Yep, which is why it’s so problematic when people who supposedly care about social justice and minorities are against the courts protecting the accused.
Classic. Really well done, too. Totally unconvincing, but kudos for the maneuvering.
Seriously?
Saying a defendant “made the claim at a trial” doesn’t not require that they took the stand. They have a right to an advocate, who makes their case for them. It is not reasonable to assume that @k9bfriender meant that Zimmerman testified.
You’re acting like video evidence is the only form of evidence. The video is why there was a public outcry, but Arbery’s shooters were clearly guilty without it. They were found arguing against their own case. They created the situation that occurred, meaning they can’t assert self-defense.
No one is against courts protecting the accused. We’re against nonsensical verdicts for white people who shoot unarmed black people that wouldn’t occur if the accused was black. (Haven’t you noticed the pattern?) We’re against racists deciding to become vigilantes and go out with their guns to “protect” neighborhoods with guns. We’re against black killing victims not getting the same presumption of self-defense as their white shooters.
Rittenhouse should not have even been there. Zimmerman should not have even been there. Just like Arbery’s shooters should not have been there. Even if you don’t think they’re all guilty of murder, they still are guilty of killing people who would not be dead if not for their bad actions.
If you’re a defense lawyer and you don’t really have a good defense, what do you do?
You continue to do the best you can for your client within the bounds of maintaining ethical standards; and you probably lose. But you have not failed in your fiduciary duty to your client if you refuse to be an unethical scumbag.
What I said was if there was not enough evidence to convict them, I would be against convicting them. For some reason, that’s a controversial statement here…
In this case, they were clearly guilty so a conviction was warranted. In other cases where self defence has been claimed, it’s possible that it was, in fact self defence, so they are innocent, as a person is presumed innocent and remains that way until proven guilty. As it happens, in the cases of Zimmerman and Rittenhouse, it’s more than possible that they acted in self defence, it’s very likely in the first case and proven true in the second.
As for creating the situation, that’s irrelevant if they created the situation through legal means - so even if you consider things like carrying a legal weapon or following someone and asking them questions in a perfectly legal manner it doesn’t matter. They could, and did, correctly assert self defence.
I believe nothing of what that pyscho claims. He is a violent thug who stalked and killed a child walking home. Also, it makes me sick how he profits from this claim to fame.
Are you still under the mistaken impression that the people who attacked Rittenhouse were black? You’ve been corrected on this multiple times. In fact, in the two recent cases, the guy who shot white people was (correctly) found to have acted in self defence, and the guys who shot a black person were (correctly) found to have murdered him - the exact opposite of what would have happened in your bizarre fantasy world.
That is factualkly incorrect - there were no laws preventing them being there, and no moral reason that they shouldn’t have tried to protect the places they lived or grew up in. In both cases, had the people who attacked them not done so, they would still be alive.
Do you disbelieve the woman Martin was talking to on the phone? It’s her evidence, not Zimmerman’s, that shows that Martin was likely the aggressor.
Also, stalking has a meaning, and is not remotely applicable to what happened even if you think ZImmerman is guilty. There’s no reason to think he knew who Martin was before that night, let alone that he’d repeatedly followed him.
ZImmerman selected Martin, called that cops on him, and followed him armed. He was geared up for a fight. The smoke clears and now its all “He was coming right for me! I had to kill him. Glad there’s no witnesses”
No. Fuck you pal. You killed an unarmed kid. I’d jail the murderous lowlife in a heartbeat.
Then you are just as bad as anyone else who wants to lock up their political opponents. Zimmerman had every right to carry his gun, ask Martin what he was doing, follow Martin in the private place Zimmerman lived but Martin didn’t, and he also had every right to shoot him when he was attacked. If you bothered to follow the trial, all these things would be clear to you, but instead you have decided that because the attacker was black he must have been the victim - something that’s just as racist as assuming he must have been the attacker. Look at the actual evidence, not the media lies and your own biases.
Nope. Zimmerman would be in prison, easy. You stalk, and shoot to death an unarmed child walking home at night? Enjoy the prison food. Sickening that he’s walking free by blaming that the unarmed dead black child “started it”.
Sickening that this scumbag testimony is worth any value to other humans.
What’s even more sickening? Is how he profits from it. Stalking and killing a child for fame and money. It’s really hard to fathom.
Is it possible to open up another thread to discuss the Zimmerman case? It seems really off-topic here.
This sentence, 100%, applies to the McMichaels, doesn’t it?
Why do you consider the cases so different?
Zimmerman was attacked, the McMichaels weren’t is the most fundamental difference. Apart from that, they attempted to detain or “citizens arrest” Arbery, Zimmerman did nothing like that (or to be absolutely precise, we have zero evidence he did anything like that). Also, not that I think it makes a legal difference, Martin was still in the location that Zimmerman believed he was trespassing, Arbery had left it (if he even was there in the first place). There’s a big difference between asking someone who doesn’t live in a gated community why they are there and following someone in public even if both are legal.
The cases may look superficially similar, just as the Rittenhouse one might look similar to either of them, but the details are significantly different.
He didn’t stalk him, that’s an absurd claim. It shows that you know absolutely nothing about either the facts of this case or the law. I can tell you are uninterested in the facts, but another fact is that someone being unarmed doesn’t mean they can’t threaten or inflict serious injury - just as Martin tried to do to Zimmerman.
Zimmerman may be a scumbag, but he’s not the one trying to put innocent people in prison because of a political disagreement. You think people should be locked up for defending themselves, and don’t care if you have to ignore the law to do that. Even if Zimmerman did what you accuse him of, you would be far, far more dangerous. It’s thinking like yours that leads to so many innocent (often black) people being locked up.
What are you talking about, we have it on video. Arbery rushed Travis McMichael, even put his hand on his gun. McMichael was 100% attacked.
How did they attempt to detain him? Handcuffs? Rope? Duct tape? They didn’t lay a finger on him physically. Hell, Arbery had already run past the truck when HE’S the one who initiated the physical contact. He could have kept running and he wouldn’t have been detained in any way.
Since this doesn’t make a legal difference let’s just ignore it.
What else do you have? Why is Martin altering his course to physically confront the man following him instead of just heading on his way different from Arbery doing the exact same thing?
Zimmerman probably was a scumbag his whole life. People want him locked up because he’s a child killing scumbag. There’s a difference. Stalking and shooting to death an unarmed child walking home.
Also why do you deny Martin the right to defend himself against his stalker and killer? Why does Martin have no rights?