(07-02-2013, 11:28 AM)BlueTiki Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2013, 11:16 AM)username Wrote: [ -> ]. . . but the following is what they should be pounding home with the jurors to argue against Z's self defense claim (he "chased" him, he didn't identify himself, etc).
It's been hot here, so maybe I'm confused . . .
1.) You can't chase unless someone is running.
2.) "He didn't identify himself." So what? If he did, was Trayvon obligated to immediately stop running and become compliant?
Skittles ran, turned (when he thought he had an advantage), put his game face on and got all up in the Zim's mug.
Skittles didn't think tubbie had a gun and went crazy nigger on his fat ass.
Now 'splain them self defense rules to me again?
1. Trayvon running seems to indicate he was trying to get away from the creepy ass cracker and G was the aggressor.
2. If Z had identified himself instead of trying to catch Trayvon doing something wrong (my opinion) I believe the whole fight could have been avoided.
3. Skittle's getting up in Z's face initially is an assumption and goes to those crucial few moments that nobody witnessed. I still believe Z could have laid a hand on T's shoulder or spotted T and flashed his weapon. I don't think Z was just strolling back to his truck since he told NE911 to have police call him instead of agreeing to just meet them there.
(07-02-2013, 10:47 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]
Wow. So no white people were interested in seeing justice. Ain't dat somethin'.
Well certainly not Chief Lee and Norm Wolfinger. Seems they had a bit of a problem with uppity niggers.
I was being sarcastic, honey.
(07-02-2013, 11:39 AM)Cynical Ninja Wrote: [ -> ]If Z had identified himself to T as working for the local neighbourhood watch and there had been a number of burglaries in the area it “might” have diffused the situation.
True dat!
Z could have done MANY things differently.
Unfortunately, he didn't and now his actions are to be judged against what is allowed within a Florida statute.
However unfair or reprehensible this fat fuck's conduct was, it is conduct that it to be examined as it relates to what is permissible under the law.
The law considers whether Skittles or tubbie was the initial aggressor and provides remedy for both.
(07-02-2013, 11:51 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]
I was being sarcastic, honey.
I got that. I'm just didn't want to quote any of the race baiters present.
(07-02-2013, 11:12 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]I don't need a photo collage, Jim. I remember it all. Some of the jurors do as well. They could have avoid being selected as jurors if they were afraid of what happened in the past or afraid of what some predict might happen in the future.
The final jurors claim that they are able to disregard those factors and are not afraid. I don't believe that you know better how they think and feel than they themselves.
The public outcry and demonstrations in regard to Zimmerman not being charged, the words of Sharpton and Jackson a year a half ago, the passionate opinions for and against Zimmerman... none of it would affect my ability to sit on the jury and respect the sworn oath.
I would be perfectly able not to consider those previous external factors nor to try to predict future public reaction as a consideration in verdict deliberation.
I am not exceptional. I have no problem believing that the six women who made it on to the jury can do the same, despite your insistence otherwise.
I disagree with your notion that if the jury delivers a Manslaughter conviction, it will be because they are afraid of public backlash, but I'll expect to hear that tune over and over again if Manslaughter is the verdict.
If the jury acquits, no need to pose another theory proclaiming to read their minds and attempting to explain how your theory today was simply misunderstood.
I already get where you're coming from. I find your position to be presumptuous and unreasonable. Differences of opinion, that's all.
The collage was for Duchess... I think she said earlier that she didn't recall enormous racial pressure. I wanted to remind her that there was.
You've watched juries over and over again make contrary decisions to what you believe was right. All I am doing is pointing out that these people aren't perfect, that they are operating under tremendous pressure, and I am giving my own opinion on how I think it will play out.
For that I am unreasonable, presumptuous, and closed minded (yeah, I got the slight from your 'open minded' comment). Your insistence that the jury will not be affected is just as unreasonable and closed minded to me.
I don't care that you disagree with my notion, but the rejection of it as even being a possibility seems just as unreasonable to me. It's not as if I am postulating something crazy... but you act as if you can't even entertain it as something that
may happen.
Interesting that tiki and I share a similar - if not same - opinion, but she doesn't get the same treatment.
HOTD I think JB seems to be indicating that you are pursuing some form of forum based vendetta against him.
Say it ain't so HOTD say it ain't so.
(07-02-2013, 11:43 AM)username Wrote: [ -> ]1. Trayvon running seems to indicate he was trying to get away from the creepy ass cracker and G was the aggressor.
2. If Z had identified himself instead of trying to catch Trayvon doing something wrong (my opinion) I believe the whole fight could have been avoided.
3. Skittle's getting up in Z's face initially is an assumption . . . blah, blah, blah.
Yeah . . . thanks for tying this all together to either support or refute your self defense statute post.
You are ready to offer assumptions (
"Trayvon running seems to indicate . . ." ) but are as eager to dismiss (
"Skittle's getting up in Z's face initially is an assumption . . .") when it doesn't fit your tight little package.
Sorry . . . that sounded like a line from one of your many lustful admirers!
I guess, after the many burglaries within the complex, the sight of an unknown running nigger would NEVER cause, a self-appointed watch captain, concern?
BTW - I really don't believe any response that Skittles would have offered tubbie (assuming that Zim identified himself and a civil conversation ensued) would have been accepted as truthful and complete.
I'm glad you believe otherwise.
It's such a cute little Pollyanna attitude!
Seems we're both guilty of assumptions, ya' sweaty bitch.
(07-02-2013, 12:09 PM)Cynical Ninja Wrote: [ -> ]HOTD I think JB seems to be indicating that you are pursuing some form of forum based vendetta against him.
Say it ain't so HOTD say it ain't so.
Jeez, I hope it's not a vendetta... I've not done anything to HotD to warrant that sort of response.
(07-02-2013, 12:13 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]Seems we're both guilty of assumptions, ya' sweaty bitch.
Here's my truth:
1.) Whatever verdict is returned, I will not believe the jury deliberated solely on the evidence and was influenced by outside information and attitudes.
2.) No self respecting nigger would ever wear a Hollister garment.
(07-02-2013, 12:03 PM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting that tiki and I share a similar - if not same - opinion, but she doesn't get the same treatment.
We were debating a presumption of yours in this case, one with which I disagree.
I can't think of any reason for me to have a vendetta against you; not the case (at all).
I don't know why people in debate sometimes feel the need to point out who agrees with them or not, doesn't matter to me.
People's personalities result in different styles of interaction, on-line or off. You don't post in the same style with me as you do with CN, or ramsey, or Duchess... No big mystery or concern to me.
Not sure why it matters, but since you asked: Tiki and I sometimes agree and sometimes not. She very rarely states opinion as fact as you often do. She frequently poses questions to challenge the poster or the thought behind the post. I can't always tell if her questions are indicative of agreement, disagreement or neutrality in regards to the original post; doesn't matter. She's razor sharp and I find it thought-provoking. I never mind answering the questions and enjoy exchanging views with her.
Anyway, I wouldn't engage with you unless it was interesting. We know how the other feels about the point we were debating and we disagree with one another. I don't assume you have a vendetta against me over it. Dead horse at this point.
So, enough of Dr. Phil and back to George Zimmerman.
Well, Detective Serino was certainly better for the defense than the prosecution, in my opinion.
The prosecution is going to play George Zimmerman's interview with Sean Hannity soon. Haven't seen that one yet.
I don't know if playing all of these interviews of George telling his story, without being subject to cross, is a good move by the prosecution.
Curious to see how the prosecution tries to pull it all together for the jury.
(07-02-2013, 01:55 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]
I don't have experience with people who have been beaten but I don't think this looks like someone who was punched over a dozen times in the face.
You're right.
I'd guess that after one or two alleged punches, my open hands or forearms would come into play, to protect my face.
On the other hand, if I was fighting for my life (and being a numbers person) I don't think counting the blows received would be on the
To Do list.
There's a time and a place for precision . . .
Z's actual physical injuries recorded on the night of the incident have NEVER been consistent with his claims the beating was so severe he considered it life threatening in nature.
Apart from a small swelling on his nose and some superficial scratches on the back of his head there is not a mark on him. Add to that the fact that T only had a tiny smudge of Zs blood, on one of his thumbs I think it was, the whole thing just doesn't really add up for me.
I wasn't trying to shit stir between HOTD and JB either people I was in fact having a bit of a laugh which I think may have backfired a bit.
Sorry.
![[Image: ht_george_zimmerman_ll_120518_wg.jpg]](http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/ht_george_zimmerman_ll_120518_wg.jpg)
