Originally posted by inimalist
we clearly aren't even having the same conversation any longer/shrug
That's not true:
Originally posted by inimalist
my point are his injuries are not consistent with mortal danger
Just because I am representing your position with hyperbole, like you have been doing with mine for about a page now, does not mean that I completely and utterly misrepresenting you. 🙂
I just read a funny spin-off to this...
Some guy bought & activated his new cell phone & within 24 hours he was getting random death threats & abusive messages. 70 was the count.
Apparently the cell phone provider had given him Zimmerman's old no. The same no. that he used to call the police. The actual voice recording that was played on the news & trial...making it a well known no. to the general public.
The guy is now suing the phone company for trauma & invasion of privacy.
Originally posted by Esau Cairn
I just read a funny spin-off to this...Some guy bought & activated his new cell phone & within 24 hours he was getting random death threats & abusive messages. 70 was the count.
Apparently the cell phone provider had given him Zimmerman's old no. The same no. that he used to call the police. The actual voice recording that was played on the news & trial...making it a well known no. to the general public.
The guy is now suing the phone company for trauma & invasion of privacy.
He should have kept the number and recorded that stuff, posted it on the internet, and became famous. He could have answered and played up the phone calls by pretending to be Zimmerman when answering. He would have made trillions.
I'm a little lost on the argument that Zimmerman would be justified in killing Martin after Martin turned to confront him in fear of his own life. That makes no sense at all. If you are in fear of being killed as a result of a situation that you put yourself in by posing a threat to another individual there's no justification for you to kill the person whom you threatened in the first place by your actions.
I'm responding to the poster who said that basically if person A is walking somewhere, then B comes up and threatens A to the point of fearing for his life, A responds with force, then somehow B is also justified if he kills A. That was basically what was postulated by the dude with the pastries as his avatar.
Originally posted by Ascendancy
I'm responding to the poster who said that basically if person A is walking somewhere, then B comes up and threatens A to the point of fearing for his life, A responds with force, then somehow B is also justified if he kills A. That was basically what was postulated by the dude with the pastries as his avatar.
lol
I think it would be best if you used the names.
"If person Trayvon is walking somewhere, then Zimmerman comes up and threatens Trayvon to the point of Trayvon fearing for his life, Trayvon responds with force, then somehow Zimmerman is also justified if he kills Trayvon."
And, yes, that almost sums up what I was saying. It is the problem/paradox of the "Stand your ground" law: both can be justified in killing each other in that scenario because it only has to be reasonably shown that either of them were physically threatened (not an actual threat made from one to the other...but the individual perceiving the threat). I posted the content of that law, earlier, in this thread.
Trayvon, legitimately, felt threatened. Zimmerman, legitimately, felt threatened when he was getting his ass kicked. The result: Trayvon is dead and Zimmerman is being considered for manslaughter. It is now up to the the defense to build a case that Zimmerman was not just legitimately threatened, but lawfully responded. If they cannot, Zimmers gets some time.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Trayvon, legitimately, felt threatened. Zimmerman, legitimately, felt threatened when he was getting his ass kicked. The result: Trayvon is dead and Zimmerman is being considered for manslaughter. It is now up to the the defense to build a case that Zimmerman was not just legitimately threatened, but lawfully responded. If they cannot, Zimmers gets some time.
I'd assume the prosecution will try to show that Zimmerman started the altercation/made Trayvon fearful for his own life, thereby dismissing his ability to use the 'stand your ground' law (as that seems to be a the focal point in the case). So I'd imagine his defense would have to combat that first, before trying to show that Zimmerman was ever threatened.
Otherwise it'd come down to 'Zimmerman picked the fight and made someone feel threatened, then shot them when he got his ass handed back'. Can't see that going over well for the jury.
I did read in the local paper (in passing) that Zimmerman was given a lie-detector test that night and passed it. I'm uncertain of the questions that were asked though.
Originally posted by Ascendancy
Won't matter anyway since it's not admissible.
IIRC, Fields vs Wyrick determined that it to be admissible if the Miranda rights are given prior to the polygraph.
All evidence must comply to the expert witness testimony standard...which can include polygraph tests.
I am only referring to the US. I do not know how it is in other countries.
The entire case is a mess, and if probed deeper, there would be several more people than there are to be held accountable for actions that were not taken in as evidence.
Whether the Police destroyed evidence by gasoline, acid, or by not investigating the crime scene properly, one thing is certain, critical evidence used to serve the general public was destroyed. My question here is, what prompted the boys in blue not to serve, and protect? I almost believe that race had a whole lot to do with it.
Socioeconomic's has failed we the people to the point of blindness.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Who said the police destroyed evidence with acid?
Ha ha very funny. It was just an example. The Police did not use acid or fire, but the idea that they did not immediately turn the crime scene into a murder investigation means that they may as well have. crritical evidence could have been tampered with which raised many eyebrows. They (Police) simply said oh, threw their hands up in the air, and let Zimmerman walk out of the precinct without cross examining him, or giving him a battery of psychological exams. All of which was stated on the news.
Then to cover up the epic phucking fail that they did, they all but turned Trayvon into a petty drug dealer, turning the lens away from their phuck up, and onto the kid trying to get home.