Zimmerman in the news, part 438939222221093232

[coloradoatheist]

So we are a country that allows vigilante justice instead of justice to determine things?

Florida passed a law designed specifically to uphold vigilante justice. It'd just be ironic if it helped Zimmerman assault once, then helped his own assaulter the next time.

It could happen, though I think Apperson will be found guilty.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

And at the trial today Zimmerman claimed Black Lives Matter is a terrorist organization.

Apparently, Zimmerman has supernatural powers to channel people from this forum. So, he REALLY is dangerous after all.

 

[Arctish]

Maybe. If Zimmerman gets killed, the Apperson's could tell a version of events that could not be disputed by Zimmerman and which may have led to no charges.

But actually killing him could have helped or hurt him more. It would have helped if Zimmerman had his gun out and that fell into the next seat or floor. That would give evidence of it. But right now things aren't looking good for Apperson.

Apperson wouldn't have needed Zimmerman to have a gun out to make the claim he feared for his life anymore than the gun-toting Zimmerman needed Martin to be likewise armed to make the exact same claim.

Florida's SYG law might as well be called the Dead Men Tell No Tales law. Under its provisions, merely claiming you were afraid someone would hurt you is enough to escape prosecution for killing them.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Florida passed a law designed specifically to uphold vigilante justice. It'd just be ironic if it helped Zimmerman assault once, then helped his own assaulter the next time.

It could happen, though I think Apperson will be found guilty.

Well yeah. Zimmerman is little bit lucky to be alive. Apperson doesn't seem well. ld's point did seem to escape you though, that if there is an incident between two people, it is best off to off the other guy to be able to make certain that the incident can be retold in your own favor.

 

[coloradoatheist]

But actually killing him could have helped or hurt him more. It would have helped if Zimmerman had his gun out and that fell into the next seat or floor. That would give evidence of it. But right now things aren't looking good for Apperson.

Apperson wouldn't have needed Zimmerman to have a gun out to make the claim he feared for his life anymore than the gun-toting Zimmerman needed Martin to be likewise armed to make the exact same claim.

Florida's SYG law might as well be called the Dead Men Tell No Tales law. Under its provisions, merely claiming you were afraid someone would hurt you is enough to escape prosecution for killing them.

I disagree. While it's a little broad, there is still a definition of reasonable in there. The argument has been about what is considered reasonable, and right now Apperson doesn't have it.

- - - Updated - - -

It could happen, though I think Apperson will be found guilty.

Well yeah. Zimmerman is little bit lucky to be alive. Apperson doesn't seem well. ld's point did seem to escape you though, that if there is an incident between two people, it is best off to off the other guy to be able to make certain that the incident can be retold in your own favor.

It still has to be within the facts and evidence that's there though. If Apperson had said Zimmerman had shot at him then there would need to be some evidence of it.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It still has to be within the facts and evidence that's there though.

It can also be in a hole where there are no facts and evidence so long as it is not grossly inconsistent with said facts and evidence. For example, Apperson could have claimed that Zimmerman saw his gun and reached for it while saying "I'm gonna kill you." As long as no one [or virtually no one] witnessed this particular timeframe up close within hearing range (a hole not grossly inconsistent with evidence), the defendant is entitled to possibly be believed. I mean, look at all the stuff Zimmerman says that Martin did but no one saw Martin say he was going to kill him or that he was trying to get a gun. Even Zimmerman's claim about wrist control is inconsistent with his alleged lack of knowledge about fighting, yet there it was...

 

[coloradoatheist]

It still has to be within the facts and evidence that's there though.

It can also be in a hole where there are no facts and evidence so long as it is not grossly inconsistent with said facts and evidence. For example, Apperson could have claimed that Zimmerman saw his gun and reached for it while saying "I'm gonna kill you." As long as no one [or virtually no one] witnessed this particular timeframe up close within hearing range (a hole not grossly inconsistent with evidence), the defendant is entitled to possibly be believed. I mean, look at all the stuff Zimmerman says that Martin did but no one saw Martin say he was going to kill him or that he was trying to get a gun. Even Zimmerman's claim about wrist control is inconsistent with his alleged lack of knowledge about fighting, yet there it was...

Did Apperson claim that in his initial report to the police officers that day? Even with what Z said during his several encounters with the police officers would be questions even if he is the sole person to witness it.

 

[laughing dog]

So we are a country that allows vigilante justice instead of justice to determine things?

Anyone who has been paying attention in this forum and to the news would know the answer is YES.

 

[coloradoatheist]

So we are a country that allows vigilante justice instead of justice to determine things?

Anyone who has been paying attention in this forum and to the news would know the answer is YES.

So can anyone take an unsolved case for example and go out and kill the person they think who did it? Would it be okay to go out and kill Burke or John Ramsay for example?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It can also be in a hole where there are no facts and evidence so long as it is not grossly inconsistent with said facts and evidence. For example, Apperson could have claimed that Zimmerman saw his gun and reached for it while saying "I'm gonna kill you." As long as no one [or virtually no one] witnessed this particular timeframe up close within hearing range (a hole not grossly inconsistent with evidence), the defendant is entitled to possibly be believed. I mean, look at all the stuff Zimmerman says that Martin did but no one saw Martin say he was going to kill him or that he was trying to get a gun. Even Zimmerman's claim about wrist control is inconsistent with his alleged lack of knowledge about fighting, yet there it was...

Did Apperson claim that in his initial report to the police officers that day? Even with what Z said during his several encounters with the police officers would be questions even if he is the sole person to witness it.

Not enough questions apparently.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Did Apperson claim that in his initial report to the police officers that day? Even with what Z said during his several encounters with the police officers would be questions even if he is the sole person to witness it.

Not enough questions apparently.

Or that the evidence was on Z's side and minor inconcistencies at the time didn't bother them.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Not enough questions apparently.

Or that the evidence was on Z's side and minor inconcistencies at the time didn't bother them.

Once again, his claims were in a hole. That isn't evidence on his side, but instead ambiguity. That is, no one saw Martin threaten Zimmerman and no one saw Martin reach for the gun.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Or that the evidence was on Z's side and minor inconcistencies at the time didn't bother them.

Once again, his claims were in a hole. That isn't evidence on his side, but instead ambiguity. That is, no one saw Martin threaten Zimmerman and no one saw Martin reach for the gun.

But they aren't against any evidence that was at the scene or with the witnesses. If they had gone to the scene and Z said Martin was punching him and fighting him but there absolutely no signs of being in a fight, it would be a problem.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Once again, his claims were in a hole. That isn't evidence on his side, but instead ambiguity. That is, no one saw Martin threaten Zimmerman and no one saw Martin reach for the gun.

But they aren't against any evidence that was at the scene or with the witnesses. If they had gone to the scene and Z said Martin was punching him and fighting him but there absolutely no signs of being in a fight, it would be a problem.

That's not what you wrote, though. You wrote the following:

It still has to be within the facts and evidence that's there though.

Z's claims were not WITHIN the facts and evidence. They were OUTSIDE the facts and evidence but not "grossly" in disagreement.

 

[laughing dog]

Not enough questions apparently.

Or that the evidence was on Z's side and minor inconcistencies at the time didn't bother them.

If you think that, why would you question whether Apperson could concoct a story with only minor inconsistencies that would get him off the hook?

 

[Arctish]

Or that the evidence was on Z's side and minor inconcistencies at the time didn't bother them.

Once again, his claims were in a hole. That isn't evidence on his side, but instead ambiguity. That is, no one saw Martin threaten Zimmerman and no one saw Martin reach for the gun.

And this was coloradoatheist's main point in the thread where he and I discussed the Zimmerman-Martin case in detail: no one saw what happened when Zimmerman and Martin met up on that sidewalk therefore Zimmerman should be presumed to be telling the truth. Jeantel only heard the initial exchange of words (in which Zimmerman was clearly creating a confrontation and Martin was demanding to know why) and sounds consistent with Martin running away but that doesn't matter, we don't know what happened so whatever Zimmerman says happened must be accepted as truth.


ETA: The discussion took place here.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Or that the evidence was on Z's side and minor inconcistencies at the time didn't bother them.

If you think that, why would you question whether Apperson could concoct a story with only minor inconsistencies that would get him off the hook?

Because more often than not, when you try and make the story up you will screw something up. But people still do get away with murder.

- - - Updated - - -

But they aren't against any evidence that was at the scene or with the witnesses. If they had gone to the scene and Z said Martin was punching him and fighting him but there absolutely no signs of being in a fight, it would be a problem.

That's not what you wrote, though. You wrote the following:

It still has to be within the facts and evidence that's there though.

Z's claims were not WITHIN the facts and evidence. They were OUTSIDE the facts and evidence but not "grossly" in disagreement.

Your argument was that since we didn't hear Martin's side of the story then we can't know if the other side is true. Yes, but your arguments were the wrists, Martin saying I am going to kill you. So would it be physically impossible for either two to happen?

 

[laughing dog]

If you think that, why would you question whether Apperson could concoct a story with only minor inconsistencies that would get him off the hook?

Because more often than not, when you try and make the story up you will screw something up.

The probability of that occurring is greatly reduced when the victim cannot talk.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Z's claims were not WITHIN the facts and evidence. They were OUTSIDE the facts and evidence but not "grossly" in disagreement.

Your argument was that since we didn't hear Martin's side of the story then we can't know if the other side is true.

It was?

Yes, but your arguments were the wrists, Martin saying I am going to kill you.

Wut?

So would it be physically impossible for either two to happen?

You seem to writing in a way that is too abbreviated and slightly askew from our discussion. So you've lost me.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Your argument was that since we didn't hear Martin's side of the story then we can't know if the other side is true.

It was?

Yes, but your arguments were the wrists, Martin saying I am going to kill you.

Wut?

So would it be physically impossible for either two to happen?

You seem to writing in a way that is too abbreviated and slightly askew from our discussion. So you've lost me.

I asked earlier. What facts were outside of the evidence. Not what facts you don't think are true. I know of one possible one that Zimmerman could have expanded on in the Martin case.