Sounds better.
But I don’t think that’s the case here* for this particular case*. Afterall, that’s what this is about, Zimmerman.
I don’t see anything wrong with the handling of the case.
He won’t walk.
At least, I hope he doesn’t.
I think this outcome is extraordinarily unlikely.
Are you saying you expect that there’s not even probable cause to believe that Zimmerman committed any lesser-included offense of second degree murder?
I understand the concept of lesser included offense. Zimmerman could also plead to a lesser offense. Currently all we have is a charge of second-degree murder.
[QUOTE=betenoire39]
I feel Martin’s race is a factor in why many support Zimmerman.
[/QUOTE]
The context is that I don’t believe that is true in this forum.
[QUOTE=betenoire39]
Why would there be the need for someone supposedly from the UK to use racial slurs? Or rant and rave about “black crime”?
[/QUOTE]
Exactly. I don’t recall seeing such, hence I asked for a link. I’m happy to have my eyes opened if I missed it.
Thank you.
And I am the one with the “fantasies”…
Yes, as for him it won’t end there. I see the issue, I was thinking justice in the broad sense. You are thinking in the court of law sense.
If he is acquitted, that “should” be the end. It will be unjust to Zimmerman that instead there will likely be a large social outcry, protests, probably threats, civil suits, etc. etc. and so on.
Can you point me to any good sources of data? I found some data on Mother Jones, but am having trouble finding comparable data from the NRA-ILA site.
Understood and agree.
If it isn’t a SYG defense and he walks…
Hence my use of the qualifier “possibly”.
Correct, I personally do not see that. Even though under Florida law, the state can ASK the jurors to CONSIDER manslaughter(or third degree murder), it is not a default or automatic.
Florida law is very specific about affirmative defense. If the state cannot prove Zimmerman’s claim of defense is false, than reduction to manslaughter is still irrelevant. There’s not enough leeway in the state’s prosecution parameters, to take anything we already know about the case, and convince the jury to convict on manslaughter.
let’s go back.
This was my first postand the questions that I had (and have). This should give you more insight into my beliefs.
This one and this one are the essence of my thoughts and criticisms.
Here is one of the posts that I took issue with when that black dude (Honesty) revealed his race. One of the posters started going into this rant(that some bigoted whites like using) about “black crime”. Look at the end of post and see that it’s a total complete “does not follow”.
Ah yes, that’s the sadness of this whole ordeal is that someone is dead and another person’s life is potentially ruined. Zimmerman is not OJ Simpson, he doesn’t have fame, fortune and clout in order to bounce-back should they let him walk.
America was taken back by the aggression of the ethnic communities in the early 90s; but we’re wise to the double standards now. Let the race baiters come to the dance this time, and they’ll show their true colors.
I am still looking for good sources. I keep running into cases from states that have SYG type law(s), but a lot of them were revolving things like aggravated assault, which in Florida can lead up to a horrendous amount of prison time. I don’t believe SYG actually applies in that instance which seems right and also wrong at the same time.
WTF???
What hell is a race baiter?
What the hell is this man talking about?
More of those compound phrases…George Orwell, anyone?
Before we go down the race path again, do you know who Reyston Garcia is?
If you were concerned about how American law works, and that Zimmerman was overly aggressive but still may get away with ‘it,’ then check out Mr. Garcia’s Stand Your Ground case.
Does that sound reasonable to you? Do you then consider he may have been protected under SYG specifically because he was an ethnic race?
Or how about Trevor Dooley? This case is one that makes me cringe alongside Hbns about the pitfalls of Florida’s version of SYG.
Point being, it perceivably can work both ways.
Don’t worry about it;; I doubt you’d understand racial identity politics of the U.S.
Forgot to mention above that Joe Horn’s incident in 2007 is fascinating. He commits what seems like first degree murder, with evidence and is cleared. I would assume he invoked Castle Doctrine, yet I cannot find it.
Big difference, he was trying to retrieve his stolen property.
As for Dooley, I do feel he is contemptible, like Zimmerman. This is personal: I just don’t have respect for people who do shit like that.
Regardless, I don’t see where you’re going here.
I understand them extremely well–don’t make assumptions about me. I am asking you TO CLARIFY YOUR ARGUMENT.
And I understand people like making up these bullshit code words and mangling the english language-- it drives me crazy. Again, what is a “race baiter”?
WTF does that mean?
I think you should read Orwell–he talks about people who make up compound terms like that.
And Joe Horn was totally different.
So I see you brought up two cases where people who were stealing stuff got killed.
What is the implication here? That Martin was stealing or stole something?
Just using reasoning here. Because that’s a possible implication here.
You’re darn right it’s a big difference and Dooley does seem to be in the wrong, yet in both cases the ‘victim’ claimed self-defense, and under SYG there was enough evidence (but not CSI forensics super science fiction amounts of evidence) to make the prosecution incapable of proving their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
These are other SYG cases where someone approached another person with some type of violent intent, which is documented and witnessed. Yet in Zimmerman’s situation, his ‘violent intent’ is not documented and witnessed.
If Garcia and Dooley are/get acquitted how do you propose the state can convict Zimmerman?
For someone who seems to find so many racial undertones in everything, your ignorance to the term “race baiter” is crazy in-itself.
Race baiter = Al Sharpton. I hope that in itself is enough explanation.
You misunderstood O’Mara. He is, in fact, going to have the SYG hearing in April.
Do you think that any of the questions you raised in any of these posts have not been addressed?
For instance, in the one addressed to me, you say -
To which I responded that, no, I cannot prove it decisively. However [list=a][li]In a court of law, Zimmerman does not have to prove that what he claims is true. The prosecution has to prove that it is false. And[*]If you are not talking about a court, but just what I think, then I tend to believe things if there is evidence for them, but not otherwise. Hence what I have been repeating - I believe those parts of Zimmerman’s narrative for which there is evidence. Those parts that are contradicted by the evidence, I disbelieve. Those parts that have no evidence either for or against them, I neither believe nor disbelieve. They fall into the category of “possible but unproven”.[/list]ISTM that you are confused. “Things that could have happened but for which there is no evidence” are **less likely to have happened **than “things that could have happened and for which there is evidence”.[/li]
Regards,
Shodan
Another red herring.
I am not “ignorant” of the bullshit.
I am asking you to explain yourself.
I often hear these terms being used by people who let’s just say, aren’t mainstream in their racial views.
I guess it was a matter of time before the reverend was brought up here.
These people never fail to disappoint with their irrationality.
never.