Sunday, July 14, 2013

Just because he was declared "not guilty" by a jury doesn't mean he didn't do it.

I'm going to quote something I read on Gawker:

"If you want to get into a technical argument that it's only murder if it's "unlawful," and that if this trial by jury fails to produce a conviction, then the killing is not unlawful and therefore is not murder—well, presumably you also would argue that O.J. Simpson did not murder his wife. But why are you trying to make the argument at all? Why do you want to believe that an armed man shooting and killing an unarmed 17-year-old boy is lawful? What makes you think this way?"

http://gawker.com/will-george-zimmerman-get-away-with-murder-757850043

BTW, what about the right to due process of law which was denied to Trayvon Martin?  Didn't he have rights?

Of course, we need to see more of the absurdities of "get away with murder" laws come to light and then there will be a revolt against your "Pro-gun" silliness.

Seriously, an unarmed person goes to the store and buys something. He is then accosted on the street by an armed person who kills him. Then, the person who kills him claims self-defence.

Isn't that obviously a ridiculous proposition?

One cannot exceed the reasonable amount of force necessary to stop the threat without becoming the aggressor.  That is how self-defence is supposed to work under the rule of law.

27 comments:

  1. Laci, you must have been a disaster as a defense lawyer.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Must have been? As in no longer? If that's case then there is no mystery as to why Laci is a "has been".

    Every lawyer I have ever employed stood firmly for the constitution and my rights there in, and never lost a case for me doing so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd like to hear more about all those court cases you've had.

      Delete
    2. They would bore you Mike, nothing to do with guns.

      Delete
  3. Travon Martin could not instigate any amount of force once he had escaped the threat without becoming the aggressor.

    That is why Travon Martin ended up dead and why George Zimmerman was found not guilt under the rule of law.

    You are a piss poor excuse of a lawyer Laci,

    ReplyDelete
  4. Here's some more from genius boy over at my favorite heart blog.

    Friend democommie addresses Laci:
    Laci The Dog:

    I’m sure that the babbling gunzloonz over at Mikeb’s are ecstatic about this.
    Reply

    lacithedog
    July 14, 2013 at 12:21 pm

    We’ll find out–I posted a couple of items there about this.

    Of course, I can’t reason with unreasonable people. That said, I don’t bother with reading the comments. I’m sure campy will say something moronic couched in hi-fallutin’ phrases to make him sound smarter than I am.


    My dog is smarter than you Laci. Because you hate Americans.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Junior, Much as we've fought in the past and as much as I disagree with a lot of your positions, I have to say that it's telling that you can see the truth about dear Laci.

      Props for the honesty

      Delete
    2. My thoughts exactly, Tennessean. Thanks, Flying Junior.

      Delete
    3. What is it with you guys assigning "honesty" to opinions. When you agree with someone's opinion they're being "honest." Otherwise they're "liars."

      These are OPINIONS.

      Delete
    4. We're not talking about the truthfulness of opinions, just whether the person is expressing the opinion they honestly hold rather than the one required by their side.

      Junior sees Laci as an obnoxious, self important ass who brags on his intelligence but never demonstrates it--much as any impartial observer of exchanges with Laci would agree.

      Laci sees himself as a god among attorneys who need not answer the arguments of opponents.

      Both of them are expressing their opinions honestly when they say these things.


      The reason we've accused and implied that you don't think you REALLY think Laci is the logic god he claims to be is because you have proven able to argue back and forth based on logic when you feel like doing so. However, maybe we're wrong and you really do think that Laci's nonsense and logical fallacies are sensible.

      Delete
  5. I agree with Laci 100%.

    "BTW, what about the right to due process of law which was denied to Trayvon Martin? Didn't he have rights?"

    Martin had the right to walk home unmolested. You guys are biased gun-rights supporters, and in some cases, racists too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Martin had the right to walk home unmolested and if he had done so this would not have happened. Instead he decided to molest someone HE didn't like and didn't even know. He had his due process right then and there.

      He represented himself in this case and lost.

      Delete
    2. Wait, I thought we were all racists and that was the only explanation for supporting GZ. I'm confused.


      As for your proposition, yeah, Trayvon had a right to be in the neighborhood, walking home that night. You keep supporting the idea that he was just walking home and that GZ confronted him and started something, however, even according to Jeantel's testimony, Trayvon was the one who Instigated the verbal confrontation--contrary to the initial charging document's statement that GZ "confronted" Martin.

      Beyond that, we have GZ's statements that Martin hit him first and beat him up contradicted by only Jeantel's supposition that Martin wouldn't have because it was out of his character. Nobody else saw how it started, so the jury would have to pick which one was more credible.

      Without even going into issues of Jeantel's credibility, her description of Martin's comments about the "creepy ass cracker" following him, other slurs she said he used, and her description of the conversation and of his confrontation of GZ all sound like people I've known in the past, black and white--people I could never vouch for saying, "No, he'd never throw the first punch."

      Delete
    3. Mikeb, you agree with Laci? Well, take out an ad in the paper, since that's never happened before...

      Delete
    4. Texas: "Instead he decided to molest someone HE didn't like and didn't even know. He had his due process right then and there. "

      You are unbelievably biased in favor of the gun owner. You have know way of knowing what happened to instigate the fight other than what we all know that Zimmerman followed the kid.

      Does it really make sense to you that GZ lost him, and a minute or so later TM attacked, unprovoked, and intended to murder Zimmerman with his bare hands?

      You don't have to answer that. You're blinded by your Zimmerman support. I'm sure you'll say yes.

      Delete
    5. And Mikeb, you're unbelievably biased in favor of Martin. Can we return to the facts now?

      Delete
    6. He didn't have to attack with the intent to kill Zimmerman--he could likely have attacked with the intent to give a mere beat down to the "creepy ass cracker" he'd seen following him.

      Meanwhile, Zimmerman, to be justified, just needed to be receiving this beatdown and be put into fear that he was going to be killed or grievously injured, whether intentionally or accidentally.


      Because of your bias against Zimmerman, you are putting constraints on the law that don't exist.

      Delete
    7. Uh yeah Mike. I will answer that and qualify my answer as well. Looking at Martin's recent past, the actions and legal troubles that he has made for himself produces a pattern of behavior that precedes the Zimmerman confrontation. He apparently didn't decide to change his stripes when his family brought him to Florida to get him away from the troubles he had created for himself in another state. Also he came VERY close to being prosecuted for assault of a bus driver in Florida because that driver wouldn't let Martin ride for free, Martin slapped the driver, just days before confronting Zimmerman.

      I am not blinded by Zimmerman support. I can see Martins stripes and where it led him. You gotta pay to play, sometimes when you play tough guy, you pay with your life.

      Martin found that out.

      Delete
    8. Yes, it makes sense that Zimmerman lost him because we can hear that on the tape. Zimmerman was standing around for 90 seconds, close to his car, and even said "I don't know where the kid is" to the dispatcher. I don't think Martin wanted to murder him with his bare hands, but I do think he wanted to beat the living crap out of him (hard enough that he could have died or suffer great bodily harm).

      Delete
    9. That would be the 90 seconds that you admitted to not listening to, Mikeb. Maybe you ought to listen to it and hear for yourself instead of repeatedly tripping over your ignorance on this subject.

      Delete
    10. Tennessean, the lawyer who mocks Laci, said:

      "Beyond that, we have GZ's statements that Martin hit him first and beat him up"

      When the guy with the gun kills the unarmed guy, WHAT ELSE WOULD HE SAY?

      Delete
    11. Jim, I don't think I ever said I hadn't listened to the recording. What I did say is that I've listened to it several times and fail to see the significance of it. We still only have Zimmerman's word for what happened to start the actual fight. I find it totally incredible that TM pounced on GZ in a murderous rage that could only be thwarted by gun fire.

      Besides the 90 seconds was more than enough time for GZ to get back in his car where he belonged instead of looking for trouble where there was none with his trusty gat.

      Delete
    12. Sure, Mike, pull one clause out of a sentence where I followed by talking about what evidence we had that contradicted that statement and then talked about how we had only these two statements from two biased parties, and how the jury had to make it's determination based on which one they found more credible.

      The point I was making was that there was only weak testimony going either way, but you pulled out a phrase, acted like I was making a different argument, and then pointed out the weakness of the testimony.

      Wow.

      Is there any point in even debating things if that's how you're gonna play the game?

      Delete
    13. Was he or was he not following Martin during those 90 seconds?

      Is that question significant to determine who started the fight? No, but considering how many times you've said "pursued Martin after being told by police not to" it is extremely significant to your narrative.

      Delete
    14. "I didn't hear the part where the 911 call proved that 90 seconds elapsed. But let's say it did. Why wasn't the wannabe cop, vigilante back safely in his car then? "

      I'd say using a watch while actually listening to the 911 call could prove it. And you are repeating yourself. This was answered. Since you don't seem to believe those of us who have answered this, all you have to do is listen to the tape to find out why he wasn't at his car at the end of that 90 seconds. Shouldn't be too much trouble for someone who is interested in the truth.

      Delete
  6. Was my comment too inflammatory to get printed?

    Oh well, not the first time. ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry if I deleted one of yours. If I did it was unintentional.

      Delete