Page 8 of 10

Re: Zimmerman Trial

PostPosted: Fri Jul 26, 2013 8:12 pm
by uglypeoplefucking
statiktech wrote:
"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?


When someone murders someone else, goes on trial, and gets away with it, that is a failure of the law - or a failure of the prosecution, which represents the law.

Re: Zimmerman Trial

PostPosted: Fri Jul 26, 2013 8:51 pm
by statiktech
uglypeoplefucking wrote:
statiktech wrote:
"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?


When someone murders someone else, goes on trial, and gets away with it, that is a failure of the law - or a failure of the prosecution, which represents the law.


You can prove it was murder? I'd like to see that.

Re: Zimmerman Trial

PostPosted: Fri Jul 26, 2013 9:28 pm
by uglypeoplefucking
statiktech wrote:You can prove it was murder? I'd like to see that.


No of course i can't, but a juror who says she knows him to be guilty had no choice but to exonerate him, given the law - isnt that a problem with the law? i mean based on the evidence i myself have i am ready to say he is guilty of the ethical equivelent of manslaughter, yet apparently the law is such that said evidence (PLUS whatever other evidence the juror was privy to) is insufficient to punish him in any way. If it is not illegal to do what EVERYONE KNOWS Zimmerman did, ie - profile, follow and kill an innocent person, then the law is lacking, not the evidence. i don't care if he thought his life was in danger (though i doubt it, given the nature of his injuries), he had no justification for fatally shooting Martin when he brought the situation on himself.

Re: Zimmerman Trial

PostPosted: Fri Jul 26, 2013 9:52 pm
by statiktech
uglypeoplefucking wrote:No of course i can't, but a juror who says she knows him to be guilty had no choice but to exonerate him, given the law - isnt that a problem with the law?


Wait right there. She said she "felt in her heart" that he was guilty. An opinion which was clearly at odds with evidence. I've been wrong about what I "felt in my heart" before. You?

i mean based on the evidence i myself have i am ready to say he is guilty of the ethical equivelent of manslaughter, yet apparently the law is such that said evidence (PLUS whatever other evidence the juror was privy to) is insufficient to punish him in any way. If it is not illegal to do what EVERYONE KNOWS Zimmerman did, ie - profile, follow and kill an innocent person, then the law is lacking, not the evidence.


Yeah, I may agree with manslaughter, but that wasn't what he was on trial for.

You have to look at context man. He wasn't pursuing the kid relentlessly and he likely didn't intend to get into an altercation with him. I mean, the fact that he didn't pull the gun immediately is telling. Also, he didn't profile him in the sense the media would have you believe. What he suspected was Martin's behavior. If it were as simple as you put it above, I have little doubt that he'd be in prison right now. The story is far more complicated.

i don't care if he thought his life was in danger (though i doubt it, given the nature of his injuries), he had no justification for fatally shooting Martin when he brought the situation on himself.


It wasn't his injuries that led him to that conclusion. According to him, Martin reached for his gun and told him he was going to die. If his life was in danger, I think he was justified. If you're telling me that he should accept his own death just because he did something stupid, I don't think I can continue this conversation.

Re: Zimmerman Trial

PostPosted: Fri Jul 26, 2013 11:58 pm
by uglypeoplefucking
statiktech wrote:She said she "felt in her heart" that he was guilty. An opinion which was clearly at odds with evidence. I've been wrong about what I "felt in my heart" before. You?


Yes i've been wrong before. And how. But i don't think her opinion was at odds with the evidence at all. Legally, there may not have enough evidence to convict, but that's not the same thing. It's not as if there was evidence that someone besides Zimmerman shot Martin. The evidence there was pointed in a certain direction, but was legally insufficient, that is all. i didn't get the impression the juror doubted her own opinion was correct, only that she knew there was not enough evidence to prove it based on the law.

He wasn't pursuing the kid relentlessly and he likely didn't intend to get into an altercation with him.


We don't know either of those things.

I mean, the fact that he didn't pull the gun immediately is telling.


We also don't know when he pulled his gun.

Also, he didn't profile him in the sense the media would have you believe. What he suspected was Martin's behavior.


i don't think that's accurate. Do you honestly believe that if Martin had been a white kid in a polo shirt and khakis walking around the same neighborhood any of this would have happened?

If it were as simple as you put it above, I have little doubt that he'd be in prison right now. The story is far more complicated.


Which complications are you referring to?

It wasn't his injuries that led him to that conclusion. According to him, Martin reached for his gun and told him he was going to die. If his life was in danger, I think he was justified. If you're telling me that he should accept his own death just because he did something stupid, I don't think I can continue this conversation with you.


If you really think he can not only legally, but also justifiably shoot someone to death because he was stupid and that's a good enough excuse, then i don't know what else i can say anyway. He had no right to kill anyone. If either person in the situation could justifiably kill the other, it was Martin. The irony is, had it gone down that way, we all know Martin would be in jail right now.

In any case, i find it hard to comprehend exactly how Zimmerman managed to fire, only once, a single bullet through Martin's chest if he were struggling to keep the gun out of Martin's hands. There was only one gun, after all, and clearly Zimmerman had control over it when he fired the shot. What was the threat to his life in the moment he pulled the trigger?

Re: Zimmerman Trial

PostPosted: Sat Jul 27, 2013 1:55 am
by uglypeoplefucking
i'll ask again, to anyone who thinks they have a reasonable answer: How could Zimmerman's life have been in danger if he was the only one with a gun?

Re: Zimmerman Trial

PostPosted: Sat Jul 27, 2013 2:19 am
by Helandhighwater
uglypeoplefucking wrote:i'll ask again, to anyone who thinks they have a reasonable answer: How could Zimmerman's life have been in danger if he was the only one with a gun?


It's not an answer your will have, but it is a case that is going to trouble your nation for years to come without one and it's not just the gun either, it's more than that.

Re: Zimmerman Trial

PostPosted: Sat Jul 27, 2013 2:21 am
by statiktech
.

Re: Zimmerman Trial

PostPosted: Sat Jul 27, 2013 10:31 am
by Stuart
uglypeoplefucking wrote:i'll ask again, to anyone who thinks they have a reasonable answer: How could Zimmerman's life have been in danger if he was the only one with a gun?


While I have yet to find an argument to sway me from my agreement with the verdict, somehow what you said - or maybe it's just because I haven't talked about the case in a while - has given me an argument as to why Zimmerman is a stupid-fuck as well as being as reckless as all who carry guns in public.

Since he had a gun and if he was following someone who he thought was dangerous - and he knew that Martin was aware that he was following him - and he lost sight of Martin, then he would have to be a stupid-shit for not avoiding any dark corners or bushes and then making use of the safety a gun affords him by keeping his hand on the handle so that if Martin did, as Zimmerman claimed, come upon him suddenly, he would have been able to draw the gun and told Martin to back off. I mean I have to agree that if one has a gun and is following someone they'd have to have previously suffered a specific form of cranial damage to let themselves get into a position of being beaten on the ground.

Let me reiterate, it is always reckless for random people to carry a gun in public, but the majority who do anyway are probably not shit-faced stupid and realize that since it's there for protection it should be used as such before the only option for protection is to shoot someone on top of them in the chest.

But, let's not think that logic speaks against the verdict. Apparently, when one gets a permit to carry a gun there's no test to determine if they don't suffer from piss-stupidity.

Re: Zimmerman Trial

PostPosted: Sat Jul 27, 2013 11:44 am
by uglypeoplefucking
Stuartp523 wrote:Let me reiterate, it is always reckless for random people to carry a gun in public, but the majority who do anyway are probably not shit-faced stupid and realize that since it's there for protection it should be used as such before the only option for protection is to shoot someone on top of them in the chest.


i agree as to the recklessness. Let's hope you're right about the majority not being quite so stupid as Zimmerman.

Re: Zimmerman Trial

PostPosted: Sat Jul 27, 2013 4:31 pm
by Mr Reasonable
Stat the fact that he didn't pull the gun immediately?

Where did you get this fact?

Re: Zimmerman Trial

PostPosted: Sat Jul 27, 2013 5:38 pm
by Stuart
Now all of a sudden you want to talk about facts, ok, ok, haha. But, Smears let's start small; elephants are mammals, lizards are reptiles. Now you name a couple facts. Maybe same day, with my help, you'll get so used to the idea of facts that we can start using them in real discussions. Though, I think the notion that you could ever learn to apply facts to a trial may be a lost cause.

Re: Zimmerman Trial

PostPosted: Sat Jul 27, 2013 5:46 pm
by Mr Reasonable
Dude I've beat like 6 charges and I've never been convicted of a crime. I've had probably 20 traffic tickets thrown out. I know facts.

I'm saying that stat says Zimmerman didn't have his gun out.

I'm asking how he knows that.

What's w/ the obfuscation?

Re: Zimmerman Trial

PostPosted: Sat Jul 27, 2013 10:09 pm
by statiktech
It's the only official version of the story we have and it fits with the evidence.

Re: Zimmerman Trial

PostPosted: Sat Jul 27, 2013 10:38 pm
by Kriswest
As a person who has carried a gun, you get more used to not touching it then touching it, couple that with adrenaline brain farts, you will not think of it at first. Your brain is in overdrive, that gun is not felt hanging off your side. Your brain is busy saying " Oh shit shit shiit" and trying to come up with a solution. Adrenaline fucks your processing up. Except of course in Hollywood.
So yea, I believe Zimmerman would not have pulled his gun out at first because of that and because, getting attacked never happens to us just other people syndrome.
My house won't catch fire, my house won't get robbed, I am a great driver, I know how to swim, etetc. Shit happens to others not me. Its that dominant thought that causes hesitation and forgetfulness when adrenaline hits in real life. Not Hollywood.

Re: Zimmerman Trial

PostPosted: Sat Jul 27, 2013 11:54 pm
by Mr Reasonable
statiktech wrote:It's the only official version of the story we have and it fits with the evidence.



How does it become official? What does that even mean? Appeal to authority? How does it fit more so with the evidence that Martin was the aggressor when the evidence shows that Zimmerman was following him, against the instructions of the 911 operator, with the stated frustration about "these guys always getting away"? There's Zimmerman's bloody nose, and small cuts on the back of his head. Those are evidence of a fight for sure. Since Martin didn't have injuries, you could half-assed infer that maybe he threw the first punch.

But I don't think that makes Martin the aggressor. I don't think that means Martin started it. I think it's clear Zimmerman started it, unless you ignore his pursuit of Martin, and his statements to the 911 operator and just don't take them for what they are. I think Martin a victim, who tried to defend himself and failed because Zimmerman, the guy who started the confrontation and the fight when he decided to chase after the kid shot and killed him.

Re: Zimmerman Trial

PostPosted: Sun Jul 28, 2013 12:11 am
by Moreno
Smears wrote:
statiktech wrote:It's the only official version of the story we have and it fits with the evidence.



How does it become official? What does that even mean? Appeal to authority? How does it fit more so with the evidence that Martin was the aggressor when the evidence shows that Zimmerman was following him, against the instructions of the 911 operator, with the stated frustration about "these guys always getting away"? There's Zimmerman's bloody nose, and small cuts on the back of his head. Those are evidence of a fight for sure. Since Martin didn't have injuries, you could half-assed infer that maybe he threw the first punch.

Yes, it would be half assed to consider this evidence he threw the first punch. Given blocking, ducking, glancing blows, perhaps a grab or wrestling move started the ball Rolling etc.

Re: Zimmerman Trial

PostPosted: Sun Jul 28, 2013 12:13 am
by Moreno
statiktech wrote:It's the only official version of the story we have and it fits with the evidence.
I Think the official version is that we don't know. Who would come up with an official version? No official body has had to weigh in and said 'this is what happened.' The jury decided it did not have enough evidence to conclude it was murder. So one potential official version was not approved of by the jury and hence the Court.

Re: Zimmerman Trial

PostPosted: Sun Jul 28, 2013 12:15 am
by Mr Reasonable
Exactly. How does ZImmerman go from a confident, angry, armed 28 year old man who fancies himself law enforcement, and who's training to be a fighter to a scared, helpless victim of an unarmed 17 year old boy?

Re: Zimmerman Trial

PostPosted: Sun Jul 28, 2013 12:19 am
by Moreno
Smears wrote:Exactly. How does ZImmerman go from a confident, angry, armed 28 year old man who fancies himself law enforcement, and who's training to be a fighter to a scared, helpless victim of an unarmed 17 year old boy?

Well, this is possible, which is precisely why at the very least what he did was irreponsible, dangerous and reckless. He may have simply followed Martin who may have felt threatened and at some Point snapped and was the stronger and faster fighter. It is possible, which is one of a number of reasons why Z should have stayed in his car and let people actually trained and responsible for dealing with these things deal with it. I don't Think there is any good way to rule out Z's main assertions. They may be, in the main, what happened. But we should never consider Z's version an official one. That he minimized any errors, misjudgements and ethical lapses he made is more than likely. Who wouldn't?

Re: Zimmerman Trial

PostPosted: Sun Jul 28, 2013 5:16 am
by Stuart
Stuartp523 wrote:Now all of a sudden you want to talk about facts...


Smears wrote:... against the instructions of the 911 operator ... helpless victim ...


No, no, no, those aren't facts, facts have to be virtually indisputable. Most of the above implications are indisputably erroneous.

Dude I've beat like 6 charges and I've never been convicted of a crime. I've had probably 20 traffic tickets thrown out. I know facts.


Yes, now taking your word for it, those are facts, keep them coming.

Re: Zimmerman Trial

PostPosted: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:26 pm
by Mr Reasonable
I can try and scan a copy of my record, but there isn't one because my charges have all been dismissed.

I don't think it's disputable that the 911 operator instructed him not to follow. I think it's disputable whether he interpreted that person's words in the way that any reasonable person would who wasn't trying to get out of a murder charge.

Re: Zimmerman Trial

PostPosted: Sun Jul 28, 2013 7:50 pm
by Stuart
Smears wrote:I don't think it's disputable that the 911 operator instructed him not to follow.


How can it be disputable, it's like saying, 'A giant chicken instructed him not eat poultry.' Your statement is complete nonsense.

Re: Zimmerman Trial

PostPosted: Mon Jul 29, 2013 1:03 am
by Mr Reasonable
Stuart, how is it complete nonsense? The operator asked if he was following him, and then told him he didn't need him to do that.

Re: Zimmerman Trial

PostPosted: Mon Jul 29, 2013 5:03 am
by Stuart
Smears wrote:Stuart, how is it complete nonsense?


This isn't nonsense:

The operator asked if he was following him, and then told him he didn't need him to do that.


This is:

I don't think it's disputable that the 911 operator instructed him not to follow.