It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

FBI Finds No Racial Bias in Trayvon Martin Shooting

page: 8
14
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 



I know you filled up a couple of pages with arguing along with another member, but I didn't bother to read any of it because it was just a tit for tat.

I do apologize for my end of that.
I am making an honest attempt to stop interacting with certain posters.

edit on 18-7-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Then again, I guess if you are going to employ the fallacy of appeal to emotion in your little jab,





Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


If they don't make him kill himself in the meantime.

He looks horrible. You can see that the whole thing has taken a toll on him.


Who did what now?



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by habitforming

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Then again, I guess if you are going to employ the fallacy of appeal to emotion in your little jab,





Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


If they don't make him kill himself in the meantime.

He looks horrible. You can see that the whole thing has taken a toll on him.


Who did what now?


Oh, you are "one of those". Yeah...the political forum might be missing you and your arguing tactics. Scroll back a few pages and read where I stated that he should be convicted of manslaughter.

I made a statement of fact. he has lost a ton of weight. Mismanage your comprehension however you see fit.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Oh, you are "one of those". Yeah...the political forum might be missing you and your arguing tactics. Scroll back a few pages and read where I stated that he should be convicted of manslaughter.

I made a statement of fact. he has lost a ton of weight. Mismanage your comprehension however you see fit.


It is not a fact, it is an opinion and an appeal to emotion.
"Horrible" is subjective. Lots of people lose weight to look BETTER.
He was not exactly slim.
If THEY dont make HIM kill HIMSELF?
What fact is in that sentence?
What fact is in your entire post?
Yeah, I get it. You are one of those.

You can use empty appeals to emotion but god forbid anyone else bring up something emotive.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by habitforming
 


Yes. My statement that he lost weight is a fact. My statement about his appearance is my opinion, as is anything that is subjective.

Now that you have established this, should I point out that I was making an off handed comment to a peer, whereas you are making an argument? I cannot be "appealing to emotion" when I am not trying to make an appeal of any sort. If the only comment you can find to hinge your lousy defense on (instead of just saying, "Yeah, i did", and moving on) is an off handed comment I was making in an exchange between myself and someone I am mostly in agreement with, then you defense is more lousy that you could possibly realize.

You are comparing your rotten apples with my oranges.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by habitforming
 


Yes. My statement that he lost weight is a fact. My statement about his appearance is my opinion, as is anything that is subjective.


But you did not mention his weight in that post at all. All OPINION.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


If they don't make him kill himself in the meantime.

He looks horrible. You can see that the whole thing has taken a toll on him.


See, there are no facts there.
Dieting is a trillion dollar a year industry. Look this post is an empty appeal to emotion. FACE IT. And you tried to call me out for doing the same thing on the same page.



Now that you have established this, should I point out that I was making an off handed comment to a peer, whereas you are making an argument?


OH? Well then my post was an off handed comment as well.


I cannot be "appealing to emotion" when I am not trying to make an appeal of any sort.



So you do not understand appeals to emotion then?
You just employ them and call other people for doing the same?
Odd.


If the only comment you can find to hinge your lousy defense on (instead of just saying, "Yeah, i did", and moving on) is an off handed comment I was making in an exchange between myself and someone I am mostly in agreement with, then you defense is more lousy that you could possibly realize.

You are comparing your rotten apples with my oranges.


No, I am comparing your hypocrisy with your feigned hurt. If you do not want to get called out on #, try not doing it yourself and calling others out on it.

Pretty simple.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by habitforming
 



After this post, i am deleting this thread from my history. The mendacity i have seen here is too much.

You may convince yourself. But you are convincing no one else. The several U2U's I got laughing because I was dumb enough to mention you....now i understand. Now I see why so many have such a low opinion of you. One, in particular, said, "Hahah....Habitforming is paying attention to YOU now". Yeah, you seem to have a "fan" club.

Carry on.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Since we dont know who confronted who the counter argument could be Martin decided to follow Zimmerman while he was heading back to his vehicle. Instead of taking his girlfriends advice to run away maybe Martin ignored it and went after Zimmerman.

My point is based on the law and not their opinions. They are fixating on issues that are not relevant to the situation - like the whole stalking conversation. It does not matter what a person thinks it only matters what can be proven in court. When the lead detective falsifies his PC statement and then admits under oath they have absolutely no evidence to support the charge that Zimmerman confronted Martin, it creates a lot of other possibilities. All of which are ignored outright by people who want to use their personal opinions while ignoring the law simply because they dony like / agree with Zimmermans actions / choices.


A lot of what you said here could actually make sense if we were to set aside all the evidence that has been released so far in the case. If you'd like us to do that and then make up a new scenario that's okay with me, but we'll probably have to move to the skunk works forum to do it.

The evidence (and the video that Zimmerman participated in - which he lied significantly in and we know that because we have the audio of the 911 call that contradicts a good deal of what he said in the video) shows that he relocated his vehicle after ending the 911 call (which was evident he was going to do when he refused to give a location where he'd be parked and he was actually parked right in front of a lit area at the club house when he made the call), got BACK OUT OF HIS VEHICLE, and pursued Martin.

Now all his other tripe about Martin being a crouching tiger and hidden dragon in the bushes doesn't even make sense if you look at the actual location where the confrontation and shooting took place. No bushy-bush to spring out of, no hidey hole to pop up and say "boo! you're gonna die!". Nope, just sheer friggin logic shows that when he exited his vehicle the SECOND TIME and went in pursuit between those buildings he walked right up to Martin just like the girlfriend's statements support. She heard the initial words of the confrontation and it immediately went to hell from there. And quite frankly I don't care who threw the first punch, who got the better of whom, or anything past that point. An armed man approached an unarmed man in the dark and scared the begeebers out of him and then shot him dead when he got his ass handed to him.

That's illegal. That's called manslaughter. The sheer idiotic, negligent, wreckless and UNNECESSARY steps required to be taken to get to that point support manslaughter. I do NOT believe anything supports a murder charge, but then the prosecutor in this case is known for over-charging.
edit on 7-19-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
And quite frankly I don't care who threw the first punch, who got the better of whom, or anything past that point.

Which is a nice opinion as well as being problematioc because it is inconsisent with the way the law works for Florida under SYG.


Originally posted by Valhall
An armed man approached an unarmed man in the dark and scared the begeebers out of him and then shot him dead when he got his ass handed to him.

There is no evidence that shows Zimmerman confronted Martin.
There is no evidence to show that Zimmerman knew Martin was unarmed / armed prior to contact.
There is no evidence to show that Martin knew Zimmerman was unarmed / armed prior to contact.
There is evidence to suggest that the physical injuries sustained by Zimmerman were more severe than Martins physical injuries (excluding the gunshot wound).

While I understand your argument its based off of yur personal opinion and NOT the law, which is what is required when reviewing the evidence at hand, including the actions of each individual.

You cannot make a leap of logic and portray it as fact, like when you stated -

Originally posted by Valhall
An armed man approached an unarmed man in the dark and scared the begeebers out of him and then shot him dead when he got his ass handed to him.


You do not know for a fact that that is what occured - period. The Police dont even know and have aleady admitted that so I fail to understand why you and others constantly go down this road when the police accounts dont even support it?



Originally posted by Valhall
That's illegal.

Not under Florida Law... Something you and othes continue to ignore for whatever reasons...


Originally posted by Valhall
That's called manslaughter.

Not according to the Special Prosecutor who feels its 2nd Murder, not manslaughter...


Originally posted by Valhall
The sheer idiotic, negligent, wreckless and UNNECESSARY steps required to be taken to get to that point support manslaughter.

No... The sheer idiotic, negligent, reckless and UNNECESSARY leaps of logic you and others are taking while subsitituting the law with your own moral and personal opinions does not support manslaughter nor 2nd murder. The sooner you learn the difference between the law and the requirements under the law and your opinion based on how you think it should work the better off we will all be.



Originally posted by Valhall
I do NOT believe anything supports a murder charge, but then the prosecutor in this case is known for over-charging.

Neither did the lead detective but since this prosecution is based on politics and emotions of the community instead of the law we get to watch 2 people have their lives ruined.

What you and others are consistently missing (or ignoring) is theories are fine... We can talk all day long about what could have occured, what might have occured, etc... When it comes to a court room those theories must be supported with facts and evidence.

As I previsouly stated all its going to take is to call the detective to the stand and ask what evidence the police have that shows Zimmerman confronted Martin.

If Zimmerman, as you suggest, confronted Martin with a gun, then why did Zimmerman allow himself to be assaulted for up to 40 seconds prior to shooting Martin?

There is a reason the symbol of justice is a blind person holding scales with a sword pointed at the ground.

It does not matter what people think it only matters what can be proven... Lets try this, based on the facts, lay out your case as to why Zimmerman is guilty, using the 2nd murder / your own manslaughters charge. Base your argument on the elements of the crime and use the evidence to date.

Keep in mind any claim made must be supprted by facts.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
There is evidence to suggest that the physical injuries sustained by Zimmerman were more severe than Martins physical injuries (excluding the gunshot wound).




Yeah, 'cept that.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by habitforming

Originally posted by Xcathdra
There is evidence to suggest that the physical injuries sustained by Zimmerman were more severe than Martins physical injuries (excluding the gunshot wound).




Yeah, 'cept that.


Post hoc ergo propter hoc....

yup... 'cept that..
edit on 20-7-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Valhall
And quite frankly I don't care who threw the first punch, who got the better of whom, or anything past that point.

Which is a nice opinion as well as being problematioc because it is inconsisent with the way the law works for Florida under SYG.


Originally posted by Valhall
An armed man approached an unarmed man in the dark and scared the begeebers out of him and then shot him dead when he got his ass handed to him.

There is no evidence that shows Zimmerman confronted Martin.
There is no evidence to show that Zimmerman knew Martin was unarmed / armed prior to contact.
There is no evidence to show that Martin knew Zimmerman was unarmed / armed prior to contact.
There is evidence to suggest that the physical injuries sustained by Zimmerman were more severe than Martins physical injuries (excluding the gunshot wound).

While I understand your argument its based off of yur personal opinion and NOT the law, which is what is required when reviewing the evidence at hand, including the actions of each individual.

You cannot make a leap of logic and portray it as fact, like when you stated -

Originally posted by Valhall
An armed man approached an unarmed man in the dark and scared the begeebers out of him and then shot him dead when he got his ass handed to him.


You do not know for a fact that that is what occured - period. The Police dont even know and have aleady admitted that so I fail to understand why you and others constantly go down this road when the police accounts dont even support it?



Originally posted by Valhall
That's illegal.

Not under Florida Law... Something you and othes continue to ignore for whatever reasons...


Originally posted by Valhall
That's called manslaughter.

Not according to the Special Prosecutor who feels its 2nd Murder, not manslaughter...


Originally posted by Valhall
The sheer idiotic, negligent, wreckless and UNNECESSARY steps required to be taken to get to that point support manslaughter.

No... The sheer idiotic, negligent, reckless and UNNECESSARY leaps of logic you and others are taking while subsitituting the law with your own moral and personal opinions does not support manslaughter nor 2nd murder. The sooner you learn the difference between the law and the requirements under the law and your opinion based on how you think it should work the better off we will all be.



Originally posted by Valhall
I do NOT believe anything supports a murder charge, but then the prosecutor in this case is known for over-charging.

Neither did the lead detective but since this prosecution is based on politics and emotions of the community instead of the law we get to watch 2 people have their lives ruined.

What you and others are consistently missing (or ignoring) is theories are fine... We can talk all day long about what could have occured, what might have occured, etc... When it comes to a court room those theories must be supported with facts and evidence.

As I previsouly stated all its going to take is to call the detective to the stand and ask what evidence the police have that shows Zimmerman confronted Martin.

If Zimmerman, as you suggest, confronted Martin with a gun, then why did Zimmerman allow himself to be assaulted for up to 40 seconds prior to shooting Martin?

There is a reason the symbol of justice is a blind person holding scales with a sword pointed at the ground.

It does not matter what people think it only matters what can be proven... Lets try this, based on the facts, lay out your case as to why Zimmerman is guilty, using the 2nd murder / your own manslaughters charge. Base your argument on the elements of the crime and use the evidence to date.

Keep in mind any claim made must be supprted by facts.


The girlfriend's testimony. Martin's dead body. The location of the altercation and the distance between where that occurred and where Zimmerman was when he hung up from the 911 call. The lies that don't match all of the previous listed. The discrepancy between the scenario YOU (i.e. Zimmerman) propose of Martin be the pouncing perp and the fact he was talking on his ear bud, holding a drink and skittles and all the while planning this criminal leap and attack on Zimmerman (PLEASE explain that one to me did he attack with the ice tea or the skittles? did he jump out of a bush and hurl is earbud like a ninja star, or what?)

The almost physical impossibility of Martin being on top of Zimmerman wailing on him (which I do believe is what resulted right after Zimmerman confronted him) and, according to liar boy George, "seeing his gun" and going for it. It's mighty hard to see a gun that's hidden by your crotch.




top topics



 
14
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join