Atheists, George Zimmerman and the burden of proof

[Isun]

1)http://www.sa18.state.fl.us/page/stalking.html

Thank you. In the very first line of your link it says Stalking is defined in the State of Florida as "willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly following, harassing or cyberstalking" another. I presume you don;t understand what 'repeatedly' means . Clearly this is NOT an issue here.

2) Evidence? Yet you exonerate Zimmerman without any evidence. Nor was there any evidence that Martin confronter or was a threat to Zimmerman. Nice that you use a double standard.

I find Zimmerman not guilty without evidence. That's how the system works. I haven't found martin ' guilty' either

3) We don't know what happened, but most likely Martin was in fear of his life after being confronted by Zimmerman.

That's highly unlikely since it is clear that Martin was on his way home and then chose NOT to go home

4) Blaming the victum doesn't make it his fault. Zimmerman had no business following the boy. And 17 is a boy.

It is not unlawful to follow a 17 year old.

5) I am sorry, I didn't realize that you think that the world is better being the wild west and whoever win's walks away scot free. Me. I prefer a civilized country, not a barbaric one.

I am in fovour of very strict gun control as it happens. I believe in a civilised world where people are not found guilty in advance of a trial because it fits your racial narrative

6) There is a reason we have the police. They are trained to investigate these types of issues. If George zimmerman had done the right thing, he would have left it to the police and no one would have been hurt. Zimmerman had no business following especially once he notified the police. As to the cases, you must never pay any attention to the news. Both cases are being heavily covered in the news.

I have paid great attention. As it happens he did report it to the Police. Zimmerman had every lawful right to follow wether he notified the police or not.

7) I would say that one of the many reasons that "blacks" are convicted more often than whites or appears to anyways, is because of discrimination. Perfect example are drug laws. Blacks are no more likely to use drugs than whites, yet Blacks are far more likely to be stopped, arrested and convicted than whites.

lets try again. Are you claiming that Black people are no more likley to commit crime than white people?

8) I have no clue what you mean in your last comment. but the issue is that Florida law encourages more gun violence and makes it much more likely that innocent people will die unnecessarily.

My last comment was clear. Martin did not go straight home. He chose an option to come into contact with Zimmerman and precipitated a confrontation.

Actually there is no confusion about the stalking rule. I just pointed out that your definition is wrong. I didn't say that Zimmerman stalked him. You might try comprehending what you read better.


And you have no idea if that is true about Martin. We only heard Zimmerman's side and guess what. We can be sure he lied through his teeth. But there wasn't evidence enough to say otherwise. Because Zimmerman killed the boy.

As to whether blacks are more likely to do crimes? I suspect that whites committ as many crimes as blacks do. Blacks just get convicted more often.

And why? Because of states like Florida.