful activity or illegal.

To the extent that zimmerman would be guilty of manslaughter, it will be based off the fact that the jury doesn't believe he had a reasonable fear of grave bodily injury or death.

Him getting out of his car HAS NOTHING TO DO with a self defense claim.

and pursued Martin....which made Zimmerman the aggressor.
Click to expand...

see above.

even going by Zimmerman's own words and the 911 call....Zimmerman pursued Martin when he didn't have to.
Click to expand...

see above.
 
Pete Campbell said:
this does not negate self defense.

Here is the law and jury instructions pertaining to justifiable homicide:



Getting out of your car is not an unlawful activity or illegal.

Standing on a sidewalk, is not an unlawful activity or illegal.

To the extent that zimmerman would be guilty of manslaughter, it will be based off the fact that the jury doesn't believe he had a reasonable fear of grave bodily injury or death.

Him getting out of his car HAS NOTHING TO DO with a self defense claim.



see above.



see above.
Click to expand...

So....what you are saying is that Zimmerman.....and I am throwing out a slightly over the top but possible scenario here....I repeat(for all the knuckle staggers out there) I am NOT CLAIMING THIS IS WHAT OCCURED...

So...THEORETICALLY SPEAKING....Zimmerman could have followed this kid till the point that the kid got frightened and intimidated and lashed out in fear, then Zimmerman shoots the kid and says "hey....he attacked me."?
 
Steelplate said:
So....what you are saying is that Zimmerman.....and I am throwing out a slightly over the top but possible scenario here....I repeat(for all the knuckle staggers out there) I am NOT CLAIMING THIS IS WHAT OCCURED...

So...THEORETICALLY SPEAKING....Zimmerman could have followed this kid till the point that the kid got frightened and intimidated and lashed out in fear, then Zimmerman shoots the kid and says "hey....he attacked me."?
Click to expand...

as a matter of law, YES.

Read the law, read the instructions. They are very clear.

It's all about zimmermans reasonable fear. If he had a reasonable fear - not guilty. If he had no reasonable fear, guilty.

The following trayvon around stuff is relevant in as so far as to prove state of mind with regards to 2nd degree murder and whether he had ill will, hatred, or spite.

But none of that, as a matter of law, inherently negates a self defense claim. It's very clear, if you are not doing an unlawful(not ill-advised, not bad decision making, not over the top bravado, not standing on a sidewalk, not getting out of the car) activity, and you are attacked, you can claim self defense if you believe you have a reasonable fear of grave bodily injury or death, or to prevent a forceable felony.
 
Pete Campbell said:
as a matter of law, YES.

Read the law, read the instructions. They are very clear.

It's all about zimmermans reasonable fear. If he had a reasonable fear - not guilty. If he had no reasonable fear, guilty.

The following trayvon around stuff is relevant in as so far as to prove state of mind with regards to 2nd degree murder and whether he had ill will, hatred, or spite.

But none of that, as a matter of law, inherently negates a self defense claim. It's very clear, if you are not doing an unlawful(not ill-advised, not bad decision making, not over the top bravado, not standing on a sidewalk, not getting out of the car) activity, and you are attacked, you can claim self defense if you believe you have a reasonable fear of grave bodily injury or death, or to prevent a forceable felony.
Click to expand...

What about MARTIN'S reasonable fear?
 
I Love America said:
Answer this question honestly. If you were 17 and someone were following you, would you

A) confront your follower
B) run your ass home

Answer honestly
Click to expand...

Not everyone reacts the same way. Some people lean to fight, some people lean towards flight.

But....that's besides the point. Martin did nothing to warrant Zimmerman following him.
 
Steelplate said:
Not everyone reacts the same way. Some people lean to fight, some people lean towards flight.

But....that's besides the point. Martin did nothing to warrant Zimmerman following him.
Click to expand...

I asked what YOU would do. Your BS answer is indicative of the fact that you know most people would run home to safety, particularly when only 70 yards away
 
Steelplate said:
Not everyone reacts the same way. Some people lean to fight, some people lean towards flight.

But....that's besides the point. Martin did nothing to warrant Zimmerman following him.
Click to expand...

You failed to answer his question.
Did your logical response scare you and that's why you are dancing around it
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
You failed to answer his question.
Did your logical response scare you and that's why you are dancing around it
Click to expand...

What bullshit....first off...I'm 48....second, I'm a country boy....we operate differently than urban folk....we have different life experiences that mold those kinds of reactions. When I was a kid...if someone were following me to the point I was frightened....I'd go home and call the cops. But a person who grew up familiar with confrontations... might act differently.
 
Steelplate said:
What bullshit....first off...I'm 48....second, I'm a country boy....we operate differently than urban folk....we have different life experiences that mold those kinds of reactions. When I was a kid...if someone were following me to the point I was frightened....I'd go home and call the cops. But a person who grew up familiar with confrontations... might act differently.
Click to expand...

Do you now have information that Trayvon grew up around and was familiar with confrontations?
 
Steelplate said:
Who mentioned that? Oh....you....where did I mention Trayvon in my post? I was explaining how reactions aren't universal....like you want them to be.
Click to expand...

You brought up the scenario and tried to use it as a defense for Trayvon's actions; unless you have something else that would explain why Trayvon confronted and then assaulted Zimmerman.

By the way, if you're going to build a strawman and give answers that have nothing to do with the matter at hand; please tell everyone at the beginning of your reply.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
You brought up the scenario and tried to use it as a defense for Trayvon's actions; unless you have something else that would explain why Trayvon confronted and then assaulted Zimmerman.

By the way, if you're going to build a strawman and give answers that have nothing to do with the matter at hand; please tell everyone at the beginning of your reply.
Click to expand...

No...I didn't. I just stated facts....the fact of what I would do if I was a 17 year old being followed was a Strawman to begin with....and you doubled down on it insisting that I answer....so I did....and explained that what I would do is irrelevant because people aren't made from cookie cutters.
 
Steelplate said:
No...I didn't. I just stated facts....the fact of what I would do if I was a 17 year old being followed was a Strawman to begin with....and you doubled down on it insisting that I answer....so I did....and explained that what I would do is irrelevant because people aren't made from cookie cutters.
Click to expand...

I guess you just forgot that this exchange was about Zimmerman and Trayvon and you just thought this was a random thread; HUH?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top