• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Day 6 testimony ( Monday 7/1)

The former is BS while the latter is Florida SYG law. There is no Florida statute that allows one to use "non-lethal" force against someone based on paranoid suspicion. WhatIf has been pushing that BS for days.

He's trying to use 776.012 to defend psychotic paranoia.

Say what you want.

More than one reasonable regular has agreed with me.

So it is what it is.
 
iLOL
I never said you had to obey. Did I?
And what is actually impotent, is your opinion, as it gets shown to be wrong, over and over and over again.
Duh!

Just a heads up.

Saying "Wrong!".

Doesn't prove squat.

Especially when its your opinion.

Your mind was made up before you got here.

Saying Zs statement is evidence and then demanding everybody else to accept it as gospel is as annoying as a Jehovahs Witness interrupting the game to tell you about the "Truth". And about as credible.
 
Just a heads up.

Saying "Wrong!".

Doesn't prove squat.

Especially when its your opinion.

Your mind was made up before you got here.

Saying Zs statement is evidence and then demanding everybody else to accept it as gospel is as annoying as a Jehovahs Witness interrupting the game to tell you about the "Truth". And about as credible.
You seem to be confused.
That must be because you are wrong.

You don't seem to understand what evidence is and what it says.
When the evidence say 2+2=4, you don't jump in and say I think it equals 7 as you have been doing.
You stick to the evidence and what it tells you.
Sorry you don't understand that. It is one of the main reasons you have been wrong now for over a year on this subject.
 
What about the testimony yet to come of Trayvon's voice recognition experts ...
...Trayvon's parents?
 
You seem to be confused.
That must be because you are wrong.

You don't seem to understand what evidence is and what it says.
When the evidence say 2+2=4, you don't jump in and say I think it equals 7 as you have been doing.
You stick to the evidence and what it tells you.
Sorry you don't understand that. It is one of the main reasons you have been wrong now for over a year on this subject.

So lets hear this one again to refresh everybodys memory.

Your golden boy lied to the court about his finances. He claimed indigence thenarranged on recorded calls to have tens of thousands moved out of accounts under his control before the hearing.

Go:
 
Ask yourself this ... If the guy on the right in this picture shot the teen-ager on the left, in this picture, claiming self defense would the cops have let him go that night?
Trayvon and Zimmerman.jpg
 
Last edited:
I wonder ... If the guy on the right in this picture shot the kid on the left in this picture claiming self defense would the cops have let him go that night?

*Yawn* Race Baiting in this debate is getting so old.....
 
Your golden boy lied to the court about his finances.
Wrong! That is your assumption that he did.
There is no evidence that it was a lie.
As far as you know, he was of the belief that the funds did not need to be reported.
You just do not know. But because of your blinding bias, you can't/wont see, or admit it.
 
Just a heads up.

Saying "Wrong!".

Doesn't prove squat.

Especially when its your opinion.

Your mind was made up before you got here.

Saying Zs statement is evidence and then demanding everybody else to accept it as gospel is as annoying as a Jehovahs Witness interrupting the game to tell you about the "Truth". And about as credible.

Wrong

The state's *A-list witnesses* also corroborate Z's account
 
Well, while you are yawning ... how about honestly answering the question?
It's not insignificant .

Yes. It is insignificant.

It shows you have already drawn a conclusion, and that no amount of discussing the issue will change your mind.

You are race baiting, plain and simple.
 
Wrong

The state's *A-list witnesses* also corroborate Z's account

There is no corroboration of the beginning.

Only the word of someone who has proven they will decieve the court if it serves them.
 
Wrong! That is your assumption that he did.
There is no evidence that it was a lie.
As far as you know, he was of the belief that the funds did not need to be reported.
You just do not know. But because of your blinding bias, you can't/wont see, or admit it.

Who is the one with the blinding bias again?

Everybody?
 
Yes. It is insignificant.

It shows you have already drawn a conclusion, and that no amount of discussing the issue will change your mind.

You are race baiting, plain and simple.
No . What this picture does is the opposite of race baiting.
This Photoshop exercise demonstrates all the assumptions we make when we identify someones ethnicity. By swapping the ethnic relationship it it shows how much the race of the primary players weighs in our perceptions of who they are and what they may or may not be capable of.
If you can look at this picture and if you can be honest, you can easily conclude that race has a good deal to do with whose side many people come down on in this case.
Many like to pretend that we are all color-blind. If we truly were, this picture would not upset anyone.
 
No . What this picture does is the opposite of race baiting.
This Photoshop exercise demonstrates all the assumptions we make when we identify someones ethnicity. By swapping the ethnic relationship it it shows how much the race of the primary players weighs in our perceptions of who they are and what they may or may not be capable of.
If you can look at this picture and if you can be honest, you can easily conclude that race has a good deal to do with whose side many people come down on in this case.
Many like to pretend that we are all color-blind. If we truly were, this picture would not upset anyone.

Your statement is wordy, but it changes nothing.

You are race baiting plain and simple....
 
There is no corroboration of the beginning.

Only the word of someone who has proven they will decieve the court if it serves them.

The state's witnesses have been beneficial to the defense

That's, the bottom line

It is what it is. Accept it and move on
 
Who is the one with the blinding bias again?

Everybody?
I believe it was clear that I was speaking about your inability to see the the facts because of your blinding bias.
 
Your need to pretend color blindness demonstrates how blind to reality you also wish to be.

This is a straightforward self-defense case. It has only attracted attention because of race. If the races were reversed it would still be a straightforward self-defense case.:cool:
 
Back
Top Bottom