Zimmerman Trial

#726
#726
DinkinFlicka said:
I seriously doubt Crush or 8283 are taking anything in this conversation seriously. As categorically incorrect as I may be, your notion here is flat out ludicrous.
Click to expand...

I would say you begin "taking things seriously" the moment you suggest, repeatedly, a desire to "leave your door open" and express "outrage" in other threads regarding a debate in a separate thread.

This isn't an MMA forum on which I'm suggesting that I can kick absolutely anyone's ass on the planet... it's a football forum and a politics subforum. You're smarter than that, Flicka.
 
#727
#727
notabed22 said:
I would say you begin "taking things seriously" the moment you suggest, repeatedly, a desire to "leave your door open" and express "outrage" in other threads regarding a debate in a separate thread.

This isn't an MMA forum on which I'm suggesting that I can kick absolutely anyone's ass on the planet... it's a football forum and a politics subforum. You're smarter than that, Flicka.
Click to expand...

You are right in the sense that I am smarter than that, but you are wrong in the sense that I perceive the forum in such a way.

They were just calling you spineless through fictional interpretations, and you took them literally.
 
#728
#728
notabed22 said:
Then I would suggest not bringing up your children in relation to intelligence if you don't want me to mock them, really.

Also, I would like to remind you that you are challenging me to break into your house -or just walk through the door- in an attempt to kill me so that you can make your point regarding a law/"right" of which I am fully cognizant. So, there's that.
Click to expand...

If you're stupid enough to do it I don't think anybody would be charged.
 
#729
#729
DinkinFlicka said:
You are right in the sense that I am smarter than that, but you are wrong in the sense that I perceive the forum in such a way.

They were just calling you spineless through fictional interpretations, and you took them literally.
Click to expand...

Okay, so the invitation wasn't literal. That's what I figured.

So that reopens the wormhole of "calling out" someone for being a "keyboard warrior" by, wait for it, being a keyboard warrior.

Digging yourself deeper here.
 
#730
#730
Dinka is correct. I wasn't being literal, but the difference being, I wouldn't be afraid to actually show up...just need 6 hrs to get there :)



EDIT: also needs to be on a Monday or Tuesday, those are my off days...thanks
 
Last edited:
#732
#732
notabed22 said:
It's a pretty difficult story for me...

I was visiting my friend's home as a child with some other kids and his father had left a firearm out in the open. I had never touched a gun before but was simultaneously scared and intrigued. As I was playing with the gun, it misfired several times and killed my three friends. Ever since that horrible afternoon I have vowed to stop at nothing to eradicate firearm usage.
Click to expand...

Murderer. Take yourself to the gallows.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#736
#736
notabed22 said:
I have no idea who would win in a fight between 82_83 and I. I sincerely believe he would win, but this is based on posturing so who knows.

The question still remains as to why the hell I would ever agree to meet someone with whom I converse on an Internet forum for a fight in public, let alone "break into" his house to be killed. That's not so much a sigh of cowardice as it is just not being completely stupid.
Click to expand...

If this was Vegas, I'd put money on air to whip your ass......this assumption is based solely on the subject matter found in your posts.....I'd also throw some down on Jello
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#739
#739
Carl Pickens said:
If this was Vegas, I'd put money on air to whip your ass......this assumption is based solely on the subject matter found in your posts.....I'd also throw some down on Jello
Click to expand...

Found him. He is the one in drag

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hf_XpLOYfog[/youtube]
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#741
#741
notabed22 said:
Okay, so the invitation wasn't literal. That's what I figured.

So that reopens the wormhole of "calling out" someone for being a "keyboard warrior" by, wait for it, being a keyboard warrior.

Digging yourself deeper here.
Click to expand...

It doesn't take being a keyboard warrior to call out someone for being a petty smartass over the internet.

It might be different if anything you posted was, you know, funny.

If you're the one saying I'm digging myself into an illogical hole, I'm okay with that. You're kind of the pariah on here, and that really takes a special person.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#742
#742
notabed22 said:
Okay, so the invitation wasn't literal. That's what I figured.

So that reopens the wormhole of "calling out" someone for being a "keyboard warrior" by, wait for it, being a keyboard warrior.

Digging yourself deeper here.
Click to expand...

You done gone and done it now

Dink quit school in the 3rd grade. They wanted him to go to recess.

He told them he don't play.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#744
#744
ACTUAL TRIAL POST:

The judge should not allow this evidence about Zimmerman's course work. It's irrelevant, especially given the fact that the Defense is not arguing that the shooting fell under the Stand Your Ground law.
 
#745
#745
Wow.

The judge is bending over backward for the State here. This evidence is prejudicial at best. It is treating Zimmerman's schooling and interest in law enforcement as a prior bad act.
 
#746
#746
If I was the defense I would ask the judge for a dismissal as soon as the prosecution rested.
 
#748
#748
bamawriter said:
You wouldn't get it.
Click to expand...

Probably not, but it would be on record for the appeal if convicted.

There have been a couple rulings by this judge that would seem to be unfairly advantageous to the prosecution. Striking the detectives statement about finding Z credible was IMHO a prejudicial move. This is a detective who was asked his opinion on several other issues, why is his opinion of Z struck?
 
#750
#750
hog88 said:
Probably not, but it would be on record for the appeal if convicted.

There have been a couple rulings by this judge that would seem to be unfairly advantageous to the prosecution. Striking the detectives statement about finding Z credible was IMHO a prejudicial move. This is a detective who was asked his opinion on several other issues, why is his opinion of Z struck?
Click to expand...

Well, it is case law that a witness should not give his or her opinion as to the truthfulness of the defendants claims.

But that said, I question the relevance of his testimony given the case law. He did not conduct the initial interview with Zimmerman. He conducted the second interview that is used to determine if the suspect's story is consistent. This is done in order to establish the likelihood that the suspect is telling the truth. Given the sole purpose of the witness' evidence, I'm not sure how one can justify allowing any of his testimony if one won't allow his opinion of the facts.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top