Comments
141 - 160 of 187 Comments Last updated Mar 22, 2013

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#143 Mar 15, 2013
whatsupkidthewhatsupkid wrote:
I don't care if zimmerman is free or not ..
but i'm just saying prove to me how he's not guilty.. he's guilty as hell..
In this country, nobody has to be proven not guilty.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#144 Mar 15, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Back up the thread:
I said:
"Oh, OK.
"I thought you were weighing in to express an opinion on what Trayvon should have done."
Glitter said:
"You can go back to any post of mine on this subject. I have never taken a side. If you find one that slants in one direction or another, it will be out of context of the conversation."
So I posted a link to the post in which Glitter had offered her opinion that Trayvon should have just called the police.
Now, maybe you have some other way of viewing this, but, to make such a statement indicates a belief that Trayvon had an opportunity to call the police and that he chose to do something else instead.
Glitter's post does not show a slant towards either side. You cannot spin it that it does because it simply does not.

Also,

Trayvon could have told his girlfriend to call the police if he was in fear.

Zimmerman should have stopped following Trayvon when the 911 operator said 'you don't have to do that.'

Neither one of those statements show a slant or bias one way or the other either.

Quit playing lawyer/dectective and let the courts decide.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#145 Mar 15, 2013
Big Johnson wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the Queen of Irony, as well as wrong as can be about Maryland.
I stand corrected on Maryland being a commonweath, Johnson. I was thinking PA. But Maryland courts do still adhere to many of the 1776 British practices in their laws, and sometimes use antiquated phrases. I've had to participate there enough for my job.

In DE, when the judges enters the court, the bailiff says,'all rise.' In MD he says 'hear ye, hear ye. All rise for the honorable judge so and so. The whatever court is now in session.'

Well, glad I'm the Queen of something besides handing out the dog treats.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#146 Mar 15, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no state in the country that has a standard of "beyond a shadow of a doubt." Idiot.
I take it you've been arrested and incarcerated in each county of every state and speak from experience of being shuffled through their every court system.

Or are you going to tell us you've been retained and entered an appearance in every jurisdiction? That's a lot of licenses to practice.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#147 Mar 15, 2013
Seriouslady wrote:
<quoted text>
Glitter's post does not show a slant towards either side. You cannot spin it that it does because it simply does not.
Also,
Trayvon could have told his girlfriend to call the police if he was in fear.
Zimmerman should have stopped following Trayvon when the 911 operator said 'you don't have to do that.'
Neither one of those statements show a slant or bias one way or the other either.
Quit playing lawyer/dectective and let the courts decide.
The point is that there were assumptions being made--and that these assumptions were not based on any evidence, but rather some suppositions--one of which is certainly that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman.

As I have said, the more I have seen of the evidence (including Zimmerman's injuries and bloody face and head) the less likely that I am to believe that this was the case.

Beyond that, I don't know who you think you are to order me to keep on following the case, looking at evidence and having an opinion. If you're not interested, then go post on some other thread.

But, I would suggest that you not feign objectivity and neutrality while clearly getting angry at someone with whom you disagree.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#148 Mar 15, 2013
^^^order me NOT to keep on following^^
Wait what

Dublin, OH

#149 Mar 15, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think that's quite it with SL.
Apparently she said, "without a shade of a doubt," instead of "without a reasonable doubt." A day and a half and forty assorted posts later (rather subtly pointing out the error), I think she has completely lost sight of whatever she originally said.
She frequently jumps in to respond without fully understanding any previous exchanges--even if they were her own. I just put it down to either lack of focus/concentration (and after all, how much focus is it fair to expect on a board like this?) or else short-term-memory loss.
You recently made up a story about me in the same gossipy, confidential, all-knowing tone used above which was entirely false, proven by me. Not impressed by your above post.

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#150 Mar 16, 2013
Seriouslady wrote:
<quoted text>
I stand corrected on Maryland being a commonweath, Johnson. I was thinking PA. But Maryland courts do still adhere to many of the 1776 British practices in their laws, and sometimes use antiquated phrases. I've had to participate there enough for my job.
In DE, when the judges enters the court, the bailiff says,'all rise.' In MD he says 'hear ye, hear ye. All rise for the honorable judge so and so. The whatever court is now in session.'
Well, glad I'm the Queen of something besides handing out the dog treats.
http://mdcourts.gov/district/selfhelp/glossar...

Heya, here is a glossary of terms used and published by the district court of Maryland. They've defined the burden of proof as follows

"
Burden of Proof -- The necessity of proving facts at issue in Maryland, the criminal burden of proof is “beyond a reasonable doubt”; the civil burden of proof is “by a preponderance of the evidence,” or sometimes “by clear and convincing evidence.”

With this being more firmly in my area of knowledge, I'm having a very difficult time seeing how MD would be using pre-legal reformation rules from English common law or practices, especially where directly contradicted by supreme court rulings defining constitutionally defined burden of proof or the constitution itself. Is it just that you've heard some "old fashioned" sounding legal language and have muddled these a bit?

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#151 Mar 16, 2013
Seriouslady wrote:
<quoted text>
I take it you've been arrested and incarcerated in each county of every state and speak from experience of being shuffled through their every court system.
Or are you going to tell us you've been retained and entered an appearance in every jurisdiction? That's a lot of licenses to practice.
The burden on proof remains the same, regardless of the state a trial is brought in. While courts and jurisdictions may phrase that as they will, I've searched for some time and haven't found any mention of your phrase in caselaw, except where a juror or defendant has misunderstood that "beyond the shadow of a doubt" was the standard, requiring correction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_the_shado...

"Beyond the shadow of a doubt is sometimes used interchangeably, although mistakenly, with beyond a reasonable doubt, especially in courts of law."

I think it's something they say on crime shows on television, maybe?

“Where did I put my tiara?”

Since: Dec 11

Columbus, OH

#152 Mar 16, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Back up the thread:
I said:
"Oh, OK.
"I thought you were weighing in to express an opinion on what Trayvon should have done."
Glitter said:
"You can go back to any post of mine on this subject. I have never taken a side. If you find one that slants in one direction or another, it will be construed out of context of the conversation."
So I posted a link to the post in which Glitter had offered her opinion that Trayvon should have just called the police.
Now, maybe you have some other way of viewing this, but, to make such a statement indicates a belief that Trayvon had an opportunity to call the police and that he chose to do something else instead.
There you go interpreting my words to suit your needs. Unlike you, I will let the jury decide. I don't work on the best side of town, dam skippy that I tell hubby when I'm smoking and tell him when I'm safely in the building; dam skippy I have my cell phone with me so I can cal 911 if needed; dam skippy I keep the door propped open so I can get in a safe haven; dam skippy I have a plan of where I am going if someone has intent to hurt me. Bottom line, if you feel threatened you call 911, I'm positive that they would rather have a false alarm then have someone hurt on their watch. I've called 911 more times than I would prefer, sometimes for a resident, sometimes for staff. Trayvon had a cell thus the opportunity to call 911, his girlfriend also had that opportunity. Trust and believe if I were in trouble hubby calling 911 then getting in his car to try and beat the authorities to help me. I've schooled both of my kids to scream "fire" as that gets the most attention if they are in trouble. There are many things both, Zimmerman and Trayvon, could have done differently. In the end, the jury decides, not me, not you.

“Where did I put my tiara?”

Since: Dec 11

Columbus, OH

#153 Mar 16, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
The point is that there were assumptions being made--and that these assumptions were not based on any evidence, but rather some suppositions--one of which is certainly that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman.
As I have said, the more I have seen of the evidence (including Zimmerman's injuries and bloody face and head) the less likely that I am to believe that this was the case.
Beyond that, I don't know who you think you are to order me to keep on following the case, looking at evidence and having an opinion. If you're not interested, then go post on some other thread.
But, I would suggest that you not feign objectivity and neutrality while clearly getting angry at someone with whom you disagree.
You are the only one staunch on your assumptions.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#154 Mar 16, 2013
Wait what wrote:
<quoted text>
You recently made up a story about me in the same gossipy, confidential, all-knowing tone used above which was entirely false, proven by me. Not impressed by your above post.
No, ma'am.

Sorry, but you are simply not going to get away with that one.

When you threw in the words United Methodist Children's Home--completely decontextualized, I took it to be a reference to a lengthy discussion I had with someone who shares a certain tenacity and posting style with you.

I took your reference to be a reminder of that discussion--and thought you had provided me with some insight into your particular fascination with disagreeing with me.

When you pointed out that you were not that person and provided their name, I apoligised and dropped the matter. My mistake.

I don't know what more could reasonably be expected, however apparently you still seem to desire something more. What is it that you would like?

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#155 Mar 16, 2013
GlitterSucks wrote:
<quoted text>There you go interpreting my words to suit your needs. Unlike you, I will let the jury decide. I don't work on the best side of town, dam skippy that I tell hubby when I'm smoking and tell him when I'm safely in the building; dam skippy I have my cell phone with me so I can cal 911 if needed; dam skippy I keep the door propped open so I can get in a safe haven; dam skippy I have a plan of where I am going if someone has intent to hurt me. Bottom line, if you feel threatened you call 911, I'm positive that they would rather have a false alarm then have someone hurt on their watch. I've called 911 more times than I would prefer, sometimes for a resident, sometimes for staff. Trayvon had a cell thus the opportunity to call 911, his girlfriend also had that opportunity. Trust and believe if I were in trouble hubby calling 911 then getting in his car to try and beat the authorities to help me. I've schooled both of my kids to scream "fire" as that gets the most attention if they are in trouble. There are many things both, Zimmerman and Trayvon, could have done differently. In the end, the jury decides, not me, not you.
Someone WAS screaming, and quite loudly--right up until the shot was fired.

However, your logic, outlined above, is what is commonly known as victim blaming.

And you assume that Trayvon, once perceiving an actual threat, made a decision NOT to call the police.

I think you gotta deal with your own mind and what you are thinking, and stop blaming me for disagreeing with things that you have posted here, and for pointing out the assumed facts (mostly not in evidence) on which your faulty logic rests.

And those assumptions (and your continuing to follow and post on a thread discussin the case) call into question your endless cries of letting the jury decide.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#156 Mar 16, 2013
GlitterSucks wrote:
<quoted text>You are the only one staunch on your assumptions.
Perhaps you could clarify what you believe my assumptions to be.
Che Reagan Christ

Buffalo, NY

#157 Mar 16, 2013
Seriouslady wrote:
<quoted text>
Maryland is a Commonwealth, not a state. MD still adheres to the 1776 British ALexander law in many instances, one of them being 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' wording used in different courtrooms. I never used the word 'shade.'
This is just more of your juvenile mincing and twisting in order to appear correct.
Correct about what? A meaningless use of a word that does not change the substance of the sentence? Wow, what a win for you, If you, tran and Che knew what you were talking about.
You're all three on here 24 X 7. Do you have any life but for topix?
As for my 40 assorted posts, go back and check twister, as I stated last night, I have stayed out of this thread. So your count may be off by as much as 30.
Again, who cares? Only you and your useless bickering cohorts. All two of them.
You are wrong. The highest burden of proof in the United States is beyond a reasonable doubt.
Che Reagan Christ

Buffalo, NY

#158 Mar 16, 2013
Seriouslady wrote:
<quoted text>
I take it you've been arrested and incarcerated in each county of every state and speak from experience of being shuffled through their every court system.
Or are you going to tell us you've been retained and entered an appearance in every jurisdiction? That's a lot of licenses to practice.
It takes neither of those experiences to know that there is no standard of "beyond a shadow of a doubt" in US jurisprudence. It simply takes a functioning brain.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#159 Mar 16, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
The point is that there were assumptions being made--and that these assumptions were not based on any evidence, but rather some suppositions--one of which is certainly that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman.
As I have said, the more I have seen of the evidence (including Zimmerman's injuries and bloody face and head) the less likely that I am to believe that this was the case.
Beyond that, I don't know who you think you are to order me to keep on following the case, looking at evidence and having an opinion. If you're not interested, then go post on some other thread.
But, I would suggest that you not feign objectivity and neutrality while clearly getting angry at someone with whom you disagree.
YOU WERE THE FIRST ONE TO MAKE AN ASSUMPTION. That's all it is at this point. An assumption made by a woman in Ohio about a crime in Florida.

You have not seen the evidence. You have seen what has been released to the public.

Impossible that we disagree on this. I have no opinion on this case, and don't try to twist it that I have posted an opinion.

I am, again, perturbed that you try to twist Glitter's one sentence into something it clearly does not say.

I didn't order you to do anything, Twister. What would be the use and you'll never change.

I will continue to look at this thread because I like seeing all the green checkmarks, yellow lightbulbs and stars above my posts.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#160 Mar 16, 2013
Seriouslady wrote:
<quoted text>
YOU WERE THE FIRST ONE TO MAKE AN ASSUMPTION. That's all it is at this point. An assumption made by a woman in Ohio about a crime in Florida.
And that assumption would be ...?
Wait what

Dublin, OH

#161 Mar 16, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
No, ma'am.
Sorry, but you are simply not going to get away with that one.
When you threw in the words United Methodist Children's Home--completely decontextualized, I took it to be a reference to a lengthy discussion I had with someone who shares a certain tenacity and posting style with you.
I took your reference to be a reminder of that discussion--and thought you had provided me with some insight into your particular fascination with disagreeing with me.
When you pointed out that you were not that person and provided their name, I apoligised and dropped the matter. My mistake.
I don't know what more could reasonably be expected, however apparently you still seem to desire something more. What is it that you would like?
I copied and pasted the whole conversation in another thread so yes, I am going to get away with that one.

You mentioned you worked at a facility supported by the Methodist church. I have Methodist clergy in my family (not disclosed at the time) and I responded by asking you if it was the youth home in Worthington. Based on my asking you (similar to someone saying I had dealings with a defense contractor in Columbus, oh, is that DSCC?) you told readers that I was someone who had been instrumental in leading the fight in Worthington to get the home shut down. It was lengthier than that. Worse, other people who normally don't jump into other people's fights jumped in to say you were wrong - that's how blatant it was.

As I said in another thread, today is one of those days where I feel sorry for you.
Wait what

Dublin, OH

#162 Mar 16, 2013
And you need to get your paranoia checked out. No one else with whom I disagree seems to think I'm after them.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Is Barack Obama Doing a Good Job as President? (Aug '13) 35 min Neutral Party 3,218
We can't afford a war in Syria 43 min Neutral Party 6
4 Arrested After Allegedly Stabbing, Assaulting... (Oct '12) 3 hr LONGTIMEFRIENDOFT... 21
Will The White House Get a Missle? 3 hr SteeleO 2
OH Who do you support for Governor in Ohio in 2010? (Oct '10) 5 hr Old Guy 30,507
Where are all the original legacy posters? 5 hr d pantz 110
Coleman has put out welcome mat for immigrants ... 5 hr American 11
Bennett Smith gate stories from the victims poi... (May '13) 9 hr Tofte 2,291
•••
•••
Columbus Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Columbus Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Columbus News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Columbus
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••