Atheists, George Zimmerman and the burden of proof

[là bạn điên]

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.

He does seem to indicate that he has an erratic temperament and poor impulse control but that does not indicate in any way that he acted in cold blood in any way whatsover. It might indicate that a he was the sort of person to lose his temper and attack someone, indeed that is one of several possibilities of thsi case (ie that he confronted Martin, lost his temper and attacked him).

I don't know if there's enough to convict him of murder,

Clearly there isn't

but I think there may have been enough to make a manslaughter charge stick,

I see no such proof. Unless you can prove that Zimmerman was acting unlawfully then you have no case. Merely assembling a list of possibilities is not proof in any way shape or form

and the prosecution's mistake was not going in that direction from the start. Instead, he's free and a danger to society.

The race baiters and ideologues demanded he be tried for murder. The jury has an option to bring a verdict of manslaughter and they didn't. manslaughter is not ' he might be guilty of murder but we have no proof so lets compromise on manslaughter' but a specific crime that needs proof beyond reasonable doubt. Such proof was not delivered.

I take it you think that people should be convicted in the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt if it suits your ideology.

Like Minimalist (although predictably with less hysterical frothing) I assumed, given you extreme left views that you would immediately side with those who would convict Martin without evidence.

[No_God]

Didn't just get in trouble for pulling a shotgun out on his girlfriend during an argument?

[là bạn điên]

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.

And further evidence that Minimalist is incapable of any sort of analysis but just resorts to childish insults

Listen, dickhead.

And baseless supposition.

If you approve of vigilantes tracking people on the basis of they look "different"

(which I certainly do not )

and then resorts again to childish insults

just just dismissed you to the ranks of assholedom.

As if I cared what a rather infantile ideologues rates me as.

---

Didn't just get in trouble for pulling a shotgun out on his girlfriend during an argument?

1) Even if he did it has no bearing on this case since it happened post factum and does not prove any part of the case against him. I don't think there is much contention that Zimmerman is rather an odd person with anger management issues but you cannot convict someone of something on the basis that it is possible that that might have happened.

2) In fact the Girlfriend, Samantha Scheibe, has refused to participate in any prosecution and claimed that the detectives involved misunderstood what she had said. She has stated that she is not frightened of Zimmerman and wishes to stay with him in a signed affadavit

[Ryantology]

The race baiters and ideologues demanded he be tried for murder. The jury has an option to bring a verdict of manslaughter and they didn't. manslaughter is not ' he might be guilty of murder but we have no proof so lets compromise on manslaughter' but a specific crime that needs proof beyond reasonable doubt. Such proof was not delivered.

Maybe not. It really helps your case when the only other witness is a corpse, I guess.

I take it you think that people should be convicted in the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt if it suits your ideology.

Like Minimalist (although predictably with less hysterical frothing) I assumed, given you extreme left views that you would immediately side with those who would convict Martin without evidence.[/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.
2: I think you ought to examine your own behavior before you start pointing out the ideologues in the room.

[Jacob(smooth)]

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

Perhaps he had an allergy?

[BrokenQuill92]

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

Perhaps he had an allergy?

Allergy to people or popcorn?

[Assimilate]

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.

[The Valkyrie]

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

Perhaps he had an allergy?

I have an allergy to stupid.

Now I just need a gun . . .

[Sejanus]

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.

[là bạn điên]

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

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?

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!

---

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.

---

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.