(04-05-2012 04:19 PM)Max Power Wrote: Quote:Unlike African Americans, who have remained ethnically pure, only marrying other Africans
Do you even know what you're arguing? What does that have to do with Zimmerman at all? My point was he's +50% white because he has a white father and Latina mother, and Latinas are a mixture of caucasian and Native American.
A) so what? B) all of them? Caucasians are all 100% white and Latinas are all part white? I'm making fun of your comment because it is a sweeping generalization... Just the sort of things racists do. I'm not calling you one... Just laughing at the depth to which you will go to try and make a point that isn't worth making. It seems you are arguing that it's okay for Obama to claim to be black because he is, at most 50% white... While Zimmerman is white because Latinos are actually half-breeds.
Quote:Again, you're flailing Hambone. My point was that that fact there are visible injuries to Zimmerman doesn't effect a reasonable belief that he committed a crime (definition of PROBABLE CAUSE, which we are discussing, as opposed to the beyond a reasonable doubt threshold necessary for a conviction), for the reason I laid out. There are still perfectly reasonable interpretations of facts which allow for him to have suffered those injuries.
I'm not flailing at all counselor... You have to prove him guilty. His story is supported by the evidence. You have to disprove that this is what happened or prove that something else happened. Having an alternate theory of the events is not proof. That is how criminal law in this country works. More on this later
Quote:And experts in civil and criminal cases can both be brought on to interpret facts for a factfinder. And no, it's the job of the defense to disprove or otherwise create doubt when the prosecution proves up a prima facie case, or otherwise prove up an affirmative defense.
Ibid. they already did create doubt... It's called his statement, corroborated by at least one witness, with no reason yet to exclude that testimony, and supported by the facts at the scene. You keep ignoring the fact that nothing at the scene points to his story as not being true. The BEST evidence you have is that some experts, who I'm confident would be met by experts with another interpretation, are confident the screams aren't Zimmerman... A) that doesn't disprove the eyewitness who saw Martin beating Zimmerman, or have any impact on zimmermans story.
Quote:Quote:If Martin wasn't being physically threatened himself, then you are proving the case for Zimmerman
Wrong. Because if, after the scuffle was over, and Zimmerman showed/grabbed his gun, and Martin was indeed the one crying for his life, any claim to "self defense" for Zimmerman falls apart. For example, if Zimmerman grabbed the gun and Martin backed away like most people would, and Zimmerman pointed the gun at him for seconds while Martin pleaded for his life before firing. If the voice crying for help was indeed Martin as these experts say, either the balance of power had indeed shifted and self defense falls apart OR Martin was crying and pleading for his life while still beating up Zimmerman, WHICH MAKES NO F'ING SENSE TO ANY REASONABLE JURY.
You left off what I was responding to. Your comment was that you believed Martin started the fight... He was the aggressor... If Zimmerman claims he feared for his life, then you have to prove that he didn't. All this crap about z being a racist goes out the window if martin was the aggressor, because there is no way he knew what zimmerman had said to 911... You think it entirely impossible that given your story... Martin is beating Zimmerman, Zimmerman pulls his gun, Martin pleads for his life, and then as Zimmerman wipes his eyes or something, martin tries to grab the gun and Zimmerman shoots?? We can go on and on with the what ifs... Do you have evidence that disproves zimmermans statement? Unless and until these voices are proven by police experts, and not third party experts, you don't even have THAT. And as I said, while they may bring in some doubt, they aren't enough to prove anything by themselves.
Quote:Quote:Which is exactly what his claim is. Do you have proof that this isn't what happened? Not suspicion... Proof. Heck, other than the fact that there exist alternative possibilities, do you have evidence to suggest that this isn't what happened? Do you think it likely that the first review of the evidence supports zimmermans claims? If so, on what grounds are you arresting him? That despite the evidence, he MIGHT have committed a crime?
Dude, he can claim whatever he wants; that doesn't mean all reasonable belief (FOR PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST HIM) he committed a crime goes out the window. That would make the job of a defense lawyer pretty sweet. You don't have to disprove his claim; just show that a reasonable interpretation of the facts would convict. And I gave you such an interpretation.
Yeah, youre clearly not a criminal prosecutor. You're right... He can claim what he wants... But you keep ignoring the fact that the police at the scene reached the same conclusion based on the other evidence, and they had an eyewitness statement. This isn't proof for certain, they still need to investigate... But unlike YOUR world, where filing a case doesn't put someone in jail, the burden to incarcerate someone is a bit higher. Your version of events needs to at least be the more likely scenario, and not merely plausible to deny someone their freedom... Or there needs to be evidence that society is at risk if you don't act. As far as I can tell, you don't have either... Again... Yet.
Quote:Quote:Sure, it is entirely possible that what you suggest could have happened, DID in fact happen
You just admitted there is probable cause to arrest. Good lord.
Possible doesn't mean probable... Good lord yourself... English mutha fucka, do you speak it?? /Jules. Youre an attorney for Pete's sake...
This is the entire argument here.... All boiled down into a few lines
What you say is possible... Possible cause is not the burden... PROBABLE cause is... Based on the physical evidence at the scene, the statement by Zimmerman and the statement by the witness, he is PROBABLY telling the truth. When enough contrary evidence or information is uncovered to Make it PROBABLE, not possible, but PROBABLE that he is lying, they will rightly and justly arrest him... EVEN IF HE IS ULTImATELY ACQUITTED... Because PROOF is a third burden altogether.
/
Experts: Scientifically certain the voice crying for help not Zimmerman
Okay. He speaks Spanish, so he must "identify" with the Hispanic community somewhat, whatever that involves. And Obama was raised by his white side of the family. I guess you just get to choose which ethnic "community" you associate with?
