EPTShooting of Trayvon Martin - Page 447
| 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. | ||
|
edlover420
349 Posts
| ||
|
Catch]22
Sweden2683 Posts
On July 14 2013 17:48 edlover420 wrote: George Zimmerman is not guilty and Edward Snowden is. I would honestly rather live in 1938 Germany and feel safer than in the USA. Disgrace. What a stupid hyperbole to make. Feel bad about yourself. | ||
|
FinestHour
United States18466 Posts
On July 14 2013 17:48 edlover420 wrote: George Zimmerman is not guilty and Edward Snowden is. I would honestly rather live in 1938 Germany and feel safer than in the USA. Disgrace. yea um these two arent rly comparable | ||
|
edlover420
349 Posts
On July 14 2013 17:50 Catch]22 wrote: What a stupid hyperbole to make. Feel bad about yourself. I feel bad for your mom because she gave birth to a spastic mong like you and for USA for being the only fascist country left in 21st century. User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
rezoacken
Canada2719 Posts
| ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8722 Posts
On July 14 2013 17:53 edlover420 wrote: I feel bad for your mom because she gave birth to a spastic mong like you and for USA for being the only fascist country left in 21st century. Looks like somebody needs a timeout. | ||
|
DemigodcelpH
1138 Posts
| ||
|
nihlon
Sweden5581 Posts
On July 14 2013 17:57 DemigodcelpH wrote: Either way his point is legitimate. The justice system can be flaky sometimes. All justice systems are flaky at times, it's not an American thing. And I fail to see how this trial is much of an indication of it just because a lot of people are upset about it. The verdict was the right one given the evidence. | ||
|
Feartheguru
Canada1334 Posts
On July 14 2013 17:57 DemigodcelpH wrote: Either way his point is legitimate. The justice system can be flaky sometimes. What's legitimate about it? GZ was found not guilty based on evidence, Snowden is charged not guilty, hell, 1938 Germany was a great place if you weren't a jew, so I wouldn't even call that part legitimate. | ||
|
rezoacken
Canada2719 Posts
On July 14 2013 17:57 DemigodcelpH wrote: Either way his point is legitimate. The justice system can be flaky sometimes. 1. Snowden case has nothing to do with the justice system. 2. Zimmerman case was the justice system saying not guilty when the evidence for him being not guilty is stronger than the evidence of him being guilty. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
On July 14 2013 17:57 DemigodcelpH wrote: Either way his point is legitimate. The justice system can be flaky sometimes. I'm not sure the justice system being "flaky" means a country is worse than 1938 Germany or that George Zimmerman being acquitted means that the criminal justice system is "flaky" either. The verdict was right. | ||
|
Mannerheim
766 Posts
| ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8722 Posts
On July 14 2013 18:02 Feartheguru wrote: What's legitimate about it? GZ was found not guilty based on evidence, Snowden is charged not guilty, hell, 1938 Germany was a great place if you weren't a jew, so I wouldn't even call that part legitimate. Or gay, or handicapped, or someone who is fond of this pesky concept of freedom of speech. //edit: I also don't like that GZ walks free without a charge, but if the evidence just is not there what else is there to do? I just hope that with this whole trial and the whole shit that came with it GZ wisened up and will from now on stay away from being in a neighbourhood watch. | ||
|
nihlon
Sweden5581 Posts
On July 14 2013 18:04 Mannerheim wrote: I don't understand why this was a murder case in the first place. Murder entails planning and intent, so for this to have been murder Zimmerman would've had to know where Trayvon was and go there specifically with the intent to kill him, instead of being a random encounter. If the charge had been only manslaughter I think he would've been more likely to be convicted, i.e. prosecution fucked up, Planning is first degree murder. | ||
|
rezoacken
Canada2719 Posts
On July 14 2013 18:04 Mannerheim wrote: I don't understand why this was a murder case in the first place. Murder entails planning and intent, so for this to have been murder Zimmerman would've had to know where Trayvon was and go there specifically with the intent to kill him, instead of being a random encounter. If the charge had been only manslaughter I think he would've been more likely to be convicted, i.e. prosecution fucked up, Wasn't that the initial idea before it became a race thing ? | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On July 14 2013 18:04 Mannerheim wrote: I don't understand why this was a murder case in the first place. Murder entails planning and intent, so for this to have been murder Zimmerman would've had to know where Trayvon was and go there specifically with the intent to kill him, instead of being a random encounter. If the charge had been only manslaughter I think he would've been more likely to be convicted, i.e. prosecution fucked up, Manslaughter was a charge leveled against Zimmerman. Murder does not imply forethought or planning, and as my dad is fond of saying: it only takes one second to per-meditate. | ||
|
Mannerheim
766 Posts
On July 14 2013 18:08 sc2superfan101 wrote: Manslaughter was a charge leveled against Zimmerman. I know, but when the charge is murder and manslaughter I think a jury is more likely to go for not guilty over guilty of only manslaughter. In my opinion a tactical error from prosecution, as the murder was hard to prove in the first place. | ||
|
Kickboxer
Slovenia1308 Posts
Criminalize weed, legalize murder ^_^ truth is stranger than fiction, that's for sure. User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
rasnj
United States1959 Posts
On July 14 2013 18:13 Mannerheim wrote: I know, but when the charge is murder and manslaughter I think a jury is more likely to go for not guilty over guilty of only manslaughter. In my opinion a tactical error from prosecution, as the murder was hard to prove in the first place. Why do you believe that a jury would act in that way? I am not a lawyer and don't know what makes juries do what juries do, but the prosecution are lawyers and presumably had a reason for doing what they did. Further I have also seen someone in this thread (pre-verdict) suggest that this was a tactical move to trick the jury into going for the "middle ground option" which was manslaughter if they believe someone should be punished since a person was killed after all. This explanation sounds just as valid as your hypothesis. I'm not suggesting it was or was not a good decision to include a murder charge, but I don't think the majority of people in this thread are qualified to judge whether that decision was sound. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
| ||
| ||
