• 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.

George Zimmerman in custody

Status
Not open for further replies.
What if...? said:
For accuracy, I think it was Simon who looked up the weather. It was raining ittermittently and didn't rain much the entire day.

Pretty sure some of the accounts have a shower beginning during the whole thing, but not recalling referrents so I can't check. But I did see the showers/little rainfall stuff that was posted.
Click to expand...
We only have hourly totals.

I suspect that in FL in February that could mean a downpour for 3 minutes [not necessarily consecutive], drizzle for 18 minutes [not necessarily consecutive], and overcast skies for the remainder of the hour.

So there wasn't much rain for the whole day nor very much rain for the relevant hour.

But that doesn't cover any particular minute.

Any particular minute in question could have been most any sort of rainy-ish weather.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
no, I believe you are a liar....as you have once again lied about my beliefs.
Click to expand...

No, he's accurate. One simply has to read your posts to know that anyone who doesn't agree with you, you call a liar. It's your defining quality...
 
Ockham said:
No, he's accurate. One simply has to read your posts to know that anyone who doesn't agree with you, you call a liar. It's your defining quality...
Click to expand...

ok, so now we have two folks who are 100% dishonest about my comments.

can we get a third?
 
Thunder said:
ok, so now we have two folks who are 100% dishonest about my comments.

can we get a third?
Click to expand...

No no... according to you everyone is dishonest and a liar.
 
Ockham said:
No no... according to you everyone is dishonest and a liar.
Click to expand...

that's pretty ironic, as that is of course a lie.

many folks in this forum disagree with me, and I never accuse them of lying or being a liar.

maybe 4-5 folks do I ever accuse of lying....or being a liar.
 
Thunder said:
ok, so now we have two folks who are 100% dishonest about my comments.

can we get a third?
Click to expand...


we can probably get at least 25-30. the evidence is mounting against you. there have been at least 4 posters that you have accused of being a liar in this thread today.
 
Ockham said:
No, he's accurate. One simply has to read your posts to know that anyone who doesn't agree with you, you call a liar. It's your defining quality...
Click to expand...

bazinga. spot on old chap
 
Thunder said:
what does Martin's internet history have to do with this case?

;)
Click to expand...

it goes to his character and how he might have possibly over-reacted to the situation and attacked zimmerman over being asked a question. but I expect you to neither understand nor admit that
 
OscarB63 said:
it goes to his character and how he might have possibly over-reacted to the situation and attacked zimmerman over being asked a question. but I expect you to neither understand nor admit that
Click to expand...

as does the fact that Zimmerman was refused by the police academy, was arrested for attacking a cop, had a restraining order & against him.

yep, Zimmerman's character isn't exactly squeeky clean.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Sounds like you are in complete agreement with the prosecution that Zimmerman was profiling Trayvon.
Click to expand...

yes, because martin fit the profile of criminals who were known to have been in the area. cops profile people all the time. WTF do you think BOLOs are all about?

be on the look out for a green chevy impala. If I see a green chevy impala I am going to profile that vehicle.

young black males were known to have committed robberies in the area. it is not unreasonable for zimmerman to profile a young black male who he did not recognize as a resident of the area

it's not rocket science
 
Thunder said:
as does the fact that Zimmerman was refused by the police academy, was arrested for attacking a cop, had a restraining order & against him.

yep, Zimmerman's character isn't exactly squeeky clean.
Click to expand...


who has said it was? you are tilting against windmills. what I have said is that if you consider the past of one man, you have to consider the past of both.
 
Thunder said:
your fantasies about me are flattering....but pathetic.
Click to expand...

start a poll and see the results.

do I need to start naming names? within the last two-three hours you have called 4 people liars for disagreeing with you.
 
Thunder said:
wow, you really think this thread is about me.

what is your problem?
Click to expand...

your constant baseless accusations of lying have derailed this thread.

FWIW: a quick search turned up 113 threads within the last 30 days where you have accused someone of lying. you are to calling people "liar" as george zimmerman is to calling 911 :lamo
 
OscarB63 said:
your constant baseless accusations of lying have derailed this thread.

FWIW: a quick search turned up 113 threads within the last 30 days where you have accused someone of lying. you are to calling people "liar" as george zimmerman is to calling 911 :lamo
Click to expand...

wow, you really think this thread is about me.

what is your problem?
 
Thunder said:
wow, you really think this thread is about me.

what is your problem?
Click to expand...

if you'd like, I can start a new thread about your baseless accusations of lying. 113 threads in 30 days. that has got to be some kind of record
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
My goodness, but you are dense.
Click to expand...
Oh my, you're clueless.
Oh my, my, you very much are.



Sheik Yerbuti said:
We're not talking about what a witness claims to see but about what a witness claims they didn't see. A witness saying they did not see Zimmerman's head hit concrete is not evidence that Zimmerman's head did not hit concrete. All that would be would be evidence they didn't see it. Again, for the reading impaired ... absence of evidence is not evidence.

And again, there is no witness known to the public that witness the fight in its entirety. You're blowing smoke out of your ass as usual and accomplishing nothing more than making a mess of yourself.
Click to expand...
lol
I fully understand what you are saying. It is just that you do not know what you are talking about in this regard.

Oh, I am sure you think you know, but the reality is, you do not.

What a eye witness says is evidence. Whether you like it or not.
"evidence that indicates"
[what an eye witness indicates]
Even what Zimmerman has stated could indicate such. Simply because of the way he described what happened at different times.


Tell you what. Just go and look up the rules of evidence for Florida and point out what you say as true.
That should settle it right?
Here are the links to Chapters 90 - 92






muciti said:
Translation: I am trolling you and my opinion will change from minute to minute so that I can keep you engaged.
Click to expand...

Repeated for accuracy.




What if...? said:
For accuracy, I think it was Simon who looked up the weather. It was raining ittermittently and didn't rain much the entire day.

Pretty sure some of the accounts have a shower beginning during the whole thing, but not recalling referrents so I can't check. But I did see the showers/little rainfall stuff that was posted.
Click to expand...
Look to the boys account. The boy who was walking his dog.
It had already stopped raining.
 
OscarB63 said:
if you'd like, I can start a new thread about your baseless accusations of lying. 113 threads in 30 days. that has got to be some kind of record
Click to expand...

do what you gotta do, buddy.

and btw, I have not made baseless accusations of folks lying, in 113 threads in 30 days.

its funny when such accusations, are themselves a lie. :)
 
Last edited:
OscarB63 said:
yes, because martin fit the profile of criminals who were known to have been in the area. cops profile people all the time. WTF do you think BOLOs are all about?

be on the look out for a green chevy impala. If I see a green chevy impala I am going to profile that vehicle.

young black males were known to have committed robberies in the area. it is not unreasonable for zimmerman to profile a young black male who he did not recognize as a resident of the area

it's not rocket science
Click to expand...
While you attempt to rationalize it, Zimmerman's defense lawyer seemed to take exception to it. Why do yo suppose that is?
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
While you attempt to rationalize it, Zimmerman's defense lawyer seemed to take exception to it. Why do yo suppose that is?
Click to expand...

maybe because he realizes, as do I (and has been made apparent in these threads), that most people automatically assume that when you say "profiling" it means "racial" profiling and that is not what zimmerman did.
 
Excon said:
Oh my, you're clueless.
Oh my, my, you very much are.



lol
I fully understand what you are saying. It is just that you do not know what you are talking about in this regard.

Oh, I am sure you think you know, but the reality is, you do not.

What a eye witness says is evidence. Whether you like it or not.
"evidence that indicates"
[what an eye witness indicates]
Even what Zimmerman has stated could indicate such. Simply because of the way he described what happened at different times.


Tell you what. Just go and look up the rules of evidence for Florida and point out what you say as true.
That should settle it right?
Here are the links to Chapters 90 - 92


Click to expand...

Thanks for confirming what I said ...

90.604 Lack of personal knowledge.—Except as otherwise provided in s. 90.702, a witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced which is sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may be given by the witness’s own testimony.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Thanks for confirming what I said ...

90.604 Lack of personal knowledge.—Except as otherwise provided in s. 90.702, a witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced which is sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may be given by the witness’s own testimony.
Click to expand...
That does not support what you say, but instead supports what I have said.

A person watches the fight go from standing to on the grass an sees no head slamming.
They will be asked if they saw any slamming of the head.
Their answer is evidence.

That is their personal knowledge and what they can testify to.
Duh!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom