The Current Events Thread

[Madican]

George Zimmerman has been found not guilty of murder or manslaughter. Al Sharpton is calling for blood regardless.

Wonder when the riots will start.

[Lambeth]

I seen this case crop up a lot in regards to zimmerman/martin. I guess it's not a crime to shoot a black person in florida?

[Madican]

I seen this case crop up a lot in regards to zimmerman/martin. I guess it's not a crime to shoot a black person in florida?

Just...wow. Did you really think that one through?

The Zimmerman trial was not about whether or not he shot Trayvon Martin, it was specifically to determine whether or not he was guilty of murder, which is defined as killing someone with intent and malice aforethought. The jury ultimately determined that he was not guilty of that crime.

[Lambeth]

Ah, so will they book him on manslaughter then?

[Chopstix]

unfortunately not because of double jeopardy.

[Madican]

The jury declined to charge him with manslaughter and found him not guilty on all counts.

The justice system has spoken; George Zimmerman is innocent.

[Chopstix]

as long as we're dumb enough to believe the justice system isn't flawed i guess we can live with it

[Lambeth]

I think it's impossible to know if someone is guilty in a big case like this unless you're right in the thick of and and know all the details about the case.

That said I still think he was guilty of some wrong doing. The fact that the Martin family does not get any sort of closure is a utter travesty.

as long as we're dumb enough to believe the justice system isn't flawed i guess we can live with it

It's a fucked up system in a lot of ways.

[Madican]

It is flawed, but not in this area. Most of the flaws can be attributed to not enough evidence or non-credible witnesses.

This trial had evidence, it had both credible and non-credible witnesses, the events of the night were substantiated by medical records, this was as far from those flawed areas as it possibly could be. Are you going to try saying that you know more than the jury, who came into the trial unbiased and only heard what was considered admissible evidence?

[Reyo]

Unfortunately? Justice doesn't work where if one crime doesn't stick, we just find one that's similar to get him with, and that is precisely what double jeopardy is for. It's so we can't just keep accusing him until he's found guilty. It's because the court case is supposed to note the final decision on the controversy, and that final decision is that the shooting was justified. If you don't agree with it...well then welcome to the world of collaboration, where we have multiple people thowing opinions around like monkeys throwing their own poop. The court system was initiated so we could say "Hey, we can't just do this forever. Let's organize and analyze shit to conclude which turds we should be throwing as a society."

He shot the kid. That's the truth in the matter. The court decision was essentially to see if he was morally justified in it, and the court decision was precisely that. If you want to keep saying he shot the kid in cold blood, that's fine, but to say it's unfortunate we can't now try and tack other shit on him is rediculous.

EDIT: And as for the justice system being flawwed, what should we do then? Abolish it? Was the previous system of just flinging opinions around without order any better? Not really. We learned that lesson during the witch trials.

Besides, how flawwed would we be saying the system is had he been found guilty, and who would be saying it? "Flawwed" is a purely subjective term.

[Chopstix]

Yes Madican, that's exactly what I'm trying to say. Congratulations on going out of your way to find a condescending opinion on something like this.

[Madican]

No, it's not what you were trying to say, because what you're trying to say is that Zimmerman should have been found guilty when the evidence and witnesses were found to indicate the opposite.

[Reyo]

Yes Madican, that's exactly what I'm trying to say. Congratulations on going out of your way to find a condescending opinion on something like this.

To be honest, Madican is at least providing a bit more subsance to his argument, rather than just calling the fact that we can't just try him again unfortunate, and then claiming the justice system to be flawwed. It may be condescending, but there's not a whole lot to work with.

[Chopstix]

who the fuck said i was trying to argue about this

[Lambeth]

EDIT: And as for the justice system being flawwed, what should we do then? Abolish it? Was the previous system of just flinging opinions around without order any better? Not really. We learned that lesson during the witch trials.

Besides, how flawwed would we be saying the system is had he been found guilty, and who would be saying it? "Flawwed" is a purely subjective term.

Uh no? how about we try improving the laws which we live by instead?