State v Zimmerman

[mistermack]

How about when Osama was shot? Was he the "victim" and the Navy Seal the "murderer?"

That's exactly what he was.
Unless you have some special knowledge about the principle of innocent till proven guilty.

This is just an illustration of the fact that George Bush's declaration of war on "terror" was really just a device to legitimise murder, without trial.
The US President can now order the murder of anybody, so long as he calls him a terrorist.

[mistermack]

You think Zimmerman is some kind of tough guy. That's hilarious.

You can't even read english. That's hilarious.

[Tero]

Z reminds me of Andy Kaufman in his box with his combed hair.

[Warren Dew]

How about when Osama was shot? Was he the "victim" and the Navy Seal the "murderer?"

That's exactly what he was.
Unless you have some special knowledge about the principle of innocent till proven guilty.

This is just an illustration of the fact that George Bush's declaration of war on "terror" was really just a device to legitimise murder, without trial.
The US President can now order the murder of anybody, so long as he calls him a terrorist.

Where does Bush come into it? Under Bush the policy was extraordinary rendition, where bin Laden would have been brought back to the U.S. for trial.

It's only under Obama that assassination has become official U.S. policy.

[mistermack]

How about when Osama was shot? Was he the "victim" and the Navy Seal the "murderer?"

That's exactly what he was.
Unless you have some special knowledge about the principle of innocent till proven guilty.

This is just an illustration of the fact that George Bush's declaration of war on "terror" was really just a device to legitimise murder, without trial.
The US President can now order the murder of anybody, so long as he calls him a terrorist.

Where does Bush come into it? Under Bush the policy was extraordinary rendition, where bin Laden would have been brought back to the U.S. for trial.

It's only under Obama that assassination has become official U.S. policy.

"Where does Bush come into it? "I would have thought it was obvious. How can you ask that question? George Bush introduced the concept of "war on terror".

The phrase 'War on Terror' was first used by U.S. President George W. Bush on 20 September 2001.

How else is it legal, to fly a military team into Pakistan, without the permission of that government, and execute a foreign national, who had been convicted of nothing?

It was not a hostage situation. There was no american to be rescued. Without the concept of war on terror, there is no legal basis at all.

And if you think Bush would have had him brought out alive, then you are just daydreaming. And missing the whole point of the "war on terror".

[Tero]

[Gallstones]

How about when Osama was shot? Was he the "victim" and the Navy Seal the "murderer?"

That's exactly what he was.
Unless you have some special knowledge about the principle of innocent till proven guilty.

This is just an illustration of the fact that George Bush's declaration of war on "terror" was really just a device to legitimise murder, without trial.
The US President can now order the murder of anybody, so long as he calls him a terrorist.

You are too fucking stupid to live, and one of the biggest dumbasses on the internet.

[Seth]

Yeah, if it's decided on the evidence presented he'll walk. I don't understand the prosecution, why would they enter the videos of Zimmerman explaining his actions to the police? That's equivalent to allowing him to testify without cross examination, not even a first year law student would do that. Then they brought in witnesses who fucking knew Zimmerman and liked him - as prosecution witnesses! They couldn't counter the 5 witnesses that claim it's Zimmerman's voice on the 911 tape, and the defense even got the father to admit he couldn't tell whose voice it was. They're either monumentally incompetent or they don't want to win this.

Actually, this is all racial theater. The authorities are merely pandering to the outraged black community. They initially made the proper decision not to charge Zimmerman based on the evidence but the black community was protesting and claiming racism even without any evidence of racism on the part of the police, so to cover their asses, and the asses of the DA's office and every other white person in the area they decided to prosecute Zimmerman in a show trial to try to mollify the minority community and so they can lay the blame off on a jury. They are trying to avoid riots.

Zimmerman is a patsy and a sacrificial lamb to the cause of political correctness and racial politics.

So I'm not at all surprised that the DA is sinking his own case. He knows full well Zimmerman is innocent but he prosecuted him anyway for political and public safety reasons, so he's trying to sabotage the case so ANOTHER injustice is not perpetrated by sending Zimmerman to prison.

However, his duty as DA is NOT to prosecute a case unless he has evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt. He's violated the canon of professional ethics by bringing this case to a jury in the first place. There's just enough ambiguity however to give him cover, so he opted for the politically expedient course so that next election he can say "Hey, it wasn't MY decision to let Zimmerman off, I TRIED to prosecute him, it's that damned jury's fault."

Pure political theater.

[Coito ergo sum]

How about when Osama was shot? Was he the "victim" and the Navy Seal the "murderer?"

That's exactly what he was.
Unless you have some special knowledge about the principle of innocent till proven guilty.

In a war, the question is not guilt or innocence. Nobody has to prove that a soldier for the other side is "guilty" of anything. Generally, soldiers for the enemy are not "guilty" of anything anyway. They're just soldiers for the other side.

That being said, it may have been murder if, for example, Osama bin Laden was unarmed and killed in cold blood, or some such other factor being present.

[Coito ergo sum]

How else is it legal, to fly a military team into Pakistan, without the permission of that government, and execute a foreign national, who had been convicted of nothing?

I guess like when in the 1940s the Brits, Americans, Canadians, etc., flew missions into mainland Europe, without the permission of those governments, and executed foreign nations who had been convicted of nothing.

It was not a hostage situation. There was no american to be rescued. Without the concept of war on terror, there is no legal basis at all.

And if you think Bush would have had him brought out alive, then you are just daydreaming. And missing the whole point of the "war on terror".

I have a strong suspicion Bush would have wanted him captured. Obama learned the lesson of the Guantanamo detainee. Detaining captured enemy soldiers indefinitely was called a "war crime" under Bush. Killing them, however, was never questioned. Dead men tell no tales.

[Sean Hayden]

I think Z is being prosecuted because he shot and killed a kid.

It's not okay to leave your house armed to go patrol your streets and to then follow people you find suspicious. Some of you are pretending the aggression started when Martin went for Z, that's not true. It started when Z targeted Martin because he found him suspicious.

I said it doesn't matter why M came back and it doesn't. You can make any claim you want as to why. He had as much a right to go back to where he was as Z had to still be there. Why wasn't Z obligated to leave? He shouldn't have been following the kid in the first place after all.

During this entire discussion some of you have made it all about what M should have done making it seem at times like he was obligated to behave a certain way. Why not Z?

Why is Z not obligated to behave in a certain way, and in failing to do so to the point of instigating a situation that leads to the shooting death of another, why shouldn't he be prosecuted?

[Tero]

If Z had waited another year to scuffle with T M, he would have learned not to mess with hooded teens, with his limited training, alone. T would have been armed. They would both have holes in them at the end of the day.

I love this country!

[Coito ergo sum]

I think Z is being prosecuted because he shot and killed a kid.

It's not okay to leave your house armed to go patrol your streets and to then follow people you find suspicious. Some of you are pretending the aggression started when Martin went for Z, that's not true. It started when Z targeted Martin because he found him suspicious.

What facts make you say this?

According to the 911 recording, Z was sitting in his truck. He saw M from there and found him to be suspicious. He called 911. He reported what was going on in real time. The prosecution's own witness said that if what Z was reporting were true, then M's behavior WAS suspicious and justified being reported. Z then notes on the 911 call that M saw Z and had begun to run away. Z then exits his car and starts to run. The dispatcher asks if Z is following M, and Z says yes he is, and the dispatcher says "we don't need you to do that," and Z says "ok" and stops running. M is then gone from view for a long period of time.

Where, exactly, is the "aggression" in that?

I said it doesn't matter why M came back and it doesn't. You can make any claim you want as to why. He had as much a right to go back to where he was as Z had to still be there. Why wasn't Z obligated to leave? He shouldn't have been following the kid in the first place after all.

Neither were obligated to leave. Both were obligated to refrain from attacking the other. If either attacked the other, the one who was attacked had a right to defend himself.

There is an expert witness who testified that the forensic evidence showed Martin on top of Zimmerman when the gun was fired. Zimmerman had a banged up back of his head, which corroborates that.

Why is Z not obligated to behave in a certain way, and in failing to do so to the point of instigating a situation that leads to the shooting death of another, why shouldn't he be prosecuted?

He was obligated not to attack M. He was NOT, however, obligated to stay off the streets and he was not obligated to refrain from asking Martin why he was in the neighborhood.

Martin, too, was within his rights to be in the neighborhood. But, he was obligated not to attack Z, even if Z said something to M that M did not like.

I have no problem with a person being prosecuted, except where, as here, the decision to prosecute appears to be a political one. And, here the evidence adduced at trial definitely shows reasonable doubt as to Z's guilt -- gobs and gobs of reasonable doubt. So, regardless of prosecutorial motive, he ought to be acquitted.

[Tero]

I think we need a law that forbids you to interact, even speak to, anyone while carrying your concealed weapon. You will communicate by texting.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think we need a law that forbids you to interact, even speak to, anyone while carrying your concealed weapon. You will communicate by texting.

What if one is carrying it unconcealed?