Trayvon Martin

[Skashion]

Interesting that you think self defense and innocent until proven guilty are somehow uncivilised

Civilized people don't pass judgement before waiting for evidence. And civilised people don't so easily get caught up in the media sensationalism.

I'm in favour of the more civilised self-defence laws and burdens of proof that we see in the rest of the civilised world. If you want to get into a discussion of the failings of the American justice system, be my guest. America has the highest prison population in the world, along with the highest murder rates in the western world, and amongst the highest reoffending rates in the the western world. I suspect it's also the most expensive. It's not difficult to make a case against it being a inferior justice system.

I'm still waiting for this evidence to emerge which invalidates me. I suspect it won't. The only thing I said that was wrong was that Zimmerman had no injuries. This was on the basis that on the photos initially released, you couldn't see any. However, it became clear in the court case from the experts, that Zimmerman's injuries were superficial and in no way life threatening, so, no, no reason to change my mind.

I'm well past the point where I care what you think about me now though so you needn't bother calling me an uncivilised person.

 

[mcmanus]

Orange juice.

 

[ElanJo]

Interesting that you think self defense and innocent until proven guilty are somehow uncivilised

Civilized people don't pass judgement before waiting for evidence. And civilised people don't so easily get caught up in the media sensationalism.

I'm in favour of the more civilised self-defence laws and burdens of proof that we see in the rest of the civilised world. If you want to get into a discussion of the failings of the American justice system, be my guest. America has the highest prison population in the world, along with the highest murder rates in the western world, and amongst the highest reoffending rates in the the western world. I suspect it's also the most expensive. It's not difficult to make a case against it being a inferior justice system.

I'm still waiting for this evidence to emerge which invalidates me. I suspect it won't. The only thing I said that was wrong was that Zimmerman had no injuries. This was on the basis that on the photos initially released, you couldn't see any. However, it became clear in the court case from the experts, that Zimmerman's injuries were superficial and in no way life threatening, so, no, no reason to change my mind.

I'm well past the point where I care what you think about me now though so you needn't bother calling me an uncivilised person.

Self defense is very similar over here, as is burden of proof. General crime and prison figures etc. have little to do with this trial so there's no need to discuss the system or the laws as a whole.

You said more than that that turned out wrong. "fucking coons" springs to mind instantly. It's not just about getting facts wrong anyway, it's the rush to judgement also. I'm sure, if I fancied torturing myself, I could look back into the thread and find a decent handful of ignorant quotes. You generally parroted the idiots from TYT.
You don't have to have life-threatening injuries before you act to prevent life-threatening injuries, here or in the US.

 

[mcmanus]

Interesting that you think self defense and innocent until proven guilty are somehow uncivilised

Civilized people don't pass judgement before waiting for evidence. And civilised people don't so easily get caught up in the media sensationalism.

I'm in favour of the more civilised self-defence laws and burdens of proof that we see in the rest of the civilised world. If you want to get into a discussion of the failings of the American justice system, be my guest. America has the highest prison population in the world, along with the highest murder rates in the western world, and amongst the highest reoffending rates in the the western world. I suspect it's also the most expensive. It's not difficult to make a case against it being a inferior justice system.

I'm still waiting for this evidence to emerge which invalidates me. I suspect it won't. The only thing I said that was wrong was that Zimmerman had no injuries. This was on the basis that on the photos initially released, you couldn't see any. However, it became clear in the court case from the experts, that Zimmerman's injuries were superficial and in no way life threatening, so, no, no reason to change my mind.

I'm well past the point where I care what you think about me now though so you needn't bother calling me an uncivilised person.

Self defense is very similar over here, as is burden of proof. General crime and prison figures etc. have little to do with this trial so there's no need to discuss the system or the laws as a whole.

You said more than that that turned out wrong. "fucking coons" springs to mind instantly. It's not just about getting facts wrong anyway, it's the rush to judgement also. I'm sure, if I fancied torturing myself, I could look back into the thread and find a decent handful of ignorant quotes. You generally parroted the idiots from TYT.
You don't have to have life-threatening injuries before you act to prevent life-threatening injuries, here or in the US.

Do you reckon it's cool to kill niggers?

 

[Dzeko & Hyde]

Is murder even illegal in Florida now?

Nope. If you want to kill someone, you get into a fight and lose, simple as.

I think you're oversimplifying, here are the rules:

You: Victim: Result:
White Black Not Guilty
Black White Guilty
Black White Woman Guilty and Death Penalty

I do expect them to come out with seasons in which it's ok to shoot black people. It will be like when they have hunting seasons for deer or birds. And this won't be some kind of farce, they will obviously have limits on the number of blacks you can kill during a given hunting season.

Wrong. O.J. Simpson is black, and cut the head off the white mother of his children (and the head of another white man, as a bonus), and he walked.

 

[ElanJo]

I'm in favour of the more civilised self-defence laws and burdens of proof that we see in the rest of the civilised world. If you want to get into a discussion of the failings of the American justice system, be my guest. America has the highest prison population in the world, along with the highest murder rates in the western world, and amongst the highest reoffending rates in the the western world. I suspect it's also the most expensive. It's not difficult to make a case against it being a inferior justice system.

I'm still waiting for this evidence to emerge which invalidates me. I suspect it won't. The only thing I said that was wrong was that Zimmerman had no injuries. This was on the basis that on the photos initially released, you couldn't see any. However, it became clear in the court case from the experts, that Zimmerman's injuries were superficial and in no way life threatening, so, no, no reason to change my mind.

I'm well past the point where I care what you think about me now though so you needn't bother calling me an uncivilised person.

Self defense is very similar over here, as is burden of proof. General crime and prison figures etc. have little to do with this trial so there's no need to discuss the system or the laws as a whole.

You said more than that that turned out wrong. "fucking coons" springs to mind instantly. It's not just about getting facts wrong anyway, it's the rush to judgement also. I'm sure, if I fancied torturing myself, I could look back into the thread and find a decent handful of ignorant quotes. You generally parroted the idiots from TYT.
You don't have to have life-threatening injuries before you act to prevent life-threatening injuries, here or in the US.

Do you reckon it's cool to kill niggers?

Dunno if this is a joke or serious. Either way, you probably shouldn't have clicked 'submit'

 

[Skashion]

Self defense is very similar over here, as is burden of proof. General crime and prison figures etc. have little to do with this trial so there's no need to discuss the system or the laws as a whole.

You said more than that that turned out wrong. "fucking coons" springs to mind instantly. It's not just about getting facts wrong anyway, it's the rush to judgement also. I'm sure, if I fancied torturing myself, I could look back into the thread and find a decent handful of ignorant quotes. You generally parroted the idiots from TYT.
You don't have to have life-threatening injuries before you act to prevent life-threatening injuries, here or in the US.

As far as I know, in this country, once it is established you killed someone, the burden of proof switches on you to prove that you had to kill them in order to save your life, not that you remain innocent until proven guilty that you absolutely needn't have killed that person. In any case, the fact that he had a gun alone would have seen him get a substantial prison sentence here.

I really don't know how I was wrong about that at all. More racist comments were found on his Myspace pages. His racism wasn't the subject of the trial so perhaps you could explain how I was wrong. It doesn't matter really though. I said race was a motivation in following him, which it was, the guy had a proven history of racial profiling, not that it was the reason why he killed him - although it is an indirect reason. If he was white, he probably wouldn't have followed him. However, I'm sure I couldn't find any evidence of you pronouncing people guilty without a trial, oh no. Definitely not. I wouldn't, for instance, find any evidence that you called Muhammad a paedophile, even though he was never convicted by a jury of it. Anyway, this whole, defence of rush to judgement and media sensationalism is quite sweet and all, but why aren't you equally as angry with prariemoon for the same with his "Not so hard now, is he?" and his numerous incorrect assertions that were rendered incorrect by Zimmerman's own testimony, why only the foamers? I'll tell you why. You're not defending self-defence, or innocence until proven guilty, or rallying against media sensationalism and rush of judgement. You were on Zimmerman's side, plain and simple. You may have convinced yourself that only you remained impartial but that's the only person you convinced.

 

[floridablues]

Being from Florida I can say I have kept myself updated on this case and I'm just glad to see the trial be over now. Wether or not you agree with the verdict you cannot argue and say that the trial was unfair or biased because it was a fair case and with the evidence that was brought forth SIX jurors unanimously decided based on the evidence they were shown that Zimmerman was acting in self defense. While its terrible that Trayvon had to die those who try to portay him as an innocent and sweet 17 year old boy clearly just are turning a blind eye to the facts. People should be informed of the whole case when voicing there opinion. But everyone is entitled to their opinions and that's just me voicing mine :)

 

[Dzeko & Hyde]

Self defense is very similar over here, as is burden of proof. General crime and prison figures etc. have little to do with this trial so there's no need to discuss the system or the laws as a whole.

You said more than that that turned out wrong. "fucking coons" springs to mind instantly. It's not just about getting facts wrong anyway, it's the rush to judgement also. I'm sure, if I fancied torturing myself, I could look back into the thread and find a decent handful of ignorant quotes. You generally parroted the idiots from TYT.
You don't have to have life-threatening injuries before you act to prevent life-threatening injuries, here or in the US.

As far as I know, in this country, once it is established you killed someone, the burden of proof switches on you to prove that you had to kill them in order to save your life, not that you remain innocent until proven guilty that you absolutely needn't have killed that person. In any case, the fact that he had a gun alone would have seen him get a substantial prison sentence here.

I really don't know how I was wrong about that at all. More racist comments were found on his Myspace pages. His racism wasn't the subject of the trial so perhaps you could explain how I was wrong. It doesn't matter really though. I said race was a motivation in following him, which it was, the guy had a proven history of racial profiling, not that it was the reason why he killed him - although it is an indirect reason. If he was white, he probably wouldn't have followed him. However, I'm sure I couldn't find any evidence of you pronouncing people guilty without a trial, oh no. Definitely not. I wouldn't, for instance, find any evidence that you called Muhammad a paedophile, even though he was never convicted by a jury of it. Anyway, this whole, defence of rush to judgement and media sensationalism is quite sweet and all, but why aren't you equally as angry with prariemoon for the same with his "Not so hard now, is he?" and his numerous incorrect assertions that were rendered incorrect by Zimmerman's own testimony, why only the foamers? I'll tell you why. You're not defending self-defence, or innocence until proven guilty, or rallying against media sensationalism and rush of judgement. You were on Zimmerman's side, plain and simple. You may have convinced yourself that only you remained impartial but that's the only person you convinced.

Your premise is incorrect. The burden of proof never switches to the defendant. Zimmerman claimed he killed in self defense, which is legal under Florida law. The prosecution did not have the evidence to support that this wasn't self defense. Burden not met.

 

[Skashion]

Your premise is incorrect. The burden of proof never switches to the defendant. Zimmerman claimed he killed in self defense, which is legal under Florida law. The prosecution did not have the evidence to support that this wasn't self defense. Burden not met.

Are you an expert on UK self-defence law?

 

[Dzeko & Hyde]

Your premise is incorrect. The burden of proof never switches to the defendant. Zimmerman claimed he killed in self defense, which is legal under Florida law. The prosecution did not have the evidence to support that this wasn't self defense. Burden not met.

Are you an expert on UK self-defence law?

Why would we be talking about UK law with respect to the Zimmerman trial?

 

[Skashion]

Why would we be talking about UK law with respect to the Zimmerman trial?

Try following the conversation, we were discussing what what have happened in other countries. ElanJo said it would be the same in the UK. I don't think it would be. As far as I know, once you kill someone in Britain, the burden of proof switches to you so that it is you who must prove that you had to kill them to save yourself.

 

[ElanJo]

Self defense is very similar over here, as is burden of proof. General crime and prison figures etc. have little to do with this trial so there's no need to discuss the system or the laws as a whole.

You said more than that that turned out wrong. "fucking coons" springs to mind instantly. It's not just about getting facts wrong anyway, it's the rush to judgement also. I'm sure, if I fancied torturing myself, I could look back into the thread and find a decent handful of ignorant quotes. You generally parroted the idiots from TYT.
You don't have to have life-threatening injuries before you act to prevent life-threatening injuries, here or in the US.

As far as I know, in this country, once it is established you killed someone, the burden of proof switches on you to prove that you had to kill them in order to save your life, not that you remain innocent until proven guilty that you absolutely needn't have killed that person. In any case, the fact that he had a gun alone would have seen him get a substantial prison sentence here.

I really don't know how I was wrong about that at all. More racist comments were found on his Myspace pages. His racism wasn't the subject of the trial so perhaps you could explain how I was wrong. It doesn't matter really though. I said race was a motivation in following him, which it was, the guy had a proven history of racial profiling, not that it was the reason why he killed him - although it is an indirect reason. If he was white, he probably wouldn't have followed him. However, I'm sure I couldn't find any evidence of you pronouncing people guilty without a trial, oh no. Definitely not. I wouldn't, for instance, find any evidence that you called Muhammad a paedophile, even though he was never convicted by a jury of it. Anyway, this whole, defence of rush to judgement and media sensationalism is quite sweet and all, but why aren't you equally as angry with prariemoon for the same with his "Not so hard now, is he?" and his numerous incorrect assertions that were rendered incorrect by Zimmerman's own testimony, why only the foamers? I'll tell you why. You're not defending self-defence, or innocence until proven guilty, or rallying against media sensationalism and rush of judgement. You were on Zimmerman's side, plain and simple. You may have convinced yourself that only you remained impartial but that's the only person you convinced.

You do have a burden of proof but it is less than what is needed to prove murder.

You were wrong because he said "fucking punks". You and plenty of others, including TYT (from who you probably heard the tape initially), heard "coons" because you wanted to. Because you presumed racism right from the off. Or at least they did.
His Myspace rant about mexicans and cars doesn't strike me as all that shocking. Generalised, sure. The signs of a murderous racist, I don't know. The point is tho the rush to judgement. Zimmerman's history is kind of interesting for those that are so sure he was a racist. If I am not mistaken, he mentored some black kids for free. How many of us can say that? Perhaps it was all part of some long term diabolical cover scheme tho. His past tho is largely irrelevant as too whether he acted in self defense, as is Trayvon's history - good and bad.
As for Muhammad (lol btw), it's in the Quran, and it is definitional... What next? my criticisms of Yahweh?
As for Prairiemoon, if you recall, I was critical of him.

Saying I was on Zimmerman's side says more about you than me. Embarrassing stuff. I'm quite happy to let my comments speak for themselves. You've tried to mock me on my objectivity a few times in this thread but, as I recall (and I'm 99.99% sure of this), you've never -not once- given one example to underpin what you seem so sure of.

 

[Dzeko & Hyde]

Why would we be talking about UK law with respect to the Zimmerman trial?

Try following the conversation, we were discussing what what have happened in other countries. ElanJo said it would be the same in the UK. I don't think it would be. As far as I know, once you kill someone in Britain, the burden of proof switches to you so that it is you who must prove that you had to kill them to save yourself.

Speaking of other countries, what is the penalty for using racial slurs in the UK?

 

[Skashion]

You do have a burden of proof but it is less than what is needed to prove murder.

You were wrong because he said "fucking punks". You and plenty of others, including TYT (from who you probably heard the tape initially), heard "coons" because you wanted to. Because you presumed racism right from the off. Or at least they did.
His Myspace rant about mexicans and cars doesn't strike me as all that shocking. Generalised, sure. The signs of a murderous racist, I don't know. The point is tho the rush to judgement. Zimmerman's history is kind of interesting for those that are so sure he was a racist. If I am not mistaken, he mentored some black kids for free. How many of us can say that? Perhaps it was all part of some long term diabolical cover scheme tho. His past tho is largely irrelevant as too whether he acted in self defense, as is Trayvon's history - good and bad.
As for Muhammad (lol btw), it's in the Quran... What next? my criticisms of Yahweh?
As for Prairiemoon, if you recall, I was critical of him.

Saying I was on Zimmerman's side says more about you than me. Embarrassing stuff. I'm quite happy to let my comments speak for themselves

I stated very clearly once the prosecution was brought, and let's not forget that it wasn't being brought initially, which was the source of much of the outrage you condemn - even though that outrage ensured there was a trial, that they wouldn't be able to get a successful murder prosecution. However, in this country and I would think the vast majority of westernised countries, I think he would have been convicted of manslaughter. I'm quite happy to direct Bluemoon's legal professionals to this case and listen to their opinions on whether he would have been convicted under UK law - even assuming guns were legal.

So, you're saying you judged Muhammad then by the best established facts - those being a holy book? Guess, he flew up to heaven from Temple Mount as well then. Beam me up Allah.

I'm quite happy to let mine speak for myself. You're acting like I should be embarrassed by my statements in this thread. I am not remotely. Most people would find the idea that you can stalk someone, with a gun, get into a fight, and shoot someone dead because you were losing that fight, and remain a free man, absolutely fucking ridiculous. As I said, I could have killed a dozen people on the basis in exchange for a few scratches and bruises. I'll keep my scratches and bruises, and let those people live, ta.

 

[Dzeko & Hyde]

You do have a burden of proof but it is less than what is needed to prove murder.

You were wrong because he said "fucking punks". You and plenty of others, including TYT (from who you probably heard the tape initially), heard "coons" because you wanted to. Because you presumed racism right from the off. Or at least they did.
His Myspace rant about mexicans and cars doesn't strike me as all that shocking. Generalised, sure. The signs of a murderous racist, I don't know. The point is tho the rush to judgement. Zimmerman's history is kind of interesting for those that are so sure he was a racist. If I am not mistaken, he mentored some black kids for free. How many of us can say that? Perhaps it was all part of some long term diabolical cover scheme tho. His past tho is largely irrelevant as too whether he acted in self defense, as is Trayvon's history - good and bad.
As for Muhammad (lol btw), it's in the Quran... What next? my criticisms of Yahweh?
As for Prairiemoon, if you recall, I was critical of him.

Saying I was on Zimmerman's side says more about you than me. Embarrassing stuff. I'm quite happy to let my comments speak for themselves

I stated very clearly once the prosecution was brought, and let's not forget that it wasn't being brought initially, which was the source of much of the outrage you condemn - even though that outrage ensured there was a trial, that they wouldn't be able to get a successful murder prosecution. However, in this country and I would think the vast majority of westernised countries, I think he would have been convicted of manslaughter. I'm quite happy to direct Bluemoon's legal professionals to this case and listen to their opinions on whether he would have been convicted under UK law - even assuming guns were legal.

So, you're saying you judged Muhammad then by the best established facts - those being a holy book? Guess, he flew up to heaven from Temple Mount as well then. Beam me up Allah.

I'm quite happy to let mine speak for myself. You're acting like I should be embarrassed by my statements in this thread. I am not remotely. Most people would find the idea that you can stalk someone, with a gun, get into a fight, and shoot someone dead because you were losing that fight, and remain a free man, absolutely fucking ridiculous. As I said, I could have killed a dozen people on the basis in exchange for a few scratches and bruises. I'll keep my scratches and bruises, and let those people live, ta.

12 people?! Is that normal? In the U.S. I've never been jumped by anyone.

 

[Skashion]

12 people?! Is that normal? In the U.S. I've never been jumped by anyone.

Two occasions. I would say it is pretty normal in the 'chav capital' of Britain. In fact, one of my gobshite friends could have probably killed hundreds.

 

[Jumanji]

So in the US, you can pick a fight with anyone and then execute them if they fight back?

 

[malg]

Only just got in from walking the dogs and seen the news that the fella has been acquitted. I'm not interested in the debate about what would have happened over here, as it wouldn't have happened over here. He's been acquitted by a jury of his peers, so regardless of anyone's personal opinion on the case, justice has followed it's course. I'm now interested in the aftermath.

Therefore, for our American posters, how is it going down over there? I would imagine it's nowhere near as bad as the Rodney King case, but are the black population up in arms? Is Zimmerman safe? I'd imagine he's going to need a new identity and a move of State.

 

[Dzeko & Hyde]

So in the US, you can pick a fight with anyone and then execute them if they fight back?

It's a little more complex than that.