Page 36 of 69 FirstFirst ... 26343536373846 ... LastLast
Results 701 to 720 of 1362

Thread: Martin/Zimmerman Trial

  1. #701
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    You can't believe it because I didn't actually say it.

    I said women are more emotional than men in the majority, and they are, as almost every study done on the subject has showed. Women tend to be empathic, emotional thinkers, men more rational, less empathic, more solution-oriented thinkers. Science says this, not me.

    What you've posted is a perfect example of a Straw Man.

    Churchill: All all-women jury might be more suseptible to emotion-based testimoney of a mother who lost her son.

    LiL: YOU HATES TEH WOMENZ!!!! YOU THINK THEZ BELONG IN KITCHEN WIF APRON!!!! YOU SAYZ THEY NO GET VOTE TOO!!! WHAT NEXT, NO ABORTION??? NO BIRFF CONTROLL!!!! WHY YOUZ HATE WOMEN SO MUCH YOU SEXIST MYSOGYNIST!!!!

    The only reply old friend, to such a straw man, is
    Yeah, that sure nailed me!

    So based on your research information, what makes a better juror, a male or female? And why?

    Again, why did the defense allow this constitution of a jury if they knew it would be skewed against them?

  2. #702
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    Yeah, that sure nailed me!
    Indeed, my off-topic Straw-Man obsessed friend. Sorry to dissapoint you.

  3. #703
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    Indeed, my off-topic Straw-Man obsessed friend. Sorry to dissapoint you.
    So what about my two questions? Or are those "off-topic"?

  4. #704
    Great Prosecution witness the Medical Examiner he needed his notes. Dumb and Dumber!

  5. #705
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    So what about my two questions? Or are those "off-topic"?
    Given they're based completely on your aforementioned straw man argument re: a statement I did not in fact make.....yes.

    The "quality" of any specific juror is an assortment of things, not simply their gender. While science may tell us women think differently than men, specificly with a more empathic emoition-sensative way, that factor alone would not make a juror particularly "good" or "bad".

    But you know all this already. Satisfied, or will you ask me when i stopped beating my wife next?

  6. #706
    Bewildered Beast
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    SF via Strong Island
    Posts
    31,085
    Quote Originally Posted by 32green View Post


    Its all peace, love and understanding until the activist resume is challenged, isnt it?

    Your position is that CHurchill does not possess your deep roots in the black struggle, (i.e. having not experienced Jim Crow personally like you have... due to what you've heard from someone else...) and therefore his position is somehow not as supportable?

    No one here is suggesting that black citizens werent betrayed on many levels by the government years ago. We understand that the after-effects linger in the dysfunction we still see...

    What we are suggesting is that 2014, one shouldn't have to tip-toe around blatant truths, one of which is that the welfare state, racial demagogues and hand wringing lib "do-gooder" apologists.... have also done irreparable harm...and virtually stalled any social progress in large segments of minority culture.

    One doesn't have had to witness Jim Crow personally....to see that, friend.

    -



    -
    First of all, please don't hit me...I'm wearing 2 pairs of glasses, and I have a condition. I'm a weak man behind a real keyboard. Let's not be hasty here...Sir...and what a handsome pineapple shirt you have there. Fantastic; I'm glad were friends again.

    I'm like Ralph Kiner on mushrooms sometimes. Yelling out in centerfield... now I'll have to eat my words there
    Last edited by WestCoastOffensive; 07-05-2013 at 04:24 PM.

  7. #707
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    Given they're based completely on your aforementioned straw man argument re: a statement I did not in fact make.....yes.

    The "quality" of any specific juror is an assortment of things, not simply their gender. While science may tell us women think differently than men, specificly with a more empathic emoition-sensative way, that factor alone would not make a juror particularly "good" or "bad".

    But you know all this already. Satisfied, or will you ask me when i stopped beating my wife next?
    LOL. "An assortment of things..." yes, indeed.

    And what about jury selection. We're they picked by the NAACP? Or did the defense not show up?

    By the way, when did you stop beating your wife (and kicking your dog)?

  8. #708
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    And what about jury selection. We're they picked by the NAACP? Or did the defense not show up?
    I'm at a loss as to who you're arguing with at this point....

    By the way, when did you stop beating your wife (and kicking your dog)?
    I'm a Cat person. I don't own a Dog.

    Last edited by Churchill; 07-05-2013 at 05:55 PM.

  9. #709
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    Oh, give it rest.



    It's also accurate. Like many sterotypes.



    No, it's because they're racist professional victims who just can't handle it when their victimhood is questioned or infringed.

    Take a good listen to radio call in shows today, the most common phrase you'll hear black callers making is that discussion of eveidence is "insensitive", i.e. racist, because the ONLY fact that matters is M. was a "kid" or "child" and was killed.

    Like with discussion of crime stats, there is seemingly NO desire to take responsabillity for the actual things done, only a desire to blame everyone and everything else so victims can stay victims, with all that includes.

    Heaven forbid any of these folks admit that M. might have been his own worst enemy that night, by jumping and fighting the wrong guy on thewrong night......nope, it's all "hunted him down for being black".

    What a crock the lot of it
    Yup he just walked up and punched the first person he saw that night. or maybe he could have been "standing his ground" after being followed be a "cracker" he deemed "Crazy".

    there should be "responsibility" taken on both sides of this. you seem to be letting Z off the hook because you don't like the way he is portrayed by the media.

    it remains just a sad situation that should and could have been avoided.

  10. #710
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    I'm at a loss as to who you're arguing with at this point....



    I'm a Cat person. I don't own a Dog.

    You. You were crying and whining about the women on the jury being biased toward Trayvon's mommy. And you complained and moaned about how this was an example of the injustice of our courts. Waah, waah, waah...

    It takes two side to form a jury. One would have thought the defense would have considered the histrionic nature of women and calculated that they should stack the jury with as many he-men as possible.

    But I like your cat. You can hit it if you want to... I'd recommend it.

  11. #711
    Quote Originally Posted by SgtAshton View Post
    Yup he just walked up and punched the first person he saw that night. or maybe he could have been "standing his ground" after being followed be a "cracker" he deemed "Crazy".

    there should be "responsibility" taken on both sides of this. you seem to be letting Z off the hook because you don't like the way he is portrayed by the media.

    it remains just a sad situation that should and could have been avoided.
    I'm "letting Z. off" becuse there is no evidence (thus far) that would prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it wasn't M. initiated violence (i.e. M. threw the first punch) that M. was winning the fight (all the damage done to Z.), and that Z. shot in perceived life threatening self-defense.

    The fact that some folks think such an event is UNPOSSIBLE! and that others are milking this for the usual race-baiting divisiveness or political aims is only a side effect of why I WANT Z. to be not guilty in the evidence.

    Of course Z. has same responsabillity, in exactly the same way a woman in short skirt walking down a dark street at 2:00 am alone bears "some responsabillity" if she is attacked. Neither did anything illegal, but they sure did something less than smart.

  12. #712
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,585
    Quote Originally Posted by WestCoastOffensive View Post
    I don't think they should waste Zimmy's life, although the penalty should reflect the seriousness of the behavior. It needs to be held up as an example of behavior that will not be tolerated, EVER.
    The neighborhood watch guy actually watching the neighborhood...can't be having that, nosiree.
    Last edited by Jungle Shift Jet; 07-05-2013 at 07:42 PM.

  13. #713
    Quote Originally Posted by SgtAshton View Post
    Yup he just walked up and punched the first person he saw that night. or maybe he could have been "standing his ground" after being followed be a "cracker" he deemed "Crazy".

    there should be "responsibility" taken on both sides of this. you seem to be letting Z off the hook because you don't like the way he is portrayed by the media.

    it remains just a sad situation that should and could have been avoided.
    Good post. Wish more thought this way.

    If Z walks, then maybe Trayvon did "jump and fight" (if that's what he did) the wrong guy on the wrong night. Because he lost his life, and the man who pulled the trigger had what was interpreted as a legal justification to end it.

    If Z is convicted, then maybe he "stalked and followed" the wrong guy on the wrong night. Because he created a conflict that led to what he felt was the need to use the deadly force that ultimately put him behind bars.

    Z may end up being innocent legally, but he's the root cause of the death of a young man. On the other side, while I personally understand some agitation on the part of Martin at being followed and questioned unnecessarily, he also might have been able to diffuse the situation by just avoiding Z altogether.

    It is, as you well said, a sad situation that could have been avoided. And regardless of the outcome, racial tensions are sure to increase.

  14. #714
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    I'm "letting Z. off" becuse there is no evidence (thus far) that would prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it wasn't M. initiated violence (i.e. M. threw the first punch) that M. was winning the fight (all the damage done to Z.), and that Z. shot in perceived life threatening self-defense.

    The fact that some folks think such an event is UNPOSSIBLE! and that others are milking this for the usual race-baiting divisiveness or political aims is only a side effect of why I WANT Z. to be not guilty in the evidence.

    Of course Z. has same responsabillity, in exactly the same way a woman in short skirt walking down a dark street at 2:00 am alone bears "some responsabillity" if she is attacked. Neither did anything illegal, but they sure did something less than smart.
    Really comparing this to rape? The levels of responsibility are on other sides of the galaxy considering Z was carrying a weapon. and yes my friend there are responsibilities that you must accept when carrying a gun. add in the fact Z wasn't simply walking down the street he got out of his vehicle. maybe to confront him, maybe to follow him, maybe to read a sign on his on street we don't know..................... FORGET THIS that analogy was Terrible. Z walking through Camden with a Rolex at 2am would be the analogy your looking for.

    i think its perfectly possible M. acted first. but wouldn't that be M standing his ground in a situation in which he felt threatened?? (stupid law IMO that leaves way to much to interpretation. but that's another topic I will not discuss). you gripe is with the media.

    Z was a gun carrying adult so forgive me if I hold him to a higher standard then a wild teenager. wanting him to be not guilty of murder 2 i understand. but wanting him to be seen as innocent because of your disdain for the media and politics is why the problem (race baiting, media sensationalism, Lib vs Con ect) will never be fixed. the facts get thrown out of the window and instead of seeing it for what it is you seem to just have taken a side because your angry adding to the fire.


    both had a part in this and it ended badly and from reading post here and everywhere else it seems the fallout is even worse.

  15. #715
    Quote Originally Posted by SgtAshton View Post
    Really comparing this to rape?
    Absolutely, as both entail doing nothing illegal, and becoming a victim.

    The levels of responsibility are on other sides of the galaxy considering Z was carrying a weapon.
    Bollocks. Carrying a weapon is no more illegal than wearing a short skirt.

    add in the fact Z wasn't simply walking down the street he got out of his vehicle.
    Also 100% legal.

    that analogy was Terrible.
    Only to those who are hypocritical, and choose to blame the victim in this case for defending himself.

    I get it, alot of folks think the very act of owning or carrying a firearm is grounds for life in prison.

    i think its perfectly possible M. acted first.
    How generous of you, given thats the only outcome the evidence supports at this time.

    but wouldn't that be M standing his ground in a situation in which he felt threatened??
    No.

    If Z. had decked him, then yes.

    You don't get to "stand your ground" when the person you're standing against hasn't touched you or done anything illegal, nor made any threat.

    Following someone on a public street is 100% legal, remember.

    Decking the guy who followed you isn't.

    Z was a gun carrying adult so forgive me if I hold him to a higher standard then a wild teenager.
    Bias, pure and simple. The Law doesn;t change re: initiating violence simply because one is packing heat.

    but wanting him to be seen as innocent because
    I want him to be found not guilty because the veidence doesn't support guilt and I think M. did exactly what Z. claims, decided to kick some cracker ass that night like I think he'd probably done before.

    The fact it spits in the eye of MSNCB's shills and Rev. Sharpton is simply a wonderful bonus.

    both had a part in this and it ended badly and from reading post here and everywhere else it seems the fallout is even worse.
    Only M.'s "part" was illegal.

    Which is what the jury should come to decide.

  16. #716
    Your spinning what I said. Considering the Sgt. Is a real rank in the USMC. I believe whole hardly in the 2nd amendment. I'm also speaking from the perspective of a man who's shot to kill on more then one occasion. Owning/carrying a weapon does mean you have a higher level of responsibility. Especially when carrying

    And your referring to the law of self defense not standing your ground. Standing your ground gives you the ability to preventively go on the offensive when you feel in danger

    I'm done with this. and your analogy was TERRIBLE!!!!!
    Last edited by SgtAshton; 07-05-2013 at 08:39 PM.

  17. #717
    Bewildered Beast
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    SF via Strong Island
    Posts
    31,085
    Quote Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet View Post
    The neighborhood watch guy actually watching the neighborhood...can't be having that, nosiree.
    You're saying this worked out well? Please elaborate.

  18. #718
    Quote Originally Posted by WestCoastOffensive View Post
    You're saying this worked out well? Please elaborate.
    Had Martin simply responded to Zimmerman in anything NEAR a normal civil tone, none of this happens.

    You are walking in a neighborhood, where you are unknown, most likely a deed controlled community where most people know each other. A night watchman asks you your business. Why not just say..im going to XYZ...


    Had Martin behaved in a manner more civilly, none of this happens.

  19. #719
    Quote Originally Posted by southparkcpa View Post
    Had Martin simply responded to Zimmerman in anything NEAR a normal civil tone, none of this happens.

    You are walking in a neighborhood, where you are unknown, most likely a deed controlled community where most people know each other. A night watchman asks you your business. Why not just say..im going to XYZ...


    Had Martin behaved in a manner more civilly, none of this happens.


    I would agree if that was indeed the scenario....However we only have Zimmerman's word of what was said......

    I could reasonably infer that Zimmerman based on his words before hand saying these FN punks and *******s always get away and calling Martin a suspect may have not been so cordial when confronting Martin.....

  20. #720
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    Quote Originally Posted by southparkcpa View Post
    Had Martin simply responded to Zimmerman in anything NEAR a normal civil tone, none of this happens.

    You are walking in a neighborhood, where you are unknown, most likely a deed controlled community where most people know each other. A night watchman asks you your business. Why not just say..im going to XYZ...


    Had Martin behaved in a manner more civilly, none of this happens.
    Actually this is not true. The Twin Lakes Community had undergone severe price reductions due to the recession and the composition changed from when it was originally developed in 2004 or thereabouts. Prices had dropped from $250K+ to around $100,000. The "community" actually lost its protective shield as the development eroded in value. Most people not only did not know each other, but the area was under siege from burglaries to the community of whites, Hispanics, and blacks. If anything, the situation was ripe for a neighborhood watchman who felt powerless to stop such crime to over-react when he saw a kid that fit his profile of someone who would be likely to be committing a burglary - or at least scoping one out. Zimmerman became overly aggressive in his surveillance in the sense that he was alone and not really equipped to deal with a confrontation. Martin, on the other hand, actually seems to have dealt with Zimmerman as if he had nothing to fear or respect. Martin then became the aggressor and all hell broke loose. Frustrated wannabe cop with a loaded gun, kid with an attitude, high tension neighborhood backdrop... recipe for disaster.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-shooting.html

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us