New photo released from night of shooting

[ric27]

What does forensics have to do with it.

If you try to beat me to death and I habe a gun I can shoot you.

If you try to beat me to death and I try to kill you with a brick you get to shoot ME.

Gives the guy with the gun a SIGNIFICANT advantage.

EVEN when he started it.

Its bull**** is what it is.

Who speaks for the dead?

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

What is funny is that you, in typical Traybot fashion, ignore the meat of what was said to instead detract away form your being wrong.


This is what you said that was personal.

​

You say that, yet there is no evidence to support such a conclusion.


You have only shown that you do not know the evidence and do not wish to discuss it.

We can see why you are here.

That's ironic, you have the case adjudicated in your head and I suggest that you will be disappointed (and express that disappointment), and you call that "getting personal", and then you call me a "Traybot" and suggest you "know why I am here".

You are funny.

 

[What if...?]

Who speaks for the dead?

In the above situation, the guy with the gun.

If there are no eyewitnesses.

Forensics won't prove ****.

And even if there ARE eyewitnesses, the law clearly says he gets to shoot me.

All he has to do is yell "I give up!" And if I don't believe him, he gets to shoot me.

Do you see how this biases towards the guy with the gun?

How it provides an "out" to aggressors? A garrauntee they succeed?

And leaves the "victim" in the position of being legally required to just keep letting him beat them.

Because if you subdue him, he can simply claim it made him fearful. That he believed you would kill HIM while he was helpless.

I'm not anti-gun. Not by a longshot.

Nor am I against carrying.

What I am against is not holding those who do so to the highest of standards.

And I certainly oppose rules like this that bias towards the armed. I think being armed and being an aggressor should be a serious felony. Not a hole card.

 

[Stardog]

I don't see that ever happening.

It helps if you listen to someone who actually knows what the law says.

1) The unlawful killing of a human being,

2) when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another

3) and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life,

although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

Z has already admitted to the first two elements in his confession. Z's call to the SPD (profiling T as a criminal w/o witnessing any crime, "These a-holes always get away. . . F'ing punks/coons", and willfully disregarding police instructions meets #3.

It's a slam-dunk and no wonder Z waived immunity.

 

[Crosscheck]

It helps if you listen to someone who actually knows what the law says.



Z has already admitted to the first two elements in his confession. Z's call to the SPD (profiling T as a criminal w/o witnessing any crime, "These a-holes always get away. . . F'ing punks/coons", and willfully disregarding police instructions meets #3.

It's a slam-dunk and no wonder Z waived immunity.

I really believe that Zimmerman's reasoning ability is sharply jeopardized by his use of Temazepam and Adderall. He has and continues to exhibit strong compulsiveness.
After being advised by the 911 operator that he did not need to chase the subject his compulsiveness took over. His compulsiveness is now again demonstrated with uncontrolled eating leading to a 100 pound weight gain.
This guy is out of control.

 

[ric27]

It helps if you listen to someone who actually knows what the law says.



Z has already admitted to the first two elements in his confession. Z's call to the SPD (profiling T as a criminal w/o witnessing any crime, "These a-holes always get away. . . F'ing punks/coons", and willfully disregarding police instructions meets #3.

It's a slam-dunk and no wonder Z waived immunity.

You are totally ignorant on any matter pertaining to law/statutes/jury instructions

Just the above in *black* indicates your disruptive behavior....spreading false information, presenting your bias version of disputed information as fact, and declarations that Z is guilty.

 

[Stardog]

You are totally ignorant on any matter pertaining to law/statutes/jury instructions

Just the above in *black* indicates your disruptive behavior....spreading false information, presenting your bias version of disputed information as fact, and declarations that Z is guilty.

Exactly the type of disruptive, bitter response I've come to expect from someone who ran and hid for a week after losing the April 30th hearing.

 

[Lord of Planar]

It helps if you listen to someone who actually knows what the law says.



Z has already admitted to the first two elements in his confession. Z's call to the SPD (profiling T as a criminal w/o witnessing any crime, "These a-holes always get away. . . F'ing punks/coons", and willfully disregarding police instructions meets #3.

It's a slam-dunk and no wonder Z waived immunity.

Wow.

That's a stretch.

 

[Lord of Planar]

It helps if you listen to someone who actually knows what the law says.

How about a Florida Supreme Court link...

7.4 MURDER—SECOND DEGREE § 782.04(2), Fla.Stat.

Start of the link:

To prove the crime of Second Degree Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. (Victim) is dead.

2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).

3. There was an unlawful killing of (victim) by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.

Definitions.
An “act” includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose.

An act is “imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind” if it is an act or series of acts that:

1. a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and

2. is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and

3. is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.

In order to convict of Second Degree Murder, it is not necessary for the State to prove the defendant had an intent to cause death.

The state has to prove parts 2 and 3 of the first three, item 1 is a given, I don't believe he will claim accident of feeble mind, so item 1 of the second part if a given. Item two will be extremely hard for the state to prove, since he has so many character witnesses in his corner. I think it would also be hard to prove number three. that he is indifferent of human life.

 

[Stardog]

How about a Florida Supreme Court link...

7.4 MURDER—SECOND DEGREE § 782.04(2), Fla.Stat.

Start of the link:


The state has to prove parts 2 and 3 of the first three, item 1 is a given, I don't believe he will claim accident of feeble mind, so item 1 of the second part if a given. Item two will be extremely hard for the state to prove, since he has so many character witnesses in his corner. I think it would also be hard to prove number three. that he is indifferent of human life.

As already stated Z's sealed confession has the first two elements, the " I'll will" and "spite" requirement is fulfilled by Z's own statements in his call to the SPD.

Also note the court's definition of "act". The "series of related actions" began at the point where Z profiled TM, continued through where he disregarded the police and exited his vehicle to pursue TM, and then confronted and assaulted TM in an unlawful arrest.

The Z supporters are desperate to isolate this case to one single action, but as your own link shows, the court is going to look at the totality of the circumstances of what happened on Feb. 26th because that is what the statute requires.

 

[ric27]

As already stated Z's sealed confession has the first two elements, the " I'll will" and "spite" requirement is fulfilled by Z's own statements in his call to the SPD.

Also note the court's definition of "act". The "series of related actions" began at the point where Z profiled TM, continued through where he disregarded the police and exited his vehicle to pursue TM, and then confronted and assaulted TM in an unlawful arrest.

The Z supporters are desperate to isolate this case to one single action, but as your own link shows, the court is going to look at the totality of the circumstances of what happened on Feb. 26th because that is what the statute requires.

lol

Again you are falsely stating a a disputed allegation as an undisputed truth. You don't have a clue

 

[Stardog]

lol

Again you are falsely stating a a disputed allegation as an undisputed truth. You don't have a clue

That's it? No facts, no proof. You'll have to do better. Might want to look into a ten foot snorkel, you're in way over your head.

 

[mike2810]

As already stated Z's sealed confession has the first two elements, the " I'll will" and "spite" requirement is fulfilled by Z's own statements in his call to the SPD.

Also note the court's definition of "act". The "series of related actions" began at the point where Z profiled TM, continued through where he disregarded the police and exited his vehicle to pursue TM, and then confronted and assaulted TM in an unlawful arrest.

The Z supporters are desperate to isolate this case to one single action, but as your own link shows, the court is going to look at the totality of the circumstances of what happened on Feb. 26th because that is what the statute requires.

1) The unlawful killing of a human being,

Please provide where GZ stated he unlawfully killed TM? Yes he admitted he shot TM. You need to show the evidence where GZ admitted it was an unlawful act. There is no way I am taking your word for it.

You failed on the first point.

I was right again:lol:

 

[Stardog]

1) The unlawful killing of a human being,

Please provide where GZ stated he unlawfully killed TM? Yes he admitted he shot TM. You need to show the evidence where GZ admitted it was an unlawful act. There is no way I am taking your word for it.

You failed on the first point.

I was right again:lol:

Already proven, shooting someone recklessly is unlawful.

P.S. Don't copy me, it just gives me more power.

 

[mike2810]

Already proven, shooting someone recklessly is unlawful.

P.S. Don't copy me, it just gives me more power.

Strickly opinion on your part.

If already proven, then it would be easy for you to provide the link to where its states that. Then why didn't you provide the information as I asked?

So you don't like it when a post ends with a snide remark. Try not posting yours:mrgreen:

 

[JackFrost]

lol

Again you are falsely stating a a disputed allegation as an undisputed truth. You don't have a clue

Again, no facts or evidence to back up your claim.

Same 'ole ric:lol:

 

[Stardog]

Strickly opinion on your part.

If already proven, then it would be easy for you to provide the link to where its states that. Then why didn't you provide the information as I asked?

So you don't like it when a post ends with a snide remark. Try not posting yours:mrgreen:

People who lose debates to me ALWAYS make the the thread about me instead of addressing the forum topic.

 

[mike2810]

People who lose debates to me ALWAYS make the the thread about me instead of addressing the forum topic.

Using your style of debate. If you choose to search and read up on the topic you will know that GZ has not admitted he broke any laws in the shooting.

Now if you care to show that I missed some information, please provide the link.

Failing to provide the link means you admit no such evidence / statement exists.

 

[Stardog]

Using your style of debate. If you choose to search and read up on the topic you will know that GZ has not admitted he broke any laws in the shooting.

Now if you care to show that I missed some information, please provide the link.

Failing to provide the link means you admit no such evidence / statement exists.

As predicted, I'm always right.

 

[mike2810]

As predicted, I'm always right.

no responsive, as expected.

So your can't provide the link to back up your stance. No such statement by GZ exists. Now that is settled.

 

[Stardog]

no responsive, as expected.

So your can't provide the link to back up your stance. No such statement by GZ exists. Now that is settled.

Everybody else already read my facts. You've provided no evidence to back up yours.

 

[mike2810]

Everybody else already read my facts. You've provided no evidence to back up yours.

I have decided your not worth the time. It clear you are not up to supporting your stance. If you were you would provide a link.

This is my last post responding to your unless you provide the supporting information.

Interesting no one else has provided the link to back up your statement.

 

[Stardog]

I have decided your not worth the time. It clear you are not up to supporting your stance. If you were you would provide a link.

This is my last post responding to your unless you provide the supporting information.

Your surrender is accepted.

 

[Excon]

That's ironic, you have the case adjudicated in your head and I suggest that you will be disappointed (and express that disappointment), and you call that "getting personal", and then you call me a "Traybot" and suggest you "know why I am here".

You are funny.

Funny how you continually make it personal. I wonder why that is?
Is it that you want me to get personal in return?
How strange indeed.
I think you need to learn the difference between that which is personal, and that which is not.

You started this bs with your unfounded whine of some unsupportable fictitious futuristic whining that you believe would be coming from me when there was absolutely no need for such a comment.
So saying your actions were typical of a Traybot is apparent and true. Which is different from calling you a Traybot.

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

Funny how you continually make it personal. I wonder why that is?
Is it that you want me to get personal in return?
How strange indeed.
I think you need to learn the difference between that which is personal, and that which is not.

You started this bs with your unfounded whine of some unsupportable fictitious futuristic whining that you believe would be coming from me when there was absolutely no need for such a comment.
So saying your actions were typical of a Traybot is apparent and true. Which is different from calling you a Traybot.

Let me offer my sincere apologies and respond with the semantic pretension in which you have engaged.

Your delineation of what is personal and what is not is typical of a douchebag.

There, feel better?