So once you can separate facts from opinion then feel free to call me out.
At present, you again are supporting your argument with opinions.
Last edited:
1) Rules of neighborhood watch set by the sanford PD explicitly state they're not to follow, chase after suspects. In chasing after Trayvon he was acting with gross negligence... You're an idiot not to consider this negligence.
Rules or guidelines? What is the purpose of a watch if you can not identify where the suspect is. LEO shows up for nothing - they have no way of knowing where to look for the potential perp. If you can point the LEO in the general direction with a description; they have a better chance of finding the perp.
2) Chasing after a fucking punk w\ the intent to not let that asshole get away is asking for trouble... He had to know the possible outcomes of chasing down a stranger like that.
Other times, the "assholes" had run away. In this case TM also ran. why should this time have been any different. Therre had never been any other outcomes to compare to
3)DeeDee stated that Trayvon ran because Z was eyeballing him and stalking him in his car. He could have thought Zimmerman was going to rob rape and kill him in no specific order. Get the fuck out of here w\ your total lack of logic. where is any evidence from DeeDee that TM had such thoughts? she never stated that he was running. He apparently was not so afraid for his life that he chose to not go home but waited around 2-4 minutes for GZ and confronted him.
4)You're a fucking idiot. There's clear legal precedent for murder charges when a person's actions have the implied possibility of death. A gun meets that criteria each and every time. People have been convicted when people get ko'd and hit their heads. And many people get shot and are able to go to the ER and recover. I would suspect that there is a higher percentage of bullet wounds that are treated at an ER than show up on the coroner table.
So please.. before you quote post me again, get your fucking facts in order.
1) Rules of neighborhood watch set by the sanford PD explicitly state they're not to follow, chase after suspects. In chasing after Trayvon he was acting with gross negligence... You're an idiot not to consider this negligence.
2) Chasing after a fucking punk w\ the intent to not let that asshole get away is asking for trouble... He had to know the possible outcomes of chasing down a stranger like that.
3)DeeDee stated that Trayvon ran because Z was eyeballing him and stalking him in his car. He could have thought Zimmerman was going to rob rape and kill him in no specific order. Get the fuck out of here w\ your total lack of logic.
4)You're a fucking idiot. There's clear legal precedent for murder charges when a person's actions have the implied possibility of death. A gun meets that criteria each and every time. People have been convicted when people get ko'd and hit their heads.
So please.. before you quote post me again, get your fucking facts in order.
1) Rules of neighborhood watch set by the sanford PD explicitly state they're not to follow, chase after suspects. In chasing after Trayvon he was acting with gross negligence... You're an idiot not to consider this negligence.
2) Chasing after a fucking punk w\ the intent to not let that asshole get away is asking for trouble... He had to know the possible outcomes of chasing down a stranger like that.
3)DeeDee stated that Trayvon ran because Z was eyeballing him and stalking him in his car. He could have thought Zimmerman was going to rob rape and kill him in no specific order. Get the fuck out of here w\ your total lack of logic.
4)You're a fucking idiot. There's clear legal precedent for murder charges when a person's actions have the implied possibility of death. A gun meets that criteria each and every time. People have been convicted when people get ko'd and hit their heads.
So please.. before you quote post me again, get your fucking facts in order.
In your case the ip address may have tied a pc to illegal activity and it could be established who owned the pc and therefore was responsible.
But being able to establish that a particular pc or cell phone was used to send a tweet or post on Facebook doesn't establish who sent the tweet or made the post.
And hey, I'm not trying to win a case, I'm just talking about what I think is a big problem with relying on things like Facebook or Twitter, in trials in general.
Suppose I hate fruitcake. But I post on Facebook, hey grandma, thanks for the delicious fruitcake, its one of my favorite things.
Then there's a rash of fruitcake burglaries and for one reason or other I'm a suspect.
Is it proper to use what I posted on Facebook to impeach me when I say I hate fruitcake ?
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=33450931&postcount=22018
You didnt say the words, however you were a member of the brigade.
So you're back to "possible" this and "possible" that without anything resembling proof of anything...with all the "possibilities" it just adds up to reasonable doubt even if you don't believe what he says, why can't so many of you understand that?Have you ever looked at the possible side effects of the meds GZ is on?
Have you ever looked at the possible side effects of the meds GZ is on?
You're allowed to think that IPs arent enough to tie people to online activity. I happen to agree with you. However, case law doesn't agree with us.
Your and my opinions are not relevant. We are neither judges nor lawmakers. The fact of the matter is, there is an established process where MOM can tie a person to those posts and it's certain enough that it would likely go to a jury to decide.
Those are facts, not opinions. My opinion is it shouldn't be sufficient. The fact is the law doesn't agree.
Well, as I said, I'm not talking about this case or the law as much as I'm expressing a concern that the justice system adapt to the reality of the internet and that some people use things like Facebook and Twitter the way people might talk at a party or when goofing around.
Not saying anything in particualr about this case, becasue I don't know how it will turn out in this case.
Have you ever looked at the possible side effects of the meds GZ is on?
So then you admit i was right.
A judge Friday said yes to the very thing Trayvon Martin's family did not want: Defense attorneys rummaging through their son's school records and background, looking for damaging information.
Circuit Judge Debra S. Nelson cleared the way for George Zimmerman's legal team to begin digging. Defense attorney Mark O'Mara apologized, but said he owed it to his client.
"Though it sounds horrible to come before you and say, 'I really want to go after the victim's reputation,' that is simply what the Sixth Amendment tells us we have to do," O'Mara told the judge.
Nelson authorized his request to subpoena Trayvon's Twitter and Facebook posts. In self-defense cases, she said, if there's evidence that a victim had a violent past, it could be relevant.
The accounts were de-activated long ago, O'Mara said, but he believes they will reveal "videos out there that suggest he (Trayvon) involved himself in MMA fighting."
No, because I never compared it as exactly as meth as you "claimed" I did.
Having problems with reading comprehension are we?
You're worse than spidey. At least spidey isnt so much of a pussy that he has to imply what he means but back off once someone calls him on it.
You remind me of a Faux News talking head...falsely claiming I said something I didn't and then not having the integrity to admit you were wrong. And instead of being a man and admitting it, you twist & spin it to satisfy your original comments. Grow up.
So, Zimmerman won access to Martins school and facebook records.
The fact that TM was on top of GZ when the shot was fired is far more important in this case than what medications GZ was prescribed.
Unless there's something in his medical records that show he had experienced adverse affects to the medication it will be difficult to prove these prescriptions were a factor that night.
With the new rulings I wonder how Dee Dee's statements will be brought into question if the previously hacked twitter posts prove to be posted by her.
You know what, you're right. I apologize. You weren't the one who directly compared meth with adderal. You merely implied within the discussion that Zimmerman might be accusing it and/or that he shouldn't have been allowed to defend himself based on that prescription.
Is that a fairer way to represent your statements? I have a hard time figuring out what you're willing to own up to sometimes.
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Motion-Officer-reveals-surprise-about-colleague-seeking-manslaughter-for-Zimmerman/-/1637132/17052764/-/597naj/-/index.html
Looks like a police officer has revealed some secret meetings, etc, and the fact that Serino may have completely gone rogue when recommending manslaughter charges.
Rest of the SPD (other than a couple of black officers and a white female officer married to a black K-9 trainer) were all saying there was no evidence to charge GZ, that he'd acted in legal self-defense. Prosecutor agreed, then they brought in "special" prosecutor Angela Corey and she charged not just manslaughter but MOTHER FUCKING MURDER 2!!!
I may have gotten some of the particulars wrong, I just woke up. Check out the vid for yourself, etc.