Unarmed teen shooting: the debate rages on...

[Coito ergo sum]

I didn't expect you'd be nervous. You're very comfortable in your role as final arbiter of the facts, based on incomplete and faulty evidence.

Ask?

Well, like your reliance on the doctored 911 transcript. You read an article that made Zimmerman's statements look racist, when the actual transcript did no such thing.

The head wound issue - you relied on the assumption that there was no injury -- then there was evidence, including police evidence, that there was a head injury as alleged.

You claimed that the transcript showed that Zimmerman ignored the instructions of the dispatcher, when the transcript shows only that he obeyed her.

That's three examples of faulty and incomplete evidence on which you felt comfortable concluding Zimmerman was not only guilty, but guilty with evil intent, paranoid, and a "gun nut."

If that's not appointing yourself judge and jury, then what is?

[Tyrannical]

.
If Martin started the fight, that wouldn't give Zimmerman the right to shoot him. That's just basic common sense that you're failing on there.

Yes, it would give Zimmerman the right to shoot Trayvon. That is why the police didn't initially charge him.

Quite amazing. So in America, you can kill someone if they start a fight?

Under self defense if you feel you may be seriously harmed, yes.

I can see one teeeeeeeensy weeeeeeeeeensy little problem though.
The person who's been killed is usually dead, and doesn't get much of a chance to say, "NO, HE STARTED IT" !!

Yup,that's why police always hint that if your house is ever broken into, make sure you are the only witness

If Trayvon was only wounded, Zimmerman would stand a higher chance of going to jail.

[kiki5711]

I didn't expect you'd be nervous. You're very comfortable in your role as final arbiter of the facts, based on incomplete and faulty evidence.

Ask?

Well, like your reliance on the doctored 911 transcript. You read an article that made Zimmerman's statements look racist, when the actual transcript did no such thing.

The head wound issue - you relied on the assumption that there was no injury -- then there was evidence, including police evidence, that there was a head injury as alleged.

You claimed that the transcript showed that Zimmerman ignored the instructions of the dispatcher, when the transcript shows only that he obeyed her.

That's three examples of faulty and incomplete evidence on which you felt comfortable concluding Zimmerman was not only guilty, but guilty with evil intent, paranoid, and a "gun nut."

If that's not appointing yourself judge and jury, then what is?

And you refuting my argument for yours to be "correct" is not doing the same thing?

[FBM]

PSA:

Moving/shifting the goalposts strategy in argumentation:

As logical fallacy

Moving the goalposts, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. In other words, after a goal has been scored, the goalposts are moved farther to discount the attempt. This attempts to leave the impression that an argument had a fair hearing while actually reaching a preordained conclusion.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

Just thought this might help. Not betting anything on it, tho.

[Coito ergo sum]

I didn't expect you'd be nervous. You're very comfortable in your role as final arbiter of the facts, based on incomplete and faulty evidence.

Ask?

Well, like your reliance on the doctored 911 transcript. You read an article that made Zimmerman's statements look racist, when the actual transcript did no such thing.

The head wound issue - you relied on the assumption that there was no injury -- then there was evidence, including police evidence, that there was a head injury as alleged.

You claimed that the transcript showed that Zimmerman ignored the instructions of the dispatcher, when the transcript shows only that he obeyed her.

That's three examples of faulty and incomplete evidence on which you felt comfortable concluding Zimmerman was not only guilty, but guilty with evil intent, paranoid, and a "gun nut."

If that's not appointing yourself judge and jury, then what is?

And you refuting my argument for yours to be "correct" is not doing the same thing?

The only position I've taken is that Zimmerman may not be guilty, and the evidence didn't clearly point to guilt in the way you and others concluded immediately. I've not taken the position he's innocent. You've taken the position he's guilty, based on false, misleading and debunked evidence.

He may be guilty, but certainly not because of anything you've based your conclusions on.

[kiki5711]

I've not taken the position he's innocent

Yes you have.

[mistermack]

Quite amazing. So in America, you can kill someone if they start a fight?

Under self defense if you feel you may be seriously harmed, yes.

Good. I'm glad you're back to reality. Nice of you to join us.
So it's that that he needs to convince a jury of.
If I was him, I wouldn't rely on doubt being enough. He wore the gun. He chased the kid. He shot the kid.

He has a gun, but decides he's about to be killed by someone who has shown no weapon.
Even after the most minor of injuries, he concludes that he has to kill to save his life.
Not to threaten to kill, but to kill.

I will be very interested in the judges summing up. especially about the burden of proof.

[Coito ergo sum]

I've not taken the position he's innocent

Yes you have.

False. I have not. I've explicitly stated exactly the opposite. Many times.

If you think I have, I'd love to see the post in which you say I claimed he is innocent, or anything to that effect.

[kiki5711]

I've not taken the position he's innocent

Yes you have.

False. I have not. I've explicitly stated exactly the opposite. Many times.

If you think I have, I'd love to see the post in which you say I claimed he is innocent, or anything to that effect.

[Coito ergo sum]

Quite amazing. So in America, you can kill someone if they start a fight?

Under self defense if you feel you may be seriously harmed, yes.

Good. I'm glad you're back to reality. Nice of you to join us.
So it's that that he needs to convince a jury of.
If I was him, I wouldn't rely on doubt being enough. He wore the gun.

Wearing the gun in and of itself is not evidence of intent.

He chased the kid.

That has not been established, and as yet it has not even been alleged (except by people relying on a misreading of the 911 call).

He shot the kid.

That is admitted.

He has a gun, but decides he's about to be killed by someone who has shown no weapon.

Yes, although he would have no way of knowing Martin was armed or unarmed.

Even after the most minor of injuries,

It is not established that the injuries are minor. And the issue is not the extent of the head injuries, but what a reasonable person would perceive under the same or similar circumstances.

he concludes that he has to kill to save his life.
Not to threaten to kill, but to kill.

I will be very interested in the judges summing up. especially about the burden of proof.

The burden of proof remains squarely on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If the jury finds that there is reasonable doubt as to his intent to kill without justification (self-defense), then the jury must find him not guilty. Once a defendant in a criminal case has introduced proof that he acted in self-defense the jury is entitled to consider the defense, and the jury may not convict the defendant unless it finds beyond a reasonable that he did not act in self-defense. In other words, all he has to do is show some evidence of self-defense, and if the jury takes that evidence and finds that there is reasonable doubt as to whether he committed murder without acting in self-defense, they are instructed to acquit. Zimmerman does not even have to prove it was more likely than not that he acted in self-defense.

[Coito ergo sum]

I've not taken the position he's innocent

Yes you have.

False. I have not. I've explicitly stated exactly the opposite. Many times.

If you think I have, I'd love to see the post in which you say I claimed he is innocent, or anything to that effect.

You have difficulty with reading comprehension, I think.

I don't know if he's guilty or innocent. I only know that the reasons you claimed for thinking him surely guilty were based on manufactured, doctored, or faulty evidence. Your conclusions were knee-jerk and all over the map. First he was racist (that appears to be long abandoned). Then the cops were racist. Then he disobeyed the dispatcher. Then he had no injury at all, and the "evidence" showed he made the head injury up. On and on and on. You got yourself so emotionally wedded to one conclusion that you can't even see your way clear to the intellectual honesty of saying "yes, I was wrong about those things, and maybe the facts aren't as clear as I have been saying they are."

If I have concluded that he is innocent, then what do you make of the posts I've made discussing what I think would demonstrate his guilt? i.e. the ballistics/forensics evidence, wherein I stated clearly that I thought he could be found guilty if the bullet wound analysis showed that it did not come from the position Zimmerman claimed to be in when he fired. If I already concluded he's innocent, why would I say it's possible he's guilty?

[kiki5711]

[Tyrannical]

Quite amazing. So in America, you can kill someone if they start a fight?

Under self defense if you feel you may be seriously harmed, yes.

Good. I'm glad you're back to reality. Nice of you to join us.
So it's that that he needs to convince a jury of.
If I was him, I wouldn't rely on doubt being enough. He wore the gun. He chased the kid. He shot the kid.

He has a gun, but decides he's about to be killed by someone who has shown no weapon.
Even after the most minor of injuries, he concludes that he has to kill to save his life.
Not to threaten to kill, but to kill.

I will be very interested in the judges summing up. especially about the burden of proof.

Zimmerman "claims" that Trayvon knocked him down and continued to hit him. Unless you have evidence to refute Zimmerman's claim, he was legally justified.

[Warren Dew]

Good. I'm glad you're back to reality. Nice of you to join us.
So it's that that he needs to convince a jury of.

No, he doesn't. In the U.S., the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defendant.

[Coito ergo sum]

That's how you came up with your ironclad conclusion that Zimmerman was guilty...by sleeping through all the evidence.