Trayvon had drugs in his system and all injuries show signs of a struggle.

1567810

Comments

  • Hyde ParkeHyde Parke Posts: 2,573
    fiat_money wrote: »
    Hyde Parke wrote: »
    fiat_money wrote: »
    Hyde Parke wrote: »
    fiat_money wrote: »
    Hyde Parke wrote: »
    @fiat
    they didn't say that, so this would just be your opinion. you could say that's just their opinion to, but seeing as they wrote the law, their opinion would hold more weight.
    Basic reasoning, based on the actual law as it is written, taken directly from the Florida Senate's government website:
    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. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
    (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
    (2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
    History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.
    Unless you can prove that Zimmerman could not "reasonably believe that such force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself", then me saying the above law can apply here is correct.

    If they say the law does not apply here, even though, as it is written above, the law can apply here; then there is a difference in the law as it is written and as they envision it.

    If they wrote the law, and there was a difference in the law as it was written and as they envisioned it; then they mis-wrote it.

    Either that, or they simply changed their minds after the fact.


    reposting the laws over and over again doesn't do much when the authors of the law already spoke their views on this case. You said maybe they miswrote the law, they don't think so, a more accurate depiction would be maybe people are misinterpreting the law. The authors said the law does not apply in this case when Zimmerman began to pursue trayvon, regardless of if you want to believe he stopped pursuing him at some point. Its irrational and illogical to think that any law would support someone using deadly force on anyone they feel is a threat to them, especially if they pursued them in the first place. I could be wrong, but the author's themselves, who wrote the law, seem to be saying the same thing about this particular case. I haven't heard them speak out on other stand your ground laws and say this, and there are a few of these cases going on in florida right now. The fact that they said something about this case, is very telling and wont look good for the defense if this is what they plan to use.
    I re-post the law, since the law and how it applies to this case is what's being discussed here. Even if the authors say it doesn't apply, that does not change what is written. I could say "Anyone who eats an apple should be killed.", if someone eats an apple; and I later say this does not apply to them, that does not change what I wrote.

    The main reason we have a judicial branch of government is because the legislative branch is not the "be-all and end-all" when it comes to the application and interpretation of laws.

    So, the moment what they wrote became a law, their conclusions on what it applied to became inconsequential.

    Therefore, since the judicial system interprets/applies the laws, and doesn't simply make rulings based on the feelings of legislators; the law, as it is written, is of the utmost preponderance here.

    And the law, as it is written, can be applied to Zimmerman in this case.


    interesting you say rulings aren't based on feelings of the legislators, but you have feelings that the law can be applied to zimmerman. you cant say its not a feeling because you don't have all the facts of this case. at some point you have to have a "feeling" about it. you saying the law can be applied to zimmerman, doesn't make this a fact, esp when the authors have stated otherwise, another indication of you having feelings about it. you take the last word on this, because no matter what you say, it wont manipulate my thought process. they wrote the law, so therefore they would have a better understanding of it then you, I , or anyone else.
    You can have whatever thought process you want; but the fact remains that in the US government, the judicial system is tasked with interpreting and applying the laws, not the legislators.

    In fact, since the legislator you're attempting to do an appeal to authority to, assumed Zimmerman confronted Treyvon--although that has yet to be proven--to arrive at his conclusion, this serves as an example as to why the opinions of legislators are inconsequential when it comes to the interpretation and application of written law:
    Mr. Zimmerman's unnecessary pursuit and confrontation of Trayvon Martin elevated the prospect of a violent episode and does not seem to be an act of self-defense as defined by the castle doctrine. There is no protection in the ‘Stand Your Ground’ law for anyone who pursues and confronts people. - Rep. Dennis Baxley


    ^^So yeh, in addition to the lack of a "non-pursuit" clause in the written law to validate what he is saying; the unsubstantiated assumption further weakens his claim.


    you are assuming also, so your point is no better than the legislators. its all assumption when you were not there, therefore you cannot say as a matter of fact the law applies to zimmerman, you just want it to because all along you've been posting this law, unaware that the very makers of the law don't think it applies here. lack of the non-pursuit doesn't weaken his stance, its not there because any reasonable person knows that if you start a fight and happen to be getting your ass kicked, that does not give you the right to end someone's life. I don't know what to say if you believe otherwise. its interesting that you are now trying to disprove the statement of the author of the law that you've been in here crusading all along.
  • Hyde ParkeHyde Parke Posts: 2,573
    Hyde Parke wrote: »
    @Charlie_danger

    you stating the obvious baby. do you have a degree in everything you speak on? I don't think anyone in here said they were an expert, in law school, or had a law degree. reiterating that we are not in court trying the case, actually makes you seem to be the mad one by asking the question at least 2x then replying to yourself.


    Im not mad, Im just ANGRY that someone would ignore my most amazing question ever on the IC.

    Plus, I am asking for someone's point of view that are in the field of law on their expert opinion on the case..

    Only in english and psychology, that's where my degrees be for :)

    well I hope someone who has a law degree comes in here and gives you what it Is you want
  • EvilchuckEvilchuck Posts: 19,691
    Hyde Parke wrote: »
    Hyde Parke wrote: »
    @Charlie_danger

    you stating the obvious baby. do you have a degree in everything you speak on? I don't think anyone in here said they were an expert, in law school, or had a law degree. reiterating that we are not in court trying the case, actually makes you seem to be the mad one by asking the question at least 2x then replying to yourself.


    Im not mad, Im just ANGRY that someone would ignore my most amazing question ever on the IC.

    Plus, I am asking for someone's point of view that are in the field of law on their expert opinion on the case..

    Only in english and psychology, that's where my degrees be for :)

    well I hope someone who has a law degree comes in here and gives you what it Is you want

    thank you..

    Cause it's quite clear that we had both wasted font on you catching feelings over my question when it's quite clear that you are not an expert of the law.
  • cobblandcobbland Posts: 3,463
    Hyde Parke wrote: »
    Hyde Parke wrote: »
    @Charlie_danger

    you stating the obvious baby. do you have a degree in everything you speak on? I don't think anyone in here said they were an expert, in law school, or had a law degree. reiterating that we are not in court trying the case, actually makes you seem to be the mad one by asking the question at least 2x then replying to yourself.


    Im not mad, Im just ANGRY that someone would ignore my most amazing question ever on the IC.

    Plus, I am asking for someone's point of view that are in the field of law on their expert opinion on the case..

    Only in english and psychology, that's where my degrees be for :)

    well I hope someone who has a law degree comes in here and gives you what it Is you want

    thank you..

    Cause it's quite clear that we had both wasted font on you catching feelings over my question when it's quite clear that you are not an expert of the law.

    For what its worth, not all law experts are going to give a clear, concise, straight down the middle interpretation of the case at hand.

    History shows this.
  • EvilchuckEvilchuck Posts: 19,691
    cobbland wrote: »
    Hyde Parke wrote: »
    Hyde Parke wrote: »
    @Charlie_danger

    you stating the obvious baby. do you have a degree in everything you speak on? I don't think anyone in here said they were an expert, in law school, or had a law degree. reiterating that we are not in court trying the case, actually makes you seem to be the mad one by asking the question at least 2x then replying to yourself.


    Im not mad, Im just ANGRY that someone would ignore my most amazing question ever on the IC.

    Plus, I am asking for someone's point of view that are in the field of law on their expert opinion on the case..

    Only in english and psychology, that's where my degrees be for :)

    well I hope someone who has a law degree comes in here and gives you what it Is you want

    thank you..

    Cause it's quite clear that we had both wasted font on you catching feelings over my question when it's quite clear that you are not an expert of the law.

    For what its worth, not all law experts are going to give a clear, concise, straight down the middle interpretation of the case at hand.

    History shows this.

    I know that, silly. I wanted to know their expert opinion on this matter. whether it's clear or not. it is a great case for a lawyer/ law student.
  • fiat_moneyfiat_money Posts: 16,655
    edited May 2012
    Hyde Parke wrote: »
    you are assuming also, so your point is no better than the legislators. its all assumption when you were not there, therefore you cannot say as a matter of fact the law applies to zimmerman, you just want it to because all along you've been posting this law, unaware that the very makers of the law don't think it applies here. lack of the non-pursuit doesn't weaken his stance, its not there because any reasonable person knows that if you start a fight and happen to be getting your ass kicked, that does not give you the right to end someone's life. I don't know what to say if you believe otherwise. its interesting that you are now trying to disprove the statement of the author of the law that you've been in here crusading all along.
    The bolded is false, since I never said that the law does apply nor have I assumed which individual confronted the other. I said the law can apply to Zimmerman; meaning it is a possible outcome. The italicized is moot conjecture, since there is a portion of the law (776.041) that addresses the described scenario.

    The underlined is also false, since I addressed it several weeks ago:
    fiat_money wrote: »
    -Vincenzo- wrote: »
    Here is what the authors (Former Sen. Durell Peaden and Rep. Dennis Baxley) of the law you claimed say:

    If Zimmerman had the right to defend himself when he felt he was threatened by Martin, then doesn't surely an unarmed teenager have a far greater right to respond to the same "reasonable fear" when being followed by a man in an SUV carrying an automatic weapon?

    That's the conclusion former Sen. Peaden has come to, especially after the release of 159 that indicate Zimmerman pursued Martin despite the dispatcher telling him to wait. He argues that Stand Your Ground is about the right to defend oneself when in imminent danger, something he doesn't see anywhere in the case.

    "The guy lost his defense right then," Peaden told the Miami Herald. "When he said 'I'm following him,' he lost his defense."

    Rep. Baxley agrees with Peaden, saying the law wasn't meant to aid those who feel "like they have the authority to pursue and confront people."

    "That is aggravating an incident right there," he concluded, arguing that Zimmerman's actions were separate from and unprotected by Stand Your Ground and similar legislation.


    He lost this case when he decided to follow him, here is more on this:

    According to transcripts of the 911 calls, a police dispatcher tells Zimmerman he doesn’t need to follow the teen, but Zimmerman apparently does anyway. So is he or the teen the one who feels threatened?

    The Department of Justice has launched an investigation into the death of the teen shot in the picturesque city of Sanford, Fla. NBC's Ron Allen reports.
    “The question again is whether he (Zimmerman) acted reasonably or not. At this point it doesn’t look good for him, but I don’t know what the heck happened and quite frankly no one else does either,” says Jon H. Gutmacher, an Orlando attorney, NRA-certified instructor and author of "Florida Firearms: Law, Use & Ownership."

    "Florida recognizes that the danger need not be actual," said Brener. "But it must be reasonable for the person to believe that deadly force was necessary, and it must be imminent. So it's not enough to say I had an honest belief that he was going to use deadly force on me. That belief has to be reasonable."
    It's that issue of the reasonableness of Zimmerman's belief that he faced a deadly threat that could offer prosecutors a path to bringing charges. Martin, of course, was carrying only a bag of Skittles and an iced tea.


    I don't see him winning this one at all but let's wait and see...at the close of the play we can bump this thread
    If they felt that way, they should've included some kind of "non pursuit" clause when they wrote the law.

    As the law is presently written, one can follow someone, confront them, then kill them after the confrontation turns out unfavorably enough for them to feel their life is in danger; and they will have "stood their ground".


    I've said it previously, but my argument is based on the publicly available information about this case and Florida law as it is written. I haven't "crusaded" for the law, I've merely said that it can be applied here. So even the writer of that very same law is not above refutation if he makes refutable statements.
  • Hyde ParkeHyde Parke Posts: 2,573
    edited May 2012
    @fiat, that aggressor clause 776.041 is not available to anyone attempting to commit, or in the act of committing a felony, which could be argued by the prosecution that Zimmerman committed aggravated battery on trayvon 1st. so if is unknown who confronted who, or who landed the first punch, you could also say the law does not apply here.

    true, the writer of the law is not about refutation, I would still consider his opinion to be valid. I would think he has more information on the case then the rest of the public.

    im out tho, have to continue this on another day.
    .
  • #1 pick#1 pick Posts: 3,928
    edited May 2012
    fiat_money wrote: »
    fiat_money wrote: »
    ghost tho wrote: »
    ^ its bigot bait
    Word, if them racist crakkkaz find out his girlfriend was white, they'll probably get mad as fuck.

    hN2FU.jpg

    well well who is this
    I think it's Treyvon's female friend:
    An6XG2sCAAEvtE_.jpg
    1175c0647b5f11e1a87612313804ec91_7.jpg
    4507c0287bb711e1b9f1123138140926_7.jpg
    VaqZX.jpg
    zNozR.jpg
    qDHtC.jpg
    mmVX5.jpg
    Mea0n.jpg
    ofYVX.jpg
    yQ1My.png
    Look at my nigga Trayvon. Well Damn.

    Edit: The g/f on the tape sounds Black. Idk.
  • Black_ExcellenceBlack_Excellence Posts: 22,785
    edited May 2012
    Niggas in here going off...i love to see this.Its been made pretty clear that over the years the law has been AGAINST black people.Dont get me wrong you have your share who do dirt but granted we neeeeeeeever get the benefit of the doubt like others and we are always ALWAYS!! guilty until proven innocent,and thats not how it should be.You white people who dont have to worry about any of this talkin about jumping the gun and crying...you hypocritical muthafuckas would do the same if not worse if black cops or some random black guy murdered your kid for no particular reason time after time after time...so i dont wanna hear shit you have to say.And the things is we talkin about facts,when this here case was pretty clear and simple.


    Man sees a kid he thinks look suspect,calls 911...tells them what he see 911 then ask him is he following said person or is he in his home,he then tell them he's in his home...911 POLICE DISPACTHER THEN TELLS THE MAN DO NOT I REPEAT!!! DO NOT FOLLOW SAID PERSON.And what does zimmerman do? go grab his gun and we all know what was on his mind.
  • Black_ExcellenceBlack_Excellence Posts: 22,785
    @Bookworm
    Zimmerman ain't white. Even tho He's half, dude couldn't even pass for White cuz he looks straight up Mexican

    He is not mexican, he is Peruvian. Peruvians do not like black americans nor be mistaken for one.

    My co-worker told me the same they hate black people for what ever reason.
  • cobblandcobbland Posts: 3,463
    doubletee wrote: »
    @Bookworm
    Zimmerman ain't white. Even tho He's half, dude couldn't even pass for White cuz he looks straight up Mexican

    He is not mexican, he is Peruvian. Peruvians do not like black americans nor be mistaken for one.

    My co-worker told me the same they hate black people for what ever reason.

    Don't all the groups that have a rich Black/African history hate themselves?




    From the 1:50 mark, it also applies to the people in Latin America.
  • Black_ExcellenceBlack_Excellence Posts: 22,785
    edited May 2012
    Yeah cobbland and you know what that's from a lack of knowledge on there behalf.Shit is just pityful.
  • Black teen with some skittles AND SOME WEED?. Oh yea, that nigga had to die.


    Zimmerman still a coward. Grown ass man need a pistal to defend himself.



  • fiat_moneyfiat_money Posts: 16,655
    edited May 2012
    Hyde Parke wrote: »
    @fiat, that aggressor clause 776.041 is not available to anyone attempting to commit, or in the act of committing a felony, which could be argued by the prosecution that Zimmerman committed aggravated battery on trayvon 1st. so if is unknown who confronted who, or who landed the first punch, you could also say the law does not apply here.

    true, the writer of the law is not about refutation, I would still consider his opinion to be valid. I would think he has more information on the case then the rest of the public.

    im out tho, have to continue this on another day.
    .
    They could argue that; just like how they're arguing it was not self-defense. They'd still have to show not only that Zimmerman was the aggressor, but that he was a physical aggressor. Of course, the defense could easily argue the opposite, or that there is a lack of supporting evidence for the prosecution's claim.

    So, since the mere ability to argue something does not make it true; the fact that the prosecution could argue that Zimmerman was the physical aggressor would not be enough invalidate the usage of 776.041.
  • Ms.ScorpMs.Scorp Posts: 3,387
    ghost tho wrote: »
    @apocalyptica why is every last white boy on allhiphop pro zimmerman? Makes no sense

    why dont u post on FoxNews?

    Just like with the OJ case, these types of incidents bring out the TRUE colors of those who are enamored by our culture.

    they're "hood" and "down for the cause" until the shit gets real, then they revert right back to their own just like we do...lol.
  • ATTSATTS Posts: 6,663
    #1 pick wrote: »
    fiat_money wrote: »
    fiat_money wrote: »
    ghost tho wrote: »
    ^ its bigot bait
    Word, if them racist crakkkaz find out his girlfriend was white, they'll probably get mad as fuck.

    hN2FU.jpg

    well well who is this
    I think it's Treyvon's female friend:
    An6XG2sCAAEvtE_.jpg
    1175c0647b5f11e1a87612313804ec91_7.jpg
    4507c0287bb711e1b9f1123138140926_7.jpg
    VaqZX.jpg
    zNozR.jpg
    qDHtC.jpg
    mmVX5.jpg
    Mea0n.jpg
    ofYVX.jpg
    yQ1My.png
    Look at my nigga Trayvon. Well Damn.

    Edit: The g/f on the tape sounds Black. Idk.

    damn....
  • Hyde ParkeHyde Parke Posts: 2,573
    edited May 2012
    fiat_money wrote: »
    Hyde Parke wrote: »
    @fiat, that aggressor clause 776.041 is not available to anyone attempting to commit, or in the act of committing a felony, which could be argued by the prosecution that Zimmerman committed aggravated battery on trayvon 1st. so if is unknown who confronted who, or who landed the first punch, you could also say the law does not apply here.

    true, the writer of the law is not about refutation, I would still consider his opinion to be valid. I would think he has more information on the case then the rest of the public.

    im out tho, have to continue this on another day.
    .
    They could argue that; just like how they're arguing it was not self-defense. They'd still have to show not only that Zimmerman was the aggressor, but that he was a physical aggressor. Of course, the defense could easily argue the opposite, or that there is a lack of supporting evidence for the prosecution's claim.

    So, since the mere ability to argue something does not make it true; the fact that the prosecution could argue that Zimmerman was the physical aggressor would not be enough invalidate the usage of 776.041.


    the thing is both sides could make the same claim. so if you say the law can apply to Zimmerman, as you have been doing, you would have to extend the same rule to Trayvon to be fair. No, the mere ability to argue something doesn't make it fact, the fact as it stands right now is, the moment of confrontation was not witnessed, so you have to take what was witnessed by ear, at that moment and use that to make the best determination you can. Fact is, trayvon was on the phone with his girlfriend and by her account, she heard someone asking him what was he doing there, she then says she heard what appeared to be someone falling to the ground hitting what sounded like grass, and at that point she no longer could make contact with trayvon on the phone. take it for what its worth and you also have to take into account all of the documented events leading up to the incident . Ive served jury duty before, and its not ever open and shut.
  • EvilchuckEvilchuck Posts: 19,691
    Fiat doesnt have a law degree, so take his opinion as an opinion. :)
  • fiat_moneyfiat_money Posts: 16,655
    edited May 2012
    Hyde Parke wrote: »
    fiat_money wrote: »
    Hyde Parke wrote: »
    @fiat, that aggressor clause 776.041 is not available to anyone attempting to commit, or in the act of committing a felony, which could be argued by the prosecution that Zimmerman committed aggravated battery on trayvon 1st. so if is unknown who confronted who, or who landed the first punch, you could also say the law does not apply here.

    true, the writer of the law is not about refutation, I would still consider his opinion to be valid. I would think he has more information on the case then the rest of the public.

    im out tho, have to continue this on another day.
    .
    They could argue that; just like how they're arguing it was not self-defense. They'd still have to show not only that Zimmerman was the aggressor, but that he was a physical aggressor. Of course, the defense could easily argue the opposite, or that there is a lack of supporting evidence for the prosecution's claim.

    So, since the mere ability to argue something does not make it true; the fact that the prosecution could argue that Zimmerman was the physical aggressor would not be enough invalidate the usage of 776.041.


    the thing is both sides could make the same claim. so if you say the law can apply to Zimmerman, as you have been doing, you would have to extend the same rule to Trayvon to be fair. No, the mere ability to argue something doesn't make it fact, the fact as it stands right now is, the moment of confrontation was not witnessed, so you have to take what was witnessed by ear, at that moment and use that to make the best determination you can. Fact is, trayvon was on the phone with his girlfriend and by her account, she heard someone asking him what was he doing there, she then says she heard what appeared to be someone falling to the ground hitting what sounded like grass, and at that point she no longer could make contact with trayvon on the phone. take it for what its worth and you also have to take into account all of the documented events leading up to the incident . Ive served jury duty before, and its not ever open and shut.
    I covered the bolded on page 4 of this thread:
    fiat_money wrote: »
    ...And it's not publicly known who confronted who yet. However, had Treyvon been able to kill Zimmerman instead, he could also claim self-defense.

    Treyvon's girlfriend's account and Zimmerman's account both say that Treyvon asked Zimmerman why he was following him
    and Zimmerman responded; so the two are in agreement there. Zimmerman's account, however, claims that Treyvon approached him from behind before asking him that; of which there is no proof at the moment. Zimmerman also claims Treyvon punched him--knocking him down--after they talked (which also lacks proof at the moment); so if she heard "what appeared to be someone falling to the ground hitting what sounded like grass", then that could apply to either Treyvon or Zimmerman being hit.
  • fiat_moneyfiat_money Posts: 16,655
    edited May 2012
    Fiat doesnt have a law degree, so take his opinion as an opinion. :)
    Real niggas don't have use appeals to authority or appeals to ignorance to make arguments bruh.

    Step your "formulating logically in-fallacious arguments based on available information" game up yo.

  • EvilchuckEvilchuck Posts: 19,691
    fiat_money wrote: »
    Fiat doesnt have a law degree, so take his opinion as an opinion. :)
    Real niggas don't have use appeals to authority or appeals to ignorance to make arguments bruh.

    Step your "formulating logically in-fallacious arguments based on available information" game up yo.


    post your law degree or your law school schedule... i'll wait.

    Keyword: expert. <--- you're not an expert of this field nor do you have receipts to show it, hunny.

    All you are doing is stating your opinion, boo.
  • Hyde ParkeHyde Parke Posts: 2,573
    fiat_money wrote: »
    Fiat doesnt have a law degree, so take his opinion as an opinion. :)
    Real niggas don't have use appeals to authority or appeals to ignorance to make arguments bruh.

    Step your "formulating logically in-fallacious arguments based on available information" game up yo.


    im gonna have to click feelings for this post, its not that serious, its just a discussion, gaining understanding of others point(s) of views.
  • Hyde ParkeHyde Parke Posts: 2,573
    fiat_money wrote: »
    Hyde Parke wrote: »
    fiat_money wrote: »
    Hyde Parke wrote: »
    @fiat, that aggressor clause 776.041 is not available to anyone attempting to commit, or in the act of committing a felony, which could be argued by the prosecution that Zimmerman committed aggravated battery on trayvon 1st. so if is unknown who confronted who, or who landed the first punch, you could also say the law does not apply here.

    true, the writer of the law is not about refutation, I would still consider his opinion to be valid. I would think he has more information on the case then the rest of the public.

    im out tho, have to continue this on another day.
    .
    They could argue that; just like how they're arguing it was not self-defense. They'd still have to show not only that Zimmerman was the aggressor, but that he was a physical aggressor. Of course, the defense could easily argue the opposite, or that there is a lack of supporting evidence for the prosecution's claim.

    So, since the mere ability to argue something does not make it true; the fact that the prosecution could argue that Zimmerman was the physical aggressor would not be enough invalidate the usage of 776.041.


    the thing is both sides could make the same claim. so if you say the law can apply to Zimmerman, as you have been doing, you would have to extend the same rule to Trayvon to be fair. No, the mere ability to argue something doesn't make it fact, the fact as it stands right now is, the moment of confrontation was not witnessed, so you have to take what was witnessed by ear, at that moment and use that to make the best determination you can. Fact is, trayvon was on the phone with his girlfriend and by her account, she heard someone asking him what was he doing there, she then says she heard what appeared to be someone falling to the ground hitting what sounded like grass, and at that point she no longer could make contact with trayvon on the phone. take it for what its worth and you also have to take into account all of the documented events leading up to the incident . Ive served jury duty before, and its not ever open and shut.
    I covered the bolded on page 4 of this thread:
    fiat_money wrote: »
    ...And it's not publicly known who confronted who yet. However, had Treyvon been able to kill Zimmerman instead, he could also claim self-defense.

    Treyvon's girlfriend's account and Zimmerman's account both say that Treyvon asked Zimmerman why he was following him
    and Zimmerman responded; so the two are in agreement there. Zimmerman's account, however, claims that Treyvon approached him from behind before asking him that; of which there is no proof at the moment. Zimmerman also claims Treyvon punched him--knocking him down--after they talked (which also lacks proof at the moment); so if she heard "what appeared to be someone falling to the ground hitting what sounded like grass", then that could apply to either Treyvon or Zimmerman being hit.

    that's kool, so long as you recognize the duality of how the law can apply based on your interpretation of it
  • fiat_moneyfiat_money Posts: 16,655
    edited May 2012
    fiat_money wrote: »
    Fiat doesnt have a law degree, so take his opinion as an opinion. :)
    Real niggas don't have use appeals to authority or appeals to ignorance to make arguments bruh.

    Step your "formulating logically in-fallacious arguments based on available information" game up yo.


    post your law degree or your law school schedule... i'll wait.

    Keyword: expert. <--- you're not an expert of this field nor do you have receipts to show it, hunny.

    All you are doing is stating your opinion, boo.
    Still an appeal to authority and/or an appeal to ignorance bruh.

  • Black_ExcellenceBlack_Excellence Posts: 22,785
    edited May 2012
    All trayvon wanted to do was play football, fuck with bad chicks, and smoke a lil weed. My lil homie wasnt bothering anybody before zimmerman brought that dumb shit into his life smh. The more i think about it the more it really pisses me off.Zimmerman has to die....smoking weed shidd thats damn near the life of a teen in america so who the fuck are these people to criticize that?I bet half the people who got some slick shit to say who have kids,there kids have smoked weed before or is doing it now.
Sign In or Register to comment.