8 Months on and George Zimmerman is back in the news. I'm sure the various details have been talked to death but as atheists our argument is simple, we state the burden is on theists to demonstrate the existence of god and yet with Zimmerman/Martin I hear people that profess to be atheists demand that Zimmerman was convicted despite their NOT being proof beyond doubt that he was guilty.

I have no idea what his real intent was (and nor do you or anyone else but Zimmerman himself) and have no idea what happened in the 2 minutes prior to the shooting but what is clear is that there is no proof that a murder (ie the Killing of a person, in being, unlawfully;with malice aforethought or during the commitment of a felony) took place.

Is it just that political ideology just takes over for some people?

Facts are a bitch when they counter one's emotionally-invested beliefs.

Nothing to do with atheist.. theres christians that feel that way also.. atheism is a label.. the lack of believe in a god/s. Not a worldview!.

(February 4, 2014 at 3:32 pm)truthBtold Wrote: Nothing to do with atheist.. theres christians that feel that way also.. atheism is a label.. the lack of believe in a god/s. Not a worldview!.

This is about why we don't believe in God (which is about evidence) so so those who would convict without evidence and yet profess to be atheists have cognitive dissonance.

I can neither believe in his guilt or innocence because there is no definitive proof either way those who do beleive in one or the other seem to be entirely divided on ideological grounds. I have little doubt that Minimalist believes that Zimmerman was undoubtedly guilty for instance.

Law is a bitch but let's not pretend it has anything to do with justice.

A man with a gun tracked a kid with a bag of Skittles. He was told to stop and disregarded the instructions of the police. The kid ended up dead.

The dead kid is not able to tell his side of the story.

Just a week or so ago two cops were acquitted after beating a man to death while he was laying on the ground.

Don't talk to me about fucking justice, huh?

The specific Zimmerman trial aside, when can we have a discussion about the more broad topic of Stand Your Ground laws?

As I understand them, they've effectively changed the definition of "self defense" from "my life was in danger" to "I felt threatened". This seems screwed up to me. How would a prosecuting attorney prove that someone didn't really "feel threatened"? Someone correct me if I'm wrong here but WTF?

One dickhead in a Florida theater claims he was "threatened" by a guy throwing popcorn. So threatened that he blew him away.

(February 4, 2014 at 4:16 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Law is a bitch but let's not pretend it has anything to do with justice.

A man with a gun tracked a kid with a bag of Skittles. He was told to stop and disregarded the instructions of the police. The kid ended up dead.

The dead kid is not able to tell his side of the story.

Just a week or so ago two cops were acquitted after beating a man to death while he was laying on the ground.

Don't talk to me about fucking justice, huh?

I think this pretty much proves my point. As predicted Minimalist defers purely to his extremist ideology.

lets have a look at his argument:

Quote:A man with a gun tracked a kid with a bag of Skittles.

Look at the loaded terms a man with a gun trackeda kid with a bag of Skittles

Even though the 'kid' was 17 and taller and fitter than Zimmerman he is attempting to portray him as a child just doing a childish thing (ie having candy.)

Quote: And tracked

'. Not just followed but 'tracked'.

What he is really saying is that an armed man followed a youth. Everything else is just pointless cant

Next we have

Quote:He was told to stop and disregarded the instructions of the police.

these two were just plain lies. He was not 'told to stop'. for a start police despatchers have no authority whatsoever to give any such orders and secondly he was told that the despatcher did not NEED him to do that. he was not even advised not to proceeed let alone ordered not to pursue. The police gave him no instructions that he disregarded.

The phrases that dispatchers use are not ambigous. if we look closely at the despatcher words she said "we do not require you to do this".

Telling someone not to do this would be " Please desist from following"
Advising someone not to follow would be" We strongly advise you not to follow"

Neither of those two terms, or their equivalent were used. the dispatcher merely gave a disclaimer saying that following Martin was not a requirement essentially so the dispatcher or her employers could not be later held liable by Zimmerman for damages as a result of his being attacked

Quote:The kid ended up dead.

The youth certainly did end up dead. this is the first actually accurate thing he has said but he hasn't exactly demonstrated why obviously because he has no evidence.

Quote:The dead kid is not able to tell his side of the story.

This is normally the case in the investigation of Killings.

Quote:Just a week or so ago two cops were acquitted after beating a man to death while he was laying on the ground.

Which has nothing to do with this case but goes further to prove a mindset. ie that proof isn;t really relevant and that its just a war between two sides so a cop beating a homeless person to death ( I have no idea what this is about) somehow is evidence that Zimmerman is guilty of murder.

Quote:Don't talk to me about fucking justice, huh?

Since Minimalist is incapable of any rational argument whatsoever I have little interest in talking to him about justice. this is about Burden of proof. Something the likes of Minimalist have a great difficulty with understanding.


Thank you Minimalist for confirming my prediction and providing such an enlightening view of a died in the wool blinkered ideologue. A 3rd party would be quite justified in believing that it was quite likley that you are were my sockpuppet that I had invented just to illustrate my point.

George has displayed plenty of behavior post-trial which makes him look like just the sort of lunatic who might track down a kid and kill him in cold blood. Inadmissible in court, of course.

I don't know if there's enough to convict him of murder, but I think there may have been enough to make a manslaughter charge stick, and the prosecution's mistake was not going in that direction from the start. Instead, he's free and a danger to society.

Listen, dickhead. If you approve of vigilantes tracking people on the basis of they look "different" and then killing them well you be my guest. I just just dismissed you to the ranks of assholedom.