Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Trayvon Martin]'s Violent Attack on George Zimmerman

18586889091147

Posts

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Out of curiosity, where did we originally get the "Zimmerman has 100 pounds on Martin" thing? Were we getting his weight off his driver's license, or something?

    Because yeah, the dude I see now doesn't look anywhere near that heavy.

    Same goes for Martin's weight, of course.

  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    Draygo wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Actually, let me try and help you out TNC.

    There are two things that you should really try to internalize. One I have been repeating over and over in this thread, because others seem as though they want to forget it. I've not bothered with the other nearly so often, because most here seem to accept it without issue.


    George Zimmerman allegedly used unlawful force in the killing of Trayvon Martin.
    Trayvon Martin allegedly attacked George Zimmerman first.


    Acting as though we've seen, at this point, sufficient evidence to substantiate either claim is foolish.

    And acting like they require the same level of evidence is foolish. We know Zimmerman killed Martin. If Martin did not attack Zimmerman AND Zimmerman reasonably feared for his life AND Zimmerman did not provoke the attack, his self defense claim fails and the killing was unlawful. There's no evidence Martin attacked Zimmerman, only Zimmerman's claim which the investigator didn't find credible before being overruled by the chief and state prosecutor. There's evidence that Martin was screaming for help when he was shot dead based on witness testimony and analysis of the 911 calls. There's evidence that Zimmerman was following Martin and that Martin was fearful for his own safety because of this based on Zimmerman's 911 call, the conversation between Martin and his girlfriend and Zimmerman's previous pattern of falsely accusing and confronting black teenagers and criminal history of violent confrontation.

    False equivalency is the sign of a lazy contrarian without supporting evidence. Throwing up your hands and saying "well we don't know what happened" is lazy, and fairly intellectually dishonest IMO. Its undisputed that a self-declared neighborhood watch captain with history of violent criminal behavior and false accusations against black teenagers followed an unarmed teenage boy who was 100 pounds lighter than him against the request of law enforcement and shot him dead. Shaking your head and acting like both sides have some kind of equality in burden of proof is craven.

    Oh dear pants, you are just way off base here. Going by facts only.

    First, the american justice system is supposedly setup that you must prove that the accused commited the crime. Assumptions are not enough, you must fill in the gaps.

    Here is what I know:
    1) Zimmerman did follow martin
    2) Zimmerman and martin did exchange words before the incident.
    3) Zimmerman killed martin
    4) Zimmerman suffered wounds on his head from the altercation with martin. From the police report: "While I was in such close contact with Zimmerman, I could observe that his back appeared to be wet and was covered in grass, as if he had been laying on his back on the ground. Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and the back of his head" ( http://mit.zenfs.com/102/2012/04/69081607-29132322.pdf )
    5) Zimmerman described the race of martin only when questioned by the 911 operator.
    6) Zimmerman has not been proven as to had made any racial remarks.
    7) Zimmerman is not 100 pounds heavier than Martin, Martin weighed 160 pounds at ToD. Zimmerman was estimated by witnesses to be 170 pounds. Looks can be decieving so take that as a grain of salt. Martin was 6' 1" Zimmerman is 5' 9"
    8) Zimmermans record, including the amount of calls made to 911 was overstated by the media.
    9) The picture of Trevon martin that was used to incite the news report was when Martin was several years younger than he was when he died.
    10) Only one shot was fired.
    11) Zimmerman isnt 'white' he is Hispanic.
    12) The person screaming on the tape was more likely to be zimmerman than martin. An eyewitness confirms this. The eyewitness also claimed zimmerman was on the ground. An expert who wasnt there says it was martin. In my mind that expert made a very dodgy comparison between a calm zimmerman and a stressed zimmerman. Also the recording was from two different sources. he also did not say that it was a match to martin, only that it was 48% likely that it was zimmerman. 48% likely that it was zimmerman is pretty damn likely. Anyone doing that type of report would put down 'inconclusive'. No comparison was done between old audio of martin, and the tape to at least have a comparsion. Also when you think about it, if the voice is of 2 possible people, and your damn software says its 48% likely to be one guy, thats pretty much 50%, which is pretty damn inconclusive, ie worthless in a court of law. But let the media run with it, its all they need.

    I dont know what happened, but from what I do know - The basis for your claim is just false. You seem to want to go around saying something is 'undisputed' when in fact there is plenty of logical dispute. Your claim does not line up to the known facts.

    If they want to convict zimmerman, they will have to prove that he started the altercation, and no 'following' someone is not starting anything, that is perfectly legal (although dimm-witted) thing to do. I like how you claim that anyone who doesnt support your following ill founded claim to be 'intellectually dishonest'. Or they have to disprove the witness, and prove zimmerman self inflicted wounds.

    As I see it, it would have to be proven that zimmerman started it, and when martin was winning the fight zimmerman started, then zimmerman shot martin. But if zimmerman didn't start it, and his version of events cant be disproven, it wont matter, case closed, zimmerman walks.

    OK

    First, we are not the American justice system.

    You do not know
    4) Zimmerman suffered wounds on his head from the altercation with martin. From the police report: "While I was in such close contact with Zimmerman, I could observe that his back appeared to be wet and was covered in grass, as if he had been laying on his back on the ground. Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and the back of his head" ( http://mit.zenfs.com/102/2012/04/69081607-29132322.pdf )
    We have seen video immediately after the events that show no wounds. However, if we are to assume that somehow they magically disappeared between the scene and the station, this does not mean they occurred due to Martin.
    5) Zimmerman described the race of martin only when questioned by the 911 operator.
    So? That does not mean it wasn't a primary part of the reason he thought he was suspicious.
    7) Zimmerman is not 100 pounds heavier than Martin, Martin weighed 160 pounds at ToD. Zimmerman was estimated by witnesses to be 170 pounds. Looks can be decieving so take that as a grain of salt. Martin was 6' 1" Zimmerman is 5' 9"
    George Zimmerman is listed in a 2005 police report as 250 pounds. According to his family he has lost a lot of weight recently due to stress in the last 2 months and was booked 190. Martin's family says he weight 140-150, and given the police couldn't figure out who he was for 3 days despite a missing person report I don't give their estimates a whole lot of extra credit. But fine, perhaps Zimmerman only outweighed Martin by 30 pounds.
    8) Zimmermans record, including the amount of calls made to 911 was overstated by the media.
    And yet includes a violent criminal history, and still a psychotic level of calls including false accusations against black teenagers.
    9) The picture of Trevon martin that was used to incite the news report was when Martin was several years younger than he was when he died.
    Nope, that's right wing propaganda.
    10) Only one shot was fired.
    Into the chest of a teenage boy.
    11) Zimmerman isnt 'white' he is Hispanic.
    Zimmerman is white and Hispanic.
    12) The person screaming on the tape was more likely to be zimmerman than martin. An eyewitness confirms this. The eyewitness also claimed zimmerman was on the ground. An expert who wasnt there says it was martin. In my mind that expert made a very dodgy comparison between a calm zimmerman and a stressed zimmerman. Also the recording was from two different sources. he also did not say that it was a match to martin, only that it was 48% likely that it was zimmerman. 48% likely that it was zimmerman is pretty damn likely. Anyone doing that type of report would put down 'inconclusive'. No comparison was done between old audio of martin, and the tape to at least have a comparsion. Also when you think about it, if the voice is of 2 possible people, and your damn software says its 48% likely to be one guy, thats pretty much 50%, which is pretty damn inconclusive, ie worthless in a court of law. But let the media run with it, its all they need.
    No. Multiple experts have said it could not have been Zimmerman. The 48% did not mean there was a 48% chance it was Zimmerman, it meant it matched 48% which is more than sufficient proof to disqualify him. Witnesses said the screaming immediately cut off with the gun shot.
    The software compared that audio to Zimmerman's voice. It returned a 48 percent match. Owen said to reach a positive match with audio of this quality, he'd expect higher than 90 percent.

    "As a result of that, you can say with reasonable scientific certainty that it's not Zimmerman," Owen says, stressing that he cannot confirm the voice as Trayvon's, because he didn't have a sample of the teen's voice to compare.

    The Sentinel said that Ed Primeau, a Michigan-based audio engineer and forensics expert, came to the same conclusion.

    "I believe that's Trayvon Martin in the background, without a doubt," Primeau says, stressing that the tone of the voice is a giveaway. "That's a young man screaming."
    The "eyewitness" was a 13 year old boy who police pressured to claim Zimmerman was on the ground who repeatedly said he couldn't tell who was on the ground.
    If they want to convict zimmerman, they will have to prove that he started the altercation, and no 'following' someone is not starting anything, that is perfectly legal (although dimm-witted) thing to do. I like how you claim that anyone who doesnt support your following ill founded claim to be 'intellectually dishonest'. Or they have to disprove the witness, and prove zimmerman self inflicted wounds.

    As I see it, it would have to be proven that zimmerman started it, and when martin was winning the fight zimmerman started, then zimmerman shot martin. But if zimmerman didn't start it, and his version of events cant be disproven, it wont matter, case closed, zimmerman walks.
    No they have to prove one at least aspect of his self defense claim is false. For instance, if Martin was the one screaming for help its highly unlikely a reasonable person in Zimmerman's position would fear for his life. If Zimmerman, a man with a history of violent confrontations and anger management issues, made Martin feel threatened by stalking him through a neighborhood in his car and then getting out and following him on foot then Martin has a right to defend himself. This would mean Zimmerman couldn't claim Stand your ground.

    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, where did we originally get the "Zimmerman has 100 pounds on Martin" thing? Were we getting his weight off his driver's license, or something?

    Because yeah, the dude I see now doesn't look anywhere near that heavy.

    Same goes for Martin's weight, of course.

    Looks like an old police report from '05 had him at 250. 185 when he was booked.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Gotcha. I just know from the video taken that night at the station that he didn't look anywhere near 250, or particularly heavy at all.

  • Shado redShado red Registered User
    PantsB wrote: »
    Zimmerman is white and Hispanic.

    I have found the description of Zimmerman's race as a "White Hispanic" to be kind of interesting. Reading up on this case was the first time that I had even heard the term. The term is used for people whose race is white, and their ethnicity is Hispanic. According to Wikipedia over 50% of ethnically Hispanic or Latino Americans are white. If this is true why is White Hispanic not used more often, and why is it being used in this particular case?

    Taken in context of this case you have the following:
    When the story first broke Zimmerman was often described as white, and accused of being a racist.
    Zimmerman's father comes out in his sons defense saying that he was not racist. That his son was Hispanic, and grew up in a multicultural family.
    From this point on you often see Zimmerman's race described as White Hispanic.

    It looks to me like they are intentionally trying to downplay his Hispanic ethnicity. "You're not really Hispanic, you are White Hispanic." That the use of this term may be technically accurate is ignoring that this is not a term that has been widely used before.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Shado red wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    Zimmerman is white and Hispanic.

    I have found the description of Zimmerman's race as a "White Hispanic" to be kind of interesting. Reading up on this case was the first time that I had even heard the term. The term is used for people whose race is white, and their ethnicity is Hispanic. According to Wikipedia over 50% of ethnically Hispanic or Latino Americans are white. If this is true why is White Hispanic not used more often, and why is it being used in this particular case?

    Taken in context of this case you have the following:
    When the story first broke Zimmerman was often described as white, and accused of being a racist.
    Zimmerman's father comes out in his sons defense saying that he was not racist. That his son was Hispanic, and grew up in a multicultural family.
    From this point on you often see Zimmerman's race described as White Hispanic.

    It looks to me like they are intentionally trying to downplay his Hispanic ethnicity. "You're not really Hispanic, you are White Hispanic." That the use of this term may be technically accurate is ignoring that this is not a term that has been widely used before.

    White Hispanic is a thing and has been for decades. It's been on every census form, every warranty card, every application that I've ever filled out.

    AManFromEarth on
    Lh96QHG.png
  • MadpoetMadpoet Registered User regular
    Zimmerman is as white as Obama.

  • Form of Monkey!Form of Monkey! Registered User regular
    emnmnme wrote: »
    What *is* that?

    That's a good argument for repealing the second is what it is. The thinking that is everyone's a responsible gun owner (including Zimmerman) right up until they do something irresponsible needs to change.

    That's quite the enlightened response. So you don't think that Zimmerman is a tragic outlier, then, and that Americans just shouldn't own guns for any reason? Gun owners are literally all Yosemite Sam with different facial hair and hats? Do elaborate!

  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS
    If this is true why is White Hispanic not used more often, and why is it being used in this particular case?

    Because people think Hispanic is a race and it is not.

    QlBGc.jpg
  • AurichAurich Registered User regular
    The idea that his being Hispanic somehow affects whether or not he was racist against black people is pretty goddamn ridiculous.

  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    emnmnme wrote: »
    What *is* that?

    That's a good argument for repealing the second is what it is. The thinking that is everyone's a responsible gun owner (including Zimmerman) right up until they do something irresponsible needs to change.

    That's quite the enlightened response. So you don't think that Zimmerman is a tragic outlier, then, and that Americans just shouldn't own guns for any reason? Gun owners are literally all Yosemite Sam with different facial hair and hats? Do elaborate!

    B00008DDVU.jpg

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • Linespider5Linespider5 I'll see you in 24 hours. Registered User regular
    Aurich wrote: »
    The idea that his being Hispanic somehow affects whether or not he was racist against black people is pretty goddamn ridiculous.

    I don't know how to phrase this best, but high profile stuff tends to be forced into contrast. Kid gets shot by a man. It's a horrible thing. Maybe if it were framed in a pre-established context, like, say, racial violence, it becomes easier for the public at large to process the event, because suddenly everyone knows how they should feel about it. Doesn't make the event ok. Doesn't make it any less of a horrible thing to live through if the event is something that's part of your personal life because you know people involved and the trauma of the experiences happening on both sides.

    But racism is a nice, irrational, antisocial motivation. It immediately excuses so many other issues from things, like, whether or not the shooter was suitably trained with a gun to make real-life decisions involving firing it, or what kind of life he was living prior to the actions that lead to the death of a minor, or what kind of person the minor decided to be when he saw the guy with the gun. And lots of other, less concrete, ambiguous factors that ripple around this event. And of course, the bigger social issues implicit in the event that we defined by our laws and our policies as a nation.

    Of the people that think Zimmerman is guilty, there are those among them who think Zimmerman is also racist. I don't know if anyone thinks he is racist but innocent.

    White people have the most well-documented history of racism, therefore, if Zimmerman can be white, it raises the odds of him being racist.

    2014png.png
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Aurich wrote: »
    The idea that his being Hispanic somehow affects whether or not he was racist against black people is pretty goddamn ridiculous.

    But they're trying to make it a WHITE thing? Don't you understand?

    No, neither do I.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Aurich wrote: »
    The idea that his being Hispanic somehow affects whether or not he was racist against black people is pretty goddamn ridiculous.

    I don't know how to phrase this best, but high profile stuff tends to be forced into contrast. Kid gets shot by a man. It's a horrible thing. Maybe if it were framed in a pre-established context, like, say, racial violence, it becomes easier for the public at large to process the event, because suddenly everyone knows how they should feel about it. Doesn't make the event ok. Doesn't make it any less of a horrible thing to live through if the event is something that's part of your personal life because you know people involved and the trauma of the experiences happening on both sides.

    But racism is a nice, irrational, antisocial motivation. It immediately excuses so many other issues from things, like, whether or not the shooter was suitably trained with a gun to make real-life decisions involving firing it, or what kind of life he was living prior to the actions that lead to the death of a minor, or what kind of person the minor decided to be when he saw the guy with the gun. And lots of other, less concrete, ambiguous factors that ripple around this event. And of course, the bigger social issues implicit in the event that we defined by our laws and our policies as a nation.

    Of the people that think Zimmerman is guilty, there are those among them who think Zimmerman is also racist. I don't know if anyone thinks he is racist but innocent.

    White people have the most well-documented history of racism, therefore, if Zimmerman can be white, it raises the odds of him being racist.

    So ... you're saying there IS a liberal narrative the media follows because the media knows it will resonate with viewers?

    emnmnme on
    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • Form of Monkey!Form of Monkey! Registered User regular
    emnmnme wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    What *is* that?

    That's a good argument for repealing the second is what it is. The thinking that is everyone's a responsible gun owner (including Zimmerman) right up until they do something irresponsible needs to change.

    That's quite the enlightened response. So you don't think that Zimmerman is a tragic outlier, then, and that Americans just shouldn't own guns for any reason? Gun owners are literally all Yosemite Sam with different facial hair and hats? Do elaborate!

    B00008DDVU.jpg

    This isn't elaboration, it's you casually linking to a picture of the box art from a documentary film inspired by an unrelated incident, in some vain hope that because the film is broadly about guns, it would give any sort of veracity to your serious claim that the second amendment should be repealed. And it doesn't.

    Here, here's an equally nuanced argument on the subject of gun ownership. It's monkey_with_gun.jpg:

    kTy6k.jpg

    Am I high, like the level of discourse, or does that monkey have a gun??

  • Linespider5Linespider5 I'll see you in 24 hours. Registered User regular
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Aurich wrote: »
    The idea that his being Hispanic somehow affects whether or not he was racist against black people is pretty goddamn ridiculous.

    I don't know how to phrase this best, but high profile stuff tends to be forced into contrast. Kid gets shot by a man. It's a horrible thing. Maybe if it were framed in a pre-established context, like, say, racial violence, it becomes easier for the public at large to process the event, because suddenly everyone knows how they should feel about it. Doesn't make the event ok. Doesn't make it any less of a horrible thing to live through if the event is something that's part of your personal life because you know people involved and the trauma of the experiences happening on both sides.

    But racism is a nice, irrational, antisocial motivation. It immediately excuses so many other issues from things, like, whether or not the shooter was suitably trained with a gun to make real-life decisions involving firing it, or what kind of life he was living prior to the actions that lead to the death of a minor, or what kind of person the minor decided to be when he saw the guy with the gun. And lots of other, less concrete, ambiguous factors that ripple around this event. And of course, the bigger social issues implicit in the event that we defined by our laws and our policies as a nation.

    Of the people that think Zimmerman is guilty, there are those among them who think Zimmerman is also racist. I don't know if anyone thinks he is racist but innocent.

    White people have the most well-documented history of racism, therefore, if Zimmerman can be white, it raises the odds of him being racist.

    So ... you're saying there IS a liberal narrative the media follows because the media knows it will resonate with viewers?

    I don't consider it a liberal or a non-liberal thing. But it is a media thing.

    2014png.png
  • chocoboliciouschocobolicious Registered User regular
    I still wonder why the Stand Your Ground thing is still getting so much attention. A ton of states have it, and most cases seem to outright ignore the duty to retreat anyway. I think the immunity to prosecution thing is pretty dumb, but the rest of the law is pretty much standard practice, business as usual.

  • LilnoobsLilnoobs Alpha Queue Registered User regular
    I still wonder why the Stand Your Ground thing is still getting so much attention. A ton of states have it, and most cases seem to outright ignore the duty to retreat anyway. I think the immunity to prosecution thing is pretty dumb, but the rest of the law is pretty much standard practice, business as usual.

    Actually no, SYG and castle laws are an exception, not "business as usual".

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    Aurich wrote: »
    The idea that his being Hispanic somehow affects whether or not he was racist against black people is pretty goddamn ridiculous.

    Especially given, at least where I grew up, Hispanic and black relations were horrendous.

    PSN: allenquid
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Aurich wrote: »
    The idea that his being Hispanic somehow affects whether or not he was racist against black people is pretty goddamn ridiculous.

    Especially given, at least where I grew up, Hispanic and black relations were horrendous.

    I'm pretty sure most inter-minority relations are horrendous.

  • chocoboliciouschocobolicious Registered User regular
    Lilnoobs wrote: »
    I still wonder why the Stand Your Ground thing is still getting so much attention. A ton of states have it, and most cases seem to outright ignore the duty to retreat anyway. I think the immunity to prosecution thing is pretty dumb, but the rest of the law is pretty much standard practice, business as usual.

    Actually no, SYG and castle laws are an exception, not "business as usual".

    http://www.pagunblog.com/2012/03/22/crowdsourcing-no-duty-to-retreat-states/

    31 out of 50 have no duty to retreat codified in law.

    Other places such add Hawaii pretty much just hand wave it in court unless reliable evidence is presented.

    So. Yeah. business as usual.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    I'll clarify for chocobo in that (I'm assuming) he is saying that 31 out of 50 states do not have a duty to retreat codified into law.

    A subset of those then go a step farther, and explicitly codify no duty to retreat. Most of the rest have case law establishing no duty to retreat. Some states, like Florida, chose to codify it explicitly because they had case law (or previous statutes) establishing a duty to retreat...but for a lot of states, this is the way it has been for a long, long time.

    I believe the roots of castle laws go back even deeper, and this should make sense...where else can the right to self defense be stronger than in your own home? And in what location would the duty to retreat make less sense? You're already in your home. Where, precisely, are you supposed to retreat to? It would seem that, in general, you are only making yourself less safe by leaving your home.

  • chocoboliciouschocobolicious Registered User regular
    So court affidavit from prosecution specifically states they believe it to be "punks" as well. Go figure.

    Wonder how long this will last.

    Also, yes, I should have wrote "No Duty To Retreat" specifically and expanded, but the link was pretty thorough and typing too much on Swype kind of sucks.


  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    So court affidavit from prosecution specifically states they believe it to be "punks" as well. Go figure.

    Wonder how long this will last.

    Also, yes, I should have wrote "No Duty To Retreat" specifically and expanded, but the link was pretty thorough and typing too much on Swype kind of sucks.


    I still think it sounded like "poon."

    I think the issue with stand your ground laws is that, if there is a way to deescalate, you don't have to kill a guy and therefore aren't defending yourself. I also can't see any problem for SYG to address.

  • Form of Monkey!Form of Monkey! Registered User regular
    Bagginses wrote: »
    So court affidavit from prosecution specifically states they believe it to be "punks" as well. Go figure.

    Wonder how long this will last.

    Also, yes, I should have wrote "No Duty To Retreat" specifically and expanded, but the link was pretty thorough and typing too much on Swype kind of sucks.


    I still think it sounded like "poon."

    I think the issue with stand your ground laws is that, if there is a way to deescalate, you don't have to kill a guy and therefore aren't defending yourself. I also can't see any problem for SYG to address.

    It is a doctrine commensurate with the way defendants in life threatening situations, with no prior training, actually act and think. It also simplifies the jurisprudential process. A jury spends time critically examining whether the use of deadly force was justifiable rather than whether a prior act constituted retreat or not.

    You know, assuming there is a trial in the first place! And not one sort of begrudgingly held after public outcry! But that is a different nit to pick when it comes to the Martin shooting.

  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    shryke wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Aurich wrote: »
    The idea that his being Hispanic somehow affects whether or not he was racist against black people is pretty goddamn ridiculous.

    Especially given, at least where I grew up, Hispanic and black relations were horrendous.

    I'm pretty sure most inter-minority relations are horrendous.

    Many Americans in general are a crab bucket when it comes to ... well everything. They distrust everything that isn't just like them and hate it when anyone who isn't like them is successful.

    override367 on
    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Aurich wrote: »
    The idea that his being Hispanic somehow affects whether or not he was racist against black people is pretty goddamn ridiculous.

    Especially given, at least where I grew up, Hispanic and black relations were horrendous.

    I'm pretty sure most inter-minority relations are horrendous.

    Many Americans in general are a crab bucket when it comes to ... well everything. They distrust everything that isn't just like them and hate it when anyone who isn't like them is successful.

    Than why are we're #1, we're #1 and USA, USA!

    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    yes we are all #1

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    One day we can all be in the 1%

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • ShadowenShadowen Snores in the morning Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    yes we are all #1

    So if someone gets better than us, they're number 0. You don't want to be number 0, do you? I thought not.

  • Boring7Boring7 Registered User regular
    So yeah, I think Zimmerman's going to get off. I think that a lack of hard evidence proving Martin's innocence (aware of the irony, thanks) is going to produce "reasonable doubt" for Zimmerman. Evidence which would have been collected, had the police not tried to sweep it under the rug. I think the best we can hope for is an Internal Affairs investigation.

    But I am a pessimist.

    Thanatos wrote: »
    Goldman Sachs may as well be named COBRA.
  • JarsJars Registered User regular
    reminds me of back in the day where everyone hated the irish so the irish took the totally logical response of lynching the shit out of black people

  • UrcbubUrcbub Registered User
    The fact that Martin si the one who got murdered and it is HE who has to prove his 'innocence' is mindboggling to me.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Urcbub wrote: »
    The fact that Martin si the one who got murdered and it is HE who has to prove his 'innocence' is mindboggling to me.

    If it makes you feel better, in a court of law he doesn't, it's just he court of people who barely understand what's going on on the internet.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Urcbub wrote: »
    The fact that Martin si the one who got murdered and it is HE who has to prove his 'innocence' is mindboggling to me.

    Neither one has to prove their innocence. Were martin alive, he'd have the same presumption on any applicable assault charges.

    Removing Zimmerman's presumption of innocence won't make martin any less dead.

  • Boring7Boring7 Registered User regular
    Urcbub wrote: »
    The fact that Martin si the one who got murdered and it is HE who has to prove his 'innocence' is mindboggling to me.

    If it makes you feel better, in a court of law he doesn't, it's just he court of people who barely understand what's going on on the internet.

    Doesn't he though? Barring the unlikely Zimmerman will stick with his current story; i.e. "I shot him, it was self-defense." Thus the question becomes, "was he defending himself?" And with presumption of innocence means the prosecution has to prove that Zimmerman did not have reason to fear for his life.

    Is this not the case? I'm just an internet-lawyer, so I am open to new information.

    Thanatos wrote: »
    Goldman Sachs may as well be named COBRA.
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Boring7 wrote: »
    Urcbub wrote: »
    The fact that Martin si the one who got murdered and it is HE who has to prove his 'innocence' is mindboggling to me.

    If it makes you feel better, in a court of law he doesn't, it's just he court of people who barely understand what's going on on the internet.

    Doesn't he though? Barring the unlikely Zimmerman will stick with his current story; i.e. "I shot him, it was self-defense." Thus the question becomes, "was he defending himself?" And with presumption of innocence means the prosecution has to prove that Zimmerman did not have reason to fear for his life.

    Is this not the case? I'm just an internet-lawyer, so I am open to new information.

    No, it is, but here's the thing: that doesn't mean that Martin has to prove his innocence.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • ShadowenShadowen Snores in the morning Registered User regular
    I think it was mentioned earlier in the thread, that with self-defense claims, since you've already admitted to the assault or killing, the onus is more on the defendant to prove self-defense, which is a much narrower thing. Of course, that person might not have been a lawyer either.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Basically Zimmerman's lawyers are going to have to prove that Martin was a threat and the prosecution is going to have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin wasn't a threat.

    That doesn't mean that Martin isn't presumed innocent.
    It doesn't mean that the onus is on Zimmerman to prove his defense because self defense isn't an affirmative defense in Florida.

    It's almost like the law is a bit more complicated than us bunch of internet sher and mat locks seem to pretend it is sometimes.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Boring7 wrote: »
    Urcbub wrote: »
    The fact that Martin si the one who got murdered and it is HE who has to prove his 'innocence' is mindboggling to me.

    If it makes you feel better, in a court of law he doesn't, it's just he court of people who barely understand what's going on on the internet.

    Doesn't he though? Barring the unlikely Zimmerman will stick with his current story; i.e. "I shot him, it was self-defense." Thus the question becomes, "was he defending himself?" And with presumption of innocence means the prosecution has to prove that Zimmerman did not have reason to fear for his life.

    Is this not the case? I'm just an internet-lawyer, so I am open to new information.

    No, it is, but here's the thing: that doesn't mean that Martin has to prove his innocence.

    Exactly. The court didn't kill Martin for being guilty. We can't confuse actions that happened outside the court with what happens inside. Considering an alternate outcome where Martin was shot but survived, neither Martin nor Zimmerman would have to prove their innocence. Martin would not need to prove he didn't assault Zimmerman, Zimmerman would not need to prove Martin did assault him. The default outcome is that both walk free.

    The fact that Martin died does not change much in this regard. It just changes the potential end charge from, say, assault with a deadly weapon or attempted homicide, to an actual homicide. But shooting Martin would already be a use of deadly force, and thus already be subject to essentially the same legal issues. And same burdens of proof.

This discussion has been closed.