|
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. |
Okay, so HLN has some defense attorney basically saying that this verdict is a travesty. WTF?
|
Should be noted that this "lawyer" on msnbc earlier had said that with a hoodie on Zimmerman could not known he was a threat so why is she saying he killed Trayvon becaus he was black.
|
On July 14 2013 12:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
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.
Exactly. And sadly he's not the only one.
|
On July 14 2013 12:30 xDaunt wrote:
Okay, so HLN has some defense attorney basically saying that this verdict is a travesty. WTF?
Would he have been invited to give his opinion if he spoke otherwise?
|
On July 14 2013 12:29 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 12:26 ZapRoffo wrote: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.
Bullshit; who doesn't do this? Everyone presumes things based on educated guesses and intuition to get through their lives. It's part of being a person.
|
|
|
On July 14 2013 12:32 ZapRoffo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 12:29 Millitron wrote:On July 14 2013 12:26 ZapRoffo wrote: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. Bullshit; who doesn't do this? Everyone presumes things based on educated guesses and intuition to get through their lives. It's part of being a person.
I don't.
|
I hardly followed the trial, having only heard the initial news and some articles here and there. I was actually surprised at the verdict. I remember the media reporting it as if George Zimmerman just shot the guy right there. Checked out the wiki on the trial and saw that it didn't play out like that at all.
Yeah, fuck the media. :/
|
On July 14 2013 12:32 ZapRoffo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 12:29 Millitron wrote:On July 14 2013 12:26 ZapRoffo wrote: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. Bullshit; who doesn't do this? Everyone presumes things based on educated guesses and intuition to get through their lives. It's part of being a person.
Individual assumptions =! evidence in legal proceedings.
On July 14 2013 12:33 LoLAdriankat wrote:
I hardly followed the trial, having only heard the initial news and some articles here and there. I was actually surprised at the verdict. I remember the media reporting it as if George Zimmerman just shot the guy right there. Checked out the wiki on the trial and saw that it didn't play out like that at all.
Yeah, fuck the media. :/
The media is to blame for George Zimmerman's not guilty verdict; overzealous prosecution due to media pressure is what let GZ get not guilty verdict. If it was a manslaughter charge; much more likely GZ would be found guilty.
|
On July 14 2013 12:32 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 12:30 xDaunt wrote:
Okay, so HLN has some defense attorney basically saying that this verdict is a travesty. WTF? Would he have been invited to give his opinion if he spoke otherwise?
He's a fucking defense attorney. What kind of self-respecting defense attorney would disapprove of this verdict? You have to understand the defense attorney culture -- particularly the inherent antagonism that defense attorneys have against the State. That's why this is so shocking to me.
|
On July 14 2013 12:32 ZapRoffo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 12:29 Millitron wrote:On July 14 2013 12:26 ZapRoffo wrote: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. Bullshit; who doesn't do this? Everyone presumes things based on educated guesses and intuition to get through their lives. It's part of being a person.
If you want to assume that GZ was racial profiling so badly despite evidence to the contrary then just believe it. No body is going to stop you.
|
On July 14 2013 12:30 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 12:26 ZapRoffo wrote: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. 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?
I saw, I take it into account but it doesn't really convince me, which is fine. I'm out now, no need to argue directed at me anymore.
|
On July 14 2013 12:32 ZapRoffo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 12:29 Millitron wrote:On July 14 2013 12:26 ZapRoffo wrote: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. Bullshit; who doesn't do this? Everyone presumes things based on educated guesses and intuition to get through their lives. It's part of being a person.
You're correct that everyone assumes things, that's human nature. However when we learn that those assumptions are wrong then we are forced to change our thought process. It's also hard to make assumptions when you have no prior knowledge to this case.
|
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.
Sorry if I appeared hostile, but you were complaining that no one was answering you, and I was responding that it's likely no one answered you due to the fact they weren't questions that were very relevant to the trial. I wasn't intending to be hostile, which is why I gave you my personal opinion afterwards.
|
On July 14 2013 12:34 ZapRoffo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 12:30 kmillz wrote:On July 14 2013 12:26 ZapRoffo wrote: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. 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? I saw, I take it into account but it doesn't really convince me, which is fine. I'm out now, no need to argue directed at me anymore.
You're right..George probably did all of those kind acts to African Americans to get off the "racist radar". I don't really know more to say. I don't expect any "evidence" of him not being racist will convince you.
|
On July 14 2013 12:32 ZapRoffo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 12:29 Millitron wrote:On July 14 2013 12:26 ZapRoffo wrote: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. Bullshit; who doesn't do this? Everyone presumes things based on educated guesses and intuition to get through their lives. It's part of being a person.
Sure, to a point. I make snap judgements / decisions all the time, but never when the decision is important and I have the time to come to a well informed decision.
|
So how will the NAACP approach the Feds the prosecutions key witness admitted to lying, and the experts concluded Zimmerman was fighting. So how can they prove Zimmerman "attacked" trayvon based on race?
|
The sad part is that if there is any race rioting the people doing it will be too dumb to appreciate the irony of people committing unprovoked aggressive actions after rejecting the premise that trayvon could have committed an unprovoked aggressive action.
|
On July 14 2013 12:36 BlackJack wrote:
The sad part is that if there is any race rioting the people doing it will be too dumb to appreciate the irony of people committing unprovoked aggressive actions after rejecting the premise that trayvon could have committed an unprovoked aggressive action.
People that take part in race rioting generally aren't too intelligent.
|
On July 14 2013 12:27 Ansinjunger wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 12:23 xDaunt wrote: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.
Hate to say it but GZ's life is pretty much screwed over almost as bad as that lady that was acquitted a year ago that killed her baby.
His best bet would be to move the hell out of the USA ASAP a long with a name change.
No racist here but he should move to an area that is almost predominatly white/hispanic/anything but black so probably some wheres in Europe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
