Where are the stand your ground gun nuts?

[Abatis]

Obviously, you failed to comprehend the question. I'll type slower.

Is the statement "You are gonna die motherfucker" on tape?

I understand completely what you are asking and why you believe you need to ask it, but I gave you a reply that satisfies the question as far as how Zimmerman's claim of self-defense was recognized in the law.

That you don't understand the law that exposes your question as utterly inconsequential, isn't my concern.

 

[CFM]

Now I have never hid my views that gun fetishist are people missing a few chromosomes who should be thrown screaming from a helicopter. Oh not because I don't believe in guns. I'm not against guns. Hell I'm not even against people shooting each other. It's the American way. I honestly don't care who gets shot. Parents, school teachers, kids, fuckem. Let them get shot. Doesn't bother me.

But the whining hypocrisy of gun fetishist does. They made a national hero out of a needle dick loser like Zimmerman for shooting a defenseless black kid. Hey the little fucker was wearing a hoody and was armed with skittles. He obviously deserved to be shot.

But where are the gun fetishist now during the Will Smith murder trial? Why aren't they making a hero out of Cardell Hayes. He's hiding behind "Stand your ground laws" like needle dick Zimmerman did. Hell Hayes shot an unarmed black man too....shouldn't that make him a hero like Zimmerman to the gun fetishist?

Why aren't Zimmerman worshipers like Grind not picking the peanuts out of his shit too? Where the fuck is Wayne LaPierre and why isn't he screaming bloody murder about this violation of Cardell Hayes gun rights? Could it be because Cardell Hayes is black too?

Oh no it couldn't possibly be that!

Shit like this is why gun fetishist give me the creeps. They're like the dirty old man in a trench coat standing outside a Convent. They just give me the willies.

oh...in case some of you NRA Gun fetishist want to get a woody...here's a link for you.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/...-murder-trial-rests-case-fourth-day-testimony

Another weak play of the race card from the forum cunt.

 

[CFM]

The kid had candy and a soft drink. Yeah, he was out looking for trouble. Zimmerman, a cop wannabe, is the guy with multiple instances of anger management issues. Escalates the situation and gets the shit kicked out of him.

Were you there? You don't really know what happened, boy.

Funny how you think someone still alive and acquitted of a crime got the shit kicked out of him but the dead thug is a bad thing.

 

[domer76]

I understand completely what you are asking and why you believe you need to ask it, but I gave you a reply that satisfies the question as far as how Zimmerman's claim of self-defense was recognized in the law.

That you don't understand the law that exposes your question as utterly inconsequential, isn't my concern.

Whoop-dee-fucking do. A copy and paste. I understand the law well, scrote. For obvious reasons, you conveniently divert

YOU posted that Martin made that statement. I asked if that statement was on tape. Was it or was it not? Gonna dodge the question or answer it?

 

[CFM]

Whoop-dee-fucking do. A copy and paste. I understand the law well, scrote. For obvious reasons, you conveniently divert

YOU posted that Martin made that statement. I asked if that statement was on tape. Was it or was it not? Gonna dodge the question or answer it?

I asked if you were there to see what only someone that could have been could see. Gonna dodge the question or answer it? You've dodge many things in your miserable life.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Yeah, a Rambo-wannabe, just like many of you flaccid asswipes, initiates a confrontation with a kid who starts to thump his ass. Zimmerman free is good? Look at his track record, tard.

Delusional ballsack.

I love how you clowns romanticize Trayvon as if he was some 13 year old out sniffing the roses instead of the 6 foot thug drugged up on lean out casing houses to break into

Let's not forget why he was in that neighborhood to begin with. He was kicked out of school

Again let someone bang your head into concrete and you tell me if you don't feel threatened

Trayvon dead = good
You sad about it = good

 

[Abatis]

Whoop-dee-fucking do. A copy and paste. I understand the law well, scrote. For obvious reasons, you conveniently divert

YOU posted that Martin made that statement. I asked if that statement was on tape. Was it or was it not? Gonna dodge the question or answer it?

It doesn't matter . . .

Just not believing Zimmerman's account of events isn't enough; the state had the burden to prove all the elements of the charges. For 2nd degree murder that is proving that Zimmerman perpetrated an act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life. That was impossible with the physical evidence and eye and ear witness testimony of the night of the event and presented at trial. The correct decision not to charge was made by the prosecutor in the days after the incident -- a non-action demanded by the law I linked to above. The trial result only confirmed what was known and validated the original decision to not arrest Zimmerman.

So, either in this case with an illegitimate arrest or properly, when a self-defense claim appears implausible and/or unsupported by evidence and witnesses and an arrest is made, speculation is not a tool in the prosecution's possession . . . OTOH, the defense does get to speculate, to question prosecution witnesses about the possibility of alternate theories, shoving those doubts between the lines of the prosecution's case (which in the Zimmerman prosecution were wide chasms).

IOW, Zimmerman has no burden to prove any aspect of his account of the incident that ended Martin's life. His self-defense claim fails when his account is emphatically disproved by evidence and testimony offered by the prosecution -- the prosecutor needed to prove the murder charge beyond a reasonable doubt (which will, QED, prove the affirmative "self- defense" claim to be false).

The only requirement of Zimmerman, concerning his affirmative defense, is that his account merely leave the jury with a reasonable doubt about whether he was justified in using deadly force. For his self-defense claim to be considered, all that is necessary is to present an account that his justification might be true.



It is worth noting that nowhere have I defended Zimmerman; my only interest is explaining / defending Florida law and how it operated in the Martin case.

 

[domer76]

I love how you clowns romanticize Trayvon as if he was some 13 year old out sniffing the roses instead of the 6 foot thug drugged up on lean out casing houses to break into

Let's not forget why he was in that neighborhood to begin with. He was kicked out of school

Again let someone bang your head into concrete and you tell me if you don't feel threatened

Trayvon dead = good
You sad about it = good

Kicked out of school = death penalty. I see your sentiment,

You identify with a Rambo wannabe like that punk Zimmerman. Also evident.

Sad about it? Nope. Just another one of your ignorant interpretations.,Typical failure on your part.

Keep flailing, punktard. It's a source of amusement.

 

[domer76]

It doesn't matter . . .

Just not believing Zimmerman's account of events isn't enough; the state had the burden to prove all the elements of the charges. For 2nd degree murder that is proving that Zimmerman perpetrated an act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life. That was impossible with the physical evidence and eye and ear witness testimony of the night of the event and presented at trial. The correct decision not to charge was made by the prosecutor in the days after the incident -- a non-action demanded by the law I linked to above. The trial result only confirmed what was known and validated the original decision to not arrest Zimmerman.

So, either in this case with an illegitimate arrest or properly, when a self-defense claim appears implausible and/or unsupported by evidence and witnesses and an arrest is made, speculation is not a tool in the prosecution's possession . . . OTOH, the defense does get to speculate, to question prosecution witnesses about the possibility of alternate theories, shoving those doubts between the lines of the prosecution's case (which in the Zimmerman prosecution were wide chasms).

IOW, Zimmerman has no burden to prove any aspect of his account of the incident that ended Martin's life. His self-defense claim fails when his account is emphatically disproved by evidence and testimony offered by the prosecution -- the prosecutor needed to prove the murder charge beyond a reasonable doubt (which will, QED, prove the affirmative "self- defense" claim to be false).

The only requirement of Zimmerman, concerning his affirmative defense, is that his account merely leave the jury with a reasonable doubt about whether he was justified in using deadly force. For his self-defense claim to be considered, all that is necessary is to present an account that his justification might be true.



It is worth noting that nowhere have I defended Zimmerman; my only interest is explaining / defending Florida law and how it operated in the Martin case.

Thanks for your wordy bullshit to admit your post about that statement was also bullshit.

 

[Abatis]

Thanks for your wordy bullshit to admit your post about that statement was also bullshit.

I really don't see the need to dumb-down my replies to you (for you) as my primary intent isn't really to have a pointless circular conversation about irrelevancies with you but just prove you profoundly and irreconcilably wrong and to expose your and like-minded idiot's child-like understanding of this topic.

In that I have been quite successful.

That you can't find a single point to actually rebut in my "wordy" rebuttal proves the intellectual level you operate on.

What specifically is "bullshit" or should I just accept that expecting meaningful rebuttal from you is completely unrealistic?

 

[domer76]

I really don't see the need to dumb-down my replies to you (for you) as my primary intent isn't really to have a pointless circular conversation about irrelevancies with you but just prove you profoundly and irreconcilably wrong and to expose your and like-minded idiot's child-like understanding of this topic.

In that I have been quite successful.

That you can't find a single point to actually rebut in my "wordy" rebuttal proves the intellectual level you operate on.

What specifically is "bullshit" or should I just accept that expecting meaningful rebuttal from you is completely unrealistic?

Pally boy, I didn't ask for a pointless and verbose explanation of the law. I am very well aware of burden of proof in criminal cases. I merely asked whether the statement in your post "You are going to die motherfucker" was on tape. Now, we both know it wasn't and that it was just Zimmerman's testimony. I really didn't need all that superfluous crap for you to admit that.

Thanks for your non-admission admission. The "it doesn't matter" says it all.

 

[Abatis]

Pally boy, I didn't ask for a pointless and verbose explanation of the law.

But you obviously need one because you are an idiot about it.

I am very well aware of burden of proof in criminal cases. I merely asked whether the statement in your post "You are going to die motherfucker" was on tape. Now, we both know it wasn't and that it was just Zimmerman's testimony. I really didn't need all that superfluous crap for you to admit that.

Thanks for your non-admission admission. The "it doesn't matter" says it all.

And your fixation on that claimed statement proves you do not know or understand what the "burden of proof" demand is for the defense, for the person claiming self-defense / justifiable homicide.

WRT "You are going to die tonight motherfucker", my comment that, "It doesn't matter" does say it all.

Sadly, your child-like understanding does not allow you to understand or accept it.

"[D]id [the defendant] also incur a burden of proof identical to the State's? That is, did he have to prove the additional facts for self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt? Or was he instead bound by some lesser standard-say, the greater weight of the evidence? Indeed, how about something even less onerous than that? Was he merely obligated to lay the additional facts before the jury, without any burden as to the strength of their probative value – other than they might be true? The answer is this. No, he did not have to prove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. He did not have to prove even that his additional facts were more likely true than not. The real nature of his burden concerning his defense of justification is that his evidence of additional facts need merely leave the jury with a reasonable doubt about whether he was justified in using deadly force. Hence, if he wanted his self-defense to be considered, it was necessary to present evidence that his justification might be true. It would then be up to the jury to decide whether his evidence produced a reasonable doubt about his claim of self-defense."

Murray v. State, 937 So.2d 277, 279 (Fla. 4th Dist. 2006)​​

 

[domer76]

But you obviously need one because you are an idiot about it.



And your fixation on that claimed statement proves you do not know or understand what the "burden of proof" demand is for the defense, for the person claiming self-defense / justifiable homicide.

WRT "You are going to die tonight motherfucker", my comment that, "It doesn't matter" does say it all.

Sadly, your child-like understanding does not allow you to understand or accept it.

"[D]id [the defendant] also incur a burden of proof identical to the State's? That is, did he have to prove the additional facts for self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt? Or was he instead bound by some lesser standard-say, the greater weight of the evidence? Indeed, how about something even less onerous than that? Was he merely obligated to lay the additional facts before the jury, without any burden as to the strength of their probative value – other than they might be true? The answer is this. No, he did not have to prove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. He did not have to prove even that his additional facts were more likely true than not. The real nature of his burden concerning his defense of justification is that his evidence of additional facts need merely leave the jury with a reasonable doubt about whether he was justified in using deadly force. Hence, if he wanted his self-defense to be considered, it was necessary to present evidence that his justification might be true. It would then be up to the jury to decide whether his evidence produced a reasonable doubt about his claim of self-defense."

Murray v. State, 937 So.2d 277, 279 (Fla. 4th Dist. 2006)​​

(laughing)

"Succinct" just isn't in your vocabulary, is it? Save your voluble bullshit for someone who might be impressed.

A simple " No, it was not on tape" was sufficient and honest.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Kicked out of school = death penalty. I see your sentiment,

You identify with a Rambo wannabe like that punk Zimmerman. Also evident.

Sad about it? Nope. Just another one of your ignorant interpretations.,Typical failure on your part.

Keep flailing, punktard. It's a source of amusement.

Are you so psychotic, that you're now seeing things that were never said or implied?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I really don't see the need to dumb-down my replies to you (for you) as my primary intent isn't really to have a pointless circular conversation about irrelevancies with you but just prove you profoundly and irreconcilably wrong and to expose your and like-minded idiot's child-like understanding of this topic.

In that I have been quite successful.

That you can't find a single point to actually rebut in my "wordy" rebuttal proves the intellectual level you operate on.

What specifically is "bullshit" or should I just accept that expecting meaningful rebuttal from you is completely unrealistic?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Pally boy, I didn't ask for a pointless and verbose explanation of the law. I am very well aware of burden of proof in criminal cases. I merely asked whether the statement in your post "You are going to die motherfucker" was on tape. Now, we both know it wasn't and that it was just Zimmerman's testimony. I really didn't need all that superfluous crap for you to admit that.

Thanks for your non-admission admission. The "it doesn't matter" says it all.

So you believe that only defendants comments that are caught on tape, have substance; but you want to allow those complaining to offer what ever they may.

 

[Abatis]

(laughing)

"Succinct" just isn't in your vocabulary, is it? Save your voluble bullshit for someone who might be impressed.

A simple " No, it was not on tape" was sufficient and honest.

And the one thing you can not say is that I am wrong on any point in fact or law.

You are happy to stumble in ignorance and emotion and making that flaw well-known seems to be your singular purpose here.



On topic comment, just to make the post more verbose . . . Here are the standard jury instructions for self-defense cases in Florida:

"If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty. However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved."​

 

[domer76]

Are you so psychotic, that you're now seeing things that were never said or implied?

You: He got kicked out of school which led him into that neighborhood which led to his death.

 

[domer76]

So you believe that only defendants comments that are caught on tape, have substance; but you want to allow those complaining to offer what ever they may.

This is going way over your head, but I'll try to dumb it down. This wordy twit made a post that claims Martin said "You are going to die motherfucker". My simple question was this: Was it on tape, meaning where is the corroboration?

The simple answer is, moron, there isn't any indication that was said other than Zimmerman covering his ass. But, this verbose wonder has to cut-and-paste worthless legal citations when a simple acknowledgement would suffice.

Did I use words too big for you to understand?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

You: He got kicked out of school which led him into that neighborhood which led to his death.

Untrue.
What lead him to his death, is his decision to make wrong choices; for which he paid the ultimate price.

You're conclusion that being Kicked out of school = death penalty would only hold true, if it pertained to way more individuals then Trayvon.