I was replying to...
Which as I said, made it sound as though you were justifying Zimmerman's actions.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice
- Thread starter Dancing David
- Start date
- Status
Which as I said, made it sound as though you were justifying Zimmerman's actions.
triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
So, I understood his point and line of reasoning, but you seem to have missed it.......
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
The Chief was probably just interpreting that as Zimmerman being unsure that Martin was black at the moment he was asked in the initial stages.
It's certainly not enough to call the Chief a liar and accuse him of a cover up.
Exactly.So, I understood his point and line of reasoning, but you seem to have missed it.......
Let me say also, one of the participants in this event is DEAD. We are only getting the side of the story of the man who did the shooting. Trayvon can't say anything in his defense.
Whenever you get only one side of a highly-charged conflict, you have to question the hell out of it, let alone when the other person's life and reputation rides on how it happened.
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
No, I was just pointing out that once you have decided that you need to follow someone and report them for being suspicious, it's logical that you'd want to keep him in sight.
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Yes, it's been pointed out before.
Legally, Zimmerman's story has to be busted, and busted well, to send him to jail.
The reporting part is separate from the need to follow them, so that can be removed from a logical statement about why you would follow them. Thus, your post boils down to, 'Once you have decided that you need to follow someone, you will want to follow them.' Which is a perfectly meaningless statement...unless you have some other implication you intend by even saying it in the first place.
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
"Innocent until proven guilty" is a procedural consideration that applies to law enforcement. A person who is filmed live shooting up a school, is captured and confesses with a lawyer present remains procedurally innocent until the moment his guilty plea is officially entered in court.
As non-law enforcement officials applying critical thinking to this situation, we don't have to presume innocence; we're free to reject things like claims of self-defense if they are not exclusively supported by evidence.
Zimmerman has claimed Martin came up on him and attacked him. That's a claim he made, that must be supported if I'm to accept it. So far there's no physical evidence, no forensic evidence, no witness statements backing that up.
Martin is dead - he hasn't made any claims for us to critically examine. And it's useless to speculate about other "possible" ways things could have happened which would exonerate Zimmerman - all that matters is the claim he made, and whether the most crucial parts of it can be substantiated or not. If not, then I'm afraid there's no reason for me to accept his claim of self-defense. All that's left is the established fact that he killed Martin after stalking him for no reason, which I believe he should be solely accountable for.
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
This sets off my BS meter. If this is true, then I can aggressively track, pursue and harass someone into a physical confrontation, then kill them, and as long as I have some scars and claim he attacked me first...someone has to prove the negative and find evidence that the scar came from him hitting me first instead of him defending himself from me, and if they don't I can walk away scot-free.
Is that what you're claiming?
That post is not perfectly meaningless, only the implication-free justification that you offered is.
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
That appears to roughly fit with Florida law at the moment.
Assuming there are no witnesses or evidence left to contradict you, and the scene of the incident basically aligns with your tale.
**********
Then add in a witness or two that also support your story, and you are probably good to go.
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
What about the witnesses that DON'T support your story, and say that the person who you killed was screaming for help? What about the fact that the person you killed was trying to flee from you while you pursued physical confrontation?
Do you believe that Zimmerman's actions were justified, yes or no?
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 18,821
This is exactly the point I brought up a couple of pages ago, and was called a liar for suggesting Zimmerman was doing something he shouldn't have been doing.
For some reason, it's taken as a given that Zimmerman was perfectly justified in arming himself and following Martin, despite the fact that he did so in violation of his neighborhood watch rules and in contradiction to what the police advised.
Whatever may have happened during the actual altercation, there's no doubt that Zimmerman set the whole thing in motion the moment he decided to take a gun and "follow" someone who was otherwise minding his own business.
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
What about them? I am not running the investigation.
If you want my opinion, I think there aren't any credible witnesses that contradict Zimmerman's account.
However, it does seem that an investigator did not believe Zimmerman. I don't think that investigator's reason(s) have been printed.
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Yup, I did some research and I was right that your claim about Zimmerman's legal situation is wrong.
A clear illustration of an affirmative defense is self defense.[3] In its simplest form, a criminal defendant may be exonerated if he can demonstrate that he had an honest and reasonable belief that another's use of force was unlawful and that the defendant's conduct was necessary to protect himself.
---
---
Because an affirmative defense requires an assertion of facts beyond those claimed by the plaintiff, generally the party who offers an affirmative defense bears the burden of proof.
You don't get to chase and kill people then challenge anyone to prove the negative about your claim that he attacked you first.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8151395&postcount=2946
That was your cue to clarify, not to continue posting as though my assumption was correct.
- Status