Zimmerman Trial Part 5 The Jury Decides (McCain, legal, drugs, attorney)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Huh? I think you are confused. Zimmerman is the one with a POLICE record involving violence. I can't believe you even raised this point. Talk about delusional.
All sorts of stuff that wasn't allowed in the trial suggested that Martin himself wasn't as clean as the wind-driven snow. He had a history of fighting. He had stolen property from a burglary in his possession. According to some of the messages recovered from his cell phone, he may have even been trying to procure a gun illegally.
Some people might enjoy watching the black community self-destruct and embarrass itself (or show its true colors, as they would argue). The thinking is that the black community is to blame for failing to acknowledge and address the problems of black-on-black violence, low educational attainment, babies having babies, and drug use, blaming Whitey instead for those problems as opposed to accepting responsibility. A senseless riot would add additional evidence that the black community is self destructive.
-Well, blacks aren't rioting, so that's one assumption you can throw away.
-I've addressed black-on-black violence in this very thread. You just don't want to acknowledge it (guess it makes too much sense).
-Out of wedlock births and drug use is a problem in ALL communities, not just among blacks. I will agree that rural meth heads are easier to hide.
-Who's blaming "whitey" for anything?
It's not his job to "catch" anyone. You wait for the police to apprehend a suspect. Let's say Trayvon was the burglar they'd all been looking for. Zimmerman had no authority to detain/arrest him, so just stand back and let the cops do their work.
re: the gun. That is so silly, I can't even...
From your final standpoint, I can see there's no having a reasonable discussion with you...
You've finally got it. Zimmerman DID NOT try to detain or arrest Martin. Martin physically attacked Zimmerman. Zimmerman defended himself. Everyone has the right to defend themselves from a physical attack. Unfortunately Martin paid the ultimate price for his illegal actions.
If you think GZ has some culpability in this, then you shouldn't be on the side cheering that he got off.
It would have been a miscarriage of justice has GZ been found guilty. The evidence just wasn't there. Nearly every state witness corroborated GZ's testimony. The only thing I saw was a state asking the jury to convict based on emotion and no facts... I prefer facts.
Why would it be on Martin to prevent someone else from acting recklessly?
I've understood why Zimmerman would be found innocent. I'm just playing devils advocate against these absolute scenarios where one party is completely innocent at the expense of the other.
I have never said that Zimmerman didn't have some level of responsibility for what happened that night... The fact is, I don't know, you don't know and even the jury doesn't know for sure.. We can both sit here and make up scenarios all night long, but it won't change the facts as we DO know them...
I hadn't paid much attention to the OJ trial, which was before the popularity of the Internet. However, I do remember talking to a (white) guy I used to know who was an actual criminal prosecutor who had paid attention to the trial he said that he thought OJ was innocent. I took his word for it for since I respect his judgment.
Given the myriad of evidence and testimonies, I think it would substantiate those as facts. This case was ruled as if those were the facts, as well.
Testimony is not fact, it's an account, and those accounts can be just as dishonest as accurate.
The case was won because Zimmerman was the last man standing, and the state would have needed proof that didn't exist to convict. That doesn't make Zimmerman innocent, it just means that the state didn't have the evidence or testimony to convict. Those are not the same thing.
I understand your comparison here, but between the two problems, which one is killing the largest total of our american youth on a national basis?
Black on black crime for sure, but here is the difference.
A GREAT many of these deaths are a result of the actions of the victim. If you engage in a life of crime, it's pretty likely that you will die as a result of it. So, while sad, it's not really surprising when a gang member/drug dealer dies.
On the other hand, killing totally innocent people (including children) because you're pissed for some obscure reason is a true tragedy and provides you with no level of safety. Living a good life and in a good community is NOT protection against these sort of crimes. Going to the movies is not safe. Going to school is not safe.
If you stay out of hoods where drug violence is high, you're pretty much guaranteed not to die at the hands of a criminal black youth. You can be anywhere and become the victim of a white guy on a mission to kill people.
You are easily the most racist, angry person I've seen on this forum. No contest.
May want to sit the next few plays out, sport.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
