good post, Nick R. the glee here is disgusting. and telling.
Zimmerman trial BITOG style....
- Thread starter Bill in Utah
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Please. Here is the deal here.
The key here is innocent until proven guilty, and reasonable doubt.
Basically, because this man claims self defense, there has to be evidence to prove otherwise. Right? Now nobody else saw this. At all. So he CLAIMS that Martin attacked him. Do we know if he did or not? Nope. Will we ever? Nope. Was zimmerman actually shooting in TRUE self defense? Possibly. Do I think he was? No.
Here is the problem with the stand your ground law as written. Basically, Zimmerman was able to claim that it was self defense, and because there is NO EVIDENCE to the contrary, he gets away with it. He wanted to shoot Martin, it's obvious. Who is irresponsible enough to walk around with a loaded gun? Or did he specifically load the gun, because he had every intention of shooting zimmerman. Maybe Zimmerman grabbed Martin, and martin fought back, like any reasonable person would. And then zimmerman shot him.
The truth is NOBODY KNOWS. The reason he was acquitted? Lack of physical evidence. All the logic and reason based on Zimmermans history of a wannabe cop and obvious lies says that he is guilty. But physical evidence? Not enough of it.
So he walks free.
So basically... you desire the system to be changed to "guilty until proven innocent"?
Because that's what you're advocating.
Please. Here is the deal here.
The key here is innocent until proven guilty, and reasonable doubt.
Basically, because this man claims self defense, there has to be evidence to prove otherwise. Right? Now nobody else saw this. At all. So he CLAIMS that Martin attacked him. Do we know if he did or not? Nope. Will we ever? Nope. Was zimmerman actually shooting in TRUE self defense? Possibly. Do I think he was? No.
Here is the problem with the stand your ground law as written. Basically, Zimmerman was able to claim that it was self defense, and because there is NO EVIDENCE to the contrary, he gets away with it. He wanted to shoot Martin, it's obvious. Who is irresponsible enough to walk around with a loaded gun? Or did he specifically load the gun, because he had every intention of shooting zimmerman. Maybe Zimmerman grabbed Martin, and martin fought back, like any reasonable person would. And then zimmerman shot him.
The truth is NOBODY KNOWS. The reason he was acquitted? Lack of physical evidence. All the logic and reason based on Zimmermans history of a wannabe cop and obvious lies says that he is guilty. But physical evidence? Not enough of it.
So he walks free.
So basically... you desire the system to be changed to "guilty until proven innocent"?
Because that's what you're advocating.
Much as I dislike some of trigger-happiness that seems to occur in the US, I think this was the right verdict.
Martin was no saint, and if it is agreed that he attacked Zimmerman, who are we to say that Zimmerman did not honestly fear for his life?
Lots of folks are armed in the US...and at the risk of getting banned, a lot of young black men are armed with firearms - how would Zimmerman KNOW Martin was un-armed?
Sad case, but he did what he had to.
Martin was no saint, and if it is agreed that he attacked Zimmerman, who are we to say that Zimmerman did not honestly fear for his life?
Lots of folks are armed in the US...and at the risk of getting banned, a lot of young black men are armed with firearms - how would Zimmerman KNOW Martin was un-armed?
Sad case, but he did what he had to.
Originally Posted By: Mykl
Originally Posted By: FXjohn
castle law is a lot different than stand your ground. I'm a huge proponent of castle law. you're all over the place.
Okay, then I'll put it in very simple terms...
If you spill my blood, you will die, and the only criminal will be you.
But just as there is no evidence that zimmerman is lying, there is no evidence he is telling the truth either. THAT is the truth of the matter.
So basically the jury is setting a precedent. If you want to kill someone, shoot them, and tell the police they attacked you. Maybe bloody yourself up a bit to make it look convincing, and there you go. You have committed murder, and successfully gotten away with it.
Originally Posted By: FXjohn
castle law is a lot different than stand your ground. I'm a huge proponent of castle law. you're all over the place.
Okay, then I'll put it in very simple terms...
If you spill my blood, you will die, and the only criminal will be you.
But just as there is no evidence that zimmerman is lying, there is no evidence he is telling the truth either. THAT is the truth of the matter.
So basically the jury is setting a precedent. If you want to kill someone, shoot them, and tell the police they attacked you. Maybe bloody yourself up a bit to make it look convincing, and there you go. You have committed murder, and successfully gotten away with it.
Originally Posted By: addyguy
, a lot of young black men are armed with firearms -
what makes you say that? a lot of old white guys like me are armed with firearms too.
, a lot of young black men are armed with firearms -
what makes you say that? a lot of old white guys like me are armed with firearms too.
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Originally Posted By: Mykl
Originally Posted By: FXjohn
castle law is a lot different than stand your ground. I'm a huge proponent of castle law. you're all over the place.
Okay, then I'll put it in very simple terms...
If you spill my blood, you will die, and the only criminal will be you.
But just as there is no evidence that zimmerman is lying, there is no evidence he is telling the truth either. THAT is the truth of the matter.
So basically the jury is setting a precedent. If you want to kill someone, shoot them, and tell the police they attacked you. Maybe bloody yourself up a bit to make it look convincing, and there you go. You have committed murder, and successfully gotten away with it.
so will the state of florida be sued now by the family? or by future victims?
Originally Posted By: Mykl
Originally Posted By: FXjohn
castle law is a lot different than stand your ground. I'm a huge proponent of castle law. you're all over the place.
Okay, then I'll put it in very simple terms...
If you spill my blood, you will die, and the only criminal will be you.
But just as there is no evidence that zimmerman is lying, there is no evidence he is telling the truth either. THAT is the truth of the matter.
So basically the jury is setting a precedent. If you want to kill someone, shoot them, and tell the police they attacked you. Maybe bloody yourself up a bit to make it look convincing, and there you go. You have committed murder, and successfully gotten away with it.
so will the state of florida be sued now by the family? or by future victims?
Originally Posted By: Nick R
[
But just as there is no evidence that zimmerman is lying, there is no evidence he is telling the truth either. THAT is the truth of the matter.
There you go. You firmly believe in guilty until proven innocent.
[
But just as there is no evidence that zimmerman is lying, there is no evidence he is telling the truth either. THAT is the truth of the matter.
There you go. You firmly believe in guilty until proven innocent.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Originally Posted By: dishdude
I guess by your logic Ted Bundy is a DA MAN too.
Al Bundy?
I guess by your logic Ted Bundy is a DA MAN too.
Al Bundy?
Originally Posted By: Nick R
So basically the jury is setting a precedent. If you want to kill someone, shoot them, and tell the police they attacked you. Maybe bloody yourself up a bit to make it look convincing, and there you go. You have committed murder, and successfully gotten away with it.
That's a ridiculous oversimplification.
So basically the jury is setting a precedent. If you want to kill someone, shoot them, and tell the police they attacked you. Maybe bloody yourself up a bit to make it look convincing, and there you go. You have committed murder, and successfully gotten away with it.
That's a ridiculous oversimplification.
Originally Posted By: Mykl
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Please. Here is the deal here.
The key here is innocent until proven guilty, and reasonable doubt.
Basically, because this man claims self defense, there has to be evidence to prove otherwise. Right? Now nobody else saw this. At all. So he CLAIMS that Martin attacked him. Do we know if he did or not? Nope. Will we ever? Nope. Was zimmerman actually shooting in TRUE self defense? Possibly. Do I think he was? No.
Here is the problem with the stand your ground law as written. Basically, Zimmerman was able to claim that it was self defense, and because there is NO EVIDENCE to the contrary, he gets away with it. He wanted to shoot Martin, it's obvious. Who is irresponsible enough to walk around with a loaded gun? Or did he specifically load the gun, because he had every intention of shooting zimmerman. Maybe Zimmerman grabbed Martin, and martin fought back, like any reasonable person would. And then zimmerman shot him.
The truth is NOBODY KNOWS. The reason he was acquitted? Lack of physical evidence. All the logic and reason based on Zimmermans history of a wannabe cop and obvious lies says that he is guilty. But physical evidence? Not enough of it.
So he walks free.
So basically... you desire the system to be changed to "guilty until proven innocent"?
Because that's what you're advocating.
Not exactly. What I'm saying is that he should be guilty of SOMETHING. If not murder. He IS responsible for this. Wrongful death maybe. I dunno, I'm not a lawyer. But the fact that he has ZERO responsibility in the eyes of the law... That is disgusting to me.
You are assuming that GZ is telling the truth and that Martin DID attack him first. There is no evidence to support that is the truth. That is what he CLAIMS. So just as you are saying that there is no evidence that ZIMMERMAN attacked first, there is no evidence to the opposite either. But you WANT to believe that the man with the gun was right. Because you desperately want to make people with guns look like the good guys.
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Please. Here is the deal here.
The key here is innocent until proven guilty, and reasonable doubt.
Basically, because this man claims self defense, there has to be evidence to prove otherwise. Right? Now nobody else saw this. At all. So he CLAIMS that Martin attacked him. Do we know if he did or not? Nope. Will we ever? Nope. Was zimmerman actually shooting in TRUE self defense? Possibly. Do I think he was? No.
Here is the problem with the stand your ground law as written. Basically, Zimmerman was able to claim that it was self defense, and because there is NO EVIDENCE to the contrary, he gets away with it. He wanted to shoot Martin, it's obvious. Who is irresponsible enough to walk around with a loaded gun? Or did he specifically load the gun, because he had every intention of shooting zimmerman. Maybe Zimmerman grabbed Martin, and martin fought back, like any reasonable person would. And then zimmerman shot him.
The truth is NOBODY KNOWS. The reason he was acquitted? Lack of physical evidence. All the logic and reason based on Zimmermans history of a wannabe cop and obvious lies says that he is guilty. But physical evidence? Not enough of it.
So he walks free.
So basically... you desire the system to be changed to "guilty until proven innocent"?
Because that's what you're advocating.
Not exactly. What I'm saying is that he should be guilty of SOMETHING. If not murder. He IS responsible for this. Wrongful death maybe. I dunno, I'm not a lawyer. But the fact that he has ZERO responsibility in the eyes of the law... That is disgusting to me.
You are assuming that GZ is telling the truth and that Martin DID attack him first. There is no evidence to support that is the truth. That is what he CLAIMS. So just as you are saying that there is no evidence that ZIMMERMAN attacked first, there is no evidence to the opposite either. But you WANT to believe that the man with the gun was right. Because you desperately want to make people with guns look like the good guys.
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Originally Posted By: dishdude
I guess by your logic Ted Bundy is a DA MAN too.
Al Bundy?
No, Al Bundy truly is DA MAN! 4 touchdowns in one game, AND he still drives the same old Dodge he drove in high school!
Originally Posted By: dishdude
I guess by your logic Ted Bundy is a DA MAN too.
Al Bundy?
No, Al Bundy truly is DA MAN! 4 touchdowns in one game, AND he still drives the same old Dodge he drove in high school!
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Originally Posted By: dishdude
I guess by your logic Ted Bundy is a DA MAN too.
Al Bundy?
No, Al Bundy truly is DA MAN! 4 touchdowns in one game, AND he still drives the same old Dodge he drove in high school!
what kind of oil and what is his OCI?
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Originally Posted By: dishdude
I guess by your logic Ted Bundy is a DA MAN too.
Al Bundy?
No, Al Bundy truly is DA MAN! 4 touchdowns in one game, AND he still drives the same old Dodge he drove in high school!
what kind of oil and what is his OCI?
Originally Posted By: dparm
Originally Posted By: Nick R
So basically the jury is setting a precedent. If you want to kill someone, shoot them, and tell the police they attacked you. Maybe bloody yourself up a bit to make it look convincing, and there you go. You have committed murder, and successfully gotten away with it.
That's a ridiculous oversimplification.
No it's [censored] not. Because that is EXACTLY what *could* have happened here. You follow someone. You call police tell them there is someone suspicious. You then attack that person. They will likely fight back, like a rational person would. You then shoot them. The police show up, and you claim you were attacked by the "thug" and then claim self defense. There is no evidence to the contrary to say you are lying, and it's innocent until proven guilty. So tell me how it is an oversimplification? Because it's NOT.
Originally Posted By: Nick R
So basically the jury is setting a precedent. If you want to kill someone, shoot them, and tell the police they attacked you. Maybe bloody yourself up a bit to make it look convincing, and there you go. You have committed murder, and successfully gotten away with it.
That's a ridiculous oversimplification.
No it's [censored] not. Because that is EXACTLY what *could* have happened here. You follow someone. You call police tell them there is someone suspicious. You then attack that person. They will likely fight back, like a rational person would. You then shoot them. The police show up, and you claim you were attacked by the "thug" and then claim self defense. There is no evidence to the contrary to say you are lying, and it's innocent until proven guilty. So tell me how it is an oversimplification? Because it's NOT.
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Not exactly. What I'm saying is that he should be guilty of SOMETHING. If not murder. He IS responsible for this. Wrongful death maybe. I dunno, I'm not a lawyer. But the fact that he has ZERO responsibility in the eyes of the law... That is disgusting to me.
You are assuming that GZ is telling the truth and that Martin DID attack him first. There is no evidence to support that is the truth. That is what he CLAIMS. So just as you are saying that there is no evidence that ZIMMERMAN attacked first, there is no evidence to the opposite either. But you WANT to believe that the man with the gun was right. Because you desperately want to make people with guns look like the good guys.
There doesn't need to be evidence to support "his truth." That's why you're wrong, you're looking at this backwards because looking at it forwards doesn't support the reality you would prefer.
He's guilty of shooting a man and killing him. But that doesn't mean he broke the law.
Not exactly. What I'm saying is that he should be guilty of SOMETHING. If not murder. He IS responsible for this. Wrongful death maybe. I dunno, I'm not a lawyer. But the fact that he has ZERO responsibility in the eyes of the law... That is disgusting to me.
You are assuming that GZ is telling the truth and that Martin DID attack him first. There is no evidence to support that is the truth. That is what he CLAIMS. So just as you are saying that there is no evidence that ZIMMERMAN attacked first, there is no evidence to the opposite either. But you WANT to believe that the man with the gun was right. Because you desperately want to make people with guns look like the good guys.
There doesn't need to be evidence to support "his truth." That's why you're wrong, you're looking at this backwards because looking at it forwards doesn't support the reality you would prefer.
He's guilty of shooting a man and killing him. But that doesn't mean he broke the law.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Originally Posted By: dishdude
I guess by your logic Ted Bundy is a DA MAN too.
Al Bundy?
No, Al Bundy truly is DA MAN! 4 touchdowns in one game, AND he still drives the same old Dodge he drove in high school!
Heck yeah!! And was THEE greatest shoe salesman EVER!!
Plus had a HOT wife AND daughter
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Originally Posted By: dishdude
I guess by your logic Ted Bundy is a DA MAN too.
Al Bundy?
No, Al Bundy truly is DA MAN! 4 touchdowns in one game, AND he still drives the same old Dodge he drove in high school!
Heck yeah!! And was THEE greatest shoe salesman EVER!!
shoot first and ask questions later. tell "your side". any questions?
Originally Posted By: Mykl
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Not exactly. What I'm saying is that he should be guilty of SOMETHING. If not murder. He IS responsible for this. Wrongful death maybe. I dunno, I'm not a lawyer. But the fact that he has ZERO responsibility in the eyes of the law... That is disgusting to me.
You are assuming that GZ is telling the truth and that Martin DID attack him first. There is no evidence to support that is the truth. That is what he CLAIMS. So just as you are saying that there is no evidence that ZIMMERMAN attacked first, there is no evidence to the opposite either. But you WANT to believe that the man with the gun was right. Because you desperately want to make people with guns look like the good guys.
There doesn't need to be evidence to support "his truth." That's why you're wrong, you're looking at this backwards because looking at it forwards doesn't support the reality you would prefer.
He's guilty of shooting a man and killing him. But that doesn't mean he broke the law.
So in florida, if I shoot you and claim it was in self defense, and there was no/little evidence to the contrary, does that fit your idea of the perfect reality? Obviously I'm not threatening you, I'm using it as an example of why the way this law is written is terrifying to me.
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Not exactly. What I'm saying is that he should be guilty of SOMETHING. If not murder. He IS responsible for this. Wrongful death maybe. I dunno, I'm not a lawyer. But the fact that he has ZERO responsibility in the eyes of the law... That is disgusting to me.
You are assuming that GZ is telling the truth and that Martin DID attack him first. There is no evidence to support that is the truth. That is what he CLAIMS. So just as you are saying that there is no evidence that ZIMMERMAN attacked first, there is no evidence to the opposite either. But you WANT to believe that the man with the gun was right. Because you desperately want to make people with guns look like the good guys.
There doesn't need to be evidence to support "his truth." That's why you're wrong, you're looking at this backwards because looking at it forwards doesn't support the reality you would prefer.
He's guilty of shooting a man and killing him. But that doesn't mean he broke the law.
So in florida, if I shoot you and claim it was in self defense, and there was no/little evidence to the contrary, does that fit your idea of the perfect reality? Obviously I'm not threatening you, I'm using it as an example of why the way this law is written is terrifying to me.
Originally Posted By: Nick R
So in florida, if I shoot you and claim it was in self defense, and there was no/little evidence to the contrary, does that fit your idea of the perfect reality? Obviously I'm not threatening you, I'm using it as an example of why the way this law is written is terrifying to me.
So in this elaborate scheme are you going to go have a buddy on hand to beat your face in to make it look more plausible when law enforcement arrives on scene?
So in florida, if I shoot you and claim it was in self defense, and there was no/little evidence to the contrary, does that fit your idea of the perfect reality? Obviously I'm not threatening you, I'm using it as an example of why the way this law is written is terrifying to me.
So in this elaborate scheme are you going to go have a buddy on hand to beat your face in to make it look more plausible when law enforcement arrives on scene?
Originally Posted By: Mykl
Originally Posted By: FXjohn
shoot first and ask questions later. tell "your side". any questions?
You're conveniently glossing over the "get punched repeatedly" part. You know, the part that came before the shooting.
no..that's "his side of the story".
Originally Posted By: FXjohn
shoot first and ask questions later. tell "your side". any questions?
You're conveniently glossing over the "get punched repeatedly" part. You know, the part that came before the shooting.
no..that's "his side of the story".
- Status
