Potential Zimmerman Acquital riots
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-07-2013, 03:11 PM
RE: Potential Zimmerman Acquital riots
(19-07-2013 07:18 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  I think people are getting the wrong idea of why he was found not guilty.
As I understand the law, and 'Merica is pretty fucking retarded so I really wouldn't be surprised if what I'm about to say is wrong, this stand your ground law thing is a self defense law. This means this Zimmerman could only fall back on this defense if the black kid attacked Zimmerman first. If that is the case, then yes it is self defense. The fact that Zimmerman was stalking this kid is irrelevant in the eyes of the law as stalking is not illegal. The fact the cop told him to not follow him is also irrelevant because a cop enforces law, he/she doesn't make it.
The only fact that mattered in this whole case is, did Zimmerman or the black kid attack the other first. If Zimmerman attacked the black kid (seriously, what's the kid's name?) then it's murder, manslaughter at the very least, but I suspect considering if he attacked him it would lean towards murder as when you attack someone you do so with the intention of causing harm.

The onus of proof is on the state to prove Zimmerman landed the first blow.
My guess is there was no witnesses or camera footage and so I believe this is why Zimmerman got off, because the state (cops) couldn't prove Zimmerman attacked first. The key was, it was Zimmerman's word (that the black kid attacked him first) against nothing because the only other person who would know is dead.

The fact he followed him against police advise is not evidence he landed the first blow.


They were charging him with murder, that is a very very serious charge. You need to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
This is the nature of the law. Yes it sucks Zimmerman got off, but the alternative is far less strict levels of proof required to convict people of very serious crimes. How is that a good thing? False imprisonment rates would increase. Remember, this is people's lives we're talking about, life in prison is nothing to simply sweep under the rug. Yes, neither is murder, but you must draw the line somewhere and the line has been drawn firmly in the sand prior to this case and will remain post this case.

Despite my personal opinion about this case, the right verdict was issued, from a legal stand point.


Oh and yes, I did just say I agree with the decision to acquit him.

The cops did not instruct Zimmerman to do anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2013, 03:40 PM
RE: Potential Zimmerman Acquital riots
(19-07-2013 02:58 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(19-07-2013 07:18 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  I think people are getting the wrong idea of why he was found not guilty.
As I understand the law, and 'Merica is pretty fucking retarded so I really wouldn't be surprised if what I'm about to say is wrong, this stand your ground law thing is a self defense law. This means this Zimmerman could only fall back on this defense if the black kid attacked Zimmerman first. If that is the case, then yes it is self defense. The fact that Zimmerman was stalking this kid is irrelevant in the eyes of the law as stalking is not illegal. The fact the cop told him to not follow him is also irrelevant because a cop enforces law, he/she doesn't make it.
The only fact that mattered in this whole case is, did Zimmerman or the black kid attack the other first. If Zimmerman attacked the black kid (seriously, what's the kid's name?) then it's murder, manslaughter at the very least, but I suspect considering if he attacked him it would lean towards murder as when you attack someone you do so with the intention of causing harm.

Arguably, Treyvon had the right to attack first if he felt threatened by Zimmerman. The Stand Your Ground law at its best, ladies and gentleman. Drinking Beverage

The stand your ground law says "reasonable defense" against a threat. I don't know about you, but bashing Zimmerman's head on the hard concrete is hardly considered reasonable by me.

And, even so, according to the only account we have (Zimmerman's) Treyvon was the one creating a dangerous environment by confronting Zimmerman.

But then again, we can't trust Zimmerman, nor can we trust any other eyewitnesses.

You have to provide proof that Treyvon used reasonable defense in order for me to be convinced that Treyvon was in the right for injuring Zimmerman.

Also, I think that as much as they want this case to be about "Zimmerman the racist asshole." it was really "Zimmerman: man with a Hero Complex."

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2013, 03:41 PM
RE: Potential Zimmerman Acquital riots
(19-07-2013 03:11 PM)TheBlackKnight Wrote:  
(19-07-2013 07:18 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  I think people are getting the wrong idea of why he was found not guilty.
As I understand the law, and 'Merica is pretty fucking retarded so I really wouldn't be surprised if what I'm about to say is wrong, this stand your ground law thing is a self defense law. This means this Zimmerman could only fall back on this defense if the black kid attacked Zimmerman first. If that is the case, then yes it is self defense. The fact that Zimmerman was stalking this kid is irrelevant in the eyes of the law as stalking is not illegal. The fact the cop told him to not follow him is also irrelevant because a cop enforces law, he/she doesn't make it.
The only fact that mattered in this whole case is, did Zimmerman or the black kid attack the other first. If Zimmerman attacked the black kid (seriously, what's the kid's name?) then it's murder, manslaughter at the very least, but I suspect considering if he attacked him it would lean towards murder as when you attack someone you do so with the intention of causing harm.

The onus of proof is on the state to prove Zimmerman landed the first blow.
My guess is there was no witnesses or camera footage and so I believe this is why Zimmerman got off, because the state (cops) couldn't prove Zimmerman attacked first. The key was, it was Zimmerman's word (that the black kid attacked him first) against nothing because the only other person who would know is dead.

The fact he followed him against police advise is not evidence he landed the first blow.


They were charging him with murder, that is a very very serious charge. You need to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
This is the nature of the law. Yes it sucks Zimmerman got off, but the alternative is far less strict levels of proof required to convict people of very serious crimes. How is that a good thing? False imprisonment rates would increase. Remember, this is people's lives we're talking about, life in prison is nothing to simply sweep under the rug. Yes, neither is murder, but you must draw the line somewhere and the line has been drawn firmly in the sand prior to this case and will remain post this case.

Despite my personal opinion about this case, the right verdict was issued, from a legal stand point.


Oh and yes, I did just say I agree with the decision to acquit him.

The cops did not instruct Zimmerman to do anything.

This is true, the Dispatcher did. Dispatchers are non-enforcable, and it is not illegal to not follow there commands.

They did it to cover their own ass because of liability.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2013, 03:53 PM
RE: Potential Zimmerman Acquital riots
(19-07-2013 03:40 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  The stand your ground law says "reasonable defense" against a threat. I don't know about you, but bashing Zimmerman's head on the hard concrete is hardly considered reasonable by me.

Considering that Zimmerman was visibly armed, I wouldn't hesitate to bash his head into the ground. But, please, if you admit he was having his head bashed into the concrete, how do you think he was able to pull out his firearm unless he already had it out?

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2013, 03:55 PM
RE: Potential Zimmerman Acquital riots
(19-07-2013 03:53 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(19-07-2013 03:40 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  The stand your ground law says "reasonable defense" against a threat. I don't know about you, but bashing Zimmerman's head on the hard concrete is hardly considered reasonable by me.

Considering that Zimmerman was visibly armed, I wouldn't hesitate to bash his head onto the ground. But, please, if you admit he was having his head bashed into the concrete, how do you think he was able to pull out his firearm unless he already had it out?

The same way I can reach into my pocket without looking at it. Drinking Beverage I don't see it as an impossibility. Then again, I can multi-task. Also, depends in where the firearm was stashed too.

Visibly armed, please define. How visibly are we talking?

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2013, 04:00 PM
RE: Potential Zimmerman Acquital riots
(19-07-2013 03:55 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(19-07-2013 03:53 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Considering that Zimmerman was visibly armed, I wouldn't hesitate to bash his head onto the ground. But, please, if you admit he was having his head bashed into the concrete, how do you think he was able to pull out his firearm unless he already had it out?

The same way I can reach into my pocket without looking at it. Drinking Beverage I don't see it as an impossibility. Then again, I can multi-task. Also, depends in where the firearm was stashed too.

Visibly armed, please define. How visibly are we talking?

His firearm was located on the small of his back with a visible holster. If you are bound to the ground with your head being smashed into the ground, you can't really reach back there to retrieve it. Zimmerman must have already had the weapon out or he was not on the ground.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2013, 04:06 PM
RE: Potential Zimmerman Acquital riots
(19-07-2013 04:00 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(19-07-2013 03:55 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  The same way I can reach into my pocket without looking at it. Drinking Beverage I don't see it as an impossibility. Then again, I can multi-task. Also, depends in where the firearm was stashed too.

Visibly armed, please define. How visibly are we talking?

His firearm was located on the small of his back with a visible holster. If you are bound to the ground with your head being smashed into the ground, you can't really reach back there to retrieve it. Zimmerman must have already had the weapon out or he was not on the ground.

Care to find a picture for me? I am honestly curious as the the claim.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2013, 05:04 PM
RE: Potential Zimmerman Acquital riots
(19-07-2013 02:58 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(19-07-2013 07:18 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  I think people are getting the wrong idea of why he was found not guilty.
As I understand the law, and 'Merica is pretty fucking retarded so I really wouldn't be surprised if what I'm about to say is wrong, this stand your ground law thing is a self defense law. This means this Zimmerman could only fall back on this defense if the black kid attacked Zimmerman first. If that is the case, then yes it is self defense. The fact that Zimmerman was stalking this kid is irrelevant in the eyes of the law as stalking is not illegal. The fact the cop told him to not follow him is also irrelevant because a cop enforces law, he/she doesn't make it.
The only fact that mattered in this whole case is, did Zimmerman or the black kid attack the other first. If Zimmerman attacked the black kid (seriously, what's the kid's name?) then it's murder, manslaughter at the very least, but I suspect considering if he attacked him it would lean towards murder as when you attack someone you do so with the intention of causing harm.

Arguably, Treyvon had the right to attack first if he felt threatened by Zimmerman. The Stand Your Ground law at its best, ladies and gentleman. Drinking Beverage

It's a self defense law, 'feel threatened' doesn't mean, 'oh he looks scary, I'll shoot him'. It's, this guy is attacking, I feel my safety is in danger.
It's opposed to say some 100lbs short blonde chick who just got dumped by her professional wrestler boyfriend and she's crying and throwing her fists against him.
In that case he couldn't then pound her skull in because his safety was not 'threatened'.
"Feel threatened' doesn't mean literally that, it means it in a self defense situation. As in, someone is attacking you.

Quote:The cops did not instruct Zimmerman to do anything.

Makes it even more irrelevant then.





The fact that you'll are arguing about what happened proves reasonable doubt and is exactly why he got off.

Normally these news report talk show things get it right, but this time they are wrong.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2013, 05:09 PM
RE: Potential Zimmerman Acquital riots
(19-07-2013 05:04 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  It's a self defense law, 'feel threatened' doesn't mean, 'oh he looks scary, I'll shoot him'. It's, this guy is attacking, I feel my safety is in danger.
It's opposed to say some 100lbs short blonde chick who just got dumped by her professional wrestler boyfriend and she's crying and throwing her fists against him.
In that case he couldn't then pound her skull in because his safety was not 'threatened'.
"Feel threatened' doesn't mean literally that, it means it in a self defense situation. As in, someone is attacking you.

Actually, no. What I said is precisely what Florida's Stand Your Ground law enables. The problem is not the concept, it is the vague wording.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2013, 05:22 PM
RE: Potential Zimmerman Acquital riots
(19-07-2013 05:36 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(19-07-2013 04:32 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I hope you haven't yet seen this picture too many times.
Because most people don't seem to give a shit about it? Because the stuff in that meme isn't new?
Dunno, I just wanted to feel what is it like to be on the same page as everyone Angel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: