Watermelon Juice and Skittles Used To Make Intoxicant For Aggressive Behavior?

I disagree. I have seen fights where the person who started the fight got their ass whooped. It happens everyday.

- - - Updated - - -

America has the best Justice System in the world if you are white.

 

Examine your quote. 'You've seen.' You witnessed it and could testify to it. We dont have that here.

Bassed on the evidence Zimmerman attacking Martin isnt probable, it isnt reasonable, and it most certainly isnt beyond a resonable doubt. Its only in ghe realm of remotely possible which means jack (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Evidence your claim please. Show how the legal definition of "not guilty" differs exactly from the dictionary definition of the term "innocence" or how they do not indicate the same thing (please cite something besides an editorial by one attorney). I have seen the legal definition of stalking, your stance was one of the many that incorrectly used it to describe Zimmerman following Martin. Anything else?

 

Your right because the other person involved was murdered. Dead men tell no lies, but those left alive will tell plenty.

BS, please tell me what evidence shows that Zimmerman wasn't the aggressor. All the evidence shows is that Zimmerman may have got his ass whooped. The evidence also shows that Trayvon didn't put a ass whooping on anyone either.

 

I won't fall for the banana in the tailpipe or suffer your ignorance. Just answer this question, can a cat stalk a mouse???
You see it's not the same as asking, "Can a mouse bring criminal charges against the cat for stalking!!!???!!!"

 

Simple Martin had no injuries other than his knuckle.

 

First and foremost no sane Black person is excusing the behaviors of criminals who happen to be Black. But when White people are claiming that criminal behavior is inherently Black without considering socio-economic policies implemented by a society that practices White Supremacy/Racism that is your burden to bear. These same minds would say that practicing racism or tribalism is a human condition but crime is a Black one. Forgetting all of the crimes they commit and have committed to gain their place in the modern world. You don't have to commit more crime to sustain your position or maintain the status quo because institutional racism helps promote your desired outcomes. Yet your present day criminal activities know no bounds. Again "you people" love using statistics but you want to apply them sans the crimes you've committed to obtain your wealth and power, that's absurd!!! Try again!!!

 

Zman's own defense stated he was an inept fighter who couldn't throw a punch. So how come he couldn't have thrown the first punch only to have it be ineffective or Martin block, dodge or counter it??? Besides I believe he tried to hold or detain Martin and then got his ass beat. If Martin was doing ground and pound, you'd think he'd have more abrasions on his knuckles. Because surely Zman would try and move his head side to side to avoid the punches, so Martin would likely hit concrete at some point.
EVERYTHING Zman did that night was aggressive, the following the verbal confrontation, all of it!!! Why punk-out at the last minute when you've got a gun???

 

Tasteless ad hominem followed by petty (and failed) attempted distraction and evasion.

False analogy logical fallacy. If you're going to compare something, make sure it actually fits the scenario. Also, you ignored my request for you to evidence your claim. You cannot make a claim as if it is fact and then ignore requests from the opposition for you to support your claim unless you are then willing to concede (which you are doing right now by default) that you are unable to support your claim and/or stance with evidence. Until you demonstrate that you are able to support your stance and claim, then your stance will remain as it has been since the beginning--logically invalid and unsupported.

 

Can a cat stalk a mouse??? The question is highly comparable and relevant to this debate. You can't answer it without conceding that your logic is flawed!!! No one takes you seriously because you say a whole lot of nothing using many words. I've stated this before, many common words have definitions that don't necessarily equate with their legalese counterparts. Meaning those legalese words take on greater meaning or are different in some ways. I referred you to the term stalking.
stalk 2 (stôk)
v. stalked, stalk·ing, stalks
v.intr.
1. To walk with a stiff, haughty, or angry gait: stalked off in a huff.
2. To move threateningly or menacingly.
3. To track prey or quarry.
v.tr.
1. To pursue by tracking stealthily.
2. To follow or observe (a person) persistently, especially out of obsession or derangement.
3. To go through (an area) in pursuit of prey or quarry. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/stalk

Stalking Criminal activity consisting of the repeated following and harassing of another person.

Stalking is a distinctive form of criminal activity composed of a series of actions that taken individually might constitute legal behavior. For example, sending flowers, writing love notes, and waiting for someone outside her place of work are actions that, on their own, are not criminal. When these actions are coupled with an intent to instill fear or injury, however, they may constitute a pattern of behavior that is illegal. Though anti-stalking laws are gender neutral, most stalkers are men and most victims are women.
In most states, to charge and convict a defendant of stalking, several elements must be proved Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. These elements include a course of conduct or behavior, the presence of threats, and the criminal intent to cause fear in the victim.

A course of conduct is a series of acts that, viewed collectively, present a pattern of behavior. Some states stipulate the requisite number of acts, with several requiring the stalker to commit two or more acts. States designate as stalking a variety of acts, ranging from specifically defined actions, such as non-consensual communication or lying in wait, to more general types of action, such as harassment. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Stalking

So when informed people use the term stalking to describe what Zman did to Trayvon they are not talking about the criminal activity, they are talking about the generic term Mr. Obtuse. GDAY!!!

 

This particular line of argument has already been addressed many times. Only one of the 6 definitions listed above can even come remotely close to describing Zimmerman's activity that night, the others all emphasize "stealth," "predation," "intimidation," etc. Zimmerman was clearly not attempting to be stealthy, he was walking out in the open with an orange jacket on. The fact that he had called the police also negated the theory that he had something terribly nefarious in mind. Martin was not his "prey," there is no evidence to even remotely indicate Zimmerman had any intent to cause Martin harm prior to Martin's felony battery of him, etc., etc.

Who would call the police to a certain location while subsequently planning to do something criminal in the exact area that they had just requested the police be dispatched to? And "following persistently?" Hardly "persistent" and most definitely not due to "obsession," or any of the other emotionally driven terms leftists like to use as if they apply to this particular case. He lost sight of Martin, and according to the evidence combined with his recollection of the events, he promptly began heading back to his vehicle because he lost sight of Martin when he was confronted.

Neither the legal definition nor the general definition apply except for their purpose in being used as emotional hperbole. Also, your argument is either blatantly dishonest or blatantly ignorant, because there were multitudes of times that people arguing your side of this case argued that Zimmerman was guilty of the crime of "stalking," and that was then their justification for excusing Martin's felony battery of Zimmerman. In fact, I would guess if I were to take a gander back through your posts, I'm sure I can find an example of you using the term "stalk" from a specifically legal standpoint, claiming in an argument that Zimmerman's activity that night was in fact illegal because he was stalking Martin. Try again, obfuscate all you want, it doesn't take long to shatter the metaphoric panels of obscure glass your stance has weakly attempted to construct in front of any and all of the truth in this case.

 

Again a long post asserting no facts and no debunking of anything I've posted. There are cases where criminals have called the cops plenty of times in murder cases. During his call to police, Zman gave the classic lines cops use when they shoot unarmed Black males.[He's a Black male, he's approaching me, somethings wrong with him, he has something in his hand and he's reaching for his waist. Those are all things police officers say AFTER they've just shoot a Black male.] I challenge you to peruse the back posts and find me intimating that Zman stalked Trayvon in the legal sense.
Please proceed....That's the problem with your ilk, you think that all Black's are part of some hive mind and can't think independently as individuals.

2. To move threateningly or menacingly.
3. To track prey or quarry.

2. To follow or observe (a person) persistently, especially out of obsession or derangement.
3. To go through (an area) in pursuit of prey or quarry.

Any person of average intellect can tell that all of the above apply to Zman's actions in the case.
You have been proven wrong now deal with it!!!
You try and change the subject to speak on whether I've used the generic term and legal term of stalking in this post interchangeably, but I won't let you obfuscate the true debate. But please proceed to find evidence to support your lie.
GDAY!!!

 

This is an unsupported ad hominem attack against my character without substance or merit. It is therefore logically fallacious and not valid.

I went through and addressed each of the definitions and explained how they do not apply. In response now, you are utilizing a form of the argumentum ad populum, the appeal to majority without even supporting your assertion of what makes someone "of average intellect" or objectively quantifying just how many individuals are "of average intellect" without supporting any of the afore mentioned assertions. This argument is also logically fallacious and is therefore invalid.

None of your posts have even remotely supported any of your assertions with evidence, let alone "proved" anything. Try harder.

 

What a pant load of crap. Blacks are thugs because blacks like being thugs. If they didn't enjoy it they wouldn't do it. The law is the law - it has nothing to do with race. If you are white and kill someone, you get busted. No different than blacks. Blacks are either thugs due to sub-culture or genetics or a mixture of both. But they are NOT thug because the laws of the land make them thugs. LOL @ White Supremecy. What an absolute load of crap. The KKK are so neutered now they can probably barely organize a church raffle.

 

The only reason you would believe any of that poop you are slinging is if you are black and refuse to hear actual facts. There were witnesses and they told the jury what they saw and heard. And the jury was instructed by a judge as to what the laws of the land mean. After seeing all the evidence and listening to instructions; they let Zimmerman walk. Do blacks ever listen to facts? Or is everything about skin color only? "Blacks cannot possibly commit crime. If they are in prison it's because evil racist whitey put them there just because of their skin color. " ROFLMAO @ black apologist thinking.

 

Or if you are black. Just that apparently too many blacks are too stupid to know that you shouldn't do the crime if you can't do the time. There is no law in America making it illegal to be black. Only laws against murder, assault and rape. Maybe blacks should lay off on the murders, assaults, and rapes.

That'd be my pro tip of the day: Don't do illegal sh*t if you don't wanna end up in the pokey. Tell your negro friends and family about my pro tip. If they take it to heart they will never have to know a damn thing about the justice system in America.

 

Certainly only those blessed with COCKasian skin are able to ascertain truth from fiction. It's one of the many magical attributes whiteness affords your kind, like angelic dispositions and an aversion against violence. [SARCASM] You cannot deny the fact that there were two witnesses that placed Zman on top of Trayvon and that no one was a witness to who threw the first blow!!! My version of the incident is highly probable, too bad the weak ass prosecution team didn't flesh out an alternative scenario to counter the defenses. GDAY!!!

 

Tell that to all of the innocent Black men exonerated with DNA evidence thru Project Hope and all of those unarmed Black men killed by trigger happy scared (*)(*)(*)(*)less NEANDERchimp cops!!!

 

Blacks are the largest group of people marginalized in this country. Marginalization prevents a people from advancing economically and socially and promotes poverty. If a portion of a population is singled out for increased policing while another much bigger portion is simply overlooked the result is obvious. If health inspectors chose to focus on Burger Kings, while neglecting McDonalds: BK would surely be overrepresented in written violations, but that in NO WAY speaks to the cleanliness of McDonalds at all. Why do racists claiming intellectual superiority always lack simple HS level reasoning abilities??? Where did Blacks get the thug culture of which you speak??? Mafioso's perhaps and Hollywood. You see, your people have always idolized gangsters and outlaws. Jesse James, Billy The Kid and the like. Please raise the blinders of your White Privilege shades!!! GDAY!!!

 

The dictionary definition is NOT taking into account the legal loopholes attached to the "not guilty" verdict, which is VERY different from "guiltless!"
Try again!

 

This has already been discussed and addressed, there are no legal "loopholes" attached to a "not guilty" verdict, the verdict is just the verdict, and if you are declared to be "not guilty," then legally you are "guiltless" of the crime of which you were accused. "Guiltless" and "innocent" are synonymous. Here, allow me to put this to rest using the legal dictionary:


Innocent - as Defined by the Legal Dictionary

As you can see, the legal dictionary regards "innocent" and "not guilty" or "guiltless" as being the same thing and is using the term "innocence" here interchangeably with "not guilty." Please note again that this is taken from the legal dictionary. So legally--like I have now stated about a half dozen times--if someone is found "not guilty," the are also legally innocent of the specific crime of which they were accused. Whether or not people personally agree with the verdicts or rulings in these trials is not relevant to the actuality of those verdicts or rulings.

 

Why don't we be mature and just agree to disagree.

You have your view on this subject, and I am convinced my view is correct. We have reached an impasse and further back and forth are futile!

- - - Updated - - -

Why don't we be mature and just agree to disagree.

You have your view on this subject, and I am convinced my view is correct. We have reached an impasse and further back and forth are futile!

 

Ad hominem insinuation. The reason I'm not going to "agree to disagree" is because this is not a subjective topic, the legal definition and the definition of the term have now been examined and presented, it is clearly and conclusively evident that the terms "not guilty" and "innocent" have the same meaning--both in the legal arena and outside of the legal arena--considering that the legal definition of the term "innocence" uses the term "not guilty" interchangeably and explains why the two are the same thing (because of the presumption of innocence of the accused).

No, the impasse has been reached because your position is not supported by any evidentiary standard, the best you have been able to present in favor of your argument was an editorial by one attorney, an opinion piece with no citations or supporting evidence backing its alleged "accuracy," while I have produced ample sources, including and most importantly dictionary entries (including the entries of the legal dictionary itself) which support my position. In other words, my "view" is simply the truth and actuality of the matter, your "view" is the opposite of the actuality of the matter and while it is your right to be "convinced" that your incorrect view is correct, it speaks volumes about what seems to be your stance's inability to concede to using an inaccuracy when that inaccuracy is pointed out, explained and utterly refuted.

Again, we're talking about dictionary definitions here of very objective terms, your post here is like asking someone who is arguing that water is wet against an opposing argument saying water is not wet to "agree to disagree" because their opinion is just their opinion--when actually their argument is based on fact and the opposing argument is based on a massive inaccuracy. Is it really "more mature" for the person whose stance is factual to "agree to disagree" with the opposition whose stance is completely farcical and incorrect? No, it's not. Like I said, requesting that is simply a weak attempt to distract from the fact that one of the arguments is correct and the other is not--and reflection of inability to admit when a stance has been taken without factual ground or support.

 

So OJ was "not guilty" (and therefore innocent of all wrongdoing) in 1994, before being found legally culpable in 1997?
Doesn't seem to fit your understanding, does it?

 

Legally in a criminal court, yes. If he was not found "not guilty" and was legally guilty for the crime--as decided by the jury in the court system, he would have either been sentenced to life in prison or given the death penalty.

Yes, actually it does. The verdict in the criminal trial was "not guilty." Does that mean he didn't do it? Not necessarily, but it means that because the jury decided the defense had shown enough "reasonable doubt" to meet the criteria, the verdict was "not guilty," which--legally--means he was innocent of the criminal charges of murder. He was then sued in a civil court case later and it was decided that there was a preponderance of evidence (the criteria for a civil court case) to hold Simpson responsible civilly for the wrongful deaths of the victims.

Civil court cases and criminal court cases are very different. Also, comparing the OJ Simpson trial to the Zimmerman trial demonstrates an inordinate lack of knowledge regarding the evidence the prosecution and defense of both cases had at their disposal. It may seem to be the proper thing to do to compare the OJ Simpson trial to the Zimmerman trial because all the arguments here in this forum against Zimmerman have been debunked, disproven, etc., and it is clear that Zimmerman's defense had more evidence to support their [lesser] preponderance criteria than the complete lack of evidence that the prosecution had to support their [much greater] "beyond reasonable doubt" criteria.

There will always be cases that are tried with resulting verdicts that some people do not agree with because of their passions regarding the topic or for whatever other reasons. The OJ Simpson trial is clearly one of those as is the George Zimmerman trial. However, the two trials are completely different, the difference in evidence for both the prosecution and the defense in both cases is huge--and that is what separates the cases in terms of relevance. The prosecution in the OJ Simpson trial seemed to have a decent case, Simpson's defense, however, was able to severely criticize the forensic DNA evidence (the primary factor the prosecution was resting their hopes for a conviction on) presented by the prosecution due to mishandling by the individuals transporting the DNA specimens. If you would like to review the cases and see for yourself, I can provide citations for sites which break down the two cases in terms of the evidence in play by both the prosecution and defense for both cases.