Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate trickles on...

Post by **Coito ergo sum** » Thu Jul 05, 2012 7:09 pm

mistermack wrote:Actually, the Zimmerman case completely contradicts one of the statements made by the lawyer in the video.
He says, catagorically, that talking to the police can NEVER help a suspect. WRONG.
Zimmerman cooperated, talked to the police, answered any question that they put to him, and didn't invoke his right to silence.
And they let him go within hours, after killing an innocent kid. And he would be free today, if it wasn't for the huge hullaballoo in the press.

That's just one part of the video disproved right here. The rest of it is bollocks too. You just accept what he says because that's his job.

LOL -- no. I accept what he says because it is a good recitation of what I already knew. It's easier to point to the video rather than write out everything for you.

Post by **mistermack** » Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:03 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
mistermack wrote:Actually, the Zimmerman case completely contradicts one of the statements made by the lawyer in the video.
He says, catagorically, that talking to the police can NEVER help a suspect. WRONG.
Zimmerman cooperated, talked to the police, answered any question that they put to him, and didn't invoke his right to silence.
And they let him go within hours, after killing an innocent kid. And he would be free today, if it wasn't for the huge hullaballoo in the press.

That's just one part of the video disproved right here. The rest of it is bollocks too. You just accept what he says because that's his job.
LOL -- no. I accept what he says because it is a good recitation of what I already knew. It's easier to point to the video rather than write out everything for you.

Yeh right. Bullshit as per usual.

You aren't the first to be sucked in by a slick lawyer. I can see why you wouldn't want to admit it with an ego like yours.
Why don't you look behind the slick words for once in your life?

Post by **Coito ergo sum** » Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:32 pm

mistermack wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
mistermack wrote:Actually, the Zimmerman case completely contradicts one of the statements made by the lawyer in the video.
He says, catagorically, that talking to the police can NEVER help a suspect. WRONG.
Zimmerman cooperated, talked to the police, answered any question that they put to him, and didn't invoke his right to silence.
And they let him go within hours, after killing an innocent kid. And he would be free today, if it wasn't for the huge hullaballoo in the press.

That's just one part of the video disproved right here. The rest of it is bollocks too. You just accept what he says because that's his job.
LOL -- no. I accept what he says because it is a good recitation of what I already knew. It's easier to point to the video rather than write out everything for you.
Yeh right. Bullshit as per usual.

You aren't the first to be sucked in by a slick lawyer. I can see why you wouldn't want to admit it with an ego like yours.
Why don't you look behind the slick words for once in your life?

You sound like a 12 year old.

Ego, indeed. You come across in such a superior, pompous manner that it makes me laugh that you would even accuse someone else of being egotistical. Maybe you just sound that way because you're British, cuz, you know, on your side of the pond things are so much more erudite and everyone is far more educated and enlightened.

Tell us again how much better and more proper things are done in that Shangri-La called the UK...

Post by **maiforpeace** » Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:40 pm

Mistermack, CES, who do you want to be - Moe, Larry or Curly?

Post by **Coito ergo sum** » Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:42 pm

I'll be Ebeneezer.

Post by **Svartalf** » Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:45 pm

'Bah, humbug' Ebenezer?

Post by **Coito ergo sum** » Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:56 pm

Svartalf wrote:'Bah, humbug' Ebenezer?

Ebeneezer Stooge.

Post by **Svartalf** » Thu Jul 05, 2012 9:00 pm

So the Stooges are the 3 musketters in disguise?
I mean, looks like duck, quack like a duck...

Post by **Coito ergo sum** » Thu Jul 05, 2012 9:06 pm

Or, maybe it's the Three Scrooges. http://www.threescrooges.com/

Post by **maiforpeace** » Thu Jul 05, 2012 9:09 pm

I'll be Moe then. Mistermack and CES can be Larry and Curly.

Post by **mistermack** » Thu Jul 05, 2012 9:16 pm

I'll be one of the Billygoats Gruff.
Seth, Coito and Tyrannical can be the Trolls.

Post by **Coito ergo sum** » Thu Jul 05, 2012 9:41 pm

mistermack wrote:I'll be one of the Billygoats Gruff.
Seth, Coito and Tyrannical can be the Trolls.

You can be Capt. Peacock from Are you Being Served. (Edit to Correct Sitcom)

Post by **mistermack** » Thu Jul 05, 2012 9:53 pm

And this is Coito

Post by **maiforpeace** » Thu Jul 05, 2012 10:07 pm

mistermack wrote:And this is Coito

Well this thread is taking a slightly better turn anyways.

Post by **MrJonno** » Fri Jul 06, 2012 11:36 am

Like the way people think the jury system is a fair way to decide a person guilt or not. I trust the average member of the public to decide on a persons fate in a courtroom as much as I trust them to have a firearm.

Give me professional judges and if there is a jury it should be one with proper legal training not with people who basically will judge someone on whether they look the type. Most European countries don't use public juries alas the UK is the exception

rationalia.com