You mean, in the entire conversation about the dictionary definition of a word, up to that point you hadn’t bothered to look at a dictionary? Would you say this is typical for your approach?
Mischaracterization. “Murder” as a collective is a fully separate (and irrelevant to the subject at hand) definition of the word. The relevant ones support what I said.
If it was irrelevant why did you bring it up? Is the definition that reads “the inhumane killing of another” also an irrelevant definition? It doesn’t have the word “unlawful” in it, so it doesn’t support your position, so it must be irrelevant also, right?
It’s certainly irrelevant to a justified killing in self defence, yes.
Yep. Cuz every killing is “inhumane”. Not every killing is a murder.
Well, good, we are drawn away from the puny and insignificant issue of whether Z was lying about being smothered towards the safer shores of semantic nitpicking.
For the sake of argument - he lied about being smothered. He is still not guilty of murder. Live with it.
Because it speaks to the question of whether or not Z was in fear for his life, doesn’t it? Speaks to the possibility that, being well informed of the SYG laws, he tailored his testimony to fit. And, of course, if he lied about that in order to bolster his defense, what else did he lie about?
Did you read the aforelinked transcript? Did you notice how often his interrogators mentioned that his story was fraught with contradictions and difficulties, which they encouraged him to “clear up”?
Yes, it does. The jury found that he is not guilty. Live with it.
The interrogator admitted, clearly, on the stand, under oath, that he lied to Zimmerman repeatedly in order to get him to contradict himself of the facts. The interrogator also stated, on the stand, under oath, that he did not consider any contradictions or inconsistencies in Zimmerman’s testimony significant.
You keep saying that, apparently under the delusion that you are being sharp and pithy.
I have seen any number of things that made me blush with shame to be American, from going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. None of them have killed me yet. However, tomorrow is another day…
If you think he lied about things, show the evidence that supports that claim. Simply saying that he may have lied about things, and he had a motive to do so, is not enough.
No, what I am trying to do is to tell you that a number of us (a very big number) saw the prosecution and the politicians in Florida, as well as a mob of race hustlers and their ignorant followers, try to place a man who was clearly not guilty of a crime in jail for most of the rest of his life. So, it is a relief that they failed miserably in that. And I will point it out every time.
As I commented on another thread, I’ve always found the use of the phrase “race hustlers” “poverty pimps” and “race pimps” when complaining about black activists saying things one doesn’t like quite interesting.
I can’t think of any white political activists referred to as “hustlers” or “pimps” for advocating on behalf of their political issues.
Similarly, I don’t recall Alan Dershowitz ever referred to as a “Jewish hustler” or “Jewish pimp” when he was arguing that Leona Helmsley and Michael Milken were victims of anti-Semitism going so far as to insist that Den of Thieves, by the Pulitzer-Prize winning James B. Stewart was virulently anti-Semitic.
I wonder why that is?
Al Sharpton is a race hustler. So is David Duke.
Are Alan Dershowitz and other activists who who rail about anti-Semitism “Jew hustlers”?
If not, why not?
Show me a case where Dershowitz undeservedly calls someone an anti-Semite and I may call him a hustler. “Jew hustler” wouldn’t fit though, you would have to come up with some other first word.
I dont’ believe anyone is not “living with it”. He was found not guilty under the law. But I hope you don’t think that the legal verdict has any impact on reality itself, that it somehow transforms someone’s act into something other than what it genuinely was. Zimmerman could be (and is, in my opinion) as guilty of murder as a person could possibly be. He could have pulled out that gun, held it on Martin, Martin tried to wrest it from him, failed, then Zimmerman held it to his chest and HE was the one who said “You’re going to die tonight, motherfucker.” and blew away a 17 year old boy just because he wanted to.
The jury finding him not guilty wouldn’t change the reality of him being genuinely guilty of murder. He would have (and did, in my opinion) just gotten away with it.
Cool. And I’ll point out that he’s a murderer who got away with it every time.
Oh, the fun we’ll have!
He murdered Martin, he just didn’t get convicted for it.
Just like OJ killed his wife and Ron Goldman, he just didn’t get convicted for it.
Don’t get too carried away there, son, with the effect of a trial and acquittal. And remember what you’ve been reminded of many times already: the verdict only means that the jury did not think there was sufficient evidence offered to convict him. It doesn’t mean they don’t believe he did it. Enormous difference.
Also, even if the jury did believe him to be genuinely innocent of wrongdoing, even that wouldn’t matter. They are rendering an opinion based on very limited information within an artificial framework. Their opinion will certainly have meaningful consequences, but it’s still and always an opinion, it does not operate to actually alter the nature of the reality that has already happened.