George Zimmerman Found Not Guilty

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Chinaski (here)

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by marlowe (here)
What I would never have done is attack the person who had caught me tresspassing.

Good idea .

That's irrelevant. No one was trespassing.

I can only assume this was meant as a metaphor. A poor one at that.

Marlowe was telling us of when Marlowe was trespassing, and he was not using the word "trespassing" as a metaphor.

Rather clearly the same lesson would apply however if the night watchman saw someone they wanted to question, to see if they were rightfully on a property. One would be advised not to attack the night watchman in return, even if one lived there.

[Mike]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by Chinaski (here)

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by marlowe (here)
What I would never have done is attack the person who had caught me tresspassing.

Good idea .

That's irrelevant. No one was trespassing.

I can only assume this was meant as a metaphor. A poor one at that.

Marlowe was telling us of when Marlowe was trespassing, and he was not using the word "trespassing" as a metaphor.

Rather clearly the same lesson would apply however if the night watchman saw someone they wanted to question, to see if they were rightfully on a property. One would be advised not to attack the night watchman in return, even if one lived there.

Are you sure?

[Mike]

Paul, I'm seeing a lot of "Zimmerman said this" and "Zimmerman said that" in your posts. I'm not trying to be a wise guy, but I do wonder why you're continually giving Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt here.

Are we really going to start discussing Zimmerman's neck size? You're beginning to sound like a desperate lawyer Paul! He's outta shape, he's not outta shape....you can't really have it both ways. If his head was being banged against the pavement, then regardless of its size or strength, Martin was clearly having his way with it. For the record, I don't really believe this happened. He may have fallen and hit his head and so on, but if his head was repeatedly banged against the pavement, regardless of "neck size" ...then the guy woulda been in much worse shape.

People say alotta things when they're in a fight, "you're gonna die motherf#cker" being one of them. I've told a few guys I was gonna "beat the sh#t outta them"...though my intent was never to beat them to such a state that their bowels excreted backed-up feces. I've heard people say this pre-fight a million times: "Oh, someone's gonna die tonight!" No one actually dies, of course. Its a silly boast.

LEAN is a relaxer - codeine and the other ingredient ( it eludes me now) relax you. Would hardly make make a man aggressive. The people that think it does are the same sort of naive types that think weed is on par with cocaine, or heroin. Check out an interview of Lil Wayne on YouTube or anywhere. He's perpetually on LEAN, or "purple" or whatever you wanna call it. You've never seen anyone so relaxed. And if he were to fight, I wouldn't be puttin my money on him brother. He can hardly make a coherent sentence. Now, if Martin were on cocaine you might have a point..

The sickness of the legal system is its tendency to allow for taking little bits of truth and rearranging them to create a half-truth. In this, its not too different from disinformation. On paper it can appear quite reasonable or logical. Evidence broken down and rearranged and realigned with a certain agenda,.coming from a talented lawyers mouth is skillfully deceiving. And this type of deception isnt limited to the legal arena - its everywhere, and part of the subtle brainwashing taking place in america. It takes intuition and common sense right outta the picture. It happened in the OJ trial, Casey Anthony trial, and now here again in the Trayvon Martin trial.

[Tesseract]

Posted by Chinaski (here)

The sickness of the legal system is its tendency to allow for taking little bits of truth and rearranging them to create a half-truth. In this, its not too different from disinformation. On paper it can appear quite reasonable or logical. Evidence broken down and rearranged and realigned with a certain agenda,.coming from a talented lawyers mouth is skillfully deceiving. And this type of deception isnt limited to the legal arena - its everywhere, and part of the subtle brainwashing taking place in america. It takes intuition and common sense right outta the picture. It happened in the OJ trial, Casey Anthony trial, and now here again in the Trayvon Martin trial.

Are you of the opinion that everyday people are falling for the deception in this case? The defense team had to make a plausible case for a self defense justification that only had to ensure reasonable doubt - they did that. However, I doubt that the majority of people outside of the jury room actually have faith that Zimmerman has provided an honest account (and even the jury may not have fully believed everything they heard). I think that many of the people defending Zimmerman today were the same people who didn't want him to even face a trial in the first place.

[crosby]

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=bXZS-TRWSCA

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=vPHGp2DHqSI

they were singing about everything that we are seeing today. not just their own brotherhood, but every man's brotherhood.
corson

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Chinaski (here)
LEAN is a relaxer - codeine and the other ingredient ( it eludes me now) relax you.

I take it that you did not watch the Stefan Molyneux video yet. Notice the material about a drug cocktail called "LEAN", between the 6:46 and 10:35 marks in the video.

And his neck size is relevant, as I gather you apparently agree, having only ridicule in response. A stronger neck can resist ground pounding from a weaker arm better than the reverse -- seems rather obvious to me -- do you actually disagree with that? Here's the back of his head, later that fateful night:

No, I cannot prove much of anything here. Nor can you. I can only present evidence and lead you to the sources for what I present, as could you.

If you can only say "well, it could be this instead", and "well, Zimmerman is probably lying", and respond with ridicule and other weak rhetorical tactics, without examining the evidence I offer, nor providing evidence of your own (not just speculation), then I don't see much point to continuing my half of this discussion.

[crosby]

i see precisely what is intended.
corson.

[crosby]

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...,2292330.story

does that make everyone happy? is this enough, should we do more? what the helll. i am so angry at the total fecking ignorance of the bigger picture that i could scream. there's your black/white hatred... there it is .... not enough for one, too much for the other, you all make me sick.
CORSON

on this forum there is a thought of freedom, it resounds, it lives, stop the trauma from the past. i am so angry that i cannot see faith, healing, love, and compassion. please, if you cannot stop the expected discourse, close the thread. do not comply with the status quo. enough is enough. for black white green red purple pink yellow orange = color = rainbow = all.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by corson (here)
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...,2292330.story

does that make everyone happy? is this enough, should we do more? what the helll. i am so angry at the total fecking ignorance of the bigger picture that i could scream. there's your black/white hatred... there it is .... not enough for one, too much for the other, you all make me sick.
CORSON

on this forum there is a thought of freedom, it resounds, it lives, stop the trauma from the past. i am so angry that i cannot see faith, healing, love, and compassion. please, if you cannot stop the expected discourse, close the thread. do not comply with the status quo. enough is enough. for black white green red purple pink yellow orange = color = rainbow = all.

The title to the LA Times article that corson linked is: "Trayvon Martin protesters block freeway, streets; LAPD moves in"

As announced in this post of mine, above, the thread What can we do to reduce the risk of riot from the Zimmerman-Martin case? was started, looking at at least some of the bigger picture.

But I have this feeling I am not understanding your concern very well, corson ... sorry. I invite you to restate it, if you think it's worth the effort.

[Mike]

Paul, cant you just agree with me and get it over with, ha! These rebuttals are getting tiring

Weak rhetorical tactics? Are "Zimmerman said this" and "Zimmerman said that" supposed to be strong rhetorical tactics?

No, didn't watch the video. You're right. Guilty as charged. But ridicule? Where? Was it the bit about Zimmerman's neck? Maybe I should have included some smiley emoticons in there. Sure, it was a bit sarcastic, but its just my sense of humor compadre.

The dried blood in the pic adds a little too much drama for me. Take it away and what have you got? Not much. Just a couple marks that likely resulted from being tackled onto the concrete.

If I take issue with some of your posts in this thread, its because some of them read as if they've been spat out of an emotionless machine. You'll likely respond that I'm too emotional, and therefore missing what's in front of me etc...And that's cool. I've got no problem with that. That's part of the action too. But while you and I can walk cordially and respectfully away from our little debate, many others won't - too much tension and blatant unfairness won't allow it. There's going to be violence. All because this cowboy couldn't stay on his horse.

Though I must say, with the exception of a few minor incidents, the protests have been pretty peaceful. Ironic (or maybe not) that Newt Gingrich recently referred to them as a "lynching". Its precisely this type of paranoia towards blacks that got Trayvon killed in the first place.

This'll likely be my last post here - I say "likely" because there's nothing more annoying than someone who, after they've posted what they believe to be their seminal post, declares spitefully that they will under no circumstances return to the thread, implying that their post is the final word on the matter...only to return unendingly to hammer home the point.

No hard feelings Paul. Its an emotional topic. Been fun,'ing with ya.

[risveglio]

Posted by Chinaski (here)
... blatant unfairness won't allow it. There's going to be violence. All because this cowboy couldn't stay on his horse.

I understand what you are trying to say but how is putting Zimmerman in a rape cage because he made one wrong decision of being a cowboy justice or "fair"? If you are going to except the testimony of Zimmerman; which the original officers and prosecutors did at first until it became about politics and the jurors did after a trial, then it was self-defense. Martin initiated the force and hence made the first crime. Zimmerman's response of "Thank God" when the police lied to him that they had everything on tape should mean something. The fact that his lifestyle makes him appear as the furthest thing from a racist and it is obvious NBC wanted to paint him as one should matter too.

[jagman]

Ill tell what I'm tired of. Since our great commander and chief took over. Our race relations have been set back 20 years
You know who has 2 thumbs and loves stirring the pot on race.

This guy


And this guy

[risveglio]

Posted by jagman (here)
Ill tell what I'm tired of. Since our great commander and chief took over. Our race relations have been set back 20 years
You know who has 2 thumbs and loves stirring the pot on race.

This guy

Here is a more accurate picture, Senator Obama would have hated this guy.

[Seikou-Kishi]

The verdict was "just" in that the prosecution could not prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) Zimmerman acted other than in self defence.

That doesn't mean he did act in self defence, just that the prosecution doesn't have the means to demonstrate to the contrary. But make no mistake that it is the prosecution's duty to prove guilt, not the defence's duty to prove innocence. In a court of law, it is evidence that counts, not stern insistence, belief or flights of fancy and it is on the head of the accuser to substantiate their claim.

Let's remember that good legal principle, held, I'm sure, in high regard by everybody here, that a person is innocent until proven guilty. That's until "proven" guilty, not until the majority insist upon guilt. Not until people amass in the streets to protest something the television told them they should care about. If the prosecution could not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt (and there is nothing new in this) then the defendant remains innocent because guilt wasn't proven.

We have to ask: is it better that a possibly guilty man is acquitted or that a possibly innocent man is convicted? If you hold the latter is better, you argue even against your own innocence, and if you hold it only in regard to this present case, you're hoisting a hypocritical double standard blown by the fickle winds of media-fueled public sentiment.

The public outrages of the many are completely irrelevant in a court of law, and neither use nor ornament. So people are outraged? So what? What possible relevance does outrage or offence have with regards the facts of anything? Insistence does not make an argument. A good court works with the facts of the matter and seeks to determine what can be established. It does not run on opinion, sensationalism, persecution complexes or the clannishness of minorities and the racial guilt of comfortable majorities.

The charge that Zimmerman was acting other than in self defence was not established by the prosecution. In conflicts between two people in which one of the two parties dies and which the surviving party claims to have been a matter of self-defence, the law of Florida sides with the living party, presuming self-defence unless otherwise established. That is, it explicitly upholds the principle that a person is innocent unless and until proven guilty. This should be a consolation and comfort to Californians, and anybody arguing against that should take a long look at their priorities.

All of this public furore about the event is entirely irrelevant, if entirely predictable. The public is not all-knowing, and there is no knowing how often public sentiment sides with the wrong against the wronged. (How many of these people protesting now protest drone-strikes against innocent people abroad?) Avalonians at least should know that public opinion usually supports people (like politicians) who are working against the public good. If the public is not so clairvoyant there, why should they be moreso in this case? And if all but one person in the world sincerely believed something, it would take more than that sincere belief to convict that one other person — anything else is a witch hunt.

The prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman acted other than in self defence. Zimmerman got off. Anybody who disagrees that the latter does not automatically follow from the former should drop any pretence of caring for justice.

[Mike]

Hi Oliver,

Except for some awkward philosophy somewhere in the middle 3rd there( to me, anyway), you are correct on most all counts. But I'm not personally here to debate the legal minutia of the case really - I'm more interested in the humanity of it.

We are continually encouraged to take the emotion out of it, but I say keep the emotion in it. I think that's what is lacking here: emotion. I mean, why don't we just arrange it so a bunch of grey aliens fill in as jurors? We can all very robotically say: here we have 'a', and here we have 'b', and therefore we must conclude 'c'. In this we've removed all but one or 2 dimensions...none of which include the human element.

Sure, "reasonable doubt" was not proven sufficiently. Neither was it proven sufficiently in the OJ trial, or the Casey Anthony trial. Shall I drop my "pretense" of caring about justice because I disagree with the absurd ruling in both cases? I think you and I have very different views on what amounts to "justice" my friend.

[Seikou-Kishi]

As Goldie said, both the prosecution and the defence accepted the jurors, so we cannot say that any arrangement of possible jurors, including grey aliens, is the same. These were accepted jurors, accepted by both sides. We do not need to resort to greys to accept the possibility of jurors with whom either the prosecution or the defence would find fault.

In this case, the jurors were accepted as fair/unbiased by both the prosecution and defence; they cannot accept the service of the jury at one moment and then reject it as soon as it goes against them. Any bias, then, would be theirs.

You're right, at least in my view, that we shouldn't take the emotion out. From the bare bones of the facts of the matter, the point still stands that emotion or opinion have no relevance whatsoever, but in terms of pragmatics and the repercussions of this case the opinions of the people do have effect and should be taken into account — but that's like saying the horns of bulls should be taken into account; they're no measurement of objective fact, just something you have to think of when in the field with the bulls. Whether people protest or riot in the face of perceived injustice is a reality, but it is about the perception of justice, not justice itself. And, as we all know, there are people very adept at manipulating perception. We need to be aware that the perception and reality of justice are two completely different things. We also have to accept fallibility of the process and of the available evidence.

For these reasons, those of us on the outside can never know with epistemological certainty what happened then. In other words, doubt exists — and where doubt exists, there is benefit of the doubt, that is, the principle that people are assumed innocent until proven otherwise.

Those who believe compelling evidence was not entered, or that a bigoted jury was permitted to remain, or that the judge was procedurally unfit — any of these things the prosecution should have addressed. If they did not, and accepted that all compelling evidence against Zimmerman was entered, that the jury was appropriate and that the judge was fit, then all those who disagree should find fault not with the defence or the court, but with the prosecution authority.

I think something people have to be aware of here is it seems that the federal government is looking for a way to assert jurisdiction. They want to take the case. It is a clear breach of state sovereignty to do that, and I am sure they will capitalise on the surely sincere but media-dictated opinions of the majority to allow them to do that. The important things from my perspective are that: a) the people do not allow the federal government to act like a unitary government in overruling a court of a state with clear jurisdiction, and b) the people do not besmirch and desecrate the principle that all people are innocent until proven guilty just because they want to believe that Zimmerman is guilty and see that belief agreed with in an unconstitutional court under federal authority.

If the US government steps in and asserts jurisdiction against the provisions of the constitution, and then that federal kangaroo court convicts Zimmerman and throws in a whack of anti-gun measures as well, I am concerned that the majority, whipped up into a frenzy by the media, will allow these egregious abuses to pass without comment just because the people are indulged in their lust for retribution without regard for evidence, principle or due process.

Posted by Chinaski (here)
Sure, "reasonable doubt" was not proven sufficiently. Neither was it proven sufficiently in the OJ trial, or the Casey Anthony trial. Shall I drop my "pretense" of caring about justice because I disagree with the absurd ruling in both cases? I think you and I have very different views on what amounts to "justice" my friend.

So what would you do? Would you have Zimmerman, Simpson and Anthony locked up and the key thrown away because "reasonable doubt wasn't proven, but I still think they did it"? In that case, what would you prefer the test of evidence be? That the prosecution merely "asserts fervently"? That the prosecution merely seek the backing of the majority? That they pinky-pwomise? If that were to be the case, accusation alone would be sufficient for conviction. So yeah, we probably do have different views of justice, and probably a whole load of other things if you'd like to live under such a system.

And before you ask yourself if you would like to see Zimmerman, Simpson or Anthony stand accused under such a system, ask yourself if you would like to be accused under such a system — if the insistence of the prosecution was all that was needed to deprive you of your life or liberty.

[Positive Vibe Merchant]

So... could I ask a stupid question?
Through all of this, does this simply mean, that because it was in 'self-defence' that it is not manslaughter? Isn't manslaughter killing someone without intent?
PVM

[Seikou-Kishi]

Posted by Positive Vibe Merchant (here)
So... could I ask a stupid question?
Through all of this, does this simply mean, that because it was in 'self-defence' that it is not manslaughter? Isn't manslaughter killing someone without intent?
PVM

Manslaughter is an unlawful killing with less culpability than murder. For example, severe mental illness impeding rational thought will disqualify an unlawful killing as murder and reduce it to manslaughter because it is a mitigating factor. Another example is where two people fight and that fight results in the death of one of the two — it's usually not murder because there is no intention to kill.

Another manslaughter might be through death by dangerous driving — without direct intention to kill, but with criminal negligence. In this case, the defence would only have to prove that the driver was driving carefully and took all reasonable steps to avoid it and in such a case a death would not result in a conviction either for murder or manslaughter.

There is a considerable gap between somebody dying and somebody actually being legally responsible through willful intent or through negligence, etc.

Killing in self defence is lawful under common law and the law of most states (both states in the traditional sense and the federal units of the US). It is a completely separate category of causing death. The law does not require that somebody risk losing their own lives in order to avoid taking the life of another.

Whether killing in self defence or manslaughter is the applicable term in this specific instance, and whether or not those distinctions made by law are fair and practicable, those are the distinctions as they stand.

Murder is causing death with full culpability, manslaughter is causing death with mitigated culpability, and killing in self defence is causing death without legal culpability.

[Mike]

Posted by Seikou-Kishi (here)
As Goldie said, both the prosecution and the defence accepted the jurors, so we cannot say that any arrangement of possible jurors, including grey aliens, is the same. These were accepted jurors, accepted by both sides. We do not need to resort to greys to accept the possibility of jurors with whom either the prosecution or the defence would find fault.

In this case, the jurors were accepted as fair/unbiased by both the prosecution and defence; they cannot accept the service of the jury at one moment and then reject it as soon as it goes against them. Any bias, then, would be theirs.

You're right, at least in my view, that we shouldn't take the emotion out. From the bare bones of the facts of the matter, the point still stands that emotion or opinion have no relevance whatsoever, but in terms of pragmatics and the repercussions of this case the opinions of the people do have effect and should be taken into account — but that's like saying the horns of bulls should be taken into account; they're no measurement of objective fact, just something you have to think of when in the field with the bulls. Whether people protest or riot in the face of perceived injustice is a reality, but it is about the perception of justice, not justice itself. And, as we all know, there are people very adept at manipulating perception. We need to be aware that the perception and reality of justice are two completely different things. We also have to accept fallibility of the process and of the available evidence.

For these reasons, those of us on the outside can never know with epistemological certainty what happened then. In other words, doubt exists — and where doubt exists, there is benefit of the doubt, that is, the principle that people are assumed innocent until proven otherwise.

Those who believe compelling evidence was not entered, or that a bigoted jury was permitted to remain, or that the judge was procedurally unfit — any of these things the prosecution should have addressed. If they did not, and accepted that all compelling evidence against Zimmerman was entered, that the jury was appropriate and that the judge was fit, then all those who disagree should find fault not with the defence or the court, but with the prosecution authority.

I think something people have to be aware of here is it seems that the federal government is looking for a way to assert jurisdiction. They want to take the case. It is a clear breach of state sovereignty to do that, and I am sure they will capitalise on the surely sincere but media-dictated opinions of the majority to allow them to do that. The important things from my perspective are that: a) the people do not allow the federal government to act like a unitary government in overruling a court of a state with clear jurisdiction, and b) the people do not besmirch and desecrate the principle that all people are innocent until proven guilty just because they want to believe that Zimmerman is guilty and see that belief agreed with in an unconstitutional court under federal authority.

If the US government steps in and asserts jurisdiction against the provisions of the constitution, and then that federal kangaroo court convicts Zimmerman and throws in a whack of anti-gun measures as well, I am concerned that the majority, whipped up into a frenzy by the media, will allow these egregious abuses to pass without comment just because the people are indulged in their lust for retribution without regard for evidence, principle or due process.

Posted by Chinaski (here)
Sure, "reasonable doubt" was not proven sufficiently. Neither was it proven sufficiently in the OJ trial, or the Casey Anthony trial. Shall I drop my "pretense" of caring about justice because I disagree with the absurd ruling in both cases? I think you and I have very different views on what amounts to "justice" my friend.

So what would you do? Would you have Zimmerman, Simpson and Anthony locked up and the key thrown away because "reasonable doubt wasn't proven, but I still think they did it"? In that case, what would you prefer the test of evidence be? That the prosecution merely "asserts fervently"? That the prosecution merely seek the backing of the majority? That they pinky-pwomise? If that were to be the case, accusation alone would be sufficient for conviction. So yeah, we probably do have different views of justice, and probably a whole load of other things if you'd like to live under such a system.

And before you ask yourself if you would like to see Zimmerman, Simpson or Anthony stand accused under such a system, ask yourself if you would like to be accused under such a system — if the insistence of the prosecution was all that was needed to deprive you of your life or liberty.

Damn you Oliver! I'm trying like hell to get outta this thread and now youve sucked me back into it!

Not sure about the rest of it, but I think you're really onto something with that pinky promise thing...

But seriously now, I don't really have much of an issue with the jury selection. Just being silly.

I don't really have any more capacity for debate, as Paul has already worn me out, and anything I say at this point will only amount to overkill anyway. This was a smart and thoughtful post, and it deserves similar reciprocation, but Ive got diarrhea of Zimmerman at this point...and just don't have it in me.

My point is, basically, that the legal system, especially in high profile cases....is bullish!t. Egregiously bullish!t. Hopelessly bullish!t. Irredeemably bullish!t.....and any other type of bullsh!t one might find appropriate.

What would I have the jury do? Well, make the right decision in the first place I guess. Its very clear that OJ and C.Anthony are guilty; Zimmerman less so. "Reasonable doubt" is, well, unreasonable. It technically exists in every case, if one were to diligently seek it out. Its the system that needs to change.

[T Smith]

This is a complex and charged debate that speaks to the maxim that reality is always much more complicated than any given set of discrete quanta presented, either deliberate or otherwise, in attempt to describe the complexity underlying the data points. To those who haven't bothered watching the Stefan Molyneux video in post #20, which I agree is an excellent summary of the alleged facts (whether one subscribes to how those facts speak to the underlying reality or not), I'd simply like to reiterate his summation, which is worthy of highlighting regardless of one's unique worldview on this topic. I quote Stefan Moyneux's closing remarks below:

"...the attempt to put everything through the lens of race is incredibly volatile; I think it's incredibly distructive; I think it turns us (who are generally tax, life, stock and play--things of the ruling classes) against each other, and it makes us worry about each other rather than the people who are selling off our future, who are printing our money into a status [of] fiat-oblivion-cloud-of-nothingness, who are starting and sending us off to wars, who are throwing massive numbers of people in prisons...we've got to remember if we keep focusing on fighting each other we will never find [our] real enemies and the true liberation, which is to break out of this historical hierarchy and find a way to live in peace without all of this brutality, medieval prisons, and police with fascist weaponry; there are much better ways for us to deal with life and to find peaceful ways of solving our problems rather than appealing to the State and the race baiters and all the people who turn us against each other rather than having us look upwards to the real masters and to free ourselves from that... .

He nailed it.