| Forum Index > General Forum |
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP. If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
No, I'd say you don't "get it". You don't "get" how the legal system works, you don't "get" the facts of this case, you don't "get" why the media's horrendous portrayal of this case has actually endangered lives, and you don't "get" how you're basically just crapping on this thread, which had been going pretty well for a while now. I've got you pegged as having an outside agenda that you're projecting onto this case (dangerous behavior). Prove me wrong. | ||
|
HULKAMANIA
United States1219 Posts
On June 30 2013 13:20 tokicheese wrote: I don't want cops shooting people. They don't need guns to put down riots. If someone has their wife in kids in their house while some trash is trying to get in the house I don't think any reasonable person would blame them. He's just being histrionic. | ||
|
ConGee
318 Posts
On June 30 2013 13:09 GreenHorizons wrote: 1) There is evidence he was following him despite being instructed not to and there is no doubt there was a confrontation it takes 2 for a confrontation, and Trayvon didn't shoot himself. 2)Not a crime on it's own but it certainly shows he was stalking Trayvon 3)I am sure you acknowledge the long history of racial discrimination and prejudice in the US and how that impacts who is deemed "suspicious" regardless of whether it is a conscious prejudice or not. 1) You mean a confrontation where evidence more or less points to the fact that Trayvon was whamming on Zimmerman who wasn't able to fight back and taken to a point that made Zimmerman fear for his own life (supported by Martin's autopsy, Zimmerman's injuries, most witness accounts, and the physician that was called in to testify)? 2) It's an established fact that he's been tailing Trayvon. I don't get your point. 3) So...what you're trying to claim is that Zimmerman was racially profiling Trayvon without knowing his race. Explain to me how that works. Edit: And I know what subconscious racism is. That argument doesn't hold up in this case because in order for someone to commit subconscious racial discrimination/profiling they have to actually know the race beforehand (ie. choosing the white applicant over the black applicant because you feel the white applicant is more qualified when they have the exact same credentials). | ||
|
tokicheese
Canada739 Posts
At what point can people stop blaming white people for their fuck ups. At the same time as all the shit in the South and much past that Chinese Labourers had to live at the dump in Vancouver because they were not able to buy land and were tricked into coming here to work on the CPR. They made like a 1/10th of the wage of the white workers and did not have free boarding so they slept in tents in the middle of the Rockies year round growing their own food. Hell the Japanese were put in internment camps during WW2. Their entire livelihood including their homes and fishing boats were sold off for next to nothing so when they returned they had nothing. . The only reparations from that fucked up chapter of history were given to the few surviving people in the late 1980s. But there still isn't a massive community of Japanese living in the ghettos contributing fuck all to society. I don't buy that the entire reason there is a huge issue with blacks in America is because of whites. Sure it played a role but they could have easily turned their lives around like so many blacks have and made something of themselves. I have black profs at the school I go to who clearly did. | ||
|
docvoc
United States5491 Posts
Actually, while I rarely agree with DeepElemBlues, on this one he is semi-right. If we as a society continue to blame the "history of racial prejudice" in America, then we fall into a circular reasoning issue. If you say that we should judge this case because of past white treatment of African Americans, then I guess you're going to condemn white people because society as a whole had not changed sufficiently to accept other races. Your logic is horrible though, I don't think you know the other side of the civil rights movement, the black power movement. The leaders of the black power movement, such as Malcolm X, Marcus Garvey, and Stokely Carmichael were just as racist as conservative white leaders and wanted to lead a WEB Dubois-esque society that had two separate people in separate societies. These people were just as segregationist, if not moreso in the case of the "back to africa movement" under Garvey, and did not believe in the SCLC and NAACP views of integration among whites. Furthermore, white people aren't the only racists, nor have they ever been, and while I constantly hear of leftist doctrine concerning race and the need to either accept apologism or accept some form of aiding the "weakened" peoples when it comes to urban african american populations, I rarely hear of this concerning other urban impoverished populations. In short, DEB is partially correct here, and you clearly don't get it. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23165 Posts
On June 30 2013 13:24 sc2superfan101 wrote: No, I'd say you don't "get it". You don't "get" how the legal system works, you don't "get" the facts of this case, you don't "get" why the media's horrendous portrayal of this case has actually endangered lives, and you don't "get" how you're basically just crapping on this thread, which had been going pretty well for a while now. I've got you pegged as having an outside agenda that you're projecting onto this case (dangerous behavior). Prove me wrong. If this thread is supposed to be specifically and strictly about the legalities of the case than a significant amount (maybe most) of the recent posts before mine were people "crapping on" the thread. Our legal system is run by people and as a result it is prone to human foibles. The nature of those foibles and how they have influenced our legal system, its creation and enforcement are on full display around this trial. From the media, to the authorities, to the people discussing it here, myself included. If people want to ignore/deny how that's playing out here I'll just say my piece and move on. In large part people who believe Zimmerman will/should be found innocent tend to have found themselves or someone they care about in a similar position to him when he was making the 911 call And people who think he will likely/should be convicted of something have seen themselves or someone they care about in a similar position to Trayvon when some stranger was following him. Regarding the legal system, I don't have a better system off hand but it should be acknowledged that it has convicted innocent people and let guilty people go free. So the courtroom is not the end all be all of whether something happened the way it was "proved" or "disproved" to have happened. So just because a verdict is reached and "all the facts" are out it does not mean the story we get is an absolute and comprehensive account for what actually transpired. That being said I hope regardless of the verdict there is no more resulting violence | ||
|
ConGee
318 Posts
On June 30 2013 13:54 GreenHorizons wrote: If this thread is supposed to be specifically and strictly about the legalities of the case than a significant amount (maybe most) of the recent posts before mine were people "crapping on" the thread. Our legal system is run by people and as a result it is prone to human foibles. The nature of those foibles and how they have influenced our legal system, its creation and enforcement are on full display around this trial. From the media, to the authorities, to the people discussing it here myself included. If people want to ignore/deny how that's playing out here I'll just say my piece and move on. In large part people who believe Zimmerman will/should be found innocent tend to have found themselves or someone they care about in a similar position to him when he was making the 911 call And people who think he will likely/should be convicted of something have seen themselves or someone they care about in a similar position to Trayvon when some stranger was following him. Regarding the legal system, I don't have a better system off hand but it should be acknowledged that it has convicted innocent people and let guilty people go free. So the courtroom is not the end all be all of whether something happened the way it was "proved" or "disproved" to have happened. So just because a verdict is reached and "all the facts" are out it does not mean the story we get is an absolute and comprehensive account for what actually transpired. That being said I hope regardless of the verdict there is no more resulting violence That's a pretty sweeping generalization you're making about why people think Zimmerman is innocent/guilty. I thought Zimmerman was guilty before following the trial because I only listened to initial news reports and didn't really research the case any further because I didn't have the time to invest myself in the case. Now I think Zimmerman is innocent, at least for now, since I've been following the trial because all the credible evidence up to this point has supported Zimmerman's story and poked holes in the prosecution's arguments. Should there be significant evidence that proves Zimmerman's side of the story is a lie and that there are strong inconsistencies that rise up as the prosecution continues to present evidence. I think Zimmerman is innocent not because I'm close to anyone who has had a similar situation (I don't know anyone who's been in a similar situation). I think Zimmerman is innocent because all of the evidence up to this point strongly implies that he was justified in using his handgun. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23165 Posts
On J[spoiler]une 30 2013 14:08 ConGee wrote: That's a pretty sweeping generalization you're making about why people think Zimmerman is innocent/guilty. I thought Zimmerman was guilty before following the trial because I only listened to initial news reports and didn't really research the case any further because I didn't have the time to invest myself in the case. Now I think Zimmerman is innocent, at least for now, since I've been following the trial because all the credible evidence up to this point has supported Zimmerman's story and poked holes in the prosecution's arguments. Should there be significant evidence that proves Zimmerman's side of the story is a lie and that there are strong inconsistencies that rise up as the prosecution continues to present evidence. I think Zimmerman is innocent not because I'm close to anyone who has had a similar situation (I don't know anyone who's been in a similar situation). I think Zimmerman is innocent because all of the evidence up to this point strongly implies that he was justified in using his handgun. I should be clear I do not mean to imply that the relation to a similar situation is the reason people have the opinions they do. But the ability to psychologically put oneself in either Zimmermans or Trayvons shoes does greatly impact how one interprets the events surrounding the night of the shooting and what followed. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
I have no problem with conflicting opinions. I have no problem with bringing up outside issues that are only peripherally connected to the case (within reason of course). I have a problem with people bringing outside prejudice into a trial determining whether a man will spend his entire life in prison or not. I have a problem with people using sensationalism and distortion to try to dig up racial anger/hostility to try to get a better story. I have a problem with people who support that kind of crap that media WAS engaged in, because that is exactly the kind of crap that get's innocent people hurt and killed. You say that the inherent problems of our legal system are on full display here. But you haven't said what those problems are beside implying rather heavily that they involve racial discrimination. That tells me you've bought the media line that the DA wasn't charging Zimmerman because he was white and Trayvon was black. That might have flown back when we didn't have all the facts (facts that the DA had access to this whole time), but now that we know that there is no damning piece of evidence. There is no smoking gun. There is exactly enough for any reasonable DA to say: "Maybe a crime occurred, maybe it didn't, but we don't have enough evidence to pursue this." There is a reason we presume the accused is innocent unless we have evidence to the contrary. It may not be perfect, but it is the only way to do it. We do not require the accused to prove his own innocence. We do not take people to trial for suspicions. You want to bring up racial bias? How would you feel if that racial bias was itself legitimate legal reason to bringing someone to trial? How would you feel if "well, he's black!" was good enough reason to bring a man to a murder trial without any other evidence? That it would be HIS responsibility to prove that he's NOT guilty. That the State could just say: "Well, if he is innocent than he shouldn't have any problem proving it" and bring anyone they want to trial for any reason whatsoever? This isn't some fantasy either, there are countries without justice systems that presume innocence and that is how they work. You want to think Zimmerman committed murder? Go ahead. I'll disagree with you, but I can't prove anything either way. But don't let that and some other racial agenda you may have blind you to the absolute necessity of preventing our legal system from abusing it's significant power. Don't let any idea, legitimate or not, about societal racial bias cause you to start assuming guilt from the start. Don't act like bringing someone to a murder trial is no big deal. If you don't have overwhelming evidence, you don't charge. Period. No exceptions. A DA has a responsibility and a duty to exercise his or her power responsibly and with great restraint. Whether or not you think the DA has a case, whether or not you think Zimmerman is guilty, whether or not you think they weren't trying Zimmerman at first because of racial bias; the fact that the media acted disgustingly and horrendously in this case is inarguable. In some cases they knowingly propagated false information in order to make it look more sensational. That is inexcusable. That can have no justification. And it resulted in things like this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/28/spike-lee-zimmerman-address-trayvon-martin_n_1385071.html A famous director tweeting the wrong fucking address to thousands of angry people. Resulting in innocent people being driven from their homes. Thousands of death threats have been addressed to both sides. All because the media that you are aggrandizing decided that they wanted a better, more sensational fucking headline. If there is a backlash due to this case, if there are riots, and if people are hurt: all of those events will be at the feet of the media and the people who support them in the bullshit they called reporting. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 30 2013 14:20 GreenHorizons wrote: I should be clear I do not mean to imply that the relation to a similar situation is the reason people have the opinions they do. But the ability to psychologically put oneself in either Zimmermans or Trayvons shoes does greatly impact how one interprets the events surrounding the night of the shooting and what followed. Being able to put oneself into the shoes of Zimmerman or Trayvon has nothing to do with the widely differing opinions regarding how this case should pan out. No, that is largely a function of woefully uninformed people drawing unsubstantiated conclusions about what happened. There is also a disturbingly large element of people who exhibit a manifest disregard for the law in their opinions about this case. | ||
|
B_Type13X2
Canada122 Posts
Firstly when this all came about I thought it looked really bad for Zimmerman I was leaning towards Treyvon's side based on the facts I knew at the time. Now I think Zimmerman walks. Legally he should walk, and if he does I'm okay with that. However I think after this case has run its course the law might need to be rewritten in terms of self defense. While Treyvon did something wrong by attacking Zimmerman, it was Zimmerman's initial wrongs Ie... Getting out of his car, and continually trailing someone who was trying to get away from him that lead to the confrontation that caused someone to die. The man made 2 choices before Treyvon made one. While I wholly disagree with second degree murder in this case, I wouldn't be opposed to involuntary manslaughter. (What they charge drunk drivers with if they kill someone.) Further I think that the requirements for concealed carry specifically for those people who decide to do this and be on their neighborhood watch need to be modified. Their ought to be a requirement to take a seminar on basic pursuit psychology. Maybe members of these watch programs should be inclined to identify themselves and not simply just follow someone. Finally, this is a case where Treyvon was wrong in doing what he did but it is an understandable response to the circumstances he was involved in. It is a tragic waste of life and utterly disgusting. Justice for Treyvon will have to depend on Zimmerman and whether or not he has a conscience. He has to live with the fact that he killed Treyvon, for the rest of his life he has to carry that weight. And if he is a human being he is going to think back every night to those events and lament that he didn't choose to do things differently. | ||
|
SKC
Brazil18828 Posts
On June 30 2013 14:48 B_Type13X2 wrote: I'm gonna crap on this thread by interjecting some opinion.... Firstly when this all came about I thought it looked really bad for Zimmerman I was leaning towards Treyvon's side based on the facts I knew at the time. Now I think Zimmerman walks. Legally he should walk, and if he does I'm okay with that. However I think after this case has run its course the law might need to be rewritten in terms of self defense. While Treyvon did something wrong by attacking Zimmerman, it was Zimmerman's initial wrongs Ie... Getting out of his car, and continually trailing someone who was trying to get away from him that lead to the confrontation that caused someone to die. The man made 2 choices before Treyvon made one. While I wholly disagree with second degree murder in this case, I wouldn't be opposed to involuntary manslaughter. (What they charge drunk drivers with if they kill someone.) Further I think that the requirements for concealed carry specifically for those people who decide to do this and be on their neighborhood watch need to be modified. Their ought to be a requirement to take a seminar on basic pursuit psychology. Maybe members of these watch programs should be inclined to identify themselves and not simply just follow someone. Finally, this is a case where Treyvon was wrong in doing what he did but it is an understandable response to the circumstances he was involved in. It is a tragic waste of life and utterly disgusting. Justice for Treyvon will have to depend on Zimmerman and whether or not he has a conscience. He has to live with the fact that he killed Treyvon, for the rest of his life he has to carry that weight. And if he is a human being he is going to think back every night to those events and lament that he didn't choose to do things differently. If I insult you and you react with the intent to kill me, I am now unable to defend myself because I started the confrontation? Why is it diferent if I for some reason was following you? Self defense laws are fine. Following someone isn't a big deal, if the other person reacts by putting your life in danger, you should be allowed to defend yourself even if it means you end up killing him. There is a reason why escalating the force can be as important as starting the confrontation. It's also important to note it is not proven that Zimmermann followed Martin with the intent to confront him anyway. I would love to hear how you would rewrite the laws as to prevent situations such as this without introducing loopholes that would allow even more absurd scenarios. Laws aren't perfect, but it's not that simple to change them. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23165 Posts
On June 30 2013 14:43 xDaunt wrote: Being able to put oneself into the shoes of Zimmerman or Trayvon has nothing to do with the widely differing opinions regarding how this case should pan out. No, that is largely a function of woefully uninformed people drawing unsubstantiated conclusions about what happened. There is also a disturbingly large element of people who exhibit a manifest disregard for the law in their opinions about this case. Well there are studies that show otherwise... "As in previous studies, both victim and criminal perceived identities influenced the recommended level of punishment." Source:+ Show Spoiler + http://newwcr.sonoma.edu/v4n1/Manuscripts/tsoudisarticle.pdf | ||
|
B_Type13X2
Canada122 Posts
On June 30 2013 14:43 xDaunt wrote: Being able to put oneself into the shoes of Zimmerman or Trayvon has nothing to do with the widely differing opinions regarding how this case should pan out. No, that is largely a function of woefully uninformed people drawing unsubstantiated conclusions about what happened. There is also a disturbingly large element of people who exhibit a manifest disregard for the law in their opinions about this case. I agree entirely with the legal outcome of this case if Zimmerman walks.... However I am having abit of a morale dilemma about it. It doesn't seem right for Zimmerman to walk away free of all legal culpability for his role leading up to the shooting. Zimmerman himself admits to getting out of his car and to following/ watching Treyvon. What Treyvon did in response is understandable but wrong. Zimmerman walks free and clear because that's the law. Fine he walks free and clear but after this case; change the law and hold people who choose to be both armed and in a neighborhood watch program to greater scrutiny for their actions. Pepperspray/ Mase would have had the same outcome in protecting Zimmermans life. Call it Treyvon's law; it wont bring the kid back but it might atleast help prevent such a preventable/ stupid/ tragic situation from occurring in the future. I don't know about the states but in Canada every time a police officer even touches his holster he needs to do paperwork to explain why they felt it necessary to move their hand towards their lethal force weapon. | ||
|
RebirthOfLeGenD
USA5860 Posts
On June 30 2013 15:02 B_Type13X2 wrote: I agree entirely with the legal outcome of this case if Zimmerman walks.... However I am having abit of a morale dilemma about it. It doesn't seem right for Zimmerman to walk away free of all legal culpability for his role leading up to the shooting. Zimmerman himself admits to getting out of his car and to following/ watching Treyvon. What Treyvon did in response is understandable but wrong. Zimmerman walks free and clear because that's the law. Fine he walks free and clear but after this case; change the law and hold people who choose to be both armed and in a neighborhood watch program to greater scrutiny for their actions. Pepperspray/ Mase would have had the same outcome in protecting Zimmermans life. Call it Treyvon's law; it wont bring the kid back but it might atleast help prevent such a preventable/ stupid/ tragic situation from occurring in the future. I don't know about the states but in Canada every time a police officer even touches his holster he needs to do paperwork to explain why they felt it necessary to move their hand towards their lethal force weapon. They have no formal training and are just trying to help their community. They are not paid/trained professionals. There is literally no justification for holding them to a higher level of culpability. The self defense laws are as good as you can reasonably expect them to be. This is just one of those cases that are such a gray area, however the law aims to defend that gray area in favor of the defendant, because our society is ideally against wrongfully incarcerating innocent people. | ||
|
SKC
Brazil18828 Posts
On June 30 2013 15:02 B_Type13X2 wrote: I agree entirely with the legal outcome of this case if Zimmerman walks.... However I am having abit of a morale dilemma about it. It doesn't seem right for Zimmerman to walk away free of all legal culpability for his role leading up to the shooting. Zimmerman himself admits to getting out of his car and to following/ watching Treyvon. What Treyvon did in response is understandable but wrong. Zimmerman walks free and clear because that's the law. Fine he walks free and clear but after this case; change the law and hold people who choose to be both armed and in a neighborhood watch program to greater scrutiny for their actions. Pepperspray/ Mase would have had the same outcome in protecting Zimmermans life. Call it Treyvon's law; it wont bring the kid back but it might atleast help prevent such a preventable/ stupid/ tragic situation from occurring in the future. I don't know about the states but in Canada every time a police officer even touches his holster he needs to do paperwork to explain why they felt it necessary to move their hand towards their lethal force weapon. It`s understandable to punch someone in the face, get on top of him and keep throwing puches/slamming his head against the concrete just because he followed you and asked you what you were doing? That's similar to the scenario that the prosecution is having a hard time proving didn't happen. If you accept it could have happened like that, I don't see how you can say Zimmermann is still guilty of manslaughter. It's not enough that you don't think it happened that way. You have to be sure it couldn't have happened that way. | ||
|
FatChicksUnited
Canada214 Posts
I agree entirely with the legal outcome of this case if Zimmerman walks.... However I am having abit of a morale dilemma about it. It doesn't seem right for Zimmerman to walk away free of all legal culpability for his role leading up to the shooting. Zimmerman himself admits to getting out of his car and to following/ watching Treyvon. When has it ever been illegal or wrong to follow or watch someone in your neighbourhood? I could argue that being a homeowner in the neighbourhood, he has more right to be in the area than Trayvon, who was merely a guest at his father's fiance's house. Granted, there are things Zimmerman could have done during his search for Trayvon that would put him in the wrong, but no credible evidence has been put forward that he did any of those things. What Treyvon did in response is understandable but wrong. So far the evidence is pointing to Trayvon sucker punching Zimmerman and mounting him on a cement sidewalk to continue the assault. This is without any sign of physical provocation from Zimmerman. How is this understandable? Unsurprising, yes, but understandable? Not sure about that. I understand the feeling that what happened to Trayvon is a total waste, a tragedy. I agree. But given the circumstances, I find it hard to find Zimmerman legally responsible for what happened. | ||
|
B_Type13X2
Canada122 Posts
On June 30 2013 14:59 SKC wrote: If I insult you and you react with the intent to kill me, I am now unable to defend myself because I started the confrontation? Why is it diferent if I for some reason was following you? Self defense laws are fine. Following someone isn't a big deal, if the other person reacts by putting your life in danger, you should be allowed to defend yourself even if it means you end up killing him. There is a reason why escalating the force can be as important as starting the confrontation. It's also important to note it is not proven that Zimmermann followed Martin with the intent to confront him anyway. I would love to hear how you would rewrite the laws as to prevent situations such as this without introducing loopholes that would allow even more absurd scenarios. Laws aren't perfect, but it's not that simple to change them. Insulting someone is far different then following them for an extended period of time. I work in the oil patch I watched one person stab another person for spilling a cup of tea on them. There is reasonable escalation to any situation. And you have the right to defend yourself sure, in hockey fights happen all the time, but there's also instigator penalties. You instigate a situation you shouldn't get away free and clear because your poor choices contributed to the outcome. And self defense laws are fine, what's not fine is self defense in this context. He defended his life good but he also was about 70% responsible for being in a situation where he had to defend his own life. Stupidity does not protect you from consequence. Zimmerman did something stupid so did Treyvon someones dead. And it is a big fucking deal to follow someone especially if your armed. Again pursuit psychology, fight or flight, despite our advanced brains people are still animals on an instinctual level. If you don't know why following someone for no reason other the suspicion is a bad idea here's a fun experiment for you. Pick a random person follow them in an obvious manner for 10 city blocks, see how uncomfortable/ hostile they get towards you. And I never even alluded to the fact that Zimmerman intended to confront him. Saying that he did would be giving Zimmerman too much credit and would imply that he had a spine/ intestinal fortitude. If he had any of those things he would have called out to Treyvon and initiated a dialogue with him stating who he was, and what he was doing then asking Treyvon the same questions in return. Finally I wouldn't need to rewrite the laws that much to make their be some sort of accountability for instigating a confrontation. Its not complicated if you instigate/ put yourself in the situation and the result is someone ends up dead -> Involuntary manslaughter, 2 years of prison likely 8 months with good behavior and the option to apply for a pardon after 5 years to clear your federal record. Arguing it is pointless though, people want to paint this as a black/white case when its a shade of grey. I would find Zimmerman not guilty according to the laws as they are written, but I can't bring myself to agree with those laws when the living party made the initial decisions that lead to the confrontation. He has to have some sort of accountability or self defense / stand your ground is too easy to abuse. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23165 Posts
On June 30 2013 15:07 SKC wrote: It`s understandable to punch someone in the face, get on top of him and keep throwing puches/slamming his head against the concrete just because he followed you and asked you what you were doing? That's the scenario that the prosecution is having a hard time proving didn't happen. If you accept it could have happened like that, I don't see how you can say Zimmermann is still guilty of manslaughter. The issue is wether you believe it could have happened that way, but that's the purpose of the trial. Pursuing someone who you perceive to be a potential criminal while armed with a deadly weapon especially without training and after you've been instructed that you shouldn't seems to be pretty close to meeting the threshold for Involuntary Manslaughter to me. "The state may be able to prove involuntary manslaughter by showing the defendant's recklessness or lack of care when handling a dangerous instrument or weapon, or while engaging in a range of other activities that could lead to death if performed recklessly." Pretty sure pursuing a presumed threat (especially after being instructed by 911 not to) fits right in that second part | ||
|
B_Type13X2
Canada122 Posts
On June 30 2013 15:07 SKC wrote: It`s understandable to punch someone in the face, get on top of him and keep throwing puches/slamming his head against the concrete just because he followed you and asked you what you were doing? That's similar to the scenario that the prosecution is having a hard time proving didn't happen. If you accept it could have happened like that, I don't see how you can say Zimmermann is still guilty of manslaughter. It's not enough that you don't think it happened that way. You have to be sure it couldn't have happened that way. It is if you believe that the person following you wished to do you harm we don't know Treyvon or Zimmerman's true mindset. Treyvon could have believed that this person who had been following him wished to do him harm and that he was attacking him pre-emptively. And I didn't say manslaughter I said INVOLUNTARY manslaughter. The key word being involuntary, a drunk driver doesn't get into their car and say, "hey you know what would be a great hood ornament? That guy walking on the sidewalk over there." A carpenter / welder doesn't go into work and say, " You know what I hate people so I am going to do such a crappy job putting this building together that I hope it collapses and kills everyone inside." Yet if a drunk driver hits someone and they die no one bats an eye lash about them going to jail because they made the choice to drive. Well Zimmerman made the choice to follow Treyvon and made the choice to leave his car, he also made the choice to carry a gun and not pepper spray or any other non lethal self defense item. I'm a welder, tomorrow I go into work, I have to weld lifting lugs onto something that weighs 100tons. If my lugs fail and its cause I left porosity or slag in them, and someone dies I will go to jail. Stupidity/ incompetence does not protect me from that reality. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Stormgate Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
herO vs SHIN
Reynor vs Cure
OSC
WardiTV European League
Scarlett vs Percival
Jumy vs ArT
YoungYakov vs Shameless
uThermal vs Fjant
Nicoract vs goblin
Harstem vs Gerald
FEL
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
RSL Revival
FEL
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
