Zimmerman Juror Says He 'Got Away With Murder'

[Black Dog]

The reaching for what potentialy was a weapon would have triggered a reasonable person to think that they were at risk of becoming the victim of a forcible felony.

According to the law it is not, as shown by his acquittal.

Nor is confronting a random person who has been following you and asking them what their problem is.

Assaulting them is.

False. What I am arguing was never brought up in court so saying the acquittal proves me wrong is like saying Banana proves apples don't exist.

And why pray tell do you think it was not brought up in court? It's because Zimmerman did nothing aggressive to provoke the reaction from Martin.

Nothing I have said is speculative and all of it is based on Zimmerman's own description of events.

The conclusions you are trying to equate are.

Nonsense. You just got through admitting that you made stuff up.

I admitted I was going by my opinion on Dee Dee, her credibility, that was it. Man how dishonest of you???

You admitted as much.

I certainly did, about one comment. I said one thing about the phone call. At least I can admit when I am wrong.

Well yours is a losing proposition but damn.

 

[Tucker Case]

According to the law it is not, as shown by his acquittal.

Teh argument I am presenting did not come up in the trial, so why do you keep pretending it did?

Assaulting them is.

Not if one reasonable believes that they are about to become the victim of a forcible felony when they assault them.

And why pray tell do you think it was not brought up in court?

Piss-poor prosecution.

It's because Zimmerman did nothing aggressive to provoke the reaction from Martin.

You just made that **** up and are now pretending it is true.

The conclusions you are trying to equate are.

All of my conclusions are the logical ones which stem from the undisputed facts. Example: Martin displayed fear reactions as evidenced by his attempt to flee and his later violent reaction to Zimmerman reaching for an unknown object.

I admitted I was going by my opinion on Dee Dee, her credibility, that was it.

AFTER you had just presented that opinion as though it was fact.

Man how dishonest of you???

It's dishonest to describe the facts?

I certainly did, about one comment.

Exactly. now, the irony here is that comment was presented as fact initially, and I had to catch you in it before you admitted it was conjecture on your part and that you were rejecting teh evidence that was presented based on your opinions. Your "justification' for that was that the witness wasn't credible because she got caught lying too much, so by employing your own logic on yourself, we can see that your claims about Martin not being fearful etc are to be rejected as false, just as you reject everything that Dee Dee said was false.

Your entire argument against me is essentially two things: Your made up claim that Martin did not experience fear (which requires you to reject the evidence out of hand) and that Zimmerman's acquittal proves me wrong (despite the fact that my argument is very different from that which was presented at trial).

In other words, you don't have any facts to argue against my position, but you're doing so anyway.

I said one thing about the phone call. At least I can admit when I am wrong.

Well yours is a losing proposition but damn.

You made something up as a way to justify your own unsubstantiated opinion that Martin was not experiencing fear. You admitted to rejecting evidence which supports the claim that Martin was experiencing fear despite the fact that that was the only portion of Dee Dee's testimony that was beyond any doubt based on Zimmerman's own account of events.

 

[Black Dog]

Teh argument I am presenting did not come up in the trial, so why do you keep pretending it did?

It did not come up because it is not relevant to what happened. Nor did it have anything to do with SYG. In most cases where SYG or even self defence was rejected it was because the defendant did something to aggravate the situation. Zimmerman did nothing considered BY LAW seen as aggravating the situation and hence his successful self defence plea.

This is why you have no argument. Martin had no reason to see Zimmerman as a threat, none, nada, 0. Him not being convicted is proof of this.

Not if one reasonable believes that they are about to become the victim of a forcible felony when they assault them.

Martins actions show clearly he was not in fear of anything.

Piss-poor prosecution.

Actually they had no case. Even the police did not want to arrest Zimmerman.

You just made that **** up and are now pretending it is true.

I have been saying this from the beginning. I did not make that up? You are just out and out lying now.

All of my conclusions are the logical ones which stem from the undisputed facts. Example: Martin displayed fear reactions as evidenced by his attempt to flee and his later violent reaction to Zimmerman reaching for an unknown object.

And yet Zimmerman was acquitted even though all the other cases I listed were convictions. Which means what? Oh yea, he did nothing aggressive to provoke Martin into assaulting him.

AFTER you had just presented that opinion as though it was fact.

Yes I did. That one thing that I said I messed up by stating it as fact? Is that all you got? Because the rest of your argument is falling apart fast.

It's dishonest to describe the facts?

It's dishonest to try and imply somehow my whole argument is based on one comment 3 or 4 posts ago, yes.

Exactly. now, the irony here is that comment was presented as fact initially, and I had to catch you in it before you admitted it was conjecture on your part and that you were rejecting teh evidence that was presented based on your opinions. Your "justification' for that was that the witness wasn't credible because she got caught lying too much, so by employing your own logic on yourself, we can see that your claims about Martin not being fearful etc are to be rejected as false, just as you reject everything that Dee Dee said was false.

You have got to be kidding? I am not even going to dignify that with an answer.

Your entire argument against me is essentially two things: Your made up claim that Martin did not experience fear (which requires you to reject the evidence out of hand) and that Zimmerman's acquittal proves me wrong (despite the fact that my argument is very different from that which was presented at trial).

Yes and no...

Fact: Martin returned to confront Zimmerman.
Fact: Martin has a history of violence, Zimmerman does not.
Fact: Martin could have went home or called police. He did neither.
Fact: Zimmerman did nothing Illegal.
Fact: Martin committed aggravated battery.
Fact: According to the law Zimmerman did nothing to aggravate the situation., Martin did.

I said Martin did not seem to be in any fear for his life, at all, none. The evidence backs that up. There is in this case no evidence at all supporting that he was, none. What Zimmermans acquittal proves is that again he did nothing to aggravate the situation. This is positive proof because if he did... He would have had no or lost his self defence case, period.

In other words, you don't have any facts to argue against my position, but you're doing so anyway.

The facts are clearly against you no matter how much you deny it.

You made something up as a way to justify your own unsubstantiated opinion

The jury and most of the nation did not believe it either. So unsubstantiated? Hardly.

that Martin was not experiencing fear. You admitted to rejecting evidence which supports the claim that Martin was experiencing fear despite the fact that that was the only portion of Dee Dee's testimony that was beyond any doubt based on Zimmerman's own account of events.

There is no evidence he was experiencing fear? You keep saying this? Where is it?

 

[Tucker Case]

It did not come up because it is not relevant to what happened. Nor did it have anything to do with SYG. In most cases where SYG or even self defence was rejected it was because the defendant did something to aggravate the situation.

What does that have to do with my argument? Why is my argument irrelevant.

This is why you have no argument. Martin had no reason to see Zimmerman as a threat, none, nada, 0.

Why not? Is following someone not a threatening behavior?

Him not being convicted is proof of this.

I don't think you understand our court system very well. An aquittal proves nothing. Zimmerman not being convicted only serves as proof that the prosecution did not prove their case against him. He could certainly still be guilty.

however, Martin being dead is proof that he had every reason to perceive Zimmerman as a threat to his person. And in retrospect, it shows that Martin's choice to confront Zimmerman about his supicious behavior was a deadly mistake.

Martins actions show clearly he was not in fear of anything.

False. The evidence all supports the idea that Martin was engaging in biological fear reactions.

Actually they had no case. Even the police did not want to arrest Zimmerman.

They had a case, they just bungled it. The police were wrong to simply take the shooter's word for it that it was self-defense. Self-defense is an affirmative defense, like insanity, and it is a trial defense.

I have been saying this from the beginning. I did not make that up? You are just out and out lying now.

Oh, so you were actually present during the altercation and acted as a witness to the events in court?

If not, then you are making things up and pretending they are true. If you were to say that you believe that reaching for an unknown object when confronted by the person you've been following is not, in and of itself, a threatening behavior, then I'd simply say you are wrong and that you can test it out to prove how wrong it is by following a random stranger until one of them confronts you on it and then when they confront you, reach into your pocket for some random object. Then you just have to watch how they react. Be prepared to duck, though.

And yet Zimmerman was acquitted even though all the other cases I listed were convictions.

The jury was told that if they think Zimmerman believed his life was in danger, they had to acquit. They WEREN'T told to consider whether or not Zimmerman's actions could be construed as threatening because the prosecution did not make that Zimmerman's behavior triggered Martin's right to self-defense. i.e. they did not make the argument I am making.

Which means what? Oh yea, he did nothing aggressive to provoke Martin into assaulting him.

No, it merely means the prosecution failed to make the case they were making. It means nothing in with regard to Zimmerman's actual guilt nor does it affect the argument I have made.

Yes I did. That one thing that I said I messed up by stating it as fact? Is that all you got? Because the rest of your argument is falling apart fast.

You've also stated information you could only have if you are a mind-reader as though it is fact. Are you a mind-reader?

It's dishonest to try and imply somehow my whole argument is based on one comment 3 or 4 posts ago, yes.

Your whole argument is base don your OPINION that Martin was not fearful at the time he became violent. An opinion that you have dishonestly presented as fact. You merely made up the stuff I called you on as support for that opinion in order to pretend that it was fact.

Yes and no...

Fact: Martin returned to confront Zimmerman.

Fact. As I have said repeatedly, he was well within his legal rights to do this. Are you implying that it is illegal to confront someone who is following you?

Fact: Martin has a history of violence, Zimmerman does not.

False. Both have a history of violence. Of course, a history of violence has no bearing on the facts of this case.

Thus, what you have arbitrarily decided is a "fact" of the case is really just irrelevant nonsense that has no logical bearing on the case. Of course, if you choose to use emotional drivel in lieu of a rational, logical argument, such nonsense is important.

Fact: Martin could have went home or called police. He did neither.

So?

Fact: Zimmerman does not have the right to chase people into their homes.

Thus, what you have arbitrarily decided is a "fact" of the case is really just irrelevant nonsense that has no logical bearing on the case. Of course, if you choose to use emotional drivel in lieu of a rational, logical argument, such nonsense is important.

Fact: Zimmerman did nothing Illegal.

Fact: One does not need to do anything illegal to trigger another person's right to employ force against them.


Fact: Mindlessly repeating the same irrelevant stuff over and over again doesn't make it any less irrelevant.

Fact: Martin committed aggravated battery.

False. Martin, like Zimmerman, is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. You can;'t **** all over that concept for Martin and then pretend it's important for Zimmerman. That's hypocricy.

The actual fact is that Martin either committed aggravated battery or he was utilizing his right to use force in self-defense.

That's the fact. Picking one over the other is an opinion. My opinion is that Martin's right to self-defense was triggered by Zimmerman's actions, thus he committed no crime.

Fact: According to the law Zimmerman did nothing to aggravate the situation., Martin did.

False. The prosecution did not PROVE that Zimmerman aggravated the situation. He may have done so. To claim that is a fact is a pure, unadulterated lie.

I said Martin did not seem to be in any fear for his life, at all, none.

That is a lie. You said "...Martins actions show no fear at all.". Note the distinct lack of the word "seem" in that sentence? The word "Seem" indicates that you are aware that you are expressing an opinion, rather than a fact. What you ACTUALLY said does not indicate that you are aware that your opinions are not facts.

Had you actually said seem, rather than trying to pretend your opinions were factual, I would have argued that when one is aware of how mammals react when they are in fear, they will see that martin's behaviors were very indicative of a fear reaction.

Had I been the prosecutor, I would have had a biologist on the stand describing mammalian fear reactions in great depth.

The evidence backs that up.

That's simply false and indicates that you do not have knowledge of biology.

There is in this case no evidence at all supporting that he was, none.

Again, false as per biology.

What Zimmermans acquittal proves is that again he did nothing to aggravate the situation.

Still false. You don't understand how the court system operates.

This is positive proof because if he did... He would have had no or lost his self defence case, period.

False. He was allowed to use reasonable doubt as the basis for self-defense, as per the jury instructions. He was not required to prove his affirmative defense, he was only required to show that it was possible that he was telling the truth. This was clear in teh way the judge instructed the jury.

I believe that he should have been expected to prove his self-defense claim, but he wasn't expected to do so in the court case.

The facts are clearly against you no matter how much you deny it.

I've just shown how most of what you have arbitrarily decided to call a fact has no relevance to my arguments AND they indicate that you do not know biology enough to make any claims about fear reactions.

The jury and most of the nation did not believe it either. So unsubstantiated? Hardly.

You do realize that appeal to majority is a fallacy, right? You don't have any arguments against the case I am presenting, so you resort to making things up and employing fallacies. :shrug:

There is no evidence he was experiencing fear? You keep saying this? Where is it?

All of his behaviors (as described by Zimmerman himself) that night were perfectly consistent with mammalian fear responses, AND there was witness testimony which suggests he was experiencing a fear reaction. That combination certainly does more to prove that a fear reaction was present than your opinion proves otherwise.


Then there's also that pesky little thing called common sense. It's something you can test out yourself to verify, too, so I encourage you to do so. Go out this evening and find a random person who is walking alone in a secluded area. Then start staring at them and following them. If they try to confront you (and if you do it enough, someone will try to confront you), reach into your pocket for some unknown object.

 

[Black Dog]

More of the same sentence by sentence nonsense Tucker posted before. I cut is out and posted this as it makes far more sense.

Your "biological fear" argument is about as stupid as they come. As soon as you find a psychologist or Dr. to back that up, let me know. This statement right here" Martin being dead is proof that he had every reason to perceive Zimmerman as a threat to his person. And in retrospect, it shows that Martin's choice to confront Zimmerman about his supicious behavior was a deadly mistake." sums up the silliness of your argument.

Another disgruntled Martin supporter mad because Zimmerman got off as he should have.

Well justice in this case prevailed.

 

[Tucker Case]

Your "biological fear" argument is about as stupid as they come. As soon as you find a psychologist or Dr. to back that up, let me know.

I asked this earlier and you failed to respond: How much do you actually know about biology?

This statement right here" Martin being dead is proof that he had every reason to perceive Zimmerman as a threat to his person. And in retrospect, it shows that Martin's choice to confront Zimmerman about his supicious behavior was a deadly mistake." sums up the silliness of your argument.

You said that Martin had nothing to fear from Zimmerman. That may well be the single most absurd argument ever presented. The one fact that is utterly undeniable is that Zimmerman was most definitely a threat to Martin.

The debate is not about whether or not he was a threat, since that's just common sense. The debate is about whether Zimmerman was justified to be that threat or not.

Another disgruntled Martin supporter mad because Zimmerman got off as he should have.

I see. When your ability to present an intelligent rebuttal fails, you make up an ad hom strawman rather than addressing the logical arguments I have employed. Duly noted.

Is it easier for you to ignore the fact that your entire argument is based on emotional appeals and unsubstantiated opinions by pretending it is me who is doing this?

Well justice in this case prevailed.

Obviously we disagree on that. The difference is, my arguments are logical and yours are primarily emotional and you have admittedly made **** up and pretended it was true. :shrug:

 

[X Factor]

I asked this earlier and you failed to respond: How much do you actually know about biology?



You said that Martin had nothing to fear from Zimmerman. That may well be the single most absurd argument ever presented. The one fact that is utterly undeniable is that Zimmerman was most definitely a threat to Martin.

The debate is not about whether or not he was a threat, since that's just common sense. The debate is about whether Zimmerman was justified to be that threat or not.



I see. When your ability to present an intelligent rebuttal fails, you make up an ad hom strawman rather than addressing the logical arguments I have employed. Duly noted.

Is it easier for you to ignore the fact that your entire argument is based on emotional appeals and unsubstantiated opinions by pretending it is me who is doing this?



Obviously we disagree on that. The difference is, my arguments are logical and yours are primarily emotional and you have admittedly made **** up and pretended it was true. :shrug:

Actually, I think it takes a dispassionate view on the law to understand why Zimmerman was acquitted (and why he had to be if you have any regard for Constitutional law). I see far more emotion from those protesting the verdict.

 

[ChrisL]

Actually, I think it takes a dispassionate view on the law to understand why Zimmerman was acquitted (and why he had to be if you have any regard for Constitutional law). I see far more emotion from those protesting the verdict.

Well let's see, Zimmerman killed Martin because he didn't like the color of his skin and was racist, then the jury didn't charge him because they are racists too. :mrgreen: Joking of course.

 

[X Factor]

Well let's see, Zimmerman killed Martin because he didn't like the color of his skin and was racist, then the jury didn't charge him because they are racists too. :mrgreen: Joking of course.

I do wonder exactly what Constitutional rights the protestors of this verdict feel Zimmerman should not have benefitted from in order to ensure the correct verdict here. The presumption of innocence? The right to remain silent? The right to a jury trial? The right to acquittal if the state can't prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt?

 

[ChrisL]

I do wonder exactly what Constitutional rights the protestors of this verdict feel Zimmerman should not have benefitted from in order to ensure the correct verdict here. The presumption of innocence? The right to remain silent? The right to a jury trial? The right to acquittal if the state can't prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt?

Who knows? Obviously they can't defend their views, except to cry racism. It's certainly a strange phenomenon.

 

[Black Dog]

I asked this earlier and you failed to respond: How much do you actually know about biology?

I read what you said, and it does not apply. I don't care to study it anymore than you have already explained. Don't need to either.

You said that Martin had nothing to fear from Zimmerman. That may well be the single most absurd argument ever presented. The one fact that is utterly undeniable is that Zimmerman was most definitely a threat to Martin.

No he was not.

Fact: Martin did not call police although he had a cell phone.
Fact: Instead of going home, he chose to confront Zimmerman.

The debate is not about whether or not he was a threat, since that's just common sense. The debate is about whether Zimmerman was justified to be that threat or not.

No it is about whether he was a threat. If the law saw Zimmerman as a threat, he could not have pleaded self defence and won. As I stated before and in ALL the cases I posted the defendant that claims self defence must not be culpable in any way, or it is not self defence. Zimmerman was NOT justified to be a threat.

I see. When your ability to present an intelligent rebuttal fails, you make up an ad hom strawman rather than addressing the logical arguments I have employed. Duly noted.

The truth does hurt sometimes. Your argument is completely lacking and flies in the face of what actually came out at the trial and the reasons for the acquittal. Your whole argument is trying to use SYG for something it is not and not used for in the trial as well by even Zimmerman.

Is it easier for you to ignore the fact that your entire argument is based on emotional appeals and unsubstantiated opinions by pretending it is me who is doing this?

Nothing about my argument, not "plea" is emotional and it is based on fact. Yours however is based on hokum and conjecture.

Obviously we disagree on that. The difference is, my arguments are logical and yours are primarily emotional and you have admittedly made **** up and pretended it was true. :shrug:

Nothing shows better your emotional bull**** better than the constant accusation "I made something up" I did not make anything up. I stated my opinion as a fact and when corrected, admitted it and have not done it since. Yet you lie and try to make it into something it wa not. Need I go on?

Thanks for playing. :roll:

 

[Tucker Case]

Actually, I think it takes a dispassionate view on the law to understand why Zimmerman was acquitted (and why he had to be if you have any regard for Constitutional law). I see far more emotion from those protesting the verdict.

Really? You're citing "regard for constitutional law" as a reason to support to a state-level legal decision? That indicates a total lack of regard for the constitution or total lack of understanding about what the Constitution actually does. This is a constitutional case like my dick is a watermelon.

And you seem to totally misunderstand my posts. I understand why Zimmerman was acquitted. Better than most Zimmerman supporters do. My understanding actually stems directly from a dispassionate view of the law and an understanding of how it works. One thing you will note, repeatedly, coming from Zimmerman supporters is the totally fictional belief that "acquittal = innocent of any wrongdoing". An acquittal simply means the prosecution failed to prove their case. It doesn't mean someone is "innocent", it means the case against the perosn was not sufficent enough to eradicate the legal presumption of innocence.

My argument is the case the prosecution never made. People debate against me using totally irrational non-sequitor arguments related to the prosecutions case , even saying things as absurd as "He was acquitted, therefore you're wrong" in response to my arguments. That's fallacious logic. People who talk about Martin's "history of violence" are making purely emotional pleas.

The truth of the matter is that, generally speaking, BOTH sides of this debate are primarily making emotional pleas.

Now, what is important to note is that what other people do has no bearing whatsoever on the debate that Black Manta and I are having. The fact of the matter is that I am NOT making an emotional argument. My argument is quite different than the ones presented by most people who are in the, for lack of a better term, "pro-martin" camp.

Instead of addressing my actual positions, Black manta has repeatedly used emotional pleas and logical fallacies such as Martin's "history of violence" and "Zimmerman was acquitted so you're wrong" to rebut my position.

He has utilized his opinion about undisputed behaviors (read: facts) that he has supported with more opinions about the testimony of one witness to deny that which is generally considered common-knowledge biology. Fight-or-flight responses are very well-documented fear-based behaviors. We have undeniable evidence that Martin's fight and flight responses were triggered during this event, based solely on Zimmerman's account of events. Simply applying Occam's razor to those behaviors indicates that Martin was experiencing a fear reaction. This "common sense" assumption based on Occam's razor is substantiated by the witness testimony, provided one does not decide to arbitrarily reject the entire testimony based on unrelated material contained within it that is questionable. It is reasonable to question SOME of that testimony, but to arbitrarily reject all of it as a way to deny that which is the most logical conclusion based on the behaviors described is pure sophistry.

Arguing that I am wrong because the prosecution's case was flawed is also incredibly fallacious. To explain, if you and I were debating whether or not the sky is blue, and I was arguing that the sky is blue because wallaby's have perky nipples, you would be able to defeat my argument readily because it is a deeply flawed argument. You would not be able to say that a person who argues that the sky is blue due to higher frequency light being "scattered" by the atmosphere is wrong because my argument was defeated.

 

[Tucker Case]

I read what you said, and it does not apply. I don't care to study it anymore than you have already explained. Don't need to either.

So you are willfully ignorant of biological responses, yet you are claiming to be able to expertly decide that certain well-known biological fear responses aren't indicative of fear.

No he was not.

since you are admittedly ignorant of fear behaviors, you are knowingly telling lies when you say this. :shrug:

Fact: Martin did not call police although he had a cell phone.
Fact: Instead of going home, he chose to confront Zimmerman.

Fact: Neither of those things undermines the biological facts abut the known and undisputed behaviors described in the incident.

No it is about whether he was a threat. If the law saw Zimmerman as a threat, he could not have pleaded self defence and won.

Whether or not Zimmerman was a threat is not the issue being debated legally. There's no doubt that Zimmerman was a possible danger to Martin. Martin was also a potential danger to Zimmerman. the issue at hand is not whether they were threats to each other, it is whether or not the threat they posed to each other was legally justified.

As I stated before and in ALL the cases I posted the defendant that claims self defence must not be culpable in any way, or it is not self defence. Zimmerman was NOT justified to be a threat.

Self-defense is merely when a person being a threat to another was legally justified.

The truth does hurt sometimes.

It has already been demonstrated that your arguments are riddled with lies. this is just another instance of you lying in order to feign being correct. :shrug:

Your argument is completely lacking and flies in the face of what actually came out at the trial and the reasons for the acquittal.

My argument was not presented at trial, you are correct in that (of course, I have repeatedly reminded you of that fact when you tried to pretend that teh results of the trial affect my argument, but so be it. If it makes you feel better to pretend that you are making a point here, who am I to judge).

The question is why do you think that the court proceedings matter with regard to my argument?

Your whole argument is trying to use SYG for something it is not and not used for in the trial as well by even Zimmerman.

SYG is typically a trial defense utilized by defendants. Martin was never placed on trial for his actions, thus nobody thought to use it as a means to justify his actions. The prosecution attempted to paint Zimmerman's portrayal of events as a lie, thus they failed to prove their case.

I'm doing something totally and completely different from what the prosecution did. You are simply engaging in mental masturbation if you think that their case against Zimmerman and the court results affect my arguments in any way.

There's the problem. You aren't actually addressing my arguments. You are addressing your perception of the typical arguments on the "pro-Martin" side. It's a strawman of epic proportions.

Nothing about my argument, not "plea" is emotional and it is based on fact.

Pure unadulterated nonsense. Facts can be emotional pleas as well. Example: Martin's history of violence. Logically-speaking, this has no bearing on the case whatsoever. It has nothing to do with the events of the night in question. It ONLY serves to create the image of a "thug" in the receivers mind so that they have the natural, negative reaction one can expect from the imagery of a "thug". It is as stupid an argument as pointing out Zimmerman's violent history would be. It's as retarded an attack as saying a woman's sexual history affects a rape case. It's pure, unadulterated emotional drivel. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yours however is based on hokum and conjecture.

I take it you are considering "Biology" to be "hokum" and "Zimmerman's own account of events" to be "conjecture" or do I have that reversed?

Nothing shows better your emotional bull**** better than the constant accusation "I made something up" I did not make anything up.

This is a time when the term "the truth hurts, doesn't it" is actually applicable. You have made-up the idea that Martin was not experiencing a fear reaction is total and complete defiance of all of the logic and evidence. You made this gibberish up because, as you have gleefully admitted, you are totally ignroant of biology and cannot possibly make an informed assessment of Martin's behaviors on that night.

I stated my opinion as a fact

More than once.

and when corrected, admitted it and have not done it since.

You corrected one instance, but you have repeatedly done the same. You have repeatedly claimed martin felt no fear when A. You have no way in hell of knowing that. B. You are admittedly, and blissfully, ignorant of biology and therefore incapable of assessing Martin's behaviors with regard to biological fear reactions and C. Are further justifying that unfounded opinion on your admitted choice to arbitrarily reject evidence from the case.

It's obvious. You have your opinion regarding Martin not expereincing fear and no evidence, logic, or facts will sway you from that opinion. You have even openly stated you will blissfully choose to remain ignorant of the facts on this.

Yet you lie and try to make it into something it wa not.

Nothing I have said is a lie, but you have admitted to dishonesty in one instance already. You've just failed to extrapolate the dishonesty backwards throughout your entire argument to see how your made-up claims about Martin's emotional state are not facts, but opinions founded on your ignorance of biology and rejection of the evidence. :shrug:

Need I go on?

Here's an idea, instead of debating me on this, you look up the biology of fight-or-flight behaviors. Until you are possessed of such knowledge, you are not equipped with the necessary tools needed to "rebut" my positions. You can only use your foundation of ignorance and opinion to deny the facts while pretending that your unfounded opinions about Martin's emotional state are factual (which is a lie).

Thanks for playing. :roll:

Ah, the patented "declare victory in lieu of addressing teh flaws in my own position" approach. Very wise.

 

[Black Dog]

More irrelevant postings by Tucker on this case. I shortened it and take all credit for this editing.

News flash....

Zimmerman was acquitted because he was not culpable in anyway.

Justice was served and your point is still not valid according to case law.

Again thanks for playing.

 

[Tucker Case]

News flash....

Zimmerman was acquitted because he was not culpable in anyway.

Justice was served and your point is still not valid according to case law.

Again thanks for playing.

I don't think you understand how the US court system works.

 

[Black Dog]

I don't think you understand how the US court system works.

This is a good example you posted. If you had a real argument, you would be trying to prove it rather than trying to discredit me.

 

[Tucker Case]

This is a good example you posted. If you had a real argument, you would be trying to prove it rather than trying to discredit me.

You want me to prove that an acquittal simply means the prosecution failed to prove it's case? You realize that that's a common knowledge claim, right?

 

[Black Dog]

You want me to prove that an acquittal simply means the prosecution failed to prove it's case? You realize that that's a common knowledge claim, right?

They failed because they had no case. No evidence, no case. Why is it do you think the police did not want to arrest Zimmerman, in the first place?

What is common knowledge is Zimmerman should not have been charged in the first place.

 

[Tucker Case]

They failed because they had no case.

They failed to prove their case.

Why is it do you think the police did not want to arrest Zimmerman, in the first place?

They took the shooter's word for it, thus bypassing the justice system.

 

[Black Dog]

They failed to prove their case.

They had no case to prove. The whole arrest and trial was politically motivated, period. They had no evidence to disprove his story, none. He was consistant and the reputable witnesses backed up his story. No charges should have ever been brought, again it was political and nothing more.

They took the shooter's word for it, thus bypassing the justice system.

Tucker, that is sour grapes more than anything else man. The only thing that bypassed the justice system here was common sense vs political race baiting.

 

[Tucker Case]

They had no case to prove. The whole arrest and trial was politically motivated, period. They had no evidence to disprove his story, none. He was consistant and the reputable witnesses backed up his story. No charges should have ever been brought, again it was political and nothing more.

That's certainly your hypothesis, and you are free to believe it at your leisure, but you have no proof of this assertion.

The fact of the matter is that an acquittal simply means the prosecution failed to prove the case they presented. This is true about every single legal case in US history.

Tucker, that is sour grapes more than anything else man. The only thing that bypassed the justice system here was common sense vs political race baiting.

Nonsense. I am of the belief that an affirmative defense, such as insanity or self-defense, is a trial defense. I also believe that the police should not simply take the shooters word for it that a homicide was self-defense. I believe the justice system is set up for exactly that reason. The race of the participants means nothing to me. It's not sour grapes at all. :shrug:

 

[Mach]

I also believe that the police should not simply take the shooters word for it that a homicide was self-defense. I believe the justice system is set up for exactly that reason. The race of the participants means nothing to me. It's not sour grapes at all. :shrug:

Just exploring here. In all cases? Trying to recall the very early discussions on this (way before the trial), I thought it was the case that an investigator did look at the evidence, interview people, etc., and concluded that it shouldn't go to trial, as such investigators do routinely around the country. It was the media firestorm that created political pressure to ignore the original investigator's recommendation. I'm not claiming this should never happen, I mean, checks and balances, if it's a nutty investigator OK. But let's assume something like this can also happen purely for political/media reasons...not legal/evidence reasons. Is that acceptable? I mean, is that our way of getting "justice" by further ruining Zimmeran's life as best we can "legally" since we can't get an eye for an eye? Is that appropriate? Even if we're not talking about TM/Zimmerman, would that be appropriate or working as intended in a clear cut case? In other words, if the legal system cannot be a firewall between the accused and the mob, and the mob can reach in there and shake them around, violate their freedoms, and ruin their life (yes TM paid the ultimate price, and Zimm contributed to the ruining of his own life)?, what's the point? Put another way, is a public officials risk of losing their job, sufficient for you to have to answer to the mob on unfounded grounds? If the public officials stood by the choice not to prosecute, they may endure some fallout, but isn't their job to defend our liberties and fallout be damned? If not, what business do they have protecting our freedoms, if at the first risk of public embarrassment they roll over on us? or you?

 

[Black Dog]

That's certainly your hypothesis, and you are free to believe it at your leisure, but you have no proof of this assertion.

Yes I do, I watched the trial as well as others. It is not hypothesis. I submit you watch the trail and actually look at the evidence vs your personal feelings.

The fact of the matter is that an acquittal simply means the prosecution failed to prove the case they presented. This is true about every single legal case in US history.

Absolutely. As we all also know it is far more complicated than that. Unless you don't like the verdict I guess?

Nonsense. I am of the belief that an affirmative defense, such as insanity or self-defense, is a trial defense. I also believe that the police should not simply take the shooters word for it that a case was self-defense. I believe the justice system is set up for exactly that reason. The race of the participants means nothing to me. It's not sour grapes at all. :shrug:

They did not just take the shooters word for it. They had no evidence to disprove anything he said after interviewing witnesses etc. The baseless case was brought after political pressure was brought on the police to make an arrest on racial grounds. So much so rather than be intimidated, the police chief quit. All of that is fact and cannot be denied.

I actually have no quarrel with your take on it even if I disagree. I believe justice was served even if long in coming. So in the end it makes no difference to me either way at this point.

 

[Tucker Case]

Just exploring here. In all cases? Trying to recall the very early discussions on this (way before the trial), I thought it was the case that an investigator did look at the evidence, interview people, etc., and concluded that it shouldn't go to trial, as such investigators do routinely around the country. It was the media firestorm that created political pressure to ignore the original investigator's recommendation. I'm not claiming this should never happen, I mean, checks and balances, if it's a nutty investigator OK. But let's assume something like this can also happen purely for political/media reasons...not legal/evidence reasons. Is that acceptable? I mean, is that our way of getting "justice" by further ruining Zimmeran's life as best we can "legally" since we can't get an eye for an eye? Is that appropriate? Even if we're not talking about TM/Zimmerman, would that be appropriate or working as intended in a clear cut case? In other words, if the legal system cannot be a firewall between the accused and the mob, and the mob can reach in there and shake them around, violate their freedoms, and ruin their life (yes TM paid the ultimate price, and Zimm contributed to the ruining of his own life)?, what's the point? Put another way, is a public officials risk of losing their job, sufficient for you to have to answer to the mob on unfounded grounds? If the public officials stood by the choice not to prosecute, they may endure some fallout, but isn't their job to defend our liberties and fallout be damned? If not, what business do they have protecting our freedoms, if at the first risk of public embarrassment they roll over on us? or you?

The police released him right away, so I don't think a very thorough investigation could have occurred. If he had been arrested (plenty of probable cause was present for an arrest), then the issue thoroughly investigated, and from there the prosecutor decided to not press charges, I'd have been OK with that. That's not how it went, though.

 

[Tucker Case]

Yes I do, I watched the trial as well as others. It is not hypothesis. I submit you watch the trail and actually look at the evidence vs your personal feelings.

You've already admitted you have arbitrarily rejected evidence, so I'm not really sure why you keep trying to pretend I don't know the evidence. it's kind of odd, actually.

My perosnal feelings have nothing to do with my positions. :shrug:

Absolutely.

Then why have you continually tried to pretend otherwise in this debate?

They did not just take the shooters word for it. They had no evidence to disprove anything he said after interviewing witnesses etc.

Key part in bold. The burden of proof is a trial issue, not a cop issue.

I actually have no quarrel with your take on it even if I disagree. I believe justice was served even if long in coming. So in the end it makes no difference to me either way at this point.

I don't feel that justice was served, but for a very different reason than what you have been assuming. I don't necessarily disagree with the verdict that was rendered in the trial. Given the prosecutions case against Zimmerman, that verdict was essentially a given. Where I think justice wasn't served was in how the prosecution handled the case. I would have handled the case as I have described, and because of the logic I have presented, I believe that Martin was justified in using lethal force against Zimmerman. Since the approach I have outlined was not employed by the prosecution, we'll never know whether or not my case against Zimmerman would have yielded a conviction or not. So be it. But judging by the fact that the jurors appear to have agreed that Zimmerman had done something wrong, yet felt they couldn't support the prosecutions claims, I think my argument would have had a better chance at success than the one that was actually given did.

That's why your repeated claims about the acquittal proving his innocence are irrelevant to the debate we are actually having. I am in disagreement with the prosecutions handling of the case. My position is about what the prosecution should have argued, not about what they did argue. I think the prosecution failed miserably.