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

1567810

Replies

  • fiat_moneyfiat_money Posts: 16,654 ✭✭✭✭✭
    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 Kimi Turn that 62 to 125, 125 to a 250 250 to a half a million, ain't nothin' nobody can do with me.Posts: 3,716 ✭✭✭✭✭
    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.
    trACE_evidence
  • 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.
  • PurrPurr The BBW of your dreams. Lubuit te cognitione cognoscentes. Videre, deinceps vita.Posts: 29,862 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Fiat doesnt have a law degree, so take his opinion as an opinion. :)
    Hyde Parke
  • fiat_moneyfiat_money Posts: 16,654 ✭✭✭✭✭
    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: 16,654 ✭✭✭✭✭
    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.

    Hyde ParkePurr
  • PurrPurr The BBW of your dreams. Lubuit te cognitione cognoscentes. Videre, deinceps vita.Posts: 29,862 ✭✭✭✭✭
    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.
    Valkyria
  • 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.
    Purrfiat_money
  • 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: 16,654 ✭✭✭✭✭
    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.

  • Chef_Taylor Chef_Taylor Young King.....pay me in gold Posts: 26,584 ✭✭✭✭✭
    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.
    CockMcStuffins
  • fiat_moneyfiat_money Posts: 16,654 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Hyde Parke wrote: »
    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.
    Cosign.

    I'm not sure if you noticed, but the bolded cosigns the post of mine you quoted.
  • desertrain10desertrain10 Posts: 3,708 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 2012
    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.

    ok, but she also said that trayvon had told her that he ran. she also heard trayvon breathing heavily. and than trayvon told her he "lost him".... after all that why on earth would trayvon purposely turn back around only to attack zimmerman from behide? make no sense...

    and it seems unlikely gz after losing sight of trayvon after following him for a good 5-10 minutes would just give up casually turn his back to walk back to his car if he indeed believed trayvon was a suspicious character, he was already conerned with whether or not trayvon was armed which he expressed to the dispatcher, especially if trayvon was indeed circling his car....just doesn't sound right....

    she also said she could faintly hear trayvon yelling "get off of me" shortly after she heard the phone drop or w/e .... which also conflicts w/ gz account
    Trillfate
  • fiat_moneyfiat_money Posts: 16,654 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 2012
    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.

    ok, but she also said that trayvon had told her that he ran. she also heard trayvon breathing heavily. and than trayvon told her he "lost him".... after all that why on earth would trayvon purposely turn back around only to attack zimmerman from behide? make no sense...

    and it seems unlikely gz after losing sight of trayvon after following him for a good 5-10 minutes would just give up casually turn his back to walk back to his car if he indeed believed trayvon was a suspicious character, especially if trayvon was indeed circling his car....just doesn't sound right....


    she also said she could faintly hear trayvon yelling "get off of me" shortly after she heard the phone drop or w/e .... which also conflicts w/ gz account
    The girlfriend's account of Treyvon losing Zimmerman is in agreement with Zimmerman's account that he lost Treyvon, and the 911 call. The underlined is conjecture.

    First, she says she heard something hit the grass.
    Followed by saying she heard no screaming like "help me".
    She says she got no answer when calling back after the phone shut off.
    Then she says the last thing she heard was some kind of noise like something hitting somebody.
    Next, she says she could hear a "little bit like a little get off some stuff".
    Finally she says she could've heard Treyvon, before affirmatively saying she could hear a little bit that it was Treyvon.

    ^^Disregarding the strength/weakness of this testimony; Treyvon saying "get off me" doesn't dispute Zimmerman's claim that Treyvon punched him and they fought, nor does it dispute witness statements about seeing the two of them scuffling and/or rolling around on the ground.
  • PurrPurr The BBW of your dreams. Lubuit te cognitione cognoscentes. Videre, deinceps vita.Posts: 29,862 ✭✭✭✭✭
    fiat_money wrote: »
    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.


    im just waiting on your proof of expertise in the field of law

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


    what a display of feelings, fiat. im disappointed in you
    Trillfate
  • blackrainblackrain Posts: 19,352 Regulator
    Its foolish for black people to believe in the judicial system. For what?

    Most people in jail are black, theres more of us in there then in college.

    If you think thats deserving, then you probaly think there were no Indians here before Columbus...

    This whole case is a fraudulent ordeal.

    All its about now is coming up with an acceptable reason to the non black public for Zimmerman to walk.

    By the timethe trial comes they will have Trayvon Martin lookin like C- Murder or Lil Boosie.....they'll probably bring up whats on

    Trayons IPOD and pick the most violent song to say, "see what that nigger was listening to" because thats what we are to them

    Thugs and NIggers, that includes our parents, ancestors, and future family. Guilty before a crime is even committed.

    This is not about justice, true justice has been shunned.

    Now it's all about Amerikkka's Fears.....their Fear is us, all of us, and when that fear is activated they want to be able to strike, right or wrong.

    "This is a Nation by white people and for white people, native americans, blacks, and all the other non- white people were to be the burden bearers for the real citizens of this nation"

    To the people saying Zimmerman is not white, no he's white, he's mixed with some latin.

    And beyond that he killed Trayvon on racist terms, claiming he did not belong in a neighborhood he was actually staying in.

    Furthermore what the Black Community is raving about is a few things....the lack of an immedate arrest, and the fact there is even a trial when the facts are clear......Zimmerman followed and shot down Trayvon who was unarmed.

    There was no reason to do that.

    And thats all the case is about...finding a rason to say it's Ok what Zimmerman did, and finding some reason any reason to say

    that the black kid deserved.....he had to deserve it.....he's black.

    that's a very manipulated stat...it's half true...but only if you include blacks of all ages not just of college age
  • fiat_moneyfiat_money Posts: 16,654 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 2012
    fiat_money wrote: »
    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.


    im just waiting on your proof of expertise in the field of law

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


    what a display of feelings, fiat. im disappointed in you
    My repeated post for your repeated logical fallacies:
    fiat_money wrote: »
    Still an appeal to authority and/or an appeal to ignorance bruh.


    When you make these same logical fallacies in the future, refer back to this post for my response.
  • PurrPurr The BBW of your dreams. Lubuit te cognitione cognoscentes. Videre, deinceps vita.Posts: 29,862 ✭✭✭✭✭
    fiat_money wrote: »
    fiat_money wrote: »
    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.


    im just waiting on your proof of expertise in the field of law

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


    what a display of feelings, fiat. im disappointed in you
    My repeated post for your repeated logical fallacies:
    fiat_money wrote: »
    Still an appeal to authority and/or an appeal to ignorance bruh.


    When you make these same logical fallacies in the future, refer back to this post for my response.

    i have no care to listen to your music that you displayed as proof to certify your expertise in the field of law. That doesnt count, boo. that's like me writing an APA research paper and using Wikipedia as concrete facts.

    where's your proof in presenting the fact that you are certified to present your opinion as expert fact.

    obviously, you have none.

    it's ok to not be right all of the time, fiat. i understand you're a narcissistic. shit hurts like a dagger when youre wrong.

    all I stated is that youre only presenting your opinion
    juan travolta
  • fiat_moneyfiat_money Posts: 16,654 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 2012
    ...shit hurts like a dagger when youre wrong...
    Formulate and post an argument that proves me wrong, and you'll be correct.

    Otherwise, refer to my above post.
  • desertrain10desertrain10 Posts: 3,708 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 2012
    fiat_money wrote: »
    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.

    ok, but she also said that trayvon had told her that he ran. she also heard trayvon breathing heavily. and than trayvon told her he "lost him".... after all that why on earth would trayvon purposely turn back around only to attack zimmerman from behide? make no sense...

    and it seems unlikely gz after losing sight of trayvon after following him for a good 5-10 minutes would just give up casually turn his back to walk back to his car if he indeed believed trayvon was a suspicious character, especially if trayvon was indeed circling his car....just doesn't sound right....


    she also said she could faintly hear trayvon yelling "get off of me" shortly after she heard the phone drop or w/e .... which also conflicts w/ gz account
    The girlfriend's account of Treyvon losing Zimmerman is in agreement with Zimmerman's account that he lost Treyvon, and the 911 call. The underlined is conjecture.

    First, she says she heard something hit the grass.
    Followed by saying she heard no screaming like "help me".
    She says she got no answer when calling back after the phone shut off.
    Then she says the last thing she heard was some kind of noise like something hitting somebody.
    Next, she says she could hear a "little bit like a little get off some stuff".
    Finally she says she could've heard Treyvon, before affirmatively saying she could hear a little bit that it was Treyvon.

    ^^Disregarding the strength/weakness of this testimony; Treyvon saying "get off me" doesn't dispute Zimmerman's claim that Treyvon punched him and they fought, nor does it dispute witness statements about seeing the two of them scuffling and/or rolling around on the ground.

    zimmerman claimed trayvon first words to him was "do you have a problem" ( that's in dispute), gz said no and than tm said "well you do now" as he proceeded to punch gz in the nose knocking him to the ground. after that tm climbed on top of him and began slamming his head into the sidewalk ...

    this and gz's claim that tm circled his truck, which he failed to mention to the dispatcher, just doesn't jive w/ the the gf testimony at all as far as trayvon being the initial aggressor .... she described a boy who was scared and not looking for a physical confrontation ....

    gz conversation with the dispatcher and his past transgressions paint the picture of an hyper aggressive vigilante

    Trillfate
  • fiat_moneyfiat_money Posts: 16,654 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 2012
    fiat_money wrote: »
    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.

    ok, but she also said that trayvon had told her that he ran. she also heard trayvon breathing heavily. and than trayvon told her he "lost him".... after all that why on earth would trayvon purposely turn back around only to attack zimmerman from behide? make no sense...

    and it seems unlikely gz after losing sight of trayvon after following him for a good 5-10 minutes would just give up casually turn his back to walk back to his car if he indeed believed trayvon was a suspicious character, especially if trayvon was indeed circling his car....just doesn't sound right....


    she also said she could faintly hear trayvon yelling "get off of me" shortly after she heard the phone drop or w/e .... which also conflicts w/ gz account
    The girlfriend's account of Treyvon losing Zimmerman is in agreement with Zimmerman's account that he lost Treyvon, and the 911 call. The underlined is conjecture.

    First, she says she heard something hit the grass.
    Followed by saying she heard no screaming like "help me".
    She says she got no answer when calling back after the phone shut off.
    Then she says the last thing she heard was some kind of noise like something hitting somebody.
    Next, she says she could hear a "little bit like a little get off some stuff".
    Finally she says she could've heard Treyvon, before affirmatively saying she could hear a little bit that it was Treyvon.

    ^^Disregarding the strength/weakness of this testimony; Treyvon saying "get off me" doesn't dispute Zimmerman's claim that Treyvon punched him and they fought, nor does it dispute witness statements about seeing the two of them scuffling and/or rolling around on the ground.

    zimmerman claimed trayvon first words to him was "do you have a problem" ( that's in dispute), gz said no and than tm said "well you do now" as he proceeded to punch gz in the nose knocking him to the ground. after that tm climbed on top of him and began slamming his head into the sidewalk ...

    just doesn't jive w/ the the gf testimony at all as far as trayvon being the initial aggressor .... she described a boy who was scared and not looking for a physical confrontation ....


    gz conversation with the dispatcher and his past transgressions paint the picture of an hyper aggressive vigilante
    The bolded gets chalked up to being her words against his.

    And the underlined is character speculation; which is something I don't get into.
    Trillfate
  • desertrain10desertrain10 Posts: 3,708 ✭✭✭✭✭
    fiat_money wrote: »
    fiat_money wrote: »
    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.

    ok, but she also said that trayvon had told her that he ran. she also heard trayvon breathing heavily. and than trayvon told her he "lost him".... after all that why on earth would trayvon purposely turn back around only to attack zimmerman from behide? make no sense...

    and it seems unlikely gz after losing sight of trayvon after following him for a good 5-10 minutes would just give up casually turn his back to walk back to his car if he indeed believed trayvon was a suspicious character, especially if trayvon was indeed circling his car....just doesn't sound right....


    she also said she could faintly hear trayvon yelling "get off of me" shortly after she heard the phone drop or w/e .... which also conflicts w/ gz account
    The girlfriend's account of Treyvon losing Zimmerman is in agreement with Zimmerman's account that he lost Treyvon, and the 911 call. The underlined is conjecture.

    First, she says she heard something hit the grass.
    Followed by saying she heard no screaming like "help me".
    She says she got no answer when calling back after the phone shut off.
    Then she says the last thing she heard was some kind of noise like something hitting somebody.
    Next, she says she could hear a "little bit like a little get off some stuff".
    Finally she says she could've heard Treyvon, before affirmatively saying she could hear a little bit that it was Treyvon.

    ^^Disregarding the strength/weakness of this testimony; Treyvon saying "get off me" doesn't dispute Zimmerman's claim that Treyvon punched him and they fought, nor does it dispute witness statements about seeing the two of them scuffling and/or rolling around on the ground.

    zimmerman claimed trayvon first words to him was "do you have a problem" ( that's in dispute), gz said no and than tm said "well you do now" as he proceeded to punch gz in the nose knocking him to the ground. after that tm climbed on top of him and began slamming his head into the sidewalk ...

    just doesn't jive w/ the the gf testimony at all as far as trayvon being the initial aggressor .... she described a boy who was scared and not looking for a physical confrontation ....


    gz conversation with the dispatcher and his past transgressions paint the picture of an hyper aggressive vigilante
    The bolded gets chalked up to being her words against his.

    And the underlined is character speculation; which is something I don't get into.

    gz has a million and 1 more reasons to lie than the girl wouldn't you agree?

    @ bolded sure the prosecution will though. as we all know character evidence for the purpose of proving that a person acted in a particular way on a particular occasion based on the disposition of that person is admissible in the court of law.

    and its probable gz defense lawyer will continue to further assassinate trayvon's character just as much of the media has done for weeks now...

    however the character evidence, 911 tapes, gf testimony together doesn't favor gz ...

    really regardless of the law... gz defense is not so strong as some people would like to believe

    Trillfate
  • riddlerapriddlerap G Unit 4 Life 50's MansionPosts: 14,779 ✭✭✭✭✭
    charlie wildin doggie.

    youre basically saying that if a random person says something like "Earth is a planet" you wouldnt believe them because they arent a scientist.

    fiat isnt really even giving his opinion.
    Trillfatefiat_money
  • fiat_moneyfiat_money Posts: 16,654 ✭✭✭✭✭
    fiat_money wrote: »
    fiat_money wrote: »
    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.

    ok, but she also said that trayvon had told her that he ran. she also heard trayvon breathing heavily. and than trayvon told her he "lost him".... after all that why on earth would trayvon purposely turn back around only to attack zimmerman from behide? make no sense...

    and it seems unlikely gz after losing sight of trayvon after following him for a good 5-10 minutes would just give up casually turn his back to walk back to his car if he indeed believed trayvon was a suspicious character, especially if trayvon was indeed circling his car....just doesn't sound right....


    she also said she could faintly hear trayvon yelling "get off of me" shortly after she heard the phone drop or w/e .... which also conflicts w/ gz account
    The girlfriend's account of Treyvon losing Zimmerman is in agreement with Zimmerman's account that he lost Treyvon, and the 911 call. The underlined is conjecture.

    First, she says she heard something hit the grass.
    Followed by saying she heard no screaming like "help me".
    She says she got no answer when calling back after the phone shut off.
    Then she says the last thing she heard was some kind of noise like something hitting somebody.
    Next, she says she could hear a "little bit like a little get off some stuff".
    Finally she says she could've heard Treyvon, before affirmatively saying she could hear a little bit that it was Treyvon.

    ^^Disregarding the strength/weakness of this testimony; Treyvon saying "get off me" doesn't dispute Zimmerman's claim that Treyvon punched him and they fought, nor does it dispute witness statements about seeing the two of them scuffling and/or rolling around on the ground.

    zimmerman claimed trayvon first words to him was "do you have a problem" ( that's in dispute), gz said no and than tm said "well you do now" as he proceeded to punch gz in the nose knocking him to the ground. after that tm climbed on top of him and began slamming his head into the sidewalk ...

    just doesn't jive w/ the the gf testimony at all as far as trayvon being the initial aggressor .... she described a boy who was scared and not looking for a physical confrontation ....


    gz conversation with the dispatcher and his past transgressions paint the picture of an hyper aggressive vigilante
    The bolded gets chalked up to being her words against his.

    And the underlined is character speculation; which is something I don't get into.

    gz has a million and 1 more reasons to lie than the girl wouldn't you agree?

    @ bolded sure the prosecution will though. as we all know character evidence for the purpose of proving that a person acted in a particular way on a particular occasion based on the disposition of that person is admissible in the court of law.

    and its probable gz defense lawyer will continue to further assassinate trayvon's character just as much of the media has done for weeks now...

    however the character evidence, 911 tapes, gf testimony together doesn't favor gz ...

    really regardless of the law... gz defense is not so strong as some people would like to believe
    They do use character speculation in court, but I avoid such speculation in arguments out of laziness; whether it would support my claims, or refute others'. I'd negate any character-based speculation that I come up with anyway.

    Things that are factual/concrete are easier to deal with.

    That's why I prefer math/science to the humanities.

    So yeh, I don't get into that.
Sign In or Register to comment.