Open Thread on Zimmerman Verdict

[SwizzleStick]

This Slate article seems to affirm Self-Defense is a part of the discussion here but not sure if it means the Jury made a “finding for Self Defense”.

Zimmerman would have been found guilty if they hadn’t.

 

[SwizzleStick]

From the CNN interview with Jeantel

Yes, it was what she conveyed, but she didn’t actually use the words “gay rapist,” but just “rapist,” so I corrected myself for the sake of accuracy.

 

[lcburgundy]

Yes, it was what she conveyed, but she didn’t actually use the words “gay rapist,” but just “rapist,” so I corrected myself for the sake of accuracy.

The idea that it would be a rapist targeting men or boys is very clearly inferred from what she said.

That said, I still don’t really believe her. At this point I feel like she’s trying to justify why TM assaulted GZ and this is the best she could come up with.

 

[BroomWagon]

Read the jury instructions for yourself. That this was a justifiable or excusable homicide (in other words, self-defense) was the only way they could find him not guilty. Nothing else was in dispute.

One of the Jurors used the term “Stand Your Ground” slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/07/george_zimmerman_and_self_defense_why_it_was_too_easy_for_him_to_get_off.html

Sure, we have the Juror Instructions, we can also read all kinds of things into it as well.

If George Zimmerman is NOT required to prove anything, why do we automatically believe there is a finding of Self Defense?

To overcome George Zimmerman’s presumption of innocence, the State has the burden of proving the crime with which George Zimmerman is charged was committed and
George Zimmerman is the person who committed the crime.

George Zimmerman is not required to present evidence or prove anything

The Constitution requires the State to prove its accusations against George Zimmerman
. It is not necessary for George Zimmerman to disprove anything.** Nor is George Zimmerman required to prove his innocence.** It is up to the State to prove George
Zimmerman’s guilt by evidence

Also, the Juror Instructions say Self Defense is a defense to the crime of 2nd degree Murder, it doesn’t say it is the only defense.

An issue in this case is whether George Zimmerman acted in self-defense. It is a
defense to the crime of Second Degree Murder, and the lesser included offense of
Manslaughter, if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force

An issue in this case, not the only issue. So from the Verdict, I don’t know if we know the Jury finds affirmative for Self Defense, only the Prosecution did not prove GZ committed murder and the other charges. Which I think is a proper verdict given what we know, but I’m not saying it’s a positive finding for Self-Defense.

 

[SwizzleStick]

The idea that it would be a rapist targeting men or boys is very clearly inferred from what she said…

Yes, I agree, but I just wanted to speak as accurately as I could.

…That said, I still don’t really believe her. At this point I feel like she’s trying to justify why TM assaulted GZ and this is the best she could come up with.

Agreed. She is not credible.

 

[fix]

You’re being biased again. Whose to say that either perspective is not plausible?

Evidence, logic, reason, witnesses.

 

[SwizzleStick]

Evidence, logic, reason, witnesses.

You know, for those who are arguing against the concepts of evidence, logic, reason, witnesses, I wonder how many of them actually watched the trial or read trial transcripts?

 

[Robert_Sock]

Evidence, logic, reason, witnesses.

How so, how so, how so, and how so? We’ve been through each of these so many times, but you’re refusing to take into account TM’s likely perspective.

 

[adrift]

Evidence, logic, reason, witnesses.

What he says:thumbsup:

 

[adrift]

You know, for those who are arguing against the concepts of evidence, logic, reason, witnesses, I wonder how many of them actually watched the trial or read trial transcripts?

Good question.

 

[Orogeny]

We’ve been through each of these so many times, but you’re refusing to take into account TM’s likely perspective.

You have no clue what TM’s likely perspective was. Did you know him? Personally? Or do you assume that everyone “like him” have a specific perspective?

You only have what you want his perspective to be.

Peace

Tim

 

[Cider]

You know, for those who are arguing against the concepts of evidence, logic, reason, witnesses, I wonder how many of them actually watched the trial or read trial transcripts?

I don’t think it would matter anyway, either you believe their is such a thing as truth, evidence and facts or you believe in relativist thinking that anything is possible. Since the argument all along has been one side arguing the facts and evidence including forensics and one side arguing hypotheticals, maybes, could be’s and mights… it speaks for itself.

 

[Robert_Sock]

You have no clue what TM’s likely perspective was. Did you know him? Personally? Or do you assume that everyone “like him” have a specific perspective?

You only have what you want his perspective to be.

Peace

Tim

We have the facts, and we have the gray areas. There are also the motives, most importantly, why would TM risk life in jail over something so minor as somebody following him? Many of the people on this thread are intentionally taking GZ’s account of the situation without considering other plausible scenarios.

 

[Robert_Sock]

And again, it’s Florida state law that’s really to blame in that it placed a concealed weapon into the hands of an amateur law enforcement personnel. We’re headed towards a society of gunslinging vigilantes.

 

[Orogeny]

There are also the motives, most importantly, why would TM risk life in jail over something so minor as somebody following him? Many of the people on this thread are intentionally taking GZ’s account of the situation without considering other plausible scenarios.

And YOU have the answer to that question because…?

The answer is what you want it to be and is not grounded in any FACT whatsoever.

Peace

Tim

 

[Robert_Sock]

And YOU have the answer to that question because…?

The answer is what you want it to be and is not grounded in any FACT whatsoever.

Peace

Tim

I don’t have the answer any more than you do. What I have is an alternative scenario to GZ’s perspective. What facts are there that TM was the aggressor?

 

[SwizzleStick]

How so, how so, how so, and how so? We’ve been through each of these so many times, but you’re refusing to take into account TM’s likely perspective.

So, how about it, Robert? Did you actually watch the trial or read trial transcripts?

And, for the record, your idea of plausible and my idea of plausible vastly differ.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Yes, it was what she conveyed, but she didn’t actually use the words “gay rapist,” but just “rapist,” so I corrected myself for the sake of accuracy.

Well thank you. I watched Piers interviewing her, but I soon lost track of understanding her. She was so incoherent, that she could easily be misunderstood.

 

[Robert_Sock]

So, how about it, Robert? Did you actually watch the trial or read trial transcripts?

And, for the record, your idea of plausible and my idea of plausible vastly differ.

I followed it closely enough to be able to make an alternative view to GZ’s statements.

 

[qui_est_ce]

The idea that it would be a rapist targeting men or boys is very clearly inferred from what she said.

That said, I still don’t really believe her. At this point I feel like she’s trying to justify why TM assaulted GZ and this is the best she could come up with.

As in, making it up as she goes along.