quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kana

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn


If you read the police record concerning GZ, and read the logs of his 46 calls to the police, and still think that this is someone we want to have as implementing "justice" in our society, then the fact that you concur with this explains a f*ck of a lot about what's seriously wrong with this society.

I never said I concur.You're putting words in my mouth. I said I saw no way any jury could find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.In fact, I think my exacts words were something like, "A second year law student could try this case. If a real lawyer tries it and can't raise reasonable doubt, they should be disbarred for incompetence."
It was open and shut. That ain't just my opinion.Di Maio, a defense witness with all the reasons in the world to spend lots of time investigating,billed Z's team only $2,400, six hours at $400 per. When the prosecution asked him why so little time,he said that forensically it was a simple straightforward case.
Most importantly, there was no evidence or substantial eyewitness to disprove Z's version of events. That was the critical thing. There was enough reasonable doubt to drive a squadron of Panzer tanks through.

And again, don't you think that if Z were that dangerous, the Feds report would have mentioned that little tidbit somewhere. Or are you suggesting that Obama and Holder conspired to withhold evidence that may have implicated Z? Please tell me so, because that would simply be too juicy for words...

"Blah blah, blah blah, etc. ...."

Thanks for pounding your emphasis at every opportunity that you are incapable of understanding the distinction or difference between the law and actual justice.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

Thanks for pounding your emphasis at every opportunity that you are incapable of understanding the distinction or difference between the law and actual justice.

You've brought it up. So explain it. What IS the difference? I believe we all agree on what the law is - what is "actual justice"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBBTBW

The sad thing about this and the racial tension it has caused is that, IF this was a kid of ANY race that he killed, people would still be up in arms. However, because it was a black kid, black people automatically become the enemy because we are angry that a killer got off. Regardless of the reasons Mr. Zimmerman gave for killing Mr. Martin, Mr. Zimmerman caused the altercation by not doing what he was told by the 911 operator and taking matters into his own hands. Putting race and motive aside it seems very few people are considering that maybe Mr. Martin felt threatened because he was being followed in the dark. Fortunately or unfortunately he wasn't armed and couldn't effectively protect himself from a vigilante with a gun.

quote:



And really, we don't know what justice is in this case.Yes, it's possible that Z stalked M after profiling him as the black man he wanted to kill that night. It's also possible, and supported by the available evidence, that Z was an innocent man attempting to save himself from an assault, making a snap decision while having his head pounded on the pavement by a racist thug.
We don't know. And we'll never know.
What is fact is that we live in a country where the cornerstone of our justice system is that it's better 100 guilty men go free than one innocent suffer in jail.
The reason for that is that the men who founded this country were painfully aware of the oppressive possibilities of an overzealous politically motivated justice system. They created the laws the way they did to save us from each other...and from the tyranny of government.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Justice is not the same as law.

quote:

The law has a lot less to do with justice than you think it does.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Justice is not the same as law.

Thank you. Finally, someone else understands. That's the point I have been making this whole time.

quote:

The law has a lot less to do with justice than you think it does.

OK, I take that back, you are actually clueless, and lack comprehension skills, but carry on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kana

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kana

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn


If you read the police record concerning GZ, and read the logs of his 46 calls to the police, and still think that this is someone we want to have as implementing "justice" in our society, then the fact that you concur with this explains a f*ck of a lot about what's seriously wrong with this society.


I never said I concur.You're putting words in my mouth. I said I saw no way any jury could find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.In fact, I think my exacts words were something like, "A second year law student could try this case. If a real lawyer tries it and can't raise reasonable doubt, they should be disbarred for incompetence."
It was open and shut. That ain't just my opinion.Di Maio, a defense witness with all the reasons in the world to spend lots of time investigating,billed Z's team only $2,400, six hours at $400 per. When the prosecution asked him why so little time,he said that forensically it was a simple straightforward case.
Most importantly, there was no evidence or substantial eyewitness to disprove Z's version of events. That was the critical thing. There was enough reasonable doubt to drive a squadron of Panzer tanks through.

And again, don't you think that if Z were that dangerous, the Feds report would have mentioned that little tidbit somewhere. Or are you suggesting that Obama and Holder conspired to withhold evidence that may have implicated Z? Please tell me so, because that would simply be too juicy for words...

"Blah blah, blah blah, etc. ...."

Thanks for pounding your emphasis at every opportunity that you are incapable of understanding the distinction or difference between the law and actual justice.

quote:

I kinda think you're type of justice might involve mobs with torches and pitchforks.

That's all you, bud. If that's what you go to sleep with at night, then that's you, not me.

quote:

And really, we don't know what justice is in this case.Yes, it's possible that Z stalked M after profiling him as the black man he wanted to kill that night. It's also possible, and supported by the available evidence, that Z was an innocent man attempting to save himself from an assault, making a snap decision while having his head pounded on the pavement by a racist thug.
We don't know. And we'll never know.

What we know, or at least the sane among us know, is that 'don't pursue' means don't pursue, however politely worded, when 'suggested' from one who is a direct representative of law enforcement to a person with a record of hostility who only can imagine himself as such.

quote:

What is fact is that we live in a country where the cornerstone of our justice system is that it's better 100 guilty men go free than one innocent suffer in jail.
The reason for that is that the men who founded this country were painfully aware of the oppressive possibilities of an overzealous politically motivated justice system. They created the laws the way they did to save us from each other...and from the tyranny of government.

I'm with you on that, being saved from the tyranny of government, and snap judgement of government agents, and all that. But you argue that we should not be saved from self identified, non-democratic ideas of justice or snap judgement implementation of 'his own idea of justice' nutjobs like Zimmerman.

I think you're floundering here.


Did the jury convict Martin, here? No they didn't. But Zimmerman convicted and executed Martin. And you're OK with that.


I think that this whole episode has drawn nutjobs of every stripe out of the woodwork.





Your subsequent babbling just repeats the mantra of same.

< Message edited by Edwynn -- 7/16/2013 9:04:38 PM >

(in reply to Kana)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Justice is not the same as law.

Thank you. Finally, someone else understands. That's the point I have been making this whole time.

quote:

The law has a lot less to do with justice than you think it does.

OK, I take that back, you are actually clueless, and lack comprehension skills, but carry on.

quote:

Edwyn

I stand by my comment. I understand that you have been saying there was no justice in this decision. The reason I made my comment is that you are suffering under the illusion that there could be.

The very word justice is subjective. It means that things will get arranged so that what should happen - does happen.
But what that is - depends on the person that thinks it. Your idea of justice is different than the KKK's idea of justice.

The law, on the other hand is objective, to the extent that any human endeavor can be. Is it proved that the defendent did X,Y, or Z. If so, these are the penalties. That is ALL the law can ever do.

Your idea of Justice says Zimmerman should pay. But the law says - there is nothing I can do -there is no evidence he broke the law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Ah .. we've now located the entire source of the problem. You don't understand what 'evidence' means. Zimmerman breathing heavy might be evidence of being out of shape - but it is conjecture (guessing, wild-assed speculation) to call it pursuit.

Zimmerman admitted to pursuing Martin on the call to the police. He also admitted after he killed Martin that he didn't stop when the dispatcher told him to.

A following not pursuing

B if Zimmerman should have ignored police advice to carry a gun as you said how does ignoring advice not to follow make him a murderer?

Uh Duh: Because

1. Following is not murdering. They have two different definitions. Look them up if unclear. Zimmerman had a right to be there, just as M did.
2a. The dispcher didn't tell him to stop FOLLOWING M; he said "we don't need you to do that".
3. By parsing your words, you are trying to suggest that Zimmerman stalked Martin and then shot him. There is no evidence to support that. None.
4. The correct line of events is

4a. Zimmerman calls in martin.
4b. At some point Zimmerman 'loses' martin; and the police dispatcher tells him we don't need you to follow him. Zimmerman says "OK" and heads back to his truck.
4c. The alteration occurs.
This is what the preponderance of the evidence suggest, as confirmed by the jury verdict.
5. Self Defense. By definition its not murder.
6. Reasonable doubt. Even if what you said were true, the prosecutor has to be able to prove it. He came nowhere near that standard.

Anyone remember Bernie Goetz?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Zimmerman did not go back to his truck. There is simply no way he would have been where the fight occurred if he headed back to his truck when the call to the police ended 2 minutes prior to the start of the fight.

quote:



No, No, and again, No.

My 'idea' of justice says that some nutjob should not take it upon himself to implement what society that he is allowed to live in has determined what constitutes justice.

After this, who in the f*ck needs police anymore?

It's obvious from this that we can get by on the cheap from an assortment of nut cases for the task.


What's being argued here is what constitutes justice, and who is to administer it.


I don't care about the verdict, on its own, other than what it says about the society that conjures such laws as to force the jury to this verdict.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

One moral of this story is you can end a fist-fight or wrestling match against an unarmed opponent with a handgun and walk away scott-free to cheers from Fox News.

I think David Simon was more upset with the verdict than DomKen.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Cool heads with sound views are very much appreciated.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kana
I kinda think you're [sic] type of justice might involve mobs with torches and pitchforks

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

One moral of this story is you can end a fist-fight or wrestling match against an unarmed opponent with a handgun and walk away scott-free to cheers from Fox News.

I think David Simon was more upset with the verdict than DomKen.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Cool heads with sound views are very much appreciated.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux



Edwynn - there is no such thing as absolute justice.

quote:

Do you think your idea of justice is the same as a KKK members?

quote:

I commend you - that you have a strong hunger for justice ...

quote:

The problem with your definition of justice