Justice for Zimmerman

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
hodj_sl said:
Funny I don't remember losing any arguments yet.

So defend his position. How is he right that Zimmerman shouldn't have brought his gun to defend himself that night, and that is why Zimmerman is ultimately responsible for Martin's demise.
Click to expand...
hodj_sl said:
In fact, just to make it clear, what I've been arguing with Tanoomba about was his statement that George Zimmerman was responsible for Martin's death for bringing the gun that night, and whether or not Zimmerman could reasonably have died from the attack.
Click to expand...
Wow, still repeating this shit you made up, are you? I demonstrably never said Zimmerman shouldn't have brought a gun to defend himself, nor did I ever say Zimmerman was responsible for Martin's death (not in this discussion, at least). I did argue that his life wasn't in danger, but that it didn't matter because he was still legally justified in using deadly force, and that if Zimmerman hadn't been carrying a gun they would likely both still be alive today.


hodj_sl said:
Tanoomba retorts with "Smacking someone's head into concrete doesn't constitute an attempt to kill them." Which is retarded. And away we went down his retard rollercoaster until we ended up here.
Click to expand...
It doesn't. Especially not the way Trayvon did it. If I wanna kill you by smashing your head against concrete, you're going to have more than a couple of cuts on the back of your head, brother.
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Mire_sl said:
Asshole...damn weaboo.
Click to expand...
I love you too.
rrr_img_36114.jpg
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Tanoomba_sl said:
I demonstrably never said Zimmerman shouldn't have brought a gun to defend himself, nor did I ever say Zimmerman was responsible for Martin's death
Click to expand...
You said, repeatedly, that Martin banging Zimmerman's head into concrete isn't evidence of intent to kill or injure, and that Martin would still be alive if Zimmerman did not have the gun that night.

Here's one example of you attempting to downplay the blows to Zimmerman's head

Tanoomba_sl said:
Wait a second, I thought we were going by what the evidence could and couldn't prove. I thought that's what made us better than the emotionally blinded "Facebook idiots".

Zimmerman got beat up. He suffered two lacerations (cuts) to the back of the head and a fractured nose. He wasNOTbeat to within an inch of his life. He did not suffer life-threatening injuries, nor anything remotely close. Because he was hit in the head, he was legally justified in believing things COULD have gotten worse and that his life was in danger, but that doesn't in and of itself mean that Martin was going to kill this stranger with his bare hands just for following him around a bit. Martin never killed anybody before, what proof do we have that he would have killed Zimmerman? We have proof he was attacking him, but millions of people get beat up all the time, often much worse than Zimmerman, without ever coming close to being killed. There's ZERO REASON to believe Martin was going to kill Zimmerman that night, and to say otherwise is doing the exact same thing the Facebook people are doing, making judgments based on your "feeling".

Let's not be hypocrites, people.
Click to expand...
It doesn't. Especially not the way Trayvon did it. If I wanna kill you by smashing your head against concrete, you're going to have more than a couple of cuts on the back of your head, brother.
Click to expand...
Not according to Dr DiMiao. Who is a bit more of an expert on this than you. I reference you back to here, 40 minutes in


He directly refutes this claim by you.

Here's another one by you, where you claim that Martin just punching Zimmerman in the face was enough to justify the shooting, which IS legally bullshit as fuck, and IS an actual position you've been arguing.

Tanoomba_sl said:
You're just as bad as the Facebook people.

Zimmerman's actions, at every step, were justified. Let me make that clear.

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.

You're assuming "Martin would have continued beating his head into concrete until someone else stopped him" with zero evidence. That's not even the most likely outcome based on what we know about both people so why is that your conclusion? Martin had been in fights before, and he had never killed anyone before. What possible reason do you have to believe that this time, he was going to keep mercilessly beating Zimmerman until he was sitting on top of a dead man in the middle of a populated neighborhood full of citizens who had easy access to the scene? Come on, don't let your emotions pull you astray here.

I'm not trolling, I'm just turning the mirror on you and showing you that using the facts to support your views works both ways.
Click to expand...
I'll be waiting for you two to cite me a case of me saying, specifically, that the only justification for self defense shooting in Florida is fear of death, not fear of serious bodily injury. Because I have never made that case. You two just need to learn to read better, frankly.
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
hodj_sl said:
You said, repeatedly, that Martin banging Zimmerman's head into concrete isn't evidence of intent to kill or injure, and that Martin would still be alive if Zimmerman did not have the gun that night.

Here's one example of you attempting to downplay the blows to Zimmerman's head
Click to expand...
I said it wasn't evidence of intent to kill. It isn't. Show me one shred of evidence that suggests Martin would have killed Zimmerman that night. No, an expert saying how sensitive the head is and how many different injuries it can hypothetically be inflicted with is not proof that Martin would have killed Zimmerman. At all. I repeat: Zimmerman got a couple of cuts to the back of the head and a fractured nose. He was being beat up by somebody who wanted to beat him up. He didn't know how far it would go, so his fear under the circumstances was justified and he was legally in the right using deadly force to defend himself. None of that proves Martin would have killed him.

The good doctor never claimed Martin was trying to kill Zimmerman, just that Zimmerman could have been killed or gravely injured if he had been hit much harder than he was. Thanks for that, doc.
 
R

redshift_sl

shitlord
50
0
hodj_sl said:
I am a giant bag of cocks
Click to expand...
You know the thing I really love about you?

hodj_sl said:
appeal to authority fallacy.
Click to expand...
hodj_sl said:
association fallacy.
Click to expand...
You were on the high school debate team, weren't you?

The best part about your fancy fallacy fanaticism has to be "A fallacy, by the way, means you've failed to support your conclusion with proper evidence. It means you're wrong." This is so incorrect it's humorous. I'll blow your mind on this one, you know you can have a logical fallacy without a conclusion?! Holy shit! Back to the kids table, son.
 
khalid

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
Tanoomba_sl said:
It doesn't. Especially not the way Trayvon did it. If I wanna kill you by smashing your head against concrete, you're going to have more than a couple of cuts on the back of your head, brother.
Click to expand...
It really is immaterial whether he wanted to kill GZ or not. Maybe he just wanted to teach him a lesson, or maybe kill him. Either way, the actions certainly could have led to a death if they had continued on. They didn't though, because Zimmerman happened to have a gun on him.
 
fanaskin

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
55,854
137,953
you can't predict the fucking future tanoomba why can't you get this concept, there is SOME chance of death and SOME chance of life, what changes are the %'s, but you can't say you know with emphatic fact you know what the outcome would be, it's a fucking dice roll, sometimes you roll snakes eyes.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Tanoomba_sl said:
I said it wasn't evidence of intent to kill. It isn't.
Click to expand...
Wrong.

Its evidence of intent to do enough bodily injury that death becomes a possibility.

Troll harder. You can't double back down on retarded now.

No, an expert saying how sensitive the head is and how many different injuries it can hypothetically be inflicted with is not proof that Martin would have killed Zimmerman.
Click to expand...
Yes, actually, it really is. Especially when its a forensics specialist who has dealt with more cases in 40 years than you can even imagine, is one of the foremost professionals in his field of work, and is demonstrably correct in what he's saying.

The good doctor never claimed Martin was trying to kill Zimmerman, just that Zimmerman could have been killed or gravely injured if he had been hit much harder than he was.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. The point is that if you're bashing someone's head into concrete, you have a reasonable expectation that serious bodily injury, up to and including death, can occur.

You've been wrong this entire time, and you and redshift need to put up some fucking quotes and evidence and facts or shut up.
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
hodj_sl said:
I'll be waiting for you two to cite me a case of me saying, specifically, that the only justification for self defense shooting in Florida is fear of death, not fear of serious bodily injury. Because I have never made that case. You two just need to learn to read better, frankly.
Click to expand...
That's Redshift's claim, not mine. My issue is with your certainty that Martin would have killed Zimmerman, despite the fact that there is no evidence of that.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
redshift_sl said:
You know the thing I really love about you?




You were on the high school debate team, weren't you?

The best part about your fancy fallacy fanaticism has to be "A fallacy, by the way, means you've failed to support your conclusion with proper evidence. It means you're wrong." This is so incorrect it's humorous. I'll blow your mind on this one, you know you can have a logical fallacy without a conclusion?! Holy shit! Back to the kids table, son.
Click to expand...
Funny. You know what I notice in this post?

A complete inability on your part to support your retarded strawman argument which I just ass fucked without lubrication.

I mean you've had plenty of time to provide it, after all.

Put up or shut up, kiddo.


Tanoomba_sl said:
That's Redshift's claim, not mine. My issue is with your certainty that Martin would have killed Zimmerman, despite the fact that there is no evidence of that.
Click to expand...
Your issue is with a strawman argument because my position has nothing to do with certainty Martin would kill Zimmerman in the first place. You're still incapable of reading what has been written directly to you. This is why you are a troll.
 
Vandyn

Vandyn

Blackwing Lair Raider
3,656
1,381
Tanoomba_sl said:
That's Redshift's claim, not mine. My issue is with your certainty that Martin would have killed Zimmerman, despite the fact that there is no evidence of that.
Click to expand...
This is a dumb ass debate. The point is it doesn't matter what you, me or the tooth fairy think if Martin would of killed Zimmerman, it's what George Zimmerman thought.
 
R

redshift_sl

shitlord
50
0
hodj_sl said:
Wrong.

Its evidence of intent to do enough bodily injury that death becomes a possibility.

Troll harder. You can't double back down on retarded now.



Yes, actually, it really is. Especially when its a forensics specialist who has dealt with more cases in 40 years than you can even imagine, is one of the foremost professionals in his field of work, and is demonstrably correct in what he's saying.



Irrelevant. The point is that if you're bashing someone's head into concrete, you have a reasonable expectation that serious bodily injury, up to and including death, can occur.

You've been wrong this entire time, and you and redshift need to put up some fucking quotes and evidence and facts or shut up.
Click to expand...
I'll explain it like you're five.

You're arguing against a phantom position. Your arguments are positioned to defend the idea that Zimmerman was not justified in use of deadly force, and your position has not been under attack. I'll only speak for myself and Tanoomba, since I'm sure there's an idiot somewhere along the way that claimed that. You are dumb because you're arguing with Tanoomba about a question of law and a question of fact that you both agree on. You hold the position that Zimmerman was justified, as a question of fact, in using deadly force because he feared great bodily harm and/or death. Tanoomba holds the same view, minus perhaps the view that his death was imminent. His view that death was not imminent is immaterial in arriving at the same conclusion of fact in relation to the existing self-defense law. You hold the position that, as a question of law, the statute was correctly applied. Tanoomba holds the same position.

Yet you continue to argue. The only remaining explanation for this is that you hold that Tanoomba's findings on the question of facts differ materially enough from yours that the application of the law would be again, materially different.

That or you're retarded.

lol
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
If I get drunk and get behind the wheel of my car and go out on the big major road that circles our town driving the opposite way down the road at 90 miles an hour because I'm so wasted I don't know what the fuck is going on, I didn't intend to kill anyone.

But that family filled minivan on their way home from church or Easter vacation or their grandmother's house died anyway, and I will be found culpable of engaging in an activity which I should have known had a high probablity of leading to someone's demise.

Somehow Tanoomba thinks in this situation, right here, that because "intent" wasn't in play, I shouldn't get charged with 2nd degree murder.

But I will be.

And I"ll go to prison for it, too.

Triangular_sl said:
is redshift retarded like tanoomba

or is tanoomba retarded like redshift

same shit.
Click to expand...
More evidence they're the same person.

redshift_sl said:
I'll explain it like you're five.

You're arguing against a phantom position.
Click to expand...
No, I've pretty well shown that's all you and Tanoomba have been doing this entire thread, actually.

I'm still waiting for that magic citation I asked for.

Tanoomba does not hold the same position. Tanoomba has held 30 different positions as he sees fit throughout this thread. Are you incapable of reading this thread?

How far down the retard rabbit hole do you want to leap here?
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
fanaskin_sl said:
you can't predict the fucking future tanoomba why can't you get this concept, there is SOME chance of death and SOME chance of life, what changes are the %'s, but you can't say you know with emphatic fact you know what the outcome would be, it's a fucking dice roll, sometimes you roll snakes eyes.
Click to expand...
When did I say I know with emphatic fact (whatever that means) what the outcome would be? I'm just going by the evidence. Despite a 40-second+ beating Zimmerman was taking while he cried for help, he ended up with (say it with me) a couple of cuts on the back of his head and a fractured nose. He wasn't dizzy, he hadn't suffered a fractured skull or a concussion, there was no brain damage, he didn't get knocked unconscious,he didn't even want to go to a hospital. Sure, there's a chance Martin would have killed him, but it's foolish to assume that would have been the case when all the evidence shows he was just beating him up. He had been in fights before and had never killed anyone before, nor did he have any motive to kill Zimmerman, especially in full view of several households. Assuming the gun saved Zimmerman's life is foolish, particularly if you pride yourself on basing your assumptions on facts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.