Bagism: Web Board
[Show Followups] [Post New Message]
 [Search Web Boards] [Web Boards Menu] [Letter Box Web Board]

Re: Violence over George Zimmerman

Posted by **The Duke** on Jul 15, 2013 at 6:30:51 PM:
In Reply to: Re: Violence over George Zimmerman posted by **BlackMonk** on Jul 15, 2013 at 3:47:00 PM:

**********predict this
**********
************
**********
**********hj
*********
*********Good. Did you object to the civil case against OJ Simpson?
********
********
********
********
********
******** A convincing argument would need to be made that Zimmerman's actions would have been drastically altered had the person acting suspiciously not been black...
********
********
******** For the verdict to be an ethical one, that is... It could be a statement verdict as we've seen in the past however...
********
********
********And if Eric Holder's involved, the ethics factor is torperdoed from the get-go...
*******
*******I'm trying to talk to you like an adult. Please make some effort to do so yourself.
*******
*******Now, you're simply wrong that "A convincing argument would need to be made that Zimmerman's actions would have been drastically altered had the person acting suspiciously not been black." That's not the standard. The question is whether Martin's civil rights were violated, not whether or not Zimmerman is a racist. OJ lost his case, but that wasn't based on whether or not his victims would have been treated differently if they were white.
*******
*******One thing that might hurt Zimmerman is that he would have to prove that Martin was "acting suspiciously" to a degree that his actions were reasonable. He can't simply make the assertion.
*******
******
******That he called 911 would go a distance toward proving Martin's behaviour was Sib
******Suspicious.
******
******
*****
*****No, it wouldn't. All it would do is support the claim that he thought it was suspicious. It does nothing to determine whether his suspicions were reasonable or not.
****
**** Are you quite sure? That makes the concept vague ...
****
***
***Quite sure. All you're saying is that his actions are proven suspicious because at some point Zimmerman said they were suspicious.
**
** Quite. The 911 call is evidence of suspicion on Zimmerman's account. There is evidence that Martin engaged in fisticuffs, which is evidence of suspicious behaviour.
** I am not siding with Zimmerman here.I am merely speculating on the legal aspects. Seems to me that the court would have to prove Martin acted in a manner that in no way would arouse reasonable suspicion. Engaging in hand to hand combat would not be one of those ways. Mm?
**Perhaps if he'd been wise enough to hang up on the girl, and call 911 himself...
** It's a hard case for the court to prove, Monkie (no, I did not fail to note your use of your pet name for me! Lol!), as we have already seen. The evidence is just not there, even for civil court.
** I'll go on record at this juncture stating that I believe.manslaughter would have been the appropriate verdict.
** Both parties, it appears, acted in just such a manner that lethal consequences were the result, and both parties are guilty of poor, and tragic, decisions.
*
*If Martin engaged in "fisticuffs," it was after the 911 call. Are you saying that Zimmerman had the ability to see into the future and called 911 about something that hadn't happened yet?
*
*Martin died because of Zimmerman's actions. Zimmerman will have to prove that his actions were appropriate. Civil trials have a different standard of evidence than criminal trials. "Reasonable doubt" isn't enough. Zimmerman will need a preponderance of evidence supporting him. In other words, it isn't enough for him to say that Martin might have instigated a fight and he was defending himself. He'll have to prove that Martin did and that his own actions were appropriate. Was Martin acting so suspiciously that a 911 call wasn't enough, that it was necessary for Zimmerman to do what he did? Since the transcript of the call shows Zimmerman was told't need to follow Martin, that might be hard to prove.
*
Uhhh, no! Again, Zimmerman does not have to prove innocense. The bar is, however lowered on the burden of proof on the part of the prosecution. To prove a hate crime, there has to be a reasonable, and accurate evidence of the defendant's racist views. This is not evident. Must go. Be back later. Good discussing with you, Monkie.

Followup Messages:

top of page

 

Home Web Chat Web Boards Discography Library Quiz Art & Poetry Links Store

Image Map -- text links below

Home | Web Chat | Web Boards | Discography | Library | Quiz | Art & Poetry | Links | Store

Produced by Sam Choukri
Frequently Asked Questions
Last updated on Jul 15, 2013