• 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.

Defense Requests Audio of Trayvon Martin for the Past 3 years...

justabubba said:
attacking another without provocation = unlawful action

rinse. repeat. no spin required
Click to expand...

This was in response to this comment you made in post #73

Please stop your gibberish. Z did not violate any law by getting out of his car nor did Z violate any law looking to see which direction Z had gone and for an address
Click to expand...

Please stop your weak spin arguments...no wait keep doing it that is all you got bruh:lol:
 
hawke812 said:
This was in response to this comment you made in post #73



Please stop your weak spin arguments...no wait keep doing it that is all you got bruh:lol:
Click to expand...
that's all i need
you have no rebuttal to it
zimmerman had a right to stand/walk around without being assaulted
that is what will set him free
only hope you are here when that decision is made so that i can rub it in
 
justabubba said:
that's all i need
you have no rebuttal to it
zimmerman had a right to stand/walk around without being assaulted
that is what will set him free
only hope you are here when that decision is made so that i can rub it in
Click to expand...

1. I do have a rebuttal to it, but as we were not discussing that particular aspect of the night, I wan not given a chance to reply to that particular spin on your part. See, that is how spin works.

Not granting me a chance to reply to that particular aspect =/= no rebuttal

2. Trayvon Martin had a right to walk home without being assaulted.

3. Yes yes, I will be here win lose or draw. But I highly doubt any verdict short of "guilty" will be the outcome. I could be wrong and they may find him guilty of manslaughter, but that is it. No way Zimmerman will be let off.
 
hawke812 said:
Trayvon Martin had a right to walk home without being assaulted.
Click to expand...
You got that backwards, as it was Zimmerman who was assaulted by Trayvon.
Trayvon had every right to walk home and not assault Zimmerman. He chose wrongly, and in doing so, sacrificed life.

Trayvon had no right to assault Zimmerman.
 
hawke812 said:
2. Trayvon Martin had a right to walk home without being assaulted.
Click to expand...

You keep stumbling over your unsubstantiated claims. It's clearly false and misleading.

You have no evidence that Z was about to assault M....If so, present it

M had to reasonably believe he was about to be assaulted by M. You have nothing to support such belief.

Why do you continue to make up crap?
 
ric27 said:
Please stop your gibberish. Z did not violate any law by getting out of his car nor did Z violate any law looking to see which direction Z had gone and for an address

Don't forget Z CALLED NEN to report M's suspicious attitude.

Now, point blank what evidence do you have to justify M’s physical attack on Z?

I'm talking evidence....EVIDENCE. Lets hear it from you or your co hort
Click to expand...

Are you at all familiar with the reasonable man standard?

Did you watch Knox on the video?
 
sharon said:
Are you at all familiar with the reasonable man standard?

Did you watch Knox on the video?
Click to expand...
:doh

Are you familiar with the law as it is written?
 
Excon said:
:doh

Are you familiar with the law as it is written?
Click to expand...

Ask yourself.. was George behaving the way a reasonable and prudent man would behave under the same circumstances?
 
sharon said:
Ask yourself.. was George behaving the way a reasonable and prudent man would behave under the same circumstances?
Click to expand...
Yes he was.
 
sharon said:
This guy isn't a jailhouse lawyer.

Please listen to him.
Click to expand...
He doesn't add anything new to the conversation.

Zimmerman's actions were reasonable and prudent.
 
sharon said:
Then you would think this woman's actions were reasonable and prudent?
Click to expand...
I do not care about her actions.

This is about Zimmerman.

Stop posting irrelevant bs!
 
hawke812 said:
...for a murderer, yes I completely agree with you.
Click to expand...
Which is the reason your postings lack any credulity.
Let alone integrity.

You go on the record stating one thing, and then turn around a say something like the above,
:doh



Zimmerman's actions in trying to keep an eye on a suspicious person to report his where about to the police (he called) when they arrived, were reasonable and prudent.

Zimmerman's actions in defending himself with deadly force were also reasonable and prudent.
 
Excon said:
Which is the reason your postings lack any credulity.
Let alone integrity.

You go on the record stating one thing, and then turn around a say something like the above,
:doh



Zimmerman's actions in trying to keep an eye on a suspicious person to report his where about to the police (he called) when they arrived, were reasonable and prudent.

Zimmerman's actions in defending himself with deadly force were also reasonable and prudent.
Click to expand...

They would be in your hypothetical situations that never happened.
 
justabubba said:
what about those situations 'never happened'?
Click to expand...

Zimmerman's actions in trying to keep an eye on a suspicious person to report his where about to the police (he called) when they arrived, were reasonable and prudent.

Zimmerman's actions in defending himself with deadly force were also reasonable and prudent.
Click to expand...

What?
 
hawke812 said:
What?
Click to expand...
yes. what evidence do you have to prove these circumstances are unfounded as presented:
Zimmerman's actions in trying to keep an eye on a suspicious person to report his where about to the police (he called) when they arrived, were reasonable and prudent.

Zimmerman's actions in defending himself with deadly force were also reasonable and prudent.
Click to expand...
 
hawke812 said:
What?
Click to expand...

Just to reiterate...Z did not break any law or laws by reporting what he observed as suspicious behavior from M and the test of reasonable fear for SD and SYG in the great state of Florida is -- it's whether a reasonable regular person in that situation would reasonably fear imminent serious bodily injury or death. Its not subjective but objective
 
ric27 said:
Just to reiterate...Z did not break any law or laws by reporting what he observed as suspicious behavior from M
Click to expand...

Yes we know, been over this. Martin did not break any law or laws by walking home or confronting Zimmerman.

What Martin DID do was attempt to diffuse the hostile situation before having to fight for his life, which he lost.

ric27 said:
and the test of reasonable fear for SD and SYG in the great state of Florida is -- it's whether a reasonable regular person in that situation would reasonably fear imminent serious bodily injury or death. Its not subjective but objective
Click to expand...

It is, who said it was not? Where are you going with this?

Zimmerman will be found guilty whether you like it or not.
 
hawke812 said:
Yes we know, been over this. Martin did not break any law or laws by walking home or confronting Zimmerman.

What Martin DID do was attempt to diffuse the hostile situation before having to fight for his life, which he lost.
Click to expand...
Holy ****!
You truly live in La La Land!
Trayvon broke the law the moment he attacked Zimmerman.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom