Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[johnny karate]

And critical thinkers.

Critical thinkers usually make arguments and support them with facts.

It's been a tough year to be a Warrior.

Well, Zimmerman was actually acquitted over a year ago, so if you're going to take a swipe at these "Warriors" you're so obsessed with, at least get the basic chronology right. Because getting simple things like that wrong tends to make smug people just look foolish.

 

[Mumbles]

Eh, I can agree. Zimmerman should be in jail for...well, a large number of things, but in this case murder. But civil rights violations require a much higher standard of evidence, and while it's plain to anyone with common sense that Zimmerman racially profiled Martin and attacked him, there's no chance it could have been proved in court beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[WildCat]

There were actually other things on my list. Like the part where Zimmerman reached into his pocket, which in pretty much every version he told of his story, is what directly preceded the punch.

Also, since when does someone need "evidence" to have a reasonable belief that another person is about to use unlawful force against them?

Did every cop you've defended for shooting and killing someone have evidence the person they just killed intended an imminent unlawful act? Or was it just a reasonable belief?

1) He was being followed by a stranger at night.

2) The stranger did not identify himself nor announce his intentions.

3) The stranger made a quick motion for his pocket.

So again, explain how it is not reasonable for a person in that circumstance to believe the stranger intends imminent unlawful force.



Read the statute again.

Nothing in the statute allows the use of force in that situation.

First of all, Martin had no duty to retreat. He had the legal right to be where he was, and even confront the person following him.

He didn't have the right to use force on the person following him. It is not a crime to follow someone, nor is following someone illustrative of "imminent use of unlawful force" so "stand your ground" isn't even applicable. And once again, we know that Martin wasn't concerned that Zimmerman was going to attack him unlawfully because if he had been he would have called the police instead of Rachel Jeantel.

Secondly, the word "fear" appears nowhere in the statute. I get that you need to conflate "believe" with "fear" (the same way you dishonestly conflated "assault" with punching someone) to try to at least maintain the appearance of substance in your pathetic argument, but the fact of the matter is that Martin neither had to be fearful nor run away in a suitable display of fear before he had the legal right to defend himself.

Also, you missed this part:


Please let us know how it's going with the evidence you're compiling to prove the crime you alleged actually took place.

You do realize this has already been through the court system, don't you? And that the jury found in Zimmerman's favor?

 

[WildCat]

You are claiming a fact. Do you have evidence supporting that claim?

There was a witness at the trial who saw someone go past her unit towards the "T", and since Zimmerman never left the "T" area it could only have been Martin going back.

 

[WildCat]

Eh, I can agree. Zimmerman should be in jail for...well, a large number of things, but in this case murder. But civil rights violations require a much higher standard of evidence, and while it's plain to anyone with common sense that Zimmerman racially profiled Martin and attacked him, there's no chance it could have been proved in court beyond a reasonable doubt.

Another critical thinking-free post from Mumbles!

 

[12AX7]

And critical thinkers.

And, isn't it weird how it seems like most of Zimmerman's supporters are either white, conservatives, gun owners or a combination of the three?

Funny that.

 

[Dan O.]

There was a witness at the trial who saw someone go past her unit towards the "T", and since Zimmerman never left the "T" area it could only have been Martin going back.

You are claiming a fact. Do you have evidence supporting that claim?

 

[johnny karate]

Nothing in the statute allows the use of force in that situation.

Your base assertion is incredibly convincing.

He didn't have the right to use force on the person following him. It is not a crime to follow someone, nor is following someone illustrative of "imminent use of unlawful force" so "stand your ground" isn't even applicable. And once again, we know that Martin wasn't concerned that Zimmerman was going to attack him unlawfully because if he had been he would have called the police instead of Rachel Jeantel.

Nothing in the statute says the other person has to commit a crime before you have the legal right to defend yourself.

Nothing in the statute say you have to express "concern" before you have the legal right to defend yourself.

Nothing in the statute says you have to call the police before you have the legal right to defend yourself.

Also, I never mention "stand your ground", so I'm not sure why you brought it up, other than to serve as yet another lame attempt to muddy the waters.

So for the third time, explain how it is not reasonable for a person who has been followed by a total stranger at night - a stranger who makes no attempt to identify himself or announce his intentions who then makes a quick move for his pocket - to believe that stranger intends imminent unlawful force.

And please, use your words. Let's see if you can make an actual argument.

You do realize this has already been through the court system, don't you? And that the jury found in Zimmerman's favor?

I don't recall the issue of Martin allegedly assaulting Zimmerman having been settled - or even dealt with - in the court system.

Could you provide a link to the details of the case in which Trayvon Martin was tried and found guilty for the assault of George Zimmerman?

 

[johnny karate]

And, isn't it weird how it seems like most of Zimmerman's supporters are either white, conservatives, gun owners or a combination of the three?

Funny that.

The best part is that if this was a situation in which the police shot and killed someone they thought intended to use imminent unlawful force, these same people would be falling all over themselves to defend the actions of the police.

But apparently a teenage kid merely punching someone in the same situation is beyond the pale.

 

[WildCat]

You are claiming a fact. Do you have evidence supporting that claim?

We know that's where the confrontation occurred, and I'm, not seeing any plausible scenarios that have him beyond the "T" and then getting in the confrontation at the "T".

 

[WildCat]

And, isn't it weird how it seems like most of Zimmerman's supporters are either white, conservatives, gun owners or a combination of the three?

Funny that.

I support the known facts, and by critically examining the evidence. The lynch mob, not so much.

 

[WildCat]

Your base assertion is incredibly convincing.



Nothing in the statute says the other person has to commit a crime before you have the legal right to defend yourself.

Nothing in the statute say you have to express "concern" before you have the legal right to defend yourself.

Nothing in the statute says you have to call the police before you have the legal right to defend yourself.

Also, I never mention "stand your ground", so I'm not sure why you brought it up, other than to serve as yet another lame attempt to muddy the waters.

So for the third time, explain how it is not reasonable for a person who has been followed by a total stranger at night - a stranger who makes no attempt to identify himself or announce his intentions who then makes a quick move for his pocket - to believe that stranger intends imminent unlawful force.

And please, use your words. Let's see if you can make an actual argument.

If you think you can attack someone for following you you are wrong. And it is quite clear that Martin wasn't worried about Zimmerman attacking him or he would have called the police instead of calling Rachel Jeantel to shoot the bull.

I don't recall the issue of Martin allegedly assaulting Zimmerman having been settled - or even dealt with - in the court system.

Could you provide a link to the details of the case in which Trayvon Martin was tried and found guilty for the assault of George Zimmerman?

And here you are moving the goalpost so far we'd have to put dead people on trial before you'd concede.

 

[12AX7]

I support the known facts, and by critically examining the evidence. The lynch mob, not so much.

And you're also most likely white, conservative and a gun owner.

Weird.

 

[Dan O.]

We know that's where the confrontation occurred, and I'm, not seeing any plausible scenarios that have him beyond the "T" and then getting in the confrontation at the "T".

Personal beliefs do not create support for a logical argument. What you claim is in contention.

 

[johnny karate]

If you think you can attack someone for following you you are wrong. And it is quite clear that Martin wasn't worried about Zimmerman attacking him or he would have called the police instead of calling Rachel Jeantel to shoot the bull.

No one claimed you can attack someone for simply following you.

The statute does not require someone to be fearful, concerned, or worried before they have the legal right to defend themselves.

Only that they have a reasonable belief the other person intends to use imminent unlawful force.

You have yet to provide an argument as to why it was unreasonable for Martin to have that belief regarding Zimmerman.

And here you are moving the goalpost so far we'd have to put dead people on trial before you'd concede.

I'm not sure what you are blathering about.

You said "this has already been through the court system". As we are discussing Martin's alleged assault of Zimmerman, I am simply asking you to substantiate your claim that it "has already been through the court system".

Kindly do so, or retract your silly claim.

 

[johnny karate]

I support the known facts, and by critically examining the evidence.

That's terrific.

When will you be providing known facts and critically examined evidence that proves Martin criminally assaulted Zimmerman?

 

[This is The End]

As far as the courts are concerned, it literally does mean exactly that. Innocent until proven guilty, etc.

You don't know much about how the courts work in the USA then I guess.

In the USA you are found "not guilty" and it is made very clear that you are not found "innocent".

They are two completely different things.

 

[12AX7]

You don't know much about how the courts work in the USA then I guess.

In the USA you are found "not guilty" and it is made very clear that you are not found "innocent".

They are two completely different things.

Wait a darn second.

You mean O.J. actually murdered two people?

Huh. And all this time I thought he was innocent because he was found not guilty at a trial.

This court/evidence stuff sure is confusing.

 

[WildCat]

And you're also most likely white, conservative and a gun owner.

Weird.

You have 2 of 3 correct. Primarily I'm a skeptic and a critical thinker, while the "Martin was chased down and killed for carrying Skittles and wearing a hoodie" people are not critical thinkers and driven by emotion and unable to objectively examine the facts.

For example, you haven't disputed anything I've said and are resorting to race-baiting and name calling.

At least johnny attempts to counter my arguments, even though he is forced to ignore and/or deny the available evidence in order to do so.

 

[WildCat]

Personal beliefs do not create support for a logical argument. What you claim is in contention.

It's not a "personal belief", it's a fact supported by evidence presented by both the prosecution and defense at the trial.