George Zimmerman verdict just in . . .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

You have several misunderstandings above.
1) A trespasser (your word) is, by definition, a criminal - though trespassing is a minor crime. Why should such a person be allowed to continue his/her crime?
2) Our Constitution embodies the freedoms we have. And you don't have - that's why we fought against you back in our revolutionary war.
3) The Constitution nowhere values itself over human life. But it is the Constitution which allows us (legally) to protect ourselves.
4) There is nowhere in the trial testimony where Z approached M - in fact exactly the opposite seemed to have been true. So who was the aggressor? Who initiated physical contact? Who used their weapon late in the situation instead of at the beginning? Hardly the act of a "cowboy" looking to shoot someone.

---

Dude, stop living in the past :)

1) So the answer to every crime is to kill the perpetrator?
2) The freedom to run around and pursue people needlessly knowing that you can create a confrontation and then shoot him when he smashed your fat head against the pavement?
3) You mean the constitution seems to encourage idiots to go out and cause a confrontation that doesn't need to happen and then kill the other guy.
4) :rotflmao:

You Americans have a warped view of the value of life.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

2) Our Constitution embodies the freedoms we have. And you don't have - that's why we fought against you back in our revolutionary war.

---

The Constitution enumerates the powers that the Federal Government (all of the three rings of it) does and doesn't have the power to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

3) The Constitution nowhere values itself over human life. But it is the Constitution which allows us (legally) to protect ourselves.

---

The Constitution doesn't - you as a people do though; this is proven to the tune of more than 10,000 deaths a year and billions of dollars spent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

4) There is nowhere in the trial testimony where Z approached M - in fact exactly the opposite seemed to have been true. So who was the aggressor? Who initiated physical contact? Who used their weapon late in the situation instead of at the beginning? Hardly the act of a "cowboy" looking to shoot someone.

---

Again, the trial testimony is and can only the record of one witness because the other one is dead. That one witness is by definition a biased sample.

This is now the third time that I've had to labour the point that no-one apart from Martin and Zimmerman can actually know the circumstances which happened; of those two, Zimmerman is hardly going to present a case which proves his guilt in this.
And since the prosecution can not build a case which provides proof beyond reasonable doubt, the jury can not delivered anything but a "not guilty" verdict.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

In what way? Suggesting that a trespasser should be treated like a stray dog in a herd of sheep.

'zimmerman should have wait until the "Punk" was within 20 ft and then shot him. That way is would have still been innocent but without a broken nose and head injuries.'


The overriding impression I'm getting is that you guys across the pond value your constitution over human life. And it seems to me that the US constitution created this situation. If Zimmerman didn't have a gun he probably wouldn't have approached Martin, if he hadn't approached him the said fight and 'self-defence killing' wouldn't have happened. Martin would have been arrested and none of this thread would exist.

---

wrong again - all martin had to do is not attack zimmerman- pretty simple

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

So all trespassers should be shot dead and this is okay because your guys fought for the right to do this against my guys in the 1800s?

Is this nonsense the best you can come up with?

---

I neither said nor implied that. And you know it. Your comment is one of the reasons it's hard to have a reasonable conversation these days. It would seem from the evidence that Z acted rashly and foolishly yet did not initiate physical contact. M did. Lacking the physical confrontation neither would be dead. What part of that don't you understand? Also, just exactly where, when someone is beating your brains out, at least from your point of view (the beatee), do you decide to use any means at your disposal to stop it.

Not to put words in your mouth, but are you suggesting that Z should have just taken it and, maybe, M would get his just deserts by serving a life sentence for murder? Because no one, especially Z, will ever know if it would have not have gone that far.

More to the point, what would you have done if someone was sitting on you and bashing your head on the ground and you had any sort of weapon at hand?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Again, the trial testimony is and can only the record of one witness because the other one is dead. That one witness is by definition a biased sample.

This is now the third time that I've had to labour the point that no-one apart from Martin and Zimmerman can actually know the circumstances which happened; of those two, Zimmerman is hardly going to present a case which proves his guilt in this.
And since the prosecution can not build a case which provides proof beyond reasonable doubt, the jury can not delivered anything but a "not guilty" verdict.

---

What a bunch of illogical babble. Even if Martin had survived the shot, his testimony, according to you, would be just as biased as Zimmerman. Then we are left with a mountain of physical evidence that indicates Zimmerman as merely a concerned neighbor and Martin the aggressor, an aggressor who did not cease his assault even when requested by a different witness entirely. It's convenient you forgot about that witness, huh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Dude, stop living in the past :)

---

?? How so?

Quote:

---

1) So the answer to every crime is to kill the perpetrator?

---

I never said nor implied that as you well know.

Quote:

---

2) The freedom to run around and pursue people needlessly knowing that you can create a confrontation and then shoot him when he smashed your fat head against the pavement?

---

There is nothing in evidence to support that view with the exception of Z's over zealousness. I don't think anyone has suggested that Z was out to shoot anyone that night.

Quote:

---

3) You mean the constitution seems to encourage idiots to go out and cause a confrontation that doesn't need to happen and then kill the other guy.

---

You're a bright guy and that last line is such an incredibly bad attempt at baiting the discussion it definitely does not become you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vhatever

What a bunch of illogical babble. Even if Martin had survived the shot, his testimony, according to you, would be just as biased as Zimmerman.

---

Well yes. That should be obvious.

Every witness; in fact every person is a well of internal biases and filling in the gaps of our recollection. I can tell you from my time as a court recorder (I worked in nine different Federal jurisdictions here) that oh so many cases have a component of "he said, she said" about them. Two witnesses can have wildly different stories of the same event. That's part of the reason why courts demand proof "beyond reasonable doubt" in criminal cases but only "'the balance of probabilities" in civil cases.

And if I've violated the rules of logic, I'd like to know how.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Well yes. That should be obvious.

Every witness; in fact every person is a well of internal biases and filling in the gaps of our recollection. I can tell you from my time as a court recorder (I worked in nine different Federal jurisdictions here) that oh so many cases have a component of "he said, she said" about them. Two witnesses can have wildly different stories of the same event. That's part of the reason why courts demand proof "beyond reasonable doubt" in criminal cases but only "'the balance of probabilities" in civil cases.

And if I've violated the rules of logic, I'd like to know how.

---

I disagree with your premise that one witness's version of events constitutes a biased sample, when that same version of events is not presented in some kind of vacuum. There were tons of other evidence, from witness to physical.it's not one persons story versus no-one else's story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

?? How so?


I never said nor implied that as you well know.

There is nothing in evidence to support that view with the exception of Z's over zealousness. I don't think anyone has suggested that Z was out to shoot anyone that night.

You're a bright guy and that last line is such an incredibly bad attempt at baiting the discussion it definitely does not become you.

---

Where did point 4 go? Just saying :dozey:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roamy

wrong again - all martin had to do is not attack zimmerman- pretty simple

---

That much is obvious, but if Zimmerman hadn't tried to play Dirty Harry then Martin never would have felt threatened and attacked an armed man.....