No, it isn’t- not if he provoked the encounter in the first place. Since he killed the person who could have given testimony as to how the encounter began, very conveniently, we will never know what really happened.
No, he is presumed innocent by our legal system. What factually happened doesn’t change based on how pure legal codes tell us to interpret the situation. Since iiAndyiiii is not a judge, jury member, or otherwise connected to the legal system, he isn’t bound to presume innocence.
Steophan, do you still object to the neutral and completely factual statement that the term murderer is sometimes used outside of legal contexts?
I rest my case. You, andy, are a liar and a hypocrite, and you are condemned both by your words that you have linked to, and your failure to take a simple opportunity to prove me wrong.
You are a lying fantasist. You just cited your own post, for God’s sake! Citing your own posts proves nothing but your own delusions.
It’s funny, though. Delusional, but funny.
I believe that Steophan is relying on this legal principle:
A presumption of innocence means that any defendant in a criminal trial is assumed to be innocent until they have been proven guilty.
Extrapolating on that, you can infer that if a person is not proven guilty, then from a legal sense they are innocent.
However, I think it’s a stretch to say that if a person is accused of criminal violence, and a self-defense justification is given as part of their defense, that they are proven to have acted in self-defense. Because the burden of proof in a criminal trial is on the prosecution, nothing from the defense is “proof”. The job of the defense is not to win, but to make the prosecution fail. Steophan has conceded correctly that a not guilty verdict is not proof of innocence multiple times, but this is inaccurate:
It is not necessary in a trial for the defense to “prove” self-defense. Steophan may have been convinced it was self-defense, maybe the jury was as well (maybe some, maybe all), but the verdict does not establish that, so it can’t be said that it was proven. The jury simply said “not guilty” to five charges.
He was running away, there is video of it. Also, as has been made clear in the many, many threads about self defence, what many people consider “provocation” doesn’t count as starting a violent encounter. Things like carrying a gun, or asking someone what they’re doing in a private place, for example.
Still unable to do it. Come on andy, surely you want to show me up? Prove me wrong, say they are not murderers. You won’t of course, because you can’t admit that the evidence proves they are not, because it would cause your little fantasy bubble about how the world works to collapse.
Sometimes the right wingers are the good guys. Sometimes white people are attacked and can defend themselves. Sometimes, andy, you are wrong. But you can’t admit these things, because you can’t deal with seeing the world how it really is.
But go on, prove me wrong. Say they aren’t murderers. Accept reality for once, you can do it and you’ll feel better for it - and most importantly, when you face that reality you’ll be in a better place to advocate for the causes you actually care about, because you will realise how to do so in a way that deals with what’s actually happening, not what you falsely believe to be going on.
Or, you can remain as comfortably delusional as any Trump supporter, clinging to your warm, cosy victimhood in your friendly echo chamber, dismissing me and others who speak the cold hard truth just as Trump dismissed the advisors who tried to bring him to reality.
Say it, friend, you’ll feel better.
I’m not claiming the verdict proves self-defence or innocence, I’m claiming that the evidence provided at court in the form of video evidence and testimony from witnesses does so. And in the Zimmerman case, we have Trayvon Martin’s reported claim that he had lost Zimmerman, but walked back to find him.
Does that suddenly give you Carte Blanche to sink to that level, with a full mod warning in place, and engage in the same behavior?
They got warnings… which you just admitted to knowing about, and still you posted.
Just how smart is that? You say you’re smart… so shut your yap & prove it.
Liar liar, pants on fire.
You can claim that but you can’t state that it’s a factual or legal proof. If you say that the video evidence is enough to convince you, that’s a reasonable statement, but it won’t convince everyone, because whether or not you feel that it was justifiable self-defense is an opinion.
Rittenhouse is a murderer
Zimmerman is a murderer
The KKK were (are) a genocidal bunch of murderers
You are a fucking racist prick who loves them all.
False, false, true, false. Sorry, that’s a failing grade. Try harder next time.
I’ll tell you what - retract and apologize for the false and uncited claims you’ve made about me (starting with the one that started this thread, but also the false claim you made that I called Rittenhouse a murderer), say “Michael Dunn is a murderous scumbag who is decidedly not the type of person that decent people want near them”, and then I’ll tell you my true and deep feelings about Rittenhouse.
Until then, I’m not inclined to play silly games with someone who’s lied about me so many times.
Why would I say something false? Don’t be silly. I’m not the one here who’s refusing to stand by my views, refusing to answer questions, refusing to either confirm that they said something or retract it.
You know, deep down, that Rittenhouse and Zimmerman aren’t murderers, you know deep down that Dunn was in fact threatened by a shotgun, but you simply can’t bring yourself to admit those things because for some reason you have decided that it’s impossible that black people or protestors on their behalf could ever be violent without provocation. That is just as crazy as believing that white people are always in the right.
The only thing you have established for us is that, deep down, you mistakenly think you have the ability to read minds.
I’ve been wondering this for years. Why did you lie and claim that I called Rittenhouse a murderer? What lead you to make that up? And most importantly, why are you refusing to admit it, and then apologize for it?
You haven’t shown I said what you claimed I did. Because you made it up. So there’s nothing for me to refute.
You could apologize for the lies you made about me, though. That would be a step forward.
After all this, it’s still just sad and funny at the same time that, despite plenty of evidence Dunn lied, and zero corroborating evidence for a shotgun, you still think you know better than a jury.
And you think I’m the one who doesn’t respect the law?
Your projection is showing. It’s a shame it’s leading you to so much fabrication, and so little self awareness. But that’s all this is - projection from a liar who can’t face the truth. Even a little truth like that you said something dumb about Dunn, who murdered a child and shot at fleeing children.
You can’t do it, can you? You can’t bring yourself to say it. You have to stick to your silly beliefs even though you could so easily prove me wrong. Ah well, the rejection of rationality you so strongly support is just going to lead to the collapse of your country, with massive negative impacts for the whole world. No biggie.
Your combination of arrogance, ignorance, hypocrisy and irrationality is positively Trumpian, although I will grant that you’re more eloquent. Hmm, actually I think that makes you more dangerous. The veneer of intellectualism on discredited left wing radicalism is one of the most dangerous things about it.
And this all started because you can conceive that a white man could act in self defence.
More lies and projection, and not a single cite. But by all means, please proceed. Your projections and lies say nothing about me, but plenty about you.
What would you accept as a cite of you refusing to state clearly that Rittenhouse and Zimmerman are not murderers? I can cite this thread, where you’ve refused to do so multiple times.
My claim is that you think they are murderers, in defiance of logic, fact and law. You refuse to state otherwise, despite having many chancers to.
What cite would you accept for your failure to do so, apart from all your responses to me where you won’t do that? This thread is the cite for those.