Trayvon Martin Case

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

My points are clear and consistent. In hindsight, Trayvon should have never physically gotten involved with Zim. Like I said before, being followed, harrassed, by an armed creepy dude...Trayvon made a quick decision...he didnt know if he was being robbed, abducted, etc. Trayvon is not an adult and he made a decision that cost him his life...true. Death should be norm for his actions? No. And for the law to side with Zim and say this is justified with no penalty. Well we need to rethink alot of things and there should be protests.

Ignoring for the moment your generic and consistent assumptons and mischaracterizations of the facts and evidence ... You honestly believe a "not guilty" verdict means the law "side[d] with Zimm"? Would mean Zimm's actions were "justified"? Where do you get that sh**? A not guilty finding says neither and you should damn well get that straight.

All a not guilty finding says is - "The State can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt Zimm is guilty of the crime that the State has alleged he committed." Nothing, absolutely nothing, more than that. The same standard would apply to Martin if the roles were reversed. I hope to God it will always be applicable to those accused of crimes.

A finding that the facts don't meet lawfully required burden of proof is a damn far sight removed from an affirmatively "siding" with Zimm or affirmatively saying he was "justified".

Is that really so hard a concept to grasp?

I weep for the rule of law. Pitchforks and torches all around.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Ignoring for the moment your generic and consistent assumptons and mischaracterizations of the facts and evidence ... You honestly believe a "not guilty" verdict means the law "side[d] with Zimm"? Would mean Zimm's actions were "justified"? Where do you get that sh**? A not guilty finding says neither and you should damn well get that straight.All a not guilty finding says is - "The State can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt Zimm is guilty of the crime that the State has alleged he committed." Nothing, absolutely nothing, more than that. The same standard would apply to Martin if the roles were reversed. I hope to God it will always be applicable to those accused of crimes.

A finding that the facts don't meet lawfully required burden of proof is a damn far sight removed from an affirmatively "siding" with Zimm or affirmatively saying he was "justified".

Is that really so hard a concept to grasp?

I weep for the rule of law. Pitchforks and torches all around.

I weep for the rule of law and history of injustice throughout this country as well.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

I weep for the rule of law and history of injustice throughout this country as well.

So, to remedy the past injustices resulting from people ignoring the rule of law, we should ignore it in this case as well?

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

So, to remedy the past injustices resulting from people ignoring the rule of law, we should ignore it in this case as well?

No, lets start by getting this one right. Zimmerman Guilty

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

No, lets start by getting this one right. Zimmerman Guilty

<point_laugh>

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

No, lets start by getting this one right. Zimmerman Guilty

A verdict you decided on long before the trial started. You're mind has been closed to any alternative since the first report that "gun-toting white guy shoots little black kid in hoodie while he was eating skittles".

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Ignoring <SNIP>

Well stated, JR.

I hope that some people on this site never get to sit on a jury.