It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Breaking News! George Zimmerman found not guilty.

page: 89
157
<< 86  87  88    90  91  92 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 




There are different ways of weighting the law, of creating nuance that allows for self defence but doesn't encourage killing.

Let us know what the answer to that is, provided that you don't put an innocent man in prison for killing someone that is a very real threat to his life (self defense), just because there isn't an eyewitness there to back him up.

I think the system that we have now works, you know, the one where the state has to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

You are saying that because a person can commit a crime and get away with it, the law must be 'nuanced' to keep that from happening.

People can and will commit crimes and get away with them.




posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 


How in the hell did you get this:


You are seriously claiming that it would have been better for Zimmerman if Martin had been there to tell his side of the story?

Out of this:


He benefited Hugely from shooting a Violent Attacker who was assaulting him

Maybe you should read that a couple of more time just so that you get it.


Why else would he opt not to testify?

That was probably a decision made by his lawyer. Because in allot of cases the prosecution does auch a good job at proving the defendants case that there is no need for the defendant to testify.


But above you seem to claim that this verdict will encourage innocent people to shoot attackers

You are going to have to quote where I said that. This not a place for assumption.


You're going to end up releasing him for the same reason you released George - not enough evidence.

Did you really read what you are typing?
You need to better familiarize yourself with the case. He was Not released on a lack of evidence. He was released because of the Overwhelming Evidence. Which is the same exact reason that he was acquitted.


Let's say I go out and do what you idiotically asked me to earlier

I did not ask you to do that. You said that you could do it an get away with it. I said "Prove It" then I said "Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is". Go back and read that again to make sure you are clear on that.


I bash myself up a little bit, and claim you attacked me.

So are you saying that George gave himself a Royal @$$ Kicking just so that he could murder a violent hoodlum?
Are you kidding?


despite retarded attempts to portray him as Al Capone, I'm not buying it.


That is really pathetic to make that analogy. He was a punk hood. No Where Near the likes of Al Capone. Certainly Mr. Capone would be insulted if he was here to read that.
Now you agree that he was not innocent. How about the girlfriend who said that he was always getting into fights. I was call that a propensity for violence.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 



maybe the same guys that worked on Trayvon's past will have a look at this message board and see you inciting murder?

You are sinking fast. I will thow you a rope if you stop talking out your @$$ like that.

Inciting Murder? . .. . where does this stuff come from?



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Whatever happened to extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? When big soft George - who couldn't fight his way out of a wet paper bag, despite 16mth of unarmed combat training - tells someone they survived a 20 plus blows beating which incorporated at least 2 . slams against concrete, before managing to somehow retrieve his gun and put an end to the onslaught, shouldn't it need more than his say so and some partial confirmation of his story by some witnesses, only one of whom actually claims to have saw any of the "fight"?

The shoddy "investigating" by the Sanford PD could have led to Zimmerman doing time for a crime he didn't commit, and it also could have allowed a callous killer to escape a jail sentence. As it stands, he's just been absolved because there wasn't enough evidence to convict him. That doesn't mean the jury were given the results of a thorough investigaion to mull over.
edit on 23-7-2013 by IvanAstikov because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-7-2013 by IvanAstikov because: typo-time



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 




Whatever happened to extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

That is exactly what happened in the George Zimmerman trial.

The state made an extraordinary claim (that GZ murdered TM).
The state did not provide sufficient evidence to convince the jury, so George Zimmerman remained, as presumed, innocent.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 

So, you want to continue to pretend that the investigation that night would have satisfied you, had it been your son that was found dead? You don't have to answer that - I know it wouldn't. You'd want to know things like, why the area the "fight" was seen to take place wasn't examined and photographed for evidence of a violent scuffle, like heel prints in soft, wet ground. You'd want to know why the lead detective never checked Zimmerman's claim that a car was reversing out of a driveway when he says he first spotted Trayvon. You;d want to know why the crime scene tech didn't even do a thorough test for Zimmerman's blood along the pavement where he says he had his . cracked. You'd want to know why naturally suspicious police officers treated Zimmerman like he was a victim from the outset.There's more to criticise, but that gives an indication of the lack of effort made.

edit on 23-7-2013 by IvanAstikov because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-7-2013 by IvanAstikov because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-7-2013 by IvanAstikov because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-7-2013 by IvanAstikov because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy


You are saying that because a person can commit a crime and get away with it, the law must be 'nuanced' to keep that from happening.


You keep trying to dilute what I'm saying to a general point that I'm not making. But I think most people would agree that the law should be nuanced, and that it is usually designed to prevent people from committing crime (if that's not tautological).

What I am saying is that you have a situation where it is in people's interests to kill a counterparty in an altercation. And that the Zimmerman verdict has made that more likely. By all means try to land a glove on that notion. You haven't yet.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 



you have a situation where it is in people's interests to kill a counterparty

So, if you follow that logic, you MUST kill the witness. . .. ..

Well,. . . how about all of the other witnesses. Do you kill them too?

ETA:

Do you think it will be Easier Or Harder to convince the Police that ALL 8 of those people attacked you leaving you no choice but to "Stand Your Ground"?
edit on 23-7-2013 by ShadellacZumbrum because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum
 


Killing one witness who was able to counter everything you state is a different propsition than killing x amount more who can't really testify to much because of the environment the incident took place in.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 



x amount more who can't really testify to much

Each witness only needs to get an Eyeful. Just look at the Trayvon Martin - George Zimmerman Case.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 


How in the hell did you get this:


You are seriously claiming that it would have been better for Zimmerman if Martin had been there to tell his side of the story?

Out of this:


He benefited Hugely from shooting a Violent Attacker who was assaulting him


Because this is what you actually wrote in response to me saying "He benefited hugely from Martin not being there":


Um,, .. No ... He benefited Hugely from shooting a Violent Attacker who was assaulting him.


Where I come from writing "No" is a sign of disagreement with the premise. That's why I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that you disagreed with the notion that he had benefited from Martin not being there. I can't read your mind so I have to go on what you actually write.




That was probably a decision made by his lawyer. Because in allot of cases the prosecution does auch a good job at proving the defendants case that there is no need for the defendant to testify.


Hardly the action of someone who is sure they got their story straight, is it?



You are going to have to quote where I said that. This not a place for assumption.


You said this:

"Now people will be more likely to kill when they are being robbed in daylight, or being raped in an alleyway, or being car jacked or a whole list of other things. "

And this:

"This has been enough to educate the populous. It has set a new precedent .. . . Do Not take S[Snip]T off of a Thug. "Stand your ground". "

And this:

"However when someone is committing a vile act against you Justifiable Homicide is an excellent option"

So it's not an assumption. You clearly think that this verdict will encourage innocent people to shoot attackers.



Did you really read what you are typing?
You need to better familiarize yourself with the case. He was Not released on a lack of evidence. He was released because of the Overwhelming Evidence. Which is the same exact reason that he was acquitted.


That's just semantics. In the case I describe, you're going to end up releasing the perpetrator for the same reason: overwhelming evidence that he killed in self defence.



I did not ask you to do that. You said that you could do it an get away with it. I said "Prove It" then I said "Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is". Go back and read that again to make sure you are clear on that.


You realise those are the same things, right? Anyway, you also wrote this:

"Go get into an argument with someone and kill them"

So maybe you better go and make sure you're clear on it?



So are you saying that George gave himself a Royal @$$ Kicking just so that he could murder a violent hoodlum?
Are you kidding?


Where did I say that? You like pompously demanding repetitions of what you've said, so perhaps you can point to where I wrote that?



Now you agree that he was not innocent.


He was innocent in the sense that Zimmerman was innocent.



How about the girlfriend who said that he was always getting into fights. I was call that a propensity for violence.


You would know. You tried to get me to kill someone earlier.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 



you have a situation where it is in people's interests to kill a counterparty

So, if you follow that logic, you MUST kill the witness. . .. ..

Well,. . . how about all of the other witnesses. Do you kill them too?

ETA:

Do you think it will be Easier Or Harder to convince the Police that ALL 8 of those people attacked you leaving you no choice but to "Stand Your Ground"?
edit on 23-7-2013 by ShadellacZumbrum because: (no reason given)


Yes. Because all crimes have seven witnesses



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 



x amount more who can't really testify to much

Each witness only needs to get an Eyeful. Just look at the Trayvon Martin - George Zimmerman Case.


Um, exactly. The main witness - indeed the only one who saw the critical point in the case - was dead.

And that's where the bad guys will be putting people from now on. Or at least they have a serious enticement to do so.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 




And that the Zimmerman verdict has made that more likely. By all means try to land a glove on that notion. You haven't yet.

You haven't proven that the Zimmerman verdict makes it more likely.
Murderers have had an incentive to kill witnesses to crimes since the dawn of time.
The Zimmerman verdict apparently made you aware of this, so congratulations are in order, I suppose.

Land a glove on what? Your false notion that Zimmerman got away with something?



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 




So, you want to continue to pretend that the investigation that night would have satisfied you, had it been your son that was found dead?

I'll answer it anyway.
Of course I would want a complete and professional investigation done if it were my son. Who wouldn't want that for their son? Anyone deserves it, whether they are my son or not.
But that is up to the police department and the district attorney's office.
Then, even if the best possible investigation had occurred, we still may have found that all the evidence still backed up George Zimmerman's story.
It isn't George Zimmerman's fault that the investigation was botched, was it?

Most important though, is the fact that lack of investigative skills by the authorities does not indicate guilt, just a lack of evidence.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Lack of investigative thoroughness is only likely to ensure that the evidence for guilt or innocence is never presented. People on both sides of the divide should be angry about this, because their failure to investigate his affirmative defence properly nearly landed him in jail, whether he was telling the truth, or not.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 




People on both sides of the divide should be angry about this

Agreed.
We don't pay for training, equipment and protocol development just to waste tax dollars, we expect the authorities to do their jobs professionally and do a thorough investigation. The victims of crime and the criminal defendants both deserve the most competent and thorough investigation possible.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum


Inciting Murder? . .. . where does this stuff come from?


You told me to do this:

"Go get into an argument with someone and kill them"

Like I say, let's hope nobody shoots you in "self defence" any time soon. The gun nuts will be all over your posts here, painting you as a violent gangster.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy

You haven't proven that the Zimmerman verdict makes it more likely.


I'm not sure how a would-be killer would view the Zimmerman case as an argument not to pull the trigger. George got away with it, so why wouldn't they?

Perhaps you could explain how the case makes a killer less likely to expect the self defence argument to work?


Murderers have had an incentive to kill witnesses to crimes since the dawn of time.
The Zimmerman verdict apparently made you aware of this, so congratulations are in order, I suppose.


And now they have a bit more reason. And I'm not talking about murderers as a class of person - after all they don't become murderers until after they've killed. I'm talking about escalating situations between two parties where at least one has a gun. Those are now slightly more likely to end in death.

Besides, you're missing the nuances again. People have stolen since the dawn of time, but you wouldn't watch a burglary rate go up 100 per cent in a town and just shrig your shoulders and say, well, folks have had incentive to burgle forever. No point doing anything about this.


Land a glove on what? Your false notion that Zimmerman got away with something?


The point is that you don't know whether he did. Likewise when somebody shoots you and there's no witnesses, and they have to release the killer, people will have to give him the benefit of the doubt as well.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 06:04 AM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 




Perhaps you could explain how the case makes a killer less likely to expect the self defence argument to work?

I have no need to.
A man being acquitted in court because he was defending himself does reinforce the fact that self defense is a right.

Again, you seem to feel a need to make people criminals for using the right of self defense.




The point is that you don't know whether he did.

The jury seemed to know. They are the only ones that count.




People have stolen since the dawn of time, but you wouldn't watch a burglary rate go up 100 per cent in a town and just shrig your shoulders and say, well, folks have had incentive to burgle forever.

There are already laws against murder. Juries decide whether or not a person is guilty.
You are worrying about future crime, and whether or not this verdict will affect someones thoughts about using self defense in a case where it isn't warranted. Hello... future cases will be decided by juries also.

edit on 24-7-2013 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
157
<< 86  87  88    90  91  92 >>

log in

join