George Zimmerman's Trial/acquittal/DOJ charges

[Occupied Deutschland]

That's the burden of proof.

thats not the burden of proof, which applies to the Charge, not to the FACTS.

The facts which determine the charge's appropriateness are in dispute.

In such instances, the defendant must be proved wrong. Not suggested to be wrong. Not look like he's wrong. But actually PROVEN to be so.

Zimmerman hasn't been proven wrong to my knowledge. Perhaps he has been and the jury will find him guilty, but...

[The UK in Exile]

thats not the burden of proof, which applies to the Charge, not to the FACTS.

The prosecution is alleging that Zimmerman saying "Looks like he was on drugs" shows bad faith on his part.
In order to do that, they need to show that it was unreasonable of Zimmerman to say that.
The facts are consistent with both accounts.
As such, they have failed to prove it was unreasonable of Zimmerman to say that.

to which the Fact of whether there were traces of THC and indeed, whether Trevon was high as fucking kite on PCP is a staggering irrelevancy.

because Zimmerman's testimony is not that Trevon was on drugs but that he, Zimmerman, thought that he was on drugs. to which Zimmermans answer to, "why did you think he was on drugs?" is the settling factor. and then the Jury are free to decide if he's lying or not, there's no burden to believe his testimony. of course the fact that that his testimony isn't true doesn't prove he committed the crime.

[Ostroeuropa]

The prosecution is alleging that Zimmerman saying "Looks like he was on drugs" shows bad faith on his part.
In order to do that, they need to show that it was unreasonable of Zimmerman to say that.
The facts are consistent with both accounts.
As such, they have failed to prove it was unreasonable of Zimmerman to say that.

to which the Fact of whether there were traces of THC and indeed, whether Trevon was high as fucking kite on PCP is a staggering irrelevancy.

because Zimmerman's testimony is not that Trevon was on drugs but that he, Zimmerman thought that he was on drugs. to which Zimmermans answer to, "why did you think he was on drugs?" is the settling factor. and then the Jury are free to decide if he's lying or not, there's no burden to believe his testimony. of course the fact that that his testimony isn't true doesn't prove he committed the crime.

Can the prosecution show it was unreasonable of zimmerman to say Martin was on drugs or to think Martin was on drugs.
If not, then Zimmerman wins.
All they have done is say "Why would you think that? Prejudice!"
When the facts are entirely consistent with Zimmermans testimony.
A reasonable person would see someone on drugs, acting like they were on drugs, and say "I think he's on drugs."

[The UK in Exile]

to which the Fact of whether there were traces of THC and indeed, whether Trevon was high as fucking kite on PCP is a staggering irrelevancy.

because Zimmerman's testimony is not that Trevon was on drugs but that he, Zimmerman thought that he was on drugs. to which Zimmermans answer to, "why did you think he was on drugs?" is the settling factor. and then the Jury are free to decide if he's lying or not, there's no burden to believe his testimony. of course the fact that that his testimony isn't true doesn't prove he committed the crime.

Can the prosecution show it was unreasonable of zimmerman to say Martin was on drugs or to think Martin was on drugs.
If not, then Zimmerman wins.
All they have done is say "Why would you think that? Prejudice!"
When the facts are entirely consistent with Zimmermans testimony.
A reasonable person would see someone on drugs, acting like they were on drugs, and say "I think he's on drugs."

"and what does someone who's on drugs look like Mr Zimmerman?"

"Black! I mean, wait... shit, they have the munchies! no... crap.... oh! they have minute traces of THC, that medical professionals are unable to determine the physiological effects of, confirmed in a toxicology report that took place after I shot them!"

[Ostroeuropa]

Can the prosecution show it was unreasonable of zimmerman to say Martin was on drugs or to think Martin was on drugs.
If not, then Zimmerman wins.
All they have done is say "Why would you think that? Prejudice!"
When the facts are entirely consistent with Zimmermans testimony.
A reasonable person would see someone on drugs, acting like they were on drugs, and say "I think he's on drugs."

"and what does someone who's on drugs look like Mr Zimmerman?"

"Black! I mean, wait... shit, they have the munchies! no... crap.... oh! they have minute traces of THC, that medical professionals are unable to determine the physiological effects of, confirmed in a toxicology report that took place after I shot them!"

And the fact they havn't asked this question isn't their fault. Zimmerman hasn't taken the stand.
But they havn't asked it.
As such we need to consider what reasons there are.

One of those possible reasons is that Martin looked like he was on drugs because of the way he was acting.
That means there is reasonable doubt. I'm not surprised to find you on the side of the reactionary left as usual, but come on, you're smarter than this.

[The UK in Exile]

"and what does someone who's on drugs look like Mr Zimmerman?"

"Black! I mean, wait... shit, they have the munchies! no... crap.... oh! they have minute traces of THC, that medical professionals are unable to determine the physiological effects of, confirmed in a toxicology report that took place after I shot them!"

And the fact they havn't asked this question isn't their fault. Zimmerman hasn't taken the stand.
But they havn't asked it.
As such we need to consider what reasons there are.

One of those possible reasons is that Martin looked like he was on drugs because of the way he was acting.
That means there is reasonable doubt.

exactly, doubt. not: court mandated certainty.

[Ostroeuropa]

And the fact they havn't asked this question isn't their fault. Zimmerman hasn't taken the stand.
But they havn't asked it.
As such we need to consider what reasons there are.

One of those possible reasons is that Martin looked like he was on drugs because of the way he was acting.
That means there is reasonable doubt.

exactly, doubt. not: court mandated certainty.

Yes.
So if the Jury do their jobs properly, Zimmerman should be acquitted. I'm glad you agree.
I think he probably murdered Martin.
I also think i'd have to vote not guilty.
I think the Jury is going to.

[The UK in Exile]

exactly, doubt. not: court mandated certainty.

Yes.
So if the Jury do their jobs properly, Zimmerman should be acquitted. I'm glad you agree.

seriously are you high?

whether or not Trevon was on drugs or looked like he was on drugs is again, irrelevant to whether or not Zimmerman was allowed to shoot him. Far as I'm concerned Zimmermans own statement of what happened ought to be enough to convict him.

[Ostroeuropa]

Yes.
So if the Jury do their jobs properly, Zimmerman should be acquitted. I'm glad you agree.

seriously are you high?

whether or not Trevon was on drugs or looked like he was on drugs is again, irrelevant to whether or not Zimmerman was allowed to shoot him. Far as I'm concerned Zimmermans own statement of what happened ought to be enough to convict him.

That isn't what the prosecution has argued. The Jury has to stick to those arguments. But fuck it, what statement in your opinion, means Zimmerman is guilty.
Either find the quotes or the physical evidence.
Don't just make shit up about how you think it went down like those people insisting Zimmerman snuck up on Martin.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Yes.
So if the Jury do their jobs properly, Zimmerman should be acquitted. I'm glad you agree.

seriously are you high?

whether or not Trevon was on drugs or looked like he was on drugs is again, irrelevant to whether or not Zimmerman was allowed to shoot him. Far as I'm concerned Zimmermans own statement of what happened ought to be enough to convict him.

Self-defense is not an offense. What, pray tell, do you think he could be convicted on based on his story alone?

[Ostroeuropa]

seriously are you high?

whether or not Trevon was on drugs or looked like he was on drugs is again, irrelevant to whether or not Zimmerman was allowed to shoot him. Far as I'm concerned Zimmermans own statement of what happened ought to be enough to convict him.

Self-defense is not an offense. What, pray tell, do you think he could be convicted on based on his story alone?

He had a gun.

I'm anti-firearms too but as long as they are legal, that's that. Some people don't care as much about, you know, the rule of law and shit.
Watch. He'll say that the gun changes things.

[Myrensis]

Can the prosecution show it was unreasonable of zimmerman to say Martin was on drugs or to think Martin was on drugs.
If not, then Zimmerman wins.
All they have done is say "Why would you think that? Prejudice!"
When the facts are entirely consistent with Zimmermans testimony.
A reasonable person would see someone on drugs, acting like they were on drugs, and say "I think he's on drugs."

You mean the fact that Martin is black is consistent with the idea that he must have been a drug addict? Because there are no other 'facts' consistent with Zimmermans claim that Martin 'looked like he was on drugs or something'. The THC levels in Martins system were well below anything that would physically affect him, and were consistent with having smoked days earlier. We know that Zimmerman was higher than Martin that night, but it's okay because he was only high on prescription meds while he was stalking people through the streets in the dark with a gun, which clearly makes him less dangerous than an unarmed black teenager who had smoked a joint a few days earlier.

[The UK in Exile]

seriously are you high?

whether or not Trevon was on drugs or looked like he was on drugs is again, irrelevant to whether or not Zimmerman was allowed to shoot him. Far as I'm concerned Zimmermans own statement of what happened ought to be enough to convict him.

That isn't what the prosecution has argued. The Jury has to stick to those arguments. But fuck it, what statement in your opinion, means Zimmerman is guilty.
Either find the quotes or the physical evidence.
Don't just make shit up about how you think it went down like those people insisting Zimmerman snuck up on Martin.

In an opening statement that was heavy on emotion, Mr. Guy portrayed Mr. Zimmerman as a man overly eager to play the role of police officer and too ready to nab a suspect. Rather than stay in his car, Mr. Zimmerman, who was on the phone with a police dispatcher, chose to pursue Mr. Martin, his gun at the ready, said Mr. Guy, who spoke to the Seminole County Court jury for a little over 30 minutes.

without being arsed to roll through the whole trial, that sounds exactly like what they are arguing.

[Ostroeuropa]

Can the prosecution show it was unreasonable of zimmerman to say Martin was on drugs or to think Martin was on drugs.
If not, then Zimmerman wins.
All they have done is say "Why would you think that? Prejudice!"
When the facts are entirely consistent with Zimmermans testimony.
A reasonable person would see someone on drugs, acting like they were on drugs, and say "I think he's on drugs."

You mean the fact that Martin is black is consistent with the idea that he must have been a drug addict? Because there are no other 'facts' consistent with Zimmermans claim that Martin 'looked like he was on drugs or something'. The THC levels in Martins system were well below anything that would physically affect him, and were consistent with having smoked days earlier. We know that Zimmerman was higher than Martin that night, but it's okay because he was only high on prescription meds while he was stalking people through the streets in the dark with a gun, which clearly makes him less dangerous than an unarmed black teenager who had smoked a joint a few days earlier.

The Medical Examiner could not determine whether or not Martin was on drugs.
That means the facts are consistent with Zimmermans story.

[The UK in Exile]

seriously are you high?

whether or not Trevon was on drugs or looked like he was on drugs is again, irrelevant to whether or not Zimmerman was allowed to shoot him. Far as I'm concerned Zimmermans own statement of what happened ought to be enough to convict him.

Self-defense is not an offense. What, pray tell, do you think he could be convicted on based on his story alone?

been covered before, feel free to scroll back.

[Ostroeuropa]

[/u]
Self-defense is not an offense. What, pray tell, do you think he could be convicted on based on his story alone?

been covered before, feel free to scroll back.

Do you have the actual quotes or don't you. Because the media's record on this trial isn't good.
Besides which, you said Zimmermans own statement.
Not the quote mined version the prosecution lays out.

[Myrensis]

The Medical Examiner could not determine whether or not Martin was on drugs.
That means the facts are consistent with Zimmermans story.

No, it isn't. Unless Zimmerman has superhero vision that lets him detect trace THC amounts in the bloodstream of people walking through his neighborhood. Zimmerman can't claim that things he had no possible way of knowing anything about somehow affected his decision making. Unless he's a psychic superhero to boot.

[Ostroeuropa]

The Medical Examiner could not determine whether or not Martin was on drugs.
That means the facts are consistent with Zimmermans story.

No, it isn't. Unless Zimmerman has superhero vision that lets him detect trace THC amounts in the bloodstream of people walking through his neighborhood. Zimmerman can't claim that things he had no possible way of knowing anything about somehow affected his decision making. Unless he's a psychic superhero to boot.

People on drugs may walk or act differently. He didn't say "He IS on drugs." he said "I think he's on drugs."

[The UK in Exile]

been covered before, feel free to scroll back.

Do you have the actual quotes or don't you. Because the media's record on this trial isn't good.
Besides which, you said Zimmermans own statement.
Not the quote mined version the prosecution lays out.

there's a fairly extensive post I made detailing it. your welcome to read it.

[The UK in Exile]

No, it isn't. Unless Zimmerman has superhero vision that lets him detect trace THC amounts in the bloodstream of people walking through his neighborhood. Zimmerman can't claim that things he had no possible way of knowing anything about somehow affected his decision making. Unless he's a psychic superhero to boot.

People on drugs may walk or act differently. He didn't say "He IS on drugs." he said "I think he's on drugs."

had he seen the post-mortem Toxicology report at time?

[Alien Space Bats]

Incidentally, Zimmerman is Hispanic.

And if you've followed my posts on demographics and politics, you will know that the U.S. Census Bureau classifies the vast majority (90% or more) of Latinos as "white".

IOW, Hispanic (like Arabic) is not a race; it's a multiracial ethnic identity.

We have to assume, for the purposes of the zimmerman trial, that since it's impossible to determine whether or not he was under the influence of marijuana but that there is in fact marijuana in his system, and all the facts are consistent with zimmermans testimony, that he is telling the truth. We can't be sure, so we have to back zimmerman.

So your position is that, yes, smoking a joint gets you high for at least a month.

Interesting.

Unless my knowledge of this issue has failed I, Zimmerman is not white.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, he's as white as John McCain.

This entire debate in this very thread is perfect proof of why the drug test done on Trayvon after he was deceased should have never been introduced into evidence at all.

I don't actually think that is was. We know it; the jury, AFAIK, does not.

[Dilange]

I do not believe that it matters if Zimmerman walks or is convicted, he wont have a normal life ever again.

[Alien Space Bats]

I do not believe that it matters if Zimmerman walks or is convicted, he wont have a normal life ever again.

Better for him if he lives that life outside of prison than inside, no?

[United Meritocratic Athiest Democracy]

I do not believe that it matters if Zimmerman walks or is convicted, he wont have a normal life ever again.

Better for him if he lives that live outside of prison than inside, no?

Better for everyone. I don't think he's going to be at risk of recidivism.

[Neu California]

You mean the fact that Martin is black is consistent with the idea that he must have been a drug addict? Because there are no other 'facts' consistent with Zimmermans claim that Martin 'looked like he was on drugs or something'. The THC levels in Martins system were well below anything that would physically affect him, and were consistent with having smoked days earlier. We know that Zimmerman was higher than Martin that night, but it's okay because he was only high on prescription meds while he was stalking people through the streets in the dark with a gun, which clearly makes him less dangerous than an unarmed black teenager who had smoked a joint a few days earlier.

The Medical Examiner could not determine whether or not Martin was on drugs.
That means the facts are consistent with Zimmermans story.

Arguing form ignorance is fallacious

Also, a few posts before this one you said someone was of the "reactionary left". Without going into his politics, I will point out that reactionary are far right-wingers. Far left-wingers are radicals,