Here we go again.
Regards,
Shodan
The level of discourse in this thread doesn’t really rise to the standards of GD, so I’m going to move it to the Pit where y’all can squabble to your hearts’ content.
I have the ultimate authority to decide the questions of right and wrong. On this board, whenever I announce something is morally right, or morally wrong, that’s the final word.
True. But Zimmerman was put on trial for second-degree murder, and his defense was the affirmative claim of self-defense. So the finder of fact at trial assessed the claim that Zimmerman made that martin threw the first punch.
Even if you intended to limit your comments to the above case, how is lying to the cops not wrong? He said he had permission to be there and that he was hired by the owner. Neither of those things are true according to the owner. How is that not wrong?
I thought it found reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case for 2nd degree murder. Isn’t this what “not guilty” means?
Exclusive clip of the Trayvon/Zimmerman encounter:
Edit: In the interest of full disclosure I’ll let you all know that the footage ends right before our hero pulls out his gun.
Yeah, but I’ve got a good feeling about this time!
So far as I can discern, he said he had permission to be there – a claim the owner did not contradict.
And he never said he was hired.
Can you show me the specific quotes to the contrary? The article is written in such a way that it strongly implies he lied but carefully insulates the writer from any directly false statements.
So the article is titled: “Gun Shop Owner Says Zimmerman Was Never Hired To Provide Security, Despite His Claims To Cops”
And the lede is: The manager and owner of a Florida business are denying reports that George Zimmerman has been hired to provide security for their business.
But here’s what Zimmerman said:
Note that “hired” is not mentioned.
Further down:
So – the owner never says that he didn’t grant Zimmerman permission; Zimmerman never says he was hired, and the owner says he was never hired.
The article carefully skirts those borders to leave the casual reader the impression that Zimmerman lied to the police.
Yes. But from the evidence at trial, we can be reasonably certain they did not, for example, acquit because they believed Zimmerman was not the man present that night, or that Zimmerman did not fire the gun.
The jury was asked to evaluate conflicting theories of the case offered by the prosecution and the defense.
They found that the prosecution’s theory of the case was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In order to make that finding, they had make some factual findings about the events.
Bricker, maybe you and I aren’t disagreeing, just talking past each other.
I don’t think the evidence *strongly *supports that he was in fear for his life, but I’ll grant that. I think Zimmerman was trying to do a good thing that night.
Nevertheless, I think we agree:
[ul]
[li] Trayvon Martin was innocent.[/li][li] George Zimmerman killed him.[/li][li] There are many things Zimmerman could have done differently that would have resulted in no deaths that night.[/li][/ul]
I’m comfortable saying Zimmerman’s judgment is horrible, and the world would be better off if he stayed in his apartment and sat on his hands rather than attempt to protect anybody or anything else. Even though it’s legal.
And perhaps Zimmerman and the gun shop owner and manager are carefully choosing their words to not incriminate or contradict one another.
***The Bricker Doctrine ***.
Really? They couldn’t just make the determination that the defense successfully raised reasonable doubt against the prosecution’s case?
“Affirmative defense”.
Only if he’s speaking ex catheter.
Can we ask Zimmerman to stop engaging in legal acts that have already shown a significant risk of someone winding up dead? He has already purposefully inserted himself into a “crimey” situation and killed a kid over the danger he felt he was in. So, he now chooses to stake out a place waiting for another “crime” to be committed that he can now insert himself into?
He already killed someone by playing cop, and he’s going back to play cop again? Fuck him. I don’t give a shit if he was justified in the Martin shooting, he’s a guy who makes bad choices and he’s just making more of them now.
Someone made a statement that simply wasn’t true. What’s he supposed to do? Ignore it because the many people that think 2+2=5 get really upset when you tell them it’s four?
The board is supposed to be about fighting ignorance. That’s exactly what Bricker was doing.
Well, if that’s what we have to do, it’s what we have to do.
Debaser, you have made a statement that simply wasn’t true, in saying that someone made a statement that simply wasn’t true, and that **Bricker **came in to correct it.
**Bricker **didn’t like the *insinuations *people made. He hasn’t corrected anybody. He came in to argue against insinuations.
Bricker conflate the moral and the legal? Never! Never, i say! I simply don’t believe it!
Just kidding. It’s practically his defining characteristic on this board. He’s owned up to it before; he’s even apologized for it before; but he keeps doing it nonetheless. If there’s a moral or principled or philosophical issue that he disagrees with you about, and he can make a point by noting that his position would be legally supportable, you can be sure that will be his first line of argument.
It’s a perfect strategy, because (as in this thread) everything he says about issues of legality is generally true and correct. It simply allows him to elide or slide past the messy or inconvenient issues that might not be so conducive to his position.