1. #2241
    His heart was visible, and the dismal sack that maketh excrement of what is eaten. supporting member
    Devil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    7,439
    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    He who laughs last laughs loudest. Trayvon saw the news today and he was all like ROFLMAO.



    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	MSNBC-TRAYVON-MARTIN.jpg 
Views:	15 
Size:	27.9 KB 
ID:	15578

  2. #2242

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Southeast WI
    Posts
    892
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by CapnMunchh View Post
    We can certainly have doubts about whether he did anything wrong or is in any morally responsible for what happened, but as far as his guilt or innocence of the crime for which he was charged goes, the jury's verdict is the sole determinant. That is the way the system works. Its not always palatable (see Maldonado case), but its the best way we know how to deal with resolving criminal accusations.

    I think we may using different definitions of "guilt." I tend to think of that as strictly as matter of what is decided under the law. It does not mean that he is entirely blameless of having done stupid or dangerous things.
    What is decided under the law is whether or not there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt of guilt. Being found not guilty is not being declared innocent, and does not make someone instantly immune to suspicion.

    That said, I don't know why the wife had to take her suspicions to the media, unless she's just really out to get Zimmerman.

  3. #2243

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    792
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by OwlMatt View Post
    What is decided under the law is whether or not there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt of guilt. Being found not guilty is not being declared innocent, and does not make someone instantly immune to suspicion.

    That said, I don't know why the wife had to take her suspicions to the media, unless she's just really out to get Zimmerman.
    Strictly speaking, you're right. The govt. accuses, so it's a question of whether the evidence is sufficient to support that accusation. The Constitution does not require a defendant to prove his innocence, so that issue is never decided. Looking at a verdict that way is somewhat unfair tho; since the accused is not required to prove his innocence of the charges, should there remain doubt if he did everything he could do under the law to absolve himself?

    Again, the acquittal doesnt make him an exemplary citizen and all around nice guy. IMO, Mr. Maldonado, O.J., and others similarly situated remain scumbags, but that's a whole other issue. I'm uncomfortable when an acquittal is handed down and I hear people still questioning "guilt" as tho its something entirely different from what was addressed in court and decided, because that makes the judicial process irrelevant.

    As to his wife, I'm not surprised -- she may have good reason to hate his guts and she's entitled to them. My beef is really with the media that uses her emotional turmoil and misfortune as a way to sell advertising.

  4. #2244
    It is Fake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    34,442
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    That said, I don't know why the wife had to take her suspicions to the media, unless she's just really out to get Zimmerman.
    Uhh she's in the middle of a divorce, you aren't this naive are you?
    Quote Originally Posted by OwlMatt View Post
    What is decided under the law is whether or not there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt of guilt. Being found not guilty is not being declared innocent, and does not make someone instantly immune to suspicion.
    Nevermind, I know the answer.

  5. #2245

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Southeast WI
    Posts
    892
    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by It is Fake
    Nevermind, I know the answer.
    I'm not sure I follow. Believing there is a difference between unquestionable innocence and being found not guilty in court makes me naive?

  6. #2246
    It is Fake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    34,442
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by OwlMatt View Post
    I'm not sure I follow. Believing there is a difference between unquestionable innocence and being found not guilty in court makes me naive?
    Trying to be that cut and dry? Yes. It's a naive cop-out people use when they don't like a verdict. Of course, your mileage may vary as that is my opinion. I used to say the same thing when I was naive.

  7. #2247

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Southeast WI
    Posts
    892
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by It is Fake View Post
    Trying to be that cut and dry? Yes. It's a naive cop-out people use when they don't like a verdict. Of course, your mileage may vary as that is my opinion. I used to say the same thing when I was naive.
    As you may recall from this thread's previous go round, I didn't have a problem with the verdict. What I am disputing is this:
    Quote Originally Posted by CapnMunchh View Post
    His wife has doubts about his innocence? Didnt she hear the verdict? His innocence does'nt depend on what she thinks of him personally.

  8. #2248

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    792
    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by OwlMatt View Post
    As you may recall from this thread's previous go round, I didn't have a problem with the verdict. What I am disputing is this:
    I stand by that comment. Her opinion was not evidence in the case, and is not pertinent now either. The way the article presents it makes it sound like the verdict should be called into question because his wife, who knows him well, knows the real truth.

    BTW, having been thru a divorce myself, I can tell you that the accusations that fly can make a first-degree murder trial seem like a slip and fall case before Judge Judy.

  9. #2249
    It is Fake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    34,442
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by OwlMatt View Post
    What I am disputing is this:
    See, let me bring up pedantry again and laugh at everyone that accuses me of its overuse.

    You are being PEDANTIC. You are arguing a broad point, all verdicts EVAH, when he was making a case about a SPECIFIC PERSON and their "innocence."

  10. #2250

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Southeast WI
    Posts
    892
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by CapnMunchh View Post
    The way the article presents it makes it sound like the verdict should be called into question because his wife, who knows him well, knows the real truth.
    I didn't read it this way; maybe this is the root of our disagreement.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO