Zimmerman, murderer and plagiarist

[Blind groper]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... story.html

Not only did the man get away with murder, but he is now cashing in with plagiarised paintings. He sold one painting for $ 100,000 based on his notoriety, and now tried to sell another which was copied from a press photo.

The man is scum.

[FBM]

Where was he when Bieber was running around Fla. at night?

[laklak]

Wouldn't be plagiarism, maybe copyright infringement if it's anything. Damn, 100 Gs? Dude turned lemons into lemonade, didn't he?

[cronus]

Could be classed as a parody. Does he post here?

[klr]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... story.html

Not only did the man get away with murder, but he is now cashing in with plagiarised paintings. He sold one painting for $ 100,000 based on his notoriety, and now tried to sell another which was copied from a press photo.

The man is scum.

And they believed this guy in court?

[Svartalf]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... story.html

Not only did the man get away with murder, but he is now cashing in with plagiarised paintings. He sold one painting for $ 100,000 based on his notoriety, and now tried to sell another which was copied from a press photo.

The man is scum.

And they believed this guy in court?

Well, nobody said that jury trial was the most efficient way to get an intelligent justice... relying on a bunch of average joes, i.e. morons cannot get very intelligent results, even if the result statistically be less idiotic than that of a single moron.

[jaydot]

he'll fuck up bigtime soon enough. he's got "fail" writ large all over him.

[Blind groper]

I agree about the jury trial. The telling comment I read was that, if you in court being tried, and are innocent, you should demand a judge, since he is more likely to reveal the truth, but if you are guilty you should insist on a jury since they are easier to fool.

[Seth]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... story.html

Not only did the man get away with murder, but he is now cashing in with plagiarised paintings. He sold one painting for $ 100,000 based on his notoriety, and now tried to sell another which was copied from a press photo.

The man is scum.

And they believed this guy in court?

Well, nobody said that jury trial was the most efficient way to get an intelligent justice... relying on a bunch of average joes, i.e. morons cannot get very intelligent results, even if the result statistically be less idiotic than that of a single moron.

It's better than all the other alternatives, which have all been tried and found severely wanting.

[Blind groper]

It's better than all the other alternatives, which have all been tried and found severely wanting.

Actually, Seth, that is not true. Lots of other potential systems have never been tried.

Charles Dickens said the law is an ass. I think its asinine character is related to its conservative nature and resistance to innovation.

I would like to see becoming a juror as being a career choice for tertiary qualified people who pass aptitude tests showing they can think rationally. A year of extra training to make sure they are knowledgeable about things a juror needs to know, like what evidence is credible, forensics, a little law, a little relevant psychology etc., and you would have people who would piss all over the "12 good men and true" selected at random from the 'Great Unwashed', which is the ridiculous system today.

[Blind groper]

It's better than all the other alternatives, which have all been tried and found severely wanting.

Actually, Seth, that is not true. Lots of other potential systems have never been tried.

Charles Dickens said the law is an ass. I think its asinine character is related to its conservative nature and resistance to innovation.

I would like to see becoming a juror as being a career choice for tertiary qualified people who pass aptitude tests showing they can think rationally. A year of extra training to make sure they are knowledgeable about things a juror needs to know, like what evidence is credible, forensics, a little law, a little relevant psychology etc., and you would have people who would piss all over the "12 good men and true" selected at random from the 'Great Unwashed', which is the ridiculous system today.

[Audley Strange]

It's better than all the other alternatives, which have all been tried and found severely wanting.

Actually, Seth, that is not true. Lots of other potential systems have never been tried.

Charles Dickens said the law is an ass. I think its asinine character is related to its conservative nature and resistance to innovation.

I would like to see becoming a juror as being a career choice for tertiary qualified people who pass aptitude tests showing they can think rationally. A year of extra training to make sure they are knowledgeable about things a juror needs to know, like what evidence is credible, forensics, a little law, a little relevant psychology etc., and you would have people who would piss all over the "12 good men and true" selected at random from the 'Great Unwashed', which is the ridiculous system today.

That is an insane idea. You can't see special interest groups using that to piss all over the rule of law?

Here's a better idea, stop thinking the masses or "the great unwashed" (demhumanise much? ) are some kind of idiotic lumpen mob that are incapable of judging a man or woman guilty or innocent of crimes. While you're on a roll, why not consider that the mob are too filthy and uneducated to play at politics, whether it be activism, actual politicking or the vote. Pretty fucking elitist of you (again).

Stop thinking that biased journalism is in any way shape or form enough for you to make a accurate judgement on the innocence or guilt of a person and that because you've read some articles and come to a conclusion that yours is somehow the correct one, when at least a dozen others had spent weeks deliberating over much more information than you would have heard.

You are also wrong. Zimmerman is not a murderer. No one is arguing he's not a killer, but murder is illegal killing, the jury decided he was within his legal rights. You may not like that law or that decision but he was found innocent. You seem to me to be like a lot of people, you only like the jury service the way you like democracy, when it comes to the same conclusions as you.

Just like most tyrants actually.

[Svartalf]

Nice sspeech, but let's be serious, the guy still got away with murder and is making off like a bandit... that speaks ill of the hoi polloi that let him off and let him earn money.

[Audley Strange]

Nice sspeech, but let's be serious, the guy still got away with murder and is making off like a bandit... that speaks ill of the hoi polloi that let him off and let him earn money.

Thanks. Okay you wish me to be serious? (BAH!) Okay Svart, just for you.

I don't agree. I do agree than in many places he may have been found guilty because there is no such "stand your ground law" but then many territories have different laws applicable. Just because you can travel at 90 mph down one motorway in Europe does not make it legal for you to do so everywhere nor is "everyone else does it" a decent legal defence.

Also it does not speak ill of the 12 people who considered him in the right, it speaks ill of the law, of the rolling assumption that when anyone other than a black police officer or other gang member kills a black person it is institutional racism and guilt is obvious. It speaks ill of a heavily agendized press which considers him guilty and will do anything and everything to keep the guy in the spotlight as a "bad person."

Is George Zimmerman guilty of killing Treyvon Martin, yes. He was found not guilty of murder. If you don't wish to accept that different countries have different laws and we should hold everyone to a similar standard then we should start imprisoning the troops and police officers who've killed people.

[Hermit]

...let's be serious, the guy still got away with murder...

According to the locally prevailing law he did not. Your judgement plainly places you above the law. You are being extra-judicial. I wholly agree with Audley Strange. You can rail against the law in question as much as you like - and if you do, I cannot but concur - but to say that Zimmermann is guilty plainly places you above the it.