Justice for Zimmerman

Status
Not open for further replies.
Foggy

Foggy

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
6,240
4,812
Tanoomba_sl said:
Hypothetically, let's say Martin just punched Zimmerman in the face and had never straddled him or hit his head against concrete. From a legal standpoint, Zimmerman would have been justified shooting and killing Martin as a response to that action alone. His head having been attacked, he could have justifiably shot Martin to prevent things from getting worse and possibly being killed. This is the consensus this thread came to when were discussing attacks to the head, right? And yet, had that been the case, we likely wouldn't be assuming Martin was planning to kill Zimmerman.
Click to expand...
Fuck you are dumb. Getting punched in the face doesn't give you the right to respond with lethal force. It was being pinned to the ground, helpless, and having his head slammed into concrete that gave him the right to respond with lethal force.
 
Kuriin

Kuriin

Just a Nurse
4,046
1,020
hodj_sl said:
So what you're saying is you don't know anything about the black woman case?

She left the house, got her gun, walked back into the house, and fired the gun.

That's called premeditation, if she had shot the man, she would have been given premeditated murder.

Once she left the house, her responsibility was to run away and call for help, not get a gun and go back in. There's a lot more to that story as well, but I don't really give a shit. Stop citing evidence you don't even understand as proof that your emotions were right, when they've been demonstrably disproven.

Self Defense is exonerating for both Manslaughter and Murder 2.

added: Also firing a warning shot is proof you don't fear for your life. If you fear for your life, you shoot to kill. Period.
Click to expand...
Hodj, if you want to discuss about "leaving the house, got her gun, and walked back into the house," then we can easily just say, "Zimmerman followed Trayvon even when told not to."

You're right on the warning shot. I'll just do this:

http://news.yahoo.com/video/raul-rod...041100712.html


Just saying everyone is guilty. I knew second degree murder would never happen. I was expecting a manslaughter charge.


edit: Tanoomba, I don't know what medical classes you've taken, but, suffering blows to the head can kill you. Or in the least leave you severely handicapped.

edit: no need to get hostile, btw, hodj. Lol.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Kuriin_sl said:
Hodj, if you want to discuss about "leaving the house, got her gun, and walked back into the house," then we can easily just say, "Zimmerman followed Trayvon even when told not to."
Click to expand...
No, we can't, and we've already been over the many reasons why not in this thread multiple times. This is my problem with you, Tanoomba, et al. Your argument is "Well he's not guilty, but he's really guilty."

Wrong.

1. 911 dispatch are not police and have no authority to give you commands
2. He was well within his legal right to follow Martin, but he didn't do that either. Go see the timeline that's been posted MANY MANY TIMES in this thread, by me, which was proven ACCURATE AND PRECISE by the testimony in the trial, for proof of how you continue to demonstrate youdon't actually understand shit all about what happened
3. The person he was on the phone with wasn't even 911 anyway, it was non emergency dispatch.

There are other reasons why you're wrong but your tit for tat bullshit isn't an argument, its just a demonstration that, again, you don't know what you're talking about.

And no, "leaving your house, getting a gun, then walking back in" is not, by any legal definition, remotely the same as "following someone suspicious in your neighborhood at a distance, stopping following them and standing in one place for the police to arrive, and then getting jumped by the person you were following and assaulted" Not even close. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. So stop.
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Foggy_sl said:
Fuck you are dumb. Getting punched in the face doesn't give you the right to respond with lethal force. It was being pinned to the ground, helpless, and having his head slammed into concrete that gave him the right to respond with lethal force.
Click to expand...
Actually, you're wrong. As has been pointed out in this very thread (not by me), any attack to the head could be considered a "potential" threat to your life. Just by getting punched you could get a concussion or brain injury or become paralyzed or killed. It might not be likely but the fact that it could happen is enough for you to legally consider your life in danger and respond with deadly force.


BoldW_sl said:
What about someone saying "You're going to die tonight motherfucker" AS they're beating your head into the ground?
Click to expand...
According to Zimmerman, Martin said thatafterhe saw (and subsequently grabbed for) the gun. Besides that, we have no proof Martin ever said any such thing. We're all about the proof here, remember?
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Brahma_sl said:
Because He is an adult with a gun that approached a 17 year old kid/man that was doing nothing illegal.
Click to expand...
Wrong, and wrong. Zimmerman did not approach Martin, he followed him for a distance of about 20 yards, then stopped when requested, then Martin returned after walking over 100 yards away to his father's house, and assaulted Zimmerman.

Martin was in the wrong. Here again, for all you late coming uninformed dipshits. This time line was proven correct during the trial by the testimony as given. Continue to deal with facts, instead of your emotions.

rrr_img_35988.jpg
 
Himeo

Himeo

Vyemm Raider
3,263
2,802
Now that Zimmerman is getting his gun back, and the gun has taken a life, what do you think he'll name it?
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Kuriin_sl said:
edit: no need to get hostile, btw, hodj. Lol.
Click to expand...
There is every reason to get hostile because you and the others like you are retreading disproven horseshit nonsense we've covered literally on every single page of this thread.

Read the thread, stop trying to regurgitate the same, proven fallacious, debate over and over ad naseum until you convince yourselves you're right because you say so.

Tanoomba_sl said:
I'm not lying, and nothing that I'm saying has been proven wrong.
Click to expand...
Well thats demonstrably disproven by simply reading the thread. Everything you've said, about blows to the head, Zimmerman's guilt, the entire course of events how they occurred, you've been proven wrong more times than Numbers in this thread. You must be a masochist.
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
hodj_sl said:
No, we can't, and we've already been over the many reasons why not in this thread multiple times. This is my problem with you, Tanoomba, et al. Your argument is "Well he's not guilty, but he's really guilty."
Click to expand...
See, this is where you show your hand. You're just looking for somebody to argue with regardless of what they're saying. I'm not saying Zimmerman is guilty, or even responsible, for what happened. Like I said SEVERAL TIMES, Zimmerman's actions were legally justified at every step of the way.

What I am saying is that it's foolish to assume Martin would have killed Zimmerman if Zimmerman hadn't shot him. There's zero proof of that, and it's not even the most likely scenario given the proof we do have. There is also nothing to be gained by insisting that Martin would have killed Zimmerman, so I don't know why you're getting so fucking defensive about this. Relax, man. let the proof speak for itself, it doesn't need you to make hypothetical baseless assumptions.
 
fanaskin

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
55,854
137,953
And that doesn't mean you know what would have happened if he didn't stop the beating he was receiving with a gunshot, you just don't know is the entire point. When you can predict the future with 100% accuracy then you can say what you're saying but you can't, you're applying hindsight. you're the one applying hypothetical assumptions. i'm not insisting anything I'm just saying he could have been killed to illustrate my baseless accusation holds as much water as you're baseless accusation does.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Tanoomba_sl said:
See, this is where you show your hand. You're just looking for somebody to argue with regardless of what they're saying. I
Click to expand...
No, but you are projecting now, because you need to argue these points that you've already been proven wrong on time and time and time again.

All I'm doing is telling you you won't get away with it without someone telling you point blank why you're wrong.

It is not foolish to assume that repeated blows of a head against a concrete sidewalk can result in serious bodily harm or death. Your entire argument is so fallacious its clear that you're the one who needs to constantly argue with people about this shit, because if you didn't, you'd shut the fuck up because you know you're wrong.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
I think he should name his guns Fear and Hate like he has tattooed on his knuckles in the up coming made for TV movie starring Jaden Smith as Trayvon Martin and Luis Guizman as Jorge Zimmerman.
 
Abefroman

Abefroman

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
12,587
11,901
Brahma_sl said:
Easy. Because He is an adult with a gun that approached a 17 year old kid/man that was doing nothing illegal. There were SO many options he had prior to killing Trayvon. Him as the adult should have should have seen this, especially if you want to be in a neighborhood watch.

I don't think it was murder. I DO think it was a version of manslaughter though. Someone died because of his bad decision making and actions leading up to the shooting.
Click to expand...
The ultimate bad decision was made by TM. If he was scared he should have ran home. He chose not to do this and actually went looking for Z. TM also made the decision to attack Z. Everything up to that point would have meant nothing if he just went home or actually talked to Z instead of attacking him.

Everything you said that Z did is considered legal and are basically wanting to convict him for doing things that everyone is legally allowed to do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.