At 4/9/12 08:15 PM, Memorize wrote:
Guilty until proven innocent.
Is a legal construct that works in an American court room situation...it also is not the same as saying "Zimmerman should be assumed to be telling the truth until it's proven he isnt". Try again. :)
You should already know this about our legal system... right?
I do know it. Apparently you are having some problems as to what exactly that means in terms of the concept itself, and that it doesn't necessarily apply to independent, non-court room analysis of a case.
No, it is especially fucking relevant because it provides context.
Irrelevant context. He still has no authority to be chasing anybody down with a car and a concealed fire arm, enter a situation that forced a confrontation, which then ultimately lead to him discharging his firearm which lead to Martin's death. Even in context, I see nothing here that mitigates the essential fact that Zimmerman made a stupid decisions that was well outside any power or authority Zimmerman possessed to act in the situation.
You could say a dead body in someone's home is proof of murder, until you detail that the dead body was a robber who broke in.
Sure, a mitigating circumstance and such...but there's NOTHING like that here. Zimmerman was not a cop, being in a neighborhood watch does not give you the powers of a cop, or any police powers beyond that of an ordinary citizen. Zimmerman had no business chasing Martin down and confronting him. Zimmerman should have called the police and then waited for them to respond. Nobody has presented me with anything even close to a compelling or proper reason why Zimmerman should be legally authorized to chase Martin or do anything related to the situation after he called 911.
See? Context that doesn't mitigate the fact that Zimmerman had no authority for his actions. It's not an apples to apples comparison.
They're both the same scene, but provide entirely different perspectives.
Indeed. But I've seen nothing, and heard no argument that refutes the essential fact that Zimmerman somehow was entitled or legally authorized to chase Martin and is absolved of any responsibility for the unfortunate events that happened after.
And yet you still can't say it was "illegal", can you?
I think his actions could have been illegal had Martin lived to press charges (stalking, harrassment, possible assault if Zimmerman put his hands on him). But as to the shooting? Yes, I can't say illegal as a matter of fact because of a couple reasons: a) Zimmerman isn't officially charged with anything in connection with it yet...I'd heard some wanted first degree murder, but I think for me it's more like second degree, or manslaughter more likely. B) I don't have all of the facts, but the facts I do have do strongly suggest to me that something illegal happened and a crime did occur.
Oh right, you don't believe in due process.
Huh? Where'd that bit of sensationalism come from?
Guilty until proven innocent! You don't have to demonstrate how anything he did was illegal.
Of course you do! Just like if he is charged and prosecuted, he'll have to demonstrate how everything he did was completely legal and no crime occurred! I really think you don't understand how the "presumption of innocence" works.
Except that it provides a vastly different narrative.
Not really. It provides a narrative that is filled with incompatible analogies and doesn't mitigate the fact that Zimmerman engaged in behaviors he shouldn't have, that ended in a potentially criminal, and certainly tragic situation.
By leaving out information, you may not necessarily be lying, but you are ensuring the people's sympathy is pointed in your favor.
Yep, that's agreed. Twisting facts, using improper analogies, and trying to paint the situation in a light that doesn't fit works much the same as well.
I'll be sure to bring that up the next time a "good Samaritan" stops a robbery, rape, or murder.
That's not what happened here either. Another completely incorrect analogy. There is absolutely zero evidence so far that Martin was doing anything criminal that night, or had any intent to do anything criminal. You keep bringing in these irrelevant ideas to somehow justify Zimmerman stepping beyond the bounds of what a person can and should do when confronted with the EXACT scenario he was confronted with. His actions were correct up until he hung up with 911 and decided to keep pursuing Martin.
Heaven forbid someone have the audacity to walk up to people and ask them questions.
Except that's NOT what happened! He pursued Martin, chased after him. Does a shooting in a vacant lot after an alleged physical struggle sound like "walking up to people and asking them questions" to you? Now who's leaving out facts and information? Fuck.
Is that exactly what he did? I have no idea.
Then you shouldn't be talking about the case, the situation, any of it. It's not like there aren't a hundred or so articles easily findable online so you can get a picture of what we know so far.
But what pisses me off is that you people are acting as if even if he did walk up to ask Trevon some simple questions, that by merely doing THAT, it was somehow paramount to an Assault.
Except that is again leaving out facts, grossly misinterpreting easy to read posts in this thread...etc. etc. aka everything people that are trying to defend Zimmerman has been doing since the start...but hey, why let inconvenient facts get in the way.
I know exactly what it does.
Ok, then explain please...because it certainly doesn't give Zimmerman vigilante police powers...which is what you're statements seem to make it seem like you believe.
But I would also prefer that if my place were being robbed, that my neighbor could try to stop it if I were away.
No one was being robbed! Martin didn't do anything criminal! Zimmerman just saw him walking, looking around, and found the behavior suspicious enough to call 911 and then pursue him. There's ZERO evidence Treyvon was engaging in anything criminal or had an intent to engage in anything criminal! So what you're saying isn't pertinent to the situation as we understand it.
How about "No"
How about "yes" or you can have a bit of a time out...I'm getting sick of you tap dancing on the border of trolling. Last polite(ish) warning.
No, but it did prove that you people were WRONG about him having no injuries.
Are they necessarily injuries from the incident? Are they injuries that were sustained earlier in something unrelated that he is now using to heighten the self defense story? In fact some are still alleging even with the video enhancement there's still no evidence of injury. So it seems to me that isn't the "smoking gun" you're saying it is either.
Instead of just admitting to that, you instead, dismiss it.
I didn't dismiss it. I said that it still isn't conclusive proof he's telling the truth. That's not dismissal at all. Dismissal would be if I didn't say anything at all, or completely excused it away and said there was no possible way he could have sustained it in the fight he alleges took place.
Suddenly the very video you were calling a "smoking gun" doesn't matter anymore according to you!
I don't remember calling it a "smoking gun", or that it doesn't matter...but again, why let the facts get in the way of a good troll I guess.