• 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 verdict

George Zimmerman verdict prediction

  • guilty

    Votes: 17 40.5%

  • innocent

    Votes: 11 26.2%

  • hung jury or mistrial

    Votes: 14 33.3%
  • Total voters
    42
  • Poll closed .
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Holy ****! :doh

It doesn't matter if they argue "fear." "Fear" is not a component of the law. They may try to show he was afraid to use that as evidence he reasonably believed he was about to be attacked, but "fear" is not a necessary component to meet the requirement of that law.

Again ...

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force.​
Click to expand...

It's not fear, eh? lol 776.012 Gives you the power to act on that fear

You think just, the copy and paste of 776.012 gives you what?

You don't comprehend nor understand what its entails...just like a parrot (repetition yet not understanding squat)

What else can the state or you argue?

Defense is saying M physically attacked Z without legal provocation. M had no legal right to do so.

M initiated both the verbal and physical encounter between them.

On what legal footing can you argue that would legally justify M's physical attack on Z?
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Your continued abject parroting is as usual, duly noted.

As is your denial that his hand is on his hip and not his front pocket.
Click to expand...
Yes, your continued parroting and usual denial is noted.
You were wrong, and the video shows you to be wrong. He places his hand on his pocket. Duh!

As stated.
He did not reach "towards his back right hip" as you stated. He went straight to his front pocket.

But for some reason you want to absurdly argue that he didn't.

You see what the arrow is pointing to?
That is the stretched opening to his front pocket.
518.jpg


He reaches in front of that, (did you get that? In front of!), and places his hand on his pocket, as anybody can see. Not his "right back hip" as you falsely allege.

Stop with your false assertions.
He reached for his pocket and even states that is what he is doing a few seconds later.




You are wrong, as usual.
 
Excon said:
Yes, your continued parroting and usual denial is noted.
You were wrong, and the video shows you to be wrong. He places his hand on his pocket. Duh!

As stated.
He did not reach "towards his back right hip" as you stated. He went straight to his front pocket.

But for some reason you want to absurdly argue that he didn't.

You see what the arrow is pointing to?
That is the stretched opening to his front pocket.
518.jpg


He reaches in front of that, (did you get that? In front of!), and places his hand on his pocket, as anybody can see. Not his "right back hip" as you falsely allege.

Stop with your false assertions.
He reached for his pocket and even states that is what he is doing a few seconds later.




You are wrong, as usual.
Click to expand...

George tells another detailed account f looking for his phone in his pants pocket and also in his jacket pocket.
 
sharon said:
George tells another detailed account f looking for his phone in his pants pocket and also in his jacket pocket.
Click to expand...
No sharon. He does not tell "another" account. He tells the same account.
And had you had bothered to watch what was presented, you would have heard him say it was in his jacket pocket, not in his front pocket where he was looking.
start @ the 05:35 mark if you are interested in the truth.
 
Compatibilist said:
You obviously don't understand or know what the evidence shows in the case

GZ was under attack and was in the process of taking a severe beating when he shot TM. He got the broken nose and black eyes when TM punched him. The report has already been posted several times at DB along with accounts of what happened. He absolutely received all the injuries as a result of the attack as indicated in the Dr's rept. Get the facts before continuing to post nonsense, distortions, and dishonesty.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I don't take lessons on honesty from someone who posted demonstrable lies in their list of Zimmerman's injuries.
 
charlie hodge said:
Sorry, but I don't take lessons on honesty from someone who posted demonstrable lies in their list of Zimmerman's injuries.
Click to expand...

The evidence including photos, statements, and medical repts speak for themselves. If there's any dishonesty/lies going on... it's from you! You trolled in here earlier this month with an obvious agenda. How about trolling elsewhere with your BS.
 
sharon said:
George tells another detailed account f looking for his phone in his pants pocket and also in his jacket pocket.
Click to expand...

You can deny it all you want ... yet there's his hand on his hip, not his front pocket ...

zim86.jpg
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
You can deny it all you want ... yet there's his hand on his hip, not his front pocket ...

View attachment 67149373
Click to expand...

That isn't the only statement or demonstration about George's phone.

He goes into detail about forgetting and not putting the phone where he normally put it... reaching for it before Trayvon punched him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom