Where should the line be drawn...

Dungheap said:
I'll go way far out on a limb and suggest that we might have some evidence if Zimmerman didn't kill the only other eye witness to the conflict.
Click to expand...
right, because YOUR first thought is going to be 'I better lay here and take whatever beating i'm getting, so we can both testify at his trial afterwards'
 
evince said:
and because the police didn't do a proper investigation until weeks later guess what happened
Click to expand...
then why don't we hear you bitching about the substandard work of the police department? why did you rant and rave demanding a trial that had shitty evidence because of sloppy police work? THEN why are you bitching about a not guilty verdict because the shitty investigation job by the cops fucked up your wet dream of a guilty verdict?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
there's a new term out there for criminal investigation work. it's called forensics. maybe you've heard it?
Click to expand...


LOL. What specific forensics will tell you who threw the first punch in a fight between two people with no eye witnesses other than the two combatants and one of them is dead and what specific forensics were utilized in this particular case to determine which of the two was the primary aggressor?
 
Dungheap said:
LOL. What specific forensics will tell you who threw the first punch in a fight between two people with no eye witnesses other than the two combatants and one of them is dead and what specific forensics were utilized in this particular case to determine which of the two was the primary aggressor?
Click to expand...
oh, i don't know. maybe the fact that there were no bruises, scrapes, or cuts on one of them JUST MIGHT indicate that he hadn't been punched, which JUST MIGHT indicate that someone else DID NOT throw the first punch.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
oh, i don't know. maybe the fact that there were no bruises, scrapes, or cuts on one of them JUST MIGHT indicate that he hadn't been punched, which JUST MIGHT indicate that someone else DID NOT throw the first punch.
Click to expand...


It also JUST MIGHT indiacte that he's a decent fighter and that the other fella is a bad fighter and probably SHOULD NOT have thrown the first punch. So, like, take your FORENSICS and blow them OUT YER CORNHOLE.
 
Dungheap said:
It also JUST MIGHT indiacte that he's a decent fighter and that the other fella is a bad fighter and probably SHOULD NOT have thrown the first punch. So, like, take your FORENSICS and blow them OUT YER CORNHOLE.
Click to expand...
080.jpg
 
TeamZ said:
You guys want to live in this alternate universe where you can just take your feels and turn them into reality. Zimmermans story was found to be truthful by the detectives. The detectives and police called by the state basically supported zimmerman. How many times have you seen cops called by the state say they found the defendants account truthful? Most of the witnesses either backed up zimmermans story, and a few couldn't find it being incompatible with the evidence.

We had witnesses 10 feet away saying trayvon was on top beating zimmerman. A witness telling trayvon to stop the fight but trayvon ignoring them.

Too many people tried to make this case something it wasn't. They wanted it to stand for something else, but they picked the wrong case to make a political and social point. This was an open and shut self defense case.
Click to expand...

Serino did not believe him, he wanted to accuse him of manslaughter.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Are you trying to defend people who have low self control?
While words may make someone feel bad, they don't leave bruises and I'm not sure what you mean by threatening language.
Click to expand...

Strawman. It has nothing to do with whether words hurt or whether one is justified in assaulting another.

Threatening language, like "I am going to kick your ass" or something similar. A person should not be able to provoke another into a fight and then shoot them after they get punched.
 
Professor Baxter said:
Strawman. It has nothing to do with whether words hurt or whether one is justified in assaulting another.

Threatening language, like "I am going to kick your ass" or something similar. A person should not be able to provoke another into a fight and then shoot them after they get punched.
Click to expand...
newsflash. there is not a state in this union that allows that.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
And how much forensic evidence do you think Zimmy destroyed when cops let him go home after shooting another human being?
Click to expand...
what evidence on martin could he possibly have destroyed? the cops took his clothes from that night, did they not? again, if you think the cops did such a shit job for a crime scene investigation, why are you angry with zimmerman?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
newsflash. there is not a state in this union that allows that.
Click to expand...

No one said there was. We are discussing where the line should be. I don't think you should be able to provoke a fight with abusive language either or by following someone without identifying your lawful intentions.
 
Last edited:
SmarterthanYou said:
what evidence on martin could he possibly have destroyed? the cops took his clothes from that night, did they not? again, if you think the cops did such a shit job for a crime scene investigation, why are you angry with zimmerman?
Click to expand...

You know just as well as I that after a shooting, especially one that occurs at close range, there will be forensic evidence on the SHOOTER that may help in the investigation, but you don't care about that.
 
Professor Baxter said:
No one said there was. We are discussing where the line should be. I don't you should be able tor provoke a fight with abusive language either or by following someone without identifying your lawful intentions.
Click to expand...
every SYG law i've read specifically excludes anyone who initiates the confrontation, whether verbal or physical. I'm not aware of any self defense exception that includes provocation as a defense to prosecution as well. and it's just plain silly to think that there should be a law that directs people to announce their lawful intentions if they follow you. Should I have to announce to Darla by saying 'i'm walking to the bus stop up the road and not stalking you'?
 
ZappasGuitar said:
You know just as well as I that after a shooting, especially one that occurs at close range, there will be forensic evidence on the SHOOTER that may help in the investigation, but you don't care about that.
Click to expand...
your ridiculous assumptions aside, specifically tell us what evidence can be destroyed after a close range shooting.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
every SYG law i've read specifically excludes anyone who initiates the confrontation, whether verbal or physical. I'm not aware of any self defense exception that includes provocation as a defense to prosecution as well. and it's just plain silly to think that there should be a law that directs people to announce their lawful intentions if they follow you. Should I have to announce to Darla by saying 'i'm walking to the bus stop up the road and not stalking you'?
Click to expand...

Well, it did not appear to in this case. The aggressor exception was not a part of the jury instructions. Any reasonable person would find Zimmerman's behavior threatening. Again, you are dropping the context. Why do you fucking douchebags insist on pretending that Zimmerman just happened to be going in the same direction as Martin. He was following him. The detectives asked Zimmerman repeatedly why he did not identify himself while questioning him and told him that he should have, that it is what would expected of an officer in a similar situation. That's why Serino wanted him charged.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top