Unarmed black 17 year old shot by Neighborhood watch captain in gated community...

[soundforbjt]

Oh sure...his account was hacked and posts made by someone other than him and yet he never mentions it and nobody else makes any comment about the posts not coming from him...sure You're still grasping at straws here when common sense is not on your side

Where did I imply that the accounts were hacked? If a friend was at TM's house and posted from his computer on his account, there's no hacking involved.

 

[corwin]

Where did I imply that the accounts were hacked? If a friend was at TM's house and posted from his computer on his account, there's no hacking involved.

And there would be no mention that it came from somebody else...right, sure...keep grasping at them straws cause it's all you've got left

Be realistic for just a minute and think about what you're trying to imply, it's just not grounded in reality. His account and his posts are his own words, period.

 

[spidey07]

And there would be no mention that it came from somebody else...right, sure...keep grasping at them straws cause it's all you've got left

Be realistic for just a minute and think about what you're trying to imply, it's just not grounded in reality. His account and his posts are his own words, period.

No, no, no...you see it was aliens. Aliens could have posted those, I mean it's a possibility so it should be considered as truth.

 

[soundforbjt]

And there would be no mention that it came from somebody else...right, sure...keep grasping at them straws cause it's all you've got left

Be realistic for just a minute and think about what you're trying to imply, it's just not grounded in reality. His account and his posts are his own words, period.

How can you or anybody else prove that (other than an IP address)? Anyone can start an account under any name they wish or post on the person's computer, with or without their knowledge.

 

[corwin]

No, no, no...you see it was aliens. Aliens could have posted those, I mean it's a possibility so it should be considered as truth.

You mean like Mexican aliens or aliens aliens? Cause Mexican aliens I might believe is possible:biggrin:

 

[corwin]

How can you or anybody else prove that? Anyone can start an account under any name they wish.

Intellectual dishonesty...look it up but right now it would be a mirror showing your face

My response stands even with your edit...your argument won't even be attempted by the state, it's just not grounded in reality

 

[OCNewbie]

I never made that claim that Adderal is the exact same thing as meth. Please quote it. I'll be waiting...:whiste:

I think that was airdata

 

[OCNewbie]

Hmmm, sounds like something really juicy, and clearly on the defense's side, was just given to the judge. The prosecution seemed to be really opposed to it being released or enacted anyway.

 

[OCNewbie]

FWIW, looks like GZ is left-handed. I see him writing with his left hand anyway.

 

[corwin]

FWIW, looks like GZ is left-handed. I see him writing with his left hand anyway.

Crap, that changes everything...south paws should be hung

 

[Geosurface]

Can't wait to find out what is in that motion.

If the facts were on their side, why would the prosecution fight tooth and nail to drag their feet on discovery, obfuscate, and try to silence everyone about the whole case?

They know they have no case, but their plan is to maintain the illusion of having a case for as long as they can, in the hopes that the spotlight will have drifted elsewhere or dimmed in intensity by the time the house of cards finally does collapse.

This is why they didn't want to look at GZ's medical records. Why look at anything that reminds you or accentuates the fact that your "case" is smoke and mirrors?

It's easier to pretend when you avoid exculpatory evidence.

 

[Tom]

I'm glad you feel that way, however case law doesn't support your assertion. See Capitol v. Thomas.

Im curious, do you ever read case law and opinions?

yea I do. That case has nothing to do with what I said.

That case about responsibility for the use of something a person owns. Like for example if you leave your car running outside Walmart and a kid jumps in and runs over somebody you'd be at least partly responsible.

That has nothing to do with authenticating that a Tweet was made by a particular person not to mention establishing the purpose or intent of whover tweeted the tweet.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Unless one can prove that a bogus person was using the account; the way accounts are setup with passwords; the default implication is the information comes from the account is the account owners.

If one was to argue that the account was hacked; then the "accuser" should be able show a difference in style or that the account owner was in a different physical location than the IP that the info was posted from.

If the account was "borrowed", the owner should be considered responsible for the information and has the ability to remove it if incorrect.

LEO are able to use such accounts to arrest and convict people based on information in accounts.

 

[airdata]

I think that was airdata

Originally Posted by soundforbjt
I never made that claim that Adderal is the exact same thing as meth. Please quote it. I'll be waiting...
I think that was airdata
__________________

Essentially speaking, "meth", adderall (and other ADD meds), and cocaine are all made up of the same stuff, called Amphetamines.
The only difference is their mechanisms of action, which are not yet fully understood. The 'meth' in methamphetamines is an extra molecule which binds on to the amphetamines and makes them last longer in your body.

You stupid assholes just kill me when you think you're right despite not knowing a fucking thing about what you post.

 

[OCNewbie]

You stupid assholes just kill me when you think you're right despite not knowing a fucking thing about what you post.

Post the source of your quoted information, please. I'll read the article you linked, then I'll know everything you know about adderall too.

 

[Tom]

Unless one can prove that a bogus person was using the account; the way accounts are setup with passwords; the default implication is the information comes from the account is the account owners.

If one was to argue that the account was hacked; then the "accuser" should be able show a difference in style or that the account owner was in a different physical location than the IP that the info was posted from.

If the account was "borrowed", the owner should be considered responsible for the information and has the ability to remove it if incorrect.

LEO are able to use such accounts to arrest and convict people based on information in accounts.

That isn't the way the law works. There is no "default implication" that a statement outside of court comes from a particular person.

It has to be authenticated.

Think about it outside of this case. Just relying on a weak standard like if it was posted on my account means I'm the one who posted it is almost as crazy as saying that a phone call made on my phone was made by me.

 

[TerryMathews]

yea I do. That case has nothing to do with what I said.

That case about responsibility for the use of something a person owns. Like for example if you leave your car running outside Walmart and a kid jumps in and runs over somebody you'd be at least partly responsible.

That has nothing to do with authenticating that a Tweet was made by a particular person not to mention establishing the purpose or intent of whover tweeted the tweet.

That case is one of a multitude that allows you to tie a person to an IP to activity based on computer ownership and ISP records with reasonable certainity. Please note, not beyond any reasonable doubt.

My contention is that if IP records bear out those posts originated from where we think they did, the judge would let the jury decide credibility.

I have case law to back my opinion. Please cite something for yours.

 

[airdata]

W/ respect to the items in your post that I bolded
1) A person is not negligent by keeping an eye out for strangers in ones neighborhood. Given that the community has a rash of breakins; you would be more negligent by ignoring a stranger walking around.

2) There is no evidence present that he was actively seeking a conflict. Everything has pointed to that he was actively trying to observe where TM was so as to report to the LEO that were on the way. If you have other evidence vs opinion/supposition that I have overlooked; please point it out that indicates he was looking for a conflict.

3) What witness stated that TM was running in fear? Not DeeDee. Not TM actions.

4) What evidence do you have the GZ chose to kill. He fired a shot; did he ever state it was intended to kill TM?

1) Rules of neighborhood watch set by the sanford PD explicitly state they're not to follow, chase after suspects. In chasing after Trayvon he was acting with gross negligence... You're an idiot not to consider this negligence.

2) Chasing after a fucking punk w\ the intent to not let that asshole get away is asking for trouble... He had to know the possible outcomes of chasing down a stranger like that.

3)DeeDee stated that Trayvon ran because Z was eyeballing him and stalking him in his car. He could have thought Zimmerman was going to rob rape and kill him in no specific order. Get the fuck out of here w\ your total lack of logic.

4)You're a fucking idiot. There's clear legal precedent for murder charges when a person's actions have the implied possibility of death. A gun meets that criteria each and every time. People have been convicted when people get ko'd and hit their heads.

So please.. before you quote post me again, get your fucking facts in order.

 

[corwin]

Post the source of your quoted information, please. I'll read the article you linked, then I'll know everything you know about adderall too.

Sadly he is pretty much correct, although it leaves out the particulars like Adderall is prescribed at a dose usually 10x or so less than the usual dose of meth...to abuse it you really need a pretty damn big supply if you want to do it more than once or twice per script

 

[Geosurface]

If the prosecution's case ends up resting on GZ possibly using a legal, prescribed drug that night, with no way of proving he had taken it around that time... and with him sounding completely normal and calm on his NEN call, well... good luck with that.

 

[TerryMathews]

I never made that claim that Adderal is the exact same thing as meth. Please quote it. I'll be waiting...:whiste:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=33450931&postcount=22018

You didnt say the words, however you were a member of the brigade.

 

[spidey07]

Martin's behavior and social media is extremely relevant.

Martin's behavior is "utterly relevant," O'Mara said. He added that Martin's social media accounts will reveal pictures of him engaging in "MMA-fighting," apparently referring to mixed-martial arts.

The teen's father, Tracy, said in a video posted by the Sentinel before the hearing that his son's school records were irrelevant to the case, and that he felt his son's character was being assassinated.

The judge ruled Friday that O'Mara can also subpoena Trayvon's girlfriend's Twitter account. Both Facebook and Twitter may fight these subpoenas.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/zimmerman-can-subpoena-social-media-2012-10#ixzz29mDXuNa1

 

[Tom]

That case is one of a multitude that allows you to tie a person to an IP to activity based on computer ownership and ISP records with reasonable certainity. Please note, not beyond any reasonable doubt.

My contention is that if IP records bear out those posts originated from where we think they did, the judge would let the jury decide credibility.

I have case law to back my opinion. Please cite something for yours.

In your case the ip address may have tied a pc to illegal activity and it could be established who owned the pc and therefore was responsible.

But being able to establish that a particular pc or cell phone was used to send a tweet or post on Facebook doesn't establish who sent the tweet or made the post.

And hey, I'm not trying to win a case, I'm just talking about what I think is a big problem with relying on things like Facebook or Twitter, in trials in general.

Suppose I hate fruitcake. But I post on Facebook, hey grandma, thanks for the delicious fruitcake, its one of my favorite things.

Then there's a rash of fruitcake burglaries and for one reason or other I'm a suspect.

Is it proper to use what I posted on Facebook to impeach me when I say I hate fruitcake ?

 

[Druidx]

Sadly he is pretty much correct, although it leaves out the particulars like Adderall is prescribed at a dose usually 10x or so less than the usual dose of meth...to abuse it you really need a pretty damn big supply if you want to do it more than once or twice per script

Methamphetamine / Dextroamphetamine.
OMG they both have amphetamine in the name. It's proof GZ was a Psychotic drug induced rampaging killer. If you're airdata, you ignore things like prescription, usage and potency.

 

[corwin]

Is it proper to use what I posted on Facebook to impeach me when I say I hate fruitcake ?

Yes it is, there's proof you love it and nothing but you lying about not liking it

Your hypothetical isn't even close to comparable, but you are entitled to your opinion