Open Thread on Zimmerman Verdict

[BroomWagon]

What difference does it make? It has no bearing on anything.

It would have a bearing on Zimmerman’s credibility. Besides, I think it all highlights that we are basically going with Zimmerman’s narrative, Zimmerman’s case, not proven fact. Zimmerman’s case is plausible though while not being exactly proven.

 

[maryjk]

What evidence except a scenario as painted by GZ?

His broken nose. Lacerations on his head.

I’m not condoning any violence by either potential aggressor.

Seems that you are. Especially since you don’t think there was violence toward Zimmerman.

 

[SwizzleStick]

Sounds like a quote from a narrow-minded person.

It is not narrow-minded to reject claims that make no sense and are not backed up with evidence.

 

[adrift]

To condone violence is a sin! And that’s what I see happening on this thread.

To bear false witness is a sin…

ad hominem statements is what I see you making.

 

[Robert_Sock]

It is not narrow-minded to reject claims that make no sense and are not backed up with evidence.

What evidence supports your claim other than that of GZ’s perspective?

 

[Cider]

It is not narrow-minded to reject claims that make no sense and are not backed up with evidence.

It is if you engage in relativist thinking.

 

[lcburgundy]

It would have a bearing on Zimmerman’s credibility. Besides, I think it all highlights that we are basically going with Zimmerman’s narrative, Zimmerman’s case, not proven fact. Zimmerman’s case is plausible though while not being exactly proven.

And that’s not the standard we hold people to in this country, at least theoretically. A country in which we all have to prove we are innocent of all accusations is grim.

 

[maryjk]

It would have a bearing on Zimmerman’s credibility. Besides, I think it all highlights that we are basically going with Zimmerman’s narrative, Zimmerman’s case, not proven fact. ** Zimmerman’s case is plausible** though while not being exactly proven.

Which is what the trial did. Showed that Zimmerman’s case was plausible. And the jury believed it “beyond a reasonable doubt,” due to the evidence provided. No one has to prove a case beyond any doubt.

Making up what could have happened, regardless of the evidence, is making up fantasies. And quite frankly, insulting to the jury.

 

[Cider]

It would have a bearing on Zimmerman’s credibility. Besides, I think it all highlights that we are basically going with Zimmerman’s narrative, Zimmerman’s case, not proven fact. Zimmerman’s case is plausible though while not being exactly proven.

Zimmerman’s case that was ironically put on mostly by prosecution witnesses.

 

[Robert_Sock]

His broken nose. Lacerations on his head.
Seems that you are. Especially since you don’t think there was violence toward Zimmerman.

Again, it’s a matter of perspective; GZ could easily have been the aggressor.

 

[BroomWagon]

Which is what the trial did. Showed that Zimmerman’s case was plausible. And the jury believed it “beyond a reasonable doubt,” due to the evidence provided. No one has to prove a case beyond any doubt.

Making up what could have happened, regardless of the evidence, is making up fantasies. And quite frankly, insulting to the jury.

Quite frankly, making up fantasies that the evidence proved Zimmerman’s story is likewise insulting to the jury if one goes that route.

“And the jury believed it “beyond a reasonable doubt,” due to the evidence provided”

We do NOT know this.

Again, one can just as easily say the State of Florida by their prosecutors did not make the case strong enough for murder. The State did NOT prove Zimmerman’s intent on murder or the other charges. Not that George Zimmerman’s defense which was based on his narrative is the cause for the “Not guilty of murder” verdict.

 

[maryjk]

Again, it’s a matter of perspective; GZ could easily have been the aggressor.

What evidence shows that Zimmerman was the aggressor? For him to have “easily” been the aggressor, there must be evidence.

 

[SwizzleStick]

Zimmerman said he was looking in windows. IF he was maybe he was trying to discern what to do when being followed? …

Really? Why in the world would anyone look into windows if he thought he was being followed?

…What would you do? …

I’ve already indicated on several occasion the options I thought Martin could have chosen. Personally, I would use the phone in my hand to call 911. Also, I would begin screaming and yelling and knocking on doors if I feared for my safety and thought I was being followed. But, I’ll repost and quote myself yet again.

…Martin could have just gone home, gone to another house with a light on if he was concerned about being followed home, hid and stayed hidden, walked back to the store, called 911 with the phone in his hand or asked his friend whom he was speaking with to call 911, he could have begun to yell “Fire” or “Rape” or “Pervert” to get someone’s attention. …

 

[Brendan]

Again, to condone violence is a sin! And that’s what I see happening on this thread.

Perhaps you missed my question, I’ll repost

I haven’t seen anyone condoning violence.

I HAVE seen people condoning self defense, which the Church accepts as not sinful and a right under the Natural Moral Law.

Do you have any specifics on who exactly has been committing sin on this board?

 

[Robert_Sock]

What evidence shows that Zimmerman was the aggressor? For him to have “easily” been the aggressor, there must be evidence.

Again, it’s a matter of perspective; we simply do not know who was the true aggressor.

What’s the conclusive evidence that TM was the aggressor?

 

[qui_est_ce]

Don’t feed the trolls. And be glad there were no trolls on the jury!

 

[maryjk]

Again, it’s a matter of perspective; we simply do not know who was the true aggressor.

The evidence gives us a really good idea.

Hmm, broken nose, head lacerations vs. no injuries.

Gee, I wonder who hit whom.

 

[lcburgundy]

The evidence gives us a really good idea.

Hmm, broken nose, head lacerations vs. no injuries.

Gee, I wonder who hit whom.

Uh oh, someone wants to trade in facts, evidence, and reality. I think we’re overdue for a reminder about how sinful it is to condone violence.

 

[maryjk]

Quite frankly, making up fantasies that the evidence proved Zimmerman’s story is likewise insulting to the jury if one goes that route.

“And the jury believed it “beyond a reasonable doubt,” due to the evidence provided”

We do NOT know this.

**Again, one can just as easily say the State of Florida by their prosecutors did not make the case strong enough for murder. **The State did NOT prove Zimmerman’s intent on murder or the other charges. Not that George Zimmerman’s defense which was based on his narrative is the cause for the “Not guilty of murder” verdict.

That is true, they could have believed it beyond a reasonable doubt, due to the lack of evidence against it.

In other words, we can’t say that it didn’t happen that way, because no one can provide evidence of another scenario.

(We had the same problem when I was on a jury. The state provided no evidence. They figured since someone died, someone must pay.)

 

[maryjk]

Uh oh, someone wants to trade in facts, evidence, and reality. I think we’re overdue for a reminder about how sinful it is to condone violence.

No, it will be another

Love God, not guns.