• 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 7 testimony ( Tuesday 7/2)

Weird, it didn't. Not only that, all the medical people attending to Z noted no significant or long term damage due to the injuries he suffered.

I am assuming because be shot him before it WAS life threatening. Are you suggesting that in self defense situations, I need to determine exactly how hard someone is slamming my head on the ground? That I need to be sure that it COULD kill me (or cause grievous bodily harm)? And if I am on grass...I can't shoot my assailant because, hey...getting my ass beat from an opponent in full mount...isn't enough grounds to say I am going to get my ass kicked.

If Trayvon was on top and beating his ass, that is grounds to kill him. That is justified under Grievous bodily harm. You arm chair quarterbacks are hilarious. You think there is time to assess how badly you are getting beat? Do you even understand the precedent you are setting?
 
I am assuming because be shot him before it WAS life threatening. Are you suggesting that in self defense situations, I need to determine exactly how hard someone is slamming my head on the ground? That I need to be sure that it COULD kill me (or cause grievous bodily harm)? And if I am on grass...I can't shoot my assailant because, hey...getting my ass beat from an opponent in full mount...isn't enough grounds to say I am going to get my ass kicked.

If Trayvon was on top and beating his ass, that is grounds to kill him. That is justified under Grievous bodily harm. You arm chair quarterbacks are hilarious. You think there is time to assess how badly you are getting beat? Do you even understand the precedent you are setting?

George Zimmerman claims Martin tried to kill him literally, it wasn't a perception so the 25-30 blows he claims he received should be visible and undeniable. Obviously Zimmerman knows the law is to meet force with force that's why he exaggerated his injuries. That also means he didn't HAVE TO kill Martin, he wanted to.

None of you have ever said he didn't want to kill Martin even though that's obvious.
 
Serino said it wasn't related to the case... and he wasn't the cop looking thru the bushes for buttons and pop tops and discarded window awning parts.

Why would Martin leave behind a possible weapon in the bushes anyway? So stupid that Martin was HIDING AND TALKING. Zimmerman found Martin because he heard him talking to Rachel.
 
Where did Z claim his head was pounded 25-30 times?
 
Where did Z claim his head was pounded 25-30 times?

Not surprising that even you have found if hard to keep up with all of his lies.

And still no one is addressing the question: Did Zimmerman kill Martin because he had to or wanted to?
 
He admitted to frisking him and that big ole finger print he left on Martin's waistband confirms this.
i must have missed this admission

would you please post a cite which evidences zimmerman's admission that he frisked martin
 
i must have missed this admission

would you please post a cite which evidences zimmerman's admission that he frisked martin

Witnesses saw him on.top of Martin after Martin was shot. He claimed it's because he spread Martin's arms apart (-something cops would do) but Martin's arms were found underneath his body. He pressed the last few breaths from Martin's chest, even quoted Martin as saying "Ow" and frisked him because he said he thought Martin had a weapon. He didn't determine that by spreading Martin's hands as we all know now so the only other way he could determined whether or not Martin was armed was by frisking him.

What is really telling is Martin didn't attempt.to use his tea as a weapon, it was in his hoodie pocket, where he had placed it earlier.
 
Witnesses saw him on.top of Martin after Martin was shot. He claimed it's because he spread Martin's arms apart (-something cops would do) but Martin's arms were found underneath his body. He pressed the last few breaths from Martin's chest, even quoted Martin as saying "Ow" and frisked him because he said he thought Martin had a weapon. He didn't determine that by spreading Martin's hands as we all know now so the only other way he could determined whether or not Martin was armed was by frisking him.
let's now look at the craziness found in one of your prior posts to see if zimmerman's efforts to assure martin posed no further threat should be found unreasonable:
Clearly the law says the force you use must be equal to.the force you receive UNLESS the person is in the process of committing a crime and at THAT POINT your use of force is justified just by virtue of the fact.that they were committing one felony and harming you.could be their second felony. You don't have.to wait for felony number two before taking action.

In.this case, Zimmerman realized after frisking Martin that there was no.evidence.that Martin was involved in a felonious act BEFORE he made contact with him so to satisfy the requirements of the law in.regards to justifiable use of force at that time, he hyperinflates the threat that Martin posed to him to COVER UP the fact that he had presumed Martin to be in the act of committing a crime and therefore his killing of his was justified. He tried to use his knowledge of the law to his advantage but what he didnt count on is.that his so called dangerous.thug robbery suspect only had candy, lived there, would scream for his life and was ON THE PHONE.

Zimmerman's view of Martin was clearly that Martin was a burglar. No one.could convince him otherwise. He killed Martin out of spite and ill will, time again mixing his tale of seeing Martin with what he had witnessed with the Burgess guy as if they were the same person. He tells you exactly why he killed Trayvon. It is the wing nuts contention that if Martin punched him even once UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, he was justified in killing him, that is not what the law says.
[emphasis added by bubba]
now, if zimmerman believed martin WAS engaged in a felonious act, then we could have expected zimmerman to have called the 911 number instead of the nonemergency number
and we know he did not do that
which disproves your belief that zimmerman believed martin was conducting a felony
allow me to also note that those forum members who think about their post before actually typing then tend to offer more acceptable/plausible posts







What is really telling is Martin didn't attempt.to use his tea as a weapon, it was in his hoodie pocket, where he had placed it earlier.
if that is so telling then explain for us what causes it to be so telling: what does this actually tell us
 
Where did Z claim his head was pounded 25-30 times?

I don't remember Z giving a specific number but he might have. I know it was not that high though.
 
i must have missed this admission

would you please post a cite which evidences zimmerman's admission that he frisked martin

Zimmerman said he jumped on Trayvon's back after the shot him and looked for a weapon in his hands. See the video reenactment.
 
I don't remember Z giving a specific number but he might have. I know it was not that high though.

George said that Trayvon punched him in the face over 2 dozen times.
 
He admitted to frisking him and that big ole finger print he left on Martin's waistband confirms this.
i must have missed this admission

would you please post a cite which evidences zimmerman's admission that he frisked martin
Zimmerman said he jumped on Trayvon's back after the shot him and looked for a weapon in his hands. See the video reenactment.
He stated he spread his arms out to do so.
That is not a frisk.
Do you not know the difference?
 
George said that Trayvon punched him in the face over 2 dozen times.

It's quite possible

Any evidence to disprove it
 
Why would Martin leave behind a possible weapon in the bushes anyway? So stupid that Martin was HIDING AND TALKING. Zimmerman found Martin because he heard him talking to Rachel.

Where is this in evidence?
 
George said that Trayvon punched him in the face over 2 dozen times.

Do I really need to tell you the difference between getting punched in the face or getting your head slammed into the ground? Obviously we were talking about the latter. :doh
 
Why would Martin leave behind a possible weapon in the bushes anyway? So stupid that Martin was HIDING AND TALKING.
Really?
A weapon?
iLOL
:doh

A slim jim makes what kind of a weapon?
It would be like hitting someone with a wet noodle.


As for your hiding and talking comment. It just shows that DeeDee is lying.
 
Back
Top Bottom