|
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. |
On July 14 2013 16:01 Trizz wrote:
Could we have a poll in the OP whether or not people agree on the verdict?
Very curious about the numbers.
On July 14 2013 16:08 Feartheguru wrote:
Can we get a poll
Hmm something like
Poll: Just looking at the arguments and facts presented in the trial...I agree with the acquittal- the prosecution failed at establishing guilt. (131) 90% Should be manslaughter- the prosecution demonstrated he was guilty of at least this. (7) 5% Should be murder- the prosecution demonstrated he was guilty of this. (4) 3% Other (3) 2% 145 total votes Your vote: Just looking at the arguments and facts presented in the trial... (Vote): I agree with the acquittal- the prosecution failed at establishing guilt.
(Vote): Should be manslaughter- the prosecution demonstrated he was guilty of at least this.
(Vote): Should be murder- the prosecution demonstrated he was guilty of this.
(Vote): Other
and/ or
Poll: Regardless of the verdict, which do you feel is most accurate?GZ is truly innocent. (89) 70% GZ truly committed manslaughter. (19) 15% Other (13) 10% GZ truly committed murder. (7) 5% 128 total votes Your vote: Regardless of the verdict, which do you feel is most accurate? (Vote): GZ is truly innocent.
(Vote): GZ truly committed manslaughter.
(Vote): GZ truly committed murder.
(Vote): Other
?
|
On July 14 2013 16:14 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 16:12 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Thank God it doesn't work both ways in murder/criminal trials. Thank God it does. Reasonable doubt is sacred for a reason. Unless you have some sort of special device that allows you to determine victim from assailant, Minority Report style...
Reasonable doubt is for the defendant in a criminal case...
|
On July 14 2013 16:14 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 16:12 Millitron wrote:
Here we have another person who didn't follow the trial. John Good DID witness the fight, and saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, throwing blows. But would it have come to punches had Martin simply shot Zimmerman? What's Good going to do, testify that he definitively didn't see Zimmerman twitch his hand towards his gun from fifty yards away, on a dark and rainy night? Testify that he came across a dead Zimmerman and a black dude with a gun in his hand? Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 16:12 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Thank God it doesn't work both ways in murder/criminal trials. Thank God it does. Reasonable doubt is sacred for a reason. Unless you have some sort of special device that allows you to determine victim from assailant...
I'm not sure Martin would win self defense if he shot Zimmerman without either a fight breaking out or Zimmerman taking out his gun. He could, but it would be a lot harder.
|
|
|
What is the point of this protest? They are just blocking traffic. What are they even trying to accomplish...
|
On July 14 2013 16:18 Millitron wrote:
A twitch toward a gun isn't enough to provide reasonable doubt. It's not the Wild West where you have two people standing in the street at high noon, both clearly about to shoot the other. John Good would also see Martin get off the first shot.
If the other person has a gun, you shoot him first or you die. You don't wait to see if he's reaching for his wallet.
Unless, of course, you're the type of person who thinks you should let the other person draw like a gentleman before you shoot him. In which case you're an idiot; plenty of people die reaching for their wallets for this exact reason.
On July 14 2013 16:19 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Reasonable doubt is for the defendant in a criminal case...
And had the situation been reversed, Martin would have been the defendant.
In either case, Martin would have had a better chance shooting Zimmerman...rather than the known case of being shot himself.
|
United States7639 Posts
On July 14 2013 16:07 SilentShout wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 15:47 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Well, my facebook feed went full retard tonight. This, except with my Twitter feed. I've seen soo many people getting incredibly upset at the verdict, without paying attention at all to the trial.
Saw like 20 "lost faith in humanity" posts, a bunch of "our justice system is a piece of shit" comments, and even one "jesus please come back soon" status.
Maybe we should have a trial day where we don't uphold "innocent before proven guilty" and the government can just convict citizens of murder charges based on insufficient or non-existing evidence because why the fuck not, our gut has arbitrarily decided you're guilty. That's what these people want, right? Should be fun.
|
On July 14 2013 16:20 Feartheguru wrote:
Can we just get an agree/disagree poll, dislike polls with random clutter.
Well I tried making it as simple as possible... disagreeing can lead to one of three other options (two given conviction choices, and "other"). I know many people dislike voting for a category that may misrepresent their position, and you can just add up the disagreement stats if you want 
The first poll is for whether or not you agree with the verdict, given the trial. The second one asks what you truly believe, regardless of how well both sides presented their arguments.
|
I must say I'm glad with the jury's decision.
|
On July 14 2013 16:21 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 16:18 Millitron wrote:
A twitch toward a gun isn't enough to provide reasonable doubt. It's not the Wild West where you have two people standing in the street at high noon, both clearly about to shoot the other. John Good would also see Martin get off the first shot. If the other person has a gun, you shoot him first or you die. You don't wait to see if he's reaching for his wallet. Unless, of course, you're the type of person who thinks you should let the other person draw like a gentleman before you shoot him. In which case you're an idiot.
A) You don't know he has a gun. Concealed carry.
B) You prepare to draw your gun, i.e. move your coat out of the way, or open your holster. When he makes a more obviously hostile move, only then do you draw.
C) Even if he shoots first, it isn't a guaranteed death. He could easily miss, and most pistol calibers are not immediately deadly, barring a lucky head/heart shot.
|
On July 14 2013 16:21 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 16:18 Millitron wrote:
A twitch toward a gun isn't enough to provide reasonable doubt. It's not the Wild West where you have two people standing in the street at high noon, both clearly about to shoot the other. John Good would also see Martin get off the first shot. If the other person has a gun, you shoot him first or you die. You don't wait to see if he's reaching for his wallet. Unless, of course, you're the type of person who thinks you should let the other person draw like a gentleman before you shoot him. In which case you're an idiot.
What's the hypothetical? Martin has a gun drawn and pointed at Zimmerman, then Zimmerman reaches for his gun? Or do they both draw at the same time, but Zimmerman is fat and slow and so never touches his gun?
|
On July 14 2013 16:21 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 16:19 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Reasonable doubt is for the defendant in a criminal case... And had the situation been reversed, Martin would have been the defendant.
But it wasn't reversed, so as it stands: only Zimmerman has the privilege of reasonable doubt. Martin has an even greater privilege of his own words and actions being ignored and therefore his character relatively unimpeachable.
|
On July 14 2013 16:25 Millitron wrote:
A) You don't know he has a gun. Concealed carry.
Fortunately, you only have to be afraid for your life to shoot someone. The fact he has a gun is enough to acquit.
On July 14 2013 16:25 Millitron wrote:
B) You prepare to draw your gun, i.e. move your coat out of the way, or open your holster. When he makes a more obviously hostile move, only then do you draw.
And then you get arrested for intimidating someone with a firearm, with a star witness twenty feet away. Better to kill him.
On July 14 2013 16:25 Millitron wrote:
C) Even if he shoots first, it isn't a guaranteed death. He could easily miss, and most pistol calibers are not immediately deadly, barring a lucky head/heart shot.
...You're not serious, right?
If you're facing someone with a firearm, you don't dick around. The above is an excellent way to end up dead.
On July 14 2013 16:25 sc2superfan101 wrote:
But it wasn't reversed, so as it stands: only Zimmerman has the privilege of reasonable doubt. Martin has an even greater privilege of his own words and actions being ignored and therefore his character relatively unimpeachable.
Zimmerman has the privilege of reasonable doubt, as he should. Martin has the great privilege of being dead, with no chance of resurrection.
Better judged by twelve than carried by six.
|
On July 14 2013 16:20 MrMotionPicture wrote:What is the point of this protest? They are just blocking traffic. What are they even trying to accomplish...
Making sure they don't burn their own shit if riots start.
|
Based on what the Jury had to work with it seems like the clear right call to me.
|
On July 14 2013 16:29 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 16:25 Millitron wrote:
A) You don't know he has a gun. Concealed carry. Fortunately, you only have to be afraid for your life to shoot someone. The fact he has a gun is enough to acquit. Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 16:25 Millitron wrote:
B) You prepare to draw your gun, i.e. move your coat out of the way, or open your holster. When he makes a more obviously hostile move, only then do you draw. And then you get arrested for intimidating someone with a firearm, with a star witness twenty feet away. Better to kill him. Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 16:25 Millitron wrote:
C) Even if he shoots first, it isn't a guaranteed death. He could easily miss, and most pistol calibers are not immediately deadly, barring a lucky head/heart shot. ...You're not serious, right? Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 16:25 sc2superfan101 wrote:
But it wasn't reversed, so as it stands: only Zimmerman has the privilege of reasonable doubt. Martin has an even greater privilege of his own words and actions being ignored and therefore his character relatively unimpeachable. Zimmerman has the privilege of reasonable doubt, as he should. Martin has the great privilege of being dead, with no chance of resurrection. Better judged by twelve than carried by six.
The fact that he had a gun is not enough to acquit. You're being ridiculous.
|
On July 14 2013 16:29 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 16:25 Millitron wrote:
A) You don't know he has a gun. Concealed carry. Fortunately, you only have to be afraid for your life to shoot someone. The fact he has a gun is enough to acquit. Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 16:25 Millitron wrote:
B) You prepare to draw your gun, i.e. move your coat out of the way, or open your holster. When he makes a more obviously hostile move, only then do you draw. ...And then you get arrested for intimidating someone with a firearm. Better to kill him, to leave no witnesses. Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 16:25 Millitron wrote:
C) Even if he shoots first, it isn't a guaranteed death. He could easily miss, and most pistol calibers are not immediately deadly, barring a lucky head/heart shot. ...You're not serious, right?
A) But if his gun is concealed, the prosecution can point that out, that you could not have reasonably been afraid for your life because you could not have known he had a gun.
B) Moving your coat is not intimidation.
C) I am serious. See point A), you don't know he has a gun.
|
On July 14 2013 16:05 xbeo wrote:
So what can we all learn from this?
Don't be black and don't wear a hood without having a gun.
Im glad I live in Germany. Even without guns we have enough violence.
yep. thats what you should learn from this.
|
On July 14 2013 16:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
The fact that he had a gun is not enough to acquit. You're being ridiculous.
If he reaches for what you describe is a gun, and it turns out he has a gun, you were correct. Nobody at the scene is going to dispute the former, as they are dead or fifty yards away. You're being silly.
People have gotten off for shooting people reaching for their wallets, let alone actual firearms.
On July 14 2013 16:33 Millitron wrote:
A) But if his gun is concealed, the prosecution can point that out, that you could not have reasonably been afraid for your life because you could not have known he had a gun.
The prosecution would have to show that the gun was perfectly concealed from your view and you could have had no idea he had a gun on his person. Both are improbable.
On July 14 2013 16:33 Millitron wrote:
B) Moving your coat is not intimidation.
Unbuttoning your holster, as you listed, is definitely intimidation with a weapon. Killing him would still have been the safer option, as in each case, your action could also be construed as reaching for your weapon.
On July 14 2013 16:33 Millitron wrote:
C) I am serious. See point A), you don't know he has a gun.
See point C), Even if he shoots first, it isn't a guaranteed death. He could easily miss, and most pistol calibers are not immediately deadly, barring a lucky head/heart shot.
This is absolutely insane.
It still stands that Martin would have been better off shooting Zimmerman.
|
On July 14 2013 16:41 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 16:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
The fact that he had a gun is not enough to acquit. You're being ridiculous. If he reaches for what you describe is a gun, and it turns out it is a gun, you were correct. Nobody at the scene is going to dispute the former, as they are dead or fifty yards away. You're being silly. Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 16:33 Millitron wrote:
A) But if his gun is concealed, the prosecution can point that out, that you could not have reasonably been afraid for your life because you could not have known he had a gun. The prosecution would have to show that the gun was perfectly concealed from your view and you could have had no idea he had a gun on his person. Both are improbable. Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 16:33 Millitron wrote:
B) Moving your coat is not intimidation. Unbuttoning your holster, as you listed, is definitely intimidation. Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 16:33 Millitron wrote:
C) I am serious. See point A), you don't know he has a gun. See point C), Even if he shoots first, it isn't a guaranteed death. He could easily miss, and most pistol calibers are not immediately deadly, barring a lucky head/heart shot. This is absolutely insane.
A) It's a hypothetical situation anyways. Hypothetically, I could say the prosecution can easily show that. Now you're claiming he's 50 yards away and still trying to shoot you? If he's 50 yards away, good luck spotting his concealed gun, and good luck even hitting him with yours. 50 yards is a pretty long pistol shot.
B) In the time it takes you to move your hand to your holster, you'd know whether he's reaching for a gun or a wallet. Wallet? don't have to do anything. Gun? Keep going and draw yours.
C) It's true though. Gunshot wounds are usually not immediately deadly, nor is it even certain he'd hit you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
