MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
I've seen no proven contradictions so far. The DA says there is, but they ALWAYS say that. Otherwise they'd be admitting they have no case. Please don't list your worn out arguments again, it all conjecture.
trayvan martin
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
I've seen no proven contradictions so far. The DA says there is, but they ALWAYS say that. Otherwise they'd be admitting they have no case. Please don't list your worn out arguments again, it all conjecture.
WindyCityToker
Member
Well said MuyLoco. People seem to forget "Innocent until proven guilty" when they're caught in a media tornado. There are too many sheep who can't form their own thoughts and opinions.
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Don't confuse my position, Zimmerman may be guilty as hell. I'm simply exploring all scenarios. UB and the others may have it exactly right, I'm just not convinced either way yet.
WRONG.
as the primary suspect in a murder investigation, and later the defendant in the case, his version is the one that has to be analyzed with the most skeptical point of view possible.
WindyCityToker
Member
I hope they fry him personally. I just wish it would stop being a giant argument about race. I've heard Zimmerman referred to as white then hispanic then white again. Who cares? Is justice a color?
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
If I'm wrong then the standard of law is "guilty until we can confirm your story"?
I don't think so pal.
you are mistaken in what innocent until proven guilty stands for.
it means that until a jury convicts you of a crime, your record shall not reflect you have ever committed any crime. anybody who says you committed a crime shall be guilty of issuing libelous and malicious statements against your person and ultimately your legacy.
it has nothing to do with how crime is investigated....
it means that until a jury convicts you of a crime, your record shall not reflect you have ever committed any crime. anybody who says you committed a crime shall be guilty of issuing libelous and malicious statements against your person and ultimately your legacy.
it has nothing to do with how crime is investigated....
WindyCityToker
Member
No one will ever know what REALLY happened, just like the aforementioned Casey Anthony and O.J. cases. So who's to say? I just think everyone's entitled to a fair shake. This thread is a bunch of Nancy Graces
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Wow, and for all these years of listening to lawyers and prosecutors talk about the "presumption of innocence" thinking it meant we are presumed innocent UNTIL PROVEN guilty. When all along it was just referring to our records and how people speak of us. I respectfully think you're full of $&/@.
If you're correct, then many of you should be sued by Zimmerman. He could use the money for his defense.
Illegal Smile
Well-Known Member
This is actually a little on the frightening side. Haven't any of you read or seen what Alan Dershowitz has said? He's a Harvard Law Prof, very liberal. Among other things, he pointed out that our legal system is based on the philosophy that it is better for ten guilty people to go free, than for one innocent person to be held guilty. So much for your notion of presumption of innocence.
If you haven't seen this you should: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s62nII74VmY
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
that it happened in the grass is not conjecture.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i'll be happy as long as it goes to trial.
from there, it's just convincing 12 people to believe a story. based on what we know, no conjecture, i'm unable to be convinced that this is not manslaughter at least. so i'll push that narrative all day long.
you don't ever hear prosecutors talk about presumption of innocence. it is not a prosecutor's job to believe you are innocent.
it is a prosecutor's job to prove you are guilty.
i think you are too high to understand what I said in full context.
sit down and read it and COMPREHEND what not having a criminal record vs. having one is really about.... that's what presumption of innocence is. you may be arrested 100000 times, until you are convicted, no criminal record. you are a free, innocent man. THINK ABOUT IT.
it is a prosecutor's job to prove you are guilty.
i think you are too high to understand what I said in full context.
sit down and read it and COMPREHEND what not having a criminal record vs. having one is really about.... that's what presumption of innocence is. you may be arrested 100000 times, until you are convicted, no criminal record. you are a free, innocent man. THINK ABOUT IT.
Illegal Smile
Well-Known Member
Perhpas you would like to enlighten us by explaining what the specifications for murder 2 are. What does the prosecution have to prove? I'm certain you have no clue, but even you can google Florida law on the subject. Do that and report back.
The charges never should have been brought.
Zimmerman is a political prisoner
It will never go to trial
are you referring to how it is better for one guilty person to walk free than for 10 innocents to be held as if they were guilty....???
Illegal Smile
Well-Known Member
I don't know where you are coming up with this. Perhaps you could provide a link? It is true that you have no criminal record without a conviction, but that's not presumption of innocence, that's common sense. Presumption of innocence is the basis for the allocation of burden of proof. Z doesn't have to prove it was self defense. Wny not? Because the prosecution has to prove it wasn't. Why? Presumption of innocence.
Illegal Smile
Well-Known Member
You have it backwards you big silly! Provide links.
Indeed, it makes more sense to run TOWARDS the person following you so as to not give away the location of the place where you stash your gold Grill!!!! Which I am sure was the utmost thing on Trayvon's mind, especially hearing about the increased number of thefts and break-ins suffered by the neighborhood in recent times. Great Defense, I hope the prosecution uses that one.