Zimmerman Trial

Use this forum to suggest topics, and to find others to debate with.

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby uglypeoplefucking » Sun Jul 21, 2013 6:54 pm

xzc wrote:That's not irrelevant. You called me out on my knowledge of this case and then proceeded to get something completely wrong. In pointing it out I showed I've followed the case and that you're full of shit. Now, onto this next part.


You haven't pointed anything out. Youve wrongly stated several times that we don't know enough to find Zimmerman guilty. That's not true, and you have no evidence or argument showing it is aside from a not guilty verdict in a poorly prosecuted case.

So, if we don't take into account the part that exculpates Zimmerman, i.e., the part that makes his killing not unlawful, then he's guilty. No argument here man.


Right, and anybody who thinks the laws in Florida are part of the problem is guilty of unwarranted opinions about Zimmerman's guilt. Who's full of shit?
i am brilliant, you are stupid. Therefore, you are wrong.
uglypeoplefucking
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4147
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 2:47 pm
Location: throughout

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby xzc » Sun Jul 21, 2013 7:11 pm

uglypeoplefucking wrote:
So, if we don't take into account the part that exculpates Zimmerman, i.e., the part that makes his killing not unlawful, then he's guilty. No argument here man.


Right, and anybody who thinks the laws in Florida are part of the problem is guilty of unwarranted opinions about Zimmerman's guilt. Who's full of shit?

You've changed the topic now. I thought we were arguing about whether given Florida's shitty laws, Zimmerman was guilty or not; not about whether Florida's laws are shitty. If your argument boils down to: Zimmerman would have been guilty if the laws of Florida were different, then I don't really care.
Carcasse, tu trembles?
Tu tremblerais bien davantage, si
tu savais, ou je te mene.
User avatar
xzc
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3926
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 6:52 am
Location: Pale Blue Dot

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby Mr Reasonable » Sun Jul 21, 2013 7:16 pm

My argument is that Zimmerman is guilty of killing the kid, whatever the law says. If you can't convict that guy, then you have no business interpreting laws.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25948
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby Stuart » Sun Jul 21, 2013 7:23 pm

uglypeoplefucking wrote:Right, Zimmerman is getting injured by Martin (albeit superficially) so he draws the gun, and as soon as he points it, Martin yells for help


I think maybe I burnt out in the last couple hours, I can't argue that couldn't have conceivably been what happened. Or maybe if they were struggling over the gun Martin could have yelled for help then. Intuitively I just don't think it was likely that it was Martin yelling, but if I can't make an argument for it then I shouldn't discount the possibility. But, nonetheless there is at least an equally valid argument for saying that it was Zimmerman who yelled for help.
Stuart
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3027
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:32 am
Location: California

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby uglypeoplefucking » Sun Jul 21, 2013 7:34 pm

xzc wrote:
uglypeoplefucking wrote:
So, if we don't take into account the part that exculpates Zimmerman, i.e., the part that makes his killing not unlawful, then he's guilty. No argument here man.


Right, and anybody who thinks the laws in Florida are part of the problem is guilty of unwarranted opinions about Zimmerman's guilt. Who's full of shit?

You've changed the topic now. I thought we were arguing about whether given Florida's shitty laws, Zimmerman was guilty or not; not about whether Florida's laws are shitty. If your argument boils down to: Zimmerman would have been guilty if the laws of Florida were different, then I don't really care.


No i don't think guilt in the eyes of the law is the same thing as actual guilt, and i would argue for Zimmerman ACTUALLY being guilty of at least manslaughter. Of course, it is self-evidently true that the law has found him not guilty, but that has little bearing on anything i've said. In any case, i have stated more than once in this thread that i think the applicable laws in this case are faulty. i realize you probably have not read all the posts i've made in the thread, but in my defense i have tried to keep my position clear.
i am brilliant, you are stupid. Therefore, you are wrong.
uglypeoplefucking
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4147
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 2:47 pm
Location: throughout

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby xzc » Sun Jul 21, 2013 7:54 pm

uglypeoplefucking wrote:No i don't think guilt in the eyes of the law is the same thing as actual guilt, and i would argue for Zimmerman ACTUALLY being guilty of at least manslaughter.

What's actual guilt? What's actual manslaughter? Does that mean that the law as it stands and understood as some kind of formula was right in yielding 'not guilty' as a verdict, but it's a broken formula, so it gave the wrong overall answer. The right overall answer being the property you give to your judgment on this case. I've heard of moral facts as some kind of moral universal properties that exist in the realm of the forms or somewhere such, but not legal facts in this same context. Laws are arbitrary. They usually use some ground, some moral basis, but those are also arbitrary. Not to say they're consequently insignificant, but you know, saying that someone is actually guilty sounds odd to me, and made me ramble like I just did.


Of course, it is self-evidently true that the law has found him not guilty, but that has little bearing on anything i've said. In any case, i have stated more than once in this thread that i think the applicable laws in this case are faulty. i realize you probably have not read all the posts i've made in the thread, but in my defense i have tried to keep my position clear.

Okay, my bad. I did only just read the first two pages, the chimed it with my sweet new iphone. Just to be clear though, you're saying that the faulty laws as they stand yielded a consistent answer, so that if we were to judge the case with the law as it stands, we'd have to say that Zimmerman was not guilty. However, you're also saying that if the law was just, then it would have yielded a different judgment on Zimmerman. The law as you conceive to be just would have looked at the evidence in this case, and found them sufficient to convict Zimmerman of first or second degree murder?

Did I interpret your position correctly? Are we at least understanding eachother? It's not that big of a problem if we keep disagreeing so long as we're disagreeing about the same thing.
Carcasse, tu trembles?
Tu tremblerais bien davantage, si
tu savais, ou je te mene.
User avatar
xzc
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3926
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 6:52 am
Location: Pale Blue Dot

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby uglypeoplefucking » Sun Jul 21, 2013 8:57 pm

xzc wrote:What's actual guilt? What's actual manslaughter? Does that mean that the law as it stands and understood as some kind of formula was right in yielding 'not guilty' as a verdict, but it's a broken formula, so it gave the wrong overall answer. The right overall answer being the property you give to your judgment on this case. I've heard of moral facts as some kind of moral universal properties that exist in the realm of the forms or somewhere such, but not legal facts in this same context. Laws are arbitrary. They usually use some ground, some moral basis, but those are also arbitrary. Not to say they're consequently insignificant, but you know, saying that someone is actually guilty sounds odd to me, and made me ramble like I just did.


Actual guilt would be the guilt associated with actually having commited an offense, as opposed to simply having been judged to have commited the offense, that's all. The judgments may or may not be accurate, but they do not determine the facts of the matter. Like you say, laws are arbitrary. But things happened a certain way. The guy is responsible for the death of the other guy wether or not the law as it is currently and arbitrarily structured in this or that state will convict him for it.The law doesn't decide guilt or innocence, it either recognizes them or it doesn't.

Just to be clear though, you're saying that the faulty laws as they stand yielded a consistent answer, so that if we were to judge the case with the law as it stands, we'd have to say that Zimmerman was not guilty.


Not being an expert in Florida law, i can't say for sure that the verdict given was correct in accordance with all the details of the law, but that is the impression i've gotten. If that impression is correct, then i feel that is a fault in the laws.

However, you're also saying that if the law was just, then it would have yielded a different judgment on Zimmerman. The law as you conceive to be just would have looked at the evidence in this case, and found them sufficient to convict Zimmerman of first or second degree murder?


Likely so, yes. But i am also allowing for the possibility that, even under existing laws, had the prosecution better executed the case, he would have been found guilty in some capacity.

Did I interpret your position correctly? Are we at least understanding eachother? It's not that big of a problem if we keep disagreeing so long as we're disagreeing about the same thing.


i think you more or less get my position, though i'm not entirely sure i get yours . . .
i am brilliant, you are stupid. Therefore, you are wrong.
uglypeoplefucking
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4147
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 2:47 pm
Location: throughout

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby uglypeoplefucking » Sun Jul 21, 2013 9:04 pm

Stuartp523 wrote:I think maybe I burnt out in the last couple hours


Yeah i know the feeling.

I can't argue that couldn't have conceivably been what happened. Or maybe if they were struggling over the gun Martin could have yelled for help then. Intuitively I just don't think it was likely that it was Martin yelling, but if I can't make an argument for it then I shouldn't discount the possibility. But, nonetheless there is at least an equally valid argument for saying that it was Zimmerman who yelled for help.


i know, and i'm not basing my judgments about Zimmerman's culpability on the presumption that it was Martin who yelled, i just think it's plausible.
i am brilliant, you are stupid. Therefore, you are wrong.
uglypeoplefucking
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4147
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 2:47 pm
Location: throughout

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby uglypeoplefucking » Fri Jul 26, 2013 1:22 pm

i am brilliant, you are stupid. Therefore, you are wrong.
uglypeoplefucking
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4147
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 2:47 pm
Location: throughout

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby statiktech » Fri Jul 26, 2013 2:07 pm

"You can't put the man in jail even though in our hearts we felt he was guilty," she said. "But we had to grab our hearts and put it aside and look at the evidence."


In other words, what she felt in her heart was not supported by the evidence. How does that suggest a failure of the law?
"Man is the animal that laughs at himself."
—Robert A Heinlein
User avatar
statiktech
SonOfABitchBastard
 
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby statiktech » Fri Jul 26, 2013 3:24 pm

Smears wrote:I think the question is whether he did anything to make martin believe he may have been facing harm. If martin was afraid for his life, of this armed man who was pursuing him and verbally denigrating him based solely on his profile, then he may have been murdered while trying to defend himself. I guess the only witness is dead so no one can know.


You think Martin feared for his life? You think that's why he supposedly ran from the scene, then doubled back to confront Zimmerman and start an altercation?

Martin didn't know he was armed. He was out of sight when Zimmerman got out of his car. And I seriously doubt he could hear what Zimmerman was saying about him. It wasn't his "profile" that Zimmerman suspected, it was his behavior. I think Marin had every right to confront Zimmerman, but when he attacked him he assumed certain risks.

You are either horribly misinformed about what took place or you are just comfortable believing a bunch of exaggerated bullshit. I can't figure out which it is.
"Man is the animal that laughs at himself."
—Robert A Heinlein
User avatar
statiktech
SonOfABitchBastard
 
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby Mr Reasonable » Fri Jul 26, 2013 4:09 pm

Stat, you're giving Zimmerman's account of what his victim did in the dark when no one could see.

Why are you doing that as though you're sure it's what happened?

We know Zimmerman followed Martin, and that Martin was running away.

Then all of a sudden Martin is now following Zimmerman? How convenient. Let's ask some people there if this is true. Oh, only Zimmerman knows. Well let's ask him. Right.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25948
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby Mr Reasonable » Fri Jul 26, 2013 4:11 pm

How do you know that Zimmerman didn't pull a gun and tell him to wait for the cops to arrive?

I mean wasn't he following the kid, trying to keep him from getting away? Isn't that established already?

For the love of god recognize that because you can fabricate a scenario in the dark where Zimmerman might not be technically guilty, that doesn't mean shit. The truth is, the way this case went, you can now kill people as long as no one sees and you come up with a good story.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25948
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby statiktech » Fri Jul 26, 2013 4:16 pm

Smears wrote:Stat, you're giving Zimmerman's account of what his victim did in the dark when no one could see.

Why are you doing that as though you're sure it's what happened?


I'm following what little evidence we have.

We know Zimmerman followed Martin, and that Martin was running away.


Not true. Martin actually followed him in return at one point. Martin ran away to confuse Zimmerman, not get away from him. This is evidenced by the fact that Martin came back after he already lost Zimmerman.

Then all of a sudden Martin is now following Zimmerman? How convenient. Let's ask some people there if this is true. Oh, only Zimmerman knows. Well let's ask him. Right.


It seems convenient to you because you don't know what you're talking about.
"Man is the animal that laughs at himself."
—Robert A Heinlein
User avatar
statiktech
SonOfABitchBastard
 
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby statiktech » Fri Jul 26, 2013 4:21 pm

Smears wrote:How do you know that Zimmerman didn't pull a gun and tell him to wait for the cops to arrive?


I don't. We have evidence that Martin punched Zimmerman in the face. Would you do that to someone with a gun pointed at you?

I mean wasn't he following the kid, trying to keep him from getting away? Isn't that established already?


If by that you mean he was keeping an eye on Martin, sure.

For the love of god recognize that because you can fabricate a scenario in the dark where Zimmerman might not be technically guilty, that doesn't mean shit. The truth is, the way this case went, you can now kill people as long as no one sees and you come up with a good story.


How is that a new thing? If you can show that your life was in danger, or at least that you had reason to believe it was, you're allowed to protect yourself by law. This is true for just about any murder case. The problem is finding evidence to support that story.
"Man is the animal that laughs at himself."
—Robert A Heinlein
User avatar
statiktech
SonOfABitchBastard
 
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby Mr Reasonable » Fri Jul 26, 2013 4:39 pm

Here we've already started down the slope.

http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2013 ... rdan-davis

This guy shot up a car full of teenagers because he didn't like their music. He harassed them about it, then when they told him to fuck off, he shot up their car and sped off and got caught the next day. He just said they pointed a shotgun and said they were going to kill him. Even thought they didn't. Let's see how this one works out.


I would absolutely punch someone in the face if they pointed a gun at me.

What evidence do you have that Martin ran away and came back other than Zimmerman's account?

Also, Zimmerman's life was never in danger. His injuries were superficial. Now that's evidence. A guy says he was getting beaten to death by a kid half his age, and you check his injuries and all he needs is a band aid. That's evidence that he wasn't really being beaten to death.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25948
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby statiktech » Fri Jul 26, 2013 5:20 pm

Smears wrote:I would absolutely punch someone in the face if they pointed a gun at me.


In my view, that makes you a fool.

What evidence do you have that Martin ran away and came back other than Zimmerman's account?


This isn't something he made up after the fact. Zimmerman told 911 at the time that Martin ran and he lost sight of him.

Also, Zimmerman's life was never in danger. His injuries were superficial. Now that's evidence. A guy says he was getting beaten to death by a kid half his age, and you check his injuries and all he needs is a band aid. That's evidence that he wasn't really being beaten to death.


His nose was fractured and his head was being smashed against pavement. And that's not even what he pulled the gun for. He pulled the gun because Martin supposedly saw it, made the remark that Zimmerman was going to die, and reached for it. He, nor anyone, ever claimed he was being beaten to death. He said he feared he'd loose consciousness - that's all. Again, you're making exaggerated claims that show a real lack of effort on your part to look at the evidence.
"Man is the animal that laughs at himself."
—Robert A Heinlein
User avatar
statiktech
SonOfABitchBastard
 
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby Mr Reasonable » Fri Jul 26, 2013 5:24 pm

Dude you just said that you believe it because ZImmerman said it. When they say evidence is the hardest class in law school. They fucking mean it.

I'd think you were a fool if you let someone hold you at gunpoint when you have the option to overpower them. I've snatched a few guns out of a few hands in my time, and I woulda beat the living shit outta Zimmerman if he chased me down the street toward my house. Which is exactly what he did.

Guess what? Martin has a right to run if he wants to. Zimmerman doesn't have a right to chase him, bait him into a confrontation and kill him.

I know you live in Atlanta, and you're probably tired of loud music and hoodlums at your local gas station standing around all day selling drugs and women, but if you're not a cop you can't arrest them dude. If you try to and they beat you up that's self defense on their part, and if you shoot them then you're a murderer.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25948
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby statiktech » Fri Jul 26, 2013 5:28 pm

Smears wrote:Dude you just said that you believe it because ZImmerman said it. When they say evidence is the hardest class in law school. They fucking mean it.


Can you quote me?

I'd think you were a fool if you let someone hold you at gunpoint when you have the option to overpower them. I've snatched a few guns out of a few hands in my time, and I woulda beat the living shit outta Zimmerman if he chased me down the street toward my house. Which is exactly what he did.


No, that's actually not what he did.

Guess what? Martin has a right to run if he wants to. Zimmerman doesn't have a right to chase him, bait him into a confrontation and kill him.


That's not what happened either.
"Man is the animal that laughs at himself."
—Robert A Heinlein
User avatar
statiktech
SonOfABitchBastard
 
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby Mr Reasonable » Fri Jul 26, 2013 5:33 pm

You said...

This isn't something he made up after the fact. Zimmerman told 911 at the time that Martin ran and he lost sight of him.

So that's you saying that the word about Martin running came from Zimmerman. Right?



If he didn't pursue the kid, then what did he do? Why was he out of his car? Why did he comment to the 911 operator about his frustration with "these guys always getting away"? Doesn't all that indicate he was pursuing him? Or at least that he had a desire to and a frame of mind to?

We don't have to speculate about who attacked who in the dark, because he already know who the aggressor is. The aggressor is the guy who is out of his car following someone. How is that not crystal clear?

In your last line, you say, "that's not what happened either". How do you know that? Who's story are you buying? What's your evidence?

Jesus man I respect you and everything, but if you're just playing the devil's advocate here, please do a better job. If you actually can't see yourself buying zimmerman's story without evidence, then I really don't know what to tell you. I have to ask why you wouldn't buy the opposite story with the same lack of evidence?

Why the bias? Can you even see it?
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25948
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby statiktech » Fri Jul 26, 2013 5:45 pm

Smears wrote:You said...

This isn't something he made up after the fact. Zimmerman told 911 at the time that Martin ran and he lost sight of him.

So that's you saying that the word about Martin running came from Zimmerman. Right?


Correct, it came from Zimmerman. But not after the fact in an attempt to justify his actions. He admitted this beforehand. I'm not saying that makes it true, just far more likely.

If he didn't pursue the kid, then what did he do? Why was he out of his car? Why did he comment to the 911 operator about his frustration with "these guys always getting away"? Doesn't all that indicate he was pursuing him? Or at least that he had a desire to and a frame of mind to?


You can find the answers to literally every question here by doing just the tiniest bit of research. We've already been over most of it.

We don't have to speculate about who attacked who in the dark, because he already know who the aggressor is. The aggressor is the guy who is out of his car following someone. How is that not crystal clear?


Watching someone and getting out of your car aren't acts of aggression, plain and simple.

In your last line, you say, "that's not what happened either". How do you know that? Who's story are you buying? What's your evidence?


The only fucking story we have! Which one are you following?

Jesus man I respect you and everything, but if you're just playing the devil's advocate here, please do a better job. If you actually can't see yourself buying zimmerman's story without evidence, then I really don't know what to tell you. I have to ask why you wouldn't buy the opposite story with the same lack of evidence?

Why the bias? Can you even see it?


The evidence lines up with Zimmerman's story. I'm not the only who's said this. I'm talking about what can be shown by the evidence and determined in a court of law. I'm not claiming to know what happened. I really wish you'd at least get that part straight. Your claim is that he is guilty because you want him to be. It just doesn't work like that man.
"Man is the animal that laughs at himself."
—Robert A Heinlein
User avatar
statiktech
SonOfABitchBastard
 
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby Mr Reasonable » Fri Jul 26, 2013 5:58 pm

The tiniest bit of research huh? But I can't get you to answer the question.

So if you go to the gas station, and I creep behind you in my car, and I call 911 and tell them you look like a criminal, and then I get out of the car to find you when you try to get away.....that's not aggression?

I wholly disagree with your, "plain and simple" assessment.

There's a reason you only have 1 story dude. Please understand that that's relevant. If I follow you home and kill you because you get pissed and start kicking my ass, then you don't get to tell your part of the story.

Don't go with the "court of law" horseshit unless you want me to think that you believe the courts are functioning properly. You think that this case was decided correctly?

I'm not saying I want Zimmerman to be guilty because I just want him to be. I don't know how you got that impression. I want him to be found guilty because he followed an unarmed kid, got out of his car, ended up in a confrontation where he killed a kid who lived in the neighborhood he was supposed to be protecting. That's not what I wanted to happen. But that's what he did. The dead kid, Zimmerman's gun, the superficial injuries on the back of his head, his comments to the 911 operator that speak to his frame of mind. That's evidence dude. It's not my opinion. It's not because I "just want him to be guilty".
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25948
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby statiktech » Fri Jul 26, 2013 6:18 pm

Smears wrote:So if you go to the gas station, and I creep behind you in my car, and I call 911 and tell them you look like a criminal, and then I get out of the car to find you when you try to get away.....that's not aggression?


No, I don't think it is. It would be offensive to me, I'm sure. But that doesn't mean he wished to do me harm or encroach on my rights.

I wholly disagree with your, "plain and simple" assessment.


Why?

There's a reason you only have 1 story dude. Please understand that that's relevant. If I follow you home and kill you because you get pissed and start kicking my ass, then you don't get to tell your part of the story.


Of course I realize that. I'm just not willing to assume that's why he killed Martin. You, on the other hand. do feel comfortable assuming that for some reason.

Don't go with the "court of law" horseshit unless you want me to think that you believe the courts are functioning properly. You think that this case was decided correctly?


Yeah, I think they probably decided correctly.

I'm not saying I want Zimmerman to be guilty because I just want him to be. I don't know how you got that impression.


I get that impression because all you have to substantiate your sensational view is a bunch hypotheticals and hyperboles.

I want him to be found guilty because he followed an unarmed kid, got out of his car, ended up in a confrontation where he killed a kid who lived in the neighborhood he was supposed to be protecting. That's not what I wanted to happen. But that's what he did. The dead kid, Zimmerman's gun, the superficial injuries on the back of his head, his comments to the 911 operator that speak to his frame of mind. That's evidence dude. It's not my opinion. It's not because I "just want him to be guilty".


Even if the confrontation wasn't his doing? You seem to be cherry picking details here.
"Man is the animal that laughs at himself."
—Robert A Heinlein
User avatar
statiktech
SonOfABitchBastard
 
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby Mr Reasonable » Fri Jul 26, 2013 6:45 pm

Who caused the confrontation?

My suggestion is that we can assume it was the armed man who got out of his car and stated that he was tired of these guys always getting away.

I think that's fair, and based on evidence.

It's better than ignoring that evidence, and believing instead the story of the man who we know followed, fought, and shot an unarmed 17 year old.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25948
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby statiktech » Fri Jul 26, 2013 7:34 pm

Smears wrote:My suggestion is that we can assume it was the armed man who got out of his car and stated that he was tired of these guys always getting away.


You're completely ignoring context here. i could see coming to a similar conclusion so long as I didn't have access to any additional information.

He was referring to a rash of burglaries when he made the comment about people getting away. He got out of the car to initially look for street signs to guide the cops and see if he could tell which direction Martin ran in. The fact that he was armed was just unfortunate; not grounds for believing he committed murder. I really think you're looking at this whole thing in the most shallow way possible. And it bothers me to see you buy into the media's sensationalism.

I think that's fair, and based on evidence.


Well then I think you're wrong.

It's better than ignoring that evidence, and believing instead the story of the man who we know followed, fought, and shot an unarmed 17 year old.


What evidence am I ignoring? Again, you're completely ignoring context, which I can only assume is being done on purpose. You don't care why he followed, who started the fight, or why shots were fired. All you see is the end result. Thank god lawyers have better sense than to allow jurors like you.
"Man is the animal that laughs at himself."
—Robert A Heinlein
User avatar
statiktech
SonOfABitchBastard
 
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

PreviousNext

Return to Challenges



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users