Father and son charged in Ahmaud Arbery’s murder.

grapedrink

Duke status
May 21, 2011
26,476
15,370
113
A Beach
I like how you managed to squeeze in a condescending ethnic jab in there.

Good work.

And I love how you mask you opinion with what happened in the trial while ignoring the fact that Zimmerman pursued TM without any evidence and initiated the confrontation, just like in this case.

But no, you're not defending Zimmerman, just like you're not defending Trump.
Again, I was never speaking about this case, and it sounds like these guys are guilty. If so, fry em.

in terms of TM/GZ, you are still struggling with the foundational tenets of our legal system. When you assume innocent until proven guolty, by definition you will have guilty people go free because of insufficient evidence. GZ could very well be guilty of malicious intent, but unfortunately the only other witness is dead. With a bloodied face, GZ can make the case that he acted in self defense, therefore the court had no choice but to find the defendant innocent, even if they are a POS with poor judgment and wannabe tough guy tendencies like GZ.

Like GDaddy said, politically motivated prosecutions don’t end well, and is why the DA didn’t even want to touch the GZ case with a 10 foot pole.
 

$kully

Duke status
Feb 27, 2009
60,602
17,672
113
Again, I was never speaking about this case, and it sounds like these guys are guilty. If so, fry em.

in terms of TM/GZ, you are still struggling with the foundational tenets of our legal system. When you assume innocent until proven guolty, by definition you will have guilty people go free because of insufficient evidence. GZ could very well be guilty of malicious intent, but unfortunately the only other witness is dead. If TM did initiate first contact, the court has no choice but to find the defendant innocent, even if they are a POS with poor judgment and wannabe tough guy tendencies like GZ.

Like GDaddy said, politically motivated prosecutions don’t end well, and is why the DA didn’t even want to touch the GZ case with a 10 foot pole.
Most reasonable people thought it was very clear from the 911 call that Zimmerman was at a safe distance and chose to pursue Martin before allegedly being ambushed.


Even if Martin turned on him and landed the first punch why didn't he have the right to defend himself from the "man" who was pursuing him with a loaded firearm as ill-fated as that decision may have been? Is the right to self-defense exclusive to those who possess firearms?
 
  • Like
Reactions: plasticbertrand

GDaddy

Duke status
Jan 17, 2006
29,230
2,056
113
Carlsbad
GZ was tried in a criminal court and acquitted by a jury . That entire prosecution was a giant waste of time. Which the original cops and DA had recognized from the outset. The prosecution got curb stomped in court.

His acquittal doesn't mean GZ didn't actually stalk and ambush TM, it just means the case was weak. Which happens on the regular IRL. Lots of people get off due to the weaknesses of a case. Defense attys effectively exist in order to create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case.
 

$kully

Duke status
Feb 27, 2009
60,602
17,672
113
GZ was tried in a criminal court and acquitted by a jury in nearly record time. That entire prosecution was a giant waste of time. They got stomped in court. That doesn't mean GZ didn't actually stalk and ambush TM, it just means the case was weak. Which happens.

Or that society in many parts of this country is overwhelmingly racist?
 

GDaddy

Duke status
Jan 17, 2006
29,230
2,056
113
Carlsbad
Do you have any idea how common it is for the State to decline to prosecute a criminal case based not on whether or not they thought the suspect was actually guilty but on the basis of the case being weak within the context of meeting the burden of proof?
 

grapedrink

Duke status
May 21, 2011
26,476
15,370
113
A Beach
So much this.

Do not underestimate ethos.

Ya hear grapejuice?
Again, I never defended the rednecks or blamed the victim in this story. Nor does agreeing with a legal outcome mean that I defend the character of the defendant. No matter how many times you lie about it, thems the facts.
 

grapedrink

Duke status
May 21, 2011
26,476
15,370
113
A Beach
Most reasonable people thought it was very clear from the 911 call that Zimmerman was at a safe distance and chose to pursue Martin before allegedly being ambushed.


Even if Martin turned on him and landed the first punch why didn't he have the right to defend himself from the "man" who was pursuing him with a loaded firearm as ill-fated as that decision may have been? Is the right to self-defense exclusive to those who possess firearms?
Did you take a basic Law class in high school? FF has an excuse but If you have a HS diploma then you should know better.

By having a bloodied up face and being the only witness, the burden of proof for the prosecution is simply not possible to achieve. Any halfwit nolo contender could defend that case. The courts had no choice but to give GZ the benefit of the doubt.

Where it gets sticky is at what point do you have the right to attack someone who is pursuing you. Or what level of force is appropriate. Or what type of person has the right to pursue who they think is a criminal. Of course a police officer does, but where it gets murky are private security guards, neighborhood watch, etc. Those are legal can o worms, and I openly admit that I do not have a clear answer, however I don’t think that you do either.
 

GDaddy

Duke status
Jan 17, 2006
29,230
2,056
113
Carlsbad
In this current case I think the locals should have brought the state in straightaway, right when they decided their case looked weak. Let the State take the heat if it turned out they couldn't secure a conviction.
 

plasticbertrand

Duke status
Jan 12, 2009
21,904
14,744
113
Again, I never defended the rednecks or blamed the victim in this story. Nor does agreeing with a legal outcome mean that I defend the character of the defendant. No matter how many times you lie about it, thems the facts.
I was referring to the power of ethos - the set of beliefs a society lives by.

Which you constantly deny and oppose.

America told Georgia to get their sh!t together and shape up.

For once, the power of social media was used for a good cause.

And you absolutely blamed the victim and defended Zimmerman.

Maybe you did it just to contradict me and not because you really believe in, but that's your problem.

You do the same with Trump. TDS TDS TDS TDS TDS
 

plasticbertrand

Duke status
Jan 12, 2009
21,904
14,744
113
Did you take a basic Law class in high school? FF has an excuse but If you have a HS diploma then you should know better.

By having a bloodied up face and being the only witness, the burden of proof for the prosecution is simply not possible to achieve. Any halfwit nolo contender could defend that case. The courts had no choice but to give GZ the benefit of the doubt.
Really? A salesman is telling me that I don't have a high school diploma? That's rich.

You are really on the roll with personal insults in this thread, ethnic and otherwise.

I also love your logic about bloodied face and no witnesses.

It's a genius way to get away with murder.

You can start a fight with any person who is guilty of no crime, and when you start losing the fight, kill them in cold blood and claim your innocence.

Genius.
 

kidfury

Duke status
Oct 14, 2017
25,144
10,847
113
Really? A salesman is telling me that I don't have a high school diploma? That's rich.

You are really on the roll with personal insults in this thread, ethnic and otherwise.

I also love your logic about bloodied face and no witnesses.

It's a genius way to get away with murder.

You can start a fight with any person who is guilty of no crime, and when you start losing the fight, kill them in cold blood and claim your innocence.

Genius.
Worked for him. Zimmerman had a great lawyer.