17y/o Killed By Neighborhood Watch/CHL

[chasfm11]

Do we know for sure Z broke no laws? I don't.

I don't think we will ever know for sure who assaulted who.

You're correct, we don't know. And until someone proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he did break a law, he's innocent. That's the way our system is supposed to work.

There, I fixed it for you. Reasonable doubt and innocent until proven guilty only apply when there isn't a political agenda involved. The Duke lacross case was a fine example of where it didn't work because of a political agenda. Fortunately, that initial injustice was later reconciled. I'm not so sure a similar result is going to happen with this case.

[ScooterSissy]

You are correct.

I wonder which "he" Scooter is talking about? Maybe neither one broke any laws? Maybe poor judgement on the behalf of both, resulted in one dead and the other behind bars?

Hmmm, three (3) question marks here.

That's the problem. Since there's no proof that someone broke the law, why is he behind bars? And you've gone to the heart of the current part of this discussion - "poor judgement" is not illegal.

[ScooterSissy]

Do we know for sure Z broke no laws? I don't.

I don't think we will ever know for sure who assaulted who.

You're correct, we don't know. And until someone proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he did break a law, he's innocent. That's the way our system is supposed to work.

There, I fixed it for you. Reasonable doubt and innocent until proven guilty only apply when there isn't a political agenda involved. The Duke lacross case was a fine example of where it didn't work because of a political agenda. Fortunately, that initial injustice was later reconciled. I'm not so sure a similar result is going to happen with this case.

You are correct, and I almost went back and edited it myself. If that really was the way our system worked, Zimmerman would not be behind bars right now. That is what people should be incensed about - that the rabble rousers and their "I wanna get re-elected" follwers have polluted the system. If the laws are bad (and I don't happen to think they are), change the laws - but don't persecute/prosecute someone who acted within the law.

[jocat54]

Do we know for sure Z broke no laws? I don't.

I don't think we will ever know for sure who assaulted who.

You're correct, we don't know. And until someone proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he did break a law, he's innocent. That's the way our system is supposed to work.

There, I fixed it for you. Reasonable doubt and innocent until proven guilty only apply when there isn't a political agenda involved. The Duke lacross case was a fine example of where it didn't work because of a political agenda. Fortunately, that initial injustice was later reconciled. I'm not so sure a similar result is going to happen with this case.

You are correct, and I almost went back and edited it myself. If that really was the way our system worked, Zimmerman would not be behind bars right now. That is what people should be incensed about - that the rabble rousers and their "I wanna get re-elected" follwers have polluted the system. If the laws are bad (and I don't happen to think they are), change the laws - but don't persecute/prosecute someone who acted within the law.

And we know that how?

[VoiceofReason]

So jocat54 you presume he is guilty until proven innocent?

[jocat54]

So jocat54 you presume he is guilty until proven innocent?

No sir I don't.
We only know what the media has let us know. My point has been that so many think he is totally Innocent and I just don't know that. I would love to question everyone involved first hand and maybe I would have a better grasp of all of it.
My gut feeling is something smells fishy--but as I wasn't there for the initial contact and it seems no one else was either, I can't say who the actual guilty person was. I will agree there is a lot of circumstantial evidence which proves nothing to me. Just to many what if's.
Do I think he should have been arrested? Don't have enough info to say that, I think there is a lot we don't know about this case. Maybe if I knew all that prosecutors knew then maybe I could make an intelligent decision.

It seems so many think that he did absolutely nothing wrong and there is a lot of question in my mind if that's true, but that doesn't make him guilty just doubt in my mind.

[Heartland Patriot]

So jocat54 you presume he is guilty until proven innocent?

No sir I don't.
We only know what the media has let us know. My point has been that so many think he is totally Innocent and I just don't know that. I would love to question everyone involved first hand and maybe I would have a better grasp of all of it.
My gut feeling is something smells fishy--but as I wasn't there for the initial contact and it seems no one else was either, I can't say who the actual guilty person was. I will agree there is a lot of circumstantial evidence which proves nothing to me. Just to many what if's.
Do I think he should have been arrested? Don't have enough info to say that, I think there is a lot we don't know about this case. Maybe if I knew all that prosecutors knew then maybe I could make an intelligent decision.

It seems so many think that he did absolutely nothing wrong and there is a lot of question in my mind if that's true, but that doesn't make him guilty just doubt in my mind.

GZ is SUPPOSED to be innocent until proven guilty, but all praise be to the mighty powers of the liberal mainstream media, he has been pronounced guilty in the court of public opinion, not simply private opinion. Oh, what am I saying, no one cares about those outdated things called laws anymore anyway...

[jocat54]

Sorry I thought he had been arrested, not proven guilty.

There are people arrested everyday....some guilty....some probably not.

[VoiceofReason]

Any bets?

I would say the persecution doesn’t think they have a case they can convict him on, so they will offer a deal where they will not persecute his wife if he pleads guilty to manslaughter.

I have seen that done a few times.

[philip964]

The national media was recently trying to get the father of the molested daughter, arrested, but I suspect the BG was white, so it just fizzled out.

[The Annoyed Man]

The national media was recently trying to get the father of the molested daughter, arrested, but I suspect the BG was white, so it just fizzled out.

I saw Judge Jeanine Pirro interviewed on FoxNews just this morning about this particular case, and the anchors seemed genuinely surprised that it wasn't necessarily murder.......which they seemed to assume it was. She had to explain the use of force and the use of deadly force in defense of a third person to them, and they still couldn't get their minds around the possibility that the father may not do any time for this. She explained the grand jury process, and the likelihood that the father would have to go before a grand jury; but she also explained that the decision to refer the case to the GJ is the prosecutor's, and that a prosecutor has the discretion to NOT convene a GJ if he/she feels that the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the potential accused. She also explained that grand juries in Texas tend to treat self defense and defense of another as legitimate in most cases and choose to no-bill the accused.

The anchors continued to be agog. I'm not exactly a fan of FoxNews, but I tend to prefer them to other networks who refuse to acknowledge their biases, let alone ascribe some kind of left or right value to them. That said, there is much of what passes for reportage there (Sheppard Smith for instance) which gives me migraines from all the eye-rolling I'm forced to do. Even so, I tended to think of Fox as a more or less conservative network. But what I saw this morning made me incredulous—that they were suprised that someone who had killed his daughter's molester while defending her during the actual molestation might possibly "get off on a 'technicality,'" which you could tell was how they were thinking of it.....getting off on a technicality, but he's really guilty. That's just ignorant.

[Heartland Patriot]

The national media was recently trying to get the father of the molested daughter, arrested, but I suspect the BG was white, so it just fizzled out.

I saw Judge Jeanine Pirro interviewed on FoxNews just this morning about this particular case, and the anchors seemed genuinely surprised that it wasn't necessarily murder.......which they seemed to assume it was. She had to explain the use of force and the use of deadly force in defense of a third person to them, and they still couldn't get their minds around the possibility that the father may not do any time for this. She explained the grand jury process, and the likelihood that the father would have to go before a grand jury; but she also explained that the decision to refer the case to the GJ is the prosecutor's, and that a prosecutor has the discretion to NOT convene a GJ if he/she feels that the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the potential accused. She also explained that grand juries in Texas tend to treat self defense and defense of another as legitimate in most cases and choose to no-bill the accused.

The anchors continued to be agog. I'm not exactly a fan of FoxNews, but I tend to prefer them to other networks who refuse to acknowledge their biases, let alone ascribe some kind of left or right value to them. That said, there is much of what passes for reportage there (Sheppard Smith for instance) which gives me migraines from all the eye-rolling I'm forced to do. Even so, I tended to think of Fox as a more or less conservative network. But what I saw this morning made me incredulous—that they were suprised that someone who had killed his daughter's molester while defending her during the actual molestation might possibly "get off on a 'technicality,'" which you could tell was how they were thinking of it.....getting off on a technicality, but he's really guilty. That's just ignorant.

Hopefully, it will remain that the dad in that case doesn't get charged/arrested. This IS Texas.

But, indeed a lot of people can't seem to fathom the notion that human beings have an INHERENT RIGHT to defend themselves with force or deadly force, as the circumstances may dictate, from unprovoked aggression and violence. I've asked this before and I'll ask it again: why is always okay for people to START trouble but never okay for it to be ENDED? I don't mess with other folks, and I do not want them to mess with me...

[Heartland Patriot]

The national media was recently trying to get the father of the molested daughter, arrested, but I suspect the BG was white, so it just fizzled out.

I had read that the BG in this case may have been Hispanic, but maybe he was "white Hispanic", so it wasn't worth them getting wound up about.

[VoiceofReason]

The national media was recently trying to get the father of the molested daughter, arrested, but I suspect the BG was white, so it just fizzled out.

Huh? What? Where did that come from???????????

Did GZ or TM molest someone? Did this come from another thread?

I know I am old but am I “losing it”??

[sjfcontrol]

The national media was recently trying to get the father of the molested daughter, arrested, but I suspect the BG was white, so it just fizzled out.

Huh? What? Where did that come from???????????

Did GZ or TM molest someone? Did this come from another thread?

I know I am old but am I “losing it”??

Thread cross-pollination link