The following is a response to a comment by a George Zimmerman apologist I received in a thread from a person on the subject of George Zimmerman located here.
The original article reports on George Zimmerman’s recent claims to poverty and homelessness. For those who have been living under a rock George Zimmerman pursued and shot to death a young black youth by the name of Trayvon Martin. He was acquitted under Florida’s questionable “Stand Your Ground” laws.
I had attempted to explain to one of the offended Zimmerman fans some basic concepts of law; specifically the difference between “Not Guilty” and “Innocent” in response to some highly dubious claims he made about Zimmerman being; “wrongfully prosecuted” (those comments can be found here).
His response devolved into a position of butthurt that has me concerned that I may receive a subpoena to appear in court and defend myself against a Civil Suit.
He responded with this comment;
What came next from this Zimmerman supporter was so wonderfully full of flaws and fallacy that I thought I’d post my response to it here for all to learn from and enjoy.
My response as follows;
So your response is to call a factually accurate explanation of the jurisprudence relevant to the case; “warn (sic) talking points” and thus double down on your argument from ignorance on his innocence.
I’d say that’s amazing but it’s fairly typical partisan ignorance from your ilk. I’d suggest you look at these two articles/ blogs on the topic of the verdict before you continue any further. One is an opinion piece from Richard Lempert of Brookings.edu and the other is an excellent analysis by Attorney Oscar Michelen from the site courtroomstrategy.com.
Note the following paragraph under section 3 on reasonable doubt (Oscar Michelen’s review):
“As someone who deals with wrongful conviction cases, I have seen many inmates who were convicted even though there was reasonable doubt due to bad lawyering or an overly aggressive prosecution. So while the verdict greatly troubles me from an emotional standpoint, objectively there was simply too much doubt on the crime charged and under the SYG law to convict Zimmerman.”
There was not enough evidence (causing doubt) to make the conviction, but enough evidence to keep him from seeking a judgement to establish his innocence (a wise move when one examines evidence and opinions).
“The rest of what you offer is simply responding to a question with a question and as they say on the play ground – you first.”
Avoiding the questions. I find that generally people do this when they’re unable to offer a counter-argument.
“Your not disproving that MSNBC edited the 911 phone call to make Zimmerman racist…”
It is ironic that you are demanding we provide evidence of Zimmerman’s guilt yet at the same time you demand evidence of MSNBC’s innocence. This is known as the; “Double Standard Fallacy”.
“…and bystanders getting harassed and threaten.”
We were discussing Zimmerman, not bystanders. Raising the goal posts fallacy.
“But you’re more interested in justifying your own terrible behavior and telling yourself you’re not a terrible human being for gloating over the injury done to a fellow human being.”
Strawman. Please show an exact quote where I “gloated”(keep in mind saying “I have no sympathy” is not the same as gloating; it is “Not having sympathy”).
Finally, when you consider Conservative policy towards the poor (their obsession with cutting food stamps, unemployment and medicaid programs) I find it highly ironic that a conservative is offended at someone saying that they have no sympathy over someone’s poverty because that person is responsible for their own predicament due to their own irresponsible behavior.
This delicious irony alone is worth the time spent on these responses.
I’m curious; are you a member of the Tea Party?
Follow me on: