Deucednuisance: Where on earth did I say any thing about dates or attacks?

When you pointed out when the most recent mugshot was taken.

Zimmerman's attorney comes across as a dude that has his shiat together. He's probably laughing inside for getting all this free publicity and a slam dunk acquittal for a case.

Deucednuisance: At what point did I state any conclusions to be drawn from that?

It was implied. Otherwise there was no point to your rebuttal to a post that referred to Zimmerman's broken nose.

NightOwl2255: s2s2s2: Nor has he stated such.

I assume you can read. So, let's go back to his post.
"Even though Martin's participation in the theft of 12 pieces of women's jewelry has not been adequately investigated".

That's not a qualified statement. According to that statement, Martin participated in the theft of jewelry. And for some reason that participation was not investigated. It does not say that there was an investigation to determine if Martin participated in the theft of jewelry.

---------------------------

The portion of my statement that you quoted does not appear to be a "qualified statement," but that is because you edited out the rest of the sentence, you lying douche.

My full statement is as follows:

"Even though Martin's participation in the theft of 12 pieces of women's jewelry has not been adequately investigated, some might say that if they were stolen, it would lend credence to Zimmerman's recorded, pre-shooting statements that he believed Martin was acting suspiciously."

There's your precious qualifier, right there. Idiot.

I think it's funny that the closer anyone gets to Trayvon Martin's history, the more desperate the lynch mob gets.

The major press is still running Martin's photo of him in the red Hollister shirt, even though this one is more recent.

keithgabryelski: Silly Jesus:
Both acts were equally legal...why did Zimmerman have a burden to stay in his truck, legal or otherwise?

omeganuepsilon: keithgabryelski: and it doesn't seem like he would be had george zimmerman stayed in his car.

Or a million other choices in a hundred other people's lives.


somewhat relevant is that one of these choice's outcome can been seen to possibly lead to an altercation and end of life. carrying a gun during a neighborhood watch operation where you approach and confront a target seems like you are taking a risk and probably endangering yourself, the person you confront, and the people near you.

the other choices (like walking home with skittles in your hand) can not be seen as possibly or likely leading to the end of life.

possibly is not the perfect word in that last sentence, but I hope you get my point.

Still irrelevant. Unless carrying the gun was illegal.

Making decisions that could be dangerous is not a reasonable indication of criminal intent.

Up until the point where intent can be proven, it's all irrelevant.

Now, maybe they reveal a conversation from a year ago wherein GZ says "I bet you I can kill a black kid and get away with it".

Then yea, parts of the past are directly relevant.

When you start spouting random IF's, that leads into really stupid an unreasonable territory.

What IF his car hadn't started, this could all be avoided. We should prosecute his mechanic for doing too good of a job, it's all his fault.

When you start considering "what if" it is no longer a case based on facts, and a miscarriage of justice ensues.

The problem happened, what "could" have happened is irrelevant. It's crying over spilt milk. Being a dumb kid, being an over testosteroned adult, etc, none of that is criminal, or indicates anything. It's a waste of time, effort, and does nothing for either the defendant's rights, nor for the justice system, and therefore, society as a whole.

The purpose of the courts, is to determine to the best of it's ability, is what DID happen. That is the idea, to eliminate guessing games as much as possible.

keithgabryelski: just assuming human nature

Well, one thing that human nature has us in common regarding, is our nature to assume. Beyond my wordplay, and addressing your meaning: which human's nature are you referring to?

Wow, the thread that wouldn't die.....

It should get some skittles and a hoodie....

keithgabryelski: so what?

The mother of the victim calls the shooting of her son an accident and you don't think that's a big deal? Man, you ain't very smrt, is you?

Of course her attorney freaked out and they've since issued a new statement.

keithgabryelski: 9beers: Hahaha Martin's mom called it an accident.

so what?

The law.

F.S. 782.03Excusable homicide. "Homicide is excusable when committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution, and without any unlawful intent, or by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or upon a sudden combat, without any dangerous weapon being used and not done in a cruel or unusual manner."

keithgabryelski: 9beers: Hahaha Martin's mom called it an accident.

so what?

She arguably knows about as much about this case as anyone other than GZ, the cops and the prosecutor. Her stating that it was all an accident immediately after the mob got a do-over prosecutor to press murder 2 charges, is, at the very least, interesting and newsworthy.

How come I don;t see many whites, asians, hispanics in the rallies of Trayvon Martin when they collectively represent over 80% of the country's population?
On the same token you don't see any blacks in protest or rallies over the beatings/killings of white individuals by black thugs.

I think that alone should speak volumes to the racial divide that is permeating into every aspect of our society. To ignore those things will ultimately doom our country.

s2s2s2: When you pointed out when the most recent mugshot was taken.

You farking asked! "The one from a few years ago?" IIRC. Implying that I am an argumentative lout who doesn't know when the pic was taken. (When, in fact, the opposite is true. Fancy that!)

s2s2s2: Otherwise there was no point to your rebuttal to a post that referred to Zimmerman's broken nose.

What "rebuttal"?

I commented on a picture in a post which made no claims of any kind about the picture.

Are you high?

I think you need to take a break. You're all over the place, dude.

Phinn: keithgabryelski: 9beers: Hahaha Martin's mom called it an accident.

so what?

The law.

F.S. 782.03Excusable homicide. "Homicide is excusable when committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution, and without any unlawful intent, or by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or upon a sudden combat, *without any dangerous weapon being used and not done in a cruel or unusual manner."

While I initially wanted to pounce on this as a good argument, I see a problem*. Perhaps I'm not getting it all.

Deucednuisance: You farking asked!

As did you.

Deucednuisance: I commented on a picture in a post which made no claims of any kind about the picture.

Weasel words.

Deucednuisance: which made no claims of any kind

He made no such claims that you made claims.

Dunce

What he said was you are acting as if...it's a description, and an apt one.

s2s2s2: Phinn: keithgabryelski: 9beers: Hahaha Martin's mom called it an accident.

so what?

The law.

F.S. 782.03Excusable homicide. "Homicide is excusable when committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution, and without any unlawful intent, or by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or upon a sudden combat, *without any dangerous weapon being used and not done in a cruel or unusual manner."

While I initially wanted to pounce on this as a good argument, I see a problem*. Perhaps I'm not getting it all.

The statute provides for an excuse under three entirely separate sets of circumstances:

(a) accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution, and without any unlawful intent, or

(b) accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or

(c) upon a sudden combat, without any dangerous weapon being used and not done in a cruel or unusual manner.

The first two are cases of accident. The third one is for cases involving bar fights and such.

If this is a case of accident, then it's not a crime.

9beers: Hahaha Martin's mom called it an accident.

I know it's so funny when people get murdered in cold blood! HAHA!

keithgabryelski: Phinn:

F.S. 782.03Excusable homicide. "Homicide is excusable when committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution, and without any unlawful intent, or by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or upon a sudden combat, without any dangerous weapon being used and not done in a cruel or unusual manner."

i see -- but we know this not to be the case -- no matter how the mother may have spoken. it wasn't an accident by zimmeran's own claim.

keithgabryelski: Phinn:

F.S. 782.03Excusable homicide. "Homicide is excusable when committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution, and without any unlawful intent, or by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or upon a sudden combat, without any dangerous weapon being used and not done in a cruel or unusual manner."

i see -- but we know this not to be the case -- no matter how the mother may have spoken. it wasn't an accident by zimmeran's own claim.

It all depends on one's intent with the word "accident", and what specifically they are referring to.

When shiat gets crazy, split second choices made under stress, can be deemed an accident. No plans, no real intent, just reflex.

People are destined to equivocate it's different uses here and troll up another argument.

s2s2s2: Weasel words.

To what post was I "rebutting"? I certainly didn't quote anything to rebut.

I stand by what was supposed to be typical fark snark: that doesn't look like a recently-broken nose, much.

Jeeze, you'd think I'd said "Well, he doesn't look Jewish".

omeganuepsilon: He made no such claims that you made claims.

What is "your rebuttal"?, then?

I hereby make an affirmative claim:

You guys need a chill pill.

keepitcherry: I know it's so funny when people get murdered in cold blood! HAHA!

So, not familiar with what the word "murder" means?

keithgabryelski: Silly Jesus: keithgabryelski: 9beers: Hahaha Martin's mom called it an accident.

so what?

She arguably knows about as much about this case as anyone other than GZ, the cops and the prosecutor. Her stating that it was all an accident immediately after the mob got a do-over prosecutor to press murder 2 charges, is, at the very least, interesting and newsworthy.

replace the word "mob" with "curious public" and that statement is only half wrong.

she used the word accident inappropriately and she doesn't get to define the circumstance most importantly because zimmerman has already claimed it wasn't an accident. he shot the kid because the kid attacked him.

Study up on the definition of "accident" some before making such claims.

you're equivocating(as a logical fallacy)

Link (new window)

Link (new window)

/i shouldn't have said just "definition"
//it's quite a large concept

What his mother said is irrelevant to the case, I just thought it was interesting that she would say it.

Unless there's some case changing evidence that we don't know about, I still think Zimmernan's attorney should go with a bench trail. There's absolutely no way that a judge looking at the facts could find Zimmerman guilty. I like that option rather than putting it in the hands of a jury, given how tainted the jury pool is and that people might be inclined to convict just to avoid riots. The best you're going to get out of a jury trial is a hung jury and a do over.

keithgabryelski: but you had no issue making this statement:

Being irrelevant to the case and being irrelevant in the court of public opinion are two different things.

http://www.chicagonewsreport.com/2012/04/daniel-adkins-killer-claims-s elf.html

Black man shoots white hispanic claims self defense, and is not arrested.

Can the race baiters kindly fark off now?

keithgabryelski: Silly Jesus: keithgabryelski: 9beers: Hahaha Martin's mom called it an accident.

so what?

She arguably knows about as much about this case as anyone other than GZ, the cops and the prosecutor. Her stating that it was all an accident immediately after the mob got a do-over prosecutor to press murder 2 charges, is, at the very least, interesting and newsworthy.

replace the word "mob" with "curious public" and that statement is only half wrong.

she used the word accident inappropriately and she doesn't get to define the circumstance most importantly because zimmerman has already claimed it wasn't an accident. he shot the kid because the kid attacked him.

Actually, he says that Martim felt his fun holstered when he was on the ground and grabbed it. He grabbed the gun himself and the two had a scuffle for it when the round goes off.

The is partially supported by the fact that a single round went off without chambering anothee round, indicating a hand was grabbing the gun preventing the slide from recoiling to load another round.

So that would make it accidental/self defense. He appears to be willing to take the beating from Martin without pulling his gun, as indicated by the 45 second screaming for help on the call. Pulling a gun would be his last resort after being discovered by Martin and having to chose him or his attacker.

Atleast according to his story and the evidence/witnesses he's going to cite.

keithgabryelski: 1) mom said accident when she probably meant some word that means terrible incident.
2) zimmerman has said he shot the kid intentionally because the kid attacked him, which leaves "accident" as meant by the law that was quoted, out of possible claims.

1. You're admitting this is a guess, and you have a problem when people disregard your "probably"? EABOD, you're not Kreskin.

2. Here you're reaching into all kinds of word games to twist the concepts as far apart as words will allow.

I dated a fat chick once, boy did that turn out to be an accident.

I didn't slip and by chance have my dick fall into her, mind you, the other kind of "accident"(though, now that I think about it, it felt more like "falling in" than a cozy experience), but the words still apply.

You were equivocating out of ignorance, and you do so again even after I explained how the word can be used in multiple ways, ergo you are doing it with intent.

Deucednuisance: I stand by what was supposed to be typical fark snark: that doesn't look like a recently-broken nose, much.

Ok, now that you have admitted what you implied, and I inferred, you can now understand why we took you to task over why the time of the photo being taken mattered.

6 weeks is enough time to heal.

liam76: PsiChick: Taikoluigi: Does this mean we'll quit seeing this crap in the news now?

Or will it be another farking month or so?

A man with serious paranoia issues stalked and murdered a teen boy because the teen boy fit the 'profile' of a criminal--i.e. black teen male wearing a hoodie.

So do you not know what "paranoia issues", "stalk" and "murder" mean or do you have some evidence that the police, media, and public aren't aware of?

This is one of those times where it's very helpful to click the audio links, since the man called 911, during which he told the dispatcher he was following the boy, made wildly erratic remarks, and it's a known fact that the bullet that killed Trayvon came from his damn gun, which in conjunction with the fact that there was no blood on him at all, even backsplatter, is more than a bit damning.

keithgabryelski: 9beers: What his mother said is irrelevant to the case, I just thought it was interesting that she would say it.

but you had no issue making this statement:

9beers: The mother of the victim calls the shooting of her son an accident and you don't think that's a big deal? Man, you ain't very smrt, is you?

One of these emboldened things is not like the other.

PsiChick: liam76: PsiChick: Taikoluigi: Does this mean we'll quit seeing this crap in the news now?

Or will it be another farking month or so?

A man with serious paranoia issues stalked and murdered a teen boy because the teen boy fit the 'profile' of a criminal--i.e. black teen male wearing a hoodie.

So do you not know what "paranoia issues", "stalk" and "murder" mean or do you have some evidence that the police, media, and public aren't aware of?

This is one of those times where it's very helpful to click the audio links, since the man called 911, during which he told the dispatcher he was following the boy, made wildly erratic remarks, and it's a known fact that the bullet that killed Trayvon came from his damn gun, which in conjunction with the fact that there was no blood on him at all, even backsplatter, is more than a bit damning.

What was wildly erratic? Claiming someoen looks suspiscious or on drugs doesn't make someone "paranoid.

Following someoen isn't stalking them. Legally it is right out and in everyday language following somene for a few minutes doesn't really fit the bill.

So it is a "fact" that there was no blood on him? You know this because?

liam76: Claiming someoen looks suspiscious or on drugs doesn't make someone "paranoid.

It doesn't?

PsiChick: erratic remarks

erratic |iˈratik|
adjective
not even or regular in pattern or movement; unpredictable: her breathing was erratic.

By erratic remarks, do you mean how he remarked that Trayvon was acting erratically?

keithgabryelski: you are unhinged.

What, because you can't be wrong?

You sound like the members of the lynch mob calling people a racist because they support due process, when even the prosecution and TM's family support the same principles, and say the same things that all us "racists" are saying, all of us "GZ defenders" are saying.

Yeah, supporting due process, and denigrating commonly employed dirty and invalid debate tactics...all make me a crazed bigot.

Gotcha.

Mrtraveler01: liam76: Claiming someoen looks suspiscious or on drugs doesn't make someone "paranoid.

It doesn't?

Well, it doesn't make them wrong.

s2s2s2: Mrtraveler01: liam76: Claiming someoen looks suspiscious or on drugs doesn't make someone "paranoid.

It doesn't?

Well, it doesn't make them wrong.

It doesn't?

If this kid was white, would he think he looks suspicious or on drugs?

PsiChick: This is one of those times where it's very helpful to click the audio links, since the man called 911, during which he told the dispatcher he was following the boy, made wildly erratic remarks, and it's a known fact that the bullet that killed Trayvon came from his damn gun, which in conjunction with the fact that there was no blood on him at all, even backsplatter, is more than a bit damning.

First, it's back spatter. Second, high velocity impact spatter forms a mist, in which the droplets can be microscopic. Third, back spatter can consist of a tiny quantity of blood.

You know nothing.

Mrtraveler01: s2s2s2: Mrtraveler01: liam76: Claiming someoen looks suspiscious or on drugs doesn't make someone "paranoid.

It doesn't?

Well, it doesn't make them wrong.

It doesn't?

If this kid was white, would he think he looks suspicious or on drugs?

If he's peeking in windows and shiat as he meanders by, as described(I paraphrased here though) in the recording of GZ with the cops, YES.

farking idiots!

Drew would ban the lot of you if you didn't all make him money via ads.

omeganuepsilon: If he's peeking in windows and shiat as he meanders by, as described(I paraphrased here though) in the recording of GZ with the cops,

I take it that you're trolling because not even GZ said that.

Mrtraveler01: omeganuepsilon: If he's peeking in windows and shiat as he meanders by, as described(I paraphrased here though) in the recording of GZ with the cops,

I take it that you're trolling because not even GZ said that.

Read the transcripts, listen to the recording. It's clear you haven't yet.
That really is the image he's conveying over the phone, suspicious behavior, LONG before any mention of race, which was ASKED for by the Dispatcher. He couldn't even confirm the race until later in the phone call.

omeganuepsilon: Mrtraveler01: omeganuepsilon: If he's peeking in windows and shiat as he meanders by, as described(I paraphrased here though) in the recording of GZ with the cops,

I take it that you're trolling because not even GZ said that.

Read the transcripts, listen to the recording. It's clear you haven't yet.
That really is the image he's conveying over the phone, suspicious behavior, LONG before any mention of race, which was ASKED for by the Dispatcher. He couldn't even confirm the race until later in the phone call.

I've read those transcripts. Where in them does it say he's peeking in the windows?