Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
George Zimmerman found not guilty.
Comments
-
TheKobeStopper said:
Zimmerman had a gun and was following someone. In my mind that's starting the fight. And I'm not a lawyer but I don't know how having a certain amount of drugs on you is automatically "intent to distribute" but following someone with a gun on you doesnt show intent. You followed someone with a gun, you shot them, what happened in the middle is muddied. You showed intent, you followed through the implied intent by shooting them, go to jail. Anything else is anarchy.Houhusky said:
The interesting thing about the law is that if everything had still occurred exactly the same (same evidence and fight) but Martin had killed Zimmerman before Zimmerman pulled his gun and fired Martin would have been able to claim self defense and likely received the same verdict.TheKobeStopper said:It seems like that's probably the correct verdict based on the law but what a shitty law that is. I see no difference between what Zimmerman did and if I were to go out, pick a fight with someone and then shoot them when they started kicking my ass.
There was zero evidence presented showing Zimmerman started a fight or that he wasn't acting in self defense. The only reason Zimmerman was ever even charged was because he is a "white Hispanic" (originally just white) who killed a black 17 year old and the media and certain groups of people wanted to use that as a spring board for their own gain. Former Obama white house chief of staff and current mayor of Chicago said it best, "you never want to let a good crisis go to waste."
You are incorrect in stating; "a certain amount of drugs on you is automatically "intent to distribute"". There are guidelines that prosecutors, police officers, and other legal officials follow to determine the type of charges pressed against someone however the burden of proof to prove intent to sell is reliant upon many factors that are all circumstantial (one of them being amount). There is no set amount in the law that means you are automatically guilty of "intent to distribute" just as there is no law that says you have intent to start a fight because you are walking behind someone while carrying a firearm.
Intent has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt with distribution of drugs just as it does when determining what to press, 2nd degree murder or manslaughter. The prosecution also has to prove that Zimmerman was not acting under self defense.
The prosecution, themselves, believed to have failed to prove intent (required for 2nd degree murder) so they lowered the charges to manslaughter. They failed to prove Zimmerman didnt act in self defense in the eyes of the court because there isn't a single peice of evidence saying otherwise.
To want to condemn a man to jail who hasn't broken any laws because you disagree with his actions is anarchy.
-
No. Not until the coloreds calm the fuck down.RaceBannon said:Can't we all just get along?
-
Fucking law. Always in the god damn way of indignant soap box grandstanding. Let me guess. You hate wars.TheKobeStopper said:
Hopefully Damone finds this helpful.TheKobeStopper said:It seems like that's probably the correct verdict based on the law but what a shitty law that is. I see no difference between what Zimmerman did and if I were to go out, pick a fight with someone and then shoot them when they started kicking my ass.
-
I like to be pissed when people don't go to jail for not commiting a crime. I like to be pissed about that.
God damn white Hispanics. Always keeping the black man down -
Ok fair enough on the drug part. But reducing what Zimmerman was doing to walking behind someome while carrying a firearm is silly.Houhusky said:TheKobeStopper said:
Zimmerman had a gun and was following someone. In my mind that's starting the fight. And I'm not a lawyer but I don't know how having a certain amount of drugs on you is automatically "intent to distribute" but following someone with a gun on you doesnt show intent. You followed someone with a gun, you shot them, what happened in the middle is muddied. You showed intent, you followed through the implied intent by shooting them, go to jail. Anything else is anarchy.Houhusky said:
The interesting thing about the law is that if everything had still occurred exactly the same (same evidence and fight) but Martin had killed Zimmerman before Zimmerman pulled his gun and fired Martin would have been able to claim self defense and likely received the same verdict.TheKobeStopper said:It seems like that's probably the correct verdict based on the law but what a shitty law that is. I see no difference between what Zimmerman did and if I were to go out, pick a fight with someone and then shoot them when they started kicking my ass.
There was zero evidence presented showing Zimmerman started a fight or that he wasn't acting in self defense. The only reason Zimmerman was ever even charged was because he is a "white Hispanic" (originally just white) who killed a black 17 year old and the media and certain groups of people wanted to use that as a spring board for their own gain. Former Obama white house chief of staff and current mayor of Chicago said it best, "you never want to let a good crisis go to waste."
You are incorrect in stating; "a certain amount of drugs on you is automatically "intent to distribute"". There are guidelines that prosecutors, police officers, and other legal officials follow to determine the type of charges pressed against someone however the burden of proof to prove intent to sell is reliant upon many factors that are all circumstantial (one of them being amount). There is no set amount in the law that means you are automatically guilty of "intent to distribute" just as there is no law that says you have intent to start a fight because you are walking behind someone while carrying a firearm.
Intent has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt with distribution of drugs just as it does when determining what to press, 2nd degree murder or manslaughter. The prosecution also has to prove that Zimmerman was not acting under self defense.
The prosecution, themselves, believed to have failed to prove intent (required for 2nd degree murder) so they lowered the charges to manslaughter. They failed to prove Zimmerman didnt act in self defense in the eyes of the court because there isn't a single peice of evidence saying otherwise.
To want to condemn a man to jail who hasn't broken any laws because you disagree with his actions is anarchy.
It comes across, and I'm projecting some of what Damone has said onto you, like you guys think I'm out of line for daring to question a law in this country. That the federal and state governments have never fucked any law up. I don't think you can actually think that but I'm not sure what your point is if not that. I said, quoted and referenced that I thought the verdict was correct. I keep getting told that Zimmerman didnt break any laws and I can't prove that he did. It seems to be a weird argument to make against someone who has conceded that Zimmerman didnt break any laws.
Someone else in this thread said that if Martin had shot Zimmerman he could have gotten off on self defense. Is that something everyone agrees on? If so does a whoever shoots first is innocent law really make sense to you? This isn't the Wild West. They didn't meet at high noon while drinking sasparillas. -
No you're right. Every law this country has ever had is perfect. There are no flaws in criminal justice system. Everything's great and questioning its greatness is wrong.MikeDamone said:
Fucking law. Always in the god damn way of indignant soap box grandstanding. Let me guess. You hate wars.TheKobeStopper said:
Hopefully Damone finds this helpful.TheKobeStopper said:It seems like that's probably the correct verdict based on the law but what a shitty law that is. I see no difference between what Zimmerman did and if I were to go out, pick a fight with someone and then shoot them when they started kicking my ass.
Do you like wars? -
So you can't tell me a law Zimmerman broke. Good to know. You want to put people in prison based on your feelings. It doesn't work that way. Patty Murray is your BFF. Call her up.TheKobeStopper said:
No you're right. Every law this country has ever had is perfect. There are no flaws in criminal justice system. Everything's great and questioning its greatness is wrong.MikeDamone said:
Fucking law. Always in the god damn way of indignant soap box grandstanding. Let me guess. You hate wars.TheKobeStopper said:
Hopefully Damone finds this helpful.TheKobeStopper said:It seems like that's probably the correct verdict based on the law but what a shitty law that is. I see no difference between what Zimmerman did and if I were to go out, pick a fight with someone and then shoot them when they started kicking my ass.
Do you like wars?
If you and the balla twins and mello don't hook up soon, you should. -
Have you ever been on a jury? Didn't this so. That's what in thought. The jury instructions are very specific. You can't make a decision based on wether or not you think the law is correct or not. You listen to the lawyers and make a decisions based on the law. If the law sucks, tough titties.TheKobeStopper said:
Ok fair enough on the drug part. But reducing what Zimmerman was doing to walking behind someome while carrying a firearm is silly.Houhusky said:TheKobeStopper said:
Zimmerman had a gun and was following someone. In my mind that's starting the fight. And I'm not a lawyer but I don't know how having a certain amount of drugs on you is automatically "intent to distribute" but following someone with a gun on you doesnt show intent. You followed someone with a gun, you shot them, what happened in the middle is muddied. You showed intent, you followed through the implied intent by shooting them, go to jail. Anything else is anarchy.Houhusky said:
The interesting thing about the law is that if everything had still occurred exactly the same (same evidence and fight) but Martin had killed Zimmerman before Zimmerman pulled his gun and fired Martin would have been able to claim self defense and likely received the same verdict.TheKobeStopper said:It seems like that's probably the correct verdict based on the law but what a shitty law that is. I see no difference between what Zimmerman did and if I were to go out, pick a fight with someone and then shoot them when they started kicking my ass.
There was zero evidence presented showing Zimmerman started a fight or that he wasn't acting in self defense. The only reason Zimmerman was ever even charged was because he is a "white Hispanic" (originally just white) who killed a black 17 year old and the media and certain groups of people wanted to use that as a spring board for their own gain. Former Obama white house chief of staff and current mayor of Chicago said it best, "you never want to let a good crisis go to waste."
You are incorrect in stating; "a certain amount of drugs on you is automatically "intent to distribute"". There are guidelines that prosecutors, police officers, and other legal officials follow to determine the type of charges pressed against someone however the burden of proof to prove intent to sell is reliant upon many factors that are all circumstantial (one of them being amount). There is no set amount in the law that means you are automatically guilty of "intent to distribute" just as there is no law that says you have intent to start a fight because you are walking behind someone while carrying a firearm.
Intent has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt with distribution of drugs just as it does when determining what to press, 2nd degree murder or manslaughter. The prosecution also has to prove that Zimmerman was not acting under self defense.
The prosecution, themselves, believed to have failed to prove intent (required for 2nd degree murder) so they lowered the charges to manslaughter. They failed to prove Zimmerman didnt act in self defense in the eyes of the court because there isn't a single peice of evidence saying otherwise.
To want to condemn a man to jail who hasn't broken any laws because you disagree with his actions is anarchy.
It comes across, and I'm projecting some of what Damone has said onto you, like you guys think I'm out of line for daring to question a law in this country. That the federal and state governments have never fucked any law up. I don't think you can actually think that but I'm not sure what your point is if not that. I said, quoted and referenced that I thought the verdict was correct. I keep getting told that Zimmerman didnt break any laws and I can't prove that he did. It seems to be a weird argument to make against someone who has conceded that Zimmerman didnt break any laws.
Someone else in this thread said that if Martin had shot Zimmerman he could have gotten off on self defense. Is that something everyone agrees on? If so does a whoever shoots first is innocent law really make sense to you? This isn't the Wild West. They didn't meet at high noon while drinking sasparillas.
To have juries making up the law would be anarchy as you said earlier.
Oh, this guy was doing 70, which is the limit, but we, the jury think the limit should by 65. Guilty. Pay up. Fuck you. -
So do you like wars or not? Because you didn't answer the question.MikeDamone said:
So you can't tell me a law Zimmerman broke. Good to know. You want to put people in prison based on your feelings. It doesn't work that way. Patty Murray is your BFF. Call her up.TheKobeStopper said:
No you're right. Every law this country has ever had is perfect. There are no flaws in criminal justice system. Everything's great and questioning its greatness is wrong.MikeDamone said:
Fucking law. Always in the god damn way of indignant soap box grandstanding. Let me guess. You hate wars.TheKobeStopper said:
Hopefully Damone finds this helpful.TheKobeStopper said:It seems like that's probably the correct verdict based on the law but what a shitty law that is. I see no difference between what Zimmerman did and if I were to go out, pick a fight with someone and then shoot them when they started kicking my ass.
Do you like wars?
If you and the balla twins and mello don't hook up soon, you should.
You are sadly mistaken if you think this is about feelings for me. I'm dead on the inside. -
Are you knew. Everyone knows I'm for then troops and against the war. And Zimmerman didnt break they law. That is why he is free right now.TheKobeStopper said:
So do you like wars or not? Because you didn't answer the question.MikeDamone said:
So you can't tell me a law Zimmerman broke. Good to know. You want to put people in prison based on your feelings. It doesn't work that way. Patty Murray is your BFF. Call her up.TheKobeStopper said:
No you're right. Every law this country has ever had is perfect. There are no flaws in criminal justice system. Everything's great and questioning its greatness is wrong.MikeDamone said:
Fucking law. Always in the god damn way of indignant soap box grandstanding. Let me guess. You hate wars.TheKobeStopper said:
Hopefully Damone finds this helpful.TheKobeStopper said:It seems like that's probably the correct verdict based on the law but what a shitty law that is. I see no difference between what Zimmerman did and if I were to go out, pick a fight with someone and then shoot them when they started kicking my ass.
Do you like wars?
If you and the balla twins and mello don't hook up soon, you should.
You are sadly mistaken if you think this is about feelings for me. I'm dead on the inside.
You think Zimmerman should be in jail? Based on what law he broke? you refuse to answer.
Stick to the nba. More in your wheelhouse. Law isn't your thing. Being emotional seems to be though.
