Trayvon had drugs in his system and all injuries show signs of a struggle.

[Purr]

So, is there anyone on the IC with a law degree or in law school that can give me better insight on this case?

anyone?

 

[Purr]

So, is there anyone on the IC with a law degree or in law school that can give me better insight on this case?

anyone?

No? oh.... so, there's no actual expert in the field of law on the IC?

Yet, there are plenty of people pulling quotes, stats, "evidence"

 

[fiat_money]

@fiat

they didn't say that, so this would just be your opinion. you could say that's just their opinion to, but seeing as they wrote the law, their opinion would hold more weight.

Basic reasoning, based on the actual law as it is written, taken directly from the Florida Senate's government website:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.

Unless you can prove that Zimmerman could not "reasonably believe that such force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself", then me saying the above law can apply here is correct.

If they say the law does not apply here, even though, as it is written above, the law can apply here; then there is a difference in the law as it is written and as they envision it.

If they wrote the law, and there was a difference in the law as it was written and as they envisioned it; then they mis-wrote it.

Either that, or they simply changed their minds after the fact.

reposting the laws over and over again doesn't do much when the authors of the law already spoke their views on this case. You said maybe they miswrote the law, they don't think so, a more accurate depiction would be maybe people are misinterpreting the law. The authors said the law does not apply in this case when Zimmerman began to pursue trayvon, regardless of if you want to believe he stopped pursuing him at some point. Its irrational and illogical to think that any law would support someone using deadly force on anyone they feel is a threat to them, especially if they pursued them in the first place. I could be wrong, but the author's themselves, who wrote the law, seem to be saying the same thing about this particular case. I haven't heard them speak out on other stand your ground laws and say this, and there are a few of these cases going on in florida right now. The fact that they said something about this case, is very telling and wont look good for the defense if this is what they plan to use.

I re-post the law, since the law and how it applies to this case is what's being discussed here. Even if the authors say it doesn't apply, that does not change what is written. I could say "Anyone who eats an apple should be killed.", if someone eats an apple; and I later say this does not apply to them, that does not change what I wrote.

The main reason we have a judicial branch of government is because the legislative branch is not the "be-all and end-all" when it comes to the application and interpretation of laws.

So, the moment what they wrote became a law, their conclusions on what it applied to became inconsequential.

Therefore, since the judicial system interprets/applies the laws, and doesn't simply make rulings based on the feelings of legislators; the law, as it is written, is of the utmost preponderance here.

And the law, as it is written, can be applied to Zimmerman in this case.

 

[idoitforhiphop10]

@riddlerap... FACTS are GZ has the criminal background, anger management and alcohol abuse issues...

u wont address that tho..

so everyone should be judged by only their negative past, oh ok. lets be rational!

But yet Trayvon is being judged by having weed in his system, havin a grill in his mouth, and havin a picture of him flippin the bird at the camera. White people do drugs all the time, even worse drugs than blacks, but none of them we're ever judged as thugs. This case is really bringin out you racists' true colors.

 

[Hyde Parke]

ultimately a jury of Zimmerman's peers(people like you, I and others) commenting on this will decide this case, and having a law degree or being a law student is not a requirement to be a juror.

 

[Purr]

ultimately a jury of Zimmerman's peers(people like you, I and others) commenting on this will decide this case, and having a law degree or being a law student is not a requirement to be a juror.

Yet, the evidence would be presented to the jurors by experts aka lawyers, you know those people that went to law school, took the bar exams & passed it.

 

[riddlerap]

ultimately a jury of Zimmerman's peers(people like you, I and others) commenting on this will decide this case, and having a law degree or being a law student is not a requirement to be a juror.

Yet, the evidence would be presented to the jurors by experts aka lawyers, you know those people that went to law school, took the bar exams & passed it.

so it'd make you feel better if the lawyer came on to the IC to post what people like fiat are posting/linking? its the same info.

 

[Hyde Parke]

@fiat

they didn't say that, so this would just be your opinion. you could say that's just their opinion to, but seeing as they wrote the law, their opinion would hold more weight.

Basic reasoning, based on the actual law as it is written, taken directly from the Florida Senate's government website:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.

Unless you can prove that Zimmerman could not "reasonably believe that such force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself", then me saying the above law can apply here is correct.

If they say the law does not apply here, even though, as it is written above, the law can apply here; then there is a difference in the law as it is written and as they envision it.

If they wrote the law, and there was a difference in the law as it was written and as they envisioned it; then they mis-wrote it.

Either that, or they simply changed their minds after the fact.

reposting the laws over and over again doesn't do much when the authors of the law already spoke their views on this case. You said maybe they miswrote the law, they don't think so, a more accurate depiction would be maybe people are misinterpreting the law. The authors said the law does not apply in this case when Zimmerman began to pursue trayvon, regardless of if you want to believe he stopped pursuing him at some point. Its irrational and illogical to think that any law would support someone using deadly force on anyone they feel is a threat to them, especially if they pursued them in the first place. I could be wrong, but the author's themselves, who wrote the law, seem to be saying the same thing about this particular case. I haven't heard them speak out on other stand your ground laws and say this, and there are a few of these cases going on in florida right now. The fact that they said something about this case, is very telling and wont look good for the defense if this is what they plan to use.

I re-post the law, since the law and how it applies to this case is what's being discussed here. Even if the authors say it doesn't apply, that does not change what is written. I could say "Anyone who eats an apple should be killed.", if someone eats an apple; and I later say this does not apply to them, that does not change what I wrote.

The main reason we have a judicial branch of government is because the legislative branch is not the "be-all and end-all" when it comes to the application and interpretation of laws.

So, the moment what they wrote became a law, their conclusions on what it applied to became inconsequential.

Therefore, since the judicial system interprets/applies the laws, and doesn't simply make rulings based on the feelings of legislators; the law, as it is written, is of the utmost preponderance here.

And the law, as it is written, can be applied to Zimmerman in this case.

interesting you say rulings aren't based on feelings of the legislators, but you have feelings that the law can be applied to zimmerman. you cant say its not a feeling because you don't have all the facts of this case. at some point you have to have a "feeling" about it. you saying the law can be applied to zimmerman, doesn't make this a fact, esp when the authors have stated otherwise, another indication of you having feelings about it. you take the last word on this, because no matter what you say, it wont manipulate my thought process. they wrote the law, so therefore they would have a better understanding of it then you, I , or anyone else.

 

[Hyde Parke]

ultimately a jury of Zimmerman's peers(people like you, I and others) commenting on this will decide this case, and having a law degree or being a law student is not a requirement to be a juror.

Yet, the evidence would be presented to the jurors by experts aka lawyers, you know those people that went to law school, took the bar exams & passed it.

we aren't in a court of law trying the case, we are discussing it on an internet message board, which again is not a requirement to have a degree in law, or be a student of law. if you need legal advice on this case, this would obviously not be the place to seek it.

 

[Purr]

ultimately a jury of Zimmerman's peers(people like you, I and others) commenting on this will decide this case, and having a law degree or being a law student is not a requirement to be a juror.

Yet, the evidence would be presented to the jurors by experts aka lawyers, you know those people that went to law school, took the bar exams & passed it.

so it'd make you feel better if the lawyer came on to the IC to post what people like fiat are posting/linking? its the same info.

actually, yes. However, did you know that 50 was in the hospital? I almost cried

ultimately a jury of Zimmerman's peers(people like you, I and others) commenting on this will decide this case, and having a law degree or being a law student is not a requirement to be a juror.

Yet, the evidence would be presented to the jurors by experts aka lawyers, you know those people that went to law school, took the bar exams & passed it.

we aren't in a court of law trying the case, we are discussing it on an internet message board, which again is not a requirement to have a degree in law, or be a student of law. if you need legal advice on this case, this would obviously not be the place to seek it.

You mad? Are you in Law School? Did you pass the bar to be a lawyer to give expert advice on this topic.

Keyword is expert. All of you guys are just stating opinions, tbh.

 

[Hyde Parke]

@Charlie_danger

you stating the obvious baby. do you have a degree in everything you speak on? I don't think anyone in here said they were an expert, in law school, or had a law degree. reiterating that we are not in court trying the case, actually makes you seem to be the mad one by asking the question at least 2x then replying to yourself.

 

[fiat_money]

@fiat

they didn't say that, so this would just be your opinion. you could say that's just their opinion to, but seeing as they wrote the law, their opinion would hold more weight.

Basic reasoning, based on the actual law as it is written, taken directly from the Florida Senate's government website:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.

Unless you can prove that Zimmerman could not "reasonably believe that such force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself", then me saying the above law can apply here is correct.

If they say the law does not apply here, even though, as it is written above, the law can apply here; then there is a difference in the law as it is written and as they envision it.

If they wrote the law, and there was a difference in the law as it was written and as they envisioned it; then they mis-wrote it.

Either that, or they simply changed their minds after the fact.

reposting the laws over and over again doesn't do much when the authors of the law already spoke their views on this case. You said maybe they miswrote the law, they don't think so, a more accurate depiction would be maybe people are misinterpreting the law. The authors said the law does not apply in this case when Zimmerman began to pursue trayvon, regardless of if you want to believe he stopped pursuing him at some point. Its irrational and illogical to think that any law would support someone using deadly force on anyone they feel is a threat to them, especially if they pursued them in the first place. I could be wrong, but the author's themselves, who wrote the law, seem to be saying the same thing about this particular case. I haven't heard them speak out on other stand your ground laws and say this, and there are a few of these cases going on in florida right now. The fact that they said something about this case, is very telling and wont look good for the defense if this is what they plan to use.

I re-post the law, since the law and how it applies to this case is what's being discussed here. Even if the authors say it doesn't apply, that does not change what is written. I could say "Anyone who eats an apple should be killed.", if someone eats an apple; and I later say this does not apply to them, that does not change what I wrote.

The main reason we have a judicial branch of government is because the legislative branch is not the "be-all and end-all" when it comes to the application and interpretation of laws.

So, the moment what they wrote became a law, their conclusions on what it applied to became inconsequential.

Therefore, since the judicial system interprets/applies the laws, and doesn't simply make rulings based on the feelings of legislators; the law, as it is written, is of the utmost preponderance here.

And the law, as it is written, can be applied to Zimmerman in this case.

interesting you say rulings aren't based on feelings of the legislators, but you have feelings that the law can be applied to zimmerman. you cant say its not a feeling because you don't have all the facts of this case. at some point you have to have a "feeling" about it. you saying the law can be applied to zimmerman, doesn't make this a fact, esp when the authors have stated otherwise, another indication of you having feelings about it. you take the last word on this, because no matter what you say, it wont manipulate my thought process. they wrote the law, so therefore they would have a better understanding of it then you, I , or anyone else.

You can have whatever thought process you want; but the fact remains that in the US government, the judicial system is tasked with interpreting and applying the laws, not the legislators.

In fact, since the legislator you're attempting to do an appeal to authority to, assumed Zimmerman confronted Treyvon--although that has yet to be proven--to arrive at his conclusion, this serves as an example as to why the opinions of legislators are inconsequential when it comes to the interpretation and application of written law:

Mr. Zimmerman's unnecessary pursuit and confrontation of Trayvon Martin elevated the prospect of a violent episode and does not seem to be an act of self-defense as defined by the castle doctrine. There is no protection in the ‘Stand Your Ground’ law for anyone who pursues and confronts people. - Rep. Dennis Baxley

^^So yeh, in addition to the lack of a "non-pursuit" clause in the written law to validate what he is saying; the unsubstantiated assumption further weakens his claim.

 

[Purr]

@Charlie_danger

you stating the obvious baby. do you have a degree in everything you speak on? I don't think anyone in here said they were an expert, in law school, or had a law degree. reiterating that we are not in court trying the case, actually makes you seem to be the mad one by asking the question at least 2x then replying to yourself.

Im not mad, Im just ANGRY that someone would ignore my most amazing question ever on the IC.

Plus, I am asking for someone's point of view that are in the field of law on their expert opinion on the case..

Only in english and psychology, that's where my degrees be for

 

[Hyde Parke]

@fiat

they didn't say that, so this would just be your opinion. you could say that's just their opinion to, but seeing as they wrote the law, their opinion would hold more weight.

Basic reasoning, based on the actual law as it is written, taken directly from the Florida Senate's government website:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.

Unless you can prove that Zimmerman could not "reasonably believe that such force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself", then me saying the above law can apply here is correct.

If they say the law does not apply here, even though, as it is written above, the law can apply here; then there is a difference in the law as it is written and as they envision it.

If they wrote the law, and there was a difference in the law as it was written and as they envisioned it; then they mis-wrote it.

Either that, or they simply changed their minds after the fact.

reposting the laws over and over again doesn't do much when the authors of the law already spoke their views on this case. You said maybe they miswrote the law, they don't think so, a more accurate depiction would be maybe people are misinterpreting the law. The authors said the law does not apply in this case when Zimmerman began to pursue trayvon, regardless of if you want to believe he stopped pursuing him at some point. Its irrational and illogical to think that any law would support someone using deadly force on anyone they feel is a threat to them, especially if they pursued them in the first place. I could be wrong, but the author's themselves, who wrote the law, seem to be saying the same thing about this particular case. I haven't heard them speak out on other stand your ground laws and say this, and there are a few of these cases going on in florida right now. The fact that they said something about this case, is very telling and wont look good for the defense if this is what they plan to use.

I re-post the law, since the law and how it applies to this case is what's being discussed here. Even if the authors say it doesn't apply, that does not change what is written. I could say "Anyone who eats an apple should be killed.", if someone eats an apple; and I later say this does not apply to them, that does not change what I wrote.

The main reason we have a judicial branch of government is because the legislative branch is not the "be-all and end-all" when it comes to the application and interpretation of laws.

So, the moment what they wrote became a law, their conclusions on what it applied to became inconsequential.

Therefore, since the judicial system interprets/applies the laws, and doesn't simply make rulings based on the feelings of legislators; the law, as it is written, is of the utmost preponderance here.

And the law, as it is written, can be applied to Zimmerman in this case.

interesting you say rulings aren't based on feelings of the legislators, but you have feelings that the law can be applied to zimmerman. you cant say its not a feeling because you don't have all the facts of this case. at some point you have to have a "feeling" about it. you saying the law can be applied to zimmerman, doesn't make this a fact, esp when the authors have stated otherwise, another indication of you having feelings about it. you take the last word on this, because no matter what you say, it wont manipulate my thought process. they wrote the law, so therefore they would have a better understanding of it then you, I , or anyone else.

You can have whatever thought process you want; but the fact remains that in the US government, the judicial system is tasked with interpreting and applying the laws, not the legislators.

In fact, since the legislator you're attempting to do an appeal to authority to, assumed Zimmerman confronted Treyvon--although that has yet to be proven--to arrive at his conclusion, this serves as an example as to why the opinions of legislators are inconsequential when it comes to the interpretation and application of written law:

Mr. Zimmerman's unnecessary pursuit and confrontation of Trayvon Martin elevated the prospect of a violent episode and does not seem to be an act of self-defense as defined by the castle doctrine. There is no protection in the ‘Stand Your Ground’ law for anyone who pursues and confronts people. - Rep. Dennis Baxley

^^So yeh, in addition to the lack of a "non-pursuit" clause in the written law to validate what he is saying; the unsubstantiated assumption further weakens his claim.

you are assuming also, so your point is no better than the legislators. its all assumption when you were not there, therefore you cannot say as a matter of fact the law applies to zimmerman, you just want it to because all along you've been posting this law, unaware that the very makers of the law don't think it applies here. lack of the non-pursuit doesn't weaken his stance, its not there because any reasonable person knows that if you start a fight and happen to be getting your ass kicked, that does not give you the right to end someone's life. I don't know what to say if you believe otherwise. its interesting that you are now trying to disprove the statement of the author of the law that you've been in here crusading all along.

 

[Hyde Parke]

@Charlie_danger

you stating the obvious baby. do you have a degree in everything you speak on? I don't think anyone in here said they were an expert, in law school, or had a law degree. reiterating that we are not in court trying the case, actually makes you seem to be the mad one by asking the question at least 2x then replying to yourself.

Im not mad, Im just ANGRY that someone would ignore my most amazing question ever on the IC.

Plus, I am asking for someone's point of view that are in the field of law on their expert opinion on the case..

Only in english and psychology, that's where my degrees be for

well I hope someone who has a law degree comes in here and gives you what it Is you want

 

[Purr]

@Charlie_danger

you stating the obvious baby. do you have a degree in everything you speak on? I don't think anyone in here said they were an expert, in law school, or had a law degree. reiterating that we are not in court trying the case, actually makes you seem to be the mad one by asking the question at least 2x then replying to yourself.

Im not mad, Im just ANGRY that someone would ignore my most amazing question ever on the IC.

Plus, I am asking for someone's point of view that are in the field of law on their expert opinion on the case..

Only in english and psychology, that's where my degrees be for

well I hope someone who has a law degree comes in here and gives you what it Is you want

thank you..

Cause it's quite clear that we had both wasted font on you catching feelings over my question when it's quite clear that you are not an expert of the law.

 

[cobbland]

@Charlie_danger

you stating the obvious baby. do you have a degree in everything you speak on? I don't think anyone in here said they were an expert, in law school, or had a law degree. reiterating that we are not in court trying the case, actually makes you seem to be the mad one by asking the question at least 2x then replying to yourself.

Im not mad, Im just ANGRY that someone would ignore my most amazing question ever on the IC.

Plus, I am asking for someone's point of view that are in the field of law on their expert opinion on the case..

Only in english and psychology, that's where my degrees be for

well I hope someone who has a law degree comes in here and gives you what it Is you want

thank you..

Cause it's quite clear that we had both wasted font on you catching feelings over my question when it's quite clear that you are not an expert of the law.

For what its worth, not all law experts are going to give a clear, concise, straight down the middle interpretation of the case at hand.

History shows this.

 

[Purr]

@Charlie_danger

you stating the obvious baby. do you have a degree in everything you speak on? I don't think anyone in here said they were an expert, in law school, or had a law degree. reiterating that we are not in court trying the case, actually makes you seem to be the mad one by asking the question at least 2x then replying to yourself.

Im not mad, Im just ANGRY that someone would ignore my most amazing question ever on the IC.

Plus, I am asking for someone's point of view that are in the field of law on their expert opinion on the case..

Only in english and psychology, that's where my degrees be for

well I hope someone who has a law degree comes in here and gives you what it Is you want

thank you..

Cause it's quite clear that we had both wasted font on you catching feelings over my question when it's quite clear that you are not an expert of the law.

For what its worth, not all law experts are going to give a clear, concise, straight down the middle interpretation of the case at hand.

History shows this.

I know that, silly. I wanted to know their expert opinion on this matter. whether it's clear or not. it is a great case for a lawyer/ law student.

 

[fiat_money]

you are assuming also, so your point is no better than the legislators. its all assumption when you were not there, therefore you cannot say as a matter of fact the law applies to zimmerman, you just want it to because all along you've been posting this law, unaware that the very makers of the law don't think it applies here. lack of the non-pursuit doesn't weaken his stance, its not there because any reasonable person knows that if you start a fight and happen to be getting your ass kicked, that does not give you the right to end someone's life. I don't know what to say if you believe otherwise. its interesting that you are now trying to disprove the statement of the author of the law that you've been in here crusading all along.

The bolded is false, since I never said that the law does apply nor have I assumed which individual confronted the other. I said the law can apply to Zimmerman; meaning it is a possible outcome. The italicized is moot conjecture, since there is a portion of the law (776.041) that addresses the described scenario.

The underlined is also false, since I addressed it several weeks ago:

Here is what the authors (Former Sen. Durell Peaden and Rep. Dennis Baxley) of the law you claimed say:

If Zimmerman had the right to defend himself when he felt he was threatened by Martin, then doesn't surely an unarmed teenager have a far greater right to respond to the same "reasonable fear" when being followed by a man in an SUV carrying an automatic weapon?

That's the conclusion former Sen. Peaden has come to, especially after the release of 159 that indicate Zimmerman pursued Martin despite the dispatcher telling him to wait. He argues that Stand Your Ground is about the right to defend oneself when in imminent danger, something he doesn't see anywhere in the case.

"The guy lost his defense right then," Peaden told the Miami Herald. "When he said 'I'm following him,' he lost his defense."

Rep. Baxley agrees with Peaden, saying the law wasn't meant to aid those who feel "like they have the authority to pursue and confront people."

"That is aggravating an incident right there," he concluded, arguing that Zimmerman's actions were separate from and unprotected by Stand Your Ground and similar legislation.

He lost this case when he decided to follow him, here is more on this:

According to transcripts of the 911 calls, a police dispatcher tells Zimmerman he doesn’t need to follow the teen, but Zimmerman apparently does anyway. So is he or the teen the one who feels threatened?

The Department of Justice has launched an investigation into the death of the teen shot in the picturesque city of Sanford, Fla. NBC's Ron Allen reports.

“The question again is whether he (Zimmerman) acted reasonably or not. At this point it doesn’t look good for him, but I don’t know what the heck happened and quite frankly no one else does either,” says Jon H. Gutmacher, an Orlando attorney, NRA-certified instructor and author of "Florida Firearms: Law, Use & Ownership."

"Florida recognizes that the danger need not be actual," said Brener. "But it must be reasonable for the person to believe that deadly force was necessary, and it must be imminent. So it's not enough to say I had an honest belief that he was going to use deadly force on me. That belief has to be reasonable."

It's that issue of the reasonableness of Zimmerman's belief that he faced a deadly threat that could offer prosecutors a path to bringing charges. Martin, of course, was carrying only a bag of Skittles and an iced tea.

I don't see him winning this one at all but let's wait and see...at the close of the play we can bump this thread

If they felt that way, they should've included some kind of "non pursuit" clause when they wrote the law.

As the law is presently written, one can follow someone, confront them, then kill them after the confrontation turns out unfavorably enough for them to feel their life is in danger; and they will have "stood their ground".

I've said it previously, but my argument is based on the publicly available information about this case and Florida law as it is written. I haven't "crusaded" for the law, I've merely said that it can be applied here. So even the writer of that very same law is not above refutation if he makes refutable statements.

 

[Hyde Parke]

@fiat, that aggressor clause 776.041 is not available to anyone attempting to commit, or in the act of committing a felony, which could be argued by the prosecution that Zimmerman committed aggravated battery on trayvon 1st. so if is unknown who confronted who, or who landed the first punch, you could also say the law does not apply here.

true, the writer of the law is not about refutation, I would still consider his opinion to be valid. I would think he has more information on the case then the rest of the public.

im out tho, have to continue this on another day.

.