Bloody new photo of Trayvon Martin's killer

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

Following is not approaching.

No, it's creepier, isn't it?

Someone acting in a way that might be creepy doesn't mean you get to attack them. Plus, I ask, yet again, if Martin felt threatened, why didn't he call the police? Answer that one.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

Someone acting in a way that might be creepy doesn't mean you get to attack them. Plus, I ask, yet again, if Martin felt threatened, why didn't he call the police? Answer that one.

No, but it can create a sense of imminent danger, one of the characteristics of assault. As for calling the police, there are several reasons that could come into play. As a seventeen year old male, he may have felt it unbecoming his sense of adolescent masculinity. As a stranger in town, he may have been apprehensive about how he would have been received by the police... to put it delicately.

Originally posted by DJW001
How does that differ from an a priori assertion of Zimmerman's innocence? The court has not yet tried the case, and yet you feel convinced enough of his "innocence" to proclaim FREE ZIMMERMAN!

So, you never heard of "innocent until proven guilty"? Unless someone proves Zimmerman committed a crime, then he's innocent.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

Someone acting in a way that might be creepy doesn't mean you get to attack them. Plus, I ask, yet again, if Martin felt threatened, why didn't he call the police? Answer that one.

No, but it can create a sense of imminent danger, one of the characteristics of assault. As for calling the police, there are several reasons that could come into play. As a seventeen year old male, he may have felt it unbecoming his sense of adolescent masculinity. As a stranger in town, he may have been apprehensive about how he would have been received by the police... to put it delicately.

edit on 17-12-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-12-2012 by DJW001 because: Edits to correct typos.

No, someone driving their car the same direction you are walking is NOT a reason to assume imminent danger, as far as attacking that person is concerned. You don't get to assault someone that has done nothing to indicate they will harm you, and nothing to actually harm you. Driving a car in the same direction is NOT grounds for assault.

As for some "sense of adolescent masculinity", that would be a reason he would think he could attack someone he didn't like being there. You still seem to want to overlook that Martin was OUT OF SIGHT of Zimmerman, and came back to confront him. And, no, I am not going to assume the cops would be all racist because some black youth called them. That's total BS.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by DJW001
How does that differ from an a priori assertion of Zimmerman's innocence? The court has not yet tried the case, and yet you feel convinced enough of his "innocence" to proclaim FREE ZIMMERMAN!

So, you never heard of "innocent until proven guilty"? Unless someone proves Zimmerman committed a crime, then he's innocent.

The presumption of innocence is not the same thing as actual "innocence." In your opinion, is OJ "innocent?"

Someone acting in a way that might be creepy doesn't mean you get to attack them. Plus, I ask, yet again, if Martin felt threatened, why didn't he call the police? Answer that one.

No, but it can create a sense of imminent danger, one of the characteristics of assault. As for calling the police, there are several reasons that could come into play. As a seventeen year old male, he may have felt it unbecoming his sense of adolescent masculinity. As a stranger in town, he may have been apprehensive about how he would have been received by the police... to put it delicately.

edit on 17-12-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-12-2012 by DJW001 because: Edits to correct typos.

No, someone driving their car the same direction you are walking is NOT a reason to assume imminent danger, as far as attacking that person is concerned. You don't get to assault someone that has done nothing to indicate they will harm you, and nothing to actually harm you. Driving a car in the same direction is NOT grounds for assault.

I refer you back to the gender altered version of the series of events. Zimmerman not only followed Martin, he got out of the car. Martin had every reason to believe that Zimmerman intended harm. You are correct that his response may not have been appropriate, but a jury would probably agree that Zimmerman's actions constituted "assault."

As for some "sense of adolescent masculinity", that would be a reason he would think he could attack someone he didn't like being there. You still seem to want to overlook that Martin was OUT OF SIGHT of Zimmerman, and came back to confront him. And, no, I am not going to assume the cops would be all racist because some black youth called them. That's total BS.

You overlook the fact that we only have Zimmerman's word that Martin was OUT OF SIGHT. As for assuming that the cops would be racist, are you a black youth?

Originally posted by DJW001

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by DJW001
How does that differ from an a priori assertion of Zimmerman's innocence? The court has not yet tried the case, and yet you feel convinced enough of his "innocence" to proclaim FREE ZIMMERMAN!

So, you never heard of "innocent until proven guilty"? Unless someone proves Zimmerman committed a crime, then he's innocent.

The presumption of innocence is not the same thing as actual "innocence." In your opinion, is OJ "innocent?"

Legally, OJ is innocent. My personal feelings don't matter as much as do the facts of the case, the evidence, etc. Fact is, the prosecution screwed up, and we might never know the truth in that case.

Originally posted by DJW001

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
No, someone driving their car the same direction you are walking is NOT a reason to assume imminent danger, as far as attacking that person is concerned. You don't get to assault someone that has done nothing to indicate they will harm you, and nothing to actually harm you. Driving a car in the same direction is NOT grounds for assault.

I refer you back to the gender altered version of the series of events. Zimmerman not only followed Martin, he got out of the car. Martin had every reason to believe that Zimmerman intended harm. You are correct that his response may not have been appropriate, but a jury would probably agree that Zimmerman's actions constituted "assault."

No, you don't get to create some "altered version" of events. Such a version has nothing to do with the reality of the actual events. Zimmerman didn't get out f the car till after he lost sight of Martin (and the 911 call shows this). No, those actions do NOT constitute assault. getting out of your car, in your neighborhood, and neither speaking to or touching someone, isn't assault by any stretch of the imagination. If you think that it does, you should never serve on a jury.

Originally posted by DJW001

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
As for some "sense of adolescent masculinity", that would be a reason he would think he could attack someone he didn't like being there. You still seem to want to overlook that Martin was OUT OF SIGHT of Zimmerman, and came back to confront him. And, no, I am not going to assume the cops would be all racist because some black youth called them. That's total BS.

You overlook the fact that we only have Zimmerman's word that Martin was OUT OF SIGHT. As for assuming that the cops would be racist, are you a black youth?

edit on 17-12-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

No, we have a 911 call that Zimmerman made, where he described everything, as it was unfolding, to the dispatcher. That is evidence. We have martin's girlfriend stating that Martin told her he was going to move away, which is what Zimmerman stated he did. That is evidence. We have Martin's girlfriend stating that martin (not Zimmerman) spoke first, right before the attack. That is evidence.

As for assuming the cops would be racist, it doesn't matter what color I am. That's a lousy excuse for why he didn't call. The most obvious reason to any thinking person, that he didn't call for help, was that he didn't feel physically threatened, and figured he could take care of someone watching his suspicious activities, without any help.

You can't simply ignore ALL of the evidence, and try to alter the story, and expect to see the truth. The facts support a conclusion of a young male attacking someone that he didn't like watching him, trying to kill that person, and dying for his actions. The evidence, and witness statement from the guy that saw the fight, all support that Martin was the aggressor.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

Legally, OJ is innocent. My personal feelings don't matter as much as do the facts of the case, the evidence, etc. Fact is, the prosecution screwed up, and we might never know the truth in that case.

Just keep maintaining that attitude when Zimmerman is found guilty in order to save the "stand your ground" law.

reply to post by DJW001

How does that differ from an a priori assertion of Zimmerman's innocence?

That's your deflection, so lead the way. If I see you drift, I will be more than happy to set you straight, IF, I feel like it.

The court has not yet tried the case, and yet you feel convinced enough of his "innocence" to proclaim FREE ZIMMERMAN!

Now, that is priceless! I enjoyed the hell out of that!

This old troll only inserted "FREE ZIMMERMAN!" to "get your goat". I didn't expect you to hand me the whole damn tribe!

The only instance I can think of was for the charge of treason in the Beer Hall Putsch, for which he was formally pardoned.

I reckon you should have done some research, instead of relying on your defective "thinking cap".

A pardon does not make one "innocent" of a charge, that they were formerly convicted of. That is only an official act of allowance, or forgiveness, of an offense.

If there is one thing we can agree on, it is that neither of us wants to debate whether or not the Bavarian Senate had the power to pardon someone convicted by the Federal government under the constitution of the Weimar Republic, much less whether a pardon confers innocence whether explicitly stated or not.

It seems that you don't know this old troll very well! An official pardon only confers the allowance of, or the forgiveness of, an offense. It is NOT the reversal of a guilty verdict!

The purpose of the example was to point out the ambiguity of the statement when made without proper context.

That wasn't your purpose, at all! That was a test, that I passed with "flying colors", by telling you exactly what was wrong with ALL of your examples, and exactly what was needed to put ALL of them in their proper context.

Because I know you won't admit it, I will state it: I SCORED 100% ON THAT TEST!

If you feel that statement is wrong, explain why.

Is the above definition the only one you use?

Nope! Unlike you, I know how to use all of the definitions of "innocent", and I can even use them in their proper context. Would you like me to take another one of your tests?

When someone says "Little Mary is as innocent as a lamb" do you automatically respond: "Don't be silly. Mary has never been charged with anything, much less any lambs?"

You are the first to say that, so I reckon I'll give that a try:
"Don't be silly. Mary has never been charged with anything, much less any lambs?"

Damn! I liked that! Cool nanners! I'll make a note of that one!

I thought that guilt or "innocence" was something that could only be determined by a legal process...

Why did you think that?

are you acknowledging that the words have highly context bound technical meanings with broad connotations in informal use?

LMAO You sure, as hell, emptied your "honey bucket", full of crap, into that "question"!

Everyone that has been reading my responses knows that, "words have highly context bound technical meanings", is the very point that I have been stressing to you for the past several days. After all, that is how "broad connotations" are avoided.

The corollary of this loosely phrased statement is that if he is found guilty of the charge he now faces, he will not be "innocent" of the charge... even if Trayvon really was using deadly force and it was indeed a legitimate case of self defense.

No! That is NOT a "corollary"! That is only a contradiction of terms, and more of your fiction! If you feel that I am wrong, please explain why. I will be looking forward to that!

I do, however, agree that the nonsense above is very "loosely phrased", but I wouldn't go so far as to call that a "statement".

See ya ,
Milt

reply to post by DJW001


Actually you are incorrect. Zimmerman never approached Martin, and Zimmerman never said he approached Martin.

You need to go right now and watch Zimmerman re-enact the encounter, on location, in his own words. He was turned around walking back to his car. He walks past an opening he had already walked by before and Martin shouts to him. He turns around and Martin asks him if he has a problem while he advances on Zimmerman, says "you do now" and punches Zimmerman. Martin began the interaction, approached, and began the altercation.

Yes, evidence does indicate Martin approached and attacked as only Martin had offensive wounds (to his knuckles) and Zimmerman had no offensive wounds, but took plenty of damage. If Zimmerman had done the approaching or had started the altercation he likely would have been more aware and more prepared. He maybe even would have had his gun drawn already if he felt threatened, but he didn't have it drawn. He would have seen a punch coming, etc. Also the time frame indicates Martin waited on Zimmerman, hell he may have made it all the way home and then worked up the guts to come back considering he wasn't seen when Zimmerman passed the path that led to Martin's house the first time, but when Zimmerman passed it on his way back Martin was there coming from his houses direction.

So you are wrong, nothing backs your claims, you keep going on and on, but you are only lying to yourself.

reply to post by BenReclused

The corollary of this loosely phrased statement is that if he is found guilty of the charge he now faces, he will not be "innocent" of the charge... even if Trayvon really was using deadly force and it was indeed a legitimate case of self defense.

No! That is NOT "corollary"! That is only an contradiction of terms, and more of your fiction! If you feel that I am wrong, please explain why. I will be looking forward to that!

No, you explain why it is not a corollary. Feel free to call me stupid for not seeing it.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

Actually you are incorrect. Zimmerman never approached Martin, and Zimmerman never said he approached Martin.

Were you there?

reply to post by DJW001


If Martin had felt he was in imminent danger he would have continued on to his home and never have been seen again that night, rather than turning around and coming back to meet ZImmerman. Martin ran towards his house, then stopped and turned around and came BACK to Zimmerman. Martin's ignorance and desire for confrontation got him killed, period. Look at the crime scene, watch the re-enactment, use your noggin on this case. Drop all of your media training and actually look at it.

reply to post by DJW001


Evidence indicates, common sense rules, and I saw Zimmerman say that Martin approached him.

You cherry pick, rather than admit you were wrong about Zimmerman admitting to approaching Martin.

reply to post by DJW001

No, you explain why it is not a corollary.

I already did that, with:

That is only a contradiction of terms, and more of your fiction!

Your move...

Feel free to call me stupid for not seeing it.

Huh, uh... I wouldn't touch that with your hands! I know how you are!

See ya ,
Milt

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

If Martin had felt he was in imminent danger he would have continued on to his home and never have been seen again that night, rather than turning around and coming back to meet ZImmerman. Martin ran towards his house, then stopped and turned around and came BACK to Zimmerman. Martin's ignorance and desire for confrontation got him killed, period. Look at the crime scene, watch the re-enactment, use your noggin on this case. Drop all of your media training and actually look at it.

Look at what? Zimmerman's performance for the media?

reply to post by BenReclused


You did not explain why it is not a corollary, you simply claimed that it was a contradiction of terms. Are you trying to educate, or simply annoy?

reply to post by DJW001

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by BenReclused

 

You did not explain why it is not a corollary, you simply claimed that it was a contradiction of terms. Are you trying to educate, or simply annoy?

You did not explain why it is not a corollary,

Yes I did! But, because of your failure to understand that explanation, and your persistent requests, I shall help you to do so:

1)The first part of your "loosely phrased statement" is the prefix:

The corollary of this loosely phrased statement is that

2) Only the second portion of your "loosely phrased statement" is a corollary:

if he is found guilty of the charge he now faces, he will not be "innocent" of the charge...

3) The third portion of your "loosely phrased statement" would be "just cause" for Zimmerman's acquittal, which does, indeed, contradict the corollary of your "loosely phrased statement":

even if Trayvon really was using deadly force and it was indeed a legitimate case of self defense.

4) When your prefix, your corollary, and your contradiction, are combined as follows:

The corollary of this loosely phrased statement is that if he is found guilty of the charge he now faces, he will not be "innocent" of the charge... even if Trayvon really was using deadly force and it was indeed a legitimate case of self defense.

We do, in deed and fact, end up with:

only a contradiction of terms, and more of your fiction!

you simply claimed that it was a contradiction of terms.

That's not quite true! I said:

That is only a contradiction of terms, and more of your fiction!

Are you trying to educate, or simply annoy?

Neither of the above define my intentions. I am merely responding to your posts with sincere honesty, the utmost of self restraint, and, with more respect than they are due.

Feel free to call me stupid for not seeing it.

Though I would TRULY LOVE to take you up on that offer, this old troll is not near foolish enough to even tug on that bait. As I said before:

I know how you are!

How about that? Considering my below average I.Q., I feel that I do pretty damn well! LMAO

See ya ,
Milt

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

Legally, OJ is innocent. My personal feelings don't matter as much as do the facts of the case, the evidence, etc. Fact is, the prosecution screwed up, and we might never know the truth in that case.

Just keep maintaining that attitude when Zimmerman is found guilty in order to save the "stand your ground" law.

That won't happen, because there is NO evidence that he committed any crime. He doesn't even need the SYG law; simple self defense laws in Florida cover his actions.