All you morons complaining about posts, are doing more to shit things up than any opinion I can muster that you don't happen to like.
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
Here's a twist.. imagine he was actually a cop, think he would still be put on trial like this? Or justified?
Blackyce
Silver Knight of the Realm
- 836
- 12
Abefroman
Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
- 12,594
- 11,937
I think this wraps up today. These people like us have already made up their minds. They want to get the fuck home and out of there. This is of course counting on that they all agree, I just don't see how you can convict him with no evidence and simply from an emotional plea. Then again I was certain O'J would be found guilty and I was wrong as hell.
- 26,236
- 39,960
I honestly think both the parties were irresponsible in this case. Zim was irresponsible for stalking this kid instead of just calling the cops and walking away. And Trey was irresponsible for attacking him like a thug hood instead of running home or confronting Zim in another way other than attacking him.
But from what i heard he killed him in selfe defense. Therefore he is innocent. Its a sad tragedy that happened from BOTH the parties actions that day.
But from what i heard he killed him in selfe defense. Therefore he is innocent. Its a sad tragedy that happened from BOTH the parties actions that day.
OU Ariakas
Diet Dr. Pepper Enjoyer
- 7,293
- 20,412
No they cannot. They can try to do it and then when they do it is taken before the branch of government designed specifically to protect against what you propose. We have a rule of law in this country and two of its most basic principles are that the defendent is innocent until proven guilty and that the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Most everyone in this thread agree that the prosecution has not met the burden of proof in the only place that matters, the courtroom. You keep giving your opinion of somthing that has no actual proof to back it up. Most of us in this thread couldn't care less about the color of the skin of anyone involved, all we care about is the precedent this sets for similar circumstances going forward.
You're either bored and trolling or willingly ingnorant of the judicial process and its ramifications on our lives.
Abefroman
Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
- 12,594
- 11,937
If anything comes out of this trail it should be this. Dispatch, 911, 311 whatever should tell whoever is calling to stay in their house, car, business, wherever. They should tell them this right away with no hesitation. If that would have been done then none of this would have ever happened.
The relevant politicians can enact any changes to a given criminal code they want.
OU Ariakas
Diet Dr. Pepper Enjoyer
- 7,293
- 20,412
And an opposing group will immediately take it to court for judicial review. You sleep through your civics class?
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
So basically, the only way to even hope to make a legitimate case out of this is to 6 degrees of separation to Kevin Bacon all the evidence into a convoluted mix where doing something legal "Following someone suspicious" is legal justification for Martin to attack Zimmerman, and also, simultaneously, removes from Zimmerman all rights to self defense in the process?
Sure is stretching round here.
Notice that even the statute for manslaughter, as cited, states "Without lawful justification."
You have lawful justification to follow someone who you suspect is committing a crime while you report their whereabouts to the police.
Judicial review of what? Definitions of various crimes? At one point the U.S. didn't have tons of mandatory minimum sentences and now you do. Who do you think changed those statutes? Politicians maybe be voted out of office for being "weak" on crime, but judicial review, while it may be successful in changing some things isn't the panacea that you seem to think it is.
Noodleface
A Mod Real Quick
- 38,278
- 15,109
OU Ariakas
Diet Dr. Pepper Enjoyer
- 7,293
- 20,412
Mandatory minimum sentences are part of a law like any other in the U.S. They can be appealed and struck down if they are found to be unconstitutional. They are under review by the Supreme Court right now. If a politician tried to make a law where someone was found criminally liable for defending themself from someone who attacked them just for following and or saying something to the attacker it would be struck down since it isn't illegal to follow or talk to someone.
- 26,236
- 39,960
Perfect example of stalking is all the Paparazzi following any famous person. Just because they relentlessly stalk the famous people, sometimes to the edge of their sanity, they are not committing a crime and can defend themselves when attacked by one of the famous people. Which happens from time to time.
You have no idea what would and wouldn't get struck down. If they wanted to get rid of stand your ground laws, then that is completely within their right as members of the state assembly. By what reasoning would that be overturned by judicial review?
BoldW
Molten Core Raider
- 2,081
- 25
So if Zimmerman is found guilty, it sets precedent for celebrities to turn around and beat the life out of paparazzi or fans that follow them? Almost makes me want to see GZ fry.
Chukzombi
Millie's Staff Member
- 72,990
- 214,271
i see the trolls are shitting up this thread again. ill be glad when this bullshit case is over. also before the verdict comes out, why on earth did the defense allow an all woman jury to decide this shit? in a case painted as "a big bad man killed a baby eating candy" isnt it likely one or more of their maternal instincts will rear up and vote to convict GZ?
- Status