Atheists, George Zimmerman and the burden of proof

[Cato]

i) Martin came at him and attacked him

I would love to know why your timeline of events leading to Martin's death starts here. You make it sound as if Zimmerman was just taking a casual stroll through the neighborhood when he got jumped from behind.

[là bạn điên]

i) Martin came at him and attacked him

I would love to know why your timeline of events leading to Martin's death starts here. You make it sound as if Zimmerman was just taking a casual stroll through the neighborhood when he got jumped from behind.

I certainly make no allusion to his 'taking a stroll' .



timeline

7:09:34 Zimmerman's phone call with the police dispatcher.starts

7:11:33 Zimmerman states that martin is running

7:13:10 Zimmerman states that he can no longer see martin

7:13:41 Zimmerman's call ends

7:15:43 martins cell phone goes dead

7:16:11 First call to 911 concerning a fight

7:16:55 Gunshot heard on 911 recording

This means that there is over two minutes ample time to reach home even if he was not running if he was running he would have gotten home in about 10 seconds so clearly he did not decide to go home and stay there

Now perhaps you would like to either challenge my timeline or state what Martin was doing.

[Isun]

Actually based on Florida "Stand your ground" laws he wasn't guilty of murder or at least couldn't be proved to be. And yes "stand your ground" was a factor in the case whether it was used for the defense or not. The judge even stated that it needed to be taken into account. At least one of the jury quoted it as a reason that they couldn't convict Zimmerman

The issue is that "stand your ground" is nothing more than legalized discrimination and murder. It needs to be changed.

[Esquilax]

really? I constantly examine my own position. What Ideology do you think I have?

Well, considering that you started out this thread with the position that there isn't enough evidence to form a concrete opinion on what happened, and then proceed to spend the rest of the thread defending an opposing view...

[là bạn điên]

really? I constantly examine my own position. What Ideology do you think I have?

Well, considering that you started out this thread with the position that there isn't enough evidence to form a concrete opinion on what happened, and then proceed to spend the rest of the thread defending an opposing view...

Er ...no..

I am certainly not sure about what happened. There is not enough evidence to declare Zimmerman innocent. It is quite within the realms of possibility that When he saw that martin had not returned home that he deliberately provoked a confrontation, however it is just that ..a possibility and I think a very small one. IMHO it is definitely most likley that Martin did attack Zimmerman but its just a probability. Certainly no proof either way.

Unfortunately there are people certain of what happened and its based on their ideology. I am putting forward the opposing view to demonstrate that the opposing view is perfectly viable and that there is not the proof necessary for a conviction. the important issue for me is that people's viewpoint seems to be based on ideology.

I would be just as certain that extreme conservatives would be certain that martin had criminal intent from the start and was probably planning to burgle the area, something for which there is similarly no evidence. the fact that Martin had been suspended from school and may have handled stolen goods is also irrelevant.

However you quoted me on ideology then refused to actually address it.

What ideology do you think I have since I maintain it cannot be proven either way?

---

Actually based on Florida "Stand your ground" laws he wasn't guilty of murder or at least couldn't be proved to be. And yes "stand your ground" was a factor in the case whether it was used for the defense or not. The judge even stated that it needed to be taken into account. At least one of the jury quoted it as a reason that they couldn't convict Zimmerman

The issue is that "stand your ground" is nothing more than legalized discrimination and murder. It needs to be changed.

1) please link to the Judge's comments and the jury member's comment.

2) please tell us why stand your ground is 'legalized discrimination' since every citizen is entitled to use it. Why do you think someone has a duty to run away if threatened? Why does it need to be changed?

[downbeatplumb]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhMSccxZLOI

[Isun]

The first quote was from the written instructions from the Judge to the jury for deliberation. The 2nd quote was from one of the jury members. So, yes it is apparent that "stand your ground" had an affect on the verdict for killing an innocent individual walking where he belonged.





If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/...ctions.pdf


And consider it they did. According to the most outspoken juror, known only as Juror B-37, Stand Your Ground was key to reaching their verdict. She told CNN's Anderson Cooper in an interview that neither second-degree murder nor manslaughter applied in Zimmerman's case "because of the heat of the moment and the 'stand your ground.' He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right."

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/20...rman-trial

[Ryantology]

As I said before that is normally the case with murder. You can;t just change the rules because of that

I didn't suggest that the rules ought to change. I suggested that a prosecution team that focused on a manslaughter charge was more likely to produce a conviction, not because they should have settled for that in light of a murder 2 charge not sticking, but because I think manslaughter is what actually took place.

I Did assume that you would be less hysterical than Minimalist but so you are happy to leave the case as unproven?

He was found not guilty, and that's that. It's really only a matter of time before he ends up back in trouble anyway.

really? I constantly examine my own position. What Ideology do you think I have? Given you are from the far left everyone to the right of you you probably think of as at least a conservative but objectively given that I hold positions such as Supporting gay marriage and gay adoption, supporting Gun control, being anti death penalty, maintaining total separation of church and state and removing all special privileges for religions, having mandatory sex education classes for children from 5-18, having a fully comprehensive free at the point of delivery socialized medicine, banning physical punishment of children and imposing a constantly evolving regime of protection of rights of animals exactly where does that put me 'ideologically'?

Pray tell!

I think all people adhere to a variety of ideologies. I agree with a lot of your ideological positions, certainly every one of those you just listed. But, then, you label others as 'race-baiters', and that is a term which carries a lot of connotations. It ignores the solid fact that young, black males are much more likely to take an undeserved fucking by our legal system than any other demographic, and that a lot of people in support of Zimmerman tried very hard to sway the public debate on the basis that, as a young, black male dressed in a hoodie, it was hard to believe that he could be the victim because 'his kind' are usually the victimizers.

Now, you can incorrectly ascertain from what I just said that I'm implying that you're a racist. Given your other positions, I can't believe that's true, but you open yourself up to misunderstanding when you use a term racists frequently use to attack those who expose them as racists.

[là bạn điên]

As I said before that is normally the case with murder. You can;t just change the rules because of that

I think all people adhere to a variety of ideologies. I agree with a lot of your ideological positions, certainly every one of those you just listed.

These aren't ideologies -they are positions. An ideology is where you have an overiding viewpoint which informs the vast majority of your positions. With Minimalist you know all his positions in advance because they are consistent with his Ideology. More or less that is you all round. The nearest thing I have to Ideology is 'Whig'

But, then, you label others as 'race-baiters', and that is a term which carries a lot of connotations.

It carries the direct accusation that people use race as a means to gain power and influence unjustly.

It ignores the solid fact that young, black males are much more likely to take an undeserved fucking by our legal system than any other demographic, and that a lot of people in support of Zimmerman tried very hard to sway the public debate on the basis that, as a young, black male dressed in a hoodie, it was hard to believe that he could be the victim because 'his kind' are usually the victimizers.

Being liberal (in the real meaning not the modern US definition) I look on each case by its individual merits I don't chose one saide based on ideology which the conservatives and you leftists do. I don't think any of you could care less about the merits you just saw a black vs white conflict and took the black side on principal. The conservatives have rightly identified
that such people are race baiters and need to be labelled and confronted.

Now, you can incorrectly ascertain from what I just said that I'm implying that you're a racist. Given your other positions, I can't believe that's true, but you open yourself up to misunderstanding when you use a term racists frequently use to attack those who expose them as racists.

If you are ,like me, a classic liberal, you will constantly be called racist (and sexist) by people who want to treat people as part of a collective and not as individuals. These are people of the left and who are not liberals. US conservatives might call you and Minimalist liberals I think you are no such thing- you are leftists, collectivists who want to give bonuses and penalties to entire groups. Indeed leftists call me whole colourblind position 'racist' just as they subscribe to the nonsense that black people can't be racist (which to me Eric Holder amply demonstrates the opposite).I am certainly not going to change my language so as not to incur the wrath of people whose far leftist ideology with its opposition to individualism is so pronounced.

---

I think all people adhere to a variety of ideologies. I agree with a lot of your ideological positions, certainly every one of those you just listed.

These aren't ideologies -they are positions. An ideology is where you have an overiding viewpoint which informs the vast majority of your positions. With Minimalist you know all his positions in advance because they are consistent with his Ideology. More or less that is you all round. The nearest thing I have to Ideology is 'Whig'

But, then, you label others as 'race-baiters', and that is a term which carries a lot of connotations.

It carries the direct accusation that people use race as a means to gain power and influence unjustly.

It ignores the solid fact that young, black males are much more likely to take an undeserved fucking by our legal system than any other demographic, and that a lot of people in support of Zimmerman tried very hard to sway the public debate on the basis that, as a young, black male dressed in a hoodie, it was hard to believe that he could be the victim because 'his kind' are usually the victimizers.

Being liberal (in the real meaning not the modern US definition) I look on each case by its individual merits I don't chose one saide based on ideology which the conservatives and you leftists do. I don't think any of you could care less about the merits you just saw a black vs white conflict and took the black side on principal. The conservatives have rightly identified
that such people are race baiters and need to be labelled and confronted.

Now, you can incorrectly ascertain from what I just said that I'm implying that you're a racist. Given your other positions, I can't believe that's true, but you open yourself up to misunderstanding when you use a term racists frequently use to attack those who expose them as racists.

If you are ,like me, a classic liberal, you will constantly be called racist (and sexist) by people who want to treat people as part of a collective and not as individuals. These are people of the left and who are not liberals. US conservatives might call you and Minimalist liberals I think you are no such thing- you are leftists, collectivists who want to give bonuses and penalties to entire groups. Indeed leftists call my whole colourblind position 'racist' just as they subscribe to the nonsense that black people can't be racist (which to me Eric Holder amply demonstrates the opposite).I am certainly not going to change my language so as not to incur the wrath of people whose far leftist ideology with its opposition to individualism is so pronounced.

[Ryantology]

These aren't ideologies -they are positions. An ideology is where you have an overiding viewpoint which informs the vast majority of your positions. With Minimalist you know all his positions in advance because they are consistent with his Ideology. More or less that is you all round. The nearest thing I have to Ideology is 'Whig'

Fair enough on the point of ideology vs. position.

However, the fact that my positions coincide with a lot of ideologues doesn't mean that ideology is driving them. From my own perspective, I underwent a shift from (in American terms) conservative to liberal over a number of years. This went issue-by-issue. I personally consider the individual issues more important than any unifying trend that my position on those issues might signify.

It carries the direct accusation that people use race as a means to gain power and influence unjustly.

With the irony being that most of the people who toss out the term are, in fact, doing precisely that. Usually in greater numbers and concentration and with more deliberation. In fact, for a lot of American conservatives, the accusation of 'race baiting' amounts to little more than an attempt to preserve the power and influence they have enjoyed for their entire lives thanks to their white skin.

Being liberal (in the real meaning not the modern US definition) I look on each case by its individual merits I don't chose one saide based on ideology which the conservatives and you leftists do. I don't think any of you could care less about the merits you just saw a black vs white conflict and took the black side on principal. The conservatives have rightly identified
that such people are race baiters and need to be labelled and confronted.

You assume a great deal about my motives. Are you telepathic?

If you are ,like me, a classic liberal, you will constantly be called racist (and sexist) by people who want to treat people as part of a collective and not as individuals. These are people of the left and who are not liberals. US conservatives might call you and Minimalist liberals I think you are no such thing- you are leftists, collectivists who want to give bonuses and penalties to entire groups. Indeed leftists call me whole colourblind position 'racist' just as they subscribe to the nonsense that black people can't be racist (which to me Eric Holder amply demonstrates the opposite).I am certainly not going to change my language so as not to incur the wrath of people whose far leftist ideology with its opposition to individualism is so pronounced.

There are no shortage of self-described "colorblind" people whose idea of colorblindness is insisting that racism doesn't exist anymore, and whenever evidence to the contrary is exhibited, those who display the evidence are considered 'race baiters'. Were there some people who did that on 'my side'? Sure. But, as I pointed out (and as you pointedly ignored), the situation for young black males in particular is that they are at an automatic disadvantage. There were many, far more, on 'the other side' who continue to insist that Trayvon Martin's combination of age, gender and skin color make it inherently more likely that he deserved what he got. Point this out is not 'race baiting'. It is pointing out reality. There are plenty of cases of it, well-documented.

Regarding groups vs. individuals: Everybody is both, to a large degree. Our socio-economic-political apparatus is far too large to address the needs of every individual on every single topic. This is unfortunate, but also a reality that some of us have decided to live with and utilize in a positive manner.

I personally seek more freedom for individuals, especially on social issues. One of those freedoms is the freedom for young, black males to be given a fair shake. We're nowhere near that point yet. If the Martin case demonstrates anything clearly, it's that. Was there some backlash against that? Was it unjustified? The answer to both is 'maybe', but what the hell do you expect after 400 years, and counting, of this kind of treatment?