Trayvon Martin, One year later

[Shiranu]

Ironic or not, how is Zimmerman arguably innocent, given...

If Zimmerman would have just just driven by, Treyvon would be alive right now. If Zimmerman would have called the police and followed their directions, Treyvon would be alive right now. If Zimmerman would have stayed in his truck instead of getting out and pursing Treyvon, Treyvon would still be alive. So dont give me this bullshit how Zimmerman was a saint who did nothing wrong.

...but no, you throw strawmen around... OH THATS PERFECTLY OKAY. But if someone else uses something called hyperbole (not a strawman), holy fucking shit.

Unless, "If Zimmerman is found guilty, its only because of circumstancial evidence imo" or, "LOLNO, TREYVON STARTED THE FIGHT!!! !LOLOLOL HOW DARE YOU CONFRONT SOMEONE FOR STALKING YOU!" is no longer saying, "I don't believe he did anything wrong", in which case fuck me, right?

But either way, the bold is reality as presented by Zimmerman & a recorded conversation, so I really could give a rat's ass what a murder defending shit stain and whiny crybaby like yourself has to say about this case. You sure want to dish it but you sure cry like a bitch when ever anyone so much as looks at you...

[La Dolce Vita]

You are confusing doing something wrong with doing something that's illegal, and even if there was a correalation you are further confusing doing something illegal with being entirely responsible and punishible for murder. You are also showing a disgusting amount of disrespect for the justice system and anything remotely close to due process.

You are the one strawmanning people because apparantly thinking that the matter is unsettled or that there's a chance Zimmerman wasn't entirely responsible for what happened equalls thinking Zimmerman is a saint ...

This is a questionable case with many unknowns, and evidence supporting that he, at least to some degree, could have been acting in self defense.

Let's actually see what the investigation and trial will turn out rather than judging people on unsubstansiated evidence, and wanting them to rot in jail without trial.

[Shiranu]

You are confusing doing something wrong with doing something that's illegal, and even if there was a correalation you are further confusing doing something illegal with being entirely responsible and punishible for murder. You are also showing a disgusting amount of disrespect for the justice system and anything remotely close to due process.

I'm sorry, but if you are responsible for instigating a situation which leads in someone's death, then you ARE responsible (to an extent) for that person's death. I am not saing he needs to be charged with the highest form of manslaughter and face the death penalty, but his actions are clearly corelated to Treyvon being dead; actions that if he hadn't taken and if he had followed the police dispatcher's orders, would mean Treyvon would be alive today.

The justice system is here to protect people, and if vigilantes are allowed to stalk and harass people in the middle of the night and walk away scott free then the justice system doesn't work and needs to be disrespected. I see no reason to respect a broken system.

You are the one strawmanning people because apparantly thinking that the matter is unsettled or that there's a chance Zimmerman wasn't entirely responsible for what happened equalls thinking Zimmerman is a saint ...

Again, the saint comment was hyperbole, not strawman. And I have never claimed that I think Zimmerman was entirely responsible, infact in my last couple of points I have pointed out the only one saying that was Nonsensei. I do think he is responsible for starting the entire situation in the first place, but as for physical confrontation I do think Treyvon might have been guilty of that.

This is a questionable case with many unknowns, and evidence supporting that he, at least to some degree, could have been acting in self defense.

Self defense after provking a confrontation, yes I agree. Nevertheless if you provoke a fight, and then you escalate it, then you are still guilty (this doesn't mean the other party is innocent either, both parties can be found guilty of different laws).

Let's actually see what the investigation and trial will turn out rather than judging people on unsubstansiated evidence, and wanting them to rot in jail without trial.

I am only judging him on one bit of info; the fact that he admitted he was stalking Treyvon, continued to do so after police dispatch told him to stop, and for whatever reason got out of his truck where Treyvon would even be able to beat him. That is not unsubstansiated evidence, that comes from direct admission from Zimmerman and his phone call to the police.

And who has said they want to see him rot in jail, and even moreso without a trial? What I want is to be sure that I can walk out on the street, and if someone is stalking me with a gun and we get in a confrontation he doesn't have the legal right to kill me. As for Zimmerman, I don't think he had intent to kill Treyvon (untill the fight) so I don't see why he should spend the rest of his life in jail... maybe a certain amount of time, yes, but it wasn't like it was a premeditated murder. And no one has said anything about there being no trial, so I don't even know where you get that...

[Thumpalumpacus]

Just to point out -- "hyperbole" can be, and I think is in this case, a form of strawman -- one which combines the classic strawman with a slippery-slope sensibility.

[Shiranu]

Just to point out -- "hyperbole" can be, and I think is in this case, a form of strawman -- one which combines the classic strawman with a slippery-slope sensibility.

I disagree in this case it was a strawman.

By saint I mean that he did nothing wrong. Nonsensei has argued that if he is found guilty, its based on faulty or misinterperated information and also that he was legally justified in his actions.

If that is a strawman it is one of the most mild ones I have seen in a while. Additionally, given the fact that he has used numerous strawmen with far worse implications (that I think assault is acceptable, etc.), I see no reason to point out my percieved strawman over his. Expecially considering he has persisted in using them after being explained that. no, that's not what we believe and that they again have far worse implications than over-exagerating the fact that he finds Zimmerman's actions acceptable.

[DunkleSeele]

And who has said they want to see him rot in jail, and even moreso without a trial?

You said it.

Oh, I didn't realize I was a judge. If I had known that I would have just thrown his ass in jail last year and not had this stupid trial.

Hang your head in shame.

[Shiranu]

Hang your head in shame.

Fuck you are dense. I don't know if you realize this, but it was SARCASM. It was a stab at the fact that he was acting like I think myself the judge and have the right to do anything and everything I want.

I realize this is the internet, but the snarkiness in that comment should have been more than just a modest bit obvious.

Let me make it more obvious.

Oh, I didn't realize I was a judge. :roll:If I had known that I would have just thrown his ass in jail last year and not had this stupid trial.:roll:

Come on now... I know, I know I am the big bad terrible person, but if you are so intent on trying to get me on an, "Gotcha!" moment like that, you are going to have to try a bit harder.

[Nonsensei]

By saint I mean that he did nothing wrong. Nonsensei has argued that if he is found guilty, its based on faulty or misinterperated information and also that he was legally justified in his actions.

Actually what i said was

Any conviction of Zimmerman will be based on pure circumstance, and that is not how the law should be exercised. Especially in a murder trial.

And I thought it was pretty clear that I meant that if he is convicted with the evidence the public has available - in other words no direct evidence of what happened during the shooting - then there has been a miscarriage of justice.

I know thats what I meant since right before that line i said:

Worse, it doesn't address the elephant in the room which is that nobody knows what happened besides Zimmerman.

You are taking liberties with how you interpret my words in an attempt to paint me as something. I am not entirely sure what but I do know its an attempt to dismiss my opinion without defeating it.

[Shiranu]

And I thought it was pretty clear that I meant that if he is convicted with the evidence the public has available - in other words no direct evidence of what happened during the shooting - then there has been a miscarriage of justice.

Except it wouldn't, given the fact we concretely know...

If Zimmerman would have just just driven by, Treyvon would be alive right now. If Zimmerman would have called the police and followed their directions, Treyvon would be alive right now. If Zimmerman would have stayed in his truck instead of getting out and pursing Treyvon, Treyvon would still be alive.

...if the law is here to protect citizens, then given that evidence Zimmerman IS guilty of a certain level of causing this entire situation and thus is partially legally responsible for Treyvon's death. I don't personally believe he had intent to kill Treyvon until the time of conflict so I don't think he deserves life in prison or anything of the sort, but this entire situation is based on Zimmerman's actions and he must be held responsible for it.

If the law does not find him guilty of anything for this, then it means the law is broken and has no intention of protecting its citizens, ergo void of any justification to respect it.

You are taking liberties with how you interpret my words in an attempt to paint me as something. I am not entirely sure what but I do know its an attempt to dismiss my opinion without defeating it.

Your right. You are absolutely right. It is me atempting to dismiss your opinion without defending it. That's why I have addressed your points and why I disagree with them. I am clearly arguing with a genius here...

[DunkleSeele]

Hang your head in shame.

Fuck you are dense. I don't know if you realize this, but it was SARCASM. It was a stab at the fact that he was acting like I think myself the judge and have the right to do anything and everything I want.

I realize this is the internet, but the snarkiness in that comment should have been more than just a modest bit obvious.

Let me make it more obvious.

Oh, I didn't realize I was a judge. :roll:If I had known that I would have just thrown his ass in jail last year and not had this stupid trial.:roll:

Come on now... I know, I know I am the big bad terrible person, but if you are so intent on trying to get me on an, "Gotcha!" moment like that, you are going to have to try a bit harder.

Nice try, but no cigar. You also said this:

Given the lack of evidence of him being innocent, he can go fuck himself.

You display the same vigilante mentality you ascribe to Zimmermann.

Oh and no, I don't consider you a big bad terrible person. More like a whiny, frustrated little boy.

[Shiranu]

Given the lack of evidence of him being innocent, he can go fuck himself.

You display the same vigilante mentality you ascribe to Zimmermann.

Oh and no, I don't consider you a big bad terrible person. More like a whiny, frustrated little boy.

Oh, I didn't realize saying someone can go fuck themselves means I think they deserve life in jail, the death penality and that I need to get up and go shoot them.

See, here I was, sitting at a computer... thinking "he can go fuck himself" means, "Wow, this dude's a prick. He can go put his nuts in a firepit for all I give a shit.".

Thank you for clarifing that, "He can go fuck himself!", is now a legal definition for life in jail... what would I do without you!

I swear, its amazing how quickly people are to bitch about strawmen, deflections and all that hoo-haa when its someone they disagree with... but if its someone they agree with they seem to have no problem. A little consistenency would be nice, but oh well...

Well, if I am a whiney, frustrated little boy, what does that make you? Are you a pretenious, hypocritical and dense moron who is so petty enough to throw such desperate attempts at "gotcha's!" (and fail miserably) at such a little kid who should be bellow your level? That you really feel the need to drag yourself down to my level? It sure seems that way...

Well, I will take "Whiney, frustrated little boy" because I find it offensive that people are so quick to defend a murderer... over what ever you are.

[Nonsensei]

I swear, its amazing how quickly people are to bitch about strawmen, deflections and all that hoo-haa when its someone they disagree with... but if its someone they agree with they seem to have no problem. A little consistenency would be nice, but oh well...

Holy shit Shiranu. The first one to start bitching about strawmen was YOU.

[Shiranu]

I swear, its amazing how quickly people are to bitch about strawmen, deflections and all that hoo-haa when its someone they disagree with... but if its someone they agree with they seem to have no problem. A little consistenency would be nice, but oh well...

Holy shit Shiranu. The first one to start bitching about strawmen was YOU.

Perhaps, I'm too lazy to go back and look, but that is irrelevant to what I even said... but on that topic I am also not one of three people attacking one person for hyperbole misrepresented as a strawman and complaining when that one person does it, when two of their own people have engaged in it as well and yet that is perfectly acceptable.

Let me resay this...

...but if its someone they agree with they seem to have no problem.

...I will try to put this in simple English for you... I was not complaining about the use of strawmen in that post, I was complaining about double-standards of calling people out over it when their side does it and it seems to be perfectly acceptable.

But please, lets continue to deflect from the point that...

If Zimmerman would have just just driven by, Treyvon would be alive right now. If Zimmerman would have called the police and followed their directions, Treyvon would be alive right now. If Zimmerman would have stayed in his truck instead of getting out and pursing Treyvon, Treyvon would still be alive.

...and that given this Zimmerman cannot be reasonably percieved as justified in his actions.

[Shiranu]

I think I see the problem now... you aren't fluent in English are you?

Jesus, I feel bad now... I have been getting annoyed, but you cant even understand the langauge so OF COURSE you make no sense!

When did I become that douche that attacks people who don't use English "properly"...

[Thumpalumpacus]

Just to point out -- "hyperbole" can be, and I think is in this case, a form of strawman -- one which combines the classic strawman with a slippery-slope sensibility.

I disagree in this case it was a strawman.

By saint I mean that he did nothing wrong. Nonsensei has argued that if he is found guilty, its based on faulty or misinterperated information and also that he was legally justified in his actions.

I looked back over every post he's posted in thread, and nowhere does Nonsensei say that Zimmerman "did nothing wrong" or anything to that effect.  That means that imputing that position to him is indeed strawmanning.

If that is a strawman it is one of the most mild ones I have seen in a while. Additionally, given the fact that he has used numerous strawmen with far worse implications (that I think assault is acceptable, etc.), I see no reason to point out my percieved strawman over his. Expecially considering he has persisted in using them after being explained that. no, that's not what we believe and that they again have far worse implications than over-exagerating the fact that he finds Zimmerman's actions acceptable.

You've also argued "when you have decided that Zimmerman is the god-damn Jesus reincarnate" as a point, too.

I've already pointed out that both sides have made up their minds about things.  I'm pointing out your strawmen because they are more egregious, to my eyes.