dagblog - Comments for ""I Am Deeply Concerned About Urban Riots.""

Hello, everybody. I am going

Michael Maiello — Tue, 16 Jul 2013 19:07:37 +0000

In reply to "I Am Deeply Concerned About Urban Riots."

Hello, everybody. I am going to lock this thread up now before anyone says something they regret to somebody else. Also, let's face it, we've reached the point of no convincing amongst ourselves as to who was right and who was wrong.

Be excellent to each other.

Yes, his defense team said

Verified Atheist — Tue, 16 Jul 2013 18:39:48 +0000

In reply to It is you that needs to go

Yes, his defense team said that they dispelled doubt. Interviews of the jury make it quite clear that they did not. I maintain that the defense team's real effort was to instill doubt, although I doubt many defense teams will phrase it exactly like that.

Again, the jury found that there was doubt to his guilt.

It is you that needs to go

Resistance — Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:45:58 +0000

In reply to You've got "reasonable doubt"

It is you that needs to go back and hear Mark O'Maras words as to the Defense strategy. Tell the truth and dispel doubt. Buzz off

You've got "reasonable doubt"

Verified Atheist — Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:38:17 +0000

In reply to Give it a break, I know the

You've got "reasonable doubt" completely backwards. Zimmerman's team wasn't trying to dispel doubt (nor should they have been), they were trying to instill it (as defense lawyers, that's their job), and they succeeded.

The jury didn't find that Zimmerman was innocent beyond reasonable doubt. They found that there was reasonable doubt as to his guilt. If you truly understand the standard threshold, then stop arguing as if a different threshold existed.

Give it a break, I know the

Resistance — Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:27:05 +0000

In reply to Two words: reasonable

Give it a break, I know the standard thresh hold. Fact: Zimmerman's explanation of events, dispelled doubt. This case should never have been brought forth.

No, wasn't saying Martin was

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:16:07 +0000

In reply to Then your point is that

No, wasn't saying Martin was a crazed killer.

I won't say categorically Zimmerman shouldn't have followed carefully from a big distance, but it is easy to get ambushed (whether that's what happened here or not) and killed if it is say a real murderous thug. Maybe not common in gated communities but happens.

Then your point is that

Aaron Carine — Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:00:00 +0000

In reply to Because I wanted to make the

Then your point is that Zimmerman shouldn't have been following Martin? I agree. I thought you were making a case for Zimmerman--that the possibility that Martin could have been a crazed killer was mitigation.

From Martin's standpoint,

rmrd0000 — Tue, 16 Jul 2013 15:56:13 +0000

In reply to Because I wanted to make the

From Martin's standpoint, Zimmerman could have been a crazed fascist killer about to pounce on an unarmed teen.If Trayvon had just kept walking, Martin could have had his throat slit from behind.

Note the words "if" and "could"

Because I wanted to make the

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 16 Jul 2013 15:42:53 +0000

In reply to But why are we even talking

Because I wanted to make the point that Zimmerman could have had a shotgun blast in his face Serpico style if messing with the wrong stranger - i.e. there's a reason why following off into the dark might not be the brightest idea. (kinda related to Neighborhood Watch procedures)

Somehow I don't think that's quite as irrelevant as discussing you.

But why are we even talking

Aaron Carine — Tue, 16 Jul 2013 15:30:23 +0000

In reply to Please note the words "if"

But why are we even talking about what would have happened "if" Martin had been a knife wielding menace? We may as well talk about what would happen if I were a dangerous criminal.