Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman

I guess organized by cancer to the society. It's legal, it'll make a lot of money. We are so stupid. :lol:
 
What a horrible world this has become.

tumblr_mj5823ohgL1ru74s4o1_500.jpg
 
One thing's for sure, a bunch of people who are utterly appalled by the fact that this is what makes a lot of money in our society will tune in to watch in disgust, thus earning the people who made this a lot of money.
 
Need I remind people this is far from new? Zimmerman was found innocent. His name has been tarnished and he won't be able to have a normal life again. This is far less shocking than what some who are guilty of crimes, such as Joey Buttafuoco, did.

The significant coverage of the Amy Fisher incident made Buttafuoco a minor celebrity. In the late 1990s when he was on trial, Buttafuoco was invited to a bar by Pantera musicians Dimebag Darrell and Vinnie Paul. Shortly after the case surfaced, Andrew Dice Clay invited Buttafuoco to appear in one of his stand-up routines. Buttafuoco, a Dice Clay fan, first agreed, but later declined after accepting legal advice. In 2002, he participated in the Fox Network's Celebrity Boxing, originally slated to oppose John Wayne Bobbitt, who dropped out due to being arrested for domestic abuse. Bobbitt was replaced by female pro wrestler Joanie "Chyna" Laurer.[7]Buttafuoco, despite being booed, won the fight in a majority decision (29–28, 29–27, 28–28).[8] In 2006, he and Amy Fisher were reunited at the Lingerie Bowl for the coin toss.[9] In a story reported in the New York Post, reality show producer David Krieff suggested that Buttafuoco and Fisher were currently "dating" again, although this was not supported by any direct statements from either Buttafuoco or Fisher.[10] On May 23, 2007 Mary Jo Buttafuocco appeared on CNN's Larry King Live program to discuss the recent reunion of her ex-husband and the former "Long Island Lolita."[11] Joey Buttafuoco and Mary Jo Buttafuoco have been regular guests of The Howard Stern Show since 1992. However, despite many news articles reporting his rumored romance with Fisher, Buttafuoco's second wife, Evanka, withdrew her divorce petition on June 22, 2007, and apparently has reconciled with him.[12]
Click to expand...
 
LeMansAid
Nope, and I'm quite sure you know this. What is your reason for trying to distort?
Click to expand...

First result to the Google search: innocent definition.

in·no·cent
ˈinəsənt/
adjective
  1. 1.
    not guilty of a crime or offense.
    "the arbitrary execution of an innocent man"
    synonyms:guiltless, blameless, in the clear, unimpeachable,irreproachable, above suspicion, faultless; More
Maybe we actually verify our stuff before we go out with claims like that.
 
Of course someone who is innocent is also not guilty. The question is whether or not it applies the other way around, and specifically within the context of a legal judgment. The answer is no. You might want that to be different, but the answer is still no.

You really do seem to have a penchant for becoming the self-appointed curator for select threads.
 
LeMansAid
Of course someone who is innocent is also not guilty. The question is whether or not it applies the other way around, and specifically within the context of a legal judgment. The answer is no. You might want that to be different, but the answer is still no.
Click to expand...

I passed the definition onto you. If you don't want to use the definition that I gave you, take it up with Google.

FK said this:

He was found innocent.

According to the definition I gave you for the word "innocent" and the simple identity property, FK effectively said:

He was found not guilty of a crime (or offense).

You then corrected FK to:

He was found not guilty of a crime.

I pointed out that this was like correcting 2+2=4 into 4=2+2 and you decided that I was trying to distort something.

If you want to dispute the concept of innocent until proven guilty go do that.

You really do seem to have a penchant for becoming the self-appointed curator for select threads.
Click to expand...

Oh please. You said something that I don't believe made sense and I posted a response. I didn't curate squat. If you want your own little conversations with select members, go start a group chat. You posted to a forum that I can see and respond to. Get over it.
 
Are you best buds with gtplanet member Super Cobra Jet? He was trying to pass off a legal interpretation of the term "evidence" as a literal term, and going so far as applying it as scientific. Many pages in the Do You Believe In God thread were consumed by it. Legally, "not guilty" has a very specific meaning. It's all very deliberate, and very accurately defined. Same as criminal vs illegal.

Nothing to get over. It's a little amusing, that's all.
 
LeMansAid
You really do seem to have a penchant for becoming the self-appointed curator for select threads.
Click to expand...
Let's see here. You find it necessary to "correct" @Zenith here and in the same breath say he's being a "self-appointed curator"? :rolleyes:
 
LeMansAid
Of course someone who is innocent is also not guilty. The question is whether or not it applies the other way around, and specifically within the context of a legal judgment. The answer is no. You might want that to be different, but the answer is still no.

You really do seem to have a penchant for becoming the self-appointed curator for select threads.
Click to expand...

Potato-pohtato. If you're cheekily suggesting: "Yes, he is not guilty of murder, but he is not innocent because he's done something really really bad..." that doesn't clear anything up or move the issue forward, any. The action George is 'guilty' of in this case... which is following around someone and harrasing him as part of your duty as neighborhood watch... isn't a crime. So in the context of this particular issue, he is innocent.

Until it is proven otherwise, that's what it is.

FoolKiller
Need I remind people this is far from new? Zimmerman was found innocent. His name has been tarnished and he won't be able to have a normal life again. This is far less shocking than what some who are guilty of crimes, such as Joey Buttafuoco, did.
Click to expand...

I think the eye-rolling cringeworthiness of this is that they're playing up the "racial tension" aspect of the case to make money, re-ignite the debate and rile people up.

-

While you can't deny Zimmerman the chance to make a quick buck now that he's basically unemployable and broke, the action of the promoters can definitely be criticized.
 
Last edited:
LeMansAid
That'd be more like found not guilty wouldn't it?
Click to expand...
Call it what you want. Means the same thing to me. Not sure why it's important. He isn't treated innocent by self-appointed judges in the public.
 
BobK
Let's see here. You find it necessary to "correct" @Zenith here and in the same breath say he's being a "self-appointed curator"? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


It was FK actually. I felt like the wording FK used was very deliberate. I thought I'd poke the bear.

So, au contraire. A curator would be working at keeping things neat. Here, I was encouraging a mess.
 
Zenith
First result to the Google search: innocent definition.

in·no·cent
ˈinəsənt/
adjective
  1. 1.
    not guilty of a crime or offense.
    "the arbitrary execution of an innocent man"
    synonyms:guiltless, blameless, in the clear, unimpeachable,irreproachable, above suspicion, faultless; More
Maybe we actually verify our stuff before we go out with claims like that.
Click to expand...
I'm gonna support @LeMansAid here. The definition of "innocent" is "not guilty". However, the definition of "not guilty" is not "innocent".

Yes, our system runs on "innocent until proven guilty". This principle means that you're assumed not guilty - the definition of innocent - until proven guilty. The key word being "proven" - in the US, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. They are trying to prove the defendant guilty. The defendant is trying to refute accusations - not prove innocence - because they're the defense. If the prosecution is unable to prove the defendant guilty then the defendant is acquitted - they're not guilty because they haven't been proven guilty, but they've not proved themselves innocent either, because they can't. They might actually be guilty as hell and nobody knows it.

Kinda like science - if a scientist sets out to prove a theory he may as well stop before he starts because science can't prove anything.
 
Keef
I'm gonna support @LeMansAid here. The definition of "innocent" is "not guilty". However, the definition of "not guilty" is not "innocent".

Yes, our system runs on "innocent until proven guilty". This principle means that you're assumed not guilty - the definition of innocent - until proven guilty. The key word being "proven" - in the US, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. They are trying to prove the defendant guilty. The defendant is trying to refute accusations - not prove innocence - because they're the defense. If the prosecution is unable to prove the defendant guilty then the defendant is acquitted - they're not guilty because they haven't been proven guilty, but they've not proved themselves innocent either, because they can't. They might actually be guilty as hell and nobody knows it.
Click to expand...

The presumption of innocence is a fundamental tenet of law in any civilized country. Can't prove guilt? Then the person is legally innocent, period. What you are seemingly defending is the presumption of guilt i.e. the feeling that someone really is guilty, despite no evidence to support such a claim.

Keef
science can't prove anything.
Click to expand...
:dunce:
 
Touring Mars
The presumption of innocence is a fundamental tenet of law in any civilized country. Can't prove guilt? Then the person is legally innocent, period. What you are seemingly defending is the presumption of guilt i.e. the feeling that someone really is guilty, despite no evidence to support such a claim.
Click to expand...
Then why can't you plea innocent in court?
 
Keef
Then why can't you plea innocent in court?
Click to expand...
Court is a trial of guilt. Without proof of guilt then you are legally acquitted of the charges and considered innocent.
 
FoolKiller
Court is a trial of guilt. Without proof of guilt then you are legally acquitted of the charges and considered innocent.
Click to expand...
I already said that.

My point is that by dictionary definition an innocent person is innocent. But in legal terms, they're not guilty, because in court the defendant doesn't prove innocence, the prosecution proves guilt, and if they can't do that then the defense is not guilty.

EDIT: @FoolKiller , this whole argument started because you said Zimmerman was found innocent in court. He wasn't - he was found not guilty.
 
Keef
I already said that.

My point is that by dictionary definition an innocent person is innocent. But in legal terms, they're not guilty, because in court the defendant doesn't prove innocence, the prosecution proves guilt, and if they can't do that then the defense is not guilty.
Click to expand...
And thus, the law treats him as innocent. A legal term in a courtroom does not make the real world definition change.

Similarly, being found not guilty in court does not mean you weren't guilty. You could have performed the act. It just means you were more clever than the police and prosecutors.
 
FoolKiller
And thus, the law treats him as innocent. A legal term in a courtroom does not make the real world definition change.

Similarly, being found not guilty in court does not mean you weren't guilty. You could have performed the act. It just means you were more clever than the police and prosecutors.
Click to expand...
The difference between the real world definition and the courtroom usage is very important though. Innocent means not guilty. But not guilty doesn't mean innocent, as I said earlier and you just reiterated. In fact, you just now said that a person can be found not guilty despite the fact that they may secretly be guilty (another thing I've already mentioned). But earlier you said - the thing that started this argument - that Zimmerman was found innocent, which he wasn't. He could still be guilty as hell and none of us realize it because he wasn't found innocent because innocence is not proved in court.

I don't think anybody wants to admit that @LeMansAid was right for calling out that tiny but important word mixup.
 
Keef
I don't think anybody wants to admit that @LeMansAid was right for calling out that tiny but important word mixup.
Click to expand...
As I told him, and as he assumed, it wasn't a mixup. I never saw evidence of the charges he was given. I will call it innocent, just as I call my cousin married.
 
Let's be honest, George Zimmerman seems to have screwed up his life enough since the shooting to have doled out his own personal form of punishment. Between the fact that he gained over 100 pounds after the shooting and seems to get into police run-ins a couple of times a year, I would say that his life isn't going so great.

He can't live a normal life and never will. If he were smart he would go the Casey Anthony route and just disappear from public view. He's an emotional wreck, clearly dealing with some form of psychological issues that have emerged since the shooting.

I know it doesn't bring Trayvon back or give the family the same kind of justice that they hoped for, but Zimmerman is being judged and punished by society, where the courts differed.
 

Similar threads

KSaiyu
Castle doctrine shooting
3 4 5
Replies
122
Views
4K
ledhed
ledhed
Daniel
GTPlanet vs. Mariah Carey [2024]
6 7 8
Replies
234
Views
12K
RACECAR
RACECAR
GranTurNismo
The Future of Joe Biden
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
Imari
Imari
K
have to get back kick GT7 online because
Replies
2
Views
2K
Kurvi35
K
C
I have some questions regarding GT7 sports?
Replies
6
Views
1K
Commander_SR
C

Latest Posts

Back