Its implicit every single time you say "There's no way Martin was INTENDING TO KILL Zimmerman when he was bashing his head into a concrete sidewalk. Derp"
That group of jurors apparently disagreed.
You managed to not address a single point I made. Thanks for conceding the victory.
Once again, completely immaterial as a question of fact in relation to the application of Florida's self defense law. Why do you persist with this when it has utterly no meaning on the application of the law in the case at hand? The only finding of fact that matters is whether there was the threat of great bodily harm, which you both agree there was, yet you still try and argue about this.
Tanoomba, I am sure you have already watched this, but I just rewatched from 40 minutes in to 60 minutes in and I just don't see how watching this testimony doesn't essentially settle the point about whether his life was at risk.
your basing evidence in a universe where there is a gun involved, if no gun was involved you have to go about imaging all the differences in the way the scenario went down, and some of those scenarios end with the death of Zimmerman, you cannot say emphatically you know exactly how the fight would have evolved or how it would have ended. You can't really use the intent argument either because there are plenty of fights that ended in the other party dying when murder wasn't the original intent, ie roid rage, or altered states sometimes occurred in habitual drug addicts. You can have all the opinions you want in the world, opinions are fine, opinions are great but you can't claim to be Nostradamus that's a no no.
Burden shifting fallacy. You have yet to support your conclusions and I have clearly already addressed your points two pages back in this post
(Majority of post redacted for size)
Enjoy your complete butt devastation though.
Jesus man, you are starting to come across like some dude that hasn't seen daylight in 2 years because he's too busy 'slaying nerds on the internet'. I think everyone knows your a pretty smart guy at this point, you don't really need to high five yourself in every god damn post.
What's the matter with you, man? Intent to kill is not the same as intent to beat someone up, even if theoretically beating them up much harder than you are could result in their death. Yes, you could theoretically beat someone up until you accidentally kill them, but since Zimmerman only had a couple of cuts and a fractured nose, it's pretty safe to say Martin was nowhere near crossing that line yet. Assuming he would have without any evidence is foolish.
Absolutely. But,AGAIN, he said nothing about Martin planning to beat Zimmerman to death.
Yeah, I'm not arguing this. I never did. As the person being beat up, you have a reasonable expectation that you could suffer serious bodily injury up to and including death. That in and of itself is not proof that the person beating you up will cause you serious bodily injury or kill you. It doesn't have to be, I get it, but it really isn't.
Still arguing a point a never made.
I merely feel I'm defending myself against untrue charges.
How about you take a voluntary 30 day ban if a mod verifies I'm not Tanoomba? Put your money where your mouth is.
1. Statutory law, not case law, but you knew that, right?
Would you please just lock this thread and throw it down the well? It's done. There's nothing new to talk about. It's time to move on.
Ok, I'm back on the lurking bandwagon, but would you mind terribly verifying as best you can that Tanoomba and I are, in fact, different people?
I don't know how to make this easier for you to understand.
