George Zimmerman found Not Guilty.

[Russ_Watters]

you pretend a jury can't think...

Uh, no, you're the one who said the jury was stupid. I'm arguing that the jury set aside their initial emotional reaction and made the correct, reasoned verdict based on the law. Ie:

...this one obviously couldn't but that doesn't justify a verdict just because it's a verdict. that simpleton explanation works for you because you are satisfied with the verdict not because it was correct.

The verdict is correct insofar as it follows the law. You don't like it because you aren't thinking rationally about it, you are thinking emotionally about it.

you misunderstand, maybe it is too complicated to you. there was no question he killed, he was not on trial to prove whether he was the actual individual/culprit that killed trayvon martin. lol

he was on trial as to whether that killing was justified...

Uh, what? That's exactly what I said. Maybe you have a reading comprehension problem.

...and a thinking jury would see that he held the majority of the responsibility in this case per the outcome.

Well, see, that's a critical piece of what you misunderstand about how the law works. "Majority of the responsibly" is not enough.

he got physically involved when he got out of the car and pursued martin, he was also further in violation with a loaded firearm. why did the jury ignore this?

Because the neighborhood watch rules are not the law.

why did the jury even ignore zimmerman's own account of trying to apprehend and detain martin?

Uh, what? Are you hallucinating? Zimmerman never said any such thing.

 

[Trippy]

You don't comment on the "Presumption of Innocence" that you ignore that is the basis of our justice system. If your child was arrested would you want them presumed innocent?

You can GUESS. You can Guess. You can Guess. You can guess what happened that night, but it will always be a guess. So you want people to hate or kill Zimmerman because you Guess Trayvon was behaving himself. That's ridiculous and ironic considering racism is prejudging without facts and you claim to be against that.

The irony in these two statements is palpatable to the point of leaving a metallic taste in my mouth. Thhe hypocrisy has a decidedly unpleasant... Faecal odour.

 

[Russ_Watters]

According to the available evidence, a period of what, two minutes? More? Elapsed between Zimmerman loosing Martin and Zimmerman shooting Martin. Martin was shot very close to his destination - what was it, three houses? Zimmerman, according to the video posted by KWHilborn lived in the opposite direction. Why didn't Zimmerman simply go home?

Zimmerman testified that he was trying to read street signs to establish his location more clearly, for the police. And that he was on his way back to his car when he was attacked. You can choose to believe him or not, but with no contradicting evidence, it is difficult for that to not at least establish reasonable doubt for the jury.

I think the answer iis in the 911 call: "These assholes, they always get away." Zimmerman was every bit looking to pick a fight as it has been suggested Martin was.

Zimmerman pursued Martin.
Zimmerman confronted Martin in some way (remember, he's stopped crimes in progress before).

The problem with the last part is that for someone picking a fight, while armed, Zimmerman fared very badly. The prosecution's case would have gone better if there had been any evidence that Zimmerman had landed a punch or if Martin had been killed without a fight. The facts that he neither had his gun out ahead of time nor had any success in the "fight" makes it difficult for a jury to consider him the aggressor. And that is a key part of the logic behind the verdict.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Zimmerman did attack Martin - that's what getting out of your truck and chasing after someone for no reason is: an attack.

Of course he did, and yes he was - he'd lost sight of him when he ran away, but not for lack of effort. And Martin was the one under attack - anything he did was self defense.

No, that's not how it works. An actual confrontation is required. And the actual confrontation was initiated by Martin.

 

[Russ_Watters]

What Zimmerman was doing to Martin gave Martin every right to beat his teeth out his asshole, if he could.

Maybe in some sort of twisted street logic, but not in the real world of the law.

Apparently Martin actually gave Zimmerman the chance to explain himself, which was a courtesy he had not earned, and it cost Martin his life.

That's absurd. Zimmerman didn't shoot Martin while they were talking, he shot Martin while Martin was beating him. It was the beating that cost Martin his life, not the talking/arguing before it.

I want to live in a decent and civilized community of reasonable folk.

You want to live in a world where anyone can beat up another person for following them? Not me.

And it's some odd, twisted logic you have when Martin is allowed to defend himself against being followed - while not being followed - by beating the crap out of Zimmerman, but Zimmerman is not allowed to defend himself against Martin while having the crap beat out of him.

 

[billvon]

And the actual confrontation was initiated by Martin.

The confrontation was started by the person who got out of his car and followed the other person.

 

[billvon]

You want to live in a world where anyone can beat up another person for following them? Not me.

You want to live in a world where two people can walk up to each other, feel threatened and shoot each other dead? Not me.

 

[Trippy]

Zimmerman testified that he was trying to read street signs to establish his location more clearly, for the police. And that he was on his way back to his car when he was attacked. You can choose to believe him or not, but with no contradicting evidence, it is difficult for that to not at least establish reasonable doubt for the jury.

I'm just going off KWHilborns video.
That suggests that there were street signs closer to him then the ones he went to. Instead of going to the closest intersection, he went to the one that was in the direction he had seen the suspect flee.

The problem with the last part is that for someone picking a fight, while armed, Zimmerman fared very badly.

What's your point? You've never once in your life seen someone pick a fight and then loose?

The prosecution's case would have gone better if there had been any evidence that Zimmerman had landed a punch or...

Because clearly throwing the first punch is the only way to pick a fight. If only human beings had someway to communicate to each other...

'Murrica! Fuck yeah!

...if Martin had been killed without a fight.

Well, yeah...

The facts that he neither had his gun out ahead of time nor had any success in the "fight" makes it difficult for a jury to consider him the aggressor. And that is a key part of the logic behind the verdict.

Neithber of those are actually relevant. The only thing they actually demonstrate is that Zimmerman underestimated Martin.

Remember: He has taken vigilanty actiolns before and stopped crimes in progress, and he al,so said "These assholes, they always get away." He al,so went in the direction he had seen Martin going (aggresive/provocative), hadx pursued Martin (aggresive/provocative).

The evidence is there, it's just a matter of whether or not you want to see it

 

[Russ_Watters]

I'm just going off KWHilborns video.
That suggests that there were street signs closer to him then the ones he went to. Instead of going to the closest intersection, he went to the one that was in the direction he had seen the suspect flee.

I suppose it is possible that Zimmerman was a master manipulator who called the police and mislead them to cover a murder he was about to commit, but I don't think that was plausible enough for the prosecution to even try to sell it to the jury.

What's your point? You've never once in your life seen someone pick a fight and then loose?

Because clearly throwing the first punch is the only way to pick a fight. If only human beings had someway to communicate to each other...

Again, it is possible for the person picking the fight to lose by a shutout, but it isn't very likely.

Being possible that Zimmerman was guilty of manslaughter is nowhere close to enough for the jury to convict him of it.

Neithber of those are actually relevant. The only thing they actually demonstrate is that Zimmerman underestimated Martin.

You consider the facts of what happened in the seconds leading up to the shooting to be irrelevant? Well, that explains a lot!

Remember: He has taken vigilanty actiolns before and stopped crimes in progress, and he al,so said "These assholes, they always get away." He al,so went in the direction he had seen Martin going (aggresive/provocative), hadx pursued Martin (aggresive/provocative).

The evidence is there, it's just a matter of whether or not you want to see it

Evidence of what? None of what you described there is a crime.

 

[Russ_Watters]

You want to live in a world where two people can walk up to each other, feel threatened and shoot each other dead? Not me.

No, I don't, and since we all know that isn't what happened, I'm not sure why you would suggest it.

The confrontation was started by the person who got out of his car and followed the other person.

I don't think you understand what the word "confrontation" means. When you confront someone, you stand in front of them and meet them face to face. Following someone is not confronting them.

Moreover, whatever the original situation was when Zimmerman was following Martin, it was broken when Zimmerman lost Martin. What happened after Zimmerman lost Martin was up to Martin to decide.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

@ tiassa,

.......You keep babbling about "Stand Your Ground" law. Zimmerman’s lawyers opted not to request a Stand Your Ground hearing, and Zimmerman was tried in front of a Jury.

......."Throught" is not a word, but at least you explain where some of your brain cells went.


........This "Presumption of Innocence" is meant to prevent assholes from assuming guilt (no mentioning names - cough* TIASSA)

I thought we had left this junior playground level of debate.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

This may interest you. The instructions given to the jury before they left to make a verdict.
http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf#page=12

 

[kwhilborn]

@ Captain Kremmen,

You put three veiled insults at best of mine from post #718 and then comment.

I thought we had left this level of debate.

Why, do you think I was being too harsh in Post in # 718?
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...d-Not-Guilty&p=3100376&viewfull=1#post3100376

LET'S LOOK AT THE "VEILED" INSULTS THROWN MY WAY BY TIASSA IN HIS PRECEDING TWO POSTS TO THAT.
Here is his post # 710
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...d-Not-Guilty&p=3100318&viewfull=1#post3100318

[kwhilborn] is so accidentally adept at making the point for us with the ignorance and despicability of his grapeshot arguments that the most likely explanation is that he's simply begging for attention.

if we strip away the apparent cultural blockage that somehow separates Seattle and Toronto [my city] by exponentially more than a sum of miles, his argument still doesn't make any sense. That is to say, after we account for his ignorance

resolving such questions is not an outcome our Canadian neighbor intends. This is about SYG and the spirit of Lester Cowens

.
NOTE: Earlier I was called The Canadian Lester Cowens (above) who is a murderous Klu Klux Klan member.

Then I was polite in post 713 and then in 715 we get more

our neighbor from Toronto, and others in the Cult of GeeZee

Not enough blood in a fight? Ooohhh, scary! Pfft! I mean, Jesus fuck, what is wrong with these people?

Although they did try to frame me for arson, once upon a time.I still don't know what the fuck was up with that.

And that's the question the GeeZee Guard cannot answer.

Note: Earlier he said I was in GeeZee Guard (quoted above)

THOSE ARE FROM HIS TWO POSTS PRECEDING MY POST WHERE YOU TOOK YOUR EXAMPLES, WHY NOT QUOTE THE MODERATOR AND INSULT HIS LEVEL OF ARGUING.

THOSE ARE ONLY TWO POSTS. I COULD GO FURTHER. I WAS CALLED "WHITEY", RACIST, and more in this thread by TIASSA.

@ Captain Kremmen (STILL),
and you think using the word "BABBLING is an inappropriate response?

You think inferring some of his brain cells were shot is too harsh?

CAPTAIN KREMMEN GIVE ME AN F-IN BREAK. WHY PICK ON MY LANGUAGE AND NOT LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE AND INSULTS OF THE "SO CALLED" MODERATOR. MODERATORS ARE SUPPOSED TO KINDA SET A PACE, BE A GOOD EXAMPLE, ETC.

Are you too slow to see my post is actually very polite in comparison?

These are also recent admissions from our "moderator" ...

Somewhere in this world, I'm on videotape throwing a Molotov cocktail. Flashing a weapon? I used it.

WTF. Who uses Molotov Cocktails. Let me guess.. "Race Riot". Kill the "Whiteys" (What you called me earlier). Flashing and using a weapon??? WTF. Sounds like you are as bad or worse than anyone I ever met.

this whole trip through nostalgia, that doesn't include the time I actually did set other buildings on fire (albeit accidentally), or any of the other really, really, really stupid things I did

Buildings! That's PLURAL. You set buildings on fire (more than one). Yeah. I can see a few buildings burning down if you throw Molotov Cocktails enough that you are on video doing it.

I hope you participate in Sciforums from jail. Who the hell throws Molotov Cocktails and uses weapons.

So Captain Kremmen. I am a bit miffed that you singled me out here when my barely insulting insults you list, dwarf in comparison to this forums MODERATORS.

So here is more nostalgia for Tiassa. The good ole days.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Fair point.
You were similarly insulted.
I can see that.
But it isn't something to copy.
Look at the example you are giving to newer members.

This mini war-of-escalation you two are indulging in is ridiculous.
Any more of this and you are both going to the headmaster.


@Tiassa
Quit insulting Kwhill.
Now, tell us more about the Molotov Cocktail.
Was it in 1968, when you were rioting in Paris?

 

[Trippy]

I suppose it is possible that Zimmerman was a master manipulator who called the police and mislead them to cover a murder he was about to commit, but I don't think that was plausible enough for the prosecution to even try to sell it to the jury.

Strawman hypothesis - Nothing I have suggested would require this. His exact words were "These assholes, they always get away."

He was spoiling for a fight, and he has picked them previously.

Again, it is possible for the person picking the fight to lose by a shutout, but it isn't very likely.

Right so... What? It's too much for you to think of failed assaults and thefts as people picking fights and then loosing them by varying margins?

It's far more likely than you seem think.

You consider the facts of what happened in the seconds leading up to the shooting to be irrelevant?

This is a deliberate misrepresentation of my statement. My point was that you don't have to have your gun out to act aggresively or pick a fight, the fact that he got he so thoroughly failed in the fight doesn't preclude the possibility of him having picked it. The only thing either of those actually demonstrate is that he underestimated his opponent.

Evidence of what? None of what you described there is a crime.

Well that explains much, if you can't even retain context for more than one post...

You claim that "None of what described there is a crime." You must be imagining things. I don't recall mentioning a crime per-se, only that Zimmerman had pursued Martin, acted aggressively and picked a fight which he was subsequently pwned in. That's what there's evidence of.

 

[wegs]

The confrontation was started by the person who got out of his car and followed the other person.

yes, this ^^

there would have been no 'confrontation,' had Zimmerman not followed Martin.

it's awfully odd to me, how some of us can view this same set of FACTS, and yet...arrive at different 'conclusions.'

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Looking through some of the pictures, the decisions seem to depend on appearance and class as much as shade of skin.
If you look like you are on meth, or drink a bottle of whiskey a day, and/or your address includes the words "trailer park",
forget about SYG, it's not for the likes of you.

Law should not be arbitrary.
SYG could go in the Guinness Book of Records, if there was a bad law section.

 

[birch]

Uh, no, you're the one who said the jury was stupid. I'm arguing that the jury set aside their initial emotional reaction and made the correct, reasoned verdict based on the law. Ie:

The verdict is correct insofar as it follows the law. You don't like it because you aren't thinking rationally about it, you are thinking emotionally about it.

Uh, what? That's exactly what I said. Maybe you have a reading comprehension problem.

Well, see, that's a critical piece of what you misunderstand about how the law works. "Majority of the responsibly" is not enough.

Because the neighborhood watch rules are not the law.

Uh, what? Are you hallucinating? Zimmerman never said any such thing.

uh, you don't make sense. they chose the easy verdict, not the rational one. emotion has nothing to do with it, and if you are going to point fingers, i suggest you consider juror b37's evidenced bias but i'm sure you will somehow deny this as well. the decision to just ignore any liability on zimmerman's part and unreasonable conduct to go straight to syg law is not justice as it is out of context and that is what is not 'rational'. the critical piece of information you are misunderstanding, actually misconstruing and possibly on purpose is that 'majority of responsibility' is enough when understood in context. events take place in context, and not as you present it and call it rational reasoning, it's called "duplicity" under guise. you and that jury took it out of context possibly for an easy verdict, chose what was relevant and what was not and had to use gross cognitive dissonance to pretend that there was not a reasonable degree of intent, bad judgement and reckless action done on zimmerman's part to put himself and martin in a confrontational situation. zimmerman did state in one of his account of events that night that his intent was to detain martin among other inconsistencies but of course all these details are not 'evidence' to the right-wing and swept under the rug or ignored as it's too difficult to actually connect those pieces for them and makes no sense to them, it's just the 'gun totin, shootin, punchin' moment that does and this is considered rational.

i really doubt even you would be arguing a manslaughter verdict if that had been the outcome which tells me i think you are satisfied with the verdict and defending it for reasons not you claim you are 'rationally' typing in response. you see, most were surprised by this verdict and not just those who DISAGREE with it but as well as those who were not expecting it so the racists and right-wing came out of the woodworks to hail this as a righteous outcome.

you are misunderstanding the point. i think this was the correct verdict, not for the justifications used by the right or because of a law but because it needs exposure, questioning and analyzing as to it's validity when there are exceptions to common sense and judgement on part of the public as well as courtroom. the judicial system is supposed to administer justice through laws and if a law is unjust, unethical, or irresponsible; then the law is not working in regard to it's true purpose for justice. as this case demonstrates, the law must be written explicitly so as to consider any loopholes or exploitation.

 

[Tiassa]

Strictly Academic, Mind You

Now, tell us more about the Molotov Cocktail.
Was it in 1968, when you were rioting in Paris?

1991, Jesuit school.

 

[Tiassa]

Notes Around

Maybe I'm missing something, but how is what you decribe different from institutional racism - the tendency, for example to aska black man whether they were the first one in their family to do so when he tells us he graduated college.

I think it's a similar application; I tend to view the idea of institutional racism differently, as a collective effect manifested in societal outcomes, such as capital punishment, the federal crack standard, and self-defense.

• • •​

YOU ARE QUOTING THE BLOODY "FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT" IN AN EFFORT TO CONVICT ZIMMERMAN. This is the Zimmerman thread, correct?

No, actually, I'm reminding that the baseline by which you are attempting to assess and critique events within the American culture happens to be one of the most ignorant I've ever seen.

• • •​

Now, tell us more about the Molotov Cocktail.
Was it in 1968, when you were rioting in Paris?

1991, Jesuit school.