Something went wrong. Try again later

EnduranceFun

This user has not updated recently.

1116 223 45 59
Forum Posts Wiki Points Following Followers

EnduranceFun's forum posts

Avatar image for endurancefun
EnduranceFun

1116

Forum Posts

223

Wiki Points

59

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

If you follow people you're a murderer!!!

No.

Avatar image for endurancefun
EnduranceFun

1116

Forum Posts

223

Wiki Points

59

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@churrific said:

@donutfever said:

@endurancefun said:

@theht: Well, that is your opinion, but this thread is not about morals or opinions, it is about what Zimmerman should've been found guilty of, which has clear legal boundaries. Of course it's tragic but that alone is not grounds to randomly lock away an innocent man for thirty years.

Well, he definitely shot Trayvon, there's no debate over that. So he's not exactly an innocent man, even if he was defending himself in a fistfight.

As for the "randomly lock away" part, it's not random, there's plenty of evidence. Just not enough that he's guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt".

No opinion on the actual outcome since I don't really know anything besides second-hand information, but I'll just say that there wasn't enough evidence for even an initial arrest. I personally infer that means the evidence scales more towards "beyond flimsy" than "plenty".

I think no initial arrest says more about the cops (many of which were later fired) than anything else.

The fact they were fired is of no consequence to their ability when they were fired for what turned out to be the right call. Unless you are of the belief that there was some evidence they didn't find, when really I can't see what they possibly would've found that would've tipped the scales so much in the prosecution's favour. The trial was a total joke for the state.

Avatar image for endurancefun
EnduranceFun

1116

Forum Posts

223

Wiki Points

59

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@endurancefun said:

@donutfever: Okay, now what evidence actually supports the fact that Zimmerman begun the fight?

Several witnesses attested that Zimmerman's account was accurate. Zimmerman's clothing was wetter from being on the grass. He was visibly injured, though not as much as he thought / said he was that is a moot point. At best you can argue, without any supporting evidence mind you, that it was a two-way fight. Even if that hypothetical was true, still not illegal to defend yourself if you weren't the aggressor.

As I said none. What supports that Trayvon did? None. For this reason, I see that the jury had to find him not guilty, because a reasonable person could doubt his guilt. But looking at it on the balance of probabilities, as everyone not in the jury does, Zimmerman looks guilty. There's not evidence to who started the fight, but Zimmerman was the more aggressive person up to that point, and also more confidant, due to that fact that he was armed.

All those things you listed only show that a fight occurred (which I agree happened), not who started it.

Fair enough, I simply don't think there was any evidence that would've changed the verdict. The cops were right. I also personally think Trayvon seems like a drug rat, while Zimmerman seems like a bit of a weirdo. On balance, seems more likely Trayvon would be the aggressor. Skirting the topic a bit, I do think the media sensationalised this story to a ridiculous degree and misrepresented facts, potentially causing a riot plus escalating racial tensions. Real shit bags.

Avatar image for endurancefun
EnduranceFun

1116

Forum Posts

223

Wiki Points

59

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@extomar: Again I ask, which of these did Zimmerman do? Because from my count, the answer is 0. If you want to pretend in your imagination something happened that isn't backed up by any evidence, all power to you, but don't try and fool anyone else into thinking it's anything but a delusional fantasy. As well, if you were in Zimmerman's position, I'm sure you wouldn't be so fast to play the accuser, when it's your life that's on the line for a bullshit charge drummed up by the state.

@donutfever: Okay, now what evidence actually supports the fact that Zimmerman begun the fight?

Several witnesses attested that Zimmerman's account was accurate. Zimmerman's clothing was wetter from being on the grass. He was visibly injured, though not as much as he thought / said he was that is a moot point. At best you can argue, without any supporting evidence mind you, that it was a two-way fight. Even if that hypothetical was true, still not illegal to defend yourself if you weren't the aggressor.

Avatar image for endurancefun
EnduranceFun

1116

Forum Posts

223

Wiki Points

59

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@endurancefun said:

@extomar: It could have been avoided, but there's no legal case. I think we can agree on that much.

@donutfever: No, sometimes there is good reason not to investigate because it is obvious nothing illegal has happened, once you have seen all the available evidence. In this case the police officers on the scene and back at the station realised this very quickly and rightly let Zimmerman go after some light questioning. In the end he was declared innocent anyway, making it a huge waste of time and money all in pursuit of prosecuting an innocent man because it served a political end.

He was found innocent because of those officers not investigating. Most evidence is found in the first couple of days after the crime. If they had done their jobs, people would have been a whole lot more sure about the verdict. But they didn't.

Wow... so many assumptions. There was not only no evidence to support whatever it is that people on this side argue actually happened (I guess Zimmerman jumped Trayvon and shot him, beat himself up?) to make Zimmerman guilty of anything, but a LOT of evidence to support Zimmerman's account. End of story.

Avatar image for endurancefun
EnduranceFun

1116

Forum Posts

223

Wiki Points

59

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@extomar: It could have been avoided, but there's no legal case. I think we can agree on that much.

@donutfever: No, sometimes there is good reason not to investigate because it is obvious nothing illegal has happened, once you have seen all the available evidence. In this case the police officers on the scene and back at the station realised this very quickly and rightly let Zimmerman go after some light questioning. In the end he was declared innocent anyway, making it a huge waste of time and money all in pursuit of prosecuting an innocent man because it served a political end.

Avatar image for endurancefun
EnduranceFun

1116

Forum Posts

223

Wiki Points

59

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@donutfever: There's no need for an investigation if there's no evidence that the person is lying. This trial was a big waste of time for that very reason and everyone who said so in the police force was fired to be replaced by a yes man.

@extomar: Tell me what is illegal about what you're accusing of Zimmerman.

Avatar image for endurancefun
EnduranceFun

1116

Forum Posts

223

Wiki Points

59

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8  Edited By EnduranceFun

@endurancefun said:

@theht: The thread literally says it is about what you think Zimmerman should be found guilty of if you read the title. If you want to talk about the case in general, fine, but I'm just highlighting that your point is straying off-topic, so when you say I'm missing the point... well, that is not really true. There's also not much point in saying "my opinion is that this is tragic," that's a given.

Yes, Zimmerman shot a man. Not in of itself illegal, given the right circumstances, as was clearly the case.

I don't think there's any scenario where it's "clearly" legal to shoot an unarmed person in the heart.

Yeah, if it's in self-defense.

Learn your rights, folks. It could save your life.

Avatar image for endurancefun
EnduranceFun

1116

Forum Posts

223

Wiki Points

59

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9  Edited By EnduranceFun

@theht: The thread literally says it is about what you think Zimmerman should be found guilty of if you read the title. If you want to talk about the case in general, fine, but I'm just highlighting that your point is straying off-topic, so when you say I'm missing the point... well, that is not really true. There's also not much point in saying "my opinion is that this is tragic," that's a given.

Yes, Zimmerman shot a man. Not in of itself illegal, given the right circumstances, as was clearly the case.

Avatar image for endurancefun
EnduranceFun

1116

Forum Posts

223

Wiki Points

59

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10  Edited By EnduranceFun

@theht: Well, that is your opinion, but this thread is not about morals or opinions, it is about what Zimmerman should've been found guilty of, which has clear legal boundaries. Of course it's tragic but that alone is not grounds to randomly lock away an innocent man for thirty years.