Printable View
Who is twisting facts here?Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
So you don't think it is illeagle to strike a police officer while she is detaining one of your bro's :confused: :laugh:Quote:
•In 2005, Zimmerman, then 20, was arrested and charged with “resisting officer with violence” and “battery of law enforcement officer,” both which are third-degree felonies.
He wasn't prosecuted because his attorney negotiated a bro deal/plea.
The full quote, not the partial you used. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
He wasn't convicted because the charges were reduced, then dropped. You can never be convicted of a crime you don't go to court for. And let's be real here... if he was even remotely violent with the cop they wouldn't have reduced or removed the charges IMO. Beating on a cop will get you a record in a hurry. I fully admit felony charges were initially made.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Alca-Tazizzle
In the case of the shooting, the jury was allowed to consider the charge of manslaughter as well, but didn't convict him of any charge.
The arrests resulted in felony charges never tried. But you can be charged with anything that is dropped, or arrested for a felony but never charged. Neither makes you guilty of a felony.
And I am glad another houdilam, punk, drug addict is gone from the face of the earth. !!! AmenQuote:
Originally Posted by Mr Alca-Tazizzle
Either way you were wrong on the point I emboldened :bulb: ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
air' I never contended he was tried or convicted, only arrested, and as a consequence did a diversion program or face prosecution (for the reduced offense).Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
Z's father at that time was a retired Magistrate for the Supreme Court of Virginia, and his mother a Court Clerk. I'm willing to bet he had some pretty good legal advice. Understand one thing; if he didn't accept diversion he would have been prosecuted for the reduced offense, so there were consequences to his illegal action, period. And as I have stated twice already on this thread I believe the jury came back with the correct verdict in his trial :bulb:
So, in your opinion and the opinion of Starter the person doing the following,armed and with no evidence of any wrong doing, ignoring the advise of a dispatcher from the police is effectively a hero and not an "aggressor" in this case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
The person that deserved to be shot,in both of your opinions, is Trayvon Martin an unarmed 17 year old coming home from a convenience store. His life ended because he looked "suspicious" was black wearing a hoody or hoodie or whatever the damn thing is named.
Once more the right wingers are all pumped up with synthetic testosterone injected by the likes of draft dodger Limbaugh, Hannity O'Reilly and others. Better to kill him than have him break into a home. Well done fellow citizens. You have once again shown how barbaric and savage we have become when a 17 year old, no matter what he looked like nor where he was coming from can be shot dead by an adult wielding a gun.
This is another fine example of why the second amendment is a redundant piece of heralded constitutional law reflecting 1700's attitudes in 2013. It seems we are doing one thing really well. We are devolving rather than evolving.
I suggest that if the case were that your child was killed by a person like Zimmerman you would not be as vocal about his stand your ground.
You would also know about the actual injuries inflicted on the killer that never seem to be discussed. All you hear is "bashing" his head into the ground or "slamming" his head into same.
The injuries do not substantiate this argument. One of the most prone areas for excessive bleeding due to the number of small vessels, Zimmerman did not have anything but superficial injuries that would be more consistent with a marked abrasion as the result of the surface with which he struck his head.
So Daniel and Stater, if you are a parent , Caucasian and you child is killed while coming back from the store (regardless of you child's record) I'm glad to see that you are in favor of your child being killed.
So all of you Urpean librals. Welcome to USAOK corral. Anything goes, as the name suggests, it is AOK!
I find it funny how s0ome of the 'law abiding' citizens around here are taking the side of a violent person with a record of hitting a police officer when he he shot a black young person who might have been doing something wrong in an unclear situation.
They also go to great lengths to twist truth to make this prick look like an angel.
Disgusting!
They're not 'law-abiding citizens'. They are people with a desperate desire to take the law into their own hands — nothing more than vigilantes.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Glad you used the word "some". The trial was only about THAT ONE DAY and the events which transpired between Martin and Zimmerman. Most, but not all, of the posters have confined their comments to the issues covered in the trial. So your comment is otherwise overly broad and attempts to paint a picture not in evidence. What either M or Z had done previously isn't really pertinent to what happened that day.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Your assertion that ...."when he he shot a black young person who might have been doing something wrong".... ignores that the evidence indicates that the shot didn't occur until the physical altercation was well under way. Assaulting someone and hitting their head on the ground is not what most people would call "might have been doing something wrong". In this country it's pretty much illegal to physically attack another person just because they're watching you or following you. Just as some have said that Z should have ended his involvement when the 911 operator suggested it, M should also have continued straight home and called 911 if he felt that he had been threatened. Neither chose to do it. Still, in my mind, the physical assault trumps the stalking as the worse of the two offenses.
I also wonder from your comment "a violent person with a record of hitting a police officer" if it means that you are suggesting that people should be judged forever on the worst thing they have ever done previously?
Absolutely. Less criminal scum there is in the world, the better. A good burglar is a dead one. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Spafranco
I guess you would have loved him to have been beaten up properly, with preferably a skull fracture before being allowed to defend himself? If three intruders enter my home, threaten me with a knife and in defence of my family I shoot them all, but I escape without injury despite my life having been in danger, would you say I have gone too far? Or should I have allowed them to cut my throat first and only then defend my family? It seems you would prefer the second option.Quote:
The injuries do not substantiate this argument. One of the most prone areas for excessive bleeding due to the number of small vessels, Zimmerman did not have anything but superficial injuries that would be more consistent with a marked abrasion as the result of the surface with which he struck his head.
Demagogy.Quote:
So Daniel and Stater, if you are a parent , Caucasian and you child is killed while coming back from the store (regardless of you child's record) I'm glad to see that you are in favor of your child being killed.
Firstly, I hope my child won't turn out a burglar and a druggie. Secondly, if my child attacked someone without any cause and that person in self-defence shot him, well, I wouldn't be happy obviously, but my stance on this issue would not change.
It is funny that idiots with some certain political agendas are still trying to make this a race issue.
Florida blacks benefit from Florida 'Stand Your Ground' | The Daily Caller
:laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
What an idiotic "assessment". The only vigilante here was the one who attacked first and rather deservingly, got shot.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Any proof of that? Thought so.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan