Watermelon Juice and Skittles Used To Make Intoxicant For Aggressive Behavior?

Just in case some people continue to deny the difference between being found "not guilty" by a jury, and being "innocent," here is another, more formal, quote from a law journal:

 

Hes innocent of murder. Its time to move on.

 

When the trial started I was under the impression that GZ was not guilty - the prosecution didn't appear to have enough evidence for any kind of conviction. By the end of the trial the overwhelming evidence, as well as GZ's nature, convinced me that GZ was an innocent man rail-roaded by a huge political machine.

 

1. It is known fact that TM was scoring components to make drugs. He said so in his texts and facebook posts. Sadly, the kangaroo court that tried to hang Zimmerman told the jury they could not see his texts and facebook posts. But they are in the media and available for viewing and have been posted on this forum.

2. I hate when liars deny facts. People are entitled to their own opinions but not entitles to their own facts. Blacks have the second highest divorce rate in USA, just marginally behind American Indian & Alaska Natives. The Indians are at 12.6% and then comes the Blacks at 11.5%. For those wondering who are the best family unit - Asians were only 4.9%. These numbers are directly from The U.S. Census Bureau's 5-Year American Community Survey, which polled 3 million households between January 1, 2005 and Dec. 31, 2009 to determine statistical portraits of communities within the United States--including races and ethnic groups--based on a variety of factors, including divorce.

3. Deadbeat dads is an expression and can be defined multiple ways, but with regard to single moms - that statistic is available. The Federal Government has paid for major studies and those studies have been made public. For example:

Detroit News
Why Are So Many Black Children Fatherless?

The extent of this problem was confirmed in a recent study by the Baltimore-based Annie E. Casey Foundation. Comparing statistics for its Kids Count report, the organization reported that Detroit ranks No.1 in unmarried births among the nation’s 50 largest cities. Of the 16,729 babies born in Detroit in 1997, 13,574 were black, 1,679 were white and 817 were Hispanic. Seventy-one percent were born to unmarried mothers. This compared with a state average of 33 percent and a 50-city average of 43 percent. Government statistics reveal that the percentage of all babies born to unwed mothers nationally rose to 32 percent in 1997 from only 5.3 percent in 1960. Among blacks nationally, 69 percent of births were to unwed mothers. And in a departure from previous increases in births to unwed teen mothers, 70 percent of births to single mothers involved women 20 or older. The survey data notes that in 1960, 9 percent of children lived in a single-parent household — usually headed by the mother. By 1998, 28 percent of all children and 55 percent of black children lived with a single parent.

4. Blacks collect 33 percent of welfare benefits, and they only make up 12 percent of the general population.

That is the last of the points. So we covered welfare, unwed mothers, and divorce. I stand by my assertion based on the above facts. The problem with Trayvon Marton and most Negroes in America is their lack of a family unit (as well as being more criminal, less educated, and having a lower IQ than Whites). If Blacks had the same divorce percentages, education percentages, criminal percentages, IQ rates, etc. as Whites I believe there would no longer be studies and conversations about race being a factor in statistics in USA.

 

Finding someone "not guilty" of a crime indicates that they are innocent of legal wrongdoing. The definition of the term "innocent" is:

If a trial has found you "not guilty," than you are "without guilt" or "guiltless" for what you are being tried for. This is--as you can plainly see--included in the definition of the term "innocence." Being declared "not guilty" indicates guiltlessness and is therefore also innocence--legally--of the crime the party in question was accused for. The attorney is right to a degree, the jury cannot declare whether or not a person is "innocent" in general, but in finding the accused "not guilty," they are definitely indicating that the person is without guilt when it comes to what they were accused of--which is legal innocence. This criminal attorney's editorial which you have linked is nothing but his opinion, just because he is a criminal defense attorney does not mean his opinion is inherently correct.

 

You can dance around logic all you want, but you have yet to DISPROVE anything I've posited in post #294. It's never been proven that Trayvon threw the first punch or that Zman didn't try to hold or detain him against his will. GDAY!!!

 

So you would agree that O.J. Simpson and Kasey Anthony are without guilt, sin or moral wrongness???
GTFOH!!!

 

Its funny, there is more evidence of that label for TM than there ever was to call GZ racist.

 

In 1997 Detroit was 70% Black you genius!!! Since the average Blacks IQ makes us mentally challenged by your standards shouldn't it be okay that we are the largest percentage of welfare recipients??? Further shouldn't our criminals be excused for their crimes since we're mentally challenged??? If we are so criminal how in the world could the slavers domesticate so wild an animal and keep our true nature from rising???
With the absence of Blacks would Whites not have committed all of the atrocities in the world like genocide of Amerindians,Jews,Maori's and Aboriginals???
Do Black bodies incite Whites to be prolific in rape,corporate thievery,pedophilia,serial killing and mass murdering???
Please explain......

 

Legally without guilt? Yes. The legal system found them to be "not guilty," which as I explained indicates that they are without legal guilt, which indicates that they are innocent in the eyes of the law. Whether or not I agree with the verdict the juries in those cases came to is irrelevant and bringing up those cases is also irrelevant. Please try to stay on topic. Thanks.

 

You are the one claiming that Zimmerman tried to detain him against his will, it is not my responsibility to disprove something a statement of yours which you have not offered a shred of evidence to support. I never claimed that Martin "threw the first punch" or that it is known exactly how the physical confrontation started for a fact. But it is strongly indicated by the evidence (Zimmerman's injuries in contrast with the lack of defensive wounds revealed in Martin's autopsy results) how the fight was started. It is also strongly evidenced by at least one of the prosecution's own witnesses that Zimmerman was on bottom crying for help while Martin landed "MMA style" "ground and pound" blows to his face. Even in the absurd and completely unsupported hypothetical that Zimmerman started the altercation, this still rules out Martin using self-defense, because it goes against the statute of self-defense to continue to batter or use force against someone (even the aggressor) if they have made clear their intention to withdraw from the physical altercation. Lying on one's back crying for help is quite a good indication of intent or desire to withdrawal, despite that when said person is pinned, they cannot simply run away or escape. So again, you haven't proven that Zimmerman tried to "restrain" Martin against his will, therefore there is nothing for me to disprove. And even if that is what happened, once Zimmerman was on his back crying for help, he was effectively incapacitated and neutralized, continuing to batter anyone (aggressor included) once they are disabled and have made it clear that they wish to withdrawal negates any protection of the use of further force under the claim of "self defense." Let's recap, shall we?

It cannot be proven for a fact who was the aggressor in the physical confrontation, although evidence strongly suggests it was Martin based on Zimmerman's injuries contrasted with the complete lack of defensive wounds Martin's autopsy revealed. And also, even in the highly unlikely and completely unsupported hypothetical (which I am entertaining simply to humor your ludicrous stance) that Zimmerman was the aggressor, Martin went beyond what is protected by any self-defense statute in any state across the country. You cannot legally continue to batter someone (even if they started the altercation) if it is clear that they have no desire to continue the altercation, especially if they are pinned to the ground in a completely defensive stance. Witness testimony, including witnesses of the prosecution stated that Zimmerman was on the ground with Martin over him battering him despite his cries for help. Case closed, it's over, done. Anything else you'd like to bring up that's been debunked dozens of times? I'd be happy to oblige and continue to debunk them. It's really not difficult to address these sorts of "arguments," considering that they've already been addressed and debunked a multitude of times before. It's basically become an issue of memory reflex. I have to repeat myself, sure, but that doesn't bother me, because it is amusing to watch the same tired old conspiracy theories and unsupported assertions thrown up here by those who would unjustly vilify Zimmerman, all theories and assertions which have been completely destroyed many times prior.

 

not sure what your saying, are you saying SYG would not apply if it was ones spouse that was trying to kill them?

is that a stated in the law somewhere?

.

 

And NOTHING you have provided demonstrates that a person found "not guilty" by a jury is actually found "innocent."

"Not guilty" is merely a legal term that is triggered by "presumption" of innocence and "reasonable doubt" that cannot be eliminated although doubt remains.
OJ Simpson, Casey Anthony, and George Zimmerman are perfect examples of people who were found not guilty based on loop holes in the legal system, NOT based on facts.

 

Proven us a relative term, especially in law where there aee multiple standards of proof.

When you go into civil court and the judge sits down and says prove your case he doesnt mean prove beyond any reasonable doubt. Since the standard of proof in civil matters is preponderance of the evidence the judge means show that your case is more likely than not. Under the standard of proof in civil court that is proven.

Now criminal couts is muchore tricky because the standard of proof isnt the same between prosecution and defense as it is in civil court. In criminal court the prosecutions must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Anything short of that standard isnt proven. Conversely the standard of proof on the defense is that it must be reasonable. That is the standard the defensr has to meet to establish proof.

In the Zimmerman case tbe evidence shows that it is probable that Martin threw the first pubch. Under the reasonablity standard of proof placec on the defense since it is probable it is proven.

Now I would even argue that given the evidence the argument that Zimmerman threw the first punch isnt even reasonable. If Martin were alive today he would be a convictrf felon because the court would have found ant claim thaf Zimmerman threw the first punch to be unreasonable since there us no evidence to establish that Zimmerman ever punched Martin much less threw first. Under the reasonablity standard Martin would have been proven to have struck first and gine to jail. No doubt about it.

 

Statistics were posted showing that blacks commit more of the serial killings / mass murders by population percentage than Whites. So take that off the "White problem" list. And I am not saying these folks that call themselves African Americans while never having been out of Detroit or Harlem (let alone actually have been to Africa ) suddenly pick up and go to Liberia like I am sure groups like KKK would prefer. No - I am saying that if your race is 13% of the population then you should be expected to commit 13% of the murders and not 55% of them. Or if you are 13% of the population you should commit 13% of the assaults and not 60% of them. Crime will probably never completely go away in USA, but clearly ethnic groups that have higher crime rates should work amongst themselves to understand the problem and repair it. Same with education. If blacks on average have half the graduation success of Whites in high school; they should just apply more effort to pay attention in class and do better in school. Or stay married more so the home life isn't a distraction for the student / children. Many great blacks helped build the country we have today. But there needs to be more great blacks and less criminal thug blacks. Only blacks think these disparate statistics are not a problem. Instead of not murdering someone, their solution is for whites to just stop arresting blacks after they commit the murder. While that might solve the symptom of most prisons being filled with blacks, it won't solve the underlying issue which is there are a disparate amount of black murderers and a disparate amount of blacks that commit assault.

 

While OJ Simpson used a loophole to get away with this (the jury was denied DNA evidence proving he killed Nicole and Ron), Zimmerman was let go because the facts proved that he was the victim and not the aggressor. Witnesses saw the black kid on top of the hispanic guy. The idea of "innocent until proven guilty" is a lot more attractive than "guilty until proven innocent'. But with 350 million people in USA and a few million behind bars for being thugs, there will definitley be times the cops screwed up or the prosecuting attorney screwed up or the jury got it wrong. Even those polygraph tests aren't perfect, so there really is no perfect way to tell if someone is guilty or not-guilty.

 

he was found not guilty because there was no way to know for sure what happened that night

the defense could no more prove their side then the defense could... the defense wins by default even though some juror's said they thought he was guilty


.

 

Actually I have, I provided the dictionary definition of the word "innocent," which is inherently self-evident as evidence of my argument, as it includes the term "guiltless" in the very definition. Try again.

 

The post was saying exactly what it said, its meaning should be self-evident to anyone who can read and comprehend basic English. I was challenging your stance utilizing unsupported hyoptheticals to support the hypotheticals with references and/or explanation. I was basically emphasizing that it would be good to explain HOW SYG would inherently apply to such a hypothetical (the one your post used) using the context or wording of the statute itself instead of just throwing out said irrelevant example and saying "SYG would apply to this"--as if it is inherent fact--and not expecting an opponent to request evidentiary backing or at least elaboration for such a claim.

 

Is there not a disparate amount of Blacks marginalized and aren't they overwhelmingly poor??? Don't poor people commit more of certain types of crime than the well off??? White's are the global minority and always have been, now lets apply your statistical calculus to your populace as a whole globally.
But we don't have to do that, your crimes on these shores started with the Amerindian massacres and later with the African blood you spilled to get your free laborers. Are those numbers reflected in your statistics???
The lynchings in Jim Crow times??? I think not!!! American history doesn't start with the rise in Black criminality, it started with the Europeans.GDAY!!!

 

The dictionary version of many words differ from there legalese counterparts. See stalking. Or just look up the legal definition of not guilty. You're a just being obtuse.GDAY!!!

 

In what world does the person who throws the first punch have to land it??? Zman could've easily thrown it and Trayvon could just as easily dodged or countered it!!! Also in keeping with the defenses characterization of Zmans pugilistic abilities, perhaps it was just ineffective. Even more, maybe Zman just tried tackle, hold or detain Trayvon hence Rachel said she heard him saying "get off". This would be aggression, violation of his civil rights and reason enough to fight/assault Zman, as Trayvon would be standing his ground!!! GDAY!!!

 

And you have no evidence. As I said possible doesnt mean anything in court. Yet you travonites think it means everything. Zimmerman throwing the first punch isnt even reasonable. Martin would have had a hard time arguing that Zimmerman attacked him given the evidence. He would have been convicted of assult and battery had yhe cops showed up a few seconds sooner. Possible means jack (*)(*)(*)(*) in law.

 

Making excuses for negro crime is pathetic. This is 2013, not 1650. Blacks need to commit less crime. Stop blaming whites when a black shoots a white guy or a black rapes a white girl. You don't see me blaming blacks when a white guy rapes a black woman or commits some white collar crime. Until you blacks own up to your own crimes and shortcomings and stop blaming whites for everything that happens to you from the moment you are born until the moment you die; you will never rise above the statistics and become part of the non criminal, law abiding people of America. There are plenty of poor whites in America. The crime in Appalachia is nowhere near as bad as the crime in equally poor black areas. Why - because negroes commit and then rationalize those crimes as being something whites deserve to have done to them. They blame it on slavery 300 years ago or the segregation that happened until the late 60's. And honestly, if blacks cannot behave and be law abiding they deserve to be segregated from the rest of America. And they are - they are in prison.

 

The criminal justice system worked as designed. Innocent until proven guilty. Why would anyone want it the other way around? That's what resulted in witch burnings 400 years ago. You could just accuse anyone of anything and they were screwed.