• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Let the evidence speak for itself vs Media Hype: Who wins?

What if...? said:
Theres no solid evidence he ****ed up and killed that kid.

There is also NO solid evidence he DIDN'T **** up and kill that kid.
Click to expand...

The burden to prove a murder was committed, and by whom, rests solely with the prosecution. You gotta understand this simple principle

You know what....I'll tell you a little secret

I believe OJ committed the murders with which he was charged and I also believe Casey Anthony killed her daughter but you need to have a fundamental understanding of how our jury system is supposed to work.

A verdict of not guilty is not the same thing as a finding of factual innocence. It just means that the state did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

In Z's case, you said
Theres no solid evidence he ****ed up and killed that kid.
Click to expand...

Now, do the math
 

That entire post was in response to Ex's comstant claims that what he believes is perfectly accurate and Zs story is unassailably corroborated by the "evidence".

Which it patently is not.

The lack of evidence to contradict Zs version is not proof of its credibility.

Being exonerated will not suddenly turn him from a foolish man to a hero.

It will not turn a string of mistakes into a badge of honor.
 

On the flip side....and whether I like it or not, people do get convicted on circumstantial evidence all the time.

Check out Scott Peterson, for one particularly strong example.

Maybe there's hope for all you Z haters...lol
 
ric27 said:
On the flip side....and whether I like it or not, people do get convicted on circumstantial evidence all the time.

Check out Scott Peterson, for one particularly strong example.

Maybe there's hope for all you Z haters...lol
Click to expand...

For the record, I don't want Z put away forever.

IMO he deserves to be chastised.

He's suffering now.

I don't think he murdered M.

But I am convinced he is responsible for what happened.

At the end of the day, without Zs repeated direct actions, M would never have known Z existed.
 

I must remind you that it isn't supposed to be about the accused having to prove themselves innocent, but about the state/prosecution having to prove them guilty.

Z may in fact be...* not innocent/bad person in the inside*... but people aren't found innocent under the US system - just not guilty of the charges upon which they are tried.

Hmmm...what about *not proven* instead of *not guilty*????
 
What if...? said:
Bull****.

Plain and simple.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is what your position in a nutshell.


What if...? said:
Weakest bunch of backpedaling and wiggle wording i've seen in a while.
Click to expand...
There is no back peddling here except by you.
It is you unable to accept the evidence.

Only 15% had a prior violent felony conviction. Go figure, huh?
What percentage does that leave without a prior?

Do the math.​


What if...? said:
Claiming that there are first time violent offenders and that doesn't mean its odd for somone with no apparent prior violent to allegedly attack a stranger with no provocation and try to beat him to death is base nonsense.
Click to expand...
1.) A violent outburst is a violent outburst. You are now backpedaling and trying to claim specificity when it doesn't matter.
Nor is it what I claimed.

2.) Your narrative is off.
You are asserting an attempt to beat someone to death, when the facyts are that Trayvon was slamming someone's head into the ground and then went for that persons gun with the intent to murder them.
Get and keep the facts straight.


What if...? said:
It IS odd. Not impossible that M could have chosen that day to beat a stranger to death, just mighty odd.
Click to expand...
There you go with that false narrative again.


What if...? said:
And if M HAD turned out to be a baby thug, no one would be talking about this. Fights at school, criminal record, claims of previous "victims".
Click to expand...
Spare me. This crap is irrelevant, and you have no idea wether it will turn out to be true or not.


 

The judge can issue a directed verdict of NG.

The judge CANNOT overturn a jury acquittal.

The jury has the power to judge BOTH the facts of the case and the law in question, including its application in the instant case.

I hope nobody pays money to you for legal advice.
 

I think part of the problem i this case is that self defense laws in FL are overbroad.

They really do make it possible to get away with murder.

Worse, they make it possible to kill a criminal victim and get away with it.

You can literally follow me into an alley to mug me and if I get the upper hand you can kill me and claim self defense.

There needs to be a balance to allow people to defend themselves without leaving a trail of questionable bodies behind them.

Do you really think its a good idea for someone to be able to start a fight, throw the first blow, then shoot me if I start to win? And simply claim they were in fear for their life? And escape ALL accounting for their actions, criminal and civil?

Thats pretty much how the law is written in FL.

I prefer the affirmative defense.

"You shot somebody, you got some 'splaining to do."

FL went too far in the other direction, IMO.
 
 
:doh
How idiotic.

You are the one trying to wiggle here. Especially since you are going with the false narrative of trying to beat someone to death.
Why?
This makes everything you say irrelevant as it is not the scenario that occurred.
The only person that has said that is you. Not me.

And yet our prisons are full of those who have only acted out violently once in their life.
That is a norm. Doesn't matter if you like it or not.
Only 15% had a prior violent felony conviction. Go figure, huh?
What percentage does that leave without a prior?

Do the math.​
 

If I am beating you and discover you have a gun and try to get it to.shoot you, i just found a more effective way of killing you.

Your "norm" doesn't address my.point AT ALL, yet you use it as a dismissal. You have posted the same completely useless statistics repeatedly in your smug way as if it had some.kind of relevancy.

It does not.

It cannot be spun until.it does.

It is unusual for someone to attack a stranger with no.provocation and attempt to kill them when one has never done anything like that before.

Had something turned up, my opinion on this incident would have shifted completely. Still could if some indication of propensity is revealed.

I'm quite sure your opinion wouldn't budge if video of Z going for his gun surfaced.

I've met your type before.
 

Probable causes for this lag ridden outburst

1 You live in a cave with a 56k connection

2 Inability to follow directions.

3. ****ty attitude.

4 Lack of tiddlywink spirit

5 All of the above

Which one?

Read post #233
 
What if...? said:
I've met your type before.
Click to expand...
Spare me. I care not what you think, or who you think you have met.
:doh
iLOL

What if...? said:
I'm quite sure your opinion wouldn't budge if video of Z going for his gun surfaced.
Click to expand...
I am not like you. I recognize the evidence and what it says.



What if...? said:
Your "norm" doesn't address my.point AT ALL, yet you use it as a dismissal. You have posted the same completely useless statistics repeatedly in your smug way as if it had some.kind of relevancy.
Click to expand...
One. It does counter your point that it is unusual for someone to act out violently who had not before. (Btw, a point that you can not prove in regards to Trayvon.)
Because it shows that our prisons are full of those who only acted out violently once. Just like Trayvon supposedly did.

Once you were shown to be wrong, you then went with a more specific claim stating a false narrative, instead of the "in general (acting out violently claim).

I do not have to be more specific, as the generality is all that needed to be addressed.
In addition, you need to check yourself.
As all of those in prison for acting out violently just once in their life, also have specifics that I do not have to address, because as with Trayvon's actions, they all fall under the (in general) "acting out violently" once in their life.



It is a norm that our prison are full of those who have only acted out violent once in their life.
That is what you claimed wasn't true.
The stats back up my position.

85% without a previous conviction for violence.

The only argument you have against that, and have not made, is that only deals with convictions. Not with violent acts that they haven't been convicted of.
But that argument would fail for two reasons.
1.) You can not show that they have acted out violently prior to any conviction.
2.) And because, based on the evidence, Trayvon would have been convicted of a violent crime upon Zimmerman.


You have nothing.
Your point is meaningless because our prisons are filled with those who have only acted out violently once in their life.
 

Like I said.

You'll keep flailing and will not be able to resist responding.

Because you can't be wrong.
 
:doh
Like I said.
You were wrong and shown to be wrong.

Which is partially what debate is about. Revealing the weakness in your opponents argument.
And yours is riddled with weaknesses.
Which is why it gets pointed out. (replied to) Duh!
:lamo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…