• 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.

Is self defense even plausible?

SMTA said:
No, the wrongness of your original observations were completely wrong.

Don't blame me for your silliness.
Click to expand...

You haven't shown anything that's factual as in proven that refutes my view. You've just been throwing your opinions out there as if they're absolute fact.
 
sbrettt said:
I didn't know opinions were facts. You just turned my world upside down.
Click to expand...

Not the first time.

Opinions are fine, but you presented the facts of the case incorrectly.

You might have missed the other posters who helpfully pointed this out to you.

Were you just being silly, or were you twisting the facts just for a wow factor?
 
TheNextEra said:
Nope, sorry. My point still stands. Seems you are so emotionally invested in this trial, you aren't able to step back and look at things objectively. I would wager you will be sorely dissapointed when Zimmerman is aquitted.
Click to expand...

No kidding - that will be a huge wow factor.

For someone so heavily invested in the case, he sure missed every fact and all of the evidence.

That is complete silliness.
 
TheNextEra said:
Nope, sorry. My point still stands. Seems you are so emotionally invested in this trial, you aren't able to step back and look at things objectively. I would wager you will be sorely dissapointed when Zimmerman is aquitted.
Click to expand...

Lol I think SMTA is emotionally invested. For everyone one comment I've posted he has 3 responses.
But hey I will be surprised if he's acquitted. We will have to see what happens. :]
 
sbrettt said:
Lol I think SMTA is emotionally invested. For everyone one comment I've posted he has 3 responses.
But hey I will be surprised if he's acquitted. We will have to see what happens. :]
Click to expand...

Of course you will - you have missed all of those pesky facts.

I don't care about the outcome one way or another.

I have no dogs in that fight.
 
sbrettt - are you watching the trial everyday?
 
SMTA said:
Not the first time.

Opinions are fine, but you presented the facts of the case incorrectly.

You might have missed the other posters who helpfully pointed this out to you.

Were you just being silly, or were you twisting the facts just for a wow factor?
Click to expand...
I think this is really just about who's testimony you believe. It's he said she said. But hey, it's cool if you're that confident in Zimmerman.
 
SMTA said:
Of course you will - you have missed all of those pesky facts.

I don't care about the outcome one way or another.

I have no dogs in that fight.
Click to expand...
Maybe it's the overwhelming amount of posts from you but I've only been seeing opinions from you.
 
sbrettt said:
I think this is really just about who's testimony you believe. It's he said she said. But hey, it's cool if you're that confident in Zimmerman.
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with confidence in anyone, but based upon the prosecutor's inability to prove BARD.

Just following the evidence, or in this case, the lack of state evidence.
 
SMTA said:
Nothing to do with confidence in anyone, but based upon the prosecutor's inability to prove BARD.

Just following the evidence, or in this case, the lack of state evidence.
Click to expand...

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
 
sbrettt said:
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
Click to expand...

To a jury --- if it's not presented in court, it never happened.
 
Josie said:
Is that a yes? Or are you just watching highlights on the news?
Click to expand...

Bay news 9 is a news network in Florida. They have been airing the trial live in it's entirety, just as they did with the Casey Anthony trial. I was pretty accurate in guessing how that would end to many peoples surprise so you guys shouldn't so quick to judge.
 
sbrettt said:
Bay news 9 is a news network in Florida. They have been airing the trial live in it's entirety, just as they did with the Casey Anthony trial. I was pretty accurate in guessing how that would end to many peoples surprise so you guys shouldn't so quick to judge.
Click to expand...

So you are watching the trial everyday and heard every witness?
 
sbrettt said:
Can I occasionally be silly without somebody taking me seriously?
Click to expand...

that's what emoticons are for ;) use them, they are your friends :laughat:
 
sbrettt said:
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
Click to expand...

This has no meaning to us normal folks, or are you just being silly again?

Insufficient evidence for BARD equals insufficient proof equals no conviction.
 
sbrettt said:
Bay news 9 is a news network in Florida. They have been airing the trial live in it's entirety, just as they did with the Casey Anthony trial. I was pretty accurate in guessing how that would end to many peoples surprise so you guys shouldn't so quick to judge.
Click to expand...

A 50/50 chance for success ain't much to brag about....
 
sbrettt said:
You're statement goes both ways my friend.
Click to expand...

I was not bragging about my success in guessing in the Anthony trial, you were.

I am commenting about the lack of credible evidence in Zimmerman's trial by the prosecution.

This has been substantiated by numerous legal experts following the case more closely than I am.

This is a result of the court records of the trial thus far, not me 'guessing' about the result.

The only questions that remain are results of the jury.
 
Yay, someone else completely ignorant about the law starting a thread.

You forgot to use the correct buzzwords. He didn’t follow him, he stalked him. Stalked makes it sound so much more wrong.

Maybe throw a pic up of that cute 12 year old kid to reinforce your nonsense. at least you invented the confrontation part to help your story along.

Cute innocent kid just minding his own business coming home with skittles. Soon sees he is terrified for his life as an obese person much older then him chases him down from behind and confronts him.

delusional
 
SMTA said:
I was not bragging about my success in guessing in the Anthony trial, you were.

I am commenting about the lack of credible evidence in Zimmerman's trial by the prosecution.

This has been substantiated by numerous legal experts following the case more closely than I am.

This is a result of the court records of the trial thus far, not me 'guessing' about the result.

The only questions that remain are results of the jury.
Click to expand...
Whatever you say, I'm still waiting for someone to go after my original question/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom