RE: Atheists, George Zimmerman and the burden of proof
February 5, 2014 at 1:12 am
(This post was last modified: February 5, 2014 at 1:31 am by là bạn điên.)
(February 4, 2014 at 5:17 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: Maybe not. It really helps your case when the only other witness is a corpse, I guess.
As I said before that is normally the case with murder. You can;t just change the rules because of that
Quote:I think two things:
1: I never implied anything of the sort. I'd rather he be guilty and walk free than be innocent and imprisoned.
I Did assume that you would be less hysterical than Minimalist but so you are happy to leave the case as unproven?
Quote:2: I think you ought to examine your own behavior before you start pointing out the ideologues in the room.
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!
(February 4, 2014 at 8:16 pm)Asimm Wrote: They way the laws are in Florida, Zimmerman was able to be found not guilty, I don't dispute that. Zimmerman is still a POS at the end of the day, but the law pretty much defined his situation as self defense, which I can understand. GZ also put himself in that situation, if anything these laws need to be revised.
Which laws exactly are you referring to? Contrary to the bullshit that people spread around 'Stand your ground' was not used in Zimmerman's defence. The right to use lethal force when faced with possible death or serious assault is pretty standard. Zimmerman's defense, whether you believe it or not stated that
i) Martin came at him and attacked him
ii) Martin Told him "you are going to die tonight"
iii) Martin was bashing Zimmerman's head against the paving.
If these are true it is certainly a valid case of self defense. personally I have no idea that ii) and iii) are true but I have little doubt that i) is real since the circumstances leave little alternative.
This would be a valid defense even in supoposedly liberal Massachusetts which allos lethal force if the victim has a valid reason for believing that he is in imminent danger of Death or serious injury.
(February 4, 2014 at 8:52 pm)Sejanus Wrote: I made a thread saying how atheists should reject claims regarding the existence of things if there is no evidence they exist. I was bombarded with people saying "atheism doesn't mean you reject god(s) existence based on a lack of evidence. That's a generalisation." Strange how you didn't get that here.
Not quite sure what you are getting at.
Some may call them junk, I call them treasures.
