Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

Upchurch said:
Call it incompetence, call it lack of evidence. They didn't prove Zimmerman's guilt in a court of law.

Further, I've not seen anyone provide evidence on who assaulted whom first, despite claims that it exists. The fact is, we don't know what happened at the crucial moment. Anyone who says differently, unless they have new data not yet provided, is pushing a belief, not critical thinking. This thread has been lousy with assumptions and fitting facts to theories.
Click to expand...

There is no proof of who assaulted who first. Who has claimed that it exists?
 
TheL8Elvis said:
TM proved he was a thug himself. Did you see the pics and texts on his phone ? That's why he was kicked out of his mothers house, and suspended from school. Because he was a thug.
Click to expand...

A "thug" is defined as someone who is a violent criminal.

Do tell what evidence you have that Martin was a violent criminal.

And please, keep in mind the standard of proof you have established for believing anything negative about Zimmerman.

Good luck!
 
johnny karate said:
A "thug" is defined as someone who is a violent criminal.

Do tell what evidence you have that Martin was a violent criminal.

And please, keep in mind the standard of proof you have established for believing anything negative about Zimmerman.

Good luck!
Click to expand...

meh, semantic "gotchas"

thug
THəɡ/
noun
1.
a violent person, especially a criminal.
synonyms: ruffian, hooligan, vandal, hoodlum, gangster, villain, criminal;

TM was a thug.
 
johnny karate said:
A "thug" is defined as someone who is a violent criminal.

Do tell what evidence you have that Martin was a violent criminal.

And please, keep in mind the standard of proof you have established for believing anything negative about Zimmerman.

Good luck!
Click to expand...

The double standard is obvious to everyone, right?
 
johnny karate said:
Well... you, for starters:



Or do you regularly assert things for which you know there to be no evidence?
Click to expand...

ha ha, really?

Arguing against your certainty now means that I am certain? I have never claimed to be certain... just that Z's story is broadly speaking plausible and that the data is nowhere close to proving his guilt (or, and this is just IMHO, making it appear that the balance of probability is that he is guilty).

The Zimmerframers have constantly argued a zealous certainty that x feet of travel, or y didn't he stay in the truck meant that Z is guilty and should have been convicted. (And seemed quite sure that the prosecution were winning the argument during the trial - which shows how far emotion is clouding their judgement).
 
Unabogie said:
The double standard is obvious to everyone, right?
Click to expand...

Yep. If you're black, and you send rude text messages, you're a thug.

If you aren't black, and you attack a DEA agent, get into several cases of domestic violence, chase down and shoot a teen for walking past the wrong house, stalk a guy due to your road rage...well, you're innocent.

Could not be more clear.
 
Zimmerman must be proved guilty in a court of law. Martin proved it himself based on stuff you read on a white supremacist site. Sounds like solid evidence.
 
Unabogie said:
Zimmerman must be proved guilty in a court of law. Martin proved it himself based on stuff you read on a white supremacist site. Sounds like solid evidence.
Click to expand...

Since you participated in the thread, you should know your being dishonest.

The pics and texts on his phone are not from a white supremacist site.
That he wasn't living with his mother is not from a white supremacist site.
That he was suspended from school is not from a white supremacist site.

Step up your game.
 
Giz said:
ha ha, really?

Arguing against your certainty now means that I am certain? I have never claimed to be certain... just that Z's story is broadly speaking plausible and that the data is nowhere close to proving his guilt (or, and this is just IMHO, making it appear that the balance of probability is that he is guilty).

The Zimmerframers have constantly argued a zealous certainty that x feet of travel, or y didn't he stay in the truck meant that Z is guilty and should have been convicted. (And seemed quite sure that the prosecution were winning the argument during the trial - which shows how far emotion is clouding their judgement).
Click to expand...

Okay, so you do assert things for which you have no evidence. Thanks.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Any number of things we already discussed in this thread that you are well aware of. Also those things I mentioned just a few posts up and you quoted - so I assumed you read it...

If you disagree that TM was a thug, great. We can disagree.
Click to expand...

You vaguely referenced texts and photos, being kicked out of his mother's house, and being suspended from school, none of which are inherently violent or criminal.

Can you please elaborate, and tell me what specific evidence you have that Martin was a thug?
 
johnny karate said:
You vaguely referenced texts and photos, being kicked out of his mother's house, and being suspended from school, none of which are inherently violent or criminal.

Can you please elaborate, and tell me what specific evidence you have that Martin was a thug?
Click to expand...

Well I hope he references a picture found with a black hand touching a gun. Because as we all know, a fascination with guns is the surest sign a person is violent by nature.

http://wordondastreet.com/george-zimmerman-signs-autographs-fans-gun-show-video/
 
Giz said:
There is no proof of who assaulted who first. Who has claimed that it exists?
Click to expand...

WildCat, for example, has claimed such on numerous occasions. When asked for evidence, he usually can point to nothing more specific than "the trial".

But really, anyone who claims Martin is at fault because he attacked Zimmerman is implying that there is a reason to believe so. If otherwise, why make the claim?
 
Giz said:
You might find this interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen's_arrest_in_the_United_States
Click to expand...

What, exactly, was Martin's felony, misdemeanor or "breach of peace"?

eta: Also, from your link:
Private persons do not enjoy the same protections as the police in arresting others. While the powers to arrest are similar, police are entitled to mistake of fact in most cases, while citizens are held to a stricter liability. Police can also detain anyone upon reasonable suspicion.
Click to expand...
So, no. Private citizens are not just allowed to detain other private citizens. they put themselves at substantial legal risk to do so, specifically assault charges or worse.[/eta]

And, please do make the completely unsupported claim that Martin assaulted Zimmerman first. Because, when you or anyone else does, someone can finally support that claim with evidence or retract it. This is, after all, a critical thinking forum.

Not that you'd know it from this thread.
 
Last edited:
Unabogie said:
Well I hope he references a picture found with a black hand touching a gun. Because as we all know, a fascination with guns is the surest sign a person is violent by nature.
Click to expand...

Unless you're white. Then you're a good, responsible 2A supporter. Right up until you're not.

Or something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom