Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course I'm referring to the fight between Martin & Zimmerman. To what else would I be referring? That's the only thing that matters here. I don't care if Martin had been out burning down hospitals or rescuing babies before his run in with Zimmerman. All that matters is what happened between him & Zimmerman. My point was that none of us know what happened there, and shouldn't be making such absolute statements as the one to which I responded.
Well, there is a LOT to that question.
Do you think that Martin, like Zimmerman, should be presumed innocent until proven otherwise?
Also, do you have a personal opinion (NOT proof) that Martin started the fight? Do you think anything in Martin's past is relevant to the question of who started teh fight?
I agree, and it amazes me that people are willing to believe a complete stranger just because he was carrying a concealed weapon and used it to kill a black teenager. [snip]
Yep, give me a defendant who used a concealed weapon to kill a black teen, or even a non-black teen, and I'll believe him every time.
Do you think that Martin, like Zimmerman, should be presumed innocent until proven otherwise?
Also, do you have a personal opinion (NOT proof) that Martin started the fight? Do you think anything in Martin's past is relevant to the question of who started teh fight?
Presumed innocent of what? He's not been brought to trial, so no presumption is required. The presumption of innocence is a function and facet of the legal system, not a restriction on the public's individual personal opinions.
Do I have a personal opinion? Sure I do. It doesn't picture either party as an angel or a devil.
I've seen no such thing, which is why I never made the assertion. Unlike you, who said, and I quote, "a dead teen who was innocent of any wrongdoing that night." Since you said it so strongly and factually, I assumed you had some credible proof of it. I stand corrected.
My statement was based on the evidence available at this point, including the 911 call that Zimmerman made himself. Perhaps a look at Zimmerman's arrest record from that night would inform you more fully. Again, since you seem so certain that Trayvon Martin had either committed a crime or attempted to, we would all like to see such information from authorities. The SYG law cuts both ways:
As the author notes, much will depend on Zimmerman's account and also statements (even from his attorney) that he's told contradictory stories and made statements that don't match the forensic evidence. Of course, if you can provide proof that Martin is guilty of some wrongdoing, I'd certainly concede that I would stand corrected. Have you such evidence to share?
Presumed innocent of what? He's not been brought to trial, so no presumption is required. The presumption of innocence is a function and facet of the legal system, not a restriction on the public's individual personal opinions.
Do I have a personal opinion? Sure I do. It doesn't picture either party as an angel or a devil.
Again, since you seem so certain that Trayvon Martin had either committed a crime or attempted to, we would all like to see such information from authorities. <SNIP> Of course, if you can provide proof that Martin is guilty of some wrongdoing, I'd certainly concede that I would stand corrected. Have you such evidence to share?
You seem insistent on portraying me as asserting that Martin was committing a crime. I say again, hoping you will understand it this time; I never said that Martin committed or was committing any crime. I don't know whether he did or did not. I don't know who, (he or Zimmerman) initiated the violence that led to Martins death. I don't know whether Zimmerman was guilty of any wrongdoing, or if Martin was guilty of wrongdoing. I responded to YOUR assertion that Martin was "innocent of any wrongdoing that night." You made what appears to be a statement of fact. I asked if you have support for same. Clearly you don't, which makes the statement your opinion, and not a demonstrable fact. Asking me to provide proof for a statement I never made doesn't convert your opinion to fact. Also, it's rude.
It's not an evasion, but a recognition that I don't know what happened. If I had to guess, I'd say that neither man was out looking for a fight, that both men probably did or said things that escalated the situation, that either man could have done something different to diffuse it, but that both men chose instead to be aggressive & ego driven and not back down. I can very easily envision one guy wanting to protect his neighborhood from someone unfamiliar who he sees as acting suspicious or odd (or whatever words he used in his call to the police), and the other guy feeling he shouldn't have to explain his whereabouts to a stranger, and both refusing to back down.
It's not an evasion, but a recognition that I don't know what happened. If I had to guess, I'd say that neither man was out looking for a fight, that both men probably did or said things that escalated the situation, that either man could have done something different to diffuse it, but that both men chose instead to be aggressive & ego driven and not back down. I can very easily envision one guy wanting to protect his neighborhood from someone unfamiliar who he sees as acting suspicious or odd (or whatever words he used in his call to the police), and the other guy feeling he shouldn't have to explain his whereabouts to a stranger, and both refusing to back down.
so, in other words, you are saying that you don't have an opinion/belief as to WHICH ONE actually started the fight?
However, IF BOTH started the fight, at the same time, (which fits your scenario) do you have an opinion as to whether or not Zimmerman had a right to kill Trayvon, WITHOUT having exhausted every reasonable effort to get away first?
You seem insistent on portraying me as asserting that Martin was committing a crime. I say again, hoping you will understand it this time; I never said that Martin committed or was committing any crime. I don't know whether he did or did not. I don't know who, (he or Zimmerman) initiated the violence that led to Martins death. I don't know whether Zimmerman was guilty of any wrongdoing, or if Martin was guilty of wrongdoing. I responded to YOUR assertion that Martin was "innocent of any wrongdoing that night." You made what appears to be a statement of fact. I asked if you have support for same. Clearly you don't, which makes the statement your opinion, and not a demonstrable fact. Asking me to provide proof for a statement I never made doesn't convert your opinion to fact. Also, it's rude.
You asked me to prove Martin's innocence of any criminal activity on the night in question. Again, I've neither read nor heard anything that intimates that Martin was either attempting to or committing a crime. Only evidence to the contrary
would disprove my current belief that the evidence has yet to include any insinuation of that fact. I see it as perfectly reasonable to ask for evidence that disproves my stance; it's unfortunate that you find someone asking you to make a point is rude. The absence of evidence to the contrary seems to uphold what I believe.
The absence of evidence to the contrary seems to uphold what I believe.
Absence of evidence to the contrary is precisely that. That absence does not uphold the point in question.
Show me evidence that there are no unicorns. If you cannot, shall we all accept that unicorns are real and in existence?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
