|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On July 14 2013 12:21 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 12:20 darthfoley wrote:
Didn't follow the case at all but i'm very skeptical from the little I know that Zimmerman needed to shoot and kill a kid over a fight Didn't follow the case at all
Okay, I see why you might be angry.
|
On July 14 2013 12:22 ZapRoffo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 12:17 kmillz wrote:On July 14 2013 12:14 ZapRoffo wrote:
Anyone want to convince me (someone who didn't really follow the details of the case) that there was no racial profiling and attempt to vigilante by Zimmerman, other than it just being a matter of belief with no evidence either way--at which point I will adamantly believe there was?
I need filled in and my queries keep being ignored. Because there is no evidence that he was racial profiling. Reporting someone and them being black does not make it racial profiling. If that were the case you could call every instance of reporting a potential criminal of a different race as "racial profiling". Like I said, no concrete evidence of it being so doesn't mean anything to me, I'm not a jury or a research task force. I can act on intuition, and I just want to see if there are any clear facts flying right in the face of my intuition that can be clearly delineated. Which there doesn't seem to be. I'm just asking for personal reasons.
Were you even watching the case? There was definitely concrete evidence, I saw it myself (heh)
EDIT: in case you didn't watch the case the defense attorney brought in a big piece of concrete during his closing statements.
|
On July 14 2013 12:16 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 12:07 Ansinjunger wrote:On July 14 2013 12:05 Blennd wrote:On July 14 2013 12:02 dAPhREAk wrote:
fuck all of the people who convicted zimmerman without a trial or sufficient information (both in the media and the earlier thread) at the outset, and fuck all the people who are now blaming unfair trial practice and "injustice" because zimmerman was declared not guilty. make me sick how ignorant people are. I'm glad we were able to have such an unbiased unofficial moderator for this discussion. That's more or less what I was thinking. I appreciate xDaunt for not being on a high horse when posting in this thread. On July 14 2013 12:07 Tewks44 wrote:On July 14 2013 12:05 Blennd wrote:On July 14 2013 12:02 dAPhREAk wrote:
fuck all of the people who convicted zimmerman without a trial or sufficient information (both in the media and the earlier thread) at the outset, and fuck all the people who are now blaming unfair trial practice and "injustice" because zimmerman was declared not guilty. make me sick how ignorant people are. I'm glad we were able to have such an unbiased unofficial moderator for this discussion. dAPhREAk was a fantastic unofficial moderator, constantly updated with relevant stories and put more dedication into this thread than most people put into their day jobs. His updating of the thread was indeed fantastic, and you could argue that the moderator note set him apart as kind of a moderator for this thread. However, I don't particularly feel the need to be guilt-tripped for initially thinking GZ was guilty back when the other thread was posted. I'd rather thank the informative people in this thread for helping me learn a lot, so this type of remark stings. i have been holding my disgust in check for some of the people in this and the original thread for a long time trying to be objective. now that the case is over, i am not holding back. the ignorance of people continues to amaze me. and before you get on your high horse, pre-trial, i thought zimmerman would be convicted of manslaughter. only after this shitty trial did i change my mind.
Yeah, I agree with this.
I was fairly skeptical of the charges from the getgo, but I kept an open mind to see what the state was going to present at trial. However, once I saw how grossly inadequate their evidence was, I turned pretty quickly and made up my mind. John Good's testimony sealed the deal. I was absolutely appalled that the State would push this case knowing that John Good was a witness who was going to say the things that he said.
Also, I have previously advocated some restraint in terms of dumping on the DA, but after seeing the entirety of the trial, closing arguments, and that post trial press conference, I really hope that someone takes a hard look what went on in this case. I'm glad O'Mara is gonna follow up with it. That's the second best news of the night after the acquittal.
|
On July 14 2013 12:22 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 12:18 Millitron wrote:On July 14 2013 12:18 Kaitlin wrote:
Just for the record, double jeopardy does NOT prevent the Federal government from pursuing their own criminal charges against Zimmerman. He can't be tried for the death of Martin though. If there is an applicable Federal statute relating to the death of Martin, they most certainly can. Double jeopardy does NOT prevent the Federal government from prosecuting a case tried by the State.
republicans wont touch it for obvious reasons.
democrats wont touch it because it would be a second beergate.
|
I expected him to end up getting Manslaughter, honestly.
I still think Zimmerman is a complete idiot for following the guy despite the words from 911 and the training of neighborhood watches not to be confrontational, but at least this will serve as a warning to others in the future to leave it to the police and keep your distance.
I do agree that it was more likely the teenager that instigated the fight and it did seem from the wounds that it was the teenager on top hitting him, so I'm not overly surprised that they acquitted.
I'm more concerned about the violence and riots that are certainly to follow.
|
On July 14 2013 12:23 Tewks44 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 12:22 ZapRoffo wrote:On July 14 2013 12:17 kmillz wrote:On July 14 2013 12:14 ZapRoffo wrote:
Anyone want to convince me (someone who didn't really follow the details of the case) that there was no racial profiling and attempt to vigilante by Zimmerman, other than it just being a matter of belief with no evidence either way--at which point I will adamantly believe there was?
I need filled in and my queries keep being ignored. Because there is no evidence that he was racial profiling. Reporting someone and them being black does not make it racial profiling. If that were the case you could call every instance of reporting a potential criminal of a different race as "racial profiling". Like I said, no concrete evidence of it being so doesn't mean anything to me, I'm not a jury or a research task force. I can act on intuition, and I just want to see if there are any clear facts flying right in the face of my intuition that can be clearly delineated. Which there doesn't seem to be. I'm just asking for personal reasons. Were you even watching the case? There was definitely concrete evidence, I saw it myself (heh)
Lots of concrete evidence!
![[image loading]](http://www.trbimg.com/img-51e05558/turbine/os-george-zimmerman-trial-verdict-pictures-201-033/600/589x600)
Sigh, I'm going to get warned for this 
User was warned for this post
|
On July 14 2013 12:23 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 12:22 Kaitlin wrote:On July 14 2013 12:18 Millitron wrote:On July 14 2013 12:18 Kaitlin wrote:
Just for the record, double jeopardy does NOT prevent the Federal government from pursuing their own criminal charges against Zimmerman. He can't be tried for the death of Martin though. If there is an applicable Federal statute relating to the death of Martin, they most certainly can. Double jeopardy does NOT prevent the Federal government from prosecuting a case tried by the State. republicans wont touch it for obvious reasons. democrats wont touch it because it would be a second beergate.
Al Sharpton would die of butthurt when GZ is acquitted a second time.
|
On July 14 2013 12:23 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 12:22 Kaitlin wrote:On July 14 2013 12:18 Millitron wrote:On July 14 2013 12:18 Kaitlin wrote:
Just for the record, double jeopardy does NOT prevent the Federal government from pursuing their own criminal charges against Zimmerman. He can't be tried for the death of Martin though. If there is an applicable Federal statute relating to the death of Martin, they most certainly can. Double jeopardy does NOT prevent the Federal government from prosecuting a case tried by the State. republicans wont touch it for obvious reasons. democrats wont touch it because it would be a second beergate.
Yeah, I'm not saying the Fed will or should, just that they aren't precluded under the "double jeopardy" clause of the Constitution.
|
On July 14 2013 12:22 ZapRoffo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 12:17 kmillz wrote:On July 14 2013 12:14 ZapRoffo wrote:
Anyone want to convince me (someone who didn't really follow the details of the case) that there was no racial profiling and attempt to vigilante by Zimmerman, other than it just being a matter of belief with no evidence either way--at which point I will adamantly believe there was?
I need filled in and my queries keep being ignored. Because there is no evidence that he was racial profiling. Reporting someone and them being black does not make it racial profiling. If that were the case you could call every instance of reporting a potential criminal of a different race as "racial profiling". Like I said, no concrete evidence of it being so doesn't mean anything to me, I'm not a jury or a research task force. I can act on intuition, and I just want to see if there are any clear facts flying right in the face of my intuition that can be clearly delineated. Which there doesn't seem to be. I'm just asking for personal reasons.
Can you convince me that there are no unicorns? We have no proof of unicorns but I'm still skeptical.
On July 14 2013 12:24 dotHead wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 12:23 Tewks44 wrote:On July 14 2013 12:22 ZapRoffo wrote:On July 14 2013 12:17 kmillz wrote:On July 14 2013 12:14 ZapRoffo wrote:
Anyone want to convince me (someone who didn't really follow the details of the case) that there was no racial profiling and attempt to vigilante by Zimmerman, other than it just being a matter of belief with no evidence either way--at which point I will adamantly believe there was?
I need filled in and my queries keep being ignored. Because there is no evidence that he was racial profiling. Reporting someone and them being black does not make it racial profiling. If that were the case you could call every instance of reporting a potential criminal of a different race as "racial profiling". Like I said, no concrete evidence of it being so doesn't mean anything to me, I'm not a jury or a research task force. I can act on intuition, and I just want to see if there are any clear facts flying right in the face of my intuition that can be clearly delineated. Which there doesn't seem to be. I'm just asking for personal reasons. Were you even watching the case? There was definitely concrete evidence, I saw it myself (heh) Lots of concrete evidence! Sigh, I'm going to get warned for this
Only because you are martyring..I don't see anything wrong with your post aside from that post
|
On July 14 2013 12:20 Tewks44 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 12:14 ZapRoffo wrote:
Anyone want to convince me (someone who didn't really follow the details of the case) that there was no racial profiling and attempt to vigilante by Zimmerman, other than it just being a matter of belief with no evidence either way--at which point I will adamantly believe there was?
I need filled in and my queries keep being ignored. Well, the problem is these questions aren't really relevant to the case. My opinion, I think it's likely that Zimmerman profiled Martin, and I think he definitely was acting as kind of a "wanna-be-cop" to use the prosecution's term. However the relevant question is whether or not Zimmerman felt as if he was in danger of severe bodily harm because this would justify the use of self defense.
I'm not just interested in the trial, I'm interested in the full moral dimensions, and this thread is titled Shooting of Trayvon Martin, not Trial for the Shooting of Trayvon Martin so I think it's still within the scope. I asked if anyone wanted to convince me, not force you to convince me, I don't get the hostility.
On July 14 2013 12:26 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 12:22 ZapRoffo wrote:On July 14 2013 12:17 kmillz wrote:On July 14 2013 12:14 ZapRoffo wrote:
Anyone want to convince me (someone who didn't really follow the details of the case) that there was no racial profiling and attempt to vigilante by Zimmerman, other than it just being a matter of belief with no evidence either way--at which point I will adamantly believe there was?
I need filled in and my queries keep being ignored. Because there is no evidence that he was racial profiling. Reporting someone and them being black does not make it racial profiling. If that were the case you could call every instance of reporting a potential criminal of a different race as "racial profiling". Like I said, no concrete evidence of it being so doesn't mean anything to me, I'm not a jury or a research task force. I can act on intuition, and I just want to see if there are any clear facts flying right in the face of my intuition that can be clearly delineated. Which there doesn't seem to be. I'm just asking for personal reasons. Can you convince me that there are no unicorns? We have no proof of unicorns but I'm still skeptical.
No I don't care to. Does your intuition tell you there are probably unicorns, I don't really care? I just thought people might care to have an opportunity to enlighten me.
|
there are 6000 people listening to the police scanner for seminole country on broadcastify, lol
|
On July 14 2013 12:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 12:16 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 14 2013 12:07 Ansinjunger wrote:On July 14 2013 12:05 Blennd wrote:On July 14 2013 12:02 dAPhREAk wrote:
fuck all of the people who convicted zimmerman without a trial or sufficient information (both in the media and the earlier thread) at the outset, and fuck all the people who are now blaming unfair trial practice and "injustice" because zimmerman was declared not guilty. make me sick how ignorant people are. I'm glad we were able to have such an unbiased unofficial moderator for this discussion. That's more or less what I was thinking. I appreciate xDaunt for not being on a high horse when posting in this thread. On July 14 2013 12:07 Tewks44 wrote:On July 14 2013 12:05 Blennd wrote:On July 14 2013 12:02 dAPhREAk wrote:
fuck all of the people who convicted zimmerman without a trial or sufficient information (both in the media and the earlier thread) at the outset, and fuck all the people who are now blaming unfair trial practice and "injustice" because zimmerman was declared not guilty. make me sick how ignorant people are. I'm glad we were able to have such an unbiased unofficial moderator for this discussion. dAPhREAk was a fantastic unofficial moderator, constantly updated with relevant stories and put more dedication into this thread than most people put into their day jobs. His updating of the thread was indeed fantastic, and you could argue that the moderator note set him apart as kind of a moderator for this thread. However, I don't particularly feel the need to be guilt-tripped for initially thinking GZ was guilty back when the other thread was posted. I'd rather thank the informative people in this thread for helping me learn a lot, so this type of remark stings. i have been holding my disgust in check for some of the people in this and the original thread for a long time trying to be objective. now that the case is over, i am not holding back. the ignorance of people continues to amaze me. and before you get on your high horse, pre-trial, i thought zimmerman would be convicted of manslaughter. only after this shitty trial did i change my mind. Yeah, I agree with this. I was fairly skeptical of the charges from the getgo, but I kept an open mind to see what the state was going to present at trial. However, once I saw how grossly inadequate their evidence was, I turned pretty quickly and made up my mind. John Good's testimony sealed the deal. I was absolutely appalled that the State would push this case knowing that John Good was a witness who was going to say the things that he said. Also, I have previously advocated some restraint in terms of dumping on the DA, but after seeing the entirety of the trial, closing arguments, and that post trial press conference, I really hope that someone takes a hard look what went on in this case. I'm glad O'Mara is gonna follow up with it. That's the second best news of the night after the acquittal.
It must suck for GZ to hear the state continue to say they think he's guilty. You'd expect that from the family's side and their lawyers, but GZ may encounter people that use that the state still thinks he's guilty as an excuse to harass him.
|
i wonder if the jurors will talk. i would like to hear what they say.
|
Al Sharpton is a race baiter who uses the MLK to pimp black privilege while doing nothing for the community as a whole. I'll believe him when he addresses black on black crime, education, etc.
|
I'm just glad he wasn't found guilty for second degree murder. I think it was over prosecution to even suggest 2nd degree murder in the case. If they tried him for manslaughter; MAYBE they would've gotten him some jail time.
On July 14 2013 12:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Al Sharpton is a race baiter heck who uses ther MLK to pimp black privilege while doing doing for the community as a whole. I'll believe him when he addresses black on black crime, education, etc.
THIS.
|
On July 14 2013 12:27 dAPhREAk wrote:
i wonder if the jurors will talk. i would like to hear what they say.
they won't, it's been reported that they will not talk to media.
|
On July 14 2013 12:26 ZapRoffo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 12:20 Tewks44 wrote:On July 14 2013 12:14 ZapRoffo wrote:
Anyone want to convince me (someone who didn't really follow the details of the case) that there was no racial profiling and attempt to vigilante by Zimmerman, other than it just being a matter of belief with no evidence either way--at which point I will adamantly believe there was?
I need filled in and my queries keep being ignored. Well, the problem is these questions aren't really relevant to the case. My opinion, I think it's likely that Zimmerman profiled Martin, and I think he definitely was acting as kind of a "wanna-be-cop" to use the prosecution's term. However the relevant question is whether or not Zimmerman felt as if he was in danger of severe bodily harm because this would justify the use of self defense. I'm not just interested in the trial, I'm interested in the full moral dimensions, and this thread is titled Shooting of Trayvon Martin, not Trial for the Shooting of Trayvon Martin so I think it's still within the scope. I asked if anyone wanted to convince me, not force you to convince me, I don't get the hostility.
The law can't convict someone without proof beyond a reasonable doubt for a reason. It's barbaric to assume shit and use said assumptions to place any kind of blame, not just criminal blame.
Even individuals should assume innocence until proven otherwise.
|
On July 14 2013 12:22 ZapRoffo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 12:17 kmillz wrote:On July 14 2013 12:14 ZapRoffo wrote:
Anyone want to convince me (someone who didn't really follow the details of the case) that there was no racial profiling and attempt to vigilante by Zimmerman, other than it just being a matter of belief with no evidence either way--at which point I will adamantly believe there was?
I need filled in and my queries keep being ignored. Because there is no evidence that he was racial profiling. Reporting someone and them being black does not make it racial profiling. If that were the case you could call every instance of reporting a potential criminal of a different race as "racial profiling". Like I said, no concrete evidence of it being so doesn't mean anything to me, I'm not a jury or a research task force. I can act on intuition, and I just want to see if there are any clear facts flying right in the face of my intuition that can be clearly delineated. Which there doesn't seem to be. I'm just asking for personal reasons.
He mentored black kids, took a black girl to the prom, was one of few who protested the beating of a black homeless man by the police (whom he apparently idolized and wanted to be so bad).
I just don't see the guy as a racist, and don't think we should call him one and then expect evidence to suggest otherwise. We need evidence for that charge, and there is none.
|
On July 14 2013 12:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 12:27 dAPhREAk wrote:
i wonder if the jurors will talk. i would like to hear what they say. they won't, it's been reported that they will not talk to media.
boo. probably the best for them though.
|
On July 14 2013 12:26 ZapRoffo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 12:20 Tewks44 wrote:On July 14 2013 12:14 ZapRoffo wrote:
Anyone want to convince me (someone who didn't really follow the details of the case) that there was no racial profiling and attempt to vigilante by Zimmerman, other than it just being a matter of belief with no evidence either way--at which point I will adamantly believe there was?
I need filled in and my queries keep being ignored. Well, the problem is these questions aren't really relevant to the case. My opinion, I think it's likely that Zimmerman profiled Martin, and I think he definitely was acting as kind of a "wanna-be-cop" to use the prosecution's term. However the relevant question is whether or not Zimmerman felt as if he was in danger of severe bodily harm because this would justify the use of self defense. I'm not just interested in the trial, I'm interested in the full moral dimensions, and this thread is titled Shooting of Trayvon Martin, not Trial for the Shooting of Trayvon Martin so I think it's still within the scope. I asked if anyone wanted to convince me, not force you to convince me, I don't get the hostility. Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 12:26 kmillz wrote:On July 14 2013 12:22 ZapRoffo wrote:On July 14 2013 12:17 kmillz wrote:On July 14 2013 12:14 ZapRoffo wrote:
Anyone want to convince me (someone who didn't really follow the details of the case) that there was no racial profiling and attempt to vigilante by Zimmerman, other than it just being a matter of belief with no evidence either way--at which point I will adamantly believe there was?
I need filled in and my queries keep being ignored. Because there is no evidence that he was racial profiling. Reporting someone and them being black does not make it racial profiling. If that were the case you could call every instance of reporting a potential criminal of a different race as "racial profiling". Like I said, no concrete evidence of it being so doesn't mean anything to me, I'm not a jury or a research task force. I can act on intuition, and I just want to see if there are any clear facts flying right in the face of my intuition that can be clearly delineated. Which there doesn't seem to be. I'm just asking for personal reasons. Can you convince me that there are no unicorns? We have no proof of unicorns but I'm still skeptical. No I don't care to. Does your intuition tell you there are probably unicorns, I don't really care? I just thought people might care to have an opportunity to enlighten me.
My intuition is telling me that you are overtly judgmental. Did you even read the other people's post who made some valid reasons for why it makes no sense for him to have been racially profiling?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
