Yes.
But as a general proposition, in this context, “He did not violate the law,” means that his conduct which was alleged to have been violative of the law could not be proven.
Well, of course I don’t. But on the specific instance of Zimmerman’s trial for second-degree murder, I am very convinced he did not factually violate the law.
So in the specific case under discussion here, yes: he “got off,” because he did not violate the law.
Really, what do you think he lied about during the trial?
Funny, I don’t think I said he did…
You don’t think that if he had been accused of twice pulling a gun on someone, that the police would have arrested him immediately, brought up his prior charges, and given less credence to his version of events. All of which would prevented him from having a police detective say he was credible at trial, and from having his seemingly sober account of the events that night played at trial without much questioning. Given that much of the evidence introduced in the trial was related to the above, why do you assume things would have been the same? Moreover, why do you think he would have even been able to get a fancy lawyer and donations if he wasn’t a sympathetic victim in he minds of many?
I absolutely disagree with this claim.
Do you have some citation upon which to base this, or some expertise in the field?
Do you really not believe are convicted of crimes because of how they are perceived by the jury? Really? Do you also not think race and wealth are a factor? Given that there is a widely acknowledged and documented conviction and sentencing disparity based on race, and that clearly people’s racial prejudices often come into play, I don’t see why you would think a jury would be beyond convicting people for reasons beyond what the evidence says in general. Do you really think people will convict people due to their race, but not because they intensely dislike the person, and think he is an asshole?
And no, clearly there is no way to cite my opinion that people are often convicted because they are assumed to be assholes or just generally bad people. I don’t know why you would even ask something like that except for the reason that you are you and you love to get into stupid debates then declare yourself the winner when someone doesn’t want to jump through the hoops you set.
Okay, well, see, the thing is that IMO the vast, vast majority of people would have read that as “did not commit actions which were violative of the law” as opposed to the way in which you meant it. So thanks for the clarification.
Interesting that you think that. Based on the evidence I’ve seen and heard, I have not come to a conclusion on that point yet.
You guys didn’t get all this Trayvon stuff out of your system in the 4,000,000 50-page threads we had during the trial?
Hey, hey. Calm down. It wasn’t 4,000,000 50-page threads. It was only 50 4,000,000-post threads.
Yes, this probably does happen. It’s wrong when it happens, but the answer to it isn’t to treat everybody equally badly. Someone being wrongfully convicted is never something to be happy about, no matter how unpleasant a person they are, or how much you think that what they did should be illegal.
Every single case should be decided on its merits, nothing else. That means, can it be proved that they committed the crime they’re accused of. Not whether they’re the sort of person who would have done it, not even whether it’s likely that they did it.
Perhaps one question that needs to be asked is why the media, and all the people who have been pointing out that Martin was innocent and so forth, aren’t bringing that level of scrutiny to cases where people have been wrongfully convicted.
You should probably ask the “Huffington Post” why they thought the story should be published. Zimmerman wasn’t the only person arrested that day. It was Huff Po that decided that this story was “newsworthy” and the others were not.
*AP) – George Zimmerman was charged Monday with assault after deputies were called to the home where he lived with his girlfriend, who CLAIMED he pointed a shotgun at her during an argument, authorities said.
Zimmerman pushed the woman out of the house and barricaded the door with furniture, Chief Deputy Dennis Lemma said at a news conference hours after the arrest. The girlfriend, Samantha Scheibe, provided deputies with a key to the home and they were able to push the door that had been barricaded.*
Pushing someone out of the house and locking the door behind them doesn’t sound like the girl friend’s life was in danger. TIME WILL TELL. The police and the public only have the girl friends statement that anyone pointed a shotgun at anyone.
Check that quote again. Everybody covered this story because Zimmerman is… well, a known personality is one way to put it and an awful trainwreck in slow motion is another.
Yup. That’s a quote from the Associated Press, noted in the text doorhinge picked out. Plus HuffPo is basically a news aggregator site anyway, so if not the AP, they’d be quoting someone else.
What am I supposed to check the quote for? Errors?
Huff Po cut and pasted an AP story. MacCat posted a link to the Huff Po story which I cut/pasted to this thread.
It was Huff Po that thought the story should be cut/paste on the Huff Po website. If anyone wants to know why Huff Po re-printed the story, they’ll have to ask Huff Po or make their own assumptions.
It seems that assumptions about George Zimmerman have become quite a popular media/internet pastime. I have to wonder if the/any actual facts will ever be published. All I’ve seen so far has been “she said/he said”.
Pretty sure you need to wait for a trial to get anything closer to facts instead of statements; we’re only at the arrested-and-released stage. Patience, grasshopper!
You were supposed to notice that you were quoting an AP story, so challenging HuffPo for covering the story didn’t make sense. Every major news outlet covered the story. We know why.
Some facts were published: he was arrested after his girlfriend said he smashed up their apartment and pointed a gun at her. He says something else happened. That’s pretty much all the facts we know at this point. If you want to know more, you will probably have to wait for the trial (assuming this one goes to trial).
Calling another poster a liar is no more acceptable here than it is in GD. Knock it off.
twickster, MPSIMS moderator
This. I know some disagree, but it seems obvious to me.
You should perhaps mention that in the rules then, rather than making it up as you go along.
If you have a problem with it, use ATMB as the forum says…don’t make pot shots or drive-bys at the mod notes you get again.
De-escalation is clearly not George Zimmerman’s strong suit.
Well, you certainly posted in the correct forum. You want the freedom to assert something as factually true but cannot be bothered to provide any citation to authority for its truth. In GD, this would be worthy of further comment. In MPSIMS, it’s my transgression – sorry.