NightOwl2255: s2s2s2: Like hides behind a divider and attacks without legally justifiable aggression?

Is that what happened? You know that for a fact? Were you there? Cause the police would like to talk to you as they have no witness to the start of the altercation. Or do you share 9beers omnipresence?

No, no. I was just asking where you were getting "creepy guy" from. So that is one of those fact things you are strictly sticking to? Oh, I know: you are the secret eyeball witness for the prosecution that they are holding back. Their "ace in the hole", or "a-hole" for short. But I'm jus kidding. You really are the standard for a strict reading of the evidence.

NightOwl2255: omeganuepsilon: 9beers wouldn't be up in arms if the anti-zimm Brigade were not out in force doing their presumption of guilt until proven....well strike that last bit, there's no way they'll change their stance.

I have said, many times, that I don't know if Zimmerman is guilty of a crime or not. I have said that if he does go to trial, and is found innocent, I'll be happy to say he's an innocent man. If he's found guilty, will you say he's a guilty man? We know 9beers won't. He's already declared that Zimmerman is an innocent man and there is no way he will change his mind.

So Mumia is guilty?

Bathia_Mapes: Do you think an insignificant little troll like 9beers worries me?

You know how I know you're a part of the mob?

NightOwl2255: s2s2s2: No, no. I was just asking where you were getting "creepy guy" from.

I'm guessing if you were walking in your neighborhood and some guy stopped and stared at you and then started following you, you might find that creepy. Or flattering. I don't know you.

Well, once I had run away from him, before he even got out of his car, I wouldn't hide and wait to attack him, when it would be easier just keep running and get to where I was going.

NightOwl2255: He's already declared that Zimmerman is an innocent man and there is no way he will change his mind.

I certainly do think he's innocent since there's no proof that a crime was committed. I've been saying the same thing for weeks now. What's funny is how the mob either continues repeating the same talking points, even after they've been proven false or moves the goalposts to some other piece of speculation.

Conviction =/= Actual guilt.

There have been enough criminals get away with things, and enough innocent men put into jail, to make that into what should be common knowledge. Apparently that's a concept too large for some people in these threads, and to them I say, go back to learning how to tie your shoes.

In this society, it is not my place, to have a Belief on the matter. Forming an educated guess / wager, is another matter. Having seen what evidence we have, I've made my wager, but that's open to change should more evidence be revealed that is convincing, unlike many in these threads. That's how logic works, such a process has given society so much, to include the computers we are using to post to fark. It's too bad that we can't all utilize, indeed, even understand the base concept of logic.

NightOwl2255: s2s2s2: I wouldn't hide and wait to attack him

You can say the moon is made of cheese 100 times. Still won't make it so.

Yeah, but that would be creepy.

NightOwl2255: Like Martin attack Zimmerman? That kind of speculation?

That's not speculation, it's Zimmerman's version of events. A version of events that the prosecution admitted that they had no proof to dispute. Why would you dispute it, do you have evidence that the prosecution doesn't? Everything Zimmerman has said so far has proven to be true and much of it is confirmed by evidence, why should I not believe that part of his story?

9beers: NightOwl2255: He's already declared that Zimmerman is an innocent man and there is no way he will change his mind.

I certainly do think he's innocent since there's no proof that a crime was committed. I've been saying the same thing for weeks now. What's funny is how the mob either continues repeating the same talking points, even after they've been proven false or moves the goalposts to some other piece of speculation.

Indeed, one could throw feasts for years with the amount of Red Herrings in these threads.

Fun fact, eating only one type of food perpetually, can lead to starvation/malnutrition, even death.

Interesting parallel, as some of these people really do seem to be very intellectually stunted.

NightOwl2255: 9beers: piece of speculation.

Like Martin attack Zimmerman? That kind of speculation?

Or like "creepy dude following you". Getting out of a car after some kid runs around a corner, having just pretended to have a gun, is the height of creepy. I bet George couldn't keep up because he was touching his "gun" the whole time.

NightOwl2255: s2s2s2: Yeah, but that would be creepy.

But tasty. Well, as long as it wasn't blue cheese. That stuff smells.

Had some on my salad, earlier. Almost shot the salad bar, though.
Not with a gun, or anything, just some dirty looks at a suspicious, hooded appliance.

NightOwl2255: 9beers: That's not speculation, it's Zimmerman's version of events.

I try and never use this, but it's called for here. LOL

There is some evidence that we know about that backs up GZ's story, and none that is contrary to it according to the people asked at the Bond hearing.

Occam's Razor can apply here. You may want to read up on it.
Link

Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor, Latin lex parsimoniae) is the law of parsimony, economy or succinctness. It is a principle urging one to select among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect.

Compared to the leaps and assumptions you anti-zimm's make, the events you imagine, posted here with very creative wording to make GZ sound like a stalker, hunter of angelic babies, whatever, 9beers theory is the most simple because it does, indeed, make the fewest assumptions, and therefore, is more reliant on what evidence we do have.

NightOwl2255: s2s2s2: Or like "creepy dude following you". Getting out of a car after some kid runs around a corner, having just pretended to have a gun, is the height of creepy. I bet George couldn't keep up because he was touching his "gun" the whole time.

I'm waiting to hear Martin's version of "the chase".

Oh, yeah...

Acquittal!

NightOwl2255: I'm out.

Good riddance. Try not to suck any dick on your way through the parking lot.

NightOwl2255: keep farking that chicken

That's a pretty accurate way of summing up the prosecution's case.

omeganuepsilon: In this society, it is not my place, to have a Belief on the matter. Forming an educated guess / wager, is another matter. Having seen what evidence we have, I've made my wager, but that's open to change should more evidence be revealed that is convincing, unlike many in these threads. That's how logic works, such a process has given society so much, to include the computers we are using to post to fark. It's too bad that we can't all utilize, indeed, even understand the base concept of logic.

It's logical to conclude that GZ's racist ranting to the cops, coupled with his refusal to follow an order from the dispatcher painted a picture of him stalking TM that night. This can logically lead to the conclusion that TM had a right to defend himself from this perceived threat and did not deserve to be killed over some random person's racism. Wouldn't you agree?

AmorousRedDragon: It's logical to conclude that GZ's racist ranting* to the cops, coupled with his refusal to follow an order* from the dispatcher painted a picture of him stalking* TM that night. This can logically lead to the conclusion that TM had a right to defend himself from this perceived threat and did not deserve to be killed over some random person's racism*. Wouldn't you agree?

*indicates stupid assed lies that are in no way supported by facts.

kab: Likely the same twatter users that threatened to off themselves because their parents didn't buy them ipads or new cars for xmas?

Yeah, I'm sure he's got a lot to be worried about.

No, those were white, these people are black. The black people have guns and kill each other all the time.

Entertaining how none of them know how the legal system works.

/not to mention Zimmerman did nothing wrong.

spawn73: abfalter: I don't want to see Zimmerman killed.

I do want to see him off the streets and sitting in a jail cell.

I want him to be cleared of guilt, having acted in self defence.

Also, I want to Twitter morons making death threads being put in jail instead.

Black people are allowed to make death threats against latinos. The leftist media calls him white anyway.

Wonder how long it would take to get arrested if you replaced "Zimmerman" with "Obama" in those twitter posts.

CalvinMorallis: Molavian: gimmegimme: Molavian: gimmegimme: No one deserves to be stalked and hunted in a suburban neighborhood.

I agree. It was a good thing he was armed, otherwise he'd probably be dead right now.

Why didn't Trayvon have the right to Stand His Ground?

Because in the facts of the case as we know them at this point, Zimmerman didn't assault Martin.

'cept where the part where Martin got killed, yeah, you're completely right :/

You can't assault someone once they've hit you. Learn to English and law.

NightOwl2255: 9beers: Unethical, abuse of power, criminal, whatever words you want to use.

You used the word criminal, not me skippy. And no legal experts have said that it's criminal. That makes you, ready for it, wrong.

Now, just admit you're not infallible. Or continue being a asshat. Your choice.

Actually, Alan Dershowitz did.

I don't agree with 9beers on a lot of what is said, and a lot of what he's said has been flat out wrong or immaterial to the case, but a lot of legal experts are confused as the prosecution's charge of 2nd degree murder based on the testimony given during the bail hearing.

Dershowitz flat out claimed that it was criminal (or had a good case to be). I'm surprised that he's become so opinionated on this case, but he went from having an opinion to full on pissed.

/sorry, no links... Mobile phone (will try later)

NightOwl2255: meathome: Actually, Alan Dershowitz did.

Nope, he didn't. He said "It's irresponsible and unethical". He never said criminal.

Of course 9beers, after claiming that many legal experts said it was criminal, and being proved wrong, would now like to equate unethical with criminal. But, it's not the same thing. And he knows it.

Same thing, dude.

NightOwl2255: Of course 9beers, after claiming that many legal experts said it was criminal, and being proved wrong, would now like to equate unethical with criminal. But, it's not the same thing. And he knows it.

Hey that sounds like 9beers' position on the whole case.
Unethical to shoot a kid? Sure.
Illegal, under the circumstances? Not so much.

9beers: NightOwl2255: meathome: Actually, Alan Dershowitz did.

Nope, he didn't. He said "It's irresponsible and unethical". He never said criminal.

Of course 9beers, after claiming that many legal experts said it was criminal, and being proved wrong, would now like to equate unethical with criminal. But, it's not the same thing. And he knows it.

Same thing, dude.

NightOwl2255: No, not really. 9beers actually thinks the killing of Martin was a service to the community and that Zimmerman should receive an award.

Hey, look over there →

9beers: NightOwl2255: No, not really. 9beers actually thinks the killing of Martin was a service to the community and that Zimmerman should receive an award.

Hey, look over there →

Are you denying that you said on 3/26 at 3:26:

"The streets of Sanford are safer with this violent thug off of them. Zimmerman deserves an award for his actions."

NightOwl2255: 9beers: Hey, look over there →

Yeah skippy, you might want to notice that was in response to a posters claim that your position on the killing was that it was "Unethical". You don't deserve an award for unethical actions. Your statement clearly shows you do not think the killing was anything but an heroic event on the part of Zimmerman.

If I've learned anything from watching Westerns, it's that it takes a lot of guts to shoot an unarmed man.

NightOwl2255: meathome: Actually, Alan Dershowitz did.

Nope, he didn't. He said "It's irresponsible and unethical". He never said criminal.

Of course 9beers, after claiming that many legal experts said it was criminal, and being proved wrong, would now like to equate unethical with criminal. But, it's not the same thing. And he knows it.

This is admittedly from a stupid source, but it's the first thing that Google returned and they are quotes, so yeah...



Here he stops just short of accusing them of a crime, which probably has something to do with him being a lawyer and knowing that it might not be a good idea. He comes pretty damn close to it though, and he gets much closer than you would like people to believe...

After the release of the photo, however, Dershowitz went much further, telling Breitbart News that if the prosecutors did have the photo and didn't mention it in the affidavit, that would constitute a "grave ethical violation," since affidavits are supposed to contain "all relevant information."

Dershowitz continued, "An affidavit that willfully misstates undisputed evidence known to the prosecution is not only unethical but borders on perjury because an affiant swears to tell not only the truth, but the whole truth, and suppressing an important part of the whole truth is a lie."

The affidavit is a sworn statement and the testimony is sworn, and they contradicted one another...seems like there would be a pretty good argument for criminality (perjury) there.

At the very least, the prosecution has been forced into being dishonest early in the game due to the weakness of their case, and it's disgusting that the criminal justice system has gotten to this point.

gimmegimme: NightOwl2255: 9beers: Hey, look over there →

Yeah skippy, you might want to notice that was in response to a posters claim that your position on the killing was that it was "Unethical". You don't deserve an award for unethical actions. Your statement clearly shows you do not think the killing was anything but an heroic event on the part of Zimmerman.

If I've learned anything from watching Westerns, it's that it takes a lot of guts to shoot an unarmed man.

Especially one that's about to kill you.

Don't you have any new trolling material?

Silly Jesus: gimmegimme: NightOwl2255: 9beers: Hey, look over there →

Yeah skippy, you might want to notice that was in response to a posters claim that your position on the killing was that it was "Unethical". You don't deserve an award for unethical actions. Your statement clearly shows you do not think the killing was anything but an heroic event on the part of Zimmerman.

If I've learned anything from watching Westerns, it's that it takes a lot of guts to shoot an unarmed man.

Especially one that's about to kill you.

Don't you have any new trolling material?

Wouldn't you "feel threatened" if someone were pursuing you in a car and then on foot?

gimmegimme: Silly Jesus: gimmegimme: NightOwl2255: 9beers: Hey, look over there →

Yeah skippy, you might want to notice that was in response to a posters claim that your position on the killing was that it was "Unethical". You don't deserve an award for unethical actions. Your statement clearly shows you do not think the killing was anything but an heroic event on the part of Zimmerman.

If I've learned anything from watching Westerns, it's that it takes a lot of guts to shoot an unarmed man.

Especially one that's about to kill you.

Don't you have any new trolling material?

Wouldn't you "feel threatened" if someone were pursuing you in a car and then on foot?

Not getting drawn into your nonsense. Keep trolling 9beers.

Silly Jesus: gimmegimme: Silly Jesus: gimmegimme: NightOwl2255: 9beers: Hey, look over there →

Yeah skippy, you might want to notice that was in response to a posters claim that your position on the killing was that it was "Unethical". You don't deserve an award for unethical actions. Your statement clearly shows you do not think the killing was anything but an heroic event on the part of Zimmerman.

If I've learned anything from watching Westerns, it's that it takes a lot of guts to shoot an unarmed man.

Especially one that's about to kill you.

Don't you have any new trolling material?

Wouldn't you "feel threatened" if someone were pursuing you in a car and then on foot?

Not getting drawn into your nonsense. Keep trolling 9beers.

You're right. We have no proof Zimmerman was pursuing Martin in a car then on foot.

gimmegimme: Silly Jesus: gimmegimme: Silly Jesus: gimmegimme: NightOwl2255: 9beers: Hey, look over there →

Yeah skippy, you might want to notice that was in response to a posters claim that your position on the killing was that it was "Unethical". You don't deserve an award for unethical actions. Your statement clearly shows you do not think the killing was anything but an heroic event on the part of Zimmerman.

If I've learned anything from watching Westerns, it's that it takes a lot of guts to shoot an unarmed man.

Especially one that's about to kill you.

Don't you have any new trolling material?

Wouldn't you "feel threatened" if someone were pursuing you in a car and then on foot?

Not getting drawn into your nonsense. Keep trolling 9beers.

You're right. We have no proof Zimmerman was pursuing Martin in a car then on foot.

0/10

Silly Jesus: gimmegimme: Silly Jesus: gimmegimme: Silly Jesus: gimmegimme: NightOwl2255: 9beers: Hey, look over there →

Yeah skippy, you might want to notice that was in response to a posters claim that your position on the killing was that it was "Unethical". You don't deserve an award for unethical actions. Your statement clearly shows you do not think the killing was anything but an heroic event on the part of Zimmerman.

If I've learned anything from watching Westerns, it's that it takes a lot of guts to shoot an unarmed man.

Especially one that's about to kill you.

Don't you have any new trolling material?

Wouldn't you "feel threatened" if someone were pursuing you in a car and then on foot?

Not getting drawn into your nonsense. Keep trolling 9beers.

You're right. We have no proof Zimmerman was pursuing Martin in a car then on foot.

0/10

We're not even sure that it was Zimmerman's gun! For all we know, Martin was packing heat and Zimmerman was lucky enough to wrest it away.

gimmegimme: Are you denying that you said on 3/26 at 3:26:

"The streets of Sanford are safer with this violent thug off of them. Zimmerman deserves an award for his actions."


Have I ever denied saying it the 300 other times some moron brought it up in an attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that they can't make a valid argument to support their contention that Zimmerman is guilty of a crime?

Oh wait, 301

NightOwl2255: Silly Jesus: Here he stops just short of accusing them of a crime, which probably has something to do with him being a lawyer and knowing that it might not be a good idea. He comes pretty damn close to it though, and he gets much closer than you would like people to believe...

It's very simple, and I know how the Zimmerman Admiration Club (ZAC), likes to equivocate, did he, or any legal expert (which by-the-way 9beers implied that many legal experts said it was criminal, now it's down to one and he didn't even say it) use the word criminal or say it was a crime. It's a simple yes or no question.

Did he say "this is criminal"? Obviously no.

Did me make a thinly veiled accusation of criminality (perjury)? Yes.

Did he lay out the basis of perjury (a crime) and then state the actions of the prosecution and leave it to the reader to put two and two together? Yes

If this is any indication of how you go through life (never reading between the lines or picking up subtleties) then you are missing out on a hell of a lot of information. Everything doesn't come in nice and tidy "yes" or "no" packages. Sometimes thought and inference are involved in the gathering of knowledge. Try it sometime.

This will be the last of my 'dancing with the trolls' for this subject as it presently stands. It has become tedious.

NightOwl2255: meathome: Actually, Alan Dershowitz did.

Nope, he didn't. He said "It's irresponsible and unethical". He never said criminal.

Of course 9beers, after claiming that many legal experts said it was criminal, and being proved wrong, would now like to equate unethical with criminal. But, it's not the same thing. And he knows it.

The quote you provided is what he said in the interview with Smerconish.

There was a separate interview with Fox where he supposedly the claim. Unfortunately I don't have a transcript, and without one it could be a observational mistake on my part (running wires under a desk during the interview).

Since the only folks who seem to be making the quote with the interview are rather rabid right-wing blogs and news organizations, I'm going withdrawl my previous comment until or unless a more reliable source becomes available. I'd rather be proven wrong than push a point I can't prove.

/I did like the use of the term "Nifonged" in some of the comments; I lol'ed a bit