Martin/Zimmerman

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Tue May 28, 2013 3:03 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:I would say that legally both are being given the benefit of the doubt.


SpinnerMan wrote: Enlighten me on your new legal theory where the accused does not get the benefit of the doubt in the trial? There are not two people on trial, so enlighten me as to who the "both" are?


You know exactly what I mean, Spinner. If it helps you to understand, let's state it as "Both the defense and the prosecution are given equal opportunity to prove their case". Did I even remotely indicate that the "accused" is not given the benefit of the doubt, which is what you aver verbatim ?

SpinnerMan wrote: It is quite possible that both are 100% innocent of any crime and I believe that is the case in this regard. So since I believe both are 100% innocent am I not given both them the benefit of the doubt? :huh:


Oh, never mind. You just restated my point which you so strenuously attempted to ridicule a moment ago.

SpinnerMan wrote: You have just shift the burden of proof on to the accused and empowered the government. I get as a liberal how this doesn't bother you in the slightest. Empowering the government just isn't something that concerns you when you believe you will get the outcome you desire.


Well, since you have not the slightest indication whatsoever of the outcome I desire, I am not sure your "scientific mind" is forming conclusions from accurate data. :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: Perhaps that is the conservatism in you. "On all points and at all times.....BLUSTER....therein lies our strength!" Using your "best scientifically investigative endeavors" provide me an example of where I ever stated that I wished anything but the truth to prevail in this case. Do I believe it warranted investigation? Absolutely. Is it being investigated? Yes. Do I feel that the entire legal system is so bereft of a desire for justice that it does nothing but kowtow to public opinion? No. Do I feel it is only bereft of this desire when things don't go "my way", like you? No.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am


Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue May 28, 2013 3:22 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:You know exactly what I mean, Spinner. If it helps you to understand, let's state it as "Both the defense and the prosecution are given equal opportunity to prove their case". Did I even remotely indicate that the "accused" is not given the benefit of the doubt, which is what you aver verbatim ?
I had no flipping clue what you meant. The prosecution is NOT the opposing council in a civil trial. The prosecutor represents the government. The prosecutor swore under penalty of perjury that he believed certain things to be true in the probable cause affidavit. They have a vastly higher burden upon them AS THEY SHOULD!!!!!!
http://www.foxnews.com/us/interactive/2012/04/12/state-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-affidavit-probable-cause/

For example, the complaint states "Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued."

This is a lie in that there is no way to know, so how can you swear this under oath to be true? :fingerpt:

A struggle ensued, but if Martin confronted Zimmerman, which is what the defendant alleges and there is no proof to the contrary, it changes everything, does it not?

Then there is the claim that "Martin attempted to run home" and was apparently unable to make it the 100 yards or so in the minute or two where Zimmerman was on the phone with the police dispatcher? :huh: This doesn't even pass the laugh test. It is another lie presented in the affidavit. OK, maybe not a lie. Maybe the prosecutor is just that stupid that he believed that Trayvon really did try to run home but was too stoned to find his way or something. :rolleyes:

Glimmerjim wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:It is quite possible that both are 100% innocent of any crime and I believe that is the case in this regard. So since I believe both are 100% innocent am I not given both them the benefit of the doubt? :huh:
Oh, never mind. You just restated my point which you so strenuously attempted to ridicule a moment ago.
Only a liberal puts a man on trial for his life if he believes he may be 100% innocent. Was that the point that you were making that I just restated?
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16059
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Tue May 28, 2013 4:16 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:You know exactly what I mean, Spinner. If it helps you to understand, let's state it as "Both the defense and the prosecution are given equal opportunity to prove their case". Did I even remotely indicate that the "accused" is not given the benefit of the doubt, which is what you aver verbatim ?
I had no flipping clue what you meant. The prosecution is NOT the opposing council in a civil trial. The prosecutor represents the government. The prosecutor swore under penalty of perjury that he believed certain things to be true in the probable cause affidavit. They have a vastly higher burden upon them AS THEY SHOULD!!!!!!
http://www.foxnews.com/us/interactive/2012/04/12/state-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-affidavit-probable-cause/

For example, the complaint states "Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued."

This is a lie in that there is no way to know, so how can you swear this under oath to be true? :fingerpt:

A struggle ensued, but if Martin confronted Zimmerman, which is what the defendant alleges and there is no proof to the contrary, it changes everything, does it not?

Then there is the claim that "Martin attempted to run home" and was apparently unable to make it the 100 yards or so in the minute or two where Zimmerman was on the phone with the police dispatcher? :huh: This doesn't even pass the laugh test. It is another lie presented in the affidavit. OK, maybe not a lie. Maybe the prosecutor is just that stupid that he believed that Trayvon really did try to run home but was too stoned to find his way or something. :rolleyes:

Glimmerjim wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:It is quite possible that both are 100% innocent of any crime and I believe that is the case in this regard. So since I believe both are 100% innocent am I not given both them the benefit of the doubt? :huh:
Oh, never mind. You just restated my point which you so strenuously attempted to ridicule a moment ago.
Only a liberal puts a man on trial for his life if he believes he may be 100% innocent. Was that the point that you were making that I just restated?

Sorry, Spinner, and I don't mean it personally, but only an idiot believes "Only a liberal puts a man on trial for his life if he believes he may be 100% innocent." I believe everyone on trial may be 100% innocent. If you don't get it I'd recommend you stick to the nukes and avoid the law like the plague.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Tue May 28, 2013 4:20 pm

This has been an interesting day on this forum! Has someone been slipping acid into the water supply of every state but CA? We don't need it in our water supply. We've got it in our salt shakers! :lol3: :lol3:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue May 28, 2013 5:00 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:Sorry, Spinner, and I don't mean it personally, but only an idiot believes "Only a liberal puts a man on trial for his life if he believes he may be 100% innocent." I believe everyone on trial may be 100% innocent. If you don't get it I'd recommend you stick to the nukes and avoid the law like the plague.
If you are a prosecutor, you swore an affidavit that says that you believe that more than likely the accused is guilty. So are you saying that you would never charge ANYONE? I mean that I absolutely would not have charged either. Had Trayvon beaten Zimmerman to death given the 911 call and all of that, how do you charge him?

If the prosecutor has reasonable doubt about the guilty, he should no charge him. Granted, the standard is lower than that, but he should error on the side of not charging people unless he is certain. There is NO certainty here. You don't charge and hope the jury gets it right and you for damn sure don't make crap up in the affidavit that you cannot know.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16059
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Tue May 28, 2013 5:42 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:Sorry, Spinner, and I don't mean it personally, but only an idiot believes "Only a liberal puts a man on trial for his life if he believes he may be 100% innocent." I believe everyone on trial may be 100% innocent. If you don't get it I'd recommend you stick to the nukes and avoid the law like the plague.


SpinnerMan wrote: If you are a prosecutor, you swore an affidavit that says that you believe that more than likely the accused is guilty.


Believing guilt is "more than likely" , ie "more than 50% convinced" is vastly different from not allowing for the possibility that the defendent MAY be 100% innocent.

SpinnerMan wrote: So are you saying that you would never charge ANYONE? I mean that I absolutely would not have charged either. Had Trayvon beaten Zimmerman to death given the 911 call and all of that, how do you charge him?


If I am understanding you correctly, you don't. You simply let him walk away with a "Fare thee well"!

SpinnerMan wrote: If the prosecutor has reasonable doubt about the guilty, he should no charge him. Granted, the standard is lower than that, but he should error on the side of not charging people unless he is certain.


That is just such a radical change to our Criminal Justice System that I can't comprehend it, Spinner. There would most assuredly be far fewer trials. I would, however, believe that an intelligent criminal could take steps to insure that he is NEVER charged if it requires certainty. I would venture that the prosecutor is NEVER certain of guilt, unless he is of such a small mind that he can delude himself into a false sense of surety. Were he an eye-witness, his certainty should not be 100%, as eye-witness testimony has been proven erroneous, not always intentionally, in innumerable instances.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Me and Black Betty » Tue May 28, 2013 7:40 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:It is quite possible that both are 100% innocent of any crime and I believe that is the case in this regard. So since I believe both are 100% innocent am I not given both them the benefit of the doubt? :huh:


Perhaps I am missing the sarcasm, but I don't think this is a possibility- that they are both 100% innocent. Either Martin was guilty of assaulting zimmerman which lead to a justified shooting in self defense, or Zimmerman shot him because he "looked suspicious" in which case he is guilty of murder. One way or another, somebody is guilty of something.
Whoa, Black Betty BAM-BA-LAM
User avatar
Me and Black Betty
hunter
 
Posts: 975
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 11:51 am
Location: Eastern CT

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Tue May 28, 2013 7:47 pm

Me and Black Betty wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:It is quite possible that both are 100% innocent of any crime and I believe that is the case in this regard. So since I believe both are 100% innocent am I not given both them the benefit of the doubt? :huh:


Perhaps I am missing the sarcasm, but I don't think this is a possibility- that they are both 100% innocent. Either Martin was guilty of assaulting zimmerman which lead to a justified shooting in self defense, or Zimmerman shot him because he "looked suspicious" in which case he is guilty of murder. One way or another, somebody is guilty of something.

That's a good point, M & BB. Spinner will respond, and I am sure it will be an intelligent response, but I agree. Often times I get caught up in the minutiae of a specific point in the conversation and the 800 lb. gorilla sneaks up and fondles me! :lol3: :lol3:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby cartervj » Tue May 28, 2013 8:16 pm

The law states he only had to feel threatened for his life. It is evident that the was beaten which the MSM and local liberals tried to prove otherwise.

Martin was in possession of drank, a mixture of cough syrup and skittles. Lil Wayne favors this drink in his pimp cup. It gives one a continual buzz. Martin was also in a fight with a friend as indicated on his facebook page, just before his confrontation with Zimmerman. Considering he was probably jacked up on drank and arguing with a friend, then Zimmerman follows him which was the final straw.
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7301
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Tue May 28, 2013 8:30 pm

cartervj wrote:The law states he only had to feel threatened for his life. It is evident that the was beaten which the MSM and local liberals tried to prove otherwise.

Martin was in possession of drank, a mixture of cough syrup and skittles. Lil Wayne favors this drink in his pimp cup. It gives one a continual buzz. Martin was also in a fight with a friend as indicated on his facebook page, just before his confrontation with Zimmerman. Considering he was probably jacked up on drank and arguing with a friend, then Zimmerman follows him which was the final straw.

"Everybody!!!! Hold up on the trial!!! Turn Zimmerman loose!!! It was solved beyond a doubt by a guy on a duck hunting chat forum of all things!"
Sorry carter, couldn't resist. :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:
But where did you ever come up with this? Did you think that Arizona Iced Tea is cough syrup? No wonder your kids never get over that pesky cough! :lol3: :lol3:
Last edited by Glimmerjim on Tue May 28, 2013 8:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue May 28, 2013 8:31 pm

Me and Black Betty wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:It is quite possible that both are 100% innocent of any crime and I believe that is the case in this regard. So since I believe both are 100% innocent am I not given both them the benefit of the doubt? :huh:


Perhaps I am missing the sarcasm, but I don't think this is a possibility- that they are both 100% innocent. Either Martin was guilty of assaulting zimmerman which lead to a justified shooting in self defense, or Zimmerman shot him because he "looked suspicious" in which case he is guilty of murder. One way or another, somebody is guilty of something.

Or there was an honest mistake. Trayvon didn't want to go home, which he was not obligated to. He came around the corner and ran into the weird dude that was following him, felt threatened, and knocked him on his ass. Zimmerman then felt justifiably threatened and shot him. I doubt it, but it's not out of the realm of possibility that neither crossed any legal line and both honestly felt threatened by the situation.

Stand your ground goes both ways. Trayvon no more had to flee than Zimmerman and at night Zimmerman may not have intended to be threatening, but Trayvon could have felt legitimately threatened.

No matter what, I just don't see any way there is enough evidence to charge either one of them. We just do not know. If we had a way to know, I'd bet that Trayvon instigated it based on the facts, but it is not sufficient certainty to throw him in jail if Zimmerman had died and not him.

Glimmerjim wrote:If I am understanding you correctly, you don't. You simply let him walk away with a "Fare thee well"!
Exactly, because that is what the evidence demands. There is no proof that he was not acting in self defense. Trayvon was gone, the dispatcher told him he need not follow and he said OK and there is no evidence he followed, the timeline give a ton of time for Trayvone to go him if he truly feared Zimmerman, a witness said Trayvon was going MMA on him, and Zimmerman was beaten and bloodied. Everything supports Zimmerman's story and nothing the prosecutors.

Glimmerjim wrote:That is just such a radical change to our Criminal Justice System that I can't comprehend it, Spinner.
Really, even if the prosecutor has reasonable doubt, he should prosecute anyways :eek: :eek: :eek:

Glimmerjim wrote:I would, however, believe that an intelligent criminal could take steps to insure that he is NEVER charged if it requires certainty.
Thankfully few criminals are intelligent or the wouldn't be criminals. However, that is irrelevant, it is supposed to be very hard to convict a criminal. Most get to skate. That's our system. That's why when we catch one dead to right, say for instance they lie under oath and then absolute proof is found to the contrary :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: Low risk of getting caught but very high consequence when you do. The liberal world is low risk of getting caught and low consequences when you do. :thumbsup:

Glimmerjim wrote:I would venture that the prosecutor is NEVER certain of guilt,
then he shouldn't hope the jury gets it right :fingerhead: If he is not certain (has reasonable doubt which is what I said) and he knows EVERYTHING, unvarnished, admissible and inadmissible. Seriously, if the prosecutor would not vote to convict, and if he is not certain of guilt, he should not vote to convict, then he should not prosecute :fingerhead: These are people's lives that we are talking about here. The prosecutor is the representative of our "benevolent" government and this is how you want them to act :no:
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16059
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Tue May 28, 2013 8:41 pm

SpinnerMan wrote: Or there was an honest mistake. Trayvon didn't want to go home, which he was not obligated to. He came around the corner and ran into the weird dude that was following him, felt threatened, and knocked him on his ass.

And therefore he was guilty of assault. May be an honest mistake, but still assault. I don't think the "Well gee, I kinda felt threatened" defense carries a lot of weight in court. Perhaps a mistake that doesn't justify being killed for, but a criminal mistake none the less.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Tue May 28, 2013 8:45 pm

cartervj wrote:The law states he only had to feel threatened for his life. It is evident that the was beaten which the MSM and local liberals tried to prove otherwise.


He only had to "feel" threatened for his life?!?!?! Not justifiably threatened? Man, people better start cutting me a wide swath.....I "feel" a threat comin' on! :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Me and Black Betty » Tue May 28, 2013 8:54 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
Me and Black Betty wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:It is quite possible that both are 100% innocent of any crime and I believe that is the case in this regard. So since I believe both are 100% innocent am I not given both them the benefit of the doubt? :huh:


Perhaps I am missing the sarcasm, but I don't think this is a possibility- that they are both 100% innocent. Either Martin was guilty of assaulting zimmerman which lead to a justified shooting in self defense, or Zimmerman shot him because he "looked suspicious" in which case he is guilty of murder. One way or another, somebody is guilty of something.

Or there was an honest mistake. Trayvon didn't want to go home, which he was not obligated to. He came around the corner and ran into the weird dude that was following him, felt threatened, and knocked him on his ass. Zimmerman then felt justifiably threatened and shot him. I doubt it, but it's not out of the realm of possibility that neither crossed any legal line and both honestly felt threatened by the situation.

Stand your ground goes both ways. Trayvon no more had to flee than Zimmerman and at night Zimmerman may not have intended to be threatening, but Trayvon could have felt legitimately threatened.

No matter what, I just don't see any way there is enough evidence to charge either one of them. We just do not know. If we had a way to know, I'd bet that Trayvon instigated it based on the facts, but it is not sufficient certainty to throw him in jail if Zimmerman had died and not him.

Not buying this. Simply being present, as Zimmerman was in your senario above, is not a legitimate threat. Therefore, if Martin pushed him to the ground, that is assault. I am not hardly justified in shooting or pushing somebody to the ground just because they look like they are up to no good. That is not stand your ground- more like seek and destroy.
Whoa, Black Betty BAM-BA-LAM
User avatar
Me and Black Betty
hunter
 
Posts: 975
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 11:51 am
Location: Eastern CT

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby cartervj » Tue May 28, 2013 9:06 pm

You're just not hip anymore GJ :tongue:

no kids by the way :thumbsup:


1. drank
Share on twitter Share on facebook Share on more
741 up, 256 down
purple stuff,oil,sizzurp, whatever you wanna call it. Is a codine and promithazene mix that people from the south and H-town sip and sell.
1. YOu got some drank?
2.I'm dranked out.
buy drank mugs & shirts
by ? Oct 22, 2003 add a video
2. Drank
Share on twitter Share on facebook Share on more
430 up, 200 down
Perscription cough syrup. Medical Nomenclature -Promythizne w/Codine (Sysrp). 10mg of Codine per 5ml of liquid. Served on the streets in Sealed Gallons, also known as jugz, handle, or Pints, also known as PT, PT Cruiser (pints can be bought by the dozen, in a sealed case); or lesser amounts served in baby bottles or medicine bottles. Common units of measurments are Eight (8 FLoz); Six (6 FLoz); Fo (4 FLoz); Tre (3 FLoz); Deuce (2 Floz); Ace (1 FLoz); Skeet Taste (Small Sip of raw or mixed Drank). Preferable brands are vivid purple and have a unique "purple" flavor including Alpharma and Hi-Tech. Perferable method of injestion is mixing (po'in up) with Sprite, Cream Soda, Big Red, Big Peach, Crush, or Sunkist. Serve on ice in styrafoam cup. Enjoyably sip to induce a euphoric feeling known as "Leanin'", similar to other opiates. Beware of "Karo", corn syrup used to cut or dilute raw "Drank". Sealed "Jugz" or "PT Cruisers" are often tampered with and diluted by being "Plugged". Removing the plastic mold tab at the bottom of the vessile and removing the product, then replacing the missing product with Karo or Water while tamper seal remains.

*Not to be confused with TussinEx (susp)(See Thick Yellow), Phenagrene W/Codine, other varities of perscription syrups or any over the counter medicines.
I poed up a whole cruiser of drank last night, my cup was so muddy, I was leanin sideways.
buy drank mugs & shirts
lean barre mud oil proco tiedye karo plugged sysrp
by Wally D May 14, 2007 add a video
3. Drank
Share on twitter Share on facebook Share on more
199 up, 138 down
Codiene Cough Syrup / Promethazine
Usually sold by the pint. A normal cup down here in the H is 2oz of Drank + 1 18 oz bottle of Sprite w/ 4 jolly ranchers. A cup can also consist of 4oz and even 6oz of drank + a liter of Sprite...The cough syrup (which is normally prescribed for 2 tablespoons every 8 hours) it's so thick that it just makes you lean cause' you so *** up you can't even stand up...Tha crap is tha bomb ya'll.
Terms:
Po'in up
Leanin'
Sip
Sippin'
Purp
Drank
Lean
Po' it up
We don't call it "Sizzurup" in H-Town cause it's whack...
Ask your doctor for it. Tell' 'em you have a cough and it keeps you up at night. You might have to lie and say you smoke cigarettes, cigars, whatnot, but he'll fork it over...
Trippin' cause I'm throwed leanin' off this muddy cup that Whoady Po'd....

I got that Drank....just poppped the seal on a pint....let's po' it up, bro...
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7301
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Tue May 28, 2013 9:17 pm

SpinnerMan wrote: If we had a way to know, I'd bet that Trayvon instigated it based on the facts...


"If we had a way to know.......based on the facts." This is classic! If I were of like mind with many here, not to name names When There's No reason to, that signatures are for continual criticism of others to assist in my precariously based delusions of grandeur, this would be swooped on! :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:

PS Spinner. If you DO know the "facts" you don't have to bet. You know! :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed May 29, 2013 5:33 am

Glimmerjim wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote: If we had a way to know, I'd bet that Trayvon instigated it based on the facts...


"If we had a way to know.......based on the facts." This is classic! If I were of like mind with many here, not to name names When There's No reason to, that signatures are for continual criticism of others to assist in my precariously based delusions of grandeur, this would be swooped on! :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:

PS Spinner. If you DO know the "facts" you don't have to bet. You know! :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:

We know Trayvon could have gone home, but he chose not to. That is a fact. Unless you are arguing some mental defect or lost in the simple housing development. We don't know why, but it is extremely unlikely that he was truly fearful of Zimmerman. Why do you think he did not simply go home when the weird dude was following him? It couldn't be that he was a dumbass punk teenager :no:
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16059
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Slack Tide » Wed May 29, 2013 5:44 am

As of yesterday's story on NPR....
Zim's attorney asked for more time to prepare and he was denied. Martin's lawyer was successful in having prior character information (like his truancy and disciplinary records from school, emails about using drugs and web searches regarding guns) declared inadmissible and the trial is set to move forward.
"I've been left for dead before but I'll still fight on, don't wait up, leave the light on, I'll be home soon"
Chris Smither
User avatar
Slack Tide
hunter
 
Posts: 5158
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:06 pm
Location: On the northeast corner of the southwest side

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Thu May 30, 2013 2:30 am

Slack Tide wrote:As of yesterday's story on NPR....
Zim's attorney asked for more time to prepare and he was denied. Martin's lawyer was successful in having prior character information (like his truancy and disciplinary records from school, emails about using drugs and web searches regarding guns) declared inadmissible and the trial is set to move forward.

Those all sound like reasonable decisions to me. Sorry the defense can't attempt to use a "smear campaign" to assign guilt or innocence.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby boney fingers » Thu May 30, 2013 4:40 am

Glimmerjim wrote:Those all sound like reasonable decisions to me. Sorry the defense can't attempt to use a "smear campaign" to assign guilt or innocence.


Then you must be very outraged at the "smear campaign" that is being waged against the white hispanic guy.
boney fingers
hunter
 
Posts: 832
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:30 pm

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Slack Tide » Thu May 30, 2013 5:31 am

Believe me, if this kid had a background of volunteering at the local nursing home and straight A's...they'd want that to be "exhibit one!"

I think that everything speaks of character and character tells a lot, for both of these men.
Blacks in America can't have it both ways....you want to present yourself as a threat, with jailhouse tats, baggy clothes and a hoodie, holding a pitbull on a gang chain....OK..you win....I'm afraid....and I will cross the street when I see you coming.
You know why? Because I don't need the BS....I don't need to respect your BS rights to wear that chit and act like that and risk my own safety....why? Because the last 999 times I saw a guy like you, you were no good....
Now it's our fault that we have developed a stereotype and a generalization...and maybe you were the ONE freakin guy who happpppened to be walking home and you realllllllly meant know harm.....you are right, you are a victim. You are a victim off all the arseholes like you who came before you who paved the way for that image that you subscribed to...
"I've been left for dead before but I'll still fight on, don't wait up, leave the light on, I'll be home soon"
Chris Smither
User avatar
Slack Tide
hunter
 
Posts: 5158
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:06 pm
Location: On the northeast corner of the southwest side

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu May 30, 2013 6:15 am

boney fingers wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:Those all sound like reasonable decisions to me. Sorry the defense can't attempt to use a "smear campaign" to assign guilt or innocence.


Then you must be very outraged at the "smear campaign" that is being waged against the white hispanic guy.

Nope, once the Pres :bow: :bow: :bow: said he looked like a hypothetical son of his, that's it, he was a liberal cause célèbre and Trayvon was sainted and therefore could not have been putting the beat down on Zimmerman as an eye witness originally told the police (don't worry he will fear for his life and his memory will be different).

Trayvon Barack, Jr. would have never punched George Bush Zimmerman in the face. As we know it's always George Bush Zimmerman's fault.

Image

And there is no way he was beating his head against the pavement either

Image

It is just not possible that Trayvon Barack, Jr. did any of that. It had to be the racist George Bush Zimmerman seeing a black man and just gunned him down in the street.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16059
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby ScaupHunter » Thu May 30, 2013 9:57 am

Spinner,

Stop presenting facts that conflict with a liberals point of view. It makes their heads hurt. :lol3:
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6539
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby beretta24 » Thu May 30, 2013 10:03 am

Still don't think Zimmerman is getting railroaded regardless of guilt or innocence??? I'll just put this here...

http://www.market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=221231
Last edited by beretta24 on Thu May 30, 2013 11:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 5717
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby slowshooter » Thu May 30, 2013 10:15 am

Wait a sec. Taken a photo that might not be suitable for kids? Had a photo taken holding a gun? Committed a crime?

None of that should be considered if you are killed by another. Your past actions don't dictate whether your life is less valuable than another.

The person on trial is going to be Zimmerman. Not Martin. If Zimmerman is innocent I have no doubt that the jury will find him so.

Just did my jury duty last month. It's the very best process in the world to determine guilt/innocence and to find justice. I love it.
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests