How can the defense say that the medical records in records to George (from the night of the shooting) are not relevant? I don't understand that. Aren't they arguing that George was being so badly beaten he feared for his life? This shit makes me feel stupid.
(06-28-2013, 01:43 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure the jury will get past reasonable doubt and fault George sufficiently for pursuing Trayvon.
Was
Shootin' Zim EVER charged with unlawful pursuit or some such nonsense?
Big deal he followed a nigger kid in his housing area . . . is that illegal?
Prove to me he pursued with intent to kill and I'll maybe shed a tear for his grieving parents and their racist supporters.
Prove to me Trayvon didn't throw the first punch or
get all up in his face and I'll concede Zim was coon hunting.
In fact, prove that Trayvon was provoked.
(06-28-2013, 04:21 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]
How can the defense say that the medical records in records to George (from the night of the shooting) are not relevant? I don't understand that. Aren't they arguing that George was being so badly beaten he feared for his life? This shit makes me feel stupid.
Why does everyone think a person must be being beaten to fear for their life?
One does not have to be beaten to fear for their life. A verbal threat is enough to cause a person to fear for their life.
Threaten my life and I will perceive that to be a real threat and will deal with it in kind.
(06-28-2013, 04:50 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: [ -> ] (06-28-2013, 01:43 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure the jury will get past reasonable doubt and fault George sufficiently for pursuing Trayvon.
Was Shootin' Zim EVER charged with unlawful pursuit or some such nonsense?
Big deal he followed a nigger kid in his housing area . . . is that illegal?
Prove to me he pursued with intent to kill and I'll maybe shed a tear for his grieving parents and their racist supporters.
Prove to me Trayvon didn't throw the first punch or get all up in his face and I'll concede Zim was coon hunting.
In fact, prove that Trayvon was provoked.
That's just it; the prosecution isn't proving their case. Prove to me that George didn't grab Trayvon by the arm or otherwise initiate contact.
Huh?? Huh?? You like them apples??
I still say Trayvon had every right to stand his ground. If I had some creepy ass cracker following me around without identifying himself and being all sneaky and stuff, I'd punch him too. Hell, maybe he flashed his gun at Trayvon and T freaked thinking the guy was going to shoot him. The whole fight might have been a wrestle for the gun.
I wish the dead could talk.
I guess everyone was a strong word. Most, many, alot, all would be words that work though.
However the thought of you rereading a 179 page thread makes me snicker. hahaha
(06-28-2013, 05:08 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]I still say Trayvon had every right to stand his ground. If I had some creepy ass cracker following me around without identifying himself and being all sneaky and stuff, I'd punch him too.
I wish the dead could talk.
But they can't and the survivor is telling his story and so far, I've seen NOTHING to contradict his version of events.
Funny . . . the concept of Trayvon standing his ground!
Guess that means he felt threatened and was ready to take a life to save his own.
Nah . . . he wasn't a violent nigger!
Should be simple thing for the prosecution to prove.
(06-28-2013, 05:17 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: [ -> ]But they can't and the survivor is telling his story and so far, I've seen NOTHING to contradict his version of events.
Funny . . . the concept of Trayvon standing his ground!
Guess that means he felt threatened and was ready to take a life to save his own.
Should be simple thing for the prosecution to prove.
I haven't seen enough to contradict George's version of events either. I would have thought the prosecution would have more...especially since they charged him with murder 2. Adub could try this case better.
I will never dismiss the possibility of George initiating the physical contact though but proving that is NOT an easy task. Nobody saw what happened in that crucial moment so all we have is George's word on the matter.
Plus, I will always fault George for seemingly sneaking around and following someone and by his own admission, not identifying himself in any way to Trayvon. How the hell was Trayvon supposed to know why some guy is following him around a complex?
As it stands though, if I were on the jury, I'd have to vote not guilty at this point. The physician's assistant definitely didn't help the prosecution.
(06-28-2013, 05:42 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ] (06-28-2013, 05:39 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]not identifying himself in any way to Trayvon. How the hell was Trayvon supposed to know why some guy is following him around a complex?
I've always felt that had George simply identified himself it would have gone far in diffusing the situation. I think T was frightened to have a creepy ass cracker following him, most people would have been.
I don't like Z being called a Cracker.
Gives the rest of us 'real' Crackers a bad name.
He's a wannabe Cracker.
(06-28-2013, 05:39 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]. . . not identifying himself in any way to Trayvon. How the hell was Trayvon supposed to know why some guy is following him around a complex?
Or why Skittles Boy never called 911 to report a "creepy Cracker stalker".
Must not have felt threatened by the Zim and his stealth Ninja moves.
(06-28-2013, 06:02 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: [ -> ] (06-28-2013, 05:39 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]. . . not identifying himself in any way to Trayvon. How the hell was Trayvon supposed to know why some guy is following him around a complex?
Or why Skittles Boy never called 911 to report a "creepy Cracker stalker".
The girl friend didn't tell him to; she couldn't remember the number.
(06-28-2013, 04:51 PM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ] (06-28-2013, 04:21 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]
How can the defense say that the medical records in records to George (from the night of the shooting) are not relevant? I don't understand that. Aren't they arguing that George was being so badly beaten he feared for his life? This shit makes me feel stupid.
Why does everyone think a person must be being beaten to fear for their life?
One does not have to be beaten to fear for their life. A verbal threat is enough to cause a person to fear for their life.
Threaten my life and I will perceive that to be a real threat and will deal with it in kind.
Most folks seem to think that you are supposed to stand around wringing your hands and suffering some injuries before you shoot, and that you never shoot if the other guy doesn't have a gun.
Fact is that the law is written specifically so you do not have to do any of that, nor should you IMHO.
Z is an idiot I have no doubt from everything that has been published if its all true. T was a punk wannabe gang member that had already committed some felonies and published them on facebook or wherever if all that's been published is true.
T wasn't scared, he figured he would deal with that cracker ass whatever..Z wasn't scared either, he was suffering from testosterone poisoning, that's why he followed the big black kid instead of letting the police deal with it.
At that point no laws were broken. I have a hard time believing Z had the balls to grab T first, could be, but I don't think so.
We will never know for sure unless Z changes his story and cops to it.
The first law got broken on first physical contact.
Under FU's scenario, if T saw G's gun (or otherwise felt his life was threatened) he was within his rights to use deadly force to defend himself.
It works both ways.
(06-28-2013, 06:02 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: [ -> ]Or why Skittles Boy never called 911 to report a "creepy Cracker stalker".
Must not have felt threatened by the Zim and his stealth Ninja moves.
And George could have met the officers (at his truck or the mailboxes) like he originally arranged until he decided to ask the 911 operator to have them call him when they arrived instead. So he could keep following Trayvon. Because he was in fear for his life pursuing Trayvon.
Z could have retreated as easily as T.
Murder 2 was a stretch charge from the very beginning. Unless they have something else up their sleeve, manslaughter will be a gift.
(06-28-2013, 09:56 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]Under FU's scenario, if T saw G's gun (or otherwise felt his life was threatened) he was within his rights to use deadly force to defend himself.
It works both ways.
True, under Florida law "Concealed" means concealed, hidden from sight. If T had seen Z's gun Z would have been guilty of Brandishing or flashing. "Printing" was something going around here for a while, a police officer would see your weapon "Print" on your shirt saw when you bent over to get something from the cold case at 7-11 and use that to issue a ticket, potentially getting your card revoked. I think it got mainly used on assholes and don't know anyone that got jacked for it, but it was in a papers here for a while.
(06-28-2013, 09:56 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]Under FU's scenario, if T saw G's gun (or otherwise felt his life was threatened) he was within his rights to use deadly force to defend himself.
It works both ways.
For some people it doesn't work both ways because T was a nigger and Z isn't.
People can put their fingers in their ears and go la la la until they are blue in the face but race IS an issue in this case. If T had been an unarmed cracker and Z had been a jerry curl nigger some people would be singing a completely different tune about the incident.