George Zimmerman found Not Guilty.

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Saturnine Pariah, Jul 14, 2013.

  1. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    No, not "damaging punches", just punches (or other physical violence). Zimmerman may have thrown a punch that didn't land, it's just that without injury to Martin, there is no evidence of a thrown punch. You're really not comprehending what I'm saying. A little tip: I'm not trying to trick you. I mean exactly what I'm saying.
    Oy:
    1. You mixed together physical and non-physical (probably on purpose). Only the physical matters here. I'll let you figure out which is which.
    1a. There is no evidence of any physical action by Zimmerman during/starting the fight until he fired the gun.
    2. "Provocations". Again, you're trying to twist the wording. We're not talking about a "provocation", we're talking about an actual fight.
    I see a lot of inconsistency and embellishment in your narrative, much less in Zimmerman's. No, Zimmerman's wasn't perfect but your are trying to embellish it to make it much more imperfect than it really was. There has to be some reason why you are letting your conclusion drive your logic and not the other way around (note: I did not mention racism).
    Zimmerman did not sustain the injuries by accident while playing a sport!
    You're misdirecting again. No one is saying that the injuries Zimmerman had could have been fatal. All they say is that Martin was inflicting (not threatening) bodily harm, for which Zimmerman had a right to defend himself. And given that:
    1. Zimmerman could not stop the bodily harm in any other way than with his gun.
    2. Zimmerman didn't know how much more bodily harm Martin would inflict, up to and possibly including killing him...

    Deadly force was justified in stopping the attack.
    You're being ridiculous. Breaking your nose hurts and people scream when on the losing end of fights all the time, whether or not they are life threatening. In addition, 37 seconds would have been an awful long time for them to have been fighting over the gun without it going off. Zimmerman's version is consistent with the events and logic. Yours is not. And again, your implication that I said Zimmerman's injuries were life threatening (or that they needed to be) is intentionally deceptive.
    I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say here, but I'll try to respond: If you're guilty, then lying and hoping the jury buys it may be your only way out. If you are innocent, then telling the truth is definitely the better course of action, even if the truth isn't pretty. Lying to make the story prettier, if discovered, will damage your entire credibility in defending yourself. It is a big and unnecessary risk, particularly when there is little evidence on which to convict you. I suppose you're wishing Zimmerman had told big lies and been caught in them, as it would have helped gain a conviction.
    You're being intentionally dense. They were not on a soccer field and there is no other reasonable explanation for Zimmerman's injuries than that they had been sustained in the fight.
    Clearly. I use 95% as an example, not as an exact standard. It could be 97%. It could be 90%. But it isn't likely to be less than that. But what we do know is that is is much more than 51% certainty. Reasonable doubt means eliminating unreasonable possibilities, like the possibility that Zimmerman broke his nose playing soccer right before spotting Martin. Part of the prosecution's job is to try to trick the jury into thinking the burden of proof is lower while part of the judge's job is to make sure they don't succeed. We're not bound by that. We should be smart and objective enough to see through that, since we aren't being paid to try to convict him or defend him.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Speaking of nonsense, I'd love to know where you get the idea that Martin was chasing Zimmerman. And how you know Martin was unaware of the gun.

    The trend emerging from these micro-convos in this thread is that the people who question Zimmerman's motives don't pretend to know exactly what happened, whereas those who defend this scumbag pretend to know every detail.

    And following someone at night, both in a car and on foot, certainly is harassment. It's plenty of reason to suspect the person means you harm.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Dp..................
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2013
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    It is well established by the known parts of the timeline and locations of events (where the car was, where Zimmerman walked and how long he walked, where the physical altercation was) that Zimmerman lost contact with Martin and started walking back to his car before Martin accosted him. And I can't really be sure if "chase" 100% accurate - it is probably more "stalking" if Martin accosted him from behind, which is what appears happened.

    Just to be clear here though: you are aware that (and accept) Zimmerman lost contact (sight of) Martin for quite a while before the altercation, right?
    When Zimmerman got out of his car, he only had two hands. One was on his cell phone and the other had to have been free to close the car door. Then after losing sight of Martin and starting to walk back to his car, he would have had no reason to have it out. Plus, Martin didnt mention it to his friend. We can't be sure exactly when he went for it at the final altercation, but we can be pretty sure that before the final altercation, he never had it out.
    That's BS and you know it. The people in that camp are making crazy and certain claims about Zimmerman - claims that are necessary to support their preferred fantasy of what happened.
    You mean Martin? Oh, right, you mean Zimmerman. Quite wrong. I've stated multiple times - in virtually every post - that we can't know the most likely version of the events with certainty, nor do we need to.
    Martin definitely had a right to be suspicious, but "suspect" is not a threat. Martin should have dealt with the situation more responsibly. His irresponsibility had a direct bearing on what happened, which is why Zimmerman is free.
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2013
  8. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,519
    That a matter of opinion where the evidence "leans", certainly an almost all white female jury is likely to have opinions on where the evidence leans on the state of a black teenager as aggressor or not. It requires ignoring other evidence like the account of Zimmerman phone call for example and makes the fairness and accuracy of the verdict questionable.

    Seriously, evening verse night matters? Fuck had it been "night" I would think that would favor Zimmerman: black boy walking home from the store for candy between 10 pm and 2 am sounds a little more suspicious than 7:00 pm!

    Now your being paranoid and petty.

    And this evidence is? All you have is the claims by Zimmerman, that he was walking back from his car, we have no actual proof of what pace and exact direction Zimmerman or Martian were, but despite all that you claim the evidence 'leans' in favor of Martian attacking Zimmerman.

    Leaving his car to chase someone he thinks is a burgle sounds like evidence against Zimmerman to me, and is at least evidence we have proof of. This is not a criminal trial by the way, this is online opinions expressed on some random forum on the internet, the requirements of 'burden of proof' by the state to prove Zimmerman guilt 'beyond reasonable doubt' don't stand here. Rather this is a place of debating public opinion on zimmerman and martian, as we have seen opinions run the full gamete from Zimmerman is a hero and Martian a nigger criminal-to-be to Zimmerman was a racist murderer and Martian nothing more then caught for committing the crime of "breathing while black", and at this point it does not seem like anyone's opinion is going to change.
     
  9. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    No, Zimmerman's story is that he lost sight of Martin and began walking back to his car before Martin confronted him. That's his side. There's no evidence to support him, and it makes zero sense that Trayvon would run away from a guy only to turn around and pick a fight with him.

    Again, Zimmerman says he lost sight of him, but we only have his word, and I've got no reason to believe him, and every reason to be suspect he's not telling the whole truth. At any rate, I don't see the relevance of this point.

    What a load of crap. Holding a gun in no way would prevent you from closing a car door, anymore than holding groceries or your kid does. He was carrying a handgun, not a goddamn bazooka. And even then he could have closed the door with his shoulder or even his backside.

    That's supposing Zimmerman is telling the truth. Trayvon's girlfriend says that Martin thought he had lost the guy. Care to explain why he'd lie to her about it? I don't believe Zimmerman ever gave up his pursuit.

    Ridiculous. Just in our brief conversation you've made huge assumptions without basis, like the illogical leap that Zimmerman couldn't have had his gun out because he needed that hand to close the door, and the assumption that Trayvon pursued Zimmerman when all parties involved (Zimmerman himself, and Trayvon's girl) both indicate that Martin was trying to get away from him. How you get from "He's running away" to "He's the aggressor" is a leap you can't explain, yet have no qualms with accepting and passing off as fact.

    See, this is part of the problem. Even if your concocted BS scenario were true, the worst thing Trayvon Martin was guilty of morally was making a bad decision. At worst, he changed his mind about running from a guy who was running after him and decided to face off with him. Yet even without having any evidence to suggest that's what happened, you accept it and consider Martin to be a scumbag, or some thug or something. All the kid did was fight, and neither context would make him an awful person. So what gives?

    Yet you've made every attempt to claim exactly the opposite.

    Nonsense. By all accounts (and logic) Trayvon Martin was trying to get away from a man who was chasing after him both by car and on foot. We know Zimmerman was armed, and it's entirely possible that Trayvon found out prior to the fight. It may well have been what set the encounter off. It certainly would make sense, just as it would make sense that the guy who didn't listen to the dispatcher telling him not to follow Martin also decided to take matters into his own hands when he found the kid. But instead we'll just believe that Trayvon's some monster, because villainizing the black teenager is easier than accepting that a black teenager was victimized by someone other than another black teenager.
     
  10. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Of course. For thingss that aren't known for sure, subjective judgements about evidence quality must be considered. But...
    Wow, ok. So you're saying the jury "likely" voted based on racism. That's....wow. Even if we don't know the jury's bias for sure (heck, we've never even met them and no almost nothing about them!), at least we know yours! Don't be so quick to assume the motives of people you know virtually nothing about.

    And even if it were true, we aren't bound by that here. We should be trying to make those judgements based on the facts, logic and the law, not fantasy - or worse, racism - which is what most of the anti-Zimmerman judgements are based on since there is essentially no evidence to contradict the narrative the jury accepted.
    What evidence in the phone call? Zimmerman's phone call and his account after are near perfectly consistent with each other.
    I think you mean to his car. But yes, that's part of the evidence. As are the content of his phone call to police and Martin's to his friend. No, those can't be considered iron-clad (in either direction), but with no significant inconsistency in his story, including those statements made to the police over the phone (which would require him to have prior knowledge of what was about to happen in order to fake), the evidence leans in his favor.
    Focus, ElectricFetus. That's not what we were talking about. That quote was in reference to who started the fight (threw the first punch). You're losing control of your thought processes.

    Then stop referencing the criminal trial. But just so we're clear, my purpose here is singular: to discuss whether the verdict was correct as a matter of the law. You clearly do not believe it was: Arguing that the jury made the wrong decision based on racism (which you just did above) means you think that the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of proof can be met. Quite simply, you're wrong. Zimmerman won the case because the evidence shown did not support the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
     
  11. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,088
    @ Electric Fetus,
    You don't even appear to know this case well enough to know Treyvons name and have repeatedly referred to him as Martian.

    @ Ballerion and Wegs,

    Martin was out of sight during the police call at the T intersection (crime scene). His GF Deedee claims he went in the direction of his house and made it home and claimed GZ was not in sight. Treyvons brother (see video in my last post) said Treyvon went through the back gate and was on the porch. This completely matches the timeline. Watch the re enactment video in my last post. The time Treyvon was out of sight was minimum 88 seconds based on the police phone call alone, and possibly longer after the phone call in which he had gone in the direction of his home 300 feet away,

    300 feet in 88 seconds. Treyvon could walk slowly and be at home watching television in that amount of time, but it was raining and Treyvon was 6'2" and it appeared he liked to run in the rain, and was running a few times.

    The point is how did a fight break out 300 feet North of Treyvons home on the other pathway crossing between streets. This was the exact location the police told GZ to "We don't need you to do that" regarding following, and Treyvon was out of sight at that time.

    This leaves 3 choices.

    a) GZ went to Treyvons home and in front of his family marched him at gunpoint to the place of the fight.

    b) Treyvon had left his back porch to beat up GZ.

    c) he was going somewhere else, possibly to get a skittle refill.

    You know in order to argue here you should at LEAST look at the evidence.

    Pay attention to timeline from the door slam on. Also note GZ did not know the address and wanted police to call him, this makes it credible he did do as he said and crossed across top path looking for a street sign or address. Note how long Treyvon was out of sight and where he lives. Notice he called the place he was still at a "cutthrough", indicating that he was probably still on the East West cut through. It does not really matter because his account and Deedees both say GZ was out of sight, and Treyvon was by his dads house.

    [video=youtube;hj3_krn5mAQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj3_krn5mAQ[/video]


    Listen to Treyvons Brother say he made it home and went through the back gate onto the porch.

    [video=youtube;jIbHdS5OG6A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIbHdS5OG6A[/video]


    So he had all that time and was 300 feet from his house. How then did he end up at the crime scene unless he decided to go looking for GZ. Seriously. Nobody wants to answer this question, but he died in a location he was not at at least 2-3 minutes beforehand. Treyvons brother was never interviewed by police, but claimed Treyvon made it home and had money left over for pizza.

    Maybe he did have pizza money because he just did a drug deal. Someone put together this video of Treyvon at 7-11 and it does look suspiciously like a drug deal. Watch it and see for yourself.

    [video=youtube;3s4cp9hErSo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s4cp9hErSo[/video]

    According to some Treyvon was a known drug dealer. We know from his phone texts he bought and sold guns to kids and at least smoked weed. This coupled with various other things like people "Wanting plant" on his facebook page, etc make it a short leap to conclude it was likely. The above video appears to tell a tale.

    I don't know too many people (even kids) that will walk a mile just to get skittles and a small drink, and his brother was planning on ordering (and did order) pizza.
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2013
  12. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    I missed this one:
    You're losing track of your own arguments again. You were arguing that the circumstances made Zimmerman look suspicious and your words were chosen to support that. That you keep losing track implies to me that you aren't putting much thought into this; you are just flinging whatever crap pops into your head at the wall and hoping something sticks.
     
  13. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Kwhilborn sums it up pretty well, but just to be succinct Balerion, it isn't just Zimmerman who says they were out of sight, Martin's friend says Martin said that - as you just pointed out. That makes it extremely unlikely that Zimmerman was lying about losing track of Martin. The likely scenario then (the one the jury accepted) is that Martin doubled-back in a hidden route and popped out to accost Zimmerman by surprise. It is YOU who is accusing Martin or his friend of lying, not me. More likely, both accounts are correct on that point: neither was lying

    Also worth noting Zimmerman's history of similar actions. He often called the police and got them to come check out suspicious characters. His statements and actions (the court established version) that night were completely consistent with that.

    And a bit more about the gun: as you are aware of Martin's conversation with his friend, I'm sure you know full well he never mentioned a gun.
     
  14. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    You misspelled his first name: it's Trayvon.
     
  15. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,088
    @ Fraggle Rocker..

    lol.. Kudos. I think I've spelled it that way in over 100 posts.

    I had started out with the correct spelling back at the beginning of the thread (page 24, etc), but have reverted to the way I would spell it. I have no idea where or why I started spelling it wrong in this thread.

    I went back even further and had spelled name wrong in the beginning also so it appears I have gone back and forth in that spelling.

    I still think Martian is a bit over the top spelling of Martin though.
     
  16. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,368
    Interesting to note, I was reading something about the SYG law, and it states that it does not apply if you 'flee' the scene, and then return later to assault someone. I'm not convinced of Zimmerman's story, but just throwing this out there, that if Martin went home...and then, came back out to confront Zimmerman, the SYG would fail to apply for HIM. I want to say that idea has been discussed in this thread, that maybe Martin was standing his ground. But, if he went home and came back to confront Zimmerman, that law doesn't apply. That would seem obvious, right? But, that small bridge of time whereby Zimmerman didn't see Martin, could be what caused the jury to arrive at its verdict.

    Just thought that was interesting.
     
  17. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,519
    That purely a matter of your opinion. How I use spell check or how it uses me is less evidence to my right to argue this then your right to post over and over again the same breakdowns and claims by others on youtube and all over the internet as if it was evidence and not speculation. For example we have no proof at what rate martIn was walking or how he dither with his conversation with his girlfriend, nor any proof how zimmerman moved such that they could be accuratly mapped by some random smuck on youtube.

    IF... of course that just a possibility, of which the jury likely judge as fact. A good probability though is based on how 'stand your ground' cases usually break against black victims that the jury choose possibilities as fact that favored the defended because the victim was black. That for a black victim's murderer to be charge the victim has to be far cleaner and the events in his favor then if he was white, heck we have people here claiming the victims interest in gansta culture as proof he deserved to die.
     
  18. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,368
    Oh, absolutely, I know.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    What is interesting to note about the SYG law and how that 'could' have applied to Martin, is apparently the incident that night, is being viewed as one, continuous incident. The 'break' in the time whereby Martin was out of view, and returned to where Zimmerman was...I personally would look at that as two incidents. And then, one could feasibly say that Martin had a right to stand his ground. (This would have to be based on Zimmerman causing the altercation, despite Martin ''returning'' to where Zimmerman was.)

    But, it seems that it's being viewed as one, continuous event, with a break for when Martin went out of view.

    Don't think we'll ever really know what happened that night. :/
     
  19. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,519
    [
    I have juror B37 claims as evidence enough.

    Facts like zimmerman choosing the leave his car and chase down someone, facts like the girlfriends testimony, facts like zimmerman's changing testimony, no that all fantasy to you? Tell me do you believe the jury was infallible? That they were not filled with human biases? You do believe in the law right? Being found not guilty does not mean someone did not commit murder it only means that the state could not successfully bring that charge to bare against the juries interpretation of the evidence and law.

    Aside for all the evidence to counter what the jury accepted.

    No I was speaking of his girlfriend's phone call.

    No please breakdown how the evidence 'leans in his favor'.

    and here comes the slander and petty insults. Your going on about burden of proof when all this started over who threw the first blow, I don't think you have any grounds to ask for thought process control at this point. Here a thought: nothing you say is going to change my mind on this case and vice versa I place as evidence: this thread.

    why not?

    But just so we're clear, my purpose here is singular: to discuss whether the verdict was correct as a matter of morality. You clearly do not believe it was: arguing that the jury made the right decision based on evidence that was contradictory and could have left to any conclusion based on juror bias. You believe that “beyond a reasonable doubt” is a real thing that means the same thing to every person and that justice can be distributed infallibly by it. Quite simply, you're wrong. Zimmerman won that case most probably because his victim was black.

    – traded strawman for strawman, want to go again? I can do this ad infinitum! --

    Fuck yeah, thread over, right, right? Nope.
     
  20. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,088
    @ Electric Fetus,
    There were many sources that gave us the mapped out timeline.

    From the video at 7-11 to the 911 calls where we heard the fatal gunshot there was corroboration between three sources plus witnesses. We have Deedee Trayvons Girlfriend describing what he was doing and saying. We have GZ accounts, backed up by the recorded police call. You can hear GZ shut his car door. This is the established route and timeline.
    ALSO ... Treyvons death was only 100 seconds (minute and half) after GZ hung up the telephone with Police.

    The Police have a time stamp on their recordings of Trayvons call, and have a time stamp on the various 911 calls that came from neighbors once the fight had started.

    This was a corroborated description of the route and timeline.

    If you want to suggest an alternate route or timeline that matches all the information then feel free to share it. There are a lot of Bogus videos out there from idiots and kids making facts up, but if you follow all the information accurately the video I posted is most accurate.

    Some things are common sense. If Trayvon had gone a different route then why did GZ need to get out of his truck and go on the pathway by foot? We heard GZ leave his vehicle. The door slam is on tape.

    This is the most commonly accepted version of events.

    If you wish to fantasize about some other route or make up some random facts go ahead, but that does not make them right.


    Treyvons body was 100 yards from his home. We know for a fact he was out of sight according to Deedee and GZ's phone records at least 118 seconds.

    GZ defence lawyer walked on hands and feet (crawled) to the home in under 30 seconds. Trayvon played football and could do the distance in 10 seconds (lawyers words on stand not my own).

    There is more than some reasonable doubt Trayvon went back for GZ.
     
  21. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,602
    SYG Is Just About Hunting Nonwhites; That's All It Is and All It Has Ever Been

    Well, a couple points on that one: In the Alexander case, the judge interpreted that aspect as tightly as possible in order to tip the scales toward her conviction.

    However, there's a delusional moron claiming SYG when he strapped on and stormed a neighbor's barbecue, killing two and failing to kill a third who escaped with his life and eleven bullet holes. The strange thing is that legal experts are up in the air on this one. As a common-sense test, no, SYG doesn't apply. As a Florida issue that will go before a jury, we don't really know. The thing is that he's claiming they somehow threatened him, verbally, and he chose to settle this long-running dispute by claiming mortal threat, sneaking up on them, and, well, the sound of standing one's ground is impressive.

    Right now, the way the SYG cases are lining up, the problem is that no one conviction or acquittal will erase the grotesque sentiments this law has inspired, that it is about hunting down ethnic minorities for sport.

    After all, the Dunn trial is coming up, and if a jury manages to convict the white man, it doesn't call off the racist dogs because, well, we're not certain why, exactly, he will be convicted.

    If he wins acquittal, we ought to take digging machines and physically cut Florida loose from the United States of America. If he's convicted, it might have nothing to do with his dodgy story about the idea that someone threatened his life with a gun and then sat there long enough for his self-heroic actions:

    What people are generally upset about is the fact that this is how it's supposed to go in Florida. George Zimmerman? Not guilty. Marissa Alexander? Well if she had shot and killed her husband, maybe she would have skated. Michael Dunn? One would presume he will be acquitted, except the bit about calling for pizza instead of informing police, and the lack of concern shown by his fiancee, who was present at the time, might hurt him when it comes to trial. Then again, he doesn't need to be in actual danger, he couldn't have known he actually killed anyone, as the car was speeding away as he shot it up, and nobody can prove that the dead black teenager didn't have a shotgun. It should be added, that last doesn't actually matter. Under SYG, all Dunn has to say is that he thought he saw a shotgun. Sure, he's apparently under mortal threat long enough to get into his car, open the glove box, remove the weapon, unholster it, chamber a round ("quicker than a flash", our would-be hero boasts), and start shooting. He admits he doesn't know what he heard (i.e., threats that frightened him), but insists he saw a shotgun. I don't know whether he's playing for the dumb Negro bit suggesting someone could be stupid enough to threaten him with a shotgun and then sit there while he retrieves his handgun from the car and starts shooting, or if we're supposed to believe that Dunn was dealing with Cleveland Brown, Jr. To the other, a grand jury has indicted Dunn on First Degree Murder charges, and while this might sound like a good thing, the prosecuter has pursued, and the grand jury endorsed, a charge that will be exceptionally difficult to prove. Dunn has a pretty good chance of skating. (#333)

    So while a judge was willing to enforce the idea of "fleeing" when Marissa Alexander left her home to retrieve the weapon with which she stood off her violent ex-husband, that, well, yeah, by the judge's logic—her stiff sentence was for endangering the children by firing the gun in their presence—she should have abandoned her children to a violent man with a criminal record whose answer to accusations of domestic violence is that he hit each of his five baby-mamas except that one, who is lying.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Keith Knight, June 23, 2013
    (via Daily Kos)

    We'll never know what happened that night, but that's the point of SYG: Convict the dead. It's a lot easier than actually using a justice system to figure out what really happened.

    If you're George Zimmerman, you get the presumption of the black kid's guilt.

    If you're Marissa Alexander, you get the presumption of your own guilt.

    If you're Michael Dunn? We'll see.

    If you're William Woodward? We'll see.

    In the end, I doubt either Dunn or Wood will be convicted for what they did in shooting someone. Rather, if they are convicted, it will be for their other actions. Dunn never called the police until he found out Jordan Davis was dead and the police wanted the shooter. He told the police that he didn't call them right away because he wanted to be at home, with his dog and family and friends, when he did; we still don't know what that means, because what he actually did was put gas in his car, drive to a hotel, and call for pizza. If he is convicted, then his behavior after the shooting will be the reason why.

    And while, in the Woodward case, the idea of changing definitions of the word "imminent" to include "things that could become, you know, an immediate threat", as the shooter's attorney explained, is at the heart of it. And here's the thing: Dunn tells a heroic story about how, under mortal threat from the gangish-looking black people, he managed to retrieve his weapon, chamber a round, and save the day. What Florida jury is going to convict him and thus deny themselves an opportunity to achieve the same heroic narrative? Woodward? He got mad at his neighbors in a long-running dispute, decided that they were threatening him—Florida sides with the living in these disputes, so Woodward never needs to provide any evidence that he was actually threatened—and then ambushed them in his neighbor's back yard. What Florida jury wants to give up the right to defend themselves as such? See, that's the thing. Both Dunn and Woodward seem terribly guilty by the laws that apply in my state, but my state is literally in the far corner of the continental states from Florida. It's a different world up here.

    The whole point of SYG is to make killing people legal. The problem with self-defense laws that SYG solves is that you no longer have to be defending yourself when you kill someone. Just choose the right target, the right circumstance, and stick to whatever heroic story you want to tell, and you can kill anyone. (Disclaimer: The preceding sentence is subject to restrictions according to skin color, as established by Florida institutions.)
     
  22. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,088
    @ Tiassa,

    Yes. Anyone facing trial should have the presumption of Innocence to start with, if that mean Trayvon (who was not on trial) needs to be considered the guilty party for that assumption then it is still a cornerstone of the justice system. Presumption of guilt would be harsher to everyone including the black communities.

    Now ...

    Marissa Alexander.

    Where do you get your Martyrs from? Honestly; I could represent blacks better than you.

    Marissa Alexander was not armed. Marissa Alexander left the house. Went to her garage. Got a handgun and then went BACK into the house (she could have fled, called police, or stood her ground in the garage) and confronted him in the kitchen and shot a bullet into the wall behind him and his two sons aged 9 and 13.

    Not only that, but a few months later she tracked him to his "safe house" and instigated a confrontation again that left him with a bloody eye.

    This woman has clear sanity issues.

    That is your unfair case?

    If Zimmerman had returned home to get his gun from his garage then the Trayvon case would also have new meaning.

    Stand your ground means you shot because you feared for your life. The man did not chase her to the garage. She did not attempt to flee. A fearful person would not go back into a house to shoot at people.

    Honestly Tiassa. You're going to have black people saying "Whoa dude, stop defending us". Your logic is a little spaced out.
     
  23. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    This is exactly what I'm talking about. The jury didn't accept Zimmerman's story, they simply had insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was lying. To suggest that Trayvon would double-back after running away from someone--especially someone he lost sight of--is beyond absurd, and no one in their right mind would believe it. The jury certainly didn't sign off on it, it's just that they couldn't prove otherwise since the only concrete evidence we had was Trayvon Martin being on top of Zimmerman--which you've already incorrectly attempted to say suggests Trayvon was the instigator. Even one of the jurors in the case said later that Zimmerman got away with murder. She spoke for the entire jury when she said they knew he was guilty but lacked the evidence to convict.

    And he later pulled a gun on his wife and threatened to shoot her. I don't think you want to get into histories here.

    It's possible that he found out about the gun just prior to the altercation. Or maybe he didn't know, but the conversations with his friend demonstrate that he wanted nothing to do with the guy following him. Zimmerman saying that Trayvon was running when Martin himself said he would just "walk fast" to get away suggests that Trayvon was even more afraid than he let on. Yet you just assume that he suddenly mustered up the courage to attack this guy?
     

Share This Page