(1) The guy defining the topic as "complex" probably intended to feel all powerful and a cut above the rest by threatening to ban people for simplistic posts. The reality is that starting off by pounding your fist on the table and trying to bully others into taking the subject as "complex" is as sure-fire a way as any to not solve the problem under discussion.
Imagine if "science versus religion" debates were to begin by defining the issue as complex. Imagine if Galileo began modern physics with the two browbeating commandments that "Thou shalt not reduce a problem to its bare essentials" and "Thou shalt never adopt any position that is not moderate between two extremes when there are sensitivities at stake".
How do you know that this subject is "complex"? Maybe there's something simple that people are missing. How do you know unless you debate it?
(2) Anybody who is even vaguely honest has to realize (with the caveat in the last paragraph) that this purely legal question comes with a tremendous amount of political baggage that is biasing opinion in one particular direction, and not the other. What are the chances that the shooting, apparently in self-defence, of some white 17-year-old who fits the profile of a hoodlum, would give rise to this national media circus and this level of emotionally charged public outcry? Actually, there have been hate crimes against white people, including the case of a 13-year-old boy from Kansas City who was set on fire by two teenagers who said "You deserve what you get, white boy", that received virtually no acknowledgement in the mainstream media. (In fact, the only people who were interested seemed to be far-right, raving loons, as far as I can gather.)
(3) It's innocent until proven guilty, folks. The only way you can prove him guilty here is to show without room for ambiguity that he purposely provoked the fight. If the case really is "complex", then presumably there's no clinching evidence and the only ethical verdict can be one of Zimmerman's innocence.
(4) Subjecting people to severe physical beatings always comes with the risk that your victim has a gun. This state of affairs is healthy, and especially works to the advantage of women. This general principle of "defender's rights" (broader than the stand-your-ground law) shouldn't be compromised because of the risk of a few vigilantes who abuse the law to provoke an assault. By all means introduce new laws to crack down on vigilantes, but this has no bearing on the Zimmerman case unless you feel like doing the law ex post facto.
This is how the media generally pushed this story at the beginning... Disgusting.
But at least the YoungTurds did not edit the 911 call to make Zimmerman look racist and at least they didn't show too many pictures of Trayvon when he was 12 years old.
Pretty Disgusting alright. Uygur seemed more Down to earth on the case, but that woman Ana..she certainly did nothing but pile on shit on the case she knew nothing about.
On June 30 2013 09:36 FactMan wrote: Few things here:
(1) The guy defining the topic as "complex" probably intended to feel all powerful and a cut above the rest by threatening to ban people for simplistic posts. The reality is that starting off by pounding your fist on the table and trying to bully others into taking the subject as "complex" is as sure-fire a way as any to not solve the problem under discussion.
You (might) be new here, so perhaps you missed the way this story evolved (on this site and throughout the public in general). Originally it was a bunch of people coming in who hadn't heard the whole story (either supporting one side or another) and spouting off a bunch of nonsense that didn't really advance the topic at all and actually just advanced misconceptions. Given the touchy nature of the subject misconceptions can be dangerous.
The topic is complex in that there are multiple shades here, with opinions ranging all they way from fully supporting Zimmerman to fully condemning him, and everything in between. The facts are still coming out (though they have all largely been established) and the testimony that exists is somewhat contradictory and vague. The topic is more complex than "White man kills black teenager" or "White man defends himself against black hoodlum." That's why they put the header up there, not to exercise some weird power-trip, but to keep that kind of crap out of here.
(2) Anybody who is even vaguely honest has to realize (with the caveat in the last paragraph) that this purely legal question comes with a tremendous amount of political baggage that is biasing opinion in one particular direction, and not the other.
Hence the mod-note detailing the complexity of the situation...
Actually, there have been hate crimes against white people, including the case of a 13-year-old boy from Kansas City who was set on fire by two teenagers who said "You deserve what you get, white boy", that received virtually no acknowledgement in the mainstream media. (In fact, the only people who were interested seemed to be far-right, raving loons, as far as I can gather.)
How is this relevant?
(3) It's innocent until proven guilty, folks.
That's the general consensus of the thread... yes.
So if you are actually new and not a recently banned person, welcome to TL and all that good stuff.
On June 30 2013 09:36 FactMan wrote: (2) Anybody who is even vaguely honest has to realize (with the caveat in the last paragraph) that this purely legal question comes with a tremendous amount of political baggage that is biasing opinion in one particular direction, and not the other. What are the chances that the shooting, apparently in self-defence, of some white 17-year-old who fits the profile of a hoodlum, would give rise to this national media circus and this level of emotionally charged public outcry? Actually, there have been hate crimes against white people, including the case of a 13-year-old boy from Kansas City who was set on fire by two teenagers who said "You deserve what you get, white boy", that received virtually no acknowledgement in the mainstream media. (In fact, the only people who were interested seemed to be far-right, raving loons, as far as I can gather.)
I'm pretty sure that the Kansas City thing was bullshit.
On June 30 2013 09:36 FactMan wrote: (2) Anybody who is even vaguely honest has to realize (with the caveat in the last paragraph) that this purely legal question comes with a tremendous amount of political baggage that is biasing opinion in one particular direction, and not the other. What are the chances that the shooting, apparently in self-defence, of some white 17-year-old who fits the profile of a hoodlum, would give rise to this national media circus and this level of emotionally charged public outcry? Actually, there have been hate crimes against white people, including the case of a 13-year-old boy from Kansas City who was set on fire by two teenagers who said "You deserve what you get, white boy", that received virtually no acknowledgement in the mainstream media. (In fact, the only people who were interested seemed to be far-right, raving loons, as far as I can gather.)
I'm pretty sure that the Kansas City thing was bullshit.
I think the point he is trying to make is that this case probably doesn't deserve the attention it's been getting. Which I am inclined to agree with. Unfortunately it was so sensationalized that it's been in the spotlight for no reason other than the fact it's been sensationalized by the media.
This is how the media generally pushed this story at the beginning... Disgusting.
But at least the YoungTurds did not edit the 911 call to make Zimmerman look racist and at least they didn't show too many pictures of Trayvon when he was 12 years old.
Pretty Disgusting alright. Uygur seemed more Down to earth on the case, but that woman Ana..she certainly did nothing but pile on shit on the case she knew nothing about.
TYT(cenk uygur) is very much the liberal equivalent of rush limbaugh. I wouldn't take anything they have to say seriously, as they've shown in the past willing to promote liberal propaganda.
Edit: And likewise, I wouldn't trust Rush Limbaugh either. He's got the same problem.
On June 30 2013 09:36 FactMan wrote: (2) Anybody who is even vaguely honest has to realize (with the caveat in the last paragraph) that this purely legal question comes with a tremendous amount of political baggage that is biasing opinion in one particular direction, and not the other. What are the chances that the shooting, apparently in self-defence, of some white 17-year-old who fits the profile of a hoodlum, would give rise to this national media circus and this level of emotionally charged public outcry? Actually, there have been hate crimes against white people, including the case of a 13-year-old boy from Kansas City who was set on fire by two teenagers who said "You deserve what you get, white boy", that received virtually no acknowledgement in the mainstream media. (In fact, the only people who were interested seemed to be far-right, raving loons, as far as I can gather.)
I'm pretty sure that the Kansas City thing was bullshit.
I think the point he is trying to make is that this case probably doesn't deserve the attention it's been getting. Which I am inclined to agree with. Unfortunately it was so sensationalized that it's been in the spotlight for no reason other than the fact it's been sensationalized by the media.
Yeah, I know that it was reported on, but I'm pretty sure that beyond that initial story, there is no follow up on it. Sounds more like the kid lit himself on fire playing with gasoline than a bunch of kids randomly decided to set him on fire.
On June 30 2013 09:36 FactMan wrote: (2) Anybody who is even vaguely honest has to realize (with the caveat in the last paragraph) that this purely legal question comes with a tremendous amount of political baggage that is biasing opinion in one particular direction, and not the other. What are the chances that the shooting, apparently in self-defence, of some white 17-year-old who fits the profile of a hoodlum, would give rise to this national media circus and this level of emotionally charged public outcry? Actually, there have been hate crimes against white people, including the case of a 13-year-old boy from Kansas City who was set on fire by two teenagers who said "You deserve what you get, white boy", that received virtually no acknowledgement in the mainstream media. (In fact, the only people who were interested seemed to be far-right, raving loons, as far as I can gather.)
I'm pretty sure that the Kansas City thing was bullshit.
I think the point he is trying to make is that this case probably doesn't deserve the attention it's been getting. Which I am inclined to agree with. Unfortunately it was so sensationalized that it's been in the spotlight for no reason other than the fact it's been sensationalized by the media.
Yeah, I know that it was reported on, but I'm pretty sure that beyond that initial story, there is no follow up on it. Sounds more like the kid lit himself on fire playing with gasoline than a bunch of kids randomly decided to set him on fire.
This is how the media generally pushed this story at the beginning... Disgusting.
But at least the YoungTurds did not edit the 911 call to make Zimmerman look racist and at least they didn't show too many pictures of Trayvon when he was 12 years old.
Pretty Disgusting alright. Uygur seemed more Down to earth on the case, but that woman Ana..she certainly did nothing but pile on shit on the case she knew nothing about.
People like Ana are the reason I worry about the ability to find impartial jurors in the future. Not only was Zimmerman guilty until proven innocent but she also knew the exact motivation for the crime? Implying that racism is such a huge problem in the white community (and not practically every community to some extent) adds to the ridiculousness.
This is how the media generally pushed this story at the beginning... Disgusting.
But at least the YoungTurds did not edit the 911 call to make Zimmerman look racist and at least they didn't show too many pictures of Trayvon when he was 12 years old.
This is disgusting.
That was over a year ago when every media outlet was running the exact same thing. TYT is an outrageously liberal news show and this piece is pretty tame especially considering the rest of the media during this point.
Dont get mad at that show unless you want to get mad at 90% of news outlets.
I think the point he is trying to make is that this case probably doesn't deserve the attention it's been getting. Which I am inclined to agree with. Unfortunately it was so sensationalized that it's been in the spotlight for no reason other than the fact it's been sensationalized by the media.
The media extravaganza only started because if it hadn't there would of been no more investigation beyond the initial incident let alone a trial, after a teenager was killed less than a mile from where he was visiting.
The thought of going to Florida and some guy could stalk me, confront me, and kill me and claim self defense is chilling. Only if my corpse and witnesses (provided there are any) can prove the guy who stalked me despite 911 telling him not to was in fact not having his life threatened by an unarmed teenager does he risk imprisonment
Add on to that the readiness for people to say and do what they have in defense of Zimmerman, despite the fact that if he had simply done as the 911 operator had said there would be no dead kid and he would have suffered no injuries only furthers my distress.
So while your entitled to your opinion I disagree with it. For those who have been stalked and followed (edit: or know someone who has) before because they "look suspicious" the outcome of this case could not be more relevant.
On June 30 2013 11:21 GreenHorizons wrote: The thought of going to Florida and some guy could stalk me, confront me, and kill me and claim self defense is chilling. Only if my corpse and witnesses (provided there are any) can prove the guy who stalked me despite 911 telling him not to was in fact not having his life threatened by an unarmed teenager does he risk imprisonment
You do understand why "innocent until proven guilty" is a pretty important concept, right?
On June 30 2013 11:21 GreenHorizons wrote: The thought of going to Florida and some guy could stalk me, confront me, and kill me and claim self defense is chilling. Only if my corpse and witnesses (provided there are any) can prove the guy who stalked me despite 911 telling him not to was in fact not having his life threatened by an unarmed teenager does he risk imprisonment
You do understand why "innocent until proven guilty" is a pretty important concept, right?
Of course one problem was how the incident was investigated and pursued. Had the media not stepped in and enhanced the voices of those pleading for a further investigation there would of never been a trial in the first place.
As for the presumption of innocence it has to go both ways... SO presumably there was an innocent child dead in the grass... a trial seems like the only reasonable outcome...
Unfortunately for Trayvon even if he is proven to be innocent and Zimmerman murdered him it's not much of a consolation to a dead teenager or his parents.....
On June 30 2013 11:21 GreenHorizons wrote: The thought of going to Florida and some guy could stalk me, confront me, and kill me and claim self defense is chilling. Only if my corpse and witnesses (provided there are any) can prove the guy who stalked me despite 911 telling him not to was in fact not having his life threatened by an unarmed teenager does he risk imprisonment
You do understand why "innocent until proven guilty" is a pretty important concept, right?
Of course one problem it was how the incident was investigated and pursued. Had the media not stepped in and enhanced the voices of those pleading for a further investigation there would of never been a trial in the first place.
As for the presumption of innocence it has to go both ways... SO presumably there was an innocent child dead in the grass... a trial seems like the only reasonable outcome...
Unfortunately for Trayvon even if he is proven to be innocent and Zimmerman murdered him it's not much of a consolation to a dead teenager or his parents.....
With the facts that are coming to light, it has become very apparent why there was no initial criminal investigation. Thus far there has yet to be any compelling evidence to suggest that Zimmerman was not acting in self-defense (conjecture of his motivations in lieu of any actual admission of said motivations does not qualify as evidence). It is likely that the media jumped on the story and "enhanced" the voices of those looking for a criminal investigation and trial because that makes for a more compelling story.
The presumption of innocence does belong to Trayvon, hence a "not-guilty" verdict not being immediately followed up by a posthumous charge upon Trayvon for assault (disregarding the silliness in charging the dead with a crime). However, we cannot assume that since the killed is innocent that the living must then be guilty, or we would be breaking the right of Zimmerman to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise. Further, "innocence" is not technically a legal term as we normally use it. Juries do not hand out "Innocent" verdicts. They are only there to determine if the threshold for guilt has been met. OJ Simpson was not determined to be innocent, he was determined to be not-guilty of the crime charged. There is a difference, though if you can't see it, explaining it might be a bit difficult and take some time on my part.
It is not reasonable to put people on trial because they might have done something wrong. When there is a complete lack of evidence of wrongdoing, the State has a responsibility to NOT pursue a trial. As of yet, there has been no (admissible) evidence of wrongdoing (IMO) on Zimmerman's part.
I think the point he is trying to make is that this case probably doesn't deserve the attention it's been getting. Which I am inclined to agree with. Unfortunately it was so sensationalized that it's been in the spotlight for no reason other than the fact it's been sensationalized by the media.
Add on to that the readiness for people to say and do what they have in defense of Zimmerman, despite the fact that if he had simply done as the 911 operator had said there would be no dead kid and he would have suffered no injuries only furthers my distress.
I think you could go in circles forever with this.
If Zimmerman never got out of the car, none of this would have happened.
If Martin had called the police and said, 'Yea, I got a creepy ass cracka' stalking me'. The dispatch would then issue an APB, realize the calls came from the same area with a prior call about following someone, have a chuckle, and none of this would have happened. They both could have done things that might have avoided the outcome.
EPT
