It doesn't matter whether or not it should. Fact is, our legal system is every bit as political as actual politics these days. Therefore, there's no way it gets tossed out.

 

What experience in the legal system do you have to be making this statement as fact?

 

Or do you have other means of proving this?

What experience in the legal system do you have to be making this statement as fact?

 

Or do you have other means of proving this?

 

I have a brain, and am capable of thinking logically. Don't really need any other "proof".

 

I have a brain, and am capable of thinking logically. Don't really need any other "proof".

 

Ok.

I have a brain, and am capable of thinking logically. Don't really need any other "proof".

Proof is what makes our legal system work. I would certainly hate to live in the country where we didn't need proof.

Yes, because this is not the spirit of the law.

 

So the spirit of the law is that public opinion should sway the judge?

Proof is what makes our legal system work. I would certainly hate to live in the country where we didn't need proof.

 

I don't need "proof" to justify my opinion that politics play a role in the legal system. :idunno:

So the spirit of the law is that public opinion should sway the judge?

 

No the spirit of the law is that you cannot initiate a confrontation and use deadly force on an unarmed person whom you stalked without cause and incorrectly profiled.

No the spirit of the law is that you cannot initiate a confrontation and use deadly force on an unarmed person whom you stalked without cause and incorrectly profiled.

And who decides what the "spirit of the law" is?

And who decides what the "spirit of the law" is?

 

Judges, they interpret laws.

I don't need "proof" to justify my opinion that politics play a role in the legal system. :idunno:

 

If it is your opinion that is true, you don't need any proof. But you didn't say it was your opinion, you said it is a fact. If you state something is a fact, then you need to prove that fact.

I do NOT see him being convicted of murder 2, given what evidence has been released so far. Maybe there's more, and I reserve the right to change my mind then. The best they can hope for is a manslaughter conviction, in some degree (from a prosecution standpoint).

 

As for the jury, I said in one of the other threads, if the option to have a bench trial is available, and the evidence is pretty complete as has been released, I think it would be in GZ's best interest to go with that. There's no where in this country from which I feel an impartial jury can be drawn. But I don't even know if that's an option.

Judges, they interpret laws.

 

That is correct. And you just contradicted everything you said before.

 

Look I don't know if the guy is guilty or not. I don't have the real info inorder to make that decision. You are already convicting him on the half, media biased, supposed information that you have.

 

Justice is not emotional. Justice is blind. Inocence is presumed. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is required.

 

I side with prudence. Don't pass judgement with half facts. Let the system do it's job. Let's not call the lynch mob yet.

I don't follow your "depraved" comment. Are you saying those things show depravity?

 

What do you need to see in order to determine GZ "started the fight?" We certainly do not know that yet.

 

I can certainly see discrediting sources if it's some whacky source. That's not the case here so for good debate purposes give us your thoughts as to why these attorneys (some former prosecutors) are incorrect.

 

Hello?

 

85, I've also listed the actual wording for murder. Give us your thoughts as to how the facts that WE KNOW(not what we assume) meet those requirements.

 

If I've missed your thoughts on why self-defense laws AS WRITTEN do not apply I apologize but would love to hear your thoughts.

 

To me it's the key to this case.

 

I don't need "proof" to justify my opinion that politics play a role in the legal system. :idunno:

 

You said it was fact. Now it's just an opinion which makes more sense.

If Casey Anthony can get away with murder, surely Zimmermann can be found not guilty. He did kill Martin, but I don't think it was because he was a black kid.