Because that’s what people with functioning brains do. That’s why I have so much trouble believing you don’t do it. Every time you see something, your brain instantly tries to explain what it is seeing. There is no way around this.
If you weren’t constantly reading these threads, I might be able to believe that you hadn’t formed an opinion, as you wouldn’t have any evidence. But you’ve clearly been looking at all the evidence we have, and it is not reasonable that you have not formed some sort of opinion. You may be unsure of your opinion, but there is no way your brain did not try to make sense of what you read.
I can buy you saying that you don’t think people should voice opinions that they are unsure of. It’s silly, but at least it makes sense as a position. But to demand that they not form that opinion at all makes no sense to me.
Oh, and you are a tax lawyer. Don’t act like you know shit about criminal law.
Yep, because I think Steophan, in good faith, didn’t see why others would desire a guilty sentence. There are three main reasons I can think of: the threat of recidivism (which I think highly unlikely), the desire for punishment (which may be related to a feeling that the police or DA were injudicious in their handling of the case, perhaps as a result from the wording of the law) and a belief that the number of similar cases would be stemmed given he were found guilty and/or the law was rewritten.
Who the fuck defines “idiot” that way? Got a cite?
Please don’t try to distort my statements by using strange and unaccepted definitions for words that are in common usage and easy to look up in any dictionary.
Nobody as far as I know. Not consciously and explicitly anyway.
Subconsciously and implicitly is a different story.
Let me ask you this: If I were arguing that Zimmerman is most likely guilty, i.e. if I joined Team Trayvon, do you think the same group of people would still be attacking me in this thread?
If you can’t tell, I’m working my way backwards through this rather long thread:
Do you therefore allege that you have never stated that speculating about your own motivations is something you can ban someone for?
This doesn’t make sense. Proving that one part of a story is true does not in any way make the rest of it true. If I tell you that my Aunt Kay is a Jehovah’s Witness and that she walks on water, you going and asking her if she’s is a JW and her saying yes does not somehow prove that she also walks on water. This is just a pure logical fallacy.
All the injuries would prove is that Zimmerman was punched in the nose and knocked to the ground. It tells us absolutely nothing about who started the fight. Only the lack of injury would tell us anything, and that’s only because it flat out proves that his version of event is false.
A single truth does not make an statement true but a single falsehood does make a statement false. It’s a logical NOR.
My point is simple: People have been making the case that Zimmerman attacked first since before anyone knew there was a video. They’ve made the case back before there was any reason to doubt the police’s statement. Until the video, everyone assumed the police report was accurate about the injuries. It makes no sense to claim that a video proving the police report was accurate would change their minds, or cause them to stop advocating that Zimmerman was guilty. There is no reason for DianaG to “slink back into her hole.”
I don’t believe the Stand Your Ground law should legally apply if YOU are the pursuer, if YOU instigated or were the original cause of the confrontation. I also don’t believe it should have been written the way it was, in that it pretty much requires the police to simply accept your word about what happened - especially if you killed the other guy.
It is too easy to abuse. Some bully or psycho or “superhero wannabe” starts a fight and then when he thinks he will lose, he yells self defense and starts blasting. As long as he makes sure of the kill, he is home free. That is fucked up.
This is not someone reacting to a robbery attempt or to a home invasion. This is someone who INSTIGATED the situation. He stated, as heard in the tape, “assholes get away” and decided that his “target” was high on drugs. He decided his “target” was up to no good … ALL with NO evidence at all. Against the advice of the 911 operator. He was a shooting looking for a place to happen. AND he shot someone who was unarmed. he should have kept his dumb ass in his car and at a distance. He FUCKED UP. Now someone is dead because he is a FUCK UP.
I think the law was badly written and Zimmerman misused it deliberately. In short, I still think he is guilty as hell.
Put me down for a ten-spot on, “a 911 operator is not the police.” And then let’s just go ahead and parlay that onto, “you have no proof Zimmerman instigated the fight.”
I’d even be willing to post a flyer on, “asking someone a question isn’t illegal.”
If someone is following me, I’d prefer they didn’t. It makes me uncomfortable. If I get so uncomfortable I actually start to run, and am pursued, my first thought is not something along the lines of “Gosh, these evangelical types around here are certainly determined to witness for the Lord!” I’m likely to feel threatened.
I have some inkling of what it feels like, but its been some years since I was hassled for being publicly weird. I am advised by people who’s opinion I respect that black people, especially young black people, face similar suspicion and harassment to this day. Times ten, easily.
What uncomfortable question I am sidling up to is roughly this: are we legally allowed to consider the racial distinction in terms of perceived threat? Am I, or you, or Mr Zimmerman more likely to consider a young black man a threat? I can pretty much guarantee you that a young black man being followed and/or chased by a white man is going to feel physically threatened.
Can we reasonably expect such a racial sensitivity on the part of Mr Zimmerman, that his actions were much more hazardous, having a high probability of being perceived as a threat? Shouldn’t he have known that he was provoking a dangerous situation? Would that legendary legal chimera, the “reasonable man”, be expected to take such considerations into account?
What is the general legal definition of profiling? Does Florida’s legal definition of the term differ at all? And is it illegal to engage in profiling?