Originally posted by johndear9287
The race card is always waived around as a last gasp rationalization for the unintelligent.
just out of pure, self-destructive curiosity here, can you estimate how many days worth of the trial you actually watched? Like, not news recaps or anything, just strict trial proceedings?
Originally posted by Oliver North
just out of pure, self-destructive curiosity here, can you estimate how many days worth of the trial you actually watched? Like, not news recaps or anything, just strict trial proceedings?
I either watched every single minute of it live, or the "rerun". I also watched MSNBC more than FoxNews because I'm pretty conservative so I wanted to get an opposing view, no matter how stupid it was.
Originally posted by johndear9287
Explain. You and I haven't disagreed on much of anything. So if there was a discrepancy, I'd love to hear the details.
its more about the other arguments you seem to be engaging in...
like, for instance, the "how bad were the injuries to the head?" question. In the actual case, that didn't matter, and while the defense did call the medical examiner, the defense made it clear during both motions for acquittal and closing statements that degree of damage is not a consideration under Florida law, and the prosecution was forced to explicitly recognize this. The only issue would be whether a) Zimmerman thought he was in danger and b) whether it was reasonable he thought he was in danger, and with no corroborating witnesses, the court errs on the side of the defendant. The defense cited a number of cases where no injury was sustained at all by the defendant, yet they were acquitted even when using deadly force in self-defense (in one case, even the defense attorney saying something like "this is extreme and I don't know if I agree, but it is the law"😉.
Or the whole profiling thing. The defense has never denied that Zimmerman profiled Martin, in fact the idea is explicitly endorsed during closing statements when the defense points out that, including his race, Martin met the description of the people who had been arrested for robbing homes in that area. The position of the defense was, afaik from day 1, that Zimmerman did profile, yet it is entirely reasonable (and not illegal) to profile in that scenario.
I suppose the remark about being a "liar" was a bit of a cheap shot, its just, the back and forth over these past few pages has devolved into bickering about race or whatever entirely unrelated to the case. I guess the question is more like, if you know the stuff you are debating is unrelated to the trial outcome, why bother? Like, it almost goes back to the sensitivity displayed by Zimmerman supporters in the wake of winning...
Originally posted by Oliver North
its more about the other arguments you seem to be engaging in...
like, for instance, the "how bad were the injuries to the head?" question. In the actual case, that didn't matter, and while the defense did call the medical examiner, the defense made it clear during both motions for acquittal and closing statements that degree of damage is not a consideration under Florida law, and the prosecution was forced to explicitly recognize this. The only issue would be whether a) Zimmerman thought he was in danger and b) whether it was reasonable he thought he was in danger, and with no corroborating witnesses, the court errs on the side of the defendant. The defense cited a number of cases where no injury was sustained at all by the defendant, yet they were acquitted even when using deadly force in self-defense (in one case, even the defense attorney saying something like "this is extreme and I don't know if I agree, but it is the law"😉.
Or the whole profiling thing. The defense has never denied that Zimmerman profiled Martin, in fact the idea is explicitly endorsed during closing statements when the defense points out that, including his race, Martin met the description of the people who had been arrested for robbing homes in that area. The position of the defense was, afaik from day 1, that Zimmerman did profile, yet it is entirely reasonable (and not illegal) to profile in that scenario.
I suppose the remark about being a "liar" was a bit of a cheap shot, its just, the back and forth over these past few pages has devolved into bickering about race or whatever entirely unrelated to the case. I guess the question is more like, if you know the stuff you are debating is unrelated to the trial outcome, why bother? Like, it almost goes back to the sensitivity displayed by Zimmerman supporters in the wake of winning... [/B]
Originally posted by jacobkell229
To be clear, the only arguments I seem to be engaged in currently is with hotheads that put emotion above logic, reason, and facts.
well, that is a fairly extreme way of putting it. A lot of the rhetoric against Zimmerman comes from the fact that most Western nations, and in fact, many states within America, don't provide the same protection of vigilantism that Florida does. If "not grasping the minutia of Florida statutes regarding the use of deadly force in self-defense" is the same as ignorance, all people would qualify when considering locations they don't live in. For instance, I'd be astounded if you knew the specific legal rulings with regard to the nationhood of Quebec and the Charter requirements of a referendum seeking separation from Canada. I'm also not sure you are acting any less emotional, as you are attacking people and arguing "facts" that you admit are unrelated to the trial.
In the end, I agree, the people who expected a guilty verdict were largely supportive of that position because they felt that was more in line with their own sense of justice, but for the most part, it is that type of justice that legal systems around the world try to enforce. Florida certainly is an outlier here, and I think widespread consensus in this thread is that even if Zimmerman didn't break the law, or in fact especially because he didn't, Florida law is in serious need of revision.
your position against emotionality also seems to be discredited by your penchant for insult, but /meh, internet and all.
Originally posted by Oliver North
well, that is a fairly extreme way of putting it. A lot of the rhetoric against Zimmerman comes from the fact that most Western nations, and in fact, many states within America, don't provide the same protection of vigilantism that Florida does. If "not grasping the minutia of Florida statutes regarding the use of deadly force in self-defense" is the same as ignorance, all people would qualify when considering locations they don't live in. For instance, I'd be astounded if you knew the specific legal rulings with regard to the nationhood of Quebec and the Charter requirements of a referendum seeking separation from Canada. I'm also not sure you are acting any less emotional, as you are attacking people and arguing "facts" that you admit are unrelated to the trial.
In the end, I agree, the people who expected a guilty verdict were largely supportive of that position because they felt that was more in line with their own sense of justice, but for the most part, it is that type of justice that legal systems around the world try to enforce. Florida certainly is an outlier here, and I think widespread consensus in this thread is that even if Zimmerman didn't break the law, or in fact especially because he didn't, Florida law is in serious need of revision.your position against emotionality also seems to be discredited by your penchant for insult, but /meh, internet and all. [/B]
I don't watch TV, but I had to start watching the actual trial footage simply because there was nobody who just wanted to present the facts of the case. It was entirely a case of people who had clearly made up their minds and were trying to fit the data to their expectations.
EDIT: one of the better examples was how both those who thought Zimmerman was guilty or innocent interpreted the blood splatter patterns/DNA analysis. "Zimmerman had X and Y blood on this and that part of his jacket" "Treyvon had no DNA under his fingernails", as if these isolated pieces of evidence, among what, like 7 hours worth of testimony, had literally sealed the case...
was also funny when the defense lawyer had to clarify with the DNA analyst that he couldn't actually see DNA.
I don't watch TV, but I had to start watching the actual trial footage simply because there was nobody who just wanted to present the facts of the case. It was entirely a case of people who had clearly made up their minds and were trying to fit the data to their expectations.
Originally posted by Darth Vicious
Not sure If I agree. According to witness testimony, TM had time to get home but went back and initiated the altercation (TM attacked first). TM was bigger than GZ (killer). According to the lead investigator, a lot of crooks use rainy, dark days to commit crimes which the community TM was at had a recent rash of break ins. They both couldve handled the situation better. Specially Zimmerman.
Oh see I didn't know this. Again, I didn't follow the case. I wasn't really interested in it. What got my attention was all the nationwide controversy surrounding the it.
BTW, Martin went back where? To the direction Zimmerman was (was he coming at Zimmerman)? Or did he just turn around and go in the opposite direction to where he was initially headed?
You see, I was under the impression that Zimmerman was following him around in a car, and then got out of his car when he caught up to the boy, and that's when everything went down. That's why I was believing that Zimmerman was the start of it, by getting out of his car and approaching Martin in a threatening manner, which caused Martin to attack him, thus making Zimmerman responsible for the events that lead to Martin's death.
But I guess I can easily look all this up myself instead of questioning you about it. lol
Also, Martin wasn't bigger than Zimmerman, he was taller. Zimmerman was around 40 pounds heavier than Martin.
Originally posted by Darth Vicious
Per the "star" witness testimony, he sounded more annoyed than threatened.
Well feeling threatened can manifest in the form of anger. So sounding annoyed doesn't necessarily mean one isn't feeling threatened.