[B]On July 12 2013 08:47 GreenGringo wrote:Well, I find it hard to believe that the French were pro-German when they were at war with Germany, and I don't think it's disputable that the Nazi occupation greatly accelerated the Nazification of French culture. But the details don't really matter. Point was, people tend to go along with power. It's true in the case of invading armies, who almost invariably (given ruthless enough tactics) bend the occupied people to their will. I fear we'll find that it's true in the case of baying mobs that threaten to riot and brand anyone who disagrees with them as a racist.
Sigh I'm sure you know the history of my country better than myself, regardless of my masters degree in history. Anyway I don't want to derail this thread, it's already been diverted too much by various debates.
How does the jury sequestration, are they forbidden to use the internet/their phones, constantly escorted and isolated in a hotel room and unable to speak with one another ?
Yea the judge says that they can't speak or use the internet to see anything about the trial to anyone
On July 12 2013 05:18 SKC wrote: [quote] How exactly do you think violence would still happen had Martin not attacked him? Zimmerman would aproach him, arrogantly, in your own words, maybe even hold him until the police arrives, and nothing would happen. He could be accused of racism or being a vigilante, but I don't believe there is evidence that Zimmermann would actually attack him.
Because Martin would, justifiably, resist being held, especially if Zimmerman's only claim to hold him was that he "looked suspicious."
And again, ya'll are like totally missing the "carrying a gun" thing. Even in Texas it's not normal to just see people carrying guns. It's still rare even here. It's effing weird that he was carrying a gun, license or no.
I lived in Dallas for almost 15 years, and I think almost everyone I knew had a CHL, and carried daily (Including myself). I now live in Philadelphia, where I would say about half of everyone I know carrys.
I've lived in Dallas for 24 years and scarce few people I know actually carry their guns on a daily basis even if they have licenses. Now, tons of cars have guns in them. But actual on person guns...nope.
We can both play the anecdotal numbers game about Texas. I bet I win.
What does this have to do with the price of tea in china? The man had a gun, it was legal and he could carry it legally. You can't claim that people have weird intent when they are doing something that is totally allowed by law. If he had stabbed Martin, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Yes we would. I'd be saying "why the fuck did Zimmerman think he needed a knife?!"
I have a knife in my bag right now. I am in the office. Do you know why I have it? Because I don't know when I will need a knife. Same with fire and tape.
None fo this stuff is illegal or unreasonable. I don't know what you are fishing for. Just because it doesn't make sense to you does mean there is something wrong.
Is it not against company policy to have a knife on the premises? I'd get fired on the spot if they discovered anything like that in my bag.
Must like the seat belt, you don't wear it for the times you don't crash. I have a shotgun at my house and shells near by for that reason. You don't prepare for the time people don't break in.
Ok one last post because I really don't like this analogy. Seatbelts aren't going to hurt you. Statistically you are more likely to harm yourself or someone you know with that shotgun than you are to prevent a home invasion. And before you go saying "I'm trained!" or "I'm not that dumb!" that's exactly what everyone thinks. In a normally distributed large sample size on a scale of 0-10, you're somewhere between 4-6.
And seatbelts and airbags can also kill you too. They don't always help, sometimes they make things worse.
Regardless on how shady I find his recounts, he is still innocent by law. You can't suddenly ignore the law because it was a minority that was the victim in this case.
On July 12 2013 07:43 GreenGringo wrote: I predict that if Zimmerman is found guilty, the general opinion at TL will switch overnight from 95% pro-Zimmerman to 50% either way. Kind of like when Paris fell to the Germans and then opinion started to be divided and all these Nazi apologists sprung up out of the woodwork.
I am sure you will see some backtracking and/or berating of the jury because they didn't see what TL posters saw.
I don't at all find Zimmerman's multiple accounts believable or reasonable.
So for me much of what people here are presuming is reasonable is capable of being dismissed as unreasonable.
As a result I find it totally possible and reasonably likely he gets convicted of something, however I do find it highly unlikely it will be murder 2
And for those who think it totally unreasonable, the justice system has made it clear otherwise. So if there is a bias from the judge that doesn't adhere to the law the appeal acquittal would likely get granted with little fanfare.
The idea that the case should have never been granted is a view held by some on TL and the failed PD but the judge knew this would be highly scrutinized; if it was remotely as obvious as TL posters make it sound that it should of been thrown out, it would have been.
Simply put the vast majority here are simply wrong about whether the case should of been brought in the first place so I don't put a whole lot of value in their assessments of the potential verdicts.
It doesn't really matter if you believe Zimmerman or not. You have to believe beyond reasonable doubt (100% sure in your head) that it's murder. If you don't believe 100% that it's murder then you can't convict him.
Naw. I don't think "reasonable doubt" and "100% confidence" are the same things. When you're pretty damn sure of something and you're trying to convince your friend, what do you say? 100% sure, 99% sure, 95% sure? I'm sure you've said all of those, and probably meant roughly the same thing every time.
On July 12 2013 09:55 Myrddraal wrote: Either way, if Zimmerman gets off scott free I would find that extremely fucked up. I can understand that there might not be enough evidence for murder, but you shouldn't be able to stalk someone, get in a fight with them, shoot them, and get off free just because nobody else saw it and you say that they are the one that started it.
You can convict an infinite number of innocent people if you use this like of thinking. That's why the standards for conviction are so high. The story, as Zimmerman tells it, holds up quite well. He most certainly should not go to jail on the opinion that he shouldn't have been following a suspected burglar.
And you could let an infinite number of guilty people go free by simply taking them on their word, so it goes both ways.
His story holds up, but we don't have any other account on the initial encounter, why would he tell a story that incriminates himself in any way? The problem I have is not that I don't find his story conceivable, it's that I don't find it most probable, but unfortunately since he killed the only other witness, his is the only we have to go on.
Edit: Which is why I was wondering about the phone conversation between Trayvon and his friend, because that might be able to give us "some" solid evidence on the beginning of the encounter, which could either validate or invalidate a small part of Zimmerman's story.
On July 12 2013 10:31 Ubiquitousdichotomy wrote: The irony is after all is said and done Paula Dean will remain more universally hated than George Zimmerman in America.
On July 12 2013 10:31 Ubiquitousdichotomy wrote: The irony is after all is said and done Paula Dean will remain more universally hated than George Zimmerman in America.
How is that ironic? :S
A girl who said a racial slur 20 years ago will still be vilified more than a guy who shot a kid.
On July 12 2013 09:55 Myrddraal wrote: Either way, if Zimmerman gets off scott free I would find that extremely fucked up. I can understand that there might not be enough evidence for murder, but you shouldn't be able to stalk someone, get in a fight with them, shoot them, and get off free just because nobody else saw it and you say that they are the one that started it.
You can convict an infinite number of innocent people if you use this like of thinking. That's why the standards for conviction are so high. The story, as Zimmerman tells it, holds up quite well. He most certainly should not go to jail on the opinion that he shouldn't have been following a suspected burglar.
And you could let an infinite number of guilty people go free by simply taking them on their word, so it goes both ways.
His story holds up, but we don't have any other account on the initial encounter, why would he tell a story that incriminates himself in any way? The problem I have is not that I don't find his story conceivable, it's that I don't find it most probable, but unfortunately since he killed the only other witness, his is the only we have to go on.
Edit: Which is why I was wondering about the phone conversation between Trayvon and his friend, because that might be able to give us "some" solid evidence on the beginning of the encounter, which could either validate or invalidate a small part of Zimmerman's story.
The beginning of the confrontation does not change Zimmerman's claim of self-defense. The moment where he had reasonable fear for his life was when he was getting his face punched into cement.
A person is justified in using deadly force if [he] [she] reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent 1. imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] or another, or 2. the imminent commission of (applicable forcible felony) against [himself] [herself] or another.
However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find: 1. (Defendant) was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of (applicable forcible felony); or 2. (Defendant) initially provoked the use of force against [himself] [herself], unless: a. The force asserted toward the defendant was so great that [he] [she] reasonably believed that [he] [she] was in imminent danger of death or great 63 bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using deadly force on (assailant). b. In good faith, the defendant withdrew from physical contact with (assailant) and clearly indicated to (assailant) that [he] [she] wanted to withdraw and stop the use of deadly force, but (assailant) continued or resumed the use of force.
When Martin refused to stop after Zimmerman cried for help for 40 seconds, he gave Zimmerman the opportunity to use justifiable deadly force.
On July 12 2013 10:31 Ubiquitousdichotomy wrote: The irony is after all is said and done Paula Dean will remain more universally hated than George Zimmerman in America.
How is that ironic? :S
A girl who said a racial slur 20 years ago will still be vilified more than a guy who shot a kid.
if you paid attention to the trial(like hopefully you did this one) you'd realize that she had been using the n-word well w/ in the last 10 years, wanted to throw a slave-plantation owner themed wedding w/ all the black people in chippindales uniforms, and routinely racially segregated the staff @ her restaurant(black people only worked the back, would be routinely verbally assaulted by her brother). It was so bad that the person sueing her was a former WHITE manager working @ the restaurant.
On July 12 2013 09:55 Myrddraal wrote: Either way, if Zimmerman gets off scott free I would find that extremely fucked up. I can understand that there might not be enough evidence for murder, but you shouldn't be able to stalk someone, get in a fight with them, shoot them, and get off free just because nobody else saw it and you say that they are the one that started it.
You can convict an infinite number of innocent people if you use this like of thinking. That's why the standards for conviction are so high. The story, as Zimmerman tells it, holds up quite well. He most certainly should not go to jail on the opinion that he shouldn't have been following a suspected burglar.
And you could let an infinite number of guilty people go free by simply taking them on their word, so it goes both ways.
His story holds up, but we don't have any other account on the initial encounter, why would he tell a story that incriminates himself in any way? The problem I have is not that I don't find his story conceivable, it's that I don't find it most probable, but unfortunately since he killed the only other witness, his is the only we have to go on.
Edit: Which is why I was wondering about the phone conversation between Trayvon and his friend, because that might be able to give us "some" solid evidence on the beginning of the encounter, which could either validate or invalidate a small part of Zimmerman's story.
Most people would prefer to let guilty people free than to convict innocent people.
Saying they are just taking him on his word is ignoring all of the other evidence brought in. He has a story, the physical evidence they have compliments his story (from what I've heard it seems), and the accounts of other people either support him or aren't strong enough to call his story into real question. If you find it improbable, what do you actually think happened?
His story fits the evidence, and they have no real reason to think otherwise. Should they convict him simply because it's possible he is lying?
What i'd like is, if instead of just deciding innocence of guilt under the law; there was a jury to try to decide what probably actually happened, instead of the much narrower questions of innocence and guilt. Or some other much broader analysis of the situation.
[B]On July 12 2013 09:52 plogamer wrote:[/B And here continues the stereotype of the arrogant American who think they know more about other people's country than the people who are from that country.
Who said I'm American? I know I didn't. Talk about ignorant stereotypes.
For the record, it's not arrogant to refuse to automatically cede a point about French history just because someone who's French disagrees. We could both give references to back up our side of the argument, but we're not going to clog up the thread with this. And you shouldn't clog it up with needless snark about people being arrogant.
On July 12 2013 10:31 Ubiquitousdichotomy wrote: The irony is after all is said and done Paula Dean will remain more universally hated than George Zimmerman in America.
How is that ironic? :S
A girl who said a racial slur 20 years ago will still be vilified more than a guy who shot a kid.
You mean someone that is actually racist will be more hated then an innocent man that was attacked by some punk?
That's not really ironic, just the way it should be.
On July 12 2013 10:31 Ubiquitousdichotomy wrote: The irony is after all is said and done Paula Dean will remain more universally hated than George Zimmerman in America.
How is that ironic? :S
A girl who said a racial slur 20 years ago will still be vilified more than a guy who shot a kid.
if you paid attention to the trial(like hopefully you did this one) you'd realize that she had been using the n-word well w/ in the last 10 years, wanted to throw a slave-plantation owner themed wedding w/ all the black people in chippindales uniforms, and routinely racially segregated the staff @ her restaurant(black people only worked the back, would be routinely verbally assaulted by her brother). It was so bad that the person sueing her was a former WHITE manager working @ the restaurant.
On July 12 2013 10:31 Ubiquitousdichotomy wrote: The irony is after all is said and done Paula Dean will remain more universally hated than George Zimmerman in America.
How is that ironic? :S
A girl who said a racial slur 20 years ago will still be vilified more than a guy who shot a kid.
You mean someone that is actually racist will be more hated then an innocent man that was attacked by some punk?
That's not really ironic, just the way it should be.
It's too bad more people can't a note out of O'Mara's book and be classy enough to avoid using words like "punk" to describe the loss of someone's son. Even if you side with a negative take on every aspect of Trayvon's presented character, the picture as to his general nature is muddled enough to make showing a bit of respect more than appropriate.
On July 12 2013 09:55 Myrddraal wrote: Either way, if Zimmerman gets off scott free I would find that extremely fucked up. I can understand that there might not be enough evidence for murder, but you shouldn't be able to stalk someone, get in a fight with them, shoot them, and get off free just because nobody else saw it and you say that they are the one that started it.
You can convict an infinite number of innocent people if you use this like of thinking. That's why the standards for conviction are so high. The story, as Zimmerman tells it, holds up quite well. He most certainly should not go to jail on the opinion that he shouldn't have been following a suspected burglar.
And you could let an infinite number of guilty people go free by simply taking them on their word, so it goes both ways.
His story holds up, but we don't have any other account on the initial encounter, why would he tell a story that incriminates himself in any way? The problem I have is not that I don't find his story conceivable, it's that I don't find it most probable, but unfortunately since he killed the only other witness, his is the only we have to go on.
Edit: Which is why I was wondering about the phone conversation between Trayvon and his friend, because that might be able to give us "some" solid evidence on the beginning of the encounter, which could either validate or invalidate a small part of Zimmerman's story.
The beginning of the confrontation does not change Zimmerman's claim of self-defense. The moment where he had reasonable fear for his life was when he was getting his face punched into cement.
A person is justified in using deadly force if [he] [she] reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent 1. imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] or another, or 2. the imminent commission of (applicable forcible felony) against [himself] [herself] or another.
However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find: 1. (Defendant) was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of (applicable forcible felony); or 2. (Defendant) initially provoked the use of force against [himself] [herself], unless: a. The force asserted toward the defendant was so great that [he] [she] reasonably believed that [he] [she] was in imminent danger of death or great 63 bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using deadly force on (assailant). b. In good faith, the defendant withdrew from physical contact with (assailant) and clearly indicated to (assailant) that [he] [she] wanted to withdraw and stop the use of deadly force, but (assailant) continued or resumed the use of force.
When Martin refused to stop after Zimmerman cried for help for 40 seconds, he gave Zimmerman the opportunity to use justifiable deadly force.
Right, I was less arguing that he would not be able to prove self defense, but more that I feel he is primarily responsible for the sequence of events that resulted in the death of another person, and that within the law there should be some kind punishment.
On July 12 2013 09:55 Myrddraal wrote: Either way, if Zimmerman gets off scott free I would find that extremely fucked up. I can understand that there might not be enough evidence for murder, but you shouldn't be able to stalk someone, get in a fight with them, shoot them, and get off free just because nobody else saw it and you say that they are the one that started it.
You can convict an infinite number of innocent people if you use this like of thinking. That's why the standards for conviction are so high. The story, as Zimmerman tells it, holds up quite well. He most certainly should not go to jail on the opinion that he shouldn't have been following a suspected burglar.
And you could let an infinite number of guilty people go free by simply taking them on their word, so it goes both ways.
His story holds up, but we don't have any other account on the initial encounter, why would he tell a story that incriminates himself in any way? The problem I have is not that I don't find his story conceivable, it's that I don't find it most probable, but unfortunately since he killed the only other witness, his is the only we have to go on.
Edit: Which is why I was wondering about the phone conversation between Trayvon and his friend, because that might be able to give us "some" solid evidence on the beginning of the encounter, which could either validate or invalidate a small part of Zimmerman's story.
Most people would prefer to let guilty people free than to convict innocent people.
Saying they are just taking him on his word is ignoring all of the other evidence brought in. He has a story, the physical evidence they have compliments his story (from what I've heard it seems), and the accounts of other people either support him or aren't strong enough to call his story into real question. If you find it improbable, what do you actually think happened?
His story fits the evidence, and they have no real reason to think otherwise. Should they convict him simply because it's possible he is lying?
I didn't say it was any better, they are both shitty situations.
The part that I find improbable, is where Trayvon first running away, then coming back to confront Zimmerman, essentially the part where he claims he was checking a street sign and he got jumped by Trayvon. Rachel's testimony does actually go against this:
"Later, the man began following Trayvon, so the teen ran through the gated community to try to get away, Jeantel said.
Trayvon was out of breath when he told Jeantel he had lost the man. Shortly after, Trayvon told Jeantel the man was back and behind him, she said.
"I told him, 'You better run,' " Jeantel said.
Within moments she heard two voices. Jeantel recalled Trayvon saying, "Why are you following me?"
She continued, "Then I heard a hard-breathing man say, 'What are you doing around here?' "
Jeantel then heard a bump and heard Trayvon saying, "Get off. Get off," she said. Seconds later, the phone disconnected, and when she called back, she got no answer."
I find this account more likely (if something has come up to disprove this please let me know), but like I said I would prefer if we could hear the conversation to be sure as she could be lying as well. Do US phone companies keep records of phone conversations or is that something only seen in TV and movies?
Now I understand this does not affect his self defense claim, especially if John Good's testimony is correct, but it does lead me to believe that Zimmerman was the instigator in the situation the resulted in Trayvon's death and subsequently he should be charged with something.
On July 12 2013 10:55 zlefin wrote: What i'd like is, if instead of just deciding innocence of guilt under the law; there was a jury to try to decide what probably actually happened, instead of the much narrower questions of innocence and guilt. Or some other much broader analysis of the situation.
In fairness, I'd prefer to not change our legal system to put it in the hands of people who we can't even be sure can construct a complete sentence, or a paragraph, let alone a crime scene.
On July 12 2013 09:55 Myrddraal wrote: Either way, if Zimmerman gets off scott free I would find that extremely fucked up. I can understand that there might not be enough evidence for murder, but you shouldn't be able to stalk someone, get in a fight with them, shoot them, and get off free just because nobody else saw it and you say that they are the one that started it.
You can convict an infinite number of innocent people if you use this like of thinking. That's why the standards for conviction are so high. The story, as Zimmerman tells it, holds up quite well. He most certainly should not go to jail on the opinion that he shouldn't have been following a suspected burglar.
And you could let an infinite number of guilty people go free by simply taking them on their word, so it goes both ways.
His story holds up, but we don't have any other account on the initial encounter, why would he tell a story that incriminates himself in any way? The problem I have is not that I don't find his story conceivable, it's that I don't find it most probable, but unfortunately since he killed the only other witness, his is the only we have to go on.
Edit: Which is why I was wondering about the phone conversation between Trayvon and his friend, because that might be able to give us "some" solid evidence on the beginning of the encounter, which could either validate or invalidate a small part of Zimmerman's story.
The beginning of the confrontation does not change Zimmerman's claim of self-defense. The moment where he had reasonable fear for his life was when he was getting his face punched into cement.
A person is justified in using deadly force if [he] [she] reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent 1. imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] or another, or 2. the imminent commission of (applicable forcible felony) against [himself] [herself] or another.
However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find: 1. (Defendant) was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of (applicable forcible felony); or 2. (Defendant) initially provoked the use of force against [himself] [herself], unless: a. The force asserted toward the defendant was so great that [he] [she] reasonably believed that [he] [she] was in imminent danger of death or great 63 bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using deadly force on (assailant). b. In good faith, the defendant withdrew from physical contact with (assailant) and clearly indicated to (assailant) that [he] [she] wanted to withdraw and stop the use of deadly force, but (assailant) continued or resumed the use of force.
When Martin refused to stop after Zimmerman cried for help for 40 seconds, he gave Zimmerman the opportunity to use justifiable deadly force.
Right, I was less arguing that he would not be able to prove self defense, but more that I feel he is primarily responsible for the sequence of events that resulted in the death of another person, and that within the law there should be some kind punishment.
The appropriate way to handle your grievance (if you were in the U.S.) would be to write your Congressman to change the law, as that's what would be required. Unless an existing law is broken and able to be proven by admissible evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, there should not be some kind of punishment.
On July 12 2013 10:55 zlefin wrote: What i'd like is, if instead of just deciding innocence of guilt under the law; there was a jury to try to decide what probably actually happened, instead of the much narrower questions of innocence and guilt. Or some other much broader analysis of the situation.
In fairness, I'd prefer to not change our legal system to put it in the hands of people who we can't even be sure can construct a complete sentence, or a paragraph, let alone a crime scene.
Frankly, jurors already do what it is that he is asking. When reaching a verdict, their job is to go into a back room with all of the evidence and decide what actually happened. The results of these deliberations are never put on the record (unlike when a judge is the finder of fact), but they happen.
EPT
