BamaD -> RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN (7/12/2013 5:11:43 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD quote:
ORIGINAL: mnottertail I now understand that you believe that would be a very low opinion of people for someone to say... what we are not clear. But that people live in their own self interest? I do not hold that as a low opinion of people and it looks like I said that. I have fixed and explained my error. And I have only contempt for someone who would decided a mans fate based on what's good for them. Never said you or anyone has to agree with me. So, logically, you hold contempt for corporations, as well as Zimmerman. Goddamit, it don't really show. Because he showed contempt for someone when he decided Trayvons fate, based on what was good for him, didn't he? He acted (as we all do) in his own self interest without regard to anything else, didn't he? And hasn't this been the thrust of your alliying to his cause? If self-defense is not at the base of self-interest, then we got to redesign some dictionaries. When you sit on a jury you take an oath to come to an unbiased fair verdict. If you reach that verdict on the basis of things having nothing to do with the facts of the case you have violated your oath. Don't you think, for example that a not guilty verdict would have been in the best interest of the jury in the Mississippi Burning case. But would you or anyone else say it would have been ok to do so. With self interest being acceptable grounds for reaching a verdict why not just do a poll for A the most popular verdict and B the verdict most likely to have repercussions then we don't even need a jury.
|
|
|
|