• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The jewelry found in Trayvons possession. [W:242]

JackFrost said:
Absolutely 1,126% Zimmerman broke the law.
Click to expand...

What law did he break?

Hmmm....God's plan law? He's running law? Hmmmm....****ing punks law?

He's fat law? He's toast law or maybe it's the famous Bush's fault law?
 
ric27 said:
What law did he break?

Hmmm....God's plan law? He's running law? Hmmmm....****ing punks law?

He's fat law? He's toast law or maybe it's the famous Bush's fault law?
Click to expand...

Yes...yes...ric27. List everything else but what the state has charged him with.

So much denial:lamo
 
JackFrost said:
Yes...yes...ric27. List everything else but what the state has charged him with.

So much denial:lamo
Click to expand...

You need a basis for charging a crime

In Z's case....what is it?
 
Buck Ewer said:
Burglary has never been classified as a violent crime and Trayvon has never even been charged with burglary.
Just who here is making a reach with their BS? :roll:
Click to expand...

Now that is about a big a BS as possible. YES Burglary IS considered a violent crime. I should know as I was charged on two counts of it and was fully explained that little detail. And no one was even around except me and my accomplices.
 
ric27 said:
1 Did Z break the law by being *allegedly* a "supercop wannabe Neighborhood Watchsta"?

2 Contributory negligence? Give examples and cite a case to support your argument
Click to expand...
Check with a lawyer. Florida statute 768.1. Did he 'break the law"? Ask a lawyer. Did his actions create the situation? Hell yes and if you cant see that, you just dont want to.
 
JackFrost said:
And like I previously stated.
There was no assault on Zimmerman.
Click to expand...
You are being absurd.
™ attack was an assault.

JackFrost said:
Trayvon Martin's legal actions of walking home from 7/11, confronting Zimmerman first in his vehicle then on foot on why he was being followed by Zimmerman, then punching Zimmerman on his white nose is not assault but self-defense by Trayvon Martin. His actions do not fit the generic definition or the legal definition. And we are discussing what is legal here.
Click to expand...
Besides being hilariously absurd; Your narrative is off (as usual) and does not accurately reflect what occurred that night.
Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, that is the evidence.
 
Excon said:
You are being absurd.
™ attack was an assault.

Besides being hilariously absurd; Your narrative is off (as usual) and does not accurately reflect what occurred that night.
Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, that is the evidence.
Click to expand...

You are being absurd.
Trayvon Martin's "attack" was in self-defense.

Besides being hilariously absurd; Your narrative is off (as usual) and does not accurately reflect what occurred that night.
Zimmerman murdered Martin, that is the evidence.
 
JackFrost said:
You are being absurd.
Trayvon Martin's "attack" was in self-defense.

Besides being hilariously absurd; Your narrative is off (as usual) and does not accurately reflect what occurred that night.
Zimmerman murdered Martin, that is the evidence.
Click to expand...

A few basics

You need evidence that M's attack was in self defense and for you to claim that, M had to be in fear

1 Where's your evidence of M's fear?

2 Where's your evidence that Z was going to attack M (for M to be in fear)?
 
ric27 said:
A few basics

You need evidence that M's attack was in self defense and for you to claim that, M had to be in fear

1 Where's your evidence of M's fear?

2 Where's your evidence that Z was going to attack M (for M to be in fear)?
Click to expand...

A few basics

The evidence is available to anyone who wishes to seek the truth. One must first purge themselves of all bias.

1 Evidence of Martin's fear can be found on the World Wide Web using one of various search engines like google, yahoo, bing, etc

2 Evidence of Zimmerman placing Martin in fear can be found on the World Wide Web using one of various search engines like google, yahoo, bing, etc
 
JackFrost said:
The unlawful killing of a human being.
Click to expand...

The evidence says otherwise.....track, the evidence.

The evidence shows, the force used against Z and Z was reasonably in fear of serious bodily injury or death.
 
JackFrost said:
A few basics

The evidence is available to anyone who wishes to seek the truth. One must first purge themselves of all bias.

1 Evidence of Martin's fear can be found on the World Wide Web using one of various search engines like google, yahoo, bing, etc

2 Evidence of Zimmerman placing Martin in fear can be found on the World Wide Web using one of various search engines like google, yahoo, bing, etc
Click to expand...

Again, you look foolish

You deviate by trying to send me to yahoo, google, etc because, you can't even support your weak argument

Dude, get on another topic *like gardening*

It's better suited for your needs
 
JackFrost said:
You are being absurd.
Trayvon Martin's "attack" was in self-defense.

Besides being hilariously absurd; Your narrative is off (as usual) and does not accurately reflect what occurred that night.
Zimmerman murdered Martin, that is the evidence.
Click to expand...
What a pathetic response.
There exists no evidence that ™ was acting in self defense.
One does not hide and come out of hiding to attack in self-defense.
That is called laying in wait and attacking, and that is illegal.
 
VanceMack said:
Did his actions create the situation? Hell yes and if you cant see that, you just dont want to.
Click to expand...
Wrong!
Zimmerman was headed away from ™. His back was to ™.
™'s action in attacking, created the situation.
If you cant see that, you just dont want to.
 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
Check with a lawyer. Florida statute 768.1. Did he 'break the law"? Ask a lawyer. Did his actions create the situation? Hell yes and if you cant see that, you just dont want to.
Click to expand...

Wrong and confused
 
Excon said:
What a pathetic response.
There exists no evidence that ™ was acting in self defense.
One does not hide and come out of hiding to attack in self-defense.
That is called laying in wait and attacking, and that is illegal.
Click to expand...

There is evidence.
 
ric27 said:
Again, you look foolish

You deviate by trying to send me to yahoo, google, etc because, you can't even support your weak argument

Dude, get on another topic *like gardening*

It's better suited for your needs
Click to expand...

I can post the evidence, but all you will do is deny it without reason...again.

You are not ready for the truth.
 
ric27 said:
The evidence says otherwise.....track, the evidence.

The evidence shows, the force used against Z and Z was reasonably in fear of serious bodily injury or death.
Click to expand...

The evidence shows George Zimmerman unlawfully killed Trayvon Martin.
 
ric27 said:
The evidence says otherwise.....track, the evidence.

The evidence shows, the force used against Z and Z was reasonably in fear of serious bodily injury or death.
Click to expand...

Funny, Zimm never stated that. He stated he shot TM because he thought TM was going for his gun, not once did he ever state he was in fear for his body or life due to the fight.
 
spanky said:
Funny, Zimm never stated that. He stated he shot TM because he thought TM was going for his gun, not once did he ever state he was in fear for his body or life due to the fight.
Click to expand...

Actually it is a 2 prong defense approach....

The primary - the fear of serious bodily harm or death

The ancillary - going for his weapon
 
ric27 said:
I hope you realize that this will not further your cause in any way and will bring nothing in putting Z behind bars

Dude, just go away....You look foolish
Click to expand...

Wait....hold up...you believe this is a court of law and any of us has the power to place George Zimmerman behind bars:confused::confused::confused:

These are forums...:lamo

I have already posted all the evidence. Your ONLY response to them is drivel.
 
ric27 said:
Actually it is a 2 prong defense approach....

The primary - the fear of serious bodily harm or death

The ancillary - going for his weapon
Click to expand...

Well the Def is going to have a hard time putting words into Z's mouth, the pross will knock that down like a whack a mole.

The fact is in all of Z's statements and interviews not once did he claim he shot TM because he was in fear for his life due to the struggle. He stated he shot because he believed TM was going for his gun.

Period.

So a lot of this discussion about Z's injuries to me is academic. The Def will spend a good amount of time on them but each time the Pross will lead the jury back to the fact that not once did Z ever claim he felt his life was in danger over a bloody nose and a few head lacerations. Not once did Z claim that is why he shot.
 
JackFrost said:
Wait....hold up...you believe this is a court of law and any of us has the power to place George Zimmerman behind bars:confused::confused::confused:

These are forums...:lamo

I have already posted all the evidence. Your ONLY response to them is drivel.
Click to expand...

You keep looking foolish and desperate. You have presented no evidence to refute Z's testimony

All you have presented is gossip and slander
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom