Justice for Zimmerman

Vaclav · Jul 14, 2013

chthonic-anemos_sl said:
Can Zimmeran sue media outlets if they keep telling the public that he's still guilty?

Not sure that if would happen in the respectable media outlets - how many times did you see that occur with the (obviously guilty) OJ? I can only recall tabloids and a few guests that expressed their opinion but weren't members of the program themselves.

[But it has been a while, could be forgetting some examples]

Jait · Jul 14, 2013

You guys can hate on Vaclav all you want, but he's equally entitled to his opinion even if I don't agree with it. I heard a lot of that shit about Zimmerman. Zimmerman was a loser living at home with his parents, wanted to a vigilante, blah, blah, blah. It doesn't matter. Not one bit. The law treats everyone equally. And opinions are treated equally as well. 1 person, 1 vote. That's how 'Merica works, love it or hate it. So if you want to disagree with Vaclav, calling him entitled, or whatever emotional insults you want to toss out there, just keep in mind it's the same shit you were defending Zimmerman over.

Would love to return to the better arguments in this thread rather than it turn into the poop flinging fest folks like Numbers were trying so hard to achieve.

hodj · Jul 14, 2013

Vaclav_sl said:
I'll take that to assume you're not sure the quote was made.

Making assumptions isn't an argument, its a strawman.

I watched the testimony. You didn't. I don't need to educate you when you choose not to educate yourself. Your attempt to shift the burden of educating yourself on the facts of the case onto me is yet another symptom of that "I live in a rich family and think all their experiences shift to me by right of being related to them" disease you have.

Get off the cross and take the time to educate yourself.

Here's the prosecution's medical examiner. Just compare the two and ask yourself how retarded you feel for jumping down this rabbit hole of stupidity in questioning the Defense's ME while thinking nothing of the Prosecution's.

Jait_sl said:
You guys can hate on Vaclav all you want, but he's equally entitled to his opinion even if I don't agree with it. I heard a lot of that shit about Zimmerman. Zimmerman was a loser living at home with his parents, wanted to a vigilante, blah, blah, blah. It doesn't matter. Not one bit. The law treats everyone equally. And opinions are treated equally as well. 1 person, 1 vote. That's how 'Merica works, love it or hate it. So if you want to disagree with Vaclav, calling him entitled, or whatever emotional insults you want to toss out there, just keep in mind it's the same shit you were defending Zimmerman over.

Would love to return to the better arguments in this thread rather than it turn into the poop flinging fest folks like Numbers were trying so hard to achieve.

Its not emotional to point out that in every single conversation Vaclav engages in, he resorts to spewing a lot of unsupported nonsense, and then claims someone in his family is a master of this area so therefore, so is he.

Sorry but its not.

Badabidi_sl · Jul 14, 2013

Vaclav_sl said:
I'll take that to assume you're not sure the quote was made. Since so far no one has said WHEN (even vaguely!) within his roughly two hours of testimony it feel in, nor can anyone quote a phrase to Ctl-F in the transcript of his testimony. (Nor can I find it with blind Ctl-F'ing phrases I'd expect to be used like "smash", "concrete", "sidewalk", "pavement" - that would hopefully lead to such a quote)

If you're sure the quote was made it should be easy to say "Hey, I think he made the statement in the first quarter of his deposition" or whatever. I don't need a timestamp, but I'm not listening to roughly two hours of data waiting for one point - because even if I do, since I'll no doubt be split attention I'd miss it even if it came up. Staying vigilant for the quote for 10-15 min is easily doable - two hours, not so much.

You're an ass clown, shut the fuck up.

Vaclav · Jul 14, 2013

Jait_sl said:
You guys can hate on Vaclav all you want, but he's equally entitled to his opinion even if I don't agree with it. I heard a lot of that shit about Zimmerman. Zimmerman was a loser living at home with his parents, wanted to a vigilante, blah, blah, blah. It doesn't matter. Not one bit. The law treats everyone equally. And opinions are treated equally as well. 1 person, 1 vote. That's how 'Merica works, love it or hate it. So if you want to disagree with Vaclav, calling him entitled, or whatever emotional insults you want to toss out there, just keep in mind it's the same shit you were defending Zimmerman over.

Would love to return to the better arguments in this thread rather than it turn into the poop flinging fest folks like Numbers were trying so hard to achieve.

Note: For the record I seem to recall Jait giving me groans way back when about a relation I was going on about in chat on EQ2 - one of the first times someone criticized me for it. I really don't learn. It's been quite a while since then.

hodj · Jul 14, 2013

Well, I've only discussed topics with you like 4 times and in every single argument you've tried this tripe, starting with the Jack Lew appeals and so forth and so on. If you don't have the education and knowledge to stand on your own two feet, stop hoping referencing mommy and daddy will prop you up. You're a big boy now, wearing pull ups I'm sure, so you can handle this shit on your own, with your own opinions, and your own facts backed up with evidence, rather than appeals to your third uncle's lover's former boyfriend's dad's career experience to justify your supposed expertise in whatever area you're discussing.

Vaclav · Jul 14, 2013

hodj: I'm questioning what people are INTERPRETING OUT OF WHAT HE SAID - not the veracity of his statements, I did see the prosecutions ME when it was live and I do agree the guy didn't sound remotely confident and didn't give me confidence in his accuracy.

I'm doubting PEOPLE ARE TAKING WHAT HE SAID IN CONTEXT - that's why I'm trying to get the specifics on where to here his statements that led to you feeling that "Traytray was clearly smashing Z's head into the concrete" - I am willing to believe every word he gave is 100% accurate, but right now you're just presenting a (Debate term inc!) gish-gallop rather than targeted information to answer my assertion that I see no statement in any SEARCHABLE form under a term that I can think of within his testimony.

I do understand you're studying law to some level and presenting a gish-gallop is a common legal tactic, but when you've got the time to sit and actually analyze something like I'd like to attempt to do - targeted information is what's important.

I feel Dr. M's testimony is likely VERY valuable, but I want to see where he said "Tray smashed Z" or something similar in context - and unfortunately due to forensic terminology, it's quite possible he did say such but it's obfuscated because I'm looking for general terms while he used scientific or some such. It's quite possible I'm wrong, I would like to see his statement to prove such. It's a simple request to at least give which of the 5 videos it's on. Or phrasing he used. Or something.

Numbers_sl · Jul 14, 2013

vGrade_sl said:
I just woke up to come see if numbers was behaving himself this morning

I've been busy banging Burnesto's mom and playing Civ 5.

hodj · Jul 14, 2013

I've been watching the testimony by Di Miao again while we're discussing this. He begins talking about head injuries and how the damage occurs, etc. about 40 minutes into part 2, and before that he refutes the Prosecution's testimony by Bao about martin living from 1 to 10 minutes after being shot starting about about 30 minutes.

Happy now, Vaclav? I found you what you wanted. Go watch it.

Vaclav · Jul 14, 2013

hodj_sl said:
Well, I've only discussed topics with you like 4 times and in every single argument you've tried this tripe, starting with the Jack Lew appeals and so forth and so on. If you don't have the education and knowledge to stand on your own two feet, stop hoping referencing mommy and daddy will prop you up. You're a big boy now, wearing pull ups I'm sure, so you can handle this shit on your own, with your own opinions, and your own facts backed up with evidence, rather than appeals to your third uncle's lover's former boyfriend's dad's career experience to justify your supposed expertise in whatever area you're discussing.

I can recall at least two dozen discussions we've had technically - you're only remembering a small subsection. And in every case except Jackie (which coincided with a discussion we had on a visit a week or so earlier) - I've literally typed the statement from the person in question after calling them and quoting the post before taking their words almost verbatim.

And on evidence: I'm ASKING FOR EVIDENCE not making an accusation - burden of evidence falls on the accuser - my entire thing is that there's no absolute evidence that X happened. I keep asking for evidence. You seem to have it backwards. I our legal system when there is an absence of evidence you are to assume the most neutral stance possible. With no absolute evidence (so far - as stated I may have missed it) of X happening we should only assume the facts in their most mild possible legal context.

hodj · Jul 14, 2013

Vaclav_sl said:
I can recall at least two dozen discussions we've had technically - you're only remembering a small subsection. And in every case except Jackie (which coincided with a discussion we had on a visit a week or so earlier) - I've literally typed the statement from the person in question after calling them and quoting the post before taking their words almost verbatim.

This is still an appeal to authority.

And on evidence: I'm ASKING FOR EVIDENCE not making an accusation - burden of evidence falls on the accuser - my entire thing is that there's no absolute evidence that X happened. I keep asking for evidence.

You're asking us to do your work for you.

I did it already, but its not my job and I do find it offensive. Google is right fucking there bro.

Vaclav · Jul 14, 2013

hodj: Thank you, watching it now starting at 40 min mark - definitely the right subsection hopefully it will answer it for me in a second. Weird that the audio is so mistimed though - but that's not a criticism of it, just a comment while stating I'm watching it. (and evidence of me watching it)

On "Google" - literally did 30-40 searches between jumping around the testimony transcript with Ctl-F's and trying to put in searches to interpretations that actually quoted him. (Although I found plenty of interpretations saying what you did, none had his quote) Google isn't a magic bullet, you need to know the right thing to search for - and mine were coming up short. Perhaps due to a lack of my own creativity, shrug.

Fedor · Jul 14, 2013

Chukzombi · Jul 14, 2013

should probably toss this thread into the HOF or lock it down. unless chimpout2013 happens today this thread is pretty much done and is only creating circular troll arguments from this point on

Arbitrary · Jul 14, 2013

Yeah, it's done.

hodj · Jul 14, 2013

Vaclav_sl said:
hodj: Thank you, watching it now starting at 40 min mark - definitely the right subsection hopefully it will answer it for me in a second. Weird that the audio is so mistimed though - but that's not a criticism of it, just a comment while stating I'm watching it. (and evidence of me watching it)

On "Google" - literally did 30-40 searches between jumping around the testimony transcript with Ctl-F's and trying to put in searches to interpretations that actually quoted him. (Although I found plenty of interpretations saying what you did, none had his quote) Google isn't a magic bullet, you need to know the right thing to search for - and mine were coming up short. Perhaps due to a lack of my own creativity, shrug.

I googled "Zimmerman defense forensic" and went to youtube, and found part 3 and then just searched the name with part 1/5.

Maester Chuk_sl said:
should probably toss this thread into the HOF or lock it down. unless chimpout2013 happens today this thread is pretty much done and is only creating circular troll arguments from this point on

Agree.

Vaclav · Jul 14, 2013

hodj: I was looking for a statement, video is very difficult to parse (well, more that it's not timely and requires higher attentiveness for a longer time... but you know what I mean...) - I was skipping videos intentionally for such reasons. (Although I didn't include forensic in my searches from memory, might have helped - but I got his transcript from it regardless)

~43:30 "...impacts onto concrete..." - suggests but doesn't state it explicitly that Trayvon bashed him just that he impacted on the concrete - perhaps something more damning further in but that one he's not stating anything directly just that he impacted on concrete, not HOW.

~51:30 "...two separate impacts..." - regarding the damage to the back of the head. So the "6" earlier was bullshit that Abefroman quoted.

~52:45 "...perpindicular blow can cause laceration..." - That does sound like it to me, thank you. Stopping it now that I've been proven wrong, perhaps more details, but enough for certain to sway me back to your side.

Again thank you, I can be wrong - and you did (finally after prodding) provide me the breadcrumbs to evidence it - he doesn't say explicitly what Trayvon did (at least yet - but too impatient to listen to the rest - just wanted this point covered), but "perpindicular" being required in how the blow occurred makes it clear enough to me. (Since a fall won't be, it's an arc unless you're diving headfirst)

[And I was adding quotes as they happened - if it's confusing why the older "still supporting my stance" ones are there - was just clarifying that those had context issues which was later cleared up at 52:45 or so]

Cad · Jul 14, 2013

Vaclav_sl said:
~43:30 "...impacts onto concrete..." - suggests but doesn't state it explicitly that Trayvon bashed him just that he impacted on the concrete - perhaps something more damning further in but that one he's not stating anything directly just that he impacted on concrete, not HOW.

Yea he probably hit his own head into the concrete.

hodj · Jul 14, 2013

Vaclav_sl said:
hodj: I was looking for a statement, video is very difficult to parse (well, more that it's not timely and requires higher attentiveness for a longer time... but you know what I mean...) - I was skipping videos intentionally for such reasons. (Although I didn't include forensic in my searches from memory, might have helped - but I got his transcript from it regardless)

~43:30 "...impacts onto concrete..." - suggests but doesn't state it explicitly that Trayvon bashed him just that he impacted on the concrete - perhaps something more damning further in but that one he's not stating anything directly just that he impacted on concrete, not HOW.

~51:30 "...two separate impacts..." - regarding the damage to the back of the head. So the "6" earlier was bullshit that Abefroman quoted.

Keep watching.

You're just looking for anything to exculpate your own uninformed opinions, not listening to the evidence as it was presented, or you wouldn't be making posts like that.

added: He's said two separate impacts which produced visible wounds. That doesn't imply other impacts didn't occur, first and foremost.

55 minutes in they're talking about how the injuries on the scalp are not required for severe head trauma, and that more blows could have occurred without lacerations, bruises, etc.

Watch the entire testimony.

Triangular_sl · Jul 14, 2013

i am going to rape babies.

Justice for Zimmerman

Bronze Baronet of the Realm

Molten Core Raider

Vox Populi Jihadi

shitlord

Bronze Baronet of the Realm

Vox Populi Jihadi

Bronze Baronet of the Realm

shitlord

Vox Populi Jihadi

Bronze Baronet of the Realm

Vox Populi Jihadi

Bronze Baronet of the Realm

Millie's Staff Member

Tranny Chaser

Vox Populi Jihadi

Bronze Baronet of the Realm

scientia potentia est

Vox Populi Jihadi

shitlord