South Carolina church shooting: Nine killed in Charleston

First topic message reminder :

Nine people have died in a shooting at a historic African-American church in Charleston in the US state of South Carolina, officials say.
City police chief Gregory Mullen said eight of the victims were killed inside the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church on Thursday evening, while another person died shortly afterwards.
Police are now searching for a white male suspect in his 20s.
"I do believe it was a hate crime," Mr Mullen said.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33179019

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Quill, you got it wrong - just admit it.



The first jury failed to convict Dunn because they could not agree on whether it should be first degree murder or another verdict.

Yes, I shouldn't have said that.  

That aside, the point of the discussion was lenient southern juries.  Michael Dunn is a poor example for you to raise when he was actually given a walk by the first jury.  It proves that southerners are biased in precisely the direction that you want to deny.

It confirms the hypothesis that southern juries favor whites in trials.  The case of George Zimmerman also confirms this.  Although in the case of Dylann Roof his admissions leave little wiggle room, I think you will find that a South Carolina jury will give him leniency.  

South Carolina has the death penalty.  My money says he is never given the death sentence.

You keep saying Dunn was "given a walk". He was not - they simply could not reach a unanimous verdict on whether it was first degree murder or not. He was not acquitted, and there was a retrial where the jury did reach a verdict.

Zimmerman is a terrible example because it was clearly self defence - as per the evidence. He is also not white - something you keep ignoring.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Lazy research quill...!?

No, missed point by Raggs.  She obviously didn't research the case before she brought it out and dusted it off.  Dunn is a case-in-point in the opposition.

Oh FFS. You got the facts completely wrong and you accuse me of not doing research. I know the facts - you did not.

korban dallas wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No, missed point by Raggs.  She obviously didn't research the case before she brought it out and dusted it off.  Dunn is a case-in-point in the opposition.

Does Raggs know your an American lawyer seems odd she thinks she knows more about American jurisprudence that you doesn`t it


armchair experts  eh !!

Did you not notice that Quill got it wrong about the Dunn case? He said there was no retrial - that is totally incorrect.

He's not a very good lawyer obviously ...

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:She knew more about the Dunn case...

Apparently not.  She should never have raised the Dunn case.

Well I do know more than you do about it. You said there was no retrial ...

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:It was relevant to your claim about leniency to white defendants...

Well, I don't deny that it was relevant.  It is just imprudent of Raggs to raise the case, that's all.  She raised an example that, ultimately, proved quite the opposite point.  The fact that Dunn was ultimately convicted was not nearly as poignant as the stumble made by the Florida criminal justice system along the way.

Not the way to build an argument, that's for sure.

No, the Dunn case proves that you are wrong. I was completely right to raise it.

Tommy Monk wrote:You previously said she should never have raised the case but now admit it was relevant...

Make your mind up!

Two different things, tommy. Relevance has to do with the connection to the point. That she should never have raised the example, is a case of poor argument form: it backfired on her.

Perhaps you'll understand if I simply state: she proved her opponent's case.

Quill will probably claim that Dunn was acquitted next ...

Raggamuffin wrote:No, the Dunn case proves that you are wrong. I was completely right to raise it.

Aside to KD: see what I mean? Winning or losing means nothing, as long as she can keep going. Lol.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:No, the Dunn case proves that you are wrong. I was completely right to raise it.

Aside to KD: see what I mean?  Winning or losing means nothing, as long as she can keep going.  Lol.

KD knows no more than you do - he'd agree with you if you said the moon was made of cheese ...

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Aside to KD: see what I mean?  Winning or losing means nothing, as long as she can keep going.  Lol.

KD knows no more than you do - he'd agree with you if you said the moon was made of cheese ...

Nonsense.  KD and I have many differences, and many agreements.  Suffice it to say we have independent minds on things.  

It's just that on this one you are clearly wrong.  And, forgive me, but having tommy on your side is not helping you.  Lol.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

KD knows no more than you do - he'd agree with you if you said the moon was made of cheese ...

Nonsense.  KD and I have many differences, and many agreements.  Suffice it to say we have independent minds on things.  

It's just that on this one you are clearly wrong.  And, forgive me, but having tommy on your side is not helping you.  Lol.

I wonder if he agrees with you that Zimmerman is white. After all, he did say this about Zimmerman and Trayvon:

both dark skinned individuals

Oh, and Tommy has clearly seen through you, just as I have ...

Raggamuffin wrote:Oh, and Tommy has clearly seen through you, just as I have ...

Tommy can't beat his way out of a paper bag.  He doesn't even understand quantitative expressions, fgs.  I'm just saying, as your cheer-leader, you could do better.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Oh, and Tommy has clearly seen through you, just as I have ...

Tommy can't beat his way out of a paper bag.  He doesn't even understand quantitative expressions, fgs.  I'm just saying, as your cheer-leader, you could do better.  

He's got you sussed. He realised that you were blustering about the Dunn case.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Aside to KD: see what I mean?  Winning or losing means nothing, as long as she can keep going.  Lol.

KD knows no more than you do - he'd agree with you if you said the moon was made of cheese ...

Dont be fucking stupid i know Qs full name where he works where he lives i know what qualifications he has and where he is registered with the California bar association, i know his practice

the fact he is a lawyer has been know for as long as i have known him
simple fact is you can`t accept that you are wrong

and the moon is made of cheese .....FFS

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Aside to KD: see what I mean?  Winning or losing means nothing, as long as she can keep going.  Lol.

KD knows no more than you do - he'd agree with you if you said the moon was made of cheese ...

Dont be fucking stupid i know Qs full name where he works where he lives i know what qualifications he has and where he is registered with the California bar association, i know his practice

the fact he is a lawyer has been know for as long as i have known him
simple fact is you can`t accept that you are wrong

and the moon is made of cheese .....FFS

My name is Claudia Doswell
I live in Doswell Street in Essex
I work at the Montessori nursery in London


If you can't find me by that info I'll give you a different set of information and perhaps you'll find me then

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

KD knows no more than you do - he'd agree with you if you said the moon was made of cheese ...

Nonsense.  KD and I have many differences, and many agreements.  Suffice it to say we have independent minds on things.  

It's just that on this one you are clearly wrong.  And, forgive me, but having tommy on your side is not helping you.  Lol.

many many differences but not on American law something we have both discussed at length in the past
as you know i have a keen interest in American law and politics something obviously raggs lacks in spades

korban dallas wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

KD knows no more than you do - he'd agree with you if you said the moon was made of cheese ...

Nonsense.  KD and I have many differences, and many agreements.  Suffice it to say we have independent minds on things.  

It's just that on this one you are clearly wrong.  And, forgive me, but having tommy on your side is not helping you.  Lol.

many many differences but not on American law something we have both discussed at length in the past
as you know i have a keen interest in American law and politics something obviously raggs lacks in spades

I have an interest in medicine but it doesn't make me a doctor

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

KD knows no more than you do - he'd agree with you if you said the moon was made of cheese ...

Dont be fucking stupid i know Qs full name where he works where he lives i know what qualifications he has and where he is registered with the California bar association, i know his practice

the fact he is a lawyer has been know for as long as i have known him
simple fact is you can`t accept that you are wrong

and the moon is made of cheese .....FFS

Oh come off it. You've seen him get facts about the Dunn case completely wrong on this forum, and you still persist ...

korban dallas wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Nonsense.  KD and I have many differences, and many agreements.  Suffice it to say we have independent minds on things.  

It's just that on this one you are clearly wrong.  And, forgive me, but having tommy on your side is not helping you.  Lol.

many many differences but not on American law something we have both discussed at length in the past
as you know i have a keen interest in American law and politics something obviously raggs lacks in spades

Well clearly you don't have enough interest because you know sod all about the cases I've talked about.

Rags you have tied him up in knots.
He knows it, you know it, and everyone who reads will know it.

eddie wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
Dont be fucking stupid i know Qs full name where he works where he lives i know what qualifications he has and where he is registered with the California bar association, i know his practice

the fact he is a lawyer has been know for as long as i have known him
simple fact is you can`t accept that you are wrong

and the moon is made of cheese .....FFS

My name is Claudia Doswell
I live in Doswell Street in Essex
I work at the Montessori nursery in London


If you can't find me by that info I'll give you a different set of information and perhaps you'll find me then

yes your point is made however i have know Q for a few years and had private correspondence with him

you not so much

eddie wrote:Rags you have tied him up in knots.
He knows it, you know it, and everyone who reads will know it.

It was quite easy tbh.

korban dallas wrote:

eddie wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
Dont be fucking stupid i know Qs full name where he works where he lives i know what qualifications he has and where he is registered with the California bar association, i know his practice

the fact he is a lawyer has been know for as long as i have known him
simple fact is you can`t accept that you are wrong

and the moon is made of cheese .....FFS

My name is Claudia Doswell
I live in Doswell Street in Essex
I work at the Montessori nursery in London


If you can't find me by that info I'll give you a different set of information and perhaps you'll find me then

yes your point is made however i have know Q for a few years and had private correspondence with him

you not so much  

KD you've not met him or seen him at work.

With respect, you're a trusting personality, much like me.
I am just casting doubt over what I have a,ways believed - I had no reason to think quill had lied.

I do now.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:Rags you have tied him up in knots.
He knows it, you know it, and everyone who reads will know it.

It was quite easy tbh.  

yea your deluded and so is edds if you both think that

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It was quite easy tbh.  

yea your deluded and so is edds if you both  think that

The evidence is here. It was too easy as soon as he said this about the Dunn case:

He was never retried, meaning he was given a walk.

His posts haven't improved since then either.

eddie wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
yes your point is made however i have know Q for a few years and had private correspondence with him

you not so much  

KD you've not met him or seen him at work.

With respect, you're a trusting personality, much like me.
I am just casting doubt over what I have a,ways believed - I had no reason to think quill had lied.

I do now.

i do have a trusting personality ,but as Regan said "trust but verify" i have done just that ,ask dean how good i am ant finding out information about people when i feel the need ,because at one time if i could have proved Q to be a fraud i would have done without hesitation
fuck ask raggs about her friend stoo
i am a computer genius its not really that great a skill anybody could with the right tools and know how ,but believe me or don`t edds i know i am correct and could even phone him if i wanted to

korban dallas wrote:

eddie wrote:

KD you've not met him or seen him at work.

With respect, you're a trusting personality, much like me.
I am just casting doubt over what I have a,ways believed - I had no reason to think quill had lied.

I do now.

i do have a trusting personality ,but as Regan said "trust but verify" i have done just that ,ask dean how good i am ant finding out information about people when i feel the need ,because at one time if i could have proved Q to be a fraud i would have done without hesitation
fuck ask raggs about her friend stoo
i am a computer genius  its not really that great a skill anybody could with the right tools and know how  ,but believe me or don`t edds i know i am correct and could even phone him if i wanted to

What should she ask me about Stooo?

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
Dont be fucking stupid i know Qs full name where he works where he lives i know what qualifications he has and where he is registered with the California bar association, i know his practice

the fact he is a lawyer has been know for as long as i have known him
simple fact is you can`t accept that you are wrong

and the moon is made of cheese .....FFS

Oh come off it. You've seen him get facts about the Dunn case completely wrong on this forum, and you still persist ...

But not the salient facts, Raggs. You completely fail in the interpretation of the facts. I'm beginning to think you are like tommy...completely ignorant of the very words and expressions you use.

The issue is the leniency of southern juries. The discussion began last night, with you, KD and me. Anyone can see that 1 is less than 2, and 2 is more than 1. If Dunn was given two chances, he was given more leniency.

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It was quite easy tbh.  

yea your deluded and so is edds if you both  think that

Don't let them drag you into that kind of conversation, KD.  It's just he-said, she-said, they-said, we-said...bullshit.  I leave off when it's that kind of BS, as it's a waste of time. Once they get personal, they prove they have given up on the original point and are turning it into anger.

My existence isn't going to change, regardless of what eds or raggs believe about my law license, or anything else.  And their opinion of me is already biased, so what is to prove?  

And incidentally, I haven't retired.  I have only gone inactive in Arizona, and can go active by paying a fee anytime.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Oh come off it. You've seen him get facts about the Dunn case completely wrong on this forum, and you still persist ...

But not the salient facts, Raggs.  You completely fail in the interpretation of the facts.  I'm beginning to think you are like tommy...completely ignorant of the very words and expressions you use.

The issue is the leniency of southern juries.  The discussion began last night, with you, KD and me.  Anyone can see that 1 is less than 2, and 2 is more than 1.  If Dunn was given two chances, he was given more leniency.

I would say it was a salient fact that he was found guilty of first degree murder - something which you completely denied.

You are also clutching at straws about this "leniency" thing. A hung jury does not necessarily mean they're being lenient, especially when they have several options to consider, including different degrees of murder.

You have provided no information that the first jury was close to an acquittal or that some jurors voted not to convict. Do you have that information yet? All we know so far is that there was not a unanimous decision to vote for first degree murder. A vote for second degree murder is not a vote to acquit.

Original Quill wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
yea your deluded and so is edds if you both  think that

Don't let them drag you into that kind of conversation, KD.  It's just he-said, she-said, they-said, we-said...bullshit.  I leave off when it's that kind of BS, as it's a waste of time.  Once they get personal, they prove they have given up on the original point and are turning it into anger.

My existence isn't going to change, regardless of what eds or raggs believe about my law license, or anything else.  And their opinion of me is already biased, so what is to prove?  

And incidentally, I haven't retired.  I have only gone inactive in Arizona, and can go active by paying a fee anytime.

Korban dragged himself in actually ...

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But not the salient facts, Raggs.  You completely fail in the interpretation of the facts.  I'm beginning to think you are like tommy...completely ignorant of the very words and expressions you use.

The issue is the leniency of southern juries.  The discussion began last night, with you, KD and me.  Anyone can see that 1 is less than 2, and 2 is more than 1.  If Dunn was given two chances, he was given more leniency.

I would say it was a salient fact that he was found guilty of first degree murder - something which you completely denied.

You are also clutching at straws about this "leniency" thing. A hung jury does not necessarily mean they're being lenient, especially when they have several options to consider, including different degrees of murder.

You have provided no information that the first jury was close to an acquittal or that some jurors voted not to convict. Do you have that information yet? All we know so far is that there was not a unanimous decision to vote for first degree murder. A vote for second degree murder is not a vote to acquit.

But you avoid the salient point, don't you? He was given two chances.

Let's not get hung up on how much advantage he was given. Some southern jurors cared enough not to convict a white man who obviously killed an unarmed black man. That's leniency. The rest of your argument is noise.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Don't let them drag you into that kind of conversation, KD.  It's just he-said, she-said, they-said, we-said...bullshit.  I leave off when it's that kind of BS, as it's a waste of time.  Once they get personal, they prove they have given up on the original point and are turning it into anger.

My existence isn't going to change, regardless of what eds or raggs believe about my law license, or anything else.  And their opinion of me is already biased, so what is to prove?  

And incidentally, I haven't retired.  I have only gone inactive in Arizona, and can go active by paying a fee anytime.

Korban dragged himself in actually ...

On the assumption that you were debating legitimately. I was merely warning him off, as it is turning into a pissing match for you and eds. When that happens it's a waste of time.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I would say it was a salient fact that he was found guilty of first degree murder - something which you completely denied.

You are also clutching at straws about this "leniency" thing. A hung jury does not necessarily mean they're being lenient, especially when they have several options to consider, including different degrees of murder.

You have provided no information that the first jury was close to an acquittal or that some jurors voted not to convict. Do you have that information yet? All we know so far is that there was not a unanimous decision to vote for first degree murder. A vote for second degree murder is not a vote to acquit.

But you avoid the salient point, don't you?  He was given two chances.

Let's not get hung up on how much advantage he was given.  Some southern jurors cared enough not to convict a white man who obviously killed an unarmed black man.  That's leniency.  The rest of your argument is noise.

The first jury had to be unanimous if they were to reach a verdict of first degree murder. They didn't unanimously convict him of that, but you're banging on as if they acquitted him. One or more could well have voted for second degree murder - that's still murder. That's not giving him a chance is it?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Korban dragged himself in actually ...

On the assumption that you were debating legitimately.  I was merely warning him off, as it is turning into a pissing match for you and eds.  When that happens it's a waste of time.

Well you implied that I dragged him in, and I did nothing of the kind. What is a waste of time is you persisting in this ridiculous notion that a jury somehow let Dunn off.

I notice that when people can't dispute the arguments and facts I post up then they resort to just dismissing me as an idiot not worth listening to at all!!!

Well I found some info on how the jurors voted in the first trial. I wonder if Quill bothered.

The majority were in favour of first-degree murder, so the jury was not close to an acquittal as Quill claimed.

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
yea your deluded and so is edds if you both  think that

The evidence is here. It was too easy as soon as he said this about the Dunn case:

He was never retried, meaning he was given a walk.

His posts haven't improved since then either.

you avoid the obvious raggs and don`t answer questions put to you but go of on a tangent with another point while ignoring the question
asked
1 if zimmerman did not follow TVM as he was told not to do how did he end up shooting him he must have followed him to end up shooting him
2 if his head was banged repeatedly in to concrete where is all the blood  
3 what about the witnesses Rachel Jeantel — who was on the phone with Trayvon Martin moments before he was killed  Jeantel testified that during the call, Martin said a man was watching him, but that she did not think it was a "big idea".
Jeantel asked Martin how the man looked and he told her that he was "a creepy-ass cracker".

Jeantel warned Martin to walk away because "it might be a rapist." Martin, she said, told her that the "nigga is still following me"so he was going to try to "lose him" and get back to the home where he was staying.
As Jeantel remained on the phone with Martin, he said, "the nigga is behind me". The man who was allegedly following him reappeared and Martin said, "Why are you following me for?", and then Jeantel heard a hard breathed man come and say "What are you doing around here?"

Jeantel testified that she said "Trayvon, Trayvon" and she "started to hear a little bit of Trayvon saying, get off, get off." Jeantel then said she heard Martin's phone headset fall and Martin say "get off."

4 what about Jayne Surdyka  She heard a cry for help, that she thinks was made by "the boy", and then heard "pop, pop,
pop"

5 Zimmerman  "After consulting with counsel, decided not to testify, your honor." why did they not want him to testify surely if he was sure of his innocence he would want to put his side of the story across
i know i would

6 Mark Osterman, a friend of Zimmerman wrote a book "Defending our Friend"; the Most Hated Man in America, has sold and stated that all proceeds would go for Zimmerman and there for had incentive to lie to protect his friend

7 if zimmerman was so injured why did he not o to the hospital the night of the incident but waited till the nest day remember his head had allegedly repeatedly been repeatedly banged on concrete  


8  




what`s the difference in these two crime photos

why does his nose look fine and undamaged in one photo and not in the other


8 lets not forget Zimmerman said "These fucking punks. These Assholes, They Always Get Away" so was obviously agitated and looking for conflict


they are to many inconsistency

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The evidence is here. It was too easy as soon as he said this about the Dunn case:



His posts haven't improved since then either.

you avoid the obvious raggs and don`t answer questions put to you but go of on a tangent with another point while ignoring the question
asked
1 if zimmerman did not follow TVM as he was told not to do how did he end up shooting him he must have followed him to end up shooting him
2 if his head was banged repeatedly in to concrete where is all the blood  
3 what about the witnesses Rachel Jeantel — who was on the phone with Trayvon Martin moments before he was killed  Jeantel testified that during the call, Martin said a man was watching him, but that she did not think it was a "big idea".
Jeantel asked Martin how the man looked and he told her that he was "a creepy-ass cracker".

Jeantel warned Martin to walk away because "it might be a rapist." Martin, she said, told her that the "nigga is still following me"so he was going to try to "lose him" and get back to the home where he was staying.
As Jeantel remained on the phone with Martin, he said, "the nigga is behind me". The man who was allegedly following him reappeared and Martin said, "Why are you following me for?", and then Jeantel heard a hard breathed man come and say "What are you doing around here?"

Jeantel testified that she said "Trayvon, Trayvon" and she "started to hear a little bit of Trayvon saying, get off, get off." Jeantel then said she heard Martin's phone headset fall and Martin say "get off."

4 what about Jayne Surdyka  She heard a cry for help, that she thinks was made by "the boy", and then heard "pop, pop,
pop"

5 Zimmerman  "After consulting with counsel, decided not to testify, your honor." why did they not want him to testify surely if he was sure of his innocence he would want to put his side of the story across
i know i would

6 Mark Osterman, a friend of Zimmerman wrote a book "Defending our Friend"; the Most Hated Man in America, has sold and stated that all proceeds would go for Zimmerman and there for had incentive to lie to protect his friend

7 if zimmerman was so injured why did he not o to the hospital the night of the incident but waited till the nest day remember his head had allegedly repeatedly been repeatedly banged on concrete  


8  




what`s the difference in these two crime photos

why does his nose look fine and undamaged in one photo and not in the other


8 lets not forget Zimmerman said "These fucking punks. These Assholes, They Always Get Away" so was obviously agitated and looking for conflict


they are to many inconsistency

Speaking of going off at a tangent, I was referring to Dunn, and you are now talking about Zimmerman. You said you didn't want to discuss that case any more. Have you changed your mind? If I reply, are you going to get arsy again?

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
you avoid the obvious raggs and don`t answer questions put to you but go of on a tangent with another point while ignoring the question
asked
1 if zimmerman did not follow TVM as he was told not to do how did he end up shooting him he must have followed him to end up shooting him
2 if his head was banged repeatedly in to concrete where is all the blood  
3 what about the witnesses Rachel Jeantel — who was on the phone with Trayvon Martin moments before he was killed  Jeantel testified that during the call, Martin said a man was watching him, but that she did not think it was a "big idea".
Jeantel asked Martin how the man looked and he told her that he was "a creepy-ass cracker".

Jeantel warned Martin to walk away because "it might be a rapist." Martin, she said, told her that the "nigga is still following me"so he was going to try to "lose him" and get back to the home where he was staying.
As Jeantel remained on the phone with Martin, he said, "the nigga is behind me". The man who was allegedly following him reappeared and Martin said, "Why are you following me for?", and then Jeantel heard a hard breathed man come and say "What are you doing around here?"

Jeantel testified that she said "Trayvon, Trayvon" and she "started to hear a little bit of Trayvon saying, get off, get off." Jeantel then said she heard Martin's phone headset fall and Martin say "get off."

4 what about Jayne Surdyka  She heard a cry for help, that she thinks was made by "the boy", and then heard "pop, pop,
pop"

5 Zimmerman  "After consulting with counsel, decided not to testify, your honor." why did they not want him to testify surely if he was sure of his innocence he would want to put his side of the story across
i know i would

6 Mark Osterman, a friend of Zimmerman wrote a book "Defending our Friend"; the Most Hated Man in America, has sold and stated that all proceeds would go for Zimmerman and there for had incentive to lie to protect his friend

7 if zimmerman was so injured why did he not o to the hospital the night of the incident but waited till the nest day remember his head had allegedly repeatedly been repeatedly banged on concrete  


8  




what`s the difference in these two crime photos

why does his nose look fine and undamaged in one photo and not in the other


8 lets not forget Zimmerman said "These fucking punks. These Assholes, They Always Get Away" so was obviously agitated and looking for conflict


they are to many inconsistency

Speaking of going off at a tangent, I was referring to Dunn, and you are now talking about Zimmerman. You said you didn't want to discuss that case any more. Have you changed your mind? If I reply, are you going to get arsy again?

Get arsy you hypocritical swine i did say that and YOU fucking decided to keep it going ...unfucking believable tell you what just ignore my posts from now on don`t talk or refer to me any more

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The evidence is here. It was too easy as soon as he said this about the Dunn case:



His posts haven't improved since then either.

you avoid the obvious raggs and don`t answer questions put to you but go of on a tangent with another point while ignoring the question
asked
1 if zimmerman did not follow TVM as he was told not to do how did he end up shooting him he must have followed him to end up shooting him
2 if his head was banged repeatedly in to concrete where is all the blood  
3 what about the witnesses Rachel Jeantel — who was on the phone with Trayvon Martin moments before he was killed  Jeantel testified that during the call, Martin said a man was watching him, but that she did not think it was a "big idea".
Jeantel asked Martin how the man looked and he told her that he was "a creepy-ass cracker".

Jeantel warned Martin to walk away because "it might be a rapist." Martin, she said, told her that the "nigga is still following me"so he was going to try to "lose him" and get back to the home where he was staying.
As Jeantel remained on the phone with Martin, he said, "the nigga is behind me". The man who was allegedly following him reappeared and Martin said, "Why are you following me for?", and then Jeantel heard a hard breathed man come and say "What are you doing around here?"

Jeantel testified that she said "Trayvon, Trayvon" and she "started to hear a little bit of Trayvon saying, get off, get off." Jeantel then said she heard Martin's phone headset fall and Martin say "get off."

4 what about Jayne Surdyka  She heard a cry for help, that she thinks was made by "the boy", and then heard "pop, pop,
pop"

5 Zimmerman  "After consulting with counsel, decided not to testify, your honor." why did they not want him to testify surely if he was sure of his innocence he would want to put his side of the story across
i know i would

6 Mark Osterman, a friend of Zimmerman wrote a book "Defending our Friend"; the Most Hated Man in America, has sold and stated that all proceeds would go for Zimmerman and there for had incentive to lie to protect his friend

7 if zimmerman was so injured why did he not o to the hospital the night of the incident but waited till the nest day remember his head had allegedly repeatedly been repeatedly banged on concrete  


8  




what`s the difference in these two crime photos

why does his nose look fine and undamaged in one photo and not in the other


8 lets not forget Zimmerman said "These fucking punks. These Assholes, They Always Get Away" so was obviously agitated and looking for conflict


they are to many inconsistency

1. The reason I asked how long it would take to walk 50-60 metres last night was that it's the distance I estimate to be between Zimmerman's vehicle and where the shooting took place. You can argue with that if you want, but it does mean that you would have to look at a map of the area properly. Now, we know that Zimmerman was on the phone to the police dispatcher for almost two minutes after he got out of his vehicle, and yet I don't think it would take him that long to walk to the place where the shooting took place, so clearly he didn't follow Trayvon to that place.

I also asked where people thought Trayvon was when Zimmerman got out of his vehicle. I think that he was going down that path between the houses. He would have been home way before Zimmerman even got to the area where the shooting took place, so why didn't he go home? Do you think he couldn't have got home in that two minutes when Zimmerman was still on the phone to the dispatcher?

I think that Zimmerman followed Trayvon up to a point - the point where he last saw him. We know that he told the dispatcher that Trayvon was running towards the back entrance. He then couldn't see him - he told the dispatcher that. Now, as I said, Trayvon would have got home by then, but we know he didn't go home. Where was he in your opinion?

2. Zimmerman would have been resisting as well as he could - pushing Trayvon back, so Trayvon only managed to hit his head on the ground a couple of times, and not necessarily severely. The point is that he didn't stop. It might have been on the grass, it might have been on the path - we don't know that. There is blood - blood that has run down Zimmerman's head. It might look trivial to you, but those injuries are there. He also had injuries to his face - how do you think he got those?

3. There's no doubt in my mind that Trayvon knew Zimmerman was watching him - he saw him in his car, and he knew that Zimmerman followed him. I don't think he saw him get out of his car though, so how did he know Zimmerman followed him? He wanted to know why Zimmerman was watching him - I do believe that. He had no need to "lose" Zimmerman because he was closer to his father's than Zimmerman was. I think he may well have asked Zimmerman why he was following him, but in order to do that, he had to hang around or go back and confront Zimmerman.

4. Evidence that it was "the boy" who shouted for help is not really important. Jane Surdyka had no way of knowing what Trayvon sounded like. We heard the phone call where the shouting was going on. It could have been either of them. It's my opinion that it was Zimmerman because he was on the bottom just before the gun shot. We also know that Jane Surdyka couldn't possibly have heard "pop, pop, pop" because there was only one gun shot.

5. Not relevant really. I have no doubt that the defence are very well aware of how prosecutors try to twist what a defendant is saying.

6. Not sure what your point is.

7. I expect he didn't think he needed hospital treatment. The issue is not how serious the injuries actually are, it's how they got there, and how afraid Zimmerman was that he would sustain serious injuries at the time.

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Speaking of going off at a tangent, I was referring to Dunn, and you are now talking about Zimmerman. You said you didn't want to discuss that case any more. Have you changed your mind? If I reply, are you going to get arsy again?

Get arsy you hypocritical swine i did say that and YOU fucking decided to keep it going ...unfucking believable  tell you what just ignore my posts from now on don`t talk or refer to me any more  

Calm down - I just replied. You said last night that you didn't want to discuss it, that's all.

Original Quill wrote:

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It was quite easy tbh.  

yea your deluded and so is edds if you both  think that

Don't let them drag you into that kind of conversation, KD.  It's just he-said, she-said, they-said, we-said...bullshit.  I leave off when it's that kind of BS, as it's a waste of time.  Once they get personal, they prove they have given up on the original point and are turning it into anger.

My existence isn't going to change, regardless of what eds or raggs believe about my law license, or anything else.  And their opinion of me is already biased, so what is to prove?  

And incidentally, I haven't retired.  I have only gone inactive in Arizona, and can go active by paying a fee anytime.

You got personal with me quill
So again, you're talking bollocks

You're not as clever s I first thought. And frankly, I'm disappointed that you lied and disappointed that I thought you were someone of worth, on the forum, that I could look up to.

You proved you're as childish as the next person. Not a very professional air, is it?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Don't let them drag you into that kind of conversation, KD.  It's just he-said, she-said, they-said, we-said...bullshit.  I leave off when it's that kind of BS, as it's a waste of time.  Once they get personal, they prove they have given up on the original point and are turning it into anger.

My existence isn't going to change, regardless of what eds or raggs believe about my law license, or anything else.  And their opinion of me is already biased, so what is to prove?  

And incidentally, I haven't retired.  I have only gone inactive in Arizona, and can go active by paying a fee anytime.

Korban dragged himself in actually ...

On the assumption that you were debating legitimately.  I was merely warning him off, as it is turning into a pissing match for you and eds.  When that happens it's a waste of time.

What about your pissing match with your old toothless wolf?

Wasn't you "attacking" me a few days ago?
Not that I give a flying rats arse what you think as its all prissy showing off tbh.

If you're going to cast stones make sure you're not in a green house quill.
Jeez. If tnis is what you're like on your (fantasy?) courtroom....?

I'm going to clarify what I mean when I say that I don't think Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon after he was told he didn't need to do that. I mean that I don't think he could see him, and that he did not catch up with Trayvon - for the reasons I've given. I think that he did look about to see if he could see him, and I think he did walk up to the other road - possibly to see if Trayvon had gone between the houses onto Retreat View Circle. He wanted to see him because he wanted to be able to tell the police where he was.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The only thing these two shootings have in common is the fact that the dead people are black. That is not a good reason to compare them.

I'll continue to argue the details of the Zimmerman case because the evidence that he acted in self defence is contained in the detail. The jury acquitted Zimmerman because they clearly didn't believe that he murdered Trayvon Martin. You will disagree I know, but you're just going on your own feelings and bias rather than the evidence.

Wrong again.

Things in common.

Both innocent.
Both unarmed.
Both Black.
Both stereotyped.
Both singled out.

Yes the facts do speak for themselves, Zimmerman singled out an innocent black unarmed teenager who would still be alive today if not for the fact Zimmerman has anger issues, wrongly views blacks as criminals by his admission by his statement to the Police on his call using the word "they". TM had committed no crime but in Zimmerman's mind he had because he was black and hence why he lost control of the situation with anger.. No doubt you would start to run from someone following you if we go by the phone conversation with TM's girlfriend which supports the car slowly following him, which is hearsay, but would make sense as to why TM started to run feeling threatened. Though you would not understand this feeling not being black living in America. Thus Zimmerman ignored the Police to remain where he was tried to apprehend and innocent child, TM is scared for his life struggles and is shot dead by the Zimmerman. There is no doubt Zimmerman is guilty of killing TM and only because the defense was able to offer doubt by self defense did he get off being convicted. It is far easier to defend someone than it is to convict and where most of the evidence comes from someone who stereotypes black people and has anger issues makes the case even harder to convict that person.

Bumped again for an answer

First of all, if people really are interested in discussing the Zimmerman case - and I mean really discuss it in detail - perhaps this thread could be split? That would be great, thanks.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The only thing these two shootings have in common is the fact that the dead people are black. That is not a good reason to compare them.

I'll continue to argue the details of the Zimmerman case because the evidence that he acted in self defence is contained in the detail. The jury acquitted Zimmerman because they clearly didn't believe that he murdered Trayvon Martin. You will disagree I know, but you're just going on your own feelings and bias rather than the evidence.

Wrong again.

Things in common.

Both innocent.
Both unarmed.
Both Black.
Both stereotyped.
Both singled out.

Yes the facts do speak for themselves, Zimmerman singled out an innocent black unarmed teenager who would still be alive today if not for the fact Zimmerman has anger issues, wrongly views blacks as criminals by his admission by his statement to the Police on his call using the word "they". TM had committed no crime but in Zimmerman's mind he had because he was black and hence why he lost control of the situation with anger.. No doubt you would start to run from someone following you if we go by the phone conversation with TM's girlfriend which supports the car slowly following him, which is hearsay, but would make sense as to why TM started to run feeling threatened. Though you would not understand this feeling not being black living in America. Thus Zimmerman ignored the Police to remain where he was tried to apprehend and innocent child, TM is scared for his life struggles and is shot dead by the Zimmerman. There is no doubt Zimmerman is guilty of killing TM and only because the defense was able to offer doubt by self defense did he get off being convicted. It is far easier to defend someone than it is to convict and where most of the evidence comes from someone who stereotypes black people and has anger issues makes the case even harder to convict that person.

Let's deal with the use of the word "they" first.  This is what Zimmerman said:

"These assholes, they always get away."

He had just told the dispatcher that there had been a number of break ins in his area, so clearly that's what he meant when he said "they".  

I have no problem with your claim that Trayvon felt threatened. Yes, he realised that Zimmerman was watching him from his car, and yes, one thing Trayvon could have done is run home. The other thing he could have done is face the person he saw as a threat.

You say he ran, and Zimmerman also said he ran, but the problem is that he didn't run home. If he had, he wouldn't have been outside Jonathan Good's house. Remember that Zimmerman was in his car when Trayvon ran - or do you dispute that? Please explain how Zimmerman managed to catch up with him whilst talking on the phone to the dispatcher.

Do you take the view that it was Zimmerman on top of Trayvon Martin, and that he then stepped back and shot him?

Perhaps you could explain the route you think Zimmerman and Trayvon took in order to put it all in context.