17 year old kid shot dead by Neighborhood Watch "Captain"

[CarmelHP]

Still waiting to see how you get "guilty of manslaughter" from "I have no idea what happened..."

Couldn't be his "personal biases," could it? Oh, nosiree Bob!

 

[jbombelli]

Sure, based on the facts that we DO know, I'd rather he be charged with manslaughter.
It's a fact that Martin hadnt committed a crime.
It's a fact that Zimmerman followed him
It's a fact that Martin was alarmed by Zimmerman following him
It's a fact that Zimmerman believed Martin to be suspicious
It's a fact that Zimmerman used disparaging language to describe Martin
It's a fact that following a suspicious person is inherently dangerous
It's a fact that Zimmerman was suggested to not follow Martin
It's a fact that Martin has been charged criminally (guilty or not) for violence
It's a fact Martin had no weapons
It's a fact Zimmerman was armed
It's a fact that Martin was talking in the phone just prior to his death
It's a fact that if one believes themselves to be in imminent danger, protecting themselves is justified
It's a fact that Zimmerman set the ball in motion that resulted in this tragedy
It's a fact that Martin is dead by Zimmerman's hand

So yeah, I think manslaughter applies.

But here, since we're asking questions. Did you "think" OJ was guilty of murder? And please explain why. Hopefully, you'll reciprocate and answer this as I have asked without dancing around it proving your hypocrisy.

Not one of those things you mention as facts proves guilt of any crime. And some of them aren't actually established as facts, and some are absolutely irrelevant.

So how do you go from "I have no idea what happened", which are YOUR words, to "he's guilty of manslaughter", which are YOUR words?

Couldn't be his "personal biases," could it? Oh, nosiree Bob!

nosiree Bob!

 

[Kutnupe14]

Not one of those things you mention as facts proves guilt of any crime. And some of them aren't actually established as facts, and some are absolutely irrelevant.

So how do you go from "I have no idea what happened", which are YOUR words, to "he's guilty of manslaughter", which are YOUR words?




nosiree Bob!

So I answered your question, but you're refusing to answer mine? I'm willing to play along if you are, but it's a two way road.

 

[KLB]

So I answered your question, but you're refusing to answer mine? I'm willing to play along if you are, but it's a two way road.

What does the OJ case have to do with this case?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Bolded your conjecture/guessing and or irrelevent points.

You know Martin was alarmed?
What language? The one tapes that the media modified to sound worse?
Martin was charged with violence in the past? Don't you mean Zimmerman? And even if you do, how does that even matter? Life-threatening situation is still life-threatening.
Zimmerman didn't know if Martin had no weapons. Fists are weapons.
Anything can set anything into action.

Yes, it is a fact that Martin was Alarmed: [Cause (someone) to feel frightened, disturbed, or in danger]. It how he handled it that is up for debate.

Disparaging: To speak of in a slighting or disrespectful way; belittle.
"Punks" applies.

Correct, my error, it was Zimmerman who was charged

Ok, so Zimmerman didn't know Martin didn't have any weapons that doesn't turn my fact false.

...there's nothing there you've proven to be false.

 

[jbombelli]

So I answered your question, but you're refusing to answer mine? I'm willing to play along if you are, but it's a two way road.

You haven't answered my question. You deflected. You sidestepped. You did the ol' Kutnupe Two-Step. That's where you don't answer the question you're asked, you deflect, and then pretend you answered it.

You have not made any logical bridge going from "I have no idea what happened" to "he's guilty of manslaughter."

How does someone who "has no idea what happened" arrive at some conclusion of guilt on anybody's part?

 

[Kutnupe14]

What does the OJ case have to do with this case?

Thinking and knowing... I was challenged because I said I "think" Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter, and now I'm using another instance, and asking the same question. I'm just trying to see if he's consistent in giving me grief because of this case, and stating that he didn't think OJ was guilty, because obviously he doesn't "know" what happened.


So Jbomb?

 

[Kutnupe14]

You haven't answered my question. You deflected. You sidestepped. You did the ol' Kutnupe Two-Step. That's where you don't answer the question you're asked, you deflect, and then pretend you answered it.

You have not made any logical bridge going from "I have no idea what happened" to "he's guilty of manslaughter."

How does someone who "has no idea what happened" arrive at some conclusion of guilt on anybody's part?

C'mon, I gave you a detailed list of all the reasons. If you want a one sentence answer: Zimmerman followed a juvenile who was doing no wrong, alarmed him to the point that a physical altercation took place (which would not have occurred if Zimmerman hadn't followed him), and now Martin is dead.

There, now would you like to answer MY question? Because I'm about to stop answering yours until you respond.

 

[KLB]

Thinking and knowing... I was challenged because I said I "think" Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter, and now I'm using another instance, and asking the same question. I'm just trying to see if he's consistent in giving me grief because of this case, and stating that he didn't think OJ was guilty, because obviously he doesn't "know" what happened.


So Jbomb?

Well, at least there seemed to be a lot of evidence that pointed to OJ being guilty. In this case there seems to be very little to none.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

C'mon, I gave you a detailed list of all the reasons. If you want a one sentence answer: Zimmerman followed a juvenile who was doing no wrong, alarmed him to the point that a physical altercation took place (which would not have occurred if Zimmerman hadn't followed him), and now Martin is dead.

There, now would you like to answer MY question? Because I'm about to stop answering yours until you respond.

I love this line.

I wouldn't have wrecked my first car if the manual had told me specifically not to wreck!
The Hindenburg wouldn't have crashed if there was a warning saying "don't crash!"
That baby in Pennsylvania wouldn't have been aborted if he just told Doc Gosnell to "stop it!"
The jews wouldn't have been killed if they just stayed out of Germany!

 

[Kutnupe14]

Well, at least there seemed to be a lot of evidence that pointed to OJ being guilty. In this case there seems to be very little to none.

Hell, I originally thought OJ was guilty.... but didn't get any grief about that one.

...And so did Jbomb. As a matter of fact, he didn't even "think" OJ was guilty, he was "convinced." So, he's being an EPIC hypocrite right now. I don't even need to direct him to that post, 'cause he already knows it.

 

[jbombelli]

C'mon, I gave you a detailed list of all the reasons. If you want a one sentence answer: Zimmerman followed a juvenile who was doing no wrong, alarmed him to the point that a physical altercation took place (which would not have occurred if Zimmerman hadn't followed him), and now Martin is dead.

There, now would you like to answer MY question? Because I'm about to stop answering yours until you respond.

You didn't give a list of reasons. You gave a list of facts, some of which are not even relevant or proven.

You said you have no idea what happened. How does a person who has no idea what happened conclude any sort of guilt?

You still haven't answered that. You've done the Kutnupe Two Step and refused to answer that specific question. I'm not looking for a laundry list of facts that don't prove guilt. I'm not looking to answer questions about OJ. **** OJ. He has nothing to do with this. Try to stick to the topic at hand. You concluded Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter despite having no idea of what happened.

Is this how you type up your police reports?

And feel free to link to my post about OJ.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I love this line.

I wouldn't have wrecked my first car if the manual had told me specifically not to wreck!
The Hindenburg wouldn't have crashed if there was a warning saying "don't crash!"
That baby in Pennsylvania wouldn't have been aborted if he just told Doc Gosnell to "stop it!"
The jews wouldn't have been killed if they just stayed out of Germany!

I'm thing you have a chronological disconnect and probably have a poor grasp of physics. A series of immediate events unfolded solely due to one actor. If you don't understand that, well I'm sorry, there's not much more I can do for you.

 

[cobber]

I'm thing you have a chronological disconnect and probably have a poor grasp of physics. A series of immediate events unfolded solely due to one actor. If you don't understand that, well I'm sorry, there's not much more I can do for you.

Is there a physics lecture coming up? I'd better get my notebook!


I don't think anyone can say that every thing that took place that evening was due solely to one actor. (Although the State wishes that were the case, or that they could sell the jury on it.)

Both of them were in a position to exercise their free will, and the choices they both made led, not inevitably, to the final resolution.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You didn't give a list of reasons. You gave a list of facts, some of which are not even relevant or proven.

You said you have no idea what happened. How does a person who has no idea what happened conclude any sort of guilt?

You still haven't answered that. You've done the Kutnupe Two Step and refused to answer that specific question. I'm not looking for a laundry list of facts that don't prove guilt. I'm not looking to answer questions about OJ. **** OJ. He has nothing to do with this. Try to stick to the topic at hand. You concluded Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter despite having no idea of what happened.

Is this how you type up your police reports?

That's your opinion. I think otherwise... just as you thought otherwise about OJ's guilt. One again you prove that you simply can't man up.

Here, I'll say it again. I think Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter, and I have no idea what happened (outside of the facts we currently have).

Heck, if someone has issue with it fine, I'll live. But I won't let a hypocrite challenge me on it (aka you).

You had no idea what happened during the OJ instance, and yet you stated:

Here is what convinced me of his guilt:

Bloody footprints made by someone wearing Bruno Magli shoes, OJ saying "I would never own a pair of those ugly a** shoes!" and then the civil suit legal team finding published pictures of him at a football game wearing the exact Bruno Magli shoes that would have made those bloody footprints.

You didn't even say "think," you were "convinced." That's hyprocrisy biting you in the rear Jbomb. So tell you, or anyone, tell me how the situations are different? Other than OJ got off, meaning a Jury wasn't so "convinced," and Zimmerman is yet to be decided? Actually, don't answer that. You don't want to answer my question, so I see no need to answer yours (but everyone else is fair game, so use a proxy if you must).

Annoyed?

 

[jbombelli]

That's your opinion. I think otherwise... just as you thought otherwise about OJ's guilt. One again you prove that you simply can't man up.

Here, I'll say it again. I think Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter, and I have no idea what happened (outside of the facts we currently have).

Heck, if someone has issue with it fine, I'll live. But I won't let a hypocrite challenge me on it (aka you).

You had no idea what happened during the OJ instance, and yet you stated:



You didn't even say "think," you were "convinced." That's hyprocrisy biting you in the rear Jbomb. So tell you, or anyone, tell me how the situations are different? Other than OJ got off, meaning a Jury wasn't so "convinced," and Zimmerman is yet to be decided? Actually, don't answer that. You don't want to answer my question, so I see no need to answer yours (but everyone else is fair game, so use a proxy if you must).

Annoyed?

No. I'm not annoyed. I'm actually sitting here at my desk laughing at you.

I looked at the evidence that was admitted into the trial, and used that evidence to conclude he was guilty.

Now, back to the topic at hand ... You didn't post one bit of actual, physical evidence. Not even one single shred that actually could be used to substantiate a verdict of "guilty of manslaughter." NOT ONE. Unless of course count the fact that Trayvon is dead. But that doesn't prove manslaughter.

I'm not the hypocrite here. I'm not the one dancing around and avoiding answering the question that you still haven't answered. You think he's guilty, but you don't base that on any actual evidence or knowledge of what happened. Just supposition.

We both know it. You have no real basis to conclude Zimmerman is guilty of anything. You just want it to be so.

 

[cordex]

Kutnupe14,
You seem to be claiming - as I've seen others claim - that Zimmerman's right to self defense was suspended because while he may not have done anything identifiable to Martin that justified violence, he put himself in a situation that resulted in a conflict that led to the shooting. Is that about right?

Just out of curiosity (and I'm sorry if someone else has used a similar analogy in this thread already), but if a woman with a low-cut shirt took a nighttime walk through a bad neighborhood, would her imprudent actions remove her right to self-defense? Would she therefore be guilty of manslaughter if she shot someone attempting to rape her?

 

[cobber]

Kutnupe14,
You seem to be claiming - as I've seen others claim - that Zimmerman's right to self defense was suspended because while he may not have done anything identifiable to Martin that justified violence, he put himself in a situation that resulted in a conflict that led to the shooting. Is that about right?

Just out of curiosity (and I'm sorry if someone else has used a similar analogy in this thread already), but if a woman with a low-cut shirt took a nighttime walk through a bad neighborhood, would her imprudent actions remove her right to self-defense? Would she therefore be guilty of manslaughter if she shot someone attempting to rape her?

Perhaps alarming or stimulating others frees them from the responsibility of self-control.

 

[churchmouse]

Is there a physics lecture coming up? I'd better get my notebook!


I don't think anyone can say that every thing that took place that evening was due solely to one actor. (Although the State wishes that were the case, or that they could sell the jury on it.)

Both of them were in a position to exercise their free will, and the choices they both made led, not inevitably, to the final resolution.

This^^^^^^^^^^^again and some more^^^^^^^^

Fail on both of them.

 

[armedindy]

i contend that if Trayvon martin was acting in any sort of self defense against George, because he didnt like this "creepy cracker" following him, then he could have done something akin to a "hit and run"...get the drop on "creepy guy" punch him once and hard, and then get outa there...IF that were the case, i would contend that he went above and beyong what he could call defense, mma style ground and pound of someones head onto concrete stops being defense at a certain point and becomes agression...making the shoot, once again, justified.