Justice for Zimmerman
- Thread starter Adebisi
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
- Status
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Ummm.... yeah. That's why I chose the legal definition, or the definition as it pertains to law. (See where it says "definition 3"? That's because I skipped definitions 1 and 2, which were not about the law.)
But you know what?
I'll give you that Zimmerman's testimony counts as "evidence" in the legal sense. His words are typed out and analyzed, so of course they count as "evidence" in the sense that they are the defendant's version of what events transpired. Happy?
Having said that, allow me to clarify my position by re-wording my point: There is noproofthat Martin attacked first. Zero. None. Zimmerman's testimony, though it counts as legal evidence in a case, is proof of nothing. And, like I said, saying "Martin must have attacked first because Zimmerman said so and we have no other story" is fucking ridiculous. So unless you'd like to play more semantics in order to avoid the very simple point I'm making (Rerolled motto: "Anything but the point"), you can all unrustle your jimmies.
Tanoomba, usually in order to acquire a legal definition, you have to visit a legal dictionary. The definitions in a regular dictionary, although they may relate, do not give a complete representation of what it means in court. That is because, usually unless you are in court, you don't really need all that information.
iannis
Musty Nester
- 31,351
- 17,656
That show is without a doubt the best thing on television.
Sure, I like Mad Men. And GoT is fun to nerd out on. Neither compare to the simple awesome of Wipeout.
Cad
scientia potentia est
- 25,426
- 49,042
You don't find the evidence credible. Thats fine. No matter how little credibility you give that evidence, there is NO evidence that Zimmerman attacked first. So even if you would only believe Zimmerman's story .00001%, its still more than the other story which is nonexistent. So despite what you think, Zimmermans testimony is proof.
Siddar
Bronze Baronet of the Realm
- 6,457
- 6,003
If she could deliver a guilty verdict she would be a sainted by the liberal establishment.
Kreugen
Vyemm Raider
- 6,599
- 793
You have to wonder how Zimmerman completely failed to use his gun to prevent the fight from ever happening. (obvious answer: Zimmerman is a fucking idiot)
I have a gun and someone is coming at me (bro), but instead of using it to warn the person off, I'm going to get into a fistfight instead where if I lose I run the risk of getting shot in the head by my own gun and having skittles poured into the hole. Derp?
I have a gun and someone is coming at me (bro), but instead of using it to warn the person off, I'm going to get into a fistfight instead where if I lose I run the risk of getting shot in the head by my own gun and having skittles poured into the hole. Derp?
Gavinmad
Mr. Poopybutthole
- 43,739
- 52,292
Uh, I don't have a concealed carry license but I'm almost positive what you're describing is illegal. You can't just pull out your gun to threaten someone.
Kreugen
Vyemm Raider
- 6,599
- 793
You announce you have a weapon, they keep coming. You draw the weapon (but keep it pointed away from them), they keep coming. Depending on the state, you can now shoot them, because they are obviously fucking nuts.
Mostly it comes down to "perception of threat" aka if there are no witnesses you better hope you are a saint and the other guy has a rap sheet.
I mean, if you can't draw your gun until the other guy has pummeled you into the ground and is reaching for it, you are better off not having the gun at all. (an easily argued point)
Cad
scientia potentia est
- 25,426
- 49,042
who fucking knows anymore. you could follow all the laws exactly and still likely at least be sued in civil court.
this is why you dont draw your weapon unless you intend to kill your target. dead men can't tell stories.
this is why you dont draw your weapon unless you intend to kill your target. dead men can't tell stories.
Gavinmad
Mr. Poopybutthole
- 43,739
- 52,292
- 26,234
- 39,938
Definitely depends on the state. A bit different situation one of my wifes buddies went away for 3 yrs for firing a shotgun into the air while his best friend was getting beaten to the edge of his life. I know its a totally different situation, but it seems a bit fucked up.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Again, "anything but the point".
I've acknowledged that Zimmerman's testimony qualifies as legal "evidence" in the case.
When did I say I didn't find Zimmerman's story credible?
Like I said repeatedly, there is zero proof that Zimmerman attacked first. There is also zero proof that Martin attacked first.
Zimmerman's story is proof of nothing. Nothing. What people heard, what the medical examiners observed, what has been recorded, what the clothing stains show: all of these count as proof that either support or refute Zimmerman's story. No proof exists to show who started the fight. It simply doesn't exist. Because it doesn't exist, we have no choice but to find Zimmerman innocent (which is the way it should be). It doesn't mean Zimmerman proved he didn't attack first, it means it couldn't be proven that hedid, which is all that matters.
- Status