Zimmerman vs. DMX - Boxing Match?

[AAFitz]

Scooter....

Was OJ Guilty?

Was there no evidence?

A Jury found him not guilty, too.

I'm still waiting for you. Show me the evidence of the Zimmerman case, and I'll play with your OJ

I did answer your evidence question. I presented evidence as requested.

[Phatscotty]

Scooter....

Was OJ Guilty?

Was there no evidence?

A Jury found him not guilty, too.

I'm still waiting for you. Show me the evidence of the Zimmerman case, and I'll play with your OJ

I did answer your evidence question. I presented evidence as requested.

okay I'll look it up.

There was a lot of evidence in the OJ case: Evidence of racism, racebaiting, political correctness, mob justice, and revenge.

OJ was rightfully acquitted in the criminal case based on totally botched evidence and tampered evidence, but OJ was found guilty in a civil case.

[AAFitz]

Again though....in the OJ Simpson case...

Guilty?
Was there evidence?
Did the innocent verdict mean the evidence was fantasy?

I'm not really sure why you bring up OJ, but since you did, OJ was rightfully acquitted.
-Guilty? I have no idea, but after what the cops did with the evidence it became quite impossible to convict OJ on those charges.
-Was there evidence? There was some, but the most important evidence was so badly tainted and mishandled by the cops, even if were I on that jury I would have acquitted him. Cops can't do that type of shit.
-Was the evidence fantasy? The most important evidence in the case was the blood evidence. Namely that OJ's blood was found at the scene, was that fantasy? What the cops did, it sure as hell could very well have been.

Some blood was supposedly found at the scene (not the victims). The samples were collected, and supposed to be immediately entered and turned into evidence (as per proper chain of evidence rules). It wasn't. The detective took the sample, put them in his pocket and it was more than 24 hours later when those samples were actually taken in. Before that blood evidence was turned in properly, a sample of OJ's blood was taken from him.
Because of the detective not following procedure and keeping the chain of evidence on the up and up, it's quite possible that the supposed blood evidence found at the scene was actually taken from OJ himself and then entered as found at the scene. We can't know for sure because the stupid cops screwed up so badly.

How would you like it if someone accused you of a crime, claim that blood evidence was found at the scene and ask you for a sample of your blood to compare. You give the sample and then find out your blood was found at the scene, and then find out that the blood evidence collected placing you at the scene was turned in after you gave your blood to the cops?
Do you see how bad that looks?
I bet you'd be pissed. I bet your lawyer would have a field day with that. I bet you'd get that evidence throw right out of court. I'd bet you'd claim that the police's evidence was indeed fantasy, no, scratch that, corrupt as hell and a lie.
And any reasonable person would agree with you.


So I suppose the OJ case and the Zimmerman case are similar in only that the authorities grossly screwed up.
In Zimmerman's case, it was the prosecution who screwed the pooch, over charging (which in unethical and immoral), misrepresented evidence, lied, changed the charges at the last minute without giving the defense any time to argue against and expected the jury to base their judgment on emotion rather than on duty and actual evidence.

And as for evidence of a hate crime in the Zimmerman case, there is no evidence of that. Was there evidence of such a thing that was simply not discovered? I have no idea, but it was a rather intense investigation and since no evidence of such nature was found it's not very logical or fair to assume there must have been evidence. Hate crime really has not a thing to do with the Zimmerman case at all.

But who ever killed Nicole Simpson and Goldman sure as hell had a lot of hate in their hearts to butcher two human beings like that. Might not have been a racial hate, but one would need to have a lot of hate built up inside themselves to do what was done to those two.

But these things tend to work themselves out in the long run. OJ is in jail now, and will be pretty much until the day he dies. Zimmerman, he's on the same road it seems. If he really was guilty of a crime then he will face the justice one way or another, in this life or the next.

I'm with TGD, hate crime legislation is wrong. I'm against said legislation because it puts more value on one person's life over another.

If a white guy shoots another white guy while screaming "Die Mother F*cker!" would get less of a sentence than a white guy shooting a black guy while screaming "Die N******!"
Both of them should face the exact same jail time. Both had hate in their hearts, and since most violent crime involves some degree of hate one way or another, well, what's the point in saying one type of hate is worse than another type of hate? It's all hatred. IMO.

I thank you honestly for your answer, but the reason I was asking PS about OJ, is because he seems to think that because a Jury said Zimmerman was not guilty, that that meant there was no evidence and that any evidence was fantasy.

I simply was wondering if it was case specific, or if it applied to every case, where a jury says not guilty.

He is avoiding the questions because there is almost no way he can answer them and be consistent with his earlier "arguments" about the nature of evidence and what constitutes it.

[AAFitz]

Scooter....

Was OJ Guilty?

Was there no evidence?

A Jury found him not guilty, too.

I'm still waiting for you. Show me the evidence of the Zimmerman case, and I'll play with your OJ

I did answer your evidence question. I presented evidence as requested.

okay I'll look it up.

There was a lot of evidence in the OJ case: Evidence of racism, racebaiting, political correctness, mob justice, and revenge.

OJ was found guilty in a civil case, based on evidence.

Not guilty, responsible. Two very different things actually. Wow, I can see why this evidence thing has you all messed up, you dont even understand it on a basic level.

He is totally not guilty of murder. A jury in a criminal case declared him not guilty. The civil case is just about money and is irrelevant.

In fact, its possible that at some time in the future Zimmerman could be found financially liable for wrongful death in a civil case. Would that mean you would consider him guilty?

I am once again laughing at your supposed dunkin of the foos.

There was lots of evidence in the Zimmerman trial. He stalked, confronted and shot a kid. Theres even recordings of it. Police even told the moron to back off, but he was too stupid to do so, or so possibly racist that he didnt give a f*ck. In any case, you dont have to consider it evidence that he is guilty for it to be evidence, and calling it fantasy is again, just phatscotty.

[Phatscotty]

Obviously, you were wrong about the evidence. There was evidence showing Zimmerman acted in self defense

To remind everybody what happened, 911 tapes were edited to make it sound like Zimmerman called Trayvon a 'Coon', and that was all the evidence needed by some to make a conclusion Zimmerman was guilty, even though it is a fact the 911 tapes were edited and that editor was fired for it, along with a couple other editors.

Basically, the media did to Zimmerman what OJ fantasized the police did to him.

[AAFitz]

Obviously, you were wrong about the evidence. There was evidence showing Zimmerman acted in self defense

To remind everybody what happened, 911 tapes were edited to make it sound like Zimmerman called Trayvon a 'Coon', and that was all the evidence needed by some to make a conclusion Zimmerman was guilty, even though it is a fact the 911 tapes were edited and that editor was fired for it, along with a couple other editors.

Basically, the media did to Zimmerman what OJ fantasized the police did to him.

Oh, so there is evidence then. At least we are getting somewhere now.

What you consider Zimmerman acting in self defense is what I consider Martin acting in self defense. He was the one just walking down the street. Zimmerman started the whole fucking thing, not vice versa.

We would even have more evidence that it was self defense, but Zimmerman murdered him.


And again "a jury unanimously found there was a preponderance of evidence to hold Simpson liable for damages in the wrongful death" does not make OJ guilty. He was found not guilty.

If you find him guilty, its because you view the evidence differently than the jury did, just as I view the evidence in this case differently than the jury did.

[Phatscotty]

what is the evidence martin acted in self defense? Did Trayvon have a bunch of gashes on the back of his head from being slammed on the concrete? Did Trayvon have a broken nose? Was Trayvon screaming for help? Did witnesses see Zimmerman on top of Trayvon? Where Zimmerman knuckles all bruised up form landing blows on Trayvon's face?

[AAFitz]

Obviously, you were wrong about the evidence. There was evidence showing Zimmerman acted in self defense

To remind everybody what happened, 911 tapes were edited to make it sound like Zimmerman called Trayvon a 'Coon', and that was all the evidence needed by some to make a conclusion Zimmerman was guilty, even though it is a fact the 911 tapes were edited and that editor was fired for it, along with a couple other editors.

Basically, the media did to Zimmerman what OJ fantasized the police did to him.

Ok, some people used that evidence but I did not. I used the facts of the case. The guy stalked, confronted, initiated a fight, and then shot Martin.

None of those things would not have happened but for Zimmerman's actions, and foolish ones at that. Would Zimmerman have done the same thing to a white kid dressed in a polo shirt walking down the same street at the same time, maybe, maybe not. Not important to the case really. The point is, the kid was walking from his dads house, had every right to be there, and was stalked and confronted by a man who was told not to do so by law enforcement officials.

Again, hes not really a murderer, he really is just a reckless moron absolutely guilty of manslaughter because of extreme negligence and all of the evidence lends itself to that conclusion in my opinion. The jury disagreed. In any case, I hope you have learned something about the meaning of the word evidence because earlier in this conversation...well..you really were phatscotty about it.

[john9blue]

honestly i think martin might be better off dead,

Wow

Why are you surprised? Typical Jb.

I'm sure his family feels the same way John.

hah! was wondering if anyone would sig that.

zimmerman might be better off dead too, but i'm starting to sound like a future serial killer so i'll stop now.

[AAFitz]

what is the evidence martin acted in self defense? Did Trayvon have a bunch of gashes on the back of his head from being slammed on the concrete? Did Trayvon have a broken nose? Was Trayvon screaming for help? Did witnesses see Zimmerman on top of Trayvon? Where Zimmerman knuckles all bruised up form landing blows on Trayvon's face?

I didnt say there was any evidence. However, we do know he was just walking down the street in his parents neighborhood and a guy with a gun approached him. Maybe Martin absolutely was insane and just went to go kill the guy out of the blue, or maybe he was nervous of being followed by a guy in a car and with a gun and decided to hit first. However, I think its past likely that if zimmerman just listened to the cops, Martin would be alive and maybe even zimmermans girlfriend would be a little less beaten.

[Phatscotty]

Obviously, you were wrong about the evidence. There was evidence showing Zimmerman acted in self defense

To remind everybody what happened, 911 tapes were edited to make it sound like Zimmerman called Trayvon a 'Coon', and that was all the evidence needed by some to make a conclusion Zimmerman was guilty, even though it is a fact the 911 tapes were edited and that editor was fired for it, along with a couple other editors.

Basically, the media did to Zimmerman what OJ fantasized the police did to him.

Ok, some people used that evidence but I did not. I used the facts of the case. The guy stalked, confronted, initiated a fight, and then shot Martin.

lulz

Who threw the first punch? Is it illegal to walk up to somebody? I thought he walked up to him and asked him who he was?

You still haven't provided any evidence other than 'here's what I think happened' while you are ignoring all the hard facts which clearly show who attacked who.

Your line of thought fascinates me. I think that is exactly what separates Liberals from Cosnervatives; Progressives from Libertarians.

[Phatscotty]

Oh, so there is evidence then. At least we are getting somewhere now.

I didnt say there was any evidence.

[AAFitz]

Obviously, you were wrong about the evidence. There was evidence showing Zimmerman acted in self defense

To remind everybody what happened, 911 tapes were edited to make it sound like Zimmerman called Trayvon a 'Coon', and that was all the evidence needed by some to make a conclusion Zimmerman was guilty, even though it is a fact the 911 tapes were edited and that editor was fired for it, along with a couple other editors.

Basically, the media did to Zimmerman what OJ fantasized the police did to him.

Ok, some people used that evidence but I did not. I used the facts of the case. The guy stalked, confronted, initiated a fight, and then shot Martin.

lulz

Who threw the first punch? Is it illegal to walk up to somebody? I thought he walked up to him and asked him who he was?

You still haven't provided any evidence other than 'here's what I think happened' while you are ignoring all the hard facts which clearly show who attacked who.

Your line of thought fascinates me. I think that is exactly what separates Liberals from Cosnervatives; Progressives from Libertarians.

You are completely ignoring that assault can justify the first punch. Given your earlier confusion with the nature of evidence and guilt I hestitate to continue, but you don't know what happened any more than I do. And while you drone on about political bullshit as always, Im simply stating the facts of what happened.

Can I assume a consnervative is what Willy Wonka calls a conservative?

[Phatscotty]

It is a 100% fact that Trayvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman.

You can pretend all day that information is meaningless to you, but the rest of us know better.

[AAFitz]

there's a ton of evidence to suggest Trayvon did all the attacking, there is no evidence Zimmerman did any attacking other than ultimately defending his life after repeated yelling for help.

You can pretend all day that information is meaningless to you, but the rest of us know better.

I said assault, not attack. Martin was walking peacefully and was confronted by a gun who was so reckless as to ignore authorities. You can pretend there is no chance Zimmerman threatened him first, but then ignoring things, is again your thing, so I get it.

Also, I do actually concede that perhaps Martin very well did just attack out of the blue, but, since Zimmerman obviously stalked him, came over to him, and not vice versa, Martin very well could have taken that as a threat, and Zimmerman is obviously the type that could have used words or actions that filled the criteria of assault, which would have warranted a physical reaction from Martin.

Assualt is a threat of violence just so you know. Again, I pity your ignorance of these words and their meanings, and cant stop laughing as you think you are the one doin the dunkin....but then, you really are that phatscotty, arent you.

[Phatscotty]

So how do non-blacks counter the knockout game? Now they are going to be looked at suspiciously all the time. This might be a declaration of war.

http://mobile.wnd.com/2013/08/intended- ... oots-back/

When Marvell Weaver jammed the taser into the ribs of the still unidentified man and pulled the trigger, it jammed. The target pulled out his .40 caliber Smith and Wesson and shot Weaver as he tried to escape to the getaway van where two of his accomplices waited.

This is how it's viewed in London

[BigBallinStalin]

Regarding hate crime laws, we should be considering how responsive criminals are to additional jail time. Does adding on the risk of incurring 3-5 years really deter them more effectively, hardly at all, or not at all?

[AAFitz]

It is a 100% fact that Trayvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman.

You can pretend all day that information is meaningless to you, but the rest of us know better.

I dont even think you realize how dumb your argument is here. You are essentially saying that a person cannot defend themselves against assault by throwing the first punch.

More importantly, I and everyone else that has ever seen you write anything, knows you would argue the exact opposite in only slightly different circumstances.

Lets ask another question...

If I walked up to you and said your wife is a dirty whore, and Im going to hurt you....and you punched me....

Who attacked who first?

Who assaulted who first?

oh and use a fucking dictionary first will ya....this is just getting old.

[AAFitz]

Regarding hate crime laws, we should be considering how responsive criminals are to additional jail time. Does adding on the risk of incurring 3-5 years really deter them more effectively, hardly at all, or not at all?

Great question. What do you think?

[Phatscotty]

It is a 100% fact that Trayvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman.

You can pretend all day that information is meaningless to you, but the rest of us know better.

I dont even think you realize how dumb your argument is here. You are essentially saying that a person cannot defend themselves against assault by throwing the first punch.

More importantly, I and everyone else that has ever seen you write anything, knows you would argue the exact opposite in only slightly different circumstances.

Lets ask another question...

If I walked up to you and said your wife is a dirty whore, and Im going to hurt you....and you punched me....

Who attacked who first?

Who assaulted who first?

oh and use a fucking dictionary first will ya....this is just getting old.

Evidence shows Trayvon Martin did all the punching, and Zimmerman's face and head did all the receiving.

You can give it up now, I already gave you permission to continue pretending you can't make a decision what happened, or who the attacker was, and who the defender is. I know you 'don't look at that evidence' okay you have permission to use whatever evidence suits you and dismiss the mountain of evidence that goes against you.

It's all you baby

GEE WHIZ GOLLY SCHUCKS, I JUST CAN'T MAKE A DECISION ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED HERE

[mrswdk]

And what's even better is that the gun was a totally proportional response.

[AAFitz]

It is a 100% fact that Trayvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman.

You can pretend all day that information is meaningless to you, but the rest of us know better.

I dont even think you realize how dumb your argument is here. You are essentially saying that a person cannot defend themselves against assault by throwing the first punch.

More importantly, I and everyone else that has ever seen you write anything, knows you would argue the exact opposite in only slightly different circumstances.

Lets ask another question...

If I walked up to you and said your wife is a dirty whore, and Im going to hurt you....and you punched me....

Who attacked who first?

Who assaulted who first?

oh and use a fucking dictionary first will ya....this is just getting old.

Evidence shows Trayvon Martin did all the punching, and Zimmerman's face and head did all the receiving.

You can give it up now, I already gave you permission to continue pretending you can't make a decision what happened, or who the attacker was, and who the defender is. I know you 'don't look at that evidence' okay you have permission to use whatever evidence suits you and dismiss the mountain of evidence that goes against you.

It's all you baby

And Zimmerman did all the Shooting and Killing.

And again, the punching is actually justified, completely, just as you are arguing the shooting is justified, if martin perceived a threat to his person before punching....especially, if he was assaulted first.

And because Im sure you didn't use a dictionary, assault means threat, not necessarily physical contact.

You start this entire case when Martins hand contacts Zimmermans face, and legally that is just utterly fucking stupid, but...I know I know...phatscotty. Ill stop. Ill go try to teach a rock some legal concepts, instead.

Just so you know though, throwing the first punch is often completely legal, if one is threatened first, just as Im sure you would argue that shooting someone is legal if one is threatened....of course, youd argue shooting someone for fun is legal, so I guess I wont bother with this, but it has been fun, watching you think you are right through this whole thing, and fundamentally showing your ignorance of the actual words you are using.

"Consnervatives" are known for that though.

[john9blue]

fitz, what exactly do you think zimmerman did that warranted being thrown to the ground and punched in the face?

[thegreekdog]

fitz, what exactly do you think zimmerman did that warranted being thrown to the ground and punched in the face?

He followed someone. That's my natural reaction when someone follows me.

Oh wait, I think I talked about that 20 pages ago and a year ago.

[AAFitz]

fitz, what exactly do you think zimmerman did that warranted being thrown to the ground and punched in the face?

Zimmerman already showed bad judgement by ignoring Police by continuing to stalk and approach Martin.

He knew he had a gun, so given this reckless act, it is clear he engaged martin enough to get him to use his fists.

Now, obviously I dont know what he did, or why Martin considered him a threat, but Zimmerman was a guy stupid enough to ignore police advice and get himself into a situation where someone died, so to call it a stretch that he caused the entire event is just ignoring the overall picture of the event.

As I said, I acknowledge that maybe Martin actually was crazy. Maybe, he was just walking around hoping some moron with a gun was going to just walk right up close enough for him to punch so he could do that....but all common sense and logic, tells me, it was Zimmerman that foolishly confronted him, and whether purposefully, or unwittingly threatened Martin, to where Martin felt he had to protect himself. He was a young enough kid, that having a strange man follow him in a car could honestly be considered enough of a threat as is.

Mostly, it all comes down to Zimmmerman ignoring professional advice from professional law enforcement officials.

They said don't do it, he ignore that and because of that, a kid is dead. Its about the same as ignoring a cop's traffic signals and running someone over as a result.

If you cant see, that Zimmerman, was an absolute moron in this situation, and that he had lots of options that would have resulted in a person being alive, then you really either are stupid, or I guess in your case, just dont care, because as you said, hes probably better off now anyways.

Seriously, by the way....what the f*ck is wrong with you?