Zimmerman Trial

#1,726
#1,726
There is no point in argueing with these two retards. They are so drivin this is a race issue , no matter what you say it will not click. If someone recorded a vid of what actually happen and everything gz said was true. Then these two idiots and the ignorant blacks would still say he's guilty For even questioning a black mans motive by tryin to see if he was stealing, then they would march and all that bs sayin Martin was only watched cause he was black and they would push for some kind of hate crime
 
#1,727
#1,727
utvolpj said:
really?
Click to expand...

Did he need to leave his vehicle? Was he not told that him following was unnecessary? Did he not say "these *******s always get away?"

vol_in_ar said:
he didn't get out of his vehicle against anyone's wishes..
He was out of his vehicle and when the dispatcher said we don't need you to follow him, GZ said OK...
Then went to look for an address, whne the dispatcher asked one, and was on his way back to his truck, when TM confronted him
Click to expand...

The dispatcher asked for his address. No need to leave your vehicle for that unless you want to play dress up vigilante.

PKT_VOL said:
So you think it is unfair but you are fine with it because you don't like what happened?
Click to expand...

I look at it like a missed offensive interference call that directly affects the result of a football game. When my team loses as a result of that call, it's an absolute travesty and justice must be served yaddah yaddah yaddah.

When my team wins as a result of the missed call, I'm pretty happy and have no interest in challenging anything.

Again, he is either a child or an adult; not both. This inconstant **** is BS.
Click to expand...

You really don't understand that the specific charges and whether or not the minor is the victim or the perpetrator dictates whether or not he's tried as a minor or adult?

Trayvon was 17 and isn't on trial here. He's a minor or, if you will, child. If he had committed a murder, he'd most likely be tried as an adult.
 
#1,729
#1,729
notabed22 said:
Did he need to leave his vehicle? Was he not told that him following was unnecessary? Did he not say "these *******s always get away?"
Click to expand...

he was already out of the vehicle

hndog609 said:
The fact that we are this far along and people STILL make that contention simply astounds me.
Click to expand...

facts don't matter to notabed when a gun is involved. He feels a tinkle down his leg when they are brought up
 
#1,730
#1,730
notabed22 said:
Zimmerman has no proof of that, but I do have proof that George Zimmerman got out of his vehicle unnecessarily and against the wishes of those who he had contacted for assistance and killed Martin in a "struggle" of questionable nature.
Click to expand...

"Unnecessarily" simply because you say so? Also, are the dispatchers on 911 actual law enforcement officers? If not, who gives a damn if they told him to stop following. They have zero legal authority.
 
#1,733
#1,733
notabed22 said:
Did he need to leave his vehicle? Was he not told that him following was unnecessary? Did he not say "these *******s always get away?"
Click to expand...

Did he need to get out of his car? No.
Did TM, via the prosecution's star witness, need to double back to confront Zimmerman? No.

notabed22 said:
The dispatcher asked for his address. No need to leave your vehicle for that unless you want to play dress up vigilante.
Click to expand...

It is not breaking the law to leave one's vehicle.
It is not breaking the law to double back to confront someone who is following you.

Irrelevant points.

notabed22 said:
I look at it like a missed offensive interference call that directly affects the result of a football game. When my team loses as a result of that call, it's an absolute travesty and justice must be served yaddah yaddah yaddah.

When my team wins as a result of the missed call, I'm pretty happy and have no interest in challenging anything.
Click to expand...

So you care nothing about playing fair?

notabed22 said:
You really don't understand that the specific charges and whether or not the minor is the victim or the perpetrator dictates whether or not he's tried as a minor or adult?

Trayvon was 17 and isn't on trial here. He's a minor or, if you will, child. If he had committed a murder, he'd most likely be tried as an adult.
Click to expand...

I understand what our BS laws dictate. I am not challenging THAT they say that, I am challenging the LOGICAL VALIDITY of such laws.

A person is either a child or an adult. Logically speaking, one cannot be a child in one situation and an adult in another.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,734
#1,734
lawgator1 said:
You have to understand something.

When a judge rules, you shut up. You might voice disagreement to protect the record, but you do not keep making the same objection over and over. Even if you are DEAD CERTAIN she is wrong, that's the ruling, you move on. Appeal if you lose.

It is actually quite common for the judge and attorneys to get frustrated with one another. But the fact of that doesn't mean one or the other is doing a bad job. It is a high stress situation in a regular trial. This is just that much more difficult because of its notoriety.
Click to expand...

Not my area but I've heard arguments from lawyers that repeated objections are okay as well. Sounds like stylistic differences.
 
#1,735
#1,735
utvolpj said:
he was already out of the vehicle
Click to expand...

I'm trying to backpedal out of that statement.


facts don't matter to notabed when a gun is involved. He feels a tinkle down his leg when they are brought up
Click to expand...

More or less.

VOLinthaNATI said:
"Unnecessarily" simply because you say so? Also, are the dispatchers on 911 actual law enforcement officers? If not, who gives a damn if they told him to stop following. They have zero legal authority.
Click to expand...

You answer why it was unnecessary right here.

VOLinthaNATI said:
Irrelevant.
Click to expand...

So, yea.

PKT_VOL said:
Did he need to get out of his car? No.
Did TM, via the prosecution's star witness, need to double back to confront Zimmerman? No.
Click to expand...

Can't argue that.

It is not breaking the law to leave one's vehicle.
It is not breaking the law to double back to confront someone who is following you.

Irrelevant points.
Click to expand...

I agree with that too; I was simply pointing out that it was unnecessary, irrelevant as that may be.

So you care nothing about playing fair?
Click to expand...

Eh, not always.

I understand what our BS laws dictate. I am not challenging THAT they say that, I am challenging the LOGICAL VALIDITY of such laws.

A person is either a child or an adult. Logically speaking, one cannot be a child in one situation and an adult in another.
Click to expand...

OH, okay. Well, yes. Contrary to the law, I think that a person should be a minor/child up until the age of 18. Though I sort of understand the reason/need for the law to pretend that a person can be a minor or an adult depending on the circumstance.
 
#1,736
#1,736
A Manslaughter guilty verdict would cause GZ to spend more time in prison than a 2nd Degree guilty verdict. So there's that.
 
Last edited:
#1,738
#1,738
volinbham said:
Not my area but I've heard arguments from lawyers that repeated objections are okay as well. Sounds like stylistic differences.
Click to expand...


Objecting hearsay to each document in a series is one thing.

Making the same objection to a judge doing one particular thing is eventually gonna get you in trouble. And its not that judges do not recognize that they sometimes get it wrong, its that they have to at some point call each debate to an end so that things can get to a conclusion somewhere reasonably close down the line.
 
#1,739
#1,739
PKT_VOL said:
Did he need to get out of his car? No.
Did TM, via the prosecution's star witness, need to double back to confront Zimmerman? No.



It is not breaking the law to leave one's vehicle.
It is not breaking the law to double back to confront someone who is following you.

Irrelevant points.



So you care nothing about playing fair?



I understand what our BS laws dictate. I am not challenging THAT they say that, I am challenging the LOGICAL VALIDITY of such laws.

A person is either a child or an adult. Logically speaking, one cannot be a child in one situation and an adult in another.
Click to expand...


People don't "NEED" to do a lot of things that somehow end up in precarious situations. A child is treated as a child for protection until they know right from wrong & wanna act like an adult. At 17 you know you're responsible for your own actions.
 
#1,741
#1,741
lawgator1 said:
Objecting hearsay to each document in a series is one thing.

Making the same objection to a judge doing one particular thing is eventually gonna get you in trouble. And its not that judges do not recognize that they sometimes get it wrong, its that they have to at some point call each debate to an end so that things can get to a conclusion somewhere reasonably close down the line.
Click to expand...

All I'm saying is that I've heard lawyers argue the other way - in effect they aren't going to let it go if they think they can nip it in the bud by repeatedly objecting (as happened yesterday) to the same thing.

I can see why one would and why one wouldn't.
 
#1,743
#1,743
notabed22 said:
I agree with that too; I was simply pointing out that it was unnecessary, irrelevant as that may be.
Click to expand...

Is there a book or website somewhere that helped you form your determination that it was unnecessary?

I mean, where are the universally accepted necessary and unnecessary factors listed as to if someone can or cannot get out of their care to follow someone?
 
#1,744
#1,744
volinbham said:
All I'm saying is that I've heard lawyers argue the other way - in effect they aren't going to let it go if they think they can nip it in the bud by repeatedly objecting (as happened yesterday) to the same thing.

I can see why one would and why one wouldn't.
Click to expand...


Okay, I suppose in the right circumstances.
 
#1,745
#1,745
#1,746
#1,746
VOLinthaNATI said:
Is there a book or website somewhere that helped you form your determination that it was unnecessary?

I mean, where are the universally accepted necessary and unnecessary factors listed as to if someone can or cannot get out of their care to follow someone?
Click to expand...

... the dictionary?

In the span of three posts, you did the following:

A) Claimed that I was wrong to say he unnecessarily exited his vehicle

B) Emboldened text in which I said "Did he need to leave his vehicle" and called it "irrelevant"

C) Went back to your original point that I can't be the judge of whether or not it was necessary

You should just stick to post B.
 
#1,749
#1,749
notabed22 said:
... the dictionary?

In the span of three posts, you did the following:

A) Claimed that I was wrong to say he unnecessarily exited his vehicle

B) Emboldened text in which I said "Did he need to leave his vehicle" and called it "irrelevant"

C) Went back to your original point that I can't be the judge of whether or not it was necessary.

You should just stick to post B.
Click to expand...

What???

By saying "irrelevant," I was saying that it's "irrelevant" if you or anyone else doesn't think he needed to get out of his car or not. You're opinion on that matter is, guess what, irrelevant.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top