So, does anyone see riots like happening if Zimmerman is found guilty? Like with the Rodney King riots a few years ago?
Trayvon and Zimmerman
So, does anyone see riots like happening if Zimmerman is found guilty? Like with the Rodney King riots a few years ago?
Originally Posted by Aimless
Surely a riot is more likely if he's found Not Guilty?
Ditto.
Welcome back from your year-long hibernation.
Hope is the denial of reality
Thanks! I'll probably disappear again real soon and reappear in another year or so.Welcome back from your year-long hibernation.
By then I should be engaged.
Premature Congratulations then!
I honestly don't see riots happening in florida, with either verdict. its been a clusterfuck of bad reporting, poor prosecuting, and an idiotic defense. People may moan, media might bitch and draw it out... but this is Florida after all.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I don't think it would be limited to Florida.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
eh? Why would there be rioting if Zimmerman was found guilty? A lot of people would disagree with the decision but conservatives tend not act like animals when a verdict doesn't go there way.
Surely the conservative opinion (at least as espoused by you) is that not only is he guilty but he should be Fried?
Where did you get that idea? The more info that came out about the case (despite the media LIES *and yes their were LIES*) it became clear it likely occurred just how Zimmerman described. He confronted someone who went ballistic and if he hadn't shot Martin he would have likely suffered a severe injury or death. One could argue manslaughter but 2nd degree murder? /boggle
Goes to state of mind and intent. Zimmerman didn't need to *confront* the kid. His SUV and cell phone were his "safe zone" and first modes of "self-protection". The neighborhood watch program taught that policy, and even forbade carrying concealed weapons. That was confirmed during the 911 call (we don't need you to follow him, ie stay in your car, wait for police).
If Zimmerman intended to kill him he could have just gunned him down and he would have no injuries. Zimmerman wouldn't have called 911 either. The way I see it he confronts someone he views as suspicious (and yes that was dumb, if Martin was actually in the process of stealing something that's one thing but he was just walking around) and the person goes crazy and starts using deadly force to the skull then Zimmerman has a right to defend himself.
But you don't see how Zimmerman's chosen actions (to leave his car and pursue) could have been construed as imminent danger to the innocent kid walking home......"armed" with nothing but candy and a bottled beverage?
you have to account for the victim being black and florida passing stupid laws that conservatives love, ie Stand Your Ground.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
This left being stand your ground by the press, and is all about race now.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Hey there, Ogre!
I don't think there will be riots if Zimmerman is found not guilty of 2nd degree murder, but convicted of the lesser charge of manslaughter. If he's found not-guilty of all charges, there might be some protests about Florida's SYG laws, concealed carry, or definitions of imminent threat/self-defense, though.
Then they can protest the great Florida Attorney General who tried to convict him of second degree murder.
Hope is the denial of reality
Huh? That's not the starting point or person.
Whoever decided that the best alternative to not prosecuting him was prosecuting him for a crime that he clearly did not commit.
Hope is the denial of reality
Seriously? There's a dead teenager who wasn't doing anything wrong or illegal. But you pronounce Zimmerman is completely innocent of any crime before any investigation, charges, or trial?
Are your reading skills that terrible? Do you just come here to have conversations with some alter ego that exists only inside your head?Seriously? There's a dead teenager who wasn't doing anything wrong or illegal. But you pronounce Zimmerman is completely innocent of any crime before any investigation, charges, or trial?
Hope is the denial of reality
Try again.
Plus, we only have Zimmerman's account of events. He maintains that his gun was concealed under his clothes, tucked in a holster behind his hip/flank, which puts it underneath his body during the scuffle. But somehow Trayvon Martin "saw" the gun and tried to grab it...and Zimmerman was able to lift his (soft and out-of-shape body, with inferior athletic abilities) against gravity and force, to draw the gun and shoot it?
I think there's an alternate scenario that can't be corroborated by the victim, because he's dead. Zimmerman brandished his gun and scared the crap out of Martin. Young, dark-skinned males have a reasonable expectation that means imminent danger, and a threat to their lives. How are they supposed to "stand their ground" and defend themselves?
Which is more likely? Man calls police and then gets his face beat in and then manages to fire OR Man goes out to kill kid waving his gun about. Kid instead of running or surrendering starts wailing on him and Zimmerman doesn't fire until he gets his face knocked in a few times. Which is more likely? Now apply a standard GREATER than 51% likely hood (that of reasonable doubt) and you can see if the jury understands their job it should be not guilty.
That's not the legal definition of reasonable doubt, let alone self-defense. Your spelling of likelihood is also wrong.
Also, 'the kid' did reportedly did try to run. He was talking on the phone at the time and had corroborating testimony from his phone-mate. Zimmerman could have taken that opportunity to return to his car, but he didn't. How many more excuses will you afford the shooter, that you don't afford to the victim?
Last edited by GGT; 07-13-2013 at 04:48 AM.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proofThat's not the legal definition of reasonable doubt, let alone self-defense. Your spelling of likelihood is also wrong.
Also, 'the kid' did reportedly did try to run. He was talking on the phone at the time and had corroborating testimony from his phone-mate. Zimmerman could have taken that opportunity to return to his car, but he didn't. How many more excuses will you afford the shooter, that you don't afford to the victim?
Preponderance of the evidence[edit]
Preponderance of the evidence, also known as balance of probabilities is the standard required in most civil cases.
This is also the standard of proof used in Grand Jury indictment proceedings (which, unlike civil proceedings, are procedurally unrebuttable), and in family court determinations solely involving money, such as child support under the Child Support Standards Act.
The standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true. Effectively, the standard is satisfied if there is greater than 50 percent chance that the proposition is true. Lord Denning, in Miller v. Minister of Pensions,[5] described it simply as "more probable than not." Until 1970, this was also the standard used in juvenile court in the United States.
Beyond reasonable doubt[edit]
Main article: Reasonable doubt
This is the highest standard used as the burden of proof in Anglo-American jurisprudence and typically only applies in criminal proceedings.
It has been described as, in negative terms, as a proof having been met if there is no plausible reason to believe otherwise.
If there is a real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case, then the level of proof has not been met.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty. The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution is that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent unless and until proven guilty.
If the trier of fact has no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.
The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no Reasonable Doubt is possible from the evidence presented.
The main reason that the high proof standard of reasonable doubt is used in criminal trials is that such proceedings can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or even in his or her death. These outcomes are far more severe than in civil trials, in which monetary damages are the common remedy.
****
Do you believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's intent was to kill Martin? Because Zimmerman may still be guilty of a crime here but 2nd degree murder isn't the case as its defined by the law.
This is a truly dumb approach to both determining whether or not there is "reasonable" doubt in general as well as to determining guilt in a particular case.
Don't be a big baby. It should at least be 2nd degree murder due to his recklessness and disregard for human life. You're mad because someone might go to jail for incorrectly (aka stupidly) taking the law into his own hands and shooting an innocent black person to death. But, Lewk, just because most redneck conservatives are clearly bloodthirsty racists doesn't mean that you have to be.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
With the law being as it is, I don't think you could have expected a different outcome.
For me the lesson is; if in Florida and somebody looks at you funny, you start running for your life.
Congratulations America
Look up the requirements for second degree murder and then tell me how it applies to this case. This was a gross overreach and a political overreaction, and risks undermining any case against Zimmerman, including for manslaughter.
Hope is the denial of reality
Would it be the same gross overreach and political overreaction if the teenager had been profiled as an Arab, Muslim, or Jew?
edit to add Mexican, Hispanic, Latino, Native Indian and illegal immigrant stereotypes to the profiling list
Last edited by GGT; 07-13-2013 at 05:10 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
