|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
Oh god, this witness.
A pervert
|
wut did she just say??????????????????
|
On June 28 2013 03:13 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 03:12 farvacola wrote:
The defense is now re-crossing the witness as to her ability to speak English lol That actually didn't help, it feels like the defense was surprised by the fact that she speaks "crayon" (thats what i understood) to her mother.
Creole.
|
On June 28 2013 03:12 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 03:12 farvacola wrote:
The defense is now re-crossing the witness as to her ability to speak English lol Well, if the state was making a point that she wasn't completelly able to understand something, it's a pretty valuable line of reasoning.
Well she's already said she understood, they are more focusing on the cultural relativity inherent to the use of the words cracker and nigger.
|
On June 28 2013 03:13 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 03:12 farvacola wrote:
The defense is now re-crossing the witness as to her ability to speak English lol That actually didn't help, it feels like the defense was surprised by the fact that she speaks "crayon" (thats what i understood) to her mother.
It was more about making sure she said he fully understood the questions he asked her beforehand.
|
On June 28 2013 03:13 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 03:13 m4inbrain wrote:On June 28 2013 03:12 farvacola wrote:
The defense is now re-crossing the witness as to her ability to speak English lol That actually didn't help, it feels like the defense was surprised by the fact that she speaks "crayon" (thats what i understood) to her mother. Creole.
That makes more sense. I refer from doing a joke about her and crayons.
|
On June 28 2013 03:10 ranshaked wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 03:08 ragz_gt wrote:On June 28 2013 03:04 ranshaked wrote:On June 28 2013 03:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 28 2013 02:58 ranshaked wrote:On June 28 2013 02:56 ragz_gt wrote:On June 28 2013 02:53 ranshaked wrote:On June 28 2013 02:50 czylu wrote:On June 28 2013 02:48 ranshaked wrote:
I think everyone has a different idea of what they consider "danger of their life"
When I was jumped years ago, I was genuinely in danger of my life. If I had a gun on me, I would have shot the people, but I didn't. Instead, I had to have someone drive me to a hospital with blood everywhere. It turns out I was fine (didn't crack the orbital), but at the time I genuinely would have used a gun if I had one.
In the heat of the moment, anything can happen, so in a way I see why Zimmerman shot Trayvon. and after the moment has passed, you suffer the consequences, as Mr. Zimmerman has/will. Why should I get in trouble? I was jumped, they instigated it? How do I know that I'm not going to die unless it happens? If I'm bleeding everywhere, and I'm having the shit kicked out of me, at what point do I get to shoot? Or, do I just let them continue to beat the hell out of me until they stop? Why isn't lethal force on my end allowed in order to say myself from bodily harm/possible death? (you CAN die from freak shit like being punched once and fall down unconscious) Personally, if someone ever does it again to me, I'd have no problem shooting them in self defense. If you want to punch me in the face, fine, then take a bullet to the face imo If you instigated the situation in the first place, then you will be, and that's what's on trial now: did Zimmerman instigate the situation? No. I told them to quit being rude to the lady behind me. They didn't like what I said, and started throwing punches. What is considered instigating? To me, the first person to throw a punch is the instigator, regardless of what chit chat went on before. You: "I don't like your personality" Him: Throws a punchYou: Shoots HimSome people find that line of logic problematic. So what am I supposed to do? Take the punch and do nothing about it? The entire point of having a gun is to protect yourself. If someone punches me, and I have a weapon on me to protect myself, you bet I'm going to use it. Yes, basically you just admitted that you shot him as revenge, not as defense, off to jail you go. lol what? If I'm taking the punch(s), there is a possibility of me having great bodily harm. I can't defend myself, thus I use my weapon. Why am I being charged? I'm 5'7 160...I don't know how to fight. The other guy is 6'4 220. What do I do? Just lie in a fetal position being beaten to death?
Law doesn't work that way. Possibility of great bodily harm is not the same as reasonable danger of such. Anyone driving a car can potentially swirl and kill you, doesn't give you the right to shoot everyone driving a car near you.
|
Witness is excused after defense asks the last question of "Did Trayvon refer to white people as "crackers"?"
|
On June 28 2013 03:04 ranshaked wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 03:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 28 2013 02:58 ranshaked wrote:On June 28 2013 02:56 ragz_gt wrote:On June 28 2013 02:53 ranshaked wrote:On June 28 2013 02:50 czylu wrote:On June 28 2013 02:48 ranshaked wrote:
I think everyone has a different idea of what they consider "danger of their life"
When I was jumped years ago, I was genuinely in danger of my life. If I had a gun on me, I would have shot the people, but I didn't. Instead, I had to have someone drive me to a hospital with blood everywhere. It turns out I was fine (didn't crack the orbital), but at the time I genuinely would have used a gun if I had one.
In the heat of the moment, anything can happen, so in a way I see why Zimmerman shot Trayvon. and after the moment has passed, you suffer the consequences, as Mr. Zimmerman has/will. Why should I get in trouble? I was jumped, they instigated it? How do I know that I'm not going to die unless it happens? If I'm bleeding everywhere, and I'm having the shit kicked out of me, at what point do I get to shoot? Or, do I just let them continue to beat the hell out of me until they stop? Why isn't lethal force on my end allowed in order to say myself from bodily harm/possible death? (you CAN die from freak shit like being punched once and fall down unconscious) Personally, if someone ever does it again to me, I'd have no problem shooting them in self defense. If you want to punch me in the face, fine, then take a bullet to the face imo If you instigated the situation in the first place, then you will be, and that's what's on trial now: did Zimmerman instigate the situation? No. I told them to quit being rude to the lady behind me. They didn't like what I said, and started throwing punches. What is considered instigating? To me, the first person to throw a punch is the instigator, regardless of what chit chat went on before. You: "I don't like your personality" Him: Throws a punchYou: Shoots HimSome people find that line of logic problematic. So what am I supposed to do? Take the punch and do nothing about it? The entire point of having a gun is to protect yourself. If someone punches me, and I have a weapon on me to protect myself, you bet I'm going to use it.
You feel threatened, pull out your gun
He feels threatened, pulls out his gun
Shooting occurs.
Sounds smart.
|
On June 28 2013 03:13 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 03:12 SKC wrote:On June 28 2013 03:12 farvacola wrote:
The defense is now re-crossing the witness as to her ability to speak English lol Well, if the state was making a point that she wasn't completelly able to understand something, it's a pretty valuable line of reasoning. Well she's already said she understood, they are more focusing on the cultural relativity inherent to the use of the words cracker and nigger.
I wasn't able to fully watch the state's redirect, but didn't they mention her cultural upbringing and her bad grasp of the english language?
|
On June 28 2013 03:15 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 03:13 farvacola wrote:On June 28 2013 03:12 SKC wrote:On June 28 2013 03:12 farvacola wrote:
The defense is now re-crossing the witness as to her ability to speak English lol Well, if the state was making a point that she wasn't completelly able to understand something, it's a pretty valuable line of reasoning. Well she's already said she understood, they are more focusing on the cultural relativity inherent to the use of the words cracker and nigger. I wasn't able to fully watch the state's redirect, but didn't they mention her cultural upbringing and her bad grasp of the english language?
Yes, her growing up in a home where 3 languages are spoken and her accordingly loose vernacular grasp of English was definitely touched on.
|
On June 28 2013 02:53 ranshaked wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 02:50 czylu wrote:On June 28 2013 02:48 ranshaked wrote:
I think everyone has a different idea of what they consider "danger of their life"
When I was jumped years ago, I was genuinely in danger of my life. If I had a gun on me, I would have shot the people, but I didn't. Instead, I had to have someone drive me to a hospital with blood everywhere. It turns out I was fine (didn't crack the orbital), but at the time I genuinely would have used a gun if I had one.
In the heat of the moment, anything can happen, so in a way I see why Zimmerman shot Trayvon. and after the moment has passed, you suffer the consequences, as Mr. Zimmerman has/will. Why should I get in trouble? I was jumped, they instigated it? How do I know that I'm not going to die unless it happens? If I'm bleeding everywhere, and I'm having the shit kicked out of me, at what point do I get to shoot? Or, do I just let them continue to beat the hell out of me until they stop? Why isn't lethal force on my end allowed in order to say myself from bodily harm/possible death? (you CAN die from freak shit like being punched once and fall down unconscious) Personally, if someone ever does it again to me, I'd have no problem shooting them in self defense. If you want to punch me in the face, fine, then take a bullet to the face imo
The fact you lived, is the only argument needed to proof the point that guns are not necessary in selfdefense.
You would have killed someone FFS.
Why don´t get martial arts lessons instead?
Because pointing the gun is easier, quicker to learn ?
What if your attackes would have been armed as well ?
The more i read about the matter, i think Martin attacked and got killed for it. Maybe Zimmerman provoked him in the first place by following him.
Witness "Rachel" is mentally 4 years old. She neither could read or comprehend the lawyers questions.
If Treyvon was her "friend" I would guess he wasn´t much smarter and attacked Zimmerman for following him.
The "Help" screams on tape could only be from Zimmerman, since he was the one having injuries he got from the fight.
citing wikipedia "..The autopsy also found that Martin had one small abrasion on his left ring finger below the knuckle. No other injuries were found on Martin's body at the time of his death..."
I guess Martin punched Zimmerman and got Shot.
|
On June 28 2013 02:40 czylu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 02:14 PanN wrote:On June 28 2013 02:12 czylu wrote:On June 28 2013 01:51 nihlon wrote:On June 28 2013 01:48 bugser wrote:On June 28 2013 01:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 28 2013 01:37 Kaitlin wrote:On June 28 2013 01:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 28 2013 01:34 Kaitlin wrote:On June 28 2013 01:27 FallDownMarigold wrote:
[quote]
It seems quite irrational when viewed through the lens of firearm injury & death research, and through the lens of studies that indicate carrying a weapon results in either injury to the carrier or bystanders more than it does to attackers.
It's too bad Zimmerman had a pistol, Zaqwe. It ended Martin's life. That's why you don't view the appropriate usage of a firearm through the lens of some fucking research. You view it in the surrounding facts and circumstances of the event. Are we really going to bring the "fuck science" attitude of the gun thread here? You brought the gun thread here. This is a thread about one George Zimmerman and one Trayvon Martin and the circumstances surrounding the use of the gun to kill Trayvon Martin. Research is pretty fucking irrelevant. I didn't bring anything here. FallDownMarigold is suggesting that bringing guns to an altercation is dangerous, even for the carriers of the gun, and said that it is sad that Martin was shot because of the preconceived notion that guns equals safety. A gun saved George Zimmerman's life. In this case a gun certainly does "equal" safety. You do realize that whether it saved his life or not is one of the very core issues of the trial? All we know is that Martin was killed with a gun and whether or not that shot saved Zimmerman is very much up for debate. As much as I pity him for being thrown under the bus by the media and politics, he still shot and killed an unarmed child. Now if Trayvon had been carrying around that gun he had in the picture on his phone, I'd say it's a different story, but he didn't have anything. Even if he was getting beaten, it's still just fists. He needed to have the sense to know that if he was carrying around a loaded gun. It's still just fists? ..... You can easily kill somebody with "just fists". You're beyond crazy and sheltered if you don't think so. Have you ever gotten a beat down? Most fist fights don't end in death(out of a million assault cases(fists) per year you get about 1000 deaths, compare that with guns). Do you know how to defend yourself? If this asshole was running around town with a gun, he should atleast have the decency to learn how to fight. Lastly, if he was knocked unconscious, he is knocked unconscious, at least he's not dead.
Your useless statistic doesn't change the fact that someone was afraid for their life. It doesn't change the fact that people still die in fights. and it certainly wouldn't sway me to not use a weapon if I was being hit and afraid for my own life.
|
On June 28 2013 03:14 ragz_gt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 03:10 ranshaked wrote:On June 28 2013 03:08 ragz_gt wrote:On June 28 2013 03:04 ranshaked wrote:On June 28 2013 03:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 28 2013 02:58 ranshaked wrote:On June 28 2013 02:56 ragz_gt wrote:On June 28 2013 02:53 ranshaked wrote:On June 28 2013 02:50 czylu wrote:On June 28 2013 02:48 ranshaked wrote:
I think everyone has a different idea of what they consider "danger of their life"
When I was jumped years ago, I was genuinely in danger of my life. If I had a gun on me, I would have shot the people, but I didn't. Instead, I had to have someone drive me to a hospital with blood everywhere. It turns out I was fine (didn't crack the orbital), but at the time I genuinely would have used a gun if I had one.
In the heat of the moment, anything can happen, so in a way I see why Zimmerman shot Trayvon. and after the moment has passed, you suffer the consequences, as Mr. Zimmerman has/will. Why should I get in trouble? I was jumped, they instigated it? How do I know that I'm not going to die unless it happens? If I'm bleeding everywhere, and I'm having the shit kicked out of me, at what point do I get to shoot? Or, do I just let them continue to beat the hell out of me until they stop? Why isn't lethal force on my end allowed in order to say myself from bodily harm/possible death? (you CAN die from freak shit like being punched once and fall down unconscious) Personally, if someone ever does it again to me, I'd have no problem shooting them in self defense. If you want to punch me in the face, fine, then take a bullet to the face imo If you instigated the situation in the first place, then you will be, and that's what's on trial now: did Zimmerman instigate the situation? No. I told them to quit being rude to the lady behind me. They didn't like what I said, and started throwing punches. What is considered instigating? To me, the first person to throw a punch is the instigator, regardless of what chit chat went on before. You: "I don't like your personality" Him: Throws a punchYou: Shoots HimSome people find that line of logic problematic. So what am I supposed to do? Take the punch and do nothing about it? The entire point of having a gun is to protect yourself. If someone punches me, and I have a weapon on me to protect myself, you bet I'm going to use it. Yes, basically you just admitted that you shot him as revenge, not as defense, off to jail you go. lol what? If I'm taking the punch(s), there is a possibility of me having great bodily harm. I can't defend myself, thus I use my weapon. Why am I being charged? I'm 5'7 160...I don't know how to fight. The other guy is 6'4 220. What do I do? Just lie in a fetal position being beaten to death? Law doesn't work that way. Possibility of great bodily harm is not the same as reasonable danger of such. Anyone driving a car can potentially swirl and kill you, doesn't give you the right to shoot everyone driving a car near you.
There's a difference. I've already been attacked by a person. Now, if a person starts trying to ram my car off the road, then yes, I believe I have the right to shoot them to protect myself.
|
On June 28 2013 03:16 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 03:15 SKC wrote:On June 28 2013 03:13 farvacola wrote:On June 28 2013 03:12 SKC wrote:On June 28 2013 03:12 farvacola wrote:
The defense is now re-crossing the witness as to her ability to speak English lol Well, if the state was making a point that she wasn't completelly able to understand something, it's a pretty valuable line of reasoning. Well she's already said she understood, they are more focusing on the cultural relativity inherent to the use of the words cracker and nigger. I wasn't able to fully watch the state's redirect, but didn't they mention her cultural upbringing and her bad grasp of the english language? Yes, her growing up in a home where 3 languages are spoken and her according loose vernacular grasp of English was definitely touched on.
So they were basically making sure they couldn't use that as an argument for her inconsistent answers. She fully understands english, and fully understands the questions he asked her. The later questions about cracker and nigger is a diferent subject.
|
This would be very, very funny if a man's future wasn't hanging in the balance.
|
On June 28 2013 03:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 03:04 ranshaked wrote:On June 28 2013 03:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 28 2013 02:58 ranshaked wrote:On June 28 2013 02:56 ragz_gt wrote:On June 28 2013 02:53 ranshaked wrote:On June 28 2013 02:50 czylu wrote:On June 28 2013 02:48 ranshaked wrote:
I think everyone has a different idea of what they consider "danger of their life"
When I was jumped years ago, I was genuinely in danger of my life. If I had a gun on me, I would have shot the people, but I didn't. Instead, I had to have someone drive me to a hospital with blood everywhere. It turns out I was fine (didn't crack the orbital), but at the time I genuinely would have used a gun if I had one.
In the heat of the moment, anything can happen, so in a way I see why Zimmerman shot Trayvon. and after the moment has passed, you suffer the consequences, as Mr. Zimmerman has/will. Why should I get in trouble? I was jumped, they instigated it? How do I know that I'm not going to die unless it happens? If I'm bleeding everywhere, and I'm having the shit kicked out of me, at what point do I get to shoot? Or, do I just let them continue to beat the hell out of me until they stop? Why isn't lethal force on my end allowed in order to say myself from bodily harm/possible death? (you CAN die from freak shit like being punched once and fall down unconscious) Personally, if someone ever does it again to me, I'd have no problem shooting them in self defense. If you want to punch me in the face, fine, then take a bullet to the face imo If you instigated the situation in the first place, then you will be, and that's what's on trial now: did Zimmerman instigate the situation? No. I told them to quit being rude to the lady behind me. They didn't like what I said, and started throwing punches. What is considered instigating? To me, the first person to throw a punch is the instigator, regardless of what chit chat went on before. You: "I don't like your personality" Him: Throws a punchYou: Shoots HimSome people find that line of logic problematic. So what am I supposed to do? Take the punch and do nothing about it? The entire point of having a gun is to protect yourself. If someone punches me, and I have a weapon on me to protect myself, you bet I'm going to use it. You feel threatened, pull out your gun He feels threatened, pulls out his gun Shooting occurs. Sounds smart.
If they had a gun, they would have shot me far before beating me up, and allowing me to get to my gun. It would be irrevelant.
|
On June 28 2013 03:18 Yorke wrote:
This would be very, very funny if a man's future wasn't hanging in the balance.
or a kid died...
|
"Get off" means stop following me, according to the conversation between Rachel and Trayvon. A phrase that apparently has slipped by everyone in Court and this thread.
/footstamppayattentiontome
|
On June 28 2013 03:18 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 03:16 farvacola wrote:On June 28 2013 03:15 SKC wrote:On June 28 2013 03:13 farvacola wrote:On June 28 2013 03:12 SKC wrote:On June 28 2013 03:12 farvacola wrote:
The defense is now re-crossing the witness as to her ability to speak English lol Well, if the state was making a point that she wasn't completelly able to understand something, it's a pretty valuable line of reasoning. Well she's already said she understood, they are more focusing on the cultural relativity inherent to the use of the words cracker and nigger. I wasn't able to fully watch the state's redirect, but didn't they mention her cultural upbringing and her bad grasp of the english language? Yes, her growing up in a home where 3 languages are spoken and her according loose vernacular grasp of English was definitely touched on. So they were basically making sure they couldn't use that as an argument for her inconsistent answers. She fully understands english, and fully understands the questions he asked her. The later questions about cracker and nigger is a diferent subject.
Not really, the witnesses grasp and use of English is important in regards to both the use of the words cracker/nigger and the relative veracity of her testimony.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
