Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSNBC)   Zimmerman tries to piss off his judge. Again   (usnews.msnbc.msn.com ) divider line
    More: Dumbass, image file, martin case, Seminole County, recusals, NBC News, Dean Martin, legal risk  
•       •       •

21778 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Jul 2012 at 9:30 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



737 Comments   (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-15 09:16:41 AM  

Silly Jesus: The fear for his life was when he was being beaten and there was a danger of him blacking out and no longer being able to defend himself against his attacker


That's just "his side of the story", not a fact. When all is said and done the only facts are:
1. There is no evidence that Martin was commiting any crime to begin with
2. Zimmerman brought a gun and initiated a confrontation
3. Zimmmerman shot and killed unarmed Martin

Zim's story doesn't add to or change that list in any way and I'm betting #2 convicts him.
 
2012-07-15 09:32:33 AM  

Silly Jesus: In this country, you simply cannot attempt to kill someone for the non-crime of observing and following you in a public area.


So... Zimmerman is guilty? He's the only one who killed anyone. He was just walking home, observing a public area.
 
2012-07-15 09:46:46 AM  

Abox: Silly Jesus: The fear for his life was when he was being beaten and there was a danger of him blacking out and no longer being able to defend himself against his attacker

That's just "his side of the story", not a fact. When all is said and done the only facts are:
1. There is no evidence that Martin was commiting any crime to begin with
2. Zimmerman brought a gun and initiated a confrontation
3. Zimmmerman shot and killed unarmed Martin

Zim's story doesn't add to or change that list in any way and I'm betting #2 convicts him.


The only problem with your list is that the prosecution has already admitted that they don't know #2. They don't know who started the fight. That's all that matters in the eyes of the law. Even then, there is some ambiguity...but for any chance of a conviction, they have to prove that Zimmerman, at the very least, threw the first punch. As it stands, there is no evidence whatsoever that supports this theory. The prosecution has admitted to that in court and under oath.
 
2012-07-15 09:47:23 AM  

fluffy2097: Silly Jesus: In this country, you simply cannot attempt to kill someone for the non-crime of observing and following you in a public area.

So... Zimmerman is guilty? He's the only one who killed anyone. He was just walking home, observing a public area.


Lol

2/10 because you made me smile.
 
2012-07-15 10:01:11 AM  

Silly Jesus: Abox: Silly Jesus: The fear for his life was when he was being beaten and there was a danger of him blacking out and no longer being able to defend himself against his attacker

That's just "his side of the story", not a fact. When all is said and done the only facts are:
1. There is no evidence that Martin was commiting any crime to begin with
2. Zimmerman brought a gun and initiated a confrontation
3. Zimmmerman shot and killed unarmed Martin

Zim's story doesn't add to or change that list in any way and I'm betting #2 convicts him.

The only problem with your list is that the prosecution has already admitted that they don't know #2. They don't know who started the fight. That's all that matters in the eyes of the law. Even then, there is some ambiguity...but for any chance of a conviction, they have to prove that Zimmerman, at the very least, threw the first punch. As it stands, there is no evidence whatsoever that supports this theory. The prosecution has admitted to that in court and under oath.



Again, the fight is just Zim's story, not a fact of the case. The confrontation in #2 is Zim and Martin getting involved with each other at all. And the undisputable fact that Zim initiated this will be his downfall, or so I predict.
 
2012-07-15 10:17:49 AM  

Abox: Again, the fight is just Zim's story, not a fact of the case. The confrontation in #2 is Zim and Martin getting involved with each other at all. And the undisputable fact that Zim initiated this will be his downfall, or so I predict.


GZ's story of a fight is backed up by an eyewitness and his own injuries. As for the confrontation, the prosecution has already said in court that they have no proof of how it started. Up until the point of the face to face confrontation, GZ had not broken any laws and there's no proof that he broke any in those few unaccounted for minutes after the phone call ended and the shooting.

You do understand that you're speculating on what you think took place during that time, right? Speculations that are not supported by any of the evidence that we've seen so far.

The other important thing to remember is that under Florida law, GZ is still entitled to use deadly force even if he started the confrontation. An aggressor is allowed to use deadly force if they are in fear of great bodily harm or death and they are unable to flee.
 
2012-07-15 10:19:59 AM  

Silly Jesus: .but for any chance of a conviction, they have to prove that Zimmerman, at the very least, threw the first punch.


Actually they don't. This is a murder trial, not an assault and battery trial. All they have to prove is that Zimmerman was aware of the fact that his choices would probably lead to the use of his gun and most likely deadly force, before putting them into action.

/Relax, I'm not taking you seriously. This is more for everyone else.
//also, everyone else, I'm not saying that the above will be easy to prove by any means, just that it is the key thing to prove for the prosecution to get a conviction
 
2012-07-15 10:43:03 AM  

consider this: Abox: Again, the fight is just Zim's story, not a fact of the case. The confrontation in #2 is Zim and Martin getting involved with each other at all. And the undisputable fact that Zim initiated this will be his downfall, or so I predict.

GZ's story of a fight is backed up by an eyewitness and his own injuries. As for the confrontation, the prosecution has already said in court that they have no proof of how it started. Up until the point of the face to face confrontation, GZ had not broken any laws and there's no proof that he broke any in those few unaccounted for minutes after the phone call ended and the shooting.

You do understand that you're speculating on what you think took place during that time, right? Speculations that are not supported by any of the evidence that we've seen so far.


Not speculating at all. When Zim called 911 he was not being followed or harassed by Martin. He then took his gun, initiated a confrontation, and shot Martin. Those are the only facts of this case; the details of the fight is just Zim's story. The jury will likely find that had Zim just stayed where he was ...literally stood his ground...after calling the police, no confrontation, fight, or killing would have taken place.
 
2012-07-15 10:59:37 AM  

Abox: Not speculating at all.


Abox: initiated a confrontation


I give up.
 
2012-07-15 11:04:52 AM  

Silly Jesus: kashari: My issue is that the police didn't take enough pictures of Zimmerman at the scene. They weren't done until after he went to the station, except for the one(?) that a cop took on his phone & forgot to turn over to investigators until weeks later.

All of their photos haven't been released to the public. The cell phone picture you've seen was taken by a neighbor.

This was a shoddy investigation in many ways;

Zimmerman should have been drug/alcohol tested, he wasn't that we know of yet.

Gotta have a warrant for that. No crime (they thought it was self defense) means no warrant.

They didn't search/impound his vehicle (did he not tell the officers he drove to the area?), which could have had evidence of loading his gun.

Again, no crime, no warrant....plus I don't see the relevance. Evidence of loading the gun? You mean bullets? I think that those were pretty clearly present...

No mention of his wallet in the list of property he had (thought he was going to Target?), did they not ask him for ID after he shot someone? Even if one cop 'knew' him from previous calls, that is not a positive identification.

Ummm...Yes, if an officer knows someone they are not obligated to look at their ID.

A neighbor was allowed to be in the crime scene even after the tape was up (prob same guy who called Z's wife & took a picture or two), then a cop finally told him to move.

Shouldn't have been allowed.

Where is footprint evidence, which could have told a lot of the story, especially with wet ground?

Stop watching CSI.


How about you quit being rude and condescending?

I have NEVER watched one episode of CSI in my life, but since that seems to be your stock answer, there's no use trying to discuss this intelligently with you.
 
2012-07-15 11:11:45 AM  

consider this: Abox: Not speculating at all.

Abox: initiated a confrontation

I give up.


Just remember...confrontation != fight. That Zim left his 'ground' and followed Martin - and not the other way around - is not in dispute.
 
2012-07-15 11:14:05 AM  
Silly Jesus: btw, you are wrong about the photos that have been released, an officer took the one that's been published that's in black & white where he's sitting in the back seat of the police car. (the info in the reports). A cop took it on his cell phone because at that time, the officers didn't have a camera at the scene. The one of the back of his head was taken by the neighbor.
 
2012-07-15 11:18:37 AM  

Abox: Just remember...confrontation != fight. That Zim left his 'ground' and followed Martin - and not the other way around - is not in dispute.


It's also irrelevant to what happened.
 
2012-07-15 11:28:08 AM  

consider this: Abox: Just remember...confrontation != fight. That Zim left his 'ground' and followed Martin - and not the other way around - is not in dispute.

It's also irrelevant to what happened.



Unless you're speculating or just in love with Zim's story, it's one of only two things that happened. The other is that Zim shot Martin.
 
2012-07-15 11:31:51 AM  

consider this: It's also irrelevant to what happened.


It's only irrelevant to people who want to argue about Martin vs. Zimmerman and who "punched first" or how much injury Zimmerman sustained. It's quite relevant to a murder case. See my post above. If Zimmerman thought the prospect of drawing his weapon and using it was even possible, let alone likely, before he chose to leave his car and pursue on foot against police advise, that is very relevant evidence for a murder trial.
 
2012-07-15 11:32:26 AM  
advice, that is.
 
2012-07-15 11:41:35 AM  

thamike: It's quite relevant to a murder case.


If Zimmerman would have told the dispatcher that he was grabbing his gun to go take care of things or something like that, then it would be relevant. What you're claiming isn't true at all, any person who carries a firearm might have reason to use it at some point. Simply carrying a gun doesn't mean that a person had set out on using it.

Also, Zimmerman didn't leave his car against police advice, he was talking to a civilian dispatcher and had already left his vehicle when the dispatcher asked if he was following TM. When the dispatcher suggests that he need not follow, GZ replies "OK" and stops running. There's no evidence that he continued following or looking for TM after that.
 
2012-07-15 11:57:53 AM  

consider this: If Zimmerman would have told the dispatcher that he was grabbing his gun to go take care of things or something like that, then it would be relevant.


The fact that he didn't tell the dispatcher this, while fully intending to ignore the advice of the police, is just as relevant to this case.

What you're claiming isn't true at all, any person who carries a firearm might have reason to use it at some point. Simply carrying a gun doesn't mean that a person had set out on using it.

What I'm claiming is that it is relevant and it is admissible. Whatever political bent you have or think I have is irrelevant.


Also, Zimmerman didn't leave his car against police advice, he was talking to a civilian dispatcher and had already left his vehicle when the dispatcher asked if he was following TM. When the dispatcher suggests that he need not follow, GZ replies "OK" and stops running. There's no evidence that he continued following or looking for TM after that.

He called the non-emergency number of the Sanford Police Dept. Whether the person on the other line was an according-to-Hoyle police officer is irrelevant. Zimmerman called the police and for all intents and purposes was speaking to the police. He called the police from his car. During this call he exited the car and pursued Martin on foot. His heavy breathing tipped off the person on the police line, who advised that he stop. All of this points to Zimmerman knowing what he was doing and if it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that his intent was to employ his weapon, that is relevant to a murder trial. Again, I've no dog in this race. All I'm saying is that this is a relevant piece of evidence.
 
2012-07-15 12:09:17 PM  
Honestly, I'm wondering why the defense is relying on the SYG law and the suspect's account and not concentrating on police procedure. They must know something we don't.
 
2012-07-15 12:11:34 PM  

thamike: All of this points to Zimmerman knowing what he was doing and if it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that his intent was to employ his weapon, that is relevant to a murder trial.


What you're saying makes absolutely no sense. If GZ's goal was to shoot somebody, why would he wait until TM was on top of him, beating him up? GZ was legally carrying a weapon and there is no evidence that he used the weapon in any capacity other than self defense.
 
2012-07-15 12:18:17 PM  

consider this: What you're saying makes absolutely no sense. If GZ's goal was to shoot somebody, why would he wait until TM was on top of him, beating him up? GZ was legally carrying a weapon and there is no evidence that he used the weapon in any capacity other than self defense.


I didn't suggest that his goal was to shoot somebody. i know nothing of his intentions. I am also not disputing the legality of his being armed. I'm saying that if he knew of the probability of a confrontation involving the weapon before trying to confront Martin against police wishes, it is relevant to a 2nd degree murder trial. It's not something you or I can change. I am not suggesting it is proof of guilt. But, it is relevant.
 
2012-07-15 12:27:20 PM  

thamike: before trying to confront Martin against police wishes


Can you offer up one piece of evidence that suggests that GZ was trying to confront TM? Following somebody doesn't mean that GZ was trying to initiate a confrontation. If you were reporting a suspicious person to the police and ran around a corner in order to keep them in your sight, would that mean that you were trying to confront them?

The "against police wishes" part of your argument is also wrong. At no point was GZ ordered by the police to do anything.
 
2012-07-15 12:37:57 PM  

consider this: Can you offer up one piece of evidence that suggests that GZ was trying to confront TM? Following somebody doesn't mean that GZ was trying to initiate a confrontation. If you were reporting a suspicious person to the police and ran around a corner in order to keep them in your sight, would that mean that you were trying to confront them?

The "against police wishes" part of your argument is also wrong. At no point was GZ ordered by the police to do anything.


It's only my inference from what he said. If you want to go with "follow" that's fine. I also said "wishes" not "orders." "OK we don't need you to do that" is pretty clear. Even Zimmerman understood it the way I am representing it, hence his response--"OK." Again, all I am saying that if he understood the possibility of using his gun and/or shooting someone might result from his actions, it is relevant to the case and admissible in court. It is not my argument. I am not sure why you think this is about you and me arguing. I have yet to say anything that would warrant your line of refutation. You are arguing semantics of the night at hand while I am pointing out what evidence may be relevant to the case.
 
2012-07-15 12:43:28 PM  
Look at it this way. Let's do a hypothetical sample cross examination of Zimmerman.

P: Were you aware that Martin was aware of your presence?
Z: Yes.
P: Were you aware that you had your firearm on your person when you exited your vehicle and pursued Martin on foot?
Z: Yes.
P: Were you aware of the possibility that Martin might confront you for following him?
Z: Yes/No
P: Were you aware of the possibility of having to use your weapon to defend yourself before the confrontation occured?
Z: Yes/No

Something akin to this cross examination will most likely happen in court because, as I pointed out, these are relevant questions.
 
2012-07-15 12:47:35 PM  
Also questions along the lines of "were you convinced that the person you were following was guilty of a crime" and "did this anger you" will come up. Probably from both the prosecutor and the defense. Again: not a smoking gun, but relevant. When someone says something is relevant, it doesn't necessarily mean they have decided what the outcome will be.
 
2012-07-15 12:52:24 PM  

thamike: "OK we don't need you to do that" is pretty clear.


It's very clear to me that a civilian dispatcher made a suggestion, one that GZ was not obligated to follow, even though he did. We also have the lead investigator in the case testifying at the bond hearing that there is no evidence that GZ continued following or initiated the confrontation. You're making speculations as to what you think happened and while that's fine for this thread, those speculations are irrelevant in court.

thamike: Again, all I am saying that if he understood the possibility of using his gun and/or shooting someone might result from his actions, it is relevant to the case and admissible in court.


I still have no idea what point you're trying to make with this, the fact that GZ was carrying a gun is irrelevant, given that there's no evidence that it was ever in play before GZ used it in self defense.

thamike: I have yet to say anything that would warrant your line of refutation. You are arguing semantics of the night at hand while I am pointing out what evidence may be relevant to the case.


You've been commenting on the facts of the case and giving your interpretation of what was said and done leading up to the confrontation. I'm simply responding to your comments.
 
2012-07-15 01:00:10 PM  

consider this: the fact that GZ was carrying a gun is irrelevant


You can't be serious.

You've been commenting on the facts of the case and giving your interpretation of what was said and done leading up to the confrontation. I'm simply responding to your comments.

I've been trying to explain to you how a few points of the case are in fact relevant. Not to his guilt. But to the case. At any rate, it seems you have a strong opinion one way or the other regarding guilt vs. innocence. I don't. Maybe those other guys will come back to the thread and you can hammer it out with them.
 
2012-07-15 01:01:31 PM  

thamike: Something akin to this cross examination will most likely happen in court because, as I pointed out, these are relevant questions.


Hypothetical lines of questioning are not allowed in court. Any decent attorney would object to that line of questioning and the judge would certainly sustain the objection. Also, there's almost no chance that GZ ever takes the stand. There's absolutely nothing to be gained by having him testify.
 
2012-07-15 01:07:55 PM  

consider this: Hypothetical lines of questioning are not allowed in court


It was my hypothesis as to the wording of the questions. Not the prosecution's.

Also, there's almost no chance that GZ ever takes the stand. There's absolutely nothing to be gained by having him testify.

I wouldn't know what the defense's course of action will be. I was just trying to simplify the process for the sake of an example of the logical progression of inquiry.
 
2012-07-15 01:14:32 PM  

thamike: You can't be serious.


GZ had a legal right to be armed. The fact that he was reporting a suspicious person and attempting to keep that person in his view, doesn't mean he gives up the right to carry his weapon. I have no idea how you can possibly think that the gun has anything to do with the case.
 
2012-07-15 01:21:32 PM  
There are two accounts of the initial confrontation between GZ and TM. One from GZ, the other from a girl named "DeeDee", who apparently was on the phone with TM up to the encounter.

GZ claims TM approached him, angry, and said: "Yo! You got a problem?"

DeeDee claims TM was angry at being followed, met up with GZ, and asked him: "Why you following me for?"

The accounts are in substantial agreement... They agree TM was angry and that TM spoke first.

Interestingly, DeeDee said that prior to this that TM was at his father's house : "He said he right by his father house" Then after a couple minutes, she said, the confrontation took place.

I'm not sure how much credibility to give a witness that didn't surface for weeks, after being coached by the Martin's lawyers, and who can't seem to express herself unless being led by the interviewer, but if we believe DeeDee, TM made it to the townhouse where his father was staying, some 400 feet from the site of the confrontation.

If GZ chased TM for minutes and finally confronted him and shot him, I don't see how the confrontation could have occurred where it did, given TM's earlier presence 400 feet south, at the townhouse.

It makes more sense that TM made it to the townhouse safely, then traveled 400 feet north to confront the little man who was disrespectful enough to follow him and call the cops.

We only have GZ's and DeeDee's accounts, but they are in substantial agreement.
 
2012-07-15 01:25:54 PM  

consider this: thamike: You can't be serious.

GZ had a legal right to be armed. The fact that he was reporting a suspicious person and attempting to keep that person in his view, doesn't mean he gives up the right to carry his weapon. I have no idea how you can possibly think that the gun has anything to do with the case.


His right to carry a gun isn't in dispute (I have said this already). The gun, however, does indeed factor quite prominently in a 2nd degree murder trial involving the gun. More importantly, whether or not Zimmerman was aware of the possibility or likelihood of having to use the gun, before he followed Martin is relevant to a murder trial. If Martin was alive or if the charge was manslaughter, you would be correct that it would be irrelevant. However, knowledge of the possible outcome is relevant to a murder charge. You seem to be struggling with the concept of relevance. Relevance doesn't tilt to one side or another in this discussion. It simply is or is not. The gun and Zimmerman's use of it is relevant.
 
2012-07-15 01:29:13 PM  
When I said "this discussion" I should have said "this case." This discussion is also irrelevant to the case.
 
2012-07-15 01:30:18 PM  

Heinrich von Eckardt: the other from a girl named "DeeDee"


I listened to her interview with investigators a while back. Holy hell, what a train wreck that was. If she's the prosecutions star witness, they're doomed. Like you said, she basically confirms GZ's version of events even though it's obvious that she's trying to give investigators what they want to hear. At one point in the interview, she even says "you want that too" in a manner that makes it apparent that she's trying to fabricate a story that she thinks will help place blame on GZ.
 
2012-07-15 01:31:14 PM  
BTW, I haven't even gotten to Zimmerman's assertion that there was a struggle for the gun before the shooting. That speaks to the gun's relevance even more emphatically.
 
2012-07-15 01:34:57 PM  

consider this: I have no idea how you can possibly think that the gun has anything to do with the case.


Maybe because it was what Zimmerman killed Martin with?

What the hell are some of the people on Fark smoking? Some derptard spent half this thread ranting that Trayvon's choice of beverage was completely relevant to the case, and now someone is trying to pass off the murder weapon as "irrelevant"
 
2012-07-15 01:36:28 PM  

consider this: Heinrich von Eckardt: the other from a girl named "DeeDee"

I listened to her interview with investigators a while back. Holy hell, what a train wreck that was. If she's the prosecutions star witness, they're doomed. Like you said, she basically confirms GZ's version of events even though it's obvious that she's trying to give investigators what they want to hear. At one point in the interview, she even says "you want that too" in a manner that makes it apparent that she's trying to fabricate a story that she thinks will help place blame on GZ.


That would be a massive failure on the prosecution's part. However, the "blame" is on GZ. It's whether he's guilty of 2nd degree murder that's at hand. The prosecution would have to establish some semblance of malice aforethought, which "DeeDee's" recollection of the phone conversation is useless for. If we're talking opinions, it's mine that the prosecution bit off more than they can chew and are trying to make an example of Zimmerman instead of pursuing a realistic charge (like manslaughter or negligent homicide). Then again, maybe they know something we don't.
 
2012-07-15 01:39:46 PM  

thamike: More importantly, whether or not Zimmerman was aware of the possibility or likelihood of having to use the gun, before he followed Martin is relevant to a murder trial.


No it's not. GZ is under no obligation to consider what might happen in any given situation if he happens to be carrying his weapon at the time. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

thamike: BTW, I haven't even gotten to Zimmerman's assertion that there was a struggle for the gun before the shooting. That speaks to the gun's relevance even more emphatically.


Again, I have no idea what you're even trying to say. We know there was a gun present and that the gun was eventually used in self defense (if you beleive GZ's) version of events. A struggle for the gun means that there was a struggle for the gun, nothing more.
 
2012-07-15 01:41:58 PM  

consider this: Again, I have no idea what you're even trying to say. We know there was a gun present and that the gun was eventually used in self defense (if you beleive GZ's) version of events. A struggle for the gun means that there was a struggle for the gun, nothing more.


Does it mean that the gun is irrelevant to the trial?
 
2012-07-15 01:45:56 PM  

FuryOfFirestorm: Maybe because it was what Zimmerman killed Martin with?

What the hell are some of the people on Fark smoking? Some derptard spent half this thread ranting that Trayvon's choice of beverage was completely relevant to the case, and now someone is trying to pass off the murder weapon as "irrelevant"


You need to do a better job paying attention to the context in which the gun is being discussed.
 
2012-07-15 01:46:27 PM  
And I've been trying to hold off on this, in hopes that reason would prevail, but...

Relevance

a : relation to the matter at hand
b : practical and especially social applicability : pertinence
2
: the ability (as of an information retrieval system) to retrieve material that satisfies the needs of the user
 
2012-07-15 01:48:59 PM  

consider this: You need to do a better job paying attention to the context in which the gun is being discussed.


The context is whether the gun is at all relevant to the case. You have asserted repeatedly that the gun is irrelevant. The only difference between his response to that and mine is that he's visibly flabbergasted by your assertion.
 
2012-07-15 01:50:35 PM  

thamike: Does it mean that the gun is irrelevant to the trial?


How is the gun relevant? GZ used legally owned and possessed firearm to defend himself from great bodily harm or death. That's the relevancy of the gun to this case.

You seem to want to make this out to be a case of GZ grabbing his gun and chasing after a kid in order to gun him down.
 
2012-07-15 01:56:06 PM  

consider this: thamike: Does it mean that the gun is irrelevant to the trial?

How is the gun relevant? GZ used legally owned and possessed firearm to defend himself from great bodily harm or death. That's the relevancy of the gun to this case.

You seem to want to make this out to be a case of GZ grabbing his gun and chasing after a kid in order to gun him down.


I'm not trying to make this case out to be anything. It's a murder trial. The prosecution will have to establish some sort of intent or awareness of the likelihood of shooting aforethought in order to prove Zimmerman guilty of 2nd degree murder. Hence, the relevance of the gun and its use.to the case
 
2012-07-15 01:58:03 PM  

consider this: GZ used legally owned and possessed firearm to defend himself from great bodily harm or death.


Boy you really are in love with Zim's story. Maybe when he gets out of prison he can tell it to you while you fall asleep in his arms.
 
2012-07-15 01:58:21 PM  
...which will be difficult to prove, in my opinion. But, it may require Zimmerman to take the stand at some point, as the focus will be on his intent, not on the struggle.
 
2012-07-15 01:59:45 PM  

thamike: ...which will be difficult to prove, in my opinion. But, it may require Zimmerman to take the stand at some point, as the focus will be on his intent, not on the struggle.


This was a continuation of my post, not Abox's.
 
2012-07-15 02:06:13 PM  

Abox: Boy you really are in love with Zim's story. Maybe when he gets out of prison he can tell it to you while you fall asleep in his arms.


I shouldn't even respond to such a childish comment, but I will. I'm not claiming that GZ's story is accurate, but it's up to the prosecution to prove that it isn't and I've seen no evidence to suggest that they can do that.
 
2012-07-15 02:08:33 PM  
Also:

consider this: No it's not. GZ is under no obligation to consider what might happen in any given situation if he happens to be carrying his weapon at the time. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.


I didn't say he was obligated. I said it was relevant. The relevance of his intent is not a matter of opinion.
 
2012-07-15 02:11:20 PM  

consider this: I'm not claiming that GZ's story is accurate, but it's up to the prosecution to prove that it isn't and I've seen no evidence to suggest that they can do that.


Which you can keep saying all you like to those that wish to engage you in that dispute. It just doesn't apply to what I'm saying in any way. It is a good example of irrelevance.
 
Displayed 50 of 737 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report