Oh, he absolutely was dead, and absolutely was killed by the men accused of his murder. Unfortunately*, the prosecution failed to prove that in court. From your cite
Please don’t take my belief that the jury were technically right as anything other than a comment on how disgracefully the trial was handled.
*By “unfortunately” I mean “as part of a racist conspiracy”.
“The fundamental danger of an acquittal is not more riots, it is more George Zimmermans.”
Legally, they didn’t have to believe that doctor, they could have convicted.
If you’re a defense lawyer, you can argue that. Good luck getting an acquittal with that twisted logic, though.
Only if there were evidence to the contrary, that Till was in fact dead and not missing.
I’m not just making this up, it’s one of the major controversies from that trial, and one of the reasons the prosecution is considered to be part of the racist conspiracy to avoid a conviction. It’s far from the only one - they failed to call several men who are known to have witnessed the killing, for example.
Based on…?
Good god. Y’all are breaking my heart here. Seriously.
He, conveniently, missed out the part where the fear has to be imminent.
Hey babycakes, nice to see you!
I already predicted a few days ago, and when it comes to pass I shall remind everyone: expect him to be making appearances on Fox. For $$, of course. As a commentator.
Your logic is atrocious.
That’s evidence they had a fight, not evidence that Martin either initiated the violence or threw the first punch.
We could just as easily claim that Zimmerman started the fight by reaching for his gun and Trayvon was defending himself.
Then you’re embarrassingly ignorant of history. If you went to private school, you owe your parents their money back, if you went to public school, you owe the taxpayers a refund.
This is rather funny.
I’m “one of this site’s more notable racists”?
I literally laughed out loud at this.
Thanks, because I really needed a good laugh.
Luck has nothing to do with it; skin color does.
Considering that he’s dead, it doesn’t get more imminent.
Um, about that.
I think I mixed you up with one of the people you argue with in the Israel threads.
I’m sorry for that, I was wrong.
Yep. Every bad lawyer tells himself that.
They get sent to prison when a jury finds they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Your analysis has it backwards You’re assuming he’s guilty if you can construct a reasonable scenario in which he could be guilty.
I’m not saying our justice system is perfect-- I’m sure lots of innocent people get convicted and I’m sure lots of juries stretch the "reasonable doubt’ part. But multiple wrongs don’t make a right, and this case is the way it’s supposed to work. There was reasonable doubt that this was 2nd degree murder.
Reasonable inferences.
Reasonable inferences.
Reasonable inferences.
Without them, almost no one is convicted.
Also, never forget that Zimmerman’s lies could be taken by the jury as evidence in favor of finding him guilty. Just the mere fact of them, forget the way they point to other things. Someone lies about things material to his guilt or lack of it can be seen as consciousness of guilt, and consciousness of guilt can be seen as evidence of guilt. It can’t be the basis for conviction by itself, but it can definitely be in the mix.
It is false to argue that the absence of direct observation of every moment of the incident and the presence of the word of a liar must automatically mean that he has to be acquitted due to lack of evidence leading to other conclusions.
I think any further discussion of this topic belongs in ATMB, but I’m not in the mood for starting a thread about it. I’ll participate if someone else starts it.
Fair enough.
Apology accepted.
Few people are willing to apologize for or admit they made mistakes on the internet so I’ll sincerely congratulate you for doing so.
Also, I do think you’re completely wrong regarding the Till case and naive if you think the jury would have convicted had the prosecution done a better job. White southern juries back then had no problem with blacks getting murdered by whites, but I’ll retract my other statements and apologize for them.
It’s very clear, isn’t it? Not to some folks… Zimmerman has some injuries = Trayvon Martin attacked him for no reason and nearly beat him to death.
My favorite logical wackitude I think is “Jeantel said Martin said he was near his father’s house. THEREFORE: Martin was ***at ***home, left home to find Zimmerman and attack him for no reason.”
It’s been fascinating.
Stoid, why are you still clinging to the notion that Zimmerman lied about what happened, despite all the evidence presented at the trial that supported him?
Oh, I forgot, you didn’t follow the trial, you’re still stuck with your preconceived, unshakeable, unsupported opinion he’s guilty.
How can it possibly be twisted logic when that’s precisely what happened to Trayvon Martin?
Wrong. Again.