Primarily because it’s what he said at the time, on tape, before any disaster gave him a motive to fabricate.
Agreed.
But, unfortunately, not legal justification.
That line should read, “I most likely would not have reached the same conclusion…”
I meant, that racial bias is not racist.
I understand that well enough. But again, how do you put a dead kid on trial vs what his killer says? Pretty fucked-up laws when you only get one side of the story to convict/absolve on – especially the one trying to save his hide by any means possible.
That’s a very reasoned and humane response, Rick (including your clarification)
So no pun intended when I say that although – as always – you been on the side of “the law” this whole time, you don’t actually think this was a fair verdict? And again, please forget legaties for a sec and stay human…for one more post anyway.
Please link to an earlier post of yours defending Martin.
Knowing how much you are a stickler for the Law, do you think a case like this one (and likely hundreds we don’t read about) show that laws shouldn’t be immutable and many of them are just stupid…or at least not well thought out and changes ought to be made? Not going to get into the whole SYG discussion, but how does that make any society more civilized? I mean there have been a myriad of examples on these M/Z threads that it makes States that have them, Wild-West like. Not to mention racists as hell as currently applied. And I don’t need to be black to read facts.
Would you agree to a reform?
You could have saved yourself the effort by simply typing, “I know you are, but what am I?”
You weren’t “required” to read my posts at all, and you didn’t reply to the post you claimed to be confused by; you chose to comment on my final “LOL” reply to Terr because something obviously pushed your buttons. I can only guess, because - thankfully - I don’t know you.
Was it the LOL that upset you so much?
I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve used LOL in a reply here (and still have a finger left to raise in your direction). Occasionally, things reach a point where posts don’t warrant a serious answer. I’d be surprised if Terr was even expecting one in that instance.
You read it wrong, because you didn’t know the context. I took the time to explain it to you. But somehow your mistake was, and continues to be, my problem?
That was a LOL worthy post. There was nothing left to say.
I’m sorry if LOL triggers some personal issue you have with being laughed at, but you’re still overreacting to an insignificant exchange that didn’t involve you in the first place. Get over yourself.
Psst. Look again. SWB didn’t think it was possible with the evidence to have convicted GZ. Neither did you. Neither did many others. I laid out exactly how it was possible. With the evidence. Under the law. Bricker agreed with me and no one else disagreed with me.
Whether you or sleeps with butterflies or anyone else would have found the same things is completely irrelevant. The question is was there sufficient evidence to convict him of manslaughter?
Yes, there was.
That’s the whole point ace. If you don’t have sufficient evidence you can’t convict someone. That’s how the U.S. justice system works.
Um, no, that’s not what happened. Like most people, after following the trial, I was of the opinion that there was in fact probable cause (the standard you’re talking about, the legally sufficient evidence), but that no jury could be convinced beyond reasonable doubt. You have done nothing to change that view.
There was sufficient evidence that a conviction could not be overturned for lack of evidence.
There was not sufficient evidence to convict, as the standard for conviction is “beyond reasonable doubt”, and even in your lovely numbered post you show your own reasonable doubt several times. The whole of numbers 1,2,5 and 7 are nothing but doubt.
I don’t think I posted until after the evidence came out. I’m on record as saying I originally thought it was manslaughter, until the truth came out.
The same as many people here.
I cop to misreading the exchange. Was not the first time, nor will it be the last (though I’d still say your point is a weak one). That was why I asked you to clarify–I wasn’t following your logic. That happens some times, you know? A question that is a form of “I’m just not following you, can you clarify?” isn’t calling for a response that includes, “If you only just followed me, I wouldn’t have to clarify this, you know?” Duh.
But that wasn’t my point in response, which is admittedly a minor one. But since you felt it necessary to snark at me over jumping to conclusions as a result of my bias–me, a person you thankfully don’t know–I was amused. It’s a character defect of mine that I react to sarcasm and snark in kind, and I really ought to just let things slide.
But I didn’t. I pointed out to you that chastising someone for jumping to conclusions, while in that same sentence jumping to a conclusion, didn’t help your credibility. I’ll point out here that having started our loving association with your call to read for context, I’m just as amused that you seem to continue to miss this actual point, which was, “Gosh, sister, has the hypocrisy of that comment you made actually escaped your scrutiny?” A minor hypocrisy, but one I enjoyed pointing out when you answered my honestly offered request for clarification with snarky bullshit. And you double downed on the hypocrisy by implying that when you did so, it wasn’t jumping to a conclusion because, after all, you may have guessed, but your spider-sense assured you it was a correct guess.
The last ironies I’ll point out is your separate snarks about classlessness and overreaction coming in an exchange where it would have been so easy for you to say, “Yeah, I overeacted a bit there and did exactly what I accused you of doing.”
No need to thank me for enlightening you this way. Feel free to wave whatever digit in response you’d like. Just part of my ongoing campaign to make the world a sunshinier, LOL-ier place.
Oh, that. Of course I do. If the description of a suspect is black, it makes sense, and is not racist, to bias the search based on race.
There needs to be other information besides just race, though. For example, not being recognised as a resident in a gated community, walking slowly in the rain looking at houses, that sort of thing.
Yes there was. As I pointed out before, that’s a trivial question. Like “is water wet”? Self-defense is an “affirmative defense” because the defendant “affirms” that he did commit the crime.
EXCEPT - self-defense. The pesky thing you keep forgetting.
You skipped something. Like the juror stating that she didn’t think this should have come to a trial at all.
Yep, once again she’s decided she knows best and doesn’t even have to consider that if she doesn’t want to.
I don’t agree that the law is racist, except indirectly – by that I mean in this country race correlates somewhat strongly with poverty, and the law is more friendly to those people that can write a large check to pay for legal defense.
But yes, I agree that this particular law is poorly thought-out, in that it elevates pride above human life, and it needs to be changed.
But it would have been a great wrong to convict Zimmerman anyway. Change the law to handle future wrongs correctly; don’t ignore the law to convict someone.
I think the verdict was fair, in the sense that it applied the existing law to a set of facts found by the jury, and I think the jury made reasonable choices in their fact-finding.
I think the underlying law is unsound, for two reasons: it places the burden of disproving self-defense on the prosecution, when I think a more fair approach is to require someone who claims self-defense to prove his claim by preponderance of the evidence; and it allows someone claiming self-defense to respond with lethal force instead of retreat, when preservation of human life should be the highest principle enshrined.