George Zimmerman's Trial/acquittal/DOJ charges

[The Treorai]

Except there is no point in asking for proof, as the burden of proof is not placed on the defense, or did this thread suddenly not become about the trial?

Anyways, if you would look at the source I gave you, it would tell you that he was alive for at least twenty seconds after he was shot. It is entirely possible that he jumped backwards away from the gun, stumbled back a few more feet, and feel to his knees, before falling onto his face. Me asking you to hold your breath and cross the room was to show you that your muscles don't need fresh oxygen at every moment to move properly. Once again, my knee jerk reaction theory is quite sound with the provided evidence, yet you have no evidence, and no theory, so I can't really credit you with anything. Sorry, no cookie for you.

Keyword here, it's about the trial (and, once again, I am arguing against one specific claim, not about Zimmerman's guilt or innocence). A debate forum and a trial operate on completely different standards, and if no one can prove that x is true in a debate, then x can safely be dismissed as false. That's how it works.

The source also said nothing about him being able to walk. For all we know he was conscious the entire time and bleeding to death. Unless you can -rove he got there under his own power, we have no reason not to believe that, then it is held to the same standard as all speculation, irrelevant until proven to be true

Yet there is no evidence that contradicts my theory. And you wanna go that route? Prove that Martin couldn't stumble a few feet after being shot. The source gives me all that I need to prove that he could have potentially moved away from the sidewalk. He was not dead when the shot was fired, therefore there is a possibility that he could have moved, because no damage was done to areas that would have severely limited his movement seconds after the shot (i.e. head, spine, leg, etc.).

[Geilinor]

You know, only in America can white people get blamed for a Hispanic shooting a black person. And the amount of people saying Martin was not given justice depresses me.

Hispanic is not a race, it's an ethnicity. Look at how Latin American countries classify race. Many Hispanics are white. What is seen as a stereotypically "Hispanic/Latino appearance" is mixed-race, or mestizo in Spanish speaking countries. Also, why can't Hispanic people ever be racially prejudiced? Being a minority doesn't automatically get you an exemption from racism.

[AiliailiA]

Zimmerman didn't say, "I'm sorry for what happened, I wish it hadn't turned out that way, I just have faith that God has some greater plan."

He said, "I have no regrets, everything that happened was obviously what God had planned, it's not my place to question it."

There is a vast difference, one is acknowledging that a tragedy happened and mistakes may have been made, while having faith that their is a greater purpose. The other is saying that the tragedy was meant to happen, and therefore you have faith that you did nothing wrong and have no reason to question it.

Defending such a morally bankrupt position in the name of 'respecting his faith!!" is absurd.

No, you simply do not understand faith.

We understand faith quite well thankyou. It is immoral and it is intellectually dishonest.

Why wouldn't Zimmerman have any regrets about what happened that night? The court has found he was acting in self defense, that his killing of Martin was justified. But what kind of Christian would have no regrets about killing a man?

The hypocritical kind apparently. The kind whose "faith" is a salve for their own conscience, not a guide for their own actions.

And the kind who parades his own faith to make himself look better. A Pharisee.

[The Treorai]

This is what gets me upset about this trial. This was a Latino who killed a Black teen.

This misses the point so massively that it isn't even funny.

When Sean Bell was shot to death by five New York City police officers in 2006, the city's African-American community didn't notice that black officres were involved in the killing right along with the white ones and say, "Oh, well, there were black officers involved in the killing, so no problem, then!"

No, the whole problem with this shooting — just as with all of the other shootings of unarmed black men and youths under various circumstances — is the recurring theme of profiling: The idea that African-American men are being targeted for violence and killed because of societal perceptions of them as violent, dangerous, and intrinsically criminal.

Yes, the African-American community is extremely unhappy with black-on-black violence; gang warfare and the ocean of illegal arms flowing into our inner cities are matters of grave concern among American blacks (and part of the reason black Americans support gun control). But profiling is just as much of a concern: Indeed, it's especially painful for upper income blacks, who are almost as likely to be victimized by it as poor blacks.

This is part of what's so painful about the shooting at Twin Lakes. A black family works to get their kids into a good neighborhood, and some guy who thinks that those kids don't "belong" there chases after them, provokes a confrontation, and guns one of them down.

So African-Americans get upset. And why shouldn't they, really? Isn't all the profiling in this case saying that there's no safe place in America for their kids? Isn't it saying that there's no place here in America where they really belong?

Once again, it is unlikely that this had anything to do with race. Blather on all you like about attitudes, but Zimmerman did not profile Martin do to the color of his skin. The only times he even mentioned that he was black on the police call was when he was asked what Martin's race was. Christ, he wasn't even sure until half way through the call. Your baseless allegation that George Zimmerman profiled Trayvon Martin because he was black is getting quite absurd.

Zimmerman simply thought that it was suspicious that a person was walking through the rain in the middle of the night, with something he couldn't identify in his hand. Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and said "What are you doing around here?" and then, the evidence doesn't know. Trayvon Martin was killed because of a mistake, and it was a tragedy that it happened. He was not killed because Zimmerman thought that black people didn't belong in his community.

Source?
Source.

[Neu California]

Keyword here, it's about the trial (and, once again, I am arguing against one specific claim, not about Zimmerman's guilt or innocence). A debate forum and a trial operate on completely different standards, and if no one can prove that x is true in a debate, then x can safely be dismissed as false. That's how it works.

The source also said nothing about him being able to walk. For all we know he was conscious the entire time and bleeding to death. Unless you can -rove he got there under his own power, we have no reason not to believe that, then it is held to the same standard as all speculation, irrelevant until proven to be true

Yet there is no evidence that contradicts my theory. And you wanna go that route? Prove that Martin couldn't stumble a few feet after being shot. The source gives me all that I need to prove that he could have potentially moved away from the sidewalk. He was not dead when the shot was fired, therefore there is a possibility that he could have moved, because no damage was done to areas that would have severely limited his movement seconds after the shot (i.e. head, spine, leg, etc.).

Appeal to ignorance, that was the logical fallacy I was looking for. You're committing it.

[The Treorai]

No, you simply do not understand faith.

We understand faith quite well thankyou. It is immoral and it is intellectually dishonest.

Why wouldn't Zimmerman have any regrets about what happened that night? The court has found he was acting in self defense, that his killing of Martin was justified. But what kind of Christian would have no regrets about killing a man?

The hypocritical kind apparently. The kind whose "faith" is a salve for their own conscience, not a guide for their own actions.

And the kind who parades his own faith to make himself look better. A Pharisee.

Faith, immoral and Intellectually dishonest? Then you do not believe in science, my friend. You have no faith? Look up the parallel postulate.

[AiliailiA]

We understand faith quite well thankyou. It is immoral and it is intellectually dishonest.

Why wouldn't Zimmerman have any regrets about what happened that night? The court has found he was acting in self defense, that his killing of Martin was justified. But what kind of Christian would have no regrets about killing a man?

The hypocritical kind apparently. The kind whose "faith" is a salve for their own conscience, not a guide for their own actions.

And the kind who parades his own faith to make himself look better. A Pharisee.

Faith, immoral and Intellectually dishonest? Then you do not believe in science, my friend. You have no faith? Look up the parallel postulate.

I am talking about the specific kind of faith embodied in Zimmerman's comment about what happened that night.

Faith in a broader sense is philosophically necessary.

I'd appreciate if you didn't call me "my friend" as we have never spoken before.

[The Treorai]

Yet there is no evidence that contradicts my theory. And you wanna go that route? Prove that Martin couldn't stumble a few feet after being shot. The source gives me all that I need to prove that he could have potentially moved away from the sidewalk. He was not dead when the shot was fired, therefore there is a possibility that he could have moved, because no damage was done to areas that would have severely limited his movement seconds after the shot (i.e. head, spine, leg, etc.).

Appeal to ignorance, that was the logical fallacy I was looking for. You're committing it.

Unfortunately for you, absence of evidence is evidence of absence in the court of law.

However, for the record, I am committing no fallacy. I have quite a lot of evidence that backs up my theory, while you have provided none that contradicts it. Therefore, until you provide contradicting evidence, this is the most likely scenario.

[AiliailiA]

If Martin had stumbled or crawled away from the concrete path where he allegedly beat Zimmerman's head on the ground, after being shot, he would have left a huge trail of blood. It would also have been smeared all around by his knees and feet.

Any such in the evidence?

[The Treorai]

Faith, immoral and Intellectually dishonest? Then you do not believe in science, my friend. You have no faith? Look up the parallel postulate.

I am talking about the specific kind of faith embodied in Zimmerman's comment about what happened that night.

Faith in a broader sense is philosophically necessary.

I'd appreciate if you didn't call me "my friend" as we have never spoken before.

And I would appreciate it if you didn't go back on your arguments like a fat lady goes back on the bus. The specific kind of faith that Zimmerman embodied is simply this, He will not question what he believes to be god's will. Continue to be completely ignorant of religious beliefs if you like, but Zimmerman's faith is no different than the faith that you claim is philosophically necessary. He believes that god had a plan just as you and I believe that our eyes are showing us what the world really is.

[The Treorai]

If Martin had stumbled or crawled away from the concrete path where he allegedly beat Zimmerman's head on the ground, after being shot, he would have left a huge trail of blood. It would also have been smeared all around by his knees and feet.

Any such in the evidence?

Not necessarily if he had jumped, and gone backwards before falling onto his face.

[Linux and the X]

Self-defence is an affirmative defence, so yes, the burden of proof is on the defence. Zimmerman admits to killing Martin; as party admission, this is sufficient evidence for conviction.

No it is not. The preponderance of evidence forces the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not acting in self defense.

" Self-defense, entrapment, insanity, and necessity are some examples of affirmative defenses."

[Neu California]

Appeal to ignorance, that was the logical fallacy I was looking for. You're committing it.

Unfortunately for you, absence of evidence is evidence of absence in the court of law.

Uh yeah, we've been over this. Let me go slowly for you.

this
is
not [edit]typo[/edit]
a
court
of
law
this
is
an
internet
forum
the
standards
are
different
here
and
I
am
not
arguing
Zimmerman's
guilt
or
innocence,
just
this
one
fact

Edit: Your own argument says that since there was no evidence for him crawling, jumping, or walking there, it didn't happen. (Edit: By your own standard) You debunked yourself!

However, for the record, I am committing no fallacy. I have quite a lot of evidence that backs up my theory, while you have provided none that contradicts it. Therefore, until you provide contradicting evidence, this is the most likely scenario.

Yeah, no. Here's an exact quote from you.

Yet there is no evidence that contradicts my theory.

You haven't posted any evidence that said he walked there under his own power or was moved there or any of it. You said that he may have been able to do so, without proving he could, because there was no evidence he didn't, which is classic appeal to ignorance.

BTW, it's not up to me to disprove your claim but you to prove it. But, please, try again.

[AiliailiA]

I am talking about the specific kind of faith embodied in Zimmerman's comment about what happened that night.

Faith in a broader sense is philosophically necessary.

I'd appreciate if you didn't call me "my friend" as we have never spoken before.

And I would appreciate it if you didn't go back on your arguments like a fat lady goes back on the bus.

What the fuck? You ignored all of my post except the word "faith". I laid out what was wrong with such excessive faith, as applied by Zimmerman to the events of that night.

You try to pretend that I was talking about faith generally, and claim that I'm wrong because there is irreducible faith in science too.

I'm just returning to my point, not going back on what I said.

The specific kind of faith that Zimmerman embodied is simply this, He will not question what he believes to be god's will. Continue to be completely ignorant of religious beliefs if you like, but Zimmerman's faith is no different than the faith that you claim is philosophically necessary. He believes that god had a plan just as you and I believe that our eyes are showing us what the world really is.

I take responsibility for my own actions, and any Christian should too.

[The Treorai]

No it is not. The preponderance of evidence forces the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not acting in self defense.

" Self-defense, entrapment, insanity, and necessity are some examples of affirmative defenses."

You are forgetting Beyond a Reasonable doubt. If there is no plausible reason to believe otherwise, due to a preponderance of evidence, Legal Burden of Proof is rested with the prosecution.

[AiliailiA]

If Martin had stumbled or crawled away from the concrete path where he allegedly beat Zimmerman's head on the ground, after being shot, he would have left a huge trail of blood. It would also have been smeared all around by his knees and feet.

Any such in the evidence?

Not necessarily if he had jumped, and gone backwards before falling onto his face.

You've seen pictures. His feet are about two metres from the path. That's a hell of a jump to do backwards ... from a wrestling position on top of Zimmerman.

[Linux and the X]

" Self-defense, entrapment, insanity, and necessity are some examples of affirmative defenses."

You are forgetting Beyond a Reasonable doubt. If there is no plausible reason to believe otherwise, due to a preponderance of evidence, Legal Burden of Proof is rested with the prosecution.

And they have proven beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman killed Martin. The defendant, however, has the burden of proof for an affirmative defence.

[The Treorai]

And I would appreciate it if you didn't go back on your arguments like a fat lady goes back on the bus.

What the fuck? You ignored all of my post except the word "faith". I laid out what was wrong with such excessive faith, as applied by Zimmerman to the events of that night.

You try to pretend that I was talking about faith generally, and claim that I'm wrong because there is irreducible faith in science too.

I'm just returning to my point, not going back on what I said.

The specific kind of faith that Zimmerman embodied is simply this, He will not question what he believes to be god's will. Continue to be completely ignorant of religious beliefs if you like, but Zimmerman's faith is no different than the faith that you claim is philosophically necessary. He believes that god had a plan just as you and I believe that our eyes are showing us what the world really is.

I take responsibility for my own actions, and any Christian should too.

Zimmerman never placed blame on anyone else, he simply said that he didn't regret the night, and that he won't second guess what he believes to be God's plan. That isn't putting it on god. That's saying that you believe that what happened was what god planned, not saying that what happened because of what god planned.
(Just to clarify, I don't believe that kind of thing, but I still understand where he is coming from.)

[AiliailiA]

You are forgetting Beyond a Reasonable doubt. If there is no plausible reason to believe otherwise, due to a preponderance of evidence, Legal Burden of Proof is rested with the prosecution.

And they have proven beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman killed Martin. The defendant, however, has the burden of proof for an affirmative defence.

It was a murder trial though. Burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt remains with the prosecution.

I'm inclined to change that, and require self-defense to be proven where it results in death. But that's not how it is.

[Tesseria]

Why does everyone care when it happens everyday?

[Bombadil]

You are forgetting Beyond a Reasonable doubt. If there is no plausible reason to believe otherwise, due to a preponderance of evidence, Legal Burden of Proof is rested with the prosecution.

And they have proven beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman killed Martin. The defendant, however, has the burden of proof for an affirmative defence.

I don't think so, but happy to stand corrected - he simply has to provide reasonable doubt to the effect that the prosecution's case was wrong.

[Virana]

And they have proven beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman killed Martin. The defendant, however, has the burden of proof for an affirmative defence.

It was a murder trial though. Burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt remains with the prosecution.

I'm inclined to change that, and require self-defense to be proven where it results in death. But that's not how it is.

The trial was a murder trial until manslaughter was introduced as a charge, which obviously raises the issue of self defense and transfers the burden of proof onto the defendant, because self-defense is an affirmative defense.

Yes, that's how it normally is.

[Sommorragh]

*snips*

Snip

Way to generalize. Claiming that guns are less regulated than the pill is a generalization that does not apply to states such as California, Washington, New York and the like; you are also ignoring that there may be legitimate reasons for one to be more regulated than the other (this works both ways). Adding to that, you ignore that firearms can be used for recreation (sport and the like). You also have lumped two groups together, stating that all individuals that identify with them conform to certain beliefs.

Try again.

[AiliailiA]

Why does everyone care when it happens everyday?

Actually, killings in self defense are rather rare.

[Tesseria]

Why does everyone care when it happens everyday?

Actually, killings in self defense are rather rare.

Agreed, but nobody's focused on the fact that he did it in self defense. They're focused on the fact the kid was black.