I Don't Think Many Of You Know What "Confronted" Means

[koshergrl]

You're an idiot.

I really don't know how else to put it. Essentially you are saying anyone who is ever accused of a crime should be brought to trial and forced to prove their innocence, regardless of whether or not there is any evidence.

I really doubt Zimmerman "wants" to be charged with murder.

And you don't know what the fuck *due process* means.

Cripes.

 

[Ravi]

The law is bad because:

1. A family lost their child and would like to see due process. It may not happen, because a law is ambiguous.

2. A man cannot live his life as he chooses because about half the country "thinks" he killed someone. He deserves an opportunity to clear his name.

3. Promoting the idea you can pursue someone because you think they could or may have committed a crime and kill them denies the suspect due process.

Framing this as left versus right only demonstrates the polarity of politics.

I grew up in a nearly all white community. I was never stopped by the police and questioned. Neighbors never chased after me. This appears to be more of an experience shared by the poor or minority population. Listening to them only seems appropriate in this situation.

Great post, especially the part I bolded.

 

[Si modo]

The law is bad because:

1. A family lost their child and would like to see due process. It may not happen, because a law is ambiguous.

2. A man cannot live his life as he chooses because about half the country "thinks" he killed someone. He deserves an opportunity to clear his name.

3. Promoting the idea you can pursue someone because you think they could or may have committed a crime and kill them denies the suspect due process.

Framing this as left versus right only demonstrates the polarity of politics.

I grew up in a nearly all white community. I was never stopped by the police and questioned. Neighbors never chased after me. This appears to be more of an experience shared by the poor or minority population. Listening to them only seems appropriate in this situation.

How the fuck is not taking a suspect, who is automatically presumed innocent, to trial a denial of his due process?

 

[koshergrl]

Please one of you geniuses...tell us what *due process* is.

 

[Ravi]

The law is bad because:

1. A family lost their child and would like to see due process. It may not happen, because a law is ambiguous.

2. A man cannot live his life as he chooses because about half the country "thinks" he killed someone. He deserves an opportunity to clear his name.

3. Promoting the idea you can pursue someone because you think they could or may have committed a crime and kill them denies the suspect due process.

Framing this as left versus right only demonstrates the polarity of politics.

I grew up in a nearly all white community. I was never stopped by the police and questioned. Neighbors never chased after me. This appears to be more of an experience shared by the poor or minority population. Listening to them only seems appropriate in this situation.

How the fuck is not taking a suspect, who is automatically presmuned innocent, to trial a denial of his due process?

I think you misinterpreted what he says. You two basically agree, why not stop getting so damn anal about everything, both of you.

 

[koshergrl]

"The constitutional guarantee of due process of law, found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, prohibits all levels of government from arbitrarily or unfairly depriving individuals of their basic constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Due+Process+of+Law

Morons.

If you were to do what saveidiot has repeatedly called for, and just arrest Zimmerman based on the fact that he's been accused, with no evidence, and require anyone who is involved in a death where a gun is involved to *prove* their innocence based on a presumption of guilt, then you are denying them DUE PROCESS.

Trayvon wasn't denied *DUE PROCESS* because the government is not who deprived him of liberty or life.

He was perhaps MURDERED but that isn't the same thing, nitwit.

DUE PROCESS, like the separation of church and state, is meant to protect US from the GOVERNMENT depriving us of our right to life and liberty, and basic human rights (like the right to our property).

But naturally leftwing windbags are going to run with the notion that it means the exact opposite...saveliberty's continued squawk is that due process means we presume guilt in murder cases, and those accused must prove their innocence.

 

[Si modo]

The law is bad because:

1. A family lost their child and would like to see due process. It may not happen, because a law is ambiguous.

2. A man cannot live his life as he chooses because about half the country "thinks" he killed someone. He deserves an opportunity to clear his name.

3. Promoting the idea you can pursue someone because you think they could or may have committed a crime and kill them denies the suspect due process.

Framing this as left versus right only demonstrates the polarity of politics.

I grew up in a nearly all white community. I was never stopped by the police and questioned. Neighbors never chased after me. This appears to be more of an experience shared by the poor or minority population. Listening to them only seems appropriate in this situation.

How the fuck is not taking a suspect, who is automatically presmuned innocent, to trial a denial of his due process?

I think you misinterpreted what he says. You two basically agree, why not stop getting so damn anal about everything, both of you.

Maybe. But, I'm not getting his claim there - denying the suspect due process.

The law IS anal and tedious (probably the exact reason I stopped my legal education before the first semester was finished and went back to science.)

 

[Ravi]

How the fuck is not taking a suspect, who is automatically presmuned innocent, to trial a denial of his due process?

I think you misinterpreted what he says. You two basically agree, why not stop getting so damn anal about everything, both of you.

Maybe. But, I'm not getting his claim there - denying the suspect due process.

The law IS anal and tedious (probably the exact reason I stopped my legal education before the first semester was finished and went back to science.)

The suspect in this case is the person that gets shot because someone decided he deserved to be shot because he or she was committing or about to commit a crime. In other words, the vigilante's suspect.

 

[Si modo]

I think you misinterpreted what he says. You two basically agree, why not stop getting so damn anal about everything, both of you.

Maybe. But, I'm not getting his claim there - denying the suspect due process.

The law IS anal and tedious (probably the exact reason I stopped my legal education before the first semester was finished and went back to science.)

The suspect in this case is the person that gets shot because someone decided he deserved to be shot because he or she was committing or about to commit a crime. In other words, the vigilante's suspect.

Oh! Thanks. That makes some sense.

On the other hand, why should the law be used to prosecute someone - waste his time, the court's, the prosecutor's, the witness', etc. and money - when it doesn't look like a conviction is even possible under that jurisdiction and with the evidence?

For example, I'm driving my car, hit a pedestrian, and kill him. There are witnesses who make statements to the cops that I was not speeding or breaking any other driving laws. There is no evidence that I was doing anything illegal at the time. But, the parents are pretty outraged and so are their hundred thousand friends. And, it is very sad that the guy is dead. And, by the way, I don't have the greatest driving record, but I can still legally drive. But the family and friends are convinced that I was doing something wrong.

Should I be tried for vehicular manslaughter just so the dead guy's friends and relatives get some satisfaction?

 

[koshergrl]

Absolutely! We must assume you are guilty of murder based upon the outrage of the family members and complete strangers who don't know the whole story!

Because we all know the witnesses must be lying....

After all, you denied the pedestrian his *due process*.

Whatever that means.

 

[MarcATL]

You're an idiot.

I really don't know how else to put it. Essentially you are saying anyone who is ever accused of a crime should be brought to trial and forced to prove their innocence, regardless of whether or not there is any evidence.

I really doubt Zimmerman "wants" to be charged with murder.

And you don't know what the fuck *due process* means.

Cripes.

Keep on letting your light shine Christian.

 

[koshergrl]

Peter was a brawler too.

 

[Si modo]

Absolutely! We must assume you are guilty of murder based upon the outrage of the family members and complete strangers who don't know the whole story!

Because we all know the witnesses must be lying....

After all, you denied the pedestrian his *due process*.

Whatever that means.

Right. I must be missing something. So must the DA.

 

[saveliberty]

The law is bad because:

1. A family lost their child and would like to see due process. It may not happen, because a law is ambiguous.

2. A man cannot live his life as he chooses because about half the country "thinks" he killed someone. He deserves an opportunity to clear his name.

3. Promoting the idea you can pursue someone because you think they could or may have committed a crime and kill them denies the suspect due process.

Framing this as left versus right only demonstrates the polarity of politics.

I grew up in a nearly all white community. I was never stopped by the police and questioned. Neighbors never chased after me. This appears to be more of an experience shared by the poor or minority population. Listening to them only seems appropriate in this situation.

How the fuck is not taking a suspect, who is automatically presumed innocent, to trial a denial of his due process?

Martin was the suspect dumbass.

 

[MarcATL]

Peter didn't STAY a "brawler" though.

In fact Christ admonished him to change those "brawler" ways.

There's a passage of text that goes something like this..."go and sin no more.."

But keep on promoting "brawler" ways...yuh heah!?

 

[Si modo]

The law is bad because:

1. A family lost their child and would like to see due process. It may not happen, because a law is ambiguous.

2. A man cannot live his life as he chooses because about half the country "thinks" he killed someone. He deserves an opportunity to clear his name.

3. Promoting the idea you can pursue someone because you think they could or may have committed a crime and kill them denies the suspect due process.

Framing this as left versus right only demonstrates the polarity of politics.

I grew up in a nearly all white community. I was never stopped by the police and questioned. Neighbors never chased after me. This appears to be more of an experience shared by the poor or minority population. Listening to them only seems appropriate in this situation.

How the fuck is not taking a suspect, who is automatically presumed innocent, to trial a denial of his due process?

Martin was the suspect dumbass.

Thanks, asshole.

 

[saveliberty]

Please one of you geniuses...tell us what *due process* is.

Its what Martin DIDN'T get.

 

[saveliberty]

How the fuck is not taking a suspect, who is automatically presumed innocent, to trial a denial of his due process?

Martin was the suspect dumbass.

Thanks, asshole.

Your welcome.

 

[Si modo]

Martin was the suspect dumbass.

Thanks, asshole.

Your welcome.

What about it?

(trying to be light here, let's see what you do with that)

 

[saveliberty]

You're an idiot.

I really don't know how else to put it. Essentially you are saying anyone who is ever accused of a crime should be brought to trial and forced to prove their innocence, regardless of whether or not there is any evidence.

I really doubt Zimmerman "wants" to be charged with murder.

And you don't know what the fuck *due process* means.

Cripes.

If placing myself in the shoes of someone I don't normally walk with makes me an idiot, so be it. Far better than championing a blind position in my opinion, but then, I'm just an idiot.