George Zimmerman Verdict: NOT GUILTY

[Revoltingest]

Not even able to walk down the street? Wow... thank god its only in america.

If "walking down the street" includes beating up "creepy *** crackers",
then this is indeed a difficult thing to do. One shouldn't be able to do that.
Let us not overlook that fact that Martin was a violent young racist.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I was talking about with regards to:

*snip*
Where is the point at which someone is allowed to walk down the damn street without some idiot following him with a gun (regardless of whether or not he intends to use it)?

i.e. not his interaction with Zimmerman, but rather his right to walk down the street without having some crazy (with a gun) start stalking him.

If zimmerman's actions in tailing someone with a gun in his possession are legal it seems policy almost tailor made to precipitate violence.

 

[Falvlun]

Zimmerman's Hispanic. The media depicted him as a white man to create a race issue that didn't exist in the first place.

What? Hispanics can't racially profile or be racists?

 

[Falvlun]

That's irrelevant. Zimmerman didn't throw the first punch.

How do you know? Were you there?

 

[Falvlun]

Everyone's just so willing to demonize Zimmerman that they completely disregard the case itself. Trayvon Martin wasn't an innocent victim; he was an idiot that tried to be tough and ended up getting shot.

Of course, Zimmerman gets to be innocent until proven guilty, but not the kid who was killed. Nope, his guilt is without a doubt. I wonder if he'll ever get a fair trial?

 

[Falvlun]

How legal is it for people to just decide to start following people around over there (especially since the US constitution seems to have no qualms with such people being armed)? To an outsider it seems rather problematic in terms of precipitating needless conflicts. Had Martin been armed then maybe he would have shot Zimmerman, would that have been legal? Where is the point at which someone is allowed to walk down the damn street without some idiot following him with a gun (regardless of whether or not he intends to use it)?

Precisely.

That's why these stand-your-ground laws are bad, and the context of the situation needs to be taken into account regarding self-defense. Otherwise, anybody with a grudge and a gun can go pick a fight, and once he's getting his *** kicked, shoot his "assailant" and claim self defense.

 

[Falvlun]

Running will always rouse suspicion and punching a man with a gun is plain stupid.

Oh, so now Martin knew that Zimmerman had a gun?

 

[Revoltingest]

Precisely.

That's why these stand-your-ground laws are bad, and the context of the situation needs to be taken into account regarding self-defense. Otherwise, anybody with a grudge and a gun can go pick a fight, and once he's getting his *** kicked, shoot his "assailant" and claim self defense.

There was no evidence presented that Zimmerman picked a fight.
This is a silly reason to oppose "stand your ground laws".
But if silly is our goal, I'll accuse you of saying every angry racist youth has a
right to assault creepy *** crackers who follow & report them to the cops.

Of course, there are murky legal issues to sort out. What if the person you want to beat is merely "Hispanic", & not
a "white Hispanic"? What if a black neighborhood watch (yes, they exist!) patrolman is beaten by a white youth?

 

[Falvlun]

There was no evidence presented that Zimmerman picked a fight.

He picked the fight by stalking a kid for which there was no reason to stalk.

This is a silly reason to oppose "stand your ground laws".

I don't think so. I am simply applying the arguments made for Zimmerman by posters here to a different scenario.

They claimed that whoever throws the first punch is the assailant, and that people should have the right to defend themselves however they see fit. They said that everything else is irrelevant.

I think that is a dangerous and nonsensical precedent.

But if silly is our goal, I'll accuse you of saying every angry racist youth has a
right to assault creepy *** crackers who follow & report them to the cops.

Of course, there are murky legal issues to sort out. What if the person you want to beat is merely "Hispanic", & not
a "white Hispanic"? What if a black neighborhood watch (yes, they exist!) patrolman is beaten by a white youth?

I think you'll need another cup of coffee before you're ready to make a coherent argument.

Regarding race, yes, it was a factor insomuch as Zimmerman racially profiled his victim. You don't necessarily need to be a racist to racially profile. You don't need to be white or any specific color to racially profile.

 

[Revoltingest]

He picked the fight by stalking a kid for which there was no reason to stalk.

There's no evidence to support this.

I don't think so. I am simply applying the arguments made for Zimmerman by posters here to a different scenario.

When you speak for yourself, you cannot blame poor rationale on others.

They claimed that whoever throws the first punch is the assailant, and that people should have the right to defend themselves however they see fit. They said that everything else is irrelevant.

"They said" is less relevant than the legal standard & the evidence.

I think you'll need another cup of coffee before you're ready to make a coherent argument.

- I don't drink coffee.
- I'm not making an argument. I'm mocking yours.

Regarding race, yes, it was a factor insomuch as Zimmerman racially profiled his victim. You don't necessarily need to be a racist to racially profile. You don't need to be white or any specific color to racially profile.

You overlook that Martin racially profiled Zimmerman. No matter what 'progressive' apologists dream up to excuse the "cracker" remark as merely neutral black venacular, we've more evidence of Martin's racism & violent intent than of Zimmerman's.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

He picked the fight by stalking a kid for which there was no reason to stalk.

That is a statement of faith.

They claimed that whoever throws the first punch is the assailant, and that people should have the right to defend themselves however they see fit. They said that everything else is irrelevant.

And that is a gross and dishonest distortion.

 

[Falvlun]

That is a statement of faith.

Ah, my mistake. I didn't know that Zimmerman was just out for a walk minding his own business when a teenager attacked him for no reason.

And that is a gross and dishonest distortion.

How do you know? Do you know the specific posts and posters I am speaking of? Do you see inside my brain and know for certain that I am purposefully being dishonest? No possibility that that is my honest interpretation of specific arguments made by specific people?

Really. Innocent until proven guilty really only seems to apply to Zimmerman. Everyone else need not apply.

 

[Falvlun]

There's no evidence to support this.

:sarcastic

You can argue that stalking someone isn't picking a fight, but you can't argue that Zimmerman didn't stalk this kid.

When you speak for yourself, you cannot blame poor rationale on others.

"They said" is less relevant than the legal standard & the evidence.

I wasn't making a legal argument. I was commenting on people's comments. Sorry if that is so difficult to understand.

- I don't drink coffee.
- I'm not making an argument. I'm mocking yours.

Then maybe you should drink coffee in order to make a coherent mockery.

You overlook that Martin racially profiled Zimmerman. No matter what 'progressive' apologists dream up to excuse the "cracker" remark as merely neutral black venacular, we've more evidence of Martin's racism & violent intent than of Zimmerman's.

So?

As far as I'm concerned, the only really important factor that race played in this tragedy was the act of racial profiling. I do not know, nor have I commented on, whether either of the players were racist. You have mistaken me for someone who has.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Ah, my mistake. I didn't know that Zimmerman was ...

You don't know a great deal. You simply pretend while you fabricate your reality to support your stereotypes.

Zimmerman said that he stood down when told to do so. You know with a zealous certainty that Zimmerman is lying. What is your evidence?

 

[Revoltingest]

You can argue that stalking someone isn't picking a fight, but you can't argue that Zimmerman didn't stalk this kid.

I argue primarily that no evidence was presented that Zimmerman stalked Martin.
But I speculate, based on the evidence, that it was Martin who pursued & assaulted Zimmerman.

I wasn't making a legal argument. I was commenting on people's comments. Sorry if that is so difficult to understand.

Sarcasm? I'm sorry that relying upon evidence in forming a judgement is so rare.

As far as I'm concerned, the only really important factor that race played in this tragedy was the act of racial profiling. I do not know, nor have I commented on, whether either of the players were racist. You have mistaken me for someone who has.

Are you referring to Martin's profiling of the "cracker"?
Or do you address the media profiling of the "white Hispanic"?

 

[LuisDantas]

So much certainty that Martin picked up a fight with Zimmerman sounds rather odd to me.

And then there is the insistence that killing Martin outright was "self-defense".

Really? Zimmerman feared for his life despite being the one who stalked the other and the one with the firearm?

That is suspicious at the very least. And brings to light how ridiculously overblown legal definitions of "self-defense" have become.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You can argue that stalking someone isn't picking a fight, but you can't argue that Zimmerman didn't stalk this kid.

To the best of my recollection, that is precisely what was claimed and, presumably, what the jury believed. What is your evidence to the contrary?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Really? Zimmerman feared for his life despite being the one who stalked the other and the one with the firearm?

Your evidence that Zimmerman 'stalked' Martin?

 

[Falvlun]

Are you referring to Martin's profiling of the "cracker"?
Or do you address the media profiling of the "white Hispanic"?

Neither. Between us, you're the only one talking about these things.

 

[Revoltingest]

So much certainty that Martin picked up a fight with Zimmerman sounds rather odd to me.

Perhaps you mistake a reasonable conclusion based upon a preponderance of evidence for "certainty".
Does it not seem odd that there is so much certainty that Zimmerman stalked & murdered Martin, when there is no evidence for this?

And then there is the insistence that killing Martin outright was "self-defense".

If you were lying on the ground with a young assailant sitting on top of you, breaking your nose, & pummeling you with fists, would you defend yourself?

Really? Zimmerman feared for his life despite being the one who stalked the other and the one with the firearm?

That he "stalked" Martin is not backed up by evidence. This is a histrionic redefinition of the word "stalk" for purposes of demonizing Zimmerman, while deflecting from the real fact that Martin was violently assaulting Zimmerman.

That is suspicious at the very least. And brings to light how ridiculously overblown legal definitions of "self-defense" have become.

If you were lying on.....nah, already asked.

A new one for you.
If you were a black man who liked to patrol his crime ridden neighborhood to report suspicious activity, & you found yourself lying upon the ground being assaulted by a young white buck, would you have the right to defend yourself?