Started By
Message
re: Zimmerman not guilty
Posted on 7/14/13 at 2:07 pm to bdelarosa7
Posted on 7/14/13 at 2:07 pm to bdelarosa7
quote:
Ideologue.
It's quite apparent you have zero idea what this word connotes.
quote:
You need to go watch the entire case. There were witnesses to the assault which in of itself is reasonable ground along with the injuries Zimmerman sustained to warrant the need for force to defend himself. The defense asserted this in opening and brought it up throughout the trial. The defense proved without a reasonable doubt that he felt the need to use deadly force to avoid great bodily harm/death.
No. Just no. Saying the state didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ wasn't privileged to use force is not the same as saying the defense proved that GZ was privileged to use force. There is a very clear distinction here. To meet the latter, GZ would most likely have had to take the stand. The testimony of the witnesses wasn't nearly strong enough to support a defense of deadly force in most states, in my estimation.
quote:
This is horrible line of thinking. As I said before, how far would you like to extend culpability? Is he culpable because he joined the neighborhood watch, because by your logic that was an event that led to this confrontation?
This is such awful logic that I don't know where to begin. Equating the culpability of an armed civilian tailing a private citizen who had broken no law w/ the simple act of joining a neighborhood watch is evidence of an inability to grasp simple distinctions.
3
Posted on 7/14/13 at 2:20 pm to CHSgc
quote:
CHSgc
Obstinance as displayed here, can only come from an insurmountable political/professional/whatever bias or someone tied closely to the case.
ETA: my before-made comment was rude and uncalled for even on a message board and I apologize.
This post was edited on 7/14/13 at 3:15 pm
Posted on 7/14/13 at 2:30 pm to CHSgc
quote:
It's quite apparent you have zero idea what this word connotes.
It is becoming more apparent (more than last night), that you're an idiot.
quote:
Saying the state didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ wasn't privileged to use force
Of which they did not.
quote:
saying the defense proved that GZ was privileged to use force
Of which they did.
quote:
GZ would most likely have had to take the stand
No he did not. Verbal testimony was provided by him on multiple occasions to the investigators and was presented at trial and was corroborated by other testimony and evidence. Self-defense was proven without him taking the stand and thus did not require him to take the stand - and this holds true for MOST states.
quote:
in my estimation
Which is becoming a joke.
quote:
This is such awful logic that I don't know where to begin. Equating the culpability of an armed civilian tailing a private citizen who had broken no law w/ the simple act of joining a neighborhood watch is evidence of an inability to grasp simple distinctions.
You're obviously a moron. You're extending culpability to Zimmerman merely because he followed a suspicious individual. Who are you to make that definition? Culpability in this instance is applied to the aggressor of the physical confrontation and that is as far as it goes. To extend it further means you have to have a finite end point of which there is no clear and appropriate definition.
Page 1 of 1
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News