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

In other words, despite having been found "not guilty", OJ was not "innocent" in the sense of the common vernacular. I believe this is completely relevant.

Zimmerman was found "not guilty", but this also does not mean "innocent".

 

Chris will now verify your statement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR465HoCWFQ

 

Again, like I said, the two cases differ on a massive level, Zimmerman's defense was able to use the prosecution's own witnesses to demonstrate (by the statements of said witnesses) that Zimmerman's story of him being pinned to the ground by Martin was accurate, the one witness (again, a witness for the prosecution, whose testimony the prosecution was hoping to aid their case against Zimmerman) said he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman and said Martin was striking Zimmerman in a "ground and pound" "MMA-style" manner. That by itself pretty much satisfies the preponderance of evidence criteria for "reasonable doubt" for the defense, but the defense wasn't done. The defense also easily took apart the testimony of the prosecution's "chief witness," the same "chief witness" who willfully stated when interviewed by the prosecution--without being coached or led--that Martin had racially profiled Zimmerman as a "creepy-ass cracka."

The lack of defensive wounds reported in Martin's autopsy was also emphasized and the prosecution's weak argument that there was no bruising on Martin's knuckles was quickly destroyed by an expert witness for the defense who explained that in order to find bruising after the subject's death, the knuckles would need to be cut open and the interior area examined due to the circumstances caused by death in relation to how bruises are formed.

Also, the forensic evidence of the bullet's trajectory supported Zimmerman's story in that it demonstrated that the shot would have been fired from very close range and at an upward angle. The prosecution really didn't have anything with which to combat this or any of the other evidence supplied by the defense. The prosecution had the same type of arguments used by the people on this board who have constantly vilified Zimmerman without justification, the emotional arguments without any real facts or concrete evidence to support said arguments (which clearly doesn't come anywhere near the "beyond reasonable doubt" criteria). The defense had more evidence than the prosecution and was most definitely able to show (with a lot more than just a preponderance of evidence) that there was more than just a slight factor of reasonable doubt in terms of whether or not Zimmerman was guilty of murder in the second degree.

So with all that explained now, probably after it's already been explained four dozen times or so, you are welcome to look into how those circumstances of evidence differed from the OJ Simpson trial and make your own conclusion. The end all be all is still that both defendants were tried in court for criminal charges, both were found "not guilty," and like I have already demonstrated multiple times--also using the legal dictionary--a "not guilty" verdict is the same as declaring that the accused is legally "innocent" of the crime. Why is this? Again, this has already been explained, but for good measure, I will go ahead and take a minute to go through that again.

Defendants accused with any crime are presumed "innocent until proven guilty." If the evidence is presented and the jury rules "not guilty," then it is clear that the jury responsible for the verdict did not believe the defendant was proven guilty, therefore the presumed innocence of the acquitted party stands. Whether or not individuals across the country agree with the jury is irrelevant. Whether or not you or I agree with a criminal verdict is irrelevant, the fact of the matter is that legally--in the law's eyes--if they have not been found guilty, their guilt was not proven, therefore the presumed innocence of the acquitted party stands. This is all explained in the legal definition I linked to a few posts back and that is why the legal dictionary uses the term "innocence" interchangeably with "not guilty."

 

You are welcome to believe whatever you wish, whether or not your beliefs are accurate or true is an entirely different story. OJ was found "not guilty," legally that means his presumed innocence stands, which means legally he is considered innocent of the crime. If Simpson was not legally innocent of the crime, he would have been sentenced. Outside the legal arena, people are welcome to their own speculations and opinions regarding whether or not he--or any other criminal defendant found "not guilty"--was actually "not guilty"/"innocent," but these are just opinions, often opinions formed based upon uninformed passions.

The particular disagreement in this topic which resulted in this tangent was regarding whether or not being found "not guilty" is also being found "innocent." Being found "not guilty" is a legal ruling, using the legal dictionary, I demonstrated that the terms "not guilty" and "innocent" mean the same thing--legally. Also, your use of the term "sense of the common vernacular" is appealing to "commonality." Commonality is not something which can be objectively quantified. If you can provide evidence which objectively supports your notion of what the "sense of the common vernacular" is for the particular term "innocent," then we'll talk further about that, however, seeing as such a feat is impossible, as "commonality" is a term--which when applied to an opinion in an argument in a debate--is entirely and one hundred percent unsupported and subjective, that's not going to happen, so let's just move on, shall we?

This has already been put to rest, yes it does. Legally it does. Subjectively and according to individuals' differing opinions on the matter despite the evidence shown at the trial and despite the ruling by a jury, despite that there was a fair trial and he was found "not guilty," which--as I have already shown using the legal dictionary--is interchangeable with the term "innocent" may arise and have existed since before the trial had actually begun (since long before the trial had begun), but that does not affect the fact that in the eyes of the law, Zimmerman's guilt was not proven, therefore the presumption of innocence stands. How many more ways am I going to have to explain this?

 

I see, you want to include the caveat "legally" innocent or guilty as opposed to in the common vernacular in which most people communicate.
Possibly this is why you've gone back and forth with several people over this issue?

I believe most people would agree (ie: establishing the "common vernacular") that "innocent" means completely free of any wrongdoing. In this sense, the word does not apply to either OJ or to Zimmerman.

Zimmerman may have been found "not guilty" of the specific charges laid, but that does not mean he is not largely responsible for the events that transpired (ie: "innocent").

 

Again, you are appealing to commonality without being able to objectively quantify "commonality," your argument here also indicates you believe "most people" would agree. This is a form of the argumentum ad populum logical fallacy, it is an appeal to the majority and such arguments are logically fallacious in nature and are therefore utterly invalid. It is also ironic to note that your argument appeals to a majority without even being able to support its own assertion regarding what the "majority" or what "most people" think. That is nothing more than your opinion, so not only is your argument logically fallacious in that it appeals to a "majority," it is even more fallacious because it appeals to a majority which you cannot objectively demonstrate as actually being a majority. It is clear that the arguments your stance is employing are neither logical nor based on proper rationale, but are simply subjective regarding definitions of a term--which are objective.

If you happen to be following someone and they get angry, turn around, confront you and commit felony batter against you, you are not responsible for the turn of events that happened. The individual directly responsible for the actual circumstances immediately surrounding the shot fired in self-defense would be whoever first initiated the physical altercation. The evidence overwhelmingly indicates that person was Martin. It is of course, not known for 100 percent fact, but the evidence all points in that direction, whereas there is literally no evidence to even slightly indicate Zimmerman started the physical altercation.

A person is not responsible for events that lead to self-defense when what they are doing is completely within legal boundaries. Martin had many legal alternatives to committing felony batter against Zimmerman, he could have gotten off the phone with the prosecution's "chief witness" and use the phone to call the police, evidence also shows he had more than plenty of time to get safely inside his temporary place of residence long before Zimmerman could have even possibly seen which unit he entered (especially considering Zimmerman lost sight of him per the phone audio), there were so many things Martin could have done that he didn't do that would address the situation in a legal or reasonable manner. Following someone from a distance is not illegal. Assaulting someone and committing felony batter against them is both illegal and completely out of control. The individual responsible directly for the specific circumstances which led to the shot being fired was the individual who initiated the physical altercation, and like I already said, all available evidence points to that having been Martin.

 

This should be mandatory viewing for every negro citizen in the USA under the age of 30 on a once-per-month basis. In fact, after viewing each negro should have to sign something saying they viewed the video. This way when these negroes screw up, the judge can ask them what they did not understand about the video. And candidly, every caucasian child living in a house that is below upper middle class should be required to see the video as well. When caucasian children try to emulate the negro thug sub culture, they are clearly broken and must be fixed.

 

This is Jesse and Sharpton to an absolute tee!!!!!

“There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.”

- Booker T. Washington (April 5, 1856 – November 14, 1915)

 

Come into my parlor...
When discussing whether something is "common vernacular" or part of colloquial language, you are discussing whether it is used in a particular way by the majority of people. As such, it is necessarily a conversation revolving around the beliefs/actions of the majority. Your claim of argumentum ad populum is therefore moot.
Given that you'd like qualification of the colloquial use of "innocent", and are a fan of dictionary definitions, please note that the first definition provided for "innocent" relates to the most colloquial (ie: common vernacular) and that the legal definition is subsequent.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/innocent?s=t

A teenager is walking home on paved areas on a rainy night while talking on the phone.
A stranger watches them from a vehicle and, based on the teenager's appearance, decides to follow them in their vehicle.
The teenager notices they are being followed, and chooses to take another route (still a paved walkway) so the vehicle can't follow.
The stranger gets out of their vehicle and follows on foot.
The teenager, now rightfully concerned, decides to run and hide from the potential threat.
The stranger keeps searching for them, and draws closer.
The teenager, does not want to be a coward, sees that confrontation is imminent, and is rightfully indignant that someone is harassing him when he was doing nothing wrong.
The teenager steps out of hiding and asks the stranger what his problem is.
The stranger answers with something non-committal, but does not identify himself or give any reason for his actions.

At this point, the teenager has every reason to believe the stranger is a potential threat. He is legally within his rights to take non-lethal action to defend himself.

 

No thanks, I don't like the lack of literary material in your parlor. This has already been explained, and colloquial or not, the first definition of the term relates to something completely subjective. Whether someone is "free from moral wrong" depends entirely on an individuals' set of "morals" now, doesn't it? It in no way relates to a "not guilty" verdict, as a "not guilty" verdict is referring to the law, which would mean that the second definition is what applies. This whole argument spawned because people argued that in a legal arena "not guilty" doesn't mean the same thing as "innocent." Why would they be arguing that "not guilty" in a court of law doesn't mean the same thing as "innocent" in a completely separate morally subjective realm? Obviously not, one term exists within the boundaries of a legal system, something objective, the other exists in philosophy and subjective morals. I never maintained that if someone is found "not guilty" of a crime, they are "innocent of moral wrongdoing" (in general), please note the many emphasizing uses of the term "legally" before the term "innocent" in my prior posts.

No, sorry. Someone being a potential threat versus someone being an actual threat are two very different things. You cannot take action against people who could "potentially" be a threat to your safety, that is utter nonsense. In order for you to use physical force against a person in defense of yourself, the other party must have first either verbally or physically threatened or assaulted you, their "potential" for such actions doesn't factor into the equation, even if you perceive that they are likely a threat, that doesn't make them one. They must first actually say or do something actually directly threatening your safety or property before you are within your legal bounds to use any kind of physical force to defend yourself. This has also been discussed ad nauseum. Please do try to come up with something that has not already been addressed and debunked six dozen times. Thanks in advance.

 

I disagree.
This whole argument spawned because people argued that "not guilty" in a legal arena doesn't mean the same thing as "innocent" in the colloquial sense.
The fact that people overlooked your use of the caveat "legally" before the term "innocent" is unsurprising given that this forum is hardly a courtroom.

Whether it has been discussed ad nauseum or not, you clearly haven't looked at the statute... Allow me to assist:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.012.html

In case you're unwilling to take the effort to click a link, the relevent section states:
"A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force."

Please, do feel free to write another essay displaying your lack of research. Thanks in advance.

 

Your disagreement is irrelevant and also reveals that you clearly have not been following along with these arguments regarding "not guilty" and "innocent."

The key word there is "reasonably." It's also interesting to note that the evidence suggests that Martin not only didn't head home when he had more than ample time to do so, he actually actively sought out Zimmerman and initiated a verbal confrontation. Not only that, but this is all still moot, because witness testimony puts Martin on top of Zimmerman continuing to strike him brutally while Zimmerman was crying for help. That goes way beyond the "justified in using force except deadly force." That becomes felony battery. Even if someone actually threatened you or struck you, if you got into a grapple with them, ended up on top of them pinning them, if you continued to batter them while they were crying for help, your actions would no longer be protected under the statute you have cited.

Well done with cherry picking from the Florida statues, here, allow me to show the whole scope and what Florida law considers to be "reasonable belief" of someone that another person will be employing "imminent use of unlawful force."


Florida Statues and Constitution

However, since Zimmerman said he was attacked, knocked down and pinned, there was never an option to retreat, therefore it defaulted straight to self-defense.

Feel free to actually take into consideration all angles of relevant statutes before simply posting a limited citation of one while claiming it defends a person's actions when it actually doesn't, instead of blasting a topic with the textual ignorance consistently seen posted as arguments to "support" your stance. Thanks in advance.

 

It now seems you are asserting your opinion as fact, given that any opinion that disagrees with your own is "irrelevant"... Please see forum rule #10.

Correct. Are you of the opinion that it is unreasonable for a teenager being followed around by an adult stranger on a rainy night has nothing to be concerned about?

Asking someone why they're harassing you may be harshly interpreted as "initiating a verbal confrontation", but it is not an unreasonable question.
As for Trayvon not having headed home, "Stand Your Ground" indicates you have no obligation to lead a threat back to your home and family before defending yourself. "What's good for the goose..."

Are you assuming that Trayvon did not see Zimmerman's gun while they grappled? If he did, he would have every reason to believe Zimmerman would continue to be a threat the moment he was let up.

From the link you provided:
"A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

You mean after he instigated the situation he was forced to defend himself? My heart bleeds in sympathy for his predicament...

Feel free not to violate forum rules 2, 3 and 4 in one sweeping statement.

 

Oh yes, when all else fails, cite forum rules and spam the report button. Seems about right. The back and forth discussion which had been going on for a decent spell prior to your involvement into which you interjected was relating to posters disagreeing about one being found legally "not guilty" meaning the same as one being found legally "innocent." My statement regarding that is not my opinion, it can be backed up simply by going back and reading to where this particular tangent of the discussion started. At one point in time, people began to use the "colloquial term" and ask me about my stance regarding that, and I can find you a post of mine in which I openly make it clear that regardless of the legal verdict, it does not impact the accused individuals' "innocence" in general, it is simply in the eyes of the law. And of course, like I've been discussing with you, whether or not a person is "innocent" in the colloquial sense of the term (or more accurately by one of the listed definitions) is based entirely on subjectivity and has no bearing on a legal case.

I already gave more than enough examples of how one could properly and lawfully handle that concern. Felony battery is neither proper nor lawful.

He wasn't obligated to lead Zimmerman to where he was headed--although like I already pointed out, Zimmerman lost sight of him based on phone audio and Martin already had plenty of time to make it around to the front of the unit at which he was staying before Zimmerman could even get within seeing distance of which door he entered.

Are you assuming that Trayon did see Zimmerman's gun while they grappled? Also, there is no evidence to even indicate there was a grapple to begin with, Zimmerman's version along with witness testimony puts Zimmerman knocked down on his back with Martin straddling him and raining blows upon his face while he cried for help.

Yes, I also posted that excerpt. Zimmerman was not doing anything unlawful, nor was Martin, not until the physical altercation started. And while it's not known for sure who started that, all available evidence points to Martin having started it.

That's not logical at all, just by being vigilant and a concerned neighbor, he then caused himself to be knocked down and pummeled while still on the ground despite crying for help and making clear indication that he wished to withdraw from the altercation? How droll. If you are following someone from a distance or happen to be behind them for a period of time, they think you're following them, they commit felony battery against you or aggravated battery, you're on the ground crying for help while they "ground and pound" you "MMA-style," you didn't cause them to attack you, and more importantly, even if they were justified in the initial use of force, they were not justified in continuing the use of force after you were on the ground, crying for help, etc.

How ironic, that was in a response to the snarky tone of the following post of yours:

This post of yours is really not any different from the post of mine which you accuse to be guilty of violating three different forum rules. Perhaps if you would also like to observe the rules and not start in with flamebaiting, trolling, etc., then the tone of the discussion can be kept at least relatively neutral instead of the opposition being faced with snark from a post of yours, responding with snark, resulting in your next post hiding behind and flaunting forum rules after having blatantly violating them yourself and in fact being responsible for the tone of the discussion becoming less neutral. Do you possibly think that might be a good idea?

 

this just in.... Zimmerman, still not guilty

 

Who spammed the report button?

The fact is that "innocence" is a morality judgement, and all morality is subjective.

I already gave more than enough evidence that defending yourself with force is lawful, and that (thanks to 'stand your ground'), Trayvon had no legal obligation to undertake the actions you've suggested.

So Trayvon hid from Zimmerman (a potential threat) and came out when Zimmerman kept searching and was getting close... So what? Trayvon still had no moral or legal obligation to run.

Only if you choose to believe Zimmerman's testimony...

Again, we're getting into somantics... I'm referring to a person being held down in a physical altercation as being "grappled".
The fact that Zimmerman did not enjoy the consequences of presenting himself as a threat is self-evident, but irrelevant.

...by using physical force to defend himself from someone he had every reason to believe was an imminent threat, which is perfectly legal.

If someone followed you in a vehicle, and then followed them on foot when they tried to get away, and couldn't identify themselves or provide any justification when asked what their problem was... What would you believe they were up to? As already illustrated, if you believe they are an imminent threat, you have every right to use force to defend yourself.

The reality is that Trayvon was defending himself from a perceived threat, just as Zimmerman's shot was fired in self defense... There are two major differences:
1) Zimmerman was found "not guilty" for defending himself, whereas Trayvon received the death penalty for defending himself and didn't get the benefit of a trial.
2) Zimmerman was the first person to present himself as a threat, instigating the entire situation.

How ironic, that my post was considered "snarky" when I was simply using the exact same language you used in the previous post - in order to bring it to your attention... Since subtelty didn't work, I brought it to your attention more directly... You all caught up now?

 

Only by one single definition, and this was a court case, he was being legally charged with a violation of the law, a charge of which he was found not guilty. Seeing as that was in the legal arena, like I have now mentioned so many times, Zimmerman is legally innocent of committing the crime of which he was charged.

No, you didn't. All the evidence you provided has been debunked by further reading of the statute. Even if Martin were justified in "SYG," he would not have been justified for going way beyond "self-defense," pummeling someone pinned to the ground while that person cries for help. Your positions failure to understand Florida statutes is noted.

You know this how? Please cite your source of support for the creative narrative above, seeing as you worded it as what actually happened as if you know and were there yourself, you shouldn't have trouble doing this. Thanks in advance.

As well as witness testimony as well as all the physical evidence available. Even the witnesses the prosecution called with the hopes of supporting their case ended up assisting the defense rather than the State. So no, it's not just us taking Zimmerman's word for it, it is a combination of his story matching up with witness testimony as well as all available physical evidence.

That is not a semantic, there is a massive difference between a grapple and someone being pinned to the ground. A very big difference. So much of a difference, that, like I said, it is not a semantic. A grapple insinuates that the two are fighting one another, they both have their arms locked or their arms against the other, attempting to do harm, witness testimony combined with Zimmerman's version puts Martin on top of Zimmerman, pummeling him, Zimmerman not fighting back, but crying for help, and the injuries Zimmerman sustained in contrast with NO defensive injuries found in Martin's autopsy all refute the concept that this altercation was an even "grapple." An "MMA-style" "ground and pound" is not a grapple.

I've already explained ad nauseum that when someone decides to attack you and you have done nothing unlawful against that person, you are not the cause of their decision and resulting action in attacking you. Do you not believe in human accountability?

Up to a point. I've already cited the legal statute which limits the use of deadly force against someone who has made clear intention of withdrawing from the physical altercation, crying for help while being pinned to the ground is a clear indication of this. Continuing to pummel a person who is doing that surpasses one's right to defend themselves, and then becomes felony aggravated battery.

Not entirely true. In Florida, you have your right to stand your ground, you don't necessarily have the right to head back to the perceived threat and just attack the person you think may be a threat. That goes beyond "self-defense" as following someone is in no way a violation of the law. This has been discussed so many times though, your position seems to be in denial when it comes to the facts of this case.

Incorrect, I already explained the many legal alternatives to committing aggravated battery that Martin could have employed if he were truly intimidated by Zimmerman. Also if you are intimidated by someone, typically as a rule of psychology, you don't just say "screw it, I'm gonna go try to beat this intimidating person up," typically--seeing as you are intimidated--you would try to distance yourself from the perceived threat, call the police, find a public place, etc. All things which Martin could have done which are a lot more reasonable than just attacking Zimmerman without warning.

I've been caught up, I was already involved in this discussion, your posts interjected quite late and it would seem your stance is one of beating a dead horse and sobbing over a verdict and the court system working the way it is supposed to. So I'm not sure why you're asking me whether I'm caught up. My position is aligned with the ruling, Zimmerman was found "not guilty" as a result of the evidence of both sides being presented, your position is one of outright denial and other strange leftist hyperbole.

 

Prior to following him, Zimmerman had little (if any) reason to believe Trayvon was suspicious.
Upon being followed (in vehicle and on foot), Trayvon had every reason to believe Zimmerman was a potential threat.
According to Zimmerman (who is the person with the greatest motive to make Trayvon look bad in this), Trayvon approached Zimmerman and asked him what his problem was, to get Zimmerman to stop harrassing him.
Trayvon's belief that Zimmerman was an imminent threat was made more reasonable by the fact that - according to the only surviving witness to this stage -Zimmerman responded, but did not identify himself or give any reason for his behavior.

Facing an imminent threat, Trayvon had the legal right to defend himself with force. Due to SYG, he had no legal requirement to avoid confrontation. Saying Trayvon should have acted differently is irrelevent. It would be far more relevent to point out that Zimmerman was taking prescription medication known to cause aggression, paranoia and delusions...
http://newsone.com/2016433/george-zimmerman-drugs/

According to Zimmerman (who is still the person with the greatest motive to make Trayvon look bad in this), Trayvon saw Zimmerman's firearm during the physical altercation, which means that Zimmerman continued to be a threat.

After Zimmerman set things in motion, both individuals acted in accordance with self-defense laws. As such, Zimmerman was found legally "not guilty" - and it is likely Trayvon would have received the same verdict... except Trayvon received a death penalty without benefit of a trial... as a result of events set in motion by Zimmerman.

As such, it is reasonable to say that Zimmerman's legal "not guilty" verdict is not the the same as being "innocent" in the colloquial sense.

Oh, BTW, When I asked if you were "caught up", I was clearly referring to the ongoing "snarky comment" fiasco. Nice attempt at dodging though.

 

That is nothing more than your subjective opinion.

Then like I said, he should have handled it appropriately instead of committing aggravated battery.

Please support this claim, thanks in advance.

He was under no obligation to identify himself or give a reason, his actions were not illegal.

Zimmerman's prescription medication is irrelevant, the fact is that even IF your argument could be considered slightly accurate, Martin's right to defend himself would have ended when Zimmerman was on the ground, pinned and crying for help, but based on witness testimony, combined with Zimmerman's sustained injuries and Zimmerman's recollection of events, Martin continued to batter him. That goes beyond anyone's right to "defend themselves" or to "stand their ground." You have dodged this argument continually.

This is simply untrue, and Zimmerman also said Martin started reaching for Zimmerman's gun after continually beating him (which is accurate per witness testimony) and said "you're going to die" to Zimmerman.

This is more leftist hyperbole. The events being "set into motion" could be blamed on so many things by consequence of relation. If Zimmerman hadn't gotten out of his truck, it wouldn't have happened. If Martin would have continued home, it wouldn't have happened, if both of them had stayed in bed the whole day, it wouldn't have happened. Yet neither of them did anything illegal, therefore your attempt to solely blame Zimmerman is just subjective nonsense.

Obviously. But again, like I said above, the argument that you completely dodged, the initial tangent in this thread (which you were not a part of) regarding "not guilty" not being the same as "innocent" was with regard to the legal system, not the "colloquial" use of the terms.

Fiasco? I wouldn't call it a fiasco, it didn't really bother me, I just found it amusing that your post hid behind the forum rules not long after another of your posts blatantly violated them. And I wasn't dodging, just being honest. If you claim that your initial comment which resulted in the discussion becoming less neutral was responding "in kind," please quote the post of mine which you are claiming it was based on and emphasize and explain how that is the case. Please make sure that the post you're quoting occurred before the post of yours which condescendingly chided "come into my parlor." If your position is unable to do this, then recognize that your claim is without any kind of support and therefore meaningless. Thanks in advance.

 

Are you saying there's an equally valid contradictory "opinion"? If so, please illustrate this by outlining what could have been considered "suspicious" about a teenager walking home on paved pathways while talking on his phone.

Use of force to defend against an imminent threat is perfectly legal.

Feel free to review Zimmerman's recreation. It's not hard to find on youtube.

Right, an adult following a teenager around at night has no obligation to identify himself or explain his actions.... What reality do you live in?!

Really? A person involved in a shooting is taking prescription drugs that are known to cause aggression, hallucinations, anxiety... and this is irrelevant?

Not if Zimmerman continuted to be a threat... like, for example, if Trayvon saw that Zimmerman was armed - as Zimmerman claims he did.

So it's untrue that Trayvon saw Zimmerman was armed, but it is true that he reached for Zimmerman's gun?
It's not appropriate to believe that Trayvon initially approached Zimmerman and asked him what his problem was, but it is reasonable to to believe Zimmerman's account of what Trayvon said later (while Zimmerman was somewhat distracted)?
Sounds like a fairly basic contradiction...

Ok, you now claim neither of them did anything illegal (despite your earlier contradictory comment about "aggravated assault"), but you can't seriously believe that neither of them did anything wrong.
Walking home at night - is not wrong. Attempting to avoid someone who is following you at night - is not wrong. Asking that person what their problem is - is not wrong.

Cool story, but the initial raising of "innocence" was presented on post 183, and went back and forth (on posts 189, 191, 286, 300, etc.)... "innocence in regard to the legal system" was not raised until you chose to move the goalposts in post 305...

You were exceedingly condescending in post 360. I replied in kind on post 361 (using the exact same language) to draw your attention to it. You continued to use the condescending language in your reply (post 362). Since you hadn't got the point, I raised it to your attention in post 363. At that point, you decided I was the one being "snarky" and hiding behind forum rules... Does this clear things up sufficiently?

You were somehow insulted by my use of "Come into my parlor" with a smiley emoticon - in reference to your post accusing me of using a basic logical fallacy?
This seems about as reasonable as claiming someone is insinuating an ad hominem by suggesting that all parties should be mature enough to "agree to disagree", as you did in post 348 - reacting to post 347...

Being hypersensitive to anything that could be misconstrued as an insult does not mean the person you are reacting to was actually being insulting... Just as I choose to ignore the a favorite phrase or yours: "it has been noted...". If anything, the fact that you care enough to take notes is somewhat flattering and has no impact on my life or emotional wellbeing whatsoever.

Please keep in mind that "saying something that's not very nice is not necessarily an insult, nor does the fact that you are offended necessarily mean that you have been insulted." (from Rule 2).

 

No, I'm saying exactly what my words said, which is that it is only your opinion that there was "no reason to be suspicious of Martin" that night, individuals have different opinions, this is a truth of the world, to state your personal opinion as if it should inherently apply to everyone else is nothing short of narcissism and delusion.

Like I already said, use of force to a point, but as I have said and as you have dodged unsuccessfully about a dozen times now, once the use of force goes beyond incapacitating the person or once the person makes it clear that they wish to withdraw (ie crying for help, etc.), continued use of battering force against that person is no longer protected.

Feel free to support your arguments here with a link and a comment explaining how the piece of evidence supports your argument instead of telling someone else to go and look up what you claim to be support for your allegation. It is not my job to search for evidence of an affirmative claim you have made.

If you think they have an obligation to identify themselves or explain their actions, then it must be based purely on your subjective set of morals. Unless you can please cite a legal notation which stipulates that a person who is not violating the law at night--even if they may be following someone from a distance--is required by law to identify themselves and/or explain their actions. If you are unable to do this, then it defaults back to more opinion. Opinion is great, everyone has one, but it doesn't go very far in debate without actual supporting evidence, especially regarding a court case and allegations of a crime being committed.

Yes, it is irrelevant. They are prescription medications for a reason, a medical professional prescribed them, unless you would care to take the initiative and show how those drugs were (for a fact) impacting Zimmerman in that way that night (brain chemistry analysis would be suitable), then you might as well just admit this is a completely failed attempted distraction from the actual issue, trying instead to shine the spotlight on listed possible side-effects of medication prescribed by a medical professional.

Someone being armed does not inherently make them a threat, not unless they reach for their weapon. Completely faulty logic. I have seen people in businesses around where I live who have a gun tucked away underneath a jacket, my city has CCW, and I do not inherently believe these people are a "threat" simply because they have a weapon on them.

No, it's untrue that someone being armed inherently makes them an imminent threat. Their actions are what their threat level is to be based upon, not the potential damage they can do. Measuring someone's potential for destruction as how "threatening" they are is ludicrous.

It is consistent with the witness testimony in terms of how the altercation was going, Martin pummeling Zimmerman while Zimmerman was crying for help. Someone continuing to batter another person lying on the ground pinned and crying for help is certainly more likely to have violent and/or ruthless intentions for the person they have been beating despite that person making clear indication of their wish to withdraw.

Your entire position is a fairly basic contradiction of logic in general.

You're taking the words out of context, neither of them did anything illegal up until the physical altercation. It was not illegal for Martin to be walking, it was not illegal for Zimmerman to follow him, I believe it would be criminal for Martin to attack Zimmerman, you're saying Stand Your Ground would apply, I've rebutted that by explaining that even if that were the case, the statute does not protect battery after the person being battered has made clear indication of desire to withdraw from the altercation. Based on Zimmerman's and the prosecution's own witness, this is clearly what happened.

Yes, but attacking that person for simply declining to answer your question the way you feel it should be answered or attacking that person for any other reason is wrong, despite whether or not it would be legally protected under Stand Your Ground. I would personally judge such an action as an abuse of the Stand Your Ground law, but that's just me.

Yes, but the goalposts were never moved, the initial post stated it is a fact that Zimmerman was found "innocent." That was disputed directly by a post that said "nothing indicates he is innocent," which is blatantly incorrect as I have now explained so many times. He is in fact legally innocent, which means that there is something indicating he is innocent at least in terms of him being found "innocent" in the ruling--which is legally synonymous with "not guilty" as I demonstrated using the legal dictionary.

Nothing ever needed any clearing up, your posts attempted to match a fabricated dynamic that you had projected upon mine, your posts fell far short of matching that dynamic--of your own fabrication--and then posts of yours following that cited forum rules, as apparently something that had been said in a post of mine was taken harsher than it was likely intended. It's okay, no need to dwell on it, let's just move on, shall we?

Offended? Hardly. Amused and bewildered at the use of such a "phrase" and contemplating exactly how it even makes sense--or whether or not it was supposed to in the first place? Yes.

Demanding a compromise while essentially saying if you don't compromise (even if one position is more accurate than the other), you are being immature--in a debate nonetheless--is ad hominem, petty and actually more immature than not "agreeing to disagree" based on something which the two sides clearly do disagree on, have been discussing, etc. If one person wishes to bow out, they could simply say "well I guess I will agree to disagree with your position," but asking someone why they "can't just be mature and agree to disagree" is both petty and absurd. The same outcome could easily be accomplished by simply making that statement oneself. Why put it off on the other party to "agree to disagree" when you're the one who no longer wishes to discuss the issue? How does that make any sense whatsoever?

Saying something has been "duly noted" in no way indicates that a physical or even virtual note has been made, it's an expression used to indicate--typically--that a mental note has been made regarding a specific request, argument, tactic, etc. Please see the dictionary definition for the term "duly" and the examples using the full phrase "duly noted." The term dates back as far as the 14th century, and is popular in philosophical and legal arenas of discourse and rhetoric.

Please also keep in mind your own citation regarding the clarification of rule 2. Just because you assume a post of mine was "exceedingly condescending" does not necessarily mean you were being condescended to.

 

In order to illustrate that this is only my opinion, please feel free to illustrate a valid reason Zimmerman had to find Trayvon suspicious prior to his decision to follow him. Inability to provide an example would illustrate that there is no valid contradictory perspective.

Whereas I agree it would be unreasonable to assume that an average person carrying a weapon is automatically a threat, it is not unreasonable to assume that a person which whom you are engaged in a physical altercation continues to be a threat if they have the capacity to kill you. I have said this "about a dozen times"...

That's a fair comment...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX1sxARNq_c

I see, so the relative appropriateness of all behaviors should be defined solely on the basis of whether they are legal or illegal?
If some random stranger was following my teenager around at night, they'd better have a VERY good explanation - regarless of whether their actions were legal.
Another example: Is it illegal for random strangers to take pics of kids on a playground? Would it be understandable (even expected) for the parents to demand an explanation?
http://www.reference.com/motif/society/norms-of-morality

How is this different from your "completely failed attempted distraction from the actual issue" in insisting that Trayvon should have proceeded home rather than asking Zimmerman what his problem was?

He didn't attack someone "simply for declining to answer". He allegedly attacked a stranger who had been following him around the neighborhood on a rainy night and had not apparent valid reason for doing so. He allegedly attacked what he reasonably perceived to be an imminent threat.

Now who's "demanding a compromise" while immaturely taking a parting shot?

I'm aware of all that... When I referenced "taking notes", please feel free to assume "mental notes" are inclusive.

Now who's being insulting and/or condescending?

 

I don't have to demonstrate that a subjective statement regarding a specific set of circumstance is an opinion. Zimmerman clearly felt there was a valid reason to be suspicious of Martin that evening, that right there illustrates that your statement is an opinion and does not inherently apply to all of the human race. Whether or not someone is "suspicious" varies based on an individuals' perception of a situation, this is not something that needs demonstrating, this is simply the way things are.

No, you haven't, and even if you had, making an incorrect assertion a dozen times doesn't make it any more correct than the first time it was made. Having the capacity to kill someone and having a desire to kill someone are two totally different things. This is just another reason why Martin was being irresponsible in battering Zimmerman in the first place.

That's the problem with your position. Your position is bringing morality into this issue, when it is at its core a legal issue. We all know Martin and Zimmerman both could have done things differently/more responsibly and that would have changed the outcome quite probably for the better. But the point is that they didn't, past events are not alterable and this is an issued of whether or not Martin or Zimmerman did anything illegal, it was a court case. Court cases are not tried based on subjective "moral norms."

Straw man, I never argued that he "should have," I simply said he could have. That's no different from the concept that Zimmerman could have stayed in his truck or they both could have stayed in bed the whole day or lazed around the house, and the event never would have happened. But again, past events are unalterable, the fact that they did what they did remains. Whether or not one or the other was "morally" in the right is up to individuals to decide for themselves based on their own codes of morality, whether or not one or the other was legally guilty of committing a crime is based on law and the court case that took place.

Not apparent to you, clearly, but apparent to him, considering he did it.

There is no evidence to indicate that Martin perceived Zimmerman to be a threat. Typically, if people feel others are a threat to them, they do not turn around, approach them and then attack the "threat." That is contradictory in nature to human psychology. Someone perceiving another person following them as a "threat" would typically avoid confrontation with the person due to the notion of the person being a "threat." If someone is a "threat" to your safety or if you think they are, how would it make sense to then go to that person and attack them? If you have already concluded that they are an "imminent threat to your safety/life/etc." then by confronting/attacking them, you are essentially tempting fate, by your own judgment of them being a "threat" in the first place. It makes far more sense to call the police, get behind a locked door, find someone around who can help you, knock on the nearest apartment door and tell them you're being followed and ask them for help, etc. There are dozens of ways of handling someone who is perceived as an "imminent threat" that make so much more sense than simply confronting the threat and attacking them.

Attempted distraction and failure to address any of the content within the quoted box while asking a barbed question duly noted.

Your argument insinuates that I should have known inherently the specifics of what you were arguing without you actually elaborating is absurd. Assumptions in a debate lead to logical fallacies such as the straw man retort.

Now who is still asking barbed questions while not addressing the specific content of the quoted portion?

 

"Zimmerman would not have followed Trayvon if there was no reason to consider him suspicious. Zimmerman followed Trayvon, therefore there must have been a reason to consider Trayvon suspicious." Sounds like 'affirming the consequent' to me...

The fact that Zimmerman's decision to follow Trayvon could have stemmed from something other than a valid reason to find Trayvon suspicious (racism, increased aggressiveness from the medication he was taking, a long-standing 'hero complex', etc) cannot be discounted.

And your assertion "a dozen times" that there was no ongoing threat from an armed man with whom he was in a physical altercation, is somehow more valid?!
Hello pot, kettle calling...

Is it reasonable to state that the average teenager being followed at night by a stranger might perceive that stranger to be a threat? Absolutely.
Is it reasonable to state that attempting to evade an individual is an indicator that the individual may be perceived as a threat? Absolutely.
Is it reasonable to state that asking a person what their problem is constitutes an indicator that the questioner believes the other person has some sort of problem? Absolutely.
Was confronting him the wisest course of action? No, clearly not. Do we expect teenagers to be wise? No.
If you still believe that legality is the core issue here, rather than "shoulda, coulda, woulda"; was Trayvon doing anything illegal by confronting Zimmerman? No.

The fact that you care enough to make notes (mental or otherwise) continues to touch my heart, though I can't say the sentiment is mutual.

In other words "could have" conversations are a waste of time... I could just as easily point out that Zimmerman "could have" acctually spoken to Trayvon (maybe even asked him if he needed a ride in order to determine who he was and where he was headed) instead of stalking a kid around the neighborhood at night.

Here we come to the crux of the conversation... This thread is in the "Law & Justice" category...
Justice is an abstract concept that is an aspect of morality.
The purpose of laws are to facilitate justice. The Zimmerman/Martin case is a good example of law failing in that purpose.

Cool story, however the content served no discernable purpose other than to be insulting and/or condescending. As such, I did address the specific content.
If there was an actual point being made, "Your argument insinuates that I should have known inherently the specifics of what you were arguing without you actually elaborating is absurd. Assumptions in a debate lead to logical fallacies such as the straw man retort."

 

This portion of your post is enough to clearly indicate that your stance has no understanding of the difference between subjective philosophical principles of things such as "justice" and "morality" and "law" and "legality." the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.

Definition of "law"
1. the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.
2. any written or positive rule or collection of rules prescribed under the authority of the state or nation, as by the people in its constitution. Compare bylaw, statute law.
3. the controlling influence of such rules; the condition of society brought about by their observance: maintaining law and order.
4. a system or collection of such rules.
5. the department of knowledge concerned with these rules; jurisprudence: to study law.

"Justice" is such a subjective term, each individual has their own sense of justice, there are similarities among many people and what they see as "right" and "wrong," "just" and "unjust." One person's justice is another person's "injustice," and one group or community's "justice" is another group or community's "injustice." Your argument is delving far too deep into a philosophical realm while deluding your stance into claiming that it's not subjective, but is "common" or "universally accepted," when in fact that couldn't be further from the truth. Because your stance has displayed this kind of ridiculousness, I can see that continuing in this back and forth will simply take up my time in a counter-productive nature and will accomplish nothing. Therefore, I bow out. You are obviously welcome to your opinion, even it has been demonstrated to be based on falsities, inaccuracies and a deluded sense of subjective concepts time and time again. Good day.