• 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.
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. :)

well I guess the forum search function is a liar too. now you are even calling inanimate objects "liar" for disagreeing with you :lamo
 
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.
Earlier, his actions you described were that of racially profiling. The only caveat which eliminates Zimmerman of engaging in racial profiling is that legally, it's binding to law enforcement, though his actions, as you described them, were of racial profiling. You may want to cover your eyes for this part because you don't want to read it, but when you said Zimmerman called the cops because Trayvon was a young black male and that fit the description of those committing some of the break-ins in that neighborhood, you accused Zimmerman's actions of that of racial profiling. Again, it's not a legal charge since he's [thankfully] not with law enforcement, but his actions meet the definition.









... pssssst ... you may open your eyes now. ;)
 
well I guess the forum search function is a liar too. now you are even calling inanimate objects "liar" for disagreeing with you :lamo

no, I'm just accusing you of lying, as I have not made baseless accusations of lying in 113 threads in 30 days.

how exactly do you search for "baseless accusations of lying"?

:lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo

come on buddy, even you have to admit that your claim is bull****.
 
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!
If they didn't see it, they have no personal knowledge of it. That is not evidence of what they didn't see, didn't happen.

But the even higher hurdle for you to clear is pointing to the witness in this case which said they saw the "fight go from standing to on the grass." There are none that you know of. This whole argument, like most others you attempt, is a waste of time because it's meaningless to this case.
 
Earlier, his actions you described were that of racially profiling. The only caveat which eliminates Zimmerman of engaging in racial profiling is that legally, it's binding to law enforcement, though his actions, as you described them, were of racial profiling. You may want to cover your eyes for this part because you don't want to read it, but when you said Zimmerman called the cops because Trayvon was a young black male and that fit the description of those committing some of the break-ins in that neighborhood, you accused Zimmerman's actions of that of racial profiling. Again, it's not a legal charge since he's [thankfully] not with law enforcement, but his actions meet the definition.









... pssssst ... you may open your eyes now. ;)

race can be a valid component of profiling without the profile being based solely on race. and zimmerman is being accused of basing his profile on race and race alone. there is no evidence that this is true
 
If they didn't see it, they have no personal knowledge of it. That is not evidence of what they didn't see, didn't happen.
You are simply wrong.

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!




But the even higher hurdle for you to clear is pointing to the witness in this case which said they saw the "fight go from standing to on the grass." There are none that you know of. This whole argument, like most others you attempt, is a waste of time because it's meaningless to this case.
That is not something I have to do. I only stated that it is possible that this is what they have.
If that is the case, then what they have is very weak.
 
Last edited:
race can be a valid component of profiling without the profile being based solely on race. and zimmerman is being accused of basing his profile on race and race alone. there is no evidence that this is true
What else was it based on?
 
What else was it based on?

young and male. or are you suggesting that zimmerman would have found any black person to be suspicious on that night? If the recent robberies had been committed by young asian males, then zimmerman's profiling of martin could be considered to be based on race since he did not fit the profile of the robbers.
 
I have an honest and friendly debate with lots of folks.

Just not with folks like you.

oh, you mean folks that call you on your BS and don't back down when you cry about it?
 
You are simply wrong.

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!
It's really not my fault you are ignorant of the law. The law clearly states a witness must have "personal knowledge" to testify on a matter. A witness does not have "personal knowledge" to a matter they did not see. You're being your usual obtuse self. It state it in plain English, "[SIZE=-1]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,[/SIZE]" and you still can't understand it.

:doh:doh:doh


That is not something I have to do. I only stated that it is possible that this is what they have.
If that is the case then what they have is very weak.

Run, Forest! Run!! :lamo

That is exactly what you have to do if you are to make a point, which thus far, you have failed miserably. But if it's any consolation, I understand why you choose to run away instead.

The prosecution has said they have evidence that Zimmerman's account of having his head bashed in by Trayvon is not true.

That's a huge problem for you, so you invent the implausible case that their evidence may be based on the eyewitness testimony of those who say they didn't see it happen ... only for that to be the evidence the prosecution is talking about, as you ignorantly assert, they would have to have an eyewitness who claims they saw the entire fight from start to finish -- but there is no such witness that you know of, meaning your entire point gets smashed like a bug on the windshield of an 18 wheeler traveling at 90 MPH.

The best part is, when I challenge you to identify the witness you need to make your point (and even that's pretending that you understand section 90.604, which you don't), the witness who saw the entire fight, which I know for a fact you can't do -- you do the only thing within your power and that is to run away from your own point as fast as your walker will allow.



"That is not something I have to do. I only stated that it is possible that this is what they have." ~ excon


... no, Forest, it's not possible because they don't have a witness who saw the entire fight.

! ! ! SPLAT ! ! ! . . . . there goes your point. :lamo

Savvy?
 
It's really not my fault you are ignorant of the law. The law clearly states a witness must have "personal knowledge" to testify on a matter. A witness does not have "personal knowledge" to a matter they did not see. You're being your usual obtuse self. It state it in plain English, "[SIZE=-1]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," and you still can't understand it.[/SIZE]
OMG! You really do not understand, do you?

I am sorry I assumed that you may be intelligent and at least a little educated.
Obviously, I thought wrong.

I really am dumbfounded by your lack of understanding.

For some reason you do not understand that if a person sees the whole fight from the point it went to the ground, they have personal knowledge of what they saw happen, and of what they saw that didn't happen, and can be questioned about it.
What they say is evidence.
Heck, that person can even give an opinion as to whether or not they believed it was possible for head slamming to have happened during the fight.
But you are so unknowledgeable about legal procedure, that you don't even understand the simplest of concepts.




That is exactly what you have to do if you are to make a point, which thus far, you have failed miserably.
The only failure here, has been your ability. Your ability to understand.



But if it's any consolation, I understand why you choose to run away instead.
lol
Run?
What a laugh.
The only running being done is by you, running in circles because you do not understand.
:lamo


The prosecution has said they have evidence that Zimmerman's account of having his head bashed in by Trayvon is not true.

That's a huge problem for you, ...
Hilarious. That is not exactly what they said, and it is definitely not a problem for me, but is apparently one for you.



so you invent the implausible case that their evidence may be based on the eyewitness testimony of those who say they didn't see it happen ... only for that to be the evidence the prosecution is talking about, as you ignorantly assert, they would have to have an eyewitness who claims they saw the entire fight from start to finish -- but there is no such witness that you know of,
You really have a problem don't, you?
lol
Ignorant is your thought processes, and you're assertions.
:doh You somehow think what was said shows that Zimmerman was lying, when it doesn't. lol :doh



The best part is, when I challenge you to identify the witness you need to make your point (and even that's pretending that you understand section 90.604, which you don't), the witness who saw the entire fight, which I know for a fact you can't do -- you do the only thing within your power and that is to run away from your own point as fast as your walker will allow.


"That is not something I have to do. I only stated that it is possible that this is what they have." ~ excon


... no, Forest, it's not possible because they don't have a witness who saw the entire fight.
How idiotic.

You are the one who ignorantly jumped on a plausibility used to explain what the evidence could be. [Which it is.]
Not what it definitely was.

And somehow you in your convoluted thinking believe I must identify which witness it is.
lol
Which you have demanded even after I suggested it could be statements from Zimmerman himself. [Which is really a stupid move on your part.]

You do not know who saw what. You just don't.
Just because they do not have a witness as to whom started the fight, does not mean that they do not have a witness who saw the physical confrontation from the point it went to the ground. Duh!

What I suggested is not only plausible, but very possible.
Too bad you do not understand the law.

If you did, you wouldn't be trying to argue against it. ... Strike that; - Yes you would.



What is fact, is that the investigator has said that evidence exists that indicates what Zimmerman says, in reference to getting his head slammed, may not be true.

Which can simply be one of the witnesses stating that they never saw Zimmerman getting his head slammed.
That would be an indication of such.
No, it cannot be that. Absence of evidence is not evidence. He agreed with the question that there is evidence.
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.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Imagine that, another Zimmerman/Martin thread being closed near the 2000 post mark. :roll:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom