How to get away with murder (non-state actor edition)

[Darnell 8,479]

I know that the next time I see someone weird and suspicious, someone I think could be dangerous and up to no good .. I'm gonna follow 'em. What's the worst that could happen?

conjugal bliss?

[Teddy B 17,252]

Were there any meltdowns by the folks who thought GZ should face jail time? Anybody make any threads about how unfair it all is and what they're going to do about it?

If not, the aftermath of the verdict isn't nearly as hilarious as the aftermath of the election was.

I wanted meltdowns like that.

There it is! You just had to go and ruin the true blue Muricans fun. They haven't had anything go their way since the Presidential election of 2004, now they finally get an acquittal of GZ, a true victory for gun loving Muricans everywhere, and you go and rain on their parade. Damn you Penny!

conjugal bliss?

Molar decay!

Edited July 15, 2013 by Teddy B

[Darnell 8,479]

Teddy! Oh No ! Not the Molar Decay! - well, I suppose that could be one of the end results of conjugal bliss, you betcha.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Teddy! Oh No ! Not the Molar Decay! - well, I suppose that could be one of the end results of conjugal bliss, you betcha.

Twinkies are back..............Yesh!

[SMR 368]

As I see it, in order to convict George Zimmerman, the prosecution needed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, at least one of three things.

A) George Zimmerman committed a crime that caused the confrontation, and George Zimmerman never disengaged after committing that crime. This crime could be attacking TM, trying to hold TM, or brandishing a firearm. Following TM doesn't count.

B) George Zimmerman was winning the fight or was otherwise in control of the situation to the extent that he should not have reasonably feared great bodily harm.

C) George Zimmerman should not have reasonably feared that TM was imminently going to inflict great bodily harm on him.

While other things have to be proved as well, without proof beyond a reasonable doubt of A, B, or C, conviction was impossible. The prosecution failed to do this. While there is some evidence and some witnesses that support some of A, B, and C, there also exists evidence and witnesses that contradict A, B, and C. That's reasonable doubt.

A lot of people in this country feel like the George Zimmerman case is a test case for something and to them the verdict is a slap in the face. They think it means that it's okay to profile based on race and okay to stalk and threaten people with a firearm. The problem is, they are assuming that George Zimmerman did those things. I have no doubt that those things happen, but I have reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman did them. That's really the end of the story. This isn't about race or gun control. This is about whether or not you have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before putting someone in jail for the rest of his or her life. I'm glad that's still the America we live in.

[GandD 5,966]

And conviction means more teens on like TM out of control… on drugs cannot attend school like normal kid, going out and steeling, dealing drugs.

I guess you prefer that.

Is it possible for one to prefer neither?

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Is it possible for one to prefer neither?

No. You either support kids being bad and stealing, or you support them dying. Pick a side.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

They think it means that it's okay to profile based on race and okay to stalk and threaten people with a firearm.

And it is. Just gotta make sure nobody is watching and the stalked ends up dead. The current law says that it's okay to do these things.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

No. You either support kids being bad and stealing, or you support them dying. Pick a side.

It's steeling, apparently. Not sure what that is but I'm sure it's bad.

And conviction means more teens on like TM out of control… on drugs cannot attend school like normal kid, going out and steeling, dealing drugs.

I guess you prefer that.

[SMR 368]

And it is. Just gotta make sure nobody is watching and the stalked ends up dead. The current law says that it's okay to do these things.

So what law do you recommend? The idea of innocent until proven guilty inevitably means that some criminals will get off because the evidence is lacking (I'm not sure whether or not GZ is an example of this and that's basically the point). The only thing that Al Capone was convicted of was tax evasion. But I haven't got a better basis for a legal system, so I'm all for it if you've got a good idea.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So what law do you recommend? The idea of innocent until proven guilty inevitably means that some criminals will get off because the evidence is lacking (I'm not sure whether or not GZ is an example of this and that's basically the point). The only thing that Al Capone was convicted of was tax evasion. But I haven't got a better basis for a legal system, so I'm all for it if you've got a good idea.

The threshold for a self-defense claim ought to be higher than someone merely saying so. What we have here is a man having shot a teenager, claiming self defense and now the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did NOT act in self defense. That's all but impossible in this scenario. So there you have a certain set-up in which one can get away with murder. And that's what happened. And it can happen again.

I understand and support one's right to defend oneself but I believe that there ought to be some level of a burden of proof on the person that committed the homicide that it was justifiable.

[Darnell 8,479]

So what law do you recommend?

Legalize dueling.

[Teddy B 17,252]

The threshold for a self-defense claim ought to be higher than someone merely saying so. What we have here is a man having shot a teenager, claiming self defense and now the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did NOT act in self defense. That's all but impossible in this scenario. So there you have a certain set-up in which one can get away with murder. And that's what happened. And it can happen again.

I understand and support one's right to defend oneself but I believe that there ought to be some level of a burden of proof on the person that committed the homicide that it was justifiable.

Such as? GZ had the blood and the bruises, not sure what else there would be in a case like this.

[GandD 5,966]

Such as? GZ had the blood and the bruises, not sure what else there would be in a case like this.

Realistically, these wounds would have made it hard for me to believe anything beyond a shadow of a doubt. Those bruises are not a smoking gun but they do show it couldn't have possibly been a one sided fight. I assume the jury must have had problems getting past this as well.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

There it is! You just had to go and ruin the true blue Muricans fun. They haven't had anything go their way since the Presidential election of 2004, now they finally get an acquittal of GZ, a true victory for gun loving Muricans everywhere, and you go and rain on their parade. Damn you Penny!

Molar decay!

Well you know. You sure got a little bit of truth in your statement I will admit that .