Re: George Zimmerman Verdict
posted at 7/20/2013 2:18 PM EDT
In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
To P-Mike and all the others who claim the "evidence" shows Marin initiated the scuffle that was ended by Zimmerman's fatal shot to Martin's heart:
There is no evidence at all about who started the scuffle, other than Zimmerman's story of the events, which cannot be independently verified. It's quite possible, of course, that everything transpired exactly as Zimmerman described: i.e., basically Zimmerman was wandering around near his car and Martin "jumped him." But there are many other plausible scenarios. We simply don't know what happened and can't know, and anyone who says the evidence gives us an answer is biased, gullible, or not a very careful thinker.
To convict Zimmerman under current law, the jury would have had to have had evidence that showed beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's claim that Martin initiated the conflict was untrue. They didn't have that evidence, which is why an acquittal was the right decision given the law and the available evidence. However, the jury also did not have enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin initiated the scuffle. A lack of evidence that Zimmerman didn't initiate the scuffle does not translate into sufficient evidence that Martin did initiate it. P-Mike, RallyC, Babe, and basically every one of our conservative posters continue to base their arguments on this logical flaw that reasonable doubt about one version of events means a lack of reasonable doubt about another version. Both versions can be unproven and therefore both subject to reasonable doubt. Because of this an acquittal of Zimmerman does not translate into a conviction of Martin. And as I said before, you can't be convicted at someone else's trial.
It would be nice as well if you couldn't be summarily executed without trial for an alleged crime that normally isn't considered a capital offense . . . but hey, who cares about those little details. It's only some black kid dead. He probably would have ended up in jail or dead anyway.
Prolate, I only read the first 3-4 lines in your post above and that was more than enough to NAIL YOU.. You are wrong. Above you clearly and misleadingly state, "the jury also did not have enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin initiated the scuffle." Who told you this? Did the rest of us miss something that you were privy to? Did they actually try TM? How can you speculate that this would be the outcome of something that they never sent to trial because he is dead? This speaks volumes as to what you are doing..........LYING! The fact that GZ is NOT GUILTY as charged implies that GZ was exercising Self Defense, period. The Jurors are publicly stating that they absolutely have concluded that TM attacked GZ and that was the basis for their NOT GUILTY verdict. I heard this several times during the interviews. HERE ya go, straight from JUROR B37s MOUTH:
The juror said Martin played a "huge role in his death, " because he could have walked away from the confrontation with Zimmerman. "He didn't have to do whatever he did and come back and be in a fight."
Juror B37 told Anderson that she thought Zimmerman's actions were in self-defense. "I think the roles changed, I think George got in a little bit too deep, which he shouldn't have been there. But Trayvon decided that he wasn't gonna let him scare him ... and I think Trayvon got mad and attacked him."
Prolate, you don't just have the internet in Canada! We have it down here in the US too. Damn, man, that was pretty easy! Your statement, "the jury also did not have enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin initiated the scuffle." is a poor attempt at trying to imply that you know what you are talking about when in fact you are speculating, assuming, and making things up....AKA LYING. Prolante goes back into hiding in 3-2-1.....