Zimmerman NOT guilty
- Thread starter JLM
- Start date
So, with the understanding that assault is indeed considered a crime in Florida - is it possible that Martin was illegally assaulting Zimmerman?
Yes. It is also possible that Martin was justified in so doing, if indeed he did so. We will never know, because Martin is unable to speak for himself.
That you choose to cast defamatory implications at a child who is unable to answer is, alas, unsurprising.
My query had nothing to do with the justification of his actions, that is another question entirely.
Their is nothing implied nor defamatory about the question... As I understand it, the allegations of Trayvon's actions were proven beyond a shadow of doubt.
If there were any negative connotations associated with the actions, one must look directly at the individual that executed those actions, non?
Last edited:
Trayvon killed, AND US reneged poverty promises kill 20,000 children daily
Posted on July 17, 2013 by Carl Herman
4-minute video: the blunt truth about Trayvon Martin’s death
Trayvon Martin’s death is a tragedy.
And that said: US political leadership has reneged on every promise to save the lives of helpless children, resulting in the deaths of ~20,000 every day from preventable poverty. Since the US ongoing lies to care for children at the 1990 World Summit for Children, nearly 200,000,000 children have died in gruesome agony far more painful than death by gunshot.
And that said: the US government was found guilty in civil trial for the greatest racist assassination in American history: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
US psychopathy with deaths of children definitively refutes their claims to care for any child’s life, and invalidates their motive for gun control as caring for innocent lives, notwithstanding President Obama’s crocodile tears for Trayvon.
Despite the US promise to save these innocent children’s lives dying from poverty being a mere 0.7% of our income, and US public willingness to contribute up to 10% of our income to help the poor, US “leadership” never admit their dishonored promise to American families and children. Read my Economics of ending poverty for complete documentation.
The total number of human beings dead from preventable poverty since the 1990 World Summit for Children is conservatively greater than all deaths from all wars, murders, and acts of violence in recorded human history.
As you may know, US direct causality of war-murders is 20-30 million since reneging on treaty law to never use armed attack as foreign policy.
You will have to read about these facts from alternative media. The six corporations that dominate US medi
Posted on July 17, 2013 by Carl Herman
4-minute video: the blunt truth about Trayvon Martin’s death
Trayvon Martin’s death is a tragedy.
And that said: US political leadership has reneged on every promise to save the lives of helpless children, resulting in the deaths of ~20,000 every day from preventable poverty. Since the US ongoing lies to care for children at the 1990 World Summit for Children, nearly 200,000,000 children have died in gruesome agony far more painful than death by gunshot.
And that said: the US government was found guilty in civil trial for the greatest racist assassination in American history: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
US psychopathy with deaths of children definitively refutes their claims to care for any child’s life, and invalidates their motive for gun control as caring for innocent lives, notwithstanding President Obama’s crocodile tears for Trayvon.
Despite the US promise to save these innocent children’s lives dying from poverty being a mere 0.7% of our income, and US public willingness to contribute up to 10% of our income to help the poor, US “leadership” never admit their dishonored promise to American families and children. Read my Economics of ending poverty for complete documentation.
The total number of human beings dead from preventable poverty since the 1990 World Summit for Children is conservatively greater than all deaths from all wars, murders, and acts of violence in recorded human history.
As you may know, US direct causality of war-murders is 20-30 million since reneging on treaty law to never use armed attack as foreign policy.
You will have to read about these facts from alternative media. The six corporations that dominate US medi
How about child soldier?
Didn't he make mention on some social media platform that he had obtained a handgun?
That seems to pretty will delineate the limits of your understanding. Nothing at all was proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.
For your instruction, I will point out some of the errors in your statement.
1. The only thing the trial was to prove "beyond a shadow of a doubt" was that Zimmerman did, without justification, commit homicide upon Trayvon Martin. It failed to do so, and therefore Zimmerman was acquitted.
2. "Beyond a shadow of a doubt" is not, and has never been, the standard of guilt in the United States. The standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt."
3. Trayvon Martin and what actions he may or may not have taken were not on trial, and not being proven one way or the other. Zimmerman's actions were, and again, nothing was proven. The verdict was that there was sufficient doubt about Zimmerman's actions to acquit him of the charges.
I understand that laypeople are often under the mistaken impression that an acquittal somehow means that the defendant's story is the absolute truth, but it ain't so. An acquittal means exactly one thing: the evidence presented does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime and was unjustified in doing so.
The law says blah blah blah . I think they were both guilty of stupidity and therefore perfect players in the bigger picture here. Outpourings of emotions at a time of national crisis, the whole thing is a giant sugar pill for fools who love DR Swill and Ophra Windbag. The nation thingy is doomed meanwhile the fukking band continues to play on a twisting deck while the chief officers row away from the wreak laughing. Justice from a paint can.
That's certainly an odd statement. Apparently Zimmerman was justified as per the ruling.
Good point, please consider my previous statement to read 'beyond a reasonable doubt'
I see, so the jury did not exonerate Zimmerman based on a form of self-defense relative to Trayvon's actions?
Was the defense strategy to suggest that Zimmerman was shooting at a mosquito and Trayvon accidentally got in the way?
I can probably predict what I'd find on his twitter feed based on what I see other posturing young boys post on their facebook and twitter feeds. Do you think some internet posturing makes you a man?
Again, the only thing that is proven in a criminal trial is that, beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused committed the criminal act without justification.
You may search the court records in vain, and you will find no certification by the jury, the judge, or any other member or part of the legal system that says that Zimmerman was, as a matter of fact, justified in what he did.
One. . . more. . . time. . . the only thing the trial "proved" is that there is sufficient doubt that Zimmerman criminally killed Trayvon Martin to produce an acquittal . That's why the verdict is "not guilty" rather than "innocent."
That is correct. It is not the role of juries to exonerate anyone. Their role is to determine if a person is, under the standards of the law, guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime charged, or not. That is their only role.
If you want to know what the defense strategy was, you will have little trouble finding it on the internet.
Tell ya what, let's cut right to the chase here.
Can Zimmerman be retried on these criminal charges? If not, then he is, in all practical and functional purposes, he is innocent.
Mincing words will not change that reality if the above statement is accurate, will it?
I suggest reading it.
As for the rhetorical 'make him a man' bit, we all know the answer but he wasn't a widdle kid. :lol:
You miss the point again. Zimmerman was not found to be innocent. Criminal defendants are never found to be innocent. They are found either guilty or not guilty. That is all the criminal law concerns itself with.
And to complicate things further, "guilty" as a legal term of art does not mean the same thing that it means in common use. Allow me to present and example. I imagine you remember the O.J. Simpson murder case. You may recall that Simpson was found not guilty of murdering Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, but that he was later found in a civil trial to have been responsible for their deaths. If the criminal verdict had meant that, as a matter of fact, Simpson did not kill Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, or that he was justified in doing so, then that would have been an absolute bar to the civil verdict.
The day that I begin to even suspect that you would tolerate a grown man strapping on a gun and following your 17 year old son around his neighbourhood, I'll listen to your views of what a child is or isn't. But I know darn well there is not a single poster on here, who were they the parent to Trayvon Martin, would tolerate having their teenager threatened and followed in the manner he was. 'widdle kid' is moronic. But he most certainly wasn't an adult, living at home in a gated community and posting on Twitter. Hard core.
I understand what you are driving at, this is why I was careful to identify criminal proceedings rather than civil.
Zimmerman can expect to spend the next few years in civil court defending himself.