Originally posted by juggerman
last i heard they analized it to confirm and the professionals decided he said "punks" not "coons".they cleared out the background noise and made his voice clearer. no doubt not a slur. most people heard what they wanted to hear tho...
Hardly beyond a doubt. I heard the "cleared up tape" as well.
ok, so, legal liability is something that goes beyond this little scenario you are presentingit basically asks, if this were a reasonable person, how would they have behaved? the less like a reasonable person you are, the more legally liable you are for the outcome should they go wrong. So, for instance, having a pool at your home increases your liability, should someone drown in it as opposed to someone just randomly dying in your back yard.
because zimmerman acted recklessly, which you agreed with, he is far more liable than if he just asked a question to someone.
i know what it is just having a little fun.
and i never agreed he acted recklessly. just didnt disagree
Hardly beyond a doubt. I heard the "cleared up tape" as well.
doesnt mean youre right tho does it? you heard something. others heard something else. why are we just gonna take your word? oh thats right because your not deaf. how silly of me to assume others hearing the tape and coming to a different conclusion had fully functioning ear drums.
the trained professionals studied the recording and used their tech (which im assuming works) and came to the conclusion that he said "punks" end of story
No. If it is hearsay, and based on opinions, then people should not draw conclusions
exactly. anytime a say end of story (which i dont think is that much 😇 ) its due to some kind of evidence that really cant be questioned. "well i heard and i think he said" isnt really an arguement here.
had they come back and said he did say "coons" then id have no leg to stand on here. but the evidence shows he didnt so its pointless to argue that point
Originally posted by juggerman
exactly. anytime a say end of story (which i dont think is that much 😇 ) its due to some kind of evidence that really cant be questioned. "well i heard and i think he said" isnt really an arguement here.had they come back and said he did say "coons" then id have no leg to stand on here. but the evidence shows he didnt so its pointless to argue that point
I think they only care about their opinion.
Originally posted by juggerman
exactly. anytime a say end of story (which i dont think is that much 😇 ) its due to some kind of evidence that really cant be questioned. "well i heard and i think he said" isnt really an arguement here.had they come back and said he did say "coons" then id have no leg to stand on here. but the evidence shows he didnt so its pointless to argue that point
Your post with the "CASE CLOSED", claimed Zimmerman was innocent and that Martin was trying to kill him, wasn't based on "unquestionable evidence". It was basically your opinion.
Your post with the "end of story", claimed Zimmerman was innocent and that Martin was trying to kill him, wasn't based on "unquestionable evidence".
are you refering to my first post? ive said end of story after that so ill just assume you are. if you read the convo since then my views have in fact changed (tho i really was just pissed off that day and felt like talking sh!t)
everything else has been based on evidence unlike some arguements that have been put against me based on the whole "Zimmerman is just plain guilty" mindset that alot of people have
Originally posted by juggerman
si si. ive always been a check the facts kinda guy myself.
if thats the case, can you provide... idk... the specific things that you don't agree with contained within stand your ground legislation (I asked this before)
or... define what you think reckless behaviour from zimmerman would have looked like
because "checking facts" isn't "rehash memes that were irrelevant pages ago"
humor me
NO!
well ok i guess. ive already stated i dont think "stand your ground" really works here for Zimmerman at all. he didnt feel threatened before confronting Martin so there was no obligation/choice to retreat. then (if his story is to be believed he was attacked and Martin was on top of him.
that kinda takes away any choice he had to flee so he was left with two options 1. be killed (iho) or 2. shoot his attacker. no reason to have "stand your ground" here imo
also im not quite sure if "stand your ground" is a good idea anyway. the way self defense works is you have to try to flee 1st and i like that aspect. without it you have a bunch of morons "standing their ground" and people die when it could have been avoided.
tho with self defense only it can be very hard to prove you had no other option and could end up in jail just because you cant prove you had no other option. hindsight can be a b!tch with this one.
in the end both have pros and cons im not sure if im for or against "stand your ground" at the moment
Originally posted by focus4chumps
YouTube videoHis last name Zimmerman because he was adopted by white parents. and i would wager he hates his own kind as well as blacks.
nice and i like your video...!!!
im interested in keeping this debate going. seeing all these points being made by all sides makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside.
now my friend inimalist why is it that youve disappeared twice on me? 1st after my numbered post and now after my "stand your ground" post you seem to be uninterested in talking to me. im starting to feel unloved here 🙁