Page 26 of 36 FirstFirst ... 16222324252627282930 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 312 of 432
  1. #301

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial



    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    To prove a point. And a secondary point, that I knew you wouldn't answer the question.

    Because answering that question you would have said that you would have done the exact same thing he did. And by your response as to not knowing whose voice it was or who was on top, it's clear you didn't watch the trial.
    Your point is that I wouldn't answer the question? That's a personal point about me that has nothing to do with GZ or the case. So ... bravo?

    I am well aware of the tension that surrounded whose voice it was. That TM's father said it wasn't TM at first then changed his mind. Different experts said who it was or wasn't.

    I didn't answer your question not because of what my answer may have been. I didn't answer it because it is petty. You are bursting for the chance to point and dance if I say, "I would have done x if y happened," when there is no proof that y happened.
    Thoughts on Ray Rice: http://brafootball.wordpress.com/




  2. #302

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    And you just broke the law and justified that person responding with deadly force.
    There certainly are a lot of unjust laws.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
    Although Walsh's system of offense can compensate for lack of talent; however, defense is a different story. According to Walsh, talent on defense was essential and could not be compensated for. What did Walsh do in 1981? He acquired physical and talented players on defense.




  3. #303

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    Quote Originally Posted by Dade View Post
    But that is your opinion...based off conjecture to decide if a man is guilty or not. And then be 100% confident about it. Sounds like flawed logic to me. There are dozens of reasons as why Martin didn't go home...all equally plausible.
    Again, it is not my opinion that Martin waited around. It is fact. It is my opinion as to why. And the only reason I am providing that opinion is to rebut the argument that the confrontation was unavoidable for Martin.

    It seems to me you keep reverting to a line of reasoning that implies I need to prove something, anything. But you need to prove something.

    One of the ways you are trying to prove Zimmerman's guilt is by arguing he initiated an unwelcome and unavoidable confrontation with Martin. Besides there being no evidence that this is the case, there is evidence to show it was not unavoidable. And if it was avoidable but not avoided, then one can reasonably argue that there was no effort to avoid it. If one concludes there was no effort to avoid it, then it is a very short leap to it was wanted/welcome. (if you can choose whether to let XYZ happen or not, and you choose to let it happen, have you not chosen/welcomed XYZ?)

    There are not dozens of equally-probable reasons why he waited right around the corner for 4 minutes, that is exactly the point. Let's list them. Each and every one, other than he wanted the confrontation have serious flaws or counter-arguments.
    Last edited by Haloti92; 07-14-2013 at 12:05 AM.




  4. #304
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,317

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    Quote Originally Posted by akashicrecorder View Post
    Your point is that I wouldn't answer the question? That's a personal point about me that has nothing to do with GZ or the case. So ... bravo?

    I am well aware of the tension that surrounded whose voice it was. That TM's father said it wasn't TM at first then changed his mind. Different experts said who it was or wasn't.

    I didn't answer your question not because of what my answer may have been. I didn't answer it because it is petty. You are bursting for the chance to point and dance if I say, "I would have done x if y happened," when there is no proof that y happened.
    I'm not bursting at the chance. I am proving a point that you are judging someone for what you would have done if you were in what was most likely the same scenario.

    A little hypocritical no?

    You also said, we have no way of knowing who was on top, that was basically proven to be a fact that it was Martin.
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  5. #305
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,317

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    Quote Originally Posted by Raveninwoodlawn View Post
    There certainly are a lot of unjust laws.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
    Help me out here. You think it's unjust to respond with deadly force if you attack someone. But it's okay to hit someone just because they're following you in a place you both have a right to be.
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  6. #306

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    I'm not bursting at the chance. I am proving a point that you are judging someone for what you would have done if you were in what was most likely the same scenario.
    If Situation Y happened to Zimmerman and Situation Y happened to me and Situation Y is I'm totally helpless and feel my life is in danger but I also have a gun, then it's possible if not probable that I would use the gun.

    What you are not getting is why it doesn't matter if I say that. You do not win any points or prove an argument, because no one has established that Zimmerman was in Situation Y.

    We may not always agree but perhaps, hopefully, you think I'm decently fair and not entirely stupid when I need to be. Don't you think if I honestly felt that a more innocent-than-guilty man thought his life were in danger and also happened to have a gun, why I could see it being OK if he used it and his more-guilty-than-innocent attacker ended up dying? This is Situation Y, which you are painting to have happened. Now you see my reluctance to answer, because this situation was not established to have happened or even to have been likely.

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    You also said, we have no way of knowing who was on top, that was basically proven to be a fact that it was Martin.
    If I'm wrong I'm wrong, but as of a few hours ago I was hearing reports that this was not a huge factor in the decision because both prosecution and defense agreed it was hard to establish this.
    Thoughts on Ray Rice: http://brafootball.wordpress.com/




  7. #307

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    Quote Originally Posted by Raveninwoodlawn View Post
    There certainly are a lot of unjust laws.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
    And the law against physically assaulting someone who is not breaking any laws is not one of them.

    It was the physical assault that started the tragic 'incident'. Before that moment, the odds anyone ends up dead were 0%.




  8. #308

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    Help me out here. You think it's unjust to respond with deadly force if you attack someone. But it's okay to hit someone just because they're following you in a place you both have a right to be.
    Let me give you a real story then throw in a hypothetical.

    A friend mine was staying at my apartment overnight when I was in college, I had to go to work early in the morning before she had to get up to go to class s I told her when you leave, just lock the bottom lock to the front door.

    So she leaves and walks to her car in the morning...when she gets to the car, she realizes that she forgot to lock my front door. Right as she turns around to go back to my apartment, a strange man starts walking towards her and asks if he can use her phone. She says no, but the guy just starts walking quickly towards her as she walks back to the entrance to my unit. She picks up the pace, he starts to run after her. She runs into the building with him running right behind her. She barely...barely is able to run up the steps and make it to and open my door and run in and gets the door shut right as he got there.

    She calls me and calls the police...and of course I get the , well, he didn't at actually commit a crime stuff so there is nothing we can do. Now we all know what was about to go down if he got ahold of her. But you know, it's not a crime to chase someone with his intentions fully known.

    Now, hypothetically, now, if she were to brake out the mace, brass knuckles, whatever out of her purse and hit him...or if a neighbor happened to open his door and slug the guy, no I don't feel as though the neighbor or my friend should be the ones that committed the crime and opened the door for someone to use deadly force as you say. Technically, everyone has a right to be in that parking lot as well. Doesn't make it right.




    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
    Although Walsh's system of offense can compensate for lack of talent; however, defense is a different story. According to Walsh, talent on defense was essential and could not be compensated for. What did Walsh do in 1981? He acquired physical and talented players on defense.




  9. #309
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,317

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    Quote Originally Posted by akashicrecorder View Post
    If Situation Y happened to Zimmerman and Situation Y happened to me and Situation Y is I'm totally helpless and feel my life is in danger but I also have a gun, then it possible if not probable that I would use the gun.
    I'm just going to move on here. You get the pint I was trying to make even if you disagree with how I was trying to make it.

    Quote Originally Posted by akashicrecorder View Post
    If I'm wrong I'm wrong, but as of a few hours ago I was hearing reports that this was not a huge factor in the decision because both prosecution and defense agreed it was hard to establish this.
    I'm over the petty bickering so when I say I' not trying to be an ass here, I mean it. That report is not even close. IT was a major point for the defense and they went to great lengths to all but prove it. Because it established Martin as the aggressor and that Zimmeran was in a very bad position to which he felt he had no choice but to pull the trigger to avoid further harm or death.

    IT was the lone eye-witness that came out and said "STOP, I'm going to call police" who said he saw a man with a red jacket (Zimmerman had the red jacket) on the bottom. He also said that he thought the screams for help were coming from the bottom (which only makes sense) but it was too dark to see.
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  10. #310
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Stuttgart, Germany
    Posts
    7,187

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    Quote Originally Posted by Haloti92 View Post
    Again, it is not my opinion that Martin waited around. It is fact. It is my opinion as to why. And the only reason I am providing that opinion is to rebut the argument that the confrontation was unavoidable for Martin.

    It seems to me you keep reverting to a line of reasoning that implies I need to prove something, anything. But you need to prove something.

    One of the ways you are trying to prove Zimmerman's guilt is by arguing he initiated an unwelcome and unavoidable confrontation with Martin. Besides there being no evidence that this is the case, there is evidence to show it was not unavoidable. And if it was avoidable but not avoided, then one can reasonably argue that there was no effort to avoid it. If one concludes there was no effort to avoid it, then it is a very short leap to it was wanted/welcome. (if you can choose whether to let XYZ happen or not, and you choose to let it happen, have you not chosen/welcomed XYZ?)

    There are not dozens of equally-probable reasons why he waited right around the corner for 4 minutes, that is exactly the point. Let's list them. Each and every one, other than he wanted the confrontation have serious flaws or counter-arguments.
    I have said several times I don't know who started confrontation/fight. I'm not basing my opinion on Zimmerman on that one event, let alone trying to prove his guilt or innocence which you said you are. You are siding with Zimmerman because you believe Martin wanted and started a confrontation, when there is no evidence to support that. It is simply you opinion not fact.

    Yes you need to prove that Martin wanted a confrontation. That is your belief. I don't believe Zimmerman is guilty because he initiated an unavoidable situation. I have never said that. All I have ever said from the beginning is that there isn't enough evidence to support a conviction. You are the one claiming to know the intentions of the victim...therefore you should provide evidence to support your claim. But there is none...only your opinion on the most plausible explanation.
    "I got this." - Justin Tucker




  11. #311
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,317

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    Quote Originally Posted by Raveninwoodlawn View Post
    Let me give you a real story then throw in a hypothetical.

    A friend mine was staying at my apartment overnight when I was in college, I had to go to work early in the morning before she had to get up to go to class s I told her when you leave, just lock the bottom lock to the front door.

    So she leaves and walks to her car in the morning...when she gets to the car, she realizes that she forgot to lock my front door. Right as she turns around to go back to my apartment, a strange man starts walking towards her and asks if he can use her phone. She says no, but the guy just starts walking quickly towards her as she walks back to the entrance to my unit. She picks up the pace, he starts to run after her. She runs into the building with him running right behind her. She barely...barely is able to run up the steps and make it to and open my door and run in and gets the door shut right as he got there.

    She calls me and calls the police...and of course I get the , well, he didn't at actually commit a crime stuff so there is nothing we can do. Now we all know what was about to go down if he got ahold of her. But you know, it's not a crime to chase someone with his intentions fully known.

    Now, hypothetically, now, if she were to brake out the mace, brass knuckles, whatever out of her purse and hit him...or if a neighbor happened to open his door and slug the guy, no I don't feel as though the neighbor or my friend should be the ones that committed the crime and opened the door for someone to use deadly force as you say. Technically, everyone has a right to be in that parking lot as well. Doesn't make it right.




    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
    Well under that scenario she would have been justified because she had a reasonable fear. Much like Zimmerman.
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  12. #312
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Stuttgart, Germany
    Posts
    7,187

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    Well under that scenario she would have been justified because she had a reasonable fear. Much like Zimmerman.
    Couldn't that also work for Martin. An unknown individual at night is following him to his house. He could have been feeling as much if not more fear than Raveninwoodlawn's friend.
    "I got this." - Justin Tucker




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland