General Discussion

caseymoz

(5,763 posts)

275. No, that wouldn't follow.

Sat Jul 13, 2013, 10:36 PM

Jul 2013

Because a provocation is a confrontation; is it so hard to comprehend that? Besides, we're talking about a case where only one guy survived, and that's the account that we have. You talk about the slippery slope? Let's talk about how this will now develop: if you confront anybody in the dark, and you want to get away with it, just make sure he or she is dead. No matter how mean-spirited or ill-advised they can prove your confrontation was. Now that's an extremely bad precedent. How about avoiding that?

So, Zimmerman won. This is a stupid reversal of ethics, morals, law and responsibility, not to mention a triumph of racism. He was guilty of one thing beyond a reasonable doubt: criminal negligence. And he's probably guilty of more, but that possibly couldn't be proved. If any legal system can acquit this guy, it's rotten to the core. And that goes for any jury that does. No wonder we can't and won't go after the Wall Street bandits. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" causes serious brain glitches on our mis-educated, degenerate society.

I don't know which is worse, hearing the verdict or hearing anyone on this site defend it.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

301 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

From the Miami Herald: [View all] kentuck Jul 2013 OP

One thing they can add... trumad Jul 2013 #1

+1000 mountain grammy Jul 2013 #49

Add the reason the man didn't identify himself as neighborhood watch displacedtexan Jul 2013 #160

21 facts. Nice additional fact. marble falls Jul 2013 #278

That sums it up. baldguy Jul 2013 #2

Very simplistic. I think some of those items were disputed, so not "undisputed evidence". Egalitariat Jul 2013 #3

Which of the items do you feel is disputed? I've been following the trial fairly closely, and ... 11 Bravo Jul 2013 #5

16. There is no evidence that the teen was committing a crime or about to commit any crime. dkf Jul 2013 #8

There is no evidence Martin was about to commit assault intheflow Jul 2013 #10

No evidence Zimmerman initiated anything or entered his area. dkf Jul 2013 #11

Zimmerman got out of his car. intheflow Jul 2013 #13

That was perfectly legal. dkf Jul 2013 #23

It is perfectly legal for Martin to punch him in the nose under these circumstances. reusrename Jul 2013 #136

Nope. Punching someone is not legal. dkf Jul 2013 #139

Yes it is WovenGems Jul 2013 #179

If John Glenn said he went to the moon, he would indeed be a liar... Cooley Hurd Jul 2013 #293

but shooting someone is? frylock Jul 2013 #212

Right. Logic twisted like a pretzel. Ed Suspicious Jul 2013 #283

Judges often will say someone brought a fight on themselves and deserved injury. Spitfire of ATJ Jul 2013 #222

Sure it is. He has every right to defend himself. reusrename Jul 2013 #235

The string on Trayvon's sweatshirt was pulled all the way out on one side... Tx4obama Jul 2013 #239

I agree that it was perfectly legal but ... spin Jul 2013 #140

I agree completely. But you can't convict Z for acting foolishly, if that is not the law. dkf Jul 2013 #144

Once again I also agree. ... spin Jul 2013 #149

Yes the law is what it is. dkf Jul 2013 #151

may I ask Skittles Jul 2013 #228

I have often thought that it was quite possible that Zimmerman approached Martin ... spin Jul 2013 #248

As far as I'm concerned caseymoz Jul 2013 #255

Zimmerman was not legally obligated to follow the advise of the dispatcher. ... spin Jul 2013 #256

No, that wouldn't follow. caseymoz Jul 2013 #275

How do you know exactly what happened that night? ... spin Jul 2013 #280

How many times do I need to say this? caseymoz Jul 2013 #285

Your opinion is not the law. ... spin Jul 2013 #288

That's the law? The law's bullshit. caseymoz Jul 2013 #294

Organize with others and change the law if you can... spin Jul 2013 #297

there is no doubt Zimmerman's actions led to the death of an innocent teenager Skittles Jul 2013 #262

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. Apparently the jury agreed with me ... spin Jul 2013 #272

Once the defense asserts "Self Defense" they have admitted the fact of the killing and the burden Vincardog Jul 2013 #247

In that case I think the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that ... spin Jul 2013 #249

Just a warning, Legal Insurrection = right wing blog alp227 Jul 2013 #259

Good catch. I didn't notice that. Thanks. (n/t) spin Jul 2013 #301

I believe your link disagrees with you on where the burden of proof lays Vincardog Jul 2013 #298

zimmerman was the one forcing the issue brush Jul 2013 #166

He could have but he was stupid which isn't against the law. dkf Jul 2013 #168

yet you want to "convict" Martin for defending himself against someone acting foolishly? CatWoman Jul 2013 #188

why do Zimmerman defenders not consider that it was Trayvon fighting for his life? Skittles Jul 2013 #229

One of the problems that those who support Martin have is ... spin Jul 2013 #250

Trayvon would alive were it not for Zimmerman's IRRESPONSIBLE actions Skittles Jul 2013 #261

intercourse with animals is also perfectly LEGAL in several states.. frylock Jul 2013 #211

cant believe I will have to see that kind of arguments in DU. Sand Wind Jul 2013 #263

what about gay marriage? frylock Jul 2013 #264

And Martin was within his legal rights to defend himself intheflow Jul 2013 #258

Well, dkf, turns out you were absolutely correct about everything. classof56 Jul 2013 #287

I was hoping people would understand the law so they wouldn't expect too much. dkf Jul 2013 #295

Rolls eyes DonCoquixote Jul 2013 #14

Speculation on your part about wanting a fight. dkf Jul 2013 #24

If he didn't want a confrontation or fight, why did he get out of his car? Lex Jul 2013 #39

Unthinking desire to give 911 more info. But that's speculation on my part. dkf Jul 2013 #68

It's also pure hearsay that Trayvon initiated a fight. Voice for Peace Jul 2013 #86

Pure speculation to say who initiated physical contact. No evidence either way. dkf Jul 2013 #91

agree. Voice for Peace Jul 2013 #100

I think he did legitimately fear for his life. Someone certainly did and was screaming for help. dkf Jul 2013 #132

and from your point of view, how do you explain Voice for Peace Jul 2013 #202

Except for the girlfriend was on the line at that moment Quixote1818 Jul 2013 #126

She said Trayvon initiated the conversation: "He said, 'Why are you following me for?' dkf Jul 2013 #147

And if you were African American and regularly felt profiled how would you feel in this situation? Quixote1818 Jul 2013 #156

Pissed isn't good. Goes to possibility that TM threw the first punch. dkf Jul 2013 #158

I don't care if he did throw the first punch Quixote1818 Jul 2013 #175

Your version doesn't work well with the law. It won't help Z get convicted certainly. dkf Jul 2013 #177

Not according to what the lawer in the OP says. See here: Quixote1818 Jul 2013 #194

you heaven05 Jul 2013 #274

You seem to excuse the fact that he failed to identify himself as anyone other than... slor Jul 2013 #237

And then Jantel said Trayvon said: 'Get off of me, get off of me' n/t Tx4obama Jul 2013 #240

his past behavior proved otherwise DonCoquixote Jul 2013 #54

That makes no sense. dkf Jul 2013 #72

I don't think he had an intention to kill but he was prepared with his SYG education just in case. Voice for Peace Jul 2013 #89

This is NOT unusual.... socialist_n_TN Jul 2013 #96

That is pure speculation. There is no EVIDENCE that substantiates your belief. dkf Jul 2013 #99

I've had 30+ years training in and training .... socialist_n_TN Jul 2013 #105

Zimmerman was the one who started the confrontation - no evidence. dkf Jul 2013 #138

Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2013 #204

good point about the gun-- hadn't heard that before-- seems pretty damning NoMoreWarNow Jul 2013 #232

They were his backup. He got out of his car to follow Martin... Caroline-Vivienne Jul 2013 #134

That was his training. He was supposed to do that. gristy Jul 2013 #60

BS. Neighborhood watch people brush Jul 2013 #173

Unfortunately Chico Man Jul 2013 #221

This message was self-deleted by its author Politicub Jul 2013 #64

Seriously? Chico Man Jul 2013 #85

You're right. I self-deleted Politicub Jul 2013 #119

For the same reason Raul Rodriguez in Texas videotaped himself saying ET Awful Jul 2013 #122

Yes, exactly. gristy Jul 2013 #243

Pls stop making excuses for an out of control wannabe brush Jul 2013 #170

Leave us not forget that he also called the police on a 7 (SEVEN!), YEAR OLD CHILD Ecumenist Jul 2013 #251

There was no evidence that Z didn't assure Martin that he wasn't a perverted sexual predator either MrScorpio Jul 2013 #15

Relevance? dkf Jul 2013 #25

If some young person has some creepy looking adult following them around in the dark... MrScorpio Jul 2013 #41

Use your common sense Quixote1818 Jul 2013 #128

See that is more normal to me. Run home. Sounds like a plan. dkf Jul 2013 #135

And show the perv where your brother is with no parents there? Quixote1818 Jul 2013 #143

Nope. Get me in my house where I can lock the door. Then call the cops. dkf Jul 2013 #145

I have been followed by a road rage driver before Quixote1818 Jul 2013 #146

He is on foot so no he can't go to the police station. dkf Jul 2013 #150

So the perp knows where you live? DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2013 #152

Rather stay out where you can be grabbed? Crazy. dkf Jul 2013 #154

Where is he suposed to go? Quixote1818 Jul 2013 #159

Why not go home? I don't get that. dkf Jul 2013 #161

We can go round and round Quixote1818 Jul 2013 #172

A prudent person would "lose" the perp and go home DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2013 #163

There is a claim...that Martin damaged Zimmerman's nose and head. There is evidence that vanlassie Jul 2013 #16

Cut on knuckles and eye witness. dkf Jul 2013 #18

Doesn't matter who was on top, at worse Martin was fighting for his life Hoyt Jul 2013 #117

What ballistic tests? brush Jul 2013 #176

No the ballistic tests are hard evidence. dkf Jul 2013 #180

I'm saying that brush Jul 2013 #206

Trayvon had NO CUT on his KNUCKLES! He had a small cut on his index finger.. NOTHING Ecumenist Jul 2013 #252

evidence that zimmerman shot and killed an unarmed child. spanone Jul 2013 #21

After being injured and fearing for his life and body. dkf Jul 2013 #28

No evidence he was in fear for his life. He had a gun and he knew it. Lex Jul 2013 #44

he had a gun. he killed a kid. his fear was tempered by a killing machine. spanone Jul 2013 #53

No evidence Zimmerman initiated anything? burnodo Jul 2013 #35

Stalking is a specific legal term. This does not qualify. dkf Jul 2013 #45

because Zim was following him for no reason burnodo Jul 2013 #50

That's not the legal definition in Florida. dkf Jul 2013 #51

Save your keystrokes, when up is down, wrong is right, it's backward day, and you are wasting GoneFishin Jul 2013 #67

Florida Stalking Statute 784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties.— 1monster Jul 2013 #174

There is evidence that Zimmerman's nose and head were damaged. MH1 Jul 2013 #36

Cut on hand. 2 Eyewitness accounts of one person on top of another. dkf Jul 2013 #42

Cut on hand could have come from the edge of the freakin' skittles bag. MH1 Jul 2013 #56

Did you miss John Goods testimony? dkf Jul 2013 #65

Any evidence Zimmerman didn't inflict his own injuries AFTER he shot Martin?? Ghost in the Machine Jul 2013 #82

that is not evidence. Zimmerman had some minor injuries. There is no evidence they were inflicted by Voice for Peace Jul 2013 #83

No independent evidence that Trayvon EVER laid a finger on Zimmerman. Only evidence 1monster Jul 2013 #165

What evidence that Martin damaged anything? No blood or swelling on his hands, jtuck004 Jul 2013 #205

Not even to the degree that the injuries would have needed a bandaid! tblue37 Jul 2013 #224

Actually there is no evidence that Martin damaged the back of Zimmerman's 'head' Tx4obama Jul 2013 #238

from the testimony...and Zimmerman's tapes... ewagner Jul 2013 #58

I would say so.... socialist_n_TN Jul 2013 #115

What "evidence" that the teen committed assault? MH1 Jul 2013 #32

Injuries to Z. Evidence of injuries to nose and 6 contacts with ground. dkf Jul 2013 #37

The only unequivocal evidence that doesn't rely on defendant's testimony MH1 Jul 2013 #43

Unfortunately, all you've done is establish reasonable doubt onenote Jul 2013 #52

I read that it is the defense's responsibility to provide "affirmative defense" rather than MH1 Jul 2013 #63

What you read is wrong. onenote Jul 2013 #75

Ok, but that is still different than how some people here seem to be saying it. MH1 Jul 2013 #88

I think you are getting confused onenote Jul 2013 #106

I left out a word. Updated that sentence in the post. MH1 Jul 2013 #116

You're right to an extent...and.. ewagner Jul 2013 #153

The fact that self defense is included in the jury instructions means he has met the threshold dkf Jul 2013 #87

Clarification: "justifiable use of deadly force" by reasonable doubt MH1 Jul 2013 #104

This is based on his perception, not yours. dkf Jul 2013 #112

One more time. From the jury instructions, the "reasonable person" standard is clear: MH1 Jul 2013 #121

The prosecution made no assertions how Z could have avoided that danger at the time TM had pinned dkf Jul 2013 #142

You're excepting zimmerman's story of being pinned brush Jul 2013 #185

It corresponds with John Good's witness testimony. dkf Jul 2013 #187

Goods testimony was the opposite of the woman's testimony who said the one brush Jul 2013 #191

If the italicized words in your post had been added to the jury instructions onenote Jul 2013 #123

Sorry, a reasonable person has respect for human life. MH1 Jul 2013 #124

You are conflating two concepts onenote Jul 2013 #129

Right brush Jul 2013 #183

Zimmerman's Story Does Not Make Sense erpowers Jul 2013 #66

zimmerman is the one who claimed Martin assaulted him brush Jul 2013 #148

We have one person's story for that. Z could have banged his head by slipping and falling. WinkyDink Jul 2013 #245

If someone you do not know,follows you and grabs you, would you not "resist"? SoCalDem Jul 2013 #253

well heaven05 Jul 2013 #273

Oh, hello! 2ndAmForComputers Jul 2013 #286

How about the police told him not to follow? Chico Man Jul 2013 #26

#3 and #4 are in dispute hfojvt Jul 2013 #300

How does he get around the jury instruction re:self defense? dkf Jul 2013 #4

The one who should have been concerned about deadly force was Martin Fumesucker Jul 2013 #6

That's not what is in front of the jury. dkf Jul 2013 #7

I'm not arguing the law, I'm arguing reality Fumesucker Jul 2013 #9

Seems everyone who thinks Z is guilty is arguing "reality" and not the law. dkf Jul 2013 #20

" Doesn't any one want to discuss the law?" greiner3 Jul 2013 #40

Yeah I think that is what most are doing. They don't want to discuss the law because they wish it dkf Jul 2013 #93

It's not the law. It's dkf's interpretation of the law. 1monster Jul 2013 #181

Wrong he posted the jury instructions as ceonupe Jul 2013 #207

Depends on which post of his/hers you are referring to. I read many posts where s/he was 1monster Jul 2013 #208

Not with someone like you who tilts toward Zimmerman and cherry picks Politicub Jul 2013 #71

If everything about the two was reversed, I would be arguing the same thing. dkf Jul 2013 #80

If the roles were reversed we would have never heard of the case DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2013 #155

That wouldn't be my fault. I could have judged this on the merits. dkf Jul 2013 #192

If everything was reversed brush Jul 2013 #189

Well I don't appreciate if that is so. dkf Jul 2013 #195

doesn't the law include using common sense when required? Voice for Peace Jul 2013 #102

does that not work both ways? is the dead kid not allowed to defend himself? Civilization2 Jul 2013 #12

If TM were the one in court and Z was dead then yes, he could argue self defense. dkf Jul 2013 #19

This message was self-deleted by its author Kingofalldems Jul 2013 #27

Under Florida law, the right to stand your ground requires onenote Jul 2013 #57

Was it reasonable to assume imminent danger? mainstreetonce Jul 2013 #17

Why is unreasonable to think it would have continued? dkf Jul 2013 #22

please go outside to the sidewalk, find a stranger, Voice for Peace Jul 2013 #107

THANK YOU brush Jul 2013 #193

Is it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that it was unreasonable to assume danger? onenote Jul 2013 #59

Would I fear great bodily harm if I were straddled Chico Man Jul 2013 #79

"If" is the operable word brush Jul 2013 #197

Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't support Zimmerman onenote Jul 2013 #201

Did you leave out a word in your post? brush Jul 2013 #203

Yes I did. Corrected now. onenote Jul 2013 #209

in the context of undisputed facts + Zimmerman's fabulous story: YES. Voice for Peace Jul 2013 #199

You are right except for one thing. 4 more years Jul 2013 #169

Easy, Ma'am: Zimmerman Lies, The 'Appearance Of Danger' Did Not Make Him Actually Fear For His Life The Magistrate Jul 2013 #90

Interesting, The Part You Leave Out, Ma'am.... The Magistrate Jul 2013 #94

Interesting, The Part You Leave Out, Redux, Ma'am... The Magistrate Jul 2013 #97

Why does it not surprise me that you're a Zimmerman defender Hugabear Jul 2013 #125

Second Degree Murder was John2 Jul 2013 #131

Did you read the portion on self defense? It negates both 2nd and manslaughter. dkf Jul 2013 #198

Did you John2 Jul 2013 #213

Couldn't just about every murderer who had a victim fight back claim "self defense"? cascadiance Jul 2013 #196

I don't agree (necessarily) with 12 and 14... Sancho Jul 2013 #29

that sounds like exactly what happened, or close. Voice for Peace Jul 2013 #111

That sounds more plausible than any explaination I've heard yet. 1monster Jul 2013 #184

This is dangerous from the Herald Chico Man Jul 2013 #30

He did break the John2 Jul 2013 #215

Right-o Chico Man Jul 2013 #218

Some random dude jumps you in the street and want to know what you are up to,. he is not a cop, no Civilization2 Jul 2013 #31

No evidence Z "jumped" TM. Pure speculation. dkf Jul 2013 #33

No evidence TM "jumped" Z either. Little Star Jul 2013 #46

True. No evidence who started the physical contact period. dkf Jul 2013 #47

You call it speculation I call it common sense. Little Star Jul 2013 #55

The prosecution must prove via evidence. You aren't supposed to use a guess to determine this. dkf Jul 2013 #81

Z was a LIAR. Therefore... Little Star Jul 2013 #92

Even if you discount his words the prosecution must prove their case with evidence. dkf Jul 2013 #95

Evidence based on lies is not acceptable evidence. Little Star Jul 2013 #98

The PROSECUTION must present evidence substantiating the claims. dkf Jul 2013 #103

Ummmmmmmmmmm, no it doesn't Iliyah Jul 2013 #109

Jury instructions... dkf Jul 2013 #118

Thanks for posting naaman fletcher Jul 2013 #178

Sorry but when there were only two actual witnesses and.. Little Star Jul 2013 #114

Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus/nt DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2013 #157

A disfavored principle of law isn't going to help your position onenote Jul 2013 #167

Bullshit. The guy who CHOSE not to stay in his car like he was instructed to GoneFishin Jul 2013 #73

He was already out of his car Chico Man Jul 2013 #76

So then Travon forced Zimmerman to get out of his car? GoneFishin Jul 2013 #101

Getting out of a car is not physical contact. onenote Jul 2013 #78

Tough crap. The pretzel logical contortions would not be needed if Zimmerman minded his own GoneFishin Jul 2013 #110

You are ignoring the law. That is not how it works, except in vigilante land. Ironic. dkf Jul 2013 #120

Are you a lawyer? John2 Jul 2013 #210

There is clear evidence Zimmerman John2 Jul 2013 #217

Self defense negates both 2nd degree and manslaughter. dkf Jul 2013 #220

Is there evidence Zimmerman "jumped" Trayvon? Chico Man Jul 2013 #38

This message was self-deleted by its author dkf Jul 2013 #48

I don't have any confidence in the outcome of this trial. Baitball Blogger Jul 2013 #34

Sadly, I agree with you. I am astonished by the posts here. Evergreen Emerald Jul 2013 #74

Sweetie, I tell my Iliyah Jul 2013 #84

I believe #10 has a mistake in it, if I heard the testimony right 1-Old-Man Jul 2013 #61

RW radio is consumed with this case underpants Jul 2013 #62

That fucking simple malaise Jul 2013 #69

+ Voice for Peace Jul 2013 #113

Fact Iliyah Jul 2013 #70

Could Zimmerman have slipped on the grass and hit the back of his head? Politicub Jul 2013 #77

Shit, he could have banged his head on the car's door as he raced out to shoot-down Travon. 1-Old-Man Jul 2013 #127

Question (because I haven't been watching this trial) Autumn Colors Jul 2013 #108

The notion the jury can't speculate ... ThePhilosopher04 Jul 2013 #130

I'm not a lawyer but... Hubert Flottz Jul 2013 #133

Years ago tiredtoo Jul 2013 #137

#3 is actually completely false, not just "disputed" (nt) Nye Bevan Jul 2013 #141

The police dispatcher told Fatty "we don't need you to do that( follow Trayvon)."/nt DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2013 #162

When my wife tells me that she "doesn't need me" to take the garbage out, Nye Bevan Jul 2013 #164

The "is what is is " defense DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2013 #171

Probably not. But it is false to say that you were "told by the police not to follow him". Nye Bevan Jul 2013 #182

If a trained police dispatcher tells you "we don't need you to do that" DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2013 #190

Sorry, not even close to the facts Boom Sound 416 Jul 2013 #186

only because it is difficult to prove ill will beyond a doubt Voice for Peace Jul 2013 #200

Facts are things that actually happened Boom Sound 416 Jul 2013 #216

well, being that you have all the sense CatWoman Jul 2013 #219

Let's start with #3 Chico Man Jul 2013 #223

this is all I need to know -- shove your "expertise" elsewhere CatWoman Jul 2013 #230

I agree Chico Man Jul 2013 #233

Not to speak ill of the dead Boom Sound 416 Jul 2013 #242

See here's the thing, that KID is dead and zimmy is a PROVEN liar....END OF STORY! Ecumenist Jul 2013 #257

Everyone is speculating Boom Sound 416 Jul 2013 #266

"The cheese off the cracker" Boom Sound 416 Jul 2013 #267

+1 Boom Sound 416 Jul 2013 #241

If you think those are the facts Boom Sound 416 Jul 2013 #244

K&R Rebellious Republican Jul 2013 #214

dkf can argue til blue, but Zimmerman's life is now worth about as much as Martin's Patiod Jul 2013 #225

One of the lone voices of reason here Chico Man Jul 2013 #226

dfk has a habit of doing that CatWoman Jul 2013 #231

Except "humiliated or harassed" is a da*n sight better than "dead." WinkyDink Jul 2013 #246

Sadly true Patiod Jul 2013 #268

I'd like to think this, too, but it's Florida. Maybe he'll be a King Bee. WinkyDink Jul 2013 #271

Post removed Post removed Jul 2013 #227

To me, this whole case pivots on the fact Blue_In_AK Jul 2013 #234

That's it in a nutshell duffyduff Jul 2013 #236

kick Liberal_in_LA Jul 2013 #254

as josh marshall put it arely staircase Jul 2013 #260

Evidently not Patiod Jul 2013 #269

sadly not arely staircase Jul 2013 #270

K&R ReRe Jul 2013 #265

. blkmusclmachine Jul 2013 #276

K & R SoapBox Jul 2013 #277

So now a mugger can claim self defense in Florida when he shoots a victim. Kablooie Jul 2013 #279

Same Basic Point I Made Above DallasNE Jul 2013 #282

The lesson? Do not defend yourself if you are black in the state of Florida? SleeplessinSoCal Jul 2013 #281

That's what I See With This Case. lib87 Jul 2013 #290

The gun wasn't seen. But he followed him. If I were being followed in the rain by a guy SleeplessinSoCal Jul 2013 #291

Amazing colsohlibgal Jul 2013 #284

Well, it's all over folks defacto7 Jul 2013 #289

K&R n/t lupinella Jul 2013 #292

K&R Raffi Ella Jul 2013 #296

And the result is that armed vigilantism is alive and well in Florida. MoonRiver Jul 2013 #299